When I said I did not believe the stuff Joe Biden read off the teleprompter at his press conference on Feb 23rd. Some of it was just wrong, other parts were true but didn't mean much without context, or were provided with the wrong context. I didn't go beyond the first 45 seconds because there didn't seem to be any point. So the person I mentioned this to said - 'then you side with Putin!' There are about a dozen narratives to choose between, not just two.
1. The first narrative might come from 1963 Cuban missile crisis. The U.S.S.R. placed one real nuclear tipped missile in Cuba, about 900 miles from Washington, and 33 dummies, like the ones in Washington. The U.S. went ape, the generals wanted an attack on the missiles, JFK was more moderate. Basically just because Cuba was a sovereign country did not give it the right to host weapons. By Feb 2022 NATO had trained about 700,000 troops and supplied large quantities of weapons to Ukraine despite years of warnings from Pres. Putin that even joining NATO would be crossing a bright red line. NATO makes offensive attacks but the problem might not be just a matter of a threat to Russia but also of forcing Pres. Putin to back down on his warnings, and the matter of AZOV killing Russian-speaking Ukrainians which led to Russia moving troops and artillery into positions to defend Donbas against Ukrainian artillery. Maybe Russia overreacted. Maybe we shouldn't just buy into the first narrative we meet.
2. On May 24th at the WEF forum in Davos, Henry Kissinger opened a Pragmatic narrative by suggesting Ukraine should cede some territory to Russia. There are plenty of examples of this going on, the division of Czechoslovakia into Czechia and Slovakia worked very well by most opinions. Part of Ukraine speaks the Ukrainian language, a bit too far removed from Russian to be considered just a dialect, and the Eastern and Southern part speaks Russian. Some Ukrainians have been killing Russian speaking Ukrainians for a number of years so some type of fence would seem a good idea.
3. M.I.C. It's a war fought so U.S. weapons makers get paid a ton of money to restock warehouses with munitions, the same as the war in Afghanistan before it. That this one is a proxy war makes it easier for the public to accept because very few American lives will be lost. Whether we win or lose is irrelevant to the weapons makers.
4. Neocons want to block in Russia completely. Blocking in Russia on the west is being done by bringing countries into NATO. NATO in mid 1990s NATO today Russia sees this as western aggression, but it could be just some high-up people playing a game of Risk. Some of our elites are perfectly happy to kill a hundred thousand common people just to have some fun.
The global elite want a big war. Some of them are still sticking with the notion that this is the 'era of the dragon', so China wasn't an option. Next on the list: Russia. Some regime change shenanigans in Ukraine, a gullible Putin, and perfecto- we have a nice distracting, profitable war, with a side chance of massive global depopulation, either by nuclear exchange or by famine, so they might be able to finally kill off a bunch of the 'useless eaters' while avoiding blame for it. Pretty good gig ...if you're a control freak sociopath, anyway.
I threw a possible narrative out there a few months ago..... Will the war in the Ukraine lead to the exposure of Hunter Biden and then.... ? Will the war in the Ukraine lead to the fall of Hunter and then Joe Biden???? No 2 vote(s) 40.0% Yes 0 vote(s) 0.0% * I do hope so.... 3 vote(s) 60.0% I HOPE NOT!!!!!! 0 vote(s) 0.0% Change Your Vote
Um, there are really just two, maybe with a greyscale between them, unless you're into conspiracies. The straightforward one is that Putin sees Ukraine as part of Russia, and most of Ukraine does not see it that way. Putin tried to make it reality by force and made up **** to try to justify it over many years. The less straightforward one is from Putin. Ukraine was taken over by evil nazi genocidal forces that want to kill Russian sympathizers in their country and help NATO take Russia down. But Ukraine is really a part of Russia and once the corrupt government is stripped away they will realize they are really Russians and that the west is bad. First narrative is probably mostly true, with tiny grains of truth from the Russian account, but no NATO was not really going to use Ukraine to take down Russia, nor was Nazism a big part of Ukraine.
It's not your fault but U.S. opinions are always tainted by the MSM. I don't read the MSM but when I see a majority saying stuff that doesn't correspond with reality, I always suspect the MSM. I'm going to catch a member of the public and ask them: How is shipping huge quantities of weapons helping the people of Ukraine? Who are 'the people of Ukraine? The population of Ukraine was about 50% Ukrainian speaking and 50% Russian speaking. So giving weapons to the Ukrainian armed forces to use on the Russian-speaking population was only helping half the population of Ukraine kill the other half. Get real. When you supply weapons to a civil war you get more people killed, not fewer. Who has giving all those weapons to Ukraine been helping?
The main Western narrative in use is that 14,000 brave Ukrainians have died in the war and 100,000 ill equipped untrained weak demoralized Russian orcs have died. However, Ursula von der Leyen addressing the European Commission stated that the extreme brutality of Russia had resulted in the deaths of 100,000 members of the armed forces and 20,000 civilians. So in order to make a point about Russian brutality she accidentally sank the narrative of Russian incompetence and the claim that Kyiv is winning. Oops.
It really isn't possible to do a good job of juggling all the lies in the Western narrative. The Western narrative contains contradictions and meaningless terms so I don't even count it as a narrative because it is impossible to believe it. It is the one the majority of those I meet believe. It's going to fall apart. Just like we forget that 99.8% of Congress voted in favor of the war in Afghanistan.
6. Discussing the war in Ukraine is not to be undertaken lightly - it is really complicated. This narrative is an underlying assumption rarely voiced explicitly though it could be a big part of our decision to train 700,000 soldiers in Ukraine and to ship in quantities of weapons. It's a background belief that conflict with Russia and sanctions against Russia are a good thing because they reduce climate change.
7. What is NATO? Originally it was an alliance of North Atlantic countries with a rule of supporting each other in the event of aggression by the USSR. There is no longer a USSR, and NATO is not purely defensive as some people believe. NATO General Secretary stated that it is the aim of NATO to destroy as much of the Russian military in Ukraine as possible, to produce regime change in Russia and to break up Russia into many small republics to ensure it never again becomes a powerful country.
8. What is best for whom? For Ukraine, probably not having a war in their country. For the US public, not wasting a fortune on weapons. For the rest of the World not risking a nuclear war. For the US weapons makers, having a war. So it's war.
9. What is the long-term strategy? The old long-term strategy was to ensure Germany and Russia never worked closely together, because German technology and Russian resources (not to say Germany doesn't have some resources, and Russia a lot of technology), would produce a new world power. What is the present strategy? To ensure Russia and China did not join together. So what did the sanctions to isolate Russia from the rest of the world do? Force Russia to work directly with China. Game Over.
The sanctions forced Russia to ally with China - another failure. So what can we do to save the situation? Dump it. Play a different game. Stop trying to compete against and loot all the other countries in the world and live together as friends.
Accept that not all countries think the way we do, or at least the way the media claims they do. Russia doesn't hate us, nor does China, nor does Iran. As Bertrand Russell said: love is wise, hatred is foolish. Any plan to fight against China and Russia and N. Korea and Iran and Syria and Haiti and a few other countries all at once is certain to fail because it is impossible. Things that are impossible usually fail.
