Today marks the eighteenth anniversary of the end of World War II—the day Imperial Japan formally surrendered to the United States (which required the detonation of two nuclear fission devices over major Japanese cities), bringing to a close the deadliest conflict in modern history.
This anniversary is especially significant in light of current events: President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin are meeting today in Anchorage, Alaska, to seek a resolution to the Russia–Ukraine war and to establish more normal relations between world powers—powers armed to the teeth with thermonuclear or fusion weapons (which are also part of the negotiations).
It’s worth remembering that in World War II, the United States’ most important ally was Russia, then the Soviet Union. Great Britain fought valiantly, to be sure, but it must be noted that its primary concern was preserving the British Empire (which it did not in the end, as the United States became the world hegemon).
Other European states contributed very little to the Allied struggle against Nazi Germany. Italy was a fascist ally of Germany, as was Spain. France, under the Vichy government, was effectively under Nazi control. Neither did the Scandinavian nations offer much assistance; for example, Sweden’s “neutrality” worked in practice to Germany’s benefit.
In the end was the Russian working class (who suffered the most of any nation, with as many as thirty million perishing one way or another), the American working class (who lost more than 400 thousand lives), and the British (losing nearly 400 thousand souls) who bore the heaviest burden in defeating Nazism.
Germany and Japan also lost millions, but since they were the instigators, we must note that these and other losses were self-inflicted.
After the war, the financial and industrial elites who had supported Nazi Germany orchestrated the European Union, while NATO fulfilled Hitler’s vision of a pan-European military. Thus, the Europeans, as well as Britain (Brexit notwithstanding), have pursued their own self-inflicted wounding—a situation they wish to inflict on others.
In the post-Soviet era, globalist hostility toward Russia has been strikingly persistent—even belligerent. NATO’s eastward expansion, the 2014 Ukraine coup backed by globalist forces, and other actions have all served to antagonize Russia. The Russia-Ukraine war is the predictable consequence of Western belligerence, pursued through its proxy Ukraine, which has brought great suffering to the Ukrainian people, as well as to the Russian people.
Why such hostility? Notably, the same entrenched forces direct similar animosity toward President Trump and the populist–nationalist movements sweeping both the United States and Europe—movements that seek to restore national sovereignty and resist transnational control. The same goals shape Russia’s stance.
This suggests (more than suggests really) that the animus toward both the Russian people and the American people is rooted in globalist disdain for popular self-determination. A renewed commitment to the Peace of Westphalian—centered on national sovereignty, peaceful international relations, and freedom from entangling alliances—runs directly counter to the transnational agenda.
In other words, the forces opposing both Russia and the Trump movement fear nothing more than normalized relations between the two nations, because such cooperation threatens the globalist project.
The truth is, the Russian and American peoples ultimately want the same things. We have common interests. And, for this reason, we should hope that the talks in Anchorage lead not only to a resolution of the Russia–Ukraine conflict, but also to a broader normalization of US–Russia relations, including robust trade and mutual respect—and a reduction in the nuclear arsenal of both nations.
Moreover, if such a rapprochement between the United States and Russia were achieved, it would also serve to isolate China. Beijing has relied heavily on the estrangement between Washington and Moscow to advance its own strategic ambitions, positioning itself as Russia’s indispensable partner against the West.
A genuine thaw in US–Russia relations—grounded in mutual respect, sovereignty, and trade—would remove that leverage, leaving China increasingly alone in its push for global influence. Instead of exploiting a divided geopolitical landscape, China would face a more united front of great powers seeking stability and balance, undermining its capacity to expand unchecked.
The effect of this would not only lessen the antagonisms that are driving the world towards World War III, but would weaken the transnational project, as well as blunt China’s bid for world domination. A successful negotiation would therefore be a win-win-win for the world. Let’s hope for the best.
freedom and reason 