In my essay yesterday, I touched on a ‘hot topic’ related to manpower-strengths in the ongoing proxy-war with Russia on Ukrainian and Russian soil. Clearly a *very* important topic, which will go a long way to predict developments in the near future. As I pointed out, I do not have ‘first person’ access to privileged information on hardly anything important related to that war. Thus I am not lying if I point you to certain information, and give you my assessment, even if that information is later proven to be false. Unless I *should* have known it was nowhere near the truth, because the source is untrustworthy and spreading ‘fake news’ all the time.
Verification of news is sometimes two ‘clicks’ away from your screen, but more often it takes time. In an environment where we are constantly showered with ‘news’, the bulk of it hardly worth our attention, verification often never happens. Especially if you are drawn in by certain ‘channels’ which are highly commercial, or produced professionally to spread propaganda, or if you are prone to ‘follow’ people on ‘social media’, picking up your phone with every alert to see what they are doing, where they are at, and look at all those uninteresting pictures they post ‘on line’.
We blame ‘AI’ or those sources we use, though we should have been more ‘Critical’ to begin with. Giving the important subjects some ‘Thought’. While I wrote that 1.7 million dead and missing Ukrainian soldiers *could* be ‘fake news’, a lie, propaganda, I offered you my thinking to explain why I feel it is plausible. Plausible is not *verified*. It is likely going to take years, and a lasting peace, before we are able to truly verify that number, or cast it aside as nothing but propaganda. In war, the truth is the first victim. But regrettably some of the major players were lying and spreading falsehoods in the run-up to this war. *Verified* is that Merkel, Hollande, Porochenko and Zelensky, and therefore the ‘Collective West’, and NATO, were lying about their intention to honor the ‘Minsk Accord’. It always was their intention to use that ‘Accord’ to recreate, build up and train the Ukrainian army for the anticipated, and desired rematch. They pumped billions of Dollars and Euros into creating heavily fortified positions. And they prepared a plan on how to go about provoking an armed conflict between non-NATO proxy-force Ukraine, and ‘bleed Russia white’, akin to what they’d done with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the Eighties, this time using ‘stay behind forces’ in Ukraine, predominantly openly neo-Nazi militia.
Again and again I need to emphasize that for such a plan to be ‘active’, it was not necessary that everyone whole came to play a role in its execution was ‘fully briefed’ on the strategy. But there is no lack of evidence that this was the actual plan from the beginning, and that the ‘Collective West’ and NATO were anticipating a quick win on the back of economic warfare, which would pull the rug from under Russia’s ability to win that war in the end, even though it was going to overrun Ukraine in a matter of days. Russia’s economic resilience came as an unpleasant surprise, and the bulk of NATO-supporters who were mobilized to cheer for the alliance either never understood the plan to begin with, or they congratulate themselves with the addition of Sweden and Finland, and the present ‘hostile mood’ towards Russia in Europe, which spread like wildfire.
Underestimating Russia’s military capability has been *verified* by Mark Rutte and others, where the NATO-boss admitted that Russia’s production is four times as high as that of all of NATO combined. But understand that Russia’s capacity to produce military hardware never even entered the equation in the planning phase, nor did Russia’s gigantic nuclear arsenal play any role, because of the NATO strategy. It simply didn’t matter, because the economic sanctions and ‘Bleeding Russia White’ as it would struggle to control Ukraine after it installed another government in Kiev, would end Putin’s rule in Russia, and grant the ‘Collective West’ access to Russia’s vast resources, as it would cut up that country in three or more parts. I say three, because that was what Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Polish-American strategist which gave us Al Qaeda, collapsing the Soviet Union, envisioned. Others were playing with offering every existing ‘Oblast’ sovereignty, controlling them through divide and conquer as the multinationals saw fit. But none of that came about, because Russia *refused* to take Kiev and rule over Ukraine, while the economic sanctions were a dud.
The ‘Collective West’ never prepared for a long war, least of all a fairly ‘classic’ war between standing armies. All the bluster in the early months of the war about Russia’s impotence, economically and militarily, was not the result of careful assessment, but ‘wishful thinking’. The present strategy of NATO is to get a cease-fire, a ‘frozen conflict’, to regroup and rearm. Third time lucky. But Russia will not have any of that, since they are winning. That is, most professional analysts concur that Ukraine has no chances whatsoever to emerge victorious, but the bulk of them fail to anticipate on what will happen if NATO decides to prop up that failed state, and use it as a launching pad for continued attacks on Russia until the lights go out in Moscow. Like I wrote in previous essays, the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ within NATO is preparing for that scenario, trying to force Russia into having to go on and on with this war, while the ‘Coalition’ invests in building bridges from mainland Italy to Sicily, and call it a ‘military project’, and many more projects like that, while they only need to spend on awkwardly bulgy and slow ‘cruise missiles’ resembling the German V-1 from the Second World War, and other stuff to make life miserable for the Russians for years to come. Ukraine hitting the gas pipeline which provides Hungary with affordable gas fits the picture, since that effort is not merely designed to ‘Bleed Russia’, but also to ‘Federalize Europe’ going forward, assuming the ‘Coalition Countries’ are protected by America’s nuclear shield under NATO.
To trust this analysis is not what I ask my readers to do. What I want them to do, is to verify the statements, and look for developments which fit the bill. I could be wrong, and again, for such a plan to be put into effect it is not needed that everyone cheering for NATO, and looking for ways to expand it, understands the strategy. But over time, if they are honest and intelligent, the truth will be ‘revealed’ through ‘actions on the ground’. They will fit like a tailor made glove. At least, that is my honest conviction, looking at *verified* developments today.