The Neocons have won. They have successfully shifted the blame for the Ukraine war entirely onto Russia, and 99% of media coverage now frames the invasion as completely unprovoked. Their hatred of Trump is so intense that they feel compelled to oppose him on principle, regardless of what he does. Now they are cheering Zelensky on to destroy every refinery in Russia, as if this will somehow win the day, lead to Russia’s collapse, and let them dance on Russian graves. Nowhere in the press is there anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together. Like neocons everywhere, they seem incapable of asking what comes next. It’s the same pattern as Netanyahu’s approach: kill the Ayatollah on day one and declare victory. Or Iraq: kill Saddam and declare victory—while ignoring that he was the one keeping all the warring factions from slaughtering each other.
A global famine would require a catastrophic disruption to the production and distribution of food. The war in Ukraine has already threatened food security, and its escalation increases that risk into 2028.
Zelensky and the neocons seek to destroy all Russian refineries, assuming this would cause a catastrophic domestic fuel shortage that cripples Russia’s military logistics, agriculture (fuel for tractors and transport), and economy. They ignore the fact that global oil prices would likely spike to $200 a barrel by 2028, with diesel soaring to $10 or more. This would contribute to general inflation, including food prices, and also impede their own military operations.
Russia would struggle to harvest and transport its own grain without fuel, terminating its exports and risking famine—especially in the Middle East, where Iran is 100% dependent on Russian grain supplies. This would put upward pressure on global grain prices, but it would also expand the war, as other countries would then be positioned to attack the EU as well. This risks a worldwide famine. The idea that other producers could theoretically increase output and that markets would adjust—albeit painfully—still requires diesel.
While the destruction of Russian refineries would be a dramatic escalation with serious global economic consequences, the neocons directing this madman Zelensky never once address the question of what comes next.
Then there is the matter of Russian fertilizer exports. Russia is the world’s largest exporter of mineral fertilizers. Disruptions to these exports raise costs for farmers globally, potentially reducing crop yields and pushing the world toward famine. In theory, fertilizers are produced by a separate industry. However, without diesel, Russian exports would come to a halt.
Russia and Ukraine are major global breadbaskets, accounting for a huge share of global wheat, corn, and sunflower oil exports. The actual threat to global food security comes from Ukraine’s attacks on Russian ports and Russia’s retaliation against Ukrainian ports, shipping lanes, and agricultural infrastructure—which directly block the shipment of grain from both sources to countries that need it.
Zelensky is not carrying out this war to retain the Donbas, which is occupied by ethnic Russians whose language and religion he has outlawed—a fact the press refuses to report, given his former neo-Nazi affiliations. This is the neocon dream of conquering and destroying Russia once and for all. It has never been about democracy or any other propaganda. The Minsk Agreement was meant to allow the Donbas to vote, which Zelensky refuses to honor. He has suspended all elections because he knows they would not benefit Ukraine and he would be voted out in a second. Even 10% of the population has fled Ukraine.
A few months ago, Zelensky ordered a direct strike on a Russian Ministry of Defense. This is like a direct attack on the Pentagon. Zelensky is deliberately trying to provide Russia into attacking anything in NATO to start World War III where he has urged NATO to attack Moscow with nuclear weapons.
We have switched sides and are now supporting the ethnic cleansing of a modern-day Adolf Hitler. The CIA protects the Ukrainian neo-Nazis because they always intended to use them to destroy Russia. This is ethnic cleansing, orchestrated by the neocons, and they will destroy Western society in the process—for they have not won a single war since World War II. These are the statements coming from major Ukrainian figures, and they make clear that this has always been about the destruction of Russia, not the Donbas.
Oleksiy Danilov, Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, stated in December 2022 that “everything will blaze and burn until all of Moscow burns.” Robert Brovdi (“Magyar”), Commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces, wrote “Moscow will fall” while reporting on strikes against Russian energy infrastructure. Mykola Kokhanivsky, leader of the Ukrainian Nationalist Organization (OUH), promised to “destroy Russia,” stating “Russia must be destroyed. Carthage must fall.” It’s worth noting that Yulia Tymoshenko, former Prime Minister of Ukraine, also made statements about “destroying Moscow” and “wiping it off the map.”
The most famous example is Britain’s entry into World War I. Britain had a treaty (the Treaty of London, 1839) guaranteeing Belgium’s neutrality. When Germany invaded Belgium in August 1914, Britain declared war. The British politician most closely associated with the argument that Britain had to enter World War I to prevent itself from being “next” was Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary. His argument “We’re Next” logic was most famously laid out in his speech to the House of Commons on August 3, 1914, constructed on the idea that Britain could not stand aside while France was crushed. The logic was strategic: if Germany defeated France and dominated the Continent, Britain would be left isolated and vulnerable.
Grey’s warmongering succeeded in reducing the British economy and shifting financial capital from London to New York. He sent UK debt to 200% of GDP. Wars seem to always be promoted by the left—perhaps they think they are the hand of God, empowered to smite the opposition. Grey was the left, and he entered the war just as WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and Korea were all advocated by Democrats, who now want to double the money sent to Zelensky to smite Russia.
However, the deeper strategic reasoning was explicitly about the fear of being next. Britain’s leaders argued that if Germany conquered Belgium and the French coast, it would dominate the English Channel and threaten Britain directly. The German invasion of Belgium was not just a violation of a treaty—it was a strategic move that, if successful, would leave Britain isolated and vulnerable. This is a case where the “we’re next” logic was central to the decision, even if the public justification focused on the treaty.
China & North Korea Will Join Russia Fearing They TOO Will Be NEXT
I have repeatedly warned that history demonstrates a recurring pattern: when a nation confronts a serious domestic crisis, its political leaders often seek an EXTERNAL ENEMY to divert public attention from their own failures. This is nothing new. It is a pattern that has unfolded throughout history, from ancient empires to modern nation-states.
We are heading into what I have warned will be a serious global economic decline extending into 2028. The danger is that economic instability will increasingly feed geopolitical confrontation as governments seek someone else to blame for their own mismanagement.
The problem with these warmongering Neocons is that they NEVER anticipate the consequences of their actions. They view the world through the narrow lens of military confrontation, assuming that sanctions, threats, and regime change will somehow produce the political outcomes they desire. They fail to understand that every action produces a reaction, often with consequences they never imagined. Even elements within the Democratic Party appear increasingly willing to embrace confrontation under the banner of defending democracy and claiming the moral high ground. Yet moral declarations do not prevent wars. They can just as easily become the justification for escalating conflicts beyond anyone’s control.
China presents a particularly dangerous dimension to this developing crisis. China is confronting serious structural economic problems, including its prolonged property-market downturn, heavily indebted local governments, weak household confidence, demographic decline, and growing dependence on manufacturing and exports to sustain economic activity. However, economic weakness and a direct political threat to Xi Jinping are two entirely different questions.
The real issue for Xi is not simply whether economic growth slows. It is whether prolonged economic deterioration begins undermining CONFIDENCE within the Communist Party itself, particularly among provincial officials, influential business leaders, and the military establishment. That is where economic problems can eventually become political problems.
Nevertheless, dissatisfaction with economic performance does not automatically mean Xi faces an imminent leadership challenge. China’s political structure is fundamentally different from Western electoral systems, and Xi has consolidated considerable authority over the party, the government, and the military.
The greater danger is how Beijing might respond if economic pressure intensifies while Washington and Europe simultaneously escalate their confrontation with China. This is where the Neocons fail to understand the dynamics of international capital flows, confidence, and geopolitical alliances.
These Neocons assume that increasing pressure on Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea will somehow force each country to submit independently. What they fail to consider is that their policies may instead encourage these nations to cooperate more closely against a common external threat.
China does not need to agree with every Russian policy to recognize that weakening Moscow could eventually leave Beijing more exposed to American strategic pressure. Likewise, Russia has an incentive to strengthen its relationship with China as Western sanctions and military confrontation continue.
North Korea faces a similar calculation. Its leadership has every incentive to strengthen relationships that provide economic support, military cooperation, and protection against international isolation.
This does not mean these countries form a unified alliance with identical interests. They do not. But common external pressure can create cooperation among governments that would otherwise have significant disagreements. That is precisely how geopolitical confrontation spreads through contagion.
The more Washington and European leaders attempt to isolate their adversaries simultaneously, the greater the incentive for those adversaries to coordinate their responses.
Meanwhile, European governments face their own economic difficulties, fiscal pressures, and political instability. Yet influential voices continue advocating military escalation as though economic resources were unlimited and public confidence could never collapse.
The greatest danger is that political leaders will turn an economic crisis into a military crisis in their desperate attempt to retain power and avoid responsibility.
This is why I have consistently warned that you cannot analyze war independently of economics. War, capital flows, sovereign debt, political confidence, and economic decline are interconnected. They are not isolated events.
As we move toward 2028, the critical question will not merely be whether China experiences an economic slowdown or whether Xi Jinping faces domestic dissatisfaction.
The question is whether mounting economic pressure, combined with increasingly aggressive Western foreign policy, creates the incentive for China, Russia, and North Korea to deepen their strategic cooperation.
History warns that when governments begin losing CONFIDENCE at home, they often seek confrontation abroad. The tragedy is that those who start these confrontations rarely understand how they will end.
When Athens and Eretria sent ships to aid the Ionian Revolt in 498BC, they were not acting from pure altruism. There was the assumption that Persia would march on Greece immediately. This was a diagnosis of geostrategic realities and future issues. Athens’ decision was a “preemptive strike” to check Persian expansionism, which is precise;ly what Zelensky is demanding that NATO conduct. The Athenians had already clashed with Persia indirectly when they had refused to give earth and water to Persian envoys, and Persia was harboring the exiled Athenian tyrant Hippias, who wanted Persian help to regain power. Supporting the revolt was a way to weaken a hostile empire before it could act on those tensions.
This is the sequence that Athens feared when it aided the Ionian Revolt in 498BC. The revolt itself was crushed by 493BC, and Darius I then turned his attention to mainland Greece, partly to punish Athens and Eretria for their support of the Ionians, and partly to expand Persian control into the Aegean. So the Athenian “we might be next” calculation proved correct, though the invasion came about a decade after they withdrew from Ionia, not immediately.
First Invasion (492–490BC) of Persian into Greece came one year later after the Ionian Revolt was crushed.
A Persian expedition under Mardonius crossed into Thrace and Macedonia, but a storm destroyed much of the fleet and the campaign was abandoned.
A second force under Datis and Artaphernes crossed the Aegean in 490BC, captured Eretria, and landed at Marathon in Attica. The Athenians, with only a small contingent of Plataeans, defeated the Persians at the Battle of Marathon. The Persians withdrew.
A Second Invasion (480–479BC) was the much larger invasion, personally led by King Xerxes I. The Persians crossed the Hellespont on a pontoon bridge and marched south. They were delayed by the Greeks at Thermopylae (the famous stand of Leonidas and the 300 Spartans) and defeated at sea at Salamis, which forced Xerxes to retreat.
The Persian commander Mardonius remained in Greece with a land army. The Greeks decisively defeated him at the Battle of Plataea in 479BC, and a simultaneous Greek naval victory at Mycale effectively ended the invasion.
When all was said and done, Persia funded Sparta to defeat Athens in 404BC. That was a ancient cold war of the Greeks vs Persians. This was followed by Alexander the Great conquering the Persian Empire (the Achaemenid Empire) in a remarkably short campaign, spanning roughly 334–330BC.
The Neocons have already destroyed the world economy and the control the press that only calls Trump insane and advocate WWIII with Russia to support Zelensky.
There was an expectation of a “peace dividend,” and the decision to keep NATO was the result of a deliberate strategic choice driven by several key figures who argued that the end of the Cold War did not mean the end of security risks. The Neocons transformed their hatred and opposition to Communism into racism and even argued that President Reagan should not mee with Gorbachev saying you can never trust a Russia. The Neocons at every stage of the last nearly 40 years have done nothing but promote war. With the Democrats taking at least the House and possibly the Senate because Trump will not admit a mistake and throw Netanyahu under the bus, the Neocons are just days away from realizing their dream – World War III.
Boris may be delighted to think of all the millions of pound he has been paid as “donations” from the military industrial complex. but (1) he will not have a place left to spend it, and the British pound will no longer exist anyway.
All of this nonsense that Putin would never resort to nuclear war because he knows it would push back on him is absurd. When you have NATO and their mouth piece Zelensky with Boris Johnson and Kallas all advocated the total destruction and break up of Russia, that is a death sentence and he would have no choice by at the very least to take them with him. This will be China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia all together.
With the Democrats cheering Zelensky incapable of ever looking at what comes next, as I have said many times, I have tried so hard to defeat my own computer, but I am the one who always loses. I have even offered to fly to DC to meet with Trump to explain what is at stake. He MUST throw Netanyahu under the bus. He needs also to establish an external enemy and state what will happen by supporting Zelensky – WWIII with China and North Korea joining Russia. Dropping the mother of all bombs on Iran is bullshit. This is like the Epstein nonsense focusing on who went to his island rather than who was Epstein was being paid for this honey trap and what was the blackmail for? A power play that inevitably comes back to war?