So long, farewell, auf wiedersehn goodbye?

The Ukraine is split at the Dnieper River. Most of those to the West of the Dnieper River consider themselves Western, more closely related to Germans than Russians. Most of those to the East of the Dnieper River consider themselves Russians. When Nazi Germany were marching across the Ukraine in WWII, those west of the Dnieper River welcomed the Wehrmacht as liberators, and the Wehrmacht agreed that able-bodied men could join the Wehrmacht, since they were good Aryans. Both those Ukrainians from West of the Dnieper River and the Germans in the Wehrmacht considered those from East of the Dnieper to be a lower class of people, not quite human, Slavs suitable only to serve as slaves to their Aryan masters. Also, there were far more Slavs than the Aryans needed as slaves, so the number of Slavs needed to be reduced to provide Aryans with Lebensraum, but the Slavs were not to be totally exterminated as the Nazis planned to do with some other ethnic groups.

In 1991, the Ukraine voted to leave the USSR, leave Russia, and become an independent nation. For 13 years, every president needed the support of both Eastern and Western Ukrainians. Then the US sent the CIA with money and weapons, and in a free and fair election where every gun got a vote, they elected a Western Ukrainian who declared that everything Russian was strictly prohibited: speaking the Russian language or going to the Russian Orthodox Church was a capital offence. The West considered this a very good law, and, of course, every nation must maintain the rule of law. The CIA remained as advisers to the government, who worked hard to enforce the law and kill anyone speaking Russian or trying to keep a Russian Orthodox Church open, and, again, the West applauded this bringing of peace and stability to the entire Ukraine. The evil Russians objected to this peaceful, advanced democracy where the CIA got most of the votes. Russia was a very weak state, and knew there was not much they could do. Russia did illegally annex the Crimea, which had always been part of the Ukraine ever since 1954, but the Ukraine cut off the river providing all the water to the Crimea, and begged the West for materiel with which to return the Crimea to the Ukraine. Also, in the south-east of the Ukraine, some ethnic Russians had kept some materiel and continued illegally speaking Russian and attending the Russian Orthodox Church. Of course, the Ukraine did its best to enforce the law against these heinous criminals and made every effort to kill them all, but with limited success. They managed to legally execute about 15,000, but there were more than 2 million of these criminals. The Ukraine begged the West for more materiel so they could enforce the law, and the West promised that materiel would be coming, but later.

After the collapse of the USSR, which the CIA did not see coming, the CIA moved quickly and helped Yeltsin become head of the Russian state. The CIA gave Yeltsin all the vodka he wanted, and he let the CIA dismantle the Russian military, disable most of the Russian nuclear arsenal, dismantle Russian industry so rebuilding the dismantled military would be impossible, and even disrupted Russian education so there would not be educated people to rebuild. All very good work, applauded by the West. But Yeltsin got sick and had to step down. The CIA said they had a veto over who would be the next head of state, so the Russians picked an obscure mayor no one had ever heard of. The mayor applauded everything the US did. When the US proposed to the UN Security Council that they destroy Libya in 2011, Russia voted 'Yes!' When the US proposed to the UN Security Council that they destroy Syrian in 2013, Russia did not vote, so the motion passed by a large majority. But this obscure mayor was secretly rebuilding Russian industry, the Russian military, Russian schools, and the CIA did not notice. But Russia remained very weak relative to the US, the US could have demanded regime change, and the mayor knew he would either have to step down or see the US completely destroy Russia. So he did pretty much everything the US demanded.

Until 2022, when he announced that the good, Aryan Ukrainians who were strongly pro-US and should have remained in charge would be removed as the heads of the Ukraine, along with the CIA. The world was furious. Or at least the West was furious. And this includes Turkey who closed the Hellespont to Russian ships, and Switzerland who usually remain neutral. (Threats of countermeasures by the US might have influenced Switzerland and Turkey, or maybe the Aryans in both countries had achieved control of both states and all good Aryans know that the Western Ukrainians and the Americans were doing the right thing.)

The UN Security Council voted 11 to 1 with 3 not voting to condemn the Russian aggression in the Ukraine, so the resolution lost, since Russia inherited the USSR veto. The Ukraine were furious. They said that was wrong, that Russia have no right to the Soviet veto. Russia must either be downgraded from a permanent member of the Security Council to an ordinary member of the UN, or ejected from the UN for violating the UN charter, and the US agreed.

So on 28 Feb 2022, the US announced that 12 members of the Russian UN delegation are losing their seats, they are no longer allowed in the US, and so are no longer allowed in the UN. Russia protested that UN delegates must be allowed to enter the UN, but the US say 'NO!' The US want to see if there is anything Russia can do about having 12 members of its UN team removed. If it turns out the US can remove 12 members with no repercussions, why not remove all of them? As of today, Russia still have their representative on the security council, but if the US can ban 12 members of the Russian UN delegations, why not ban all of them? If the US get away with banning 12 with absolutely no consequences, the US will probably say no Russian is allowed a seat in the UN, and just about all of the UN will agree that the US has the right to unilaterally cancel Russia's formerly permanent membership on the Security Council. Then the Security Council will vote unanimously to condemn the Russian aggression, the Russian attack on the law in the Ukraine, the Russian support for capital felons speaking Russian or attending the Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine.

The US know they now have a secure defence against a Russian nuclear attack. If the US think the Russians are planning such an attack, they have a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe, plus an anti-missal defence system in Eastern Europe. The threat of a Russian attack will prompt an US prophylactic attack with missiles that can reach their Russian targets in less than 5 minutes, before Russia can possibly respond, so most of the Russian nuclear arsenal will be destroyed before Russia can deploy it, and the anti-missal system will stop all the rest, so Russia no longer have MAD, the US have the AD of any nation that dares to defy the US, The US want every nation to know that when the US say 'Jump!' the only allowable answer is 'Yes, sir. How high?'

Russia remain convinced that the US conviction that MAD no longer exists is wrong, that Russia has managed to rebuild its military to the point where it can stand up to the US. Which means standing up to the US and just about all of Europe plus Turkey and Japan.

Some of us think the world is in a far more dangerous place than we thought we were in 1962 when I had to sleep on the floor. The USSR put nuclear weapons in Cuba, and the US said if they did not immediately remove those weapons, it meant nuclear war. We lived in a tiny village, and all our relatives who lived in big cities came to stay with us, since everyone figured all major cities would be destroyed, but not the tiny villages. So they got my bed and I got the floor.

Now, of course, since 1987, we know everything we heard about the Cuban missile crisis was a lie. The US had nukes in Turkey, and Khrushchev demanded they be removed. Or else. And put nukes in Cuba.

So Kennedy called Khrushchev and said, 'I have to run for re-election and you don't, so if you'll say the US got everything we demanded, I'll pull all those nukes out of Turkey and let you send inspectors to verify, but you have to say you capitulated because the US was too strong for the USSR to stand up to us.' Khrushchev agreed, so it wasn't until 25 years later when the documents were declassified that we learned there was never a real threat of a nuclear war, it was the US who capitulated to all the Soviet demands.

But this time, I think there really is a threat, because the American leadership believe that MAD no longer exists, that the ultra-advanced US defences mean there is only the AD of any nation that dares to defy the US,  including Russia and the PRC. And the US have been wrong about just about everything, almost certainly including this.

WTF is really happening???

 Russia report they have destroyed most of the Ukrainian air defence infrastructure and airports, but they complain that the Ukraine military have moved a lot of their weaponry into residential neighbourhoods, as they were taught to do by the CIA, and Russia, unlike the US, have a policy against bombing civilian neighbourhoods.

The US/UK/EU all say Russia have suffered huge losses, thousands or maybe tens of thousands of the Russian soldiers committing the war crime of invading peaceful Ukraine have been killed. While the Ukraine have a small organised military, every citizen has grabbed a gun and killed many Russians, cutting down whole Russian divisions before they can draw their weapons and kill more than a very few devoted Ukrainian patriots. Every single Ukrainian hates everything Russian, and every single Ukrainian is shooting at the evil invaders.

The West have shown pictures of many Russian planes shot down.. The fact that these pictures are rather obviously from a video game hasn't stopped them from convincing most Westerners that Russia are  losing badly, soon the Ukraine will have killed every last Russian invader and NATO can start setting up military bases and installing nuclear missiles to finally destroy the evil Russians before they can commit another heinous act.

Russian photos and videos don't show much. Many explosions, a documentary of all the ethnic Russians killed since the US takeover in 2014, but not much more. Full coverage of the Security Council debating the resolution condemning Russia, going on and on and on, with long speeches about how evil the Russians are, and finally the vote, 11 to condemn Russia, 1 against, and 3 abstentions, so the vote to condemn Russia failed by the wide margin of 1 veto. Both India and the PRC abstained.

The Ukraine say it will talk to the Russians in Poland, but Poland, a fanatic member of NATO, sent a huge convoy of weapons to Ukraine, and would probably arrest the Russian delegation for war crimes, so Russia is not enthusiastic about having a meeting in Poland, and the Ukraine are saying Poland or nothing.

The West mostly say the Russians are being slaughtered as the evil Russians are trying to murder all the good Ukrainians.

Russia show a video of a Ukrainian Army group surrendering and being fed by the Russians, but it's only a small group, not more than one company, maybe just a platoon.

And so, after watching pretty much non-stop for two days, I have absolutely no idea what's really happening.

***

One thing is clear: the New York Times say the Ukrainian Army and the Azov Battalion are proven NOT to be the neo-Nazis Putin says they are. And the New York Times are right that Putin got that one wrong: the Azov Battalion wear the Wolfsangel, and wearing the Wolfsangel does irrefutably prove they are not neo-Nazis: the Wolfsangel is a sign that they are just Nazis, no neo about them.

Russia Recalcitrant?

 The collapse of the USSR left the world with a single Superpower, a hegemon that had no limits. The US immediately moved to bomb Iraq and Yugoslavia. Before, the USSR would have prevented the US from doing that, but there was no more USSR. So the US destroyed Yugoslavia, declared the Orthodox Serbs guilty and the Western Christians and Muslims innocent: if they killed Orthodox Serbs, that was their right. The International Court followed the US and said all the Serbs were war criminals for killing Muslims, and all the Muslims were innocent: killing Orthodox Serbs was just natural and right. And with no USSR, Russia was too weak to do anything.

The Russian military is about 10% of the NATO military, maybe less. So the US figure Grenada and Panama were more difficult to stop than Russia. The French invaded Russia, and that fellow with the red beard invaded the USSR, but both lost a lot of time and materiel crossing the Ukraine, and both lost in Russia proper. Fortunately, the US intend to make the Ukraine a US military base, so the US attack on Russia will start from the eastern Ukraine. Only Russia don't seem to accept that, and they are moving into the eastern Ukraine.

After WWI, Russia ended at the Dnieper River. After WWII, Stalin annexed a lot of land west of the Dnieper, and those annexed, Slavs and Germanics, hate everything Russian. So, with US money and weapons, those who strongly supported Chancellor Schickelgruber in WWII took over the Ukraine and made everything Russian illegal, made speaking Russian or going to the Russian Orthodox Church a terrorist act. Russia accuse the Ukraine of genocide, but speaking Russian was declared a terrorist act by the US-supported new and greatly improved Ukrainian government, so killing all Russian speakers wasn't genocide, but just stopping terrorists as they were committing acts of terrorism. The definition of 'terrorism' is determined by whomever is strongest, and now that's the US of A, with a military budget more than 10 times as large as Russia's.

But the US has the teeny problem of logistics. In Russia and the Ukraine, the tiny, ill-equipped Russian military have all the logistical advantage, and they hope that will let them fight the hegemon.

And it is looking more and more likely that Russia must fight the hegemon or be split into all the tiny Republics that form the Russian Federation. The US demand the complete dissolution of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation, with a military less than 10% that of the US, and a much smaller fraction of the military of NATO, are hoping logistics will enable them to survive better than Grenada and Panama.

Of course, the USSR had the world's largest (or maybe 2nd largest) nuclear arsenal.

But Yeltsin let the CIA run Russia for 8 years, and they might have dismantled the entire Soviet nuclear arsenal (the US, based on CIA intelligence, is sure that they did). Putin says he has rebuilt that nuclear arsenal

And I fear we will all see very soon.

War in the Ukraine this week???

 CNN report that US intelligence have proof that Russia will create a False Flag attack, probably on the Donbass, one day this week.

Translation: the CIA plan a 'False Flag' attack, probably on the Donbass, one day this week. US intelligence will say they have proof the attack was by Russia.

The question is, will the CIA attack impel Russia to intervene? The CIA certainly hope so. This will give the US the excuse to apply severe sanctions on Russia, similar to the sanctions on Japan in 1941.

What will really happen is impossible to know from the CNN news story. The Ukrainian military are positioned close to the Donbass, and snipe on a daily basis, but do little damage, and Russia do nothing. So it is not clear if the CIA attack will impel the Russian military to enter the Ukraine.

From what US intelligence report, one concludes that 'US intelligence' is an oxymoron, but that could be misleading. We know US intelligence lie, because that's their job. Are they really well informed but just lying, or are they totally misinformed and lying? No easy way to know. Just as there is no way to know in advance how Russia will respond to the CIA attack on the Donbass.

Best guess: the CIA will set off a bomb of some kind that will kill some of the people in the Donbass, but Russia will not respond by sending their military into the Donbass, since there would be nothing useful the Russian military could do. When the Ukraine banned the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Religion, and the Donbass declared its independence from the Ukraine, the Ukrainian military took over the Donbass and enforced that ban. The Russian military evicted the Ukrainian military from the Donbass, told them never to come back, and left. I can't see the Russian military returning after a single CIA bomb attack.

Orthogenesis

 Most 19th century biologists believed in orthogenesis, and they had fossil proof. Sadly, their fossil proof was because they did not believe in radioactive dating, figuring why would anyone want to date a radioactive partner? So they dated the Irish Elk fossils by the size of the antlers, assuming the oldest fossils had the smallest antlers and the most recent fossils had the largest antlers. So (they wrote) this was 'proof' that natural selection always selected for the largest antlers, until the antlers were too large making grazing and running from predators impossible, so the Irish Elk went extinct.

Actually, 19th century biologists knew that natural selection could never result in orthogenesis, they wrote 'natural selection' as weasel words because editors would not accept the correct words. Darwin said there were two kinds of selection, one was natural selection, meaning those genes that give an advantage at finding lunch and/or at not becoming someone else's lunch are slightly more likely to make it to the next generation. In one generation, there's not much difference between 99.9% likely to make it to the next generation and 99.8%, but over hundreds of generations, that 99.9% gene will get to be just about all the genes in the species. Since natural selection always selects for advantage, it can never select for antlers that are too large.

In the 20th century, the bikini came out, named after the Atoll where a lot of nuclear tests took place, so very radioactive, and the inventor said the bikini would take off like an atom bomb, so radioactive dating became fashionable, and Stephen J. Gould, who did believe in radioactive dating, proved that the largest antlers were in the middle of the range of ages of Irish Elk fossils, so no orthogenesis.

The problem with the Irish Elk is that it wasn't Irish, wasn't an Elk, and wasn't an example of orthogenesis.

Darwin always said there was another, not natural selection, and Darwin used a word that most 19th century editors rejected, but they loved 'natural selection' since that proved they were modern scientists, not fundamentalist Christians who thought the world was created, complete with fossils, in 4004 BC. The other selection comes about because most species are polygynous, meaning a very few males mate with all the females, and most males are incels. There are two ways species decide which male gets to mate with all the females in the cohort: the first, probably used by the Irish Elk, is male competition: the males duke it out, and the last male standing mates with all the females. Being able to defeat all the other males in the cohort probably means the male who fathers all the children is good at finding lunch and avoiding being lunch, so no orthogenesis.

But other species have female choice. Female fruit flies will only mate with the very best dancer, and all the males in the cohort were sons of the best dancer. Female frogs only mate with the very best singer. Some females only mate with the brightest coloured males. Since being dull and camouflaged helps with finding lunch and avoiding being lunch, getting brighter and brighter looks like it must lead to extinction from orthogenesis, but no fossil record exists that shows a progression of brighter and brighter colours leading to extinction. Orthogenesis seems very likely, but also impossible to ever find fossil proof. So 19th century biologists used the Irish Elk for their 'fossil evidence'. Which was so wrong, almost all 20th century biologists say orthogenesis is a failed theory that can never happen. And, of course, it can never happen by natural selection, and probably not when mating is decided by male competition, but it certainly looks very likely for species where the very few males who can mate are decided by female choice.

Net: from what we can see, it looks like some examples of orthogenesis must exist, but finding fossil proof can never happen.

***

Since most females with no legs or with four or more legs will only mate with the male who is best at something that indicates great genes, females with exactly two legs have this as one of their mating drives. Of course, females with exactly two legs, unless they are cuckoo, desperately need a faithful partner if they are ever to become grandmothers, so one would think the desire for a faithful partner would be supreme, but Mother Nature doesn't work that way: bipedal females have at least 4 drives: 1) the attraction of a faithful mate, a drive which can be anywhere from non-existent to imperative; 2) the dislike of an unfaithful mate, again, anywhere from non-existent to overwhelming, meaning when a female discovers her mate has cheated on her, it might be anything from no problem to her feeling that she must kill one or more people; 3) the attraction of a 'hot' male, again, anywhere from non-existent to imperative; and 4) the repulsion of a male who is less than 'hot', and, again, anywhere from non-existent to imperative. So every female is completely different, so no male can understand females, and nor can females, all of whom understand themselves (maybe) but not other females, whom they assume have the same drives as they have themselves. Mother Nature experiments, trying to find the combination which provides the species with the greatest advantage for survival as a species.

While all bipedal females are different, there is an average. Examining the DNA of the pinfeathers in many, many nests, the chicks almost always have two fathers: the faithful male partner, and the 'hottest' male within flying distance of the nest. This is probably the most common bipedal female, based on my personal observation: many wives select a husband who has proven he will be faithful, will work hard to make the payments on the nest and keep worms on the table, but mating with him is an unpleasant but necessary duty; these wives then also find a really 'hot' boyfriend whom they keep absolutely secret from their faithful partner and with whom they greatly enjoy mating (and their faithful partner always gets lucky on the evening of the afternoon when she mated with her 'hot' boyfriend so he will think the chick is his own).

I spent a year sharing a 2 bedroom flat with Hank, who mated with 5 different women every day, at least 25%  (and maybe more) of all the females in our village between 18 and 40, many of them married. He was incredibly something. One female told me he was not at all attractive, she hated mating with attractive males. So what it was that Hank was, I do not know, I just know it impelled a large percentage of the females in our village to mate with him.

I also spoke with Kim who begged me to listen to her, since I was the only person she could talk to. She told me she was desperate to mate, and every night went to a nightclub hoping to find someone with whom she could mate, but every nightclub had just one male and at least 20 desperate females, so she struck out 19 nights out of 20. She said she could talk to me because looking at me made her 'nauseous'. I would not have used that word, I would have said 'nauseated' but 'nauseous' is used as she used it by comedians on the Catskill circuit. She told me that, when she wants a man, she must tell him this is her first time, since men with lots of choices all want the least experienced female. Sadly, all 20 desperate females know this, so they all say, 'I've never done this kind of thing before, have you?' But it is not clear that the answer is, 'Yes, but only a time or two,' since the male they want normally has 5 different mates every day, but maybe that's what those males say. The fact that I made Kim 'nauseous' meant she would never want to mate with me, so she didn't have to lie that this was her first time, she could tell me everthing (only I said I didn't want to hear any more after she said I made her 'nauseous').

I do know (from many females complaining, and from a woman who tried unsuccessfully to derail a Supreme Court nominee) that some of these females tell the male, 'Promise me you'll never go with another woman,' and some of the males (like that Supreme Court nominee) promise, then, as soon as they finish, go looking for another, different mate. Other of these males (e.g., my flatmate) are honest, but the females who are strongly attracted to 'hot' males find their bodies cannot resist, even if their minds are appalled. Still, since the 'hot' male was honest, they don't have an intense desire for revenge.

What a difference 7 years makes

 Back in 2014, the CIA gave lots of money and weapons to people in the Western Ukraine that hated everything Russian. In 1750, the Russian Empire ended at the Dnieper River. During the next 50 years, the Russian Empire annexed 60% of the Polish Empire, and they all hated it. After WWI, the US wanted to end all the European Empires, and the UK and France agreed to end all the other European Empires, so Russia lost all of the Polish Empire that it annexed in the 18th century, and the Poles that had been in the Russian Empire were very happy to be liberated.

Then, at the beginning of WWII, Stalin took back everything the Allies took after WWI plus bits of what had been the Austrian Empire before WWI, and they all hated it. Those in reclaimed Ukraine west of the Dnieper River felt they were liberated by the Wehrmacht in 1941, but then the USSR won and they were returned to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, and hated it. And then, in 1954, Khrushchev transferred the Crimea from the Soviet Socialist Russian Republic to the Soviet Socialist Ukrainian Republic.

After the USSR collapsed, a majority in the Ukraine voted to make the entire Ukraine into an independent nation. But, for 14 years, the government was strongly pro-Russian, meaning they let all the citizens speak whatever language they preferred, send their children to schools in whatever language they preferred, and go to whatever church they liked.

But the Western Ukrainians with US money and weapons took over and put in a neutral president who said the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox religion were strictly banned throughout the entire Ukraine, and ordered all the Russian military bases in the Crimea closed.

So Putin declared the Donbass, which wanted independence, an autonomous part of the Ukraine where the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox religion were allowed. This was a heinous violation of International Law, since the official government said they were banned. Putin also called for an illegal election in the Crimea where just about everyone voted to return to Russia, again, illegal, and condemned by the rest of the world. Or at least by the rest of the world that counts: NATO!

But that was all Putin could do in 2014. NATO say he must give back the Crimea, and he must let the Ukraine enforce the law in the Donbass, and they plan to help the Ukraine enforce those laws, and say if Putin interferes, they will cut Russia off from SWIFT and the Europeans won't buy any more of that evil Russian gas, they'll buy Democratic US LNG. Costs a bit more, but it's Democratic gas, so it's worth it. Putin remains unhappy with what happened in the Ukraine, but isn't sure what he can do about it. And NATO remain unhappy with the current state of the Ukraine, and might do something about it.

***

Then, in 2021, the CIA gave lots of money and weapons to a group that hated everything Russian and everything Chinese in Kazakhstan, and it looked like they were about to take over the government and set up a new, democratic government that would ban the Russians and the Chinese from Kazakhstan, putting a big dent in the New Silk Road. Things were going great for the CIA for about half a day, when 2,000 troops from a multi-national security group Putin had put together from several of the former Soviet states flew in to Kazakhstan and the great CIA attempt to liberate Kazakhstan was put down and several thousand good, hard-working CIA employees were gaoled. The PRC can continue to improve the New Silk Road through Kazakhstan where they have about $25 billion already invested, and plan to invest a lot more. And Kazakhstan remain good friends with Russia.

It seems Russia have more options now than they had back in 2014. And I assume Putin wishes he'd had those same options in 2014 so the Ukraine would not be the mess it is now.

(Economic?) War with Russia

 US intelligence announced that very soon now, Russia will attack the Donbass, say it was the Ukrainian Army, and invade the Ukraine. That will 'force' the US to impose sanctions same as Iran: any nation that trades with Russia is in heinous violation of International Law, and anyone from that nation that ever travels to Western Europe, the Antipodes, the US, Canada, and much of Latin America will be arrested and extradited to the US to face charges with a penalty of Life without Parole. Russia will also be cut off from SWIFT and the US$.

Translation: the Ukraine get most of their money as US handouts which will be cut off unless they march into the Donbass and enforce the laws against the Russia Language and the Russian Orthodox Religion. The US press will, of course, say those army forces are all really Russian, and any Russian response is a heinous violation of International Law.

And then what?

Will Russia cave and let the Ukraine abolish the Donbass autonomy and enforce the ban on the Russian Language and the Russian religion, or will the Russian military enforce the autonomy of the Donbass and evict the Ukrainian Army (which, we have seen, is incredibly easy for the Russian military)?

And how will Russia respond to those US sanctions? Russia will make every effort to ensure no Russian makes Ms Meng's mistake and travels to any country under US hegemony where they will be arrested. Will Russia trade with the PRC in RMB? Will the PRC dig pipelines that will enable Russia to sell all its gas to the PRC? Will cutting off Russia (and trying very hard to cut off the PRC) wreck the US economy?

So many questions, with so many very unpleasant answers and a few pleasant possibilities if Russia and the PRC play their cards right.