At the beginning of the war in Ukraine, I thought the reason was to create a zone of tension that would later serve to justify a European war against Russia, during World War III. And I still think so.
However, since this war was only supposed to be a milestone in the elite's plan, there was no reason for it to last more than one or two years. But it has been three and a half years since it began. This is not normal. And since the elite doesn't do things by chance, there is a reason for this long duration. And this leads us to another important reason for the war in Ukraine: to justify the rearmament of Europe.
Without the war in Ukraine, there was no reason for Europe to rearm. Not only are European states pacifist, but the finances of many important European countries are also in a disastrous state.
But it also had to last a long time. If the war had ended after a few months, or even a year, it wouldn't have justified a remilitarization of Europe. But with a war that drags on, yes.
And Europe must rearm because of the coming world war. If Europe remained as disarmed as it is now, it would be difficult to explain why it could subsequently wage a multi-year war against Russia, or invade several Central and Eastern European countries.
But, with a strong army, thanks to rearmament, it will be logical. So, in addition to at least partially justifying war between Russia and Europe within 20 years, the conflict in Ukraine will have helped justify the rearmament of Europe.
The problem is that the stalemate in the conflict reduces the credibility of the official narrative. Initially, it seemed obvious that Russia should have won within weeks or months, given the power differential between the two countries.
The media, both pro-Russian and pro-Western, offer explanations for this state of affairs, each less credible than the last. According to the former, Putin conceived the invasion as something between a police operation and a war (hence the term "special military operation"). In other words, he was tiptoeing a bit. He didn't want to mobilize more. The pro-Western media, on the other hand, believed he couldn't mobilize more. Furthermore, the Russian army was ultimately weaker than expected. It wasn't suited to modern warfare with drones. The Ukrainian people fought valiantly. Etc. All of this is completely ridiculous.
Incidentally, Russia's difficulties in Ukraine make the case for Europe's rearmament unconvincing. If Russia, which has 140 million inhabitants and a very powerful military sector, cannot defeat Ukraine, which has about 40 million inhabitants (3.5 times less), and which, according to Wikipedia, was one of the poorest countries in Europe in 2016, then it is difficult to see how it could represent the slightest danger to Europe, even in its current state. But hey, that's true now. We can assume that the elite will ensure that Russia's power increases over the next 20 years, to make the threat in question real. And then we will say that Europe did well to rearm, that it was a visionary project.
We can assume that there will be one, two, or even three more wars of this kind to maintain pressure on the European Union. Since World War III is 20 years away, that will be enough to justify the EU continuing its military effort after the end of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
So, it's possible that once the Russo-Ukrainian conflict is resolved, the Russian government will launch a conflict against Estonia or Latvia. Less likely, against Belarus; but you never know, a color revolution could always happen.
The number of additional conflicts will probably depend on the duration of the war in Ukraine. If it lasts much longer, there will probably only be one or two more conflicts. If it ends in one or two years, two or three more will be needed.
One might think that the upcoming civil war in the US will be another reason to continue European rearmament. No longer protected by the US, it will be logical for Europe to increase its military effort. The fact that Trump has reduced US spending on European military protection is entirely consistent with this.
And we understand why the war officially began in 2014 and only in Crimea. A small-scale conflict lasting several years was needed to justify Ukraine's military preparations for the war's expansion in 2022. Without this limited conflict, it would have been more difficult to justify Ukrainian resistance in 2022. Ukraine would have had to be completely taken by surprise by the Russian attack and would have had to fall quickly. With this first step, it was possible to justify that Ukraine was sufficiently prepared to resist Russia. In reality, even with this preparation, Ukraine would have had to fall immediately. But, for the general public, this explanation is easily accepted.
PS:
This reflection made me think of the Soviet-Afghan War of the 1980s, which lasted 10 years (1979-1989). One might think that it was planned by the elite to precipitate the fall of the USSR, by making the Soviet government even more unpopular. Of course, this was far from the only cause of this fall. But it did help justify it.
And indeed, Wikipedia states that this war did contribute to the collapse of the USSR:
"Similarly, the colossal war expenditures that the USSR had to undertake, as well as the tensions the war generated in its civil society and throughout the world, greatly contributed to its discredit, the exhaustion of its economy, and, ultimately, its collapse; thus, the end of the Cold War."
And here again, the conflict's stalemate was highly implausible, given the military power of the USSR at the time. But the conflict had to drag on to justify the unpopularity of the Soviet government at the time.
And we discover on the same Wikipedia page that the conflict with Afghanistan partly explains the rise of Muslim fundamentalism and Islamist terrorism:
"Finally, the considerable resources received by the mujahideen, particularly from the United States and Saudi Arabia, contributed to the rise of fundamentalism and Islamist terrorism, with many jihadists who came to fight in Afghanistan subsequently returning to their countries to structure the movement."
As is often the case, the actions of the elite serve several purposes. They like to kill two birds with one stone, or three birds with one stone, or even more.
Thay conquered the whole world and settled 3 continents (north and south america plus australia) without a world war and now they need 3 world wars just to settle the middle east, what???
RépondreSupprimerYour theory would totally make sense if this was july of 1914 before ww1. Whites are being attacked from all sides, every aspect of our lives is corrupted. They are doing all this torture of whites for some desert. I don’t get it.
I think you made up this theory to comfort yourself in these hellish times of our race.
If they conquered such a vast territory, it's because there was no one, or practically no one, on some of these continents. This is the case with Australia. So, it was easy to colonize some of them without war.
RépondreSupprimerBut, for South America, the white population is only a small minority, despite the fact that there must have been practically no one there. This shows that the elite was already short of settlers. If the elite didn't colonize the entire world in the 18th and 19th centuries, it's because they lacked personnel. And then, the indigenous populations had time to multiply, making colonization much more difficult. Hence the recourse to world wars.
For the USA, the elite was forced to martyr the Puritans in England as well as the Irish, to obtain settlers. And they were forced to create the American Civil War, which served in part to obtain Indian territories. So, it didn't happen like that, with a magic wand.
For Russia, the elite used the Napoleonic Wars to break the lock on the Tatar territory and open the road to Siberia. At the time, it was the equivalent of a world war. And then they used French and English troops in the mid-19th century to finish the job.
And before that, we can assume that numerous wars and persecutions in the West served to push people to go to Eastern Europe and Russia to colonize it.
So no, things didn't happen easily, simply by bringing in settlers, even though many of these territories were very sparsely populated. And once there are people, the difficulty increases a hundredfold. The elite is therefore now forced to resort to world war-style strategies.
That said, it could sometimes trigger more localized wars. But the elite likes to kill two birds with one stone. With world wars, it can push its agenda into areas other than the currently important one. For example, extending the war into Asia during World War III will advance the agenda of invading Asia in the more distant future.
And since the elite controls all governments and all media, it's easy for it to organize world wars. It's not something extraordinary. It's become more complicated for it. But it has more than enough capacity to carry out this kind of plan.
And regarding the fact that white people are being attacked from all sides, as repeated many times on this blog, it will only be temporary. We need to look beyond the current situation.
In any case, from the moment the elite began criticizing Muslims, it became perfectly clear that the goal was not to eliminate whites. Otherwise, they would have simply had to continue promoting immigration and racial mixing. Moreover, almost all serious political commentators have abandoned the idea of a peaceful disappearance of whites and are talking about a third world war.
As for the fact that I am deluding myself about the situation to avoid facing reality, there is nothing joyful about thinking that the elite will still dominate us for the next 1,000 years, or even longer, and that we are living in a theatre.