Globalists Are Doomed

von kennerderlage

 

 

Beklemmender Diskurs von Daniel Davis („Deep Dive“) und Douglas Macgregor zur geopolitischen Situation:

Zusammenfassung unter dem Video:

Col Doug Macgregor predicts that the war in Ukraine will eventually end on Russian terms, not through Western dictates, since Russia has both the staying power and public support to outlast NATO. He expects more European countries, beyond Hungary and Slovakia, to “break from the pack” as domestic populations resist pro-war policies, even if elections are manipulated (as he alleges in Moldova). Western elites assume their populations will stay passive under suppression, but unrest in France, Britain, and elsewhere suggests that strategy is unsustainable. 

 

Russia, far from being weakened, is expanding mobilization among young men, with rigorous training, effective discipline, and improved leadership after purging weak commanders. The Russian military is preparing for a potential conflict with NATO, while the U.S. and Europe are ill-prepared. Despite Secretary of State Rubio’s claims that the war cannot be won militarily and must end at the negotiating table, Washington’s rhetoric about long-range strikes into Russia — including requests by Zelensky for Tomahawk missiles—creates dangerous escalation risks. The speaker stresses that if U.S. missiles hit Moscow or other major Russian cities, nuclear war could quickly follow, which no one could control. Words from top U.S. officials matter, and careless statements are taken seriously by Moscow. 

 

Trump’s stance is contradictory: while he has indicated the U.S. won’t directly intervene, his administration has floated ideas of arming Ukraine more aggressively. The speaker warns that Trump is highly impulsive and easily swayed by advisors feeding him false data — such as claims by Kellogg and Pompeo that Russia is losing — which distort his judgment. There is also speculation that Trump may deliberately prolong the war to tie down Russian forces and limit their ability to aid Iran, though this strategy is seen as both misguided and dangerous. Separately, rumors of Trump considering a U.S. invasion of Venezuela raise fears of further reckless military adventurism. 

 

The broader critique is that U.S. strategy ignores “economy of enemies” — instead of isolating adversaries, Washington multiplies them by overestimating its power, much as it did in Vietnam or before D-Day. Meanwhile, the U.S. and its allies face severe structural vulnerabilities: the dollar is losing its role as global reserve currency to gold, bond markets are fragile, debt is unsustainable, and Europe faces similar financial weakness. Against this backdrop, the idea of engaging in multiple wars simultaneously is described as insane, highlighting a dangerous gap between Washington’s rhetoric and the realities of both military capability and economic stability.