All empires come to an end—some with a whimper, some with a bang. It’s not surprising, therefore, that the American Empire is coming to an end following the usual trajectory—overreach fueled by massive debt and its attendant political corruption and social disintegration at home. However, the decline of the American Empire has been rendered worse than it might have been, causing massive damage to the American brand in the eyes of the world, due to the complete takeover of imperial policy by the Neocon coalition dating back to the Clinton years. The legacy of forever wars with their horrific human and infrastructural devastation gives the lie to the notion that the American Empire has been in the business of spreading “freedom and democracy” around the world, as John Mearsheimer makes clear in 25 words or less (follow link for brief video exchange):
Mark. Can you think of a way to focus on our Constitution and bring our country back? I.e., the Constitution is still valid and good, but the implementation is flawed. The administrative state and communist instigators have subverted it. Can we stop that?
We've talked briefly in the past about whether the Z Man is kosher or not. He just wrote a very good article comparing Athens after the Persian defeat to the GAE today. Just like the Athenian democracy after 479BC, the GAE couldn't kick its "war is the solution" mentality and sense that its way of doing things was the only way. https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=31917
Indeed. It's sad to think where we could have been today if we'd broken up NATO back in 1991 and buried the hatchet with Russia. Instead of a peace dividend and cheap package holidays to the Crimea, we got a 10-year financial deal for Ukraine.
Mercouris damns in no uncertain terms the cynical and “nihilistic” policies of the so-called “democratic” West, in particular this Neocon idea of keeping the conflict in Ukraine going, even after the fighting has ended and Russia has won; the illegal seizure of Russian assets; and supine Germany, its economy gone to rack and ruin. From the 53 min mark on, and it’s not tedious!!
Very enlightening and interesting as regards the seizure of the Russian assets and their being viewed as "reparations" to Ukraine. I can understand why the Germans wouldn't like that idea! Why do the Europeans always eventually cave to the U.S. and go along with all of these escalatory actions vs. Russia, no matter how destructive the actions are to their own interests?
I dunno - je ne sais pas - Mercouris glumly recites all the times the Germans spoke out against the latest edict coming from the Empire, only to “cave” and wimpishly follow along…even though these policies go against European interests (like cheap natural gas fr Russia: can’t have that!). No wonder Roosevelt and later presidents, with the exception of JFK, didn’t get along with De Gaulle - or Adenauer. They resisted the US behemoth. Now, if they don’t wake up, they’ll be consumed by it.
To quote Mark from his next post, it’s all about energy:
“To allow European countries to shop for energy around the world, including from Russia, would decouple our vassal states from the American Empire. The “four key reasons”, as we’ll see, really boil down to one: The demands and inner logic of a predatory empire that has hollowed out its own economy—expand and subjugate or die…”
Um, 10 years??? This is such another Biden & Co. grift. For God’s sake, what happens when the morally beleaguered, inadequately trained and disappearing Ukrainian army collapses by, say, end of summer?
The funds will have already been allocated to the MIC over the next ten years, including to all the usual suspect Defense sector companies. What happens to the people of the Ukraine, well, the Empire says, "Who cares?"
It would make Gen GW turn somersaults in his grave: the MIC is necessary to foreign meddling (never mind sovereignty and borders, ie Ukraine ); foreign meddling is gold to the MIC. A despicable and deceitful Janus-head (two-faced) scheme. Our demise.
Can you spell "Yanukovych." Yes, I knew you could ;)
"Nuland and Pyatt were engaged in such planning at a time when Yanukovych was still Ukraine’s lawful president. It was startling to have diplomatic representatives of a foreign country—and a country that routinely touts the need to respect democratic processes and the sovereignty of other nations—to be scheming about removing an elected government and replacing it with officials meriting U.S. approval."
The proposed legislation mandating a 10 year funding stream to Ukraine is an interesting gambit because it poses a unique conundrum for Russia. If their root goal is to bring down a corrupt and destructive US Federal Government (and NATO along with it), this disastrous debt bomb virtually guarantees that outcome. Therefore Russia would be incentivized to slow-roll the war and let the bleeding continue as long as possible. Alternately, Russia could rampage to the Polish border and seize everything, thereby denying Blackrock of any gibs and producing a default of epic proportions. It seems to me that Dementia Joe is determined to bring about an economic collapse at all costs, and tens of millions of Americans will go to the polls this November to put his corpse back in office for another 4 years. Not a rosy picture for the future.
Interesting speculation. My own guess is that Putin will not be in such a hurry as to take rash action that would increase casualties unnecessarily, but that he would prefer to end active fighting sooner rather than later. One reason would be to have a freer hand in integrating the more economically valuable (and ethnically Russian) areas into the Russian Federation. It would also free up the Russian military 1) from any NATO surprises in western Ukraine and 2) allow the Russian military more scope for action in the Middle and Far East.
A very specific factor that may influence Putin toward an earlier resolution of the fighting in Ukraine would be the desire to put a decisive end to NATO ambitions in the Black Sea by taking Odessa. While that would still leave three NATO countries on the Black Sea (Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria) Turkey has a unique relationship with Russia, Bulgaria has an historically fraternal relationship. Taking Odessa, so close to the mouth of the Danube would leave Romania largely surrounded by countries disposed to be friendly to Russia--Serbia, Croatia (!), and Hungary--and by Russia itself.
Yes! Absolutely. Absent Western control of Crimea, Odessa is the lynchpin for control of the Black Sea. Putin obviously knows this, too. The question then becomes how and when Putin can take it without triggering a hysterical Western response (one made out of desperation). The more time goes on, the better positioned Putin will be to that end. Overwhelming Russian military superiority in theater will likely be the determining factor and that will accumulate with time.
Does Putin believe that Russia will be safe only after regime change in The West?
A slow roll makes the most sense. Biden insists upon sending worse money after bad and this would nicely play into the hands of the slow grind. It also keeps us pinned down in Europe allowing more freedom of action by Putin and friends elsewhere.
**"The U.S. found five units of the Israel Defense Forces responsible "for individual incidents of gross violations of human rights,"** the State Department announced on Monday – though whether funding to the American ally could be cut over such abuses under the so-called "Leahy Laws" still hangs in the balance.
At a press briefing, State Department principal deputy spokesman Vedant Patel told reporters that **the human rights violations happened all before the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas militants on southern Israel and none happened in Gaza."**
In fact, gross violations of human rights are what Israel is fundamentally about. It's been ongoing since before Israel became an entity.
Kabuki theatre. If they were that appalled by the IOF's activities, they would cut off funding and armaments. This is just the neocons trying to fool normies into thinking they care.
I watched Mitch McConnell on Meet the Press this weekend. The rage welled up inside me in an unhealthy way. He actually said "look at all the good things that have happened to us as a result" of the Ukraine war. I swear.
I know you're obviously joking but the real joke is how economically illiterate people like Mitch McConnell are. Spending government money on things no one wants - like bombs to destroy a foreign country - does NOT make the country richer. Sure, it makes the people who take the money for making bombs richer but in exactly the same way as it would make them richer if they just outright stole the money from the rest of us. In fact, that would actually be BETTER because then those bombs wouldn't be used to destroy other lives.
But make no mistake, when the government spends our money (or prints and spends it), that is reducing the claims the rest of us have on the all the goods and services that Americans actually want - things like food, houses and TVs - the things that make us actually richer. We have less claim on those goods and services because people like McConnell enabled people like Lockheed Martin to steal from us.
Fantastic comment. You are absolutely right, IMO. Federal spending is not incentivized to be efficient or productive whereas private investment is. Every Dollar spent by the government is one Dollar less available for private investment. Federal government investment is politically motivated whereas private investment is PROFIT motivated. See who wins over time.
Mark. Can you think of a way to focus on our Constitution and bring our country back? I.e., the Constitution is still valid and good, but the implementation is flawed. The administrative state and communist instigators have subverted it. Can we stop that?
We've talked briefly in the past about whether the Z Man is kosher or not. He just wrote a very good article comparing Athens after the Persian defeat to the GAE today. Just like the Athenian democracy after 479BC, the GAE couldn't kick its "war is the solution" mentality and sense that its way of doing things was the only way. https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=31917
Yes it is an interesting comparison. The point about the moral change is important.
Indeed. It's sad to think where we could have been today if we'd broken up NATO back in 1991 and buried the hatchet with Russia. Instead of a peace dividend and cheap package holidays to the Crimea, we got a 10-year financial deal for Ukraine.
Mercouris damns in no uncertain terms the cynical and “nihilistic” policies of the so-called “democratic” West, in particular this Neocon idea of keeping the conflict in Ukraine going, even after the fighting has ended and Russia has won; the illegal seizure of Russian assets; and supine Germany, its economy gone to rack and ruin. From the 53 min mark on, and it’s not tedious!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lUwP2p70D-s&list=UUwGpHa6rMLjSSCBlckm5khw&index=1&pp=iAQB
Very enlightening and interesting as regards the seizure of the Russian assets and their being viewed as "reparations" to Ukraine. I can understand why the Germans wouldn't like that idea! Why do the Europeans always eventually cave to the U.S. and go along with all of these escalatory actions vs. Russia, no matter how destructive the actions are to their own interests?
Thanks for the link!
I dunno - je ne sais pas - Mercouris glumly recites all the times the Germans spoke out against the latest edict coming from the Empire, only to “cave” and wimpishly follow along…even though these policies go against European interests (like cheap natural gas fr Russia: can’t have that!). No wonder Roosevelt and later presidents, with the exception of JFK, didn’t get along with De Gaulle - or Adenauer. They resisted the US behemoth. Now, if they don’t wake up, they’ll be consumed by it.
To quote Mark from his next post, it’s all about energy:
“To allow European countries to shop for energy around the world, including from Russia, would decouple our vassal states from the American Empire. The “four key reasons”, as we’ll see, really boil down to one: The demands and inner logic of a predatory empire that has hollowed out its own economy—expand and subjugate or die…”
Um, 10 years??? This is such another Biden & Co. grift. For God’s sake, what happens when the morally beleaguered, inadequately trained and disappearing Ukrainian army collapses by, say, end of summer?
The funds will have already been allocated to the MIC over the next ten years, including to all the usual suspect Defense sector companies. What happens to the people of the Ukraine, well, the Empire says, "Who cares?"
It would make Gen GW turn somersaults in his grave: the MIC is necessary to foreign meddling (never mind sovereignty and borders, ie Ukraine ); foreign meddling is gold to the MIC. A despicable and deceitful Janus-head (two-faced) scheme. Our demise.
And... what happens if, in a free election, the people of Ukraine elect a pro-Russian government after the war ends?
Oh wait. That can't happen, can it?
Can you spell "Yanukovych." Yes, I knew you could ;)
"Nuland and Pyatt were engaged in such planning at a time when Yanukovych was still Ukraine’s lawful president. It was startling to have diplomatic representatives of a foreign country—and a country that routinely touts the need to respect democratic processes and the sovereignty of other nations—to be scheming about removing an elected government and replacing it with officials meriting U.S. approval."
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy
Even the Libertarians - to their credit - can get it right when it is so obvious :)
Orban beware!
God forbid (although He acts in accordance with what will accomplish His Will).
The proposed legislation mandating a 10 year funding stream to Ukraine is an interesting gambit because it poses a unique conundrum for Russia. If their root goal is to bring down a corrupt and destructive US Federal Government (and NATO along with it), this disastrous debt bomb virtually guarantees that outcome. Therefore Russia would be incentivized to slow-roll the war and let the bleeding continue as long as possible. Alternately, Russia could rampage to the Polish border and seize everything, thereby denying Blackrock of any gibs and producing a default of epic proportions. It seems to me that Dementia Joe is determined to bring about an economic collapse at all costs, and tens of millions of Americans will go to the polls this November to put his corpse back in office for another 4 years. Not a rosy picture for the future.
Interesting speculation. My own guess is that Putin will not be in such a hurry as to take rash action that would increase casualties unnecessarily, but that he would prefer to end active fighting sooner rather than later. One reason would be to have a freer hand in integrating the more economically valuable (and ethnically Russian) areas into the Russian Federation. It would also free up the Russian military 1) from any NATO surprises in western Ukraine and 2) allow the Russian military more scope for action in the Middle and Far East.
A very specific factor that may influence Putin toward an earlier resolution of the fighting in Ukraine would be the desire to put a decisive end to NATO ambitions in the Black Sea by taking Odessa. While that would still leave three NATO countries on the Black Sea (Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria) Turkey has a unique relationship with Russia, Bulgaria has an historically fraternal relationship. Taking Odessa, so close to the mouth of the Danube would leave Romania largely surrounded by countries disposed to be friendly to Russia--Serbia, Croatia (!), and Hungary--and by Russia itself.
Yes! Absolutely. Absent Western control of Crimea, Odessa is the lynchpin for control of the Black Sea. Putin obviously knows this, too. The question then becomes how and when Putin can take it without triggering a hysterical Western response (one made out of desperation). The more time goes on, the better positioned Putin will be to that end. Overwhelming Russian military superiority in theater will likely be the determining factor and that will accumulate with time.
Does Putin believe that Russia will be safe only after regime change in The West?
A slow roll makes the most sense. Biden insists upon sending worse money after bad and this would nicely play into the hands of the slow grind. It also keeps us pinned down in Europe allowing more freedom of action by Putin and friends elsewhere.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-accuses-israeli-military-human-rights-violations-stunning-condemnation
**"The U.S. found five units of the Israel Defense Forces responsible "for individual incidents of gross violations of human rights,"** the State Department announced on Monday – though whether funding to the American ally could be cut over such abuses under the so-called "Leahy Laws" still hangs in the balance.
At a press briefing, State Department principal deputy spokesman Vedant Patel told reporters that **the human rights violations happened all before the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas militants on southern Israel and none happened in Gaza."**
In fact, gross violations of human rights are what Israel is fundamentally about. It's been ongoing since before Israel became an entity.
Kabuki theatre. If they were that appalled by the IOF's activities, they would cut off funding and armaments. This is just the neocons trying to fool normies into thinking they care.
It would seem so. That would explain the reference to the past rather than the present.
I watched Mitch McConnell on Meet the Press this weekend. The rage welled up inside me in an unhealthy way. He actually said "look at all the good things that have happened to us as a result" of the Ukraine war. I swear.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/mcconnell-says-the-world-is-more-dangerous-now-than-before-world-war-ii-full-interview-209843781658
I think you're being hard on Mitch, K. Think of all the profits for our flag industry, churning out all those Ukie flags.
I know you're obviously joking but the real joke is how economically illiterate people like Mitch McConnell are. Spending government money on things no one wants - like bombs to destroy a foreign country - does NOT make the country richer. Sure, it makes the people who take the money for making bombs richer but in exactly the same way as it would make them richer if they just outright stole the money from the rest of us. In fact, that would actually be BETTER because then those bombs wouldn't be used to destroy other lives.
But make no mistake, when the government spends our money (or prints and spends it), that is reducing the claims the rest of us have on the all the goods and services that Americans actually want - things like food, houses and TVs - the things that make us actually richer. We have less claim on those goods and services because people like McConnell enabled people like Lockheed Martin to steal from us.
Fantastic comment. You are absolutely right, IMO. Federal spending is not incentivized to be efficient or productive whereas private investment is. Every Dollar spent by the government is one Dollar less available for private investment. Federal government investment is politically motivated whereas private investment is PROFIT motivated. See who wins over time.