"... the inability to understand that Europeans have their own, very powerful, motives for supporting the current regime in Ukraine, which have nothing to do with the US."
But essentially, the European PMC, which includes the vast majority of politicians, is completely captured by gut-level anti-Russian hatred. In some cases this is as simple as traditional anti-Slav racialism, but for most, Russia is an abomination, the opposite of everything the Brussels post-modern, post-national post-cultural consensus stands for, and so must be destroyed. Read, if you can bear to, the articles by European PMC journalists, which themselves are often unhinged, and the even more unhinged comments on them by readers. It's actually quite scary, and I have no idea how European politicians are going to calm themselves down when this is all over, far less calm the popular mood, which thinks it's watching a repeat of WW2.
I have to object to the overall thrust of this article, in that it appears to give credence to the idea that there are no really guilty parties in the world - all is just a sequence of steps by individuals who cannot foresee the consequences of their intentionally limited actions, presumably all intended for the greater good, and that intentional evil is non-existent. This approach lets both individuals and governments off the hook of responsibility and blame.
Take, for example the current war in Ukraine. It is certainly true to say that there are a number of causes to be found for this war, and if some of them hadn’t existed then the war would not have occurred. But for complicated events such as this, causes as far as they are known, can be assigned a rating according to the amount they have contributed to the ultimate event.
A selection of these for the war could be:
Russian, Ukranian and European history and collective memory,
Some countries fear of neighbouring countries with offensive military power,
Fear of expansionist policies among neighbouring countries, and so on.
But it is clear that the main reason is a US policy of attaining and retaining hegemony over all other countries in the world, especially those not under it’s current control and which are seen as a threat - i.e. Russia, China and Iran. Is this a conspiracy theory? I don’t believe so. There is convincing evidence for this notion, which could be, and is, the subject of whole books by reputable authors. Briefly though:
Since 1945 (and before - but let’s keep this within limits) the US has conducted 200 odd wars, invasions, coups and bombings plus assorted assassinations, etc. (See American Journal of Public Health, June 2014. As the authors say there “the fact that one nation initiated more than 80% of all wars in the last seventy years does require an explanation.”) Most of these events are all unquestionably documented and proven, very often even admitted*, and this level of state crime is far in excess of that of any other country (although possibly the UK is a minor competitor, in that at one time or another it has invaded every country in the world, except for 22 mainly very small ones). This is indicative of a pattern of continuing criminality on the part of the US government. (A war of aggression is a war crime under international law. Targeted assassinations, coups, bombings, etc do not appear to be legal under any law).
The US is documented as being involved within the Ukraine for the past 30 odd years. A number of ‘think-tanks’ in the US have formulated and published plans which involve using the Ukraine to attack and weaken Russia. Some of the authors of these plans now hold posts in the US government. No proven connection, you say? I think the NRA takes a similar stance with regard to the huge number of mass shootings in the US.
Similarly, it could be said that while US firms are profiting from the war, this cannot be counted as a cause. However, there is a large amount of staff transfers, at high levels of responsibility, in both directions between the US Government and arms manufacturers, and also large party contributions from arms manufacturers to US politicians. To think that this is merely an expression of democracy or commerce in action would be extremely naive.
Before the war Russia published proposals to avoid the war. These were reasonable options and were similar to what the US itself expected and obtained after the Cuban missile crisis. The proposals were turned down by the US. So, without going any deeper into the matter (which would only reinforce my contention) it seems clear that, although there were many subsidiary reasons, the main cause of the war in the Ukraine, especially taking into account past US history, is US arrogance, aggression and greed.
I believe that this sort of analysis applies to most large scale events, and while you are right that there are many subsidiary causes, there usually can be found one or perhaps two or three main ones
* For example, in the Washington Post, June 27, 1993 you can find a list of nearly 50 political leaders whom the US tried to assassinate, some of them several times. Again, we see a pattern of criminality and disregard for common and international law at the very top of government.
Our host wants to see everything as in the horizontal dimension only. The vertical dimension everything is in as well is not allowed into the analytical method. Pity. Kennan in 1997 on pushing NATO to Russia's border:
The US is long past the point where it plans and carries out conspiracies in secret. They are now doing it officially - visible to everyone if you know where their think tanks publish their strategy papers. But that's just a theory ;-)
Do not feel as if you need to make special work 'only for paying customers'. The message is 'I would like to pay for this', not 'I want to change you into a person who makes a living from Substack'.
The one thing conspiracy theories and theorists have, as a benefit, is the surety the world is ordered in such a way, that there is actually someone in charge, or at least a group of people who are managing everything, whether for good or ill, depending on one's perspective.
Cause, causation, and coincidence rarely have much to do with each other, at least that has been my experience in studying history, and other subjects.
AJP Taylor had a wonderful quip about grand causal explanations (not necessarily unicausal): every automobile accident ever has been caused by the invention of internal combustion engine and the desire of people to get to places faster. On the one hand, these answers are "correct." But they are also useless for actually understanding anything. However, they are good enough explanation for distant apathetic peoples who have no stake in particular set of events, certain parts of the world, or whatever, but have too much desire to do "something good" on the cheap. So these tales are peddled, and they work until their audiences start feeling that they'd been had, but most of these "cons" never get big enough to reach that point, and even if they do, there's way too much inertia in existing political institutions of nearly any Western state that doing something to reverse or even changing policy takes too much time and effort.
Some years ago, Kissinger (yes, I know) supposedly said something about the big problem facing the western world being the unwillingness of their citizens to sacrifice for their country, but not only is this the consequence of the process that Aurelien has already discussed often on this site, it is also the requirement for "little rackets" in faraway places--apathetic citizens can be won over simplistic "grand explanations" that may not be baldfaced lies, but are at best useless and likely misleading. As long as the consequences are minimal, whoever's involved can do practically whatever they please...except, I suppose, they too have little reason to care about the big picture in the long term. As Churchill supposedly almost said to his point man in Yugoslavia in 1943(?) (Was itFitzroy McLean?) when he raised some awkward questions, "Do you plan to live in Yugoslavia?" "No." "Then shut up." (I reckon Churchill did not actually say the last part...but you never know.)
I like the arrangement I have with Peter Lee, the China Hand. One dollar per every product via Patreon. Albeit lately he's been cheeky: reposts older work that he deems very actual...
Besides laying an ideological framework on reality, as ideologues of so-called liberalism do, and seeking explanation for the present in the past, as ideologues of so-called conservatism do, there is a third epistemological method: scrutinizing the phenomenologies of the present to discover what they say about themselves, sui generis, as patriotic and competent statesmen do.
And, Aurelien, what's with this, paraphrasing, religion / the Bible is however God feels day by day?
Now, I could adduce Christians and Hindus -- even Jews and Moslems -- all being what you might call mystics, who could assert that religion / the Bible is however God feels day by day, but theirs would be to an end (dedication) yours is not (disdain, or at most generous, ignoring).
Dear Aurelian, your perspectives expand my understanding of how the world works. But perhaps you also have some ideas about how we might replace the current modus operandi with a new, less destructive one. The title of your Eassy: Everything is (Somewhat) Connected points me in the direction it could go. With the founding of the UN, an attempt has already been made (at least officially) to resolve conflicts peacefully. Even if it failed, for me it is the right way. Why did it not work? What did we do wrong? And what conditions must be met for a new attempt to be more promising? I would be very interested in your thoughts on this.
I wish I knew, or rather I wish I was knowledgeable and wise enough to offer some creative alternatives. Bleak as it may be I can only see a choice between disaster followed by reconstruction, and panic at the very last moment. All cheerful alternative suggestions gratefully received.
I realize, you did not ask for my opinion, so here it is, lol.
The reason behind UN mechanism being dysfunctional, is the same exact reason the League of Nations was dead on arrival, the same reason the rich are above the law in every nation. Nobody wants to enforce the rules consistently + those who agreed to follow the rules - did not do it freely and in good faith.
The permanent UN Security Council is composed of the USA, UK, France, USSR, and China - the major countries on the winning side of the last big war. The last two were never supposed to stay there.
Nationalists were supposed to win the Civil War in China and become a loyal US puppet seat holder. The last problem seat would be taken care of with China's help. Think the Korean War, but China as meat shield+US troops from South Korea push USSR from Asia, UK+Turkey from the Caucasus and Middle East, Germany+France in Europe. The Korean War we got instead - was USA deciding to not waste the salvageable parts of a larger failed plan, to do at least some damage. All because the expected Chinese puppet was in Taiwan, instead of in control of China. The USSR managed to push into Europe, far beyond what was expected.
Taiwan was still worth the effort of saving for the USA, as that excuse for a nation was declared to be the rightful owner of "China" seat on UN Security Council until 1971. I'm dead serious. USA made that institution a complete joke from day one.
Just like the League of Nations before it, supposedly made according to "Willson's 14 points" and that everyone who mattered joined, except USA. Shocker.
Because the USA is always above the law. USA only believes in a "Rules based order."
Couple Quotes:
Theodore Roosevelt (article "The League of Nations"): "If the League of Nations is built on a document as high-sounding and as meaningless as the speech in which Mr. Wilson laid down his fourteen points, it will simply add one more scrap to the diplomatic waste paper basket. Most of these fourteen points... would be interpreted... to mean anything or nothing."
Senator William Borah (prominent isolationist): "this treacherous and treasonable scheme" of the League of Nations to be "buried in hell" and promised that if he had his way it would be "20,000 leagues under the sea."
USA overtook the lead from UK after WW2. The student became the master, what it lacks in skill, it compensates with force.
The gunboat diplomacy was never subtle to begin with, but after 1980s, the West got so complacent and lazy, that diplomats seem to have gone extinct.
The self-centered, greedy, and pretentious Americans, don't even pretend to care any longer; no point of faking the thinnest veneer of believable justification, for terrorizing the rest of humanity and acting like psychopaths.
As George Bush (the stupid one) said: "You are either with us, or you are against us"
As John Bolton said: "There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along."
So more launching unprovoked invasions of, whomever; destabilizing established regimes and dealing with the humanitarian disasters in the aftermath; millions more dead; getting blackmailed and extorted; all that, and so much more!
Some of you may believe, that I'm being overly-dramatic or wearing a tinfoil hat...
To them, I say: You have an exciting life ahead of you. You may even discover, why Koreans resorted to eating grass and living in underground cities, in a eureka kind of way.
To the rest: Stay strong and don't have kids. They didn't deserve this.
Trust me, I'm Russian. We've seen it all.
As far as "how to make the world a better place” - that is very simple:
Wipe out the Western selfishness, hatred, and hypocrisy (may include varying quantities of nuclear strikes). Very simple. No alternatives.
I hope, that you don't expect that to happen spontaneously. The way I see it, only fools and scammers believe in miracles, and the latter ones - only pretend, that they do. To put it another way, God helps those, who help themselves. If you need some help, I can recommend a good lecture: https://youtu.be/Fb_bTUJp39o
"... the inability to understand that Europeans have their own, very powerful, motives for supporting the current regime in Ukraine, which have nothing to do with the US."
Explain this one to me, please.
I covered this in some detail in an earlier post:
https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/onward-post-christian-soldiers
But essentially, the European PMC, which includes the vast majority of politicians, is completely captured by gut-level anti-Russian hatred. In some cases this is as simple as traditional anti-Slav racialism, but for most, Russia is an abomination, the opposite of everything the Brussels post-modern, post-national post-cultural consensus stands for, and so must be destroyed. Read, if you can bear to, the articles by European PMC journalists, which themselves are often unhinged, and the even more unhinged comments on them by readers. It's actually quite scary, and I have no idea how European politicians are going to calm themselves down when this is all over, far less calm the popular mood, which thinks it's watching a repeat of WW2.
Except that Ukraine fits what those politicians and PMC goodthink types hate, far more than Russia.
Dishonest signaling of actual preferences, perhaps. Our neolib Pirates of Bien-Pensance are nothing if not aggressively duplicitous.
I've been waiting for a good answer.. the only thing I can think of is russophobia and greed.
He mentions this in other posts but without much detail on why exactly, the laundry list...
I have to object to the overall thrust of this article, in that it appears to give credence to the idea that there are no really guilty parties in the world - all is just a sequence of steps by individuals who cannot foresee the consequences of their intentionally limited actions, presumably all intended for the greater good, and that intentional evil is non-existent. This approach lets both individuals and governments off the hook of responsibility and blame.
Take, for example the current war in Ukraine. It is certainly true to say that there are a number of causes to be found for this war, and if some of them hadn’t existed then the war would not have occurred. But for complicated events such as this, causes as far as they are known, can be assigned a rating according to the amount they have contributed to the ultimate event.
A selection of these for the war could be:
Russian, Ukranian and European history and collective memory,
Some countries fear of neighbouring countries with offensive military power,
Fear of expansionist policies among neighbouring countries, and so on.
But it is clear that the main reason is a US policy of attaining and retaining hegemony over all other countries in the world, especially those not under it’s current control and which are seen as a threat - i.e. Russia, China and Iran. Is this a conspiracy theory? I don’t believe so. There is convincing evidence for this notion, which could be, and is, the subject of whole books by reputable authors. Briefly though:
Since 1945 (and before - but let’s keep this within limits) the US has conducted 200 odd wars, invasions, coups and bombings plus assorted assassinations, etc. (See American Journal of Public Health, June 2014. As the authors say there “the fact that one nation initiated more than 80% of all wars in the last seventy years does require an explanation.”) Most of these events are all unquestionably documented and proven, very often even admitted*, and this level of state crime is far in excess of that of any other country (although possibly the UK is a minor competitor, in that at one time or another it has invaded every country in the world, except for 22 mainly very small ones). This is indicative of a pattern of continuing criminality on the part of the US government. (A war of aggression is a war crime under international law. Targeted assassinations, coups, bombings, etc do not appear to be legal under any law).
The US is documented as being involved within the Ukraine for the past 30 odd years. A number of ‘think-tanks’ in the US have formulated and published plans which involve using the Ukraine to attack and weaken Russia. Some of the authors of these plans now hold posts in the US government. No proven connection, you say? I think the NRA takes a similar stance with regard to the huge number of mass shootings in the US.
Similarly, it could be said that while US firms are profiting from the war, this cannot be counted as a cause. However, there is a large amount of staff transfers, at high levels of responsibility, in both directions between the US Government and arms manufacturers, and also large party contributions from arms manufacturers to US politicians. To think that this is merely an expression of democracy or commerce in action would be extremely naive.
Before the war Russia published proposals to avoid the war. These were reasonable options and were similar to what the US itself expected and obtained after the Cuban missile crisis. The proposals were turned down by the US. So, without going any deeper into the matter (which would only reinforce my contention) it seems clear that, although there were many subsidiary reasons, the main cause of the war in the Ukraine, especially taking into account past US history, is US arrogance, aggression and greed.
I believe that this sort of analysis applies to most large scale events, and while you are right that there are many subsidiary causes, there usually can be found one or perhaps two or three main ones
* For example, in the Washington Post, June 27, 1993 you can find a list of nearly 50 political leaders whom the US tried to assassinate, some of them several times. Again, we see a pattern of criminality and disregard for common and international law at the very top of government.
Our host wants to see everything as in the horizontal dimension only. The vertical dimension everything is in as well is not allowed into the analytical method. Pity. Kennan in 1997 on pushing NATO to Russia's border:
https://theological-geography.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Kennan-1997.pdf
The US is long past the point where it plans and carries out conspiracies in secret. They are now doing it officially - visible to everyone if you know where their think tanks publish their strategy papers. But that's just a theory ;-)
one could argue that explaining the world by official narrative is even less reality based than through conspiracy theories... just sayin..
Do not feel as if you need to make special work 'only for paying customers'. The message is 'I would like to pay for this', not 'I want to change you into a person who makes a living from Substack'.
Is that... Laura Creighton from utzoo?
yes!
The one thing conspiracy theories and theorists have, as a benefit, is the surety the world is ordered in such a way, that there is actually someone in charge, or at least a group of people who are managing everything, whether for good or ill, depending on one's perspective.
Cause, causation, and coincidence rarely have much to do with each other, at least that has been my experience in studying history, and other subjects.
George Kennan 05 February 1997 at the New York Times:
A Fateful Error [pushing NATO to the Russian border]
https://theological-geography.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Kennan-1997.pdf
AJP Taylor had a wonderful quip about grand causal explanations (not necessarily unicausal): every automobile accident ever has been caused by the invention of internal combustion engine and the desire of people to get to places faster. On the one hand, these answers are "correct." But they are also useless for actually understanding anything. However, they are good enough explanation for distant apathetic peoples who have no stake in particular set of events, certain parts of the world, or whatever, but have too much desire to do "something good" on the cheap. So these tales are peddled, and they work until their audiences start feeling that they'd been had, but most of these "cons" never get big enough to reach that point, and even if they do, there's way too much inertia in existing political institutions of nearly any Western state that doing something to reverse or even changing policy takes too much time and effort.
Some years ago, Kissinger (yes, I know) supposedly said something about the big problem facing the western world being the unwillingness of their citizens to sacrifice for their country, but not only is this the consequence of the process that Aurelien has already discussed often on this site, it is also the requirement for "little rackets" in faraway places--apathetic citizens can be won over simplistic "grand explanations" that may not be baldfaced lies, but are at best useless and likely misleading. As long as the consequences are minimal, whoever's involved can do practically whatever they please...except, I suppose, they too have little reason to care about the big picture in the long term. As Churchill supposedly almost said to his point man in Yugoslavia in 1943(?) (Was itFitzroy McLean?) when he raised some awkward questions, "Do you plan to live in Yugoslavia?" "No." "Then shut up." (I reckon Churchill did not actually say the last part...but you never know.)
I like the arrangement I have with Peter Lee, the China Hand. One dollar per every product via Patreon. Albeit lately he's been cheeky: reposts older work that he deems very actual...
Besides laying an ideological framework on reality, as ideologues of so-called liberalism do, and seeking explanation for the present in the past, as ideologues of so-called conservatism do, there is a third epistemological method: scrutinizing the phenomenologies of the present to discover what they say about themselves, sui generis, as patriotic and competent statesmen do.
And, Aurelien, what's with this, paraphrasing, religion / the Bible is however God feels day by day?
Now, I could adduce Christians and Hindus -- even Jews and Moslems -- all being what you might call mystics, who could assert that religion / the Bible is however God feels day by day, but theirs would be to an end (dedication) yours is not (disdain, or at most generous, ignoring).
Dear Aurelian, your perspectives expand my understanding of how the world works. But perhaps you also have some ideas about how we might replace the current modus operandi with a new, less destructive one. The title of your Eassy: Everything is (Somewhat) Connected points me in the direction it could go. With the founding of the UN, an attempt has already been made (at least officially) to resolve conflicts peacefully. Even if it failed, for me it is the right way. Why did it not work? What did we do wrong? And what conditions must be met for a new attempt to be more promising? I would be very interested in your thoughts on this.
I wish I knew, or rather I wish I was knowledgeable and wise enough to offer some creative alternatives. Bleak as it may be I can only see a choice between disaster followed by reconstruction, and panic at the very last moment. All cheerful alternative suggestions gratefully received.
I realize, you did not ask for my opinion, so here it is, lol.
The reason behind UN mechanism being dysfunctional, is the same exact reason the League of Nations was dead on arrival, the same reason the rich are above the law in every nation. Nobody wants to enforce the rules consistently + those who agreed to follow the rules - did not do it freely and in good faith.
The permanent UN Security Council is composed of the USA, UK, France, USSR, and China - the major countries on the winning side of the last big war. The last two were never supposed to stay there.
Nationalists were supposed to win the Civil War in China and become a loyal US puppet seat holder. The last problem seat would be taken care of with China's help. Think the Korean War, but China as meat shield+US troops from South Korea push USSR from Asia, UK+Turkey from the Caucasus and Middle East, Germany+France in Europe. The Korean War we got instead - was USA deciding to not waste the salvageable parts of a larger failed plan, to do at least some damage. All because the expected Chinese puppet was in Taiwan, instead of in control of China. The USSR managed to push into Europe, far beyond what was expected.
Taiwan was still worth the effort of saving for the USA, as that excuse for a nation was declared to be the rightful owner of "China" seat on UN Security Council until 1971. I'm dead serious. USA made that institution a complete joke from day one.
Just like the League of Nations before it, supposedly made according to "Willson's 14 points" and that everyone who mattered joined, except USA. Shocker.
Because the USA is always above the law. USA only believes in a "Rules based order."
Couple Quotes:
Theodore Roosevelt (article "The League of Nations"): "If the League of Nations is built on a document as high-sounding and as meaningless as the speech in which Mr. Wilson laid down his fourteen points, it will simply add one more scrap to the diplomatic waste paper basket. Most of these fourteen points... would be interpreted... to mean anything or nothing."
Senator William Borah (prominent isolationist): "this treacherous and treasonable scheme" of the League of Nations to be "buried in hell" and promised that if he had his way it would be "20,000 leagues under the sea."
USA overtook the lead from UK after WW2. The student became the master, what it lacks in skill, it compensates with force.
The gunboat diplomacy was never subtle to begin with, but after 1980s, the West got so complacent and lazy, that diplomats seem to have gone extinct.
The self-centered, greedy, and pretentious Americans, don't even pretend to care any longer; no point of faking the thinnest veneer of believable justification, for terrorizing the rest of humanity and acting like psychopaths.
As George Bush (the stupid one) said: "You are either with us, or you are against us"
As John Bolton said: "There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along."
So more launching unprovoked invasions of, whomever; destabilizing established regimes and dealing with the humanitarian disasters in the aftermath; millions more dead; getting blackmailed and extorted; all that, and so much more!
Some of you may believe, that I'm being overly-dramatic or wearing a tinfoil hat...
To them, I say: You have an exciting life ahead of you. You may even discover, why Koreans resorted to eating grass and living in underground cities, in a eureka kind of way.
To the rest: Stay strong and don't have kids. They didn't deserve this.
Trust me, I'm Russian. We've seen it all.
As far as "how to make the world a better place” - that is very simple:
Wipe out the Western selfishness, hatred, and hypocrisy (may include varying quantities of nuclear strikes). Very simple. No alternatives.
I can't disagree with you on any of your points, but I hope we still get our act together in Europe.
I hope, that you don't expect that to happen spontaneously. The way I see it, only fools and scammers believe in miracles, and the latter ones - only pretend, that they do. To put it another way, God helps those, who help themselves. If you need some help, I can recommend a good lecture: https://youtu.be/Fb_bTUJp39o
There's typo, you wrote "cut bono" when it should be "cui bono".
And yes, answering that question goes a long way to an explanation of why things happen.