That is the best description of "America" (USA): Vile Treachery with a Patina of Goodness. I've had syrupy "July 4th" treatises spamming the inbox all day - enough already, so I had to reply to one:
Let's start with my reply to another "July 4" Op-Ed:
"No number of defeats - Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran - will deter the Hegemon from grasping for world dominance through every tool available - weaponizing the world-reserve currency, controlling who has an energy supply, armed intervention, CIA infiltration (USAID etc.). These traits are hard-wired into the American psyche while overlaid with the patina of Goodness. I doubt that Exceptionalism can be broken except by capture and defeat of America. It certainly can't come from within, regardless of the number of wishful thinkers." re: July 4th, 2026: Reflections on America's Reckoning with Hubris and the Urgent Need for a Better Path - OMID SOURESRAFIL MBBS PHD FHRS - JULY 04, 2026
Again, Maria Zakharova sums it up so well, about the nature of the American beast:
Should
Russia Continue Negotiating with the US – An Unreliable
Partner? | RU-EN - Freelensia July 3 from Moscow, July
1.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova responds to
a question about U.S. policy toward Russia and Ukraine following
President Donald Trump's remarks after the G7 summit. She
discusses Washington's changing positions across different
administrations, the value of negotiations despite policy shifts,
the Anchorage discussions, and Russia's view of international
agreements and diplomacy.
Press question: "At the G7 summit, Donald Trump raised the possibility of revising the 'Anchorage Accords' on Ukraine, while already asserting the need to 'pressure Russia.'
How does Russia view such frequent shifts in the US stance regarding its dialogue with Russia?
If agreements are so easily repudiated and positions change so quickly, is there even any point in negotiating with an unreliable partner that says one thing today and does another tomorrow?"
Maria: "Do you have any other options? You know, we proceed from the premise that this is a sovereign state shaping its foreign and domestic policy in this manner.
It is an actor in international relations.
We propose conducting affairs across various domains on a clear, stable, and time-tested foundation of international law, agreements, and the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.
Therefore, when you ask the Russian side why the United States of America changes its position, I believe that question is misdirected. It should be addressed to the American side.
Well, that is how the structure of their statehood is built. I think one could even put it this way: that is just who they are. [emphasis added]
And, I have already said this – that, in principle, it has even become a common understanding that whatever the presidents who come to power in the United States of America may say, it can change with the arrival of the next United States president, exactly the opposite.
The most incredible part – though it used to be incredible, and has now become practically a daily reality – is that they first convince the international community of the need to take certain steps, and then, when another President of the United States comes to power, they convince them of the exact opposite.
Or they simply ignore what their country had previously demanded of the entire international community.
Or they speak of their own interpretation of various obligations that were undertaken not by any individual U.S. president personally, but by the country itself. Of course, they personally attended, signed, insisted upon, or voted for, yet these are obligations assumed by the country as a whole, and they end up being, as it were, completely ignored by the next team that moves into the White House.
What are you talking about? Why has this only started concerning you now? Because the intensity, so to speak, of the change in mood is such ... because the current team is experiencing a shift in mood, and because the potential for conflict has become too high.
Yes, I probably would even agree with you that indeed, in all these areas, we are observing, so to speak, indeed some kind of unprecedented volatility across all these areas.
But at the same time, it seems to me that even, I don't know, the Paris Climate Agreement or the JCPOA, I mean, the so-called "Iran deal," have already demonstrated how the United States of America behaves in world affairs, driven by the peculiarities of its domestic political structure.
As for Russia, the Russian side has repeatedly noted that the possibilities for ending the conflict around Ukraine were discussed in detail in Anchorage. Despite the fact that no agreements were formally signed, the heads of state, with the participation of their negotiating teams, reached certain understandings.
Furthermore, as Russian President Vladimir Putin noted in a recent interview, within the framework of the summit in Alaska, the Russian side declared its readiness to make certain compromises.
We call for the results of that high-level meeting to be evaluated precisely in this light.
We note the ongoing attempts by the Europeans to sway the US leadership toward the demands of the Kiev regime, particularly those made during the G7 meeting in Évian.
This was discussed in detail by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during his public appearances.
In particular, on June 24th of this year, during the Primakov Readings forum. We will be sure to add a link to this segment of the briefing.
Meanwhile, the Americans themselves have not informed us of any change in their position through bilateral contacts.
U.S. President Trump's desire to assist in a settlement has not, in principle, been in doubt.
No one has claimed otherwise either.
So, these are the kinds of assessments that have been repeatedly provided by our leadership, which I have just further and reiteratively informed you about."
As Maria said, regardless of the bluster and incoherence in U.S. posturing, this is how America is presenting itself "as an actor in international relations." It could be a sincere, trustworthy player on the world stage, but instead plays the fool.
Thus, as foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said, America is not agreement-capable. And never will be, that is an impossibility given their unworkable structure of so-called governance. Yet they carry on in lauding their ridiculous Constitution.
A similar haze over reality persists in NATO's war on Russia. In an interview on Glenn Diesen's Greater Eurasia podcast, July 2, Alexander Mercouris states (at 22:31):
"It's obligatory in Europe to pretend that Ukraine is winning. This is what we have to chant now to show our loyalty to our countries. I did see the president of Finland come out and sat that you know our conditions are still that Ukraine should be part of NATO, which is a very European way of pretending to be for Ukraine but really saying there will be no peace which is what you're saying if you demand NATO."
[and continuing at 15:21:]
"But the question then becomes, what do you do when those objectives are achieved? Do you try and return to negotiations trying to see whether there's some kind of deal that can be done at that point trying to get the West and Ukraine to accept these realities and to agree to Ukrainian neutral status? I think there are increasing doubts in Moscow that that is possible. In which case the Russians very much I think against their initial wish wishes might decide that they have no real option but to push further west and I think that is something that in the west we have not understood."
[and from 16:39:]
"[When] all the rest are captured, the Ukrainian military itself, Ukrainian economy will be so shattered that I don't think the rest of the war is going to take as long as some people some people assume. But in effect by taking this extreme line, I mean what we are very close to doing is sealing the fate of Ukraine, dooming its future as an independent state."
This notion that Ukraine is winning or could win is pure fantasy, yet it underpins the mindset of all stalwart NATO boosters, as illustrated by my ongoing war of words with Hans Jonsson of Sweden, which you can read here. When people's minds are made up, the conversation obviously ends. Perhaps Mr. Jonnson can't verify my claim that WW-III has been stage-managed to be fought on Europe's soil, since that idea isn't in AI. It was my "Aha!" moment on June 15 following Prof. David Gibbs' interview, and has been sent to some important people.
Yet this Ukraine winning fantasy carries on in the MSM press, as illustrated by a front-page article in Globe and Mail July 3rd that uses only the approved buzzwords which, as Alex Mercouris says above, "show our loyalty to our countries" and of course to not offend the diaspora. So you see words such as "Moscow's full-scale invasion" which is MANDATORY in every article. If it was a full-scale invasion, Ukraine would look like Gaza. Naturally, they keep saying "President Zelensky" although his term expired a couple years ago. They may have an actual election in October and their top general may win, being much more popular than this MI6-trained actor. The article goes on to repeat all the Ukraine winning / Russia losing nonsense.
That is a most important point in Mercouris's first paragraph, about the Europeans (and their vassal Canada) claiming to be "for Ukraine" but if they keep trying to have Ukraine join NATO or the EU there can never be peace.
The fake news of "Ukraine winning" comes up again in "John Mearsheimer: The End of Russian Restraint & New U.S. Grand Strategy" on Glenn Diesen's Greater Eurasia podcast, - July 3, 2026. John says:
"And now we see this that everyone has to go and pretend that Ukrainians are winning. We have to look away from all the available facts. It's just very strange that this is where we are where objective reality doesn't have any value of its own. Everything seems to be only assessed by the extent to which you're applauding the right team. And if you're applauding the Ukrainians, then you have to pretend everything is a brilliant success and look away from the horrific defeats and horrible number of casualties. And otherwise you're supporting the Russians. I mean it's like we're watching a football game. This is pretty much where we are."
A report by Don Hank reveals, belatedly, that the UN has recognized Ukraine's treatment of Russian POWs.
In the middle of the fifth year of the war, the United Nations suddenly noticed what had been known since the first days of the war: Ukrainian units were torturing Russian servicemen they had captured.
"About half of the prisoners of war captured by Ukraine, interviewed by my office, reported torture or other forms of cruel treatment, primarily in temporary detention centers," UN High Commissioner Volker Türk stated during the 62nd session of the UN Human Rights Committee.
It's not that the international bureaucracy's acknowledgment of the obvious has changed the reality. The entire so-called civilized world has understood from the start that Ukraine is built entirely on terror, torture, murder, persecution, and suppression of ethnically undesirable citizens—that is, Russians.
But more important events are happening in this world than the navel-gazing in America. Friday, July 3rd began a week-long remembrance and funeral in Iran for Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei and his family (Dr. Mesbah al-Hoda, the Leader's son-in-law; Seyed Boshra Hosseini Khamenei, his daughter; Zahra Haddad Adel, his daughter-in-law; Zahra Mohammadi Golpayegani, his 14-minth-old granddaughter), whose bodies were transferred to the Mosalla of Tehran in the morning for the farewell ceremony for foreign dignitaries. So there were five caskets wrapped in Iranian flags, with the tiny one for the granddaughter. She was a beautiful young toddler, brutally slain by the U.S./isra3l Axis of Evil, for being at home while the leaders were preparing the documents for the supposed peace agreement. Here is a short video of her, singing along to a song, on Dimitri's Reason2Resist.
The U.S. treachery was hard at work convincing their vassal nations to not attend this state funeral of the century. Of course, vassal states of the isra3l empire didn't need warnings. From GeoPolitiQ:
"the US officials at the highest levels had launched a comprehensive campaign to dissuade countries from attending the ceremony to pay tribute to the martyred leader."
...adding that even US Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent confidential instructions to all US embassies and diplomatic mission saying that...
"all recipients of this instruction are obliged to use all capacities of the United States to justify the host country's authorities that their participation in the funeral ceremony of the Iranian leader will be considered as an unfriendly act and will have negative consequences for their bilateral relations with the United States."
Marco Rubio himself even discussed the matter with at least 5 Arab countries, while US ambassadors to some African countries threatened to cut off development aids, if the latter had attended the funeral of the Martyred leader! In fact, at least 13 countries, including 3 Eastern European countries, 5 African countries, 2 Persian Gulf Arab countries, and 2 major East Asian countries, withdrew from attending the ceremony under the pressure.
There you see it again, the vile treachery of reaching into the affairs of other nations with threats and blackmail to maintain world dominance. You can follow more of the Iranian State Funeral on the links above, Dimitri is reporting from there all week and shows the arrivals of the various international delegations from the real nations - Russia, China and others, and the tears and prayers from the delegation from Lebanon. More details are also on the GeoPolitiQ link above.
Leave a comment! This is a re-direct to my Substack page.
Return to Limits to Progress Main Page
If you would like to send a donation, please send an Interac eTransfer to email address below. Thank you!
©2026 Kathleen McCroskey
Send your e-mail comments and questions to: