No More Mister Nice Guy

Guest post

I am, with permission, reprinting an article from an email newsletter I receive. It is from a gentleman who has a site called neverhadaboss.com. Erik, the author, writes “updates on the insane world of money and power.” I have been getting his emails for a few years and have agreed with most of what is written.

I thought this week's article connected well with my geopolitical rant from this week’s AIA video. Erik gave me permission to reprint the article. If you enjoyed this article, you can subscribe to his list by emailing erik@neverhadaboss.com

No More Mister Nice Guy

US Foreign Policy as regards Ukraine rested on an assumption that Putin would be overthrown and Russia broken up into commodity regions controlled by global corporations. Losing the war in Ukraine has not caused the US to reassess its assumption. Instead, the US has raised the ante of WW3—possibly to the point of no return.

In order for the US to conduct its biolabs, money laundering and CIA stations in Ukraine, Russia required NATO to respect its security concerns along the UKR border. Instead, after Ukraine was invaded, the US promptly brought Sweden/Finland into NATO, with a caveat that US troops could occupy military bases along Russia's border.

What caused the invasion of Ukraine is now duplicated along 800 hostile miles of Finnish border. Joining NATO has made Finnish security more dangerous than before.

On our Independence Day, we face a question of who is to be trusted, Russia or the West? Begin with EU loaning Russia's Forex reserves to Ukraine, a nation that can't possibly pay back the loan. So, it's no loan, it's a taking—Russia's wealth being stolen.

While attempting to balance Russian security, how much time (as a man of goodwill), did Putin waste in pursuit of a working relationship with the West? Not understanding the depth of US depravity, he duped himself into thinking detente was possible. While NATO continued its encroachment on Russia, Putin sought inclusion with US/NATO.

Now, from the Russian perspective that's over with, but does the US understand the consequences? Not fully. Busily confident in its military supremacy, the US foments hostilities against any challenges to US hegemony—guided along by idiots in DC.

There's contention about who pulls US levers of power, but you won't go wrong looking to Blinkin/Sullivan/Nuland—3 unipolar neocons, unwilling to negotiate or conduct diplomacy. Instead, they see themselves as the chosen ones, willing to risk the future of humanity to re-elect senility and break Russia/China into economic dependencies.

With 800 US military bases, an unproductive US continues with its plan to takedown Russia/China. A peaceful border with Finland caused Russia to build a super highway anticipating good relations. Instead, Finland bought into the mindless NATO propaganda of an aggressive Putin, and the highway will be used to move Russian troops.

The US has chosen the path of war—economic and military. For any who would challenge unipolarity, take a good look at Ukraine/Gaza. Take a knee—or this will be you.

After giving the US a time-out to return to sanity, Russia is now back in the business of producing medium range nuclear missiles, with plans to distribute them to allies as the US has done with Israel/EU/Philippines. And, after attacks, killing Russians in Russia, made possible by US weapons and intelligence (maybe US triggermen), Russia announced a new policy to the US military. Not about war in Ukraine—that's over. Instead, a fair warning: Russia is no longer at peace with the US. Does that mean a state of war exists? Not quite: in dejure, legal sense, we are not at war, but in de facto, reality—our nations are at war. The era of duped, mister nice guy Putin—is over and done.

What's okay for the US is okay for Russia. The US chooses to arm allies against Russia—Russia will do the same. Beginning with North Korea, a nation the West has feared for decades. Putin gave NK hypersonic missiles capable of decimating South Korea/Japan. Along with a mutual-defense treaty: attacking NK is an attack on Russia.

Russia is willing to end hostilities in Ukraine (on its terms), but Russia is not seeking further negotiations with the US. Instead, surveillance vehicles in proximity to Russia's borders or monitoring Russian defenses from space are hostile actors—fair game.

With no active US president at the helm, Blinkin, as the head of US diplomacy, holds the security/survival of humanity in his hands—on which he chooses to sit. Even in times of cruel war, diplomatic talks proceed. Not so with Blinkin. As the months pass he doesn't speak with his Russian counterpart, Lavrov. Smug, in all-knowing reality, Blinkin (and G7 leaders), shares the same room with Lavrov, exchanging not a word.

What is it that the US fails to understand? As an unproductive nation the US cannot fight either Russia or China. In fact, without the necessary means, gotten either from BRICS nations/nations aligned with BRICS, the US is utterly incapable of waging war.

How deep is the myopia of the West? They know the BRICS, meeting this year in Russia (next year in China), announced there are to be no new members admitted to BRICS at this time—the number stays at 10. But, does the US see what that means?

If Russia/China were looking for a show of strength, they would admit more nations. But, to get out of the economic crosshairs of the US (and out of military threat), the BRICS need a plan for the settlement of trade and debt between its member nations.

The BRICS plan cannot pattern on the US unipolar debacle. Though Western propaganda tells it different, the BRICSs economic model is being built around fair trade.

To maintain currency parity, BRICS needs a member-nation, accounting currency for debt/trade settlement. Developing a trade settlement currency among many nations takes work, so a gold-backed BRICS currency and new BRICS members have to wait.

What will happen in the meantime? As the US/NATO/dollar each become more irrelevant, will that be enough to shake-up a unipolarity delirious US? Not likely. Kissinger got it right: It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal. America will fight to its last ally, and when that doesn't work, and patriotic young Americans refuse to fight for a painted toenail, trans, woke nation—and 800 military bases no longer cipher up a hegemonic victory, we will still have our nuclear arsenal.

Opportunity to set things right with Russia may be past. And John Mearsheimer (who I usually trust), says, that even given US lip service to a 1 China policy, he supports defending Taiwan because of strategic importance. An island, 88 miles off Chinese mainland, forever part of China, is in our strategic interest—explain that to James Madison.

If we get an election this fall, the left needs to go. But, what does Trump bring to a US unipolar hegemony in a world headed to multipolarity? A subject for another article.

John note: We are on a rudderless ship with a demented President who is not running things. So, who is running things, and what is our actual foreign policy? What is the end goal, to preserve the US status quo as the sole superpower regardless of the cost? Many people think that these geopolitical questions do not affect investing. However, these questions and the repercussions of the decisions and policies of unknown people in Washington DC have far-reaching and unknowable potential to impact not only our portfolios but our whole lives.