Neocon West Stuck In Denial

Yesterday we reviewed discussions that suggested that NATO (i.e., US Neocons), having pushed Ukraine into a disastrous war with Russia when Ukraine had agreed in Instanbul to a very reasonable peace deal, are now blaming Ukraine for not doing as NATO told them tactics wise and are pushing Ukraine to cover NATO’s behind by taking the initiative in seeking a “frozen conflict” negotiation with Russia. The obvious difficulty is that this NATO proposed escape route benefits only NATO. There is no benefit in it for Russia, and so no incentive at all for Russia to participate in the charade. Putin long ago openly stated that the longer this war continues the tougher will be Russia’s terms.

We can also assume that China would probably oppose such a deal, given that the usual Neocon suspects in the West are loudly promoting a strategy of: ceasefire now with Russia, pivot then to war with China, followed by a renewed war on Russia. It’s all deeply disgusting. Awful as the Kiev regime may be, to see Ukraine reduced to an economic and demographic shell of what it was, with hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainian men sacrificed on the altar of Neocon hubris … it’s stomach turning stuff. Not to mention that this latest bit of strategery will most likely lead only to further disaster for the West and suffering for humanity.

Nevertheless, Western machinations continue, and what was whispered in the inner room is now being pretty much proclaimed from the rooftop—albeit from behind a screen of straw men:

Alex Christoforou

@AXChristoforou

Blinken went to Kiev for two days to break the news to Elensky, super duper offensive failed, negotiations have to start.

Blinken is now making the rounds on MSM, putting together the story that will be sold to the masses, as the US dumps project Ukraine, framing defeat as victory, trying to avoid an Afghanistan debacle.

BLINKEN: It takes two to tango:

We see no indication Putin has any interest in meaningful diplomacy. If he does, I think the Ukrainians will be the first to engage. We’ll be right behind them.

Everyone wants this war to end.

Putin has already lost in what he was trying to achieve. He was trying to erase Ukraine from the map.

See? If in the future Ukraine still appears on maps, that means Putin lost, we won. Simple. If Putin agrees to talk to the Ukrainians, that means Putin lost. Forget everything else.

Alex Christoforou

@AXChristoforou

It's called trickle truth. Ukraine is in 'deep trouble.' Those that believed Elensky would be marching on Moscow are being drip fed reality.

I like that. “Some experts” have at least some tenuous contact with the real world.

Dagny Taggart

@DagnyTaggart963

Baerbock arrived in Kiev on an unannounced visit.

Annalena we will be waiting for your unforgettable and historical statements.

What could possibly be up?

Alex Christoforou

@AXChristoforou

Blinken, Boris, and now Annalena 360. Obviously, something big is going on. Blinken broke the news. Then BFF Boris came in to console his little buddy, and now Annalena is in Kiev. She is Elensky's number one fan.

360 is in Kiev to dangle EU membership as pressure mounts to negotiate. I imagine her message to be:

'It's not the end Volodymyr, we will spin this as a win and then work to get you into the EU. You will be safe.'

Do they really believe that verbal magic tricks will triumph over reality, that Putin and Russia will throw in their winning hand and agree to submit?

The war mongering Daily Telegraph makes no bones about what’s going on in Ukraine right now. Well, the title pitches it straight, although the article itself goes deep into floundering denial:

Sophia

@les_politiques

Ukraine’s counter-offensive is stalling. The West must prepare for humiliation.

Ukraine’s counteroffensive is stalling. The West must prepare for humiliation

We cannot have a repeat of the foreign-policy errors that followed Putin’s 2014 Crimean land grab

5:41 PM · Sep 10, 2023

Actually, the much vaunted counter-offensive never really got off the mark. But it’s interesting to see what The Telegraph, via Richard Kemp, a leading monger of this insane war, has to spin—screening the damaging admissions behind a Churchillian bodyguard of lies:

Time is running out for Ukraine. After 18 months of war, it is no longer a question of if the Western alliance will falter, but when. Since the start, despite making many of the right noises and supplying some military hardware, France and Germany, in particular, have been reluctant partners. Their leaders have often seemed more concerned with finding an “off-ramp” for Vladimir Putin than ejecting his forces from Ukraine. As well as dependency on Russian energy, a pacifist instinct among Western European political classes has led to neglect of their armed forces and a corresponding fear of escalation.

Yes, we’re losing but don’t believe those who said the war was crazy and doomed to failure. A united Europe, er, a more prepared US, could have “ejedted” Putin. Or, if Europe had a military worth speaking of, THEN they could “ejected” Putin.

Kemp seems to sense, as Alexander Mercouris was saying recently, that Britian may come out of this with the lion’s share of lumps among Western nations, as the US inevitably backs out. He blames the “faint hearted” US rather than crazed Neocon hubris that ignored the ineluctable realities that warned against embarking on yet another war on Russia—especially a well prepared Russia. Note, too, that Kemp ignores the failure of the Sanctions Shock and Awe, which was always the cornerstone of the Neocon strategy. This guy is crazy:

As the provider of the lion’s share of backing for Ukraine, it is the US calling the shots in this war. …

… Faint-hearted concerns over provoking Putin explains [Zhou’s] failure to provide urgently-needed weapons, including combat planes and long-range missiles, and for his obstinate resistance against Nato membership for Ukraine.

I saw an interesting article the other day in which Belgium explained why they weren’t sending any F-16s to Ukraine. According to the Belgians, those plains are so worn out that they’re not fit for Belgians to fly and so, out of humanitarian concern, they won’t allow even Ukrainian war fodder to fly them. The article pointed out that the Dutch F-16’s being sent are in even worse shape. We’ve seen this over and over again—NATO is dumping its worn out or otherwise inadequate-to-task equipment on Ukraine, and then blames Ukraine for the inevitable failures. Presumably it was the “resolve” shown by the West in pushing its junk off on Ukraine that was supposed to lead Putin to agree to be defeated.

And then Kemp lets the cat out of the bag about the real strategy now—including the provision of ATACMS missiles:

None of this will make a significant difference. No strategic adjustment can turn the war around without dramatically increased military aid [See? ATACMS, etc., is only cover for what’s really going on.]. And whether or not corruption is tackled, Olaf Scholz, Emmanuel Macron and, most importantly, Biden will be exerting pressure on Kyiv to come to terms, sooner or later. Biden foretold this last summer, when he wrote that the US was arming Ukraine not to defeat Russian aggression, but to “fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table”. Putin is only likely to play ball – though this is far from certain – provided he can keep the Ukrainian territory he has illegally annexed, and Ukraine’s Nato membership is kept permanently off the table.

That would obviously be a disaster for Ukraine, but it would also be a defeat for Nato. For Putin, it would be a victory …

This much is true: NATO is cruising for a major defeat. It will be a victory for Putin—even more, around the world it will be viewed as vindication for Putin, who will be hailed as the statesman and leader that he actually is. As opposed to the hapless virtue signalling clowns who run the West.

Kemp spends the rest of his space calling for the “robust damage-limitation strategy” that “a humiliated West will need.” He doesn’t explain where the wherewithal for the massive military buildup would come from, given the disastrous boomerang effect of the Sanctions War. He even admits that the UK, yapping war monger in chief among the NATO empty suits, “continues to make further cuts to its undersized army.” These nutjobs seem to believe that war comes down to rhetoric, despite proof to the contrary in Ukraine. Magic words.

And so, following humiliation at the hands of Russia, with the rise of BRICS—and, not at all coincidentally, energy prices—Kemp, knowing that the military spending won’t be there, calls for the Europe to unite behind a program of further antagonizing a victorious Russia. As if the Russian - Saudi oil production cuts and the Russian Black Sea blockade—including the way Russia has swatted away subterfuges to trick them back into the grain deal—hasn’t shown the extent of Russian and non-Western resolve.

But the reader can see that Kemp is scrambling and floundering, because having called for continued “economic warfare”—in other words, continued warfare—he admits the “problematic” of his pipedreams, while engaging in further mad fantasies:

A second prong would be continued economic warfare … [to] undermine Moscow’s ability to rearm. This is highly problematic. No doubt any peace deal would entail lifting sanctions, so more imaginative means of stifling Russia’s war economy are needed. Interdiction of weapons supply from Iran and North Korea – which both present a grave threat to the West – should be seriously explored.

Russia’s ability to rearm? Is that somehow in doubt?

Interdiction of weapons trade between Russian and the rest of the world? That’s an act of war. And has Kemp looked at a map recently? How exactly would he propose to interdict shipments between Iran, Korea, and Russia?

Does Russia possess no economic weapons of its own with which to retaliate? If it doesn’t, how to explain that boomerang effect?

And then Kemp advances yet another flailing effort at staving off humilitation. The West will “lawfare” the rest of the world into submission—the liberal passive aggressive approach gone global:

Another important track is for Western states to sponsor civil legal action against frozen Russian assets, which currently amount to about £600 billion globally. … “lawfare” could be a game-changer in clipping Russia’s wings and would also send a clear signal against future aggression to states such as China and Iran. But a strategic approach is needed, such as the establishment of an international tribunal dedicated specifically to such litigation. To maximise effect in the face of sanctions removal, this needs to be set up before any peace talks.

The overwhelming likelihood is that lawfare of this sort will simply be viewed by the BRICS countries named by Kemp for what it really is: warfare. The Neocon and Globalist West will set up its own “tribunal” and Russian and China will reflexively recognize its legitimacy to seize their assets? Before any peace talks? There won’t be any peace talks, so back to square one, which is: NATO defeat and humiliation, with a continuing economic squeeze to add a bit of spice to it all.

Finally after all the buildup, Kemp unleashes the punch line at the end:

… the West … needs to be planning decisive measures for the day after, rather than simply repeating the errors that followed Putin’s Crimean land grab in 2014 and led directly to the 2022 invasion.

This is pure goofiness and dishonesty on multiple levels.

“Decisive measures”—but the measures he has suggested are all wildly impractical and, coming “the day after” defeat and humiliation will likely only provoke retaliation. Well, retaliation against Britain, a country which Russia is increasingly openly identifying as the real enemy—France and Germany are actively looking for a way to patch things up with Russia, so Britain can go it alone. The US may very well be preoccupied with its own problems.

And then the Big Lie: It was all a land grab and invasion. No mention of the US/UK coup in Ukraine in 2014, no mention of Ukraine’s war on its ethnic Russian population. This guy needs a strong dose of John Mearsheimer (or any of a long list of foreign policy experts). The “foreign policy errors” began before 2014, and that’s the crucial point—Western hubristic aggression against Russia led to the debacle. This tragedy could have been avoided. The awful truth is that Neocons did not want to avoid it—they embraced it. But this degree of delusion on Kemp’s part sums up the existential and spiritual crisis of the West—groping to retain control over the levers of international power rather than seeking a way to play a constructive role in the emerging new order.