Tag Archives: NATO

The Western Alliance and the Risk of Civilizational Erosion

In recent remarks, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio addressed what the White House and the State Department have described as “civilizational erase”—a term used to express concern about long-term pressures facing the Western alliance. The argument is not primarily about military strength or immediate security threats, but about the cultural and civilizational foundations that bind the United States and Europe together.

According to Rubio, the West is more than a network of states linked by defense treaties such as NATO. It is a civilization shaped by a shared history, a shared legacy, shared values, and shared priorities. These include commitments to individual liberty, human rights, democratic self-governance, and the rule of law. If these common foundations are weakened or dismissed, the alliance risks being reduced to a purely technical defense arrangement—functional, but fragile.

Rubio emphasizes that the American political system did not emerge in isolation. Many of its core ideas were inherited from Europe and from Western civilization more broadly. Concepts such as liberty, the value of the individual, and self-governance trace their origins to classical antiquity. Greek reflections on democracy and citizenship, combined with Roman legal and political thought, formed the intellectual groundwork for later European institutions and, ultimately, the founding principles of the United States.

Roman ideas such as libertas—the understanding that citizens possess rights protected by law—along with notions of civic duty, constitutional order, and legal equality, were central to this inheritance. These ideas were refined over centuries and carried forward into modern Western political culture. In this sense, freedom and liberty are not merely contemporary political slogans, but the result of a long civilizational development stretching back to Greece and Rome.

The concern Rubio raises is that if this shared cultural and historical understanding is eroded or denied, the transatlantic relationship could weaken over time. Discussions within NATO, he notes, increasingly extend beyond military coordination to broader questions of societal cohesion, mass migration, and cultural continuity. Some leaders address these issues openly, while others acknowledge them more privately. Either way, Rubio argues they represent a factor that cannot be ignored if the alliance is to remain durable.

From this perspective, the idea of “civilizational erase” is not about exclusion, but about memory. It is about whether the West continues to recognize the principles that gave rise to its institutions in the first place. Rubio contends that the United States—explicitly founded on Western principles such as liberty, individual rights, and self-governance—should be unapologetic in acknowledging and defending this shared inheritance.

If that inheritance is reduced to something secondary or optional, the alliance risks losing its deeper rationale. What would remain, Rubio suggests, is a defense agreement without a civilizational core. In the long run, that would place the ties between the United States and Europe under strain, not because of external enemies alone, but because of an internal loss of shared meaning.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Diplomacy or Weapons as the Way to Peace?

“Every war begins with the illusion of victory. Every peace begins with the courage of dialogue. Which will we choose?”

History has already shown us the price of arrogance. Twice in the last century, the world descended into total war because nations believed they had no choice but to fight and that they had to win. Today, as leaders repeat the same words, we stand once again at the edge of disaster.

The world has already witnessed two devastating global conflicts — the First and Second World Wars. Now, many fear that we stand on the brink of a Third. The war in Ukraine rages on, while violence flares in Israel and Gaza. What is striking is that leaders on all sides declare that they must win. Even NATO’s former Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has insisted that “weapons are the way to peace.”

But have we truly learned nothing from history?

After the First World War, nations attempted to chart a new course. The Treaty of Versailles of 1919 and the creation of the League of Nations were intended to establish an international order in which diplomacy, rather than war, would resolve conflicts. The idea was collective security: dialogue, negotiation, and the prevention of another catastrophic war.

And yet, within two decades, the world was plunged into an even deadlier conflict. The League of Nations failed because nationalism, greed, and great-power rivalry proved stronger than the will to compromise. Diplomacy was drowned out by ambition, unresolved grievances, and economic instability.

It feels eerily similar today. We see frozen conflicts, festering grievances, and leaders proclaiming that victory — and only victory — is the only acceptable outcome. But as history shows, not everyone can win.

Think of a football match: two teams, both determined to be victorious. Only one side can claim the win after 90 minutes. But wars do not have a clock. Wars end only when destruction, exhaustion, or overwhelming force brings them to a halt. In the past, that sometimes meant entire armies fighting to the last man. In the 20th century, it meant the atomic bomb. It was not diplomacy that ended the Second World War — it was unprecedented violence.

This raises an unsettling truth: humans often respond more to fear than to reason. Diplomacy, without urgency, is easily dismissed. But when fear peaks — when cities are destroyed, when civilians suffer, when nuclear annihilation looms — only then do leaders suddenly discover the language of negotiation.

If history repeats itself, then humanity may once again stumble toward self-destruction. The tragic irony is that while weapons may bring silence to the battlefield, they rarely bring true peace. Peace, lasting peace, requires the courage to pursue diplomacy before fear takes control.

Because if “weapons are the way to peace,” we may find that peace comes only after there is nothing left to save.

Fear, it seems, is the actual driver of humanity. Diplomacy is too often dismissed until it is too late. And when diplomacy fails, fear and destruction rule.

History is clear: bombs may end wars, but they do not prevent them from happening. Dialogue does.

Diplomacy is not a sign of weakness – it is a sign of wisdom. If history teaches us anything, it is this: bombs can end wars, but only dialogue can prevent them. The choice is ours, and the clock is ticking.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

EU, NATO, and PESCO: Allies or Competitors?

Some people love Trump, and some people hate him. 75 million voted for Trump and they are satisfied. Trump and his supporters believe a «golden era» is coming. But people on the other side are scared as hell. They believe that Trump will take the U.S. out of NATO. That doesn`t make sense. What in the world is going on here?

I`m sick and tired of the blame game we see. Legacy Media is blaming Trump for all the wrong things that are going on. And some people believe in it. Europe is building its own defense system, and don`t blame Trump for that.

It can be a huge problem, but it can also be great. But are we friends or foes?

EU, NATO, and PESCO

The European Union’s push to develop its own defense capabilities through initiatives like PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) has sparked discussion over its future relationship with NATO and the United States. While NATO has been the backbone of European security since its founding in 1949, Europe’s focus on an independent military framework reflects a changing security landscape. Although the U.S. and EU share foundational values of freedom and peace, recent defense dynamics raise questions about the stability of this historic alliance.

NATO and the Trump Era: Increased Accountability

During his presidency, Donald Trump pressed NATO members to meet the alliance’s defense spending guideline of 2% of GDP, arguing that the U.S. bore too much of the financial burden for European security. This pressure led to significant increases in European defense budgets and served as a catalyst for Europe’s own defense initiatives. Contrary to fears of Trump wanting to leave NATO, his administration actually reinforced the alliance by pushing members to fulfill their financial commitments. As a result, Europe began preparing for a future where it could play a larger role in its own security.

The Emergence of PESCO: Europe’s Bid for Strategic Autonomy

PESCO represents the EU’s efforts to streamline its defense policies and collaborate more closely on security issues. Established in 2017, PESCO involves 25 EU member states who have agreed to invest, plan, develop, and operate defense capabilities collaboratively. The initiative seeks to address European security needs in a manner complementary to NATO, ensuring that Europe can act independently if required while supporting NATO’s broader objectives.

While some interpret PESCO as a step toward a “European army,” EU leaders have emphasized that the initiative is not intended to replace NATO but to strengthen Europe’s defense posture. The goal of “strategic autonomy” remains complex, as Europe’s leaders debate how to balance independence with their commitment to the NATO alliance.

Complex Relations Between Allies: NATO, PESCO, and the U.S.

The relationship between the EU and the U.S. is marked by shared interests but also significant challenges. Traditionally, both have aligned on security matters through NATO, yet the EU’s pursuit of PESCO hints at a desire for more independent decision-making. In scenarios where U.S. priorities shift toward the Indo-Pacific, Europe’s stronger defense mechanisms could offer the flexibility to address regional security concerns independently, such as issues in North Africa and Eastern Europe.

At the same time, a divergence in priorities, such as differing views on China or the Middle East, could test NATO’s cohesion. NATO’s structure requires a consensus, meaning that conflicting EU and U.S. agendas might hinder unified responses to global crises. Europe’s need for strategic autonomy may strengthen its regional security, but risks duplicating NATO’s efforts without close alignment, raising concerns about potential inefficiencies and gaps in defense.

Russia, Ukraine, and NATO’s Role

The Russian invasion of Ukraine underscored NATO’s role in European security. NATO’s support for Ukraine demonstrates the alliance’s commitment to European stability and its role in deterring aggression on the continent. However, NATO members have been cautious about allowing Ukraine to join as a full member due to the potential escalation with Russia. This ongoing conflict has prompted European nations to reconsider their dependence on U.S. security support, highlighting the importance of a robust European defense capability within PESCO while maintaining NATO’s strategic unity.

Challenges and Opportunities for NATO and EU Cooperation

In an ideal scenario, NATO and PESCO would complement each other, with Europe taking on more regional security responsibilities to balance the alliance. A stronger European defense framework could allow the U.S. to address global priorities while ensuring Europe’s security. However, if cooperation between the EU and NATO falters, their overlapping efforts could result in competition rather than synergy, impacting collective peace and stability.

The rise of cyber threats, climate change, and global health crises underscores the need for close transatlantic coordination. NATO’s historical role has been to unify Western democracies under a shared vision of freedom and peace. As the EU strengthens its defense mechanisms, NATO’s role may evolve, necessitating a recalibrated approach that respects Europe’s pursuit of autonomy while preserving shared security interests.

Conclusion: A Balanced Path Forward

The EU’s defense initiatives through PESCO represent a logical evolution in Europe’s security landscape, reflecting both its commitment to NATO and its desire for greater self-reliance. This development could reinforce NATO by sharing the security burden more equitably. However, maintaining cohesion and avoiding unnecessary duplication is essential. The EU and the U.S. must prioritize open dialogue and collaboration to ensure that NATO and PESCO complement each other, creating a resilient security framework for the modern world.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Kamala Harris attacked Donald Trump with lies

Kamala Harris made a speech at the DNC convention party this week, and she warned about the chaos in the White House if Trump is elected. The consequences will be serious, she said. And Michelle Obama mocked Trump`s «black jobs» remark.

What planet are they living on? And who in the world believed all this BS? Trumps Tax cut and Jobs Act of 2017 lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% and stimulated business investments, and economic growth. This also included tax cuts for individuals.

Kamala Harris and Joe Biden did the opposite. They increased the taxes. Increased the cost of living, and the inflation skyrocketed. People today, say they had a better life under Trump than they have under Biden and Harris today.

The tax cuts had a huge impact on the society. The U.S. saw significant job growth, with unemployment reaching a 50-year low of 3,5% in February 2020. This included record-low unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanics, and women.

As a result of all that Trump has done, the stock market saw substantial gains, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 reacting record-highs during his term, which benefited investors and retirement accounts.

Trump stands for Peace and Prosperity, and Trump is the only president in many decades that haven`t started a war. The Trump administration brokered the Abraham Accords, which led to normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations.

Not only that. Trump is also the man who pushed for NATO allies to increase their defense spending arguing that the U.S was bearing too much of the financial burden. By the end of his term, several NATO countries had increased their contribution.

Not only that. Trump is a businessman, and he knows how things are working in the business-world. He renegotiated NAFTA, leading to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which aimed to create more balanced trade terms for the U.S.

He also implemented tariffs and took a tough stance on China to address trade imbalances and protect American industries. This only a few things Trump did only because he wants to «Make America Great Again».

But Kamala Harris is not a businessman. Nor a businesswoman. She`s a lawyer. And in her speech, she was talking more about Trump than her own policies. Kamala Harris has made statements suggesting that Donald Trump acts primarily in his own self-interest. (Can you believe that?).

During her campaign as Joe Biden`s running mate in 2020, Harris frequently criticized Trump`s leadership and policies. In one of her statements, she said: «Donald Trump has been doing everything to benefit himself and his wealthy friends,» reflecting her view that Trump`s actions as president were motivated by personal gain rather than the broader interest of the American people.

The critique was part of her broader argument that Trump`s administration favored the wealthy and powerful at the expense of working-class Americans and marginalized communities. Harris and Biden both campaigned on the promise of more inclusive and equitable leadership, contrasting their approach with what they described as Trump`s self-serving tendencies.

This is extremely embarrassing because the Democrats have controlled the U.S. in 12 years out of 16. Trump controlled it for 4 years. But what`s strange to me is that Kamala Harris and the Democrats are blaming Trump for all the problems they have in the U.S. This is unbelievable.

As a Vice President, Kamala Harris could have done something about all the problems she is blaming Trump for, but she has been invisible. Most people in the U.S. do not know who she is and what she stands for.

Blaming Trump for all the problems is not a good sign, and the question of whether Kamala Harris would be the right person to serve as President of the United States is subjective and depends on one`s political views, priorities, and perspectives on leadership qualities.

Harris`s approval rating has been mixed, and she has faced criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. Some voters question her effectiveness as Vice President and her ability to lead the nation.

Some critics have pointed out that Harris`s communication style can be perceived as unclear or overly caoutious, leading to questions about her ability to effectively convey her message and rally public support.

Kamala Harris has made statements that have been subject to public scrutiny and criticism. Some of these statements have been characterized by critics as confusing, awkward, or «stupid.» Here is a statement that has been discussed or mocked:

«WE MUST, TOGETHER, WORK TOGETHER TO SEE WHERE WE ARE, WHERE WE ARE HEADED, WHERE WE ARE GOING, AND OUR VISION FOR WHERE WE SHOULD BE, BUT ALSO SEE IT AS A MOMENT, YES, TO TOGETHER ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES AND TO WORK ON THE OPPORTUNITIES.»

This statement, made during a speech in 2022, was criticized for its redundancy and lack of clarity. Here is another one:

«Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that`s wrong.»

What about this one:

«We are the United States of America because we are united…….because we are states.»

This comment, made during a public appearance, was mocked for stating the obvious in an awkward manner. What about this one:

«I think that there can be no higher priority than what we have been clear is our highest priority.»

Kamala Harris has a huge communication problem as she lacks Obama`s skills. The Democrats have a huge problem if this is an «Operation Female Obama project,»

Joe Biden`s farewell speech at the DNC on August 19, 2024, received mixed reviews as well. Some critics felt the speech lacked a clear vision for the future, especially in comparison to the forward-looking speeches typically expected at such events. This was seen as a missed opportunity to rally the party around a successor or new ideas.

Normally, the polls should make a huge bump by at least 10 points after a meeting with speeches like that, but not this time. Trump is still leading the polls, but Rasmussen Report says it`s going to be a close race.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Uncategorized

The West is declining and a nuclear war with Russia is the end of our civilization

Russia`s President Vladimir Putin gave a speech today. He delivered his Address to the Federal Assembly. The ceremony took place in Gostiny Dvor in Moscow.

«The so-called West, with its colonial practices, and penchant for inciting ethnic conflicts around the world, not only seeks to impede our progress, but also envisions a Russia that is a dependent, declining, and dying space where they can do as they please.

In fact, they want to replicate in Russia what they have done in numerous other countries, including Ukraine: sowing discord in our home, and weakening us from within. But they were wrong, which has become abundantly clear now that they ran up against the firm resolve, and determination of our multi-ethnic people», Putin said in the speech.

«Together, as citizens of Russia, we will stand united in defense of our freedom, and our right to a peaceful, and dignified existence», Putin added.

Furthermore, Putin said; «We were not the ones who started the war in Donbas, but as I have already said many times, we will do everything to put an end to it, eradicate Nazism, and fulfill all the objectives of the special military operation, as well as defend sovereignty, and ensure that our people are safe».

«Here is a good example of their hypocrisy. They have recently made unfounded allegations, in particular against Russia, regarding plans to deploy nuclear weapons in space. Such fake narratives and this story is unequivocally false, are designed to involve us in negotiations on their conditions, which will only benefit the United States,» he said.

«There are reasons to suspect that the current US administration`s professed interest in discussing strategic stability with us is merely demagoguery.

They simply want to show to their citizens, and the world, especially in the lead-up to the presidential election that they continue to rule the world, that they would talk with the Russians when it will benefit them, and that there is nothing to talk about, and they will try to inflict defeat on us otherwise. Business as usual, as they say.»

«But this is unacceptable, of course. Our position is clear: if you want to discuss security and stability issues that are critical for the entire planet, this must be done as a package including, of course, all aspects that have to do with our national interests, and have a direct bearing on the security of our country, the security of Russia,» Putin said.

Putin also talked about a potential nuclear war, which would be the end of our civilization. He also said that the West is declining. This is what he said:

«We are also aware of the Western attempts to draw us into an arms race, thereby exhausting us, mirroring the strategy they successfully employed with the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

Let me remind you that in 1981 – 1988, the Soviet Union`s military spending amounted to 13 percent of GDP.

We need to shore up the forces in the Western strategic theatre in order to counteract the threats posed by NATO’s further eastward expansion, with Sweden, and Finland joining the alliance.

The West has provoked conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and other regions around the world while consistently propagating falsehoods. Now they have the audacity to say that Russia harbors intentions of attacking Europe.

Can you believe it?

We all know that their claims are utterly baseless.

And at the same time, they are selecting targets to strike on our territory, and contemplating the most efficient means of destruction. Now they have started talking about the possibility of deploying NATO military contingents to Ukraine.»

«But we remember what happened to those who sent their contingents to the territory of our country once before. Today, any potential aggressors will face far graver consequences.»

«Everything they are inventing now, spooking the world with the threat of a conflict involving nuclear weapons, which potentially means the end of our civilization. Don`t they realize this?

«Indeed, just like any other ideology promoting racism, national superiority, or exceptionalism, Russophobia is blinding, and stupefying.

The United States and its satellites have, in fact, dismantled the European security system which has created risks for everyone.»

«Clearly, a new equal, and indivisible security framework must be created in Eurasia in the foreseeable future. We are ready for a substantive discussion on this subject with all countries, and associations that may be interested in it.

What Putin said next is very important to understand. He talked about Russia as a sovereign country. That is very different from a Russia controlled by the EU. What Putin talks about is very similar to what President Najib Bukele in El Salvador talks about.

It is their own sovereignty and freedom. Bukele said that globalization in El Salvador is dead. They want to rule their own country and have their own freedom. Out with the globalists, he said.

Putin talks about the same, but when it comes to Russia, he talks about the «balance of Power.» If the EU takes over Russia, it can fall into a gigantic dictatorship, and everyone in Europe will end up like slaves and losers. This is what Putin said in his speech:

«At the same time, I would like to reiterate (I think this is important for everyone) that no enduring international order is possible without a strong, and sovereign Russia.»

«We strive to unite the global majority`s efforts to respond to international challenges, such as the turbulent transformation of the world economy, trade, finance, and technology markets, when former monopolies, and stereotypes associated with them are collapsing.»

Europe has throughout history tried to take control of other countries, and they have earned a lot of money on it. But that era is coming to an end. Now, it is different. Europe is declining, and Putin talked about it in his speech today. He said:

«For example, in 2028, the BRICS countries with account taken of the new members will create about 37 percent of global GDP, while the G7 numbers will fall below 28 percent.

These figures are quite telling because the situation was completely different just 10 or 15 years ago. You have heard me say it publicly before. These are the trends, you see.

Look, the G7 countries’ share in global GDP in terms of PPP stood at 45,7 percent in 1992, while the BRICS countries (this association did not exist in 1992) accounted for only 16,5 percent.

In 2022, though, the G7 accounted for 30.3 percent, while BRICS had 31,5 percent.

By 2028, the percentage will shift even more in favor of BRICS, with 36,6 percent, and the projected figure for the G7 is 27,8 percent.

(Editor: The Group of Seven is an intergovernmental political and economic forum consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States; additionally, the European Union is a “non-enumerated member).

There is no getting away from this objective reality, and it will remain that way no matter what happens next, including even in Ukraine,» Putin said.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics