Karl Sanchez

Great Powers always eventually fall as Paul Kennedy showed in his The Rise and Fall of Great Powers (which is now freely downloadable at the link) and we should look at the Collective West as two separate empires—those of the Europeans and the Outlaw US Empire—both of which are in different stages of decline/fall. Most of the European Empires were either smashed as a result of the two world wars or by Decolonization. However, informal, Neoimperialism, remained with several European nations while Europe as a whole was made into an empire by combining the EU with NATO. However, with the Aggressive War waged against Ukraine and its Russian speakers by the Outlaw US Empire that began in 2014, the EU/NATO complex was soon to become a subordinate colony of the Outlaw US Empire that was finalized when the Biden administration destroyed the Nord Stream gas pipelines to the EU’s economic engine, Germany which did nothing to protest the act of war waged on it. Even before that act, however, the EU was already in the process of falling apart thanks to Neoliberalism and its radicalized rights agenda aimed at undermining long held European values which tended to coincide with the degree of Russophobia expressed by the various EU members. With the return of Donald Trump as the Outlaw US Empire’s president and his promise to end the war Obama had started, Russophobic Europe knew it would be exploited more because Trump promised to do so. The EU’s Russophobic portion now faces a two-front assault—keeping the war alive in Ukraine while facing an economic war from America. Despite the brave face shown by the Russophobes, they have neither the economic or military might to be successful on ether front. The Russophobe’s intent to draw non-Russophobe nations into their coalition will further alienate that nations from the already failing EU and likely cause the EU and NATO’s dissolution—events nobody foresaw in 2014 despite the plain outspoken disdain for Europe expressed by American officials.

We’ve seen how Team Obama/Biden and now Team Trump have completely mismanaged the Outlaw US Empire’s decline that began with the Great banking Fraud of 2008-9 when Obama filed to enforce the law and allowed the basis of the Neoliberal Structure to remain in place. If all those major Wall Street Brokerages and Banks had been nationalized instead of bailed out, the Outlaw US Empire would be facing a much different set of problems. But we can’t go into the what if since reality is vastly different. The financial institutions were bailed out with monies the nation didn’t have and then Obama proceeded to embark on a series of Imperialist wars beginning with the Arab Spring and NATO’s criminal destruction of Libya followed by the attempt to destroy Syria’s government via the financing of terrorist proxies, then Aggressive War on Ukraine, and the ongoing attempt to pacify Afghanistan, none of which had any solid financial backing and was done on credit. And with all that credit being used to advance Imperialism, there was little remaining to cure the rapidly growing problems within the Empire. Indeed, what happened was a vast disinvestment as more business relocated out of the country to expand profits. By 2015, this had already reached acute levels. That combined with the hypercynicism of the Democrat Party’s subversion of its best hope—Bernie Sanders—to beat the Republican challenger—Donald Trump—which became a contest between the “deplorable” Hillary Clinton and Make America Great Again Trump.

As can now be seen, Trump had the best vision about the sort of plan that would be required if the Outlaw US Empire’s decline was going to be properly managed. Unfortunately, it appears that in 2015-16 MAGA was only a slogan to get elected as there wasn’t any substance to the plan, which then as now would involve trillions of dollars of investment, not just to bring back the businesses that left, but to repair and modernize many trillions in infrastructure needed to support business and the people employed. The people Trump surrounded himself with as advisors were utter failures to advance the MAGA vision as they increased the now-called Forever Wars being run on credit, while further reducing government revenues by cutting taxes to his top 10% buddies, thus deepening the federal deficit. Trump’s initiation of a Trade War against China along with tariffs combined with Trump’s disaster at managing the Covid-19 event coupled with many other issues put him at a serious disadvantage to Biden who was declared the 2020 election winner.

Biden’s Covid-19 management wasn’t much better than Trump’s, nor was his fiscal policy as a massive asset bubble was allowed to continue growing all fueled by credit. Military ability continued declining, so it was decided to cut Afghanistan loose as the war in Ukraine was clearly going to escalates at some point. It was in Alaska in 2021 when Biden’s people met with the Chinese who told the Americans to their face that they couldn’t/wouldn’t be allowed to talk to China from a position of strength, as by then it was clear Trump’s Trade War had failed miserably. China’s forcefulness and the clear inability of the Bideites to counter ought to have raised a big red flag of alarm, but only denial was produced—a narrative trend that continues today. A bigger challenge loomed as 2021 came to a close as the War against Russian speakers in Ukraine intensified to the point when at the November Government Meeting evidence of Genocide was presented to which Putin agreed. The decades-long history of betrayals of Russia by the Collective Western Empire now reached a critical point where Russia insisted that OCED treaties be obeyed or a technical military operation would be undertaken to resolve the issues, which were expressed in the December 2021 treaty proposals which the West essentially ignored. All last-minute attempts having failed, Russia launched its Special Military Operation (SMO) on 24 February 2022. (I should take a moment to say the people Obama installed into power in Ukraine in 2014 were Nazis of a particular Ukrainian type that were nurtured from 1945 onward by the Outlaw US Empire and the UK’s MI6, while Jewish elephants were used to obscure the Nazis. This excellent article compares the rise of Azov with the Waffen-SS, which is why one of the SMO’s goals was denazification.) And thus Biden was now attempting to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian all on credit but without any weapons capable of defeating Russia—not even nukes.

Enter Trump again with his MAGA plus the boast that he’d be able to end the war against Russia in his first 24 hours in office—both clearly ploys to get him elected. In June 2024, President Putin made it very clear what Russia would accept to end the war; it’s absolutely fundamental position that was then reiterated over and over in hopes the Americanas would listen or read. Those grounds made it quite clear to us reading them that the war wouldn’t be ended in 24 hours. It’s now been three months, and many more months will be needed since Trump has lost interest now that he’s restarted his trade war with China while also adding most of the world. At this point, I’d like to introduce Professor Richard Wolff in his hour-long solo chat with Nima today that mostly deals with Trump’s gross mismanagement of the Outlaw US Empire’s decline. Professor Wolff expresses the situation in ways that are impossible via text, and the information he provides is critical in relation to the material that follows.

Having Wolff’s arguments in hand, we now turn to the issues as seen by Alastair Crooke who has consistently said Trump’s main aim is the resetting of the Outlaw US Empire’s economy, particularly its debt load since it cannot operate without credit, which in this case is obtained through the sale of T-bills—preferably at a very low rate of return. Unmentioned so far is Biden’s destruction of the dollar’s reputation and the US-managed global financial system through his weaponization of the dollar, finance and trade, the latter now having been vastly escalated by Trump. All are putting pressure on the ability of the Empire to raise money, which it must have to operate its Empire. With that introduced, we can now move to Crooke’s recent essay, “Trump axes a stricken world order – but there’s opportunity amidst the turmoil:”

The Trump ‘shock’ – his ‘de-centring’ of America from serving as pivot to the post-war ‘order’ via the dollar – has triggered a deep cleavage between those who gained huge benefit from the status quo, on the one hand; and on the other, the MAGA faction who have come to regard the status quo as inimical – even an existential threat – to U.S. interests. The sides have descended into bitter, accusatory polarisation.

It is one of the ironies of the moment that President Trump and right-wing Republicans have insisted on decrying – as a “resource curse” – the benefits of the Reserve Currency status that precisely brought the U.S. the wave of inward global savings that has permitted the U.S. to enjoy the unique privilege of printing money, without adverse consequence: Until now that is! Debt levels finally matter, it seems, even for the Leviathan.

Vice-President Vance now likens the Reserve Currency to a “parasite” that has eaten away the substance of its ‘host’ – the U.S. economy – by forcing an overvalued dollar.

Just to be clear, President Trump believed there was no choice: Either he could upend the existing paradigm, at the cost of considerable pain for many of those dependent on the financialised system, or he could allow events to wend their way towards an inevitable U.S. economic collapse. Even those who understood the dilemma the U.S. faces, nonetheless have been somewhat shocked by the self-serving brazenness of him simply ‘tariffing the world’.

Trump’s actions, (as many claim), were neither ‘spur of the moment’, nor whimsical. The ‘tariff solution’ had been pre-prepared by his team over recent years, and formed an integral part to a more complex framework – one that complemented the debt-reduction and revenue effects of tariffs, by a programme to coerce the repatriation of vanished manufacturing industry back to America.

Trump’s is a gamble that may, or may not, succeed: It risks a bigger financial crisis, as financial markets are over-leveraged and fragile. But what is clear is that the de-centring of America that will follow from his crude threats and humiliation of world leaders ultimately will cause a counter-reaction both for relations with the U.S., and also in global willingness to continue to hold U.S. assets (such as U.S. Treasuries). China’s defiance of Trump will set a ‘tone’, even for those who lack China’s ‘heft’.

Why then should Trump take such a risk? Because, behind Trump’s boldfaced actions, notes Simplicius, lies a harsh reality facing many MAGA supporters:

“it remains inarguable that the American workforce has been gutted by the triple threat of mass migration; general worker anomie as consequence of cultural decay – and in particular, by the mass alienation and disenfranchisement of conservatively-minded men. These have been strongly contributing factors to the current crisis of doubt about the ability of ‘American manufacturing’ to ever return to a semblance of its previous glory, no matter how big an axe Trump takes to the stricken ‘World Order’”.

Trump is mounting a Revolution in order to invert this reality – an end to the American anomie – by (Trump hopes) bringing back U.S. industry.

There is a current of western public opinion – “by no means limited to intellectuals”, nor to Americans alone – that despairs of their own country’s ‘lack of will’, or its inability to do what needs to be done – its fecklessness and its ‘crisis of competence’. These people hanker for a leadership believed to be tougher and more decisive – a longing for unconstrained power and ruthlessness.

One highly-placed Trump supporter puts it quite brutally: “We are now at a very important inflection point. If we are going to face ‘The Big Ugly’ with China, we cannot afford divided loyalties … It’s time to get mean, brutally, harshly mean. Delicate sensibilities must be dispatched like a feather in a hurricane”.

It is no surprise that, against the general context of western nihilism, a mindset that admires power and ruthless technocratic solutions – almost ruthlessness for its own sake – could take hold. Take note – we are all in for a turbulent future.

The West’s economic unravelling has been made more complicated by Trump’s often contradictory statements. It may be a part to his repertoire; yet nonetheless, the haphazardness evokes the thought that nothing is trustworthy; nothing is constant.

It has been reported by ‘White House insiders’ that Trump has lost all inhibition when it comes to bold action: “He’s at the peak of just not giving a f**k anymore”, a White House official familiar with Trump’s thinking told the Washington Post:

“Bad news stories? He doesn’t give a f**k. He’s going to do what he’s going to do. He’s going to do what he promised to do on the campaign trail”.

When some portion of a country’s population despairs of their own country’s “lack of will” or inability to “do what needs to be done”, Aurelian argues, they begin, from time to time, to identify emotionally with ‘Another Country’, believed to be tougher and more decisive. In this particular moment, “the mantle” of being “some sort of Nietzschean super-hero – beyond considerations of good and evil” … “landed upon Israel” – at least for an influential layer of both the U.S. and European policy-makers.Aurelian continues,

“Israel, whose combination of a superficially western-style society with audacity, ruthlessness and a total disregard for international law and human life, was exciting to many and has become a model for emulation. Western support for Israel in Gaza makes much more sense when you realise that western politicians, and parts of the intellectual class, secretly admire the ruthlessness and brutality of Israel’s war”. [This reflects the creeping Nazism I often refer to as happening in Europe, but also the Empire; remember, it was Obama who financed many terrorists and put Nazis in charge of Ukraine.]

Yet, despite the disruption and the pain caused by the U.S. ‘turn’, it nonetheless represents a huge opportunity too – an opportunity to shift to an alternate societal paradigm beyond neo-liberal financialism. This has been ruled out, until now, by the élite insistence on TINA (there is no alternative). Now the door is open a crack.

Karl Polyani, in his Great Transformation (published some 80 years ago), held that the massive economic and social transformations that he had witnessed during his lifetime – the end of the century of “relative peace” in Europe from 1815 to 1914, and the subsequent descent into economic turmoil, fascism and war, which was still ongoing at the time of the book’s publication – had but a single, overarching cause:

Prior to the 19th century, Polyani insisted, the human ‘way of being’ (economics as an organic component of society) had always been ‘embedded’ in society, andsubordinated to local politics, customs, religion and social relations; i.e. subordinated to a civilisational culture. Life was not treated as separate; not reduced to distinct particulars but was viewed as parts to an organic whole – that is, to Life itself.

Post-modern nihilism (that descended into unregulated neo-liberalism of the 1980s) turned this logic on its head. As such, it constituted an ontological break with much of history. Not only did it artificially separate the ‘economic’ from the political and ethical ‘way of being’, but open, free-trade economics (in its Adam Smith formulation) demanded the subordination of society to the abstract logic of the self-regulating market. For Polanyi, this “meant no less than the running of community as an adjunct to the market”, and nothing more.

The answer – clearly – was to make society again the dominant part to a distinctly human community; i.e. given its meaning through a living culture. In this sense, Polanyi also emphasised the territorial character of sovereignty – the nation-state as the sovereign pre-condition to the exercise of democratic politics.

Polanyi would have argued that, absent a return to Life itself as the central pivot to politics, a violent backlash was inevitable. Is such a backlash what we are seeing today?

At a conference of Russian industrialists and entrepreneurs, on 18 March 2025, Putin referred precisely to a ‘National Economics’ alternate solution for Russia. Putin highlighted both the imposed siege on the state, and set out the Russian response it – a model which is likely to be adopted by much of the globe.

It is a mode of economic thinking that is already practiced by China which had anticipated Trump’s Tariff Blitz.

Putin’s address – metaphorical speaking – constitutes the financial counterpart to his 2007 Munich Security Forum speech, at which he accepted the military défieposed by ‘collective NATO’. Last month however, he went further – Putin stated clearly that Russia had accepted the challenge posed by the Anglo ‘open economy’ financial order.

Putin’s address was in one sense nothing really new – It was the shift from the ‘open economy’ model towards ‘National Economics’.

The ‘National Economic’s School’ (of the nineteenth century) argued that Adam Smith’s analysis, which was heavily focused on individualism and cosmopolitanism, overlooked the crucial role of the national economy.

The result of a general free trade would not be a universal republic, but, on the contrary, a universal subjection of the less advanced nations by the predominant manufacturing and commercial and powers. Those advocating for a national economy countered Smith’s open economy by advocating a ‘closed economy’ to allow nascent industries to grow and become competitive on the global stage.

“Hold to no illusions: There is nothing beyond this reality”, Putin warned the gathered Russian industrialists in March 2025. “Set illusions aside”, he told delegates:

“Sanctions and restrictions are today’s reality – together with a new spiral of economic rivalry already unleashed”.

“Sanctions are neither temporary nor targeted measures; they constitute a mechanism of systemic, strategic pressure against our nation. Regardless of global developments or shifts in the international order, our competitors will perpetually seek to constrain Russia and to diminish its economic and technological capacities”.

“You should not hope for complete freedom of trade, payments and capital transfers. You should not count on Western mechanisms to protect the rights of investors and entrepreneurs… I’m not talking about any legal systems – they just don’t exist! They exist there only for themselves! That’s the trick. Do you understand?!”

Our [Russian] challenges exist, ‘yes’, Putin said; “but theirs are abundant also. Western dominance is slipping away. New centres of global growth are taking centre stage”.

These challenges are not the ‘problem’; they are the opportunity, Putin argued: We will prioritise domestic manufacturing and the development of tech industries. The old model is over. Oil and gas production will be simply the adjunct to a largely internally circulating, self-sufficient ‘real economy’ – with energy no longer its driver. We are open to western investment – but only on our terms – and the small ‘open’ sector of our otherwise closed, self-circulating real economy will of course still trade with our BRICS partners.

Russia is returning to the National Economy model, Putin implied. ‘This makes us sanction and tariff resistant’. ‘Russia is also inducement resistant – being self-sufficient in energy and raw materials’, Putin said. A clear alternate economic paradigm in the face of an unraveling world order. [Bolded Italics My Emphasis]

Crooke has accepted what I’ve long advocated—that Russia and China are following very similar political-economic philosophies. Unfortunately, he doesn’t get to the meat of the problem with Team Trump. That he expands on during his chat with Judge Napolitano on the 14th, which is yet another must watch show to get the info needed to comprehend the overall situation. In the free portion of Crooke’s most recent substack essay, “A “Trump Deal”? Juggling War, ‘Easy War’ and Negotiation,” Crooke continues to try and explain all of this. I’ll be curious to read the whole thing, but for the time being we have only this:

Trump clearly is in the midst of an existential conflict. He has a landslide mandate. But is ringed by a resolute domestic enemy front in the form of an ‘industrial concern’ infused with Deep State ideology, centred primarily on preserving US global power (rather than on mending of the economy).

The key MAGA issue however is not foreign policy, but how to structurally re-balance an economic paradigm in danger of an extinction event. Trump has always been clear that this forms his primordial goal. His coalition of supporters are fixed on the need to revive America’s industrial base, so to provide reasonably well-paid jobs to the MAGA corps.

Trump may for now have a mandate, but extreme danger lurks -- not just the Deep State and the Israeli lobby. The ‘Yellen’ debt bomb is the more existential threat. It threatens Trump’s support in Congress, because the bomb is set to explode shortly before the 2026 midterms. New tariff revenues, DOGE savings, and even the upcoming Gulf shake-down are all centred on getting some sort of fiscal order in place, so that $9 trillion plus of short-term debt -- maturing imminently -- can be rolled over to the longer term without resort to eye-watering interest rates. It is the Yellen-Democrat little trip wire for the Trump agenda.

So far, the general context seems plain enough. Yet, on the minutiae of how exactly to re-balance the economy; how to manage the ‘debt bomb’; and how far DOGE should go with its cuts, divisions in Trump’s team are present. In fact, the tariff war and the China tussle bring into contention a fresh phalanx of opposition: i.e. those (some on Wall Street, oligarchs, etc.) who have prospered mightily from the golden era of free-flowing, seemingly limitless, money-creation; those who were enriched, precisely by the policies that have made America subservient to the looming American ‘debt knell’.

Yet to make matters more complex, two of the key components to Trump’s mooted ‘re-balancing’ and debt ‘solution’ cannot be whispered, let alone said aloud: One reason is that it involves deliberately devaluing ‘the dollar in your pocket’. And secondly, many more Americans are going to lose their jobs.

That is not exactly a popular ‘sell’. Which is probably why the ‘re-balance’ has not been well explained to the public. [My Emphasis]

Firstly, the election didn’t provide Trump with a “mandate” as the popular vote was far too close for that. And resistance has soared at the three-month mark of his tenure. As for the so-called “Yellen bomb” being some sort of “trip-wire,” IMO that’s utter nonsense for it would have existed for Harris too. And yet again there’s the return of MAGA as no more than an election gimmick for there’re two major components to any such effort that have never been explained: The first is a detailed plan and the second is how to finance that plan. All that’s ever uttered are generalities. And here’s where we get to Trump’s real aim—get his top 10% buddies even richer than they already are by further cutting their taxes—income and now capital gains. Crooke is a great analyst at many things, but he misses a crucial aspect of Trump—He’s a Neoliberal of the first order being a member of its extremely powerful FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) faction that’s what’s really dismantling the Empire. Crooke does get one aspect correct: The debt needs to be refinanced and more must be sold so the tax cuts can be made. Also, what was also made clear is Trump doesn’t care who or how many get hurt or killed by his actions as we see with his abetting Genocide.

The only hope I see to properly manage the Outlaw US Empire’s decline is to completely disown the Neoliberals that is to nationalize their monies, to let the Billionaires keep one billion and forfeit the rest, while raising capital gains to 60% and inheritances over 100 million to 100%. That leaves those entities with plenty of capital compared to the bottom 90%. The other major move would be to nationalize the stock and bond markets and abolish the Federal Reserve also via nationalization. New regulations on the remaining banking system would be imposed and the Tobin Yax applied to currency speculation. The other major move would be the provision of national health insurance. Another move would be some measure to deflate the housing market to make it affordable once again. The aim of all the above is to lower the wage costs paid to make American industry competitive once its reestablished—for it will do no good to finance a massive plan to build factories unless the employed labor will allow those new enterprises to be competitive globally. Of course, none of that is wanted by Neoliberals who want the exact opposite—they dream of collecting rents from everyone.

The Outlaw US Empire’s Imperialists must also be addressed. The Global Empire of Bases and the War Department and associated agencies cost roughly $1.5 Trillion/year, all of which amounts to waste. All of the $1.5 Trillion/year is paid for with credit—credit the Empire can no longer afford. And to what use? The rivalries facing the Empire are all commercial, not military; so, what’s needed is a strong commercial base, not a military one. The USA only needs the National Guard system formed by all 50 states and a Coast Guard. Any need to police piracy can be done internationally and would involve a few Coast Guard Frigates. Air force, Space Force, Ballistic Missile Force, Standing Army, Blue Water Navy—none are needed. The world wants commerce, development and peace, and the Outlaw US Empire currently constitutes the only real threat to that. Yes, there’re the Terrorist Foreign Legions the Empire’s created that must be destroyed, including the Zionist Terrorists. I argue that $1.5 Trillion/year counts as an anti-productive expense that subtracts from GDP.

The Empire’s decline needs to be treated as an opportunity to improve life in the United States. But for that to happen, people first must cease denying we’re an empire and that it’s in decline. Then people with vision will be needed to put forward the social-political-economic agenda required to take advantage of the opportunity. Yes, formidable obstacles exist, but We The People vastly outnumber those obstacles and thus can remove them. Thus, it’s really up to the great mass of people as to what sort of future they want—they can continue to be plebes and let the Oligarchs exploit and rule over them, or they can become aware of what’s now happening and that there’re other choices—There IS an alternative—but they must be brought about by the wholesale efforts of society at large. As we’re seeing, Trump is no answer, but part of the bigger problem. And the D-Party at present doesn’t have anything to offer either. The only solution is the formation of a People’s Party. It’s been done before, so the argument that it’s impossible is false and must be rejected.

*

Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!