World, Writing, Wealth discussion

A certain amount of sneakiness and subterfuge, as well as patience, will be required. What would your strategy be?

Lend them money.

Good question, Scout. Load their entire political system, institutions and the MSM with progressives perhaps? Then, they can destroy themselves.

To enhance internal tensions to a boiling point by a mix of fake and real events and narratives, inter alia, through undermining and casting doubt towards every state institution and functionary.

Good idea, Nik, but when all state institutions are doing a grand job of undermining themselves through their own actions, why bother?

I'm afraid the this is all Putin's, Xi's, Rocket Man's and the sheikhs' fault won't wash. Anybody who pays attention to current affairs knows who is to blame. We've got the receipts.

I’m sure hostile regimes rock the boat 🛶 too. Not all is bad, especially comparatively. Generally, (some) things deteriorate and need steering back on course. WEF employs thinking tanks, we in WWW are just us :)

Good effort, kids.

But while that Frankfurt School/Critical Theory stuff is tailor made for increasing social division and fomenting revolution, merely inflicting chaos through political upheaval is not victory. No, Victory is the total subjugation of your enemies. When they have been reduced to fiefs to be doled out to your vassals for use as pieces in your games, then you are victorious.

To that end, the strongest weapon is money. If you doubt me, consider what George Soros was able to do to the UK.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevesch...
To put it more bluntly, Mayer Rothschild said, "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."

The first step to economic dominion over your future slaves is offering them credit, as is illustrated in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Read up and let the games begin.

I like lending money 💰 approach too 🏆

J. wrote: "Good effort, kids.

But while that Frankfurt School/Critical Theory stuff is tailor made for increasing social division and fomenting revolution, merely inflicting chaos through political upheaval ..."

The strength of the US is while others may play with the USD, the US simply prints more and US tax avoiders suck them up and store them somewhere else.

However, "controlling money" is not working against Russia currently.

I'm surprised that nobody in the group has mentioned the obvious: The Word is Mightier Than The Sword. Why are you all so modest?
A six foot five gorilla of a man once held me around my neck because my friend had pissed-off one of his. I held him under the armpits and all he was saying was 'Let go my arm. Let go my ----ing arm.' I didn't. I talked to him and convinced him that my friend was an idiot and we should all sit down and enjoy our beers. We did. The word is mightier... if the Russian people could only be told the truth of what is happening to their sons in Ukraine the war would end and Putin would disappear. So why then does Ukraine not employ the best writers, like us, and instead of loading their drones with munitions and sending them to bomb Russian factories and oil refineries why don't they load them with good writing and truthful info and scatter them all over Moscow?
If I'm wrong why is it the first thing aggressive countries do is block all forms of outside influence?

Hey, P.K., we haven’t heard from you for a while. Glad UK community is live and kicking.
Yes, if only they knew the truth. It’s for a reason they lock people up for an invented felony of “discrediting of the army”. However, some know the truth, yet they’d rather believe totally fake propaganda than embrace it. Maybe 25-30 of Ukrainians have relatives in russia, but I bet the majority have severed ties…
russian literary icons like Akunin were banned from the market for telling the truth

Since technology is important to every aspect of running a country, as well as defending a country, how about we steal their technological secrets and use them for ourselves? Find the weaknesses in their electrical grid and exploit them?

Hmm, the answer is to steal something. I guess that is about average, but why do you think Russia has technological secrets worth stealing?

Hey Nik, I've always been here: the silent grandpa sitting in the corner and taking it all in. But the days are short. I have so many other things to do and as I've got older, a lot older, I think who wants to listen to me? i can't make a difference. We can't make a difference. Decent men don't rule the world.

PK, great to hear from you again! I always enjoy reading your posts.

Just to clarify, if you or anyone else who silently monitors this group belongs to either of the MIs or Special Branch, Beau believes in the Rule of Law and some of his posts are made firmly with tongue in cheek. He doesn't need putting on any type of list :)

But being on a list is fun. We get invited to all the best parties. And if creatures as vile as career politicians are willing to spend this much time on deriding us, we must be doing something right.

P.K. wrote: "....Decent men don't rule the world...."

One of those sad truths with only occasional exceptions...
It looks like the average age of our talking members is similar to that of the Ukrainian army (47) :) Anyone can fit in nicely be it a moustache less teenager or a silver hair sage. Ex- or current Intelligence community is welcome too. Just don't tell us any secrets :)
Moreover, we also drink, if you feel like toasting rather than conversing. Gonna be opening a nice bottle of bourbon soon as they say we should brace ourselves for an Iranian retaliation...

Funny post, J. Nice post, Nik.

I wasn't going to post today as I've only read the sports pages (hilarious scenes at Stamford Bridge) but Scout's unhealthy anger and PK's return have encouraged me to contribute.

Also, I learnt sthg new yesterday, or maybe day before...

Ian has made a big thing of average age of Ukrainian soldiers being high. Well, apparently the call-up age was 27 (until changed the other day), which explains the oddity.

The moral is it always pays to dig a little deeper than the headline facts and opinions...even if it puts you on a list ;)

Beau, the call-up age (i.e. conscription) of 27 should give you what age distribution? Also, as I understand it, Ukraine accepted voluntary enlistment for those who objected to their country being invaded. Could be wrong on that.

Ian, most active soldiers tend to be late teens/ early 20s (average age of a US soldier in Vietnam was n-n-n-nineteen). If the age threshold had been set at 16 or 18, the average would probably come down to late 20s.

Add in the facts that, nowadays, higher-spec weapons require less physical prowess and that someone who is in their early 60s, who looks after themselves, could probably cut the mustard, and the average age of 47 isn't quite as surprising as it first appears.

Sending 18 years old to risk their lives is not right in my opinion. That’s why many countries waived conscription for pros. To me it makes sense to send older dudes who have had some life before. I can also understand those who opt to fight - real life is hardly about buying better kitchen mixers or slaving 9-17 in an office

Absolutely agree with you on all points, Nik. My post was purely to explain to Ian, moving pieces around the model battleground in his mountain lair, why what might look like a surprising and maybe worrying average age isn't that surprising or worrying at all.

The major advantage of raising conscription age into the upper twenties is that most of your conscripts will have already fathered children, thus limiting the demographic impact of combat induced mass casualties.

Good point, J.

Beau wrote: "Ian, most active soldiers tend to be late teens/ early 20s (average age of a US soldier in Vietnam was n-n-n-nineteen). If the age threshold had been set at 16 or 18, the average would probably com..."

I know - I met some on the way to Viet Nam while I was in Hawaii. They were young and th4ey were nervous.

Yu are rigt abut older people able to use high tech weapons, BUT the war is still being fought with infantry, and it is the infantry that win or lose wars. You think a 60 year old can cope with trench warfare in the winter, or the mud seasons?

J. wrote: "The major advantage of raising conscription age into the upper twenties is that most of your conscripts will have already fathered children, thus limiting the demographic impact of combat induced m..."

Not such a good point. Who looks after said children when so many fathers are killed and the economy is in ruins?

Single mothers are nothing new. Neither are public schools and orphanages. None of those is ideal. But when facing an existential crisis, the existence of your posterity outweighs any possible hardships they may have to endure.

Somewhat selfish to have children and let them live through hell. Just because some do it now does not make it right.

What part of WAR is right?

None, but at the personal level do you have to add to the future woes?

I guess you support sending 18 years old to the frontline then

Future woes can only be a thing if there is a future. No children = No future, capisce.

Nik wrote: "I guess you support sending 18 years old to the frontline then"

Guess what! There is a difference between 18-year-olds and those approaching 60. No, I don't support the conscription of 18-year-olds, but then again I am against conscription.

Beau, my unhealthy anger? That's your subjective and unsubstantiated characterization. How would you feel if I had said you had unhealthy anger about Covid, which I could have at any point in the past couple of years? Check yourself and stop with the judgment. I've always respected you, and I expect the same.

Scout, apologies for the misunderstanding caused by most post on the putler, russia thread.

I didn't intend to sound condescending. The post was meant to be just taken at face value - friendly advice to someone I like and respect.

And I completely accept your point about covid. It's much easier to give advice than to take it, and while we were locked down I wouldn't have welcomed any advice to calm down and not get wound up.

Once again, apologies for the misunderstanding and any offence caused.

Thanks for welcome Beau: sorry I forced you away from better things to blurb here. Conscription seems to be in the air; Finland, now Sweden and Norway and many voices wanting us to follow suit. I think I understand the fear that is driving the eastern European countries' panic - and they might not be wrong: there are many similarities now to the nineteen thirties. The tinder-box could be somewhere unforeseen: another Duke Ferdinand assassination to light the spark. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Conversely, and ironically, if the Israel/Lebanon thing get's out of hand (and the amount of fighting already happening there is not widely reported) it could relieve pressures elsewhere.
But should we conscript? The social upheaval would be immense and although it would relieve economic downturn in some areas the overall cost would be detrimental - and politicians won't go down that route in any major economic country unless they had to, when it would be too late.
I don't know if anyone else here has experienced military service, or conscription (I have) but they will tell you that eighteen is the right age to do it. After that the body is not so conducive to the rigours of training excess, not even staying awake for twenty four hours, then four hours sleep then another twenty four hour shift. Those poor b's in the trenches of Ukraine probably nap on their feet propped against a muddy wall. The pb infantry is no place for the middle-aged.

PK, you haven't dragged me away from anything. There's no better way to spend brief spare moments of the day than conversing with you and the other good members of WWW, even when you're one of life's busy movers and shakers, like I am.

You're right to say there are similarities with the 1930s. It feels like a pre war world. That said, there are marked differences, particularly in the West. One of them is a better informed, more comfortable but less patriotic population. A second is that there is no direct state-backed military threat to us, and if one does appear then it will likely be of our own making.

I believe that Western governments are now hungry for war, either to stimulate their economies, distract from possible economic collapse, or a combination of the two.

But any Western government that tried to introduce conscription would fall. Their only possible - POSSIBLE - route to any form of mass mobilisation would be to recruit the boat people, by offering guarantees of citizenship and generous financial incentives. They might succeed with the indigenous population following a prolonged period of covidesque propaganda, but it's not going to be possible to pull a trick like that again anytime soon.

I suspect your cynicism is aimed at all government, Beau but even allowing it to stretch I don't believe any Western government would welcome being involved in any direct conflict; there are still too many of us around to know how bad that can get. And the opposite only applies to supporters of ISIS: their creed is to destroy or convert the world to Muslim fundamentalism.
Even Iran knows a direct conflict with the West would be catastrophic to their power. But the danger is the creeping process: Hezbollah does something like the Oct 7th raid into Israel. Israel (not happily; they remember the last time it happened) makes a major incursion into Lebanon, Iran floods Lebanon with their drones, Israel destroys an Iranian ship suspected of supplying arms to Lebanon. Iran targets Tel Aviv with a missile attack, The US warns Iran, China warns the US not to interfere, Russia takes advantage of the world looking the other way and invades Ukraine in a major push - three hundred thousand men on the ground - Europe dithers, Saudi Arabia moves troops and squadrons into Oman (for their protection ha, ha), the US 5th Fleet move into the Gulf of Oman (to protect right of passage through the Strait Of Hormuz ha, ha) China again warns the US and sends a fleet through the Indian Ocean... When will it ever end, when will it ever end? On the other hand, the US could pull all arms sales to Israel: Europe could sign a pact with Russia and cede the south of Ukraine and The Crimea to them and we could all lie asleep in our beds - until China invades Taiwan.
Never mind, Wimbledon will soon be here.

Europeans ceding the territory of other nations in order to buy peace? Didn't 15 - 20 million Europeans die after Chamberlain pushed that plan?

Opposite to Beau, I'm sure the West neither wants nor is prepared for war. They want happy, fed lives, plenty of screen time and moneymaking.
russia attempts to propagate past grievances towards the west and agitate the third world, some of which is full of hatred and aggression anyway.
Para bellum should still work. The more prepared and resolute the West looks, the lesser the chances it comes under an attack. Iran grew ever more ballsier until Trump took out their major piece and then there was silence. The realization has dawned on some in Europe and they think that if the war is coming their way, it's better be fought on Ukrainian soil.
We were accommodating hamas for various reasons, even paying it for silence and paid dearly with many lives for it.
Same with russia - give it a bone and it would just embolden it.

Interesting posts.

The Israel/ Palestine and Russia/ Ukraine conflicts have one big difference...

The former involves a rich, heavily-armed state which is surrounded by poorer enemies, many of whom are warlike and believe it should not exist. It's a clash of civilisations and so, unfortunately, conflict is almost inevitable.

The latter, however, was completely avoidable. Yes, it's easy to condemn Russia for its invasion, which escalated the situation, but if the US and its puppet allies had kept their post Cold War promises, had shown more respect to Russia's concerns over its national security, and hadn't meddled in Ukrainian affairs, there wouldn't have been a situation to begin with. And don't forget that post invasion, it was Biden and Boris who wouldn't entertain peace talks. This isn't a clash of civilisations, it's a war between brothers. Russia and Ukraine should both be our friends.

I take J's point about appeasement, but if the root cause of the problem lies with us, which is what I believe, when do we stop digging the hole we've created for ourselves?

PK's concise analysis of the current state of play is excellent, but depressing. I share his love of sport as escapism. However, he is wrong to say I'm cynical of all politicians. I'm not. I just don't like the current crop of Western leaders and their globalist masters.

After their response to covid, death by 1000 cuts net zero crusade, and the various social engineering schemes that come under the 'woke' umbrella, I'm done with them. They don't represent Western values. They are traitors, who are in the pocket of large corporate interests.

But if Biden were to be replaced by Kennedy (or even Trump), we had a few less Trudeaus/ few more Orbans, and a purge of malevolent forces within our institutions and the MSM, I'm ready to come back onside and once again trust/ support our political systems.

Beau wrote: "....This isn't a clash of civilisations, it's a war between brothers...."

This is. The biggest threat that Ukraine posed to russia was its freedom, competitive change of government and civil society - all things putler fears that might undermine his grip. Freedom vs despotism.
I bet the west suspected russia would be back collecting pieces all the time. I remember hearing a top rank diplomat speaking at celebration of 10th independence anniversary of Ukraine. He sounded somewhat surprised Ukraine made it that far :)
As Ukraine and russia started to play with NATO about the same time, maybe if russia would've been given a bigger role with the West, it could've changed anything.
Other than that - no, you either dance to russian tune or they make you to.

I think the main difference between the Russian and Western political systems is Russia's lack of subtlety. No, Putin doesn't tolerate any real opposition but neither have we for decades. If anyone with fresh ideas, which are contrary to the establishment's interests, emerges, they are savaged by the press. If that fails, the courts will get them. If they fail, the political establishment will work round the clock to deliver a watered down version of the original idea.

If they fail - well, we haven't got there before, but Chris Mullin's excellent work of fiction 'A Very British Coup' gives some idea.

Short of Attlee (and maybe Thatcher, depending on your POV), we have never had a PM willing to work for the public at the expense of the establishment.

And look at the US! Look at how their Deep State treated Trump. Alright, he hasn't fallen out of a window (yet!) but they've certainly put him through the mill, haven't they? And he shared the same values as other US politicians. He was solely persecuted for being an 'outsider'.

After the Cold War, NATO shouldn't have moved further east than Germany. It should have held out an equal hand of friendship to ALL former Warsaw Pact countries, while recognising Russia as that side's senior partner. Then would've followed an arm's length friendship, with Eastern Europe able to act as an intermediary between the West and more hostile elements of the world to everyone's benefit.

No hindsight is required to know this would've been the best course of action. I, and people with far more experience and knowledge than the student Beau, were saying it at the time.

Instead, US-led NATO courted all the Warsaw Pact's junior partners, while cold shouldering Russia.

Big mistake!

Now, we've put them at odds with their former allies and pushed them towards China. Together, with the probable support of India and others, they will supercede the West as the world's dominant power.

As for Ukraine and others having to dance to Russia's tune to remain on friendly terms, what do you think the UK has to do for the US? We're both junior partners. We have no choice. It's realpolitik.

One last thing...

The way the world is now shaping, with new alliances emerging and power shifting, if Ukraine wants to prosper, I'm afraid it may well have picked the wrong side.

Beau wrote: "Interesting posts.

The Israel/ Palestine and Russia/ Ukraine conflicts have one big difference...

The former involves a rich, heavily-armed state which is surrounded by poorer enemies, many of wh..."

It is plausible that there is one big similarity between those two conflicts - both originated causally from politicians taking easy opt-outs. Regarding Hamas, Nik wrote "We were accommodating hamas for various reasons". Was the prime reason Netanyahu could see no better option that did not involve some awkward political moves and would cost heavily, and so he thought that Israel's military might would deter Hamas. In short, he greatly underestimated Hamas.

The same occurred in the Ukraine. Russia issued a "red line warning". The West ignored that and continued to poke the bear. Oops. They thought that with Western tech Ukraine could really punch the bear in the nose, and for a while they were partly correct because ony the West had adequate satellite cover. Russia had brief looks twice a day, from the West Ukraine knew when and knew when to move troops. Not Russia has plentty of coverage.

I read an opinion piece from a US marine corps person who knew about sapping. His opinion was the NATO advisors considered Russians as "stupid orcs" and advised the Ukrainian counteroffensive how to get through the minefields. His attitude was the marine corps would never do such a stupid approach against a modern capable force, because the counteroffensive was not defeated by mines, but rather by the more conventional; defence against an enemy that approached more or less in line. His opinion was that Ukr4aine was in their current position because they took notice of NATO officers who were so full of themselves from their experience in Iraq.

The overall similarity, then, is the West/Israel cannot put themselves in the other guys' shoes, and then take the easy way out, until they find it backfires and then they can't think of what to do next other than to let fire as many weapons as they can. In this sense, Israel is correct in that Hamas must eventually be defeated, but if anyone has seen the footage of the state of Gaza now, essentially a pile of rubble, they would know that defeating Hamas will not be the end of this.

t would be nice, if it aligned with the developments. What was red line warning and how did nato keep poking the bear exactly? By threatening with sanctions if they invaded Ukraine?
If by offering Zelensky to evacuate (say - run) and mourning Ukraine was a cunning plan to punch 🥊 in the nose then good

How to undermine a country?
Divide them along any lines of difference - race, gender, age, financial status and use the media to keep those differences in the forefront.
Corrupt the culture with junk media and celebrity worship
Draw away industries, especially essential ones, with cheap labor
Overwhelm the country with non-citizens

Nik wrote: "t would be nice, if it aligned with the developments. What was red line warning and how did nato keep poking the bear exactly? By threatening with sanctions if they invaded Ukraine?
If by offering ..."

The red line was Ukraine being part of NATO, as you either know well, or you have been lying under a flat rock. The -poking the bear was a speech in which Biden encouraged Ukraine to apply for NATO membership, altho0ugh I confess not to have recorded that at the time so I have no link. Here is an alt4ernative, from Wikipedia:

"On 11 January 2022 it became known that a group of Republican congressmen intended to introduce a bill declaring Ukraine a NATO-plus country and initiating a review of the advisability of declaring Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. The authors of the bill argue that recognizing Ukraine as a "NATO+ country" will make it possible to quickly make decisions on the provision and sale of American defense goods and services to Ukraine." Not only provocative, but thinly concealed evidence that it was arms sales that were driving this.

There was a long history of Ukraine playing with NATO membership, including my reference to GWB earlier. The real r4eason was undoubtedly to help the US military industrial complex wsell more stuff rather than wanting war with Russia, but the problem then is with all those basews surrounding it, how does Russia know that?

Beau wrote: "I think the main difference between the Russian and Western political systems is Russia's lack of subtlety. No, Putin doesn't tolerate any real opposition but neither have we for decades. If anyone..."
Yes, but the US military industrial complex would have far fewer sales. You can't scare people into buying arms when they have no obvious enemy.

Simply laughable 😂 A prophetic putler knew about Biden’s speech half a year in advance and amassed a strike group a few months earlier. NATO plus or minus - come on. Ukraine and NATO at all times were light years away. You simply reiterate russian propaganda. They can’t tell we invaded to grab a friendly country, so they invent stories.
If it was about military industrial complex and all the bla-bla, why not sell Ukraine arms, when it asked for it? turkey did. Supplying javelins and nlaw was helpful, but hardly more than symbolic.

You know that how? The speech I heard on TV was just a few days before the invasion. And what I heard on TV had Biden's head behind it and the lips were moving. Hardly Russian propaganda.

But never mind. Nik, we know you think Ukraine can do no wrong.