Share

Subscribe now

Donate now

Thank you!

Your donations helped make 2024 a very eventful and productive year. Your continued donations can help make 2025 just as successful—or even more.

The entire Ask the Inspector/U.S. Tour of Duty team thanks you from the bottom of our hearts.

And if humanity had any sense, they’d thank you as well.

Because your donations helped pave the way for peace between the United States and Russia, and helped avert a nuclear war.

And we plan on doing the same thing in the year to come.

2024 was a year of great trial and tribulation for the Ask the Inspector/U.S. Tour of Duty (ATI/USToD) team. Throughout 2023 we had raised donations in support of a campaign we called “Waging Peace” which got its start in May 2023 when I made my initial visit to Russia as a guest of Alexander Zyrianov, a Russian businessman from Novosibirsk. “Waging Peace” was a campaign designed to address the problem of Russophobia here in the United States—the irrational fear of Russia, born of ignorance, which the US government used to engender support for policies promulgated on the notion that Russia was an enemy of America.

I returned to Russia—again, as the guest of Alexander Zyrianov—in December 2023, and remained through January 20, 2024. This was done with the support of ATI/USToD donations, and the visit played a huge role in advancing the “Waging Peace” mission. There were many highlights of this visit, but one that stood out was my meeting with Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the Chechen Republic, and my impromptu speech in front of 25,000 fully armed Chechen soldiers where I called for an end to the war in Ukraine and their return to a peaceful life with their families.

I returned from my second trip full of energy and ideas on how to proceed with the “Waging Peace” mission. Alexander Zyrianov and I had agreed that there should be a third “Waging Peace” trip to Russia, this one an expansive journey involving the ATI/USToD team which would last more than 40 days and take us “from the Pacific Ocean to the Baltic Sea and Everywhere in Between.” With the help of the generous donations from our supporters, the ATI/USToD team began preparations to bring a documentary film crew with us to capture the experience (which included such planned events as broadcasting ATI from each Russian city/destination we traveled to, and implementing an ambitious “pen pal” program which would help connect Russian and Americans committed to the cause of peaceful coexistence based upon mutual respect for, and understanding of, the culture, values, and history of our two nations. In addition to the planned “Waging Peace” documentary, the ATI/USToD team was planning to delve into the world of self-publishing, where we would release an accompanying book, the publication of which would be timed with the release of the film.

There were other related projects as well—a unique soundtrack for the documentary which would involve the noted music producer (and a friend of the ATI/USToD team) Malcolm Burn, working with Russian artists, and plans for a “Yalta 2.0” conference on international law, which we were planning in cooperation with the Crimean Governor, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Center for Citizen Initiatives, an American non-profit with experience in Russia.

We spent a great deal of money and invested untold hours of time in preparing for this adventure. Unfortunately, the US government had other plans—I was prevented from boarding my flight out of JFK on June 3 by three armed Customs and Border Protection officers, who seized my passport under instructions from the State Department.

Apparently the “Waging Peace” project, and its underlying mission of defeating Russophobia in America, was too great a threat to the US Government, committed as it was to a proxy war against Russia using Ukraine that was designed to achieve Russia’s strategic defeat.

It appeared that there were similar sentiments in certain circles inside Russia as well—on the same day that the US Government seized my passport, the Russian FSB arrested Alexander Zyrianov on manufactured charges of corruption. While these charges have since been shown to be false, Alexander remains in pre-trial detention because of new charges leveled against him by local Novosibirsk politicians who felt threatened that Alexander’s star had begun to burn too brightly.

The seizure of my passport and the arrest of Alexander Zyrianov was a heavy blow to the ATI/USToD team—many thousands of dollars had been spent in support of a project the fruition of which was now very much in doubt. Undaunted, we regrouped and jump-started a new project, “Operation DAWN,” based upon four basic questions being asked of the American electorate in the upcoming 2024 Presidential election: What would you do to save Democracy, America, and the World through your vote in November? Working together with Gerald Celente, the editor of Trends Journal and the long-time host of an annual peace rally in Kingston, New York every summer, the ATI/USToD team began advocating against nuclear war, and making this opposition a key issue in the upcoming election.

Apparently, this was too much for the US Government, which on August 7 ordered the FBI to execute a search warrant at my home in Delmar, New York, ostensibly on suspicion that I was acting as an agent of the Russian government, in violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) as part of a larger scheme to interfere in the 2024 Presidential election. No charges were filed, but my personal electronics (computers and cellphone) were seized, along with the entire archive I had relied upon to counter the US government’s lies about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Rather than allowing ourselves to be intimidated by such strong-arm tactics, the ATI/USToD team doubled down on our activism, speaking out in defense of our First Amendment right to free speech—and that of others, such as the Uhuru-3—and aggressively pushing forward with “Operation DAWN.”

On September 28, we kick-started the “Operation DAWN” campaign in Kingston, New York, with a four-hour rally that combined music with impassioned presentations dedicated to the cause of peace and saying no to nuclear war. I, Gerald Celente, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Joe Lauria each delivered powerful presentations which were delivered to an enthusiastic live audience as well as hundreds of thousands of viewers who tuned in to the live-streamed event. I took the opportunity to premier an anti-war music video featuring a song written and sung by my daughter, Patricia, and illustrated by her sister, Victoria, and Victoria’s fiancé, Sam, which was ably produced by Malcolm Burn, who graciously provided his home recording studio for our use. Country music performer Garret Steele entertained the crowd in between presentations, and we were all thrilled by the guest appearance of Roger Waters, who spoke to the crowd live via video before playing a music video he had prepared specially for the occasion.

We were just getting started. On October 26 the ATI/USToD team organized a panel discussion/brunch at the Tudor City Steakhouse in downtown Manhattan, which furthered the underlying theme of saying no to nuclear war and which served as the core message of “Operation DAWN.” The event brought together such notable speakers as Judge Andrew Napolitano (“Judging Freedom”), Dennis Fritz and Larry Wilkerson (from the Eisenhower Media Network, which co-sponsored the event), noted podcaster/activists Garland Nixon, Danny Haiphong, and Russell Dobular, independent congressional candidates Diane Sayer and Jose Vega, WBAI radio host Randy Credico, and the hosts of ATI, Jeff Norman and myself, for an afternoon of informed discussion and dialogue.

On election night the author joined Gerald Celente, Joe Lauria and Garland Nixon for a six-hour marathon live panel discussion about the election results and what it meant for the United States going forward.

We followed this up with a post-election, three panel extravaganza, hosted at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, where we gathered some of the top military, political, and social activist personalities in the alternative media world for a major live-streamed event intended to sustain the anti-nuclear war momentum we had helped achieve through the election of Donald Trump. This event was preceded by meetings with congressional members and their staffs, where specific policy options were discussed that could help prevent a nuclear war from breaking out between Russia and the US prior to Trump taking office.

While preventing nuclear war was the primary objective of “Operation DAWN,” it was advanced hand in glove with the cause of defending free speech. The US government’s unrelenting efforts to intimidate me into silence underscored the reality that void of free speech, the “No Nuclear War” platform embraced by “Operation DAWN” would be criminalized by a US government unable and unwilling to engage on this subject based upon the facts.

The FARA argument used by the FBI to justify the raid on my home in August was the centerpiece of a prosecution undertaken by the Justice Department targeting the Uhuru 3 (Chairman Omali Yeshitela, Jesse Nevel, and Penny Hess), a black nationalist group falsely accused of being Russian agents under FARA. While a jury had found the Uhuru 3 not guilty of the charge of being Russian agents, because of muddled jury instructions, they found the defendants guilty of conspiring to be foreign agents of Russia.

Given the direct relationship between the Uhuru 3 case and the allegations of FARA violations being hinted at about me by the US government, I took a special interest in the proceedings, calling the trial of the Uhuru 3 the “trial for the United States of America.” We used the ATI platform to talk with Chairman Omali and the other Uhuru 3 defendants, and I participated in a rally in Washington, DC in support of the Uhuru 3. I was also present at the sentencing of the Uhuru 3 in Tampa, Florida, where the judge, realizing that justice had not been served, set down for the defendants an all-probation sentence.

To sum up, 2024 was a year of unfulfilled expectations combined with new opportunities that led to great successes.

In short, I give the ATI/USToD team a solid “A” grade for effort, and a similar grade for results.

None of this could have happened without the generous donations of our supporters and subscribers.

2025 looks to be a year of great opportunity. Not prone to stay idle, the ATI/USToD team is starting the year running, hosting Ania K, my co-author and collaborator for our new book, Covering Ukraine, for a week-long book tour in the United States that will see events in New York City (January 15), Washington DC (January 19) and Poughkeepsie, New York (January 21). The purpose of the tour is far more than promoting book sales—the goal is to use the opportunity of having myself and Ania K on stage together to not only talk about the Ukraine conflict and the prospects for peace now that Trump has been elected, but also the power of collaboration when it comes to alternative media.

We will continue to promote alternative media collaboration, furthering the “family of podcasts” cooperation that we began last year, which saw podcasts hosted by Judge Napolitano, Gerald Celente, Graland Nixon, Wilmur Leon, Danny Haiphong, Jimmy Dore, Nima Rostami Alkhorshid, Cynthia Pooler, Ania K, Rachel Blevins and others work together to bring viewership to ideas and messages of mutual value. Because of this partnership, the ATI/USToD team has been able to reach audiences that number in the millions, outstripping mainstream media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC.

In the coming year, the ATI/USToD team will look to expand its reach, looking for new opportunities on Telegram and X, and to enter into an exciting partnership with the Eisenhower Media Network.

We will also continue our collaboration with Malcolm Burn, where we have plans for an exciting foray into musical diplomacy.

We will likewise be working with social activists to improve our outreach capabilities, including an exciting project in collaboration with Jose Vega that will take us into the brave new world of self-publishing.

“Operation DAWN” will continue to be a top priority, where we will hold the Trump administration’s feet to the fire when it comes to preventing nuclear war, while expanding our efforts into arms control and the need for nuclear disarmament.

2025 will also see the “Waging Peace” project resurrected, with plans to travel to Russia already underway. This effort, however, will be difficult so long as my good friend, Alexander Zyrianov, remains imprisoned. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but I remain optimistic that Alexander will soon be released back into the arms of his loving wife, and that we can resume our collaboration on bringing the people of our two nations together in peace.

The year ahead is full of hope and the promise of peace. But this lofty objective cannot be achieved without hard work. The ATI/USToD team is ready to continue to work hard for peace. We expect that the year will be full of challenges, and we are confident in our ability to overcome them all.

But we can only do this with the continued generous support of our supporters and subscribers.

Your investment will not be in vain.

Last year you helped prevent a nuclear war and successfully defended free speech.

This year?

The sky is the limit.

With your help.

Thank you very much,

The ATI/USToD Team
Scott Ritter, Jeff Norman, Ryan Milton, Jose Vega, Jelena K, Alexandra Madornaya, Jon Curl, Adam Marksby and Morgan Blythe.

Share

Subscribe now

Donate now

As the Biden administration winds down, it is determined to do as much damage as possible in its final days. During the first half of January, Biden approved $8 billion in aid for Israel and sent $500 million more for Zelensky. Yet, domestic issues appear to be of a lower priority: as devastating apocalyptic fires destroy communities and lives in California, Biden jokingly says to VP Harris during a press briefing on the California fires: “Fire away...no pun intended!”.

As if escalating wars weren’t enough, the outgoing administration decided to throw good money after bad and impose yet another round of sanctions on the Russian Federation. The economic damage caused to the European Union by the previous thousands of restrictions remains largely ignored as the United States doubles down on the policies that have already proven to be unsuccessful.

Share World Affairs in Context

Economic and financial sanctions are a form of warfare that has become a staple in U.S. foreign policy. Sanctions are coercive measures designed to force an actor into doing what it would not otherwise do since the sender pursues its own interest at the expense of other parties. It has become clear that more than 20,000 sanctions already imposed on Russia failed to accomplish their intended objectives of weakening Russia’s economy and alienating it from the rest of the world. Nevertheless, the U.S. leaders continue to pursue policies that have proven to be a failure.

On January 10, 2025, the Biden administration imposed extremely tough sanctions on Russia, targeting its crude oil and gas industries. The latest move includes sanctions on two Russian oil giants, Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas, as well as more than 180 shadow fleet tankers, natural gas producers, energy traders, and oil field service providers.

According to the U.S. Department of State:

“Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury took sweeping action to fulfill the G7 commitment to reduce Russian revenues from energy, including blocking two major Russian oil producers. The United States is imposing sanctions today on more than 200 entities and individuals involved in Russia’s energy sector and identifying more than 180 vessels as blocked property. This wide-ranging, robust action will further constrain revenues from Russia’ energy resources and degrades Putin’s ability to fund his illegal war against Ukraine.

Of these targets, the Department of State is sanctioning nearly 80 entities and individuals, including those engaged in the active production and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Russia. Others include those attempting to expand Russia’s oil production capacity; those providing support to the U.S.-sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project; those involved in Russia’s metals and mining sector; and senior officials of State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom.”

The European Union, without access to alternative, cost-effective energy resources, is being defacto sanctioned by the United States. On the other hand, Russia has been reorienting its economy to continue shifting towards the Global South and any negative impact will likely be minimized in the long term.

China, the biggest global importer of crude oil, has become Russia’s top exporter, and it is likely to benefit from the newly presented opportunities to negotiate advantageous deals. Although trade restrictions may result in short-term losses, the long-term implications are unlikely to be significant as Russia continues to develop closer trade and investment ties with China and other partners.

Russia-China energy trade is expected to increase as the two countries build new oil and gas pipelines, including the proposed China-Russia Crude Oil Pipeline and the already operating Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean Oil Pipeline. Soon, Western sanctions will become obsolete as the world accelerates its transition to multipolarity.

The new sanctions will continue to harm Europeans. The IMF has downgraded the growth outlook for the euro area. The eurozone is now projected to grow by just 0.8% in 2024, a 0.1% decrease compared to July's outlook. Meanwhile, the IMF expects the economy of Russia to expand by 3.6% in 2024 and 1.3% in 2025.

Hungary's Foreign Minister, Peter Szijjártó, recorded a video in which he openly says that the sanctions imposed by the United States will, first and foremost, make life more difficult for people in Europe and further undermine the EU's economic performance.

As economic warfare continues, sanctioned countries accelerate the development of alternative economic systems and new partnerships, while its main ally’s actions exacerbate Europe’s economic decline.

Watch the full video on YouTube:

Thank you for reading! Please consider subscribing to support my work:

Subscribe now

“May you live in interesting times.”

Said to be a curse, this apocryphal saying, attributed to China, is in fact more than likely the product of an Englishman’s imagination. It is, however, accurate nonetheless, especially if one’s understanding of the definition of the word “interesting” takes a more morbid approach toward what is capable today of “arousing curiosity or interest” or “holding or catching the attention.”

By any account, 2024 was an “interesting” year. We began with dual conflicts in progress—the Russian “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine, and the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza.

But there were other conflicts as well, those that operated below the event horizon of most Americans. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, contested results stemming from a flawed election that took place in December 2023 led to a fresh outbreak of fighting in the eastern part of that troubled nation, continuing three decades of warfare that has killed millions and currently is responsible for the displacement of some 7.2 million civilians.

And in Sudan a Civil War raged with all the brutality that can be mustered when conflict becomes based upon ethnicity. With tens of thousands killed and millions more displaced, the conflict in Sudan had all the earmarks of a genocide.

Interesting times, indeed.

But then the Houthis shut down Israeli-affiliated shipping in the Gulf of Aden, and Iran launched not one, but two, missile strikes against Israel, and things became even more interesting.

The US-led “rules-based international order” found itself challenged in unprecedented fashion by a new multi-polar forum, BRICS, which held its annual summit in the Russian city of Kazan, demonstrating once and for all that the western efforts to isolate Russia in the aftermath of its 2022 invasion of Ukraine had failed.

China flexed its muscles in the Pacific, asserting its sovereignty over Taiwan and the disputed islands, many of them man-made (by the Chinese) in the South Pacific, and North Korea continued to expand its nuclear-capable ballistic missile arsenal.

In the United States, politically motivated lawfare sought to disrupt the presidential aspirations of Donald Trump while the Democratic Party carried out a de facto coup, replacing the senile Joe Biden with the incompetent Kamala Harris without any of the normal trappings of democratic due process.

Donald Trump won—convincingly, throwing the entire American establishment into a panic.

And, to top things off, the Biden administration, seeking to cement its policy legacies in a way that Trump would not be able to readily undo them, pushed the United States to the brink of a nuclear war with Russia.

It is with good reason that the newborn 2025 looks back on 2024 with fear and trepidation.

But when he turns his gaze toward the year to come, things become even more “interesting.”

Benjamin Netanyahu continues to rule over an Israeli nation defined by genocide and empowered by an incoming Trump administration that has staffed its senior policy posts with the staunchest of Zionists.

Donald Trump hasn’t even been sworn in as President and he has turned the world upside down with threats to use military force to invade, occupy and annex Greenland (a territory of Denmark, ostensibly a NATO ally!) and to seize control of the Panama Canal, the control of which the US transferred to the Panamanian government in 1999.

Trump has pledged to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, but neither Volodymyr Zelensky, the erstwhile President of Ukraine, or Vladimir Putin, the legitimate President of Russia, are on the same page when it comes to a cessation of hostilities, meaning that the war in Ukraine will drag on for months to come.

Trump claims he wants to resume his bromance with North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, but Kim has become cozy with Putin.

And Xi Jinping and his behemoth Chinese economy looms large in the background, identified by Trump as the greatest threat to the United States, and as such his greatest challenge.

The old wars continue to rage, and the potential for new conflicts is an ever-present reality.

It’s no wonder the poor baby 2025 pooped his diapers in fear!

2025 is going to be very interesting indeed.

We live in interesting times.

Share

Subscribe now

Donate now

The BRICS+ economic alliance continues to expand. The new year began with Indonesia formally joining the bloc as its tenth full member despite the alliance announcing in October 2024 that all new memberships would be paused.

BRICS includes Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, India, China, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia. Saudi Arabia has not officially moved forward with its membership. The extended economic alliance makes up half the world population and 41.4 percent of global GDP (PPP).

Share World Affairs in Context

Indonesia spent over a decade pursuing accession to the bloc. It expressed interest in joining as early as 2010, the same year South Africa became a member of the organization. According to the Brazilian Foreign Ministry, Indonesia's candidacy was initially endorsed by BRICS leaders in August 2023 but the country’s leadership chose to postpone its formal accession to the bloc until the formation of its newly-elected government. President Prabowo Subianto took office in October 2024 and the country’s representatives confirmed its readiness to join during the summit in Kazan, Russia.

On Tuesday, January 7th, Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it views the BRICS+ membership as:

“a strategic step to improve the collaborations and cooperation with other developing nations, based on the principle of equality, mutual respect, and sustainable development. This achievement shows Indonesia’s increasingly active role in global issues and commitment to strengthening multilateral cooperation to create a global structure that is more inclusive and fair.”

Indonesia’s membership marks an important development for the Global South as it signals the bloc’s prospective further expansion into Southeast Asia (will Malaysia be next?) as well as its strengthening role among the global majority despite President-elect Donald Trump’s threats to impose 100 percent tariffs on any country that chooses to transact in a currency other than the United States dollar.

Subscribe now

Besides being the world's fourth-most populous nation, it is home to the largest population and economy in Southeast Asia. Indonesia ranks 16th in GDP globally and boasts of having well-established commercial ties with the founding members of the bloc, primarily China. China is Indonesia's largest trading partner.

Besides the obvious benefits associated with the expansion of cross-border trade and investments, Indonesia’s membership brings a new twist to the geopolitical tensions in Southeast Asia as the United States increasingly views the region as its national interest.

In mid-2024, the Council on Foreign Relations wrote a revealing article explaining that the United States is interested in the Indo-Pacific region, using its terminology, because it views it as its national security interests:

For some, with war raging in Europe, NATO’s only concerns should be supporting Ukraine and deterring Russia from attacking alliance members. Others, however, believe that NATO has a role to play in bolstering deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and preventing Chinese adventurism in the region. The path the alliance chooses in the coming years could have significant geopolitical consequences.

From the perspective of Jakarta, what remains to be seen is if it can still maintain its friendship with the West while facilitating stronger ties with the global majority. This year is promising to be quite eventful as more than 30 countries have formally submitted applications to become full members. Among them are Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Malaysia. Although Turkiye’s and Azerbaijani memberships are likely not in the cards this year, it appears that Malaysia would be a logical next step towards the BRICS expansion in the region and beyond.

Thank you for reading! Please consider subscribing to support my work:

Subscribe now

Donald Trump enters 2025 with a perceived mandate for change and a doctrine predicated on the mantra “peace through strength.”

Perhaps the biggest change sought by Trump is to divorce the United States from its Cold War-era marriage to a trans-Atlantic military alliance—NATO—that lacks any present-day purpose other than to stimulate an atmosphere of confrontation with Russia.

The question remains as to whether Trump’s mandate is strong enough to bring about this divorce, and whether the precepts of “peace” will win out over those of “strength” if this mandate is challenged at home and abroad.

Donald Trump is a man on a mission.

He is also a man driven by an ego which may outstrip the ability of the nation he will be sworn in to lead on January 20, 2025, to match.

Trump simultaneously seeks to disengage the United States from global hot spots that have come to define present-day national security priorities while promoting a new foreign policy centered on solidifying American dominance over its immediate spheres of strategic interest, including taking an aggressive stance on expanding the territory of the United States to include Greenland and the Panama Canal.

To accomplish this expansive goal, Trump and his foreign policy/national security team will need to go against the grain of decades of policy imperatives that have, over time, been used to define US national security interests.

In seeking to bring an end to the Ukraine conflict without accomplishing the underlying goals of the US and its western allies, namely the strategic defeat of Russia, Trump is opening the door for the potential normalization of relations between Russia and the US and, by extension, Russia and Europe.

This is a two-step process.

First and foremost, Trump must find a formulation for conflict cessation which simultaneously recognizes the reality of Russia’s victory over the collective West.

This means that Russia will need to get the vast majority of what it is seeking when it comes to the Ukraine conflict—Ukrainian neutrality (no NATO membership), permanent international recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Lugansk, the lifting of all sanctions linked to the Special Military Operation, and political control over the future of what remains of Ukraine, including constitutional changes requiring “denazification.”

Trump will promote such a deal as a major victory, since he has cast himself as someone who did not promote this conflict, and as such should be credited with creating the conditions for peace.

The next step is perhaps the most challenging: divorcing the United States from NATO.

The Ukraine conflict has underscored the reality that post-Cold War NATO is an organization lacking in a viable mission. What was once a defensive alliance focused on protecting Western Europe from Soviet expansion, NATO has become little more than a tool of the very kind of US-led foreign adventurism Donald Trump claims he is seeking to walk away from.

The rub is that the political and economic elite of Europe who are responsible for NATO allowing itself to be redefined as a tool of American empire will not willingly yield to Trump’s strategic vision. NATO, facing the diminishment of US investment into the alliance, will seek to restructure the defenses of Europe predicated on the very threat model Trump, through his peace initiative regarding Ukraine, seeks to dismantle.

Europe, however, is not able to bear the financial burden of such an undertaking, and any effort to build a massive new European military designed to confront a manufactured Russian threat will by necessity require the reallocation of limited fiscal resources away from the kind of social and infrastructure investments the bulk of the European population are demanding from their governments, making any effort to do so the equivalent of political suicide.

Trump’s goal is to make NATO politically and economically unsustainable. To do this, he must get Europe to acquiesce to a vision that reverses decades of policy predicated upon Russia as an existential threat, as well as getting congressional support for divorcing the United States from a trans-Atlantic alliance that has served as the core of American national security policy for 80 years.

It is unlikely that Europe will go gently into that good night.

Instead, there will be a period of political and economic turmoil as deeply entrenched elites seek to retain their positions of power and influence in the face of unyielding geopolitical reality that dictates otherwise. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom—traditionally the core of what constitutes European political, economic and military power—are all in what appears to be irreversible decline, generating domestic political fallout that will ultimately prove fatal to the current ruling class.

One of the largest obstacles Trump faces in trying to oversee what amounts to the euthanasia of post-War European power structures comes not from the European continent, which frankly speaking is virtually powerless to prevent such an outcome in the face of American indifference manifesting itself in a refusal to underwrite the costs associated with sustaining the NATO alliance. Rather, Trump will face pushback from within the halls of Congress. Here, decades of a symbiotic relationship between those who control the power of the purse and those responsible for defending the nation have produced a war-based economy that feeds upon conflicts promoted by elected officials whose positions are dependent upon the support of the warmongering class.

This is precisely the threat to American democracy that President Dwight Eisenhower warned of in his farewell address to the nation in January 1961.

Trump gave voice to this threat in a video statement released on March 17, 2023. “Our foreign policy establishment,” Trump declared, “keeps trying to pull the world into conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia based on the lie that Russia represents our greatest threat. But the greatest threat to Western civilization today,” Trump noted, “is not Russia. It’s probably more than anything else ourselves and some of the horrible, USA-hating people that represent us.”

Trump pledged “a complete commitment to dismantling the entire globalist, neocon establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars, pretending to fight for freedom and democracy abroad, while they turn us into a third-world country and a third-world dictatorship right here at home.”

Trump added that NATO’s role needs to be re-explored, and that the State Department, “defense bureaucracy” and intelligence services must likewise be overhauled.

Trump accused this “establishment” of wanting to “squander all of America’s strength, blood and treasure, chasing monsters and phantoms overseas while keeping us distracted from the havoc they're creating here at home. These forces,” Trump concluded, “are doing more damage to America than Russia and China could ever have dreamed.”

The stakes in this game of political dominance are as high as they can get—left unchecked, the “establishment” could very well lead the United States down the path of inevitable nuclear conflict with Russia.

Trump has articulated a desire to take a different path.

His mantra of “peace through strength,” however, is a double-edged sword.

As currently configured, Trump’s strategic vision appears to seek to trade the loss of the post-War trans-Atlantic alliance that has defined American national security for eight decades for peace and stability in Europe, for the assertion of a new Monroe Doctrine where the United States rules as the unquestioned power over not only the sovereign territory of the American homeland, but also America’s neighbors to the north and south.

Trump’s gambit is predicated on Congress being willing to accept the proposed acquisition of Greenland and the declared re-acquisition of the Panama Canal, as well as the promise of American dominance over the North and South American continents, as a fair exchange for the loss of Europe.

But Trump’s gambit is also predicated on the fact that any massive restructuring of American geopolitical priorities will inevitably disenfranchise existing power elites to the benefit of a new “establishment” elite.

The deeply entrenched current elites will not yield the field without a fight.

Moreover, the exchange Trump is proposing assumes that the United States can negotiate a smooth exit from Europe void of any entanglements. One of the biggest hurdles in this regard is Trump’s oversized ego and notoriously thin skin. “Peace through strength” is as much about perception as it is about reality, and the concessions Trump will be compelled to make to Russia to bring the Ukraine conflict to a quick and decisive conclusion require, at a minimum, the appearance that what happens is all part of the Trump “design.”

Russia has already thrown a wrench into the works by rejecting out of hand a peace proposal assembled by the Trump national security team-in-waiting, an outcome which most likely proves fatal to Trump’s stated objective of ending the Ukraine conflict on “day one” of his presidency.

If only it were that easy.

The fact is it may very well take between six months and a year after Trump is sworn in for the Ukraine conflict to wind down on terms acceptable to Russia. Trump would be well-advised to engage with the Russians early and realistically to bring an end to the fighting in the shortest timeframe possible. Only after that can he begin the process of divorcing the United States from the dysfunctional union it maintains with NATO. And, like any long-time relationship, this divorce will take time. But the dissolution of NATO is all but assured once the Ukraine conflict is concluded. Trump can literally hand off the proceedings to his “lawyers” and get on with the courtship of his new conquest—greater America.

Which, of course, brings a whole other meaning to the concept of “Make America Great Again.”

Share

Subscribe now

Donate now

Share

Subscribe now

Donate now

The war for energy resources is intensifying as Ukraine has refused to extend the bilateral 5-year natural gas transit agreement with the Russian Federation. On January 1st, 2025, a major contract governing the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine will end with quite serious implications for Ukraine as well as for the European Union - particularly for Hungary and Slovakia, and partially for Austria.

During the past five years, while the transit contract was in effect, Ukraine received substantial revenues for energy transport and storage services. In 2022, Ukraine collected $1.2 billion and received close to $800 million the following year.

Ukraine’s gas pipeline system connects Russia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Moldova. After gas flows via Ukraine into Poland and Romania stopped, Slovakia remains the main entry point into the European Union. Along with Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, and Moldova have been the main gas flow recipients via Ukraine.

Moldova and Transnistria are severely impacted by Zelensky’s refusal to extend gas transit during the winter months. The authorities of Moldova and Transnistria even introduced a state of emergency last week. According to Moldova’s pro-EU President Maia Sandu, negotiations with Zelensky on continuing gas supplies for the country's needs have not yielded any results.

While Hungary could obtain gas via Turkstream, the Horgos entry point would need to operate continuously at a maximum capacity. If Italy could direct enough flows to Austria, Hungary could get additional gas through reverse flows from Austria. Slovakia would have fewer alternatives as it would find itself further down the gas flow chain. Additional supplies would depend on whether Austria, Czechia, and Hungary have enough gas to satisfy their demands.

Subscribe on YouTube

The decision not to extend the contract is clearly against the best interest of Ukraine. At the same time, it serves the United States and its ambitions to sell more of its energy resources to the EU, therefore making Europeans even more dependent and ultimately subservient to its interests. Ukraine stands to lose fees equivalent to about 0.5 percent of its GDP from ending the transit contract and - perhaps even more importantly - the decision of Zelensky’s government undermines Ukraine’s strategic role as an energy partner for Europe.

For the United States, Zelensky’s move is a strategic win as it further supports the initiative to ensure that gas is bought exclusively from the United States. It is becoming crystal clear that the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, which Biden promised would be made inoperable, and later on, it mysteriously exploded, was just a piece to the puzzle.

The biggest loser here is Ukraine as it easily gives up not only guaranteed transit and storage revenue as its economy keeps its head above the water thanks to Western loans and credit facilities but also loses a considerable amount of leverage with international players. Typically, countries seek to secure transit agreements; for example, take Türkiye when it comes to Qatari gas exports into the EU. Ukraine’s regime, however, serves external interests instead of the interests of its population.

In response to Zelensky stopping the supply of natural gas to Slovakia, the country’s Prime Minister Robert Fico said that Slovakia would readily cut its electricity supply to Ukraine:

"After Jan. 1, we will consider the situation and the possibility of reciprocal measures against Ukraine.If it is unavoidable, we will stop the supply of electricity, which Ukraine urgently needs in the event of grid failures," he said.

Zelensky, in yet another juvenile rant on X, blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for the fact that Slovakia, a sovereign European nation, considers reciprocating in kind and limiting electricity flows to Ukraine in an attempt to force Zelensky’s government to extend gas transport.

Even though the population of Ukraine will now face much higher energy costs as Ukraine is set to start purchasing LNG from the United States, Zelensky appears to have played an important role in helping the U.S. secure its control over gas sales to Europe. Not surprisingly, Ukraine just purchased its first 100 million cubic meters of LNG directly from the United States via Greece.

Watch the full video:

Thank you for reading! Please consider subscribing to support my work:

Subscribe now

Share World Affairs in Context

“In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails of Nazis after WW 2) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”

Captain G. M. Gilbert, US Army psychologist, Author of Nuremburg Diary

In September 1995 I was working for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), charged with eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. I was the primary liaison between UNSCOM and Israeli intelligence at the time and would make frequent trips to Israel which could last between a few days and a few weeks. During one of these visits, I invited my wife Marina to join me over the weekend. Marina is a devout Georgian Orthodox Christian and was thrilled about the opportunity to see the Holy Land firsthand. We walked the “Via Delarosa” (the “sorrowful way”) in Jerusalem, tracing Jesus’ journey to his crucifixion. We dipped our feet in the River Jordan at the spot John was said to have baptized Jesus. We toured the Sea of Gallilee, visiting the various sites of Jesus’ ministry as recorded in the Bible.

All these experiences resonated deeply with us both.

But it was the excursion my wife made to Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center, located on Mount Herzl, in western Jerusalem, that made the deepest impression. It was there that Marina came face to face with photographs of some of the child victims of the Holocaust. Marina had given birth to our twin daughters in February 1993, and at the time of her visit to Vad Vashem our girls were 2 and a half years old—the same age as some of the children in the photographs on display at the center. Marina saw our daughters in the eyes of these children, and immediately broke down and cried.

She was overcome with empathy.

In the summer of 1997, I found myself in Baghdad at the head of an inspection team whose purpose it was to confront the Iraqi government with its inconsistent and often contradictory information about the disposition of weapons of mass destruction-related materials in the summer of 1991. Armed with defector reports and satellite imagery, I had been able to find caches of unaccounted missile production equipment, and unravel the deceit of senior Iraqi officials that had served as the foundation of their narrative for more than six years running. My inspection team was not very popular among the inner circle of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. As a means of putting pressure on me and my team, the Iraqi government would air video clips of our inspection, accusing me and the other inspectors of working for the CIA, and blaming us for the ongoing suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of western sanctions. This led to several death threats and at least one attempted assassination attempt on me and my team by disgruntled Iraqi civilians who took the accusations of the Iraqi government to heart.

Rather than back down or hide, my team and I took the opposite approach—we made our presence in Iraq as high-profile as possible, part of my “Alpha Dog” approach to inspecting, which had us figuratively “pissing on the walls” of Iraq in order to leave our mark, and to make sure the Iraqis knew who was in charge when it came to the implementation of our mandate.

At night, when the inspections were finished, and while the “news” of our efforts were being broadcast on Iraqi television, my team and I would drive to the center of town in our ubiquitous white Nissan Patrol SUV’s, with the black “UN” letters painted on the sides and our tactical markings displayed on the roofs and hoods in grey duct tape (these were the team designations for each vehicle—A-1 for “Alpha One,” etc. My vehicle was marked with a “W” for “Whiskey”). We would park on the side of the road next to whatever restaurant we had picked to dine in that night and walk in with all the cockiness of John Wayne and his cowboys (indeed, the head of the UN Humanitarian Mission in Iraq had recently called us “cowboys” in an interview he gave for Le Monde. We decided the title, meant to be an insult, fit us well).

One night, as we sat in a popular roast chicken establishment, the television started playing a “news special” which singled me out for attack. The inspectors and I watched the crowd as they watched the TV screen, where our photographs were displayed along with a running narrative of our many “crimes.” The mood in the restaurant darkened considerably, and someone recommended that we leave while the leaving was good.

“No,” I countered. “We paid for this meal, and we’re going to enjoy it. Fuck these people.”

I was in no mood for showing weakness. We had just spent a day parked outside the Iraqi intelligence headquarters, with our entry blocked by armed guards. At one point we were ushered inside the guardhouse while the police disarmed a man who had driven by with a loaded AK-47, intent on gunning me and the inspectors down.

No sooner than these words had left my mouth, I saw a woman rise from her seat at a table to our front. She was dressed in a black dress, with a black shawl covering her head. Someone at her table tried to pull her back to her seat, but she reprimanded them, and they let go of her arm. She turned and made her way toward my table, her eyes locked on mine.

“Boss,” one of the inspectors, a grizzled British soldier, said. “Incoming.”

“I got her,” I replied. I watched her closely as she drew near, my gaze fluctuating from her eyes and her hands, trying to ascertain her intent. I hadn’t reached a conclusion by the time she halted, standing over me as I sat there and wiped the chicken grease from my face with a napkin.

“You are Scott Ritter?,” she asked, her voice cracking with emotion.

“Yes, Ma’am,” I said, coming to my feet.

“And these are your men? Your inspectors?”

“Yes, Ma’am,” I replied.

“I see you on television every day. They say it is you I should blame for the death of my children.”

“Yes, Ma’am,” I stuttered, not knowing what else to say.

“They want me to hate you.”

“Yes, Ma’am.”

She stared at me, tears welling in her eyes. Her hands were wrapped in her shawl, and suddenly one darted out. If it had been a knife, she would have been able to stab me. But it was just her hand, which she laid on my arm.

“You are doing your job,” she said. “I know this. I know in your heart you mean me no harm. I know in your heart that you did not want my child to die.”

Tears started trickling down her cheek.

“I know you are someone’s son. That all of you,” she said, gesturing to the hard men seated around the table, “have mothers who love you, as I loved my child.”

She looked up at me. “I will pray for your safety, so that you can finish your work, and that sanctions can be lifted, so other mothers do not lose their children to disease.”

She squeezed my arm, and turned away, heading back to her table, where she sat down and sank her head into the arms of the lady seated next to her, sobbing.

I looked down at my unfinished meal, no longer hungry.

“Let’s go,” I said, the anger and cockiness that had defined my earlier tone gone.

We left, each of us reaching into our pockets to leave as large a tip as possible, as if we all were trying to atone for our sins by buying forgiveness.

The crowd in the restaurant let us leave without incident.

As I sat in the Nissan Patrol, heading back to our headquarters building where I would finish the daily inspection report, I could still feel the grip of the lady on my arm where she had squeezed me.

I tried to figure out why she did what she did.

She had every right to hate us. I know that if I was to come face to face with the man responsible for the death of my children, the meeting would not be described as peaceful.

But she chose peace.

She did so in a very public manner, singling me out for the entire restaurant to see.

I wonder what would have happened if she hadn’t stood up.

If she hadn’t confronted me.

What would the crowd have done? I had been caught in several public settings, including a restaurant, when the mood of the crowd soured. Things got real ugly, real fast.

But her intervention prevented that.

She intervened to protect us.

Because she was a mother.

And she knew we had mothers.

She had been overcome with empathy.

Earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit the Donbas region of Russia, including the city of Lugansk. Once part of Ukraine, these territories were caught up in the turmoil that gripped Ukraine following the coming to power in Kiev of anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists following the US-orchestrated Maidan revolt of February 2014. The Russian-speaking population of the Donbas revolted against the new Ukrainian nationalists, who sought to impose a sort of cultural genocide by banning the Russian language, religion, culture and history. The revolt that followed lasted nearly eight years, culminating in the Russian military intervention in Ukraine and the subsequent annexation of four former Ukrainian regions, or oblasts, including the two—Donetsk and Lugansk—which together form the Donbas.

While in Lugansk I was taken to a memorial dedicated to the children of Lugansk who perished in the fighting that has been raging since 2014. When the monument was installed, back in 2017, there were 33 angels depicted, one for each Lugansk child that had perished in the fighting. Since that time, 35 additional Lugansk children have perished, raising the total number killed to 68.

What struck me when visiting the memorial was how each child’s life resonated with the citizens of Lugansk, as if everyone in the city claimed the lost children as their own. I had witnessed this phenomenon before. Back in 2000, I visited Iraq for the purpose of filming a documentary on UNSCOM and the disarmament of Iraq. While there, I visited the site of the Martyr’s Place Elementary School where, on the morning of October 13, 1987, an Iranian SCUD missile strike killed 22 children and injured more than 160 others as they gathered in the school playground to start the day. At the entrance to the playground was a memorial depicting 22 bronze angels ascending to heaven.

At the time of my visit to Baghdad, some 13 years after the attack, the residents of the neighborhood surrounding the school were still emotional over the loss of life among the children. “They would be young adults today,” one elderly man said. “Just starting their lives.”

It is the loss of the children that hits a community hardest. Whether in Lugansk, Baghdad, or Ma’alot, a town in Israel where, in May 1974, Palestinian militants occupied the Netiv Meir elementary school, where they took some 115 persons hostage, 105 of whom were children. The Israeli military stormed the building, killing the three Palestinian gunmen as well as 31 hostages, 22 of whom were children. Israelis were still talking about Ma’alot when I visited in 1995, some 21 years later.

Some things cannot be forgotten.

And even though I was not a witness to any of these events, as a father of twin daughters I felt the pain of those who lost their little ones as if the lives lost were my own flesh and blood.

Because I had empathy.

If the lack of empathy is the principal characteristic of evil, then the ability to empathize must be the trademark of good.

This Christmas season finds the world engulfed in conflict, with tragedy playing out before our very eyes daily.

We wouldn’t be human if we start to become immune to the horror, our senses overwhelmed by the repetitive scenes of death and destruction that we are constantly confronted by. Being physically separated from violence, we have the option to tune out the unpleasant sights and sounds of human suffering.

After all, how many times can we see the torn, lifeless body of a child pulled from the rubble of Gaza and Beirut?

Or from the wreckage of homes in Ukraine and Russia?

Overdosing from senseless tragedy leads to the numbing of our soul, the hardening of our heart, the diminishment of our humanity.

But we must endure, for no other reason than to make sure that those young lives lost did not perish in vain.

We must learn and remember the names of those who have perished, not to serve as fuel for the furnace of hatred that drives one to seek revenge, but because we have a duty as humans to put ourselves in the shoes of those who have lost their loved ones in war, to feel their pain, to understand their loss, so that we know the importance of trying to bring the violence that took these lives to an end.

War is never the solution.

Peace is always the answer.

I often think back to my encounter with the Iraqi mother at the restaurant in Baghdad. It was an ugly time in my life, when I was overcome with a sense of duty that clouded my own humanity. I was so singularly focused on the task at hand—disarming Iraq—that I forgot that there was a human cost associated with my work and that of my inspectors.

I’ve told the story of this encounter a few times, but I always left out one part of the story, because the memory of it rips at my heart to this day.

After the lady squeezed my arm, and started to turn away, I reached out and laid my hand on her shoulder. She spun around and looked at me.

“What was your child’s name?” I asked.

Her eyes filled with tears, but she smiled slightly before answering. “Zaynab,” she said.

“Zaynab,” I repeated. “It’s a beautiful name.”

“She was a beautiful child,” the mother replied.

I don’t tell this part of the story because it takes away from the tough guy, Alpha Dog persona I had developed during that time.

Because when she turned and walked away, she left me standing alone, sobbing.

But we must confront these things.

Zaynab would have been in her late 20’s today, old enough to have found love, married, and began a family of her own.

But it wasn’t to be.

We must remember Zaynab, just as we must remember every child whose life was taken from this earth too soon.

We must empathize with those who have lost their loved ones because of the senseless wars fought by men.

We must make sure that the children who are alive today have the chance to grow up and raise families of their own.

Otherwise, we become the tools of evil, if not evil itself.

Merry Christmas.

Miles for Military is the only nonprofit that provides service members with free round-trip air tickets (if they also perform community service) so they can come home for Christmas and other special occasions.

Share

Subscribe now

Donate now

In recent weeks, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump made several comments indicating that he is ready to take the economic war not only on the Global South but also on his allies in the European Union, to a new level.

In late November, Donald Trump threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs on the BRICS+ bloc if it dares to continue its efforts to support currency multipolarity. In reality, however, such rhetoric only proves that the BRICS+ is, indeed, moving in the right direction as it seeks to create a more just financial and economic system.

The following month, in December, Trump issued a warning to the European Union demanding the elimination of the negative trade balance with Europe through massive purchases of American oil and gas. Otherwise, he threatened to impose tariffs on European exports to the U.S. Additionally, Trump's team demanded that the Europeans increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP. While through their actions, many European leaders indicate that sovereignty is not one of their top priorities, one has to wonder just how far they are willing to go to support the interests of a foreign nation.

Trump’s policies towards the European Union and the war in Ukraine remain unclear. During the presidential campaign, Trump vowed to “end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours”. Now, the President-elect is sending quite contradictory signals: he hints at continuing support for Ukraine while also not ruling out forcing Volodimir Zelensky to negotiate and forget about the territories under the control of the Russian Federation. Trump’s attitude towards Zelensky has been quite clear. For example, when asked whether he invited Zelensky, whose presidential term ended in May 2024, to his inauguration in January, Trump’s response was surprising yet quite telling:

There are many unknowns concerning Trump’s stance on the E.U. For instance, Elon Musk publicly supported Germany's AfD, a party that is against any aid to Kyiv.

Other members of the elected president's team have also voiced similar views. Without a doubt, there is a struggle within Trump’s circle over approaches to Ukraine. Therefore, statements from different factions within this team should not be taken as a final position.

Trump’s stance on adjusting relations between the U.S. and the E.U. will drive how much support is provided to Zelensky to continue refusing to negotiate with Russia. Trump appears unlikely to continue sending billions to Ukraine and the European Union is not in a position to foot the bill on its own.

The President-elect argues that the U.S. is not obliged to bear the lion's share of NATO’s defense costs and that NATO allies should carry a much larger portion of the expenses to relieve the burden on Americans. While it would be reasonable to assume that many Americans support this initiative, let us be honest - NATO cannot exist without the support from the United States. With a considerable political crisis in Europe, there are many unknowns: Germany is heading to early elections, and in France, the government has been dismissed. The situation in the U.K. is also tense concerning the budget.

At the same time, demanding that the EU countries shoulder 5 percent of their GDP on defense spending is an ambitious request. The U.S. spends less than 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense. Russia, a country engaged in a full-scale war against the collective West, allocated 6 percent of its GDP for military purposes this year and is set to increase it to 6.3 percent in 2025. Therefore, 5 percent is essentially the defense budget of a wartime country. The question then becomes - is NATO preparing for a full-scale war soon, say, within the next five years, if it agrees to hike its defense spending to 5 percent?

…continued in the recent video:

Thank you for reading! Please consider subscribing to support my work:

Subscribe now