US betrayal of Germany and Europe?
A spitball on several topics in the news
I don’t think I’ve ever written an article where I left proper analysis and argumentation, to venture into (hopefully educated) guesses, and to engage in what is colloquially called ‘spitballing’ (“throwing out (a suggestion) for discussion”, per the Oxford Dictionary). Normally, I prefer to remain on more solid terrain, where I feel I can defend my positions properly (while remaining open to possible correction). Spitballing has definite value, though, especially when dealing with incomplete information.
In case of this article, I see a few elements that have happened, I see reactions of others, both in the Mainstream Media as in the New Media and among anons, that don’t add up. Each of those topics are huge in their own right, explosive even, but we simply tend to jump on those, taking them at face value, ignoring prior news and understanding that seems at odds with the shiny new bit of information that is being dangled in front of us.
So, for what it is worth, a little analysis and news, followed by conjecture/spitballing.
First of all, the least certain bit of info.
News spread earlier this month that the Rand Corporation, a think-tank founded in 1948 (their aims, from their website: “an organization formed immediately after World War II to connect military planning with research and development decisions”, that is “dedicated to furthering and promoting scientific, educational, and charitable purposes for the public welfare and security of the United States”), had produced a confidential research report on Jan 25, 2022 – a month before open hostilities broke out between Russia and Ukraine – that spoke about “Weakening Germany, strengthening the U.S.”. Rand itself has denied that this report came from them (of course, they would have denied either way), and there is no proof anywhere that would authenticate this document as certainly from Rand. We don’t even know for certain if it was written at the date shown, or much later.
There are also certain typos and such errors that I find strange in a high-level report like this, from a high-profile corporation like Rand, with the incredible intellectual capital amassed there. Did no one check this article for basic proofreading before sending it out?
Personally, I don’t believe this is really from Rand, but that it was created by someone who used a keen insight in what was going on, perhaps using the umbrella of Rand and the specific publication date to draw attention to it, in order to more widely spread his or her warning that way? The analysis within the report seems rather sound, though, and we cannot discount some of the ideas expressed in it.
It speaks about how a growing independence of Germany would form a major obstacle for safeguarding US financial and economic health, exacerbated by the current weakness and social and economic problems within the US itself.
The vacuum left by a United States that implodes economically and through cuts within its military, would draw out Germany to become stronger, and take a more prominent place, potentially creating a European economic and political competitor to the US.
We see Nord Stream come up, and the warning about how ‘dramatic deterioration of the living standards’ might lead to protests, that in turn force the German leadership to reconsider the EU sanctions packages, as is already happening in countries like Hungary and Serbia, with similar voices in other countries gaining power?
Curiously, we have the following report:
People are starting to protest against the largely artificial energy crisis, due to the imposed sanctions on the Russian economy, including export of energy (and fertilizer, further exacerbating the growing food crisis). And the next day, the 27th, the Nord Stream pipelines are blown up… Can’t have those leaders back down and reconsider opening those pipelines again!
Those protests are indeed happening, not just in Germany:
If you have such massive protests in Germany and Prague, with the clear revolt in Italy voting in a right of center coalition, after town after town saw protests where citizens burned their astronomical energy bills, you know this is not an isolated sentiment.
The sabotage on the Nord Stream pipelines ends any hope to restart supply to Europa that way. Russia is bringing that case to the UN, and demands a Security Counsel review of that situation.
As TASS reported today, “Moscow insists on a probe into the circumstances of "unprecedented attacks" on Russian Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, the Russian embassy to the United States said on Wednesday.
"We note the attempts by some U.S. legislators to put blame on Russia for the incidents that occurred on Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines," it said. "Perhaps, they have a better view from the top of Capitol Hill. But if that is the case, they must also have seen the U.S. warships’ activities at the very site of the Russian infrastructure disruption just the day before. Or noticed drones and helicopters fly over there. Or observed U.S. Navy exercises with underwater explosives that have been conducted in the same area some time ago. Finally, they should have recalled the promises made by President Biden to "bring an end" to the Nord Stream 2 project."
"What is obvious to us is that those who ponder about the incident seem to forget to ask the main question: who benefits from the pipelines’ rupture? The answer is on the surface. The decades-long energy trade between Moscow and Europe has long turned into an eyesore for Washington strategists. Unable to offer a decent alternative to reliable and, no less importantly, cheap supplies of gas, the U.S. decided to "squeeze out" Russia as a competitor using non-market methods and sanctions," the embassy noted. "Washington is trying hard to get its allies hooked on an expensive and environmentally unfriendly "LNG needle".
"For our part, we insist on the need for a comprehensive and objective examination of the circumstances of the unprecedented attacks on Russian pipelines. To discuss this issue, the Russian Federation will convene an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council," it stressed.
Russia cannot afford to be linked to demanding an inquiry into a false flag operation it had committed itself. They already have too many other inquires before the UN, regarding the biolabs, Bucha, Izyum, and losing credibility by starting an inquiry into something they did themselves, but tried to pass off as an American act, makes no sense. They don’t control the UN, and cannot afford to lose international credibility.
This does not mean they have 100% proven information the US did this, it might be a propaganda ploy, anyway. But to me, this proves at least that the Russians themselves did not blow up those lines (and why would they, anyway? It robs them of a VERY important bargaining chip! One that would have increased in value every day, as temperatures dropped and the gas supplied by those pipelines became more and more indispensable!)
Consider what some German politicians are already saying:
This the German elected parlemantarian, Gunnar Lindemann (for the nationalist AfD party):
"Nordstream1 and NordStream2 rendered unusable simultaneously by sabotage.
So that Germany can only procure US fracking gas.
And quite coincidentally, a US naval formation was very close by.
With Friends Like these, who needs enemies?"
As a side-consequence (I cannot image this an intended consequence), some Russian newsmedia are spreading this idea, calling the internet infrastructure fair game, not just in response to the Nord Stream sabotage, but to US threats to also cut off Russian access to the Internet:
“The United States threatens the Russian leadership through closed channels with a shutdown of the Internet and a cyber attack on critical infrastructure. In fact, everything is really not very good and the United States is really capable of completely blocking the operation of the Internet in Russia (disconnecting Russian providers from supporting domain name protocols). But there is no ford in the fire, just as there is no way back, except for victory over a terrible enemy. Russia, in turn, can and should, in response, destroy the physical infrastructure of the Internet (it is necessary to kill only 6 cables and the entire Western economy will plunge into chaos).
(Google Translate of an article posted on the Russian website of Politikus)
And of course, we all have seen the clip of Biden making that threat on the Nord Stream lines:
Promises made, promises kept?
Or Nuland making a similar threat:
Or of Nato itself tweeting that same day about their tests of unmanned systems, in that very same area:
What this sabotage did accomplish, was to fully cut off Germany and Western Europe from the most immediate way to restore energy supplies, and significantly dropping energy prices. Who benefits from that?
And as I already stated, this completely took out of play a HUGE bargaining chip for the Russians. Now, with the option to restore gas supplies to the EU countries made impossible, the US calls to go back to the negotiation table, leaving Russia in a much weaker position, with less to offer, and thus less to demand. No, this was not Russia’s doing. (Apart from the simple reality that they can just turn off the supply, without destroying their multibillion dollar pipelines!)
But let’s ignore that one Rand report, as we cannot be certain it is authentic. Let’s instead look at another study from Rand, one that everyone can readily find on the Rand website: “Extending Russia - Competing from Advantageous Ground”.
From their Preface:
“The purpose of the project was to examine a range of possible means to extend Russia. By this, we mean nonviolent measures that could stress Russia’s military or economy or the regime’s political standing at home and abroad. The steps we posit would not have either defense or deterrence as their prime purpose, although they might contribute to both. Rather, these steps are conceived of as measures that would lead Russia to compete in domains or regions where the United States has a competitive advantage, causing Russia to overextend itself militarily or economically or causing the regime to lose domestic and/or international prestige and influence. This report deliberately covers a wide range of military, economic, and political policy options. Its recommendations are directly relevant to everything from military modernization and force posture to economic sanctions and diplomacy; consequently, it speaks to all the military services, other parts of U.S. government that have a hand in foreign policy, and the broader foreign and defense policy audience.”
In one of their last chapters, they produced the following table with ‘findings for land and multidomain measures’ the US should take in order to reach the desired goal of over-extending Russia, and gaining the upper hand themselves:
We see that this has been put into practice. They did hold more NATO exercises in Europe, including in Ukraine. This happened in 2021, as reported by Reuters, and in 2022, as reported by a British website, which cited Ukrainian sources who called a large NATO exercise in Norway as a ‘happy coincidence’. Fully in line with the recommendations of that report. The increase seems to have started in 2020, with notably on 4 September the incursion of the airspace of Ukraine by several American B-52s, for the first time ever. They flew closely along the border of Crimea, as well.
On 2 August 2019, the US formally withdrew from the INF treaty (the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, on the elimination of intermediate-rage and shorter-range missiles). This was done by Trump, on February 1, 2019, through a formal suspension. Curiously, the official publication date for this report by Rand is April 24, 2019. The US indeed only formally withdrew on August 2nd, but I find it hard to believe that Trump would act this quickly on this report, after having preempted it already before the official publication date. What is curious, as well, is that the report did not mention the suspension that Trump had enacted almost 3 months earlier. Important to note, is that Trump’s cited reason for this suspension and later withdrawal had nothing to do with Russia, but was to counter the Chinese arms buildup in the Pacific. China was not a signatory to that treaty, and thus not bound by any of its restrictions. Trump judged that discrepancy intolerable, and ended US participation in the INF treaty, so he could build up their response in the Pacific.
In the report’s summary, we find the following recommendations:
Many of those points we now see in action, and have seen in action in the buildup towards the conflict in Ukraine. This was not by accident, and NATO was not just doing ‘business as usual’, but was actively attempting to provoke Russia.
But while the report intended to ‘stretch’ the Russians too thin, make them over-extend, in order to weaken them generally, somehow the decision was made to push past that, straight into actual provocation, into war. The report warned: “Increasing military advice and arms supplies to Ukraine is the most feasible of these options with the largest impact, but any such initiative would have to be calibrated very carefully to avoid a widely expanded conflict.”
We can see that the US did exactly that, but did not hold back, and pushed Russia into their “Special Military Operation”, pre-empting the Ukrainian attack on the Donbass republics.
Also important to point out, is that this report explicitly mentions posturing with nuclear weapons, even deploying more tactical nukes to Europe, which means, closer to Russia, as well as changing their posturing with already existing weapons and weapon systems (including emphasizing more nuclear submarines, with considerable first strike capabilities). If the recommendations of this report were followed, the statements by Putin in his latest speech on Russian use of ‘all possible means’, a thinly veiled reference to their own nukes, was not unprovoked, at all! This needs to be stressed.
We see how since that first Russian attack the stance of the US/NATO has changed, and apart from providing material support and weapons, they are actively recruiting mercenaries, are providing nonstop high level and high quality intel from American and European satellites and other spy methods, that foreign (NATO) instructors are in the field, and actively leading units and battles.
There are reports of foreigners among the dead Ukrainian soldiers, even black soldiers, but I have not seen any pictures to confirm such reports. Reports from refugees from the Kharkov area make mention of soldiers in Ukrainian uniforms of European appearance - Americans, Poles, British, and in Volchansk local residents observed a detachment of mercenaries who spoke Arabic and Turkish. This is without photographic or other evidence. There are several videos, however, of English speaking soldiers among Ukrainian ranks. What seems to have happened, is that Ukraine held several NATO supplied and trained (and led!) units in reserve, and now that their own original units are too depleted, they have chosen to use these units for their Kherson and Kharkov offensives.
From a report on Telegram: “Western publications, including South Front, report that one in three soldiers operating under the Ukrainian chevron in the Kharkiv offensive was a citizen of a NATO member state.
The offensive operation itself was planned by the US military command. It involved about 200 units of heavy military equipment and up to 9 thousand soldiers.
The armed conflict in eastern Ukraine has definitively escalated into a state of war between Russia and NATO, with unpredictable results for all parties to the conflict.”
The Russian top diplomat at the UN, Lavrov, stated:
"Especially cynical is the position of those states that pump weapons and military equipment to Ukraine, training the personnel of the armed forces of this country. The goal is obvious, they do not hide it and declare it: to drag out the hostilities as much as possible, despite the casualties and destruction, in order to pull apart and weaken Russia. Such a line means the direct involvement of Western countries in the Ukrainian conflict, makes them a party to it.
The deliberate fueling of this conflict by the collective West also goes unpunished. Well, indeed, you, gentlemen, will not punish yourself!
We have no illusions that today the Russian armed forces and the militias of the DPR and LPR are opposed not only by the neo-Nazi formations of the Kyiv regime, but also by the military machine of the collective West. And in real time, using aircraft, ships, satellites, NATO provides intelligence to the armed forces of Ukraine and incites them to the fact that Russia should be defeated on the battlefield and deprived of any sovereignty as a punishment.”
This is how the Russians now see the conflict, after the 2 offensives by Ukraine earlier this month:
This explains their own escalation, by calling up reservists (300.000, out of 25 million possible reservists), and by holding the referendums in the 4 areas under their control. Of course, the West is going to reject those referendums, as will Ukraine, claiming they are ‘illegal’. Of course they are. What group of people who votes to separate from a larger country, will be able to do so with the full fiat of that larger country? Scotland might come to mind, but that is an exception.
What is worse, is the obvious propaganda and lies that are being spread.
From an independent British reporter in Ukraine, Vanessa Beeley:
“The West will never approve the referendum that does not comply with the Western agenda. As exactly these people have lived under the bombs, and experienced atrocities committed against them for eight years. It is their decision to liberate themselves from any imposed Nazi regime.
I have seen absolutely no violations. I have seen complete professionalism of electoral committees, I have seen a high level of security, a huge amount of solidarity and compassion to people <…>, and complete respect for people's privacy."
The German Stefan Schaller, a manager at Energie Waldeck-Frankenberg, was in the Donbas region during the referendums, and wrote:
“Of course, we can see that the Western media has claimed that people are being forced to vote here and that the voting is being conducted in a tense atmosphere, but, being here, I can see with my own eyes that people are voting voluntarily, and we can see the difference between how things are being reported and what’s happening on site.
It is very strange to read Western media reports alleging that pressure is being put on voters here, while one can see with one’s own eyes how calm everything has been here.”
For that report, he lost his job, as he was accused of clearly violating “the world view, the moral values and the philosophy of the company.” CNN reported ‘experts’ who claimed that those observers were “violating numerous international principles of election observation”. They cite the 2005 principles for international election observation that the UN had published, but they forget that those reports come from people who do not claim to be ‘official observers’ or anything like that. They simple report what they saw, and noted the difference between the narratives in their home countries, and the reality they saw in the field in the Donbass regions.
And to give an example, the German Foreign Minister Baerbock said in a TV show: "That's how it is during these referendums - they are shot, they are raped, and then people have to place an "X", while a soldier with a Kalashnikov assault rifle is standing next to them!"
This is absolutely incredible, how such a top leader can say such things with a straight face, and then have people like Stefan Schaller fired from their jobs, when they dare contradict that narrative based on their own observations!
Either way, one of the goals of the West was to isolate Russia. But as a pro-Russian Telegram channel noted:
“The latest UN vote on Russia's military operation in Ukraine shows growing support for Russia and the increasing isolation of the West. The sentiment has changed drastically since early March.
On 24 August, a UN resolution to condemn Russia's aggression against Ukraine received support from only 54 countries. This is less than one-third of the total number of UN members (193). And the support level is dramatically lower compared to 141 countries that voted for a similar resolution on 2 March.
The actual list of the 54 countries voting against Russia is also quite telling:
🔻 Unsurprisingly, supporting the anti-Russian resolution were the US, Canada, the UK, EU members, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea. Also worth mentioning here is Turkey, whose vote was driven by its own geopolitical interests in the region.
🔻The G20 vote was split 50/50. In other words, half of the world’s largest economies, including China and India, supported Russia. On the other hand, the list of the 54 voters for the anti-Russian resolution is full of tiny countries, whose economies are insignificant and whose dependence on the US is too strong (North Macedonia, Albania, San Marino and Federated States of Micronesia, to name a few).
🔻 Out of ten ASEAN members, the only one supporting the resolution was Singapore, and all the 8 members of SAARC sided with Russia.
🔻 The only Latin American countries voting with the US against Russia were Colombia and Guatemala.
🔻 Among the 55 countries of the African Union and the 22 countries of the Arab League, not a single one voted to condemn Russia’s military operation.
This means that Russia is winning the fight for people’s hearts and minds across the globe. Why does Russia have so many friends these days?
Firstly, the world’s political leaders aren’t blind. Unlike ordinary people in some countries, who remain misled by propaganda in the Western mass media, the leaders are fully aware of the West’s role in protracting the war. They are also clear on the barbaric methods of warfare used by the Kiev regime.
Secondly, and even more importantly, a growing number of countries support Russia in its efforts to counter the unipolar world order. This order serves the interests of a handful of Western countries at the expense of the rest of the world, and that’s probably why today many countries wish Russia a success in its fight against Western hegemony, happening now in Ukraine.”
Notice, in that regard, also the growing influence of the Chinese led SCO, the Shangai Cooperation Organization, where even Saudi Arabia is taken interest in, as an official “partner in dialogue”. Crown Prince Mohammed Bin-Salman said “the growing role of the SCO in international affairs, and expressed the kingdom’s readiness to actively participate in its activities.”
Another goal was to push the Russians back through economic sanctions. But that has backfired, as well! The head of the Bundestag Committee on energy Klaus Ernst is warning that Germany is waiting for a wave of bankruptcies due to anti-Russian sanctions, and wrote on Twitter:
"(German Chancellor Olaf) Scholz himself said: "Sanctions should not affect Europe more than the Russian leadership." During this time, we (in the EU) have introduced seven sanctions packages, and Gazprom has received record profits. At the same time, we are facing a wave of bankruptcies."
And interestingly, another observer wrote:
“The Ukrainian conflict has strengthened the dollar, which is moving towards historical data on the "index". Because of this, other currencies are depreciated. Only the ruble is standing still, it follows from the infographic data.
The British pound fell to a historic bottom, the euro fell below the dollar, the Polish zloty also went into a plunge. Hryvnia – no comments.
It turns out that the United States is profiting even more than the British on the Ukrainian conflict. In order for the "gold mine" not to disappear, Washington will go to any provocations, up to nuclear ones.”
I am no economist, and am admittedly rather illiterate on this topic, so I have no background to look at this claim critically myself. The facts it refers to, I can see and verify. His conclusions, not so much. If any of my readers is more knowledgeable, please correct or support these claims in the comments, if you can.
Now, this is it for my preparation. Those are facts, or presented as facts, with my commentary, where applicable.
Based on that initial confidential report by Rand, people posit that the current economic decline of Europe is planned by the US, who is cynically pushing her own allies into literal bankruptcy, to protect her own standing. Very dastardly business. Other sources and people echo that sentiment, but based on other reasons, separate from that Rand report.
I would disagree. Several considerations are at play: some might claim that the current US administration wants to look good, and counter the inflation and economic downturn they are facing. In order to achieve that, they apparently aren’t afraid to take extreme measures, even war in Ukraine, and even war with Russia, risking nuclear war, even.
My main reason? We see how the elites here, the swamp, has done everything they can to WEAKEN the US.
*Undercut the military.
*Put us at risk at the border, even undoing the proven methods that Trump had put into place.
*Do nothing about the fentanyl crisis, a ticking time bomb, with China exporting more of that deadly drug into the US than economics would suggest (some singular drug busts yielded enough to kill every American several times over).
*Undo the Trump policies that were making the US energy independent (and even now emptying our strategic oil reserves, when simply allowing fracking or other extraction would do much more good, long term!).
*We see the cultural rot that continues unabated, exemplified in Democrat ruled cities, where crime and homelessness and abuse is skyrocketing.
*We see it in the way they tried to put the US away from the front, apologizing everywhere, diminishing US prestige and authority where they could.
Does that sound like the mindset of a cold calculating nation, willing to offer up their strongest allies, Europe, for their own (temporary) wellbeing?
I don’t think so.
I left a few elements out of the above list of subterfuge:
*They did nothing to stop Chinese spies infiltrating American Military, Academic and Business circles, in massive scale.
*They allowed our election infrastructure to be infiltrated by Chinese companies, linked to the CCP and the Chinese Army.
*They did nothing to stop the Chinese from installing a senile man, corrupt and beholden to Chinese dictates, as president, but actively supported that move.
And so on.
Alarmingly, just today I learned that China is setting up police stations in Canada, to expand their control and intimidation on their own citizens abroad as much as possible. This is a report from a Canadian news website: “China operating extrajudicial police stations in Canada”
“The police stations are set up to help Chinese citizens living abroad file local police reports and aid in other bureaucratic processes. According to Chinese state media, the “service stations” have also been involved in forcing alleged criminals to be sent back to China”
“It leaves legal Chinese residents abroad fully exposed to extra-legal targeting by the Chinese police, with little to none of the protection theoretically ensured under both national and international law,” said Safeguard Defenders.”
In line with that:
Or this, in a report from JustTheNews:
“China-based accounts posed as liberals and conservatives to bash US politicians, Meta report finds
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, announced it removed a China-based influence operation, which included accounts posing as American liberals and conservatives to bash U.S. politicians”
Who truly benefits in all this? Not Russia. Not Europe. Not the US. China does. While Russia is expending a lot of money and effort, having all the world’s eyes on them, they can now move unimpeded. Finish their takeover of the US, from within. With a weakened EU and a weak US, who can stand to oppose China?
Something is going on there, and we see the elites in Europe knowingly run into complete ruin, that could impact the European economies for years to come, openly defying the will of their own people. It is not to help the US, as the US is going along in similarly self-destructive policies, trying to dismantle the privileged place of the US on the world stage as much as possible. They know their decisions are destructive, yet they keep making them, and keep going along. On both sides of the Atlantic.
At the same time, there are rumors about a shakeup in China, with house arrests among top Chinese officials, yet a few days later, nothing is confirmed of any such coup or attempted coup. On the contrary, despite reports of how Xi Jinping was put under house arrest, video emerged of him visiting the exhibition "The Formation of a new era" in Beijing.
This article explains in a bit more detail how those rumors suddenly emerged, and appear to be unfounded, under the title “China coup d’etat and Xi Jinping under arrest -Rumors spread”.
What it does confirm, is simply this: “On September 23, Sun Lijun, a former vice minister of public security was sentenced to death with a suspended two-year sentence for bribery and other crimes. On April 22, former Justice Minister Fu Zhenghua received a similar sentence, and Xi Jinping’s leadership has been trying to tighten up the party ahead of the Communist Party congress in October.”
My question remains, trying to make sense of the self-destruction of Europe, at the same time the US is as weak as it has ever been, under self-inflicted wounds, and thoroughly infiltrated by the Chinese.
Add to that the link to the Covid19 story, and the fact that the Wuhan level 4 lab was linked to the Chinese military: they knew what was going on, there. How is that all linked? With the biolabs in Ukraine? The self-destruction of the EU/NATO and the US? And continued Chinese attempts to expand their grasp on the whole world?
If anything, that is the link that needs a lot more attention, I think.
So, my spitball in short:
China is behind the virus, the stolen election, and now the destruction of the European Union and NATO, while attempting to weaken Russia even as it supports it, eliminating all the powerhouses that could potentially stand up to stop China’s rise to world power.
What do you think?
I completely agree and further believe that China either directly or indirectly destroyed Nordstream 1 and 2. They knew no one would suspect them and they were right. So, Cui Bono? Well think about it, as pointed out in this excellent substack the US really does not benefit nor does Europe or Russia. Just the suspicion it was the US is causing increased anti US feelings and if a war were to break out between the West and Russia guess who is left standing. China. In every scenario China benefits and it is consistent with their subversive methods of foreign policy. This would backfire immensely if it were to come out that China conclusively did this.
It’s incredibly likely China. Excellent spitballing. The most logical explanation I’ve read so far. When hearing about the Nordstream destruction, it seemed a very strategic move to explode into The Who done it fiasco in the media. The Chinese are surly laughing and patting themselves on the back.