Blog

New US Army Tank Just in Time for Retirement

m1e3

“You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”

– Ayn Rand

I have said that aircraft carriers are the chariot and crossbow of the 21st century not fit for purpose on the oceans and the tank is certainly a nominee for that notion. Manned tanks are not fit for purpose on the 21st century battlefield. Again, the lack of martial imagination in the Army is breath-taking.

A detailed breakdown of M1E3 program expectation is here.

The inclusion of an auto-loader and the crew reduction from four to three may cause significant issues but the greater issue is that the era of the manned tank is over. Not all auto-loaders are created equal. While it is indeed true that Eastern-style carousel auto-loader have a habit of dramatic failure, the more modern turret bustle auto-loader, used in such tanks as the French Leclerc and Japanese Type 10, is much safer.

With an auto-loader, there are a couple of benefits; first, the door in the armor can be much smaller, and only be the size that’s just big enough for the ammo to pass through. You can also make the armor compartment for the ammo much thicker since you don’t have a large amor door that needs to constantly open and close. This drastically reduces the vulnerability.

The current M1A2 SEPv3 already comes in at close to 78 tons with all of its protective options; add in anything else, it will push past the 80 ton mark.The only way to get the weight down is to reduce the size; by going to an auto-loader and down to a three man crew, they can significantly cut the weight down to under 60 tons, whilst increasing protection.

The Ukraine conflict and the forecasts for the ubiquity of UAVs and robots on the battlefield for the remainder of this century have put the question to ALL manned combat modalities and their efficacy.

The U.S. Army announced in September 2023 that it canceled its planned variant, the M1A2 SEPv4, in favor of an entirely new variant of the Abrams. The new tank was dubbed M1E3, and in December 2025, the Army received the first prototype of the new tank. Gen. Randy George, the chief of staff of the Army, revealed the delivery, which came much sooner than anticipated. The first prototype wasn’t expected to reach the Army until the end of 2026, but Abrams’ manufacturer, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), drove its newest tank way past expectations, as the prototype is reportedly 100% complete.

I am impressed they delivered ahead of schedule and maybe they can deliver the remaining order before 2030 but the history is not kind to that prediction.

The M1E3 will likely be lighter than the current model of M1A2, as its growing tonnage reduces the tank’s tactical transportability. In this way, bigger isn’t always better, and the M1E3 might clock in at around 60 tons. The AbramsX weighed 10 tons less than its predecessor, so this seems likely. The tank’s design also included lessons learned from their performance in Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War, so it will likely feature anti-drone defense systems and other advanced means of protecting itself.

The folly of fielding tanks without considering either loyal wing-men (smaller scale unmanned ground combat vehicles) or even the independent deployment of one third scale smaller tank vehicles.

But the defense acquisition system is a self-licking ice cream cone that continues to build twentieth century anachronisms with some 21st century decorations.

https://www.slashgear.com/2063071/us-army-first-m1e3-abrams-tank-prototype-delivered/

Trump Announces US Take Over of Venezuela, Kidnaps Maduro & Bombs Caracas

A pre-dawn post, a capital in darkness, and a president in cuffs aboard a U.S. ship—what started as a “one-night raid” is already morphing into something far bigger. We unpack how the strike on Venezuela unfolded, why the official story leaves key gaps, and what it means when the White House says, without hesitation, that we’ll “run the country” until a “judicious transition.” If that sounds like regime change and occupation, it’s because that’s exactly how it’s being sold.

We walk through the mechanics of the operation—air defenses knocked out, a citywide blackout, special operators intercepting Maduro before a reinforced bunker—and the uncomfortable questions that raises about access and complicity. Then we pull the legal thread: the Article II claim that troops were inserted first and then “defended” with airstrikes, the decision to bypass Congress entirely, and the attempt to rebrand a cross-border assault as “law enforcement.” War powers aren’t a suggestion, and treating sovereignty like a paperwork issue invites blowback that won’t stop at Venezuela’s borders.

The promises don’t get sturdier from there. “Oil will pay for it” clashes with reality: a battered energy sector, massive capital needs, sabotage risks, and the legitimacy crisis that follows any U.S.-installed authority. We map potential power paths—opposition figures abruptly dismissed, Delcy Rodríguez floated for continuity—and ask the hard question: if negotiation was possible, why bomb first? Along the way, we hit the regional shockwaves, from casual warnings aimed at Cuba and Colombia to the mismatch between cocaine narratives and the fentanyl crisis that actually kills Americans. Expect migration pressure, market risk, and a new precedent great powers will cite when it suits them.

“It’S OK To SeLL OuT!”

“It’S OK To SeLL OuT!”

Money has less value than it’s ever had, and yet to sell out is an open goal. We have become accustomed to being lied to, not just from politicians but the celebrities who compete for our attention online. They use their platforms as infomercials or to advertise scams. Charlatans to grift, whether as ‘content creator’ or gatekeeping podcaster using the platform to push products and guests. Marketing tends to ruin everything and even though we are often adverse to it, for some reason it still seems to be profitable. Those who have established themselves as a person with principles or a certain character, are now unashamedly bought. To be a sell out seems to be the ambition, it’s generally revered and for many its the goal.

Those who enter politics or government itself, have a tendency to do so because the exposure and position of power and authority provides them with a golden parachute whether in the form of speaker fees, book deals, consultation gigs, board positions or another career in the industries regulated. Not to mention the perks of being in government itself from pay, pensions and access to benefits reserved only for the Neo-aristorcats of the planned society. It’s not unique to any particular culture or ideological sect of government. It tends to be universal. Then there is the obvious and covert forms of corruption. It’s generally accepted by most that public servants and politicians are not to be trusted or are corrupt, unless off course those public officials satisfy ideological or bigoted needs. They then go from effigy, to saviour. Regardless of scandals.

Blind spots are common, those who celebrate the free markets will look the other way when Javier Milei of Argentina promotes a scam crypto coin from his position of fame and political credibility. The $LIBRA cyrptocurrency scandal did little to damage him among his supporters. Those in the libertarian community need him to be above controversy so omitting flaws becomes another aspect of politics. Not to mention his excessive affection for Israel and other foreign policy positions akin to imperialism and gangster capitalism.

The MAGA crowd generally can not see any flaws with Herr Trump or his family. Any scandal from his flip flopping on the Jeffrey Epstein affair to pushing his own memecoin is not considered a flaw or self serving. Instead it’s ignored or fractures the movement to a degree, those who challenge the adapted narrative becoming apostates. Podcasters and people within the second Trump regime made their careers and considerable fame-wealth at the expense of the Epstein victims and are now culpable in massaging the new narrative or redirecting the scandal to better suit the Trump position.

The imperial Roman act of parading a captured head of state through the streets, as a public trophy is not an act to turn the stomach, instead it’s celebrated with jingoistic delight, even by those who claimed to deplore foreign interventions. The Gringo never left the Americas, it’s nothing new for those South of the Rio Grande, just a modern incarnation of arrogant exceptionalism.

And, the left of politics. The “anti-capitalists” have discovered one can sip champagne rather comfortably as a socialist. It’s a profitable and wealthy endeavour to critique capitalism, to make money from the anti stance is the ultimate expression of capitalism. Not to mention the materially obsessed government policies infected by left inclined political animals, only concerned with money, whose, and where it should go. None live with Maoist modesty, or exemplify a life of humble material living. To the post modernist corporations who see everything as capital growth, the destruction and adaption of innovation and creativity into slop for shareholders, all under the facade of sado-masochistic self hate, a theatre for morons or those with no dignity who like to play make believe Marxist with a fifteen dollar coffee in hand, on their way to a boardroom of lies.

The martial arts and combat sports spectrum has never been free of con artists or supposedly credible authorities, selling belts or endorsements to charlatans. At present the Jiu Jitsu and MMA realm has profitedfrom Derek Moneyberg, a wealth coach and former male date rape adviser. The wealthy Moneyberg has thrown his money around by ‘earning’ a black belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu faster than most of the arts own legends. Desperate to become a profitable podcaster, content creator, Moneyberg has hired the legends of combat sports as co-hosts to help elevate his show, and status. It’s a razor thin ploy, awkwardly disingenuous but the legends sit alongside him with the straight face of a hired mercenary and agree to go along with the hours John. And John, Moneyberg is. He moves with his hired bodies with the grace of a man inadequate and desperate to climax, they will praise him for his abilities, attributes and manhood. Once the soiled rashguard is removed, they return to their lives well paid. Moneyberg is gratified, happy he spent the money.

Honour and respect are words often thrown around in the martial arts. In writing my recent book, I can contrast the revered community to that of pornography and sex work. I feel honour and respect are better suited to those industries. Where rankings are not so easily purchased or sexual indignities concealed, only to be a content creators delight when those involved in the scandal are no longer needed. Aesthetics and myths are important to the stories we all tell ourselves, the martial arts world is no different, honour is a word whispered while the sweat from Moneyberg’s brow fills the mouth.

Jack Shields, the former UFC star and elite fighter, has become an online content creator delving into political commentary, in doing so he won followers among the alt-right and contrarian sphere. It was Shields who promoted Moneyberg and helped him to find contacts among the MMA and BJJ community. Despite Shields being an apparent honest broker in his content creation, a pay day is a pay day and Moneyberg is a big payday. Craig Jones and Sean Strickland have called out the Moneyberg grift and those who have claimed his martial arts abilities as legitimate. Moneybefg is a clear and present example, beneath him lies thousands of others who use position and wealth to purchase credentials because it suits the franchise’ holder of the martial art or because. “bills need to be paid.”

The online platforms of social media have given prominence to many, Jordan Peterson rose to fame due to his dignified stance on C-16 and the dangers of such laws when it came to free speech. He then went on to become a distant daddy for numerous listless men and women who needed to hear about personal accountability while being introduced to philosophical principles that Peterson had been good for. It was only once he had become a product, that his fame and self interest meandered into a destructive cycle which saw him twist into his version of anti-free speech. His inconsistencies revolved around an inability to deal with online trolls he disagreed with along with shilling for nations and factions despite his claimed principles. His personal self destruction was an intimate expose into a man, who is very much human but, as a human was never a saviour or pillar he had been entrusted into such a role by so many in need.

Is it that podcast downloads and social media follows validate a persons status as a wise and trusted voice. Even if they are an Andrew Tate, Mr Beast or a Thothouse contestant? Kim Kardasian did very little to become a mega celebrity, transcending even Paris Hilton as far as socialite, nepotistic icons gp. To be fucked, record it and have a mumanger with vested interest steer a career and brand to mega wealth and fame was rather all too easy. For her. Or, is it that for some, over time the ascending download and follower numbers twists a person into a brand, where marketing concerns and populism messaging becomes important. Or, at the very least to push for more, of the same inside of a particular niche in need of it’s own identity or contrarian contrarianism, which tends to lead to some form of establishment acceptance and capitalist ambition.

Musicians are often accused of selling out, whether this is a fair declaration or just petty fan resentment. The criticism can vary. The starving artist tends to suit fans who like knowing that the creator they admire comes from the dirt and continues to struggles from gig to gig. Should, they ascend poverty or the struggle they risk being unfairly accused of ‘sell out’. Making money or signing contracts with big corporations can defy the apparent messaging of some artists, especially those in alternative and anti-establishment niches. Then there are those such as Rage Against The Machine, who sold out their principles. Going from anti-establishment Generation X to establishment corporate-government rock.

In fact, we can perhaps condemn most of Gen X for being sellouts. It was the generation that went from wariness to, pushing on it’s kids the importance of getting a good PAYING job. Not to be a good person, or to do good. Income. That was all that mattered, be wealthy. Nothing else matters. This means grift, corporate and government gigs. The hippies went home and became boomers with pensions, their kids went onto the lie themselves to sleep at night, bad asses in silk sheets. Rebellion was always going to be washed away with each interest payment on the mortgage.

For the boomers and before, there was at least a naive pragmatism and belief in fixing the system from within or using politics to change or that academia may steer for good. To influence government and corporations to ‘fix the world’. Whatever the lies told to themselves as they lived in relative comfort is a seduction that transcended youthful dignities, or naivete. It was for Gen X to express with cynicism and a middle finger to that which their parents had lied themselves into, a defiance of government and corporate shilling and careerism, only to descend into the worse form of their parents. As a generation, they knew better, their culture was set around these principles and expressed itself as such, until they settled into the suburbs, invested in real estate, bellies swelled inside of suits and lied themselves to sleep each night. They were not selling out, but buying in, went the bullshit story told. They are also the generation along with their parents baffled by the AI slop which media had spanned their generation preparing them for.

To sell out is lauded. Whether it’s to sell NFT’s to the non-stop stream of shitcoins or Labubu Dolls or whatever the running junk happens to be. People will use their fame and trusted credibility to shill for things they do not believe in, simply because the marketing agency they have been signed with is contracted to do so, or because they can make a lot of money from it. In this age, when comedians don’t actually make people laugh, rather they tweet obsessivelyor have podcasts, many of them have delved into politics and become social commentators with less skill than predecessors such as George Carlin, Patrice O’Neil or Bill Hicks had. But online platforms helps them to sell anything, other than tickets to their shows.

Many of these comedians were prominent voices in the ‘free speech’ domain, some more consistent than others. While also laughing and commentating on the nature of power and the dangers of government controls in the extremes. Some were ardently vocal about the conspiracies around Jeffrey Epstein, only to switch away when it suited them and their base of fans. While others were willing to go to Saudi Arabia to perform in a known human rights violation kingdom. Taking the money of the Saudi regime, while agreeing to the terms stipulated the comedians made the privileged ranks of Saudi society laugh. Some may argue, this would be no different than performing at the White House or any other government responsible for the murder of the innocent. Then again, the Gulf regimes have invested in sports and entertainment as means of washing the blood from their sands and promote themselves as cultural hot spots.

It is no different than the dictatorship of the Zaire, or Philippines hosting Muhammad Ali in his respective title fights. Or, any other nefarious nation state putting up it’s populations money for boxers to compete and have the new technology of satellite fed access to American homes. Then again, around this time the USA was bombing millions of innocent people in South East Asia. Must all be a political statement? I suppose if it is the regime itself hosting the event, rather than Madison Square Guardians, then it stands to reason it does.

The danger of online culture is that it breeds an insincerity. Fame is achieved through the unseen backing of corporations or governments that help to elevate viral people-brands into importance. While others may achieve fame and status based on followers because they timed it well, got lucky, or started early. Mr Beast to Huaktuah found viracy which attracted the backers to them, in order to profit from their brands and to use them to sell products, content or crypto. An intellect who works hard in the real world, with a small social media following would not gain the credibility of a Destiny who has shilled his way into online prominence and now is invited to debate and speak on things. His sole credibility being that he is famous, for being online, now the Starcraft II reviewer is a great mind to debate or have as a guest. Giving rise to the fame for fame sake political contrarians such as Nick Fuentes, whose shtick of being deplatformed only seems to see him climb onto more platforms, to be a virgin on all subjects but as the comment sections show, virginal expertise is what makes for a celebrity voice.

Depth of character and the nuance of reputation are not as apparent through the digital keyhole. We are told who to follow and have content pushed by algorithms. An example is the claim the Israeli government is paying influencers of a certain size to make positive posts about the genocide, or anti-Palestinian posts. This is not unique to Israel as other nations and political movements have paid for the influence of those who are called influencers. Those who seek fame, do so because it profits them. Very rarely do they do so for noble and righteous reasons, and generally if they claim to, that’s part of how they market and brand themselves. With the death of critical thinking and the shortening of attention spans, along with AI slop and agents the problem will only get worse. To be a sell out is mostly understood as a good or accepted as a pragmatic measure. And if one goes too far, it is ‘cringe’, this is then not good. And those sell outwell are rewarded, not only by those paying them but also the wider public who may aspire to sell out themselves or simply don’t care to pay attention, so long as their feed, continues to feed them what the attention seekers provide.

The Pentagon Fat Amy Follies: Part XXCII

f35cash

Happy New Year!

Block 4 in concert with TR-3 (Technology Refresh 3) is the upgrade to solve all the inherent problems of the bird to include its poor design choices from the beginning of this massive failed program (a 2023 Congressional mandate).

According to the GAO, that Block 4 upgrade is delayed until 2031.

It will continue to slow shuffle as it matures from the initial 2019 start for the Block 4 upgrades.

“The program plans to reduce the scope of Block 4 to deliver capabilities to the warfighter at a more predictable pace than in the past.”

The casual reader will be forgiven for possibly glossing over the passage because of its anodyne wording. But the statement is a profound admission that the F-35 will never meet the capability goals set for the program. “Reduce the scope of Block 4” means that program officials are forgoing planned combat capabilities for the jets.

Block 4 is the term to describe ongoing design work for the program. It began in 2019 and was termed as the program’s “modernization” phase. In reality, Block 4 is just a continuation of the program’s initial development process. Officials were unable to complete the F-35’s basic design within the program’s initial budget and schedule. Rather than making that embarrassing admission and requesting more time and money from Congress, Pentagon officials claimed the initial development process was complete (it was not) and they were moving on to “modernization.” What they really did was simply reclassify initial development work with a fancy rebrand.

Dan sums it nicely:

This should be a moment of deep reflection for the entire national security establishment. The F-35 was never going to live up to expectations because its very concept was deeply flawed. Trying to build one jet that could serve as a multi-role aircraft to meet the needs of just a single military branch is a highly risky proposition. When you try to build a single jet to meet the multi-role needs of at least 15 separate militaries, while also being a global jobs program and political patronage scheme, you get a $2 trillion albatross.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/f-35-failure/

Connor Boyack on Venezuela: ‘I’ve Seen This Story Before’

Maduro’s capture illustrates what I believe is one of the biggest problems in politics: people frequently treat principles as costumes—worn when convenient, discarded when costly.

Over nearly two decades working in and around politics, I’ve watched the same pattern play out again and again—and today’s events in Venezuela put it on display in neon. The US military carried out strikes in Caracas and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, flying them to New York in what the administration is framing as a kind of “law enforcement” operation. 

Look, there are plenty of people who never even pretend to have a core set of principles they cling to. They’re utilitarians and technocrats—ruled by polling, vibes, ambition, and career incentives. Fine. At least they’re honest about being wind vanes.

But most people do claim to stand for a consistent set of ideas—constitutional restraint, limited government, “America First,” non-intervention, rule of law, due process, sovereignty, you name it.

The problem is that they’re often inconsistent, especially when the outcome is emotionally satisfying.

Today proved that again. People who claim to champion the Constitution suddenly ignore its restraints on executive power and, when pressed, point to court precedent, congressional statutes, and past presidential deviations as if those things are the Constitution.

“But… the Barbary pirates!”
“But George H.W. Bush removed Noriega in Panama!”
“But the courts said XYZ!”
“But Congress passed some statute in 199-whatever!”

So I’ve asked a simple question, repeatedly, across social media threads today: Where, exactly, is the constitutional provision authorizing the president to invade another country and depose its leader?

The replies come back empty, no constitutional provision cited. They can’t, because it doesn’t exist. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. No “targeted strikes” or anything of the like are separately authorized for the president to execute at his whim.

That’s the whole point of written limits: the text is supposed to bind you. Instead, we get arguments that past presidents did it, and some lawyers said it was okay. This is tantamount to saying “Billy did it, so I thought it was okay for me to do it.” That’s playground logic, not constitutional rigor.

And that’s my point: there is no rigor. There’s only precedent—meaning, prior lawlessness used to justify the next round of lawlessness. The administration itself appears to be leaning on the idea that indictments and “national interests” somehow transform regime change into a lawful “arrest mission.”

Trump was elected in part because people were exhausted by foreign meddling. He was praised (by some of these same voices!) for resisting the interventionist itch. And now he’s kicking up dirt in Venezuela.

“But Venezuelans are happy!” the commenters have repeatedly said. “They’re in the streets celebrating!”

Yes. Sometimes they are. That’s not a serious argument. That’s the-ends-justify-the-means dressed up as compassion—again, playground-level reasoning.

Guess what: Iraqis filled the streets when Saddam was deposed. “Baghdad Celebrates Saddam’s Fall,” read a headline in Voice of America, for an article describing dancing and cheering as thousands poured into the streets. 

Then Iraq spiraled into insurgency, sectarian civil war, mass death, displacement, and the conditions that helped give rise to ISIS.

Libyans filled the streets when Gaddafi fell. So then we got an article titled “Libyans celebrate Gaddafi’s death” in Al Jazeera, describing jubilant crowds and the “end of tyranny.” 

Then Libya fractured into militias and rival governments, becoming a prolonged civil conflict and a humanitarian disaster.

I could go on. You get the pattern.

Here’s the deeper point that people keep refusing to learn: if your principles only apply when they’re easy, you don’t have principles… you have preferences. And preferences make terrible guardrails for state power.

Every time you cheer an exception, you’re not just celebrating a moment… you’re authoring a precedent. You’re excusing the next guy, in any political party, and for any reason, to do it too.

If you’re applauding unilateral regime change today because the target is a villain, you’re also applauding unilateral regime change tomorrow when the target is someone you don’t want touched. Power doesn’t care about your intentions (or your preferences). It cares about the permission slip we seemingly always give it.

To be clear: Maduro is no hero. He’s a tyrant who has presided over ruin and repression. But the question isn’t whether Maduro is bad (he obviously is). The question is whether we are governed by law or by appetite.

Because “he’s bad” is not a constitutional argument, nor is “Venezuelans are happy and freer.” It’s the (fake) argument every president uses when he wants to do something he has already decided to do.

And this is why presidents since Washington have gotten away with exceeding constitutional limits: because the public trains them to. They learn that violating restraints can spark national pride, satisfy a thirst for vengeance, and earn adoration from people who swear they oppose unchecked power—right up until it produces an outcome they like.

You want a country of laws? Then act like law matters when it’s inconvenient.

Stop treating the Constitution as a decoration.
Stop citing precedent as if it were permission.
Stop excusing today’s overreach because you hate today’s target.

Because the bill always comes due, and the payment is usually made by people who never voted for the war, never authorized the mission, and never wanted their country turned into the kind of thing it once claimed to oppose.

So yes, we can answer James Madison’s question: “Will it be sufficient… to trust to these parchment barriers (i.e., the Constitution) against the encroaching spirit of power?” Obviously not. Parchment only restrains power when the people treat it as a leash—not a suggestion. When half the country cheers the leash getting snapped because their guy did it to their enemy, the paper might as well not exist. And that’s the cycle we’ve long been in.

Yes, Venezuela may be a little freer, for now. But listen to the triumphalism in Trump’s announcement. In the same breath as announcing Maduro’s capture, he talked about sending in “our very large United States oil companies,” and about the U.S. “running” Venezuela’s government “until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.”

This is the raw material of unintended consequences: blowback, corruption, and the kind of protracted entanglement that turns “just this once” into the next twenty years.

Count me out. I’ve seen this story before, and I don’t like how it ends.

Antiwar blog – Another War, intervention, police action…

Antiwar blog – Another War, intervention, police action…

Another war. It’s not enough that it’s now been claimed almost seven hundred thousand are dead in Gaza, nearly half of them children. It’s not enough the Sudan bleeds or the war continues between Ukraine and Russia. It’s not enough the US, has threatened another round of attacks on Iran or that it continues to bomb Africa in open silence. It’s not enough that the world reels in such misery, death, carnage, that now the United States has attacked Venezuela.

Though, it’s developing and details are unknown at the time of writing, footage is available of attack helicopters firing at Venezuelan bases, incoming missiles from warships blasting specific and random targets in Caracas. The confusion and fear from the innocent people on the ground, desperate. Where can they flee? What have they done? Is it not enough they must suffer beneath the repression of their own government, only to be attacked by a foreign one?

The recent mass killings in Sydney are known as a criminal act, terrorism, conducted by a father and son. Their motivation a deranged and entitled self righteous action of revenge or to kill Jews or anyone who they felt they had a right to murder. As two individuals, we understand it to be repulsive and dangerous. Whether they had intended targets in mind, predetermined by themselves, no due process, just reckless disregard for all and any. This is a known act of terror. Disgusting.

When a government, specifically the powerful and mighty kill countless more, with indiscriminate and reckless mayhem. It’s legal and contextualised. Even when it’s declared an illegal war, and the US has apparently had many of them. It’s termed an intervention, a police action, or whatever an administration decides to use in it’s bloody verbiage. Who will arrest them? Nixon was ‘a crook’ not because his administration ordered the secret mass bombings of Cambodia and Laos, killing hundreds of thousands, even up to this day people die from lost bombs waiting to detonate. Political intrigue, a scandal is what made him a pariah leader.

Trump, is following in the tradition of past presidents, the hope and change Obama, the hair sniffer Biden, baby Bush, Bubba Clinton, daddy Bush, the actor guy Reagan and so on. It’s presidential to wage war. To fire missiles into the desert, to impose the Monroe doctrine on the Americas and to bully much of the world. It’s a Western set of values as understood by the seven billion people outside of the West. That does not make those outside of the West dignified nations. Those governments and many inside of them, are playing a long game. Patience. Retribution, revenge.

Many may have forgotten the strikes on Yemen last year, killing people in a meeting. Trump claimed they were terrorists, sitting in the open as is customary for the many innocent to do. Evidence suggests it was innocent people. The US government decides guilt and innocence. Otherwise, it’s brushed of as collateral. In the years since World War Two, millions have died under that term, collateral. Reckless or at the very least manslaughter. But, it’s often intentional. Just that the killers are indifferent.

In the West those who don’t go and fight, who are not expected to fly the drones or fill the foxholes have a stomach for war. The young and able bodied, are unwilling. Even with conscription, the barrel is not as full as it once was with capable and driven individuals. For the most part, the West is very much out of shape, in debt and dependent on the State for all things. The rugged individual of the past is long gone, the hearty peasant expected to charge with a bayonet is no longer here to be imperial fodder. The world will grow impatient. It slowly is. It will stop fearing, and will push back. Then what? Australia does not have that many NDIS support workers to defend it’s shores, will DEI save the day in Europe or is faith in the American god of war be enough to fight the world?

It is most likely a limited attack on Venezuela, a bloody nose of sorts. It’s unlikely to lead to a full blown invasion. Venezuela won’t be like Panama ‘89, or even the disaster into victory of Grenada ‘83. Is it worth it? Killing that many innocent people for the sake of domestic politics or to send a message to foreign governments? Is the common person, those who vote and believe in this religion of government, are you not better than to tolerate and enable it all. The world barely survived the bloody twentieth century. Have we lost all recollections? Or, is it that century just never ended?

It turns out, the US has captured the president of Venezuela and his wife, the Maduro’s are in Uncle Sam’s custody. They are to be flown to the US, and short of a Die Hard 2 scenario, will be treated as Panama’s Manuel Noriega. El Presidento Trump will announce more at 11am his time in a press conference. God save the King, or whatever it is that statists say in time of interventions, war, or police actions.

The Kyle Anzalone Show: Did Ukraine Try to Kill Putin?

Headlines shout certainty, but the fine print tells a different story. We dig into three flashpoints—Gaza, Venezuela, and Ukraine—where big claims mask unresolved terms, blurred red lines, and mounting risks that rarely make the chyron.

First, Gaza. The soundbite that Hamas “agreed to disarm” collapses a phased, conditional process into a false binary. Negotiators accepted a ceasefire and hostage exchange while leaving timelines, enforcement, and political conditions open. We unpack what mediators said at the time, why U.S. officials flagged unanswered questions, and how that gap has been spun to score points rather than secure peace. We also trace the hard consequences of policy on the ground: repeated ceasefire violations, shrinking aid access, and the removal of key medical providers that keep Gaza’s fragile health system alive.

Next, Venezuela. A blast at a port and public hints of U.S. involvement revive core questions about war powers, oversight, and evidence. If covert authorities stretch to sabotage without debate or proof, what guardrails remain? We connect seizures, blockades, and lethal operations across the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific to a pattern that Americans would call war if the roles were reversed. The strategic risks and constitutional stakes are real—and largely missing from mainstream coverage.

Finally, Ukraine. Reports of a 91-drone strike aimed near a Putin residence signal a dangerous turn in a drone campaign shaped by foreign tech, training, and intelligence. We examine what Western involvement might mean, why Moscow’s response could escalate rapidly, and how Kyiv’s desperation intersects with waning European funds and shifting U.S. support. Peace requires specific end states, not slogans: territory, security guarantees, sanctions relief, timelines. Without that clarity, each strike narrows the space for diplomacy.

Podcasts

scotthortonshow logosq

coi banner sq2@0.5x

liberty weekly thumbnail

Don't Tread on Anyone Logo

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

Pin It on Pinterest