-
@ 9ea10fd4:011d3b15
2025-03-05 02:09:11
(Le français suit) Scott Ritter discusses Trump’s willingness to end the war in Ukraine, highlighting his desire for peace (although other analysts suggest that the United States is shifting its strategic focus toward China).
Ritter claims that the United States could consider leaving NATO by the end of the summer but provides no explanation. The U.S. takes a utilitarian approach toward its allies. Ritter believes that, unlike the Democrats, Trump does not align with the military-industrial complex. He is seen as an outsider to this complex, seeking to shift American policy toward trade and the economy rather than militarism (however, military spending increased during his first term). This complex, which developed during World War II and the Cold War, has an increasing need for conflicts to sustain itself, potentially leading to nuclear war.
Europe, under U.S. influence, is compared to a Frankenstein’s monster—believing it is America’s ally while actually being a replaceable tool. A global transition is underway, marked by closer ties between the U.S., Russia, China, and India, excluding Europe for ideological and practical reasons—if I understand correctly, because it is characterized as knowing only war (I note that European diplomacy has recently turned toward India as an alternative to the U.S. and China). This shift, as described by Ritter, could signify the end of the transatlantic order.
Obstacles remain for Trump, notably the issue of Gaza, which is complicated by pressure from the pro-Israel lobby and the positioning of Arab countries.
Finally, it is suggested that Trump might want to reduce the size of the military and rethink the role of the United Nations, seen as a legacy of past conflicts—an intriguing idea but not fully developed.
**
“In this perspective, Trump’s imposition of tariffs would serve as a key element of a strategy aimed at prioritizing the economy over militarism, marginalizing Europe while fostering pragmatic ties with powers like Russia and China, and redefining American power in a post-transatlantic world. This would reflect a break from the military-industrial complex and a utilitarian view of international relations, where tariffs replace tanks as tools of domination or negotiation. However, their success would depend on Trump’s ability to navigate internal pressures (the pro-Israel lobby) and external reactions (from trade partners).” (Grok 3 Beta)
(On Telegram)
[FIRST IMPRESSION ON TRUMP ZELENSKY FIASCO
Interview for India & Global Left](https://t.me/ScottRitter/3761)
****
Scott Ritter évoque la volonté de Trump de mettre fin à la guerre en Ukraine, soulignant son désir de paix (cela bien que d’autres analystes disent que les États-Unis sont en train de réorienter leur stratégie vers la Chine).
Ritter avance que les États-Unis pourraient envisager de quitter l’OTAN d’ici à la fin de l’été mais ne fournit aucune explication. Les États-Unis adoptent une approche utilitaire vis-à-vis de leurs alliés. Ritter estime que Trump ne se positionne pas en faveur du complexe militaro-industriel, contrairement aux démocrates. Trump est perçu comme un acteur extérieur à ce complexe, cherchant à réorienter la politique américaine vers le commerce et l’économie plutôt que le militarisme (cependant les dépenses militaires avaient augmenté lors de son premier mandat). Ce complexe, qui s'est développé pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale et la guerre froide, a un besoin croissant de conflits pour perdurer, menant éventuellement à une guerre nucléaire.
L’Europe, sous l’influence des États-Unis, est comparée à un monstre de Frankenstein, croyant être l’alliée des États-Unis alors qu’elle n’est qu’un outil remplaçable. Une transition mondiale est en cours, marquée par un rapprochement entre les États-Unis, la Russie, la Chine et l’Inde, en excluant l’Europe pour des raisons idéologiques et pratiques si j’ai bien compris, car elle est caractérisée comme ne connaissant que la guerre (je remarque que la diplomatie européenne s'est récemment tournée vers l'Inde présentée comme une alternative aux États-Unis et à Chine). Ce changement tel que décrit par Ritter pourrait signifier la fin de l’ordre transatlantique.
Des obstacles subsisteraient pour Trump, notamment la question de Gaza, compliquée par les pressions exercées par le lobby pro-Israël et le positionnement des pays arabes.
Enfin, il est suggéré que Trump pourrait vouloir réduire la taille de l’armée et repenser le rôle des Nations Unies, perçues comme un héritage des conflits passés, une idée suggestive mais peu développée.
**
« Dans cette perspective, l’imposition de tarifs douaniers par Trump s’insérerait comme une pièce maîtresse d’une stratégie visant à privilégier l’économie sur le militarisme, à marginaliser l’Europe tout en se rapprochant de puissances comme la Russie ou la Chine sur des bases pragmatiques, et à redéfinir la puissance américaine dans un monde post-transatlantique. Cela refléterait une rupture avec le complexe militaro-industriel et une vision utilitaire des relations internationales, où les tarifs remplacent les tanks comme outils de domination ou de négociation. Toutefois, leur succès dépendrait de la capacité de Trump à naviguer entre des pressions internes (lobby pro-Israël) et externes (réactions des partenaires commerciaux). » (Grok 3 bêta)
(Sur Telegram)
[FIRST IMPRESSION ON TRUMP ZELENSKY FIASCO
Interview for India & Global Left](https://t.me/ScottRitter/3761)
-
@ 401014b3:59d5476b
2025-03-05 01:39:21
Alright, football freaks, it’s March 2025, and we’re slinging some half-baked AFC East predictions like it’s a tailgate wing-eating contest. Free agency’s a madhouse, the draft’s a blind stab, and this division’s always a mix of fireworks and faceplants. The Bills ran the show in 2024, the Dolphins teased us, the Jets are jetting Rodgers out the door, and the Pats have a new sheriff in town. Let’s slap records on this chaos and see who’s got the cajones to take the crown. Strap in—this one’s a banger.
### **Buffalo Bills: 12-5 – Josh Allen’s Reign of Pain**
The Bills owned the AFC East in 2024, and 2025’s looking like a victory lap. Josh Allen’s a goddamn force of nature—cannon arm, truck-stick legs—and he’s got James Cook tearing up the ground game even without a stud WR1. That O-line’s a top-10 crew, and the defense, despite some roster churn, still hits hard with Greg Rousseau leading the charge. Free agency might nibble at the edges—Matt Milano’s return could be clutch—but this squad’s a bully. 12-5’s the vibe, division locked up again. Good luck stopping ‘em.
### **Miami Dolphins: 9-8 – Tua’s Hot-and-Cold Hustle**
The Dolphins are the AFC East’s rollercoaster—thrilling ‘til they puke. Tua Tagovailoa’s slinging to Tyreek Hill and Jaylen Waddle, but that O-line’s still a question mark, and they fold like lawn chairs in December. The defense stepped up in 2024 with Jalen Ramsey locking down receivers, but free agency could sting—Jaelan Phillips might chase a bag elsewhere. If Tua stays healthy and the core holds, 9-8’s on the table. Wildcard’s their best shot—Buffalo’s still the big brother they can’t shake.
### **New York Jets: 8-9 – New QB, Same Jets Jinx**
The Jets are ditching Aaron Rodgers—old man’s outta here—and rolling with a new QB (TBD, but let’s say a rookie or a vet like Tyrod Taylor for kicks). Garrett Wilson and Breece Hall are studs, but that O-line’s a disaster, and the defense might take a hit if Sauce Gardner starts sniffing bigger paychecks. New coach, fresh start, same Jets curse? They’ve got enough talent to flirt with 8-9, maybe sniff a wildcard if the QB doesn’t totally tank. Still feels like classic Jets—almost there, never quite.
### **New England Patriots: 5-12 – Vrabel’s Rough Rebuild**
The Pats are a work in progress, but Mike Vrabel’s the new head honcho, and that’s worth a damn shout. The ex-Titans tough guy’s got Drake Maye at QB—bright future, brutal present. 2025’s gonna be a grind; Maye’s taking rookie lumps behind a shaky O-line with no real weapons to speak of. Christian Gonzalez is a lockdown corner, but the defense ain’t what it was without Belichick’s wizardry. Vrabel’s a culture guy—he’ll keep ‘em scrappy—but 5-12’s the reality. They’re building, not winning, in Foxboro this year.
### **The Final Buzzer**
The AFC East in 2025 is Buffalo’s playground with a dash of dysfunction. The Bills (12-5) snag the crown because Josh Allen’s a beast, the Dolphins (9-8) tease a wildcard, the Jets (8-9) stumble sans Rodgers, and the Pats (5-12) grit it out under Vrabel. That’s 34 wins, 34 losses—math’s tight when you factor in the division’s slugfest with the NFL’s other suckers. Free agency’s the X-factor—lose a star, you’re screwed; snag a gem, you’re golden. Yell at me on X when I botch this, but for now, this is my story, and I’m sticking to it. Let’s ride, degenerates.
-
@ 62a6a41e:b12acb43
2025-03-04 22:19:29
War is rarely (or if ever) the will of the people. Throughout history, wars have been orchestrated by political and economic elites, while the media plays a key role in shaping public opinion. World War I is a clear example of how propaganda was used to glorify war, silence dissent, and demonize the enemy.
Today, we see similar tactics being used in the Ukrainian War. The media spreads one-sided narratives, censors alternative views, and manipulates public sentiment. This article argues that **wars are decided from the top**, and media is used to justify them.
---
## How the Media Glorified and Propagated WW1
### The Media Sold War as an Adventure
Before WW1, newspapers and propaganda made war seem noble and exciting. Young men were encouraged to enlist for honor and glory. Posters displayed slogans like *“Your Country Needs You”*, making war look like a duty rather than a tragedy.
### Demonization of the Enemy
Governments and media portrayed Germans as "barbaric Huns," spreading exaggerated stories like the "Rape of Belgium," where German soldiers were accused of horrific war crimes—many later proven false. Today, Russia is painted as purely evil, while NATO’s role and Ukraine’s internal conflicts are ignored.
### Social Pressure & Nationalism
Anyone who opposed WW1 was labeled a traitor. Conscientious objectors were shamed, jailed, or even executed. The same happens today—if you question support for Ukraine, you are called "pro-Russian" or "anti-European." In the U.S., opposing war is falsely linked to supporting Trump or extremism.
### Fabricated Stories
During WW1, fake reports of German soldiers killing babies were widely spread. In Ukraine, reports of massacres and war crimes often circulate without verification, while Ukrainian war crimes receive little coverage.
---
## How the Media Promotes War Today: The Case of Ukraine
### One-Sided Narratives
The media presents Ukraine as a heroic struggle against an evil invader, ignoring the 2014 coup, the Donbas conflict, and NATO expansion. By simplifying the issue, people are discouraged from questioning the full story.
### Censorship and Suppression of Dissent
During WW1, anti-war activists were jailed. Today, journalists and commentators questioning NATO’s role face censorship, deplatforming, or cancellation.
### Selective Coverage
Media highlights civilian deaths in Ukraine but ignores similar suffering in Yemen, Syria, or Palestine. Coverage depends on political interests, not humanitarian concern.
### Glorification of War Efforts
Ukrainian soldiers—even extremist groups—are painted as heroes. Meanwhile, peace negotiations and diplomatic efforts receive little attention.
---
## War is a Top-Down Decision, Not the Will of the People
### People Don’t Want Wars
If given a choice, most people would reject war. Examples:
- **Before WW1:** Many workers and socialists opposed war, but governments ignored them.
- **Vietnam War:** Protests grew, but the war continued.
- **Iraq War (2003):** Millions protested, yet the invasion went ahead.
### Small Elites Decide War
Wars benefit arms manufacturers, politicians, and corporate interests—not ordinary people. Public opposition is often ignored or crushed.
### Manipulation Through Fear
Governments use fear to justify war: *“If we don’t act now, it will be too late.”* This tactic was used in WW1, the Iraq War, and is used today in Ukraine.
---
## Violence vs. War: A Manufactured Conflict
### Violence Happens, But War is Manufactured
Conflicts and disputes are natural, but large-scale war is **deliberately planned** using propaganda and logistical preparation.
### War Requires Justification
If war were natural, why does it need **massive media campaigns** to convince people to fight? Just like in WW1, today’s wars rely on media narratives to gain support.
---
## The Crimea Referendum: A Case of Ignored Democracy
### Crimea’s 2014 Referendum
- Over **90% of Crimeans voted to join Russia** in 2014.
- Western governments called it "illegitimate," while similar referendums (like in Kosovo) were accepted.
### The Contradiction in Democracy
- If democracy is sacred, why ignore a **clear vote** in Crimea?
- Other examples: Brexit was resisted, Catalonia’s referendum was shut down, and peace referendums were dismissed when they didn’t fit political interests.
- **Democracy is used as a tool when convenient.**
---
## VII. The Libertarian Case Against War
### The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)
Libertarianism is fundamentally opposed to war because it violates the **Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)**—the idea that no person or institution has the right to initiate force against another. War, by its very nature, is the **ultimate violation of the NAP**, as it involves mass killing, destruction, and theft under the guise of national interest.
### War is State Aggression
- Governments wage wars, not individuals. No private citizen would naturally start a conflict with another country.
- The state **forces people to fund wars through taxation**, violating their economic freedom.
- **Conscription**, used in many wars, is nothing more than **state-sponsored slavery**, forcing individuals to fight and die for political goals they may not support.
### War Creates Bigger Government
- War expands state power, **eroding civil liberties** (e.g., WW1's Espionage Act, the Patriot Act after 9/11).
- The **military-industrial complex** grows richer while taxpayers foot the bill.
- **Emergency powers granted during wars rarely get repealed** after conflicts end, leaving citizens with fewer freedoms.
### Peaceful Trade vs. War
- Libertarians advocate for **free trade** as a means of cooperation. Countries that trade are **less likely to go to war**.
- Wars **destroy wealth and infrastructure**, while peaceful trade **increases prosperity** for all.
- Many wars have been fought **not for defense, but for economic interests**, such as securing **oil, resources, or geopolitical power**.
### Who Benefits from War?
- **Not the people**, who suffer death, destruction, and economic hardship.
- **Not small businesses or workers**, who bear the burden of inflation and taxes to fund wars.
- **Not individual liberty**, as war leads to **greater state control and surveillance**.
- **Only the elites**, including **defense contractors, politicians, and bankers**, who profit from war and use it to consolidate power.
## Conclusion: The Media’s Role in War is Crucial
Wars don’t happen naturally—they are **carefully planned and sold to the public** using propaganda, fear, and nationalism.
- **WW1 and Ukraine prove that media is key to war-making.**
- **The media silences peace efforts and glorifies conflict.**
- **If people truly had a choice, most wars would never happen.**
To resist this, we must **recognize how we are manipulated** and reject the forced narratives that push us toward war.