The Failure of Pax Americana in Ukraine

If you love liberty, rejoice with me at the failure of Pax Americana in Ukraine. Ukraine’s naive, decadent, and corrupt leaders sealed the fate of their countrymen by allowing their country to become a venue for Western expansionist policies, nihilistic politics, and corruption.

Ukraine is America’s Tribute to Russia

Consider this scenario: The high level operatives of Russia and America had a series of secret negotiations in 2020 and 2021. In these secret negotiations it was agreed that Russia would be allowed to take control of a significant part of Ukraine in 2022, and in exchange for America not doing anything to repulse the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia would support American action in other areas of the globe: these other areas could be in South America, Africa, or the Middle East. The target could even be any Chinese territory. 

This scenario is fictional—it seems fit for a new John le Carré novel. But what if it is true? This would not be the first time that the cunning Western powers have sold Eastern Europe to have peace for themselves. Before the Second World War, the British sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler. After the Second World War, America and Britain sold all of Eastern Europe to Stalin. In the 1970s, they sold Cambodia to the Chinese and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge (to counter the Soviet Union). And in 2022, they might have sold Ukraine to Russia. 

It was clear from the middle of 2021 that the Russians were planning an invasion of Ukraine—America and Britain have been warning their citizens to leave Ukraine since December 2021. But the Americans did nothing to arm the Ukrainians. After the invasion started, they passed a few toothless United Nations resolutions and imposed some sanctions—all of which Russia could easily circumvent. From the lukewarm American response to the Russian invasion, it seems that there was a secret agreement between Russia and America.

The political leadership in America is aware that their country’s power is waning; they know that they need Russia on their side to counter China and other powers. Ukraine could be the tribute (the sacrificial goat) that America has given to Russia to seal a secret deal between the two countries. America is a country of greedy traders—they will sell anything, including any non-Western country, to make profits and maintain their global hegemony.

War is the Promise of Peace

War is nothing other than the promise of peace in the future. We fight wars because we aspire for peace.

On Russian Literature: Gogol, Belinsky, and Dostoevsky

“Proponent of the knout, apostle of ignorance, champion of obscurantism and Stygian darkness, panegyrist of Tartar morals – what are you about! Look beneath your feet – you are standing on the brink of an abyss!” ~ Russian critic Vissarion Belinsky to the great Russian (Ukrainian) writer Nikolai Gogol, in a famous public letter dated July 15, 1847. 

Gogol tore Belinsky’s letter to shreds after reading it, but he was so shocked that he fell into depression. He died of psychological problems and malnutrition on 21 February 1852.

Belinsky was the most powerful Russian literary critic of his time. He had promoted Gogol’s earlier works—The Inspector General, The Overcoat, and The Dead Souls. But when Gogol published his book, Correspondence With Friends, Belinsky became convinced that Gogol had betrayed the cause of the Russian serfs and he turned against him. 

Belinsky believed that the true purpose of literature was to express the social truth—this meant the writer should not only describe the social conditions but also communicate the enlightenment values of liberty, atheism, and individualism. He bitterly denounced serfdom. He wanted to free Russia of the tsarist political system, and establish a secular and socialist society. He became a powerful protagonist of the Russian radicals (including the socialists).  

In his Correspondence With Friends, Gogol surprised his readers by supporting serfdom. He exhorted the landlords to burn 10 ruble notes (which was a considerable sum in those days) in front of the serfs to make them realize that the masters did not care for money, only for the moral welfare of the serfs. A large number of Gogol’s readers (including Belinsky) thought that he had gone insane or something worse had happened: that he had sold his writing to the tsarist and feudal oppressors. 

Belinsky had a keen eye for literary talent. In 1844, he read Dostoevsky’s first novel Poor Folk. He was so impressed by the novel’s description of the miserable life of Russian serfs that he rushed to the apartment where Dostoevsky was living. He embraced Dostoevsky, kissed him thrice on his cheeks, and declared that he was the future of Russian literature. 

Reminiscing about his first meeting with Belinsky, Dostoevsky later wrote, “That was one of the rare moments in my life when I was truly happy.” Belinsky died due to health complications in 1848, on the eve of his arrest for his political views.

In his early years, Dostoevsky accepted Belinsky’s view of the social purpose of literature (though later he rejected Belinsky’s socialism). He used to read Belinsky’s letter to Gogol aloud in public meetings. He also became involved in clandestine printing and distribution of the Belinsky letter. For these crimes, he was arrested, convicted, and condemned to death in 1849. His death sentence was later commuted to 4 years of incarceration in a Siberian prison camp.

End of the Pax Americana? The Battle for the 21st Century World Order

A high-stakes hunt is underway on the global stage. This time, the prize is no mere territory or proxy state—it is the dominance of the last century’s unchallenged superpower: the United States of America. Russia and China, discontented with the current world order and emboldened by their growing strategic convergence, appear to be setting their sights on dismantling Western, and particularly American, hegemony.

Ukraine, while a tragic battlefield, is only a skirmish in a much larger campaign. It is not the endgame, but the opening act. The real objective lies beyond: a long-term, high-stakes project to redraw the global power map. In this endeavor, Russia and China are not alone. They are quietly supported by a web of covert sympathizers and opportunistic allies—states and actors that view the erosion of American primacy as an opportunity to reclaim regional clout or challenge the liberal democratic consensus.

Together, this axis poses a formidable challenge. Economically potent, militarily assertive, and ideologically aligned in their opposition to Western universalism, Russia and China are capable of inflicting deep geopolitical disruptions. Yet, America is no easy prey. For all its internal divisions and external entanglements, it remains the world’s most militarized and technologically advanced power—a nation forged and sustained through warfare, with a deeply ingrained instinct for survival and retaliation.

As Washington moves to counter this rising threat, the US administration has redoubled efforts to forge a global coalition—rallying allies in Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and beyond. The goal is not merely to contain Russia or deter China, but to reassert American supremacy for the foreseeable future. From AUKUS and NATO reinvigoration to a flurry of new defense pacts and economic alignments, the stage is being set for a long geopolitical contest.

Yet this is not a conflict of good versus evil. There is no innocent David in this duel of titans. What we are witnessing is the clash of Goliaths—entrenched empires vying for dominance, each with blood on its hands, each claiming a moral narrative to justify its ambitions. The Russian and Chinese Goliath now circle the Western one, and in this deadly hunt, the roles of predator and prey may switch with ruthless speed.

History rarely offers clean binaries. In this unfolding great game, all players are deeply compromised, all motives are self-serving, and the stakes—global stability, economic order, and national sovereignties—could not be higher.

The Five Levels of War

You can always detect a fool, for he is the man who will tell you that he knows which side will win in a war. But a war is a fluid situation—it can take thousands of shapes; it can veer off into unexpected directions, creating chaos and conflicts in other areas; it can lead to consequences that no one ever predicted. A war is simultaneously fought on five levels—the propaganda level, the diplomatic level, the financial level, the level of military combat, and finally, the level of the negotiations for ending the war. It is not necessary that the side that wins militarily will prevail during the level of negotiations. If the losing side has shrewd negotiators, they can make important gains for their country at the negotiation table. 

In the ongoing Ukraine war, there are two sides—the Western side (led by NATO, basically America) and the Russian side. The Western side enjoys an advantage in the areas of propaganda (the West controls the global mainstream media and the Internet) and finance (they control the global financial institutions, and they have the dollar, which is the world’s official reserve currency). The Russian side has an advantage in the areas of diplomacy (America has failed to get most nations, including traditional allies like Germany, Israel, China, and Saudi Arabia, to support its sanctions against Russia), military power (Russian military has captured a significant part of Ukraine), and post-war negotiations (if the wars of the last 75 years are taken as a trend, then we find that the Western side generally does not do well in negotiations—after the Second World War, Stalin forced Churchill and Roosevelt to concede all of Eastern Europe, including half of Germany, to the Soviet Union; in the conflicts in South Korea, the Middle East, and Afghanistan, America was forced to make significant concessions during the negotiations).

The Ukraine war could continue for a few weeks. While the Russian troops advance on the ground, the negotiations between the two sides are going on. The negotiations could go on for more than a year, and lead to significant geopolitical shifts, especially if other powers—like China and the Middle Eastern powers—decide to get involved in the negotiations.

On The Tragedy Of Man’s Life

“All’s well that ends well.” ~ Shakespeare.

Man’s life is a tragedy. Man’s endeavors and his life never end well. In the end, everyone dies—death, I presume, is not a happy ending because most people will want to go on living. Every civilization declines and falls in the end. Every house falls in the end. Every business fails in the end. Even the planet earth will not have a happy ending. Earth itself will die when the sun dies—though the end of these celestial bodies will come billions of years after humans are extinct. The happy endings are merely a mistake of man’s mind. 

In the play, “All’s well that ends well,” which is a comedy, Shakespeare is describing the life of his characters to a certain point—the point at which Helena, the low-born ward of a French-Spanish countess, gets united with the man who is the love of her life, Bertram, the countess’s son. When Helena and Bertram are united, the play ends. If they were real people, their life would not end at the point where they got united. Their life would go on and they would find new ways of being miserable; one day they would grow old and die.

Shalya’s Advise to Karna

“A jackal, O Karna, residing in the forest in the midst of hares regards himself a lion till he actually sees a lion.” ~ King Shalya of Madra Kingdom (who is the brother of Madri, the mother of Nakula and Sahadeva) says these words to Karna during the great Mahabharata War, when Karna asserts that no power can stop him from fighting Arjuna in the battlefield. 

The age of relative peace that had dawned in Europe after the Second World War, due to some historical factors and Pax Americana, had made the West European nations believe that they were the lions in a world full of hares. Now that Pax Americana is dead, the West Europeans will by and by discover they are not lions—they are jackals and the “real lions” are coming after them.

The Right Response to Old Slogans

What is the right response to the proclamation “the king is dead”? Long live the king. 

What is the right response to the Nietzschean observation “God is dead!”? Now everything is allowed and nihilism reigns.

What is the right response to Rousseau’s slogan “Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains”: Man is condemned to be free.

Political Ideology & Beauty

Political ideology is like beauty; it is not a property of the material world but an impression in the eye of the ideologues and their followers. It is in the eye of the beholder. To expect the ideological movements to be fully objective would be naive. They are the creatures of emotion.

Captain Ahab's Obsessive Quest for Revenge

“Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I'd strike the sun if it insulted me.” ~ Captain Ahab speaks these words, in Herman Melville’s novel Moby-Dick, when Starbuck, his first mate on the whaling ship called Pequod, opines that it might be blasphemous to be driven by an intense desire for revenge. 

In the world of Pequod, Captain Ahab is the supreme leader—his sailors obey his every command. He has a godlike view of himself. When he sees a coin that has the image of the three peaks, he says: "There's something ever egotistical in mountain-tops and towers, and all other grand and lofty things; look here, three peaks as proud as Lucifer. The firm tower, that is Ahab; the volcano, that is Ahab; the courageous, the undaunted, and victorious fowl, that, too, is Ahab; all are Ahab; and this round gold is but the image of the rounder globe, which, like a magician's glass, to each and every man in turn but mirrors back his own mysterious self.” 

Ahab is obsessed with the notion that the white whale called Moby Dick has insulted him by inflicting a life-wound on him, resulting in the loss of his leg. He is determined to exact revenge on Moby Dick. He personifies megalomaniac passion and single-mindedness. His cycloptic vision is contrasted with whale vision: the whale’s eyes are on the sides of its head, and each eye works independently, showing both sides of everything, something that humans with eyes located in the front cannot match. Ahab’s obsession to kill Moby Dick leads to not only his death but also the destruction of his ship and the death of almost the entire crew. 

Thus, the whale Moby Dick that had eyes on both sides of its head, and was, metaphorically speaking, capable of looking at both sides of every issue, won the battle against Ahab, who was authoritarian and had an obsessive cycloptic vision. One member of Pequod’s crew survived to tell the tale—he is the novel’s narrator, Ishmael. We are with Ishmael with the novel’s first line, “Call me Ishmael,” and he is there to describe the grisly climax.

Good Politics and Good Manners

Essentially, good politics is related to good manners. When people endeavor to understand each other, when they are honest and sincere, when they respect the rights of others, when they are concerned about the well being of society as a whole, when they use their reason as well as emotions to judge any issue—in other words, when they are good mannered—they have good politics. The great enemy of good politics is bad manners. The non-technocratic and traditional societies (unfairly depicted as barbarians by the technocratic-intellectual class) are certainly capable of good manners—they are capable of understanding, sincerity, empathy, and tolerance. Whether a society of technocrats and intellectuals is, remains doubtful.

The Postage Stamp Analogy

If the portraits of the head of the government in your country are larger than a postage stamp, then you are living in a tyranny.

The Multinational Oligarchs

What kind of people does the word “oligarch” bring to mind? The Russians: Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Fridman, Vladimir Gusinsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The Ukrainians: Rinat Akhmetov, Victor Pinchuk, Kostyantyn Zhevago, Ihor Kolomoyskyi. You might think of the Middle Eastern and Chinese tycoons. You might think of the drug czars of South America. But you are unlikely to think of the Western tycoons as oligarchs. This is because of the power of Western propaganda, which has convinced most people that oligarchy is a problem of the non-Western nations.  

Some of the most notorious oligarchs of the last 400 years were Western. Sir Francis Drake was a British oligarch of the sixteenth century. He was among the richest Englishmen of his time—he ran a piracy operation which looted and destroyed the ships belonging to Britain’s rivals. The East India Company was a powerful oligarchic entity of its time. They were involved in every possible crime and atrocity—they overthrew governments, they conducted massacres, they profited from piracy and slavery, they smuggled opium, and they looted the countries where they operated. 

During the Age of Imperialism, the Western powers managed to conquer the world because of the operations of their oligarchic organizations: Sir Francis Drake’s privateers, the East India Company, the Dutch East India Company (VOC), the Royal Africa Corporation, the British South Africa Company (led by Cecil Rhodes), and several others.

Oligarchy is primarily a Western problem. Even in the twentieth century, the Western oil, mineral, and defense multinationals have been exercising an oligarchic control on the oil and natural gas resources in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. The Western digital companies control the global flow of information. The Western Pharma companies dictate the health-related agenda of many countries. The Western banks and insurance companies have the power to make or break the economies of several nations, including the Western ones.

The predatory methods of the oligarchic multinationals has made it impossible for genuine free market societies to emerge anywhere in the world.

Strange Opinions on the Ukraine War

Among the “intelligent opinions” on the Ukraine war that I have seen in the social media, there is finally this one: Joe Biden might be Napoleon in disguise, and Boris Johnson might be Churchill. These opinions are intelligent because they are strange—Napoleon’s army froze to death in the Russian winter, and Churchill was used and then discarded by the Russian supremo Stalin.

Sulla and Pompey

After his victory in the Sertorian War in 80 BC, Roman general Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (future Pompey the Great) met Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (Sulla), the Roman general who had seized power in Rome and become the first man of the Roman Republic, for a dinner. 

Pompey wanted to hold a triumphal procession through the streets of Rome to celebrate his victory. Sulla was not willing to let the young and ambitious Pompey have that honor. According to the account given by Plutarch, Pompey told Sulla: “It would be unwise to say no to me. More worship the rising than the setting sun.” He was challenging Sulla by comparing his own good health and rising career with Sulla’s bad health and fading career. 

Sulla was then sixty years old but the decades of wars and massacres had extracted a heavy toll on his health. His tired response was: “I see, then, it is my destiny to contend with children in my old age.” He cried out to his court: “Let him have his triumph.”

Russia Drinks, America Gets Drunk

The world knows well that when Russia drinks a bottle of vodka, America is the one that becomes intoxicated.

The Superpower’s Machiavellian Instincts

The status of a superpower brings wealth, resources, and glory to a country, but it doesn’t bring wisdom, clean conscience, and a clean pair of hands. When the rulers of a superpower realize that their government is mired in intractable domestic problems, they drag their countrymen into a new foreign adventure—they start a new war, even though they don’t know how the war will be won; they hope that when the war is underway and everything is in flux, they will see not only the way of winning the war but also the solution to their country’s domestic problems.

Wakefulness & War

A nation is asleep until it goes to war.

Stunned Because it is a European War

Some elites are stunned by the outbreak of the Ukraine war. It seems that they believed that such violence could never come to a European country. They have no sense of history. They don’t know that Europe was the most violent place on earth till 1945. In the twentieth century, they had two World Wars which claimed millions of lives. In the last 2500 years, Europe had more wars, crusades, pogroms, riots, bloody revolutions, enslavements, and genocides than any other place on earth.

Here is a sample of the naive statements that the stunned folks are making in the media:  

“They seem so like us. That is what makes it so shocking… War is no longer something visited upon impoverished and remote populations. It can happen to anyone.” ~ former Member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan talking about the Ukrainian refugees in an article in The Daily Telegraph.

“It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed, children being killed every day by Putin’s missiles, helicopters and rockets.” ~ Ukraine’s Deputy Chief Prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze, talking about the Ukrainian casualties in an interview with the BBC.

“The unthinkable has happened…This is not a developing, third-world nation; this is Europe!” ~ Lucy Watson, ITV news correspondent.  

“What is compelling is that just looking at them, the way they’re dressed. These are prosperous, middle-class people, these are not obviously refugees trying to get away from areas in the Middle East that are still in a big state of war. These are not people trying to get away from areas in North Africa; they look like any European family that you would live next door to.” ~ Peter Dobbie, presenter at Al-Jazeera English 

“This isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European city where you wouldn’t expect that or hope that it’s going to happen.” ~ Charlie D’Agata, foreign correspondent at CBS News 

These people need a crash course in Europe’s violent history. Europe even had a 30-year war and a 100-year war. The Roman Empire was in a state of war throughout its existence.

The New Western Dark Age is Coming

The irony is that in the twenty-first century, Russia and China seem to stand as the last line of defense against the power hungry machiavellians of the West (which is being led by the American financial interests and deep state). 

In the twentieth century, people believed that the West stood for liberty and free markets, but in the twenty-first century the realization has dawned, that the West wants to lockdown everything and control everything, even though they fail to run most things that they control. If Russia and China fail to break the West’s monopoly on economic and military power, then the Western machiavellians will drag mankind into a new Dark Age. 

To fight the Western monsters, we need the Russian and Chinese monsters.

The Fall of the Dollar

The FED has come to accept the painful and unsettling fact: the dollar has been beaten. In his March 2 testimony, the Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said: “Over a period of time… it would diminish our status as reserve currency. It is also possible that the world will have more than one large reserve currency. There have been times when that was the case… so it is not really clear.” This is the FED’s acceptance of the dollar’s decline.

If the dollar is no longer the only reserve currency, then America is no longer the only superpower. The defeat of the dollar is a bigger event than the defeat of Pax Americana in Ukraine. Powell did not name the currencies which could play (or are already playing) the role of reserve currency. It could be crypto—it could be the Chinese Yuan, the Japanese Yen, and the European Euro. If America tries to maintain the dollar’s supreme position, it will cause an endless hemorrhaging of the world economy and it will fail in the end. In the long run, it would be cheaper for America to accept coexistence with other reserve currencies and financial systems. 

India has had its own currency model for trade with Russia for many years. China has recently reverted to its own currency in pursuing trade with Russia. The combined population of Russia, China, and India is about 3 billion—this implies that close to half the population of this planet will now be doing their trade outside the SWIFT system and through non-dollar currencies.

Liberty and Power

Liberty is wasted without power, because it makes strength powerless and weakness powerful.

The Propaganda in Ukraine War

"One of the most horrible features of war is that all war propaganda, all the screaming and lies, and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting." ~ Orwell

Orwell could as well be talking about the ongoing Ukraine war. Much of the propaganda, much of the screaming and lies, much of the hatred is coming from America and Britain—both nations have saturated the newspapers, TV channels, and the internet with their propaganda. They refuse to send their own soldiers to fight in Ukraine, they are not prepared to make a realistic financial commitment, but they are relentless in egging the Ukrainians to keep fighting. The Ukrainian position is hopeless in Eastern Ukraine where the demography is indistinguishable from that of Russia. This region is already under the control of the Russian military—the only way out is negotiation with Putin.

This war has happened because, since 1991 (after the Soviet Union’s fall), America and Britain were following the policy of expanding their hegemony over all of Eastern Europe.

Modern Man and the Wisdom of Gilgamesh

One of the teachings of the Epic of Gilgamesh, the ancient Mesopotamian (Sumerian) epic dated to 2100 BC, is that the success of a hero is not measured by the feats that he performs—the lands he conquers, the monsters he slays, the mysteries he solves, and the wealth he distributes among his people—but by the wisdom that he accumulates during the course of his life. It seems that modern man has forgotten this important teaching. The heroes (the most powerful and wealthy) of our age are technocratic and dogmatic; they are lacking in wisdom; they are in awe of their worldly feats; they are motivated by utopian notions of creating a paradise on earth; they do not accept the human limitations; they do not accept that man’s life is a tragedy.

The Two Elephants: America and Russia

“When two elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.” ~ ancient African saying. America and Russia are the two elephants engaged in a fight, and Ukraine is the grass that is getting trampled. 

The war that the two elephants, America and Russia, have started in Ukraine is already having a global fallout. There are signs that Germany is planning to remilitarize. On Sunday, Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared that Germany would boost its military spending from 1.4 percent to more than 2 percent of GDP. They probably want to lower their dependence on NATO which, they believe, caters primarily to the American and British interests. In Japan, the ex-prime minister Shinzo Abe has said in a TV interview that “it is time Japan considered nuclear weapons.” He wants Japan to revisit the debate on nuclear policy. The Russian giant Gazprom has signed a biggest-ever natural gas supply deal with China—this shows the growing closeness between Russia and China. It is most likely that there exists a secret military pact between the two nations. 

When empires stretch beyond their capacity, they break. For decades, the Western Empire (led by America and Britain) has been stretched beyond its capacity. When the Western Empire breaks, the elephants will run amok in several nations, trampling their grass.

Ukraine: The Pitfalls of American Support

The American politicians and journalists are talking about arming the Ukrainian insurgents to fight the Russians. This is such an evil proposal. Do they remember the catastrophic consequences of Ronald Reagan’s arming of the Afghan insurgents in the 1980s to fight the Soviet army? His government armed the most fundamentalist groups in Afghanistan. These America-armed fundamentalist groups destroyed Afghan culture and created the global problem of religious terrorism.

The Ukrainians should fight on their own; they should never accept American weapons. If they accept American weapons, their country will turn into an Afghanistan like lawless place for the next 50 years. The Americans don’t give a damn about Ukraine; all they care about is their own global power play. They will arm the worst groups in Ukraine, the ones which are made up of unruly and fundamentalist elements (like they have done in Afghanistan and several other places). These groups will do more damage to Ukrainian culture than to the Russian military. 

Lot of damage has already been done to Ukraine because they became too close to the corrupt and machiavellian political establishment in America. Now Ukraine should aspire for independence from both Russia and America.

The Tyranny of Superpower Delusions

When a nation ascends to the status of a superpower, its delusions cease to be fantasies—they become enforced realities. Until the 1930s, the British Empire reigned supreme, and its illusions were treated as immutable truths. With fleets that darkened the oceans and legions that marched across continents, Britain had the might to impose its worldview on the rest of humanity. Its delusions—racial superiority, imperial destiny, and the civilizing mission—were not merely tolerated; they were systematized, exported, and enshrined in policy across vast swathes of the globe.

After the Second World War, the imperial torch passed to the United States. And with it came a new set of delusions, more global in ambition and cloaked in the language of liberty, democracy, and free markets. America did not merely wish to shape the world—it wished to redeem it. But in its zealous drive to remake reality, the United States turned ideology into orthodoxy, often blind to the cultural, historical, and geopolitical complexities of the nations it sought to “save.”

These American delusions have sown chaos on a planetary scale. From coups in Latin America and regime changes in the Middle East to the economic dismantling of post-Soviet states, the superpower’s interventions have too often left behind scorched institutions, shattered economies, and fractured societies. Its prescriptions for growth, healthcare, and environmental reform—formulated in think tanks and boardrooms far removed from the lives of the global poor—have undermined livelihoods and exacerbated inequalities.

Perhaps nowhere is this delusional overreach more visible than in Eastern Europe. The American ambition to transplant its model of liberal democracy and NATO-driven security onto the fragile post-Cold War terrain of Russia’s near abroad has ignited the tragic war in Ukraine. What was framed as freedom’s march was, in fact, a reckless gamble that ignored history’s warnings and provoked a wounded bear into a brutal counterattack.

There is, however, a curious contrast between the two great Anglophone empires. The British, in their pomp, were content to be great. Their rule was ruthless, but it rarely pretended to be virtuous. The Americans, by contrast, are burdened by a messianic impulse—to be both great and good. But in trying to be both, they are often neither. Their self-image as benevolent hegemon clashes painfully with the devastation their interventions leave behind.

History teaches that when a superpower’s delusions harden into dogma, the world is made to suffer. The question is no longer whether these delusions are true. It is whether the world can afford to live with them.

The Problem of NATO’s Expansion

If the Soviet Union was still in existence and Mexico and Canada wanted to join the Warsaw Pact, would America allow it? We know what America did to Nicaragua in the 1980s (and several times before that), and how they threatened Cuba with nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Missile crisis of the 1960s. No empire allows its neighboring countries to become powerful and enter into an alliance with its primary geopolitical rival. The British have plundered and starved Ireland for 400 years, since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, to stop the Irish from building close ties with the Catholic nations of mainland Europe. 

Russia is doing in Ukraine exactly what America has been doing in South America since the 1950s. The Russians are actually much less brutal than the British were with the Irish. America and Britain are the primary architects of the mess in Ukraine. They destabilized the region by encouraging several East European countries to join NATO. In 2004, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Latvia, Bulgaria, and Estonia joined NATO. In 2009, Croatia and Albania joined; in 2017 Montenegro; and in 2020, Macedonia. If America and Britain want peace, then why are they expanding NATO, which is the world’s most heavily armed military alliance? In the post-Soviet world, what is the purpose of NATO? The Ukraine border is 500 kms from Moscow. Russia cannot allow Ukraine to become part of NATO.

The Russians have been extremely patient with America and Western Europe—they have allowed NATO to expand into their backyard. If so many countries from South America had joined a Russia led alliance, World War III might have already happened.

Ukraine and the Endgame for the West

What matters is not the weapon, but the will to wield the weapon. The Western nations have all sorts of high-tech weapons but they lack the will to wield the weapons, because they got corrupted by the 300 years of uninterrupted global power that they have enjoyed. After the 1960s, they became incapable of fighting pitched battles—the kind of pitched battles which consumed thousands of lives in the First and the Second World Wars, and the Korean and Vietnam wars. 

The Western military strategists have developed a peripheral war strategy, which allows them to maintain their global power through maritime and airborne military systems. The peripheral war strategy relies almost wholly on high-tech weapons—the idea of putting Western soldiers in the war zone is an anathema to this strategy. But without having men on the ground, foreign territory cannot be controlled. Due to their unwillingness to put the lives of their soldiers at risk by engaging the enemy in pitched battles on land, the West has failed to win any war after 1960. 

In the ongoing Ukraine war, the West is powerless to do anything except whining and complaining. This is a land war—in this war, the peripheral war strategy won’t work. If the Western powers were serious about stopping Russia, they would have sent thousands of their troops (at least 50,000) to engage the Russians in pitched battles. But they will not send their young men to fight in Ukraine. They won’t do anything except making statements on TV, threatening to impose economic sanctions on Russia, and getting a few UN resolutions passed.

In the twenty-first century, Western military power is a cliche and a myth. If the West cannot defend Ukraine, then it cannot defend its interests in other hotspots. If they cannot defend something, then why should they be allowed to keep it? The prize in the war that Russia has started is not Ukraine, it is the entire Western empire. Flashpoints will keep erupting in different parts of the globe, and at some point of time, the Western nations will be forced to fight pitched battles which will turn out to be their Waterloo.

The Next Twenty-five Years

The English faction of the Western civilization has peaked. The Germanic faction has also peaked. With further decline of America, Britain, and Germany, the world will become multipolar. In the next twenty-five years, France could take the center stage in the West. These nations will fall: America, Britain, Germany, Iran, and China. These nations might become global powers: Russia, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Japan. India might become a global power if it can survive the fallout of the collapse of America, Britain, China, and Iran. In subsequent articles, I will give details of the criteria that I am using to reach these conclusions.

Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s Miscalculation: The Axis Gamble That Changed the War

The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 sent shockwaves through the international system—but not all reactions were marked by alarm. In Berlin, Adolf Hitler greeted the news with unrestrained elation. The attack had come without prior consultation or notification to Germany, despite the Tripartite Pact that nominally allied Germany, Italy, and Japan. Yet Hitler’s initial response was not concern over coordination, but rather triumphalist optimism.

He believed that the Japanese assault on the United States would decisively divert American attention and resources to the Pacific theatre. This, he reasoned, would weaken Washington’s ability to supply Britain and the Soviet Union—both of whom were still heavily reliant on American industrial and logistical support. At the time, the Wehrmacht was faltering outside Moscow, reeling from a brutal Soviet counteroffensive and the onset of an unforgiving Russian winter. Nonetheless, Hitler's response was not one of strategic restraint, but of hubristic defiance.

The Tripartite Pact, signed in September 1940, did not legally compel Germany to support Japan if it initiated hostilities. Yet for Hitler, legal nuance was irrelevant in the face of ideological ambition. To his inner circle, amid cries of Sieg heil, he proclaimed, “A great power doesn’t let itself have war declared on it—it declares war itself.” True to this logic, on 11 December 1941, Germany (along with Italy) declared war on the United States. Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop summoned the American chargé d'affaires in Berlin to formally deliver the declaration—an act that would, in hindsight, prove to be one of Hitler’s most catastrophic strategic miscalculations.

Across the Channel, Winston Churchill reacted with a sense of quiet vindication. Despite Britain’s military setbacks in Malaya and Hong Kong, and the looming threat posed by Germany’s dominance on the continent, Churchill understood the broader implications of Pearl Harbor. As he later reflected, on the night of 7 December he “went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.” For Churchill, the calculus had always been clear: without the entry of the United States into the European war, Britain’s chances of prevailing against Nazi Germany were minimal. America’s internal political divisions, dominated by a strong isolationist lobby, had long frustrated British hopes. But Japan’s aggression had resolved that impasse overnight.

By attacking Pearl Harbor, Tokyo had inadvertently achieved what months of Allied diplomacy had failed to accomplish—it united the American public behind a war effort. More importantly, Hitler’s own declaration of war liberated President Franklin D. Roosevelt from the constraints of Pacific-only engagement. The United States was now at war with all three Axis powers. Hitler’s expectation that Japan would absorb American focus in the Pacific would prove woefully short-sighted. Instead, the United States mobilized on a scale unmatched in history, supplying and fighting simultaneously across two global theatres.

In retrospect, Hitler’s spontaneous decision to declare war on the United States marked a strategic rupture—an escalation driven not by necessity, but by ideological bravado. It bound Germany to a conflict that dramatically expanded its enemies, catalyzed American industrial might, and unified Allied coordination. Pearl Harbor was a tactical victory for Japan, but for the Axis powers, it triggered a sequence of events that would eventually lead to their defeat.

Two Lessons from Ukraine’s Fate

In 1994, Ukraine destroyed its nuclear weapons because America, Britain, and Russia guaranteed the integrity of its borders. The two morals of the tragic story of Ukraine are: First, never trust America, Britain, and Russia; second, never give up your nukes.

Churchill’s Pragmatism

On 22 June 1941, when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, Churchill was delighted. He immediately negotiated an alliance with Stalin's regime which he had always despised. In a speech delivered in the evening of 22 June, Churchill promised the Soviet Union, “any economic and technical assistance from Britain.” He told his private secretary John Colville, “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”

Ukraine: The Battleground for a New World Order

I have never seen Putin wearing a mask. I have never seen Xi Jinping wearing a mask. I frequently see Biden wearing a mask even when he is in a video conference. I frequently see the heads of state in Western Europe wearing masks. 

What does this tell you about the character of the world leaders? Are Putin and Xi Jinping more confident, courageous, and aggressive than Biden and the leaders of Western Europe? Are Russia and China more powerful than America and Western Europe? Fighting a war is chiefly a matter of will—in the ongoing Ukraine war, it seems that the Russians are displaying a stronger will than the Americans. Pax Americana is finished.

I do not support Russia and China. But I have contempt for the hypocritical, corrupt, and deceitful political leadership in the Western countries. America does not deserve to be the master of the world. Putin might end up doing mankind a big favor if he manages to weaken America. I see the war in Ukraine as a war for building a new world order.

The Axe and the Trees

Once upon a time, an axe arrived in a forest. The trees had never seen anything like the axe before. They could not decide if the axe was their friend or foe. They asked the rabbit who was the forest’s resident smart aleck. 

“You have nothing to worry about,” the rabbit said. “The axe is your friend.”

“How can you be sure?” asked the trees. 

“The axe is of your race,” the rabbit said. “Its handle is made of wood, just as your trunks and branches are. There is no chance of enmity between entities of the same race.”

The deer, who was known in the forest as a conspiracy nut, disagreed with the rabbit. He said, “The axe is a foe of the trees. On its wooden handle, a sharp iron head is attached. The iron head will chop down the trees.”

“You are a conspiracy nut,” screamed the rabbit. “Entities of the same race do not attack each other. The axe will not harm the trees because its handle is made of wood.”

The loud sound of “chop, chop, chop…” was heard. The axe had started doing its work. The trees screamed in terror. The rabbit fled from the forest, followed by the deer. 

Moral of the story: The notion that those of the same race are kind to each other is a myth.

The Tragic Character of Life

All events, good or bad, have unexpected consequences. Something positive is hidden in every negative, something negative in every positive. The world is a hard place and life is complicated and tragic—death is the ultimate fate of every human being, and decline and decay are the ultimate fate of all human endeavors, irrespective of how well-intentioned, well-planned, and well-executed these endeavors are. Only the men of wisdom, whose number is very small in any society, possess the ability to see the good and bad sides of any event; only they possess the ability to comprehend the tragic character of life.

On Rama’s Solar and Lunar Lineage

The word “Rama” means someone who is charming and delightful. The Ramayana is the story of Rama’s progress—“ayana” means progress. Rama was a scion of the Surya Vamsha (Solar Dynasty). Yet his full name is Rama Chandra—“Chandra” means moon. This indicates that Rama has a connection with the Chandra Vamsha (Lunar Dynasty). His father King Dashratha of Ayodhya was a Surya Vamshi, but his mother Queen Kaushalya, according to some traditional accounts, was the daughter of a Chandra Vamshi royal family. Thus, Rama represented the coming together of the two dynasties, Surya Vamsha and the Chandra Vamsha. Rama married Sita, a lady of Chandra Vamsha—Sita’s father, King Janaka of Videha, was a Chandra Vamshi. The name “Rama Chandra” means “charming face of the moon”—this name glorifies the sun, since the moon shines with the sun’s reflected light.

The Lesson & The Game

Socialism is a revolutionary lesson; capitalism is a bureaucratic game. From the study of the excesses of capitalist societies the lessons of socialism are developed; from the study of the failed public projects of socialist societies the rules of capitalist bureaucracy are conceived. Socialism and capitalism might seem like antagonistic doctrines but they are conjoined by the natural law—one cannot exist without the other.

Biden Versus Putin

If there was a wrestling match between Biden and Putin who would you root for? To me, it is a no-brainer. A wise man will root for Putin who seems like a reasonable and balanced leader (as compared to the super-belligerent American leaders). 

Every time Biden opens his mouth to talk about Ukraine, he seems pathetic, supercilious, and senile. There is nothing more disgusting and annoying than the leader of a violent superpower hiding his geopolitical agenda behind seemingly noble intentions of saving Ukraine. 

I would rather support Russia than America or China.  A wise man will have no preference for a bullet in the head over a bullet in the heart. America is like a bullet in the head; China is like a bullet in the heart. Both are equally lethal for mankind.

Waxing and Waning of the Feminine and Masculine Cycles

All major civilizations move cyclically through the phases of femininity and masculinity. 

When the feminine cycle is waxing, the civilization is inspired by liberty, beauty, individualism, and pursuit of pleasure—there is flowering of art, literature, music, philosophy, and multiculturalism. At the waning of the feminine cycle, the civilization is nihilist, hedonist, decadent, and irresponsible. When the masculine cycle is waxing, the civilization is warlike and aggressive—it is driven by the forces of racial unity, world conquests, and radical urbanization and industrialization. At the waning of the masculine cycle, the civilization is ossified, violent, corrupt, and tyrannical.

In the feminine cycle, the political battles are won through arguments and negotiations. In the masculine cycle, the political battles are won through coercion and warfare. The contest between the masculine and the feminine ways goes on for as long as the civilization lasts. There are phases in the civilization’s history when neither the feminine nor the masculine dominate, and society is a hotchpotch of the two ways.

The Fabian Theory of Government

The purpose of the government is to protect the weak, the poor, and the unfortunate. Nature is not fair—it grants excessive abilities to a few men, and less to most men. If the few, who are blessed by nature, are allowed to accumulate too much wealth, then there will be social unrest. By taking wealth from the rich and distributing it to the poor, the government ensures that discontent does not spread in the masses. 

Can man transcend the laws of nature? Man is so small and nature is so big. The answer is: Yes, we can. We transcend the laws of nature by judging nature, just as we judge everything that is manmade. We judge nature and we try to cure its imbalances and unfairnesses. We make progress when we use the power of the government to free ourselves from nature’s tyranny. Nature has not created an equal planet but man will create an equal society. In a lawless jungle, unfairness and inequality abounds—the powerful creatures slaughter the weaker creatures. In a civilization, the government takes from the powerful and distributes it to the weaker sections.

This is the basic premise (a simplistic view) of the Fabian theory of government.

The Key Versus The Sledgehammer

Don’t use a sledgehammer to break the door. Use the key. When a nation acquires economic and military power, its political elites become addicted to the sledgehammer (brute force) for opening every door in domestic politics and international geopolitics. They keep deploying the sledgehammer even though the sledgehammer-strategy worsens the old problems, and gives rise to new problems. If they deployed the key (the subtle methods of political persuasion and propaganda), they might have achieved better outcomes. It is hard for the elites in powerful nations to understand that the key is mightier than the sledgehammer.

Beria’s Contribution to the Soviet Nuclear Project

The forces of the Soviet Field Marshal Georgy Zhukov were the first smash into Berlin in April 1945, during the Second World War, but Lavrentiy Beria’s SMERSH agents were the first to capture all the Nazi institutions of strategic and propagandistic value, including Hitler’s headquarters, where they took control of the half-burned dead bodies of Hitler and Eva Braun, and the installations where nuclear research was being conducted. 

Within hours of the fall of Berlin, the SMERSH agents took control of Hitler’s military research programs, including his nuclear weapons program. Zhukov had no knowledge of the activities of the SMERSH agents, who were reporting directly to Beria, not to the military high command. The German physicists were a few years away from developing a nuclear reactor and a weapon. In the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, the SMERSH agents found a rich haul of metallic uranium, uranium oxide, and heavy water. They transported the nuclear material and all the German physicists that they could find to the USSR. 

In December 1944, Stalin had given the Soviet Union’s nuclear project to Beria, who had promised that he would conduct a nuclear test in five years. Beria kept his promise and on 29 August 1949, the Soviet Union conducted its first secret nuclear test. When he became the Soviet Premier, after the death of Stalin, Khrushchev buried Beria in history as a psychopath, serial-rapist, and a mass murderer. But it seems that Beria was an efficient and ruthless bureaucrat.

On Rama’s Solar Dynasty

In the final section of the Uttara Kanda (Book 7 of the Ramayana), the fate of the offsprings of Rama and his three brothers—Lakshmana, Bharata and Shatrughna—is described. Rama had two sons, Kusha and Lava. Kusha became the ruler of the kingdom of North Kosala, located in the north of the Vindhya mountains, and he ruled from a city called Kushavati. Lava became the ruler of South Kosala, and he ruled from a city called Shravati, also called Shravasti. It is believed that Lava founded a city called Lavapuri, today’s Lahore. 

Rama’s three bothers had two sons each. Lakshmana’s two sons were Angada and Chandraketu. Angada became the king of Karapatha, and he ruled from a city called Angadiya. Chandraketu became the king of Malla (a kingdom of wrestlers located between Kosala and Videha), and his capital city was Chandrakanta. Bharata’s two sons were Taksha and Pushkara. Taksha became the king of Takshashila, and Pushkara of Pushkaravata. Shatrughna’s two sons were Subahu and Shatrughati. Subahu became the king of Madhura and Shatrughati of Vaidisha. 

The Ramayana tells us that after Rama had ruled for 10,000 years, Time (attired as a sage) arrived at his court and informed him that it was now time for him to return to heaven. Rama agreed and on a designated day, along with his brothers, he entered the Vaishnava energy, and he took the form of Lord Vishnu. A large number of his followers, which included humans, apes, serpents, yakshas, and rishis, were allowed to enter the world known as Santanika, which possesses all the qualities of heaven and is only next to Brahma’s world. 

Rama’s wife Sita did not follow him into the Vaishnava energy. When she was performing the second Agni Pareeksha (trial by fire to prove feminine purity) that Rama had ordered, the earth opened and goddess earth appeared seated on a celestial throne. She made Sita sit on the throne beside her and they went underground. Thus, at the climax of their earthly lives, Rama and Sita travelled in opposite directions—he went towards heaven, which is the metaphorical north, while Sita went towards the center of the earth, which is the metaphorical south.

The Ramayana is the story of the Surya Vamsha (the Solar Dynasty), whose first proper king was Iksvaku. The Mahabharata is the story of the Chandra Vamsha (the Lunar Dynasty), whose first proper king was Ila. Krishna was born in the Yaduvansh branch of the Lunar dynasty. The story of the Yaduvansh branch is described in the Harivamsa (also known as the Harivamsa Purana). The Ramayana takes place in the Treta Yuga; the Mahabharata in the Dvapara Yuga.

On America’s Orwellian Policy of Warfare

Since the Second World War, America has not made a formal declaration of war against any country—despite the fact that this country has been waging wars continuously since the Second World War, and the number of overseas bases where American troops are permanently deployed varies between 600 to 800. The American constitution says that only the Congress has the power to make a formal declaration of war. While the Congress has funded all the wars, it has never made a formal declaration of war.

The policy of waging wars without declaring a war is clearly Orwellian. In his book 1984, Orwell wrote the phrase: “War is peace.” This phrase applies to America, a country that likes to pretend that it is perpetually peaceful despite the fact that it is perpetually at war. The President is not the only Orwellian Big Brother who has the power to bypass the Congress and start a new war. The American intelligence agencies are Big Brothers in their own right. They have been accused of organizing coups, counterrevolutions, and insurgencies (without taking permission from the Congress) in several countries—in Europe, the Middle East, South America, North Africa, and South Asia. 

Due to the excessive projection of American military power, many nations (including those in Europe) could not build their own military might—they became dependent on America and could not develop a regional balance of power. As the American economy and culture continue to decline (a process that I believe is irreversible), America will be forced to cut down its military expenses. The disappearance of American military power will create in several parts of the world a geopolitical vacuum, which other powers will rush in to fill. This could lead to a series of new conflicts which could go on for decades.

Screw Your Courage

“Screw your courage to the sticking place.” ~ Lady Macbeth

In an online discussion, I had to remind someone that this line from Shakespeare’s tragedy Macbeth (Act 1, Scene 7) does not mean what people who are habituated to today’s epithet-rich language are likely to think that it means. 

Lady Macbeth’s words have to be taken literally. When the screw is tightened to the last ring, it is at its sticking place—that is when the metaphorical crossbow is ready to fire. She is exhorting Macbeth to give up his doubts, muster his courage, and carry out his plan to assassinate King Duncan and seize the throne of Scotland. 

She is not ranting or bitching; she and Macbeth are serious players in Scotland’s politics; she is egging him to be firm, ruthless, and decisive in his pursuit of kingship.

The Unique Mind

“I have never seen a more lucid, more lonely, better balanced mad mind than mine.” ~ Vladimir Nabokov in his 1973 book Strong Opinions. I can empathize with Nabokov’s view of himself—a mind that is lucid, lonely, and balanced will be such a unique entity that most people, including the man who owns the unique mind, will regard it as mad.

On the American Policy of Weakening Europe

If Europe finds itself incapable of defending Ukraine from Russia, then they should blame their ally, America, for their weakness. After the Second World War, one of the goals of American foreign policy was to weaken Europe and make it dependent on American military support. The Americans discouraged the Europeans from expanding their military and getting involved in regions of strategic importance, especially the Middle East. 

In his 1973 “Year of Europe” speech, Henry Kissinger warned about the danger of the Europeans hobnobbing with the Middle Eastern and North African nations and negotiating trade deals which were not monitored by the USA. He said that the mission of his diplomacy was to ensure that the Europeans and the Japanese did not become unilaterally active in diplomacy. He believed that the Europeans and the Japanese should talk to the world after taking America into confidence. The American policy of keeping Europe weak and dependent precedes Kissinger; it goes back to President Truman. 

In 1947, Truman said that control of Greece was critical for safeguarding America’s Middle Eastern interests. He was opposed to any Euro-Arab dialogue. One of the consequences of the America-backed 1953 coup in Iran that brought the Shah to power was the transfer of 40 percent interest in Iranian oil from British to American hands. In my opinion, the EU project has failed because the machiavellians of Washington have sabotaged it.