The idea of using a crisis to make decisions that would otherwise never be allowed is not new. Kings and pharaohs and emperors of all stripes have been doing such things for millennia. Some have gone so far as to generate crises in order to provide the opportunity to “solve the crisis” and in solving it, enact certain laws or edicts that they would never have been allowed to enact otherwise.

Wars are, of course, the most dramatic of crises, and the most dramatic opportunity to institute changes that simply would never be otherwise considered; from changes in laws to changes in borders, wars are opportunities for substantive change.

There are all sorts of examples of manufactured crises, perhaps the best in the last two-hundred years being the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which was incited by Chancellor Bismarck who released a press statement concerning a meeting between Kaiser Wilhelm I and the French Ambassador, Count Benedetti.

Bismarck released a factually accurate account of the meeting – Benedetti had asked the Kaiser to assure France that he would not permit a Hohenzollern as a candidate for the Spanish throne; the Kaiser politely refused to give any such guarantee. Bismarck reported it factually, but left the wording terse and to the point, rather than elaborating on the polite tone of the conversation. He knew this would serve as a de facto taunt of the French Foreign Minister, the Duc de Gramont (a man Bismarck described as “the dumbest man in Europe”). The French Foreign Minister then used the account as justification for war. France mobilized, Prussia responded, and well, things didn’t quite work out for France.

This would never happen in a modern representative government… Gulf of Tonkin?

In December, 2021 the press reported that President Biden told President Zelenskyy that Ukraine’s application to join NATO was a decision to be made by Ukraine and NATO and that Russia had no say in it. That would seem to suggest that Ukraine had a reasonable chance of going NATO. This story line suggests that, if Ukraine wanted to join NATO then that was something Ukraine could pursue, the issue would be decided on its merits, and Russia had no say in the matter.

President Putin of course had made quite a point of saying that Ukraine joining NATO must never happen. He later used it as part of his justification for attacking Ukraine. To a certainty he was not pleased with Biden’s position.

Several points arise; Could Russia have been stopped? The economic sanctions were supposed to stop him – until they didn’t. Was there another way to prevent this current massive escalation of the ongoing war in Ukraine, a war that has been waged for more than 8 years?

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, in an interview with the journalist Fareed Zakaria in late March, suggested that if Ukraine had been a member of NATO, then Putin would not have attacked Ukraine. Whether NATO membership for Ukraine would have worked or not (never mind all the many administrative difficulties), whether it was even a good idea or not, is irrelevant at this point, the war is in its 4th month and their’s no end in sight. But, certainly it would have presented Putin with a far different “calculus” before he launched his attack into Ukraine.

But that’s a secondary point right now. What is of note is this: Zelenskyy said that he was told by a leader he won’t identify, and told very clearly, that Ukraine will never be a member of NATO. But, he was also told that he should publicly act as if NATO membership were possible, even though he was assured again and again that NATO membership would never happen.

So, we are left with Putin saying: “You must not join NATO,” we have a NATO leader saying privately to Zelenskyy: “You will never be a member of NATO,” but the same NATO leader is telling Zelenskyy to: “Act as if NATO membership is very much possible.”

That is a taunt, that is waving the red flag in front of the bull.

Now, there are only two options here: Zelenskyy is telling the truth, in which case he was set up. Or Zelenskyy is telling a lie – a huge lie. If Zelenskyy is making this up, I can’t figure out why, as there is every possibility that his country will be destroyed.

So, that leaves several questions:

Who? It is difficult, nearly impossible, to believe that any country other than the US would be willing to taunt Russia in the belief that they could orchestrate a response in time if the Russians were to act, particularly if the US balked. It would seem that the only possible answer to what country did this is: the US.

But why? The question nearly answers itself: to generate a crisis.

Make no mistake; this doesn’t in any way excuse Putin or Russia from anything that they have done; they did, in fact, attack Ukraine, and caused all the horrific things that have been seen in the news.

But the bureaucrats and “clever” folks who decided to taunt Putin, who thought this might create a crisis that they could exploit, share in the responsibility. There is a word for this sort of behavior: evil. At the least, it makes you wonder what other kinds of behavior they could prod people into taking so that they can “respond” to another crisis. But remember this: they have started a war, tens of thousands have died, tens of thousands more will die, millions could be headed into famine. This is evil.

Copyright 2022 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com