When the main aim of a global society is the building of profits rather than the wellbeing of its people, we can expect no other outcome. Greed is not only condoned, it is encouraged. Wars over finite resources are organized on the basis of nationalism.
So-called democratic elections that revolve around patriotic nationalism are hollow exercises. Until we reorganize ourselves into a social framework based on main aim of supporting human and planetary life, this unnecessary spiral of destruction will continue to a bad end.
"But first, we have to face the reality and say it out loud: the West has a problem. It doesn’t know how to talk about peace anymore."
I would like to react on that.
For already a while I follow the psychological info on YT about narcissism.
People who have met them, narcissists, via family, "friends", colleagues, etc. know what narcissism is and how deep the impact is of their behaviour, the wounds they create. Learning to analyse that behaviour is the only way to survive a narcissist.
The political and industrial west is a collective of narcissists. The characteristics of narcissism are the basics of their eternal warmongering. They know how to impress, control, and that is completely similar to the behaviour of narcissists in the circle of family, friends, etc.
So, the collective west wants to impress and warmongering has become a fantastic way to impress, being arrogant is as well. Being deaf to any kind of argument, explanation. Searching for escalation. Nothing works to make them think deeper. Except one thing: to ask one question, while watching the narcissist straight in the eyes, with calmness and without raising voice: What would you do if you could never impress anyone again?
Putin has, until today, shown that he is capable to face the western collective in the way a narcissist has to be treated. With calmness, and not taken into any provocation in the way the west would have preferred: making an emotional conflict of it that escalates, because the goal, because that is what the west does. That is the goal of their provocations, provoking wars and anger.
He, Putin, knows where the borders are, and not allowing that these borders are crossed or neglected otherwise. He masters his mind and the situation. He cannot be controlled by the west.
I think the brain drain in our politics is way beyond repair. And when you think of how many fancy degrees they have, that's another thing. Dire competency crisis.
But this is no mistake. Its the product of long term investments in brainwashing every sector of society. I saw a statistic somewhere that the public relations arms of NATO and the military in its member countries had increased their spending by more than 10x in the past decade.
That means newspapers full of war cheerleaders ("retired" colonels, paid shills from NATO sponsored "think tanks" etc). It means public events get "security" experts stuffed in their to cheerlead weapons. It means Europeans get fed TV shows with military themes designed to make war seem "fun" and patriotic. It means even the financial sector bombarded with messaging to sponsor war. As a result many European pension funds, which you would think have an interest in long term stability and peace, have been pouring investment into companies that blow up things and kill people.....and with no thought for when those missiles get lobbed over to Russia....what will be the reply and what happends to the buildings, property and farmland in Europe, as a result.
Compare the warmongering culture of Russia, where war is glorified daily to the youngest pupils in school.
EU culture is much more peace-loving than Russia's. One can also criticise the government, including military and foreign policy, without worrying about imprisonment or worse, unlike in Russia.
2) You appear to completely disjointed from reality. People ARE getting arrested and imprison for critising government policy and complicity in colonial opppresson and genocide, and warmongering.....right here in the west. Now. Journalists even. And its not not new. Been going on since Julian Assange and its intensifying.
My impression is that's not true. I don't think contemporary Russian culture is warmongering - I think it's war defensive: the stress is on being patriotic in the defence of the motherland. It's central 'myth' (in the non-pejorative sense) is the 'Great Patriotic War' fought against fascism.
This myth probably also echoes earlier defensive national myths such as resistance against the foreign imperialist powers which sent troops to support the White Russians in an attempt to strangle the Bolshevik Revolution in it's cradle. And before that the war against Napoleon, and the first Crimean War which was another attempt to prevent Russia remaining a great power.
A defensive war mentality is not at all a warmongering mentality. Sadly, the primary exponents of the latter since at least about 1800 has been Western Europe and the USA. Even before that at various times.
I haven't quite considered the Russian tendency towards military intervention in your terms before, and I see a lot of truth in what you say. Certainly Russia is located right in the centre of Eurasia and has been the object of many an invasion or planned invasion. I forgot about the intervention by the Western powers after the revolution and the end of WWI.
I have an acquaintance from Russia here in Australia, however, and she says that they have instituted military instruction in elementary schools in Russia, and she has a young son. And you see Russian military actions in the last 20 years not only in their neighbourhood but also in Africa and in Syria, and you see their press with revanchist and macho militarist appeals, and Putin reciting centuries-old history as an excuse to invade a neighbour.
What if Russia, instead of invading militarily, had tried to win Ukraine over economically? Used it as the main distribution point for Russian oil and gas?
By invading militarily Russia has instead made eternal enemies of the Ukrainians, caused both Sweden and Finland to join NATO, and scared the rest of Europe and Central Asia.
And the really sad thing is that there is no easy end to the war in sight. What is Ukraine supposed to give up? Conquered territory to date, or the whole provinces that Russia claims? How can Zelensky sell any of that to his people?
And to criticise the EU countries for increasing military spending to 3+% when Russia spends over 7% is not convincing, especially to the populations of the countries on the front line, all of which have a recent sad history of Russian domination.
All of this at a time when the US is apparently retreating from its previous strong military position in Europe.
To me it seems obvious that the countries of the EU must build up their military might and then negotiate with the Russians a long-term non-aggression pact.
What will happen to poor Ukraine in the meanwhile is heartbreaking to consider.
Thanks for a very precise article. In addition, I want to refer to Yanis Varoufakis´ latest book: Techno Feudalism. He claims: Capitalism is dead. Welcome to Technofeudalism! He shows how owners of the Big Tech became the worlds feudal overlords - replacing Capitalism with a fundamentally new system that enslaves our minds, destroys democracy and rewrites the rules of global power. It is a dark, scary, exciting song of our age.
To keep most of us sane and hopeful for the future, is that The West - meaning Europe and US, only comprise 14% of the population of the World. The other 86% seem to have more constructive ideas for our Future.
Let's play the part of a leader of a West European country responsible for the security of millions of citizens. In Russia we have a leader who has started at least five wars or Special Military Operations since he came to power. The Russian leader wants to recreate a Russian empire and is a potential military threat to the alliance your country belongs to. It is only wise to build up your country's military forces to counter the potential threat. Certainly diplomacy has a role as well, but looking at the history of the last twenty years and Russian military moves in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Syria, Central African Republic, Mali, Burkina Faso, plus internally in Chechnia and Dagestan, all the while the autocratic leader of Russia has shown no scruples in violently eliminating all his domestic opponents, a reasonable leader of a Western country would assume that Russia poses a potential threat, and therefore a military defence against Russia should be planned and instituted. You would be forever seen as a fool if you did not move to better protect your country and alliance with such evidence of potential threat before you, and Russia did ultimately attack your country or one of your allies.
Mr. Wright, you show up my ignorance - what are Putin's five aggressions? What is the evidence he wants to recreate a Russian empire? And how are the two related?
Putin has criticised Gorbachev repeatedly for “destruction of our great country”, the Soviet empire. He wrote an essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”. In his interview with Tucker Carlson he makes the same claim about Ukraine and Russia and lauds the empire-building of Peter the Great. Further emphasizing this viewpoint, in a June 2022 speech, Putin compared himself to Peter the Great, stating that both were engaged in efforts to "return" Russian lands.
Intelligence agencies and scholars argue that Putin wants to re-establish a Greater Russia.
He has invaded Ukraine in order to expand the borders of Russia. He has fomented separatism against Moldova and stationed Russian troops in the breakaway region of Transnistria and done the same against Georgia even more directly and violently and created the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Russia has committed several acts of sabotage and engaged in other covert acts against European countries including:
Arson Attacks in Poland and Lithuania
Sabotage of Undersea Infrastructure
Incendiary Parcel Attacks in the UK
Espionage Activities in LatviaDisruption of Submarine Cables in the Baltic Se
Sabotage of Water Treatment Facilities in Finland
Espionage and Sabotage in the Netherlands
Sabotage of Ukrainian-Owned Businesses in the UK
Putin crushes dissent in Russia ruthlessly and has invested heavily in his military, and at present is estimated to be spending over 7% of GDP on the military.
Were I a leader of a country near Russia, I would be concerned and would increase military preparedness as a result. I would also increase diplomatic efforts.
Robert k Wrong (oh sorry 'wright') you are wrong to focus on repeating the salong generals of the west about Putin. You need to put yourself in the place of Russians.
You said five aggressions - what five were you thinking before ChatGPT? A little off topic but you trust it for completeness, objectivity, validity? I'm wary, I still do my own looking. And of those five outstanding examples, what evidence they really happened and if they did, why? Here's where I echo Mr. Peck looking for context - presumably they didn't occur in vacuums. Last for now, I see weighted words and especially adjectives as red flags of argument weakness in addressing facts, which I hope are the foundation of this discussion. Whether ChatGPT or you, I'd be all over that sentence with 'crushes dissent ruthlessly' and 'invested heavily.' What do those phrases MEAN?
I have no basis to relate to the dissent crushing but as to heavy investing, I do understand Russia's economy is good, debt is minimal, and compared to the USA Russia's 'heavy' military investment is a pittance, a word I feel I can objectively use considering #1 USA military debt spending is $811.6 billion of essentially printed paper with no tangible value compared to #5 Russia, $72 billion spending of actual assets.
US military debt spending closes in on nearing three times the spending of #2 China, and even so we cannot win wars, wars we ourselves start as our own economy and society crumble to the depths of even short shrift to our military veterans with acknowledged significant issues of homelessness and suicide. That, Mr. Wright, is my context.
Here note the difference between GDP nominal, and PPP in which Russia has risen to #4 worldwide, indicating to me its considerably more effective use of its lower financial resources.
All this to point out the hot air behind in this case the term 'heavy investing.' If we start delving into what we really mean I think we can have meaningful talk informed by facts and critical thinking not off the cuff hurling of others' self-interested inventions.
Please note that I am arguing only that the EU countries are reasonable in investing more in military preparedness. I live in Australia, not in America, and I advocate for Australia to quit AUKUS and not spend AUD380B on 8 submarines. But with the US, at least under Trump, seemingly quitting its previous pledge of military support to Europe, I think it only prudent of European leadership to build up its independent military strength in face of a militaristic and aggressive Russia.
What evidence European military 'preparedness' is reasonable in light of the Global Majority trying to get on with living? Especially with what I think is your own reasonable approach to a more peaceful Australian stance.
Do you deny circular reasoning in your last sentence? Again without evidence. And that language! 'Prudent . . . to build up independent military strength'! Three years in and they're telling each other Ukraine can win. Fact. They lack money, men, and materiel. As does US. Fact. Russian economy has improved. Fact. Russia now has more territory. Fact. But does ChatGPT think so?
Ukraine has some record stupid losses like Kursk maybe not its fault having probably been orchestrated by the US. Report is Russians have two back up trained armies. And the war-winning west (NOT. Fact) still judges them by our 'standards'. How brilliant is that?
US Integrated Country Strategy management goals, #1 ADVANCE US POLICY GOALS, #2 EXPANDED FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (and we all know what foreign assistance means ;-) AND DIPLOMATIC ENGAGEMENT (we know what that means too, look up hard diplomacy, a definition on par with assassination = deterrence), #3 LEVEL-UP US PRESENCE:
"Management Objective 1: Recruit, retain, train, and integrate a premiere team to advance U.S. policy goals.
Management Objective 2: Rebuild the physical plant and ICASS platform to support expanded foreign assistance programs and robust diplomatic
engagement.
Management Objective 3: Level-Up U.S. Presence in Ukraine to Secure the Future."
Again, I am not arguing a pro-US position. I only argue that the EU, independent of the US military backing that is no longer assured, is prudent to build up their military forces in face of their biggest threat, Russia.
Again, here are the direct military actions that Russia has been involved in:
And it’s a wildly incorrect interpretation of Putin and Russia. He brought Russia back from the brink of collapse into a hollowed out US-style state; took power away from the oligarchs; paid off the IMF debt; strengthened Russia against the West for US grand strategy has long been to prevent any rival power emerging, and part of that has been to ensure the industrial power of Germany will not be joined to a resource rich and militarily powerful Russia. That is why the US has repeatedly tried to stop Germany and Europe from importing Russian oil and gas.
It’s important to note that in the sabotaged Istanbul agreement Russia made NO territorial claims.
Shake hands on similar understanding. Now application, how to use this illustration of contrasts in perception? Normally with friends and family, I'd shower them with links, quotes, and logic as to why I'm right. Not that it stops me, but this way typically doesn't work. I'm most often confronted with silence.
Oh yes, same experience here. The dominant narrative is very “safe” (to accept and maintain) because it’s hard to crack unless you have the curiosity to read the history and read widely about current events. Few can be bothered. The old suit is shabby but so comfortable to wear!
Well I'm not above shopping secondhand - frankly, for better quality, workmanship, as good or better comfort and fit, and not least, the challenge of the hunt. Here I feel Pascal has opened an opportunity to test getting beyond crosstalk. Or worse, that closed and locked door SILENCE. The idea that multiple sides can't pursue a mutual search for truth seems too facile. So this is a test. And doing it here can be a pebble in a puddle of wider communication - and effective confrontation.
People are dying thanks to idiot American legislators and administrators. I keep that in mind. And even by accident, next it could be us. That's motivating too.
So much truth - so why does Sachs promote an illegal two-state solution in light of Palestinians' right of self-determination? And what's he doing to salvage the Sustainable Development Goals? Red flags all over the place - money money money, top down management, lots of meetings and trillions of words going nowhere, just pay up poor countries.
But somehow you never mention the elephant in the room the greedy empire of the middle who keeps trying to dominate the continent, like a millennial obsession. Why? They have caused repeated chaos in Europe, the continent, century after century, they need to be faced with the cost of their behaviour.
I thoroughly agree on the Chinese view, thanks for the DeepSeek view. I totally agree with a non-aggression pact, how long ago did Russia offer one and how often, offers the USA and west repeatedly outright refused. But US/western media only offers small peeks at reality that are soon forgotten with no reminders. The well researched book PROVOKED by Scott Horton, provides details and Pascal himself reviews the very short free downloadable HOW THE WEST BROUGHT WAR TO UKRAINE by Benjamin Abelow, copyrighted, interestingly, 2022. Recommending you download and read this and say how it affects your thinking.
Just because we don't know doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the abuses we accuse others of, thinking they act like us? As Richard Medhurst says, every Israeli accusation is a confession. Whereas the US west always tells the truth? Except as you note, Grenada, Panama, Iraq. Afghanistan? Chile?
John Mearsheimer, 2021, "Specifically, I find that leaders do not lie very often to other countries, but instead seem more inclined to lie to their own people."
Britannica defines propaganda as "dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion. It is often conveyed through mass media."
And propaganda isn't what you're repeating? And from ChatGPS. I've cited facts and sources in areas your arguments omit maybe because they don't fit (per Antony Blinken no less) the all important NARRATIVE? If one knows the facts does one still choose to base conclusions and opinions on life and death operations in real time on narrative or reality? Russia's actions couldn't be DEFENSIVE? Based on facts. America's actions couldn't be CONTINUITY OF HEGEMONIC AGENDA?
Thank you Mr. Wright for those five examples. And last, the context I requested specific to each instance of what you termed 'aggression'? I'm not seeing how any of the generalities you offer, if they could be termed evidence, are directly connected to any one of the five aggressions. Please describe what you understand as the reason for each aggression in your list.
I appreciate your sticking with this. I feel I owe you an explanation and shall provide it after mulling over your answers to this last (I hope) request.
When the main aim of a global society is the building of profits rather than the wellbeing of its people, we can expect no other outcome. Greed is not only condoned, it is encouraged. Wars over finite resources are organized on the basis of nationalism.
So-called democratic elections that revolve around patriotic nationalism are hollow exercises. Until we reorganize ourselves into a social framework based on main aim of supporting human and planetary life, this unnecessary spiral of destruction will continue to a bad end.
Quote from the last paragraph:
"But first, we have to face the reality and say it out loud: the West has a problem. It doesn’t know how to talk about peace anymore."
I would like to react on that.
For already a while I follow the psychological info on YT about narcissism.
People who have met them, narcissists, via family, "friends", colleagues, etc. know what narcissism is and how deep the impact is of their behaviour, the wounds they create. Learning to analyse that behaviour is the only way to survive a narcissist.
The political and industrial west is a collective of narcissists. The characteristics of narcissism are the basics of their eternal warmongering. They know how to impress, control, and that is completely similar to the behaviour of narcissists in the circle of family, friends, etc.
So, the collective west wants to impress and warmongering has become a fantastic way to impress, being arrogant is as well. Being deaf to any kind of argument, explanation. Searching for escalation. Nothing works to make them think deeper. Except one thing: to ask one question, while watching the narcissist straight in the eyes, with calmness and without raising voice: What would you do if you could never impress anyone again?
Putin has, until today, shown that he is capable to face the western collective in the way a narcissist has to be treated. With calmness, and not taken into any provocation in the way the west would have preferred: making an emotional conflict of it that escalates, because the goal, because that is what the west does. That is the goal of their provocations, provoking wars and anger.
He, Putin, knows where the borders are, and not allowing that these borders are crossed or neglected otherwise. He masters his mind and the situation. He cannot be controlled by the west.
Warmongering has always been the way of the west!
Thinking it's more smash and grab winning at any price from everybody else. The west seems to neither know nor care about the rules of war.
Going over other one's borders. That is typically narcistic.
Warmongering is typically narcistic.
It is their way to hide their inner emptiness, their zeroism.
I think the brain drain in our politics is way beyond repair. And when you think of how many fancy degrees they have, that's another thing. Dire competency crisis.
Well said.
But this is no mistake. Its the product of long term investments in brainwashing every sector of society. I saw a statistic somewhere that the public relations arms of NATO and the military in its member countries had increased their spending by more than 10x in the past decade.
That means newspapers full of war cheerleaders ("retired" colonels, paid shills from NATO sponsored "think tanks" etc). It means public events get "security" experts stuffed in their to cheerlead weapons. It means Europeans get fed TV shows with military themes designed to make war seem "fun" and patriotic. It means even the financial sector bombarded with messaging to sponsor war. As a result many European pension funds, which you would think have an interest in long term stability and peace, have been pouring investment into companies that blow up things and kill people.....and with no thought for when those missiles get lobbed over to Russia....what will be the reply and what happends to the buildings, property and farmland in Europe, as a result.
Its a total brainwashing.
Compare the warmongering culture of Russia, where war is glorified daily to the youngest pupils in school.
EU culture is much more peace-loving than Russia's. One can also criticise the government, including military and foreign policy, without worrying about imprisonment or worse, unlike in Russia.
1) You're runnin off on a tangent.
2) You appear to completely disjointed from reality. People ARE getting arrested and imprison for critising government policy and complicity in colonial opppresson and genocide, and warmongering.....right here in the west. Now. Journalists even. And its not not new. Been going on since Julian Assange and its intensifying.
Wake up.
Is Russia part of Europe or not?
If so, it’s part of the collective problem.
If not, it’s still part of the collective problem.
How does your observation bring the global community together to talking about and building authentic peace?
My impression is that's not true. I don't think contemporary Russian culture is warmongering - I think it's war defensive: the stress is on being patriotic in the defence of the motherland. It's central 'myth' (in the non-pejorative sense) is the 'Great Patriotic War' fought against fascism.
This myth probably also echoes earlier defensive national myths such as resistance against the foreign imperialist powers which sent troops to support the White Russians in an attempt to strangle the Bolshevik Revolution in it's cradle. And before that the war against Napoleon, and the first Crimean War which was another attempt to prevent Russia remaining a great power.
A defensive war mentality is not at all a warmongering mentality. Sadly, the primary exponents of the latter since at least about 1800 has been Western Europe and the USA. Even before that at various times.
I haven't quite considered the Russian tendency towards military intervention in your terms before, and I see a lot of truth in what you say. Certainly Russia is located right in the centre of Eurasia and has been the object of many an invasion or planned invasion. I forgot about the intervention by the Western powers after the revolution and the end of WWI.
I have an acquaintance from Russia here in Australia, however, and she says that they have instituted military instruction in elementary schools in Russia, and she has a young son. And you see Russian military actions in the last 20 years not only in their neighbourhood but also in Africa and in Syria, and you see their press with revanchist and macho militarist appeals, and Putin reciting centuries-old history as an excuse to invade a neighbour.
What if Russia, instead of invading militarily, had tried to win Ukraine over economically? Used it as the main distribution point for Russian oil and gas?
By invading militarily Russia has instead made eternal enemies of the Ukrainians, caused both Sweden and Finland to join NATO, and scared the rest of Europe and Central Asia.
And the really sad thing is that there is no easy end to the war in sight. What is Ukraine supposed to give up? Conquered territory to date, or the whole provinces that Russia claims? How can Zelensky sell any of that to his people?
And to criticise the EU countries for increasing military spending to 3+% when Russia spends over 7% is not convincing, especially to the populations of the countries on the front line, all of which have a recent sad history of Russian domination.
All of this at a time when the US is apparently retreating from its previous strong military position in Europe.
To me it seems obvious that the countries of the EU must build up their military might and then negotiate with the Russians a long-term non-aggression pact.
What will happen to poor Ukraine in the meanwhile is heartbreaking to consider.
I suggest not believing Russian propaganda on why they invaded Ukraine, a clear act of aggression. They lie about Ukraine and they lie about NATO.
https://polciv.substack.com/p/the-nato-as-existential-threat-furphy
https://marcusson.substack.com/p/lies-about-nato
https://irenekenyon.substack.com/p/russia-plays-victim
https://marcusson.substack.com/p/lukashenka-and-putin-spend-more-on-their-military-than-on-healthcare
https://x.com/ivan_8848/status/1892518749959332127?t=SNc-KaGNHQuL3C9II9M3TQ&s=35
https://x.com/ivan_8848/status/1857847557407289374?t=PpYpddJ4yvF6GgDZixC0kQ&s=35
Thanks for a very precise article. In addition, I want to refer to Yanis Varoufakis´ latest book: Techno Feudalism. He claims: Capitalism is dead. Welcome to Technofeudalism! He shows how owners of the Big Tech became the worlds feudal overlords - replacing Capitalism with a fundamentally new system that enslaves our minds, destroys democracy and rewrites the rules of global power. It is a dark, scary, exciting song of our age.
To keep most of us sane and hopeful for the future, is that The West - meaning Europe and US, only comprise 14% of the population of the World. The other 86% seem to have more constructive ideas for our Future.
The West has forgotten that people are not stupid.
Let's play the part of a leader of a West European country responsible for the security of millions of citizens. In Russia we have a leader who has started at least five wars or Special Military Operations since he came to power. The Russian leader wants to recreate a Russian empire and is a potential military threat to the alliance your country belongs to. It is only wise to build up your country's military forces to counter the potential threat. Certainly diplomacy has a role as well, but looking at the history of the last twenty years and Russian military moves in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Syria, Central African Republic, Mali, Burkina Faso, plus internally in Chechnia and Dagestan, all the while the autocratic leader of Russia has shown no scruples in violently eliminating all his domestic opponents, a reasonable leader of a Western country would assume that Russia poses a potential threat, and therefore a military defence against Russia should be planned and instituted. You would be forever seen as a fool if you did not move to better protect your country and alliance with such evidence of potential threat before you, and Russia did ultimately attack your country or one of your allies.
Mr. Wright, you show up my ignorance - what are Putin's five aggressions? What is the evidence he wants to recreate a Russian empire? And how are the two related?
Largely from ChatGPT I find:
Military campaigns:
2 X Chechnya
2 X Ukraine
Georgia
Syria
Mali
Central African Republic
Burkina Faso
Putin has criticised Gorbachev repeatedly for “destruction of our great country”, the Soviet empire. He wrote an essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”. In his interview with Tucker Carlson he makes the same claim about Ukraine and Russia and lauds the empire-building of Peter the Great. Further emphasizing this viewpoint, in a June 2022 speech, Putin compared himself to Peter the Great, stating that both were engaged in efforts to "return" Russian lands.
Intelligence agencies and scholars argue that Putin wants to re-establish a Greater Russia.
He has invaded Ukraine in order to expand the borders of Russia. He has fomented separatism against Moldova and stationed Russian troops in the breakaway region of Transnistria and done the same against Georgia even more directly and violently and created the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Russia has committed several acts of sabotage and engaged in other covert acts against European countries including:
Arson Attacks in Poland and Lithuania
Sabotage of Undersea Infrastructure
Incendiary Parcel Attacks in the UK
Espionage Activities in LatviaDisruption of Submarine Cables in the Baltic Se
Sabotage of Water Treatment Facilities in Finland
Espionage and Sabotage in the Netherlands
Sabotage of Ukrainian-Owned Businesses in the UK
Putin crushes dissent in Russia ruthlessly and has invested heavily in his military, and at present is estimated to be spending over 7% of GDP on the military.
Were I a leader of a country near Russia, I would be concerned and would increase military preparedness as a result. I would also increase diplomatic efforts.
I enjoy reading your posts.
rkw
You need to look very closely into those conflicts which you describe as Russian aggression. What was Russia responding to in Georgia for example?
Robert k Wrong (oh sorry 'wright') you are wrong to focus on repeating the salong generals of the west about Putin. You need to put yourself in the place of Russians.
Please watch the video in the following link: https://youtu.be/Wqm9Yl1gGEY?feature=shared
You said five aggressions - what five were you thinking before ChatGPT? A little off topic but you trust it for completeness, objectivity, validity? I'm wary, I still do my own looking. And of those five outstanding examples, what evidence they really happened and if they did, why? Here's where I echo Mr. Peck looking for context - presumably they didn't occur in vacuums. Last for now, I see weighted words and especially adjectives as red flags of argument weakness in addressing facts, which I hope are the foundation of this discussion. Whether ChatGPT or you, I'd be all over that sentence with 'crushes dissent ruthlessly' and 'invested heavily.' What do those phrases MEAN?
I have no basis to relate to the dissent crushing but as to heavy investing, I do understand Russia's economy is good, debt is minimal, and compared to the USA Russia's 'heavy' military investment is a pittance, a word I feel I can objectively use considering #1 USA military debt spending is $811.6 billion of essentially printed paper with no tangible value compared to #5 Russia, $72 billion spending of actual assets.
https://worldostats.com/country-stats/military-spending-by-country/
US military debt spending closes in on nearing three times the spending of #2 China, and even so we cannot win wars, wars we ourselves start as our own economy and society crumble to the depths of even short shrift to our military veterans with acknowledged significant issues of homelessness and suicide. That, Mr. Wright, is my context.
https://worldostats.com/country-stats/military-spending-by-country/
https://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php
Here note the difference between GDP nominal, and PPP in which Russia has risen to #4 worldwide, indicating to me its considerably more effective use of its lower financial resources.
All this to point out the hot air behind in this case the term 'heavy investing.' If we start delving into what we really mean I think we can have meaningful talk informed by facts and critical thinking not off the cuff hurling of others' self-interested inventions.
Please note that I am arguing only that the EU countries are reasonable in investing more in military preparedness. I live in Australia, not in America, and I advocate for Australia to quit AUKUS and not spend AUD380B on 8 submarines. But with the US, at least under Trump, seemingly quitting its previous pledge of military support to Europe, I think it only prudent of European leadership to build up its independent military strength in face of a militaristic and aggressive Russia.
What evidence European military 'preparedness' is reasonable in light of the Global Majority trying to get on with living? Especially with what I think is your own reasonable approach to a more peaceful Australian stance.
Do you deny circular reasoning in your last sentence? Again without evidence. And that language! 'Prudent . . . to build up independent military strength'! Three years in and they're telling each other Ukraine can win. Fact. They lack money, men, and materiel. As does US. Fact. Russian economy has improved. Fact. Russia now has more territory. Fact. But does ChatGPT think so?
Ukraine has some record stupid losses like Kursk maybe not its fault having probably been orchestrated by the US. Report is Russians have two back up trained armies. And the war-winning west (NOT. Fact) still judges them by our 'standards'. How brilliant is that?
US Integrated Country Strategy management goals, #1 ADVANCE US POLICY GOALS, #2 EXPANDED FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (and we all know what foreign assistance means ;-) AND DIPLOMATIC ENGAGEMENT (we know what that means too, look up hard diplomacy, a definition on par with assassination = deterrence), #3 LEVEL-UP US PRESENCE:
"Management Objective 1: Recruit, retain, train, and integrate a premiere team to advance U.S. policy goals.
Management Objective 2: Rebuild the physical plant and ICASS platform to support expanded foreign assistance programs and robust diplomatic
engagement.
Management Objective 3: Level-Up U.S. Presence in Ukraine to Secure the Future."
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ICS_EUR_Ukraine_29AUG2023_PUBLIC.pdf
See Brian Berletic, The New Atlas, on continuity of agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/c/thenewatlas
And where are those five examples you promised?
Again, I am not arguing a pro-US position. I only argue that the EU, independent of the US military backing that is no longer assured, is prudent to build up their military forces in face of their biggest threat, Russia.
Again, here are the direct military actions that Russia has been involved in:
2 X Chechnya
2 X Ukraine
Georgia
Syria
Mali
Central African Republic
Burkina Faso
https://open.substack.com/pub/truthministry/p/the-putin-paradox-why-the-west-misunderstands?r=7zux5&utm_medium=ios
This is such a good example of what this post is talking about - thank you!
And it’s a wildly incorrect interpretation of Putin and Russia. He brought Russia back from the brink of collapse into a hollowed out US-style state; took power away from the oligarchs; paid off the IMF debt; strengthened Russia against the West for US grand strategy has long been to prevent any rival power emerging, and part of that has been to ensure the industrial power of Germany will not be joined to a resource rich and militarily powerful Russia. That is why the US has repeatedly tried to stop Germany and Europe from importing Russian oil and gas.
It’s important to note that in the sabotaged Istanbul agreement Russia made NO territorial claims.
Shake hands on similar understanding. Now application, how to use this illustration of contrasts in perception? Normally with friends and family, I'd shower them with links, quotes, and logic as to why I'm right. Not that it stops me, but this way typically doesn't work. I'm most often confronted with silence.
Oh yes, same experience here. The dominant narrative is very “safe” (to accept and maintain) because it’s hard to crack unless you have the curiosity to read the history and read widely about current events. Few can be bothered. The old suit is shabby but so comfortable to wear!
Well I'm not above shopping secondhand - frankly, for better quality, workmanship, as good or better comfort and fit, and not least, the challenge of the hunt. Here I feel Pascal has opened an opportunity to test getting beyond crosstalk. Or worse, that closed and locked door SILENCE. The idea that multiple sides can't pursue a mutual search for truth seems too facile. So this is a test. And doing it here can be a pebble in a puddle of wider communication - and effective confrontation.
People are dying thanks to idiot American legislators and administrators. I keep that in mind. And even by accident, next it could be us. That's motivating too.
The arc of the universe does not tend towards justice:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-163801067
I couldn’t put it more succinctly than this 👇
https://substack.com/@futuredude/note/c-117612353?r=7zux5&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
So much truth - so why does Sachs promote an illegal two-state solution in light of Palestinians' right of self-determination? And what's he doing to salvage the Sustainable Development Goals? Red flags all over the place - money money money, top down management, lots of meetings and trillions of words going nowhere, just pay up poor countries.
Or what evidence to the contrary?
The West never did make peace - they simply destroyed. Why would they change now.
But somehow you never mention the elephant in the room the greedy empire of the middle who keeps trying to dominate the continent, like a millennial obsession. Why? They have caused repeated chaos in Europe, the continent, century after century, they need to be faced with the cost of their behaviour.
Pascal, typing gremlin in your last line: "Real peace isn’t naive, my fiends." Fiend or foe? 😊
I thoroughly agree on the Chinese view, thanks for the DeepSeek view. I totally agree with a non-aggression pact, how long ago did Russia offer one and how often, offers the USA and west repeatedly outright refused. But US/western media only offers small peeks at reality that are soon forgotten with no reminders. The well researched book PROVOKED by Scott Horton, provides details and Pascal himself reviews the very short free downloadable HOW THE WEST BROUGHT WAR TO UKRAINE by Benjamin Abelow, copyrighted, interestingly, 2022. Recommending you download and read this and say how it affects your thinking.
https://benjaminabelow.com/download/
Just because we don't know doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the abuses we accuse others of, thinking they act like us? As Richard Medhurst says, every Israeli accusation is a confession. Whereas the US west always tells the truth? Except as you note, Grenada, Panama, Iraq. Afghanistan? Chile?
https://youtu.be/bi4jrwONyTs?feature=shared
John Mearsheimer, 2021, "Specifically, I find that leaders do not lie very often to other countries, but instead seem more inclined to lie to their own people."
https://sites.nd.edu/junior-seminar-spring-2021-truth-politics-democracy/why-leaders-lie-the-truth-about-lying-in-international-politics/
Britannica defines propaganda as "dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion. It is often conveyed through mass media."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda
And propaganda isn't what you're repeating? And from ChatGPS. I've cited facts and sources in areas your arguments omit maybe because they don't fit (per Antony Blinken no less) the all important NARRATIVE? If one knows the facts does one still choose to base conclusions and opinions on life and death operations in real time on narrative or reality? Russia's actions couldn't be DEFENSIVE? Based on facts. America's actions couldn't be CONTINUITY OF HEGEMONIC AGENDA?
Excellent. Perfectly drafted. Tone-conscious. Words built to last. These words written by Pascal will endure. I have no doubt about that.
You might want to make your way to Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII by John Donne. It tells 'for whom the bell tolls.'
Thank you Mr. Wright for those five examples. And last, the context I requested specific to each instance of what you termed 'aggression'? I'm not seeing how any of the generalities you offer, if they could be termed evidence, are directly connected to any one of the five aggressions. Please describe what you understand as the reason for each aggression in your list.
I appreciate your sticking with this. I feel I owe you an explanation and shall provide it after mulling over your answers to this last (I hope) request.
Care to remind us when they made peace?
So sad.