The United States has gone from supposed guardian to destroyer of the post-World War Two international order

The old world order is gone . . . Nostalgia won’t save us, but honesty and strength at home, and collective action abroad can forge a better future.

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

In what has been called an era-defining speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney laid bare the “rupture” in the global order that has sustained relative peace and prosperity globally since the end of World War Two. Drawing on Václav Havel’s parable of the greengrocer who props up a false system by displaying a sign he doesn’t believe in, Carney urged middle powers to stop “living within the lie” of a rules-based international system that no longer exists. The great powers, he argued—with a clear reference to the United States—now pursue naked self-interest, weaponizing economic integration and abandoning multilateral institutions.

For Canada, this means confronting a brutal reality where our largest trading partner, the US, is no longer an ally but an active enemy of the world order that has kept global peace for eight decades. It’s time for Canadians to remove our own signs of compliance, recognize the US as a clear threat to our sovereignty, and forge new alliances with nations that still uphold values like territorial integrity, multilateralism, and solidarity.

The post-World War Two order, built on institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, was imperfect but effective in preventing large-scale conflicts and promoting collective security and prosperity. The US, as its chief architect, provided benefits such as guaranteeing open sea lanes and supporting dispute resolution mechanisms. But under Donald Trump’s second presidency, America has morphed into a rogue actor, dismantling these very foundations through unilateral aggression and imperial overreach.

Consider the US military incursion into Venezuela on January 3, 2026, where special forces captured President Nicolás Maduro in a raid involving airstrikes on military installations and the temporary blackout of parts of Caracas. Trump brazenly declared that the US would “run the country” until a transition to a new regime suited American interests, echoing colonial-era interventions and violating the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council approval. This operation, planned for months without congressional authorization, underscores how the US now flouts international law, treating sovereign nations as extensions of American interests or as vassal states.

Trump’s threats against Iran further illustrate this erosion. Amid widespread protests in Iran, Trump has repeatedly warned of “very strong action,” including military strikes, if the regime executes demonstrators. He has gone so far as to vow that Iran would be “wiped off the face of this earth“ if it acts on assassination threats against him or harms protesters. While he dialed back immediate action after reports of declining violence, the sabre-rattling persists, with options like cyberattacks and airstrikes on the table. Such rhetoric not only destabilizes the Middle East but revives the spectre of pre-emptive wars, reminiscent of the 2003 Iraq invasion that shattered global trust in US leadership.

Even more insidious is Trump’s effort to “own” Gaza through his so-called “Board of Peace.” Ostensibly created to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction following Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, under a 20-point ceasefire plan endorsed by the UN Security Council, this body has ballooned into a pay-to-play imperial council with Trump appointing himself as chairman. Nations can buy permanent seats for $1 billion, with funds supposedly for rebuilding, but the charter omits any specific mention of Gaza, instead positioning the board as a “bold new approach to resolving global conflict” that could supplant the UN. This includes an executive committee controlling Gaza’s demilitarization and governance, effectively placing the territory under US-led oversight and sidelining Palestinian self-determination. By commodifying international diplomacy and bypassing established institutions, Trump is not building peace but entrenching US hegemony, turning the post-war order into a marketplace for those who can afford to pay his price.

For Canada, the implications are dire. Despite being our largest trading partner and neighbour, the US under Trump is no longer a friend or ally. Trump’s fixation on territorial expansion directly threatens our sovereignty as well as Greenland’s, Mexico’s and that of other nations. He has repeatedly floated annexing Canada as the 51st state since he was re-elected, citing our vast natural resources as motivations. In a September 2025 speech, he claimed Canadian leaders wanted to join his “Golden Dome” missile defense system “for free,” retorting, “Why don’t you just join our country? You become the 51st state.” Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned that these threats stem from the US coveting Canadian resources, noting, “They’re very aware of our resources, of what we have, and they very much want to be able to benefit from those.”

This ambition extends to the Arctic, where Trump’s wants the US to seize Greenland, and has threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark and allies like Norway, Sweden, France and the UK if they oppose his efforts. He has announced that tariffs of 10% on those supporting Denmark will begin on February 1, 2026, rising to 25% by June if no deal is reached to purchase or cede Greenland for reasons of America’s “national security.”

Trump frames this as benefiting Canada by countering Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic, but it is nothing less than a thinly veiled land grab. He has also criticized Canada’s defense spending as inadequate, pushing for joint military operations, updated warning systems, and US patrols in Canadian waters—steps that could erode Canadian control over the Northwest Passage, which Canada considers internal territorial waters. American insiders reveal a “secret plot” for larger takeovers, with aides noting Trump’s view that “the status quo is not enough” for Canada’s Arctic capabilities.

Canadian leaders have urged standing up to these threats, warning that if Canada fails to stand up for Greenland today, then can it can’t expect anybody aid Canada when we need it. Trump’s history of threats, including economic force during his first term, makes clear that military options aren’t off the table, though he deems them “highly unlikely. Yet, his invasion of Venezuela shows how quickly rhetoric can be turned into reality.

Canadians need to realize that this nation’s territory and sovereignty are now under threat from the United States—the world’s biggest economic and military power. As Carney noted in his speech, our geography and alliances no longer guarantee security. We face an era of economic and political instability, with the world’s three major powers vying for dominance.

However, in light of developments over the past year since Trump returned to the White House, the greatest threat to world peace today is not China or Russia, whose aggressions are predictable and often contained. It’s the United States, whose erratic, unilateral actions—fuelled by Trump’s irrationality and demagoguery—undermine the very alliances that once restrained such powers. In some very disturbing ways the US has become a modern-day incarnation of Nazi Germany, not through ideology alone but through its expansionist impulses, disregard for borders and international law, and willingness to coerce or invade other weaker nations under pretexts of security or access to resources.

To survive, Canada must heed Carney’s call for “values-based realism.” We need to depend on alliances with nations that share our commitments to sovereignty, international law, and sustainable development—partners like the European Union, with whom we’ve deepened strategic ties, or emerging coalitions in Asia and Latin America. Carney’s government has already pivoted by cutting taxes to boost the domestic economy, doubling defence spending by 2030, and signing trade agreements with China, Qatar, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates. We are championing multilateral initiatives, like bridging the Trans-Pacific Partnership with the EU to create a 1.5-billion-person trading bloc, and forming buyer’s clubs for critical minerals to reduce dependence on any single power.

But policy alone isn’t enough. Canadians also must rise up to express our outrage and opposition to this American betrayal. Protests, boycotts, and public campaigns can signal our refusal to “go along to get along.” As Havel taught, one act of truth can crack the illusion. By naming the US as the dangerous adversary it has become, we reclaim our power and invite other middle powers to join us in building a new order—one free from the fortresses of isolation and the coercion of hegemonic powers.

The old world order is gone, as Carney said. Nostalgia won’t save us. But honesty and strength at home, and collective action abroad can forge a better future. For Canada, that starts with turning our backs on a former ally turned enemy, and facing the world with open eyes and unyielding resolve.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

The US annexing Greenland would result in catastrophe for North America and Europe

Economically, the fallout would devastate the US as the European Union and NATO nations retaliate in response to American aggression . . . including dumping holdings of US debt . . .

 
By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

As Canadians, deeply invested in the stability of our continent and the alliances that have protected it for generations, we should view the escalating American rhetoric around annexing Greenland with profound alarm. In early 2026, President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions that the United States must control this Danish territory “one way or another” for national security reasons have pushed transatlantic relations to a breaking point. If the US were to proceed with forceful annexation, whether through military action or overwhelming economic coercion, it would constitute an unprecedented act of aggression against a fellow NATO member. Rather than strengthening the United States it would represent geopolitical suicide, dismantling the post-World War Two international order that has prevented major wars among major global powers and ensured relative global peace.

The bedrock of this order is NATO, founded in 1949 on the principle of collective defence. Article 5 declares that an armed attack against one ally is considered an attack against all. By moving against Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark fully covered by NATO’s guarantees, the US would trigger this clause against itself. Such a betrayal would render the alliance untenable overnight. European leaders, including Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, have explicitly warned that an attack on Greenland would spell the end of NATO. The organization that has deterred Soviet and then Russian aggression for 75 years would collapse, forcing Europe to accelerate independent rearmament and seek new security arrangements that exclude the former guarantor. This fracture would not only embolden adversaries like Russia and China in the Arctic but also leave North America more vulnerable, as shared defense structures collapse.

Militarily, the consequences for the United States would be swift and severe. Europe currently hosts numerous key US installations—over 30 military bases and additional sites—essential for projecting power into Eurasia, the Middle East, and Africa. Facilities like Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Aviano in Italy, and RAF Lakenheath in the UK form the backbone of American forward presence. In retaliation for an attack on a NATO partner, European governments would demand—and likely enforce—the closure of these bases, evicting US forces from soil they helped defend since 1945. The US would retreat to a more isolated posture, losing critical logistical advantages and diminishing its global reach. Recent European deployments of small contingents to Greenland for joint exercises with Denmark already signal a shift toward bolstering Arctic defences without heavy US reliance.

Economically, the fallout would devastate the US as the European Union and NATO nations retaliate in response to American aggression and restrict American products entering the European market. The EU could impose comprehensive sanctions, including dumping holdings of US debt, divesting from dollar reserves, and targeting American corporations operating on the continent. This would undermine the dollar’s status as the global reserve currency, sparking a severe devaluation, rampant US inflation, and a potential stock market collapse far exceeding more recent crises. American companies—tech giants, automakers, and consumer brands—could face asset seizures, market bans, or forced divestitures, erasing trillions in value. Aviation restrictions might ground Boeing aircraft and bar US carriers from European airspace, severing transatlantic supply chains. The result would be a rapid de-globalization that isolates the American economy from its wealthiest trading partners and severely weakens it, contrary to the promises Donald Trump made to American voters. 

Diplomatic and cultural isolation would compound the damage. International sporting bodies, drawing parallels to Russia’s exclusion following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, would likely suspend the US from events like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup competitions. Team USA would be absent from global stages, treated as a pariah akin to Russia. Visa-free travel to Europe would end abruptly, complicating movement for Americans and turning the US passport into a barrier rather than an asset. This ostracism would be long-term because trust, once shattered by invading a democratic ally, does not easily recover. Europe would pivot to independent defence architectures, alternative financial systems, and alliances that sideline the US, preserving the broader Western framework without American leadership.

The consequences for Canada would be devastating, given our deep and longstanding economic entanglement with the United States. Bilateral trade between the two countries routinely surpasses a trillion dollars annually (combining goods and services), with the US serving as the destination for the overwhelming majority of Canadian exports. These exports account for a substantial portion of our economy—often estimated at around 17-20% of GDP in recent years. If the US economy were to collapse under the weight of severe European sanctions and diplomatic isolation, the fallout for Canada would be swift and severe with widespread job losses across interconnected industries, fractured supply chains that have evolved over decades, and intensified recessionary forces rippling through every region of the country.

In this scenario Canada would suddenly find itself caught in an excruciating dilemma—torn between our largest and most vital trading partner on one side, and our longstanding European allies on the other. In a world order turned upside down by such a crisis, Ottawa would face an unavoidable choice of allegiances. In all likelihood, Canada would ultimately side with Europe, this alignment reflecting a commitment to upholding international law and norms, as well as a strategic imperative to preserve credibility within the remnants of NATO and the broader network of global institutions. Standing firmly against any illegal annexation would help safeguard Canada’s reputation as a principled middle power, even in the face of short-term economic pain.

However, this choice carries grave risks. Canada’s Arctic expanse holds vast energy reserves and critical minerals essential for green technologies. In addition, this country holds approximately 20% of the world’s freshwater reserves—a resource increasingly coveted by the US as the American US southwest continues to grapple with a megadrought ongoing since 2000, the worst in over a millennium. If the US justifies seizing Greenland for strategic and resource needs, similar logic could cause Trump to say that the US needs Canada’s north for its strategic and economic importance as well.

To protect Canadian sovereignty in the face of such uncertainties, Canada could seek enhanced European military support—including troop deployments or joint Arctic patrols on Canadian territory. Europe, recognizing Canada as a key partner in preventing a broader transatlantic fracture, would likely respond with firm commitment by deepening security ties through established frameworks, investing in shared infrastructure, diversifying trade to lessen reliance on the US, and extending defensive assurances via EU mutual assistance mechanisms beyond NATO. Recent European troop deployments to Greenland already signal a readiness to act decisively in the Arctic, and extending comparable solidarity to Canada would strengthen collective resilience across the region.

In the end, any US annexation of Greenland would sacrifice an eight-decade alliance and the shared economic prosperity forged through cooperation, all for short-term territorial advantage. From Canada’s vantage point, this course promises not greater strength but mutual decline, where a once-dominant superpower drifts into isolation, while its former allies realign to sustain patterns of economic partnership and collective defence without American involvement. To avoid being caught in the crossfire, Canada must forge closer coordination with Europe and secure robust allied backing. The survival of the post-war international order ultimately hinges on firmly rejecting aggression—even from the US—before it becomes irreversible.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Invasion of Venezuela proves again that the US is a rogue superpower and a threat to world peace and stability

The Venezuela invasion is part of a long, bipartisan US pattern of unlawful military interventions that has made America the most destabilizing nation on Earth.

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack.

On January 3, 2026, mere days into the new year, the United States launched a shocking military assault on Venezuela code named “Operation Absolute Resolve.” American forces conducted airstrikes on key sites in Caracas and surrounding areas, including military bases like Fort Tiuna and La Carlota airbase, before special operations teams—reportedly including Delta Force—captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, extracting them and confining them aboard the USS Iwo Jima.

President Donald Trump announced the operation triumphantly, stating that the US would temporarily “run” Venezuela and be “very strongly involved” in its oil industry again, given the nation’s vast reserves of over 303 billion barrels—the largest in the world. This blatant act of aggression, justified vaguely as a response to “narco-terrorism,” reveals the US once again as the world’s most dangerous rogue state, a nation that habitually violates international law, invades sovereign countries for strategic and economic gain, and destabilizes the world while preaching a “rules-based order” for all other nations.

The American military operation constitutes clear violations of multiple pillars of international law. It directly contravenes Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The airstrikes on Venezuelan soil and the forcible removal of a sitting head of state lack UN Security Council authorization and do not meet the strict criteria for self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter, as no imminent armed attack on the US was evident. Prominent legal experts, including Geoffrey Robertson—a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone—have called it a “crime of aggression“—the planning and execution of unlawful force, deemed the “supreme international crime” since the Nuremberg trials. Similarly, Chatham House analysts and others describe it as an “unlawful use of force” without any genuine basis in self-defence or UN resolution.

The capture of Maduro and Trump’s explicit intentions to control Venezuela’s oil resources further breach principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention, enshrined in international law and the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law. Preceding actions, such as strikes on Venezuelan vessels in international waters and seizures of oil tankers, raise concerns under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), involving unauthorized lethal force and extraterritorial actions without jurisdiction.

Global condemnation has been swift. The UN Secretary-General expressed deep alarm, stating that the action sets a “dangerous precedent“ and that “international law hasn’t been respected.” Countries including Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, Russia, China, Iran, France, and Spain denounced the strikes as flagrant violations of sovereignty and the UN Charter. Even allies expressed concern, while enforcement remains blocked by the US veto in the Security Council.

This aggression is indistinguishable from Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Both involve unilateral military force against a sovereign neighbour, justified by contrived pretexts—Russia’s claims of “denazification” and threats, versus US allegations of drug trafficking without proof of imminent harm—and both aim at regime change with an underlying focus on natural resources or strategic interests.

The US vociferously condemned Russia for breaching the UN Charter and sovereignty principles, imposing sanctions and rallying global support. Yet now, America commits the same acts in Venezuela. If China were to launch a similar operation in Taiwan, citing “security threats” from US arms sales or alliances, the United States and its allies would thunderously decry violations of international law and the rules-based order. This glaring double standard exposes US disregard for international law, and its actions for what they are—a license for imperialism, where the rules bind everyone except the US and its allies.

The Venezuela invasion is not an outlier but part of a long, bipartisan US pattern of unlawful interventions that has made America the most destabilizing force in the world. Under President Dwight Eisenhower the CIA tried to pressure Egyptian King Farouk I into embracing political reforms favourable to American interests, and when he resisted they worked with disaffected members of the Egyptian military to overthrow him in a 1952 coup. In 1953 the CIA was also integral to helping install Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of as Shah of Iran, after removing the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had nationalized Iran’s oil resources.

Under President Lyndon Johnson, the US massively escalated its involvement in the Vietnam War by orchestrating the Gulf of Tonkin Incident on August 2, 1964 to justify deeper American involvement. For the next decade the US bombed and invaded North Vietnam without UN approval, resulting in over a million Vietnamese dead, along with hundreds of thousands more in Laos and Cambodia. The devastation from the war in North and South Vietnam was widespread and now more than 50 years later the nation is still recovering, and has yet to heal. 

George H.W. Bush’s 1989 invasion of Panama was condemned by the UN General Assembly as a violation of the UN Charter, with not a single American government official being held legally accountable for American crimes. George W. Bush initiated illegal wars in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), causing over one million deaths through violence and ensuing chaos and the destruction of civil society infrastructure. American’s “War on Terror” saw the US also violate the sovereignty of Somalia and Yemen, all without proper Security Council authorization. In total it is estimated that America’s post-9/11 wars have resulted in the death of more than 4.5 million Arabs and Muslims.

Barack Obama perpetuated these conflicts while adding unilateral interventions in Libya (2011, transforming a stable state into a failed one rife with slave markets and militias), and authorized airstrikes in Syria. Joe Biden maintained ongoing operations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. And in his two administrations Donald Trump ordered strikes in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Iran, frequently bypassing congressional oversight. Now, in 2026, Venezuela becomes the latest victim of America’s criminal foreign policy where any nation that doesn’t bow to US demands becomes a target of economic warfare or military assault.

This history includes dozens of coups and regime changes since 1945—from the 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, to the 1954 Guatemala coup protecting United Fruit Company interests (sparking a civil war killing 200,000), to the 1973 coup in Chile which overthrew Salvador Allende, and installed Augusto Pinochet  as dictator. The early 20th-century “Banana Wars” in Central America also installed regimes compliant with America’s agenda, earning the derogatory term “banana republics.” Additionally, with over 750 military bases in 80 countries—far exceeding any historical empire—the US sustains “forever wars” that have killed 13-23 million deaths in at least 28 nations, while sanctions have crippled economies in Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Every such violation and illegal act by the US breeds instability. The Iraq invasion birthed ISIS, Libya’s intervention fragmented the region and empowered warlords, Afghanistan’s occupation ultimately revived the Taliban. In the Global South, America’s insatiable hunger for resources—oil in the Middle East, minerals in Africa and Latin America—sacrifices national sovereignty and violates the UN Charter repeatedly, fuelling resentment, causing refugee crises, and energizing terrorism. Venezuela’s enormous oil wealth makes it a prime target, and Trump’s open declarations of control echo the fabricated pretexts for Iraq in 2003, where lies about weapons of mass destruction masked desires for oil dominance.

The prelude to this invasion involved months of escalation—a massive US military buildup in the Caribbean with 15,000 personnel and 150 aircraft, strikes on over 35 vessels killing at least 115 people, and seizures of oil tankers—actions already criticized as potential acts of aggression and violations of maritime law. This campaign, framed as an anti-narcotics operation but escalating to direct attacks on Venezuelan soil, underscores how the US manipulates domestic legal pretexts to bypass international norms, setting precedents that weaken the global order.

Despite Maduro’s authoritarian flaws and contested elections, Venezuela under the Chavismo ideology achieved remarkable social gains, including over 95% literacy rates and expanded healthcare access for millions lifted from poverty. Regime change here primarily opens doors for US firms like ExxonMobil and Chevron to reclaim assets nationalized years ago, prioritizing corporate interests over genuine democratic or humanitarian concerns.

Under Trump, this imperial recklessness reaches alarming heights, reviving the hegemonic shadow of the Monroe Doctrine over Central and South America. Each US transgression erodes the post-World War Two international order, encouraging lawlessness where power trumps principle. The Venezuela crisis risks wider regional conflict, akin to the sectarian spillover from Iraq, potentially drawing in allies of Venezuela like Russia or China.

The human cost is already emerging with reports of civilian and military casualties in Caracas, power outages, and fears of refugee influxes prompting border mobilizations in Colombia. This deliberate and unnecessary violence, inflicted without congressional authorization or broad international support, highlights America’s overreach alongside global illegality.

For genuine global stability, the world must work to dismantle the US empire by shutting down overseas military bases, end the sale of arms to rights abusers, lift sanctions that punish civilians, and restrain the military-industrial complex profiting from perpetual conflict. The Global South watches apprehensively, aware that any resource-rich nation defying Washington could be next in line. Until the US confronts its history of predation disguised as liberation, it remains the paramount threat to world peace—a rogue state perpetuating cycles of violence that endangers the world.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Shedding Light On American Society's Myths About U.S. History

In "Society Must Be Defended", Michel Foucault wrote that the winners of a social struggle or armed conflict use their political dominance to suppress a defeated adversary's version of historical events in favour of their own propaganda.  It is likely the basis of the expression “history is written by the victor” (which has frequently been attributed to Winston Churchill).  This history is then perpetuated through what is taught in schools and, in the modern era, through portrayals of historical events on TV, in film and the mass media.

One of the countries that has done a remarkable job at writing history from the victor’s perspective is the United States, especially as it concerns the events encompassing the period between World War II and the present -- the period which has seen the creation of the "American Empire".  Some of the popularly held beliefs of history from a U.S. perspective are that: the Americans have been the “good guys” in any international conflict; atom bombs had to be dropped on Japan to save American lives; and the U.S. is an example to the world of a free and democratic society that values civil liberties and human rights.

Lifting the veil from many of these and other popularly held beliefs about U.S. actions in the historical events of the past 70 years seems to be the intent of a new documentary by Academy Award-winning film-maker Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznick.  The 10-part series called Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States is being broadcast by the U.S. cable channel Showtime.  The series challenges the basic narrative about the place of the U.S. in the world that have come to be accepted by most Americans.

Drawing on archival findings, old movie clips and recently declassified documents, the film-makers critically examine U.S. history, from the atomic bombing of Japan to the Cold War, to the fall of communism, and continuing all the way through to the Obama administration.  Much of what is challenged is regularly taught in American schools and has become part of the national mythology of the United States.  During the making of the series the film-makers discovered that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were militarily unnecessary and morally indefensible.  They also propose that the Soviet Union, not the U.S., was ultimately responsible for defeating the Germans in World War II.  And, they assert that the United States, not the Soviet Union, bore the lion’s share of responsibility for perpetuating the Cold War.  In addition, the documentary found that U.S. presidents have frequently trampled on the Constitution and international law, especially in wartime, and they note the United States has brought the world dangerously close to nuclear war repeatedly by brandishing nuclear threats.

In addition, Stone and Kuznick produced a 750-page book, The Untold History of the United States as a companion to the documentary.  Together, the two works are meant to "challenge the basic and commonly held narratives about U.S. history . . . of American altruism, benevolence, devotion to liberty and justice."  All myths which, Stone says, are comforting to most Americans but are actually "harmful, noxious and polluted", and leave Americans in the dark about the truth of their nation’s history and its place in the world. 

Reaction to the documentary has been mixed.  Glen Greenwald, a journalist with The Guardian highly recommended the series and book describing it as "riveting", "provocative" and "worthwhile".  Former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev wrote approvingly of the book stating that, “Such a perspective is indispensable at a time when decisions are being taken that will shape America's role in the global world of the twenty-first century. At stake is whether the United States will choose to be the policeman of a "Pax Americana", which is a recipe for disaster, or partner with other nations on the way to a safer, more just and sustainable future." 

In November 2012 Ronald Radosh, an adjunct fellow historian with the conservative Hudson Institute, lambasted the documentary as "mendacious" Cold War revisionism and "mindless recycling of Stalin's propaganda.”  And journalist Michael C. Moynihan criticized the book for "moral equivalence between the policies of the psychotically brutal Soviet Union and the frequently flawed policy of the United States."

The first three episodes of the documentary series premiered at the New York Film Festival on October 6, 2012.   The series premiered on the Showtime cable channel on November 12, 2012.

For anyone who does not accept the sanitized, censored and rosy version of America's role in the key historical events of the last 70+ years, a version that has been constantly presented to the U.S. population through the American school system, by the corporate media, Hollywood, and the U.S. government, then this is a documentary that comes highly recommended.

To watch an interview about the series with the Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick, click here.

Related Articles & References:
*  Pax Americana and the Weaponization of Space (Video)
* Oliver Stone: America is an “outlaw nation”
* The End of Pax Americana: How Western Decline Became Inevitable
* A People's History of the United States
* The sun never sets on the American Empire
* Goodbye, Pax Americana
* Preserving Pax Americana: Defence Reform for the Unipolar Moment
* The Story of American Revisionism (Excerpted from Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction to Revisionism)
* The American Empire Project
* Could Oliver Stone's Exposé of the American Empire Help Press the UN to End Haiti Cholera?
* How America Became an Empire
* 7 Chomsky quotes that expose the American empire
* 8 striking parallels between the U.S. and the Roman Empire

© The View From Here.  All Rights Reserved.