How The Russia-Ukraine War Ends

 The Russia-Ukraine War broke out in 2022. This was an extension of the internal civil war which continued to escalate. The destabilization of Eastern Europe was not an accident. The failure to adhere to the Minsk Accords enabled a bigger war and the opportunity to add more NATO members. Sweden and Finland are on the way to being new partners. Neoconservatives thought the Russian Federation would be weakened by a conflict on its border. The long term objective was to balkanize the country and make it lose its diplomatic connections to other countries. As the war progressed the delusional belief was that Ukraine could cause a major Russian defeat. Ukraine does not have the capability to defeat Russia. The US, UK, France, and Germany tried to convince the public that Russian defeat was inevitable. Observers of military affairs understood that this was not realistic. More weapons and funds are sent to Ukraine despite defeats and stalemates. Unless all of Europe goes to war with US assistance, the outcome will not be what the West intended. France has implied that it might be willing to send forces to Ukraine. The energy crisis and economic challenges has made the European public disgruntled. The public would be unwilling to fight a war for the sake of a neo-colonial imperial goal. Sending NATO forces in Ukraine would drag the United States further into the conflict. NATO forces have been reported to be stationed at the Ukrainian embassy. It is unclear the number of foreign forces inside Ukraine as of 2024. Ukraine is going to be defeated. When that happens depends on various factors. Wars could last for months or go on for years. The Russian intervention at some point will end. How the war ends can result in a number of outcomes. The Russian Federation could absorb all of Ukraine. Russia either retreats in the face of a combined US-NATO invasion. The more likely result is a peace settlement and the boundaries of Eastern Europe remain the same. 

       When Russia invaded the narrative was a  war of conquest. Russia invaded to support the militias fighting in the Donbass. The failure of  the second Minsk Accord cause the resumption of the civil war. If the 2014 coup never occurred, there would not have been a Russian military intervention. The narrative is that Russia is recreating the Soviet Union. Such an analysis does not take into account geopolitical realities. If the Soviet Union was to be revived Central Asia would have to be incorporated first. The region has more natural resources in comparison to Eastern Europe and the Baltic. The Russian Federation has no intention of restoring a one party communist state. Russia has embraced neoliberal capitalism. The dominance of the oligarchs shows the devasting effects of corporate avarice  and economic shock therapy from the 1990s. The narrative of a Soviet Union revival is more of historical fiction. Others active in geopolitical circles claim that  President Vladimir Putin aims to revive  the Russian Empire. To revive a Russian Empire, China would have to be neutralized. The People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation are moving toward an official military alliance. These actions do not indicate a revival  of  the Soviet Union and Russian Empire. Ukraine would not be a starting  point to build a Eurasian empire. Based on the events in 2023, Russia's goal was not to incorporate Ukraine. The long term objective is to halt NATO expansion getting closer to its borders. 

Russia is not attempting to force Ukraine into its territory. NATO secretary general Jen Stolenberg  admitted the war is not about saving Ukraine. Rather the Russia-Ukraine War was to justify expanding the military alliance. Stolenberg stated " the background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty  that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO entanglement." Russia is not invading Western Europe. NATO is becoming a more aggressive presence not only in Europe, but around the globe. This explains why Russia continues to support Belarus to counter Ukraine. The reason President Alexander Lukashenko allowed Russian forces stationed in the country. Belarus could be a target of NATO in the future. The alliance with Russia is designed to prevent a foreign military intervention . Whatever conquest would happen would be irridentist absorption of ethnic Russian population. Russia is not using Ukraine as launching center to invade all of Europe. 

      The most concerning outcome is a NATO war. This NATO war would involve all members to fight in Ukraine. The precarious nature  of this is possible nuclear war. A NATO-Russia war would involve the United States. Both the Russian Federation and the United States of America have massive nuclear arsenals. Russia does not want article 5 to be invoked. Without the INF Treaty there is no precautionary measures. A NATO-Russia war would either be Germany, France, and the UK sending soldiers to Ukraine. As Russia gets closer to Kiev they would be sent to prevent Ukraine's collapse. What neoconservatives hoped was that the Russia-Ukraine War would induce a Russian fall. The Russian-Ukraine War would then morph into a conflict into a balkanization. If Russia's defeat in Ukraine was immensely devastating it could create  a situation similar to the 1991 U.S.S.R collapse or the break-up of Yugoslavia. The Russian Federation would be divided into multiple successor states. Ukraine is not going to be able to push Russia back. The Russian Federation's economy and armed forces are too stable to induce dissolution. However, a US-NATO invasion could cause the Russian Federation to collapse. If such a war to take place there would be nuclear engagement. The end of the INF Treaty makes the situation extremely precarious. The conflict would be on the scale of a world war and possibly merge existing conflicts. A NATO war if Russia lost would mean it would break into a number of fragments. European Russia would be separated from Asian Siberia. NATO after a massive war would occupy the new polities. While the Ukrainian Civil War morphed into a Ukraine-Russia confrontation, turning into a Russia-NATO is not likely. The US, France, and the UK find it easier to keep the Russia-Ukraine conflict as a war of proxy. Financing, production of arms, and public support are going to be strained. The "stand with Ukraine" public relations effort cannot survive when people must be drafted, taxes have to be increased, and inflation from the energy crisis remain obstructions. Destabilizing the whole Eurasian landmass contains too many complications. Neoconservatives as another alternative geostrategy could seek to just reduce Russian national power. A weak Russian Federation means there is no opposition to the US-European Union bloc. A US-NATO invasion of Russian will not happen due to the difficulties of sustaining combat operations. 

       A peace settlement is possible. Russia prior to the conflict wanted to have a discussion with the United States about security guarantees. President Vladmir Putin discussed being open to dialogue. The announcement was given at his presidential inauguration. A number of towns and villages  are falling to Russian forces.  The northeast is witnessing an offensive. Simultaneously, Ukrainian soldiers are deserting and  filling positions become more difficult. Ukrainian refugees that are in other parts of Europe have no intention of  returning.  Ukraine has sent drones into Russia. These have had no effect because they are not hitting military targets. Russian citizens are at risk, but it has killed very few. Acts of terrorism will not change the events happening in the eastern  or the northeastern front. The invasion has evolved into a war of attrition. Despite all the arms to Ukraine, expulsion of Russian forces is not achievable. The Russian Federation will be closer to Kiev and capture it. Assuming the fighting continues with  guerilla warfare  tactics  or armed resistance, it will be over. The Russian offensive has caused 1,700 Ukrainians to flee. Civilians are not as likely to remain and take up arms. Ukraine's military attempted an counteroffensive in 2023. The June operation did not produce a tactical victory or shorten the war. Ukraine's military has deteriorated from a war of attrition. Under this pressure either the government or military will collapse. Ukraine might  request a peace settlement to avoid further deaths. President Volodymyr Zelensky was thinking about discussing peace with Russia, until Prime Minister  Boris Johnson convinced him not to. Seeing as the path to victory is narrow, Russians will probably dictate most of the peace terms. Removing President Zelensky is not going to be part of  a peace treaty. If Russia wanted they could have assassinated him by an airstrike. The reason they do not do this is because the more far-right extremists would takeover. A recreation of 2014 would mean another cycle of attacks and ethnic cleansing in the Donbas. The agreement would dictate that Ukraine has a neutral status or does not become a member of NATO. Either the Donbas becomes independent or seeks to join the Russian Federation through referendum. Russia's ownership of Crimea must be recognized under the peace agreement. These are the possible terms that Ukraine would have to accept after defeat. The map of Europe is not going to drastically change. Based on the Russo-Georgian  War in 2008, Ukraine does not have to fear losing its independence. Georgia lost some territory, but was not incorporated into Russia. Ukraine could lose Donetsk and Luhansk to Russia. Those two provinces may even try to become their own states. Ukraine would object to this, but have no choice to acknowledge the peace terms.

     Peace should be the preferred outcome. Even if established, Eastern Europe will not be the same. Ukraine during the civil war and the Russia-Ukraine War has become more authoritarian. President Volodymyr  Zelensky has postponed elections even though his term is set to expire. He might cling to power using a state of emergency justification. Just because the war comes to an end does not mean rights will be respected. Ukraine at the moment is not a member of NATO. Instead it will be further militarized by the European Union. More tanks, planes, and guns are going to sent to Ukraine, because the arms industry sees it as an investment. Ukraine has amassed large debt from the war. The countries that provided financial assistance are not going to allow debt cancellation. Ukraine will be at the mercy of the UK. France, Germany, and the United States. Russia's influence is not undermining Ukraine's sovereignty; the West is. The Ukraine project in terms of military goals  has been a failure. Russia did not fall or become weaker. To avoid condemnation, the narrative is being adjusted. The escalation of the war is going to be presented as a preemptive measure. The West halted Russian expansion into Europe. The dishonest assertion ignores the fact that the catalyst was adding more NATO members. NATO is not seeking a defensive strategy, rather an anti-Russian military alliance. Any country that has armed forces coming closer to its borders will react. The mistake of the Russian Federation was being provoked into intervention in the Ukrainian Civil War. The war of proxy that is occurring might not produce the results belligerents desire. The war caused more countries to join NATO. The United States has not been able to destabilize or produce regime change in Russia. When peace does come the relations between countries shall be altered. Ukraine and Belarus are going to have worse diplomatic relations. Russia is going to invest more in building Belarus militarily as a counter to Ukraine. A peace treaty can be made, but this will not shield the region from the aftermath of the Russia-Ukraine War. Refugees, damaged infrastructure, and far-right extremist violence are going to be persistent issues.               

Norman Finkelstein Debates Wolf Blitzer At The University of Pennsylvania (1989)

Wolf Blitzer a longtime journalist made the argument for Zionism and Israel. Blitzer asserts that Zionism is a national liberation movement. Jews did face persecution in Europe, but Zionism was not about getting equal rights for Jews. It was about an ideology of settler colonialism. If the argument is made that Jews need a homeland due to historical suffering, why are other groups ignored ? The Kurds and the Roma do not have a state and the United Nations did nothing for them. Norman Finkelstein counters Blitzer's claims. The political scientist and activist exposes the myth that Israel was fighting for its national security. The country occupied land from Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. Israel was focused on expansion and hostility directed at its Arab neighbors. This is why a free  Palestinian state will not exist . Israel does not recognize Gaza or West Bank as an Arab state. As Dr. Finkelstein explains the occupation has nothing to do with security. The objective is about an imperial project which involves forced removal of the Arab population and the restriction of their rights.   

Aung San Suu Kyi Initiates the Panglong Peace Talks

 

Myanmar still remains a country in conflict, even with a civilian government. Ethnic conflict between the Kachin, Shan, and Kayin  continues with clashes being frequent. Suu Kyi is not fully in control, with the military still retaining significant influence in government. The Panglong peace talks were designed to end conflict through a permanent settlement. This is further complicated by the Rohingya crisis, which has created a large number of refugees. Aung Suu Kyi was criticized for her handling of the situation, which caused damaged relations between the US and EU nations. The peace talks cannot advance as long as the military remains an obstacle. The attempt at establishing a democratic system becomes more fragile, the longer war continues. Myanmar could go through a process of balkanization if insurgencies continue. Racism and prejudice must be confronted if the country is to remain whole. A federal system or semi-autonomous regional systems may be required to address historical grievances. Having another election will not solve these complex political and ethnic problems. Already frustration is beginning to grow. As Myanmar becomes more shunned by the West, it has more closer to China. This increases the likelihood it will be targeted for sanctions. Aung San Suu Kyi has announced that she intends to run for president in the November elections. If a peace deal or some form of agreement is not reached it would make attaining office more difficult. Peace may have to come from a strong executive branch that limits military power. If she does win office, it would need more authority to make a change in policy.    

The Dangers of an Iran-US War

When the Donald Trump administration decided to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, tensions with Iran increased. What followed after this decision was more sanctions on Iran. Another provocation was designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The United States has escalated the situation further by sending more troops to the Middle East. President Donald Trump has stated he does not want war with Iran. Actions and policies indicate that the United States is intending to ignite  a large conflict. The neoconservatives present in Donald Trump's cabinet have made it clear that Iran could be the next target for regime change. If more attempts at instigation are made, there could be a US-Iran War. The repercussions of such a confrontation could be devastating on multiple levels. War creates refugees which could result in a large humanitarian crisis. Instability would spread to Central Asia. The loss of human life would be immense for both civilians and soldiers. A war between the United States and Iran would generate a response from other world powers. Russia and China would most likely have to act, in response to a critical situation. Russia would seem more willing to get involved considering their investments in Syria. The European Union countries may be forced to fight with the US simply as a measure to prevent more refugee traffic from previous conflicts. The influx of refugees and migrants from economic devastation as well as war creates an unmanageable situation. That would mean a humanitarian crisis could spread to three continents of Asia, Europe, and possibly Africa. The Iranian Revolution that occurred in 1979 was the point in which Iran and the United States become enemies. When the Iran-Iraq War broke out in 1980, the US decided to favor Saddam Hussein in hopes that a military victory would bring an end to the Islamic Republic. A more complicated reality existed with the Iran-Contra affair, which revealed the US was technically arming both nations in the conflict.  The use of chemical weapons and arms provided by the United States inflicted much devastation on Iran. The war ended with a cease-fire in 1988 and by that time, international politics was changing. Decline in Soviet power and a Middle East going through transition to new era was occurring. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 altering the balance of power in the region. The reason Iraq was not occupied in the 1991 war was that it would have increased Iran's regional power. When Iraq was invaded and occupied in 2003, Iran's influence expanded. The removal of the Baathist government created a power void in which Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel would compete to have dominance. Past events have created an atmosphere for eventual confrontation. This can be prevented, but it requires a revision of US Middle Eastern policy.
          The amount of death  that would occur in a US-Iran war would be astronomical. The highest amount of casualties normally tend to be the nation that is being invaded by the United States. Civilians are the first victims of aggressive warfare. The same method of attack the US could use would be to use the aircraft to bomb select targets. Similar to the Iraq War, a ground invasion could happen. There should be an expectation that the majority of the Iranian civilian population will arm themselves. Very few countries in the world welcome invasion or occupation by a foreign military. The error and arrogance of the United States was the assumption the US would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq. Iran's population only may think the US means harm to them collectively. Sanctions do not harm the leadership rather the population as a whole. If an invasion or some form of strike happens, it only encourages more support for the Islamic Republic. A large portion of the population would be willing to die for their nation who are not in the military. If the Iranian government were to collapse under the strains of warfare, fighting would not stop. Some Iranian citizens will never accept the rule of  an occupying force. More death would come from US attempts to pacify an armed civilian resistance. Conventional warfare contributes to the loss of human life, but what comes afterwards only adds more violence. The United States with much effort could win the war, but it would be another one that follows afterwards. The desire of neoconservatives would be the full use of army, navy, and air forces directed at Iran. The Islamic  Republic of Iran does not have the same military capacity of the United States. The development of missile systems would at least cause some trouble for the US Air Force. The best chance Iran has at fighting the United States is through asymmetric based warfare or prolonged guerrilla warfare tactics. If this happens Iranian resistance could continue indefinitely. This conflict may not even be confined to the Middle East itself.
        The era of globalization and international politics demonstrates that war can hardly be contained between two nations. One of the biggest fears is that a conflict with Iran would ignite a regional war leading to a much larger global confrontation. There are three major power blocks operating in contemporary international politics. There is the US and EU block which is conflict with a Russia-China alliance. The developing nations of Africa, Asia, and South America are caught in the middle of these world powers and subject to their geopolitical designs. Developing nations either have the strategy of allying with one block or another as well as resistance to violations of national sovereignty. Iran has moved closer to Russia ever since the Syrian Civil War. Both Syria and  Iran are important to Russia's foreign policy in the Middle East. This is similar to the relationship that the United States has with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. The diplomatic issues with Qatar and other Gulf states could harm this coalition with the purpose to either isolate or attack Iran. Oman would be the least likely to engage in conflict with Iran seeing as it maintains good relations with the country. Oman may remain neutral, unless forced or convinced to change its Iran policy.

      
Seeing as there is a delicate balance of new alliances emerging along with older ones, Middle Eastern nations will have to select sides. A network of rival alliance systems appears to be present. A major factor is Turkey's growing power and desire to have more influence in the Arab world.Which faction it would chose to side with seems unclear, but its actions in Syria puts it indirect conflict with Iran . A large regional conflict would involve Russia, America, the UK, France, and China. The trade war with China, if it lasts long enough may force it to be more active in other regions of the world to reduce economic strain.  There has already been a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen's military struggle. Iran has been supporting the Houthi rebels in response to armed groups in Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia has attempted to reinstate Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi as president, even though he resigned and fled the country during when Houthi rebels were gaining control of certain sections of Yemen. Smaller armed conflicts would merge into a larger one based around the rival alliance systems both regionally and internationally. Israel under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been more belligerent in its political position in relation to Iran. Israel would be part of a US-Iran war, or either the initiator of it. The reason Israel has not engaged in warfare with Iran has do with the factor of US support. Hezbollah also could be a concern in regards to Israel's northern border and the military intervention in Syria. Israel has conducted airstrikes since the conflict broke out in Syria in 2011. Iraq as well as  Syria,  would be encircled between both a hostile Israel and Iran.  One mystery remains in possible outcomes is how Egypt or Jordan would respond in such an event of a massive regional multiple nation war. Depending on which side Egypt chooses Israel could be fighting a war on multiple fronts, if the treaty between the two nations were to suddenly be terminated. Jordan has come to terms with Israel's existence. Both countries would not be fighting for Israel or any other Arab nation. Any collaboration that would occur would be the result of a common fear of Persian power in the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia could fight one another first, followed by external allies getting involved directly. Russia and  the United States forces would come to assist fighting one another directly. Thus, smaller conflicts escalate int bigger ones, while simultaneously attracting world powers and neighboring countries.
     War between Iran and the United States would mean some form of fall out into Central Asia. Iran's neighbor to the north Turkmenistan could see either an influx of refugees or an increase in terrorism. Afghanistan, which has been in a state of war since 2001, which seems to have no end in sight. The war with the Taliban remains a conflict that cannot be won through battles. Attempts for peace have been made by both Iran and Qatar. Talks of peace have failed multiple times. President Hassan Rouhani and President Asharf Ghani  have agreed to bilateral cooperation related to fighting terrorism from ISIL or ISIS active in their region. The reason Iran wants to maintain a friendly relationship with Afghanistan for two reasons. It prevents the US waging a two front war from both Iraq and Afghanistan. It also prevents the Taliban rising again becoming a possible Sunni Muslim competitor. What complicates the situation further is Iran's relations with both India and Pakistan.

India wanted greater access to global markets so it decided to agree with both Iran and Afghanistan for the establishment of the Chabahar Port. The transport and trade corridor was agreed to by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2016. US military action would cause more instability in Afghanistan and ruin India's attempts to expand in global markets through economic projects in Central Asia. Pakistan and India seeing as they would be the most stable countries would try to gain more influence in a post-war Iran.  The Central Asian leaders who are either presidents for life or have an authoritarian style of governance under a region with a war torn Iran will find their governments struggling for survival. The two most powerful  leaders President Gurbanguly Berdimudamedow and President  Emomali Rahmon could face Sunni Muslim radical political Islamist insurgencies. Iran's relations with Tajikistan have been less than spectacular with accusations of inference relative to internal affairs. This fragile relationship can be broken with a sudden regime change in Tehran. Relations with Turkmenistan are significantly better with bilateral collaboration in the energy sector. The destruction or collapse of Iran would mean these two countries would lose a trading partner. As a result Turkmenistan and Tajikistan would become more reliant on China and its former colonizer Russia. From this perspective a regime change in Iran would be an economic disadvantage to the United States. The only way the United States could out maneuver both Russia and China would be through India. Pulling India away from Iran would in effect undermine both powers. Gradually, this may be happening with the Trump administration's Indo-Pacific policy. The United States does not have as much influence in Central Asia in comparison to Iran, Russia, and China. The United States attempted to expand influence during the early 2000s  in Central Asia. The argument of the Bush administration is that the Central Asian states were needed in the War on Terror. Therefore allying with longtime authoritarian leaders was justified in the name of fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The US involvement in Central Asia has not established a positive or long term relationship. Growing resentment over US occupation and military presence in Afghanistan only generates negative images with the people of the Central Asian states.Removal of a large Shia Muslim nation would create some form of power void, which would reverberate across a struggling region.

            
There are attempts by Central Asian nations to increase  economic development. Iran although a difficult partner in terms of trade and the energy sector, it somewhat gives them less dependence on their former colonizer Russia. If Iran was no longer a functioning state, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan will lose a pivotal source of trade. The risk of  the whole region being destabilized become even more frightening, with the end of the Nursultan Nazabayev presidency in Kazakhstan. Power transition in the country may not be as simple, which adds to the complexus of regional affairs in relation to Iran.  These states have been held together by authoritarian leaders attempting nation building out of the former Soviet Union. The sudden collapse of the former super power created new complications and political challenges. The deterioration of economic conditions from loss of a trading partner would lead to events similar in North Africa and the Middle East. Rapid regime changes induced by economic turmoil and inequality may follow from a large scale war with Iran. Long term conflict would inevitably put Central Asia in peril of being a series of failed states. The US-Iran war would spill over from the Middle East and has the potential to spark mass global conflict.
         When the fighting stops what arises is the question of refugees and resettlement. The section of the Iranian population that has the ability to flee will seek safety in other countries. Leaving so many people in a horrid condition if a massive war is waged generates global condemnation. The United States, France, Germany, or the UK would have to provide refuge for civilians of Iran. Otherwise, there will be large populations of internally displaced people. The refugee traffic could be so enormous, it light require United Nations assistance. The burden of so many people to aid may require more nations to take Iranian refugees from a war. Australia or New Zealand are possible options. The European and North American countries have to consider what happens afterwards. Refugees may want to stay permanently and if so there must be a means to obtain citizenship. Governments will have to provide jobs, healthcare, education, and adequate facilities for the large amounts of people they let enter their countries. If the economic situation is in a state of deterioration in Europe or America, this will on cause more hardship for refugees who do not have citizenship in host countries or stable employment. A US-Iran war would only exacerbate a refugee crisis that has been a around since the Arab Spring. Programs of resettlement and assistance should be in place prior to any large scale military action. If not, such programs do not exist another humanitarian crisis would be the final product. Iranian citizens who flee and resettle will face serious trauma and psychological shock from the wave of violence as well as the long journey to a new country. The option for a route would be to enter Turkey and then make it to either Bulgaria or Greece. Assuming Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are not disturbed too much by the war, that would be a destination for Iranian refugees. Africa would also be effected by a US-Iran conflict. Sudan still remains active in the war with Yemen being allied to both the UAE and Suadi Arabia. Even with the fall of Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese government wants to remain in the Yemen War. Sudanese troops remain in Yemen and active in the Saudi led coalition. Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE would not take refugees after a US-Iran war. The burden and planning would fall mostly to the US-EU block.
         President Donald Trump when he withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, my have triggered a collision course for war. Unlike North Korea, Iran has not launched or conducted nuclear tests. So far, the country has been compliant with the measures of the agreement. The real issue is that there is a policy that has become more belligerent since the Bush administration. National Security Advisor John Bolton served in both the Reagan White House and the George W. Bush administration. He continues to pursue what some view as a bellicose and hostile approach to Iran. On his current visit to US allies in the Middle East John Bolton had accused Iran for the oil tanker attacks and it engaged in a region wide conspiracy of sabotage. There is little evidence that Iran has orchestrated acts of terrorism.However, there is the possibility that the Sunni Muslim armed groups fighting in Syria will turn against the Gulf monarchies. The Soviet-Afghan War was an example of the lethal nature of blowback and how it later caused more violence. Groups that are armed by furtive means will not disband when fighting stops. Only with  proper investigation can it be determined what caused damage to the Saudi oil tankers. Excuses are being made for a war, but so far it appears Iran has not been responsive to US demands. The death and disorder that follows an US-Iran war would be a series of failed states and a region falling backward. The economic consequences could last beyond the conflict itself. Markets may panic at the prospect of a long term war. The United States would have to increase taxes even more to keep its war machine going. Combined with the occupation and reconstruction of a war torn Iran the cost would increase to enormous sums . The United States has accumulated so much debt from wars and military spending it is impossible to pay off.  The fall of Iran can result in a drastic change in the world map. Instability could swing between the Middle East and Central Asia. One factor that should be considered is how the Kurdish population would react. The desire for independence has not come to fruition, but it become more in reach with a weakened Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Turkey is the only state that could prevent the formation of a Kurdistan. Without Iran, there would be another regional power void in which the stronger states would fill. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey would be the strongest states. It would only be a matter of time before these countries would be in conflict with one another. War is not a rational or safe solution to disputes with Iran. The only way to prevent war and maintain peace is to reenter the nuclear agreement. A peace plan must happen in Yemen with simultaneous withdraw of  the Saudi coalition and Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. Intervention in Syria must come to an end by both Gulf states and Iran, so that Syrians can determine the future of their country. The United States must halt attempts at nation building or spreading its paradigm of liberal democracy. If  US and Iranian tensions are not solved diplomatically the world may witness of the worst mass global conflicts spanning multiple continents.       
              

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern Promises More Gun Control

The Christcurch Mosque shooting has caused Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to propose stronger gun control. This act of  racist and Islamophobic terrorism has exposed a problem that rarely gets media attention. White nationalism and xenophobic nativist nationalism has become an international phenomenon. Hate has always been there and the historical legacy proves it. While the media presents New Zealand as a peaceful,open, and tolerant society the reality is its foundations are based on imperial conquest. The British just like in Australia displaced the native population. Maoris are strangers in a land that is theirs and immigrants face hostility from the white population. Social media and guns have been blamed fro this horrendous act of violence. Such explanations ignore the real issue. There is an reluctance to admit that the majority of European descended peoples do not want to share their countries with African, Asian, or Latin American populations. Many whites feel the sentiments uttered in the manifesto written by the shooter. Individuals may not act on violent sentiments, but the hate is there.  Prime Minister   Jacinda Arden may not be able to make meaningful change, if she does not address the violent racist history of New Zealand's past. If there is no serious discussion about racism among the majority of the white population in the Oceania region, acts like this may continue. As populations flee war and poverty, the more xenophobic nativist nationalism becomes popular among people who do not understand or fear demographic shifts. If the government does not act racist violence will become normalized.  

The Rise of Xenophobic Nativist Nationalism

Globalization has caused major economic, social, and political transformation. While there have been positive benefits from the rise of an international community, there have been more extreme reactions.The rise of xenophobic nativist nationalism has been a reaction to globalism as an international force. These sudden changes include supranationalism, mass migration, and the effects of neoliberal capitalism. This reaction can be seen in the West and wider Eurasian region. It also has a presence in Global South nations, with various countries becoming more suspicious of one another. The result is a world falling further into tribalism and balkanization. Old fault lines are emerging causing geopolitical shifts. It must be understood that xenophobic nativist nationalism is both a movement and political ideology. Like other belief systems it has a specific set of attributes. The reason for its rise is not only due to globalization, but the historical events of the past. European colonial empires, neocolonialism, and humanitarian intervention have contributed to the increase in various extremist groups globally. Discord, inequality, and the general state of frustration among the world's population has created conditions for far-right movements to flourish. The collapse of the Soviet Union also created more complications in terms of the geopolitical structure. Countries may no longer be aligned by an specific political ideology rather, a strict adherence to identity politics.  If this continues only more international division and conflict will occur. Animosity has become political capital being used to justify policies that would otherwise be condemned. Xenophobic nativist nationalism can be at times a nebulous concept, but there can be a more broad description based on the behavior of particular nations. 

        Xenophobic nativist nationalism can be defined as the fear or hatred of foreigners combined with extreme patriotic devotion to a nation-state. This ideology elevates one nation above others advocating ethnocentrism. Native culture and customs of a particular nation is considered superior to foreign ones. Migrants and immigrants are perceived as problems or security risks. Racism and scapegoating are common characteristics of xenophobic nativist nationalist sentiment. Immigrants have been blamed for crime, harming the labor market, or exacerbating political edge issues. The demands of assimilation are not based on the goal of full integration into society. Assimilation means in the context of xenophobic nativist nationalism that foreigners completely relinquish their cultural and ethnic identity or forget their heritage in order to conform. The demand for conformity represents how some countries deem their culture and customs as superior. The desire of xenophobic nativist nationalism is to produce a state that is racially and culturally homogeneous. The ideology rejects internationalism, multiculturalism, and leftist political beliefs. Xenophobic nativist nationalism opposes globalism for other reasons, different from anti-imperialist advocates. The position is that globalism encourages mass migration and undermines national culture in favor of an international one. Supporters of this type of nationalism hold the conviction that immigrants should not be treated with dignity or respect. This projects itself in a number of human rights abuses. Indefinite detention, separations, and over crowed facilities are common place for nations with high immigration. Although supporters of xenophobic nativist nationalism do not describe themselves as fascists, many  far-right organizations, hate groups, and white nationalists use this movement to advance their own  political agendas with in the political movement. The mainstream xenophobic nationalists intolerance want to distance  themselves from the extreme right, however they still support their ideas and advance their causes in a furtive manner. These concepts are only the basics of a growing political ideology of xenophobic nativist nationalism.
         What gave birth to xenophobic nativist nationalism was a combination of economic shifts and the international political culture. Neoliberal capitalism had not only exploited the labor of the developing world. It also put workers in the West at a disadvantage. Transnational corporations outsourced their labor to countries that had a labor force willing to work for less pay and benefits. Simultaneously, this effected people in the West at lower income levels. Working class whites who were to a degree, protected from major economic changes because white supremacy guaranteed a safety net. When that was challenged, many of this group felt left behind. The collapse of  the Soviet Union made neoliberal capitalism the dominant economic system, but this did not improve the conditions of the general population globally. One reason mass migration has reached astronomical levels is that people from Asia, Latin America, and Africa cannot sustain themselves financially. They have become economic refugees and the West becomes a destination for some form of safety. Germany and particularly the eastern section is an example of how xenophobic nativist nationalism can blossom under harsh economic conditions. East Germany did not benefit from reunification and capitalism. Unemployment and hardship induced hatred directed at various immigrant groups from 1990 to present.

Turkish, Vietnamese, and currently Muslims are viewed with suspicion or enmity. The reason why supporters of  the xenophobic nativist nationalist movement are increasing in number is that their economic situation has not improved after the 2008 financial global crisis. Fiscal austerity measures and failure to regulate international finance capital has resulted in the European nations projecting their anger through various fringe movements.The international political culture also raises concerns. This specifically describes a mode of  global affairs thought in which every nation should be part of a supranationalist organization. Such a proposal is not entirely outrageous, but the problem arises from the question of national sovereignty. The European Union dictates which criteria nations have to meet to be and remain members in the international body. These conditions could range from human rights concerns, refugees, or economic policies. The question of which nations take refugees become a contentious one. Countries that have limited resources to deal with the influx of migrant traffic become more frustrated, when it appears that the wealthier nations on the continent do less in comparison. This has been  Prime Minister Vicktor Orban's argument as he has used it to move Hungary to the far-right. Differences over refugee policy and  the conduct of the EU have energized the far-right in Europe. The EU has a vision in which all countries in the organization ascribe to a set of political and cultural values. This includes embracing neoliberal capitalism, liberal democracy, multiculturalism, and multiracial societies. The countries that advocate xenophobic nativist nationalism do not embrace such values,because they equate it to the destruction of their identity. The only value they embrace is the economic aspect in which neoliberal capitalism would still be a part of the society, but it would only function for the nation and specifically the ruling class. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank have made the economic system benefit  the ruling elite of  European nations. The economic nationalism of  the new political movement wants to concentrate the wealth in a certain state only without sharing with other nations. This explains why President Donald Trump's economic nationalism resonates with conservative voters in the United States of  America.  

   

The sentiment is that immigration has caused a financial strain on the US and by reducing illegal immigration jobs and economic stability will return. These are falsehoods, but they seem to be factual to those on the American right. President Trump as constantly stated that various nations including US allies have exploited the country. Part of international political culture is adopting a capitalist only system with a strong emphasis on free markets and limited protectionism. The IMF and World Bank are presented as institutions designed to help the global economy, but various observations show that they have become instruments of economic exploitation. A large part of globalism is economic, not only politics and international affairs. Workers now find themselves competing for jobs not just within their own nations, but the entire world. Simultaneously, poverty continues to increase around the globe. Citizens of various countries want an explanation to economic challenges, but do not comprehend the complex nature of the international economic conditions. Immigrants become targets and are scapegoated for struggles in certain countries. The reason fascism became so popular in Europe in the 1930s was due to the Great Depression. The economic factor related to the rise of xenophobic nativist nationalism cannot be ignored. 

         One aspect of international political culture that has made such a far-right ideology popular is the attempt to impose liberal democracy around the world. This has been done through military intervention or economic warfare. Humanitarian intervention merely covers neocolonial designs by dominant world powers.The use of sanctions in an arbitrary manner demonstrates attempts at isolating particular nations who do not adhere to a conformist international political culture. The world then becomes divided between liberal democracy and states designated as rogue states. Even when certain countries are compliant relative to a dispute, they still are harassed. Iran has not violated the nuclear agreement, yet the US has imposed more sanctions to harm Iran's economy. Regime change has been a part of US foreign policy and it has had devastating consequences. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Somalia have been subject to US military intervention. It is not only the United States that wants to impose political systems on foreign nations, but its allies. France and the UK also are involved in the movement to impose liberal democracy on African and Asian nations. North Korea has been sanctioned by the UN and other US aligned countries, even though this country struggles with intense poverty. From a military perspective, they would not even be a substantial threat. It would take years to build a formidable arsenal and doing so could bankrupt the country. Zimbabwe still remains under sanctions, even through Robert Mugabe resigned. No matter what these countries do they will be subject from some form of attack under the principle of democracy promotion. This is not the promotion of freedom, rather an attempt to maintain the neocolonial order. There are repercussions from such behavior. The dramatic increase in war refugees may not be manageable. The migrations from Africa and Asia will continue as long as the military interventions continue. 

This map shows data acquired from 2016 from the Emergency Response Coordination Centre 

NATO has changed its role from being a defensive military alliance to an active war force. The United Nations with should be a forum for peaceful resolution has become an institution that authorizes military strikes.  The failure to provide a framework for the ongoing civil war in Syria and the Saudi-Yemen conflict demonstrates the  inefficiency of the institution. This mass movement of people from various foreign countries provides a justification for xenophobic nativist nationalism. While such advocates do not condemn warfare, they ignore the reason why there are refugees in the first place. Neoconservative foreign policy, military intervention, neocolonialism,  and world power competition have created the refugee crisis of the contemporary international landscape. The xenophobic nativist nationalist argument is framed as if immigrants merely come to exploit the many resources of more prosperous lands. This myth constantly is repeated. There are numerous push and pull factors which force people to leave their countries of origin. Economic and political factors are the two major forces that cause people to flee. Warfare and political oppression force migrants to get asylum seeker status. Knowing this, xenophobic nativist nationalists should be ant-war,just on the basis it creates refugees. They still advocate strong armies and warfare, yet want  a strategy that does not cause blowback. President Trump  once stated that the interventions in Iraq and Syria were misguided, however reversed these positions when he became president. The reason is that even advocates of  xenophobic nativist nationalism realize that strategic interests are essential, if the US wants to remain the world's sole superpower. Xenophobic nativist nationalism should not be confused with the isolationism of the Interwar era of the 20th century. The US is still very much involved in global affairs and will be more involved in the continent of  Europe. Isolationism is complete disengagement from international affairs. Advocates of the new far-right movement want some involvement in global affairs just as long as agreements solely benefit their nation only. This is the philosophy of America First. Allies and the collaboration between them should result in America getting more of the benefits rather than an equal exchange between two partners. What is also being seen is the struggle between globalism and national sovereignty. This has been a contentious issue when member states of the European Union debate about what do about refugee and migrant traffic.Securing borders and which countries supply asylum may place more burden on smaller member states.  There is a direct correlation between the political establishment's nation building projects and the promotion of western modeled liberal democracy and the rise of xenophobic nativist nationalism.  

       Xenophobic nativist nationalism is not exclusive to the West. There are African and Asian nations that have experienced a surge in such ideological sentiments. South Africa had cases of xenophobic violence prior to the emergence of the political movement. The year 2008 saw acts of xenophobic violence directed at immigrants in South Africa. The attacks have not subsided in the last ten years. There continues to be tension between immigrants from Mozambique, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and other parts of the African continent. Economic turmoil once again is an explanation for such scapegoating. However, this may be more of an expression of the dangers of identity politics. 

     

Supporters of xenophobic nativist nationalism claim they must defend their identity as a nation and race. Immigrants to such supporters represent a type of threat. The argument from a South African supporter is that other groups from other parts of the continent are exploiting the country's resources and diluting its national character. This is an argument of ethnocentric nationalism. The desire to make nations racially and culturally homogeneous is a goal of  the xenophobic nativist nationalist movement. Decolonization throughout the world brought much hope and high political expectations. The problem was the dream of developed and countries free from former colonial masters has not fully materialized. This explains why leaders of various developing nations may either incite ethnic tension to distract from political and social issues. China also could be experiencing xenophobic nativist nationalism particularly with its emphasis on the promotion of Han Chinese identity. Tibetans and Uighurs are facing racial discrimination and harassment. The favoritism of the Han Chinese above the fifty-six recognized ethno-linguistic alienates others who would otherwise love to contribute to Chinese society.  Xenophobic nativist nationalism will inevitably lead to ethnic conflict. Myanmar although in a process of political reform is embarking on a campaign against the Rohingya. The Burma people similar to the Han Chinese do not see their minorities as  being a part of the nation. Ethiopia has  similar situation in which the Oromo ethnic group also faces exclusion. This is why civic nationalism should be promoted rather than ethnic nationalism. Internal conflict could be used as a justification for military intervention of the West. If the global south is to rise it must reject the current political wave of xenophobic nativist nationalism. 

         The disturbing phenomenon about xenophobic nativist nationalism is when it emanates from the US or Europe it has the goal of internationalizing white nationalism. Although they reject internationalism, they do not oppose organizing globally. White nationalism has infiltrated the international political mainstream. It is incorrect to call this Trumpism, because such a movement and concept existed before his election. The white nationalist movement has the same ideological perspective of the xenophobic nativist philosophy. There is one slight difference. Normally, xenophobic nativist nationalists say they oppose illegal immigration. White nationalists despise immigration even if it is legal and would prefer that those who do come are from European countries. Unsubstantiated claims that their is a "white genocide" or an  "attack on western civilization" are commonly articulated in white nationalist publications. This message has become more popular in Australia, New Zealand, the US, and  on the European continent. Steve Bannon  who was a chief political strategist for Donald Trump has made efforts to spread xenophobic nativist nationalism into mainstream politics. White nationalist populism is attempting to make itself presentable to voters in western liberal democracies. 

Steve Bannon 

        

The desire to eliminate all immigration is not articulated publicly, but in secret this is the goal. Through legislation certain groups would be targeted. The US continues to struggle with preventing voter suppression and the reason it is favored by the extreme far-right is that it works in their political favor. By excluding non-whites from the political process, the white nationalist populists get closer to making a white only nation-state. the first step is to stop immigration from African, Asian, and South American countries. Legal immigration would be slowly be dismantled and would be only for people of European origin. The United States under the Donald Trump administration has been attempting to experiment with this in his travel ban. Syria, Somalia, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Yemen, and Venezuela are selected for this travel ban. Previously, Sudan, Chad, and Iraq were included on the list. Xenophobic nativist nationalism is certainly nothing new to the US. The Immigration Act of 1924 in which northern Europeans were favored over other races was an example of such sentiment. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was another instance of anti-immigrant and racist policy designed to preserve white supremacy in the United States. The demographic shift in America has alarmed many whites in the US and the response has been to become advocates of xenophobic nativist nationalism. Suddenly, figures like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor who are major figures in  the white nationalist movement are gaining wider exposure. Both supported Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election. Taylor and Spencer are both known for their scientific racism and anti-immigrant policies, but many of their ideas are adopted by President Trump. What such individuals want is a ethno-state for whites only. The concept ethno-state  has been experimented with, yet it has occurred in the most unlikely place. Israel has under the far-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu  has introduced the nation-state law, which would reduce Arab Israelis to a second class citizenship status. Israel under the policies of the Likud Party have become more strict and harsh in regards to the treatment of immigrants and refugees. Somalian, Sudanese, and Ethiopian migrants are forced into detention centers. 

Oddly, factions of white nationalists praise Israel's racist policies because it is a model of ethno-state. White nationalists who many would normally have anti-semitic sentiments, praise the Jewish state due to the notion that they are fighting "the Muslim menace. " Islamophobia has become a major  form of political mobilization in the European and American far-right. To them Israel through its inhumane treatment of the Palestinians shows that it is a worthy ally in the fight against what they call the "Islamization of Europe." The white nationalists who are part of the neo-Nazi political ideology view Jews and Israel as part of the problem. They blame Jews for immigration policies and liberal politics, which they claim have destroyed society. This faction of the white nationalist far-right claims that "cultural Marxism" and "Zionist occupied governments" are at war with western civilization. These accusations are nothing more than the same anti-semitic  conspiracies that were espoused in the 20th century. 

Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor 

  

David Duke represents the faction that still holds anti-semitic  beliefs in the white nationalist movement. Such organization like the National Policy Institute or fringe groups would not have had much political traction two decades ago. The negative consequence of social media is that such groups and organizations can form faster and more efficiently. The establishment political structure fails to comprehend the xenophobic nativist nationalist movement. They either ignore it or remain complicit in the potential risk. The left does not have an effective strategy of countering the extremist movement that threatens freedom itself. Observers of politics mistakenly label this movement as populism, but this is far more complicated. The movement is a mixture of extreme far-right politics,  social conservatives, racists, hate groups, capitalist supply side economics advocates and right-wing conspiracy theorists. The traditional conservatives and neoconservatives  are solely being phased out by this movement. Steve Bannon wanted to remake the Republican Party and was then defeated. His removal from the White House demonstrated that the faction of established conservatives are not going to be phased out without some political confrontation. Xenophobic nativist nationalism may have more success in European countries as more frustration at the European Union continues to grow. France  and  the UK are facing a xenophobic nativist nationalist current. Marie Le Pen's attempt to win the French presidency caused a level of trepidation in European political circles. Her National Rally Party has embraced anti-immigrant rhetoric and ideas. The party was originally known as the National Front when it was founded by her father Jean-Marie Le Pen. The National Rally has been known to be opposed to multiculturalism with Islamophobic  overtones. 

Marie Le Pen 

Even though she lost the French presidential election, her party still seems to resonate with those who are vexed about the political and economic situation in Europe. Economic nationalism wants to make capitalism work for certain nations, not the entire globe. This is what Le Pen emphasizes to voters. There is a possibility that she could run again and win. The rise of the UK Independence Party under the leadership of Nigel Farage  saw xenophobic nativist nationalism come to the mainstream in British politics. Other extremist groups existed prior to the UK Independence Party's rise such as the English Defense League. The problem with neo-fascist, hate groups, or far-right organizations is that they use violence and intimidation not realizing this is not an effective public relations strategy. Farage when he was leader of the UK Independence Party used his knowledge as a broadcaster to make far-right political views more palatable. He condemns the EU on the grounds of  economic nationalism. Although Nigel Farage is no longer head of the party he continues to be a part of the Leave Means Leave organization and is a large part of the Brexit movement. Such lobby groups are having an influence on Prime Minister Theresa May  who is pushing ahead with negotiations for the UK to leave the European Union. 

Nigel Farage 

        Xenophobic nativist nationalism is being fueled in Europe by euroscepticism and the possible loss of national sovereignty relative to European integration. Questions of immigration, economics, and law become more complex  under a system of supranationalism. The movement of xenophobic nativist nationalism does not want European integration in the context of the EU.  There is a Pan-European movement that is emerging from xenophobic nativist nationalism. This concept envisions an ethno-state functioning on white nationalist political philosophy. The dream is to go back to a period in which the European countries dominated most of the world. While there is a move to internationalize white nationalism, there has been a dramatic change in the international landscape. China has become more powerful and is gaining more influence in the developing world. African nations have seen economic growth, although the majority of the population has not seen the benefits. The European population compared to the African and Asian population is small. The desire to reestablish a white supremacist world system would certainly fail considering these realities. However, that does not make this new movement any less perilous. Even though they style themselves as being moderate in presentation, their political ideology encourages violence. The path to creating the ethno-state which they desire would require mass deportations, segregation, and etnic cleansing. Hatred's logical conclusion is genocide. Hopefully, white nationalism's attempts at international appeal will dissipate with active resistance. 

        The West has been going through an identity and confidence crisis in an era of uncertainty. When there is economic turmoil and political confrontation, the public look to explanations for a rapid decline of a functional society. Globalization has not only made the contact between people of different cultures easier, but also has led to political globalism. Not all nations want to adopt this system mainly because it demands that each one adheres to particular stipulations that may not benefit the member state, but the supranational organization as a whole. The West convinced itself that liberal democracy and neoliberal capitalism were the only and ultimate economic as well as political systems. The collapse of the Soviet Union caused many unintended consequences in terms of global affairs. The United States erroneous thought it would remain the sole superpower. The older ethnic conflicts reemerged around the world in countries such as Yugoslavia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Burundi,  and Rwanda. Identity and ethnic politics became more of a force in the international sphere when the world was no longer  divided between a communist east, a capitalist west, and non-aligned states. The West during this transition from 1991 to 2008 saw a high amount of cultural and international political dominance. The global financial crisis and the rise of a multipolar world system saw a crisis in confidence in the West. China is becoming a major world power through economic growth and its extensive foreign relations with other global south nations. Russia has made a comeback in terms of power under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. The West is struggling to navigate a world which is rapidly changing. Many are unwilling to accept an international political order in which the West is not predominant. Such a nation energizes the base of the xenophobic nativist nationalist movement. The politics of fear is a larger motivating force. A Russian and Chinese rise in international affairs induces has caused a level of panic in the American and European populations. Xenophobic nativist nationalism can utilize anti-Russian and sinophobic sentiment to their political advantage. This scapegoating of immigrants and foreign nations provides a convenient cover to the actual problems of  society. Poverty, war, and corrupt government are sources of  various issues facing the European and North American countries. The US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, and other EU countries have failed  their people in terms of trust and providing efficient governance. This is explains why mainstream establishment political parties will struggle and why more extremist ones will be more attractive to irate citizenry. Uncertainty about the global market, mass migration, and potential international conflict only empowers xenophobic nativist nationalism.  

      Xenophobic nativist nationalism may seem like a temporary political phase. Yet, it is clear that there has been a shift in political culture. Far-right fringe movements are now being seen as credible in political circles on both sides of the Atlantic. Globalism, neoliberal capitalism, liberal democracy, and supranationalism have not produced a stable or liberated world. Instead it gave birth to a more extreme political movement that parallels another in the 20th century. Fascism arose from the devastation of World War I and the Great Depression. Economics has been a catalyst for the xenophobic nativist nationalist movement, with a large portion of working class people who have been left behind in the global economy. For them, there has not been economic recovery. Desperation and anger have been projected into  this new wave of far-right extremism. The fascists of the 1930s and 1940s realized that people would follow them if they promised a revived economy and a stronger state in which they could be proud of. Xenophobic nativist nationalism articulates taking a country back to another time in which they had prestige and respect. America First is more than just a simple slogan; it is a declaration of  exploiting the world to one nation's benefit. Britain's Brexit negotiations also utter this sentiment. Advocates want to leave the EU, but still want the benefits that come with being a member state. Although contemporary xenophobic nativist nationalism  is a new phenomenon, there can be solutions developed to counter its rise. The political left must organize effectively. There continues to be a divide between centrist and progressive ideological factions. The election of extreme far-right political figures demonstrates that centrism is not enough to defeat such candidates for public office.The leftist should embrace their more progressive faction to attract voters who normally would not be active. Another policy that should be implemented is ending the state of permanent warfare. Humanitarian intervention has caused the increase in refugees and asylum seekers. At some point it will not be possible to accommodate  refugees fleeing from war zones. Military interventions must stop to adequately handle the refugee crisis. Peaceful resolutions rather than armed conflict  is a better alternative. A new immigration policy must be implemented with a pathway to citizenship. If this is not done more detention centers and immigrant camps will be established. A series of humanitarian disasters will congest an already broken immigration system in both the US and Eu countries.Once these issues are dealt with, xenophobic nativist nationalism can be defeated. If effective resistance cannot not be organized against this political movement, then xenophobic nativist  nationalism  may become a serious threat to nations in which it is active.