I doubt it. All the services have intel components. The military was in on it, NATO, Germany, and the CIA and its sister creepy crawlies in Europe. It was put together by NATO and executed by NATO. All the rest is more fantasia from the spooks, liars and censors.
This doesn't add up. On one hand the US in concert with other countries is going out of its way to wreck Russia economy, and provide overwhelming ISR to make sure as many Russian soldiers are killed in Ukrainian strikes, with various pols and military types mouthing off. On the other hand they are supposedly acting with restraint so that Russia doesn't escalate? They've driven Russia into a full on war posture in terms of their industrial stance, and BRICS is now a sledgehammer aimed at the Dollars head. We are for all intents and purposes already in ww3. This CIA thing sounds like a "you can only kill each other with small caliber weapons" like it matters how dead you are at the end
I think the gist is that its important to keep the actual killing to within the borders of Ukraine. If the conflict spirals out of that then its very difficult to control & predict & the risk of a nuclear war goes up dramatically. The US does not want to risk a nuclear exchange for the sake of Ukraine nor does it want Nato to be shown to be a paper tiger in case it is.
Well the Ukrainians just changed that with Belgorod. From the get go the side which had the greatest interest in escalation was the Ukrainians themselves. And the British are right there with them
Nonsense. The US could totally prevent all such action by Ukraine. Just has to instantly stop every bit of aid and confiscate Zelensky's properties in US and Europe (and that of other Ukrainian leaders). The fact they don't do so is a clear tell that the US is willing for Ukraine to escalate but with "plausible deniability" for the US/NATO.
I agree. This stuff from the CIA is CYA. Just like in Gaza where the administration talks about "restraining Israel" while continuing to maximize the flow of weapons to Israel and ratcheting up threats against Hezbollah, Yemen and Iran.
Biden has a long history of this. Everyone has analyzed how many times Biden has said one thing to the Chinese and then his administration the very next day does the exact opposite, to the point where even the Chinese explicitly pointed it out repeatedly.
This is no different. As Martyanov said today on the "Through The Eyes Of" Youtube channel with Ania, the West are cowards. They hide behind their proxies and devote themselves to supplying Ukraine with the SIGINT and ISR intel over Russia to enable Ukraine to strike cities in Russia to kill civilians while hiding behind the idea that "we don't control the Ukrainians" or "we asked them not to do that." Exactly like in Gaza.
No, it's not just the Ukrainians. It's the the US and Britain who do these things. No one should cut the West any slack on these matters. These are long-time war criminals and psychopaths, as Andrei says.
I think what we are forgetting is that there is not ONE clear direction, policy etc. from the US "govt". Factions of the WH Neo-cons and the CIA non neocons are playing here.
We are stopping a lot of aid to UA. We couldn't confiscate his properties by our own laws, and a reason would have to be given that placates the normies.
You have Trump being charged with fraud in NY where there are no victims, no losses, no laws broken. He is being told he is to pay 350 million, and to lose his businesses in NY all for NOT breaking any laws.
they can confiscate whatever they want. They will find loopholes in the legal framework if they need to. If they confiscate property from Russian oligarchs they certainly can confiscate property from Ukrainians.
Bazza -- I understand the points you are making, namely, that if it came down to it, the US could 'force' its will upon Ukraine because it could withhold all aid from it and / or 'hurt' Zelensky (or others) personally. You could apply this concept of 'he with the most power and leverage can ultimately do what it takes to force compliance' to all kinds of situations in life: your boss could 'fire you tomorrow' because you keep coming back a little late from lunch, your teacher could 'expel you from school' for not sitting up straight in your chair, etc. I am pointing out to these rather 'extreme' examples to show that a) it could be done and b) it is rarely ever done (because it would be counter-productive, considered too extreme by others in the hierarchy or the general public, have serious repercussions or blow-back, risk being 'reversed' by an even higher power and therefore risk becoming an 'embarassment' for the powerful, etc).
In would be my opinion that we are often 'led astray' because we see power structures as single entities with a unified purpose and that we see power projection by these power structures as simple 'he with the larger amount of power wins' kind of calculations. To see why this viewpoint might be in error (or at risk of error), think about kids and parents. Dad may very well want to 'take Johnny back behind the woodshed for a lesson' but Mom says 'over my dead body' (i.e. the power structure is not unified with the decision (to punish) or with the decision to inflict that type of punishment).
Similarly, think of scenarios where the parents may be aligned what needs to be done (e.g. they are aligned on the fact that they will 'not tolerate Johnny's behavior any more') -- but where the child 'gets away' with it anyway. This seems to happen a lot in real life -- but why? Maybe it happens because Johnny is 'willing to do the time for the pleasure of the crime' (and Mom and Dad don't won't to raise the stakes of punishment so high that they 'throw the baby out along with the bathwater'. They want Johnny to behave but don't want to actually throw him out of the house). Maybe the child 'gets away with it' because Johnny just gets better at 'hiding it' from Mom and Dad. In such a case, Mom and Dad probably know (at some level) that "Johnny is lying' -- but don't have the courage or will to follow-through because at least 'Johnny isn't still 'dealing' at the moment). Or maybe it comes back down to the fact that publicly Mom and Dad agree, but secretly Dad thinks that 'lying about seeing Sally' is understandable (because he should be allowed to see her despite what Mom insists is 'the rule'). And so on.
The point I am making is that if we do such things daily in our own life, relationships, families, work, school, etc is it a surprise that similar things can happen in larger contexts like governments, countries, or alliances?
For me, it's not that A could stop B and the fact that they are not means that they support it wholeheartedly. I admit there are times where this kind of assessment can be true, but my experience of life, companies, families, people, etc would tell be that there is a lot more ambiguity, negotiation, patience, forbearance, denial going on that you are allowing for.
regarding stopping of 'aid' - didn't that already happen? partly because ukraine project is known to lose and partly because there is nothing else really to give that would make any sense.
Not all in the UK are blinded by the MSM, I'm totally aware of what is going on here. The UK would't be able to retake the Falklands if Argentina were to strike now. We don't have the leadership willing to do such things, nor the naval/army/air power to project that far. We've just built two new frigates and to man them, we've had to take crew from another two warships, such is how the state of affairs in the UK are currently.
Let's be clear; the UK retaking of the Falklands essentially relegated the defense of the UK to the US during that time frame. This time, the help would be a little more obvious than that. The Falklands aren't going to be seized by Argentina anytime soon.
You are correct to a large degree. This all goes back to India, the Jewel of their former Crown empire, and the British fear of Russia encroaching on their imperial empire.
Did you ever wonder why there isn't more revanchism in the UK and Western Europe in general? After all, they lost empires and autonomy, even sovereignty.
The answer is that they were sold a bill of goods about this world empire thing. The rest of the behavior should be quite understandable at that point.
It is not, the Brits lend little real support, measured in money or armaments, but have an ideal practice ground for carrying out 'daring' terrorist acts
The U.K. Is one of the strongest proponents of this horrible shitshow in Ukraine continuing. I agree about the little material commitment but the political pressure is continuous. Too what end?
To the end of maintaining internal cohesion, to divert the masses, to obscure from any inkling that the UK is a shrunken relic of it's former power, to bark when required -
--Brits are kept in line : many ruling class Brits retain green cards, assets, husbands or wives, tasty thinky tank prospects
It's the same as your next door neighbor hating you for having a bigger yard than he does. Also self-hatred over having failed and lost their own empire.
There's a lot of psychological issues with the Brits. William S. Burroughs, who spent some in England, once said "England is the only country where shop clerks refer to each other as 'my colleagues.'" That pretty much sums it up. Left-over imperial hubris.
The guys on The Duran (one of whom has been on the fringes of power) ascribe the anti-Russian feeling amongst the British establishment as almost hereditory, and a pre-requistite for climbing the greasy pole. My personal view is that post Brexit its relations with the rest of Europe were so bad it needed to sidle up to Uncle Sam in a big way. So the US uses the UK as its attack dog, with plausible deniabilty. As Simplicus points out, the UK is a long way from Russia and whilst not immune is to that extent protected from Russian retaliation. However IMHO another facet of UK foreign policy is to weaken the continental European powers. And look at the big loser in this war - Germany and hence the EU. The UK has suffered some economic damage, but the EU far more. And the UK has demonstrated loyalty to the USA and the Dems in particular. It is a win win for them.
It is a fallacy to think that the UK is too far from Russia to experience real damage - they don't by any means have to respond to British intrigue from their own land mass. The Russians have several means of exacting serious blows to any point in the UK. I was relatively surprised that Simplicius made that remark.
I tend to agree, but actual kinetic damage (short of MAD) was really what I was imperfectly (maybe) reading into the original comment. I think the UK is playing a very dangerous game here, and any Russian response will be asymmetric and taken cold, at a time of their choosing. And probably non-traceable.
It's not really the UK. It's a tiny handful of elites within Britain. Who still seem to think that they're working at the Colonial Office, busily drawing lines on maps to divide and conquer the world.
I should add here, that as weird as it sounds, some of these elite Brits are still angry that the Soviets killed "cousin Nicky" and his children. I know. It's irrational and weird, but they worship royal bloodlines, and Czar Nicholas was part of the family.
Perhaps they should focus on tracking down and persecuting any descendants of Oliver Cromwell instead?
Certainly they would be highly dismisssive of the idea of the descendants of their own millions of victims carrying a grudge against some random Brits with not even any familial or ideological connection to themselves a hundred years from now.
The British monarchy refused to grant sanctuary to Tsar Nicholas and his family. that doesn't sound like resentment to me. The royal families have a long, long history of intrigue among themselves.
The City of London financial interest alone is more than a few tiny elites. And as The US and Canadian govts have done, they have propagandized their populations to be attack dogs against "Russia" . Win win for the elites. Its the same play the world over.
The UK's hatred of Russia is centuries old and almost pathological at this point. Prof Mackinder's 1904 Heartland Theory gives shape to motives that caused six wars (proxy and direct) between the UK and Russia before the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. The UK has viewed Russia as its primary threat and competition for a long time.
It might be possible to dismiss Prof. Mackinder as a discarded irrelevant fossil of a past geopolitical ecosystem, except modern geopolitical heavyweights like, US official Zig Brzenzinski and Henry Kissinger echoed Mackinder. Brzezinski updated Mackinder's theory even keeping key terminology in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard. Then US think tanks led by the likes of Robert Kagan (husband to Victoria Nuland), who wrote, The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World in 2018, continue to see the world as Mackinder painted it.
The UK seeks to maintain influence through the US and the vestigial apparatus of its old empire. Russia cannot be sanctioned; it cannot be blockaded. The UK realized this over a century ago. Because of this, the UK views Russia as the single greatest threat to its/Anglo hegemony on earth. Mackinder openly states, he who controls the Heartland (East Europe and Central Asia) controls the world. The UK has been attempting to break Russia or subdue it for a long time.
Britain, and now the US, ruled the vast sea trade lanes for centuries. Commerce through the Heartland was always viewed as a direct and existential threat to naval powers. Any nefarious effort was deemed fair in the prevention of such a trade union between Europe and Asia. Russia sits at the centre of that.
I agree with your points, but for me it begs the question 'but why did/do the elites believe that theory in the first place'. It's not a bad theory as theories go, but unfortunately the empirical facts of logistics, transpiration, economics, military power projection etc have never actually supported the theory's underlying assumptions / assertions (and still don't to this day).
For example, the medieval transportation and communication links between China-Russia or Russia-India etc during the time of the Crimean war would pretty easily show that in 1854, control of the Eurasian land mass could not lead to 'domination' or the overthrow of the Oceanic powers. Expanded Russia influence would lead to increased competition and interference (on the margin), but not control or domination. And although the Crimea war was probably more about control of the Dardanelles and Bosporus than about the World Island, the whole British-Russian World Island conflict really takes off after that point (with British concerns about Persia, Afghanistan, India, China, etc.)
That same 'tyranny' of logistics that made the Russian threat de minimus in 1854 was still true in 1900 when Mackinder was writing and still true in 1960 (at the height of the Cold War) and still largely true even today (there still aren't that many good overland connections going back and forth across the world island and even where they connections exist, the cost of sea-borne trade vastly favors the sea routes over the land based ones). In short, the 'prize' that Mackinder and others cite as the 'source and summit' of all this conflict does not make technological or economic sense in the past or today (and is unlikely to do so in the future regardless of how many Belts and Roads actually get built).
Another argument against the theory is that developing the world island actually makes the position of the reigning hegemon stronger (not weaker) in an industrialized, technologized, and financialized world. Developing the World Island's infrastructure
brings previously untapped resources (like Afghanistan's untapped mineral wealth) on-line thus spurring overall world economic growth. And since the hegemon controls the access to investment capital and consumer and industrial goods, the hegemon tends to benefit disproportionally due to this increase in trade. Development of Russian coal mines didn't materially decrease the value of British coal (much if at all), instead it added new markets for British mining equipment, expertise, and investment capital. This is exactly what the British saw happen as the 'backward' agrarian economies of Eastern Europe, Russia, and Japan developed and started to industrialize in the mid to late 1800's. So why would development of Persia or the Hindu Kush or China in the center of the World Island really be any different to Mackinder or his followers?
The fact that expanded World Island infrastructure 'raised the status' of local potentates in the World Island (and resulted in competition with Russia, or France, etc) was a neutral factor. It just opened new battlegrounds for competition, not much different than the type of competition that was already being offered (and countered) by the Great Powers in Turkey, the Balkans, etc. New (modernized) countries like Persia bordering Russia didn't put them 'in Russia's pocket' (because of their shared land border) any more than was the case with Sweden or Turkey or Rumania -- it was just one more 'space for competition' that a modern industrialized and financialized hegemon could compete in. This was true today with the USA and it was with Armenia and there Romans and the Parthian thousands of years earlier as well.
So, for me, the rationale of Mackinder and other has always be more theoretical than actual. Which leads back to my question of 'why' believe this theory so strongly?
Is it because 'the British leaders and thinkers' (or the American ones) have the end point already determined fixed and are merely looking for a theory that justifies your pre-determined outcome? Is it because Britain and later the US had come to dominate other regions of the world and wanted an excuse to retain and expand that power and therefore comes up with theories like the World Island to justify its desire?
I think it is more of this 'cart before the horse' kind of thinking in geo-politics than we give credit for. For example, did the West expand because of its belief in 'manifest Destiny' (i.e. fate) or because it just wanted land in which to expand? Did it actually colonize the world because of the 'white man's burden' its mission to Christianize and civilize -- or because it wanted coaling stations and natural resources? Did Britain go to war with Russia (repeatedly) because of the World Island theory -- or did it repeatedly threaten war and go to war because those in power were really just caught up in a 'great game' of Risk, and because 'losing red squares on the map' just looked and felt 'bad' to those steering the ship of state (and the general public at large)?
So, to tie it all up, I think that 'yes' we can say that Britain et al have done things because of such thinking (Mackinder), because once this theory is out there it will be cited by those in power as a rationale for action. However, if you scratch below the surface, I think it is often 'the other way around'.
I wonder how much The City of London has to do with this in more 'modern' times (and heck, even back then). Russia and former USSR territories like Ukraine are extremely resource-rich, and comprise vast potential "markets" for Western investors, including the privatization of "the commons" into the hands of US/UK creditors.
It's also inextricably intertwined with Wall Street and the US dollar, as well as the many UK affiliated tax havens. The City "owns" most British media as well, which it uses as a propaganda program to sow seeds of hatred of Russia (and China) into the general population.
Look to the City of London and the British aristocracy for an answer. They maintain a century's old hatred of Russia for its coveted resources and its independent nature. As for the rest of Europe, England has been referred to as Perfidious Albion for good reasons - they are intent on keeping the countries of Europe at each other's throats as a means of controlling the narrative.
Donbass during the late 1800's ... A influx of western investments from the London bankers with help from the Russian monarchy at that time. The Brits along with German aristocracy had major control of the resources (mainly coal) and manufacturing sectors in that area. To alleviate the labor shortages, mass migration of cheap labor from Galicia and surrounding areas were sent to work the mines. (basically a type of diaspora.) These people were the unwanted, "Heathens" to the upper class. of "Northern Ukraine" The Unwanted intertwined with the Russian populace creating pockets of Russian/Ukrainian dialects, but to this day still call themself Ukrainians. (These dialects each have a name unique to the region)
Not talked about much...Religion also plays a big part in this conflict. Catholic/Orthodox schism (The Catholic church/London bankers connection)
The UK's economy is solely dependent on banking. It doesn't make much money doing anything else, that's why it never adopted the euro and why it ultimately left the EU, the banking tax of .01% which Brussels wanted to impose on all financial transactions by European banks exposed the fragility of the UK economy and its total dependence on the banking sector.
The UK are over dependent on their arms industry which is highly profitable.
Add the dependence on banking to the British arms industry and you get your answer as to why the UK wants escalation in Ukraine.
I'd guess its bureaucratic inertia, except that once the 'Pro Iraq War' goons took complete control of the UK, they have been quite deliberately promoting an extreme anti-Russian line.
All wars are banker wars, and I'm sure you have heard of the Rothschilds. Interest rates have been exceedingly low for many years. With inflation up because of higher commodity prices, interest rates go up, the value of long term treasuries goes down, and banks go broke. If we can't pay our debt by palming it off on someone else, we go into a depression. We need people to trade in dollars with US banks, and Russia wants countries to trade in their own currencies. Banks don't like this.
Jim - I agree with some of your points and with your ultimate conclusion (that elites benefit from war) but just want to point out that there are plausible counter-points to the evidence and logic points embedded in your argument (i.e. starting premise good, ending conclusion valid -- but not due to what you cited -- at least as how I understand things to work). If you are interested, I can point out where some of those points of controversy might be -- but since this is a very complex subject, with unclear 'mechanisms of transmission' from point A to B, perhaps its best to leave this particular response with 'keep an open mind -- some of the points you cited may be questionable or having a different effect than you assume'. It's like trying to untangle a giant bundle of Christmas lights -- pretty complex and no one (including me) has all the answers and we should just try to help each other along (when that dialog is desired).
Perhaps it's their history with Russia and the fact that the City of London financial "leaders" are trying to salvage the last of their global dominance. Matthew Ehert has some great pieces about the historical UK/Russian relationship
As a Brit, I would say its because we are eternally stuck in 1945 and cannot comprehend that we are no longer relevant on the global stage. Every opportunity for another Churchill, another D-Day, another seat at the security council, must be taken, no matter how ludicrous our pretensions. I support none of it, btw.
In general, Russia understands the difference between untethered Ukraine and the NATO West. This latest attack on Belgorod is not the first attack or even second attack on Belgorod.
The operationally irrelevant drone attack on Moscow or the previous attacks on Belgorod do not alter the larger fact pattern Russia and the West are operating in. Nordstream would if it was clear publically that the US/West led it and if Russia wanted to escalate.
Right now Russia is on the slow and steady tract to preserve its security zone. Getting "up in arms" about Nordstream may not be in Russia's interest. Escalating conflict to countries outside Ukraine in response to Belgorod is not.
Given that NATO countries ranging from Poland to Romania are using their satellite surveillance and Yankee planes launched from their airbases to help target and guide Ukrainian missiles I consider that NATO have already become actively involved and the Russian Federation has legitimate cause to attack any and all at any time.
I know that will not happen but ALL transgressions and aggressions are coming from one side only.
Yep, the US and most of the NATO countries are co-belligerents in the war and, as such, legitimately subject to retaliation.
Russia's failure to do so to date is obviously a calculated decision on its part. It could certainly wipe out most of NATO's military assets but not without significant damage to Russia and its people. There may come a time when the West becomes so provocative that the balance of the equation changes.
It is misterious for me why Russian keeps delivering uranium to the US. I agree with your point. Nato involvement in Ukraine is direct. It is only Russia not wanting to declare war on Ukraine. They are interested in limiting their defence expenditure, not being pushed to annall out open war. Remember that ultimately determined the collapse of the USSR.
Russia is a law abiding country. They honor their contracts and agreements. And apparently a contract or agreement can be expressed either verbally or in writing. Also the reason why Russia has been very disappointed about the promise expressed by the west that NATO wouldn't move 1 inch to the east.
As I understand it, there is paper that proves this promise from the West
It wouldn't matter if there was. The people responsible for that promise are out of government and probably dead for a considerable time. The current occupants feel no compulsion to follow their predecessor's obligations. This is one of the big problems with hegemony. There is no mechanism to punish these people except involvement in costly wars, and if you are hegemon, why do you have to worry about this?
MBS from Saudi family was once asked of then why you are dealing with Putin/Russia, he answered on record - we know of no case where they have not honored their agreement... 'weakness' or not, that is Russia , they will stick to the deal they made while the agreement is in place.
How would you then reconcile this article with the obvious spin cycle ramping up to finally provide 'elensky with long-range missiles whose only purpose is to strike within Russian territory?
regarding whether US wants NATO to appear strong ... on the contrary, I think US is quite happy with the non-US NATO members kept in a scared and weakened state and thus willing to make concessions to the US
unfortunately, the three nations that brought us both world wars -- the UK, Germany and Poland -- are at it again. Poland has played such nefarious and devious roles since the collapse of the Pact and its main purpose seems to be dragging NATO into a war against its perennial rival, Russia, and the acquisition of land, land, and more land -- from Germany, from Ukraine, from Belarussia, from Russia. Its revanchist greed is appalling. And of course -- others should fight the war that Poland makes and Poland should reap the goodies. What putzes.
I would add two things-- one-- that pathology is not just in DC -- two what makes DC idiocy unique is its main attack dogs are all tied to anti-Russian ideology-- many are Ukranian culturally -- Nuland, Kagan, and others like Blinken have anti-Russian ties. Biden isn't even in the ball park let alone the game in any way. That puppet just needs the money to keep flowing to him.
True enough, but the states which are controlled by self serving psychotic sociopaths are avoided easily enough. DC has jurisdiction across our nation. Also true Joe is nothing but a pitiful facade, obviously. Worse still, that pathetic puppet was installed through a despicable criminal act perpetrated on all Americans which of course became perfectly evident the minute vote counting stopped in states which were about to determine a presidential election, followed by blatant ballot box stuffing.
The point is that it adds up to the CIA and NATO knowing full well that a *real* escalation and sucking in of nuclear armed countries is something to be avoided, and pretty much everyone is in on that game. Ukraine gave up its nukes, and the only direct party to the conflict with them is Russia, which must be carefully acceded to on matters of global nuclear annihilation. So the USA or UK will not only never cross certain Russian red lines, Russia will tolerate otherwise unthinkable near misses on their red lines, but once a rogue actor like the Ukronazis (or ISIS or whomever) does start skirting too close to those red lines, they will be abandoned and/or neutered by the CIA, NATO, D.C., Brussels, etc.
To sell more weapons, weapons defense systems and consulting services - and hope that investments already made and/or promised in Eastern Ukraine are safe and still available for exploitation after the majority of shooting stops. But yes, it's fucking stupid as hell unless you're among the MIC or MIC affiliated billionaire class. Oh, and for certain there are large swathes of the EU which will no longer buy Russian energy (oil/gas) in the future no matter who wins or on what terms, of course to be supplanted by American or British owned petroleum product "producers."
I should have also added that it's a Big Club. NATO. NATO is the way through which various forms of D.C., Wall Street, and The City billionaires and their "investor class" have infiltrated the key domestic fiscal decision making apparatuses of its member countries. Think of it as a not-so-secret society like Skull and Bones or a career manufacturing and advancement agency that sells (mostly) bullshit "professional certifications" and access to Rolodexes.
Or to put it another way, has there ever been a NATO member country that hasn't enacted Thatcherite/Reaganesque neoliberal austerity policies domestically - at the expense of the average member of the working class population - in order to fund "DEFENSE"?
Funny, I am not sure what is so specific with neoliberal austerity policies being applicable to Thatcher or Regan. Seems many types of govt's use austerity policies just with different gaslighting and PR.
If you said "devote productive capacity to defense" instead of "fund defense" I would agree with you. It's a deeper understanding of what is going on. Guns vs. butter in the old fashioned parlance.
As has been pointed out here a lot, you can't just open your wallet and buy materiel. You have to create the productive capacity to make it and then run that capacity for as long as you need it. While you are doing that, you aren't making consumer goods and may be constraining things like food supply due to your redirection of capacity.
In many (most) cases, it's being used purely as a deterrent. It's hard to argue that the Soviet Union, for instance, didn't create the most powerful armed force in history purely for deterrence. They had no real plan for actually conquering the world with it. Sure, they intervened a few times like in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, but those were seen as threats to the Soviet Union's barrier of defense against the capitalist world.
The Reagans and Thatchers of the world were operating under a similar theory, inasmuch as if they increased the West's perceived military force, this would compel Soviet expenditure to match/exceed to the point that populations might rebel due to the lack of creature comforts. It worked.
What the heirs of that military buildup did with it wasn't their fault per se.
I was probably a little too subtle on the materiel production part. Yes, one of the main facets neoliberal "financialization (of everything)" is ultimately destroying the heavy manufacturing base and/or consolidating all heavy manufacturing to production points at various places in the world known for lax regulations, cheap labor, etc. This by nature results in constraints, which we are seeing now in the West's inability to keep up with Ukraine and Israel's demand for more weapons.
On the point about Reagan and Thatcher, it looks like a few of you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that those two Western leaders are known for starting the slide toward austerity and the aforementioned financialization of everything, not that their "heirs" didn't gleefully carry the mantle after them. But I wasn't conflating either of them with the production of more (or fewer) weapons systems. And to the notion that building more arms is what caused the USSR to ramp up production beyond their capabilities leading to the fall, I disagree. For one thing, production of arms didn't actually go up that much (although fake PR statements might have led people to believe they did), and in fact most of the spending was in the space programs where yeah, apparently they couldn't keep up. But then there was also the price of oil, so.... I still wouldn't be surprised to learn countervailing truths, though, since those of us in the west have been feed propaganda for decades now (see me getting corrected on the Ukrainian nukes elsewhere in this thread).
I am directly identifying Reagan as producing weapons. I didn't understand it as a kid in the 80s, but after almost 30 years of serving the MIC, I see exactly what he did now. I know less about Thatcher, but I get the feeling she was doing the same thing in her own, lesser way.
Let's take the example of the Bradley IFV. I don't think it's any great shakes as a weapon, but it's worth examining. This system was conceived in the mid-1960s as a replacement for the M113 APC. It turned into this mix of a light tank and infantry carrier, not very capable at either mission. It was stuck in what I refer to as "development hell" where the various powers in DC that get to weigh in on these things kept it from ever entering production. Reagan undid that - the IFV started being built, as rotten as it actually was for purpose. You can see the same process for the B-1B bomber - originally cancelled under Carter. The stealth aircraft were all in the same dev hell. 600 ship navy, the re-activation of the Iowa class battleships, C-17 transports, Patriot missiles, I could continue on a long time.
The credit goes to people like Weinburger, and the willingness of Reagan to compromise via deficit for huge military budgets in the face of what would otherwise have been vigorous opposition. I know this was the case because I watched Bush and Rummy in real-time do the exact same thing during the early to mid 00's.
I know a lot of people have this point of view. I happen to have it for a few reasons - first, Reagan wasn't dumb and while he may have been getting dementia in the 80s, there is lots of material left behind from before he came to power that indicates he was thinking along those lines about the Soviets. The argument back then was that detente was letting the Soviets persist, people like Nixon that advocated it were soft on "communism", and only consistent pressure on the SU would result in the overthrow of the Soviet system.
Two reasons were most prominent here - first, the Soviets had a continual fear of attack and domination from the West, a vestige of their near-collapse in WWII. They would take the bait. The second was the lesser productive capacity of the planned economy of the Soviet Union. It was felt that this would leverage the economic power of the US in the most effective way to bring about the desired collapse. We could afford guns and butter better than they could. It was a pipe dream to me in the 80s, until it actually happened. After all, the SU had existed my whole life and was this behemoth of military power.
The simplified understanding of these systems as totalitarian 'evil empires' was another matter, but it explains a lot of the vitriol and the free hand people like Reagan were given to implement this.
@bash It’s all about the hegemony. That’s all any of it is about. All about those people on top who control the money supply stay in control. All the other shit Mango references is secondary (selling weapons systems, etc). The money changers must remain all powerful at all costs.
When it comes to understanding NATO, it helps to keep Lord Ismay's famous quote in mind: "the role of NATO is to keep the US in, the Russians out, and Germany down". From the looks of thing, that still applies!
"Russia" and "Ukraine" were both semi-equal members of the USSR. Many, many nuclear ICBMs were transferred out of Ukraine and they clearly must have had at least some codes, etc.
Point being there is absolutely no way that Ukraine didn't possess direct control over launch sites and that there's no way whatsoever that (purity tested) "Russians" in Ukraine or in Russia were the only ones in actual control of their use.
Though what you said is actually factually incorrect, Ukraine did not give up its nukes, Ukraine gave up the Russian nukes that were stationed on its territory. So for someone who knows everything like you, maybe you should rephrase your original statement....
I have personally watched multiple interviews from that period that stated that. All launch codes were in Moscow. 'Ukraine' had nothing. I have not seen anyone in 1990s stating Ukraine had any control whatsoever to launch or otherwise use any nuclear material. Everything else is a historical revisionism that bandera-nazies now like (including 'ancient ukrs' - the word Ukrainian did not exist 120 years ago , i.e. find a census of Odessa from 1911 there are no 'ukranians' at all , such nationality did not exist).
Lots were unclassified. "Moscow" - OK. Was Moscow and Kyiv under the same overall government or not? Prior to the dissolution of the USSR? And why did Moscow want the weapons back?
Apparently you never lived behind the Iron Curtain, because then you wouldn't insist that the Ukrainians could be so and so independent in the Soviet Union ! I can tell you that the Ukrainian leadership could not fart even louder without the permission of the Moscow leadership ! I just laugh at how they would have had the opportunity to launch a nuclear missile, it's ridiculous !
Although you may be a Ukrainian who is now nostalgic for a perceived power that never existed ! :) As the joke said, the Ukrainians were the ones from prehistoric times who dug the Black Sea with their bare hands !
"“We own nuclear weapons,” Kuchma told an unusually silent chamber. “But we don’t control them.”
At the moment, Russia has launch control over the missiles and could theoretically fire them without Ukrainian consent. However, Moscow has pledged to honor a veto from Kiev on their use.
An agreement signed by Russia, the United States and Ukraine in January committed Ukraine to rid itself of all its warheads within seven years.
However, Kuchma reminded the deputies that an unpublished side agreement between Ukraine and Russia last spring committed Ukraine to transfer the warheads to Russia within 2 1/2 years in exchange for fuel for nuclear power plants.
“Those caught up in the passions of false patriotism should remember that Ukraine can’t make nuclear weapons, and it can’t even use the warheads it inherited,” Kuchma said. “Just creating a system for safely maintaining the weapons it has would cost $10 billion to $30 billion.”
Could Ukraine Have Retained Soviet Nuclear Weapons?
"There’s no way Ukraine could have kept the Soviet nuclear weapons stationed there when the Soviet Union ended. Some of us say it over and over and over again. I wrote a Twitter thread on it a few weeks ago, but I need a convenient piece to refer to, so here we go.
The Soviet Union stationed missiles with nuclear warheads in the Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republics. In 1991, those republics became independent countries. Kazakhstan quickly decided to go non-nuclear and shipped the warheads back to Russia, which inherited the Soviet Union’s nuclear status in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Belarus followed.
Ukraine used those missiles as a bargaining chip. They got, in 1994, a financial settlement and the Budapest Memorandum which offered non-aggression assurances that Russia has now broken. They shipped the 1700 or so warheads from the missiles back to Russia and destroyed the missiles.
Ukraine never had the ability to launch those missiles or to use those warheads. The security measures against unauthorized use were under Moscow’s control. The Ukrainians might have found ways around those security measures, or they might not have. Removing the warheads and physically taking them apart to repurpose them would be dangerous, and Ukraine did not have the facilities for doing that. Nor did Ukraine have the facilities to maintain those warheads."
The ability/inability of Ukraine to launch nuclear weapons it once possessed is more complicated that these articles cite. Plus when the citation blames Russia for violating the non-aggression agreement of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum when the US was in violation when it signed the memo is disingenuous. Not saying you are, but the author of the quote is.
--Public statements of US officials like Victoria Nuland who said in 2014 before Russia got involved, that the US spent over $5 billion dollars to promote regime change in Ukraine from 1990 to 2014,
--the existance of the US treaty signed with Ukraine on 29 August 2005 establishing Biological Weapons storage and research facilities (still on the US State Dept Website),
--two US backed coups (2004 and 2014 that violated Ikrainian elections),
--promising NATO membership in 2008 to a country that was supposed to remain neutral,
Are all violations of the Budapest Memorandum and other international laws and conventions and not least Ukraine's sovereignty long before Russia intervened directly, which by terms of the Budapest Memorandum Russia was supposed to do in some way as a guarantor of Ukraine's sovereignty, which had been violated by the US consistently from 1990 to present.
This speaks to a massive bias in the perspective of the sources cited.
The point is that people who should know - such as the President of U,kraine - said otherwise: that Ukraine did NOT control those nukes. If there is actual evidence to the opposite, it needs to be cited. I for one don't believe Russia ever gave up control of those nukes any more than the US has ever given up control of its nukes. It just doesn't make any sense. Possession of the nukes is not the issue: the ability to arm and launch one is.
Please? Neither Russia nor Ukraine had, or even could have had, any nuclear codes. They were merely SSRs. They were not the USSR.
This is kind of obvious, but consider the following analogy. Do the US States hold the nuclear codes to the weapons in their states? Or, to put it less directly, do the US States control the US Army, or the Marines, or the USAF, or the USN in their states?
Next we'll be saying we should take the NYT as gospel... ;)
^ ^ Look everyone it's the dude that has never understood that whereof we cannot know, thereof we must be silent. And likewise doesn't appreciate the meaning of fraud. :)
Apologies to burst your bubble: I followed a link to this from a current discussion and didn't realize it was archived 3 years ago, on which I bow to your superior knowledge. And I'm not even a "Reddit dude"! :) (anyone using the same handle is not me)
Never mind. I notice your inability to reply, but I trust your comment is aging really, really well. ;)
I keep reading the same BS of 'giving up its nukes' - Ukraine NEVER HAD NUKES!!. it had Russian controlled weapons stored on its territory after breakup of USSR. They are no more Ukrainian nukes than Turkish nukes on that USA air base or nuclear bombs in Germany that USA controlls. Ukraine never had control, launch codes, etc. Please educate yourself and avoid listening to ukie nazi propaganda of 'things we gave up'. no dudes, this was never yours to begin with, and you extorted USA (not Russia who did not care at that point) to get paid to formally recognize that. The deal was USA would pay to Ukraine to get nuclear material out of hands of new nationalists in 1990 and bride Russia to deal with it , it was USA who did not proliferation and organized everything. Multiple books were written about these negotiations.
The Newsweek “story” seems little more than US after the fact excuse making for losing the war it sought for years. It’s a combination of “we didn’t escalate because we wanted to avoid WWIII” and “we let Russia win.” It’s complete bullshit.
It makes sense to me. Russia and the US tacitly agreed to have a real war contained in Ukraine where the winner in that stadium would benefit geopolitically. A way to settle their differences as "gentlemen" without both of the contenders ceasing to exist along with most of the planets other nation prizes. Win/Lose is one thing, Lose/Lose makes no sense. Both sides set up the game to have a Win/Lose outcome and Ukraine became a loose cannon threatening escalation to the Lose/Lose paradigm that neither Russia nor the US wants.
Bash has a point and the US seems to be operating on two separate levels when it deals publicly with geostrategic events. One is to maintain a public belief system by adhering to a narrative, a peanut gallery cheering section and the other one not related to a narrative but rather to the realities out there. It is somewhat reassuring that some in Washington may have their feet planted on the ground.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956): “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
William Casey (CIA Director 1981-1987): “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
Nobody should believe anything White Western media cloaca are told to print by their Langley bosses.
Newsweek is an 'Agent of Influence' whose task in the quoted article is to burnish Agency reputation for fearsome competence.
Media PR hides the only 'Agency' competence: choosing Quislings with NO local support or respect for civil rights.
The only rules CIA Nazis have ever followed are: 'Don't get caught'; 'Deny everything'; 'Do anything you want'; 'Washington makes the Rules'.
Washington and Langley have the worst possible reputation.
US 'journalism' should be ignored except for the simplest, publicly obvious facts.
If they say the sky is blue, one should rush outside and check for clouds or night sky.
We can be sure the truth is MUCH WORSE, and a grotesque violation of intelligence and human rights.
Cordell Hull (US Secretary of State, 1933-1944): “He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch”.
Harry S. Truman: “I never would have agreed to the formation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo.”
So far this sums it up most effectively, at least for me. Sure there could be all manner of maneuvering going on and there likely is. But we cannot know exactly for obvious reasons. Best to look toward the fluxes in power and energy across the globe. Make no mistake: the ruling class of the USA are and have been shit heads since the nation was created with few exceptions. There is a certain arrogance that came with the New World do-over material frontier, but it is steeped in ignorance. Being the only nation left unbombed after WW2 just ground it in further. We have arrived at levels of mass stultification and behavioral programming such that the social engineering dept. merely needs to throw switches because the heavy lifting has already been done.
In my opinion this exactly echos with President Putin’s assessment that Ukraine is not the enemy but its the whole western apparatus behind Ukraine who has resorted to this evil carnage upon both Ukraine and Russia.
Russia has already taken considerable casualties and the whole CIA or the US admin trying to damage control this disaster seems not plausible
I agree with you. It doesnt add up. In my view Simplicus is wrong in this instance. Taking the view of Russia... the West and anything they print, cannot be trusted. So this article is simply narrative construction to build plausible deniability for the US administration (blaming rouge Ukraine elements etc etc). Its actually nonsense and in some ways attempts to setup a gentlemens end to a conflict that didnt have a gentlemens start. The West has zero restraint... it operates purely on force terms... so this is what they call 'tales by moonlight' .. to get ones mission impossible juices flowing.. and nothing else. I think Simplicus missed it the first time round, for good reason, because its BS...
Just so...but Putin has always been naive about the US government, which has proven over and over again that it won't obey any rules...Of course, as Poland and the CIA now realize, the Ukraine is run by a bunch of crazed Nazis who will do anything, kinda like Victoria Nuland...
you get a disaster such as Ukraine when your spooks start taking over your war. They only operate on small short-term scenarios. Maidan is an example. It has a start and an end, it has a cast of characters the spooks own and control, it has a set series of steps. So a war doesn't fit that picture at all and they need to start paring it back to fit their nasty paws' grasp. The Ukraine war is growing smaller and more disorganized by the day.
There was a time when I might have taken some of what comes out of DC seriously. Now however, due to DC's observed behavior, it is clear those in control are utterly incompetent psychotic sociopaths (self installed). Nothing from their mouths is anything other than self serving narratives spawned within pathology ridden "minds". In short, nothing out of DC is even marginally credible anymore.
Incidentally, DC being beaten by Russia should come as no surprise since it was not just beaten but humiliated by a relatively small number of tribesmen and foreign fighters armed with little more than small arms in Afghanistan. However I want to note I'm not being critical of dedicated, competent military service members, particularly junior members. I'm a US Army vet myself. Perhaps that is why I see just how wildly disconnected DC has become from reality (it was never good). Those incompetent self centered psychos are now endangering ever innocent soul on our planet.
Are you disgusted at what the Yankee military has become? A few ex-pat Yanks I know who served have lots of nasty things to say about what they see now.
I used to, on occasion, suggest to youngsters that they consider enlisting, at least in the National Guard or Reserve for an initial enlistment, but now I always actively recommend against doing so...if that answers your question. I should note my suggesting they do so was mostly for the benefits they'd gain from the experience not because I thought they had some duty to serve in the military.
Incidentally, I'm going to be an expat soon too, and eventually a former US citizen, in order to end exposure to DC. I have no desire to leave the US because I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the American people but DC is just too toxic...and getting worse.
It’s not just the current crop of sociopaths that are fcking the military, but Bush sent soldiers to fight for corporation’s profits. Lots of minerals were discovered in Afghanistan just before we invaded. Oil and stuff for cheney's haliburton and other companies…Smedley Butler told us about this in 1933, but he was ignored. And while the military was sent hither and yon to spread freedom and democracy Americans lost the bulk of their freedoms through the Patriot Act and then we started getting spied on big time. The pentagon has done nothing about any of this and now we have Biden censoring anyone who goes against the government’s agendas.
I would be very skeptical of anything Newsweek prints. Not to mention "anonymous" sources. The administration plants its seeds in publications like The NYTimes, WaPo, and Newsweek. But if the CIA is playing such a "conflict-limiting" role in Ukraine, it had better wrap it up and get over to the Middle East...fast.
Throughout the Cold War and the War on Terra, Newsweek has been a pretty reliable (i.e., official) mouthpiece for the CIA, so while it's good to take anything they - or anyone else - print(s) with a grain of salt, Newsweek is actually a pretty good barometer on the prevailing thought process of the CIA.
I'm old enough to remember Newsweek's fulsome coverage of bin Laden and his brave crew. Or the TIME cover bragging how we got Yeltsin elected. (That was Real election interference.) Those two publications have always been government fronts.
It's a pretty good barometer (like Seymour Hersch, for example) of what the CIA wants you and the world (especially Russia, in this case to believe). Little of what they say is actually true. For some time now they have been trying to distance themselves from the Ukraine debacle, because it became clear to them that Russia was not a "gas station with nuclear weapons," which is what they believed prior to the war.
What the article wants you (and Russia) to believe is that there is some sort of "gentleman's agreement" and all the bombing, terror attacks, pipelines blowing up, and whatnot is all Ukraine and Blinken. This is just nonsense. There is no "gentleman's agreement." You don't provoke a civil war on a nation's border to draw them into it, try to create an international economic embargo, and blow up their most important economic assets when you have a "gentleman's agreement" not to expand the war. This is just wishful thinking on the part of the CIA, begging Russia not to "tit-for-tat" and blow up important western economic infrastructure (and call off Iran and their Houthis who are causing havoc for the big mercantile Wall Street interests).
No offense intended, but please -then- contrast what you think they want the world to think they're thinking vs. what they're really thinking, and use historical precedent (as verified by other sources and actual history to which I alluded) in terms of the Cold War and WoT. Again the CIA speaks through Newsweek to its intended D.C. PMC audience.
I'm not sure what you are asking. They want the world to think they are cool, calculating strategists who did not underestimate Russia, but are playing some sort of 3 dimensional chess with some unwritten, unspoken gentleman's agreement. What they are really thinking is... "oh no... Russia is much stronger than we thought when we started to try to bring down Putin so now we must try to convince Putin that there is some sort of gentleman's agreement in place so that he does not do substantial harm to western economic interests (such as helping Iran supply the Houthis)."
I am not sure what documentation you want. I will not be able to provide you with a document stating from the head of the CIA... "damn... we sure did screw up... let's cover our ass by putting out some BS about a gentleman's agreement in Newsweek." I will give you this though from a major foreign policy wonk in the U.S. from 2018 that demonstrates how badly the U.S. foreign policy and intelligence community underestimated Russia ...https://www.csis.org/analysis/going-offensive-us-strategy-combat-russian-information-warfare
I quote, from the article (which is a pretty good summary of thinking in these circles prior to 2022). "The irony of today’s situation is that Moscow is weaker now than it was during the 1980s. Russia’s economy is frail, Moscow has lost most of its Eastern European allies, and it doesn’t have a popular ideology to sell to the world—let alone its own people."
In short, these idiots really did think they were going to bring down the Russian government with sanction and using Ukraine as a proxy. I can find you a lot more examples of senior people in the U.S. talking about how weak Russia is, from the 2010-2022 period. Obviously, all these assessments were not just wrong, but terribly so. The only thing to do now is cover your ass if you were responsible for such egregious errors in judgement.
They thought sanctions would cripple Russia. They thought a long war would cripple Russia. They thought the rest of the world would back the USA and Ukraine as Winners. But sanctions led to greater economic autonomy. The long war is creating the most battle hardened Army in the world. The rest of the world increasingly blames the USA and admires Russias resolve-and results. That’s a miss on 4 out of 4.
If you want my opinion, and I have no actual evidence to back this up... so it is only an opinion, the Wagner group rebellion was an essential element of the plan from the beginning. They thought they had people in place who could bring about their coup d'etat once pressure began to build on Putin from the sanctions and the war. Prigozhin was the type of person that Mossad and the CIA typically recruit: former convict, motivated solely by money; and so forth. I would also guess that Mossad was involved and that they tried to play on Prigozhin's Jewish ancestry to convince him that it would be better for Israel and Jews if Putin were overthrown. In the end, Prigozhin seemed to get cold feet as the rebellion unfolded, realizing (unlike Zelensky, for example) that Western intelligence was not so intelligent and that he was being used and would be hung out if the plan failed.
Completely agree. The entire article is hogwash propaganda to prop up CIA’s “reputation” and to distance itself from the Ukraine disaster. They make themselves sound like the only civilized beings preventing WW3. Super, guys, we should keep you around forever. Please spare me.
Precisely...It’s kidan childish really, but then it will likely work on most of the population so ....dashing and clever in its incompetence those ALphabets...
"Doesn't have a popular ideology to sell ..." and then we went (actually 2018 it was well under way) and tried to force a wholy unpopular ideology upon the world, making the generic conservatism in Russia look rather attractive to the global South and even the more traditionally minded people in the West.
Like war, diplomacy, overt or otherwise, is deception. I don't think the Russians are in any way deceived. Nothing like allowing your opponent to think he's getting his way. Then...
To be 100% clear, Newsweek has gone though MULTIPLE changes in ownership since then. At one point, a bizarro cult that sold fake furniture (long story) owned it. It's more balanced now, but it is not the same whatsoever as it was in the 1980s.
I'm not even sure how to respond. You should look at some other replies. It's of course impossible to know what "the CIA thinks" but News(p)e(a)ek has been a good barometer since the late 80s on what the "public persona" of the CIA thinks.
Newsweek is 5% truth and CIA is 95% lies. A collaborative article is 2.5% truth. Good luck gleaming anything meaningful to discuss. Just nuke them both and enjoy the rest of your day.
EU indeed NATO handing over policy propaganda to the miniature border statelets – this involves broadcasting that the war must go on, even if the RF should win in Ukraine (not that it will!)
““Russia will not stop, Russia can only be stopped. Stopping Russia in Ukraine does not mean that it is over. It simply means we will have to continue. That is what is important for Nato: that we will have to work on a long-term strategy of Russia containment,” Kariņš said.”
That is to say Victory over Russia in the Ukraine will not really be victory at all, more like..the beginning of an endless and more widespread war
Hard to see the EU or NATO reacting very efficiently to this call to arms given they have failed to respond in any practical and general way to all calls so far – but it’s the call that counts –
The only practical military planned response, as far as I am aware, is the German proposal to send what promises to be an undermanned underarmed brigade to Lithuania in 2027 –even if the German Chief of Army states it is impossible to execute this plan given lack of personnel, budget restrictions and short supply of armaments : Lithuania protests it has’nt the money or infrastructure to accommodate this brigade
Even the FT commentariat are bored, when you lost the FT commentariat better go for Plan B
Only the Balts bother to try to shame the rest of Europe into doing something, the major European countries have moved on, yet, yet…it’s all so simple, finishes with the inevitable Winston Churchill quote...
The only practical reporting, suggesting awareness of any possible path to victory, is the following pinprick detail – which clearly displays British Defence Ministry aims and limitations
‘Immediately, in a matter of days, this means more air defences. In a matter of weeks, it means more long-range missiles, notably the German Taurus, but also American ATACMS, so Ukraine can continue to push back Putin’s Black Sea fleet and target his strategic and symbolic stronghold in Crimea.’
You mean “flouting”. Not “flaunting”. Those who confuse the two are NOT serious people. You need a copy editor. Even high school students aren’t this dumb.
Good grief. LMAO. Those who read a simple one-off mistake or typo by Simplicius are NOT serious people. They need to read his previous work to understand the massive working vocabulary he has and his replies to other comments in the past asserting that he's a stickler for grammar, English usage and will ALWAYS make corrections if errors in either are pointed out.
No. It is indicative of a high work rate and a simple clerical error that all people make in the process of writing with limited resources for editing in an age of spell check - especially when working by themselves.
The correlation to leaving the brown M&Ms in the bowl - a effective ploy to make sure contracted labor read and carried out the terms of the contract (somewhat like the proverbial canary in the coal mine), does not apply to this issue.
How StT responds to the mundane clerical error might if in fact he doubled down. That would be a sign of non-serious thinking. This is just a typo.
Good article. I was hoping to expound on a major point, or that you would. This is the second time you mentioned it:
"This means if a scenario developed as I described earlier, it would end precisely as I outlined: NATO disunity on Article 5 would risk tearing the entire alliance apart, and “exposing” its central and founding pillar as fraudulent and ineffective in practice. It’s too grave a risk for US to haphazardly take on."
But let's think about that. What IF a NATO country was attacked and Article 5 wasn't invoked? Would it really expose anything? And by that I mean, you lay out exactly *why* some countries wouldn't want to, so in essence we all already know that on *some* fronts, Article 5 and NATO are fraudulent, or at least a helluva lot more fluid and situational than some of the NAFO/OFAN ponybois like to pretend.
Here's the text of Article 5:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ."
Article 6 goes on to explain what constitutes an attack as named in Article 5, but anyway, the last paragraphs are key. "...to resore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." and "...the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."
Which, to me, having never actually read Article 5 before, already sounds like a bunch of weasely bullshit on its face! Mkay, so say Russia blows up a huge ammo storage center in Poland which it knows to be a location from which many Ukrainian attacks on Russia or Russian assets relied for munitions. It's a one-and-done strike. Poland would never then launch a military attack against Russia without ALL of the other members of NATO taking part, which of course means the USA, UK, and every other NATO nuclear power, followed by nuclear annihilation. I mean it's just laughable on its face.
And the word "including" is carrying a lot of weight there. INCLUDING a military response. OK, but that means that it also means a whole bunch of other types of actions. LOL
And where am I going with that? There's only one type of defense entailed in NATO, and I'll get to it shortly. NATO has next-to-nothing to do with actual defense, and only slightly more to do with offense (except against weak Global South countries - other bodies handle that with Russia and China, not to mention Iran). What NATO is, is (i.e., ISIS lol) is a massive, fraudulent excuse/rationalization mechanism and marketing/PR arm of the Western military munitions and **munitions defense** systems. In other words, it's a key cog in the giant racket known as Western coercion and blackmail of the RotW through the (insufficient in actuality, but that's the point! lol) manufacture of weapons and weapons defense systems to member nations' governments and militaries, but more than that it's a huge "defense-as-a-service" consultancy. And we've all seen that famous Dilbert cartoon.
Q: "What's a consultant anyway?"
A: "It's someone who CONS and inSULTS you!"
And I should add that when you consider all of this, NATO also exists to continually inflame perpetual tensions and provoke "controlled" and would-be "controllable" conflicts in order to sell those arms and "services".
> That should serve as a wake up call for Ukrainians: you are merely being used as disposable puppets in a geopolitical Great Game.
Exactly. Like I told some 2D Ukraine guys on Discord in 2021. Several times over, I showed them that Americans aren't going to be duying for them. But was I listened to? Of course not! \o/
There’s also this bizarre assertion that the CIA is at all competent, capable, and not encumbered with petty internal pissing contests. They’re not remotely close to that, particularly if you take a long look at their historical ineptitude.
Ultimately, this is the US shitting its pants, desperately trying to convince itself AND the world that it’s indomitable and simply “being a gentleman”.
If the CIA and the “elite cabal” had any brains, they’d have never committed acts of terrorism and theft via blowing up NS2 and now seizing assets. In flagrant violation of established “rule based order”.
Unless these “secret red lines” are actually codified somewhere and you’ve get the evidence, this is bullshit. “It’s super duper seekrit, but I promise you it’s true.” It’s Hugh Hefner, looking pathetic and feeble in his old age, who refuses to take a dignified exit. No, the US and the CIA just dazzle themselves with gaggles of hot blondes, while the rest of the world sniggers behind their backs.
The US and NATO are rapidly becoming J. Alfred Prufrock.
It's "RuleS Based Order" damnit, and nobody who makes the mistake of calling it a "rulE based order" is a serious person! Even high schoolers know that! /sarc
Yes. This. ^^^^^. This "gentleman's agreement" nonsense is just an attempt to convince Russia not to "tit-for-tat" for the pipeline and not destroy critical western infrastructure (and have Iran call off their Houthi allies who are causing havoc for western shipping firms).
Exactly. Well, the CIA or whoever else is pulling the puppet strings. We all know the Ukronazis - like the Zionists - couldn't care less if half the world is destroyed by WMDs, nuclear or other.
Except they didn't. Ukraine faced the threat of losing all its own nuclear power plants and some oligarch had to explain to the Bandera psycho's that people wouldn't be able to pay their monthly stay-out-of-the-army bribe if that happened
Without further evidence I'm inclined not to believe this story about the CIA, particularly now that the US has announced they will provide 404 with longer range missiles able to reach Moscow et al. Remember it only takes one psycho to say f...'em and we are all toast.
I think old school CIA boundaries are off the table, Nuland is running the show. Hitting Moscow and Crimea are the only way to get Russia to negotiate a ceasefire. It’s the equivalent of Nixon carpet bombing North Korea civilian cities.
And how did the previous hitting of Crimea /bridges work to get Russia to negotiate? Why would they negotiate now especially given the clear weakness (no military capacity, arms etc) of NATO/West and the fact that the West doesn't honour its agreements?
NATO can't even supply Ukraine with enough ammo let alone themselves if they fucked around in Ukraine and found out. Russia would absolutely smoke them - if they allowed them to stage in the first place. In real war attack subs and zircon would have some fun with US supply ships. Then the death tolls...American couldnt handle 2000 in iraq before squealing started....imagine 3600 a day like DoD war game doc said. Nukes all bets are off but NATO has no chance to conventionally beat Russia in Russia. Just like Russia can never dream of beating US in US.
As far as this CIA limited hangout. I'd like to believe it's more than CYA as you do and they are telling Biden we need to cut bait from these Ukieloonies but Bidens unhinged rhetoric was worse than ever today vs Republicans slow roll in funding and wrt Putin. He's certainly all in to the last Ukrainian.
I don't understand your meaning. Why hasnt Russia done what exactly? They are dismantling Ukraine, NATO's armories and NATOs financials and unity with BRICS. What else do you want them to do? Attack US directly?
Some Yankee claimed almost the same on X… we can’t compare with Afghanistan cause it was very remote from the US but it had been closer we would have prevailed… 🤡
Some right wing pro 🇺🇦 in France still genuily believe that Putin is a communist and the Soviets are still maintaining a firm grip over the country. Really. And some have gone there to fight for freedom. Really
To those who call bullshit and cite the future (alleged) provision of munitions capable of reaching Moscow, etc. - How likely do you think they ever will, and if you were able to put money on it, how much would you be willing to lay down? Because I'm pretty sure there will never be a major attack on Moscow before this is all said and done, which will be soon, for several reasons including that 404 no longer has enough conscripts to fight for and occupy any meaningful Russian held territory in Ukraine.
I like your thinking.
It's a CIA leak so it must be true the Ukies bombed NS1&2 from a rented boat and 6 divers.
This "5 men and a woman on a boat" story is just a script of a porn movie, nothing more.
Based on what Seymour Hersh said, that was more of an off-books US military action run out of the White House, not the CIA.
I doubt it. All the services have intel components. The military was in on it, NATO, Germany, and the CIA and its sister creepy crawlies in Europe. It was put together by NATO and executed by NATO. All the rest is more fantasia from the spooks, liars and censors.
Thanks, a good read
This doesn't add up. On one hand the US in concert with other countries is going out of its way to wreck Russia economy, and provide overwhelming ISR to make sure as many Russian soldiers are killed in Ukrainian strikes, with various pols and military types mouthing off. On the other hand they are supposedly acting with restraint so that Russia doesn't escalate? They've driven Russia into a full on war posture in terms of their industrial stance, and BRICS is now a sledgehammer aimed at the Dollars head. We are for all intents and purposes already in ww3. This CIA thing sounds like a "you can only kill each other with small caliber weapons" like it matters how dead you are at the end
I think the gist is that its important to keep the actual killing to within the borders of Ukraine. If the conflict spirals out of that then its very difficult to control & predict & the risk of a nuclear war goes up dramatically. The US does not want to risk a nuclear exchange for the sake of Ukraine nor does it want Nato to be shown to be a paper tiger in case it is.
Well the Ukrainians just changed that with Belgorod. From the get go the side which had the greatest interest in escalation was the Ukrainians themselves. And the British are right there with them
The Ukranians are trying to do that but they also know that they risk losing support so they need to be very careful in how they do that.
Nonsense. The US could totally prevent all such action by Ukraine. Just has to instantly stop every bit of aid and confiscate Zelensky's properties in US and Europe (and that of other Ukrainian leaders). The fact they don't do so is a clear tell that the US is willing for Ukraine to escalate but with "plausible deniability" for the US/NATO.
I agree. This stuff from the CIA is CYA. Just like in Gaza where the administration talks about "restraining Israel" while continuing to maximize the flow of weapons to Israel and ratcheting up threats against Hezbollah, Yemen and Iran.
Biden has a long history of this. Everyone has analyzed how many times Biden has said one thing to the Chinese and then his administration the very next day does the exact opposite, to the point where even the Chinese explicitly pointed it out repeatedly.
This is no different. As Martyanov said today on the "Through The Eyes Of" Youtube channel with Ania, the West are cowards. They hide behind their proxies and devote themselves to supplying Ukraine with the SIGINT and ISR intel over Russia to enable Ukraine to strike cities in Russia to kill civilians while hiding behind the idea that "we don't control the Ukrainians" or "we asked them not to do that." Exactly like in Gaza.
No, it's not just the Ukrainians. It's the the US and Britain who do these things. No one should cut the West any slack on these matters. These are long-time war criminals and psychopaths, as Andrei says.
I think what we are forgetting is that there is not ONE clear direction, policy etc. from the US "govt". Factions of the WH Neo-cons and the CIA non neocons are playing here.
@richard and bazza… you guys both make astute points.
We are stopping a lot of aid to UA. We couldn't confiscate his properties by our own laws, and a reason would have to be given that placates the normies.
lol, you actually think they follow or care about our own laws?
The pending €300B asset seizure seems to throw all such laws out the window.
Laws?
You have Trump being charged with fraud in NY where there are no victims, no losses, no laws broken. He is being told he is to pay 350 million, and to lose his businesses in NY all for NOT breaking any laws.
We have no laws friend.
they can confiscate whatever they want. They will find loopholes in the legal framework if they need to. If they confiscate property from Russian oligarchs they certainly can confiscate property from Ukrainians.
Bazza -- I understand the points you are making, namely, that if it came down to it, the US could 'force' its will upon Ukraine because it could withhold all aid from it and / or 'hurt' Zelensky (or others) personally. You could apply this concept of 'he with the most power and leverage can ultimately do what it takes to force compliance' to all kinds of situations in life: your boss could 'fire you tomorrow' because you keep coming back a little late from lunch, your teacher could 'expel you from school' for not sitting up straight in your chair, etc. I am pointing out to these rather 'extreme' examples to show that a) it could be done and b) it is rarely ever done (because it would be counter-productive, considered too extreme by others in the hierarchy or the general public, have serious repercussions or blow-back, risk being 'reversed' by an even higher power and therefore risk becoming an 'embarassment' for the powerful, etc).
In would be my opinion that we are often 'led astray' because we see power structures as single entities with a unified purpose and that we see power projection by these power structures as simple 'he with the larger amount of power wins' kind of calculations. To see why this viewpoint might be in error (or at risk of error), think about kids and parents. Dad may very well want to 'take Johnny back behind the woodshed for a lesson' but Mom says 'over my dead body' (i.e. the power structure is not unified with the decision (to punish) or with the decision to inflict that type of punishment).
Similarly, think of scenarios where the parents may be aligned what needs to be done (e.g. they are aligned on the fact that they will 'not tolerate Johnny's behavior any more') -- but where the child 'gets away' with it anyway. This seems to happen a lot in real life -- but why? Maybe it happens because Johnny is 'willing to do the time for the pleasure of the crime' (and Mom and Dad don't won't to raise the stakes of punishment so high that they 'throw the baby out along with the bathwater'. They want Johnny to behave but don't want to actually throw him out of the house). Maybe the child 'gets away with it' because Johnny just gets better at 'hiding it' from Mom and Dad. In such a case, Mom and Dad probably know (at some level) that "Johnny is lying' -- but don't have the courage or will to follow-through because at least 'Johnny isn't still 'dealing' at the moment). Or maybe it comes back down to the fact that publicly Mom and Dad agree, but secretly Dad thinks that 'lying about seeing Sally' is understandable (because he should be allowed to see her despite what Mom insists is 'the rule'). And so on.
The point I am making is that if we do such things daily in our own life, relationships, families, work, school, etc is it a surprise that similar things can happen in larger contexts like governments, countries, or alliances?
For me, it's not that A could stop B and the fact that they are not means that they support it wholeheartedly. I admit there are times where this kind of assessment can be true, but my experience of life, companies, families, people, etc would tell be that there is a lot more ambiguity, negotiation, patience, forbearance, denial going on that you are allowing for.
That is the point. The US has yet to approve more funding. It failed to pass before the break. We'll find out soon.
regarding stopping of 'aid' - didn't that already happen? partly because ukraine project is known to lose and partly because there is nothing else really to give that would make any sense.
I struggle to understand why the U.K. is so intent in prosecuting this war.
Not all in the UK are blinded by the MSM, I'm totally aware of what is going on here. The UK would't be able to retake the Falklands if Argentina were to strike now. We don't have the leadership willing to do such things, nor the naval/army/air power to project that far. We've just built two new frigates and to man them, we've had to take crew from another two warships, such is how the state of affairs in the UK are currently.
Let's be clear; the UK retaking of the Falklands essentially relegated the defense of the UK to the US during that time frame. This time, the help would be a little more obvious than that. The Falklands aren't going to be seized by Argentina anytime soon.
I would argue even before then.
You are correct to a large degree. This all goes back to India, the Jewel of their former Crown empire, and the British fear of Russia encroaching on their imperial empire.
Did you ever wonder why there isn't more revanchism in the UK and Western Europe in general? After all, they lost empires and autonomy, even sovereignty.
The answer is that they were sold a bill of goods about this world empire thing. The rest of the behavior should be quite understandable at that point.
Its not just this conflict. England constantly gets into other people's wars in a really big way. Not sure why.
At the political level without doubt and they do this while ignoring all the very real very serious problems on their home turf.
With that insight, perhaps your "struggle to understand" is over? :)
For at least 500 years Britain's #1 foreign policy goal has been to keep Europe disunited so it wouldn't be a threat to Britain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFBgQpz_E80
History--its all there
It is not, the Brits lend little real support, measured in money or armaments, but have an ideal practice ground for carrying out 'daring' terrorist acts
The U.K. Is one of the strongest proponents of this horrible shitshow in Ukraine continuing. I agree about the little material commitment but the political pressure is continuous. Too what end?
To the end of maintaining internal cohesion, to divert the masses, to obscure from any inkling that the UK is a shrunken relic of it's former power, to bark when required -
--Brits are kept in line : many ruling class Brits retain green cards, assets, husbands or wives, tasty thinky tank prospects
Revenge for BrExit.
It's the same as your next door neighbor hating you for having a bigger yard than he does. Also self-hatred over having failed and lost their own empire.
There's a lot of psychological issues with the Brits. William S. Burroughs, who spent some in England, once said "England is the only country where shop clerks refer to each other as 'my colleagues.'" That pretty much sums it up. Left-over imperial hubris.
The guys on The Duran (one of whom has been on the fringes of power) ascribe the anti-Russian feeling amongst the British establishment as almost hereditory, and a pre-requistite for climbing the greasy pole. My personal view is that post Brexit its relations with the rest of Europe were so bad it needed to sidle up to Uncle Sam in a big way. So the US uses the UK as its attack dog, with plausible deniabilty. As Simplicus points out, the UK is a long way from Russia and whilst not immune is to that extent protected from Russian retaliation. However IMHO another facet of UK foreign policy is to weaken the continental European powers. And look at the big loser in this war - Germany and hence the EU. The UK has suffered some economic damage, but the EU far more. And the UK has demonstrated loyalty to the USA and the Dems in particular. It is a win win for them.
It is a fallacy to think that the UK is too far from Russia to experience real damage - they don't by any means have to respond to British intrigue from their own land mass. The Russians have several means of exacting serious blows to any point in the UK. I was relatively surprised that Simplicius made that remark.
I tend to agree, but actual kinetic damage (short of MAD) was really what I was imperfectly (maybe) reading into the original comment. I think the UK is playing a very dangerous game here, and any Russian response will be asymmetric and taken cold, at a time of their choosing. And probably non-traceable.
It's not really the UK. It's a tiny handful of elites within Britain. Who still seem to think that they're working at the Colonial Office, busily drawing lines on maps to divide and conquer the world.
I should add here, that as weird as it sounds, some of these elite Brits are still angry that the Soviets killed "cousin Nicky" and his children. I know. It's irrational and weird, but they worship royal bloodlines, and Czar Nicholas was part of the family.
Irrational to the max indeed.
Perhaps they should focus on tracking down and persecuting any descendants of Oliver Cromwell instead?
Certainly they would be highly dismisssive of the idea of the descendants of their own millions of victims carrying a grudge against some random Brits with not even any familial or ideological connection to themselves a hundred years from now.
Not really the UK, just MI6 and fellow travellers, still in denial about being infiltrated by the KGB.
The British monarchy refused to grant sanctuary to Tsar Nicholas and his family. that doesn't sound like resentment to me. The royal families have a long, long history of intrigue among themselves.
Beg to differ-- The British Royals let him be killed-- refused sanctuary. Matthew Ehert (historian) has a great archived piece on this.
The City of London financial interest alone is more than a few tiny elites. And as The US and Canadian govts have done, they have propagandized their populations to be attack dogs against "Russia" . Win win for the elites. Its the same play the world over.
The UK's hatred of Russia is centuries old and almost pathological at this point. Prof Mackinder's 1904 Heartland Theory gives shape to motives that caused six wars (proxy and direct) between the UK and Russia before the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. The UK has viewed Russia as its primary threat and competition for a long time.
It might be possible to dismiss Prof. Mackinder as a discarded irrelevant fossil of a past geopolitical ecosystem, except modern geopolitical heavyweights like, US official Zig Brzenzinski and Henry Kissinger echoed Mackinder. Brzezinski updated Mackinder's theory even keeping key terminology in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard. Then US think tanks led by the likes of Robert Kagan (husband to Victoria Nuland), who wrote, The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World in 2018, continue to see the world as Mackinder painted it.
The UK seeks to maintain influence through the US and the vestigial apparatus of its old empire. Russia cannot be sanctioned; it cannot be blockaded. The UK realized this over a century ago. Because of this, the UK views Russia as the single greatest threat to its/Anglo hegemony on earth. Mackinder openly states, he who controls the Heartland (East Europe and Central Asia) controls the world. The UK has been attempting to break Russia or subdue it for a long time.
Britain, and now the US, ruled the vast sea trade lanes for centuries. Commerce through the Heartland was always viewed as a direct and existential threat to naval powers. Any nefarious effort was deemed fair in the prevention of such a trade union between Europe and Asia. Russia sits at the centre of that.
Exactly. Well said.
I agree with your points, but for me it begs the question 'but why did/do the elites believe that theory in the first place'. It's not a bad theory as theories go, but unfortunately the empirical facts of logistics, transpiration, economics, military power projection etc have never actually supported the theory's underlying assumptions / assertions (and still don't to this day).
For example, the medieval transportation and communication links between China-Russia or Russia-India etc during the time of the Crimean war would pretty easily show that in 1854, control of the Eurasian land mass could not lead to 'domination' or the overthrow of the Oceanic powers. Expanded Russia influence would lead to increased competition and interference (on the margin), but not control or domination. And although the Crimea war was probably more about control of the Dardanelles and Bosporus than about the World Island, the whole British-Russian World Island conflict really takes off after that point (with British concerns about Persia, Afghanistan, India, China, etc.)
That same 'tyranny' of logistics that made the Russian threat de minimus in 1854 was still true in 1900 when Mackinder was writing and still true in 1960 (at the height of the Cold War) and still largely true even today (there still aren't that many good overland connections going back and forth across the world island and even where they connections exist, the cost of sea-borne trade vastly favors the sea routes over the land based ones). In short, the 'prize' that Mackinder and others cite as the 'source and summit' of all this conflict does not make technological or economic sense in the past or today (and is unlikely to do so in the future regardless of how many Belts and Roads actually get built).
Another argument against the theory is that developing the world island actually makes the position of the reigning hegemon stronger (not weaker) in an industrialized, technologized, and financialized world. Developing the World Island's infrastructure
brings previously untapped resources (like Afghanistan's untapped mineral wealth) on-line thus spurring overall world economic growth. And since the hegemon controls the access to investment capital and consumer and industrial goods, the hegemon tends to benefit disproportionally due to this increase in trade. Development of Russian coal mines didn't materially decrease the value of British coal (much if at all), instead it added new markets for British mining equipment, expertise, and investment capital. This is exactly what the British saw happen as the 'backward' agrarian economies of Eastern Europe, Russia, and Japan developed and started to industrialize in the mid to late 1800's. So why would development of Persia or the Hindu Kush or China in the center of the World Island really be any different to Mackinder or his followers?
The fact that expanded World Island infrastructure 'raised the status' of local potentates in the World Island (and resulted in competition with Russia, or France, etc) was a neutral factor. It just opened new battlegrounds for competition, not much different than the type of competition that was already being offered (and countered) by the Great Powers in Turkey, the Balkans, etc. New (modernized) countries like Persia bordering Russia didn't put them 'in Russia's pocket' (because of their shared land border) any more than was the case with Sweden or Turkey or Rumania -- it was just one more 'space for competition' that a modern industrialized and financialized hegemon could compete in. This was true today with the USA and it was with Armenia and there Romans and the Parthian thousands of years earlier as well.
So, for me, the rationale of Mackinder and other has always be more theoretical than actual. Which leads back to my question of 'why' believe this theory so strongly?
Is it because 'the British leaders and thinkers' (or the American ones) have the end point already determined fixed and are merely looking for a theory that justifies your pre-determined outcome? Is it because Britain and later the US had come to dominate other regions of the world and wanted an excuse to retain and expand that power and therefore comes up with theories like the World Island to justify its desire?
I think it is more of this 'cart before the horse' kind of thinking in geo-politics than we give credit for. For example, did the West expand because of its belief in 'manifest Destiny' (i.e. fate) or because it just wanted land in which to expand? Did it actually colonize the world because of the 'white man's burden' its mission to Christianize and civilize -- or because it wanted coaling stations and natural resources? Did Britain go to war with Russia (repeatedly) because of the World Island theory -- or did it repeatedly threaten war and go to war because those in power were really just caught up in a 'great game' of Risk, and because 'losing red squares on the map' just looked and felt 'bad' to those steering the ship of state (and the general public at large)?
So, to tie it all up, I think that 'yes' we can say that Britain et al have done things because of such thinking (Mackinder), because once this theory is out there it will be cited by those in power as a rationale for action. However, if you scratch below the surface, I think it is often 'the other way around'.
https://thegrayzone.com/2018/12/17/inside-the-temple-of-covert-propaganda-the-integrity-initiative-and-the-uks-scandalous-information-war/
Thanks. Nice article.
Wonderful comment-- I would say (as a UK and Cdn citizen) the UK's hatred of all things Russian is beyond pathological at this point.
Unfortunately, the US has taken the same perspective.
I wonder how much The City of London has to do with this in more 'modern' times (and heck, even back then). Russia and former USSR territories like Ukraine are extremely resource-rich, and comprise vast potential "markets" for Western investors, including the privatization of "the commons" into the hands of US/UK creditors.
It's also inextricably intertwined with Wall Street and the US dollar, as well as the many UK affiliated tax havens. The City "owns" most British media as well, which it uses as a propaganda program to sow seeds of hatred of Russia (and China) into the general population.
https://www.versobooks.com/products/200-the-city
Look to the City of London and the British aristocracy for an answer. They maintain a century's old hatred of Russia for its coveted resources and its independent nature. As for the rest of Europe, England has been referred to as Perfidious Albion for good reasons - they are intent on keeping the countries of Europe at each other's throats as a means of controlling the narrative.
Donbass during the late 1800's ... A influx of western investments from the London bankers with help from the Russian monarchy at that time. The Brits along with German aristocracy had major control of the resources (mainly coal) and manufacturing sectors in that area. To alleviate the labor shortages, mass migration of cheap labor from Galicia and surrounding areas were sent to work the mines. (basically a type of diaspora.) These people were the unwanted, "Heathens" to the upper class. of "Northern Ukraine" The Unwanted intertwined with the Russian populace creating pockets of Russian/Ukrainian dialects, but to this day still call themself Ukrainians. (These dialects each have a name unique to the region)
Not talked about much...Religion also plays a big part in this conflict. Catholic/Orthodox schism (The Catholic church/London bankers connection)
Would love to know more about this ... have any sources you could direct me towards?
Nice series of posts HM
🌟👏👏👏
The UK's economy is solely dependent on banking. It doesn't make much money doing anything else, that's why it never adopted the euro and why it ultimately left the EU, the banking tax of .01% which Brussels wanted to impose on all financial transactions by European banks exposed the fragility of the UK economy and its total dependence on the banking sector.
The UK are over dependent on their arms industry which is highly profitable.
Add the dependence on banking to the British arms industry and you get your answer as to why the UK wants escalation in Ukraine.
War is great for bankers, never forget that.
I'd guess its bureaucratic inertia, except that once the 'Pro Iraq War' goons took complete control of the UK, they have been quite deliberately promoting an extreme anti-Russian line.
https://thegrayzone.com/2018/12/17/inside-the-temple-of-covert-propaganda-the-integrity-initiative-and-the-uks-scandalous-information-war/
All wars are banker wars, and I'm sure you have heard of the Rothschilds. Interest rates have been exceedingly low for many years. With inflation up because of higher commodity prices, interest rates go up, the value of long term treasuries goes down, and banks go broke. If we can't pay our debt by palming it off on someone else, we go into a depression. We need people to trade in dollars with US banks, and Russia wants countries to trade in their own currencies. Banks don't like this.
On that note, I came across this a while back. It fills in a more than a few blanks I think....
https://www.thepostil.com/conflict-in-ukraine-genesis/
Jim - I agree with some of your points and with your ultimate conclusion (that elites benefit from war) but just want to point out that there are plausible counter-points to the evidence and logic points embedded in your argument (i.e. starting premise good, ending conclusion valid -- but not due to what you cited -- at least as how I understand things to work). If you are interested, I can point out where some of those points of controversy might be -- but since this is a very complex subject, with unclear 'mechanisms of transmission' from point A to B, perhaps its best to leave this particular response with 'keep an open mind -- some of the points you cited may be questionable or having a different effect than you assume'. It's like trying to untangle a giant bundle of Christmas lights -- pretty complex and no one (including me) has all the answers and we should just try to help each other along (when that dialog is desired).
Because the UK has an interest in continually stirring up trouble so that it can show its American Master what a loyal little lackey it is.
Perhaps it's their history with Russia and the fact that the City of London financial "leaders" are trying to salvage the last of their global dominance. Matthew Ehert has some great pieces about the historical UK/Russian relationship
City of London's rich Zionist Oligarch's want revenge against Russia and to take their resources.
As a Brit, I would say its because we are eternally stuck in 1945 and cannot comprehend that we are no longer relevant on the global stage. Every opportunity for another Churchill, another D-Day, another seat at the security council, must be taken, no matter how ludicrous our pretensions. I support none of it, btw.
In general, Russia understands the difference between untethered Ukraine and the NATO West. This latest attack on Belgorod is not the first attack or even second attack on Belgorod.
The operationally irrelevant drone attack on Moscow or the previous attacks on Belgorod do not alter the larger fact pattern Russia and the West are operating in. Nordstream would if it was clear publically that the US/West led it and if Russia wanted to escalate.
Right now Russia is on the slow and steady tract to preserve its security zone. Getting "up in arms" about Nordstream may not be in Russia's interest. Escalating conflict to countries outside Ukraine in response to Belgorod is not.
in order to keep the rabid Brits and their allied factions in Ukraine under control, makes sense
Given that NATO countries ranging from Poland to Romania are using their satellite surveillance and Yankee planes launched from their airbases to help target and guide Ukrainian missiles I consider that NATO have already become actively involved and the Russian Federation has legitimate cause to attack any and all at any time.
I know that will not happen but ALL transgressions and aggressions are coming from one side only.
Yep, the US and most of the NATO countries are co-belligerents in the war and, as such, legitimately subject to retaliation.
Russia's failure to do so to date is obviously a calculated decision on its part. It could certainly wipe out most of NATO's military assets but not without significant damage to Russia and its people. There may come a time when the West becomes so provocative that the balance of the equation changes.
Putin is no idiot. Global war has only one outcome, a full nuclear exchange.
As many say: he is the only adult in the room
It is misterious for me why Russian keeps delivering uranium to the US. I agree with your point. Nato involvement in Ukraine is direct. It is only Russia not wanting to declare war on Ukraine. They are interested in limiting their defence expenditure, not being pushed to annall out open war. Remember that ultimately determined the collapse of the USSR.
Russia still supplies natural gas to Ukraine, which Ukr allegedly steals. Russia is notorious for honoring it's contracts.
True but absurd
Russia is a law abiding country. They honor their contracts and agreements. And apparently a contract or agreement can be expressed either verbally or in writing. Also the reason why Russia has been very disappointed about the promise expressed by the west that NATO wouldn't move 1 inch to the east.
As I understand it, there is paper that proves this promise from the West
It wouldn't matter if there was. The people responsible for that promise are out of government and probably dead for a considerable time. The current occupants feel no compulsion to follow their predecessor's obligations. This is one of the big problems with hegemony. There is no mechanism to punish these people except involvement in costly wars, and if you are hegemon, why do you have to worry about this?
Times are changing, though.
MBS from Saudi family was once asked of then why you are dealing with Putin/Russia, he answered on record - we know of no case where they have not honored their agreement... 'weakness' or not, that is Russia , they will stick to the deal they made while the agreement is in place.
How would you then reconcile this article with the obvious spin cycle ramping up to finally provide 'elensky with long-range missiles whose only purpose is to strike within Russian territory?
regarding whether US wants NATO to appear strong ... on the contrary, I think US is quite happy with the non-US NATO members kept in a scared and weakened state and thus willing to make concessions to the US
unfortunately, the three nations that brought us both world wars -- the UK, Germany and Poland -- are at it again. Poland has played such nefarious and devious roles since the collapse of the Pact and its main purpose seems to be dragging NATO into a war against its perennial rival, Russia, and the acquisition of land, land, and more land -- from Germany, from Ukraine, from Belarussia, from Russia. Its revanchist greed is appalling. And of course -- others should fight the war that Poland makes and Poland should reap the goodies. What putzes.
So what exactly doesn't add up?
Nothing. DC is controlled by incompetent psychos. There is no way to make sense of the idiocy born of their pathology.
I would add two things-- one-- that pathology is not just in DC -- two what makes DC idiocy unique is its main attack dogs are all tied to anti-Russian ideology-- many are Ukranian culturally -- Nuland, Kagan, and others like Blinken have anti-Russian ties. Biden isn't even in the ball park let alone the game in any way. That puppet just needs the money to keep flowing to him.
True enough, but the states which are controlled by self serving psychotic sociopaths are avoided easily enough. DC has jurisdiction across our nation. Also true Joe is nothing but a pitiful facade, obviously. Worse still, that pathetic puppet was installed through a despicable criminal act perpetrated on all Americans which of course became perfectly evident the minute vote counting stopped in states which were about to determine a presidential election, followed by blatant ballot box stuffing.
I was talking about other countries not states outside DC.
Some countries too, which can also be avoided fortunately.
The point is that it adds up to the CIA and NATO knowing full well that a *real* escalation and sucking in of nuclear armed countries is something to be avoided, and pretty much everyone is in on that game. Ukraine gave up its nukes, and the only direct party to the conflict with them is Russia, which must be carefully acceded to on matters of global nuclear annihilation. So the USA or UK will not only never cross certain Russian red lines, Russia will tolerate otherwise unthinkable near misses on their red lines, but once a rogue actor like the Ukronazis (or ISIS or whomever) does start skirting too close to those red lines, they will be abandoned and/or neutered by the CIA, NATO, D.C., Brussels, etc.
Doesn't this all sound just really stupid though? Like juggling grenades. Ukraine isn't even NATO. Why bother at all
To sell more weapons, weapons defense systems and consulting services - and hope that investments already made and/or promised in Eastern Ukraine are safe and still available for exploitation after the majority of shooting stops. But yes, it's fucking stupid as hell unless you're among the MIC or MIC affiliated billionaire class. Oh, and for certain there are large swathes of the EU which will no longer buy Russian energy (oil/gas) in the future no matter who wins or on what terms, of course to be supplanted by American or British owned petroleum product "producers."
I should have also added that it's a Big Club. NATO. NATO is the way through which various forms of D.C., Wall Street, and The City billionaires and their "investor class" have infiltrated the key domestic fiscal decision making apparatuses of its member countries. Think of it as a not-so-secret society like Skull and Bones or a career manufacturing and advancement agency that sells (mostly) bullshit "professional certifications" and access to Rolodexes.
Or to put it another way, has there ever been a NATO member country that hasn't enacted Thatcherite/Reaganesque neoliberal austerity policies domestically - at the expense of the average member of the working class population - in order to fund "DEFENSE"?
Funny, I am not sure what is so specific with neoliberal austerity policies being applicable to Thatcher or Regan. Seems many types of govt's use austerity policies just with different gaslighting and PR.
If you said "devote productive capacity to defense" instead of "fund defense" I would agree with you. It's a deeper understanding of what is going on. Guns vs. butter in the old fashioned parlance.
As has been pointed out here a lot, you can't just open your wallet and buy materiel. You have to create the productive capacity to make it and then run that capacity for as long as you need it. While you are doing that, you aren't making consumer goods and may be constraining things like food supply due to your redirection of capacity.
In many (most) cases, it's being used purely as a deterrent. It's hard to argue that the Soviet Union, for instance, didn't create the most powerful armed force in history purely for deterrence. They had no real plan for actually conquering the world with it. Sure, they intervened a few times like in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, but those were seen as threats to the Soviet Union's barrier of defense against the capitalist world.
The Reagans and Thatchers of the world were operating under a similar theory, inasmuch as if they increased the West's perceived military force, this would compel Soviet expenditure to match/exceed to the point that populations might rebel due to the lack of creature comforts. It worked.
What the heirs of that military buildup did with it wasn't their fault per se.
I was probably a little too subtle on the materiel production part. Yes, one of the main facets neoliberal "financialization (of everything)" is ultimately destroying the heavy manufacturing base and/or consolidating all heavy manufacturing to production points at various places in the world known for lax regulations, cheap labor, etc. This by nature results in constraints, which we are seeing now in the West's inability to keep up with Ukraine and Israel's demand for more weapons.
On the point about Reagan and Thatcher, it looks like a few of you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that those two Western leaders are known for starting the slide toward austerity and the aforementioned financialization of everything, not that their "heirs" didn't gleefully carry the mantle after them. But I wasn't conflating either of them with the production of more (or fewer) weapons systems. And to the notion that building more arms is what caused the USSR to ramp up production beyond their capabilities leading to the fall, I disagree. For one thing, production of arms didn't actually go up that much (although fake PR statements might have led people to believe they did), and in fact most of the spending was in the space programs where yeah, apparently they couldn't keep up. But then there was also the price of oil, so.... I still wouldn't be surprised to learn countervailing truths, though, since those of us in the west have been feed propaganda for decades now (see me getting corrected on the Ukrainian nukes elsewhere in this thread).
I am directly identifying Reagan as producing weapons. I didn't understand it as a kid in the 80s, but after almost 30 years of serving the MIC, I see exactly what he did now. I know less about Thatcher, but I get the feeling she was doing the same thing in her own, lesser way.
Let's take the example of the Bradley IFV. I don't think it's any great shakes as a weapon, but it's worth examining. This system was conceived in the mid-1960s as a replacement for the M113 APC. It turned into this mix of a light tank and infantry carrier, not very capable at either mission. It was stuck in what I refer to as "development hell" where the various powers in DC that get to weigh in on these things kept it from ever entering production. Reagan undid that - the IFV started being built, as rotten as it actually was for purpose. You can see the same process for the B-1B bomber - originally cancelled under Carter. The stealth aircraft were all in the same dev hell. 600 ship navy, the re-activation of the Iowa class battleships, C-17 transports, Patriot missiles, I could continue on a long time.
The credit goes to people like Weinburger, and the willingness of Reagan to compromise via deficit for huge military budgets in the face of what would otherwise have been vigorous opposition. I know this was the case because I watched Bush and Rummy in real-time do the exact same thing during the early to mid 00's.
You reminded me of this speech from the 90s. Scroll down a ways, I'm not sure why they led off with Al Gore mishmash.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-how-the-u-s-caused-the-breakup-of-the-soviet-union/5619579
I know a lot of people have this point of view. I happen to have it for a few reasons - first, Reagan wasn't dumb and while he may have been getting dementia in the 80s, there is lots of material left behind from before he came to power that indicates he was thinking along those lines about the Soviets. The argument back then was that detente was letting the Soviets persist, people like Nixon that advocated it were soft on "communism", and only consistent pressure on the SU would result in the overthrow of the Soviet system.
Two reasons were most prominent here - first, the Soviets had a continual fear of attack and domination from the West, a vestige of their near-collapse in WWII. They would take the bait. The second was the lesser productive capacity of the planned economy of the Soviet Union. It was felt that this would leverage the economic power of the US in the most effective way to bring about the desired collapse. We could afford guns and butter better than they could. It was a pipe dream to me in the 80s, until it actually happened. After all, the SU had existed my whole life and was this behemoth of military power.
The simplified understanding of these systems as totalitarian 'evil empires' was another matter, but it explains a lot of the vitriol and the free hand people like Reagan were given to implement this.
@bash It’s all about the hegemony. That’s all any of it is about. All about those people on top who control the money supply stay in control. All the other shit Mango references is secondary (selling weapons systems, etc). The money changers must remain all powerful at all costs.
When it comes to understanding NATO, it helps to keep Lord Ismay's famous quote in mind: "the role of NATO is to keep the US in, the Russians out, and Germany down". From the looks of thing, that still applies!
Ukraine never had any nukes, Russia had nukes stationed in Ukraine. Ukraine didn't have the codes, control of launching them etc etc.
Come on. You're really going to make me cite the NYT?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/science/ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html
"Russia" and "Ukraine" were both semi-equal members of the USSR. Many, many nuclear ICBMs were transferred out of Ukraine and they clearly must have had at least some codes, etc.
Cite however you want, doesn't bother me.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons
Point being there is absolutely no way that Ukraine didn't possess direct control over launch sites and that there's no way whatsoever that (purity tested) "Russians" in Ukraine or in Russia were the only ones in actual control of their use.
Well you know best mate...
Though what you said is actually factually incorrect, Ukraine did not give up its nukes, Ukraine gave up the Russian nukes that were stationed on its territory. So for someone who knows everything like you, maybe you should rephrase your original statement....
They had zero codes , everything is controlled in Moscow . Make love to your NYT.
Show me a document in Russian or Ukrainian to back this up, please. Thanks in advance.
I have personally watched multiple interviews from that period that stated that. All launch codes were in Moscow. 'Ukraine' had nothing. I have not seen anyone in 1990s stating Ukraine had any control whatsoever to launch or otherwise use any nuclear material. Everything else is a historical revisionism that bandera-nazies now like (including 'ancient ukrs' - the word Ukrainian did not exist 120 years ago , i.e. find a census of Odessa from 1911 there are no 'ukranians' at all , such nationality did not exist).
Lots were unclassified. "Moscow" - OK. Was Moscow and Kyiv under the same overall government or not? Prior to the dissolution of the USSR? And why did Moscow want the weapons back?
Apparently you never lived behind the Iron Curtain, because then you wouldn't insist that the Ukrainians could be so and so independent in the Soviet Union ! I can tell you that the Ukrainian leadership could not fart even louder without the permission of the Moscow leadership ! I just laugh at how they would have had the opportunity to launch a nuclear missile, it's ridiculous !
Although you may be a Ukrainian who is now nostalgic for a perceived power that never existed ! :) As the joke said, the Ukrainians were the ones from prehistoric times who dug the Black Sea with their bare hands !
Ukraine Agrees to Relinquish Nuclear Arms
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-17-mn-63844-story.html
"“We own nuclear weapons,” Kuchma told an unusually silent chamber. “But we don’t control them.”
At the moment, Russia has launch control over the missiles and could theoretically fire them without Ukrainian consent. However, Moscow has pledged to honor a veto from Kiev on their use.
An agreement signed by Russia, the United States and Ukraine in January committed Ukraine to rid itself of all its warheads within seven years.
However, Kuchma reminded the deputies that an unpublished side agreement between Ukraine and Russia last spring committed Ukraine to transfer the warheads to Russia within 2 1/2 years in exchange for fuel for nuclear power plants.
“Those caught up in the passions of false patriotism should remember that Ukraine can’t make nuclear weapons, and it can’t even use the warheads it inherited,” Kuchma said. “Just creating a system for safely maintaining the weapons it has would cost $10 billion to $30 billion.”
Could Ukraine Have Retained Soviet Nuclear Weapons?
Posted on February 6, 2022 by Cheryl Rofer
https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2022/02/06/could-ukraine-have-retained-soviet-nuclear-weapons/
"There’s no way Ukraine could have kept the Soviet nuclear weapons stationed there when the Soviet Union ended. Some of us say it over and over and over again. I wrote a Twitter thread on it a few weeks ago, but I need a convenient piece to refer to, so here we go.
The Soviet Union stationed missiles with nuclear warheads in the Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republics. In 1991, those republics became independent countries. Kazakhstan quickly decided to go non-nuclear and shipped the warheads back to Russia, which inherited the Soviet Union’s nuclear status in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Belarus followed.
Ukraine used those missiles as a bargaining chip. They got, in 1994, a financial settlement and the Budapest Memorandum which offered non-aggression assurances that Russia has now broken. They shipped the 1700 or so warheads from the missiles back to Russia and destroyed the missiles.
Ukraine never had the ability to launch those missiles or to use those warheads. The security measures against unauthorized use were under Moscow’s control. The Ukrainians might have found ways around those security measures, or they might not have. Removing the warheads and physically taking them apart to repurpose them would be dangerous, and Ukraine did not have the facilities for doing that. Nor did Ukraine have the facilities to maintain those warheads."
Cheryl Rofer Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Rofer
Also See Dr. Jeffrey Lewis tweet here (unfortunately he does give a link):
https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1490149702112841728
The ability/inability of Ukraine to launch nuclear weapons it once possessed is more complicated that these articles cite. Plus when the citation blames Russia for violating the non-aggression agreement of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum when the US was in violation when it signed the memo is disingenuous. Not saying you are, but the author of the quote is.
--Public statements of US officials like Victoria Nuland who said in 2014 before Russia got involved, that the US spent over $5 billion dollars to promote regime change in Ukraine from 1990 to 2014,
--the existance of the US treaty signed with Ukraine on 29 August 2005 establishing Biological Weapons storage and research facilities (still on the US State Dept Website),
--two US backed coups (2004 and 2014 that violated Ikrainian elections),
--promising NATO membership in 2008 to a country that was supposed to remain neutral,
Are all violations of the Budapest Memorandum and other international laws and conventions and not least Ukraine's sovereignty long before Russia intervened directly, which by terms of the Budapest Memorandum Russia was supposed to do in some way as a guarantor of Ukraine's sovereignty, which had been violated by the US consistently from 1990 to present.
This speaks to a massive bias in the perspective of the sources cited.
The point is that people who should know - such as the President of U,kraine - said otherwise: that Ukraine did NOT control those nukes. If there is actual evidence to the opposite, it needs to be cited. I for one don't believe Russia ever gave up control of those nukes any more than the US has ever given up control of its nukes. It just doesn't make any sense. Possession of the nukes is not the issue: the ability to arm and launch one is.
Please? Neither Russia nor Ukraine had, or even could have had, any nuclear codes. They were merely SSRs. They were not the USSR.
This is kind of obvious, but consider the following analogy. Do the US States hold the nuclear codes to the weapons in their states? Or, to put it less directly, do the US States control the US Army, or the Marines, or the USAF, or the USN in their states?
Next we'll be saying we should take the NYT as gospel... ;)
^^Look everyone it's the Reddit dude that shows up 3 years after a thread is archived and decides to try to revive it.
^ ^ Look everyone it's the dude that has never understood that whereof we cannot know, thereof we must be silent. And likewise doesn't appreciate the meaning of fraud. :)
Apologies to burst your bubble: I followed a link to this from a current discussion and didn't realize it was archived 3 years ago, on which I bow to your superior knowledge. And I'm not even a "Reddit dude"! :) (anyone using the same handle is not me)
Never mind. I notice your inability to reply, but I trust your comment is aging really, really well. ;)
Fascinating comments and insights - thanks for posting.
"I was educated once - it took me years to get over it."
Mark Twain
I keep reading the same BS of 'giving up its nukes' - Ukraine NEVER HAD NUKES!!. it had Russian controlled weapons stored on its territory after breakup of USSR. They are no more Ukrainian nukes than Turkish nukes on that USA air base or nuclear bombs in Germany that USA controlls. Ukraine never had control, launch codes, etc. Please educate yourself and avoid listening to ukie nazi propaganda of 'things we gave up'. no dudes, this was never yours to begin with, and you extorted USA (not Russia who did not care at that point) to get paid to formally recognize that. The deal was USA would pay to Ukraine to get nuclear material out of hands of new nationalists in 1990 and bride Russia to deal with it , it was USA who did not proliferation and organized everything. Multiple books were written about these negotiations.
& yet "So ultimately, we’re still only hearing one side of the story, which happens to be the side they want us to hear."
The Newsweek “story” seems little more than US after the fact excuse making for losing the war it sought for years. It’s a combination of “we didn’t escalate because we wanted to avoid WWIII” and “we let Russia win.” It’s complete bullshit.
Consider the words of the anonymous high level operatives as leaks.
or as noise, intended to muddle any public understanding
It makes sense to me. Russia and the US tacitly agreed to have a real war contained in Ukraine where the winner in that stadium would benefit geopolitically. A way to settle their differences as "gentlemen" without both of the contenders ceasing to exist along with most of the planets other nation prizes. Win/Lose is one thing, Lose/Lose makes no sense. Both sides set up the game to have a Win/Lose outcome and Ukraine became a loose cannon threatening escalation to the Lose/Lose paradigm that neither Russia nor the US wants.
Bash has a point and the US seems to be operating on two separate levels when it deals publicly with geostrategic events. One is to maintain a public belief system by adhering to a narrative, a peanut gallery cheering section and the other one not related to a narrative but rather to the realities out there. It is somewhat reassuring that some in Washington may have their feet planted on the ground.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956): “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
William Casey (CIA Director 1981-1987): “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
Nobody should believe anything White Western media cloaca are told to print by their Langley bosses.
Newsweek is an 'Agent of Influence' whose task in the quoted article is to burnish Agency reputation for fearsome competence.
Media PR hides the only 'Agency' competence: choosing Quislings with NO local support or respect for civil rights.
The only rules CIA Nazis have ever followed are: 'Don't get caught'; 'Deny everything'; 'Do anything you want'; 'Washington makes the Rules'.
Washington and Langley have the worst possible reputation.
US 'journalism' should be ignored except for the simplest, publicly obvious facts.
If they say the sky is blue, one should rush outside and check for clouds or night sky.
We can be sure the truth is MUCH WORSE, and a grotesque violation of intelligence and human rights.
Cordell Hull (US Secretary of State, 1933-1944): “He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch”.
Harry S. Truman: “I never would have agreed to the formation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo.”
So far this sums it up most effectively, at least for me. Sure there could be all manner of maneuvering going on and there likely is. But we cannot know exactly for obvious reasons. Best to look toward the fluxes in power and energy across the globe. Make no mistake: the ruling class of the USA are and have been shit heads since the nation was created with few exceptions. There is a certain arrogance that came with the New World do-over material frontier, but it is steeped in ignorance. Being the only nation left unbombed after WW2 just ground it in further. We have arrived at levels of mass stultification and behavioral programming such that the social engineering dept. merely needs to throw switches because the heavy lifting has already been done.
Agree
In my opinion this exactly echos with President Putin’s assessment that Ukraine is not the enemy but its the whole western apparatus behind Ukraine who has resorted to this evil carnage upon both Ukraine and Russia.
Russia has already taken considerable casualties and the whole CIA or the US admin trying to damage control this disaster seems not plausible
I agree with you. It doesnt add up. In my view Simplicus is wrong in this instance. Taking the view of Russia... the West and anything they print, cannot be trusted. So this article is simply narrative construction to build plausible deniability for the US administration (blaming rouge Ukraine elements etc etc). Its actually nonsense and in some ways attempts to setup a gentlemens end to a conflict that didnt have a gentlemens start. The West has zero restraint... it operates purely on force terms... so this is what they call 'tales by moonlight' .. to get ones mission impossible juices flowing.. and nothing else. I think Simplicus missed it the first time round, for good reason, because its BS...
Just so...but Putin has always been naive about the US government, which has proven over and over again that it won't obey any rules...Of course, as Poland and the CIA now realize, the Ukraine is run by a bunch of crazed Nazis who will do anything, kinda like Victoria Nuland...
you get a disaster such as Ukraine when your spooks start taking over your war. They only operate on small short-term scenarios. Maidan is an example. It has a start and an end, it has a cast of characters the spooks own and control, it has a set series of steps. So a war doesn't fit that picture at all and they need to start paring it back to fit their nasty paws' grasp. The Ukraine war is growing smaller and more disorganized by the day.
There was a time when I might have taken some of what comes out of DC seriously. Now however, due to DC's observed behavior, it is clear those in control are utterly incompetent psychotic sociopaths (self installed). Nothing from their mouths is anything other than self serving narratives spawned within pathology ridden "minds". In short, nothing out of DC is even marginally credible anymore.
Incidentally, DC being beaten by Russia should come as no surprise since it was not just beaten but humiliated by a relatively small number of tribesmen and foreign fighters armed with little more than small arms in Afghanistan. However I want to note I'm not being critical of dedicated, competent military service members, particularly junior members. I'm a US Army vet myself. Perhaps that is why I see just how wildly disconnected DC has become from reality (it was never good). Those incompetent self centered psychos are now endangering ever innocent soul on our planet.
Are you disgusted at what the Yankee military has become? A few ex-pat Yanks I know who served have lots of nasty things to say about what they see now.
I used to, on occasion, suggest to youngsters that they consider enlisting, at least in the National Guard or Reserve for an initial enlistment, but now I always actively recommend against doing so...if that answers your question. I should note my suggesting they do so was mostly for the benefits they'd gain from the experience not because I thought they had some duty to serve in the military.
Incidentally, I'm going to be an expat soon too, and eventually a former US citizen, in order to end exposure to DC. I have no desire to leave the US because I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the American people but DC is just too toxic...and getting worse.
It’s not just the current crop of sociopaths that are fcking the military, but Bush sent soldiers to fight for corporation’s profits. Lots of minerals were discovered in Afghanistan just before we invaded. Oil and stuff for cheney's haliburton and other companies…Smedley Butler told us about this in 1933, but he was ignored. And while the military was sent hither and yon to spread freedom and democracy Americans lost the bulk of their freedoms through the Patriot Act and then we started getting spied on big time. The pentagon has done nothing about any of this and now we have Biden censoring anyone who goes against the government’s agendas.
Just saying…
I would be very skeptical of anything Newsweek prints. Not to mention "anonymous" sources. The administration plants its seeds in publications like The NYTimes, WaPo, and Newsweek. But if the CIA is playing such a "conflict-limiting" role in Ukraine, it had better wrap it up and get over to the Middle East...fast.
Throughout the Cold War and the War on Terra, Newsweek has been a pretty reliable (i.e., official) mouthpiece for the CIA, so while it's good to take anything they - or anyone else - print(s) with a grain of salt, Newsweek is actually a pretty good barometer on the prevailing thought process of the CIA.
makes sense, thanks
I'm old enough to remember Newsweek's fulsome coverage of bin Laden and his brave crew. Or the TIME cover bragging how we got Yeltsin elected. (That was Real election interference.) Those two publications have always been government fronts.
Yup. Exactly what I was referring to.
It's a pretty good barometer (like Seymour Hersch, for example) of what the CIA wants you and the world (especially Russia, in this case to believe). Little of what they say is actually true. For some time now they have been trying to distance themselves from the Ukraine debacle, because it became clear to them that Russia was not a "gas station with nuclear weapons," which is what they believed prior to the war.
What the article wants you (and Russia) to believe is that there is some sort of "gentleman's agreement" and all the bombing, terror attacks, pipelines blowing up, and whatnot is all Ukraine and Blinken. This is just nonsense. There is no "gentleman's agreement." You don't provoke a civil war on a nation's border to draw them into it, try to create an international economic embargo, and blow up their most important economic assets when you have a "gentleman's agreement" not to expand the war. This is just wishful thinking on the part of the CIA, begging Russia not to "tit-for-tat" and blow up important western economic infrastructure (and call off Iran and their Houthis who are causing havoc for the big mercantile Wall Street interests).
No offense intended, but please -then- contrast what you think they want the world to think they're thinking vs. what they're really thinking, and use historical precedent (as verified by other sources and actual history to which I alluded) in terms of the Cold War and WoT. Again the CIA speaks through Newsweek to its intended D.C. PMC audience.
I'm not sure what you are asking. They want the world to think they are cool, calculating strategists who did not underestimate Russia, but are playing some sort of 3 dimensional chess with some unwritten, unspoken gentleman's agreement. What they are really thinking is... "oh no... Russia is much stronger than we thought when we started to try to bring down Putin so now we must try to convince Putin that there is some sort of gentleman's agreement in place so that he does not do substantial harm to western economic interests (such as helping Iran supply the Houthis)."
I am not sure what documentation you want. I will not be able to provide you with a document stating from the head of the CIA... "damn... we sure did screw up... let's cover our ass by putting out some BS about a gentleman's agreement in Newsweek." I will give you this though from a major foreign policy wonk in the U.S. from 2018 that demonstrates how badly the U.S. foreign policy and intelligence community underestimated Russia ...https://www.csis.org/analysis/going-offensive-us-strategy-combat-russian-information-warfare
I quote, from the article (which is a pretty good summary of thinking in these circles prior to 2022). "The irony of today’s situation is that Moscow is weaker now than it was during the 1980s. Russia’s economy is frail, Moscow has lost most of its Eastern European allies, and it doesn’t have a popular ideology to sell to the world—let alone its own people."
In short, these idiots really did think they were going to bring down the Russian government with sanction and using Ukraine as a proxy. I can find you a lot more examples of senior people in the U.S. talking about how weak Russia is, from the 2010-2022 period. Obviously, all these assessments were not just wrong, but terribly so. The only thing to do now is cover your ass if you were responsible for such egregious errors in judgement.
Keeping in mind that you are responding to a well groomed troll....
They thought sanctions would cripple Russia. They thought a long war would cripple Russia. They thought the rest of the world would back the USA and Ukraine as Winners. But sanctions led to greater economic autonomy. The long war is creating the most battle hardened Army in the world. The rest of the world increasingly blames the USA and admires Russias resolve-and results. That’s a miss on 4 out of 4.
If you want my opinion, and I have no actual evidence to back this up... so it is only an opinion, the Wagner group rebellion was an essential element of the plan from the beginning. They thought they had people in place who could bring about their coup d'etat once pressure began to build on Putin from the sanctions and the war. Prigozhin was the type of person that Mossad and the CIA typically recruit: former convict, motivated solely by money; and so forth. I would also guess that Mossad was involved and that they tried to play on Prigozhin's Jewish ancestry to convince him that it would be better for Israel and Jews if Putin were overthrown. In the end, Prigozhin seemed to get cold feet as the rebellion unfolded, realizing (unlike Zelensky, for example) that Western intelligence was not so intelligent and that he was being used and would be hung out if the plan failed.
Completely agree. The entire article is hogwash propaganda to prop up CIA’s “reputation” and to distance itself from the Ukraine disaster. They make themselves sound like the only civilized beings preventing WW3. Super, guys, we should keep you around forever. Please spare me.
Yes, and sadly, Simplicius seems to have at least partially fallen for it. Should have deleted that tab long ago.
Precisely...It’s kidan childish really, but then it will likely work on most of the population so ....dashing and clever in its incompetence those ALphabets...
"Doesn't have a popular ideology to sell ..." and then we went (actually 2018 it was well under way) and tried to force a wholy unpopular ideology upon the world, making the generic conservatism in Russia look rather attractive to the global South and even the more traditionally minded people in the West.
Like war, diplomacy, overt or otherwise, is deception. I don't think the Russians are in any way deceived. Nothing like allowing your opponent to think he's getting his way. Then...
To be 100% clear, Newsweek has gone though MULTIPLE changes in ownership since then. At one point, a bizarro cult that sold fake furniture (long story) owned it. It's more balanced now, but it is not the same whatsoever as it was in the 1980s.
more like, it's a good barometer of what they want guys in the waiting room of a dentist's office on a US airbase to think ....
So a MockingBird++ rating....good to know.
I'm not even sure how to respond. You should look at some other replies. It's of course impossible to know what "the CIA thinks" but News(p)e(a)ek has been a good barometer since the late 80s on what the "public persona" of the CIA thinks.
Newsweek is 5% truth and CIA is 95% lies. A collaborative article is 2.5% truth. Good luck gleaming anything meaningful to discuss. Just nuke them both and enjoy the rest of your day.
6 January 2024 FT Baltic Running Dogs Bark & Bonus – a rousing Auld Lang Syne
‘Russia will not stop in Ukraine Latvian Prime Minister warns’
https://www.ft.com/content/7b94ec46-c761-4de3-8df7-055602ace279
EU indeed NATO handing over policy propaganda to the miniature border statelets – this involves broadcasting that the war must go on, even if the RF should win in Ukraine (not that it will!)
““Russia will not stop, Russia can only be stopped. Stopping Russia in Ukraine does not mean that it is over. It simply means we will have to continue. That is what is important for Nato: that we will have to work on a long-term strategy of Russia containment,” Kariņš said.”
That is to say Victory over Russia in the Ukraine will not really be victory at all, more like..the beginning of an endless and more widespread war
Hard to see the EU or NATO reacting very efficiently to this call to arms given they have failed to respond in any practical and general way to all calls so far – but it’s the call that counts –
The only practical military planned response, as far as I am aware, is the German proposal to send what promises to be an undermanned underarmed brigade to Lithuania in 2027 –even if the German Chief of Army states it is impossible to execute this plan given lack of personnel, budget restrictions and short supply of armaments : Lithuania protests it has’nt the money or infrastructure to accommodate this brigade
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-brigade-be-combat-ready-lithuania-russian-border-2027-2023-12-18/
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2023-12-27/germany-army-lithuania-brigade-12478191.html
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/11/15/lithuanians-are-not-happy-with-the-deployment-of-a-german-brigade/
By which can be seen the disjunct between the running dogs barking up a fight and the barethread reality of their practical capability to do so
Bottom Line – The US once again throwing the EU to the wolves
BONUS – The Traditional New Year’s Lament or Auld Lang Syne
‘What the west can do to win the war in Ukraine
https://www.ft.com/content/5583c70d-64f3-4b8c-9da0-c921dbfc1310 https://t.co/VmwzgBGB5k
Even the FT commentariat are bored, when you lost the FT commentariat better go for Plan B
Only the Balts bother to try to shame the rest of Europe into doing something, the major European countries have moved on, yet, yet…it’s all so simple, finishes with the inevitable Winston Churchill quote...
The only practical reporting, suggesting awareness of any possible path to victory, is the following pinprick detail – which clearly displays British Defence Ministry aims and limitations
‘Immediately, in a matter of days, this means more air defences. In a matter of weeks, it means more long-range missiles, notably the German Taurus, but also American ATACMS, so Ukraine can continue to push back Putin’s Black Sea fleet and target his strategic and symbolic stronghold in Crimea.’
There was a Latvian ex-Colonel a few days ago saying that all Russians could be eradicated within five years! This is Israeli Zionist level hatred.
as well as Zionist level stupidity - he may think that because the Israelis have so far gotten away with it, Latvians can too, that stupid
You mean “flouting”. Not “flaunting”. Those who confuse the two are NOT serious people. You need a copy editor. Even high school students aren’t this dumb.
Good grief. LMAO. Those who read a simple one-off mistake or typo by Simplicius are NOT serious people. They need to read his previous work to understand the massive working vocabulary he has and his replies to other comments in the past asserting that he's a stickler for grammar, English usage and will ALWAYS make corrections if errors in either are pointed out.
I do read his work. But it’s like Van Halen’s infamous M&M rider. He left the brown M&Ms in the bowl, which means carelessness.
Or maybe he's aware that the brown M&Ms actually contain gene therapy chemicals. /sarc
No. It is indicative of a high work rate and a simple clerical error that all people make in the process of writing with limited resources for editing in an age of spell check - especially when working by themselves.
The correlation to leaving the brown M&Ms in the bowl - a effective ploy to make sure contracted labor read and carried out the terms of the contract (somewhat like the proverbial canary in the coal mine), does not apply to this issue.
How StT responds to the mundane clerical error might if in fact he doubled down. That would be a sign of non-serious thinking. This is just a typo.
The article has other typos as well but at the end of the day they are just that, typos, not that Simplicius does not have a good vocabulary.
I flout this statement. 🤪
... and I flog it!
autocorrect is dumb
Good article. I was hoping to expound on a major point, or that you would. This is the second time you mentioned it:
"This means if a scenario developed as I described earlier, it would end precisely as I outlined: NATO disunity on Article 5 would risk tearing the entire alliance apart, and “exposing” its central and founding pillar as fraudulent and ineffective in practice. It’s too grave a risk for US to haphazardly take on."
But let's think about that. What IF a NATO country was attacked and Article 5 wasn't invoked? Would it really expose anything? And by that I mean, you lay out exactly *why* some countries wouldn't want to, so in essence we all already know that on *some* fronts, Article 5 and NATO are fraudulent, or at least a helluva lot more fluid and situational than some of the NAFO/OFAN ponybois like to pretend.
Here's the text of Article 5:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ."
Article 6 goes on to explain what constitutes an attack as named in Article 5, but anyway, the last paragraphs are key. "...to resore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." and "...the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."
Which, to me, having never actually read Article 5 before, already sounds like a bunch of weasely bullshit on its face! Mkay, so say Russia blows up a huge ammo storage center in Poland which it knows to be a location from which many Ukrainian attacks on Russia or Russian assets relied for munitions. It's a one-and-done strike. Poland would never then launch a military attack against Russia without ALL of the other members of NATO taking part, which of course means the USA, UK, and every other NATO nuclear power, followed by nuclear annihilation. I mean it's just laughable on its face.
And the word "including" is carrying a lot of weight there. INCLUDING a military response. OK, but that means that it also means a whole bunch of other types of actions. LOL
And where am I going with that? There's only one type of defense entailed in NATO, and I'll get to it shortly. NATO has next-to-nothing to do with actual defense, and only slightly more to do with offense (except against weak Global South countries - other bodies handle that with Russia and China, not to mention Iran). What NATO is, is (i.e., ISIS lol) is a massive, fraudulent excuse/rationalization mechanism and marketing/PR arm of the Western military munitions and **munitions defense** systems. In other words, it's a key cog in the giant racket known as Western coercion and blackmail of the RotW through the (insufficient in actuality, but that's the point! lol) manufacture of weapons and weapons defense systems to member nations' governments and militaries, but more than that it's a huge "defense-as-a-service" consultancy. And we've all seen that famous Dilbert cartoon.
Q: "What's a consultant anyway?"
A: "It's someone who CONS and inSULTS you!"
And I should add that when you consider all of this, NATO also exists to continually inflame perpetual tensions and provoke "controlled" and would-be "controllable" conflicts in order to sell those arms and "services".
> That should serve as a wake up call for Ukrainians: you are merely being used as disposable puppets in a geopolitical Great Game.
Exactly. Like I told some 2D Ukraine guys on Discord in 2021. Several times over, I showed them that Americans aren't going to be duying for them. But was I listened to? Of course not! \o/
There’s also this bizarre assertion that the CIA is at all competent, capable, and not encumbered with petty internal pissing contests. They’re not remotely close to that, particularly if you take a long look at their historical ineptitude.
Ultimately, this is the US shitting its pants, desperately trying to convince itself AND the world that it’s indomitable and simply “being a gentleman”.
If the CIA and the “elite cabal” had any brains, they’d have never committed acts of terrorism and theft via blowing up NS2 and now seizing assets. In flagrant violation of established “rule based order”.
Unless these “secret red lines” are actually codified somewhere and you’ve get the evidence, this is bullshit. “It’s super duper seekrit, but I promise you it’s true.” It’s Hugh Hefner, looking pathetic and feeble in his old age, who refuses to take a dignified exit. No, the US and the CIA just dazzle themselves with gaggles of hot blondes, while the rest of the world sniggers behind their backs.
The US and NATO are rapidly becoming J. Alfred Prufrock.
It's "RuleS Based Order" damnit, and nobody who makes the mistake of calling it a "rulE based order" is a serious person! Even high schoolers know that! /sarc
Yes. This. ^^^^^. This "gentleman's agreement" nonsense is just an attempt to convince Russia not to "tit-for-tat" for the pipeline and not destroy critical western infrastructure (and have Iran call off their Houthi allies who are causing havoc for western shipping firms).
"The Rules of Kanly must be obeyed!" -Ditector Burns (Probably)
If this article is remotely accurate, we can confidently guess that the CIA kept Ukraine from doing something stupid to the nuclear power plant.
Exactly. Well, the CIA or whoever else is pulling the puppet strings. We all know the Ukronazis - like the Zionists - couldn't care less if half the world is destroyed by WMDs, nuclear or other.
I suspect a private note from Russia telling Ze and Co they've got Kinzhals with their names written on them would do a much better job.
Except they didn't. Ukraine faced the threat of losing all its own nuclear power plants and some oligarch had to explain to the Bandera psycho's that people wouldn't be able to pay their monthly stay-out-of-the-army bribe if that happened
Without further evidence I'm inclined not to believe this story about the CIA, particularly now that the US has announced they will provide 404 with longer range missiles able to reach Moscow et al. Remember it only takes one psycho to say f...'em and we are all toast.
I think old school CIA boundaries are off the table, Nuland is running the show. Hitting Moscow and Crimea are the only way to get Russia to negotiate a ceasefire. It’s the equivalent of Nixon carpet bombing North Korea civilian cities.
I meant z north Vietnam...
And how did the previous hitting of Crimea /bridges work to get Russia to negotiate? Why would they negotiate now especially given the clear weakness (no military capacity, arms etc) of NATO/West and the fact that the West doesn't honour its agreements?
NATO can't even supply Ukraine with enough ammo let alone themselves if they fucked around in Ukraine and found out. Russia would absolutely smoke them - if they allowed them to stage in the first place. In real war attack subs and zircon would have some fun with US supply ships. Then the death tolls...American couldnt handle 2000 in iraq before squealing started....imagine 3600 a day like DoD war game doc said. Nukes all bets are off but NATO has no chance to conventionally beat Russia in Russia. Just like Russia can never dream of beating US in US.
As far as this CIA limited hangout. I'd like to believe it's more than CYA as you do and they are telling Biden we need to cut bait from these Ukieloonies but Bidens unhinged rhetoric was worse than ever today vs Republicans slow roll in funding and wrt Putin. He's certainly all in to the last Ukrainian.
Which raises the question why Russia hasn't done so already, even as tbe West and Ukraine have ignored red line after red line.
I don't understand your meaning. Why hasnt Russia done what exactly? They are dismantling Ukraine, NATO's armories and NATOs financials and unity with BRICS. What else do you want them to do? Attack US directly?
Why Russia has not ended this war, even as the US continues to escalate.
You expect miracles or something. Russia is going up against stronger foe than US military ever faced and they took 20 years to lose in Afghanistan.
No. Had Russia used adequate force from the outset, the war would long be over and a lot of good people would not have died.
Afghanistan is an entirely inapposite situation, as it was a guerilla war.
And Russia's slow creep and filter insures thier not a guerrilla war either.
Some Yankee claimed almost the same on X… we can’t compare with Afghanistan cause it was very remote from the US but it had been closer we would have prevailed… 🤡
https://science1arts2and3politics.substack.com/p/why-russia-doesnt-want-to-conquer
Ukraine is a collosal liability.
By that logic, eastern Europe after WWII was a huge liability.
Some right wing pro 🇺🇦 in France still genuily believe that Putin is a communist and the Soviets are still maintaining a firm grip over the country. Really. And some have gone there to fight for freedom. Really
It was. The cost contributed to the collapse of the USSR. It was kept as a buffer zone.
To those who call bullshit and cite the future (alleged) provision of munitions capable of reaching Moscow, etc. - How likely do you think they ever will, and if you were able to put money on it, how much would you be willing to lay down? Because I'm pretty sure there will never be a major attack on Moscow before this is all said and done, which will be soon, for several reasons including that 404 no longer has enough conscripts to fight for and occupy any meaningful Russian held territory in Ukraine.