On May 9, Russia celebrates the 80^th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany. The United States played a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, one the American people should never forget and never stop honoring. But the margin of our victory over the Nazi scourge was razor slim, measured in the lives of millions of our Soviet allies without whom our collective victory would never have happened. We should never forget their sacrifice.

The Battle of Waterloo, in June 1815, Napoleon’s dream of French glory, was crushed by the combined armies of Great Britain and Prussia. According to field marshal Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington and commander of the British forces, “the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life.” If one or two more battalions of French Imperial Guardsmen had been available during the third and final infantry assault on the British center, the British positions would have collapsed, allowing Napoleon to pivot his army and meet the Prussian forces under the command of Field Marshal Blücher head on, pinning them in place until French reserves closed in from behind, an action which would have led to the destruction of the Prussians. But the French had reached the end of their resources, and when the tired soldiers of the British 52^nd Regiment of Foot made a last desperate charge, the French Old Guard broke, sending the entire French army into retreat, ending the battle.

The margin of victory was literally a few hundred men in a battle that involved hundreds of thousands on either side.

In July 1863, during the Battle of Gettysburg, the 20^th Maine, a regiment which normally mustered some 1,621 men but which, because of the effects of war and heavy campaigning, had been whittled down to 266, was tasked with holding the left flank of the Union line, a small hill known as Little Round Top. Prior to the battle commencing, the 20^th Maines was reinforced by 120 deserters from the 2^nd Maine, who were given the option of joining the 20^th or being shot. This brought the 20^th Maine up to 386 men.

Facing the 20^th Maine were two Alabama regiments, the 15^th and the 47^th. The approach march to the position held by the 20^th Maine took several hours, in the hot sun, with no water. Between them, the 15^th and 47^th Alabama mustered just under 1,000 men. By the time the men from Alabama reached the base of Little Round Top, they had deployed some 180 men as skirmishers to protect their advance from Union sharpshooters. Another 15 men from the 15^th Alabama were sent out to look for water.

The men from Alabama charged up Little Round Top four times but were repulsed. The fifth charge brought them to within 15 yards of the 20^th Maine’s positions. Here they nearly broke through. The men from Maine had seen 130 of their number fall dead or wounded. They were running out of ammunition. But the men from Alabama were similarly exhausted, with 150 of their number fallen on the hill. When Colonel Chamberlain, the 20^th Maine commander, ordered a last desperate bayonet charge, the men from Alabama broke.

If it weren’t for the 120 men from the 2^nd Maine regiment who reinforced the 20^th Maine at the last moment, Little Round Top would have fallen.

If the Alabamans had retained the nearly 200 men they had left behind as skirmishers or water bearers, Little Round Top would have fallen.

If Little Round Top had fallen, the Battle of Gettysburg would have ended in a Union defeat, and the US Civil War may very well have had a different outcome.

Once again, the margin of victory came down to a few hundred men at the right time and place to change history.

Throughout the course of history, the margin of victory in battles that shaped world events often could be measured in terms of hundreds, if not thousands, of men whose presence at the right place and time tipped the scale of fate in their favor.

“We won two World Wars—but we never took credit for it!,” Donald Trump, the 47^th President of the United States, recently posted on his Truth Social account. “Everyone else does! All over the World, the Allies are celebrating the Victory we had in World War II. The only Country that doesn’t celebrate,” Trump wrote, “is the United States of America, and the Victory was only accomplished because of us. Without the United States,” Trump continued, “the War would have been won by other Countries, and what a different World it would be.”

Donald Trump went on to proclaim May 8 to be World War II Victory Day (he also redesignated November 11 as World War I Victory Day).

The impetus for such a historically flawed statement is not stated by those who issued it but is apparent to all: Trump is jealous of the attention being given to Russia’s May 9 Victory Day celebration and is looking to create a competing event which would thrust the United States into the limelight.

One of the problems Trump will face in generating enthusiasm for his new May 8 holiday is that the American people have long forgotten about “The Greatest Generation” and the sacrifices they made for the United States and the world in defeating the dual threats of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. More than 16 million Americans served in the military during World War II, of whom just under 300,000 were killed in combat, with another 670,000 wounded.

I will never denigrate the service of anyone who served their nation honorably in the time of war.

Every American who wore the uniform during World War II deserves praise, as do the millions of Americans who helped turn the American industrial base into the arsenal of democracy.

Americans fought the Germans and the Japanese simultaneously, requiring a division of resources and national focus that meant we could not bring the total weight of our national power down on our enemies.

This required a balanced approach to both theaters of conflict where specific timings were linked to manpower and resource availability.

The margin of victory was often tighter than would otherwise have been desired. Take, for instance, the D-Day landings in France on June 6, 1944. The United States had been carefully martialing resources for this event, even as we engaged the Nazis in North Africa, Sicily and Italy.

But there was no guarantee of victory, as General Dwight Eisenhower’s statement he prepared in case of defeat demonstrated: “Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

We prevailed on D-Day.

But the margin of victory was slim.

One of the factors that played a major role in successfully managing this margin of victory was the “other war,” the one most Americans know very little about—the war on the Eastern Front between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Those familiar with the history of the Normandy operation may be familiar with “Operation Bagration,” the Soviet offensive against Nazi Germany’s Army Group Center which unfolded from June 22 through August 19, 1944. This offensive was ostensibly timed to prevent the Germans from transferring troops from the east front to Normandy. The Soviets employed a combined force of approximately 1,670,300 combat and support personnel against a German force of some 849,000 soldiers.

By comparison, Operation Overlord, by mid-July 1944, saw the US and British deploy some 1,452,000 troops in France, facing off against a force of approximately 640,000 Germans. By the time Overlord concluded, on August 30, 1944, the allies had suffered some 226,386 combat casualties, with the Germans losing some 323,000 combat casualties, including around 233,000 prisoners.

During Operation Bagration, which ended on August 30, 1944, the Soviets suffered some 670,000 combat casualties, while inflicting losses of 539,480 killed, missing or captured Germans. In short, in just five weeks, the Soviets had destroyed 22 German divisions. To stabilize the front, Germany had to transfer 46 divisions to the eastern front, including several divisions that were supposed to be arrayed against the US and British forces in France.

But the real story of the critical role played by the Soviets in helping guarantee a US-British victory over the Germans at Normandy was the Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive which took place between December 1943 and May 1944. Here, the Soviets lost some 270,000 killed, and another 840,000 wounded—greater losses than the entire US military suffered fighting against both the Germans and Japanese—while inflicting 380,000 casualties on the Germans.

But this isn’t the full story.

Because of the Dnieper-Carpathian offensive, on the eve of the Normandy invasion Germany withdrew from France some 46,000 troops and nearly 400 tanks and assault guns organized into some of the most elite combat formations in the Germany military, to reinforce German positions arrayed against the Soviets.

These were troops that otherwise would have been deployed to counter the D-Day landings at Normandy, making the possibility of Eisenhower having to read his draft defeat statement more possible.

The margin of victory was slim.

But the Soviet contribution to allied victory in Normandy doesn’t stop here. The German mobile reserves which were supposed to respond to any allied invasion consisted of six divisions and several separate brigade-sized units which were transferred out of Russia to France in order to refit, ensuring that when Germany did respond to the US-British Normandy invasion, it would be using divisions that had been recently torn to pieces by the Soviets on the eastern front.

The margin of victory for the US and British forces in Normandy was slim and would have been even slimmer had the Soviets not carried out the twin offenses of Dnieper-Carpathian and Bagration. These two campaigns resulted in the Soviets losing more than twice the total number of casualties suffered by the United States for the entirety of World War II in both theater of operations.

Americans would do well to recall the words of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who noted in a letter to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin that “It was the Russian army that gutted the German military machine.”

And this came at an unimaginable cost.

Some 34 million Soviet men served in the Red Army during World War II. While the official death toll for the Red Army in World War II stands at some 8,600,000, the Central Military Archives in Moscow contains the names of more than 14 million Red Army soldiers who died or went missing during the fighting with Nazi Germany. Millions more were wounded in battle.

But this is only part of the story.

The fight against Nazi Germany took place on the soil of the Soviet Union—the dark earth of Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, the Caucasus. Between 15.9–17.4 million civilians were killed on Soviet territory by Germany and its allies during the war.

These are unthinkable numbers.

And they are numbers no western nation, including the United States, could have sustained under similar conditions and prevailed.

Americans and Russians both speak about the importance of US military assistance—“Lend Lease”—on helping sustain the Red Army during the critical years of 1942-43.

But “Lend Lease” did not win the war.

The blood and sacrifice of the Red Army did.

As US President Franklin Roosevelt noted in 1942, “Russian troops have destroyed—and continue to destroy—more manpower, planes, tanks and cannons of our common enemy than all the other United Nations combined.”

It was the “skillful leadership, solid organization, appropriate training and, above all, determination to defeat the enemy, regardless of its own sacrifices” of the Red Army which, Roosevelt noted in a 1943 letter to Joseph Stalin, “certainly forced Hitler’s armed forces to follow the path to final defeat and won the admiration of the people of the United States for a long time.”

A long time.

But not forever.

Today a sitting American president denigrates the unimaginable sacrifice of the Red Army and the Soviet people—the Russian people—in defeating the scourge of Nazi Germany.

America should—indeed must—honor the sacrifices and accomplishments of its own soldiers and citizens in contributing to the great allied victory of Nazi Germany.

But not at the expense of the truth.

The Red Army engaged and destroyed between 76-80% of Nazi Germany’s military machine.

I’ve read and re-read Rick Atkinson’s amazing trilogy on the history of the US Army during World War II.

And I am amazed at just how slim the margin of victory was in many of the battles fought between American forces and their Nazi enemy.

One more German battalion here, a few hundred German tanks there, and a battle may have gone the other way.

But the Germans did not have the resources, because nearly 9 million of their soldiers fought and died on the eastern front—9 million soldiers who otherwise would have been available to tip the scales of fate in favor of the Nazi armies fighting in the west.

The margin of American victory was slim.

And without the sacrifices of the Red Army and the Soviet citizens, there would have been no margin of victory.

For the people of Russia, May 9—Victory Day—is a solemn, spiritual occasion, where the eyes of the 27 million or more ancestors who perished in the horrible struggle against Nazi Germany stare down on the citizens of today, reminding them of the sacrifices they made, and challenging them to never disgrace their memory.

The military parade is a moment of supreme national pride.

It is not, as some in the West posture, a statement of modern Russian military chauvinism.

Instead, the Russian people see before them the progeny of the Russian troops who paraded down Red Square in December 1941, marching straight from the ceremony to the front lines only a few miles away, where they shed their blood to stop the German army that was knocking at the door of the Soviet capital.

They see in the soldiers of today the pride of the Red Army when it again paraded at the end of the war against Nazi Germany, flinging down the banners of their defeated enemy.

They look at the young men who proudly march today and see in them the same indomitable spirit of their forefathers who gave everything so that the Russian people of today might live in peace on the soil of Mother Russia.

Victory Day is not a national gimmick, or a narcissistic pleasure for a Russian leader.

It is an expression of the very soul of a nation and its people.

A reminder that the margin of victory in World War II is measured in the sacrifice of the Red Army and the Soviet nation.

Donald Trump seems to have forgotten this truth.

It is incumbent upon the citizens of the United States, Britain, Canada, France and the other nations that comprised, together with the Soviet Union, the great alliance that defeated Nazi Germany.

The Russian people have never forgotten or forsaken these allies. Indeed, the Russian Army marches in their honor as well.

We must never forget the heroism and sacrifice made by American soldiers in defeating Nazi Germany.

But the margin of our victory was slim.

And only came because of the sacrifice of untold millions of Soviet soldiers and civilians.

It is our duty to honor them as we honor our own.

Subscribe to "The Russia House"

Share

Subscribe now

Donate

The U.S. economy contracted 0.3% in the first quarter of this year, and the Federal Reserve just issued a warning of growing stagflation risks. In the meantime, President Donald Trump is pushing the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates.

The push for low interest rates and monetary inflation benefits Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. These policies disproportionately serve the wealthy by inflating asset prices, boosting disposable income for top earners, and rewarding those with significant debt and investments. Meanwhile, lower-income Americans, who own fewer assets and benefit less from such policies, face rising costs and minimal income gains.

Ryan McMaken notes that Fed Chair Jerome Powell's latest warning is a major red flag, as the Federal Reserve habitually downplays economic risks and misrepresents warning signs.

Ryan McMaken is an economist (Austrian economics), executive editor at the Mises Institute, writer, and the author of “Breaking Away: The Case of Secession, Radical Decentralization, and Smaller Polities" and “Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre”.

Follow Ryan McMaken on X (Twitter): https://x.com/ryanmcmaken.

Read more of his work here: https://mises.org/profile/ryan-mcmaken.

Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Subscribe now

The interview is available on YouTube and Patreon.

Share World Affairs in Context

The recent joint statement issued by China, Japan, South Korea, and the 10 ASEAN member states during the 28th ASEAN+3 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ Meeting on May 4th marks a pivotal shift in global economic dynamics. The statement emphasizes a collective move toward strengthening regional economic resilience and reducing reliance on Western-led financial frameworks. This development is part of a broader trend of de-dollarization, which emphasizes a growing trend among countries in the Global South to protect economic sovereignty and mitigate risks associated with reliance on Western-led financial systems.

This momentum has not arisen in isolation. It has been catalyzed by years of increasingly aggressive U.S. economic policy during recent administrations, which resorted to various forms of economic coercion - economic sanctions imposed on non-aligned actors, sweeping tariffs and trade restrictions on key global economies. Trump’s protectionist stance caused deep concern across Asia, pushing even traditionally adversarial nations like China and Japan to find common ground. These actions effectively encouraged regional cooperation as a countermeasure to what many perceive as economic coercion. During my recent interview with a BRICS expert, Dr. Yaroslav Lissovolik, who attended a BRICS meeting in Brazil this spring, he noted that President Trump’s tariffs may ultimately become a “blessing in disguise” for the BRICS+ nations as they are further incentivized to focus on prioritizing regional cooperation and South-South alignment.

Share World Affairs in Context

The U.S. continued use of the dollar as a geopolitical tool through sanctions and restrictive trade policies has not gone unnoticed. This policy continuity has only strengthened the resolve of countries across Asia to forge alternative economic pathways. As a result, the joint statement marks not just an economic agreement but a geopolitical alignment, one that seeks to diminish dependency on Western institutions like the IMF and World Bank and sidestep the U.S.'s economic influence altogether.

One of the most striking features of the joint statement is its denunciation of “escalating trade protectionism,” a veiled reference to U.S. economic policy.

“Escalating trade protectionism weighs on global trade, leading to economic fragmentation, affecting trade, investment, and capital flows across the region.”

Instead of relying on Western-centric trade, the ASEAN nations and China, Japan, and South Korea are promoting intra-regional trade and deepening regional financial cooperation.

“We call for enhanced regional unity and cooperation as we endeavor to weather the heightened uncertainty. Our current policy priority is to reinforce long-term resilience while maintaining flexibility to address near-term challenges, including rising protectionism and volatile global financial conditions. On the fiscal front, this means rebuilding policy buffers while continuing to provide well-targeted support to sustain growth while implementing structural reforms. We will also carefully recalibrate monetary policy based on domestic conditions. We will maintain exchange rate flexibility as a buffer against external shocks.”

Subscribe now

One major initiative in this effort is the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralisation (CMIM), a currency swap mechanism designed to provide liquidity support in times of financial stress without involving Western financial institutions. Will it impact U.S. dollar demand? Absolutely! This regional mechanism allows participating countries to respond to financial emergencies with local and regional resources, reducing the risk of being subject to Western political and economic pressures.

In addition, the statement outlines plans to develop local currency bond markets, which would further insulate regional economies from fluctuations in the U.S. dollar. By doing so, these countries aim to create more stable financial systems that are less exposed to external shocks and the unpredictability of U.S. fiscal and monetary policy. The creation and growth of local bond markets also symbolize a decisive break from the dollar's historic dominance in global finance.

“Given the continued uncertainty in the global financial markets, well-functioning local currency bond markets remain the cornerstone of the region’s financial stability. We celebrate the 15th anniversary of the Credit Guarantee and Investment Facility (CGIF). To date, CGIF has successfully realized 100 bonds guaranteed and sukuks issued by 64 companies across 12 economies in 9 currencies with a total cumulative notional guarantee amount of USD 4,151 million.”

Furthermore, the declaration renews the bloc’s commitment to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the largest trade agreement in the world by population and economic output. Notably, the United States is excluded from RCEP, a clear indication of the shifting center of economic gravity. The agreement represents a powerful regional alternative to U.S.-led trade frameworks and provides a platform for deeper economic integration across Asia.

The scale of regional trade is already massive. In 2024 alone, trade between China and ASEAN reached nearly $1 trillion, underscoring the growing interdependence of Asia’s economies.

When Japan and South Korea are added to the equation, the total economic value becomes even more significant. This bloc of countries is effectively creating a self-sustaining economic ecosystem—one that is less susceptible to external interference.

This joint initiative is more than a response to U.S. policies—it is part of a strategic decoupling. These nations are proactively seeking to safeguard their economic sovereignty and build resilient systems that can endure geopolitical turbulence. It reflects the emergence of a multipolar world order, in which economic and political power is no longer concentrated solely in the West. Countries are exploring new alliances, fostering South-South cooperation, and designing regional financial architectures that support shared growth and independence.

This initiative, while rooted in economic cooperation, is deeply geopolitical in its implications. By aligning their financial and trade strategies, these countries are reshaping the global landscape. If the current trend continues, the world could witness a lasting shift toward a decentralized, multipolar economic order where Asia plays a central and independent role.

Remember to tune in to World Affairs in Context for more news, analysis, and upcoming interviews available on YouTube, Rumble, Patreon, Locals, and now Spotify.

Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Subscribe now

Trump Watch is a new weekly “report card” on all things Trump hosted by Scott Ritter for paid subscribers only. Scott will interview one guest in each 60-minute episode. In the first episode, Scott discusses immigration issues with Prof. Alan Dershowitz.

Give a gift subscription

Donate now

Read more

Dr. Brovkin served as a professor of History at Harvard University and a consultant to various US agencies. His recent book, “From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity,” examines how the Russian past influenced and shaped current politics, particularly the East–West divide.

As the 80th Anniversary of the Allies’ Victory over Nazi Germany is approaching, I spoke with Dr. Brovkin about the key turning points in the history of World War II, the Eastern Front vs. the Western Front and the Soviet offensive that broke the Wehrmacht.

Follow Dr. Vladimir Brovkin's fantastic YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@vladimirbrovkin4052.

Check out his latest book, “From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity.”

Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Subscribe now

The interview is available on YouTube and Patreon.

Share World Affairs in Context

Scott Ritter kicks off a new podcast that will subject the policies of the Trump administration to unbiased, non-partisan critical analysis, calling out the good, the bad, and everything in between, with the goal of holding President Trump and his administration accountable for their policies—exactly what a good citizen should be doing if he or she wants to make America great again!

In this day and age of overly polarized partisan politics, the notion of unbiased reviews of policy goals and implementation has largely been set aside. As mainstream media increasingly competes with alternative media for viewership, and the economics of reporting what passes for “the news” changes from advertisement-based to viewership interaction algorithms, there is an increasing trend to package information in the most controversial manner possible, putting engagement over sound analysis, and in the process sacrificing objectiveness with entertainment. With Trump Watch with Scott Ritter, the internet engagement model is tossed to the side, with the viewer instead being treated to a structured interview-based format which assesses the policies of the Trump administration with a critical, unbiased lens.

I’ve been doing video content for alternative media since about the time the Russian Special Military Operation against Ukraine kicked off, back in February 2022. Over the course of the past three-plus years, I have participated in just about every format of internet-based video engagement imaginable. I’ve done in-studio interviews, one- on-one interviews, panel interviews, and solo monologues. I’ve been the host, co-host, moderator, and panelist. I’ve interviewed diplomats, soldiers, politicians, scientists, academics, experts, and media personalities, and I have been subjected to every form of video interrogation imaginable, from all corners of the earth.

I’ve come to view every online video engagement I’ve participated in as a crap shoot—you don’t know what you are going to get until you roll the dice. I can say that this holds equally true whether you are the interviewer or interviewee. One of the reasons for this is that most interviews operate in free-form mode, where the host and guest engage in unscripted dialogue about the pressing issues of our time, which usually manifested in the way of breaking news stories. Often the ensuing discussion is based upon incomplete information drawn from unverified “facts.” Sometimes the “breaking news” comes from an area of the world which is less familiar to those who have been called upon to discuss it and its ramifications, live and in public.

One of the main downsides of the free-form interview format is that, given the reality of the engagement algorithms that drive the popularity and—perhaps most importantly, the monetization factors associated with podcasting, a host may not shy away from entering a discussion on a “breaking news” topic he or she is unfamiliar with, and the “expert” who is being interviewed rarely has the integrity to pass on offering an opinion if he or she is not familiar with the events being discussed. “I don’t know” might be an honest answer, but it doesn’t drive engagements and/or subscriptions.

Monetization is an ever-present reality in the alternative media world. Very few of us are independently wealthy, and as such, unless we pursue podcasting as a hobby or labor of love (in which case we would need full time jobs in order to survive), the digital product we produce must be capable of generating income sufficient to pay the bills, either partially or in their entirety, depending on the level of commitment one has made to the alternative digital news business. This can be done through sponsorships, donations, subscriptions, and monetization triggered by engagements.

While alternative media has successfully challenged the mainstream media in terms of viewer percentage, the lack of predictability and issues of viable economic sustainability make for a volatile employment opportunity. This in turn impacts the quality of the production values that go into producing a show. There is a direct correlation between production value and income generation, a visually pleasing, well-structured show doesn’t pay for itself. But given the risks associated with launching any new online digital product, rare is the podcast which, on its own volition, can invest the time and resources into getting it right from the start.

The Trump Watch with Scott Ritter team has been very fortunate to be able to build upon the foundation of success that we have garnered through the Ask the Inspector (ATI) podcasts and Scott Ritter’s Substack. Jeff Norman (the producer) and I (the host) have the luxury to draw upon our combined income streams generated by the ATI podcasts to underwrite the costs associated with starting a new podcast. This provides us with the possibility of generating unique and entertaining graphics and animation, line up talented technical support, and—perhaps most important—to think through the goals and objectives of the podcast, and what format is most conducive to achieving them.

Back in the leadup to the November 2024 presidential election, I spoke about the importance of citizen engagement on the issues of the day, noting that the citizens who exercised their duty to so engage should do so from a foundation of fact-based analysis. American democracy isn’t solely defined by what happens at the election booth, but rather what happens after the vote is cast and counted. Void of constituent accountability, elections become a fruitless exercise in the empowerment of a self-anointed political elite. If the American citizenry, however, can sustain their political engagement into the post-election arena, then politicians would a) be more careful about the policies they promoted on the campaign trail, and b) spend sufficient time to implement the promises made in a manner readily discernible to the American voter.

In planning Trump Watch with Scott Ritter, I thought carefully about what format would best empower a citizen viewer with the knowledge and information necessary to hold their elected representatives, including the President of the United States, to account for what is being done in their name. I came up with four basis categories around which an inquiry into a specific policy topic could be made.

· First, regarding an identified policy, what promises were made by candidate Trump, and how were these promises acted upon by President Trump?

· Second, what has the effectiveness been of the implementation efforts undertaken by the Trump administration in support of a given policy?

· Third, what are the underlying legal questions associated with the policy in question and its implementation, especially as it relates to the Constitution of the United States?

· Four, is the policy as implemented making America “great again?”

To establish a framework of evaluation, the Trump administration will be graded on a scale of A to F on each of the four questions, with the fourth question representing a combined score drawn from the first three grades.

The format of the program has the host leading off with a monologue that introduced the policy in question and provides some historical context to the issues at hand. Following this monologue, the guest will be introduced and engaged in a discussion drawn from specific issues generated by the three leading paths of inquiry. The guests will have been chosen specifically for their experience and expertise regarding the issues being discussed. There will be no “gotcha” questions, but rather a dialogue, discussion, and even debate about the issues at hand.

As the host, my job is to direct the questioning and engage in follow-on questions designed to probe more deeply the issues at hand. I am not trying to force an outcome but rather take the interaction between myself and my guest to whatever logical conclusion is reached by the facts that present themselves through our interaction. If a guest has a certain bias, my job will be to probe that bias respectfully to develop fully the data which will be conducive toward framing the most accurate picture of where we stand on the issues of the day.

The podcast will end with a closing monologue where I draw upon the totality of the discussion to form a final, overarching conclusion which is biased only by the facts presented and the principles and values attached to being an American by the Constitution and the historical legacy of the United States as it has evolved over the course of nearly two and a half centuries of existence.

The podcast will be available to those who have a paid subscription to the Scott Ritter Extra Substack ($7 month/$70 annual) or U.S. Tour of Duty Locals channel ($7 month/$70 annual). We have also submitted the podcast to X as a subscription service. Once approved, Trump Watch will be available to X users for a subscription of $4 month (which works out to $1 per episode.) The X subscription would be for the Trump Watch podcast only; the Substack subscription provides access to the articles and special products published there in addition to Trump Watch.

By placing Trump Watch behind a paywall, we open ourselves to criticism that we are doing this for money, and/or denying those who cannot or will not allocate the resources necessary to pay for a subscription access to vital information.

We are doing this for money—as independent journalists operating in the alternative media universe, our ability to sustain our work and our lives is derived from the product we produce. I have historically kept my Substack available to non-paying subscribers, of which there are some 55,576. My income, Jeff’s income, and the money used to underwrite many of the projects we engage in is derived from the 2,136 paid subscribers we have attracted. I am deeply grateful to every subscriber and follower for showing interest in my work. But the fact is 4% of my followers are shouldering the burden for the remaining 96%. The costs associated with Trump Watch should not have to be born by those 4% alone, and by making Trump Watch available to paid Substack subscribers only, I am hopeful that the overall number of paid subscriptions will increase.

And so here we are, the launch of a new podcast.

One that I hope resonates strongly with an audience rightfully concerned about the state of America, the direction we are headed in, and the policies being implemented by an administration and president who have pledged to “Make America Great Again.”

Trump Watch with Scott Ritter serves as a report card on the work of the Trump administration, and through the analysis that will be brought to light by this podcast, the American people will be empowered to determine whether Donald Trump gets a passing grade or not.

Trump Watch with Scott Ritter will stream on Tuesdays starting May 6.

I look forward to your participation in the grand experiment of digital democracy.

Share

Subscribe now

Donate now

In our conversation, Professor Ivan Katchanovski reveals the truth about the violent Maidan regime change in Ukraine, which enabled the West to use Ukraine as a proxy tool against Russia. Professor Katchanovski notes that after the brutally orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the West transformed Ukraine into a client state, whose political leaders were selected by the United States and other Western officials to further their geopolitical agenda in Eastern Europe.

Following the Maidan coup, the politics of Ukraine have been dictated by foreign actors at the expense of the national interests of the Ukrainian population. The loss of sovereignty foreshadowed the destruction of Ukrainian statehood and regional peace and stability.

Professor Ivan Katchanovski is a Ukrainian and Canadian scholar specializing in Ukraine's politics and conflicts. Professor Katchanovski spent 11 years researching one of the most pivotal events in the modern history of Ukraine, the Maidan massacre. His latest book, “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World," illustrates the origins of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the decisive role played in it by foreign actors. It’s available to be downloaded for FREE, and it's absolutely a must-read!

Follow Dr. Ivan Katchanovski on X (Twitter): https://x.com/I_Katchanovski.

Download Professor Katchanovski's "The Maidan Massacre" book in open access for FREE: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-67121-0

Support Professor Katchanovski's research via GoFundMe campaigns:

https://gofund.me/173df0ed

https://gofund.me/334b0e98

Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Subscribe now

The interview is available on YouTube and Patreon.

Share