How U.S. Deep State Answers: “America’s Message to All Nations: ‘Arm up, or we’ll invade you.’”

16 January 2026, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

How the U.S. Deep State Answers the allegation that: “America’s Message to All Nations is ‘Arm up, or we’ll invade you.’”:

On 15 January 2026, the CIA-created Google, in my Google-search for my article posted that day with that headline, answered it:

AI Overview

The statement “America’s Message to All Nations: Arm up, or we’ll invade you” is not an official United States foreign policy statement. It is a provocative interpretation or mischaracterization of certain US foreign policy stances and recent actions.

Official US foreign policy, as outlined in documents like the National Security Strategy (NSS), emphasizes deterrence through strength, protecting US interests and sovereignty, and a “peace through strength” approach. The current administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy emphasizes “Civilizational Realism” and “Hard Sovereignty”, focusing on American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere and a predisposition towards non-interventionism in other areas, while still maintaining the option to use military force to protect its interests and allies.

Key aspects of the actual US foreign policy include:

• Peace through Strength: The U.S. aims to have a powerful military to deter adversaries and prevent war.

• Protection of Sovereignty: The policy prioritizes the U.S. as a sovereign republic and expects other nations to respect US borders and interests.

• Regional Focus: The 2025 NSS elevates the Western Hemisphere as a top strategic priority, reasserting a modern interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine to counter foreign influence and threats in the region.

• Arms Sales and Assistance: The U.S. provides military assistance and arms to allied nations for their self-defense, as seen with aid to Ukraine, but this is a cooperative effort with no official requirement to “arm up” under threat of invasion.

• Conditional Intervention: While generally promoting non-interventionism, the policy retains the ability to use military force if necessary to defend the U.S. or its allies, or in specific cases like the recent intervention in Venezuela to ensure a “proper transition”.

The US generally operates within the framework of international law, including the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, though the interpretation and application of this can be debated in specific circumstances.

MY COMMENTS:

Even the CIA-created Google’s AI algorithm doesn’t deny that America’s message to all nations is “Arm up, or we’ll invade you.” It just says that there is “no official requirement” for them to arm up.

It doesn’t even allege that the U.S. Government adheres to international law, but only that “The US generally operates within the framework of international law.” Of course, when the U.S. Government invades or threatens to invade a foreign country, such as it did in Iraq in 2002 and 2003, and later in Libya, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Greenland, and other countries, that is a direct violation of international law, specifically of the U.N. Charter’s Article 2 Section 4, which says that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Therefore, whereas under the American-made “rules-based international order,” it is within the “rules” (that America alone sets and changes) it is not within the U.N.’s international laws. Whereas the U.S. Government insists upon continually growing its empire and imposing its “international rules” upon all nations (not ONLY within its empire, but ALL nations), the U.N., even in its Charter, does not allow that, but it has no enforcement means. America’s last great President, FDR, anticipated and recognized this enormous problem and was determined that the U.N. (which he invented) must possess precisely such enforcement means, to keep ALL nations in line with peace, but his immediate successor, Truman, reversed FDR’s foreign policies and controlled the writing of the U.N.’s Charter so that the U.S. Government would be unimpeded to grow an empire which would ultimately take over the entire world, and all subsequent U.S. Presidents except JFK have adhered to Truman’s goal of America ultimately taking control over the entire world.

On January 15th, Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, whom the U.S.Government and its colonies (‘allies’) have long been attempting to regime-change, said:

Dozens of countries across the world have been suffering from the infringement of their sovereign rights, from chaos and lawlessness. They lack the strength and resources to stand up for themselves.

Placing a greater emphasis on having all members of the international community respect international law, as well as facilitating the advent of new emerging trends and a fair multipolar world order [something that cannot even exist except under FDR’s design for the U.N., though Putin is ignorant of that design: Putin’s “multipolar world order” is what exists and what actually caused both World Wars, which is why FDR intended to replace it by his U.N; that old order, which tragically still exists, is competition between empires, and FDR knew that the only way to prevent a WW3 would be to eliminate empires altogether, which is why FDR designed his U.N.] can be viewed as a reasonable solution. In this world order [Putin’s ill-thought-out ‘solution’, which is actually the ‘solution’ that was the international order that preceded WW2, of competing empires], all states would have the right to follow their own development models and to define their future independently, without outside interference [Oh, really — ‘without outside interference’ by international law imposing its demands upon any nation that violates it?], while preserving their unique culture and traditions. [In FDR’s U.N., NO international law would pertain to ANY nation’s internal law, but ONLY to INTERNATIONAL matters; so, it could not relate to ANY nation’s “unique culture and trditions.” Putin obviously hasn’t been thinking clearly about this matter, and is speaking mere platitudes.]

I would like to note that Russia is sincerely committed to the ideals of a multipolar world. Our country has always pursued and will continue to pursue a balanced, constructive foreign policy course that takes into account both our national interests and the objective trends of global development.

We are determined to maintain truly open and mutually advantageous relations with all partners interested in cooperation, deepening ties in politics, the economy and culture, and jointly confronting acute challenges and common threats.

Russia advocates for strengthening the key, central role of the United Nations in global affairs, the organisation that celebrated its anniversary last year.

Eight decades ago, our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers, having emerged victorious in the Second World War, were able to unite, find a balance of interests, and agree on the fundamental rules and principles of international communication, enshrining them in their entirety, completeness, and interconnectedness in the UN Charter.

The imperatives of this foundational document, such as equality, respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and the resolution of disputes through dialogue, are now more relevant than ever. Most importantly, we must proceed from the understanding that security must be truly comprehensive and, therefore, equal and indivisible, and it cannot be ensured for some at the expense of the security of others. This principle is enshrined in fundamental international legal instruments.

Disregarding this basic, vital principle has never led to anything good and never will. This has been clearly demonstrated by the crisis around Ukraine, which became a direct consequence of years of ignoring Russia’s legitimate interests and a deliberate policy of creating threats to our security, including the advancement of the NATO bloc towards Russia’s borders – contrary to the public promises made to us. I want to emphasise this: contrary to the public promises made to us.

Let me remind you that Russia has repeatedly put forward initiatives to build a new, reliable, and fair architecture of European and global security. We have proposed options and rational solutions that could satisfy everyone in America, Europe, Asia, and across the world.

We believe it would be worthwhile to return to a substantive discussion of these proposals to establish the conditions under which a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine could be achieved – and the sooner, the better.

It is precisely a long-term and sustainable peace, one that reliably ensures the security of all and everyone, that our country strives for. Not everywhere, including in Kiev and the capitals that support it, are they ready for this. But we hope that an awareness of this necessity will come sooner or later. Until then, Russia will continue to consistently pursue its objectives.

Whereas the U.S. Government has, ever since 25 July 1945, been fixated upon its top goal of ultimately taking control over the entire world, Russia’s Government simply ignores that, and recommends continuation of a “multipolar world order,” such as already exists (but the U.S. Government wants to replace that by its own interrnational rules based global order). Refusing to see the problem as what it actually is will not be able to solve the problem. Whereas I support the objective Putin (verbosely) states, that no solution can be acceptable if it fails to respect the sovereign right of each and every country to protect its own people and respects each nation’s independence and national sovereignty and right to defend itself against any aggressor or would-be aggressor (such as the U.S.) — an objective that can be implemented ONLY in the way that FDR had been intending — continuation of the existing (and long-established) “multipolar worrld order” can lead ultimately only to World War Three. It’s NOT a solution.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.