The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Too Many Wars. Too Many Enemies.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If Turkey is not bluffing, U.S. troops in Manbij, Syria, could be under fire by week’s end, and NATO engulfed in the worst crisis in its history.

Turkish President Erdogan said Friday his troops will cleanse Manbij of Kurdish fighters, alongside whom U.S. troops are embedded.

Erdogan’s foreign minister demanded concrete steps by the U.S. to end its support of the Kurds, who control the Syrian border with Turkey east of the Euphrates, all the way to Iraq.

If the Turks attack Manbij, the U.S. will face a choice: Stand by our Kurdish allies and resist the Turks, or abandon the Kurds.

Should the U.S. let the Turks drive the Kurds out of Manbij and the entire Syrian border area with Turkey, as Erdogan threatens, U.S. credibility would suffer a blow from which it would not soon recover.

But to stand with the Kurds and oppose Erdogan’s forces could mean a crackup of NATO and loss of U.S. bases inside Turkey, including the air base at Incirlik.

Turkey also sits astride the Dardanelles entrance to the Black Sea. NATO’s loss of Turkey would thus be a triumph for Vladimir Putin, who gave Ankara the green light to cleanse the Kurds from Afrin.

Yet Syria is but one of many challenges to U.S. foreign policy.

The Winter Olympics in South Korea may have taken the threat of a North Korean ICBM that could hit the U.S. out of the news. But no one believes that threat is behind us.

Last week, China charged that the USS Hopper, a guided missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Scarborough Shoal, a reef in the South China Sea claimed by Beijing, though it is far closer to Luzon in the Philippines. The destroyer, says China, was chased off by one of her frigates. If we continue to contest China’s territorial claims with U.S. warships, a clash is inevitable.

In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance plane in international airspace over the Black Sea, forcing the Navy plane to end its mission.

U.S. relations with Cold War ally Pakistan are at rock bottom. In his first tweet of 2018, President Trump charged Pakistan with being a duplicitous and false friend.

“The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”

As for America’s longest war, in Afghanistan, now in its 17th year, the end is nowhere on the horizon.

A week ago, the International Hotel in Kabul was attacked and held for 13 hours by Taliban gunmen who killed 40. Midweek, a Save the Children facility in Jalalabad was attacked by ISIS, creating panic among aid workers across the country.

Saturday, an ambulance exploded in Kabul, killing 103 people and wounding 235. Monday, Islamic State militants attacked Afghan soldiers guarding a military academy in Kabul. With the fighting season two months off, U.S. troops will not soon be departing.

If Pakistan is indeed providing sanctuary for the terrorists of the Haqqani network, how does this war end successfully for the United States?

Last week, in a friendly fire incident, the U.S.-led coalition killed 10 Iraqi soldiers. The Iraq war began 15 years ago.

Yet another war, where the humanitarian crisis rivals Syria, continues on the Arabian Peninsula. There, a Saudi air, sea and land blockade that threatens the Yemeni people with starvation has failed to dislodge Houthi rebels who seized the capital Sanaa three years ago.

This weekend brought news that secessionist rebels, backed by the United Arab Emirates, have seized power in Yemen’s southern port of Aden, from the Saudi-backed Hadi regime fighting the Houthis.

These rebels seek to split the country, as it was before 1990.

Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE appear to be backing different horses in this tribal-civil-sectarian war into which America has been drawn.

There are other wars — Somalia, Libya, Ukraine — where the U.S. is taking sides, sending arms, training troops, flying missions.

Like the Romans, we have become an empire, committed to fight for scores of nations, with troops on every continent, and forces in combat operations of which the American people are only vaguely aware.

“I didn’t know there were 1,000 troops in Niger,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham when four Green Berets were killed there. “We don’t know exactly where we’re at in the world, militarily, and what we’re doing.”

No, we don’t, Senator.

As in all empires, power is passing to the generals.

And what causes the greatest angst today in the imperial city?

Fear that a four-page memo worked up in the House Judiciary Committee may discredit Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russia-gate.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military 
Hide 42 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Some Erdogan flunkey has just claimed Turkey defeated the USA five times since 2015. This kind of remark is for the AKP’s Al Qaeda/IS supporting base, and not entirely consistent with actual Turkish government behaviour, but it is questionable whether Turkey is a “friendly” any longer from the US point of view.

    https://www.turkishminute.com/2018/01/29/erdogan-advisor-weve-defeated-the-us-five-times-since-2015/

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    The second-largest army in NATO being a frenemy on a good day is one of those things that should, you know, get daily coverage but doesn't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Surely Pat is sharp enough to know that NK would never launch an ICBM (assuming it actually has the capability) at the US, unless in retaliation for an attack. So the solution would seem to be to simply leave NK alone, to let it be. Sorted.

    Another “friendly fire” incident is hardly newsworthy, there are probably very few weeks without. I think that FF was accounting for 25% of combat casualties in the first Gulf War, that’s 1 in 4. Then there’s Pat Tillman, what a loss, the list goes on and on… little wonder the US has fewer and fewer friends, it’s doing them in all by itself.

    Only the American people themselves can possibly stop this madness and sooner will be better than later, though it’s going to be very painful indeed whenever it happens.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. As in all empires, power is passing to the generals.

    And what causes the greatest angst today in the imperial city?

    Fear that a four-page memo worked up in the House Judiciary Committee may discredit Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russia-gate.

    Excellent editorial by Pat B., Americans should pay attention to this.

    As for the generals, Pat could do worse than to read carefully through Danny Sjursen’s current article here at Unz –

    http://www.unz.com/tengelhardt/danny-sjursen-wrong-on-nam-wrong-on-terror/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. War in Korea destroys the South and could lead to devastation in Japan; both would severely disrupt US supply chain and tank world economy. Winner? None, but China would fare better than US, because its people are “closer to the dirt” and therefore have less to lose and are likely to be more resilient than the average American.

    Reunification of the two Koreas? Winners would be the Korean people. China wouldn’t be so thrilled to have a strong economic power, so aligned to the US, directly on its border, so US troops would likely have to leave; not necessarily a loss for the US. Chinese and US would both trade gladly with Korea. Losers: Neocons.

    “In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance plane ….”

    Meh. Maybe he flew right up wingtip to wingtip. Unless our aircrews have become total p***ies, it would be exhilarating, but manageable. During the cold war they took shots at us if we got too close. This is a nothing burger.

    Turkey v. US in Manjib? Unlikely unless US really refuses to get out of the way like the Russians did. Why ask for trouble? The Turks know the US won’t shoot back in any size, because keeping NATO intact is essential. Winner? Turkey. Turkey could inflict a lot of harm by pulling out of NATO, but won’t because there will be a colour revolution in Ankara in a matter of weeks of doing so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    Pat fails to mention where the Orion was at the time: over the Black Sea. I always keep in mind when reading his columns that he is a republican TV addict, first and foremost. His conclusions are going to be in line with whatever the conventional wisdom of the "conservative" TV newstwits happens to be.
    , @anon
    Why is NATO so important 30 years after the USSR dissolved, Germany united, the Berlin wall feel, the Iron curtain and Warsaw pact dissolved? If ever there was a moribund alliance it is NATO.
    , @Rolan de Rohan
    Yeah right. They've already tried the colour revo stuff !
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. KenH says:

    Pat needs a heavy dose of Norman Vincent Peale or the Israeli version of Peale if there is one. All it will take to simultaneously fight all of Israel’s real and perceived enemies is positive thinking along with levying higher taxes on the goyim. And if they dare protest we’ll charge them with being unpatriotic, anti-semitic, and lily-livered liberals.

    An unwillingness to maintain the U.S. empire for Israel’s benefit is tantamount to anti-semitism and planning a second holocaust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pontius
    I think we'd be amazed at how quickly the economic rug would be pulled out from under the US if it ever decided to stop being Israel's muscle. Central bank smoke and mirrors and a world economy running on fumes, kept alive by a nod and a wink by the money men, as long as they have their golem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Flavius says:

    Patrick Buchanan has more wisdom than the entire M/I C , State Department and Pentagon idiocracies combined, even were their accumulated total to be cubed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "Patrick Buchanan has more wisdom than the entire M/I C , State Department and Pentagon idiocracies combined,"

    Well, shit. So does my beagle.
    , @Malla

    M/I C , State Department and Pentagon idiocracies
     
    They are not idiots, they are actually quite smart. They work for International bankers whose plans are working reasonable well, if they would be really working for the United States of America, you could call them dumb . They are squeezing out as much as they can out of the USA and Western Europe to attain their aims before the USA collapses. Kind off like how it happened with the Roman Empire, Babylonian Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Empire etc... History repeats itself. Britain sacrificed itself to help the USA rise, today the USA sacrifices itself to help China rise and the process continues. Tomorrow China will sacrifice itself too as per the banker's plan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Short verse

    The US is over extended.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. dearieme says:

    “U.S. credibility would suffer a blow”: can one land a blow on a ghost?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Get the perfidious Turk out of NATO. Better yet, get rid of NATO. There is now no reason for NATO, than as a shield “coalition” for US warfare.

    Read More
    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Men Without Work
    America’s quiet catastrophe… the collapse of work – for men

    http://www.aei.org/publication/men-without-work-2/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. @The Alarmist
    War in Korea destroys the South and could lead to devastation in Japan; both would severely disrupt US supply chain and tank world economy. Winner? None, but China would fare better than US, because its people are "closer to the dirt" and therefore have less to lose and are likely to be more resilient than the average American.

    Reunification of the two Koreas? Winners would be the Korean people. China wouldn't be so thrilled to have a strong economic power, so aligned to the US, directly on its border, so US troops would likely have to leave; not necessarily a loss for the US. Chinese and US would both trade gladly with Korea. Losers: Neocons.

    "In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance plane ...."
     
    Meh. Maybe he flew right up wingtip to wingtip. Unless our aircrews have become total p***ies, it would be exhilarating, but manageable. During the cold war they took shots at us if we got too close. This is a nothing burger.

    Turkey v. US in Manjib? Unlikely unless US really refuses to get out of the way like the Russians did. Why ask for trouble? The Turks know the US won't shoot back in any size, because keeping NATO intact is essential. Winner? Turkey. Turkey could inflict a lot of harm by pulling out of NATO, but won't because there will be a colour revolution in Ankara in a matter of weeks of doing so.

    Pat fails to mention where the Orion was at the time: over the Black Sea. I always keep in mind when reading his columns that he is a republican TV addict, first and foremost. His conclusions are going to be in line with whatever the conventional wisdom of the “conservative” TV newstwits happens to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lars Porsena

    Pat fails to mention where the Orion was at the time: over the Black Sea.
     
    To be fair, he did write:

    In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance plane in international airspace over the Black Sea, forcing the Navy plane to end its mission.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Flavius
    Patrick Buchanan has more wisdom than the entire M/I C , State Department and Pentagon idiocracies combined, even were their accumulated total to be cubed.

    “Patrick Buchanan has more wisdom than the entire M/I C , State Department and Pentagon idiocracies combined,”

    Well, shit. So does my beagle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Pontius says:
    @KenH
    Pat needs a heavy dose of Norman Vincent Peale or the Israeli version of Peale if there is one. All it will take to simultaneously fight all of Israel's real and perceived enemies is positive thinking along with levying higher taxes on the goyim. And if they dare protest we'll charge them with being unpatriotic, anti-semitic, and lily-livered liberals.

    An unwillingness to maintain the U.S. empire for Israel's benefit is tantamount to anti-semitism and planning a second holocaust.

    I think we’d be amazed at how quickly the economic rug would be pulled out from under the US if it ever decided to stop being Israel’s muscle. Central bank smoke and mirrors and a world economy running on fumes, kept alive by a nod and a wink by the money men, as long as they have their golem.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Any enemy of israel’s Yinon plan is a friend of mine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. H.S. says:

    ”The Roman Empire stretched from North Africa, Syria and the Mediterranean Sea to Germania and Britannia in the north. It ended at Scotland.”

    http://www.sath.org.uk/edscot/www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/caledonianspictsromans/romansinscotland/index.html

    ”The Roman Empire – particularly the military – declined largely as a result of an influx of Germanic mercenaries into the ranks of the legions.”

    – Historian Arther Ferrill

    https://fr.scribd.com/document/49282627/Decline-of-the-Roman-Empire

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Who are you to say a German isn't as much --no, more so-- a Roman than someone from Rome? How dare you demand they learn Latin? Don't you know the immense harm Latin privilege has caused these poor disadvantaged people?

    #GermansAreTheRealRomans
    , @El Dato
    Ah yes. The defeat at the Teutoburg Forest was solidly due to the Opposing General having been taught at the Roman military academy.

    Sheeeettt!

    I wonder what the Roman equivalent of Facebook and Twitter could be?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Twodees Partain
    Pat fails to mention where the Orion was at the time: over the Black Sea. I always keep in mind when reading his columns that he is a republican TV addict, first and foremost. His conclusions are going to be in line with whatever the conventional wisdom of the "conservative" TV newstwits happens to be.

    Pat fails to mention where the Orion was at the time: over the Black Sea.

    To be fair, he did write:

    In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance plane in international airspace over the Black Sea, forcing the Navy plane to end its mission.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    Thanks, I missed that. To put the confrontation into perspective, though, I'll point out that a similar confrontation would happen if a Russian surveillance plane was spotted over the Gulf of Mexico. So far, no Russian military planes are wandering around over North America.

    Accepting US "surveillance" of Europe as normal and even innocent is what struck me about Pat's description of the incident. I should have expanded on that instead of simply posting a boneheaded little blurb as I did. Mea culpa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Wouldn’t it be a good thing if NATO broke apart?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist
    War in Korea destroys the South and could lead to devastation in Japan; both would severely disrupt US supply chain and tank world economy. Winner? None, but China would fare better than US, because its people are "closer to the dirt" and therefore have less to lose and are likely to be more resilient than the average American.

    Reunification of the two Koreas? Winners would be the Korean people. China wouldn't be so thrilled to have a strong economic power, so aligned to the US, directly on its border, so US troops would likely have to leave; not necessarily a loss for the US. Chinese and US would both trade gladly with Korea. Losers: Neocons.

    "In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance plane ...."
     
    Meh. Maybe he flew right up wingtip to wingtip. Unless our aircrews have become total p***ies, it would be exhilarating, but manageable. During the cold war they took shots at us if we got too close. This is a nothing burger.

    Turkey v. US in Manjib? Unlikely unless US really refuses to get out of the way like the Russians did. Why ask for trouble? The Turks know the US won't shoot back in any size, because keeping NATO intact is essential. Winner? Turkey. Turkey could inflict a lot of harm by pulling out of NATO, but won't because there will be a colour revolution in Ankara in a matter of weeks of doing so.

    Why is NATO so important 30 years after the USSR dissolved, Germany united, the Berlin wall feel, the Iron curtain and Warsaw pact dissolved? If ever there was a moribund alliance it is NATO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Why is NATO so important 30 years after the USSR dissolved, Germany united, the Berlin wall feel, the Iron curtain and Warsaw pact dissolved? If ever there was a moribund alliance it is NATO.
     
    NATO was never intended as an alliance. It was intended to be a collection of American vassal states, kept firmly under the US heel. So it still serves the purpose for which it was designed.
    , @Malla
    NATO is the primary military arm of the NWO just like Hollywood is it's primary propaganda arm. Come to think of it, ISIS too one of the military arms of the NWO.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon
    Why is NATO so important 30 years after the USSR dissolved, Germany united, the Berlin wall feel, the Iron curtain and Warsaw pact dissolved? If ever there was a moribund alliance it is NATO.

    Why is NATO so important 30 years after the USSR dissolved, Germany united, the Berlin wall feel, the Iron curtain and Warsaw pact dissolved? If ever there was a moribund alliance it is NATO.

    NATO was never intended as an alliance. It was intended to be a collection of American vassal states, kept firmly under the US heel. So it still serves the purpose for which it was designed.

    Read More
    • Agree: L.K, jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Johann
    As a Brit diplomat wisely observed when NATO was founded :the purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. Mission accomplished.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Virgile says:

    NATO is the only organization showing the ‘unity’ among the powerful Western countries. It cannot just disappear without been replaced by another military organization. It is also used as a boogeyman and its manages large sums of money to arm itself . Its generals are very paid and will resist its dismembering.
    Turkey will never get out of NATO and will never be expelled. For Turkey it offers a convenient leverage and for the Western countries a protection for the ‘greed’ of the Russians. It served everybody including the defense industry.
    The US is involved in many wars and seems in a total confusion of how to handle them… Too much to handle and an incompetent administration.. One wonders how this is going to end

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @H.S.
    ''The Roman Empire stretched from North Africa, Syria and the Mediterranean Sea to Germania and Britannia in the north. It ended at Scotland.''


    http://www.sath.org.uk/edscot/www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/caledonianspictsromans/romansinscotland/index.html






    ''The Roman Empire – particularly the military – declined largely as a result of an influx of Germanic mercenaries into the ranks of the legions.''

    - Historian Arther Ferrill

    https://fr.scribd.com/document/49282627/Decline-of-the-Roman-Empire

    Who are you to say a German isn’t as much –no, more so– a Roman than someone from Rome? How dare you demand they learn Latin? Don’t you know the immense harm Latin privilege has caused these poor disadvantaged people?

    #GermansAreTheRealRomans

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. El Dato says:
    @H.S.
    ''The Roman Empire stretched from North Africa, Syria and the Mediterranean Sea to Germania and Britannia in the north. It ended at Scotland.''


    http://www.sath.org.uk/edscot/www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/caledonianspictsromans/romansinscotland/index.html






    ''The Roman Empire – particularly the military – declined largely as a result of an influx of Germanic mercenaries into the ranks of the legions.''

    - Historian Arther Ferrill

    https://fr.scribd.com/document/49282627/Decline-of-the-Roman-Empire

    Ah yes. The defeat at the Teutoburg Forest was solidly due to the Opposing General having been taught at the Roman military academy.

    Sheeeettt!

    I wonder what the Roman equivalent of Facebook and Twitter could be?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. What does the U.S. want?

    According to U.S. officials the Iran does fullfill the nuclear treaty.But the U.S. is using sanctions.
    National U.S. law is used against other foreign states and companies.Is it really in the interest of the U.S. ? Or does the U.S. do the Job for Saudi Arabia and Israel?

    In the case of Russia I still miss a PROOF! Who are “unnamed reliable sources” etc. ?
    Is Russia really responsible? Russia does not own councils, think tanks, media,leagues,pressure groups etc.

    Why does the U.S. support a country who promotes Islamists, (indirectly) the 9/11 attackers and who is right now responsible for mass starvation in Yemen? The U.S. is selling this “good Ally” weapons.

    It remembers me on a comment from a U.S.-President.Asked about the crimes of the former Dictator of Nicaragua Somoza: “Maybe he is a S.O.B. – but he is OUR S.O.B.”

    By the way, after 9/11 took place, in Iran there were been pro-U.S. demonstrations for solidarity with the U.S. while all planes where grounded the only plane who was allowed to leave the scene was the bin Laden Jet. Why does Mr. Trump still believe that Iran is responsible for 9/11 ? Who does whisper this in his ear?

    Iran has signed the non-profileration treaty, Israel has not signed and is indirectly allowed to own nucler weapons.Again a double standard and talking with “splitted tongues”.

    The U.S. is fighting (for whom?) on so many places in the world while inside the country a much bigger “Weimarica-front” is growing till about 2050 – even the Stars and Stripes will not keep them together.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. @Lars Porsena

    Pat fails to mention where the Orion was at the time: over the Black Sea.
     
    To be fair, he did write:

    In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance plane in international airspace over the Black Sea, forcing the Navy plane to end its mission.
     

    Thanks, I missed that. To put the confrontation into perspective, though, I’ll point out that a similar confrontation would happen if a Russian surveillance plane was spotted over the Gulf of Mexico. So far, no Russian military planes are wandering around over North America.

    Accepting US “surveillance” of Europe as normal and even innocent is what struck me about Pat’s description of the incident. I should have expanded on that instead of simply posting a boneheaded little blurb as I did. Mea culpa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    Fair enough. I don't entirely get your reading of Pat as seeming pro-empire though, he seems anti to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @The Alarmist
    War in Korea destroys the South and could lead to devastation in Japan; both would severely disrupt US supply chain and tank world economy. Winner? None, but China would fare better than US, because its people are "closer to the dirt" and therefore have less to lose and are likely to be more resilient than the average American.

    Reunification of the two Koreas? Winners would be the Korean people. China wouldn't be so thrilled to have a strong economic power, so aligned to the US, directly on its border, so US troops would likely have to leave; not necessarily a loss for the US. Chinese and US would both trade gladly with Korea. Losers: Neocons.

    "In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance plane ...."
     
    Meh. Maybe he flew right up wingtip to wingtip. Unless our aircrews have become total p***ies, it would be exhilarating, but manageable. During the cold war they took shots at us if we got too close. This is a nothing burger.

    Turkey v. US in Manjib? Unlikely unless US really refuses to get out of the way like the Russians did. Why ask for trouble? The Turks know the US won't shoot back in any size, because keeping NATO intact is essential. Winner? Turkey. Turkey could inflict a lot of harm by pulling out of NATO, but won't because there will be a colour revolution in Ankara in a matter of weeks of doing so.

    Yeah right. They’ve already tried the colour revo stuff !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. windwaves says:

    We fight everywhere and we don’t “win” crap. These are not our wars and our military furthermore is obviously incredibly incompetent.

    The Ramsfield doctrine of SFO winning wars a total failure like my dog knew from the very first day.

    Our government letting our guys get killed far away from home for no reason certainly no USA NATIONAL SECURITY.

    It is sadly the national security of israel our guys are dying for. WTF is wrong ?

    That is how sad the story is.

    Decades of jew influence have destroyed the american values …… everything is money and jew money has bought the total control of this country, each and every one of its institutions and the three branches of government.

    And we see the results.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. nebulafox says:
    @uebersetzer
    Some Erdogan flunkey has just claimed Turkey defeated the USA five times since 2015. This kind of remark is for the AKP's Al Qaeda/IS supporting base, and not entirely consistent with actual Turkish government behaviour, but it is questionable whether Turkey is a "friendly" any longer from the US point of view.
    https://www.turkishminute.com/2018/01/29/erdogan-advisor-weve-defeated-the-us-five-times-since-2015/

    The second-largest army in NATO being a frenemy on a good day is one of those things that should, you know, get daily coverage but doesn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Johann says:
    @dfordoom

    Why is NATO so important 30 years after the USSR dissolved, Germany united, the Berlin wall feel, the Iron curtain and Warsaw pact dissolved? If ever there was a moribund alliance it is NATO.
     
    NATO was never intended as an alliance. It was intended to be a collection of American vassal states, kept firmly under the US heel. So it still serves the purpose for which it was designed.

    As a Brit diplomat wisely observed when NATO was founded :the purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. Mission accomplished.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Twodees Partain
    Thanks, I missed that. To put the confrontation into perspective, though, I'll point out that a similar confrontation would happen if a Russian surveillance plane was spotted over the Gulf of Mexico. So far, no Russian military planes are wandering around over North America.

    Accepting US "surveillance" of Europe as normal and even innocent is what struck me about Pat's description of the incident. I should have expanded on that instead of simply posting a boneheaded little blurb as I did. Mea culpa.

    Fair enough. I don’t entirely get your reading of Pat as seeming pro-empire though, he seems anti to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    I don't really see Pat as pro-empire, just that he has become somewhat intellectually lazy and depends much too heavily on MSM sources for his information. I was once a pretty dedicated reader of his and it's irritating to see him referring to events in the terms of MSM "conventional wisdom".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Renoman says:

    My God pat how did your Generals get so stupid?It’s just sad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Malla says:
    @anon
    Why is NATO so important 30 years after the USSR dissolved, Germany united, the Berlin wall feel, the Iron curtain and Warsaw pact dissolved? If ever there was a moribund alliance it is NATO.

    NATO is the primary military arm of the NWO just like Hollywood is it’s primary propaganda arm. Come to think of it, ISIS too one of the military arms of the NWO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Malla says:
    @Flavius
    Patrick Buchanan has more wisdom than the entire M/I C , State Department and Pentagon idiocracies combined, even were their accumulated total to be cubed.

    M/I C , State Department and Pentagon idiocracies

    They are not idiots, they are actually quite smart. They work for International bankers whose plans are working reasonable well, if they would be really working for the United States of America, you could call them dumb . They are squeezing out as much as they can out of the USA and Western Europe to attain their aims before the USA collapses. Kind off like how it happened with the Roman Empire, Babylonian Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Empire etc… History repeats itself. Britain sacrificed itself to help the USA rise, today the USA sacrifices itself to help China rise and the process continues. Tomorrow China will sacrifice itself too as per the banker’s plan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Malla says:

    Turkish President Erdogan said Friday his troops will cleanse Manbij of Kurdish fighters, alongside whom U.S. troops are embedded.

    The Jewish marrano Donmeh are losing control of Turkey or what?

    U.S. relations with Cold War ally Pakistan are at rock bottom. In his first tweet of 2018, President Trump charged Pakistan with being a duplicitous and false friend.

    “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”

    The NWO, sorry I mean the Americans are trading failed state Pakistan for India as an ally. They need Pakistan right now because of logistic reasons to supply their operations in Opiumstan sorry er…Afghanistan. But in the long term, they are dumping ISI mafiastan, er Pakistan for Brahminist mafiastan, sorry er India. Indians have been dreaming of being a superpower for years and they have been conditioned to love Jews and Israel. We are like a woman who is just asking to be infected by HIV which we will. We can see the signs already. India will soon be a dumping ground/lab to test Israeli technology.

    Like the Romans, we have become an empire, committed to fight for scores of nations, with troops on every continent, and forces in combat operations of which the American people are only vaguely aware.

    History repeats itself because the ‘chosen ones’ repeat themselves and their tactics in all these Empires of old. America will go he way of Rome and Babylon. Other Empires will rise and the ‘chosen ones’ will be there too playing the same games.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @Lars Porsena
    Fair enough. I don't entirely get your reading of Pat as seeming pro-empire though, he seems anti to me.

    I don’t really see Pat as pro-empire, just that he has become somewhat intellectually lazy and depends much too heavily on MSM sources for his information. I was once a pretty dedicated reader of his and it’s irritating to see him referring to events in the terms of MSM “conventional wisdom”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Too Many Wars. Too Many Enemies.

    Too many dumbass politicians. Too many dumbass supporters of dumbass politicians too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. It seems to me that the worst crisis of NATO’s history lasted from 1947 to 1991, when massive Warsaw Pact armies stood poised on NATO’s borders. Compared to that, this little dispute with Turkey is small beer. Putin got Turkey to stand down by shooting down one of its fighters. I have little doubt that a phone call to Erdogan promising to do that, or more, will send his troops scurrying back across the border. Trump appears to be content to let him smack the Kurds in Afrin (but not Manbij) around. That’s not a bad thing – it reminds our allies that our support is conditional on their interests being aligned with ours. Which is not such an imposition, given how much money and firepower is attached to our support, and the fact that if the Kurd-US alliance never was, we’d be sitting pretty, and they’d either be dead or in Turkish refugee camps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Everything going on these days is quite small beer compared to things like the Berlin crisis/Korean War or the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969 or Operation RYAN.

    What makes all the Russia-obsessing so amusing is that Vladimir Putin's Russia is flat out pathetic, whether economically, being an oil-dependent corrupt morass, or in terms of ability to project hard power, compared to the USSR of old. Unless operating in areas with ethnic Russians or historically allied ethnic groups such as the Alawites, it can't exactly do much. It also lacks an ideology that, regardless of what Moscow's thought processes really are, necessarily implies eventual expansion and confrontation with the West. Putin's ideology is heavily defensively minded and doesn't really offer much emotional resonance to non-Russians, unlike Communism, hence it has limited appeal. Putin has to primarily rely off of alienation from Brussels instead-which we've given him at every opportunity with the doubling down on PC nonsense on the part of the establishment, above all else on immigration.

    The Cold War was dead and did not need to revived after Marxism croaked, but we have stupidly restarted it: and this time around, we're the revolutionary power, with Putin and the Chinese playing the counter-revolutionary role. (Another reverse is that this time around, China is the dominant partner over Russia.) Really, given how Erdogan openly blackmails Merkel with a threat of turning the refugee flow to 11 and encourages Turks in Europe not to assimilate, openly waxes nostalgic about Turkish domination of the Balkans during the Ottoman Empire, and brags about the future of Europe being Islamic, plenty of Europeans, even ones with no natural friendliness to Russians in general, have a rational basis for wondering "if that's our enemy and that's our so-called friend..."

    , @MarkinLA
    It seems to me that the worst crisis of NATO’s history lasted from 1947 to 1991

    Well maybe until about 1965 or so when large stockpiles of anti-armor missiles made the whole Soviet tanks streaming through the Fulda Gap fantasy no longer viable. However from 1965 to 1991 it sure kept the MIC happy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. nebulafox says:
    @Johann Ricke
    It seems to me that the worst crisis of NATO's history lasted from 1947 to 1991, when massive Warsaw Pact armies stood poised on NATO's borders. Compared to that, this little dispute with Turkey is small beer. Putin got Turkey to stand down by shooting down one of its fighters. I have little doubt that a phone call to Erdogan promising to do that, or more, will send his troops scurrying back across the border. Trump appears to be content to let him smack the Kurds in Afrin (but not Manbij) around. That's not a bad thing - it reminds our allies that our support is conditional on their interests being aligned with ours. Which is not such an imposition, given how much money and firepower is attached to our support, and the fact that if the Kurd-US alliance never was, we'd be sitting pretty, and they'd either be dead or in Turkish refugee camps.

    Everything going on these days is quite small beer compared to things like the Berlin crisis/Korean War or the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969 or Operation RYAN.

    What makes all the Russia-obsessing so amusing is that Vladimir Putin’s Russia is flat out pathetic, whether economically, being an oil-dependent corrupt morass, or in terms of ability to project hard power, compared to the USSR of old. Unless operating in areas with ethnic Russians or historically allied ethnic groups such as the Alawites, it can’t exactly do much. It also lacks an ideology that, regardless of what Moscow’s thought processes really are, necessarily implies eventual expansion and confrontation with the West. Putin’s ideology is heavily defensively minded and doesn’t really offer much emotional resonance to non-Russians, unlike Communism, hence it has limited appeal. Putin has to primarily rely off of alienation from Brussels instead-which we’ve given him at every opportunity with the doubling down on PC nonsense on the part of the establishment, above all else on immigration.

    The Cold War was dead and did not need to revived after Marxism croaked, but we have stupidly restarted it: and this time around, we’re the revolutionary power, with Putin and the Chinese playing the counter-revolutionary role. (Another reverse is that this time around, China is the dominant partner over Russia.) Really, given how Erdogan openly blackmails Merkel with a threat of turning the refugee flow to 11 and encourages Turks in Europe not to assimilate, openly waxes nostalgic about Turkish domination of the Balkans during the Ottoman Empire, and brags about the future of Europe being Islamic, plenty of Europeans, even ones with no natural friendliness to Russians in general, have a rational basis for wondering “if that’s our enemy and that’s our so-called friend…”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Putin’s ideology is heavily defensively minded and doesn’t really offer much emotional resonance to non-Russians, unlike Communism, hence it has limited appeal.

    The Cold War was dead and did not need to revived after Marxism croaked, but we have stupidly restarted it: and this time around, we’re the revolutionary power, with Putin and the Chinese playing the counter-revolutionary role. (Another reverse is that this time around, China is the dominant partner over Russia.)
     

    Over the millennia, supporting popular revolution abroad is a vanishingly tiny fraction of the way countries have expanded their reach. The traditional method is via conquest. And that is what the impasse is all about. Not everyone is completely convinced we need to be concerned about China or Russia just yet, but it's clear that their territorial ambitions - in terms of land (and population to be Sinified or Russified) to be added to the realm - extend well beyond their borders. Both empires are colossi whose territories were acquired at swordpoint, and neither has given up on this modus operandi. The West's challenge will be to limit their territorial gains at minimal cost to itself.
    , @Miro23

    Putin’s ideology is heavily defensively minded and doesn’t really offer much emotional resonance to non-Russians, unlike Communism, hence it has limited appeal. Putin has to primarily rely off of alienation from Brussels instead-which we’ve given him at every opportunity with the doubling down on PC nonsense on the part of the establishment, above all else on immigration.
     
    In my opinion, Putin's opposition to Western establishment mass immigration and PC nonsense is now offering plenty of emotional resonance to non-Russians.

    Friedrich Hayek saw the "Good Thinker" problem back in the 1940's. Like he said in his book "The Road to Serfdom", "The important point is that, if we take the people whose views influence developments, they are now in this country in some measure all socialists. It is no longer fashionable to emphasize that 'we are all socialists now', this is so merely because the fact is too obvious. Scarcely anybody doubts that we must continue to move towards socialism."

    The same main stream/ elite socialist narrative is still there, but it has taken a turn towards Cultural Marxism, since the elite socialist Progressives have now become so embarrassingly rich with regard to the proletariat (that they are supposed to represent), that they have had to re-categorize them as Deplorables.

    Hayek interestingly showed the fragile growth of personal liberty and democracy out of the earlier world of feudalism, and the challenges that it faced from the new socialist/communist central planners. Power could be held democratically or it could be held by totalitarians (dictators), and in this regard, he quoted de Tocqueville, "Democracy and Socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude", with communism (hard core socialism) and fascism (hard core national socialism) being equally totalitarian.

    In fact, Fascist and Communist totalitarians fought it out in WW2, and they both sought to dispose of the old classical and aristocratic "Belle Époque" world in their own way. Hitler despised the church and aristocracy and wanted a deeply race conscious and socialist Volk as the basis of a new Germanic World Empire. And Lenin and Trotsky equally despised the church and aristocracy (directly destroying them), and sought their own Bolshevik World Empire, although interestingly, the Bolsheviks themselves lived in the aristocratic lifestyle to much greater extent than Germany's National Socialist leadership.

    Modern PC Liberals are the heirs of the Bolshevik victors of WW2 - and they're still running the same old leftist "Progressive" programmes, with the same old target of the traditional "Belle Époque" world, although there's so little of it left to attack (where are the Church and the Aristocracy now?), that they bizarrely keep things going by attacking anything that smells of traditional respectability, like for example the family, gender roles, ethics, sexual mores etc. in a generalized Nietzschean ressentiment based orgy of social destruction.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @nebulafox
    Everything going on these days is quite small beer compared to things like the Berlin crisis/Korean War or the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969 or Operation RYAN.

    What makes all the Russia-obsessing so amusing is that Vladimir Putin's Russia is flat out pathetic, whether economically, being an oil-dependent corrupt morass, or in terms of ability to project hard power, compared to the USSR of old. Unless operating in areas with ethnic Russians or historically allied ethnic groups such as the Alawites, it can't exactly do much. It also lacks an ideology that, regardless of what Moscow's thought processes really are, necessarily implies eventual expansion and confrontation with the West. Putin's ideology is heavily defensively minded and doesn't really offer much emotional resonance to non-Russians, unlike Communism, hence it has limited appeal. Putin has to primarily rely off of alienation from Brussels instead-which we've given him at every opportunity with the doubling down on PC nonsense on the part of the establishment, above all else on immigration.

    The Cold War was dead and did not need to revived after Marxism croaked, but we have stupidly restarted it: and this time around, we're the revolutionary power, with Putin and the Chinese playing the counter-revolutionary role. (Another reverse is that this time around, China is the dominant partner over Russia.) Really, given how Erdogan openly blackmails Merkel with a threat of turning the refugee flow to 11 and encourages Turks in Europe not to assimilate, openly waxes nostalgic about Turkish domination of the Balkans during the Ottoman Empire, and brags about the future of Europe being Islamic, plenty of Europeans, even ones with no natural friendliness to Russians in general, have a rational basis for wondering "if that's our enemy and that's our so-called friend..."

    Putin’s ideology is heavily defensively minded and doesn’t really offer much emotional resonance to non-Russians, unlike Communism, hence it has limited appeal.

    The Cold War was dead and did not need to revived after Marxism croaked, but we have stupidly restarted it: and this time around, we’re the revolutionary power, with Putin and the Chinese playing the counter-revolutionary role. (Another reverse is that this time around, China is the dominant partner over Russia.)

    Over the millennia, supporting popular revolution abroad is a vanishingly tiny fraction of the way countries have expanded their reach. The traditional method is via conquest. And that is what the impasse is all about. Not everyone is completely convinced we need to be concerned about China or Russia just yet, but it’s clear that their territorial ambitions – in terms of land (and population to be Sinified or Russified) to be added to the realm – extend well beyond their borders. Both empires are colossi whose territories were acquired at swordpoint, and neither has given up on this modus operandi. The West’s challenge will be to limit their territorial gains at minimal cost to itself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Miro23 says:
    @nebulafox
    Everything going on these days is quite small beer compared to things like the Berlin crisis/Korean War or the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969 or Operation RYAN.

    What makes all the Russia-obsessing so amusing is that Vladimir Putin's Russia is flat out pathetic, whether economically, being an oil-dependent corrupt morass, or in terms of ability to project hard power, compared to the USSR of old. Unless operating in areas with ethnic Russians or historically allied ethnic groups such as the Alawites, it can't exactly do much. It also lacks an ideology that, regardless of what Moscow's thought processes really are, necessarily implies eventual expansion and confrontation with the West. Putin's ideology is heavily defensively minded and doesn't really offer much emotional resonance to non-Russians, unlike Communism, hence it has limited appeal. Putin has to primarily rely off of alienation from Brussels instead-which we've given him at every opportunity with the doubling down on PC nonsense on the part of the establishment, above all else on immigration.

    The Cold War was dead and did not need to revived after Marxism croaked, but we have stupidly restarted it: and this time around, we're the revolutionary power, with Putin and the Chinese playing the counter-revolutionary role. (Another reverse is that this time around, China is the dominant partner over Russia.) Really, given how Erdogan openly blackmails Merkel with a threat of turning the refugee flow to 11 and encourages Turks in Europe not to assimilate, openly waxes nostalgic about Turkish domination of the Balkans during the Ottoman Empire, and brags about the future of Europe being Islamic, plenty of Europeans, even ones with no natural friendliness to Russians in general, have a rational basis for wondering "if that's our enemy and that's our so-called friend..."

    Putin’s ideology is heavily defensively minded and doesn’t really offer much emotional resonance to non-Russians, unlike Communism, hence it has limited appeal. Putin has to primarily rely off of alienation from Brussels instead-which we’ve given him at every opportunity with the doubling down on PC nonsense on the part of the establishment, above all else on immigration.

    In my opinion, Putin’s opposition to Western establishment mass immigration and PC nonsense is now offering plenty of emotional resonance to non-Russians.

    Friedrich Hayek saw the “Good Thinker” problem back in the 1940′s. Like he said in his book “The Road to Serfdom”, “The important point is that, if we take the people whose views influence developments, they are now in this country in some measure all socialists. It is no longer fashionable to emphasize that ‘we are all socialists now’, this is so merely because the fact is too obvious. Scarcely anybody doubts that we must continue to move towards socialism.”

    The same main stream/ elite socialist narrative is still there, but it has taken a turn towards Cultural Marxism, since the elite socialist Progressives have now become so embarrassingly rich with regard to the proletariat (that they are supposed to represent), that they have had to re-categorize them as Deplorables.

    Hayek interestingly showed the fragile growth of personal liberty and democracy out of the earlier world of feudalism, and the challenges that it faced from the new socialist/communist central planners. Power could be held democratically or it could be held by totalitarians (dictators), and in this regard, he quoted de Tocqueville, “Democracy and Socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude”, with communism (hard core socialism) and fascism (hard core national socialism) being equally totalitarian.

    In fact, Fascist and Communist totalitarians fought it out in WW2, and they both sought to dispose of the old classical and aristocratic “Belle Époque” world in their own way. Hitler despised the church and aristocracy and wanted a deeply race conscious and socialist Volk as the basis of a new Germanic World Empire. And Lenin and Trotsky equally despised the church and aristocracy (directly destroying them), and sought their own Bolshevik World Empire, although interestingly, the Bolsheviks themselves lived in the aristocratic lifestyle to much greater extent than Germany’s National Socialist leadership.

    Modern PC Liberals are the heirs of the Bolshevik victors of WW2 – and they’re still running the same old leftist “Progressive” programmes, with the same old target of the traditional “Belle Époque” world, although there’s so little of it left to attack (where are the Church and the Aristocracy now?), that they bizarrely keep things going by attacking anything that smells of traditional respectability, like for example the family, gender roles, ethics, sexual mores etc. in a generalized Nietzschean ressentiment based orgy of social destruction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >In my opinion, Putin’s opposition to Western establishment mass immigration and PC nonsense is now offering plenty of emotional resonance to non-Russians.

    Putin is an ideologically flexible guy who is not at all opposed to mass Muslim immigration from Central Asia, one of many reasons Russia's own ultra-nationalists hate him. Russia is a pretty diverse place, always has been for a lot longer than any Western nation (has been dealing with Islam since the conquest of Kazan) and he's not interested in setting off ethnic conflicts that could turn ugly out of some mystical vision. Though it should be stated that his version of "multi-culturalism" bears absolutely no resemblance to Western fetishization of diversity for its own sake, and that minorities are expected to toe the line and support the Kremlin in exchange for a place in the social fabric and protection from hard-righters.

    >In fact, Fascist and Communist totalitarians fought it out in WW2, and they both sought to dispose of the old classical and aristocratic “Belle Époque” world in their own way.

    Correct. The establishment bourgeois conservatives in Germany just didn't get this: Hitler despised them. He could not be "tamed": he didn't want to wear a top hat and tails. He wanted to replace them, not to work for them. He was raising the masses not to serve them, but for a revolution of his own, one as brutally nihilistic as the Bolshevik one he was fighting against.

    >although interestingly, the Bolsheviks themselves lived in the aristocratic lifestyle to much greater extent than Germany’s National Socialist leadership.

    The Nazi leadership was spectacularly soft and corrupt, which hurt Germany during WWII.

    >Modern PC Liberals are the heirs of the Bolshevik victors of WW2 – and they’re still running the same old leftist “Progressive” programmes, with the same old target of the traditional “Belle Époque” world, although there’s so little of it left to attack (where are the Church and the Aristocracy now?), that they bizarrely keep things going by attacking anything that smells of traditional respectability, like for example the family, gender roles, ethics, sexual mores etc. in a generalized Nietzschean ressentiment based orgy of social destruction.

    I both agree and disagree simultaneously. The Old Left, for all its (sometimes absolutely horrific) flaws, sought to positively change the lot of your average Western worker, to reform Western culture rather than replace it. They would be horrified to see, in particular, the study of classical and European history being dismissed as "racist". Worth pointing out here that the Warsaw Pact was profoundly socially conservative, compared to the West. The revolution needed workers and soldiers, thus it was expect that good party members marry, be fruitful, and multiply in the old fashioned way, rather than importing mass foreign populations.

    The New Left, by contrast, more intellectually limited, seeks nothing more than permanent revolution, with not really much of a realistic concrete end-game in mind: which serves them well, as they get to feel like virtuous heroes without giving any of their soft comforts up.

    However, where I agree is this: there's definitely a whiff of Nietzschean reassentiment in all of this. This fetishization of victimhood and weakness. One should encourage strength, wisdom, achievement-positive attributes-in society.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. nebulafox says:
    @Miro23

    Putin’s ideology is heavily defensively minded and doesn’t really offer much emotional resonance to non-Russians, unlike Communism, hence it has limited appeal. Putin has to primarily rely off of alienation from Brussels instead-which we’ve given him at every opportunity with the doubling down on PC nonsense on the part of the establishment, above all else on immigration.
     
    In my opinion, Putin's opposition to Western establishment mass immigration and PC nonsense is now offering plenty of emotional resonance to non-Russians.

    Friedrich Hayek saw the "Good Thinker" problem back in the 1940's. Like he said in his book "The Road to Serfdom", "The important point is that, if we take the people whose views influence developments, they are now in this country in some measure all socialists. It is no longer fashionable to emphasize that 'we are all socialists now', this is so merely because the fact is too obvious. Scarcely anybody doubts that we must continue to move towards socialism."

    The same main stream/ elite socialist narrative is still there, but it has taken a turn towards Cultural Marxism, since the elite socialist Progressives have now become so embarrassingly rich with regard to the proletariat (that they are supposed to represent), that they have had to re-categorize them as Deplorables.

    Hayek interestingly showed the fragile growth of personal liberty and democracy out of the earlier world of feudalism, and the challenges that it faced from the new socialist/communist central planners. Power could be held democratically or it could be held by totalitarians (dictators), and in this regard, he quoted de Tocqueville, "Democracy and Socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude", with communism (hard core socialism) and fascism (hard core national socialism) being equally totalitarian.

    In fact, Fascist and Communist totalitarians fought it out in WW2, and they both sought to dispose of the old classical and aristocratic "Belle Époque" world in their own way. Hitler despised the church and aristocracy and wanted a deeply race conscious and socialist Volk as the basis of a new Germanic World Empire. And Lenin and Trotsky equally despised the church and aristocracy (directly destroying them), and sought their own Bolshevik World Empire, although interestingly, the Bolsheviks themselves lived in the aristocratic lifestyle to much greater extent than Germany's National Socialist leadership.

    Modern PC Liberals are the heirs of the Bolshevik victors of WW2 - and they're still running the same old leftist "Progressive" programmes, with the same old target of the traditional "Belle Époque" world, although there's so little of it left to attack (where are the Church and the Aristocracy now?), that they bizarrely keep things going by attacking anything that smells of traditional respectability, like for example the family, gender roles, ethics, sexual mores etc. in a generalized Nietzschean ressentiment based orgy of social destruction.

    >In my opinion, Putin’s opposition to Western establishment mass immigration and PC nonsense is now offering plenty of emotional resonance to non-Russians.

    Putin is an ideologically flexible guy who is not at all opposed to mass Muslim immigration from Central Asia, one of many reasons Russia’s own ultra-nationalists hate him. Russia is a pretty diverse place, always has been for a lot longer than any Western nation (has been dealing with Islam since the conquest of Kazan) and he’s not interested in setting off ethnic conflicts that could turn ugly out of some mystical vision. Though it should be stated that his version of “multi-culturalism” bears absolutely no resemblance to Western fetishization of diversity for its own sake, and that minorities are expected to toe the line and support the Kremlin in exchange for a place in the social fabric and protection from hard-righters.

    >In fact, Fascist and Communist totalitarians fought it out in WW2, and they both sought to dispose of the old classical and aristocratic “Belle Époque” world in their own way.

    Correct. The establishment bourgeois conservatives in Germany just didn’t get this: Hitler despised them. He could not be “tamed”: he didn’t want to wear a top hat and tails. He wanted to replace them, not to work for them. He was raising the masses not to serve them, but for a revolution of his own, one as brutally nihilistic as the Bolshevik one he was fighting against.

    >although interestingly, the Bolsheviks themselves lived in the aristocratic lifestyle to much greater extent than Germany’s National Socialist leadership.

    The Nazi leadership was spectacularly soft and corrupt, which hurt Germany during WWII.

    >Modern PC Liberals are the heirs of the Bolshevik victors of WW2 – and they’re still running the same old leftist “Progressive” programmes, with the same old target of the traditional “Belle Époque” world, although there’s so little of it left to attack (where are the Church and the Aristocracy now?), that they bizarrely keep things going by attacking anything that smells of traditional respectability, like for example the family, gender roles, ethics, sexual mores etc. in a generalized Nietzschean ressentiment based orgy of social destruction.

    I both agree and disagree simultaneously. The Old Left, for all its (sometimes absolutely horrific) flaws, sought to positively change the lot of your average Western worker, to reform Western culture rather than replace it. They would be horrified to see, in particular, the study of classical and European history being dismissed as “racist”. Worth pointing out here that the Warsaw Pact was profoundly socially conservative, compared to the West. The revolution needed workers and soldiers, thus it was expect that good party members marry, be fruitful, and multiply in the old fashioned way, rather than importing mass foreign populations.

    The New Left, by contrast, more intellectually limited, seeks nothing more than permanent revolution, with not really much of a realistic concrete end-game in mind: which serves them well, as they get to feel like virtuous heroes without giving any of their soft comforts up.

    However, where I agree is this: there’s definitely a whiff of Nietzschean reassentiment in all of this. This fetishization of victimhood and weakness. One should encourage strength, wisdom, achievement-positive attributes-in society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    Though it should be stated that his version of “multi-culturalism” bears absolutely no resemblance to Western fetishization of diversity for its own sake, and that minorities are expected to toe the line and support the Kremlin in exchange for a place in the social fabric and protection from hard-righters.
     
    This is what I was looking at. It's a straightforward acceptance by immigrants that it's not their country, and they don't have political rights until they integrate and abandon previous loyalties, ethnic or otherwise.

    ... there’s definitely a whiff of Nietzschean ressentiment in all of this. This fetishization of victimhood and weakness.
     
    The public has to be reduced to a state of permanent guilt with (possible) salvation only through exemplary PC behavior, as determined by the PC Church leadership. They decide who is a victim, who is a sinner, and how to do penance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Miro23 says:
    @nebulafox
    >In my opinion, Putin’s opposition to Western establishment mass immigration and PC nonsense is now offering plenty of emotional resonance to non-Russians.

    Putin is an ideologically flexible guy who is not at all opposed to mass Muslim immigration from Central Asia, one of many reasons Russia's own ultra-nationalists hate him. Russia is a pretty diverse place, always has been for a lot longer than any Western nation (has been dealing with Islam since the conquest of Kazan) and he's not interested in setting off ethnic conflicts that could turn ugly out of some mystical vision. Though it should be stated that his version of "multi-culturalism" bears absolutely no resemblance to Western fetishization of diversity for its own sake, and that minorities are expected to toe the line and support the Kremlin in exchange for a place in the social fabric and protection from hard-righters.

    >In fact, Fascist and Communist totalitarians fought it out in WW2, and they both sought to dispose of the old classical and aristocratic “Belle Époque” world in their own way.

    Correct. The establishment bourgeois conservatives in Germany just didn't get this: Hitler despised them. He could not be "tamed": he didn't want to wear a top hat and tails. He wanted to replace them, not to work for them. He was raising the masses not to serve them, but for a revolution of his own, one as brutally nihilistic as the Bolshevik one he was fighting against.

    >although interestingly, the Bolsheviks themselves lived in the aristocratic lifestyle to much greater extent than Germany’s National Socialist leadership.

    The Nazi leadership was spectacularly soft and corrupt, which hurt Germany during WWII.

    >Modern PC Liberals are the heirs of the Bolshevik victors of WW2 – and they’re still running the same old leftist “Progressive” programmes, with the same old target of the traditional “Belle Époque” world, although there’s so little of it left to attack (where are the Church and the Aristocracy now?), that they bizarrely keep things going by attacking anything that smells of traditional respectability, like for example the family, gender roles, ethics, sexual mores etc. in a generalized Nietzschean ressentiment based orgy of social destruction.

    I both agree and disagree simultaneously. The Old Left, for all its (sometimes absolutely horrific) flaws, sought to positively change the lot of your average Western worker, to reform Western culture rather than replace it. They would be horrified to see, in particular, the study of classical and European history being dismissed as "racist". Worth pointing out here that the Warsaw Pact was profoundly socially conservative, compared to the West. The revolution needed workers and soldiers, thus it was expect that good party members marry, be fruitful, and multiply in the old fashioned way, rather than importing mass foreign populations.

    The New Left, by contrast, more intellectually limited, seeks nothing more than permanent revolution, with not really much of a realistic concrete end-game in mind: which serves them well, as they get to feel like virtuous heroes without giving any of their soft comforts up.

    However, where I agree is this: there's definitely a whiff of Nietzschean reassentiment in all of this. This fetishization of victimhood and weakness. One should encourage strength, wisdom, achievement-positive attributes-in society.

    Though it should be stated that his version of “multi-culturalism” bears absolutely no resemblance to Western fetishization of diversity for its own sake, and that minorities are expected to toe the line and support the Kremlin in exchange for a place in the social fabric and protection from hard-righters.

    This is what I was looking at. It’s a straightforward acceptance by immigrants that it’s not their country, and they don’t have political rights until they integrate and abandon previous loyalties, ethnic or otherwise.

    … there’s definitely a whiff of Nietzschean ressentiment in all of this. This fetishization of victimhood and weakness.

    The public has to be reduced to a state of permanent guilt with (possible) salvation only through exemplary PC behavior, as determined by the PC Church leadership. They decide who is a victim, who is a sinner, and how to do penance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. MarkinLA says:
    @Johann Ricke
    It seems to me that the worst crisis of NATO's history lasted from 1947 to 1991, when massive Warsaw Pact armies stood poised on NATO's borders. Compared to that, this little dispute with Turkey is small beer. Putin got Turkey to stand down by shooting down one of its fighters. I have little doubt that a phone call to Erdogan promising to do that, or more, will send his troops scurrying back across the border. Trump appears to be content to let him smack the Kurds in Afrin (but not Manbij) around. That's not a bad thing - it reminds our allies that our support is conditional on their interests being aligned with ours. Which is not such an imposition, given how much money and firepower is attached to our support, and the fact that if the Kurd-US alliance never was, we'd be sitting pretty, and they'd either be dead or in Turkish refugee camps.

    It seems to me that the worst crisis of NATO’s history lasted from 1947 to 1991

    Well maybe until about 1965 or so when large stockpiles of anti-armor missiles made the whole Soviet tanks streaming through the Fulda Gap fantasy no longer viable. However from 1965 to 1991 it sure kept the MIC happy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?