11 Comments
author

Thank you Sander. Form you it is high praise indeed.

Expand full comment

The article is pure genius. Compliments. Maybe a bit too long, which is the main reason I cannot mostly finish reading Sinplicius' articles, which are great but, like in Emmanuel Kant's sentences (which are interminable), I get lost in the prairies of their length

Expand full comment

Great article,sums up the west perfectly.

Expand full comment

Great article. Who would have guessed that 30 years after this old Cold War warrior fought to defend Europe from those nasty Russkies, that I would come to support Putin over our nasty, psychopathic Western "leaders"?

Expand full comment

Thanks for that great piece

Expand full comment

They are lying the same way they did about Vietnam. While the media cries 'crocodile tears' over Daniel Ellsberg's passing, they are shamelessly perpetuating the regime's war propaganda. Correction: propaganda has to have a modicum of truth; the Western media is in the Baghdad Bob category. Great article! 

Expand full comment

Great work...

I am glad i found the time to read it, because i do not speed-read your work, i do that on most other sources, to get to the facts, argumentations or believes that are meaningful.

It is a pleasure to read your work.

Sander

Expand full comment

Loved this article. Just one worry. I probably didn't read it properly - but I hope that this is not a pro-Trump article? I mean - I'm referring it on to people - but I'd hate to help put Trump in power - he would be just as much under the control of the military-industrial-corporate-media-academic war-mongering complex as Biden is.

Expand full comment
author

I am not pro-Trump. Like you, I don't see much difference between Biden and Trump.

Expand full comment

Your insight that the Western populations are not in control of public policy is an important one. Another factor driving the escalation of this conflict is that the US is not presently governed by a President. Yes, Biden is there in title, but nobody with any sense thinks he's in actually charge and making important decisions. Instead, the US is run by a shadow committee of various individuals - similar to your MICIMATT concept but a much smaller cabal, IMO - of former and current Democratic luminaries. We have, in effect, executive decision-making by committee. And as anyone who's observed this phenomenon before knows, decision-making by committee means that no one individually is to blame: "We did it" rather than "I did it." And if things go wrong, it's "Well, we did it, but I personally didn't think it was such a great idea at the time." When there's no individual responsibility, and no individual culpability, the door is open to monumental policy errors. Like this conflict. Not until the 2024 elections - and only if Biden is replaced - is there any chance of the West reversing course.

Expand full comment

I applaud this lengthy summary, a veritable tableau vivant.

The image of Schrödinger's cat is very apt, as the Western media's treatment of events in Ukraine is indeed reaching absurd heights.

The Forbes article by David Axe is a model of its kind. This boy must either play video games far too much, take his readers for fools or be a complete idiot himself. But it's true that in France we have almost the same kind of discourse from retired general officers.

As for the idea that a soldier is made to obey, that's true, but he's first and foremost made to serve his country. So he needs to have a certain idea of his country and what his army is for. In other words, a soldier must not be a mercenary paid by the state, because if he considers himself as such, he's in the wrong profession. And there are some dirty deeds that not even an order from a superior can cover up. For an ordinary soldier, it could be rape, torture or the murder of civilians. But for a leader, it can also be the refusal to dishonor. In France, we have the example of Charles de Gaulle, a temporary brigadier general and brief under-secretary of state for defense in May 1940, who said no to the armistice, no to Marshal Pétain. And this ties in with your last point: de Gaulle said no because he was a man who belonged to the old French civilization, the one shaped by a thousand years of royalty, a civilization which is the exact opposite of American non-civilization, and which has many affinities with the old Russian civilization.

Expand full comment