Trump’s war on “woke” ideology could trigger mass exit of Pentagon staff
By Ahmed Adel | November 12, 2024
If President-elect Donald Trump follows through on his campaign promises in his victory speech, the Pentagon could see personnel fired, especially “woke” generals who have embraced progressive movements associated with racial and social issues.
In his last term, Trump faced numerous forms of resistance, especially from the Pentagon, largely due to his position on security issues such as NATO or his willingness to put troops on the streets to suppress protests in the US. Former generals and defence secretaries have been some of the former president’s fiercest critics, labelling him a fascist and saying he was unfit to be president, a Reuters investigation found.
Having gained experience in his first term, Trump is expected to prioritise loyalty in key elements of his administration, which could lead to the removal of military officers and career civil servants he deems disloyal.
In June, when questioned by Fox News, Trump said he would fire generals described as “woke.”
“I would fire them. You can’t have (a) woke military,” Trump said.
According to the Reuters investigation, sources believe that the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr, a former fighter pilot and widely respected black military commander, is in Trump’s crosshairs after he spoke out on racial discrimination in the US following the May 2020 killing of George Floyd.
During the election campaign, Vice President-elect JD Vance expressed his opinion during an interview by stating that political leaders have to “get rid of them and replace” the people who are not aligned with the political vision that the head of state is trying to implement.
This speech corroborates the fear of some of the American elite who understand that this anti-woke movement by Trump could become broad.
Trump’s strongest anti-woke messaging during the election campaign aimed at transgender troops, and it is recalled that he had previously banned transgender service members, posting a campaign ad on X portraying them as weak, with the vow that “WE WILL NOT HAVE A WOKE MILITARY!”
Removing woke ideology from the US military is seen as imperative by Trump, especially after US News & World Report ranked Russia, and not the US, as having the world’s “strongest military.” Therefore, Trump will not only purge woke ideologues from the military but also those responsible for the war in Ukraine since, as it turns out, the war is responsible for strengthing Russia instead of weakening it.
US military figures facing repercussions for their fervent support for the war in Ukraine is something welcomed by Moscow, which has consistently called for peace negotiations, while the Kiev regime has consistently rejected them despite losing the war and experiencing catastrophic economic decay and demographic decline.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Trump’s statements in favour of peace in Ukraine differentiate him from other political figures in the US.
“At least [Trump] is talking about peace [in Ukraine]. He is not talking about confrontation, about the desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. This distinguishes him favourably from the current US administration. It is difficult to predict what will come next,” Peskov told Rossiya 1 television.
At the same time, Peskov noted that Trump is “less predictable” than current US President Joe Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris, the failed Democratic candidate and rival in the presidential race. According to the Kremlin spokesman, it is not possible to say now whether Trump will stick to the pacifist statements he made during his election campaign.
However, what is certainly predictable is that Trump’s war on “woke” ideology in the US military will not be limited to the purging of generals but also career civil servants at the Pentagon, who could be subjected to loyalty tests, according to current and former officials.
A senior US defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters there was increasing concern within the Pentagon that Trump would purge career civilian employees from the department.
“I’m deeply concerned about their ranks,” the official said, adding that several colleagues had expressed concern about the future of their jobs.
“This will be 2016 on steroids and the fear is that he will hollow out the ranks and expertise in a way that will do irreparable damage to the Pentagon,” the official predicted.
In effect, it appears that great changes are coming to the Pentagon and US military once Trump enters the White House on January 20. How this reflects on policy remains to be seen, but it can be expected that the president-elect will focus more on challenging China and supporting Israel against Iran than the current administration’s priority of challenging Russia and supporting Ukraine.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Russia Will Not Tolerate Powers Alien to Black Sea to Establish Permanent Naval Presence There
Sputnik – 11.11.2024
Moscow is not going to allow powers alien to the Black Sea to maintain a permanent naval presence there, Russian presidential aide Nikolai Patrushev has said.
Russia has no intention of letting anyone weaken its positions in the region in question, Patrushev said during an interview with a Russian newspaper, adding that permanent naval presence of non-Black Sea countries in the waters “in violation of the Montreux Convention” will not be tolerated.
He further pointed out that the Russian Black Sea Fleet still retains its combat capabilities and is ready to repel all naval threats, despite the fact that Kiev’s “aggressive actions” in the region are being “coordinated by NATO specialists.”
In the meantime, Patrushev pointed out, the US and the UK have since lost much of their once-considerable naval power.
The British navy, for example, suffers from a severe deficit of sailors because naval service is simply no longer prestigious there, he said.
“The signs of naval power decline are seen in the US as well,” Patrushev added. “They have a massive fleet on paper, but in reality there is low morale among the seamen, chronic lack of personnel, the lack of repair capabilities and shipyard workers.”
Russia, on the other hand, maintains its status as one of the world’s leading naval powers and the Russian navy continues to perform all its duties, “including the most important one – nuclear deterrence.”
“Our opponents should know that Russia’s naval nuclear shield always stands guard over our country,” Patrushev stated.
He mentioned during the interview that while the US and its European allies pursue militarization of the Baltic Sea, Russia is taking additional measures to protect itself after Sweden and Finland joined NATO and against the backdrop of the Nord Stream blasts.
“Currently, ensuring security in the Baltic is the most important military and political task. Since the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO, as well as against the background of the Nord Stream blasts, Russia has been taking additional measures to protect its territorial integrity and economic sovereignty,” Patrushev told the newspaper.
Russia, India are early birds as Pax Americana is ending
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR – Indian Punchline – November 10, 2024
The working visit of Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov to Mumbai and Delhi on November 11-12 has been in the cards for sometime. It assumes added interest today as, in a delightful coincidence, it overlaps with the beginning of the end of Pax Americana in international politics.
Manturov, 55, is one of the brightest stars of the new generation of leaders in the Russian political firmament with a brilliant record as an economist and technocrat in the energy and military-industrial complex, two key sectors of the economy.
President Vladimir Putin has entrusted him with responsibilities that go far beyond the portfolio of Minister of Trade and Industry, a position he held for 12 years until May 2024 when he was elevated as First Deputy Prime Minister. Manturov is now a familiar face at the high table when Putin takes meetings on Ukraine war, which shows he wears many hats.
Manturov is the co-chairman of Russian-Indian joint commission, alongside External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. To be sure, Jaishankar will have wide-ranging discussions with Manturov. Who else Manturov is meeting in Delhi will be an indication of the stirrings in the air in the Russian-Indian cooperation.
The timing of the visit is notable since the neoconservatives who dominated the Biden administration — Secretary of State Antony Blinken, CIA director William Burns, et al — are on their way out and a brave new world is taking shape in Washington, DC.
The influential CEO of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Ivo Daalder, who was the US ambassador to Nato, succinctly captured the imminent power shift in DC when he wrote in Politico in the weekend, “Trump won in a landslide. He helped Republicans take control of the Senate and may well help them keep the House (by the way, Republicans have flipped the House as well) — ensuring single-party control across all three branches of government. He can rightly claim a mandate to implement all the policies he touted… All the while, he’ll be shielded by a Supreme Court.”
Of course, Ambassador Daalder is an acolyte of the “rules-based order” and a firm believer in America’s manifest destiny to lead the world. He wrote in his column titled The end of Pax Americana: “I also worry about what this means for the rest of the world. In his first term, Trump made clear he doesn’t buy into Washington’s global leadership role as his predecessors have done. He doesn’t believe in leading — he believes in winning…
“Moscow and Beijing have long chafed at Washington’s leadership, and for the past decade, they’ve sought to counter and undermine it. They may now get their wish. Trump isn’t interested in sustaining the Pax Americana in the ways his 14 predecessors were… The end of the Pax Americana will have profound consequences…The Pax America will officially end on Jan. 20, 2025, when the US inaugurates Donald J. Trump as its 47th president. The country and world will be very different because of it.”
Suffice to say, we are getting a preview of this historic juncture. Although, taking place in the conditions under sanctions, Manturov’s agenda of discussions in Delhi will have a futuristic dimension. The point is, while the sanctions against Russia may take some time to be scrapped, their cutting edge — the fanaticism and the sound and fury with which Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen applied that intrusive diplomatic tool to dictate other countries’ economic and military relations with Russia — may now become blunt, what with all signs already pointing toward a Russian-American engagement.
The Indian side should be mindful of this transition to accelerate the economic and military-technical cooperation with Russia with a medium and long-term term perspective. This is one thing.
Second, we are edging toward a conversation between Trump and Putin. Do not be surprised if they decide to meet at an early date. Historically speaking, there is nothing like summitry to energise political systems with top-down culture as the US and Russia have.
Suffice to say, we are nearing a point when the International Criminal Court which has an arrest warrant against Putin won’t know where to hide itself. From our perspective, that opens the door leading to the rose garden for a state visit by Putin to India — perhaps, as the chief guest at the celebrations marking the 75th anniversary of the Indian Republic on January 26, 2025.
Putin is a great friend of India’s. Only two days ago, he described India as unparalleled in the global arena and went on to say Russia is strengthening its relationship with India on multiple fronts, with a high level of trust underpinning their bilateral ties. Putin paid fulsome praise to India’s rise saying, “India should undoubtedly be added to the list of superpowers, with its billion-and-a-half population, the fastest growth among all economies in the world, ancient culture, and very good prospects for further growth.”
To be sure, India finds itself in a truly privileged position in the international political arena with the consolidation of the Indian-Russian partnership, prospects opening for a spurt to take the US-Indian ties to new heights taking advantage of Trump’s goodwill, and, indeed, the nascent signs of a thaw in the troubled Sino-Indian relationship — and as the fastest growing major economy in the world.
India’s optimal aim should be to create synergy out of all three relationships running on parallel tracks — with Russia, US and China respectively. No matter the complexities of their mutual relationships, India should aspire for a confluence of the three streams for advancing its development.
There is a whiff of hope in the air for a warming of bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington under Trump, which have been in a free fall. But Russophobia is deeply entrenched in the American elites and Russia will remain a toxic issue. Yet, Trump has repeatedly stressed good relations with Putin, as well as mutual respect. And Putin is a very talented politician who understands Trump.
As for Russia-China relationship, Moscow and Beijing are at a high noon of partnership unparalleled in their history. That relationship is anchored in the great camaraderie between Putin and Chinese president Xi Jinping, is rock solid and will remain so despite the fluidity in the international environment.
Of course, there are misgivings about the trajectory of the US-China relationship going forward. But, here again, the crux of the matter is the US’ economic rivalry with China in the American mindset. Per se, China does not hold any threat to the US. And China, unlike Russia, does not challenge American power, influence and interests directly or by design.
A military confrontation between the US and China will not happen under Trump’s watch. Besides, the Indo-Pacific strategy is floundering, the latest sign being Indonesia, the largest country in southeast Asia, turning its back on US-led alliance systems. and seeking BRICS membership.
The presence of Tesla CEO Elon Musk as an influencer in Trump’s inner circle can be seen as a stabilising factor for US-China relations. Above all, only China can be a meaningful interlocutor to help Trump realise the ambitious MAGA project.
Indo-Pacific braces for Trump 2.0
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – November 10 2024
The victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election is far from unexpected. Yet, the fact that he has won means that many countries across the world will brace for the impact this win will have on them.
This is especially true for countries in Asia – in particular, in the Asia Pacific region – where the Biden administration, despite its flawed plans, appeared willing to invest US resources, both economic and military, to offset China. Although Donald Trump is, in many ways, more anti-China than Joe Biden is, his anti-China geopolitics is confined primarily to one arena: the US-China trade (im)balance.
It means that the Trump administration will be far less interested in extending military and economic assistance to the regional countries than the Biden administration has been in the past four years. On the contrary, his administration is likely to slap heavy tariffs, which will negatively affect Washington’s bilateral trade with regional countries. In such a scenario, regional countries will have one key policy option: turn more towards China to resolve bilateral ties via diplomatic means and reduce their dependence on Washington.
The Aftermath of the Victory
If Trump’s previous four years in office are any guides to the future, Washington’s Indo-Pacific allies, such as Japan and South Korea, are deeply worried. As former officials of the Trump administration, such as the former National Security Adviser John Bolton, revealed later in their memoirs, Trump had plans to withdraw US military forces from South Korea, keep up with his planned rapprochement with North Korea, and demand massive payments from Japan to pay for the American defence role. During his campaign, Trump defended his foreign policy and repeatedly vowed to continue after assuming the presidency.
For Japan, defence payments are, however, only one of the major areas of concern. Trump will hit trade as well. A key Trump campaign pledge is slapping 10- to 20-percent tariffs on all imports to the United States. Trump has also vowed to “absolutely” block Nippon Steel Corp.’s proposed 2-trillion-yen ($13 million) acquisition of US Steel Corp. More importantly, the US-Japan trade gap has widened to the disadvantage of the US – a situation that Trump would like to reset. According to US official data,
“In 2022, both U.S. exports to Japan and imports from Japan continued to grow for a third year in a row. U.S. exports totaled $80.3 billion, an increase of 7.7% ($5.8 billion), and U.S. imports totaled $148.3 billion, an increase of 10.0% ($13.5 billion). The trade deficit was $68.0 billion, increasing 12.8% ($7.7 billion) from 2021”.
“Our allies have taken advantage of us more than our enemies,” Trump said in a media interview on October 15, referring to the US trade deficit and other issues. With Trump having repeatedly referred to cutting off US support for NATO, Japan’s idea of an ‘Asian NATO’, too, seems in deep trouble. The military pacts Joe Biden made with Japan, South Korea, and Australia are likely to face the same fate. According to Trump, one of the key reasons why the Biden administration entered into these pacts was the pressure the Ukraine conflict generated on these states.
Therefore, he believes, that if he can end the Ukraine conflict – which he promised to end quickly by cutting off US aid to Ukraine – this will allow for the US to divest its sources away from these countries. On the other hand, Trump would not only want South Korea and Japan to spend more on defence but also push them to join him in slapping tariffs on China, thus pushing them into a ‘trade war’ with Beijing. Given South Korea’s and Japan’s trade (im)balance with China, they are bound to suffer from such a policy step because China has the leverage to retaliate. Therefore, they are unlikely to initiate their ‘trade war’. Alternative routes, however, exist.
The Alternative Option
Official Think Tanks in India are already proposing that India should join the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Agreement. This policy shift probably speaks volumes about the direction that most regional countries might be willing to take. India is also one country that recently signed an agreement to jointly manage the disputed border. Now, this pact is crucial – not only because it signifies peaceful management of tensions, but also because the India-China border dispute is probably one major issue where China actually fought. This is unlike the South and East China Seas. Therefore, if China is able to diplomatically resolve its tense issues with India, there is little denying that other countries can do the same. There is, thus, a silver lining for countries like Japan, the Philippines, etc. to resolve their issues without relying on the US (or any other external power, such as the EU or NATO).
In some ways, an inward-looking approach, i.e., an approach that does not seek external mediation, would help push external powers permanently out of the region. Knowing that the Trump administration will itself be looking for disengagement, regional countries wouldn’t have to worry about annoying the US too.
For China, it presents an excellent opportunity to capitalise on US disengagement and deepen its ties with countries in the Indo-Pacific. Although China will probably be fighting a ‘trade war’ in the Atlantic, it can still find a major leeway in the Indo-Pacific. Its willingness and openness will only find regional countries ready to jump on the regional bandwagon of free trade for growth and diplomacy for dispute resolution.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Trump must end wars – Dennis Kucinich
RT | November 9, 2024
US president-elect Donald Trump will have his hands full fixing the mess in foreign and domestic policy left by incumbent leader Joe Biden’s administration, according to Dennis Kucinich, two-time Democratic presidential candidate and retired eight-term US congressman.
In an interview with Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi broadcast on RT on Saturday, Kucinich said that the success of Trump’s presidency will depend on his ability to shift the focus of US politics from the “globalist aspirations of the State Department” to problems at home.
The veteran politician welcomed Trump’s victory over Democrat Kamala Harris in this week’s election, saying that it represents a “historic shift” in US politics towards “populism.”
“[The US] has come through a very dark period where the government put this country to the edge of World War III, and people don’t want that,” Kucinich stated, noting that ordinary Americans worry about simple things like paying bills and generally “making ends meet,” which he called “very practical aspirations they have in common with people around the world.” He said Trump’s presidency “will depend on not getting further involved in foreign entanglements.”
“This economy is shaking, the dollar is not in the same position it was in four years ago… the previous administration has not been successful in reviving the economy with all this money for Wall Street but not enough for main street,” he stated. Kucinich added that this happened “precisely” because the Biden administration poured billions into wars “that are not necessary.”
There’s a lot of work Trump will need to do, he is going to be faced with some serious decisions about scaling back the US position in Europe and the Middle East and to try to find a way that we can move past the events that the Biden administration embroiled America in.
Kucinich noted that he expects Trump to be able to extricate the US from global conflicts through his “deal-making finesse.”
“Trump is a deal-maker… a family man concerned about children and grandchildren. He’s not personally interested in seeing the US expand into war, he’s not a globalist in that way,” he stated.
Kucinich also suggested that Trump would be wise to lead the US towards cooperation with the “new world” that is “taking shape in response to disastrous sanctions and wars,” citing BRICS as one of the alignments that the US should consider working with.
You can watch the full interview here.
Biden allows deployment of US military ‘contractors’ to Ukraine – media
RT | November 9, 2024
The administration of outgoing President Joe Biden has lifted a de facto ban on deploying US defense contractors in Ukraine to repair American-made armaments, Reuters and CNN reported on Friday, citing anonymous Pentagon officials.
This reversal of previous US policy comes just as vocal Ukraine conflict skeptic Donald Trump won the popular vote and secured his second term in the White House. While it is unclear whether Trump would have continued the prior policy, he has repeatedly promised not to put American lives at risk and to rapidly conclude the conflict once in office again.
The potential American presence on the ground will be “small” and located “far” from the front lines, and they are not expected to engage in combat, Reuters wrote on Friday, citing an anonymous US official. As the US and its NATO partners have provided Kiev with increasingly sophisticated American-made armaments, such as F-16 fighter jets and Patriot air defense systems, restrictions have slowed repairs and proven increasingly challenging. Much of the equipment has been damaged beyond repair by Kiev’s own specialists.
The policy change aligns the Pentagon more closely with the US State Department and USAID, which already have contractors in Ukraine, according to another official.
“These contractors will help the Ukrainian Armed Forces rapidly repair and maintain US-provided equipment as needed so it can quickly return to the front lines,” CNN wrote on Friday, citing a defense official. Specifically, F-16 jets and Patriot batteries “require specific technical expertise to maintain,” they said.
Allowing US contractors to work in Ukraine will provide a faster alternative to the current method of transporting equipment to NATO countries like Poland and Romania for repairs, CNN noted.
Meanwhile the risks of being killed by Russian strikes will fall on the companies bidding for the Pentagon contracts.
“Each US contractor, organization, or company will be responsible for the safety and security of their employees and will be required to include risk mitigation plans as part of their bids,” CNN cited a defense official as saying.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously stated that Moscow is aware of the “direct involvement of NATO troops in this conflict.” He pointed out that several high-tech systems the US and its allies have provided to Kiev, such as ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles, require the involvement of Western officers to operate them.
The Russian Defense Ministry regularly reports airstrikes on repair facilities in Ukraine. This week alone, the Russian military carried out at least 38 strikes on Kiev’s military-industrial complex facilities, as well as supporting energy and military infrastructure, according to the latest report on Friday.
Israel über alles
By Ricardo Nuno Costa – New Eastern Outlook – November 8 2024
“Germany has only one place, and that’s on Israel’s side,” said German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in the Bundestag, justifying the delivery of arms to Tel Aviv.
One wonders if this partial stance is what is expected of a country that claims to be the leader of the European project, with geopolitical ambitions in an increasingly multipolar world. For the global majority, the answer is no, but in Germany, the subject is thorny and shrouded in taboos. To top it off, the Federal Republic has just passed a law to prevent it from being debated.
Berlin’s inability to call Tel Aviv to account on its international obligations only confirms Germany’s increasingly secondary role in the international arena. If the “engine of Europe” is constrained in its military role, it could at least be a diplomatic power, making use of its economic status. But its role is diminishing. Why is that?
In his latest book, “Krieg ohne Ende?” (War without end?), international political scientist Michael Lüders masterfully summarises the hypocrisy surrounding Germany’s involvement in the Zionist project from the beginning to the present day. The author suggests, in the form of a subtitle, “why we need to change our attitude towards Israel if we are to have peace in the Middle East.”
Germany is losing the credibility it has built up over decades in the eyes of the global majority. Today, the country is no longer seen with the same seriousness that we have become accustomed to in recent decades, but rather as a mere instrumental piece of the US in international relations. This is also the visible result of the “feminist foreign policy” that Annalena Baerbock has pursued as foreign minister over the last three years.
Defence of Israel is ‘Staatsräson’ of the Federal Republic
Germany has adopted the defence of Israel’s existence as ‘Staatsräson’ (raison d’État). It was during a visit by Chancellor Merkel to the Israeli Knesset in 2008 that this concept was first mentioned.
In the above-mentioned bestseller, it becomes clear that this principle is no accident, as it corresponds to the fact that Israel’s ‘raison d’État’ is the Holocaust, for which Germany is to blame. According to Mr. Lüders, the Jewish state used the Eichmann case to launch its ‘raison d’État’, while many other Nazi officials responsible for the persecution of the Jews had passed into the new Bonn nomenclature without being called to account. The most notorious case was that of Hans Globke, the eminence grise of the new regime, a key player in the USA’s fight against the USSR. He had previously drafted the Nuremberg race laws and was now Adenauer’s number two, protected by the new BND intelligence services and the CIA.
The SS officer Adolf Eichmann, kidnapped in Argentina by the Israelis, symbolically bore all the blame for Germany’s 1933-45 National Socialist’s period. After his hanging in 1962 for crimes against the Jewish people during the Holocaust, in the only judicial execution carried out in Israel to date, the FRG finally officially recognised Israel in 1965, after years of collaboration (since 1952). This marked the beginning of a complex relationship that remains opaque to this day.
An important part of this relationship has been the multi-billion dollar military industry within the Atlanticist framework. The most significant case, again unclear, was the corruption scandal over the sale of three nuclear-capable submarines and four corvettes sold during the Merkel governments to the Netanyahu government in 2016 for almost 4 billion euros, which ended up being paid for in part by German taxpayers.
In a current example, political scientist Kristin Helberg, who specialises in the Middle East, expressed her surprise on the public channel in October that Berlin was not helping Israel with defensive weapons against a hypothetical Iranian attack – which in her view would be legitimate – but by delivering ammunition to be used on civilian populations, contrary to the Geneva Convention.
Germany involved in a genocide
With its arms support for Israeli attacks on civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, Germany is not only committing an international offence that is costing it the current cases opened at the ICC and ICJ, but is also seeing its reputation stained in the biggest international forums by the global majority, on which its industrial export model depends.
On 14 October, German Foreign Ministry spokesman Sebastian Fischer said at a press conference in Berlin that the German government “sees no signs that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza” and that “Israel undoubtedly has the right to self-defence against Hamas”, and two days later Chancellor Scholz said loudly in the Bundestag that “there will be more arms deliveries – Israel can always count on that.”
Criticising Israel will be banned
In its increasingly radical philo-Zionist course, the German political class passed a new resolution “to protect, preserve and strengthen Jewish life in Germany”, to which only the parties of the governing coalition and the CDU/CSU were called, without consulting the AfD and BSW. The controversial and non-transparent resolution promises to pursue “increasingly open and violent anti-Semitism in right-wing and Islamist extremist circles, as well as a relativising approach and the rise of Israel-related and left-wing anti-imperialist anti-Semitism.”
The document mentions that “cases of anti-Semitism have increased” since the Hamas attack on Israel a year ago, but fails to mention that German law has since come to consider anti-Semitic the manifestation of various expressions in favour of the Palestinian cause such as the slogan “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free” among other slogans, chants, insignia or even posts published on the internet, which are now considered and counted as punishable anti-Semitic crimes.
“The German Bundestag reaffirms its decision to ensure that no organisation or project that spreads antisemitism, questions Israel’s right to exist, calls for a boycott of Israel or actively supports the BDS movement receives financial support,” the document goes on to say.
Recently, the rector of the Berlin Institute for Advanced Study, Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, complained that the freedom of study of the scientific community is under massive threat. “What distinguishes antisemitism from legitimate criticism of the Israeli government?” she asked. “And above all, who defines what antisemitism is? This is not at all clear. The definition is vague and leaves enormous room for legal uncertainty,” she asserted.
The divorce between the political class and public perception
It’s clear that the text of the new law aims to exclude the AfD from public debate, using the magic buzzword of the “far right”, but it also weighs heavily on the BSW, where the Palestinian cause and the multipolarist vision are obvious. A recent study by the Forsa research institute for Stern/RTL corroborates the clear rift between real and institutional Germany. Whilst the former doesn’t want the country to be involved in the Middle East war, the political class has guaranteed its indispensable support for Israel as a ‘national interest’. Voters from all German parties are therefore unequivocally opposed to further arms deliveries to Tel Aviv. The BSW electorate (85 per cent) is in the lead, followed by the AfD (75 per cent), but also 60 per cent of SPD voters, 56 per cent of CDU/CSU voters and 52 per cent of FDP voters. Interestingly, the Greens’ electorate showed a 50-50 tie. In the national total, this corresponds to 60 per cent of the citizenry, with the difference in the east being more significant (75 per cent against).
The case of the AfD is more curious because as a party that was born out of contestation with the system on the issues not only of immigration, but also of foreign policy and others, and its electoral base is clearly critical of Berlin’s pro-Western policy, its leadership also has a disproportionate presence of the philo-Zionist element, which is no different from the rest of the political class.
According to another poll also from October, by Infratest Dimap for public television ARD and WELT daily, only 19 per cent of AfD supporters consider Israel to be a reliable partner, a noticeably lower percentage than in the CDU/CSU (34 per cent) the SPD (36 per cent) and the Greens (38 per cent).
AfD distances itself from the Zionist consensus
Probably because he knew how to interpret this discrepancy between leadership and base, AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla called for an end to aid to Tel Aviv and Germany’s ‘one-sided’ relationship with the Jewish state. “By supplying arms to Israel, you are accepting the dehumanisation of all civilian victims on both sides. They are not contributing to détente, but rather throwing fuel on the fire”, he said. It is “time to take a critical and objective look at the Israeli government”.
These statements come at a time of a clear move towards multipolarity within the party. Moreover, the principle of neutrality is the AfD’s official line. Its 2024 European electoral programme states that “the supply of arms to war zones does not serve peace in Europe”. At the risk of becoming just another political party, the AfD seems to want to meet the feelings of the majority of Germans and its social support base on foreign policy issues, which are now much debated by the general public.
It seems clear that after decades in the room, the elephant can no longer be hidden in the German political debate.
Ukraine aid program responsible for political crisis in Germany
By Lucas Leiroz | November 8, 2024
The political crisis in Germany does not seem to be coming to an end in the short term. The collapse of the government is worrying the country’s authorities, and there is also an unbalanced social scenario that puts the entire German stability at risk. In a recent speech, Olaf Scholz acknowledged that the situation in Ukraine is the main reason for this crisis, particularly due to the systematic support provided by Berlin to the Kiev regime.
The German Prime Minister stated that the main reason for the country’s political crisis is the lack of consensus among the authorities on military backing for Ukraine. He blamed former Finance Minister Christian Lindner for refusing to approve a budget plan to further boost funding for Kiev. According to Scholz, Lindner’s position created polarization among officials and broke up the coalition of the government.
Scholz recently dismissed Lindner from his post, creating strong friction between the different groups supporting the government. Lindner is also the leader of the Free Democratic Party, which is one of the three parties that make up the pro-Scholz coalition. His firing caused discontent not only among the party members, but also among the Social Democrats and the “Greens”, creating an atmosphere of distrust among Scholz’s team.
The rivalry between Scholz and Lindner started as a dispute over how to establish a policy of support for Ukraine consistent with Germany’s financial situation. The two officials had a bitter and possibly disrespectful discussion during a meeting in which Scholz tried to force Lindner to approve a new economic plan that would allow further military aid to Ukraine, thus ignoring some of Germany’s major social problems, such as economic decline and deindustrialization.
Scholz tries to disguise the nature of his economic plan by claiming that it includes efforts to promote the development of clean energy and investment in the automotive industry. However, the Ukrainian issue is the central factor in the proposal. Scholz says that it is necessary to expand aid policies for Kiev, considering that winter is coming, and Ukrainians will increasingly require international help to overcome the difficulties of the season. The chancellor also says that, with Donald Trump’s victory in the US, the main responsibility for supporting Ukraine will come to Germany and the Europeans, which is why he hopes that an economic plan establishing clear assistance for Kiev will be approved.
“The finance minister shows no willingness to implement this offer in the federal government for the benefit of our country. I do not want to subject our country to such behavior any longer,” Scholz said.
Scholz is currently in a critical political situation. His followers have become a minority in the government, as Lindner’s dismissal has also encouraged the resignation of other ministers and officials. It is possible that early elections will be called in March, and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier has already spoken out in favor of this. Clearly, Germany is going through one of the most critical moments in its post-Cold War history, no longer being the stable, peaceful and developed country so praised by European social democrats in previous years.
Moreover, Scholz’s political opponents are pressuring the remaining officials in his government to establish a different agenda from that of the chancellor. For example, according to German media, Lindner has asked the Defense Ministry to impose new limits on military aid to Ukraine, justifying his request based on economic calculations that prove Germany’s inability to continue boosting assistance. Berlin has already halved its aid to Kiev, but Lindner and other realist politicians say that it needs to be cut further to overcome the country’s billion-dollar deficit.
In the end, it is clear how the conflict in Ukraine is responsible for the German political crisis. Olaf Scholz himself admits that the lack of consensus on the Ukrainian issue led to the collapse of his government, which seems to be reason enough for Berlin to rethink its policy towards Ukraine. Instead of firing ministers who think differently, Scholz should pay more attention to the calculations that expose the German reality, recognizing that it is not viable for the country to continue backing the Ukrainian regime in the long term.
If Scholz does not change his strategy on Ukraine, he will be defeated in new parliamentary elections. Furthermore, the political cost of his efforts will be in vain because German aid to Ukraine is not capable of changing anything in the conflict scenario. In the end, the Scholz government is likely to become yet another of the many European governments that have collapsed amid the crisis that has affected the continent since 2022.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Nukes, NATO and New World Order: Putin Highlights Global Challenges Facing World in Coming Decades
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 07.11.2024
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that the coming decades could prove even more difficult than the first quarter of the 21st century owing to the birth pangs of the formation of a new, multipolar world order.
“Looking back over the past 20 years and considering the scale of changes, then projecting such changes onto the coming years, one could assume that the next two decades will be at least as challenging, if not more so,” Putin said at the plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club on Thursday, pointing to the “era of cardinal, essentially revolutionary changes” and the complex processes facing the world today.
“The imposition and transformation of totalitarian ideologies into the norm is a threat. We see in the example of today’s Western liberalism, which has resulted in extreme intolerance and aggression toward any alternative, toward any sovereign and independent thought, and today justifies neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism and even the mass genocide of civilian populations,” Putin said.
Today, Putin said, “democracy is increasingly being interpreted” by some “as the power of the minority rather than the majority,” contrasting “traditional democracy and people’s rule with some abstract freedom, for the sake of which democratic procedures, majority opinion, freedom of speech and non-partisanship in the media can be neglected and even sacrificed.”
“There must not be a situation where the model of one country or a relatively small part of humanity is taken as something that’s universal and imposed on everyone else,” Putin said.
Dangers Emanating From Deadly New Weapons
“International conflicts and clashes are fraught with mutually assured destruction. After all, weapons capable of doing so exist and are constantly being improved, acquiring new forms as technology develops. And the club of those who possess such weapons is expanding. No one can guarantee that they will not be used in the event of an avalanche-like increase in threats and the total destruction of legal and moral norms,” the Russian president warned.
“Calls in the West to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a country possessing the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, demonstrate the extreme recklessness of Western politicians, at least some of them. Such blind faith in their own impunity and sense of exceptionalism can turn into a global tragedy,” Putin said.
“There is only one military bloc left in the world today, held together by…rigid ideological dogmas and cliches – and that is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which, without stopping its expansion to the east of Europe, is now trying to extend its approaches to other spaces of the world, violating its own statutory documents,” Putin said, highlighting the alliance’s broken promises not to expand eastward, and absolute disregard for Russia’s interests.
“Ultimately, this all began to look like a creeping intervention, which, without any exaggeration, would be aimed at some kind of humiliation, or better still [for NATO, ed.] the destruction of the country either from the inside or from the outside,” the president added.
Birth Pangs of a New World Order
In this environment, “a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding” to form a new world order, according to Putin – “irreconcilable first and foremost because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence,” but “a clash regarding the very principles on which relations between countries and peoples will be built in the next stage of history. Its outcome will determine whether we can build a world that will allow everyone to develop and resolve emerging contradictions on the basis of mutual respect for cultures and civilizations, without coercion and the use of force.”
“In a sense, a moment of truth is coming. The old world order is going away forever, one might say it is already gone,” Putin said.
“Under threat is the monopoly of the West, arising after the collapse of the Soviet Union, acquired at the end of the 20th century. Any monopoly, as we know from history, ends sooner or later. There are no illusions here that monopolies are always a harmful thing – even for the monopolists themselves,” Putin said, pointing to the “chaos and systemic crises growing in the countries trying to pursue such policies.”
As the Cold War ended, instead of seeing “a chance to rebuild the world on new fair principles, [the West] saw it as their triumph, victory, as our country’s capitulation to the West, and therefore an opportunity, by the rights of the winner, to establish complete dominance,” Putin said.
“Again, some people had the idea that the world would be better off without Russia, and they tried to finish her off, to destroy everything that was left after the USSR’s collapse, and now, it seems, someone is dreaming about this, thinking that the world will be more obedient, better managed. But Russia has more than once stopped those striving for world domination. And a world without Russia would not be better, and those trying to accomplish this must finally understand this,” Putin said.
The Russian president said that the emerging multipolar world order must be one that’s without hegemons, without any “losing countries or peoples. No one should feel disadvantaged or humiliated. Only then will we be able to ensure truly long-term conditions for universal fair and safe development.”
“There can be no talk of any hegemony in the new international environment. When this irrefutable and immutable fact is recognized, for example, in Washington and other Western capitals, the process of building a world system that meets the challenges of the future will finally enter a phase of its genuine creation. God willing, this will happen as soon as possible,” Putin said.
“We are confident that BRICS provides everyone with a good example of truly constructive cooperation in the new international environment,” Putin said, pointing out that “even among NATO members there are those, as you know, who are interested in working closely with BRICS.”
“In the meantime, those interested in creating a just and lasting peace have to spend too much effort on overcoming the destructive actions our adversaries take for the sake of their monopolies. It’s obvious that this is happening – everyone sees it, in the West itself, in the East, in the South, they all see it,” Putin said.
Russia does not see Western civilization as an enemy, does not pose the question of “us or them,” nor does it seek to impose its will on anyone, Putin said. This is the policy of the United States and its allies in recent years, and is a formula for disaster, he suggested.
“Acute, fundamental, emotionally charged conflicts do of course significantly complicate global development, but do not interrupt it. In place of chains of interaction destroyed by political decisions and even military means, others arise. Yes, much more complex, sometimes confusing, but ones which preserve economic and social ties. We have seen this in recent years,” Putin said, highlighting the collective West’s failure to “exclude Russia from the world system, both economically and politically.”
The Valdai International Discussion Club is an organization bringing together leading foreign and Russian experts in political science, economics, history, and international relations.
The club was established in 2004 through the initiative of Russia’s RIA Novosti News Agency, the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and the journals Russia in Global Affairs and Russia Profile. The club takes its name from the location of its first conference, held in Veliky Novgorod near Lake Valdai.
The Trump mandate
By Daniel MCCARTHY | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 7, 2024
Donald Trump has won a victory even more stunning than his upset defeat of Hillary Clinton eight years ago. Two impeachments, relentless lawfare and innumerable criminal charges, two assassination attempts, and an unceasing chorus of the nation’s most powerful media calling him a “fascist” could not stop Trump. In the teeth of all that adversity, Trump has only grown stronger. And now he has the symbolic yet potent mandate of a popular-vote majority.
That majority adds psychological force that makes the Trump revolution cultural as well as political. Before, it was easy for Trump’s critics to believe his 2016 victory was a fluke. They might have to deal with its consequences, including the impetus his election gave to a populist turn within the institutions of the conservative movement. But once Trump was out of office, those institutions would sooner or later revert to their former character. After all, populism didn’t have money behind it. If it didn’t have people, either, it wouldn’t be around for long.
Trump has shattered the laws of political physics. Realignments that had already begun as a result of Trump’s earlier success are accelerating. To appreciate the magnitude of what Trump achieved in this election, look beyond the states he won—in blue state after blue state, Trump made enormous, often double-digit gains. He made deep inroads into the Hispanic vote, particularly among men. Meanwhile, neoconservatives who held out hope of retaking the commanding heights of the Republican party if Trump was defeated have little choice now but to accept a place in the Democratic coalition. But they may not be comfortable there, either, as Democrats crack up over Israel’s war with Hamas.
This does not mean that four years from now the Republican nominee will be competitive in every blue state or will win a majority of Hispanics, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the GOP will be without a hawkish wing and some ostensibly pro-Trump neoconservative influences. The changes that Trump brings about are not necessarily linear. But they will afford opportunities hardly imaginable before this point. And J.D. Vance is well-equipped to make the most of them in 2028.
Although foreign policy was not voters’ top priority either this year or when Trump first won the presidency, war and the way leaders in both parties respond to it—or fail to respond—establishes conditions conducive to ideological mutation. How Trump handles the crises in Ukraine and the Middle East that he inherits from President Biden will be a watershed. Democrats who were reluctant to criticize U.S. support for Israel while that support was coming from the Biden-Harris administration will now hammer Trump over Israel’s actions. Can Trump make good on the faith placed in him both by Arab-American voters in Michigan and by ardent supporters of Israel? Can the green shoots of a return to realism in Republican foreign policy survive the burdens of responsibility that the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine impose? The wars themselves may not be America’s responsibility, but the administration will face tough choices about what not to do as well as what to do.
The possibility of wide-ranging new tariffs exists alongside the possibility that the Federal Reserve may be audited and compelled to answer to the public by the new administration. Moves in either of these directions would send shockwaves through Wall Street. Could the Trump administration be skillful enough to remake the fiscal and monetary systems without causing panic? If not, what milder measures could the administration undertake that would still address trade imbalances and inflation? Trump is open to considering a much wider range of possibilities than conventional politicians would dare to imagine, and even if his administration doesn’t avail itself of those possibilities, the mere fact the president would consider them will redraw the boundaries of policy discourse in Washington and beyond.
The president will be confronted by stiff opposition within the federal bureaucracy as well as from Democrats in Congress. He should not flinch from forcing reform on the administrative state and dismantling entire departments of the federal government. In this, too, Trump can be transformative. His experiences during his first term with leaks and policy sabotage originating from the bureaucracy should inform his handling of the civil service this time. It has been a power unto itself for far too long, and it has pursued not a disinterested agenda in the service of the public but a partisan agenda in the service of liberal elites.
New electoral maps, new issue coalitions, a new balance of power within the executive branch—all of these are just some of the domestic effects of Trump’s triumph. It also has the potential to inspire, or amplify, such changes all around the world. The precedent Trump has set is not only one that populist parties in Europe and elsewhere will take to heart. Mainstream parties that until now had looked to elite liberal opinion in the United States for guidance and guidelines will henceforth have to do some new thinking of their own, incorporating something of Trumpism into their dealings with America and perhaps into their politics at home. Emmanuel Macron joined Benjamin Netanyahu as the first of the world’s leaders to congratulate Trump on X last night.
The political and cultural aftershocks of Trump’s victory will not by themselves be enough to make the new administration a success—much hard work and resilience in the face of inevitable setbacks will be necessary, as in more pedestrian administrations. There is also a need for conservatives outside of government to answer the call, the moment presents to be both creative and disciplined. The right needs renovation, including in the way it approaches art and literature. Just as Trump has shown that a new majority can be forged in battles no one else would dare fight, the right may be capable of achieving greater things in the realm of culture and philosophy than it has so far been brave enough to imagine. What’s needed is not just a Trumpist or populist cultural program—though Hulk Hogan certainly has his place in America’s affections—but a cultural program as bold as Trump’s political challenge to the obsolete elite.
Trump should reawaken conservatives’ spirit of endeavor. Because he has dared greatly and succeeded.
Trump’s Victory & the Decline of Liberal Hegemony: “Unburdened By What Has Been”
By Professor Glenn Diesen | November 7, 2024
The election victory of Trump should not have been a surprise. The era of liberal hegemony has already come to an end, and a correction is long overdue. The liberal hegemony is no longer liberal, and the hegemony is exhausted. Trump is often denounced for being transactional, yet the de-ideologization of America and return to pragmatism is exactly what the country needs.
Change or Preserve the Unsustainble Status-Quo?
The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction, which placed Harris as the incumbent in an unfavourable position. Harris as the Vice President could not distance herself sufficiently from President Biden’s policies, which meant that she had to own the failures of the past four years. The message of “turning the page” did not resonate, and she was left with the meaningless slogan of “joy” – which only demonstrated her detachment from the growing concerns of Americans.
The borders have been wide open, media freedom is in decline, the government’s overreach is growing, US industries are no longer competitive, the national debt is out of control, social problems and culture wars are going from bad to worse, the political climate becomes increasingly divisive, the US military is overstretched, the global majority rejects Washington’s simplistic and dangerous heuristics of dividing the world into liberal democracy versus authoritarianism, the US is complicit in a genocide in Palestine and is heading towards nuclear war with Russia.
Who would vote for four more years when the status quo entails driving off a cliff? It is a good time to be in opposition and offer change. Being a populist with a bombastic demeanour, seemingly immune to consequences from breaking social norms, is a good feature when breaking free from decades-old ideological dogmas that constrain necessary pragmatism.
Neoliberalism Exhausted the US
“Make America Great Again” is likely a reference to 1973, when the US peaked and has since been in decline. Under the neoliberal consensus, society became an appendage to the market and politicians became impotent to deliver the change demanded by the public. The political Left could not redistribute wealth, and the political Right could not defend traditional values and communities. Globalisation gave birth to a political class loyal to international capital without national loyalties, and accountability to the public disappeared. Globalisation often contradicts democracy, and there is a growing division between illiberal democracy versus undemocratic liberalism.
A key lesson from the American System in the early 19th century was that industrialisation and subequent economic sovereignty is a necessity for national sovereignty. Tariffs and temporary subsidies are important tools for infant industries to develop maturity, and fair trade is thus often preferable to free trade. Trump’s tariffs to re-industrialise and advance technological sovereignty are noble ambitions that even the Biden administration attempted to emulate. However, Trump’s flaw is that excessive tariffs and the economic war on China will severely disrupt supply chains to the extent it undermines the US economy. The excesses of Trump’s tariffs and economic coercion derive from the effort to break China and restore US global primacy. If the US can accept a more modest role in the international system as one among many great powers, he could embrace a more moderate economic nationalism that would have greater prospect of succeeding.
Trump’s Vice President J.D. Vance correctly noted the self-defeating moralising of the US: “We have built a foreign policy of hectoring and moralising and lecturing countries that don’t want anything to do with it. The Chinese have a foreign policy of building roads and bridges and feeding poor people”. It is a good time for pragmatism to triumph over ideology.
Critics of Trump are correct to point out the paradox of a billionaire claiming to represent the people against a detached globalised elite. Sitting in flashy buildings with his name on the side in large golden letters, Trump has nonetheless taken the role of representing the American workers by calling for re-industrialisation. Raised in the excesses and hedonism of America’s cultural elites, Trump calls for preserving America’s traditional values and culture. Is Trump a saviour? Probably not. But policies are more important than personalities, and Trump is kicking open a door that was seemingly closed by liberal ideology.
An End to Liberal Crusades – Including Ending the Ukraine Proxy War
Trump’s appeal to end the forever wars resulted in invaluable support from former democrats such as Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy and Elon Musk. The liberal crusades over the past three decades fuel unsustainable debt, they finance the deep state (the blob), they alienate the US across the world, and incentivise the other great powers to collectively balance the US. The forever wars are costly mistakes that never end well, yet the US could absorb these costs during the unipolar era in the absence of any real opponents. In a multipolar system, the US must scale back its military adventurism and learn how to prioritise foreign policy objectives.
It is not unreasonable to argue that preserving the empire in its current format could cost the US its republic. Trump is not in favour of dismantling the empire, but being a transactional pragmatist, he would like a better return on investment. He believes allies should pay for protection, regional arrangements such as the former NAFTA and TPP that transfer productive power to allies are rejected, and adversaries should be engaged to the extent it serves US national interests. Trump is condemned for befriending dictators, yet this is surely preferable to the so-called “liberal” diplomats who no longer believe in diplomacy as it is feared to’ “legitimise” adversaries.
Trump would like to put an end to the proxy war in Ukraine as it is very costly in terms of both blood and treasure, and the war has already been lost. The liberal crusaders never defined a victory against the world’s largest nuclear power that believes it is fighting for its survival. Washington’s elites have repeatedly stated it is a good war as Ukrainian soldiers are dying rather than American soldiers, thus it is difficult to morally shame Trump when his main argument is that the killing must stop.
The liberal crusaders in Washington also frequently argue that the strategic objective of the proxy war was to knock out Russia from the ranks of great powers so the US could focus its resources on containing China. Instead, the war has strengthened Russia and pushed it further into the arms of China. A humanitarian disaster is taking place and the world is pushed to the brink of nuclear war. The economic coercion, including the theft of Russia’s sovereign funds, has triggered the global majority to de-dollarise and develop alternative payment systems. Trump is hardly innocent as he started the economic war against China. However, without ideological constraints, there may be room for course correction as he noted that the weaponisation of the dollar threatens the foundation of US superpower status. Yet again, pragmatism can triumph over ideology.
Will Trump be successful? He will certainly not end the war in 24 hours. Trump has the tools to influence Ukraine as the US is financing the war and arming Ukraine. However, Trump’s maximum pressure is unlikely to work against Russia as it considers this to be a war of survival, and the political West has broken nearly all agreements. Trump withdrew from strategic arms control treaties and armed Ukraine, which contributed to triggering the war. Russia will demand an end to NATO expansion in accordance with the Istanbul agreement, plus territorial concessions as a result of almost three years of war. Trump has previously signalled the willingness to offer an end to NATO expansionism, which could lay the foundation for a wider European security agreement. The conflicts between the West and Russia derive from the failure to establish a mutually acceptable settlement after the Cold War. The West instead began expanding NATO and thus revived the zero-sum bloc politics of the Cold War, and there has ever since been conflicts with Russia over where to draw the new militarised dividing lines.
Concerning Israel, there is an obvious exception to Trump’s aversion to war. Trump, Vance, Musk, Gabbard and Kennedy are all reluctant to take a hard line against the genocide in Palestine or even criticise Israel. Trump will likely continue to offer unconditional support for Israel and take a hostile stance against Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran. Pragmatism and “America First” will likely be lacking in this part of the world.
Panic Across the Liberal Empire
The opponents of Trump demonstrate a remarkable difficulty in articulating the case for Trump. Even if they know why people voted for him, they would feel morally compelled to refrain from articulating the reasons in fear of “legitimising” his policies with understanding. The inability to articulate the position of an adversary is a good indication of being propagandised. Have we been exposed to propaganda? There is clearly a tendency for ideological fundamentalists to present the world as a struggle between good and evil, in which mutual understanding and pragmatism are demonised as a betrayal of sacred values.
The panic and confusion is also caused by a dishonest media. The media has almost exclusively negative coverage of Trump, while Harris can do no wrong. Trump did not win despite the bad media coverage but because of it. A populist claims to be the real representative of the people, who will defend them against a detached and corrupt elite. The animosity towards Trump and his supporters was therefore worn as a badge of honour. The political-media elites used the judiciary system against the political opposition during the election cycle, they impeached Trump twice and tried him as a private citizen, and they attempted to remove Trump from 16 state ballots.
Trust to the media is not an advantage when it is not trustworthy. The Russiagate hoax from the 2016 election has been exposed as a fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story from the 2020 election was censored by the media under the false pretence of being “Russian propaganda”. During the 2024 election, the removal of Biden was largely a non-issue. The undemocratic selection of Harris was ignored, and the media instead converted her into a rockstar after ignoring her due to her failures over the past four years. The first assassination attempt against Trump went down the memory hole with remarkable haste, while most people are likely unaware that there was a second assassination attempt. Desperate media stories, such as Trump threatening Liz Cheney with a firing squad, were so desperate and dishonest that they had the opposite effect. The liberal machine, represented by an obedient media and Hollywood elites, has run out of steam.
Europe is in panic as they lost their ally in the White House and thus fear for the future of the liberal international order. Yet, the liberal international order is already gone and an ideological Europe is suffering from Stockholm Sydrome. Biden is complicit in genocide in Palestine, he attacked Europe’s critical energy infrastructure, lured European industries to relocate to to the US under the Inflation Reduction Act, brought major war to Europe by provoking a proxy war in Ukraine and sabotaging the peace negotiations in Istanbul, he intensified censorship around the world, and pressures the Europeans to reduce economic connectivity with China. After years of aspiring for strategic autonomy and de-vassalisation, the Europeans have subordinated themselves and accepted diminishing relevance in the world. The European political-media elites present Trump as the new Hitler, yet are in a great hurry to subordinate themselves economically, militarily and politically to the US. The Europeans are also worried that a similar leadership crisis has come to their own continent. Political elites committed to liberal hegemony have neglected national interests, and will be swept away in the years to come.
How will it all end?
The second Trump presidency will not be like the first term. The first Trump presidency was constrained as the Democrats largely contested the election results in 2016 by denouncing him as an illegitimate leader who had been placed in the White House by the Kremlin. The RussiaGate hoax has since been exposed and Trump even won the popular vote by 5 million votes, giving him a powerful mandate to pursue his agenda. Furthermore, Trump the first Trump government was infiltrated by neocons as he was dismissed as too radical. Over the past 8 years, a powerful MAGA movement has emerged that also consists of former Democrats.
One should be careful looking into the crystal ball and make predictions, and this is especially true with Trump. Professor Richard Rorty predicted in 1998 that the excesses of liberalism and globalisation would eventually be met with a fierce correction:
“Members of labor unions, and unorganized and unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else. At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots… Once the strongman takes office, no one can predict what will happen”.[1]
Trump has identified many of the problems plaguing the US and the world, although he may not have the answers. He will make many mistakes and his maximum pressure approach from business is not always transferrable to international politics. After decades of criminalising opposition to liberal hegemony, it should not have been a surprise that a “strongman” would be elected to throw a wrench into machinery. Trump is a wild card and the world is undergoing immense transformation, so to quote Rorty: “no one can predict what will happen.”
[1] Rorty, R 1998. Achieving our country: Leftist thought in twentieth-century America, Harvard University Press.
Featured Video
Why Hamas Really Attacked Israel on Oct. 7
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel: Strategic Ally or Liability?
By Stephen Sniegoski | My Catbird Seat | June 12, 2010
The claim that Israel serves as a valuable ally for the United States is made by both pro-Zionists and much of the anti-war and anti-Zionist Left that is influenced by Noam Chomsky. As a result of the Gaza flotilla massacre, which has caused a world-wide uproar against Israel, the value of Israel to the United States is being publicly questioned in more mainstream foreign policy forums. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Declassified UK exposes British man who fought for ‘Israel’ in Gaza
- West’s death cult in a theater near you
- How the Yandex ‘Russian bots’ lie fell apart
- Burnham’s ‘Russia did Brexit’ ruse crumbles
- Estonia making movies and games to encourage war against Russia
- Four in five new UK jobs taken by foreigners – report
- Here’s what Trump’s latest U-turn really means for Russia and Ukraine
- The Houthis Are Not an Iranian Proxy
- Europe’s Energy Hypocrisy, Russian LNG Profits and US Dependence
- ICC ignored ‘very well-documented’ NATO crimes – ex-Libyan minister
- If Americans Knew
- Activists Abused By Israel Return to New Freedom Flotilla Mission
- 60 Minutes won’t tell the full truth about Israeli settler violence
- Nearly 50,000 women, girls killed or severely injured in Gaza since October 2023: UN Women
- ADL is working with AI companies to suppress alleged ‘antisemitism’
- Israeli occupation forces using social media surveillance unit to target hundreds of Palestinians in the West Bank
- Israel’s New – and Terrifying – Security Doctrine
- Israeli Attacks Kill Five in Gaza, Including a four-year-old and a woman
- Air Force Major Who Called for Trump’s Impeachment Held in Solitary Confinement
- It’s a Genocide, I’m Into It’: Seinfeld Mocks Protest over Palestinian Children Killed
- Universities fire dozens amid pressure from Zionist billionaires
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
