- cross-posted to:
- news
- cross-posted to:
- news
You must log in or register to comment.
So, basically the 4th Reich all over again. Honestly, it's been brilliant to watch this. Germany tried to unify Europe against the Soviet worker's state first through nationalism, then through threats, then through violence and fielded the world's most advanced military at the time to attempt to consolidate Europe, establish long supply chains, marshall as many forces as possible, and go after Russia through it's border with Ukraine. But they got spread too thin, the Soviet forces destroyed them, and then the US and UK opened a new front and it was over.
But NATO? Man, they built that transnational force throughout Europe with an air of legitimacy, they got every country to participate willingly, they marshalled all of the economies in Europe to contribute, and they marched from the Atlantic to Russia's doorstep without anyone seeing it for what it was. They even protected the Nazis, and supported irregular fascist militias for 80 years and still no one saw it.
Now they want to activate it all, plunge Europe into austerity through financial institutions and coercion, and no one can stop them because the enemy military is fully established in each country. They can't stop it because it's already there and they are collaborating with the fascist irregulars so they have two complete avenues of violence and everyone knows it. Europe has been captured fully by a foreign enemy, occupied, infiltrated, and there's nothing they can do except pay the extremely high price of a revolt.
And what's the target? The same as Napoleon, a the same as Hitler, it's Russia. The geopolitical dynamic remains. And there's very little awareness of any of this narrative.
About sums it up, although the big problem they have is that Russia's not alone. They'd be basically taking on the BRICS now, and the west is simply in no position to do that.
The problem is that practically what this means is opening multiple hot fronts to bleed the empire and that means a lot of death and suffering for many many years
Unfortunately, this is an entirely plausible scenario the way things are going. I get the impression that most people in the west don't realize what that's going to mean for them personally.
Well, North Africa and West Asia are the epicenter of new fronts right now. But Venezuela did buy some carrier-killer missiles from Iran recently, so I think we may see South America heat up in the not too distant future.
The tin foil hat in me says the earthquake in Taiwan is too uncanny to be a coincidence, and then the earthquake this morning in NJ made the tin foil sparkle and sizzle with "retaliatory warning??" vibes.
The Pacific kill chain progress feels like nuking China just got a little bit more realistic as a scenario. The mutual life strategy wherein the West needs China's factories can't be solved by reindustrializing the West, but brownshirts plus open-air prison camps, plus militarized domestic police, plus fascist irregulars playing the role of nu-enemy, plus total media control of friend/for narratives - I think the West could nuke China from a pure population control vantage point and make a go at maintaining world order through activating the entire spectrum of fascist groups to bring about a decades long terror campaign in Europe and the Americas.
Revolutionary optimism must abide, but damn it's looking like we're headed for a very long dark night.
I think the West could nuke China from a pure population control vantage point and make a go at maintaining world order through activating the entire spectrum of fascist groups to bring about a decades long terror campaign in Europe and the Americas.
This is why MAD is so important. If the west wants to "population control" (read: genocide, the slaughter of hundreds of millions) China, they best expect to be nuked to oblivion, perhaps even with biological weapons coming to the forefront considering that IMO- anything is fair game when it comes to MAD, when it comes to this sort of genocide.
They're not going to get away with another genocide of the indigenous Amerindians. They're not gonna get away with another imposition of the Opium wars, or great famines the likes of what were inflicted on Bangladesh or Ireland. If they want to play that game, all of the west better expect oblivion in return, and that (deterrence, with the full intent of acting upon said deterrents if necessary) is- IMO- the only moral answer, the only pragmatic answer; to do otherwise would be a betrayal of humanity, a betrayal of the Chinese people (or Russian, or Indian, etc) who had built up such weapons in the sake of defence of their nation, of their dignity and self-determination. In the face of nuclear holocaust, someone who is in a position to retaliate, who has been entrusted in such a position, and refuses to do so is betraying all the blood, sweat, tears, and hopes that went into creating such deterrence systems, betraying their entire nation and the concept of their own equal humanity if you ask me.
I certainly hope that China, Russia, North Korea, and whichever other nuclear-armed nations that might face such genocidal aggression from the west, are resolute in MAD. And I doubt that they aren't- to be otherwise is suicide, is treason- not merely to the state but to the very notions of humanity IMO. The west can never be allowed to genocide away another large portion of the world akin to what they did in the Americas and Australia.
Solid perspective on MAD. Thanks for that.
I do think it's entirely possible for the USA to get away with another genocide in this hemisphere, though. I do think they are getting away with neocolonialism in India. I do think the famines engineered by the West will slam into Africa, as they've been sliding into it for years. I don't think oblivion will be the response to these things. I think you're right about nukes for nukes, but I don't see oblivion being doled out for anything less than Western nukes being launched.
My view is that the west simply lacks social cohesion and self reliance to engage in any serious military conflict at this point. Western regimes are hanging by a thread right now, and it seems far more likely that the west descends into social unrest than rallies itself to war footing.
I think that social unrest is the war footing. You only need the rabidity of the neofascists in the streets to be allied with the police to be allied with the military and the intelligence community and all be tied together with surveillance capitalism, and then basically everyone not rabidly fascist will atomize and deactivate while the eschatological leadership directs the industrial genocide of new communities every 6 months. We are getting dangerously close to automated weapons platforms with the revelation of Lavender. We're already beyond the pale with near-real-time social surveillance. Anyone not in the most disciplined and isolated resistance militias is by default living in a kettle, and sharing intel with lynch mobs is all the social control you really need.
I don't think the Gladios militias got smaller or fewer. The openly fascist parties are growing in power in Europe. I think consolidation is plausible, but it will require a lot of blood letting. If consolidation happens, the resistance will mount and surely be disruptive, but not before a pan-Western force is amassed and starts its killing spree. I was looking for signs of this Gaza conflict accelerating the USA's hard power decline, but I think we're going to start seeing the opposite. We underestimate our enemies at our own peril.
Fascism is becoming increasingly open in the west, there's no doubt about that. However, that doesn't translate into a war footing. Western right wing parties aren't united in any sense, and they're all at odds with each other. What we're seeing in Europe right now is that all the countries are at odds with one another. Meanwhile, US right is advocating for isolationaism and will likely leave Europe to hang once Trump gets in power. This will only cause the tensions in Europe to rise further.
There is no path to any sort of consolidation here, and what's far more likely is that we'll see NATO and EU fall apart with countries trying to join BRICS to save their economies.
You have very good points, but I think China has some of the best anti-nuclear and plain anti-missile defense, hacking, subterfuge and redirection technology on Earth, I wouldn't overly worry about China getting nuked.
Good luck establishing war economy while being fleeced by USA.
Isn't that the whole point though. They're gonna dismantle all the social services Europeans enjoy under the pretense of remilitarizing and enrich the people who own US military industry. This is a scheme for US to plunder Europe.
According to media reports, this includes a €100 billion war fund for Ukraine over the next five years.
Expect every current NATO country government to lose popularity while denouncing anti-war parties/policies as "Putinist" and "pro-Russia". They'll use that excuse to silence these voices, if not outright imprison people.
Europe is already passing legislation and setting the stage to "counter disinformation" and "Russian influence". That's how the liberals plan on maintaining their grip on power.
They've been downplaying what these words mean, claiming its just for better coordination, blah, blah, blah. But we're in year 3, I don't think anyone believes they've been operating with sub-optimal planning and integration up until this point.
I imagine US is really pissed with Macron right now because they're were trying to keep an air of ambiguity regarding what NATO might do, and he opened up the question of boots on the ground directly. So, now we're seeing countries taking sides on the issue, and it's clear that support for the idea is tepid at best.
Something I consider when I think about, you know, a potential PPW, Party Rockin' type scenario, whether it be in the US, France, or elsewhere, Germany, what have you, they're depleting the tools of war at a rapid pace. What are they going to do when they run out of these things? All reactionaries are paper tigers, baby.
Furthermore, we're currently watching a group of young men and women battling it out with the most well-equipped military force in the world, backed by the largest empire in the world, dudes in fucking tracksuits, with flip-flops and an RPG, handling business in a corridor that won't look too much different than Santa Fe, New Mexico. Really makes you think.
And I have a feeling, the IDF's operational tactics, the loose goose, shoot em if it moves, carpet bomb em to nothing strategy, it wouldn't work in Atlanta, it wouldn't work in New Orleans. Something to think about.
The real obstacle in the us isn't the military it's a massive number of brainwormed reactionaries that are armed to the teeth
I would say they outnumber us 10 to 1, optimistically
Yeah, death squads would absolutely be spun up. Keep the military from getting their hands dirty.
I half think that’s the whole reason the FBI keeps these white supremacist groups around and supported.
instead of reserve army of labor you have a reserve army of reaction (or just an internal gladio force)
The “totally flatten them” tactic didn’t work in Korea, didn’t work in Vietnam, why would it work now?
Word is, Radik Sikorsky (Polish minister of foreign affairs) proclaimed the creation of a "NATO mission in Ukraine"
I wouldn't be so sure in his particular case, he is known for being overzealous boot worshipper and way too talkative for a minister so he's often running his mouth on wishful thinking. On the other hand he was the first one to confirm US blown Nordstream.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
this movie is so insanely good. the final dialogue between Nadyenov and Fedotov was so prescient
