Are there still European 'leaders' interested in what is real, and what is not? This is a serious question. This week, during a meeting in Brussels, the Dutch PM gave away 3.5 Billion Euro's of our taxpayer money to 'Project Ukraine'. Coalition partners in the government wrestling with serious budget constraints were surprised. It had not been discussed. The Dutch PM defended his move by pointing out that it had been decided as a 'principle' in the agreement between the four coalition parties, so no need for debate.
It is my impression that this mirrors the 'decision-making process' in other European Capitals. They have no clue of where the money will go to, and they lack an actual assessment of where the war is going. Nor do they care. The decision has been made a long time ago, and now we have to act accordingly. Actual developments are merely 'setbacks', but the goal is clear. Russia has to be overextended and destabilised for the 'greater good'.
In my essays I frequently point you towards that Rand Corp publication which spelled it out. By the time it became clear that the plan had failed, because Russia didn't crack and collapse as a result of the 'Sanctions from Hell', and because they didn't do what they were supposed to do militarily, the Rand Corp added a note which said that every reference to their plan as being 'in play' when Russia unleashed its 'SMO' was 'Russian Disinformation'. Marco Rubio coming out and saying that those who pointed out that this was a provoked war are correct, won't do all that much to convince the 'Lower Ranks' which are on a Crusade, and lack an 'off-ramp'. For these European 'leaders' this is a fight until the death. They have their marching orders, and they won't stop. Certainly not on orders of Trump.
Allow me to point out that I *do* understand that this Rand Corp publication, aptly called 'Overextending and Unbalancing Russia', working from 'advantageous ground' while imposing 'Cost-Increasing Options', is *not* the original plan itself. It is, in that form, published in 2019, merely the 'draft' they *had* to publish in order to prevent debate among the 'Lower Ranks'. The original strategy was developed decades ago. At the latest in 2007, right after Putin addressed his 'friends' at the NATO Security Summit in Munich, where he issued this warning that further NATO expansion would lead to war. The decision to *invite* both Ukraine and Georgia the very next year had no practical meaning, outside signalling to Putin that NATO *wanted* war. A war they fully expected to win, uncontested. But they had to find a 'smart' way to go about it, so as not to provoke a nuclear Holocaust.
What they needed, was a 'patsy'. A country outside NATO, stupid enough to provoke the Bear, not triggering 'Article 5', but sufficiently strong to wear down Russia with NATO's help. Tiny Georgia proved to be no match for the Russians in 2008, right after that invitation, as it launched its assault on the breakaway provinces, and was quickly defeated, but Ukraine was perfect. Save for the fact that the country was lead by a president who observed neutrality. And this 'minor' problem of all those 'ethnic' Russians in the East and South of the country. Getting the popular vote to serve NATO's purposes, and deliver them their patsy, was out of the question, so the country had to be regime changed first, bringing the truly 'Dumb F.cks' to power, who would be only too eager to do NATO's bidding. Which happened in 2014, as you recall.
No doubt they had high hopes of engaging Russia then and there, and defeat them decisively, bringing about a 'colour revolution' in Russia too, but that became a serious disaster. At Debaltseve the Ukrainian army, with firm NATO support, got their ass handed to them, and both Porochenko and NATO general Ben Hodges will be remembered as 'f.cking things up' at the time. Necessitating a pauze, in order to rearm Ukraine for a rematch, under the cover of the 'Minsk-Accord'. As stated publicly by Merkel, Hollande, Porochenko, Zelensky and even Macron in 2022, the signatures under that 'Accord' were a lie.
It is my assumption that the Russians thought that at least the Germans and the French were good for their signatures when they launched their 'SMO' to force Zelensky back to the 'Minsk Accord', and could mediate to end the war in no time at all, but even that was not correct. Remember, when Russia launched its 'SMO', the NATO-countries were convinced that this time the Russians would 'meet their match', and go under. In other words, all these countries in NATO are struggling with the notion of truly *huge* sunk costs if they abandon their 'smart' plan at this late stage. Decades, remember?
They keep telling themselves that the plan was based on solid 'Intelligence', and as in every war, there may be 'setbacks' through tactical defeats, but no way the strategic victory is not going to materialise. No way! If only Joe Biden or Kamala was there to reassure them! To hold their hand, pat them on the back.
By the looks of it, Kursk is 'toast', the US is 'all over the place', and the Europeans *need* to tell themselves that the plan is still active, with Russia on the brink of an economic collapse, while they simply ignore reality, since that would be a distraction. I mean it if I say they simply ignore all the horrendous stories coming from Syria, as they lift sanctions on that country after it's 'liberation' according to plan, or how Ukraine is doing militarily, with up to 10.000 soldiers at risk of being made prisoner of war, or getting themselves killed, and stories emerging that Ukrainian soldiers are actively negotiating with the Russians about surrendering themselves in what is left of their Kursk-pocket. While Ukraine is running low on soldiers already. Meanwhile, a hotel in Kryvyi Rih which the Russians hit with an Iskander missile the other day was in use by mercenaries from France, Great Britain and the US, underscoring once more that the Russians have no qualms about killing NATO-trained military sent their way.
Ignoring reality to prevent losing track of the ball is common among people who have been tasked with doing a job, and don't ask questions. But none of them are capable of taking over if the organisation is effectively decapitated, including through a presidential election, if that elected president takes it upon himself to eliminate the 'Deep State' which was running the show because of foul-play during his first term. Which is what we are witnessing.
The Europeans keep repeating that they are afraid of Russia, because that was what they were told to be afraid of, not knowing how or why, which is why you see all these personal, often rather awkward stories emerge, feeding into the age-old distrust they have towards the other European countries, more in particular as they need to find a new 'leader'. All of a sudden they all want nukes. And each and every country is telling the world that they are going to boost their military forces to unprecedented levels. To hell with the wealth of the people! First and foremost they need to be secure in their own country! It really doesn't take a genius to know why. They don't trust their neighbours. None of them. Poland doesn't trust Ukraine, nor Germany. The Germans don't trust the French. The French don't trust the British. The British didn't leave the EU for nothing. The 'Drunk Nordic' people think these 'Garlic Breathing Southerners' are all corrupt and after their money.
If you start living in a narrative, outside reality, you go to places that do not exist, outside your cooked brain.