Trump Push America Into the ‘ Sinking Program’

 

After Trump’s second rise to power, he aided his patrons China and Russia in bringing about America’s complete decline. In less than a year of his destructive rule, the United States has already, without question, begun to collapse—at a speed and scale unmatched. Although Trump came to office under the slogan “Make America Great Again,” it resembles Putin’s “Give me 20 years and I’ll return you a strong Russia,” and China’s “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation—the China Dream.” These narratives follow the same logic: not shameless lies exactly, but promises whose hopes of success were already doomed at the moment they were made. America has never truly declined, Russia is not truly strong, and China may not necessarily be rejuvenated.

Cracking down on China’s authoritarian government with a trade war was understandable, but launching a trade war against the entire world only pushed countries to hedge their bets, using China as leverage to counter U.S. economic sanctions. In reality, this accelerated China’s expansion in international trade. U.S.–China economic cooperation has been a long‑term national policy pursued by successive American governments since the end of the Cold War. To change it requires a long‑term, targeted plan, coordinated with allies, gradually cutting ties until full decoupling is achieved—a process that would take at least a decade. Instead, Trump launched a global trade war, driving allies toward China and isolating the U.S. Given the deep entanglement of U.S.–China economic ties, short‑term separation is impossible, and the return of manufacturing lacks basic conditions. Thus, when China introduced its so‑called rare earth control strategy, the U.S. effectively admitted defeat and abandoned the trade war.

After forty years of globalization, the tariffs imposed during the trade war ultimately balanced out and canceled each other. Today, the trade war is no longer a topic Trump even mentions. Beyond creating countless confrontations internationally, he has abandoned the fight on trade tariffs, powerless to continue—a complete farce. China emerged with absolute victory, gaining deeper and broader economic influence worldwide, becoming the true leader of the global economy. The U.S., meanwhile, alienated allies, pursued only its own interests, harmed global economic development, and surrendered its role as international economic leader, becoming marginalized.

To help Putin out of his predicament, America under Trump even sided with Russia, indirectly withdrawing from NATO and halting military aid to Ukraine. With the U.S. abandoning Europe, Britain, France, and Germany led other nations in independently resisting Russia. As Ukraine’s military strength and striking power grew, Europe proved capable of handling its own affairs without U.S. intervention, provided support for Ukraine continued. With America’s exit from NATO, it lost leadership and ceased to be taken seriously in other international matters. In short, the U.S. has been marginalized. Losing military leadership inevitably undermined its economic position, and the continued decline of the dollar became inevitable. 

The military and monetary advantages America relied on since World War II have vanished. As Russia’s accomplice, the U.S. lost Europe’s trust. Other nations scoffed at America’s abandonment of allies, of European security, and of opposition to aggression. Thus, the U.S. forfeited its role as guardian of international peace, and the post‑WWII American‑led political, economic, military, and diplomatic system collapsed. In short, America lost its international credibility.

Rumors swirl that Trump’s wife is a Russian spy. After multiple bankruptcies, Trump was repeatedly rescued by Russian funds. As early as the 1980s, during a visit to the Soviet Union, he received certain promises. In his first presidential campaign, he gained Russian support, exploiting loopholes in the U.S. electoral system, turning himself into an internet celebrity to attract traffic, and ultimately winning the presidency. Upon his second election, his urgent mission was to help Russia turn its invasion of Ukraine into a fait accompli—cutting off military aid to force Zelensky’s surrender and the partition of Ukraine. Next, with U.S. approval and assistance, Russia would launch military action against the Baltic states and Poland, then Sweden, Finland, Turkey, and eventually all of Europe. Thus, Putin’s “Russian Dream” would be realized, with Trump as the Cold War‑era strategic pawn against NATO, finally dismantling NATO after the Soviet Union’s collapse.

In just one year, Trump helped China and Russia achieve anti‑American goals they had pursued for decades without success. America has since entered decline, transformed from the world’s sole superpower and international leader into a marginalized nation led by a clown. In Trump’s subsequent three years of leadership, aside from his family profiting through open market manipulation, America as a global leader—the so‑called beacon of democracy—has long since gone dark. The countdown to “America sinking” has begun.

The Red Army City Battle Royale: Putin’s Gamble and Ukraine’s Boiling Frog Strategy

 

The Ukrainian army has recaptured half of Red Army City and destroyed Russia’s elite 76th Guards Division. Putin’s order to seize Red Army City as a bargaining chip has once again failed—this time under the premise that Trump has completely withdrawn from NATO and stopped aiding Ukraine. Meanwhile, European countries bordering Russia, including the Baltic states, Sweden, and Finland, have openly declared plans to build forces that would directly fight Russia if Ukraine were defeated. Britain, France, and Germany are also attempting to bypass the EU and deploy troops into Ukraine, with the stated condition of avoiding direct clashes with Russian forces. Yet since the war began, such conditions have proven illusory, serving only to buy time while gradually implementing intervention. From a broader perspective, even without U.S. support, as long as Europe establishes a reliable support mechanism, Ukraine can continue the war—at least until the U.S. midterm elections, when American politics may shift.

Currently, neither side has the ability to annihilate the other militarily. Ukraine has been under nationwide military mobilization for four years, steadily strengthening its capabilities. Russia, by contrast, has no better option than attritional warfare, maintaining a stalemated front line. Over four years, Russian forces have suffered massive losses in personnel, equipment, ammunition, logistics, and supplies, while enduring Ukrainian raids and relentless international sanctions. Ukraine has already struck Russia’s energy facilities across the board and now targets civilian infrastructure and transport hubs. Russia’s economy is increasingly strained, with energy exports slashed and revenues plummeting. Yet the basic funding for war continues thanks to Chinese support. In short, as long as China provides lifelines, Russia can keep fighting until the international situation changes. As long as the war persists, the West cannot fully pressure China, since Western economies remain deeply tied to China. Trump’s trade war has already failed, leaving China in a position of advantage. Moreover, under Trump’s global pressure, many U.S. allies hedge their bets, cooperating with China to offset American influence.

America’s explicit refusal to support Ukraine is effectively a withdrawal from NATO, reducing its influence in Europe and weakening its global posture. This indirectly boosts China’s leverage, strengthened by the trade war outcome. For Europe, supporting Ukraine to wear down Russia is the obvious path. Putin, now in his seventies, cannot sustain a decade‑long war like Afghanistan; another five years would likely exhaust both Russia and Putin. Meanwhile, China’s internal environment is also shifting. Trump’s collusion with Russia has triggered backlash at home. If U.S. military aid is cut off, the biggest losers will be American arms manufacturers. For four years, Western defense industries have operated around the clock, producing nonstop. To sustain the front, Europe and the wider world have scoured for ammunition. If the war drags on for several more years, Western defense industries will return to Cold War levels. At that point, even if Russia wanted to stop, it would be difficult.

Russia and Putin are gambling with national destiny. For Putin, whether he can endure or not—even considering nuclear options—defeat would mean certain death and Russia’s disintegration. Thus, securing a relatively dignified ceasefire agreement through Trump’s help is crucial, though Trump’s time is limited. Everything now hinges on Russia’s battlefield performance. Yet the Russian army falls far short of its reputation as the world’s second‑strongest military. It can only keep filling the front lines with troops, relying on sheer numbers to launch meaningless tactical assaults, hoping to blunt Ukraine’s advantages. Maintaining the current front and achieving symbolic victories—such as Bakhmut before and Red Army City now—would strengthen Russia’s bargaining position. But so far, these attempts have failed.

For Putin, prolonging the war itself is victory. Trump’s withdrawal means Russia only needs to confront Europe, and historically Russia has had many ways to deal with Europe. Thus, Putin is not entirely disadvantaged. If Europe descends into full‑scale war while America stands aside, Russia might even turn the tide—especially with nuclear options and Trump’s government as external support. For Ukraine, rushing to reclaim territory and win outright may not be the best strategy. Instead, gradual attrition across all fronts—military, morale, energy, transport, defense industry, civilian infrastructure, industrial base, and agriculture—is wiser. Militarily, Ukraine should avoid reckless offensives. This “boiling frog” approach, sustained for another four years, could produce decisive change. Ukraine is shifting from pure military strikes to comprehensive attrition, combining fighting and negotiating, alternating between talks and battles, to prolong the war indefinitely.

Once Russia’s resources are completely exhausted, Ukraine can unite with the EU to launch a decisive counteroffensive, finally resolving Europe’s peace and security dilemma. As for Trump, it seems Abe has been waiting for him for quite some time.

Has Uncle Hun Sen’s Backer Fallen? – The International Drama Behind Thailand’s Military Crackdown

 

Thailand’s military crackdown on Cambodia has been remarkably smooth. The world‑plaguing hubs of telecom fraud, gambling centers, and human organ trafficking institutions have been continuously struck. In recent years, Cambodia’s economic development has relied heavily on the rapid growth of these criminal industries, with the government even making them a focal point of national economic revitalization, supported by neighboring countries. As a tourism hub in Southeast Asia, Thailand has suffered greatly: countless tourists have been scammed, kidnapped, gone missing, or even killed. This has dealt a severe blow to Thailand’s economy and tarnished its international image, ultimately prompting Thailand to decisively employ military means to eradicate Cambodia’s criminal industries and strike hard against Hun Sen’s government.

Given the disparity in military strength between the two countries, Thailand’s operations have faced virtually no resistance. Having already dismantled border crime bases, Thai forces have advanced inland, conducting systematic sweeps. However, a complete eradication of these industries will take time. Unless the Chinese government formally intervenes with strong measures, Thailand’s military campaign is unlikely to stop in the short or medium term. In fact, the masterminds, workers, and victims of Cambodia’s criminal industries are predominantly Chinese, with close ties to China’s elite families. Before launching its operations, Thailand carefully weighed all factors and acted only after securing U.S. support. These criminal industries are despised worldwide—whether in Southeast Asia, China, or overseas—but due to years of protection from a major power, they had remained unchecked.

China’s response has been subtle. Beyond formal calls for a ceasefire, it has offered no tangible assistance to Cambodia. Objectively, if China were to intervene forcefully to protect Cambodia, it would be unable to escape international condemnation for fostering criminal industries. Moreover, revelations show that shareholders of Cambodia’s organ trafficking research centers are Chinese state medical institutions and companies. The SIM cards used in telecom fraud are issued by Chinese telecom firms, and the gambling dens are backed by Chinese financiers. Organ trafficking is considered a crime against humanity, and most victims of other criminal industries are also Chinese. Directly shielding these industries would be indefensible internationally, so Beijing has shifted blame onto Cambodia’s government. Cambodia’s military, though armed by China, is too weak to resist comprehensively. Facing inevitable defeat, China sees little reason to intervene directly, which would invite global criticism. With the U.S. openly involved, Beijing is further constrained, especially after the recent lull in the U.S.–China trade war, where China had gained a slight advantage. Avoiding excessive provocation of Washington is now a priority.

The Indo‑Pacific strategy was originally spearheaded by Abe and Trump. With Abe gone and Trump’s trade war unpopular, India’s defeat in the May air battle against Pakistan (backed by China) shifted the focus from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific. This led to enhanced U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, Japan’s pledge to defend Taiwan, and Thailand’s military strike against Cambodia (backed by China). The aim is to reshape China’s regional blueprint built through the Belt and Road Initiative. Russia’s Putin has aligned with Trump, while China’s “wolf warrior” diplomacy has left it isolated internationally. The Indo‑Pacific strategy has evolved from “westward offense, eastward defense” before the trade war into “eastward offense, westward defense,” designed to contain China’s expansionist ambitions.

China itself faces severe internal challenges: economic decline, political turmoil, fierce infighting, diplomatic isolation, and public discontent. Military power struggles have intensified, and the leadership’s grip on authority is unstable. Over a decade of carefully crafted projects—from the Belt and Road Initiative to Xiong’an New Area, from the Beijing Stock Exchange to even Chinese football—have largely failed, weakening national strength and global influence. While criminal industries in Cambodia and Myanmar have thrived, they have inflicted heavy damage on Southeast Asia’s economies, ultimately driving Thailand closer to the U.S. and prompting direct action against Cambodia.

Hillary Clinton’s “pivot to Asia” strategy was never clearly defined, as the U.S. never truly withdrew from Asia. ASEAN’s ten nations have long relied on the U.S. politically while leaning toward China economically. The current situation is more complex: the Philippines and Vietnam confront China head‑on, Myanmar and Cambodia are aligned with Beijing, while others remain neutral or hedge both sides. Thailand, historically neutral, has now tilted toward the U.S., a move of great significance. China’s support for its Southeast Asian client states has always relied on exporting benefits, with the rise of criminal industries becoming a by‑product of the Belt and Road. This crackdown severely undermines China’s influence. The criminal parks—telecom fraud centers, organ trafficking institutions, and casinos—are all backed by Chinese elites with ties to the highest leadership. Amid China’s internal turmoil, its ability to respond to this sudden blow is limited.

If Southeast Asian nations collectively align with the U.S., the entire Indo‑Pacific region, possibly including Russia, will form a ring of encirclement against China. Although Russia, with China’s support, has managed to sustain its position in the Ukraine war, prolonged conflict will eventually exhaust Putin. Russia’s ultimate downfall is foreseeable. Once that war ends and the world’s second‑strongest military power is defeated, the day of encircling the third‑strongest power will arrive. Thus, Thailand’s military strike against Cambodia’s criminal industries carries strategic weight: it not only dismantles illicit enterprises and weakens Hun Sen’s government but also reshapes Southeast Asia’s order.

Rare earths strike, Trump crumbles” — The Sino-US trade war farce escalates again

 

Trump is set to launch another trade war, imposing a 100% tariff on China. The main trigger was the U.S. decision to impose additional fees on Chinese cargo ships, which led China to retaliate by strictly controlling rare earth exports and restricting exports of industrial synthetic diamonds, magnets, lithium batteries, and hard materials. Trump subsequently posted again, claiming the situation was not serious and hinting at a desire to ease tensions with China. His so-called 100% tariff was merely a spontaneous remark, unknown even to U.S. government officials, just a venting on Twitter that does not represent the U.S. government's stance. China dismissed it with disdain and has not yet proposed counter-tariff measures. Trump, a so-called president with no credibility, flip-flopping, and decisions driven not by reason but by his personal whims, initially aimed to create leverage before meeting Chinese leaders. Now, his miscalculation has backfired, leaving him with no cards to play, forcing him to lower himself to seek China's favor. It’s not the U.S. trying to decouple from China anymore; 

China has actively chosen to cut ties with the U.S. Many countries possess rare earths, but none match China’s production scale, refining technology, price variety, or output capacity. China has developed a complete rare earth industrial chain, while other countries have barely tapped their resources. Even with full investment now, it would take 10-15 years to build a basic scale. Moreover, China fully controls rare earth prices, making competition impossible since its rare earths are state-controlled resources, priced by directive rather than profit.Pakistan is building ports to export rare earths to the U.S., but refining still relies on China. U.S. rare earth companies also depend on Chinese technology to process raw materials. Without rare earths, Europe and the U.S. would halt production of fighter jets, nuclear submarines, cruise missiles, chips, and the entire semiconductor industry, as these cannot be manufactured without them. Continued sanctions on China’s high-end chips would ultimately leave the U.S. without chips, and Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would also cease production. 

Crucially, the products China banned from export—synthetic diamonds for industrial machine tools, lithium batteries for new energy development, magnets, and hard materials for manufacturing—are items the U.S. and Western countries cannot produce independently. Charging fees on Chinese cargo ships triggered China’s retaliation, and mutual sanctions could disrupt global shipping, slowing the world economy.China accounts for 16 of the world’s top 20 ports, manufactures over 60% of global ships, and handles 30% of global shipping volume. If Chinese goods stop shipping due to extra costs or rerouting, U.S. inflation will rise, and its economy will deteriorate, especially under Trump’s pressure to cut interest rates. Charging fees on China-related cargo ships is essentially another form of tariff. Despite Trump’s two trade wars, China has prepared comprehensively over nearly a decade. U.S.-China trade, suppressed by Trump, now accounts for less than 10% of China’s total foreign trade, with a 7% increase in trade with other countries last year and record-high trade surpluses, including with the U.S. Objectively, even if U.S.-China trade stops, it wouldn’t be a fatal blow to China, which could reroute trade through other countries. 

As an authoritarian state, China is indifferent to domestic impacts. Conversely, the U.S. could lose midterm elections if adversaries stop buying its soybeans, corn, and wheat.In April, Trump manipulated financial markets through tariff factors, profiting his family and realizing his “Make America Great Again” plan. This situation is similar, likely with prior stock market bets, but China’s aggressive response leaves Trump’s next move uncertain. He claims no need to meet Chinese leaders again, but the real issue is that they have no interest in easing tensions with him. The so-called “Great America” bill has left the U.S. government with a $5 trillion deficit, truly broke, resorting to haphazard tariffs on other countries, including cargo ship fees, to grab money. China’s sudden strike shows the tariff-driven trade war is over. Unless Trump stops creating chaos in the international free trade system, China will bypass the U.S. to build a new global trade order.Beyond exporting dollars and military forces, the U.S. produces no domestically manufactured goods. Global trade won’t stop without the U.S., but without global trade, the U.S. will lose its international dominance, and the dollar will lose its global currency status, ending U.S. hegemony. Just as the Russia-Ukraine war cost the U.S. its NATO leadership, trade wars will isolate it globally. 

Without rare earths, Western military industries will halt, semiconductors will collapse, shipping will face a fatal blow, renewable energy will stall, agriculture will decline, and inflation will trigger economic collapse. Without rare earths, there are no semiconductors, no chips, no AI—devastating the U.S.’s remaining high-tech and AI industries and crashing financial markets.China, without U.S. soybeans, pork, oil, or chips, remains unaffected, producing domestically or buying elsewhere. U.S. consumers, however, cannot survive short- or medium-term without Chinese goods. Trump’s second term has been reckless, aiming for his family’s “greatness” rather than America’s revival. His actions—raising tariffs, disrupting global trade, supporting Russia over Ukraine, undermining NATO, attempting land grabs, manipulating markets for personal gain, weakening military civilian oversight, ignoring U.S. traditions for lifelong presidency, and installing loyalists for authoritarian rule—are driving America’s decline, not its greatness. Yet, many ignorant Americans still support Trump, believing his shameless lies.

China’s proactive strike targets not America but Trump, putting the U.S. in a passive position. Whether it’s financial oligarchs, the deep state, or military-industrial bosses, the U.S. must urgently find a suitable replacement, following its historical tradition to resolve the issue of an incompetent president. Trump, a failed businessman, amateur politician, and foolish clown, has reached his final moment to exit the global political stage.

 

Trump and Putin met in the US to betray Ukraine again and return Alaska to Russia

 

Trump and Putin will meet in Alaska to discuss the Russia-Ukraine issue. The choice of Alaska is symbolic, as it was once Russian territory before being purchased by the United States. Holding talks on Ukraine in what was formerly Russian land is seen as Trump’s flattery toward Putin. It is almost certain that Trump will betray Ukraine again, regardless of Zelenskyy’s designer suits. The fact that the U.S. is inviting a war criminal accused of crimes against humanity to discuss legitimizing an aggressive war on its own soil is itself a bitter irony.The EU has imposed various restrictions on Trump this time, stipulating that any peace talks must focus solely on a ceasefire, not territorial issues, and that Ukraine must be included to avoid becoming a second Czechoslovakia in World War II. However, aside from imposing tariffs and exerting pressure, Trump’s ability to manage international affairs is extremely limited, and his understanding of such matters is notably simplistic. His plan to secure a ceasefire and nominate himself for a Nobel Peace Prize as a political achievement for the midterm elections might work for conflicts like Azerbaijan and Armenia, but mediating the Russia-Ukraine war is a waste of time. 

Both sides are currently under pressure to sit at the negotiating table symbolically, but without Russia withdrawing its troops, returning occupied territories, and compensating for losses, the war will not end.As for Ukraine’s promise not to join NATO, in reality, Ukraine’s current status is hardly different from being a NATO member. It receives full political, economic, diplomatic, and military support from NATO countries and dozens of others beyond the alliance. Ukraine’s million-strong army has been in a stalemate with Russian forces for over three years, with allies on both sides already involved. The war will not end until one side admits complete military defeat—either Russia permanently occupies the four eastern Ukrainian regions, or Ukraine expels Russian forces and reclaims its territory. 

There is no viable third-party solution. The current war of attrition benefits both sides: Putin can maintain domestic control through a state of war, while Ukraine receives foreign aid to deplete Russia’s resources. The conflict remains largely confined to the four eastern regions, with no significant expansion over the past three years, and both sides maintain relative control.Russia lacks the capacity to destroy Ukraine’s military and occupy the entire country, just as Ukraine lacks the ability to fully expel Russian forces and reclaim lost territory. The war will persist until one side’s resources are exhausted. Trump’s four-year term will likely see the war continue, potentially sparking recurring conflicts in regions influenced by Russia’s traditional sphere of power. Trump, a failed real estate mogul with six bankruptcies, relied on Russian financial aid to recover. During his 1980s visits to the Soviet Union, he was allegedly recruited as a strategic spy. His real estate ventures were merely a front for laundering Russian money as a “white glove.” 

After the 2014 Russia-Ukraine border conflict led to Western sanctions on Russia, Moscow activated its strategic asset, exploiting America’s outdated electoral system to propel Trump, a clownish figure at the time, into the White House—hence the “Russiagate” scandal.Now, in his second term, Trump’s primary task is to rescue Putin, who helped him become president, by pressuring Ukraine through various means. The current ceasefire talks are a prelude to lifting sanctions on Russia. For Trump, this is a necessity; if Putin exposes evidence of their collusion, it would amount to treason. Trump’s family has profited through stock market manipulation, cryptocurrency issuance, insider trading, and personal merchandise ventures, but these gains could be nullified if exposed, leading to his downfall. Believing his age protects him from consequences, he may even seek lifelong presidency or support family members to run for office to shield himself from political adversaries.So far, many of Trump’s campaign promises—ending the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours, global tariffs causing trade chaos, releasing the Epstein list, and addressing domestic inflation and economic stagnation—have failed. His prospects in the midterm elections are precarious, and the world has grown weary of his regressive policies. 

Biden’s defeat stemmed primarily from his age and perceived frailty, but his decisions followed a structured process. In contrast, Trump’s energetic but erratic governance relies on impulsive, ill-considered decisions. He might even return Alaska to Russia to curry favor with Putin, just as he sold out Ukraine.The U.S. has become an authoritarian state akin to Russia or North Korea, with a presidential system resembling monarchical rule. Trump, as a “king,” is a incompetent ruler with grand ambitions, making America’s decline inevitable—not due to its massive debt, but because of deliberate sabotage by a failed businessman and alleged Russian spy.

 

Zelensky should wear shorts to see Trump who cuts off arms supply to support Russia again

 

After promising to provide Ukraine with some second-hand air defense missiles, Trump abruptly reneged again, citing urgent needs in the Middle East as a reason to delay arms supplies to Ukraine. This has left Zelenskyy in a highly passive position in the face of Russia's summer offensive. Currently, Russian forces have concentrated over ten divisions, totaling 110,000 troops, in Krasnoarmeysk, attempting to break through and capture the city to reverse their faltering momentum. 

As Putin's lackey, Trump is naturally cooperating fully, ostensibly to force Ukraine back to the negotiating table, but in reality, to assist Russia in occupying Ukraine, annexing the four eastern regions and Crimea, and ensuring Ukraine does not join NATO or the EU. The war has now lasted over three years, with Russia facing opposition from the entire NATO alliance and more than 60 countries combined. Although Ukraine has not officially joined NATO, the difference is negligible. From a frail army of just over 100,000 at the war’s outset, Ukraine has grown into Europe’s, and perhaps the world’s, most battle-hardened force of a million soldiers. 

As long as it receives military aid from the West, Ukraine can continue fighting indefinitely. Although Russia still occupies 20% of Ukrainian territory and holds a slight military advantage, Ukrainian morale is low, desertions are severe, and the army continues to face equipment shortages. Nevertheless, Ukraine has managed to hold the line against Russia, launching special operations that inflict heavy damage on Russian military equipment, energy infrastructure, and strategic facilities. In contrast, Russia has suffered over a million casualties, with significant depletion of Soviet-inherited equipment. 

Its forces also face low morale and exhaustion, making it increasingly unsustainable. The battlefield remains a stalemate, with neither side able to decisively defeat the other or gain a strategic advantage to turn the tide. This war has become a test of endurance, a question of who can outlast the other. As Putin ages and his control weakens, Russia’s economic strength, military equipment, and war resources will eventually be exhausted, bringing the conflict to an end. As long as Putin remains in power, he will prolong the war, for if the Russian army stops fighting and withdraws, it could become uncontrollable, potentially leading to a coup, as seen in historical precedents like World War I. Russia is not the superpower the Soviet Union once was; its military capabilities are limited, and its economy is only on par with mid-tier European nations. 

Though Russia’s vast territory spans millions of square kilometers, only the 3 million square kilometers in its European part are suitable for development. With a population of 140 million—far larger than Ukraine’s 20 million—Russia can mobilize around 3 million for combat, but over a million have already been lost. Moreover, the Russian military’s capabilities are outdated, relying on World War II-style attrition tactics, which are ineffective against the advanced technological equipment supplied by the West. This is essentially a war between two different eras. Even with Trump’s covert support pressuring Ukraine into submission and signing agreements to cede territory and pay reparations, as long as Ukraine maintains its military strength, the war could reignite after Trump leaves office and Putin retires. Once Trump’s term ends, his controversial actions will likely lead to a reckoning, and NATO will inevitably return to its previous stance of suppressing Russia. 

Putin’s health has been deteriorating since the war began, and even if he holds on for a few more years, his time is limited. This is his personal war, his final gamble on the promise of Russia’s great revival. But after him, both he and Russia as we know it may cease to exist. Zelenskyy, on the other hand, is still young, even without a suit. His repeated appearances in military attire during meetings with Trump were meant to convey that Ukraine is in dire straits, that he has just come from the battlefield, and that U.S. military aid is a given. He came to apply pressure, but the reality is the opposite: Trump, a Russian asset who rose to power through the Russia scandal, is intent on suppressing Ukraine. Even if Zelenskyy reluctantly dons a suit, Trump will still undermine Ukraine. In the current situation, the worst-case scenario for Zelenskyy might be to accept some of the conditions imposed by the U.S. and Russia, trading territory for peace, which is not entirely unacceptable. 

By outlasting the authoritarian regimes of the U.S. and Russia, strengthening its military, building up resources, and implementing domestic reforms, Ukraine will ultimately prevail. The war can always be restarted in the future. Thus, the current strategy of fighting while negotiating, combining military and political struggles, is also a means to achieve military victory. Fighting paves the way for talks, and if talks fail, the fighting can resume. A ceasefire is not entirely unacceptable, and a suit is not something that must always be worn!

 

Khamenei faces treason and heresy if he surrenders, decapitation by Bunker-busters if he doesn't

 

Just as Trump promised to give Iran two weeks to consider surrender, he immediately deployed strategic bombers carrying bunker-busting missiles to destroy three of Iran's most critical nuclear weapons facilities. Although Iran claimed the losses were minimal and that they had already made prior transfers, there is no doubt that Iran's nuclear weapons development has suffered a severe setback, making recovery in the short to medium term highly unlikely. Israel's basic objective in this attack has been achieved.

From the current situation, it is clear that Iran was completely unaware of Israel's surprise attack, resulting in the decapitation of key military leaders and nuclear weapons experts. Therefore, it is impossible for Iran to have made adequate concealment or transfer measures for all its nuclear facilities in advance. However, even so, as long as the Iranian government maintains its rule, completely destroying its nuclear weapons development is unrealistic—it would merely require more time to rebuild. The current situation is actually more complex than before the nuclear facilities were destroyed. 

Since the United States has already entered the conflict, it will not easily back down. The so-called precondition of Iran's unconditional surrender simply does not exist. If Khamenei were to surrender, it would be tantamount to treason and a betrayal of Islam, stripping him of his divine legitimacy and turning him into a public enemy to be purged. If he does not surrender, he risks being targeted for assassination. His only option is to go into hiding and avoid making public statements, but retaliatory actions against Israel will not cease in the short to medium term.

In theory, blockading the Strait of Hormuz is not technically difficult, as its narrowest point is only 30–50 kilometers wide. Deploying mines could disrupt normal maritime traffic, halting oil exports and severely impacting energy-importing nations like Europe, China, India, Japan, and South Korea. This would cause a global economic shock and soaring oil prices, inevitably leading to a coalition of powers uniting to decisively address the Iran issue. Moreover, Iran's government relies almost entirely on oil exports for revenue. A prolonged blockade would cripple the regime's ability to sustain itself, making such a strategy unsustainable. 

It would also affect other Gulf nations. Iran's proxies, such as the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, and terrorist groups in Syria and Yemen, all require substantial financial and military support to resist U.S. and Israeli strikes. Iran's allies, China and Russia, are unlikely to intervene directly. Putin currently depends heavily on Trump to maintain the status quo in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and with U.S.-China trade tensions only recently cooling, neither power is willing to risk a confrontation with the U.S. over Iran. Thus, Iran must rely on its own capabilities to navigate this crisis.

Given that the U.S. has been drawn into the conflict by Israel, it is determined to resolve the Iran issue once and for all. The demand for unconditional surrender is essentially a strategy to force Iran into a corner. Iran's missiles and drones will eventually be depleted, and once its war resources are exhausted, its ability to resist will collapse. While ground forces are not necessary to topple an authoritarian regime, this does not prevent the rise of domestic opposition within Iran. The U.S. has even promoted the Pahlavi dynasty's heir, an American citizen, as a potential successor. Regardless of whether Khamenei surrenders, the leaders of Iran's theocratic regime will be targeted for elimination, and domestic opposition will be supported to establish a pro-U.S. government as quickly as possible. For now, the U.S. and Israel will avoid deploying ground troops, focusing instead on air strikes to deplete Iran's war resources and energy. So far, apart from launching ballistic missile attacks on Israeli civilians, Iran's retaliatory options have been extremely limited.

Air strikes from both sides will likely continue for some time, with all parties observing subsequent developments. Regardless, the current situation is advantageous for Israel. The day Iran successfully develops nuclear weapons would mark the beginning of Israel's destruction. Now, with the crisis averted and the U.S. taking the lead, Israel can step back and observe, leaving the stage to President Trump. After a series of foreign policy missteps, Trump's decisive action against Iran will bring him significant political gains. For Iran, the optimal window for negotiation has passed. It lacks the strength to wage all-out war and can only take things one step at a time. The best strategy would be to seek mediation from allies like China and Russia to preserve the regime, avoiding reckless actions that could lead to catastrophic consequences. Otherwise, the inevitable outcome will be an early meeting with Allah.

 

If American liberals don't interfere, Israel could eliminate Khamenei in 3 minutes

 

Israel attacked Iran's nuclear facilities and eliminated most of the leaders of its armed forces and nuclear experts. In response, Iran raised its red flag as a sign of retaliation and launched a large number of missiles and drones against Israel, causing minimal damage. Militarily, Israel has no difficulty annihilating Iran, but the biggest issue remains the United States' stance. After Trump took office, U.S. policy toward Iran shifted, allowing Israel to strike Iran's nuclear program without American interference. Although Iran could produce around 20 nuclear bombs within a few months, Israel's strikes, while not completely destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, will significantly delay its nuclear development.

The formation of Iran's theocratic regime was entirely due to U.S. support. In the 1950s, the U.S., under Eisenhower, collaborated with the UK to overthrow Iran's communist regime and install the Pahlavi Shah. Iran entered a golden era: its economy soared, society became open and secularized, women could wear skirts without headscarves, and young people enjoyed rock music and Coca-Cola. Iran's economy ranked among the world's top ten, with robust energy exports and increasing government revenue, leading to rapid societal development and improved living standards. Tehran became a Middle Eastern version of the "American Dream." At that time, Iran, the U.S., and Israel were staunch allies with close ties in the region.

However, in 1979, remnants of Iranian communists allied with religious extremists took to the streets, sparking a revolution marked by riots, vandalism, and chaos. The Shah's police suppressed the protests, inadvertently killing a few religious students. This ignited outrage among American "white liberals," particularly under President Carter, who championed "human rights." Driven by political correctness, Carter condemned the Shah's "tyranny," issuing warnings and threatening sanctions if force was used again. Protests escalated, spreading from Tehran across the country. Under pressure from Carter, the Shah was forced into exile, paving the way for Khomeini's return from the U.S. and rise to power. In his memoirs, the Shah confessed to Egyptian President Sadat, "I trusted the Americans and was betrayed by Carter."

After Khomeini took power, he implemented theocratic rule, ending secularization and transforming Iran from a "Middle Eastern America" into a "theocratic republic." The Iran-Iraq War, initiated by Khomeini, lasted eight years, killed over a million people, and displaced millions of refugees, turning the Middle East into a war-torn region. Khomeini also supported Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and Syria's Assad regime, turning the Middle East into his "backyard" and fueling endless conflicts driven by terrorist organizations. After Khomeini's death, power passed to Khamenei, and Iran became a fully theocratic state, repeatedly threatening to destroy Israel. Meanwhile, American liberals from Carter to Clinton, Obama, and Biden have shown fear toward Iran. Obama's "Iran Nuclear Deal" provided funds, lifted international sanctions, and emboldened Iran, which used this "goodwill" to advance its nuclear program with the aim of destroying Israel and dominating the Middle East.

Iran's current state is entirely the responsibility of the U.S. With Trump's presidency, U.S. Middle East policy has shifted, enabling Israel to intensify its crackdown on Iran's theocratic regime. Ironically, Khamenei is of Azerbaijani descent, and the current theocratic government is not controlled by ethnic Persians. Khomeini’s lineage is closer to North Indian. In recent years, the Iranian government has faced growing domestic protests, and during Israel's attacks, many locals reportedly celebrated the strikes.From a military perspective, Iran's theocratic regime lacks the strength to confront the U.S. and Israel and has lost popular support domestically. With Hamas nearly eliminated and Syria's Assad regime toppled, if the U.S. does not intervene, Israel’s military strength could systematically dismantle Middle Eastern terrorist forces. 

Iran has already been thoroughly infiltrated by Israel, and this attack demonstrates that Israel could assassinate Khamenei at any time, potentially ending Iran's theocratic rule. However, the critical factor remains the United States' stance.

 

Putin to Trump: China wants war, North Korea needs money, so no ceasefire

 

Even with Trump's mediation, Russia refuses to ceasefire. Although the current U.S. bias is exactly what Putin desires, the situation has not unfolded as expected. Russia's economy, still maintaining 3-5% annual growth, is entirely driven by a war economy. Without this, years of global sanctions would have led to economic collapse and widespread hardship, making it difficult to sustain. Despite the loss of a million soldiers and vast amounts of military equipment, most casualties come from remote regions' ethnic minorities and marginalized groups, including criminals and the homeless. Major Russian cities remain largely unaffected, and with the government's tacit approval, many urban youths fled early in the war. Thus, the million casualties have not shaken the country's foundation but rather reduced the burden by "clearing out" low-end populations.

Historically, Russia has always relied on massive personnel losses to cope with large-scale wars. The Slavic attitude toward death is almost indifferent, showing little concern for the number of lives expended in war. Russia has long been a serfdom-based state, where serfs were at the disposal of landowners but nominally belonged to the Tsar. Landowners had usage rights but not ownership, and while serfs were guaranteed minimal survival conditions by the Tsar's decree, their depletion was utterly disregarded. Military officers came from the nobility, while soldiers were peasants and serfs, treated as mere "gray mules," barely valued above animals. Thus, the Russian military has a longstanding tradition of disregarding soldiers' lives. During World War II, retreating soldiers faced execution, their families were sent to Siberia to eat potatoes, while charging forward earned black bread, and families received potatoes to survive. Soldiers' lives were measured in terms of potatoes and black bread.

For many unemployed, alcoholic, smoking, abusive, uneducated men with no prospects in Russia's peripheral regions, dying on the frontlines for millions of rubles in government payouts is not necessarily a bad deal for their local economies or families. Russian men, with a life expectancy of just over 50 due to chronic alcoholism, have little to lose. Moreover, Russia has historically blurred the line between soldiers and civilians, with potentially tens of millions available to be sent to the battlefield. As for weapons, Russia inherited vast Soviet stockpiles, sufficient for prolonged conventional warfare, supplemented by some advanced equipment. North Korea's soldiers and weapons further bolster this, as their situation mirrors Russia's. Thus, a 21st-century war has devolved into World War I-style trench warfare, with drones absent, as if returning to a century ago. Russia's technological, logistical, and intelligence capabilities lag far behind the West, so it relies on its strength: attrition, betting on who can endure greater losses.

Currently, apart from most of Luhansk being occupied, the frontlines are in a stalemate with Ukrainian forces, with Crimea also under strain. The goal of occupying the four eastern regions is to connect them with Crimea, ensuring a viable independent entity linked to Russia. Without this, the "special military operation" is meaningless. Ukraine, after three years of war, has built a million-strong, well-equipped, and battle-hardened army, gradually gaining air superiority with Western support. A ceasefire is meaningless for Russia unless Ukraine's military is dismantled, as it could counterattack with NATO support at any time. If Russia withdraws from the costly eastern territories, they risk being lost again in the long term, and Russia's economic strength is insufficient for reconstruction or long-term stabilization. The hard-won stalemate keeps Ukraine's air superiority in check by maintaining close-quarters combat.

China's stance is also a factor. As Russia's main financial backer, China benefits from a prolonged war where Russia neither wins nor Ukraine loses. This prevents the West from fully focusing on China, and Russia's energy revenues and goods largely come from China. A ceasefire would intensify U.S. pressure on China, escalating trade and tariff conflicts, and China would lose Russia as a key counterweight against the U.S. With Trump's term limited to three years (or longer if re-elected, though an octogenarian has limited time), Russia is unlikely to abandon its current partial advantage if the U.S. returns to a confrontational stance. With Chinese financial support, Russia can sustain the war and even open a second front to divert Ukraine's forces, targeting Poland, Finland, or the Baltic states.

Domestically, Putin's control relies on nationalism, internal repression, military rule, propaganda, and speech control, with wartime conditions being key. As long as the war continues, he maintains a high-pressure grip, fostering unity against external threats. If the war ends, opposition could resurge, and returning soldiers and weapons pose a domestic threat. Prigozhin's brief rebellion, advancing hundreds of kilometers toward Moscow with a small force, nearly toppled Putin. Troops are easier to control on the frontlines than back home, where they become destabilizing. At his advanced age, Putin emulates Stalin: as long as the nation is at war, he remains the undisputed national leader. With no decisive military advantage yet, Russia lacks favorable negotiation leverage. To maintain the status quo, Putin will fight to the end, never allowing Ukraine a chance to regroup.