Ukraine War, 29 August 2022, Q&A Session, Part 1
Good morning everybody!
Not much is going on (at least there are no major changes on the frontline), so today I’ll take care to start answering a few of questions that are asked quite often, recently.
This Part 1 is going to address a ‘group of questions’ related to the Western behaviour vis-à-vis Ukraine. Although I’ve addressed these several times already, I’m still getting the same questions again and again. Essentially, why aren’t USA and NATO delivering much more to Ukraine? What is this depending upon?
Yes, the USA have just announced another defence package worth US$ 3 billion, but check the content: ammo and air defence systems, of which the latter are still months away from entering service. Far from enough or what Ukraine needs the most to counter the Russian artillery superiority. Foremost, the European-part of NATO actually pledged no new arms deliveries for over a month. Bottom line: except for training provided by (and, sometimes: in) different NATO-members, useful for ‘producing’ about 15,000 new and well-trained Ukrainian combatants a month, nothing of what is currently underway to Ukraine is going to change the situation on the frontline.
Logical questions are such like: are they (Western decision-makers) all blind, insane, or where is the problem? Are they scared of Putin? Or, is this conflict ‘already’ an ‘industrial war’, and the West just can’t manufacture and deliver more…?
Before I go on, let me observe that in reaction to my commentary about the War in Ukraine, and alone in the last six months, I’ve been called almost everything, ranging from ‘Nazi’ to ‘left-wing’ and ‘conspiracy theoretician’, not to talk about a ‘group’ of funniest names that’s in style of, ‘liar, because he published about Iran-Iraq War’….
I consider myself neither ‘left-‘ nor ‘right-wing’; no ‘centre’ either. I’m pro common sense and reason: unsurprisingly, haven’t found any political parties ‘worth’ my vote for more than a decade already. Sure, what I sometimes write is certain to appear as ‘left-wing’ to many, because I’m often blaming ‘oligarchy’ and ‘defence sector’ for different of Western failures. However, for me, terminology like ‘left-‘ and ‘right-‘ wing, Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism etc — is all hopelessly obsolete.
The reason is that nowadays the situation of ‘Western democracies’ is reminiscent of that of many of monarchies from 100, 200, 300, 400…and more years ago — when the principal problem of societies was the need to separate state from religion.
Ironically, ‘Western democracies’ have developed in countries that have managed this feat. However, just like religion was (and, frequently, still is) misused for the purpose of upping one or other party, nowadays the ‘old’ religion has been replaced by a new one, which is as misused as frequently and as severely as the old religion. This new religion is what I call the ‘Saint Economy’.
De-facto every single politician I know, no matter where, is acting like economy is some sort of religion. Indeed, like it’s sacrosanct and a dogma. And, of course, it’s got to be ‘free economy’.
From my POV, ‘freedom’ does include free economy but, sacrificing everything, including our freedom, safety and the environment for the economy — that’s insane. Reason is logical: one can’t have endless growth on a planet with limited resources.
Foremost, what kind of ‘free economy’ is it where businesses dominating the economy (see: oligarchy) and thus the politics (see ‘lobbying’) — are hampering research and development of new economies for the sake of securing own dominance and market shares — as is the standard practice for 100+ years, meanwhile? Classic examples are such like the oil/gas sector braking the development of alternative energies; car industry braking the development of alternatives of combustion engines; rocket industry braking development of alternatives to rockets etc., etc., etc. and, all together (especially in combination with banks and insurances) are making sure the ‘pitchfork-people’ to remain convinced the ‘torch-people’ want to take away their pitchforks (replace pitchfork-people and torch-people with left- or right-wing as you find suitable).
Result is that our Western democracies are, in their current state, little else but kleptocracies: the dictatorship of the rich and powerful, in which the oligarchy is bribing the politics into legislating in its favour, instead in favour of the people the politics is supposed to represent. And if there is a problem with doing this, then the oligarchy is bribing the media into convincing the public that it’s right, and whoever is opposing it — is/are wrong.
(Should there be any doubts about this, just check the attempts to reform the Pentagon and the US arms acquisition processes of recent years — all of which have, ‘miraculously’, failed….)
This is why I’m neither left- nor right-wing, but pro separating state from economy: we must find a way to effect an end to political corruption (through prevention of the so-called ‘lobbying’, first and foremost). If we can’t, the system of public control over the politics is going to continue failing, with the net result of all of us having only ever less freedoms — both in regards of our right to free speech, and thus political life, and in regards of economy.
Negative effects of such developments in the politics can be ‘translated’ to relations USA & NATO vis-à-vis Ukraine. The situation is resulting in the oligarchy of the defence sector (and not only the defence…) bribing politicians into the decision to ‘re-arm USA/NATO’ — and that as first. The defence sector (including our armed forces) is preaching our politicians (and bribing them) that USA and NATO ‘must’ buy new weapons systems, and a lot of them (because, you know, a) China is the biggest threat, and b) one can’t be sure Ukrainians are going to manage stopping the Russian advance…)
Of course, I have no say in this regards, but to me, it would be logical to consider an ongoing war a bigger priority than any kind of theoretical war — even more so if actions in that ongoing war are certain to prevent a theoretical war . However, from that, greed-dominated and profit-oriented, point of view, this way of thinking is somewhere between ‘doesn’t matter’ and ‘counterproductive’.
(Ironically, similar principles are valid for our exploding energy prices — which are exploding because the system of determining energy prices in the West is based on securing the dominance of the oil/gas sector, and thus neither related to actual prices, nor consumption…. i.e. it’s counterproductive to the level of being completely insane. But hey, you’re a ‘Marxist’ and want to ‘impose dictatorship’ and ‘kill free enterprise’ if you just try to say so…)
Nope. What does matter is for the defence sector to continue cashing profit from taxpayer’s money being wasted to ‘re-arm’ USA and NATO. For years in advance, please.
Usual explanation is that this is so because the ‘economy must secure jobs’, ‘stability’ and ‘security’ etc. Actually, this is nonsense: the oligarchy can’t care less about jobs. If it could, it would replace everybody by robots, decades ago. It can’t care less about ‘stability’: volatile times, crises etc. are perfect for rapid cashing and increasing profit. And, it can’t care less about public security: it’s safe in its own ‘fortresses’, well away from the public.
Instead, it must secure profit through retaining economic- and political dominance.
Therefore, the USA and NATO are placing big orders for new weapons, for their own armed forces — to secure profit for the defence sector, all in the name of ‘Saint Economy’. Ukraine ‘can wait’, and even if — i.e. if it gets any weapons — then foremost newly-made ones, because that’s the best way of securing yet additional profit for the defence sector.
(And no: this is not related to industrial warfare. If the politicians use enough taxpayer’s money to pay for it, the defence sector is going to jump-start ‘printing’ stuff like M777s, and the related ammunition — a telephone-call-later.)
Should there be any doubts about this, keep in mind that thousands of M109s, M198s, different MBTs and whatever else are kept stored, ‘in reserve’. — in the USA, and all over the European-part of NATO. Problem: they’ve already been paid by taxpayers, and thus aren’t interesting for the defence sector. At most, they are ‘counterproductive’. Thus, ‘leave them where they are and forget about them’.
Hand on heart, this is a very simple, greed-driven principle, actually — and then one resulting in the usual way the West is fighting wars for 50+ years already: fight to profit, not fight to win. The principle that then results in ‘never-ending’ wars like that in the DR Congo, Vietnam, or Afghanistan, Iraq…. All securing handsome profits, for decades already — but no political solutions.
Hope, this is answering your related questions and I can close this part of discussion, once and for all.
(…to be continued…)
