A resignation, a rebellion, and a reality check... when your allies walk, your voters doubt, and your own people quit… that’s not a strategy... that’s an unraveling.
The core argument — that this is “the war nobody wanted” drifting toward collapse — captures a real sense of fatigue and strategic overreach. But it risks flattening something far more complex.
What we are seeing is not collapse in the classical sense. It is strain without resolution.
Three points matter:
1. This war was not “unwanted” — it was miscalculated.
Several actors believed escalation would be short, controlled, and decisive. That assumption has failed, but failure of expectations is not the same as absence of intent.
2. Systems are bending, not breaking.
States involved still retain coercive capacity, economic depth, and political control. Historically, true collapse requires loss of internal cohesion — we are not clearly there yet.
3. Narratives of collapse often appear before actual collapse.
We saw the same in Iraq, Afghanistan, even parts of the Cold War. Perception leads reality — sometimes by years.
What is real in the article is something more subtle:
→ Strategic exhaustion
→ Narrative fragmentation
→ Increasing reliance on signalling over substance
That combination is dangerous — not because collapse is imminent, but because misreading the situation can produce escalation instead of de-escalation.
So I would reframe it like this:
This is not yet “the collapse.”
It is the phase where systems become brittle — and therefore more unpredictable.
And historically, that phase is often the most dangerous one.
Yes, it is quite something when a Proud Boy supporter, January 6 th supporter, turns against its own. How much more damage before the end of this regime arrives?
All of that is happening and Chump honestly couldn't give a fuck. In his own mind he's winning and winning bigly. America as a global super power is finished and like the UK with Brexit will find the world is a cold lonely place.
I don't have time to study or understand politics, which is why this newsletter is helpful, thanks Fred.
I don't understand how Trump, who I assume pulled the trigger on this war, did not think about Iran blocking oil supplies in retaliation. Let's say the Orange One had consulted with the experts; did they consider the oil?
Maybe I'm naive, but blocking oil would be obvious to anyone, so maybe there is something else at play here? I honestly do not understand how one bully can make big decisions that negatively impact the entire world and continue to get away with it.
Anyway, I used to wonder when this craziness would end. Now I realize that it won't be until things get a lot worse.
Yvette... that’s not naive… that’s actually the right question.
On paper, yes... blocking oil is the most obvious retaliation in the world.
Anyone who’s looked at a map of the Strait of Hormuz for five minutes can see it.
So you’re left with two uncomfortable possibilities...
Either it wasn’t fully thought through…
or it was... and the consequences were accepted anyway.
Neither one is reassuring.
What you’re noticing (without “studying politics”) is something a lot of people miss...
Big decisions like this don’t just run on logic... they run on pressure, ego, alliances, and sometimes bad assumptions about how others will react.
History is full of moments where leaders assumed the other side would fold…
and instead, everything escalated.
As for “how one bully gets away with it”... that usually lasts right up until the costs spread far enough that other countries, markets, and even their own institutions start pushing back.
And we’re starting to see hints of that now.
You’re also right about one thing that’s hard to say out loud...
The collapse of USA is eminent
Pam... I wouldn’t go as far as “collapse.”
What we’re seeing looks more like erosion than explosion.
Big countries don’t just fall over overnight.
They weaken when...
allies stop lining up
institutions start pushing back
economic pressure builds
and trust starts slipping
That’s slower… but in some ways more serious.
Because it doesn’t make headlines right away...
it just changes how the rest of the world behaves around you.
And once that shifts, it’s very hard to reverse.
Fred
The core argument — that this is “the war nobody wanted” drifting toward collapse — captures a real sense of fatigue and strategic overreach. But it risks flattening something far more complex.
What we are seeing is not collapse in the classical sense. It is strain without resolution.
Three points matter:
1. This war was not “unwanted” — it was miscalculated.
Several actors believed escalation would be short, controlled, and decisive. That assumption has failed, but failure of expectations is not the same as absence of intent.
2. Systems are bending, not breaking.
States involved still retain coercive capacity, economic depth, and political control. Historically, true collapse requires loss of internal cohesion — we are not clearly there yet.
3. Narratives of collapse often appear before actual collapse.
We saw the same in Iraq, Afghanistan, even parts of the Cold War. Perception leads reality — sometimes by years.
What is real in the article is something more subtle:
→ Strategic exhaustion
→ Narrative fragmentation
→ Increasing reliance on signalling over substance
That combination is dangerous — not because collapse is imminent, but because misreading the situation can produce escalation instead of de-escalation.
So I would reframe it like this:
This is not yet “the collapse.”
It is the phase where systems become brittle — and therefore more unpredictable.
And historically, that phase is often the most dangerous one.
Good distinction... miscalculated, not unwanted.
But I think the real headline is your word: brittle.
Systems still standing… but reacting harder, faster, and less predictably.
That’s usually when things go wrong.
Yes, it is quite something when a Proud Boy supporter, January 6 th supporter, turns against its own. How much more damage before the end of this regime arrives?
When a movement starts turning on itself, the stress is real.
But endings aren’t clean... they’re messy, slow, and uneven.
The damage usually comes before the collapse, not after.
agree
All of that is happening and Chump honestly couldn't give a fuck. In his own mind he's winning and winning bigly. America as a global super power is finished and like the UK with Brexit will find the world is a cold lonely place.
Mike... there’s a piece of truth in what you’re saying… but it’s not as simple as “finished.”
What’s really happening is something more uncomfortable...
The U.S. isn’t collapsing overnight...
it’s losing the one thing that made it powerful in the first place…
trust.
Alliances don’t break because of one decision.
They erode when partners stop believing you’re predictable, rational, and worth backing.
Brexit was a version of that...
not collapse, but self-inflicted isolation with long-term consequences.
What we’re seeing now feels similar, just on a much bigger stage.
And here’s the part people miss...
Power doesn’t disappear…
it rearranges itself.
While the U.S. pushes, others are already adapting... making side deals, building alternatives, hedging their bets.
That’s how influence fades.
Not with a bang.
With countries quietly choosing not to follow you anymore.
Middle power countries are the new super power.
I don't have time to study or understand politics, which is why this newsletter is helpful, thanks Fred.
I don't understand how Trump, who I assume pulled the trigger on this war, did not think about Iran blocking oil supplies in retaliation. Let's say the Orange One had consulted with the experts; did they consider the oil?
Maybe I'm naive, but blocking oil would be obvious to anyone, so maybe there is something else at play here? I honestly do not understand how one bully can make big decisions that negatively impact the entire world and continue to get away with it.
Anyway, I used to wonder when this craziness would end. Now I realize that it won't be until things get a lot worse.
Yvette... that’s not naive… that’s actually the right question.
On paper, yes... blocking oil is the most obvious retaliation in the world.
Anyone who’s looked at a map of the Strait of Hormuz for five minutes can see it.
So you’re left with two uncomfortable possibilities...
Either it wasn’t fully thought through…
or it was... and the consequences were accepted anyway.
Neither one is reassuring.
What you’re noticing (without “studying politics”) is something a lot of people miss...
Big decisions like this don’t just run on logic... they run on pressure, ego, alliances, and sometimes bad assumptions about how others will react.
History is full of moments where leaders assumed the other side would fold…
and instead, everything escalated.
As for “how one bully gets away with it”... that usually lasts right up until the costs spread far enough that other countries, markets, and even their own institutions start pushing back.
And we’re starting to see hints of that now.
You’re also right about one thing that’s hard to say out loud...
These situations don’t usually end neatly.
They tend to unwind slowly… and then all at once.