Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "BBC News"
channel.
-
177
-
146
-
73
-
65
-
59
-
33
-
30
-
29
-
23
-
16
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Good.
Smart people.
Not kidding.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@Dogtles Yup.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power", to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cop, bad cop.
Divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by armed settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selection of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow". Israeli strategists, safely within the reach of the safety of their BUNKERS, intended to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now individual Israelis and foreigners are "reaping" the effects of previous choices. Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and choosing to become a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using the own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp as a tool of strategic encirclement, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same people and systems. Different times. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petergagan707 Don't believe me?
EPISODE V:
A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised.
"Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
A massive strategic air force, was a form of warfare GB could not really afford.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most important markets.
Washington DC/American Century: "Sowwie...I didden know that "markets" and "trade" were the cornerstone of your empiwe...je, je, je...sowwie..."*
1
-
1
-
Actually, it was quite easy solve.
What lacked was willpower.
As the definition "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
Because you are an idiot in a world full of idiots, involving yourself in wars of proxy once created by the USA and GB.
First in 1979, when Reagan supported the radical Islamic Mujahedden (which morphed into Al Queda, Taliban and then ISIS). Then with an absolutely stupid war for oil in 2003, which catapulted ISIS into power...again, by guess who?
Yup. Constant meddling in the affairs of others, for own interests, creating war and terror, creating more war and terror, and circling round and round to more war and terror...
Oh, and BTW. Did I mention than constant meddling for interests creates war and terror?
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles (see my comment 4 weeks ago).
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iCoolaxe I would have have all following a predetermined set of rules called "international law".
Unfortunately the "too big to care"-attitude problem means that "laws" are only there for the other guy, not for "me".
That then results in an international situation where nobody cares about "laws" anymore, because all one needs to ignore these laws is enough muscle.
Not followung mutually agreed upon laws, then creates tension.
May I remind you that in the post-Cold War era (say the 1990), that it was only the USA left over.
China was still weak.
The SU/Russia had collapsed.
Still, even without the "excuse" of needing to stand up to "evil", it was the USA which mainly created this "new normal".
Washington DC was still in "alpha"-mode, and couldn't step down.
The 1990s would have been the perfect opportunity to "release" Europe, and prod them on towards taking more responsibility for own defense and/or world affairs.
This was something I already critisized at the time (1990s). So this is no "hindsight" on my behalf.
I watched on while Turkey (under Erdogan) fulfilled every single requirement for EU entry, only to have more "catalogues" of "requirements" presented to them...until they gave up.
See the "sh*tholes" we create ourselves with an own attitude problem of wanting everybody to be like us?
It turns; 180 degrees.
Same with the USA "using" NATO" as a tool of own world domination.
I'll copy a seperate essay below, to explain what I mean.
There is no "innocence" here.
Only "powers" wishing to hang on to "power".
It never ends well.
1
-
@iCoolaxe Re. NATO
Fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
Beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master."
Benedict de Spinoza
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
Nobody needs "friends" like that.
*When "mutual defence" becomes a secondary function, and is rated below "big power ambitions"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don't become puppets.
Lots of "appeal to emotion" in the comments section.
Fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
As soon as there is some signs of more unity, the various well-funded "think tanks" and "lobby groups" (aka "strategic studies"...ahem..."centers") remind the people how "evil" the "others" still are, what they did a hundred years ago, how they "wanted to kill your grand-dadda", whatever...
Beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master" (Benedict de Spinoza).
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
Nobody needs "friends" like that.
When "mutual defence" becomes a secondary function, and is rated below "big power ambitions", it is time to think the unthinkable.
GB is no longer part of the "Three Musketeers" of Europe, so now it is up to France and Germany to get together and chuck the USA out, and create an own strong United States of Europe. My suggestion: Seperate economic issues completely (EU as a "pure" unemotional economic union), and then to start bundling political issues under a new umbrella called "The United States of Europe" to take the emotional flak off the EU.
The "EU" should only deal with economic issues, not political ones. All social and local issues should only be an internal concern of the nations and states, not outside meddlers. Political issues are a perfect target for outside "dividers", with their "divide and rule"-agendas.
Mr Spinoza again, speaking from the grave: "Reason cannot defeat emotion; an emotion can only be displaced or overcome by a stronger emotion."
Will this ever happen?
Probably at some point. But not soon.
No matter how many truly good people there are, with truly good intentions, it is easier to divide people based on what makes them different, than to unite them based on what they have in common.
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see.... The USA/NATO has the most powerful "weapon" on its side: feelings.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by armed settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selection of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow". Israeli strategists, safely within the reach of the safety of their BUNKERS, intended to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now individual Israelis and foreigners are "reaping" the effects of previous choices. Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and choosing to become a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using the own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp as a tool of strategic encirclement, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By "no fault of their own", I am merely referring to those Arabs who declared their neutrality when neighboring Arab states attacked.
Here we shouldn't confuse entities like "religion", "citizen", or "country".
Note here, even the fact that many (now de facto Israeli citizens) Arabs declared their neutrality, or even support for the new state, it didn't save them from retribution...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
Why should an Arab living in the new state (after it's declaration) suffer because of the actions of OTHER Arabs, with whom they had nothing to do?
Not all of the 700,000 "Palestinians" were against Israel, and many fled in panic after events like Deir Yassin became known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_and_massacres_during_the_1948_Palestine_war
Whether intentionally, or unintentionally, this exodus was exactly what some of the founding fathers of Israel wanted.
I don't agree with the "Arabs better off in Israel", since it is a generalization which has nothing to do with the people themselves, but more a result of the situation (situational vs. dispositional debate).
Would you state that Arabs in oil rich countries are not well-off, or that the standard of living here (including innovation, for example in Dubai, Quttar, etc.) are not at a similar level as Israel?
IMO, the standard of living has to do with resources. Israel obviously benefited immensely from western support, and the influx of well-educated (mostly in western countries) in the initial stages (say, directly following WW2), when much of the Arab countries were hardly out of colonialism.
Were it not for the constant violence, the Arabs of Palestine could have enjoyed a similar state of wealth as Libanon did in the 1960s and 70s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
History repeats itself in eternal cycles.
Bismarck's "something silly in the Balkans" has morphed into "something silly in the Ukraine".
Of course, Bismarck's quote is in reference to the age-old "contested sphere of influence", and big power ambitions.
At the time it was the Balkans.
Today it is the Black Sea/Ukraine, or simply "shifted east Balkans"-Bismarkian logic.
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
Of course the Ottoman Empire was not Europe's only "sick man" at the time.
The Ottoman Empire was weak, and therefore a favorite on "the European good guys" with their "shopping lists"-mentality.
Of course, the "always on the right side of history"-good guys have one main goal: "carving up" weakness.
That goal is eternal, always searching for weakness.
Of course in the late 19th-century, the Ottomans weren't the only failing empire, desperately trying to hold together their own past accomplishments (previously gained by a mixture of blood and diplomacy).
There were two others.
Of course Spain was the first weak empire on the American Internationalist's own "no more Monroe Doctrine restrictions"-shopping list of suitable weak empires.
The American Century needed divided "weany libruls" to succeed in their quest.
Easily explained empire 101...
Europe's other "sick man" was Austria-Hungary, and Berlin adamantly refused to throw her to the wolves.
Bad bad Berlin ...the "good guys" had an appetite and came with a vengeance.
Dissed girlfriend Russia of course intented to encircle Austria-Hungary, using the "poor people"-argument (aka "Pan Slavism").
And in the respect of "losing favored status" in the good guys' with their eternal games of divide and rule (favoratism):
Russia today.
Not such fun getting encroached upon, as Russia once did to "sick man" Austria-Hungary, and having own security issues ignored by the eternal good guys, right?
Not so great having historical spheres of influence carved up by "ICEBREAKER NATO" paving the way to new profitable EU/PNAC markets, eh?
Shouting "poor me" in "the game" of default good guys/default bad guys, when own interests to dominate and rule over others, using human lives as "tools" not working out anymore?
Why don't your leaders roll out the old "protector of all slavs"-trope again, hmmmm?
Suddenly "Russian power" as a "tool" don't suite the "good guys" anymore, and the own Moscow interests ("security issues": remember that term for a while) get thrown out the back door.
Not so much fun anymore when you are "in the shoes" of others, right?
What happened to those eternal dreams of access to the Med for your navy and the own projection of power (Mahan)? Today Russia doesn't even fully control the Black Sea anymore, and St Petersburg/Moscow geostategic goals/aims have been thrown back over the last 30 years, step by step, back 200 years to the 18th century when it all started.
Not such fun if one isn't on the "default good guy list" anymore...
Today, Moscow's dream of "top down influence in Turkey" (Erdogan/Turkish state access to the Med, janking Turkey out of NATO) is being countered by western economical warfare on the Turkish state. Watch on while the next bloody "bottom up" orange revolution is being set up by "the good guys" with the cash, creating the next "poor people"-argument for the primed/conditioned masses back home in front of their TVs...impervious in regards to "what happened". They just want the feelgood story, so too bad...
Back to "good ol' days" when Imperialist Russia was still "best fwiends":
Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest).
Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary.
The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure...
Anyway.
What happened to these "party times" when the good guys told you you could do no harm?
Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled?
Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement".
Not so nice, eh?
(Google "hypocrisy")
The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot.
Biblical history (and 2,000-year old observations re. human nature), unfolding again, right in front of our eyes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles (see my comment 4 weeks ago).
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles (see my comment 4 weeks ago).
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's always never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever thought about what such a policy meant?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be written off...
It means these slimy deceitful Albions expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
To hell with them.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy..."
Me: ROFL
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary lines drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? It looks very interesting. Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets they have. Want some..."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up. Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
Stalin, or why we shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win)
Stalin, or why we should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why it shouldn't have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion...
Why everything should have been done so that the war lasts as long as possible, in order that both sides become exhausted...
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
Not even a case of the often criticized hindsight.
Obviously, to everyone in the diplomatic corps at the time, it was clear that Hitler wanted to attack Poland.
He already had a "suitable excuse", so why didn't he?
Why didn't he attack Poland in July or August, while the SU was engaged in the East (Khalkin Gol)?
If he could simply attack Poland, why didn't he?
Stalin had figured it out. Hitler was afraid of the existing status quo, which was a "2 front war with 4 enemies at the same time".
The political situation that existed de facto, kept the peace.
All that was needed for war was for 1 of the four parties to opt out de jure (aka via treaty)....
Stalin said he thought it would be one of the other 3, but hey...it's Stalin right? Such an honest, upright, decent human being, who always kept his word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just came here from a comments section from a video praising "hero Trump" for his ...ahem... "efforts to stop the war", with hundreds and hundreds of fools arguing about the effects, and their priorities, and fingers pointing here and there.... but maybe 1 or 2 mentioning the causes of this war which started 30 years ago.
Trump of course, during his first term (2017-2021), did not stop the "marching empire" [systemic expansion], so he was just another POTUS, an imperialist, just like all the others before...
-----------------------
Why is anybody surprised? The USA instigates wars or does not avoid them (even if possible), or lays the foundations for crises it aims to profit from using the divide-and-rule technique in IR. It is also a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it on the domestic tier also.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided people are easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. Lies (incl. "lying by omission") is an integral part of the strategy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
1
-
Actually, it was quite easy solve.
What lacked was willpower.
As the definition "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see.... The USA has the most powerful "weapon" on its side: feelings.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's always never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever thought about what such a policy meant?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be written off...
It means these slimy deceitful Albions expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
To hell with them.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy..."
Me: ROFL
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary lines drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? It looks very interesting. Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets they have. Want some..."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up. Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@afineliner740 How "I came up with that" is written in history.
It has happened twice before, that Berlin seeking a peacefull end to a war Russia was engaged in, turned 180 degrees, as the alpha (London at the time) turned the tables.
First was 1879, after the Russo-Turkish War (Bismarck, the "honest broker" almost ending up with a continental European war, which he just managed to avert).
The second time was 1905, after the Russo-Japanese War of 1904/05 when the same happened. The Treaty of Bjorko demanded from Russia to end the war, thereby coercing Russia into a humiliating withdraw.
What makes you think Berlin strategists want to be seen as acting unilaterally, or are going to force Russia into a repeat of that, or humiliating defeats, without strong multilateral (NATO/USA) parallel actions?
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the indivual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
Here is the full text of the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel...
https://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm
It is more noteworthy in what is not mentioned...
Note here, that the borders were not defined (vaguely stated as "Eretz Israel"/ Biblical Israel, which you can google for more info. Click on "images", and you might understand why the Arab neighbors were not amused...)
Secondly, the majority of inhabitants at this time, were still Arabs, which were ONLY mentioned in a little paragraph down at the bottom somewhere, and in connection with "rights" blah, blah.
Note also, that no mention is made of "democratic state". Obviously, since at this stage democracy would have backfired, since the Jews were still outnumbered 30/70.
The text makes it quite clear who would be boss...
Israel only legally became a "democratic state" in 1985.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state
Of course, at this stage the majorities have been completely reversed (80/20 for Jews), so that becoming "democratic" was now no risk....
1