Thanks to the Globalist American Empire’s ineffective, inflexible diplomacy, an avoidable solvable crisis in Ukraine has spiraled into a major land war.
Now, the shrillest GAE voices want to inflict an apocalyptic calamity on the whole world. Mindlessly, thoughtlessly, inexcusably, they are shoving the West to the brink of a full-blown nuclear war over Ukraine.
Back in January, Revolver warned that the implacable, no-negotiations attitude of the US and its allies was creating conditions for war in Ukraine. Such a war could be an existential danger to the planet:
And yet, while America looks away, the ruling class inches us dangerously closer to war. Russia is reportedly massing tens of thousands of troops along Ukraine’s border, and even deploying some in Belarus. America is shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons to Kyiv’s government in response. There is talk of a Russian invasion, which Washington might counter by backing a violent insurgency, which would invite retaliation, and so forth, until America is on the edge of nuclear war over an impoverished country four thousand miles away.
The Ukraine crisis is a creation of the Globalist American Empire. It is a product of American overreach, and the crisis continues because the DC national security cabal refuses to admit any mistakes, backtrack, or engage in any serious negotiation whatsoever. America’s ruling elites are willing to risk war, possibly even nuclear war, for the sake of their own desire to exert control everywhere on Earth.
Since then, events have only proven our analysis correct. Drunk on the same sense of self-righteousness that encouraged war in the first place, GAE public figures are advocating “tough” policies that will invite further escalation and potentially turn a regional war into the worst disaster in human history.
America’s ruling elite is so used to kicking its own impotent population around with no fear of any kind of repercussion that they think they can do the same with a nuclear power. The ruling class is wrong, and its arrogance is courting existential calamity. Russia has amassed more than 6,000 nuclear warheads, which is more than even the United States possesses. Nearly 1,500 of these weapons are deployed, ready for use. Russia possesses a full nuclear triad of nuclear-armed bombers, submarines, and land-based ICBMs (Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles). Russia cannot be immobilized with a single first strike; if it feels cornered it has the firing power to bring down all of civilization.
Such a reality requires leaders who will treat the situation with caution and seriousness. Right now, the only acceptable and responsible approach is one that prioritizes de-escalation, and takes the conflict closer to a negotiated peace. But instead, our flippant leaders are babbling about whatever makes them feel toughest, creating an environment of constantly-escalating peril.
Arrogant loud-mouthed oligarchs on Twitter are not helping the situation. Americans normally imagine hedge fund managers to be experts on risk, but billionaire Bill Ackman is proving otherwise by being perhaps the most insane figure of all. In a Twitter thread Monday morning, Ackman openly called for US ground troops to intervene directly in Ukraine to fight Russia.
shown itself to be weak and lacking morale. Their air force can’t achieve air superiority. Putin is rallying the nuclear saber as he gets more desperate. What if? Do we wait for him to kill millions before we intervene? What precedent are we continuing to set by allowing this to
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) February 28, 2022
there to stop this madness. The defense of Ukraine is a just war. It is not about oil or money. It is about right and wrong, and those are the wars that we should fight. And if we take the long-term view and punish madmen for their actions, we can deter their larger ambitions.
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) February 28, 2022
“You can fix the errors of the past and protect our future,” Ackman says at the end of his Tweet thread. “With all due respect Mr. President, the time is now.”
Ackman tweets like a character in a network political drama or a 90s action movie. But of course, the time is not now. The time for a shooting war against Russia is never.
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is aggressively urging Western powers to begin an air war against Russia by declaring a “no-fly zone” over the skies of Ukraine. Zelensky personally has little to lose, so this is understandable. What is not understandable is that many unhinged voices in the West are taking up his call, including Adam Kinzinger:
1) The fate of #Ukraine is being decided tonight, but also the fate of the west. Declare a #NoFlyZone over Ukraine at the invitation of their sovereign govt. Disrupt Russias air ops to give the heroic Ukrainians a fair fight. It’s now, or later.
— Adam Kinzinger (@AdamKinzinger) February 25, 2022
Sadly, Republican Senators are shooting off on at the mouth.
NEW: GOP Sen. Roger Wicker calls for the imposition of no-fly zone over Ukraine
“Clearly, in the absence of a U.N. resolution, which Russia would veto, a strong coalition of like-minded nations should step in and seriously consider this,” he tells me https://t.co/Ea5BHetsOn
— Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) February 28, 2022
To retired general and professional tactician Christina Hoff Sommers, a no-fly zone sounded like a spectacular idea.
The world cannot sit back and watch this atrocity unfold. Congressman Kinzinger & General Wesley Clark @GeneralClark agree that we need a US-enforced #NoFlyZone over Ukraine. Now. There are risks, yes. But risks of doing nothing are far greater. #SaveUkraine @POTUS https://t.co/IiXF8ra8t5
— Christina Sommers ?? (@CHSommers) February 26, 2022
Just kidding, she’s a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
The idea of sending in American fighters to shoot down Russian jets has become such a meme that other Twitter users have, quite plausibly, suggested the average person advocating it doesn’t actually know what a no-fly zone is:
We could declare a zone where they can't fly? Sounds easy enough!
That means we'd shoot down any jet or plane and they'd fire back at us? Hmm… less appealing.
— Nathan McDermott (@natemcdermott) February 28, 2022
The reality is that a no-fly zone, which sounds cute and “safe” in a way that would especially appeal to females seeking to bubble-wrap the world, would actually mean declaring an air war against Russia.
Some commenters who know this are shockingly still advocating a maximally aggressive position. In an interview with Foreign Policy, retired four-star US Air Force general Philip Breedlove directly advocated a no-fly zone over Russia, despite being fully aware of the consequences of such a policy:
FP: Some Ukrainian activists, as well as former members of the Ukrainian parliament, have called for a no-fly zone to be implemented over Ukraine. What would that entail, and do you think that that is something that we may see in the coming weeks?
PB: I am actually a proponent of it. But let me now tell you why it will probably not happen, because the reality of a no-fly zone is, it is an act of war. There are a lot of people who don’t understand no-fly zones. You don’t just say, “That’s a no fly zone.” You have to enforce a no-fly zone, which means you have to be willing to use force against those who break the no-fly zone. The second thing, which nobody understands, is if you put a no-fly zone in the eastern part of Ukraine, for instance, and we’re going to fly coalition or NATO aircraft into that no-fly zone, then we have to take out all the weapons that can fire into our no-fly zone and cause harm to our aircraft. So that means bombing enemy radars and missile systems on the other side of the border. And you know what that means, right? That is tantamount to war. So if we’re going to declare a no-fly zone, we have to take down the enemy’s capability to fire into and affect our no-fly zone. And few understand that.
This isn’t some obscure retired general Foreign Policy found haunting a nursing home. Breedlove was Supreme Allied Commander for NATO forces in Europe for three years. He is on the board of directors of the Atlantic Council (an NGO backed by Raytheon, Boeing, and Burisma that is a top proponent for hardline anti-Russia policies). Breedlove is an “expert” and an influential public voice.
Breedlove’s explanation for why he supports war with Russia is telling and worth highlighting:
FP: Yet, in spite of all of that, you said you would actually support the idea of a no-fly zone?
PB: Are we going to sit and watch while a world power invades and destroys and subjugates a sovereign nation? Are we just going to watch? I mean, a friend recently said, “This is like biblical times, and the whole Colosseum is watching the lions and the Christians, and they’re pulling for the Christians, but they just watch.” So the question is, is the West going to tolerate Russia doing this to Ukraine? What if the Russians do what they did in eastern Syria and they drop barrel bombs and make rubble of cities and terrorize citizens and force them on the road and make them refugees across Europe? Where is the line that Russia crosses in its inhumanity such that the rest of the world reacts?
Breedlove complains about “a world power invading and destroying a sovereign nation,” despite the fact that is exactly what the US did to Iraq in response to no provocation whatsoever. Surprisingly, that isn’t the most baffling part of his response. In his rambling, emotive response, Breedlove directly confronts and embraces the ramifications of an intervention — escalation, followed by global war — with clumsy lines like “are we just going to sit and watch????”
The rational answer, of course, is yes. American leaders are supposed to look out for the long-term security and well-being of the nation, and that means judiciously evaluating which interests are vital and which are not, and which risks are acceptable and which are not. Yet Breedlove, who for three years was one of those leaders, is not capable of such judicious evaluation. To this crazed general, any risk is acceptable for the sake of the cause of the moment—the cause that will satisfy the emotional needs and passions of himself and countless other Western hysterics.
Pundits, executives, and politicians alike are scrambling to embrace the maniacal position of “escalate now, ask questions later” (perhaps amid the ashes of civilization?).
Putin knows stop the West throw ‘nuclear’ into discussion & we’ll come to a stop, but the world should not be held hostage to a killer of societies, the west has nuclear weapons too, and Putin’s track record is clear, every war he wins is followed by another war
— Clint Watts (@selectedwisdom) February 28, 2022
NBC News, more like NBC Narratives?
Perhaps the biggest risk-calculation/moral dilemma of the war so far. A massive Russian convoy is abt 30 miles from Kyiv. The US/NATO could likely destroy it. But that would be direct involvement against Russia and risk, everything. Does the West watch in silence as it rolls?
— Richard Engel (@RichardEngel) February 28, 2022
Carl Bildt, of the Council on Foreign Relations, took to twitter like the wise, elder statesman he is.
All of us must now face the reality that we will not have peace in Europe until there is regime change in Russia. Then we should seek to welcome a new Russia as a partner for peace. pic.twitter.com/vkjQalJnXk
— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) February 27, 2022
Alexander Vindman reared his neotenous head.
Tonight on @CBCTheNational we speak with Alex Vindman about what the west can do to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. His suggestion: weapons. And lots of them. Immediately. pic.twitter.com/P0aayjEVhU
— Katie Simpson (@CBCKatie) February 26, 2022
Senator Rubio gleefully frolicked in the frothy sea of emotions.
Cut a city of millions off from food, fuel, power, communications & supplies & then bomb & starve the govt into submission
We need to start thinking about what we can & are willing to do to prevent such a barbaric crime
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 28, 2022
We could go on and on, all day long, with these tweets…
Every day Kyiv stands is another day that the light of democracy shines. The free world needs to give the Ukrainian people all the weapons they need to survive. https://t.co/rB9hnFCqy9
— Ruben Gallego (@RubenGallego) February 26, 2022
Norway was eager to risk World War III to signal its virtue.
NEW: Norway says it plans to send 2,000 M72 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, joining Finland and Sweden in sending lethal weapons
— Paul McLeary (@paulmcleary) February 28, 2022
Hillary Clinton, for her part, has made it clear that if elected in 2016, she would have risked nuclear war to prove that Women. Can. Lead.
Hillary: US should launch cyberattacks in Russia pic.twitter.com/gRPwNqUP2C
— BBlues60 (@BBlues60) February 25, 2022
Hillary is inadvertently acknowledging the real US objective: not to protect Ukraine but sacrifice it by turning it into another Afghanistan or Syria: to prolong fighting and thus drain Russia.
She forget to mention the outcome of US funding of the Afghan insurgency in the 80s. https://t.co/oAPj2J5MkF
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 1, 2022
In an essay published Monday, writer Tanner Greer discussed how the rapid escalation of the West’s Ukraine response mimics the rush to war against Iraq in 2003:
Catastrophic misjudgment rests on the convergence of two elements: an emergent sense that there is a moral imperative to act paired with a breakdown in the formal decision-making processes designed to force policy makers to carefully weigh the potential consequences of their decisions. Combined these elements make for a “pattern of misjudgement” that changes the way officials “weigh the costs and benefits” of their decisions, as they shift from an attitude of “analytical nuance” to “morally charged commitment to acting almost regardless of consequence.” [Scholars Stage]
This morally derived, panicky urge to “do something” is everywhere within the West’s response. America and its NATO allies are lurching toward greater escalation and greater conflict. On the first day of war, kicking Russia off SWIFT was off the table; by Saturday it had become official policy. On Thursday, there were sanctions against Putin’s allies and inner circle, now Russian athletes are banned from all global sporting events and famed Russian composer Valery Gergiev was fired for not denouncing his friend Putin. For decades, Ukraine in the EU was a non-starter, now, the dirty deal could be finished by week’s end.
Though it seems contradictory, these drastic escalations exist alongside the ridiculous and frivolous antics chronicled in our piece, “The American Response to the Ukraine Situation is Baffling.” Serious and not-so-serious actors have called for a no-fly zone in the same breath they compared Putin to Star Wars movie villains and cheered Pornhub and Disney for blocking the flow of American “culture” to Russia. In all, we have witnessed an unserious, superficial, and cartoonish response to deadly serious questions of nuclear war and peace.
What are these reactions meaningfully meant to achieve? What is America’s goal in Ukraine? What does it want out of Russia? What is next if these measures don’t work? Under what circumstances will this escalation be allowed to stop? Just like in Iraq 19 years ago, nobody seems to be asking those questions. But in Iraq, only America’s reputation and well-being were at stake. Now, as America’s “elites” blunder into the same errors, the fate of the entire planet hangs in the balance.
Fortunately, while the rot is widespread, it hasn’t yet reached the absolute summit of government. The Biden Administration, for now, has emphasized that a no-fly zone isn’t happening. The European Union has backed off from initial reports that it would send fighter jets into Ukraine. For the time being, the Globalist American Empire has enough semi-competent (or at least non-suicidal) leaders to stave off calamity. Fingers crossed…