NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte raced across the Atlantic to salvage the war with Russia on Ukrainian soil. He shook hands with a line-up of Pentagon officials, and spoke briefly with Trump. No cozy press-briefing side by side afterwards, just Rutte claiming that NATO was united in its assessment that Russia was a threat to the alliance, instead of the other way around. And that Russia had to move over to make peace in Ukraine possible. Is he speaking the truth?
We’ve all had a front-row seat last week, when Zelensky simply rejected Trump’s ‘final offer’ out of hand. And not because of a difference of opinion about a few details either. We won’t know whether Russia would have done the same. I’ve argued that Russia might have agreed to give it a chance, because there was enough in it to make them happy, even though lots of things they said they wanted were nowhere near being achieved. My thinking hinged on the undeniable fact that Russia kicked off this SMO to make sure NATO wouldn’t establish a foothold in its backyard. Having reassurances from the Trump-administration that Ukraine would *never* be allowed to become a member does go a long way towards that goal, despite the fact that the next administration could renege on that promise. Various commentators who insist that Western countries are completely untrustworthy feel strongly that Russia would want ‘Rock Solid’ proof before signing anything. Try to think of ‘Rock Solid’ proof related to something like this, allowing Ukraine to become a NATO-member, or not.
How about splitting NATO in two? With the US and ‘European dissidents’ dumping Ukraine’s present leadership, and the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ by the wayside, while the warmongers stay the course? No signed document could match that outcome as a reassurance that the threat was no longer there. Provided the US and those ‘dissidents’ would be rewarded by opening Russia’s important market to them, and sufficient time to make the most of it, before Trump’s term ends, leaving the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ pounding sand. And Rutte may try to sound confident about having precluded that development, but I’m not so sure. Again, Trump has a plan. He wants to rebuild the USA as an industrial powerhouse, because the entire unipolar dream went bankrupt some time ago. Mismanagement by subsequent American presidents, and the EU-leadership, over many years, caused a rift between the countries producing stuff, and/or in possession of essential commodities, and the countries in the ‘West’, specializing in consumption and schemes to threaten the countries they depend on to give them the stuff they need.
Note that those politicians catering to the consumers in the ‘West’ do not merely threaten other countries, but also producers in their own countries. They kill the industry, kill farming, kill mining, kill transportation, break down dams, to ‘Save the Planet’. While they invest in wars which destroy the ‘Planet’, wasting commodities, as well as human lives. If you are interested in philosophy, THIS video may go a long way to explain the mindset behind it. But Putin is not our shrink. He comes across as a very rational leader. Which is why I’m saying that making the best of winning in this current war doesn’t equal pushing to achieve all of his stated goals through military means, if at all possible. So, yes, he will strike a deal to end the war if the deal offers a ‘qualified perspective’ to favor Russia long-term, in my humble opinion.
For comparison, let me remind you what NATO had in mind as it developed this plan to overextend and unbalance Russia by throwing Ukraine under the bus, and Syria as well if they had to. The 2019 ‘Rand Corp’-plan. Many years ago, the consensus among NATO-insiders was that Russia and China would *never* be able to forge some sort of alliance. Yet, NATO’s actions, but also economic considerations, created the perfect conditions for such a ‘Match Made in Heaven’. It was launched as the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’, giving birth to ‘BRICS’, just as NATO forced its hand in Ukraine by regime changing that country in 2014. The ‘thinking’ behind that move was that through destroying Russia as a potential competitor, China would be left isolated, at the mercy of ‘Consumer Incorporated’, printing the money used in international trade, and imposing tariffs and ‘costs’ as needed. Now, without repeating what went wrong, it stands to reason that driving a wedge between the US as it tries to regain its footing as an economic powerhouse, actually *producing* stuff at the ‘top-end’, instead of relying on revenues from ‘investments’ to keep the circus going, and an EU which has *completely* lost it, drifting away from reality on ‘Davos-infused’ dreams of creating a world without possessions, where consumers can simple ‘lease’ stuff if the have enough ‘social credit’, issued to them in exchange for ‘required behavior’, sounds like a winning strategy for ‘BRICS’ to me. This ‘Garden of Eden’ utopia Europe is focused on is guaranteed to become a fascist nightmare if ambitions to expand run into a headwind, and war erupts when the countries producing all the stuff needed to satisfy the consumers require compensation in *real* money, and not ‘Mickey Mouse’-notes, worthless if they want something in return. Something tangible. And not some overpriced ‘Gay Pride Event’, ‘Work of Art’, ‘Song’, or ‘Gender-Gimmick’ erupting from universities which cater to truckloads of ‘NGO’s’.
Please don’t get me wrong! I’m not insisting that ‘Lifestyle-choices’ should be subject to some kind of scrutiny. All I’m saying is that it is not a product. I don’t care how much people are willing to pay for it. It is decadence, and it is not going to keep you warm, well fed, protected, mobile, and healthy in a physical sense. Forcing ‘Lifestyle’-choices on people elsewhere in order to make money, which will allow you to buy *real* stuff, is a finite proposal. Feudal overlords tried it in the past, always accompanied by armies to ‘help’ the peasants to pay homage to their superiors, the Naked Emperors, but one would think that capitalism taught us that it was not the way to create wealth for a country. While innocent when promoted to attract tourists, we really need to go back to work in Europe, or face the music.
I’ve been openly critical of Trump’s strategy to relaunch the US as a nation competing with the other producing countries and countries in possession of valuable commodities needed to produce stuff through imposing sanctions. But if he shuts this window of opportunity to get back in the race, trading with ‘BRICS’, siding with Europe instead, he will go down in history as the person who sank the US over a war with Russia on the soil of Ukraine, trying to save a unipolar mirage. Hearing him explain to reporters that what Ukraine would get from signing his Peace Plan, was its survival as a nation, and saving the remaining population, I concluded that he is likely to walk away if Ukraine insists on receiving everything it had been promised by Boris ‘Brexit’ Johnson and Trump’s predecessor. In which case Mark Rutte was either not telling the truth, or Trump didn’t inform him yet. But it is true that Trump is under tremendous pressure from both the ‘Coalition of the Willing’, and the ‘Warparty’ in his own country to return to the unipolar agenda, and nuke the planet if he has to. Earlier Trump gave himself till April 30. So let’s wait and see.