13/06/2024

One of the first issues when reviewing critical commentary on the Ukraine war that must be noted is that among these critical parties in the West the context and behaviour of the neo-cons are described as either delusional or irrational. Their politics are seen as based on post-WW2 rhetorics.

Col Macgregor repeatedly describes the Europeans and neo-cons as ‘crazy’, ‘delusional’, and full of ‘complete folly and disaster’ in his webcast:¹

Two issues arise. First is that claiming the other side is irrational violates the principles of sociological explanation, for by explaining everything, it explains nothing. More important is the second issue. Does the claim that the neo-cons are irrational play an important role in the psychodrama/narrative of the critical party? Such a claim that one party is irrational forbids further questioning. Nothing to see here. But may that not be the point? This claim allows one not to ask too many questions and not to look too further into the past. Asking further questions and looking further into the past is what we shall do now.

Rather than seeing Ukraine as a follow-up to the post-WW2 settlement , we may see it as directly related to the post-WW1 settlement. To this end we should look at the Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne.

Treaty of Sevres (1920):

From the 19th century the major Western powers had feverishly sought the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. Kedourie wrote:

‘At the Armistice of Mudros, signed on 30 October I9I8, the Sick Man of Europe – as the Ottoman Empire had for so long been derisively known – finally died. For all his alleged sickness, however, the Sick Man did not die of disease, but was violently destroyed in a long and bitter war in which he proved a formidable opponent and gave quite a good account of himself. But now, at the end of I9I8, the Empire was lying prostrate, its central government quite powerless, its armies in dissolution, and its territories in Arabia, the Levant, and Mesopotamia under Allied – mostly British – occupation.’ ²

As Kedourie explained, its enemies had desired and prophesied its destruction as an oppressive despotism and had encouraged its subjects to rebel to become ‘free nations’.

While the Treaty of Sevres was not confirmed, due to Ataturk’s intervention, it was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Treaty of Lausanne (1923):

Conlin writes: ‘The British historian A.J. Toynbee preferred ‘contact’ to ‘clash’ but was equally persuaded that Lausanne represented a turning point in the history of ‘civilisations’: the point where the ‘Eastern Question’ became The Western Question, where orientalist sifting of empires into nation states gave way to recognition of the barbarous occidentalism visited upon the ‘East’ in the name of this ‘Westernisation’.³

Toynbee sees these events in terms of the fall of Western hegemony- but in specifically referring to ‘civilisations’ would render these events as the fall of ‘White European hegemony’. In many ways, this follows Kant’s universal history where the last race standing at the end of times will be ‘white people’. As Kant expresses it ‘….humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites’.

This would suggest that the underlying Western politics related to the long-wished-for destruction of the Russian ‘Empire’ in the same way as the Ottoman Empire was eviscerated after WW1.

There is another particular reason not to look prior to WW2 because such would undermine the basis for NATO. One would have to consider that NATO was not a defensive organisation. Rather the US needed to create the conflict with the Soviet Union in order to create the need to occupy Germany and dominate Western Europe. When, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev offered peace, and a common European home, he was not aware that this was impossible. From a geopolitical point of view, genuine peace in Europe was unacceptable to the US. Genuine peace, whether in the 1940s or the 1980s would establish the possibility of an alliance primarily between Germany and Russia but also possibly including other European countries, and this would create a competing global hegemon capable of challenging the US. Russia and Germany would be an alliance with high technical capacity and immense resources of raw materials. Clearly unacceptable to the US.

Once we recognise that ‘genuine peace’ in central Europe (the Heartland- Mackinder ) is not compatible with US global geopolitical hegemony, then we can answer the question of why the US could not agree to any of the Russian peace offers. In this view, the collapse of the Soviet Union was both a surprise and fundamentally unwelcome strategically, to the US. A collapsed Soviet Union could not be allowed to fall into the hands of Germany. The option available then would be to extend a war first to Russia which would come under US control against Germany, and then engage in a war against China to bring the whole world under not US hegemony but rather US subjection and effective enslavement, however thinly disguised. As with a Russia/German alliance being unacceptable, similar potential alliances between China and either Japan, South Korea or Russia would be equally unacceptable.

Contemporary US Nuclear War Plans.

This would lead us to consider Scott Ritter’s revelation about US nuclear strategy. According to Scott, the US nuclear strategy involves surviving a nuclear war. Survival is estimated at 40% but the point is that the remaining US population should be enabled to rule the world. In order to achieve this it will be necessary to destroy China, India and Pakistan, whether they were party to the original engagement or not. This part of the doctrine, the nuking of China in a war with Russia, has been well-known and previously disclosed. Its policy intention was to prevent Russia and China from being ‘viable societies’ post-conflict. The next steps here are attempts to follow through with the full implications of this doctrine. This nuclear logic has to be considered carefully. In order to achieve this post-nuclear war supremacy for the remaining surviving US population, all alternative sources of power need to be destroyed, not just China, India and Pakistan, but also South America and Europe. It makes no sense to nuke India and Pakistan and leave Europe and South America to survive relatively intact.

US would need to thoroughly nuke Europe just in case Russia failed to do a good enough job by focussing on the US, otherwise Europe would become the major survivor of the nuclear war. Europe may not see this coming and would be entirely unprepared for this. But if the US is following Kant’s universal history, it will then have to consider the constituents of the surviving US population. To ensure that this population is mostly white, as required by Kant’s universal history. there must be additional steps to take out those areas of the US with high concentrations of ethnic minorities. No doubt discretion would be used in disclosing such steps to such as President Obama or maybe not. Scott Ritter has been somewhat hysterically warning the world about the implications of the new US nuclear war plans. So he should.

All one can conclude is that this is very much a dangerous moment.