The NY Times decided now was the proper time to push our government to get tough on Ukraine. I wrote in April of ‘21 that Ukraine would be a battlefield. The media megaphones now want it. We need to get serious and beef up the troop deployments to regional NATO members upwards of 5,000 with the possibility of ten times that. If all else fails, the Times openly states we can fund an insurgency. This is a clear display of the declining imperial power.
Immediate point against our rhetoric is that America will use former Soviet bloc nations for staging assets to fight Russia despite us saying there is no threat to Russia by us expanding NATO eastward. Second issue is that America can put up to 5,000 troops in place while Russia supposedly has 100,000 in place This is nothing. It is jawboning what we, the mighty USA, can do. The jawboning fits with the final piece of decline by admitting we will fund an insurgency with Gladio style operations. America can maybe recreate the 1980s Afghanistan battlefield.
Why would they explicitly lay this out? Gladio was carried out and operated for decades before revelations around it, which were still denied. American officials now say what they will do, which destroys any element of surprise and put the invading force on alert to use COIN techniques. Russia effectively destroyed an insurgency in Syria, so their techniques may work on the steppe and urban battlefields.
These ghouls are spitting lines like there will be a large European war on national television. Impossible with the piddly troop numbers America can send on short notice and lack of desire in Europe. No one wants a big war right now. Who escalates? There is a weird status quo in the far east of Ukraine, but Russia has been careful to protect deployed assets and quietly have those breakaway republics be administered by men friendly to Russia. If Russia does raise the stakes, what point is there in the US & whatever NATO allies it can force into joining it escalating the situation with a nuclear power?
We saw Afghanistan. We also saw Syria. We also know that America to this day has a base at Al-Tanf inside Syria. This base has two purposes. First, it stops Assad from receiving supplies from Iran via the Baghdad-Damascus Highway (spiteful on America’s part) and second, US troops are sitting ducks to potentially become reasons for full intervention. There is no purpose for that base but to hamper resupply and reconstruction efforts, but Israel & Saudi Arabia ask for that. This does not lead to any victory. America knows how to take in Third World Refugees from these failed theatres of war, but no longer how to win.
We have seen Russia act, too. Syria is a good example. Russia witnessed what happened in Libya and failed to appreciate the speed of US/NATO in forcing No Fly Zones and toppling autocrats. It did not veto UN proposals geared towards Gadafy. It did learn though and did veto similar attempts aimed at Assad and Syria. It did watch as America pulled off a Color Revolution in Ukraine after an economic agreement didn’t go the EU’s way and then made sure the same did not happen in Kazakhstan. In both instances, Russia is portrayed as an aggressor or interloper when they merely responded to American meddling after previous iterations of the same acts.
Our media cannot explain those change because to do so would admit America is the malicious disruptor. There is no justification for fighting directly, which our involvement would make us the disruptor. Russia appears to learn and adapt to America’s methods, changing approach and policy. America, well America loves a reboot. We keep doing the same procedures with the same characters and the same methods. When the NY Times states America could do X or Y, pay attention. They are selling their audience and the broader pundit class on this. These are explicit policy choices, and the framing is that Biden’s team is making a decision this week. This is a sales pitch for proxy war.
One thousand or five thousand troops will not fight directly, but they can run the insurgent training camps just as they did in Jordan for the Syrian debacle. Even if they did fight, it would be a suicide mission to only justify further involvement. Better to train and keep the men & women out of harm’s way while earning promotions. Gladio can get a remake, maybe with an LGBT and female casting change for the Netflix and Reddit professional class to support. It worked for Kurdish troop public relations, well it did until the writing was on the wall for the Pentagon. The war drums beat louder, and the world worries all because America doesn’t want to see anywhere on the map slide out from their dominion.
7 Comments Add yours
Khazars gonna Khazar — burn loot murder literal Khazaria
LikeLiked by 1 person
The demonically controlled Power Elite has gone all out to depopulate the world while assuring it’s own safety.
They have elaberate underground bunker systems: A subterrian network of shelters where they can glory in piggish carnalistic
pleasures like the ancient Ceasers.
As things stand today, the only logical conclusion is that God has abandoned His prophectical plans, and intends to destroy the
West, just like He destroyed the ancient world in the time of the Flood.
May God have mercy on us all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the US tries a proxy war “arm the moderate ukranian militias” approach in UKR, those militias are going to kidnap a lot of Jewish mobsters. I don’t care one way or the other about this, but I can’t think of a strategy that is more likely to be explosive.
Reblogged this on BABYLON'S DOOM.
Why would Russia allow a proxy war on it’s border when they could just set up a no fly zone with the S400s already deployed in Belarus and bomb the fuck out of Kiev with standoff weapons and aircraft until there is nothing but rubble? No need for pussy-footing around. The United States thinks that it cannot happen because Russia is “a gas station with nuclear weapons” and couldn’t back it up. They could. Even without their air force having fully modernized they could fire salvos of hypersonic missles and then advance under SAM cover and use clapped out MIG 21s to provide close air support within the SAM envelope if they so wished- against numerically inferior forces with lower morale and homelands already on the brink of revolt. NATO would fold like tissue paper.
War seems unlikely. There are no winning plays, and now that the Europeans have today, admittedly after this article was likely written, started to break from America’s narrative, it looks like this is gonna be a relatively bloodless retreat.
Seems all our Hebrew friends in congress want war.
This makes sense when you add in the fact that we go to war with Russia it’s a WW2 redux, complete with everyone Israel hates.
Please stop saying “we” and “us” when you refer to the actions of the United States government.