The Forerunner

25/01/2025

Dalio – Part I: How the World Works – 4PT – Ray Dalio

A theme of Dalio’s book is the fact that all the obvious signs of the end of the Big Cycle are often missed by the people who live through it. This is simply because they were not alive at the beginning of the current cycle.

[T]he world order is now rapidly shifting in important ways that have never happened in our lifetimes but have happened many times before (23).

https://www.forerunner.com/4pt/ray-dalio-part-i-how-the-world-works-4pt

Central to Dalio’s thesis, as an committed evolutionist and a determinist, is that in general, human beings are progressing forward. Dalio cites the two most common indicators of well-being, life expectancy and global real GDP per capita (adjusted for inflation), as trending upward. Both of these trends progressed very gradually in history until the time of the 1500s and then accelerated sharply. This was brought about by a variety of factors including the Age of Exploration, the invention of the printing press during the Renaissance, increased education and knowledge, the scientific revolution during the Enlightenment, the Dutch invention of investment capitalism, and the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Both increased health and wealth hit an inflection point around 1870 and then began to soar in the 20th century.

However, this upward trend in health, wealth and power has within it booms and busts, times of peace as well as revolutions and wars, which cause a lot of miniature cycles. Rather than a steady upward trend in a straight line, society progresses upward along a diagonal spiral or what Dalio calls a corkscrew.
Dalio cites a number that is the single measure of wealth and power for each country that achieved world power status in the past 500 years in a series of charts showing the rise and fall of world powers.42 These 18 factors are given points and averaged to give a single measure. The 18 factors can be reduced to the following eight factors that are the most important.

Education
Competitiveness
Innovation and technology
Economic output
Share of world trade
Military strength
Financial center strength
Reserve currency status

These factors begin with strong education and result in dominant reserve currency status. A world power begins with a highly educated and hard working population. It invests in innovation and technology. It acquires the most powerful military, the richest economy, and control over the world’s reserve currency. However, as a nation moves toward “hard power,” it tends to let the “soft power” that produced this top position lag behind the other newly emerging powers. So the Big Cycle begins with one world power that rises to the top, declines, and ends by being replaced with a new world power and new world order.

According to Dalio, during the end of the Old Order, and the beginning of the New Order most or all of the following things happened:

Debt restructuring and debt crisis
Internal revolution (peaceful or violent) that leads to large transfers of wealth from the “haves” to the “have-nots”
External war
Big currency breakdown
New domestic and world order

These major tectonic shifts in world economic and military geopolitics take up to 20 years to ramp up, resulting in “more extended periods of peace and prosperity in which smart people work harmoniously together and no country wants to fight the world power because it’s too strong”(55). These peaceful periods last on average 40 to 80 years, although variations can be longer or shorter and crises can occur in between. For example, from 1921 to 1944 (23 years) the US survived a Great Depression and a World War to emerge as the undisputed world power. The US grew in power and wealth from 1944 to 2008 (a period of 64 years). Then the US entered a crisis period with all the classic end of empire markers. If the pattern holds, we should see a new order in place by 2028.

In the next section of “Part 1: How the World Works,” Dalio outlines his theory of determinism or what he calls the determinants of the Big Cycle. Although Dalio is a secularist and is not religious, it does not mean that he does not recognize a spiritual dimension of human beings that is hard to quantify. Culture is a major determinant and is shaped by people as diverse as “Jesus, Confucius, Mohammed, Buddha, Mahavira, Guru Nanak, Plato, Socrates, Marx, and many others.”

Approaches to life are captured in many works including “the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, the Talmud, the Quran, the I Ching, the Four Books and Five Classics, the Analects, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Brahma Sutras, _Meditations, Republic, Metaphysics, The Wealth of Nations_, and _Das Kapital_” (74).

From this, we can see that Dalio is deeply affected by both religion and philosophy, but is something of a universalist. He often speaks about how he has practiced a form of Transcendental Meditation since he was in college. This openness to spirituality has taught him that everything is interconnected. Everything moves from the internal to the external, from the individual to the entire universe, and vice versa. This means that the number of factors that determine our world are so complex that no one can predict the future for sure, but there are still some principles that will show us why nations succeed and fail. Obviously, as an evangelical Protestant, I reject pure determinism and universalism. However, I am also persuaded of the words of Jesus concerning people who are not His disciples, yet provide an example of how to handle money.

For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light. And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon,[43] that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home (Luke 16:8-9).

Ray Dalio, as the most successful hedge fund manager in history, has something to teach Christians. In the following pages, I list some financial principles that stood out to me as profound and true.
_________________
42. Instead of using Portugal and Spain in his study, Dalio uses the Chinese Dynasties of the last 1000 years as a view of wealth and power in the East that show the same pattern of rise and fall. The difference is that the Chinese as a large civilization state have been able to reset their economy and power within their own Great Space, while Europeans have traded centers of power between nation-states that occupied smaller areas of geography until the United States came along.
43. Aramaic for “wealth.”

https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Political-Theory-Biblical-Perspective/dp/B0DJJYTF18

A Christian civilization is emerging from under the chaos that has been strewn throughout the wreckage of Modern culture. As dawn breaks through the darkness, many will be awakened to a new understanding of the fulfillment of the Law through love and grace. Many will comprehend, as if for the fir...

26/11/2024

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbeG3mJpZjU

Russia-Ukraine Conflict Was Provoked
In the early days of the Russian-Ukraine war of 2022, the legacy media made it obligatory to include in any news presentation, the phrases, Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked full scale invasion of Ukraine, which was always described as a sovereign democratic nation.

These phrases are notable because – as you can see by the linked Google searches above – these exact strings of words appeared in hundreds of articles as if coordinated or demanded by some higher authority. These are the obligatory phrases used even until today. Repetition is a subtle form of brainwashing. Something that is universally repeated thousands of times and not challenged soon becomes part of the accepted media narrative.

Is Ukraine free and democratic?
The latter phrase, which always insists that Ukraine is a “sovereign democracy” or a sometimes a “free democracy” is an enigma because up until the conflict with Russia, Ukraine was often characterized as one of the most corrupt nations in Europe, run by oligarchs who funneled billions of dollars of graft back and forth between Western billionaires and politicians.

In 2015, The Guardian called Ukraine the most corrupt nation in Europe. According to a poll conducted by Ernst & Young in 2017, experts considered Ukraine to be the ninth-most corrupt nation from 53 surveyed. Yes, the ninth-most corrupt even ahead of Russia, which fared better than even Canada and the UK in the survey.

The Hunter Biden Burisma scandal and the millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation from Ukrainian oligarchs are well-known questionable dealings, but are just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, it is very unlikely this will ever be investigated thoroughly because both Republicans and Democrats have used their offices to be in all sorts of international money making schemes for decades.

Further, most in the West don’t realize that Ukraine’s governors of the 24 oblasts (regions) are appointed by Kiev. The regions are not federalized like in the United States and most Western countries. The anti-Russian government has banned 11 oppositions parties and all opposition media. The Russian language is to a great degree suppressed. Instruction in public and private schools must be in Ukraunian, even in Russian speaking regions. Russian authors such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky and Pushkin are banned from being taught in Ukrainian schools. Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich are banned from the national theater. The government even banned the Ukrainian Orthodox Church for having ties to the Moscow patriarch. This makes it highly unlikely that a forced military conquest of Donbas will ever result in a peaceful reintegration. The population of the two Donbas oblasts has shown in several polls since 2014 that the majority wanted either special staus, autonomy, independence, or secession and accession to Russia.

Putin’s “unprovoked full scale invasion” of Ukraine?
The most common piece of media propaganda insists that the current military conflict in Ukraine was completely “unprovoked.” This is disingenuous unless it fully examines the decade-old conflict in the Donbas funded by the US and NATO since 2014. Contributing to this media hypocrisy are its numerous stories chronicling overtures to Ukraine from the West since 2008 that it must become part of NATO and host missile systems pointed at Russia — even including nuclear weapons.

Also damning to the “unprovoked” claim is the large cache of legacy media articles from 2014 and 2015 that show some sympathy or are at least neutral in covering the plight of Russian separatists in Donbas. There was also critical yet fair coverage of the secession referendums. It was reported that Putin continually refused both of these region’s appeals to join Russia.

There are numerous articles from this time giving evidence that the conflict could have been provoked by a party other than Russia or Putin. See one such fair and neutral article as an example, Rebels appeal to join Russia after east Ukraine referendum, which gives us evidence of a mass amnesia in the legacy media about the more complex causes of the conflict.

I must give one caveat here that causation does not automatically imply justification. That is, we can be against this war and want it to come to a speedy end without justifying the invasion. However, we are insisting that the lion’s share of the blame for provoking the war is due to US/NATO policy of encroaching on the Russian Federation’s borders.

The following analysis is from a contributor who has compiled a good analysis taking these provocations into account.

U.S. and NATO Interference Instigated the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
By Andy Hauter

A fair analysis of the Russia-Ukraine conflict must consider how U.S. and NATO interference has instigated the conflict and rejected viable paths to peace, raising serious questions about the moral legitimacy of their involvement.

Whatever you might think about the actions of the Russian Federation and Vladimir Putin, you have to look at the Ukraine conflict from a biblically moral perspective.

Russia’s attempts at peaceful negotiations deserve more credit than given in Western narratives. This context is critical to a fair assessment of Russia’s actions, especially in light of the violations of the Minsk Agreements and the rejection of peace talks by Ukraine, often under the influence of Western powers.

The Minsk Agreements, negotiated in 2014 and 2015, were designed to de-escalate the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The agreements included commitments from all sides:

Ceasefire: Immediate cessation of hostilities.
Withdrawal: Removal of heavy weapons from the frontlines.
Autonomy for Donbas: Granting the Donetsk and Lugansk regions special status within Ukraine.
Political Reforms: Constitutional changes in Ukraine to enshrine greater autonomy for these regions.
Violations of the Minsk Agreements

While Russia, Ukraine, and the separatists all bear some responsibility for violations, evidence suggests that:

Ukraine: Consistently delayed implementing the political reforms required by the agreements, particularly regarding autonomy for Donbas. Western leaders have admitted that the agreements were largely a stalling tactic to buy Ukraine time to strengthen its military.
NATO Nations: Rather than pressuring Ukraine to comply with Minsk, NATO countries, particularly the U.S. and Britain, supported Ukraine’s military buildup and defensive operations, undermining the agreements.
Russia, for its part, consistently cited Ukraine’s non-compliance and Western interference as evidence that peaceful resolutions were being sabotaged.

The Istanbul Peace Talks in Turkey (March 2022)

In the early stages of the 2022 conflict, Russia and Ukraine engaged in peace talks in Turkey, facilitated by President Erdogan. Reports indicate that:

Russia presented terms for peace, including Ukrainian neutrality (no NATO membership) and recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, but the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics would remain as part of Ukraine with special status as autonomous regions.
Ukraine initially showed interest in negotiating, particularly around the issue of neutrality.
However, these talks fell apart, due to Western meddling:

Britain: Then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Kiev and strongly discouraged Ukraine from accepting the terms, urging continued resistance.
The United States: Provided massive military and financial aid to Ukraine, signaling its intent to prolong the conflict rather than support a negotiated settlement.
This rejection of peace talks underscores the extent to which the U.S. and its allies have prioritized their geopolitical goals over a peaceful resolution, effectively discouraging Ukraine from pursuing negotiations that would have definitely prevented the devastation that has occurred.

Russia’s willingness to engage in negotiations, both through the Minsk Agreements and the Istanbul peace talks, demonstrates that it was pursuing just diplomatic avenues:

Minsk Agreements: Russia’s role in the agreements shows an effort to resolve the Donbas conflict peacefully.
Istanbul Talks: Russia came to the table with specific demands, which indicated a clear interest in avoiding military conflict and Ukraine was close and willing to agree until the West interfered.
When considering just war theory, last resort is a critical criterion:

Russia’s Attempts at Peace: Both the Minsk Agreements and the Istanbul talks suggest that Russia sought non-military solutions before escalating its military campaign. These efforts bolster Russia’s claim that it acted as a last resort after diplomacy failed.
Western Sabotage: The role of NATO nations in undermining these agreements shifts some moral responsibility for the continuation of the conflict onto the U.S. and its allies.
This does not mean Russia’s actions are above criticism – but Russia in general does not target civilians and genuinely wants Ukrainians to be restored. However, the repeated dismissal of diplomatic solutions by Ukraine and its Western backers must be acknowledged as the most significant factor in the war.

Russia’s attempts at peaceful resolution, including the Minsk Agreements and the Istanbul talks, show a willingness to negotiate that is overlooked in Western narratives. These efforts, undermined by NATO nations and Ukraine’s intransigence, suggest that Russia’s military actions is more defensible under just war principles.

For a balanced view on this topic, a highly detailed article examines the failures of the Minsk Agreements and lays blame fairly on both sides.

Through the Ashes of the Minsk Agreements
See also an article from 2014 that explains how the two Donbas regions held separate secession referendums and later appealed continually to Moscow to join the Russian Federation, but Putin always refused.

Rebels appeal to join Russia after east Ukraine referendum

See the article: https://www.forerunner.com/blog/russia-ukraine-conflict-was-provokedRussia-Ukraine Conflict Was ProvokedIn the early days of the Russian-Ukr...

26/11/2024

https://www.forerunner.com/blog/russia-ukraine-conflict-was-provoked

Conflict Was Provoked

In the early days of the Russian-Ukraine war of 2022, the legacy media made it obligatory to include in any news presentation, the phrases, Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked full scale invasion of Ukraine, which was always described as a sovereign democratic nation.

These phrases are notable because – as you can see by the linked Google searches above – these exact strings of words appeared in hundreds of articles as if coordinated or demanded by some higher authority. These are the obligatory phrases used even until today. Repetition is a subtle form of brainwashing. Something that is universally repeated thousands of times and not challenged soon becomes part of the accepted media narrative.

Is Ukraine free and democratic?

The latter phrase, which always insists that Ukraine is a “sovereign democracy” or a sometimes a “free democracy” is an enigma because up until the conflict with Russia, Ukraine was often characterized as one of the most corrupt nations in Europe, run by oligarchs who funneled billions of dollars of graft back and forth between Western billionaires and politicians.

In 2015, The Guardian called Ukraine the most corrupt nation in Europe. According to a poll conducted by Ernst & Young in 2017, experts considered Ukraine to be the ninth-most corrupt nation from 53 surveyed. Yes, the ninth-most corrupt even ahead of Russia, which fared better than even Canada and the UK in the survey.

The Hunter Biden Burisma scandal and the millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation from Ukrainian oligarchs are well-known questionable dealings, but are just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, it is very unlikely this will ever be investigated thoroughly because both Republicans and Democrats have used their offices to be in all sorts of international money making schemes for decades.

Further, most in the West don’t realize that Ukraine’s governors of the 24 oblasts (regions) are appointed by Kiev. The regions are not federalized like in the United States and most Western countries. The anti-Russian government has banned 11 oppositions parties and all opposition media. The Russian language is to a great degree suppressed. Instruction in public and private schools must be in Ukraunian, even in Russian speaking regions. Russian authors such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky and Pushkin are banned from being taught in Ukrainian schools. Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich are banned from the national theater. The government even banned the Ukrainian Orthodox Church for having ties to the Moscow patriarch. This makes it highly unlikely that a forced military conquest of Donbas will ever result in a peaceful reintegration. The population of the two Donbas oblasts has shown in several polls since 2014 that the majority wanted either special staus, autonomy, independence, or secession and accession to Russia.

Putin’s “unprovoked full scale invasion” of Ukraine?
The most common piece of media propaganda insists that the current military conflict in Ukraine was completely “unprovoked.” This is disingenuous unless it fully examines the decade-old conflict in the Donbas funded by the US and NATO since 2014. Contributing to this media hypocrisy are its numerous stories chronicling overtures to Ukraine from the West since 2008 that it must become part of NATO and host missile systems pointed at Russia — even including nuclear weapons.

Also damning to the “unprovoked” claim is the large cache of legacy media articles from 2014 and 2015 that show some sympathy or are at least neutral in covering the plight of Russian separatists in Donbas. There was also critical yet fair coverage of the secession referendums. It was reported that Putin continually refused both of these region’s appeals to join Russia.

There are numerous articles from this time giving evidence that the conflict could have been provoked by a party other than Russia or Putin. See one such fair and neutral article as an example, Rebels appeal to join Russia after east Ukraine referendum, which gives us evidence of a mass amnesia in the legacy media about the more complex causes of the conflict.

I must give one caveat here that causation does not automatically imply justification. That is, we can be against this war and want it to come to a speedy end without justifying the invasion. However, we are insisting that the lion’s share of the blame for provoking the war is due to US/NATO policy of encroaching on the Russian Federation’s borders.

The following analysis is from a contributor who has compiled a good analysis taking these provocations into account.

U.S. and NATO Interference Instigated the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
By Andy Hauter

A fair analysis of the Russia-Ukraine conflict must consider how U.S. and NATO interference has instigated the conflict and rejected viable paths to peace, raising serious questions about the moral legitimacy of their involvement.

Whatever you might think about the actions of the Russian Federation and Vladimir Putin, you have to look at the Ukraine conflict from a biblically moral perspective.

Russia’s attempts at peaceful negotiations deserve more credit than given in Western narratives. This context is critical to a fair assessment of Russia’s actions, especially in light of the violations of the Minsk Agreements and the rejection of peace talks by Ukraine, often under the influence of Western powers.

The Minsk Agreements, negotiated in 2014 and 2015, were designed to de-escalate the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The agreements included commitments from all sides:

Ceasefire: Immediate cessation of hostilities.
Withdrawal: Removal of heavy weapons from the frontlines.
Autonomy for Donbas: Granting the Donetsk and Lugansk regions special status within Ukraine.
Political Reforms: Constitutional changes in Ukraine to enshrine greater autonomy for these regions.
Violations of the Minsk Agreements

While Russia, Ukraine, and the separatists all bear some responsibility for violations, evidence suggests that:

Ukraine: Consistently delayed implementing the political reforms required by the agreements, particularly regarding autonomy for Donbas. Western leaders have admitted that the agreements were largely a stalling tactic to buy Ukraine time to strengthen its military.
NATO Nations: Rather than pressuring Ukraine to comply with Minsk, NATO countries, particularly the U.S. and Britain, supported Ukraine’s military buildup and defensive operations, undermining the agreements.
Russia, for its part, consistently cited Ukraine’s non-compliance and Western interference as evidence that peaceful resolutions were being sabotaged.

The Istanbul Peace Talks in Turkey (March 2022)

In the early stages of the 2022 conflict, Russia and Ukraine engaged in peace talks in Turkey, facilitated by President Erdogan. Reports indicate that:

Russia presented terms for peace, including Ukrainian neutrality (no NATO membership) and recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, but the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics would remain as part of Ukraine with special status as autonomous regions.
Ukraine initially showed interest in negotiating, particularly around the issue of neutrality.
However, these talks fell apart, due to Western meddling:

Britain: Then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Kiev and strongly discouraged Ukraine from accepting the terms, urging continued resistance.
The United States: Provided massive military and financial aid to Ukraine, signaling its intent to prolong the conflict rather than support a negotiated settlement.
This rejection of peace talks underscores the extent to which the U.S. and its allies have prioritized their geopolitical goals over a peaceful resolution, effectively discouraging Ukraine from pursuing negotiations that would have definitely prevented the devastation that has occurred.

Russia’s willingness to engage in negotiations, both through the Minsk Agreements and the Istanbul peace talks, demonstrates that it was pursuing just diplomatic avenues:

Minsk Agreements: Russia’s role in the agreements shows an effort to resolve the Donbas conflict peacefully.
Istanbul Talks: Russia came to the table with specific demands, which indicated a clear interest in avoiding military conflict and Ukraine was close and willing to agree until the West interfered.
When considering just war theory, last resort is a critical criterion:

Russia’s Attempts at Peace: Both the Minsk Agreements and the Istanbul talks suggest that Russia sought non-military solutions before escalating its military campaign. These efforts bolster Russia’s claim that it acted as a last resort after diplomacy failed.
Western Sabotage: The role of NATO nations in undermining these agreements shifts some moral responsibility for the continuation of the conflict onto the U.S. and its allies.
This does not mean Russia’s actions are above criticism – but Russia in general does not target civilians and genuinely wants Ukrainians to be restored. However, the repeated dismissal of diplomatic solutions by Ukraine and its Western backers must be acknowledged as the most significant factor in the war.

Russia’s attempts at peaceful resolution, including the Minsk Agreements and the Istanbul talks, show a willingness to negotiate that is overlooked in Western narratives. These efforts, undermined by NATO nations and Ukraine’s intransigence, suggest that Russia’s military actions is more defensible under just war principles.

For a balanced view on this topic, a highly detailed article examines the failures of the Minsk Agreements and lays blame fairly on both sides.

Through the Ashes of the Minsk Agreements
See also an article from 2014 that explains how the two Donbas regions held separate secession referendums and later appealed continually to Moscow to join the Russian Federation, but Putin always refused.

Rebels appeal to join Russia after east Ukraine referendumRussia-Ukraine

Russia-Ukraine Conflict Was Provoked Russia-Ukraine Conflict Was Provoked Click play to connect to youtube In the early days of the Russian-Ukraine war of 2022, the legacy media made it obligatory to include in any news presentation, the phrases, Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked full scale invasion of ...

14/11/2024

Why the Forever War Must Finally End
https://www.forerunner.com/blog/why-the-forever-war-must-finally-end

The civilization states were described by the American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. In 1996, Huntington argued that future conflicts would not be between countries as we know them now as "nation-states," but between cultural "civilization-states."

How do we describe the current shift in geopolitics?

The problem with terms is that they mean different things in different contexts. In Russia, the communists are right wing. In America, they are on the extreme left. American libertarianism is extreme right wing, but extreme left wing at the same time. Those terms are meaningless because they shift over place and time. The most helpful paradigm is that the political realignment is no longer horizontal — left vs. right — but vertical — populism vs. the elitism. We see all over the West the people rising up to push the globalist elites out of office. That is also now a worldwide phenomenon.

I’m excited about Trump’s foreign policy. He has been right more than 50 percent of the time, but he was forced to compromise with the neoconservative war hawks in his first term. The plus is that Trump was always against foreign wars. He was against Iraq and Afghanistan when most Republicans believed we were fighting an existential threat in radical Islam. Most Republicans in Washington still believe that, but a few are waking up. I woke up only four years ago when asking questions and began the research that became my book, The Fourth Political Theory in Biblical Perspective, here: https://www.forerunner.com/4pt/

In 1996, Samuel P. Huntington showed in The Clash of Civilizations that the Islamic Resurgence of the past 40 years (now 70 years) is not radical like Islamic jihadism. Rather it was made up of highly educated, middle class, and younger generation families who were part of the population boom in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. The terrorists are a small minority. Of course they get disproportionate attention because they use violence, but most of Islam hates them. But the Muslim Resurgence thinks generationally and works to reform all of their society away from Western Liberal values back toward their religious and cultural values.

Western leaders like to think of war as a chess game or a Risk game. Some have said the Muslims, Chinese and Russians play 4-D chess and American politicians and military brass play checkers. They plan at least 100 years ahead. We look to the next election cycle. This is not far from the truth. This country does not know how to win wars anymore. We can’t even defeat the Houthis. Since the 1950s, the sole purpose has been not to win wars, but to fund the military industrial complex, with the benefit of being able to enlarge the money supply anytime we want and make the nations who are our trade partners bear the brunt of it. This large cache of dollars enables the West to weaponize the world’s largest reserve currency.

For example, in March 17, 2014, the United States, the European Union, and Canada agreed to introduced specifically targeted sanctions against Russia, the day after the Crimean referendum and a few hours before Russian president Vladimir Putin signed a decree recognizing Crimea as an independent state. The plan was to crush the Russian economy and put Vladimir Putin out of office. The great irony of this is that not only are the Obama, Biden and Clinton families out of politics, but the only European political figure left in office from that time besides Vladimir Putin is Viktor Orbán of Hungary.

As a response, we see a BRICS+ coalition emerging with an alternative banking exchange and messaging service. Possibly a rival world reserve currency is in the making as well. This system would finally make economic sanctions and other forms of hybrid warfare ineffective. Military warfare has become unprofitable as well as the Ukraine war has harmed the economy of the EU even more so than Russia.

These are the geopolitical realities that will bring the forever war to an end. This would occur even beyond a Trump presidency, although he might push harder to bring these destructive policies to an end.

First, the West can’t afford to simultaneously fight a war against Islam, China and Russia. It would be disastrous.

Second, the EU can’t economically help the US win WWIII. Who do we have as allies with a strong military at this point? Israel and Ukraine? Both are crumbling even as we speak.

Third, when there is a ceasefire in Ukraine, martial law will end and the Ukrainian Rada (parliament) will need to call presidential elections and then general elections. Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected in 2019, and his first term is supposed to have ended. But under the country’s martial law, which was introduced because of the war, no election can be held. Will Ukraine continue to ban all opposition parties who don’t support the Euromaidan Revolution? Zelenskyy probably would not win no matter which opposition parties were banned. Ukraine’s military commanders, Zaluzhny and Syrskyi, are more popular and likely they would form an alliance or launch a civil war if the elections were to be fixed. (They will be as always.) Then all bets are off. The time for the US to step in is now. There need to be three points. 1. The US must cut off funding to the Ukraine was (not aid to the economy). 2. No UN membership. Not in 20 years. Not ever. 3. Russia keeps the territories that acceded to the Russian Federation in 2014 and 2022.

Fourth, Trump needs to simply argue that the Russians already occupy 99 percent of Lugansk, about 80 percent of Donetsk, and about 70 percent of Zaporozhye and Kherson. Most of what is left are the two major capital cities of Zaporozhye and Kherson, and a lot farm land and villages. He should argue that the Ukrainians keep what is north of the “bend” of the Dnieper in Zaporozhye. It is sort of illogical that the Ukrainians want to “liberate” territories that are Russian when most of the population centers in Crimea, Lugansk and Donetsk left Ukraine ten years ago. How would they be reintegrated? It makes no sense. It makes no sense for the Russians to want to occupy Western Ukraine either. So a line has to be drawn. Even Obama recognized that most Crimeans are Russian and want nothing to do with Ukrainian Nationalism. It was the reason he didn’t push Russia too far beyond some economic sanctions. Zaporozhye and Kherson are to the West of the Donbas region and are about 50-50 culturally Russian vs. Ukrainian. It would be a headache for the Russians to integrate them. They might already recognize this. The Dnieper is very wide in this area and offers a nice buffer. To take the rest is at least one year (or two or three years) of war. The Russians don’t want that either. They want what is more than 50 percent culturally Russian to be part of Russia for as long as Western Ukrainian nationalists are hostile to the Russian people.

Fifth, when there is a ceasefire in Gaza, Netanyahu will be deposed by his parliament. He will go on trial for previous corruption charges and possibly to prison. The UN will charge him with war crimes, but the US will block it. Will the successor government be Zionist or will they agree to a Palestinian State? Most of Israel won’t allow the latter. but the Arab League with the UN’s backing might force it. Then it’s all on Trump to either oppose it, or get Israel a “better deal.” Maintaining the status quo is kicking the can down the road for another Israeli-Palestinian conflict a few years down the road.

Sixth, China is too big for any nation to win a war against. They will soon become the largest economy in the world. They are already the largest when GDP is divided by purchasing power parity (GDP/PPP). China will then become twice as big as the US economy by 2050. This is inevitable. You can be against this as a patriotic American. You can also be against glaciers, hurricanes and plate tectonics. They are going to keep coming anyway. China is going to absorb Taiwan by 2050 economically, politically, and/or culturally. Or else the US is going to push China into a war, which we cannot win.

Seventh, Iran has wanted normalized relations for with the US since the end of the Cold War. The reason for the Shah of Iran’s regime (1941 to 1979) was to provide a buffer nation in the Islamic world against the USSR. That became unnecessary 34 years ago. Now we need to accept the Islamic Revolution us here to stay and stop thinking the Iranians want regime change. They don’t. If they do, they will do it by vote and don’t want our help. Most want a moderate civil government and a conservative Ayatollah. Iran is in fact the most moderate and democratic state of all the Islamic republics in the region. We need to open up dialog and try to work with them. Get our troops out of Iraq and Syria. Trump will do that rather than start a war with Iran. He’ll talk tough, but he’ll work for peace.

Eighth, North Korea. Well … Trump owns Kim Jong Un. There is that reality. So Trump should invite the DPRK, Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia and China to a nuclear arms non-proliferation summit. Let’s solve the nuclear problem for the next 50 years for the whole world. Very soon, the biggest threat won’t be nukes, but cyber-tech and AI warfare. We need to begin creating international law to regulate the weaponizing of technology against the economic and political interests of nations. Trump impressed Kim with talk about his friendship with NBA players, WWE stars, Miss America contestants and Elton John. They male bonded. Trump never followed through with a treaty with Kim. He needs to do that this time around during year one.

Ninth, we have to stop worrying about which nations are Liberal, democratic, conservative, traditional, autocratic, etc. Let’s get busy solving our own problems first and lead by example. Nations should want to be like us, and not just economically. They shouldn’t hate our immorality and fear our aggression. Instead they should admire our success, creativity and love for true Liberty.

Tenth, Biden said on several occasions in speeches that “I am running the world” and “we need to be in control.” Literally, he has said that. In Trump’s first inaugural in 2017, he said the opposite.

"We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow."

In summary, Trump needs to repudiate neoliberal unipolar globalism and offer a common sense alternative that still sees America as great, but not the world’s sole hyper power. We can’t impose our system on others, but must lead by example. We are only a powerful nation when we are a godly nation — as John Winthrop’s City on a Hill vision for America was in the beginning.

"For we must consider that we shall be as a “City upon a Hill.” The eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us; we shall be made a by-word through the world….

"Beloved there is now set before us life, and good, death, and evil in that we are commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His ordinances…. That we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God may bless us in the land wither we go to possess it. But if our hearts shall turn away so that we will not obey, but shall be seduced and worship other gods … we shall surely perish out of the good land whither we passed over this vast sea to possess it. Therefore let us choose life that we, and our seed may live; by obeying His voice, and cleaving to Him, for He is our life, and our prosperity."