© New Eastern Outlook
Poland's Foreign Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, said, "Russian President Vladimir Putin should fear a war with NATO." In a chest-thumping address before the Sejm, the lower house of his country's parliament, the former debating club champion predicted Russia's imminent defeat should Putin dare attack.
This is how we know NATO would not stand a chance. When former Washington think tank "generals" who are not soldiers predict victory, it usually means a strategic situation is desperate. Sikorski, whose genius is revealed in the scores of photos with him and Donald Rumsfeld, Hillary Clinton, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and others,
will be first on a plane for Tahiti if war does break out. The potential fallout of such a conflict is so severe that he and other members of the infamous Bilderberg Group will all jet to remote islands where the impact will be minimal. Let me explain.
Let's pretend that Poland's 500 dilapidated tanks were to toe the front line along with however many of Germany's 200-something rusty Leopards at the onset of WW3. With a few tens of thousands of US, French, reluctant Italians, and Romanians, and the stalwart Brits thrown in during the first days, the East of Poland and Romania would quickly resemble Dresden, Germany, at the end of WW2. NATO's biggest problem is putting American and UK boots on the ground on a front that would be over 2500 miles long. You see, it's not only the Russians who have a problem with long borders to defend. Russia has about 13,000 tanks and 4,500 aircraft, despite what Bloomberg experts may tell you.
The problem with Western propaganda is that the propagandists end up believing their own lies. The rationale for decades has been that the U.S.S.R. or later Russia, has not attacked because of NATO. If memory serves me, it has never been Russia on the offensive. Still, the fear is stoked for the obvious reasons. Money for guns and missiles that may or may not work. In Ukraine, I am told, all the amazing German tanks sent to help Zelensky are burned-out hulks now, and the air defence systems are virtually worthless against hordes of drones. Just because Mr. Putin has not called up another 2,000,000 reservists or made a killer thrust through Belarus into Northeastern Ukraine does not mean he cannot. The problem with Sikorski and those like him is that the rest of NATO (however unfit) IS NOT THERE! The Russians and Belarusians are.
Comment:
1) See also: The West is worried, that's why Blinken made an urgent visit to Kiev
2) The article appears to have instances of understatement, irony, and sarcasm.
There isunderstatement
Since the heading does not say that the US is responsible for rocking foundation of world peace, but given the article image, the reader can take the two and figure it out. [BTW: the SOTT US flag icon was added for clarification.]
There is irony
In juxtaposing the statements of Blinkin about Freedom and help to Ukraine, with the explanations about what the US money really helps to achieve which is the slavery of Ukraine and Ukrainians to buck to the coffers of the US military industrial complex. Similarly, it is ironic that the one who prides himself of Rocking in a free world is in fact not
There is humor
When the one who claims he is "rocking in free a world" is rocking world peace, to be more blunt the US is rocking for destruction which, incidentally, also does not exclude the US.
There is a suggestion of sarcasm
In this sentence: "the top US diplomat took to the stage at a local pub to play rhythm guitar and sing Neil Young's 1989 hit Rockin' in the Free World with a local band." there is a suggestion of sarcasm, considering the contrast in style between a top diplomat from the self-proclaimed, self-important leader of the free world and a local pub. Rather than offering peace and freedom, he offers more manipulation and subjugation. The representatives of the Biden administration, may not appreciate it, but there is no exaggeration in Western elites want to prosper at the expense of others - Putin, considering all that NATO and EU expansion, with the associated killing, for the sake of their ambitions promoted as ideology of "Freedom". Another option is 'West's governments need war' warns Martin Armstrong 'because their debts are no longer sustainable'
Another formulation in this category might be: "the conflict has to end before any rebuilding takes place, and that is something the Biden administration has been trying to prevent" Well, that is just top dollar.
A question or a statement?
"For how long will the Ukrainian people be willing to continue to die so that the Biden administration can claim it is rockin' in a free world." remains suspended between being a question, which it is, and a statement, which is closer to the truth and alluded to by the missing question mark, if it is anything but an honest mistake, which is doubtful. Besides, while the mention is of Ukraine the sentence can be rephrased as a more general statement, given that the article is in English and meant for an international audience. Taking this approach one varient is: For how long will the
Ukrainianpeople of US aligned countries, especially in Europe, be willing to continue todiepay so that the Biden administration can claim it is rockin' in a free world.3) A reader comment to the article EU to sanction more Russian-language news outlets noted: It may take some time before the honourable "Commissioner for Values and Transparency" gets around to blocking Chinese media outlets. In the meantime we can learn to understand Chinese thinking before needing to learn Chinese.