On the second anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United States of America unanimously stated that they stand with Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes’. Just what kind of a commitment is this?
Here we are over a year later and Ukraine’s military is collapsing. No infusion of money is going to change that. Now, NATO may be stronger than Russia alone. So, could ‘as long as it takes’ in a purely military sense, mean the defeat of Russia on the battlefield? If so, what does that really mean?
If ‘as long as it takes’ is a full-throated commitment (France certainly seems to think so), the size of the militaries involved would mean the devastation of many areas of Europe. In the early stages of this conflict, I heard from many people who had bought into the narrative put out by Big Media, that Russia would be quickly pushed back and would have to sue for peace. Russia military was still using “fifty-year-old weaponry” and would be no match for the precision weapons of the West. How has that worked out?
Russia is not a country with a weak army. They are not pushovers like many of the forces that NATO is used to dominating on the battlefield. They have demonstrated superiority against NATO weaponry. But let’s suppose for an instant that NATO was on the verge of defeating Russia. What would happen then?
Putin and his ministers have made it clear that they will use Russia’s vast stockpile of nuclear weapons, the largest in the world, to defend itself. Russia’s Security Council Deputy Chairman, Dmitry Medvedev, has said that an invasion of the Crimea would be met with such a response. And as Putin has also made clear to NATO, such a response would trigger a nuclear holocaust that would destroy much of the world.
Is this where the Biden administration really wants to go? If not, perhaps the better question is, is the goal here to have the public accept limited war as part of the normal way of life?
Most actions initiated by this administration have been aimed at reducing individual liberties and increasing government control over the public. And this is true not only in America but also in other western countries.
We had the “War on Covid.” This was used to justify lockdowns, vaccine passports (another form of control) and the expulsion from society of those who refused to bend to the will of the government. People were fired from their jobs if they refused to be jabbed with the mRNA poison. Travel was restricted. Surfing alone in the ocean was illegal.
We also have the “War on Global Warming.” This has been used to transfer money to the rich. It has also been used to dictate what form various labor-saving devices are allowed to take. It has been used to force the price of energy up so that people will be more dependent on the government for their existence. Who can forget the Secretary General of the UN making himself look ridiculous by describing global warming as global boiling. Yet people submitted to this nonsense and allowed their freedom of choice to be reduced.
The above “wars” have allowed governments to see how much freedom they can remove before the public squeals. It turns out that, with some, they are content to be slaves of the government if only the government will take care of them.
Perpetual crises are the source of totalitarian control.
Real wars almost always operate under at least a de facto state of emergency. This “justifies” the removal of rights and freedoms from citizens. If the West can achieve some kind of extended continuation of the Ukraine war, we could see more attempts by Western governments to turn their citizens’ attention away from the absolute mess that their economies are in.
Americans would see campaigns that we must “Stop Russia” from conquering the world. The bogeyman of the old Soviet Union would be used to propagate this campaign of fear. We would be told over and over as we already have been that we must arm to stop this aggression.
We have already seen this with Ukraine. More than $380 billion has been funneled to various transnational corporations to destroy and rebuild a country the western oligarchs had complete control over.
To quote one prescient observer:
“War is the mechanism by which the tax bases of the member states of NATO can be washed through arms dealers, the biosecurity apparatus, the digital surveillance infrastructure — and anything else designated by the UN as ‘aid’ — into the hands of the globalist partners of national governments.”
Is this war at this moment in time about sustaining NATO? As one may recall, PDJT has stated that NATO has long outlived its usefulness on the world stage. Did NATO need this war to rehabilitate its image?
A need for a military alliance cannot exist without an adversary. With the fall of the Soviet Union, that need disappeared. Afghanistan filled in for a couple of decades until the disastrous retreat in 2021. Is Russia’s defense of its security which has long been obvious for the world to see, the excuse for the continuation of NATO? Did the invalid perception of an easy win on the battlefield drive the policy making of those connected to NATO?
What will constitute victory in this arena?
The powers behind the curtain, the people who started the Ukraine war, now know that victory on the battlefield is not possible without significant changes to how the war is being waged. However, nuclear war should not be on anyone’s agenda. But, who knows what the senile old man in the White House might actually do.
Are we in the brink of WW III? Given the caliber of the people in positions of executive power in Washington, Brussels, the Bundestag, Palais Bourbon and Westminster, and the tenuous grasp on reality of the ageing billionaires from whom they take their orders, it is not beyond reality to imagine they could believe in ‘victory’ by doing this. France’s Macron certainly seems to subscribe this nightmare. Just how many more people will have to die and how many countries destroyed to accomplish this if it is even possible?
Russia has demanded that Ukraine hand over the head of the SBU. My guess here is that Russia has solid evidence of Ukraine’s involvement (specifically Vasyl Malyuk) in the terror attack on the concert in Moscow. Will Russia declare Ukraine to be a terrorist state?
If Russia does declare Ukraine a terrorist state, will Mr. Kinzhal start making house/office/car calls?
Will the people who stole the 2020 election turn the planet into a radioactive cinder?