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.

The Case for Solar Without the Tax Credit: Prioritizing Fiscal Responsibility

By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com

April 26, 2025

Solar energy empowers American homeowners to generate their own electricity, lower bills, and reduce reliance on monopoly utilities. Rooftop solar systems have proven their worth, keeping lights on during blackouts in Texas, wildfires in California, and hurricanes in Florida. These technologies align with conservative values of self-reliance and resilience, enabling families to take control of their energy needs without waiting on utilities or government aid. However, the federal investment tax credit (ITC) for solar, while well-intentioned, must be reconsidered in light of our nation’s fiscal crisis. There's a lot of support out there to keep these Tax Credits, but with annual deficits exceeding $1.9 trillion and a national debt surpassing $33 trillion, government spending must be curtailed to stabilize the economy and protect all Americans from the crushing effects of high interest rates.

The ITC, which offsets up to 30% of the cost of installing solar panels, is often framed as a pro-market policy. In reality, it’s a government subsidy that disproportionately benefits higher earners. Data shows the average income of households with residential solar installations exceeds $100,000, meaning the ITC largely subsidizes those who can already afford solar, make nearly double the average and adding to the federal deficit. Solar panel prices have plummeted by over 80% since 2010, making solar so affordable that most people can now finance a system over 15–20 years and end up with a payment that’s about the same—or even less—than their average electric bill. In Florida, for example, a homeowner with a $333 average monthly bill can finance a 14.5 kW system for around $344/month without the ITC, a gap that closes as electricity rates rise annually. People are increasingly motivated to own solar to achieve independence from the grid, avoid the grid’s annual rate increases, and, especially in Florida, ensure power during hurricane season outages. With solar prices continuing to fall practically every year, there’s little reason for the government to keep subsidizing an industry that can stand on its own.

"In 2024, the federal government spent over $700 billion on interest payments alone—more than the entire defense budget."

Continuing the ITC risks creating dependency, discouraging innovation, and propping up a mature industry that no longer needs it. More critically, it exacerbates our ballooning deficit. In 2024, the federal government spent over $700 billion on interest payments alone—more than the entire defense budget. The Congressional Budget Office projects deficits will average $2 trillion annually over the next decade, driving interest rates higher as the government competes for borrowing. High interest rates hurt everyone: families face steeper mortgage and auto loan payments, small businesses struggle to expand, and the cost of goods rises. For the average American—especially those earning far less than $100,000—these pressures outweigh the benefits of a tax credit that primarily aids wealthier households. By prioritizing fiscal discipline, we can lower interest rates, stabilize the economy, and create a rising tide that lifts all boats—not just those with solar panels.

Eliminating the ITC doesn’t mean abandoning solar. States can offer their own incentives, tailored to local needs, without adding to the federal deficit. Utilities can be pushed to streamline interconnection processes and fairly compensate homeowners for excess solar energy fed into the grid. Regulatory reforms, like cutting red tape for permitting and installation, would further reduce costs. These market-driven solutions align with conservative principles, fostering competition and innovation while keeping government out of the equation.

"The answer isn’t more federal spending—it’s breaking up monopolies, deregulating energy markets, and empowering consumers through choice."

Monopoly utilities, with their unchecked rate hikes and record profits, are a real problem. Pacific Gas and Electric’s $2.2 billion in 2023 profits, coupled with new fees and rate increases, shows how utilities exploit captive customers. But the answer isn’t more federal spending—it’s breaking up monopolies, deregulating energy markets, and empowering consumers through choice. Solar thrives in competitive environments, and homeowners shouldn’t need a tax credit to say “no” to utility greed.

Supporting solar means supporting ingenuity and independence, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of fiscal sanity. By phasing out the ITC, we can promote solar adoption through market reforms while tackling the deficit that threatens our economic future. High deficits and soaring interest rates hurt every American, from the solar-powered homeowner to the renter struggling with rising costs. It’s time to cut spending, unleash markets, and let solar shine on its own.

How Trump’s Tariffs Are Winning the Trade War with China

By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com

April 24, 2025

President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade policies have reshaped the U.S.-China economic battlefield, positioning America to come out on top in the ongoing trade war. Critics in the media and establishment think tanks warn that Trump’s tariffs—145% on Chinese goods, 10% globally—will cripple consumers and alienate allies. They’re wrong, just as they were in 2018 when they predicted runaway inflation from steel tariffs. Today, a manufacturing boom, curbs on China’s trade tricks, and Beijing’s economic vulnerabilities show that Trump’s strategy is delivering results. Trump recently extended a hand to China, but they're now acting like a petulant child who's toys have been taken away. While the war isn’t over, the U.S. holds the upper hand—here’s why.

Tariffs Work: A Proven Track Record

In 2018, Trump slapped a 25% tariff on steel, sparking media cries of inflation doom. Prices spiked for 30 days, then fell below pre-tariff levels by 2023, thanks to increased U.S. production and global supply adjustments (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Today’s tariffs are even more strategic. Since April 2025, a 10% global tariff (down from 10–90% threats) and a 145% levy on Chinese imports have generated $21 billion in revenue, with projections nearing $170 billion by year-end. This funds Trump’s tax cuts—no Social Security, overtime, or tip taxes—without ballooning deficits, despite the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) $200 billion estimate, which often misses dynamic growth (e.g., 2017 tax cut shortfalls 20% below CBO forecasts).

Critics like the Peterson Institute claim tariffs will cost households $1,700 annually. They’re off-base. Consumer electronics—73% of smartphones, 78% of laptops from China—are exempt, slashing cost estimates closer to $800 (Bloomberg, 2025) and even that may be an overestimation, considering that it's mostly on Toys and Apparel, items consumers can often forgo or cut back on to suit their budget. High-margin industries, like auto parts (where dealers charge $1,000 for $150 brakes), can absorb a 10% tariff without gouging consumers. The 145% Chinese tariff? It’s a negotiating tactic, not permanent, designed to drag Beijing to the table. In 2018, tariffs jumped from 3% to 17% with minimal inflation (1.8% CPI in 2019). History suggests markets will adjust again. China isn't the only game in town.

Reshoring: America’s Manufacturing Revival

Trump’s tariffs, paired with Biden’s CHIPS and Inflation Reduction Acts, have ignited a U.S. manufacturing renaissance, reducing reliance on China. The CHIPS Act alone has spurred over 100 projects worth $540 billion, with 50+ companies—Intel ($100 billion in Arizona, Ohio), TSMC ($65 billion in Arizona), Micron ($100 billion in New York)—building semiconductor plants across 28 states (Semiconductor Industry Association, 2025). Battery factories are booming, with 10 set to open in 2025 (e.g., LG Chem in Michigan) and 15–20 more by 2027, targeting 1,200 GWh capacity by 2030 (BloombergNEF, 2024). Steel and glass are back, too: Hyundai’s $1.5 billion Louisiana plant, Nucor’s $2.7 billion Arkansas mill, Steel Dynamics’ $1.9 billion Kentucky facility, and Dialum/Viracon’s glass factories in Florida signal a heavy industry revival.

This isn’t just about jobs—it’s about the middle class. The CHIPS Act will create 56,000 direct jobs and 300,000 indirect ones (SIA, 2021). Each manufacturing job generates 5–10 support roles so in reality it could be as high as over a half million indirect jobs (Economic Policy Institute), adding $15–25 billion in tax revenue annually by 2030 (NAM, 2024). Hyundai’s plant alone could yield $300–500 million in taxes. Unlike the globalization era, which hollowed out U.S. factories, Trump’s policies prioritize American workers over foreign economies.

Closing China’s Trade Loopholes

China claims it cut its U.S. export reliance from 19.8% to 12.8% (2018–2023). Don’t buy it. Much of this “reduction” is transshipment—Chinese goods relabeled in Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, or Cambodia to dodge tariffs. A Harvard study (2024) estimates 16% of Vietnam’s U.S. exports are transshipped Chinese products and that's JUST Vietnam! Trump’s response? High tariffs (46% on Vietnam, 49% on Cambodia) followed by a 90-day pause and 10% rate for compliant nations. The threat of high tariffs on Vietnam's manufacturing base moved them to now enforce strict factory inspections and “Made in Vietnam” label checks. Cambodia pledged tariff cuts (35% to 5%) and export oversight. Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore are tightening controls, too. All wins for Trump's strategy of isolating China.

These deals raise costs for Chinese goods, forcing them through U.S. tariffs—145% unless exempted. While enforcement isn’t perfect (China’s supply chain ties run deep), Trump’s pressure is dismantling Beijing’s workaround, ensuring fairer trade. Again, however Trumps target rate is probably closer to 25%. High enough to make "Made in America" more viable, but not so high as to completely shut down all trade.

China’s Economic Achilles’ Heel

China’s economy is faltering, amplifying U.S. leverage. Its real estate crisis ($300 billion Evergrande debt, 65 million vacant units), 15% youth unemployment, and loss-making EV sector (99/100 firms unprofitable) strain growth (4.6% GDP, 2024). Subsidies ($100 billion for steel, autos) prop up exports but drain resources. China needs U.S. dollars—its $295.4 billion U.S. trade surplus is critical for $3.2 trillion reserves and debt servicing.

Beijing’s diversification to ASEAN ($560 billion) and the EU ($525 billion) faces limits. ASEAN’s growth is strong, but the EU and Japan, with populations shrinking 6% and 0.5% yearly (Eurostat, OECD, 2024), won’t sustain China’s export machine. Food imports (50% of needs, including 100 million tons of soybeans) are another weak point. China’s 125% tariff on U.S. soybeans shifts demand to Brazil, but Brazil’s 150 million-ton limit leaves global gaps (400 million tons traded yearly). The U.S. can sell to the EU or India, maintaining leverage.

Strategic Gains Beyond Economics

China’s military buildup—400+ fighter jets, 20 warships, doubled missiles, 50% more satellites (Pentagon, 2024)—threatens Taiwan by 2027, justifying Trump’s hard line. Its South China Sea aggression alienates Vietnam (27 F-16 orders) and Japan ($7 billion naval buildup), creating U.S. openings. The Belt and Road’s debt traps (e.g., Sri Lanka’s port) spark regional backlash, amplifying Trump’s tariff-driven isolation of Beijing.

Could iPhones be made here? Yes, at a modest cost. Assembly labor in China ($24/unit) would rise to $240 in the U.S., but lower transport and tariffs cut the net increase to $165. Apple’s 44% margins can absorb a 10–15% price hike without losing share to Samsung AND still maintain the most profitable manufacturing operation on earth. Rare earths? The U.S. (Mountain Pass mine) and Australia (Lynas) can supply all needs, despite higher costs (USGS, 2024). China’s 80% share is a choice, not a necessity.

The Road Ahead

Trump hasn’t won the trade war outright—China’s $2.8 trillion reserves and ASEAN trade provide resilience. Inflation risks and supply chain dependencies linger. Initial high tariffs strained allies, but it was a move to get them to police China's transshipment abuses, AND IT WORKED! Hopefully the 10% rate restored goodwill. But Trump’s gains are undeniable: $170 billion in tariff revenue, a manufacturing boom, transshipment curbs, and pressure on China’s economy. Beijing may resist, but its dollar needs and global food constraints limit options. The U.S., with exports at 8% of GDP, can outlast China and in the end, hopefully we can cut a deal that STOPS China from supplying our enemies.

The media’s doom-and-gloom narrative—echoed by Krugman and Peterson—misses the mark, just as it did in 2018. Trump’s tariffs are rewriting the rules, bringing jobs home, and forcing China to rethink its game. The trade war’s endgame is unclear, but one thing’s certain: America’s back in the driver’s seat.