Amerika

I have been caught up with other pursuits this week, and am only returning here to find that the world is in a static state of panic at what many feel is WW3 kicking off in the Ukraine.

Let us see if our big brains can make sense of this.

First, we know the war occurred now because Russia is an underdog and therefore pursues a strategy of opportunism. A weak American president, or one distracted with another war, is an opportunity for Russia to take back its former territories.

While the Soviet Union was “in theory” a union of republics, in actuality it was Russia addressing the problem of its geopolitical position. Russia is in Eurasia, therefore straddles Europe and Asia, with the middle east at its groin.

No one envies this position. Russia is forever like the police officer sent out to a domestic violence call where the man is beating up his girlfriend.

If the police officer seizes the man, the woman will likely attack. Bizarre as it is, she will switch loyalties because now the police are taking away her man and basis of the support she needs, even if he beats her regularly.

(Do women love violence? The math is more elemental than that: like heat-death, indifference is the worst curse in a relationship. If he is beating her, he still cares on some level. This is why abused children become schizophrenic: they need their abusers, and fear that if the abuse stops, there will be nothing. Voters in a democracy behave the same way, as victims of narcissists who cannot bear the fear of what might occur after the abuser leaves.)

If the police officer seizes the woman, that leaves the party most likely to be violent — the man — free to attack the police officer. This is why the first thing a police officer does is try to bully the man into complacency, then calls for backup if that fails.

Russia stands between the East and West. If it allies with one, the other will beat up on it, and neutrality is tricky because neither side will trust it and therefore will see it as an opportunity go full Napoleon/Stalingrad on Russia.

In other words, Russia is a loose cannon that both Europe and China would like to manage. Worse, Russia is internally unstable because of its mixed-race genetics, being formed of escaped French and German serfs who took Asian, Turkish, Armenian, and Semitic (Arab/Jewish) wives and then absorbed waves of outcasts from Western Europe.

Russia was last stable under the rule of Western European aristocrats who made the same invisible mistake they did in France: by improving the living conditions, infrastructure, and social order, they allowed the serfs to overpopulate, at which point the serfs overthrew the aristocrats.

Those aristocrats forgot their Darwinism in their zeal to be good to others, assuming that those others would recognize good was being done to them (in violation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect).

This is similar to what happened in America, by the way. The Anglos assumed that when they brought over the Irish, the potato people would just camp out in their little Irish work camps and thank the whisky gods for having let them live in a place more prosperous than Ireland. We see how well that worked out.

In reality, when you bring in any group of foreigners, they face a binary choice: either admit that their origins suck and become servants, or go into denial and invent some story about how they were oppressed because one percent of the native majority owned slaves or ten percent of Anglos ran “No Irish Need Apply” ads so they could avoid being burgled by their drunken maids and groundskeepers.

In the case of Russia, everyone was a foreigner, but the majority of mixed-race people resented the higher-IQ Western European aristocrats, so they killed them and replaced them with the Will of the People, something that always tends toward “no consequences” plus “externalized social costs and subsidies,” a.k.a. socialism or its militarized form because socialism does not work, Communism.

So: internally unstable nation in permanently unstable external environment. This cannot end well, and historically it has not. Russia finds itself defined by two things, its inability to make an economy, and its buffer zone.

The economic part requires little explanation. Low-IQ populations do one thing in relation to high-IQ populations, and that involves mowing lawns and doing domestic work. The Russians are the Mexicans or Palestinians of Western Europe.

Consequently, Russia will perpetually be the underdog. The end of WW2 was an anomaly created by a leader who was willing to sacrifice everyone else for himself.

He perfected the Asian way of warfare, which involves not so much defeating the enemy as covered ground with so many troops that the enemy is destabilized. Russians win by showing up in such numbers that they own the battlefield.

Even the best army in the world can do little when outnumbered 20-to-1, even if the Russian tanks barely run and explode instantly when hit and their guns jam every fifty rounds.

As the underdog, Russia waits for Europe or Asia to be distracted before making its moves. Then it sends in the troop surge and hopes for the best, especially if its economy is as usual not doing so well.

This is where Putin is now, and leads us to the second point. Russia always wants two buffer zones, one with Asia and one with the West. When the West is weak, Russia reclaims lands bordering the West.

Why buffer zones? It makes Russia more powerful. They can launch attacks directly into Western Europe, while Western Europeans have to make the trek that the German knights tried at Novgorod, King Gustav III tried, Napoleon tried, and Hitler attempted.

For Russia, success in battle involves bringing the invader through mud and ice until his supply lines are too thin, then presenting him target spam, or too many warm bodies to shoot them all.

At that point the invader is overwhelmed by the swarm and takes losses that send him back home in defeat. The Russians take huge losses, too, but for a population with a subsistence economy where overpopulation has always been an issue, this is not really a deterrent.

Third, Russia wants warm water ports. Its only sea access occurs in frigid places but connections to the Black Sea and Mediterranean, via Crimea, would enhance its trade and military prospects.

Take these three together, and you see why Russia has been steadily recapturing and absorbing former Soviet republics like Georgia and Ukraine. It will take the Baltics if it can, too.

After all, the Soviets ventured into Afghanistan to set up a buffer zone against China, and routinely intervened in the middle east to counterbalance Israel, much as they tried to create a worldwide network of fellow travelers.

Putin used a simple scheme in Ukraine. He set up a puppet revolution, and then came in to intervene when it was threatened by Ukraine, which wants to resist Russian assimilation by cracking down on these fake secessionist movements.

For whatever reason, he jumped the gun; most likely, the Ukrainians were doing a better job of beating back the faux revolutionaries than he expected. Consequently he tried a limited assault on Ukraine.

Where things stand now, it is clear that the Putin plan has failed simply because Ukraine is not under his control already. He now faces the prospect of a prolonged war with higher casualties, which is always what happens when a lightning strike fails.

Someone helped Ukraine prep. My bet is on Trump, but the NATO guys are not idiots and they are very familiar with the type of plan that Putin is now executing because it was his plan for Western Europe.

According to the Soviet battle plan, the goal was to preserve the element of surprise and dispatch special forces teams to secure key bridges, capitals, and communication facilities in advance of a mass invasion by regulars.

At that point, the Soviets would have had enough personnel and machinery in Western Europe to be impossible to dislodge, and the war would be — if not won — at least relatively unlosable.

Such a plan only works if it happens with the element of surprise and occurs quickly enough to paralyze the enemy. That has not happened in the Ukraine. They were ready for the Russians and knew how to fight them.

Interestingly the Ukrainians immediately went to guerrilla war status. They distributed their weapons in small stores around the country, away from the big warehouses that were sure to get blasted by Russian missiles.

They also spread out their personnel. No point having your army in one big facility that is sure to get bombed when you need them out there at every crossroads and bridge.

The Ukrainian approach involves holding territory, which forces the Russians to hit back with massed attacks, which in turn takes Russian forces from other territory which can then be recaptured.

Somehow all of these Ukrainians are out there with AK-47s, Javelin missiles, and Stingers destroying the invading force. They do not need to kill them all, just enough that Russian forces cannot hold enough territory.

Putin is in a high-stakes game of whack-a-mole and the goal is to force him to either commit to sending in a huge Russian military detachment, at which point NATO gets involved, or back out.

I do not see Putin as some hero for the Right. He is an ex-KGB colonel, and he was at least once a believer in the Soviet system. He seems to have adopted a Right-wing Christian cover story, but it is unclear if anyone believes it.

More likely, he is like every other person, idea, group, or entity working for his own advancement. Mostly that means staying in power; he also seems to genuinely care for his people, at least when it does not conflict with staying in power.

As a result, Putin wants to unite his country around an ambition of greatness, something which left with the fall of the Soviet Union for the same reason Germany has been demoralized and low-T/self-confidence since 1945 like a 4chan NEET with halitosis and obesity.

His goal here was probably to invade Ukraine, beat it into submission, and force it to accept as a concession the loss of its Eastern territories. At that point, more Russians start flowing across the border into Ukraine.

We know that the Soviets did this in the Baltics, depositing lots of ethnic Russians in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania in order to destroy the native culture so the Soviets could take over. Diversity is a weapon of genocide and conquest.

Over time, this would let Putin take the rest of the Ukraine in chunks until he had enough to browbeat the rest of them into voting to join Russia, or perhaps a new Eurasian Union with Russia, China, and the Arab middle east. Maybe even India.

He wants to subjugate one of the two groups that threaten him — Europe and Asia — and he has chosen the West. He tried to gain financial control with the Nordstream 2 pipeline, since Germany would not rebel against its oil supply.

However, he raised prices too early, proving Trump right about the risks, and Europe pulled back. This accelerated plans to bring Ukraine into the NATO fold, and this may have forced Putin to move forward his timetable.

Like all world leaders, he is simply doing what he thinks is best, but it conflicts with what we need in the West. Russia can never be anything but an impediment to us, since it allies with China regularly, as Putin has done.

He has cultivated a group of Useful Idiots in the West who, in the interests of personal ironism, have taken to supporting Russia against a West they see as decadent and racist against Whites.

Any of these on the Right make us into the same clown show that Leftists were in the 1930s-1980s period. Do not support the enemy, and view anyone who is not an ally as the enemy.

Russia can never be our ally, since its interests run contrary to ours. Russia would like to own Western Europe and use it to prop up the failing Russian economy, even though this would fail brutally over time.

The Chinese hope for the same. They have a ticking clock over their heads with their own economy. Mao wanted to reduce the population and make China self-sufficient; the Xi doctrine goes the other way.

Contemporary China wants to conquer lots of rich areas like Hong Kong and Taiwan, then conquer the West, and use that wealth to prop up its own failing economic system. This is the Mongol Method™ dating back to long before Genghis Khan.

If viewed properly, Genghis Khan may have been the first major bungler in modern history. Of mixed-race and low origins, he was driven by resentment and revenge, and after killing his way to the top, he launched a disastrous war.

He got lucky in terms of timing. The rest of the world had just adapted to heavy warfare based on sieges and machines; the Mongols rode light and fast, and attacked by crowding the enemy and aiming for his weak points.

They found this worked less well in Western Europe where people were prepared for long sieges and could turn their expertise with the sword and bow against the horsemen from the East.

At some point, he realized that casualties would be too high and backed off, but he could not ever make a functional economy, nor a competent political system.

Despite creating a modern style bureaucracy, including diversity and tolerance, the Khan made an empire based on trade and productivity stalled in the lands he occupied. Not surprisingly his empire dissolved a couple short centuries later.

China will do the same. Their economy does not work because it is bottom-heavy like all of Asia except Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, all of whom are coincidentally geared toward capitalism and competition like the West.

Asia probably matured before other civilizations and failed early because it insisted on strong bureaucratic, managerial, and administrative control in order to keep the group together.

In the Asian belief, which is higher-IQ but not high-IQ, the Russian way of warfare can be applied to society: get everyone to the mines, doing the same thing the same way at the same time, and you multiply production.

As it turns out, this fails because you need people to occupy niches where detailed tasks need carrying out, not just bulk labor. This is the mistake a wealthy, bottom-heavy society with more peasants than middle class will make.

Therefore, if allowed, China and Russia will form an alliance, take over the world, run it into the ground, and collapse. The ensuing mixed-race world nightmare will breed itself into obedient, intelligent, but oblivious people just like most of Asia.

We can see the high cost of civilization collapse in what it has done genetically and spiritually to Asians. They achieved equality, all right, by spreading around traits until their people were basically very similar and genius was vanishingly rare.

Asiatic-style centralized and standardized bureaucratic systems always lead to this result, which is the same reason that Soviet Communism failed just as hard as the ambitious mutualist communes and distributist communities in the USA and Europe.

Putin finds himself trying to discover a middle ground between Western decadence and Eastern uniformity.

Unlike Western politicians, Putin realizes that his success depends on making his people feel national pride, not engage in endless guilt and purity spiraling. This allows him to act decisively instead of watching poll results.

He wants a buffer zone against the unstable West because in the Eurasian context, insecure regimes always start wars in order to unify their people and jump start their economies. Arguably FDR and Churchill did the same, long ago.

If the West wants to work with Russia, I suggest the Trump method: treat them as competition not enemies and encourage them to make a self-sustaining economy. Treat them fairly but warily, like you would any competition.

Now Putin has to decide whether to commit all 150k of the troops he has massed on the Ukrainian border, knowing that doing so would spur NATO response. He may have already provoked a NATO response.

If NATO responds, it will likely attack Russian possessions, its economy, or its shipping and not directly invade Russia itself. While modern supply lines could overcome Russian winter ice and spring mud, other risks present themselves.

The classic cold war nuclear escalation scenario involves either the Soviets or NATO invading its enemy and winning to the point that tactical nuclear weapons, or battlefield nukes, are used.

Almost no one believes that after the first nuke, strategic nukes or city-erasers like the ones that ended WW2 in the Pacific would not be employed.

Consequently, Putin finds himself in a vice. As the hours tick by without a seizure of Ukraine, he finds himself enmeshed in a quagmire. If he acts to win, he may find himself kicking off a wider conflict.

This will most likely not be WW3. The Left has been talking up that possibility not because they believe it, since WW3 did not erupt after the seizure of Georgia or the Crimea, but because they want to distract from the failing SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 narrative.

The Russians are partially right when they say that the West is decadent. After the Wall fell and the Cold War ended, the West no longer had to fear Communist assimilation so went full-Leftist following the 1930s ideals with which Boomers were raised.

As it turns out, all egalitarian philosophies, even classical liberalism, set us on the path to Communism. Step one foot on that path and eventually you arrive at a total State and soon after, an equally impoverished and disspirited population.

Much as the Bolsheviks purged Western Europeans from Russia, the Americans and Europeans are now trying to replace Western Europeans (“Whites”) with third world people. They will end up with a population like Italians, Spaniards, Russians, Irish, or Jews: mostly White with enough other stuff mixed in to prevent White focus on civilization instead of simply personal wealth, since the latter is the Asian method that allows the bureaucrats there to have total Control.

Putin may seem to be avoiding the ideology of the West, but in reality, he is avoiding the mistakes of the West that are obvious to everyone but our leaders:

Western leaders still do not understand Mr. Putin. Most of them see that he is not just another colorless timeserver who thinks that appointing a record number of female economists to the board of his central bank constitutes a historic accomplishment.

In the same way, accusing Mr. Putin, even accurately, of planning or committing atrocities may weaken him among human-rights activists in the West, but it may strengthen him at home and in Ukraine. Stalin’s well-earned reputation for utter ruthlessness did not undercut his power. Letting the world know that Mr. Putin has a kill list for Ukraine is more likely, Mr. Putin may believe, to reduce resistance to his rule in Ukraine than to boost it.

In other words, in the West we have replaced hard power with ideological appeasement of our voting population, especially the diversity, and it has made us thoroughly weak.

Russia in the meantime sees the expansion of the West as a threat not for ideological reasons, but because the Russian spirit is paranoid owing to its Eurasian position. The West coming closer, to them, means the West will invade.

This reflects Russia understanding the West as if the West were a Russia located far away. In the West, we know that we need nothing from Russia but must be wary of its military ambitions, so we seek to pen it in and let it live or die on its own merits.

He does not however understand democracy. If you follow the history of democratic wars — the USS Maine, Gulf of Tokin, USS Pueblo, WMDs in Iraq, Pearl Harbor, and the Zimmerman Telegram — it becomes clear that democracies cannot act proactively, only defensively.

In the egalitarian mental sphere, it is considered impermissible to attack another simply because he is wrong; instead, you route around him. However, if he attacks you, he has violated the egalitarian creed, and any amount of insane violence is not only justified but necessary to show egalitarian strength.

As long as Putin played the victim, he could get away with anything, but as the aggressor he has united Democracy Inc. against him. It did not take long for Leftists to style Putin as the new Kaiser:

Putin is also motivated by a deep opposition to democracy more broadly. That is why he has waged a long-running shadow war to destabilize free societies and discredit democratic institutions in the United States and around the world.

There it is: the dogwhistle. Egalitarians send up this signal when they detect that someone has violated the basic idea of egalitarianism, which is that there can be no hierarchy based on ability, as that would infringe on the individualism of some members of the Crowd by pointing out that they are unrealistic, selfish, narcissistic, insane, or incompetent.

Pluralism thrives on mutual collective reward and mediocrity. When no one can criticize anyone else, peace reigns, and business takes over despite the constant Leftist signaling of those in power.

This happy oblivious world decays slowly, moreso than Communism, but also provides good living for enough people that they panic at attempts to unseat it or replace it.

For this reason, democracy will sleep through any number of crises until it can provoke an attack on itself, and any leader clueless enough to step into that trap has just united the “free world” against him, like Hitler or recently Hussein.

My guess is that Trump treated Putin fairly but viewed him as a business competition, i.e. someone who would take whatever he would be allowed to get. Obama weakly allowed Russia and China to stomp all over the world. Biden has done the same, even signaling American weakness in Iraq and Afghanistan much as he does domestically with the collapse of law and order and the totalitarian censorship and repression of the COVID-19 regime in the US, Europe, and Canada.

As part of that wariness, Trump made sure that the Ukrainians had a battle plan for resisting Russia long enough to make a quagmire. This seems to involve little heaps of antitank and anti-aircraft weaponry scattered around the country, and troops dispersed to small battalions capable of holding terrain.

Putin now finds himself facing a stronger Ukraine and a unified West which is going to use these events as an excuse to seal off Russian and Chinese economic activity so that the West can restore its own.

The great COVID-19 economic gutting will devastate the West, but in this scenario, it devastates China and Russia more, so the West will emerge as the one man standing much as it did after WW2.

Further complicating things, Putin has now committed himself to a prolonged and costly war:

The problem for authoritarian leaders is that they get little corrections and feedback along the way. Putin has been at the top for over 20 years now, I think no one comes to the tsar with bad news. It has a dangerous side that he can often make misjudgments.

I think Putin has considered this war to be much easier than it will be. I think he has underestimated Ukraine’s ability to resist, and the unity and sanctions of the West.

It may well be that they want talks, but it is completely unlikely that Russia will stop before they have occupied large parts of Ukraine.

In other words, Putin may have gone to war to unify his people because his economy like that in China is flagging to the point that its demise has become inevitable, but now he will face discontent at home as he suffers another Afghanistan style war.

He is not wrong, nor is the far-Right, that Democracy Inc. has run its course. All of the West is bankrupt because it insisted on Communist-style social benefits, and it has imported foreigners to keep the Left in power despite having spent all our cash on buying votes with luxuries.

America was not weaker before public schooling, welfare, social security, EMTALA/medi-obamacare, and school grants. In fact, none of those things have made us stronger, nor have benefits made Europe anything but more bloated.

In the current time, we are seeing the most common of complex errors, the multiple bungle or multibungle. The West has bungled by following democracy and equality to their end point; Russia has bungled by jumping the gun and instead, unifying the West against Russia.

All of these nations have been buying off their populations in order to avoid French Revolution and American Civil War scenarios, using civil rights to enforce equality, to the point where now, we are almost as totalitarian as the Soviets.

This means that regime change is on the horizon, but likely it will not be instigated by Russia, but internally. Putin threatens this process with a distracting war. If he backs out now, he will achieve his ends faster.

Tags: afghanistan, russia, soviet union, ukraine