The Ukraine Trap

If Russia invades Ukraine, then Putin will fall for the trap NATO has set for him. As anyone who partakes of any news is sure to know, the Western propaganda campaign is running white hot, to the point that even questioning the official narrative can take down a high ranking admiral – as was seen recently in Germany. The US and NATO are doing all they can to provoke Moscow. This run-up to war is a campaign in itself and there are several angles to consider.

The UK's Johnson government is attempting to deflect from its own scandals and thus they (at the behest of Washington or via coordinated collaboration) floated the claim that Russia was planning to stage a coup in Kiev. Preposterous given the present circumstances, as expected the story quickly fell apart, and yet it contributed to the overall hype and edginess that NATO is trying to promote.

Now the US is pulling civilians out and emptying the embassy – a sure sign of war. And yet there is no real threat of war, that is unless the US plans to start something, which they may. It's looking like a real possibility. Their goal will be to do all they can to try and get Moscow to fire a shot and then the entire narrative (including all its falsehoods) will be vindicated and will brook no further examination. It's an old trick the US has employed more than once.

A war with Russia will effectively give NATO a new charter, a new raison d'être so badly needed as the War on Terror has faded into obscurity, as Trump all but wrecked the Atlanticist model, and as both Germany and France have sought a modus vivendi with Moscow. Even now, there is a clearly reticence and reluctance coming out of Paris and Berlin – they see that the US is manipulating NATO into war and they don't really want it. Ukraine isn't even part of NATO but Washington is treating Kiev as if it's a de facto member and has pledged logistical and military aid – and given the intensity of the propaganda campaign, a conflict will quickly and necessarily envelop all of NATO.

Will Nordstream 2 be feasible if NATO is engaged in open conflict with Russia? It will certainly be harder to sell and sustain. Both Wall Street and Washington would be thrilled if the project were abandoned.

NATO is in tatters and this manufactured crisis is exactly the sort of thing the leadership wants. No more talk of an independent European army. This will renew Atlanticism as a Europe under threat will 'need' the United States just as they did during the Cold War. While the marketing is not as effective as Cold War I with the supposedly existential clash between the Free World and Communism, Cold War II is already being pushed as the Democracies versus Anti-Liberal Authoritarianism. But just as with the first Cold War, it's not really that simple and any real student of history, political theory, or the history of ideas will know this present casting is bunk – pure propaganda for the gullible and malleable masses.

And yet if Russia does not move – and I'm still waiting to see the real evidence of this pending and dire threat (as the US has an established record of lying about this sort of thing), then in some respects it's still mission accomplished for Washington. The fear campaign has been very effective. Listening to the retired generals (the ones who are deeply invested in the military-industrial complex and then get hired on as media commentators), they're pushing the notion that 'the allies' (i.e. NATO) have to be brought together. That's a big part of what this is about. In one quick sweep the Biden administration is attempting to repair the grievous damage done by his predecessor and at the same time dash the dreams of European autonomy which have re-appeared in recent years.

There is a danger though. Such attempts at re-unifying NATO may in fact break it. All the players may not go along and then the crisis will quickly become internal and multi-faceted. It's a danger that could affect not just NATO but the EU itself. You can be sure this on the mind of leaders like Macron, von der Leyen, and Germany's new chancellor Olaf Scholz.

The American Right and the FOX world (for its part) will spin the story no matter what. If Biden gets into a war, he's a fool and reckless. If he avoids war, he's Neville Chamberlain and its Munich all over again. It doesn't matter what he does, they're going to attack him. They're just scoundrels and have no interest in actual events or ideas. And for all their patriotic bluster, they're partisan to the extreme, to the point of being willing to see their country deeply harmed. As a Christian I am no patriot but neither do I pretend to be one. No matter which angle you view them, the Right is dominated by deceit and consequentialist ethics – which in the end are no ethics at all.

At least the mainstream corporate-run and connected media outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times will turn against Biden if he's not performing. And right now they're putting a lot of pressure on him. It's at moments like this that the so-called 'liberal' credentials of these organisations are belied by their blatant warmongering and monied interests.

And regardless of whether war breaks out or not, Russia is certain to face economic sanctions as a consequence for their 'aggression' and 'brinksmanship' – a form of economic warfare meant to drive Moscow to desperation and to make more desperate moves.

Ukraine has been in a tug of war between Washington and Moscow since the end of the Cold War. The United States moved in and dominated in the 1990's and within a matter of years appropriated all the Warsaw Pact nations. Since then, under the aegis of the EU and NATO, the Atlantic Establishment has pushed into the former Soviet Union – targeting Moldova, Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The efforts in the latter realm have resulted mostly in failure. In the Caucasus, the greatest success has been in Georgia and to a limited extent in Azerbaijan. Armenia remains close to Moscow but there's trouble there as well and Western agents are at work.

The US hand was at work in Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution which led to the installation of such Western finance-friendly figures as Viktor Yushchenko, and Yulia Tymoshenko who obscured her oligarchical role with the trappings of nationalism and a make-over in terms of female-charm. Moscow-friendly Viktor Yanukovych remained viable as an opposition figure and came to power in 2010. He moved closer to Russia and went after political opponents like Tymoshenko, throwing her in prison for corruption and other crimes.

The US sponsored the Maidan coup in 2014 which led to Yanukovych's ouster and the rehabilitation of figures like Tymoshenko. Despite proclaiming her innocent, the truth is that she is highly corrupt. They all are. Caught in a proxy war with money and influence flowing in from East and West, rich with resources, and dominated by oligarchic factions, the country is dripping in criminality and corruption. And this is in addition to the ugly fact that Ukraine is a cobbled-together entity, a country that can never be unified with its current borders and political system. History shows that such countries either end up being dominated by a strongman, an outside power, or they tend to fall apart.

Petro Poroshenko came into office and was defeated in 2019 by the comedian-turned-politician Volodymyr Zelensky who has been mostly (but not as zealously) committed to the West – that is until now. The contest has gone back and forth and yet Western media coverage provides little if any context. Putin (a cunning and evil but supremely practical and calculating man) is always painted as the aggressor. The suggestion that the West is attempting to topple his regime and dismantle Russia is decried as delusional and nonsense. But is it?

I've written extensively about the Slavic-Orthodox world and their hostile perception of the Latin-Enlightenment West and the long and bitter history between the two. The cultural hostility goes back more than a thousand years and the Cold War was often less about the specific ideologies as much as it was the old conflict recast in a new milieu. There are times when the Orthodox world is overly paranoid and (speaking in general terms) there is a tendency to fall prey to conspiracy-oriented thinking – sometimes plausible or even real, and other times invented and fantastical.

NATO has nothing on record that indicates their plan to push East and dismantle Russia but they don't have to release a white paper to make their intentions clear. The media coverage, the diplomatic moves, and the signals they've been sending since the 1990's are sufficient. One also needs to understand the conclusion of World War II and what happened in the settlement of Eastern Europe – another chapter that has been re-written and subject to revisionism, as has the role Russia played (and the price it paid) in the war itself. This is critical to understanding why Russia was willing to allow German reunification in 1990 only if NATO promised not to expand to the East.

Breaking the promises made to Gorbachev at the conclusion of the Cold War and the implosion of the Soviet Union, the Atlanticist Empire has been working to encircle Russia and establish beachheads deep within its territory, and in the case of Ukraine they have openly collaborated with fascistic elements that were aligned with Nazi Germany in World War II – the combined force that slaughtered over 25 million Russians in the Operation Barbarossa holocaust of 1941-1945. This may be dismissed as ancient history or old news by Western strategists and commentators but there's nothing old or passé about it to Moscow and the way the present game board is being set up – it revives terrible memories and ghosts from the past.

The US has clearly signalled they want Putin out and there's now an established track record of pseudo-grass roots colour revolutions that the US has fomented and sponsored in various countries. Washington openly harbours and supports anti-Putin dissidents, the figures who will be key to such colour revolution scenarios. It's not hard to imagine a situation in which Russia could descend into chaos as a result of one of these actions and then to 'save the people of Russia', to 'preserve democracy', for 'the security of Europe' – or whatever narrative line happens to be convenient, NATO (at that point positioned all around the Russian frontier) makes its move. Instead of rescuing Benghazi from a Qaddafi-led assault, it will be Kazan, Samara, or Rostov-on-Don. There's a script for this sort of thing.

As Prussia was eradicated in 1947 by the victors of WWII, it's likely that Russia would be parceled out, or even more likely it would fragment into fighting factions – some allied with NATO, and others with various interests connected to the Russian oligarchy or other historical interests. It would become like Germany or Korea post-1945, an insoluble enigma-like scenario that would further justify the continued existence of NATO and require Europe to continue sponsoring American troops on the continent. This isn't paranoid delusion, not even close. And then of course there are the vast resources and riches that Russia possesses. Hitler coveted them. Don't think for a moment the American and European oligarchies don't.

The US has been pushing hard for war and a largely proxy one in Ukraine would be just as convenient. The American Establishment doesn't care how many people die. It is inconsequential to them.

And as mentioned previously, in 2021 there were serious stories floating about in the news and in intelligence circles regarding a pending attempt by Kiev (sponsored by NATO) to re-capture the Crimea. Putin it seems is drawing a line (by staging (or not staging) troops on the border) but it's a dangerous game as NATO actually wants an excuse. We'll have to see if he falls into their trap. Either way it's probably a case of lose-lose for Putin. I can't really see a scenario in which he comes out on top. His best bet is for the fragmentation of the Atlanticist framework, one in which the US footprint and ability to influence Europe is reduced or eradicated. The re-election of Donald Trump in 2024 holds some possibilities to be sure. If Atlanticism collapses and NATO fragments, at that juncture Russia will have effective parity with the power centres of the EU. Russia wants a buffer and guarantees and it wants the US to stay away from its borders and away from its historical regions of interest and influence. The US unabashedly manipulated Russian elections in the 1990's and has sponsored wars on its borders and conflict within them – including collaboration with Islamic terrorists. Moscow knows what Washington will do if given the chance.

Is nuclear war a possibility? Let's hope not. For Putin to entertain the use of such weapons would an act of suicidal desperation, a vengeful repeat of the Soviet 'Dead Hand' system. The US on the other hand has been producing studies, papers, issuing directives, and pursuing technologies which indicate Washington is actually quite keen to utilise them, especially smaller yield weapons in tactical or battlefield scenarios – a shift from the strategic doctrines which dominated the Cold War. If they're going to be used, the United States is the far more likely candidate when it comes to 'pushing the button' – and yet certainly something short of a First Strike. The US has long been a rogue state but it cloaks its lawlessness under concepts like 'Exceptionalism' by which it can argue (in sociopathic fashion) that the rules others must live by don't apply to America.

And of course as the American public, including the Church-going public is given over to patriotic sentiment and often nationalist fervor, the outbreak of war will lead to a further abandonment of Christian thinking and ethics and Christians will not only participate in these conflicts, they will cheer on 'the troops' and once again the testimony of the Church will suffer and its identity will be confused and obscured – a sure strategy emanating from enemies in the spiritual realm.

Finally it needs to be said that if actual war breaks out, it's possible, even likely that we may see China make a move in the Asia-Pacific. Beijing also knows that Washington wants war and that if China is going to achieve its regional goals regarding Taiwan and the displacing of America's Asian Empire, then the time to move is when the US is entangled with Moscow. It also will help the Russians as US resources and attention will quickly be fragmented. While the Russian front is critical to US goals vis-à-vis Europe, a conflict with China will potentially be much larger and of more direct and serious consequence.

We are seeing wars and rumours of wars. We needn't be troubled but we still ought to pray. Pray that wisdom is granted, repentance is invoked, conscience prevails and that the millions who stand in the path of this violence and suffer its consequence might be spared – some of whom are brethren. Pray that good would come, that people would be driven to contemplate deeper questions, the transitory nature of this life as well as its meaning. Pray they would see the lies and no longer be deceived. And as such they will call on Christ. And we may hope that such events will lead faithful Church leaders to arise and denounce those ear-tickling false teachers and hirelings who have fallen prey to idolatry and the ethics of idolatry – whether in the forms of mammon or nationalism. May these events (terrible as they may be) prove an opportunity for genuine Biblical reform and renewal.