Predictably the Western media, commenting on the ninth of May celebrations in Russia, stated that Russia was further removed from victory in Ukraine than ever. In part this can be attributed to psychological warfare, as an attempt to dislodge the Russian people from the leadership, using ‘Victory Day’ in Russia to drive home this narrative that the Russian forces are bogged down in the neighboring country. I do not know how many political and military leaders in the West actually believe this narrative. I would assume that most of them understand that it is a lie, but perhaps I’m being too generous.
Consider that in the ‘Collective West’ people who are asked to decide as the CEO of a company, or leader of a country, increasingly refer to the ‘science’ to guide them. If time permits, they will ‘Game’ a situation ahead of the moment when they are forced to decide, one way or the other. These ‘War Games’ are built by people who are skilled professionals in ‘Game Theory’, on which they base their ‘Models’, infused with a thorough analysis of the personality of the people involved, or estimates, and various parameters which are ‘weighed’ to assign them a level of importance. But what happens if one player refuses to play their ‘Stupid Game’? What happens if one of the players is far more proficient in ‘Game Theory’ than the skilled professionals who designed this ‘War Game’?
On my Dutch language blog I frequently recalled how James Richards described what happened when he participated in a ‘Table Top’ exercise with a focus on economic warfare, as a CIA contractor. He assumed the role of the ‘Bad Guy’. In that ‘War Game’ it was Putin, who else. As one of his ‘moves’ in response to sanctions he went ‘Full Ape’, according to the supervisors of that ‘War Game’, stepping outside the rulebook, by no longer accepting payment in Dollars for Russian oil, gas and other commodities, only gold. Richards wrote a book about it, and there is no doubt in my mind that Putin, or advisers close to him, read it, and drew their own conclusions. Or maybe they didn’t, but they didn’t need Rickards to tell them how to spoil the West’s ‘Game’ anyway.
So, when is Russia winning? And when is Russia losing? And, if you happen to live in the ‘Collective West’, like I do, when is the West winning? And when is the West losing? In 1994 a Canadian physician named G.L. Higgins, published a study with the title: ‘The operation was successful, but the patient died. Reflections on health care costs and social support cuts’. If you look carefully at the goals set by Putin as he launched this ’Special Military Operation’ a little over a year ago, you will notice that ‘winning’ was not defined as ‘conquering all of Ukraine’. Without large scale NATO-intervention at every imaginable level, Zelensky would have signed this deal Ukraine struck with Russia in Istanbul, and Russia would have emerged victorious in April of last year. Because NATO insisted that Zelensky had to continue, while they rebuild one army after the other to replace everything the Russians are ‘grinding down’, the ‘Game’ is still ‘On’. But now NATO itself is bleeding to death as well.
Or, if you prefer, this is a ‘Multi-Player’, ‘Multi-Level’, pretty complex ‘Game’, with no, or hardly any ‘Rules’. If Ukraine was the patient, the country is close to dying, kept alive on life-support. And even if this operation performed by these skilled doctors from the ‘Collective West’ is supposed to return the ‘Unipolar’ world-order to good health, I’d say that it is an unmitigated disaster. But Russia, China, and countries associated with them, have every reason to trust the doctor performing the operation, as the ‘Collective West’ is circling the drain.
Now, allow me to stay with this analogy a little longer, when I draw the conclusion that NATO is making a habit of killing their patients. One war after the other, all hugely expensive, with nothing to show for it. Various reasons, but one important issue is the extremely limited perspective of what ‘winning’ might look like. Winning the war, but losing the peace it what the ‘Collective West’ is good at. In part because the ‘Game Theorists’ assumed that ‘Bringing Democracy’ is all it takes. Even if the patient doesn’t die during the operation NATO is performing on it, the country will wake up from the general anesthesia with the wrong arm, or the wrong leg removed, or with a different gender. If the patient files a complaint, the ‘supervisory board’ will put the patient on a shortlist for euthanasia.
To make it even more ominous, consider that many observers concluded that Japan and Germany actually won the war they clearly lost militarily, while the country which contributed most to its defeat, the Soviet Union, lost, because of the economic hardship as it had to rebuild the country without support, being threatened in its existence by the 'Collective West' through NATO, after losing twenty-seven million able bodied people, far more than any other country in the world. So, define ‘winning’? But as I write this, they are celebrating in Russia, because they defeated the Nazi’s, and regained control over ‘Mother Russia’. Nazi’s and their ideological kinfolk still hate them because of it, and they are throwing a tantrum in Ukraine, the home of ‘Banderites’, awakened from the dead, with Russia up in arms to stop them before they will pose an existential threat to ‘Mother Russia’ once more. I’d say: ‘Let’s sit down and talk things over’. That’s what Putin proposed at the Security Conference in Munich in 2007, while assuming he’d managed to avoid the threat of another war as he signed the ‘Minsk Accord’ in 2015 in good faith. Although he was wise to verify. And seeing that the ‘Collective West’ was building up the military in Ukraine, which kept shelling the Donbas, taking a toll on the civilian population, he understood that the ‘Game’ we, in the ‘Collective West’, were playing, was different from what we said we were interested in. Both democracy, as a system with a government elected by the people, ruling on behalf of, and for the people, as well as adopting ‘Free Market’ principles, had become deceptions by the Hegemon-class, and for the Hegemon-class, at the expense of the people. And they didn’t want to play that ‘Game’, so here we are, and there we go.
The Russians lost the ‘Cold War’, got rid of the people and party which failed to deliver, but they are winning in Ukraine against the ‘Collective West’, fighting side by side with China, next on our list, and an army of deceived ‘Dollar/Euro-slaves’. Eventually, Ukraine and the ‘Collective West’ will get rid of the malicious Hegemon-class taking the people for granted, and throwing entire countries under the bus, unless these power-hungry overlords pull the plug, releasing bioweapons and/or nuclear weapons, because they prefer euthanasia over coming to terms with the fact that they failed as doctors, taking all the patients with them. But if we get out of this alive, maybe we should change the rules of the ‘Game’, to enable ‘Win-Win’ outcomes?
To know for a fact if stories emerging from Ukraine itself are true, or false, is becoming harder with every passing day. There is still a 'battle' raging about this claim that Russia hit a NATO-command bunker in the vicinity of Lvov, or, alternatively, Kiev, or, alternatively, not at all. Ron Unz, Larry Johnson, and Alexander Mercouris are saying 'No Way!' I volunteered that if it was true, it was impossible to hide the death of scores of high ranking NATO officers. Ron Unz did some serious digging, and I think he is correct in his assessment that it was a 'hoax'. But as with all these false stories, they almost always originate in our part of the world. Why? Who do we serve by offering fake narratives, as if none of it matters anyway? Please don't tell me it is all about the 'clicks', the 'hits', the 'likes', the 'paid subscribers', and the money. Then there was this story about Ukraine downing a 'Kinzhal'-hypersonic missile, using the 'Patriot'-system. An official spokes-person for the Ukrainian military denied it vehemently, Newsweek ran with the denial, despite adding a question mark to the header. Brian Berletic did a video on it, referring to this Newsweek article, and other sources, repeating his skepticism, to which I subscribe, since even NATO said that they do not have the capability to intercept hypersonic missiles. And then a Ukrainian general said that they *did* take out a 'Khinzal', without offering direct proof, and Newsweek posted a second article, countering the first one. Are we dealing with a 'feedback loop' where 'higher-ups' receive their 'talking points' from the media? In July last year a building in Elenovka was struck, killing lots of Ukrainian POW, and today a building which held Ukrainian POW in the Bakhmut area was destroyed by a HIMARS missile, again killing 'their own', while the Ukrainians earlier shot down one of their last remaining Turkish drones over Kiev. Did Russian electronic warfare cause any of this? The list of confirmations and denials, and confusing information, is getting longer by the day. How much is 'Chat-GPT'-generated? I do not lie on these pages, try to offer you my own sources for you to make up your own mind. But these sources I use rarely have first-hand knowledge themselves either. We can all be led astray. But I doubt it will change anything when it comes to 'winning', or 'losing'. The problem is, that if you manage to win the 'information battle', while you lose on the battlefield, and your economy is gone out the window, there will be consequences as those you misled will be less forgiving than the 'enemy'.