Sunday, September 25, 2022

The Western Narrative

 The Western narrative, present in all the Western media, has been, since March, 2022, that the Ukraine, with advanced US weapons, completely destroyed the Russian invasion force. All Putin's outmoded and inept Soviet tanks and aeroplanes were no match for the advanced US weapons the Ukrainians had and with which they killed almost all the soldiers and destroyed almost all the tanks and aeroplanes. A few Russians managed to avoid the Ukrainian army and continue to shell undefended villages, killing civilians, but the Ukrainian military are too well protected for the Russians to dare attack.

After the Ukrainians killed off the initial invasion force, Putin is drafting 13-year-old boys and 70-year-old men, since that's all he has left.

Now, of course, the same people who forced a referendum on Serbia and took Kosovo announced that any Russian referendum is a heinous violation of international law and, of course, the "Rules-based-order", where only the US can make any rules or give any orders, and all American rules are supported by all the US neocolonials in Europe and the UK, meaning those rules have the universal support of everyone who is allowed to have an opinion.

The current Western narrative is that the Russians have trapped some civilians (no Ukrainian army around, since they can't be everywhere) and forced them to vote to be part of Russia, something no one in Ukraine wants.

Like all the Western narrative, Russia have videos showing soldiers in their 20s with lots of working tanks and aeroplanes that are obviously (if one knows tanks) far more advanced than Soviet tanks, but, of course, a) the West make it as difficult as possible for anyone to see those videos, and b) the Weast say that anyone who does see them is just seeing a Photoshopped video that makes those 13-year-old boys and 70-year-old men look like they're in their 20s and riding in modern tanks and aeroplanes.

The Russians also have videos of lots of people very happy to be voting to be part of Russia. Again, the Western narrative is that they are forced to pretend to be happy at gunpoint.

It seems clear that a huge majority will vote to be part of Russia. Russia brought about 1,000 foreign observers who say the election is honest, but, of course, the Western narrative is that it's just a few dozen actors in different costumes. Looks in the Russian videos to be about 1,000 from all over, but the Western narrative says don't be fooled by the Russian Photoshop.

And, on Wednesday, it gets interesting: the Western narrative is that everyone in the Ukraine wants the Russians out, that no one voted to be part of Russia except at gunpoint, but on Wednesday, Russia will say the Donbass, Kherson, and Zaporozhye are now part of Russia and will be defended as part of Russia.

And NATO say they will help the Ukraine with intelligence, advisors, and weapons to return all the territory that the West consider part of the Ukraine and reduce Russia to several small, unarmed states.

So is NATO about to lose a lot of their military satellites that have been providing targeting information for the HIMARS the West gave the Ukraine? Will Russia finally cut all the rail lines that bring Western weaponry into the Ukraine? Will Russia target the foreign advisors?

And what will NATO do then?????


Monday, September 12, 2022

Thucydides Next?

With the collapse of the USSR, the US had no competitor, no nation strong enough to challenge the US. Russia and the PRC always supported all US resolutions in the UN Security Council since they knew the US could make them trouble they could not handle. So they both voted to let the US destroy Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. The US was Global Hegemon.

But in 2012, Graham Allison wrote a paper called the Thucydides Trap, that every hegemon will fight tooth and nail to prevent any nation rising to where it could challenge the hegemon.

So the US was starting to notice that the PRC was rising rapidly, and Allison wrote that it was more likely that the US would take steps to stop the rise of the PRC while the PRC was still too weak to stop the US.

Then the US noticed that Russia was also rising and needed to be brought down, and so pushed Russia with a threat of putting so much of NATO in the Ukraine that Russia no longer had MAD. If Russia let NATO install nukes and ABM and several divisions of NATO troops, Russia would have no choice but to do as NATO demanded, to split into several small, unarmed nations that could never challenge the US.

The Western media reported that Russia's invasion of the Ukraine was a total disaster for Russia. The Ukraine, armed with advanced Western weapons, easily destroyed the Russian invasion force, killed almost all the soldiers, and destroyed just about all the tanks and aeroplanes. Plus the sanctions have completely destroyed the Russian economy. The media promised that the Russian regime that ordered the illegal and unprovoked invasion of the Ukraine will collapse very soon, Russia will owe massive reparations, so all Russian energy will go to US oligarchs, and Europe will once again have plenty of energy, so the ordinary Europeans must put up with cold showers for just a few weeks to save Democracy.

Only Russia kept slowly adding territory until last week, when the Russians withdrew all their soldiers from the entire Kharkov oblast, leaving behind a LOT of equipment, and also many ethnic Russians who are now being tortured and killed after Russia promised to defend them and to never abandon them. Russia was unable to stand up to the Ukraine armed with advanced Western weapons. The Western media are delighted and say that the loss of the Kharkov oblast is just the start, the Ukraine will very shortly have evicted all the Russian military from the Ukraine, including the Crimea, and this will force the Russian regime to fall and the new regime will be completely compliant with all NATO demands.

Is there anything Russia can do except surrender? Quite some discussion, with many pro-Russians saying 'No!'. The Kharkov Oblast was critical, without it, Russia cannot defend the territory they managed to acquire over the past 6 months, that Russia lost more territory in three days than they gained in the last 4 months, so the Russian invasion is finished.

Of course, some say that Kharkov Oblast was very hard to defend, and by withdrawing before the Ukraine army arrived, all those Russian troops were saved for another day. We don't know which now, but we might find out very soon.

***

Meanwhile, the original Thucydides conjecture, that the US must take down the PRC, is back on the table. The US want to dismantle the PRC the same way they are trying to dismantle Russia: get the PRC to attack Taiwan, then give Taiwan massive Western armaments and intelligence that will let Taiwan destroy the PLA without costing a single Western life, and sanctions will destroy the PRC economy. The US want this to happen before 2025, since they see the PRC rising, and figure it's a guaranteed victory for the US and Taiwan before 2025, and rather a danger than Taiwan might lose after 2030.

So first, the US sent Pelosi, which infuriated the PRC, but all the PRC did was send a few warships to sail around Taiwan. Not enough.

So now the US has ordered Taiwan not to sell a single chip to the PRC, and the PRC desperately needs many of the chips that only Taiwan can produce, so the US are sure that either the PRC will watch their economy collapse for lack of Taiwan chips, or they will attack Taiwan, and either of these will accomplish the US goal of destroying the PRC the same way the Western media assure us that Russia have already been totally destroyed.

So far, the PRC still haven't done anything. But as more and more factories cannot complete their products without those chips, what will the PRC do? What can the PRC do?

I guess we'll find out fairly soon.

Will the US succeed in removing both Russia and the PRC as possible challengers to US hegemony, or will something go wrong with the carefully contrived plan of the US?

Again, we'll find out.

Thursday, September 1, 2022

Appeasement

 Churchill said, "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." His history was brilliant. A lot of truth, but some lies of omission and some lies of commission, but the history made Churchill look very, very good. The worst lie of commission was Appeasement.

Some things, we know Churchill got right. When he wrote that, when Hitler said he would abrogate the Treaty of Versailles, the UK could have demanded regime change and Germany would have had no choice but to tell Hitler he was out and then pick some other Chancellor and then World War II would have been avoided with no lives lost, this is obviously correct. Churchill said he fought for this and lost, but I can't find any evidence he really did fight for regime change in Germany in 1933. But he was certainly right in his history that that would have been the best thing for the world.

Of course, as Orwell wrote, Airstrip One would ally with Eurasia against Eastasia, then ally with Eastasia against Eurasia, then back again. And Winston Smith had to rewrite all the history books so, when Airstrip One was allied with Eurasia, Airstrip One had always been allied with Eurasia.

So, when Napoleon was Emperor of France, Airstrip One was allied with Russia against France, or Eastasia against Eurasia. After Napoleon, Airstrip One allied with France and the Ottomans, i.e., Eurasia, against Russia, i.e., Eastasia.

In WWI, Airstrip One was allied with the Russian Empire against Germany and the Ottomans. Then, after WWI, Airstrip I allied with Germany against the USSR. The UK leaders were terrified of the USSR, saw it marching into Western Europe and taking over most of Europe and maybe the UK. So letting Germany rearm in 1933 as a bulwark against the USSR seemed like a good idea at the time. And the rabid anti-Communist, Adolph Hitler, seems like a good ally. Churchill might have vehemently disagreed, as he said he did in his histories, but I can't find any newspaper articles about Churchill speeches against letting Germany rearm.

By 1938, the UK and France knew war with Germany was necessary, but neither was ready. France would not support the UK against Germany until the Maginot Line was complete, i.e., 1939. And Chamberlain did not want war before the radar shield was ready to prevent a German bombing campaign that could destroy the UK: the RAF would have no idea when or where the Luftwaffe was attacking, so only a few would be able to fight, and could do very limited damage. Had the UK gone to war in Czechoslovakia without the support of France, there would have been no Miracle at Dunkirk. German bombing would have been devastating with very few Luftwaffe losses each bombing run.

So Chamberlain said he'd agreed to give Hitler part of Czechoslovakia (Czechoslovakia was divided up among Germany, Poland, and Hungary) and had gotten Hitler's assurances of peace.

Churchill's history said that was appeasement: in 1938, Germany was still very weak, and the BEF could easily have defeated the Wehrmacht. This is false, of course. Chamberlain did the right thing, but, after Dunkirk, the UK needed a scapegoat, and Churchill chose Chamberlain (who had died, so he could not defend himself).

In fact, the UK and France intended to go to war in 1939, when the Maginot Line and the British radar system were both ready. So they asked Poland to say Germany could no longer access East Prussia, Germany signed a treaty with the USSR, and they agreed to split Poland, with Germany getting the Polish land between Germany and East Prussia.

And as soon as Germany and the USSR attacked Poland, the UK and France declared war on Germany, expecting that the Wehrmacht would be unable to stand up to the Maginot Line and the BEF and the French military.

Things didn't go all that well. Belgium had an impregnable fortress all along the German border, but, while it was impregnable from the German side, it had no defences on the Belgian side, and paratroopers overran the fortress from the Belgian side and opened the gates.

The BEF and French Army lost, but at least almost all of the BEF made it back to the UK thanks to the Miracle of Dunkirk. And the bombings by the Luftwaffe had massive losses, since the entire RAF knew when and where the Luftwaffe were coming and managed to shoot down large number of the bombers until Germany ran out of bombers and the Battle of Britain worked out OK for the UK. Lots got bombed, but not nearly as much as before the radar was ready. Churchill, of course, since the radar was Top Secret, said the success of the RAF was because the RAF ate lots of carrots.

But Churchill's myth that Appeasement was the reason for WWII, that it could have been avoided if the UK stood up to Germany in 1938, has led to the War in Vietnam (not going to war would have been appeasement), and just about every other US war after WWII.

And now the US and the European neocolonial governments all say Putin wants to recreate the USSR and the Warsaw pact, and if we do not stop him in the Ukraine, that's appeasement, and we'll again be facing the Warsaw Pact and then they'll overrun Western Europe, then the UK, and then the US.

So every ordinary European (not the ruling elite, of course) must be willing to put up with cold showers, since not putting up with them would be appeasement.

Monday, August 8, 2022

2025???

 When Speaker Pelosi said she was going to Taiwan, the PRC made many threats. I did not think they could make so many threats and then do nothing. Most Chinese feel that making threats and doing nothing means losing face. After she left, the PLA began doing exercises all around Taiwan. Still, exercises are rather normal, closer to Taiwan than before, but not that new. The PRC dropped out of several arrangements with the US, but the US don't care.

After Pelosi said she was going and several rather prominent PRC individuals made threats, several very accurate analysts said the PRC wouldn't do anything. The PRC is rising, but most (including the PRC leadership) figure the US is much stronger now and would win any war. The US also notes that the PRC is rising. Top US analysts say that, if a war occurs now, the PRC is absolutely certain to lose. But after 2025, the PRC is very likely but not absolutely certain to lose. After 2030, the PRC is only likely to lose, not very likely. So the US have decided that 1) the PRC must be held responsible for a totally unprovoked war; and 2) this 'totally unprovoked war' must be forced to start before 2026.

Read the New York Times. Russia had an economy like Saudi Arabia: they sell oil and gas and use the money to buy everything they need from Europe and the US. The US threatened to admit the Ukraine into NATO and put nukes and ABMs into the Ukraine that would eliminate Russian MAD so Russia would have no choice but to surrender and let the US break Russia up into several unarmed states, and all that Russian oil and gas would return to its rightful owners: the US oil barons. Russia said this was a Red Line.

Obviously, Russia should have surrendered. But instead, Russia attacked the Ukraine, just as the US wanted. Advanced US weapons destroyed every Russian Air Force plane and every Russian Army tank, and, since Russia buy all their planes and tanks from Europe and the US, they cannot replace any of them. Also, those US weapons killed off the entire invasion force, so Russia are now using 13-year old boys and 70 year old men, all of whom know they can't win, and are very dispirited, while the Ukrainians are highly motivated and winning. Yes, to preserve Democracy, ordinary Americans have to eat less and drive less, and ordinary Europeans must also eat and drive less and take cold showers, but these are very minor sacrifices to make for Democracy, and only for a few more weeks before the complete collapse of Russia. And not making those sacrifices would mean that the evil Putin could recreate the USSR, then the Warsaw Pact, then add all of Western Europe to the Warsaw Pact, then invade and conquer the US, so winning the Ukraine War is absolutely essential, according to the US/UK/EU leadership and all the Western media.

Independent media say every word is false: the Russians are very slowly winning in the Ukraine, those 'advanced US weapons' could not take out more than a very few Russian aeroplanes and tanks (especially since fewer than 1/3 of those weapons ever reach the Ukrainian military), while Russian weapons destroyed most of the Ukrainian aeroplanes and tanks. After Russia were taken in by the Minsk Accords, the US had 8 years to build impregnable, underground fortresses throughout the Ukraine (especially in the Donbass). Conventional artillery, rockets, bombs dropped from planes cannot penetrate the massive cement and steel ceilings with trap doors for shelling the Russian military whenever there are no bombers. The Russians bomb and isolate until all the food and water run out, so it can take more than a month to take each fortress, and during that month, the Russian military make no progress. But food and water eventually run out, and then the Russians take the fortress and move forward a few kilometres to the next fortress.

But stick with the New York Times narrative, which is reiterated in all the Western media: the proxy War in Ukraine is going very, very well for the West, and Russia will soon be under NATO control

So now, to preserve US hegemony, the next step is the PRC that must be forced to invade Taiwan, where those advanced US weapons and sanctions will quickly destroy the PLA and the PRC just as they have destroyed Russia, provided the US can provoke the PRC to invade Taiwan before 2026.

I am convinced the proxy war of the PRC and Taiwan will go very, very well in the New York Times and all the rest of the Western media if not quite so well in real life.

And if the US fleet sail in as they did 25 years ago to make sure the PRC didn't try anything when Speaker Gingrich visited Taiwan, the PLA Navy are not quite the same as they were back then, and that US fleet might all be submarines before this is over.

And then what? The US leadership might figure that having no world at all is better than seeing the PRC replace the US as World Hegemon.

Wednesday, July 27, 2022

Two Fronts are Better than One???

 The US were determined to stop the rise of the PRC. The US remembered 1951, when General MacArthur told President Truman that the only way the US could defeat the PLA was to use nukes. President Truman said, 'The USSR has MAD. You're fired!'

The US are again determined to stop the rise of the PRC. It's been called the Thucydides Trap for the last 8 or so years. Every hegemon, historically beginning with Sparta in ancient Greece, does all it can to prevent a rising rival from overtaking it and becoming the new hegemon (probably happened many times before, but did not make the history books since history books hadn't been around all that long when Sparta was hegemon).

And today the US hegemon are worried about the rise of the PRC, but, based on what happened in 1951, figured it would be best to first break up Russia into several smaller, unarmed states that always had to do whatever the US said, so the US prepared to make the Ukraine part of NATO and put in nukes and ABMs to eliminate Russian MAD, after which Russia would have to do whatever the US ordered, and would have to split into those small, unarmed countries. Then, with no Russia, the PRC would be next. The US and NATO both wrote to Russia that this was going to happen and there was nothing Russia could do about it.

This is working out very well in the Western establishment media. The Ukrainians with their advanced US weapons are easily defeating the Russians with their "outmoded and inept weapons" as the New York Times, CNN, et al. iterate daily. The Russians are proving an easier challenge than Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Libya.

Sadly, reporters actually in the Donbass report that the Russians are winning. The 2014 coup in the Ukraine replaced a rabidly pro-Russian government that let everyone speak whatever language they liked and attend whatever church they liked with a strictly neutral government that banned everything Russian throughout the Ukraine and started killing people who spoke Russian or tried to attend a Russian Orthodox Church. Russia forced the Ukraine to sign the Minsk agreement promising to leave the Russians alone, and the Ukraine and US used the next 8 years building impregnable fortresses: so much steel and concrete that no bomb, no artillery can penetrate, but with doors that open and allow artillery strikes when the Russians aren't bombing or shelling. So Russian progress against these fortresses has been very slow but steady. One by one, the fortress defenders run out of food and water and have to either surrender or try to retreat while the Russian Air Force and artillery and mobile armour try to kill as many as possible.

But it is illegal to write anything in the West except that the Ukrainians with US weapons are destroying the Russians, they have destroyed every Russian tank and aircraft, the Russians cannot and do not face the Ukrainian military, they only shell undefended cities and villages killing only civilians. So things are going very, very well, and the small sacrifices the US, Canada, and European citizens must make to preserve democracy--i.e., not enough food, electricity, heat, or petrol--won't be necessary for much longer, and anyone can put up with cold showers for a few weeks if it means saving Democracy.

But now, Speaker Pelosi wants to visit Taiwan, and the PRC say such a visit will necessitate a military response, so the entire Senate, Democrat and Republican, say she must go to show the PRC they cannot challenge the US and get away with it. The US military and White House have all begged her not to go, but it's not at all clear is she will listen. The Democrats are sure this will look very good for the upcoming election when Speaker Pelosi proves that the PRC are no match for a US Democrat Speaker.

So it looks like the US want a 2 Front proxy war where the Ukraine, with US weapons, will destroy Russia, and Taiwan, with US weapons, will destroy the PRC.

No one knows what would happen in a strictly conventional war with Russia against all of NATO. But everyone should know what will happen in a strictly conventional war with the PRC against all of NATO plus Japan and South Korea. Basically, in a week or so, NATO will no longer have any Air Force, Navy, or Army. And all with strictly conventional weapons.

So will NATO then nuke Russia and the PRC and end the entire world? After all, if there is no world, the US cannot be forced to see the PRC take over as world hegemon.

Wednesday, July 13, 2022

Tucker Carlson

 The New York Times had 3 or 4 articles about why everything Tucker Carlson says is misinformation and no decent person would ever watch his show. So I tried to watch. At first, he was on YouTube, but then YouTube banned him. Fox is behind a paywall, so I was hesitant, but eventually that New York Times admonition made me curious. So I paid.

Mr Carlson says the US proxy war against Russia is stupid. The US are now suffering much more than Russia from the US sanctions, and the EU are suffering much more than the US. There is no need for expensive petrol and electricity and heat, except to somehow damage Russia, who are selling all the energy Europe are boycotting to India and the PRC. One cannot disagree with Mr Carlson about this.

But then he says that, while the US war against Russia is stupid, it's because the US should be at war with the PRC. After all, the PRC created CoViD-19 to destroy the US and the EU.

Mr Carlson omits that the US sent the Wuhan lab a virus that (the US said) was harmless, and could not infect humans. Could the PRC study how to make it infectious to humans? They did and succeeded. And that virus might have killed one million Americans (but the number killed is not accepted by everyone: there is a rumour that the US tested everyone who died, and if they tested positive for CoViD-19, it was the cause of death, even if death was obviously from some other cause). In any case, the problem was that the US said the virus was harmless, so the PRC scientists did not confine it to a safe lab for dangerous viruses, but used a lab that was for non-dangerous viruses. Any sane person blames the US for CoViD-19.

It is not at all clear if Russia can withstand all of NATO. It is clear if the PRC can withstand all of NATO's conventional forces. The PRC army, the PRC navy, and the PRC air force are all far superior to all of NATO. But the PRC nuclear arsenal is tiny compared to NATO, so they need Russia to preclude NATO trying for a nuclear solution.

If the US decision makers had an IQ with 2 digits, they would do everything they could to separate Russia and the PRC. Instead, the US are doing everything they can to force the PRC and Russia into an alliance. Heck, the US are trying to force India, who have hated the PRC for the last 70 years, to get into bed with the PRC. Not to mention Brazil. And the BRICS are likely to soon become the BRICSIA. And then what?

NATO will hate it, but NATO will be up against a much stronger power.

Question: given that the hegemony the US enjoyed after the complete collapse of the USSR, what will they do as the PRC moves to replace the US as world hegemon? Destroy the entire world so there will not be any world for which the PRC can be hegemon???

Thursday, June 30, 2022

International Trade and Rational War

 Back at the turn of the 20th century, the UK Merchant Marine brought the rich Brits luxury items, food, collectables, etc., from all over the world. The European nations were trading with each other, and, to a lesser extent, with the US. The European Empires did most of their trading inside the Empire. Goodies from the colonies went to the European Imperial Powers, and the colonials got manufactured goods at exorbitant prices (but colonials were prohibited from manufacturing, so they had to buy European manufactured goods).

But because of what was far more international trade than any European could recall, in 1910 Norman Angell wrote The Great Illusion, that proved that a rational war was no longer possible.

The notion of a rational war was an 18th century concept pioneered by Bernoulli. War had to paid for in gold, no printed money accepted back then unless backed by gold. So Bernoulli said one must carefully calculate the probability of winning and the total financial gains from reparations and territory and other benefits ceded, and the probability of loss and the total cost, then calculate the Expected Value of the War. If the Expected Value was positive, the war was rational. If the Expected Value was negative, the war was irrational.

But by 1910, trade was so large (though minuscule by 2019 standards) that the Expected Value of every war was a huge negative number, counting the cost of trade disruption. So no rational war was possible, and no leader could possibly be stupid enough to wage an irrational war.

Of course, Angell greatly miscalculated just how stupid world leaders could be in 1914 (not to mention 2022, when international trade made that in 1914 seem insignificant, and the US European puppets agreed to start a war with Russia with costs that are crippling their economies, but they must follow the US rules to their utter ruin).