Arming Ukraine: Trump’s Bold Move vs. Obama and Biden’s Blunders—Another Mujahideen Mess?

By Juan Fermin April 27, 2025 at www.nosocialism.com

The U.S. government’s addiction to arming proxies is a dangerous game. In the 1980s, it backed the Afghan Mujahideen to crush the Soviets, only to unleash al-Qaeda, 9/11, and decades of chaos. Today, it’s flooding Ukraine with billions to fight Russia, raising fears of another blowback. On December 22, 2017, the Trump administration approved supplying Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, arming Ukraine with Javelins showed strength, arguably keeping Putin at bay. Under Obama and Biden, Russia invaded its neighbor—twice. Is this history repeating, or a different fight? Let’s strip away the statist spin and face the facts.

The Mujahideen Blowback: A Warning

In 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and the U.S. saw a chance to bleed its Cold War rival. Through Operation Cyclone, the CIA pumped $3–6 billion in weapons—rifles, Stinger missiles, cash—to the Mujahideen, a chaotic mix of patriots, warlords, and jihadists, via Pakistan’s ISI. Saudi Arabia matched funds, tossing in religious zeal. It worked: the Soviets limped out by 1989. But the U.S. bailed, leaving a fractured mess. Mujahideen factions turned on each other, and foreign fighters like Osama bin Laden formed al-Qaeda in 1988. The Taliban rose from the ashes, hosting al-Qaeda’s 9/11 plot that killed 3,000 Americans. U.S. weapons spread to insurgents across the Middle East, fueling chaos. The lesson? Arming proxies without a plan is like lighting a fuse and walking away.

"No Russian invasion happened on Trump’s watch"

Ukraine: Trump’s Strength, Obama and Biden Stumble?
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine spans a decade, with a clear pattern: invasions under Obama and Biden, but not Trump. In 2014, under Obama, Russia annexed Crimea and fueled separatists in Donbas, seizing chunks of Ukraine while the U.S. sent blankets and “non-lethal” aid. Obama’s timid response left Kyiv vulnerable. In 2017, Trump flipped the script, approving a $47 million sale of 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles, delivered in 2018. Stored as a “strategic deterrent,” these weapons signaled resolve against Russia’s Donbas proxies. No Russian invasion happened on Trump’s watch (2017–2021), and supporters credit his tough stance—Javelins, sanctions, and dealmaking—for keeping Putin in check.

"While Putin’s imperialist ambitions drove the invasion, Biden’s delays and rhetoric didn’t help"

Then came Biden. In 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion, the biggest European war since 1945. Critics slam Biden’s weakness: slow aid in 2021 as Russian troops massed, mixed signals, and provocative talk of Ukraine joining NATO—a red line for Moscow. Biden’s team called NATO’s door “open” at 2024 summits, enraging Putin, who cited expansion as a pretext for war. While Putin’s imperialist ambitions drove the invasion, Biden’s delays and rhetoric didn’t help. Since 2022, the U.S. has sent over $100 billion in Javelins, HIMARS, tanks, and drones, but early stumbles arguably gave Russia an opening.

"Differences stand out: Ukraine’s Unity: Unlike the Mujahideen’s factions"

Mujahideen Redux? Not Quite
Could arming Ukraine create “another Mujahideen”—a future extremist threat or regional chaos? Some parallels sting:

• Proxy War: Like Afghanistan, Ukraine’s a proxy fight against a Russian foe, with U.S. weapons pouring in.
• Weapons Risks: Mujahideen Stingers armed terrorists; in Ukraine, small arms have hit black markets.
• Foreign Fighters: Afghanistan drew jihadists; Ukraine attracts volunteers, some with far-right ties, who could go rogue post-war.
• Instability: Afghanistan’s civil war followed U.S. neglect; a prolonged Ukraine war could weaken Kyiv.

But differences stand out:

• Ukraine’s Unity: Unlike the Mujahideen’s factions, Ukraine’s a sovereign nation with a NATO-aligned military.
• No Jihadist Spark: Afghanistan fueled global jihad; Ukraine’s fight is nationalist, not ideological.
• Oversight: The U.S. tracks Ukraine’s weapons with serial numbers, unlike the 1980s free-for-all.
• Western Stake: Ukraine’s in Europe’s heart, tied to NATO and EU plans, not a forgotten backwater.

"Under-supporting Ukraine risks Russian dominance; over-arming without oversight courts chaos"

Risks and Reality
Biden’s late escalation—greenlighting ATACMS strikes inside Russia in 2024—shows grit but risks a wider war, especially with North Korean troops involved. Trump’s team, like JD Vance, calls this reckless, draining U.S. taxpayers. Ukraine’s Azov militia, though integrated, has far-right roots, and a fragile post-war state could let weapons slip. But a Mujahideen-style blowback—global extremism or a new al-Qaeda—is unlikely. Ukraine’s not breeding jihadists, and the West won’t abandon it.

The real issue? Big-government meddling. Obama’s weakness let Russia grab Crimea. Trump’s Javelins drew a line, and no invasion followed. Biden’s NATO promises and early fumbles opened the door for 2022. Under-supporting Ukraine risks Russian dominance; over-arming without oversight courts chaos. Both smell like statist overreach.

"Let’s learn from history, not repeat it"

The Takeaway
At www.nosocialism.com, we stand for freedom, not endless wars. Trump’s 2017 Javelins showed strength, keeping Russia at bay. Obama and Biden’s stumbles—2014 and 2022 invasions—show what happens when weakness meets provocation. Arming Ukraine isn’t a Mujahideen rerun, but it’s not risk-free. Demand accountability: track every weapon, plan for peace, and put taxpayers first. No more blank checks for foreign wars—let’s learn from history, not repeat it.

Can Trump’s dealmaking end this war, or is Biden’s escalation a trap? Drop your take below and share this post!

Trump’s Tariffs Are Winning—Don’t Believe the Mainstream Media’s Fearmongering

By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com April 26, 2025

The Guardian’s April 26, 2025, article by Adam Gabbatt paints a grim picture of President Trump’s second term, claiming polls show widespread disapproval of his tariffs and economic policies, with Americans labeling his administration “scary” and “chaotic.” This narrative, echoed across mainstream media, attributes fears of inflation and economic collapse to Trump’s trade policies. But a closer look reveals this as the same biased playbook the media has used against Trump for years—fearmongering and distortion while ignoring facts that don’t fit their agenda. The reality is that Trump’s tariffs are working, just as they did in his first term, and the U.S. is stronger for it.

The Guardian cites polls claiming 70% of Americans believe Trump’s tariffs will drive up inflation, with 64% disapproving of his handling of the issue. But this fear stems not from reality but from the media’s relentless drumbeat of doom-and-gloom predictions. During Trump’s first term, he imposed a 25% tariff on steel in 2018. Media outlets screamed that prices would skyrocket, yet the data tells a different story: steel prices rose briefly for less than a month before returning to pre-tariff levels within weeks. They remained stable for nearly two years, and even after a later spike, steel prices today are lower than when the tariffs were implemented. If tariffs were the inflation boogeyman the media claims, why didn’t we see sustained price surges then? The Guardian conveniently omits this history, preferring to stoke fear over facts.

'The media’s obsession with “global interconnectedness” overlooks the strategic benefits of reducing reliance on ... China'

The article also frames America’s supposed “isolation” as a dire consequence of Trump’s policies, lamenting a 20% drop in New York City hotel bookings and an 11.6% decline in international visitors in March 2025. But this narrative ignores a critical reality: the U.S. has the smallest percentage of its GDP dependent on trade among major economies—only about 27% in 2024, compared to 60% for Germany. Trade disruptions, while inconvenient for some sectors, are far from catastrophic for the U.S. economy. The media’s obsession with “global interconnectedness” overlooks the strategic benefits of reducing reliance on foreign nations, especially those like China, which the U.S. has a lopsided trade relationship with.

'The media also fails to mention that China needs the USA far more than the U.S. needs China'

Speaking of China, the Guardian and its ilk seem to take Beijing’s side at every turn, warning that tariffs will make goods like iPhones “astronomically” expensive if manufactured domestically. Yet a deep dive into the numbers debunks this myth. Producing an iPhone in the U.S. would increase costs by about $50–$100 per unit due to higher labor costs, not the $10,000 price tag fearmongered by critics. With iPhones already retailing for $1,000+, this marginal increase is hardly a dealbreaker for consumers, especially when weighed against the benefits of domestic production—like job creation and supply chain security. The media also fails to mention that China needs the U.S. far more than the U.S. needs China. In 2024, the U.S. accounted for 16.5% of China’s exports, while China made up only 3.5% of U.S. exports. This imbalance gives Trump leverage, which he’s using effectively to win the trade war—despite media claims to the contrary.

'The media frames Trump ... as reckless, never acknowledging the benefits of reducing ties with a bully ...'

The Guardian’s selective reporting extends to geopolitics. It ignores China’s aggressive actions in the South China Sea, where Beijing treats the region like its personal playground, militarizing reefs and harassing neighboring nations. This behavior has driven a massive military buildup in the region, with Japan developing advanced railgun technology and Vietnam, a former ally of China, pivoting to the U.S. and purchasing significant military assets in 2024. From a military perspective, decoupling from China isn’t isolation—it’s a strategic imperative to counter a growing threat. Yet the media frames Trump’s policies as reckless, never acknowledging the security benefits of reducing economic ties with a nation known to falsify its economic data and bully its neighbors.

'Trump’s tariffs are again strengthening U.S. manufacturing'

This bias isn’t new. The mainstream media has long used the same playbook to vilify Trump, from their coverage of the January 6th rioters—portrayed as terrorists while ignoring provocations by law enforcement—to their complicity in the lawfare against Trump, which has been exposed as a politically motivated sham. The Guardian’s article is just the latest chapter, amplifying fears of inflation and depression while ignoring evidence of Trump’s success. During his first term, tariffs revitalized American steel, with capacity utilization rising to 80% by 2019, a threshold for a financially viable domestic industry. Today, Trump’s tariffs are again strengthening U.S. manufacturing, with record tariff revenues of $2 billion daily in April 2025, according to posts on X, and consumer prices dropping for the first time since COVID.

'Americans aren’t scared of Trump—they’re scared of the media’s relentless fear campaign'

The Guardian wants you to believe Trump’s second term is a failure, but the data says otherwise. Inflation is down to 2.4%, oil prices have dropped 20%, and the Producer Price Index fell 0.4% in March 2025, beating forecasts. Americans aren’t scared of Trump—they’re scared of the media’s relentless fear campaign. It’s time to see through the bias and recognize that Trump’s tariffs are winning the trade war, securing America’s future, and proving that the U.S. can thrive without bending the knee to globalist dogma.