Free Republic

The Caribbean has become a “powder keg” as U.S. warships steam off the coast of Venezuela, sparking a tense standoff. While Washington frames the deployment as a counter-narcotics operation, it’s a clear strategic signal to President Maduro, whose own provocations against Guyana and alignment with China and Russia have raised alarms.

The 9 September events demonstrate two interlocking realities. First, the prospect of a NATO–Russia war is no longer an abstraction. Moscow has shown a willingness to test NATO directly. Second, the most likely path to such a conflict is not through deliberate escalation but through miscalculation. The means to a wider war exist; the question is which one. Technical failure, human error, or political panic could cause escalation to spiral in a single instant.

Key Points and Summary – Western aspirations for regime change in Russia are a “dangerous delusion” that ignores the lessons of past interventions in Iraq and Libya. Such efforts are not only unrealistic, given Russia’s nationalist resilience, but also risk provoking greater instability and a more aggressive Kremlin.

China’s J-20A “Mighty Dragon” represents a significant leap in the country’s military aviation, a fifth-generation stealth fighter designed to challenge Western air dominance. On paper, it boasts an impressive suite of features, including a low radar cross-section, advanced avionics, and a versatile weapons payload. However, significant questions remain about its real-world combat effectiveness.

So what does Trump do now? He may toy with all three approaches. He may ramp up covert attacks. He may float the idea of talks. But ultimately, if the past is any guide, the path he’s most likely to choose is the one that gives him maximum visibility, maximum leverage, and maximum control of the narrative. That means a strike—bigger than before, louder than before, unmistakable in its intent. Not because he’s bloodthirsty. Not because he wants regime change. But because he knows that in the high-stakes theater of international power, survival is a statement—and Iran has just made...

The United States, under President Donald Trump, is perceptibly stepping back from its previous level of unconditional support for Ukraine, driven by a realist assessment that Kyiv’s maximalist war aims (like restoring 1991 borders) are unachievable against Russia’s grinding war of attrition.

The ceasefire announced by President Trump between Israel and Iran on June 23rd is not a genuine peace but a temporary, tactical pause in a long-term conflict. This “lull in the thunder” mirrors the aftermath of the 2020 Soleimani strike, where a de-escalation of direct attacks gave way to a continued shadow war.

An Israeli strike on Iran’s hardened Fordow nuclear facility would not necessarily trigger an immediate, apocalyptic war but could instead be flipped to Iran’s strategic advantage. Rather than a suicidal retaliation, Tehran would likely respond with “retaliation in layers”: deniable proxy attacks, cyber-attacks, and maritime harassment.

Key Points - Russia's lack of large-scale retaliation to recent audacious Ukrainian drone strikes deep within its territory does not signify weakness or fear, but rather a calculated confidence in its ongoing attritional strategy. -Moscow is reportedly achieving its core, albeit limited, war aims—consolidating control over eastern Ukrainian oblasts, securing the land bridge to Crimea, and ensuring Ukraine's non-NATO, neutralized status—through methodical ground advances and superior industrial output. -Russia is perceived to be "already winning" this war of exhaustion by fighting "smarter, not harder," and therefore sees no current need for dramatic escalations that could play into Western or Ukrainian...

NATO is a corpse. All that remains is the grotesque performance art of a diplomatic zombie stumbling from summit to summit, mouthing tired clichés about “shared values” and “burden sharing,” even as its core strategic logic lies rotting beneath the surface. The Atlantic Alliance, once the steel scaffolding of Western security, has become a hollow ritual. Its military readiness is an illusion. Its political cohesion is fraying. Its future, if it has one, lies not in revival—but in reinvention or replacement. This is not a triumphalist declaration from the Kremlin or Beijing. It is a sober diagnosis, grounded in realism...

Once we have eliminated all the impossible scenarios, the least improbable outcome of the war in Ukraine is a Russian victory. Any conceivable Russian victory now will entail such a loss of blood and treasure that it will have to be judged Pyrrhic at best. But it will be a victory nonetheless — and we in the West had better come to grips with that hard truth. Let’s begin by eliminating the impossible. The first unrealistic endgame is the reduction of Ukraine to a vassal state of the Russian empire. The second impossible scenario is the total defeat of the...