Author	: Bill Kochman
Publish	: Sep. 24, 2026
Update	: Sep. 24, 2026
Parts	: 04

Synopsis:



Continuing our discussion from part one, as I just explained to you, it is a well-known fact that whenever a war goes very poorly for a country, or goes on for far too long, both the national leader as well as the party that is in power suffer as a result of it. This fact is particularly true when it comes to national elections where not only the leadership of the top individual in power comes into serious question, but likewise the leadership of all of those people who may be in power below him as well, who have both closely followed and supported that leader's political agenda.

This is in fact why President Trump has been trying so hard to find a way out of the Iran War. It appears that bombing Iran to smithereens has not worked, and the leaders of Iran have refused to yield. The IRGC in fact remains as defiant as ever, despite what may possibly be going on just beneath the surface. So now President Trump has decided to resort more to the well-known tactic of using the economic hammer as a way to pound the Iranians into submission. But could it also be because the United States is running out of weapons? However, has economic pressure alone really even worked with Russia? You all know the answer. Economically bruised or not, Russia continues waging war against Ukraine, and has found ways to mitigate the economic fallout, or at least so it appears.

While Putin has clung to power despite the difficulties of the current war, in the United States, the story is rather different. It is no secret that the Iran War has become a major ticking time bomb for the President, and particularly for the Republican Party as the November mid-term elections quickly approach. With each passing week and month that the war continues, the level of danger rises, and there will be repercussions at the polls, unless the war comes to a quick end. In fact, it may already be too late, and it is possible that the political damage has already been done, despite the Republicans still trying to put on a brave face. Of course, then again, it seems that many Americans have rather short memory spans, so who knows what the mid-terms outcome will be.

However, there is a very huge difference between what can be done to an unpopular leader in the United States, and what can be done to him in the Russian Federation. While American presidents come and go every four to eight years due to the mandates of the U.S. Constitution, as I point out in other Bill's Bible Basics articles, if there's one very clear fact regarding Vladimir Putin, it is that he is rather resilient. In fact, through outright unscrupulous, questionable and no doubt brutal means, he's maintained a position of power and absolute authority within Russia for literally decades now.

For those of my readers who may be too young to know, there was actually a time when the Russian president was not quite as powerful as Putin is at this current time. During the era of the Soviet Union, the supreme policy-making body of the Communist Party -- known as the Politburo -- did possess the power to remove a leader from office if there was sufficient reason to do so. How often that may have actually occurred I really don't know, because I simply haven't taken the time to look more deeply into this matter. However, with the fall and dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Politburo no longer exists.

The end result is that in modern Russia today, there simply does not exist any institutional body which possesses the power to vote a sitting Russian president out of office. As I have done before, let me just mention here that while I have used the word "president" in conjunction with Vladimir Putin, I do not do so out of any degree of respect for the man. It's been my personal view for years now, that there exist quite a few national leaders in the world today who, due to this very sickening modern era of political correctness, the mainstream media prefers to refer to as "president". However, they are NOT duly-elected presidents in the truest sense of the word. They are in fact thugs, authoritarian or autocratic leaders -- another politically correct term -- and outright dictators. But we don't wish to offend anyone by using such words, do we? Again, excuse my sarcasm.

So while a lot of news agencies and national leaders like to refer to Vladimir Putin as "president", the fact remains that he is in absolute control of Russia's state apparatus. Vlad Putin's grip includes maintaining tight control over Russia's security agencies and associated bodies including the Federal Security Service, the Foreign Intelligence Service, the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, the Federal Protective Service, the National Guard of Russia, and finally, the Main Directorate of Special Programs of the President.

These various agencies, institutions and military bodies are led by powerful political figures who are known in Russian as "siloviki". Loosely translated, this word means "men of force" or "strongmen". Similar to Vladimir Putin himself who is also a former KGB agent, these men transitioned from the Russian military, from Russian state security agencies, and also from Russian law enforcement. As a result, they are professionally trained in the areas of coercion, defense, and public order, and they now occupy the top positions in the Russian civilian government. In short, they form the very core of Putin's inner circle and serve as his closest advisors, while they also hold positions as governors, ministers, and as the heads of Russia's state-owned corporations, including in the energy, defense, and finance sectors.

Following the literal breakup of the Soviet Union decades ago, the influence of these so-called Russian "strongmen" expanded dramatically when Vladimir Putin rose to power during the late 1990s. Thus, while they may have their differences of opinion from time to time, they are all in bed together, and they are a very close-knit group who actually depend on each other for their very survival. That being the case, the idea of trying to remove Putin from power for any reason whatsoever remains off the table, because any attempt to do so would more than likely lead to a power struggle which would threaten their own personal safety, and possibly destroy their personal wealth in the process.

And so, because they each occupy such powerful positions in Russia's government and institutions, and thus have a vested interest -- or personal stake -- in keeping Vladimir Putin in power, the idea of anyone attempting to make an institutional or legal move to remove Putin from power is pretty much an impossible feat from the start. Thus, while Article 93 of the Russian Constitution does allow for presidential impeachment, it requires a complex process involving multiple high courts and supermajorities in the Russian Parliament which, as we've seen, are all dominated by Putin loyalists, which makes any impeachment attempt basically an exercise in futility.

Before moving on, let me make another important and rather interesting point. Please understand that Russian Siloviki -- or "strongmen" -- and Russian oligarchs are not the same exact thing. They in fact represent two different groups of very powerful people in Russia who will often work together, or who fight for power. However, their roles and origins are not identical, as I will now briefly explain to you. We have already discussed the Siloviki. As we have seen, their main goal is to acquire state power, national control, and to achieve political dominance.

In contrast, the word "oligarch" finds it origin in two Greek roots: "oligoi" -- meaning "few" -- and "arkhein" -- meaning "to rule". Thus, put together, they refer to rulers of a small group. The Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle used the word to describe a government run by a small group. In modern Russia, oligarchs are ultra-wealthy businessmen who during the 1990s made massive fortunes by buying various privatized state industries. So while the Siloviki are primarily interested in acquiring political power and control, the Oligarchs' primary interest lies in wanting to make money, in protecting their private assets, and in increasing their personal wealth.

While the Oligarchs can influence politics, they can only do so if the Kremlin allows them to. So to reiterate, the main difference between the two groups is that the Siloviki derive power from the state and from guns, whereas the Oligarchs get their power through money and business. Lastly, it's likewise important to point out that the Oligarchs are required to obey the political leaders. If an Oligarch should fight the state, the Siloviki will often arrest them, or just take their wealth from them. In short, Putin's Russia maintains rather strict control over the Oligarchs, and the Oligarchs are required to serve the goals of the state.

In short, my friends, because the Siloviki have such a strong stranglehold on Russian politics, Vladimir Putin is basically a dictator for life. Realistically-speaking, it appears that the ONLY possible way to remove Putin from power, would be if the current ugly war in Ukraine turns so badly against Russia -- is Russia there already? -- that it would result in the Russian military -- probably with some degree of insider help -- engaging in a decisive coup d'état against Putin. But even that may not necessarily be successful. Allow me to briefly explain to you why I say this.

Some of my readers may recall that a number of years ago -- back in June 2023 -- mercenary leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, who was not an actual Russian general, and who headed the Wagner Group, engaged in a very brief armed mutiny. After seizing control of Russia's Southern Military District headquarters in Rostov-on-Don, Prigozhin's Wagner Group fighters advanced northward towards Moscow in a so-called "march of justice", which was directed at Russia's military leadership. However, the revolt was halted when Prigozhin made a deal with Putin. As a part of the deal which had been brokered by Belarusian leader, Alexander Lukashenko, all criminal mutiny charges against Prigozhin were dropped, and several thousand of his Wagner Group mercenaries were relocated to field camps and training bases which had been set up for them in Belarus.

However, by then, it was already too late for Mr. Prigozhin, because he had made a rather foolish and fatal mistake when he chose to challenge Vladimir Putin, and to criticize and oppose Russia's established military structure. And so, on August 23, 2023, precisely two months after the mutiny had occurred, Mr. Prigozhin died when his private jet crashed in Russia's Tver region under rather suspicious circumstances. All passengers on board the jet were killed, including top Wagner Group commanders. No surprise there, right?

Regarding Prigozhin's Wagner Group fighters, following his death, the operational independence of the Wagner Group was effectively ended, and many fighters left Belarus in order to return to Russia. But other fighters became involved in Russia's operations in Africa, where they were systematically brought under the direct control of the Russian Ministry of Defense, and thus subsequently absorbed into regular state forces.

Quite frankly, Prigozhin should have known that he would not be left off the hook so easily. Maybe he did know. Perhaps he realized that the day of Vladimir Putin's retribution was in fact fast approaching. As I have stated for many years now, given his background with the KGB, Putin is one sly, ruthless and brutal man. He is very unforgiving, and he remembers all of the people who have wronged him or challenged him in some way. Thus, he will eventually mete out payback in one form or another. His revenge may revolve around poison, assassinations and shootings, suspicious falls, atypical accidents or similar questionable incidents. Is it any wonder that even his inner circle apparently fears him, and won't dare to make a single move against him, even though he has led them in a four-year war which seems to have no end in sight?

So, with those last remarks, I have now given you a clear idea of what the situation is really like in Russia under Vladimir Putin. But what about removing an unpopular or unfit leader in the United States? Well, aside from the power of the vote, in America, in very extreme cases, we have Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution which grants Congress the power to remove a sitting President from office -- even against his will -- if he's deemed to be unfit to continue serving in that capacity. In short, if a President is unable to discharge his powers and duties, Congress can take action against him. But please note that this is viewed as an extreme action, and it is thus usually intended to be used when a President suffers from severe physical or mental incapacity.

However, please understand that removing a sitting President by way of Section 4 is not quite as easy as it may sound. The first step is the declaration, whereby the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the Cabinet send a written declaration to the Speaker of the House, and to the President pro tempore of the Senate, in which they state that the President is unfit to continue serving the nation. At this point, the Vice President immediately takes over power as the Acting President of the country.

However, the President himself is not without recourse. He can in fact send a counter-declaration in which he states that no such inability to serve exists. Normally, this will allow him to resume power. However, it does not end there. Thus, if the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet disagree with the President's claim, then they have four days in which to send a second written declaration in which they reaffirm their view that the President cannot properly discharge his duties. Now if this occurs, then the U.S. Congress must assemble within a period of forty-eight hours in order to further discuss the issue. This discussion period can last up to twenty-one days, during which time they must take a vote. Now if a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate determines that the President is truly unable to serve, then the Vice President remains as the Acting President. Otherwise, the President has the right to resume office.

So as you can plainly see, just as occurs in Russia, removing a sitting American President is not such an easy process. As you may recall, this kind of talk regarding using Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to remove a President from office has been mentioned a number of times during both the Biden and Trump administrations. However, you should also know that the simple truth of the matter is that since George Washington became the very first President of the United States, Section 4 has never been invoked, not even a single time, and no sitting President has ever been removed from office by it. So what does that tell you? Such talk makes for good news coverage, but that is about all it does.

Returning to our main topic of discussion, from everything I have shared with you thus far, if there is one thing we can learn about extended warfare, it is the fact that the longer a war is fought, the more two major problems begin to rise to the fore: a shortage of manpower to continue fighting a war, and a shortage of offensive and defensive ammunition as well. We have now seen this occur with both the Iran War, and with the Russia-Ukraine War. This is why it is so foolish, in my view, for certain American leaders and news organizations to be plainly broadcasting America's depleting war resources to the world, and specifically to China, to Russia, to Iran, and to others who I will mention momentarily.

But the main point I wish to make regarding the war between Russia and Ukraine is the following. If right now you were Vladimir Putin, and you were aware of the American munitions shortage, what would your natural reaction be? Would you be very concerned with the United States continuing to provide Ukraine with weapons of war on a large scale? Probably not. To the contrary, you would probably be thinking, "Well, if the United States is starting to run out of weapons, then it can't very well continue to supply them to any of its allies. So all I have to do is hang on a while longer, keep sending my soldiers to the Ukrainian meat grinder, and wait for the American supply of weapons to Ukraine to stop."

While Ukraine has mastered the production and deployment of attack drones which have wreaked havoc on a number of Russian military and industrial sites, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made it rather clear on multiple occasions that his country still requires outside help in order to drive back and fully defeat Russia. While American intelligence is a help, it is simply not enough. Furthermore, as is their usual stance, European leaders have been very slow to come to Ukraine's assistance, because they fear Russian reprisal on their own soil. Thus, they talk and talk and give lip service, but as far as real military aid, it is my understanding that it has been very minimal. The last I recall reading sometime ago, there are a few NATO countries that have sent a small number of tanks to Ukraine. Even more recently, Poland likewise boasted that it could defeat Russia if the current situation were to further deteriorate. More than that, I am not sure at this current time.

Let us next discuss the IRGC -- or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps -- of Iran whose primary function since 1979 has always been to protect the very radical clerical leadership -- that is to say, the ayatollahs and mullahs -- of Iran. Of course, with much of Iran's political, military and clerical leadership wiped out due to quite heavy, persistent American and Israeli air strikes, it is believed that the IRGC now controls the direction of the current war. However, there appear to be some divisions amongst the current leadership within Iran as well. Yet despite this fact, and considering what may very well be going through Xi Jinping's mind right now, and through Vladimir Putin's mind right now, does it not seem likely that the IRGC may be entertaining similar ideas as well?

In other words, the Iranians may be thinking to themselves, "Well, those Americans will probably soon be running out of both offensive and defensive weapons. So all we have to do is hunker down and endure a little bit longer, and we will come out victorious in the end. We will still be in control of our country. We will still have our stockpile of enriched uranium. And we will still control the flow of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz." Regarding the latter point, I honestly do not know who to believe. The Iranians claim that they control the Strait of Hormuz, while US President Donald Trump insists that the United States controls the strait. I am reminded of two verses which are found in the Bible. I am NOT saying that these two verses apply to the situation in Iran. However, the main thoughts behind the verses are very similar:

"And both these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and THEY SHALL SPEAK LIES AT ONE TABLE; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed."


"And when ye shall hear of wars and RUMOURS OF WARS, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet"


Of course, knowing President Trump, I suspect that in the long run, the United States and the Trump administration will probably declare a fake, half-baked victory, even though its primary objectives have not really been achieved, despite the billions of dollars which have been spent on the war. However, it is likely that many Americans will accept the government's version of the story, because they want the Iran war to end, and they really want gasoline prices to come down as soon as possible. On top of that, the midterms are approaching, and the current Iran war is undoubtedly weighing quite heavily on President Trump and on the Republican Party. The war will -- and may already -- cost them important votes in the upcoming November elections, which may result in them losing control of both the House and the Senate. Time will tell.

And so, it seems likely that the United States will exit yet another costly war -- both in lives lost and money -- without really having achieved President Trump's often stated goal of making absolutely sure that the Islamic nation of Iran never acquires nuclear weapons. Yes, while it is indeed true that Iran has been seriously weakened due to American and Israeli bombardments since earlier this year, nevertheless, as of now, it still possesses its enriched uranium, and it can eventually rebuild its nuclear facilities. As I recently mentioned to one of my friends, the nation of Iran -- formerly known as Persia -- has existed for literally thousands of years, in fact since Biblical times. So, it is doubtful that it will be completely snuffed out by American and Israeli military might. It will eventually bounce back.

As if the Iranians are not enough of a headache for the Trump administration, then, of course, we have the Houthis in Yemen who have been attacking ships in the Red Sea for months now. I don't think a lot of Americans fully understand exactly how much of Yemen the Houthis actually control. To set the record straight, please consider the following information which I extracted from a quick Google search. Currently, the Houthis control the following areas:

* The capital city of Sana'a.

* Most of Yemen's northern and western provinces.

* Yemen's entire Red Sea coast.

* The strategic Red Sea port city of Mocha, a.k.a. Mokha.

* Islands in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, including the critical island of Mayyun, a.k.a Perim.

In other words, just as a serious oil choke point exists in the Strait of Hormuz, the Houthis have created a similar oil choke point in the Red Sea. Thus, this is one of the primary reasons why oil prices recently rose above $100 per barrel again. And so, despite American and Israeli military might, radical Islamists still retain a lot of power over Western society, regardless of what the Western press may try to tell you. Of course, this also includes President Trump trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people as well.

My friends, regardless of which side of the political fence you are on, it should not really be necessary for me to tell you that Donald Trump has a well-established propensity for exaggerating the facts, distorting the truth, intentionally deceiving the American people, and outright lying whenever it may suit his political, financial or personal purposes. We have seen him do this time and time again, have we not? I don't care how much you love or admire Mr. Trump. His track record is rather clear.

This applies to the situation in the Middle East as well, and more specifically, to America's war in Iran, as it relates to the current oil situation. For the record, President Trump has repeatedly and clearly claimed that the United States is entirely independent of Middle Eastern oil, and does not need shipping lanes such as the Strait of Hormuz, due to America's own vast energy production, and its national oil reserves. But is this really the truth, or is Trump just spinning another one of his yarns in order to avoid panic as well as to protect his own political party from a negative outcome?

Well, the general consensus of the experts who should know, is that President Trump's claims are rather misleading. Why so? Quite simply because oil is sold on a worldwide market, and domestic oil and gasoline prices are dictated in large part by that very same market. As a result, when wars occur in the Middle East, and particularly when blockages happen -- such as in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea -- global oil prices automatically rise, which in turn will directly affect the price of gasoline and other petroleum byproducts. The end result is that U.S. drivers pay more at the gas pump. It is as simple as that. That is precisely why we have seen so many price fluctuations since the USA-Israel-Iran War first began this past February 2026.

Of course, this rise in gasoline prices does not only affect the citizens of the United States. This rise in fact affects everyone around the world without exception. As proof of this, consider the fact that only a few hours after writing these lines, I discovered the following troublesome headline in the latest edition of the New York Times email news bundle:

----- Begin Quote -----

Rising Fuel Prices Set Off Anger and Protests Around the World

"From Indonesia to Guatemala to Syria, shortages and price increases are leading to protests and blackouts."

----- End Quote -----

I wasn't able to read the entire article because I no longer subscribe to the New York Times. I used to subscribe to it so that I could acquire a balanced worldview between liberal news and more conservative news. However, an increase in the outrageous NYT subscription rate some time ago forced me to cancel it. However, it is no big loss, because I already have a good understanding of the NYT's position regarding a lot of issues.

Aside from an abrupt rise in gasoline prices and in a number of other petroleum-based products when trouble brews in the Middle East, as we Guamanians know full well, when the price of oil goes up, it also directly affects our power bills as well. This is obviously because power plants burn oil, and the island of Guam depends entirely on imported oil in order to meet our power consumption needs. Even though our island is located in the tropics not far from the Equator, solar power only provides a rather small fraction of our island's electricity needs. To say the least, due to the high cost of gasoline and our high monthly power bills, many Guamanians find themselves facing a very difficult financial situation. Sometimes it comes down to ignoring paying for one thing, in order to cover another.

As some of my readers may know, it is very expensive to live on Guam, although to be fair, it is not quite as expensive as living in Hawaii where data from some sources such as My Life Elsewhere indicate that living in Honolulu, Hawaii is roughly 23% to 28% more expensive overall than living on Guam. But as I said, living on Guam does not come cheap. Because we are an island in the Western Pacific Ocean, we depend rather heavily on imports for just about everything, from food, to clothing, and to many things in between. But to provide you with a good example of how fluctuating oil prices affect my life here on Guam, please consider my most recent power bills:

May 2026: $166.83
Jun. 2026: $200.22
Jul. 2026: $210.87
Aug. 2026: $216.50
Sep. 2026: $232.74

Please go to part three for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.