Jun 24, 2022·edited Jun 24, 2022Liked by Brad Pearce
Since it was clear right from the beginning what would happen "if the Nato barks at the Russian border" (as pope Francesco puts it) or that the "Joint statement on the US-Ukraine strategic partnership" amounts essentially to a declaration of war against Russia the question arises why the geopolitical strategists have been provoking this war. One obvious reason is to cut off Russia from Europe - or to cut off Europe from Russia - a task which seems to have worked out quite well. But there could be another reason: Dragging Russia into a long and tiresome war in Ukraine diverting thus energy and attention to launch a surprise first nuclear strike against the Russian nuclear missiles sites. The advent of "invisible" aircrafts and "undetectable" ipersonic missiles (invisible for the radar based ballistic missiles defense system) have changed the long standing standoff concerning nuclear war in which a nuclear attack was rendered basically impossible because of the certainty to receive an equally destructive retaliation. This situation of nuclear deterrence is being changed profoundly in these days because "invisible" aircraft and "undetectable" ipersonic missiles allow a nuclear first strike against adverse nuclear missiles sites without being intercepted by bmd systems. All the defending side can do is trying to hide its sites, but the sites themselves become not just extremely vulnerable, but basically undefendable. In a situation where both sides have not detectable armaments the first strike strategy might become actually a military imperative. (My two cents)
Jun 26, 2022·edited Jun 26, 2022Liked by Brad Pearce
In geopolitical strategy generally one could follow the famous Metternich dictum "War is the continuation of politics", but put upside down, or maybe put on its feet, which then reads: "Politics is the continuation of war with other means". Because the limitations and the possibilities the military is able to offer are the framework in which politics can move. This situation is similar to the evolution of culture being basically entirely driven by technology. In our present case it will be very difficult to resist the temptation undetectable armaments are offering. In a certain way you are actually forced to launch a nuclear first strike because if not you are running the risk of being the target of a nuclear first strike of your enemy. This situation renders the present conflict so extremely dangerous.
Yeah war is but a particularly brutal foreign policy tool, unfortunately we are ruled by lunatics, who would rather destroy all humanity than lose, it is indeed scary.
To be honest, I think to many of those who think we will all die from climate change, they dont think nuclear war is such a big threat because theyre basically in an apocalypse cult anyway.
I don't think that climate change is a big problem - except sea-level rise which is a big issue for all coastal cities - because essentially I believe we (the US) have the weather under control. Please have a look on a DoD report of 1996 "Owning the weather in 2025" (http://alicon.net/owning_the_weather.pdf )
Seawall isnt hard to build. Humans have had the technology to live below sea level since antiquity.
What drives me crazy is to the extent this is a real problem they want to do insane things that wont work to stop it instead of taking viable and straightforward steps to survive it.
My biggest argument is that Putin was always going to invade, but based off of the milquetoast reaction of Biden, he knew an invasion wouldn't "hurt" Russia.
What proof do I have for my assertion? 2 things: 1) Putin started amassing troops on the border 39 days after Biden was inaguarated, and 2) Russia already invaded 8 years prior, and seized 2 large territories of a sovereign country (also shot down a commercial airline while they were at it, but that was all acceptable to Obama 8 years ago). Putin's move 8 years later was to "finish the job" started under Obama.
Ok so the thing I was the least happy about with this article is I didnt find a good time to talk about the troop buildup, so you are correct that isnt explained well here.
It was obviously a threat. I explain it as him threatening them that he was willing to invade if it came to that which it did and he did. This is common. Negotiations have stopped countless wars when both sides amassed troops were staring at eachother. War is the ultimate failure of diplomacy, so the idea that these things are mutually exclusive is nonsense. If Putin was going to invade no matter what, why did he give them a year to prepare? It would have made a hell of a lot more sense to at least mostly surprise them.
That said, its possible by the time Biden started saying that the decision was already made, but it seems that though they surely had an extensive plan (i gurantee the USG has like 10 different written plans to conquer Mexico) I dont think the decision was made until the last minute, when doing nothing would have been a diplomatic defeat because of the Biden admins insanely bad diplomacy that was probably designed to provoke an invasion.
It needs to be noted, yet again, that Zelensky got elected with 70% on a promise to make the basic peace deal Putin wanted and the US sided with Nazis who said they would lynch him if he made the peace deal he was elected to make.
Your second paragraph is things that simply arent true, so I really have no response to that but to say that is propaganda. I didnt believe it 8 years ago and I dont believe it now. But what do you make of the US supporting a neonazi coup 8 years ago?
2 more things: there’s tons of proof that Russia invaded 8years ago, most of which was the use of highly technical Russian military equipment that was used then- like the missile system (that requires on-ground radar technology to guide it) that shot down MH17 over Ukraine. then Russia conducting an investigation that allowed only Russians to inspect crash site and Russia concluding Russia was not at fault.
Most of the fighting was done by Russian soldiers in russian combat attire with the Russian flags removed from them. This was all reported on 8 years ago.
As for the “US coup 8 years ago” in Ukraine-- that reportage is highly dubious. I watched that “Ukraine on fire” film and it’s largely horseshit. Oliver Stone isn’t a documentary filmmaker. He’s a narrative film maker that made a documentary-style film-- Much like all of Michael Moores films. They don’t seek truth in those films, they tell the story they want to tell using a narrative that’s already pre-defined. For example; Euromaidan happened in the winter time, with snow on the ground, yet Oliver stones film shows Nazis marching around green trees filled with leaves. It’s deceptive filmmaking. It would be like showing a protest of neonazis in Goatslap, MS and saying it happened in NYC during the Christmas parade. Did it happen? Yes. Is it’s impact overstated? Most likely.
As for a coup and the CIA influence over Euromaidan, You’re giving far too much credit to the CIA to think they could orchestrate 500,000 person protest in another country. It would be historic (especially for modern US government dysfunction) therefore the claim is highly dubious. Do I think the CIA had involvement? Sure, limited like most things they do. They couldn’t even get weapons funneled through Benghazi with a NATO ally but somehow they’re going to orchestrate a coup in a foreign government plagued by Russian corruption? That claim is too cute by half.
It’s true that western Ukraine celebrated Germany invasion in 1941. That’s because Stalin starved 7million Ukrainians to death 8 years prior and the Germans, while bad, treated them better than the Russians. You once said “who cares about the Holodomor” but that view is anachronistic. In the context of 1941, it was prescient.
Ive never seen Ukraine on Fire but its notable that Oliver Stone interviewed Putin and Putin said "I wont let you draw me into your anti-Americanism" or something of that nature.
But Victoria Nuland made it extremely fucking clear the US was managing the situation, "Yats is our guy"
And its one thing to accept a German invasion because you hate communism, but Stepan Bandera pro-actively did the holocaust for the Nazis.
The parliament of Ukraine has during this very war praised men who genocided Poles as well, because they are actual Nazis who wear goddamn wolfsangels.
This shit isnt hard to figure out, the people with the wolfsangels are obviously the Nazis.
"Yats is our guy" doesn't prove anything. I know you think it does, but it doesn't. That phonecall of Nuland was recorded in late Jan or Early Feb of 2014.
EuroMaidan started in November of 2013, so basically 2 months before the Obama administration picked a side.
This isn't an indication of "proof" the US created the conflict, it is more proof of the Obama Administration's M.O. of "leading from behind" and trying to claim some victory of a situation that has already evolved.
FWIW-- Yats was an easy guy to pick from a US perspective since he speaks English fluently. But it didn't work out for Yats anyway which is another hallmark of the Obama Administration "trying to pick winners, but all were losers" (to paraphrase Mitt Romney).
it's an understatement to claim that Ukraine accepted nazis because they hated communism. They hated the Bolsheviks who starved millions of them to death. it wouldn't have mattered if the Bolsheviks were royalty, oligarchy, or fascists. They, ethnically, were targeted for extinction by the people the nazis were fighting against. the Holocaust committed by Nazis lasted roughly 4 years from 1941-1945. For context, the Holodomor lasted 14 months and estimated to have killed between 7-10million people (so possibly more people than the holocaust in 25% the time)
Your willful ignorance on the topic of ethnic cleansing through starvation is baffling, frankly. or ethnic displacement of Ukrainians following WW2. Ukrainians that were POWs were shipped to Siberia after WW2, and not allowed to return to Ukraine.
Your error is thinking both countries are acting the same: Ukrainians don't target ethnic Russians in Ukraine. It's Russia targeting ethnic Ukrainians.
Russians are protected in Ukraine as citizens, but Russians invade Ukraine. it's not even close to being the same thing. If you think making Ukrainian the official national language of Ukraine is somehow targeting Russians, you are being dumb.
You're falling into a Chomsky trap where everything is about moral equivalence. Russia, the aggressor, is neither in a moral high-ground nor are they saviors they promote in their propaganda you believe.
Well, Putin is a much better 3D chess player than Biden and/or anyone that is advising Biden.
Amassing troops because you inevitably want to invade, waiting a year, then invading only serves to highlight what a disgrace Bidens foreign policy is.
Moreover, look at Biden’s comments about “Purim’s
Inflation” from Russia’s point of view: US inflation is twice of EU inflation... Putin gets to take credit for it.
Aside from Russia imprisoning all Ukraine war protesters to 10-15years in prison, Biden has stirred a fair amount of jingoism for Russian citizens: look no further than the “McDonalds” getting bette r business following the pullout of the west.
Lastly, the only people claiming that “Nazis” have a major influence in Ukrainian government are Russian sources, no other people claim that. I commented on a previous stack article that their major influence was regional in Donbas, and Zelensky was willing to work for them for border security or Russian soldiers claiming to be locals. Border protection makes for strange bedfellows, especially since Ukraine had been seeking money from the IMF, and the IMF doesn’t give money to countries in war. It was a strategic decision by Ukraine to allow “Nazis” to manage the regional conflict and keep Ukrainian military in a limited presence and never call it a conflict.
Simply put, Zelensky and his predecessor wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
the metaphor I used before still stands: if someone is killing your family, you don't care if a nazi steps in to save their life. you wouldn't say "no no--let my beloved perish because I don't like you" You could air those grievances _after_ your loved one(s) are out of danger.... hence the "strange bedfellows" comment. to wit: "amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei"
And while it's true that a Jewish-Ukrainian funded the creation of the Azol battalion, and it's early leaders where white nationalists, recent survey says that it has less than 15% white nationalists as it's members. 15% is a lot, i admit, but nnowhere near the goose-stepping fascist numbers claimed by Russian sources, or most of the claims you make.
I dont know if you've seen the movie Katyn, but at the beginning Poles fleeinf the Soviets meet Poles fleeing the Nazis on a bridge, and have to decide which direction to go. I absolutely would have gone West, though both because it was relatively easier to escape Nazi Germany and because Im a white gentile.
I wholly understand them choosing to side with the Nazis during WW2, but I wouldnt put up statues about it later, and Bandera proactively did genocide.
Poland's foreign minister _just_ complained about Ukraines foreign ambassador praising men who massacred Poles, and not even having a problem with that aspect of their biography.
FR side with who you have to to survive a war, but who you celebrate as a hero 75 years later isnt a forced decision.
Also, these were both ideological problems and Ukraine had no shortage of its own communists. This should be much less of an ethnic issue than you and the Nazis make it out to be.
“But I will tell you one thing: despite all we’ve been told, this seems to be going incredibly well for Putin and Russia, militarily, economically, and diplomatically.” Perfectly stated, and brilliant title for the piece.
Here's something I wrote about the problem of dirty hands. I specifically discuss Machiavelli and how he has been misconstrued (because people don't read)... https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=21
Since it was clear right from the beginning what would happen "if the Nato barks at the Russian border" (as pope Francesco puts it) or that the "Joint statement on the US-Ukraine strategic partnership" amounts essentially to a declaration of war against Russia the question arises why the geopolitical strategists have been provoking this war. One obvious reason is to cut off Russia from Europe - or to cut off Europe from Russia - a task which seems to have worked out quite well. But there could be another reason: Dragging Russia into a long and tiresome war in Ukraine diverting thus energy and attention to launch a surprise first nuclear strike against the Russian nuclear missiles sites. The advent of "invisible" aircrafts and "undetectable" ipersonic missiles (invisible for the radar based ballistic missiles defense system) have changed the long standing standoff concerning nuclear war in which a nuclear attack was rendered basically impossible because of the certainty to receive an equally destructive retaliation. This situation of nuclear deterrence is being changed profoundly in these days because "invisible" aircraft and "undetectable" ipersonic missiles allow a nuclear first strike against adverse nuclear missiles sites without being intercepted by bmd systems. All the defending side can do is trying to hide its sites, but the sites themselves become not just extremely vulnerable, but basically undefendable. In a situation where both sides have not detectable armaments the first strike strategy might become actually a military imperative. (My two cents)
I have a unified theory of NATO Policy that I explained here:
https://thewaywardrabbler.substack.com/p/the-aspired-lake-nato
however, I also increasingly think that a large segment of the political class were simply driven mad by the wages of corruption in Ukraine:
https://thewaywardrabbler.substack.com/p/the-mother-of-all-conspiracy-theories
In geopolitical strategy generally one could follow the famous Metternich dictum "War is the continuation of politics", but put upside down, or maybe put on its feet, which then reads: "Politics is the continuation of war with other means". Because the limitations and the possibilities the military is able to offer are the framework in which politics can move. This situation is similar to the evolution of culture being basically entirely driven by technology. In our present case it will be very difficult to resist the temptation undetectable armaments are offering. In a certain way you are actually forced to launch a nuclear first strike because if not you are running the risk of being the target of a nuclear first strike of your enemy. This situation renders the present conflict so extremely dangerous.
Yeah war is but a particularly brutal foreign policy tool, unfortunately we are ruled by lunatics, who would rather destroy all humanity than lose, it is indeed scary.
To be honest, I think to many of those who think we will all die from climate change, they dont think nuclear war is such a big threat because theyre basically in an apocalypse cult anyway.
I don't think that climate change is a big problem - except sea-level rise which is a big issue for all coastal cities - because essentially I believe we (the US) have the weather under control. Please have a look on a DoD report of 1996 "Owning the weather in 2025" (http://alicon.net/owning_the_weather.pdf )
Seawall isnt hard to build. Humans have had the technology to live below sea level since antiquity.
What drives me crazy is to the extent this is a real problem they want to do insane things that wont work to stop it instead of taking viable and straightforward steps to survive it.
Excellent read--thank you!
My biggest argument is that Putin was always going to invade, but based off of the milquetoast reaction of Biden, he knew an invasion wouldn't "hurt" Russia.
What proof do I have for my assertion? 2 things: 1) Putin started amassing troops on the border 39 days after Biden was inaguarated, and 2) Russia already invaded 8 years prior, and seized 2 large territories of a sovereign country (also shot down a commercial airline while they were at it, but that was all acceptable to Obama 8 years ago). Putin's move 8 years later was to "finish the job" started under Obama.
Ok so the thing I was the least happy about with this article is I didnt find a good time to talk about the troop buildup, so you are correct that isnt explained well here.
It was obviously a threat. I explain it as him threatening them that he was willing to invade if it came to that which it did and he did. This is common. Negotiations have stopped countless wars when both sides amassed troops were staring at eachother. War is the ultimate failure of diplomacy, so the idea that these things are mutually exclusive is nonsense. If Putin was going to invade no matter what, why did he give them a year to prepare? It would have made a hell of a lot more sense to at least mostly surprise them.
That said, its possible by the time Biden started saying that the decision was already made, but it seems that though they surely had an extensive plan (i gurantee the USG has like 10 different written plans to conquer Mexico) I dont think the decision was made until the last minute, when doing nothing would have been a diplomatic defeat because of the Biden admins insanely bad diplomacy that was probably designed to provoke an invasion.
It needs to be noted, yet again, that Zelensky got elected with 70% on a promise to make the basic peace deal Putin wanted and the US sided with Nazis who said they would lynch him if he made the peace deal he was elected to make.
Your second paragraph is things that simply arent true, so I really have no response to that but to say that is propaganda. I didnt believe it 8 years ago and I dont believe it now. But what do you make of the US supporting a neonazi coup 8 years ago?
2 more things: there’s tons of proof that Russia invaded 8years ago, most of which was the use of highly technical Russian military equipment that was used then- like the missile system (that requires on-ground radar technology to guide it) that shot down MH17 over Ukraine. then Russia conducting an investigation that allowed only Russians to inspect crash site and Russia concluding Russia was not at fault.
Most of the fighting was done by Russian soldiers in russian combat attire with the Russian flags removed from them. This was all reported on 8 years ago.
As for the “US coup 8 years ago” in Ukraine-- that reportage is highly dubious. I watched that “Ukraine on fire” film and it’s largely horseshit. Oliver Stone isn’t a documentary filmmaker. He’s a narrative film maker that made a documentary-style film-- Much like all of Michael Moores films. They don’t seek truth in those films, they tell the story they want to tell using a narrative that’s already pre-defined. For example; Euromaidan happened in the winter time, with snow on the ground, yet Oliver stones film shows Nazis marching around green trees filled with leaves. It’s deceptive filmmaking. It would be like showing a protest of neonazis in Goatslap, MS and saying it happened in NYC during the Christmas parade. Did it happen? Yes. Is it’s impact overstated? Most likely.
As for a coup and the CIA influence over Euromaidan, You’re giving far too much credit to the CIA to think they could orchestrate 500,000 person protest in another country. It would be historic (especially for modern US government dysfunction) therefore the claim is highly dubious. Do I think the CIA had involvement? Sure, limited like most things they do. They couldn’t even get weapons funneled through Benghazi with a NATO ally but somehow they’re going to orchestrate a coup in a foreign government plagued by Russian corruption? That claim is too cute by half.
It’s true that western Ukraine celebrated Germany invasion in 1941. That’s because Stalin starved 7million Ukrainians to death 8 years prior and the Germans, while bad, treated them better than the Russians. You once said “who cares about the Holodomor” but that view is anachronistic. In the context of 1941, it was prescient.
Ive never seen Ukraine on Fire but its notable that Oliver Stone interviewed Putin and Putin said "I wont let you draw me into your anti-Americanism" or something of that nature.
But Victoria Nuland made it extremely fucking clear the US was managing the situation, "Yats is our guy"
And its one thing to accept a German invasion because you hate communism, but Stepan Bandera pro-actively did the holocaust for the Nazis.
The parliament of Ukraine has during this very war praised men who genocided Poles as well, because they are actual Nazis who wear goddamn wolfsangels.
This shit isnt hard to figure out, the people with the wolfsangels are obviously the Nazis.
"Yats is our guy" doesn't prove anything. I know you think it does, but it doesn't. That phonecall of Nuland was recorded in late Jan or Early Feb of 2014.
EuroMaidan started in November of 2013, so basically 2 months before the Obama administration picked a side.
This isn't an indication of "proof" the US created the conflict, it is more proof of the Obama Administration's M.O. of "leading from behind" and trying to claim some victory of a situation that has already evolved.
FWIW-- Yats was an easy guy to pick from a US perspective since he speaks English fluently. But it didn't work out for Yats anyway which is another hallmark of the Obama Administration "trying to pick winners, but all were losers" (to paraphrase Mitt Romney).
it's an understatement to claim that Ukraine accepted nazis because they hated communism. They hated the Bolsheviks who starved millions of them to death. it wouldn't have mattered if the Bolsheviks were royalty, oligarchy, or fascists. They, ethnically, were targeted for extinction by the people the nazis were fighting against. the Holocaust committed by Nazis lasted roughly 4 years from 1941-1945. For context, the Holodomor lasted 14 months and estimated to have killed between 7-10million people (so possibly more people than the holocaust in 25% the time)
Its literally made up that they were ethnically targetted. It was no different from the Great Leap Forward.
Anyway, if these ethnicities cant live together in the same country, _that_ is an argument to cede the ethnic Russian parts back to Russia.
Your willful ignorance on the topic of ethnic cleansing through starvation is baffling, frankly. or ethnic displacement of Ukrainians following WW2. Ukrainians that were POWs were shipped to Siberia after WW2, and not allowed to return to Ukraine.
Your error is thinking both countries are acting the same: Ukrainians don't target ethnic Russians in Ukraine. It's Russia targeting ethnic Ukrainians.
Russians are protected in Ukraine as citizens, but Russians invade Ukraine. it's not even close to being the same thing. If you think making Ukrainian the official national language of Ukraine is somehow targeting Russians, you are being dumb.
You're falling into a Chomsky trap where everything is about moral equivalence. Russia, the aggressor, is neither in a moral high-ground nor are they saviors they promote in their propaganda you believe.
Well, Putin is a much better 3D chess player than Biden and/or anyone that is advising Biden.
Amassing troops because you inevitably want to invade, waiting a year, then invading only serves to highlight what a disgrace Bidens foreign policy is.
Moreover, look at Biden’s comments about “Purim’s
Inflation” from Russia’s point of view: US inflation is twice of EU inflation... Putin gets to take credit for it.
Aside from Russia imprisoning all Ukraine war protesters to 10-15years in prison, Biden has stirred a fair amount of jingoism for Russian citizens: look no further than the “McDonalds” getting bette r business following the pullout of the west.
Lastly, the only people claiming that “Nazis” have a major influence in Ukrainian government are Russian sources, no other people claim that. I commented on a previous stack article that their major influence was regional in Donbas, and Zelensky was willing to work for them for border security or Russian soldiers claiming to be locals. Border protection makes for strange bedfellows, especially since Ukraine had been seeking money from the IMF, and the IMF doesn’t give money to countries in war. It was a strategic decision by Ukraine to allow “Nazis” to manage the regional conflict and keep Ukrainian military in a limited presence and never call it a conflict.
Simply put, Zelensky and his predecessor wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
We can certainly agree that a more competent administration in the US could have prevented this entire situation
Also in general I oppose all plans that involve deploying Nazis to meet your goals.
the metaphor I used before still stands: if someone is killing your family, you don't care if a nazi steps in to save their life. you wouldn't say "no no--let my beloved perish because I don't like you" You could air those grievances _after_ your loved one(s) are out of danger.... hence the "strange bedfellows" comment. to wit: "amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei"
And while it's true that a Jewish-Ukrainian funded the creation of the Azol battalion, and it's early leaders where white nationalists, recent survey says that it has less than 15% white nationalists as it's members. 15% is a lot, i admit, but nnowhere near the goose-stepping fascist numbers claimed by Russian sources, or most of the claims you make.
I dont know if you've seen the movie Katyn, but at the beginning Poles fleeinf the Soviets meet Poles fleeing the Nazis on a bridge, and have to decide which direction to go. I absolutely would have gone West, though both because it was relatively easier to escape Nazi Germany and because Im a white gentile.
I wholly understand them choosing to side with the Nazis during WW2, but I wouldnt put up statues about it later, and Bandera proactively did genocide.
Poland's foreign minister _just_ complained about Ukraines foreign ambassador praising men who massacred Poles, and not even having a problem with that aspect of their biography.
FR side with who you have to to survive a war, but who you celebrate as a hero 75 years later isnt a forced decision.
Also, these were both ideological problems and Ukraine had no shortage of its own communists. This should be much less of an ethnic issue than you and the Nazis make it out to be.
“But I will tell you one thing: despite all we’ve been told, this seems to be going incredibly well for Putin and Russia, militarily, economically, and diplomatically.” Perfectly stated, and brilliant title for the piece.
well you know you're doing well when people make anon accounts dedicated to trolling you.
lol they’re your own words, you’re actually trolling yourself. But keep telling yourself you’re doing well, I’m sure everyone believes you.
retard you're posting here under the name "Prad Bearce", it's obvious what your purpose is