Biden, Putin, Molotov & Ribbentrop
I have always written that the problem that Moscow has with Ukraine, under the narration of this and that, lies in the fact that whoever owns Ukraine in its official borders can attack Russia in depth, and cut it off from the sea. Black, with extreme ease.
In these three months, anyone who said this was silenced by a chorus of howler monkeys saying "it's not true, NATO is not a danger". Very good. So we are not a danger to Russia, any weapon or army we put in Ukraine. Good.
Too bad that today someone (Biden) had the idea of banning an artillery system (not even cruise missiles or ICBMs or fighter-bombers) because it can strike at a distance of 300km. Not even the 470 that serve to cover Moscow: 300Km are already too many.
The excuse is that if using these systems the Ukrainians hit Russia deeply, then it would be a casus belli.
Nobody feels fooled?
After having fielded the best of howler monkeys to shout in chorus that Ukraine in NATO, or close to NATO, "could not" pose a danger to the Russians, now it turns out that if in Ukraine they buy a battery of MLRS with Are long-range ammunition such a danger that it constitutes a casus belli?
It is clear that someone is lying. Ultimately the fears regarding the supply of arms to Ukraine are:
- they must not have too sophisticated bombers or for Russia it would be a casus belli, and we understand this and we do not send them (Kiev asks for them)
- they must not have too sophisticated artillery or for Russia it would be a casus belli, and we understand this and we do not send them (Kiev asks for them)
- they must not have too sophisticated missiles or for Russia it would be a casus belli, and we understand this and we do not send them (Kiev asks for them)
- NATO is not a danger to Russia and it never has been.
You understand that the last sentence does not quail with everything else. You can't put it all together and think you are intellectually honest.
And so yes, when Putin complained (and it is from before the taking of Crimea that he does) that the NATO was too threatening (also thanks to the backwardness of the Russian armed forces, we discovered), he was sincere. NATO at that distance is a danger to them, enough to justify a casus belli. Which, apparently, the West accepts as rational, to the point of NOT sending the weapons that worry Moscow.
The response to the howler monkeys is as silent as the facts are, and as loud as the Russian artillery.
The problem is this war is becoming too narrative. And whoever wrote fiction books (me) is starting to notice. Do you know that sense of artificial that takes you when in the Matrix it is discovered that a civilization of highly advanced machines needs, in order to survive, "the electricity produced by the human body" (and not, I don't know, that produced by a cow?).
A civilization of machines that do not need to breathe and therefore could give up on consuming all the gas and hydrocarbon reserves of the planet, which could use nuclear energy, which could grow biomass or breed any other species of mammals / animals capable of doing. electricity (including moray eels, what do they do with it), and instead it has to breed human beings?
Here, this sense of "I needed an excuse and I can't do better" is starting to get huge. Okay, you think they will welcome you with open arms because your secret service is wrong, and you send 109 brigades (or tactical battalions if you prefer), with almost three months of preparation.
Okay, put 60 kilometers of soldiers in line outside kiev, hoping that there is no artillery regiment in kiev to defend the city. You leave it there in line for two weeks. Nobody smuggles two MLRS batteries with two squadrons of gunners in Kiev.
Because only one MLRS can have a mortality of 100% over an area of 2 / 2.5 km. The range, as you hear, easily covers 80 km, but even if it were only 30, half the tail of tanks and trucks was screwed.
60km of queue were 30 salvos. BUT the Russians leave the street with little loss.
And it's just one of the "human being is a battery" thing that we find in this fiction. The lack of aviation, to say another. Precise missiles hitting fields of solar panels. People locked in the basement of a steel mill without anyone using bunker busters or FOABs. (the Russian version of the MOAB).
Sure, Keanu Reeves believed it. On the other hand, in the early stages of the film he appears a bit of a storditello, it must be admitted.
But here we are starting to exaggerate. This war is clearly a narrative, and frankly we're starting to jump the shark.
Another example: evidently they have different ghostwriters depending on the character. Having participated as a ghostwriter I think I can imagine how it works. And the problem with all of this is that the characters will be detached from each other. (As a result, the Alt-Right looked like a jumble of contradictory characters.)
The problem is that the ghostwriters who write Zelensky's wife have written a story that clashes with the rest. Or rather, they used the Western canon (the King leads the war, the Queen leads the nurses) to write her a script.
And so a few days ago Zelensky's wife said that she was in bed with her husband, in their house (or one of their houses), and in the middle of the night they hear the bombs, the escort men arrive to take him: " ". And then she hasn't seen him for weeks.
It is clearly a feminine narrative: "the couple", "sleeps together", "the house", "normalcy", ammore, etc etc.
Meanwhile, the Russians to kill Zelensky send death squads (who do not find him at home) and try to occupy the airport, and then disembark the means of transport with which they will go to the city to kill Zelensky. A city of 3 million inhabitants with an hinterland of 40 km, and a few hours' notice. Nice plan: who wrote it, Winnie the Pooh?
In fiction for men, however, things would have gone like this:
1. Zelensky and his wife sleep together in their home.
2. A Russian missile arrives.
3. They no longer sleep anywhere.
4. The invasion begins.
This discrepancy between "the war seen by the King" and "the war seen by the Queen" already fills the bookstores around the world with regard to other wars, but it must be admitted that we are at the level of " a human being generates electric current, but only if he lives immersed in a virtual reality that simulates the apex of his civilization, 1997 “.
Oooook.
What do I suspect?
It is now from Vietnam that the US has learned that when you go to war you must have a good narrative with which to flood public opinion. And the Russians know this well too. In the last few wars it has worked very well.
And my conjecture is that we are facing a Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, or rather Biden-Putin, with which Ukraine was shared.
That is: it was a problem for both, NATO and Russia. Secretly, the Americans and the Russians got into arguments. And their solution was: but if we took Ukraine, you have the parts you need and us the rest?
It would be a solution like any other, and it might even work. A war that takes some areas, but not others, in which it is difficult to understand who won and who lost, or both sides can claim victory. It might work.
Even if it's taking too long
If my conjecture is correct:
- the war must end quickly. The narrative is starting to show cracks. Serious.
- Putin must be able to claim victory, and take over all the pro-Russian areas, including the Sea of Azov.
- Ukraine must lose access to the sea to prevent Ukraine from joining Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria which border the same sea and are in NATO.
- NATO, the EU and the West in general must be the good and the humanitarian ones, and come out with this image.
- NATO will take over the future Ukraine, the EU will build railways and highways to bring Ukrainian wheat and agricultural products to the center of Europe, which is like saying "the new oil".
- To balance the take from the Sea of Azov, NATO expands into the Baltic.
- The infrastructure that brings Russian gas to Europe must remain intact.
In these terms, the agreement is balanced. It remains only to construct a narrative. A narrative that holds up on both sides.
Trouble is, it can't hold up forever, and Morpheus's Batteries are starting to be too frequent.
The only thing that escapes me in all of this is the role of Zelensky. It's true that he's an actor, so he might be aware of the plan and act. In this case, more than the Oscar deserves the Nobel.
Or he really believes it, and is being played. That is, he really believes in the heroic people who blablabla, and in the heroic armed forces and blablabla, who win and will win, and even take the Eurofestival.
If so, there's only one thing that could screw things up: Zelensky somehow learns what's going on.
Here, at that precise moment, in my opinion, it would blow up. With the missile that was supposed to hit him on the first day of the war, when he slept with his wife.
However, whoever lives will see.