The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics Filter?
2016 Election 2020 Election American Media American Military Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Black Lives Matter China Christianity Communism Conspiracy Theories Coronavirus Deep State Democratic Party Dollar Donald Trump Economics EU Foreign Policy Gun Control Guns History Ideology Immigration Iran Iraq ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Joe Biden Judaism Kurds long-range-missile-defense Lukashenko Middle East NATO Neocons Neoliberalism North Korea Nuclear War Political Correctness Putin Qassem Soleimani Russia Russian Orthodox Church Saudi Arabia Soviet Union Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Venezuela Vladimir Putin Vote Fraud World War II Yugoslavia Zionism 9/11 Afghanistan Africa Aircraft Carriers Alexei Navalny Alt Right Amazon.com Anti-Semitism Antifa Antiracism Arctic Resources Arts/Letters Asia Balkans Baltics Banking Industry Barack Obama Bill Of Rights Black Sea Fleet Blacks Bosnia Brexit BRICs Britain Catalonia Censorship Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya CIA Color Revolution Crime Cruise Missiles Cuban Missile Crisis Culture/Society Democracy Disease Dmitry Orlov Drone War Drugs Economic Sanctions Egypt Elliott Abrams Emmanuel Macron Erdogan Europe Eurozone Federal Reserve Financial Debt Floyd Riots 2020 France Freedom Of Speech Gays/Lesbians Gaza George Soros Germany Gold Google Government Surveillance Hamas Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Holocaust Homosexuality IDF Internet Iran Nuclear Agreement Islamophobia KGL-9268 Kosovo Latin America Libya Malaysian Airlines MH17 Marxism MH 17 Michael Flynn Minorities Music Muslims Nazism Neo-Nazis New Cold War NSA NSA Surveillance Oil Oil Industry Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Panama Papers Paris Attacks Pedophilia Petro Poroshenko Poland Police State Poverty Public Schools Qatar Race Riots Race/Ethnicity Racism Recep Tayyip Erdogan Religion Riots Roger Waters Rogozin Russian History Russian Military Serbia Shias And Sunnis Solzhenitsyn Srebrenica Stalinism Stephen Cohen SU-57 Taliban Terroris Tulsi Gabbard Ukrainian Crisis USSR Vladimir Zelensky Wall Street
Nothing found
Sources Filter?
 TeasersThe Saker Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter

In October of last year I wrote a column entitled “When Exactly Did The AngloZionist Empire Collapse” in which I presented my thesis that the Empire died on 8 January 2020 when the Iranians attacked US bases with missiles and the US did absolutely nothing. Yes, this was the correct decision, but also one which, at least to me, marked the death of the Empire as we knew it.

In that article I made reference to a brilliant book by J.M. Greer’s “Twilight’s Last Gleaming” which I later reviewed here. The main plot of the book is that the US will collapse following a completely unpredictable external military defeat (read the book, it is very well written!).

So my question today is whether the debacle in Afghanistan (not only Kabul!) is such an event or not. Afghanistan is often called the graveyard of empires, but might it even become the graveyard of the last empire?

I will try to answer it below.

First, we are now all bombarded by information from, and about, Afghanistan. Issues like the failure of “country building” are mixed in with bodies falling off US transporters, US Marines sharing one (!) bottle of water with severely dehydrated kids with street whippings. None of that is analytically helpful and it conflates completely different issues. I want to offer a different set of questions which, I hope, might be more helpful:

  • Why has the US decided to leave Afghanistan?
  • Was that the correct decision?
  • Why did Kabul fall so fast?
  • Why did such a truly colossal failure in intelligence happen?
  • How was the evacuation of US forces actually executed?

These are just a few questions, there are many others, especially about what will happen to Afghanistan next, but that is one I think is too early to tackle and an entirely separate issue anyway.

Let’s take these questions one by one next.

Why has the US decided to leave Afghanistan?

I don’t know why or how this decision was taken. But my best guess is that it is due to combination of the following factors:

  • “Biden” came to power while waving the Woke/BLM/CRT/Homo/etc. agenda which I would sum up as the “Wakanda worldview” and not liberalism. But at least officially, Biden is a true, peace loving liberal. Since his policies all prove the exact opposite, he tried to “play nice” and do something “liberal”, at least in appearence (and, no, a woke-freak is not really a liberal at all! And neither is a Neocon “conservative” – these are all lies for the dull).
  • “Biden” also knew that a large part of the Trump base wanted to stop all the wars started by Obama and Co.
  • “Biden” probably thought that if the operation was a stunning success, he would get all the credit, and if it was an abject failure, he would dump it all on Trump (which is exactly what “Biden” did).
  • As for Biden himself, let’s just kindly assume that he has “the right political instincts” to maybe smell an opportunity here and bless what might have looked to him as a “good plan”.

Was the decision to leave correct?

Here, I will catch a lot of flak, but I believe that yes, it absolutely was. In his (actually very bad) speech about the withdrawal, Biden said one very true thing (quoting by memory, so don’t quote this) “those who say that 2 or 5 more years will bring us victory are lying to you” (or something pretty close). Here I agree with him 100% (as far as I can tell, only a real, hardcore Neocon ideologue would openly disagree with this; at least I hope so…).

Not only does the US (or any other country) not have any kind of mandate or responsibility to police the planet, the US is certainly the least competent imperial power ever, in spite of a lot of help from the Five Eyes and its EU lackeys. If you are bad at something, but very good at something else, why persist? The US is a true virtuoso in things like bribing, subverting, economically hurting, politically demonizing, killing undesirable leaders, etc… That is really how the Europeans eventually defeated the North American Native Indians.

For those whom this thesis might throw into a patriotic rage, I highly recommend the book “The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607–1814” written by Dr. John Grenier. That book won him the Society for Military History’s Outstanding Book Award in American History in 2007; Grenier himself is a retired USAF Lieutenant-Colonel and a United States Air Force Academy, USAFA, CO, associate professor of history. His next book is announced as a “biography of Major Robert Rogers, the “Father of American Special Operations.” Hate me all you want, but read this book anyway!

The US was founded by and for thugs. Calling them explorers, immigrants, robber-barons or founding fathers makes no difference to their true worldview, their ethos – the seizure of the North American continent was an act of international thuggery on every level. That is, of course, NOT to say good people did not exist then or did not live righteously or, even less so, that anybody in the modern USA has any kind of personal guilt over any of this. Only God can judge them! But unless we forget the true roots of the “American Dream”, we will end up with a “US Nightmare”.

Of course, some US immigrants at the same time did try to create a truly free society, protected from the kind of vicious abuses so prevalent in the Old World! The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (aka the “the Charters of Freedom“) are a monument to both the genius and the worldview of some of the founders of the United States. But good intentions and proclamations are only credible when everybody upholds them for everybody and in each case (not the kind “but this is different, we are democracies after all!” western politicians repeat every time they are accused of hypocrisy)

In the USA, generation after generation of the thugs strengthened their grip power while pushing decent people out of the way (even more so after JFK and 9/11 and other recent events). But that was just a show, a mob “going legal” if you wish.

Thugs have guns, of course, and they can beat the crap out of any civilian. But they can’t fight a military. That is why thugs have gangs, not battalion tactical groups in the first place. Furthermore, as soon as they grow in size, the gangs of thugs try to look more respectable (by purchasing PR campaigns about their “philanthropy” is typical) and less violent. Pretty soon they outsource the violence to others, expandable, lower, gangs.

Sound familiar?

If it does – it’s because it is!

 

Do I even have to introduce Roger Waters to my readers? Those born in the 1970s-80s all know the name “Pink Floyd” as one of, if not the THE, most talented group in the history of pop/rock music. As for our younger readers, they at least will have heard of albums like The Dark Side of the Moon or The Wall. Then there are the comparatively more recent releases by Roger Waters, like the opera Ca Ira or the hauntingly beautiful and deeply touching Amused to Death.

Roger Waters has always been the real true genius behind both the Pink Floyd music and lyrics, this was true from the early Saucerful of Secrets (1968) to the (well named) Final Cut (1983). There has been a lot of controversy about that, it’s all water under the bridge now, but let me just say that I discovered Saucerful of Secrets when I was 11 (1974) and even at that young age I quickly figured out who the “hidden genius” (that is how I thought about Waters then) behind the band really was. I do have the utmost respect for the rest of the Pink Floyd band, they were also very talented, but Roger Waters stands, in my not so humble opinion, head and shoulders over the rest of the band. In fact, for me, Roger Waters *is* and always was, the “real Pink Floyd!

The very first pop song I ever played on a guitar was “Brain Damage“. I was 12 then. Since, I have played pretty much every song Waters ever wrote. Later, I went into rock (Led Zep style) and, later, into acoustic Jazz guitar duos, but on my Walkman (remember those?), in my room and, later, in my car I always had a full Roger Waters discography. I still do 🙂

Of course, Roger Waters is not only a truly immensely talented composer, his lyrics have also had a huge impact on me. I don’t want to discuss personal issues here, but let’s just say that Roger Waters put in words feelings I was harboring deep inside myself. As a kid, and later an adult, I always though “no matter what, there is ONE GUY out there who not only “gets it” but also feels that which I feel, often very deep inside me: Roger Water’s music and lyrics touched me at my most vulnerable, desperate, frightened, filled with angst and doubt. The fact that both Roger and I lost our fathers very early on and were raised by our mothers probably greatly contributed to “tune” us to a same similar frequency, so to speak. The fact that we were born in a truly terminally insane world (including the Cold War) for sure did!

Last, but not least, I saw how Roger not only wrote about our world, but how he entered the fight against what he calls our “ruling classes” (he is right to use this category, this is certainly a class struggle) even taking on the most powerful and evil gang out there: the Apartheid state of “Israel”. Payback for Roger’s compassion for, and truthfulness about, the plight of the Palestinian people did not go unnoticed by the bad guys. One of these creeps even made a full feature length movie entitled “Wish You Weren’t Here – The Dark Side Of Roger Waters” (in Russian we have a good saying: “this tiny dog must be hugely strong to bark up and elephant!”).

And it is not just the Palestinians, or Julian Assange; any other person who needs protection or a voice to speak up for them – they will find such a voice in Waters. Anyone who has had a chance to hear his masterpiece “Amused to Death” or the “Ca Ira” opera will quickly figure out that Waters is not only an amazing music genius, but also a truly righteous man who followed his conscience when almost everybody sold out and left the battlefield. Bottom line, Waters truly had a huge impact on me, my life and my views. He was also a role model in so many ways.

Special note for religious bigots: yes, I know, Waters is not religious. But may I suggest that he is not religious for all the RIGHT reasons – think of the kind of pseudo-Christianity he has been exposed to since his birth. Water’s secularism is nothing but a form of honesty which rejects all the hypocrisy so many bigots love to wrap themselves in! I would argue that there are *many* atheists for the right reasons out there just as there are deeply religious people for the wrong reasons out there too (and they make the very best Orthodox converts, by the way, as they truly seek out the REAL truth!). So how about we don’t judge and, instead, praise the undeniable righteousness of any man who places the Truth, his conscience and his unwavering struggle, against all the evils of our world? As an Orthodox Christian, I feel very close and sympathetic to those idealist who reject religions because all they saw from these religions was disgusting, revolting and generally very much NOT Christ-like. After all, the concepts of love, beauty, truth are all paraphrases or metaphors for the word “God” which, alas, has become almost totally discredited in our post-Christian times! Rather than judging or condemning, let’s instead pray as our Lord taught us and humbly pray “for the peace of the whole world, for the good estate of the holy churches of God, and for the union of all, let us beseech the Lord.”

I think that by now you all see the obvious: I love Roger Waters with all my heart. No point in hiding or denying it, as it is obvious anyway 🙂

And, of course, meeting him one day has been a lifelong dream of mine. Then, in May, I got an email from a reader (let’s call him “J”) who mentioned to me that he has had contacts with Waters in the past. I immediately asked him to ask Roger if he would agree to a video interview. And then, one day, I got a very warm and kind reply from Waters saying “Hey Andrei, sure, I’ll do the interview. When and how? Love Roger!“.

The “when and how” took longer than expected, as Waters is truly in HUGE demand everywhere, did you see his reply to Mark Zuckerberg who wanted by purchase Waters’s song “Another Brick in the Wall II” for huge money? And the goal? To promote Instagram. You can see Roger’s heartfelt reply to Zuckerberg here. But, eventually, it did happen, and last Monday I had the huge honor, privilege and joy to speak with Roger. You could say that this was a dream of mine for 46(!) years, and it finally happened.

Needless to say, I was both blissful (hence my “cat with cream” grin during this conversation) and very intimidated. While I spent most of my life not giving a damn about what others think, this time I cared, a lot. So I will also confess of being very intimidated by the man. If anything, his kind simplicity and compassionate understanding made him, if at all possible, even bigger in my eyes.

So, after this long intro (sorry but I had a lot to say, and could easily have turned that into into a 10,000 words article) here is the promised interview:

 
• Category: Arts/Letters • Tags: Israel/Palestine, Music, Roger Waters 

I have to begin this column by admitting that “Biden” (note: when in quotation marks, I refer to the “collective Biden”, not the clearly senile man) surprised me: it appears that my personal rule-of-thumb about US Presidents (each one is even worse than his predecessor) might not necessarily apply in “Biden’s” case. That is not to say that “Biden” won’t end up proving my rule of thumb as still applicable, just that what I am seeing right now is not what I feared or expected.

Initially, I felt my the rule still held. The total US faceplant in Alaska when Blinken apparently mistook the Chinese for woke-neutered serfs and quickly found out how mistaken he was.

But then there was the meeting with Putin which surprised many, including myself. Initially, most Russian observers joined one of two groups about the prospects for this summit:

  1. This summit will never happen, there is nothing to discuss, Biden is senile, his Admin is filled wall to wall with harcore russophobes and, besides, the (US) Americans are “not agreement capable” (недоговороспособные) anyway, so what is the point?
  2. If the summit takes place, it will be a comprehensive failure. At best a shouting match or exchange of insults.

Neither of these happened. Truth be told, we still do not really know what happened. All we have are some vague declarations of intent and worded pious intentions. And even those were minimalistic! In fact, after the summit most Russian observers, again, broke into two main camps:

  1. “Biden” threw in the towel and gave up. Russian won this round. Hurray!
  2. “Biden” only changed tactics, and now the new US posture might well become even more aggressive and hostile. Russia is about to see a major surge in anti-Russian provocations. Alarm!

I think that both of these grossly oversimplify a probably much more complex and nuanced reality. In other words, “Biden” surprised many, if not most, Russians. That is very interesting by itself (neither Bush, nor Obama nor Trump ever surprised the Russians – who knew the score about all of them – in any meaningful way).

My strictly personal guess is that there is some very serious infighting currently taking place inside the US ruling class. Furthermore, that serious infighting is not about core principles or even strategy – it is a dispute over tactics only.

We have to keep in mind an old truism about outcomes: John F. Kennedy once said that “victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan” and he was right. When any group seizes power and effectively controls its interests, all is well, and everybody is busy consuming the proverbial milk and honey. But when this group suffers a series of humiliating defeats, a typical cascade of events begins:

  • Finger pointing: everybody blames everybody else (but never himself/herself)
  • Hindsight wisdom: “if I had been in charge, this would not have happened!
  • Infighting over quickly shrinking spoils of war
  • A collapse of the centralized center of authority/decision-making centers
  • Generation of subgroups, fighting each other over their sub-interests

In other words, following many years of extremely weak presidential administrations (since Clinton, imho), it is hardly a surprise that infighting would take place (in both parties, by the way). In fact, an apparently chaotic set of uncoordinated, or even contradictory, policies is what one should expect. And that is exactly what we have been observing since 1993 and this dynamic has been getting worse and worse with each passing year).

Needless to say, the main outcome of such defeat-induced infighting is to weaken all the groups involved, regardless of their objectives and policies. Some might believe that this is a positive development, but I am not so sure at all (see below).

That being said, there are some observations which might be helpful when trying to at least (indirectly) identify who are the main groups fighting each other.

The hardcore, really nutty, russophobes are still here, especially in the US media which seems to be serving not so much “Biden” as much as some “crazies in the basement” kind of cabal. Next to the legacy ziomedia, there is an increasing number of US/NATO/UK military officials who are foaming at the mouth with threats, warnings, complaints and insults, all against Putin and Russia. This is important because:

  • The “Zone A” media has comprehensively and very effectively concealed the very real risks of war with Russia, China and Iran. And if this was mentioned, the presstitutes always stressed that the US has the “best military in the history of the galaxy” and that Uncle Sam will “kickass” anybody he chooses to. If the people of the USA were informed of the truth of the matter, they would freak out and demand that this path to war be immediately abandoned and replaced with a meaningful dialog.
  • US/NATO/UK authorities have talked themselves into a corner where they have only two outcomes left: they can do what the US always does, that is to “declare victory and leave”, or they can force Russia to protect her borders on land, air and sea and, thereby, face a major military humiliation delivered by Russia.

Truth be told, during the recent naval exercises UK and US officials made a lot of threats and promises to ignore Russian warnings, but in the end, they quietly packed and left. Smart choice, but it must have been painfully humiliating for them, which is very dangerous by itself.

How much of these statements/threats actually were done with “Biden’s” approval? I don’t know. But I am unaware of any reprimands, demotions or any other action taken against the crazies who are calling for a war against Russia, China or Iran. That does not mean that it did not happen, only that it was not publicized. My feeling is, however, that even if “Biden” did object to this kind of dangerous sabre rattling, “he” is too weak to do anything about it. It is quite possible that “Biden” is gradually losing control of his own administration.

I recently had a good laugh hearing NATO naval personnel saying that Russians made “imitation attacks” on NATO ships by overflying them several times. Apparently, these folks sincerely think that gravity bombs are the main/only threat from the Russian Aerospace Forces and coastal defenses which, in reality, can sink US/UK/NATO ships without ever approaching them or even getting in their radar range. Not to mention 6-7 extremely quiet and heavily armed advanced diesel-electric subs of the Black Sea Fleet. While I don’t doubt the “diversity” of these NATO naval crews, I am now having major doubts about even their basic competence.

There will be many more NATO exercises in the Black Sea in the future. Ditto for USN operations off the Chinese, Iranian or DPRK coasts. This (always explosive) combo of ignorance, arrogance and incompetence could result in a major war.

 

The past week has been quite intense in Russia – lots of interesting developments took place, and today I will mention three:

  1. Putin wrote a very interesting essay on the history of Russia and the Ukraine, which he followed up with a very interesting interview.
  2. Russia just concluded final tests for truly formidable weapons systems like the S-500 and the Mach 8 hypersonic missile Zircon.
  3. In its yearly aviation salon MAKS, Russia has just presented a 5th generation, single engine light multi-functional fighter the Su-75 “Checkmate”

These are all truly huge developments for Russia which we need to look into separately.

Putin’s history of Russia and the Ukraine

First, I highly recommend that you take the time to read the full article here and the full interview here (there is no point for me to use the space here to pepper you with excerpts), especially if you are not well-acquainted with Russian history or live in Zone A. Furthermore, being the “Putin groupie and fanboy” which I so-notoriously am (guilty as charged!), I won’t surprise anybody by saying that I agree with almost every word Putin wrote or spoke. And, frankly, all the facts Putin lists are really common knowledge for most people (unless they have been brainwashed by US/Ukronazi propaganda) and there is really no point for me to repeat “yes, this is true” and “yes, he is right” over and over again.

So all I propose to do next is to just to add a few comments of mine about this article+interview (I will assume that readers will have read them both; if not, I suggest completely skipping this section),

  1. First, as I just said, there is absolutely nothing new in this article for educated people. But that is not Putin’s target audience anyway. Putin’s target audience are the younger generations (in the Ukraine, the West and even, alas, Russia proper!) who know very little, if anything, about history. And while this is also true of Russia, this is especially true in the Ukraine where people have been massively brainwashed since 1917 (as Putin explains this very well in his article).
  2. The real reason why this article caused such a stir in Russia and total hysterics amongst the Ukronazi nutcases (who, again, are now predicting an imminent Russian invasion, what else?) is that while these facts were known for decades, but considered very politically incorrect to mention them lest the Ukrainians get offended: from the late 80s and until now, the Ukronazis taught a very different version of history, which includes coming from the Sumerian civilization, building the pyramids in Egypt, digging the Black Sea, founding the ancient Aryan civilization, etc. Even more crucially, the official Ukronazi narrative claims that Russians and Ukrainians are completely different people (Ukies are true, pure, Aryans while Russians are Ugro-Altaic Mongols). So what Putin did with this article is simply to (finally!) proclaim that the emperor is naked and the clueless Ukies ignorant of their own history.
  3. This article also marks a rather dramatic change of tone from the Kremlin. In the past the Kremlin always tried to maintain a polite and respectful attitude towards the Ukies and their Wakanda-like delusions about history. Now this is over, Russia has finally and openly decided to declare to the Ukies (and the rest of the world!) that their founding myths are based on precious *nothing* and that Russia is done treating this utter nonsense as if it has any factual basis in the adult world.

I would like to offer one more commentary on Putin’s statements.

I believe that there has been a “war of words” waged by the Ukrainian nationalists against the Russians for many decades (I remember listening to the Ukie service of RL/RFE and I was always amazed at the completely open hatred – bordering on racist bigotry – of the Ukie propaganda; even when compared to all the other national minority services of RL/RFE which, I assure you, included a lot of bone fide nutcases in many of its services) and the Russian side was mostly quiet and demure lest the Ukies get offended. That is now over, in this war of words Russia will now use her verbal ammunition to debunk the Ukronazi pseudo-historical fairy tales. I very much welcome that!

Finally, I believe that the Kremlin is already working on “post-Ze” options. Frankly, this also comes not a second too soon! The Ukraine has been in free fall for years already, but even by Ukie standards the chaos and tensions which are taking place now have grown into full scale hysterics which is both truly amazing and very concerning (I will spare you all the details now, I have enough such articles already posted, but I will probably have to revisit this slow agony in the near future). I get the feeling that the Kremlin expects a truly bona fide Nazis leader to come to power by one way or another after “Ze” (Note: while “Ze” did end up catering to the Ukronazis, he himself is most definitely not “the real thing” – he only pretends). Maybe a “President Avakov” next (no Nazi either, by the way, just a man very skilled at using Nazis)?

The bottom line is this: the final collapse of the Ukraine is what the Kremlin is now openly waiting for next. And even if “Biden” wants to force “Ze” to abide by the Minsk Agreements, this will mean the end for “Ze” and a return to full/total power of the Ukronazis. Why? There are roughly three forces in the Ukraine right now, at least apparently:

  1. The regime in power (“Ze” and his gang)
  2. The opposition (mostly the OPZZh party)
  3. The real hardcore Nazis (you can think of them as the Ukie version of the Hutu “Interahamwe” in Rwanda

The regime is in deep agony and simply not viable.

The opposition is divided, often politically discredited and lacks both a clear leader and a clear vision.

In sharp contrast, the Ukronazis gang is small, but very well organized, very well funded and very well led (most of the “street level” Ukronazi leaders are imbeciles like Liashko or, better, Tiagnibok, but Avakov is no idiot, he is good at working with his US patrons and with the truly crazy folks like Andrei Biletskii or Aleksei Danilov.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, NATO, Russia, Ukraine 

I have to admit that before I sat down to write this column I had some misgivings: I thought “not another article warning about a potential explosion in the Ukraine! Not again!”. And yet, events on the ground are what they are and ignoring them under the pretext that I am fed up “crying wolf” again and again is not a wise solution either. I will try to keep it short though. First, let me provide you a quick summary of what has been happening in the Ukraine since my last column about the Ukraine on June 28th.

As most of you know, NATO and the Ukraine have been conducting maneuvers on the Black Sea, air and land called “Sea Breeze”. This is nothing new, but this year these maneuvers attracted more countries than usual, as you can see for yourself.

Officially, 32 countries from six continents providing 5,000 troops, 32 ships, 40 aircraft, and 18 special operations and dive teams are participating in this exercise: Albania, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and the United States. Kristina Kvien, the chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, declared that “USS Ross‘ participation in this year’s Sea Breeze maritime exercise is a tangible demonstration of U.S. support for Ukraine and is necessary now more than ever (…) it is part of the enduring commitment that the United States and our NATO Allied and partner nations have made since 1997 to enhance maritime security in the Black Sea”.

Now here are a few examples of what the Ukies are saying:

  • Let’s see if the accursed Mokal’s will dare to shoot at the Ross which (at least according to the Ukies) can sink the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet with one salvo of its super-dooper Tomahawk missiles.
  • The Ukraine now has missiles which can bring down the bridge over the Kerch Strait.
  • The USA is delivering us fast attack boats while Turkey is giving us Bairaktar drones – with those we will liberate Crimea and the Donbass from the accused Moskal’.
  • The Ukrainian military is now the best in Europe (in fact, it protects the entire EU from assaults by the Russian hordes) and it will make minced meat of the Russians for sure the next time around.
  • In their current format, the Minsk Agreements are dead and we will never implement them. If the Moskal’ refuse to amend them then we also have a plan B: to build a big wall and totally cut all our ties with Russia. Either that, or we will liberate Crimea and the Donbass manu militari!
  • The next time the accursed Moskal’ try to prevent a Ukie vessel from traversing the Kerch Strait we will sink any force trying to stop us.

Keep in mind that all TV channels which are not controlled by Ze have now been banned. The Ukie Rada passed a law declaring that Russians are not native to the Ukraine (makes me wonder where they came from, outer space I suppose). All the main leaders of the rather uninspiring opposition are constantly harassed or even kept under house arrest. All this is to say that the insane examples of what the Ukronazis are saying above is not some minority of hardcore delusional Ukronazis – this is what many of the members of the party of Ze (and others!) are openly saying 24/7.

Now, let’s cut to the chase and see what is really going on!

Party Official position
Official White House We want to contain Russia, maintain a dialog where it is in the interests of the USA and we will defend our friends and values in the region and the whole world
US/NAT/EU officials We will resist any Russian provocation or use of force, we have the means to force Russia to renounce her plans to rebuild the Soviet Union.
Ukronazis The world is with us. Russia is weak and isolated. The US, NATO and our invincible military will teach a painful lesson to the Russian bear which really belongs East of the Urals (the latter are the natural border between the EU and China). We are now rehearsing the liberation of Crimea with our allies.
Russians Just try

Let’s sum this up: while the top US officials have not held the same kind of language as the US, UK and Dutch Navy officers on their ships last week, it is pretty clear that one of two things will happen: either NATO will try to “poke the bear” or they won’t.

  • In the first case, NATO will have looked like it “blinked” and that for all its posturing, NATO is afraid of taking on Russia.
  • In the second case, Russia will sink a NATO ship (or shoot down a NATO aircraft) and if NATO does not repost, it will have blinked, hard and with both eyes.

Both of these outcomes are highly undesirable for the US, NATO or the Empire. These outcomes are also bad news for the EU (which cannot afford to lose NS2 to some silly three letter agency provocation against Russia).

The main problem is that many western officials have declared urbi et orbi that “the civilized world (by that we mean “us” of course) has not recognized the Russian annexation of Crimea and, therefore, we don’t recognize the waters off Crimea as legit Russian waters”. This must have sounded really cool to the first simpletons who declared this, but the Ukies and their UK+3B+PU have immediately, and logically (in their own simple-minded way), declared “okay, great! Prove it by ignoring the Russian warnings and send something across this Russian “red line” to prove to the world that you are not only bark and no bite”. In other words, this is yet another iteration of a favorite challenge amongst US teenagers: “and whatcha gonna do about it?”.

Frankly, this is a legit question. And the US/NATO have until July 10th (this Saturday) to answer it. Okay, I guess they could also answer it after Sea Breeze 2021 is over, but since US Americans (and their clueless NATO counterparts) believe that coalition warfare is the way to victory (in reality, it is a way to defeat, as I have explained it in this article) and the real leaders of the Empire also believe that large coalitions offer a veneer of legitimacy (they don’t, as only a UNSC Resolution can) to their (imperialistic and illegal) actions with lots of small Tabaquis to make it all look kosher.

 

To begin, let’s recap what just happened in the Crimean waters. First, the HMS Defender deliberately entered the Russian waters under the pretext that the Brits don’t recognize what they call the “annexation” of Crimea. The Brits deny it, but after seeing 4 bombs explode ahead of the HMS Defender, they altered their course as the Russians demanded.

Next, before looking into this deeper, let’s also keep in mind the following fact: the entire Black Sea is a de facto “Russian lake” meaning that Russia has the full military control of the Black Sea. For those alternatively gifted, let me explain what this means:

  • The Bal and Bastion coastal defense missiles can sink any ship in the Black Sea in minutes.
  • The Black Sea Fleet has seven advanced diesel-electric attack submarines, arguably the most advanced on the planet.
  • The HMS Defender was operating without any air cover but detected over 20 Russian military aircraft overflying it.

For a more detailed discussion of this reality, please see these four (here, here, here and here) articles by Andrei Martyanov. For a more detailed discussion of the laws of the sea, please see this discussion by Nat South.

In other words, the HMS Defender was a sitting duck with no chance of survival had the Russians decided to fire in anger. General Konashenkov, who is in charge of contacts with the media, had this to say about the outcome of the British provocation: (emphasis added)

“The epic fiasco of the provocation of the British destroyer Defender in the Black Sea, which abruptly changed course from Russian territorial waters after the warning shots of the patrol ship, will remain a fragrant stain on the reputation of the Royal Navy for a long time”

(-: Thereby suggesting that the Brits soiled their pants and ran for their lives 🙂

Speaking of anger: I have been parsing the Russian media over the past couple of days and I will only say that there are A LOT of commentators who are mad at the Kremlin for NOT opening fire in earnest and sinking the Defender.

Furthermore, several Russian officials have now indicated that the next time around, the intruders would be destroyed.

Did I mention that the British Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice declared in an interview that the Brits plan to repeat such operations in the future?

This now begs the question: would the Kremlin really risk WWIII by sinking a British Navy Ship trying to, to use a British expression, “poke the Russian bear”?

Interestingly, the Brits deny that the Russians fired any munitions ahead of the Defender. Why would they do that? My personal explanation is that the British government does not want to freak out the British and European public opinion. But if they are hiding the truth, it means that this is a truth which makes them uncomfortable. What do you think they might be hiding?

Still, the two UK reporters who were on the Defender (by total coincidence, I am sure), both reported hearing explosions and seeing Russian combat aircraft. The Russian FSB also released video footage taken from the Russian border patrol ships which were shadowing the HMS Defender. You can clearly see the Russian firing their guns ahead of the HMS Defender:

The Russians also have radar footage from many sources and it has been really easy for them to prove that the Defender changed course and left after four bombs exploded ahead on its course.

The reason for all this? “We don’t recognize the annexation of Crimea”. Which makes no sense because EVEN if the UK does not recognize the Russian “annexation” of Crimea (and, along with that, the democratic will of the people of Crimea), they should still recognize the indisputable fact that Russia is the “occupying power” which, therefore, has the legal right to deny any ship “innocent passage” if it believes that this ship is a threat, collecting intelligence or used for propaganda purposes (again, read Nat South’s superb discussion on the applicability of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to this situation). As usual, the Brits are lying about everything, including what the UNCLOS really says…

Now let’s look at this from the Russian point of view.

First, the Russians remember how the Brits declared a 200 miles zone around the Malvinas Islands (“Falklands” in UK parlance) and immediately sunk the cruiser General Belgrano as soon as it entered this zone. The Russians also remember how the Turks shot down a Russian SU-24 over Syria because it had penetrated in Turkish air space for exactly 6 seconds. The HMS Defender spent about 30 minutes in Russian waters.

Can you really blame them for feeling that “some are more equal than others”?

The Brits, being the superior race which only they think they are, declared that they only changed course because a slower Russian vessel was ahead of them and they decided to pass it from the open waters side. In fact, the Brits are so superior to the mongoloid Russian hordes and their dictator that they refused to even reply to the Russian coast guard vessel when it threatened to open fire if the Brits did not change course.

NOT talking to Russia, ever, seems to be the latest fad with NATO. The same goes for the EU which is now hostage to the 3B+PU nutcases.

(I wonder, does anybody still believe this crap? Does anybody still believe that Great Britain is, well, great? In Russia the expression “мелкобритания” is increasingly used. Translated into English this would be something like “Tiny Britain”)

Anyways, all of the above clearly shows one of two things:

  • The Brits do not believe that Russia could sink a UK warship
  • The Brits are willing to risk a major military incident possibly leading to war in order to maintain tensions between Russia and the collective West (aka the AngloZionist Empire).

This begs the question: are the Brits correct, or are they delusional?

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, NATO, Russia, Ukraine 

The long awaited summit between Presidents Putin and Biden has finally taken place, but was it a success? Will it change anything? The answer to this question very much depends on one’s expectations. Let’s take a closer look beginning with the context.

Context of the summit

Just about the only thing which both US and Russian observers agree on is that the state of the Russian-US relations is about as bad as can be (in my personal opinion, it is even much worse than during the Cuban Missile Crisis or any other time in the Cold War). As I have mentioned many times, I believe that the AngloZionist Empire and Russia have been at war at least since 2013. Remember Obama with his “Russian economy in “in tatters”? That was the outcome Obama promised the people of the USA (Quick factcheck: the company Deloitte recently polled the CEOs of major Russian corporations and only 4% of them felt “pessimistic” about their financial perspectives as “negative”, 40% replied “same as before” and 56% replied “optimistic”). Of course, this was was not a conventional war, it was about 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic. This, however, does not change the fact that this war was an existential war for both sides, one in which only one side could prevail while the other would, if not quite disappear, then at least totally lose its superpower status. This is a civilizational war, which pitted western and Russian civilizational (cultural, social and even religious) models against each other roughly along the following lines:

The US/Anglo-Zionist worldview: we are the “city upon a hill”, the beacon of light and hope for mankind. Our “manifest destiny” is to “expand the area of freedom” worldwide. We have the best armed forces in history, the strongest economy, the best everything. We are the “leaders of the free world” whose “responsibility” is to lead the world. This is not imperialism, this is the “duty” and “responsibility” placed upon us by history. Our values are universal values and must be universally accepted by all. Those refusing to join our model are authoritarian “rogue states”. Russia must accept that because she lost the Cold War and that western values have prevailed. Those who refuse to accept this are “revanchists” who want to overturn the outcome of the Cold War and rebuild the Soviet Union. The US had to expand NATO to the East to protect Europe from “Russian aggression”. Now “America” is back and, with our allies and friends, we will create a “rules based” international order which we will benevolently enforce to the immense gratitude of all of mankind.

Russian worldview:

Russia rejects any form of imperialism, for herself and for others. Russia wants a multilateral world order, based on international law and the full sovereignty of nations. Each nation should have the right to pursue its own cultural, economic, spiritual and civilizational model without being threatened, sanctioned, bombed, subverted or invaded. Russia rejects the so-called “western values” (turbocapitalism, imperialism, wokeness, multiculturalism, militant atheism, critical race theory, gender fluidity, etc.). The US is welcome to fly homo-flags on its embassies, but it has no business telling others how to live. In fact, the US has to accept two closely related realities: first, the US does not have the means to impose its ideology on the rest of the planet and, second, the rest of the planet sees the total hypocrisy of a country claiming to stand for values which itself gets to violate as much as it wants. Any comparisons are immediately dismissed with the words “but this is completely different!!!”.

Again, Russia agrees that the US is welcome to live in a post-truth, post-reality, delusion if it wants, but she also believes, and says so, that the West has no right to try to impose its pretend-values on others, especially when it constantly violates them all when convenient.

The core issue

The core belief underlying these very different worldview is extremely simple: the US sees itself as exceptional and, therefore, endowed with special rights and sees Russia as a much inferior interlocutor which needs to accept the US hegemony upon the world. In sharp contrast, Russia denies the USA any special status and demands that the US leaders accept Russia as an equal interlocutor before any meaningful dialog or cooperation could even be discussed.

I think that it would be fair to say that roughly between 2013 and 2020 both countries exerted immense efforts in a kind of a massive arms wrestling match to show that it, and not the other guy, would prevail.

For a very short while, Trump tried to get some kind of dialog going, but he was quickly and completely neutered by the Neocons and the messianic imperialists in his own camp (I think of Pompeo for example) and his efforts, however sincere, yielded absolutely nothing: Trump was not able to put an end to the war started by Obama.

Then came Biden and, at first, things looked hopeless. Seeing the massive failure of the first US-China meeting in Alaska, one could have been excused to expect a similar, or even worse, outcome from any meetings between Biden and Putin. Many (on both sides) believed that such a meeting was pointless at best since the US had painted itself into a zero-sum corner in which anything short of an exchange of insults would be seen by the US media (and the public opinion it shapes) as a “defeat”, “surrender” and possibly even “treason” by Biden. That is definitely the message conveyed by much of the US media, including Fox.

I want to express my total disgust with US Republicans who, for four years, were literally hounded by the US media for Trump’s alleged “caving in” to Putin or even for being a “Manchurian candidate” put in power by “Putin”. Now the Republicans are using the exact same language accusing Biden of “weakness” and for “caving in” to Putin. Truly, the Dems and the GOP are like Coke and Pepsi: different labels, same product. Worse, both the Dems and the GOP place their petty interests above the well-being of the United States and its people. I consider both parties traitors to the US and its people.

What actually happened

In spite of all the nay-sayers (on both sides!), Putin and Biden did meet. True, the meeting did not yield any spectacular results, but it would be wrong to conclude that nothing of importance happened.

First, the tone of the Biden administration towards Russia and Putin did change, remarkably so, especially after Biden’s infamous “uhu, he is a killer”. Some sanctions were lifted, the US basically gave up on trying to prevent North Stream 2 (NS2) from being completed, and a number of small steps were achieved, including:

  • An agreement to discuss cybersecurity on an expert level (something the Russians had been demanding for years, but which the USA rejected out of hand).
  • A joint declaration strategic stability (more about that below)
  • An agreement to discuss outstanding issues on an expert level
  • A return of both US and Russian ambassadors to their former positions
  • A discussion on a possible prisoner swap
  • A discussion on possible future arms control agreements

Also of interest are the points which were mentioned in passing, mostly by the US side, but which were clearly not focused on. These include:

 

Just like in 2006, when both Ehud Olmert and George Bush declared that the “invincible IDF” had, yet again, achieved a “glorious victory” and the entire Middle-East almost died laughing hearing this ridiculous claim, today both the US and Israeli propaganda machine have declared another “glorious” victory for the “Jewish state of Israel” cum “sole democracy in the Middle-East”. And, just like in 2006, everybody in the region (and in Zone B) knows that the truth is that the Zionist entity suffered a huge, humiliated, defeat. Let’s try to unpack this.

First, a few numbers. The combat operations lasted two weeks. All other missile numbers are in dispute. Rather than trust this or that source, I will simply say that Hamas fired many thousands of missiles into Israel. Some, probably less than 50%, were truly intercepted by the Israeli air defenses, others hit in no man’s land, and some actually landed and caused plenty of destruction and at least 12 deaths. The Israelis executed hundreds of artillery and airstrikes causing massive destruction in the Gaza strip and killing about 250 Palestinians. Again, these numbers are guesstimates and they don’t really tell the full story. To understand the story, we need to forget about these numbers and look at what each side was hoping for and what each side achieved. Let’s begin with the Israelis:

The Israeli scorecard

To understand Israel’s goals in this war, we first need to place this latest war in its context, and that context is that Israel was comprehensively defeated in Syria. To substantiate this thesis, let’s remember the goals of the Zionists when they unleashed a major international war against Syria. These objectives, as listed in my July 2019 article “Debunking the Rumors About Russia Caving in to Israel” were:

The initial AngloZionist plan was to overthrow Assad and replace him with the Takfiri crazies (Daesh, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS – call them whatever you want). Doing this would achieve the following goals:

  1. Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces, and security services.
  2. Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a “security zone” by Israel not only in the Golan but further north.
  3. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.
  4. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a “security zone,” but this time in Lebanon.
  5. Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
  6. Break up Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
  7. Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
  8. Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and force the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project.
  9. Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert, and eventually attack Iran with a broad regional coalition of forces.
  10. Eliminate all centers of Shia power in the Middle-East.

As we all know, this is what actually happened:

  1. The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more capable than they were before the war started (remember how they almost lost the war initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons. By all reports, they improved tremendously, while at critical moments Iran and Hezbollah were literally “plugging holes” in the Syrian frontlines and “extinguishing fires” on local flashpoints. Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their country, including every single city in Syria).
  2. Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the country now, which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
  3. Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is backfiring. (2021 update: in spite of the explosion in Beirut, Hezbollah is still in charge)
  4. Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced refugees are returning home.
  5. Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no credibility left.

Seeing their defeat in Syria, the Zionists did what they always do: they used their propaganda machine to list an apparently neverending victorious strikes on supposed “Iranian targets” in Syria. While a few civilian simpletons with zero military experience did buy into this nonsense, the truth about Israeli operations in Syria is simple: the Syrian air defenses have successfully prevented the Israelis from striking at important, sensitive, targets, and they Israelis have been forced to declare as major victories the destruction of empty barns as “destruction of important IRGC headquarters” thereby “proving” to a few naive folks in Zone A and to themselves (!) that the IDF is still as “invincible” as it “always was”. As for the Neocons, they doubled-up on that and declared that 1) Russian air defenses are useless 2) that Russia and Israel work hand in hand and 3) that the Israelis are still invincible. Yet if any of that was true, why has Israel failed to achieve a single one of its goals? And why are both the Russians and the Iranians still in Syria were the Russians just finished a 2nd runway at Khmeimim and they have just deployed a group of Tu-22M3 at that air base from where they can now threaten any ship sailing in the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. In their otherwise “free time” they can deliver tons of bombs and missiles to the remaining Takfiri forces in Syria.

As I have been saying for many years now, the truth is that the IDF is a poor fighting force. Why? First, they have the exact same problem as the USA (and the KSA, for that matter): they rely on expensive technology, but don’t have good combat-capable “boots on the ground”. That is now how modern wars are won (see here for a list of popular misconceptions about modern wars).

In its recent history, the entire gamut of Israeli “elite” forces (including the air force, the navy, the artillery and even the Golani Brigade) got its collective butt handed to them by about 1000 and only lightly armed regular Hezbollah fighters in 2006: keep in mind that the elite Hezbollah forces were deployed only north of the Litani river to protect Beirut against a possible land invasion by Israel. Instead of taking Beirut or “disarming Hezbollah” (that was an official goal!), the Israelis could not even control the small town of Bint Jbeil located right across the official Israeli border! So much for being “invincible”!

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Gaza, Hamas, IDF, Israel, Israel/Palestine 

The Biden Administration has gone out of its way to show itself as absolutely “woke-compatible” and even as a champion of “wokeness” (Foggy Bottom has just allowed US embassies and consulates to fly the “gay pride” flag next to the Stars and Stripes. I bet you they won’t do that in Riyadh!). According to the hyper-politically correct Wikipedia, “woke” refers to the “awareness of issues that concern social justice and racial justice”. This definition is, however, misleading because, for example, it clearly is not intended to cover, say, social injustice meted out to poor whites. In other words, wokeness is a one way street. What wokeness does mandate is for my son (who is studying biology) to be told in his class that he is the carrier of “white guilt” even though his ancestors never interacted with blacks, let alone blacks in the USA.

As I have mentioned in the past, I do not consider categories such as “black” or “white” as analytically helpful since they are not properly defined. That, however, does not mean that I am not willing to use them in a specific context where the parties to an ideological dispute refer to themselves, or to others, as black or white. By the way, “Asian” is another useless category as, depending on whom you ask, it would include Pakistanis (who sure ain’t yellow) and lump them together with (brown) Indonesians and (yellow) Japanese people. The fact that these categories are used in the western political discourse means that I cannot ignore them solely because I find them ambiguous and misleading. Furthermore, the category “African” whether used with “American” or not, is not helpful either since it would include people otherwise considered white; say Elon Musk, even though nobody thinks of Musk as African-American. Finally, the category black might include Tamils or Australian aborigines, but it is rarely, if ever, used in that sense. Thus, when I will use the words black or white below, it will be in the largely accepted US meaning of “descendants of African slaves” and “descendents of white colonists” even though I am acutely aware of the reality of interbreeding (by rape or by mutual consent) between these two groups and even though the woke ideology blames *all* so-called “whites” for their putative racism and their supposedly “privileged” position in the US society due to its alleged “systemic racism”, even when they are new immigrants to the USA.

I don’t think that I have tackled the issues of race or racism before, mostly because I am horrified by all the nonsense one can hear as soon as these topics are mentioned. It is, however, indisputable that the woke ideology is the main ideology of the Biden Administration and this is why it cannot simply be ignored. Of course, other ideological trends of the US ruling class (messianism, imperialism, self-worship, capitalism, etc.) have not been abandoned; instead, they have been “wokified” in the sense that the woke ideology is now used to give these traditional US ideologies some kind of politically-correct imprimatur, a kind of “when we do that in the name of wokeness we are doing something morally right” label placed on an otherwise deeply discredited set of “western values”.

Of course, there is an apparent paradox here: how can the woke ideology be used to try to give a semblance of respectability to a set of western ideologies when the woke ideology is also rabidly anti-western?! The woke ideology is most definitely anti-western, and not in the sense of condemning the West’s thousand years of bloody wars and imperialism, that would at least make some sense, but it is anti-western in the sense that it places an equal sign between, say, J.S. Bach and the rapper “Ice Cube” with a “logic” along the following line: “hey, who are you to say that Bach was more talented than the rapper Ice Cube?! That is racist!!!” Even mathematics are now considered “racist”! And anybody disputing that is, of course, a racist.

What is missing here is the element of proof. Some kind of rules of evidence which could be appealed to; let’s use the modern term to ‘fact check’ most of the assumptions made by the supporters of the woke ideology.

For example, in my Swiss high school we had a huge mural declaring that “all races are equal”. No evidence for that statement was ever given. In fact, during my entire academic life (1 undergrad and 2 graduate degrees) I have never seen any real evidence for this thesis. (I have seen plenty of evidence disputing this, beginning with US Army IQ tests). By the way, that does not at all mean that I affirm the opposite (that races are somehow unequal), only that in a dogmatic statement like “all races are equal” even the term “equal” is extremely ambiguous and, frankly, meaningless. Let’s compare this statement to another famous one by Saint Paul (Galatian 3:26-28 KJV):

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”.

Unlike the vapid “all races are equal”, Saint Paul clearly states that all humans are “children of God” and he further explains how this happens when he says “by faith in Christ Jesus”. He then clarifies that “all are one in Christ Jesus” (being “one” in Christ is unambiguous, unlike being “equal”). And Saint Paul concludes by explaining that through Christ there is a new generation of mankind “ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise”. Unlike the woke ideology, Christianity does truly unite all human beings, and Christianity does so without ever denying or obfuscating the very real differences which makes all humans very much unequal to each other, including a total equality in rights and privileges inside the Christian religion. First, Saint Paul mentions our common filiation as children of God through Adam, to which he immediately adds a further common filiation of those who have “put on Christ” by means of baptism. The evidence here, the proof of the statement, is clear: baptism. One can, of course, disagree with Saint Paul, but not accuse him of ambiguity (especially in the light of all the other Apostolic and Patristic statements providing contextual support for this!).

Compare that with the woke ideology which categorically splits mankind into two groups: the oppressed “minorities” and the (always) “white” oppressors, which even contradicts the actual history of Africa which was invaded and colonized by (non-White) Arabs before the Europeans got involved (something which the US blacks who take on Islamic names either don’t know or try hard to ignore).

 

Before we look into what just happened in the Ukraine, we need to first recall the sequence of events which lead to the current situation. I will try to make a short summary (skipping a lot of details) in the bullet-point style:

  1. Whether Ze initially intended to stop the war in the eastern Ukraine we don’t know, but what we do know is that he failed not only to stop it, in many ways his policies were even worse than Poroshenko’s. This might be the well-known phenomenon of a supposedly “pro-peace and happiness” politician being accused of being “weak” and thus not “presidential”; this politician has to show his “strength” is “patriotism”, that is acting recklessly on the external front. We see that from putatively “liberal” politicians such as the Dems in the USA and Labor in Israel. Historically, “liberals” are the most common war initiators. Ze showed his weakness almost from day 1, and the Ukronazis immediately seized this opportunity to engage in a massive multi-level campaign for war against Russia. This resulted in:
  2. A quasi-official repudiation of the Minsk Agreements and Steinmeier Formula by Kiev, followed by a sharp increase in bellicose statements and, most crucially a large scale move of forces (including tanks, heavy artillery, MLRS and even ballistic missiles!) towards the line of contact. At the same time Ukronazi politicians began making statements saying that a) the Ukrainian army was capable and willing to “liberate” all of the “Russian occupied” Ukrainian land thus, including both the Donbass and Crimea b) that Russia was going to attack the Ukraine anyway and c) that the consolidated West had to help the Ukraine because only the Ukrainian forces were keeping the asiatic drunken Russian hordes from over-running not only the Ukraine, but even the rest of Europe. Since the Ukraine simply has no agency, this begs the question of the US (and, to a lesser degree, the UK) rationale was for these moves. It is quite simple:
  3. Force Russia to openly intervene to protect the population of the Donbass from the inevitable genocide which the Ukronazis would have meeted out to the population of the LDNR.

How good was this plan? I would argue that it was a very solid plan which, for the USA, meant a win-win situation. Here is how it should have gone:

First, the Ukrainian forces would attack the LDNR, probably along three axes: one between the city of Gorlovka and Donetsk, one frontally attacking Donetsk proper, not to invade the city, but to tie down LDNR forces in protection of their capital, and one in the south with the aim of reaching the Russian border. This way, the LDNR defenders would have to defend their capital while, at the same time, risking envelopment on two axes. Remember that the LDNR has no strategic depth (Donetsk is practically on the frontline) and that the LDNR defenders could not trade space for time.

I have seen some “experts” saying that since the Ukrainians have laid down a very large number of mines they are clearly not going to attack since they would lose time – and possibly men – to cross these minefields. First, there is no way of knowing if these mines are real or fake (many mines also have a timer anyway) but, second, more crucially: an attacking force always wants to concentrate in one specific location of the line of contact, which means that the attacking forces has to not only attack, but also protect herself from enemy counter-attacks: minefields are very effective at providing this sort of protection. The “defensive” moves can, and do, in reality, form an integral part of any offensive plans.

Of course, The Big Question was this: could the LDNR forces stop the Ukronazis? There are those who say that yes, and those who say no. Rather than suggesting an answer, let’s look at both of these outcomes:

Option 1: the LDNR forces successfully stop the Ukrainian invasion:

That would be, by far, the best outcome for Russia, but for the LDNR this outcome, while better than a defeat, would probably result in a lot of deaths and destruction. We know that both the Ukrainian military and the LDNR forces have been profoundly reformed and restructured since 2014. Crucially, the LDNR forces went from being self-organized and disparate militias to a conventional military force capable of operational level combined arms operations. Would that be enough to stop a larger Ukrainian force? Possibly. But this is by no means certain, not only because war is an unpredictable thing to begin with, but also because we really have no way of knowing how well the Ukrainian military was reformed. If what they got was the same type of “training” as the Georgians in the years leading up to 08.08.08 then there is a good cause to doubt it. LDNR leaders, however, did not engage in bravado and silly flag-waving and they took the threat very seriously, which tells us that they were by no means certain of what might happen next. Now let’s look at option 2:

Option 2: the LDNR defenses eventually collapse in one or even several locations:

What if the LDNR forces failed to stop the Ukrainians? At this point, Russia would have absolutely no choice but to intervene to save the people of the Donbass (more than half a million of which already have Russian passports!). I won’t discuss here the options a LDNR+Russia counter-attack would have or how much Ukronazi-occupied land Russia could or should liberate (that is not the topic here). In this case, two things are absolutely certain:

  1. Russia would comprehensively defeat any combination of Ukrainian forces.
  2. The US/NATO would declare a state of quasi war with Russia and create something similar to the Berlin Wall along whatever line of contact would result from a Russian counter-attack.

In this scenario, the biggest loser would, of course, be the Ukraine. But the next loser would be Russia, because instead of “just” dealing with a nutcase Nazi regime next door, Russia would now face a hysterically paranoid and russophobic consolidated West. At the end of such a war, Russia would face something similar to what happened at the end of the Korean war: a ceasefire followed by decades of tensions.

The big winner would be the USA: its main instrument for the colonization of Europe (NATO) would finally find itself a purpose in life (stop the Russians, of course), NS2 and other cooperation between the EU and Russia would all but totally freeze, making the European economy non-competitive against the US, and the US MIC would have a great time selling very expensive, if not very effective, military hardware to all the the European countries. And that strategic US victory would not cost the US a single soldier! What’s there not to like about this?

Well, for Russia this would be a very bad outcome. Yes, Russia has the means to take on both the US and NATO militarily, but politically and economically, this would hurt Russian interests, not critically, but substantially.

Then, there is this: the Ukraine is a thoroughly deindustrialized failed state, worse than many African countries. While there was a lot of window-dressing going on both inside the Ukraine and in the West’s legacy media, the COVID pandemic and its horrible consequences inside the Ukraine became impossible to conceal or deny, especially to the Ukrainian people themselves. Right now, the entire Ukraine is like a vase in a store: if you break it, you own it and you must fix it. Even if we exclude an outcome where the Russian tanks stop at the western borders of the Ukraine and take a middle-of-the-road option where the Russians stop at the Dnieper river, this would have huge consequences for the Russians, including:

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, NATO, Russia, Ukraine 
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in...