For the type of person who comes to
the comments to determine if something is worth reading: I think you can write this off as Russian propaganda and move on with your day without reading all thisIt may be true, as I heard some idiot on the radio say the other today, that taken together European forces are comparable in size with Russia. But just look at a map. Even if by some miracle of logistic planning, using resources that don’t exist, NATO units could be transported at fantastic cost over distances never before attempted, somehow organised into coherent units and properly trained and commanded, they are predominantly light mechanised Brigades, and could be expected to be annihilated in a matter of hours, by Russian weapons and tactics the West has no answer to. And their objective in a war against Russia would be … Moscow? You have to be kidding me. Meanwhile, Russia itself could wipe out NATO forces deployed on their home territory with drones and missiles.
The author used to work in the English government and currently lives in France. You seem to dislike his conclusion, but writing it off as Russian propaganda tells us more about you than about him.
Разве лишь русские пропагандируют за России?
Without you fighting the Russian scourge, we would be lost
This is such a Pollyanna assessment of Western intentions, capabilities, coordination, and strategy. The West is not some bumbling hapless doofus without any Machiavellianism or psychopathy while they chase cars in the street and negligently count their money.
Bill Clinton was pursuing NATO’s inclusion of Ukraine as far back as 1992. Bush 2 set a strategic plan for West Asia and Obama kept it going - a 16-year (minimum) strategic initiative. The US invaded Vietnam because it understand the strategic landscape and how the West played it’s part. The US converted Korea and Taiwan into performative democracies at the same time the British were doing it Hong Kong. Because the West has a collective understanding of empire, a collective understanding of their role in global empire, and a collective will to maintain that empire.
What the author assumes is strategic blindness is, in fact, strategic failure. The West is not failing to do strategy - the West’s strategies are failing. And not because the West is bad at strategy, but because the strategic room for empire is being closed by the anti-imperialist movement over the last century.
Also that is some McCarthy ass title with its appeal to xenophobia and reducing “the Russians” to this malevolent faceless horde of evil.
Weird feeling from this article.
One thing I noted is that actions of NATO countries are attributed to ‘the West’ or the national elites. Meanwhile actions of Russian Federations seem to be fully attributed to russians, as if people decided on a referendum to begin imperial conquest again.
Of course, the propaganda is affecting russians heavily, but it is the minority who support this war, and they don’t decide what the country does anyway, the elites do. If warhawks outside the goverment try to imfluence something, they become cellmates with their once political opponents.
“Egermency! Egermency! Everyone to get from street!”
I am 1000% okay with making memes out of early film stills.
