The US-EU “Division of Labor” to Continue Confronting Russia and China: My Views on Ukraine and Addressing the Narrative Created from Lies and Blind Optimism

I have many subjects to tackle, and I’m writing all the time that I will cover economic issues and the concept of global reserve currency status, but this subject feels more urgent to me right now.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I wanted to touch on the subject of the US-EU “Division of Labor” based on Brian Berletic’s work, so I’ll do that in this post. I think it’s an important topic that, in my opinion, The Duran are overlooking.

I first learned about Brian Berletic and The New Atlas through The Duran, just as I discovered The Duran from The Jimmy Dore Show. That’s why it’s really disappointing for me that they stopped collaborating with Brian and that their views have diverged. I share a similar perspective with Brian when it comes to Ukraine, whereas I feel The Duran are still somewhat trapped by the official narrative and blinded by their optimism.

For those interested in a deeper dive into the concept of the US-EU “Division of Labor,” I recommend checking out Brian Berletic’s work on The New Atlas. Here are two videos:

– YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

– YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

I really wish The Duran would invite Brian Berletic to debate his views on Ukraine. In one of the videos – specifically the second one titled “Is There a Real US-EU Split? Or Simply ‘Division Of Labor’ for US Primacy?” – he still defends The Duran despite disagreeing with them. Around 1:11:46 he says:

“Duran and his friends and colleagues, I believe, are genuine in all their beliefs. I think that they are excellent analysts and extremely intelligent. I don’t think they would deny that they are being a little swept away by what’s going on, but if you listen to them carefully – and I still listen to them daily – you will hear them criticizing things that the Trump Administration is doing. When it came to President Trump’s comments about basically obliterating Gaza, both Alex and Alexander condemned it wholeheartedly and unconditionally; they didn’t try to make any excuses for it at all, which I can’t say the same for Ritter. And when President Trump was talking about how Russia stole hypersonic missile technology from the US, Alex Christoforou said that was completely insane. So, as actual events play out, they are going to call it out honestly. So, you know, these are not the people that I’m talking about.”

It was nice to hear him praise The Duran even while disagreeing with them. Also, when he says “those people,” he’s referring to individuals completely blinded by the Trump savior complex – which is, in its own way, just as irrational as Trump Derangement Syndrome. While opposite in nature, both reflect a kind of blind faith that disregards logic and facts.

The US-EU “Division of Labor”

While I also disagree with The Duran on some points, I still praise them – especially because they allow me to share my views, even when they differ from theirs. This shows integrity on their part, as they’re open to platforming different perspectives rather than just seeking out people who will blindly follow and praise them.

Regarding Ukraine, my views align more closely with Brian Berletic and his concept of the “US-EU Division of Labor.” People often forget that it was the US – especially during Trump’s last presidency – that pressured the EU to spend more on military and defense. The same goes for Nord Stream. While Biden was the one who ultimately destroyed the pipeline, people forget that Trump had already imposed sanctions and demanded a stop to Nord Stream. So, while Trump didn’t destroy it, he also wanted to shut it down.

In my opinion – and I believe in Brian Berletic’s as well – The Duran became blinded by their optimism. Instead of seeing what was really happening, they saw what they wanted to happen. Don’t get me wrong, everyone can be wrong. For example, I was one of those people who thought claims that Trump would end US democracy were just propaganda and exaggeration from people with Trump Derangement Syndrome. And during his first presidency, those claims seemed unfounded. But now, many people like me who once dismissed such warnings are beginning to admit that they might have been true. Even Democrats, despite their flaws, never pushed censorship and oppression as far as Trump appears to be doing now. I have to admit I was wrong – Trump really could dismantle US democracy.

Now, Trump’s recent actions should be eye-opening, even to The Duran, because they were surprised by them – while they weren’t surprising at all to Brian Berletic or to me. Realizing that sanctions aren’t meant to help the US economy, but are part of an economic war against China, should start to dispel some of the blind optimism around Trump.

People say Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine – but if that’s the case, why hasn’t he stopped US support for Ukraine? Why did he extend sanctions against Russia recently? If he really wanted to end the war, he could simply stop arming Ukraine, stop providing intelligence support, and stop escalating tensions. And if he wanted to improve relations with Russia, why continue sanctions? These facts should make people question the popular narrative.

Some claim that the EU is going against the US – but how? By increasing military spending, which the US has been demanding for years? Or by cutting off Russian gas, another demand from the US? The EU is doing exactly what the US has asked for, and somehow this is framed as resistance? How does that make sense?

Now, ask yourselves this: how could the EU convince its citizens to accept increased military spending while the US was still providing protection? They couldn’t – not without a narrative suggesting that the US was pulling away, that the EU had to defend itself. I’ve heard simple-minded people justifying that “we need to defend against evil, Hitler-like Putin” or “Trump is abandoning Europe, so we must defend ourselves.” But how else would you convince such people to accept the military buildup, if not with this narrative of US-EU division?

That’s why I agree with Brian Berletic: it’s just theater. A show for the masses. The US knows it can’t confront Russia, the Middle East, and China all at once. So it needs help from its vassals – like the EU. The EU’s role is to take on Russia alone, not in defiance of US wishes, but under US orders. The supposed EU-US split is just a staged conflict to sell this narrative to the public. It’s a “division of labor.”

If Russia is tied up fighting – or even just fending off – the EU, then it has fewer resources to support Iran or China. That’s the real goal. Ending the war in Ukraine would free Russia to shift its attention elsewhere, which is exactly what the US doesn’t want. So, the EU’s role is to keep Russia busy, again, not in opposition to the US, but in service of its strategy.

This whole EU-US “conflict” is just theater for the proles – for the simple-minded people – because it’s the only way to justify increased EU military spending. People believe the puppet shows they see on TV, without understanding the deeper reality. How is cutting off Russian gas and ramping up arms spending “opposing” the US when it’s exactly what the US – and the Trump administration – demanded?

Don’t listen to what the puppets on screen say – it’s all manipulation to shape public opinion and get people to comply. Like I said earlier, without this staged conflict, how would you convince the public in the EU to justify military spending increases that the US has pushed for years?

This reminds me of what I mentioned in my last post about Whitney Webb’s work, which highlights how the Democrat vs. Republican conflict is just another puppet show. The narrative that an “evil communist” like Soros is being defeated by a “savior” Trump is laughable when you see what’s actually happening: so-called “15-minute cities” are rebranded as “freedom cities”; Central Bank Digital Currencies are supposedly being stopped, while stable coins are being promoted instead; “woke censorship” is being replaced with censorship targeting antisemitism; surveillance of the far-right terrorism is being swapped for surveillance of the woke or Islamic terrorism.

It’s all the same thing – just different branding.

This is the real game: a puppet show for the simple-minded, designed to distract from the reality behind the scenes. The same logic applies to the war in Ukraine. We need to look beyond the theater and understand the real strategy being played out.

The Truth About Trump and His Stupidity

I touched on this subject in my recent post. We are constantly fed the illusion that Trump is some kind of savior, protecting us from “evil woke communism,” when in reality he’s just continuing the same policies with a new cultural veneer and branding. In that post, I explained how Trump is not the outsider hero he’s made out to be, but actually the ideal candidate for the deep state – because he can push through oligarch-serving economic policies that Democrats simply couldn’t get away with.

For example, Trump’s previous tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy were set to expire, and no Democrat could plausibly extend or expand them without massive backlash. Trump, on the other hand, is doing exactly that. Similarly, no Democrat could get away with introducing tariffs which is a regressive tax that disproportionately hurts the poor – yet Trump is praised for doing so. This is why the oligarchy (which is the deep state) supported Trump: he delivers what they want under the guise of populism.

As I’ve said before, the idea of assassination attempts on Trump is ridiculous. If the deep state truly wanted him dead, he’d be six feet under by now. These people don’t miss. And they wouldn’t shoot him in broad daylight in a way that threatens civil unrest or even civil war, because that would weaken the US – the very thing the deep state relies on for power. If they really wanted to get rid of Trump, they’d give him a heart attack and blame it on his diet of Diet Coke and McDonald’s. A public assassination makes no strategic sense.

That’s why I believe the so-called assassination attempt was not an act by the deep state, but a staged event orchestrated by the Trump camp to boost his chances of winning. Without that dramatic image – Trump bleeding but raising his fist in defiance – he probably wouldn’t be winning. People say the bullet nearly killed him, but I’ve already mentioned the DARPA EXACTO bullet program from 2015. Where is the ballistics analysis? Where are the images of the bullets that hit him? Why is there no real investigation? There won’t be one – not because the deep state tried to kill Trump, but because they helped stage the entire event to ensure his victory.

Anyway, I went on that rant because the naïveté of people continues to frustrate me. In my previous post, I explained how Trump is actually an idiot—not someone who outsmarted the deep state, but someone who didn’t understand the deep state.

For example, he went after ISIS not because he wanted to rebel against the system, but because he truly believed the official narrative that the US was fighting ISIS. He didn’t understand that ISIS was a CIA creation. The generals at the Pentagon told him it would take five years to defeat ISIS. But Trump, convinced he knew better, flew to Iraq on Air Force One without telling anyone. Once on the ground, local commanders told him ISIS could be defeated in weeks – but they had orders not to do so. Why? Because ISIS was a CIA project.

ISIS existed to allow Western corporations to buy Iraqi oil illegally and at a discount. Without ISIS, they’d have to pay market prices to the Iraqi government. But by buying oil from terrorists, profits skyrocketed. Trump, being clueless, thought the US was genuinely fighting ISIS and ordered troops to destroy them – and within four weeks, most of ISIS was gone.

What people don’t seem to understand is this: the US had total air superiority over Iraq, and ISIS had no air force, no air defense. How were they extracting and selling oil for years under these conditions? Why didn’t the US bomb their oil infrastructure? The answer is simple: because the US didn’t want to destroy it. They were profiting from it. Anyone who still thinks the US was seriously trying to defeat ISIS isn’t asking the right questions.

The same logic applies to Afghanistan. The CIA was producing heroin there for their illegal drug operations. Just like with Iraq, they benefited not only from the war machine but also from the black market profits. Why would they want to end that?

The US didn’t “lose” in Afghanistan or Iraq – they achieved their real goals. ISIS was only destroyed because Trump, in his ignorance, ordered it. Not because he was fighting the deep state, but because he believed in the propaganda. As for Afghanistan, the war ended because most supply routes went through Russian territory, and because fentanyl—a synthetic alternative – made Afghanistan’s poppy fields obsolete. The CIA no longer needed Afghan heroin when they could manufacture fentanyl in labs worldwide.

Trump Tariffs Debacle

I had to explain the truth about Trump and his stupidity earlier in this post because it directly connects to his tariffs debacle. The deep state had a specific plan for tariffs for Trump, which I believe included forming an economic free trade zone with the EU. But just like with ISIS, Trump thought he knew better and went off-script with his own tariff strategy.

Trump is guided by official narratives and doesn’t understand the underlying reality—just like he didn’t understand the truth about ISIS, which led him to destroy what was actually a CIA project the deep state wanted to maintain. A similar situation happened with tariffs: Trump bought into the narrative that the EU is an adversary and completely missed the reality of the US-EU “Division of Labor.”

Believing that the EU was a threat, Trump imposed tariffs on them. This was problematic because the EU was actually doing everything the US had asked under the “Division of Labor” strategy – taking on Russia alone so the US could focus on the Middle East and China. By targeting the EU with tariffs, Trump hurt an ally that was executing the deep state’s plan. As a result, the EU now has more reason to consider aligning with China and BRICS, and potentially returning to Russian gas imports – something that directly undermines US strategic goals.

Trump, once again, messed up the deep state’s plans – not out of rebellion, but because of his ignorance. This is the core issue the deep state has with Trump: while they prefer him economically (because he delivers tax cuts for the oligarchy that Democrats couldn’t politically push through), he’s unpredictable and naive. He often believes the very propaganda meant for public consumption and deviates from the actual agenda, thinking he knows better.

The deep state’s strategy was to pretend the EU was an adversary in order to manipulate European public opinion – justifying increased military spending and independence from Russian energy as part of the “Division of Labor.” But Trump took this theater too seriously. By treating the EU as a genuine enemy and imposing tariffs, he risks turning that illusion into reality. Now the EU may actually align with China, re-engage with Russia, and reject the US strategy altogether.

In short, instead of maintaining a divided but cooperative global structure where the EU and US share responsibilities, Trump’s actions may push the EU away completely – isolating the US and undoing years of strategic planning. All because he didn’t listen and thought he knew better.

Origins of Neocons

I’ve written before about Alex Krainer and his theory of the so-called “imaginary British Crown,” and today I watched another interview in which he once again promoted his views – specifically, the idea that the EU is behind the neocons. In my opinion, this is incorrect. I also heard a similar claim on The Duran, suggesting that the EU was the source and origin of neocons, which I also believe is wrong.

54:52

Because, for decades, we have been given the impression that Europeans are simply being coerced by the evil empire, the United States, into following along with all these imperial misadventures in the Middle East, Oceania, and elsewhere, fighting these crazy wars because the crazy Americans are so warlike, violent, and arrogant. We are just being loyal allies, and, you know, we end up looking bad, but it’s not because we really want to. Well, now Trump says, “Okay, I’m done with Ukraine,” and Europeans, instead of saying, “Okay, that’s over now, we can go back to peace and bring an end to this whole mess,” no, they go absolutely hysterical, and they want to continue the war however they can.

Here we go again. Alex Krainer still doesn’t seem to understand the plan and concept of the “Division of Labor,” which I explained earlier based on Brian Berletic’s work. His sarcastic remark – “Europeans are simply being coerced by the evil empire, the United States, into following along with all these imperial misadventures” – is actually true. Unfortunately, the host of the program wasn’t informed enough to challenge Krainer’s views.

I would counter his argument by asking: what about France and Germany refusing to take part in the second Iraq War? If the U.S. was supposedly acting on behalf of the EU – then why did France and Germany refuse to participate? And why did Saddam Hussein begin selling oil in euros instead of dollars, if the EU was really the one pushing for the invasion?

I previously shared a video of Stephen F. Cohen in which he mentioned that even Angela Merkel had complained to Washington about how poorly the U.S. was treating Putin.

28:58

“We see this; Obama still talks about democracy promotion, but one feels his heart’s not in it. He has to do it for constituency reasons; there’s a State Department budget for it, and all the rest. But the real mistake they’ve made is they’ve tried to play, as they put it, the Medvedev card against Putin. Putin’s a bad guy, Medvedev is a good guy; he’s our guy, our horse, we’ll ride him. First of all, this is misinformed about the situation in Russia. Medvedev isn’t even a horse yet. He may become a horse, but at the moment, there’s only one real horse running this race. Secondly, the Russian political class sees what they’re doing, and they resent it. They don’t like it. Even Merkel, who’s close to Putin, complained to Washington about this, told them to stop it; it was demeaning to everybody to be doing this. But it’s a reflex.”

All this talk about playing the ‘Medvedev card against Putin’ was explained in a debate I posted a long time ago on The Duran, on January 18, 2023—over two years ago.

Russian-Georgian conflict from 2008

The Medvedev story and his failure were explained by Max Blumenthal in a short history of Russia's new Cold War in another one of my posts.

AI Translated: Putin’s 2007 Munich Security Conference Speech in English, Voiced by Putin Himself(and short history of Russia and Putin by Max Blumenthal)

Here is a brief excerpt regarding Medvedev.

Putin steps aside to Medvedev after 2008. Medvedev comes in and was not particularly popular in Russia. The Libya events really showed how Medvedev’s presence frightened Russia’s military intelligence apparatus. When there was a critical vote at the UN on whether to allow a no-fly zone in Libya, Russia abstained. What's Libya now? Open-air slave auctions, the destabilization of North Africa, the rise of Boko Haram, the arms blowout to the south, from Libya to Syria—complete chaos.

Putin steps back in after the Magnitsky sanctions come in.

In the same post, we have an AI-translated version of Putin's speech from the 2007 Munich Security Conference. I highly recommend watching it, and I would like to highlight one fragment from that speech.

22:19

Experts and our Western partners are objectively evaluating these changes as such. Russia's OECD sovereign credit rating improved, and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. Today, in Munich, I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision.

So here we have the fact that France and Germany refused to take part in the second invasion of Iraq, and the fact that Saddam Hussein was selling oil in Euros instead of Dollars. We also have Merkel complaining to Washington about their poor treatment of Putin. Then we have Putin himself thanking Germany, led by Merkel, for helping him and Russia. Later, Merkel was spied on by the NSA - so, by the US. Trump sanctioned Nord Stream and threatened Germany in an attempt to stop the project. Then Biden blew up Nord Stream.

Yet somehow, we’re supposed to believe it wasn’t the US that wanted war with Russia - it was the supposedly "bad" Europeans who wanted to start this war, and they somehow forced the "good, benevolent" US into it. I really wonder what Alex Krainer would say in response to all these facts. I genuinely wish someone would send him this post, because I think he’s missing crucial information that distorts his perception of what's really happening. So while he sarcastically stated, “Europeans are simply being coerced by the evil empire, the United States, into following along with all these imperial misadventures,” that’s actually a true statement.

I explained in my previous posts how this war was directed against Germany and its project of making the EU independent from the US - turning it into a German neo-colonial project. This was well explained by George Friedman, whom I’ve quoted many times. His video, however, was removed from Twitter (now called X), which is controlled by Elon Musk—the so-called beacon of free speech.

So, the primordial interest of the United States, over which for a century we have fought wars—the First, Second, and Cold War - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united, they are the only force that could threaten us, and to make sure that that doesn't happen.

Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the Intermarium, the Black Sea to the Baltic, that Pilsudski dreamed of. This is the solution for the United States.

The issue to which we don't have the answer is: what will Germany do? The real wild card in Europe is that as the United States builds this cordon sanitaire—not in Ukraine, but to the West—and the Russians try to figure out how to leverage Ukrainians out, we don't know the German position.

Germany is in a very peculiar position. Its former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is on the board of Gazprom. They have a very complex relationship. As I mentioned before, the Germans themselves don't know what to do. They must export; the Russians can't take up the export. On the other hand, if they lose the free trade zone, they need to build something different.

For the United States, the primordial fear is Russian natural resources, Russian manpower, German technology, and German capital. That combination has, for centuries, scared the hell out of the United States.

How Does This Play Out?

Well, the U.S. has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea. And he goes on to say in his next line that Russia's cards on the table are that they need a Ukraine that is not pro-Western, that it's at least neutral.

After the U.S. destroyed Germany's plan to make the EU independent from the U.S. and turn the EU into a German neo-colonial project, the U.S. then placed their neocons, with their neocon ideology, into positions of power in the EU. So, neocons didn’t originate in the EU; they were imported into the EU by the U.S., which placed them in power and then divided the "Division of Labor" plan, which I explained earlier based on Brian Berletic's work.

This is how I see it: don't be afraid to leave a comment if you disagree or have some information I may have missed. I don't want comments simply stating I am wrong, but if you have information that could change my mind, I would gladly hear it and debate this topic. Also, I would really appreciate it if you would share my post. I don't get paid for writing it, but I want the truth to reach as far as possible because it is the only way to change the situation we are in right now.

Anyway thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always…

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

Please pay enough attention, or we will all be screwed. God bless you all.