I try to give an insight in my own life and dealings with rosacea. I also try to gather information that might be useful for everyone with rosacea, especially subtype 1 with burning, flushing and skin redness. I happen to be a bit unfortunate in that I have this condition for a long time already, and unlike many others, I haven't been able to get it into remission. I know it is more uplifting to read about someone who has beaten rosacea, but I like to write about the struggles that come for those who haven't achieved this. I also blabber about other everyday life topics here.
February 26th 2022
War in EuropeRussia has invaded Ukraine and it has shocked and surprised almost everyone :( US intelligence aside. Because in our enlightened modern western minds, the rules were set in stone. We all agreed that in the 21st century, the borders of Europe cannot be redrawn with force, that international law is the rule and that people and nations can make their own decisions about their future. Unfortunately this week has shown once again that you can intellectually draw out such a world, and diplomatically agree on such a world, but that in history agreements are there to be broken.
We probably should have expected this, going by Putin's latest antics, but almost nobody in the West could imagine that this would actually happen. Because we love reason and eloquent debate and verbal compromises. In 2022 the European Union, led by our own Roi Soleil, French president Emmanuel 'Jupiter' Macron, still thought that Putin had given Jupiter a promise while he kept a good 10 meters distance from him at that famously long table. Jupiter was smug as always when he assured the world that he personally made sure that Putin had pledged the promise not to invade Ukraine. Ah, yes... France's brilliant president met Putin three weeks ago and proudly said: "I've obtained no escalation from Putin". To our English friends: sorry about this muppet. Hopefully he's gone in a month. Anyway, we in Europe have been sorely humiliated by this tragedy. Although the people who are truly hurt the most are the people in Ukraine of course.
But nobody in the Free West could believe that Putin would sling us back in a regressive war from a past era. A western civilisation so decadent, that for the past decade we could afford ourselves to divide our people over the right to utter a different opinion from the cultural norm. Over the use of pronouns and safe spaces at universities. In a world that officially is proud of its culture, enlightenment, freedom and free speech. The hypocrisy has been noteworthy. And while woke topics may appear extremely earth shatteringly important to us now (and some of them truly are), this war between Russia and Ukraine makes some of those antics seem like navel-gazing in a way. We need to keep an open perspective and realise that if we do not also continue to focus on the protection of our basic freedoms (or agree on what those are), we may one day soon not even be able to take them for granted anymore. Understandably, this shock war has pushed the topic of covid very far to the background. Overnight there is not a word anymore about covid, whether in the newspapers or on TV sets... This Friday the Netherlands had almost all of their covid rules and restrictions lifted, including the dreaded QR entrance code. It was a historic day, after nearly two years of covid misery. But it was understandably completely overshadowed by the situation in Ukraine. Covid freedom day was only mentioned at the end of the extra long news broadcast, almost as an afterthought. And military specialists have instantly replaced doctors. I don't complain.
So why are we all so shocked? Not only because it is a brutal act of war against a sovereign country. But also, I think, because we in the West have been exposed by Putin, who is an old fashioned thug and strategist. We have been made painfully aware that all our fancy norms and agreements, made in ancient palaces and with a lot of ceremony and blabla, can actually mean nothing in the big scheme of things. The European dream has been since the 1990's, to keep peace in Europe and to achieve it through talks, agreements, verbal threats and at the very worst, sanctions. Now we see that decades of ignoring the military and decades of all attention on diplomacy, have not actually given us the certainty we so badly crave. All the blame can be shifted to Putin now, but it is probably also interesting to look at the full picture. After the Cold War we in the West woke up in a new world we thought, where international law and diplomacy would be victorious at all times. But meanwhile Putin has been preparing for this invasion for well over a year. Putting his millions, perhaps billions aside in a safe spot, preparing his military, setting out the strategic lines. Lulling us all to sleep with his promises. We have been completely blindsided and the invasion of Ukraine three days ago can be called a Blitzkrieg therefore. I think that Trump was right when he told Germany and the EU as a whole, that we are too reliant on Russian gas and oil, and that we are also too reliant on the UN for our defence. We did not want to listen, because well, Trump is a clown, or so the media tells us. Well voila, now we all acknowledge it in talk shows and political interviews. A bit late, unfortunately.
Dependence on Russia
And we should probably have invested more in independence when it comes to fossil fuels and such. But all the climate agreements and goals are making this difficult. France has its nuclear reactors and nuclear energy, but not many other EU countries do. The Netherlands have their own gas fields in the north, but years of earthquakes have made the government finally decide to start the shutting down of these pits. I am from the north so agree with that. But it does leave behind the problem of where to get our gas from now, if not from Russia.. We are so heavily reliant on Russia for our energy supply, that Germany ALREADY now stated that it will continue to trade with Russia, despite its act of war.
No European army
We should have probably invested many millions, billions, in an EU military. Putin is much more susceptible to military troops at the border, than to halfhearted symbolic threats of economic sanctions. We have no military to speak of, no European army, something which quite a few people have complained about for decades now. We are entirely relying on the willingness of the Americans to do our wars for us, despite the multiple dirty wars they started themselves in the past. And Ukraine is not on their list currently. And thus Europe can do absolutely nothing, other than endless discussions, meetings and attempts to find a consensus about economic restrictions on Russia and its oligarchs. Which Putin probably saw a mile coming and prepared for already. We are also very good in the west in uttering online support for the Ukrainians; colouring our buildings blue and yellow. Uttering hollow phrases and virtue signalling on our social media. Burning candles and holding vigils. The usual. Oh and banishing Russia from the Eurovision Song Festival. Add to this that the EU is a collection of often very different thinking nations, tied through diplomacy and trade deals. As a result, decision making in every situation takes time. Three days into the war and the EU countries can't yet agree on the sanctions at the moment, as there are many financial interests involved. Italy for instance wants no Russian ban on luxury products, as it has too much export in that respect. Yes that's right: Russian oligarchs are spared sanctions on Gucci loafers and designer handbags. Outrage is one thing, but it ideally should not touch personal financial interests. Perhaps Italy will offer a 15% product discount code to all Ukrainians in support though. Germany has for now also vetoed the proposed sanction to kick Russia out of the Swift network (that forms the bedrock of international trade). Germany is reliant on Russian gas and will likely lose its energy deals if severe banking sanctions are imposed. So Germany is mega-funding Russia right now as well, and refusing to stop. Germany and Italy on the wrong side of the conflict once again - what a surprise. Although we must admit that Germany did send some helmets to Ukraine with spikes on the top... While Ukrainians beg for help and their men (who were just like us used to music festivals, social media and traveling until a few days ago), without hesitation say goodbye to their loved ones and pick up the guns to fight guerilla wars in the streets of Ukraine. Very brave civilians, unwilling to let their country down, even though the West is letting them down militarily speaking. Because armed Forces Minister James Heappey insists NATO troops will not be sent to Ukraine. 'Will we declare war on Russia? No' The EU won't intervene either, as Ukraine is not a member state (even though it belongs to Europe). So they have to fight their own battle against Goliath :( Unfortunately, it's always the same story; the big guys pull the strings and the people suffer the cruel and deadly consequences.What does Putin want?
If we knew this, we wouldn't have been surprised by him like we just were. But there are some possible explanations to bring up.A neutral Ukraine
Ukraine acts geographically as a buffer state between Russia and the West. Vladimir Putin is widely believed to have attacked Ukraine after western nations mooted the idea of the country joining the EU and NATO in the future, and over fears that Russia could end up with a US military presence on its doorstep. One could theorize that if the shoe was on the other foot, the US would probably also attack if Russia (theoretically) seized Mexico, and placed it's military and material right near the northern Mexican border with the US. Imagine a battery of Russian missiles installed in Mexico and directed towards the USA. In Russia's (poor) defense, one could say that Biden would be as delighted as Putin is, surrounded by countries armed by the USA. So Ukrainian leaders making it known that they want to join NATO, can be seen as a huge trigger point.
Wikipedia says about this: "Ukraine's relationship with NATO and Europe has been politically controversial Ukraine is one of eight countries in Eastern Europe with an Individual Partnership Action Plan. IPAPs began in 2002, and are open to countries that have the political will and ability to deepen their relationship with NATO. On 21 February 2019, the Constitution of Ukraine was amended, the norms on the strategic course of Ukraine for membership in the European Union and NATO are enshrined in the preamble of the Basic Law, three articles and transitional provisions. At the June 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its own future and foreign policy, of course without outside interference. On 30 November 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that an expansion of NATO's presence in Ukraine, especially the deployment of any long-range missiles capable of striking Russian cities or missile defence systems similar to those in Romania and Poland, would be a "red line" issue for Russia. Putin asked U.S. President Joe Biden for legal guarantees that NATO would not expand eastward or put "weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory." However, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg was completely unimpressed and has staunchly replied that "It's only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence to try to control their neighbors." And: "As we support Ukraine in their aspirations to further integrate with Euro-Atlantic community and also aspirations for membership. Then it is for Ukraine to decide whether they would like to belong to NATO, and then it is for the 30 Allies to decide on the question of membership when Ukraine is ready to join. That is our right to decide. Russia has not the right to attack, to use violence, use their armed forces to invade an independent sovereign nation regardless of what they think about NATO membership, because that is not an excuse whatsoever, to use military force against a neighbor."
So, Putin wanted an agreement and the certainty that Ukraine will not become part of NATO and in effect, that NATO will not place military equipment alongside Ukraine's nearly 2000 kilometre long border with Russia. The need for this guarantee has been stressed by Russia for a long time now. Below you can see explain Putin this demand again to a western journalist. And Russia did not get that promise. I personally do not understand why the West and NATO are pushing the boundaries this way. Especially in light of the original agreements in the 1990's, about which you can read in a minute. But all this could very well be behind the current invasion of Ukraine. In that case, Putin wants to control Ukraine again and establish a puppet government named and installed by himself. He will have wanted to do so now, before Ukraine ever becomes part of NATO, because right now Ukraine has to fend for itself still. And to make Ukraine and Belarus Russia's "pre-square", with the possibility of stationing Russian troops there. If years, decades of peaceful talks and negotiations did not give Putin this result, his patience has dried up now I think, and he takes it by force. Putin also sees Ukraine as an extension of the West, infiltrated with American spies and intel services. Biden and his son's corrupt ties with Ukraine will not have helped there. The West is currently playing the saint in all this, but when you look at the bigger context, they are not innocent and have pushed and pushed despite clear warnings of the consequences. Now they cry wolf and sacrificed the lives of Ukrainians. I bet the USA would love to have Ukraine under its (NATO-)power, if only due to its strategic position. And in the below video, Putin basically says that he was trying to work closely with the USA on reforming Russia, only to find out that, behind his back, the USA were stoking the rebellion in Chechniya. It's all a right mess, as usual and I really hope that Europe gets is independent army as soon as possible, and won't be further dragged into America and Russia's never-ending dirty feuds. (Below Russian President Vladimir Putin answers the pivotal Ukraine/NATO question from Sky News' Diana Magnay. It was uploaded on December 23, 2021. This is the video original, but it is only visible in the USA I believe).
The Holy RussiaBut another theory is that Putin has a long standing ideology of the Holy Russia. Seeing himself as a leader who stands above history; the saviour of the holy Russian nation and the Slavic people. And his mission is to bring all the slavic people together, and the heart of this slavic folk is Kiev. Ukraine's territory has long belonged to Russia in the past (both to the Russian Empire and to the Soviet Union), and in the mind of Putin it still belongs to 'historic Russia'. Putin loves statues of Tsars who played an important role in all this, such as Tsar Alexander II. After Russia humiliatingly lost the Crimea war in 1853-56, Alexander II has built Russia back up again, and led his people to a Crimea victory in 1873. A statue of this Tsar was not coincidentally facing Emmanuel Macron during the last meeting of the two, alongside that ridiculously long separating table. So perhaps the almost 70-year old Putin sees this as his last mission, acting as a tsar of sorts who regains slavic territory to create a Russian Empire again. I know, pretty megalomaniac. But he has ruled for 22 years now and has high aspirations clearly. Many Russian leaders developed a mental illness over time, paired with paranoia. Putin's covid-induced isolation of the past two years won't have helped, in that respect. And if this theory is true, Putin may not only want a buffer in between Russia and the West, in the shape of Ukraine and Belarus. But he may even aim for the Baltic states to be regained next and even Eastern European countries, in theory. Tsar Alexander II also took over Poland and Finland.. Let's hope this is just an insane theory. But already Russia has threatened its close Arctic neighbours Sweden and Finland with 'military consequences' if they join NATO. 'Finland and Sweden should not base their security on damaging the security of other countries and their accession to NATO can have detrimental consequences and face some military and political consequences,' foreign affairs spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said during a news briefing. 'Finland's accession to NATO would have serious military and political repercussions.' - The man has pride and no doubt wants to go out with a bang, being acknowledged as a big player on the world stage, revenging the humiliation imposed on him by the USA and the NATO too in a way. He considers it a failure and a mistake that the former Soviet states have been granted independence. And clearly now wants to control Ukraine and prevent it from sliding further down to the West, or ever become an EU member. He wants a legacy for sure, and once Russia has Ukraine back, they may not stop. For all we know he wants Hungary and other Eastern European countries back as well and then what... World War 3? They may nuke us all into oblivion then. But first Putin will want to take Ukraine, destroy its defences and install a 'puppet government' in Kyiv. Then he may want to make Russia great again and in 50 or 100 years he wants to be remembered as a great ruler of Russia. Reestablishing Russian Orthodox Christendom.
What does the West want?
Putin wants Ukraine in any case because it is a buffer state between Russia and the West. And the West wants it for these same reasons. It wants Ukraine to be more European, while Putin absolutely does not want Ukraine to ever join the European Union. Because that would allow the enemy to place war machinery right at Russia's border. The United States has always had interest in Ukraine as a strategic place. It sought treaties with Ukraine already in the 1990's, and in 2004 the government of Ukraine, 'one of the largest contributors of foreign troops to Iraq', pledged its commitment to the American Iraq mission.
Does Russia have reasons to be angry about the NATO situation?At the end of the Cold War, the United States promised Russia that NATO, the post-World War II anti-Soviet military alliance that has been the bedrock of Western security, wouldn’t expand “one inch eastward” of Germany. The U.S. by now denies that such a deal was ever struck, arguing there was never an explicit promise. However, hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives supposedly indicate otherwise. After the Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989, it was a vital question for Europe whether a reunified Germany would be aligned with the United States (and NATO), the Soviet Union (and the Warsaw Pact) or neither. George Bush and his administration decided that NATO should include the reconstituted German republic. In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, the U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.
In light of this, there is something to be said about the indignation from Russia about what has happened since. Internal memorandums and notes from that time show that U.S. policymakers soon realised that ruling out NATO’s expansion might not be in the best interests of the United States after all. NATO has since enlarged considerably, expanding to the east after all. Eastern-European and former Soviet (Warsaw Pact) countries like Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia, as the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are now all NATO members. Which grants them collective protection in the event of an attack by an external actor (in particular by Russia). And most of these countries have also become members of the European Union in the meantime. Russia watched unhappily as its once vast sphere of influence dwindled. And how a by now disputed major agreement was broken by the West. Basically, since the end of the Cold War, NATO expanded so much towards the East, that the strategic buffer that Russia had reduced from more than 2000 km's to less than a 1000. Russia blames the United States in particular for this, 'putting its frontline forces on our borders', according to Putin in 2007. I can see his point. Nato continues to deny everything... Ukraine for a long time stayed kind of neutral in all this (aside from far eastern rebels, wanting to belong to Russia), and was led by corrupt politicians and oligarchs. Until 2004, when re-elections after the orange-revolution ensured a break, allowing opposition leader Viktor Yuschenko to win. Yuschenko survived an assassination attempt even in late 2004, during his election campaign, when he was poisoned with a potent dioxin and suffered bad facial disfigurement as a result. After this, Ukraine and Georgia were invited to become part of NATO. This did not happen as the next president broke the discussions off to veer more towards Russia again, resulting in a Ukrainian revolution in protest. Massive protests followed, ultimately leading to the ouster of the government of President Viktor Yanukovych. Russia was royally pissed off by these revolutions and flirting with the West. When Ukraine made an association agreement with the EU, Russia tried to influence the Ukrainian government and to persuade them to suspend the signing of the agreement. They are not (yet) EU members, but really aim to be. That agreement would have ultimately resulted in a free-trade deal between the EU and Ukraine, meaning Ukraine would have moved away from its largest trading partner, Russia.
Months later, Russia invaded Crimea. Many Russians maintain Crimea was never Ukrainian in the first place. It was, they say, a historically Russian region that was given away in 1954 by former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to a fellow Soviet republic, who likely believed, as most people at the time did, that the Soviet Union would live forever. And because Russia held an unofficial referendum under the predominantly Russia-favouring inhabitants of the Crimea, Russia believes it was a democratic decision. Following the invasion, Russia also leans on the Crimean port of Sevastopol, which is Russia's main seawater port. Russia went on to lend military support to pro-Moscow rebels in eastern Ukraine, sparking a conflict that continues to this day. Putin was more or less allowed to annex the Crimea terrain in 2014, in the south-east of Ukraine. Barack Obama stated at the time that he wanted no cold war over Crimea and he insisted that a military solution was not an option, saying pressure and diplomacy are the way forward in the Crimea dispute. "This is not another cold war that we're entering into. The United States and Nato do not seek any conflict with Russia," Obama said. "Now is not the time for bluster … There are no easy answers, no military solution." What the West had hoped at the time, was to resort to the same measures they try to use today: the hope to achieve to increasingly isolate Russia internationally and expose them to a spiralling trade war with the west. In short: economic sanctions. Again. It did not work back in 2014 either. Of course, what was not taken enough into account there, was the heavy dependency of Europe on Russian oil, gas and such. What the United States likes, is to have access to Ukraine for strategic military positions, and while a major policy shift will take time to become effective, a transatlantic resolve was hardening to break European dependence on Russian energy supplies, with Obama for the first time stating that America's shale gas bonanza could be part of the solution for Europe's vulnerabilities**. On September 1st of 2017, this association agreement with the EU came into full force, much to Putin's chagrin. Western sanctions for Russia, in the aftermath of the Ukraine disputes, have also deteriorated relations for some years now. And current Ukrainian president Zelensky angered Russia even more, by passing a controversial law, isolating Russian speakers in the country, removing the Russian language from the media, education and from businesses. It also cut off water to the Crimea region. Western countries have supplied weapons and militaria material to Ukraine in recent years, worrying Russia. **Update March 26th: and yes, our countries in Europe DID go off Russian gas and switched to American Liquefied natural gas just this week. $$$$$ for America... Somehow they always seem to get better from their wars, fought abroad.
Back to NATO. Russia claims that the United States has failed to uphold a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, and that Russia therefore is being forced to forestall NATO’s eastward march as a matter of self-defense. And Russia already complained about the broken promises back in 1990, right when it all went haywire. At the time, Americans were still trying to convince the Russians that their concerns about NATO would be respected. Baker pledged in Moscow on May 18, 1990, that the United States would cooperate with the Soviet Union in the “development of a new Europe.” And in June, per talking points prepared by the NSC, Bush was telling Soviet leaders that the United States sought “a new, inclusive Europe.” It’s therefore not surprising that Russia was incensed when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and others were ushered into NATO membership starting in the mid-1990s. Boris Yeltsin, Dmitry Medvedev and Gorbachev himself protested through both public and private channels that U.S. leaders had violated the non-expansion arrangement. As NATO began looking even further eastward, to Ukraine and Georgia, protests turned to outright aggression and saber-rattling. I personally think that guarantees should have been given that Ukraine will never join NATO. As this man so aptly says: it would have been in everyone's best interests in the end, if Ukraine had stayed neutral. And Putin also has demanded this for a long time. NATO has pushed it's quest eastwards too far I believe. Some other people also think that for Ukraine, not being drawn into this entire geo-political mess would have been far safer and wiser:
The USA plays open cards and turns a blind eyeThe USA has told Putin exactly what their plans were, including Biden telling Putin already in december of 2021 that if Russia would invade Ukraine, the US would not send military troops over. Which is like putting a gun to someone's head to make a threat, and at the same time tell them not to worry because there are no bullets in the gun chamber. Why say this? Why not just say nothing? How is that considered strategic? Perhaps Biden is more preoccupied with his approval ratings in the States. Or perhaps this is to avoid a nuclear war? Eisenhower never wanted to use nuclear power either but he made it believe without saying it, that he would be ready to use it. When one is a leader, one must know how to be a poker player. The general drop in defense spending in Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall was a prodigious folly that should probably be corrected. It is infinitely probable that without the US, we could not do much to effectively defend Ukraine. It is a bit shameful really, for a continent as rich as Europe and a union as powerful (you would assume) as the European Union, has never firmly put an EU army on the agenda. And on the payroll. Biden keeps saying he will never help Ukraine. And the Minister of Defense keeps repeating: “Everyone must measure the consequences of starting a war with Russia”! 'Will we declare war on Russia? No', armed Forces Minister James Heappey insisted. Uplifting. President Zelensky has now refused an offer from the USA to evacuate him:
"I need ammunition, NOT a ride!"
"I need ammunition, NOT a ride!" Zelensky today blasts Biden for offering to "evacuate him from Kyiv". I really hope he won't be killed by the Russians... Evacuate, that's where Biden's good at, just look at the scramble in Afghanistan. You could even say that last year, Biden abandoned the people of Afghanistan to the Taliban. This year it is the turn of the people of Ukraine. Zelensky shows what a true leader does; he leads from the front. You just can't compare Basement Biden and Frontline fighter Zelensky. Ukraine is showing the world what they're made of. Young men, civilians, stay put and pick up their weapons to defend their country. Huge respect. A Goliath task, but all the Ukrainians who now fight in the streets may even have a chance. Strategists in the media are saying that for now, Vladimir Putin's war with Ukraine is not going to plan due to Kremlin 'overconfidence', poor tactical planning and 'shock' at the fierce resistance put up by brave Ukrainians fighting for national survival. Estonia's former defence chief Riho Terras claims that Russia is fast running out of money and weapons and will have to enter negotiations with Volodymyr Zelensky's government if Kyiv holds off the Russians for 10 days. Time will tell.. - Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but it is very painful nevertheless to sit by and watch a European country being invaded and innocent people being killed. Let's remind ourselves that NATO díd operate during (US-led) military campaigns in Iraq, Libya and other places. The problem with NATO is that it was created to defend but not attack. But that all changed in 1999 when NATO bombed Serbia, and then went on to Iraq and Afghanistan. Kuwait aren't NATO members but look what happened when they were invaded. 1991: Desert storm. American interests are ultimately at the heart of NATO and this has the ability to destabilize things all over the world. Some evil voices whisper that the position of the Americans is sewn with white thread, and that by putting an end to the Nord Stream II gas pipeline, will allow the US to sell their own liquefied natural gas to Europe instead. Business tends to carry their international political line, after all. Just like for the Germans, their top priority for decades has been the competitiveness of their industry. We are the losers in this game with Russia: Russia will recover its resources but will have China to sell them to. And we will be obliged to buy our gas from the US and the Wahhabites (while fighting against terrorism and global warming)... And the United States should also understand that by letting Putin do this, they are encouraging Beijing to do the same vis-à-vis with Taiwan, undermining the influence of the United States in the Pacific zone. - One could also say that under Western promises (and Ukraine's understandable quest for more independence and EU membership), Ukraine sang to NATO's tune and went against their neighbour, poking the Russian Bear for some time now. The extensive Minsk II agreement was also never fully implemented. It sought to halt the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, but years on, there has been no full political settlement by either Ukraine or Russia. So after having initially been promised no eastward expansion of NATO, the Russian view is now that they don't want NATO on their doorstep, period. That could create a new iron curtain.
Now what? The main reason to be very cautious and careful in our western response, is most likely because everyone fears that Putin could go all mad and press the red button. He covedly threatened, by association, with a nuclear war. Nobody is certain if Putin is still fully rational by now (I think he is), but rationally speaking, nuclear response would only be on the table when there is a full scale war with another nuclear power. Right now Putin is at a conventional war with Ukraine, which gave up its nuclear arsenal to Russia in exchange for Russia's promise that it would honor Ukraine's territorial integrity... But for a nuclear powered country to declare war on Russia, that could mark the end of the modern world, and most people fear this. So for now the EU and UN and NATO are taking a cautious stance. And with Russia's nuclear force, that is perhaps the most sensible decision in the end. My grievance is with there not being a choice. As we have no powerful army, or any military power that could have detracted Putin in the first place. So we for now resort to economic and diplomatic sanctions. Hoping that it will put so much pressure on Putin, that he will come to his senses, spare Ukraine and not pursue another 'freedom operation' towards the west. Or maybe his generals will eventually have enough and overthrow Putin. Military coups are of all times, after all.
Changing the Putin regime through democratic means cannot happen; change can come exclusively through revolution - either revolution from above or revolution from below
Maybe Putin is still worried about the support of his own people? Russian Communist Party MP Mikhail Matveev has spoken out against Putin's invasion of Ukraine saying: 'I think that the war should be stopped immediately.' 'When I voted for the recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People's Republic (LPR), I voted for peace, not for war.' Russians have also risked their safety and freedom to protest in the streets of Russia. And some have subsequently been arrested, as was to be expected. Does Putin not fear a revolution? Clearly not. I heard on our news that only 1/3 of the Russian people support Putin's political party and that most are against war with Ukraine. But we don't know how correct this information is. You'd think that Putin would fear pissing off his own people, with all the revolutions in Russia's past. But realistically speaking, Putin doesn't fear his own people. It's not like he needs them to be re-elected. He's made sure he'll be in power until he dies or fleas. He also has control over the Russian media. And even more importantly; he has control over the top elite of Russian billionaires... In the UK there live many Russian oligarchs dubbed the Oligarchs in Londongrad. After the financial crisis in 2008, the UK opened its arms for the big oligarchs, promising them a visum if they invested enough (a million pounds) into British stocks and companies. Allowing such people to then become a British citizen. No further questions asked, neither about where all those millions or billions exactly came from. Hundreds of very rich Russians used this system. There are about 600 Russian oligarchs close to Putin. They possess 99,8% of the total Russian capital. This is almost unbelievable. Only 0,2% of the total capital is said to be divided over the other 140 million Russian citizens. So by all means, this small clique is extremely rich and powerful. All assets are divided among themselves. They are also used to standing above the law. In Londongrad they could comfortably live under the radar with their enormous wealth. People like Roman Abramovich, Lubov Chernukhin and Igor Shuvalov have insane wealth and power and are all close to Putin. The idea of the West is now to freeze the assets of these top Russian elites and of Russian banks. So they cannot trade, and they cannot help finance this Ukraine war. But actually only 8 of them have so far been put on a British sanction list, meaning they are no longer allowed to enter Great Britain. And they may find ways to work around it, like the rich elite do with most obstacles. They will always know ways to park their money somewhere else. Plus they have bought political protection over the years, with mega donations. So it may come down to symbolism politics from the EU. But they hope that punishing these oligarchs will hurt Putin. They may even turn on him.. But that is most likely another fata morgana. The oligarchs thank Putin for their wealth & power, and not the other way around. I don't see them assassinating him any time soon.
The West has now agreed to cut Russian banks from Swift payments system to try to further isolate Russia and cripple Putin's war machine. I hope this will soon be done by more than just some banks, and that it will also involve Deutsche Bank, which has been the intermediary to SBERBANK (used by authorities in the Donbas and Crimea). But it is a good result, because let's face it; getting all EU countries to agree to the same thing must be like herding cats.. But heavy economic sanctions are by now agreed on, slowly but surely. It will hurt Russia and its rich fatcats. Some cargo ships on route to Russia have also been seized. Bank accounts are frozen. Russian billionaires are prodded and their life made a little bit more difficult. It looks like the hacker group "Anonymous" has currently gotten into Russia's IT systems and that cyberattackers have just taken down the Kremlin's official website (not sure for how long). And some Russian TV channels 'are hacked to broadcast Ukrainian songs' (but Ukrainian government and banks were also hit by Russian cyber attacks). Western sportspeople are also taking a stance and refuse to play in Russia or against Russian teams. Events in Russia are cancelled. Maybe a next move could be to ban Russian flights from the airspace over all EU countries and the US and to withdraw our ambassadors. And withdraw ALL Russian sponsors from the West and its culture and sports. Send more weapons, ammunition and supplies to Ukraine? The EU and US seem likely to impose the sanctions that cost themselves the least, and therefore hurt Putin the least. We will still buy their oil and gas. But Ukraine itself sounds more united and in arms than ever. Russia never won the war in Afghanistan in the past and knows that fighting a guerilla war with patriotic, dedicated locals is far from ideal and does not guarantee victory easily, not even when the oppressor has ten or a hundred times more weapons. Like mostly everyone out there, I am worried for the outcome though. - Oh and France is going to send 500 soldiers to Romania (in 2023...) and 300 soldiers to Estonia. Heavy! At the same time, jokes aside: Putins nuclear threats are very worrying. It is reminiscent of the game of alliances. Europe supports Ukraine with economic sanctions and military ease. Which makes them their allies. So it is therefore logical that Russia also declares itself at war against Europe. Especially since if the sanctions are too strong, Russia will feel even more attacked. Now what to do to stop this runaway which is more and more likely to get out of hand? Let Russia do its thing and pretend (still) to be weak? Or respond even more to the bellicose intentions of Russia? Hard dilemma's, primarily for Europeans.
When you want peace, prepare for war. But the right type of war
With the US unwilling to fight our wars by now (and frighteningly ruled by a rambling puppet with dementia), soon it will be the turn of Europe with its inhabitants with an average age of 50 years old. Nuclear war threat or not, the reality is this: Europe can not or will not afford an EU army. The French army for instance is the only one that holds the road in Europe and it has only 8 days worth of ammunition for a high intensity war. France will therefore not send its soldiers on a suicide mission. We do not have the means for our ambitions. When you want peace, prepare for war, they say. An adage totally forgotten by our leaders for a long time now. No division of NATO would currently stand against the 900,000 Russian soldiers, supported by thousands of armored vehicles and aircrafts. And Russia has the largest ground military on earth. If Ukraine falls in the next few days, I am sure it will test NATO, especially the Baltic countries that are easy to cross and have a small population. If we are satisfied with our 378 soldiers, 85 rifles and 3 helicopters, it will quickly be settled. On the other hand, it is perhaps for the best that we in Europe simply cannot start another world war. The escalation would never end, with the addition that the nuclear bomb is now part of the equation. Russia has enough of them to turn Europe into a parking lot. But if we don't stop Putin by blocking his credit cards, then it is clear that the law of the strongest will prevail. For 70 years we have been pondering ways to guarantee peace; it may be time to show that Europe is indeed a reliable tool for stopping wars.Politically and military, the west was simply not prepared for this. Not military, not geo-politically, not economically. Putin was, and he is also prepared for the Western sanctions and will certainly have discussed it in advance with China. The West and Europe in particular has been whipped into the defence and Putin knows we are too weak, too weary, too unprepared and too diplomatic to make any real military fist. The best we can do now is formulate economic sanctions after days of internal negotiations, while Ukraine is burning. Maybe this will be a very painful lesson to tell us here that there are real wars to prepare for. And we are also humiliated to discover ourselves naked in other ways: masks, vaccines, spare parts, resources, manufactured products, energy... wheat! We depend on other countries for all of it. Many European countries are still bogged down by the coercive measures of a virus that has dwindled entirely in force. We are not even sure of the info we're being fed. But Western society hás been busy tearing itself apart about what toilet to use, about mandatory safe spaces in universities. About hysterically cancelling someone like J. K. Rowling over a menstruation comment. Cancelling perfectly good people, because they do not get included in the other's concept of freedom of opinion. Chasing constant victimhood status and forcing the rest of society to change accordingly. It is almost as though Russia and China were promoting such woke crises in order to weaken the west from within. Total division and a breaking down of our cultural and historical shared values, in the name of new justice. A justice that has spun out of control if you ask me. Or has it started a society on the slide? Wait until America strikes back with their modern arsenal of pronouns! I wonder if Biden is still going to continue kicking the unvaxxed out of the Army, Air Force and Marines if it ever comes to war? Looking at the war fought by everyday people in Ukraine now, overnight, unexpectedly, reduces the western world of yesterday almost to a playground full of bickering, distracted 30-somethings who never became adults. But what we see in the news these days is (also) the real world unfortunately. And we seem not even a little bit prepared for it, not anymore. Putin saw the weakness and acted accordingly.
Update:
Two articles below, which I just read and think are interesting:
Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine
The New Yorker
March 1, 2022
March 1, 2022
[Link] The political scientist John Mearsheimer has been one of the most famous critics of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Perhaps best known for the book he wrote with Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Mearsheimer is a proponent of great-power politics—a school of realist international relations that assumes that, in a self-interested attempt to preserve national security, states will preëmptively act in anticipation of adversaries. For years, Mearsheimer has argued that the U.S., in pushing to expand nato eastward and establishing friendly relations with Ukraine, has increased the likelihood of war between nuclear-armed powers and laid the groundwork for Vladimir Putin’s aggressive position toward Ukraine. Indeed, in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea, Mearsheimer wrote that “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for this crisis.” [Excerpts below, full article can be found here]. The current invasion of Ukraine has renewed several long-standing debates about the relationship between the U.S. and Russia. Although many critics of Putin have argued that he would pursue an aggressive foreign policy in former Soviet Republics regardless of Western involvement, Mearsheimer maintains his position that the U.S. is at fault for provoking him. I recently spoke with Mearsheimer by phone. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed whether the current war could have been prevented, whether it makes sense to think of Russia as an imperial power, and Putin’s ultimate plans for Ukraine."I think all the trouble in this case really started in April, 2008, at the nato Summit in Bucharest, where afterward nato issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of nato. The Russians made it unequivocally clear at the time that they viewed this as an existential threat, and they drew a line in the sand. Nevertheless, what has happened with the passage of time is that we have moved forward to include Ukraine in the West to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. Of course, this includes more than just nato expansion. nato expansion is the heart of the strategy, but it includes E.U. expansion as well, and it includes turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy, and, from a Russian perspective, this is an existential threat."
-You said that it’s about “turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy.” I don’t put much trust or much faith in America “turning” places into liberal democracies. What if Ukraine, the people of Ukraine, want to live in a pro-American liberal democracy?
"If Ukraine becomes a pro-American liberal democracy, and a member of nato, and a member of the E.U., the Russians will consider that categorically unacceptable. If there were no nato expansion and no E.U. expansion, and Ukraine just became a liberal democracy and was friendly with the United States and the West more generally, it could probably get away with that. You want to understand that there is a three-prong strategy at play here: E.U. expansion, nato expansion, and turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy."
-You keep saying “turning Ukraine into a liberal democracy,” and it seems like that’s an issue for the Ukrainians to decide. Nato can decide whom it admits, but we saw in 2014 that it appeared as if many Ukrainians wanted to be considered part of Europe. It would seem like almost some sort of imperialism to tell them that they can’t be a liberal democracy.
"It’s not imperialism; this is great-power politics. When you’re a country like Ukraine and you live next door to a great power like Russia, you have to pay careful attention to what the Russians think, because if you take a stick and you poke them in the eye, they’re going to retaliate. States in the Western hemisphere understand this full well with regard to the United States."
-The Monroe Doctrine, essentially.
"Of course. There’s no country in the Western hemisphere that we will allow to invite a distant, great power to bring military forces into that country."
-But that is imperialism, right? We’re essentially saying that we have some sort of say over how democratic countries run their business.
"We do have that say, and, in fact, we overthrew democratically elected leaders in the Western hemisphere during the Cold War because we were unhappy with their policies. This is the way great powers behave."
-Of course we did, but I’m wondering if we should be behaving that way?
"That’s not the way the world works. When you try to create a world that looks like that, you end up with the disastrous policies that the United States pursued during the unipolar moment. We went around the world trying to create liberal democracies. Our main focus, of course, was in the greater Middle East, and you know how well that worked out. Not very well."
-I think it would be difficult to say that America’s policy in the Middle East in the past seventy-five years since the end of the Second World War, or in the past thirty years since the end of the Cold War, has been to create liberal democracies in the Middle East.
"I think that’s what the Bush Doctrine was about during the unipolar moment."
-In Iraq. But not in the Palestinian territories, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or anywhere else, right?
"No—well, not in Saudi Arabia and not in Egypt. To start with, the Bush Doctrine basically said that if we could create a liberal democracy in Iraq, it would have a domino effect, and countries such as Syria, Iran, and eventually Saudi Arabia and Egypt would turn into democracies. That was the basic philosophy behind the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine was not just designed to turn Iraq into a democracy. We had a much grander scheme in mind."
-My sense was that there was not a lot of actual enthusiasm about turning Saudi Arabia into a democracy.
"Well, I think focussing on Saudi Arabia is taking the easy case from your perspective. That was the most difficult case from America’s perspective, because Saudi Arabia has so much leverage over us because of oil, and it’s certainly not a democracy. But the Bush Doctrine, if you go look at what we said at the time, was predicated on the belief that we could democratize the greater Middle East. It might not happen overnight, but it would eventually happen."
-I guess my point would be actions speak louder than words, and, whatever Bush’s flowery speeches said, I don’t feel like the policy of the United States at any point in its recent history has been to try and insure liberal democracies around the world.
"There’s a big difference between how the United States behaved during the unipolar moment and how it’s behaved in the course of its history. I agree with you when you talk about American foreign policy in the course of its broader history, but the unipolar moment was a very special time. I believe that during the unipolar moment, we were deeply committed to spreading democracy. With Ukraine, it’s very important to understand that, up until 2014, we did not envision nato expansion and E.U. expansion as a policy that was aimed at containing Russia. Nobody seriously thought that Russia was a threat before February 22, 2014. nato expansion, E.U. expansion, and turning Ukraine and Georgia and other countries into liberal democracies were all about creating a giant zone of peace that spread all over Europe and included Eastern Europe and Western Europe. It was not aimed at containing Russia. What happened is that this major crisis broke out, and we had to assign blame, and of course we were never going to blame ourselves. We were going to blame the Russians. So we invented this story that Russia was bent on aggression in Eastern Europe. Putin is interested in creating a greater Russia, or maybe even re-creating the Soviet Union."
-Let’s turn to that time and the annexation of Crimea. I was reading an old article where you wrote, “According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine Crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian president Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a longstanding desire to resuscitate the Soviet Empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine as well as other countries in Eastern Europe.” And then you say, “But this account is wrong.” Does anything that’s happened in the last couple weeks make you think that account was closer to the truth than you might have thought?
"Oh, I think I was right. I think the evidence is clear that we did not think he was an aggressor before February 22, 2014. This is a story that we invented so that we could blame him. My argument is that the West, especially the United States, is principally responsible for this disaster. But no American policymaker, and hardly anywhere in the American foreign-policy establishment, is going to want to acknowledge that line of argument, and they will say that the Russians are responsible."
-You mean because the Russians did the annexation and the invasion?
"Yes."
-I was interested in that article because you say the idea that Putin may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in Eastern Europe, is wrong. Given that he seems to be going after the rest of Ukraine now, do you think in hindsight that that argument is perhaps more true, even if we didn’t know it at the time?
"It’s hard to say whether he’s going to go after the rest of Ukraine because—I don’t mean to nitpick here but—that implies that he wants to conquer all of Ukraine, and then he will turn to the Baltic states, and his aim is to create a greater Russia or the reincarnation of the Soviet Union. I don’t see evidence at this point that that is true. It’s difficult to tell, looking at the maps of the ongoing conflict, exactly what he’s up to. It seems quite clear to me that he is going to take the Donbass and that the Donbass is going to be either two independent states or one big independent state, but beyond that it’s not clear what he’s going to do. I mean, it does seem apparent that he’s not touching western Ukraine."
-His bombs are touching it, right?
"But that’s not the key issue. The key issue is: What territory do you conquer, and what territory do you hold onto? I was talking to somebody the other day about what’s going to happen with these forces that are coming out of Crimea, and the person told me that he thought they would turn west and take Odessa. I was talking to somebody else more recently who said that that’s not going to happen. Do I know what’s going to happen? No, none of us know what’s going to happen. [..] I think he’s interested in taking at least the Donbass, and maybe some more territory and eastern Ukraine, and, number two, he wants to install in Kyiv a pro-Russian government, a government that is attuned to Moscow’s interests. He’s interested in taking Kyiv for the purpose of regime change. [..] This is great-power politics, and what the Russians want is a regime in Kyiv that is attuned to Russian interests. It may be ultimately that the Russians would be willing to live with a neutral Ukraine, and that it won’t be necessary for Moscow to have any meaningful control over the government in Kyiv. It may be that they just want a regime that is neutral and not pro-American."
-When you said that no one’s talking about this as imperialism, in Putin’s speeches he specifically refers to the “territory of the former Russian Empire,” which he laments losing. So it seems like he’s talking about it.
"I think that’s wrong, because I think you’re quoting the first half of the sentence, as most people in the West do. Putin said, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart.” And then he said, “Whoever wants it back has no brain.”
-He’s also saying that Ukraine is essentially a made-up nation, while he seems to be invading it, no?
"O.K., but put those two things together and tell me what that means. I’m just not too sure. He does believe it’s a made-up nation. I would note to him, all nations are made up. Any student of nationalism can tell you that. We invent these concepts of national identity. They’re filled with all sorts of myths. So he’s correct about Ukraine, just like he’s correct about the United States or Germany. The much more important point is: he understands that he cannot conquer Ukraine and integrate it into a greater Russia or into a reincarnation of the former Soviet Union. He can’t do that. What he’s doing in Ukraine is fundamentally different. He is obviously lopping off some territory. He’s going to take some territory away from Ukraine, in addition to what happened with Crimea, in 2014. Furthermore, he is definitely interested in regime change. Beyond that, it’s hard to say exactly what this will all lead to, except for the fact that he is not going to conquer all of Ukraine. It would be a blunder of colossal proportions to try to do that."
-I assume that you think if he were to try to do that, that would change your analysis of what we’ve witnessed.
"Absolutely. My argument is that he’s not going to re-create the Soviet Union or try to build a greater Russia, that he’s not interested in conquering and integrating Ukraine into Russia. It’s very important to understand that we invented this story that Putin is highly aggressive and he’s principally responsible for this crisis in Ukraine. The argument that the foreign-policy establishment in the United States, and in the West more generally, has invented revolves around the claim that he is interested in creating a greater Russia or a reincarnation of the former Soviet Union. There are people who believe that when he is finished conquering Ukraine, he will turn to the Baltic states. He’s not going to turn to the Baltic states. First of all, the Baltic states are members of nato. They have an Article 5 guarantee. Furthermore, he’s never shown any evidence that he’s interested in conquering the Baltic states. Indeed, he’s never shown any evidence that he’s interested in conquering Ukraine."
-It seems to me that if he wants to bring back anything, it’s the Russian Empire that predates the Soviet Union. He seems very critical of the Soviet Union, correct?
"Well, I don’t know if he’s critical."
-He said it in his big essay that he wrote last year, and he said in a recent speech that he essentially blames Soviet policies for allowing a degree of autonomy for Soviet Republics, such as Ukraine.
"But he also said, as I read to you before, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart.” That’s somewhat at odds with what you just said. I mean, he’s in effect saying that he misses the Soviet Union, right? That’s what he’s saying. What we’re talking about here is his foreign policy. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not you think that this is a country that has the capability to do that. You realize that this is a country that has a G.N.P. that’s smaller than Texas. [..] I’m talking about the raw-power potential of Russia—the amount of economic might it has. Military might is built on economic might. You need an economic foundation to build a really powerful military. To go out and conquer countries like Ukraine and the Baltic states and to re-create the former Soviet Union or re-create the former Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe would require a massive army, and that would require an economic foundation that contemporary Russia does not come close to having. There is no reason to fear that Russia is going to be a regional hegemony in Europe. Russia is not a serious threat to the United States. We do face a serious threat in the international system. We face a peer competitor. And that’s China. Our policy in Eastern Europe is undermining our ability to deal with the most dangerous threat that we face today."
-What do you think our policy should be in Ukraine right now, and what do you worry that we’re doing that’s going to undermine our China policy?
"We should be pivoting out of Europe to deal with China in a laser-like fashion, number one. And, number two, we should be working overtime to create friendly relations with the Russians. The Russians are part of our balancing coalition against China. If you live in a world where there are three great powers—China, Russia, and the United States—and one of those great powers, China, is a peer competitor, what you want to do if you’re the United States is have Russia on your side of the ledger. Instead, what we have done with our foolish policies in Eastern Europe is drive the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. This is a violation of Balance of Power Politics 101."
-I’m curious what you think, if any, of the moral dimension to what’s going on in Ukraine right now.
"I think there is a strategic and a moral dimension involved with almost every issue in international politics. I think that sometimes those moral and strategic dimensions line up with each other. In other words, if you’re fighting against Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1945, you know the rest of the story. There are other occasions where those arrows point in opposite directions, where doing what is strategically right is morally wrong. I think if you join an alliance with the Soviet Union to fight against Nazi Germany, it is a strategically wise policy, but it is a morally wrong policy. But you do it because you have no choice for strategic reasons. In other words, what I’m saying to you, Isaac, is that when push comes to shove, strategic considerations overwhelm moral considerations. In an ideal world, it would be wonderful if the Ukrainians were free to choose their own political system and to choose their own foreign policy. But in the real world, that is not feasible. The Ukrainians have a vested interest in paying serious attention to what the Russians want from them. They run a grave risk if they alienate the Russians in a fundamental way. If Russia thinks that Ukraine presents an existential threat to Russia because it is aligning with the United States and its West European allies, this is going to cause an enormous amount of damage to Ukraine. That of course is exactly what’s happening now. So my argument is: the strategically wise strategy for Ukraine is to break off its close relations with the West, especially with the United States, and try to accommodate the Russians. If there had been no decision to move nato eastward to include Ukraine, Crimea and the Donbass would be part of Ukraine today, and there would be no war in Ukraine."
-That advice seems a bit implausible now. Is there still time, despite what we’re seeing from the ground, for Ukraine to appease Russia somehow?
"I think there’s a serious possibility that the Ukrainians can work out some sort of modus vivendi with the Russians. And the reason is that the Russians are now discovering that occupying Ukraine and trying to run Ukraine’s politics is asking for big trouble."
-So you are saying occupying Ukraine is going to be a tough slog?
"Absolutely, and that’s why I said to you that I did not think the Russians would occupy Ukraine in the long term. But, just to be very clear, I did say they’re going to take at least the Donbass, and hopefully not more of the easternmost part of Ukraine. I think the Russians are too smart to get involved in an occupation of Ukraine."
NATO’s membership rules invite conflict — and benefit Putin. When an independent state proposes entering a powerful alliance, enemy states often choose to strike
NATO’s membership rules invite conflict — and benefit Putin. When an independent state proposes entering a powerful alliance, enemy states often choose to strike
WASHINGTON POST
February 22, 2022
[Source] In analyzing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many commentators have focused on factors specific to the actors in this case: President Vladimir Putin’s hatred of democracy, his desire to show that post-Soviet Russia remains a global power or Russians’ view that Ukraine is historically part of their state, to name a few examples. Putin has made his territorial ambitions in Ukraine abundantly clear — he seeks autonomy, at least, for the breakaway regions — and his motives are clearly nefarious. War, however, is not the obvious approach for achieving these goals. Why would Putin opt for a full-scale invasion instead of a diplomatic solution to the question of the disputed territories? What makes war attractive in this case is the fact that one country (Ukraine) has been positioning itself to join an alliance (NATO) meant to counter the other (Russia).International-affairs scholars know that, throughout history, few moments are more ripe for war than when the enemy of one country makes a bid to join forces with other adversaries. Such alliances can utterly transform the balance of power between two countries, and therefore, when a potential alliance is signaled but not yet consummated, the nation that will be put at a disadvantage faces a huge incentive to strike. Ukraine’s membership in NATO was hardly imminent, but Russia felt threatened enough by the possibility that it was willing to launch a war to prevent it (in addition to other nationalist goals Putin thinks he is achieving). Recognizing the dynamic at play is the first step toward understanding the conflict — and recognizing how NATO’s membership process may unintentionally invite this kind of crisis.
The relationship between alliance formation — imminent partnerships, especially — and war is a close one. In 1939, for instance, Britain made a commitment to defend Poland but was not able to make good on the pledge right away. Germany attacked Poland before Britain and France could get into position. In 1954, the Chinese communists attacked islands held by the Chinese nationalists in a failed attempt to block an alliance between the United States and Taiwan. And in a situation with marked parallels, albeit on a smaller scale, to the current crisis in Ukraine, Russia attacked Georgia in 2008 after NATO membership for that country was proposed. Perhaps not coincidentally, Georgia is still not a NATO member. Alliances — even “defensive” ones such as NATO — bring about significant power shifts, creating a new strategic landscape. When a country stands to benefit from a future power shift caused by joining an alliance, then it knows its hand will be strengthened in future negotiations. After the power shift, it may be strong enough to flout agreements reached today. Its rival knows this as well. As a result, negotiations in the present — such as those that had been underway between Ukraine and Russia over the status of two breakaway regions in Ukraine’s east — lack staying power.
Political scientists refer to this phenomenon as a “commitment problem” — and commitment problems lead to crises and even war. Our research suggests that impending alliances are particularly dangerous when certain conditions apply: when the alliance explicitly or implicitly targets another country; when the anticipated power shift from the alliance is large; when it takes time for the alliance to be fully implemented (opening a window for attack); and when an attack is likely to block the alliance. Ukraine potentially joining NATO checks those boxes. NATO is a military juggernaut, and Ukraine’s situation would be utterly transformed if its 30 members were pledged to defend it. NATO also “targets” Russia, in the sense that its raison d’etre, at its founding, was to counter the Soviet Union. In Putin’s mind, war today may lead to a better outcome than negotiating with Ukraine in the future, when it could be backed by the combined strength of NATO countries.
In principle, Ukraine and NATO might have defused the situation by committing to Ukraine being barred from NATO. But the underlying commitment problem, as well as other factors, made this approach unrealistic from the beginning. The NATO powers understandably didn’t want to reward Putin for his aggressive stance, which included massing troops on the border, and Ukraine wants badly to be under NATO’s umbrella. What’s more, it’s not clear that NATO’s rules permit such a concession: NATO’s “open door” policy, based on Article 10 of its founding treaty, holds out the promise of membership to any European country able to fulfill specific obligations of membership (civilian control of the military, a democratic government and so on). Why would Putin believe a commitment to rule out membership for Ukraine if it seems on track for meeting membership requirements? Potential new alliances can often provoke hostility, but the path NATO lays out for potential members all but invites armed conflict — however inadvertently. To join NATO, countries must first be offered a membership action plan, which includes a formal invitation and a tailored road map for future membership. To obtain such a plan, prospective members must first peacefully resolve outstanding international, ethnic and territorial disputes. The problem this poses is obvious: Putin can sabotage a state’s NATO bid by starting a conflict.
He’s done it before. In 2004, new Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili made accession to NATO a priority. Four years later at a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, President George W. Bush pushed for a membership action plan to be offered to Georgia. However, separatist movements in the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions served as a roadblock. Other NATO members, including France and Germany, were reluctant to extend a membership action plan under these conditions. Seeing an opportunity, Russia invaded in August 2008. (In 2011, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev boasted that Georgia would have already become a NATO member had Russia chosen not to attack.) Putin may have invaded the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, grabbing it from Ukraine, for similar reasons. By now, using force to thwart NATO bids is a standard play for Russia. A better approach for defending Ukraine than the prospect of NATO membership might have used the United States’ commitment to Taiwan as a model. That commitment is deliberately ambiguous — and therefore sidesteps the problem of creating a dangerous implementation window on the way to a formal mutual defense pact. Certainly, the United States’ stance on Taiwan does not create a road map for China to use armed conflict to prevent a U.S.-Taiwan alliance, as the NATO membership rules do.
The invasion of Ukraine points to an underlying systemic problem. Telegraphing the possibility of a military commitment can trigger a dangerous race between efforts to implement and to block the alliance. NATO is likely to face these crises again, because its transparent and drawn-out membership processes exacerbate the dangers caused by potential alliances. Not every conflict will be as cataclysmic as the Ukraine invasion, but the negative incentive remains. As the United States and its allies punish Russia with sanctions, and otherwise pressure Putin to withdraw from Ukraine, they should be thinking about how to change these structural flaws. In particular, the alliance might consider replacing its road map for future members with a more opaque, private, deliberative process, so that adversaries aren’t encouraged to preempt membership by instigating fights.
Feb. 24: This article has been updated.
Pfizer gives up on 1,3 bln clients, as it refuses independent India cross-checks of its vaccine
Feb 5 (Reuters) - Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) said on Friday it had withdrawn an application for emergency-use authorisation of its COVID-19 vaccine in India, after failing to meet the drug regulator's demand for a local safety and immunogenicity study. The decision means the vaccine will not be available for sale in the world's two most populous countries, India and China, in the near future. Both countries are running their immunisation campaigns using other products. Unlike other companies conducting small studies in India for foreign-developed vaccines, Pfizer had sought an exception citing approvals it had received elsewhere based on trials done in countries such as the United States and Germany. Indian health officials say they generally ask for so-called bridging trials to determine if a vaccine is safe and generates an immune response in its citizens. The U.S. company, which was the first drugmaker to seek emergency approval in India for its vaccine developed with Germany's BioNTech (22UAy.DE), made the withdrawal decision after a meeting with India's Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) on Wednesday. The drug regulator said on its website its experts did not recommend the vaccine because of side effects reported abroad were still being investigated. It also said Pfizer had not proposed any plan to generate safety and immunogenicity data in India. - What an odd decision by Pfizer... You'd almost think they have something to worry about, once independent scientists do a second opinion on the data. Don't Indians deserve reliable information so they can come to an informed decision about their health?And this just shows the unacceptable ways in which even physicians
are terrorized with the vaccine mandates. Just outrageous
February 9th 2022
I've been doing so so.. Bit low in mood, bit tired. My face is flushing quite a bit. I try to go out for long walks every day though and to keep up with friends and family and work, and not dwell too much on it. I think I may have some early hormonal hot flashes now and then. I am used, unfortunately, to my face heating up and burning, on and off. But lately I have these full body heat flares, which do not last that long, whereas a rosacea flush can last hours usually. Other than that no changes in menstrual cycles, so it may just be one of those things.. And I don't feel like getting my hormones checked again, as I did a deacde ago. Not as long as cycles are so regular and there is nothing I can do about hormonal changes anyway, other than HRH, hormonal replacement therapy, which is more of a last resort thing for me. Well, that's what I say now, at least haha, maybe in five or ten years from now I am screaming-demanding it from my GP :) I just keep taking my anti-flushing meds for now, and trying to eat healthy and go for walks outside for 1-2 hours a day; usually at the end of the afternoon, when the sun is low. And with a neck ventilator in my bag, in case I get flushed. But am nevertheless feeling a bit low in general. Let's hope it is season related perhaps. Although there are so many factors to these moods, and despite having a lot to be grateful for and not having to deal with all this alone, I also sometimes dwell on the things I do not have. I miss my middle sister, who passed away almost twenty years ago already. I sometimes miss having kids, even though I made that decision already ten years ago, as i just have too much on my plate, in several ways. But it is still something you miss now and then, especially as a good friend of mine with similar health struggles is having her firstborn. Luckily I have a bunch of children around when needed, and my lovely quirky cats also. But this constant rosacea burning and flaring and need for ventilators and medication and all these adjustments, it is getting draining sometimes. My father always said, back when I had the worst year of rosacea and depression, back in 2005, that you have to focus on the good things in your day, the moments where you really enjoy something, and take it from there. Not expect to feel happy all the time, even when everyone around you seems to be happy non-stop. 
And of course the world outside and the news never stops, so I'll continue yapping about covid again, as usual :/ I hope I will stop doing that very soon from now, probably so, as luckily the Netherlands is heading towards a more normal society again. The 3G check for public spaces will soon be a thing of the past. By February 28th in fact, the country will go back to normal: 3G abolished, free access again for everyone (except for big festivals with over 5000 people, the 1G testing for everyone). Face masks are a thing of the past as well then, except for in public transport. Discotheques will be open again as usual, as well as the culture and sport sector and everything else. People with fragile health are asked to remain cautious themselves. And for the future, the Government wants to start working with a pre-written and predictable, logical script; 'when there are X patients in hospital as a result of a viral pandemic, then the government will do X'. I am relieved about all this. It is a massive, positive surprise. Covid is still here, it may not go away anymore, but the Netherlands have decided that it is no longer proportionate to keep the entire country and society in a headlock. And the possibility to install a 2G system (only access for vaccinated or recovered persons) was also already rejected by Dutch Parliament altogether. Great. The new system will include 1G for large events, like concerts. Common sense! That is the only way to be more certain that the people attending are not covid positive. Even though there is always the risk of fraud (but the same goes for 3G, which is ludicrous during a pandemic as we all know for a fact now that vaccinated and boostered people still catch covid and pass it on). My sister and her family - all vaccinated and boostered except for the youngest child - all caught covid this week and are recovering now. There is a broader tendency now in many European countries, to relax the covid measures, letting go of the worst covid restrictions. And it echoes what tens of thousands of medical practitioners and scientists have proposed since 2020 in the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for an alternative approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. Focusing on those most at risk and seeking to avoid or minimize the societal harm of COVID-19 lockdowns. 
**When you have never received a vaccination, you will need to have one administered to benefit from a valid vaccination pass, even if you have been triple infected with covid.
**When you had a single vaccine injection and went through a single natural covid infection, you will also now need a booster dose 'within four months'. - Why make it simple when you can also make it complicated?
**When you had a single vaccine injection and went through a single natural covid infection, you will also now need a booster dose 'within four months'. - Why make it simple when you can also make it complicated?
Science telling us that natural antibodies from a covid infection last years, well... that does not fit Macron's political agenda, so that science is thrown out the window, together with the minimum amount of time required between boosters. "Immunologically, it is not justified to repeat ad vitam the booster vaccinations", says also Professor Jean-Daniel Lelièvre, head of the clinical immunology department at the CHU Henri-Mondor in Créteil. The amateurism of this government is mind-blowing.. Switzerland has established that the duration of the covid recovery certificate lasts 12 months, but France reduced its validity period from 6 to 4 months. Welcome to the world of junkies. And in case their Russian roulette gamble with jabs every 16 weeks now backfires, you can be assured; the French tax payer will cough up the compensation, if you are lucky and able to prove the cause and effect connection. Because it has been verified now that Pfizer and Moderna and others negotiated top notch agreements with the European Union, and will only cash in on the profits of their (subsidized, only 2,5 months tested and emergency only) vaccines, but are not held responsible financially or legally when things go wrong and people die as a result of the vaccines or develop debilitating side-effects. But don't worry, this only happens to other people. So while Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna are making $1,000 profit every second (!!) from their vaccines; despite Pfizer forecasting a $36 billion vaccine revenue for 2021; despite these pharmaceutical companies having received public funding of over $8 billion for the vaccine development: they can't set aside some millions or even billions for the inevitable vaccine injuries. They take all the profit, while the taxpayer can cough up the money for injury compensation. This isn't fake news; this is the sad truth of the matter. Where are the liberals when you need them? Probably too preoccupied with boycotting Joe Rogan and debating why the Holocaust was really not about race... I feel that media and politicians have played a successful game, in terms of demonizing everyone who is hesitant about the vaccine, who mentions that it is still in the experimental phase and should perhaps be reserved only for those at high(er) risk of covid; but when you say that, you are usually right away cast in the 'dumb, illiterate, conspiracy theorist, deplorables' camp. Pfizer meanwhile advises that children below 5 years old really should get vaccinated now. And the French government would still like to force-vaccinate young and perfectly healthy people. Obsessed with the vaccine and the vaccine mandate. One almost understands that people become conspiratorial with such absurd decisions. 
But even Jupiter must start to scratch his head about the statistics. More daily covid infections than ever in his France (the daily 500.000 mark was even crossed), despite all the draconian measures, which only prove one thing: vaccination does not help in bringing this pandemic to a stop. In fact, "The rate of infection in vaccinated people is higher than in unvaccinated people." And France long ago ran out of unvaccinated paupers to blame for all this. And Omicron gives such relatively mild symptoms, that patients without underlying health issues barely end up in hospital anyway, vaccinated or not vaccinated. As I mentioned in my last blog post; the countries with the highest vaccination rates are currently mostly all experiencing the highest covid infection rates as well as the highest covid hospitalizations. Maybe it will also be interesting to see in the future how this is exactly possible and the exact mechanisms behind this. Although specialists and scientists like for instance professor Sucharit Bhakdi have predicted and explained the mechanisms behind this already a year ago. Remember that a vaccine is supposed to protect against the disease. If you still need a booster after being fully vaxxed and still need to wear a mask after being fully vaxxed and can still be hospitalised after being fully vaxxed, can still transmit the virus or be infected after being fully vaxxed, then it's probably high time people admitted they've been fully conned :( If we just take a little step back, we realize that we are in a situation where we are going to ask people to get vaccinated if they want to partake in the outdoor world when, statistically speaking, we know that tens of millions of people have just caught this virus and came out 99% unscathed. With very longstanding natural antibodies. Just to realize the complete delirium in which we (still) are. Recent studies from the Pasteur institute and an English survey showed that these people carry anti-spike IgG antibodies for at least 24 months after infection. An excerpt from the study: "Among participants who seroconverted, anti-spike IgG antibodies remained above the threshold for positivity for an average of -380 to 590 days for 20 year olds, -410 to 649 days for 40 year olds. years, - 441 to 703 days for 60 year olds and - 471 to 755 days for octogenarians." An Italian report has just come out and notes that the ex-patients are still immunized after 18 months.
But France has a Minister of health, Véran, who has decided that natural immunity lasts only 4 months.. Véran, Castex and Macron are the greatest virologists and epidemiologists in the world. Like Ceaușescu at one time. Basically Véran follows the science when it suits him but ignores it otherwise. When the management of COVID19 is barely based on clinical data, but mainly on administrative ones... I don't even understand how there aren't millions of people in the streets screaming they are fed up. That whole government seems to be suffering from hyperpower syndrome. They are in a rocket that has taken off and the people will soon lose sight of them, unless the rocket explodes in mid-flight. The French look paralyzed.But luckily France's leaders are themselves now planning on loosening the reigns. Around April 1st. Who knows for how long. But in any case, right in time for the presidential elections. Just a coincidence of course. Maybe Véran realizes the impasse into which France has manoeuvred itself, with a pass that is useless and a broader European tendency to in fact abolish most covid rules and restrictions. France now comes next in line to a deranged looking country like Austria, where the unvaccinated risk fines up to 15.000 euro a year, if they do not show up for their planned and entirely mandatory vaccination invitations. It won't look good in the history books, not good at all. And then to imagine this: to the question "Does repeated booster doses not risk the collapsing of the immune system?", asked by a journalist from Le Figaro to Bourla, the chief executive officer of Pfizer, he replied: "I don't think so..". We are no longer in the realms of science, but in those of beliefs and feelings. Just as we have been for some years now under the general woke regime. I wonder sometimes if articles dealing with covid should not be classified in the "Religion" section of newspapers by now. For a long time already we have been drenched in dogma and no longer purely in science... And marketing authorizations have been authorized to promote these vaccines on the market with incorrect claims, long before long-term data on efficacy and safety are available. And it is still (falsely) trumpeted on all the TV channels: "All vaccinated, all protected". [We can now say; "all contaminated"]. Like some ritual. Aren't there normally fines involved when it comes to false advertisement? "Pfizer vaccine effective for 10 weeks (!) after the booster"... We have already gone from 5 months of protection to 4, to under 3 months now. When will we be told clearly that these vaccines no longer work? When immunity will be reduced finally to lasting one week? What if we started to get out of this religion of complete and repeated vaccination and think a little? In Israel, the Jerusalem hospital, a Pr Aviv asks the question: Should RNA vaccines be stopped?
Lucky there are also voices of reason to be heard. Gérald Kierzek, an emergency doctor and health columnist and the medical director of Doctissimo said for instance: "From a medical point of view, there is no longer any reason to keep covid measures whose effectiveness is doubtful or not formally demonstrated, a fortiori in an epidemic context which should no longer worry us. Our European neighbours, but also the United States, are withdrawing the obligation to wear the mask. The epidemic peak is behind us and, once again, we are facing a respiratory virus. Its evolution, with a rapid rise in positive cases, then the decline, follows the natural history of respiratory viruses without human interventions such as masks - or standing or sitting coffee - ultimately having little to do with it. As for the vaccination pass, it suggests that the vaccine protects against transmission-contamination; the latest “wave” in mostly vaccinated people demonstrates the opposite. This is more of a political mantra than a scientific rationale." "The vaccination pass is political. The vaccine was a medical necessity to protect the most fragile, but its generalization and its quasi-obligation via the past was a political measure. Omicron had flooded the country, relatively without gravity; only the contamination figures (therefore positive cases with little or no illness) increased, without dramatic consequences on hospital pressure. Abroad (South Africa, UK, Denmark) proved that the variant was benign. However, countries, including France, have nevertheless pushed their vaccination pass strategy, without proportionality with reality. The vaccine protects - individually, and not collectively - the most fragile patients with comorbidities. These are the patients that had to be targeted. The vaccination pass, by casting opprobrium on the non-vaccinated, not only obscures the real reasons for the crisis (lack of hospital resources, failure of prevention in the population, etc.), but creates a deplorable precedent, contrary to our values of solidarity and humanity."
The crisis has led to extreme alarmism, not to say delusional, wishing for zero virus and refusing death. For the first time, the French had every evening a number of deaths displayed on all the media, a morbid and deeply anxiety-provoking counter and above all out of context. No previous reference (in France, there are 1,700 deaths per day), no information on people who died from Covid (the median age of death has always been 85), no perspective on the number of cured and contaminated (the mortality rate is less than 0.1%). A sort of tyranny of emotion, immense of course when it comes to death, always unacceptable. Perhaps the anxiety-inducing communication, the drastic measures and precautions and the medical hygienist discourse could be justified in the first months of the epidemic, but they became counterproductive or even dangerous thereafter. The crisis has thus plunged us into deep anguish: anguish of the other, anguish of death, anguish of microbes (which we call nosophobia). I fear a spontaneous generation of hypochondriacs. And what about the psychological trauma inflicted on children, accused in addition to being responsible for the contamination... I hope that the end of the crisis will allow a necessary appeasement in the medical world and in society."
"For the first time ever, the French had every evening a number of deaths displayed on all the media, a morbid and deeply anxiety-provoking counter and above all out of context. No reference, no information about the people who died from Covid (the median age of death has always been 85), no perspective on the number of cured and contaminated (the mortality rate is less than 0.1%). A sort of tyranny of emotion"
The crisis has led to extreme alarmism, not to say delusional, wishing for zero virus and refusing death. For the first time, the French had every evening a number of deaths displayed on all the media, a morbid and deeply anxiety-provoking counter and above all out of context. No previous reference (in France, there are 1,700 deaths per day), no information on people who died from Covid (the median age of death has always been 85), no perspective on the number of cured and contaminated (the mortality rate is less than 0.1%). A sort of tyranny of emotion, immense of course when it comes to death, always unacceptable. Perhaps the anxiety-inducing communication, the drastic measures and precautions and the medical hygienist discourse could be justified in the first months of the epidemic, but they became counterproductive or even dangerous thereafter. The crisis has thus plunged us into deep anguish: anguish of the other, anguish of death, anguish of microbes (which we call nosophobia). I fear a spontaneous generation of hypochondriacs. And what about the psychological trauma inflicted on children, accused in addition to being responsible for the contamination... I hope that the end of the crisis will allow a necessary appeasement in the medical world and in society."
All in all, it has been difficult for me also I suppose, on a selfish level. Because aside from all these severe rosacea restrictions I already experience for so long in my life and this need for keeping things calm, I really did feel the effects of the lockdowns and the loss of social events. Even if it was having a drink outside on a terrace with friends; it has become very difficult for me to do these past years, due to all the rules and restrictions. It makes me feel like kicking against things even more, metaphorically. Despite having 3G for nearly a year now. - By the way, some people have now started to share outcomes from the vaccine tests, which show that more people died in the test group than in the control group. But the problem here is that Pfizer and the others did such small scale testing, that 21 deaths in the test group vs 17 in the control group can just be cast aside as non-significant. They should have tested these vaccines on tens of thousands of people, hundreds of thousands, and also not only on the healthiest people out there. Now they purposely left out the people in the highest covid risk groups, for obvious reasons. Just like there are now tests done with ivermectin (dubious who subsidizes them exactly), but they specifically give it to people who are already hospitalized with covid. To purposely skew the outcome, as it is well known that ivermectin mainly helps when you give it early, as soon after infection as possible. Because it helps prevent the virus from multiplying. By the time someone is sick enough to be hospitalized, viral inhibitors are often useless. But the mainstream media are eagerly running with such headlines and lack of further detail explanations anyway.
Trudeau, the villain of our times?
Songs of the day
January 31st 2022
SadBut I had a very unpleasant situation with a friend, some weeks ago. I will try to condense the situation and will say that I have a lot of understanding and patience with mostly everyone in life, dealing with the current pandemic, but also with the onslaught of contradicting information and uncertainty. I have my own reasons for opting to not get vaccinated. It is hard to explain to people who don't have the type of absurd reactivity that I have to deal with (allergic even to dental fillings, bad allergy reactions to the perfume worn by someone in the vicinity, ton of food allergies, skin rashes from wearing even the highest quality jewelry, to name a few insanities). I have so far been OK, despite traveling regularly and not holing up in the house constantly. Not yet caught covid, fingers crossed and let's hope it stays that way. But a few weeks ago I was very close by. Or so it felt. This friend asked for a favour. Friend had spent 5 weeks abroad in a country in Central America, and upon returning, asked to be picked up and stay over one night, before traveling on. No problem. Friend is double vaccinated plus received a 3rd booster before departure to the Latin Americas. Back at home I asked if friend could perhaps do a self (antigen)test, which I had in the house. I had asked this already some days prior by mail, as a preparation question (maybe I expected some unwillingness and therefore asked it in advance). It seemed no problem. Test was... positive. "Impossible! I had my 3 shots and feel fine". Another test, also positive. Friend now got angry. It could not be! I tried to stay calm (but felt a bit anxious, to be frank). Said that these things happen but that I hoped for understanding that we would have to change the plan now. That I could serve dinner outside on the terrace or in his room. The first option was accepted disgruntledly. I knew that friend had been through a stressful 24 hours already at that point, as there had been issues with the arrval QR code at the customs. And now this. There had been hopes for warm indoors and stress-free meal sharing. But I just did not want to risk any of that. I may be grumpy in general about the vaccine mandates, but I don't think that covid is a laughing stock.
So I tried to keep the atmosphere friendly and just sat outside with friend, trying to chat about the travels while having dinner. But all frustration and the shock of this surprise test result were now aimed at me, it felt. I was told in clear language, that I had been blunt and rude by asking friend to do this test. (So this was áfter the positive tests). Being boostered up, there had really been no need for any covid test. I said that I understood that feeling, but that on the other hand vaccinated people can literally step into planes going to the other side of the world and back again, without the need for a single covid test. Which puts everyone around them at risk, in a way. 'No, it was rude to ask a friend to test, just because I wasn't vaccinated'. I explained that over the past years, I never before asked this friend or anyone else to do a test for me. 'Aha, see? So it is rude ánd hypocritical, and inconsistent'. Tried to explain that I just felt like asking this time. Maybe a feeling, maybe coupled with the current super-infectuous Omicron variant and this recent long travel. 'Nah, it was not on.' I tried to stay calm, as I understood that the friend also felt bad about it all. Known friend for fifteen years, and the soup is never eaten as hot with friend as it is served, as we say here. So I just allowed the unpleasantries to come out now. But all those emotions were channeled into attacks. People like me are the reason why the pandemic is still ongoing, I was told. People like Friend are the responsible ones, who take personal risks with all those vaccines to get society back on track. But the small group where I am in, we sabotage it all! We make up pretty much all the hospitalizations (no longer true, but who cares about up to date statistics). If I hadn't asked for that antigen test, we wouldn't have sat outside in the cold now! And then friend wouldn't have faced 5 days of quarantine next, at home. And if I had been vaccinated, we could also have sat inside now, care-free, and have dinner there! It was unpleasant and I was getting a bit angry myself, but tried to appear calm. Said that everyone I personally knew to have had covid, were people vaccinated, and also that plenty of vaccinated (and boostered) people would álso still try to prevent catching covid, nonetheless, if their friend showed up covid positive. That most would not risk anything with an inside candle lit dinner either then. But it was still all wrong. It was basically my fault that friend now felt bad. My risk had now become friends risk, the evening could have been better if only... etc etc. And even the look on my face, once I saw that the test was positive, had been insulting to Friend. I had looked like I had stared death in the face! It must have not been nice for Friend to witness that, although I don't think it was that bad at all. But I really was a little bit worried indeed when I saw that positive test. I have tested for over a year, and as a non-vaccinated person I self-test regularly. Also before seeing my parents, as they are nearly 70 and over 70 years old. I have never before seen a positive test. So my eyes must have become big this time. Then the next problem was that it was not fair that Friend had accepted three jabs by now, and still caught covid, while I have had none and go out and about but have so far never caught covid. And then I was asked to justify why I had not accepted a vaccine yet? Of course, my explanations all were underwhelming to Friend. So... it was an evening from hell. I was proud of myself though, for staying calm and reasonable. 
In the past I would have probably exploded and caused a big argument, but now I just thought about the upcoming week of daily testing and wondering whether or not the start with ivermectin for prophylaxis or not. So I decided that I did not need additional stress from an argument with a friend who was out on a rampage and who I was never going to see eye to eye with over this topic. I also knew that once Friend would settle down again at home, the mood would settle again also. But at the same time, it would have been nice to feel some more understanding and just some kindness, with regards to also putting me in this stressful position. Friend could have also thought about doing a self test at the airport, before being picked up, to name something. Or perhaps show empathy now for the difficult position I was in. But I cannot imagine going berserk towards friends who are vaccinated. Blaming them for viral mutations, blaming them for the divide in society, or for me not being able to go to restaurants. This entire pandemic shows the truly ugly side of things. The unwillingness of some people to see the nuances, to deal with those who have different opinions and who make different choices. I fight against that myself all the time. But why do vaccinated people at times act superior? Is that the effect of political slogans and media influence? What is this thing, that divides us from the inside out? - Anyway, I ended up not using some ivermectin pills I have in the house in advance, and decided to just test every other day. I never tested positive or developed covid, luckily. 
ReflectionSome vaccinated people will feel entitled to question you at any time about your vaccine status and motivations, and debate you over it in a tone filled with anger and accusations. Me on the other hand.. well I write about my thoughts and irrations here, for maybe a handful of people, which is fine. It is just a way to document these times for myself and to express how I think and feel about things. I sometimes write about my rosacea, but since things are pretty repetitive with my seasonal symptom flare-ups, I just use this blog also as a diary of sorts. Covid wise, I always try to understand the people around me. Most are vaccinated and that is fine. I never accuse any of my friends or family of anything, not even of ignorance when they drag out year-old, wildly incorrect statistics again. Just because I have the interest and free time here and there to read up on these topics and do my own research also, does not mean that everybody else has this time or interest. They rely on the 8 o'clock news and their newspaper. That should do. Normally it also does do. Just, these are strange times and it pains me to see a big chunk of the media acting more like propaganda machines than like independent journalists sometimes. The agitating and rabble-rousing of some journalists, have a distinct effect on societies. Everyone is free in my view to do whatever they want. If people want 6 boosters then they should do so and I won't complain about 'vaccine shedding' or stuff like that. I won't attack them for the underwhelming levels of vaccine protection, or berate them about making the "wrong" choice when they develop vaccine side effects, at times. But unfortunately such a climate has been created, that it does happen the other way around. Even if the vaccinated comes round covid-positive and risks infecting his host. Even if the vaccinated do the absolute bare minimum of background research and just smugly bleat-repeat the lies that ivermectin is only a horse dewormer, for instance. I'm also still interested to see if Pfizer will finally share its raw vaccine study data. I'd like to know what peers think of the studies.
Lessons learnt It is truly so that vaccinated/boostered people can move around freely with barely any test requirements, even if they have covid. That they can fly across the world, holiday, go out, drink in bars, go to restaurants infected, without a single test requirement. And then fly back again, while covid positive. It is within human nature to always point around oneself for blame, towards the others. The media/political divide and conquer strategy is working very well in many households, families and groups of friends. Some consider themselves the superiors, for following the guidelines and believing that if everyone had done the same, 'we wouldn't have been in this mess'. This mess is therefore not a mix of errors, based on underwhelming vaccines, wishy-washy illogical government policies and free range for the vaccinated. No, it is all the fault of the unvaccinated, supposedly. Even for asking for a test and for bringing the superior person in a delicate situation of conscience. But when you have over 300,000 positive covid cases each day every day now here, you quickly run out of unvaccinated numbers within society to blame. It should be common logic that when vaccinated people are proven to still get covid and pass it on, the leak lies also in the total freedom for the vaccinated. But you apparently cannot take away the carrot from the donkey, once you offered it to them.
I know that some media and some hardliners out there are eager to call someone like me an 'anti-vaxxer', but this is not the case. I had all my childhood vaccinations and even a hepatitis A vaccination later in life. It is this particular mRNA vaccine that I am weary of. I also am not 'anti-pharma' and in fact save my life to prescription medication, to put it a little bit dramatically. I have written heaps here about which medication helps me get through the day. But the people who are unfortunate in this tombola and who died or who suffer side-effects from the new vaccines are real and they suffer. VAERS shows just the situation in the USA, and only the top of the iceberg, as mostly all scientists agree at least on the fact that side-effects are always underreported. Some say only 1 in 20 cases makes it into the official registers. In France for instance, there have been officially 110,000 covid vaccine side-effects reported, including 28,000 serious ones, so 25% The real numbers are much higher though, as many physicians are afraid of being scolded by the council of the order of doctors, when they ring the bell about this. But it is just not fair and not right, to hide their stories, or declare them untrue. Just because not everyone had these bad reactions. When a prescription drug causes these quantities and levels of severity in side-effects, we also highlight them and bring them to people's attention, so that everyone can hopefully make an informed decision. I probably naturally veer towards the minority group in general, and in particular the minority group who suffers from medical issues. I felt the same way about the Mirvaso victims. Because I know how it feels to not be taken seriously. To be told that I am exaggerating my facial pain, that I just have ruddy cheeks and nothing more. That it is 'all in your head'. Well, people around me could keep that narrative up during the first years of my rosacea, but nobody says that anymore these days. Now I am sometimes told by friends and family that I look so sore, or that my face turns all purple from a flushing attack. Now it is uncomfortable for thém to look at. But the pain was already there when my flushing wasn't so clear to see for the outside world. So I know just how it feels to not be believed, or to be told in hospitals that I am the 'worst rosacea patient they ever had', which I doubt to be honest, as I am probably not the worst out there, not by a mile. But all but two derms could do anything for me, throughout the years. 'Just learn to live with it', I was often told. As if living behind a ventilator with the windows open or a cold pack pressed to your cheeks is a way to live. So my stance usually comes from the point of view of the minority group. Trying to put myself in other people's shoes, people who do not have it as easy as the 'normal people' out there, who often have an opinion on everything, even the things they have no personal experience with whatsoever.
So I may be more susceptible to these stories of people unlucky enough to suffer from (bad) side-effects. I know that my parents for instance like to remind me that out of the 'billions of people' who had their covid vaccine by now, only a small group died or had bad side-effects. But statistics in the end cover real people with real lives broken. And they are plentiful. I had an IPL treatment, of which the doctor at the time. Mervyn Patterson of Woodford Medical in Danbury, assured me that it either worked or would do nothing. Told me that with my level of flushing, his IPL treatment was 'the only option left for me'. Assured me that I would not need test patches. Well, I ended up with a badly damaged face that flushed at the drop of a hat ever since, all over. I have lived behind a ventilator since 2005. And when I returned a month later, purple in the face from flushing, he shook his head, said it was all my own fault from stressing, and helped me out the door. 'Good luck with the rest of your life!'. It is a god-awful feeling to see your young life ruined, with no outlook of improvement, through the hands of a doctor who took your money, made you sign a contract and who you thought you could trust. So I have eternal sympathy for anyone else who was harmed by doctors or medical procedures. Even though it mostly goes well. This does not mean that all doctors are bad, or that pharmaceutical companies as a whole should be demonized. It just mean that you need to do your research before embarking on something. In this particular covid-era, I find it unbelievable that large pharmaceutical companies got away with subpar side-effect testing, rushed procedures and as the cherry on the pudding they also were granted no legal responsibility for any side-effects. That is near-criminal in my book. But the people who were unfortunate enough to put their trust in things, as is the normal thing to do; they are both not taken seriously now and they have nobody to sue over this. Not even doctors sometimes believe them. But these people testify of their experiences online nevertheless. Even if only half of their stories are true, it is still a very sad situation. When people with severe tinnitus after their covid vaccination go to their doctor now for instance (and I know two such people personally), they are mostly told that 'it cannot have come from the vaccine'. Or they don't know how long it will last (of course they don't know that, as the pharmaceutical companies haven't even wrapped up their basic test phases, let alone test on long term side effects). So my sympathy lies here, with trusting people who were healthy before the jab, and who are now no longer healthy as a result of the jab. Or who died as a result. To the question: "Does repeating booster doses not risk the collapsing of the immune system?", asked by a journalist from Le Figaro to Albert Bourla, the chief executive officer of Pfizer, Bourla replied: "I don't think so..". We are now no longer in the realms of science, but in those of beliefs and feelings."Taking part was voluntary, but those animals that didn't had their rations reduced by half" -George Orwell, Animal Farm
Thank you Jordan Peterson for adding some sanity to the debate
HERE you can watch another very sad case of a young man dying from myocarditis, soon after vaccination.
Songs of the day
Interesting 2-part docu series on
happiness in life and greed
January 15th 2022
Own song of the day
(and a cooler version)
(and a cooler version)
The other day in the quality (center-left) newspaper de Volkskrant (I added English translation). A well known cartoon named 'Sigmund'. I struggle to understand if this is supposed to be funny or not? In any case, it has become normal to think like this and media are still reminding us every day that people who disagree with the Ministry of Truth are all idiots :(
March 6th, 2022Horrible developments in Ukraine. So much suffering of innocent people and animals. Russia killing fleeing civilians, bombing animal shelters even, it is unbearable. With regards to our fears of a big scale war: I don't think a nuclear war is necessarily imminent, but both the Russians and Ukrainians are bombing and shooting also near nuclear power plants. Accidents can happen, especially with non-trained civilians, handling brand new weapons from the west. It looks like, from Putin 's point of view, the invasion of Ukraine is not going very well. He launched an unlawful war of aggression, public opinion is against him and he may have also underestimated the unity of the West, as well as the extent of the western sanctions which were imposed on him. In the current situation, the most favorable scenario for Putin is that of a victory after a long and bloody conflict. And even then, the situation would remain complex: the Russians would find themselves occupying a largely destroyed country, whose population would be for the most part hostile to them. And this is the best case scenario. I fear that if Putin has his back to the wall and considers his situation hopeless, he may even resort to the use of "tactical" nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian theatre to break the strategic impasse. And to terrify everyone and force Ukraine to properly negotiate. It would put the United States, which he considers at least as important as NATO, in a very delicate position. Washington would be faced with poor choices, such as getting directly involved in the conflict or washing its hands of it. (Although Joe Biden does not seem to have all his cognitive senses too sharp anymore, on most days. 'But don't you worry, uncle Joe's on the case" - Jokes).
“I don’t know what weapons might be used in World War III. But there isn’t any doubt what weapons will be used in World War IV: Stone spears.” - Einstein.
Despite thinking that eastern Ukraine will go to Russia in the end, including its harbours, which are strategically essential for Putin's army and marines; perhaps the final solution lies in the Finlandization of Ukraine? Not fair, but Finland agreed on this as well and as you can read a few blog posts earlier, in an article I included called "Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine", that unfortunately there are geo-political and strategical downsides to living right next to a superpower such as Russia. The same applies for the neighbouring countries of the United States (remember the Cuba crisis?) or even China. So, the Russians want to be surrounded by a protective glacis and will never tolerate NATO right at their doorstep. It is certain that the American manoeuvres made since the fall of the USSR to attract certain Eastern countries or certain former Soviet republics to the Western camp, have greatly worried Putin, who said to himself that the Americans would try to do the same in Russia. The Western-approved Maidan putsch worried him also greatly. Maybe he figured he was next on the list. By now I am starting to feel to be honest that Zelensky - no matter how heroic his battle - is himself also dangerous in a way for his country, because he seems ready to maintain his claims until his/its destruction. Now Zelensky is starting to say that every dead Ukrainian can be blamed on the West. For not giving him a no-fly zone over Ukraine, dragging NATO and most of the world in effect into WW3. Is he also becoming barking mad? All this, despite NATO's initial achievement of very discreetly and strategically retreating Canadian and American troops who were present in Kiev, sending them to Germany. Making it clear that NATO itself is not at war. NATO is not at war with Russia, but in a way Zelensky also tries to push us all into war, to hell with the consequences for the rest of the world. We help most right now, harsh as it sounds, by remaining politically in the background, asking for the fighting to stop, the withdrawal of troops and the start of negotiations. And by continuing to support Ukraine financially and through arms and military equipment, which are no doubt smuggled into the country on a constant basis. It is a very sad reality for Ukrainians, but Ukraine is not a part of NATO, and NATO only comes to the defence of its own members. Minus jets and actual soldiers, NATO has literally provided everything they can by now, including crippling their own economies for Ukraine (the sanctions are hurting Europe more than Russia) and that's still not enough. Besides: NATO is a bit of a toothless creature presently anyway, owing to the fact that most member countries have severely depleted their military forces over the last decades. The Americans were also irresponsible in giving Ukraine a semi commitment of NATO support and membership, in an attempt to put pressure on Russia through the 2014 elections. As it looks now, Russia has absolutely no interest in occupying Ukraine long term, They will hang on to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to protect its naval interests and Russian population there, but everything else is geared towards preventing Ukraine from joining NATO in the future. Russia is wrecking the country until Ukraine negotiates and agrees to these demands and remains a buffer zone :(
But things could escalate very quickly and very soon from now, unfortunately. As the United States may also be out for war, again. Pushing things a little bit too far, can already trigger WW3. We don't want it! We don't want war here in Europe! But we're all sitting on our hands, staring at the daily news to see if the USA please don't do anything in retaliation to provoke total war.
It is heresy to say that I suppose, but the colonel makes a point in that second above video clip; neutrality is what Putin is after right now and Zelensky could have given in a week ago already. I fear that western military intervention will cause an even bigger war with even bigger human suffering and casualties. I'm sure better informed people may know a way out of this mess, but I just don't see how us getting involved military will solve this conflict peacefully.. The only way out that does not cause many more lives, would be an immediate ceasefire and that would mean concessions.. Numerology is looking ominous in that respect! Summarising - and this is not 'victim shaming' but trying to get to the core of where this all went wrong, aside from the obvious horrors of Putin's army invading another sovereign country. But looking at the buildup of this conflict, to begin with, we should have resisted Ukraine's and NATO's 2008 pledge to integrate Ukraine into NATO.. Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel also demanded refusal of this proposition. But this did not happen and instead of protecting Ukraine, it endangered Ukraine in fact. Even Kamala Harris said right before the Ukraine invasion by Russia, that Ukraine should join NATO. No it should not! In addition, President Zelensky himself now said he is open to discuss a "neutral status" for his country. In hindsight, we should also have ensured the implementation of the Minsk agreements, which provided for free elections and constitutional reforms for the Russian-speaking regions of Donetsket and Luhansk. Finally, we should have been alert to the signals (military investment, financial precautions) that indicated that Russia was preparing for a war. And we should have done everything we could to bind Russia to Europe on an economic, cultural and academic level. We did the opposite. These observations are no excuse for Putin, but the situation is dire now. For Ukraine, of course, but also for Europe, which is punished also severely by the sanctions. But what's even worse, is that all this is driving Russia and China into each others arms, and that we are witnessing the birth of a Sino-Russian military monster. Russia is already diverting fuel, energy and vital raw materials away from Europe to other markets as we speak (such as China and the Middle East). Western Oil and energy traders are making things worse. The West meanwhile has decommissioned most of their coal and nuclear facilities, in order to reduce global warming, and have become energy dependent. They either have to deal with Russia or with Saudi's or Venezuelans for instance. Image: One million people have been forced to flee their homes in Ukraine. Among them 7 year old Violeta who made the 4 day journey from Odessa with her cat Richard. We see so many people who dump their pets for trivial reasons. This 7 year old girl can teach them a thing or two about personal responsibility and commitment. - And memes never stop (so not to be taken au sérieux).
Update: Oh and as for the misinformation that's going on on both sides of the conflict; today (March 9th) it was published in Dutch quality newspaper De Volkskrant, that our prime minister, Mark Rutte, had to actively 'correct' some of Zelensky's statements. After speaking with Zelensky, the Ukrainian president tweeted his gratitude for the support of our Mark Rutte for the Russian sanctions, and for "the Netherlands' support for the Ukrainian joining of the EU". Rutte was quick to correct this; 'I only said that I can well understand the desire of Ukraine to join the EU." So there you go, this bending of the truth (or was it just a misunderstanding?) can further fuel the war and the potential for a much bigger war. Not cool, mister Z. And the biggest risk of war comes from the senile and clearly psychiatrically wobbly American president in my view. Gaffe's galore, and I lost count how many times the White House already had to backtrack on 'off script' comments from Sleepy Joe. Calling for regime change in Russia and other war-starting idiocies, such as promises to fight in Ukraine. Wars have started over lesser issues. Muzzle the guy and God bless not just the United States, but also us Europeans, with this senile goat at the helm. My friend B. linked me to this video, which I still have to watch, but it claims to better explain the links between Ukraine and the USA and Biden in particular. Interesting.
"Conclusion: Ivermectin use was associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to remdesivir. To our knowledge, this is the largest association study of patients with COVID-19, mortality and ivermectin. Further double-blinded placebo-controlled RCTs with large samples are required for definite conclusion. In the future, if more publications are published with the similar result to the current analyses, the certainty of evidence will increase."
Update: natural immunity protects around 90% against covid, as compared to 56% vaccine efficacy, says a Johnson & Johnson study (so the pharmaceutical company)
March 1st, 2022I am extremely worried about the war situation in Ukraine. Belarus is already joining Putin, as was expected. And as if things aren't bad enough now; if the two will enter a NATO country in the near future, it will probably spark total war with Europe, because Europe and NATO are expected to strike back instantly then. I hope that Putin may settle or even withdraw eventually, or that a diplomatic agreement can be made, as the western sanctions are unprecedented and Russia's economy is tanking as a result. Which must be extremely difficult for Russian civilians. There seems very little understanding however right now, between the West and Putin. Here in the west, media and politicians assume that Putin has surrounding himself with yes-nodders and is in some sort of echo chamber of his own. Some say he has a mystery illness, cancer even (which is unverified), and that would make him willing to risk so much to overtake Ukraine. In any case, he cannot be a rational, sane leader. The shootings of civilians in Ukraine and bombings of cities and civilians targets is making my heart bleed. It's all so horrible and brutal. I am also worried about Putin threatening with nuclear war, or either his or the Ukrainian army severely damaging one of the nuclear reactors in the country.. Let's hope he purely threatens with nuclear destruction to remind NATO to stay the hell out of this conflict. So far it is working, if you overlook the massive economic sanctions and full force cancel-culture that Russia has been hit with. A new phenomenon in wars. Over here there is outrage. Constant news on the media channels, anti-Russia, pro-Ukraine. There is a sudden cohesive feeling, countries in the EU are starting to realise that we have indeed not invested enough in our own armies (or even in NATO). Germany announced the other day that its government will invest 100 billion (!) euro's in its army henceforth. Hopefully we will create our own European Army, and remove ourselves from the American influence and warmongering. But that is of no use right now. That is for the future.
Europe has many centuries of war behind it. There was literally almost always some war somewhere in Europe throughout history, until after WW2 basically. I think it is a good thing that the EU countries have all these trade deals and agreements, because it finally allows Europe to band together and stop spending over half its income on stupid wars. The amount of years Germany and France fought over the Elzas region, which was then again German, then again French, and back again (currently French), is ridiculous. The rich EU countries are also helping the poorer countries to grow and overcome their financial ruin. Ireland was a mess of inflation and poverty twenty years ago, and thrived after massive money injections from Brussels. Same for a country like Spain. But during all this, there was barely any money for Defense. Very little money for upholding the various national armies, and no decision to forge a large European Army. I think it may be linked to the wish to finally keep peace within the EU. Nobody trusts Germany lol, and so Germany tried to keep everyone calm by NOT investing in their military. That is all changing now, due to this Russia Ukraine conflict. But after the great wars, Europe was probably happy enough to cruise along on the tail of the USA. Who is a superpower with an envious army. But unfortunately the USA also have their own agenda and have destabilised the world far too long, especially in the cold war days and their Middle eastern interferences. It is about time we cut ourselves loose form the USA and its private interests everywhere.
On the one hand it is fascinating to see this new type of warfare taking place. The old wars were fought physically on the battlefield or strategically with armies cutting cities off. But in the 21st century, we are now seeing the stranglehold of massive western international economic sanctions. Of hackers and media wars. I must say that some of these sanctions are seemingly extreme. There is no doubt that Russia's economy is severely hit by them. But there is also a witchhunt of sorts starting to take place of anything Russian. Ballet groups fire their Russian dancers, music companies fire their Russian conductors, clothing companies and Ikea close all their Russian based stores. Russian vodka has to be replaced by Ukrainian vodka. No more music from Tchaikovsky an Rachmaninoff performed in the operas and music halls. Medvedev must openly denounce Putin, or he is banned from Wimbledon. Like, c'mon now... People who have (or had) nothing to do with this war are chased like in the dark McCarthy days, and ousted. Formula 1 team Haas fired their driver Nikita Mazepin, purely because he is Russian. Witchhunt? Poor Russian sporters who trained to compete in the Paralympic Games were banned from coming over; what do they have to do with the war in Ukraine? Guilty by association? Even Russian cat breeds are banned now from cat competitions, I wished that was a made up story. Hysteria. But of course, politics does seep through in every day life, and in our economies. It is the consequences I suppose, of a brutal war on a sovereign (European) nation. Cancel culture playing out on the world stage. And even when you stress that you support the main principle of respect for the national sovereignty and the self-determination of other countries, it seems not done to also publicly mention or question the role of NATO in this entire mess and the potential part of Ukraine (for instance that Ukraine had an opportunity to prevent this by implementing the Minsk agreement). You are with them or you are against them. The Super Hero's vs the Super Villains (and it depends of course on which party you ask, who is hero or villain.
Basically; westerners are being nuclear blackmailed right now. Will they give in or not? According to the West, it's 1939 happening all over again, with a new nationalist who wants to conquer Europe (but with nuclear weapons instead of infantry weapons). I don't think that is necessarily Putin's aim, he has made it clear before that he will not tolerate NATO at its doorstep. Putin said Finland and Sweden will be next if they try to join NATO. Grand. Of course, with the fuhrer back in 1939, he also said he was just reclaiming German land from WW1, which appeasers thought was sort of reasonable, or at least understandable. Then he invaded Poland, the Czech republic, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, etc after that... I once saw an interview with Putin about the 40% loss of territory after the Soviet breakup, and he said it did not sit well with him. Which could of course just be an innocent comment. But maybe Putin will want Georgia and Moldova next for his USSR 2.0.? (Although he also said that nobody should want to go back to the USSR days). Assumptions, for now. And Putin will struggle to control Ukraine's major cities in the time to come, because they will be subject to street wars and guerilla tactics. This war is also very different to WW2 of course in that we now have not only modern warfare but also social media, allowing everyone to see the horror unfolding before our eyes. (Although we are sometimes being fooled as well by this same social media). Putin is said to have already left the Kremlin to settle in a nuclear bunker in Siberia. This is the procedure when Russia triggers the nuclear alert. Let's hope it is all bluff and fake news, to show NATO that he means business. I don't think Putin has gone mad, but he may have gone into a very extreme line of reasoning in his head, that depends first and foremost on the survival of his regime. Let's face it: dictators all live in a permanent state of fear. Fear of being overthrown and ending up like Sadam Hussein, Ceausescu or Kadhafi. Or perhaps Putin simply had enough of NATO lies and weighed the opportunities and risks and decided on war. This is not the first time that a dictator after many years in power, resorts to this. Even if it is often the beginning of his end. Leaders used to need years of war to make another continent surrender;
now they only need to blow up a nuclear powerplant or two, to destroy it
I rather think that Putin simply underestimated the threats of firstly the Ukrainian resistance becoming legendary within a few days (although Russia disputes this of course ands we only see one side of the reporting here), secondly the firmness and unification of the West; thirdly how Russia would become a pariah state so soon and fourthly he may have underestimated the harmful and lasting economic effects of the sanctions. Or perhaps he did predict it and accepted those risks? We just don't know. What also isn't helping is that the media on most sides of the spectrum are not always sticking to the facts. There is so much fake news being spread; fake images, old footage repurposed for propaganda means. After the covid hype and hysteria, fueled by an often headline-searching media, what would have been the chances that journalists would suddenly go back to earnest, solemn, facts-over-feelings reporting? We've gone from 24/7 COVID coverage straight to 24/7 war coverage. We see truthful news combined with rabble-rousing, and it is increasingly more difficult to separate one from the other. Although I do believe our western news is a hell of a lot more truthful than the Russian state TV. But I would have liked commentators here in the west to explain the whole NATO topic, and how promises have been broken in regards to its eastwards movement. But nobody in the TV shows and news programmes I watch, seems to touch upon that fairly important aspect, probably the main reason for Putin's attack now. I need to find out about it through the internet. Speaking of which: biased and selective search engines do not help either (just pick a politically sensitive topic and see what google shows, compared to duckduckgo). Unfortunately, this can all aggravate matters only further. Just like there is no mention anywhere here in my European place of the possible complaints Russia *could* have had with the way NATO was going. Not that it warrants this literal overkill war response, but I just worry about the world we created, which is experienced by many as a black and white marvel video, with the Good guys vs the Bad guys. Just know that in other countries such as Russia, WE are seen as the villains. Don't blindly believe all the Western media either. They let us down with hysterical and non-critical covid coverage for nearly two years, and already I read pseudo-professionals write articles in national newspapers now about why Putin has 'gone mad' (we don't know that), 'has no strategy' (he very likely does), suffers set-back after set-back (this is an assumption when you don't know the strategy for a fact) and we also see clear, sympathy-driven exaggerations of the amount of Russian soldiers killed by Ukrainians so far. Combined with warmongering rabble-rousing from some who have their heart in the right place, but seem to be willing to overnight start a potential nuclear WW3 over supporting Ukraine with military actions. Everyone now seemingly knows what's wrong with him, after the fact, but nobody read the room when it mattered, which indirectly helped us lead to this catastrophe. Luckily 79-year old Joe Biden knows exactly what he is talking about when he said last night during the State of the Union: "Putin may circle Kiev with tanks, but he'll never gain the hearts and souls of the Iranian people." Let's hope Iran now won't take offense! God bless the planet, with these two old hampering relics leading two nuclear world powers...
Oil and gasWhat makes matters more muddy, is the entire oil and gas situation. Most of Europe still relies on Russian energy and continues to buy it from Putin. Overall, Russia provides 40% of Europe's natural gas and 50% of Germany's oil I read. Green energy (wind, solar etc) is great in theory, but the energy it nowadays provides comes not even close to being sufficient for a country like Germany, for instance. We impose economic sanctions on Russia at the moment, but continue to buy their oil and gas. It was revealed today that the West is still paying Russia more than $1billion-a-day for oil and gas that Putin can use to subsidise his $15billion-a-day invasion of Ukraine. So this seems pretty counterproductive. Energy reforms in the west of course come too late now. In Europe we have been preoccupied with climate change, reaching greenhouse goals and dismantling all polluting ways of getting our energy. That is great, but right now we have a problem, relying on a newfound enemy for our daily energy, needed to keep our own industries going (and subsidising the Russia war, indirectly). This is such a complex issue and despite all the good intentions of someone like Greta Thunberg for instance, I can't help feeling frustrated at times about the simplistic thinking that has seeped through into the public debate. I never heard her come up with realistic short-term solutions, which respect and understand the incredibly complex politics in the world, forged through historic conflict, geopolitics, economics, strategic war balance and the rest of it. Just all 'blah blah blah' in the eyes of the youngest generation, with the attention span of ... your usual tiktok user. So the media blew it up and we have all wanted to do our bit and go green; put a stop to nuclear power plants, invest in solar and wind energy. Of course that is not enough right now, combined with our modern, energy-guzzling lifestyle. So the west also invested massively in Russian oil and gas. Did Greta ever consider or advised us about what could happen when the west all moved to green energy like that, depending on a thug state like Russia to up it up? Did she ever take into account what weakness and dependence the West has shown? And how bad wars of this scale are for the environment, in a world of candyfloss and unicorns? Not saying that meeting climate goals isn't very important, it is incredibly important. But other things are also important, such as protecting our union, our countries, our western freedoms; defending the freedoms of others and trying to prevent a nuclear war that will destroy everything... And this is all intertwined currently. I think that deep down, we know it. And that's partly why there had been so much shock, horror and absolute bewilderment here about what is happening now. This may very well be another turning point in our western history. Like 9/11 was.
The USA has the same issue and it all took a surprising turn when Joe Biden, right after being elected, put a stop to Trump's national Keystone pipeline building project. Biden also overnight stopped many permits for oil and gas discovery, just as the USA were hitting energy efficiency for the first time in 75 years. I'm sure Biden had both environmental and political reasons for this, but in light of the current war situation, these decisions did not age well. America is talking tough on sanctions but notice how there is no ban on Russian oil and gas. Biden even overturned Trump's ban on Russia having its own pipeline. Only 4 weeks ago, Biden ended up more or less begging Russia and China to release more oil, because of 40-year inflation highs in the USA. That request did not show the USA as a strong independent state, in Putin's eyes. There will be dire effects on all of us in the West once the oil prices will inevitably rise, as a result of this military conflict in Ukraine. More stress on the people, who already had two years of stress and financial and medical hardship after the covid pandemic, which isn't even over yet in many countries. Will it ever end? EU and Western countries have been working hard to become 'green' and to bring down emissions and such. Germany very publicly gave up their nuclear energy a decade ago, but have now come round and have plans to build new nuclear reactors in the near future. Of course, with a high tech, high living style which inhabitants in a country such as Germany enjoy, that green energy is not even slightly sufficient. We have Germany on the one hand declaring that it will invest 100 billion Euro's into its army now, but at the same time they continue to pay Russia for its oil and gas. You hear all about the sanctions, but nothing about there being no sanctions on buying Russian gas and oil. And all this while a few weeks ago, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has been nominated to join the board of directors at Gazprom, the state-owned Russian energy company behind the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. - I hope that this conflict will be ended as soon as possible. The West is energy independent, so eventually Russia *may* be dealt with diplomatically. If so, the sanctions will eventually be lifted again. This energy dependency and the absolute fear of WW3 and of an unpredictable president who makes it seem like he is eager to use nuclear weapons, will probably keep us very hesitant to intervene with NATO. I have nightmares about what will happen if Russia and its guarddog Belarus will actually invade a NATO country, and this will escalate even further... Whatever happens next, PESCO needs to be ramped up tenfold in any case, and all EU member states have to increase military spending. I also personally think that guarantees should have been given that Ukraine will never join NATO. As this man so aptly says: it would have been in everyone's best interests in the end, if Ukraine had stayed neutral. And Putin has demanded this for a long time, as I wrote a lot more in detail about in my below blog post from February 26th. NATO has pushed it's quest eastwards too far I believe. The interests of the West should not have overruled the stability of the region. We have seen the United States shake and destroy regional stability before, in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Chile, Vietnam and so forth. In my below blog post I tried to also look at the Russian side of this conflict. Things are never black and white, no matter how reprehensible a war with civilian casualties is. I am still petrified about this war and Russian aggression and hope no nuclear reactors get bombed, sending us back to the Chernobyl days here in Europe. It is all quite horrible, not least for the people in Ukraine.
Songs of the day
