|
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2026-151
Last week’s posts on Moon of Alabama:
—
Other issues:
Zionist Entity:
China:
Empire:
Economy:
Boeing:
Use as open (not related to the wars in Ukraine and Iran) thread …
Posted by: Asian Tiger | Jul 20 2026 4:32 utc | 32
You are completely distorting Jermy’s recent work both on his substack and in his video appearances. He clearly outlines the futility, and crass stupidity, of NATO/Europe preparing for a war with the Russian Federation which it has no possibility of winning and which would leave Europe a wasteland and its proles in poverty. …. Any major missile attack by Russia on Europe would fall like manna from Heaven to the US/NATO quisling European elite who would then go full-on military Keynesianism, conscription, reduce welfare budgets, and control the proles using war-time measures etc. and were they to start said war….. You post a lot – but I wonder about your agenda.
Posted by: Don Firineach | Jul 20 2026 7:57 utc | 42
A reasonable observation and question to be asking. I don’t have any agenda Don, just killing time in god’s waiting room, but if I did, it could be along the lines of encouraging others to wonder much more about what other’s agendas are who present themselves as “experts” who you need to listen to repeatedly. From all sides of the ideological landscape, nation state agendas and the violent conflicts of today. Are we certain we have it all figured out already and so neatly? It’s wise to keep checking ourselves often. About what people say in here and out there, because despite appearances it appears to me there is far less genuine skepticism going on in here than people think there is.
A simpler way to put it is to look how easy it is to distort what other people are really saying. To twist it beyond recognition of what you may have thought the person intended. My point, Don, is this is happening all the time, from all sides, and I think I’m trying to show it by way of demonstration. Like a play. Because you are right, there was a little bit of distortion going on — but for positive effect, not manipulation. You noticed and thought enough about to ask. Half don’t never see it, the other half dismiss such things without thinking because it doesn’t match their “side” in the performative identity debates.
The loudest voices can’t get to decide what the real facts are. The wisdom of McNamara’s 11 Lessons are, I believe, being ignored here every day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War
I tried a more direct approach but that couldn’t get past the brick walls of entrenched belief that all these revered “experts” are actually on your side. I decided to try the entertaining approach and mix it up a bit to see if anything might fall out of the tree. Like a penny. That hy I started contributing some comments about the news directly from everyday Russian people. And local news producers there. But I’m probably trying too hard. It’s late so I’ll just leave this as a potential quiet thought provoker.
CONSIDER – In psychology, this specific, calculated tactic of using a third party to do your “dirty work” or to inflict harm on another person is generally known as triangulation or covert manipulation. The scenario you described uses several specific layers of psychological manipulation:
1. Triangulation (Divide and Conquer) What it is: The manipulator brings a third person (Fred) into the dynamic to control, attack, or undermine the target (Joe) without the manipulator getting their own hands dirty. How it works: By sharing the narrative with Fred that Joe is a “soft target” who cannot defend himself, the manipulator creates an avenue for conflict and implicitly encourages Fred to act on that vulnerability.
2. Victim Blaming and “Soft Target” Framing What it is: Manipulators often assess and publicize the weaknesses, insecurities, or emotional vulnerabilities of their targets to make them appear powerless. How it works: By broadcasting that Joe is incapable of defending himself, the manipulator is effectively chumming the water. They are lowering the social and psychological risks for Fred to attack, making Joe look like an easy target who won’t fight back.
3. Instigation / Incitement What it is: In psychological terms, this is active instigation. The manipulator uses words to prompt a third party to initiate violence or aggression. How it works: It acts as a form of social engineering. The manipulator crafts a narrative that validates or encourages Fred’s aggression, while allowing the manipulator to maintain an aura of innocence or distance when the attack actually occurs.
The Motive This behavior is commonly seen in toxic relationships or among individuals with dark triad personality traits (like narcissism or Machiavellianism). The goal is usually to assert dominance, punish Joe, or cause widespread chaos while keeping the manipulator’s own reputation safe and free from accountability.
Maybe there is more going on than assuming ‘we’ already know the ‘great game’ being played. What’s also happening but under the surface is another game or games entirely than the one the majority believe is occurring. But I certainly do not want to step on anyone’s toes attempting to explain the possibilities. But maybe the innocent aren’t that innocent after all. We usually find out about such things when it is already too late. Still there were quite a few people, also “experts”, who accurately predicted the 2008 GFC – yet few believed them beforehand.
And in a similar vein check this on the Ukraine thread, if you like, about the Jermy story – Asian Tiger | Jul 20 2026 5:50 utc | 79
It’s a metaphor, an analogy, an imaginative example that may trigger recognition of similar things all around and yet unnoticed. Of course, I don’t know for certain, and I could be wrong. If I am, then it doesn’t matter.
Posted by: Asian Tiger | Jul 20 2026 13:20 utc | 57
The Armenian connection of the “Middle Corridor”: The South Caucasus is being integrated into the “Turkic belt” (EADaily, Grigoriy Yeryomin, July 16, 2026 — in Russian)
A new geopolitical reality is emerging in the South Caucasus, one that is increasingly difficult to explain solely through the prism of the traditional Armenian–Azerbaijani confrontation. The conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, which after the events of 2023 effectively disappeared as an independent factor in regional politics, was only one element in a larger process.
Today, we are talking about the formation of a new transport, economic, and political architecture for Eurasia—from China and Central Asia to the Caspian region, Turkey and Europe. In this system, Russia risks gradually losing some of its traditional positions, while states previously considered part of Russia’s geopolitical space are beginning to seek new opportunities for foreign policy maneuvering.
Azerbaijan is becoming a key element in this process.
Just a few years ago, Baku was perceived as pursuing a classic multi-vector policy: maintaining working relations with Moscow, developing a partnership with Ankara and simultaneously engaging with the West. However, after 2020, and especially after the signing of the Shusha Declaration between Turkey and Azerbaijan in 2021, the nature of regional policy has changed significantly. Formally, this document enshrined the allied relations between the two Turkic states. However, in reality, it became the basis for deeper military-political coordination in defence, security, intelligence, foreign policy and strategic planning.
The uniqueness of the situation is that this is not simply an alliance between two states. Baku is backed by Turkey, a NATO member with its own ambitious geopolitical ambitions. And if anyone believes that Ankara’s ambitions are limited to Syria, Iraq or the Eastern Mediterranean, they need only look closely at the activities of the Organization of Turkic States, Turkish textbooks, Ankara’s official rhetoric and the consistent construction of a system of political, transport, and economic integration across the Turkic space from the Bosphorus to the northern provinces of China.
Following the 2020 war and the elimination of the Armenian presence in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan has been given the opportunity to move from addressing local issues to implementing a much larger project. The so-called “Zangezur Corridor”—a transport route designed to connect China, Central Asia, the Caspian region, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Europe, bypassing Russia—is becoming the central element of Azerbaijani policy.
Logistics enthusiasts typically reduce such projects to containers, railways, and cargo terminals. However, in the 21st century, roads have long ceased to be mere transport routes. Whoever controls communications controls the flows of capital, trade, investment, political influence, and security.
While the North–South International Transport Corridor is built around the Russia–Iran–India link, the “Zangezur Corridor,” which is part of the global “Middle Corridor,” forms an entirely different geoeconomic axis—Central Asia–Caspian Sea–Azerbaijan–Turkey–Europe. Moreover, handing over a key section of this route in Syunik, Armenia, to the U.S. potentially cuts off Chinese cargo from this highway.
In this scheme, Azerbaijan becomes more than just a transit territory. It becomes a key coordinator of the entire system.
However, it would be a mistake to view the situation solely through the prism of Baku and Ankara.
Kazakhstan has shown particular interest in implementing this scheme. Formally remaining an ally of Russia and Armenia in the EAEU and CSTO, Astana is objectively interested in developing routes that reduce dependence on Russian communications.
For Kazakhstan, the “Middle Corridor” is more than just an export route for oil, gas and uranium that bypasses Russian territory. It is an opportunity to strengthen its role in the emerging system of transportation links between China and Europe, expand its foreign policy space and enhance its own sovereignty.
It is no coincidence that Ilham Aliyev at the Shusha Media Forum particularly emphasized the strategic importance of cooperation between Baku and Astana, explicitly stating that without active cooperation between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, the implementation of major transportation projects in the Caspian Sea is impossible.
For Moscow, such processes are particularly significant. While Russia recently served as a natural center of gravity for the Central Asian states, some regional elites are now increasingly considering alternative development options in which Russia’s role is gradually diminishing.
Meanwhile, Iran remains the main and most consistent opponent of the creation of an extraterritorial corridor through Armenian territory. The reason is simple. Tehran understands perfectly well that this isn’t just a matter of roads and railway lines. It’s a redistribution of the entire transport balance of Eurasia. Therefore, what’s happening around Iran today is extremely alarming.
The latest escalation of the US–Iranian standoff has demonstrated that transport routes are becoming objects of direct geopolitical struggle. Recently, infrastructure facilities directly related to the operation of the International North–South Transport Corridor came under attack.
Among the attacked facilities was the Ak-Teke Khan railway bridge in Golestan Province on the Gorgan–Inche Burun line. This section provides rail links between Iran and Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and further on to Russia via the eastern branch of the North–South Corridor.
Damage to other railway infrastructure facilities on the Tehran–Mashhad route was also reported. At the same time, energy facilities in the Chabahar and Konarak areas came under attack.
It’s worth noting that the port of Chabahar is a key hub on the southern branch of the North–South Corridor, which Moscow, Tehran and New Delhi view as the foundation of alternative Eurasian logistics.
And here’s where things get interesting.
The less stable the route through Iran appears, the more attractive the route through the Caspian, Azerbaijan and Turkey becomes. The greater the risks to the Russia–Iran–India link, the greater the importance of the “Middle Corridor.”
Against this backdrop, Ilham Aliyev’s statements at the 2026 Shusha Global Media Forum about the Soviet past and the Russian–Ukrainian conflict are also noteworthy, demonstrating a gradual shift in Baku’s foreign policy self-identification.
When the Azerbaijani leader tells Ukraine to never accept “occupation,” this is no longer just an abstract diplomatic formula. In the context of the conflict between Russia and the West, such statements are becoming part of a strategic line.
At the same time, attitudes toward the Soviet period are changing. It is increasingly presented not as a shared history of the peoples of the former USSR, but as an era of loss of independence and occupation. For Russia, this signifies the destruction of one of the last elements of a shared historical space that for decades ensured Moscow’s influence.
As a result, a new picture is emerging.
The military-political alliance between Turkey and Azerbaijan is strengthening. The “Middle Corridor” is closing in on southern Armenia. Kazakhstan and other Central Asian states are interested in its expansion. Iran is facing increasing external pressure. Armenia is losing its position and influence over regional processes, becoming a puppet of the West. And Russia remains absorbed in the Ukrainian direction.
All of these processes are developing simultaneously and reinforcing each other.
In fact, this is precisely the main challenge for Russia.
A new regional system is emerging, in which Azerbaijan is becoming a crucial element of a large-scale geopolitical project encompassing the South Caucasus, Central Asia, the Caspian region and a significant part of the Turkic world.
At the same time, Baku continues to talk about partnership with Moscow, maintains working relations with Russia and is trying to avoid open confrontation for now.
But geopolitics differs from diplomacy in that it evaluates results, not statements.
And these results show that Azerbaijan, under the leadership of Ilham Aliyev, is making significant efforts to reduce Russia’s role in the transport, economic and political architecture of Eurasia.
If we perceive events as a series of temporary tactical episodes, we may one day discover that the South Caucasus has already been fully integrated into a new coordinate system, and key processes in the region are developing without Russia’s participation or contrary to its interests.
The world is changing rapidly today. Too rapidly to afford the luxury of ignoring the obvious.
Posted by: S | Jul 20 2026 13:24 utc | 58
3/3 Baud’s philosophical model Revisited
Now let’s take another objective, philosophical look at where else this model applies, completely outside the Russia-Ukraine-US triangle. Where else do we see this exact same dynamic:
1. The Israeli-Palestinian-Gulf triangle
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are no longer purely “Arab” in their alignment. They have tacit interests with Israel against Iran. The US treats it as a bilateral Israel-Iran problem, but it’s actually a multi-polar web where every move by Israel alienates the very Gulf states it needs for normalization—and empowers Iran by proxy. The US cannot “manage” this because it keeps playing zero-sum whack-a-mole.
2. The China-Taiwan-US triangle
The US frames this as democracy vs. autocracy—a bilateral ideological clash. But in reality, it’s a triangle where ASEAN nations, Japan, South Korea, and Australia all have their own economic and security calculations. The US keeps treating it as “win or lose” with China, but every aggressive move pushes Southeast Asian neutrals closer to Beijing for trade stability, while the US offers only military guarantees. That’s a permanent imbalance the US cannot stabilize.
3. The India-China-Pakistan triangle (with US and Russia as influencers)
India buys Russian oil, joins US-led QUAD, and fights China at the border—all while Pakistan remains a Chinese client–and a duplicitous US client at the same time. The US wants India as an anti-China ally, but that pushes Pakistan harder into China’s arms, which in turn makes India more dependent on Russia for defense. No one “wins” this game. It’s a perpetual motion machine of triangulation.
4. Corporate geopolitics: Big Tech, governments, and users
The US government wants to regulate tech giants. Tech giants want global markets. Users want privacy and cheap services. Europe wants digital sovereignty. China wants its own ecosystem. Now Australia is breaking away wanting to govern it’s own AI ecosystem too. Every time the US pressures China on tech, it pushes Europe to build its own stack (GDPR, AI Act), which weakens US influence. Every time Europe regulates, US tech firms lose revenue and pivot to Asia. Zero-sum thinking (US vs. China) creates a multi-polar backlash that hurts the US most. Where is Russia in this AI future?
5. The climate-energy triangle
US, China, and Europe all compete for green tech dominance. But they also need each other’s supply chains (rare earths, batteries, solar panels). If the US treats this as a “race to win,” it sanctions Chinese minerals—which drives China to deepen ties with Russia and Africa, cutting the US out of critical supply lines. Meanwhile, Europe gets squeezed between US protectionism and Chinese pricing. Nobody wins; everyone loses stability.
The core philosophical takeaways:
Baud is right about one thing—the world is not a billiard table with two balls. It’s a web. But his error is to assume that only the West is bad at managing this, or that only the Middle East works this way. In truth, every major power struggles with relational triangulation, because triangulation is the natural state of human affairs once you have more than two actors with agency. It even operates the same among individuals on an internet forum, as it does among nations states on the world stage.
The common denominator is: conflicts are bound to arise.
The USSR failed in Afghanistan for the same reason the US failed — not because of differences of “Western” vs “Eastern” thinking, but because they treated a tribal, multi-factional society as a binary Cold War proxy fight. When it wasn’t.
Russia is failing in Ukraine now for the similarly objective reasons — they assumed a quick bilateral knockout in Feb 2022, not a multi-year triangle of Ukraine + NATO + global sanctions + trade wars + internal Russian elite politics + blockade of Persian Gulf oil and gas today.
The US is failing in the Middle East now for the same reason — they keep treating Iran as a standalone problem, assuming regime change will fix it, while ignoring the triangle of Iran + Russia + China + Gulf states + Israeli domestic politics + Ansar Allah + the Iranian people themselves.
So, besides the 11 Lessons addressed by McNamara, like “Empathize with your enemy”, the real universal law is this:
Any great power that frames a complex, multi-actor conflict as a simple two-player game will lose—not because they are culturally inferior, but because they are epistemologically lazy.
Baud’s insight is valuable, but he’s not describing a Western flaw. He’s describing a great power flaw. The Russians, the Chinese, the Americans, the Indians, the Europeans—all of them do this. The only ones who don’t are the small players who have no choice but to triangulate just to survive (think: Singapore, Switzerland, UAE, Vietnam, the Pacific Islands).
So, when I said originally “we all accept this, right” — yes, we should. But we should also accept that this is not a critique of the US alone. It’s a critique of anyone who thinks they can dictate outcomes in a world that no longer takes dictation!
That’s the honest, objective framing. Anything else is biased subjective Campaigning.
Remember it, Baud’s model is this:
In any system with three or more active players, a zero-sum mindset is catastrophic because victory is not binary—it’s relational. The winner is not the one who destroys the other, but the one who manages the perceptions and alliances of the third (and fourth, and fifth) parties. Failure to understand that creates permanent instability.
We can apply that to almost anyone. Along with Lesson #7: Belief and seeing are both often wrong. We see what we want to believe.
Posted by: Asian Tiger | Jul 21 2026 9:38 utc | 78
|
