Trump's First 100 Days: A Presidency the Media Can't Spin into Failure

After the first hundred days of Donald J. Trump's second term as the 47th President of the United States have passed, the political opposition and global interest media try to paint it as if his presidency had already failed. If you listen to The New York Times, CNN, or their European counterparts like The Guardian or Der Spiegel, you’d think the country is on the brink of collapse. But nothing could be further from the truth.

In striking contrast to the four years of drift, decline, and dysfunction under Joe Biden—about which the same dishonest legacy media outlets kept mostly silent—, Trump has already made significant headway on the key issues that propelled him back into the White House: securing the border, revitalizing the economy, restoring energy independence, and confronting the cultural rot that had taken hold in American institutions.

The united Left both in the US and Europe can’t come to terms with the most dramatic conservative counter-revolution the MAGA movement has launched under President Trump’s leadership, basically reviving a political upheaval that had started in Mr. Trump’s first term and now continuing it in a more systematic and professional way.

From day one, President Trump acted decisively to restore order to the southern border, reversing Biden-era policies that had effectively opened the floodgates to millions of unvetted migrants. By contrast, Biden’s border policy was a catastrophe: over six million illegal crossings that caused sanctuary cities buckling under the weight of unmanaged immigration and triggered a largely ignored humanitarian and security crisis. Today, under Trump, illegal crossings have plummeted, cartels are on the run, and for the first time in years, the rule of law is being reasserted at the border.

Ending the Reign of Woke

Perhaps one of the most underreported and deliberately misrepresented victories of Trump’s early presidency has been his decisive stand against the woke ideology that has infected corporations, schools, and government agencies. Within weeks, Trump signed executive orders barring federal funding for DEI programs that promote racial essentialism and division. He defunded radical gender ideology in education, banned it from federal training sessions and determined by executive order that “sex” is immutably defined by biological classification as either male or female and determined by reproductive anatomy.

These moves were predictably labeled “fascist” or “anti-democratic” by the legacy press. But for millions of Americans—and indeed, for many Europeans cheering from across the Atlantic—they marked a long-overdue reassertion of reason over ideological madness.

From merit, occupational proficiency and character replacing affirmative action and gender identities in government hiring to protecting children from irreversible medical procedures pushed under the banner of “gender affirmation,” Trump is waging a cultural battle that forces of sanity are hoping he will win as DEI and radical gender politics have done little to create a more just society, but undertook much to divide, confuse, and demoralize one.

Economic Stability

Trump’s first 100 days have already begun to stabilize an economy ravaged by inflation, high interest rates, and bureaucratic overreach. By establishing DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) under the leadership of Elon Musk, the administration focused on eliminating “Waste, Fraud, and Abuse” within the federal government. As of early May 2005, DOGE claims to have achieved savings for taxpayers of around $165 billion by terminating wasteful contracts and improper payments, workforce reductions and regulatory savings. The Left’s hollow criticism is directed mostly toward the fact that DOGE has focused on terminating worldwide contracts for “energy and climate advisory services” and gender-focused curricula and projects  

President Trump’s rollback of Biden’s anti-growth regulations and tax policies has boosted business confidence, and early signs indicate a recovery in manufacturing and energy employment. The administration’s rapid response—cutting red tape, unleashing domestic energy, and restoring fiscal discipline—has signaled a return to common sense in economy as well.

While President Trump rebuilds strength at home, he has also launched a bold diplomatic effort abroad—to end the bloody and seemingly endless Russia-Ukraine War. During his campaign and now into his second term, Trump made clear his belief that this war was not only avoidable, but prolonged by incompetence, greed, and political posturing—especially by elites in Brussels and Kyiv.

Trump’s peace initiative, still unfolding, focuses on bringing both sides to the table through pressure, incentive, and realism. He has offered backchannel negotiations with both Russia and Ukraine and proposed an immediate ceasefire framework that balances territorial negotiation with guarantees of national security for both parties. Predictably, the global establishment recoiled.

European Union bureaucrats—particularly in Berlin and Brussels—have worked to torpedo Trump’s efforts at every turn. Even more troubling has been the reaction from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has thus far refused even modest concessions in the name of peace. Backed by EU officials and protected by fawning Western media, Zelenskyy continues to demand an unconditional return of all territory, despite Ukraine's mounting battlefield losses and the grinding toll on civilians. A negotiated settlement would also shut off the firehose of military-industrial funding now flowing through Europe’s arms sector, not to mention the political cover the war gives to failing leaders like Ursula van der Leyen and Emmanuel Macron.

The legacy media is doing its part to sabotage Trump’s push for peace. While painting it as naive or “pro-Russia,” they overlook the fact that considering Russia’s legitimate security interests is nothing but factual evidence and highlights a point whose neglect has led to the armed conflict in the first place.

The Media: Clear Arbiters of Dishonesty

None of these successes have been acknowledged honestly by the corporate press. Instead, the media has launched a new phase of their long war against Trump, twisting every move, misrepresenting every fact, and suppressing every success.

Take, for example, CNN’s breathless coverage of Trump’s enforcement orders at the border. Their headline: “Trump Cracks Down on Asylum Seekers as Critics Warn of Human Rights Abuses”—as if restoring lawful immigration policy were a violation of human rights. Or The Washington Post’s spin on Trump’s energy policy: “Trump Dismantles Climate Safeguards in Favor of Fossil Fuel Industry”—ignoring the fact that those “safeguards” had devastated American energy workers and enriched hostile foreign nations.

European media is even more hostile, often parroting progressive American talking points with zero critical analysis. The BBC described Trump’s early presidency as “regressive and dangerous,” while Le Monde accused him of “undermining democratic values”—a remarkable claim given their deafening silence during Biden’s authoritarian pandemic mandates and weaponization of federal agencies.

Despite the lies, the truth is clear: Donald Trump’s presidency is off to a strong, focused, and unapologetic start. He is doing what he promised—putting America first, protecting the country’s sovereignty, defending its culture, and rebuilding its strength. The people voted for that. And while the media may try to delegitimize his every action, they cannot change the fact that Trump is once again delivering where others only postured.

The coming months will not be easy. The deep state is still entrenched, and the globalist class is still scheming. The media will continue to lie. But the first hundred days show that the 45^th president is back as the 47th president—and the revival of conservatism is underway, in the US and beyond.

The Unreasonableness of European Political Elites Prevents Peace in the Ukraine-Russia War

The war in Ukraine, now entering its fourth year, has left the European Union and much of the West on the wrong side of history. This conflict, deeply rooted in the complex geopolitics of Russia, Ukraine, and the broader Western alliance, was—at least from Russia’s vantage point—never merely about territorial disputes or nationalistic ambition. It was instead about NATO expansion and the ongoing subjugation of Russian populations in the Donbas by Kiev in the wake of the Maidan Revolution in 2014. The response to these legitimate Russian concerns by the US and Europe has been short-sighted and historically misguided, and owed to a substantial failure in the West’s security policy design and diplomatic foresight. 

Ukraine’s potential accession to NATO would have represented a significant shift in the balance of power on Russia’s doorstep. Rather than an imperial ambition, as often portrayed by the West, this was a matter of national survival for Russia.  Despite Russia's repeated warnings, Western policymakers, particularly in the US and the EU, dismissed these concerns, choosing to expand NATO right up to Russia’s borders.

 Maidan and the Neglect of Russia’s National Security Interests 

The situation took a decisive turn after the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine, which was largely instigated by the United States. The revolution overthrew then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who had been seen as pro-Russian, and installed the anti-Russian Petro Poroshenko as the new president. This shift, backed by Washington and much of the EU, sowed deeper divisions within Ukraine, particularly in the Russian-speaking eastern and southern regions.

Instead of seeking peace and reconciliation and preparing Ukraine as a neutral bridge for political exchange between Russia and Europe, the West pushed Ukraine into an arms race that ultimately escalated the conflict. [for the rise in Ukraine's defense budget from 2013 until before the outbreak of the war see https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2022/02/russian-statesmanship-against-ukraine.html]. Feeling its hand forced, Russia moved toward the annexation of Crimea in 2014. From Russia’s perspective, this move was a necessary and strategic response to the destabilization of Ukraine and the growing military presence of NATO forces near its borders. Crimea, home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, held immense strategic significance. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO posed a direct threat to Russia’s access to the Black Sea, making the annexation of Crimea an inevitable step in Russia’s security strategy.

As the Maidan Revolution unfolded, Russian-speaking minorities in these regions felt increasingly marginalized by the new Kiev government. Poroshenko’s policies, including restrictive language laws and the suppression of Russian cultural identity, led to a violent backlash that escalated into a full-blown civil conflict, with Russia stepping in to protect its ethnic kin and safeguard its strategic interests.

To quell the conflict and to seek a peaceful resolution, the Minsk agreements were established in 2014 and 2015 . These agreements called for a ceasefire, decentralization of power to the eastern regions, and the protection of minority rights. However, the West, particularly the United States, France, and Germany consistently undermined these agreements by funneling military aid into Ukraine, effectively transforming the country into a NATO proxy. The militarization of Ukraine, with the tacit support of Washington and Brussels, should prepare the country for an eventual confrontation with Russia.

The misinterpretation of Russia’s actions as purely imperialistic is one of the most glaring mistakes made by Western leaders. Moscow’s repeated claims about NATO expansion as a ˃red line˂ were not mere rhetoric. For years, Russia warned that the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO would lead to severe consequences. Yet these warnings were ignored, and the expansionist policies of the West continued unabated.

 The Biden Administration’s Role in Escalation

As the conflict intensified in 2022, the role of the Biden administration became increasingly central. The Biden White House, influenced by neoconservative ideologues, rejected proposals for peace and explicitly instructed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy—elected in 2019—to continue the war and reject neutrality with Russia. This hardline stance pushed Ukraine further into the conflict, with the United States actively supplying weapons, intelligence, and military assistance.

Despite Russia’s repeated calls for negotiations, the Biden administration, supported by European leaders, refused to consider diplomatic solutions, ensuring the war's continuation with Ukraine caught in the middle as a proxy in a broader geopolitical struggle.

In essence, the negation of Russia’s security interests set the stage for the conflict we have witnessed for the past three years.

 A Call for Negotiation and a Peaceful Resolution

The war in Ukraine has been devastating for all parties involved, with countless lives lost, entire regions of the country devastated,  and immense economic damage all across Europe. Yet, despite this, the EU and its member states continue to push for a military solution. The misconception that Russia is the sole aggressor has dominated European political discourse, ignoring the broader historical and strategic context.

However, a closer examination reveals that Russia’s military operation could even be justified under international law, particularly referencing Article 51 of the UN-Charter, which allows for self-defense in the face of armed attack. In this sense, Russia was acting to protect its nationals in the Donbass region and to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, which was perceived as an existential threat.

A peaceful resolution will require direct negotiations between the United States and Russia—ideally between the Trump administration and Putin—without European interference. France, Germany, and the UK risk prolonging the conflict by insisting on continued military engagement. A resolution that respects Russia’s security concerns while maintaining a clipped Ukraine’s sovereignty is the only viable path forward.

 A Lost War—What Now? The Way Forward

Although it was clear to unbiased observers from the outset that Ukraine could not win a military struggle against Russia, European political elites insisted otherwise. Now, the responsibility falls upon President Trump—who, unlike the European Commission, acknowledges the need for accommodating legitimate security interests of other nations—to negotiate peace directly with President Putin.

Ukraine's leadership, under Zelenskyy, has demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue diplomacy, making it imperative that external actors, particularly the United States, step in to broker a ceasefire. European leaders, including Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and French President Emmanuel Macron, continue to justify prolonging the war with baseless claims of a potential Russian offensive against Central and Western Europe.

The reality is that Russia has won this war; Ukraine has lost roughly a quarter of its territory, and only a swift ceasefire and peace agreement can prevent further loss of life and destruction. The notion that Russia intends to invade the Baltics or Western Europe is a fabrication promoted by warmongers and arms manufacturers who benefit from continued conflict.

For three decades since the end of the Cold War, Russia has adhered to agreements while the West has repeatedly broken its promises, from NATO expansion to the Minsk Accords and the INF Treaty. A peace agreement signed by the relevant parties should suffice to maintain stability without the need for external peacekeeping forces. It can be expected that at least Russia will abide by the agreement.

Europe must now acknowledge its policy failures and cease obstructing efforts to end the war. Once Ukraine is pacified, Europe can find its lost relevance in international affairs by contributing to Ukraine’s reconstruction and promoting a new security framework that avoids antagonistic policies and unnecessary military escalation while bringing Russia back into the Western orbit.

With Trump poised to correct the mistakes of his predecessor, the world has a renewed chance at peace. If the West learns from past miscalculations, a stable and cooperative security order could emerge—one that was envisioned in the early 1990s before being derailed by unilateral and imperial hubris in Washington and Brussels.

 

The Right is the Actually Good! (What happened to Trump is now happening in Europe)

Success should be the primary criterion for evaluating the appropriateness of political parties' and governments' action plans. The key question should be whether the implementation of political concepts has led to an improvement in the common good or its decline. This outcome should be the sole determining factor by which political forces are legitimized in the democratic election process and entrusted with governmental responsibility, or conversely, deprived of it.

If this criterion is applied, it is undeniable that the progressive policies imposed on the populations of Austria and Germany in recent years—especially by left-leaning and EU-loyal coalition governments—have caused significant harm and worsened living conditions.

These policies, largely based on ideological utopianism, have resulted in:

• A failure during the pandemic, driven by irrational fears and an over-reliance on science rather than sober reason;

• A thoughtless, pseudo-humanistic attitude toward immigration, the prosecution of criminals, and deportation, characterized by moralizing without actual morals;

• Economic decline due to a fanatical climate policy that was practically imposed on the people by the political left, resembling a secular substitute religion;

• Amateurism in security policy, particularly marked by Russophobia.

The reality of life disproves the social and political theories of the left, which claim to be validated by continuous success and the improvement of human living conditions at all levels of society.

The failure stems primarily from the fact that ruling left-wing parties—such as those in Austria, which have traditionally attracted conservative, Christian-social forces like the ÖVP (Austrian People's Party), or in Germany, with the CDU (Christian Democratic Union)—prioritized ideological intentions over objective insights into various policy areas. Whenever this happens, every political initiative inevitably carries the seeds of its downfall.

Now, it is being suggested that these failures came upon us as if by some natural occurrence. In reality, they are self-inflicted, the result of educational and moral deficits among the elites.

The United Left—along with its allies on the so-called right—now stands before the ruins of its policies. Although fully aware of this, the left is too obsessed with power to admit its mistakes or learn from these painful experiences. If they had any sense of decency, the coalitions in Germany and Austria would have resigned long ago and called for new elections.

Given the damage done and their proven incompetence, the ruling administrations, along with the parties and media sympathetic to them, are now in desperation. As a result, they have turned to what they see as their only remaining strategy for maintaining power: the demonization of the remaining conservative bastions within the state and society.

The left has taken the offensive and is not afraid to use inflammatory terms like "fascism" and "right-wing extremism" inappropriately, seeking to discredit every conservative and Christian-social political force to maintain their grip on power.

In truth, it is the left that is undermining democratic political structures and processes. In a desperate attempt to remain in power, it has tried to establish a "dictatorship of opinion," creating a mental autocracy that no longer allows for classically conservative or Christian-social positions. With its anti-democratic approach, the left seeks to pave the way for a one-party rule dominated by left-progressive political movements. The recent leak of a secret document outlining a proposed ÖVP-SPÖ-NEOS coalition confirms this intent.

If we redefine the concept of fascism in the modern context as anti-liberal, anti-democratic, secular, and radically anti-Christian—and exclude the irrelevant elements of ethnic and racial elitism—we can see how the political left embodies the actual fascist elements in our societies. In an audacious way, it projects this strategy, which it itself practices, onto everyone who stands outside its narrow ideology.

Therefore, left-wing fascism represents the primary danger to our societies in the current culture war. The myth of "left is good" and "right is bad," which has been preached since the 1968 generation, is gradually unraveling. Increasingly, people are recognizing that the radical, indifferent-progressive left is the true adversary of humanity. The opening of the Summer Olympics in Paris served as a stark reminder of this in an archetypal way. It is nearly too late for our societies to wake up.

The right, in the well-understood sense of bourgeois-Christian thinking, is returning inevitably to realpolitik. More and more citizens are seeing through the left’s deceptive tactics. They are realizing that only a renaissance of conservatism can save Western civilization and its societies.

---

Comprehending Putin: The Unconsidered Resolution for the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The statesmanlike strategist has always distinguished himself from ordinary ideologues and low-ranking politicians by his ability to assess an opponent’s politico-military capabilities and, more crucially, their political thinking, strategic goals, and disposition toward the use of force.

At the heart of understanding what has been termed a country’s “Strategic Culture” is the evaluation of its legitimate and genuine security interests. These arise from a variety of factors, including its geopolitical position, demographics, economic and military potential, its neighbors, and other pertinent aspects of statecraft.

However, in today’s corrupt political power centers of the US and Europe, this approach has been fundamentally reversed. Rather than evaluating a potential adversary, so-called national security specialists now resort to disdain, dismissing any legitimate security concerns the enemy may have. By doing so, they underestimate the opponent, inflate their own power, and ignore the will of the people, all driven by delusions of global dominance.

Similarly, anyone seeking to understand the adversary’s strategic concepts—whether to avoid war or, if unavoidable, wage it effectively—is now labeled a traitor, a puppet of Putin, or a turncoat who jeopardizes his own country.

The criteria for successful warfare—achieving politico-military objectives in the shortest time possible while minimizing loss of life and damage to both friend and foe—have been replaced by a strategy of prolonged conflict aimed at dubious strategic and economic goals, with little regard for lives lost or entire nations and regions devastated.

Peace cannot be achieved, and unjust wars will persist, if the enemy is not understood. One must take into account their strategic objectives, national security interests, and conduct international relations based on accepted principles of international law and underlying ethical considerations.

The security elites in the US and Europe must acknowledge their mistakes in the current Russia-Ukraine war. These include alienating Russia by disregarding its legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine, supporting the questionable Zelensky regime, and pursuing a damaging course of action toward the Russian Federation.

To end the war, the Zelensky regime—described by some as fascist—must be ousted. Ukraine should be divided, with the conquered territories temporarily under Russian control, and a new government should be established in Kiev. This government must be able to cooperate with both East and West and should commit to refraining from joining NATO or engaging in any form of military cooperation with the US and its allies.

Failure to address Russia’s national security interests and the continued disregard for the existential significance of Ukraine’s strategic orientation to Russia will only lead to further escalation, potentially culminating in World War III.

The World Peace Guide: All Members Must Employ Self-Practiced Morality for Peaceful International Relations

---

In my book Non-Truth, Moral Nihilism, and Jacobin Cynicism (see link to the left), I explain in detail why ethics, rather than economics, jurisprudence, or science, is and must be the unifying force of any successful human association. When we consider the primary parameters of human action—freedom and responsibility—the importance of morality becomes clear. Human freedom is realized and revealed by how individuals accept responsibility in all aspects of their existence, thereby exposing their inner moral sense.

The bond between freedom and responsibility is so strong that one cannot exist without the other. This realization may have inspired neurologist and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl to advocate for the installation of a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast of the United States, complementing the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast.

The importance of morality in sustaining human unity and prosperity—an issue that extends far beyond empirical and scientific study into the realm of metaphysics—suggests the need for a transcendent foundation. A religious-metaphysical frame of reference is essential for any social or political collective. As the current state of most Western societies, particularly in the United States, demonstrates, when this foundation is corrupted or lost, political entities are doomed to decline in the long run.

Morality, as the foundation for prosperous human relations, applies to both the individual and societal levels. It works in the vast majority of personal interactions. In family, friendship circles, and the workplace, people generally respect the worth and identity of others. Where it fails, the enforcement structures provided by society—through governmental organizations, law, and law enforcement—intervene to achieve what voluntary action could not. However, in international relations, there is no effective law enforcement mechanism. While we have ius gentium (people's law), which is largely enshrined in the United Nations Charter, there is no enforcement authority. As a result, international relations are often governed by power politics, national interests, unilateral and imperialist goals, and other considerations of dominance and exploitation.

The mechanisms of international law, established by the UN Charter—particularly the Security Council's primary role in maintaining and restoring world peace—do not function effectively. Aside from the lack of enforcement capabilities, ideological bias and a lack of objectivity within the organization exacerbate the UN's weakness. Current examples of the United Nations' ineffectiveness include the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Hamas-Israel standoff.

But what if warring parties and their backers adhered to timeless principles of international relations and national security ethics, rather than engaging in the old game of greedy power politics while promoting outdated enemy images? What if all nations recognized each member of the international community's equal standing and right to exist, regardless of their size, economic and military power, demographics, or ideological identity? What if all nations voluntarily adhered to the principle that no country may secure its own safety at the expense of the safety of others? What if even the most powerful nations accepted and welcomed the resulting balance of power within the international community?

Indeed, under such principles, we would not witness Ukraine’s utterly pointless and easily avoidable war, which has resulted in tens of thousands of dead soldiers, civilian casualties, millions of displaced people and refugees, and dire economic and social consequences for Europe. More importantly, a world founded on this understanding would provide a stable platform for economic competition, trade, the exchange of ideas and education, and cultural and artistic achievements.

No matter how unlikely the realization of this demand may seem, it is still necessary if Kant's Eternal Peace formula—often viewed only as an approximation to the state of complete peace—is ever to become a reality. Powers, nation-states, and their alliances must abandon the national security models and attitudes that have shaped global stability since World War II. New avenues for a minimal ethics of international relations must be explored, to supplement the rules outlined in international law and the UN Charter. Because the criterion of ethics is the voluntary application of an acknowledged rule, enforcement mechanisms would no longer be required.

Ukraine War - Europe Destroyed by Vulgar Pacifism and Strategic Illiteracy among Western Elites

War of aggression! Criminal Putin! Heroic Zelensky! Barbaric Russians! Glorious Ukrainians! 

 

These designations and other absurdities have been regurgitated to dumb down the masses while the war raged for the past ten months. Despite the damage done, Western political elites are intensifying the propaganda in their desperate attempt to avoid losing face. They duplicate their pronounced security illiteracy, deepen the conflict, and reduce the chances of a negotiated peace. 

 

The false and vulgar pacifist attitude to designate the one who used violent military means first - no matter the reasons and overall context - still prevails in Western political and media quarters. It is totally left out of the picture that Mr. Putin had exhausted all peaceful means and was virtually thrust into violently resolving an existential threat to his nation's security. 

 

No war is an isolated act and should not and must not be regarded as such, as the armchair strategists and self-proclaimed security policy experts on TV have tried to make us believe. But I provided comprehensive political and philosophical analyses of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in previous blog entries and publications. Find details here and here.

 

Former radical pacifists of the European green and socialist parties keep pushing for further arms delivery to Ukraine and support of the war effort. Their hatred for Russia and subservience to a U.S. warmongering regime appear even to trump their long-held ideological convictions. And the public, by and large, still mirrors the pernicious bias of their political masters. 

 

According to polls, more than half of the population in Western European countries still prefer an unconditional victory of Ukraine over any deal that would respect Russia's interests. Even politicians and commentators who criticize sanctions want them lifted because they hurt Western nations' interests. They haven't figured or don't dare to mention that the sanctions are unjust and unethical in and by themselves. 

 

The lies - dictator Putin has launched a war of aggression out of pure lust for power to restore the borders of the Soviet Union - seem to persist successfully. The American president dared to declare that Putin started a war completely groundless and without provocation. A transparent falsehood, a convenient political lie in the face of all evidence and the truth of the matter. 

 

Critical voices, if they are even listened to, such as the purveyor of this blog, are denounced as Putin's pro-Russian stirrup holders, right-wing extremists, and anti-Europeans. A critical discourse no longer seems possible. Any vote against the prescribed dogma is considered a victim of Russian propaganda and anti-Western disinformation. But the truth never depends on majority numbers or the loudness of political agitation. And the truth, in the end, always prevails. No matter how long suppressed, shunned, demonized, and distorted. 

 

The blame for this war in Ukraine lies solely with the U.S. and its compliant proxies in NATO and E.U. But, above all, to blame is the megalomaniac President Zelensky. He willingly accepted the U.S.' imposition, had his nation instrumentalized in a proxy war against Russia, and drove his country into ruin. 

 

Although physically beginning a war, Russia is the only side waging a JUST WAR in the ongoing armed conflict. Let me spell it out once again in all clarity and emphasis: 

 

PREEMPTIVE WAR CAN BE JUSTIFIED WHEN ALL PEACEFUL MEANS AND ALL ALTERNATIVES TO USING FORCE HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED, AND ONLY IMMEDIATE MILITARY ACTION 

CAN PREVENT HIGHER THREATS FROM MATERIALIZING. 

 

Since Western elites have lost themselves in their hasty and self-destructive policies, there is little hope for a long-overdue course correction, and further escalation appears inevitable.

 

Now, heading toward the end of this year, 2022, and ever deeper into the winter, I wager to predict that a major Russian offensive will take place once the low temperatures have sufficiently consolidated the terrain. Russia will bring the war to a decision, secure the conquered and now declared Russian areas, close the southern arc to the border with Moldova by taking Odessa and thus forcing a negotiated peace.

 

As a strategic necessity for her security, Russia must prevail in this armed conflict; the U.S. and the West, having gone so far in their destructive support of Ukraine, won't pull back. Thousands of soldiers from NATO countries (such as the U.S., Poland, and Great Britain) are already fighting on Ukrainian territory; more U.S. forces are on standby in neighboring regions, and Patriot Air Defense systems about to be delivered. Since the Ukrainian military is defeated, most of NATO will soon be involved in the conflict to prevent a Russian victory. A nuclear escalation might ensue if conventional military parity is shattered to Russia's disadvantage. 

 

The West, whose glorification of the megalomaniac Ukrainian President Zelensky reflects the precarious state of mental incapacity of its political elites, has been waging an expendable and easily avoidable war against Russia for almost a year now. A regional armed conflict, based on atrocious falsehoods and outright lies, threatens to turn into a world war unless the political elites are brought to their senses by public pressure.

War is always ugly but sometimes inevitable. Neither its justification nor condemnation should be decided from the gut!

Being against violence does not make for a beautiful soul (Aristotle)

If we consider war as a continuation of political activity by other means, it never arises out of nowhere. Every war has a history that led to it. The topic of war is complex and delicate, and assessing its justification or inevitability in specific instances is even more so.

The general public often views war as the worst of all evils. The prevailing opinion is that the side that starts a war is inherently wrong and evil, while the side that resists is right and good. But as history and rational reflection show us, this is not necessarily true. If it were so easy to distinguish between right and wrong in war, many instances would reveal the United States and its Western allies as the aggressors. If the question of war could be answered based purely on emotion, we would never need to discuss the "Just War" theory, which has occupied philosophers from Augustine and Thomas Aquinas to Michael Walzer and others, including myself. I devoted my doctoral thesis (and the book based on it) to the morality and immorality of violence (and non-violence) on both individual, collective, and politico-military levels.

The evaluation of war and its political-ethical implications can be approached from two essential perspectives. First, what triggered the war, and what prompted political leaders or governing bodies to go to war? What is the causa iusta—the just reason, as the primary consideration of the principle of ius ad bellum (right to war)—that justifies or seems to justify waging war?

The challenge in assessing this crucial aspect is that the justification for the use of force—no matter when it occurs—is always subjective, based on the intentions of political leaders or decision-making bodies. To assess this adequately, observers—whether individuals, political administrations, or international bodies—must rise to a meta-level of thought, striving to judge the events leading to the dispute as objectively and impartially as possible. Unfortunately, this rarely happens, as pacifist and political-ideological emotions often cloud judgment. The United Nations, which should ideally play this role, seldom succeeds in maintaining this objective and impartial perspective.

Two essential criteria of transcendental moral philosophy (independent of experience and comprehensible by reason alone) for ius ad bellum are necessity and inevitability. War must always be a last resort, necessary and inevitable as the only option for resolving a conflict. While this is relatively obvious in cases of clear defense, it becomes more complicated in cases of preemption or prevention. A pre-emptive war represents a proactive breach of the peace, aimed at addressing an imminent threat or gaining a strategic advantage before an inevitable armed conflict. Pre-emptive war may be justified if all alternatives to the use of force have been exhausted, or if immediate military intervention is needed to prevent a much larger threat. Examples of pre-emptive military strikes include Israel's Six-Day War in 1967 and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In the latter case, the assumption that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was used as a justification for war, though this proved to be inaccurate.

The ius in bello (law in war) is the second aspect of warfare to be evaluated. Do the warring parties and their military forces abide by the laws of war, such as the Geneva Conventions? Do they wage wars based on universal human principles that must not be endangered or abandoned, even in armed conflict? Do the warring parties distinguish between combatants and non-combatants? Are military targets the focus, with efforts made to minimize collateral damage? Are prisoners of war and wounded enemy soldiers treated in accordance with the Geneva Protocols, and are war crimes avoided?

While both sides appear to violate the ius in bello in the ongoing Ukraine war, only alleged Russian war crimes are widely reported in the West. For example, there is no mention of Ukrainian troops using civilians as human shields, choosing defensive positions in residential areas, or arming non-combatants in violation of martial law, actions that organized crime exploits to wreak havoc, while the blame is shifted to Russian forces. Furthermore, there is no mention of the restraint Putin has imposed on his armed forces, with a focus on military objectives. The West misinterprets this as incompetence on the part of Russian troops.

To understand the causalities that led to the war and provide criteria for its potential resolution, we must focus on the question of ius ad bellum—the reasons and motives for starting a war that lie within the hands of political leaders.

As discussed in my previous blog, the situation that led Russia to resort to military force arose from the uncompromising stance of Western political decision-makers. Apart from Ukraine's repeated provocations in the Russian-friendly regions of Donbas and Luhansk, the continued disregard for Russia's legitimate security interests, and Ukraine's insistence on pursuing full NATO membership, led to the war. From Putin's perspective, the decision to go to war was justified—whether or not the West agrees. For him, it was about protecting Russia’s security interests, and he didn’t take this decision lightly.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's role in the escalation is also significant. In complete disregard of security policy contexts, he pushed his country’s national self-determination far beyond a sensible security strategy. Ignoring geopolitical realities, historical ties, and Russia’s security concerns, he pushed for NATO membership, even suggesting that Ukraine should adopt nuclear weapons.

Zelensky neglected timeless principles of national security, disregarding the need to balance national goals with the security interests of neighboring countries. He failed to consider NATO's eastward expansion, which, over the past three decades since the Cold War, has brought the alliance ever closer to Russia's borders. His stance on NATO membership, and even potential nuclear armament, provoked Russia.

From Russia’s point of view, the war became inevitable. Putin exhausted all non-violent options for conflict resolution. He never wanted war, but the West’s Russophobic political elites gave him no other choice. Could he have waited or refrained from action? Yes, but Western leaders were equally responsible for the escalation, hoping he would eventually concede. In that context, Russia’s military action met the criteria of necessity and inevitability.

The events leading up to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, including Zelensky’s naive actions, have been addressed in previous blog posts. On the day Russia initiated its military operation, I wrote how easily the political elites of the West could have prevented this war and why they bear responsibility for it.

From the perspective of future generations, it will be a shameful chapter in political history that highly paid security experts, national security advisers, and warmongering politicians failed—and, indeed, refused—to prevent Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It is astonishing how politicians and media commentators continue to condemn Putin while ignoring their own role in the conflict.

Now that the war is underway, the Western political elites are doubling down on their stance, escalating matters further. A few voices in the U.S. and Europe, such as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and Fox News' Tucker Carlson, who offer more objective analysis, are labeled as traitors. Europe, too, suffers from thought policing, where any deviation from the mainstream narrative can result in serious consequences. The democracies we once prided ourselves on are making a mockery of themselves.

In conclusion, the war is entirely pointless and could have easily been avoided. The Ukrainians, led by their naive and megalomaniacal president, have waged an unnecessary war. Through their arrogance and submission to Western influence, they have devastated their own country. It’s now clear that Washington, Berlin, and Kiev must offer Putin what they should have before the conflict began—if there is any hope of ending it.

This situation mirrors the events of August 1914, when a localized dispute between Austria and Serbia escalated into World War I. We must not allow the Russian-Ukrainian conflict to spiral into World War III.