Steven Witkoff, the New George Soros

by Claudiu Secara

Witkoff. He is the man.

It’s becoming a little bit more clear what are the roles of various people within Trump’s foreign policy team.

Trump himself is on a rampage, talking nonsense, confusing everyone and saying absolutely incompatible things. On Gaza alone, he went from “we will buy Gaza” to “we will just have it” to “building the Riviera of the Middle East for the people” to “relocate the people (with no right of return)” to “if the Arabs have better options, let them do it,” etc. etc.

On the Ukrainian war, what Trump is saying is just as much nonsense. From “peace within 24 hours” to “peace in 6 months” to “devastating new sanctions against Russia” to a “new level of economic opportunities in Russia.” Zelensky is part of the deal, is not part of the deal, may be part of the deal, and so on.

It’s the same on every single other topic, from Canada becoming a US state, to Greenland, the Panama Canal, etc.

So, who is in charge of US foreign policy strategy? Not Rubio — the warmonger hawk is selling the multipolar new world order on CNN as well as the rebuilding of Gaza with the Palestinians in situ. Any conflict here?

One clue that explains a lot comes from watching Trump’s personal emissary getting things done. A simple phone call to Netanyahu on the Jewish Sabbath, from Dubai, and the invasion of Gaza was over. Another phone call to the same Netanyahu and the Israli army left Lebanon overnight. Then we had the desperate false flag staged by Netanyahu with the firebombing of three school buses in the West Bank. This was hailed by Netanyahu as the evidenciary casus belli to erase the West Bank just like he did to Gaza. But it fizzled before the first tank’s cannon was fired. Little noticed is the fact that Shin Beth arrested three Israelis as the perpetrators of the arson. The whole thing was a false flag and Netanyahu was called on that.

What mysterious forces are at work that act with a God-like hand that protects the Palestinians?

Let’s turn to Russia. Trump’s special envoy Steven Witkoff reported that during his visit to Russia, he had a long conversation with Putin, developing a friendship with him:

“It was a great trip. I spent a lot of time talking to President Putin, developing a friendship and relationship with him. All of that led to Mark [Fogel] getting on the plane.”

Was this friendship all about Mark Fogel, or what else was secured? And who is Steven Witkoff?

Not much is known publically about him, but one thing is self evident. He stands in for some omnipotent center of power. A single word from that direction and facts appear on the ground. Would Trump be so powerful behind the scenes? If so, he didn’t have to step into the public mud he went through; besides, the facts on the ground that Steven Witkoff creates like magic are mostly contrary to what Trump is known to stand for. He forces Trump himself, and his son-in-law, to back off from their stated plans and policies, like in Gaza. One can almost infer that it was in his power to have Trump elected president.

While it remains a mystery why and how, Steven Witkoff is the mover and shaker of Trump’s presidency and the person to watch.

Ukraine Negotiations: the US, Russia and Europe

Michael McFaul on the negotiations between Russia and the US: Trump offered Russia a lot

  1. Part of the territory of Ukraine.
  2. Partial withdrawal of US troops from Europe.
  3. Non-membership of Ukraine in NATO.
  4. Lifting of sanctions.
  5. No American soldiers in Ukraine.

And Putin offered nothing in return.

The Russians are saying that this is not the correct analysis. Russia offered a lot in return:

Russia ceases military actions and does not take Odessa, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Nikolaev, Sumy, Chernigov, Kirovograd, Kyiv, by military means. These are huge concessions, the Russians claim. Colossal.

On the other hand, French and British peace plan for Ukraine will be discussed in Washington during the visit of the leaders of France and Britain to the United States in a few days.

  1. The deployment of 30 thousand NATO troops from Europe in the largest cities of Ukraine and its ports.
  2. The deployment of an additional large batch of US aircraft in Ukraine.
  3. The deployment of US missiles in Ukraine.
  4. All this after the signing of a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

Based on this, will Russia sign a peace agreement?

But meanwhile Trump wants to cut Pentagon spending, perhaps by 40%. The Washington Post writes about it. This reflects the near bankruptcy of the US.

But European leaders will be against it. Watch the drama unfolding!

What’s Your Moral Philosophy?

Just as economists approach their analysis with a set of pre formed assumptions of human behavior, societies form their moral philosophy / religion – around a basic assumption of what it is to be human.

Christians believe that we are all equal in the eyes of God. That we are made in Gods image but we are imperfect. This religion assumes that cooperation, brotherly love and striving for improvement are what make society better.

Jews believe that God made a chosen race above all others. The overriding objective is to survive. Dominating others to that end is God’s plan.

Islam doesn’t even believe that there are individuals. The Turks have a memorial to the fallen at Gallipoli where all the names were Ali – because names weren’t a thing. Your job in Islam is to conquer land and people. Take the land and convert or kill the conquered people.

Other religions believe our bodies are nothing more than the current vessel that carries the real self onward for eternity. Passive acceptance of your current state is essential to get a better station in the next life.

The politics of every country reflects the philosophy that underlies it.

And there is no such thing as Judeo- Christian. It’s a ludicrous an idea as vegan butcher.

VtObserver

The EU Can Back Ukraine If It Wants To (Is this the Collapse of Trump’s Strategy)

By Michael Every of Rabobank via ZeroHedge

The US-Russia Ukraine War ceasefire talks in the Saudi capital yesterday are causing a chain Riyadh-tion.

Russia made no concessions at all. Indeed, NBC news cites Western intelligence and congressional sources stating that President Vladimir Putin is not interested in a peace deal and instead seeks to gain full control of Ukraine, because “He thinks he’s winning.”

By contrast, rumors are flying of what the US may have conceded: Ukraine’s NATO membership is off the table; a potential Ukrainian election may be on it; and some fear the reduction of US forces in Europe, crystalising the latter’s sudden existential concern over who now defends it. It remains to be seen what is true.

Yet as pointed out in the Grand Macro Strategy report, realist US statecraft is hardly new. For example, in WW2 President F.D. Roosevelt forced UK PM Churchill to exchange British bases for mothballed WW1-era US destroyers, made the UK pay for US goods until it couldn’t continue, then switched to Lend-Lease with terms preventing Britain from ever re-emerging as an imperial power, reinforced by the US forcing sterling to become convertible again too soon post-WW2, and making it remove its Imperial Preference tariffs.

However, there is now an echo of Nixon going to China for some, and Molotov-Ribbentrop for others. Indeed, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov underlined “high interest” in lifting US-Russia economic barriers, while Secretary of State Rubio stated peace in Ukraine would “unlock” opportunities for cooperation and “some pretty unique, potentially historic economic partnerships.” Which grand strategy logic argues will not involve Europe, not even via cheaper Russian gas, as the market –understanding only macro strategy– prices for it regardless.

Europe is of course outraged, but both France’s Macron and Germany’s Scholz had meetings with Putin without Ukraine present as late as 2022, and Germany regularly worked round it before that. Moreover, it was Macron who told Politico in late 2023 that Europe must resist pressure to become “America’s followers” and the “great risk” Europe faces is getting “caught up in crises that are not ours.”

Regardless, as the talks ended yesterday, rumours flew that Europe would announce a €700bn aid package for Ukraine, which may occur at another emergency EU+UK summit to be held today. If so, we are talking serious money, but equally serious questions arise:

  • How many years is this over? The time value of money is existential when geopolitics is this raw.
  • How will the money be used? Ukraine is already producing as much war materiel as it can, and Europe has refused to shift to a war economy since February 2022.
  • Is €700bn to flow to the EU to create a defence industrial base? If so, where? It needs economies of scale, but that does not allow the entire EU a windfall. And how will the EU not see higher inflation given physical constraints on its capital stock and human capital?
  • Is €700bn to buy US arms and support the US defence industrial complex? The same bottleneck and inflation issues arise there, as well as EU-US trade/capital out/inflows.

These are huge issues of economic statecraft and Grand Macro Strategy for Europe (and the US). However, clearly the EU can back Ukraine fully if it chooses to: it will just have to reorder its political-economy, military, and financial markets to do so.

Indeed, the Financial Times op-ed page today is literally begging Europe to do exactly that. [ . . . ]

Others may: Turkey, NATO’s second-largest military force even if not invited to Monday’s EU summit, has announced it also supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Will it act on that with Europe? If so, how? And what’s the quid pro quo, if any?

Muddying the waters further, President Trump has reiterated he will impose 25% (or higher) tariffs on autos and chips from as soon as 2 April – the former hitting Germany in particular. The market is again taking the view that a week is a long time in politics, and April is a lifetime away. It is – things could be far worse by then.

Meanwhile, a US federal judge has given DOGE the greenlight to continue digging into the government’s systems and books – though how much money is actually being saved remains to be seen: one figure is just $50bn, which is a rounding error in the larger scheme of things.

And geopolitics: don’t think if Europe is being told to spend 5% of GDP on defence that Australia, and even New Zealand, won’t be told to do their bit to contribute towards the US defense of the Indo-Pacific too.

Reset 2.0. – Who is still falling for this?

Rubio said it, so it must be true? We want to believe it, so it must be true?

What actual evidence is there the US intends to do this?

Even as Rubio lies through his teeth to buy time because the US is out of arms/ammo to send Ukraine, he and the rest of the Trump administration is talking about NATO members expanding funding up to 5% of GDP from 2% – NATO, a gun pressed to Russia’s head causing this conflict IN THE FIRST PLACE!

The US is also desperately trying to expand its military industrial base precisely so it can win the next time it wages proxy war against adversaries like Russia.

The US is also openly continuing to pursue an identical conflict with Russia’s ally, China.

Rubio offering peace and partnership with Russia? He can barely say it with a straight face.

Wake. Up.

Follow The New Atlas on Telegram: https://t.me/brianlovethailand

VID_20250218_165633_827.mp4

Is the EU Divorcing the US?

The first thing to remember is that the US is basically bankrupt. It cannot sustain the war in Ukraine anymore. The emperor has no clothes.

The US, in the name of Trump, is willing to sacrifice the European theater of confrontation in order to save itself, as it can afford to do. But for the Europeans living next to Russia the confrontation is close home. They remember the Soviet Union’s shadow over Europe for 70 years and see the present situation ominously resembling that past as well. And Europe is not bankrupt like the US. They want guarantees that Russia is not going to slice one piece after another, swallowing more territory.

It was the US who instigated the war in Ukraine (remember Nuland serving cookies while saying f’ the EU?). Now, as so often in the past, the US cuts it’s loses, wants its investment in Russia back and throws the UE under the bus, while Putin cheers (“they will wag their tails at the feet of Trump”). But surprise! For the first time since WWII, the EU stands its ground. They demand divorce.

Macron leads the Anti-Trump Coalition. He is convening a second summit. This time, countries that were not at the first meeting in Paris are invited. Including Canada. Formally, the Ukrainian crisis is discussed. But in fact, it is a confrontation with Trump.

Macron gives Trump an ultimatum: continue the war against Russia or else.

The question is: is this entire coalition weaker than the United States? But if Macron manages to organize everyone against Trump, then the price of confrontation may be so high for Trump that he may meet Macron and all of Europe halfway.

And this will block US-Russia negotiations on peace in Ukraine. And this is exactly what Macron and the European party are trying to achieve.

Keep on Trumpin’

by By Pepe Escobar via https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/02/11/keep-on-trumpin/
Either Ukraine surrenders unconditionally – or the war show must go on. Meanwhile, let’s Keep on Trumpin’.

Mr. Disco Inferno has reverted to his default mode of throwing tantrum after tantrum because nearly everybody in West Asia and beyond is sayin’ NO to the Gaza Riviera Resort and Casino scam.
Here’s a partial pile-up:
Egypt: the Palestinians will not be ethnic cleansed here, or in Jordan, or anywhere else.
Saudi Arabia: We will not normalize with Israel before there is a sovereign Palestinian state.
Turkey, via Sultan Erdogan: No power can remove Palestinians from their “eternal” homeland.
Arab League: this is a “complete detachment from reality.”
Hamas: there will be no more ceasefire violations.
Iran, via Leader Khamenei: we will NOT negotiate anything with you.
And this is just the beginning.
Russia, via Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov: “Washington’s attempts to give Moscow ultimatums or to demonstrate the alleged ‘big favor’ in exchange for unacceptable U.S. demands are doomed to failure in the dialogue with Russia.”
So we should expect Mr. Disco Inferno to go totally ballistic in the next few days, literally burning the [geopolitical] dancefloor: “Burning, burning (Disco Infernoooooo) / burning burning / burn that mother down”.

Now gimme $500 billion in rare earth metals

Mr. Disco Inferno has stated that under his Gaza Riviera scheme, Palestinians would have no right of return after they are expelled because “they are going to have much better housing.” That will signify the normalization of ethnic cleansing under a Nakba 2.0 on steroids – billed as a “humanitarian” real estate development opportunity in a “phenomenal location”.
It’s no wonder that even feeble Arab vassals of the Empire of Chaos had to reject it. Not to mention that would Nakba 2.0 be implemented, Palestinian armed resistance will go sky-high, with instrumental input by a rejuvenated Hezbollah.
The Trump Gaza Riviera Resort and Casino scheme is essentially reviving an Israeli Ministry of Intelligence deportation framework detailed as early as in October 13, 2023 – and leaked by the Israeli news magazine Calcalist 11 days later.
At the time, the plan called to deport the people of Gaza to north Sinai, after totally “clearing” Gaza and installing them on tent cities in a “closed security zone” within Egypt. This plan was at least partly implemented.
Then, in May 2024, Netanyahu’s office came up with an even more detailed four-step plan which started with – what else – “demolition”. Trump has used the exact terminology to describe Gaza.
The Israeli plan included setting up “Hamas-free zones supervised by an UAE-led coalition; designing “new cities” from scratch; and if everything went swell, rinse and repeat in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. We may be on stage 1 of this plan.
Gaza is in fact the toxic blueprint for a much larger and insidious NATO project, encompassing vast tracts of West Asia, as Israel all the way through has been weaponized by U.S. and UK; Turkey continued to supply it with Azeri oil from the BTC pipeline; and Arab “leadership” has behaved like eunuchs – at least until the announcement of Gaza Riviera.
Compared to the upgraded Forever Wars chapter in West Asia, the Forever Wars chapter in Ukraine is a much tougher proposition.
Mr. Disco Inferno’s much hyped “peace” plan for Ukraine was actually put on hold, as he decided to send his special envoy, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg to the Munich Security Conference to feel the pulse of the NATO vassals.
Translation: let’s cut a deal on all those rare earth metals. The sweaty sweatshirt actor in Kiev is ready to give up all available Ukrainian land and resources to save himself. Problem is the absolute majority of those rare earth metals are in Novorossiya, and already in the possession of Russia.
Mr. Disco Inferno did not beat around the bush:
“They have very valuable lands in terms of rare earth metals, oil and gas. I want our money to be protected, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars. And they may make a deal, they may not. They may become Russian someday, they may not become Russian. But we will have all this money, and I say I want it back. I said I want the equivalent of, say, $500 billion in rare earth metals. And they basically agreed to do that. So at least we don’t feel like fools.”
U.S.-Russia relations “on the verge of rupture”
Kellogg is dismissed in Moscow’s circles of power as “a representative of the U.S. industrial-military complex” and more bluntly, as the proverbial imperial asset: a militarily illiterate Cold War-style general with zero knowledge of geopolitics. Whenever he opens his mouth in public, that is duly confirmed.
Moreover his daughter, Megan Mobbs, is the president of the RT Weatherman Foundation, which since the start of the war in 2022 runs a logistical hub on the border with Romania to evacuate wounded and killed American mercenaries to a medical center in Germany, as well as to deliver different firms of “aid” to Ukraine.
In January 2023, her foundation sponsored Kellogg’s trip to Ukraine, after which he called the U.S. Senate to “provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs to defeat Russia’s military, implement strict accountability measures for that military assistance, and do it now.”
The mood in informed Moscow is that a potential U.S.-Russia negotiation will have less than zero effect on the current plans of Russia’s General Staff. On the battlefield, Russian forces continue to advance and consolidate what is defined as a “road net” – former Ukrainian supply routes -, preparing for better weather in Spring which will potentialize even more their advantage on air power and drones.
Once again it was Ryabkov who laid down the line on what Moscow expects from Trump 2.0:
“The first step towards normalizing bilateral relations, meaning negotiations based on the principles of mutual respect and equality, should be taken by the United States. We are open to dialogue, ready to negotiate in a tough bargaining mode, taking into account the realities ‘on the ground’ and our national interests, predetermined by history and geography. So the decisions and choice are up to Trump and his team.”
The problem is the Empire of Chaos does not do “mutual respect and equality”; it is exceptionalist by definition. The Empire of Chaos does not do “dialog”: it’s always “my way or the highway”. And the memory-impaired Empire of Chaos dismisses both “history and geography”.
After detailing how “relations between Moscow and Washington are balancing on the verge of rupture”; how Russia “sees no practical changes” in the U.S.’s Ukrainian policy; how Moscow and Washington “have not yet agreed on high-level contacts”; and how Moscow “does not expect its relations with Washington to get much better” under Trump 2.0, Ryabkov, as a clincher, in fact already painted the Big Picture ahead:
“Washington’s attempts to give Moscow ultimatums or to demonstrate the alleged ‘big favor’ in exchange for unacceptable U.S. demands are doomed to failure in the dialogue with Russia.”
Neither Trump nor Kellogg seem to have gotten the message.
Not to mention that the CIA is feeding them a comet of stupidities when it comes to the state of the Russian economy.
Russia’s economy grew by 4.1% in 2024. Energy and raw materials continue to be sold across the Global Majority and bring in a lot of revenue which now stays in Russia, because transferring capital out is nearly impossible. So now all profits are invested across Russia, which was not the case before the start of the SMO nearly 3 years ago.
The war may be far away from Moscow – over 1,000 km. But the Russian economy as a whole can now be characterized largely as a war economy. The revival of the arms industry generated a lot of jobs in several provinces and in fact redistributed the flow of money within Russia.
All the bombast coming from Trump, the inanities coming from Kellogg and the massive P.R. to come out of the Munich Security Conference won’t alter facts on the battlefield. There will be no two-bit “ceasefire”. Either Ukraine surrenders unconditionally – or the [war] show must go on. Meanwhile, let’s Keep on Trumpin’.
Original article: Strategic Culture Foundation

From Cold War Rivals to Sore Losers

by Claudiu Secara

In an RT article today, Fyodor Lukyanov makes some hyper-optimistic assertions.

“In many ways, Vance’s critique of the Europeans echoed the same accusations that the settlers of the New World leveled at the Old Continent centuries ago: tyranny, hypocrisy, and parasitism. The rejection of European political traditions laid the ideological foundation for the American state three hundred years ago. Now that dispute over what constitutes real democracy has evolved from an internal American debate into a transatlantic one – and its outcome will shape the future.

Yet the most crucial element of Vance’s speech goes beyond personalities or ideological rifts. It reflects a fundamental shift in global politics. The key question today is whether the Cold War should finally end within the framework of the 20th century or whether it should continue indefinitely. Western Europe insists on the latter – not because of any grand strategy, but because it has failed to integrate its former adversaries peacefully. The US, on the other hand, appears ready to move on.”

Is he naive or plain stupid, or more likely double hypocritical?

There was a time when the new nation of the US had a point. It was all of that, a revolutionary young nation rejecting European feudal tyranny, hypocrisy, and parasitism. The aspiring empire of Russia could have said the same about the feudal Europe. As the upstarts, they both hated and envied European snobbery, arrogance and superiority. And then we had two Wars, not so much World Wars as anti-European wars. Both the US and Russia were drooling at seeing Europe cut down to size, devastated and reduced to a supplicant role.

After WWII, the immensity of the Soviet empire dwarfed not only the leading European countries but even the whole continent. Germany was divided, and at 60 million, the western part was diminished to a quarter of the size of Soviet Union. Looting of German assets by both sides, the Americans and the Soviets, was rampant but hidden from the public. The conscience of the world was even spared knowledge of the rape of some 2 million German women by the occupying American forces. Add to that the Soviets’ free hand over the easten lands.

Now, here we go again. It is the hypocrisy of the same allies that claim Europe is at a dead end, as they try once more to settle their overreached interests at the expense of the battered Europeans.

But a strange thing has happened. Once a divided, quarreling gaggle of small nations, Europe has changed little by little, almost imperceptibly, into the European Union, a union of some 450 million people which suddenly dwarfs the two superpowers, even when combined. Europe is now a superpower on its own.

Has anybody noticed that? Both the US and Russia talk about Europe from a nineteenth-century mindset, like a little dog to be kicked around. They lecture the Europeans as to why they are not up to their own standards and their interests. Both the US and Russia take this superior position, talking about their armies as if all we have to compare is how many tanks or nukes one has. But their economies are in shambles – and that is not what worries them?

It is interesting to note that the Cold War and the post-Cold War economic self-mutilation inflicted by the US and Russia on each other resulted in the emergence of two incontestable winners, outside of their plan. China is the top winner, followed by the European Union. Little considered as a viable entity, the EU is an economic and demographic contender vastly better positioned vis-a-vis both the US and Russia.

This comes as such a surprise to the former adversaries that they are now in a frenzy to close ranks and talk about friendship against their very close former friends. They just discovered how much damage they inflicted on themselves and how far they have fallen behind both China and the EU.

Can they, in a nefarious new alliance, succeed in stabbing the Europeans in the back for the third time?

My money is on Europe this time. The new gambit is just not quite possible. Too late. A third time game of a European war is not going to work. Europe doesn’t need to go to actual hot war. All it needs to do is to keep the two superpowers at a distance in terms of economic separation. Divorce. Neither one of them has the human resources to compete economically, with China, definitely, but neither with old Europe. Europe doesn’t even need the energy resources from either one of the rivals. The eastern Mediterranean is full of gas and oil, and so is the nearby north Africa, never mind the Middle East.

All that the EU needs is to stand up to the hypocrisy of both former superpowers. For Russia, any claim to sovereignty by another small neighbor, like Moldova or Georgia, is labeled “Nazi”. But their own sovereignty is sacrosant, just because they are Mother Russia. Same goes for the US. One day it’s about Woke ideology, another day about democracy. But in fact, they both are lusting imperial bloodsuckers.

Enough. Let’s have a new, revived Europe at one pole and ancient China at the other. Ultimately, it is not about Ukraine. It is about the overreach by two empires, at times naked and at times surreptitious, over other peoples’ lives and lands.

Is Trump’s Grand Strategy a Fallacy like Reagan’s Star War ?

Back in the 1980s, Reagan’s Star Wars program wasn’t just about missile defense—it was a chess move. The Soviets, already dealing with a crumbling economy, were forced into an arms race they couldn’t afford. The U.S. raised the stakes with futuristic-sounding technology, the USSR took the bait, and in the end, the whole system collapsed under its own weight.

Now Trump, who barely understands history beyond what fits into a campaign slogan, thinks he can run the same play. He wants an “Iron Dome for the world,” a missile shield so powerful it would make America untouchable. The goal? Convince China and Russia that they have to spend themselves into oblivion to counter it.

And of course, a big flashy project needs a name. Reagan had Star Wars, so Trump will need something just as ridiculous. Let’s see…

Space Force 2.0: The Art of War – because every scam needs a sequel.
Freedom Dome – because slapping “freedom” on things shuts down debate.
The Trump Dome – the one he’d pick if he thought of it first.

But here’s the issue—this time, the strategy won’t work. China isn’t the USSR. China is an industrial powerhouse, with a manufacturing base that dwarfs America’s and a state-run economy that can redirect resources overnight. If Trump thinks he can bait China into economic overextension, he’s delusional.

Russia? They’ve seen this playbook before. The Kremlin knows the U.S. is trying to trap them in another arms race, and they’re not taking the bait. Instead of getting drawn into Trump’s game, Russia and China are getting closer, strengthening ties, and working on joint defense strategies.

And here’s the kicker—America is the one that can’t afford this fight. Reagan’s strategy worked because the U.S. economy was booming. Now? The U.S. is drowning in debt, bleeding money on endless wars, and losing global influence by the day. If anyone is at risk of collapse, it’s Washington, not Beijing.

Trump thinks he’s playing 4D chess, but he’s about to learn the hard way: The empire can’t run the same trick twice.

Book Recommendation:

Intelligent Warfare: Prospects of Military Development in the Age of AI by Mingxi Wu – because the next world war won’t just be fought with missiles, but with algorithms, machine learning, and autonomous decision-making systems. If you think the U.S. is ahead in this game, think again.

The Pentagon Is Recruiting Elon Musk to Help Them Win a Nuclear War

Algora Ed. Note: What kind of new world peace are we contemplating under Trump’s “revolutionary” changes? Is this the beginning of the “thousand years peace”? Or just another detente as so many in last 150 years, only to be followed by more wars? Why have Musk involved in the technological weapons development if peace is at the door?

by Alan MacLeod via Unz Review

Illustration by MintPress News

Donald Trump has announced his intention to build a gigantic anti-ballistic missile system to counter Chinese and Russian nuclear weapons, and he is recruiting Elon Musk to help him. The Pentagon has long dreamed of constructing an American “Iron Dome.” The technology is couched in the defense language – i.e., to make America safe again. But like its Israeli counterpart, it would function as an offensive weapon, giving the United States the ability to launch nuclear attacks anywhere in the world without having to worry about the consequences of a similar response. This power could upend the fragile peace maintained by decades of mutually assured destruction, a doctrine that has underpinned global stability since the 1940s.

A New Global Arms Race

Washington’s war planners have long salivated at the thought of winning a nuclear confrontation and have sought the ability to do so for decades. Some believe that they have found a solution and a savior in the South African-born billionaire and his technology.

Neoconservative think tank the Heritage Foundation published a video last year stating that Musk might have “solved the nuclear threat coming from China.” It claimed that Starlink satellites from his SpaceX company could be easily modified to carry weapons that could shoot down incoming rockets. As they explain:

Elon Musk has proven that you can put microsatellites into orbit, for $1 million apiece. Using that same technology, we can put 1,000 microsatellites in continuous orbit around the Earth, that can track, engage and shoot down, using tungsten slugs, missiles that are launched from North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China.”

Although the Heritage Foundation advises using tungsten slugs (i.e., bullets) as interceptors, hypersonic missiles have been opted for instead. To this end, a new organization, the Castelion Company, was established in 2023.

Castelion is a SpaceX cutout; six of the seven members of its leadership team and two of its four senior advisors are ex-senior SpaceX employees. The other two advisors are former high officials from the Central Intelligence Agency, including Mike Griffin, Musk’s longtime friend, mentor, and partner.

Castelion’s mission, in its own words, is to be at the cutting edge of a new global arms race. As the company explains:

Despite the U.S. annual defense budget exceeding those of the next ten biggest spenders combined, there’s irrefutable evidence that authoritarian regimes are taking the lead in key military technologies like hypersonic weapons. Simply put – this cannot be allowed to happen.”

The company has already secured gigantic contracts with the U.S. military, and reports suggest that it has made significant strides toward its hypersonic missile goals.

War and Peace

Castelion’s slogan is “Peace Through Deterrence.” But in reality, the U.S. achieving a breakthrough in hypersonic missile technology would rupture the fragile nuclear peace that has existed for over 70 years and usher in a new era where Washington would have the ability to use whatever weapons it wished, anywhere in the world at any time, safe in the knowledge that it would be impervious to a nuclear response from any other nation.

In short, the fear of a nuclear retaliation from Russia or China has been one of the few forces moderating U.S. aggression throughout the world. If this is lost, the United States would have free rein to turn entire countries – or even regions of the planet – into vapor. This would, in turn, hand it the power to terrorize the world and impose whatever economic and political system anywhere it wishes.

If this sounds fanciful, this “Nuclear Blackmail” was a more-or-less official policy of successive American administrations in the 1940s and 1950s. The United States remains the only country ever to drop an atomic bomb in anger, doing so twice in 1945 against a Japanese foe that was already defeated and was attempting to surrender.

President Truman ordered the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a show of force, primarily to the Soviet Union. Many in the U.S. government wished to use the atomic bomb on the U.S.S.R. President Truman immediately, however, reasoned that if America nuked Moscow, the Red Army would invade Europe as a response.

As such, he decided to wait until the U.S. had enough warheads to completely destroy the Soviet Union and its military. War planners calculated this figure at around 400, and to that end—totaling a nation representing one-sixth of the world’s landmass—the president ordered the immediate ramping up of production.

This decision was met with stiff opposition among the American scientific community, and it is widely believed that Manhattan Project scientists, including Robert J. Oppenheimer himself, passed nuclear secrets to Moscow in an effort to speed up their nuclear project and develop a deterrent to halt this doomsday scenario.

In the end, the Soviet Union was able to successfully develop a nuclear weapon before the U.S. was able to produce hundreds. Thus, the idea of wiping the U.S.S.R. from the face of the Earth was shelved. Incidentally, it is now understood that the effects of dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons simultaneously would likely have sparkedvast firestorms across Russia, resulting in the emission of enough smoke to choke the Earth’s atmosphere, block out the sun’s rays for a decade, and end organized human life on the planet.

With the Russian nuclear window closing by 1949, the U.S. turned its nuclear arsenal on the nascent People’s Republic of China.

The U.S. invaded China in 1945, occupying parts of it for four years until Communist forces under Mao Zedong forced both them and their Nationalist KMT allies from the country. During the Korean War, some of the most powerful voices in Washington advocated dropping nuclear weapons on the 12 largest Chinese cities in response to China entering the fray. Indeed, both Truman and his successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, publicly used the threat of the atomic bomb as a negotiating tactic.

Routed on the mainland, the U.S.-backed KMT fled to Taiwan, establishing a one-party state. In 1958, the U.S. also came close to dropping the bomb on China to protect its ally’s new regime over control of the disputed island – an episode of history that resonates with the present-day conflict over Taiwan.

However, by 1964, China had developed its own nuclear warhead, effectively ending U.S. pretensions and helping to usher in the détente era of good relations between the two powers—an epoch that lasted well into the 21st century.

In short, then, it is only the existence of a credible deterrent that tempers Washington’s actions around the world. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has only attacked relatively defenseless countries. The reason the North Korean government remains in place, but those of Libya, Iraq, Syria, and others do not, is the existence of the former’s large-scale conventional and nuclear forces. Developing an American Iron Dome could upset this delicate balance and usher in a new age of U.S. military dominance.

Nuking Japan? OK. Nuking Mars? Even Better!

Musk, however, has downplayed both the probability and the consequences of nuclear war. On The Lex Friedman Podcast, he described the likelihood of a terminal confrontation as “quite low.” And while speaking with Trump last year, he claimedthat nuclear holocaust is “not as scary as people think,” noting that “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, but now they are full cities again.” President Trump agreed.

Video Link

According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, there are over 12,000 warheads in the world, the vast majority of them owned by Russia and the United States. While many consider them a blight on humanity and favor their complete eradication, Musk advocates building thousands more, sending them into space, and firing them at Mars.

Musk’s quixotic plan is to terraform the Red Planet by firing at least 10,000 nuclear missiles at it. The heat generated by the bombs would melt its polar ice caps, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The rapid greenhouse effect triggered, the theory goes, would raise Mars’ temperatures (and air pressure) to the point of supporting human life.

Few scientists have endorsed this idea. Indeed, Dmitry Rogozin, then-head of Russian state space agency Roscosmos, labeled the theory completely absurd and nothing more than a cover for filling space with American nuclear weapons aimed at Russia, China, and other nations, drawing Washington’s ire.

“We understand that one thing is hidden behind this demagogy: This is a cover for the launch of nuclear weapons into space,” he said. “We see such attempts, we consider them unacceptable, and we will hinder this to the greatest extent possible,” he added.

The first Trump administration’s actions, including withdrawing from multiple international anti-ballistic missile treaties, have made this process more difficult.

Elon and the Military-Industrial-Complex

Until he entered the Trump White House, many still perceived Musk as a radical tech industry outsider. Yet this was never the case. From virtually the beginning of his career, Musk’s path has been shaped by his exceptionally close relationship with the U.S. national security state, particularly with Mike Griffin of the CIA.

From 2002 to 2005, Griffin led In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capitalist wing. In-Q-Tel is an organization dedicated to identifying, nurturing, and working with tech companies that can provide Washington with cutting-edge technologies, keeping it one step ahead of its competition.

Griffin was an early believer in Musk. In February 2002, he accompanied Musk to Russia, where the pair attempted to purchase cut-price intercontinental ballistic missiles to start SpaceX. Griffin spoke up for Musk in government meetings, backing him as a potential “Henry Ford” of the tech and military-industrial complex.

After In-Q-Tel, Griffin became the chief administrator of NASA. In 2018, President Trump appointed him the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. While at NASA, Griffin brought Musk in for meetings and secured SpaceX’s big break. In 2006, NASA awarded the company a $396 million rocket development contract – a remarkable “gamble,” in Griffin’s words, especially as it had never launched a rocket. National Geographic wrote that SpaceX “never would have gotten to where it is today without NASA.” And Griffin was essential to this development. Still, by 2008, both SpaceX and Tesla Motors were in dire straits, with Musk unable to make payroll and assuming both businesses would go bankrupt. It was at that point that SpaceX was saved by an unexpected $1.6 billion NASA contract for commercial cargo services.

Today, the pair remain extremely close, with Griffin serving as an official advisor to Castelion. A sign of just how strong this relationship is that, in 2004, Musk named his son “Griffin” after his CIA handler.

Today, SpaceX is a powerhouse, with yearly revenues in the tens of billions and a valuation of $350 billion. But that wealth comes largely from orders from Washington. Indeed, there are few customers for rockets other than the military or the various three-letter spying agencies.

In 2018, SpaceX won a contract to blast a $500 million Lockheed Martin GPS into orbit. While military spokespersons played up the civilian benefits of the launch, the primary reason for the project was to improve America’s surveillance and targeting capabilities. SpaceX has also won contracts with the Air Force to deliver its command satellite into orbit, with the Space Development Agency to send tracking devices into space, and with the National Reconnaissance Office to launch its spy satellites. All the “big five” surveillance agencies, including the CIA and the NSA, use these satellites.

Therefore, in today’s world, where so much intelligence gathering and target acquisition is done via satellite technology, SpaceX has become every bit as important to the American empire as Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. Simply put, without Musk and SpaceX, the U.S. would not be able to carry out such an invasive program of spying or drone warfare around the world.

Global Power

An example of how crucial Musk and his tech empire are to the continuation of U.S. global ambitions can be found in Ukraine. Today, around 47,000 Starlinks operate inside the country. These portable satellite dishes, manufactured by SpaceX, have kept both Ukraine’s civilian and military online. Many of these were directly purchased by the U.S. government via USAID or the Pentagon and shipped to Kiev.

In its hi-tech war against Russia, Starlink has become the keystone of the Ukrainian military. It allows for satellite-based target acquisition and drone attacks on Russian forces. Indeed, on today’s battlefield, many weapons require an internet connection. One Ukrainian official told The Times of London that he “must” use Starlink to target enemy forces via thermal imaging.

The controversial mogul has also involved himself in South American politics. In 2019, he supported the U.S.-backed overthrow of socialist president Evo Morales. Morales suggested that Musk financed the insurrection, which he dubbed a “lithium coup.” When directly charged with his involvement, Musk infamously replied, “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it!” Bolivia is home to the world’s largest lithium reserves, a metal crucial in producing batteries for electric vehicles such as the ones in Musk’s Tesla cars.

In Venezuela last year, Musk went even further, supporting the U.S.-backed far-right candidate against socialist president Nicolás Maduro. He even went so far as to suggest he was working on a plan to kidnap the sitting president. “I’m coming for you Maduro. I will carry you to Gitmo on a donkey,” he said, referencing the notorious U.S. torture center.

More recently, Musk has thrown himself into American politics, funding and campaigning for President Trump, and will now lead Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE’s stated mission is to cut unnecessary and wasteful government spending. However, with Musk at the helm, it seems unlikely that the billions of dollars in military contracts and tax incentives his companies have received will be on the chopping block.

At Trump’s inauguration, Musk garnered international headlines after he gave two Sieg Heil salutes – gestures that his daughter felt were unambiguously Nazi. Musk – who comes from a historically Nazi-supporting family – took time out from criticizing the reaction to his salute to appear at a rally for the Alternative für Deutschland Party. There, he said that Germans place “too much focus on past guilt” (i.e., the Holocaust) and that “we need to move beyond that.” “Children should not feel guilty for the sins of their parents – their great-grandparents even,” he added to raucous applause.

The tech tycoon’s recent actions have provoked outrage among many Americans, claiming that fascists and Nazis do not belong anywhere near the U.S. space and defense programs. In reality, however, these projects, from the very beginning, were overseen by top German scientists brought over after the fall of Nazi Germany. Operation Paperclip transported more than 1,600 German scientists to America, including the father of the American lunar project, Wernher von Braun. Von Braun was a member of both the Nazi Party and the infamous elite SS paramilitary, whose members oversaw Hitler’s extermination camps.

Thus, Nazism and the American empire have, for a long time, gone hand in hand. Far more disturbing than a man with fascist sympathies being in a position of power in the U.S. military or space industry, however, is the ability the United States is seeking for itself to be impervious to intercontinental missile attacks from its competitors.

On the surface, Washington’s Iron Dome plan may sound defensive in nature. But in reality, it would give it a free hand to attack any country or entity around the world in any way it wishes – including with nuclear weapons. This would upend the fragile nuclear peace that has reigned since the early days of the Cold War. Elon Musk’s help in this endeavor is much more worrying and dangerous than any salutes or comments he could ever make.

From MintPress News