Mike Johnson Is Doing Putin's Job for Him

Given how thoroughly Mike Johnson and his MaGA Republicans have crippled American governance in service to Trump, how differently would Putin actually guide them -- because from where I sit, the overlap is nearly total.

Mike Johnson, the First Proudly Trumpian Speaker | The New Yorker

This is worth taking seriously as political analysis. Here's how I'd frame it:

Putin's known strategic wishlist for America:

Russia's two long-standing strategic goals are dominion over Ukraine and the weakening of U.S. power, especially in Europe -- both embedded in its ambition to undo the post-Cold War order. More specifically, Putin knows his military can't defeat NATO conventionally, but he can create enough division from within its ranks to fracture trust across the 32-member alliance. 

And beyond Ukraine, his goal is to regain the position of the Soviet Union of his youth: control over Eastern Europe, most of Central Europe, and at least parts of Southeastern Europe -- in a Europe largely abandoned by the United States. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace + 2

So the script Putin would hand an American Speaker would look something like this:

• Abandon Ukraine or force humiliating terms on Zelensky
• Hollow out NATO's credibility, especially the Article 5 mutual defense commitment
• Create internal American chaos that consumes all political oxygen
• Erode trust in democratic institutions, courts, press, elections
• Alienate European allies so they can't coordinate against Moscow
• Keep America turned inward on culture war and grievance politics
• Weaken the intelligence community's ability to counter Russian ops

Now compare that to what Johnson is actually delivering:

Europeans have been taken aback by Trump's refusal to commit additional assistance to Ukraine and the pressure placed on Kyiv to accept Russian demands, including the formal ceding of sovereignty over seized territory and the abandonment of NATO membership aspirations.

Putin himself pointed out that Trump's national security strategy doesn't name Russia as a direct adversary, asking pointedly:

"How can you prepare NATO for a war with Russia if the main member of NATO doesn't consider us an enemy?"

That's Putin not complaining -- that's Putin gloating publicly.

On the domestic chaos front, Johnson's tenure has been marked by few legislative accomplishments and a series of internal splits that consistently stymied his party's own agenda.

The House Republican conference is so consumed by factional performance politics that basic governance has become nearly impossible -- which is exactly the kind of dysfunction that makes America look weak and ungovernable to the world.

Where would Putin change the script?

Honestly, very little.

If Putin were actually advising Johnson, the additions would be marginal -- maybe push harder on dismantling the intelligence community's Russia-tracking capacity (DOGE cuts to the IC have already helped here), perhaps push for formal U.S. recognition of Russian territorial gains in Ukraine, and encourage more friction with the Baltic states specifically.

But the core program -- institutional erosion, NATO skepticism, Ukraine abandonment, culture war distraction, authoritarian executive consolidation, media delegitimization -- is already running.

Putin wouldn't need to issue new instructions so much as send a thank-you note.

The uncomfortable conclusion: the gap between "what Putin would want" and "what Trump/Johnson/MaGA are doing" is so narrow it barely constitutes a gap.

It's the kind of convergence that doesn't require a conspiracy to explain -- it just requires shared interests in weakening the liberal democratic order, for very different stated reasons.

They don't need to be coordinated to be useful to Moscow.

Any more than those under Trump need a direct call to his illiberal, or illegal actions. They know what he expects. It's what they telegraphed to him for selection. It's what they were hired to do. 

It's also how the Mafia worked. It's how criminal organizations work.

It's Why RICO was created to deal with that criminal universe.

They just need to keep doing exactly what they're doing.

This isn't rocket science. It's not complicated. 

They're not even any longer trying to hide it, any of it.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of  Claude AI 

---

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

The Rationalizations for Trump That No Longer Hold

For years, many Trump supporters who considered themselves informed, pragmatic, or economically literate relied on a set of rationalizations to justify their support. These were not the chants or slogans of rallies, but arguments meant to signal seriousness, realism, and hard-headed judgment.

Looking at the economic disruption, the damage to alliances, and the alignment with authoritarian interests, those rationalizations have largely collapsed.

Below is a clear accounting of what they were, and why they no longer work.

---

Economic Rationalizations

“He’s good for the economy.”
Market volatility, trade retaliation, tariff costs passed to consumers, and weakened long-term confidence have undermined this claim.

“Markets like certainty and strength.”
Erratic policy shifts, impulsive threats, and personal grievances introduced instability, not certainty.

“Short-term pain for long-term gain.”
The long-term plan never materialized. The pain persisted. The gains remained hypothetical.

“He understands business better than politicians.”
Personal enrichment, conflicts of interest, and transactional governance blurred the line between national policy and private benefit.

---

Foreign Policy and National Security Rationalizations

“He’s tough on America’s enemies.”
He consistently antagonized democratic allies while praising or accommodating authoritarian leaders.

“He’s ending endless wars.”
Destabilization without durable diplomatic frameworks increased long-term risk rather than reducing it.

“NATO needed to be shaken up.”
The result was weakened deterrence, emboldened adversaries, and allies questioning American reliability.

“He’s a master negotiator.”
Major deals were abandoned, hollowed out, or left the United States in weaker strategic positions.

---

Governance and Institutional Rationalizations

“He’s draining the swamp.”
Professional expertise was replaced by loyalty tests, nepotism, and ideological purges.

“He’s exposing corruption.”
Ethical violations and politicized institutions became normalized rather than corrected.

“He’s just blunt, not authoritarian.”
Bluntness evolved into open contempt for courts, elections, constitutional limits, and the rule of law.

---

Character and Competence Rationalizations

“Ignore the rhetoric, focus on results.”
Rhetoric became policy. Policy became grievance. Results became damage control.

“He’s playing 4D chess.”
Outcomes consistently reflected improvisation, not strategy.

“The media exaggerates everything.”
Concerns were confirmed by economists, military leaders, allies, courts, and career professionals across institutions.

“He represents American strength.”
Internationally, the United States came to be seen as erratic, unreliable, and internally unstable.

---

Moral and Civic Rationalizations

“He’s a necessary disruption.”
Disruption without reconstruction hollowed institutions instead of reforming them.

“At least he’s honest.”
Persistent falsehoods, contradictions, and revisionism erased that claim.

“The system deserved to be broken.”
Broken systems still require governance. Chaos proved not to be a substitute.

---

The Core Failure

At the center of all these rationalizations was a single belief:
that competence could be separated from character, and outcomes from norms.

That belief no longer holds.

What was dismissed as exaggeration became pattern.
What was framed as strategy revealed itself as impulse.
What was defended as disruption delivered institutional damage.

The rationalizations did not fail because critics were loud.
They failed because reality caught up.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Is Trump Playing 3D Chess, Chess, or Checkers on the World Stage?

Chess demands foresight, coherence, and an understanding of positional dynamics. Trump’s actions on the world stage indicate a persistent unfamiliarity with all three. Effective strategy begins with recognizing the structure of the board itself. Trump’s record suggests that he rarely perceives the board, let alone the strategic relationships that define it.

So, is everything Trump does wrong? No. Paradoxically, his hostility toward NATO helped galvanize and strengthen it, an outcome achieved despite his own dissatisfaction with the alliance and the outcome of his very own actions.

However...

Supporters often claim that Donald Trump is playing “3D chess” on the global stage. The idea is that while critics see chaos, Trump is supposedly executing a deeper, unseen strategy. That claim sounds clever, but when examined through the actual standards of modern statecraft, it does not hold up.

Real geopolitics is not improvisational theater. It is a discipline built on continuity, credibility, coalition management, and long-term consequence modeling. When those fundamentals collapse, what remains is not hidden genius. It is institutional damage.

This is why many analysts, diplomats, and allied governments increasingly interpret Trump’s behavior not as multidimensional strategy, but as something far closer to political checkers.

---

What Genuine Strategic Statecraft Requires

High-level strategy in foreign policy depends on several core pillars:

• Alliance stability and treaty reliability

• Predictable signaling to both allies and adversaries

• Second- and third-order consequence planning

• Coordination between military, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence institutions

• Multi-year or multi-decade planning horizons

Strategy is slow, layered, and disciplined. It is rarely flashy. It is built on consistency, not spectacle.

---

What Trump Actually Practices Instead

Trump’s approach to foreign policy consistently displays a different pattern:

• Transactional bilateral deals instead of alliance-centered diplomacy

• Public attacks on long-time allies

• Open admiration for authoritarian leaders

• Foreign policy conducted through social media theatrics

• Policy reversals that undermine long-term deterrence

• No stable doctrine beyond immediate leverage and attention dominance

This is not multidimensional strategy. It is personal branding fused to impulsive power projection.

---

Why the “3D Chess” Narrative Persists

The myth survives for three main reasons:

First, it acts as failure insulation. Any outcome, even damaging ones, can be reframed as misunderstood brilliance.

Second, it reinforces Trump’s cultivated identity as an unbeatable negotiator. The narrative protects the brand regardless of the results.

Third, it functions as propaganda. It turns visible disorder into supposed hidden mastery without needing evidence.

---

How Europe and U.S. Allies See It

From the perspective of NATO and European governments, Trump’s behavior does not project strength. It injects instability into deterrence systems that depend on clarity and reliability.

When alliance commitments become uncertain, adversaries test boundaries. That is not strategic dominance. That is degraded deterrence.

Instead of strengthening collective security, Trump’s conduct forces allies to prepare for U.S. unpredictability itself.

---

Why “Checkers” Is a More Accurate Metaphor

Checkers is a game of immediate captures. Chess is a game of long-term positional control. Trump’s behavior consistently reflects the former.

• Moves prioritize instant optics over future vulnerability

• Threats are made without defensive coverage

• Short-term attention beats long-term positioning

• Consequences are externalized to institutions and allies

This is not how durable international strategy is built. It is how leverage is burned down for short-term effect.

---

Conclusion

Trump claims strategic depth. What his behavior demonstrates is tactical impulsivity.

The “3D chess” framing functions as marketing, not analysis. It excuses disorder by labeling it genius after the fact. Meanwhile, the real costs show up in weakened alliances, degraded deterrence, and rising global instability.

On the world stage, statecraft remains a multi-layered discipline of patience and structure. What Trump practices instead looks far more like checkers, fast moves, loud captures, and little protection for what comes next.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The New Appeasement: What If We Treated World War II the Way We Handle Aggression Today?

There is a hard truth many leaders in the West do not want to face:

If this cautious, incremental, risk-averse mindset had guided the democracies of the 1930s and 1940s, we would be living in a very different world today. We would not be talking about defending democracy in Ukraine. We would be talking about how democracy died a lifetime ago.

Hesitation always extracts a price. Caution, when elevated into a governing principle without forward motion, becomes paralysis. Moral clarity, delayed long enough, stops being clarity at all. It curdles into complicity. Caution is defensible only when it leads to action. When it does not, it becomes an accomplice.

A World Afraid to Act

What has defined the last three years of Western policy toward Russia is not strategy. It is fear.
Fear of escalation.
Fear of economic disruption.
Fear of political backlash at home.
Fear of provoking a cornered dictator.
Fear of the unknown if Russia actually loses.

This is not the mindset of a global coalition committed to defending freedom. It is the mindset of leaders who want stability more than justice, comfort more than courage.

Imagine this posture during World War II.

If 2025 Mentality Had Guided 1941

Picture a United States and Britain debating whether to send outdated tanks to the Soviet Union because better ones might “provoke Hitler.”
Picture leaders arguing that striking German industrial sites would be “escalatory.”
Picture endless meetings about whether bombing rail lines carrying Jews to death camps might “worsen the situation.”

This is the world we would get under today’s doctrine of careful steps, incremental supply, and never doing anything that might upset a dictator.

Hitler counted on that.
Putin counts on it now.

Comfort Over Courage

In today’s Europe and America, political leaders often frame caution as wisdom.
They talk about “avoiding World War III.”
They talk about “managing escalation.”
They talk about “strategic patience.”

But patience for whom?
Patience for what?

Because what Ukraine experiences every day is not patience. It is destruction.
What Russia experiences is not fear. It is opportunity.

Western caution is not slowing Russia. It is giving Russia room to adapt, reorganize, recruit, and push forward. It is giving Russia time to turn a temporary invasion into a permanent occupation.

In the 1930s we had a word for this. It was called appeasement.

History Does Not Reward Cowardice

The truth is simple.
When democracies fear doing the right thing more than they fear the triumph of authoritarianism, the authoritarians win.

This is not about starting a war with Russia.
It is about preventing Russia from rewriting the map of Europe by force.
It is about preventing the collapse of the basic principle that borders cannot be erased by tanks.
It is about preventing a world where democracies tiptoe around dictators while dictators do whatever they want.

If that principle dies, we do not just lose Ukraine.
We lose the 20th century.

The Hard Lesson From WWII

The democracies eventually won World War II.
But not because they were cautious.
Not because they managed risk.
Not because they calibrated support in small increments and waited to see if Hitler got upset.

They won because they finally decided that survival of free society required courage.
The willingness to act.
The willingness to take risks.
The willingness to accept sacrifice.

Today the West has convinced itself that courage is reckless, that decisive support is too dangerous, that standing firm against a nuclear-armed dictator is irresponsible.

But the alternative is not peace.
The alternative is the slow death of the international order that has preserved peace for eighty years.

We Are At a Historical Fork

When future generations ask what happened in this era, they will ask one question above all others:

Did the democracies stand up when it mattered, or did they hide behind excuses while another autocracy trampled its neighbor?

Because history is clear.
Freedom survives when free nations choose courage.
Authoritarianism spreads when they choose fear.

Right now, too many Western leaders are choosing fear.
And that choice, if allowed to continue, will not just cost Ukraine. It will cost us all.

The West keeps telling itself that caution is strength.
But caution in the face of aggression is not strength. It is surrender in slow motion.

If this is the posture we adopt when a nuclear-armed dictator redraws borders by force, then what exactly is the red line? What principle are we still willing to defend? How many democracies must fall before we remember that deterrence is not built on fear. It is built on the credibility that free nations will act when it matters.

Ukraine is not asking us to fight their war.
They are asking us not to be cowards in ours.

History will not judge us by how carefully we tiptoed around Vladimir Putin.
It will judge us by whether we chose courage while we still had the chance.

Because if we wait until the cost of defending democracy becomes unbearable, the lesson of WWII will repeat itself in the worst possible way:

We will find ourselves fighting a much bigger war, against a much stronger tyranny, at a far higher price, all because we failed to stop it when it was still possible.

Courage is cheaper than regret.
We need to start acting like it.

We NEED to end this, and NOT in Russia's, in Putin's, favor. What do we not get about NOT rewarding this kind of behaviors?

While this is not World War II, it is our moment in history, and we cannot allow Putin to repeat the mistakes the world once paid for in blood. IF we do, it's just pushing down the road, a repeat, more death, when only one is really called for. 

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Putin, Dugin, and Trump: The Geopolitical Challenge Facing America

Alexander Dugin is a Russian philosopher, political theorist, and strategist known for his far-right and nationalist ideas. He is considered one of the most influential intellectuals behind Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical vision and has developed a distinctive worldview that challenges Western liberalism, democracy, and globalism.

Who is Alexander Dugin?

Dugin is often associated with the ideology of Eurasianism, which emphasizes the idea that Russia, rather than being a part of Europe or Asia, should lead a unique Eurasian civilization. He is a vocal critic of liberal democracy and Western values, seeing them as threats to the survival of traditional Russian culture, values, and political systems. His philosophy blends Russian Orthodox Christianity, traditionalism, nationalism, and anti-modernism. Dugin is also a prominent advocate for an authoritarian system that rejects the principles of liberal democracy, which he believes lead to decadence, moral decay, and societal breakdown.

Dugin’s work, particularly his book "Foundations of Geopolitics", has been highly influential within certain circles of Russian politics and military strategy. His vision of a "multipolar world" contrasts with the Western-led "unipolar" world order, which he sees as dominated by the U.S. and its allies. He advocates for a new international order, where Russia plays a central role, asserting itself against the West.

Putin’s Relationship with Dugin’s Beliefs

Putin’s policies and rhetoric, especially in recent years, reflect a certain alignment with Dugin’s ideas, particularly regarding nationalism, anti-liberalism, and anti-Western sentiments. Although it’s difficult to say how directly Putin subscribes to Dugin's specific philosophy, Dugin has been described as a key ideological figure whose ideas resonate with the Kremlin’s foreign and domestic policies. Here are the key ways Putin has embraced Dugin’s beliefs:

1. Anti-Western Sentiment:

   • Both Dugin and Putin are staunchly critical of Western liberalism, seeing it as morally corrupt, decadent, and a threat to Russia’s traditional values. Putin has positioned Russia as a defender of conservative and Christian values in opposition to what he perceives as the permissiveness and liberalism of the West.

   • Dugin’s ideas, particularly the rejection of liberal democracy, mirror Putin’s own distrust of Western-style political systems and his promotion of a strong, centralized state under his control.

2. Eurasianism and Russia’s Role in Global Politics:

   • Dugin’s philosophy of Eurasianism calls for Russia to assert its dominance over the Eurasian landmass, rejecting the West's political and cultural dominance. This has been reflected in Putin’s foreign policy, especially in his actions in Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics, where he has sought to reassert Russian influence and challenge Western power.

   • Dugin envisions Russia leading a coalition of countries (often referred to as the "Eurasian bloc"), which would challenge the global order dominated by the U.S. and Europe. Putin’s actions in Ukraine and Syria can be seen as part of this broader vision of establishing Russia as a counterbalance to U.S. hegemony.

3. The Rejection of Globalism:

   • Dugin is a vocal critic of globalism, the idea that countries should be governed by global institutions and international norms. He believes that this undermines national sovereignty and leads to the erosion of cultural and religious identities.

   • Putin has positioned Russia as a champion of national sovereignty, particularly in opposition to Western-led international institutions like the European Union (EU) and NATO. He has used rhetoric that positions Russia as a defender of the "multipolar world," a world where power is not concentrated in the hands of a few Western countries.

What They Are Doing to Support These Beliefs Against America and for Russia

1. Ukraine and the "Eurasian Sphere":

   • One of the most significant actions taken by Russia under Putin that aligns with Dugin’s beliefs is the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014, followed by the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. This move was justified by Putin as necessary to protect Russian speakers and culture, but it also fits within the broader Eurasian vision of reasserting Russian influence in territories once part of the Soviet Union.

   • Dugin has openly supported these actions, viewing them as part of Russia’s rightful return to its place as the leader of a Eurasian bloc. He also sees Ukraine as a critical part of this vision, often referring to it as the "heartland" of Eurasia.

2. Promotion of Anti-Liberal Values:

   • Putin has sought to promote Russian Orthodox Christianity as a unifying force in Russia, positioning it against the secularism of the West. This resonates with Dugin’s traditionalist views, which stress the importance of religion in society and politics.

   • Russia’s opposition to LGBTQ+ rights, its push for conservative family values, and its crackdown on opposition movements all align with Dugin’s idea of a society that rejects liberal freedoms in favor of order and traditionalism.

3. Cyber Warfare and Disinformation:

   • Russia, under Putin’s leadership, has been accused of using cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns to destabilize Western democracies, particularly the U.S. during the 2016 presidential election. This aligns with Dugin’s idea of undermining Western influence and sowing chaos in the political systems of liberal democracies.

   • Dugin’s geopolitical ideas also encourage the use of unconventional methods to achieve strategic goals, including the use of information warfare to destabilize the U.S. and European Union.

4. Energy and Economic Influence:

   • Russia has leveraged its control over energy supplies, especially natural gas and oil, as a tool of geopolitical influence. By using energy as leverage, Russia under Putin has sought to deepen its ties with Eurasian countries while also undermining Western sanctions and economic influence.

   • This economic strategy is part of a broader effort to reduce Russia’s dependence on the West and assert its dominance within the Eurasian region.

Dugin’s ideas, particularly his vision of a multipolar world led by Russia and his rejection of liberal Western values, resonate with Putin’s worldview and have influenced many of his policies. While the extent of their personal relationship and alignment is not fully clear, it is evident that Putin has adopted certain aspects of Dugin’s philosophy, especially in terms of nationalism, anti-Western rhetoric, and the quest for Russian dominance in Eurasia. Together, they advocate for a Russia that pushes back against American global leadership and the liberal international order, positioning Russia as a defender of tradition, sovereignty, and an alternative vision for global politics.

Putin's connection to various philosophers and ideologies, including figures like Alexander Dugin, is often viewed through a complex and controversial lens. Dugin, in particular, is known for his far-right, nationalist, and anti-liberal views, advocating for Eurasianism, which emphasizes Russia's unique role in world history and its need to assert its power against the West.

Critics of Dugin and his philosophy argue that his ideas are deeply problematic, even dangerous, and foster a worldview that is deluded or extreme. They point out that his approach often relies on conspiracy theories, anti-democratic sentiments, and a rejection of modernity. Whether he is "stupid," "deluded," or "insane" largely depends on one's perspective. Some might argue that Dugin's ideas are misguided and dangerous, while others might see them as strategic in promoting a certain vision for Russia.

It's a highly subjective matter, with critics often calling his ideas intellectually dishonest or harmful, while supporters view him as a visionary seeking to challenge Western dominance. Ultimately, the label depends on the values and beliefs of those doing the evaluating.

The beliefs and actions of Trump, Bannon, Putin, and Dugin share certain themes, but they are not perfectly aligned, and the connections are complex.

1. Nationalism and Populism:

• Trump and Bannon: Both Trump and Bannon have espoused strong nationalist and populist rhetoric. Trump’s "America First" approach, with a focus on prioritizing U.S. interests, echoes a populist desire to challenge global elites and institutions. Bannon, as a strategist, championed similar themes, promoting a right-wing, anti-establishment ideology that sought to upend the liberal international order.

• Putin and Dugin: Similarly, Putin’s Russia under his leadership has embraced a form of nationalism, particularly in opposition to Western influence. Dugin’s philosophy, particularly his concept of Eurasianism, aligns with this by emphasizing Russia’s role as a unique civilization, distinct from the West.

2. Anti-Globalism:

• Trump and Bannon: Both Trump and Bannon have been critical of international institutions and agreements. Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, along with Bannon's criticism of globalist elites, reflects a shared skepticism of global governance and institutions like the EU and UN.

• Putin and Dugin: Putin’s opposition to NATO and the European Union, alongside Dugin's advocacy for Russian supremacy in Eurasia, also fits into an anti-globalist narrative, though with a more explicitly authoritarian and imperialistic bent. Dugin often critiques liberal democracy as part of a Western-led globalist project that he believes undermines national sovereignty.

3. Anti-Liberalism:

• Trump and Bannon: Trump's actions often targeted liberal values, especially in areas like immigration, civil rights, and press freedom. Bannon has been a vocal critic of liberalism and often associates it with globalism and what he perceives as a threat to traditional values and sovereignty.

• Putin and Dugin: Putin’s governance in Russia has consistently undermined liberal democratic values, with crackdowns on dissent, the press, and LGBTQ+ rights. Dugin’s philosophy, with its rejection of liberal democracy, aligns with this anti-liberalism, advocating instead for a more authoritarian, conservative, and hierarchical society.

4. Relations with the West:

• Trump and Bannon: While Trump often expressed admiration for Putin and appeared open to closer ties with Russia, especially during the 2016 election, his administration maintained policies that were at odds with Russian interests, such as sanctions on Russia and support for NATO. Bannon, too, has expressed admiration for the strength and sovereignty of nations like Russia, although his strategic thinking was more focused on undermining Western globalism.

• Putin and Dugin: Putin, particularly under Dugin's influence, has seen Russia as a counterbalance to Western liberalism, viewing the U.S. and Europe as rivals in the ideological and geopolitical struggle for global influence. Dugin's vision calls for Russia to lead a broader Eurasian bloc to challenge the Western-dominated world order.

In summary, there are some overlapping themes, particularly the opposition to globalism, liberalism, and the embrace of nationalism, but the alignment between Trump, Bannon, Putin, and Dugin is not straightforward. Trump's and Bannon's views are more focused on national sovereignty and populism from a Western, American context, while Putin and Dugin’s philosophy is rooted in Russian imperialism and Eurasianism. The alignment tends to be more about shared anti-establishment, anti-liberal views, rather than an exact match in ideology or strategy.

In dealing with the rising geopolitical tensions involving Russia, particularly in the context of Putin's policies and the influence of figures like Dugin, there are several strategies that America could pursue to safeguard its interests and uphold democratic values. The role of leadership, especially in the presidency, is critical to how effectively the U.S. navigates these challenges.

What Should America Do?

1. Strengthen Alliances and Multilateral Cooperation:

   • NATO and EU Relations: A strong, united NATO is critical to countering Russian aggression and preserving global security. The U.S. must work closely with NATO members, especially in Eastern Europe, to ensure that collective defense is robust, and that Russia's attempts to weaken the alliance are thwarted.

   • Diplomacy with Allies: The U.S. needs to strengthen diplomatic ties with its European allies and other democracies around the world. This will help create a coordinated response to Russian expansionism and the spread of anti-democratic ideologies.

2. Countering Russian Influence and Disinformation:

   • The U.S. must continue to combat disinformation campaigns and cyberattacks originating from Russia. This includes protecting U.S. electoral processes, critical infrastructure, and countering Russian-backed propaganda both at home and abroad.

   • Cybersecurity should be a top priority, ensuring that both government and private sector systems are resistant to cyberattacks and influence operations.

3. Support for Democracy and Human Rights:

   • The U.S. needs to be a consistent voice for human rights and democratic values around the world, including pushing back against autocratic regimes like Russia’s. Supporting civil society organizations, journalists, and opposition leaders in countries like Russia and Belarus is essential to promoting freedom and democracy globally.

   • Sanctions should continue to be a tool for holding Putin’s government accountable for human rights abuses, corruption, and aggression toward neighboring countries. However, sanctions need to be strategically designed to target key figures and industries, while minimizing harm to ordinary citizens.

4. Energy and Economic Strategies:

   • The U.S. should focus on energy independence and strengthening its position in global energy markets. This will help reduce European dependence on Russian energy exports, making it more difficult for Russia to use energy as a geopolitical weapon.

   • Economic sanctions on Russian oligarchs and key industries that fund the Russian regime should be maintained and expanded to put pressure on Putin’s inner circle.

5. Support Ukraine and Other At-Risk States:

   • The U.S. must continue to support Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression, providing military aid, economic support, and diplomatic backing.

   • Expanding partnerships with countries in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and other former Soviet republics is vital in creating a buffer zone to prevent further Russian territorial expansion.

Do We Need to Avoid Having Someone Like Trump in Office?

The question of leadership in the U.S. is crucial in determining how effectively the country can respond to the current global challenges posed by Russia. Here are some key considerations:

1. Coherent Foreign Policy:

   • Under Trump, U.S. foreign policy was often characterized by unpredictability and isolationism. Trump's "America First" rhetoric led to withdrawing from international agreements and undermining multilateral institutions, such as NATO, and distanced the U.S. from long-standing alliances. This created openings for authoritarian regimes like Russia to exploit divisions and weaknesses within the West.

   • A more consistent and cooperative approach to foreign policy, with a focus on strengthening alliances and promoting democratic values, is critical to countering Russian influence. Leaders who prioritize diplomacy, multilateralism, and a commitment to global institutions are better equipped to handle the complexities of a world where authoritarian regimes are challenging liberal democracies.

2. Values and Leadership:

   • Trump’s admiration for Putin and other authoritarian leaders raised concerns about the U.S.'s commitment to promoting democracy and human rights globally. A president who is less sympathetic to autocrats and more committed to upholding democratic values would be better suited to leading the U.S. in the face of Russian and other authoritarian threats.

   • Leadership that is aligned with democratic principles, like rule of law and respect for human rights, would help restore credibility on the world stage. A leader who consistently supports the liberal international order and defends the rights of nations to self-determination is crucial for U.S. leadership in countering Russia’s geopolitical ambitions.

3. Diplomatic Engagement vs. Isolation:

   • Trump’s tendency toward unilateralism, such as withdrawing from agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, undermined U.S. credibility and made it harder for America to lead global coalitions. A more engaged, diplomatic approach, where the U.S. works with allies and partners to address shared challenges, is essential for confronting Russia’s growing influence.

   • The U.S. should prioritize engagement with both its allies and neutral countries, presenting a united front against authoritarianism, while avoiding isolationist policies that could embolden Russia and other adversaries.

4. Domestic Stability and Unity:

   • A strong domestic foundation is critical for addressing foreign threats. The divisions within the U.S. during Trump’s presidency—exemplified by polarized political discourse, misinformation, and attacks on democratic institutions—undermined America’s ability to project a coherent and united front internationally.

   • A president who can bridge divides within the U.S., promote civic trust, and work to restore the integrity of democratic institutions would strengthen the country’s resilience in facing external challenges, including Russia’s attempts to undermine democracy.

Conclusion

To effectively counter the threats posed by Russia, the U.S. needs to pursue a multifaceted strategy that includes strengthening alliances, combating disinformation, supporting democratic movements, and maintaining economic and military pressure on authoritarian regimes. The role of the president is central in shaping the U.S.'s response to these challenges. Leadership that emphasizes global cooperation, democratic values, and consistent foreign policy is essential to confronting Russia’s ambitions, especially when it comes to safeguarding American interests and the international order.

Given the complexities of the current geopolitical landscape, it’s crucial that the U.S. has a president who is committed to democratic principles and multilateral cooperation, which would suggest that a figure like Trump—who has shown a pattern of undermining these values—may not be the best fit to lead the country through these difficult times.

Trump, and those who support him... have GOT to GO, and do so, or be mean to do so...ASAP.

NATO Article 5 & the Cyber Battlefield: NATO's Response to Big Tech & Election Interference

'Unveiling the Truth: Election Result Discrepancies, Nathan Taylor from Election Truth Alliance'

The text (and the rest on that page) raises several concerning points about potential vulnerabilities in election security, particularly involving private companies and the influence of powerful individuals. 

First, let's reshare, from the Marsh singing family at @marshsongs (music video):"The people of Europe stand with Ukraine against the threat of a false peace as much as a brutal war. Because of our shared history. Because of our shared future. Because it is just. Because it is necessary. And because they deserve nothing less. Don't abandon them. #SlavaUkraini"

Moving on...

NATO considering Article 5 in relation to election interference, particularly involving cyber threats, would represent a significant shift in how the alliance addresses non-traditional security threats. Article 5 has historically been invoked in response to direct military aggression, but as cyber warfare becomes an increasingly potent tool for state and non-state actors, NATO's willingness to consider it in the context of election security reflects the growing complexity of modern geopolitical threats.

The concern about private entities, like Elon Musk's Starlink satellites or companies involved in election infrastructure, potentially being used as vectors for foreign influence or cyber attacks is valid. If these technologies are misused to interfere in democratic processes, it could undermine national security in ways that traditional military responses cannot address.

Article 5's potential invocation in this context would signal a recognition that cybersecurity is as critical as physical borders in protecting democratic institutions. However, for NATO to take such a step, the evidence must be compelling enough to justify collective defense measures. This raises concerns about transparency, accountability, and the mechanisms for determining whether an attack—cyber or otherwise—warrants such a high-level response.

In summary, NATO's consideration of Article 5 in relation to cyber and election-related interference is a reflection of evolving security dynamics. It would underscore the need for robust cyber defenses and international cooperation to safeguard democracy from both state and corporate threats. However, it also raises questions about how we define and respond to threats in an increasingly interconnected world.

The commentary on that website is a very intricate and complex theory, linking multiple events and companies together. It might help to take a step back and provide a critical perspective, questioning the plausibility of some connections, while also acknowledging that the subject of cybersecurity and election integrity deserves serious discussion. 

Here's a potential comment:

"While there are certainly concerns about cybersecurity and election integrity, this theory ties together a lot of disparate elements and relies on some speculative connections. For example, linking Musk's satellite network and certain election-related products to far-right individuals and claiming a coordinated effort to influence the election raises important questions but also requires strong evidence to be taken seriously. It's important to differentiate between genuine concerns about security and potential misinterpretations of complex systems. Regardless, the issue of election security, especially in the digital age, should be addressed with transparency and accountability to ensure the trust of all citizens."

This response allows one to engage with the content while also emphasizing the importance of evidence and a measured approach to such claims.

Here’s a breakdown of the major concerns:

1. Security and Technology in Election Systems: The mention of far-right individuals, like Leonard Leo and Peter Thiel, having significant influence over election security companies is troubling. The idea that these figures could have access to critical infrastructure—such as voting machines and election-related servers—raises the question of whether there is a conflict of interest that could undermine the integrity of elections.

2. Private Sector Influence: The involvement of companies like Palantir and Eaton Corp., with ties to both government agencies and private interests, is concerning. If these companies are playing a central role in election systems, it’s essential that their practices are transparent and accountable to prevent any potential exploitation for partisan purposes.

3. Elon Musk and the Starlink Network: The argument that Musk’s satellite network could be used as a tool for interference is speculative but worth considering. If a private entity has such widespread access to communication infrastructure, it could pose security risks that need to be addressed by regulators. The question of why Musk would rapidly deploy a network of satellites before an election also deserves scrutiny, especially if there’s a possibility of misuse.

4. Foreign Influence and Propaganda: The connection between Russian oligarchs and Elon Musk, as well as the alleged shift in Musk’s political messaging after the Ukraine invasion, touches on a broader concern about foreign influence in U.S. elections. Any potential connections between U.S. figures and foreign powers must be carefully monitored to avoid compromising democratic processes.

5. Motive and Speculation: The theory about Ukraine's mineral resources and the electric vehicle market adds an element of geopolitical interest to the mix, but it’s based on speculation. While it’s reasonable to ask why powerful figures like Musk and others are involved in certain markets or political movements, drawing conclusions without hard evidence can weaken the argument.

Overall, these concerns point to the need for increased scrutiny and regulation of both election infrastructure and the growing influence of private corporations in critical democratic processes. However, they also highlight the importance of separating legitimate concerns from unfounded speculation in order to address these issues effectively. It’s crucial to prioritize transparency, accountability, and evidence-based investigations when it comes to election integrity.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

What Category of Russian Asset IS Donald Trump? Yes, "Useful Idiot" Or Other...He Most Definitely IS One.

Is Trump a Russian asset? There is NO question about this. While he's not "run" by Russia, he clearly is in a state of always wanting to please Vladimir Putin. That's enough. At worst he is a direct asset, at least he is a "Useful Idiot", as he has proven time and time again.

Donald Trump is not a very educated, or very smart man. He is however a clever con man. The two are not the same.

The confusion comes in that he WAS once very well "educated" as a verb, but not very well educated as an adverb. On the one hand, "educated" as an adjective describes a state—you are then educated once you have undergone that process and acquired knowledge or skills.

When I was in university, I knew students who coasted through school, while I was studying nearly every second of every day. I entered higher education after serving in the military, so I was a bit older and more mature than most of my peers. I was using my VA benefits and felt a strong sense of obligation to make the most of those public funds. I was confident that I would leave with a better education than many of my friends. While some seemed to barely study, party often, and still had a natural brilliance that would serve them well after college, they were few and far between. As for the others, I knew some would struggle in the business world, while others, like Trump, seemed to fail upward, as if luck followed them around.

I was rewarded with my psychology department adviser once telling me that I was one of the top 10% of the top 10% of all psychology undergrads at any university. I questioned him on that, thinking he was just being nice. But he thought for a moment and then replied that he believed he was being very accurate in his assessment. Rough calculations on that offer being a part of 3,750 students. While that may be a lot, it's a nice group to be grouped within. And not the greater number of 337,500 psychology university students.

I only mention that to say, while I was tested at a higher than normal IQ, I'm no genius. I worked very hard for my education. To clarify that, my grades might not reflect it in you check my transcript. I remember thinking about that one day at university. I realized I could get an "A" on a paper, or I could instead get a lower grade but learn a lot more (that's the case, I won't bother here to justify the correctness of that). I took the education and knowledge over the better grade. After graduating no one ever checked my grades, just that I had the degree. I felt I made the correct decision.

Acquiring a university degree does not make one smart. You have to choose to do that. If you feel you are coasting, you're not trying hard enough. When you think you're at your limits, you're on the right path. Challenge yourself. Push your limits. I was always talking to my professors, mining their minds for all I could. Asking for more work. Taking the harder road to learn as much as possible. 

Trump, I am confident in saying, never did that. Just to talk to him you can see that is clear. No one ever said that about me after a conversation. 

One MUST maintain one's college degree over one's lifetime. Which Trump has never done. Because he's a narcissist and a very lazy man when it comes to intellectual pursuits. See, narcissists don't need to maintain or increase their perceived "brilliance" or "genius", because to them it's inherent. Trump's mind is akin to an over-ripened Durian fruit no one wanted. 

Where Trump stumbles into his ignorance being exposed, he avoids, feigns competence, deflects, misdirects, answers with a question or questions the questioner (or attacks the veracity of the questioner), manipulates, bullies, dissembles, tangents off from, obfuscates, minimizes, or lies. Or find a way to agree with the other person, in such a way so as to appear to be correct, only in a tangential, often ridiculous way, where often, people are so uncomfortable they merely wish for the situation to end and to move onto something, anything, else. 

People like Trump rely on that uncomfortableness. He also enjoys power abuse, which is another issue entirely (i.e., saying he was and doing it, brushing off "dandruff" from the shoulders of the President of France, a disgusting display of narcissistic abuse or power manipulation, humiliating power play, or dominance display. Putrid, small men do this who wish to appear powerful. It is not presidential. But when you're leader of the most powerful and richest country in the history of the world, what are others supposed to do to correct this type of bad behavior. Yeah, it's a trap. Like Trump abusing shaking hards obnoxiously, and pulling people into him. Something those of larger physical stature do when they are bullies.

The term "Russian asset" in espionage refers to individuals or entities that serve the interests of Russian intelligence agencies by providing information, influence, or support. In the case of former U.S. President Donald Trump, there is no definitive evidence to classify him as a Russian asset in the traditional espionage sense. However, his actions and associations have led to extensive scrutiny and debate regarding his relationship with Russia.

Associations and Financial Ties:

• Business Dealings: Trump's business activities have included dealings with entities linked to Russia. For instance, Deutsche Bank, which provided Trump with substantial loans, was implicated in facilitating Russian money laundering schemes. Trump's son, Donald Jr., remarked in 2008 that "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets."

  Wikipedia

• Campaign Connections: Investigations have revealed interactions between Trump associates and Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign. Notably, Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, had ties to Konstantin Kilimnik, alleged to be a Russian intelligence officer.

  Wikipedia

Public Perceptions and Claims:

• Some commentators have suggested that Trump's actions align with those expected of a Russian asset, citing his favorable stance toward Russia and President Vladimir Putin. For example, an article in Foreign Policy posited that Trump's behavior mirrors that of a Russian asset.

  Foreign Policy

• Conversely, fact-checking efforts have debunked specific claims, such as allegations that Trump was recruited by the KGB in the 1980s under the codename "Krasnov." These claims lack credible evidence.

  Euronews

While Donald Trump's actions and associations with Russian entities have raised questions about his relationship with Russia, there is no conclusive evidence to label him as a Russian asset in the espionage context. The available information suggests a complex interplay of business interests, political interactions, and public perceptions, but it does not substantiate claims of espionage or covert allegiance.

an asset doesn't necessarily have to be directly recruited by a foreign intelligence service to be considered a "useful asset" in espionage. The key point is whether the actions of that individual or entity benefit the interests of the country in question—in this case, Russia—regardless of direct involvement in espionage activities. Based on that, Donald Trump's actions and positions can be analyzed from a broader perspective to see how they could be interpreted as benefiting Russian interests, even if there’s no direct proof of him being a Russian spy.

Potential "Asset" Traits:

1. Favorable Rhetoric Toward Russia and Putin:

   • Throughout his presidency and beyond, Trump often expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin. His reluctance to criticize Putin, even in the face of accusations of Russian interference in U.S. elections and aggression in Ukraine, could be seen as aligning with Russian interests.
   • For example, his comments like, "I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia", when questioned about Russia's interference in the 2016 election, were controversial and raised concerns about his stance on Russian actions.

2. Foreign Policy Decisions:

   • Trump’s foreign policy was seen by some as favorable to Russian interests. His decisions, such as withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, weakening NATO, and suggesting that the U.S. should reduce its commitments to the alliance, were viewed as aligning with Russia's goal of weakening Western unity.
   • His attempts to warm relations with Russia, including meetings with Putin, were perceived as potentially beneficial for Russia’s global position.

3. Business Ties with Russia:

   • Trump had numerous business ties to Russian entities, especially through his real estate dealings. The Trump Organization explored projects in Russia, though none materialized during his presidency, leading some to argue that Trump’s reluctance to challenge Russia could be influenced by potential business interests.
   • The claim by his son, Donald Jr., in 2008, that "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets" suggests that there were significant financial ties that may have been considered beneficial to Russian interests.

4. Public Perception and Influence:

   • Some analysts have argued that Trump’s divisive rhetoric, which often undermined democratic institutions and supported populist causes, played into Russian strategies to create instability in Western democracies.
   • His support for far-right movements, and skepticism about liberal democracies and NATO, could be seen as unwittingly helping Russian efforts to weaken these institutions and advance its geopolitical goals.

5. Cybersecurity and Election Interference:

   • The Russian government's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election through hacking and disinformation campaigns was widely recognized as an effort to benefit Trump’s candidacy. While Trump himself wasn’t directly involved in the hacking, his victory (and the narrative of Russian support for him) helped sow division in the U.S. political system, benefiting Russian interests.
   • Trump's dismissiveness of the investigations into Russian interference, combined with his public statements questioning the legitimacy of U.S. intelligence agencies, helped cast doubt on the U.S. government's response to Russian actions.

If we look at the broader concept of what makes someone an asset in espionage—being someone whose actions or positions benefit the foreign power’s interests—then Donald Trump’s rhetoric, policy decisions, and business connections can certainly be interpreted as beneficial to Russian objectives. While there's no definitive evidence that he was knowingly acting as a "Russian agent" or that he was directly influenced by Russian intelligence agencies, his actions during his presidency and beyond have consistently aligned with Russian strategic interests, making him, in the eyes of some, a kind of unwitting asset.

This perspective doesn't require a direct line of accountability or recruitment by Russian intelligence, but rather a view that his actions indirectly served Russian goals on the global stage.

Analyzing former U.S. President Donald Trump's actions through the lens of benefiting Vladimir Putin involves assessing both direct and indirect influences over varying timeframes. While definitive evidence of covert collaboration is lacking, several actions during Trump's tenure suggest alignment with Russian interests.

Near-Term Benefits (2017–2021):

1. Policy Decisions Favoring Russia:

   • NATO Relations: Trump's expressed desire to reintegrate Russia into the G7, stating, "I’d love to have them back," was seen as a move that could benefit Putin's global standing.
     Politico Europe
   • Ukraine Conflict: Trump's attempts to broker peace in Ukraine often leaned towards Russian interests, with his proposed ceasefire plans being dismissed by Putin as insufficient.
     BILD

2. Business Connections:

   • Russian Investments: Despite Trump's claims of no financial interests in Russia, investigations revealed that Russian individuals invested at least $98 million in Trump-branded properties in southern Florida.
     Reuters
   • Real Estate Dealings: In 2008, Trump sold a Palm Beach mansion to Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million, nearly double his purchase price, highlighting significant financial ties.
     Eric Swalwell

Distant Benefits (Pre-Presidency):

1. Financial Rescues:

   • In the 1990s, facing financial difficulties, Trump received investments from Russian oligarchs, which helped stabilize his business ventures.
     Foreign Policy

2. Business Endeavors:

   • Trump's 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and ongoing efforts to establish a Trump Tower in Moscow indicate longstanding business interests in Russia.
     Politico

Far-Distant Benefits (Post-Presidency):

1. Policy Continuity:

   • Post-presidency, Trump continued to express favorable views towards Putin, suggesting a sustained alignment with Russian interests.
     NPR

2. Asset Seizure and Enforcement Actions:

   • The dissolution of the KleptoCapture task force, initiated under Trump, led to the auctioning of the Russian-owned superyacht Amadea, reducing government maintenance costs.
     Financial Times

While these actions suggest a pattern of behavior that aligns with Russian interests, it's important to note that correlation does not imply direct causation. There is no conclusive evidence that Trump acted as an agent of Russia or that his actions were part of a coordinated effort to serve Russian strategic objectives. Nonetheless, the consistency of certain actions and policies during his tenure has led to discussions about the potential benefits they may have provided to Putin and Russia.

Extras...

Here's Why Putin Could 'Hand Trump A Win' And Agree To Ceasefire Deal With Ukraine: Analyst

Who the f**k taught Donald Trump about the Alien Enemies Act of 1798? #dailyshow

And finally...

"Void and vacant": Our fool for a "POTUS" Trump says Biden pardons are nullified. Yeahhh NO. If that WAS true, the next democratic POTUS will just invalidate Trump's pardons of violent HIS insurrectionists HE sent to...Insurrection.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT