Comments by "Antony Wooster" (@antonywooster6783) on "Collapsing European security order. Glenn Diesen interviews Richard Sakwa u0026 Alexander Mercouris" video.

  1. 1:01:04 One cause of tensions within the European part of the West is the fact that many of the people trying to draw attention to the problems that Washington's policies are inflicting on their country/industry/ company/group are suppressed and cannot express themselves in any of the MSM.
    31
  2. 50:45 The weakness of this discussion is that it ignores the way that there was an underlying sympathy in Britain (Churchill and many British aristocrats) and in America (General Grove, John Foster Dulles)) for the N*zis, which sympathy survived WW2 and was expressed not only in "Operation Paperclip" and the analogous Japanese operation, but also in the wholesale adoption and incorporation of the Gehlen Organization and its use to harass the Soviet Union, not only, but particularly in Ukraine. IOW this cultivation of the extreme right-wing elements in Ukraine is not something that started in 2014 but goes back at least to 1945. Nor should one, in this context, forget that the original idea to research the possibility of making atom-bombs, it seems was NOT "in case the Germans got there first" but in order to defeat the USSR. Seeing how friendly NATO was with almost every F*scist dictatorship there was in the world, (Spain, Portugal, Egypt, Libya, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Greece, Vietnam, China, South Korea, Indonesia, Philippines etc., etc.) and how the US intervened in liberation movements to install F*scist governments, (Iran, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc.) it seems to me that the "Political West" was not some relatively innocuous aspect of Western Society or civilization, but more like a powerful F*scist crusade. Put it another way: what would you call people who organize, finance, arm, protect and support in every possible way, F*scists? Liberals? Democrats? Philanthropists?
    22
  3. 1:44:20 The Rules Based International Order is propaganda slogan without any factual basis. No one has ever formally defined it , for the good reason that if one did formalize it realistically it would amount to "We make the rules and you obey them; or else." Naturally, no one could possible lend their support to such a formulation, so it has to remain undefined. It has to remain as an advertising slogan. It sounds good, just so long as you don't ask, what exactly it means. The Atlantic Council Strategy Paper Series December 16, 2020 has this to say about it: "The rules-based international system was constructed mostly by leading democratic allies at the end of World War II, and was deepened and expanded by many other countries over time. The system is predicated on a set of norms and principles pertaining to global security, the economy, and governance. It consists of: a set of rules encouraging peaceful, predictable, and cooperative behavior among states that is consistent with liberal values and principles; formal institutional bodies, such as the United Nations (UN) and NATO, that serve to legitimize and uphold these rules, and provide a forum to discuss and settle disputes; and the role of powerful democratic states to help preserve and defend the system. In the security realm, the system is characterized by formal alliances in Europe and Asia, in addition to rules that protect state sovereignty and territorial integrity, and place limits on the use of military force and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In the economic domain, the rules-based system has served to promote an interconnected global economy based on free markets and open trade and finance. Finally, in the realm of governance, the rules-based system advanced democratic values and human rights. The system has never been fixed, but has evolved over time, with major periods of adaptation and expansion at major inflection points after World War II and at the end of the Cold War. Note the last sentence: "The system has never been fixed," In other words "we make it up as we go along to suit our own convenience."
    4
  4. 1:10:52 You ask why the Ukrainians don't want to negotiate with the Russians but seem determined to get a worse beating than they have had up to now? Their policy is made in Washington DC and the point of the war is to kill as many Russians as possible. To do that the war needs to continue. Hard luck on the Ukrainians and their mercenary helpers but who is worried about them? Not the Neocons in Washington, that's certain!
    2
  5. 1:08:21 Tis inability of the political West to give up its ideas of hegemony is a symptom of its underlying F*scism. It is really the modern incarnation of the idea of the Herrenvolk. (The Master race aka the Exceptionals.)
    1