NATO Has Always Been at War With Russia
NATO Has Always Been at War With Russia
Angela Merkel admits the Minsk Accords were ruses to destabilize the Russian Federation
The rear sight of a gun is like history. The front sight, the present. The target is the future. When you aim a gun, you focus, not on the sights, but on the target with the front and rear sights aligned on the mark. The sights become a bit blurry as the target remains clear.
If you want to see the future clearly, you look down the barrel of history from the past. If you try to look from the present—the front sight—you have only one point of reference, so every possible future will seem equally likely. And if you focus only the future you want, you’re liable to find yourself down-range of the weapon.
The historian’s challenge is to view himself and his culture through the eyes of the ancients—the eyes of the culture he’s immersed in. His objectivity comes from this split sense of allegiance. He remains a contemporary man in the present but feels like a displaced time traveller from the subject of his studies.
Perhaps NATO’s planners, which are all Americans, take Alexis de Tocqueville’s premonitions very seriously.
At the end of Democracy in America, Tocqueville penned this observation about the future of the world with regard to the United States and Russia:
The American struggles against obstacles that nature opposes to him; the Russian is grappling with men. The one combats the wilderness and barbarism; the other, civilization clothed in all its arms. Consequently, the conquests of the American are made with the farmer’s plow, those of the Russian with the soldier’s sword. To reach his goal the first relies on personal interest, and, without directing them, allows the strength and reason of individuals to operate. The second in a way concentrates all the power of society in one man. Their point of departure is different, their paths are varied; nonetheless, each one of them seems called by a secret design of Providence to hold in its hands one day the destinies of half the world.
As much as I admire Tocqueville, it now seems he missed a turn. Russia, indeed, seems to concentrate its power in one man—the Tsars, then the Soviet Premiere, now the Federation President. And, in 1840, America certainly grew on the backs of rugged individuals. But looking at America with the historian’s eye, which judges the present through from the perspective of its ancestors, America lost its rugged individualism sometime between Japan’s surrender on the deck of the USS Missouri and Joe Biden’s installation as the 46th President of the United States. American power is not concentrated in one man, but neither does it rely on the strength and character of its people, either.
Likewise, the wilderness and barbarism are no longer the objects of America’s conquistadors. Having subdued the “barbarians” and turned the wilderness into a weekend playground for our idle rich, America’s ambition now mirrors that of 19th century Russia: combatting civilization itself.
We learned last week that the Minsk Accords, signed nearly a decade ago were fraudulent from the beginning. Angela Merkel, then Germany’s leader, admitted in interviews with Der Speigel and Die Zeit that the accords were an effort to buy time for Ukraine. And, while the United States government was not a party to the accords, the US was the driving force behind the plan to destabilize and, eventually, conquer Russia.
While Germany and France sponsored the Minsk talks, the United States pushed NATO expansion to the Russian border. While the first round of Minsk was underway in 2014, the CIA and the US State Department orchestrated a coup to overthrow Ukraine’s duly elected president.
Patrick Lawrence writes in Consortium News about the significance of Merkel’s admission:
It would be hard to overstate the significance of this turn for all of us. The global divide just got wider. Cold War II just got colder. The alienation of East and West is now down as a more or less permanent state of affairs. And the world just lost the one country capable of mitigating these dreadful circumstances by dint of its special, maybe singular position in the community of nations.
Lawrence also reminds us that the man the United States imposed on Ukraine following the 2014 coup told us the same thing:
Earlier this year Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s first post-coup president, shocked everybody when he stated publicly that Kiev never had any intention of honoring the commitments it made when it signed the Minsk Protocols: The talks in the Belarusian capital and all the promises were meant simply to buy time while Ukraine built fortifications in the eastern regions and trained and armed a military strong enough to wage a full-dress war of aggression against the Russian-tilted Donetsk and Lugansk regions.
We now know Poroshenko was not making it up. Merkel confirms to Der Spiegel:
“She believes that… later during the Minsk talks, she was able to buy the time Ukraine needed to better fend off the Russian attack. She says it is now a strong, well-fortified country. Back then, she is certain, it would have been overrun by Putin’s troops.”
Lawrence concludes that Merkel’s confirmation of Western duplicity against Russia will lead to broader conflict. He points out that Germany—always in the West with its eyes East—served as the diplomatic bridge between Russia and the US throughout the Cold War. It was Germany, Lawrence reminds, that urged President Kennedy to give Kruschev a way out of the Cuban missile crisis. It was West Germany that made overtures toward East Germany that led the way to Glasnost and Perestroika. For a century, the US and Russia could trust the other only if the Germans guaranteed the counterparties’ intentions.
Russia can no longer trust anyone from the West. Which is ironic, because Putin seems to be the last world leader who still believes in Western Civilization. As I wrote some weeks ago regarding a Putin speech in which he said:
[T]he West of traditional, primarily Christian, values of freedom, patriotism, a rich culture . . . . We have much in common with this West including our antique roots.
But there is another, aggressive West that is consmopolitan and neocolonial which acts as the weapon deployed by liberal elites. And Russia will never accept the diktats of this West.
For Americans—the descendants of the rugged individuals who tamed the wilderness—it is another time to choose. Our choice is not between Putin and Biden but between the American Ideal that Tocqueville chronicled in the 1830s and the New World Order that Tocqueville also warned about and I reiterated in 2008.
Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
Those who study history and attempt to judge themselves through the eyes of ancients will see clearly that Putin loves the American Ideal far more than despots who’ve imposed themselves above us. That despotic cabal runs our elections, chooses our overlords, and, through treachery and deceit and the spilling of blood, imposes its will on the whole world. As Patrick Lawrence tells us, Prince Heinrich XIII, the German aristocrat recently arrested on trumped-up charges, told his followers that Germany has become nothing more than a tool of the US:
“We are not Germans. We are not in a real German state,” his alleged followers are quoted as saying in a (highly misleading) New York Times piece published Sunday. “We are just a branch of a GmBH,” this last meaning a limited liability company.
Based on these revelations from Poroshenko and Merkel, we know the war in Ukraine has been planned for a decade. The US goal in Ukraine was to force Putin to invade after the US had fortified Ukraine and weakened Russian sympathizers in the Donbas region. If you take the perspective of the US and NATO planners during the Obama administration—Victoria Nuland, Jake Sullivan, and Anthony Blinken—you can see why Obama did so little when Russia invaded Crimea. The plan all along was to use Ukraine as a trap to eventually conquer all of Russia.
The question is why? Why conquer Russia? For the energy? Farmland? What?
Perhaps it’s because Russia is the last superpower that believes in Western Civilization. Perhaps because Russia is the nuclear state that calls itself Christian. Perhaps because Russia rejects the weirdness of America’s despotic regime which produced a nuclear waste tsar so freakishly disturbing that one glimpse causes nightmares for weeks:
Is this what we’re going to war over? It looks like it.
There’s a certain dishonesty in Sam Brinton—and in anyone who pretends to be something he’s not. Pretending to be a woman when you’re a man might be the pinnacle of this dishonesty. It’s little wonder, then, that the people who consider Sam Brinton some sort of hero would use dishonesty to start World War III—a war they believe they can win. And, if they win, they will finally impose the soft dictatorship Tocqueville feared.
You and I might not be able change the path our world is on. Maybe we could have if we’d started sooner. Maybe if we’d listened to Putin or Reagan or Tocqueville. Maybe if we’d judged ourselves from the eyes of ancients instead of judging our ancestors from our own inflated view of the present. But we didn’t. And we seem to be victims of our own past failures.
We still have a choice, though. We can go along with the abolition of the Christian West, or we can live like the men and women Tocqueville admired in the 1830s. Strong, independent, industrious, practical, and kind.
We cannot, however, support the American government which is clearly the enemy of the Christian West. And, while its collapse would throw off our plans for life, its collapse might be the only hope for preserving the ideals upon which this nation was founded.