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.

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???

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).

Neo-colonialism

 The Europeans practised colonialism. A European was the resident Head of State, and the European Head of State was the ultimate Head of State. So a British Queen or King was the official Head of State of India as well as about 25% of the world.

The Americans always practised neocolonialism. Starting with the Monroe Doctrine, all of Latin America belonged to the US. The US picked a tiny minority--the Criollos--to be the rulers, gave them lots of money and weapons, and they let the US take all the natural resources from their country, paying starvation wages to the peons who did all the actual work.

Then, after WWII, the US applied the same to everything outside the Warsaw Pact. Vietnam did not work out all that well, but, starting with Reagan, the US transformed the brutal dictatorships and state sponsors of terror--Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya--into peaceful and prosperous Democracies! Maybe the Grenadians, Panamanians, Yugoslavs, Afghans, and Libyans do not agree, but they are not allowed to participate in the discussion.

Now the world has 2 powers that challenge the US of A: Russia and the PRC, and both must be utterly destroyed.

Sadly, in the Ukraine, Russia has massive logistical advantages, allowing Russia to defeat the US-backed Ukrainians. Terrible.

And the PRC are now militarily superior to the US (at a tiny fraction the cost).

In 1941, the US wanted to destroy Japan, so they ordered a complete blockade (an act of war) and Japan responded by sinking the entire US Pacific fleet.

After which, Americans who'd been starving and would not go to work (because no one would offer them a job) were drafted into the US military and US defence plants, and in 6 months, the US had a new fleet, that engaged in a battle with Japan that sank both the Japanese fleet and the US fleet. But after 6 months, the US had a new fleet and Japan did not, and the US was able to bomb Japan and eventually nuke Japan.

Sadly, Russia and the PRC ain't Japan. The PRC, if the US and PRC fleets go into battle and sink each other, can and will build a new fleet faster than the US can. And Russia have far more nukes than the US. Russia are a 'No First Use' nation (unlike the US), but that should (unless our leaders are stark raving mad, which I fear they might be) prevent Russia from being first to use a nuke, but the Russkies figure the US might use one, and they are ready to respond.

Ukraine 27 May 2022

 Early this morning, the news was the usual, The Ukraine, with NATO weapons, are easily defeating the Russians, a story we've seen pretty much non-stop since 24 Feb 2022. The first story today was Russia forced to re-mobilise Soviet-era T-62 tanks due to losses .

But  not long after that header, the Ukraine complained that they lost Liman (or Lyman). Horror of horrors, their first loss (Mariupol doesn't count, that was completely destroyed in the Western press, so Russia didn't really win anything).

So the next header was Live Updates: Russian Attacks Intensify, Along With Accusations of Genocide

If the Russians are winning, then it must be genocide, as far as the Western media are concerned.

And then Zelensky asked for long range missiles, and Biden and Johnson promised to send him some.

We don't know for certain what 'long range' means. Zelensky almost certainly means Moscow, but Biden and Johnson might be a teeny bit smarter than that. 

But I wouldn't bet on it. 

They might figure Russia will just carpet bomb Kiev, or maybe all of the Ukraine. What, if anything, is going through their minds escapes me.

But Russia are very unlikely to blame Kiev if a missile hits Moscow. And I have no idea how they'll respond.

So far, the Western sanctions are destroying Europe (good, the US do not want any Western European rivals who could challenge the US economically), those sanctions are causing some pain in the US (but only for the rabble, and they've been told they must sacrifice to save Democracy, and they're not complaining much), and doing little or nothing to hurt Russia. So how to destroy Russia? Missiles hitting Moscow?

Somehow, I think Moscow knows ways to make the West suffer far more than Russia, no matter what they try.

Unless the West goes for total destruction of the entire planet. That's one way to make sure a non-existent Russia and a non-existent PRC cannot challenge a non-existent West.

1984

 I first read 1984 in the '60s. It took me more than 50 years to understand it. Airstrip 1 keeps changing its allegiance. It is allied with Eurasia against Eastasia for years. All the media (and the media morgues) say Airstrip 1 has always been allied with Eurasia against Eastasia. Then Airstrip 1 is allied with Eastasia against Eurasia, and Winston Smith must edit all books and news media so they all report that Airstrip 1 has always been allied with Eastasia against Eurasia. And then back, and it all has to be changed again back to the way it was before.

I figured Eastasia was the PRC and Eurasia was the USSR, and had no idea Airstrip 1 (i.e., the UK) had ever been allied with either one against the other. Silly me. The PRC did not exist when Orwell was writing 1984. Now I know that Eurasia is Europe and the Ottomans, and Eastasia is Russia/USSR.

I also know that, in 1800, Airstrip 1 (i.e., the UK) was allied with Russia against Napoleonic France. Then in the Crimean War, Airstrip 1 was allied with France and the Ottomans against Russia. Then in WWI, Airstrip 1 was allied with Russia against Germany and the Ottomans. After WWI, Airstrip 1 was terrified of the USSR, tried war, lost, then, in 1933, when Hitler said he would abrogate the Treaty of Versailles, the UK figured Hitler would be a good buffer against the USSR and let him take over as Chancellor and abrogate Versailles, and tried to work with him against the USSR.

By 1938, Airstrip 1 realised that war with Germany would be essential, but Airstrip 1 was not ready. As Waugh put it, In 1938, when Germany demanded the Sudetenland, "war was inevitable, but in 1938, the war would have been for the wrong reasons, with the wrong allies, in pitiful weakness". France wanted Maginot completed before declaring war. Chamberlain wanted the radar completed before war.

Then, in 1939, Eurasia and Eastasia formed an alliance to split Poland, and Airstrip 1 and France declared war on Germany and lost, but Airstrip 1 fishermen managed to save most of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk. Airstrip 1 demanded a scapegoat, and Churchill gave them Chamberlain and Appeasement. If only Airstrip 1 had gone to war in 1938, it would have been very easy to defeat Germany with no allies. Completely wrong, but eaten up by those who needed a scapegoat.

Had Britain declared war in 1938, there would have been no miracle at Dunkirk, the whole BEF would have been killed or captured. No radar shield, so the Luftwaffe bombing raids would have arrived unexpected with few defenders and few airships lost, so the Battle of Britain would have gone Germany's way. And Airstrip 1 would have had no choice but to surrender. And with no base from which to bomb Germany, the US could not have done much after Germany declared war on the US in 1941. Europe would still be under the swastika had Chamberlain not waited until 1939.

And now the US has a brand new Ministry of Truth. They have not yet renamed the Defence Department the Ministry of Peace, but they still call themselves that, even if it's not their official title.

Some though 1984 was a warning. Turned out, the US is using it for a guidebook. And figure it's the Right Way to Go!

State of the Western News 3

 Before, I glanced at all the different news, but did not go in depth, so I'm not sure if this is new, or if I just missed it before.

Basically, the Russian news says they are liberating the pro-Russian Ukraine. The Western news says the entire Ukraine hates everything Russian, and, as the Russians invaded, all the Ukraine joined the Ukrainian military and repulsed the Russians, just about all of the first attack force has been eradicated, but the Russians have sent a few more soldiers in to be slaughtered as well.

Only, before being slaughtered, those evil Russian soldiers murdered civilians and raped all the women and girls.

So now the West are promising war crimes trials of the surviving Russian soldiers and the Russian leadership, something like Nuremberg. Russia, it seems, at least on the Western news--all of it: CNN, France 24, BBC, DW, Euronews, etc., etc.--is now in the same state as Nazi Germany in 1945. The Russians, they inform us, are lying and trying to deny their defeat and their crimes, but the world can see.

What some find amazing is how the Western media can be in such agreement on such a proposition, but they are.