|
The Europeans And The U.S. Against Russia – Who Is Really The Patsy?
Karlof1, aka Karl Sanchez, points to his translation of the latest Dmitri Trenin piece:
Yesterday, Dmitri Trenin, Director of the Institute of World Military Economics and Strategy at the Higher School of Economics, wrote an op/ed for Kommersant, “The War Will Be Long,” which was picked-up translated and altered by RT for publication today. My practice is to provide the translation of the original because of RT’s past and present manipulations that I’ve denounced every time I encounter one. IMO, Trenin makes clear that Putin knows the Outlaw US Empire’s plans, which is the basic reason why Putin doesn’t yield anything to Trump. Here’s Trenin:
The war will be long
Dmitri Trenin on the intermediate results of the "special diplomatic operation"
…
The war will not end in 2025. It will not end after the end of hostilities in Ukraine.
We need to realize that the current conflict is not about Ukraine as such.
This is a proxy (so far) war of the West against Russia. And this confrontation itself is part of an ongoing world war, in which the West is fighting to maintain world hegemony. This will be a long war, and the United States, with or without Trump, will remain our adversary. At stake for us in this struggle is not the status of Ukraine, but the existence of Russia. [My Emphasis]
To which English Outsider replies:
Karlof1. Thank you again for these translations and commentaries you are providing. The Trenin piece was particularly useful in that it sums up where we’re heading:-
“Even now as Russia continues to make gains on the battlefield, we see the next round set of aggravations along the Arc of Instability already forming with Moldova, Armenia, and possibly Azerbaijan. Escalation also threatens in the Baltic Sea, and I still anticipate NATO attacks on Russia’s Arctic energy infrastructure.”
Useful because one question of particular interest since well before the start of the SMO has been, what are the European politicians up to? It’s too facile to regard them as hapless Europoodles swept along in Washington’s wake. I believe they’re looking ahead to the time when Ukraine’s over and done with.
That is, hoping to revive the economy with military Keynesianism and taking us into Cold War II with, as in the previous Cold War, the emphasis on covert destabilisation activities along the perimeter of the RF and if possible within Russia itself.
The Ukrainian gamble failed. I don’t believe the European politicians see any alternative to doubling down on it.
As for the “hapless Europoodles”, it’s rare to find Americans who recognise that that’s not how the European politicians see themselves. More that they hope to lever American military and economic power in pursuit of their own objectives. For most Americans it’s usual to regard the Euros as the patsy. For the Euros, it’s always been the other way round.
b here:
In my observation the 'covert destabilisation activities along the perimeter of the RF' and within Russia itself' by the EU, U.S. and UK have never stopped. The Balkan wars and various color revolutions in eastern Europe were all part of it. There is also a constant attempt to mess up Central Asia.
While the CIA or other U.S. agencies have often led in those cases, the Europeans were nearly always involved. Last years brouhaha in Georgia also demonstrated that.
Thus one should give English Outsider's last sentence some thought:
For most Americans it’s usual to regard the Euros as the patsy. For the Euros, it’s always been the other way round.
@ 14 Shahmaran
Just to take a statement and place it in a different context:
“But the achilles heal of the West is its economy. Countries that no longer produce very much of substance, or only at high prices, are intrinsincally fragile.”
Not countries but societies, and this is purposeful.
Financial control of the economies and related dependence, as well as increased dependence on government redistribution, creates a command economy where the public are managed.
The western world is still a very wealthy place, but disfunctional in terms of social integrity (including economic), again purposeful.
The result is increasing call for intermediation by authority, which now is a form of wider centralisation.
So while one concerns with maintaining wealth, the governments are more than happy to redistribute what exists of it to others not quite as wealthy, so gaining their support.
If the authority wants to spend on arms, it will do so, and you will pay many times over for that:
Via inflation
Via non productive use of manufacturing
Via taxation
Via competition for labour
And more.
Those who agree with government, who receive its redistribution or who work for it, are not in any position to disagree. And they don’t.
Look at international silence nowadays, look at the silence towards government appropriation, look at the ‘poodles’ – the vast bureaucracy that follows along obediently.
Those actually in charge are not poodles though.
The US is no patsy either, it is very calculated, on a scale and timeframe few would understand.
Some ask what should Russia do in reply ? The facts are that anything it does to resist are met by more of this direction in the west.
There are those who are extreme enough to think all is resolved on the battle field, but the reality, as you note, is that that is not where the main conflict is, it is only a facet used by whichever side.
In the west, they may make people suffer and blame the opponent. Nothing new there, and they have hardly started regarding Russia.
Europeans don’t want conflict, that is true. Historically, many a national upheaval was due to the costs of war, but many wars were also started due to national upheaval.
In the hybrid picture of today, wars are ‘technical, these are fought at distance, part remotely, with tactical moves that are as much about public perception (maintaining support or ignorance) as of conquest.
That means in fact that Europe (EU) is also at war currently with Russia, you just did not notice it properly. There would not be mass call up and waves of troops, just gradual increase in call to duty, and those that did not return. All hidden under the blanket of media normality, which would just portray whatever at all suited it.
The existing troops in Europe, they already are committed to war with Russia (or elsewhere) if necessary. Little war, big war, quiet war or visible war makes no difference, and so they will not be vocal either.
That which hangs over society therefore is the management of an increased authority using various means of coercion, including economic but also the threats posed by foreign nations, whether those be real or invented.
Let’s use the alleged quote by Trump on bombing Beijing or Moscow, that it only needed to be believed 10% or even 5% to be effective.
Now we have own media saying whatever about a foreign threat…which only needs to be believed 5 % or 10 % to be effective. Look at the leaders talk …just an example of say Merz, paraphrased:
– “Israel” was legally entitled to attack Iran because of a potentially imminent nuclear attack on it by Iran –
We are so used to this newspeak that it is normal to many, has become accepted as correct, is believed at least 5% or 10% .
To top that off, the say 30% who disagree are in no position to do anything more than quietly state their objection, and always thinking they are a mere 1%.
Which also explains why information control is so sought after.
Posted by: Ornot | Jul 11 2025 17:24 utc | 69
|
