Well, everything indicates that the mainstream population in the US and Europe doesn´t understand the seriousness you describe - that they have to feel it themselves before it dawns on them.
They are ignorant people easy to manipulate by the US/EU media, about Syria for example they unconditionally trust the media that the secular Assad regime was a "tyrannical dictatorship" imprisoning innocent people.
It is disgusting to watch all the pro-islamic terrorist anti-Assad propaganda in tv and all the other unidirectional media which is being repeated and indoctrinated into people over and over again.
So the deceived American and European mainstream masses uncritically and fully trust their political establishment and their opinion forming agents. In other words, they support the US, EU and their false stories about Syria and Russia/Ukraine meaning that they support the terrorists in Syria and nazis in Ukraine.
So do they deserve one of the scenario Tunander describe?
Will the US really stay out of scenario "C"? An American top-level nuclear admiral of some sort, named Buchanan, recently spoke at a seminar about maintaining a degree of deterrence while actually fighting the nuclear war. Not sure what he meant, but as I imagined it they would use the American nukes stationed in Europe and perhaps also the ones at sea, but refrain from firing the US-based ICBM:s in order to keep Russia from hitting the US. He was also asked what "victory" means in a nuclear war, and answered that it means the US continues to lead the world.
Putin also spoke, I can't remember when, about a limited exchange of short- and medium-range nuclear weapons - but not intercontinental strategic ones - that would primarily cause suffering in our part of Europe. He urged the Europeans to consider what role the US is assigning them in this scenario.
Thanks. Of course, the US has strong reasons to avoid the destruction of a nuclear war, but nobody knows, and Buchanan's comments would indicate the opposite. If they enter the nuclear exchange, we will reach Scenario D. Thanks.
According to the Wall Street Journal Henry Kissinger should have uttered "it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
As you point out in this analysis we can see that our young European, inexperienced leaders are addicted and obsessed with the idea of becoming the maybe next NATO Secretary General or even the next President of the European Commission. They are blinded by the same intoxication that young, rootless gang members have when they have to earn their way into a biker gang or worse. The most striking thing about these criminal activities is that our criminal governments are not prosecuted while criminal gang members to some extent are. Who can blame them with our governments as role models?
Former Danish Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is clear proof of this. To be a "success" in politics, Washington's only requirement is blind obedience to their military-industrial complex. Our current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen exhibits the same hallmarks of hubris and intellectual deficits that could qualify her for a higher position in the West's totalitarian regime.
In these times, government members always value their own careers more than the people they rightfully should be fighting for. Their own safety comes before ours.
I attribute this, to quote (from memory) Jan Øberg, with whom I very much agree, to a general intellectual disarmament in the West, largely thanks to docile state-sponsored propaganda media and the decline of the independent academia. The result is extremely scaring; a totally ignorant population. Democracy, if we ever had it, is relatively quickly transformed into totalitarianism and fascism. A West that only focuses on alienating humanity, which now only has its military left, is a society in decay. Very sad, but it's obviously a process we have to go through as long as there are foolish people who think they have influence on politics by voting every 4 years...
Great analysis as always. Thank you very much Ola.
Dear Ola, I appreciate your comments most, although McDouglas and Diesen also loom high.
Especially I noted your comment on the establishment of "county" (republic?) of Ukraine in 1924: when Lenin through in "Novorussia" in the south west to establish a Russian - loyal majority in "Greater Ukraine". Austro-Hungarian finger in the game, promoting an anti-Russian "Ukranian" nation is also worthwhile mentioning.
BUT- more importantly - the US takeover - of the old English anti-Eurasian is also crucial. How did the English "overtake" the American psyche - of world domination (by splitting Russia etc)?
Is this a left-over, an inheritance, from the Norman invasion of England?
How did the English "infiltrate" the American psyche? Why did the Americans "take over" the old English anti-Eurasian psyche, strategy. It's a bit like a repetition of Greece and Rome: Greek Brains & Roman Muscles.
1. You don’t mention Trump. If he stops funneling money and weapons into the Ukraine, isn’t Zelensky forced to negotiate?
2. You mention that the Western states “succeeded in defeating” the opposing party in various regions of the world. I’m not sure I’d include Afghanistan in that list. In the other regions, yes, they imposed their worldview by force. I believe that they signally failed to do so in Afghanistan.
Thank you for your comments. If Zelensky won't receive money from the US and perhaps less money from Europe, Ukraine may very well go for Scenario A, which would be favorable to the people living in Ukraine. Taliban was certainly not defeated when the US left Afghanistan in 2021. But they were more or less defeated in 2002, and according to some interviews the Americans started at that time to go after some Taliban leaders, which made the Taliban reorganize and start a new war. The Americans were definitely not able to impose their will on Afghanistan. In the long run, they were not able to do it in Iraq and Libya either, but they succeeded to destroy their armies, which probably is a major reason for the present Western hubris.
Brilliant, Ola, and scary like hell. When will the Norwegians and others start listening to you and come to their senses?
Well, everything indicates that the mainstream population in the US and Europe doesn´t understand the seriousness you describe - that they have to feel it themselves before it dawns on them.
They are ignorant people easy to manipulate by the US/EU media, about Syria for example they unconditionally trust the media that the secular Assad regime was a "tyrannical dictatorship" imprisoning innocent people.
It is disgusting to watch all the pro-islamic terrorist anti-Assad propaganda in tv and all the other unidirectional media which is being repeated and indoctrinated into people over and over again.
So the deceived American and European mainstream masses uncritically and fully trust their political establishment and their opinion forming agents. In other words, they support the US, EU and their false stories about Syria and Russia/Ukraine meaning that they support the terrorists in Syria and nazis in Ukraine.
So do they deserve one of the scenario Tunander describe?
Will the US really stay out of scenario "C"? An American top-level nuclear admiral of some sort, named Buchanan, recently spoke at a seminar about maintaining a degree of deterrence while actually fighting the nuclear war. Not sure what he meant, but as I imagined it they would use the American nukes stationed in Europe and perhaps also the ones at sea, but refrain from firing the US-based ICBM:s in order to keep Russia from hitting the US. He was also asked what "victory" means in a nuclear war, and answered that it means the US continues to lead the world.
Putin also spoke, I can't remember when, about a limited exchange of short- and medium-range nuclear weapons - but not intercontinental strategic ones - that would primarily cause suffering in our part of Europe. He urged the Europeans to consider what role the US is assigning them in this scenario.
Thanks. Of course, the US has strong reasons to avoid the destruction of a nuclear war, but nobody knows, and Buchanan's comments would indicate the opposite. If they enter the nuclear exchange, we will reach Scenario D. Thanks.
(Putin) "urged the Europeans to consider what role the US is assigning them".
Funny: vassals. - Why on earth are the Europeans accepting this? Destroying their own industry etc. ....
- We need some "national psychologist" of sort, to entangle this idiocy and deep lack of self-respect.
Good analysis. Thank you.
According to the Wall Street Journal Henry Kissinger should have uttered "it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
As you point out in this analysis we can see that our young European, inexperienced leaders are addicted and obsessed with the idea of becoming the maybe next NATO Secretary General or even the next President of the European Commission. They are blinded by the same intoxication that young, rootless gang members have when they have to earn their way into a biker gang or worse. The most striking thing about these criminal activities is that our criminal governments are not prosecuted while criminal gang members to some extent are. Who can blame them with our governments as role models?
Former Danish Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is clear proof of this. To be a "success" in politics, Washington's only requirement is blind obedience to their military-industrial complex. Our current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen exhibits the same hallmarks of hubris and intellectual deficits that could qualify her for a higher position in the West's totalitarian regime.
In these times, government members always value their own careers more than the people they rightfully should be fighting for. Their own safety comes before ours.
I attribute this, to quote (from memory) Jan Øberg, with whom I very much agree, to a general intellectual disarmament in the West, largely thanks to docile state-sponsored propaganda media and the decline of the independent academia. The result is extremely scaring; a totally ignorant population. Democracy, if we ever had it, is relatively quickly transformed into totalitarianism and fascism. A West that only focuses on alienating humanity, which now only has its military left, is a society in decay. Very sad, but it's obviously a process we have to go through as long as there are foolish people who think they have influence on politics by voting every 4 years...
Great analysis as always. Thank you very much Ola.
Dear Ola, I appreciate your comments most, although McDouglas and Diesen also loom high.
Especially I noted your comment on the establishment of "county" (republic?) of Ukraine in 1924: when Lenin through in "Novorussia" in the south west to establish a Russian - loyal majority in "Greater Ukraine". Austro-Hungarian finger in the game, promoting an anti-Russian "Ukranian" nation is also worthwhile mentioning.
BUT- more importantly - the US takeover - of the old English anti-Eurasian is also crucial. How did the English "overtake" the American psyche - of world domination (by splitting Russia etc)?
Is this a left-over, an inheritance, from the Norman invasion of England?
Rephrasing:
How did the English "infiltrate" the American psyche? Why did the Americans "take over" the old English anti-Eurasian psyche, strategy. It's a bit like a repetition of Greece and Rome: Greek Brains & Roman Muscles.
An excellent article.
Two questions:
1. You don’t mention Trump. If he stops funneling money and weapons into the Ukraine, isn’t Zelensky forced to negotiate?
2. You mention that the Western states “succeeded in defeating” the opposing party in various regions of the world. I’m not sure I’d include Afghanistan in that list. In the other regions, yes, they imposed their worldview by force. I believe that they signally failed to do so in Afghanistan.
Thank you for your comments. If Zelensky won't receive money from the US and perhaps less money from Europe, Ukraine may very well go for Scenario A, which would be favorable to the people living in Ukraine. Taliban was certainly not defeated when the US left Afghanistan in 2021. But they were more or less defeated in 2002, and according to some interviews the Americans started at that time to go after some Taliban leaders, which made the Taliban reorganize and start a new war. The Americans were definitely not able to impose their will on Afghanistan. In the long run, they were not able to do it in Iraq and Libya either, but they succeeded to destroy their armies, which probably is a major reason for the present Western hubris.
Agred Ola, and Serbia and Somalia ... uzw.
"The Americans were definitely not able to impose their will on Afghanistan. In the long run, they were not able to do it in Iraq and Libya either,"
What did Europe get out of it? As usual, the refugees - immigration. Further establishing Europe
Solution: isolate the USA (and the UK) - leave NATO.