Short follow up to my previous post, on Zelensky’s ordeal at the Oval Office. That focused on rebutting the absurd but wall-to-wall promoted thesis of gallant Kiev, having done nothing but mind its own business – if we leave aside such minor peccadillos as ousting an elected leader who to Washington fury sought neutrality, waging civil war on ethnic Russians, naming streets after Nazis and clamouring to join a NATO predicated on encircling Russia – being invaded by Big Bad Putin, his demented plan being first we take the Dombass, then we take Berlin!
And on the corollary that the tongue-lashing delivered to the hapless Mr Zelensky on Friday was prelude to an act of heinous backstabbery.
This post switches the focus to the absurd but wall-to-wall promoted thesis of a gallant Kiev up to the job of defeating Russia if only Washington continues as underwriter in chief.
And on the corollary that in denying further money for Biden’s war (thereby saving a fresh wave of Ukrainians from dying on the altar of Western hubris) the new regime in Washington is about to commit an act of heinous backstabbery.
Yes, Ukraine and hundreds of thousands of its needlessly dead have indeed been betrayed. No, the author of that betrayal, for all his sociopathic traits – traits which make him no worse than any other US president (sociopathy being a sine qua non for the billionaire funding needed to get on the shortlist) and less murderous than some I could name – is not Mr Tangerine Man.
Got fifteen minutes? Here’s Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris on the subject. 1
* * *
- Might I also recommend today’s post from Caitlin? Since October 7 – yeah, that one – her daily outpourings have been almost entirely devoted to Israel and the West’s plans for Palestine and beyond. Here she takes time out to give that Oval Office meeting an Oz-style once-over. I don’t buy every point she makes. See footnote 7 of my previous post for why I don’t agree with her claim that “it makes sense for there to be criticism of Russia for its role in this war”. But that’s never been a red line for me – else I’d have long ago given up not only on her but Noam Chomsky, Media Lens, Jonathan Cook, WSWS and other invaluable commentators – and is a small price to pay for pithy prose which, as always, engages from the get-go. Here’s a taster:
I will not waste any gratitude on Trump rolling back a failed imperial bid to weaken Russia, but I will absolutely scream my fucking lungs out at anyone who insists Ukrainians should keep throwing their bodies into a war that Ukrainians themselves no longer support. If you want the Ukraine war to continue, then go enlist and put your body on the line so that Ukrainians don’t have to. The Ukrainian Foreign Legion is still accepting volunteers.
The indomitable Patrick Armstrong cuts to the chase:
– Beginners talk weapons;
– Amateurs talk tactics;
– Professionals talk logistics;
– Idiots talk money.
– Patrick Armstrong
Armstrongs know about war. The name is of a clan big in the Anglo-Scots border wars from 14th to late 17th centuries. Our word “bereaved” is etymologically linked to “reivers” – Scots and English alike – who’d make cross border raids to seize cattle, and human hostages for ransom. When it came to a spot of reiving, no tribe was more up for it than the Armstrongs.
He talks sense. Both a cause and effect of Western decline is that the financialisation of its economies, with the attendant offshoring of industry as identified by Mr Armstrong, led it to overestimate its own strength and underestimate – McCain’s “gas station with nukes” … Biden’s “we will reduce the rouble to rubble” – Russia’s.
(Their analyses of that financialisation and its impact make Michael Hudson, Radhika Desai and Richard Wolff essential to understanding what is happening, globally speaking.)
Also relevant is that it was necessary for propaganda purposes to depict the SMO as a land grab. Since propagandists buy their their own spin (there’s only so much cognitive dissonance the human psyche can stand, so lying begets credulity) they misread the nature of their proxy war. They thought it a matter of territorial loss and gain. In fact it was one of attrition, in which the factors Mr Armstrong points to are always decisive.
There’s a lot of talk on the internet just now about how earth-shaking and disruptive Trump and co.’s actions are. It’s all true. But we also have to keep in mind that the US is a deeply split country. Trump is only there for four years. If the Dems win the next election a lot of this can be reversed. Probably not all of it, as events have an inherent momentum, and what’s done will stay done. And perhaps Trump in the time he has can shape the CIA and the rest of the government towards a less confrontational mindset.
In the meantime too, Russia will have settled the SMO in the way it needs to, which will itself be earth-shaking as far as Europe is concerned. But probably best not to get too excited about it all yet. What would be interesting is a look at the possibilities for the future (but of course not predictions). Any chance, Phil?
Possiblemonti, Jams. Uppermost in my thoughts – and those of many other commentators – is that not only were the legs of Ukraine’s Pretender cut from beneath him last Friday. So too, as Europe descends into irrelevance, were those of Quisling leaders who backed the wrong horses in so many ways.
Those timeless words from Genesis 1:8-11 spring to mind: then there came to Egypt a new pharaoh, who knew not Joseph. Until that cadre represented by Macron and Von der Leyen, Scholz and the even more idiotic Starmer are gone, and the extent of the damage acknowledged, I can see no way back. Europe’s marginalisation can’t be reduced solely to its eagerness to wage proxy war in a mix of Washington-kowtowing with salivation over sharing the spoils of a balkanised Russia. As hinted at in my reply to Dave, its failed roll of the dice in Ukraine is best seen as having revealed, synchronised and expedited deeper economic decay rooted in decisions by the West’s rentier elites to offshore real wealth creation. No more so than in Britain.
And when you think of it, Europe isn’t really a continent in the sense of a discrete land mass the way all the others are. It’s merely Asia’s southwest peninsula …
(Oops – I mean Asia’s northwest tip!)
Some interesting info on the above here, from Michael Hudson
https://braveneweurope.com/richard-d-wolff-michael-hudson-the-horizon-nears-on-americas-free-financial-ride
Can this explain given the longevity of the UK rentier class why it feels this (historic) threat to the rentier system and its survival most acutely hence its infantile disordered way of ignoring military and political realties in pursuit of the unseemly quest to take Russia “to the cleaners” as they say?
It can. And long before Mrs Thatcher, the financial wing of Britain’s bourgeoisie was stronger than its industrial wing. In the 80s, as firm after manufacturing firm went under, with interest rates – still set by the government – soaring “to fight inflation”, the head of the Confederation of British Industry, one Terrence Beckett, promised the Tories a “bareknuckle fight”. All mouth and no trousers. Even then, with “Thatcherism” (aka neoliberal/Chicago School monetarism) in its infancy it was finance capital, not industrial capital, that called the shots. Again, for the historic forces at play long before Thatcher, Reagan or Milton Friedman were born, Michael Hudson is a must read.
Apropos of the “Washington kowtowing” aspect of this, a comment by Canadian political economist Radhika Desai is relevant. Asked by Dimitri Lascaris (2 minutes starting at 59:00 in this video) why Europe’s leaders colluded in the weakening of their own economies, she replied:
Presumably why they are obediently following the Trump dictate to beggar themselves and their societies by spending horrendous amounts on “defence” while pretending this is in defiance of Trump (supposedly a Russian asset). Meanwhile they are supported by equally cognitively dysfunctional liberals who bewail supposedly necessary cuts to social spending while blaming – yes, the same panto villains, who must none the less be defended against. Apparently they don’t grasp the simple fact that defence doesn’t necessitate austerity: austerity necessitates defence.
So true.
As was/is the depiction of China’s alleged cultural and other genocide in Xiaxiang.
Which a UN Special Rapporteur found to be groundless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=5oeuruxO3vk&ab_
channel=Jerry%27sTakeonChina
Though, to be fair, it was not only the usual suspects among the Government and media elites in the West who were pursuing this baseless evidence free imperialist agenda based on the presumption of guilt rather than the presumption of innocence.
Credit and recognition should also go to certain sections of the self-defined so called “left” – particularly the inappropriately named ‘Alliance for Workers Liberty’ – whose efforts in amplifying this official bullshit narrative also played its part.
Apologies for splitting the above URL but it was the only way to get past the spam filter.
Yeah. ‘Workers Liberty’ are a very strange little pro-zionist cabal. I imagine they are some kind of MI5 operation. I used to like going to their site to harangue them, but they never managed to reply – possibly they didn’t even read their own miserable posts.
At one point, we had three members of that organisation in our local Labour Party Ward Branch. Two of whom were expelled from the Party for speaking at an AWL event.
I did a bit of digging a few years back and was not enthusiastic about what I found;
https://davehansell.substack.com/p/cuckoos-in-the-nest
“You don’t fight wars by firing bundles of dollars at the enemy…”
Nevertheless, it would be a worthy innovation – maybe with a condition requiring it to be turned into ‘ploughshares’, education, medicines etc. Maybe the Chinese will be able to afford it?