By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

How long is a piece of string?

The recorded history of that question began in a New York newspaper in 1885. At the time and ever since, asking the question implied the answer that there is no limit to the string.  The answer in the lead images, a Jeff and Mutt cartoon, appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in April 1937.

Today, in the two world wars in which President Donald Trump is directing US empire forces, including the British, Europeans, Israelis, Arab sheikhs, Canadians, Ukrainians, and others – that’s the war for Europe against Russia, the war for the Middle East against Iran – the answer to the string question depends on whether the count starts at the US end or at the Russian and Iranian ends.

In the politics, logistics and economics of these wars, measuring the length of the string starts with who is at the pulling end and who is on the other end.

When US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s national security advisor, called an urgent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on July 23, his plan was to tell Lavrov that the US had the measure of the string between Moscow and Teheran; and to warn President Vladimir Putin to stop assisting Iran with the means to kill American troops and spies in the Middle East. Lavrov had his answer ready. That was to reverse the string between Washington and Kiev and warn Trump to stop assisting Ukraine with drones to kill Russian civilians at work, on roads, in factories, refineries, port terminals, warehouses.

Read the details of what was said and done at the Manila meeting here.   

In the days since then, Lavrov has appeared to deny the Rubio warning. “For no apparent reason, the West, and Washington in particular, are now stoking a narrative that Russia and China are directly supplying Iran with the weapons to attack US targets. Well, you know, it is embarrassing to even hear that.”  

Trump himself tweeted what appears to be a similar correction, but attached the same warning to Putin which Rubio had addressed to Lavrov. “President Xi, at our recent meeting in Beijing, China, told me that he would not, under any circumstances, give or sell Weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran — And that statement included Chinese Companies. Considering our relationship, I take him at his word and, besides, l am doing him very big favors, also. Likewise, President Putin, despite the horrible War going on in Ukraine (The relationship remains, as it does with President Zelenskyy), told me that he would not sell Weapons to Iran. He understands that I do not sell Weapons to Ukraine, but to NATO Countries. They pay full price, and how those Weapons are distributed, I have no idea. Therefore, two major Countries that people speak of often in terms of Iran are, in my opinion, not participating. If they did, it would be very bad for them — Certainly not in their best interests.”  

The string is obvious; so are the two ends. In between there is war, the escalation of which is violently contested.  For that reason, what is being said, written, and broadcast can be true and untrue at the same time, depending on which end of the string is doing the pulling, the counting, and also the cutting.

In the interpretation of Stephen Bryen, the Trump-Zelensky escalation against Russia and Iran simultaneously can be deterred, cut short, stopped, defeated by a combination of retaliatory strikes and supply cutoffs if Russia, Iran and China will agree to act together, swiftly and comprehensively. Bryen has been a senior Pentagon official during the Reagan Administration, a war planner for US and Israel, and an advisor to the US and NATO military-industrial complex.   

Bryen’s analysis: “Kiev fields two distinct drone categories: FPV (First-Person View] drones whose role is critical on the battlefield and long range drones aimed at Russian territory and Crimea. FPV drones are typically plastic or composite quadcopters powered by electric motors. In 2025 Ukraine used around 3 million FPV drones. Current reports suggest Ukraine is using 10 to 15 thousand drones daily. In recent months Russia has been targeting drone manufacturing facilities in Ukraine, as well as warehouses and distribution points, but there is not much hard evidence that Russian operations have meaningfully impacted Ukraine’s use of FPV drones. Between 85 to 90 percent of the components powering Ukraine’s FPV drones come from China. These include power systems (such as lithium ion cells, high discharge LiPo [lithium polymer] batteries and power distribution boards), brushless electric motors for propulsion and servos, and electronic speed controllers and flight controller boards, CMOS [Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor] navigation cameras, thermal sensors, fiber optic dispensors and basic RF [radio frequency] transceiver modules.”

“In addition there are some supply issues for factories in Ukraine and in Europe that are supporting Ukraine. Included here are neodymium rare earth magnets for motors, synthetic graphite for battery anodes, and specialized carbon fiber coming exclusively from China.

Similarly Russia depends on China for its drone supplies. Even the Pentagon has given waivers so US drone producers can support US War Department needs. Ukraine buys most of its components from third country intermediaries because China, after protests from Russia, restricted its domestic drone makers from directly exporting to Ukraine. But these so-called restrictions are just a way to jack up the price for parts and to enrich friends of the Chinese regime. China has made no effort to account for the millions of parts it is shipping that fuel the war effort. Should China get beyond its usual corruption and clamp down, Ukraine would be out of business on the battlefield.”  

Bryen’s conclusion: “Ukraine probably can ignore peace initiatives that would leave Russian forces on Ukrainian territory, at least for a short while. But the supply crisis is closing in and it will significantly impact Ukraine’s defenses and ability to hold territory and fend off Russian missile and drone attacks. How soon will Ukraine’s situation turn critical? If the fighting resumes in Iran, only a few months for air defenses. If the Chinese crack down on supplies for drones to Ukraine, even sooner.  

The day after the Rubio meeting, Lavrov met China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, the chief foreign policy advisor to President Xi Jinping; this was on July 24; the two ministers were still in Manila.  

Lavrov acknowledged in the small print of his ministry communiqué that after their talks “covered relations with the United States and the situation surrounding the Ukrainian crisis,” he “noted a convergence or similarity of approaches to the majority of the issues raised.”  Wang’s ministry issued no communique, told reporters nothing.  

What then  were the “minority” of issues on which Lavrov and Wang failed to “converge”? Was one the refusal of the Chinese to finalize the new Russian gas supply project known as Power of Siberia-2?  Was it the refusal of the Chinse to stop supplying drone components to the NATO allies and to Ukraine for their attacks on Russian targets?

This is another of the big strings which are being pulled: how long is it?

In the new podcast with Dimitri Lascaris, aired on Tuesday afternoon US ET, we discuss the US-guided Ukrainian drone attack on the Ana,  an Iranian flagged  cargo ship in the Caspian Sea, off Astrakhan, on July 25.  The Russian, Iranian, Ukrainian, and US strings are measured out. Click to view or listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk1mcqaTO_U

(more…)

by Editor - Tuesday, July 28th, 2026
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

In the wartime succession stories now screening in your neighbourhood – that’s President Donald Trump’s and President Vladimir Putin’s — the money does the talking which the special effects on the Imax screen cannot.

At the London BFI Imax cinema, the Odyssey film is booked out through its scheduled run from now until mid-September, which has encouraged the rig bettors like the Trump family to place their money on blockbuster profit after the film recovers its costs of $250 million to make; $125 million to market; $300 million-$400 million in cinema margin; for a break-even of between $625 million to $750 million.  

“Despite the reviews, going to a billion or well over may be a bridge too far in terms of forecasting,” reports the retail investor bible Forbes, “but it’s certainly not impossible.”   

At Variety, the Hollywood bettors’ book, there’s apprehension that this will be, like Penelope’s suitors in the film, a premature ejaculation.  

“The Odyssey added $25.9 million domestically on Friday, and by Sunday it’s expected to make $84.5 million. That figure represents just a 32% drop from its excellent $124 million debut. Through two weekends of release, The Odyssey’s North American total should land around $283 million. Over opening weekend, The Odyssey earned $264.1 million worldwide, an outstanding feat considering it’s an adult-skewing drama that clocks in at almost three hours. That godly haul was Nolan’s best global debut ever, legging out The Dark Knight Rises, which earned $249 million back in 2012. That film also happens to be the director’s highest-grossing film ever, at just over a $1 billion. At this pace, The Odyssey is gunning for that record as well.”  

Not in New York City, however, where advance bookings for August have already collapsed.  

In actuality – that’s to say, after the money is counted for the blockbuster — the film is a bloc buster.  It aims to bust the ideological conventions of the blocs – they are the power elites, ruling classes, and empire warmaking systems as we currently know and belong to in the West. Unless  it’s the opposite — a reverse bloc buster to reinforce the ideological conventions of those inside the Trump empire who are making the money and running the wars.  A well-known substacker isn’t convinced which it is, claiming the makers of the new Odyssey film “intend[ed it] to act as a continuation of the long Marxist march towards a multicultural west and the end of white history as we know it.”  

This author doesn’t know either Homer or Marx; Marx knew his Homer in the original Greek, but even he misquoted  the original Odyssey with a book and line reference which are non-existent in order to reinforce what Marx thought of as his own idea about labour, class, markets, and money. In point of fact, as the new archeology of ancient Rome is beginning to reveal, Marx was thoroughly mistaken about each one of those things.  And the bourgeois, anti-Marxist classicists also.  

So what is to be made of the new film — made in mind, not in money, and in wartime too? What is to be interpreted from the film’s lines like:  

“Help me go home.”
“This is a household waiting for a master.”
“They’re pining for a daddy.”
“My dad is coming home bringing vengeance. Bringing it all.”
“I need everyone in this party dead.”
“You’re a man who needs to control his fate.”
“No one could stand  between me and and home. Not even the goods.”

It isn’t clear to Emily Wilson, who is credited as translating a new version of Homer’s The Odyssey, that the film is either faithful to her translation, or to anything at all.  “I’m interested,” Wilson told a reporter in a Greek taverna for the series, Lunch with the Financial Times, “if the Nolan film is going to be imposing a contemporary idea about what [Odysseus and Penelope’s] marriage is, and suggesting it’s a marriage of equals. Which I think many readers want it to be but I don’t think it’s that at all…“There are so many sides to Odysseus that you can treat him as a Rorschach test. People can latch on to whatever element of Odysseus you want to have…So if the ridiculous gender stuff got you there it’s fine. I am just sick of having it as my primary epithet.”

As for the movie hero for now, and Homer’s hero for his time, she says: “as an imaginative expression of qualities that are very useful in the world he’s an interesting character. And interesting is all you need for a literary creation. You don’t need all characters in books to be nice people.”

Definitely not President Trump, the FT reporter got the classicist to insert. “He [Trump] definitely wants to live for ever, which Achilles chooses not to, as does Odysseus.” For her,  there is only one Greek hero with Trump’s qualities: Agamemnon, the proud and petulant supreme leader of the Greeks besieging Troy, who expected his allies to bring tribute at every turn — and lost his temper when they did not. Trump is more of an Agamemnon character. He’s amassing wealth as well as social influence . . . In his mind if he ever makes a mistake it was Zeus’s fault, not his.”

(more…)

by Editor - Sunday, July 26th, 2026
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

The real reason – that’s to say, the White House election campaign reason – for Marco Rubio’s request to meet Sergei Lavrov in Manila for thirty minutes last week was this.

Click to view or listen to the new podcast with Martin Sieff and Pelle Neroth Taylor, Capitals Uncovered Episode 138.

Ten hours later, President Donald Trump added to the Rubio ultimatum for the Kremlin: “President Xi, at our recent meeting in Beijing, China, told me that he would not, under any circumstances, give or sell Weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran — And that statement included Chinese Companies. Considering our relationship, I take him at his word and, besides, l am doing him very big favors, also. Likewise, President Putin, despite the horrible War going on in Ukraine (The relationship remains, as it does with President Zelenskyy), told me that he would not sell Weapons to Iran. He understands that I do not sell Weapons to Ukraine, but to NATO Countries. They pay full price, and how those Weapons are distributed, I have no idea. Therefore, two major Countries that people speak of often in terms of Iran are, in my opinion, not participating. If they did, it would be very bad for them — Certainly not in their best interests. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

For details of the Rubio-Lavrov meeting and its meaning in President Putin’s decision-making, click to read this.

by Editor - Sunday, July 26th, 2026
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

The question everyone in their warfighting chairs has been asking President Vladimir Putin,  with a follow-up that no one is reporting:

What is Putin going to do to answer the escalation of drone war on the Russian mainland and deter the US and its allies from their war to destroy the Russian economy?

The President’s answer in public (so far) has been “Our responses will always be mirrored, wherever they try to strike at the territory of Russia, we will respond in a mirror, only several times more powerful. The enemy will feel it. He already feels it, I hope, and he will feel it several times more powerfully.”   

That was last week (July 13).

Ten days is a long time in politics. On Thursday (July 23), there came this follow-up question: Why did the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio call Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to a meeting and then  spend little more than thirty minutes telling Lavrov what he had come to say?  

Answer: we cannot say for sure.

Best guess: Rubio gave Lavrov a warning. He told Lavrov he had been instructed by President Donald Trump to say that the US holds Russia responsible for providing precise location intelligence and targeting details to enable Iran’s drone forces to penetrate US air defences and strike at CIA and US troop bases in the Arab territories, killing Americans.

Lavrov replied that Putin had instructed him to say that Russia holds the US responsible for providing precise location intelligence and targeting details to enable Ukrainian drones to strike at Russian civilian targets, oil refineries, oil ports, shipping on the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, and consumer product warehouses from Moscow to Kazan, and deep into the Russian  hinterland, killing Russians.

In short, this is Putin’s mirror. It is telling Trump and the warfighters in the White House that if they continue, with their European allies and the Kiev regime, to strike outside the Ukraine battlefield, killing Russian civilians, the response will be tit-for-tat against Americans. Furthermore, Putin had warned: “He already feels it, I hope, and he will feel it several times more powerfully.”

Lavrov’s communiqué reported afterwards: “The sides held an in-depth exchange of views on a broad range of bilateral and international issues in follow-up to the recent high-level contacts.”

“When talking on the Ukraine issue, Sergei Lavrov informed his American colleague about the real situation on the contact line, highlighting the inadmissibility of the continued supply of weapons to the Kiev regime and the destabilising activities of European countries, which are still seeking to inflict a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia. Sergey Lavrov reaffirmed Russia’s readiness for a political and diplomatic settlement in Ukraine and its commitment to the proposals advanced by the United States at the meeting of President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump in Anchorage, which the Russian leader has accepted. They also talked about regional and international issues, including the situation in the Persian Gulf. Sergey Lavrov and Marco Rubio welcomed the resumption of full-scale contacts between Roscosmos and NASA, and spoke in favour of resuming interparliamentary exchanges and cultural ties. They also discussed the normalisation of conditions for the functioning of Russian and US diplomatic missions. An agreement was reached to maintain contacts between the two foreign policy agencies, including in the framework of the two countries’ activities at international organisations.”  

Thirty minutes isn’t enough time for all of this, let alone an “in-depth exchange” on any of them – except for one. “Lavrov highlight[ed] the inadmissibility of the continued supply of weapons to the Kiev regime and the destabilising activities of European countries, which are still seeking to inflict a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia.”

In this guarded fashion, and for the very first time, Putin has told Trump that if he continues to participate in killing Russians on Russian territory, Russia will strike to kill Americans in their bases.  

Asked what had been said at the Manila meeting, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov said: “I’d like to reiterate that the Foreign Ministry reiterated our position about preparedness for a peaceful resolution process.”  About the attacks on CIA and US troop bases, Peskov also said: “I don’t think that reporting of any suspicions is a reason to comment.”  

(more…)

by Editor - Thursday, July 23rd, 2026
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

The inevitability of escalation – that’s the binding strategic requirement for President Vladimir Putin’s decisions on Russia’s warfighting options.

It’s binding on the president because it is Article 12 of the Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence, which Putin signed in December 2024.  Here it is: “Nuclear deterrence is aimed to ensure that a potential adversary realizes the inevitability of retaliation in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies.”

Article 11 makes clear who the potential adversary is: “Aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state is considered as their joint attack.”

Since the US putsch in Kiev of February 2014, and not less since the start of the Special Military Operation (SMO, Cyrillic SVO) of February 2022, this means that on the Ukraine battlefield Russia faces the joint war of the US and its allies. What is special about the SVO is that it has suspended and postponed the Article 12 requirement of the inevitability of retaliation, turning it away from strategic nuclear options to tactical tit-for-tat or “mirror” options, as Putin calls them.  

Also, what is special is the way in which the “main military risks” to Russia identified in Article 15( c) of the strategic doctrine have escalated without (repeat without) effective retaliation. Article 15( c) reads: “buildup by a potential adversary on the territories contiguous to the Russian Federation and its allies and in adjacent waters of general purpose forces groupings, which include nuclear weapons delivery means, and (or) military infrastructure ensuring the employment of such means.”  

Who doesn’t understand there is now nothing potential about the “potential adversary” in this provision? Who fails to conclude that the inevitability of retaliation to operate for strategic deterrence to keep Russia from the destruction intended by the adversary is anything but inevitable right now?

So what is to be done? What is the method for analyzing the options, avoiding the deception operations and red herrings to which Sergei Karaganov and John Mearsheimer have been enthusiastically attaching themselves?

Click to listen or view the new discussion with Nima Alkhorshid broadcast live on Tuesday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viZp0bg5CdE

(more…)

by Editor - Tuesday, July 21st, 2026
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

Marshmallow imperialism is that view of American warmaking against Russia, Iran, China and Cuba which tastes sweet at first bite, but then melts in the mouth with nothing to chew on. That’s when the sugar addiction starts – this is wanting to taste more but never getting enough.

Chemical engineers in China reported a year ago that opium is a medically appropriate antidote for this condition.  Hopium, I mean.

In hour-long podcasts – that’s more than six thousand words of text —  it’s one thing to serve the audience marshmallow;  it’s quite another to present something to chew on, like beef. The two cannot be combined because the political podcast is a polarizing medium; it’s for one or the other.   Debating between fundamentally opposed viewpoints drives as many audiences away as it attracts, and so that’s not for podcasters.

There can therefore be no debate in podcast format with the twin ideas that the evil US empire is being defeated in war,  and that the sweet US empire – that’s the imperialism of American professors, CIA veterans, military experts, and podcasters – is now capable of overcoming the evil empire if they will be listened to in large enough numbers.

There are, however, Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools that allow the impossible — a debate on the US empire between marshmallow and beef.Here then is John Mearsheimer debating his views with mine on the US war against Iran and against Russia.

(more…)

by Editor - Tuesday, July 21st, 2026
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

As bird brains go, President Donald Trump doesn’t have what it takes to match an American crow.  

Trump, combined with Stephen Miller, spokesman and mastermind respectively, of genocide against the enemies of the Jews in the Middle East and the enemies of the Republican Party at home, still doesn’t remember where exactly he put his war aims against Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, and Cuba, or his peace agreements, term sheets, memoranda of understanding, summit declarations, and Anchorage formulas.

By contrast, Clark’s Nutcracker – a member of the crow species native to western Canada, California, and New Mexico  – can place 33,000 pine seeds in 2,500 different locations and recall them for retrieval when he’s hungry over an interval of at least 12 months. More — the bird continues to learn new lessons; its brain keeps evolving, grows larger and smarter. More seeds, more hiding places, more biding time. This is according to a study of avian intelligence by Louis Lefebre; it’s just been published in time for November Election Day when US voters should decide for themselves on Trump – whether his brain can be trusted to remember where he has hidden what he’s been taking from Americans and everyone else in the world.    

For a review of the brain of President Trump, handicapped by no neurological abnormalities according to the White House physician, peck here.  

The evidence of how that brain works can be followed in the tweets and talking points which Miller drafts for Trump to sign his name to every day. Repeating them is a symptom.   

 “Republicans should add Iran to the Russian Sanctions Bill. That’s what Lindsey [Graham] wanted to do, and it was going to happen. IMPORTANT!!! President DJT,” Trump tweeted three times — on Sunday morning and then twice on Sunday afternoon.   

At almost the same time, Trump tweeted his endorsement of his former national security advisor writing in a local paper that Trump’s war against Iran is a sideshow, almost over, as Trump  “begins the process of reorienting American grand strategy away from the Middle Eastern conflicts that have characterized the first quarter of the 21st century and toward the great power rivalries that will likely define the next.”   “America is on track to emerge from Operation Epic Fury in a far stronger position to win the competition that will define the remainder of the 21st century,” the advisor repeated with  Trump symptom.   

At the same time, Trump ordered eight waves of aerial bombing and missile attacks on Iranian targets.  

“Next week [July 20-26], it gets really bad for them,” he added in an interview, repeating his verbs and nouns. “We’re gonna hit ’em very hard tonight. We’re gonna hit ’em very hard tomorrow night. We’re gonna hit ’em very hard the night after. And then next week, it gets really bad for them, because next week comes the, uh, power plants. Next week comes the bridges. We’re gonna knock out all their power plants, we’re gonna knock out all their bridges, unless they get to the table and negotiate.”  

 A few hours later, in another interview Trump found the strategic rationale for losing the battle and winning at the same time. “[Question] are you concerned, though, that renewed operations in Iran might turn that around, or is that going to be a trend? Well, look, we’re making a lot of money. The defence companies are doing great. It’s jobs. It’s all jobs. I’m not doing this for jobs. But when you think of it, we make our own equipment. We make the best military equipment in the world. What I do want to do is make it faster, because we need it, but allies need it.”  

“It’s jobs. It’s all jobs. I’m not doing this for jobs” – repeat, contradict, repeat again.  These are wars which Trump keeps fighting in order to discover by repetition that he isn’t losing them.  

How then must President Vladimir Putin fight an enemy who plans to be making profits for the foreseeable future in dozens of wars to pauperize and beggar every potential competitor, across every regional front including Russia in Europe, in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Arctic,  and including the big one, that’s the war against China?

The answer to this question starts with Putin’s performance in answering Trump’s jobs and money-making war on the Ukrainian battlefield.

(more…)

by Editor - Sunday, July 19th, 2026
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

The E-Day (Escalation Day) decision has been put off.

The Kremlin has just run up the signal that Trust in Trump (TIT) remains President Vladimir Putin’s priority. This is the flag raised on Friday morning by Vzglyad, the Kremlin-backed publication.  “Russia has gotten the most out of the Anchorage Spirit”, according to the headline.  

“The diplomatic stage indicated by this phrase has nevertheless given Russia a lot,” the editorial continued. “It is wrong to assess the spirit of Anchorage on the scale of peace achieved or not achieved… the key task was…to achieve the US withdrawal from the active phase of the conflict or at least radically reduce their participation in it. After eleven months, we can say that this goal has been achieved in many ways. Yes, the Americans are still transmitting satellite intelligence data and selling weapons to the Europeans for Ukraine. But this is a completely different quality of participation than under Biden, when Washington was the main donor and coordinator. Europe is currently bearing the brunt of the supply burden.”  

Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s special negotiator with the Trump family, has tweeted in support. “Biden’s corruption is at the core of the Ukrainian conflict,” he insists.  

(more…)

by Editor - Friday, July 17th, 2026
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

The Russians and Americans – think tankers, military bloggers, podcasters  —  now calling for President Vladimir Putin to decide on Oreshnik missile and tactical nuclear warhead strikes on NATO targets, outside the Ukraine, are hopeful that the NATO response would be deterrence, not escalation. But they don’t know.

They also do not know what the impact would be inside Russia, after nuclear war starts, on the management of the domestic economy for manpower mobilization, civil defence, militarization of the country’s resources, state takeover of the banking system and allocation of capital. They are hoping the oligarch base of the Russian economy, reinforced by the Central Bank, the state budget, and Putin’s personal promises, would be preserved intact.

In short, business as usual during nuclear war across Europe, with a discount, offset or write-off of as many casualties in a day or week as the Ukrainian and Russian armies have already suffered in four years of the Special Military Operation.

Hoping for this outcome isn’t predicting it, estimating the probability, or knowing with confidence. It’s hopium.

This is a psychological state which can be bought and paid for, like state propaganda, product advertising, or information warfare. It’s also an outcome of decision-making on which money can be wagered, like stockmarket pump and dumping, vitrification of corpses, and Viagra.  

Scientifically speaking, hopium is a pathology.  That’s to say, abnormal, irrational, negative for life expectancy. This is how scientists try to detect and measure it: “Hope is a complex cognitive-emotional-motivational state that attunes individuals to the possibility of desirable future outcomes (Ortony et al., 1990; Peterson and Seligman, 2004). The emotional components of hope reflect an anticipatory state often experienced as positively valenced (i.e., a pleasant state). Hope is also commonly conceptualized in terms of its cognitive and motivational components that tend to accompany the emotional experiences of hope (Malle, 2004; Peterson and Seligman, 2004; Geiger et al., 2019a). Some scholars have defined and measured hope in terms of a cognitive-motivational axis rather than an emotional experience (Snyder, 2002), while others argue that the motivational components central to Snyder’s definition of hope are not properly part of the experience of hope and better fit under the distinct concept of efficacy (Van Zomeren et al., 2019). Despite differences, all definitions share a common focus on hope as a future-oriented state that orients people toward imagining positive futures (Fernando et al., 2018; Kantenbacher et al., 2022).”

Apply that science and let’s discuss with Dimitri Lascaris what the warfighting options are right now, and the antidote to the pleasant poison that’s hopium. Click to listen or view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mcF0umhHxU 

by Editor - Thursday, July 16th, 2026
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

These are the pressing questions of the Russian moment:

Can President Vladimir Putin defend Russia from the escalating US-European war and at the same time preserve the oligarch economy at home?

Is there a combination of military escalation, including Oreshnik strikes on NATO territorial targets, with or without nuclear warheads, and business as usual in Moscow which Putin can decide and launch by surprise on E-Day (Escalation Day)?

Whose fault would it be if the answers to these questions happen to be Marxist (1^st lead image)?

“It’s not my fault if reality is Marxist” – that was the line attributed to the late Che Guevara (2^nd lead image), by the late Jean-Paul Sartre in 1960.  It was revived by the late Michael Parenti in 2006.  

It’s not the fault of President Donald Trump (3^rd lead image) that the war against Russia which he is directing is Marxist; and that the reality he is aiming to impose on Russia is more Marxist than Putin, the Russian oligarchs on whom he depends, and the podcasters supporting him from the University of Chicago, the CIA, and the US Army will acknowledge and allow.

Whose Marxist reality is proving to be more, er, realistic?

If you answer the first two questions with this third one, then you are about to realize that Putin cannot, will not, escalate his warfighting operations on the Ukrainian battlefield, on the high seas, or on NATO territory,  for fear of starting a revolution at home that will destroy the economic base, the oligarchy, which  put him in power in 2000; kept him in power since then; and keeps him and his successors secure for the foreseeable future.

The American and NATO Marxist warfighters understand this very well. Their Marxism comes out of the barrel of the gun, they are sure. Their war is a gun Trump has forced the NATO allies to pay him to supply, so that he and they can fire it from the Ukraine – no matter how few  Ukrainians can be press-ganged to man the front lines and survive the  Russian advance westward. They just signed the papers to provide $70 billion of this firepower and manpower for this year of the war, another $70 billion of it for next year.

They are aiming at production, supply, and trade of the Russian fuel and energy sector and of the farm sector; at raising the cost in state budget financing for defence; at lowering the profits of the bank sector; at threatening Russian lives from the drones in the sky above and from the mobilization of men to the front.

The aim is Marxist: to force a Russian revolution in the economic base which will trigger –they hope, plan, expect – either “fragmentation of Russia [with] a struggle over the nuclear arsenal, resources, borders and history”, or “Russia to become a fortress: closed, mobilised, in permanent siege.” That’s civil war or Stalin war, according to Andrei Melnichenko, the fertilizer and coal oligarch in a warning published in London last week.  

Putin has replied by summoning Vladimir Potanin, the nickel oligarch and co-founder of the loans-for-shares scheme which launched the Russian oligarchy in 1996. “Vladimir Olegovich,” Putin asked Potanin, according to the Kremlin communiqué, “you have a lot of areas of work in general, but in the main, how does the company feel?”  What followed in the communiqué was a prepared script on Norilsk Nickel.

What Putin really was asking was how the Russian oligarchs feel on the warfighting options now, before Putin must respond to the General Staff’s options plan for E-Day.  More than that, Putin was signaling through Potanin, not through Melnichenko, that he will restrict his escalation operations to those which the oligarchs accept. He was telling Potanin he will not risk their economic base to defeat Trump and the Europeans.  

That’s Marxist reality for you.

Click to listen to the questions and the answers in today’s discussion with Chris Cook on Gorilla Radio of Canada.  

by Editor - Wednesday, July 15th, 2026
No Comments »