Do They Really Want a War With Russia as a Parting Gift?

The Ukraine debacle has never made any sense by the explanations given, but this move may be the worst.

How do you respond to an electoral drubbing?

The standard expectation is a period of soul-searching and reflection. Whether prompted by genuine questioning of the positions that led to defeat, or merely a power-hungry desire to appear to be remorseful so that you can get back into power as swiftly as possible, the expectation is that the losing party spends a bit of time thinking.

Defeat requires remorse if you genuinely desire a moral change, and the appearance of remorse if you are a strategist simply looking to reverse the loss.

This is not, of course, how Democrats have responded to losing.

We have all seen the screams and tantrums, the tears and the broken TV screens. We have all heard the rage of losers and the howls of the psychologically damaged.

The departing President, however, struck a note at odds with the despair of his party and its voters. Joe seemed rather pleased with it all, as if he didn’t want Kamala to win. It was almost as if he had some resentment about being unceremoniously shoved aside which platitudinous post-mortem praise did not assuage. Alone among senior Democrats, Joe was beaming. And when he met with Trump (saying ‘welcome back”) he seemed more coherent too, as if his handlers had eased up on the meds for a bit.

Odd that. Why would Joe be happy and coherent all of a sudden? It’s a mystery.

He even sat through that meeting with Trump without apparent difficult, at ease, genial, even welcoming. It was pretty remarkable to see Joe so comfortable with Adolf Hitler all of a sudden, as if those accusations, so important a little while ago, were actually bullshit.

But maybe this too was just a different form of lie. Maybe Joe was devastated that Kamala lost. Maybe he was just as furious with Trump’s victory as the howling ladies (of every gender) are.

After all, destroying your television set looks borderline reasonable compared to, say, starting a war with Russia.

Call me old fashioned but I’d put starting a war with Russia down as crazier than screaming and sobbing and calling everyone racist again.

Because Joe Biden and his handlers haven’t thrown something at the TV. They have, out of a seemingly petulant and destructive desire to simply hand their successor as big a mess as possible, authorised Ukraine to fire long range missiles (supplied by the US) at targets deep in Russian territory.

Now this isn’t the first time such a move has been discussed. When those missiles were supplied to Ukraine, Putin and Russia made it very, very clear that they would consider their use an act of war from the USA. Not from Ukraine. From the USA and the NATO alliance. Putin stated that the Russians believed those missiles could only be deployed by US or NATO personnel, that the Ukrainians would not be competent to do it. Now that may be true or untrue but the overall point was very clear. Using those missiles to strike at targets deep in Russia would mean that Russia considered itself at war with the USA and with NATO.

Putin’s most recent statement is that long range missile barrages into Russia would justify a nuclear response. After all, this is the existential threat to the integrity of the nation that Putin previously cited as the condition for nuclear escalation.

A sane western world might have taken those comments seriously. Even as an apocalyptic version of Pascal’s wager, it might finally be time to take Russian red lines seriously. One of the reasons the Cold War never went hot is because both sides, in the end, took the other side seriously and took the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction seriously as well.

But our current leaders are not serious people at all. The puppets they install are not serious. The institutions they worship are no longer serious. And the powers behind the thrones aren’t serious either. For seriousness requires an adult recognition of limits, even if there isn’t a moral recognition of limits. Our globalist elite, being essentially soulless and no more able to restrain themselves than a cloud of locusts are able to turn down a fresh field, have never had a serious policy towards Russia following the end of the Cold War. They simply assumed that they could march in and steal everything, got very petulant when Putin’s nationalist authoritarian rescue of his nation prevented that, and then used Ukraine as a proxy back-door to make a sustained second attempt.

That’s the real imperative behind the fake moral outrage regarding a Russian invasion.

The West under globalist leadership has acted for years as if the Russians are incapable of responding to mistreatment, insult and proxy attack with anything other then abject surrender and startled fear. All of the provocations leading up to the Russian invasion were ones the Russians had spent twenty years articulating. Our leaders imagined that everything the Russians said was a lie. It left them in an odd position.

On the one hand we were told that Putin was a slavering beast determined on world conquest. On the other hand the same people acted as if no action could ever possibly force the Russians to respond. For some reason, no matter what we did, Putin would remain inhumanly calm. Neither he nor Russia meant a thing by any declared red line. Neither he nor Russia would ever respond to the West arming his enemies, propping up his enemies and encouraging his enemies to strike at Russian civilian targets far from the Ukrainian battlefront.

In a version of Schrödinger’s cat, western policy assumed that Putin could simultaneously be a megalomaniac dictator bent on world conquest and a man with such a patient and pacifistic nature that you could act as if you are at war with him, without him declaring war on you. War hungry lunatic or peace loving imperturbable Saint it is impossible to provoke? Both, our leaders seem to believe-we must oppose and fight him because he is the first, and we can do it in any shitty way we please without him responding, because he is the second too.

The cognitive dissonance in that is pretty terrifying in its own right.

Still, if you really do OK a move that finally makes DIRECT war with Russia unavoidable, purely to put your successor in the mire, or purely in petulant response to having lost an election, that certainly does rank as the most criminally insane action imaginable. It exceeds the corruption and waste of the funding of the war, the recklessness of the interference and sponsoring of coups that set Ukraine and Russia on a collision course in the first place, and even the loathsome Biden sanctioned Boris Johnson intervention which prevented an early peace deal being agreed by the Zelenskyy government some 4 or 5 hundred thousand deaths ago.

Biden of course has been a puppet through his entire unearned term, and a figurehead more and more obviously steered by powers above himself. With his combined dementia and dishonesty, it’s possible that he doesn’t even recall having earlier stated that the supply of long range missiles or the deployment of US forces would be a mistake. That would mirror the apparent forgetfulness regarding first stating that the supply of fighter jets would mean outright war with Russia, then going ahead and supplying them anyway. But even a puppet and his masters should know that the transition period is not really the best time to launch a new war. A departing President in the transition period really doesn’t have a mandate to do anything except enable a smooth transition or at most pursue legal avenues against any suspicious electoral result. Those are really all he can legitimately do, and the Democrats worked very hard to delegitimise the second of those.

Instead, we see a step taken that, whether prompted by petulance or calculation, is an astonishingly casual way to risk an escalation of conflict with the world’s largest nuclear armed power other than the US itself. Knowing full well that Trump will pursue peace negotiations, they seem to want to do everything in their power in the weeks remaining to them to bring the conflict into the realm of a declared war between two nations with nuclear stockpiles.

Even Zelenskky has stated that Trump will bring a peaceful end to the war.

But apparently it’s a war we cannot allow to end. Apparently it’s perfectly reasonable for a defeated, departing administration to escalate the war and entangle the West even more deeply in its growing lunacy and utterly unwarranted risks.

Moves such as this confirm why Trump’s election was so important in the first place. Simplistic moralists may still be reluctant to place any blame on the West, or on Zelenskky’s government in Ukraine, for the conflict. Putin invaded a sovereign nation, therefore Putin is the aggressor and therefore too this aggression requires absolute responses. Only complete support of Ukraine and only complete Russian defeat is acceptable.

Trump has never taken such an asinine line.

But we should reiterate just how stupid the ‘moral argument’ for unending Ukraine interventionism really is. It requires the believer to ignore all the provocative actions and all the corrupt qualities of both the Ukrainian government and western interference leading up to the war. Ignore the suspicious elements of the coup that ousted an elected more Russia friendly leader. Ignore the presence of leading neocon US hawks in Ukraine as that coup unfolded. Ignore the subsequent 14,000 deaths before the Russian invasion. Ignore the decades of warnings about Russian red lines. Ignore the expansion of NATO to Russian borders. Ignore the promises that this would never happen that were given to Russia. Ignore the Russian compliance with Accords designed to prevent the war, and Ukraine and its western sponsors breaking those accords before the Russian response. Ignore the Nazi and neo Nazi elements of Ukraine and within Ukraine’s military forces. Ignore the fact that Zelenskky is as much a dictator, if not more, than Putin is, having banned rival parties, banned conciliatory policies, press ganged thousands of untrained Ukrainians to throw them into the slaughter, banned a specific religion, closed rival newspapers and TV stations, and exceeded his elected term while refusing to hold elections.

The moral argument requires an awful lot of ignorance.

Just as bad, of course, is the reality that the simple moral argument ‘Russia invaded, Russia must be defeated’ doesn’t even set any rational limits on itself. There’s no upper bar of spending and no upper bar of risk on any of this. The commitment is apparently total (as well as totalitarian, given how critics of it have been treated).

Nuclear war? That’s an acceptable risk. We are happy with that.

Have you asked ordinary people if they want to take that risk? What’s that? Asking ordinary people is Russian disinformation?

There’s no spending limit at all. We will keep spending as long as it takes.

Have you asked ordinary people if they want any amount of money going to Ukraine for any amount of time no matter how long? What’s that? Asking ordinary people is Russian disinformation?

And so it goes, round and round, with the globalist and neocon architects of pointless and perpetual war unable to justify their position except through moral fiat. You must believe this. You must want this. You must spend this. You must risk this.

Or else you are a Russian bot.

The truth is that the capacity of our ruling and media elite to deal with legitimate and rational objections to western interventionism and bellicose and profligate Ukraine Fetish behaviour, has been as irrational and absurd as the same arguments and responses they mustered in support of other great fetishes of theirs, like the COVID totalitarianism they loved so much.

None of the objections were ever dealt with in the form of a better argument or even in the form of delivered success later proving that they were right. Quite the contrary. Opposing arguments were simply silenced, censored, made illegal, either persecuted or ignored, all under the enveloping justification of a supposed moral argument (we are morally required to defend Ukraine from the Russian threat, we are morally required to take these measures to defeat a pandemic) that were themselves immoral.

Because saying we will do anything to save Ukraine is as immoral as saying we will do anything to halt the spread of COVID. In both cases of course the ‘threat’ was wildly exaggerated anyway (the idea that Putin plans to conquer the world is ludicrous, just as the idea that COVID with its mortality rate and its near non-existent threat to most age groups required the COVID tyranny was ludicrous). In both cases, the ‘solution’ is far worse than the threat. That’s what happens when you seriously propose a policy that includes ANY action, ANY spending, and ANY level of risk or tyranny in its enactment.

All along I have pointed out these things on both a pragmatic and rational front and on a moral front. Because policies that are forced absurdities are policies that very quickly stray into evil, even if evil is not the original intent (and that too is debatable when we look at the levels of corruption involved in forcing through irrational policies). On rational AND moral grounds we should recoil in horror from foam flecked hysterics urging us on to ANY measure whatsoever to ‘defeat this threat’.

The most generous and forgiving explanation of Globalist policy with regard to Ukraine is that these people really don’t comprehend the risks involved. The Cold War conditioned them to imagine that the other side would never press the button. Having previously ignored Russian red lines and not received a Russian declaration of war in response, perhaps makes them imagine that these lines can be ignored forever. But there is even by this best interpretation of their actions a criminsl level of complacency involved in this kind of ‘understanding’ of Russia or of any opponent.

This is not a game. This is millions upon millions of lives in the balance, if you really do get it wrong enough. After a point, the only escalation possible from 500,000 deaths in Ukraine is millions of deaths everywhere. Including in the US and in the UK and in every nation whose leaders seem blithely eager to put us at war with Russia.

Appeasement! The moral simpletons will cry, but I have an older morality than that, and I don’t think this is 1939 either. By my morality, we should expect our leaders to care more about us than about Ukraine.

By my morality, we might reasonably ask why our leaders love Ukraine so much, and love their own innocent citizens so little. Because those lives never seem to factor into consideration of what levels of escalation are acceptable. It’s like they don’t even exist as a consideration. The parting gift of the Biden administration to the American people is to make it plain, once again, that their lives don’t matter.

It’s easy to risk what you never valued in the first place.