Or are they actually competent chess players? Just not playing the same game that we were all led to believe?
Their actions make perfect sense if we accept some very harsh truths:
1) They don't care about the loss of life (Ukrainian, Russian or European), they even welcome it, particularly of young white males of fighting age. This group is their real enemy and likely future source of opposition to their plans
While they definitely pursue anti white or rather anti native policies, my view is that this isn't due to an actual sense of maliciousness....at least not at the top level of decision makers.....Instead I think they pursue the immigration policies due to their economic projections (even though it's a ponzi scheme) and of course their egaritarian/anti racist belief systems. I'm not saying that 'racism' is a nice quality to have as such but for the left or social liberals
anti racism is like a religion. So factors like race or native populations and social cohesion impacts make little to no impact on their decisions....they just regard it as bigots not adapting who will be weeded out over time.
I view it as insane, because the impacts are multi varied and permanent, but there you go....it's wrong morally and economically but there you go.....They all live in nice areas away from the impacts of their decisions.
2) War is preferable to peace, the more prolonged the better.
Their only chance in the war is the meme that was said from the start, 'to the last Ukrainian'. Extending out with the.....with what I think even they recognise now....forlorn hope that the Putin regime collapses.
Taking the L with the war is a position they put themselves in....with my usual observation of social liberal policy that 'bets it all on red' instead of charting a conservative policy (I don't mean politically but just careful and realistic). By insisting on virtue signalling as a cover for bad policy they risked exactly what has happened.....What happened was always the most likely result and was stated as such by wise people back in 2022 (a conclusion that Putin obviously came to as well).
3) Endless stalemate is actually the preferred status of the war, because it provides a stable laboratory
4) This 'stable laboratory' allows them to test their expensive new AI weapons, and offload their old weapons for £.
Yes, though drone warfare and the introduction of AI was and is going to happen anyway. The accuracy of missiles today onto even moving targets is quite incredible.
4) Both 2, 3 and 4 ensure a continued transfer of wealth from ordinary taxpayers to the elites via the military/industrial complex.
5) The transition to an AI/digital war machine actually requires all of the above to take place.
I support an increase in defence spending......I have for thirty years, from when the Tories first slashed it. However, I think comments that it needs to go to five percent are insane and pure fear mongering by those interested in getting that money.
We need a growing economy and at the moment we are lumbered with too much of a state economy......and war destroys economies and should only be done for existential reasons.
6) The AI/digital 'army' of the future will allow them to exercise total control, without the risk of human elements turning on them.
Yes, I think we all can see where they want to go.....It's elite driven by both the corporate world and from Davos all the way down to individual government....Not just in Europe but around the world.
I don't want to sound like some kind of left wing revolutionary but it's the wealth elites looking to protect themselves against their native populations......Essentially they want the master/slave relationship where they can use AI and digital technologies to control your spending, opinions and essentially have a western version of the Chinese social credit system......with the difference being that the Chinese actually care about their populations remaining Chinese, whereas our elites have Utopian social ideals that are unworkable.
7) Just as in WW1 the leaders of the opposing sides have a much cosier relationship than ordinary people realise. In WW1 this was direct family links through royal bloodlines. In the 21st century, this is through the WEF, particularly the 'Young Global Leaders' programme of which Putin and many Western leaders jointly attended.
There were family links but also rivalry. The British government, with significant influence from King George V, initially extended an offer of asylum to Tsar Nicholas II and his family after his abdication in March 1917 but later withdrew it, preventing their exile to Britain.......and considering what happened to them it wasn't one of our better moments.
I agree, that the whole Davos movement essentially boils down to the wealth class protecting themselves against their populations.....throwing us bones where it doesn't cost them much but at the end of the day....because it's an internationalist economic mindset that's self interested.....They view large portions of their populations as a problem to be solved to protect themselves.
It's anti nation....and thus another Utopian project that just leads to decline.
Because ultimately it's positive law rather than natural law.....which for me is the fundamental difference between left and right mindsets.
England
