|
More Ideas On How To Counter The Mafia’s Increasing Activities
I have asked for suggestions on how Russia, Venezuela and others can respond to U.S. lawless behavior.
Commentator Tom Paine answers thus:
A number of points which are probably more an effort to summarise than to add novelty.
- US has no legal, moral or geopolitical constraints. It wants war with Russia and China. It will provoke until that happens.
- The current strategy is to make Putin look weak. Russian prudence may be a rational answer but it is no longer the right one.
- Much of US behaviour is conditioned by its feeling that it is too remote to suffer. Europe can be made to suffer because it is a satrapy. Logically, the US must be forced to recognise its own vulnerability.
- Since the US is now attacking and plundering Russian-flagged shipping, the situation is familiar and uncomplicated. Tactics for blockade-busting are well known. Arm your merchantmen, protect them using convoys, seize hostile assets, destroy attackers. The advent of real-time communications and precise missile targeting should decimate exposed USN forces. When in doubt, be a Houthi.
- Russia and China must stop attempting to wage war with words. Actions speak for themselves.
- If you do not effectively support your allies, you send a message that you cannot be relied on. Russia must be seen to be active in Iran, VZ, Cuba and elsewhere.
- Yes, bullies are stopped by fighting back. Bullies are psychologically unable to think except in terms of superior/inferior relationships. Efforts to negotiate rationally just demonstrate that you are not on their ‘ladder’ of relationships, and therefore are weak and must be attacked. Fight first. Establishing that connection will result in much less long-term damage than efforts at rational compromise. It could have avoided Gaza or Syria.
- US strength is its infinite cash supply, which supports a nearly-infinite collection of CIA cutouts and regime change NGOs. Cut it off.
- US weakness is its reliance on a financialised PR military with lots of highly-visible targets. The Houthis are right. It must be shown to be overpriced, ineffective and feeble. The US itself has never been weaker militarily.
- The answer to dirty war and guerilla ops is the same. Russia will always be blamed for black ops so there is no visible gain in avoiding them.
- Unity, unity, unity. The real fight is about unity. Russia and China can see that they fight for survival. The West fights only for plunder. One is a great force for unity, the other is not.
I mostly agree with the above. To the last point I would add any other country, Iran etc., that wants to retain some sovereignty. It must be a big, global coalition, not just three superpowers fighting it out.
(Meta note: I am in blocking mode. Derailing the comments from the content and context of the post will get you banned.)
@ malenkov | Jan 8 2026 16:19 utc | 211
Great analysis. Thanks. I wholly concur.
The US is kind of spending the coin of its dominance. Certainly, dumping the facade of democracy, freedom, and mutual prosperity propaganda for a discourse of naked dominance does not help that dominance. It just peels away the veneer of legitimation. Nonetheless, the US continues to have resources and capabilities.
Most interesting is the fact that it cannot find any way to worldwide hegemony, no matter how hard it tries. That is because other countries, especially Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea all possess the Great Equalizer, nuclear weapons. Hence, they cannot easily be attacked, and they have enough resources in their huge land areas to resist economic siege as well. This just drives the neocons into paroxysms of rage, because they can’t get those countries, not even North Korea. This fact has also helped prevent the appearance of significant classes of comprador traitors willing to work as subordinates in the US empire (except maybe for Pakistan, which might be slightly wobbly in this area). Because the US neocon imperialists cannot get these countries, it is checkmate; their ambitions are permanently blocked.
US aggression strongly urges every other country to get nuclear weapons as fast as possible too. Wouldn’t this be a subject that would at least be discussed in Brazil, in Mexico, in Germany, even in Canada? And while Japan as the most humiliated, servile subordinate the US has ever had might still think that its utter loyalty to the US protects it, as the US can use it as a cudgel against Russia and China (and North Korea?), the fact those three powers are nuclear armed gives the Japanese a perfect excuse to adopt nuclear weapons too.
As for civil war in the US, there is certainly no sign of that on the horizon at all, and what you have said about soldiers obeying their orders remains true — so far. But in the great revolutions of the past, the French, the Mexican, the Russian, and the Iranian, the revolutions succeeded when the troops began to desert and change sides, and until it happened, no one, least of all the ruling elites in those places, thought that it would happen, but it did. So the question would be, how fast could a revolutionary situation develop? Since there is nothing on the horizon at all, it would take some time, but how fast did that development happen in those other places, when the old regimes had all the power, troops, weapons, police, propaganda, etc.?
Posted by: James Davis | Jan 8 2026 17:22 utc | 225
@ malenkov | Jan 8 2026 16:19 utc | 211
“All this talk about responding to a bully in kind ignores the facts that the bully respects nothing but his deluded sense of power — and still has plenty of firepower, not to mention nukes. The approach that Russia, China and, to a lesser extent, the Global South seem to be taking remains the only viable one: greater unity and more effective quarantining against the USA and its allies/bitches in EUrope, the Anglosphere, and the Zionazi Genocide Entity; eventually these entities will render themselves powerless enough (Russia is playing its part by stripping NATO’s resources in the Ukraine SMO) that current and next-generation weaponry will render ineffective a “destroy the world” desperation attack by the USA et al. ”
Malenkov, you seem to make two assertions. 1. That bullies (Trump & team) would not be stopped by a demonstration of force or a stiff non-violent response. 2. That the Global South will unite and form an adequate response.
Both ideas are wrong. People who watch Trump closely, Mearshimer for one, conclude that Trump only wants cheap quick violence. But that’s not so clear because people like Marcos and (((Miller))) seem to want a lot of destruction, regardless of he cost to anyone, and they would be happy if Trump and his MAGA get destroyed.
Bullies have a defining moment when they get away with some spectacular crime and nobody does anything about it. The deadly attack on the USS Liberty in 196y was a defining moment in the ZioNazi takeover of the US. Likewise, the Israeli genocide of 600,000 to 700,000 Palestinians is a defining moment for Israeli takeover of world institutio0ns. Even major outlets like RT are still talking as if the genocide was only of some “60,000” people, because those were the bodies out in the streets, not buried under the rubble. Now, after starting a war on Venezuela, Trump and his thugs are braying like donkeys about what they are going to do with/to Venezuela – and maybe Colombia and Mexico next. This sh*t is straight out of BDSM porn. Trump and his thugs are testing the waters! If they don’t get severe push-back, they will keep on going. If the push-back is subtle or slow, these thugs will not even recognize the push-back. So the push-back has to be immediate and must really get the attention of the thugs. Without that, the Empire will continue to prosecute all its wars. I know this analysis is the common American penchant for Hollywood Action Now!, but that is also the reality, the worldview, for Trump and his thugs. I’d love to be proven wrong…
Venezuela is proof that the Global South is a toothless pipe-dream, more a construct of shared interests if they had honesty and brains, but in fact they won’t do much. Venezuela appears to be the proof of that sad fact. Alicair Crooke said this week that Delsy Rodriguez, the acting president of VZ, is good friends with al-Thani of Qatar. Yes, that al-Thani, the paymaster for Hamas and the head-choppers in Syria. Apparently the Empire may have bought off enough people to put Venezuela under its thumb. Time will tell. I hope I’m wrong, but hope is not a strategy. Last year, Syria was abandoned by Russia1, Iran and China. The US conducted a long Total War on the civilians of Syria and the country became desperately poor. Syria’s allies could have fixed the problem, (supplying the stolen grain and ooil or else fighting and winning a second Battle of Abu-Kamal) but they chose mot to. Events in the year since have shown the high cost of that failure to stand up to the empire, and to support importawnt allies. So far, Russia, China, and Iran have shown no remorse. Things are too diffic0ult for them to make any stawtements of remose, but we also do not see anything to suggest that the remorse, if amy, is affecrting their actions.
In short, with deep regret, I have to conclude that Paul Craig Roberts, Gilbert Doctorow, and Brian Berletec (Neew Atlas YT) were right all along. Alain Soral, too, who in 2011 or 2013 said the world was in a pre-war state. “Antechamber to WW3” is how Doctorow says it.
Posted by: JessDTruth | Jan 8 2026 17:45 utc | 239
-
US has no legal, moral or geopolitical constraints. It wants war with Russia and China. It will provoke until that happens.
-
The current strategy is to make Putin look weak. Russian prudence may be a rational answer but it is no longer the right one.
-
Much of US behaviour is conditioned by its feeling that it is too remote to suffer. Europe can be made to suffer because it is a satrapy. Logically, the US must be forced to recognise its own vulnerability.
-
Since the US is now attacking and plundering Russian-flagged shipping, the situation is familiar and uncomplicated. Tactics for blockade-busting are well known. Arm your merchantmen, protect them using convoys, seize hostile assets, destroy attackers. The advent of real-time communications and precise missile targeting should decimate exposed USN forces. When in doubt, be a Houthi.
-
Russia and China must stop attempting to wage war with words. Actions speak for themselves.
-
If you do not effectively support your allies, you send a message that you cannot be relied on. Russia must be seen to be active in Iran, VZ, Cuba and elsewhere.
-
Yes, bullies are stopped by fighting back. Bullies are psychologically unable to think except in terms of superior/inferior relationships. Efforts to negotiate rationally just demonstrate that you are not on their ‘ladder’ of relationships, and therefore are weak and must be attacked. Fight first. Establishing that connection will result in much less long-term damage than efforts at rational compromise. It could have avoided Gaza or Syria.
-
US strength is its infinite cash supply, which supports a nearly-infinite collection of CIA cutouts and regime change NGOs. Cut it off.
-
US weakness is its reliance on a financialised PR military with lots of highly-visible targets. The Houthis are right. It must be shown to be overpriced, ineffective and feeble. The US itself has never been weaker militarily.
-
The answer to dirty war and guerilla ops is the same. Russia will always be blamed for black ops so there is no visible gain in avoiding them.
-
Unity, unity, unity. The real fight is about unity. Russia and China can see that they fight for survival. The West fights only for plunder. One is a great force for unity, the other is not.
a. Agree on the aggressiveness, but disagree on one point: The US wants surrender more than it wants war. It’s not quite yet at the Zionist height where surrender is no longer acceptable.
2.This is also to make Trump look strong, America look invincible, etc. There is one point of imperialist propaganda many, many people who think they oppose are steadfastly in agreement with, namely, capitalism is human nature, the final society.
3.Logical yes, just like belling the cat is logical. And as important as, who bells the cat?, there’s, who feels the pain? The American ruling class, the working masses, soldiers, petty bourgeois businessmen going broke?
4.The Yemenis have not succeeded in blockading the Zionist enterprise. Fortunately they didn’t have so much to lose when the US bombed them.
5.The SMO is action. Maneuvers around Taiwan and naval forces in the South China Sea are action. The results so far are an incremental expansion in the war on Russia and increased pressure on the entire PRC economy. Trump has raised tariffs substantially, the economic war is on. The supposed backdown from all out trade war is not a reversal. The issue is, when does the US resort to nukes? Doctrine currently is when one of its expeditionary forces is in peril of defeat, or in revenge for such a defeat. If a Venezuelan speedboat infiltrated a missile that successfully sank the Gerald R. Ford, would Caracas be irradiated?
6.If you cannot effectively support your allies, you will be perceived as defeated and weak. Better not to pretend? Even more to the point, what is an ally if not someone who can benefit your government, rather than costing it? PRC has no capitalist allies because the capitalists know that in the end the current regime in PRC is not their class, hence unreliable. And PRC currently rejects socialist internationalism. Russia is tied down in the Ukrainian theater and therefore weak.
7.Governments are not individuals and are not driven by personal psychology. This idealist methodology may be popular but it is wrong.
8.It’s not clear what is meant here. If it means outbid, that contradicts the point about how rich the US is. If it means replace, it forgets that the dollar is in better shape than other capitalist countries. And the US economy is in better shape than most capitalist countries. Further, to replace the dollar means not just to denominate prices in some other currency (or to barter?) but it means to devise a lender of last resort for whatever substitute is promoted; a mechanism for reconciling long-standing imbalances in foreign trade; some authority to exercise fiscal discipline in crises.
9. Ineffective at conquest, yes; ineffective at trashing a country, not so much. The barrier of the oceans is still quite formidable, actual transport isn’t as fast as fiber optics. As for the archipelago of bases serving as chains on the world? Each one of them is shielded by alliance between the American ruling class and the ruling class of the country they are in. The rivalry between the bourgeoisie of this nation and that are indisputable, but I think it equally indisputable that in the end nothing is more real than ruling class solidarity against the masses….and that it ensure every nation will have collaborators with America.
10. In the end, guerrilla movements are nuisances. The rare exceptions are those conducted by revolutionary movements, which in this epoch means, Communists. Most nations of the global South are not Communist. They will not want to support Communist guerrillas, and probably couldn’t do so effectively if they wanted to. So-called dirty ops, like color revolutions or the lynch mobs of the old days, are elite-led. The elites want to send their cash to imperialist countries and want to buy real estate there too. When American billionaires are pricing property in Beijing or Lagos or wherever, then they will be ripe to stage color revolutions.
11.All the other comments are more than quibbles, but one can imagine workarounds, try to devise strategies to overcome the intrinsic obstacles noted above. But this last is absolutely vital. Yet achieving it is profoundly difficult. Our host copies Thomas Paine in thinking simple survival is enough to unite nations. But again, nations are not individual people. The question is, does the ruling class think it will survive? If it thinks it won’t, a ruling class is quite capable of wrecking the nation, essentially committing suicide. See the notorious example of the Japanese ruling class, which embarked on a war it knew the nation would almost certainly lose, barring a divine wind, but did it anyhow.
Posted by: English Outsider | Jan 8 2026 12:39 utc | 101 The perspective here seems to be that public opinion drives foreign policy. Public opinion is something to be managed. As long as most people are patriotic, the government will tell them the foreign policy, name the enemy du jour and be done with it. Failures can be a more serious management problem but starting a war no more requires popular enthusiasm than raising retirement age or cutting social spending. The whole point of hiring bourgeois politicians is to sell this stuff. They don’t determine foreign policy by opinion poll any more than they determine domestic policy. Nonsense. There is a version of this where the state of war is used to discipline the masses at home, calling it patriotic sacrifice. At this point, though, the ruling classes don’t want the discipline of a war economy (see Russia) and the masses rarely have any real hunger for war. It’s sadly true that apparently a quick, cheap victory is often very popular…but those are hard to come by.
A particular point refers to some imaginary ferocious factional contest driving Trump to desperate measures, such as foreign policy adventures. This is rather gullible, more or less copying Trump’s nonsense about Marxist traitors in the Democrat party while faking sanity by not actually saying it. There is very little opposition by the Democratic Party. That’s because the Democrats are paying attention to their shrinking ruling class constituency. (Anybody trying to sell the notion Trump isn’t part of the American ruling class is a fraud.)
Posted by: steven t johnson | Jan 8 2026 18:18 utc | 253
|
