A new wave of trade tension between the United States and China has sent shockwaves through global markets. After the US reimposed a series of tariffs and technology controls, Washington seemed taken aback by the speed and decisiveness of China’s reciprocal response. This article delves into the root of this sudden crisis, arguing that it stems from a fundamental US miscalculation and a failure to move beyond a failed playbook of unilateral pressure.
Note: To many, the US dollar depreciation following the ‘Liberation Day’ tariff announcement on 2 April 2025 defied conventional wisdom
The Root Cause: Reneging on Promises and a “Familiar” Playbook
The primary driver of this new confrontation is the US’s backtracking on its commitments. Analysts have noted a striking resemblance to past tariff wars, with the current situation described as a “familiar” pattern: dialogue followed by sudden US unilateral actions. This behavior reveals the arbitrary and short-sighted nature of Washington’s current trade policy.
During this period, Washington sent contradictory messages—threatening that “China will suffer the most” while also expressing a desire to cooperate. This indicates that some US politicians are still clinging to the illusion of unilateral gains. Their shock at China’s lawful and proportional retaliation is a sign that these unrealistic expectations have collapsed.
Note In 2018, the value added of the high-tech manufacturing and equipment manufacturing industries rose 11.7 percent and 8.1 percent year-on-year respectively, while the electronic manufacturing sector surged by 13.1 percent, higher than that of the overall manufacturing industry, according to the MIIT(Ministry of Industry and Information Technology)
A Strategic Miscalculation: Underestimating China’s Resolve
The US fundamentally underestimated China’s ability and strategic determination to respond, while overestimating its own leverage. This miscalculation has had immediate and serious consequences:
Market Turmoil: US tariff threats triggered sharp falls in American stock and currency markets.
Global Instability: The actions cast a shadow over the global economy and destabilized international supply chains.
Defending Rights: China’s countermeasures are not just about self-defense; they are an effort to uphold justice and fairness in the global economic system.
Note: The miscalculation has had immediate and serious consequences
The New Rule: Unilateral Bullying Meets Decisive Response
A clear trend has emerged: any unilateral bullying will inevitably be met with a precise and decisive response. The traditional US tactics of maximum pressure are no longer effective. China’s position is consistent—any negotiation must be based on mutual respect and equality. A “total US win and total Chinese loss” scenario is a fantasy, and the so-called “big stick” policy is, in practice, a paper tiger.
Note: Secretary of State Antony Blinken(Biden administration) shakes hands with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi prior to meetings at the State Department in Washington, DC, Oct. 26, 2023.
The Path Forward: Rationality and Mutual Respect
The past five months have shown that progress is possible. Four rounds of talks have stabilized bilateral relations, proving that mutual respect and equal consultation are the only viable path. Washington must accept key facts:
China has a legitimate right to develop and upgrade its industries.
China’s progress does not have to come at the expense of the US; common interests far outweigh differences.
Only win-win outcomes make negotiations sustainable.
Conclusion
There are no winners in a trade war. The sooner Washington abandons its failed pressure tactics and returns to a rational, realistic China policy, the sooner both countries—and the global economy—can return to a stable and prosperous path. The ball is in America’s court to choose cooperation over confrontation.
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.
Venezuelan community kitchen workers — Real peacebuilders on the ground
2. Timing Is Everything
2023: Narges Mohammadi (Iran) → Awarded during domestic unrest
The Noble Comitee qutes:
A champion of equality and women’s rights
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2023 was awarded to the imprisoned Iranian human rights advocate Narges Mohammadi. More than 20 years of fighting for women’s rights made her a symbol of freedom and standard-bearer in the struggle against the Iranian theocracy. In 2003, she joined the Defenders of Human Rights Center, founded by that year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Shirin Ebadi. In the years that followed, Ms Mohammadi helped imprisoned activists, led a campaign against the death penalty and criticized the regime’s use of torture and sexualized violence.
The freedom struggle cost her dearly. She was arrested 13 times and sentenced to 31 years in prison and 154 lashes. In October 2023, when her selection as the Nobel Peace Prize laureate was announced, she was locked in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison.
From captivity, Narges Mohammadi stood at the forefront of major protests against the Iranian regime in autumn 2022. The unrest had been triggered by the arrest, mistreatment and death of a young Kurdish woman, Mahsa Jina Amini, at the hands of the morality police. Her crime: not adequately covering her hair. The authorities responded harshly against the demonstrators. More than 500 were killed, thousands were injured, and at least 20 000 were arrested.
Narges Mohammadi commented on her peace prize as follows: “I will never stop striving for the realization of democracy, freedom and equality. Surely, the Nobel Peace Prize will make me more resilient, determined, hopeful and enthusiastic.”
2025: María Corina Machado → Coincides with U.S. military threats
She is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.
As the leader of the democracy movement in Venezuela, Maria Corina Machado is one of the most extraordinary examples of civilian courage in Latin America in recent times.
Ms Machado has been a key, unifying figure in a political opposition that was once deeply divided – an opposition that found common ground in the demand for free elections and representative government. This is precisely what lies at the heart of democracy: our shared willingness to defend the principles of popular rule, even though we disagree. At a time when democracy is under threat, it is more important than ever to defend this common ground.
Venezuela has evolved from a relatively democratic and prosperous country to a brutal, authoritarian state that is now suffering a humanitarian and economic crisis. Most Venezuelans live in deep poverty, even as the few at the top enrich themselves. The violent machinery of the state is directed against the country’s own citizens. Nearly 8 million people have left the country. The opposition has been systematically suppressed by means of election rigging, legal prosecution and imprisonment.
Venezuela’s authoritarian regime makes political work extremely difficult. As a founder of Súmate, an organisation devoted to democratic development, Ms Machado stood up for free and fair elections more than 20 years ago. As she said: “It was a choice of ballots over bullets.” In political office and in her service to organisations since then, Ms Machado has spoken out for judicial independence, human rights and popular representation. She has spent years working for the freedom of the Venezuelan people.
Ahead of the election of 2024, Ms Machado was the opposition’s presidential candidate, but the regime blocked her candidacy. She then backed the representative of a different party, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, in the election. Hundreds of thousands of volunteers mobilised across political divides. They were trained as election observers to ensure a transparent and fair election. Despite the risk of harassment, arrest and torture, citizens across the country held watch over the polling stations. They made sure the final tallies were documented before the regime could destroy ballots and lie about the outcome.
The efforts of the collective opposition, both before and during the election, were innovative and brave, peaceful and democratic. The opposition received international support when its leaders publicised the vote counts that had been collected from the country’s election districts, showing that the opposition had won by a clear margin. But the regime refused to accept the election result, and clung to power.
Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation. In 2024, more elections were held than ever before, but fewer and fewer are free and fair.
In its long history, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has honoured brave women and men who have stood up to repression, who have carried the hope of freedom in prison cells, on the streets and in public squares, and who have shown by their actions that peaceful resistance can change the world. In the past year, Ms Machado has been forced to live in hiding. Despite serious threats against her life she has remained in the country, a choice that has inspired millions of people.
When authoritarians seize power, it is crucial to recognise courageous defenders of freedom who rise and resist. Democracy depends on people who refuse to stay silent, who dare to step forward despite grave risk, and who remind us that freedom must never be taken for granted, but must always be defended – with words, with courage and with determination.
Maria Corina Machado meets all three criteria stated in Alfred Nobel’s will for the selection of a Peace Prize laureate. She has brought her country’s opposition together. She has never wavered in resisting the militarisation of Venezuelan society. She has been steadfast in her support for a peaceful transition to democracy.
Maria Corina Machado has shown that the tools of democracy are also the tools of peace. She embodies the hope of a different future, one where the fundamental rights of citizens are protected, and their voices are heard. In this future, people will finally be free to live in peace.
Clear Pattern: The prize serves as a geopolitical signal for intervention
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.
Typhon ravages the Philippines after demonstrations against lack of climate protection
Thousands of protesters walked the street in Manila because of a corruption case that turned out to be renewed on a day later.
Protesters on the street in Manila. Here, a flood control project has escalated the anti-corruption tests.
The typhoon Ragasa has gradually released his roof in the Philippines and has instead landed in China.
But before leaving the Philippines, it made sure to put its trail.
Several places are affected by extensive floods and power failure, and the authorities have warned about the risk of landslides.
In addition to the damage to home and infrastructure, several have lost their lives, although thousands of people were evacuated before the typhoon hit.
The Philippines, which is extremely vulnerable to natural disasters, is hit annually by about twenty typhoons, but this one hit at a striking time.
The day before, thousands of protesters were on the street to demonstrate against corruption – was upset by a flood control scandal project.
The typhoon Ragasa, the most violent for a long time, has ravaged several areas in the Philippines and left many places flooded and without power.
Several reasons to demonstrate
Although the demonstrations around the Philippines were actually announced as peaceful, chaos broke out in several places in the country’s capital, Manila.
It resulted in clashes with the police where 17 people were arrested for allegedly throwing stones and setting fire to a truck.
– Ordinary citizens are constantly on the border to have had enough, explains a senior researcher at Dignity and professor at the Department of Politics and Society at Aalborg University.
Still, there are two factors that triggered Sunday demonstrations, the researcher says.
The first factor mentioned is the anniversary of the introduction of the state of emergency in 1972, which de facto marked the beginning of Ferdinand Marcos ’ 14-year dictatorship in the Philippines.
– The anniversary was also marked to some extent in the past. But it wasn’t something big. It has grown much bigger after Marco’s jr. has become president. Now it has become an annual criticism of the current president, who was the son of him who did it back then, he said.
On top of that, there was the very concrete corruption case, the second factor that made the more than 100,000 Filipinos walk on the street.
Thousands of protesters are gathered in Manila to demonstrate against corruption.
Here, the government and the office are accused of having had their fingers deep in the pocket of a project aimed at securing the country in the event of flooding.
According to the government itself, since 2023, the project has been to blame for a loss $2 billion, but Greenpeace assesses that the amount is more than eight times as high.
– The greed we see in this corruption scandal reflects the greed of fossil fuel companies that have brought us to this climate crisis, Greenpeace writes about the Philippine government’s climate-driven spending potentially lost due to corruption since 2023.
– It could have been anything, but now it happened to be this case where it turned out to have gone wrong. And it has then helped nourish the whole constant class consciousness that lies in the Philippines.
The president is trying to speak the protesters by mouth
The Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has tried to mitigate the situation and expressed support for the protests.
“Do you blame them for going out on the street?” he asked journalists at a press conference and continued:
– If I wasn’t president, maybe I’d be out on the street with them. Of course, they are furious. They are angry, I’m angry. We should all be angry, because what is happening is not right.
– The Marcos family is simply a thief number one. That family has stolen so you don’t dream of the – especially the father(accused of plundering as much as $10bn) and father’s wife, Imelda, who had the 3000 shoes, it sounds from the researcher who complements:
– The Philippines is a hugely corrupt country and it is corrupt in a very special way. Because it is guided by some huge political families.
– The Philippine people are at the same time strongly revolutionary and willing to accept incredible forms of humiliation. And it is all the time on the border between whether they will accept it or not.
A museum employee checks the shoes from the former Philippine first lady Imelda Marcos next to her portraits on display at the Marikina Shoe Museum in Manila
Wave of protests
The demonstrations in the Philippines come on top of a wave of dissatisfaction in parts of South and Southeast Asia.
There is a youth uprising in Asia at all against the part of the elite who just steal and steal
Protesters in Rizal Park, Manila, on 21 September 2025
They can’t repay it. They won’t default. Their solution? Lure the world into a digital casino, swap the debt for blockchain tokens, and pull the plug. Your savings will be the casualty.
1. The Unsolvable Problem: A $35 Trillion Debt
Image 1: The gross federal debt of the United States has surpassed $37,000,000,000,000
The United States is not just in debt; it is functionally bankrupt. With a national debt exceeding $35 trillion and growing by trillions each year, repayment is a mathematical impossibility. Traditional solutions—austerity or hyperinflation—would collapse the global economy and end American hegemony overnight.
Image 2: At $37 trillion and rising, USA’S unsustainable debt threatens economic growth, restricts investments in the future and could limit our ability to respond to fiscal crises.
So, what’s the exit strategy?
2. The Digital “Solution”: Enter Cryptocurrency
For years, crypto has been marketed as the future of money: decentralized, borderless, and free from government control. This is the bait.
The real plan is far more cynical. The US financial establishment isn’t trying to escape crypto—it’s preparing to co-opt it as a dumping ground for its unpayable debts.
Here’s how the scheme works:
Legitimize Crypto: Encourage massive institutional investment (ETFs, Wall Street backing) to create the illusion of stability.
Image 3: In March, President Trump said that he hoped to sign stablecoin legislation by August. Congress has responded accordingly: In the past month, both the House and Senate have advanced stablecoin bills out of committee.
Merge with Sovereign Debt: Issue US Treasury bonds or a “Digital Dollar” directly on blockchain networks, effectively converting national debt into crypto-backed assets.
Image 4: First central banks ignored cryptocurrencies, then they mocked them, next they fought them and now they are building their own.
The Global Dump: Once the world’s savings are tied to this new system, the Fed can “devalue” or “reset” the digital ledger—erasing the $35 trillion debt with a keystroke.
Your Bitcoin portfolio wouldn’t crash; it would be zeroed out by design.
3. The Precedent: They’ve Done This Before
This is not a new trick—it’s a digital update of an old one.
1944: Bretton Woods – The US made the dollar the world’s reserve currency, forcing other nations to hold US debt.
Image 5: Under the Bretton Woods system, gold was the basis for the U.S. dollar, and other currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar’s value.
1971: Nixon Shock – The US unilaterally ended dollar convertibility to gold, effectively defaulting on its obligations without admitting it.
Image 6: Most notably, the policies eventually led to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates that took effect after World War II. Key Takeaways The Nixon Shock relates to an economic policy shift undertaken by President Nixon to prioritize jobs growth, lower inflation, and exchange rate stability. It effectively led to the end of the convertibility of U.S. dollars into gold. The Nixon Shock was the catalyst for the stagflation of the 1970s as the U.S. dollar devalued. Thanks in large part to the Nixon Shock, central banks have more control over their nations’ money and the management of variables such as interest rates, overall money supply, and velocity. Long after the Nixon Shock, economists are still debating the merits of this policy shift and its eventual ramifications.
2008: The Bailouts – Banks offloaded toxic assets onto the public balance sheet. You paid for it.
Image 7: In 2008, more than 70% of subprime and other low-quality mortgages were on the books of the federal government, primarily the “Government Sponsored Enterprises” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The GSEs bought these riskier mortgages to meet the politically-motivated “affordable housing goals” that Congress assigned to them. As Peter Wallison, who served as on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, said, when these mortgages defaulted, they drove down housing prices, weakened most large financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.
The ”Crypto Reset” is simply the next phase: offloading the toxic national debt onto the global public via the blockchain.
Image 8: The majority of low-income nations are on the cusp of a debt crisis, sparking fears of global contagion
4. The Warning Signs Are Already Here
Wall Street’s Sudden Love for Crypto: BlackRock and Fidelity didn’t become libertarian pioneers. They see a new asset class to financialize and control.
Image 9: Wall Street: From Hostility to Embrace
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): The ultimate tool for a controlled reset. A digital dollar gives the government full visibility and control over every transaction.
Image 10: Unlike cryptocurrencies, which are decentralized and volatile, CBDCs aim to provide stability and are government-backed.
Regulatory “Clarity”: Governments aren’t regulating crypto to protect you; they’re regulating it to absorb it.
When we talk about cryptocurrency regulation, we’re referring to the creation of frameworks to oversee or supervise different aspects of crypto. Such frameworks include rules to address how crypto is created, purchased, sold, traded, taxed, and how it integrates with the financial systems already in existence in the U.S. and worldwide. These types of frameworks already exist for traditional assets, which are highly regulated in the U.S. by federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Reserve Board (FRB), and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Why Regulate Crypto?
Like traditional asset regulation, crypto regulation benefits the market in several ways, including:
Increasing investor confidence
Protecting investors from scams, fraud, and market manipulation
Ensuring investors get accurate and necessary information about crypto
Crypto is now regulated at a number of levels and by several agencies, both in the U.S. and internationally.
U.S. Regulations — Federal
In the U.S., there has thus far been a lack of consistent cryptocurrency regulation. Several U.S. regulatory bodies — including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), SEC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve, the Department of the Treasury, the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network — have all weighed in on how crypto should be classified or handled.
In addition, the SEC and CFTC have been vying for enforcement authority over crypto.
The SEC sees crypto assets as securities, similar to stocks.
The CFTC sees crypto assets as commodities, similar to gold or oil.
5. Who Really Wins?
The US Government: Its debt disappears.
Wall Street: Skims fees during the boom and is first to exit before the bust.
The Global Elite: Preserve their wealth in hard assets (gold, land, commodities) while digital savings evaporate.
Who loses?
Anyone holding significant wealth in digital assets when the music stops.
Conclusion: Don’t Be the Bagholder
Crypto was sold as a revolution against the system. In reality, it may become the system’s most sophisticated exit strategy.
The greatest trick the US ever pulled was convincing the world that its debt was an asset. The second greatest trick will be convincing you that crypto is the future, when it’s really just the new landfill for their financial trash.
The reset is coming. The question is, will your wealth survive it?
Netanyahu boasts of an alliance “as strong as ancient stones,” but the foundation is crumbling beneath his feet. The Gaza genocide has not only isolated Israel—it has begun to unravel the decades-old special relationship with America, revealing it as a partnership built on interests, not values.
The Illusion of Strength
Benjamin Netanyahu stood before the ancient stones of Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall and told Marco Rubio that the US-Israel alliance was “as strong and stable as these stones.” It was a powerful photo op—but a profound lie.
Image 1: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee visit the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, Sept. 14, 2025. Photo by Chaim Goldberg/FLASH90.
The reality is that the war in Gaza has made Israel more isolated and dependent on the US than ever before, while simultaneously corroding American public support for Israel to historic lows. This isn’t just a diplomatic rift—it is the collapse of a central pillar of post-Cold War US foreign policy.
1. The Data Doesn’t Lie: America is Turning Away
For decades, support for Israel was a rare point of bipartisan unity in the US. No longer.
Record-Low Backing: Only a shrinking minority of Americans now side with Israel over Palestinians—the lowest level in 25 years.
Youth Revolt: Among Democrats under 50 and even Republicans under 50, support for Palestine is now equal to or surpassing support for Israel.
This isn’t a temporary shift. It is a generational realignment, driven by values among progressives and interests among conservatives tired of funding foreign wars.
2. How Did We Get Here? The Unraveling of a “Special Relationship”
The US-Israel alliance was once described as a blend of shared values and shared interests. Today, neither holds up.
Netanyahu made a strategic miscalculation. He believed that aligning with the Republican Party—especially Trump—would guarantee unwavering US support.
Instead, he politicized the relationship. Democrats now perceive Israel as a hostile actor interfering in US politics, while Republicans see it as a financial burden. By choosing short-term political gains, Netanyahu sacrificed long-term bipartisan backing. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNOwHSBt7LY/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
4. The “Super-Sparta” Delusion: Israel’s Dangerous Path
Netanyahu now speaks of transforming Israel into a “Super-Sparta”—a militaristic, self-reliant fortress willing to “stand alone.”
This is a dangerous fantasy.
Israel depends on US weapons, intelligence, and UN vetoes.
“Standing alone” means becoming a pariah—like apartheid South Africa, but in a far more dangerous neighborhood.
5. What Comes Next? The Unthinkable is Now Thinkable
The next US president—whether Trump or a Democrat—will not abruptly end the alliance. But the ground is shifting in ways that will inevitably alter it.
The $3.8 Billion Question: The current military aid deal expires in 2028. Renegotiating it will be fiercely contested—especially if the war in Gaza continues.
Recognition of Palestine: Key US allies like the UK, France, and Australia are moving toward recognizing Palestinian statehood—leaving the US and Israel increasingly isolated.
The Biden Factor: Biden may be the last US president with a deep, instinctive connection to Israel. Future leaders will be more transactional, less sentimental.
Netanyahu was wrong. The US-Israel relationship is not like the ancient stones of the Wailing Wall—enduring and unshakeable.
It is a partnership built on a crumbling foundation of interests and an evaporated myth of shared values. Gaza has exposed the truth: this is an alliance sustained by inertia, not necessity.
When that inertia ends—and American voters demand change—Israel will learn the hard way that no amount of lobbying can replace genuine friendship. And the US will face a choice: continue supporting a liability, or redefine its role in a changing world.
The stones Netanyahu touched have survived millennia. His alliance may not survive the decade.
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”
