THE "OVAL AWFULNESS" AND THE DOMINANCE OF EUROPE

Unity is easier among equals

by Colin Liddell

Trumptards and Amerikaf@gs mistakenly see Europe as weak and Zelenskyy as a mere supplicant who should be on bended knees in the Oval Office before the "Great Pooh-Bah" Donald Trump and the "almighty United States," blah, blah, blah.

The facts, however, point strongly in the opposite direction, as you shall see if you are "man enough" to finish reading this essay (this is how you have to frame things to many Americans to get them to overcome their relative illiteracy).

Whatever happened in the Oval Office the other day, it is not impossible that it was Zelenskyy who was playing Trump and Vance like two suckers at a carnival fair. It certainly had the same result, because the fall out from the "Oval Awfulness" was that the Orange Turd and the Hillybilly Couchfucker looked like two cheap crooks (and puppets of Putin) while Zelenskyy burnished his halo and gained in global popularity. 

Argument in the Oval Office: Who's to blame?

This all fits in with my sense that Trump is not even going to last one term this time, and that, whatever happens, the crappiness of America is going to become increasingly evident.

But, hey, that's what the people voted for, rite?

This tweet seems pretty representative of the general vibe about the spat in the Oval Office:

"Cheap crooks," "crappy America," "not even one term"? Yes, America is the weakling in all of this, not Zelenskyy or Europe, and it is in an increasingly weak position.

Actually, Trump's slop politics are an irrelevance here, because, even if there were a "sensible" President in the White House who knew how to behave, America would, more or less, be doing exactly the same thing that the Trump administration is doing, i.e. backing off from the Ukraine and washing its hands of Europe.

Of course, they would be doing with more diplomacy and style, but the essentials would be the same.

Key point: America is increasingly unwilling to support Ukraine because it is weak.

A lot of people mistakenly conclude that Trump's behaviour must be motivated by him being a Putin shill, or because he is being blackmailed by the Kremlin. Maybe, he is, but actually it wouldn't matter if they had Moscow piss videos or paedo kompromat on him, because Trump is just acting the way weakness acts and, yes, America is weak. 

Did I say weak already?

Yes, I am harping on this weakness thing a lot, and, don't worry, I still think America is stronger than, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Belgium, but what I mean is that it is a lot, lot weaker than Trumptards and Amerikaf@gs think it is. 

I will get resistance on this point because "look at graph":

Yes, it's the almighty military spending graph! All bow down and worship it!

There are several others like this, and they are frequently cited to reinforce the brittle egos of  Trumptards and Amerikaf@gs. The problem here is that these dimwits actually equate dollar-spend-on-military with military-bang-for-buck.

What makes the irony even sweeter is that these people are often the same ones who buy into the whole DOGE narrative that most Federal spending is just 99% waste anyway.

Muh magic chainsaw

Yes, they somehow think the Federal government is shitting away money on everything it does except the military, where miraculously America's bloated budget is 100% muscle, 0% fat, and spent on keeping millions of chad Marines and Navy Seals ready to kick the World's ass.

Extreme doublethink like this, by the way, is a good indicator that someone is a pathetic, gas-lit member of a cult.

While there is undoubtedly inefficiencies in the Federal budget, most of the stuff DOGE is cutting is going to cause problems. 

The real soft spot of gargantuan waste, however, is the bloated US military budget, where waste, overspend, and corruption have been rife for decades. Unlike some of you, I haven't forgotten about the $90,000 bag of bushings.

Sure, not everything is waste and all those trillions create a few cool toys, but I'm willing to bet that Chinese military spending, although lower in dollar terms, is 5 to 6 times more efficient. This is a combination of PPP and because China does not need to operate a democratic pork barrel system to keep its hick Congressmen and Senators happy. 

Here is Foreign Policy trying to wake up Americans a couple of years back:

"U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan recently revealed that U.S. government estimates put the Chinese annual defense budget at around $700 billion. That is far higher than previous estimates and almost on par with the United States’ 2023 defense budget of just over $800 billion.

Sullivan’s number stands in stark contrast to other estimates of Chinese defense spending. One of the most respected independent sources of defense data, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, pegs China’s military budget for 2022 at only about $290 billion. The new, much higher number also completely contradicts the widespread assertion that U.S. defense spending is so lavish that it amounts to more than that of the next 10 countries put together."

My guess is that China's $252-to-290 billion buys it the equivalent of over a trillion in US defence spending, so it looks like China is already streets ahead, especially as America's big fat military ass is spread pretty widely and is still stuck in Europe and the Middle East, trying to get in on some dodgy oil, mineral, and real estate deals. 

Really, it's only America's Far East allies, like Japan and South Korea who are keeping anything resembling a balance of power in the Pacific.

So, now, you may see, why Trump -- or indeed any US administration -- would be ultra keen to run away from Ukraine. 

But another point of Chinese military dominance over America has to be made. This is the fact that China can take losses, the USA not so much. I estimate America's ability to suck up bodybags in conflicts outside the North American continent to be less than 5,000, 10% of where it was in the 1970s, when they lost around 50,000 killed in Vietnam over 10 years before running for the exits. I also remember US involvement in Lebanon in the 1980s when less than 500 did the trick. 

For these reasons, nobody should overestimate the US military. While it has some "performative" military value against gullible states and naïve populations, it mainly serves as an internal economic device to circulate some much-needed pork barrel to keep the malls functioning in the more remote and sclerotic parts of the oversized American Republic.  

Now, given this weakness and disparity in strength, America has chosen to militarily confront China in the Pacific. But they can only hope to do this with the cooperation of Europe and the Japanese. Not only does Europe and Japan add to America's fading naval strength in the region, these countries also strengthen America's economic hand against China, as any war with China would be half-military and half-economic. 

Enormous amounts of money are spent by the UK to back up the USA in the Indo-Pacific, from the billions being spent to "lease back" the Chagos Islands to provide a cosy base for the US Navy to the absurd amounts spent on two over-sized and otherwise unnecessary aircraft carriers. 

Now, while America has got itself into a bit of a pickle in the Pacific, how is Europe doing? 

Not bad at all. Euro-NATO is not in the least threatened by China. Instead it only has the relatively minor threat of a greatly depleted Russia. As long as it supports Ukraine a little more, that war is probably won, after which it would even be safe for Euro-NATO to drop defence spending to 1% of GDP. 

America, meanwhile, faced with its self-inflicted geopolitical challenges, needs, to up its defence spending long-term to around 10% of GDP to generate what a well-spent 2.5% would generate elsewhere, and even then China looks set to be stronger.

And this without even bringing up the fact that America's entire ruling elite seems to have been hacked by foreign powers.

Probably happened but not really important

Alienating Europe, as the Trump administration is attempting to do, is a suicidal policy for America. Without Europe backing it up diplomatically, economically, and militarily, the US has no chance of deterring China long term, and may as well retreat back to the California coast ASAP with its tail between its legs.

It entirely makes sense that America wants to run from Europe and beef up its feeble Pacific position, so no one should blame it for doing that, but before it does so, it should at least get a "note of permission" from its very important NATO allies.

Talking down to allies, might be good for the slop politics that Trump like to engage in to to keep his moronic followers engaged, but it is the policy of an ex-superpower trying to flush itself down the toilet of history.

Europe, meanwhile, is in the sweet spot. It has a vast ocean on its West to insulate it from any toxic craziness that develops in America (which will probably fall apart without external distractions), while to the East it has a vast Kremlin-created graveyard of poverty, dysfunction, mud, and shit that cushions it from the Chinese, and which it will later be able to colonise and exploit at its leisure.

From this position, dominance of the Middle East and Africa are relatively easy. It's all starting to remind me a little of this, but with a much weaker Russia:

____________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

SPECULATION GROWS OVER JD VANCE'S UNUSUAL COUCH SITTING TECHNIQUE

Following the historic falling out of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and "mineral enthusiast" Donald Trump at their recent meeting at the White House, speculation has continued build over the unusual couch sitting technique of someone else who was in the room with them at that same time, namely Vice President J.D. Vance.

Throughout the acrimonious meeting, Vance sat weirdly perched on an adjacent sofa, pointing his disgusting "soy beard" in the general direction of President Zelenskyy's small but perfectly formed "chad beard."

Meanwhile, onlookers noticed Vance's rather uncomfortable sitting posture, characterised by interlocking hands leaning heavily on his knees.

This is a typical sitting strategy of people keen to reduce the gravitational pressure on their rear ends. While many do this merely to stop a fart being too audible, in other cases it is because of more substantial damage to the "sensitive rear area," such as piles, a hernia, or the after effects of too much buttfucking. 

Respected Twitterer SangerGlobalism was quick to side with the latter theory, stating that:

"JD Vance sits like he gets pounded in the ass."

This is an entirely plausible explanation, given the fact that Vance was spouting Kremlin talking points throughout the meeting, as the Kremlin is well known for blackmailing "secretly" gay Western politicians to do their bidding. Also lending credence to this theory is the fact that Vance got his start in politics through an overly close association with gay billionaire man Peter Thiel who has a thing about soft, pudgy guys like him.

However, there could be a more innocent explanation for Vance's unusual "ass-pounded-adjacent" sitting style.

As is well known, Vance is a former "couch fucking" incel of long-standing, who was sadly unable to attract a White women for many years, and finally had to settle for a mid-level woman of ethnic Indian origin.

Due to this clearly desperate and some would say "unnatural" alliance, Vance is now forced to live an "inauthentic" lifestyle, wearing odd clothing in private and consuming exotic and possibly toxic foods for which his puny body is simply not adapted. 

While consuming super hot curries would not be a problem for the average Indian man, whose digestive track has evolved over millions of years to survive such brutal punishment and endless ass-blasting, it plays havoc with the delicate inner tubes of your average Western man like Vance.

In fact, nothing looks more like a real ass pounding than a soft White guy like Vance getting thermonuclear hell curry served to him seven nights a week by his loving wife. 

Vance, ass-blasted victim of culinary abuse

ZELENSKYY HUMILIATED TRUMP

NOTE: Girkin is a Russian ultranationalist currently under arrest in Russia. This article was lifted from his Telegram social media account.

by Igor Girkin

Overall, I do not agree with the assessment of the meeting, of this meeting, and its outcome given by our media.

On our TV, they said that Trump and Vance cruelly humiliated Zelenskyy. But I think that Zelensky truly humiliated Trump and Vance in front of the central American media, in front of all of America, because when Trump, in his exceptionally boorish cowboy manner, tried to humiliate Zelensky in the Oval Office of the White House, instead he got the exact opposite result.

Zelensky not only abandoned the treaty that Trump already believed he had in his pocket and which he could have presented to his voters and all US citizens as his first major foreign policy success.

In fact, Trump received direct demonstrative insubordination from a man whom he considered at best to be at the level of a servant and most likely at the level of a kind of "white native" whose opinions no one cares about and who is obliged to bow at the order of the "big white sahib" as much as he wants and in whatever way he wants.

Zelensky has demonstrated that the elites of Europe and the US who support him are strong enough to resist Trump, at least at this level. Of course, Donald will never forgive Zelensky for this. The only question is - what can he do?

And he can do little. Another very big question is, of course, that whoever could take advantage of this situation - Trump's rage, his humiliation, his desire for revenge - could receive very serious dividends.

Unfortunately, knowing the colossal great talents of our diplomacy, which can only give up positions in the most favourable conditions, I do not count on an adequate use of the situation.

WTF, ISRAEL WANTS AMERICA TO HELP KEEP RUSSIA IN SYRIA TO STOP TURKEY

Diplomatic dumpster fire

Yes, five countries in one headline, and this is a serious fact-checked Reuters story:

"Israel is lobbying the United States to keep Syria weak and decentralised, including by letting Russia keep its military bases there to counter Turkey's growing influence in the country, four sources familiar with the efforts said. [...] The lobbying points to a concerted Israeli campaign to influence U.S. policy at a critical juncture for Syria, as the Islamists who ousted Bashar al-Assad try to stabilise the fractured state and get Washington to lift punishing sanctions.

Israel communicated its views to top U.S. officials during meetings in Washington in February and subsequent meetings in Israel with U.S. Congressional representatives, three U.S. sources and another person familiar with the contacts said."

This shows a number of things, namely an extremely cosy relationship between Israel and Russia, as well as the obvious expectation that many American politicians would welcome Russian participation and would be happy to give favours to Russia. If so, why? 

Meanwhile Turkey looks like it is opposed to an axis of Israel, America, and Russia, while at the same time it is giving increasing support to Ukraine and becoming more closely aligned with European interests. 

Not sure if the "geniuses" currently occupying the White House will be able to keep up with even a fraction of this.

WHO'S WHO IN THE DISSIDENT RIGHT: MATT FORNEY

by Colin Liddell

Once a controversial but highly talented figure in the Dissident Right, who distanced himself from "the movement" in pursuit of "muh literature" some years ago, but who is now (2025) striving to come back in DR circles.

Born 1988 in upstate New York to a Catholic family, Forney was a writer for alternativeright.com (the fountainhead of the entire Alt and Dissident Right), but became an early cynic and critic of the Alt-Right and its failed leaders, especially Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson, whom he Christened "Grindr Greg." Earlier he was a involved in the manosphere and associated with Roosh V. 

He also wrote for Daniel Friberg's now defunct RightOn.net and lived in Budapest for a time. As Friberg "glows up" as a Kremlin asset, Forney is of course tainted by this association, and suspicions should at least be entertained about this part of his career. There is also a "theory" that he was one of the writers ghosting for Andrew Anglin at the Daily Stormer.

Forney in his Budapest days

Forney has long struggled with weight problems, for which he has been unfairly mocked, but this mockery has apparently helped him to get a little more in shape in recent years (see top photo). Even when obese and relatively defenceless, he was however a lot more adept at dealing with antifa than Richard Spencer. Note how he faces his assailants, ignores their petty jibes, films them on his phone to record criminal acts, and seeks authority figures for protection:

In the past he has feuded with boomer edgytarian Jim Goad. This was in part fuelled by Goad's attempt to carry water for Forney's ex-girlfriend, novelist and rape victim Ann Sterzinger. Sterzinger disputes that Formey was ever her "boyfriend" although there was clearly some sort of intimate relationship between them.

Forney has pursued a "global nomad" lifestyle, something of a red flag TBH, and has claimed to live in a number of odd places like Hungary, Georgia, Greece, etc. He now edits Terror House Magazine, an underappreciated outlet for fiction, poetry, and other self-indulgent writing. His YouTube channel was active until about 2020 but is now mothballed.

In 2022, he claimed to be living in Mexico. In 2025 he was active again on Twitter with uncritical pro-Trumpist views. He is also a great admirer of pudgy Catholic hillbilly JD Vance. However, in my honest estimation, these views seem somewhat simplistic and inauthentic for someone of his background (high intellect + cynic-forming experiences) and are probably adopted mainly to "trigger the libs" and boost his social media presence in the new on-line environment.

Read other entries like this in Who's Who in the Dissident Right, an ever-expanding biographical guide to the colourful characters and quaint Quislings of the on-line Right.

____________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

SLOPOLITICS

Slop image of a slop politician

by Colin Liddell

You've probably got used to the sight by now of Donald Trump sitting at his desk, holding his marker pen, conceitedly blowing smoke up his own arse, and signing all manner of "executive orders."

Everybody's triggered by this, either positively or negatively, and they're all paying attention. Having a war/mineral deal on the table also helps to get eyes on the ball.
 
As for me, I feel increasingly like this meme:

In fact, checking in on the Donald gives me the same clammy feeling I get on those rare occasions when I log onto my Facebook account to see what "delicacies" Mr. Zuckerberg has seen fit to insert into my now intensely neglected "Faecesbook" feed

In both cases I am overwhelmed by an all-consuming sense of wading through purulent slop. 

Slop (or "slop content" as it is sometimes known) is one of the most important aspects of the modern recent age. It is everywhere now. You have "Google Slop, YouTube slop, TikTok slop," etc., but Facebook slop just makes the slopness of the slop all the more apparent. However, it appears now that the slop has crossed over into politics in a deeply disturbing way.

So, what exactly is slop?

This is a good question and the answer is actually under debate at the moment. Some link it to AI-generated content and say it is "forced" on us in the same way that spam once was:

"Content slop has three important characteristics. The first being that, to the user, the viewer, the customer, it feels worthless. This might be because it was clearly generated in bulk by a machine or because of how much of that particular content is being created. The next important feature of slop is that feels forced upon us, whether by a corporation or an algorithm. It’s in the name. We’re the little piggies and it’s the gruel in the trough. But the last feature is the most crucial. It not only feels worthless and ubiquitous, it also feels optimized to be so."

This definition is a useful starting point, but, in my view, it grossly underestimates and mischaracterises the slop.

What makes slop powerful and dangerous is that it is worthless garbage that is algorithmically optimised to be "just good enough" or "interesting enough" to get you to voluntarily bury your snout in it.

For example, if you are a boomer or genXer and go on Facebook, their algorithm will bombard you with content for 70s tribute bands or "farewell tours" by reformed 80s outfits. You might have zero interest in those bands, but the algorithm has your age and other bits of info, and feeds you what lots of other people of a similar age and background might be interested in. 

Or you might just get generic shit that almost anybody might be vaguely interested in, like funny cat videos or weird AI-generated images.

Shrimp Jesus

The key point here is slop is not forced on us and it doesn't necessarily feel worthless. We choose to consume it and it only feels worthless if we have the time and mind to reflect on it. Most people don't and therefore exist in a largely passive relationship to their slop.

The other characteristic of slop is that, even though it is targeted, it is also messy and imprecise. For example I got this in my FB feed last time I logged on:

A total miss as I hate Father Ted. I assume Facebook shoved this into my feed simply because it 'believes' that a person with my "algorithmic characteristics" (British, male, Gen-X, likes comedy, etc) might possibly be interested in an unfunny sit-com from the 1990s.

The same cheap, attention-grabbing, messy targeting characteristics that we see with such online content now seem to have infected our politics, particularly embodied in the "slop politics" of Donald Trump 2.0.

Since becoming President around a month ago, Trump has managed to "flood the zone" not so much with shit (in accordance with Steve Bannon's advice) but with political slop.

Are you worried about excessive government spending? Well, along comes Trump (and increasingly "Kid Ketamine" Elon Musk) with some slop DOGE "initiatives that are reportedly going to "claw back trillions in waste." Somehow or other that just doesn't happen. Instead they just cause minor chaos and piss off enough people that they get watered down or simply dropped or forgotten. But, never mind, you already enjoyed having your snout well and truly buried in the lovely slop and the transitory sensation that something important was happening. So, win-win! 

Worried about migrants and countries "not sending their best," etc.? No problem, there's Trump at his desk signing EOs like there's no tomorrow, clamping down on all the "bad hombres" and setting up deals with El Salvador's Nayib Bukele to take back America's "most unwanted" huddled masses.

It all sounds good, but the reality is that you paid attention for a bit, and after all nothing much happened again. Maybe things are even worse than under Joe Biden.

Yup, you were "slopped" again.

Real politicians look for sensible, solid, workable solutions that can be processed into actual laws, and then enforced. It's hard work and it unfortunately takes time and requires building consensus. It's also kind of boring.

Slop politicians, by contrast, throw everything up in the air and shoot off a few performative gestures that are just good enough to grab your incontinent attention and make you feel like something important is happening, when, on reflection, you're just this guy:

Another characteristic of the slop politician is he doesn't want you to reflect too much. To stop you doing so he's ready with a whole fresh trough-load of slop. Maybe even a pipeline.

Donald Trump isn't the only one like this, and there have been others over the years moving in this direction, but Trump -- especially in his second term -- is unquestionably the defining politician of what we must now call "Slopolitics."

However, looking on the bright side, there is probably a limit to what he can get away with. Even Trump, with his extremely sloppable followers, won't be able to keep an endless tsunami supply of slop coming. We may already have passed peak slop.

Either Trump will have to deliver something more substantial soon (a real stretch for him) or else the coming gaps in the slop waves will allow more and more people -- even his dumb MAGAtard followers -- to reflect on the utter worthlessness and vacuity of his incessant political posturing. 

Gulf of Slop anyone?

____________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

THIS ISN'T NEW, AMERICA HAS ALWAYS BEEN RUSSIA'S ARSEWIPER

Trump has succeeded to the time-honoured position of Russia's Royal Arse Wiper

by Cemil Kerimoglu

Russia is indeed unraveling. Its economy is crumbling, its resources – both human and material – are depleting at an alarming rate. The trajectory is clear: collapse is on the horizon. There is no longer any question of whether Russia will win or lose its war against Ukraine. It is losing. It will lose, as long as events continue to unfold as they are now.

Yet, my concern lies elsewhere. My deepest fear is not that Russia might somehow snatch victory from the jaws of defeat – it won't – but rather that the West, led by the United States, will once again intervene to rescue it from total ruin. This pattern has repeated itself time and again: in the 1920s, during World War II, and in the early 1990s. At each of these historical junctures, Russia stood at the brink of collapse, only to be saved at the last moment by American benevolence. The true danger therefore lies in Russia’s renewed salvation at the hands of those who should have let it fall.

In the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution and the ensuing Civil War, Russia was drowning in chaos and famine. This was the moment to strangle the nascent Soviet regime in its cradle, to prevent its consolidation. Instead, the United States provided massive humanitarian aid, unwittingly stabilizing Bolshevik rule. But the damage did not stop there. Following World War I, as the victorious Entente powers eagerly dismantled the German and Austro-Hungarian empires in the name of self-determination, they conspicuously refused to apply the same principle to Russia.

Take Ukraine, for instance. A Ukrainian delegation stood before the Paris Peace Conference, alongside the Poles and the Czechs, seeking recognition and independence for their nation. Yet, they were summarily dismissed. The prevailing argument was that the “people of Russia” should resolve their own internal disputes – an argument that, in practice, meant the Russian state could crush independence movements at will. No such generous rationale was extended to the Germans or Austrians. The Habsburg and Hohenzollern empires were forcibly dismembered, their former subjects encouraged to chart independent futures. But when it came to Russia, the world suddenly discovered a newfound respect for imperial unity.

This undeserved leniency – this pathological fixation on humiliating Germany while letting Russia off the hook – enabled the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power unchecked and re-establish the Russian Empire, albeit under a different name and ideology. And from that failure, a monstrous regime emerged, one that would go on to commit atrocities on an unprecedented scale, unleashing unimaginable suffering upon Europe throughout the 20th century.

It is also crucial to recognize that Russia would never have had the capacity to commit its countless atrocities without American aid. In the early years of Stalin’s rule – the 1920s and 1930s – it was American companies that built the foundation of Soviet industrialization. It was American engineers who designed and constructed the very factories that would later churn out weapons of war. The Soviet economy, so often portrayed as an achievement of socialist planning, was in reality an edifice erected with Western expertise. The emerging Soviet industries, which would soon be turned into instruments of mass repression and militarism, owed their very existence to American effort.

Even as early as 1905 America was wiping Russia's arse when Theodeore Roosevelt oversaw the lenient Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the Russo-Japanese War. It was so lenient it caused major riots in Japan.

Then came the Second World War, when the Soviet Union once again stood at the precipice, battered by the German onslaught. And once again, the United States came to the rescue. Through the Lend-Lease program, the Americans provided the Soviets with an avalanche of military aid, without which the Red Army would have crumbled under the weight of a far superior German war machine. It was American tanks, American trucks, American food, and American fuel that enabled the Soviet war effort. It was American generosity that allowed the Red Army not just to survive but to push forward – first repelling the German advance and then raping and pillaging its way to Berlin. One could argue that the United States first saved the Soviet Union from certain defeat and then facilitated its brutal conquest of half of Europe.

This era – the age of Franklin Delano Roosevelt – is instructive in many ways. The official narrative presents America's alliance with the Soviet Union as a necessary, albeit unfortunate, partnership in the fight against absolute evil. But this is a convenient myth, crafted to justify not only that alliance but the immense suffering that followed in its wake. The post-war Western self-perception rests on the notion that Nazi Germany was the ultimate evil, while the Soviet Union was, if not exactly good, at least an acceptable partner. Such a view allows us to forget that long before Nazi Germany turned genocidal, the Roosevelt administration had already viewed the Soviet Union as a natural ally – regardless of what was happening in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe. And this, mind you, when the Soviet Union had already been genocidal since its inception, having killed tens of millions of people and committed numerous genocides by that time – among them Holodomor, during which 8 million Ukrainians were intentionally starved to death.

FDR neatly cleaned up Stalin's rear end when the USSR was drowning in its own shit in the 1940s

Indeed, Roosevelt’s government was teeming with literal Stalinists. From the very beginning, the FDR administration harbored a deep ideological affinity for the Soviet regime. The alliance with Stalin was not merely a tactical necessity; it was, in many ways, the realization of a broader geopolitical vision. Roosevelt himself mused about a future in which the world would be divided into spheres of influence, managed jointly by the United States, the Soviet Union, and China (then under Chiang Kai-shek). Europe – its nations, its ancient cultures, even the British Empire – was conspicuously absent from this vision. America's hostility toward Germany, culminating in its alliance with the Soviet Union, was not the result of Hitler’s crimes. It was the logical outcome of Roosevelt’s grand strategy. Nazi Germany merely provided the convenient pretext for a decision that had already been made.

The speed with which the United States provided aid to the Soviet Union is revealing. Lend-Lease shipments began flowing into Russia as early as October 1941 – two months before the U.S. officially entered the war. Even at a time when Stalin was an adversary and clearly no friend of America, Washington extended its hand without hesitation. There were no conditions, no strings attached. The urgency and scale of the aid stand in stark contrast to America’s current, hesitant support for Ukraine – a true, sincere friend of America, unlike the Soviet Union. Today, as Russia wages an unprovoked war of aggression, the moral lines could not be clearer: Ukraine is the victim, Russia the perpetrator. Unlike in the case of Nazi Germany vs. Soviet Union, Ukraine is clearly good, Russia is clearly evil. And yet, instead of an unambiguous commitment to Ukraine’s victory, the West provides support that is calculated – just enough to keep Ukraine from losing, but not enough to allow it to win.

Compare this to World War II, when, if there was ever a case for ambiguity and strategic restraint, it was then. If there was ever a time for hesitation, for moral uncertainty, it was in weighing Nazi Germany against Stalin’s Soviet Union. If there was ever a situation where a "both sides" argument might have applied, it was then. A reasonable and morally justifiable course of action would have been to support the Soviets only enough to prevent outright defeat, but not enough to hand them complete victory – or to allow them to reclaim lost territories and impose their rule over half of Europe. If there was ever a case for measured support, it was then, not now.

Instead, the United States unreservedly threw its full weight behind Stalin – arguably the greater evil – when it was attacked by Nazi Germany. And now, when the roles are reversed, when Russia is the clear aggressor and Ukraine is fighting for its very survival, the West hesitates. Now, when there is no moral ambiguity, when the demarcation between good and evil is as bright as day, Ukraine is subjected to calculated half-measures. If there was ever a time to decisively declare a country and its people as irredeemable evil, it is now. If there was ever a moment for the West to commit, without hesitation or restraint, to a just cause, it is now. Ukraine should have been the recipient of the same unapologetic support that the Soviet Union received – deluged with arms, equipped to not just repel the Russians but to march all the way to Moscow.

The reality is that the United States never truly saw Russia as an enemy, let alone as evil. After World War II, Washington accommodated the Soviet Union, granting it sweeping concessions – the rape and subjugation of half of Europe included. The U.S. did not immediately turn against the Soviet Union out of principle. It did not instinctively recognize Russia as a fundamental threat. Rather, it was only when Soviet hostility became too brazen, when Russian behavior became too ungrateful, that the West was reluctantly forced into confrontation. The Cold War was not the product of an innate Western opposition to the Soviet Union, but of Russian intransigence. Left to its own instincts, the United States might well have coexisted peacefully with the Soviet Union, indulging Russia’s pathologies and making endless allowances. It was Russia’s own actions – its shameless ungratefulness to the extensive goodwill and boundless, apocalyptic hatred of the West – that finally forced the United States to take a stand.

And then, history repeated itself once more. When the Soviet Union finally collapsed, it was the golden opportunity to put an end to Russia’s destructive cycle once and for all – to dismantle the empire completely, ensuring it could never rise again to menace its neighbors. But, yet again, the West balked. Apparently, the decades of hatred, threats, and violence that Russia had directed toward the West throughout the 20th century were still not enough to warrant decisive action. Instead, the Americans convinced themselves – against all logic and historical precedent – that this time, Russia would finally become a civilized, peaceful nation. That all it needed was a push towards "democracy" and "market reforms".

Even the most basic, common-sense measures – like stripping Russia of its nuclear weapons – were dismissed out of hand. Instead, the world was asked to take Russia at its word, as if a "pinky swear" was enough to ensure it wouldn’t one day again turn those weapons against the West. And yet, even as Washington indulged this naïve fantasy of a democratic Russia, it treated the victims of Russian imperialism – those nations striving for independence – with thinly veiled suspicion, if not outright contempt.

Nowhere was this more apparent than in Ukraine. Just months before the Soviet Union formally dissolved, then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush traveled to Kyiv, where he stood before the Ukrainian parliament and urged them not to declare independence. In his infamous "Chicken Kyiv" speech, he warned against "suicidal nationalism", painting the desire for self-determination as reckless and dangerous.

From the White House to the Shite House: Presidential Russian arse-wiper George HW Bush

The implications were chilling: Ukrainians were being cast as the troublemakers, their aspirations dismissed as destabilizing, even selfish. It was not Russia – the brutal aggressor, the country that had spent centuries committing genocide, repression, and terror – that was being lectured. It was Ukraine, the victim, that was being scolded. The burden of responsibility was placed not on the abuser, but on those seeking freedom from his grip. It was a grotesque inversion of morality.

And when Ukraine went ahead and declared its independence anyway, defying Washington’s pressure, the U.S. continued to act in Russia’s interests at every turn. Instead of disarming Russia, the U.S. pressured Ukraine to dismantle its own nuclear arsenal. The Budapest Memorandum, hailed at the time as a diplomatic success, was in reality one of the most lopsided and unjust settlements in modern history. Ukraine, the country that had been subjugated and brutalized by Russia for centuries, was coerced into handing over its last line of defense – not just destroying its nuclear weapons, and nuclear-capable conventional ones as well, but transferring many of them directly to Russia. This was not an agreement based on justice or fairness; it was a grotesque act of appeasement that set the stage for future catastrophe. History has now rendered its judgment: the Budapest Memorandum was an open invitation for renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine in the future, that came to be materialized twenty years later.

But that was only half of the betrayal. The West didn’t just strip Ukraine of its defenses – it also actively rescued Russia from the abyss. As the Soviet economy imploded and Russia teetered on the edge of starvation, the U.S. and its allies rushed in with financial and humanitarian aid. Russia was flooded with Western money, food, and technical assistance. Yet again, the West extended a fresh batch of goodwill – no accountability required, no demands for atonement for Russia’s past crimes, no reckoning for the genocides it had committed. Everything was forgiven, everything was forgotten.

Even worse, the West then stood by as Russia resumed its old habits of aggression and imperial conquest – sometimes even tacitly endorsing it. When Chechnya, a small nation that had suffered unspeakable horrors under Russian rule, fought for its independence, Russia responded with a campaign of utter savagery, flattening entire cities and slaughtering civilians en masse. And yet, what was the reaction from Washington? Then-U.S. President Bill Clinton infamously likened the Chechen freedom fighters to the Confederates in the American Civil War. The implication was sinister: the Chechens were the "bad guys" for daring to seek independence, while Russia – the empire that had razed their land and massacred their people – was the rightful authority.

Mud in your eye: US President Bill Clinton had his work cut out keeping Yeltsin's arse relatively spotless

And it was not just words. As Poland’s then-president Lech Wałęsa later revealed, he had been prepared to act decisively when the First Chechen War broke out – to push for Russia’s final collapse and end its imperial ambitions once and for all. But it was the United States, through Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, that intervened, arguing that Russia’s disintegration would lead to "unforeseen consequences" and therefore must be avoided. Let that sink in: the criminal was allowed to survive, because there was concern that it might hurt itself in the process. That was the priority – not the suffering of the nations Russia had already brutalized, not the atrocities being committed in real time, but the hypothetical danger that Russians might turn on each other. That was deemed unacceptable. But the continued oppression and slaughter of others by Russians? That was apparently a price worth paying.

The reality is that throughout the 1990s, even as Russia waged its barbaric wars, even as it seized new territories and crushed resistance with savage brutality, it was still showered with Western support. While Russian bombs flattened Grozny, while its soldiers murdered and raped their way through Chechnya, Western leaders, first and foremost Bill Clinton, were heaping praise upon Russia’s supposed "democratic transition". Boris Yeltsin, the man who presided over these atrocities, was treated not as a war criminal, but as a hero of reform. And even as Russia instigated a coup in Georgia in 1991, deposing its popular leader Zviad Gamsakhurdia, invaded and occupied Moldova’s Transnistria in 1992, and waged a genocidal war against Ichkeria (Chechnya) in 1994 – it continued to receive aid and goodwill from the West, welcomed into the family of civilized nations.

The pattern was unmistakable. Time and again, the West chose to see Russia as it wished it to be, rather than as it actually was. Time and again, the West placed its faith in the idea that Russia could be rehabilitated, that it could be a partner, that it could be reasoned with. And time and again, Russia proved that it would never change – that its fundamental nature remained that of a barbaric entity, built on conquest, violence, and subjugation.

And now, with Russia once again waging war, with its genocidal ambitions in full view, with its actions leaving no doubt as to where the lines of good and evil truly lie, what does the West do? It hesitates. It equivocates. It provides just enough support for Ukraine to survive, but not enough to ensure victory. Because at its core, the West, especially the U.S., has never truly seen Russia as an enemy. It has only ever seen it as a wayward partner – a country to be accommodated, indulged, and, when necessary, rescued from its own self-inflicted disasters.

The tragedy is that this endless cycle of indulgence and appeasement has never led to peace – only to greater horrors down the line. The world had a chance to end Russia’s reign of terror in 1991. It had a chance to finally rid itself of this predator, to ensure it would never rise again to threaten its neighbors. But it chose instead to save it. And now, Ukraine pays the price.

However, history is once again presenting the world with a golden opportunity to rid itself of the Russian menace. The trajectory of history may bend and twist, but it remains unrelenting in its course. Russia, in its current unitary form, is an aberration – an unnatural construct held together by force, deception and external help. This aberration could have been corrected in the 1920s, in the 1940s, in the 1990s, but each time, it was artificially sustained – propped up by foreign intervention, shielded from the consequences of its own failures. Yet, because it is an unnatural construct, its demise is only a matter of time. It is an inevitability, a question of when, not if.

But once again, the greatest danger is the all-too-familiar impulse, particularly in Washington, to prevent Russia’s collapse. The greatest threat is that, just as in the past, the United States – especially under a second Trump administration, though the same risk would likely exist under any American leadership – will step in at the critical moment and try to save Russia from total defeat and disintegration. There will be attempts to "freeze" the war precisely at the moment when it needs to continue, when just a little more pressure would push Russia’s crumbling economy into total implosion. There will be calls for a "deal", an armistice, a "pragmatic settlement" – all of which will be nothing more than veiled efforts to grant Russia the breathing space it so desperately needs to rearm, regroup, and return stronger in the future. And part of this betrayal will inevitably involve lifting sanctions at the very moment they are finally beginning to bite, at the very moment when they are inflicting real, irreversible damage.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Not this time. This time, it is Eastern Europe that must step up and take control of the narrative. This is where history shifts – where those who were once treated as objects of history become its subjects – its driving force. Thirty years ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the nations of Eastern Europe were still too weak, too dependent on the West. They had only recently escaped Russia’s grip, and they lacked the agency to shape their own destiny. That is why, in the 1990s, Washington could so easily pressure Lech Wałęsa into abandoning support for the Chechens and the push for Russia’s total collapse. That is why the Clinton administration could so effortlessly coerce Ukraine into surrendering its nuclear arsenal for empty promises. Eastern Europe, at the time, had no real power of its own.

But this time is different. Thanks, first and foremost, to Ukraine’s resilience and military prowess, Eastern Europe is no longer an afterthought in global politics – it is now a force to be reckoned with. Ukraine has proven itself not just as a courageous defender of its own sovereignty, but as the leader of a new, emerging power bloc. Today, Ukraine has the strongest army in Europe, an army that has adapted, innovated, and revolutionized modern warfare – particularly in the domain of drone warfare, where it now leads the world. Meanwhile, Poland is rapidly becoming a military powerhouse, modernizing and expanding its forces at a pace unparalleled in Europe. If Poland and Ukraine were to fully coordinate their military strength, they would form one of the most formidable military forces not just in Europe, but in the world.

And Ukraine has already begun flexing its newfound agency. It is no longer merely taking instructions – it is making demands, setting terms, dictating conditions. President Zelensky has openly defied attempts to exploit Ukraine’s resources, refusing to sign an exploitative agreement on rare earth minerals that was recently presented by the Trump Administration almost as an ultimatum. He rightly recognized the extortionist nature of the deal – one that demanded much from Ukraine while offering nothing in return, not even the most basic security guarantees. More importantly, Ukraine has been a crucial force in mobilizing Western support for the war and in opposing the ever-present temptation of appeasement towards Russia. It has repeatedly refused to bow to American pressure to make concessions – whether under Biden or Trump. It is resilient, it is bold, it is unyielding.

But Ukraine cannot do this alone. The rest of Eastern Europe must step up. This time, Russia’s salvation must be prevented. And the responsibility to ensure this falls to Eastern and Northern Europe – the part of the world that understands Russia better than anyone else. These nations have the clearest, most unflinching insights into Russia’s nature. Their voices must now guide Western policy. No "peace deal" that lifts sanctions, no ceasefire that grants Russia time to recuperate, no settlement short of Russia’s total collapse, disintegration, denuclearization, and demilitarization can be accepted. If Washington, in its infinite naïveté, chooses to turn its back on this reality, then Europe must take the lead. If necessary, even without American aid. Eastern Europe, likely in alliance with Northern Europe, must seize the initiative – because noone else will. The traditional giants of Europe – Germany, France, Britain – will eventually follow, but they will not lead. The task of forging the correct path, the only acceptable path, falls to those who understand the stakes better than anyone: the nations that know Russia’s true, ghastly nature.

America has always been a paradox – a colossus with immense talent, boundless energy, and unparalleled innovation, but also a country plagued by a fundamental naïveté. It has repeatedly been manipulated, deceived, and led astray – subverted to act against its own interests and the interests of Western civilization. It was duped into aligning with Stalin in World War II, just as it was duped into shielding Russia from collapse in the 1990s. The Roosevelt administration was filled with Stalinist sympathizers, and the result was a disastrous policy of accommodation towards the Soviet Union. Today, history is repeating itself: Trump’s administration is being packed with open Russophiles, eerily mirroring the FDR era.

This time, the nations of Eastern and Northern Europe must act as the counterbalance. They must counteract these renewed pro-Russian leanings in Washington and push forward with the only acceptable outcome: the total and irreversible collapse of Russia. Poles and Ukrainians, in particular, must take the lead in shaping this narrative. They must strengthen their presence in Washington, work closely with their diaspora in the United States, create their strong lobbies, and ensure that their voices are heard. They must make the case – not just in diplomatic circles, but directly to the American public – that Russia’s destruction is not only a necessity for Eastern Europe but a vital interest for the entire Western world.

At the very least, they must ensure that this time, if nothing else, America stays out of the way and allows Russia to finally implode. Because history has already shown what happens when Russia is saved from itself. The world cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

Not this time.

Follow Cemil Kerimoglu's Substack here