Revealingly, PBS has two experts who are for the war, and one expert (John Mearsheimer) who rightly argues the war is already lost for Ukraine.
The female expert is especially bold in calling for expanded attacks by Ukraine on Russia using U.S.-provided weaponry. Dead Russians don't seem to matter, nor does the danger of serious escalation.
It was good to see Mearsheimer providing some sense and sanity here.
This morning, I saw another recycling of the phrase, "Putin has already lost." Mercifully, behind a paywall, I couldn't read it, and thus neither could any other non-subscribers. As New Testament adages go, another comes to mind, "A house divided cannot stand." If this is true, two things come to mind. Ukraine is a complete mess at every level. It cannot stand. The USA is so increasingly hostile unto itself, it too, cannot stand in its current form. (And the lapdogs of Western Europe seem all too content to let us drag their past decades of peace and prosperity down with us.)
On the other hand, Russia, despite massive Western efforts, seems to be moving from strength to strength. Slowly, but surely. And somehow, Putin, in choosing his words, can refrain from name calling Biden an SOB. I hate that term for the denigration to the mothers who bore such scoundrels--be she innocent or complicit with how they turn out as men. But if we are to label evil men as thugs, murderers or SOBs (if you must), then surely, we must go yet again to the New Testament, "Get the plank out of your own eye!"
Bill, you appear to bend over backwards in soft-pedaling even the proximal causes of the Ukraine war, e.g. in suggesting that Russia and Ukraine had been feuding since 2014, with U.S. meddling furthering the tensions. One less familiar with the history would not glean from that the fact that the very reason for the Ukr.-Russe tensions was the coup that was substantially engineered by Washington's neocons, who have driven the State Dep't (and other agencies') foreign policy now for decades, through the Administrations of both Republican and Democratic Presidents. They wouldn't know that the same neocons who sold the Iraq invasion on deliberate lies were behind the coup and selection of the installed replacement puppet government.
Nor would they know that this coup was begun almost immediately after the announcement of a peace and security deal between those nations, which would have ensured continued peace (and military neutrality for Ukraine) for decades. The implications of that fact alone, but also accompanied by the facts that a) Ukraine would as a result become even closer tied economically to Russia and to its natural gas; and b) NATO's further expansion to Russia's western border would be obstructed, were anathema to U.S. hegemonic interests with respect to financial and military hegemony as well as U.S. control over global fossil fuels markets.
One overarching U.S. concern, of course, was that such an agreement would make more difficult the achievement of the neocons' (and their tool NATO)'s objective of constraining Russia's economic growth and thereby its achievement of peer status within Eurasian affairs.
An hegemonic Empire must have no equals and must allow no break with the unwritten but imposed rules within its "Rules Based Order".
In this piece I think you also equivocate about the status of Ukraine's armed forces and the war itself.
Most international observers not already fully aligned with the western / NATO / Atlantic Council camp, including many former U.S. military and intel officers, have concluded that Russia has already accomplished to a significant degree what it had set out to do in Feb. 2022.
Though it now controls a substantial part of E. Ukraine, for Russia's leadership, this was never about expansion of its territory, as the 8 years of its ignored pleas for negotiations had consistently made clear; but rather, about the security of its own borders, the continued Black Sea access via its nearly 250-year-old port and naval base at Sevastopol, and the protection of ethnic Russians in the Donbass. Its goal put most simply, has been the demilitarization of Ukraine and especially of its ultranationalist, neo-Nazi forces.
Furthermore, though the threats are not completely gone, and the Biden Administration continues to try to prolong this war "as long as "it" takes" (and that's deliberately vague, weasel language for saying, we want to prolong the war as long as possible"), Russia has already succeeded in the first goal of reducing, if not completely eliminating the threats related to Ukraine's war on and ethnic cleansing of the Donbass. The Azov battalions are not fully eradicated, but they've been largely chased out for at least the time being.
The outcome is indeed, all but certain, though the exact form of its resolution is unclear. Ukraine never had the ability, even with the past commitments of NATO-aligned states, to 'win' this easily preventable, but U.S.- sought (as the 2019 Rand Corp. memo suggests) war. In fact, the only (or at least biggest) remaining questions that I see are as follows:
1) How much longer can and will the U.S. and its NATO partners/vassal States continue to deliver arms and money, without committing their own citizens' bodies, in order to keep the war going? That will be in part a function of how much more tolerance there is among the electorates of Germany, France,the UK and others, for the economic impacts of this war.
2) Whether the NATO States will cross any further Russian security 'red lines' in the escalation of weaponry (including the long-range missiles Biden is considering sending; And if they do somehow manage to sufficiently threaten Russia's population and its national security, will escalation to nuclear weapons be triggered by any party?
3) How much farther West into Ukraine Russia will have to seize and control in order to obviate such threats (and whether that will require decapitation- as in the taking of Kyiv, and how much of a rump state will be left of "Ukraine")?;
4) How much of a population of Ukrainians will remain by the time any negotiated settlement occurs?
5) Who will undertake (if at all) the rebuilding of a structurally and institutionally devastated Ukraine? And how will THAT be funded- given that the U.S. has now greatly increased its national debt at the very time when its dollar hegemony via the currency exhange apparatus is weakening and its debt exposes its fundamental vulnerabilities and is followed by rapid inflation?
Lastly, I want to accentuate that last question / point, vis a vis your point that, "War may be the health of the state of the self-styled “arsenal of democracy...". While it's true that war spending fuels at a minimum the profits of the military industry (and this must to an extent also be applied to Russia (whose economy appears, by the way, to be MUCH stronger than the article implies), it isn't really healthy at all to the U.S.population in general. Sure, it helps keep the dollar temporarily afloat, in the short term maintaining the U.S. ability to spend and print more paper IOUs to back up its debt.
Yet the expansion of that debt in a world whose greater population appears more than ready to break away from the dollar's controls, means that long term (and in that I predict, not very distant future), the Washington-centered Empire will have effectively begun its contraction, with vast life changes forced upon an even-more disturbed citizenry.
And just in case you wonder, I liked the article and love the question: "Is America an arsenal of democracy, or just an arsenal?" ; though the very phrase, "arsenal of democracy" puts me on edge; for those who run the ship of state are highly interested in arsenals but appear disinterested in and even fearful of democracy
Perhaps that was a poor choice of words. I also recognize that it wasn't your intent to discuss the entirety of the story behind this tragic war. I'm probably prickly about the stories I do most often see, for their intentional omission of facts which if known might lead more of the public to question the wisdom of prolonging the killing.
not ''a poor choice of words" at all roger; too much 'soft-peddling' afoot here. it was what should have been said and repeated on multiple occasions on multifarious blogsites. your comprehensive coverage is profound and parlous appreciated.
I'm not an economic expert. Russia's economy seems stable to me but still relatively weak compared to the economies of Western countries, especially the U.S.
So, for example, Russia's GDP in 2023 ranked 11th in the world, far behind countries like the U.S., China, Japan, Germany, India, and the UK.
I know it's just one measure. As I said, I think the Russian economy is stable. "Strong" is relative. If you want to argue Russia is strong economically, perhaps you might cite some data.
Wiki: The economy of Russia has gradually transformed from a planned economy into a mixed market-oriented economy.[28] It has enormous natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas.[29] In 2023, it was the world's 11th-largest economy by nominal GDP, 6th-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP) according to IMF, and 5th-largest according to World Bank.[5]
Russia's vast geography is an important determinant of its economic activity, with the country holding a large share of the world's natural resources.[32] It has been widely described as an energy superpower;[33] as it has the world's largest natural gas reserves,[34] 2nd-largest coal reserves,[35] 8th-largest oil reserves,[36] and the largest oil shale reserves in Europe.[37] It is the world's leading natural gas exporter,[38] the 2nd-largest natural gas producer,[39] the 2nd-largest oil exporter[40] and producer[41] and third largest coal exporter.[42] Russia's foreign exchange reserves are the world's 4th-largest.[43] It has a labour force of roughly 70 million people, which is the world's 7th-largest.[44] Russia is the world's 3rd-largest exporter of arms.[45] The oil and gas sector accounted up to roughly 34% of Russia's federal budget revenues,[46] and up to 54% of its exports in 2021.[47][48]
Doesn't this data support that, in the coming decades of fossil fuel depletion, Russia has a strong future economy?
Thank You, Roger, for that list of Questions that every American still capable of thinking for her or himself needs to start asking Themselves, their Families and Loved Ones, their Friends and Neighbors, and their Colleagues, Cohorts, and Compeers.
And then their "Leaders" in Washington, DC; starting with The White House, and continuing with their two US Senators and their Representative in the House.
You also wrote: "... long term (and in that I predict, not very distant future), the Washington-centered Empire will have effectively begun its contraction... .".
The "Decline" Phase of The American Empire ~ and with it, America as a Nation-State has come to an end, Roger; and The "Fall" Phase has begun.
The Real Questions are: What happens Next? And exactly Who gets to determine that? And How do they go about determining that?
And You may find my earlier conversation with Jazzme about War being "The Health of The State" interesting.
Jeff, I suppose it's a matter of semantics and subjectivity about what signals or constitutes that moment when a decline accelerates to "falling" , and then, after the splat, demise. With nations, I suppose it's easier to write, after one is vanquished and, perhaps like Yugoslavia, irreparably broken into pieces, that its demise is fact. With an Empire, it probably takes a bit longer and the manifestations of its decline and fall are at first hard to see because of the scale and the number of complex, interconnected component systems - such as economic conditions, political changes, collapse of social institutions, infrastructural decay, etc. It doesn't all collapse at once and in entirety, but the process of degradation and decay can be seen more readily, and especially in retrospect.
So I can't argue your point that the "fall" has already begun. Certainly, anyone who's watched with even some degree of attention will have already noted the decline in a number of conditions for which metrics are already available. These range from our sliding position internationally, as indicated by such things like the Democracy Index, Happiness index, Health outcomes; avg. life expectancy(!); growth of national debt; the growth of the income and wealth gaps between the wealthiest few and the res.t. Then there is the fairly rapid growth of repressive measures and authoritarianism, now notably strong on the (neo)liberal side as well as the neoconservative one.
Witness Biden's "Disinfo Board", and the ramping up in the UK, EU and the U.S. of efforts to stop "hate speech" and 'disinformation' ) and its attacks on democratic principles (e.g., the admitted position of the DNC that it doesn't have to have a democratic process for nominating candidates; the rapid growth of the two facets of narrative control, propaganda and censorship, which are contradictory to and incompatible with freedom of information and speech; etc.).
Additionally, the emergence of BRICS, the comparative economic strength that Russia seems to be enjoying vis a vis that of various NATO nations, the antithesis of that for which the DC neocon architects of the Ukraine War were striving, and the growing pressures around the globe for autonomy from the hegemony of the U.S. dollar, is of course one of the most obvious signals.
All of these seem to be indicators of Imperial desperation and rapid decline signaling at least the beginning of the end for the Empire which emerged rather suddenly after WWII and has had a nearly 80 year run.
I suspect, however, that in their desperation to maintain the status quo (of hegemonic comfort) that the Empire has provided the self-anointing elites in particular, that the Empire will be seen more clearly and by more of the populous, as it tries to avert the inevitable. That suggests still more wars, accelerating debt, an increase in autocracy regardless of Party in power, gradually and possibly steadily climbing inflation (especially over the long term, though I expect that economic uncertainty will increase more certainly); a more unsettled population whose angst is driven by increasing precarity, etc.
Of course, none of that even begins to address the impacts of the other big threat that you (with my thanks) mention: the ecological collapse most immediately threatened by climate destabilization, that, if not at least rapidly mitigated, will upset the entirety of the global apple cart and lead to a scenario that I'm rather sure has never been experienced by any Empire.
As Bill and many of us have already noted, we (and definitely the younger gen's) are going to be in for an 'interesting' if very rough ride.
Can You name one recent War waged by Anybody, Ed, that satisfies the criteria for a "Just War"?
That the US's War in Ukraine is not a "Just" one is no real surprise, given that the US has not been involved in anything even close to a "Just" War since the end of World War II.
But what about Russia's War in Ukraine? Does That meet those criteria for a "Just" War?
The only "War" that i can think of off the top of my head that even comes close to being anything close to being a "Just War" was the Zapatista Uprising in Chiapas, Mexico, when the Zapatista Army of National Liberation [EZLN] declared war on the federal government of Mexico on 1 January 1994, the day NAFTA was to go into effect.
For the last couple of years, i have invited people to consider the following Question:
"Will the United States of America survive to celebrate its 250th birthday on July 4, 2026 [now 863 days from today]? And if it does, will the American Peoples be in any condition or mood to celebrate anything?"
Given the fact that Trump and Biden are the leading candidates to become the next Supreme Leader of a Bankrupt Debtor State, a Failing Imperialist Warfare State, a Flailing Redistributionist Welfare State, and a very efficient and effective 1984-esque Secrecy, Security, Surveillance, and Censorship Panopticon State, that Question is no longer relevant or applicable.
The Real Question now is no longer "WILL the the United States of America survive to celebrate its 250th birthday on July 4, 2026??" Or even "CAN it survive?"
The Real Question is now: "SHOULD it survive? And if so, WHY?"
As a 77-year old retired United States Army Master Sergeant with 22 years of service ~ including 2 years in Vietnam in the 60s and 2 years in the pre-OPERATION DESERT STORM Middle East in the 80s ~ at this point in time, i am unable to believe, think, or say that it SHOULD survive. Or come up with any valid and legitimate reasons as to why it Should.
Perhaps somebody here at BV can answer that Question. Although, quite frankly, honestly, bluntly, and sincerely, i very seriously doubt it.
Especially if Either Trump or Biden become POTUS MAXXIMMUSS XLVII. Or anybody else currently on the stage or waiting in the wings to make their appearance on the current reality-tv extravaganza that is American Politics, Economics, Civil Society, and Culture.
As Ben Franklin put it when asked what had been accomplished at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that brought the United States of America into existence after its secession from the British Empire: "We have given You a Republic; if You can keep it."
The Question Americans need to confront and deal with now is: "Now that we have all but lost that Republic, what happens next?" And the Answer to that Question is very, Very Ugly.
According to "The Independent" (UK), "The EU's imports of refined oil imports from India grew to record levels in 2023 at the same time as New Delhi's imports of Russian crude oil more than doubled year on year." Just a coincidence, I'm sure! hahaha
Some of us guessed from the beginning that Ukraine was always going to lose this war and the longer it went on the more that would become evident. When you're on a downhill slope, "as long as it takes" means going to zero.
thank you, rg, both for your approbatory comment and your sanguine 'bon-santé' tribute. am still saturated w/ dolorosity since returning to mindoro island from the palestinian refugee camps where i volunteered last may, june, and july, but i have found workaround surcease by engaging in alternative pursuits. concomitantly, 3 of our 7 bantlings are here visiting us w/ their spouses/partners for several weeks, so we are well-entertained and edified by their salubrious, anacrustic [upbeat] hi-jinx presence.
Meirshimer has said no war by the empire meets any Just War dogma. I agree with him. Some aspects of both WW's were not compatible with Just War. US civil war waged for solely abolition may be close, but if it was to bring states back in to federalism?
There are some situations where the people must rise to over throw a murderous regime, sort of like why police in limited circumstances can apply 'just' violence. Although policing does not intend to be legalized murder.
Hi Ed: What does Meirshimer say about Russia's War in Uktraine? Does he consider that War "Just"?
And what does he say about Israel's War on "Hamas," Gaza, and the Palestinian People? Is that "Just" And is Hamas', Hezbollah's, Etc War on Israel "Just"?
And finally [and as You alluded to re "federalism"]: Was what folks in the American Confederacy called "The War of Southern Secession" a "Just" War?
In the talk I referred to he said Putin (2008 well after the first tranche, big addition: Poland) had told the US and EU that Ukraine entering NATO would be considered an extreme threat, and do not do that.
In Donbas and Russian areas Putin is defending Russian and Orthodox religion from ethnic cleansing. As well as resisitng the empire evil designs.
Meirshimer was not addressing Just War in that part of the talk.
I hope that defending against a evil hegemon may get a little consideration at the judgement.
Hamas is fighting an occupying power that could be accused of ethnic cleansing, making it a defensive war, like the Irish over the centuries, maybe just.....
Hezbollah has some aggressive tactics, but mainly defending S Lebanon.
No reason to repent, Ed. Use that experience to better understand what is happening to this Nation and on this Planet today.
Just like Smedley Butler did back in his day:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents " [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler ]
And This guy wants to be the next President of The United States? And there is a significant number of Americans who want him to be? But read what Russia has to say about the Alternative; and the Whole Process... :
*** NOTE: In any event: One of the Most Important Questions Americans need to start asking Themselves, their Families and Loved Ones, their Friends and Neighbors, and their Colleagues, Cohorts, and Compeers is: Is there an Alternative to and an Antidote for what "choice" America's Ruling Political Class is going to give Voters in Election2024; assuming there even is an election. ***
BIDEN CALLS PUTIN A ‘CRAZY SOB’: The Kremlin Says The Insult From Biden Brings Shame To The US by Dave DeCamp / antiwar.com 22 Feb
President Biden called Russian President Vladimir Putin a ‘crazy SOB’ during a campaign fundraiser event on Wednesday, drawing a rebuke from the Kremlin.
Biden made the jab at the Russian leader when discussing climate change, claiming it was a bigger threat than nuclear war.
“We have a crazy SOB, that guy Putin and others and we always have to be worried about a nuclear conflict,” Biden said. “But the existential threat to humanity is climate.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded to Biden’s comments, saying it BROUGHT SHAME TO THE US, AND SAID IT WAS “HOLLYWOOD COWBOY BEHAVIOR” AIMED AT A DOMESTIC AUDIENCE.
“SUCH BOORISH STATEMENTS FROM THE MOUTH OF A US LEADER ARE HARDLY CAPABLE OF HURTING THE HEAD OF ANOTHER COUNTRY IN ANY WAY, MUCH LESS PRESIDENT PUTIN. BUT IT IS A GREAT SHAME FOR THE COUNTRY ITSELF,” Peskov said, according to the Russian news agency TASS.
Putin said the insult was likely A RESPONSE TO THE RUSSIAN LEADER RECENTLY SAYING BIDEN WAS PREFERABLE TO TRUMP FROM RUSSIA’S PERSPECTIVE SINCE BIDEN IS MORE PREDICTABLE. “WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON THERE IN TERMS OF THE DOMESTIC POLICY AND IT’S A COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE REACTION, WHICH MEANS THAT I WAS RIGHT,” Putin said.
BIDEN HAS ABANDONED DIPLOMACY WITH PUTIN AND HASN’T SPOKEN WITH THE RUSSIAN LEADER SINCE RUSSIA LAUNCHED ITS INVASION OF UKRAINE ON FEBRUARY 24, 2022, ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO. THE US HAS CUT OFF MOST HIGH-LEVEL DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA AND CONTINUES TO REJECT THE IDEA OF NEGOTIATIONS TO END THE UKRAINE WAR.
Biden has a history of hurling insults at other world leaders and REFERRED TO PUTIN AS A “KILLER” back in 2021. The president also recently REFERRED TO CHINESE PRESIDENT XI JINPING AS A “DICTATOR” following a meeting with him meant to ease tensions between the US and China.
I hear you but it depresses me to much to take it to that level. And I kinda disagree. I don't think all nations of this world want to or need to rely on war to "prosper"????
i hear You, Jazzme. Sometimes when i take it to that level and actually, really think about, it depresses the hell out of me, as well.
But it is at That level that this World operates; and so That is the Level that needs to be understood. That is, if it is to be effectively acted upon and against.
And remember, we’re not just talking about “Prosperity” here; especially not just Economic Prosperity.
We are also talking about Security. The Security of both The Nation and ~ usually far more important [at least to them] ~ the Ruling Political Class of that Nation.
And don’t forget those Second-level Health Boosters for the Nation after War: The “Threat” of War and an “Enemy.”
Ukraine has become a messaging paradox. We’re all allowed to say “Ukraine will win,” but if anyone begins to suspect it won’t, that person’s point of view becomes instantly illegitimate and vanishes, leaving just the original message. From Lloyd Austin threatening that “we’ll send your uncles, cousins, and sons to fight” to Chuck Schumer saying on MSNBC that Americans might find themselves fighting in Eastern Europe if we don’t pony up now (don’t we have a say in this?), it’s clear that voters interrupting Executive Branch plans for Ukraine is unacceptable. If “Ukraine will win” is something felt so strongly that it’s become a must, what will they think about the next presidential election results?
BIG BROTHER: WAR IS GOOD by Matt Orfalea and Matt Taibbi / Racket News 22 Feb 24
New Aussie Prime Minister’s “SECRET PLAN TO END THE FAMINE”; Or, After The Whales Are Gone...
(Mullumbimby Lodge, NSW, α-CSNews) Speaking from the front porch of his mansion in Mullumbimby, New South Wales, Australia’s newly-elected Prime Minister Ion Flott announced today the details of his “Secret Plan” to deal with that nation’s, and, “if only the dumb bastards will listen to me,” the World’s food problem.
Promising “MORE FOOD NOW!!!, Mr Flott (along with his now-ruling Coalition For Truth, Faith, Life, and God , or C4TFL&G)), was swept to power last week by a nation benumbed by the effects and results of : the so-called Peak Oil Crash; interminable years of Global Warming-induced drought on the Continent; locusts and other assorted plagues of biblical proportion (including Texas-bred Gringo Fire Ants); the subsequent, near-total collapse of virtually all available viable and edible live-stock, fruit, grain, and vegetable sources for food; as well as a mysterious, near-completely total absence of any non-fatally-for-humans-toxically-contaminated consumable fish or anything else in the oceans. Today, the charismatic Bush-Power Party leader unveiled his long-hinted at plan to sustainably harvest human beings.
“According to my figures,” the affable and unflappable Flott explained, “there are enough biped hominids on this planet to sustainably harvest their herds probably forever, if we do it in a scientifically-based, sustainable manner. After all, two hominids can reproduce at least one of themselves annually, if not more, with help and the proper incentives. Which means that, given the current population on the planet, there are enough to go around so that nobody needs to go hungry ever again.”
“Ever,” he emphasized steely. “Do The Math, Morons,” Mr Flott challenged, repeating his oft-repeated signature campaign slogan.
The Prime Minister-elect also announced the establishment of “The Institute For Consumable Hominid Research” (in, of all to be begatted places, Mullumbimby, NSW [imagine that]), which will explore, experiment with, and thereby and ultimately establish the philosophical (and, as necessary, religious), fundamentally foundational basis for the art and science of the scientismically-imperative culling of such obviously surplus hominids as: liberals and libertarians; fags, progressives and anarchists; greenies and most conservationists; humanists, secularists, agnostics and/or atheists; civil, animal, and human rights activists; anti-oil, -war, -whaling, and -logging protesters; some perverts (or “preverts,” as Mr Flott termed them); the terminally ill; certain mental patients; drug addicts and drunks; homeless drifters, illegal immigrants, non-descript undesirables, non-white collar-crime prisoners, peasants, serfs, indentured servants, slaves, and etc; and so on; and so forth.
The IFCHR, Flott continued, will also set up breeding farms where hominid females will be housed for the express purpose of birthing food stock (and be an additional source of government revenue on the side, Mr Flott winked with a sly grin). Glumly but optimistically, however, he also acknowledged that there may be some initial resistance to the idea of eating dead humans.
“People can and will adjust to the New Realities. Either that, or they will be Toast,” he joked ominously. “Seriously though, of course we won’t call them ‘humans.’ They are ‘Hominids.’ Big bloody difference. Back when they were still a food source, we called cows ‘beef,’ and pigs ‘ham and bacon,’ and chickens.....er, uh....
“Well, anyway,” he continued. “Among other things, the IFCHR will develop ways and means to overcome this language barrier. What is critical is that we humans, the Ones Who Matter I mean, have enough to eat. There is a scientifically, demonstratively viable and readily accessible source of food all around us. All we have to do is take it. It’s ours to take if we have the political, economic, and military power, and the moral, intellectual, and spiritual courage and will. It’s really just all that bloody bleeping simple.”
Revealing that the Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and some other Asian, African, Middle Eastern, South and Central American, and several European, and all North American governments had reacted and responded quite favorably to the “FLOTT PLAN” (all with back-channel, Embassy- and/or local CIA Station Chief-level initial inquiries and guesses as to the current and projected availability of excess people for import and/or export as food), Mr Flott outlined his Concept for The Future: “While the whales didn’t last nearly as long as anybody had scientifically calculated they would as a viable food source (‘I think maybe somebody was eating just a little bit more than their fair share of sashimi,’ he added parenthetically), there are literally Billions of excess hominids on this planet just waiting to be served. All that is needed is the Vision to see that Potential and to turn that Dream into Reality.”
“It’s either that, folks,” he warned cryptically, “or blood in the streets.” Flott waved aside requests for detailed data, facts, evidence, or proof as to his assertions, telling the assembled media folks to check the archives of his Blog, if they were really that interested.
Rubbing his hands in evident anticipatory glee, Mr Flott chortled, “Boy, I can’t wait till the Human Wankers hear about THIS one!”
He also announced his plan to designate himself Minister of Defense, so as to, in his words, “fill that gap in my resume about never having spent any time in my nation’s defense. It wasn’t my fault the Yanks pulled out of Viet Nam before I could enlist,” he explained.
"War may be the health of the state of the self-styled “arsenal of democracy,” but it’s very unhealthy for the people of Ukraine and Russia and indeed for the planet."
If any nation can brink us to the brink of nuclear annihilation it's the USA. There hasn't been a war we're won since 1947 with the blood of our youth spilt on many foreign soils but its worth it. Long live the military industrial war machine and its very rich top management and well paid work force. Isn't constant war worth it America. It's only our military families that suffer and the very much needed social programs.
War is the Health Of The State not just for America, Jazzme.
War has been very Helpful to the States [ie, the governments] of Russia and Ukraine. It is only the Russian and Ukrainian Peoples who suffer, not their Leaders of their governments.
And War is the Health of virtually Every State that has ever existed in the history of Human Civilization.
Be they Republican, Democratic, Theocratic, Imperial, or Despotic States, War is the Health of Every one of them.
And the second Health Booster for The State is "The Threat Of War" with an "Enemy" fully intent upon and capable of defeating ~ and thus destroying ~ US in a "War."
Wasn't this slavic dust-up supposed to be over in two or three weeks, as soon as some latter day Nazis (were they card-carrying members of the N.S.D.A.P.?) were rousted? I'm just asking a question here ....
No, jg, I sure can't. Maybe it was four to six weeks, or so my (admittedly not what it used to be) memory seems to recall. But the consensus gave little hope to Ukraine to survive the Russian onslaught. That, of course, was before the US started sending over everything but the 2nd Marine Division. However, I do distinctly remember being taken to task for remarking on the amount of what I termed "Vladi love" that was appearing in this comment space in those early weeks. But Time brings Change ...
In the early days, a couple of the BV faithful expressed the view that Mr. Putin was if not heroic, certainly an aggrieved party, not an aggressor, and wholly justified in whatever action he deemed necessary to set things aright. I felt that was stretching things a bit.
Back on the early day of March 5, 2022, i expressed the following sentiment here on BV. i'm curious if this qualifies as an example of "Vladi Love":
America's twenty year "Forever War" after 9/11 was, is, and ever will be a half-time show designed to keep the troops occupied, the defense contractors profitable, and the American people comfortably numb to protracted conflicts in places many of them cannot find on a map of the world.
For now, Russia has recovered from the disintegration of European Communism and the USSR ~ and China has recovered from the madness of Mao ~ sufficiently for either [or especially both] to present viable, credible "threats" to America's 30-year reign of global, unipolar hegemony since the end of Cold War I in December, 1991.
For now looms Cold War II, with Ukraine, the South China Sea, and/or Taiwan set to kick it off in fine fashion.
AND TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING IN UKRAINE, IN PARTICULAR, ONE MUST ALSO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA'S INTERACTION WITH WESTERN EUROPE OVER THE PAST 200 YEARS. NAPOLEON AND HITLER BOTH TRIED TO BRING THE "BLESSINGS" OF THE WEST TO MOTHER RUSSIA, AND FAILED AT TERRIBLE COST, PARTICULARLY TO THE LAND, COUNTRY, NATION, AND PEOPLE THAT WAS ~ AND STILL IS ~ RUSSIA.
NATO IS HARD ON ALL OF RUSSIA'S BORDERS EXCEPT IN UKRAINE; AND, GIVEN THAT HISTORY SPANNING OVER TWO CENTURIES, IT IS NOT AT ALL DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY RUSSIA WANTS TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. THIS IN NO WAY JUSTIFIES, EXCUSES, OR EXONERATES PUTIN AND HIS ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, AND QUITE INSANE INVASION OF UKRAINE. IT MERELY SPECULATES ON A VERY REAL POSSIBLE MOTIVE.
One thing I appreciate about your comments & replies jg is your reliance on facts and research. You will never be accused of sycophancy. Now, if you will only get your spiritual house in order ... (that's supposed to be a joke, but how to get that across in a comments section without saying "that's supposed to be a joke"?)
A PBS Report on the status of the Russia-Ukraine War
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/experts-analyze-state-of-ukraine-war-2-years-into-russias-invasion
Revealingly, PBS has two experts who are for the war, and one expert (John Mearsheimer) who rightly argues the war is already lost for Ukraine.
The female expert is especially bold in calling for expanded attacks by Ukraine on Russia using U.S.-provided weaponry. Dead Russians don't seem to matter, nor does the danger of serious escalation.
It was good to see Mearsheimer providing some sense and sanity here.
This morning, I saw another recycling of the phrase, "Putin has already lost." Mercifully, behind a paywall, I couldn't read it, and thus neither could any other non-subscribers. As New Testament adages go, another comes to mind, "A house divided cannot stand." If this is true, two things come to mind. Ukraine is a complete mess at every level. It cannot stand. The USA is so increasingly hostile unto itself, it too, cannot stand in its current form. (And the lapdogs of Western Europe seem all too content to let us drag their past decades of peace and prosperity down with us.)
On the other hand, Russia, despite massive Western efforts, seems to be moving from strength to strength. Slowly, but surely. And somehow, Putin, in choosing his words, can refrain from name calling Biden an SOB. I hate that term for the denigration to the mothers who bore such scoundrels--be she innocent or complicit with how they turn out as men. But if we are to label evil men as thugs, murderers or SOBs (if you must), then surely, we must go yet again to the New Testament, "Get the plank out of your own eye!"
A moment of self reflection on her part, it seems. Great response from you! :-) And a healing one.
Bill, you appear to bend over backwards in soft-pedaling even the proximal causes of the Ukraine war, e.g. in suggesting that Russia and Ukraine had been feuding since 2014, with U.S. meddling furthering the tensions. One less familiar with the history would not glean from that the fact that the very reason for the Ukr.-Russe tensions was the coup that was substantially engineered by Washington's neocons, who have driven the State Dep't (and other agencies') foreign policy now for decades, through the Administrations of both Republican and Democratic Presidents. They wouldn't know that the same neocons who sold the Iraq invasion on deliberate lies were behind the coup and selection of the installed replacement puppet government.
Nor would they know that this coup was begun almost immediately after the announcement of a peace and security deal between those nations, which would have ensured continued peace (and military neutrality for Ukraine) for decades. The implications of that fact alone, but also accompanied by the facts that a) Ukraine would as a result become even closer tied economically to Russia and to its natural gas; and b) NATO's further expansion to Russia's western border would be obstructed, were anathema to U.S. hegemonic interests with respect to financial and military hegemony as well as U.S. control over global fossil fuels markets.
One overarching U.S. concern, of course, was that such an agreement would make more difficult the achievement of the neocons' (and their tool NATO)'s objective of constraining Russia's economic growth and thereby its achievement of peer status within Eurasian affairs.
An hegemonic Empire must have no equals and must allow no break with the unwritten but imposed rules within its "Rules Based Order".
In this piece I think you also equivocate about the status of Ukraine's armed forces and the war itself.
Most international observers not already fully aligned with the western / NATO / Atlantic Council camp, including many former U.S. military and intel officers, have concluded that Russia has already accomplished to a significant degree what it had set out to do in Feb. 2022.
Though it now controls a substantial part of E. Ukraine, for Russia's leadership, this was never about expansion of its territory, as the 8 years of its ignored pleas for negotiations had consistently made clear; but rather, about the security of its own borders, the continued Black Sea access via its nearly 250-year-old port and naval base at Sevastopol, and the protection of ethnic Russians in the Donbass. Its goal put most simply, has been the demilitarization of Ukraine and especially of its ultranationalist, neo-Nazi forces.
Furthermore, though the threats are not completely gone, and the Biden Administration continues to try to prolong this war "as long as "it" takes" (and that's deliberately vague, weasel language for saying, we want to prolong the war as long as possible"), Russia has already succeeded in the first goal of reducing, if not completely eliminating the threats related to Ukraine's war on and ethnic cleansing of the Donbass. The Azov battalions are not fully eradicated, but they've been largely chased out for at least the time being.
The outcome is indeed, all but certain, though the exact form of its resolution is unclear. Ukraine never had the ability, even with the past commitments of NATO-aligned states, to 'win' this easily preventable, but U.S.- sought (as the 2019 Rand Corp. memo suggests) war. In fact, the only (or at least biggest) remaining questions that I see are as follows:
1) How much longer can and will the U.S. and its NATO partners/vassal States continue to deliver arms and money, without committing their own citizens' bodies, in order to keep the war going? That will be in part a function of how much more tolerance there is among the electorates of Germany, France,the UK and others, for the economic impacts of this war.
2) Whether the NATO States will cross any further Russian security 'red lines' in the escalation of weaponry (including the long-range missiles Biden is considering sending; And if they do somehow manage to sufficiently threaten Russia's population and its national security, will escalation to nuclear weapons be triggered by any party?
3) How much farther West into Ukraine Russia will have to seize and control in order to obviate such threats (and whether that will require decapitation- as in the taking of Kyiv, and how much of a rump state will be left of "Ukraine")?;
4) How much of a population of Ukrainians will remain by the time any negotiated settlement occurs?
5) Who will undertake (if at all) the rebuilding of a structurally and institutionally devastated Ukraine? And how will THAT be funded- given that the U.S. has now greatly increased its national debt at the very time when its dollar hegemony via the currency exhange apparatus is weakening and its debt exposes its fundamental vulnerabilities and is followed by rapid inflation?
Lastly, I want to accentuate that last question / point, vis a vis your point that, "War may be the health of the state of the self-styled “arsenal of democracy...". While it's true that war spending fuels at a minimum the profits of the military industry (and this must to an extent also be applied to Russia (whose economy appears, by the way, to be MUCH stronger than the article implies), it isn't really healthy at all to the U.S.population in general. Sure, it helps keep the dollar temporarily afloat, in the short term maintaining the U.S. ability to spend and print more paper IOUs to back up its debt.
Yet the expansion of that debt in a world whose greater population appears more than ready to break away from the dollar's controls, means that long term (and in that I predict, not very distant future), the Washington-centered Empire will have effectively begun its contraction, with vast life changes forced upon an even-more disturbed citizenry.
And just in case you wonder, I liked the article and love the question: "Is America an arsenal of democracy, or just an arsenal?" ; though the very phrase, "arsenal of democracy" puts me on edge; for those who run the ship of state are highly interested in arsenals but appear disinterested in and even fearful of democracy
I wasn't soft-pedaling so much as I was trying to focus on events since 2/24/22 with some guesses about the future.
Perhaps that was a poor choice of words. I also recognize that it wasn't your intent to discuss the entirety of the story behind this tragic war. I'm probably prickly about the stories I do most often see, for their intentional omission of facts which if known might lead more of the public to question the wisdom of prolonging the killing.
not ''a poor choice of words" at all roger; too much 'soft-peddling' afoot here. it was what should have been said and repeated on multiple occasions on multifarious blogsites. your comprehensive coverage is profound and parlous appreciated.
Great comment Roger. Thanks for your excellent input.
And another great blog by our esteemed author.
But when he throws in "The Russian economy isn’t strong;"
That a big Red Flag for me. It just isn't true!
If you Google this subject, their algorithm never fails to give all Western points of view.
And those authors ALL begin by admitting the Russian economy is doing very well, better than the EU nations, the UK and arguably the US.
They can't deny the facts.
But they then invariably launch into "but Putin has it all wrong" and conclude the Russian economy is heading for collapse!
Thats their dream! Not going to happen.
I'm not an economic expert. Russia's economy seems stable to me but still relatively weak compared to the economies of Western countries, especially the U.S.
So, for example, Russia's GDP in 2023 ranked 11th in the world, far behind countries like the U.S., China, Japan, Germany, India, and the UK.
Stats here: https://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php
I'm also not an economic expert. But I can read articles on the Internet.
The use of GDP as an economic indicator is a joke amongst modern serious economists, Bill. See Professor Michael Hudson and Richard Wolff on this.
And of course, the UK has just announced it has gone into recession.
Germany soon to follow?
I know it's just one measure. As I said, I think the Russian economy is stable. "Strong" is relative. If you want to argue Russia is strong economically, perhaps you might cite some data.
How reliable is Wiki, eh Bill?
Wiki: The economy of Russia has gradually transformed from a planned economy into a mixed market-oriented economy.[28] It has enormous natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas.[29] In 2023, it was the world's 11th-largest economy by nominal GDP, 6th-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP) according to IMF, and 5th-largest according to World Bank.[5]
Russia's vast geography is an important determinant of its economic activity, with the country holding a large share of the world's natural resources.[32] It has been widely described as an energy superpower;[33] as it has the world's largest natural gas reserves,[34] 2nd-largest coal reserves,[35] 8th-largest oil reserves,[36] and the largest oil shale reserves in Europe.[37] It is the world's leading natural gas exporter,[38] the 2nd-largest natural gas producer,[39] the 2nd-largest oil exporter[40] and producer[41] and third largest coal exporter.[42] Russia's foreign exchange reserves are the world's 4th-largest.[43] It has a labour force of roughly 70 million people, which is the world's 7th-largest.[44] Russia is the world's 3rd-largest exporter of arms.[45] The oil and gas sector accounted up to roughly 34% of Russia's federal budget revenues,[46] and up to 54% of its exports in 2021.[47][48]
Doesn't this data support that, in the coming decades of fossil fuel depletion, Russia has a strong future economy?
I think that's a reasonable conclusion.
well and succinctly said, dennis.
Thank You, Roger, for that list of Questions that every American still capable of thinking for her or himself needs to start asking Themselves, their Families and Loved Ones, their Friends and Neighbors, and their Colleagues, Cohorts, and Compeers.
And then their "Leaders" in Washington, DC; starting with The White House, and continuing with their two US Senators and their Representative in the House.
You also wrote: "... long term (and in that I predict, not very distant future), the Washington-centered Empire will have effectively begun its contraction... .".
The "Decline" Phase of The American Empire ~ and with it, America as a Nation-State has come to an end, Roger; and The "Fall" Phase has begun.
The Real Questions are: What happens Next? And exactly Who gets to determine that? And How do they go about determining that?
And You may find my earlier conversation with Jazzme about War being "The Health of The State" interesting.
Jeff, I suppose it's a matter of semantics and subjectivity about what signals or constitutes that moment when a decline accelerates to "falling" , and then, after the splat, demise. With nations, I suppose it's easier to write, after one is vanquished and, perhaps like Yugoslavia, irreparably broken into pieces, that its demise is fact. With an Empire, it probably takes a bit longer and the manifestations of its decline and fall are at first hard to see because of the scale and the number of complex, interconnected component systems - such as economic conditions, political changes, collapse of social institutions, infrastructural decay, etc. It doesn't all collapse at once and in entirety, but the process of degradation and decay can be seen more readily, and especially in retrospect.
So I can't argue your point that the "fall" has already begun. Certainly, anyone who's watched with even some degree of attention will have already noted the decline in a number of conditions for which metrics are already available. These range from our sliding position internationally, as indicated by such things like the Democracy Index, Happiness index, Health outcomes; avg. life expectancy(!); growth of national debt; the growth of the income and wealth gaps between the wealthiest few and the res.t. Then there is the fairly rapid growth of repressive measures and authoritarianism, now notably strong on the (neo)liberal side as well as the neoconservative one.
Witness Biden's "Disinfo Board", and the ramping up in the UK, EU and the U.S. of efforts to stop "hate speech" and 'disinformation' ) and its attacks on democratic principles (e.g., the admitted position of the DNC that it doesn't have to have a democratic process for nominating candidates; the rapid growth of the two facets of narrative control, propaganda and censorship, which are contradictory to and incompatible with freedom of information and speech; etc.).
Additionally, the emergence of BRICS, the comparative economic strength that Russia seems to be enjoying vis a vis that of various NATO nations, the antithesis of that for which the DC neocon architects of the Ukraine War were striving, and the growing pressures around the globe for autonomy from the hegemony of the U.S. dollar, is of course one of the most obvious signals.
All of these seem to be indicators of Imperial desperation and rapid decline signaling at least the beginning of the end for the Empire which emerged rather suddenly after WWII and has had a nearly 80 year run.
I suspect, however, that in their desperation to maintain the status quo (of hegemonic comfort) that the Empire has provided the self-anointing elites in particular, that the Empire will be seen more clearly and by more of the populous, as it tries to avert the inevitable. That suggests still more wars, accelerating debt, an increase in autocracy regardless of Party in power, gradually and possibly steadily climbing inflation (especially over the long term, though I expect that economic uncertainty will increase more certainly); a more unsettled population whose angst is driven by increasing precarity, etc.
Of course, none of that even begins to address the impacts of the other big threat that you (with my thanks) mention: the ecological collapse most immediately threatened by climate destabilization, that, if not at least rapidly mitigated, will upset the entirety of the global apple cart and lead to a scenario that I'm rather sure has never been experienced by any Empire.
As Bill and many of us have already noted, we (and definitely the younger gen's) are going to be in for an 'interesting' if very rough ride.
Responsibility to protect (R2P) is fallacy and in the case of expanded NATO do not approach any criteria of Just War dogma.
“As long as it takes” is same as US’ disdain for Russia’s valid security fear of US nukes north of Kiev.
US plan, cannot call it strategy is to wear out Russia, no matter how many Slav kill each other for US’ imperial (contrary to Just War) gains.
Can You name one recent War waged by Anybody, Ed, that satisfies the criteria for a "Just War"?
That the US's War in Ukraine is not a "Just" one is no real surprise, given that the US has not been involved in anything even close to a "Just" War since the end of World War II.
But what about Russia's War in Ukraine? Does That meet those criteria for a "Just" War?
The only "War" that i can think of off the top of my head that even comes close to being anything close to being a "Just War" was the Zapatista Uprising in Chiapas, Mexico, when the Zapatista Army of National Liberation [EZLN] declared war on the federal government of Mexico on 1 January 1994, the day NAFTA was to go into effect.
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_uprising ]
For the last couple of years, i have invited people to consider the following Question:
"Will the United States of America survive to celebrate its 250th birthday on July 4, 2026 [now 863 days from today]? And if it does, will the American Peoples be in any condition or mood to celebrate anything?"
Given the fact that Trump and Biden are the leading candidates to become the next Supreme Leader of a Bankrupt Debtor State, a Failing Imperialist Warfare State, a Flailing Redistributionist Welfare State, and a very efficient and effective 1984-esque Secrecy, Security, Surveillance, and Censorship Panopticon State, that Question is no longer relevant or applicable.
The Real Question now is no longer "WILL the the United States of America survive to celebrate its 250th birthday on July 4, 2026??" Or even "CAN it survive?"
The Real Question is now: "SHOULD it survive? And if so, WHY?"
As a 77-year old retired United States Army Master Sergeant with 22 years of service ~ including 2 years in Vietnam in the 60s and 2 years in the pre-OPERATION DESERT STORM Middle East in the 80s ~ at this point in time, i am unable to believe, think, or say that it SHOULD survive. Or come up with any valid and legitimate reasons as to why it Should.
Perhaps somebody here at BV can answer that Question. Although, quite frankly, honestly, bluntly, and sincerely, i very seriously doubt it.
Especially if Either Trump or Biden become POTUS MAXXIMMUSS XLVII. Or anybody else currently on the stage or waiting in the wings to make their appearance on the current reality-tv extravaganza that is American Politics, Economics, Civil Society, and Culture.
As Ben Franklin put it when asked what had been accomplished at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that brought the United States of America into existence after its secession from the British Empire: "We have given You a Republic; if You can keep it."
The Question Americans need to confront and deal with now is: "Now that we have all but lost that Republic, what happens next?" And the Answer to that Question is very, Very Ugly.
"Don't wake the sleeping giant" the Japanese admiralty was supposedly told by Isoroku Yamamoto in 1941.
Someone needs to tell Joe, "Don't poke the bear".
Two years of sanctions have failed to weaken the Russian economy enough to stop it waging war against Ukraine.
If anything, the opposite has happened: Russia's economy grew by 3.6% in 2023.
More and more oil is ending up in India. Its most important oil supplier is now Russia.
Russia's growth is partly financed on credit, including military spending. How long can Putin actually afford to do this?
"You can ride that for quite a while. Russia had a very low debt level at the beginning of the war, it still has a low debt level even now."
"Russia does not look set to run out of money to finance the war in Ukraine anytime soon."- Sebastian Hoppe, Russia expert, Free University of Berlin.
According to "The Independent" (UK), "The EU's imports of refined oil imports from India grew to record levels in 2023 at the same time as New Delhi's imports of Russian crude oil more than doubled year on year." Just a coincidence, I'm sure! hahaha
Some of us guessed from the beginning that Ukraine was always going to lose this war and the longer it went on the more that would become evident. When you're on a downhill slope, "as long as it takes" means going to zero.
thank you, rg, both for your approbatory comment and your sanguine 'bon-santé' tribute. am still saturated w/ dolorosity since returning to mindoro island from the palestinian refugee camps where i volunteered last may, june, and july, but i have found workaround surcease by engaging in alternative pursuits. concomitantly, 3 of our 7 bantlings are here visiting us w/ their spouses/partners for several weeks, so we are well-entertained and edified by their salubrious, anacrustic [upbeat] hi-jinx presence.
Meirshimer has said no war by the empire meets any Just War dogma. I agree with him. Some aspects of both WW's were not compatible with Just War. US civil war waged for solely abolition may be close, but if it was to bring states back in to federalism?
There are some situations where the people must rise to over throw a murderous regime, sort of like why police in limited circumstances can apply 'just' violence. Although policing does not intend to be legalized murder.
Hi Ed: What does Meirshimer say about Russia's War in Uktraine? Does he consider that War "Just"?
And what does he say about Israel's War on "Hamas," Gaza, and the Palestinian People? Is that "Just" And is Hamas', Hezbollah's, Etc War on Israel "Just"?
And finally [and as You alluded to re "federalism"]: Was what folks in the American Confederacy called "The War of Southern Secession" a "Just" War?
In the talk I referred to he said Putin (2008 well after the first tranche, big addition: Poland) had told the US and EU that Ukraine entering NATO would be considered an extreme threat, and do not do that.
In Donbas and Russian areas Putin is defending Russian and Orthodox religion from ethnic cleansing. As well as resisitng the empire evil designs.
Meirshimer was not addressing Just War in that part of the talk.
I hope that defending against a evil hegemon may get a little consideration at the judgement.
Hamas is fighting an occupying power that could be accused of ethnic cleansing, making it a defensive war, like the Irish over the centuries, maybe just.....
Hezbollah has some aggressive tactics, but mainly defending S Lebanon.
I repent over my service to the pentagon!
No reason to repent, Ed. Use that experience to better understand what is happening to this Nation and on this Planet today.
Just like Smedley Butler did back in his day:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents " [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler ]
And This guy wants to be the next President of The United States? And there is a significant number of Americans who want him to be? But read what Russia has to say about the Alternative; and the Whole Process... :
*** NOTE: In any event: One of the Most Important Questions Americans need to start asking Themselves, their Families and Loved Ones, their Friends and Neighbors, and their Colleagues, Cohorts, and Compeers is: Is there an Alternative to and an Antidote for what "choice" America's Ruling Political Class is going to give Voters in Election2024; assuming there even is an election. ***
BIDEN CALLS PUTIN A ‘CRAZY SOB’: The Kremlin Says The Insult From Biden Brings Shame To The US by Dave DeCamp / antiwar.com 22 Feb
President Biden called Russian President Vladimir Putin a ‘crazy SOB’ during a campaign fundraiser event on Wednesday, drawing a rebuke from the Kremlin.
Biden made the jab at the Russian leader when discussing climate change, claiming it was a bigger threat than nuclear war.
“We have a crazy SOB, that guy Putin and others and we always have to be worried about a nuclear conflict,” Biden said. “But the existential threat to humanity is climate.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded to Biden’s comments, saying it BROUGHT SHAME TO THE US, AND SAID IT WAS “HOLLYWOOD COWBOY BEHAVIOR” AIMED AT A DOMESTIC AUDIENCE.
“SUCH BOORISH STATEMENTS FROM THE MOUTH OF A US LEADER ARE HARDLY CAPABLE OF HURTING THE HEAD OF ANOTHER COUNTRY IN ANY WAY, MUCH LESS PRESIDENT PUTIN. BUT IT IS A GREAT SHAME FOR THE COUNTRY ITSELF,” Peskov said, according to the Russian news agency TASS.
Putin said the insult was likely A RESPONSE TO THE RUSSIAN LEADER RECENTLY SAYING BIDEN WAS PREFERABLE TO TRUMP FROM RUSSIA’S PERSPECTIVE SINCE BIDEN IS MORE PREDICTABLE. “WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON THERE IN TERMS OF THE DOMESTIC POLICY AND IT’S A COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE REACTION, WHICH MEANS THAT I WAS RIGHT,” Putin said.
BIDEN HAS ABANDONED DIPLOMACY WITH PUTIN AND HASN’T SPOKEN WITH THE RUSSIAN LEADER SINCE RUSSIA LAUNCHED ITS INVASION OF UKRAINE ON FEBRUARY 24, 2022, ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO. THE US HAS CUT OFF MOST HIGH-LEVEL DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA AND CONTINUES TO REJECT THE IDEA OF NEGOTIATIONS TO END THE UKRAINE WAR.
Biden has a history of hurling insults at other world leaders and REFERRED TO PUTIN AS A “KILLER” back in 2021. The president also recently REFERRED TO CHINESE PRESIDENT XI JINPING AS A “DICTATOR” following a meeting with him meant to ease tensions between the US and China.
Source: https://news.antiwar.com/2024/02/22/biden-calls-putin-a-crazy-sob/ ; EMPHASES added.
I hear you but it depresses me to much to take it to that level. And I kinda disagree. I don't think all nations of this world want to or need to rely on war to "prosper"????
i hear You, Jazzme. Sometimes when i take it to that level and actually, really think about, it depresses the hell out of me, as well.
But it is at That level that this World operates; and so That is the Level that needs to be understood. That is, if it is to be effectively acted upon and against.
And remember, we’re not just talking about “Prosperity” here; especially not just Economic Prosperity.
We are also talking about Security. The Security of both The Nation and ~ usually far more important [at least to them] ~ the Ruling Political Class of that Nation.
And don’t forget those Second-level Health Boosters for the Nation after War: The “Threat” of War and an “Enemy.”
Definitely worth the read; it concludes… :
Ukraine has become a messaging paradox. We’re all allowed to say “Ukraine will win,” but if anyone begins to suspect it won’t, that person’s point of view becomes instantly illegitimate and vanishes, leaving just the original message. From Lloyd Austin threatening that “we’ll send your uncles, cousins, and sons to fight” to Chuck Schumer saying on MSNBC that Americans might find themselves fighting in Eastern Europe if we don’t pony up now (don’t we have a say in this?), it’s clear that voters interrupting Executive Branch plans for Ukraine is unacceptable. If “Ukraine will win” is something felt so strongly that it’s become a must, what will they think about the next presidential election results?
BIG BROTHER: WAR IS GOOD by Matt Orfalea and Matt Taibbi / Racket News 22 Feb 24
https://www.racket.news/p/big-brother-war-is-good
Speaking of SOYLENT GREEN… :
New Aussie Prime Minister’s “SECRET PLAN TO END THE FAMINE”; Or, After The Whales Are Gone...
(Mullumbimby Lodge, NSW, α-CSNews) Speaking from the front porch of his mansion in Mullumbimby, New South Wales, Australia’s newly-elected Prime Minister Ion Flott announced today the details of his “Secret Plan” to deal with that nation’s, and, “if only the dumb bastards will listen to me,” the World’s food problem.
Promising “MORE FOOD NOW!!!, Mr Flott (along with his now-ruling Coalition For Truth, Faith, Life, and God , or C4TFL&G)), was swept to power last week by a nation benumbed by the effects and results of : the so-called Peak Oil Crash; interminable years of Global Warming-induced drought on the Continent; locusts and other assorted plagues of biblical proportion (including Texas-bred Gringo Fire Ants); the subsequent, near-total collapse of virtually all available viable and edible live-stock, fruit, grain, and vegetable sources for food; as well as a mysterious, near-completely total absence of any non-fatally-for-humans-toxically-contaminated consumable fish or anything else in the oceans. Today, the charismatic Bush-Power Party leader unveiled his long-hinted at plan to sustainably harvest human beings.
“According to my figures,” the affable and unflappable Flott explained, “there are enough biped hominids on this planet to sustainably harvest their herds probably forever, if we do it in a scientifically-based, sustainable manner. After all, two hominids can reproduce at least one of themselves annually, if not more, with help and the proper incentives. Which means that, given the current population on the planet, there are enough to go around so that nobody needs to go hungry ever again.”
“Ever,” he emphasized steely. “Do The Math, Morons,” Mr Flott challenged, repeating his oft-repeated signature campaign slogan.
The Prime Minister-elect also announced the establishment of “The Institute For Consumable Hominid Research” (in, of all to be begatted places, Mullumbimby, NSW [imagine that]), which will explore, experiment with, and thereby and ultimately establish the philosophical (and, as necessary, religious), fundamentally foundational basis for the art and science of the scientismically-imperative culling of such obviously surplus hominids as: liberals and libertarians; fags, progressives and anarchists; greenies and most conservationists; humanists, secularists, agnostics and/or atheists; civil, animal, and human rights activists; anti-oil, -war, -whaling, and -logging protesters; some perverts (or “preverts,” as Mr Flott termed them); the terminally ill; certain mental patients; drug addicts and drunks; homeless drifters, illegal immigrants, non-descript undesirables, non-white collar-crime prisoners, peasants, serfs, indentured servants, slaves, and etc; and so on; and so forth.
The IFCHR, Flott continued, will also set up breeding farms where hominid females will be housed for the express purpose of birthing food stock (and be an additional source of government revenue on the side, Mr Flott winked with a sly grin). Glumly but optimistically, however, he also acknowledged that there may be some initial resistance to the idea of eating dead humans.
“People can and will adjust to the New Realities. Either that, or they will be Toast,” he joked ominously. “Seriously though, of course we won’t call them ‘humans.’ They are ‘Hominids.’ Big bloody difference. Back when they were still a food source, we called cows ‘beef,’ and pigs ‘ham and bacon,’ and chickens.....er, uh....
“Well, anyway,” he continued. “Among other things, the IFCHR will develop ways and means to overcome this language barrier. What is critical is that we humans, the Ones Who Matter I mean, have enough to eat. There is a scientifically, demonstratively viable and readily accessible source of food all around us. All we have to do is take it. It’s ours to take if we have the political, economic, and military power, and the moral, intellectual, and spiritual courage and will. It’s really just all that bloody bleeping simple.”
Revealing that the Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and some other Asian, African, Middle Eastern, South and Central American, and several European, and all North American governments had reacted and responded quite favorably to the “FLOTT PLAN” (all with back-channel, Embassy- and/or local CIA Station Chief-level initial inquiries and guesses as to the current and projected availability of excess people for import and/or export as food), Mr Flott outlined his Concept for The Future: “While the whales didn’t last nearly as long as anybody had scientifically calculated they would as a viable food source (‘I think maybe somebody was eating just a little bit more than their fair share of sashimi,’ he added parenthetically), there are literally Billions of excess hominids on this planet just waiting to be served. All that is needed is the Vision to see that Potential and to turn that Dream into Reality.”
“It’s either that, folks,” he warned cryptically, “or blood in the streets.” Flott waved aside requests for detailed data, facts, evidence, or proof as to his assertions, telling the assembled media folks to check the archives of his Blog, if they were really that interested.
Rubbing his hands in evident anticipatory glee, Mr Flott chortled, “Boy, I can’t wait till the Human Wankers hear about THIS one!”
He also announced his plan to designate himself Minister of Defense, so as to, in his words, “fill that gap in my resume about never having spent any time in my nation’s defense. It wasn’t my fault the Yanks pulled out of Viet Nam before I could enlist,” he explained.
###
"War may be the health of the state of the self-styled “arsenal of democracy,” but it’s very unhealthy for the people of Ukraine and Russia and indeed for the planet."
If any nation can brink us to the brink of nuclear annihilation it's the USA. There hasn't been a war we're won since 1947 with the blood of our youth spilt on many foreign soils but its worth it. Long live the military industrial war machine and its very rich top management and well paid work force. Isn't constant war worth it America. It's only our military families that suffer and the very much needed social programs.
War is the Health Of The State not just for America, Jazzme.
War has been very Helpful to the States [ie, the governments] of Russia and Ukraine. It is only the Russian and Ukrainian Peoples who suffer, not their Leaders of their governments.
And War is the Health of virtually Every State that has ever existed in the history of Human Civilization.
Be they Republican, Democratic, Theocratic, Imperial, or Despotic States, War is the Health of Every one of them.
And the second Health Booster for The State is "The Threat Of War" with an "Enemy" fully intent upon and capable of defeating ~ and thus destroying ~ US in a "War."
Wasn't this slavic dust-up supposed to be over in two or three weeks, as soon as some latter day Nazis (were they card-carrying members of the N.S.D.A.P.?) were rousted? I'm just asking a question here ....
Can You provide a link or two to exactly Who said it was going "to be over in two or three weeks"? Whose side was claiming that? Thanks.
No, jg, I sure can't. Maybe it was four to six weeks, or so my (admittedly not what it used to be) memory seems to recall. But the consensus gave little hope to Ukraine to survive the Russian onslaught. That, of course, was before the US started sending over everything but the 2nd Marine Division. However, I do distinctly remember being taken to task for remarking on the amount of what I termed "Vladi love" that was appearing in this comment space in those early weeks. But Time brings Change ...
Ahhh. Got it on the consensus; i know i was wrong about how long it was going to last.
But then i realized what a DEAL an extended War someplace would be for the MICC.
Especially one that involves no American Troops anywhere close to any of the resulting Combat.
And what is "Vladi love"?
In the early days, a couple of the BV faithful expressed the view that Mr. Putin was if not heroic, certainly an aggrieved party, not an aggressor, and wholly justified in whatever action he deemed necessary to set things aright. I felt that was stretching things a bit.
Back on the early day of March 5, 2022, i expressed the following sentiment here on BV. i'm curious if this qualifies as an example of "Vladi Love":
America's twenty year "Forever War" after 9/11 was, is, and ever will be a half-time show designed to keep the troops occupied, the defense contractors profitable, and the American people comfortably numb to protracted conflicts in places many of them cannot find on a map of the world.
For now, Russia has recovered from the disintegration of European Communism and the USSR ~ and China has recovered from the madness of Mao ~ sufficiently for either [or especially both] to present viable, credible "threats" to America's 30-year reign of global, unipolar hegemony since the end of Cold War I in December, 1991.
For now looms Cold War II, with Ukraine, the South China Sea, and/or Taiwan set to kick it off in fine fashion.
AND TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING IN UKRAINE, IN PARTICULAR, ONE MUST ALSO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA'S INTERACTION WITH WESTERN EUROPE OVER THE PAST 200 YEARS. NAPOLEON AND HITLER BOTH TRIED TO BRING THE "BLESSINGS" OF THE WEST TO MOTHER RUSSIA, AND FAILED AT TERRIBLE COST, PARTICULARLY TO THE LAND, COUNTRY, NATION, AND PEOPLE THAT WAS ~ AND STILL IS ~ RUSSIA.
NATO IS HARD ON ALL OF RUSSIA'S BORDERS EXCEPT IN UKRAINE; AND, GIVEN THAT HISTORY SPANNING OVER TWO CENTURIES, IT IS NOT AT ALL DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY RUSSIA WANTS TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. THIS IN NO WAY JUSTIFIES, EXCUSES, OR EXONERATES PUTIN AND HIS ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, AND QUITE INSANE INVASION OF UKRAINE. IT MERELY SPECULATES ON A VERY REAL POSSIBLE MOTIVE.
[ https://bracingviews.substack.com/p/orwells-1984-holds-many-lessons-for-the-new-cold-war ; EMPHASIS added. ]
One thing I appreciate about your comments & replies jg is your reliance on facts and research. You will never be accused of sycophancy. Now, if you will only get your spiritual house in order ... (that's supposed to be a joke, but how to get that across in a comments section without saying "that's supposed to be a joke"?)