Besides the Monoculture Flu, What Happens After Donald Trump Loses the Election?

Only one day left until the year's most consequential election, and while many still believe the result is essentially a toss-up, one of the naysayers to this accepted "fact" is none other than yours truly. Although I'd steadfastly held up until the debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump that the Democrat leader would ultimately prevail (but then admittedly wavered for some time after that disastrous debate), in these eyes it soon became apparent upon Kamala Harris' inheritance of the mantle that the leader of the Democrats would in fact once again win the presidency of the United States.

While I'll get to the reason(s) for that conclusion as well as the possible knock-on effects in a moment, I'll also point out that I simultaneously no longer believe that a second American civil war is unavoidably imminent. Much ink has been spilled on the topic and many-a-MAGA politician have essentially used its possibility as a threat, but while I'd read several books (such as the recent The Next Civil War by Stephen Marche and How Civil Wars Start by Barbara F. Walter) as well as read many articles, essays, and studies on the topic as well as watched a grand total of zero Hollywood blockbusters or even erudite documentaries about such an outcome, I recently decided to scrap my piece on a possible second American civil war due to reasons that appear to suggest that, even if some kind of chaos were to be incited, measures have been put in place and will be undertaken in order to ensure that the stability of the United States isn't put into jeopardy.

For the time being at least.

The giveaway for all this would be, as far as I see it, the manner – and timing – in which the current president of the United States, Joe Biden, decided to cease his efforts for a second term in office.

The avowed one-term president becomes a one-term president

If there's one word that encapsulates the media's portrayal of Biden's (supposed) reluctance to step down after his disastrous debate (and long after he'd stated in late-2019 that he'd only be a one-term president if elected), that'd be "stubborn". That his stubbornness stopping him from stepping down had turned him from a hero into a villain, that the United States may pay the price for his stubbornness, and that due to his stubbornness he wouldn't give up on the presidential race. Until he did.

Although it's generally believed that Biden dropped out of the race due to a pressure campaign waged by former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and other fellow Democratic elite operatives, the timing of his departure arguably gives away the likelihood that Biden's exit had in fact been pre-planned for several months and was executed when it was for maximum effect.

As you may recall, the 2024 Republican National Convention was held from Monday, July the 15^th to Thursday, July the 18^th, and it was just three days later, the day before the following week's news cycle, than Biden announced he was stepping down. Any wind the Republican's may have hoped to catch in their sails was completely muted thanks to the ensuing media craze emanating from Biden's decision, talk of prospective replacements, his quick endorsement of his vice-president Kamala Harris, the ensuing spectacle of Harris' ascendance, etc.

While Biden-cum-Harris' opponent is far from being a political wonk, Donald Trump is nonetheless a narcissistic political force bar none, someone upon which no scandal – no matter how outrageous – has proven capable of undoing and whose campaign comes from the highly advantageous position of being able to (largely baselessly) vilify the incumbent on a wide range of issues du jour: inflation, cost of living, the Ukraine war, etc. In effect, if the idea is to somehow (legally) defeat at the ballot box the force that is Donald Trump, then the approach of the Democrats must not necessarily be to play dirty, but to be ruthlessly cunning. In short, and for those lacking first-hand experience with individuals as such, when going up against a powerful narcissist that's able to get away with re-writing the rules on the fly, the most effective approach one can take is to do whatever one can to make sure they don't see you coming, even when you're blatantly standing right in front of them.

Say what you will about them, but Biden, Pelosi and other colleagues of theirs would most certainly be aware of this, and so would've not only timed Biden's exit with the completion of the Republican National Convention, but would've also orchestrated the operation with the specific purpose of diverting and ultimately draining the Trump campaign's resources on a candidate that wouldn't be the ultimate opponent. Moreover, the significantly shortened window of a three and a half month campaign by the all-but-guaranteed replacement candidate vice-president Harris would work in her favour due to her "youthfulness" and ability to quickly engage and galvanise an audience (which almost nobody, including yours truly, expected).

While switching the president-as-candidate for the vice-president-as-candidate is perfectly legal, it is nonetheless on the "devious" end of perfectly legal. That is, precisely the kind of thing one would not just want to undertake but would arguably have to undertake when going up against an adversary who is not only using the system to dismantle the system itself, but whose team tested the fences four years earlier and so is attempting to systematically subvert the electoral process.

None of this is to suggest that Harris would have had any prior knowledge of Biden's preordained withdrawal, which wouldn't even be strategically necessary. Because regardless of Biden's age, it'd of course be standard procedure to have contingency plans in place in case Biden were for whatever reason to become incapacitated and so unable to run again, necessitating a certain degree of preparedness for the launch of a Harris campaign. Similarly, the Trump campaign would have had – should have had – contingency plans for such an outcome as well. In other words, with very few people in the know (Biden, Pelosi, and just a handful of others, but not including Harris), the Democratic party would have been in an excellent position to pull off a last-minute "bait and switch" as it made a mad dash for the finish line while throwing into disarray the irascible – and heretofore leading in the polls – Donald Trump.

Yes, polls do show that races in several of the crucial swing states are neck and neck, but while that itself may be questionable, it's very possible that election results in a state or two could result in a "November surprise" (such as Iowa swinging in Harris' favour, and possibly the likes of... Florida... Texas... and even Kansas?). Meanwhile, just like Trump-confidant Steve Bannon suggested that oppositional media should "flood the zone with shit" in order to create widespread cynicism about the truth, erode the foundation of liberal democracy, and ultimately dismantle the status quo, it would seem that several GOP-leaning polls have similarly taken a page or two out of that book of Bannon's by creating a false narrative to give the impression that the election is essentially a toss-up if not in the bag for Trump.

But while the amount of male voters deceptively stating in front of their wives to pollsters and the like that they'll be voting for Harris (but will then secretly vote for Trump) is somewhat cancelled out by the amount of female voters deceptively stating in front of their husbands to pollsters and the like that they'll be voting for Trump (but will then secretly vote for Harris) as there is a large gender gap, unlike 2016 when many a Democrat-leaning voter held their nose and (secretly) voted for Trump, this time around the tables are turned and will see a sizeable amount of centre-right Republicans holding their noses and (secretly) voting for Harris. (This includes disaffected Nikki Haley supporters, women who will vote against anti-abortion candidates, centre-right Republicans granted the permission structure by the likes of Dick Cheney to vote Democrat, etc.) As stated by former Republican congresswoman and co-chair of the congressional committee that investigated the January 6 attack, Liz Cheney, on the topic of "shy Harris voters who would rather not share their views publicly",

If you're at all concerned, you can vote your conscience and not ever have to say a word to anybody and there will be millions of Republicans who do that on November 5.

Which is a sentiment being taken to heart by many. As stated by a Republican Pennsylvanian farmer on no less than Fox News, there's no shortage of Republicans that will be publicly, if not secretly, voting for Harris on or before November 5^th, but who are keeping quiet due to possible political and professional repercussions.

I think a lot of Republicans are scared of retribution and repercussion from the Trump people, and so when they get into vote I think a lot of Republicans are gonna vote Harris just for the sake of democracy. They may not like to do that, but the alternative is much, much worse.

Moreover, following pollsters having gotten the 2016 election results horribly wrong by underestimating Donald Trump, and then overestimating Biden's win in 2020, there's a good chance that in their attempt to correct for past mistakes that pollsters have over-corrected in Trump's favour. In other words, many polls suggesting that the election is currently "neck and neck" are quite possibly over-correcting for Trump and missing out on Harris' slight – if not significant – lead.

All in all, it's safe to say that Harris is not only going to win the election, but is likely to win it comfortably. Were this scenario to come to fruition, an outcome as such would by extension then largely inform the outcomes of a possible contested election and attempt at civil war, Elon Musk's status, Trump's court cases, as well as the Ukraine war.

But the Monoculture Flu? Well, that's one outcome that – no matter who gets into office – will be equally coming soon to the air in a theatre near you.

The civil war that wasn't

While a Harris win is seen by yours truly as being all but in the bag, the manner and timing in which Biden stepped down should not only be seen as an indication of the Democrats' intention to do what it takes to (legally) defeat Trump at the ballot box, but also of their preponderance to war game and contemplate strategies for the most wildest of scenarios, all in order to stymie any sort of repeat of January 6^th, 2021. Because yes, the calls for a coup, civil war, civil unrest, whatever you want to call it, are being drummed up from all corners of the MAGA world, including by political commentator Tucker Carlson (who was recently described by Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau – under oath – as being funded by Russian propaganda outlet RT in the goal of destabilising democracies).

For starters, throughout this election Trump and many of his co-conspirators have continued with the years-long approach of attempting to sow doubt amongst Americans about the electoral process, the goal being to provide the opportunity of contesting the result in light of a potential loss. This can be seen via Trump's repeated mention of the upcoming election being "rigged" (as he's recently stated about Pennsylvania) and that the only way he could lose is if Democrats cheat (which can also be interpreted as a sign that he knows he's going to lose).

The second step – the holding pattern portion – will be to declare victory on election night before all the votes are counted (as Trump did four years ago), while simultaneously continuing to push bogus narratives about a stolen election.

The third step – the informational warfare portion – will see Musk and his propagandists (never mind all the Russian bots) amplify those lies on Twitter, the purchase of Twitter having always been to take control of the information sphere in order to amplify the far-right as well as sway the electorate in the direction of Trump's campaign.

The fourth step – the kinetic warfare portion – will see Trump supporters flock to voting precincts in the attempt to intimidate election officials, delay the count, and otherwise do whatever's necessary to overwhelm the process, cause chaos (possibly with violence), and cast doubt on the results.

The fifth step – the lawfare portion – will see the Trump administration attempt to initiate frivolous lawsuits in the attempt to usurp the will of the people.

There's no doubt that Democrats (and their aligned Republican colleagues) as well as various institutions of the US government are ready for most – if not all – of those steps.

From the legal standpoint, Democratic Party elections lawyer Marc Elias and his colleagues have been filing dozens of lawsuits against the GOP's efforts to suppress the vote via his law firm Elias Law Group, efforts that have been covered by the website Elias also founded, Democracy Docket, as well as via an ongoing series of interviews conducted by political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen, Democracy Watch.

Security-wise, a repeat of January 6^th, 2021 is by no means on the cards, thanks to the certification of the presidential vote being declared – for the first time ever – a "national special security event". This designation places it on the level of the Super Bowl or U.N. General Assembly, and comes via recommendation by the January 6 select committee that investigated Trump's effort to subvert the 2020 election. Although not as involved, similar measures will have been undertaken for state capitols across the country as they seek to certify their own electors.

Likewise, preparations have been made for various polling locations that will be outfitted with snipers on roofs, metal detectors and security at entrances, bulletproof glass, drones for surveillance, law enforcement in bulletproof vests, security cameras, panic buttons so election workers can quickly contact authorities in an emergency, and more.

Suffice to say, anybody threatening the election itself or the peaceful transfer of power, particularly with violence, will at the very least be looking at a significant jail term, as many have discovered following their January 6^th, 2021 antics.

Yes, there's many other avenues that the MAGA party will attempt to follow through on in their attempt to subvert the election (of which, again, Democrats and their aligned Republican colleagues will be prepared for), too many that it'd be too much to outline here. (For example, the attempt to have a contingent election whereby the election is decided based on House delegations, where Republicans currently have a majority. One response in this case suggests Democrats would need to control the House, which by extension means that Democrats and those aligned need to work on getting out the vote, as they've been doing.)

While it's possible that the election could be wrapped up by the evening of the 5^th, if not by the next day, it's also possible that a final result may not arise for days, if not weeks. If that's the case, it remains to be seen what, if anything, Elon Musk – who spent (some might say blew) $44bn on the purchase of Twitter in the name of "free speech" – will do with the platform upon Trump's expected loss. Already he's transformed the platform into a propaganda machine, bombarding his 200m+ followers with nearly 3.3bn impressions about election security, the majority of those posts containing misleading or false statements (more on this in the next section).

Having set the stage, will Musk incite, via Twitter, some form of rebellion amongst the United States' coterie of "incels" (involuntary celibates), crypto cultists, self-styled AI experts, would-be pick-up artists, and wannabe "alphas" upon Trump's loss? And if so, will the United States federal government sit back and let it happen, or will it block access to Twitter across the country as Brazil recently did?

We'll now take a look at that, as well as at the individual not only known as a multibillionaire tech entrepreneur, but as a product of apartheid era South Africa.

Elon Musk: Vladimir Putin's presidential surrogate

For starters, it should be understood that Donald Trump isn't running in the federal election in order to become president for another four years. In light of all the court cases brought against him as well as the felony charges he's already been found guilty of, the fact of the matter is that he's running in order to stay out of prison. Along with an attorney general who, after being appointed by a victorious Trump, would put an end to any federal cases brought against the once-again president (as Trump admitted to just days ago), the recent Supreme Court ruling that effectively places presidents above the law means that any state-level cases brought against Trump would be appealed all the way up to the federal Supreme Court and be subsequently quashed by the judiciary, a judiciary in which no less that three of its judges were appointed by Trump himself and which heavily leans Republican, if not MAGA.

More realistically, the individual running to be president for the long-term isn't Trump, but rather his vice-president J.D. Vance (replete with his alarming techno-authoritarian background). In a sense. That's because Vance is perhaps better understood as being a surrogate for "tech broligarch" Peter Thiel (who funded Vance's 2022 Senate run to the tune of a record $15m) and, by extension, other members of the "PayPal Mafia" (particularly Elon Musk and David Sacks, who along with Thiel are all a product of apartheid era South Africa) and the techno-authoritarian (and genocidal) Curtis Yarvin. Vance was, after all, hand-picked by Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk, both of whom then lobbied Trump to choose Vance as his running mate. Not because Vance would be the ideal candidate to uphold Trump's MAGA (and Project 2025) agenda, but because he'd be Musk's, Thiel's and Yarvin's ideal surrogate for their techno-authoritarian, techno-fascist agenda.

It would be expected then that Trump, upon his hoped-for victory, would either voluntarily step down in short order (and receive a pardon) or that he'd be removed via invocation of the 25^th Amendment (whose application wouldn't be much of a stretch considering the ongoing deterioration of Trump's cognitive functions), resulting in what author and investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr has described as "a new super-class of broligarchs" that would ultimately be in charge of the United States federal government. Foremost among those broligarchs would be Elon Musk.

Tech broligarchs are lining up to court Trump. And Vance is one more link in the chain

Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, a longtime backer of the new vice-president pick, are among those pledging support

The GuardianCarole Cadwalladr

Probably the first thing that should be pointed out is that following journalist Bob Woodard's recent reporting in his new book that Trump has had as many as seven private phone calls with Russian "president" Vladimir Putin since leaving office, a more recent revelation was made by The Wall Street Journal, one that described Elon Musk as having partaken in several secret conversations with Putin since late-2022. Which raises several concerns.

While conversations between the two are said to have ranged from the personal to the geopolitical, the implications of a secret channel of communication between Musk and Putin are of most concern due to Musk's government contracts and high-level security clearance to classified US information due to his ownership of the tech company SpaceX (which launches not only Starlink satellites but also US national security satellites). Also concerning is that fact that Musk runs one of the world's largest and most influential social media platforms, Twitter-cum-X, which under his watch has increasingly become a vehicle for Russian disinformation campaigns and one of the main sources of Russian propaganda.

Along with regurgitating Kremlin talking points about the war, in October of 2022 Musk tweeted a "Ukraine-Russia Peace" plan that largely reflected Moscow's positions, positions that would see Ukraine drop plans for NATO membership and give Russia permanent control of Crimea (which it seized in 2014). In one instance Putin asked Musk to avoid activating his Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan as a favour to Chinese President Xi Jinping. Likewise, in September of 2022 Musk hampered the defence of Ukraine by restricting Ukrainian military operatives from using Starlink terminals to guide sea drones to attack a Russian naval base in Crimea, while on the other hand Musk has effectively assisted Russia with its continued launch of cruise missiles against civilian targets in Ukraine via usage of Starlink, both of which align perfectly with Russian interests.

The contact between Musk and Putin probably goes back even further, as according to investigative journalist Dave Troy, Musk "convinced Dana Rohrabacher, a libertarian with strong ties to Putin, to draft a bill that would enable Musk to ultimately privatise a large chunk of the US space program. Again, Musk is a made man."

Thanks to SpaceX and Starlink playing key roles in US defence and intelligence and the revelation that Musk has been chatting it up with Putin since 2022, it'd by no means be an exaggeration to state that the American national security system is broken. With Musk's $132 million backing of Trump's election run and an open question of how deep Musk's ties to both Trump and Putin go, Democratic lawmakers as well as NASA administrator Bill Nelson have called for an investigation into the regular contact that Musk has had with Putin.

As if all that weren't enough, where Musk's fealty to Putin really becomes a large concern is via Musk's recently revealed and admitted intention to crash the US economy via his role in a Trump administration. As has been extensively written on since 2021 by investigative journalist Dave Troy, this would be primarily accomplished by defaulting on the US federal debt and by undermining the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, all in a fascist bid to destroy the US and EU administrative states.

Peter Thiel and the American Apocalypse

Between the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race, and the rapid coalescence around Kamala Harris as the presumptive Democratic nominee, everyone’s rushing to…

Washington Spectator Dave Troy

The crash of the US economy would be a precursor to a global economic collapse and facilitate the goal of destroying national governments, an outcome that would remake the global order and set the stage for Russian expansionism. As investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed has explained,

The end goal of this is to make national currencies ultimately irrelevant, paving the way for a pro-Putin “patchwork” – to quote Peter Thiel's acolyte Curtis Yarvin – of techno-autocratic regimes enriched by Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies while eroding democratic checks and balances.

American Carnage: The Musk-Trump Plan for Total Collapse

A systems lens suggests a quarter of GDP could evaporate on a pathway to violent civil unrest, concentration camps, and genocidal violence that would be a free gift to Putin

Byline TimesNafeez Ahmed

To add fuel to the fire, following Musk's dubious pledge to give away $1m a day to someone who signs his online free-speech and gun-rights petition in an apparent bid to incentivise Republicans in battleground states to register to vote (of which allegedly violates Pennsylvania's laws against illegal lotteries), Musk skipped the hearing that a judge had ordered him to attend. To Musk's fortune the case was moved to federal court in response to a motion filed by Musk's attorneys, which if not would have resulted in him being held in contempt of court. A day later the presiding US district judge remanded the case back to state court, suggesting Musk would once again be ordered to appear in court. He of course won't attend, implying that he might be subject to a bench warrant. Having gone all in, Musk probably assumes that were Trump to win that all his problems would just go away, while if Harris wins, well, he'll probably just pull out more of his delay tactics due to him thinking – like Trump – that he's above the law.

To then top it all off, a Washington Post investigation, published just two days after the Wall Street Journal's piece on Musk's dalliances with Putin, revealed that in 1995 Musk had worked illegally in the US after quitting school, an allegation that was then contrasted with the South African multibillionaire's anti-immigration views. With legal experts mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article stating that foreign students can't drop out of school in order to start up a company, even if they're not getting paid, legal experts consulted for a subsequent article in Wired stated that if Musk lied as part of his immigration process that he could in fact be exposed to criminal prosecution and even have his US citizenship revoked.

Suffice to say, with the amount of transgressions that Musk has undertaken over the past few years and even decades (we haven't even touched upon the way in which Tesla's stock price was potentially manipulated back in 2020, its overinflated stock enabling Musk to purchase Twitter and then use that to boost extremism, erode democracy, and potentially win the 2024 US election), it would by no means be hyperbolic to suggest that Musk should be thoroughly investigated, charged, and given due process. If found guilty, he should be jailed and have his citizenship revoked.

‘Musk’s Twitter Buy Makes No Sense – Unless It’s Part of Something Bigger’

Brexit and Trump were initially seen as jokes, but the new owner of the social media giant could pose a serious threat to democracy – and a boon for Vladimir Putin, writes David Troy

Byline TimesDavid Troy

As Troy has noted, "Many observers think Musk has violated, variously: the Logan Act, securities law, election laws, the Sedition Act, and possibly committed fraud and racketeering." To which can be added incitement to violence, possession of controlled substances, and even threatening a sitting vice-president.

Because as should be remembered, not only has Musk recently revived conspiracy theories about voting machines, but he recently "joked" in a tweet that no one has tried to assassinate Biden or Harris (which attracted the attention of the Secret Service), which after deleting the tweet he then "joked" about again for a second time and then a third time.

It should go without saying that with Musk's quite obvious belief that he's above the law, he won't stop doing so until he's physically detained. Although history has shown that the rich are often able to evade consequences for their actions, that certainly shouldn't be the case when said individual has been overtly trying to overthrow the government and, in the United States' case, violate the Constitution. For as Troy has also stated, "We must dismantle Musk's empire before he and Putin together dismantle the United States."

To reiterate, none of what has been written above is by any means hyperbolic. In fact, if we need some kind of verification that Musk is quite likely deserving of a prison sentence, well, then we really should listen to none other than Elon Musk himself.

It should be clear that a Democrat win in this election will by no means imply that much of what has been written about above will suddenly become fixed. Yes, the Department of Justice needs to prosecute Musk. But likewise, X, Starlink and SpaceX also need to be dealt with, which would arguably require their nationalisation. Likewise, the crypto-sphere also needs to be dealt with, possibly by taxing it to high heaven in order to disincentivize the crypto capture being attempted upon the government.

Otherwise, while it remains to be seen whether the law will ever catch up with Musk or if it'll continue to regard him as being too big to fail and too important to fire (and to revoke his security clearance), with the MAGA party not expected to win the election there remains the very real possibility that although Musk may not end up behind bars (but here's to hoping!), a colleague of his may very well end up in that unenvious position.

The heinous hometown hero

There's obviously so much that can be written about Donald Trump's various court cases, but the only one that need be touched on here, and very superficially at that, is the Manhattan hush money trial in which he was tried for sending payment to a porn star in the attempt to hide salacious information from voters to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.

In short, while being found guilty on all 34 felony charges on May 30^th of this year, his sentencing was subsequently scheduled for July 11^th. But because of the aforementioned Supreme Court immunity ruling, on July 2^nd the judge in the case, Juan Merchan, decided to postpone the sentencing to September 18^th so that he could consider Trump's request to toss his conviction based on the new stipulations. But come September 6^th Merchan further delayed the sentencing to November 26^th, stating that he wanted to "avoid any appearance – however unwarranted – that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching Presidential election."

Being a 78-year-old first-time felon convicted of a nonviolent crime, it's possible that Trump could be sentenced to nothing more than probation, a fine, or a conditional discharge. However, with his election loss by then three weeks in the past come sentencing time, and thus any conflict with a second term in office rendered null and void, it's quite possible that Trump could be sentenced to time behind bars. More specifically, having displayed throughout the trial a brazen disrespect for courtroom decorum and the broader rule of law (resulting in the judge citing him for contempt), it's possible that Trump could be handed down a four year sentence.

While the question of whether Trump will win or lose the election is an easy one to decipher (repeat: he's gonna lose), it's virtually impossible to parse whether or not he'll actually receive a jail sentence, be it in the hush money trial or any of his subsequent trials yet to be scheduled. Those interested in seeing justice served can take some solace in the fact that, as The New York Times relays, judge Merchan once warned a defendant's lawyers that he "did not believe that white-collar criminals deserved special treatment or light sentences". Meanwhile, in a fraud case that Merchan presided over and in which the guilty party received nearly the maximum sentence, The New York Post quoted Merchan as stating "This was not a crime of need. This was clearly a crime of greed."

So while many an American (and non-American) may breathe a collective sigh of relief were Trump to receive a jail sentence in less than a month's time, and putting aside Trump's expected appeal as well as the possibility of further jail sentences (and further appeals) emanating from Trump's subsequent trials, years of inaction and a lack of results justice-wise are enough to make one question whether or not Trump would just skip the country were he to actually receive a jail sentence. Because just as narcissists like Trump are incapable of admitting defeat and incapable of admitting to being wrong, it's not hard to imagine that Trump would be incapable of accepting a jail sentence and so would seek shelter in a foreign land.

Where might Trump try to escape to? Russia would of course top many a list, but the way in which a move as such would lay bare his collusion with Russia for all to see would probably strike it off the list. Hungary and the hospitality provided by its Russia-aligned prime minister Viktor Orbán might be a plausible second choice, but the fact that Hungary has an extradition treaty with the US might make this proposition untenable. Otherwise, according to a more-than-half-serious late-2020 Maclean's article entitled "Where might Donald Trump run, in a bid to avoid prison?", the country receiving the top marks is the United Arab Emirates, Dubai in particular. The country has no extradition treaty with the US, and with it basically being a slave state in which they bring in people from other countries to do most of their work, well, it'd certainly be very on-brand for Trump.

Hanging Ukraine out to dry... no longer?

If there's one thing that much of the world is thoroughly tired of by now, that'd be the greatest spectacle in the land of spectacles itself, otherwise known as the US federal election. While federal elections in many countries often take between a month or two, add up the US mid-term elections with the primaries that commence almost two years before the actual federal election (so that candidates can start raising and spending money for their nationwide campaigns) and it's no exaggeration to say that the country spends roughly half its time in an anxiety-ridden electioneering state.

So while many people around the world (and probably in the US as well) would love it if the US could just wrap up the whole thing in a few months' time and get on with actually governing, what's most concerning is the manner in which large parts of the world can be put on hold while it waits for the result(s) of American elections to come in. Those most concerned this time around would be Ukrainians, as well as all those worried about its future and what its future portends for the future of other nations.

In short, it's no exaggeration to say that Ukraine's war against Russian authoritarian invaders has been an utter embarrassment for the West, which otherwise regards itself as a champion and beacon of democratic values. Because while Russia has spent nearly three years inflicting unspeakable horrors against Ukrainians while unleashing its scorched-earth policies – perfected in places like Syria and Chechnya – upon Ukrainian territory, NATO signatories and other allied countries have essentially tied one hand behind Ukraine's back as they contribute just enough resources to keep Ukraine from losing, but not enough for it to actually win.

Ukraine's scant resources and manpower (in comparison to Russia's) are continuously being attritted away, the country perpetually losing more people and more of its land due to a years-long reluctance of major Western allies to provide – or even allow the usage of – the needed materiel. What the West does end up supplying is often too little too late due to the West's indecisiveness and the manner in which it's fallen prey to the bluff and bluster of Russia's faux red lines and its nuclear blackmail.

With a lack of decisiveness and a proclivity to empty sloganeering ("we're with Ukraine for as long as it takes", without actually defining what "it takes" is or what the strategic objectives are), the West is increasingly looking like a joke. It's endlessly engaged in a mindset of de-escalation, which is probably better understood as a refusal to engage in deterrence. When it announces (to Russia) what actions it won't take and which weapons it won't use, it's essentially giving Russia free reign to do what suits it best.

Shying away from taking action due to said faux red lines and threats to use nuclear weaponry, the West is not only effectively signing Ukraine's death warrant, but it's essentially giving notice to the rest of the world that it (most specifically the US) can't be counted on for assistance in the time of need. Rather than preventing an imaginary nuclear strike by Russia, it's instead setting the world on a path of nuclear proliferation as countries come to the conclusion that with no ally expected to come to their assistance, that they'll be left to fend for themselves and so must attain their own supply of nuclear weapons. Sweden and Finland could be early adopters of nuclear weaponry, as could Poland and Romania, Germany, Turkey, Japan and South Korea, to name just a few. Likewise, if the West is unwilling to commit to assist in the establishment of peace in Ukraine, then it's hard to imagine what other option Ukraine will see for itself than to establish its own nuclear umbrella, as Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently pointed out to Trump.

So while NATO signatories and its allies dilly dally and argue amongst themselves about whether such and such missiles can be used, how many kilometres they can be launched into Russia, whether troops can be sent into Ukraine for training purposes, and so forth, Russia continues its escalation, most recently seen via North Korea's direct participation in the war via supply of 10,000 soldiers, furthering the West's appearance as a laughing stock.

What needs to be understood is that Russia, effectively a mafia state, is essentially running an extortion racket with its nuclear blackmail. And just like the person who gets their lunch money stolen by the bully, if one repeatedly gives in, and/or has nobody willing to stand up for them, the bully continuously comes back not only for repeated hits of lunch money, but for more than lunch money.

If the idea truly is to ensure that Ukraine prevails, that democratic systems aren't snuffed out in yet another (Eastern European) country, and that Russia doesn't continue on this path of invading westwards, there appears to be but three generally accepted pathways for instigating Russia's defeat: (1) a popular uprising of Russians who overthrow the government, (2) an economic crash which results in Putin's ouster by Russia's oligarchs, and (3) a military defeat of Russia by a Western-backed Ukraine. We'll take them in order, which also happens to be the order of going from the least likely to the more likely.

Starting off with the idea of a popular uprising of Russians that overthrow the government, there is zero chance of this happening. Not only do replacements of Russian governments typically occur at the hands of other oligarchs rather than by those of the people, but the current security apparatus in Russia is so dominant that any uprising would be quickly snuffed out.

The second pathway to Russia's defeat is via an economic crash, an outcome that would result in various oligarchs fighting amongst themselves to attain the throne. This would result in much infighting, as in order for an oligarch to make sure that they attain the throne before another oligarch does, and then don't lose it shortly after attaining it due to jealous competitors who may very well fear for their lives, many an oligarch may eliminate many an oligarch.

Inciting economic calamity in Russia appears to be the West's preferred approach for nearly three years now, most specifically via sanctions. Although sanctions are said to work, albeit with time, there's little indication that they've actually had a significant effect on Russia's campaign against Ukraine. Yes, there are economic problems occurring in Russia: inflation is officially said to be 8.4% (although John Hopkins professor of applied economics Steve Hanke estimates that it's actually 27%); to fight inflation the Russian central bank has raised the interest rate to 21%, the highest it's been since 2003; some banks are requiring a 50% down payment for buying properties; etc. Combining the fact that Russians routinely put 50% of their income of their income towards food (compared to roughly 15% in the West) with a housing bubble that has been created by bad fiscal policies and the government giving out cheap loans for property, it's said by many that Russia is on the brink of catastrophe.

To make matters worse, although oil is currently bouncing around the $70-$80 range (and Russia is said to need a price of $72 to balance its budget), a Wall Street Journal article from earlier this month warned that the price of oil could drop to $50 a barrel due to Saudi Arabia's displeasure with other OPEC+ members not sticking to their quotas in order to raise the price to $100. The idea would be for Saudi Arabia to flood the market with oil in order to make their small competitors feel the resultant economic pain of cheap oil prices, possibly resulting in them being forced out of OPEC+. This process would supposedly also result in Russia having to devalue the ruble in order to balance its budget, causing even further economic chaos and then one day – one day! – resulting in a collapse of the Russia economy and in turn Putin's ouster.

Not only is that a lot riding on what is actually a supposedly refuted notion that oil will be forced down to $50 a barrel, but we've been hearing for months, if not years, that Russia's economy is on the verge of collapse. Are we to continue believing that if just one more sanction is implemented and enforced, if we just wait one more month or year, that Russia's economy will collapse, Putin will be replaced, a new oligarch-cum-"president" will come to power, and the Russian army will be recalled from Ukrainian territory?

That's a lot of wishful thinking.

With all that in mind it's unfortunately looking like the third pathway is the only viable option, that of a military defeat of Russia by a thoroughly Western-backed Ukraine. If so, what's needed is an actual strategy for defeating Russia in Ukraine, something that may require not appealing to our better angels of rendering assistance (as important as that is), but of acting out of self-interest. Yes, rendering assistance because we're nice, because we dislike dictators, because we dislike the theft of another country's land, etc., is valiant and all. Problem is, none of that seems to be working, and is accomplishing little more than the bleeding out of Ukraine. Conversely, what may be missing, as crass as it may sound, is for various nation-states to take a hard look at the trajectory that this war is taking, understand what it portends for their future, and in turn act out of crass self-interest. If such an approach were taken, it's quite possible that a significantly different tack than the sloganeering of "as long as it takes" would be taken, which could very well accomplish what those empty words repeatedly pontificate about.

What's needed then is the provision of assistance to Ukraine so that serious cost is imposed upon the Russians in the goal of allowing Ukraine to negotiate from strength. The provision of more war planes in order to establish air superiority; the allowance to fire long-range ATACMS as well as Storm Shadow and Scalp (and possibly even Taurus) missiles deep into Russia in order to strike air defence batteries, logistical nodes, command and control centres, fuel and ammunition depots, tank and ammunition manufacturing facilities, and more; possibly even the downing of the Kerch Bridge as well as some form of boots on the ground in order to match North Korea's contribution, providing defensive assistance so that more Ukrainians can be freed for the front lines.

If there's one glimmer of hope that Ukrainians and those in Eastern Europe (who are plausibly next in line for Russian invasion after Ukraine) can latch on to, that'd be that perhaps the reason why the US has refrained from providing and allowing the usage of more sophisticated weaponry (such as long-range ATACMS), and why the US has also stopped France and England from supplying Ukraine with the usage of long-range Scalp and Storm Shadow missiles (which rely on the US for parts and/or for guidance) is because Biden and the Democratic party couldn't risk a slip-up in the war of which could effectively hand the US election to Trump. Yes, the short-term gains could have been beneficial for Ukraine, but if the few short-term gains were followed up by Trump in office then in all likelihood Ukraine would be forced to capitulate to Russia on completely unfair terms, possibly erasing any and all gains that had been previously made. However, with a Harris win just around the corner, and thus the threat of Trump's capitulation to Russia gone, it's theoretically possible that the gloves are about to come off. Because come November 6^th or January 21^st or sometime around then, the US may very well rescind the restrictions it's imposed upon itself as well as upon fellow NATO allies regarding assistance towards Ukraine.

Or not. Because while the US could do those things in an attempt for an all-out victory over Russia, it may very well continue with the "as long as it takes" sloganeering. Restricted to current supplies, as well as to the restrictions on the utilisation of those supplies, an all-out victory that would return Ukraine to its 1991 borders (as Zelenskyy has outlined) is just as unlikely as an all-out victory for Russia (as Putin has outlined). Supposing the US continues its reluctance to fully support Ukraine and/or restricts others to (which may soon no longer be the case as the Pentagon has stated that the US would place no new restrictions on Ukraine's use of American weapons were Russia to escalate the conflict by having North Korean troops join the war), the million dollar question is: What alternate pathway might Ukraine and its (so far sheepish) allies take, to bring this war to an end, to the benefit of invaded Ukraine?

One rumour that's been bandied about lately is that Ukraine would be partitioned, roughly along current lines. This idea supposedly has the secret backing of Zelenskyy, but only on the condition that Ukraine be fast-tracked into NATO (and the European Union). This would leave Ukraine with the security to re-build the roughly 75% of the country that'd remain in its hands, while leaving the other heavily-mined and otherwise largely destroyed 25% in Russia's hands, thus requiring Russia to foot the bill for its reconstruction (supposing the area wasn't just left to fester). Were Putin to not agree to such a deal, he'd theoretically risk the possibility that while Russia runs out of its Soviet-ear stock of materiel in late-2025 or early-2026, and increasingly runs into economic turmoil, that Ukraine gets permission to carry out long-range missile attacks into Russia, that it gets a significant increase in its supply of F-16 war planes, and more.

But is such a deal likely to come about, supposing it's even true? Probably not. Along with German chancellor Olaf Scholz having reiterated the other day that no country can join NATO while it's at war, currently zero NATO signatory countries have shown any willingness to stick their neck out on Ukraine's behalf, suggesting that none of these countries would want to be compelled to do so in light of NATO's Article 5 agreement.

Might Ukraine simply agree to a ceasefire along current lines, without any kind of NATO and/or EU promise? Again unlikely. As it stands, millions of Ukrainian women and children have fled the country, many of them being the wives and children of current soldiers. Were the war to be brought to an end, martial law – restricting men between the ages of 18-60 from leaving the country – would be rescinded, resulting in not just some of those women and children returning home, but conversely many of the decommissioned soldiers deciding to leave Ukraine to be with their families abroad. This break in the war would provide Russia with an excellent opportunity to rebuild its supplies and manpower, and with Ukraine now hampered by a significantly decreased populace and most crucially a denuded army, Russia would be in an ideal position to rekindle its invasion in two or three years time.

To add fuel to the fire, a subsequent invasion would result in more Ukrainian refugees fleeing westwards, placing more strain on the resources of other European countries and in turn all but surely inflaming the xenophobic cries of the insurgent far-right. Those that remained in Ukraine would be reconciled to fighting a losing war, Russian occupation not simply being a geopolitical land grab, but also resulting in the erasure of Ukrainian identity – culturally, ethnically and historically, Ukraine subsumed into Russia and destroyed as a distinct national and cultural identity. The eventual defeat and subjugation of Ukrainians would result in their conscription into the Russian army (as some in occupied areas in the east have reportedly already been) to invade other European countries, small and ineffectual pockets of guerilla warfare likely being the only form of resistance left.

In effect, with a freezing of current lines and a promise of rapid accession into NATO ruled out, with a ceasefire inclusive of no security guarantees ruled out, and with the possibility of ramped up contributions by the US and the rest of NATO upon Trump's defeat questionable, another option is needed if the invasion of Ukraine is to be somehow brought to and end, in favour of the country being illegally invaded and having a genocide inflicted upon them.

Although there's no option that can accomplish a rapid victory for Ukraine (save China ordering Russia to retreat, which is not going to happen), it's nonetheless possible that a hybrid of the aforementioned three options may somehow prove fruitful, a kind of "West German" option for NATO membership. Not a static nor ever-shifting border, but provisional borders. Not a blanket security guarantee from NATO, but a kind of growing security guarantee as circumstances permit. Something that wouldn't necessarily allow Ukraine to prevail in the short-term, but prevail nonetheless.

A variant of this "West German" option has been suggested in a piece by Dr. Jade McGlynn (author and research fellow in the War Studies Department at King's College London) entitled "Ukraine: A Safe Haven on the Road to Victory".

A Safe Haven on the Long Road to Victory

In recent weeks, the discussion of providing Ukraine with a ‘West German’ option for NATO membership has intensified.

Jade’s SubstackJade McGlynn

In short, the strategy would entail an incremental, regional approach in which parts of Ukraine, beginning with those distant from the border-zone conflict areas, would be provided bilateral air defence sanctuaries in which individual member states could commit to defending, avoiding escalation while simultaneously allowing these areas the ability to attract investment and the opportunity to rebuild. Meanwhile, areas outside the Safe Haven zone would be provided with long-term military, defensive, economic, and humanitarian commitments from NATO, areas in which Ukraine and Russia would continue their fighting.

The Safe Haven strategy would not equate to NATO membership nor entail any Article 5 guarantees, yet would nonetheless affirm in Ukrainians that their sacrifices aren't being made in vain and in turn affirm their decision to align with the West. The strategy would ultimately apply to all of Ukraine, the staggered implementation expanding to more regions when conditions permit, in the process reducing escalatory reactions.

One clear advantage is that Russia would have no involvement with negotiations and so couldn't play any kind of spoiler role. Likewise, NATO countries might find the strategy to their liking as the gradual accession would permit their influence of Ukrainian politics.

McGlynn points out this kind of bespoke NATO membership isn't without historical precedent, pointing to the manner in which Norway joined NATO in 1949. Sharing a direct border with Russia (then the Soviet Union), it imposed restrictions upon itself: no deployment of atomic weapons, no military exercises near the border, and no foreign troops during times of peace. All of which could be adapted in one way or another for Ukraine. Although Ukraine of course wouldn't be concerned with angering Moscow, restraints as such could nonetheless reassure NATO allies with a proclivity towards restraint.

As McGlynn puts it, "The Safe Haven strategy is the worst option, except for all the others."

The Safe Haven strategy is flawed and deeply unfair: Ukraine deserves all its territory back and for its people to live in peace. Ideally, the West would provide Ukraine with everything it needs to defeat Russia and dismantle its ideology, ultimately benefiting Russia as well. However, this is politically unlikely.

McGlynn's Safe Haven strategy isn't, of course, the be all and end all of strategies that might galvanise a renewed vigour and assistance from Ukrainian allies, McGlynn pointing out herself that "There are other such strategies out there related to air defence zones. [...] Their strategies are almost inevitably better than mine." Nonetheless, I mention McGlynn's strategy here as it addresses some of the roadblocks holding back a concerted Western response to what in one way or another (excluding nuclear) needs to be a Ukrainian victory.

But while the right planning and strategising can – and if recent events are a good indication, will – thwart Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans from using violence to steal the election and re-enter the White House, and while the right planning and strategising can – but only plausibly, might – enable Ukrainians to defeat and push Russia out of Ukraine, there's another situation that will be emerging some time after Donald Trump loses the election, one that all signs indicate is not being – and will not be – adequately planned for, and which in its own way will unleash its own variant of chaos around the world.

You can’t vote out – nor defeat with NATO-backing – the non-partisan Monoculture Flu

I don't say this in a partisan kind of way, but it's no secret that Donald Trump can say some really dumb shit from time to time. To the surprise of many he can however have something worthwhile to contribute every now and then, even though it's generally in the "even a broken clock is right two times a day" kind of way. One of these instances came about when he threatened to refuse assistance to European NATO countries that didn't pay their "fair share" on defence spending, an expenditure that's turned out to be particularly necessary now that Russia is knocking on Europe's doorstep. (As a side note, with the total population of all European NATO countries [excluding Hungary, Slovakia and Austria] being nearly four times as much as Russia's, there's very little reason why Europe shouldn't be winning the war against Russia, without any assistance from the US required.)

Another one of these "broken clock" instances, although not fully correct, is when Trump claimed on Fox and Friends a couple of weeks ago that "if we go with Kamala, you won't have any cows anymore because you're not allowed", also stating that "according to Kamala, who's a radical left lunatic, you will not have any cows anymore." Which isn't the first time Trump has made comments about disappearing cows, having preceded the above with similar comments at a Nevada rally a few days earlier, at a North Carolina campaign event in July, and a few days later at a rally in Michigan.

However, where Trump gets it wrong is that the cows won't start disappearing once Harris gets elected, as they're already "disappearing" in such large numbers that they can't be removed from farms fast enough. For those unaware, cows are dying across the US in unprecedented numbers due to none other than the emerging H5N1 avian influenza, known around these parts of the internet as the Monoculture Flu.

As stated by Rick Bright, virologist and former head of the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority,

This virus is out of control. It is time for urgent and serious leadership and action to halt further transmission and mutation. The concept of letting it burn out through food animals, with unmonitored voluntary testing, has failed. There are pandemic playbooks that we need to dust off and begin to implement.

But which aren't being implemented. By the end of October, not only had dozens of farmworkers been infected with avian influenza across the country, but 403 dairy herds across the US had been confirmed to have been infected since the outbreak began amongst cattle in March, 160 herds contracting the virus in October alone. Those numbers are widely assumed to be vast undercounts. Although it had been anticipated – and relayed to farmers – that only 10% of cows would be infected and that only 2% of those would die, infection rates have been as high as 60% with a mortality rate between 10% and 15%. In other words, not only is the virus not burning out, but it's spreading faster and being given more opportunity to mutate and one day reach #1 on the charts.

While this post that's already way over its word limit isn't the place to delve deeply into this rapidly emerging next pandemic, the fact remains that while Americans are highly divided when it comes to Donald Trump vs. Kamala Harris and whether one is for or against Elon Musk and his obeisance to Vladimir Putin, the one thing that Americans can happily cross the aisle for is their mutual admiration for the consumption of monocultured meat of pigs, cows and chickens, the critical ingredient necessary for the emergence of the H5N1 Monoculture Flu that will quite possibly result in the death of millions – if not tens of millions – of Americans.

Consensus!

Otherwise, suggesting that millions – if not tens of millions – of Americans (never mind non-Americans) might eventually end up dying from H5N1 can admittedly come off as rather sensationalistic. Might this virus really attain the qualities to kill that many people? Well, although we don't have another clip of Trump absurdly claiming on Fox and Friends something along the lines of pigs expected to "disappear" upon Harris' election win due to "elites" wanting us to eat insects (just wait for that one, it's coming), on October 23^rd Trump did however implore his female supporters to get their "fat pigs" off the couch and vote. And what do you know, but it was just two days later that some lazy pigs, after being the source point of the 2009 H1N1 influenza, took heed of Trump's call and finally got off the "couch" and joined the nascent H5N1 fray.

Because although it wasn't announced at a press release until October 30^th, on October 25^th it was discovered that a pig (or two) had become infected with H5N1 on a small, mixed Oregon farm that had five pigs and 70 chickens, ducks and geese (which were all culled), to go along with some sheep and goats (which weren't culled), the property now under quarantine. Following generation of the virus' genetic sequence, a USDA spokesperson stated that the strain of H5N1 found in the pig (or two) wasn't associated with the strains currently found in cattle (known as B3.13) but rather was derived from wild birds (known as D1).

Although many respected scientists and the like proclaimed somewhat grave concern on Twitter about this strain of H5N1 having been discovered in pigs, it's worth remembering that there was very few pigs involved, they existing in a polyculture rather than a monoculture. That is, there's a reason why yours truly has nicknamed this virus the Monoculture Flu rather than the Polyculture Flu.

For starters, the reason why there's been much concern about a pig (or two) having been infected is because pigs are what are known as ideal "mixing vessels" for influenzas. Typically, human and avian influenzas don't readily cross between those species (due to body temperatures, receptors, and other factors). But when it comes to pigs, both human and avian influenzas are readily able to infect them. And since influenza is a rather promiscuous virus, when two or more influenza viruses infect a pig they're able to swap genes between themselves via a process known as reassortment, creating a hybrid of the virus. And the more pigs there are in close proximity to each other of which allow these viruses to bounce around between, the more opportunities for reassortment and for hitting that viral "jackpot".

But that's not what this situation with one or two pigs (out of five) that got infected was. As Florian Krammer, a flu virologist at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine in New York, told STAT News,

If it doesn't spread from pigs to pigs and it just happened on that one farm, it's not a big deal. If it starts to spread from pigs to pigs, then it's much more of a problem. If it ends up in large pig populations in the U.S. similar to cows, I think this would be a disaster.

That is, since the autopsy conducted after the pig had been euthanized revealed that the virus was present throughout its body (meaning the infection was more that a simple positive nasal swab), it's now known that this strain of H5N1 is quite capable of infecting pigs. What's also known is that we got lucky this time in that the infected wild birds infected a pig (or two) on a small, mixed farm and not on a large monocultural farm.

This time.

In other words, the race is on. Since the likelihood that this strain of H5N1 garners the right mutations to infect and kill tens of millions of people isn't so much an "if" as much as it's a "when", the big question is Which monocultured species is gonna be the host that enables this mutation? Is it gonna be chickens? Or perhaps pigs? How about cows?

We'll find out soon enough.

Anyhow, while Trump's "fat pigs" are yet to properly extricate themselves from their "couches" so they can go and "vote" (on how many humans they should slaughter with a highly mutated version of H5N1), and Harris is yet to take office upon which cows (and humans) will start to "disappear" in large numbers, it appears that while Trump won't be getting his wishes of a second term in office, nor of another insurrection, it does appear that he'll be leaving us all with a parting gift.

Sounds of the Pandemicene, with Fanfare Ciocărlia

As we all know, when Donald Trump first ran for office he ran on the promise that if elected he was going to "drain the swamp". Well, as we all know, Donald Trump is the master of projection, and upon winning the election he didn't so much drain anything so much as he filled it up with the most toxic swampyness the United States has ever seen. That being so, it couldn't be more fitting for this iteration of "Sounds of the Pandemicene, with Fanfare Ciocărlia" that we go with the final song on Fanfare Ciocărlia's most recent album, "Mosquito Swamp".

True to form, it just so happens that back in 2008 H5N1 was detected in mosquitoes collected from a Thai poultry farm infected with the virus, while earlier this year blowflies (which of course aren't exactly mosquitoes) in Japan were discovered to be a "potential vector for avian influenza", blowflies that – sounding exactly like Trump – are "attracted to decaying animals and feces".

So here it is, "Mosquito Swamp", a quintessential Fanfare Ciocărlia song that's full of joy, humour, speed... and power.

Fanfare Ciocărlia – Mosquito Swamp

0:00

/169.407275

1×

"Mosquito Swamp" can be found on the album "It Wasn't Hard to Love You" (which in the case of Trump's departure could be aptly titled "It Wasn't Hard to Love Seeing You Leave"), available on Bandcamp or wherever else you purchase and/or stream music from.