Most Americans think of the Cuban Missile Crisis as a time where we came uncomfortably close to nuclear exchanges with the Soviet Union. The truth is, though, things came much closer than they realize. Nuclear missiles staged in Cuba should be considered tame compared to what happened under the waves of the Atlantic off the coast of Florida and Cuba.
In October 1962, the Soviet Submarine B-59 was operating in the region. It was part of a Soviet flotilla dispatched to support Cuba. This mission was a critical component of the USSR’s strategic operations in the region, meant to challenge the U.S. naval blockade and deter any potential invasion of Cuba. And it should be noted: the Soviet Union’s decision to place missiles in Cuba was largely a response to the United States’ deployment of Jupiter ballistic missiles in Turkey and Italy. These American missiles were capable of striking the Soviet Union, and placing missiles in Cuba was seen by the Soviets as a way to restore the strategic balance. The move was intended to deter the U.S. from a first-strike capability and to protect the Soviet ally, Cuba, from potential American aggression.
You might think that the Soviets’ reasoning was unwarranted and an example of “unprovoked aggression”, but this was absolutely the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s intention. It was the highest brass after all which proposed Operation Northwoods. Proposed in March 1962, Operation Northwoods was a plan developed by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which suggested various covert operations and false-flag actions intended to justify a military intervention in Cuba. The plan included ideas such as staged terrorist attacks, hijackings, and other incidents to be blamed on the Cuban government. It sounds absolutely ridiculous, and people usually don’t believe me at first, but our leaders’ plan was literally to kill a bunch of our own civilians, then blame it on Cuba (and the USSR) in order to rally around the flag and justify an unnecessary war which would have surely led to the use of nukes. Thankfully for all of mankind, President John F. Kennedy rejected the proposal, and it was never implemented.
Meanwhile, under the waves, a man named Vasily Arkhipov was aboard B-59 serving as Chief of Staff, the equivalent of Executive Officer. B-59 carried a T-5 nuclear torpedo with the power to cause massive destruction. The sub was detected by U.S. Navy ships enforcing the United States’ quarantine line, established to prevent Soviet ships from delivering more military supplies to Cuba. The detection heightened the tensions, and to compel the submarine to surface, the U.S. Navy used non-lethal depth charges, known as “practice” depth charges. Although not intended to destroy the submarine, they created immense pressure and noise, leading the crew of B-59 to believe that a full-scale war might have already started, especially since they had lost contact with Moscow for several days due to communication failures.
The protocol on Soviet submarines armed with nuclear weapons required the consensus of the captain, the political officer, and the second-in-command. This measure was intended to prevent any rash decision to launch a nuclear strike. Amidst the escalating crisis and the stress from the depth charges, both the captain and the political officer were in favor of launching the nuclear weapon, fearing that war had already begun. However, Arkhipov, demonstrating remarkable calm and reason, strongly opposed this action. Arkhipov insisted on not launching the torpedo and urged the captain to surface the submarine and await direct orders from Moscow. His actions defused the immediate threat and avoided a catastrophic nuclear exchange, effectively preventing what would surely have escalated into a full-scale nuclear war.
Had either Arkhipov or JFK been nearly any other man around, I don’t see how nukes wouldn’t have been used. And let it be known that it was in fact, clear-headed, mutual de-escalation which ended the Cuban Missile Crisis—a secret deal between JFK and Khrushchev where they simply agreed to remove missiles from each other’s borders. Ideas like that today cause the Lindsay Grahams and Hillary Clintons of DC (which is most people in DC) to call you a weak traitor or a foreign leader’s puppet at best.
As a former submariner who was stationed on an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine, I can’t help but have a nuclear backdrop to every single foreign policy discussion. We slept between the missiles as our bunk rooms were in-between the missile tubes. A distance runner, I opted to run laps around the warheads in the upper level of the missile compartment rather than the treadmill in lower level. Although it involved frequent sharp turns, there’s something about feeling the ground (or floor) below you moving which helps clear the mind and process things which a treadmill doesn’t accomplish. So, I’ve processed the unfathomably destructive force of ICBMs a few times. However, when looking at western leaders today, I can’t help but think it doesn’t factor into their calculus at all, assuming they are even capable of thinking critically. Furthermore, position on the globe doesn’t even matter. ICBMs can be launched from anywhere and hit anywhere, further removing them from the calculus.
In a world with unserious leaders relying on their arrogant and unwarranted sense of superiority, we could at least use a few good advisors who are slow to anger, humble, and wisely restrained. I can’t help but wonder if there is a Vasily Arkhipov out there right now, speaking measured restraint to the right people at the right time, avoiding the rash actions or miscalculations which could lead the world into a conflict with consequences mankind has never seen before, and most haven’t even seriously pondered or imagine is possible.
If we can’t have another JFK – whose measured decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis helped avert disaster – perhaps we can at least have an Arkhipov. We need leaders and advisors who prioritize de-escalation and have the wisdom to navigate the complexities of modern geopolitics without resorting to the brinkmanship that once brought us perilously close to nuclear war. Arkhipov’s legacy is a reminder that sometimes, the most heroic actions are those that prevent catastrophe, not those that incite it.
Our current geopolitical climate demands a renewed focus on diplomacy, restraint, and the kind of quiet heroism demonstrated by Arkhipov. As citizens, we must advocate for leaders who value these principles, and as a global community, we must recognize and support the voices that call for peace over conflict. In remembering Arkhipov’s crucial intervention, we are reminded of the profound impact one individual can have in steering the course of history away from destruction and towards the preservation of humanity.
Let us hope and work for a future where the Arkhipovs of the world are not just remembered in history but actively advising our leaders today, guiding them away from the precipice and towards a more stable and peaceful world.
Jonathan Grotefendt was a 1st Class Petty Officer, Nuclear-Trained Electrician’s Mate on the USS Nevada, an Ohio-Class Submarine. After his 6 years in the Navy, he moved his family to Central Texas where they built a house and homeschool their 4 beautiful children. You can read his other pieces here.
After the Second World War, the Anglo-Saxon world’s world domination thesis, imposed with all the power of the victor, was balanced with the Soviet Union, and the world had a bipolar world order until 1989. The collapse of the Soviets, who saved Europe from Hitler’s fascism by sacrificing 25 million people (one third of them were women) in the Second World War, 45 years later, gave the Anglo-Saxon hegemony unlimited freedom of action.
Neocons Without Borders
There is no gap in the balance of power. The Warsaw Pact and the rapid dissolution of the Soviet Union gave great morale and energy to American neocons. Russia should also be disintegrated, and all states on the border – including Turkiye – should come under the full control of the USA. Moreover, the borders of the 22 states in North Africa and the Middle East had to be shaped according to American geopolitics and neo-liberal political economy. This vision was beyond the imagination of even George Kennan, who gave life to the USA’s famous Soviet Containment Strategy in 1946. NATO expansion, the disintegration of Yugoslavia, and brutal interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were the requirements of this vision. According to them, there was no power that could balance American power. However, American neocons could not take advantage of China’s rise in the process of realizing this vision.
Pacific Balances
The USA had won with a very strong superiority in the Pacific basin at the end of 1945. Even though China was communist, it was a weak threat to the USA compared to the Soviets. George Kennan, the mastermind of Containment, was wary of direct military conflict despite the rise of Communist China. The containment strategy also applied to China. According to him, the further spread of Communism in Asia should be prevented. He advocated support for non-communist regimes in the region. He implemented a strategy that included diplomacy and economic measures instead of military intervention. However, the strategic picture changed with the involvement of North Korea in the war between North and South Korea between 1950-53. The USA fought against China. Although China was founded in 1949, the USA did not recognize Beijing for 22 years and had Taiwan (Nationalist China) accepted as China’s representative in the UN Security Council. The decision on the American-sponsored UN intervention in the Korean War was made with this tactic.
US-China Approach
In 1969, 20 years after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, the war between the Soviets and China over the border issue brought the US administration closer to China. China’s inclusion in the edge belt system in the geopolitical perspective has emerged. However, China was a completely isolated state until the visit of US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1971. The USA, on the other hand, was friends and allies with Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and the five founding members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. These states did not have trade or even diplomatic relations with China in 1971. When (ASEAN) was born in 1967 as an American project to create a sphere of influence against communism during the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union and China strongly opposed it. However, after the visits of Kissinger in 1971 and Nixon in 1973, China’s isolation was lifted and China quickly integrated into the outside world. So much so that in November 2000, China proposed a free trade agreement to ASEAN. This initiative put into effect the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA), which is considered one of the largest free trade areas in the world, on January 1, 2010.
Lessons from the Soviet Collapse
The impact of the US-China rapprochement, which started after US President Nixon’s visit in 1973, played an important role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. So much so that the USA and China became close enough to carry out joint activities during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. However, China saw that what happened to the Soviets after 1989 would also happen to it as a rising Asian power. Because, although the state practiced capitalism in practice, it was a communist state and its regime had to be changed and come under the control of the USA. Evaluating the collapse of Soviet communism, Chinese governments learned lessons from the collapsed Soviet economy despite having huge energy resources. Singaporean diplomat and former UN representative Kishore Mahbubani writes these in his book “Did China Win?”:
“First of all, the Soviet Union collapsed not because of external pressures, but because of internal weaknesses. China is aware of the fact that ‘To survive, you need to have a strong, dynamic economy and a strong, dynamic society’. Meanwhile, in 1949, American strategist George Kennan said that the outcome of the struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union would depend not on our weapons and soldiers, but on which society has greater spiritual vitality. US society was much more dynamic than that of the Soviet Union. The United States prospered and the Soviet Union collapsed. The Chinese know that the first priority is to ensure a strong economy and a strong society; So they are greatly educating their people and growing their economies so they won’t become a second Soviet Union.”
China, which increased its economic stability, growth and prosperity domestically, later focused on globalization by taking advantage of the opportunities opened to it by the USA. They learned a lesson from the isolation of Soviets surrounded by the USA. According to Kishore Mahbubani, China made a preemptive move against the containment policy and made its neighbors dependent on the Chinese economy. The best example of this is the free trade agreement with ASEAN, which consists entirely of countries under US control, in 2000. It was extremely surprising that China was the first country to propose a free trade agreement to ASEAN. In 2000, ASEAN’s trade with the USA was 135 billion dollars, and its trade with China was only 40 billion dollars. In 2022, ASEAN’s trade with the United States increased to $450-500 billion (an increase of more than threefold), while China’s trade with ASEAN jumped from $40 billion to almost one trillion. This was a world record. Mahbubani describes it as madness for ASEAN countries to engage in a containment policy against China in the future with US triggering and pressure. This situation reveals the difficulty of countries receiving infrastructure investments through China’s Belt and Road project to participate in similar containment and sanctions.
Multipolar Order and Living in Peace
Geopolitical rivalries cannot be overcome without mutual trust and cooperation between countries. In geopolitical competition, mutual recognition of areas of influence and interest is essential, as was the case during the Cold War. The USA recognized the Soviet sphere of influence in 1945 and agreed to live in a bipolar world until 1989. Today, it wants to see and keep the whole world in its sphere of influence. Neocons want continents, not just oceans. But they can’t afford this anymore. They may see their power run out by experiencing a major world war, but a major world war due to nuclear weapons will be a war with no winners. Then, the best choice left is to accept peaceful coexistence within the multipolar world order. The concept of peaceful coexistence was first expressed by Chinese Premier Zhou En Lai in 1953. It was later adopted at the Bandung Conference (1955), which paved the way for the Non-Aligned movement.
China’s Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence were: Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty./Mutual non-aggression. /Mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. /Equality and mutual benefit. /Peaceful coexistence.
This concept was damaged by the 1956 Suez Crisis, the 1956 Soviet Intervention in Hungary, and the 1962 China-India border war in the Himalayas region. The Sino-Soviet separation that started in the 1960s also played a role in this process. The world communist movement was also divided into two.
The concept of Living Together in Peace was also used by Soviet President Brezhnev in 1959. Brezhnev focused on the necessity of living in peace with the capitalist world by keeping ideological differences separate. This understanding, which emphasized preventing nuclear war and giving importance to diplomacy, economic and cultural relations, was damaged by the military intervention of the Warsaw Pact in Czechoslovakia in the Prague Spring in 1968. This time, the Détente policy put forward by the Soviets since the 1970s was designed to support the vision of Peaceful Coexistence. Despite the setbacks experienced during the Arab-Israeli war in 1973, this policy led to successes, especially the reduction and restriction of nuclear weapons and the signing of the Helsinki Final Act.
During the Neocon domination period that emerged after the Cold War, the USA imposed its own values under the rule-based world order. Neoliberal capitalist economy based on Judeo-Christian morality; human rights, democracy, freedom of belief and thought have become a chewing gum in the mouth of American diplomats, politicians and representatives. Since there was no enemy left as a great power, a new threat was created under the global war on terrorism. However, a double standard has been created to the extent of calling terrorist organizations close to it, such as PKK, YPG/PYD, its land force, or using organizations such as ISIS, which it founded, as a means of strategic action.
Russia’s intervention in Georgia in 2008 and China’s serious change in attitude towards the USA, Japan and the Philippines in the South and East China seas starting from 2012 triggered a great resistance to neocon imperialism and led to today.
The President of China made a speech at the Conference Commemorating the 70th Anniversary of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in Beijing on June 28, 2024.
Xi emphasized the following: “Over the past 70 years, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence have demonstrated that they have strong resilience and enduring validity, transcending time and space and resisting alienation. These principles have become the open, inclusive and universally applicable basic norms of international relations and the basic principles of international law… In this historical period when humanity has had to decide between peace and war, prosperity and stagnation, unity and confrontation, we have always followed the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. We must defend ourselves more than ever before and strive tirelessly for the supreme goal of building a community with a common future for humanity…Among all the powers in the world, the Global South stands out with strong momentum and plays a crucial role in the progress of humanity…The Global South is at a new historical starting point It needs to be more open and inclusive… It needs to join hands and take the lead in building a community with a common future for humanity…”
The Multipolar World Has Started
The economic axis has already turned from west to east. The dark Anglo-Saxon dominance with its colonial past is in decline. The biggest reason for this decline is the rise of China and Russia’s resistance. The failure of the US neocons to restrain their geopolitical ambitions and the fact that they repeatedly made huge mistakes and dragged the world into disasters played a role in the decline of the Anglo-Saxon leadership. Even though the military power that would balance them emerged, such as Russia after 2008, the main thing was the emergence of a military power that also had economic power.
China did this.
Today, an alternative order is being built to the Western-centered economic system governed by the USA after 1945. In 2006, Russia, China, Brazil and India created a global economic initiative, forming the “BRIC” group. The Republic of South Africa joined the group in 2010 and the initiative was named “BRICS”. The 5-member BRICS later grew by adding 4 more members. Today, the 9 countries in BRICS+ own 45% of the world’s population, 36% of the global economy in terms of purchasing power parity, 25% of world exports and 44% of crude oil production. BRICS increased its share in the global economy to 35.7% in 2023. G7 remained at 29%.
The group includes global/continental nuclear powers such as UN Security Council permanent members China and Russia, and continental economic/military powers such as India, Brazil and the Republic of South Africa. With the latest expansion, the states that control two critical waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal (Iran, UAE and Egypt) have taken their place in BRICS+. Perhaps the most important feature of BRICS+ is the combination of today’s representatives of the world’s oldest civilizations and cultures. It consists of states with 25 countries are waiting for BRICS membership.
On the other hand, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which was established in 1996 with 5 states under the leadership of China to improve military cooperation in the border regions, turned into a 10-member balancing entity with the participation of Belarus at the 24th SCO Summit held in Astana on July 4, 2024.
Making a speech at the summit, Russian leader Vladimir Putin said: “In the current conditions where rapid and irreversible changes are experienced in the world, the active entrepreneurial attitude of the SCO in international relations is definitely needed. The multipolar world has become a reality”. Noting that he believe that the SCO and BRICS are the pillars of the emerging new world order, Putin emphasized that these two international entities are the locomotive of the approval of multipolarity.
The growth of SCO and BRICS+ will undoubtedly contribute to the establishment of a multipolar world order without large-scale wars.
The question is whether the Anglo-Saxons can endure this outcome with the will to live together in peace.
The problem is that whether the US statesmen and politicians, who maintained peace in the bipolar world without war between 1945 and 1989 and were able to establish a balanced geopolitical order with the Soviets, left the legacy in question to the unqualified and short-sighted Americans, who this time live in a world of dreams dominated by Zionists and neocons, some of whom draw their strength from the Bible and the Torah can repeat it or not!
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The original source of this article is Veryansin TV.
Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, Writer, Geopolitical Expert, Theorist and creator of the Turkish Bluehomeland (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. He served as the Chief of Strategy Department and then the head of Plans and Policy Division in Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. As his combat duties, he has served as the commander of Amphibious Ships Group and Mine Fleet between 2007 and 2009. He retired in 2012. He established Hamit Naci Blue Homeland Foundation in 2021. He has published numerous books on geopolitics, maritime strategy, maritime history and maritime culture. He is also a honorary member of ATASAM.
Featured image is from Veryansin TV
The original source of this article is Global Research
Israel’s genocide of Palestinians is happening beneath a curtain of lies.
Novelist Susan Abulhawa explains that the declared Palestinian death toll (of about 37,000) itself is a deception first because of the manner in which the numbers are calculated, and second, because of the reduced capacity to count death tolls.
First, the only deaths counted, says Abulhawa, are those from “direct fire”. Consequently, those who die from lack of access to medications that would normally treat chronic diseases, those who die from Zionist-imposed starvation and famine, those whom Zionists kidnap, the missing, those buried beneath the rubble,(1) those who die from rampant diseases caused by bombed and impaired infrastructure including water treatment plants,(2) none of these are counted, even as the Zionist siege of Gaza, the Zionist bombing of hospitals and infrastructure, the murder of health care workers, are root causes.
Second, even the limited methodology of counting only those who interface with hospitals is impaired since Zionists have been bombing and destroying hospitals as policy. Not only are they murdering hospital personnel, but computer servers and other instruments of recording deaths are being destroyed.
The real death toll so far from the Zionist extermination campaign, explains Abulhawa, would be 193,000 plus to 514,000 plus.
“Simple math proves,” says Abulhawa, “that Israel’s stated goal (for invasion) is an epic lie.”
She adds that Zionists are “trafficking” children and engaging in illegal organ harvesting (3) as well. These are all too familiar “harvests of war”.
“The pathology (of what is happening) should terrify people,” laments Abulhawa.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Research Assistance by Basma Qaddour
Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.
Kessab is a tiny Syrian village on the Turkish border. In February 2011, Em Ahmad, a 30-year plus resident of Kessab, was coming back to Kessab through the international border crossing at Kessab. She and her family were shocked to see white tents set-up in Turkey on the border as the passed by. The so-called ‘popular uprising’ in Daraa, Syria did not begin until March 2011, and Em Ahmad had no inkling of the purpose of the empty tent community set-up waiting for Syrian refugees. Later, she would understand the role those tents played, and the fact they were ready long before any Syrian in Daraa, 371 kilometers away, would take to the streets.
Syria is now in the first steps toward ending the nightmare that destroyed many parts of the country, caused the largest migration since WW2, caused millions to become refugees living in tents in neighboring countries, displaced half of the country, and killed and injured hundreds of millions.
Recently, Turkey has changed their policy on Syria in an effort to restore diplomatic relations with Damascus. The Prime Minister of Iraq, al-Sudani, announced he expects a meeting between the Turkish PresidentRecip Tayyip Erdogan and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad very soon.
In order to restore the relationship, Turkey must stop its support of terrorists, must withdraw its troops and mercenaries from all areas in Syria, which include Idlib and north of Aleppo. The first steps have been taken by Turkey as they have ended support of the terrorists in Idlib, and ended support of the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) north of Aleppo.
This drastic change by Turkey was met recently by violent clashes between Turkish soldiers and Turkish civilians, and terrorists and their Syrian civilian supporters, who pulled down Turkish flags and step-on them, attacked Turkish vehicles and Turkish drivers, and attacked a Turkish soldier and made him kneel and kiss the 3-stared flag of the FSA. In Idlib, the terrorists burned up Turkish vehicles owned by Turkish citizens working in Idlib officially, which resulted in all Turkish civil servants being evacuated from Idlib. Syrian refugees in Turkey were attacked by angry Turkish citizens who view the Syrians as unwelcome vandals.
Al-Bab bombing carried out by a former Erdogan terrorist from Hamzat group in Aleppo
North of Aleppo, there had been roads controlled by the Turkish backed FSA, but a new order came from Ankara to relinquish the roads back to the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). These beginning steps pave the way to a restored relationship between Ankara and Damascus.
The UN played a role in maintaining Idlib as a bastion for the armed opposition. Repeatedly, the UN pressured Russia and Syria to allow humanitarian aid to enter Idlib from Turkey. The UN argued there were 3 million civilians who needed food and medical supplies, and while that is true, the aid passed exclusively through the hands of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). If you were a civilian supporter of HTS, you got your aid, but if you had any complaint, you got nothing. Civilians were forced to buy the food they needed from the shopping mall, Al Hamra, where HTS leader, Mohammed al-Julani warehoused surplus aid to be sold. All the major international charities were in Idlib, and a number of them had serious problems with the terrorists who controlled their work there. For example, the terrorists would not allow female civilians to participate in aid programs which would teach them employment skills. According to the FSA, once called “McCain’s Army”, women were to stay at home in the kitchen and bedroom.
Turkey was a close ally of the US and a fellow NATO member. Turkey was directed to play a vital role in the ‘regime change’ project orchestrated by US President Barak Obama. The Syrian project was just one piece in the larger ‘Arab Spring’ in which the US and NATO attempted to create a ‘New Middle East’.
Libya was attacked and destroyed by the US-NATO war machine, and has not recovered. Tunisia was transformed into a Muslim Brotherhood administration, Egypt’s election was rigged by the US in order to place a Muslim Brotherhood president at the helm, and Syria was attacked in a ‘regime change’ project which failed. Tunisia and Egypt have both since recovered from the US meddling in ‘Arab Spring’ and have kick-out the Muslim Brotherhood. Syria fought back and refused to change a secular government into a sectarian nightmare to suit US interests.
General Wesley Clark, former NATO commander, said in a video, that he visited the Pentagon and was told they had plans to ‘take out seven countries’. Syria was one of them.
Serena Shim, an American-Lebanese journalist in Turkey on assignment, witnessed a UN World Food Program truck delivering armed terrorists from Jibhat al-Nusra (now called HTS) across the border from Turkey to Syria. After reporting her explosive news, she was killed in Turkey when a cement truck rammed her small rental car, and the driver of the truck has never been located.
HTS has occupied Idlib, and holds 3 million residents as human shields. Idlib is the last remaining territory occupied by the armed Syrian opposition. Recently, the residents of Idlib took to the streets to protest their treatment under the Julani iron-fist rule. Qatar, one of the last bastions of Muslim Brotherhood influence, stated they no longer support Julani, and were sympathetic of the protesters who voiced their grievances after arrests and torture of civilians by Julani’s terrorists.
Despite the $10 million bounty on the head of Julani, issued by the US FBI, American media has visited Julani to interview him, while he sported a western suit and tie, in an effort to re-brand his image. In the end, the US project to morph a Radical Islamic terrorist into a Washington approved leader in Syria failed, as did the entire Obama war on Syria.
Robert S. Ford, former US Ambassador to Syria, has been very critical of Obama’s failure in Syria. Ford feels the US seriously underestimated the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), and bet that the army would break under the pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood supporters in the street. The SAA never broke. Ford had wanted the US to enter Syria militarily, but Obama refused to fulfill his promises.
US Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, was the biggest force behind arming and funding the terrorists fighting in Syria. McCain made several illegal visits to Idlib and met personally with the terrorists and their commanders. Even though he hated the Mexican migrants coming into Arizona illegally, that didn’t stop him from doing the same and crossing from Turkey into Idlib without any visa or border controls. He believed in the FSA, and lobbied for them in Congress. The FSA sold fellow Arizonian, Kayla Mueller, to ISIS in Aleppo. She was later raped and tortured by the ISIS leader, Baghdadi, and died in a US airstrike.
Syria is now in a period of transition. The battlefields have been silent since 2017, but the recovery process was not allowed to begin due to US sanctions on Syria which prevent supplies, or investments being sent to Syria other than strictly humanitarian aid.
Lessons to be learned from Syria: never participate in any US war abroad using terrorists as assets; never support sectarian conflicts; never force democracy on any people from the barrel of a gun.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
For decades, we have been told a lie, a lie that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and the weakening of the immune systems of tens of millions more.
This lie is called fluoridation.
A process we were led to believe was a safe and effective method of protecting teeth from decay is in fact a fraud. For decades it’s been shown that fluoridation is neither essential for good health nor protective of teeth. What it does is poison the body. Therefore we should all be asking how and why public health policy and the American media continue to perpetuate this scientific sham. Despite the growing consensus in the medical literature about fluoride’s dangers and decades of denial within the federal health establishment to take any notable action, this is not the case for another class of pervasive toxic substances commonly known as “forever chemicals.”
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as “forever chemicals,” are synthetic chemicals that have increasingly raised alarming concerns due to their persistence in the environment and common everyday products and their adverse effects on human health. These chemicals are characterized by strong carbon-fluorine bonds, which are among the strongest bonds in organic chemistry. This unique chemical structure makes PFAS highly resistant to natural processes that typically break down other substances, such as microbial degradation, photolysis (breakdown by light), and hydrolysis (breakdown by water). The strong carbon-fluorine bonds make PFAS resistant to metabolic breakdown. The body’s natural detoxification processes, which can effectively eliminate other chemicals, are not as effective against PFAS. They can bind to serum albumin in the blood, which prevents them from being easily filtered out by the kidneys and excreted in urine. Finally, PFAS bio-accumulate, meaning their concentration can increase over time in the tissues of living organisms. Continuous exposure through contaminated water, food, and consumer products thereby leads to higher concentrations in the body.
For this reason PFAS are referred to as “forever” because of their ability to persist in the environment for decades if not centuries. Moreover, due to their high solubility, forever chemicals can migrate long distances through water systems from their original source and ultimately contaminate drinking water supplies.
Forever chemicals can enter the body through various pathways and become widely distributed in bodily tissues and organs. They have been shown to readily disrupt key biological processes such as fat and amino acid metabolism. PFAS primarily enter the human body through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption. Ingestion is the most common route of exposure. Contaminated drinking water, often resulting from industrial chemical discharges of toxins and pollutants and the use of firefighting foam are a significant source of PFAS. The presence of PFAS in soil and water contaminates much of our food produce, especially seafood. Food packaging materials, such as microwave popcorn bags and fast food wrappers coated with PFAS, further contribute to ingestion.
Inhalation is another route through which PFAS can enter the body.
Indoor dust particles in homes with PFAS-treated carpets, curtains, furniture, textiles, mattresses and bedding can contain these chemicals. Occupational exposure in industrial facilities manufacturing PFAS-containing products poses a very high risk. Although less significant compared to ingestion and inhalation, PFAS can be absorbed through the skin. Personal care products, including lotions, shampoos, and cosmetics, often contain PFAS. Handling materials coated with PFAS can also lead to dermal absorption. Outrageously, a government study through the National Toxicology program discovered that medical bandages, including 18 of 26 common brand band-aids purchased at major popular pharmacies were found to have dangerous levels of the forever chemical fluorine, which is used to make rocket fuel. The infamous Silent Spring Institute observed these chemicals even present in many assumed “eco-friendly” children’s products (with green certifications) such as bedding, clothing and water-resistant outer wear. Unbeknownst to the majority of consumers, PFAS are also found in shampoo and nail polish, dental floss, toilet paper, guitar strings, sticky notes, tampons and menstrual pads. Many consumer products containing high levels of these toxic chemicals are imported from China.
Once PFAS enter the body, they are absorbed into the bloodstream and transported to various organs and tissues. PFAS are known for their persistence due to their long half-lives, which can range from several years to decades. The liver is a primary target for PFAS accumulation, leading to liver damage, increased liver enzymes, and altered lipid metabolism. A 2023 Yale study noted that two PFAS enable cancer cells to migrate, an indication that these chemicals are contributing to metastasis. The thyroid gland is another critical organ affected by PFAS, as these chemicals can interfere with thyroid hormone production and regulation, potentially leading to thyroid disease. Researchers at Mount Sinai Hospital observed that one particular PFAS, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), might be contributing to the recent dramatic increase in thyroid cancer diagnoses. PFAS also impact reproductive organs, affecting fertility and causing developmental issues in fetuses.
Briefly, PFAS induce cellular toxicity by disrupting cell membrane integrity, inducing oxidative stress, and altering cell signaling pathways thereby affecting cell growth. PFAS exposure has been linked to genotoxic effects, including DNA strand breaks, chromosomal aberrations, and epigenetic modifications, potentially leading to cancer and other diseases. The impact of PFAS on reproductive health is particularly concerning. Studies have demonstrated that PFAS exposure can reduce fertility in both males and females, cause developmental toxicity including low birth weight and developmental delays in offspring, and disrupt hormone levels, affecting reproductive health and development. A 2019 study showed that PFAS exposure induces DNA damage in human liver cells. An earlier Danish study found that higher PFAS levels were associated with lower sperm quality and reduced fertility in men. And UCLA scientists demonstrated that PFAS exposure during pregnancy was linked to lower birth weights and developmental delays in children.
It should also be noted that the adverse effects of PFAS are not limited to human health but extend to wildlife and the environment. These chemicals have been found in all our water resources, soil, and air, leading to bioaccumulation in fish, animals and plant life. This bioaccumulation is disrupting normal reproductive and developmental cycles in animals and other wildlife, further contributing to the breakdown of our nation’s ecosystems.
The widespread presence of PFAS in the human body is alarming.
Scientific studies have detected these chemicals in the blood of nearly all Americans tested, as well as in breast milk and umbilical cord blood, indicating that exposure begins even before birth. In 2020 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found PFAS in the blood of 97% of Americans. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set health advisories for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water at 70 parts per trillion (ppt). However, many experts and environmental groups argue that this level is not stringent enough to protect public health. These advisories are also non-enforceable and simply serve as guidelines for individual states. On the other hand, almost nothing is being done to remove these chemicals from their ubiquitous use in common consumer products aside from food packaging.
Early in the Biden administration, the EPA signaled its commitment to deal with widespread forever-chemical contamination; but it was only in April of this year, as the presidential election approaches, that the administration finally made any concerted effort. However, the new rule is limited to environmental PFOA and PFOS contamination from industrial and manufacturing facilities and Superfund clean up projects. The bill does nothing towards the banning of their use in cleaning products, nonstick cookware, paints, carpeting, outdoor gear and personal care products. The Trump-run EPA likewise did nothing to limit PFAS until 2019 and again near election time when a PFAS Action Plan was announced. But the plan was limited to research and monitoring and has been criticized for its lack of enforceable regulations and comprehensive bans. The FDA also failed dismally to deal with PFAS in food packaging; several food manufacturers have voluntarily taken it upon themselves to remove these chemicals. Only a handful of states, notably California, Michigan, New Jersey and New York, have taken proactive measures to regulate and strengthen PFAS usage, especially in drinking water standards.
While there is increasing awareness at both federal and state levels, concerted efforts to reduce PFAS usage and proliferation are fragmented and less stringent than in some other developed nations. The European Union, on the other hand, has already proposed a comprehensive ban on all PFAS by 2030. Denmark, Germany and Sweden have begun phasing out of forever chemicals. In general, American legislative efforts and regulatory actions for a PFAS-free future are dismal given the widespread acknowledgement within the medical and scientific communities about their toxic threats to human health and the environment.
Although the growing medical and environmental concerns over the toxicity of “forever chemicals” have led to increased public awareness and initial steps toward regulatory actions, a significant inconsistency exists in how government health officials and authorities address another well-documented toxic chemical: fluoride. This discrepancy is particularly concerning given the long-term health risks fluoride poses, especially to children. While PFAS have been the focus of substantial scientific and regulatory analysis, in contrast, fluoride, which is widely used in drinking water and dental products, continues to be endorsed by industry-compromised public health authorities throughout the federal and state governments despite mounting evidence of its toxicity and serious debilitating health risks. This highlights our nation’s scientific and medical hypocrisy: while one toxic chemical (PFAS) is increasingly alarming federal health officials, another (fluoride) continues to be used extensively without any urgent scrutiny.
In 2022, the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research released a comprehensive report showing that oral health in the U.S. has not improved in 22 years. In fact, it has declined and 70 percent of children and adolescents are now fluoride-overdosed.
Studies have shown that excessive fluoride exposure can lead to dental and skeletal fluorosis, neurological damage, and endocrine disruption. Children are particularly vulnerable, with research indicating that high fluoride levels can negatively impact cognitive development.
Several factors contribute to the failure of federal health officials and the medical establishment to take the health risks of fluoride seriously. Of course, historical precedent and public health policy play a significant role. Fluoride has been added to public water supplies for over 70 years as a measure to prevent tooth decay. This long-standing practice has ingrained fluoride’s image as a safe and beneficial public health intervention.
The fluoride industry
Corporate and political pressure also plays a crucial role. The fluoride industry, which includes manufacturers of dental products and private companies involved in water fluoridation chemicals, has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. It is no longer a secret that political lobbying and corporate pressure significantly influence public health policies. For instance, the American Dental Association (ADA) has been a strong advocate for water fluoridation and intentionally downplays or dismisses fluoride’s health risks. Economic interests further complicate the issue. Fluoride is a byproduct of industrial aluminum and phosphate fertilizer production. Utilizing fluoride in water fluoridation and dental products provides an economic benefit to these industries by reducing waste disposal costs.
The primary beneficiaries of continued fluoride use in drinking water and dental products are industrial producers and dental product manufacturers.
Manufacturers of toothpaste, mouthwash, dental gels and foams, fluoride varnishes and dental floss also benefit from the widespread belief in fluoride’s dental health benefits. The pharmaceutical industry’s mouthpiece Wikipedia, for example, claims there have been only three reported cases of fluoride toxicity associated with toothpaste ingestion, when in fact there are over 23,000 reports of toothpaste-related fluoride poisoning annually. This represents hundreds of emergency room visits for fluoride poisoning at substantial and unnecessary medical cost. But our exposure to fluoride is not limited to our water utilities and dental products. In regions where the water supply is not fluoridated, children may be prescribed fluoride tablets or drops. Some popular children’s multivitamins include fluoride.
Canadian studies, for example, indicate that children under three should have no fluoride whatsoever. The Journal of the Canadian Dental Association states that “Fluoride supplements should not be recommended for children less than 3 years old.” Since these supplements contain the same amount of fluoride as water does, they are basically saying that children under the age of three shouldn’t be drinking fluoridated water at all, under any circumstances.
Beverages made with fluoridated water
Beverages made with fluoridated water, including sodas, juices, and teas, may contain fluoride, and foods prepared with fluoridated water contain trace amounts of fluoride. Researchers writing in the Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry found that fruit juices, in particular, contain significant amounts of fluoride. In one study, a variety of popular juices and juice blends were analyzed and it was discovered that 42% of the samples examined had more than l ppm of fluoride, with some brands of grape juice containing up to 6.8 ppm. The authors cite the common practice of using fluoride-containing insecticide in growing grapes as a factor in these high levels, and they suggest that the fluoride content of beverages be printed on their labels, as is other nutritional information.
Even some medications, including certain antibiotics and antifungal drugs, contain fluoride. And here’s a little-publicized fact: Cooking can greatly increase a food’s fluoride content. Peas, for example, contain 12 micrograms of fluoride when raw and 1500 micrograms after they are cooked in fluoridated water.
During the past four years, several studies further warrant national attention because they are directly associated with other rising health epidemics. A study out of the University of Southern California’s School of Medicine analyzed fluoride levels in mother–child pairs at pregnancy and later evaluated the children’s behavior after three years. Children exposed to increases in fluoride in the womb were twice as likely to develop neurobehavioral problems including emotional reactivity, anxiety and somatic complaints. A similar finding was confirmed earlier by Canadian researchers at York University that discovered higher rates of medically-diagnosed ADHD in American children with higher levels of fluoridated water. A 2019 study published in JAMA Pediatrics found that higher fluoride exposure during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children. A Kenyan study published in the American Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences reported that auditory working memory significantly declined as fluoride concentration in drinking water increased, confirming the results of an earlier systematic review showing lower IQ in children in high-fluoride areas. These effects were observed at concentrations as low as 0.5 mg/L – the low end of the scale recommended by the World Health Organization, which recommends fluoridation at concentrations as high as 1.5 mg/L.
British researchers at the University of Kent observed a 30 percent increase of hypothyroidism in areas where fluoridation of the public water supply was highest (above 0.3 mg per liter). This is especially alarming for Americans, which sets the recommended fluoride level in water at 0.7 mg/L, twice that of England. With heart disease as the major killer of Americans, a 2022 Spanish study now demonstrates that fluoridated water calcifies and hardens arteries. People with chronic renal disease were observed to be especially at high risk
Reproductive Health
Data suggest that the damaging effects of fluoride extend to reproductive health as well. A 2013 study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology showed a link between fluoride exposure and male infertility in mice. The study’s findings suggest that sodium fluoride impairs the ability of sperm cells to normally fertilize the egg through a process known as chemotaxis.
When fluoride is ingested, approximately 93% of it is absorbed into the bloodstream. A good proportion of the chemical is excreted, but the rest is deposited in the bones and teeth, and is capable of causing a crippling skeletal fluorosis. This condition damages the musculoskeletal and nervous systems and results in muscle wasting, limited joint motion, spine deformities, and calcification of the ligaments, as well as neurological deficits. Large numbers of people in Japan, China, India, the Middle East, and Africa have been diagnosed with skeletal fluorosis from drinking naturally fluoridated water. In India alone, nearly a million people suffer from the affliction.
Although the American Dental Association and the government consider dental fluorosis only a cosmetic problem, the American Journal of Public Health says that “…brittleness of moderately and severely mottled teeth may be associated with elevated caries levels.” In other words, in these cases the fluoride is causing the exact problem that it’s supposed to prevent. Yiamouyiannis adds, “In highly naturally-fluoridated areas, the teeth actually crumble as a result. These are the first visible symptoms of fluoride poisoning.” In addition, the pro-fluoride camp repeats the faulty wisdom that fluoride enhances the formation of fluorapatite, a component of tooth enamel. On the other hand, they refuse to mention that studies show that this fluorapatite layer is just six nanometers thick, less than 1/10000th the width of a strand of hair and therefore unlikely to have much of an impact on strengthening or re-mineralizing teeth.
At one time, fluoride therapy was recommended for building denser bones and preventing fractures associated with osteoporosis. Now the peer-reviewed medical literature confirms that fluoride is associated with bone breakage. Three studies reported in The Journal of the American Medical Association showed links between hip fractures and fluoride. One study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reports that people given fluoride to cure their osteoporosis actually wound up with an increased nonvertebral fracture rate.
Finally, we might take a very brief look at some evidence supporting a fluoride-cancer association. Numerous studies demonstrate links between fluoridation and cancer; however, agencies promoting fluoride consistently refute or cover up these findings. Almost a half-century ago, Drs. John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burk, former chief chemist at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), released a study that linked fluoridation to 10,000 cancer deaths per year in the U.S. Their inquiry, which compared cancer deaths in the ten largest fluoridated American cities to those in the ten largest unfluoridated cities between 1940 and 1950, discovered a 5% greater cancer rate in the fluoridated areas. Unsurprisingly, the NCI refuted its own findings. To settle the matter, a Congressional subcommittee instructed the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to perform another investigation. That study, due in 1980, was not released until 1990. In the meantime, the EPA raised the standard fluoride level in drinking water from 2.4 to 4 ppm. Critics of the EPA decision charged it with being politically motivated without any concern for public health.
And what were the NTP study results? Out of 130 male rats that ingested 45 to 79 ppm of fluoride, 5 developed osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer. There were cases, in both males and females at those doses, of squamous cell carcinoma in the mouth. Both rats and mice had dose-related fluorosis of the teeth, and female rats suffered osteosclerosis of the long bones. When Yiamouyiannis analyzed the same data, he found a particularly rare form of liver cancer, known as hepatocholangiocarcinoma. This cancer is so rare, according to Yiamouyiannis, that the odds of its appearance in the study by chance are 1 in 2 million in male mice and l in 100,000 in female mice. He also found precancerous changes in oral squamous cells, an increase in squamous cell tumors and cancers, and thyroid follicular cell tumors as a result of increasing levels of fluoride in drinking water.
Water fluoridation and fluoride-enhanced dental products
Aside from the health risks, water fluoridation and fluoride-enhanced dental products are unnecessary. Many countries do not fluoridate water supplies or have ceased fluoridation altogether. In 2013, Israel’s Ministry of Health committed to a countrywide phase-out of fluoridation. The decision came after Israel’s Supreme Court deemed the existing health regulations requiring fluoridation to be based on science that is “outdated” and “no longer widely accepted. European countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, as well as Japan, do not fluoridate their drinking water.
There are safer and equally effective alternatives to fluoride for dental health and water treatment. Xylitol, a natural sugar alcohol found in many fruits and vegetables, has been shown to reduce tooth decay by inhibiting the growth of Streptococcus mutans, a primary bacterium responsible for cavities. Hydroxyapatite, a naturally occurring mineral form of calcium apatite, is an effective alternative in toothpaste; hydroxyapatite promotes remineralization and strengthens tooth enamel without the toxicity associated with fluoride. Silver diamine fluoride (SDF), although it contains fluoride, if used in very minute amounts has been proven effective in arresting dental caries with a lower risk of systemic exposure compared to water fluoridation. For water treatment, technologies such as reverse osmosis and activated alumina can effectively remove contaminants, including fluoride, providing safe drinking water without the need for chemical additives.
The stark contrast in how PFAS and fluoride are addressed by health officials underscores a significant inconsistency in public health policy. While PFAS have rightfully garnered attention due to their harmful effects, the continued endorsement of fluoride, despite clear evidence of its toxicity, reveals an underlying issue influenced by historical precedent, corporate interests, and political lobbying. Ever since Harvard University researcher Philippe Grandjean first added fluoride to a list of developmental neurotoxicants considered especially harmful to the developing brain in a 2014 paper published in The Lancet, our health officials have suffered from institutionalized cognitive dissonance by categorically denying fluoride-induced illness. Fortunately, the pushback against decades of lies, misinformation and media propaganda to seduce the American public into accepting corporate and government sponsored junk research supporting fluoridation continues to reach a tipping point towards public safety. In 2021, an alliance of public health organizations and watch groups, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Michael Connett, filed suit against the EPA in a federal court trial to bring an end to fluoridation once and for all.
To truly protect public health, it is crucial to re-evaluate the use of fluoride in drinking water and dental products and consider safer, scientifically proven alternatives. This shift would ensure that public health policies are based on current scientific evidence rather than outdated practices and economic interests.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Richard Galeis the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.
Dr. Gary Nullis host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow.
They are regular contributors to Global Research.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Canada yesterday; Germany today; the whole of the West tomorrow.
It’s only a matter of time until de-banking political opponents becomes standard operating procedure in the United States — bastion of Democracy™ that it is.
“German bank Berliner Volksbank has closed the donation account of the right-wing antiglobalist opposition party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) following a petition by a group calling itself Grandmothers Against the Right (Omas gegen Rechts).
The group launched their petition in May, stating that the bank, which claims to stand for tolerance and against right-wing extremism, should not be allowed to accommodate an account for the AfD. The organisation handed over 33,500 signatures to the bank on Wednesday, July 3rd, to demand the termination of the account, and after meeting the chairman of the board of directors, Carsten Jung, Grandmothers Against the Right announced that their venture has been successful.”
“Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Sunday vowed to freeze bank accounts of the truckers protesting his COVID-19 vaccine mandates, while the movement’s fundraising website remained down.
Right-wing Christian fundraising site GiveSendGo remained down and the platform has not said anything for over 24 hours, despite the website and official page for the Canadian truckers appearing to be hacked and non-functional on Monday.
A leak website also said it received a cache of information, including donor details to the Freedom Convoy protest, after the fundraising site was targeted in a cyberattack on Sunday night.
Protesters had raised more than $8 million of funding to support their cause, as they blockade roads in the Canadian capital Ottawa. The protests, which have been associated with the anti-vaccination movement and the far-right*, have gathered momentum all over the world.”
*“Far-right” is now a meaningless expression of disdain for the peasants who challenge state power.
If everyone is “far-right,” no one is “far-right”; the modifier “far” by definition signifies an outlier of some kind when, in fact, the corporate state calls anyone who disagrees with it by the name.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.
Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter.
Featured image: AfD election poster from 2014. The slogan translates as “Washington spies. Brussels dictates. Berlin obeys.” (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)
The original source of this article is Global Research
Trump advisers envision a ‘radical reorientation’ in which Washington takes a back seat to Europe — and cuts a deal with Putin over Ukraine.
onald Trump has threatened to leave NATO so many times — or has appeared to, anyway — that for many of his critics, it’s a question of when, not whether, he’d ditch the 75-year-old alliance if he’s reelected president in November.
In truth, Trump would be unlikely to quit NATO outright, according to interviews with former Trump national security officials and defense experts who are likely to serve in a second Trump term. But even if he doesn’t formally leave the organization, that doesn’t mean NATO would survive a second Trump term intact.
In return for continued U.S. participation, Trump would not only expect that European countries drastically increase their spending on NATO — his main complaint when he was president — but also undertake what one defense expert familiar with the thinking inside Trump’s national-security advisory circle, Dan Caldwell describes as a “radical reorientation” of NATO.
“We don’t really have a choice anymore,” Caldwell told POLITICO Magazine, citing rising U.S. debt, flagging military recruiting, and a defense industrial base that can’t keep up with the challenge from both Russia and China.
U.S. troops are deployed to Romania along with forces from other NATO member states as the alliance looks to boost security on its southeastern flank amid Russia’s war in Ukraine. | Andreea Alexandru/AP
Neither Trump nor his campaign has yet named a new national security team or openly embraced a new agenda for NATO. The campaign did not respond to several requests for comment for this article.
But the former officials and experts who spoke for this article — some on the record and some on condition of anonymity — are engaged in an ongoing debate within Trump world over how hard to push the Europeans toward a security architecture more to Trump’s liking.
According to these officials, the U.S. would keep its nuclear umbrella over Europe during a second Trump term by maintaining its airpower and bases in Germany, England and Turkey, and its naval forces as well. Meanwhile, the bulk of infantry, armor, logistics and artillery would ultimately pass from American to European hands. Parts of this plan were floated in an article published in February 2023 by the Trump-affiliated Center for Renewing America, but in the months since, there’s been an emerging and more detailed consensus among Trump supporters on an outline of a new concept for NATO.
Meeting with President Joe Biden in Washington earlier this month, outgoing NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg (left) announced that 23 of the 31 non-U.S. NATO members will now make the alliance’s 2 percent target. | Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
The shift they envision would involve “significantly and substantially downsizing America’s security role — stepping back instead of being the primary provider of combat power in Europe, somebody who provides support only in times of crisis,” said Caldwell, who recently served as a senior advisor to Russell Vought, the former senior Trump administration official who in May was named policy director for the Republican National Convention and who is expected to play a senior role in a second Trump administration. Vought is also president of the CRA.
Another part of the emerging Trump game plan is a two-tier NATO system. That idea, first proposed by another senior former Trump administration official, retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, means that member countries that have not yet met the target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense “wouldn’t enjoy the defense largess and security guarantee of the United States,” according to one Trump-aligned national security expert who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. This could be seen to be in defiance of Article 5 of the treaty, which obliges every member to take “such action it deems necessary” to assist whoever is attacked. But members of the Trump foreign-policy brain trust noted that the language in Article 5 is flexible and does not require any member to respond with military force.
Trump has consistently expressed pique that NATO allies “rip us off” by not meeting the 2 percent spending target. Most recently, Trump actually appeared to invite a Russian attack against NATO deadbeats, saying he’d “encourage” the Russians to “do whatever the hell they want” with member countries that have not yet met the defense spending target — a decade after the NATO allies pledged to do so at their 2014 summit in Wales.
A swift resolution of the two-and-a-half-year Ukraine conflict would also likely play a key role in Trump’s plans for NATO. As part of a plan for Ukraine that has not been previously reported, the presumptive GOP nominee is mulling a deal whereby NATO commits to no further eastward expansion — specifically into Ukraine and Georgia — and negotiates with Russian President Vladimir Putin over how much Ukrainian territory Moscow can keep, according to two other Trump-aligned national security experts.
Top: Reservists in an infantry unit of the Lithuanian Army relax during training at a military site on May 28 near Rudninkai, Lithuania. Bottom: Military aircrafts at Lulea-Kallax Airport, Sweden, on March 4 during the NATO Nordic Response 24 military exercise. | Sean Gallup/Getty Images; Anders Wiklund/AFP via Getty Image
Altogether, Trump’s new approach in these areas would amount to a revolution in NATO’s affairs — one that many critics say Europe is wholly incapable of accomplishing in the foreseeable future. The U.S. is by far the largest contributor to NATO operations, spending about $860 billion on defense that represented 68 percent of the total expenditure of the NATO countries in 2023. That is well over 10 times more than that of Germany, the second largest-spending country. A substantial portion of that U.S. expenditure, which amounts to about 3.5 percent of U.S. GDP, goes to the defense of Europe though the Pentagon refuses to divulge publicly how much, says Jeremy Shapiro, research director for the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Meeting with President Joe Biden in Washington earlier this month, outgoing NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced that 23 of the 31 non-U.S. NATO members will now make the alliance’s 2 percent target. “That’s more than twice as many as four years ago,” Stoltenberg said. This is expected to include Germany for the first time since the early 1990s, and that country’s hawkish defense minister, Boris Pistorius, appears eager to do better, calling for Germany to shoot up to 3.5 percent of GDP on defense.
But even if Germany hits that mark, some Trump-aligned former defense officials say it’s still not nearly enough. “I’m in favor of sustaining the North Atlantic alliance, but I think the only way to do that — and I tell this to the Europeans all the time — is for them to assume a lot more of the burden,” said Elbridge Colby, who led the development of Trump’s National Defense Strategy as his deputy assistant defense secretary for strategy and force development and who is said to be in line for a senior national security post in a second Trump administration.
“We can’t be doing 10 times what the Germans are doing anymore, and we’ve got to be prepared to be tough with them. There’s got to be consequences,” Colby said in an interview. “We want NATO to be active, but we want it to be with the Europeans in the lead. That was the original idea. That was Dwight Eisenhower’s idea.” Only now, faced with a menacing China, the need for making such changes is far more urgent, Colby said. “The United States does not have enough military forces to go around. … We can’t break our spear in Europe against the Russians when we know the Chinese and Russians are collaborating, and the Chinese are a more dangerous and significant threat.”
Stoltenberg speaks at a press conference in Kyiv, on April 29 amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A swift resolution of the two-and-a-half year Ukraine conflict would also likely play a key role in Trump’s plans for NATO. | Roman Pilpey/AFP via Getty Images
Some of the Trump-aligned experts are mostly focused on the spending issue, while others want European countries to both spend more and assume far more of the military burden. Kiron Skinner, Trump’s former policy-planning chief under Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a key player in Project 2025, an exhaustive agenda for Trump’s second term, emphasizes the need for more European spending as a starting point: “We need to right-size America’s role in the world in the 21st century, and that’s what I think this is about,” she said. “The U.S. is not the world’s ATM machine. NATO has a significant contribution to make in the Atlantic theater and the Indo-Pacific theater, but we need to do more strategic thinking on both sides.”
The first test of Trump’s NATO intentions, should he win another term, would be how he handles Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine. The U.S. has stepped up its central role in NATO since the Ukraine war began, sending 20,000 additional troops to Europe (making for a total of 100,000) in addition to new air, land, maritime, cyber and space capabilities. According to the two Trump-aligned national security experts familiar with the thinking inside Trump’s inner circle, the presumptive GOP nominee is now considering making a deal with Putin on which countries could join NATO, particularly Ukraine and Georgia. Such a plan would scuttle NATO’s vague promise of future membership to Ukraine — a policy that Biden has continued, albeit without committing to a timeline.
In April, TheWashington Post reported that Trump’s tentative plan also involves pressing Ukraine to cede Crimea and the Donbas border region to Russia.
“I would expect a very quick deal to end the conflict,” said Kevin Roberts, the president of The Heritage Foundation, the influential Trump-aligned think tank that has produced Project 2025. Roberts said in an interview that he could convey no inside knowledge of Trump’s plans.
But according to one of the national security experts familiar with Trump’s thinking, speaking on condition of anonymity, Trump “would be open to something foreclosing NATO expansion and not going back to the 1991 borders for Ukraine. That would be on the table. But that doesn’t mean surrendering any other possibility, including supplying large amounts of weapons to Ukraine.”
Trump himself has not publicly detailed his plans for Ukraine, but on the campaign trail he has repeatedly vowed to end the war as one of his first tasks — “before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we win the presidency,” he declared at a June 22 rally in Philadelphia. Asked on a June 21 podcast whether he was willing to take NATO expansion into Ukraine off the table, Trump replied — in remarks that went largely unreported — that promising NATO membership to Ukraine had been a “mistake” and “really why this war started.” Many in the Trump camp openly prefer a non-NATO Ukraine. “NATO has already expanded well beyond what we need for an anti-hegemonic coalition” against Russia, said Colby.
On June 14, Putin said Russia would be ready to negotiate an end to the war if Ukraine renounced any ambition to join NATO and withdrew troops from the four regions that Moscow has claimed as its own. Asked in his June 27 debate with Biden if such terms were acceptable, Trump replied, “No, they’re not acceptable. But look, this is a war that never should have started.”
Critics say pressuring Ukraine to surrender territory would only vindicate Putin’s horrific and murderous land grab. But Trump has made it clear he has as little love for Ukraine as he does for NATO, telling House Speaker Mike Johnson during his visit to Capitol Hill in June that Ukraine is “never going to be there for us” and “we should pay OUR TROOPS more instead of sending $60b to Ukraine,” according to a tweet from Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz. Another GOP representative, Don Bacon, told reporters in recounting the same conversation that Trump was dismissive of Kyiv’s goal of driving out the Russians, which has been Biden’s unstinting policy. “He’s like, if Ukraine wins, what will be the benefit?” Bacon said.
A transfer of authority ceremony from the 101st Airborne Division to the 10th Mountain Division in Bucharest, Romania, April 5, 2023. The biggest issue with Trump’s approach to NATO may be that the European nations are plainly not prepared to fill such a role anytime soon. | Andreea Alexandru/AP
The biggest issue with Trump’s emerging approach to NATO may be that the European nations are plainly not prepared to fill a dramatically expanded military role anytime soon — despite their tentative plans for “Trump-proofing” NATO by pledging more spending, experts say. But they may have little choice since Trump would have more leverage to demand what he wants from Europe this time around because the U.S. is still supplying the lion’s share of military aid to Ukraine, and Europe is weaker economically and more dependent on U.S. energy supplies than ever before.
European leaders are in denial, many U.S. critics say. “They don’t really have any idea of how to replace the United States,” says Shapiro of the European Council on Foreign Relations. Fitful efforts by French President Emmanuel Macron to push for more independence from the U.S. defense umbrella have fallen flat. Stoltenberg, in the final months of his 10-year term as NATO’s secretary-general, has taken to arguing that Americans ought to be satisfied that European defense is helping to sustain the U.S. defense industry. “They’ve decided to have abiding faith that the U.S. will be there,” said Shapiro. “It seems to me that’s not really a plan, it’s the hope you have in the absence of a plan.”
Critics in the Trump camp say the Europeans need to develop cross-border defense industries rather than national ones to increase efficiency and capacity and deliver on a still-unfulfilled pledge to vastly expand NATO’s quick-response force from 40,000 to some 300,000 troops. But with the exception of some countries like Poland, many European governments remain “borderline delusional” about what is required, says Caldwell.
For his part, Trump continues to be coy about any details for Europe and NATO. However, as part of his campaign’s “Agenda 47” platform, Trump said in a video posted in March that “we have to finish the process we began under my administration of fundamentally reevaluating NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission.” Trump also recently told Nigel Farage, his far-right British supporter, that the U.S. will “100 percent” remain in NATO under his leadership as long as European countries “play fair.”
Vought, the new GOP convention policy director and the former director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Trump administration is a hard-right nationalist who believes the main threat is China. Vought, who is considered a likely candidate for chief of staff in a second Trump term, did not respond to an interview request, but according to associates familiar with his thinking, Vought also believes that Washington should play a more “dormant” role in NATO along the lines of the recommendations made by Sumantra Maitra, the analyst at Vought’s Center for Renewing America who wrote that influential article last year.
Roberts says a flood of worried Europeans have come through Heritage in recent months, fretting about what might happen under a Trump presidency. “There have been meetings with two or three ambassadors I’ve had of allies — and these are great countries — who just don’t get it,” he said. “They don’t get that you can’t come to the United States from Europe and say you must give us more money because Putin is going to invade our country. The American taxpayer says, ‘What have you done? What has Germany done? Why do they continue to buy Russian natural gas?’ Fix your own backyard before you come to us for a handout.”
Germany stopped directly importing Russian gas after Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, but Germany’s second- and third-largest suppliers of natural gas, the Netherlands and Belgium, reportedly still import significant quantities of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Russia’s Yamal LNG project. As Trump’s disaffected former national security adviser, John Bolton, wrote in his memoir, The Room Where It Happened, Trump was continually peeved by this issue while president. At a news conference with Stoltenberg at the 2018 NATO Summit, Trump fulminated: “We’re supposed to protect you, and yet you’re paying all this money to Russia.”
“I feel like they’re almost going through stages of grief in Europe,” Colby says. “They moved past rejection to a sort of acceptance but they haven’t gotten yet to, ‘OK, here’s how we deal with this.’ I do think there is significant movement, but it’s too slow and too little. They need to be producing combat credible forces to deal with a Russian attack, like NOW. … They’re giving themselves a pat on the back for what they should have been producing 10 years ago.”
Even some former Trump officials acknowledge that Washington probably doesn’t want to go too far in handing over leadership to the Europeans. Trump’s isolationist instincts could accidentally boomerang and lure the U.S. into a wider war. Colby, for one, points with concern to Macron’s suggestion of putting French troops into the Ukraine conflict and some of the provocative rhetoric coming out of the more hawkish East European leaders. Among them is Latvia’s President Edgars Rinkēvičs, who recently declared in Latin: “Russia delenda est.” That was an invocation of Cato’s prescription for ancient Carthage, “Carthago delenda est,” which means “Carthage must be destroyed.”
“Russia must be destroyed? They have 6,000 nuclear weapons. The blithe way some people are approaching the escalation issue is just insane to me,” Colby says. “I am very worried about that and the possibility that we might get chain-ganged into a larger war with Russia by such imprudent steps.”
Beyond that, Trump’s pledge not to expand NATO may be far more palatable to European allies than many people realize. In May, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was blunt in saying he didn’t think Ukraine could become part of NATO for perhaps 30 years. And on June 17, Stoltenberg indicated that a cease-fire wouldn’t be enough to set NATO membership for Ukraine in motion. “We have to be certain that this is peace and not just a pause,” he said. “We need assurances that this is the end, it stops here.”
Then-President Donald Trump (left) speaks with Stoltenberg at the NATO summit on Dec. 4, 2019, in Watford, England. Trump’s pledge not to expand NATO may be far more palatable to European allies than many people realize. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
But a new Trump administration, even in the most hopeful case, is likely to be jarring to the Atlantic alliance. Many U.S. officials — including Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the Supreme Allied commander for Europe — insist that 2 percent should be a floor, not a ceiling, for the Europeans. And they note that Barack Obama, among other U.S. presidents, chronically complained about European “free-riders,” which is why Obama insisted on the 2 percent target in Wales in 2014.
According to one senior European diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity, the EU governments are acutely aware of all this. “It’s difficult to assess whether we will be able to do enough to really placate Trump, because we find it hard to predict what he will or will not do,” the diplomat said. Europe also recognizes that China “could have an impact on the military role the U.S. would be able to play in helping to protect Europe. There may not be enough capacity for two theaters.”
In the end, only Trump can say how far he will go in upending NATO. Bolton told POLITICO in February that Trump’s “goal here is not to strengthen NATO, it’s to lay the groundwork to get out.” But most former Trump officials appear to believe the alliance should be preserved — and they are already claiming credit for preserving it thanks to Trump’s ultimatums to NATO. They argue that Obama only complained about Europe’s stinginess; Trump actually did something about it. Trump’s last national security advisor, Robert O’Brien, in a newly published essay in Foreign Affairs, writes that “his pressure on NATO governments to spend more on defense made the alliance stronger.”
“Hundreds of billions of additional money went into NATO contributions partly as a result of Trump,” said Skinner. “I’m very optimistic about a positive future for NATO if it gets the foundation right.”
Whether the foundation is right may be in the eye of the beholder. If the benchmark is hitting the 2 percent spending target, Europe may be on track to become an alliance that Trump will stay in. But as his advisers made clear, if Trump enters the Oval Office a second time it seems very likely that just delivering 2 percent of GDP won’t be enough.
In other words, Trump’s national security goalposts may be moving. Just how far is not clear, but the future of NATO — and of Europe — rests on the answer.
Il faut gouverner au centre et il faut diaboliser le reste, le rejeter dans les limbes. On en revient comme toujours aux années Giscard, ce vrai inspirateur de Macron, bien plus que l’autre initié Mitterrand. Comme a dit un crétin à l’indéboulonnable Ruth K. : « Il y a deux partis diaboliques dans cette élection ». Les deux satanistes qu’il faudrait exterminer – que l’on exterminerait comme des non-vaccinés dans un monde meilleur- ce sont les extrêmes, c’est-à-dire la droite et la gauche, ou pour mieux dire la vraie droite et la vraie gauche (comme disait notre ami Shamir en 2016 quand on espérait un choc entre Trump et Sanders). Ce qui est gentil, ce qui est bon, ce qui est catho-crétin-démocrate et petit vieux, libéral-social-mondial à la sauce Draghi, et UDF au bon vieux sens du terme, c’est Macron, Sunak, Biden, Leyen et tout le reste. Scholz sera remplacé par la catho CDU qui sera encore plus centriste que lui : plus de guerre, plus d’insectes, plus de contrôle numérique, plus de racisme antirusse ou chinois, plus de tout cela, et plus d’obéissance au parapluie US. Car on n’en sort pas de ce centre qui est un cercle dantesque de l’enfer métapolitique occidental. Je crois qu’on en parlait déjà aux heureux temps de la Révolution : le marais on disait. Hitler aussi était le centriste du NSDAP entre les féodaux, les nationalistes et les Strasser : on a vu où ça mène le centre. Un coup à gauche (URSS), un coup à droite (France-occident). D’ailleurs l’idole des jeunes Poutine est aussi un centriste dénoncé comme tel par Paul Craig Roberts : avec ses ronds-de-jambes il nous mène rondement à la troisième guerre mondiale. Chez lui c’est German Graf qui triomphe, pas le simulacre Douguine. Et les leaders des Brics ? Des centristes aussi : Modhi, Lula, les émirats, ils adorent eux aussi écouter l’ONU, les labos, les GAFAM, le FMI… Dans le journal Haaretz présumé de gauche (en fait c’est centre-gauche comme Libé ou Le Monde, ou le Guardian UK acheté par Fink et les fonds de pension US et bien calmé depuis) on lisait ces jours-ci : « De Farage à « l’effet Gaza » : les extrémistes de la politique sectaire décideront-ils des élections britanniques ? Xénophobes de droite et renégats de gauche, torrents de TikToks, « guerrier intergalactique » et campagne pour un vote musulman coordonné : les candidats indépendants et marginaux à travers le Royaume-Uni espèrent attirer des électeurs éloignés de la politique dominante. Ils pourraient avoir un impact le 4 juillet… »
Le renégat de gauche on l’a compris c’est celui qui manifeste contre CE QUI NE SE PASSE PAS à Gaza (car plus on est centriste plus on est hypnotisé ou anesthésié contre toutes sortes de phénomènes, la pauvreté, la pollution à l’éolienne, le prix de la caisse électrique, le nombre de migrants, les guerres folles et innombrables de l’Otan, les règlements de Bruxelles, etc.). Je rappelle que Biden est tout sauf de gauche. Il incarne le centre : pas de sexe, pas de religion (cf. Bergoglio), pas de nation, pas de race, pas de variété mais un bon gros monde sous commande milliardaire et techno-US. D’ailleurs la femelle Gates le soutient pour la prochaine campagne avec les labos pharmaceutiques (remarquez, le vrai/faux rebelle Trump ne fut pas très fameux, mais c’est une autre histoire).
Répondons à Haaretz donc. Oui, depuis quand des extrémistes devraient-ils voter ? Les musulmans sont fâchés avec Sunak et les conservateurs, comment pourrait-on leur accorder le droit de vote ? Idem le génocide et l’infanticide de Gaza est une manifestation d’humanisme centriste, comme Hiroshima ou le reste, comme le confinement ou la vaccination globale obligatoire, il faut en prendre acte. La très humaniste et «national-sioniste» chaîne CNews (j’ai gardé le bandeau) avait fait venir le maire de Nice pour lui demander comment on pouvait se débarrasser des non-vaccinés (ils voulaient dire quoi : les asphyxier, les égorger, les manger ?) que ne lui demande-t-on de nous débarrasser à ce maire des non-électeurs de Macron ? Voilà où nous en sommes avec ces centristes. Ils sont le centre de la terre. Voyez des immortels comme Bourlanges ou comme Bayrou, voyez le centriste Schwab de Davos, plus bourgeois moliéresque et technophile que jamais, le modèle de Paul Nizan : il est le centre du monde, le reste doit crever, fût-ce à l’article 16 comme les médias nous l’ont déjà appris tout guillerets, eux qui sont nourris de la graisse de contribuables-endettés et protégés par les grippeminauds milliardaires (eux sont victimes d’un cabale de jaloux ! Voyez l’émission sur Youtube !). Martyanov nous apprenait ce matin que le centriste (car russophobe et démocrate quelque chose, chrétien, crétin ou social) Danemark imposait de facto les insectes dans nos assiettes. Car pourquoi se gêner ? Il faut se débarrasser de l’humanité diabolique comme des partis diaboliques, et rappelait, comme fait la presse, que sous la pluie le réchauffement veille et que nous contribuons par notre respiration (tiens, tiens…) au réchauffement climatique.
J’ai parlé de Nizan et je reprends mon texte : « Après Nizan se montre visionnaire. Le bourgeois-Jules-Verne, coincé dans son avion, son building ou son condominium, voit le monde comme une émission de télé-réalité. Comme dans le sketch des Guignols qui nous montrait un Balladur effrayé de ces gens qu’il voyait des fois à la télé, et qui étaient des Français… Nizan annonce ici Debord et sa société du spectacle, il annonce aussi le monde des écrans où tout est vu à distance : « Tout ferme bien. Les événements lui parviennent de loin, déformés, rabotés, symbolisés. Il aperçoit seulement des ombres. Il n’est pas en situation de recevoir directement les chocs du monde. Toute sa civilisation est composée d’écrans, d’amortisseurs. D’un entrecroisement de schémas intellectuels. D’un échange de signes. Il vit au milieu des reflets. Toute son économie, toute sa politique aboutissent à l’isoler. » Quelle vision que cet écran, soixante ans avant notre intégrale invasion par les écrans d’ordinateurs et de smartphones qui nous disent maintenant comment nous devons vivre et surtout mourir. La campagne électorale en France risque de déboucher sur une sanglante dictature centriste : les gilets jaunes et leurs milliers de mutilés à côté ce sera une Garden party (relisez Marx et mes textes sur la Seconde République pour rire) Mais il ne faut pas en effet laisser les extrêmes s’ébattre – ni voter – ni respirer. Relisons La Fontaine alors :
« Grippeminaud leur dit : Mes enfants, approchez, Approchez, je suis sourd, les ans en sont la cause. L’un et l’autre approcha ne craignant nulle chose. Aussitôt qu’à portée il vit les contestants, Grippeminaud le bon apôtre Jetant des deux côtés la griffe en même temps, Mit les plaideurs d’accord en croquant l’un et l’autre. Ceci ressemble fort aux débats qu’ont parfois Les petits souverains se rapportant aux Rois. »
Car ce centrisme de « nonagénaire génocidaire » comme je l’ai appelé (Soros, Rothschild, Gates, Bergoglio, Fink, Warren Buffett, etc.) n’a pas de plomb dans l’aile, s’il est centriste en diable avec ses petits macroncitos (comme on dit en Espagne) ou Young Leaders asexués aux affaires. Qui a dit qu’il fallait vomir les tièdes ? Et pourquoi ? Pensez-y…
Twenty-five out of firty states have passed laws that prohibit gender-affirming surgical procedures for youth, puberty blocking medication, hormone therapies, or all three. In some states, such procedures are considered felony or misdemeanor with physicians facing years in prison and fines up to $15,000. However, somе states have bans that are not enforceable or temporarily blocked.
The only way to surpass Joe Biden’s excellency is creating a presidential avatar whose speeches are programmed by ChatGPT.
After USA’s presidential debate, every person who is interested in politics, except for Jill Biden, was wondering how is it possible that the most powerful country in the world can be ruled by an incapable. However, a two minutes reflection may cure such a perplexity. Since the most powerful country in the world is a liberal technocratic regime, Joe Biden is the best of all possible presidents. After all, he doesn’t upset the market, neither attacks the institutions. A president who has sane intellectual faculties tends to deliver disruptive speeches; disruptive speeches tend to upset the market, or to be an attack on the democratic rule of law.
Normal presidents don’t do such things because they are stupid or because they have disruptive ideas. They do it because they need to look like they have the ideas and the impetus for making changes, and they need to maintain such an image because they need votes (for themselves or their allies). It may be the case that the politician actually has disruptive ideas and the impetus for making changes (if he can actually make, it’s another issue), but it can never be the case that a politician will deliberately behave as a dead fish for his voters. However, the market demands precisely a president who stays quiet, but, if he is going to talk, he is better to exalt the virtues of free market. This is an electoral formula that worked in only one place in the world, up till now: Argentina; more precisely, Argentina after a mad Covid lockdown.
In the end of the day, liberalism and democracy are mutually exclusive, because the people are populist and have a conservative temperament. Without bribery or blackmail, it is unlikely that politicians would pass the austerity politics supported by the science of liberal economists. Precisely for this reason, the remaining option for liberalism, that wats to retain its resemblance of democracy, is delegating important choices to Judiciary power. In Brazil, the name of Justice Alexandre de Moraes is the favorite example of those who want to claim that this country lives under a judiciary dictatorship. However, the European Union has the practical politics of open borders because of a kind of Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, which, in 2012, by means of the Hirsi decision, concluded that Italy (and therefore every country of EU) cannot expel illegal immigrants. Well, the explosion of immigration is unpopular and could never be attained by votes. On the other hand, illegal immigration is notoriously sought by liberal economists, who watch over public accounts and private profits, and see workers without rights as a source of wealth.
The most notorious case of judicial activism in the USA is Roe v. Wade, which considered abortion a constitutional right and so prohibited its prohibition. This is the most notorious case because it fits right in the narratives of both progressive Left and fusionist Right, that leave the labor issue and focuses on sexual morality. Actually, judicial activism is more deep and more comprehensive in the USA. Let us see: how would be possible that a democratic industrialized country in the 19th century did not transform itself in a labor paradise, if there are more workers than patrons voting, and even a firm tradition of labor unions? The answer is the same as ever: the Supreme Court. With the Lochner Era (1987 – 1937), the Supreme Court sought to transform USA into an economic liberal country despite the voters’ will, ruling any labor regulation as unconstitutional. To put an end to it, only with Franklin Delano Roosevelt packing the Supreme Court – a thing that, nowadays, is an abominable heresy against democratic rule of law, according to every “expert”. On the other hand, liberalism allows a thousand and one regulations – as long as they are made by technocrats, whether from the State (see the FDA and its analogues around the world) or from the financial market (such as the ESG ranking).
For a long time, liberalism was appeased with solid technocratic institutions: whoever won, he could not take unconstitutional or anti-scientific measures. Now, for some reason, liberalism is hysterical with statements. Well, Joe Biden will not disrespect any institution, nor will he make any credible statement. The only way to surpass Joe Biden’s excellency is creating a presidential avatar whose speeches are programmed by ChatGPT.
Der Friedensstifter 
