As I mentioned yesterday, the strike in Sumy was targeted at a military brigade which got together in that Ukrainian town to celebrate, and be honored. A yet unknown number of soldiers died, together with over thirty civilians. Ukraine and their Western propagandists initially denied that the missile was aimed at a military target, surrounded by civilians celebrating Palm Sunday, unfamiliar with the festivities organized by the Governor, and accused Russia of targeting random civilians. But because a mayor and a Ukrainian MP went public in a very profound way, they reluctantly changed the message, not questioning the wisdom of this choice by the Governor however, while others who went public with their accusations, simply retreated into the shadows without coming forward to admit their mistake. Without those two Ukrainian sources, they would have doubled down with their fake news.
Russia scored multiple similar hits on military units staying in hotels, even unused schools and abandoned hospitals in the past, but they never went for the jugular, striking positions where Zelensky and his non-military minsters were meeting in order to decapitate Ukraine. It is generally accepted that countries do not attempt to hit the leadership of another country, because after a successful strike you’ve got nobody left to talk to. Although the US has a long list of murders on, and attempts to murder heads of state. There even is a Wiki-entry listed as: ‘CIA assassination attempts on Fidel Castro’. Too many to list, and each and every one of them a failure. But several other heads of state, elected or not, were not that lucky.
The West in general is obsessed with changing governments by force, and I pointed my readers in the direction of the available proof that this war with Russia on Ukrainian soil has been orchestrated by the West as a key building block in an attempt to regime change Russia. ‘Overextending and Unbalancing Russia’, and multiple other supporting publications, all aimed, quite openly, at getting rid of the elected head of state of Russia. But why? Especially if you accept that Putin is truly popular, what would be the effect if you succeeded? Did any of the decision makers think about that? I’ve stated before that Putin is generally regarded as a moderate among most ‘Realists’. The language used by Medvedev these days, or a person such as Prigozhin, who took it upon himself to take his private army on a trip to Moscow because Putin’s generals were ‘Pussies’, suggest that this war would have been a full blown confrontation between NATO and Russia already if they had been in power. And what did the West get in return for helping Islamist extremists to oust Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad? Was that what they had in mind?
It probably depends on who you ask, but I’ve *never* heard any politician, or ‘expert’ in the West argue that we need more terrorists and tribal wars, so we needed to Regime Change these countries. I *do* accept that there are cynical strategists who know what would happen, and not merely accepted it as the price to pay to get rid of a pretty successful leader in a country not kissing our ass, but the bulk of our leaders likely never even thought about it. Except perhaps for Trump, who is pretty candid about such things as wanting people to kiss his backside, polish his shoes, and hand over everything they possess in exchange for being spared the ordeal of Tariffs. He simply doesn’t give a ‘f.ck’ about how he comes across, but the bulk of our leaders and ‘experts’ feel strongly they need to lie and cheat to hide their real agenda, and risk being seen as a bully, or a sociopath, which they are. And as candid as Trump is every now and then, I believe him as well if he says that he wants to end all the wars he inherited. If not because he truly gives a damn behind that act, and all the nonsense, then he at least does seem to have a basic understanding of war being a drag on the Wealth of the Nation, as posited by Adam Smith. But he did kill Suleimani, the Iranian envoy who tried to broker a deal between Shia and Sunni Muslims, to save the lucrative divide-and-conquer strategy which was serving Israel well, but running on its last legs. Though Suleimani was a general, he was not commanding any troops into battle at the time, or being rewarded for his role in invading Kursk, and awaiting redeployment, like those military in Sumy. And was uniting the Shia and Sunni Muslims such a bad thing for the USA? Interesting question.
The absolute King of decapitation strikes is Israel. What did it bring them? They recently killed Nasrallah in Lebanon as he was attending a meeting set up to seek a way to avoid a larger war. They killed the envoy of Hamas which was negotiating with them indirectly when he was on a visit to Tehran. How did it benefit Israel? Increasingly I get the impression that they kill these high ranking people ‘because they can’. To impress people.
When you are at war, hitting a command bunker, or killing the individual leading the enemy into battle may serve a purpose. I’m tempted to draw a comparison with a highly successful sports-team. Sign their coach, or star-player, and watch the team fall apart. But what if they already have a replacement which is even better? It would be your loss entirely. Redundancy is the name of the game. Having options. Some people are hard, even impossible to replace within a team, and a country valuing the contributions of a certain individual may decide to hide them from public view, offering a ’Teleprompter-reader’ as the formal head of state. Should an adversary kill the ‘president’, his vice-president steps in who had been running the show already, and you wouldn’t be any wiser. This was the case during the years of Bush and Cheney, if you ask me, whether Bush was aware of it, or not. But the team organized things around him. And don’t get me started about Biden.
Now, soon there will be a *huge* event in The Hague, when all the heads of states of the NATO countries, the Secretary General, Zelensky, and EU officials will meet for talks, focussed on war with Russia by 2029 at the latests. That is not what I am saying. That is what *they* are saying. This is at a par with Putin telling his NATO ‘friends’, at their own meeting in Munich in 2007, that war was inevitable if NATO kept expanding, but no ‘if’ in this case. Now imagine being Russia. Do you go for the jugular, and strike the place with an Oreshnik, decapitating those countries to avoid war? No, you don’t. Why not? Because those assembled in The Hague have no clue anyway. How would replacing Ursula von der Leyen, or Kaja Kallas with someone you plucked from the streets, because they deserve a chance as well, change anything? Yet if NATO would have killed Putin right after he gave that speech, there would have been a change in perspective at the top in Moscow. But what sort of change? Same thing with Trump today, which is one strong argument in favor of treating those attempts on his life as suspicious. Reference to what happened when Kennedy was shot, and Johnson took the USA to war in Vietnam, and linked the country to Israel.
Non of the above is meant as a detailed analysis of whether decapitating a country is a good idea, or not, let that be clear. Contrary to our ‘Democracies’ as institutions, I do *not* favor such action under any circumstance, even though I admit I’ve played with the thought: ‘What if someone had killed Hitler (or any other psycho) in a timely manner?’. I regret to inform you that I do not know whether that would have saved our ancestors from going through the horrors of the Second World War. I allocate far more responsibility for war to the ‘common people’, which is why I keep posting these essays, hoping to wake my fellow men up to what they allow their leaders to prepare the country for. War with Russia before 2029? Really? Is that what you want? And if not, isn’t it about time to challenge the ‘Hot Heads’ lurking in the shadows, and call out the ’Teleprompter-readers’ for what they are? No to diplomacy? Yes to censorship and propaganda? Hurray for spending our last dime on weapons and things which go up in smoke and kill people, including children who happen to walk past a place where the military are celebrating?
Consider the above to be a rant, and not a careful analysis of anything, let alone a piece of advice to be smart about killing people you need to talk to if you want to avoid or end a war, or prevent economic and social misery to prevail. One trigger for this outcry was a YouTube clip which hailed the arrival of a new, long range sniper gun added to the Ukrainian inventory, which promised that it would be used to take out Putin. And since we are talking about people who have no qualms when they try to kill the daughter of a Russian philosopher who is ’suspected’ of having an influence on Putin, I have no doubt that the restrictions of common sense do not apply to the Ukrainian leadership, and those writing the script for this war at NATO. That is extremely concerning, don’t you think?