A Ukraine Miscellany XI: Escalation, Ticking Time Bombs, and Endgame (II)

Until now the US has been keen to drag this war out and wear down Moscow but it would seem that the Kharkiv Offensive marks the moment that they've decided to initiate its endgame. It's a dangerous moment as Putin is also desperate and escalating the stakes by his mobilisation and his recent appeals to Beijing at the SCO meeting in Uzbekistan. If China begins to aid Russia, this war could swing the other direction and again the threat of a global war only intensifies. These are all factors explaining why the West is beginning to push hard and break the stalemate.

China for its part is weighing the geopolitical situation. Helping Russia might generate a world war or if contained it might help to distract from the tensions in the East Pacific. All things considered, Xi must realise the US is pushing for war with China regardless of what happens in Ukraine.

While Biden appeals to the United Nations Charter and the post-war order, this little project (or trap) initiated by Washington stands ready to blow the whole system to pieces – an irony Western media is incapable of understanding, let alone reporting. There is now a push to remove Russia from the Security Council (UNSC) – and you can be sure Germany would like that seat. Removing Russia will discredit the already rigged game that is the UNSC, and the UN as an organisation will lose the veneer of legitimacy it tries to bring. China could also pull out and blow the whole thing apart, but by staying in Xi is afforded a tool to delay (again) what he also sees as the inevitable – war with the United States. It's not a war he wants but the US is playing the same game – repeatedly provoking him at every point, trying to all but force him to make a move so the trap can be set.

Washington is determined to push this to the brink – again I think there is a strong hope that a coup will remove Vladimir Putin. But this too is madness as there's no guarantee that what replaces Putin won't be worse. There are elements far to the Right of Putin that stand ready and eager to step in.

And for all the talk of the threat of nuclear weapons I dare say there are actually those in the American military hierarchy that would like to see it happen. The ghost of Curtis LeMay still haunts the Pentagon and that kind of barbaric and reckless thinking has by no means been consigned to the dustbin. LeMay wanted a nuclear war and campaigned for it and from US generals to politicians, and strategic planners, not a few are willing (and even eager) to entertain it. The madness is by no means restricted to American shores. Even UK Prime Minister Liz Truss endorsed the notion and deemed it an honour to 'push the button' should the moment arise. This person should be institutionalised – not installed in a position of authority, let alone reading Scripture in a public service.

At present there is no prospect of Putin launching ICBM's or engaging in some kind of 'first strike'. The likelihood or possibility is of him using tactical nuclear weapons in the case of an existential crisis. For example, say a large contingent of Ukrainian (or NATO) troops were advancing and there was a risk of a Russian collapse and the loss of a major Russian city or something along those lines – then the tactical employment of nuclear weapons suggests that a small yield bomb could be used to 'wipe out' that threat – killing tens of thousands of troops in a flash. Such tactical weapons are used in a battlefield situation not in strategic terms of disabling an enemy by hitting bases, launch sites, political power centres, cities, and the like.

Aside from the dubious morality of using even small yield weapons which still result in mass death, radioactive fallout and the like, the real risk is that the other side (if it has nuclear weapons) will retaliate in kind or escalate the situation. They will target and hit the launch site which if near a city could have further ramifications. And then as a result the instigator must respond to the retaliation and so forth and within a short time you'll end up with a large-scale nuclear war. The thing is with the initial retaliation – it could be restrained and restricted to hitting the lone launch site but in such a scenario military leadership will demand that all such launch sites be hit and thus the response quickly escalates and becomes a massive nuclear event.

Why would figures in the American military be happy if Putin were to resort to such a move? The Bush administration (in its megalomania) marked a shift in nuclear doctrine. Not only were arms treaties with Russia dropped but the US began to pursue the development of new tactical nuclear weapons and for a long time there's been talk of briefcase sized bombs which nowadays could be deployed via a drone or something to that effect. There's been open talk of using these types of weapons and for years one has been given the impression that some of the military brass and strategists are quite keen to use them. They were never able to justify their use in Iraq or Afghanistan – though they've certainly used these theatres as playgrounds for some of their new conventional weapons, including the MOAB used in Afghanistan in 2017. The yield of that conventional bomb was equivalent to the performance of a tactical nuclear weapon – minus the radioactive fallout. If Putin is placed into a desperate situation and acts foolishly these maniacal inventors of evil things may get their chance.

The scary part is that if such events transpire, there's no telling what could happen. Putin could lose control and if he doesn't fully control his military and some dangerous Right-wing elements get control – anything could happen, even up to some kind of worldwide conflagration.

Both sides are at fault in all of this. Washington under the guise of NATO has created this crisis and yet Putin launched a war in response – to their delight I might add. Both sides bear guilt but it's unlikely that history will record it that way. Putin will forever be the villain in The West. The propaganda campaign has ensured that.

It makes one wonder about history and the way it has been told. Just in the past twenty-five years I've watched America launch wars in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq – all based on lies. In the 1990's we were subjected to heavy propaganda campaigns regarding the break-up of Yugoslavia. The Serbian leadership was brutal and wicked but the tale that was told was a lie and the media played a significant role in obfuscating the larger context. Villains were created in some cases, in other cases nascent villains were effectively pushed into becoming monsters by means of manipulation and entrapment.

I keep thinking of World War I and how those that have specialised in German history have often questioned the Allied narrative concerning guilt and responsibility. Germany was demonised and yet as historians can demonstrate, the whole story has not been told and if you put yourself in Germany's shoes (as it were) there is a relentless logic to their conduct and the case for wanton aggression begins to collapse. Militarism abounded on all sides which contributed to the crisis and intensified the war when it finally broke out. But none of this matters. Berlin lost and the victors write the history. And yet that history is ultimately misleading and in other cases it is in fact a falsification of the events.

But here's where it becomes especially troubling. Those narratives came to dominate and they led to the punitive measures that broke Germany and gave rise to Adolf Hitler. And without the world wars, there would have been no Cold War and without it – the events of today make no sense, because the Ukraine War is directly related to not just the Cold War and the Cold War's end, but the Western narratives about the Cold War. So much more could be said about Western political machinations in the 1990's and the role played by Western architects and intelligence in the forging of a new order in the former Warsaw Pact nations as well as the nations and territories that had once been part of the USSR.

Watching events unfold over the past decade and the past year, one has to really wonder about history, how accurately it is reported, and the role played by ideological and corrupt historians on all side. In fact, I don't wonder at all, but the scope of manipulation and the resulting generalised perception of the course of the events makes me wonder if the themes and intuitions of the mainstream public are even more biased than is often realised.

None of these comments are meant to exonerate Vladimir Putin. I for one will not weep if he's overthrown and ends up hanging from a lamp post. However, there's no justice in it if the schemers within NATO and Washington somehow escape the punitive justice they too deserve. The blood of Ukraine is just as much on their hands as it is Putin's and there are not a few Western leaders who also deserve to be in the dock at the ICC.

And once again, resources play a big role in this. This is no footnote but an overarching spectre that looms over this entire situation. Oil, gas, minerals, and prime agricultural lands are at stake. Hitler wanted to make sure that Germany never starved again as a result of a blockade. He wed the craving for resources to nationalist and racial narratives. Today, the same lusts are dressed up in the sham language of democracy, the liberal order, freedom, and the like but in the end this contest is but another chapter of a long war that extends back for centuries to not just Drang Nach Osten (the Drive to the East) of the nineteenth century, but to Napoleon and even the Eastern expansion of the Teutonic Knights in the thirteenth century and fourteenth century. The West has long lusted over the open lands of the East and the wealth they possess.

That's the long story. In more immediate terms, the Ukraine War is also clearly part of the Resource Wars – the crisis of the Twenty-First Century and yet in every case thus far, these wars are wedded to other interests and dressed up in other garb. But in the end, this conflict is about resources, and control of them – and setting the stage for further contests afield in the Middle East and Central Asia. It's a contest to rule the world as resources are limited and demand is growing. The world must change how it lives or many people will have to die.

And where is the Church in all of this? Thanks to the heresy of theologically justified nationalism – it's right in the thick of it, with all wisdom and discernment being abandoned. Churches are torn apart and Christians justify butchery. Truly this is a present evil age.