Category:

FALSE FLAGS & PROVOCATIONS

SPECIAL DOSSIER: Brian Berletic and other top geopolitical analysts on the “New US National Security Strategy”

by Brian Berletic Published: December 8, 2025

written by Brian Berletic Approx 2 Hrs 27 mins • Watch/ read

Trump meeting Syrian henchman al-Jolani, formerly known as the leader of ISIS.

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Brian Berletic
THE NEW ATLAS

Traducir—Translate!
Make fonts bigger>>>	Resize text-+=

DEEP DIVE: New US "National Security Strategy" is Repackaged Wolfowitz Doctrine

The New Atlas

Dec 7, 2025 Russia-Ukraine

The recently released 2025 US National Security Strategy is being misrepresented as a "shift" in US foreign policy, with claims the paper does not cite Russia or China as major threats and instead seeks to focus on the Western Hemisphere. However, the entire paper is a blueprint for not only continued confrontation with both Russia and China (as well as Iran and beyond), it seeks to enlist and expand what it calls a "burden sharing network" to do so;
While the paper doesn't name Russia and China directly, it constantly refers to taking actions against "adversaries" obviously meaning both Russia and China. The paper is an updated continuation of the post-Cold War "Wolfowitz Doctrine" through which the US seeks to maintain global primacy while preventing the mergence of any rival or bloc of rivals.

Summary

The video provides a comprehensive, critical analysis of the United States’ 2025 National Security Strategy, a roughly 33-page document introduced by President Donald J. Trump. The presenter meticulously dissects the strategy, demonstrating that it is fundamentally a continuation of the longstanding Wolfowitz Doctrine, which has guided U.S. foreign policy since the early 1990s. This doctrine aims to prevent the emergence of any rival global or regional superpowers that could challenge U.S. primacy worldwide.

Contrary to some narratives suggesting a U.S. strategic pivot away from global dominance toward focusing exclusively on the Western Hemisphere, the analysis reveals that the document explicitly advocates continued global military and political engagement, including expanded NATO commitments, intensified containment of China and Russia, and aggressive control over Latin America and other regions. The U.S. intends to maintain and expand its influence through a “burden sharing network” that leverages allied nations to carry most of the military and economic costs of maintaining U.S. global hegemony.

The strategy also incorporates elements of “flexible realism,” acknowledging the use of proxies and terrorists, soft power, and coercion to maintain control without overt, large-scale military interventions. Despite rhetoric about non-interventionism and respect for national sovereignty, the document upholds a policy of “primacy of nations for me, not for thee,” where the U.S. reserves the right to dominate regions like the Western Hemisphere and Asia-Pacific while denying other powers similar rights.

The video exposes contradictions and hypocrisies in the document, especially concerning NATO expansion, the status of Taiwan, the ongoing proxy war in Ukraine, and the U.S. military presence near China’s shores. It argues the strategy is explicitly designed to maintain American global dominance by economically and militarily containing China and Russia, undermining any independent foreign policy in Latin America, and coercing allies into deeper military spending aligned with U.S. interests.

Finally, the presenter stresses that the 2025 strategy signals no real change from previous U.S. administrations despite campaign promises of ending foreign wars or reducing overseas military involvement. Instead, it confirms an intensification of U.S. global hegemonic policy under the guise of “strategic clarity,” and calls for public awareness and resistance to this ongoing imperial agenda.

Key Insights

[01:06] 🛡️ Wolfowitz Doctrine Continuity: The 2025 strategy explicitly continues the post-Cold War U.S. objective of ensuring no rival power in Europe, Asia, or the former Soviet sphere can challenge American primacy. This doctrine remains the foundational principle underlying all U.S. foreign policy, regardless of administration or party, emphasizing a unilateral approach to global dominance rather than multilateral cooperation or respect for other nations’ sovereignty.
[04:19] 💸 NATO Expansion Under Trump: The document’s foreword by President Trump highlights increasing NATO members’ defense spending from 2% to 5% of GDP, effectively expanding NATO’s military capabilities and burden-sharing. This contradicts claims that the U.S. is retreating from global commitments, instead reinforcing its leadership and control over Europe’s military posture against Russia.

[08:09] 🕊️ Non-Interventionism Rhetoric vs. Practice: While the strategy pays lip service to non-interventionism, it openly admits that the U.S.’s vast and diverse interests make strict non-intervention impossible. The U.S. continues aggressive military actions and fabricates pretexts for conflict (Iran, Venezuela), illustrating the gap between political rhetoric and actual policy. This exposes a pattern of broken campaign promises and entrenched militarism.
[18:30] 🌐 Burden Sharing and Proxy Warfare: The strategy formalizes a “burden sharing network,” compelling allies and partners to assume primary responsibility for regional defense aligned with American interests. This approach aims to prevent U.S. overextension by outsourcing military costs and risks to others, especially evident in Europe’s role in the Ukraine proxy war against Russia and Asia-Pacific alliances confronting China. This shifts direct U.S. involvement to a more covert, proxy-driven model.
[28:14] 🌎 Monroe Doctrine Reasserted in Western Hemisphere: The document reasserts U.S. dominance over the entire Western Hemisphere, explicitly denying non-hemispheric competitors (notably Russia and China) the ability to establish military or strategic assets in Latin America. This policy undermines Latin American sovereignty and international law, contradicting the stated principle of national primacy and sovereignty, and represents a neo-imperial control over the region’s foreign relations.
[35:02] 🏯 Focus on Indo-Pacific and Containment of China: The U.S. strategy dedicates significant resources to the Indo-Pacific, emphasizing military deterrence, economic competition, and alliance-building (e.g., the Quad) to contain China’s rise. The region’s importance is underscored by its massive share of global GDP and shipping routes like the South China Sea. The U.S. military presence near China’s shores and the maintenance of a contested “status quo” over Taiwan reveal a direct challenge to Chinese sovereignty, increasing regional tensions.
[56:13] ⚔️ U.S. Orchestration of Ukraine Conflict: The strategy and supporting evidence highlight that the U.S. initiated and continues to direct the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war against Russia. The U.S. controls Ukrainian military and intelligence operations, supplies weapons, and shapes the battlefield, while using the war to weaken Russia and enforce European alignment with American geopolitical goals. The strategy’s vague language about “strategic stability” likely means maintaining U.S. dominance in Europe while keeping Russia weakened and overextended.
[01:10:23] 🔄 Proxy Wars as the New Model in the Middle East: The strategy signals a shift from large-scale American invasions to proxy wars and short targeted military operations in the Middle East. It continues to prioritize control of Gulf energy supplies, navigation chokepoints, and Israel’s security, using regional proxies and coercive diplomacy rather than direct occupation. This change in tactics reflects attempts to reduce American casualties and costs while maintaining regional dominance.

Conclusion

The 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy reaffirms a decades-old imperial agenda under the Wolfowitz Doctrine, emphasizing global dominance through military, economic, and political control. It disavows genuine non-interventionism and sovereignty for other nations while demanding increased allied military spending to sustain America’s hegemonic stance. The strategy reveals a continued aggressive posture towards Russia, China, and other competing powers, especially in Latin America, the Indo-Pacific, and Europe, relying heavily on proxy conflicts and coercion. The video emphasizes the importance of critical awareness and opposition to this continuation of U.S. imperial policy, challenging narratives that suggest any meaningful change or retreat from global dominance.

About the Author

Brian Berletic is a former US Marine, author, international relations expert and host of the New Atlas.

Addenda

By Investigative historian Eric Zuesse:

Has Trump redefined, and will he shrink, the U.S. empire?

Eric Zuesse • 6 December 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

Yesterday, on Friday, a Reuters exclusive news-report about a potentially mega-historic change in America’s international relations and the world’s future, headlined “Exclusive: US sets 2027 deadline for Europe-led NATO defense, officials say” and opened:

The United States wants Europe to take over the majority of NATO’s conventional defense capabilities, from intelligence to missiles, by 2027, Pentagon officials told diplomats in Washington this week, a tight deadline that struck some European officials as unrealistic.

The message, recounted by five sources familiar with the discussion, including a U.S. official, was conveyed at a meeting in Washington this week of Pentagon staff overseeing NATO policy and several European delegations.

The shifting of this burden from the U.S. to European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would dramatically change how the United States, a founding member of the post-war alliance, works with its most important military partners.

Hours later, Russia’s RT News placed this event into an optimistic historical perspective (for Russia) by headlining “US gives NATO’s European members self-defense deadline – Reuters” and reporting:

European NATO members are facing a US deadline to take more responsibility for the military bloc’s intelligence gathering and missile production, Reuters reported on Friday, citing sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Pentagon officials warned delegations from several European countries this week that if they fail to meet the 2027 deadline, the US could scale back participation in certain NATO defense activities, according to sources cited by the news agency.

The report comes as Washington moves to reduce its direct involvement in Europe.

“Allies have recognized the need to invest more in defense and shift the burden on conventional defense from the US to Europe,” a NATO official speaking for the military bloc told Reuters, declining to comment on the 2027 deadline.

Also on December 5th, Politico headlined “Trump reveals what he wants for the world”, and reported:

President Donald Trump intends for the U.S. to keep a bigger military presence in the Western Hemisphere going forward to battle migration, drugs and the rise of adversarial powers in the region, according to his new National Security Strategy. …

The Trump National Security Strategy, which the White House quietly released Thursday, has some brutal words for Europe, suggesting it is in civilizational decline, and pays relatively little attention to the Middle East and Africa.

It has an unusually heavy focus on the Western Hemisphere that it casts as largely about protecting the U.S. homeland. It says “border security is the primary element of national security” and makes veiled references to China’s efforts to gain footholds in America’s backyard.

“The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity — a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region,” the document states. “The terms of our alliances, and the terms upon which we provide any kind of aid, must be contingent on winding down adversarial outside influence — from control of military installations, ports, and key infrastructure to the purchase of strategic assets broadly defined.”

The document describes such plans as part of a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. …

Trump’s paper, as well as a partner document known as the National Defense Strategy, have faced delays in part because of debates in the administration over elements related to China. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pushed for some softening of the language about Beijing, according to two people familiar with the matter who were granted anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Bessent is currently involved in sensitive U.S. trade talks with China, and Trump himself is wary of the delicate relations with Beijing.

The new National Security Strategy says the U.S. has to make challenging choices in the global realm. “After the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy elites convinced themselves that permanent American domination of the entire world was in the best interests of our country. Yet the affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests,” the document states. …

The Trump strategy suggests the president’s military buildup in the Western Hemisphere is not a temporary phenomenon. (That buildup, which has included controversial military strikes against boats allegedly carrying drugs, has been cast by the administration as a way to fight cartels. But the administration also hopes the buildup could help pressure Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to step down.)

The strategy also specifically calls for “a more suitable Coast Guard and Navy presence to control sea lanes, to thwart illegal and other unwanted migration, to reduce human and drug trafficking, and to control key transit routes in a crisis.”

The strategy says the U.S. should enhance its relationships with governments in Latin America, including working with them to identify strategic resources — an apparent reference to materials such as rare earth minerals. It also declares that the U.S. will partner more with the private sector to promote “strategic acquisition and investment opportunities for American companies in the region.” …

The National Security Strategy spends a fair amount of time on China, though it often doesn’t mention Beijing directly. Many U.S. lawmakers — on a bipartisan basis — consider an increasingly assertive China the gravest long-term threat to America’s global power. But while the language the Trump strategy uses is tough, it is careful and far from inflammatory. …

“We will also maintain our longstanding declaratory policy on Taiwan, meaning that the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait,” it states. …

Overall, it pulls punches when it comes to Russia — there’s very little criticism of Moscow.

Instead, it reserves some of its harshest remarks for U.S.-allied nations in Europe. In particular, the administration, in somewhat veiled terms, knocks European efforts to rein in far-right parties, calling such moves political censorship.

“The Trump administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the [Ukraine] war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition,” the strategy states. …

“Over the long term, it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European,” it states. “As such, it is an open question whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with the United States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter.” …

The strategy struggles at times to tamp down what seem like inconsistencies. It says the U.S. should have a high bar for foreign intervention, but it also says it wants to “prevent the emergence of dominant adversaries.” …

I notice that the document itself says on page 5: “To ensure that America remains the world’s strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country for decades to come, our country needs a coherent, focused strategy for how we interact with the world.” In short: everything else in it that pretends to reduce the U.S. Government’s control over its colonies (‘allies’, such as in America’s anti-Russian military alliance NATO) takes a back seat to the national ‘security’ strategy of the U.S. Government that became instituted by President Truman on 25 July 1945 and has not been changed snce then, of America’s ultimately coming to control the entire world — “hegemony,” “global dominance,” being the center of the first-ever all-encompassing global empire (ensuring “that America remains the world’s strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country for decades to come”).

This is not necessarily to deny that Trump might be so stupid that he isn’t aware of his own (self-) contradictions. However, it is to say that to the extent that Trump will need to choose between terminating or even simply reducing America’s global dominance, versus doing what is good for the American public (which would benefit enormously if its Government reduced instead of further-expanded its empire), he will probably do what he has always done — adhere to serving America’s billionaires (who benefit enormously from expanding their empire) instead of serving the American public.

Trump’s National Security Strategy states that “After the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy elites convinced themselves that permanent American domination of the entire world was in the best interests of our country.” It tries to imply that Trump won’t continue operating in support of “American foreign policy elites” and against the American people. Perhaps Trump is stupid enough to think that that’s what he would prefer to do if push comes to shove. However, his past record is consistent ONLY in its serving FIRST the wants of his megadonors. I expect him to continue that way. Optimists about Trump (except ones who are neocons) have almost always been severely disappointed by his actual behavior, whenever push has come to shove.

I doubt that Trump will be any less dangerous to Russia, China, and Iran, than in the past, but that he will simply be even more dangerous to other nations in the Western Hemisphere than prior U.S. Governments have been.

About the Author

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

By Geopolitical Analyst Ben Norton

This is the aggressive new US strategy for global dominance

Geopolitical Economy Rep

Dec 7, 2025

The Donald Trump administration revealed the US empire's new plan for global dominance in the 2025 National Security Strategy. The goal is to impose hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, reviving the colonial Monroe Doctrine, to move supply chains out of Asia and bring manufacturing into Latin America via "nearshoring", in order to economically decouple from China and prepare for conflict in Cold War Two. Ben Norton analyzes the important document.

About the Author
Benjamin (Ben) Norton is an investigative journalist and analyst. Ben is the founder and editor of Geopolitical Economy Report. He lived in and reported from Latin America for several years, and is now based in Beijing, China. (Publicaciones en español aquí.)

By Geopolitical analyst Julian Macfarlane (News Forensics)

The National Security Strategy
Much ado about nothing

Dateline: DEC 08, 2025

The Internet is making much of this year’s NSS.
Of course, there is an NSS every year.

This is what Brian Berletic writes on Telegram (see the main essay above), contradicting almost everyone on the Internet, both in the MSM and Alt Media, including the excellent Bernhard at MoA and the aggregator Simplicius, who has taken his cue from Bernhard—and even Larry Johnson.

National Security Strategy is NOT Calling for Ending Ukraine War, Just a Ceasefire

“It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state.” (NSS)
Brian writes:

What does it mean by “a cessation of hostilities in Ukraine?”
Many interpret it as wanting to genuinely end the conflict.
But that is not what is written.
It simply says “a cessation of hostilities,” which could also (and in this case obviously does) mean a ceasefire, a freeze. Cessation... Ceasefire...
This is what US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said in February, this is what every single “peace proposal” the US has presented to Russia has sought, and indeed certainly what the NSS means now. What does the NSS mean by “reestablish strategic stability with Russia?”
What was the strategic state in Europe before the US itself (including under the first Trump admin) provoked this war and spurred a transformation in Russia militarily, industrially, and geopolitically?
It was a state of US-European dominance, Russian overdependence on Western imports and energy exports, constant NATO expansion and encroachment, and the incremental isolation and containment of Russia through US engineered color revolutions in former Soviet territories on its borders.
This is what reestablishing a previous strategic state with Russia means, placing it back into this state - NOT the new security architecture Russia demands.
The US used the term “cessation of hostilies” rather than specifically stating they seek to end the conflict for a purpose. They used the term “reestablish” - meaning returning to a previous state of relations - rather than proposing a new strategic relationship - for a reason.
Hopefully those in the Kremlin are more realistic, careful, and conscious of history than many others (including Russian media!) indulging in wishful thinking as they read yet another US policy paper repackaging and reselling continuity of agenda. Maybe Russian media is simply playing along to give the US a graceful exit in a war Russia is sure it can win even if Europe is fed into Ukraine next?

So is Brian the odd man out? Again?

Let us keep in mind that Berletic has been consistently right in his analyses, more so than even the redoubtable Bernhard — and also Larry Johnson, another analyst of note. Much more so than Simplicius.

Me? I downloaded the entire NSS document. It’s a laugh and a half. Not serious as a policy. But very, very long. I really wonder how many analysts have taken the time to go through it — and analyze — and check as Berletic has.

What exactly is the NSS?

Basically, it just outlines an administration’s concept of national policy for that year —for the American public. Hence, it is an annual propaganda event rather like the President’s speech to Congress. You can’t take it seriously.

Presidents are not bound by their own NSS documents and can change their policies the next year if they want. And subsequent administrations can issue entirely new strategies with completely different priorities.

US foreign policy—even long before Wolfowitz—has been defined by four features: 1. Commitment to US global hegemony, absolute domination of other nations at any cost; 2. Staggering hypocrisy; 3. Appalling cynicism; 4. Unwavering sociopathy.

But US national policy has remained the same since 1992 and the publication of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Wolfowitz was the architect of the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, so people in government avoid talking about him. But his ideas endure. If anything, the US has doubled down on them.

Here’s the thing. US policy has not changed. But US power is now diminished and continuing to weaken. Core concepts of policy are cast in stone, but geopolitical events are seismic.

I will write further on this tomorrow after I have researched further

Ichi and me….

Big earthquake in northern Japan.—I write about seismic events from experience. Support Chappy and Ichi and me at https://buymeacoffee.com/julico.

You can also click here or on the graphic below:

SELECT COMMENTARY

Tom Welsh
Tom Welsh9h

The doctrine was not invented by Mr Wolfowitz. It dates back to 1948 (explicitly), and implicitly to the 19th century.

"We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction".

- George Kennan (secret US State Department memo, 1948)

About the Author

JULIAN MACFARLANE is a polymathic Tokyo-based media and strategic analyst. He is the publisher of News Forensics. Julian also loves animals, a quality we deeply admire and share..

Ready for more?

BEFORE you leave, PLEASE pay attention to this alert.
[t4b-ticker id="1"]

Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post, although, if we publish them, we obviously find them noteworthy and valuable.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Published: December 8, 2025 0 comments

Richard D. Wolff & Michael Hudson: The West Is LOSING Control

by Michael Hudson Published: November 21, 2025

written by Michael Hudson Approx 1 Hr. • Watch/ read

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Nima R. Alkhorshid
DIALOGUE WORKS
chats with
Profs. Michael Hudson • Richard D. Wolff

Traducir—Translate!
Make fonts bigger>>>	Resize text-+=

Richard D. Wolff & Michael Hudson: The West Is LOSING Control

Dialogue Works
Streamed live on Nov 20, 2025

Summary

This discussion, dated November 20th, 2025, features Richard Wolff and Michael Hudson analyzing the deteriorating economic and geopolitical situation in Europe amid ongoing tensions related to the Ukraine conflict, U.S. tariffs, and shifting global alliances. The central theme revolves around Europe’s strategic and economic crisis driven by its dependence on the United States, the severing of cheap Russian energy supplies, and the pivot toward militarization as a response to geopolitical pressures. Europe is portrayed as trapped in a self-destructive spiral, sacrificing its industrial base and economic prosperity to serve U.S. geopolitical interests, particularly in fighting Russia and China. This shift has led to the decline of traditional manufacturing sectors in Germany, France, and other key European economies, with military-industrial stocks rising as the sole bright spot in the European markets.

The speakers highlight that European leaders, especially Ursula von der Leyen and Josep Borrell, act primarily on behalf of NATO and U.S. neoconservative interests rather than representing the will of European voters. Von der Leyen’s commitment to expensive U.S. liquefied natural gas and massive borrowing in the name of Europe deepens the continent’s economic woes while increasing its dependency on the U.S. The conflict with Russia is framed as a pretext for restructuring Europe’s economy away from consumer goods toward a military-industrial complex, a move that is both strategically unsound and economically devastating.

Richard and Michael delve into the psychology behind European elites’ decisions, explaining how decades of dependence on the U.S. have created a form of political and economic “slavery,” making it difficult for Europe to chart an independent path. They also discuss the internal divisions within the EU, with countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic resisting the dominant pro-war and militarization agenda. The legal and financial ramifications of seizing Russian assets held in European banks are explored, highlighting the risks of lawsuits and the burden this places on European taxpayers.

The speakers express skepticism about Europe’s ability to compete in the global arms industry, given its eroding industrial base and technological backwardness compared to the U.S., Russia, and China. They foresee political upheavals fueled by nationalist and left-wing opposition movements that reject the current elite-driven policies. The discussion also touches on the broader global economic context, including the threat of a financial crash, the limitations of Europe’s borrowing capacity under EU rules, and the contradictory role of energy policy in the U.S. and Europe, especially regarding fossil fuels versus renewable energy.

Finally, the conversation warns of the dangerous escalation in Ukraine, noting recent missile attacks deep inside Russia facilitated by U.S. support, which increase the risk of a wider conflict. The overall tone is one of deep concern about Europe’s future as it faces economic decline, political fragmentation, and the potential for devastating military conflict driven by external and internal pressures.

Key Insights

[02:50] ⚔️ Europe’s Militarization Is a Strategic Shift with Grave Risks: Europe’s decision to pivot from a consumer-based industrial economy to a military-industrial complex is driven by geopolitical pressures to confront Russia and China. This militarization is not only economically unsustainable but strategically naive, as Europe lacks the industrial capacity, technological edge, and financial resources to effectively compete with established military powers like the U.S., Russia, and China. The shift serves short-term stock market interests but threatens long-term economic stability and peace.
[15:06] Economic Dependency on the U.S. Deepens Europe’s Vulnerability: Ursula von der Leyen’s commitment to purchasing U.S. liquefied natural gas at multiple times the price of Russian energy and massive investments in the U.S. infrastructure signify a deeper economic subservience. This arrangement burdens European economies with inflated energy costs, stifles industrial competitiveness, and restricts Europe’s ability to pursue independent energy and trade policies. The psychological dimension of this dependency, rooted in decades of U.S. dominance post-WWII, limits European leaders’ willingness or ability to challenge U.S. hegemony openly.
[25:42] EU Fragmentation Reflects Divergent National Interests and Limits Policy Cohesion: The resistance of Hungary, the Czech Republic, and others to EU military spending and sanctions underscores the fragility of European unity. These countries’ reluctance stems from their geopolitical realities, economic constraints, and desire to maintain pragmatic relationships with Russia. The EU’s threats to bypass veto powers highlight the authoritarian tendencies emerging within the bloc, risking further political destabilization and undermining democratic processes within member states.
[32:37] ⚠️ Europe’s Industrial Decline Undermines Its Military Ambitions: The demise of traditional manufacturing sectors in Germany, France, and Britain weakens Europe’s capacity to sustain a robust defense industry. Without a strong industrial foundation, Europe will remain a peripheral player in global arms production, dependent on technological transfers and imports from the U.S. and others. This industrial decline also accelerates economic contraction, job losses, and social distress, compounding political instability.
[46:36] Debt-Fueled Militarization Echoes Historical Mistakes, Raising Economic Fragility: Europe’s planned massive borrowing to finance its military buildup and support Ukraine evokes parallels with post-World War I reparations that destabilized Germany and ultimately Europe. Accumulating unprecedented levels of debt amid a fragile global economy increases the risk of a financial crisis, exacerbated by interconnected global debt networks and speculative bubbles, particularly around emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.
[42:37] ⚡ Energy Policy Contradictions Threaten Europe’s Economic and Technological Future: Europe’s self-imposed cutoff of cheap Russian energy, combined with the U.S. rejection of renewable energy agreements and reliance on fossil fuels, creates a critical energy bottleneck. This bottleneck threatens both civilian consumption affordability and the electricity demands of emerging sectors like artificial intelligence. In contrast, China’s massive investment in solar energy positions it advantageously in the global tech race, highlighting Europe’s and the U.S.’s strategic energy vulnerabilities.
[55:21] Escalation in Ukraine Raises the Specter of Wider War: The use of U.S.-supplied Attackum missiles by Ukraine to strike deep inside Russian territory represents a significant escalation. It signals not just a proxy war but direct involvement by the U.S., raising the stakes and the risk of a broader military confrontation. This escalation contrasts starkly with political narratives claiming the war is winding down and exposes the dangerous disconnect between official rhetoric and military realities, potentially destabilizing regional and global security.

This conversation provides a comprehensive, critical perspective on Europe’s current crossroads, emphasizing the interplay of economic decline, geopolitical pressures, internal divisions, and the dangerous militarization trajectory shaped by external dependencies and internal contradictions.

BEFORE you leave, PLEASE pay attention to this alert.
[t4b-ticker id="1"]

Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post, although, if we publish them, we obviously find them noteworthy and valuable.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Published: November 21, 2025 1 comment

IT’S THE OILCONOMY, STUPID Part 4 : A DIALECTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN THE GEOPOLITICAL SYSTEMS OF CHINA AND USA

by Eric Arthur Blair Published: November 5, 2025

written by Eric Arthur Blair Approx 5.75 Hrs • Watch / read

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Eric A. Blair (EAB)

Traducir—Translate!
Make fonts bigger>>>	Resize text-+=

IT'S THE OILCONOMY, STUPID

Part 4 : A DIALECTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN THE GEOPOLITICAL SYSTEMS OF CHINA AND USA

By EAB, November 2025

INTRODUCTION

The Western narrative that Japan initiated war against the USA in 1941 by a sneak attack on Pearl Harbour is Hollywood propaganda. It was in fact triggered by the USA which had imposed oil sanctions on Japan.

Japan was certainly a brutal imperialist aggressor, having invaded northern China to create the puppet state of "Manchukuo" in 1931 and having killed, exploited and enslaved millions of Chinese and Koreans for resources and lebensraum. The one resource that limited Japanese ability to mine all other resources and to maintain and expand their empire was petroleum. China's largest oilfield is Daqing in Northern China, however that was not discovered until 1959. In 1939, Japan imported 80% of its oil from the USA. For various reasons, not necessarily all noble, the USA cut off its oil exports to Japan. For their part, the USA was well aware this would force Japan to confront the USA and hence drag the USA into WW2 against Japan and its Axis ally Germany. The US oil sanctions forced Japan to source oil from elsewhere and the most logical location for them was Indonesia, the so-called Dutch East Indies at that time. The Japs knew invading Indonesia would require prior seizure of British Malaya and cause confrontation with the Allies, yet they felt they had no choice. They knew the industrial capacity and resource base of the USA was many times larger than Japan and they could not possibly win a long term military conflict, however in desperation they hoped that an airstrike against the three Pacific aircraft carriers based in Pearl Harbour would give them an early military advantage and once they secured the Indonesian oilfields, they could sue for peace with the USA.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, all three US aircraft carriers, the kingpins of Pacific power projection for the US, just "happened" to be away at that time, hence were untouched by the raid. Many historians believe that Roosevelt had ample foreknowledge of the Japanese attack, that it was NOT a surprise attack, that it was engineered for a convenient time the USA knew their carriers would be out of port and that Roosevelt allowed it to happen to force the USA to join the war. It has also been argued that the true puppetmasters behind it all, who were interested in instigating worldwide war-for-profit, were the US bankers ("all wars are bankers wars"). Such an argument is utterly compelling if you "follow the money" and ask Cui Bono? regarding these world events.

IT'S THE OILCONOMY, STUPID.

Fast forward to 2012 when Obama declared his "Pivot to Asia". This Orwellian term was far from benign and China was well aware that the real aim of the USA was to turn its gunsights on China to prevent its rise. If the USA could not compete on a level playing field, its default mode was to resort to sabotage of perceived competitors, whether economic or subversive (colour revolutions, sponsorship of separatist terrorists etc) or military. The fact that the USA subsequently placed 60% of its entire military assets in the Pacific theatre, based in three concentric "island kill chains" surrounding China (US doctrinal language), validated China's concerns.

China began its "Belt and Road" initiative (BRI) in 2013, which would involve establishing transcontinental land and maritime routes, initially between China, Central Asia, West Asia and Russia. The Western narrative that China's BRI was a form of Imperialist expansion is Hollywood propaganda.

China stopped being an expensionist empire in 221 BCE. During the Ming voyages involving thousands of ships to South East Asia, India and Africa which began in 1405 almost a century before Columbus; China, despite having gunpowder and cannons, never attacked any States, they only sank a few pirate ships, then unilaterally chose to retreat into isolation for centuries, which led to their eventual stagnation and weakness.

What was the 2013 BRI all about? The Chinese say it is all about "win-win" trade, which is true to a degree. To them, trade is the way to wealth. The big picture aim of the CPC, as stated by them, was to achieve "moderate prosperity" for all Chinese, which they are now well on track to delivering, having lifted 800 million out of poverty the past few decades. Such prosperity requires resources and China is in fact quite poor in most resources, making trade absolutely essential for them, especially oil importation which is necessary for their industry and mass agriculture. Despite Daqing, China was actually very poor in domestic petroleum compared with oil rich USA, Russia, Central Asia (Caspian area) and West Asia and the latter three were perceived as important oil exporters to China.

China was and is under no illusion that the USA will eventually (not) attempt to curtail their access to oil to obstruct their rise. How so? Most oil exports to China are shipped by tanker. China uses around 16 million barrels per day and a single VLCC can contain as many as 2 million barrels, meaning that just 8 VLCCs can supply China's entire requirements each day. Cut those off and the lights go out in China. Maritime oil deliveries go through various choke points, the most important being the Straits of Hormuz, Bab Al-Mandab, the Malacca Strait and the Sunda Strait. Hence it was of utmost importance that China establish alternative oil supply routes that could bypass those choke points. That is, I believe, one of the major reasons Xi Jinping embarked on the BRI.

Other ways that China could reduce their oil vulnerability was to electrify as much of their land transportation systems (high speed rail, metros, electric cars, buses and trucks) as possible which would be powered by non-oil, non-gas energy (hydroelectricity, solar power, wind power, nuclear power etc). Of course a major motivator to shift from ICE vehicles to electric vehicles was to eliminate the hazardous smog in Chinese cities, which proved to be spectacularly successful, but oil dependence reduction was equally important. Was establishing a new dominance in the electric car market important? Yes, but oil dependence reduction was equally important.Was reduction of carbon emissions important? Yes, but oil dependence reduction was equally important.

IT'S THE OILCONOMY, STUPID.

A DIALECTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN THE GEOPOLITICAL SYSTEMS OF CHINA AND USA

The scope and ambition of this title is so vast (it could easily occupy 50 essays) that I will provide only a big picture overview using summary bullet points and flow charts. I have included a few links which validate the assertions in the summaries.

In a nutshell:
– China makes things (ask any China trade partner); the USA breaks things (ask any Iranian, Syrian, Libyan, Iraqi, Palestinian, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Cuban, VENEZUELAN, etc, etc).
– The Chinese economy is a real, productive economy; the US economy is a fake (financialised), parasitic (sucks blood from the rest of the world and ordinary US citizens) economy. – The Chinese banking system is publicly owned and works for the people; the US banking system is privately owned and works for the bankers.
– The Chinese political system involves democracy at grassroots (municipal) level and meritocracy at the top; the US political system enshrines legalised bribery (Citizens United ruling), oppression by militarised police (defacto abandoning posse comitatus - "Portland is burning down every night so we must send the National Guard in" blah blah) and overall Kleptocracy. Various studies eg from Princeton/NW university, showed unequivocally that the USA is an oligarchy (all politcal decisions favour corporations) and not a democracy (no political decisions favour the people).
– Legitimacy of governance is achieved by delivery of real benefit to ordinary people - the Chinese government had > 90% approval rating according to Western surveys eg by Harvard which reflected real world outcomes eg rising life expectancy, low cost of living etc. https://jasonhickel.substack.com/p/studies-show-strong-public-support

Meanwhile, Trump now has a net negative 11% approval level accompanied by falling life expectancy, rising cost of living etc.

DE FACTO U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

Here is my summary of de facto US foreign policy* as described by Professor Michael Hudson, with some input from John Perkins of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" fame. It is entirely based on hard evidence, is easily digestible, easily remembered and easily repeatable for those who wish to spread the truth.

(*AKA the US economic model as the principal unprincipled global parasite, perpetrating predatory usury, protection racket extortion and plunder on other countries). These are the steps:

1. POLITICAL CAPTURE of the foreign country -
Using various tactics on a sliding scale of escalation:
- bribery/blackmail of existing leaders if already corrupt or corruptible (eg Javier Milei of Argentina, all current Western European leaders). If not feasible then...
- perversion of political / electoral process to manufacture consent for the installation of the selected US poodle (eg Marcos Jr in the Philippines). If not feasible then...
- lawfare using corrupt courts and judges to exclude undesirable socialist leaders (eg Lula and Dilma of Brazil), or exclude undesirable Russian-leaning popular election candidates (eg Romania, Moldova in 2024). If not feasible then...
- CIA assassination of elected leaders (many many examples.... may include wholesale slaughter of millions of people AKA the Jakarta method). If not feasible then...
- colour revolution /coup d'etats (which may also include assassination of leaders, eg Allende). If not feasible then...
- Direct US bombing (eg Libya) or US invasion (eg Iraq). If not feasible then...Long term economic sanctions / trade blockade of countries (eg DPRK, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria)

2. Once political capture is achieved and PUPPET POODLES are installed, they institute PRIMARY PRODUCTION POLICIES to prevent food sovereignty and instead promote cash crop production for cheap export to USA. Dependency on the USA for grain imports is imposed. Also prevent establishment of high-value industries and instead promote extraction of unrefined raw materials for cheap export to USA.

3. Institute PREDATORY LOANS (denominated in USD, of course) to fund PREPOSTEROUS PROFITEERING PROJECTS conducted by US contractors, which will NOT BENEFIT THE ORDINARY POPULATION (eg hydroelectric dams to provide electricity to only the richest comprador suburbs = bribery for loyalty of the 5th columnists), for the US to pursue perfidious price gouging.

4. Apply PROTECTION RACKET EXTORTION pretending to provide security against one or more external bogeymen or domestic terrorists (often created and funded by the USA, eg Israel or ISIS). This involves sale of overpriced underperforming US weapons (why? because.... interoperability!) and the establishment of US military bases in that foreign country, preferably funded by that foreign country itself eg Qatar

5. PLUNDER: When predatory loans from the IMF or World Bank inevitably default, then enforce austerity on the foreign populace to cut national expenditure and sell off natural resources / natural monopolies (eg national electricity and water grids) at rock bottom prices to US interests, eg Blackrock or Blackstone or other blackguards, for asset stripping or to pursue price gouging RENTIER parasitism. Then issue new loans from IMF or World Bank to pay off the old loans, thus further increasing the national debt of the foreign country, and when that inevitably defaults, enforce another round of austerity and asset selloffs, then issue new loans to pay off old loans, thus further increasing the national debt, and when that inevitably defaults.... rinse and repeat, you get the idea.

In summary, remember the 5Ps of US foreign policy, practiced by the most egregious PARASITE NATION in human history:
- POLITICAL CAPTURE
- PRIMARY PRODUCTION POLICIES pursued by the PUPPET POODLES
- PREDATORY LOANS from the IMF or World bank in USD for PREPOSTEROUS
PROFITEERING PROJECTS
- PROTECTION RACKET EXTORTION
- PLUNDER and penury perpetrated on the populace

All of the above are enabled and facilitated by US PROPAGANDA (via US media eg VOA, and US governmental "non"-governmental organisations eg NED, USAID), which nauseatingly bloviate that the US is promoting freedom and democracy abroad, when it is in reality imposing economic slavery and autocracy on foreign countries.

Orwell would be so proud.

Links from a Geopolitical Economy substack reader ChatterX:

How to Overthrow a Government: The US Colour Revolution Playbook:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZMGlZDKjTtM
Summary

The video provides an in-depth analysis of the “Colour Revolution Playbook,” a strategy frequently employed by the United States to orchestrate regime changes in foreign countries under the guise of promoting democracy. These colour revolutions typically begin with disputed elections and mass protests, often appearing as grassroots democratic movements but are in reality heavily influenced, funded, and directed by foreign actors, primarily the U.S. The playbook involves a systematic sequence of tactics, including economic warfare, propaganda, funding opposition groups, organizing protests, employing force, and consolidating power under a U.S.-friendly regime. Historical examples such as Nicaragua, Chile, Guatemala, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, and Libya illustrate how these tactics have been used over decades to destabilise governments that resist U.S. interests.

Economic sanctions and embargoes are used to cripple economies and create public dissatisfaction. Media control and propaganda amplify anti-government narratives to justify intervention and delegitimize targeted regimes. Opposition groups are funded, armed, and trained to act as the vanguard of regime change, often with little genuine popular support. Mass protests and demonstrations are organized or manipulated to simulate popular uprisings, while covert operations and intelligence agencies work behind the scenes to neutralise loyal security forces and political opposition. Once the government is toppled, the U.S. supports the installation and consolidation of a compliant regime to secure American geopolitical and economic interests.

The video also discusses U.S. policy toward Iran, detailing a Brookings Institution report outlining multiple strategies for regime change, many of which have been implemented through sanctions, propaganda, and covert support for opposition groups. The Russian post-Soviet era is analyzed to show how Western-backed oligarchs and economic shock therapy devastated the economy and society while consolidating wealth and power. The U.S. approach to Venezuela demonstrates the use of sanctions and support for opposition leaders to destabilize the Maduro government. The consequences of these interventions often include prolonged instability, weakened governance, and increased suffering for ordinary citizens.

Finally, the video critiques the hypocrisy of U.S. claims to promote democracy and human rights, highlighting how these interventions often violate international law and undermine local institutions. It notes that targeted countries increasingly resist U.S. influence by strengthening regional alliances and developing alternative economic and security arrangements, contributing to the emergence of a multipolar world order. The video concludes with a call for awareness of these covert operations and the possibility of a better, more just global system beyond imperialist interventions.

Every Leader The US Has Assassinated:

youtube.com/watch?v=lM_p4QhuBVE

US launched 251 military interventions since 1991, and 469 since 1798:

https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/09/13/us-251-military-interventions-1991/

"When Plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society, over the course of time they will create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it, and a moral code that glorifies it" -Frederic Bastiat

Commentary from Prof Richard Wolff:

youtube.com/shorts/h-6Bo4DupHg

DE FACTO U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY

Here is my summary of de facto US domestic policy* as described by Professor Michael Hudson and other experts, eg Prof Radhika Desai, bank auditor Lena Petrova.
These are the steps:

1. POLITICAL CAPTURE of the all the pillars of power in the USA by CAPITALIST BIG MONEY: the Presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the military, the police, the judiciary, media, intelligence agencies, etc.

Who are the CAPITALIST BIG MONEY players who therefore control the Deep State? They range from traditional private banking cartels to investment/hedge fund managers, and private equity Vulture Capitalists, to modern-day Tech Bro Mafia. These are the puppet masters behind the curtain, the wizards of Oz.

Capture is done by:
- legalised bribery of all decision makers in all sectors (exemplified by Citizens United court verdict that there is no limit to monetary contributions to political campaigns)
- blackmail of "leaders" is more covert but undoubtedly equally pervasive, and the public can only guess at how truly widespread it is by the refusal of TPTB to release the Epstein files, etc.,
- assassination of inconvenient Deep State opponents is also more commonplace than we know, from the famous cases of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcom X, etc to lesser known targets such as journalist Gary Webb who exposed CIA drug crimes and who the CIA claimed committed suicide by shooting himself in the head TWICE.
- Elections are entirely rigged to ensure any candidate with any chance of victory is always a pawn of capitalist big money. Whoever you vote for, you always get John McCain. In the two party, first past the post, electoral college system, the only two candidates allowable are both corrupt pawns of Big Money. Each party has mechanisms to ensure presidential nominees can never again be democratic choices of the people, eg JFK, but will always be Big Money Pawns, eg the super delegate voting system within the DNC, which in 2016 and 2020 prevented Bernie Sanders from becoming the "Democratic" party nominee. (NOT that Sanders was or is a truly reliable"progressive". The man is, after all, a social democrat, a sheepdog in the service of the same establishment interests, albeit speaking a more "radical" language.—Ed). Other tactics ensured Jill Stein was denied ballot status in many states and could never reach anywhere near (the coveted) 5% threshold vote.

2. Consent to be ruled is manufactured by PROPAGANDA

3. Once political capture is achieved and PUPPET POODLE POLITICIANS are installed, they institute POLICIES OF PREFERENCE OF THE PARASITES OVER THE PRODUCERS so the parasites can railroad through their self serving policies to the detriment of everyone else. This explains the widening wealth inequality, worsening living conditions of ordinary people and crumbling public infrastructure in the USA.

4. The basic agenda of Capitalist Big Money is to CHASE the HIGHEST FINANCIAL RETURNS possible irrespective of any adverse consequences to ordinary people or the environment, dismissively termed "externalities". Much of this involves fraud, eg stock market manipulations (eg share buybacks to create Ponzi pyramids, then shorting those stocks just before pulling the plug and when asset prices crash, buy assets back at rock bottom prices. This is similar to what happened with the GFC of 2008/9).

It must be emphasised that the disciplines of political science (both domestic and foreign policy analyses) and economics are artificial divisions, and are so intertwined that they must be considered one and the same discipline (described by Prof Desai as Geopolitical Economics)

The Dollar, Gaza, and Marxist Analysis of Capitalism’s Violent Global Decline — with Radhika Desai

Jay Shapiro - Dilemma Podcast

Aug 12, 2025 The Dilemma Podcast

Political economist Radhika Desai offers a Marxist reading of today’s global crises — from Gaza to the dollar’s fragility. We unpack why she believes capitalism has reached its monopoly stage, why it cannot function without imperialism, and how those contradictions shape everything from U.S. foreign policy to BRICS. Gaza becomes a stark example of how imperial systems maintain power, revealing the collapse of Western moral authority and the violent logic built into capitalism itself. FREE DOWNLOAD (thanks to Knowledge Unlatched) Capitalism Coronavirus and War https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.5...

Where were, are and will likely be the highest financial returns of the past, present and future?
- Bank usury
- War profiteering via the MIC
- Fossil fuel profiteering

- Financialisation and Privatisation of everything (the RENTIER PARASITIC ECONOMY AKA "FIRE" SECTOR as coined by Michael Hudson) which inevitably leads to...

- Deindustrialisation
- The other major rentier sector today is called Technofeudalism by Yanis Varoufakis, the establishment of digital monopolies in money grubbing rentier / advertising / propaganda digital platforms eg PayPal, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Uber, Air BnB etc.

- The biggest aspirational rentier enterprise on the US Techbro agenda is digital AGI, requiring heaps of super-high-end chips by NVIDIA, and LLM by software companies like "Open" AI (= closed AI) costing multiple $billions and using shitoads of energy. This US enterprise was vampire- staked and zombified by the advent of China's DeepSeek, truly open AI (=completely free) using a handful of mediocre chips and a pittance of energy and costing less than $6 million.

- The above have led to the USA spending far beyond its means for decades, now with $38 trillion in public debt, $20 trillion in private debt, multiple other unfunded liabilities (pensions, veterans' benefits, welfare etc) amounting to many trillions, an obscenely overvalued stockmarket (more than $30 trillion), ONE QUADRILLION of illusory IOUs in derivatives, etc, etc. This is US debt and shares that can NEVER be redeemed.

- The US stock market is an everything bubble that WILL collapse, however we just do not know exactly when. Even Quisling stooge countries know this fact, eg Japan, which responded to the Trump tariffs in April and consequent US stockmarket decline by selling off US TBills, which is the opposite of what always happened in the past (countries always bought US TBills in response to US stockmarket declines). This shows that the Global Majority is losing confidence in any US debt securities they may hold, quite apart from the fact that the USA could steal their gold or US-denominated sovereign funds at any time. It is only a matter of time before the Global Majority get rid of such debt based US "assets" and Ponzi shares, which will mean the end of the US debt based financialised fraudulent economy.

5. US Capitalist Big Money is therefore now in the process of "grabbing anything that is not nailed down" (quote from Michael Hudson) and working out how to default on their debts while preserving their personal assets and maintaining control over US monetary policy and public finances. Hyperinflating the existing US dollar, then completely abolishing it by transitioning to one or more crypto-based programmable and surveillable CBDCs are possible strategies.

THE USA WILL GO BANKRUPT, COLLAPSE AND BREAK UP (Judge Andrew Napolitano), which is exactly what the USA tried to do to Russia, now on an economic rise and civilisational resurgence. Talk about Karma.

Judge Nappy also refers to specific situations in which the US Deep State has coerced, threatened and likely blackmailed US decision makers to do the bidding of Capitalist Big Money, in keeping with the model I outlined above on US domestic policy.

Alex Krainer, financial and geopolitical expert: "All wars are bankers wars":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrX9PHssBlo

This essay is already waaay too long so I shall end it here. With regard to details about China's domestic and foreign policies, I recommend these links:

Carlos Martinez:

Jerry Grey has lived in China for decades and rode a pushbike several times, North to South and East to West:

Socialism is just better, scientifically—

BEFORE you leave, PLEASE pay attention to this alert.
[t4b-ticker id="1"]

Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post, although, if we publish them, we obviously find them noteworthy and valuable.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Published: November 5, 2025 2 comments

Oliver Boyd-Barrett: Trump is Biden

by Oliver Boyd-Barrett Published: October 15, 2025

written by Oliver Boyd-Barrett Approx. 48 Mins • Watch / read

Trump Hegseth as wolves in sheep clothing

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Oliver Boyd-Barrett

Traducir—Translate!
Make fonts bigger>>>	Resize text-+=

Trump and Hegseth: Who are they trying to fool?

Trump is Biden

Brian Berletic in his latest podcast on Monday (Berletic, see below) reminds us that even the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has admitted that the US is fighting a proxy war with Russia over Ukraine, a proxy war that even the President Donald Trump has in the past admitted that this is a war with Russia that was unnecessarily provoked by the West by Biden and others, although Trump in his first administration set the scene for the current phase of the conflict when in 2018 he authorized the sale of $39 millions’ worth of anti-tank weapons (including Javelin missiles) to Ukraine.

Tomahawks & Refinery Strikes: US Escalates its Proxy War on Russia

The New Atlas

Oct 13, 2025 Russia-Ukraine

The Trump administration is continuing the US proxy war with Russia through Ukraine right where the previous Biden administration left off;

Not only has the Trump administration failed to end the conflict as it campaigned on doing so “within 24 hours,” it has begun a process of escalation, division of labor, and strategic sequencing targeting Russian allies Iran and China as well;

US Tomahawk cruise missiles are still being considered for deployment to Ukraine;

The most likely platform for launching them would be the Lockheed Long Range Fires (LRF) launcher abandoned by the US Marines in 2023 but still under consideration by the US Army;

Working examples of this platform exist and would provide sufficient mobility for Ukraine-based Tomahawk strikes on targets across Russia;

The missiles would likely be used to expand an already ongoing US-directed campaign targeting Russian energy production which US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced would be pressured as early as February 2025;

The US and Europe are preparing the European public for a wider and more dangerous role in the ongoing conflict as Europe will be needed to fill the void Ukraine’s collapsing fighting capacity is leaving;

The US is and will continue to extend its campaign of political subversion, economic sanctions and tariffs, as well as encouraging US client states to begin seizing Chinese assets and ramping up for proxy and even direct war and blockades on China just as it has been vis-a-vis Russia;

References: ABC News - Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine (2019): https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump... BBC - Trump says he may send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine (Oct. 13, 2025): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93... TWZ - Marines’ Tomahawk Missile Launching Drone Truck Breaks Cover (2023): https://www.twz.com/marines-tomahawk-... TWZ - Marines Axe Adoption Of Ground-Launched Tomahawk Cruise Missile (Jul. 2025): https://www.twz.com/land/marines-axe-... Naval News - U.S. Army Resurrects Cancelled Marine Corps Tomahawk Launcher for Live Fire Test in 2026 (Sep. 2025): https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/... Telegraph - Trump shares US intelligence to aid Ukraine strikes on Russian energy sites (Oct. 12, 2025): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-new... BBC - Surge in Ukrainian attacks on oil refineries sparks Russian fuel shortages (Oct. 2, 2025): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czx... US DoD - Opening Remarks by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at Ukraine Defense Contact Group (As Delivered) Feb. 2025): https://www.war.gov/News/Speeches/Spe... NYT - The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin (2024): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/wo... NYT - The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine (Mar. 2025): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2... NYT - How a Top Secret SEAL Team 6 Mission Into North Korea Fell Apart (Sep. 5, 2025): https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/us... Newsweek - JD Vance Floats Donald Trump Deal To End War in Ukraine (Sep 2024): https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-flo... Newsweek - JD Vance Tells Tim Dillon US Needs Weapons To Fight China, Not Russia (Oct. 2024): https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-tim... Politico - Dutch government seizes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia (Oct. 13, 2025): https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch... US Naval War College Review - A Maritime Oil Blockade Against China—Tactically Tempting but Strategically Flawed (2018): https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi... Irrawaddy - China-Backed Pipeline Facility Damaged in Myanmar Resistance Attack (2022): https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/...

Today, the conflict is escalating. Trump is not ruling out the sending of Tomahawk missiles and an announcement tomorrow may confirm that he is going to authorise this. Zelenskiy, who spoke with Trump last Sunday, is pushing Trump to do so. The purpose is to hit more of Russia’s energy production facilities than Ukraine can currently hit with its drones and missiles. Some people argue that the Tomahawk is not a realistic practicality because it requires launching from very cumbersome Typhoon systems that the US currently has stationed in the Philippines, pointed at China. Typhon systems do not exist in large numbers. There is another launch system, simpler, used by the US Marine Corps that gives long range (2500km), although the Corp has given up on it. Nemesis, an anti-ship missile launch system has been preferred. Several such launchers firing simultaneously and periodically, together with drones and other missiles, could do significant damage well within Russian territory.

Could such systems be built in large numbers? Probably not. The West makes only very small numbers of such missiles, but their use would raise the cost to Russia of continuing the fight, especially given that the US has been helping Ukraine to hit Russian energy facilities for quite some time. Intelligence from the US for this purpose has been crucial. This has cut Russian oil refining by a fifth (on certain days), pushed up domestic prices, reduced exports, and caused queues at gasoline stations. When the US President was pretending to mediate the conflict back in July and invited Putin to Anchorage, he had already given the orders for these attacks all across Russia. Berletic seems to assume that Putin would have known this and that it was why the Anchorage meeting was unproductive. Yet even before then, in the second month of the Trump administration, Pete Hegseth was telling European powers what the US was going to do to exacerbate the conflict, including getting European troops into Ukraine to “freeze” the conflict, sending European troops into Ukraine to implement this “freeze”, and getting Europe to invest in rebuilding Ukrainian weapons stockpiles. He was also talking about driving down energy prices, coupled with more effective enforcement of energy sanctions, and targeting Russian energy production through US intelligence support to Ukraine.

Berletic notes how the CIA in 2014 took over and restructured and rebuilt Ukrainian intelligence agencies which continues today via 12 CIA-supported intelligence centers in Ukraine; plus a unit to reverse engineer and reconstruct Russian weaponry; involvement in anti-Russian espionage activity in countries with which Russia is a friend, and participation in Ukrainian assassination campaigns. Since 2022, the conflict has been commanded in Weisbaden by US generals. US generals oversaw the overall strategy, approving and even selecting battlefield targets. The campaign against Russian refineries is mainly a CIA operation to cripple the Russian economy and obfuscating what is going on by inviting Putin to “peace” talks. This is not negotiation in good faith.

Despite Trump’s apparent acceptance of Putin’s argument in Anchorage that to try to contain the conflict by means of some kind of “freeze the conflict” strategy is not in Russia’s interest and not feasible, Trump seems to have returned to that goal in his desire to reorient to China, and have Europe fill the void left by the US in Ukraine. Everything the US has tried to do to Russia is being executed against China, using Taiwan as a battering ram against China as Ukraine was used as a battering ram against Russia, including stealing and attriting Chinese assets (such as the harrassment of Huawei, the forced dispossession of Tik-Tok from China’s control, the attempt to take control of the Chinese owned Dutch chip-maker, Nexperia, the imposition of more tariffs on China in supposed retribution for Chinese control of rare earth supplies to the US).

We will see much more of this. US foreign policy prioritizes US hegemony throughout the world, and can be predicted from policy papers such as the 2019 RAND report, Extending Russia, and another, 2018, Naval policy paper announcing the beginning of a campaign to remove obstacles to US capacity to implement a blockade against China. This is “shaping the battlefield,” involving control over the Strait of Malacca, the coasts of the Philippines, Taiwan and Japan, and the bombing of a crucial energy pipeline in Myanmar, and multiple regime-change operations against countries friendly with China around China’s periphery, all this operating against China’s Belt and Road initiative which is China’s response to the US threat. The idea is to impede energy and weapons related trade with China, using the US advantage of its global network of military bases.

This campaign for the preservation of US hegemony is the existential enemy of movements towards a multipolar world.

Subscribe to Empire, Communication and NATO Wars

By Oliver Boyd-Barrett · Launched 5 years ago

Critiques of Propaganda and Pretexts for War, by Oliver Boyd-Barrett

BEFORE you leave, PLEASE pay attention to this alert.
[t4b-ticker id="1"]

Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post, although, if we publish them, we obviously find them noteworthy and valuable.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Published: October 15, 2025 0 comments

Don Hank Dispatches: NON-NEWS OF THE DAY—THE CEASEFIRE IS A FRAUD!

by Don Hank Published: October 14, 2025

written by Don Hank Approx. 5 mins • Watch / read

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Don Hank
DATELINE OCT 14, 2025

Traducir—Translate!
Make fonts bigger>>>	Resize text-+=

NON-NEWS OF THE DAY: THE CEASEFIRE IS A FRAUD!

Most of my readers do not trust Israel or the US government as far as they can throw them. They saw the enthusiasm with which US politicians and media critters spoke of the genocide in Gaza.

They portrayed it as a “war,” as if BOTH sides had warplanes, tanks and an infinite supply of money and arms stolen from the paychecks of the American worker. And treated the warring sides as if the poor Israelis were also having their hospitals destroyed and their physicians and journalists almost all murdered and all their homes flattened by carpet bombing. And their children and women targeted as they desperately tried to get scarce food aid.

I have infinite faith in Israel’s willingness and ability to make peace into war and portray evil as good.

The ancient Hebrew scriptures had to deal with this kind of fraud since the earliest times:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
(Isaiah 5:20–21, ESV)

Our thanks to John Stassi for this:

Israeli Soldiers Torched Homes, Food, and Gaza’s Sewage Plant After Ceasefire

In the hours following Donald Trump’s ceasefire announcement, Israeli soldiers carried out a large-scale arson campaign across Gaza City, targeting homes, food stores, and the critical Sheikh Ajlin Sewage Treatment Plant, the last facility capable of processing Gaza City’s wastewater. Social media posts from soldiers show them celebrating the destruction, calling it “final touches” and “one last memory.”

Read the full investigation by Younis Tirawi and Yaniv Cogan for Drop Site here.

This kind of widespread, violent and institutionalised contempt for the property of Palestinians is as old as Israel itself.

Multiple sources confirm that during the 1948 Nakba, Israeli soldiers and civilians systematically looted Palestinian property.

This was a widespread phenomenon, ranging from spontaneous actions to organised pillaging of entire towns and villages.

Contempt for the lives and property of Palestinians is what Zionism has always really looked like. When will it ever end?

Israeli peace plan is fake

Israel decides to reduce aid flow into Gaza, Rafah border remains closed: Israeli official
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2025/10/14/gaza-s-rafah-border-crossing-will-remain-closed-through-wednesday-israel-says

Reuters

Published: 14 October ,2025: 06:00 PM GSTUpdated: 14 October ,2025: 06:13 PM GST

Israel has decided to reduce the flow of aid into Gaza and the Rafah border crossing between the enclave and Egypt remains closed, three Israeli officials said Tuesday.

For the latest updates on the Israel-Palestine conflict, visit our dedicated page.

The decision came after Palestinian militant group Hamas did not hand over bodies of hostages it is holding as part of the new US-brokered ceasefire deal, the officials said, without elaborating on how long the move would last.

Hamas previously indicated that recovering the bodies of some dead hostages may take longer, as not all burial sites amid the widespread rubble of Gaza are known.

The following two reports, on Chinese and Russian trade, respectively, show how keen Trump’s calculations have been in regard to his trade war

China’s global exports are booming amid renewed trade disputes with US

China’s exports to the United States have fallen for six straight months. In August, they dropped 33%.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/chinas-global-exports-booming-amid-084919175.html

Back in December 2025, under an order from Donald Trump, the US Treasury imposedwithering sanctions on Russia’s oil sales, including sanctions on sales to Europe. Bloomberg reports the results 10 months later.

https://iz.ru/1972590/2025-10-14/bloomberg-uznalo-o-roste-morskikh-postavok-nefti-iz-rf-do-dvukhletnego-maksimuma

Bloomberg reports Russian seaborne crude oil shipments rise to a two-year high

Bloomberg: Russian seaborne crude oil shipments rise to a two-year high

October 14, 2025, 6:19 PM

Russian seaborne crude oil shipments rose to a two-year high in September 2025. Bloomberg reported this on October 14.

“As of October 12, average shipments from the country’s ports over four weeks amounted to 3.74 million barrels per day, the highest level since June 2023,” the report states.

It is noted that Russia is gradually increasing oil production in line with the OPEC+ target, and since March, the country’s oil production target has increased by more than 500,000 barrels per day.

In September, the gross value of Russian oil exports rose by almost $60 million, reaching a year-high of $1.49 billion, Bloomberg reports.

Stacking the Barrels: OPEC+ Decides to Increase Production Again

What Will a 137,000-BBL Per Day Increase in Oil Production Mean for the Market?

Bloomberg reported on October 6 that the volume of oil transported by tankers across the world’s oceans rose to a record high amid an increase in OPEC+ production. According to data from energy and shipping analytics company Vortexa, the total volume of oil in transit rose to 1.2 billion barrels, the highest since at least 2016.

A day earlier, OPEC+ member countries agreed to increase oil production in November by 137,000 barrels per day. Furthermore, the organization’s member states will now jointly review market conditions on a monthly basis.

Mass demos in Western cities and peace efforts on the part of Western politicians have made a dent in Middle Eastern affairs.

However, arguably the most influential actors in the Gaza genocide (no, it’s not a war) have been Iran and the Yemeni Houthis.

Because these 2 actors used the old fashioned technique of armed resistance, and this is much more effective than media and diplomacy because FORCE is practically the only language the genocidal Israel understands.

I have said before that anyone who belittles the Resistance forces, ie, mostly Hezbollah, Iraqi Islamic Resistance, Houthis, Iranian IRGC, and Hamas

From the Red Sea to Occupied Palestine: Yemen Redraws the Map of Power and Influence in the Region
https://english.masirahtv.net/post/51146/From-the-Red-Sea-to-Occupied-Palestine-Yemen-Redraws-the-Map-of-Power-and-Influence

Middle East: Experts and politicians say that Yemen’s current confrontation has reshaped the contours of power and strategic capability across the region — stretching from the Red Sea, through vital maritime passages, to the very heart of what was once considered the stronghold of the Zionist entity’s influence. Developments show that the pressure and deterrence tools employed by the Yemeni Armed Forces and Ansarullah have triggered political, economic, and military reverberations on both regional and international levels. This raises a direct question about the ability of the entity to preserve its traditional dominance over regional maritime trade and navigation routes.

Adel Shadeed, an expert on Zionist affairs, told Al-Masirah TV on Thursday that what has unfolded over the past two years reflects a strategic, transformative decision by the Yemeni people and their Armed Forces under Ansarullah’s leadership.

“This decision was unimaginable two years ago,” he said, “but it is now a reality that is repositioning the region in ways fundamentally different from what was set since the Sykes-Picot agreements, the British Mandate, and even the role imposed by the Zionist entity on itself as the ‘regional policeman’ controlling land, sea, and air routes.”

He noted that the economic impact on the Zionist entity’s economy has become significant, despite its attempts to obscure the fallout.

“Closing major sea lanes or disrupting ports such as Umm al-Rashrash (Eilat) quickly affects the availability of certain goods and raises transport and insurance costs,” he added, “which drives up prices of items like meat, cars, and heavy goods due to reliance on longer, more expensive routes.”

Shadeed further pointed out that Yemen’s targeting has influenced international companies: the spike in insurance costs has forced some firms to reconsider or suspend trade dealings with the Zionist entity — a form of partial boycott or economic blockade if the confrontation persists and escalates.

On the political front, Shadeed argued that this shift opens a new window for strengthening the Palestinian, Arab, and Islamic national discourse, as the Zionist entity no longer holds the same absolute immunity and unchecked dominance it has enjoyed since 1948 without facing meaningful regional pushback.

Meanwhile, Fouad al-Shami, professor of modern and contemporary history, told Al-Masirah on Thursday that Ansarullah’s breakthrough of this long-standing status quo amounted to a strategic shock. The Red Sea had long been viewed as an American-protected zone, where no force was allowed to obstruct shipping lanes. But Yemen’s ability to assert itself and control a vital strait through which ships transit to multiple ports has overturned the balance.

Al-Shami added that this development unsettled the Zionist entity’s supporters, because what is happening is not a temporary threat but a behavioural shift: Yemen did not settle for rhetorical threats — it acted and delivered practically what many Arab states in the past did not.

He noted that international forces, including the United States, attempted to counter Yemen’s operations, but failed to achieve a permanent disruption of Yemeni activity in the Red Sea.

According to him, Yemen’s influence has now extended further into the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean, deepening concerns among states and interests accustomed to unrestricted freedom of navigation in those waters.

Practical and Strategic Implications

The significance of these developments appears across several dimensions:

Economic impact — both direct and indirect — on supply chains and regional/international markets.

Symbolic and political impact — breaking the “immunity” once granted to the Zionist entity, giving momentum to the resistance narrative and Arab-Palestinian solidarity.

Fragmentation of options — as the entity’s allies and trade partners face rising insurance and transport costs, which could prompt commercial and political repositioning in the near and medium term.

Experts conclude that Yemen’s operations and stances have introduced transformative shifts in the regional balance of power, granting an unexpected actor the ability to move equations through maritime, economic, and military tools.

As the confrontation continues, its strategic investment extends beyond immediate material effects to the redrawing of commercial and political alliances in the region.

The central question remains: will regional and international actors absorb this shift by halting aggression, lifting the siege on Gaza, and refraining from interference in Yemen — thereby restoring balance? Or is the region headed toward a prolonged phase of strategic reordering, in which anti-hegemonic dynamics weaken US-Israeli dominance across the Middle East?

Video

BELOW: Owen Jones handily dispatches arguments that war criminal Tony Blair should administer Gaza

“Saying that he (Tony Blair) should run Gaza is like saying Harold Shipman (infamous serial killer and medical doctor) should run a care home because he has experience with elderly people.”

BELOW:
Iran says Trump’s desire for peace in conflict with ‘hostile’ US behavior (AFP)

Published: 14 October ,2025: 08:29 AM GSTUpdated: 14 October ,2025: 10:42 AM GS

Iran said on Tuesday that US President Donald Trump’s call for a peace deal with Tehran was inconsistent with Washington’s actions, referring to its strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June.

“The desire for peace and dialogue expressed by the US president is at odds with the hostile and criminal behavior of the United States towards the Iranian people,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.

In mid-June, Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign on Iran, striking nuclear and military facilities as well as residential areas and killing more than 1,000 people.

The 12-day war with Israel, during which the US struck the key nuclear facilities in Iran, derailed high-level nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington.

Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks that killed dozens in Israel. A ceasefire between Iran and Israel has been in place since June 24.

During a Monday speech at the Israeli Knesset, Trump said he wanted a peace deal with Iran and that the ball was in Tehran’s court for any agreement to come to pass.

In its statement, Iran dismissed the call.

“How can one attack the residential areas and nuclear facilities of a country in the midst of political negotiations, kill more than 1,000 people including innocent women and children, and then demand peace and friendship?” the foreign ministry asked.

Trump also said “nothing would do more good” for the region than for Iran’s leaders “to renounce terrorists, stop threatening their neighbors, quit funding their militant proxies, and finally recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

Tehran struck back, calling the remarks “irresponsible and shameful” and accusing the United States of being “a leading producer of terrorism and a supporter of the terrorist and genocidal Zionist regime.”

“The United States... has no moral authority to accuse others,” Iran’s foreign ministry said.

Air strike update for 10-14, 2025

Translation with my notes in bold and in [brackets]

October 14, 2025, 4:12 PM,

Ukraine to Go. A retaliatory strike turned Kyiv’s oil industry into a fiery inferno
https://aif.ru/politics/russia/ukraina-na-vynos-udar-vozmezdiya-prevratil-neftyanku-kieva-v-ognennyy-ad

The Russian army launched a devastating attack on Ukrainian oil and gas facilities. Dozens of Geran missiles attacked oil refineries, fuel depots, compressor stations, and traction substations. The attacks continue. The fires have not been extinguished.

October has become the most hellish month of the year for Kyiv. Day after day, the Russian Armed Forces are increasing the number of strikes against the Ukrainian energy sector. Yesterday evening, a key electrical substation supplying the entire Kharkiv industrial zone was burned down. Subsequently, strikes were launched against Ukrainian oil and gas facilities. At least two traction power substations in the Kirovohrad region were destroyed, and oil depots and oil refining facilities in the Chernihiv and Kharkiv regions suffered critical damage.

Direct hit and a column of fire

One of the most effective and spectacular attacks was on the Citycross oil depot in Bobrovitsy, Chernihiv oblast. The strike was carried out by six Geran drones, whose combined warheads carried nearly 500 kilograms of explosives. According to the Donbas Partisan Telegram channel, the attack’s results exceeded even the wildest expectations. All UAVs hit their targets and disabled key oil refining equipment—an atmospheric vacuum unit.

“A direct hit on an oil refining unit led to the fire in the main reactor block and two vertical tanks,” the “partisans” wrote.

According to their data, the fire engulfed over 1,000 square meters of the oil depot. The fire destroyed not only the storage tanks but also pumping equipment, oil transfer lines, process galleries, and hundreds of meters of pipeline overpasses.

In the Kharkiv oblast, 19 Geran-2 UAVs destroyed an oil and gas processing facility. A pumping station, gas condensate tanks, and a methanol dosing station were also damaged.

In the Kirovohrad oblast, Russian drone strikes disabled electrical substations in the villages of Sharivka and Bohdanivka.

Launch

In the Kharkiv oblast, 19 Geran-2 UAVs destroyed an oil and gas processing facility.

It appears they are preparing for something serious.

Analyzing the number and, more importantly, the targets of the strikes, experts are inclined to believe that Russia is launching preemptive strikes against energy facilities in order to paralyze the Kyiv regime’s military-industrial component.

“As we see, the strikes on the energy sector are being carried out selectively. “It’s precisely those facilities that are involved in providing fuel to the Ukrainian Armed Forces or are involved in providing energy to industrial zones and facilities operating for the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” says Vladimir Yeranosyan, an associate professor at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation and a military expert. “This could possibly be preparations for something serious in the SMO zone, which we, as experts, can only talk about.”

Just in:

Trump says six were killed in US strike on another boat allegedly carrying drugs near Venezuela
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/14/trump-six-killed-us-strike-boat-venezuela

The UN has condemned US strikes on small boats it believes to be trafficking drugs as extrajudicial executions

The Russian news source for Latin America shows a video of a very small fishing boat with very little room for many drugs getting blown up.

No evidence provided of use for drug running.

https://esrt.space/actualidad/568859-eeuu-ataca-barco-frente-costa-venezuela?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=push_notifications

Donate to Don’s Substack

Donations will be gratefully accepted via this address:

https://paypal.me/DHLM1243

BEFORE you leave, PLEASE pay attention to this alert.
[t4b-ticker id="1"]

Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post, although, if we publish them, we obviously find them noteworthy and valuable.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Published: October 14, 2025 0 comments

FALSE FLAGS & PROVOCATIONS

Brian Berletic THE NEW ATLAS

DEEP DIVE: New US "National Security Strategy" is Repackaged Wolfowitz Doctrine

Summary

Key Insights

Conclusion

By Investigative historian Eric Zuesse:

Has Trump redefined, and will he shrink, the U.S. empire?

By Geopolitical Analyst Ben Norton

This is the aggressive new US strategy for global dominance

About the AuthorBenjamin (Ben) Norton is an investigative journalist and analyst. Ben is the founder and editor of Geopolitical Economy Report. He lived in and reported from Latin America for several years, and is now based in Beijing, China. (Publicaciones en español aquí.)

By Geopolitical analyst Julian Macfarlane (News Forensics)

The National Security Strategy Much ado about nothing

National Security Strategy is NOT Calling for Ending Ukraine War, Just a Ceasefire

This is what US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said in February, this is what every single “peace proposal” the US has presented to Russia has sought, and indeed certainly what the NSS means now. What does the NSS mean by “reestablish strategic stability with Russia?”

This is what reestablishing a previous strategic state with Russia means, placing it back into this state - NOT the new security architecture Russia demands.

The US used the term “cessation of hostilies” rather than specifically stating they seek to end the conflict for a purpose. They used the term “reestablish” - meaning returning to a previous state of relations - rather than proposing a new strategic relationship - for a reason.

US foreign policy—even long before Wolfowitz—has been defined by four features: 1. Commitment to US global hegemony, absolute domination of other nations at any cost; 2. Staggering hypocrisy; 3. Appalling cynicism; 4. Unwavering sociopathy.

Ichi and me….

The doctrine was not invented by Mr Wolfowitz. It dates back to 1948 (explicitly), and implicitly to the 19th century.

- George Kennan (secret US State Department memo, 1948)

Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]

Nima R. Alkhorshid DIALOGUE WORKS chats with Profs. Michael Hudson • Richard D. Wolff

Richard D. Wolff & Michael Hudson: The West Is LOSING Control

Summary

Key Insights

Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]

INTRODUCTION

IT'S THE OILCONOMY, STUPID.

IT'S THE OILCONOMY, STUPID.

DE FACTO U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

Orwell would be so proud.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZMGlZDKjTtM Summary

DE FACTO U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY

The Dollar, Gaza, and Marxist Analysis of Capitalism’s Violent Global Decline — with Radhika Desai

Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]

Oliver Boyd-Barrett

Trump is Biden

Tomahawks & Refinery Strikes: US Escalates its Proxy War on Russia

Subscribe to Empire, Communication and NATO Wars

Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]

Don Hank DATELINE OCT 14, 2025

NON-NEWS OF THE DAY: THE CEASEFIRE IS A FRAUD!

Most of my readers do not trust Israel or the US government as far as they can throw them. They saw the enthusiasm with which US politicians and media critters spoke of the genocide in Gaza.

Israeli Soldiers Torched Homes, Food, and Gaza’s Sewage Plant After Ceasefire

“Looted & Hidden”: Israel’s Futile Attempts to Erase Palestinian History

The Looting of Palestinian Jerusalem in 1948

Carpets, books, and jewelry: Why looting was central to the Nakba

Israeli peace plan is fake

Israel decides to reduce aid flow into Gaza, Rafah border remains closed: Israeli official https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2025/10/14/gaza-s-rafah-border-crossing-will-remain-closed-through-wednesday-israel-says

Reuters

China’s global exports are booming amid renewed trade disputes with US

From the Red Sea to Occupied Palestine: Yemen Redraws the Map of Power and Influence in the Region https://english.masirahtv.net/post/51146/From-the-Red-Sea-to-Occupied-Palestine-Yemen-Redraws-the-Map-of-Power-and-Influence

Video

BELOW: Owen Jones handily dispatches arguments that war criminal Tony Blair should administer Gaza

BELOW: Iran says Trump’s desire for peace in conflict with ‘hostile’ US behavior (AFP)

Air strike update for 10-14, 2025

Ukraine to Go. A retaliatory strike turned Kyiv’s oil industry into a fiery inferno https://aif.ru/politics/russia/ukraina-na-vynos-udar-vozmezdiya-prevratil-neftyanku-kieva-v-ognennyy-ad

Direct hit and a column of fire

Launch

Trump says six were killed in US strike on another boat allegedly carrying drugs near Venezuela https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/14/trump-six-killed-us-strike-boat-venezuela

Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]

Brian Berletic
THE NEW ATLAS

About the Author
Benjamin (Ben) Norton is an investigative journalist and analyst. Ben is the founder and editor of Geopolitical Economy Report. He lived in and reported from Latin America for several years, and is now based in Beijing, China. (Publicaciones en español aquí.)

The National Security Strategy
Much ado about nothing

Nima R. Alkhorshid
DIALOGUE WORKS
chats with
Profs. Michael Hudson • Richard D. Wolff

youtube.com/watch?v=ZMGlZDKjTtM
Summary

Don Hank
DATELINE OCT 14, 2025

Israel decides to reduce aid flow into Gaza, Rafah border remains closed: Israeli official
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2025/10/14/gaza-s-rafah-border-crossing-will-remain-closed-through-wednesday-israel-says

From the Red Sea to Occupied Palestine: Yemen Redraws the Map of Power and Influence in the Region
https://english.masirahtv.net/post/51146/From-the-Red-Sea-to-Occupied-Palestine-Yemen-Redraws-the-Map-of-Power-and-Influence

BELOW:
Iran says Trump’s desire for peace in conflict with ‘hostile’ US behavior (AFP)

Ukraine to Go. A retaliatory strike turned Kyiv’s oil industry into a fiery inferno
https://aif.ru/politics/russia/ukraina-na-vynos-udar-vozmezdiya-prevratil-neftyanku-kieva-v-ognennyy-ad

Trump says six were killed in US strike on another boat allegedly carrying drugs near Venezuela
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/14/trump-six-killed-us-strike-boat-venezuela