BUSH THE FATHER – CHAPTER 1 (Cowboys, Yankees, and My Thoughts on Trump, the EU, and Ukraine)

Again, there are so many misconceptions and so many things I would like to address. This video reveals real history—a history that has been hidden from us. I was hoping that by sharing real history and information about the real world, I could help people finally understand. However, after hearing Alexander’s recent words on The Duran:

“To repeat, there is nothing about any of this that, if viewed from a realist, objective perspective, should be a problem for the United States. There really isn’t. I mean, U.S. national interests, realistically assessed, are for peace in Europe—not for control of Donbas or anything of that kind. This is an absurd situation.

It’s part of a neocon grand strategy that has catastrophically failed.”

Did it really fail? To analyze this, let’s revisit my post featuring the best analysis of Trump by Christian Parneti:

True story of Trump “akin to a toddler with a hammer going through the living room hitting stuff” this is how the real world looks like.

21:00

“I think, regarding Nord Stream 2, it probably made sense to him. He was like, "Oh yeah, why should they buy oil from Russia when we've got this fracking boom, and gas prices have gone down? That's our market, right?

But his hostility toward Nord Stream 2 is a very important counterpoint to the Russiagate fanatics. Both Nord Stream pipelines are fundamental connections between Europe and Russia. It's not just about the money; it's also about the integration they represent. Anyone working for Russia would not threaten that kind of integration.”

6:49

“The guy went after the architecture of the American Empire because he didn’t really understand how it worked. He just saw it as a security business. One of the most telling vignettes in the piece is that six months into his administration, the Joint Chiefs of Staff held a meeting with him at the Pentagon in a highly secure, famous meeting room called "the Tank." They had a presentation with maps and visual aids to simplify things, attempting to talk sense into the new president.

However, he was unimpressed and said to them, "You guys are dopes and babies, and you're losers. You can’t win wars. We’ve spent seven trillion dollars in the Middle East. Where’s the oil? Where’s the oil?" That was the exact quote. He just didn’t get it. They were trying to explain how everything—from embassies and relationships through grants to universities—relates to military bases and satellites, and how the whole system fits together, including the delicate relationships with allies. But his focus was simply, "Where’s the money? Where’s the oil?"

When it came to withdrawing troops from South Korea, he said, "I want cost plus 50." That’s where his mindset was. The argument is not that Trump was a good guy or a secret leftist, but that Trump did real damage and posed real threats to the American Empire. That’s why the establishment hated him so intensely.

The U.S. Empire is a system not just for projecting and reproducing American power and benefiting American corporations but also a system, since the end of World War II, fundamental to the reproduction of capitalism on a global scale. He was interfering with something very important to the entire framework of global capitalism.”

For those who do not follow my posts, I hope this will help you understand Trump and the situation better. In my previous posts, I explained how the West supported terrorism to extract oil and then bought it from terrorists illegally at a discount. We did this because it was the only way to steal oil.

Trump didn’t understand this, as evidenced by the fragment I just posted. Because he didn’t realize that we were behind terrorism and using it to steal oil from the Middle East, he began genuinely fighting terrorism. This was only my theory until Trump unwittingly confirmed it during his interview with Joe Rogan:

“I defeated ISIS with the greatest generals. I had a guy who was so great that I flew to Iraq and met the real generals, not the idiots we usually deal with. We knocked out 100% of the ISIS caliphate. They said it would take five years; I did it in literally a few weeks.”

Trump wanted to steal oil from the Middle East, but he didn’t understand that we used terrorists to do it. So, he started fighting those terrorists, which ultimately stopped us from stealing their oil. Similarly, Trump is against the war in Ukraine, but at the same time, he was against Nord Stream. Just as he didn’t understand that we used terrorists to steal oil, he doesn’t understand that the war in Ukraine is intended to stop Nord Stream.

In the same way he wanted to steal oil from the Middle East but unintentionally prevented us from doing so by fighting and stopping the terrorists we used, he may now want to stop Nord Stream but could help reopen it by ending the Ukraine war.

I hope this explanation helps you understand that Trump had the same goals as our oligarchs. However, since he didn’t fully understand how the world works, he failed to grasp that these oligarchs use lies, special operations, and narratives to covertly achieve their objectives.

As for the “neocon grand strategy that has catastrophically failed,” which Alexander discusses, let’s revisit the video I have posted many times.

“I also understand that one of the complications is the Europeans, who are very dependent on the Russians for energy supply and business relationships. However, they also need to recognize that if Putin is not stopped now, we could find ourselves in a real conflict with Russia down the road.

Germany, arguably the strongest power in Europe economically, has faced criticism that Angela Merkel and others haven’t been aggressive enough. Personally, I’m quite an admirer of Chancellor Merkel. I heard her statement when she was with President Obama in Washington, and I thought it was a very good statement. But now, tougher sanctions are necessary, and I’m afraid that at some point this will probably have to involve oil and gas.

The Russian economy is vulnerable—80% of Russian exports are in oil, gas, and minerals. Some people argue that the Europeans will run out of energy, but the Russians will run out of cash before the Europeans run out of energy. I understand that it’s uncomfortable to affect business ties in this way, but this is one of the few instruments we have.

In the long run, the goal should be to change the structure of energy dependence. Europe needs to rely more on the North American energy platform and the tremendous bounty of oil and gas being discovered in North America. Additionally, pipelines that bypass Ukraine and Russia are essential. For years, efforts have been made to encourage Europeans to consider different pipeline routes, and now is the time to act—and act as quickly as possible.”

So again, where is that “neocon grand strategy that has catastrophically failed”? American neocons like Condoleezza Rice tried to force Germany to stop taking Russian gas for years, but they were unable to achieve it until the war in Ukraine. So ask yourself: What is the real reason for the Ukraine war? Even the previous Trump administration wanted to stop Nord Stream, but only the Ukraine war was able to do it.

Yes, there is a larger project of destroying Russia. I wrote over a year ago that they started the war in Ukraine because they would win no matter the outcome. Winning in Ukraine and destroying Russia would be ideal. They would privatize Russia's resources, and of course, that is one of their goals. But there is also another issue: Chancellor Merkel and Europe’s attempts at independence. This war in Ukraine, if won, would help the U.S. privatize Russia, but if lost, it would help the U.S. stop the EU independence project.

28:45

“The Obama administration made several mistakes regarding Russia. First, the administration continued meddling in Russia's internal political affairs, which is a no-no among great powers. However, the United States has been doing this in Russia since 1992.

Obama still talks about democracy promotion, but it feels like his heart isn't in it. He does it for constituency reasons, as there is a State Department budget for it and other institutional pressures.

The real mistake, however, was trying to play what they called the "Medvedev card" against Putin. The narrative was that Putin is the bad guy and Medvedev is the good guy—our guy, our horse to ride. This approach was misinformed about the situation in Russia. Medvedev isn’t even a "horse" yet; he may become one, but for now, there’s only one real horse running the race, and that’s Putin.

Moreover, the Russian political class saw what the U.S. was doing, and they deeply resented it. Even Angela Merkel, who is close to Putin, complained to Washington about this strategy and urged them to stop. She argued it was demeaning to everyone involved. But such actions appear to be a reflex in U.S. foreign policy.”

So this is about destroying European independence, which I wrote about before. I supported Angela Merkel and the EU in their attempts at independence from the US. The issue started when Angela Merkel and Germany began using the EU as their neocolonial project, rather than a true union. They treated Eastern Europe as their colonies, exploiting them, but eventually, they started oppressing Western European countries as well, which caused divisions and allowed for the war in Ukraine.

The issue was about energy. Through the green agenda, they over-regulated nuclear energy and made Russian gas the most efficient energy source, thereby making Europe dependent on it. They also stopped all other alternatives, like gas from the Caspian Sea. They wanted to make everyone addicted to Russian gas, which they would distribute in Europe. This way, they would profit and ensure they had the lowest energy costs, since everyone would be buying energy from them. But gas from Africa or the Caspian Sea would create competition for Russian gas sold by Germany, which was not what Germany wanted. Germany wanted no alternative to Russian gas, which they would sell. Through the EU, they would hold administrative power, and by controlling the energy sources, they would hold economic power. This is what caused people like me in Europe to protest. We wanted to be independent from the US, but we wanted a real union, not a German neocolonial project. People in Europe didn’t want to gain independence from the US just to fall under Germany’s control.

If Germany wanted a true Union in Europe, we could have tried to become independent from the US, but Germany became too greedy and destroyed the idea of the EU, leading to all that is happening now. Germany wanted power and monopoly, controlling the EU administration and holding a monopoly on energy within the EU.

The only way to stop them was through the war in Ukraine. All US administrations and European countries protested, but it didn’t matter. This German-Russian cooperation was so strong that the US had to blow up Nord Stream. Do you think the US wanted to blow it up? This posed a problem for them because it raises questions. If the US controlled the EU, since Russia attacked Ukraine, Germany should not have made deals with Russia. But the US wasn’t sure if Germany would go along, so blowing up Nord Stream was the final signal. Besides Nord Stream, other pipelines carrying Russian gas from Russia go through Poland and Ukraine, so the US knew that by blowing up Nord Stream, Germany would have no choice. 

This was the main goal of Nord Stream. It was one of the stepping stones to the war in Ukraine. When Nord Stream was built against the wishes of all countries with Baltic coasts, other Eastern European countries, and even some Western European countries, as well as the US, did anyone ask themselves what the purpose of building Nord Stream against everyone’s wishes was? It was a tool to remove leverage from Eastern European countries over Germany and Russia. These countries, when treated badly, could shut off gas to Germany, causing trouble for both Germany and Russia. By building Nord Stream, Germany and Russia removed this leverage, allowing them to treat Eastern Europe as badly as they wanted without worrying about these countries stopping gas flow. Nord Stream was built precisely for situations like this war in Ukraine, which upset Eastern Europe and could lead them to close their pipelines. That’s why it had to be destroyed. Even the US feared that Germany would keep buying Russian gas after the war started because that was the goal of building Nord Stream.

So, to be clear, I am not saying the goal of Nord Stream was to allow Russia to take part of Ukraine, but simply to remove leverage from Eastern Europe. Russia was forced into this war by the West, but the main purpose of this war was to destroy Germany’s grip on the EU by destroying their project of EU independence through energy from Russia.

In the end, I am European. I wanted an independent Europe, free from the US, so I supported Angela Merkel in the beginning. But, as I’ve written before, she was trying to turn the EU into a German neo-colonial project, putting Germany’s interests above those of the EU. Germany and Angela Merkel controlled and steered the EU toward independence from the US, but at the same time, they didn’t want an alternative to Russian gas, which would have destroyed their neocolonial project. This meant that, in Europe, we would shift our subservience from the US to Germany instead of creating a real, free union. People in Europe like me understood what was happening, and that’s why the US got support from European countries for the war in Ukraine — to undermine the German neo-colonial project.

Now, let’s return to Ukraine for a moment. Some people may think that what is happening is the “neocon grand strategy that has catastrophically failed.” I would like to bring you back to a video of Condoleezza Rice and one thing she said, which I pointed out before:
“…pipelines that bypass Ukraine and Russia are essential.”
Why do you think she said to bypass Ukraine and Russia, and not just Russia? I’ve pointed this out and explained it before, but essentially, the West never considered Ukraine part of the West. I live in Poland and before the war started, but after 2014, I worked as a leader at Amazon, and later, over half of my workers were Ukrainian. A funny fact: when we picked a translator, we had to pick one who spoke Russian because every Ukrainian who spoke Ukrainian also spoke Russian, but a Russian-speaking Ukrainian didn’t speak Ukrainian.

So, please tell me how you imagine countries where over 50% of the population uses Russian as the main language, consumes Russian media, and uses Russian internet can be seen as part of the West? This is why Condoleezza Rice said “Ukraine and Russia,” and not just Russia. If you want to make Ukraine part of Europe, you first need to derussify it. Russia and Ukraine are like brothers, and over half of Ukraine speaks Russian and consumes Russian media. So, how do you change that?

How about war? Imagine trying to convince a young Ukrainian boy, Borys, that his father, who was part of the Azov Battalion and died in Azovstal in Mariupol at the hands of Russians, should now believe that Russians are his brothers. This was part of the war plan to destroy Ukraine. So, when you see how many Ukrainians are dying and think that this is the “neocon grand strategy that has catastrophically failed,” you need to remember that every dead Ukrainian is one step closer to derussifying Ukraine, and to making Ukrainians see Russians as enemies, not brothers. Why would you think that making Russians kill their own brothers is our failure? It’s our genius.

Why fight your enemy when we can manipulate the little brother of our enemy and make our enemy fight his own little brother while we watch and supply weapons to our enemy’s little brother? When you understand this, you realize we want as many Ukrainians dead and as much destruction of Ukraine as possible to create a bigger wedge between Ukraine and Russia, to derussify Ukraine as much as possible. If you understand that, then what is happening is not seen as failure but success.

Like I said, try to convince little Ukrainian Borys, whose father was killed by Russians, that Russians are brothers of Ukrainians. The more Ukrainians die, the more real-life Borys-like orphans will be created, and the more of them there are, the lower the chances they will ever see Russians as brothers, which is the perfect way to derussify Ukraine.

So, when you understand that Ukraine is seen as the brother of our enemy, and not our ally, and a state that needs to be derussified, you can look at this war in a different light.

As for Russia being a threat, anyone with a grasp on reality knows it’s nonsense. Russia is having trouble even taking part of Ukraine, so there is almost no chance they will take all of Ukraine. If Ukraine alone is too big for Russia, how the hell could they conquer other countries? No one living in the real world is afraid of Russia. All this talk is to maintain the narrative. Now, their goal is simply to support the “Russia, our enemy” narrative to prevent Germany from working with Russia. They don’t care so much about how much of Ukraine will be left for the West, but rather sustaining the idea of Russia as the enemy, to prevent Germany and Russia from doing business.

Tyrell Wellick:Childish conspiracy. 

Mr. Robot: Who's the one who said we were gods, huh? Time to grow up. There are no gods. Our closest deities are a society of the richest, most influential men in existence. They screw over the rest of us for profit, for fun, and then leave us in the streets for dead.

…

Phillip Price: World catastrophes like this, they aren't caused by lone wolves like you. They occur because men like me allow them. You just happened to stumble into one of them.

Phillip Price: You can't force an agenda, Mr. Alderson. You have to inspire one.

You can't force a war. You have to inspire one.