The main threat to American safety comes not from abroad, but from Washington

Predictably, in order to avoid catastrophe, the government insists Americans must sacrifice more of their money and more of their liberties.

The American public must be informed, explains the Commission on the National Defense Strategy in a new report. Despite war propaganda daily flooding Washington, the CNDS complained that people “have been inadequately informed by government leaders of the threats to U.S. interests—including to people’s everyday lives—and what will be required to restore American global power and leadership.”

In the Commission’s view, the United States is at great risk. Threats are multiplying around the globe. Only great effort can save the country. Americans must turn over more of their money and sacrifice more of their liberties. They must be scared into compliance.

In fact, this is nonsense. For decades the United States has been the most secure great power ever. The U.S. has dominated its continent and entire hemisphere since the mid-19th century. Surrounded by deep waters east and west and weak neighbors north and south, America is largely invulnerable to attack.

Which enabled it to become the most dominant great power ever. With middling effort at home, the U.S. turned into the decisive power abroad. World War II left America as the globe’s most powerful nation, with half the world’s economic production as a foundation for the world’s most sophisticated military. Almost all of its allies remain dependent on US money and production. Today’s world is becoming multipolar, but military threats against the continental US remain minimal, other than assorted nuclear arsenals, most importantly Russia’s.

With Americans living in an extraordinary security cocoon, the 9/11 attacks came as a shock. Of America’s many conflicts, only the Civil War occurred at home. And it ended 159 years ago. Compare the U.S. to the other major powers. Russia, Germany, China, France, Japan, Ukraine, Iran, Iraq, South and North Korea, and so many other nations have been attacked, invaded, occupied—often repeatedly, and sometimes by the U.S.

The fact that Washington almost always fights overseas demonstrates that U.S. policy is usually offensive. Most of what America does militarily has little to do with its own security. Wars of choice have been constant, which explains President Joe Biden proudly informing journalist George Stephanopoulos that “I’m running the world.” (Or at least purporting to.)

Yet the Commission is worried, declaring, “The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war.” Worse, apparently, than during the Cold War and Korean War. China is “the pacing and global threat.” Russia is the “chronic and reconstituting threat.” Iran, North Korea, and terrorism constitute “an axis of growing malign partnerships.”

Indeed, warned the CNDS,

There is a high probability that the next war would be fought across multiple theaters, would involve multiple adversaries, and likely would not be concluded quickly. Both China and Russia independently have global reach and have committed to a ‘no-limits friendship,’ with additional partnerships developing with North Korea and Iran, as described previously. As U.S. adversaries are cooperating more closely together than before, the United States and its allies must be prepared to confront an axis of multiple adversaries.

Hence America faces an emergency. What to do? Mobilize the public! Spend more money on the military! Station more troops overseas! More of everything is required. We must even be prepared, apparently, to invade China and Russia: “Landpower remains central to American security, no matter the adversary or theater. In large-scale operations, the Army remains critical to dominating adversaries.”

Yet there is a lot less to this seemingly daunting threat list than initially meets the eye. Terrorism is only a minor national problem (individual victims understandably feel differently). It is best addressed by doing less overseas, especially the bombing missions, foreign occupations, and miscellaneous interventions that trigger foreign hostility and vengeful attacks.

Iran and North Korea are nasty regimes but have no intrinsic interest in tangling with America. For instance, if Washington were not in the Middle East backing both Israel and the Sunni Gulf monarchies, the Iranian ayatollahs would pay the U.S. little mind. Today the Biden administration is preparing for war with Iran, not to defend America but Israel—a regional superpower, with conventional superiority, nuclear weapons, and security relations with leading Arab states. Pyongyang directs abundant threats against the U.S. because the U.S. is there, on and around the peninsula threatening the North day and night. If Washington left the Republic of Korea, vastly more powerful than the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to defend itself, America would hear little more from DPRK Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un. The U.S. should ignore rather than confront Tehran and Pyongyang.

Russia is no threat to America. Moscow has no territorial conflicts or inevitable disputes with the U.S. In fact, the two governments have cooperated against Islamic terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Russia is authoritarian, but neither ideological nor evangelistic. Vladimir Putin has been in power for more than a quarter century and originally demonstrated no animus to America. Putin’s attitude changed after the allies did their best to antagonize all Russians with an aggressive, even recklessforeign policy.

As for territorial conquest, Putin, though a criminal aggressor, is no Hitler. In 2008, he promoted preexisting separatism in South Ossetia and Abkhazia against Georgia, which he attacked after it fired on Russian troops. He invaded Ukraine after years of warnings against bringing Kiev into NATO—which the allies did indirectly by bringing NATO into Ukraine. Putin’s government is challenging the Biden administration elsewhere in retaliation for Washington helping to kill thousands of Russian soldiers in Ukraine. The U.S. could defuse today’s Russian threats by adopting the “humble foreign policy” that candidate George W. Bush once promoted and stopping attempts to dominate everywhere up to Russia’s border. As for Europe’s security, why cannot a continent with ten times the GDP and three times the population of Russia protect itself?

Finally, there is the People’s Republic of China. Even if it is the “pacing” challenge, as the Commission claimed, Beijing is not a serious military threat to America. The Chinese Communist Party is Leninist, determined to hold on to power, rather than Marxist, determined to revolutionize the world. Nevertheless, Beijing has become an important geopolitical rival. It possesses a large and sophisticated economy and is the world’s greatest trading nation. Its armed forces are ranked third in the world, amid an ongoing nuclear buildup. Required is a nuanced and multinational response.

The primary bilateral battleground is economic, not military. Although Chinese military power is expanding, that doesn’t mean the threat is significant, at least in the sense of putting America’s people, territories, independence, and liberties at risk. Beijing has neither the desire nor the ability to attack the United States, conquer its Pacific possessions, exclude it from global markets, or otherwise turn America into a tributary state.

There is a military issue, but it involves U.S. influence in East Asia. Members of the Washington Blob, like Biden, continue to believe that they are entitled by birth to “run the world.” As such, their objective is not to defend America from attack by China, but to coerce China, along with any other nation so ill-mannered as to reject U.S. hegemony.

Beijing seeks what America has, dominance in its own region. If the U.S. refuses to accommodate a more powerful PRC, military friction is inevitable and military conflict is possible, perhaps likely. Nevertheless, while the U.S. benefits from its unnatural role in East Asia and surrounding waters—effectively ruling the Pacific up to China’s shores—that position is not vital to American security, and thus does not warrant war with a serious conventional power that possesses nuclear weapons over interests it believes to be vital.

The U.S. should not be indifferent to increasing Chinese influence. Rather, it should help friendly states acquire the wherewithal necessary for their own defense and encourage them to work together to constrain the PRC. They can rely on anti-access/area denial strategies, just as Beijing does against Washington. America has committed to the defense of its treaty allies, most importantly Japan, Philippines, and South Korea, but what matters is their independence, so far not threatened by Beijing, rather than their control over every barren rock that they claim in contested waters. The U.S. should calibrate its commitments to its interests, avoiding war over peripheral matters.

The most incendiary issue is Taiwan, which matters to China both because of history, having been lost to Japan during “the century of humiliation,” and security, since possession by a hostile power would threaten the Chinese homeland. Although Beijing’s objective is to regain control through coerced negotiation, it is widely believed that the PRC would act militarily if Taiwan declared independence. Although there is no evidence that the Xi government has any firm deadline in mind, some Western analysts believe that an impatient China might act in the coming years.

Like Russia’s attack on Ukraine, a Chinese assault on Taiwan, though a moral atrocity, would be only a geopolitical inconvenience for America. From a U.S. security standpoint, the island is useful in impeding the PRC, not defending America. Taiwan is not worth a war, one against a nuclear power which has both nationalistic ego and serious security interests at stake. Washington should promote other forms of deterrence, not risk this nation’s very survival.

The report warns “that the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat.” Confidence to do what? Americans should not expect to defeat China and occupy Beijing. What matters is preventing China from defeating the U.S. and occupying Washington, D.C. Which we can do.

The Commission on the National Defense Strategy’s report reads like a long litany of militaristic screeds emanating from America’s military industrial think tank university complex. The proposed solution is always a frenzied military buildup and war against all.

The world may be dangerous, but the U.S. remains surprisingly secure. The greatest threats against America result from Washington policymakers making other nations’ enemies America’s own. How to better safeguard U.S. interests? Stop confusing them with the wishes of foreign friends and fantasies of Washington officials.

Reprinted with permission from The American Conservative.

Related Topics:#LifeSiteNews #USRussia DougBandow GlobalPower TheConservative USChina USMilitary USNationalDefenseStrategy USSecurity

Up Next

Taxpayers Federation: Is Catherine Tait “trying” to bring down the CBC?

Don't Miss

2024 is Going to Give us All PTSD

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Why are the globalists so opposed to Trump’s efforts to make peace in Ukraine?

armed forces / 4 hours ago

Yet another struggling soldier says Veteran Affairs Canada offered him euthanasia

2025 Federal Election / 18 hours ago

As PM Poilievre would cancel summer holidays for MP’s so Ottawa can finally get back to work

conflict

Why are the globalists so opposed to Trump’s efforts to make peace in Ukraine?

Published on April 26, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

The narrative over Ukraine reveals not only how hard the war economy will fight to rescue its system from peace, but also how the hardest sell these days is hard reality.

The Trump administration’s moves toward peace in Ukraine – and elsewhere – have attracted widespread criticism from within and without the globalist establishment.

As the U.S. government now threatens to “walk away” from Ukraine if its seven-point peace plan is rejected, a new battle line is being drawn between permanent war and propaganda – and the urgent reality demanding radical change from the globalist business as usual.

Trump has proposed an immediate ceasefire, no NATO membership for Ukraine, and for Russia to keep the territories it has taken during the war – with the U.S. to recognize Crimea as Russian. The proposal for peace has been met with outrage, and even accusations of betrayal. Yet the peace deal appears to be a simple recognition of reality. What’s the problem?

Dan Davis’ deep dive into Ukraine

In his deep dive of April 23, Dan Davis helps to explain why reality is so controversial and the mention of peace akin to treason. He joins German journalist and academic Patrik Baab to show how the pro-war faction in the U.S. and Europe have fought their own line in the media for well over a decade.

Davis, whose appointment to a National Intelligence post was recently sabotaged by another war faction – that of the Israel lobby – has learned the personal consequences of contradicting the globalist war narrative. So has Baab – who was fired from his academic post in 2022 for the crime of journalism.

Baab had traveled to Donbass to research a now published book he discusses with Davis. Titled On Both Sides of the Front, it informs his discussion of the “NATO-backed Maidan coup” in 2014 and the media campaign which has sold this war to Westerners as yet another defence of democracy abroad – as in Iraq. According to Foreign Policy, Ukraine is a magical democracy which “still functions without elections.”

Having arrived at the time of the Russian-backed elections in Donetsk and Lugansk regions, Baab was accused on his return to Germany of having “legitimized” the votes and was dismissed and smeared in the German press.

Both Davis and Raab give important context to U.S. threats to “walk away” from Ukraine if a peace deal is not settled, showing the reason why “two different stories” are so often told “about the same events.”

Reality vs. fantasy, or life and death

In Western politics and media, one side is invested in the war and the other is not. This can also be seen as the factions of fantasy versus reality.

EU Chief Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen famously claimed in 2022 that Russia was cannibalizing “refrigerators and washing machines” to harvest microchips for its war machine, with the UK defense minister saying in early 2023 that Russian soldiers had been reduced to fighting with shovels. In the media, Ukraine’s victory was only a matter of time – which was money. Yours.

To keep this money flowing, the Western audience whose taxes provide it must be convinced there is good reason to keep sending it to Zelensky, who cannot pay it back.

U.S./NATO started the war

As Baab explains, the reason why the global faction arranged this war was nothing to do with Ukraine – the objective was to collapse and balkanize Russia. This would give the globalist British state and its pro-war EU partners a new lease of geopolitical life, as well as shoring up their crippled economies with command of Russia’s near limitless natural resources.

A global war industry

Former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken ran WestExec – a profitable war business consultancy, one of many which monetized forever war through influence peddling.

Former under-secretary of state Victoria Nuland, who managed the 2014 coup in Ukraine, has her own family business of war. It is called “the Kagan-industrial complex” after her husband arch-neocon Robert Kagan and his brother Frederick – whose ISW urges escalation in the talking points it supplies to pro-war outlets in the mainstream media. This network runs public relations for the wars its members start. Nice work if you can get it.

Russia has won

This is the reality behind the slogans of “Slava Ukraini” and the framing of the war as the defense – and inevitable triumph – of “democracy.” This fantasy narrative is now collapsing. Why?

In reality, Russia has won the war. As Baab points out, “Putin won the war. That means the West has to meet Putin’s proposals.”

This reality is a problem for the Western media which has sold every disastrous war of the last century as a win and a sacrifice in the defense of democracy. It is also a problem for the liberal-global elite, whose political capital is invested in the defeat of Russia.

U.S. will ‘walk away’ if no deal

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio – together with Vice President JD Vance – have said that if Trump’s seven-point plan is not accepted the U.S. will “walk away” from Ukraine – as retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor has consistently said they should.

Neither Rubio nor chief negotiator Steve Witkoff attended the London conference on April 23, at which Zelensky predictably rejected Trump’s seven-point peace deal.

Col. Macgregor told Judge Andrew Napolitano it was clear “Zelensky is not going to agree” to the proposed deal.

Why? It is based on reality. Macgregor agrees that the U.S. should walk away – reminding viewers “this war would never have happened had we not mightily supported this regime we helped into power in 2014.”

Why did the U.S. do that? “To attack Russia,” Macgregor says, “because the whole idea was to build up a Ukrainian battering ram and hurl it at Russia. Crazy.”

A frustrated and uncharacteristically alarmed Macgregor asks, “Why are we even involved?”

He suggests “the best President Trump can do is say ‘It’s over. I never wanted this. It’s not my war. I’m suspending all aid, I’m pulling out.’”

The former Trump adviser adds, “Well, he didn’t do that. What’s next? I’m not sure.”

“Whatever happens, we look ridiculous. Again.”

Macgregor adds that “at least we have had the sense to walk away. What’s important is to normalize relations with Moscow,” explaining that Zelensky’s claims to Crimea and the Russian regions now absorbed into Russia are “nonsense.”

Trump: recognizing reality?

The Trump administration has offered to recognize Crimea as Russian – as has been historically and actually the case. Trump himself has accused Zelensky of sabotaging the peace deal, as the unelected leader of Ukraine refuses this and other concessions made unavoidable by the fact that Russia has won the war.

“The situation for Ukraine is dire – He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country. I have nothing to do with Russia, but have much to do with wanting to save, on average, five thousand Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, who are dying for no reason whatsoever.”

Trump laid the blame squarely on Zelensky – saying his impossible demands would simply prolong the killing, as well as resulting in total defeat.

“The statement made by Zelenskyy today will do nothing but prolong the ‘killing field,’ and nobody wants that! We are very close to a deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE.”

In 2014, Crimeans voted “overwhelmingly” to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. The territory was gifted to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Nikitia Khrushchev in 1954, though its population remained predominantly ethnic Russian.

Trump’s aim, as Alastair Crooke has pointed out, is far bigger than merely ending this war. The overall goal here is a reset of the global order – away from the death cult model of forever war, and toward stabilization and trade abroad to power national renewal at home. As Crooke notes, Trump “is ringed by a resolute domestic enemy front in the form of an ‘industrial concern’ infused with Deep State ideology, centered primarily on preserving U.S. global power (rather than on mending of the economy).”

Surrender to Russia?

Reports in the globalist media of a total surrender to Russia are overblown:

Trump countered the narrative of “concessions” to Russia with the stark riposte that Russia’s choice not to “take all of Ukraine” was a significant concession in itself.

As Alex Christoforou of The Duran noted, Trump’s position on Crimea presented the EU with a “choice,” which the globalist Financial Times says was “forced” upon the pro-war bloc.

The EU had a choice, support US or Ukraine. EU chose Ukraine, and rejected Trump's plan for US recognition of Crimea.

The EU rejects the US decision to recognize Crimea.
“Crimea is Ukraine,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told French news agency AFP.

Via FT: "For… pic.twitter.com/cdfWGEoULO

— Alex Christoforou (@AXChristoforou) April 25, 2025

Russians propose alliance with U.S.

So what do the Russians think?

A remarkable response from the Russians shows some of their perspective. On April 16, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) published a call for Washington and Moscow to unite against the EU – and to thwart the moves of the British state to escalate and prolong the war.

According to RT, the statement said, “The US and Russia are natural allies against ‘Eurofascism’ and the tyrannical tendencies prevalent in Western European countries.”

From its beginning, the EU has tended to be a totalitarian entity, ruled over by unelected, globalist-minded bureaucrats and elites determined to crush the unique cultures and sovereignty of its member states. Many have warned that that it was created to be the springboard for a New World Order tyranny.

The SVR sounded an optimistic note, suggesting Russian and U.S. officials are working together to secure peace.

“The agency said that ‘foreign expert circles’ are hopeful that Russia and the US will work together to prevent ‘a new global conflict’ and confront ‘possible provocations both from Ukraine and from the “maddened Europeans” traditionally urged on by Great Britain.’”

As Davis and Baab discussed, neither Steve Witkoff nor Marco Rubio attended the recent London conference on Ukraine – which Macgregor said was pointless due to Zelensky’s refusal to accept reality.

British state vs. Trump peace deal

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has joined the EU in “contradicting” Trump, according to the Daily Telegraph. Starmer says the unelected Zelensky must have a say in any deal – and Zelensky is of course saying no.

The Daily Telegraph blasted Trump’s seven-point peace plan as “surrender, capitulation, betrayal, appeasement,” saying “Trump’s deal” to secure peace “would plunge the world into war” by “rewarding aggression” and “overturning [the] rules-based order.”

War is the rule of the ‘rules-based order’

It was the “rules-based order” which expanded NATO in the 1990s, against George Kennan’s 1997 warning of this “fateful error” – which would provoke war with Russia.

Kennan predicted that moving NATO’s borders 300 miles eastward would make conflict with Russia inevitable, describing it as “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

This was no error. The collapse and plunder of Russia and its absorption into the global empire appears to have been the intention all along.

War has been the rule on which the rules-based order is based, as independent journalists have reported for years. This is why it is no surprise to hear the remnants of that order in Europe and in Britain demonize any attempts at peace – as treason.

British state determined to prolong war

The British state is determined to escalate and prolong the war. GrayZone journalist Kit Klarenberg has documented the consistent efforts of the UK Deep State to do so and returned this week with a report detailing how a secret government unit has been directing military operations in Ukraine and in Russia – supporting a strategy of continuing the war even after any ceasefire.

Does Trump have a plan?

Despite Colonel Macgregor’s complaint that he sees “no grand strategy” in the Trump administration, it is clear that the old one is dissolving. As the Trump administration’s peace proposals show, the one which will replace it relies on securing normalized relations – and trade – with Russia, instead of a perpetual march to world war trailered in Western media as inevitable.

The Trump administration has invited howls of outrage for its “surrender” to Russia in pursuing direct negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, as well as over its secret talks from before day one with Iran to avert a major conflict planned by another war faction: the Israel lobby.

The move away from the economic model of the liberal global system is a move away from an economic model of permanent war. This forever war model is waged against your Christian civilization at home in the mass media and the culture it transmits, as much as its business model bombs nations abroad.

Significant interests are being mobilized to prevent this move. Trump needs a win on the domestic front in this perilous moment of the detransition from globalism. The U.S. can no longer afford these foreign commitments – it is facing financial, moral, and diplomatic bankruptcy as the fantasy project of world domination hits real life limits.

The narrative over Ukraine reveals not only how hard the war economy will fight to rescue its system from peace, but also how the hardest sell these days is hard reality.

conflict

Trump tells Zelensky: Accept peace or risk ‘losing the whole country’

Published on April 25, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Donald Trump warned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he risks losing Ukraine entirely if he continues resisting a peace settlement. Trump said Moscow is ready for peace, but Kyiv’s refusal to recognize Crimea as Russian territory could derail the effort.

Key Details:

Trump said Zelensky “can have Peace or… lose the whole Country” and claimed Russia is ready to make a deal.
Zelensky reiterated Ukraine’s refusal to recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea, a key sticking point in current peace talks.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is frustrated and warned peace efforts may end if no deal is reached this week.

Diving Deeper:

President Trump issued a blunt warning to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday, saying the Ukrainian leader must choose between accepting peace or facing the collapse of his nation.

“He can have Peace or… fight for another three years before losing the whole Country,” Trump posted on Truth Social. The statement followed Zelensky’s firm declaration that Ukraine “will not legally recognize the [Russian] occupation of Crimea,” a stance at odds with a proposed peace plan under discussion in London between U.S., British, and European officials.

Trump blasted Zelensky’s comment as damaging, declaring, “Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion.” The president added that such rhetoric undermines delicate peace negotiations.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said, “I think Russia is ready,” referring to a peace deal, but questioned whether Ukraine is. Kyiv reportedly signed on to a Trump-proposed ceasefire more than a month ago. Trump hinted that progress has been stymied by Zelensky’s reluctance to compromise.

Despite Russian officials signaling a desire to prolong negotiations—with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissing Trump’s efforts as “futile”—Trump maintained optimism, stating, “I think we have a deal with Russia… we have to get a deal with Zelensky.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump’s patience is wearing thin. “President Zelensky has been trying to litigate this peace negotiation in the press, and that’s unacceptable,” she said, calling for closed-door diplomacy. “The American taxpayer has funded billions… enough is enough.”

Trump, 78, has consistently criticized Obama for allowing Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea to go unanswered. Now, under the Trump administration’s push for peace, a senior official revealed the U.S. is considering recognizing Crimea as Russian territory—a reversal of longstanding American policy based on the 1940 Welles Declaration.

Still, Trump refrained from criticizing Vladimir Putin directly, instead blaming Zelensky for inflammatory statements. “He has nothing to boast about!” Trump said, referencing a heated Feb. 28 Oval Office exchange with Zelensky and Vice President JD Vance.

“I have nothing to do with Russia,” Trump wrote, “but have much to do with wanting to save… five thousand Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week.”

Trump warned that time is running out: “We are very close to a Deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE.”

With London talks underway and pressure mounting, officials hinted that if no agreement is reached this week, the U.S. could walk away from its efforts in Eastern Europe. Asked whether Trump is ready to give up, Leavitt said, “Not by the end of the day today… but the President… needs to see this thing come to an end.”