Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Wendover Productions" channel.

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
@MrWasGehtSieDasAn01 Are you paying high taxes? You are paying that to ensure that the USA stays the world's single hegemon. You should not confuse "personal freedom" with the form of "indentured servitute" every European is involuntarily signed up to. If war comes to Europe again, and stays conventional (no nuclear escalation), who do you think will pay the highest bloodcount?
1
@MrWasGehtSieDasAn01 Who do you think is going to pay the 100 billion in extra defense, incl. US made F-35 fighters? You, or the American taxpayer? Read my top comment again. Research Smedley Butler. Research "War is a Racket".
1
@nosferatu5 It's about eternal strategies, like "divide and rule". Those not informed, think such comments are "tirades"...
1
@nosferatu5 What do you think the "good guys" NATO will do now the shtf? Quite predictably: nothing...
1
@ArmchairMagpie I've just countered that. Two comments up. I don't know if you overlooked it.
1
@ArmchairMagpie I'll agree with your comment as far as the "easily divided" Europeans go. 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:
1
@ArmchairMagpie Mostly agreed. As long as one is already "signed up" to NATO, there is nothing to fear. The "Big Brotha" USA will pwotect you... If not. Tough. See "poor little Ukraine". Call this cynisism on my part, because of my personal lack of ability to change reality. Writing this, is not disrespect for the victims of war, who always have my sincere support. I don't subscribe to any ideologies or predescribed thinking pattens, but look at historical events and compare current events to find out what age-old strategy is being implemented. Why do I write "poor Ukraine", being "not signed up" yet? Because if you're not "signed up" in a binding mutually beneficial alliance, you're simply "cannon fodder" for the "machine". How do I know this? Because the strategists said so themselves. Suitably "hidden" behind flowery formulations of course. 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. 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... The road to hegemony and spheres of influence is paved with blood. There is no such thing as an innocent party, only "guilty" and "less guilty", or "bad" and "worse".
1
@MrWasGehtSieDasAn01 This channel is blocking comments. Can you see this comment?
1
@MrWasGehtSieDasAn01 This is not about your freedom. It is about lives of innocent human beings in non-NATO countries being sacrificed so the USA can remain the "top dog" in the world. First, they came for the Ukraine...but I did not care.. Remember that? Washington DC is afraid of losing its status if a new multipolar world evolves, and the strategists are willing to sacrifice the blood of millions to play this "game".
1
@ArmchairMagpie Yes, agreed about "Euroweanies". Unless they can finally put on their big boy pants and unite, they will forever be "divided" by an outside hegemon. The outsider with the geographical advantage will play them out against each other like tools. But history did not "start" with Putin. Putin came to power in Dec 1999, after the first NATO expansion that year. That makes "Putin" an effect, not a cause. Dugin's geostrategy (1997) became an effect of broken promises of the early 1990s (USA/NATO), in exactly the same way that Germany's Tirpitz geopolitics (1897) was an effect of the previous alpha's (London) deceitfull ways. Do you know your history? For "Euroweanies" it is repeating.
1
@ArmchairMagpie I sorta predicted this war two weeks before it broke out. How? It was an almost exact repeat of the situation which existed in the summer of 1914. Don't believe me? Go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the History Room education channel on YT. If you choose "newest comments" and scroll down to my comment starting with "Bismarck's something silly in the Balkans..." and see for yourself. If the situation is the same ("encroaching" on a rival), so is the effect.
1
@knighter1209 Go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video. I didn't even mention "troop buildup", because that could have simply been a war scare. Get it? Yes? No? Doesn't matter. Before the event, nobody cares: after the event, everybody is an "expert". 😅😀😁😃😂 Go to the comment. I compared the situation which existed. The situation does not lie. The news lies. Politicians lie. People in power lie. The situation does not lie. It had already existed before. History repeated (or "rhymed" as some say) because the situation was the same.
1
Oh. And I also predicted that nobody would help "poor Ukrainians" if/when war broke out. Why? Because it had all happened before. 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. 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...
1
@ArmchairMagpie Agreed. One could call it a "Chinese blank cheque" 😉 Without such a "blank cheque" it would have been impossible for Russia to invade. History indeed "rhymes".
1
@ArmchairMagpie Agreed. I don't know if you're old enough to personally remember the 1990s. Exactly this "morphed NATO" (incl. Russia) was discussed back then, and was an option. Same for Turkey's efforts to get into the EU, and they were also kept dangling for ages. Our arrogant "always bestest" leaders with their dumb "I'm the doorman/You don't get into the cool club"-attitude are the bane of humanity. It turns potential friendly states and nations into rivals and enemies. This "we're the rich western cool kids"-attitude problem must be overcome. Had Russia been included in a post-Cold War combined security setup of sorts in the 1990s, and had Turkey been let into the EU (say around early-2000s), we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. I'm old enough to remember the news of the 1990 and how I thought "When is this going to flip 180 degrees about-turn". Whether the micro (friends) or macro level (states), you diss someone long enough, and it's bound to turn sour. Let's see how this plays out.
1
@ArmchairMagpie I know about the NACC, the PfP and all that. The "issue" was another one.
1
@ArmchairMagpie On my comment I spoke about a "morphed NATO". Fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its future global hegemony. For that it needed states that it could 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]" NATO's main function of "mutual defense" has been quitely dropped in favor of becoming a grand strategy tool to keep potential "little friends" down and "little"? (geopolitics) Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out." *When "mutual defence" becomes a secondary function, and is rated below "big power ambitions"...
1
@ArmchairMagpie Furthmore, Gorbachev is on record for heeded the US (incl. a 1997 address to US congress) not to expand NATO without an accompanying treaty which would not allow the US to station nukes and aircraft directly on Russia's border. Moscow's suggestion at the time was a "NATO" more inclusive of Russia to "balance out" the rise of China (China was just kickstarting their spectacular economic growth at the time this suggestion was made).
1
@ArmchairMagpie France and GB had nuclear weapons and were therefore a deterrent to a weakened Russia of the 1990s), preoccupied with own issues. There was enough time to unite (around 10 years). What lacked was willpower. The problem was "the alpha" not willing to let go. Europe should unite and rid themselves of their "boss". That is my advice. Nobody has to folliw this advice. It is just advice. If not there will be eternal war in the own homelands (note, the geographical advantage of the "alpha" USA, who is not directly affected by such wars). Up next? Finnland? We'll see if the strategy of "divide and rule" succeeds, or whether Finnland is going to be turned into the next "sacrificial pawn" sacrificed for US dominance. (How will we know? If there is no sudden "fait accompli" after secret talks taking place right now.) Same as my advice to Asia is to turn BRICS (economic unity) into B[RIC]S as a united military power based on China/Russia/India, and to rid themselves of US domination. They probably won't either and will suffer the consequences (eternal war in own homelands). If you Europeans wish to continue the imperfect way of bowing to outside meddlers in the future, that's fine too. I'll just take off and go somewhere else if your homelands turn to ash. Personally, I don't care if people become the victims of their own biases and fallacious argumention. I detach myself and leave.
1
@ArmchairMagpie In case you grew up in East Germany (athiest) you might not be familiar with Essau and Jacob. Note that in this "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inherritance", the deceiver is the hero of the story. His "name" and ways continue. The "smoothe talking good guy" deceiving his own brother, is a "hero". Don't forget that.
1
@ArmchairMagpie 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. Bo, I don't think that will result in US enmity. Most Americans will even welcome it, in view of traditionalist "isolationism".
1
@ArmchairMagpie Note that France and Germany already "stood up to " the USA on many issues, including 2002 when "lapdog Blair" willingly followed the alpha into an illegal war in Iraq but France and Germany refused. That did not result in "enmity".
1
@ArmchairMagpie Then we are largely on the same track. Brexit could have been avoided if the idea of a united Europe had been seperated early on, using the end of the Cold War threat as an incentive (EU as "pure" economic union, morph NATO according to the security issues of all concerned parties, incl. Russia). An early creation of a "United States of Europe" would have met with vehement US opposition. That was the issue. Weak European leaders. You can find a thousand reasons why there should never be a "United States of Europe", as indeed you would have found a thousand reason why 300 years ago there shouldn't have been a "USA", because being colonies (in an eternal state of war) was "just great". Or a thousand reasons why the North should have just let the South secede in 1864. There are and were always a thousand reasons made by very logical and reasonable people. If you have your way, Europe will forever pick up the tab for American "forever wars". What makes you think Iraq/Syria/Libya was the first? (Note: millions of refugees came to Europe tearing it apart) What makes you think the Ukraine will be last? (Note: millions of refugees came to Europe and prices are soaring, and will tear "Europe" apart) What makes think "poor little Finland" will learn the lesson? What makes you think the "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"-faction in Washington DC won't get their way? Where will the millions of refugees come to?
1
@ArmchairMagpie You seem to be a very rational and logical person. I suggest going to the Kaiser Wilhelm II video as I suggested to the other commenter. Read my comments about 3-4 months back, and see if they make ligical sense. Cut out the "emotions", and only dissect the logic and reason. Europe has been here before. Only the "divider" intent on "ruling" was different.
1