➡ The New York Times, which previously supported aid to Ukraine, now acknowledges that Russia is likely to win the ongoing conflict. This is due to Russia’s strategy of attrition, which involves gradually wearing down Ukraine’s resources and resolve. Despite Ukraine’s attempts to strengthen its negotiating position, Russian President Putin has made it clear that any future negotiations will be on Russia’s terms. This situation has been exacerbated by NATO’s eastward expansion, which has been criticized for provoking Russia and contributing to the current conflict.
➡ The world is becoming multipolar, with countries like Russia, China, and India emerging as powerful regions. This was evident when Russia defended its region against NATO’s expansion on February 24, 2022. The U.S. and NATO must learn to navigate this new world order peacefully or risk causing global conflict by challenging these emerging powers. It’s important for U.S. voters to understand this shift in global power dynamics.

You’re not going to believe this, gang, but the New York Times, the paper that for these last two and a half years has been the major cheerleader for hundreds of billions of your tax dollars going to Ukraine, is now admitting that it’s all crashing down. Putin is poised for victory. And there’s nothing, absolutely nothing, that anyone could do about it. Hey gang, it’s me, Dr. Steve, your patron professor here to help you stay sane during these insane times, so make sure to smack that bell and subscribe button. You may have been keeping abreast of the latest in the Russia-Ukraine conflict with the much bellowed Ukrainian incursion into the Kursk region of Russia.

The narrative here is that Ukraine is flipping the script and now they’re actively invading Russian territory in the hopes of using that as a bargaining chip in any future negotiations with Russian officials. President Putin made it clear that if that’s what this stunt from Ukraine was intended to do, it would ultimately all be for naught. So the Ukrainians, they’re trying to improve their negotiating positions in the future. But what negotiations could we even talk about with people who are attacking civilians, civilian infrastructure, or trying to create threats or nuclear industry facilities? What is there to even talk about with them? As you can see there, Putin sees this recent incursion as justification for ending any and all peace negotiations, making it clear that any future negotiations will be done completely and totally on Russia’s terms, regardless of who’s in the White House at the time.

And now that inevitable reality is being admitted ironically by the very paper, the New York Times, that’s been such a cheerleader for Ukraine, particularly for this incursion. Just the other day, a Russian expat journalist by the name of Anastasia Adel, who’s a fierce critic of Putin and the Ukrainian war, she published an editorial in the New York Times admitting that Putin has all but won this war outright. According to her, the end of the war is inevitable. Russia will win. Russia will win, period. And her argument is actually very simple. After analyzing what we’ve seen over the last two and a half years, the reason why the end of this war and how this war is going to end up is inevitable.

It’s because Russia is fighting a war of attrition. And a war of attrition is a patient but inevitable wearing down of your enemy. Putin knows he has more troops, he has more weapons, he has more tanks, he has more military equipment, he has more money and more public resolve than anything Ukraine or NATO could possibly muster. And slowly but surely, inevitably, Putin’s forces are annihilating the Ukrainian-capacitive fight, regardless of what NATO and the globalist institutions do in the process. Russia’s proven that it can weather any military assault as well as any economic assault and respond stronger than ever.

That was her bottom line argument. Again, she gives it reluctantly. Another way of putting it is that Russia has Ukraine in a headlock. It’s technically known as a cauldron. And no matter what Ukraine or NATO forces do, Russian forces refuse to release the grip. And so it’s inevitable Ukrainian forces will eventually fade. Now sadly, it’s the West, particularly NATO, that only has itself to blame for all of this, and I’m going to show you precisely why. But first, I know a lot of you, if not all of you, are sick and tired of the seedy corruption that we see pervading Washington D.C.

But you know the old saying, don’t just get mad, get even. And that is exactly what you can do by clicking on that link below. You know that corrupt politicians like Nancy Pelosi have been getting insider trading secrets for decades now, enabling their returns to beat the market every single year. Imagine that, right? Well, thanks to a little-known SEC database, guess what? We can have access to the very same trading secrets as well, just like these politicians are privy to. We get to see what stocks corporate CEOs are buying up in real time, and then we get to piggyback on their trades to gain the same advantage for ourselves that Pelosi and the Crooks in D.C.

have. My friend Ross Givens has been tracking insider trading for years now, and his recommendations have led to investment returns of over 200%. Some have hit as high as nearly 1500%, and now it’s your turn. Click on that link below right now and learn how you too can learn to trade like Pelosi. Click on that link and learn how to gain an insider advantage for yourself today. No one has been more critical of NATO’s policies towards Russia than University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer in his mere decade-old video predicting war in Ukraine, precisely because of those policies, has now been seen by tens of millions of viewers, the vast majority of which tuned in in the weeks following the February 2022 Russian invasion.

Now, Mearsheimer’s analysis was frankly eerie in terms of how accurately he predicted the fallout from NATO’s relentless eastward expansion towards Russia. Now, if you don’t know, back in 1990, when it was proposed that eastern Germany reunify with western Germany, Mikhail Gorbachev was very nervous about that reunification because it meant the de facto eastward expansion of NATO into the former Soviet satellite. Right, so if east and west Germany united, and if western Germany was a member of NATO, then inevitably NATO troops and military would be stationed in what was once East Germany, which for the Russians was seen as an existential threat.

They recognized early on that if NATO were to expand eastward enough, it could cut Russia off from Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, which would effectively landlock Russia and cripple much of its security structure. And so Gorbachev was assured by then President George Herbert Walker Bush that the US would not expand NATO eastward beyond Germany. So Gorbachev acquiesced. Unfortunately, several years later, the next president, Bill Clinton, broke that agreement when his administration invited Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary to become members of NATO in 1998. And then Russian President Boris Yeltsin, I mean he was just frankly too weak to do anything about it.

That was the first of what would be a half dozen eastward expansions, every one of which Russia vehemently opposed. And so in a speech to the 2007 Munich Security Conference, Putin explicitly accused western powers of violating Bush senior’s oath to Russia never ever to expand NATO, which went from 17 countries in 1990 to now 30 countries today. So it didn’t just expand, it nearly doubled in size. Putin made it very, very clear back then that as far back in 2007, that as far as Russia’s concern, NATO would never ever be allowed at its border, which meant that NATO could never ever have Ukraine or Georgia.

But that’s precisely what NATO did the very next year, in 2008 at the Bucharest Summit, where they explicitly offered both Ukraine and Georgia NATO membership. Now, why did Mearsheimer predict the inevitability of war ultimately over that offer? Well, it’s because Mearsheimer is an expert in what’s called regional hegemon. A regional hegemon involves a great military and economic power rising up and dominating its area of the world. And here’s the key. This great military and economic power rises up in their own sphere of the globe, while at the same time making sure that no other power, medium or great, is able to challenge its ascendancy.

This is what’s known as a regional hegemon. Now, we’re in a very strange situation because for the last 30 years, we, the United States, are better NATO, which is basically the same thing. We were once the only hegemon in the entire world. With the fall of the Soviet Union, there was only one single major military and economic world power, and that was us. It was the United States. And so for a few decades, we ran the world without giving any heed whatsoever to what other nations thought about what we did in their neck of the woods, as it were.

Again, the fact that NATO was able to expand so far eastward during the Yeltsin years is proof of that. But what Mearsheimer and other scholars observed was that that world, the world of the United States as the sole global hegemon, was increasingly being challenged by the militaristic and economic rise, particularly of Russia and China. Russia and China, Mearsheimer observed, were coming to their own in terms of their own political, economic, and most particularly militaristic power. And according to regional hegemon theory, what do regional hegemon do? They do two things, right? Always, without exception. Do you remember? They dominate a particular area of the world, like we do in the West, right? And what? They make sure that no other power, medium or great, is able to challenge their dominance.

They will never tolerate pure competitors. We don’t. Just ask Khrushchev, as it were, right? We almost started a nuclear war over defending our own hegemon. And that’s exactly Mearsheimer’s point. Regional hegemon’s uncontested military and economic powers will always end up dominating the region while at the same time making sure that no other power competes with that dominance. And Mearsheimer simply predicted the inevitable. If the new Russia that has risen under Putin is indeed a regional hegemon, and if NATO’s incessant eastward expansion was intruding into Russia’s hegemonic space, then inevitably Russia would act. Russia would inevitably assert and defend its hegemonic status with military action.

That’s exactly what we saw happen on February 24, 2022. And unfortunately for the Dalton DC, Russia is not the only regional hegemon rising in the world. We’re seeing the rise of China and India as well. We are increasingly seeing what scholars call the rise of a multipolar world where numerous hegemon act as core states within their own regions of the world. And the United States has a choice here. If multipolarity is truly already here, it’s not a matter of stopping this, stopping multipolarity. It’s already here. It’s already a reality. The Ukraine war is proof of that.

NATO violated the security sphere of an alternative hegemon, and that hegemon reacted. That hegemon basically attacked NATO in defense of its own hegemonic sphere. Whether we like it or not, NATO is no longer the sole superpower in the world today. There were now multiple poles of power, like Russia, China, India, lots and lots of nukes, lots and lots of soldiers. We’re talking tens of millions, and a growing, bustling, prosperous economy. China’s the number one trading partner to more than 120 nations across the planet. This is what’s called multipolarity, gang. And if that’s the case, if that multipolar world is already here, then the Dalton DC and the Bullies in Brussels only have two choices as far as I can see.

Learn to navigate skillfully and truly and successfully in a multipolar world and contribute to its peaceful and prosperous stability. Or ignite the freaking world on fire by challenging militarily more and more hegemon. Provoke more worldwide violence by interfering in other regional hegemonic spheres. Those are really the only two choices we’ve got. The good news is that Trump largely recognizes the rise of this new multipolar world. The only question is, do voters here in the United States recognize it as well? The only question is, do voters here recognize it as well?
[tr:trw].

See more of Dr. Steve Turley on their Public Channel and the MPN Dr. Steve Turley channel.