Q. In 2009, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton announced a reset with Russia, heralding greater cooperation and understanding. By 2014, Obama had made a sharp reversal. A sweeping regime of sanctions has since been imposed on Russia to cripple its economy. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats now relentlessly demonize Russia and Putin, blaming them for every imaginable ill. Both in the media and from official pronouncements by government officials, Russia has become the favorite whipping boy for both the U.S. and its “special friend”, Great Britain. Why? What happened?
Regarding Russia, I think the 'reset' that was pursued under
Obama was half-hearted, more an attempt to buy some time. The wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan had gone off the rails and by 2009 the US found itself stuck in
quagmires even while other threats had arisen unnoticed and unchecked. The
project to dismantle and forever break Russia had been sidetracked and by 2009
it was clear that the new Russia under Putin was back and the subservient days
of Yeltsin, poverty, and gangster rule had ended – a scenario Washington could
manipulate and control. Putin broke America's chokehold on the Russian system.
He did not replace it with a liberal one but why would he? Despite the
faux-reforms of Tsar Peter, the truth is Russia has no Enlightenment
foundations – a point also revealed in the phony Marxism (or Red Tsardom) of
the Soviet era.
And yet by the early 2000's, China was also on the rise. The Russian
'reset' was not genuine and so therefore I do not accept the argument that the
relationship broke when Russia intervened in Syria on the behalf of Assad in
2015 or even when Russia seized the Crimea in 2014. These events represented a kind of breaking point, but they weren't fundamental
turning points. Russia was already in an adversarial role regardless of whether
it looked the other way while NATO destroyed Libya. Factions within the US (led
by the likes of warmonger John McCain) were already seething with rage
regarding the 2008 war in South Ossetia, and engaged in an increasingly
high-stakes game for control of Ukraine, a conflict well under way by 2004.
Q. The number of
spy missions, nuclear-armed bomber flights, and war games near Russia’s borders
have vastly increased over the past year. Same with China. Is all of this just
business-as-usual geopolitical posturing? Or does it represent a dangerous
escalation and a new ominous direction in U.S. strategic positioning? What is
the justification for what Russia and China see as provocations and
aggressiveness, if not actual preparation for a war?
Kovalik is right regarding the US withdrawal from Afghanistan
and the fact that the US is preparing for war with China and Russia. It's
clearly the path that has been chosen and just like during the Cold War, the
Pentagon is still inhabited by madmen that in their tortured calculus of
inevitable destruction believe a war fought sooner is better than one fought later.
And yet the moment of Chinese 'weakness' and disadvantage will not last much longer.
Beijing has read the tea leaves as it were and they've responded by building up
their military and specifically are focused on weapons to disable the US Navy
and American missile technology.
As stated elsewhere, China only has to stop the US to 'win'.
For the US, anything short of a regime change represents a failure – at the
very least they would hope to break the system leading to turmoil within China
and a collapse of the CCP. China doesn't hope to outright 'defeat' the US but
its defenses are designed to inflict as much harm as possible on a US military
bent on attacking them. They believe that the US will only endure so much loss
before they quit. All China has to do is hold out and make any American advance
as painful as possible.
And then there's always the spectre of nuclear war. America's
arsenal is vast when compared to China's few hundred weapons, but Beijing could
do a lot of damage and there are those that wonder if China doesn't have
something up its sleeve – something that would disable the American system or
reduce its effectiveness. This discussion usually ranges into questions
regarding cyber-warfare and it is a distinct possibility, but there are still
America's submarines and bombers and I'm not sure they would be affected the
same way. It's an open question and one that experts continue to debate.
Q. Between the
FONOPS in the South China Sea and the recently expressed enthusiasm for
Taiwan’s independence, the risk of military conflict with China keeps
increasing. Where is this headed? If People’s Republic of China decides to use
military force for full reunification of Taiwan, do you see the U.S. going to
war in an attempt to prevent it?
Taiwan may be the spark that starts the war. Kovalik is
correct in saying that Taiwan is not 'the' issue. But it's definitely the
bottleneck where all the opposite forces and opposing momentum are likely to
collide. One itchy trigger finger could give either side the pretext for
launching an all-out war.
Q. The U.S.
against the clear objections of the government in Syria is occupying valuable
land, stealing the country’s oil, and preventing access to the most
agriculturally productive region, effectively starving the population. The
world sees this for what it is, a cruel game sacrificing innocent people for
some perceived geopolitical advantage. Is this the kind of reputation the U.S.
wants? Or does it simply no longer care what the rest of the world community
thinks?
Regarding Syria, the US knows that very few in the West are
paying any attention and Western media for the most part remains silent
regarding the US occupation and its continued machinations in the country. It
would seem that the US cares less and less about its reputation. Its hypocrisy
has always been rather audacious. As long as its own people and allies are
willing to either believe the official myth-narratives or keep up the facade,
Washington doesn't really care about the rest of the world. The US can preach
about human rights and democracy but at this point people know better. They know
it's all a lie. When the principles are inconvenient, the US will happily drop
these concerns. Immigrants flock to America for freedom but just as much (if
not more) for security, opportunity and the pursuit of wealth. In the minds of
many these all go hand and hand. But it must be remembered these questions are
reckoned in very different terms by adherents of New Testament Christianity.
Christians need to be careful that they don't get swept up into the narratives
or wed them to the gospel when operating on the mission field.
American Exceptionalism means one thing to sacralist
Christians (who have concocted a phony and heretical theological narrative) but
to the American Establishment it means that America is unique – in other words
the normal rules don't apply. America is Nietzschean, a sociopathic empire that
'makes' its own morality. Whatever America does is reckoned as right and good,
even if it's engaged in theft and mass slaughter. Such actions are done in the
name of freedom and democracy not because they actually are but because we say
so.
Q. Related to
that, the citizenry and most of Congress are kept in the dark with respect to
special missions, proxy funding, CIA operations, and swaths of unknown unknowns
constituting psyops, cyber ops, and regime change ops, all done in our name as
U.S. citizens. The funds to support this sprawling “dark world” of sabotage and
terror being inflicted on the rest of the planet, is also a secret. Now
there’s pervasive spying on U.S. citizens right here at home. What place
does any of this have in “the land of the free”? Does this mean government of
the people, by the people, for the people is just a sham?
The American Empire's sociopathy was certainly revealed during
the Vietnam era but its modern expression came into being during World War II
and especially as it became clear over the course of the war that America would
(in the aftermath) emerge as the most powerful nation in the world. The entire
Western world order (and after 1991), almost the entire world order is based
upon the American system and rooted in its institutions. The original country
created in the eighteenth century was dead within a few generations. The
American Empire has gone through several incarnations, first a continental and
then the hemispheric-Pacific empire was born with the Spanish-American War. After
1945, the Empire became global in its scope, but limited due to the Cold War.
After 1991, the US as the most powerful country in history, sought unipolarity,
a complete dominance which thirty years later is revealed as a failed project.
America (in Luciferian fashion and supported by the apostate Church) reached
for the stars but fell short. Democracy can't exist in such conditions. Again,
there's a type of theatre that takes place, a limited degree of choice and
change, but it's mostly illusion and subordinated to ruling interests.
And yet now the consensus that held it all together is being
broken. With the implosion of empire, is the United States going to enter into
a new democratic era? Hardly. Fragmentation, civil war, and dictatorship are
far more likely – a different type of empire if the empire survives at all. It
should be remembered that the Roman Republic became an empire over two hundred
years before the imperial period (properly speaking) began. Imperial Rome
didn't mark the beginning of empire but rather the rule of the Caesars which
itself began to collapse by the late second century.
Q. Recently
we’ve seen some token but precedent-setting direct payments to citizens in the
form of Covid relief. There is also the ongoing discussion about reparations to
descendants of slaves. If it could be unequivocally established that the
government has abused DOD funding, misused and squandered vast sums of money to
promote unjustified wars, purchase unneeded equipment, unnecessarily expand
U.S. military presence across the globe, and regularly lied to the American
public to manufacture consent for these misadventures and fraudulent
activities, practical and political considerations aside, do you see any
constitutional or other legal barriers to the public identifying, expecting, or
even demanding proper compensation? A cash refund or citizen reparations for
massive, authenticated abuse of power?
As far as the US righting it wrongs and making reparations to
either slave descendants or the millions of people it has killed and the
societies it has destroyed – it's not going to happen. At best politicians will
throw out a bone to win votes and street support. The perception of legitimacy
is going to get more important in the years to come but it won't be orderly, it
will be more mob-like – akin to what was seen in the late Roman Republic.
If the US were to pay what it owes – a debt that cannot be
paid – it would collapse. It's that simple. The capitalist ruling class will
never just fall on their swords like that. It would take a violent revolution
and the appropriation of the money the rich possess.
Overall, the discussion was refreshing and honest – something
that's rare these days. Kovalik is not a Christian and so his views are
necessarily flawed and limited in their capacity, but it must be pointed out
once more that it's sheer judgment on the Church when lost people are more committed
to truth and morality that most of the Church and its leaders. Such is the
state of things.