And revolutions have a habit of coming back in ones face.
Your “side” may not keep you on their side and you end up like the others.
Agreed, WB, but when I extrapolate out along the line of social “progress” I’ve seen so far, I think it at least equally likely that the children may consume their elders. (I’m willing to concede that my crystal ball is cloudier than most, and this may simply be the prejudice of one increasingly aware that the entire planet is “No Country for Old Men.”)
Still, as Freedom notes, it’s an interesting article, if only because the economic forces are acknowledged as producing the political world, and not merely the hapless result of political forces. To the extent Russia is free from the global debt economy, to that extent it is free to chart an independent course. I can certainly understand why Putin wants his naval bases in Crimea and Syria. We could worry that Russia might use them to attack the US, or Eurabia, (and they might) but without them, Russia would be relatively defenseless against anyone with naval bases all over the globe. We could say that we would never attack them, but one only has to think back to the clandestine military machinations of once and former SecState Pantsuit and her boss, to realize that from Russia’s perspective, there’s precious little guarantee of US peaceful intentions, in the long run.
The best conditions for peace within and between any nations or “Treaty Organizations” is mutually beneficial trade. As long as nations are ruled by Vampire Squid controllers of debt money, the desperation that makes war, or violent “revolution” seem necessary, is inevitable. Few in the human race understand enough to reject the soft harness of easy (debt) “money”. Eventually, after they have been bribed into poverty with their own earnings, most people are ready to barbecue someone — usually some !@#$%^&* foreigner.