The instability of the world order is starting to snowball. It's overwhelming and frankly it's hard to keep up. I cannot remember a time like this where a combination of factors are coming together to create a situation in which the world seems precarious, and precedent provides little guidance.
First, we have the suspicious Leipzig Drone Incident which took place at the beginning of August 2026. A drone with explosives was discovered near Ukrainian aircraft being used to ship weapons from Germany to Ukraine. It was discovered, failed to explode, and was disposed of. A second incident occurred when a commercial cargo aircraft struck a low-flying drone that (it is alleged) was rigged up with a camera in order to film the results of the first drone.
Everyone starting pointing fingers at Russia who has denied any responsibility. The investigation and some of the details are a bit sketchy and not a few sceptics have pointed to the example of the Nordstream Sabotage. Everyone in the West pointed to Moscow and yet it was revealed that Ukrainians were involved - and some still argue that they did not act alone but were supported and/or led by NATO and most likely American units.
Many have forgotten there was a drone 'scare' in Scandinavia last year and yet some of the reported drones seemed to be targeting the Russian embassy. Regardless, it was all blamed on Moscow and undoubtedly will be appealed to as precedent.
After nearly a month of investigation, Berlin has declared Russia responsible and has upped their war posture (equivalent to the US DefCon system) - announced on 1 September. Was the symbolism connected to the start of World War II deliberate?
At the same time the new British PM Andy Burnham appeared in Ukraine and announced that the UK would be giving the Ukrainians the blueprints for the Storm-shadow (SCALP EG) - a air-launched, long-range, stealth cruise missile. The UK and France have been supplying Kyiv the missiles throughout the war but now they plan to start manufacturing them in Ukraine itself. Moscow views this as a provocation as it brings Ukraine deeper into the NATO strategic orbit which is the very reason Moscow invaded in the first place - though this is continually denied by the West which continues to employ the 'unprovoked aggression' narrative.
Effectively the UK, France, and Germany have moved a step closer to open war with Russia and as some commentators have pointed out, Germany invaded Russia during the First and Second World Wars. Both assaults were born out of instability and the collapse of the geopolitical order. Berlin had designs on both Ukraine and Russia. While the situation in the 2010's and 2020's is not the same by any stretch, there are some troubling analogies that the Russians are very much aware of and the history certainly shapes their thinking and strategic calculations. The First World War led to a revolution and the Second involved the nation fighting for its very existence and a death toll that beggars belief.
The bottom line is Germany (and the Atlanticist Empire connected to NATO) has already 'captured' Ukraine, and are using it as a beach-head to launch assaults on Russia. Did Russia start it in 2022 or 2014? That's how the West sees it. But for Moscow this conflict goes back to 2004 and even to the late 1990's.
It has been shown that the UK, Germany, and France are deeply involved in Ukraine's drone attacks within Russia. These states (combined) are providing key manufacturing elements, targeting and intelligence, and even tactical planning to evade Russian air defenses.
The recent Storm-shadow announcement as well as the Germany accusation and escalation have made the possibility of open conflict between these nations (all NATO members) and Moscow more likely. Some are already saying that Germany and Russia are in a state of war - which means (and will be made official at some point) that NATO and Moscow are at war.
This is the context for CIA director John Ratcliffe's recent visit to Moscow. Some reports indicate he threatened the Russians not to launch any kind of attack against the UK, Germany, or France - or to make any kind of incursion in the Baltic states. Others have suggested he's trying to de-escalate the situation and offered suggestions for a summit to end the Ukraine War and thus cool down this increasingly dangerous situation - a situation the US would like to keep from spiralling out of control.
For its part the US is feeling the pressure because at the same time as these events in Europe, the Americans are stuck in the quagmire that is Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. The US does not want the situation in Europe to escalate - such a conflict that would surely draw in the United States which does not want a large-scale war in Europe.
The past few years has revealed the nature of warfare is fundamentally changing. We are in the era of the drone wars, AI battlefield targeting, and soon - autonomous weapons systems. In some respects the latter is already happening.
Throughout the course of the four-plus years of war in Ukraine, we've seen more than once the experts predict 'game changing' moments. And to be fair the arguments seemed sound when based on precedent. But in every case, whether it was the introduction of F-16's, or the Abrams Tanks, or whatever it happens to be - it hasn't produced the expected results. It's basically WWI-style trench warfare but with drones, ballistic missiles, and anti-ballistic missiles. It's costly in terms of both money and human lives but it has also defied the military strategy and tactics that have dominated 'expert' thinking for the last several decades.
US technology has been found wanting on several fronts. The high-cost anti-ballistic missiles (or interceptors) such as the THAAD and Patriot systems have proven to be an Achilles Heel. These systems can be overwhelmed by dud missiles and at this point the US is running out and thus its overseas bases and allies (or client states) are also vulnerable. The cumbersome, corrupt, and broken US Pentagon bureaucracy can't keep up and US power has been shown to have its limits as Washington is unwilling to send in large-scale ground troops into Iran or in a fight against Moscow. The Iranians have (to the astonishment of American strategists) thwarted US plans by a game of attrition and counter-aggression.
Further the shortcomings of the US system have been on recent display in war games and simulated battle exercises with the Ukrainians. Their drone prowess exceeded the Americans and was able (at least in an exercise) to defeat the Americans and wipe out a tank brigade.
The US has also been humiliated in its fight with Iran. For all the bluster of Trump and his media allies, the Iranians have not only stood up to the Americans but fought back. The US military footprint in the Middle East is in ruins and while the casualty numbers are low (and yet significantly higher than the Pentagon will admit), the bases are unsustainable and cannot be defended - this is assuming the US wants to spend billions of dollars to rebuild them. Their loss has resulted in a significant shift in US strategy as the Americans must now rely on long-range bases and more refuelling in order to reach their targets, complicating the missions and putting more people at risk. These losses have left US strategists and military leaders in a state of near shock. Obviously tensions within the Pentagon are running high as the recent resignation of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll indicates.
If you count the total war deaths of Iranians, Lebanese, and others, the current toll is more like 10,000 dead with over 50,000 injured. Western media reports do not reflect this kind of scale of violence and destruction.
To complicate matters, the Iran and Ukraine Wars have experienced some cross-fertilization with Ukrainians targeting Iranian interests and helping anti-Iranian states in the Middle East. This is a nod to the Americans, but is also presented as a response to Iranian sales of Shahed drones to Moscow. In July the Ukrainians targeted an Iranian ship in the Caspian Sea. Kyiv claimed it was transporting weapons for Moscow.
The Russians in turn have created an improved version of the drones which they are selling back to Tehran - who in turn is launching them at American targets in the Middle East.
The wars are converging and given the threat of escalation in Europe, the threat of a wider-ranging conflict is a genuine fear.
China is the real winner in this current scenario. The US has withdrawn missile interceptors from the Asia-Pacific as well as naval assets. The US military has been shown to be something less than it was purported to be. The USS Lincoln scandal is also related to the Iranian destruction of US infrastructure. It meant the logistical system to supply the aircraft carrier (which has a compliment of over 5,000 crew) was broken, leading to the shortages and austerity measures. But you can be sure most of the world took note of how US personnel are unable to cope with the stress and difficulties - situations that other nations would take in stride.
There's also some ironic symbolism at work given the USS Lincoln was the 'Mission Accomplished' ship that Bush landed on in 2003. Once again the ship has become the symbol of American hubris and self-deception.
China wants to see the US bogged down in the Middle East and even Europe. Russia's focus to its west and south, means that Moscow is not focused on (the former Russian Empire and Soviet) sections of Central Asia where China is quietly expanding its influence and power.
Beijing is also quietly providing logistical, supply, and technological aid to both Moscow and Iran, but with restraint and discretion. It's major role in thwarting US-EU aims is in the realm of sanctions evasion and alternate finance.
Statements from Xi, as well as reports from Chinese think-tanks indicate that the CCP leadership believes the Trump administration is a great boon and opportunity for China. Trump is single-handedly dismantling US institutions and the framework of its power. Rather than make America great, Trump is shepherding US decline and the downgrade of the American Empire. His recent 'snub' of South Korea has sent shock-waves across East Asia, leaving American allies and client states confused and anxious. The timing of this has raised many questions about the state of US military readiness.
The one factor Beijing does not like in connection to Trump is the unpredictability but they believe this can be managed - all the more if Trump starts to lose political power in a few months. Without Mike Johnson, Trump is going to find it a little more difficult to pursue his policies without restraint or impunity - but even this is not entirely clear.
The Democrats are hoping to recapture the House in the November Mid-terms and possibly the Senate as well. The recent semi-secret meetings between House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Jared Kushner indicate the Trump White House is preparing for this moment in advance. Though the Democrats do not publicly advocate the slashing of social services, they work at the behest of Wall Street and have for decades. What they want is for Trump to escalate the Ukraine War. Their criticisms regarding Iran are not tied to the war itself, but the manner in which it was pursued and has been fought. They are critical of Trump's attempts at a negotiated deal with Tehran which (though touted by the Right-wing media) are viewed as capitulatory by the rest of the world.
Jeffries has been criticised by members of his own party for meeting with Trump envoys and responding to their invitation. Jeffries has insisted they can find common ground on the 'affordability crisis' and questions of housing. But again, it will mean that Trump has to give them something and their biggest grief (in connection to him) is in the realm of foreign policy. Despite this shady dealing and obvious compromise, Zohran Mamdani the 'socialist' mayor of New York continues to support Jeffries and worked to block a primary challenge to him. His radical claims are revealed to be as bogus as those of Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and other members of the pseudo-left.
As insane and foolish as Trump has been, the Democratic agenda (which is basically now the Neo-Con agenda of the GOP under George Bush) will result in expanded war with Russia. The general volatility of global geopolitics suggests this threatens a wider war and/or series of wars.
Finally, as Trump is desperate to drop inflation, all the economic indicators are against him and even the new Federal Reserve Chair is indicating that he's prepared to raise interest rates (to Trump's ire) in order to counter the continued rise in prices.
Investors are rattled and there's been a treasury bond sell-off which is also driving up interest rates on US debt, spurred on in part by the recent announcement that the national debt has reached the $40 trillion mark.
Interest rates on the debt have been this high in the past (in 2007) but not at these levels of debt - the current debt is almost six times what it was at the eve of the last great financial crisis. The Treasury announced that it would buy back significant portions of debt which should drive up bond prices and lower interest rates - I think it will be interesting to learn the specifics of that arrangement at a later date. And yet after two rounds (and almost a trillion dollars pledged) and some short-term effect, the exercise has proven to be a failure - interest rates continue to climb which restricts borrowing and slows the economy down, even while the dollar is dropping in value. Inflation, interest, instability, tariffs, and lack of confidence are driving nations to look elsewhere.
As such a key tool in the US economic arsenal is not working - as in the 1970's, the economy is resisting adjustment and pursuing a course contrary to government machinations. Things haven't quite returned to the levels of 1970's 'Stagflation', but the trends are there and the issue is being openly discussed.
The full effects of this are only starting to be felt. A key component of the US debt is related to its endless cycles of war - somewhere between $6-10 trillion dollars spent since 2001 - even as schools fall apart, hospitals close, bridges collapse, prisons overflow, water systems are in crisis, and everything is being handed in privatisation schemes to profiteers.
And yet a general faith in the US economy and its continued power projection and global influence convinced investors that America was still a safe bet. That time is past.
Now, given the volatility of the US economy, its increasingly unmanageable debt, its political instability, and the fact that militarily it's looking increasingly feckless and weak - the world order is shaken. Client states are starting to turn away, feeling they can do so with impunity. Increasingly there are other options and the US dollar is dropping in value. The rise and fall of currencies are not always easily explained but in this case the indicators are pretty clear.
All the blame doesn't belong to Trump, but he has magnified the already troubling situation. Economic decisions were made in the 1990's that have ramifications today. As the United States prepares to mark the 25th Anniversary of 9/11, the event that was supposed to secure the American Century and guarantee Washington's hegemony over the global order now seems to mark the watershed moment of America's road to decline. The forever wars launched by George Bush and perpetuated by Obama and now Trump are bankrupting the nation and fomenting economic chaos and internal disruption. Trump's reckless programme has weakened the US both in domestic and geopolitical terms - the damage is so extensive that analysts are starting to wonder what the next decade will hold.
Some American strategists have been pushing for war with China, viewing it as inevitable. They wanted to fight it a decade ago because they believed Beijing could be defeated. Now, it seems less likely and certainly more complicated.
China for its part doesn't want to fight that war. Instead they are being patient and waiting (and hoping) that the US simply implodes and its empire collapses. They may get their wish and Trump has certainly accelerated the timeline - that is if the world doesn't simply drift into a state of global war.
The American-made debacle connected to the Strait of Hormuz has rattled global energy markets and the sanctions-tariff economic warfare agenda of Trump is driving more and more nations to look elsewhere and examine other currency options. Trump had hoped to block Chinese access to Iranian oil but has cut off his nose to spite his face - failing to grasp that global markets would also affect American markets. As such, Trump has pivoted and now has forced the interim government in Venezuela to sign over control of their oil to US control. But merely flooding the market (if that's even possible given Venezuelan infrastructure and requirements to refine its oil) does not guarantee a price drop - markets also rely on perception and stability as well as speculation. It would seem that Trump hopes for a streamlined apparatus in which the US is able to avoid standard mark-ups and have a steady supply to cushion against price spikes. The losers are (of course) the people of Venezuela, but the Trump-FOX world won't see it that way as they believe all natural resources and means of production should be in private hands anyway.
It's clear key Wall Street-connected elements are betting on AI to boost the markets, and foster the growth of a new economy - an economy the US hopes to dominate, thus outstripping China. In addition there are those who know all too well the US faces dark days ahead and there will be significant social instability. While they try and scare the public about Chinese espionage and TikTok, the real purpose is to use Palantir, Flock cameras, and other tools to monitor and control the US population and crush dissidents and resistance. The ICE deployment has functioned as a kind of proto-Gestapo to that end - at present terrorizing immigrants, but preparing to engage citizens and in some cases doing so in deadly fashion.
It's the perfect storm and actually it's intensifying. We'll see what the next few months bring.
In terms of the Church, I see Right-wing voices being given carte blanche in the Church to press the MAGA-Wall Street programme. The American Church (in its apostasy) is the most likely to champion militarism abroad and the police state at home. Most congregations have already been well conditioned to this end.
The complexity of the situation (which I have only touched on) is such that it's easily manipulated on the various info-tainment channels that masquerade as news and in social media. The complexity also allows for people to focus on one or two pet issues while missing the bigger picture and the circles of connectivity.
It is not easy to be an encouragement when talking to such people. It seems like at best all we can do is temper their emotional outbursts and urge restraint. The tapestry is too vast and multifaceted. I don't think most people can put these things together toward an end of understanding just what is happening. And there is admittedly so much distraction. So much of what passes for 'news' is just a waste of time, focusing on side-shows, and tangential issues. As always human interest stories rule the day even while foundational issues, paradigms, and institutions are in play - social givens are ready to implode and collapse. But what can you say when the chief architect of this demise is heralded as a hero and champion of the faith? It's judgment pure and simple - judgment and blindness being reckoned on an apostate Church.
What a fascinating but troubling moment in history. Those of us who are old enough can remember the great optimism of the 1990's - the 'Right Here, Right Now' vibe. The world had turned a page and it seemed like liberalism and freedom had won the day. Who would have thought that a generation later the US itself would be in sharp decline and the world would be taking on more and more of a dystopian hue?
I am once again reminded of Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower, and the story of imperial hubris, nations that gloried in their success and power even to watch it all collapse with the advent of the world wars. And even those empires which survived (such as the British) saw their fortunes wane and within but a few decades they had become (at best) second-tier powers. Nations rise and fall and while the American people (like Rome) think their empire will live forever, history tells us a different story.