I was aware of the tanks thing:
ZOG’s declaration that Wagner PMC is a transnational criminal organization is one rung shy of calling them terrorists. Biden sending 31 tanks to Ukraine is also an egregious escalation.
https://dissident-mag.com/2023/01/29/your-weekend-firmware-update/
I was not aware of us opening a second front:
Israel/CIA attacks on Iran are a way of opening up a new front in that war in a way that the U.S. can still, albeit absurdly, pretend it’s not officially involved.
My first thought was “these idiots are trying to kick off a world war.” Then I realized this is textbook brinksmanship. I think they’re going to run into an issue where Russia can call the bluff because the nature of alliances has changed. Before you had these industrial superpowers next to each other engaged in arms races with their neighbors. It made sense to have allies. Nowadays all the Western countries have been globalized and deindustrialized and there’s really no point fighting against them, because they’re your biggest customers. There’s also no point fighting for them because it’s like bombing your own industrial base.
Pretty much all third-party efforts in this war are going to be perfunctory, with allied forces dragging their feet because it’s against their national interests and the proles are demoralized. While the morale of the proles doesn’t make any difference in the decisions their treacherous leaders make, it makes a huge difference in how well those decisions are carried out. America is presumably hoping the Russians are too parochial and blinded by butt-kissing and vodka to notice how the great game has changed. It’s anybody’s guess whether that’s true, but I suspect it’s more projection than not. Which is to say, that’s how political hierarchies are by nature, but I think moreso in the West than in Russia.
In that case, opening another front and escalation are both bad moves because it indicates a strategy of outspending the enemy. This is that “conceit of capital” thing where banker types think having the most money means you have the most wealth to spend, because things like competence and loyalty can be bought. Quoting myself now,
Trust and money aren’t interchangeable resources. It’s confusing because they both factor into how people will spend their time. Here’s how the economics of it works at the ground level: You want to build a house. You can ask people to help as a favor or pay them money. Trust -> time and money -> time. But if the guys you’re paying don’t know how to build a house then no amount of money will turn into a house. The ones doing it as a favor will tell you “I don’t know how to build a house.” The ones doing it for money will go along until the money runs out and there’s no house. If you tell the trust ones “Trust me, there will be a house” then you, personally, had better know how to build a house and direct a project.
So it’s only kinda true that you can buy loyalty and competence, but mostly not true in a war economy. This was actually one of Russia’s big mistakes early on, because corruption in their military is a massive problem undercutting everything they do.
Aeoli Pera 