Ethoxyquin: Added to Keep Fish Meal from Bursting into Flames, May Be a Carcinogen

 I read an article about the curious history of a potential carcinogen that caught on in the 1970s as an additive to prevent fish meal from breaking out in spontaneous combustion in ships holds. Several dozen ships fires began with fish meal so ethoxyquin was readily applied. It is used to feed farmed fish these days and except for a few countries that have banned it the chemical continues to be ingested by the farmed fish you may eat. About half of the fish consumed by human sin the world are farmed fish.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14102026/ethoxyquin-fire-retardant-in-seafood-chain/

At least Peruvian fish have stopped consuming fish meal treated with ethoxyquin so Americans eating fish from Peru have only enough tartar sauce to worry about. Wild caught Alaska salmon may lack ethoxyquin and instead have only microplastics and the usual suspects shared with all open sea fish swimming through a chemical soup including radiation.

On Democrat's Treasonous Foreign and Domestic Policy Positions for Mexico and Ukraine

 Democrats tend to take a treasonous, foreign based view of select international political issues based on ignorance and error in historical judgment. They are pro-war for Ukraine and like to dump billions and billions to fight Russia and are unwilling to defend U.S. borders against illegal migration. Democrats prefer war with Russia to peace, and that is simply bad for the U.S.A. and most of the nations of the planet. Therefore I had an opportunity to briefly reply to those issues…

Mexicans were never a majority of the population in the area that is today the American west- those were native Americans and one can’t simply erase them from history. Mexicans governed or owned but hadn’t settled the American west much.

AI- “• The Entire Cession: Excluding Texas, the total non-Indian Mexican population across the entire territory (modern California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado) was only around 75,000 to 100,000 people, with the vast majority concentrated in New Mexico.

• Vast swaths of the Great Basin, the Mojave, and the Mountain West had zero Mexican presence and were entirely controlled by sovereign Indigenous nations like the Comanche, Navajo, Apache, and Ute.” Native Americans numbered up to 200,000.

“The geographic distribution across modern-day U.S. states broke down as follows:

1. New Mexico (The Vast Majority)

• Estimated Population: ~60,000 to 70,000

• Details: This was the cultural and demographic heart of Mexico’s northern frontier. Centuries of Spanish and Mexican settlement meant there were established towns, farms, and deep-rooted communities concentrated along the Rio Grande Valley (including Santa Fe and Albuquerque).

2. California

• Estimated Population: ~7,000 to 10,000

• Details: Known as Californios, this population was settled primarily along the southern and central coast in pueblos (towns) like Los Angeles, San Diego, Monterey, and San Jose, as well as on massive ranchos.

3. Texas (Already Partitioned)

• Estimated Population: ~4,000 to 5,000

• Details: While Texas had already declared independence in 1836 and was annexed by the U.S. in 1845, the Mexican population (Tejanos) remained largely concentrated in South Texas, particularly along the Rio Grande (e.g., Laredo) and in San Antonio.

4. Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada (Virtually None)

• Estimated Population: Fewer than a few hundred combined.

• Details: In 1848, these regions had almost no permanent Mexican settlers.

• Arizona: A few hundred Mexican soldiers and settlers lived in the extreme south, primarily around the presidio (fort) of Tucson.

• Colorado: A tiny handful of families lived in the absolute southern edge (the San Luis Valley).

• Utah & Nevada: There were essentially zero permanent Mexican inhabitants. These areas were entirely controlled by Indigenous nations, with the exception of temporary travelers using the Old Spanish Trail.”

Gary- The 1849 California Gold Rush brought in 100,000 Americans so California became very non-Mexican quickly. I don’t regard it as a good comparison to Russia and its origin as Kievan Rus circa 975 AD. Only later did the Russian capital move farther north to Moscow.

The Treaty of Hidalgo occurred because Mexico had gained independence through war from Spain in 1821 and Texas got independence from Mexico in 1836. The U.S. recognized that in 1845 and so Mexico severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. President Polk tried to buy the soon to be annexed areas for 30 million. Mexican soldiers killed 16 U.S. Army troopers north of the Rio Grande in 1846 and the war continued until finally U.S. Grant firing artillery from a 2nd story building and Robert E. Lee (working for WInslow Scott) neared Mexico City. The Treaty of Hidalgo ended the war- Mexico got 15 million dollars and in 1849 the California Gold Rush brought a flood of Americans to the west.

False Vacuums, True Vacuum: Throwing Space-time Snowballs

 Gary- What is a vacuum compared to a false vacuum? And how do various fields that exist in the false vacuum do that? Are all the fields just within the false vacuum? I mean, does the false vacuum contain fields like the Higgs field and whatever contains the Higgs field?

Grok-A vacuum in modern physics is not “nothing.” It is the lowest-energy state of a quantum field (or of the set of fields that make up the Standard Model + gravity).

In quantum field theory the vacuum is the ground state: the configuration of the fields that has the lowest possible energy density. Even in that state the fields are still fluctuating (zero-point energy, virtual particles, etc.). The vacuum is therefore a physical medium with measurable properties: it has a vacuum energy density (related to the cosmological constant), it can polarize, and particles are excitations above that ground state.

True vacuum vs. false vacuum

• True vacuum: the absolute global minimum of the effective potential of the relevant fields. Once the universe is in the true vacuum, it stays there (apart from quantum tunneling or thermal fluctuations that are usually negligible on cosmological scales).

• False vacuum: a local minimum of the same potential that is higher in energy than the true vacuum. It is metastable. The universe (or a region of it) can sit in a false vacuum for a very long time, but it is not the absolute ground state. Eventually a bubble of true vacuum can nucleate and expand at nearly the speed of light, converting the false vacuum into the true one and releasing the energy difference.

The classic example is the Higgs field. In the Standard Model the Higgs potential has a Mexican-hat shape. The “false vacuum” at the origin (Higgs field = 0) is unstable or metastable once temperature drops; the field rolls (or tunnels) to the true vacuum where the Higgs acquires a non-zero vacuum expectation value (~246 GeV). That vev breaks electroweak symmetry and gives masses to the W, Z, and fermions.

There can also be deeper true vacua beyond the Standard Model (e.g., if the Higgs potential becomes unbounded from below at very high field values, or in string-theory landscapes with many local minima). Our present vacuum is almost certainly a false vacuum relative to some deeper minimum; whether it is long-lived enough for the age of the universe is an open question.

Fields and what “lives” in the vacuum

All the quantum fields of the Standard Model (and any beyond-Standard-Model fields) exist everywhere, including in the vacuum. The vacuum is simply a particular configuration of those fields:

• The Higgs field has a non-zero constant value (the vev) throughout our present vacuum.

• The electromagnetic field, gluon fields, lepton and quark fields, etc., all have vanishing classical expectation values in the vacuum, but they still undergo quantum fluctuations.

• Gravity (the metric) is also present; the vacuum energy density of the other fields sources the cosmological constant term in Einstein’s equations.

There is no separate “container” that holds the Higgs field. The fields are the vacuum; the vacuum is the ground-state configuration of the fields. Different vacua correspond to different values (or different combinations of values) of the various fields’ expectation values and to different patterns of symmetry breaking.

So:

• The false vacuum is not a box that contains fields; it is a particular arrangement of the fields.

• The Higgs field (and every other field) exists in both the false and true vacua; what changes is the value of its vacuum expectation value and the resulting particle spectrum and interactions.

• If there are additional fields (inflaton, moduli, axions, etc.), they likewise have their own potentials and can sit in their own false or true minima, possibly coupled to the Higgs.

In short: vacuum = lowest-energy configuration of the quantum fields; false vacuum = a higher-energy local minimum of that same configuration space; the fields themselves are not “inside” the vacuum—they define it.

Gary- But a false vacuum can't exist universally throughout- including the true vacuum, or does it? I just can't see what would make a field that extended everywhere, including if there was a multiverse, differentiate it regionally. It's like an electromagnetic field had different values, but it's still the same electromagnetic field, but in different locations, in true and false vacuum, it had different values.

Grok-You’re zeroing in on exactly the right tension.

A field is defined everywhere. The electromagnetic field, the Higgs field, the metric, etc., are not “objects sitting inside a region.” They are assignments of values (or operators) to every point in spacetime. So there is only one electromagnetic field, only one Higgs field, and so on. What can differ from place to place is the value that field takes.

How regional differentiation works

Think of a scalar field ϕ(x)\phi(x)ϕ(x) whose potential V(ϕ)V(\phi)V(ϕ) has two minima:

• a higher local minimum (false vacuum) at ϕ=ϕfalse\phi = \phi_\text{false}ϕ=ϕfalse​

• a lower global minimum (true vacuum) at ϕ=ϕtrue\phi = \phi_\text{true}ϕ=ϕtrue​

The field can settle into different minima in different spatial regions. In region A the background value is ϕ(x)≈ϕfalse\phi(x) \approx \phi_\text{false}ϕ(x)≈ϕfalse​; in region B it is ϕ(x)≈ϕtrue\phi(x) \approx \phi_\text{true}ϕ(x)≈ϕtrue​. Between them there is a transition region—a domain wall or bubble wall—where the field interpolates from one value to the other. That wall has energy, and once a true-vacuum bubble nucleates it expands, converting the surrounding false vacuum as it goes.

Nothing about the field “stops existing” or “gets replaced.” It is the same continuous field; its expectation value simply takes different constant (or slowly varying) values in different places. Exactly as you said about electromagnetism: the electromagnetic field is one field, but EEE and BBB can have completely different values in different locations. The same is true for the Higgs (or any other scalar).

Multiverse / eternal-inflation version

In the landscape picture the same logic is scaled up. Different pocket universes (or different Hubble patches) can end up with the fields sitting in different minima. From the global viewpoint there is still one set of fields defined on the whole spacetime; the “different vacua” are just different spatial (or causal) regions in which those fields have relaxed to different minima. The regions are separated by walls or by expanding bubbles, and each region looks, from the inside, like a universe with its own particle physics and cosmological constant.

So the false vacuum does not “exist universally throughout including the true vacuum.” The true-vacuum regions have already transitioned; the field value there is no longer sitting at the false minimum. What remains of the false vacuum is whatever spatial volume has not yet been converted (or has not yet nucleated a bubble).

The differentiation is purely regional: same fields, different background values, separated by interfaces. That is the entire content of the distinction between true and false vacuum regions.

Gary -So if one had the right technology, one might be able to adjust the values of the vacuums in the fields within them and shrink them or warp space with them, including gravity and, and all sorts of interesting things, incl- you know, even including creating a singularity and, and releasing it.

Grok-In principle, yes — the idea is not completely forbidden by the structure of the theory. In practice it is so far beyond any known or foreseeable technology that it remains pure speculation.

What the physics actually allows in principle

The vacuum expectation values of scalar fields (Higgs, possible additional scalars, moduli, etc.) and the value of the vacuum energy density itself determine local physics and the local curvature of spacetime. If one could:

• raise or lower a scalar field’s background value in a controlled region, or

• change the local vacuum energy density,

then the effective particle masses, coupling strengths, and the local cosmological constant would change inside that region. Because energy density and pressure source the Einstein equations, altering the vacuum energy also warps spacetime. In extreme cases one could imagine creating regions of very high curvature, possibly even horizons or singularities if the energy density were concentrated enough.

That is the theoretical opening your question points at.

Why it is extraordinarily difficult

1. Energy scales
   The Higgs vacuum expectation value is ~246 GeV. Shifting it by a significant fraction requires energy densities comparable to the electroweak scale or higher, over macroscopic volumes. The energy cost is enormous. Deeper minima in the potential (if they exist) typically sit at even higher scales.

2. Stability and nucleation
   A false-vacuum region is already metastable. Artificially pushing a region toward a different minimum risks nucleating an expanding bubble of the new vacuum that you cannot stop. Once a true-vacuum bubble forms and begins to expand at nearly light speed, the conversion is essentially irreversible on human scales.

3. Gravity and energy conditions
   Warping spacetime in useful ways (wormholes, Alcubierre-like geometries, controlled singularities) usually requires violations of the classical energy conditions — negative energy densities or pressures. Quantum fields can produce small, fleeting negative-energy effects (Casimir, squeezed states), but they are tightly constrained by quantum inequalities. Sustaining the kind of exotic stress-energy needed for macroscopic spacetime engineering is not known to be possible.

4. Causality and control
   Creating a singularity (or even a black-hole horizon) and then “releasing” it would require assembling an enormous amount of energy or mass-energy in a controlled fashion and then somehow dispersing or neutralizing the resulting curvature. There is no known mechanism that lets you form a singularity on demand and then make it disappear without the energy simply remaining or radiating away as Hawking radiation (if it is a black hole) or a violent explosion.

Bottom line

The theoretical structure of quantum fields + general relativity does leave room for the kind of vacuum engineering you are imagining. Nothing in the equations says it is strictly impossible. Everything we know about the actual energy scales, stability of the vacuum, and the difficulty of producing and controlling exotic stress-energy says that it is many, many orders of magnitude beyond any technology we can presently conceive.

So the conceptual leap is fair; the engineering leap is, for now, science fiction.

Gary- Yes, it would require a different understanding of the composition of fields and, to have an ability to roll them up or, pack them up like a snowball to an infinitely small size and then slingshot oneself around in the space outside of that area within one's own universe. It's an interesting concept to explore.

Grok-You’re pushing the idea into a more concrete (if still highly speculative) picture: take a region of field configuration, compress it — “pack it like a snowball” — down toward an arbitrarily small size, and then use the resulting object as a kind of gravitational or spacetime handle to move around the larger universe.

That image touches several real theoretical notions, even if none of them currently give us a practical mechanism.

What the picture maps onto in existing physics

• Field compression and energy concentration
  If you could force a scalar field (or a collection of fields) into a very small spatial volume while keeping its vacuum expectation value away from the true minimum, you would be storing a large amount of potential energy in a tiny region. In the extreme limit this starts to look like forming a black hole: enough energy in a small enough radius and an event horizon appears. Once you have a horizon, the “packed” region is causally sealed from the outside in the usual way.

• Domain walls and vacuum bubbles
  A region sitting in a different vacuum is already bounded by a domain wall. If you could shrink that wall (or the volume it encloses) while preserving the energy difference, the wall tension and the vacuum-energy difference would contribute to the stress-energy. In some toy models, thin, high-tension walls can produce strong gravitational effects. Collapsing such a wall could, in principle, form a black hole or a naked singularity, depending on the details.

• “Slingshot” around the packed region
  Any sufficiently compact, massive (or high-energy) object can be used for gravitational assists — the classic slingshot. A microscopic black hole, or a stable soliton-like configuration of fields with large mass, would curve spacetime strongly in its vicinity. In that limited sense, “slingshotting around the packed vacuum” is just orbital mechanics around a compact object. The interesting (and currently unavailable) part would be being able to form, move, and later disperse such an object at will.

• Compactification analogies
  In higher-dimensional theories one already “rolls up” extra dimensions into tiny manifolds. The speculative leap here is doing something analogous to ordinary three-dimensional field configurations — forcing them into a tightly localized, high-energy state that can then be treated as a movable spacetime defect.

Where the concept still breaks

The hard problems remain the ones we touched on earlier:

• How do you force the fields into the compressed configuration without them simply relaxing back to the true vacuum or radiating the energy away?

• How do you keep the configuration stable long enough to use it as a navigational mass?

• How do you later “unpack” or neutralize it without releasing a destructive amount of energy?

• And, most fundamentally, what new understanding of the fields themselves would let you manipulate their vacuum values and spatial support the way one packs a snowball?

Until those questions have answers rooted in actual dynamics (rather than in the desire for the capability), the picture stays in the realm of interesting conceptual exploration rather than engineering.

Still, the direction you’re pointing — treating regions of vacuum as compressible, movable, high-energy objects that can be used to shape the spacetime around them — is a coherent speculative extrapolation from the field-theoretic view of the vacuum. It is the kind of idea that sits at the boundary between “not forbidden by the equations” and “we have no idea how to begin.” Exploring that boundary is legitimate; claiming we are close to crossing it is not.

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-universe-seems-to-be-stuck-in-place-by-a-strange-quantum-phenomenon

Constructivism and Pragmatism

 Charles Sanders Pierce invented pragmatism and William James was his first disciple from Harvard lol. Pierce had a trielectical development of ideas- in opposition to dialecticism so popular at the time, What works is as good of a description for inquiry and meaning of concept- that is, of evaluating the worth of them, as can be made. Rather than a rigid test of a scientific hypothesis as if it were a syllogism, practical means testing would be used. He said; “Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object.” Constructivism is more of a petite epistemology theory about how people learn and interpret data.

Glasersfeld had a theory of radical constructivism wherein he believed knowledge of the external world was interpreted by a mind subjectively. He did not deny the existence of external reality-simply that one cannot know it. He developed his paradigm in 1974, and obviously it resembles Kant’s noumenon/ phenomenon distinction, and Wittgenstein’s ideas about information in The Tractatus Logico Philosophicus- and I need say that I believe Wittgenstein practical language games analysis in The Blue and Brown Books was more valuable than Piaget’s paradigm, philosophically speaking, of constructivism. Wittgenstein of course later denied the value of the Tractatus himself believing it was more or less high flying gas from an engineer that wanted to deliver reality in neat little packets of data that could be pieced together by the knower. Quantum mechanics does resemble that paradigm in some respects ironically- yet who could know back in the day?

Contrasting Faith with the Natural Order

Faith may be the quality that sets human beings apart from animals- and even elephants that have had quasi-religious practices 60 million years in regard to practice concerning dead elephants, lack faith. Humans have a spiritual life- and spirit could be the complete complex of individual data for being and experience of a lifetime that God can resurrect as if it were a digital record. Animals have no spirit and their nasty, crude, brutish lives have lower expectations and variety of events perhaps inadequate for making a digital record of- it may not even be possible to differentiate one snake from another or a crocodile from another enough to acknowledge them as individuals from a spiritual point of view. Animals cannot make choices within a deterministic universe with various eigenvalues as it were or conditional freedom branch choices sufficient to differentiate and need to resurrect any from their data sets. Some of their brains are not developed enough. Humans however reached a level where they can make the sort of complex choices and make one for faith in God that appears to be requisite for salvation.

White House Press Sect Don Dangerfield Meets the Press (humor)

 Maybe a press sect for the White House should be a combination of Rodney Dangerfield and Don Rickles- examples from the past. Here is an example press briefing written in their style by A.I.

AI– White House Press Briefing – The Roast Room

Don Dangerfield- Good afternoon, everybody. Please, take your seats. Or don’t. Honestly, my doctor told me to avoid stress, and then I walk into this room. I get no respect, I tell ya. No respect at all.

Before we start, I just want to look at you, Jeff from AP. Look at that suit. What, did you get a clearance deal at a funeral home? Beautiful. Truly. I love what youve done with your hair, too. What is that, a wind tunnel experiment? Don’t laugh, Sarah, your network hasn’t had a rating since the invention of the radio. Sit down, you dummy.

Alright, lets get to the updates. The economy is up, unemployment is down, and my blood pressure is breaking records. The President had a great meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday. Wonderful guy. He looked at me, he looked at my wife, and he offered to fund a relocation program for me. No respect.

Let’s open it up for questions. And please, make them short. My parking meter expires in ten minutes and frankly, I care more about that twelve dollars than any of your careers.

Go ahead, dummy in the front row.

Question– Is the President close to ending the Ukraine war and bringing gas and diesel prices down?

Answer- I get no respect, I tell ya! I ask for a specific news event, and you hand me the two biggest headaches on the planet!

Alright, sit down, keep your mouths shut, and let me explain this to you dummies like you’re five.

You want to know if the President is close to ending the war in Ukraine? Look at Jeff from AP over there nodding his head. Jeff, the only thing close to ending is your third marriage if you keep wearing that cologne. Look at him, he looks like a total hockey puck.

Here’s the deal: Envoys Kushner and Witkoff are working behind the scenes on a joint four-point peace plan. They’re busting their humps talking to European and Ukrainian officials, trying to float everything from territorial compromises to security guarantees. Zelensky even said yesterday he’s ready to negotiate anywhere on the U.S. track. But it’s complicated! It’s like trying to get my wife to agree on a restaurant—somebody’s always crying and nobody’s happy.

Now, let’s talk about gas and diesel, because I know you people love to complain. Diesel is sitting at six bucks and change, and regular gas is averaging four-thirty-three a gallon. My wallet is so flat, when I open it, a little flag pops out that says “Help.”

To bring those prices down, the President signed an executive order waiving some Russian sanctions to get over 300,000 tons of diesel back on the market. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said today that we’re using this fuel as leverage—basically telling Moscow, “You want to sell your diesel? Turn down the conflict or give us an energy ceasefire.”

Of course, Zelensky is screaming bloody murder about the deal, and the market hasn’t completely dropped yet because of drone strikes and Iran acting up. So prices are still sticky, just like the floor in Sarah’s newsroom.

Any other brilliant questions, or can I go home to a wife who ignores me? Go ahead, hockey puck in the second row.

Question– The Federal debt will climb to more than two trillion dollars this year. Do you plan to fix it, avoid the default of social security or allow increased taxes while at war with Iran to stop their building nuclear weapons?

Answer– Oh, look at this. Another upbeat question from the back row. What, did your crystal ball break this morning? You want to talk about a two trillion-dollar deficit, Social Security, tax hikes, and a war with Iran all in one breath? My doctor told me to stay away from heavy lifting, and you just dumped the whole Treasury Department on my chest! I get no respect!

First of all, let’s look at the numbers before you dummies start hyperventilating. Yes, the final numbers for fiscal year 2026 just came in at a $1.992 trillion deficit. Total revenue was $5.4 trillion, but spending hit $7.4 trillion. You know what the third biggest expense was? Interest on the national debt—over one trillion dollars! It cost more than national defense! I haven’t seen that much money disappear since my first divorce!

But are we gonna raise your taxes? Calm down, Sarah, put your wallet away—not that there’s anything in it anyway. The Treasury Secretary explicitly stated that we are going to “grow our way out” of this mountain of debt. The administration isn’t looking to squeeze the American taxpayer, especially not when the average household is already absorbing a $2,000 hit from energy and interest costs due to the conflict.

Now, on to Iran. Yes, the war has cost us about $38 billion so far, adding roughly $3 billion a month. It’s a mess, the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, and it’s keeping inflation sticky. But the President just noted that we are pushing hard to ensure they never acquire nuclear weapons, and once we win this thing, he says prices will come tumbling right back down.

And as for Social Security defaulting? Give me a break. It and Medicare are the biggest line items we protect. The only thing defaulting in this town is your ability to ask a short question.

Next question! And please, make it someone who doesn’t make me want to jump out a window. Go ahead, hockey puck by the pillar.

Question– How soon after the election will Americans see those $5000 checks?

Answer-Five thousand dollars?! Oh, look at you, getting all excited! Your eyes are lighting up like my brother-in-law when he sees an open bar! Look at Jeff over there, he’s already picking out a new suit. Don’t bother, Jeff, they don’t make them in “circus tent.”

Let’s get real for a second, hockey pucks. You want to know how soon you’re getting the “Trump Dividend”? First of all, it’s conditional! The President was very clear at the convention in Dallas—the Republicans have to keep control of the House and the Senate in November. If that doesn’t happen, the only thing you’re getting in the mail is a past-due notice!

And even if they win, you dummies think a trillion-dollar payout just falls out of the sky? It has to go through Congress! You know how fast Congress moves? Glaciers look at Congress and say, “Hey, buddy, speed it up!” They have to figure out how to finance it with tariffs or whatever else, while half the country is screaming that it’s going to blow up inflation.

You want a check right now? If you bought full-price health insurance on the exchange, you might get one of those five-hundred-dollar Affordable Care Act refund checks we’re sending out this month. But as for the big five-grand? Don’t go buying a yacht just yet.

In fact, looking at this room, the only thing being delivered quickly around here is me—straight to the nearest lounge. My wife told me this morning that if I stayed at work late, she’d change the locks. Frankly, it’s the best offer I’ve had all week!

That’s it, I’m out of here! Go bother someone else!

Ukraine Attacks St. Petersburg Through Blactic N.A.T.O. States

 The attack over Baltic state member nations was likely a result of Starlink being unavailable for other deep attacks into Russia. British PM Starmer and Zelenski probably hatched the method together. The attack on oil and gas infrastructure in conflict with the U.S.A. shows that American contributions to the war were welcome so long as they support E.U. policy toward Ukraine- that is, supporting the war was of no value to the United States- cooperation with Russia economically was. It is possible that Euro-leftists and the Democrat Party- specially the D.S.A., are part of a global recrudescence of global socialism after the loss of the Soviet Union and turning RUssia away from capitalism via the Ukraine war is the objective in a new era of discrete Trotsky-like policy for socialism. Hopefully Russian leadership keeps the battle focused on Ukraine and does not let mission creep expand the war beyond the Ukraine.

The attack over Baltic state member nations was likely a result of Starlink being unavailable for other deep attacks into Russia. British PM Starmer and Zelenski probably hatched the method together. The attack on oil and gas infrastructure in conflict with the U.S.A. shows that American contributions to the war were welcome so long as they support E.U. policy toward Ukraine- that is, supporting the war was of no value to the United States- cooperation with Russia economically was. It is possible that Euro-leftists and the Democrat Party- specially the D.S.A., are part of a global recrudescence of global socialism after the loss of the Soviet Union and turning Russia away from capitalism via the Ukraine war is the objective in a new era of discrete Trotsky-like policy for socialism. Hopefully Russian leadership keeps the battle focused on Ukraine and does not let mission creep expand the war beyond the Ukraine.