Vladimir Putin and a world without Russia

30 Comments

1. This type of topic requires a big picture consideration, of the sort presented by Arnaud Bertrand on X, 2nd Oct ‘25, talking about the work of the French economist and historian Emmanuel Todd.
   It requires a big picture view because it’s far more complex than a dispute between Ukraine and Russia, as Noel implies.

   Fascinating geopolitical analysis by Emmanuel Todd, one of the very few great French intellectuals we have left. I added English subtitles for you. He believes – as I do – that, fundamentally the US is accepting what he calls “defeat” against not only Russia but China as well, and that Trump is effectively trying – clumsily – to manage this defeat and to adapt the US to multipolarity. He says that the US’s defeat in Ukraine isn’t like Afghanistan or Iraq but that it represents what he calls “America’s first major strategic defeat of its history.” In the war, he says Russia has become “the shield of all the rest of the world who can’t stand US guardianship of global finance [and] the exploitation of the working populations in the rest of the world by Westerners.”

   As he puts it, Russia has demonstrated “that they were able to face the whole West,” and with the rise of BRICS financial systems, this represents nothing less than “the end of the American imperium” – a defeat Trump must now manage.

   With regards to China he says that the US have in fact “given up” trying to contain them because the balance of power now makes it impossible. He points to “Chinese naval production that will soon make the US Navy a dwarf navy”, “US aircraft carriers [that] are irrelevant facing hypersonic missiles” and the fact that China managed to “put the Americans under embargo” for rare earth exports. Arguments that undoubtedly will sound very familiar to my readers because I make the same ones in my articles (like this one: https://arnaudbertrand.substack.com/p/has-america-in-fact-already-withdrawn?r=4r0pw), which I know Todd reads because, full disclosure, we know each others (work).
   In this picture, Todd characterizes (quite rightly) Europeans as “crazy, we are dealing with crazy people” who think they can act as winners and impose conditions despite being the biggest losers of the war. He is particularly virulent against the media and the general intellectual climate in Europe, speaking of a “process of intellectual and moral degeneration” where “all notions of truth, of honor, of reflection” are being lost. He says that the end of the US’s global hegemony doesn’t mean they won’t relinquish control of what they still do control, specifically Europeans.

   I’ll let you watch the whole video for more, including his excellent analogy between Trump and former French 4th Republic President Henri Queuille: quite out-of-the-box comparison but actually not bad! This is part of a longer video (https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z5FHLciLBsU). They actually have an English version of the video here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZJyaBbyAPs8

   For more big picture analysis try–
   https://arnaudbertrand.substack.com/

2. I see the article you have linked, which you characterised as “Zelenskyy made it clear that he intentionally chose to sabotage Minsk’, is in German.
   Do you speak that language?
   Perhaps link an authorised English translation for those of us that are not fluent.
   As a matter of interest, did he state he deliberately sabotaged the agreement?
   On the other hand, the Minsk Agreements required the separatists to relinquish their heavy artillery, to cease accepting weapons from Russia and allow unobstructed access to humanitarian organisations.
   They didn’t.
   Once you’ve posted an approved English translation, I’ll deal with a some other points

3. to A Commentator. No, I don’t speak German. Yes Zelensky did state that, (and was proud of it). I do not have access to “an authorised English translation” Zelensky’s statement has been widely reported in English-language press, though he first admitted it in an interview with der spiegel.
   Examples:https://mronline.org/2023/02/11/zelensky-admits-he-never-intended-to-implement-minsk-agreements/ https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/02/10/ukraine-zelensky-minsk-peace-russia/
   irstpost.com/sports/zelenskyy-takes-credit-for-derailing-minsk-agreement-meant-to-establish-peace-in-eastern-ukraine-12134822.html
   The Hill reported “Zelensky ADMITS He NEVER Planned To Honor Minsk Agreement” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg4Jmnw3xQg
   I do not see any reason to disbelieve reports of his statement. He’s never denied saying it, and apparently it’s quite OK by the West that he did that.

4. “.. Putin is an exceptionally dangerous leader,…”
   I think Putin is a determined leader given the existential threat to Russian security that US and NATO created by extending NATO borders further eastwards. Putin is not unstable, politically or mentally. That cannot be said for Trump. He is mentally erratic, politically niaive and unreliable considering his “flip flop” attitude toward foreign policy.

5. Putin’s allies or frenemies are Netanyahu, Trump and MAGA……fossil fuels, corruption and autocracy vs liberal democracy and the EU; like Abbott’s friends in Hungary?

6. • That’s interesting. Your evidence for your claim is that you provide a link to an article that you can’t read or justify or understand or interpret.
   • Did Zelensky say he “sabotaged the Minsk Agreements”?
   That’s your claim.
   • Can you deal with the actual provisions of the Minsk Agreements that required separatists to relinquish their heavy artillery, to cease accepting weapons from Russia and that they were required to provide unobstructed access to humanitarian organisations (not to mention that the Agreements also required separatists to return border control to the Ukrainian government.

7. to Mediocrates I agree with everything that you said about Putin – being a determined leader, and certainly not mentally unstable or erratic. I still do think that he’s a ruthless tyrant, and does hold a grand view of Russia’s destiny. With that view, I think he would take that ultimate apocalyptic action, if he thought Russia was desperately threatened.
   And yes, it should be clear to all – that “existential threat to Russian security that US and NATO created by extending NATO borders further eastwards.”

8. A Commentator

   “That’s interesting. Your evidence for your claim is that you provide a link to an article that you can’t read or justify or understand or interpret”

   Try reading the article again, especially ‘But In an interview with the German daily Der Spiegel,’which I believe contains the link to which you refer. Did you not find the interview? was that not a link to the interview?

   Show me where Noel says something akin to ‘as evident in his interview ..’?

   If I said “in his speech Albanese perniciously slurred all Palestinians and did his best to cover for a depraved, barbaric genocide,” with a link to his UN speech attached to ‘speech’, I’d simply be directing people to the speech itself. If I wanted to provide evidence I’d quote the section where he falsely and maliciously accused Palestinians of teaching their children hatred.

   If I said “In the housing debate Clare O’Neill got caught lying about Labor’s housing policy by Michael Sukkar. I mean imagine being caught out lying by Michael Sukkar of all people, and on national tv and all.” and I linked ‘housing debate’ to video of the whole housing debate, it would simply be to direct them to a video of the debate. If I wanted to provide evidence of her lying on national tv, and in a debate, I’d have quoted her and linked the video and given the place in time on the video where O’Neill falsely claimed the $10 billion for the HAFF was going to be spent on housing, and quoted Sukkar’s response, where he pointed out its falseness and how that money was only being invested, and only the interest was going to be spent on housing.

   How can you be so sure that Noel meant the link as evidence of his claim?

9. Well Gonggongche
   Did you notice that Noel said-
   “But In an interview with the German daily Der Spiegel, published on February 9, 2023, Zelenskyy made it clear that he intentionally chose to sabotage Minsk.”
   Embedded in that sentence is a link to the Der Spiegel article… but Noel hasn’t read it because he doesn’t speak German.  Nor has he provided an authorised translation. 
   I’ve suggested that he provide some actual evidence of his claim that “Zelensky made it clear that he intentionally chose to sabotage Minsk”
   He hasn’t. 
   There are a range of other pieces of (fact free) opinion, that I might also get around to replying to.
   °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
   I’ll also add that I’m not one who states NATO/western Europe/US is free of some level of responsibility for the Ukrainian debacle, but I object to bland misrepresentation of statements and efforts of absolve Putin/Russia of the clear culpability

10. A Commentator

    Would you agree if I said “In a debate (leaders, May 2025) Peter Dutton belled the cat by offering a gas reserve. That when Chris Bowen and the gas lobby had been running around only weeks earlier saying there was a gas shortage, that they were lying, that they were acting against the interests of Australians and instead in the interests of the gas companies” that the contents of the parentheses is being used to tell us in which debate the cat was belled?

    If I said “in a debate (energy, May 2025), when asked if there was a gas shortage, Chris Bowen initially said ‘yes’ then very quickly added ‘there is no shortage of gas’, or something to that effect, that he had indeed shown himself to be a dishonest person, given that just weeks earlier he was saying the opposite. And that maybe there wasn’t a gas shortage in early 2022 either, when the price of electricity and gas soared putting millions of Australians under financial stress. That the deal Bowen, who we now know is a dishonest person willing to work in the interests of the gas companies, and the gas companies came up with ended up in higher than necessary gas prices” that the contents of the parentheses just tells us in which debate Chris Bowen exposed himself as a dishonest person.

    If I said “in an episode of Q&A (date supplied)in which Tony Burke gave a heart-rendering, tear-jerking response to a question on rent/or maybe housing telling of queues of young hopefuls lined up around the block, all while Bridget McKenzie sat next to him doing her best to pretend it was her tear-jerking response, that when you consider that these two charlatons have been in office for decades and so are an integral part of the problem just how hypocritical and devious was that story.” Couldn’t I be just indicating which episode and not necessarily providing evidence.

    I don’t know about you, but if I wanted to use an interview as evidence I wouldn’t say “in an interview” link that phrase to the interview and then make some claim, I’d just make the claim and link that to the interview.

    Given that Zelensky is Ukrainian, der Spiegel is German, yet you ask did Zelensky say “sabotaged the Minsk agreement” and not “саботувати Мінські угоди” or “das Minsker Abkommen sabotieren”, were you expecting the interview to be in English?

11. It would be better for a world with Russia but without Putin. The same goes for Israel and the D(isunited)SA.

12. Here’s some follow-on info from my first comment.

    In 1976 Emmanuel Todd predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union. In After The Empire, first published in French in 2001, he predicted the (relative) decline of the United States.
    In his latest (and last) book, La Défaite de l’Occident (The Defeat of the West), he laments the West’s inability to distinguish facts from wishes, as seen in its behavior during the war in Ukraine. Nihilism, a lack of values and of acceptance of reality, has infested western thinking.

    Todd has just published a new preface for his book in which he sheds light on the consequences of the West’s defeat in Ukraine.
    Here are some excerpts:
    I have always been hostile to the Russophobic policies of the United States and Europe, but as a Westerner committed to liberal democracy, a Frenchman trained in research in England, the child of a mother who was a refugee in the United States during the Second World War, I am devastated by the consequences for us Westerners of the war waged without intelligence against Russia.
    We are only at the beginning of the catastrophe. A tipping point is approaching, beyond which the ultimate consequences of defeat will unfold.
    …
    I now fear that our media will exacerbate our blindness by being unable to imagine Russia’s renewed prestige in the rest of the world, which has been exploited economically and treated with arrogance by the West for centuries. The Russians dared. They challenged the Empire and they won.
    The irony of history is that the Russians, a European and white people who speak a Slavic language, have become the military shield of the rest of the world because the West refused to integrate them after the fall of communism.
    …
    I can sketch out here a model of the dislocation of the West, despite the inconsistencies of the policies of Donald Trump, the defeated American president. These inconsistencies do not result, I believe, from an unstable and undoubtedly perverse personality, but from an insoluble dilemma for the United States. On the one hand, their leaders, both in the Pentagon and the White House, know that the war is lost and that Ukraine will have to be abandoned. Common sense therefore leads them to want to get out of the war. But on the other hand, the same common sense makes them realise that the withdrawal from Ukraine will have dramatic consequences for the Empire that those from Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan did not have. This is indeed the first American strategic defeat on a global scale, in a context of massive deindustrialisation in the United States and difficult re-industrialisation.
    …
    Imperial dynamics, or rather imperial inertia, continue to undermine the dream of a return to the productive nation state.
    In Europe, military defeat [in Ukraine] remains poorly understood by leaders.
    …
    Unaware of the extent of the military defeat, they do know, however, that their own economies have been paralysed by the sanctions policy, especially by the disruption of their supply of cheap Russian energy. Cutting the European continent in half economically was an act of suicidal madness.
    …
    A negative economic and social dynamic existed before the war and was already putting the West under strain. It was visible, to varying degrees, throughout Western Europe. Free trade is undermining the industrial base. Immigration is developing an identity syndrome, particularly among the working classes who are deprived of secure and properly paid jobs.
    More profoundly, the negative dynamic of fragmentation is cultural: mass higher education creates stratified societies in which the highly educated – 20%, 30%, 40% of the population – begin to live among themselves, to think of themselves as superior, to despise the working classes, and to reject manual labour and industry. Primary education for all (universal literacy) had nurtured democracy, creating a homogeneous society with an egalitarian subconscious. Higher education has given rise to oligarchies, and sometimes plutocracies, stratified societies invaded by an unequal subconscious. (A good point, but I doubt that this is the full story. SD)
    The ultimate paradox: the development of higher education ended up producing a decline in intellectual standards in these oligarchies or plutocracies!
    …
    The war has raised European tensions a notch. It is impoverishing the continent. But above all, as a major strategic failure, it is delegitimising leaders who are incapable of leading their countries to victory.
    …
    One of the interesting features of America today is that its leaders are finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between internal and external issues, despite MAGA’s attempt to stop immigration from the south with a wall. The army fires on boats leaving Venezuela, bombs Iran, enters the centres of Democratic cities in the United States, and sponsors the Israeli air force for an attack on Qatar, where there is a huge American base. Any science fiction reader will recognise in this disturbing list the beginnings of a descent into dystopia, that is, a negative world where power, fragmentation, hierarchy, violence, poverty and perversity intermingle.
    So let us remain ourselves, outside America. Let us retain our perception of the inside and the outside, our sense of proportion, our contact with reality, our conception of what is right and beautiful. Let us not allow ourselves to be dragged into a headlong rush to war by our own European leaders, those privileged individuals lost in history, desperate at having been defeated, terrified at the idea of one day being judged by their peoples. And above all, above all, let us continue to reflect on the meaning of things.

    Those who like to reflect on the meaning of things realised some time ago that, as one analyst put it, the US Empire is dying and China and Russia are providing palliative care.

13. “were you expecting the interview to be in English?”
    I was expecting the link Noel used to provide some evidence or justification of the claim Noel made.

14. A Commentator

    thanks for your reply.
    You say ‘Did you notice that Noel said-
    “But In an interview with the German daily Der Spiegel, published on February 9, 2023, Zelenskyy made it clear that he intentionally chose to sabotage Minsk.”’
    Yes I did, did you not notice I quoted from that passage? ‘But In an interview with the German daily Der Spiegel,’

    You say “Embedded in that sentence is a link to the Der Spiegel article”, yes, did you miss where in the second half of my sentence above I said ‘which I believe contains the link to which you refer.’?

    You say “Nor has he provided an authorised translation. ” Oh, look I know just how you feel; last Christmas I went around telling everyone how much I admire ruby red EV’s and all I got was more seashells to barter with.

    Would the claim have been any less reasonable if there’d been no link to the interview? I had read on a number of occasions in different sources claims of the same admission from Zelensky. I thought it was common knowledge and wouldn’t even have bothered with a link. Are you being needlessly pedantic?

    You say“Zelensky made it clear that he intentionally chose to sabotage Minsk”note the words ‘made it clear’. Since when do the words “sabotaged the Minsk agreements” or their German equivalents have to used to make it clear? A journalist can make it clear that Labor minister Michelle Rowland, the minister who was in charge of the gambling reform we didn’t get, may have acted corruptly by accepting freebies from SportsBet without actually using the word ‘corruptly’, instead a pattern of obvious conflict of interest could have been used for example.

    You say “He hasn’t. ” as in provided “actual evidence”, how does one provide actual evidence of intention? Isn’t repeated admissions that he intended to do just that evidence to a reasonable level of his past intention? I count 3 links proporting to do just that, including a youtube video no less. Google has supported a genocide so I haven’t checked that link, I did check the first one.

    https://mronline.org/2023/02/11/zelensky-admits-he-never-intended-to-implement-minsk-agreements/ https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/02/10/ukraine-zelensky-minsk-peace-russia/
    irstpost.com/sports/zelenskyy-takes-credit-for-derailing-minsk-agreement-meant-to-establish-peace-in-eastern-ukraine-12134822.html
    The Hill reported “Zelensky ADMITS He NEVER Planned To Honor Minsk Agreement” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg4Jmnw3xQg
    Have I counted incorrectly, maybe there’s more than 3?

    Some people come into a conversation with the aim to learn other perspectives and to exchange ideas respectively, others come in looking to piss on someone else’s carpet for a change. Which one have you come for?

15. Thanks Gonongonghe
    I appreciate your comments. I do find it tiresome when people who do not like my opinions choose to be pedantic and split hairs over my statements, avoiding the main point, rather just straightforwardly state that they don’t agree, or don’t like me.

16. Here’s something to consider Noel, if you claim Zelensky intentionally chose to sabotage the Minsk Agreements, and you haven’t read the linked article you claim contains the evidence , if you are then unable to provide other specific evidence of he statement by Zelensky… don’t seek to portray this to be based dislike of you or being pedantic.
    It is neither, and as I’ve said previously, if you choose to post contentious and provocative opinions in the public domain, don’t be surprised if some people are provoked and reply.
    I think my replies have been reasonable, given that you didn’t read and research your own link, and you have been unable to support your claim -Zelensky intentionally chose to sabotage the Minsk Agreements

17. A Commentator

    “I think my replies have been reasonable, given that you didn’t read and research your own link, and you have been unable to support your claim -Zelensky intentionally chose to sabotage the Minsk Agreements”

    Did you read nothing of:
    “Examples:https://mronline.org/2023/02/11/zelensky-admits-he-never-intended-to-implement-minsk-agreements/ https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/02/10/ukraine-zelensky-minsk-peace-russia/
    irstpost.com/sports/zelenskyy-takes-credit-for-derailing-minsk-agreement-meant-to-establish-peace-in-eastern-ukraine-12134822.html
    The Hill reported “Zelensky ADMITS He NEVER Planned To Honor Minsk Agreement” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg4Jmnw3xQg
    I do not see any reason to disbelieve reports of his statement. He’s never denied saying it, and apparently it’s quite OK by the West that he did that.” (Noel)

    or “You say “He hasn’t. ” as in provided “actual evidence”, how does one provide actual evidence of intention? Isn’t repeated admissions that he intended to do just that evidence to a reasonable level of his past intention? I count 3 links proporting to do just that, including a youtube video no less. Google has supported a genocide so I haven’t checked that link, I did check the first one.

    https://mronline.org/2023/02/11/zelensky-admits-he-never-intended-to-implement-minsk-agreements/ https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/02/10/ukraine-zelensky-minsk-peace-russia/
    irstpost.com/sports/zelenskyy-takes-credit-for-derailing-minsk-agreement-meant-to-establish-peace-in-eastern-ukraine-12134822.html
    The Hill reported “Zelensky ADMITS He NEVER Planned To Honor Minsk Agreement” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg4Jmnw3xQg
    Have I counted incorrectly, maybe there’s more than 3?”

    This is rapidly becoming a ‘how many Bidilonians does it take to change a lightbulb’ joke.

    It’s like when Don Farrell was laying it on thick about the changes to the electoral funding rules, falsely making out, in a corridor of parliament, that they were going to take dark money out of politics. Only for Zali Steggall, coffee in hand, to interject something along the lines of ‘tell them about the nominated entities’, which exposed Farrell’s dishonesty and how the changes were really about rigging this coming election in Labor’s favour. Then for Farrell to continue on as if nothing had happened, albeit with the look of a stunned mullet.

    It’s often said ‘when you’ve dug yourself into a hole, stop digging’, what are your thoughts on that?

18. Can you explain how calling the Minsk agreement “impossible” is “deliberately sabotaging” it? That’s the claim.
    When the Russian backed separatists specifically breached their obligations under the Minsk agreement, do you agree they sabotaged it?
    And MR online, I had a look at the articles about Russia and Ukraine. I’m not surprised you’re quoting it, it is hardly balanced analysis.
    No doubt it appeals to those that prefer cognitive reinforcement.
    And the comment about Don Farrell and Zali Steggall is relevant to what exactly?

19. When AC obfuscates, he’s diverting attention from something of significance.
    By fixating on a trivial assertion about the intentions of Zelensky, AC diverts attention from the very important point made in the article by Noel. It’s not important what he thought. But it is important what he did.
    Zelensky was elected on the promise of peace, as Noel pointed out, and then took Ukraine to war with a superpower.
    Why did he reverse his position?

    In May 2019, on the Ukrainian media Obozrevatel, Dmytro Yarosh, former head of the (far Right) Right Sector, openly threatened Zelensky with death, if he came to an agreement with Russia.
    Yarosh — “Zelensky in his inaugural speech said that he was ready to lose ratings, popularity, position. No, he’ll lose his life. It will hang on some tree on Khreshchatyk – if it betrays Ukraine and those people who died on the Revolution and the War. It is very important that he understands this.”
    Yarosh is still active in Ukraine politics.
    Instead of being jailed for treason.
    In Ukraine, anything goes.

    That’s the Ukraine that AC implies by omission did all it could to uphold the Minsk agreements.
    He conveniently leaves out that Minsk 2 was necessary because immediately after signing Minsk 1 Ukraine, acting on advice from NATO, mounted an offensive against the people of the Donbass that it had just come to peace terms with.
    The Donbass forces dealt Ukraine and NATO a crushing defeat at Debaltsevo, forcing them to the table for Minsk 2.

    But none of this counts in AC’s imaginary world where the failure of the European signatories to Minsk to force Ukraine’s compliance, is just a mere inconvenience to be hidden.

20. A Commentator

    Well if you can’t see the connection between Farrell ignoring what was put in front of him and going on with his bullshit, how about this one in regard to US nuclear powered and armed submarines being based at HMAS Stirling a breaking of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone treaty, which would allow the subs to visit but not be stationed there: “It’s in this context that the Australian Government have very deliberately used the words “Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West)” to describe the presence of US submarines from 2027.

    At a 14 March 2023 press conference, when a journalist asked the question,

    “You made it very clear in the literature this morning that the stationed submarines in Western Australia will not constitute a US base. However, if there are up to four submarines out there, helping to train Australian sailors, they could be called on at any time to provide support in the Pacific or in Asia for the US. In what way is that not a base?”

    Defence Minister Richard Marles responded with force:

    Well, it’s a forward rotation. So, they’re not going to be based there.” (MWM)

    The journalist could have also mentioned all those houses being built to house US sailors, while they’re based there. Marles pissing down our backs and forcefully telling us it’s raining.

    So, after on a number of occasions claiming there was no evidence provided ( or “actual” evidence) you now want to discuss the merits of the references provided that were given as evidence – how does that work? Who is to say what is “actual” evidence and what is not?

    “it is hardly balanced analysis” says who, without any evidence or supporting argument?

21. Gonggongche, it seems you’re off on another tangent that is of no interest to me. Someone else might be interested.
    ••••••••
    Steve, perhaps you’re able to provide actual evidence (as distinct from self interested interpretation and opinion) that “Zelenskyy made it clear that he intentionally chose to sabotage Minsk”
    As I pointed out, Noel didn’t read the link he used to justify his claim.
    When someone posts a statement without even reading their link, without a proviso or qualification, without saying something like…”my opinion is…” they are entitled to be quizzed about it.
    Or have you walked away from your monotonously repeated catchphrase- “blogging isn’t for the faint hearted”?

22. A Commentator

    ‘Who is to say what is “actual” evidence and what is not?

    “it is hardly balanced analysis” says who, without any evidence or supporting argument?’

    Off on a tangent? How so, when the questions are based on quotes from you?

    Let’s consider how Murray Watt, the Minister for destroying the Environment, said Woodside’s extension of the NorthWest project would not be approved without strict restrictions – then approved them with woefully inadequate restrictions, shows that Murray Watt’s word is not worth the paper it is not written on. I’d have said Murray Watt lied, but I’d have had to proved his intention – that’s hard to do unless he admits that was his intention, just like Zelensky did.

23. A Commentator

    Anne Alley, the place where ministries go to die.

    Now, THAT would be ‘off on a tangent’.

24. ”Steve, perhaps you’re able to provide actual evidence…”

    A fat chance AC has of dragging me into his pointless obfuscation.
    As I pointed out earlier, Zelensky’s assumed intentions are of no importance. The importance lies in what he did.
    And that was, he walked back his promise to make peace.
    That was Noel’s point.
    AC can bluster all he likes, it changes nothing.

    Zelensky had more than one opportunity to make peace, but chose not to.
    And as I pointed out months ago, Zelensky is now finding out the hard way that the first peace offer is usually the best. Each offer that follows gets increasingly tougher.

    This shows the world how dumb the West really is.
    The Russians tried for years to formalise security arrangement for all of Europe and were treated like nobodies; treated with contempt.
    Now Russia will get its security, but it will be on Russia’s terms.
    And a few million Ukrainians will have died so that clowns in Europe and the US could beat their chests.
    For nothing.
    That’s why AC is obfuscating.
    That’s what he’s cheering for.
    It’s beyond disgusting.

25. Fascinating stuff. Won’t dare to interrupt.

26. The point about Russia now getting security on its terms, is worth looking at further.

    Europe, having dismissed Russia’s repeated attempts at security negotiations, now realises that as a result, its own security is at risk and its economies are failing.
    By supporting a delusional attempt by the US to weaken Russia, Europe has instigated its own downfall. The Europeans could have told the US to keep its nose out of European affairs, continued trade with Russia, and maintained or even improved their economic strength.
    The development of trade links based on respect and mutual prosperity provide real security, while the West’s preference for an economics of exploitation produces mistrust, fear, and ultimately, enemies.
    But the consequences extend even further.

    By having almost total control of EU foreign policy, and with 800 or so military bases around the globe, the US appears to be in a strong position, but empires always succumb to overreach.
    By projecting strength abroad, the US has neglected its domestic base to such an extent that the base is now seen as a threat.
    Who would have thought back in 2013, that the US manipulation of a former Soviet state to unsettle Russia would bring the US empire to the point where its own existence is at risk?

27. Steve

    I’m struggling to think of any instance where NATO was useful. Was it a huge mistake on Europe’s part? Was looking to the US as a protector through NATO a huge mistake? Didn’t Russia ask to join NATO at one stage and was rejected?

    Just as the duopoly’s policy of defence resting on Australia prostrating itself to the US and hoping it will act as our defender.

28. Yes SD, agree entirely.

    Really enjoyed your extracts from Todd’s new preface to his latest/last book. Straightforward, and well observed. To me it seems that the pseudo-warrior acts of coercive and extractive (western) Europe & USA have for centuries been unimaginative, mutually mirroring acts of stupidity – a long tradition for imperialists and budding hegemons.

    I’ve recently been reading up on James Burnham, and with particular interest, Orwell (Blair) essays on Burnham’s musings; second thoughts on James Burnham 1946, and Orwell Burnhams View 1947. It’s no wonder western Europe and America are falling apart. Your Todd extracts, after 50 years of western Europe and USA’s stubborn stupidities, put it so well.

    Thought Noel’s article was succinct and reasonable.

29. GGCHE, NATO’s been around so long now that some of the stories about it could almost be classed as folklore.
    None of the stories however, tell of usefulness.
    One story that was begun by one of the founders of NATO is that it was formed “To keep the US in, Russia out, and the Germans down.” Pretty truthful actually, given that Western Europe was in terrible condition after WW2, but so was the USSR so Western fears were probably exaggerated.
    The Soviets were happy to assist assist Western dissidents, but Stalin had a policy of “Socialism in one country”.
    He stuck to that, as his non-interference in the Greek civil war shows, where he could have supported the leftist Greek partisans but chose not to. That was possibly the main reason for his dispute with Trotsky, who wanted global revolution.

    Another story of NATO is that it exists to control the problems that its existence produces. Also pretty true.

    It’s also been suggested that it was formed to not just keep the Soviets/Russia out, but to weaken the Soviets. That is supported by the fact that for sixteen straight years, (IIRC) NATO was commanded by ex-Nazis. For the Nazis, control of the Slavs was more important than “the Jewish problem”. So they were seen by the West as ideal for the job.

    So the answer to your question “Was looking to the US as a protector through NATO a huge mistake?” is YES. The US now has almost total control over Europe in all the areas that matter.

30. Clakka, thanks for your interest.
    I don’t take everything Todd says as gospel, but he’s worth keeping an eye on because he’s thinking all the time, and asking the right questions.

    And thanks for the Burnham links — more reading!! 🙂