So, the report being released, what did we learn?

Me, not much, since I already explained the state of affairs much earlier. Others, perhaps, learned what it takes for a free country to turn into a dystopian hellhole – hire Marxists to teach your children at schools and universities. Wait a couple of decades for the kids to grow up and build careers in media and politics. Put trust in media that feeds on scandal in order to attract attention to ads. Have your intelligence agencies control the media in order to propagandise the populace.

If you think anything will change now, I have real estate on the Moon to sell you. You see, they absolved Trump of guilt, but nobody really told the Americans, and the Europeans for that matter, that they have also been fed a diet of lies about Russia for the past few years. The Russians are still vilified, they are still lied about, and they are still under sanctions. Being in favor of war with Russia has been the criterion of political correctness in America, because if you were sane, you were suspected of working for Putin. Which, when you look at it that way, kind of makes sense, since the sane people all over the world assembled around Putin, who is essentially the only leader of a country who will tell you what he thinks and intends to do, and then actually do it. That’s why the Americans see him as a total enigma. Apparently, the truth is currently the best way to conceal, because nobody will be able to see it.

Trump is very good for the world, because in his own way, he reveals the naked truth. He wants America to be first, and he makes clear what that means: America is going to dictate the terms, and everybody else will accept those terms, or be punished. If America doesn’t win, it means that the terms were not fair and need to be re-negotiated so that this injustice is remedied. Also, apparently it is dangerous for America if China is to control the China sea. This means freedom and democracy have to be brought to that part of the world, so that America controls the China sea. Then all will be well.

We also learned that America is trying to introduce democracy in yet another country, by proclaiming some guy who didn’t even run in the elections to be the legitimate president, and the guy who won the elections to be illegitimate. All the democratic allies of America instantly repeated this phrase in unison. If this teaches you something new about the way America sees democracy and what it means to be America’s ally, it means you haven’t been paying attention for the last few decades, but better now than never, right?

We also learned that the most American of all American presidents since Reagan was attacked in the exact same way Reagan was attacked by the media; both were characterised as stupid and reckless cowboys who were going to cause a nuclear war. It’s interesting how all Republican presidents get to be stupid buffoons, and all Democratic presidents get to be charming and intelligent. At least that’s how the media portrays them. It’s also interesting how when a Republican president tried to spy on the Democrats, it was the biggest scandal of the modern political history, known as Watergate, but when the Democrats paid some nefarious character to fabricate a dossier about Trump which was used as justification by the Democratic president to spy on the Republican presidential campaign, nothing was made of it. In fact, the victim of the scandal is universally portrayed as the villain, and the guy who explained us all the dangers of Iraqi WMD’s was charged with making a very long investigation in order to find out the truth, so that all the fake charges would be given legitimacy during that process, and the President would be reduced to a lame duck that can only quack out more sanctions against Russia, but everybody sees that, in his heart, he only truly quacks for Putin.

As for myself, I will keep watching the Russian media for information, and Western media for clues about the true intent of their puppet masters in Langley.

I’ve been reading this article and I think it misses the point in several ways.

First of all, INF treaty is completely obsolete today: you don’t need ground based intermediary-ranged rockets to threaten targets in Europe. The Russians demonstrated how they can easily do it from the Caspian lake ships, they can do it with the Baltic fleet as well as the flying platforms. So threat level doesn’t necessarily increase with the same weapons mounted on stationary ground launchers.

Second, the weapons themselves don’t define the threat level. The political situation does. So essentially the American program of demonizing, threatening and encircling Russia is what’s increasing the threat level.

Third, and most important, this doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Europe, it might all be about arming Taiwan with rockets that can reach mainland China with nukes. This way America can create a scenario where it can wipe out China while not using its own ICBMs and risking retaliation in kind. Of course, it would be really crazy to expect China not to retaliate against the actual culprit, but everything America does lately is just that kind of crazy. They piss on people and don’t even have the decency to say it’s raining.

Fourth, if it comes to the point where Europe is threatened by the intermediary nuclear-tipped rockets, it means it’s global nuclear war, and Europe is fucked however you look at it, so again this doesn’t increase the threat level.

Fifth, the intermediary-ranged nukes were never about threatening Europe, they were about shortening the reaction times in a first-strike scenario against Russia. Europe was never a target, it was a missile launching platform pointed at Moscow. So if you want to kill Russia in such a way that it can’t retaliate, you first surround it with anti-missile defenses, so that you can shoot down anything they retaliate with, and then you bring in the short reaction time weapons, such as the nuclear-tipped stealthy cruise missiles which aim at the Russian command posts and nuclear sites. That’s what the Americans seem to be doing, which means they are confident they can take out Russian submarines as well. It is my opinion that they, as always, missed several crucial things that will bite them, but they themselves always act as if nothing can go wrong. They are practically cornering the market of baseless overconfidence at the moment. Almost everything they do is more harmful to them than it is to the intended target, and yet they do it, again and again.

I was thinking about the current American-orchestrated coup attempt in Venezuela.

Something there doesn’t make sense, and not in ways one would expect. The fact that America violently interferes in other countries’ affairs is expected, especially so if it’s in Latin America. It’s almost normal, and certainly not out of the ordinary.

However, removing the Chavista regime from power doesn’t make sense from an American perspective, because it’s the perfect showcase of why socialism sucks and should never be allowed to take power. It is the most effective proven method of reducing a prospering country to utter destitution in a very short time frame. Having in mind that one should not interrupt his enemy when he’s making a mistake, or showing everyone why his way should not be attempted anywhere else, why the hell are Americans trying to interrupt Maduro when he’s proving their point regarding political and economic systems?

Also, Maduro was at a very desperate point before the attempted coup. It is obvious that the Chavista economic model brought the country and its populace to a desperate position and that more of the same is not an answer. Essentially, the only way this designated heir of Chavez could stay in power is through support of a foreign power, and apparently, that’s what America just provided. The Venezuelans who would otherwise have considered rebelling against Maduro for his failed economy will now support him to the death just to defy the American attempt to take over their country. The way to falsify this hypothesis is if the Americans actually proceed to depose Maduro. That would lend credence to another interpretation, which I will now attempt to formulate.

The second interpretation is that the Chavista regime in Venezuela is a cute and useful tool for Washington to demonstrate the perils of socialism, but only if it remains safely contained. However, if it is used by Russia and possibly China to establish a foothold in the American back yard, then it becomes another matter. Also, Russia and China could stabilize Venezuela with trivial ease, and then proceed to establish their military, economic and political presence in the country and the region, essentially creating a stationary airplane carrier right under the America’s soft underbelly. A chaotic and unstable Venezuela is greatly preferred to a stable, recovered Venezuela allied with Russia and China. So, America had to choose between the situation in which Maduro got so desperate by his economic and political position that he invited Russia to fix his economy, which will likely succeed in a timeframe of a few years, during which Russia will establish a strong, possibly nuclear-armed military presence there, and having Venezuela completely reduced to a failed state, using Ukraine/Libya model. The international policy price of choosing the latter would have been deemed high in other circumstances, but as things stand now, America hardly has any soft power credit to lose, and is reduced to controlling the press and the politicians in client countries with more direct methods. This indicates that they are preparing something nasty enough that all of this will be swept under the carpet and forgotten, or, alternatively, that it will not matter.

The third, least likely interpretation is that American actions are non-strategic and resulting from the internal chaos within the CIA and the Pentagon. Albeit possible, I don’t find it likely. I think the chaos in their system exists only on the outward layer and is a result of the CIA using its assets (including but not limited to the entire press corps and the social Marxist groups) to sabotage the President. The core of their actual non-elected government seems to act strategically, but the level of urgency and desperation in their moves indicates that they understand the state of their economy and they seem to be executing a short to mid-term scorched earth strategy.

There was an article about what made America great – a think tank concluded it was the free market, but the reaction on the social media was that slavery and robbery were the more likely cause. The reaction on the social media shows how indoctrinated with Marxism everybody really is.

No, slavery didn’t do shit. The parts of America that kept slaves were backward and poor; the North industrialised exactly because there was no cheap slave labor to compete with the machines, so those were developed, to great effect. A combination of a very simple state structure, patent laws that encouraged invention (one hoped to become rich with patents), and, first and foremost, influx of some of the most competent people from abroad, like Tesla, is what made America. However, it still wasn’t much – the difference between America and Argentina for instance, before the world wars, was insignificant. It’s after the second world war, after Europe was completely ruined, and America essentially robbed it of the intellectual cream of the crop, controlled the world’s monetary system, and had the military upper hand, not to mention the occupying forces on the ground, that America surged up compared to Europe. The reasons are complex, but slavery played zero part in them. Also, the free land didn’t mean that much, or Australia for instance would be in the same ballpark, which it is not. Slavery exists even today in some countries, and how does it affect them? They are without exception among the poorest and least developed countries in the world. So much about the Marxist analysis, stating that if someone is rich, he must have robbed someone. Exactly the opposite seems to be true – where people are allowed to rob others, this interferes with the complexity of processes required for technological and economic development.

Donald Trump just announced that he will pull out of the INF treaty.

Let me explain in very simple and clear terms what this means. Intermediary-range rockets with nuclear payloads are those that America installs in Eastern Europe close to the Russian borders so that they could arrive to Moscow so quickly, the Russians don’t get enough time to analyse the situation and provide an adequate response. All the supposedly “anti-Iran” rocket “defenses” installed in Romania and Poland are going to be armed with those intermediary-range nuclear rockets.
The last time that was done, when Pershing II was installed in Western Germany, the Soviet Union threatened immediate nuclear retaliation if they are put into service, and the crisis got so bad, that after several close calls with Russian defences on a hairline trigger, Reagan decided to end the cold war and be friends with Russia.
The political situation right now is much, much worse than it was in 1983-1987. In order to counter this, the Russians would have to have all their nuclear forces either on a hairline trigger, or on a dead man’s hand trigger.
Those weapons are inherently asymmetrical, biased heavily against Russia, and are a first-strike only weapon. They have no defensive purpose whatsoever. What biases them against Russia is the fact that America can put them in Europe, and Russia can’t put them in Latin America, and geography determines the flight times. This means that America doesn’t have to put the missiles on a ballistic trajectory; they can use a stealthy small cruise missile that only has to fly from Poland or Lithuania or Romania to Moscow, not across the ocean. This means they can perform a surprise nuclear attack to kill the Russian leadership and their urban population, which of course will make the Russians extremely paranoid and trigger-happy, like it did in the 1980s, when it was last implemented. Only this time the Russians will no longer trust the West because the last time they did that, they suffered grave consequences.
My opinion is that this completely validates Putin’s objection to the supposedly anti-rocket installations on the Russian borders; if you recall, he warned that those installations can be modified with trivial ease to carry the intermediary-ranged nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Trump pulling out of INF means that Pentagon decided to do exactly this, and those installations will probably be armed the second Trump signs the document. Putin is in a precarious situation now. He now has a huge nuclear advantage. His military knows this. He’s in a “use or lose” situation, because if he allows those installations to go online, he puts Russia in an incredibly vulnerable position, to the point where his own military might not allow this. And this is not news to Putin. Years ago he warned the West that this will inevitably happen. His countermeasures must have been so timed as to coincide with American actions.

So, you tell me what this means.