Some Ideas about Armageddon.

‘A spectre is haunting Europe,’ Archie Brown (2010) begins his book about the Rise and Fall of Communism. He wasn’t talking about Trump. Back then he was just another draft-dodging rapist and racist, who refused to rent property to black people, liked glittery things and to be on television. Putin had left the KGB and had set himself up as a fixer or mafia-type businessman, who retained strong links to his past. The spectre haunting Europe was communism. Karl Marx was writing the opening lines to his Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848. Poverty was endemic. Revolution fermented in Europe.

  The term "Armageddon" carries significant weight, primarily rooted in biblical prophecy, but also extending into broader cultural usage.

Core Meaning:

• Biblical Origin:
  • Armageddon originates from the Book of Revelation in the New Testament (Revelation 16:16).
  • It refers to the prophesied location where the kings of the earth gather for a final, decisive battle between the forces of good and evil at the end of the world.
  • The name is derived from "Har Megiddo," meaning "Mountain of Megiddo," a strategically important location in ancient Israel.
• Broader Usage:
  • Beyond its biblical context, "Armageddon" is widely used to describe any large-scale, catastrophic event, particularly one that results in widespread destruction and devastation.
  • It often evokes imagery of an apocalyptic or end-of-the-world scenario.

Examples:

• Religious Context:
  • In Christian eschatology, Armageddon represents the ultimate battle between God and the forces of Satan.
  • Various religious interpretations exist regarding the specifics of this event.
• Secular Context:
  • Nuclear Armageddon: During the Cold War, the term was frequently used to describe the potential for a devastating nuclear war that could lead to the annihilation of humanity.
  • Climate Change: Some people use the term to describe the potential catastrophic effects of unchecked climate change.
  • General Catastrophes: It can also be used to describe any extremely destructive event, such as a massive natural disaster or a large scale war.
  • In popular culture, the term is used in many movies and books, that deal with end of the world scenarios.

In essence, Armageddon signifies a final, climactic confrontation that results in widespread destruction, whether in a religious or secular context.

The quip often attributed to Chairman Mao Zedong regarding the French Revolution is famously ambiguous. It's generally reported as:

"It's too early to say."

But it’s not too early to say about Trump. We already know the stopwatch is running with regards to climate change. General Catastrophes such as Covid-19 or Artificial Intelligence stepping outside general intelligence, becoming self-aware and leaving humanity on the side-lines march to their own beat.

We also know that Putin’s strategy is to gamble. To double down and not just on double-speak. His invasion of Ukraine was a blunder in which he gambled and lost. Until now. Until Trump. Like any Mafia don, he cannot be seen to be losing face. Trump has handed him all the Trump cards.

Saddam Hussein viewed Kuwait's considerable oil reserves—approximately 94 billion barrels, accounting for about 10% of global reserves at the time—as a solution to alleviate Iraq's financial woes. By annexing Kuwait, Iraq aimed to control its oil wealth and access Kuwait's substantial financial reserves, estimated between $100–$120 billion in foreign investments.

President George Bush (snr) did not castigate Al-Sabah family, which has ruled the country for over two centuries. Nor did he suggest they should cut a deal with Saddam Hussein and he would broker it. And Hussein would keep most of the oil assets they had stolen. Whatever remained should be sold as cut-price deals to American oil companies, or else they could expect little or no support.

Appeasement has a long history of ending badly. Not only for the smaller countries involved.

  Appeasement: From Neville Chamberlain to Donald Trump

Throughout history, leaders have sought to avoid war by negotiating with aggressive powers. The most infamous example is British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's 1938 "Peace for our time" declaration, after signing the Munich Agreement with Hitler. The comparison to Donald Trump's handling of Vladimir Putin raises questions about appeasement vs. pragmatism in foreign policy.

1. Timeline: Hitler’s Path to War (1933–1939)

Year	Event	Western Response	Outcome
1933	Hitler becomes Chancellor	No intervention	Nazi regime consolidates power
1935	Rearmament & military expansion	UK & France protest but take no action	Germany begins violating the Treaty of Versailles
1936	Remilitarization of the Rhineland	No action by France or UK	Hitler gains confidence
1938	Anschluss (Annexation of Austria)	UK & France do nothing	Germany expands
Sept 1938	Munich Agreement: Hitler given Sudetenland (Czechoslovakia)	Chamberlain proclaims "Peace for our time"	Hitler later takes the rest of Czechoslovakia
Sept 1939	Invasion of Poland	UK & France declare war	WWII begins

2. Trump on the Appeasement Scale (1-10)

Scale Definition:

• 1-3: Hardline, confrontational (e.g., Churchill, Reagan)
• 4-6: Balanced diplomacy (e.g., Eisenhower, Nixon)
• 7-10: High appeasement (e.g., Chamberlain, Daladier)

Leader	Appeasement Score (1-10)	Reasoning
Neville Chamberlain (1938)	10/10	Gave Hitler land without a fight, believing it would secure peace.
Joe Biden (2021–present)	3/10	Strong support for Ukraine, sanctions, NATO reinforcement.
Barack Obama (2009–2017)	6/10	Hesitant response to Crimea annexation, but imposed sanctions.
Donald Trump (2017–2021)	7.5/10	Praised Putin, criticized NATO, delayed Ukraine aid, resisted stronger sanctions.

3. Motives Behind Appeasement: Macmillan vs. Trump

Leader	Putative Motives for Appeasement
Neville Chamberlain (1938)	- Deep fear of another World War (WWI was still fresh in memory). - Belief that Hitler's ambitions could be contained. - Britain’s military unpreparedness.
Donald Trump (2017–2021)	- Preference for diplomacy over confrontation. - Desire to avoid foreign entanglements ("America First" policy). - Personal admiration for "strongman" leadership styles.

4. Conclusion: A Different Era, Similar Risks?

While Trump’s approach wasn’t full-scale appeasement like Chamberlain’s ‘peace’, his reluctance to confront Putin aggressively placed him on the slippery side of diplomacy. Unlike Chamberlain, who outright ceded territory to Hitler, Trump questioned NATO’s role and softened U.S. opposition to Russia—arguably emboldening Putin.

If history teaches us anything, appeasement often leads to greater aggression. The key question remains: Does Trump’s approach delay war or make it inevitable?

 

Notes.

Trump vs. Former Presidents: Contrasting Responses to Putin

1. Bush, Obama, and Biden: From Engagement to Confrontation

President	Approach to Putin	Key Policies & Events
George W. Bush (2001–2009)	Initially warm, later skeptical	Called Putin “very straightforward and trustworthy” in 2001 but later clashed over Russia’s invasion of Georgia (2008).
Barack Obama (2009–2017)	Reset attempt, then sanctions	Launched the “Russia Reset” (2009), but relations soured after Crimea’s annexation (2014). Imposed sanctions and expelled diplomats.
Joe Biden (2021–present)	Hostile, confrontational	Called Putin a “killer,” led harsh sanctions after the 2022 Ukraine invasion, and provided billions in military aid to Ukraine.

2. Trump’s Contrarian Approach to Putin

Donald Trump (2017–2021) broke from traditional U.S. policy in several key ways:

• Personal Praise: Trump often spoke for Putin, saying he had “great respect” for him and calling him a “strong leader.”
• Criticism of NATO: Unlike past presidents, Trump questioned NATO’s relevance and accused allies of not paying their fair share, which indirectly benefited Russia and Putin, in particular.
• No New Sanctions: While his administration enacted some measures against Russia, Trump personally resisted harsher sanctions. And wants to roll them back as he did in his investigation of Russian oligarchs in America and their hidden billions.
• Ukraine Aid Delay: Trump temporarily withheld military aid to Ukraine, contrasting with Biden’s aggressive support. He made it conditional on agreeing to almost everything Putin asked for before invading three years ago (contrast  with Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait).

However, Trump's administration did arm Ukraine with lethal weapons (Javelin missiles), something Obama had avoided.

3. Key Contrast: Hardline vs. Pragmatic vs. Confrontational

Policy Area	Bush/Obama/Biden (Hardline Stance)	Trump (Pragmatic/Unorthodox)
NATO & Russia	Strengthened NATO against Russia	Criticized NATO, favored diplomacy
Ukraine Support	Consistently backed Ukraine	Temporarily delayed military aid
Sanctions	Escalated sanctions over time	Resisted stronger measures
Rhetoric on Putin	Called him aggressive, expansionist	Called him “strong” and “savvy”

Conclusion: A Shift from Hostility to Diplomacy (and Back Again)

• Bush, Obama, and Biden saw Putin as a growing threat and escalated pressure.
• Trump took a different approach, emphasizing diplomacy and questioning NATO’s role, often downplaying Russian aggression.

Biden, by contrast, has taken the most confrontational stance, framing Putin as an existential enemy. Trump paints Biden as the existential enemy. Refugees as the eternal scapegoat.

Unleash the Beastie! https://bit.ly/bannkie