Wars will cool, as blonde-haired people complain

In a previous post, I stated that a hot war in the Global North is good news for the Global South, which will get a break from US-imposed and Western-encouraged violence.

The pause in the Western-backed regime change effort in Ethiopia, diluting and hijacking the cause of people of Tigray as a proxy force, has held. A truce, between the government in Addis Ababa and the Tigrayan rebels, has been successfully sustained, to the relief of millions of people.

Yemeni peace on the horizon

Another bombed and impoverished land, Yemen, also experienced relief as of the start of this month. Coinciding with the Ramadan ceasefire, the aged former president Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi stepped down on 7 April, entirely removing the purpose of the US-backed Saudi military intervention into the country and further robbing the UN-recognised regime of credibility. This was inevitable from the day the bombs first exploded above the ears of that oppressed nation.

But Saudi Arabia need not be berated, nor should it necessarily feel any further wrath for its part in a grave crime. From the start, they were only doing the bidding of the United States. Also coinciding with the cessation of hostilities in long-suffering Yemen was the mockery of the United States President, for the first time, on Saudi television.

Preceding the developments in Yemen, was the refusal of both the Saudi and Emirati leaders to talk to the US President about oil. Therefore, much as predicted in an earlier post here, it may be Mohammed bin Salman himself who shall lead his country's revolution in the wake of a conclusion so unfavourable to the United States in Yemen.

The timing of the cooling off of the conflicts is aligned, spectacularly well, with the diversion of US attention to Europe. For a change, the Global South seems to be getting safer.

Is the "purveyor of violence" distracted?

Is a trend towards peaceful settlements and cooperation now growing internationally, prompted by the increased distraction of the United States and its allies by the conflict in Europe? Now that people with blue eyes and blonde hair are being killed, quite regrettably, might people with dark tones of skin now finally be given a break?

With a sufficient pause to rebuild themselves after a foreign-imposed war of intrigue, could nations regain their splendour, pride and dignity, such that they are the envy of others, and such that they are truly able to calculate what they were robbed of?

Could the partial withdrawal of evil from Africa and the Middle East be evidence of where it emanates? Could the successful ceasefires, when US interest is diverted away, be evidence that, as asserted once by Dr Martin Luther King Jr., the United States is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”? Could it be that rather than being confronted spontaneously by random villains such as Saddam Hussein or Vladimir Putin, the United States is itself the single concentration of world evil?

The common denominator in world conflicts is the United States. The United States is engaged in every conflict or has taken a side in some way, suggesting its own regime is the vile source from which violence, coercion and killing emanate.

Upon realising the above, will nations take steps to fortify themselves against the supreme international evil and prevent it from returning to desecrate their innocent land?

Read More »

Does US global responsibility deserve another chance?

The US has seized on what it regards as Russia's breach of international peace and stability to reassert its mantle of responsibility over a just world. Why did America lose this mantle, and is there reason to support this country having another try at some form of global order?

The question isn't really one for European governments or other American client states, but for humanity as a whole. What good would it do, if a country with butterfingers is given another chance to remake the world in its image?

Their own worst enemy

The US has had such free rein for so long that it is the source of most of the security threats in the world today, like some capricious deity responsible for unleashing evil into our world. Remember that the US played a major role in creating the Afghan insurgency that gave rise to al-Qaeda, it armed Saddam Hussein, it sponsored coups, and it inflamed civil wars. It caused chaos in a number of countries such as Syria, giving rise to ISIS.

Just about everywhere the US is able to act freely to make the world a better place, it makes it a worse place. Then, promptly, all media coverage of whatever troubled region we were talking about ends, leaving suffering people behind as the US eyes the next region it intends to operate on - like some mad surgeon with a hundred percent death rate behind him.

Rules-based disorder

At present, we are faced with the apparent collapse of an international "rules-based order", the favoured term of America and its allies when they arbitrarily moralise about international affairs and declare through various media platforms "what must be done" about some problem they happen to find offensive to them. American leaders presume to define good and evil (the current Ukraine narrative), and assign the former label to themselves or US clients in all cases, although in practice good and evil are not typically good assessments of the behaviour of states. The result of this mindset is hardly order but disorder, enmity and the inflammation of crisis everywhere across the world.

There are two big reasons that would compel one to decline America's pleas to be given a second chance as the world's moral arbiter and sole superpower. The first is that of its failures being rooted in its own core identity, such that it is doomed to continue failing and repeating itself indefinitely, because it creates all the alleged problems it hopes to address. The second is that of the character of those who currently guide American foreign policy.

Agents of chaos

America keeps failing to establish "order" because its identity is chaos. Americans are always most glad when they are destroying governments and handing out guns to bandits around the world, in keeping with their own ideas about guns belonging in the hands of random citizens. As a country born from sedition and criminal secession from Britain, the Americans can't help thinking like criminals at the international level and coveting scenes of disorder rather than order.

It is a fundamental part of American liberalism, whether handled from a progressive or conservative angle, that America sides with gun-toting rebels and contras rather than those who maintain the peace. They fail to govern the world because their ideological reverence is not for a body of laws but for chaos and banditry. The romantic urge to recreate the Wild West overpowers their reason, compelling them away from the path of responsibility even if they try to plan otherwise, like some dog unable to resist scratching its flea-ridden hide, no matter the wishes of its owner.

Serial failures

The current American foreign policy establishment is especially underserving of a second chance at creating the "American Century", as they used to call their dream. Every single foreign policy idea they have presented, from the insurgency in Afghanistan in the 1980s to the occupation of Afghanistan of 2001-2021, or the invasion of Iraq in 2003, backfired spectacularly and endangered their own country.

The Americans are all too eager to give themselves a second chance at governing the world and creating a stable order. Others should not be so keen to see that.

Read More »

How knighting Tony Blair undermines the state

While many object to knighting Tony Blair on moral grounds, citing his role in the Iraq War and the tragedy he therefore inflicted on their lives, rewarding Blair is a bad call even from a realist perspective.

It is harmful to the British state's authority and credibility that it failed to put Blair on trial. It is potentially disastrous that the Queen is perceived to endorse him by knighting him.

Sooner or later, a state that ignored and handwaved away the people's feelings can face a lot of distrust, and this is a mistake of governance more than a failure of morals. Even the most corrupt and vile person in the highest places of the state, if they had sense, would exorcise Blair and sacrifice him to regain the trust of the many millions of citizens who remember how he lied to justify the Iraq War.

With an award, Blair undermines the country's image at home and abroad and contributes to the perception of state deception and cynicism. Here is a person who lied the country into a war and suppressed information that disputed the legality of his actions.

Remembering the lies

Tony Blair and his defenders pass the events of the Iraq War off as mistakes by a sincere man, but this is refuted by those who knew Blair was lying at the time and took significant action of their own to protest his disinformation. These included the largest street protest in British history and one cabinet resignation.

Blair's participation in a crime is better documented than the actions of other criminals who are now behind bars. There will be a perception that his role within the state makes him immune from justice and even still eligible for awards, and that is just why so many people distrust the state itself.

This is a man who knowingly imperilled British troops and Iraqi civilians and unleashed a disaster in the Middle East, for reasons that were insufficient and he knew they were. He is responsible equally for the failed war effort in Afghanistan and for a lot of terrorism in the world, much of it motivated by a sense of injustice because this one person's wrongful actions were unpunished. A lot of people would still be alive today and the world would be a much better place, were it not for him. The place of Britain in the world would be better. Life would be easier for everyone in the British government itself, from lowest worker to the highest holder of political office, who would no longer be faced with citizens who obstinately disbelieve everything they say.

If punished appropriately, Blair would do a huge service to the country and empower the state's authority. The action would send a message to the world that the country in fact stands for a set of rules, and that not even those who reached the top of the state are immune from justice. That commitment to always follow the law, no matter where it leads, is what Britain is meant to represent.

Not so noble

The revealing of crooks and paedophiles such as Jimmy Savile and Prince Andrew, in high and esteemed places in British life, is a perception damaging to the state, and the damage must be repaired. The names of these televised deceivers, Savile and Blair, belong on the same page, no matter how liked they once were by many.

The population is becoming suspicious that something is wrong with those who supposedly represent our best. Whatever it is, it is disproportionately found among them in comparison with the normal population.

We don't hear that our colleagues are paedophiles and crooks, but we hear a great deal about this problem arising among the supposedly noble and honourable sirs who possess esteemed titles. Maybe it is true that power attracts the psychopathic.

Why can't we just let him go?

Finally, if Britain doesn't tidy up the problem of apparently self-serving incestuous power that allows the state figures to tell lies without punishment, political attitudes among the public will include rejecting everything the state says as a lie even when it is true. With many rejecting government pleas to vaccinate, and the earlier crazy attacks on 5G infrastructure and workers, we may already be nearing that stage of absolute distrust in all institutions and authority.

One unpunished (even rewarded!) lying politician is the biggest reason many will cite for their distrust. The state risks losing credibility with millions of people because of Blair, or properly rejecting this goblin.

My Dissident Voice article continuing this topic: The State’s Celebration of Lies and Punishment of Truth | Dissident Voice

Read More »

Why do militaries form big alliances (and still lose)?

Perceptions of World War Two still guide many a thought about how to wage war. Many see the Allies as a supreme example to follow to achieve victory, apparently forgetting that the Allies spent the start of the Second World War being picked off and defeated one at a time.

The newest big military alliance that seems to be under construction is the one against Iran in the Persian Gulf, with Israel cooperating more openly with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates in the area. It is unlikely that such cooperation would offset the kind of damage Iran is able to do against any specific target in that area such as a ship, naval base or oil facility if it actually goes on the offensive. So, what's the point?

Forming an alliance is the first thing to do if you are scared of taking a lot of damage from an adversary, and would prefer the damage to be more spread out across your broad coalition. If casualties are spread out between different member states of NATO in Afghanistan, for example, each country can brag that it lost very few soldiers while defeating many Taliban. But how does it look when your massive 30-nation alliance gets defeated by a small guerrilla organisation in one country?

Lack of commitment or willingness to fight alone

Another example of an alliance proving absolutely ineffective is the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. The coalition of Arab armies is not only failing to crush a rebellion in the country but running away, surrendering ground to low-tech rebels.

The problem is that alliances are usually formed to cover up weakness in the first place, and that weakness still exists in them. Alliances often lack commitment, and indeed they are formed in the first place by members who lacked the commitment to fight alone and sought an easier path.

Your military alliance helps the enemy target you

For example, when World War Two began, Germany achieved a massive winning streak against the Allies by simply targeting them one at a time. Allies form their alliance because they feel stronger at the thought of standing shoulder to shoulder with others against an adversary, like some propaganda poster emblazoned with slogans of strength in unity, but practical reality often doesn't work out that way. Often, it works out more like a hit list for the opponent, who now knows who to bump off when he sees them alone in some dark alley.

When the Germans formed their own mighty alliance to attack the Soviet Union, the USSR played the same game the Germans had played, targeting the weaker members of the Axis alliance on the frontline as a means of flanking the Germans. Were it not for the Germans' desire for a mighty coalition, and their false sense of security in that coalition, Soviet victory at Stalingrad may have been unattainable. The Soviets needed no allies to turn the tide in that battle, but the Germans failed because of their allies.

A domino effect

It is worthy of mention that NATO's Asian counterpart, SEATO, dissolved almost immediately after America lost the Vietnam War, proving that all it takes to destroy such a military alliance is to destroy one party protected by the alliance. Since an alliance often involves weak members and thoughtlessly adds members to its ranks, including pitiful ones, defeating an alliance member becomes so easy that the alliance's existence is more of a boon to the opponent than a threat. This is why NATO would not add the feeble Afghan regime or any other especially weak government to its alliance, since it might tie the fate of the alliance to that one regime, as was the case with South Vietnam.

In a military coalition, one member is always more vulnerable than another, and another is more vulnerable following the fall of that first one. As such, alliances often fall like dominoes. Unless their individual members are mighty and committed enough to go it alone and take all the casualties for a significant amount of time (like the British Commonwealth, followed by the Soviet Union, in World War Two) a military alliance means little against a strong peer opponent.

In their worst form, alliances are just propaganda, a false parade of flags to lift the spirits of a fool, good for enticing you to go to war in the first place but not for helping you win.

Get new posts by email:

Powered by

Read More »

Poland-Belarus migration wars: who is to blame?

It has been called the weaponisation of migrants. But, with the Poles more culturally averse to migration than their western allies, it may be better described as part of the EU's own internal split.

The EU Civil War

The EU is divided. In the east, we have more conservative states such as Poland and Hungary. In the west, there are those liberal-leaning, more (so-called) advanced democracies in Western Europe. The members of the eastern flank of the EU (and by extension NATO) see migrants as hostile objects. The migrants are weapons - like guns flying into a country to shoot people and cause chaos. The other, frankly more important EU states do not see migrants this way but rather as a way to reinvigorate their economy with fresh workers - more like shovels than guns - who don't need 18 years to be constructed before being used.

Although the leading NATO states (now including the US) have overwhelmingly condemned Belarus for letting migrants cross their border to Poland, it is inconsistent with their own positive view of migrants. Their insincere condemnation is really just an extension of their disdain for the current Belarusian leader Lukashenko, whose political opponents have been explicitly endorsed by Western powers and unilaterally recognised as the country's new regime by at least Lithuania.

Are migrants weapons?

Mindless NATO chants for Belarus to stop its supposed weaponisation of migrants, portraying migrants as agents of foreign harm rather than people, will only work for as long as civil society organisations such as humanitarian NGOs are not involved or on the scene. It is easy enough for governments to make propaganda-like statements about the vague evils of their opponents and use warlike language while no-one else is present at the scene of the controversy, but the liberal civil society of the West will likely side against Poland for its anti-immigration views.

Despite attempts to call on Belarus to take responsibility for the refugees, no expert of migration would tell you that the migrants are trying to stay in Belarus. The destination of the migrants, as in every other similar case, is the European Union. To claim Belarus is somehow the party abusing the rights of the migrants by letting them gather on the border to the EU, their destination, is absurd. They are gathering there because they know the EU will let them in, and it will. The decision to delay and potentially expose the migrants to an approaching deadly winter will be the EU's decision.

The EU's problem is still its own problem, even if 'Putin did it'

Even if Belarus and Russia are conspiring to create the cultural rift between the eastern and western EU sooner than it would otherwise happen, it is still inevitable. If Belarus was not aiding migration through its border to Poland, the migration would eventually just come from somewhere else and the same controversy would happen, with the Polish government receiving all the condemnation from its allies. 

Blaming Lukashenko or Putin for painful problems in the innards of the West itself does not do anything to alleviate them. Problems still exist and have to be dealt with, even if they are the result of foreign mischief or trickery. The same lesson must be learned in America, where the claim that Trump voters were simply tricked by Russia sounds patronising and does nothing to change their radicalised minds or address why so many of them were attracted to extremist views in the first place. Sooner or later, Western alliances have to deal with their internal tensions rather than calling the name of a foreign country in the belief this magically moves their problem elsewhere.

Remember who destroyed the homelands of refugees?

Finally, we must remember who created the migrant flows. These are the result of chaos that needed not be created. The United States and allies did not need need to impose their liberal democratic ideology using sanctions, aerial bombardment and other means of force against countries in the Middle East, to the point of neglecting human life and living standards. Poland was a huge offender in this, zealously following America into Iraq in 2003, supporting every reckless military adventure by every American administration in the hope America will return the favour one day (spoiler: it won't).

Poland helped to create the instability, chaos and destroyed infrastructure that migrants are fleeing from in the Middle East. If it does not welcome the consequences of American foreign policy, much as it does not welcome the prevalent liberal ideology and civil society at the heart of NATO and the EU, it should rethink its relationship with its allies.

Get new posts by email:

Powered by

Read More »