The European leadership class, together with a still considerable majority of its constituents, has been living far too long in fantasy land, and recent election results in Germany show that the awakening is still yet to arrive...
Writing from a position of anger, instead of consideration for all perspectives, creates what feels like paper thin propaganda. Could you imagine someone in Russia somewhere saying exactly the opposite of what you are here? How would you frame that argument?
Perhaps start with answering the question: "How many promises were kept by Europe for their role in the 2014 Minsk Accord?" If you are able to avoid NATO (etc) propaganda, you might be able to understand the Russian perspective, and see that this is not what people in the West think it is. Once we are able to hold and understand both sides of the argument, development of a solution can commence.
Everyone seems like an enemy when they do not share your worldview during an energy decline.
Oh! I can very well imagine someone in Russia saying exactly the opposite of what I say here. This is called the only allowed version of the state-run propaganda in the hardcore dictatorship that is Russia.
For peope who are interested in facts and history (not re-writing history), here is the truth about the Minsk agreements and their context. NATO was not at all part of them.
The Minsk agreements were a series of international agreements which sought to end the Donbas war fought between armed Russian separatist groups and Armed Forces of Ukraine, with Russian regular forces playing a central part. After a defeat at Ilovaisk at the end of August 2014, Russia forced Ukraine to sign the first Minsk Protocol, or the Minsk I. It was drafted by the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, consisting of Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), with mediation by the leaders of France (François Hollande) and Germany (Angela Merkel) in the so-called Normandy Format.
After extensive talks in Minsk, Belarus, the agreement was signed on 5 September 2014 by representatives of the Trilateral Contact Group and, without recognition of their status, by the then-leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR). This agreement followed multiple previous attempts to stop the fighting in the region and aimed to implement an immediate ceasefire.
The agreement failed to stop fighting. At the start of January 2015, Russia sent another large batch of its regular military. Following the Russian victory at Donetsk International Airport in defiance of the Protocol, Russia repeated its pattern of August 2014, invaded with fresh forces and attacked Ukrainian forces at Debaltseve, where Ukraine suffered a major defeat, and was forced to sign a Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, or Minsk II, which was signed on 12 February 2015. This agreement consisted of a package of measures, including a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line, release of prisoners of war, constitutional reform in Ukraine granting self-government to certain areas of Donbas and restoring control of the state border to the Ukrainian government. While fighting subsided following the agreement's signing, it never ended completely, and the agreement's provisions were never fully implemented. The former German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier suggested a mechanism of granting an autonomy to Eastern Donbas only after "the OSCE certified that the local elections had followed international standards", called the Steinmeier formula.
Amid rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine in early 2022, Russia officially recognised the DPR and LPR on 21 February 2022. Following that decision, on 22 February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that the Minsk agreements "no longer existed", and that Ukraine, not Russia, was to blame for their collapse. Russia then launched a full invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.
You forgot to mention "not and inch" promises by NATO in the early 1990's which then ignored it's promises by threatening to let Ukraine join NATO and then put missiles within a few hundred miles of Moscow, and the CIA sponsored Coup d'état in 2014 that enabled the Nazi Banderites to gain power who then banned the Russian Language and books etc.
You suggest: "At the start of January 2015, Russia sent another large batch of its regular military." References please?
You suggest: "Russia then launched a full invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022." which is naked NATO propaganda since there was never any intention by the Russians for a "a full invasion" which is why they withdrew a few month later before Johnson scuppered the peace initiative and you forgot to mention one of the aims of the SMO are to rid Ukraine of the Banderite Nazis, in other words NATO is supporting a Nazi regime in Ukraine.
Natasha. Such a nice name. So, you really believe that Ukraine and Zelensky are Nazis? That Ukraine has invaded Russia as our Orange Monster dared to say? Like him, you are not a good liar, Natasha, nor are you a good propagandist who would be more subtle when addressing people in a (still?) free country.
The Russian troops invaded, among others, the Kyiv Oblast region directly north of Kyiv, and also attacked Kyiv from the east. They came very close to Kyiv, occupying Borodyanka, Bucha, Yrpin, and other subburban cities where they committed atrocities. They also bombarded Kyiv heavily when they tried to encircle the capital city of Ukraine. Only they were defeated on the battlefield, and failed to take Kyiv. Following the successful Ukrainian counterattacks in late March, Russia announced it was withdrawing its forces from the Kyiv area on 29 March 2022.
And you are writing: "naked NATO propaganda since there was never any intention by the Russians for a full invasion which is why they withdrew a few month later..." You really think everyone is stupid, Natasha?
Where are you references, Adam when you falsely claim: "Only they [Russians] were defeated on the battlefield" ? Instead you stoop to chidlish insults suggesting I "think everyone is stupid".
On the contrary, ALL my above claims are backed up with references, whereas none of yours are, thereby rendering at best ALL your claims as caca del toro i.e. incorrect, when in fact as is recorded in ALL my references taken from a wide range of sources (not just Western mainstream media & political propoganda) that the Russians withdrew a few month after the SMO began just before Bojoke Johnson scuppered the Istanbul peace initiative.
Indeed, Merkel and other leaders admitted that the West never intended to comply with the Minsk1 & 2 treaties that they signed with Russia..and NATO encouraged Zelensky's killing spree in the Donbas and even Odessa...If Putin had not responded to the mass slaughter of Russian speakers, and Zelensky's intention to make a nuke with enriched uranium from the Donbas, Putin would have been replaced...Zelensky had 21 battalions of neo-nazi troops in the Donbas just waiting to slaughter everyone..
"Writing from a position of anger, instead of consideration for all perspectives, creates what feels like paper thin propaganda." - you're an American, aren't you? Or just a Russian?
"Once we are able to hold and understand both sides of the argument, development of a solution can commence." - The Russian argument is they deserve to annex Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltics, and then use their populations for further imperialist invasions. There's no agreement they won't break when they feel strong enough.
"Everyone seems like an enemy when they do not share your worldview during an energy decline." - yes, or when they kill your people everyday.
Not an American, and it doesn't matter where anyone is from if they know what propaganda is, and how history is nothing like what you are told on TV (etc). Do not take sides when it comes to people's lives. I suggest you start with reading the responses above.
Like many people, you say that Russia is focused on Europe...
But please explain what Russia would have to gain by invading Western Europe ?
What kind of ressources there is in Europe that would worth the huge economic and human cost of such a large scale invasion ?
Nothing... There is only problems in Europe. An ageing, impoverished and more and more culturally divided population. What make you think that Russia would be so eager to take care of this can of worms ?
You only need to listen to Putin himself and to the Russian propaganda to know that. This is their constant obsession. This is not about resources for Putin; Russia has enormously more than the rest of Europe. You clearly don't understand the dictator's mentality, a rank-and-file KGB operative stationed in East Germany in 1989 (supposedly a lieutenant colonel), who never accepted the demise of ther USSR. And now that Trump officially declared that the United States is the ally of Russia and the enemy of the European democracies (not Orban's regime, mind you), you can be certain, and can already see, that the major adversaries and villains are also the European democracies in the Russian propaganda. It will be very hard for Europe to remain free. (And "take care" is quite a weird expression to use about Putin's Russia.)
So, there is no rational and material reason. Putin will invade Western Europe because he is a dictator dreaming of the old USSR glory. And this is what dictators do anyway.
No reflexion on why he would do that. And, maybe more to the point how…
So European (so called) democracies must fell threatened by Russia which can only feel threatened by them. And this war, which started already more than 10 years ago (following a US sponsored coup in Kiev) must be dragging on and on for no other reason.
Again, more Putin's talking points. This is the only thing I can read from you. Now I finish this nonsensical conversation for I have better things to do.
Yep...European politicians make great salaries, steal even more, and seem bound and determined to starve, freeze, or otherwise murder or replace their constituents...But that may be a moot point within two generations, as civilization in its current form disappears, though it's possible that some of its trappings will still be retained by the top .1%....In view of this future, the rapid decline of birth rates in civilized countries can't be regarded as a bad thing...The America where I grew up, with 150 million people, was a far better place overall than it is today, because we had community, where people helped other people voluntarily....
no one was forced to burn coal, then oil and gas........when we started burning it in quanytity, in the 18th c, nobody knew that coal was fossilised sunshine...imprints of leaves and trees were just taken as proof of Noah's flood.
coal, just like oil and gas later, gave employment to millions, and made a few people very very wealthy.
the thought that it might destroy humankind itself never occurred to anyone, and if it did, wages were what mattered---and fossil fuels converted into wages very easily, not only that but after 000s of years with a static economy, wgages began the leapfrog production.
workers were need for factories, so could demand more pay------sure, bosses resisted wage rises, but they had no choice---if they wanted more output and bigger profits......they had to pay higher wages.
as long as cheap energy surpluses were consistently available, this worked fine.
the energy locked in coal oil and gas was released and turned into bright shiny goods we all demanded---hand-wringing now isn't going to change that.
Henry Ford threw ores into one end of his River Rouge plant, spewed cars out the other end, and paid his workers enough to buy them---a perfect system, everyone happy.
It was the bedrock of the 'American Dream'.
(non negotiable, according to George Bush.)
It became the fantasy land of the world.
but as fuel cost more, it became unsustainable----with the 'dreamers' in denial of course.
that denail is the cause of conflict----and ww2 was part of that cause....''others'' were to blame for Germany's problems, just as ''others'' are to blame for America's problems,
Trump promises to fix those problems, just as Hitler did. The end result will be the same.
I'm publishing another book this year, explainng how fossil fuels put the world to work over the last 300 years---very few of us opted out.
we built an economic system based on the premise of an infinite supply of cheap surplus energy, while deluding ourselves that our existence depended on an infinite supply of cheap surplus money (otherwise known as debt btw).
"Failing to recognize what’s going on and sticking to a fantasy land version of reality, however, will only usher in destruction far faster and far more drastically than it otherwise needed to happen".
Let's hear it for fantasy land! As you note, what's happening to Europe will eventually happen to all industrialized economies, including North America and the BRICS. As you also note, overshoot is rapidly destroying carrying capacity. Thus, the realistic view is this: the more the inevitable collapse of industrialism is delayed, the worse the damage to the ecosystem and the larger the population of humans affected. Kicking the can down the road a few more years or decades just makes all outcomes much worse. Let the destruction begin, now.
That's exactly what Derrick Jensen talks about consistently. It is also what was discussed in "Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change"
The longer a species stays in overshoot, the greater the damage to its environment. This results in the sustainable number be permanently reduced the longer the species is in overshoot.
Derrick calls it the "soft landing approach"
Controlled cooperative deindustrialization to reduce the severity of unavoidable harms.
The goal is now to reduce damage and to adapt not to prevent.
Unfortunately, all governments regardless of economic system / political system are all devoted to infinite growth on a finite planet.
Thus making the unavoidable collapse much worse than it needs to be.
HA, HA, HA! And no mention of our massive human overpopulation/overconsumption driving environmental and climate collapse? Shame on you. Here's the truth: too many humans are using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution, GHGs, and global heating. We are now 3,000 times more numerous than were our ecologically balanced self-sustaining Hunter-Gatherer ancestors just a few thousand years ago. Living in clans/bands or 150 or fewer (the Dunbar number) and dependent on only the natural resources available in the immediate surrounding area, we maintained a steady worldwide population number under 10M, but our eventual jump to sedentary agriculture giving a surplus ("capital") and increasing dependence on symbolic territory allowed the explosion of our numbers and the fine mess we're in today. QED. I was politely asked to leave my teaching post at Marietta College, in Marietta, Ohio, for saying this truth. Some have choked on this truth. Or, maybe, it was when I shared the latest C3S climate collapse numbers: current GAST (Global Average Surface Temperature) increase rate of 0.2 degC annually, thus leading to the extinction level of 6 degC over the 1919-2020 baseline by 2047. Probably a combination, don't you agree?
"the global material economy can be modeled as a network of industrial processes that extract resources from the Earth and transform those resources into products and services (3)."
This is the most underrated sentence in the essay. In the sense that ever since we started with the agricultural revolution, it's always been about extraction from the earth, privatize the profit and dump the externalities (pollution, waste, etc) in the commons. This applies to everything from fertilizer runoff into acquifers, chemicals dumped in rivers or released into the air, plastics into the ocean, overfishing depleting stocks to below renewal levels, consumer goods into landfills, etc. And this is without mentioning the disaster monocrop cultures wreck on ecosystems.
Years ago I read that 90% of rivers in China are dead, but they're just copying what Europe and north America did before them.
As long as the consequences are out of sight and mind, the powers that be
Until we address this elephant in the room nothing's going to change. The elite consensus is they're too smart for the public to hold them accountable. Obviously controlling the media and narratives and entertainment helps.
The second issue, about those in charge not grasping how industrial or business ecosystems function, etc, is also fairly simple.
The short version is as humans we need narratives to explain reality. Unfortunately the more the narratives get contaminated by ideological fundamentalism, the less they're grounded in reality.
It's important to differentiate between elites inhabiting different realities and those in governance who believe they're a part of the elite when in actuality they're just servants (or useful idiots).
Those governing, ministers, civil servants, etc, are not selected based on competence or intelligence. And external consultants (re McKinsey, BCG, etc) brought in these days to have a crack at the future planning have natural conflicts of interest (here in Italy, the technical govt under Draghi a few years ago outsourced the pnrr (future econ plan; €200bn spending) to McKinsey in a hush hush way).
Years ago I used to think all rank and file and management of the secret intelligence services must have been super geniuses. Post Snowden and Assange, i realized most of them are either morons or there's another agenda we're missing.
My point is normalcy bias makes us give more credit to those "running the show" than they deserve.
Years ago my gf worked in advertising. She would tell me funny stories about CEOs of MNCs, like coca-cola, who never took decisions. They always outsourced to consultants. The reason is they weren't appointed to take risks but to keep the boat steady, to avoid icebergs.
So if there's ideological narrative capture, a rash of stupid decisions get made.
Had JD Vance given his Munich 2025 speech in 2005, everyone in the room would have applauded. Instead everyone in the European front facing mainstream freaked out. Why? Because they've been doubling down on their narratives about the Ukraine war since 2022 that it's become as high stakes as the whole c19/vaccine thing.
*the powers that be move forward, because there's no one holding them accountable. Normal people believe justice and the courts and law happen by magic, not realizing it's only thanks to a handful of individuals that any businesses are held accountable. The salaries of public defenders and regulatory agencies are a pittance compared to the private businesses they're meant to check. That's partly why we had the GFC in 2008.
I'd respectfully disagree. Freedom of speech in Europe looks different from the US, ever since DJT '16, c19 and Ukraine, offering dissenting opinions can lead to fines, court dates, etc. Hate speech has become a contentious issue. It's complicated.
Freedom of speech in Europe is equivalent to freedom of speech in the US as it pertains to criticism of Israel. Zionists like Vance have perfected the art of hypocrisy.
Lecturing Europe over immigration policy when most of these 'immigrants' are refugees fleeing US instigated wars, is also rich.
Americans live in a false narrative fantasy land. Europeans are amateurs by comparison.
I'm not so sure there's much difference between those living inside narrative fantasyland on either side of the Atlantic.
I'm not aware of any European country with a Bill of Rights, especially the first amendment.
Israel in general is a thorny subject, but it's not the only one. As far as I'm aware the UK has led the charge on creating hate crimes, while Germany is trying to catch up.
One of the problems with the theme of free speech is selective enforcement, which undermines faith in governance institutions.
The significance of free speech is overblown in America. Yes, you have the freedom to criticize government and not be censored by government. What about your employer? Family and friends? During the pandemic, it was the latter who imposed negative consequences on those who dared to question the narrative. Americans worry about big bad government up until the point at which they have one. Then they cheer.
If the standard is perfection, we're never gonna have it.
But for instance, if you intended to be sarcastic about crying wolf until it arrives, only to then cheer it on, that's the effects of propaganda. Propaganda done right is effective.
The only solution to lies is a culture (and society) that praises and cultivates truth and honesty.
We're paying the consequences for this not being so.
Within this context, Vance in Munich was a welcome reminder that we shouldn't be afraid to express our contrarian or critical opinions of each other. This does not make Vance a saint, but it was a welcome breath of fresh air.
Even if potential politicians were selected on the basis of their honesty, few if any would win in today's world. It's a sad state of affairs unfortunately. One of the consequences is this whole Ukraine clusterfuck.
I remember a press conference back in 2003, Rumsfeld was visiting Germany and Fischer (Green party), the German foreign minister, politely pushed back on Iraq posing an imminent danger and the evidence of WMD. I remember this because it's really rare. I'm not saying Fischer was an honest politician, I mean I don't know.
But unfortunately in the west we've gotten ourselves into this mess and getting out will require upsetting all sides of the political spectrum. So I don't see it happening realistically, but I hope I'm wrong.
The article summarizes the current predicament but says nothing about what led to conflict (same with Afghanistan and Vietnam). It's kind of a view from 30k ft.
One of the problems we face is taking ownership (responsibility) for actions undertaken by previous (elected) politicians flying the same flag.
Fyi, American involvement in Vietnam started during WW2, when Ho chi Minh was an ally, retrieving downed pilots amongst other things. The Pentagon papers cited in that article do speak to this, and post WW2, the USA rebuffed Minh's requests to help dislodge the French colonial power. The USA then proceeded to arm and support the French until they exited, then taking their place. Administrations change but history continues.
We could say the seeds of the Ukraine war emerged in 1989-91 when the USA, drunk in stupor of the unipolar moment, decided to keep punishing Russia and proceeded, across the following two decades, to expand NATO eastwards. We can indict all the administrations including Bush Sr.
From the perspective of the common folks outside the USA, it made no difference which clown was in the white house.
My point was honest politicians don't exist because the system and accompanying selection competitions do not allow for honest politicians to advance. This is an indictment of our societies. It's the same in Europe.
We talk a big game in west, about democracy and rights, but are the first to be hypocrites, internally and in foreign policy. Our realities are undoubtedly better than everything from N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, most of Africa, etc, but as Ukraine demonstrates, and the article kinda showcases, it's always a case of similar shit, different day.
If you showed someone who lived in a cave for the past five years some of the charts in your post, and asked them the cause of the rapid de-industrialization and cataclysmic slow down of economic growth coupled with high energy prices, 9 times out of 10 they would assume Europe lost a major war.
Regarding Europe… Its only option is to make peace with Russia and get the ressources it needs for its failing economy. And stop pretending making weapons for the next war with an economy unable to do it anyway. It's just plain stupid.
And if peace means undoing Staline's work and divide the territory of the old RSS of Ukraine along its ethnic and linguistic lines between Kiev and Moscow now the people who used to live there cannot stand each other anymore, so be it.
Any other option can only be worse than that anyway...
According to legend, it was Khrushchev who got roaring drunk and turned administration of that area over to RSS of Ukraine. Back then it didn't matter.
Yes, Khrushchev gave Crimea to Kiev. Apparently, as a reward to the local apparatchiks for helping him take power in Moscow.
Actually Donbass might have been added to the SSR of Ukraine by Lenin himself. And Staline added some territories taken from Poland, Hungary and Romania after 1945.
Ok. First part right and we should be scared. Obviously war is the best diversion and implicit in their thinking is the acquisition of Russian resources after the inevitable victory of the noble cause. Doubt we will survive that.
However you are wrong about finite resources. This argument has been going on for 100 years and I have had to listen to that drivel for the last 50. And every time we look up there are more
"The issue is that no one from the current crop of elites seem to be able to really comprehend the complexity of a continent wide block’s economy, let alone understand the secondary or tertiary effects of political decisions."
Bullshit. All done on PURPOSE by the satanic idiots that created the club of Rome you so much love and those behi d them wo are controlling the world from the shadow.
BTW, it's quite funny or maybe tragic how some answers and comments it attracts show that their authors haven't understand a word of what your are trying to explain for years now :(
The issues that B discuss on this blog seem to be slowly seeping into MSM narratives.
In the USA, Internet Explorer brings up a whole list of various news articles when you open the front page. I like to skim through the headlines to get a read on the current pulse of MSM.
Articles regarding the presence of "forever chemicals" are now circulating. If one clicks on the article, it always ends with a positive spin on how scientists are working hard to address the issue and develop new substitutes. Nothing concrete, just technologies not yet developed will save us.
The environmental costs of "renewables" being admitted to. Mainly mining and land use. Positive spins as always. "Green" mining and better deployment to balance the needs of human industrial civilization against the needs of nature.
Articles openly discussing that fossil fuels will be an important part of the "net zero" future. Admitting that civilization needs fossil fuels in some capacity in order to survive.
The common throughput through all of this articles (ranging from media with a left wing or right wing biases) is that human innovation and technological advancement will overcome any and all challenges and our way of life can be forever sustained.
Okay, I saw the "Geopolitical (Un)realities" blog note, it's clear now who this blogger works for.
Writing from a position of anger, instead of consideration for all perspectives, creates what feels like paper thin propaganda. Could you imagine someone in Russia somewhere saying exactly the opposite of what you are here? How would you frame that argument?
Perhaps start with answering the question: "How many promises were kept by Europe for their role in the 2014 Minsk Accord?" If you are able to avoid NATO (etc) propaganda, you might be able to understand the Russian perspective, and see that this is not what people in the West think it is. Once we are able to hold and understand both sides of the argument, development of a solution can commence.
Everyone seems like an enemy when they do not share your worldview during an energy decline.
Oh! I can very well imagine someone in Russia saying exactly the opposite of what I say here. This is called the only allowed version of the state-run propaganda in the hardcore dictatorship that is Russia.
For peope who are interested in facts and history (not re-writing history), here is the truth about the Minsk agreements and their context. NATO was not at all part of them.
The Minsk agreements were a series of international agreements which sought to end the Donbas war fought between armed Russian separatist groups and Armed Forces of Ukraine, with Russian regular forces playing a central part. After a defeat at Ilovaisk at the end of August 2014, Russia forced Ukraine to sign the first Minsk Protocol, or the Minsk I. It was drafted by the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, consisting of Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), with mediation by the leaders of France (François Hollande) and Germany (Angela Merkel) in the so-called Normandy Format.
After extensive talks in Minsk, Belarus, the agreement was signed on 5 September 2014 by representatives of the Trilateral Contact Group and, without recognition of their status, by the then-leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR). This agreement followed multiple previous attempts to stop the fighting in the region and aimed to implement an immediate ceasefire.
The agreement failed to stop fighting. At the start of January 2015, Russia sent another large batch of its regular military. Following the Russian victory at Donetsk International Airport in defiance of the Protocol, Russia repeated its pattern of August 2014, invaded with fresh forces and attacked Ukrainian forces at Debaltseve, where Ukraine suffered a major defeat, and was forced to sign a Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, or Minsk II, which was signed on 12 February 2015. This agreement consisted of a package of measures, including a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line, release of prisoners of war, constitutional reform in Ukraine granting self-government to certain areas of Donbas and restoring control of the state border to the Ukrainian government. While fighting subsided following the agreement's signing, it never ended completely, and the agreement's provisions were never fully implemented. The former German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier suggested a mechanism of granting an autonomy to Eastern Donbas only after "the OSCE certified that the local elections had followed international standards", called the Steinmeier formula.
Amid rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine in early 2022, Russia officially recognised the DPR and LPR on 21 February 2022. Following that decision, on 22 February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that the Minsk agreements "no longer existed", and that Ukraine, not Russia, was to blame for their collapse. Russia then launched a full invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.
You forgot to mention "not and inch" promises by NATO in the early 1990's which then ignored it's promises by threatening to let Ukraine join NATO and then put missiles within a few hundred miles of Moscow, and the CIA sponsored Coup d'état in 2014 that enabled the Nazi Banderites to gain power who then banned the Russian Language and books etc.
You suggest: "At the start of January 2015, Russia sent another large batch of its regular military." References please?
You suggest: "Russia then launched a full invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022." which is naked NATO propaganda since there was never any intention by the Russians for a "a full invasion" which is why they withdrew a few month later before Johnson scuppered the peace initiative and you forgot to mention one of the aims of the SMO are to rid Ukraine of the Banderite Nazis, in other words NATO is supporting a Nazi regime in Ukraine.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article217173.html
https://www.voltairenet.org/spip.php?page=recherche&lang=en&recherche=Banderites&x=0&y=0
And check out these too for a more balanced analysis
https://www.youtube.com/@dialogueworks01
https://www.youtube.com/@geopoliticshaiphong
Natasha. Such a nice name. So, you really believe that Ukraine and Zelensky are Nazis? That Ukraine has invaded Russia as our Orange Monster dared to say? Like him, you are not a good liar, Natasha, nor are you a good propagandist who would be more subtle when addressing people in a (still?) free country.
The Russian troops invaded, among others, the Kyiv Oblast region directly north of Kyiv, and also attacked Kyiv from the east. They came very close to Kyiv, occupying Borodyanka, Bucha, Yrpin, and other subburban cities where they committed atrocities. They also bombarded Kyiv heavily when they tried to encircle the capital city of Ukraine. Only they were defeated on the battlefield, and failed to take Kyiv. Following the successful Ukrainian counterattacks in late March, Russia announced it was withdrawing its forces from the Kyiv area on 29 March 2022.
And you are writing: "naked NATO propaganda since there was never any intention by the Russians for a full invasion which is why they withdrew a few month later..." You really think everyone is stupid, Natasha?
Where are you references, Adam when you falsely claim: "Only they [Russians] were defeated on the battlefield" ? Instead you stoop to chidlish insults suggesting I "think everyone is stupid".
On the contrary, ALL my above claims are backed up with references, whereas none of yours are, thereby rendering at best ALL your claims as caca del toro i.e. incorrect, when in fact as is recorded in ALL my references taken from a wide range of sources (not just Western mainstream media & political propoganda) that the Russians withdrew a few month after the SMO began just before Bojoke Johnson scuppered the Istanbul peace initiative.
Indeed, Merkel and other leaders admitted that the West never intended to comply with the Minsk1 & 2 treaties that they signed with Russia..and NATO encouraged Zelensky's killing spree in the Donbas and even Odessa...If Putin had not responded to the mass slaughter of Russian speakers, and Zelensky's intention to make a nuke with enriched uranium from the Donbas, Putin would have been replaced...Zelensky had 21 battalions of neo-nazi troops in the Donbas just waiting to slaughter everyone..
Oh? https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/msm-finally-confirms-ukraine-war
"Writing from a position of anger, instead of consideration for all perspectives, creates what feels like paper thin propaganda." - you're an American, aren't you? Or just a Russian?
"Once we are able to hold and understand both sides of the argument, development of a solution can commence." - The Russian argument is they deserve to annex Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltics, and then use their populations for further imperialist invasions. There's no agreement they won't break when they feel strong enough.
"Everyone seems like an enemy when they do not share your worldview during an energy decline." - yes, or when they kill your people everyday.
Not an American, and it doesn't matter where anyone is from if they know what propaganda is, and how history is nothing like what you are told on TV (etc). Do not take sides when it comes to people's lives. I suggest you start with reading the responses above.
Like many people, you say that Russia is focused on Europe...
But please explain what Russia would have to gain by invading Western Europe ?
What kind of ressources there is in Europe that would worth the huge economic and human cost of such a large scale invasion ?
Nothing... There is only problems in Europe. An ageing, impoverished and more and more culturally divided population. What make you think that Russia would be so eager to take care of this can of worms ?
You only need to listen to Putin himself and to the Russian propaganda to know that. This is their constant obsession. This is not about resources for Putin; Russia has enormously more than the rest of Europe. You clearly don't understand the dictator's mentality, a rank-and-file KGB operative stationed in East Germany in 1989 (supposedly a lieutenant colonel), who never accepted the demise of ther USSR. And now that Trump officially declared that the United States is the ally of Russia and the enemy of the European democracies (not Orban's regime, mind you), you can be certain, and can already see, that the major adversaries and villains are also the European democracies in the Russian propaganda. It will be very hard for Europe to remain free. (And "take care" is quite a weird expression to use about Putin's Russia.)
So, there is no rational and material reason. Putin will invade Western Europe because he is a dictator dreaming of the old USSR glory. And this is what dictators do anyway.
No reflexion on why he would do that. And, maybe more to the point how…
So European (so called) democracies must fell threatened by Russia which can only feel threatened by them. And this war, which started already more than 10 years ago (following a US sponsored coup in Kiev) must be dragging on and on for no other reason.
That's plain suicidal...
Again, more Putin's talking points. This is the only thing I can read from you. Now I finish this nonsensical conversation for I have better things to do.
Yep...European politicians make great salaries, steal even more, and seem bound and determined to starve, freeze, or otherwise murder or replace their constituents...But that may be a moot point within two generations, as civilization in its current form disappears, though it's possible that some of its trappings will still be retained by the top .1%....In view of this future, the rapid decline of birth rates in civilized countries can't be regarded as a bad thing...The America where I grew up, with 150 million people, was a far better place overall than it is today, because we had community, where people helped other people voluntarily....
Now the population is over double that and any and all sense of community is gone.
we all insisted on having the future we have.
no one was forced to burn coal, then oil and gas........when we started burning it in quanytity, in the 18th c, nobody knew that coal was fossilised sunshine...imprints of leaves and trees were just taken as proof of Noah's flood.
coal, just like oil and gas later, gave employment to millions, and made a few people very very wealthy.
the thought that it might destroy humankind itself never occurred to anyone, and if it did, wages were what mattered---and fossil fuels converted into wages very easily, not only that but after 000s of years with a static economy, wgages began the leapfrog production.
workers were need for factories, so could demand more pay------sure, bosses resisted wage rises, but they had no choice---if they wanted more output and bigger profits......they had to pay higher wages.
as long as cheap energy surpluses were consistently available, this worked fine.
the energy locked in coal oil and gas was released and turned into bright shiny goods we all demanded---hand-wringing now isn't going to change that.
Henry Ford threw ores into one end of his River Rouge plant, spewed cars out the other end, and paid his workers enough to buy them---a perfect system, everyone happy.
It was the bedrock of the 'American Dream'.
(non negotiable, according to George Bush.)
It became the fantasy land of the world.
but as fuel cost more, it became unsustainable----with the 'dreamers' in denial of course.
that denail is the cause of conflict----and ww2 was part of that cause....''others'' were to blame for Germany's problems, just as ''others'' are to blame for America's problems,
Trump promises to fix those problems, just as Hitler did. The end result will be the same.
I'm publishing another book this year, explainng how fossil fuels put the world to work over the last 300 years---very few of us opted out.
we built an economic system based on the premise of an infinite supply of cheap surplus energy, while deluding ourselves that our existence depended on an infinite supply of cheap surplus money (otherwise known as debt btw).
that's why it is collapsing.
https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-iron-men-of-shropshire/norman-pagett//9781398122390
Good luck with your book - please remember that, in English, sentences always begin with a capital letter.
thank you for your good wishes
i am the world's worst one finger typist, hence lousy punctuation in online replies---luckily my publisher takes care of my typing idiosyncrasies.
Humans simply dumb... the smarter they are ... the dumber they are https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-dumbest-species-ever
"Failing to recognize what’s going on and sticking to a fantasy land version of reality, however, will only usher in destruction far faster and far more drastically than it otherwise needed to happen".
Let's hear it for fantasy land! As you note, what's happening to Europe will eventually happen to all industrialized economies, including North America and the BRICS. As you also note, overshoot is rapidly destroying carrying capacity. Thus, the realistic view is this: the more the inevitable collapse of industrialism is delayed, the worse the damage to the ecosystem and the larger the population of humans affected. Kicking the can down the road a few more years or decades just makes all outcomes much worse. Let the destruction begin, now.
That's exactly what Derrick Jensen talks about consistently. It is also what was discussed in "Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change"
The longer a species stays in overshoot, the greater the damage to its environment. This results in the sustainable number be permanently reduced the longer the species is in overshoot.
Derrick calls it the "soft landing approach"
Controlled cooperative deindustrialization to reduce the severity of unavoidable harms.
The goal is now to reduce damage and to adapt not to prevent.
Unfortunately, all governments regardless of economic system / political system are all devoted to infinite growth on a finite planet.
Thus making the unavoidable collapse much worse than it needs to be.
HA, HA, HA! And no mention of our massive human overpopulation/overconsumption driving environmental and climate collapse? Shame on you. Here's the truth: too many humans are using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution, GHGs, and global heating. We are now 3,000 times more numerous than were our ecologically balanced self-sustaining Hunter-Gatherer ancestors just a few thousand years ago. Living in clans/bands or 150 or fewer (the Dunbar number) and dependent on only the natural resources available in the immediate surrounding area, we maintained a steady worldwide population number under 10M, but our eventual jump to sedentary agriculture giving a surplus ("capital") and increasing dependence on symbolic territory allowed the explosion of our numbers and the fine mess we're in today. QED. I was politely asked to leave my teaching post at Marietta College, in Marietta, Ohio, for saying this truth. Some have choked on this truth. Or, maybe, it was when I shared the latest C3S climate collapse numbers: current GAST (Global Average Surface Temperature) increase rate of 0.2 degC annually, thus leading to the extinction level of 6 degC over the 1919-2020 baseline by 2047. Probably a combination, don't you agree?
Wow Paul ehrlich predicted this 50 years ago.
Great read, thanks 👍🏼 2 comments.
"the global material economy can be modeled as a network of industrial processes that extract resources from the Earth and transform those resources into products and services (3)."
This is the most underrated sentence in the essay. In the sense that ever since we started with the agricultural revolution, it's always been about extraction from the earth, privatize the profit and dump the externalities (pollution, waste, etc) in the commons. This applies to everything from fertilizer runoff into acquifers, chemicals dumped in rivers or released into the air, plastics into the ocean, overfishing depleting stocks to below renewal levels, consumer goods into landfills, etc. And this is without mentioning the disaster monocrop cultures wreck on ecosystems.
Years ago I read that 90% of rivers in China are dead, but they're just copying what Europe and north America did before them.
As long as the consequences are out of sight and mind, the powers that be
Until we address this elephant in the room nothing's going to change. The elite consensus is they're too smart for the public to hold them accountable. Obviously controlling the media and narratives and entertainment helps.
The second issue, about those in charge not grasping how industrial or business ecosystems function, etc, is also fairly simple.
The short version is as humans we need narratives to explain reality. Unfortunately the more the narratives get contaminated by ideological fundamentalism, the less they're grounded in reality.
It's important to differentiate between elites inhabiting different realities and those in governance who believe they're a part of the elite when in actuality they're just servants (or useful idiots).
Those governing, ministers, civil servants, etc, are not selected based on competence or intelligence. And external consultants (re McKinsey, BCG, etc) brought in these days to have a crack at the future planning have natural conflicts of interest (here in Italy, the technical govt under Draghi a few years ago outsourced the pnrr (future econ plan; €200bn spending) to McKinsey in a hush hush way).
Years ago I used to think all rank and file and management of the secret intelligence services must have been super geniuses. Post Snowden and Assange, i realized most of them are either morons or there's another agenda we're missing.
My point is normalcy bias makes us give more credit to those "running the show" than they deserve.
Years ago my gf worked in advertising. She would tell me funny stories about CEOs of MNCs, like coca-cola, who never took decisions. They always outsourced to consultants. The reason is they weren't appointed to take risks but to keep the boat steady, to avoid icebergs.
So if there's ideological narrative capture, a rash of stupid decisions get made.
Had JD Vance given his Munich 2025 speech in 2005, everyone in the room would have applauded. Instead everyone in the European front facing mainstream freaked out. Why? Because they've been doubling down on their narratives about the Ukraine war since 2022 that it's become as high stakes as the whole c19/vaccine thing.
*the powers that be move forward, because there's no one holding them accountable. Normal people believe justice and the courts and law happen by magic, not realizing it's only thanks to a handful of individuals that any businesses are held accountable. The salaries of public defenders and regulatory agencies are a pittance compared to the private businesses they're meant to check. That's partly why we had the GFC in 2008.
JD Vance presented another false narrative, and the audience responded by doubling down on the first false narrative. Oops.
I'd respectfully disagree. Freedom of speech in Europe looks different from the US, ever since DJT '16, c19 and Ukraine, offering dissenting opinions can lead to fines, court dates, etc. Hate speech has become a contentious issue. It's complicated.
Freedom of speech in Europe is equivalent to freedom of speech in the US as it pertains to criticism of Israel. Zionists like Vance have perfected the art of hypocrisy.
Lecturing Europe over immigration policy when most of these 'immigrants' are refugees fleeing US instigated wars, is also rich.
Americans live in a false narrative fantasy land. Europeans are amateurs by comparison.
I'm not so sure there's much difference between those living inside narrative fantasyland on either side of the Atlantic.
I'm not aware of any European country with a Bill of Rights, especially the first amendment.
Israel in general is a thorny subject, but it's not the only one. As far as I'm aware the UK has led the charge on creating hate crimes, while Germany is trying to catch up.
One of the problems with the theme of free speech is selective enforcement, which undermines faith in governance institutions.
The significance of free speech is overblown in America. Yes, you have the freedom to criticize government and not be censored by government. What about your employer? Family and friends? During the pandemic, it was the latter who imposed negative consequences on those who dared to question the narrative. Americans worry about big bad government up until the point at which they have one. Then they cheer.
If the standard is perfection, we're never gonna have it.
But for instance, if you intended to be sarcastic about crying wolf until it arrives, only to then cheer it on, that's the effects of propaganda. Propaganda done right is effective.
The only solution to lies is a culture (and society) that praises and cultivates truth and honesty.
We're paying the consequences for this not being so.
Within this context, Vance in Munich was a welcome reminder that we shouldn't be afraid to express our contrarian or critical opinions of each other. This does not make Vance a saint, but it was a welcome breath of fresh air.
Even if potential politicians were selected on the basis of their honesty, few if any would win in today's world. It's a sad state of affairs unfortunately. One of the consequences is this whole Ukraine clusterfuck.
I remember a press conference back in 2003, Rumsfeld was visiting Germany and Fischer (Green party), the German foreign minister, politely pushed back on Iraq posing an imminent danger and the evidence of WMD. I remember this because it's really rare. I'm not saying Fischer was an honest politician, I mean I don't know.
But unfortunately in the west we've gotten ourselves into this mess and getting out will require upsetting all sides of the political spectrum. So I don't see it happening realistically, but I hope I'm wrong.
Geez, if only honest politicians were selected there would a chronic shortage of personnel.
I think this article sums it up:
https://warwickpowell.substack.com/p/is-an-independent-europe-post-trump
The article summarizes the current predicament but says nothing about what led to conflict (same with Afghanistan and Vietnam). It's kind of a view from 30k ft.
One of the problems we face is taking ownership (responsibility) for actions undertaken by previous (elected) politicians flying the same flag.
Fyi, American involvement in Vietnam started during WW2, when Ho chi Minh was an ally, retrieving downed pilots amongst other things. The Pentagon papers cited in that article do speak to this, and post WW2, the USA rebuffed Minh's requests to help dislodge the French colonial power. The USA then proceeded to arm and support the French until they exited, then taking their place. Administrations change but history continues.
We could say the seeds of the Ukraine war emerged in 1989-91 when the USA, drunk in stupor of the unipolar moment, decided to keep punishing Russia and proceeded, across the following two decades, to expand NATO eastwards. We can indict all the administrations including Bush Sr.
From the perspective of the common folks outside the USA, it made no difference which clown was in the white house.
My point was honest politicians don't exist because the system and accompanying selection competitions do not allow for honest politicians to advance. This is an indictment of our societies. It's the same in Europe.
We talk a big game in west, about democracy and rights, but are the first to be hypocrites, internally and in foreign policy. Our realities are undoubtedly better than everything from N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, most of Africa, etc, but as Ukraine demonstrates, and the article kinda showcases, it's always a case of similar shit, different day.
Are you without hope? Is there nothing to be done? No place for nuclear power or smart policy to save civilization?
I hate to rain shit on your parade but https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/why-dont-we-just-build-more-nuclear/
Don't lie. You love it. ^_^
If you showed someone who lived in a cave for the past five years some of the charts in your post, and asked them the cause of the rapid de-industrialization and cataclysmic slow down of economic growth coupled with high energy prices, 9 times out of 10 they would assume Europe lost a major war.
Memo for Europe: Make peace and restore trade with Russia ASAP.
Yes.
Regarding Europe… Its only option is to make peace with Russia and get the ressources it needs for its failing economy. And stop pretending making weapons for the next war with an economy unable to do it anyway. It's just plain stupid.
And if peace means undoing Staline's work and divide the territory of the old RSS of Ukraine along its ethnic and linguistic lines between Kiev and Moscow now the people who used to live there cannot stand each other anymore, so be it.
Any other option can only be worse than that anyway...
According to legend, it was Khrushchev who got roaring drunk and turned administration of that area over to RSS of Ukraine. Back then it didn't matter.
Yes, Khrushchev gave Crimea to Kiev. Apparently, as a reward to the local apparatchiks for helping him take power in Moscow.
Actually Donbass might have been added to the SSR of Ukraine by Lenin himself. And Staline added some territories taken from Poland, Hungary and Romania after 1945.
The whole bunch of soviet dictators anyway....
Just a little colour commentary here; Khrushchev hailed from Kiev (Ukraine)
Indeed, the Donbas was part of the Russian empire before Lenin decided to incorporate it into the Ukrainian SSR.
What a lucid article.
Ok. First part right and we should be scared. Obviously war is the best diversion and implicit in their thinking is the acquisition of Russian resources after the inevitable victory of the noble cause. Doubt we will survive that.
However you are wrong about finite resources. This argument has been going on for 100 years and I have had to listen to that drivel for the last 50. And every time we look up there are more
"The issue is that no one from the current crop of elites seem to be able to really comprehend the complexity of a continent wide block’s economy, let alone understand the secondary or tertiary effects of political decisions."
Bullshit. All done on PURPOSE by the satanic idiots that created the club of Rome you so much love and those behi d them wo are controlling the world from the shadow.
Very insightful article. As always.
BTW, it's quite funny or maybe tragic how some answers and comments it attracts show that their authors haven't understand a word of what your are trying to explain for years now :(
The issues that B discuss on this blog seem to be slowly seeping into MSM narratives.
In the USA, Internet Explorer brings up a whole list of various news articles when you open the front page. I like to skim through the headlines to get a read on the current pulse of MSM.
Articles regarding the presence of "forever chemicals" are now circulating. If one clicks on the article, it always ends with a positive spin on how scientists are working hard to address the issue and develop new substitutes. Nothing concrete, just technologies not yet developed will save us.
The environmental costs of "renewables" being admitted to. Mainly mining and land use. Positive spins as always. "Green" mining and better deployment to balance the needs of human industrial civilization against the needs of nature.
Articles openly discussing that fossil fuels will be an important part of the "net zero" future. Admitting that civilization needs fossil fuels in some capacity in order to survive.
The common throughput through all of this articles (ranging from media with a left wing or right wing biases) is that human innovation and technological advancement will overcome any and all challenges and our way of life can be forever sustained.
The cognitive dissonance is truly astounding.