When The Other Side Has Options

The New York Times is an awful newspaper, but it’s the premier narrative setting publication. This makes it what pretentious intellectuals read in order feel well-informed. Various cable channels might provide the gist of the same points, but they’re clearly tailored to a less-sophisticated audience.

That’s not to say they’re capable of grasping foreign policy, just that they need their idiotic propaganda dressed up with more information. Making sense out of what’s actually going on requires learning about who’s in charge, what they ultimately want, and then reading white papers to see how that’s being carried out. However, if you want to get a sense of how these dilettantes are self-satisfied about being in the know on a particular subject, sometimes it’s worth a perusal.

An article from a few days ago caught my eye because it literally uses the phrase “boiling the frog.” It’s a concept rightwing dissidents have been using for years to describe how the destruction of our societies hasn’t happened all at once because this could provoke the general public (the frog).

The article starts with the usual fraudulent premise that this conflict is a defense against unprovoked Russian aggression. The only U.S. objective is to free Ukraine from occupation and thanks to our assistance, Russia is in “humiliating retreat.” From there, it actually admits that the situation could escalate dramatically:

American officials believe they have, so far, succeeded at “boiling the frog” — increasing their military, intelligence and economic assistance to Ukraine step by step, without provoking Moscow into large-scale retaliation with any major single move…….

…….the Americans believe their incremental strategy, and refusal to give Ukraine advanced weapons or aircraft that could reach deep into Russia, has put guardrails on the conflict.

One of the incredible things about the NYT is that it imparts messages to the readers with the implication that Russians couldn’t possibly be reading as well. It’s so insane you’d have to believe you’re really smart not to notice. Here’s an analogy:

You own a small-town newspaper. In this town, there’s a man you want dead so that you can return his land to Indians whom you plan on swindling with booze. He’s a large guy who doesn’t back down from fisticuffs, but he’s not an illiterate cretin. Oh yeah, and he’s vowed to burn the town if you don’t leave him alone. You publish an article about how you’ve hired a midget living next door to kill this asshole. In it, you assure the readers that because you’ve only provided the midget with an assortment of knives rather than a Desert Eagle, the man won’t notice before he’s dead so they shouldn’t worry about him getting wise to his demise.

You’d expect this to go smoothly? No, of course not! That would make you as stupid as one of the bandits who pick a fight for no reason at all when Clint Eastwood’s character strolls into a saloon. Then again, you don’t think you’re entitled to own the planet and everyone on it.

Keep in mind that the Ukraine conflict is intended as a catalyst to end the existence of the Russian Federation. Russian doctrine states that nuclear force is acceptable if this possibility appears on the horizon. For now, we’re lucky the propaganda isn’t real because if it was, we’d really be in trouble. If you see a NATO target(s) nuked, well then it can credibly said that Russia was losing. At that juncture, they’d probably try to use them tactically to force an end the conflict. If that fails, everybody has to die at some point. “Who needs a world without Russia?” is their expression on the gambit.

President Biden again warned Vladimir Putin against using unconventional or nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine, saying that such an action would "change the face of war unlike anything since World War II" and the U.S. response would be "consequential." https://t.co/TohTChor2d

— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 17, 2022

The average NYT reader can’t appreciate the sheer hubris and psychological aggression it requires to come to a country that belongs to another people to cheat and exploit them while subverting their culture, values, and transforming the population. It’s even more astonishing that you’d act with hatred and hysteria when they object to your right to do whatever you want to whomever you want and wherever you want. For such reasons, they can’t fathom why the Russians would be relentlessly pushed until a nuclear conflict becomes a real possibility. The comment section is an idiot’s gallery.

Nuclear conflict is a more distinct possibility than it’s ever been. This isn’t an embellishment to be dramatic. Back during the Cold War, the U.S. had far more competent leadership. Both sides recognized the legitimacy of each other’s existence. Never a matter of dispute was the lawful authority of whoever was in charge of the opposing side.

The Russians have still been approaching things from this premise because that’s the only sustainable way to do it. Meanwhile, the U.S. switched from a policy guided by George Kennan’s Containment Theory to that of the Neocons. Before his death in 2005, he expressed alarm at where they’d lead us. Back in his day, policy makers could rise through the establishment who were able to separate ambitions from consequences. It’s not a coincidence they didn’t attend religious services on Saturdays.

Not recognizing the legitimacy of someone else’s existence (and genocide) is rooted in a particular ethno-religious tradition that has come to be embodied in both American domestic and foreign policy. That’s why the risk of nuclear conflict can’t be appraised with the same calculations this time around. If we get what we want, we’re going to get everyone killed. It’s so deranged that you can’t understand this without biblical context.