Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
art blog(derogatory)
Game of Thrones Daily
tannertan36
Mike Driver
almost home
Claire Keane
titsay
will byers stan first human second
No title available
No title available
JBB: An Artblog!
todays bird
RMH
shark vs the universe
Cosmic Funnies
★
sheepfilms
Stranger Things
styofa doing anything
seen from United States
seen from Uzbekistan
seen from Malaysia
seen from Uzbekistan
seen from Spain
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
@theessentialamericancitizen
THE “AMERICA FIRST” SCAM: HOW THE 2025 NATIONAL SECURITYH STRATEGY SELLS GLOBAL DOMINANCE AS POPULISM The newly released 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) promises to put Americans first—but its real priorities reveal a costly agenda of global power projection that serves elites rather than citizens....
AMERICA FIRST: BRINGING BACK THE ROOSEVELT RULE IN THE 2025 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY (NSS) MAKING NATIONAL SECURITY SERVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Dear Essential American Citizen, Hopefully, but not you are aware that last week the DC elite policy makers published the 2025 National Security Strategy....
The United States is operating without a coherent doctrine of war. Flexibility without purpose reflects deeper systemic misalignment between strategy, legitimacy, and political consent.
View On WordPress
PREVIEW Forty nations can meet. They can issue statements. They can demand compliance. None of that changes the outcome. Because the Strait does not respond to pressure. It responds to risk.
View On WordPress
Kharg Island looks like a decisive oil target. It isn’t. It’s a trap. Modern energy systems don’t break where they’re struck—they adapt, redistribute stress, and expand the battlefield. The real fight isn’t over oil infrastructure. It’s over risk, flow, and control.
The U.S.-Iran war:The United States measures progress in days. Iran measures it in endurance. That is the mismatch. And in war, mismatches determine outcomes. Because the actor who controls time does not need to win the battlefield. It only needs to ensure that the war does not end on the opponent’s terms. The United States may control the tempo. But Iran is shaping the duration. And in this war— Duration is decisive.
View On WordPress
Authority Without Consent Tom Raquer Lt. Col. (Ret.), U.S. Air Force • Southeast Asia Foreign Area Officer From the series: After the Winter — Collapse, Spring, and the New First Turning Published:…
Wars do not become unsustainable only when they are lost militarily. They fail when their political foundation erodes. That process is already underway.
View On WordPress
KEY POINTS * The United States is engaged in a war without formal congressional authorisation * This is a strategic legitimacy problem, not merely a legal one * War in a republic requires alignment between authority, law, and public consent * Public support began low, creating an immediate structural constraint * Authority is expanding faster than legitimacy * The core issue is regime coherence, not battlefield performance
View On WordPress
This is not a war China needs to win. It is a system already producing pressure. One side is engaged in the fight. The other is positioned to benefit from the system's evolution. And in prolonged conflict— Advantage does not always go to the side that acts. It often goes to the side that can wait. Because the decisive variable is not always force. It is alignment.
View On WordPress
Strategic Context The United States appears to have approached this conflict with a decapitation model: Remove leadership → trigger collapse. This model applies to personalist regimes in which authority is concentrated. It fails in systems designed for resilience. Iran as a System, Not a Regime Iran’s political structure distributes power across institutions. Decision-making is not dependent on a single leader. Leadership is replaceable. The system is designed to endure disruption.
View On WordPress
Key Points * The global system depends on secure maritime trade routes * U.S. power has underwritten that system since World War II * This role is a strategic choice, not a permanent condition * Internal pressures are now constraining external commitments * Chokepoint disruptions reveal systemic vulnerability The system is shifting from stabilising to burdening
View On WordPress
For decades, American strategy treated the region as the decisive theatre of international politics. But historically, this arrangement was unusual. For most of history, great powers did not guarantee open trade to other states. They pursued strategies rooted primarily in their own geopolitical interests. The post-1945 maritime order was thus not a permanent feature of international politics. It was a strategic choice made possible by American power and American political consensus.
View On WordPress
Why Energy, Sea Power, and Geography Still Decide Asia’s Future Tom Raquer Lt. Col. (Ret.), USAF • Southeast Asia Foreign Area Officer Independent Consultant — Indo-Pacific Geopolitics, Maritime St…
The Indo-Pacific economy depends on energy flowing thousands of miles across maritime chokepoints. These have been protected for decades by American sea power. Yet, in a returning geopolitical world, the United States may have little reason to sustain that system.
The Indo-Pacific economy depends on energy flowing thousands of miles across maritime chokepoints. These have been protected for decades by American sea power. Yet, in a returning geopolitical world, the United States may have little reason to sustain that system.
View On WordPress
The war with Iran is not yet a Sunni–Shia war. But history suggests that conflicts in the Middle East rarely remain purely geopolitical. If the current confrontation widens, the deeper sectarian fault line of the Islamic world may once again shape the struggle for regional power.
Wars that weaken domestic legitimacy can undermine national power even if they produce battlefield success.
