Your account of the quotidian pressures, short-termism, and wishful thinking behind pervasive groupthink in times of crisis—and other times, too, but especially then—is convincing. But I can’t help but think you are giving the false impression in this essay that European goverments are independent decision makers who could go against America’s dictates but simply fail to do so. Your description is surely accurate with respect to the decision makers in Washington. But even here there is certainly more of an organized authority strucure, albeit one containing factions and not perfectly ordered, than a mob of colleagues that the groupthink image suggests. And surely part of the continued support for these disastrous policies in Washington has to be explained by the fact that theit consequences are to be felt worst and first in Europe, and that even as the US loses vis-a-vis Russia, China, India, etc., it becomes even more powerful vis-a-vis Europe. You know these things, I know. But they are not reflected in the present essay.
A reason families and rulers they produce supported monasteries and anchorites was to provide themselves with deep and disinterested over-the-horizon radar images and reports. Only in deep calm does awareness occur.
This is a REALLY interesting analysis….THANK YOU. Although, I think, its empirical framing could be expanded ….: what about the role of the USA; what about the role of neoliberalism - victorious in 1989 and in serious trouble in 2022……; what about the role of war as a replacement for ‘politics’; what about a possible collapse of financial capitalism? Yet a comparison between those two periods is an interesting starting point. There are analyses that propose that neoliberalism at the end of 1980s was also in a state of collapse but it’s ‘death’ was prolonged by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Thank you again.
Here’s a very interesting article with a discordant analysis. It tends to challenge mine quite a bit, and could brings you and some readers new reflections :
The Covid crisis just on the eve of the Ukraine crisis was like a dress rehearsal for this type of group think, don't forget that. Everybody got induced to this totalitarian mode of operation for it to be continued seamlessly when the war broke out.
The group think is re-inforced by the fixation on territorial gains. Ukraine initially took back stretches of territory around Kyiv and Sumy and also some territories around Mykolaev that Russian forces had overrun without establishing themselved firmly there. Later the Russians began to suffer from an increasing lack of manpower mainy due to contract soldiers rotating out while the Ukrainians had build up their forces in the rear. Russian forces effectively though not officially withdrawing from the Kharkov area together with Ukraine gaining a significant numercial advantage over token forces left there allowed the Ukrainians to stage what could be passed off as an offensive, albeit suffering severe losses even under these circumstances. Something similar went down to the north of Kherson. The Ukraine-is-winning narrative together with the associated group think is riding on the momentum gained from all these territorial gains, ignoring the wider strategic picture of Ukrainian and Western resources running out and Ukrainian infrastructure being destroyed.
The strategic picture is still not lost on western planners. That's why they might be preparing a nuclear false flag in the form of a dirty bomb that they will try to pass off a as Russian nuclear bomb that failed to detonate properly. They want to use that as justification for moving in with NATO troops directly, presumably spearheaded by US paratroopers that recently deployed to Romania. Again, totalitarian group think allows them to contemplate such things.
As usual, I start with the usual politeness. It is of course much easier to criticize someone's work rather than produce it yourself, so I want to pay tribute to your efforts. However, I am surprised that you can address the subject of European sanctions without mentioning the shadow of Washington once.
A bit like my father, who constantly fulminates on the absidal incompetence of our leaders, I would answer that stupidity will be the ultimate justification that will be desperately opposed to us if they face their responsability about their betrayals. I must admit, moreover, that the peremptory use of the term « conspiracy theorist » is becoming more and more inappropriate and, in my opinion, has the unique objective of removing any ability from once adversary to express himself. However, I doubt that this is your intention.
"The acceleration of history" is a rare opporunity to reveal elements that would be in other circumstances more difficult to perceive, and consequently, to open the eyes of more and more people. The annihilation of the economies, industries, and diplomacies of European nations is not a collateral effect of sanctions but its objective. Any somewhat credible analyst has known since 2014 that the sanctions "infiled" on Russia do not have the expected effects, and that they politically justify Putin's efforts to reform the Russian economy. Ignoring the shadow of Washington in the decisions taken by European leaders is in my opinion almost dishonest. The desperate sabotage of gas pipelines is an event that alone illustrates the entire sequence of the conflict in Ukraine: the objective was to prevent any possibility for German industrialists from reversing the pro-Washingtonian policy of their leaders.
On the energy policy of Europe, and more particularly of France, sabotage was much more subtle and pernicious. A properly maintained nuclear fleet, regular and timely investments and mutually beneficial trade agreements would have allowed the whole of Europe to benefit from this indisputable strategic advantage. Instead, under pressure from the EU, France entrusted the maintenance of its fleet to general electric, opening its internal market to parasites that speculate on energy without producing a single watt or investing 1 cent in the distribution network. It even has a name: ARENH! Result: half of the nuclear fleet is out, EDF is bankrupt, and France is threatening its population with power outage this winter. Excuse me Aurélien but you don't have to be incompetent to achieve such a result, you have to be motivated!
So why do our "Western leaders" appear so stupid, so corrupt, so morally disturbed? Because they are! And they are precisely in their position because they are! What better representatives of this new caste of parasites than Von Der Leyen, Macron or even Truss, who will not have lasted 50 days on Downing street! There are no more leaders Aurélien, there are executioners!
Who benefits from the economic and industrial destruction of Europe? Who benefits from the erection of a new iron curtain between Russia and Europe? They were not incompetent, they have been extremely effective for several decades.
From the beginning I've tried to write about politics as engineering, looking at mechanisms and processes. In several essays I've warned people against assuming that simple explanations are true. It's attractive and easy to see the hand of the US in everything, but this is a view that doesn't survive contact with the chaotic and divided US system itself, where endless bitter turf wars are fought over trivia, and next week is a long time away. The idea that European states are pursuing a US agenda here is certainly attractive, but it's quite wrong, and indeed in my experience it always had been wrong: actual relationships are massively more complex than that. For European political elites, this is a holy war fought against the greatest obstacle to the triumph of Bruxellois liberal post-nationalist ideas, and the Europeans are, if anything, more determined to destroy Russia than the US, because its not just a competitor, it's a kind of anti-Europe, an ideological enemy.
- [ ] Thank you for the great article and the further clarification. As a practicing engineer, I had tried for quite some time now to visualise the behaviour of the world “leaders”, by means of granulation of that behaviour to an individual level. I could not escape the vision that the most common denominator, after honourable exceptions, was that this particular biosphere seems inhabited mainly with individuals whose primary interests are and were at all times, those of furtherance of individual wealth and gene pools, at the obvious and inevitable cost of biological damage to those they are meant to represent. The analogy that seemed to fit best was as some kind of a biological Ponzi scheme. This (small herd) engages in strict non-disruption of their fertile boat as the modus operandi, rather than engaging in genuine forward thinking for the benefit of those being “represented “. This type of environment is equally available for the lower tiers of this non-productive redistributive “class”, and obvious example would be say people who work in our councils pretending to be working for their rates’ payers whereas in actual fact the primary goal is that of fleecing the tax kitty for personal benefit.
- [ ] The big cluster defines the granules, but the granules then choose to act alike.
- [ ] I say, mainly. Not necessarily everyone. But with the top-led boom of same-think neoliberal order over the last 30 years, this psychology of corruption and parasitism seems to have become a firm rule.
- [ ] Their pretend work is abstract and not measurable. Failures are always explained away as other people’s faults. Putin is the clear culprit for the last 20 years of world’s misfortunes. And given that this type of parasitic life choice can only be sustained for as long as the illusion of worth and value and exceptionalism is maintained, anyone perceived as blowing that cover is a mortal threat and must be destroyed. An ideological enemy, indeed. Not just the anti-Europe Russians, but absolutely anyone who dares question this particular Ponzi.
The consequence of my indispensable effort of conciseness is unfortunately an apparent simplification of my point of view. As I said, I carefully use "Washington" and not "the United States" to designate the small group of furious "neocons" that governs the globalist policy (stateless by nature) that is raging today. And again, these few terms imply mechanisms and ideologies that take their roots far beyond the conquest of America and are therefore much more complicated than "it's America's fault". Where you are right, although I would present it otherwise, is that before having consequences on European policy, it is on the United States itself that these influences have disastrous consequences, enough to fill the pages of a big book, which is probably about to grow heavily!
I could mention the notions of "thalassocratic and tellurocratic powers" and the deep implications that this implies in global geopolitics, or international law, but it would fill entire pages too, (without being exhaustive to explain the major historical trends). By this axis of analysis too, I think I can say that the ideological opposition you describe between Europe and Russia is wrong. It is true if you consider the English influence in the European construction, and England is indeed more anti-Russian than any other nation. However, this is not the case with France, to name only this country.
I regret not being able to go into more detail in my arguments, maybe it's time for me too to be more courageous and share my points of view on a blog!
"Take a senior official of the Foreign Ministry of a medium-sized country, responsible for political affairs. Every telegram, every letter, every email every communiqué, every media summary that crosses his or her desk has the same message: Ukraine in winning, we must keep up pressure on Putin, the sanctions are working and whilst there may be some limited short-term pain, it’s worth it. Every conversation with an opposite number, every speech written, every interview, every debate in parliament, every bilateral or multilateral meeting, every TV channel in every language, is saying the same thing. Our poor official, working probably twelve hours a day at least six days a week and travelling often, doesn’t have the leisure or the energy, even if they had the knowledge and experience, to challenge the accepted narrative."
They should call and visit Budapest for some reality check...
This is the same sort of "either or" response that I get about complex situations all the time -- repetition hasn't made it any more convincing, I'm afraid.
Oh -- and the next time Russia attempts to "take over Europe" will also be the first.
Your answer implies that you believe without question the propaganda put out by the 'west'. You should look into some other points of view. Also, consider the following (nor exhaustive) list of points:
1) The US organised a coup in Ukraine which toppled the legal president. At the same time, neo-Nazi elements in the Ukraine became enmeshed in the power structure, especially in the Army.
2) The Ukraine than passed laws banning the use of the Russian Language, and other discriminatory measures against Ukranian Russian speakers.
3) The Russian speakesr in Luhansk and Donbass then decided to oppose these measures by force after other means had been rejected by Kiev.
4) The Ukranian regime reacted by shelling civilians in these areas. Since 2014 approximately 14,000 civilians including women and children have lost their lives to shelling by their fellow countrymen.
5) Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine drew up the Minsk treaty to solve the problem. All these nations signed it.
6) Ukraine consistently refused to stick to the terms of the treaty it had signed. France and Germany made no effort to persuade them. A modification to the treaty was made, with the same result.
7) Zelensky declared that he wanted to join NATO and also wanted to revive the Ukraine's nuclear weapon capacity. The 'west' agreed with the NATO propsal, and ignored Russian concerns (unlike in the similar case of the Cuba Crisis).
8) Putin proposed to the west that they meet and agree a security treaty which would solve the whole matter.
9) The west and Ukraine ignored this proposal, even though Putin warned that there would be consequences.
Couldn't you imagine sanctions that would actually hurt Russia more then West?
Opening drilling for oil and gas everywhere and massive subsidies into production rather then trying to tighten supply - with obvious disastrous consequences that give all cards to Putin and OPEC that agrees with him?
NOT trying to cut Russia off from financial system (to which Russia responded with very effective capital controls) but encouraging every company to flee Russia to drain their reserves instead?
Doing "worst thing we could think of over a weekend" then doubling down as "we cannot back off because it will play into Putin's hand" just exacerbates European weakness and plays into Putin's hand even more.
And he still has a lot of moves remaining on escalation ladder while Europe now seems stuck without anything effective in their arsenal, with only hope that eventually things they already implemented will work (which isn't obvious at all).
Your account of the quotidian pressures, short-termism, and wishful thinking behind pervasive groupthink in times of crisis—and other times, too, but especially then—is convincing. But I can’t help but think you are giving the false impression in this essay that European goverments are independent decision makers who could go against America’s dictates but simply fail to do so. Your description is surely accurate with respect to the decision makers in Washington. But even here there is certainly more of an organized authority strucure, albeit one containing factions and not perfectly ordered, than a mob of colleagues that the groupthink image suggests. And surely part of the continued support for these disastrous policies in Washington has to be explained by the fact that theit consequences are to be felt worst and first in Europe, and that even as the US loses vis-a-vis Russia, China, India, etc., it becomes even more powerful vis-a-vis Europe. You know these things, I know. But they are not reflected in the present essay.
How did European powers convince themselves that WWI was a good idea, a walk in the park, a glorious little war?
Not for nothing is Christopher Clark's book about WWI called "The Sleepwalkers" ...
A reason families and rulers they produce supported monasteries and anchorites was to provide themselves with deep and disinterested over-the-horizon radar images and reports. Only in deep calm does awareness occur.
This is a REALLY interesting analysis….THANK YOU. Although, I think, its empirical framing could be expanded ….: what about the role of the USA; what about the role of neoliberalism - victorious in 1989 and in serious trouble in 2022……; what about the role of war as a replacement for ‘politics’; what about a possible collapse of financial capitalism? Yet a comparison between those two periods is an interesting starting point. There are analyses that propose that neoliberalism at the end of 1980s was also in a state of collapse but it’s ‘death’ was prolonged by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Thank you again.
It was a good idea if you thought you could win and extend the dominance of Imperial Britain.
Germany won after two years and Washington rescued Britain.
Britain tried for two world wars and lost both.
Now it's different.
God Favours Russia . . .
https://les7eb.substack.com/p/ukraine-long-proxy-war-vi-god-favours
Here’s a very interesting article with a discordant analysis. It tends to challenge mine quite a bit, and could brings you and some readers new reflections :
https://tomluongo.me/2022/09/29/the-curious-whodunit-of-nordstreams-1-and-2/
The Covid crisis just on the eve of the Ukraine crisis was like a dress rehearsal for this type of group think, don't forget that. Everybody got induced to this totalitarian mode of operation for it to be continued seamlessly when the war broke out.
The group think is re-inforced by the fixation on territorial gains. Ukraine initially took back stretches of territory around Kyiv and Sumy and also some territories around Mykolaev that Russian forces had overrun without establishing themselved firmly there. Later the Russians began to suffer from an increasing lack of manpower mainy due to contract soldiers rotating out while the Ukrainians had build up their forces in the rear. Russian forces effectively though not officially withdrawing from the Kharkov area together with Ukraine gaining a significant numercial advantage over token forces left there allowed the Ukrainians to stage what could be passed off as an offensive, albeit suffering severe losses even under these circumstances. Something similar went down to the north of Kherson. The Ukraine-is-winning narrative together with the associated group think is riding on the momentum gained from all these territorial gains, ignoring the wider strategic picture of Ukrainian and Western resources running out and Ukrainian infrastructure being destroyed.
The strategic picture is still not lost on western planners. That's why they might be preparing a nuclear false flag in the form of a dirty bomb that they will try to pass off a as Russian nuclear bomb that failed to detonate properly. They want to use that as justification for moving in with NATO troops directly, presumably spearheaded by US paratroopers that recently deployed to Romania. Again, totalitarian group think allows them to contemplate such things.
As usual, I start with the usual politeness. It is of course much easier to criticize someone's work rather than produce it yourself, so I want to pay tribute to your efforts. However, I am surprised that you can address the subject of European sanctions without mentioning the shadow of Washington once.
A bit like my father, who constantly fulminates on the absidal incompetence of our leaders, I would answer that stupidity will be the ultimate justification that will be desperately opposed to us if they face their responsability about their betrayals. I must admit, moreover, that the peremptory use of the term « conspiracy theorist » is becoming more and more inappropriate and, in my opinion, has the unique objective of removing any ability from once adversary to express himself. However, I doubt that this is your intention.
"The acceleration of history" is a rare opporunity to reveal elements that would be in other circumstances more difficult to perceive, and consequently, to open the eyes of more and more people. The annihilation of the economies, industries, and diplomacies of European nations is not a collateral effect of sanctions but its objective. Any somewhat credible analyst has known since 2014 that the sanctions "infiled" on Russia do not have the expected effects, and that they politically justify Putin's efforts to reform the Russian economy. Ignoring the shadow of Washington in the decisions taken by European leaders is in my opinion almost dishonest. The desperate sabotage of gas pipelines is an event that alone illustrates the entire sequence of the conflict in Ukraine: the objective was to prevent any possibility for German industrialists from reversing the pro-Washingtonian policy of their leaders.
On the energy policy of Europe, and more particularly of France, sabotage was much more subtle and pernicious. A properly maintained nuclear fleet, regular and timely investments and mutually beneficial trade agreements would have allowed the whole of Europe to benefit from this indisputable strategic advantage. Instead, under pressure from the EU, France entrusted the maintenance of its fleet to general electric, opening its internal market to parasites that speculate on energy without producing a single watt or investing 1 cent in the distribution network. It even has a name: ARENH! Result: half of the nuclear fleet is out, EDF is bankrupt, and France is threatening its population with power outage this winter. Excuse me Aurélien but you don't have to be incompetent to achieve such a result, you have to be motivated!
So why do our "Western leaders" appear so stupid, so corrupt, so morally disturbed? Because they are! And they are precisely in their position because they are! What better representatives of this new caste of parasites than Von Der Leyen, Macron or even Truss, who will not have lasted 50 days on Downing street! There are no more leaders Aurélien, there are executioners!
Who benefits from the economic and industrial destruction of Europe? Who benefits from the erection of a new iron curtain between Russia and Europe? They were not incompetent, they have been extremely effective for several decades.
From the beginning I've tried to write about politics as engineering, looking at mechanisms and processes. In several essays I've warned people against assuming that simple explanations are true. It's attractive and easy to see the hand of the US in everything, but this is a view that doesn't survive contact with the chaotic and divided US system itself, where endless bitter turf wars are fought over trivia, and next week is a long time away. The idea that European states are pursuing a US agenda here is certainly attractive, but it's quite wrong, and indeed in my experience it always had been wrong: actual relationships are massively more complex than that. For European political elites, this is a holy war fought against the greatest obstacle to the triumph of Bruxellois liberal post-nationalist ideas, and the Europeans are, if anything, more determined to destroy Russia than the US, because its not just a competitor, it's a kind of anti-Europe, an ideological enemy.
- [ ] Thank you for the great article and the further clarification. As a practicing engineer, I had tried for quite some time now to visualise the behaviour of the world “leaders”, by means of granulation of that behaviour to an individual level. I could not escape the vision that the most common denominator, after honourable exceptions, was that this particular biosphere seems inhabited mainly with individuals whose primary interests are and were at all times, those of furtherance of individual wealth and gene pools, at the obvious and inevitable cost of biological damage to those they are meant to represent. The analogy that seemed to fit best was as some kind of a biological Ponzi scheme. This (small herd) engages in strict non-disruption of their fertile boat as the modus operandi, rather than engaging in genuine forward thinking for the benefit of those being “represented “. This type of environment is equally available for the lower tiers of this non-productive redistributive “class”, and obvious example would be say people who work in our councils pretending to be working for their rates’ payers whereas in actual fact the primary goal is that of fleecing the tax kitty for personal benefit.
- [ ] The big cluster defines the granules, but the granules then choose to act alike.
- [ ] I say, mainly. Not necessarily everyone. But with the top-led boom of same-think neoliberal order over the last 30 years, this psychology of corruption and parasitism seems to have become a firm rule.
- [ ] Their pretend work is abstract and not measurable. Failures are always explained away as other people’s faults. Putin is the clear culprit for the last 20 years of world’s misfortunes. And given that this type of parasitic life choice can only be sustained for as long as the illusion of worth and value and exceptionalism is maintained, anyone perceived as blowing that cover is a mortal threat and must be destroyed. An ideological enemy, indeed. Not just the anti-Europe Russians, but absolutely anyone who dares question this particular Ponzi.
J’ai répondu au dessus, je me suis trompé de bouton…
The consequence of my indispensable effort of conciseness is unfortunately an apparent simplification of my point of view. As I said, I carefully use "Washington" and not "the United States" to designate the small group of furious "neocons" that governs the globalist policy (stateless by nature) that is raging today. And again, these few terms imply mechanisms and ideologies that take their roots far beyond the conquest of America and are therefore much more complicated than "it's America's fault". Where you are right, although I would present it otherwise, is that before having consequences on European policy, it is on the United States itself that these influences have disastrous consequences, enough to fill the pages of a big book, which is probably about to grow heavily!
I could mention the notions of "thalassocratic and tellurocratic powers" and the deep implications that this implies in global geopolitics, or international law, but it would fill entire pages too, (without being exhaustive to explain the major historical trends). By this axis of analysis too, I think I can say that the ideological opposition you describe between Europe and Russia is wrong. It is true if you consider the English influence in the European construction, and England is indeed more anti-Russian than any other nation. However, this is not the case with France, to name only this country.
I regret not being able to go into more detail in my arguments, maybe it's time for me too to be more courageous and share my points of view on a blog!
Thank you again.
Amen to that and thank you.
"Take a senior official of the Foreign Ministry of a medium-sized country, responsible for political affairs. Every telegram, every letter, every email every communiqué, every media summary that crosses his or her desk has the same message: Ukraine in winning, we must keep up pressure on Putin, the sanctions are working and whilst there may be some limited short-term pain, it’s worth it. Every conversation with an opposite number, every speech written, every interview, every debate in parliament, every bilateral or multilateral meeting, every TV channel in every language, is saying the same thing. Our poor official, working probably twelve hours a day at least six days a week and travelling often, doesn’t have the leisure or the energy, even if they had the knowledge and experience, to challenge the accepted narrative."
They should call and visit Budapest for some reality check...
https://www.gettyimages.no/detail/news-photo/man-passes-by-a-poster-depicting-a-bomb-reading-we-are-news-photo/1244054448
"Compared to what". The alternatives to sanctions are WWIII or letting Russia gradually take over Eurooe. Which do you prefer?
This is the same sort of "either or" response that I get about complex situations all the time -- repetition hasn't made it any more convincing, I'm afraid.
Oh -- and the next time Russia attempts to "take over Europe" will also be the first.
Your answer implies that you believe without question the propaganda put out by the 'west'. You should look into some other points of view. Also, consider the following (nor exhaustive) list of points:
1) The US organised a coup in Ukraine which toppled the legal president. At the same time, neo-Nazi elements in the Ukraine became enmeshed in the power structure, especially in the Army.
2) The Ukraine than passed laws banning the use of the Russian Language, and other discriminatory measures against Ukranian Russian speakers.
3) The Russian speakesr in Luhansk and Donbass then decided to oppose these measures by force after other means had been rejected by Kiev.
4) The Ukranian regime reacted by shelling civilians in these areas. Since 2014 approximately 14,000 civilians including women and children have lost their lives to shelling by their fellow countrymen.
5) Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine drew up the Minsk treaty to solve the problem. All these nations signed it.
6) Ukraine consistently refused to stick to the terms of the treaty it had signed. France and Germany made no effort to persuade them. A modification to the treaty was made, with the same result.
7) Zelensky declared that he wanted to join NATO and also wanted to revive the Ukraine's nuclear weapon capacity. The 'west' agreed with the NATO propsal, and ignored Russian concerns (unlike in the similar case of the Cuba Crisis).
8) Putin proposed to the west that they meet and agree a security treaty which would solve the whole matter.
9) The west and Ukraine ignored this proposal, even though Putin warned that there would be consequences.
10) These consequences are now on-going.
Couldn't you imagine sanctions that would actually hurt Russia more then West?
Opening drilling for oil and gas everywhere and massive subsidies into production rather then trying to tighten supply - with obvious disastrous consequences that give all cards to Putin and OPEC that agrees with him?
NOT trying to cut Russia off from financial system (to which Russia responded with very effective capital controls) but encouraging every company to flee Russia to drain their reserves instead?
Doing "worst thing we could think of over a weekend" then doubling down as "we cannot back off because it will play into Putin's hand" just exacerbates European weakness and plays into Putin's hand even more.
And he still has a lot of moves remaining on escalation ladder while Europe now seems stuck without anything effective in their arsenal, with only hope that eventually things they already implemented will work (which isn't obvious at all).