Japan's postwar pacifism is an exception, and it is ending. He describes Japan before the end of World War II as disciplined, industrious and warlike, and notes it has not spent over 2% of GDP on the military since, against 3% or more for the great powers. Japan has now passed a record defense budget of $55 billion a year on paper.
He suspects Japan is secretly spending more than declared. This is his own opinion, likening it to what he believes China does; he still judges Japan has a long way to go to catch up to the great military powers.
He expects Maduro to flee rather than face a US invasion. He says the US now faces no obstacles and its president wants to crush Venezuela's government, but predicts the US will "spook" Maduro into fleeing, followed by a more America-friendly government. He expects half or more of the population, including the military, to celebrate.
Major Russian or Chinese concessions could still avert Maduro's ouster. His caveat: if Russia pulls out of Ukraine, or China and Russia both offer some large concession to the US, he thinks the ousting would not happen.
He would not be surprised to see Machado lead Venezuela. He says the opposition candidate (González Urrutia) won the 2024 election by international recognition while Maduro claimed victory, and points to Machado dedicating her Nobel Peace Prize to the US president as a reason she might end up in charge.
NATO patrols would force Russia to look weak or thin Ukraine. He argues that if NATO patrols begin, Russia must either leave them unanswered or divert resources from Ukraine, which he says would give Ukraine's military a chance to reclaim territory.
He discounts the nuclear threat because Russia's arsenal is degraded. Citing his earlier post on Russia's failure to maintain its nuclear program during and after the Cold War, he claims Russia is unsure how many warheads work, can be launched, or would make it out of Russia.
Russian incursions hand NATO a justification to escalate. He reads Russian drone and fighter-jet incursions into NATO territory as giving the US and NATO a "tremendous opportunity" to escalate their side of the conflict.
NATO pays the US directly in investment and arms sales. He claims the US receives at least $100 billion a year in foreign direct investment from NATO allies and another $100 billion or more in weapons purchases, and gains R&D partnerships with the best weapons developers outside the US, all NATO members.
NATO leadership underwrites US leverage, above all the dollar. He argues the alliance is why other countries comply when the US sanctions Russia or limits Venezuela's oil sales, and why it can wield the dollar, "its primary weapon," which he says has destroyed several countries, with oil priced primarily in dollars.
Russia still behaves as the Soviet Union did. He tells Americans that although the Soviet Union is gone, Russia is still invading neighbours and trying to take over their governments. He sets up, without yet answering in this clip, why former Warsaw Pact countries historically allied with Russia eventually sided with the US after communism fell.
The Gripen E can match anything below the F-35 and F-22. He explicitly concedes it could not take on those two US jets, but argues that below that tier it competes, citing road and highway takeoff, easy maintenance, sturdiness, the ability to jam almost any radar, and one of the lowest costs per flight hour of any fighter.
Sweden's dispersed-takeoff capability is nearly unmatched. He says the only other fighter able to operate this way is Russia's MiG-29, which he puts at over 40 years old. He reports that the Swedish jets look set to join Ukraine's fleet, and argues that both are built to take on several enemies at once.
Sweden is the definition of smart power: part 4. #Swedish #GRIPEN #FighterJets #Warfare
Sweden's Stirling-engine submarines are uniquely stealthy and deadly. He calls Sweden the only country to put a Stirling engine successfully into a submarine, the Gotland class, and says it is being succeeded by the even more formidable Blekinge class. He points viewers to an earlier post on it from February.
Sweden is built for war, with highways that double as runways. He attributes this readiness to Russia's proximity and says almost all of Sweden's road and highway system is built for fighter jets to take off from. He singles out the Saab JAS 39 Gripen as one of the few fighters that can compete with American jets.
Tomahawks in Ukrainian hands would cost Russia Crimea. He predicts Ukraine would knock out the Kerch Bridge, leaving Russia unable to reinforce troops on the peninsula, which would fall back to Ukraine. He adds that Russian military and energy infrastructure within a 1,550-mile radius would be taken out.
He suspects the US already has something better. His reasoning: releasing Tomahawks to Ukraine means China will eventually recover fragments and try to reverse-engineer them, so permitting it suggests to him the US may have developed a more sophisticated successor.
Rivals can't match Tomahawk accuracy, so their hypersonics likely can't either. He says the submarine- or ship-launched Tomahawk hits within 5 to 10 m, which neither Russia nor China matches with a conventional cruise missile, and infers they cannot do it with a hypersonic one. He cites a first test launch in 1976, service entry in 1983, over 2,300 uses, and the Block 5 version from 2021.
Interoperability is the Tomahawk's biggest edge over Russian and Chinese weapons. He says it is usable by most NATO countries and fully integrated into NATO weaponry. He argues Russian and Chinese missiles cannot be used in each other's systems.
The US Tomahawk could destroy Russia: part 3 #Navigation #Radar #Tracking #Warfare
Four redundant navigation systems make the Tomahawk hard to defeat. He lists GPS as only one of four, alongside an internal inertial tracking system, terrain contour matching (TERCOM), which compares radar-measured terrain to a stored digital map, and digital scene matching area correlation. He calls the last the scariest, since it compares infrared images of the ground against pre-recorded photos of the target.
The US Tomahawk would destroy Russia: part 2. #Tomahawk #defense #Military
Terrain-hugging flight, not speed, makes the Tomahawk threatening. He notes it flies at only 550 mph and is not hypersonic, but argues that neither hypersonics nor most other conventional weapons can hug terrain as it does. It flies at 50 to 150 ft, which he says evades most radars and almost every type of tracking.
The Tomahawk is nearly untrackable once launched. He says it emits zero signals after launch, leaving the enemy nothing to detect. He adds that its navigation system carries pre-programmed irregular flight patterns for low-altitude flight.
Tomahawks for Kyiv would sink Russia's Ukraine campaign. He reports Russia's president warning that Tomahawk supplies to Kyiv would ruin US-Russian relations, and counters that they would only ruin Russia. He predicts Ukraine could receive them within this year, reasoning that threatening the US president makes him more likely to act.
Though decades old, the Tomahawk has no Russian or Chinese equal. He concedes it was developed in the 1980s but says neither country has anything comparable. He gives its range as about 1,500 km or more (about 1,000 miles), putting a wide radius of Russian targets within Ukraine's reach.
We need Canada: part 4. #GeoPolitics #MiddleEast #Military #Troops
The US Middle East presence now exists mainly to balance energy prices. He says it is far weaker than 30 years ago and serves trade and politicians who want to keep gasoline prices down for re-election, since catastrophic instability there raises oil prices for China, Japan and Europe.
Canada insulates the US from an oil supply shock. He argues the US and Canada can meet their own energy needs, so a Middle East shock would mainly let them sell oil at higher prices, and the US would suffer far less than the rest of the world; he credits his infographic to Visual Capitalist.
We need Canada: part 3 #HeavySour #lightsweet #crudeoil #NorthAmerica
US–Canada energy ties cannot break because the crudes are complementary. He argues the US produces mostly light sweet crude, suited to gasoline and jet fuel, while Canada supplies cheap heavy sour crude for diesel, asphalt and ship fuel through thousands of miles of pipeline. He predicts that whatever the media says, neither side will end the energy relationship.
We need Canada. #Canada #Canadian #Oil #OPEC #Embargo #Economics
Canadian oil keeps the US free of OPEC leverage. He argues Canada is why the US does not bow to the Middle East, OPEC and especially Saudi Arabia. In his account, the post-World War II economy ran on Middle Eastern oil until the early 2000s, when Canada and the US found cheaper ways to extract their own.
The 1973 embargo shows the cost of that dependence. He describes the 1973 Saudi/OPEC oil embargo as one of the worst economic shocks to the US, halting most of the Western economy. He says oil prices rose 134% within a month of it being imposed.
Major stablecoins are mostly US government debt underneath. He puts Tether at about 76% backed by US debt (roughly 65% direct plus 11% in Treasury repurchase agreements) and Circle's USDC at about 87–88% (about 50% Treasury repos, 37.6% T-bills). His inference, per the title, is that a Treasury-market collapse would collapse stablecoins and with them the means of trading Bitcoin.
The exposure reaches far beyond the United States. He says Russian millionaires, billionaires and companies, cut off from the dollar, use crypto to reach stablecoins as a dollar proxy, and that former Soviet states, Lebanon and dozens of African countries rely on stablecoins the same way.
The US treasury market collapse means the crypto market collapse. #economics #crypto
A Treasury market collapse would take down crypto, Bitcoin included. He argues dollar-pegged stablecoins are the lifeblood of exchanges such as Coinbase and Binance, the route by which holders earn interest or cash out to real dollars. He predicts that if stablecoins go, Bitcoin would struggle to stay above $20,000–30,000, possibly even $1,000.
Washington can hurt its enemies with words alone. He contrasts this with Russia's heavy military losses since 2022 and Iran's in 2025, both spent pursuing their interests. By his reading, the United States only has to make statements and get allies to echo them to do serious damage to its adversaries. The title links this to Saudi Arabia and oil, but this clip, part 5 of a series, gives no figures or mechanism.
The United States and #SaudiArabia are using a dirt cheap but devastating weapon: part 4 #opec #oil
Strikes on Russian oil have not lifted oil prices. He describes Russia as the world's third-largest oil producer and says Ukrainian drone strikes have taken out 40% of its refining capacity, yet oil prices keep falling rather than spiking as an attack on a major producer normally would. He attributes this to OPEC cooperating with the United States.
US gasoline remains too expensive and is turning upward. He puts the price at $3.15 a gallon, which he calls much higher than it should be. After trending down on average in 2024, he reads the price as flat but trending up again this month.
The United States and Saudi Arabia are using a dirt cheap but devastating weapon: part 3
OPEC's production announcements cap prices without adding real supply. His reasoning: producers will not pay to expand capacity while oil is cheap, so after an announcement prices drop, then recover as inventories stay thin. Crediting the analysis to a commentator he calls Mr. Global, he says Saudi Arabia and OPEC simply announce more supply whenever prices rise.
He reads this as deliberate US-OPEC cooperation against Russia and Iran. He says the US president wants oil kept below a level at which Russia and Iran profit again. He presents the announcement tactic as a significant cooperative power shared between the US and OPEC.
The United States and Saudi Arabia are using a dirt cheap but devastating weapon: part 2. #oil
Uncertainty and season are suppressing oil demand. He cites tariffs, the Russia–Ukraine war and Middle East tension as making large buyers cautious about future conditions, so they buy less oil, which he reads as a bad indicator for the global economy. Winter adds a usual seasonal price drop.
OPEC's production announcements move the price more than its barrels. He calls this the most impactful reason: the mere announcement of increases triggers a crash as traders short oil and the market prepares for more supply.
Actual supply is lagging what OPEC promised. He says inventories are building over the following weeks and months but not to the announced level, with OPEC supposed to be producing at least 2.2 million barrels more.
The United States and Saudi Arabia are using a dirt cheap but devastating weapon
Cheap oil is a costless US-Saudi weapon against Russia and Iran. He says both countries rely on oil for over half their exports to keep their economies afloat, so falling prices cost them heavily. He cites a drop to about $60 a barrel in the past week, and credits the idea to an energy-industry commentator he calls Mr. Global.
Qatar's energy leverage forced an apology. He argues Qatar's role supplying 10% of the EU's natural gas, via ties to ConocoPhillips, Exxon and Chevron, and Europe's post-Russia need for alternative gas gave it enough leverage to make an unnamed leader apologize and pledge not to repeat the offense.
Western scrutiny of Qatar's labor system has gone quiet. He notes Qatar, officially established only in 1971, built its economy on what he calls an "extorted labor" foundation, yet he says US and European governments and human-rights institutions have raised no complaints about it.
He expects the new security guarantee to hold. This is his own forecast rather than reported fact, resting on the leverage described above, and he says it is unlikely to be tested by the country he refers to only as "everyone's favorite country in the Middle East."
The United States has granted a NATO security guarantee to #Qatar. Part 2
Failing to honour the Qatar guarantee would weaken the US regionally. He says Qatar hosts America's largest Middle East base, with over 10,000 troops, and is the primary logistics hub for regional operations. He argues a broken guarantee would also weaken what he calls America's "hatchet man" in the region.
Qatar has more pull over this administration than most realise. He cites a reported $1.2 trillion trade exchange deal, which he says may not come to pass. He also points to Qatar's $526 billion sovereign fund, much of which the US wants invested with it.
The United States has granted a NATO security guarantee to Qatar #qatar #qatar🇶🇦
The US has given Qatar an Article 5-style security guarantee. He quotes it: the US "shall regard any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty or critical infrastructure" of Qatar as a threat to US peace and security. He reports that the US president made the prime minister of the country that attacked Qatar apologise to Qatar's leader, and that its military analysts now say their hands are tied.
A Putin-friendly NATO leader is useful, but not worth having. He concedes that one or two NATO leaders who still meet Putin give the rest of the alliance a channel to learn Moscow's thinking while they sanction and pressure it. He still prefers a Hungarian leader with integrity who backs Ukraine, and frames Orban as something NATO and Hungarians must put up with.
Hungary has a victor Orbon problem: part 5. #Corruption #Budapest #viktororban #Russia
Orbán is corrupt and opportunistic rather than pro-Russian. He argues Russia cannot compete with China, Japan or NATO countries on investment in Hungary. In his reading, Orbán uses Russia for cheap energy to keep a badly run economy from collapsing, while extorting NATO for money and resources.
That corruption is exploitable leverage for the United States. He argues a corrupt leader is open to "material suggestion" in a way a principled holdout is not. He calls that something America is very good at exploiting.
Hungary and its Viktor Orban problem: part 4. #Fdi #southkorea #china #hungary
Geography keeps Orban dependent on NATO's protection. He points out that Hungary borders Ukraine, near Belarus and Russia, and argues Russia exploits any non-NATO country it can. His prediction is that if Hungary were expelled or NATO fractured, Russia would begin funding uprisings across the country.
Hungary's investment base has shifted from NATO to Asia. He says NATO countries, including Germany and the United States, were the largest sources of foreign direct investment until 2023, with South Korea a close second. As of 2025 Asian countries lead, with Japan, South Korea and China roughly tied.
Hungary and its Viktor Orban problem: part 3. #nato #sweden #finland #russia #hungary
Orban is a corrupt opportunist, not a Kremlin puppet. He cites Orban saying Russians only understand force and that Russia is too weak to attack NATO since it cannot even defeat Ukraine. He also notes Orban agreed not to veto NATO support for Ukraine so long as Hungary isn't forced to help, which he reads as avoiding heavy lifting rather than serving Russia.
NATO's unanimity rule is a strength authoritarians misread as weakness. He notes all 32 members must agree to pass a motion, especially on admitting members such as Sweden; the clip cuts off before he develops the point.
Orban's case against Ukrainian sovereignty applies more strongly to Hungary. He reports Orban saying Hungary's military may have sent drones into Ukraine because he doesn't consider it sovereign, given NATO funding and influence. He counters that Hungary gets 75% of its natural gas, 60–80% of its oil and 100% of its nuclear fuel from Russia, plus up to $1 billion a year in Russian funding.
He casts Orban as Europe's most hated politician after Putin. In his own characterization, Orban echoes Kremlin talking points and is a corrupt authoritarian leading a NATO nation.
China would eventually take Taiwan, at a ruinous price. He expects China's size to overwhelm every layer of Taiwanese defence, but at a cost of several million Chinese lives and tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in lost equipment. He argues this would make China's military look weak and incompetent and could invite other competitors to move against it.
He calls the Taiwan invasion threat a red herring. He closes by asking what role Russia could possibly play in teaching China to invade what he calls the most fortified island on the planet.
Russia couldn’t show China how to invade a T-shirt:part 5 #EMP #electronicwarfare #Taiwan #Porcupine
An EMP strike on Taiwan would hurt China too. He says Taiwan is less than 100 miles from China, so a pulse strong enough to disable the island would also damage much of the mainland. He adds that Taiwan's electronic- and cyber-warfare defences have the same layered density as its other defences.
Taiwan outspends China proportionally on a much smaller area. He argues China must fund a very large territory and economy, while Taiwan is richer per capita and has less ground to defend. Over the decades, he says, it spent disproportionately more to keep its military competitive.
Russia couldn’t show China, how to invade a T-shirt: part 4. #Ukraine #Taiwan #UAV #semiconductors
Taiwan is learning drone warfare directly from Ukraine. He says Taiwan is fast becoming a major drone producer and openly studies Ukraine's battlefield lessons. Given its semiconductor lead and close military ties to the United States, he would not be surprised if its drones outclass anything China can make.
China's need to preserve Taiwan's chip industry constrains its firepower. Because China wants Taiwan's infrastructure intact rather than destroyed, he argues it cannot bomb freely with aircraft, missiles or destroyers, while Taiwan can fire at any Chinese equipment without that restraint.
Russia couldn’t show China, how to invade a T-shirt: part 3. #Navy #AirDefense #Drones #CyberWarfare
Taiwan's layered defences leave Russia nothing useful to teach China. He describes Taiwan as having the world's densest anti-amphibious-assault systems — mines, submarines, coastal artillery — stockpiled over decades, enough in his view to crush China's first waves at a cost of millions of lives. He says its air defences are equally dense, making air strikes a poor bet.
The real drone expertise sits with Ukraine, not Russia. He calls Ukraine unquestionably the best producer of cheap but effective UAVs.
Russia couldn’t teach China, how to invade a T-shirt: part 2 #Russia #China #Invasion
China already stole whatever Russia could teach it. He cites the Russian government's discovery this January that Chinese hackers had been probing Russian systems for how Russia was performing against Ukrainian troops and weaponry, and says China has been hacking Russia for years.
Russia's 2023 arms deal with China may no longer hold. He reports a 2023 agreement for Russia to supply China tens of billions of dollars of weaponry, including amphibious and armoured assault vehicles. Since then Russia has turned to Iran and North Korea and in 2025 is trying to buy back air defence systems from Turkey; he speculates Russia may want the China weapons back, or China may not want subpar Russian kit.
Russia couldn’t show China how to invade a T-shirt, also Taiwan #taiwan🇹🇼 #defense #fyp
Russia is an implausible source for invasion advice. He argues this in response to leaked documents reportedly showing Russia instructing China on invading Taiwan, pointing out Russia has been stuck invading Ukraine since February 2022 — 43 months by his count — and is losing ground against a country right next to it.
Russia's amphibious record is limited to undefended landings. He cites the 2022 assault on Mariupol, where the coast was undefended, and a 2008 landing against South Ossetian forces in Georgia, where he says the opposing forces weren't even present.
The Taiwan Strait poses a far harder crossing, he argues. He cites roughly 130 km (81 miles) of water and conditions he calls among the most difficult to cross of any body of water, and calls the Russian Navy's overall record "one of the most disgraceful in history."
A consumer slowdown's hardships are mild beside revolution under authoritarianism. He lists the costs — falling property values, higher crime, prolonged instability — but argues they are a cakewalk next to what Russians or anyone under an authoritarian regime would face to win their freedom.
Believing you can't give up conveniences is how the system wins. He argues that dependence was planned before people were born, and asks viewers to weigh whether they truly cannot go days, weeks or months without it.
Here is how to take down the current system: part 4. #Unemployment #EconomicCrash #Recession
Boycotts are the lever for forcing political issues. He offers getting big money out of politics and overturning Citizens United as an example. He argues that cutting consumption even 5% is hard because Americans have been bred for generations to be addicted to convenience, which is what keeps the system running.
A real consumption drop would bring serious economic pain. He predicts massive layoffs, falling property values, rising crime, and stagnant or falling wages for those who keep their jobs, because the economy cannot function without consumption. He asks viewers whether they are willing to accept that risk.
Here’s how to take down the current system: part 3. #Politics #Politicians #Congress #Emergency
Candidates protect the status quo while consumption keeps rising. He argues politicians pay lip service to sensitive issues and do nothing as long as consumption grows, money keeps being made and foreign direct investment keeps arriving.
Slowing the flow of money slightly is what forces change. He claims even a small collective slowdown destroys the status quo and panics the wealthy and powerful. He offers overpriced healthcare and medication costing four times more in America than elsewhere, and enforcement of existing gun laws, as issues it could force onto the agenda.
Here’s how to take down the current system Part 2 #Consumerism #Consumption #Protest
A small, coordinated spending cut could cripple the system, he argues. Citing a chart of consumer-spending drops in past recessions — -3.4% in 1973 (the worst on record), -2.1% in the Great Recession, and -16.7% during the 2020 COVID shutdown — he argues a voluntary 5% drop would be enough to bring the government and banking system "to its knees."
He predicts a 5% drop would signal a possible depression. He frames a 1% consumer-spending decline as already a dire recession warning, and argues the resulting pressure would push the administration to urge more spending and the Federal Reserve to issue stimulus.
A sustained boycott would force bipartisan reform, he predicts. He argues it would push both the DNC and RNC to field younger candidates, people in their 20s and 30s rather than longtime incumbents, though he says those candidates would need to act on issues rather than just pay "lip service."
A federal appeals court has ruled most of the president's tariffs illegal. He reports a 7–4 ruling that strikes down most tariffs, chiefly those on Mexico, Canada and China, possibly sparing steel and aluminum. The tariffs stay in effect, likely only until October 14 unless the Supreme Court keeps them, and the administration is resisting.
He expects the Supreme Court to agree, then a market boom. He predicts the Supreme Court will also strike the tariffs down, while allowing he could be wrong. If so, he expects a large stock rally and a bond rally as interest rates fall. He starts disputing the claim that tariffs shrank the trade deficit, conceding it has dropped since end-2024, but the clip cuts off.
The United States is going after China the way it has against its three previous rivals. #china
The US is using its proven no-war playbook against China. He says the same tactic took down the British Empire, the Soviet Union and Japan, all large diversified economies that threatened US supremacy, without the US fighting a war against any of them.
Britain fell to US production and dollar dependence. He argues the US outproduced Britain in every sector with resources on its own soil, while Britain had to exploit the world for them, then made Britain dependent on trade with the US and on dollars.
Tariffs alone failed against Japan, forcing a different strategy. He says the US invested tens of billions in today's dollars rebuilding Japan, which by the 1970s–80s rivalled US output in electronics and cars and built banks dwarfing any US entity. Heavy tariffs did not work as protectionists expected, because Japanese exports stayed cheap; the clip cuts off before naming the replacement strategy.
Ukraine has struck occupied Crimea with its homemade long-range missile. He reports the Flamingo hit an FSB headquarters, damaging six to seven pieces of Russian military equipment. He reads this as breaching one of Russia's most fortified positions on the front.
A domestic missile frees Ukraine from NATO's strike limits. He argues that NATO-made long-range missiles came with restrictions on hitting Russian territory, whereas the Flamingo, with a stated range of 3,000 km (1,840 mi), does not. Ukraine's modified Neptune lacked that reach, so he concludes all of Russia is now more exposed than at any time since February 2022.
Iran gearing up for another Seige? #Iran #middleeast #yemen #lebanon #breakingnews
He predicts Iran will be attacked again. This is his own stated opinion rather than a sourced forecast, framed around the degradation over the past two years of the three militant groups Iran funds with personnel, weapons and money: the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas.
The Houthi prime minister was killed in a strike today. He attributes the strike to an unnamed country he says he isn't permitted to name on this app, reports it followed two other air strikes on the Houthis this week, and corrects reporting he attributes to journalist Cheng Waguer that conflated the dead official with Yemen's actual prime minister, Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak, who was not killed.
The same strike also killed several other Houthi ministers. He names foreign affairs, justice, youth and sports, and social affairs and labor, reading it as a shift from this week's earlier strikes on Houthi military personnel toward targeting its political leadership, and adds that Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, has suffered comparable losses from the same unnamed country.
Europes pickpoketing problem explains why Russia thinks they can bully the continent
Europe's tolerance of pickpocketing shows why Russia expects no reprisals. He argues that many Europeans dislike being pickpocketed but will do nothing to stop it, and are offended when Americans react violently to thieves. He excludes Ireland and most of Eastern Europe, and calls the rest of the continent weak for running from force when force is the answer.
Western Europe showed the same passivity after Crimea in 2014. In his reading, Western European states answered Russia's 2014 seizure of Crimea by continuing to buy Russian oil and natural gas and even building more pipelines to Russia. He offers anecdotes of Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, French and British acquaintances calling Americans violent as the same mindset.
The US Navy Destroyed a Venezuelan Vessel in international waters #venezuela #navy
The strike carried little legal or military risk for Washington. The US Navy destroyed the Venezuelan vessel in international waters, not on Venezuelan land or sea territory, and it was labelled a drug vessel, which he says gives wide latitude. He dismisses the Venezuelan government's threatened repercussions as talk, saying it can do nothing to the United States.
Drugs were a pretext; deterring a move on Essequibo was one aim. He says Venezuela plays too minor a role in drug trafficking for this to be the motive. His first reason: warning Venezuela off aggression against Guyana's Essequibo region, which he describes as oil-rich with higher-quality oil than Venezuela can produce itself.
The strike was meant to expose Maduro's weakness. He argues Maduro cannot mount a real response to the US Navy, and that this makes the US-backed alternative, Guaidó, look more appealing. This is his inference about intent, not a stated US objective.
It was also a message to Russia and China. His third reason is a signal to Moscow and Beijing questioning whether Venezuela is their best friend in South America, by showing it can be struck without response. The captions cut off before he develops the point.
What advantages does China have over the United States? And honest and unbiased comparison. #news
The post is deliberately one-sided, by his own framing. He states upfront that he is "very pro America" and expects it to stay on top, but says he will list only China's advantages here without offering counterpoints.
China avoids the "shareholder first" problem he says cripples US firms. He argues this is because the Chinese government is the main shareholder of most companies, and even more business-friendly firms remain under heavy government scrutiny.
China's tax structure draws more from its wealthy, he argues. He cites a 45% top personal income-tax bracket versus 37% in the US, and a flat 20% capital-gains rate versus the US's roughly 15–20% range, which he says funnels tens to hundreds of billions of dollars more into infrastructure.
What on earth is happening to America’s oil industry #oil #usoil #opec #currentevents #educational
He argues Washington is deliberately squeezing US oil to crash Russia's. He cites oil at $63 a barrel, below profitable levels, yet US output stays at a record 13.58 million barrels a day, 2 million more than Russia or Saudi Arabia has ever produced in a day. He reads production that persists without profit as government-driven.
US oil jobs are shrinking even at record output. He cites ConocoPhillips cutting its workforce by 25% and Chevron, the second-largest US oil company, laying off up to 20%. He quotes an unnamed article that the industry has shrunk even as production hit record highs.
Weak demand and OPEC+ unwinding cuts drove prices down. He blames global economic uncertainty for holding back investment and oil purchases. He says OPEC+ has added about 2.5 million barrels a day since April 2025, and points to US production dipping then rebounding at the same time.
Here is what China showed the World with their Parade #china #military #weapons #warfare #learn
The parade revealed nothing new to the US, only intimidated neighbours. He argues China remains a decade or more behind the United States, and that Washington already tracks Chinese capabilities: he says the US has 5,000 of the roughly 6,000 satellites in orbit. The parade's real audience, in his view, was smaller neighbours who might find a Chinese invasion plausible.
Military parades are borrowed authoritarian theatre, not capability. He says the format was last novel in pre-World War II Germany and that China is copying Western authoritarian playbooks. Choreographed marching, he argues, says nothing about how well China operates its equipment on a battlefield.
Recent naval mishaps undercut the show of competence. He cites two Chinese naval vessels colliding with each other in Philippine waters "the other week" while trying to bully a smaller Filipino ship. He then turns to a nuclear-powered submarine launched around October 2024, but the captions cut off before the point is made.
Have aircraft carriers become obsolete? #aircraftcarrier #navy #fighterjet #war #fyp
Aircraft carriers aren't obsolete, he argues. He notes the US holds only a numerical lead with 11 carriers, while China plans to build and deploy six by 2035, and Russia still cannot complete a 90,000-ton carrier it has pursued since a failed 2019 push for a nuclear-powered design.
Russia's one completed carrier has sat rotting since 2018. It has been docked at port since then, he reports. Against claims that hypersonic missiles make carriers obsolete, he argues a moving carrier is in practice difficult for a hypersonic missile to hit.
China currently operates three carriers with two actively deployed, he reports. He describes its first, the Liaoning, as a Soviet-design hull bought from Ukraine in 1998, and its second, the Shandong, as a copy of it.
The sad reality about America’s failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam #iraq #afghanistan🇦🇫
America won every battle but failed its real objective of building democracies. In Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq he calls the wars abject failures. In his view, flattening capitals and armies would count as success, but the goal of those in charge was setting up democracy.
The US walks away from the destruction it causes without consequence. He says it killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, then left equipment and dead behind after a few years. Despite worldwide complaints, he argues, nobody stops trading with the US; business actually increases.
He calls the Vietnam domino rationale nonsense. He rejects the justification that communism had to be stopped in Vietnam or it would spread worldwide.