The clarity and passion of your insights and intelligence shine brightly, and on this day, your choice of subject matter is yet again perfect. I am deeply grateful to you. I am one of the crazy people who came to America with almost nothing except hope and grit, at age 22, without knowing anyone here. I built a successful life here, while feeling a strange blend of hope and dismay at my fellow Americans especially in the last 10 years. Your analysis sums up how I would have described my emotions and thoughts had I been as eloquent and insightful as you are.
Thanks so much for your post. It's always neat to see your country through someone else's eyes. America's history is complex. We have admirable ideals, but we don't always do a great job of living up to them. Thanks for providing another perspective on them.
First, thank you for this post, and for your posts in general. I feel there are a few things that must be noted about what you wrote:
(1) America -tries- to correct. But the history is worse than you make it out: yes, there have been three attempts at extending rights to Black (and other minority) Americans: Reconstruction, the Civil Rights era, and the time since Obama. Each time, -each time- there has been a massive backlash: first Jim Crow, then Reagan, and now MAGA/Trump. Each time.
(2) Yes, Douglass' speech is taught in -some- schools. Let me tell you about what it was like in Texas, where I grew up. Where the primary/secondary school curriculum is set by the state. (a) the civil war was taught as being about slavery, but the aftermath? Carpetbaggers, etc. Jim Crow? Didn't really get taught. Certainly not the atrocities. Oh, and not much at all about the atrocities of slavery. (b) During t6th-12th grade, students are taught two entire years about Texas history. We are taught the Texas Revolution until we're stuffed full of it. Never not once during that entire time, were we taught that that Revolution was about preserving slavery (b/c Mexico was about to abolish it). Never not once. And IIRC, that's the case today. (c) I grew up 300 miles from Tulsa Oklahoma. Never not once were we taught about that. (d) I didn't learn what Juneteenth was, until a Black co-worker explained it to me. And to be clear, I got excellent grades in school (it wasn't hard in that town, really).
Worth noting also in this regard, is the way that all over the country, state governments are whitewashing the curricula taught to their students. Again, a backlash, and it's -fierce-.
(3) You write about how you wish America had colonized you. But I would put to you that what you really mean, is that you wish America had conquered you as a European country with a functioning state, etc. B/c when America conquered or colonized non-European states, the picture isn't anywhere near as pretty. I would put next to the Balkans: Nicaragua (the story of how the first Somoza murdered the first Sandino is appalling), and the waste that America made of El Salvador and Guatemala. It's no surprise that so many Central Americans make the trek to the US, when we've destroyed so much of their countries. And at least from what I can see from afar, we didn't do so well by the Phillippines either.
I do take your point, that there's worse in the world. As an American, until 2016 I wasn't as dour, as pessimistic, as -angry- about our country, as I am today. Why? Because for all the flaws I listed above, it was slowly, slooooowwwwwly, getting better. And really, that's all you can ask. But that improvement has gone into reverse, and while sure, we probably won't get as far down as Russia or China, we're going to get a lot worse. The problem is not the value of the function, but the value of the first derivative.
In closing, again, I want to thank you for your posts: they're excellent.
The useful distinction here is not whether America is innocent. It is not. No great power is.
The deeper question is whether we can still distinguish between an imperfect power operating through contested institutions, public criticism, legal friction, electoral correction, and internal dissent — and regimes where coercion, deception, repression, and imperial restoration are not deviations from the system, but core operating principles.
That distinction matters because moral equivalence often becomes analytical laziness. It allows people to condemn hypocrisy without studying structure, to denounce power without comparing its mechanisms, and to mistake visible disorder inside open societies for moral sameness with closed authoritarian systems.
America’s flaws are real, often severe, and strategically costly. But the presence of flaws does not erase the difference between a system that can be contested from within and systems that survive by preventing contestation altogether.
The real analytical task is not to romanticize American power. It is to understand why an imperfect empire can still be structurally different from organized tyranny.
With more than $2 trillion being deployed across major powers in North America, Europe, and Asia, this buildup mirrors the scale and urgency of the Cold War. yet differs fundamentally in speed, accessibility, and unpredictability. Unlike nuclear weapons, these systems are iterative, software-driven, and increasingly decentralized, lowering barriers to entry while accelerating escalation risks. For global leaders, the challenge is not only technological dominance but strategic stability: without clear norms, verification mechanisms, and fail-safe controls, AI-driven and autonomous weapons could compress decision timelines and increase the probability of miscalculation. The forward-looking solution lies in establishing multilateral governance frameworks, real-time monitoring systems, and ethical constraints embedded directly into these technologies, while continuing targeted investment to avoid falling behind adversaries. The goal is to ensure that innovation does not outpace control transforming a potentially destabilizing arms race into a managed competition with defined limits and safeguards.
From my perspective, I would add that the leadership of Russia, China and the US have all converged into an oligarchic type economic system and that the politics are driven to maintain the class structure that has evolved i.e. each country has a very high economic structure of inequality (we can't quantify it in Russia and China but I am sure it's there).
Their revolutionary beginning/end in China (1910-1949) and Russia (1917-1953) were tyrannical from the beginning, led by Mao and Stalin respectively and both could be described as economic failures.
Mao in particular led three giant failed economic initiatives and resulted in the death of an estimated 45-50 million people during his tenure. Zhou-en-Lai and Deng and the others reorganized the economic structure so that it is almost indistinguishable from a capitalist system (they just manipulate it differently to their advantage). Xi is a Great March princeling that maintains Mao's political thoughts but not his economics. Throughout their 5000 year history, China has always been tyrannical via the emperor system.
Stalin could not make Communism work outside of a war economy and the economies of his successors also failed due to the Cold War. Yeltsin's end and Putin's ascension could be considered as the turbo-boost of the of the Russian oligarchic system. Russia has always had a tyrannical system of government. Putin is just the latest emperor.
So that leaves the US, where the moral political failures have accelerated inequality to a level beyond the robber barons of the gilded age, to an unequal holding of wealth by a really small number of people.
So we now have three oligarchic economic systems - with an aristocratic sociopathic mentality of the ruling class in the US that has little concern for the other levels of their society.
My understanding of the strategy of the snakes in suits that are very close to Trump is to create a system of political control in the US that is no different than that of Russia and China and to make sure it can be manipulated for continuity of a ruling elite.
Quite an interesting analysis, but I am afraid, it is plagued by the same fundamental cancerworm that characterized the worldview of Ayn Rand - the famed genetrix of Objectivism, a philosophical framework that betrayed “deep emotional scars” supposedly occasioned by having been born and raised in what she saw as an evil political system - the former Soviet Union.
I believe that like Ayn Rand, your general proclivity to favor things western, and to despise things eastern - your own land of origin, is predicated on your failure, willful or otherwise, to acknowledge relevant historical realities, as well as the clever branding that the west has employed over time to disguise these realities and to besmirch other cultures, including Eastern Europe and Russia.
Given your stated background as a Rhode Scholar (yesterday I read your article on Brexit), I am inclined to believe that your failure to acknowledge the historical context of your own culture, is a major defect, which I am hoping you will take steps to correct in the future.
Having said that, please take notice of the following, as you go forward:
1. Practical all the conflicts in the world today, can be traced to the activities of the so called Western European nations, with Britain as the worst culprit - viz the current Iran - American War, the Ukraine-Russian war, the Islamic Jihad, the problems in Africa, including the catastrophic socio-political situation in my home country Nigeria, etc. can all be traced to the policies and actions of the British, over the past 300 years.
2. As at the time the Romanovs came to power - about 400 years ago, Russia had the same standard of living and a comparable economic system as Western Europe, but things started to go bad for them, as soon as Peter the Great modernized the Russian navy, sparkling fear and envy in the British, who subsequently took the opportunity of the Crimean War, to side with the Ottomans against their fellow Christians, ensuring that Russia was completely defeated. Ever since, the west, championed by Britain, has sought to destroy and destabilize Russia, with the ultimate goal of breaking it up. Why do you think that Putin invaded Ukraine? If China or Russia made plans set up shop in Canada today, and pointed its missiles toward the U.S., what do you think the U.S. will do?
3. In the 1800s, when China refused to let the East Indian Company to continue poisoning its people with Opium it grew and processed in India, twice, the British Crown sent the Royal Navy to bombard it into submission in the so called Opium Wars, and in 1889, took control of Hong Kong, for use as a base in China. That same year or thereabouts, the bank - HSBC was formed to process the profits derived from the opium dens the British operated all over China. That is the same China you castigate for how they run their country, because western propaganda brands them cruel and inhuman! Do you know how many black and brown kids are short to death every year in your beloved U.S. simply because of their skin color, or that it imprisons more of it own citizens per capita than any other country in earth?
4. Do you know that the two world wars that caused so much carnage were caused, directly or indirectly, by proxy wars and squabbles between the grand children of Queen Victoria, none of who sent the own children to the fight in these wars? Why is this fact not taught in history classes anywhere in the world?
5. In 1917, after a prolonged period of sabotage of the Russian economy, the Bolsheviks came to power, lead by a Vladimir Lenin - a man that was funded by the west and tasked with destroying Russia, by injecting it with the poison of communism - a political theory was developed by Karl Marx - a German. That was how Russia and by extension your country, which you and Ayn Rand despise so much came to be crippled for so long. In fact, if you must know, when Putin came to power, he reached out to the west, seeking to have Russia integrated into the world economy, but was rebuffed.
6. After WW2, with Europe crippled, the U.S. rose to superpower status, and with Breton Woods, made the Dollar the world’s reserve currency. Today, the U.S. which has run up debts in the tens of trillions, has 4% of the world’s population and consumes 25% of its resources, and has gone to war against other countries, including Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, etc.? several times since 1945, whenever anyone has dared to challenged them on this inequity.
7. Here in the U.S. where I live, the Democracy which you exult so much is an illusion. Hence, every four years people are given a choice between two individuals who have the same worldview, but packaged in different clothing, and no third party candidate could ever prevail, no matter how his policies enthuse the populace. Besides, as evidenced by the 2000 and 2016 elections, a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the presidency because of a system called the electoral college. Does this sound like a government for the people and by the people? Where else in the world does a democracy operate this way?
There is quite a lot I could write, but I believe that these should suffice for now.
Please do your homework next time. Despite the veneer of refined manners and civilly you observe in the west, the core is rotten!
Also, please forgive any grammatical or syntactic error in my diatribe. I have a nasty habit of not proofreading my writing properly, but I am sure that my meaning is clear.
First, as someone who loathes Ayn Rand, I find the comparison not only inaccurate, but insulting. Second, as someone who has spent over a decade criticising the failed foreign and domestic policies of the West - in both Europe and the United States - the accusation that I am somehow blinded by Western exceptionalism is simply absurd.
So, respectfully, you are accusing me of crimes I did not commit.
Now, to address some of your points.
1. Blaming “the West” for nearly every modern conflict is an incredibly binary reading of complex historical processes. Western powers have committed grave crimes in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere - including the arrogant export of the nation-state model into multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies where localism often mattered more than central authority. History is not a morality play with one villain and one victim, and ignoring the gazillion moving parts, cultural intricacies, historical context, etc. is not serious.
2. Portraying Russia as a victim of the West is beyond a stretch. For centuries, the West repeatedly rebuilt and accommodated Russia - often at Eastern Europe’s expense. Russia, and the USSR before it, are not misunderstood innocents, but a donut empire (https://waronomics.substack.com/p/the-donut-empire): an imperial core surrounded by conquered, absorbed, or coerced peripheries. Moscow rose under Golden Horde suzerainty, absorbed many of its fiscal, administrative, and military habits, then rebranded itself as the heir of Kyivan Rus’ (Ukraine's historical heritage) through church politics, imperial titles, and the “Third Rome” myth.
And no, Russia does not need “buffer states.” Russia is a NUCLEAR POWER. What exactly do people think it keeps in Kaliningrad - roller-coasters?
3. Portraying China purely as a victim of the West is equally selective. Yes, the Opium Wars were barbaric. But reducing 5,000 years of Chinese history to British imperial crimes is not serious analysis. China had wars, collapses, massacres, dynastic conquests, and state violence at scales Europe did not witness until the Napoleonic wars. Blaming British or Dutch imperialism for the woes of a civilisation that precedes them by thousands of years is...interesting. When Deng Xiaoping opened China’s economy, the West did cooperate - and yes, the West benefited from cheap labour. But China benefited even more by lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty and building its industrial base through access to Western markets, capital, and technology.
4. I have discussed Western injustices, including in the very article you are responding to.
5. The world wars were also products of complex systems: militarism, nationalism, imperial competition, alliance structures, economic pressures, technological change, and political miscalculation. Reducing them to family squabbles among Queen Victoria’s descendants ignores the vast machinery that made those wars possible.
6. Yes, Lenin was sent back into Russia by German elites hoping to destabilise the Russian Empire and use it as a testing ground for communism. But communism did not take root there because of that. It took root because the tsarist regime was itself brutal, backward, feudal, and repressive. Russia was fertile ground for radicalisation because its own ruling class had spent centuries terrorising and impoverishing its own people.
7. The United States is not a “false democracy.” It is a flawed republic. The Electoral College was designed, however imperfectly, to guard against the tyranny of the majority. I agree that the two-party system is ridiculous, and I personally prefer parliamentary democracy, where multiple parties are forced to negotiate and build coalitions. But the American system was deliberately designed around institutional conflict: the branches of government were meant to check one another because the founders understood human nature as flawed, greedy, and power-seeking. That system is now being stress-tested - by Trump, and before him by Obama. Whether it survives is an open question that is still being litigated.
I am perfectly open to honest debate. What I do not appreciate is being accused of arguments I have not made, beliefs I do not hold, and biases I have spent years publicly criticising. An accusatory, emotionally loaded response dressed up as “educate yourself” will not be met with the diplomatic tone I reserve for people engaging in good faith.
Especially not when it attempts to whitewash the crimes of the empire that cut my family tree in half, wrecked my country, and sentenced me and the generations after me to struggle.
The pretence by those obsessively critical of the West, that Russia has not practiced brutal colonialism and imperialism for centuries. Starting from the Russia of Moscow and St Petersburg and invading every one of its neighbours, imposing Russian rule, language and culture. Allying with Adolf Hitler for 2 years to enable it to grab even more of its Western neighbours. No wonder those neighbours wanted to join an alliance that might offer some protection. Repeatedly invading those countries that wished to regain their independence and seeking to reimpose Russian rule. All whilst testing its own citizens as brutally as it treats those of other countries and cultures.
There are those who whine about Western colonialism, which mostly ended 50-60 years ago even if we have to recognise and deal with its damaging legacy, whilst at the same time defending Russia. If they are not bots, they are both ignorant and deeply prejudiced. The same goes for countries who have been cheer leaders for Russia for decades, even though they had been colonised themselves in the past.
In lieu of starting with a point by point response to the points you enumerated, I will attempt a systems thinking or top down approach as a foundation, with the hope that when I do my close up eventually, it will all make sense, or at the very least, persuade you to view the issue form another perspective. Here goes:
In my view, the most inefficient cognitive approach to any “complex” issue, is that it cannot be simplified. Experience shows that this thinking model is just dead wrong.
Hence, all the complex digital computation than characterizes our existence today (including allowing us - total strangers to interact anonymously across thousands of miles), can be reduced to the permutation of 1s and Os.
All the matter that exists in our universe derives from elements, all of which originate ultimately from the fusion of hydrogen atoms, the derivatives of fused hydrogen atoms, the derivatives of derivatives of fused hydrogen atoms, and so forth. Hence, Gold, which has led to many wars and inspired many crimes derives from the same precursor as rotten food which we are all too eager to get rid of.
Transcending basic matter, all the complexity of life on this planet can be reduced to the permutation of four bases that form the DNA that determines if we emerge as human beings, monkeys, carrots, mushrooms, etc.
And finally, conjoined with DNA, all the complexity of human behavior derives from a combination of nature and nurture, which brings me to one question that anyone, who argues on one side or the other of any issue must answer, if they have the courage to be truly intellectually honest:
On the safe assumption that the basic hardware of every able-bodied man (I am restricting our imaginary test subjects to males, so as to avoid bias that will be introduced by biological variances) is the same (unless you disagree, of course), if for instance you were a white Anglo-Saxon man, born into the Rockefeller family and raised in Beverly Hills CA or Chappaqua NY, with a billion dollar trust fund and educated at Harvard, was instead transformed into the illiterate son of poor serfs in Siberia, living in a poorly lit and heated cottage, with with no running water and hardly enough potatoes to eat, do you think your actions, the way you view the world or respond to situations, in these two scenarios will be the same?
I paint these vignettes to prompt anyone who views the actions of the Putin or Xi both of whom were raised in conditions of hardship, occasioned, to a great extent by western opposition, and now lead people equally raised under hardship, as absurd, evil and wicked, to perhaps imagine if they would have behaved differently, if they were in these guys respective positions.
On the flip side, now imagine if JFK would have been the American or global hero he is today, if he was born in China during the cultural revolution, and rose to become a party leader, tasked with enforcing discipline in the citizenry.
I must augment my illustration above, by stating, that historical facts prove unequivocally that the Chinese cultural revolution was a corollary of western influences in China, by which a puppet presided over an oppressive capitalist / feudal regime, where the rich lived in uber-luxury, while the poor suffered terribly. Indeed Mao could have done better, but we must also understand that he did the best he knew how for his people, which nevertheless caused so much death and suffering. By this account, was he an evil person?
Likewise, as I stated before hand, the “evil empire” - Russia and later USSR, which influenced much of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, was the product of sabotage by the west, borne of fear that it would become too powerful, if allowed to expand, culminating in the injection of the poison of communism by Lenin, whom you yourself admitted to being an agent of the west on one hand, and yet argue that the very same poison he administered was only potent because the body politic of the victim had been primed by a preexisting corrupt leadership structure! Does this not appear contradictory to you?
Conclusion: for the most part, at the most fundamental level, the concept of free will may well be the greatest illusion to afflict mankind, and so, for the most part, a person’s actions and thoughts are a product of biology as much as environment. Hence, if the relative positions of actors on both sides of parallel, but diametrically opposite realities are reversed, in all likelihood, the behavior of each one in any one of these milieus could be predicted with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Hence, if you - Bianka was made the president of Russia today, will you erect a replica of the Statue of Liberty in Red Square and allowed demonstrators to burn you in effigy, if they disagree with your policies? The same question goes to Max.
I trust that you can extrapolate the foregoing argument to the points you raised in your reply, with an open mind.
I am not equally educated on all of the examples you reference, but in the area I do know well - Russia and the USSR - I fear your judgement and analysis is hopelessly naive. If you really think Putin attacked Ukraine because on NATO expansion, you don’t understand Putin or Russia in the slightest.
That narrative was dead on arrival, because it had nothing to do with the actual facts or history. But russia did an excellent job at brainwashing people en masse with their propaganda, while silencing us - the very people that know the russians first hand.
First off, in partial response to your subsequent statement, I believe I owe you an apology for my harsh tone. That was inappropriate and I am sorry.
Also, let me declare directly, that I am a humanist, and do not endorse war or violence in any way, shape or form, unless conducted in self-defense.
Furthermore, I am really sorry about the dislocation of your family. I can’t even begin to understand how that must be for you.
Now, to the issue of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the thesis of your article, which I just listened to, is summarized as follows: Despite the sentiment of pundits and academics, most of whom are westerners, Putin’s reason for invading Ukraine was not out of fear of NATO expansion, but because he needed to preempt the implementation of a true democracy, right next to Russia, which his citizens would observe and demand a similar system, hence threatening his autocratic government.
Well, my question to you is: Based on your knowledge of history, what does the west truly care about in other countries? True democracy / freedom or control / exploitation?
If your answer is the former, why have they not pressured Saudi Arabia to become a “free” and “democratic” society, while branding Fidel Castro a despot? Why did they overthrow Mossadeh - the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953 and install an unelected monarch - the Shah, but when Khomeini overthrew the Shah in 1979, he was branded a devil? Why does the CIA intervene in the democratic processes of other countries? Do you truly believe that Zelenskyy ever operated independently of western influences, even before the war? And so forth.
I am sorry, but, the “fear of democracy” reason does not compute with me. The fact, backed by history, is that just as America does everything in its power to defend its sphere of influence, as exemplified by the Cuban blockade of 1962 or thereabouts and other actions, Russia, even after the fragmentation of Soviet Union has endeavored to do the same, as exemplified by the puppet government it controls in Belarus and even previous governments in Kiev.
And so, in the absence of compelling evidence, I am inclined to believe that Putin, legitimately or not, clearly did not wish to have missiles pointed at Moscow from Ukraine.
Notably also, even your essay slipped up in one or two places, and subtly conceded to expansionist concern as a factor, if not a direct cause, for the invasion.
I have to run now, and so will be addressing the points you made in your last statement later. In the meantime, I will really appreciate it, if you could share your rationale for not being fond of Ayn Rand.
I think you are making two mistakes here. The first is believing that the cause you personally find most compelling or appealing must somehow make other causes invalid. The second is of incorrectly determining the relative weight of the various causes. Was there some Western influence in Ukraine? Of course. There is Western influence (as well as influence of most significant world powers) occurring in just about any place that has any strategic or economic significance. That’s just what it means to be a power beyond your own national borders. The question is whether than influence was the main driving force behind Putin’s actions. And it was not - not even close. As is commonly known, Putin considers the breakup of the USSR the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the previous century. There was more that he said right after - about “separatist movements” - that is most revealing (I urge you to read the full speech). To him, Ukraine should never have been allowed to be independent. To him, the potential independence of Chechens - a people with a tremendously distinct culture, religion and history - was a threat worth shedding rivers of blood over - what to say of Ukraine, the cradle of Russian civilization?! The idea of Ukraine “going its own way” - whether it was towards the West, towards China or towards the Moon - was absolutely untenable. I’ll go a little further than Bianka here - it wasn’t even just the threat of it becoming a successful Western democracy - it was the threat of it becoming ANYTHING that wasn’t taking its orders from Moscow. Western influences? NATO expansion? Missiles? Russophobia? Please. All of these were gentle blows from lover’s lips compared to the gale of rage that swept through Putin’s mind at the thought of Ukraine - a vital part of the ex-Soviet empire any way you look at it - culturally, industrially, economically, academically, militarily - slipping out of his firm control. To understand history you HAVE to understand the psychology of its leaders. Without that, you are trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle by touch alone.
“I’ll go a little further than Bianca here - it wasn’t even just the threat of it becoming a successful Western democracy - it was the threat of it becoming ANYTHING that wasn’t taking its orders from Moscow.”
Actually, that’s always been my original argument. It applies beyond Ukraine too, but russia HAD to swallow the idea that the Baltics, Central European powers (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia) would go their own way and due to the distinct cultural differences (different language groups, religion, etc.), they had to let it go. The Balkans were more difficult to accept, but Ukraine…Ukraine, which culture and history russia appropriated as its own, was allowed to have only ONE master and that master was Moscow.
Had Ukriane agreed to be the new Belarus and erase its identity, sovereignty and independence, russia would’ve never attacked.
The clarity and passion of your insights and intelligence shine brightly, and on this day, your choice of subject matter is yet again perfect. I am deeply grateful to you. I am one of the crazy people who came to America with almost nothing except hope and grit, at age 22, without knowing anyone here. I built a successful life here, while feeling a strange blend of hope and dismay at my fellow Americans especially in the last 10 years. Your analysis sums up how I would have described my emotions and thoughts had I been as eloquent and insightful as you are.
Thanks so much for your post. It's always neat to see your country through someone else's eyes. America's history is complex. We have admirable ideals, but we don't always do a great job of living up to them. Thanks for providing another perspective on them.
First, thank you for this post, and for your posts in general. I feel there are a few things that must be noted about what you wrote:
(1) America -tries- to correct. But the history is worse than you make it out: yes, there have been three attempts at extending rights to Black (and other minority) Americans: Reconstruction, the Civil Rights era, and the time since Obama. Each time, -each time- there has been a massive backlash: first Jim Crow, then Reagan, and now MAGA/Trump. Each time.
(2) Yes, Douglass' speech is taught in -some- schools. Let me tell you about what it was like in Texas, where I grew up. Where the primary/secondary school curriculum is set by the state. (a) the civil war was taught as being about slavery, but the aftermath? Carpetbaggers, etc. Jim Crow? Didn't really get taught. Certainly not the atrocities. Oh, and not much at all about the atrocities of slavery. (b) During t6th-12th grade, students are taught two entire years about Texas history. We are taught the Texas Revolution until we're stuffed full of it. Never not once during that entire time, were we taught that that Revolution was about preserving slavery (b/c Mexico was about to abolish it). Never not once. And IIRC, that's the case today. (c) I grew up 300 miles from Tulsa Oklahoma. Never not once were we taught about that. (d) I didn't learn what Juneteenth was, until a Black co-worker explained it to me. And to be clear, I got excellent grades in school (it wasn't hard in that town, really).
Worth noting also in this regard, is the way that all over the country, state governments are whitewashing the curricula taught to their students. Again, a backlash, and it's -fierce-.
(3) You write about how you wish America had colonized you. But I would put to you that what you really mean, is that you wish America had conquered you as a European country with a functioning state, etc. B/c when America conquered or colonized non-European states, the picture isn't anywhere near as pretty. I would put next to the Balkans: Nicaragua (the story of how the first Somoza murdered the first Sandino is appalling), and the waste that America made of El Salvador and Guatemala. It's no surprise that so many Central Americans make the trek to the US, when we've destroyed so much of their countries. And at least from what I can see from afar, we didn't do so well by the Phillippines either.
I do take your point, that there's worse in the world. As an American, until 2016 I wasn't as dour, as pessimistic, as -angry- about our country, as I am today. Why? Because for all the flaws I listed above, it was slowly, slooooowwwwwly, getting better. And really, that's all you can ask. But that improvement has gone into reverse, and while sure, we probably won't get as far down as Russia or China, we're going to get a lot worse. The problem is not the value of the function, but the value of the first derivative.
In closing, again, I want to thank you for your posts: they're excellent.
I don't know how to edit. By "Tulsa Oklahoma" I refer to the "Tulsa Race Massacre".
The useful distinction here is not whether America is innocent. It is not. No great power is.
The deeper question is whether we can still distinguish between an imperfect power operating through contested institutions, public criticism, legal friction, electoral correction, and internal dissent — and regimes where coercion, deception, repression, and imperial restoration are not deviations from the system, but core operating principles.
That distinction matters because moral equivalence often becomes analytical laziness. It allows people to condemn hypocrisy without studying structure, to denounce power without comparing its mechanisms, and to mistake visible disorder inside open societies for moral sameness with closed authoritarian systems.
America’s flaws are real, often severe, and strategically costly. But the presence of flaws does not erase the difference between a system that can be contested from within and systems that survive by preventing contestation altogether.
The real analytical task is not to romanticize American power. It is to understand why an imperfect empire can still be structurally different from organized tyranny.
With more than $2 trillion being deployed across major powers in North America, Europe, and Asia, this buildup mirrors the scale and urgency of the Cold War. yet differs fundamentally in speed, accessibility, and unpredictability. Unlike nuclear weapons, these systems are iterative, software-driven, and increasingly decentralized, lowering barriers to entry while accelerating escalation risks. For global leaders, the challenge is not only technological dominance but strategic stability: without clear norms, verification mechanisms, and fail-safe controls, AI-driven and autonomous weapons could compress decision timelines and increase the probability of miscalculation. The forward-looking solution lies in establishing multilateral governance frameworks, real-time monitoring systems, and ethical constraints embedded directly into these technologies, while continuing targeted investment to avoid falling behind adversaries. The goal is to ensure that innovation does not outpace control transforming a potentially destabilizing arms race into a managed competition with defined limits and safeguards.
This is a good one bravo !!!
thank you for your post found it interesting cheers
From my perspective, I would add that the leadership of Russia, China and the US have all converged into an oligarchic type economic system and that the politics are driven to maintain the class structure that has evolved i.e. each country has a very high economic structure of inequality (we can't quantify it in Russia and China but I am sure it's there).
Their revolutionary beginning/end in China (1910-1949) and Russia (1917-1953) were tyrannical from the beginning, led by Mao and Stalin respectively and both could be described as economic failures.
Mao in particular led three giant failed economic initiatives and resulted in the death of an estimated 45-50 million people during his tenure. Zhou-en-Lai and Deng and the others reorganized the economic structure so that it is almost indistinguishable from a capitalist system (they just manipulate it differently to their advantage). Xi is a Great March princeling that maintains Mao's political thoughts but not his economics. Throughout their 5000 year history, China has always been tyrannical via the emperor system.
Stalin could not make Communism work outside of a war economy and the economies of his successors also failed due to the Cold War. Yeltsin's end and Putin's ascension could be considered as the turbo-boost of the of the Russian oligarchic system. Russia has always had a tyrannical system of government. Putin is just the latest emperor.
So that leaves the US, where the moral political failures have accelerated inequality to a level beyond the robber barons of the gilded age, to an unequal holding of wealth by a really small number of people.
So we now have three oligarchic economic systems - with an aristocratic sociopathic mentality of the ruling class in the US that has little concern for the other levels of their society.
My understanding of the strategy of the snakes in suits that are very close to Trump is to create a system of political control in the US that is no different than that of Russia and China and to make sure it can be manipulated for continuity of a ruling elite.
Quite an interesting analysis, but I am afraid, it is plagued by the same fundamental cancerworm that characterized the worldview of Ayn Rand - the famed genetrix of Objectivism, a philosophical framework that betrayed “deep emotional scars” supposedly occasioned by having been born and raised in what she saw as an evil political system - the former Soviet Union.
I believe that like Ayn Rand, your general proclivity to favor things western, and to despise things eastern - your own land of origin, is predicated on your failure, willful or otherwise, to acknowledge relevant historical realities, as well as the clever branding that the west has employed over time to disguise these realities and to besmirch other cultures, including Eastern Europe and Russia.
Given your stated background as a Rhode Scholar (yesterday I read your article on Brexit), I am inclined to believe that your failure to acknowledge the historical context of your own culture, is a major defect, which I am hoping you will take steps to correct in the future.
Having said that, please take notice of the following, as you go forward:
1. Practical all the conflicts in the world today, can be traced to the activities of the so called Western European nations, with Britain as the worst culprit - viz the current Iran - American War, the Ukraine-Russian war, the Islamic Jihad, the problems in Africa, including the catastrophic socio-political situation in my home country Nigeria, etc. can all be traced to the policies and actions of the British, over the past 300 years.
2. As at the time the Romanovs came to power - about 400 years ago, Russia had the same standard of living and a comparable economic system as Western Europe, but things started to go bad for them, as soon as Peter the Great modernized the Russian navy, sparkling fear and envy in the British, who subsequently took the opportunity of the Crimean War, to side with the Ottomans against their fellow Christians, ensuring that Russia was completely defeated. Ever since, the west, championed by Britain, has sought to destroy and destabilize Russia, with the ultimate goal of breaking it up. Why do you think that Putin invaded Ukraine? If China or Russia made plans set up shop in Canada today, and pointed its missiles toward the U.S., what do you think the U.S. will do?
3. In the 1800s, when China refused to let the East Indian Company to continue poisoning its people with Opium it grew and processed in India, twice, the British Crown sent the Royal Navy to bombard it into submission in the so called Opium Wars, and in 1889, took control of Hong Kong, for use as a base in China. That same year or thereabouts, the bank - HSBC was formed to process the profits derived from the opium dens the British operated all over China. That is the same China you castigate for how they run their country, because western propaganda brands them cruel and inhuman! Do you know how many black and brown kids are short to death every year in your beloved U.S. simply because of their skin color, or that it imprisons more of it own citizens per capita than any other country in earth?
4. Do you know that the two world wars that caused so much carnage were caused, directly or indirectly, by proxy wars and squabbles between the grand children of Queen Victoria, none of who sent the own children to the fight in these wars? Why is this fact not taught in history classes anywhere in the world?
5. In 1917, after a prolonged period of sabotage of the Russian economy, the Bolsheviks came to power, lead by a Vladimir Lenin - a man that was funded by the west and tasked with destroying Russia, by injecting it with the poison of communism - a political theory was developed by Karl Marx - a German. That was how Russia and by extension your country, which you and Ayn Rand despise so much came to be crippled for so long. In fact, if you must know, when Putin came to power, he reached out to the west, seeking to have Russia integrated into the world economy, but was rebuffed.
6. After WW2, with Europe crippled, the U.S. rose to superpower status, and with Breton Woods, made the Dollar the world’s reserve currency. Today, the U.S. which has run up debts in the tens of trillions, has 4% of the world’s population and consumes 25% of its resources, and has gone to war against other countries, including Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, etc.? several times since 1945, whenever anyone has dared to challenged them on this inequity.
7. Here in the U.S. where I live, the Democracy which you exult so much is an illusion. Hence, every four years people are given a choice between two individuals who have the same worldview, but packaged in different clothing, and no third party candidate could ever prevail, no matter how his policies enthuse the populace. Besides, as evidenced by the 2000 and 2016 elections, a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the presidency because of a system called the electoral college. Does this sound like a government for the people and by the people? Where else in the world does a democracy operate this way?
There is quite a lot I could write, but I believe that these should suffice for now.
Please do your homework next time. Despite the veneer of refined manners and civilly you observe in the west, the core is rotten!
Also, please forgive any grammatical or syntactic error in my diatribe. I have a nasty habit of not proofreading my writing properly, but I am sure that my meaning is clear.
Cheers.
First, as someone who loathes Ayn Rand, I find the comparison not only inaccurate, but insulting. Second, as someone who has spent over a decade criticising the failed foreign and domestic policies of the West - in both Europe and the United States - the accusation that I am somehow blinded by Western exceptionalism is simply absurd.
I have written about the infrastructure of American hegemony (https://waronomics.substack.com/p/the-infrastructure-of-hegemony), reminded Americans repeatedly that their prosperity rests heavily on the dollar’s reserve-currency status, not divine exceptionalism, criticised market speculation (https://waronomics.substack.com/p/the-age-of-trillionaires), Western de-industrialisation (https://waronomics.substack.com/p/the-death-of-the-economy-as-a-service), American decline (https://waronomics.substack.com/p/the-death-of-america-as-a-superpower), and the inadequacy of current Western leadership (https://waronomics.substack.com/p/the-comfortable-class). And that is only what is on Substack. After a decade of geopolitical commentary, my main focus has consistently been Western failure.
So, respectfully, you are accusing me of crimes I did not commit.
Now, to address some of your points.
1. Blaming “the West” for nearly every modern conflict is an incredibly binary reading of complex historical processes. Western powers have committed grave crimes in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere - including the arrogant export of the nation-state model into multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies where localism often mattered more than central authority. History is not a morality play with one villain and one victim, and ignoring the gazillion moving parts, cultural intricacies, historical context, etc. is not serious.
2. Portraying Russia as a victim of the West is beyond a stretch. For centuries, the West repeatedly rebuilt and accommodated Russia - often at Eastern Europe’s expense. Russia, and the USSR before it, are not misunderstood innocents, but a donut empire (https://waronomics.substack.com/p/the-donut-empire): an imperial core surrounded by conquered, absorbed, or coerced peripheries. Moscow rose under Golden Horde suzerainty, absorbed many of its fiscal, administrative, and military habits, then rebranded itself as the heir of Kyivan Rus’ (Ukraine's historical heritage) through church politics, imperial titles, and the “Third Rome” myth.
And no, Russia does not need “buffer states.” Russia is a NUCLEAR POWER. What exactly do people think it keeps in Kaliningrad - roller-coasters?
3. Portraying China purely as a victim of the West is equally selective. Yes, the Opium Wars were barbaric. But reducing 5,000 years of Chinese history to British imperial crimes is not serious analysis. China had wars, collapses, massacres, dynastic conquests, and state violence at scales Europe did not witness until the Napoleonic wars. Blaming British or Dutch imperialism for the woes of a civilisation that precedes them by thousands of years is...interesting. When Deng Xiaoping opened China’s economy, the West did cooperate - and yes, the West benefited from cheap labour. But China benefited even more by lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty and building its industrial base through access to Western markets, capital, and technology.
4. I have discussed Western injustices, including in the very article you are responding to.
5. The world wars were also products of complex systems: militarism, nationalism, imperial competition, alliance structures, economic pressures, technological change, and political miscalculation. Reducing them to family squabbles among Queen Victoria’s descendants ignores the vast machinery that made those wars possible.
6. Yes, Lenin was sent back into Russia by German elites hoping to destabilise the Russian Empire and use it as a testing ground for communism. But communism did not take root there because of that. It took root because the tsarist regime was itself brutal, backward, feudal, and repressive. Russia was fertile ground for radicalisation because its own ruling class had spent centuries terrorising and impoverishing its own people.
7. The United States is not a “false democracy.” It is a flawed republic. The Electoral College was designed, however imperfectly, to guard against the tyranny of the majority. I agree that the two-party system is ridiculous, and I personally prefer parliamentary democracy, where multiple parties are forced to negotiate and build coalitions. But the American system was deliberately designed around institutional conflict: the branches of government were meant to check one another because the founders understood human nature as flawed, greedy, and power-seeking. That system is now being stress-tested - by Trump, and before him by Obama. Whether it survives is an open question that is still being litigated.
I am perfectly open to honest debate. What I do not appreciate is being accused of arguments I have not made, beliefs I do not hold, and biases I have spent years publicly criticising. An accusatory, emotionally loaded response dressed up as “educate yourself” will not be met with the diplomatic tone I reserve for people engaging in good faith.
Especially not when it attempts to whitewash the crimes of the empire that cut my family tree in half, wrecked my country, and sentenced me and the generations after me to struggle.
Have a good day.
Thank you; your response to Ikenga is far too gracious. But it’s a service to the community. 😉
The pretence by those obsessively critical of the West, that Russia has not practiced brutal colonialism and imperialism for centuries. Starting from the Russia of Moscow and St Petersburg and invading every one of its neighbours, imposing Russian rule, language and culture. Allying with Adolf Hitler for 2 years to enable it to grab even more of its Western neighbours. No wonder those neighbours wanted to join an alliance that might offer some protection. Repeatedly invading those countries that wished to regain their independence and seeking to reimpose Russian rule. All whilst testing its own citizens as brutally as it treats those of other countries and cultures.
There are those who whine about Western colonialism, which mostly ended 50-60 years ago even if we have to recognise and deal with its damaging legacy, whilst at the same time defending Russia. If they are not bots, they are both ignorant and deeply prejudiced. The same goes for countries who have been cheer leaders for Russia for decades, even though they had been colonised themselves in the past.
In lieu of starting with a point by point response to the points you enumerated, I will attempt a systems thinking or top down approach as a foundation, with the hope that when I do my close up eventually, it will all make sense, or at the very least, persuade you to view the issue form another perspective. Here goes:
In my view, the most inefficient cognitive approach to any “complex” issue, is that it cannot be simplified. Experience shows that this thinking model is just dead wrong.
Hence, all the complex digital computation than characterizes our existence today (including allowing us - total strangers to interact anonymously across thousands of miles), can be reduced to the permutation of 1s and Os.
All the matter that exists in our universe derives from elements, all of which originate ultimately from the fusion of hydrogen atoms, the derivatives of fused hydrogen atoms, the derivatives of derivatives of fused hydrogen atoms, and so forth. Hence, Gold, which has led to many wars and inspired many crimes derives from the same precursor as rotten food which we are all too eager to get rid of.
Transcending basic matter, all the complexity of life on this planet can be reduced to the permutation of four bases that form the DNA that determines if we emerge as human beings, monkeys, carrots, mushrooms, etc.
And finally, conjoined with DNA, all the complexity of human behavior derives from a combination of nature and nurture, which brings me to one question that anyone, who argues on one side or the other of any issue must answer, if they have the courage to be truly intellectually honest:
On the safe assumption that the basic hardware of every able-bodied man (I am restricting our imaginary test subjects to males, so as to avoid bias that will be introduced by biological variances) is the same (unless you disagree, of course), if for instance you were a white Anglo-Saxon man, born into the Rockefeller family and raised in Beverly Hills CA or Chappaqua NY, with a billion dollar trust fund and educated at Harvard, was instead transformed into the illiterate son of poor serfs in Siberia, living in a poorly lit and heated cottage, with with no running water and hardly enough potatoes to eat, do you think your actions, the way you view the world or respond to situations, in these two scenarios will be the same?
I paint these vignettes to prompt anyone who views the actions of the Putin or Xi both of whom were raised in conditions of hardship, occasioned, to a great extent by western opposition, and now lead people equally raised under hardship, as absurd, evil and wicked, to perhaps imagine if they would have behaved differently, if they were in these guys respective positions.
On the flip side, now imagine if JFK would have been the American or global hero he is today, if he was born in China during the cultural revolution, and rose to become a party leader, tasked with enforcing discipline in the citizenry.
I must augment my illustration above, by stating, that historical facts prove unequivocally that the Chinese cultural revolution was a corollary of western influences in China, by which a puppet presided over an oppressive capitalist / feudal regime, where the rich lived in uber-luxury, while the poor suffered terribly. Indeed Mao could have done better, but we must also understand that he did the best he knew how for his people, which nevertheless caused so much death and suffering. By this account, was he an evil person?
Likewise, as I stated before hand, the “evil empire” - Russia and later USSR, which influenced much of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, was the product of sabotage by the west, borne of fear that it would become too powerful, if allowed to expand, culminating in the injection of the poison of communism by Lenin, whom you yourself admitted to being an agent of the west on one hand, and yet argue that the very same poison he administered was only potent because the body politic of the victim had been primed by a preexisting corrupt leadership structure! Does this not appear contradictory to you?
Conclusion: for the most part, at the most fundamental level, the concept of free will may well be the greatest illusion to afflict mankind, and so, for the most part, a person’s actions and thoughts are a product of biology as much as environment. Hence, if the relative positions of actors on both sides of parallel, but diametrically opposite realities are reversed, in all likelihood, the behavior of each one in any one of these milieus could be predicted with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Hence, if you - Bianka was made the president of Russia today, will you erect a replica of the Statue of Liberty in Red Square and allowed demonstrators to burn you in effigy, if they disagree with your policies? The same question goes to Max.
I trust that you can extrapolate the foregoing argument to the points you raised in your reply, with an open mind.
I am not equally educated on all of the examples you reference, but in the area I do know well - Russia and the USSR - I fear your judgement and analysis is hopelessly naive. If you really think Putin attacked Ukraine because on NATO expansion, you don’t understand Putin or Russia in the slightest.
As a scientist, I have a very open mind. Perhaps you could share your opinion, or evidence, if you have it, as to why Putin invaded Ukraine.
Max is right, and I have detailed the chronology of the debunked "NATO expansion" myth here: https://waronomics.substack.com/p/the-nato-expansion-myth
That narrative was dead on arrival, because it had nothing to do with the actual facts or history. But russia did an excellent job at brainwashing people en masse with their propaganda, while silencing us - the very people that know the russians first hand.
First off, in partial response to your subsequent statement, I believe I owe you an apology for my harsh tone. That was inappropriate and I am sorry.
Also, let me declare directly, that I am a humanist, and do not endorse war or violence in any way, shape or form, unless conducted in self-defense.
Furthermore, I am really sorry about the dislocation of your family. I can’t even begin to understand how that must be for you.
Now, to the issue of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the thesis of your article, which I just listened to, is summarized as follows: Despite the sentiment of pundits and academics, most of whom are westerners, Putin’s reason for invading Ukraine was not out of fear of NATO expansion, but because he needed to preempt the implementation of a true democracy, right next to Russia, which his citizens would observe and demand a similar system, hence threatening his autocratic government.
Well, my question to you is: Based on your knowledge of history, what does the west truly care about in other countries? True democracy / freedom or control / exploitation?
If your answer is the former, why have they not pressured Saudi Arabia to become a “free” and “democratic” society, while branding Fidel Castro a despot? Why did they overthrow Mossadeh - the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953 and install an unelected monarch - the Shah, but when Khomeini overthrew the Shah in 1979, he was branded a devil? Why does the CIA intervene in the democratic processes of other countries? Do you truly believe that Zelenskyy ever operated independently of western influences, even before the war? And so forth.
I am sorry, but, the “fear of democracy” reason does not compute with me. The fact, backed by history, is that just as America does everything in its power to defend its sphere of influence, as exemplified by the Cuban blockade of 1962 or thereabouts and other actions, Russia, even after the fragmentation of Soviet Union has endeavored to do the same, as exemplified by the puppet government it controls in Belarus and even previous governments in Kiev.
And so, in the absence of compelling evidence, I am inclined to believe that Putin, legitimately or not, clearly did not wish to have missiles pointed at Moscow from Ukraine.
Notably also, even your essay slipped up in one or two places, and subtly conceded to expansionist concern as a factor, if not a direct cause, for the invasion.
I have to run now, and so will be addressing the points you made in your last statement later. In the meantime, I will really appreciate it, if you could share your rationale for not being fond of Ayn Rand.
Be well.
I think you are making two mistakes here. The first is believing that the cause you personally find most compelling or appealing must somehow make other causes invalid. The second is of incorrectly determining the relative weight of the various causes. Was there some Western influence in Ukraine? Of course. There is Western influence (as well as influence of most significant world powers) occurring in just about any place that has any strategic or economic significance. That’s just what it means to be a power beyond your own national borders. The question is whether than influence was the main driving force behind Putin’s actions. And it was not - not even close. As is commonly known, Putin considers the breakup of the USSR the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the previous century. There was more that he said right after - about “separatist movements” - that is most revealing (I urge you to read the full speech). To him, Ukraine should never have been allowed to be independent. To him, the potential independence of Chechens - a people with a tremendously distinct culture, religion and history - was a threat worth shedding rivers of blood over - what to say of Ukraine, the cradle of Russian civilization?! The idea of Ukraine “going its own way” - whether it was towards the West, towards China or towards the Moon - was absolutely untenable. I’ll go a little further than Bianka here - it wasn’t even just the threat of it becoming a successful Western democracy - it was the threat of it becoming ANYTHING that wasn’t taking its orders from Moscow. Western influences? NATO expansion? Missiles? Russophobia? Please. All of these were gentle blows from lover’s lips compared to the gale of rage that swept through Putin’s mind at the thought of Ukraine - a vital part of the ex-Soviet empire any way you look at it - culturally, industrially, economically, academically, militarily - slipping out of his firm control. To understand history you HAVE to understand the psychology of its leaders. Without that, you are trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle by touch alone.
“I’ll go a little further than Bianca here - it wasn’t even just the threat of it becoming a successful Western democracy - it was the threat of it becoming ANYTHING that wasn’t taking its orders from Moscow.”
Actually, that’s always been my original argument. It applies beyond Ukraine too, but russia HAD to swallow the idea that the Baltics, Central European powers (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia) would go their own way and due to the distinct cultural differences (different language groups, religion, etc.), they had to let it go. The Balkans were more difficult to accept, but Ukraine…Ukraine, which culture and history russia appropriated as its own, was allowed to have only ONE master and that master was Moscow.
Had Ukriane agreed to be the new Belarus and erase its identity, sovereignty and independence, russia would’ve never attacked.