Conor here: It’s almost as if the US is run by a cabal of war criminals who are the biggest threat to everyone on the planet. Here are some other reactions before the main piece:
🚨BREAKING
The 2026 US National Defense Strategy, released late Friday night
specifically mentions Canada
and seems to suggest that if Canada doesnt do it part for National Defense they could be subject to actions, up to the Maduro treatment
Read it for yourself: pic.twitter.com/04Quzr9jF5
— Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@Tablesalt13) January 24, 2026
The US strategy as outlined in National Defense Strategy 2026 is to not defend Taiwan as that would mean getting into a war with China in the West Pacific and being defeated. Now the strategy instead is to milk Taiwan for what it is worth.https://t.co/4R3RxTZw4J
— Ignis Rex (@Ignis_Rex) January 24, 2026
And then there’s this ongoing narrative that the US is admitting defeat against China, as if trillions in war budgets and trying to kneecap Beijing’s trade partners, control shipping lanes, and topple Beijing’s energy suppliers means that China is “not a priority”:
Three takeaways:
Total Colby L, “Strategy of Denial” in shambles
US is formally admitting defeat against China
Massive daylight between 2025 National Security Strategy & this National Defense Strategy
These guys have no idea what they are doing lmfao https://t.co/wRL9LTiO3s
— Soda (@fredsoda) January 24, 2026
Part of the new national defense strategy discusses “supercharging the U.S. defense industrial base.” Yet despite subsequent US administrations talking about firing up the great “arsenal of democracy,” it’s not happening. A Friday Defence Blog interview with John Borrego, Senior Vice President of Aerospace and Defense at Machina Labs, who has held senior technical and leadership roles at Northrop Grumman, SpaceX, Rocketdyne, and Los Alamos National Laboratory, describes the myriad issues the US is still running into:
Borrego said the most serious bottlenecks are structural, with tooling at the top of the list. Traditional tooling, he noted, can take years to design and qualify, making rapid scale-up or design changes difficult.
“Most legacy manufacturing processes were built for stable, predictable production,” he said. “When requirements shift, the entire system slows down. By removing tooling from the critical path and digitizing production, surge capacity can scale through machines and software, not timelines.”
He also identified persistent constraints in energetics, including propellants, explosives, cast-cure capacity, and strict handling requirements. Seeker and guidance electronics remain limited by microelectronics, radiation-hardened components, specialized sensors, and secure supply chains. Motors, casings, and specialty materials are constrained by long-lead forgings, castings, composites, and integrated structures.
Single-source sub-tier suppliers present another risk, Borrego said, because many have fragile capacity and no business case for maintaining surge readiness.
Testing infrastructure also delays output, particularly in thermal vacuum testing, vibration testing, ordnance trials, non-destructive testing, metrology, and calibration. Workforce shortages add to the problem, with a limited number of cleared and experienced manufacturing engineers, inspectors, NDT technicians, and energetic handlers, and critical knowledge often concentrated in only a few individuals.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website.
This final “Line of Effort” underpins the preceding three regarding the Western Hemisphere, the Indo-Pacific, and burden-sharing, all of which are being pursued in furtherance of Trump 2.0’s grand strategic goal of restoring the US’ predominant position over the world, including over China and Russia.
Trump 2.0 just released its National Defense Strategy (NDS) two months after its National Security Strategy (NSS), and as could be expected, they each preach the need to prioritize the Western Hemisphere. The “Trump Doctrine” that’s discernable within both, which was analyzed here, aims to restore the US’ predominant position (unipolarity) over the Americas and then the rest of the world. “Flexible, practical realism” will explicitly guide the implementation of this grand strategic goal.
Instead of redundantly pointing out all the similarities between the NDS and the NSS, the present piece will draw attention to how the administration envisages applying the aforesaid realist approach. Four “Lines of Effort” (LOEs) are enumerated: 1) “Defend the U.S. Homeland”; 2) Deter China in the Indo-Pacific Through Strength, Not Confrontation”; 3) Increase Burden-Sharing with U.S. Allies and Partners”; and 4) “Supercharge the U.S. Defense Industrial Base”. They’ll now be briefly described in order.
The Department of War’s (DOW) primary tasks in the Western Hemisphere are defending the US’ borders, countering (Islamic and narco-) terrorists, building the “Golden Dome”, and ensuring military and commercial access to key terrain like Greenland, the Gulf of America, and the Panama Canal. The last-mentioned task is the essence of the “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine”. The DOW’s explicit goal in this LOE is described as “restor[ing] American military dominance in the Western Hemisphere”.
By way of comparison, its explicit goal in the Indo-Pacific LOE is “peace through strength”, which the DOW plans to pursue through “strong denial defense” in the First Island Chain. This will be carried out together with the US’ regional allies, which can be described as the AUKUS+ network, although that terminology isn’t used in the NDS. The authors expect that this will create a favorable “balance of power” for achieving a “decent peace” that allows for mutually beneficial coexistence with China.
The third LOE embraces the “Lead From Behind” (LFB) concept that was described here in 2015 by incentivizing partners to do more to advance their shared regional interests with the US. The NDS earlier described Russia as a “persistent but manageable threat” in the sense that “European NATO dwarfs Russia in economic scale, population, and, thus, latent military power.” The aforesaid just have to be fully unleashed through US incentives and strategic guidance in order to more effectively contain Russia.
The last LOE underpins the preceding ones. Without “Supercharg[ing] the U.S. Defense Industrial Base”, the US cannot “restore American military dominance in the Western Hemisphere”, practice a “strong denial defense” in the First Island Chain, or LFB to contain shared adversaries like China (described as “the most powerful state relative to us since the 19th century”), Russia, Iran, and North Korea. This part ends with a call for military-industrial production comparable to the two World Wars and Cold War.
Therein lies the top takeaway from the NDS, namely that the US will resume World War-like levels of military-industrial production in furtherance of Trump 2.0’s grand strategic goal of restoring the US’ predominant position (unipolarity) over the world. Although the US will try to avoid Great Power conflict with China and Russia, this will be very difficult to do given its attempt to establish strategic superiority over them through this new undeclared arms race, which risks a war breaking out by miscalculation.
Handwaving with no substance:
So, USA MIC, you need experienced engineers for, say, radar/lidar design (compent or board level). Wave a wand to get them?
So, we are focusing on the Western Hemisphere while avoiding conflict with China and Russia. Does Trump know that China and Russia have a presence in our hemisphere already, as they did in Venezuela?
Also, as a result of Trump, China now has a major presence in Canada on our northern border. While the dumbass was venting about Greenland or Iceland (he doesn’t know the difference), he forced Carney’s hand to diversify.
So, while we invest in non-productive military assets and make further cuts to our own infrastructure and investment in our people, how does this increase the quality of life in the ole US of A?
I still remember the promise of cutting our military by 25% and bringing them back into the Western Hemisphere, but I don’t see any of that. It’s a multipolar world, but we still act like it’s unipolar. Meanwhile, our dollar is on a continuous decline, and other countries are avoiding our debt and buying metals. How are we going to finance this war economy when we can’t even make our debt payments now?
It’s pure idiocy.
” China now has a major presence in Canada on our northern border.”
This is a bit paranoid. How does China “presence” compare to Japanese? At least, in auto sector, quite a bit smaller, and altogether, neither has security aspect. Additionally, Mexico is more of both, with a “strategic” consequence of Mexico being harder to intimidate about its attitude to Cuba.
However, conflict with Canada MAY HAVE serious security consequences if it suspends military cooperation like France did long time ago. Defending Arctic is a minor issue, given immense difficulties in moving significant forces across (with exception of Alaska), but WATCHING in Arctic is important. And if Trumpian antics continue, one cannot exclude that.
Perhaps the cuts was meant to be the VA by way of DOGE, that’s roughly in the ballpark if taken with some “synergies” sourced from someone’s nether regions.
Clearly the new jobs will be in either the MIC or the enforcement industrial complex (ICE, prisons et al); thereby allowing the executive to determine winners and losers among the companies (and states) involved. Add a dash of AI to obfuscate the decision making process and allow people to blame the computer for any mishaps and we’re good to go!
Regarding the debt issuing, that’s what the military will be used for – buy our weapons, and put them in our bases on your lands so we control them while obeying whatever whim the executive dreams up on social media today.
The above is speculation, of course, but its at least consistent with the actions taken and the demonstrated arrogance coupled with the risktaking profile of tech bros.
1/7/2026
Trump calls for 50% increase in Military budget to $1.5 Trillion
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/07/trump-calls-record-defense-budget-00715298
Negotiating tactic… set the upper (or lower bound) then dicker?
We really need new non-Trump Organization, non-Neocon folks and new ideas in DC, Wall Street, Israel– heck, world – wide…
Jackpot: it’s not just for Nevada any more.
Andrew Mercouris would tartly observe that this amounts to a call for 50% defense price inflation. That’s the quickest way to the defense budget target.
This is a serious threat to income security of Americans. USA lags in productive investments and productive research is patchy, Trumpian focus is to match Russia in hydrocarbons and grains (Russia may be better per capita…), and altogether, hard to call what this administration does a “focus”.
I am also confident that with cutting bloat in expenses and “missions”, half of the current budget is more than enough.
The losses are twofold. First, if we consider INVESTMENTS + military, military is not a minor portion. Second, militarizing the focus of executive and legislative branches on “security”, productive and health sectors are neglected. In the health sector, both “sides of the isle” are blind to an even larger diversion of resources to predatory profits than military.
” ..the US will resume World War-like levels of military-industrial production in furtherance of Trump 2.0’s grand strategic goal of restoring the US’ predominant position.”
No it won’t, because it can’t. Whenever I see a headline employing the words “call for,” I think of the exchange between Owen Glendower and Hotspur in Shakespeare’s Henry IV:
— I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
— Why, so can I and so can any man. But will they come when you do call for them?
The document looks to me like at once an acknowledgement of defeat and a fantasy of rebirth in the future, based on capacities that do not exist and never will again. Basically, the US cannot challenge Russia in Europe, and is out of the European Security game, and cannot challenge China either. Any hopes it has of “containing” these powers will henceforth depend on others it hopes to influence.
I’d add just one thing: in theory a National Defence Strategy is a subordinate document to a National Security Strategy, and should essentially fill in the detail. In practice, the US political system is so fragmented and the Pentagon is such a big actor that the two documents were probably written in isolation from each other: another reason why in the end little will actually happen.
yep
Western national security public establishment (what is not behind closed doors I mean) – as far as I can read tweets and other comments – doesn´t understand this. As if the last 4 years didn´t happen. It´s as if they were playing a role because they are paid handsomely for ignoring all the evidence that is in front of them.
German regular press is even worse. Regardless of their position re: RU they still seem to agree that RU has losses possibly exceeding those of UKR and that it is still not entirely clear if RU will win this thing. This including journalists allegedly reading the Ukrainian press critically and confirming that Kiev government and the military are in part controlled by fascists. But when it comes to actual military expertise it´s Western supremacy all over again.
I think it’s a safe bet that a staggering amount of money will be spent, with probably little to no accountability on where it goes. Beyond that, I’d agree.
I don’t see this as starting a new arms race, rather it’s an admission that the US & NATO has already lost the post-Cold War arms race and needs to catch up. Offensive missiles and drones have become capable and cheap enough that our current defensive missile systems can no longer effectively defeat them. Russian missiles have overwhelmed Ukraine, Iranian missiles have exhausted Israel, and Chinese-made Pakistani missiles outmatched European-made Indian missiles. If Russia started lobbing missiles at Poland, or China at Taiwan, they’d get through.
So the US needs to start the generation-long process of re-industrialization ASAP, and we need to let our protectorates in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia know not to pick any fights, because we are simply incapable of protecting them.
If we had a great statesman in charge, they’d negotiate a new global peace treaty and arms limitations while the Chinese and Russians are still in the mood for peaceful co-existence, but I’m happy to settle for spending a few decades and a few trillion dollars on a Golden Maginot Line.
Heck, if we annex Cuba and Canada, maybe we’ll finally have enough votes in Congress for a National Health Care system.
Re-industrialization for the purpose of concrete outcomes rather than increased corporate profit is what is needed, but I’m not confident US governance is ideologically capable of implementing that.
JE McKellar: Offensive missiles and drones have become capable and cheap enough that our current defensive missile systems can no longer effectively defeat them.
To be clear, there is no 100-percent effective defense against offensive missiles and drones launched by a peer competitor, and there never will be unless a beamed energy weapons system a la Reagan’s Star Wars system comes into existence one day.
Two more points pursuant on that: –
[1] As regards peer competitors, the US is no longer really a peer competitor against Russian missile and electronic warfare technology, which is at least one generation ahead of the US; the Oreshnik in particular is unstoppable by anything conceivable besides a beamed energy weapon system and is, besides, designed for extreme targeting specificity. The Chinese may be ahead of the US, too, but I know less about them.
The US does still have preponderance in big platform weapons systems like aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and global satellite systems. Hasn’t won the Ukraine war, and carriers and satellites are extremely vulnerable.
[2] I’m happy to settle for spending a few decades and a few trillion dollars on a Golden Maginot Line. Don’t be. See Aurelien’s comment further up the page and bear in mind that the Western neoliberal nations are all burdened by debt.
https://bondvigilantes.com/blog/2025/03/the-cost-of-security-the-impact-of-higher-defence-spending-on-debt-laden-nations/
I wonder how much stock Trump (and/or his family) owns in the “I” part of MIC. Personal enrichment and aggrandizement seem to be Trump’s main motivations…
A huge budget buys lots of expensive toys, but not necessarily the people to use them. The US of the 2020’s is vastly different from the US of the early- and mid-20th century. The trust of government is cratering. The armed forces are already having difficult times meeting their recruiting goals (indeed, mostly failing to do so).
While there is no current significant peace movement, neither is there a willingness to see an active draft (even registration generates pushback) or mandatory military service. In the absence of a major attack on the US homeland (I don’t think an attack on overseas assets would do it), it’s hard to see the volunteer-force structure generating enough bodies to actually prosecute a single front of a large scale conflict, let along a multi-front war. I just don’t see the “supply” necessary for the kind of “demand” this NDS imagines.
That doesn’t even take into account the logistical improbability of being able to deploy and assemble some large force against a peer adversary in an environment of satellite and drone ISR and drone and missile extended reach. No peer is going to simply sit around waiting for the US to gather huge resources for an attack. That suggests that reality is more likely still more of the same… color revolutions, kidnappings, assassinations, coups, and proxy wars. That sounds like a recipe for spending tons on money on spooks, special forces, and expensive toys that can be managed from afar (along with all the usual big-ticket boondoggles).
It’s just hard to see, again, absent an attach on the homeland, where momentum comes to fill out a fighting force for something larger.
In short, seems like good money after bad…. wash, rinse, repeat.
And Jesus wept. Sigh. :-(
“A huge budget buys lots of expensive toys, but not necessarily the people to use them.”
We need a budget (3-5 times larger than China?) because the MIC is so corrupt and inefficient. As we pour more resources into defense, the rest of our capacity crumbles–infrastructure, education, health, etc.
What to do? Grab the popcorn and watch the decline in real time…
I get your point, but also wonder if we aren’t already spending close to three times what the Chinese spend on their military. One big advantage that China has is that its top military and industrial leaders are actually accountable to the political leadership. Witness the recent top Chinese General getting the sack. And can you imagine if the Chinese military budget was completely unauditable, like the Pentagon’s?
For the forseeable future, any military buildup in terms of quantity and quality requires Chinese acquiescence, which has been withdrawn. A buildup in price, though, is guaranteed – consider how the price of 155 mm shells has increased hundreds of percent with the start of the cash avalanche from the west, but not significantly in quantity.
As ever, our reptilian-brained ‘leaders’ are gearing up with more expensive gadgets designed to kill. It never occurs to them that no one in Moscow or Beijing is right now plotting an attack on the U.S. Or maybe they know this, but have to conjur up continual threats so we can go further into hopeless debt to keep the MIC flush.
It would be refreshing if we would create international alliances to address climate change and massive economic inequalities, instead of wasting our future on fantasies about controlling the world. Someone needs to ask the obvious: Who is going to attack us, and why would they?
This document is a purely ideological artifact, untethered from material reality. A 200% increase in military spending is a hollow gesture if the requisite labor power, organizational competence, and industrial infrastructure are nonexistent. Rather than project strength, such a budget surge would likely trigger hyper-inflation within the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), paralyzing contract negotiations and squandering precious time.
The U.S. has lost the structural capacity to realize its strategic objectives. Its political class is entirely beholden to a triumvirate of FinTech, Big Oil, and the Intelligence community. Furthermore, immigration failures have cratered international student enrollment, while a toxic media landscape and a volatile job market actively discourage domestic youth from pursuing higher education. Ultimately, the nation lacks a coherent national vision and—more pivotally—the ‘will to power’ necessary to sustain its own weight.
As was mentioned above, an increase in spending is pretty easy to handle without any need for additional people involved; just slap a tariff on the inputs and let the price shock ground itself in the Pentagon budget. When people complain about the lack of real increase in military capability, tell them its greedy companies stealing money from the military, and switch suppliers to the next in line.
I’m expecting “service guarantees citizenship” ads (of course, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition aka ICE to deport people on the last tour before they get the prize, but thems the breaks). Or maybe “continued service allows for temporary Green card status” – not as catchy perhaps, and likely too honest?
The regime is loosing the narrative imo. They will soon be a popular as Netanyahu is among young persons (of all religious persuasion).
Why does that matter? People will vote with their feet when making life choices. Yes, they can bribe some with 50k signing bonuses over 3 years and relatively high pay. But those ignorant enough to take such deals will end up doing themselves in, as the statistics show for vets of recent wars. And it’s not just recruiting for war. Anywhere they need persons to do anything they will find few supporters. Eventually the regime will collapse. Persuasion by force can only go so far.
As a Canadian watching this all, I’m reminded of the landscape of the 70’s…the Hot/Cold war, and the push for an integrated North America. I believe it came to be called “CANAMEX” in local circles. This integration also included a giant canal (built by the US Corps of Engineers); diverting water from the Mackenzie River, hijacking the Thompson and interior BC lakes to connect with The Columbia and Colorado, and then sending that water to supply the dry SW portion of the US.
The integration of the continent will happen. It is unfortunate that a Conservative? is in charge…they tend to run roughshod over the requirements to include the views of the other ‘partners’ in this change. A leader more SENSITIVE would see that.
My dilemma is that I am a social Liberal and fiscal Conservative…I want to help along as many as I can, for as little as it can cost.
The optics of what this current US admistration (a moot term given the power rests almost entirely in one person’s view of the world) is trying to achieve becomes lost in the heavy handed way in which the policies are implemented.
The bundle of sticks that won’t break when held together is unravelling…the singletons are starting to crack.