The chessboard of nations: Strategic alliances, territorial disputes, and the shifting balance of power between the West and emerging blocs (China, Russia, Global South)
Donald Trump’s recent visit to Japan offered more than diplomatic theater—it revealed the unvarnished ideology of American power. Standing on soil still haunted by nuclear annihilation, he described the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a “small conflict.” Two cities erased, more than 200,000 lives extinguished, generations deformed—all reduced to a footnote in Trump’s story of American triumph.
Trivializing Mass Death
The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not a “conflict.” They were a cataclysm. People evaporated into shadows on shattered walls. Survivors suffered for decades from cancers, birth defects, and trauma. Yet for Trump, this horror is not a moral lesson—it is a management model. He sees Japan’s surrender not as a humanitarian tragedy, but as a success story in the “art of the deal”: destroy enough lives, and you can control a nation.
August 6, 1945, when the nuclear bomb struck Hiroshima, shadows instantly imprinted on concrete walls and pavement, leaving a marker of those instantly killed by vaporizing at ground zero
The Blood-Stained Legacy Trump Inherits
Trump is not an exception to American foreign policy—he is its bluntest expression. From the genocide of Native Americans to the chemical warfare in Vietnam, from backing Saddam Hussein to destroying Libya, from occupying Iraq and Afghanistan to arming the genocide in Gaza—the pattern is consistent. American security has been built on the insecurity of others. Trump’s Hiroshima comment lays bare the calculus: human life is collateral in the pursuit of power.
American security has been built on the insecurity of others. Trump’s Hiroshima comment lays bare the calculus: human life is collateral in the pursuit of power.
Peace Through Domination
Trump poses as a peacemaker, but his peace is the peace of the graveyard. He celebrates the U.S.-written Japanese constitution and the ongoing U.S. military presence not as partnerships, but as trophies of submission. His “peace” means surrender; his “deal” is made with the blood of nameless, faceless people—in Gaza, in Ukraine, in Yemen. This is the logic of empire, where war is not a failure, but a business.
A U.S. soldier honoring before Japan’s Peace Memorial—irony in one frame
The Urgent Need for a New International Order
We cannot rely on a system that allows such crimes to be called “small.” The United Nations, international law, and human rights institutions have repeatedly failed to hold the U.S. and its allies accountable. A new, multipolar order must arise—one built not on imperial domination, but on mutual sovereignty and collective resistance.
Nations that have invested in unity and self-reliance—like Iran during the Sacred Defense—have shown that it is possible to force empires to retreat. In a world where “small conflicts” include nuclear genocide, independent nations must form a front of deterrence. Power, not pleas, is the only language empires understand.
In a world where “small conflicts” include nuclear genocide, independent nations must form a front of deterrence. Power, not pleas, is the only language empires understand.
Conclusion: From Hiroshima to Gaza—The Empire Has Not Changed
Trump’s remark was no slip of the tongue. It was a confession. The same thinking that vaporized Hiroshima now fuels the F-35s over Gaza. The same indifference to human suffering that shrugged at Nagasaki today supplies the bombs falling on Rafah.
If we do not build a world beyond American hegemony, the “small conflicts” of tomorrow will be even deadlier. The warning of Hiroshima was meant for all humanity. Trump has shown us: America never learned it.
It’s time to accept that Donald Trump is never going to learn basic stuff about the world…
The Zionist project is facing an unprecedented crisis: its own people are leaving. Since the Al-Aqsa Storm operation, the phenomenon of “reverse migration” has accelerated, forcing the Israeli regime to resort to financial bribes to stem the tide.
A Regime in Demographic Panic
According to the Zionist newspaper Yediot Aharonot, more than 145,900 people fled the occupied territories between 2020 and 2024—outstripping the number of new immigrants. This exodus, composed largely of former immigrants, reveals a profound disillusionment with the Zionist state.
In response, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has proposed an extreme measure: a five-year tax exemption for Jews who immigrate to Israel. This desperate move—unprecedented in Israeli history—shows how deeply the leadership fears the collapse of its demographic foundation.
Note: A special report from the Knesset Research and Information Center revealed alarming figures, indicating that approximately 145,900 more Israelis left the country than returned between 2020 and 2024.
The Al-Aqsa Storm Effect
The October 7 operation shattered the myth of Israeli invincibility. As rockets rained down and resistance fighters breached the Gaza barrier, thousands of Zionists rushed to Ben Gurion Airport, booking one-way tickets out of their “homeland.” The sense of security that underpinned the colonial project evaporated overnight.
Smotrich’s tax plan is a direct admission that the Zionist state can no longer rely on ideology alone to attract and retain settlers. When fear outweighs faith, the only tool left is money.
Israel sees record passenger travel since Oct 7. as flight prices jump by up to 119% | The Times of Israel
The Economic Consequences of Desperation
Israeli economic experts have warned that Smotrich’s plan will further strain the regime’s finances. With tax revenues already stretched by perpetual war and settlement expansion, exempting new immigrants could blow a hole in the budget.
But the Israeli cabinet seems willing to pay the price. For them, maintaining a Jewish majority in occupied Palestine is an existential priority—even if it means bankrupting the state.
JERUSALEM: Israel plans to use tax revenue it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority to pay the PA’s nearly 2 billion shekel ($544 million) debt to state-run Israel Electric Co. (IEC), the far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said on Sunday.
A Failing Colonial Project
The Zionist flight is not new, but it has now reached critical mass. When a state must bribe its people to stay, it admits that its foundational narrative has failed. The “land of milk and honey” has become the land of anxiety and exit permits.
This exodus is the ultimate indictment of Zionism: those who were promised a safe homeland are now escaping it.
The “land of milk and honey” has become the land of anxiety and exit permits
Conclusion: The Unraveling
Smotrich’s tax exemptions are a temporary fix for a terminal condition. No financial incentive can erase the reality of resistance, the burden of international isolation, or the moral rot of occupation. The Zionists are voting with their feet—and their verdict is clear.
Israel’s International Isolation Is Painful. But It Is Also Necessary – Opinion – Haaretz.com
In a stark and unapologetic address at the “Peace March,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán articulated what many in the West whisper but rarely state aloud: Ukraine has lost its sovereignty. No longer an autonomous nation, its fate now rests in the hands of foreign powers.
The End of Illusion
Orbán declared that Ukraine’s sovereignty is a relic of the past. Its government, military, and economic survival are now dictated by external actors—primarily the United States and European institutions. In his view, Ukraine has become a geopolitical chessboard, where its people’s future is negotiated in distant capitals.
Ukraine’s fate being decided by external powers
Hungary’s Defiant Stand
Rejecting EU pressure to contribute funds, weapons, or troops, Orbán stated plainly: “We will not give our money, our weapons, or our soldiers for Ukraine.” For Hungary, this conflict is not its war, and Orbán refuses to let Brussels drag his nation into a military quagmire that serves others’ interests.
Tens of thousands of people flooded the streets of Budapest on Thursday(Oct. 23.) for the annual Peace March, voicing strong opposition to the European Union’s military policies and growing involvement in the Ukraine conflict.
The Real EU Agenda: Partition Under the Guise of Solidarity
While the European Union publicly champions Ukraine’s cause, Orbán revealed a darker reality: behind closed doors, the discussion is not about saving Ukraine, but about carving it up. Billions in aid are not acts of charity—they are strategic investments in influence and control. The conflict, far from a tragedy, is seen by some as an opportunity for territorial and political reordering.
Is the country vanishing?
A Warning to Europe
Orbán’s speech serves as a sobering critique of EU hypocrisy. As Western leaders preach unity and resolve, their actions suggest a willingness to sacrifice Ukrainian sovereignty for broader strategic gains. The Prime Minister’s refusal to participate is not isolationism—it is a rejection of this cynical calculus.
Photo: Vilnius, Lithuania. 12th July, 2023. Rishi Sunak (l-r), Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Joe Biden, President of the United States, Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy, and Jens Stoltenberg, NATO (former)Secretary General, welcome Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine, at the NATO-Ukraine meeting during the NATO summit. Credit: Kay Nietfeld/dpa/Alamy Live News.
Conclusion: The Naked Truth
Viktor Orbán has torn away the diplomatic veneer surrounding the Ukraine war. Sovereignty, when sustained by foreign funds and foreign weapons, is sovereignty in name only. As the West pours billions into Ukraine, Orbán’s words remind us: in geopolitics, there are no saviors—only opportunists.
“The situation is clear. The West speaks of defending Ukraine, but in reality, it is an imperialist grab for land, resources, and money. The unfortunate Ukrainian people are being plundered, while those pushing for war cloak exploitation in the guise of protection. Let there be no illusion, this is about power and profit,” Orban said in a post on social media platform X.
The fragile ceasefire in Gaza represents less a path to peace than a temporary pause in the inevitable next confrontation. The fundamental disagreements between Israel and Hamas, coupled with unrealistic expectations from international mediators, create a perfect storm for future conflict.
Irreconcilable Positions: Disarmament vs. Resistance
Netanyahu insists on Gaza becoming a “weapon-free zone with permanent security,” demanding complete disarmament of Hamas as a non-negotiable precondition. Meanwhile, Hamas leaders characterize this as “destruction of the ideology of resistance” and have only consented to “temporary deactivation.” This isn’t merely a tactical disagreement but represents fundamentally incompatible worldviews that no ceasefire can bridge.
Left: Benjamin Netanyahu rails against foreign leaders at UN as Donald Trump flags Gaza deal Right: Hamas leader, Khalil Al-Hayya, in Doha
The Body Count Politics
The implementation of the ceasefire’s first phase has already stalled over the issue of prisoner remains. Hamas has returned only 9 of 28 promised bodies, citing the practical challenges of excavating sites destroyed by Israeli bombing. Israel interprets this as bad faith and has responded by limiting humanitarian aid through Rafah crossing. This cycle of accusation and counter-accusation demonstrates how easily logistical challenges become political weapons, undermining the fragile trust needed for lasting peace.
Rescuers rushing to the scene of Israeli airstrikes save those who they can, but are forced to leave many behind. “My soul is tired from this war,” one said
The Governance Vacuum
The proposed Provisional Committee of Palestinian Technocrats, supervised by Trump’s “Peace Board,” faces legitimacy challenges from all sides. Hamas claims it will withdraw from direct administration while maintaining indirect influence, Israel rejects any role for the Palestinian Authority without significant reforms, and the people of Gaza are largely excluded from these discussions. This administrative vacuum creates ideal conditions for the conflict to reignite.
Hopeless, Starving, and Besieged”: Israel’s Forced Displacement of Palestinians in Gaza
The Reconstruction Mirage
Trump’s vision of Gaza as a “Middle East Riviera” ignores the staggering reality: 50 million tons of debris requiring 20 years to clear and 80 years for comprehensive reconstruction. With Israel maintaining control over borders and materials, and Hamas likely to use reconstruction as political leverage, the rebuilding process itself threatens to become another battlefield.
Children are starving to death every day in a man-made famine and homes, hospitals, schools and other essential services are now rubble
Conclusion: The Inevitable Next Round
This ceasefire represents not peace but intermission. Without addressing the fundamental power imbalances, political aspirations, and humanitarian needs of Gaza’s population, the current arrangement merely sets the stage for the next, possibly more destructive, confrontation. The illusion of progress may serve short-term political interests in Washington and Tel Aviv, but it comes at the cost of Palestinian lives and regional stability.
Researchers conclude that $53.2bn is needed for extensive reconstruction and recovery efforts in Gaza over the next 10 years.
Introduction: The doctrine of “peace through power” has been a cornerstone of statecraft since the Roman Empire. But under Donald Trump, this historical concept has been reshaped into a tool for aggressive, unilateral action. This analysis argues that Trump’s version of the doctrine has not guaranteed peace but has instead fueled instability, humanitarian crises, and the erosion of international institutions, effectively becoming a doctrine of “peace through war.”
Note: The Roman legionary was a well-trained and disciplined foot soldier, fighting as part of a professional well-organized unit, the legion (Latin: legio), established by the Marian Reforms. While major tactical changes appeared during the final days of the Roman Republic and the early days of the Roman Empire, Roman armor and weapons, albeit with minor adaptations, remained simple.
From Hadrian’s Wall to the Cold War
The roots of “peace through power” run deep. The Roman Emperor Hadrian operationalized it by building his famous wall—a symbol of military strength meant to deter attacks and secure the empire’s borders. In modern times, U.S. leaders like Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan adopted this logic. Reagan, in particular, brought it to a crescendo during the Cold War, using massive defense budgets and arms superiority as a deterrent against the Soviet Union. The goal was to prevent war through undeniable strength.
Trump kicks off Army’s 250th birthday celebrations at Fort Bragg, says he’ll restore base names
The Trump Transformation: From Deterrence to Aggression
Donald Trump has co-opted the phrase “peace through power,” but his application marks a significant shift. His policies have moved beyond deterrence towards what can be called “peace through aggressive military power.” This approach relies on:
Maximum Pressure: Severe economic sanctions and embargoes.
Military Threats: Overt and covert threats against adversaries.
Unilateral Action: Drone strikes and assassinations of key figures, such as Qasem Soleimani.
As Trump himself implied in a speech to the Israeli Knesset, his administration believed that military action (or its threat) was a necessary tool to force outcomes, like a peace agreement. This represents a fundamental change: military power is no longer just a shield for defense, but a sword to impose will.
Note: Combat in urban areas is the most destructive type of warfare imaginable. Densely populated terrain, complex systems of systems that support human life, military weapons not optimized to these conditions, and asymmetric close-quarters battle tactics all make warfare in cities unforgiving for combatants, noncombatants, and cities alike. The unintentional—and at times intentional—destruction of the physical terrain, populations, and infrastructure of cities during combat leave effects that can be felt for generations.
The Cost of Militarism: Five Critical Failures
The real-world consequences of this aggressive doctrine reveal its profound flaws:
It Fuels Instability, Not Security: Rather than preventing conflict, relentless threats and militarism spark arms races and regional tensions, creating a more volatile world.
It Diverts Vital Resources: The trillions spent on expanding an already massive military budget are funds stripped from domestic needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, weakening the social fabric at home.
It Erodes American Credibility: Unilateralism and constant threats have alienated traditional allies, weakened multilateral institutions like the UN, and driven some nations closer to America’s competitors.
It Creates Humanitarian Crises: Airstrikes in Yemen, assassinations, and sanctions have resulted in thousands of civilian casualties, painting America as a nation that disregards international law and human rights.
It Embraces Divisive Nationalism: The doctrine is often paired with a rhetoric of extreme nationalism, which deepens social divisions at home and exacerbates cultural and racial tensions abroad.
Note: A handshake between nations is a powerful symbol of peace and a commitment to cooperation, with its roots in showing peaceful intentions by demonstrating one is unarmed. While a handshake alone doesn’t guarantee peace, it is a crucial first step in a diplomatic process that can solidify agreements, build trust, and signify the end of conflict. It represents a mutual understanding and a desire for unity and collaboration.
Conclusion: The Need for a New Path
The “doctrine of peace through power” has been implemented under Trump in a way that guarantees the very opposite of peace. By choosing coercion over diplomacy and unilateral force over multilateral cooperation, this approach has damaged global stability and America’s moral standing. The world does not need more militarism. A secure and prosperous future must be built on the foundations of diplomacy, respect for international law, and genuine cooperation. The alternative—a path of endless conflict—is no path to peace at all.
“Nationalism is blamed for this century’s wars, but nationalism need not mean militarism. And the nation-state has been the laboratory of liberty.”
Introduction:
The word “peace” has been a constant refrain in American diplomatic statements regarding Gaza. But when examined against the totality of evidence—the financial flows, the arms shipments, and the political support—this claim rings hollow. This article argues that the United States has shed the mantle of a neutral mediator to become an active and essential partner in building Israel’s war machine, directly fueling a conflict that has created a profound humanitarian crisis.
Notes: Military aid for Israel includes missile defense funding starting in 2006, using data from the Congressional Research Service. All other data is from foreignassistance.gov. Aid to Ukraine for fiscal years 2022 to 2024 is reported by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy as being around $16 billion higher than figures from foreignassistance.gov. South Vietnam existed as a country until the end of the Vietnam War in 1975. Data for 2024 is partially reported.
The Foundation of Support: A Long-Standing Partnership
The history of American military and financial aid to Israel is not new, but its scale and intensity during the Gaza war have reached unprecedented levels. Since 1948, the US has been Israel’s primary military patron, with billions of dollars flowing through long-term contracts. This support, often framed as ensuring an ally’s security, has in practice facilitated the continuation of violence and occupation.
This structured support was solidified in agreements like the Obama-era 10-year memorandum, guaranteeing $3.8 billion in annual military aid. However, since October 2023, the US has approved emergency aid packages pushing direct military assistance to at least $17.9 billion, with some estimates suggesting the total, including indirect support, may exceed $30 billion.
Image: no taxes for war and militarism. War tax resisters are taking to the streets to call for an end to genocide and endless war. They are divesting from the taxes that fund war and investing in people, planet, and justice.
The American Taxpayer: Financing a Distant War
This colossal financial support does not come from a surplus; it is funded directly by American taxpayers. Statistical estimates break this down to a cost of approximately $85 to over $165 per American taxpayer. This expenditure occurs while the United States faces domestic crises in healthcare, education, and infrastructure. The equivalent funds could have provided health insurance for millions of children or hired hundreds of thousands of new teachers, revealing a stark misalignment between public need and policy priorities.
Note: Lockheed Martin is an American aerospace and defense company, formed by a merger of Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta in 1995. It is headquartered in North Bethesda, Maryland, and provides innovative solutions for aerospace, defense, and security challenges worldwide. The company’s main business is with the U.S. Department of Defense and federal agencies, but it also has international and commercial sales
Image: UNICEF/Mohammed Nateel A displaced family sit in front of their tent in Gaza.
The War Economy: Who Really Benefits?
A critical question is: who profits from this cycle? A significant portion of US military aid is designed as a subsidy for American defense contractors. Israel is often required to spend the aid on weapons purchased from US companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon. This creates a profitable feedback loop where aid money cycles back into the pockets of American corporations, making war a lucrative business for the US’s war-oriented economy.
The Human Cost and Shifting Public Opinion
The tragic reality of this support is measured in the devastation in Gaza: thousands dead, hundreds of thousands displaced, and critical infrastructure like hospitals and schools destroyed by American-made bombs. This reality is reshaping American public opinion. Polls show a majority of younger Americans (ages 18-29) oppose continued military aid. Within the American Jewish community, movements like “Jews for Peace” are gaining traction, challenging unconditional support for the Israeli government.
Image: Demonstrators on the National Mall in Washington, DC, call for a ceasefire in Israel’s assault on Gaza on October 21st, 2023.
Conclusion: A Partner, Not a Peacemaker
The evidence paints a clear and damning picture. The United States is not a mediator or a pacifist in the Gaza war; it is an active partner. By bankrolling the war machine with taxpayer money and ensuring the flow of arms, America has become complicit in the resulting humanitarian catastrophe. It has abdicated its claim to moral leadership on the world stage. As long as this partnership continues, American talk of “peace” will remain nothing more than a political show, a cover for a policy rooted in conflict.
Donald Trump’s recent visit to West Asia, intended to showcase his role in facilitating a Gaza ceasefire, revealed more about his political desperation than diplomatic achievement. What was billed as a victory tour instead exposed strategic failure and moral bankruptcy.
The Unwelcome Mediator
Trump’s attempt to position himself as a peacemaker was met with widespread rejection. The protocol-bound airport receptions couldn’t conceal the stark reality: nobody sees Trump as an impartial mediator. His historical alignment with Israeli extremism and his administration’s record of escalating tensions made his peacemaker pose implausible to regional actors and international observers alike.
The Newyorker:
Late on Wednesday evening, in a social-media post, Trump finally had something to truly trumpet: “I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan,” he wrote just after 7 P.M. “BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”
The ceasefire deal, brokered with the help of America’s Arab allies, such as Qatar and Egypt, calls for Israel to stop fighting within twenty-four hours and to partially withdraw from Gaza, and for Hamas to release by early next week all twenty Israeli hostages presumed to still be alive two years after they were taken during Hamas’s October 7th terrorist attack. At a Cabinet meeting on Thursday, as advisers made plans for Trump to fly to the region on Sunday night for a signing ceremony, the President touted his “momentous breakthrough.”
Strategic Goals Abandoned
The ceasefire terms tell a story of failed objectives. What began as a mission to destroy Hamas and return Israeli prisoners without concessions ended as a negotiated exchange of prisoners with humanitarian provisions. This fundamental deviation from maximalist goals represents not compromise but capitulation—a clear admission that initial assumptions about quick military victory were fatally flawed.
Accountability for Carnage
We cannot discuss Trump’s ceasefire role without acknowledging his responsibility for the violence preceding it. With nearly 70,000 Palestinians killed, Trump must be recognized as Netanyahu’s primary partner in this humanitarian catastrophe. His policies—recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, endorsing settlement expansion, and providing unconditional military support—created the conditions for this slaughter.
The New Yorker:
On Thursday, the Israeli Cabinet was on the verge of approving the initial stages of a ceasefire agreement that will at least temporarily end the war in Gaza. That war, which began two years ago with the Hamas attacks of October 7th, and the killing of 1,200 people, was followed by Israel’s bombardment and occupation of the Gaza Strip, and the killing of nearly 70,000 Palestinians. (A United Nations commission recently labeled Israel’s war a genocide.) The initial phases of the agreement, which President Trump announced on Wednesday, will likely include a release of the remaining Israeli hostages early next week, a release of Palestinians held by Israel, a pullback of Israeli troops from Gaza, and a much-needed surge of food and medicine into the territory.
Even with the ceasefire deal, “I don’t know that Gaza is even a place where humans can continue to live in any meaningful way,” Khaled Elgindy, an expert on the Middle East, said.”Almost everything has been destroyed. There’s almost nothing left, even of Gaza City. All the hospitals are basically not functioning. There are no universities. There are no schools. There are no roads. There’s no sewage-treatment plants, and there’s no infrastructure. Everything has been destroyed. . . . It makes me incredibly sad to say that, because we’re talking about a society of two million people. Gaza City is the largest city in Palestine. It’s one of the oldest places on earth. There’s just so much that has been lost. Beyond just the basic immediate subsistence, can Gaza survive? I don’t know.” In an interview with Isaac Chotiner, Elgindy discusses the contours of the peace deal and what will come next: https://newyorkermag.visitlink.me/kiRFvz
The Political Cost of Failure
Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy has backfired spectacularly. Rather than enhancing his stature, the Gaza crisis has increased global antipathy toward American leadership and alienated young voters concerned with human rights. The very tools Trump relied on—unilateral pressure and disregard for international law—have undermined his credibility when he most needs it.
A Fragile Future
The current ceasefire represents at best a temporary pause in an ongoing conflict. Fundamental questions about Gaza’s governance, reconstruction, and political future remain unanswered. Without a comprehensive political solution, this ceasefire merely sets the stage for the next round of violence—and Trump has demonstrated he lacks the vision or credibility to help achieve one.
The Bagram base, once the heart of the US war in Afghanistan, has re-emerged as a flashpoint in global geopolitics. For Donald Trump, it’s not just a military facility—it’s the key to controlling resources, countering China, and projecting power across Asia. And he’s willing to threaten the Taliban with “bad things” to get it back.
Despite a withdrawal deal signed in Doha in 2020, the former and potential future US president has openly expressed his desire to reoccupy the strategic Bagram Air Base. The Taliban have responded with defiance, vowing to block any return of foreign forces to Afghan soil.
But why is this remote base so important to Washington? The answer lies in four pillars of US imperial strategy: geopolitical positioning, resource theft, regional influence, and overwhelming military capacity.
1. A Front-Row Seat to Contain China
Bagram is more than an Afghan base—it’s a potential US listening post just 500 miles from the Chinese border. In Washington’s new Cold War against Beijing, this proximity is priceless. The base would allow the US to monitor Chinese military activity in Xinjiang, track missile tests, and project power into Central Asia—a region China is integrating through its Belt and Road Initiative.
For a US deep state obsessed with “containing” China, Bagram is the perfect unsinkable aircraft carrier on Beijing’s doorstep.
China manufactures its nuclear weapons deeper within the country, according to nuclear experts, but there is an old nuclear test range at Lop Nur, about 1,200 miles from Bagram.
2. Plundering Afghanistan’s $3 Trillion Mineral Bounty
Beneath Afghanistan’s soil lies one of the world’s last great untapped mineral treasures: an estimated $3 trillion in lithium, copper, gold, iron, and rare earth elements. Afghanistan’s lithium reserves alone rival those of global leaders like Chile and Argentina.
Who controls Bagram controls access to these resources. In the race for green energy dominance, these minerals are not just commodities—they are strategic weapons. The US wants to deny them to China and fuel its own tech and defense industries. This isn’t development; it’s 21st-century colonialism.
3. A Wedge Against Russia, Iran, and Regional Sovereignty
Central Asia is a chessboard where the US, Russia, China, and Iran vie for influence. By re-establishing a fortress in Bagram, Washington aims to:
Disrupt regional integration led by China and Russia.
Pressure Iran from its eastern flank.
Monitor and intimidate Pakistan.
It’s a classic imperial move: plant a military flag to dominate the neighborhood and block the rise of independent power centers.
The spokesperson for Russia’s Foreign Ministry, reacting to Trump’s statements, said that the United States left Afghanistan in a shameful manner.
She added that although Bagram air base is a tempting target, the struggles of the Afghan people against NATO show that they will not give up their national sovereignty.
Maria Zakharova stated: “The Bagram air base, located near Kabul, has been renovated and is undoubtedly considered a tempting target. But Washington knows well that the Afghan people, who fought NATO forces for their freedom, will not abandon their national sovereignty.”
Iran also reacted to Trump’s comments. The Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, citing earlier remarks by Amir Khan Muttaqi, the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Emirate, said that the Emirate is not willing to give Afghanistan’s land to the United States.
Ali Larijani further added that U.S. presence in the region would face resistance and that bombings and military campaigns in the region would be deadly for American soldiers.
He said: “Why should they come? What does it mean that they want to seize Bagram airport? In my view, this issue will not be resolved so easily, and it will also be costly for the Americans themselves. The American people must decide whether they want to constantly hold funerals for their children or not. If they do, then let them come, invade countries, and fight.”
The Islamic Emirate has so far not commented on other countries’ statements about the Bagram air base. However, earlier, Fasihuddin Fitrat, Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Defense, responding to Trump’s remarks, said that any deal over even “one inch” of the country’s land is unacceptable.
Jamil Shirwani, a political analyst, also said on the matter: “They will not come by force and pressure; they don’t have the ability to come, and even they themselves don’t have the demand to re-enter Afghanistan militarily.”
Earlier, China also reacted, stating that fueling tensions and creating confrontation in the region does not have public support. Lin Jian, spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, stressed that his country respects Afghanistan’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
4. Unmatched Military Capacity for Regional Wars
Bagram isn’t a simple airstrip. It’s a massive war hub with two long runways capable of handling the largest US bombers and cargo planes like the C-5 Galaxy. It served as the central nervous system for the 20-year occupation, and the Pentagon dreams of using it again as a launchpad for interventions across South Asia and the Middle East.
In short, Bagram allows the US to strike fast, far, and with devastating force—anywhere, anytime.
For Washington, the base’s strategic logic is clear. From Bagram, the United States could oversee counterterrorism operations, track regional militancy, and monitor Chinese and Russian activity. But the operational feasibility of returning is slim. Militarily seizing Bagram would mean re-invasion, with all the troop deployments, logistics, and costs that toppled three empires before. Diplomatically, the price would be high: recognition of Taliban rule, lifting of sanctions, or large-scale aid – concessions that are potentially toxic in Washington.
History also cautions against optimism. From the British retreats of the 19th century to the Soviet defeat in the 1980s and the US exit in 2021, foreign powers have learned the same lesson: Afghanistan cannot be held without local consent.
Bagram’s strategic importance is unquestionable, but in Afghan politics, symbols matter as much as runways. For the Taliban, ceding the base would be a humiliation, undermining the sovereignty they fought to reclaim.
Trump’s call, then, seems more rhetorical than practical. It signals a desire to reassert US influence in a region increasingly shaped by Chinese and Russian engagement. It may also be a way of further prodding the record of the Biden administration. But the Taliban’s rejection, coupled with their international backing, makes a negotiated return highly unlikely. The alternative – military force – would be prohibitively costly and politically untenable. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/what-chance-does-trump-have-negotiating-bagram-airbase-deal-taliban
The Cost of Imperial Arrogance
Returning to Bagram would be a catastrophic miscalculation—one that repeats every US failure since 2001.
Financial Drain: Billions more taxpayer dollars would be wasted on rebuilding a base only to lose it again.
Human Toll: More dead soldiers, more traumatized veterans, and countless more Afghan civilians caught in the crossfire.
Political Blowback: Trump campaigned on “America First” and ending endless wars. Reoccupying Bagram would be a naked betrayal of his voters and proof that the war machine controls US policy, no matter who is president.
The American people are tired of war. The Taliban will not surrender sovereignty. And the world is watching—no one is buying Washington’s lies anymore.
From Estonia to Romania, a sudden “wave” of mysterious drones appears. The script is familiar: blame Russia, stoke public fear, and prepare the ground for a wider conflict they can no longer win by proxy.
A Coordinated Campaign of Fear
In the past week, a curious phenomenon has swept across Eastern Europe. Estonia, Poland, Denmark, and Romania have all reported unauthorized drones violating their airspace. In near-unison, officials and media outlets point the finger at Russia.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned we are now witnessing the most destructive arms race in history, as he again appealed for help to stop Russia. His speech to the UN comes as European airports are once again closed due to unauthorised drone sightings, with the Danish Prime Minister pointing the finger at Russia. Follow the link in bio for the full story. #ukraine#russia
Moscow denies it. But in the West, denial is treated as confirmation.
This isn’t a coincidence. It’s a coordinated political strategy. NATO, facing a catastrophic failure of its proxy war in Ukraine, is now actively manufacturing a pre-war climate to salvage its collapsing strategy and justify its existence.
In spring 2022, the West promised Ukraine freedom and democracy, security and prosperity. Today, most freedoms have been compromised under the fog of war. Democratic institutions are overshadowed by external interests and domestic oligarchs. Many national assets have been mortgaged to Western interests for years to come.
Had Ukraine followed the development trajectory, its economy would not be the size of Algeria in 2030. It would be a half-trillion-dollar economy, like Iran or South Africa. Per capita income would be more than 40% higher than today. Economic opportunities might have reversed some of the migration flows back to Ukraine, which would have over 10 million more inhabitants than today.
The proxy war between the US-led West and Russia in Ukraine has proved just as catastrophic as projected in 2022 and thereafter. It has contributed to secular stagnation in the US and particularly in Europe where the misallocation of scarce allocations from welfare to rearmament is compounding a series of cost-of-living crises. Coming at the heel of the global pandemic, the consequent food and energy crises have severely aggravated the challenges of the Global South. And if the war is allowed to fester further, global economic prospects will be penalized even worse.
What happens in Ukraine will not stay in Ukraine. As long as aggressive geopolitics is favored at the expense of proactive international diplomacy, even promising futures can turn into dark wastelands.
The original commentary was published by China-US Focus on August 28, 2025
1. The “Mysterious” Drones: A Too-Convenient Crisis
The timing is impeccable. As Ukraine loses ground and Western support wanes, a wave of unexplained drones suddenly appears over multiple NATO countries.
There are no clear photos.
There is no concrete evidence.
There are only assertions from the same governments that promised us “WMDs in Iraq.”
This is not about security. It is about psychology. It is about making the threat of war feel real and imminent to the European public.
2. The Real Goal: From Proxy War to Direct Confrontation
The West invested everything in a single bet: that Ukraine could cripple Russia. That bet has failed.
Hundreds of billions in weapons and aid have vanished into a stalemate.
Ukrainian manpower is exhausted.
The Russian economy has adapted, not collapsed.
Faced with this reality, the warmongers in Brussels and Washington have only one path left: escalation. By provoking a direct NATO-Russia incident, they create the casus belli needed to intervene openly. Their hope is to drag a reluctant United States, and specifically Donald Trump, into a war they cannot win alone.
The EU-Ukraine Defence Industry Forum took place on Monday, 12 May, in Brussels.
The Forum focused on strengthening defence industrial cooperation between the EU and Ukraine, with the aim of ensuring sustained military support to Ukraine and more effectively addressing its defence and industrial needs.
Investing in Ukraine’s defence is investing in Europe’s security.
3. Brainwashing the Next Generation: “It’s Normal to Talk About War”
The most sinister part of this campaign is its target: children.
In Sweden, authorities are now interviewing schoolchildren about their “readiness for war.” In Denmark, headlines scream that the nation is unprepared, creating a sense of vulnerability and urgency.
This is not preparedness. This is psychological conditioning. They are normalizing the idea of war in the minds of the young, creating a generation that accepts conflict as inevitable. This is how a society is primed for sacrifice.
NATO: The Most Dangerous Organisation on Earth
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is the only real military bloc in the world – one whose mandate and ambitions stretch far beyond the North Atlantic and, in fact, constitute the greatest threat to world peace.
4. The Ultimate Distraction: War as a Political Shield
Back home, European citizens are struggling with a cost-of-living crisis, rampant inflation, and crumbling public services. What better way to distract from domestic failure than to unveil an external enemy?
A population that is fearing for its survival does not question why their heating bills have tripled. A citizenry that is preparing for bunkers does not protest against their declining real wages.
5. The Delusion of Victory: Do They Understand What They’re Unleashing?
European leaders, insulated in their Brussels bubble, are playing with existential fire. They speak of war with Russia as if it were a larger version of Ukraine—a conventional conflict with a tidy conclusion.
“The war in Ukraine remains the most central and consequential crisis for Europe’s future…It is not only the destiny of Ukraine that is at stake. It is Europe’s destiny ”— Politico, 24 February 2025.
They seem to have forgotten the arsenals of nuclear weapons pointed at their capitals. They are so desperate to maintain their geopolitical relevance that they are risking total destruction. Either they are ignorant of what modern war between nuclear powers means, or they are so intoxicated by power that they believe they will be spared.
The March of Folly
The drone scare is not a security alert. It is a political weapon. The interviews with children are not educational; they are indoctrination. The calls for preparedness are not prudent; they are a march towards the abyss.
Europe’s leaders, having failed in Ukraine, are now trying to save face by risking a continent-wide war. They are creating an enemy to justify their existence, conditioning their children to die for it, and distracting their populations from the decay at home.
This is not strategy. It is suicide dressed up as policy.
The Facts: Three Russian MiG-31s transit from Karelia to Kaliningrad—a routine flight. Russia states the flight was over neutral waters, 3+ km from Estonian land, following international rules.
The Russian Ministry of Defense has recently commented on Estonia’s accusation that Russian aircraft violated the country’s airspace for 12 minutes Friday.
– On September 19 this year, three Russian MiG-31 fighter jets carried out a planned transfer from Karelia to an airfield in the Kaliningrad region.
– The flight took place in full compliance with the international rules for the use of airspace and without violating the borders of other states, as confirmed by objective means of control.
– During the flight, the Russian aircraft did not deviate from the agreed air corridor and did not violate Estonia’s airspace. The flight route went over the neutral waters of the Baltic Sea at a distance of more than three kilometers from the island of Vaindloo.
The Hysteria: Estonia, NATO, and the EU decry it as an “extremely dangerous provocation” and an act of Russian “recklessness.” Article 4 is activated.
Understand Article 4
Article 4 states that any NATO member may bring a case before the North Atlantic Council, which is NATO’s most important decision-making body.
Here, the matter will be discussed by the Member States and can lead to some form of joint decision or action on behalf of the defense alliance.
Source: NATO.
2. The Scripted Response: NATO’s Playbook
The Cast: Italian F-35s, Swedish and Finnish jets are scrambled—a coordinated show of force for the cameras.
The Dialogue: NATO’s Allison Hart: “Russia’s unruly behavior.” Kaja Kallas: “Putin tests West’s determination. No weakness!”
The Cameo: Even Trump is scripted in: “I don’t like it… serious problems.”
Allison Hart, a speaker for NATO, writes in a post on X, that this is another example of Russia’s “unfinished” behavior, and the EU’s foreign manager, Kaja Kallas, who was previously the Prime Minister of Estonia, writes in a lookup on the same social mediathat this is an “extremely dangerous provocation” and that it “explains tensions in the region further”.
– Putin tests the determination of the West. We must not show weakness, she writes.
US President Donald Trump has also made it clear that he is not happy with the situation.
– I don’t like it when it happens. It can cause serious problems, said Trump.
3. Why Now? The Real Motive: Masking Ukrainian Defeat
The Ukrainian Debacle: NATO’s $200B+ investment has failed. The counteroffensive collapsed, and Russia is advancing. They need a distraction.
The Domestic Problem: Western citizens are asking: “Where did our money go? Why are we funding corruption?” Politicians face accountability.
The Solution:Create a new, bigger threat. Shift focus from losing in Ukraine to “deterring Russia” in the Baltics. Fear justifies more spending and silences critics.
4. The Endgame: A Wider War to Save Face
The Goal: Escalate tensions to a point where a “limited” NATO-Russia conflict seems inevitable. This:
Justifies infinite military budgets.
Allows politicians to pose as “wartime leaders.”
Postpones the day of reckoning for the Ukrainian failure.
The Risk: Miscalculation. A single “false flag” or accidental shoot-down could ignite a war that engulfs Europe.
5. The Pattern: A History of Manufactured Crises
Three elements are common to a crisis: (a) a threat to the organization, (b) the element of surprise, and (c) a short decision time.[4] Venette argues that “crisis is a process of transformation where the old system can no longer be maintained”.[5] Therefore, the fourth defining quality is the need for change. If change is not needed, the event could more accurately be described as a failure or incident.[6] (Source: Wikipedia)
“Do not be fooled. This is not about protecting Estonia. It is about protecting the corrupt politicians and arms dealers who have bankrupted the West for a failed war. Share this article. Demand:
No NATO escalation in the Baltics.
An audit of Ukraine war spending.
Peace negotiations, not provocations. #NoNATOWar #StopTheEscalation”
![May be an image of 1 person and text that says 'TRTWORLD " Israeli sovereignty will be applied to 82% of the territory [occupied West Bank] Israeli Finance Minister BezalelSmotrich Bezalel Smotrich Photo:Routors Photo: Routors'](https://scontent.fcrk1-5.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/536283030_1235173871978185_2639354341511200847_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640_tt6&_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=vjKi5oWxWGkQ7kNvwFZbzyF&_nc_oc=AdljsEJshO1udMwlpuVaiWcpZfElk8n2wgHko_2UbkMNITww97D4FpE5UUki_VWmXq4&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.fcrk1-5.fna&_nc_gid=l0w4EzHnUZjR7HmmEglbag&oh=00_AfcvD5uwEY5QihnzZ_K9sv4DhbX0F1HF6DOi_AsPXq2VxA&oe=690671B2)
