The West has made it clear that they are absolutely willing to risk a nuclear war in their quest to dominate the former eastern Ukraine.
The situation draws attention to the fact that the people running the Western world are not simply diabolical, but also inconceivably stupid. It’s been said a million times, but there is no strategic relevance for the West to the eastern Ukraine. It’s extremely relevant to the Russians, of course, which is why the Americans were interested in it. They were attempting to use the conflict in the Ukraine to cause a collapse of the Russian state. The issue, however, is that this did not work. The Russian state did not collapse.
There is now very serious confusion as to what the purpose of the war actually is. It is clearly impossible for the Ukraine to win. No one is even making that claim anymore. Instead, the West is talking about escalating to some kind of nuclear situation.
No one has any idea what the logic of this is. All we can do is observe their actions. Their statements don’t mean anything.
I wouldn’t claim to know what is actually going on. But the thing appears to be running on inertia.
There is:
- Massive graft in the US and the Ukraine
- Jewish hatred for Russia
- Arms industry lobbying
- NATO leadership obsession with war
- US desire to weaken Europe
- A general American policy of always being at war with someone
- Sunk costs
- Actual lunatics who want to escalate to a World War and/or believe that Russia is attempting to reestablish a Christian version of the Soviet Union
There doesn’t seem to be any core logic. It’s just these various different factors.
Much of it is the same sort of thing that kept the US involved in Afghanistan for so long. It’s just that in Afghanistan, there were effectively zero stakes. In the situation in the Ukraine, the stakes are potentially nuclear war, which could kill billions of people.
NOTE: I don’t believe the gibberish about nuclear winter and I’m not convinced that all of the nukes would be fired. I recently watched part of an interview with that mulatto guy from the UK and some woman who wrote a book about nuclear war.
It was pretty boring. Just basically 1980s propaganda. Would everyone actually fire all the nukes if one nuke was fired? I seriously doubt it. And even if they did, the whole “nuclear winter” thing is not even real.
In an act of pure masochism, I recently reread “The Road” by my all time favorite writer Cormac McCarthy. (I am being sarcastic. McCarthy is the worst writer and a Biden-tier blight on the Irish race.) This sort of thing is just goofbally. A nuclear war would actually probably be a good thing.
But I don’t think whoever is in charge actually wants a nuclear war. Again, we don’t know. We don’t even really know who is in charge. Apparently, it is Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and then secondarily, some people like David Cameron and Boris Johnson. It appears to make sense that these people are in charge, and they are just very dumb.
To be clear, “tactical nuclear weapon” is jargon that basically means a small bomb. The US has said that if Russia hit the Ukraine with such a bomb, they would not nuke Russia, but would blow up their entire navy. That’s what David Petraeus said, at least, and he appeared to be speaking in a semi-official capacity – kind of playing a spokesman role.
That was nearly two years ago, but I’m not aware of any other statement being made by a relevant official as to how the US would respond if such a nuke was used in the Ukraine.
This statement from Petraeus is nonsensical, however, as if NATO attacked Russia on the scale he suggested, Russia would start firing real nukes at European and presumably American cities. Basically, if Russia used a small nuke in the Ukraine, NATO would either have to start a nuclear war or just do nothing – maybe send some NATO forces into the Ukraine, which would effectively trigger a series of events leading to Russia firing serious nukes.
All that having been said, although Russia is currently doing “tactical nuke” drills on the Ukraine border, it’s not clear that the Ukraine is the target they are potentially threatening.
Russian forces have started military drills near Ukraine simulating the use of tactical nuclear weapons in response to what Moscow deems threats from western officials about increased involvement in the conflict.
Vladimir Putin ordered the drills earlier this month in a move Russian officials said was a warning to the west not to escalate tensions further.
The Kremlin has particularly been angered by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, who floated the possibility of sending European troops to fight Russia in Ukraine, and by remarks from the UK foreign secretary, David Cameron, who said Ukraine had the right to use weapons supplied by London to target sites in Russia.
Claiming that Russia has been “angered” is editorializing. I don’t think they intended it to be editorializing, I think it’s just poor writing. Russia is responding logically. There is no emotion here. At least there is no visible emotion. Unlike the Americans, no top Russian official is ever emotional in public, save for Medvedev, who is basically a kind of “fan service” figure for the Russian people. But Putin, his spokesman Peskov, top diplomat Lavrov – none of these people are ever emotional in public.
Well, Putin shed a few tears at his election victory event while singing a patriotic song. So I guess that’s emotion. But it’s love for the country and the people. (I also suspect it’s pretty hard on him that he has to send boys to die in the Ukraine. That’s what I thought about when I saw the tears at the event in Red Square.)
In contrast, the Americans are unhinged. Remember that speech Joe Biden gave where he was screaming on a dark stage with blood-red lights?
If you just search “Biden screaming” you get a whole lot of clips.
He’s obviously a senile and deranged old man, and these flashes of rage are relatively normal for someone with his stage of dementia. But he’s still the head of the American state.
Antony Blinken doesn’t get angry, but he always looks like he’s shaking, ready to curl up in the fetal position and start weeping.
Then you have a whole bunch of different American officials who go on TV screaming about all the people they’re going to kill. Lindsey Graham is the most notable, probably, but Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, Marco Rubio, all the various Jew Democrats – most of the people you see in the American government appear very emotionally unstable. It’s very rare to see normal people acting like American politicians act unless they are drunk or on drugs. Maybe poor people get emotional like this, I’m not really sure, but I’m not in my life around this sort of thing. (Again, unless people are drinking, and I don’t think these people are drinking. They could be on drugs.)
So, it’s very interesting that The Guardian would use the word “anger” in relation to Russia. Again, I think it is just bad writing.
“The Kremlin has particularly been angered by…” should be “The Kremlin has specifically cited…”
But a telling bit of bad writing.
For me, the strangest thing is how unconcerned everyone appears to be about the threat of nuclear war.
During the Cold War, people lived in constant panic. Or, at least this is how it’s portrayed. There is a much, much higher chance that a nuclear war could happen now than there ever was during the Cold War, and yet we’re not even getting PSAs about what we’re supposed to do if it happens.
Piers Morgan told John Mearsheimer that hundreds of millions of people dying in nuclear war would be worth it to prove a point to Putin that we love democracy.
(Forgive me, I don’t have the timestamp. The entire interview is fascinating, insofar as Morgan is representative of popular opinion.)
That was a particularly surreal interview, which almost led me to believe that Morgan is some type of troll, pretending to be retarded in order to highlight the insanity of people cavalierly dismissing the threat of London, New York, Chicago, and so on getting blown off the map.
Could there be some type of secret plan at work here?
To my knowledge, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything is happening beyond what appears to be happening: the Western world is run by people who are both evil and stupid, and they are acting on the associated impulses, attempting to reestablish a unipolar world dominated by the United States, and doing so in a fashion that is maniacal and bound to end in catastrophic failure of some sort.
But, above I mentioned The Road, a work of fiction which we can point to when analyzing how the popular mind conceives of a potential nuclear war. A fashionable notion among literature aficionados is that fiction is primarily about aesthetics. Personally, although I am interested in literary aesthetics, I like fiction primarily because it contains ideas. This concept that literature is primarily about aesthetics is effectively nihilistic, in my view. This is what gets us Thomas Pynchon, Cormac McCarthy, and David Foster Wallace and everything that sprouted from the works of those terrible men. Even Ernest Hemingway, hack that he was, would not tell you that literature was primarily about aesthetics.
Two pieces of puerile fiction dealing with nuclear war that I recently consumed shared a concept which I found quite intriguing.
After watching the rather terrible (though mildly mesmerizing) Apple TV series “Silo,” and being extremely frustrated by the cliffhanger ending, I went and read the series of novels (Wool and Shift by Hugh Howey). The story is about fallout shelters, the titular silos, where people have been living for hundreds of years. The big reveal is that government officials built the shelters and then purposefully started a nuclear war to wipe out all of the rest of humanity so that the human species could start anew with a small, unified population emerging from the silos when the surface became habitable again.
I intended to write about this a year or so ago, and then sort of forgot about it (as I do with many things I intend to write about). Then, against my better judgement, I subjected myself to Amazon’s Fallout series, based on the video game series of the same name. With the CEO of the game’s developer, Todd Howard of Bethesda, serving as an executive producer, the series was intended to be part of the Fallout canon. However, it contained a new piece of lore: the people who built the fallout shelters (known as “vaults” in the series) purposefully started a nuclear war in order to clear out the planet and allow humans to emerge into a new world. It was effectively the same plot as Silo/Wool.
Wool was published in 2011, so it’s possible the writers of the Fallout series had read it. (I’ve read, watched, and gamed a lot of science fiction, and I’ve never come across this plot point anywhere else.) But it’s also possible that more than one person thought up this idea, because it just sort of makes sense when you look at the way the world is treating the idea of a catastrophic global nuclear war.
Again: there is no evidence of this, and therefore no reason to believe it. But I’ve thought about it a lot since coming across the concept a second time in the Fallout series. There are people who we know are preparing fallout shelters. It’s become very popular in New Zealand. Mark Zuckerberg has built what WIRED calls “an underground city” in Hawaii. The reported cost is $100 million, but it’s likely much more than that. It was intended to be secret, but is now just “secretive.”
Jeff Bezos no doubt has such a bunker, but there is no record of it. Apparently, he did a better job of keeping it secret than Zuckerberg did. And there are of course various rumors about massive underground cities run by the US military.
While it is clear that the people running the US government are effectively retarded, I don’t think we can say the same about the world’s various billionaires. Being a Western politician requires no skills at all, the singular requirement being a total lack of any normal form of human morality (past a certain level, you are also probably required to engage in some sickening act on video in order to ensure you won’t step out of line). It’s certainly interesting that no billionaire, save Elon Musk and the cast of the All-In podcast, is making any issue of what appears to be a mindless dance into a nuclear war.
Jeff Bezos, whose company published Wool and produced the Fallout series, owns the Washington Post, which is one the primary publications responsible for normalizing the idea of a nuclear war to protect democracy in the Ukraine.
Billionaires building shelters is just something obvious. Of course they would do such a thing. But you would think if they were against a nuclear war, they would be stepping in and paying politicians to back off. It’s a cliche, but also true that politicians will take money to promote anything. If billionaires wanted it, there would be a serious contingent in Congress pushing back against this move towards nuclear war.
I’m just throwing it out there
Ultimately, I doubt there is a secret plan by the global elite to start a nuclear war to wipe out most of the world’s population while keeping a small portion of people in fallout shelters to emerge and form a new world, where they preserve the earth’s limited resources and are not being dragged down by the dead weight of “useless eaters.”
Most likely, this is all just exactly what it looks like: the West is being ruled by a bunch of lunatic Jews and morons who are unrestrained as there are no adults left in the room, and they are ultimately going to push the world to the brink, at which point China will pull off an economic and diplomatic miracle and keep the world from ending.