Thank you for sharing your interesting and informative writings.
I find this all very deeply depressing. How has it come to pass that we in the West are nowadays ‘led’ by such incompetent, cowardly, stupid, ignorant, mendacious, depraved, and corrupt politicians?
They do truly seem to me to epitomise the very worst elements in our sadly fractured societies.
I suppose we get the leaders that we deserve, but I don’t know what I or my friends have done to deserve this lot.
All important history but this is missing some very key and world changing historical details. One aspect, which I will explain shortly is how much the EU and US relationship has changed since 2003. Whilst Ian's article deals with the expansion of NATO then he fails to point out that this expansion has taken place in lock step with the expansion of the EU. Its almost as if that when eastern european countries joined NATO then they were also given automatic entry to the EU in a kind of buy one get one free offer. In 2025 it is very hard to distinguish between NATO and the EU. They are both headquartered in Brussels and one can see in terms of characters like Stoltenberg and Rutte that there is a revolving door between EU political leaders and NATO leadership. The net result of this has been that in a very strange way the EU have seemed to have morphed into the unquestioning vassals of the US and no-one really seems to know why and how this occurred?
Worse still, this has all been very detrimental to the EU. In 2000 it was a union of strong economies but in its and NATO's expansion, it was forced to absorb and subsidize a great many failed ex-Eastern block countries. This becomes most apparent in the fact that despite its huge expansion in terms of member countries and population - that the EU's share of global GDP has tanked in the subsequent years. The only 'benefit' of admitting the Eastern countries was that they all fled their countries for jobs in the old EU which did nothing but drive down working class wages in the original EU members. This also had a negative impact on the Eastern countries. This is a good article from 2017 outlining such issues.
All this recent history aside we have to go back and evaluate what the EU's options actually were before all this happened and assess how different the world and the EU could have been if they had followed the right path.
In order to do this we need to go back to 2003 and the proposed invasion of Iraq and the EU's response to it in terms of their being a coalition of the unwilling to engage in Blair and Bush's Neocon adventures. The following in from the Irish Times but much of the coverage seems to have been memory holed ever since.
Basically, in 2003 France, Germany and Russia made a joint declaration condemning the proposed invasion of Iraq. This is important in that the 3 countries effectively became a power block of 290 million people coming together which directly contravened and challenged unipolar aspirations of the Wolfowitz doctrine from February 1992 and the Project for a New American Century of 1997.
In order to understand how this went down in London and Washington at the time then you need to read Tony Blair's declassified letter to George W. Bush from March 2003 'The Fundamental Goal'.
This is a very illuminating document from Blair in that it highlights in his statement about the 'so called right' that he was essentially a Neoliberalist and Neoconservative who saw no difference between his own political and economic views and those of the Bush administration of the time which was chock full of hard core Neoconservativees: 25 of whom were signatories to the PNAC of 1997.
What is also significant in Blairs letter in not only how the US and UK were bullying, bribing and generally threatening the UN members to get behind the second resolution for the invasion of Iraq but how he also identified the urgent need to dismantle the coalition of the unwilling that France, Germany and Russia constituted at the time. This effectively sealed Russia's fate and it became the enemy of the US once again and the almost immediate target of colour change revolutions and other regime change operations with the US falsely leaking information to France and Germany that Putin and Russia were seeking to re-establish the Soviet Union and invade Europe.
The EU completely fell for all of this. Back in 2003 the smartest move the EU could have ever made was to leave NATO and bring Russia into the EU as a fully fledged member. Russia is the largest country in the world with the largest amount of natural resources of every kind whilst Europe possesses virtually nothing in terms of resources other than notional timber and coal which is of very little value in the Net Zero world. If this had happened it would have made Europe by far the strongest and wealthiest continent in the world and the Euro would likely have replaced the $dollar as the world's reserve currency. Anyone who knows the Machiavellian nature of US geopolitics since 1945 and the real history of the CIA and its regime change operations around the world since 1947 will see how this new Europe with Russia at its heart was never going to be allowed to happen. The rest I'm afraid folks is the unfolding of US Machiavellian foreign policy which has directly led to the demise and deindustrialization of Europe.
I don't disagree with much of what you say. Unlike you, I don't see a grand conspiracy behind events, as they unfolded. Rather a legacy of poor strategy and lowest common denominator decision making in Europe, coupled with the UK playing its role as America's point guard in Europe. That the UK is still able to play this role since its departure form the EU is depressing.
"Unlike you, I don't see a grand conspiracy behind events, as they unfolded." Sadly that view is a reflection of your own ignorance of Neoconservatism and the difference between Exoteric and Esoteric speech, teaching and culture. As a crash course I can suggest that you look at this in terms of reconciling the differences between what is said and what is done. A good starting point would be to study the actual history of the OSS and CIA and contrast that with Eisenhower's 1953 (BRICS speech) 'The Chance for Peace'.
From the Eisenhower speech of 1953.
First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be an enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.
Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow nations.
Third: Any nation's right to a form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.
Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.
And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.
Bear in mind that when Eisenhower was writing this exoteric bullshit that with his full permission at the request of Winston Churchill the CIA was embroiled in the regime change overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran.
Then look at this excellent history of the CIA published just a year ago on YouTube by the channel 'Eyes Wide Open' and contrast it with what the US and UK say in exoteric terms and what they do behind the scenes in esoteric terms. I can't believe you could be this dumb and can only conclude that as an ex-diplomat you remain a servant of the deep esoteric state.
Of course there's a grand Neocon, CIA conspiracy you just have to open your eyes. But then I doubt you have ever heard of Leo Strauss and James Burnham.
That might make sense if you hadn't said that "I don't see a grand conspiracy behind events" in your second sentence repeating the propaganda cheap response that anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy theorist. I thought you might be a reasonable human being Ian, but frankly all this stuff you're coming out with just makes me think you are just deep state token opposition like Farage and Trump etc. The worst part is that you and the Duran and all of your echo chamber sycophants who never disagree with one and other have any real idea as to what the problems we really need to deal with actually are. Frankly I've had enough of all of you as you really have nothing to say or offer as a way forward.
Yes. well, Simon, your unpleasant ad hominems add little enlightenment. You can disagree, but the way you do so reflects rather more badly on yourself than on the writer of the article or his opinions. Best take your own advice and have nothing further to do with any of this and find somewhere, if you can, where your badmouthing is more acceptable.
Thank you for this post. I had no idea about Kennan's wise thought in the end of 1990s. Pity he was not listened to. And it's a bit ironic that the real opponent (China) was missed by the US until it became really powerful, and that Russia managed to become a serious country again...
The Americans didn't see China as an opponent back then, they saw them as an opportunity to make obscene amounts of money - which the capitalist class, think of the Walton family that own Walmart, Apple shareholders to name but two - absolutely did. The only problem is that these profits were kept by the top 1% of US society and the much famed American "middle class" - not to mention actual poor people in America - saw their jobs shipped over to China. The Americans thought the Chinese would be content making washing machines and fridges but, of course, the Chinese wanted to move up the technology chain and ultimately became the world's leading technology manufacturer and thus "an opponent" of America. It really is a quite ridiculous situation, nobody forced America to switch its manufacturing to China, it was done by Americans so they could make even more money for themselves, no matter what the cost to their fellow citizens.
NATO's is merely the tool of the US post WW2 doctrine that seeks the strategic defeat of Russia. General de Gaulle had himself expressed his views many times of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Ural. He knew NATO would be a bad omen. When France withdrew from NATO in 1969 it was claimed it was because France wanted to go it alone. Somewhat true but missing out on the big picture of NATO as the strategic tool to defeat of Russia. In fact many of the GI generation who had fought WW2 were of his opinion. It was their children who started rewriting history as we know it today.
There needed to be more overt and well-defined control of being a member. (Lavrov was right to say it should have been dismantled. It was merely the insurance of the Military Industrial Complex to keep conflict going ultimately for profiteering for themselves and shareholders.) For example, NATO would not have allowed Nazi Germany as a member. Yet they would consider the highly-publicized "Nazified Ukraine" to join. (Ukraine "Nazification" is merely a smokescreen for who is really running the show, which is Jewiish Zelenski and blood-cousin Soros and Rothschild, whose photos together are well documented.) And merely based on the following rare information - treated as non-existent by Fake News MSM - the secular NATO should not even consider corrupt Ukraine for its many, many crimes inflicted on both Ukrainian and Russian (in Ukraine) in typical Communist oppression: I suggest everyone Get Thiss Before Banned! Download NOW! The TRUTH about Everything the Military Industrial Complex Doesn't Want You To Know regarding corrupt and anti-Christian Ukraine!!! Know NOW the TRUTH about Zelenski's Ukraine!!!! See the Destruction Millions Unwittingly Pay For!!! https://www.lulu.com/shop/stephen-volk/zelenskyys-actions-against-ukrainian-churches-and-clergy/ebook/product-956r8pw.html?q=Zelenskyy%27s+Actions+Against+Ukrainian+Churches+and+Clergy&page
The Cold War was the best scam the military industrial congressional complex ever pulled. It allowed them to massively inflate the military budgets and police powers of all the allied states, at the price of their own people’s freedom and prosperity, in the face of an enemy we also had to feed and supply with weapons just to make it look like a credible threat.
The spooks and the military and their media mouthpieces were all shocked by the rapid collapse of the Soviet Union BECAUSE they had been propping it up for decades.
They were terrified of the peace dividend and the prospect of their power and money flows being crashed down to normal peacetime levels. They started a retarded conflict with former ally Saddam Hussein to try and desperately cling to the illusion of relevance, while the CIA spent the 90’s building up their other allies in Afghanistan to try to pretend these crazed fanatics represented an existential threat to the whole world. In the meantime the military took to destroying random countries like Yugoslavia while chanting “R2P! R2P!” (responsibility to protect) to justify some kind of money flows going to their weapons maker constituents.
9/11 was the big reveal of the new existential threat, the proof positive that endless war was our eternal fate and nothing and nobody was going to be allowed to stop it.
We’re all sick to death of the retarded malignity of the Patriot Act and its retarded cousins in Europe and Oceania, but we’re also mostly resigned to the fact that our governments aren’t going to give them up lightly.
Now Russia and China have made themselves credible military forces out of necessity but the problem is neither of them wants to murder their biggest customers, the western geese that lay the golden eggs.
So they have to be provoked, which is what NATO expansion and Taiwan meddling and Syria destruction and threatening Iran are all about.
More power and money for people who already have too much of both for any of us to ever be safe, or prosperous, or peaceful, ever again.
Until you understand this you will understand nothing.
These are not mistakes we’re discussing, they’re crimes.
I agree with some aspects of what you say, including on the excessive power of the western MIC, including and especially now. But in general, when someone says 'unless you understand this, you understand nothing,' my eyes glaze over, I'm afraid. If only the world were so simple.
While I agree that the MIC benefited from the cold war, I think it's too simplistic to say that it somehow manufactured the cold war for its own profitable ends. Whichever side you take, the ideological battle was real. And yes, that led the US into foolish misadventures in Vietnam, in particular. But the Soviets were wilful adversaries too, including in Afghanistan. What was missing through this period was statesmanship and a desire on either side to find a MV that would allow for peaceful coexistence. In a sense, a similar dilemma to that we face today, for different reasons. But for that, I blame our politicians. Arms manufacturers are merely willing and energetic cheerleaders who enrich themselves along the way.
I've tried liking your comment but it doesn't show up. I agree 100% with everything you say. You might want to read my lengthy comment also its a good companion piece to your own thinking. Cheers.
The most depressing thing about Clinton's aggressive NATO expansion was that it was done, at least in part, to win the votes of ethnic Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs in the US swing states, Clinton actually admitted this in his own autobiography.
NATO is just a byword for subservience to a banking cabal who profit from war and fear. The same cabal have been freaked out by Russia since 1814 when the Russians walked gingerly into Paris.
NATO needs to grow as all parasites do, each new member gets bled dry quicker and quicker as the banking cabal's inheritors multiply.
Agree 100%. I’d like to add one point: during discussions of German re-unification in 1990, Gorbachev was willing to agree as long as NATO wouldn’t expand beyond Germany. James Baker promised him “Not one inch eastward.” Later it was denied as something that was discussed but not agreed to and Clinton authorized the expansion. In Russia this was seen as betrayal of trust that poisoned the relationship. The matter was made worse a decade later when Russian officials told Biden (who was at the time a senator and an “expert” on foreign policy) that if NATO keeps pushing to Russian borders they will have no choice but pursue alliance with China. There still might be a video on YouTube of Biden telling this to an audience as some kind of a joke: “And I told them gentlemen go ahead and good luck to you.” Bad things happen when idiots run foreign policy 😢
Thank you for this essay which supports one of the central issues to the continued & manufactured antagonism with Russia. The so called peace plan brokered by Trumps administration is failing. The Russians are advancing their SMO stated objectives being realised so why stop now? Bonus feature...fall of 'The New World Order'.
It does seem to be failing, I sense, because of a determination in Europe to keep Ukraine fighting to the last man. Unlike you, I believe Russia would accept a peace settlement if its underlying concerns were finally and fully addressed. However, we seem no closer to that right now and, as you point out, the western world seems to be in an advanced state of democratic decay.
Thank you for sharing your interesting and informative writings.
I find this all very deeply depressing. How has it come to pass that we in the West are nowadays ‘led’ by such incompetent, cowardly, stupid, ignorant, mendacious, depraved, and corrupt politicians?
They do truly seem to me to epitomise the very worst elements in our sadly fractured societies.
I suppose we get the leaders that we deserve, but I don’t know what I or my friends have done to deserve this lot.
I wish I knew the answer, too, Ludwig. Depressing, indeed.
All important history but this is missing some very key and world changing historical details. One aspect, which I will explain shortly is how much the EU and US relationship has changed since 2003. Whilst Ian's article deals with the expansion of NATO then he fails to point out that this expansion has taken place in lock step with the expansion of the EU. Its almost as if that when eastern european countries joined NATO then they were also given automatic entry to the EU in a kind of buy one get one free offer. In 2025 it is very hard to distinguish between NATO and the EU. They are both headquartered in Brussels and one can see in terms of characters like Stoltenberg and Rutte that there is a revolving door between EU political leaders and NATO leadership. The net result of this has been that in a very strange way the EU have seemed to have morphed into the unquestioning vassals of the US and no-one really seems to know why and how this occurred?
Worse still, this has all been very detrimental to the EU. In 2000 it was a union of strong economies but in its and NATO's expansion, it was forced to absorb and subsidize a great many failed ex-Eastern block countries. This becomes most apparent in the fact that despite its huge expansion in terms of member countries and population - that the EU's share of global GDP has tanked in the subsequent years. The only 'benefit' of admitting the Eastern countries was that they all fled their countries for jobs in the old EU which did nothing but drive down working class wages in the original EU members. This also had a negative impact on the Eastern countries. This is a good article from 2017 outlining such issues.
http://web.archive.org/web/20180925022932/https://journal-neo.org/2017/06/25/second-tier-eu-states-are-barely-holding-on/
All this recent history aside we have to go back and evaluate what the EU's options actually were before all this happened and assess how different the world and the EU could have been if they had followed the right path.
In order to do this we need to go back to 2003 and the proposed invasion of Iraq and the EU's response to it in terms of their being a coalition of the unwilling to engage in Blair and Bush's Neocon adventures. The following in from the Irish Times but much of the coverage seems to have been memory holed ever since.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/russia-france-and-germany-issue-joint-declaration-on-iraq-1.348467
Basically, in 2003 France, Germany and Russia made a joint declaration condemning the proposed invasion of Iraq. This is important in that the 3 countries effectively became a power block of 290 million people coming together which directly contravened and challenged unipolar aspirations of the Wolfowitz doctrine from February 1992 and the Project for a New American Century of 1997.
In order to understand how this went down in London and Washington at the time then you need to read Tony Blair's declassified letter to George W. Bush from March 2003 'The Fundamental Goal'.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160804020601/http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/244166/2003-03-26-note-blair-to-bush-26-march-2003-note-the-fundamental-goal.pdf
This is a very illuminating document from Blair in that it highlights in his statement about the 'so called right' that he was essentially a Neoliberalist and Neoconservative who saw no difference between his own political and economic views and those of the Bush administration of the time which was chock full of hard core Neoconservativees: 25 of whom were signatories to the PNAC of 1997.
https://powerbase.info/index.php/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
What is also significant in Blairs letter in not only how the US and UK were bullying, bribing and generally threatening the UN members to get behind the second resolution for the invasion of Iraq but how he also identified the urgent need to dismantle the coalition of the unwilling that France, Germany and Russia constituted at the time. This effectively sealed Russia's fate and it became the enemy of the US once again and the almost immediate target of colour change revolutions and other regime change operations with the US falsely leaking information to France and Germany that Putin and Russia were seeking to re-establish the Soviet Union and invade Europe.
The EU completely fell for all of this. Back in 2003 the smartest move the EU could have ever made was to leave NATO and bring Russia into the EU as a fully fledged member. Russia is the largest country in the world with the largest amount of natural resources of every kind whilst Europe possesses virtually nothing in terms of resources other than notional timber and coal which is of very little value in the Net Zero world. If this had happened it would have made Europe by far the strongest and wealthiest continent in the world and the Euro would likely have replaced the $dollar as the world's reserve currency. Anyone who knows the Machiavellian nature of US geopolitics since 1945 and the real history of the CIA and its regime change operations around the world since 1947 will see how this new Europe with Russia at its heart was never going to be allowed to happen. The rest I'm afraid folks is the unfolding of US Machiavellian foreign policy which has directly led to the demise and deindustrialization of Europe.
I don't disagree with much of what you say. Unlike you, I don't see a grand conspiracy behind events, as they unfolded. Rather a legacy of poor strategy and lowest common denominator decision making in Europe, coupled with the UK playing its role as America's point guard in Europe. That the UK is still able to play this role since its departure form the EU is depressing.
"Unlike you, I don't see a grand conspiracy behind events, as they unfolded." Sadly that view is a reflection of your own ignorance of Neoconservatism and the difference between Exoteric and Esoteric speech, teaching and culture. As a crash course I can suggest that you look at this in terms of reconciling the differences between what is said and what is done. A good starting point would be to study the actual history of the OSS and CIA and contrast that with Eisenhower's 1953 (BRICS speech) 'The Chance for Peace'.
From the Eisenhower speech of 1953.
First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be an enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.
Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow nations.
Third: Any nation's right to a form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.
Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.
And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-chance-for-peace-delivered-before-the-american-society-newspaper-editors
Bear in mind that when Eisenhower was writing this exoteric bullshit that with his full permission at the request of Winston Churchill the CIA was embroiled in the regime change overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran.
Then look at this excellent history of the CIA published just a year ago on YouTube by the channel 'Eyes Wide Open' and contrast it with what the US and UK say in exoteric terms and what they do behind the scenes in esoteric terms. I can't believe you could be this dumb and can only conclude that as an ex-diplomat you remain a servant of the deep esoteric state.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhbY_Tr5AY4&list=PLzmYhqF9BgKPJSNcbIAHj7HSPIsuT_PTW
Of course there's a grand Neocon, CIA conspiracy you just have to open your eyes. But then I doubt you have ever heard of Leo Strauss and James Burnham.
That might make sense if you hadn't said that "I don't see a grand conspiracy behind events" in your second sentence repeating the propaganda cheap response that anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy theorist. I thought you might be a reasonable human being Ian, but frankly all this stuff you're coming out with just makes me think you are just deep state token opposition like Farage and Trump etc. The worst part is that you and the Duran and all of your echo chamber sycophants who never disagree with one and other have any real idea as to what the problems we really need to deal with actually are. Frankly I've had enough of all of you as you really have nothing to say or offer as a way forward.
Yes. well, Simon, your unpleasant ad hominems add little enlightenment. You can disagree, but the way you do so reflects rather more badly on yourself than on the writer of the article or his opinions. Best take your own advice and have nothing further to do with any of this and find somewhere, if you can, where your badmouthing is more acceptable.
Thank you for this post. I had no idea about Kennan's wise thought in the end of 1990s. Pity he was not listened to. And it's a bit ironic that the real opponent (China) was missed by the US until it became really powerful, and that Russia managed to become a serious country again...
Thank you, Yulia. And it is ironic, indeed!
The Americans didn't see China as an opponent back then, they saw them as an opportunity to make obscene amounts of money - which the capitalist class, think of the Walton family that own Walmart, Apple shareholders to name but two - absolutely did. The only problem is that these profits were kept by the top 1% of US society and the much famed American "middle class" - not to mention actual poor people in America - saw their jobs shipped over to China. The Americans thought the Chinese would be content making washing machines and fridges but, of course, the Chinese wanted to move up the technology chain and ultimately became the world's leading technology manufacturer and thus "an opponent" of America. It really is a quite ridiculous situation, nobody forced America to switch its manufacturing to China, it was done by Americans so they could make even more money for themselves, no matter what the cost to their fellow citizens.
I couldn't agree more.
Excellent piece. Thanks.
Thank you.
I’m a retired Russian studies professor and I’ve always thought Kennan was prescient.
Seems like you were right.
NATO's is merely the tool of the US post WW2 doctrine that seeks the strategic defeat of Russia. General de Gaulle had himself expressed his views many times of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Ural. He knew NATO would be a bad omen. When France withdrew from NATO in 1969 it was claimed it was because France wanted to go it alone. Somewhat true but missing out on the big picture of NATO as the strategic tool to defeat of Russia. In fact many of the GI generation who had fought WW2 were of his opinion. It was their children who started rewriting history as we know it today.
Indeed.
A very timely reminder of the importance of George Kennan. Well done Ian.
Thanks Roger
There needed to be more overt and well-defined control of being a member. (Lavrov was right to say it should have been dismantled. It was merely the insurance of the Military Industrial Complex to keep conflict going ultimately for profiteering for themselves and shareholders.) For example, NATO would not have allowed Nazi Germany as a member. Yet they would consider the highly-publicized "Nazified Ukraine" to join. (Ukraine "Nazification" is merely a smokescreen for who is really running the show, which is Jewiish Zelenski and blood-cousin Soros and Rothschild, whose photos together are well documented.) And merely based on the following rare information - treated as non-existent by Fake News MSM - the secular NATO should not even consider corrupt Ukraine for its many, many crimes inflicted on both Ukrainian and Russian (in Ukraine) in typical Communist oppression: I suggest everyone Get Thiss Before Banned! Download NOW! The TRUTH about Everything the Military Industrial Complex Doesn't Want You To Know regarding corrupt and anti-Christian Ukraine!!! Know NOW the TRUTH about Zelenski's Ukraine!!!! See the Destruction Millions Unwittingly Pay For!!! https://www.lulu.com/shop/stephen-volk/zelenskyys-actions-against-ukrainian-churches-and-clergy/ebook/product-956r8pw.html?q=Zelenskyy%27s+Actions+Against+Ukrainian+Churches+and+Clergy&page
The Cold War was the best scam the military industrial congressional complex ever pulled. It allowed them to massively inflate the military budgets and police powers of all the allied states, at the price of their own people’s freedom and prosperity, in the face of an enemy we also had to feed and supply with weapons just to make it look like a credible threat.
The spooks and the military and their media mouthpieces were all shocked by the rapid collapse of the Soviet Union BECAUSE they had been propping it up for decades.
They were terrified of the peace dividend and the prospect of their power and money flows being crashed down to normal peacetime levels. They started a retarded conflict with former ally Saddam Hussein to try and desperately cling to the illusion of relevance, while the CIA spent the 90’s building up their other allies in Afghanistan to try to pretend these crazed fanatics represented an existential threat to the whole world. In the meantime the military took to destroying random countries like Yugoslavia while chanting “R2P! R2P!” (responsibility to protect) to justify some kind of money flows going to their weapons maker constituents.
9/11 was the big reveal of the new existential threat, the proof positive that endless war was our eternal fate and nothing and nobody was going to be allowed to stop it.
We’re all sick to death of the retarded malignity of the Patriot Act and its retarded cousins in Europe and Oceania, but we’re also mostly resigned to the fact that our governments aren’t going to give them up lightly.
Now Russia and China have made themselves credible military forces out of necessity but the problem is neither of them wants to murder their biggest customers, the western geese that lay the golden eggs.
So they have to be provoked, which is what NATO expansion and Taiwan meddling and Syria destruction and threatening Iran are all about.
More power and money for people who already have too much of both for any of us to ever be safe, or prosperous, or peaceful, ever again.
Until you understand this you will understand nothing.
These are not mistakes we’re discussing, they’re crimes.
Until you understand this you will understand nothing.
I agree with some aspects of what you say, including on the excessive power of the western MIC, including and especially now. But in general, when someone says 'unless you understand this, you understand nothing,' my eyes glaze over, I'm afraid. If only the world were so simple.
We all have our crosses to bear.
Indeed we do. But like I said, I'm in agreement with you on much of this.
Turn it around for me, if you will; which parts don’t you agree with?
While I agree that the MIC benefited from the cold war, I think it's too simplistic to say that it somehow manufactured the cold war for its own profitable ends. Whichever side you take, the ideological battle was real. And yes, that led the US into foolish misadventures in Vietnam, in particular. But the Soviets were wilful adversaries too, including in Afghanistan. What was missing through this period was statesmanship and a desire on either side to find a MV that would allow for peaceful coexistence. In a sense, a similar dilemma to that we face today, for different reasons. But for that, I blame our politicians. Arms manufacturers are merely willing and energetic cheerleaders who enrich themselves along the way.
I've tried liking your comment but it doesn't show up. I agree 100% with everything you say. You might want to read my lengthy comment also its a good companion piece to your own thinking. Cheers.
The most depressing thing about Clinton's aggressive NATO expansion was that it was done, at least in part, to win the votes of ethnic Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs in the US swing states, Clinton actually admitted this in his own autobiography.
NATO is just a byword for subservience to a banking cabal who profit from war and fear. The same cabal have been freaked out by Russia since 1814 when the Russians walked gingerly into Paris.
NATO needs to grow as all parasites do, each new member gets bled dry quicker and quicker as the banking cabal's inheritors multiply.
There's a terrible poignancy about a man who had proved so sagacious in 1947 not being listened to 50 years later in 1997 when yet again he was right.
Something about the futility of trying to steer the human race.
Agree 100%. I’d like to add one point: during discussions of German re-unification in 1990, Gorbachev was willing to agree as long as NATO wouldn’t expand beyond Germany. James Baker promised him “Not one inch eastward.” Later it was denied as something that was discussed but not agreed to and Clinton authorized the expansion. In Russia this was seen as betrayal of trust that poisoned the relationship. The matter was made worse a decade later when Russian officials told Biden (who was at the time a senator and an “expert” on foreign policy) that if NATO keeps pushing to Russian borders they will have no choice but pursue alliance with China. There still might be a video on YouTube of Biden telling this to an audience as some kind of a joke: “And I told them gentlemen go ahead and good luck to you.” Bad things happen when idiots run foreign policy 😢
Thank you for this essay which supports one of the central issues to the continued & manufactured antagonism with Russia. The so called peace plan brokered by Trumps administration is failing. The Russians are advancing their SMO stated objectives being realised so why stop now? Bonus feature...fall of 'The New World Order'.
It does seem to be failing, I sense, because of a determination in Europe to keep Ukraine fighting to the last man. Unlike you, I believe Russia would accept a peace settlement if its underlying concerns were finally and fully addressed. However, we seem no closer to that right now and, as you point out, the western world seems to be in an advanced state of democratic decay.
Thank you Ian, this a balanced view which I will process.