MOVING BEYOND UKRAINE… WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

Sooner or later Ukraine will move to a state hovering between occasional flare ups and relative stability. It will leave the headlines in much the same way Syria, Libya and other areas of upheaval and chaos have left them.

Russia will be hard at work rebuilding the territories under its control, the rouble will long have been introduced, the referendums will be under way or ending their planning processes while mopping up operations of lingering Ukrainian subversive forces are dealt with. In what is left of Ukraine there will be much licking of wounds and a great deal of recriminations and internecine struggles for remaining nodes of power.

Further distant the erstwhile allies of Ukraine will do their utmost to wind down emphasis on that relationship while making public shows of meaningless rhetoric. Behind closed doors the political elites there and across the Atlantic will be doing all possible to close the books on Ukraine as they have in Afghanistan. Attempts will soon be underway to move on with a “Nothing to see here” attitude. To mention the defeat suffered and the excruciating humiliation that attended it will be seen as very bad taste across all elite superstructures within both political and media orbits.

Russia will not rub western noses in the mess they created, not at least with any particular degree of drama or heightened rhetoric, as usual the words used and tenor expressed will reflect the character of Vladimir Putin and Sergey Lavrov, statements that describe the facts as they see them and little more. The Russians will need to roll up their sleeves and get to work across the Donbass region and beyond which is soon to be an integral part of the Russian Federation. This work has already started of course with building projects having been begun to house all those who have lost their homes to the conflict. This is particularly seen in Mariupol at the moment.

In western Ukraine much depends on what shakes out from the final days of Russia’s campaign. Will there be a capitulation by the Ukrainian authorities, their collapse and a total surrender which requires the urgent requirement that new elections are held as soon as possible? I suspect this is very likely to be the case. It is hard for me to imagine that Zelensky and co. can continue once all is lost… and all IS going to be lost. Russia cannot afford to lose this and Russia will not.

All parties involved will, in one manner or another, move on… they will have to.

Not that the international conflict between Russia and the collective west will resolve itself, it will not. Already, with Biden’s upcoming trip to Africa the next stage of the geopolitical tussle between the West and Eurasia is continuing with new political objectives being set. This follows on from Sergey Lavrov’s very successful visit to Africa and we will without doubt see many more such trips on either side, mirroring similar scenarios that characterised the Cold War. These maneuvers will become the new norm. The nations of the global south will have much to profit from playing one side against the other to achieve the maximum benefit.

China has made most inroads into Africa until now. Her Belt and Road Initiative will continue to bring massive investment to every nation it passes through. The USA and UK have plans to create something similar though where they will find the money for it is a moot question at this point with all western economies headed for steep decline, semi-permanent inflation and breathtaking rises in prices of even the most basic of products. Spending across the West cannot help but diminish as belts are endlessly tightened. And can the already huge national debts of the USA, UK and others in their orbit stand even more massive tranches of debt on top?

All this while Russia’s allies and trading partners, those on its ‘friendly nations’ list enjoy the benefits of cheap oil and gas prices with new pipelines to deliver them to reduce the base price on a wide array of products that Eurasia finds so much more attractive than those from the West. China and Russia together are a powerhouse duo that to all intents and purposes have become near immune to the West, Russia has travelled furthest down this road and China, now realising the full extent of the threat from the West is now beginning to follow. For these two the sky is the limit (in fact with them both intent on space exploration even the sky is no limit).

There is a future beyond Ukraine and Eurasia, Russia, China and the global south are ready and anxious to leave the starting line, raring to go in fact… just as the West collapses from the heat.

MOVING BEYOND UKRAINE... WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

THE MAGICAL DISTORTING MIRRORWORLD OF UKRAINE’S FANTASY WAR

The Russians are bombing themselves as Amnesty International is labelled a terrorist organisation by Ukraine.

Donetsk City residents are suffering devastating foot injuries due to the placing of petal mines by its authorities so they can blame the Ukrainians.

Russia, having taken a nuclear power plant, is now firing artillery rounds from it to encourage Ukraine to fire back so as to start a second Chernobyl event.

These things are in all seriousness being said by the Ukrainian president and government.

The level of fabrication is on such an industrial level and occurring in every case possible that an entry into the Guinness Book of World Records appears unavoidable.

Surely world weary journalists and editors look askance at such claims and greet them with acerbic statements and grimaces of barely concealed scepticism?

But no. They are solemnly accepted as the truth and communicated as such. Virtually each claim to date has appeared mirrored across the western world’s most illustrious newsprint vendors and mainstream media outlets.

The great western public open up their newspapers, or more likely need only look at the headlines emblazoned on front pages to discover these “facts” whereby they arrive through their eyes to their subconscious, added to all else they know about those evil Russians.

On their screens ten or twelve times a day they will find these “facts” displayed, analysed and pontificated upon by numerous talking heads and garrulous moderators and anchors, with ever-rolling ticker tape endlessly repeating them in mesmeric repetition.

It is difficult to encompass the sheer farcical and surreal quality that has overtaken the elite quadrant of western lives with mere words. Black is white, bad is good and of course war is peace. These days outdo even Orwell and those who deign to say so, watch out. The truth is no longer welcome here. Get on the bus… or else.

The process of news manipulation has a long and inglorious history. Always linked with those who see winning a war of some kind or other as far more important than the mere communication of verified fact. Informing the public is so much less important than conditioning them when a war is at stake. I mean, come on. Why would those waging the war think any differently?

Operation Mockingbird was not the first attempt to control press and media narratives, without doubt every war saw the same impulse repeated again and again until the success sought for was achieved. On ancient maps fictitious monsters would be said to dwell where others didn’t want you to venture. The Saracens were said to be addicted to the blood of dead Christian babies within the walls of Jerusalem. This canard worked wonders for Richard the Lionheart as he traversed Europe toward the Holy Land seeking to recruit knights and their followers as he went. Making radio programmes about Hitler’s possible sexual peccadilloes and those of his immediate circle apparently was very effective in disturbing Nazi morale.The CIA’s Operation Mockingbird was simply a much more well organised venture into news manipulation.

Many journalists and editors were only too happy to patriotically assist in sticking it to the Reds. Others could be made pliable with a few inducements of one kind or another. Eventually you had a veritable army of compliant manufacturers of misinformation who suffered no sleepless nights over the fables they created. In fact it is pretty certain they slept like babies as it was all in the best possible cause, denying those evil Reds the chance to enslave the good people of Europe, Asia, Africa or anywhere across the planet.

Later saw the creation of the ‘Psychological Operations’ teams and those of ‘Black Operations’. Anything that could harm the enemy of the day whether true or untrue could be endlessly enhanced or made believable. Whether it required counterfeit documents, false witnesses or a propaganda film… or simply a statement that such and such occurred when it was convenient to have people think it did. All in a day’s work.

Create a story about a young female trooper caught by the Iraqis and her rescue by heroic marines who risked their lives to save this damsel in distress. It makes great news and fits the subconscious stereotypes and feelgood factors of breast-beating idealists. The Jessica Lynch story has become a quite infamous example of these dark arts.

Or the fabrication concerning cruel Iraqi soldiers ripping Kuwaiti babies from their incubators and dashing their little heads on the hard stone floor. As told by a disaffected Iraqi colonel’s daughter to a senate committee and rapidly distributed as God’s own truth by George Bush Senior. Again, all in a day’s work when you are at war, and when you are within a forever war, the practice also goes on forever.

And this is where we are today.

The stage had been set after a decade of Russophobia and a decade and a half of the Hitlerisation of Putin. Russia initiating its campaign against Ukraine simply confirmed the conditioning. So who is going to resist? How many will dare act like the little boy in the crowd who pointed out that the emperor was wearing no clothes. The clothes that all others said were so lavish, resplendent and fine? Those who want their characters assassinated perhaps? Few others. Only those who either have unassailable reputations, who have made their money and can’t be bought, or those whose integrity has delivered the same result. This relative few resolutely keep pointing out the reality they see before them rather than the political elite-demanded narratives that are designed solely to win some war.

So we see the picture being thrust before our eyes and hear the words assailing our ears in the West day in and day out.

The evil Russians are targeting school children, hospital patients and civilians in their homes. They are shelling themselves or those they have sworn to liberate and protect. They are actively trying to get the nuclear plant they have taken blown up so as to be blamed for a second Chernobyl. It’s all true because the Ukrainians told those clever, glamorous and ubiquitous media folk and they told us… so it MUST be true.

But what about Amnesty International saying that those schools, hospitals and homes had been taken over by Ukrainian troops and used as bases? Shush! That’s misinformation spread by terrorists! Do you WANT to be cancelled as a traitor and spreader of fake news?

This is where we are now in the West, within the distorting mirrorworld of Ukraine’s fantasy war.

THE MAGICAL DISTORTING MIRRORWORLD OF UKRAINE’S FANTASY WAR

MY OPINION & PREDICTIONS REGARDING THE FUTURE OF THE CONFLICT IN UKRAINE

Russia has already taken an area of land that by rule of thumb approximates the size of nations Hungary and Slovakia combined. It will take more, perhaps much more before the fighting ends. No matter what agreement is negotiated with what remains of the Ukrainian political hierarchy (or the political hierarchy of the USA if Ukraine no longer has one) Russia will not give up any of the land it has taken where Russian-speakers form the majority.

No matter what the Ukrainians or Americans want in exchange for making Ukraine permanently neutral, with no standing army other than some ceremonial facade of an army and measures to deal with the ultranationalist extremists in Ukraine, Russia will not retreat from the Russian-speaking populations they have liberated, to use their expression. There cannot conceivably be the trust required between Russia and Ukraine/US for that to happen.

The above is almost certainly going to be the demand of whoever is doing the negotiating on the western side. However, the Russian authorities remember the assurances given to Gorbachev in the late eighties, that NATO would not move an inch eastward if Russia erected no barriers to letting East Germany unite with West. Why would the Russians leave, letting the present Ukrainian authorities back into the lands they had taken when in five years or ten when these territories were fully back under their control, and risking that the Ukrainians simply say they have changed their minds and join NATO? They won’t risk that.

Therefore, Russia will keep the land they have won at the expense of much blood and treasure, at least all the land where the Russian-speaking population are in the majority. That is my first prediction.

Will the financial and military assistance to Ukraine continue after Russia at some point presumably says, thus far and no more, we have satisfied our aims regarding the taking of territory (and I predict this will be after Russia has taken all the land right up to the Dnieper River and has taken also taken Odessa and connected to the breakaway republic of Transnistria.) On the issue of financial assistance to what is left of Ukraine it seems clear to me that the USA, UK and EU will provide almost 100% of Ukraine’s financial needs for the foreseeable future. Already now they pay for all state salaries and without doubt much, much more.

Regarding the collective west continuing to provide military assistance to what’s left of Ukraine I see this as being subject to whatever agreement is finally come to with Russia. Russia of course will hold all the high cards in the negotiations which follow the present hostilities. Bear in mind that one of the limited number of goals Russia set for itself at the outset was the demilitarisation of Ukraine. Russia will have just won on the battlefield, it will hold and continue to hold most if not all the territory won and it will certainly be calling the shots. Will Ukraine have the temerity, tenacity and capability to fight on? I doubt it.

Ukraine will, without doubt, mount a guerrilla war against Russia, not officially but certainly unofficially. The ultranationalist extremists will find ways to enter the territories Russia has taken in the east and there will be plenty of members and new recruits among the Ukrainian-speaking minorities there to engage in acts of terrorism, subversive acts and myriad provocations. Whoever is in power in Ukraine at that time will naturally deny all knowledge. But an official policy to continue to fight an official war against Russia with western help? I don’t think so. If they do I am sure Russia would make enough targeted strikes in response to deter such an activity.

There is no way that Ukraine can recover militarily in any great degree after Russia completes its campaign. Already the Ukrainian authorities are having to recruit the elderly and untrained who cannot hope to take the place of the regular, experienced soldiers the Ukrainian military has already lost in great numbers. Ukraine is going to be extremely weak militarily when this is over. This is surely not subject to any doubt. And Russia will insist that all remaining military assets be either destroyed or take into Russian/Republic hands as this epic struggle reaches its conclusion.

So will peace be finally arrived at with the Russians achieving the goals they set themselves? I believe yes, more or less. Much depends upon the western powers finally realising that there is no longer any point to pouring weapons into Ukraine in what was always a vain hope, that Ukraine could defeat Russia. Either that or a guerrilla war reaches within the newly gained Russian territories through U.S. and Ukrainian authority covert sponsoring that peace continues to be still far out of sight. This is a distinct possibility. However, the replacement of the present authorities in Ukraine with another, much more pragmatic president and government who recognise that they must now improve relations with Russia and indeed perhaps, be of a mindset to actively encourage this.

With the inevitable Russian victory I would foresee massive political changes across the western world and a proportionate lessening of western and NATO influence. The failure to defeat Russia cannot help but have huge repercussions from top to bottom in western societies with the political and media elites totally humiliated and aghast at the point to which their policies have brought them, the economic position of their nations and the way Eurasia, including of course Russia and China continues to rise in both economic terms and influence.

Within the areas Russia has taken and which will in due course become part of the Russian Federation the life standards of the people, the economic, social and transport infrastructure and incomes will be seen to rise and rise while those who live within what is left of Ukraine see a precipitous fall.

These are my current opinions and predictions regarding the future of the conflict in Ukraine.

https://aearnur.substack.com/p/my-personal-opinions-and-predictions

WHO IS MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TRAGEDY CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE IN UKRAINE?

The conflict in Ukraine is a tragedy for both sides that would never have occurred if the intent of all parties had been to find peace and reconciliation at all costs.

The death, injury, mental trauma and destruction is enormous and will colour relations between Russia and Ukraine and between Russia and the collective west for generations to come.

An open-minded inspection of past events cannot help but reveal that there were great variations among the parties involved when it came to avoiding this situation.

None of those involved can be totally absolved of all responsibility. Having said this, certain facts point to which of the several protagonists made the most effort to avoid what is happening now.

In looking at the events which have brought us to the current lamentable situation I would argue that the primary factors to look at when attempting to attribute blame are ‘motivation’ and ‘inclination toward violence’.

The tragedy begins well before the winter of 2013-14 with the political turmoil and disputation surrounding the electoral process where powerful elites vied for power. Both Russia and the USA had powerful motivations that brought their involvement in Ukraine in the years after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia, as neighbour to Ukraine was inextricably linked to it economically and as a fellow majority Slavic nation.

The motivations of the USA which were seen at their height during the ‘Orange Revolution’ of winter 2004-15 can be framed in both a positive or negative light depending on who is sourced. That it was involved at least in attempting to influence the result of the presidential election at that time however, cannot be denied.

U.S. officials would claim that they are motivated by and solely interested in spreading the democratic process and individual freedom worldwide where they see deficits in them. Through organisations such as the ‘National Endowment for Democracy’ the USA involves itself in every election worldwide where it conceives there is a lack of either freedom or democracy.

The events most crucial to establishing which side in the current conflict bears most responsibility however leads us to the events of winter 2013-14 on Kyiv’s main square, The Maidan. It is here that we see the ‘inclination toward violence’ exhibited most clearly and the question of ‘motivation’ reveals itself as crucial to establishing guilt.

It is clear that the initial protests on Kyiv’s Maidan Square were peaceful. It is also clear that elements within Ukraine’s then security forces, the ‘Berkut’ at times acted with violence against some of those initial relatively peaceful protests.

As the initial peaceful protests continued the level of violence became ever more heightened as more radical and indeed extreme elements took over, by reports seen at the time, threatening the initial protesters with violence and gradually changing the whole tenor of the protest movement. Soon Molotov Cocktails were being thrown at the police and a variety of other life-threatening weapons began to be deployed.

The then president Yanukovych is understood to have rejected a request to arm the police who were armed only with a baton and shield. It was also requested by the same authorities that they be allowed to clear the square. If such requests were made he rejected them as neither eventuality transpired. It has been said that he instead favoured establishing a ‘dialogue’ with the protesters rather than acquiesce to any form of draconian move against them. This, it seems to me, indicates a motivation on the part of Yanukovych to avoid violence and to instead favour efforts to find common ground with the protesters.

Meanwhile, as deaths among the police force mounted (eventually reaching thirty eight fatalities) U.S. president Barack Obama called upon the Ukrainian authorities to safeguard the well being of those he referred to as ‘peaceful protesters’. This while government buildings were being taken over by the protesters and in once case at least burned down. In my opinion, in taking this stance he was directly condoning the violence on the Maidan by refusing to acknowledge it and instead lending his support to what was going on.

Obama’s stance was mirrored by several other U.S. officials, some of whom appeared on the Maidan offering the protesters their unambiguous support. While clubs of many kinds, bricks, toxic sprays, heavy chains and even a fork-lift truck were used to injure and kill the police figures such as Senator John McCain, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt and Victoria Nuland, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State arrived on the square to lend their unequivocal support.

Once again officials of the USA would without doubt state that the motivation for their involvement were once again freedom and democracy.

Events on the Maidan led to the overthrow of the president and government of that time and their replacement with those approved of by the USA. This then led to a more peaceful, largely non-violent insurrection in eastern Ukraine where government offices were taken over by protesters against what was framed as a coup on the Maidan. 

The response of the new authorities in Kyiv was to send the Ukrainian military to quell the insurrection there and to reassert the central authority of Kyiv. This almost immediately took a violent form and over the next eight years to the present day an estimated total of fourteen thousand individuals have died. Once again I see the advocacy of violence being clearly from one side rather than from both.

The violence in eastern Ukraine raged through the rest of 2014 into 2015 with a ‘self-defence’ force having been raised to confront and fight the forces sent by Kyiv and those of nationalist militias who had joined them. However, in mid to late 2015 it had become clear that the underfunded and badly equipped Ukrainian forces were being comprehensively beaten by the self-defence forces. It was at this point that the Kyiv authorities agreed to talks with Russia also involving France and Germany. These talks eventuated in what became known as the Minsk Accords or Agreements.

The authorities in Kyiv agreed at Minsk to establish direct talks with the leaders of the two new republics which had been formed after the insurrection in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk/Lugansk. In addition they agreed that the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine would receive a special status providing it with enough autonomy to preserve its own unique culture, loyalties and language.

For the seven years following the agreements at Minsk, subsequently ratified at the United Nations, Russia continued to press for Ukraine to implement its commitments. Meanwhile, during this time Ukrainian forces continued their military assault on the largely Russian-speaking civilian population of Donetsk and Luhansk/Lugansk regions. Despite daily reports of death among the civilian population and destruction of residential tower blocks, schools, hospitals, single-storey homes and urban centres the Russian authorities rejected calls by the republics to be accepted into the Russian Federation and put all hopes into the Minsk process.

In my view the patience of the Russian authorities demonstrates a desire to move forward toward a peaceful resolution of the situation where reconciliation between the two parties could maintain the integrity of the Ukrainian state and bring about renewed peaceful relations.

This patience by Russia lasted for seven years thereafter while no perceivable progress was made by the Kyiv authorities toward peace and reconciliation. On the contrary, with the years Ukraine was seen to be rearming and quite clearly intent on a military solution rather than a peaceful one. In recent times Petro Poroshenko, the previous Ukrainian president to Zelensky and the ex-chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel have both admitted that the Minsk Agreement was merely a stalling tactic at a time the Ukrainian army was weak.

Here again we see the ‘motivation’ factor coming into play with a vengeance. Though Kyiv claimed it was on the path to peace it was instead intent on war. This was exacerbated for Russia by two connected factors. Ukraine began to link in an ever-closer relationship with NATO, with joint training exercises and myriad related aspects which were aimed at strengthening the Ukrainian military.

Then, in late 2021 when Russia began to object most strongly to the ever-increasing encroachment of NATO on its borders with Ukraine clearly becoming a de facto NATO state, the U.S. authorities and in particular those of NATO demonstrated in their responses that Russia had little say in the matter.

Ukraine had been taken into the western political, economic and military orbit since the insurrection of 2014 and it was clear that sooner or later it would join both the EU and NATO, the former as a full member, the second in de facto form. Meanwhile Ukraine’s president Zelensky called for Ukraine to regain its nuclear status and began calling for a military campaign against Crimea.

Zelensky had been elected upon a ticket of ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine in 2019, but by 2021 had begun taking the diametrically opposite stance, one of increasingly draconian moves against the political opposition which favoured better relations with Russia. His rhetoric also increasingly hardened regarding Russia and the authorities within the new republics.

While this change in attitude by Zelensky in the spring of 2021 was becoming clear there were commensurate movements of Ukrainian troops to the contact line in the east. Then, toward the end of the year in what was to be the last Minsk meeting of the Normandy Quartet a marathon session of nine hours took place at the conclusion of which the Ukrainian representatives stated they no longer believed the Minsk Accords to be worthy of activation.

The rejection of Russian attempts to gain an agreement on Russia’s border security with the USA and NATO, followed by Ukraine’s rejection of the only available pathway to peace, the Minsk Accords was followed by OSCE reports through January and February of 2022 showing a massive increase in Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk/Lugansk. Then, only weeks before Russia initiated its operation in Ukraine Russian intelligence reportedly discovered a plan by Kyiv to mount an all-out attack upon the republics.

Looking over the history of this conflict stretching back to 2014 and beyond it is clear to me that the motivations of both the USA and the Kyiv authorities could hardly be personified as those directed toward peace. Instead, the combined effort appears to have been directed toward a variety of deceptions and machinations leading ultimately to the destruction of those in Russia they regarded as enemies.

Russia on the other hand appears to have been genuinely intent on a peaceful outcome that would preserve the sovereignty of Ukraine while guaranteeing the rights of the Russian-speaking majority in eastern Ukraine to live in peace with an adequate degree of autonomy in perpetuity.

It is my conclusion therefore that Russia was ultimately forced to take action against the Kyiv authorities and their military forces due to having no good choice remaining to them and having hoped with great patience for the better part of a decade that they and their U.S. allies would take the path to peace in good faith.

On this basis I find the USA and the Kyiv authorities to be most responsible for what is happening now and bear the guilt for all the loss of life, trauma, injury and destruction taking place now.

WHO IS MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TRAGEDY CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE IN UKRAINE?

THE GREAT DELUSION OF WESTERN ELITE IDEOLOGUES WITHIN THE EMERGING MULTIPOLAR WORLD

It seems we are headed for a series of disasters in which most of us will share the pain to varying degrees.

This is an inevitable result of the elite western belief systems at play across our planet and the consequences arising from the determination to enforce them.

These forces can be considered good. Does this seem contradictory when we are talking of multiple disasters?

It isn’t really. Because we are talking here of the beliefs behind those forces.

Some, at least, of those behind these forces, genuinely consider their intentions to be good.

More than that, they consider their implementation to be essential for the well being of all humanity and for all time to come. Those holding these beliefs appear also to believe that there are no activities more important than those they are promoting now for the benefit of all humankind.

However, Professor John J. Mearsheimer has personified this pursuit as delusional in his book ‘The Great Delusion’. He considers it an aberration left over from what he calls the ‘Unipolar Moment’, the period after the fall of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact when the United States became the single dominating power on the planet.

Professor Mearsheimer is arguably the leading light in the study of ‘Great Power Politics’. As he sees it, a powerful group of politicians and opinion leaders in the USA saw within this unipolar moment their chance to create a world without human rights abuses or war and where the principles of democracy would spread to every corner of the globe.

This was to be achieved by spreading what he calls ‘Liberal Hegemony’ across the planet with every nation, most importantly the largest economies, on board imbued with the tenets of ‘Liberal Democracy’.

To quote him from his YouTube video address on this point:

“What you want is a planet that has nothing but liberal democracies on it.”

In the unipolar moment when the USA became the sole world power its elites were then free to pursue an ideological foreign policy rather than the realism-based foreign policy they were forced to pursue when power was balanced between them and the elites of the Soviet Union. This was their moment they thought, the moment when they were freed to spread their influence, ideals and notions of global betterment across the entire planet without hindrance.

As long as you don’t find the many glaring flaws of western societies too off putting this will likely appear to be a rather attractive prospect. No large human rights abuses, no more wars and democracy practiced everywhere.

But as Prof. Mearsheimer says, the level of optimism that this could be achieved was chiefly evident in a unipolar world that relatively soon would end. The geopolitical glacis plates began to shift relatively soon after the fall of the Soviet Union toward a multi polar world.

Less than a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union Vladimir Putin was in Munich making a speech to the assembled great and good of the western world and beyond. Notable figures among the elites attending were Angela Merkel and John McCain, both in the front row.

Putin delivered an extremely unpalatable message to those present, that Russia would not be signing up to their project as described above where the USA and its liberal democracy allies were going to insist on their vision of worldwide liberal hegemony. Russia would cooperate fully where threats to common interests such as nuclear proliferation or international terrorism were concerned, but would not subordinate itself to any one nation or group of nations dictating terms.

https://youtu.be/RFlcWpBtQco

This was not at all music to the ears of those attending. Especially not after the events of 9/11 had put rocket boosters under their desire to achieve their goal of worldwide domination of western ideologies. Thus Vladimir Putin became public enemy number one and, as would be seen across all the years from that time (2007) to this, he would find himself a target for incessant arrows of criticism and assertions of grave wrongdoing.

Then we saw the rise and rise of China, assisted according to Prof. Mearsheimer by U.S. policies predicated upon the belief that once China became thoroughly capitalist it would drop all its communist beliefs and systems. This however did not happen and instead China became not only an economic peer competitor, but along with Russia a political and military peer competitor too.

The multipolar world was on its way, with an insistence that the foreign policy of the USA become once again based upon realism rather than ideology. And this is where the inevitable disasters come in… the dominant elites of the USA decided to continue acting as the unipolar power, and to force through their ideologies, despite, and in the face of, the near absolute opposition of Russia, China and others. That this was going to be explosive was clear.

Every possible nation right up to those on Russia’s border was to become part of the European Union and NATO. Russia it was presumed would be unperturbed by this, despite all protestations to the contrary. Despite what Putin had told them in 2007 their belief in the “goodness” of their ultimate goal meant that Russian concerns could be totally ignored.

Then came the insurrection in Ukraine on the main square of its capital with John McCain, Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt in attendance, wishing the “peaceful protesters”engaging in daily rioting well.

Today we are witnessing the ultimate reaction to the pushing of western values and intentions described above to Russia’s border and insistence that Russia should just ‘take it’. The result is the special military operation mounted by Russia on February 24th of this year and which will soon result in a Russian victory in the Donbass.

The above is only one of the disasters for the West that are as a result of its elites continuing to assert the ideals formed within the unipolar moment and boosted via 9/11. The sanctions policy against Russia is creating yet another series of disasters through rising energy prices which generate price rises and inflation across most nations and arguably those nations who are pushing the ideologies of the passing unipolar moment hardest.

Yet more disasters stemming from the Taiwan question and the continuation of pressure on China by the West promise disaster aplenty in coming years.

Professor Mearsheimer argues that nationalism is the one force that is an will remain more powerful than that of the supposed idealism seen in the push to create liberal hegemony. The more the West pushes the greater the resistance will become. In the absence of a unipolar moment that becomes permanent the West’s ambitions are futile and can only bring disaster after disaster.

This is why he titled his lecture below and his book, ‘The Great Delusion’.

https://youtu.be/nZVIaXFN2lU?t=317

THE WRECKING BALL POLICY OF THE WESTERN WORLD

The agreement arrived at was that no other pathway could produce the required result.

Fundamental principles adhered to, to a greater or lesser degree in the past, were required now to be abandoned.

Concepts such as the supremacy of competition, the desire for diplomacy to resolve geopolitical disputes, truthfulness where possible to build trust and co-operation as a means of furthering U.S. goals... were all to be replaced by a constant determination to use all means possible to undermine those designated as targets.

What caused this fundamental shift in approach? Why had confidence been lost to such an extent that future destruction rather than further construction had been chosen?

Two events. One extremely sudden, the other taking place over a much longer but inexorable time scale.

The first of course was 9/11 which eventuated in a dramatic change of policy which saw regime change take centre stage in the USA’s foreign policy agenda.

The second was the rise of China and the clear unwillingness (by 2007) of Russia to agree to the concept of the USA and its allies becoming a combined world hegemon.

We all know what occurred in regard to the first event.

Regarding the second we have seen the tactic deployed against Russia, pushing it ever further into a corner which it has now exploded out of.

However, this leaves the rise of China as the most insistent danger to the USA’s goal (along with its allies) to achieve full universal oversight and ability to act at will against threats regarding the entire planet.

China, with its stupendous rise in economic success and attendant influence posed a direct threat to the incontrovertible goal of the USA to move ever closer to its de facto goal of becoming the world’s jailor, judge and executioner where deemed necessary. Post 9/11 no potential threats were to be countenanced, nothing even remotely threatening to the goal of ‘full spectrum dominance’ was to be ignored any longer.

The ‘Wrecking Ball’ policy was at this point adopted as the only viable tool considering that Russia and China were so far down the path toward stymying this new and urgent goal the USA set for itself after the eleventh of September 2001.

Diplomacy would no longer be conducted as before if it was to be conducted at all. Deception would be incorporated within the semblance of what others would call diplomacy but which would now be only a fig-leaf to cover war by other means.
Every single statement or move made would incorporate the innate goal to undermine the individual, corporation, nation of any other entity deemed a target for destruction. Building trust would only be incorporated when dealing with allies of the USA and only then to a limited degree where confidence allowed. To all others a wide-ranging facade of deception and modes of trust betrayal would be applied to undermine, weaken and destroy them.

All was to be predicted upon destruction of the status quo which had eventuated in 9/11. That status quo could no longer be contemplated. This was at the core of the new ‘Wrecking Ball’ policy which we have seen wielded from September 11th 2001 to this day.

In recent days the visit of Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan exemplifies the way the wrecking ball policy works. Far from seeking to ameliorate tensions the wrecking ball policy aims to exacerbate them. In respect of Taiwan the goal is to provoke China into responses which can be used to make further provocations and propaganda even more effective. China is to be portrayed in even more strident terms as an aggressive and dangerous nation and a grave threat to others in the region.

China is to be goaded into reflecting the propaganda image that has already been built up into a sometimes very convincing facade with which to scare and influence others and drive them into the arms of the USA and NATO, or at the very least make them doubt the wisdom of doing business with China.

Just as Russia was goaded for eight long years since 2014 with the willing connivance of western mainstream media in regard to Ukraine, so China too will now be on the receiving end of this same policy. The goals are several but all subservient to the accomplishment of the final and unquestioned outcome, the world rendered safe and secure for the USA and its allies.

The preliminary goals to eventually achieve the above end consist of using every possible tactic and technique to undermine all aspects of success (economic, political, social etc. etc.) of target individuals, corporate entities and entire nations. Mistrust is to be fostered, doubt spread, allegations repeated, rhetoric toughened, betrayal and deception made order of the day and all coordinated across allies for maximum effect.

For the USA and its allies all this is imperative to maintain what they conceive of as their benign guardianship of the planet having set in motion a self-sustaining belief in their own exceptionalism and superiority. This is the most charitable rendering of the situation at least. This gives those in charge the benefit of the doubt regarding motivation. Being less charitable this can be seen as those who are long used to being in charge and able to manipulate most things to their advantage now cynically attempting to act in every possible way, criminal or otherwise, to undermine their “enemies” to obtain what amounts to a global dictatorship.

Whichever description most accurately fits the situation I leave to others to decide.

However, whichever is more true, both in essence comprise what can only be described as the ‘Wrecking Ball Policy’ as adopted by the western world.

THE WRECKING BALL POLICY OF THE WESTERN WORLD

NANCY AND THE NEOCONS

Nancy Pelosi's arrival in Taipei is the latest attempt by the ruling Neocon cabal in Washington to create the turmoil they seek with which to upset the status quo. Just as their approach to Russia eventuated in war it is very likely that Pelosi's visit will eventually do so also.

As the Neocons see things they are in a race against time to destroy America's "enemies" before they become too powerful. So they have adopted a 'wrecking ball' policy globally to take advantage of the chaos. Every disruption to normality for them is a plus, stability a negative.

The ultimate goal of the USA, the UK and their allies is to achieve a global liberal dictatorship enforced by a robust system of global surveillance, law-enforcement and punishment. This 'full spectrum dominance' approach is to usher in a de facto prison planet supervised by the USA and its allies.

Post 9/11 it was considered that international peace and stability would undermine the desire of the USA to undermine and destroy those it considered its enemies. A policy of constant provocation and war on many levels was determined to be the best way forward.

It was decided in the USA after 9/11 to abandon diplomacy as a tool that could only delay the sought for goal of eliminating all opposition to U.S. hegemony. Any diplomacy engaged in was to be mere trickery to ensnare and then betray each and every target deemed to be an enemy.

Neocon tactics can be likened to treating those they wish to eliminate as flies in a web. The desire is to make the enemy struggle and become ever more entangled.

These are the tactics of every bully every known. Keep provoking, get a response that allows you to provoke even more.

The Neocon viewpoint is that you do everything you can to provoke those you consider enemies to react in a way that enhances your chance to create propaganda against them and start a process that the Neocons hope will lead to their disintegration.

As the Neocons see things they are in a race against time to destroy America's "enemies" before they become too powerful. So they have adopted a 'wrecking ball' policy globally to take advantage of the chaos. Every disruption to normality for them is a plus, stability a negative.

China will consider its reaction to Pelosi's visit carefully so as not to fall into the trap laid for it by America's dominant Neocon majority. China ought to look to Russia's long-term response over the years where the 'revenge is a dish best served cold' policy was very effective.

The Neocons will not be stopped no matter what tactic is used against them, however, their effect on our world will shrink to the degree that Russia can turn the tables on them with its special military operation in Ukraine and that China can also simply by continuing to rise in economic success and subsequent influence.

Both Russia and China are gaining respect and ever increasing support across the global south as bringers of a far more responsible approach that the USA, one that emphasises agreement, trust and stability rather than the endless wars the USA and its allies promise.