Misinterpretations of the Evolution of the United States (2/2)

by Thierry Meyssan

Continuing our analysis of the misinterpretations of the Trump administration’s actions, we return to the closure of many federal agencies, the reason why it plans to deport Palestinians, and its approach to the war in Ukraine.

The United States was both Southern and Federalist. The Southerners having been defeated at the end of the Civil War, their victors imposed the myth according to which this war had pitted slaveholders against abolitionists. In reality, at the beginning of the war, both sides were pro-slavery and, at the end, both were abolitionists. The real issue of the conflict was whether customs fell under the jurisdiction of the states or the federal government.

The Jacksonians, precursors of the Southerners, wanted a “minimal federal state.” They thus sent many powers back to the states. This is what Donald Trump did during his first term when he supported sending the issue of abortion from the federal state to the states. Personally, he does not seem to have a strong opinion on this subject. His rival, Kamala Harris, was wrong, as a woke, to present him as a reactionary when half of the states respect women’s rights and authorize voluntary termination of pregnancy (IVG). This is one of the main causes of her failure.

When Donald Trump announced the creation of a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), he intended to break up a federal administration that decided from Washington how each citizen should live even 2,500 kilometers away. True, he put a libertarian, Elon Musk, in charge, but he is not trying to slim down the federal government through Reaganite liberalism. He is going to dissolve thousands of government agencies, not because they are expensive, but because they are, in his eyes, illegitimate.

In some ways, the debate between southerners and northerners, between confederalists and federalists, is reminiscent of that between the Girondins and the Montagnards during the French Revolution. However, in the United States, the federated states had only a short history, while in France, the regions had a millennium of feudal history: returning power to the provinces has always been suspect for Paris of rehabilitating feudalism.

The United States, which only brought together 13 federated states at the time of its creation, now has 50, plus 1 federal district and 6 territories. From a US point of view (again, this has nothing to do with Donald Trump), it has not finished growing. Since the 1930s, it has aspired to absorb the entire North American continental shelf, including Canada, Greenland, Iceland and Ireland, as well as Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, not to mention the entire Caribbean [1].

In this national mood, Donald Trump announced in his inauguration speech that his country would henceforth call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America,” which he decreed a few hours later. In addition to the fact that U.S. citizens do not consider themselves as such, but as “Americans,” this word refers not to a local name, but to the coloniser Amerigo Vespucci.

He did not announce the annexation of Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal, as he had previously mentioned, but the colonization of the planet Mars.

However, contrary to comments in the European press, Donald Trump has never spoken of conquering the North American continental shelf by military force, even if he has mentioned the development of military bases in Greenland. As a Jacksonian, he is keen to buy these territories. It seems that he is currently “negotiating,” in a particularly aggressive manner, with Denmark, the cession of Greenland in exchange for a defense commitment.

Note that the Trump administration continues to threaten Cuba, towards which it has colonial ambitions, but not Venezuela, which is outside the North American continental shelf. Yet it calls both states “communist” and claims to treat them the same.

Given the ideological proximity between the two “chosen peoples,” the Trump administration approaches the question of Israel as if the Palestinians were Indians attacking stagecoaches. President Andrew Jackson decided to end the Indian wars by negotiating treaties with the various tribes. Very few were implemented, but his great “achievement” was with the Cherokees. He deported them south of the Mississippi. It turns out that, despite the bloody episode of “the Trail of Tears,” the Cherokees were the only Indians to respect these agreements. And today, they are the only tribe to have survived with their culture. They run a casino empire together. But applying the same method to the Palestinians cannot work: the Cherokees do not think they own “Mother Earth,” they can remain Cherokees wherever they are. The Palestinians, on the contrary, are attached to their Land and know that they will die, as a culture, if they lose it.

The last important point for Jacksonians: the substitution of trade for war. Donald Trump believes that most wars are useless massacres. They are only a means of manipulating the masses to achieve unspeakable goals. Since, in the end, it is often only a question of money, trade must be substituted for wars.

This doctrine works very well in most cases, however some wars have complex motives unrelated to commercial objectives. In these cases and in these alone, Jacksonism does not work.

This is for example the war in Ukraine. If one claims that Russia wants to annex its neighbor, one can negotiate with it something that satisfies its appetite without harming the integrity of this country. But if we believe that Moscow sincerely wants to end the “Great Patriotic War” (World War II), defeat the Nazis and the fundamental nationalists (the “Banderists”), then no trade negotiations will be able to stop it.

This is the Achilles heel of the Trump administration: the war in Ukraine has no economic motive, contrary to what Western politicians have claimed. Moscow is serious when it demands to denazify Ukraine. On this point, the United States will have to give in or confront it harshly.

If it gives in, a second problem will arise: Russia is a huge territory whose borders (more than 20,000 kilometers) no one can ensure the defense of. Therefore, Moscow traditionally demands that its belligerent neighbors be neutral. This is the meaning of the misunderstanding about NATO: Russia recognizes, through the Istanbul Declaration (2003), the right of each country to join a military coalition, but it refuses that this membership opens the way to the storage of weapons from third countries on its soil. However, during the presidency of Boris Yeltsin, the United States, repeatedly warned, continued its pressure to include the various post-Soviet states in joining NATO, except Russia, which nevertheless asked them to do so.

The Jacksonians have no reason to continue the enlargement of NATO, but giving it up would imply that they abandon the expansionist policy of the Republican and Democratic parties to concentrate on their own: that of the North American plateau.

Concerning the trade war, non-Americans were shocked by the way in which President Donald Trump envisages customs duties. They think that these only make sense to protect economic sectors, while the Jacksonians think that they can also be used as political weapons.

For example, Donald Trump increased customs duties on Colombian products for a few hours to 25%, and he also threatened to increase them to 50% the following week if Bogota persisted in opposing the repatriation of its nationals. They were lifted as soon as Bogota repatriated its illegal nationals itself.

The same thing is happening with Canada and Mexico (15%), and with China (10%). The Trump administration, again, has no economic argument, but has a political one. It considers that China supplies chemical precursors to drug cartels and that Mexico and Canada allow these drugs to enter the United States.

As for the European Union, it is quite another matter. The Trump administration intends to even out its trade balance. It could impose 10% tariffs, but only on certain products. This is a conventional treatment of these duties, although it is difficult to understand how it fits with the commitments made when joining the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Thierry Meyssan
Translation
Roger Lagassé

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

Putin Dumps Bucket of Reality-Cold Water on Trump

by Larry C. Johnson

The diplomatic tango between Washington and Moscow is underway, but Trump’s promise to bring a quick end to the war in Ukraine on Trump’s terms appears more unlikely with each passing day. Prior to the conversation between the two leaders during the last four days, diplomats representing Moscow and Washington in their respective embassies did the detail work of arranging the phone diplomacy. But, according to Borizzkman, there were two, not one, conversations (this is Borizzkman’s concise eight-minute video presenting the latest developments):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK23PkGjCrE

Putin’s position is firm and unyielding — No ceasefire or freeze-in-place, recognize the four former Ukrainian oblasts as Russian states, and dismantle Ukraine’s military so that it could never join NATO. The conversations likely took place last week, perhaps as early as 5 February. Why? Because we learned on 6 February that the US asked the UK to take over the chair of the Ukraine defense group, which is set to meet tomorrow (Tuesday) in Brussels. Trump is sending a message to both Putin and NATO — i.e., Ukraine is no longer viewed as a US priority and that Europe is responsible for pulling Ukraine’s chestnuts from the fire.

This message was reinforced on Sunday when Trump’s National Security advisor, Michael Waltz, said the following:

And I think an underlying principle here is that the Europeans have to own this conflict going forward. President Trump is going to end it, and then, in terms of security guarantees, that will squarely going to be with the Europeans. . . .

Including the future of US aid to Ukraine. We need to recruit those costs and that will be a partnership with the Ukrainians in terms of their rare earth, their natural resources and their oil and gas and also buying ours.

Although it appears that Uncle Sam’s Sugar Shack is now closed for future business with Ukraine, Waltz and Donald Trump still labor under the mistaken belief that they have leverage over Russia because they believe it is suffering catastrophic losses and a weakening economy. According to Waltz:

Russia’s economy is not doing well. He [Trump – ed.] is prepared to tax, to tariff, to sanction… We need to get all sides of the table to end this war. And this has come up in conversations with President Xi, Prime Minister Modi, with leaders across the Middle East. Everybody is ready to help President Trump in this war. Let’s get both sides of the table and negotiate.

Wrong on the economy Mike:

In 2024, Russia’s economy experienced growth, with the rate reported at approximately 4%. Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin stated that the Russian economy grew by 4.1% in 2024, which is slightly better than the official forecast of 3.9%. Multiple sources indicate growth in 2023, with GDP increasing by 3.6%35. The Russian government estimated Russia’s GDP growth to total 4% last year10. The OECD estimates that Russia’s GDP grew by 3.9%.

Trump and his foreign policy team are wrongly assuming that Putin is desperate for a deal because, according to the bogus intel being fed to them, Russia is hurting and looking for a way to alleviate the pain. I am sure that Putin and his team will be setting that record straight.

Trump also is wrong in believing that he can enlist the leaders of China and India (as well as leaders across the Middle East) to pressure Putin to end the war. That might be a possibility if Trump was showering Xi and Modi with praise and promises of strong economic relations, but Trump is doing the opposite — he is threatening both and imposing economic sanctions. . . not exactly a good method for winning friends and influencing people.

At the very time that Trump is trying to do a deal with Russia to end the war in Ukraine, Trump is endorsing Netanyahu’s plan to blow up the ceasefire agreement and renew attacks on the Palestinians in Gaza. While Trump is smart in some of the domestic policies he is pursuing, he is exposing his ass with his obtuse grasp of the situation in Gaza and how US actions in that region shape Russia’s distrust of Trump and his policies.

I discussed some of these issues today with Judge Nap. A good way to start the week.

Reprinted from Sonar21.

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/putin-dumps-bucket-of-reality-cold-water-on-trump/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.