It's Friday, And Everyone Is Talking About The Upcoming NATO Summit In Vilnius

Heh. Just kidding. I don’t think the Ruling Class wants us little people to even be aware that this summit is even taking place. Originally the concept was that Ukraine would triumphantly smash through Russian defenses and sever the Russian land bridge to Crimea. Then, more or less simultaneously, NATO would hold a triumphalist summit virtually on Russia’s border to demand Russian concessions. In the event, the much vaunted Ukrainian offensive hasn’t even been able to reach the first Russian defense line—and has suffered catastrophic losses in men and materiel, with the added spectacle of much hyped Western weapons systems burning on the Ukrainian steppe.

All this has led Stephen Bryen (quoted this morning by Larry Johnson) to offer a sobering assessment. Bryen goes through a lengthy description of the militarily very hard place the US and NATO find themselves in. He concludes that the Western failures in Ukraine have also exposed the threadbare nature of the entire NATO “tripwire” defensive strategy against Russia as largely an illusion. In light of those considerations he concludes:

What to Expect from the Vilnius NATO Summit

The bottom line is that NATO's strategy needs revision or, alternatively, that the Europeans and Russians work out a mutually acceptable security arrangement. It is exactly such an arrangement that Russia proposed to NATO in December, 2021 and which was rejected without discussion.

... It could not be a worse time to risk Europe's security on the basis of being able to stop a Russian attack. It may be easy for British politicians to scream they want NATO to fight in Ukraine, but it isn't London that is likely the first target of Russia's missiles. Cracks in the alliance are emerging more quickly than anticipated, and Europe's weak governments are in trouble.

It will be interesting to see how Vilnius plays out. It will certainly be a propagandistic show, but there is a good chance Vilnius will be a flop.

That’s similar to the point I was making last night. Putin went into the Special Military Operation having enunciated his terms in advance—in writing—in the two draft treaties he sent to the West in December, 2021. Rollback NATO. Alexander Mercouris has several times described the giddiness of the West at the Munich Security Conference before the start of the SMO, as the Neocons and Globalists anticipated deposing Putin and looting Russia of its resources—all to be accomplished within a matter of weeks, through the shock and awe magic of sanctions.

Will Schryver describes the situation less kindly than Bryen, although Bryen’s assessment is stark enough—an admission of defeat:

Will Schryver

@imetatronink

It increasingly appears to me that the Ukrainian military is a spent force. The devastating losses attendant to this ill-conceived "offensive" have shattered their morale, from Zaluzhny to the newest cannon fodder conscript.

To the extent this is true — and the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests it is — then the upcoming NATO meetings in Lithuania will face a binary choice: Crawl to the Russians to receive their terms, or undertake a futile (and ultimately catastrophic) attempt to reclaim the situation via direct military intervention.

The imperial masters are perched on the horns of the most impossible dilemma America has faced since it embarked on The Road to Empire and Ruin.

What will they do? It is the Kobayashi Maru scenario playing out in real time, and the parameters are not subject to alteration.

https://t.me/Slavyangrad/53570

7:23 PM · Jul 6, 2023

The US rejection of the UK’s war mongering Ben Wallace to head NATO (memorably described by Tom Luongo as “a genuine 60 IQ, mouth breathing moron”) was a clear signal that saner heads in the US have prevailed over the Neocons. But as a matter of politics, who in the US can embrace the other choice of the binary “crawl[ing] to the Russians to receive their terms?”

Last night when I was writing I hadn’t yet listened to the two Duran Guys. They have a manageable length video out that deals with this whole issue. I’m embedding the video, followed by my summary. Now, my summary includes rephrasing and some minimal observations of my own. My belief is that my sparing additions and emendations are very much in the spirit of the video—which I highly recommend.

By now all the major NATO countries know the Ukrainian “offensive” is a total failure. Behind the scenes, recriminations are the order of the day. The CIA is leaking that it's having serious trouble controlling the Ukrainian crazies that the Anglosphere put in power. NATO is in a shambles, unable to agree on a replacement leader. Behind that failure was the fact that the Pentagon was furious with the UK’s Ben Wallace because Wallace pushed "too hard" for sending F-16s to Ukraine. The US, probably the Pentagon, has been dragging its feet because it’s looking for a way to back out of that commitment due to the failure of other Western weapons systems. One more high profile failure of American arms on the world stage is not what the US MIC wants.

Significantly, the mood in Poland—long among the most ardent war mongering NATO countries—has turned strongly against committing troops. Perhaps the Polish regime sees the handwriting on the wall. Poland is, after all, very close to the situation. Perhaps public sentiment against the flood of Ukrainians into Poland is playing a role, coupled with Ukraine’s refusal to apologize for the WW2 genocide of Poles in Volhynia at the hands of the Banderite forerunners of the current Ukro-Nazi regime. I have no idea how much influence this Polish publication has, but the sentiments are probably not too far off for many Poles of all political persuasions:

Victor vicktop55

@vicktop55

“Opening borders for Ukrainian refugees was a fatal mistake. It's like opening the gates to hell, from which the devils are now emerging”: The Polish magazine Niezalezny Dziennik Polityczny reports that Ukrainian refugees participated in riots in France for money. As a result, the wave of violence in our countries is only growing. During the unrest in France, Ukrainians take an active part in the so-called "paid attacks". https://t.me/vicktop55/15972

12:43 AM · Jul 7, 2023

What emerges, as NATO plans for its big summit, is that there really is no NATO plan going forward.

Meanwhile, the AfD is surging in Germany, LePen is surging in France as public discontent grows by the day. More and more smaller countries are starting to step back from the Neocon brink—Hungary is no longer as isolated as it was. Neocon “diplomacy” is a signal failure. Blinken and now Yellen--probably the powers behind Zhou--are being stiffed and humiliated by China. Any idea that China would intercede with Russia to afford an easy out from Ukraine for the US is dead.

The hardest core of the Neocons still want all out war but they appear to be losing influence to the Pentagon and, more importantly, to the political pros—including some with strong Neocon sympathies. The DNC's great idea is to "manage" the war out to November, 2024, so that Russia doesn't win outright and we don't lose outright. They know Americans won't accept American boots on the ground in Ukraine--and everyone knows that NATO involvement really means American boots on the ground.

Alexander Mercouris presents the basic problem for America: You can control the Ukrainians--up to a point. You can control the Europeans almost entirely. But you can't control the Russians--and the Russians have their own plans. The Russians have made their terms for entering negotiations entirely clear: America must stop supplying arms and munitions to Ukraine and America alone must then sit down and talk, one on one, with Russia. No NATO--Putin hasn't returned German or French phone calls for months--just America. And Russia has no incentive whatsoever to help the Zhou regime politically and so will show itself to be utterly implacable in negotiations.

Politically, how does the Zhou regime even get to negotiations, since they've consistently portrayed Putin as a criminal and literally Hitler? Just as China has been consistently demonized from the very beginning of the Zhou regime. In fact, it's difficult to determine exactly who Putin would be willing to talk to within the Zhou regime. Any of the Neocons at State or the NSC? Almost certainly not. Burns at the CIA, with whom the Chinese were willing to speak? Possibly, but Burns has made some delusional statements about recruiting Russians recently that may rule him out. US military leaders? Maybe, but the whole situation is very difficult. Russian trust has collapsed.

Resolution on less than utterly humiliating terms may not be possible with Zhou still the nominal head of state, and with his team in place. Could it be that a decision to dump Zhou could be forced upon the Deep State? Would the Dems be willing to accept that? Doubtful.

Even worse. The Russians are getting militarily stronger and have strong incentives to finish this war sooner rather than later. Moreover, the latest Russian polling--courtesy of Simplicius, Zelensky Builds One Last Suicidal Thrust to Appease Masters--shows a heavy majority of Russians will support Putin if he decides to launch a major offensive. If Putin decides on that course, a resolution--catastrophic for Ukraine, for the collective West as a united geopolitical entity, and for the US foreign policy establishment--could come a year sooner than the US elections.

Resolution on less than utterly humiliating terms may not be possible with Zhou still the nominal head of state, and with his team in place. Could it be that a decision to dump Zhou could be forced upon the Deep State?

Now, this morning, The Duran Guys have a new video out which expands on some of these same issues, but also delves into the emerging divide among the ranks of the Neocons. Specifically, they finger Richard Haass, outgoing president of the CFR, as a major moving force behind the attempts to get in touch with the Russian government to find some way out of Ukraine for the US. This divide has emerged in a new article at the Neoconnish foreign policy organ, Foreign Affairs. Here’s a link to that video.
As Mercouris notes, some important players among the Neocons are becoming alarmed at the direction things are heading:

Neocons warn Biden White House, Don’t Let Ukraine Join NATO

Around the 20 minute mark they get into a discussion of the real problem: Zhou himself. They present the alternatives:

Getting Zhou out of office as a prelim to negotiations. Even Obama knew that Zhou would make a complete pig’s breakfast of matters, but the Neocon control over foreign policy remains a major problem. And the Dems are then left with Kama Sutra. Hey, shoutout to GOP NeverTrumps, Barr and McConnell: Good work!

Russian victory and dissolution of NATO.

It seems to me that these are in no way mutually exclusive. Mercouris’ view is that, while influential players are trying to extricate America from this disaster, but that it’s an uphill struggle, largely due to the boneheaded Zhou but also due to the Neocon stranglehold over politics on the foreign policy level.

The default solution appears to be Russian victory with no negotiated settlement that would soften the blow for the US. Russia effectively won this war when sanctions failed. We’re witnessing a protracted end game, and debating the identity of the major losers.