THE DIVIDED SELF - THE EXAMPLE OF UKRAINE

The divided self

One good place to start to get an idea of the underlying differences between the people of West and East Ukraine, and this war, could  found in their different ideas of who they are, how they see themselves, and how these differences might be reconciled if that is possible.

To understand this approach, first, try reading my earlier post The United Self.

Roman or Orthodox

Look at who's fighting whom in Ukraine, and if you take out the idea that this is a proxy war between America and Russia, which of course it is, then you are left with looking at a people - the Slavs - who live mainly in eastern and south-eastern Europe and speak variants of the same Indo-European language. 

This group splits into Western and Eastern Slavs, on religious lines, being Roman or Orthodox Christian. 

Then there is the influence of empires : Western Slavs link to the Polish-Lithuainian empire, Germanic peoples this time (Poles, some Ukrainians, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs), and Eastern (Russians, some Ukrainians, and Belarusians).

And consider the historical animosity between Western Slavs and Russia, dating from WW2 and the Great Patriotic War, where Russia survived and overcame German aggression.

A complication was introduced when Byzantium was taken by the ottomans and is the capital Istanbul of Turkey today Crimea was once part of the Ottoman Empire that was taken back and repopulated by the Russians. (Kruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1953 to try and balance out Russian populations in Russia's favour, but this was a mistake corrected in 2014.)

So after this short recap and with Maiden in 2005 and and the the

Swiss type cantons

Just what this means can get very complicated but I think the idea is that each administrative unit and there would be too in Ukraine I guess each administrative unit starts off as sovereign and then agrees to hand over certain powers to a federal assembly. 

I dont know how a Federation differs from a Confederation; how the Russian side might fit as a modern-day Soviet; I guess there'd be two Constitutions and two assemblies.

Could Minsk be revived as a starting point? After all, it's non-implementation was the immediate cause of the war -  

(As I understand it - and I'm probably a victim of my ignorance - most of us have forgotten, if ever we knew, that Zilenski promised peace justice and anti-corruption but then fell into the hands of the Kiev right wing ("Nazis"), who take their attitude from the time of the Polish-Lithuanian empire and the German war with Russia.

Anyway, a starting point is to list powers that a central authority could be accountable for.

Powers handed over could be: external relations (foreign affairs) &  defence, currency, telecomms, citizenship, civil and criminal law, economic policy, customs duties.

Read More

THE FUTURES OF UKRAINE

25 August 2022

MORE AMERICAN AID

Somewhere - I cannot find the reference - there is a breakdown of the latest 3 billion USD America has promised in arms shipments to Ukraine and three points emerge on analysis: 

1 is that it is just lightweight stuff whereas what Ukraine could really use is aircraft HiMAAS etcetera 

2 the supplies will only last for a short time: 

so for example the 240,000 rounds of ammunition considering that Russia is firing off 60,000 a day and Ukraine about 5,000, so 240,000 would just last a few days

3 delivery is expected over a number of months and years, by which time of course Ukraine will likely have lost the war

PREPARED

More generally, Russia has prepared for this war and has been preparing for years, building up stocks, whereas America hasn't and so simply doesn't have the equipment and supplies that would be necessary to sustain in the long haul of trench warfare.

WAY OUT

Surely the best way out of this situation for America would be for the Republican party to start putting some distance between a new foreign policy and the old foreign policy of the Democrats and then hope for a change at the midterms.

But because the mainstream media has so stuffed its heads and our heads with this propaganda that Ukraine is winning, they cannot at the same time discuss the consequences for America should it lose. And so the worry as I see it is that America will react very badly when its losing becomes plainer and plainet, and may escalate to nuclear rather than accept a further defeat after Afghanistan.

Is there any discussion anywhere of how America might react, once losing becomes plain?

NOT PREPARED

The downside of the American policy elite never listening is that they were never prepared... it seems that they have been prepared for counterinsurgency work, but not for large-scale combat operations LSCO as they are called 

And while Germany is spending 100 billion EUR getting ready for future eventualities, we don't hear any news from America of what it is doing to forestall future LSCO - how, practically, for example, would America cope with a Taiwan invasion?

20 KMS FROM NIKOLAEV

https://youtu.be/WQCGlLmIxsw

Mercouris, Russians 20 km from Nikolaev, offset ~56'

Good summary and forecast.

NEW NEW RUSSIA

The local militias in Donbas are supported (directed) by Russia. In Zaparizhia and Kherson seems it is a Russian effort, no militia.

  I'd imagine that once the Donbas, and the Zaparizhia and Kherson regions, Mykolaiv and Odessa, are overrrun, referenda organised, russified into Russia, then it will all be rebuilt and modernised as needed using local labour and resources, so the future of a modern New Russia looks quite promising.

If America is dragging out this inevitable conclusion, it can only be because they're hoping for some black swan element that would reverse Russian gain, hoping to get past 2024 without loss of face... otherwise if they were rational they would be sitting at the negotiating table.

ZILENSKY'S FUTURE

Zilenski will be sacked at some point by his military, surely, as it's the only way to withdraw. Generals carry out orders, but they are responsible for the lives of their men and women.

Read More

WHO IS ALEXANDER DUGIN?

23 August 2022

Alexander Dugin has been portrayed in the West as the frontman for Russia's deep  (military) state.

Dugin took his cue from a famous Glaswegian, Halford Mackinder.

Mackinder put geography in the driving seat of history, not economics. He created the school of Geopolitics.

He split the world into Europe/Asia/Africa, and America. With inner Asia (the tundran  plains of Russia rolling over the Carpathians into central Europe) as the heartland.

He split the peoples into land powers and sea powers, forever at war. Russia does not invade, it is invaded, being mother earth, by the Atlantic alliance, the sea power, the sky, of GB and now USA. War is our eternal fate!

And politics is inevitably authoritarian for a land power, they stay at home; cf the gregarious trading life of a sea power, naturally Liberal.

That's Mackinder and Dugin.

Mackinder saw Russia as Britain's adversary (this was 1904...Br handed over to the States).

Mackinder's famous sentence, which has resonated down through the decades, to be picked up by Dugin on the 80s:

“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; 

Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; 

Who rules the World Island commands the World.”

So anyway, "bloodthirsty" is journalese - he wanted, wants, the former 14 back in the fold, it's true.

He is big at the Russian Military Academy.

He's a nationalist.

But "Putin's brain"? Noooo.

Read More

NOT SEEING EYE TO EYE - RUSHDIE RUSHED TO HOSPITAL

15 August 2022

What we are talking about here is the freedom of thought, speech and assembly, which is the motor of progress  let's also remember that we are talking about a death threat to a citizen of the US and UK and an attempt at his execution on American soil. Someone ironically, we are also talking about a Salmon Rushdie who is very quick to criticise white society and yet in this situation where his life is threatened ,he seeks the help and support of the very society he criticises.

Salman Rushdie observes that " a new world has been invented to allow the blind to remain blind: islamophobia (a fear of Islam). To criticise the militancy of that religion in its current manifestation is considered fanaticism: a position taken by someone who is in error and not the system of religion itself

"A new word has been coined to allow blind people to stay blind: islamophobia (a fear of Islam). To criticize the militant violence of this religion in its contemporary international incarnation, is considered as being fanaticism, an extreme position taken by a phobic and irrational person. So it is this person who is at fault and not a police system that has claimed over a billion in debt across the world."

As far as I can understand, the reason for the fatwa against him was that he said that religious texts should be open to change: in other words, that you can edit and update the Quran, for example.

Being able to edit the Quran is an example of free speech, a value we in the west hold dear. Free speech is how we make progress because there is always a dialogue, this is the importance of freedom of assembly, sometimes even an internal dialogue between two halves of our own self, and questions are raised by one half and answered by another, and this dialogue raises new questions and new answers are found... and so on. It's a kind of Hegelian dialectic.

It's in this way that we adapt to a changing world and make progress - free speech and assembly from freedom of thought, where the perimeters of our dialogue are only drawn by our vocabulary, our cultural limits ("the box"), and our childhood formatting (The "script" of our life, written for us by early childhood, as observed by Eric Berne amongst many ... if only we could edit *that* script!) We are not limted by a "thought police" or external agent.

Thought police resume the dialogue in to one side that is correct and the other side that is not and they attempt to silence or cancel the incorrect side by the use of terror.

But I cannot at all see why you would need to go in on edit and change the actual words of the prophet or for that matter the words in any of the other sacred texts. They are written in such a way that their truths are general and universal and offer guidance, or cover, any particular circumstance you find yourself in. It is quite easy to refer to the text and interpret it in the light of this situation or that, in a changing world.

In other words, these texts and any great works of literature contain absolute and universal truths that can be quoted and used to understand particular circumstances.

If you were to edit them, or edit Shakespeare for that matter, and make them time- or situation-dependent, then you would take away the universal and absolute nature of their truths - why would you want to do that?

Read More

BOEUF BOURGUIGNON

Jacques Pepin paints

15 August 2022

There is a French quarter here, with quite a number of friendly, inexpensive restaurants. 

This last weekend, the dish of the day at one was "Daube de boeuf" - this is a beef bourguignon or Irish boiled beef and carrots, or Yorkshire stew, but there are intriguing key differences between Fr and Eng cuisine.

With the cubed beef soaked in cooking wine beforehand, salt pepper and rolled in flour before being sealed in hot oil and butter, then simmered with veg including celery (extremely hard to find here, and expensive) with a bunch of herbs - parsley, thyme, bay leaf, even rosemary, tied in a lot. 

Of course, after two or three hours of this, the veg are splattered as if hit by a HiMARS, so add more, and some shallots, and simmer for a further 20 minutes.

Serve with boiled potatoes, dob of butter and sprig of parsley on top.

Bon app' tlm

Read More

CUTTING THE BEARD OF THE CHINESE DRAGON

13 August 2022

THE ISSUE

Nancy Pelosi, leader America's House of Representatives, has just returned from a controversial unofficial visit to Taiwan. Lithuania is sending a delegation to Taiwan on a 5 day tour and Taiwan is about to open some sort of office consulate in Vilnius. 

Why would anyone want to cut the beard of the Chinese dragon?

As a matter of identity, the people of Taiwan, in polls, self-identify as Taiwanese, and have chosen the Republic of China ROC to govern them.

Aswhere China - the present govt at least, the PRC -  identifies them as Chinese.

That's because the PRC's wish is to extend its jurisdiction as executive authority to include Taiwan - easy to understand the strategic logic, but is it "right"?

Can you be Scottish and British, or is it Scottish or British? It's about who has the legitimacy to govern you, ie who can make the rules, by majority vote of all the representatives, that you accept as legitimate.

Diplomatically, any second party country unwilling to choose unambiguously between "One China" or "One China One Taiwan" (no comma) could sidestep the question of who is the first party by setting up offices for trade and local diplomatic relations under the name "Taipei" - Taipei the city is not a country with a frontier and a government, but local diplomats could represent local people, maintain relationships at a local level and shape future trade and relations. This is the solution chosen by all countries except Lithuania, and China has overlooked this.

So instead of continuing with  "strategic ambiguity" (which recognises Taiwan without saying so), why did Lithuania "cut the beard of the Chinese dragon" (cf "poke the bear in the eye with a sharp stick"); and, as Lithuania is a member of the European Union, what are the consequences for China and the EU?

Read More

CHINA'S RED LINE

12 August 2022

“Strategic Ambiguity"

"Midline" (of the Straits of Taiwan)

"Unilateral Challenge to the Status Quo"

You can believe in Taiwan as an independent country, but at the same time take a bit of care with the language fabricated by our American friends. 

Noam Chomsky sussed out the linguistics of "this unprovoked invasion": it was hardly unprovoked, and although it was an invasion it was America that started the war.

I'm sure Chonsky would have a thing or two to say about these three latest linguistic traps. They take a long time to think up and create and an equally long time for us to see through them, they are so clever, clever cunning Orwellian minds at work, but really they're just tricks with words. 

The purpose is so that America can preserve its supremacy in the East Asian-Pacific seaboard region. That's the Americans' "ring of first islands" that contain China and block it from ever leaving Asia to cross the Pacific. It runs from Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, to the Philippines and Indonesia. None of those countries are much favourably disposed to China. That's why the Chinese would dearly love the Americans off those Islands.

--“Strategic Ambiguity"

As far as China is concerned, there is strictly no ambiguity here, and no room for ambiguity in their principle called "One China", which is that China includes Taiwan. “Strategic Ambiguity" is a blur of an idea and its purpose is to let America decide everything that they define as ambiguous and refuse everything that China defines unambiguously.

China made its opposition to this notion plain in its post-Pelosi military exercises.

--"Unilateral Challenge to the Status Quo"

What status quo would that be? "Status quo" 

is the accepted way things are, as opposed to the way they could be. 

China does not accept Taiwan as being independent, there is no accepted status quo here and therefore nothing to challenge.

Without a status quo, no actions can be termed "unilateral" because unilateral means affecting only one side, but in this "ambiguity", both sides are affected and each is challenging the other.

So each challenges the other, there is no agreed position. Thus there is no status quo and the challenges are bilateral.

--"Midline" (of the Straits of Taiwan)

This is a total fabrication.

 If you sail through the Straits of Taiwan, do you see a midline? No you don't.

 Is it referenced in the Law of the Sea or the 1958 and 1982 UN Conferences that padded  out an old idea that beyond a certain shoreline zone, oceans and seas should be open and navigeable to all? This is the fundamental basis of America's offer to the world when it's set up all those institutions after the last war ...and then it doesn't sign off.

This Law of the Sea Convention got sign-off from 100 countries or so, including China, but not America. So, no, it isnt a concept referenced in any UN doc.

 So how come America - far far away from Taiwan incidentally - takes it upon itself to impose a non-existent midline? 

Midline is not a recognised term and if America thinks it is a legitimate concept, then perhaps it should put it through the UN process that if agreed would legitimate it... and try setting an example by signing the convention itself.

Read More

RANT AGAINST MEDIAGARCHY

7 August 2022

https://youtu.be/TV5ubJq39h0

So mad! Yes! it is the media running public opinion, on behalf of an oligarchy of the rich and a minorigarchy of the weird and the woke, in the absence of any political leadership on behalf of the majority and the public interest.

The public interest is for me about a fair distribution of wealth, opportunity and freedom to the majority.

Where are the politicians with a longer term view of what's good for the country and the strength of leadership to outdistance the polls?

Instead, for reasons most of us link to greed and self-interest, the political elite piles on risk after risk (just the latest being support for Pelosi's provocation...which I support, just not at this time), distracts us from the real issues with this trivia, and whose policies the track record shows lead to ruination.

"Dig her up!"

End of rant, ha ha ha

Read More

DOES THE CIA MAKE AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY?

6 August 2022

Does America have a foreign policy strategy and if so, who is running it? ... is it the CIA, sitting in the Pentagon?

How foreign policy is made

-You are supposed to start with your vision/goals/aims.

-Then you turn these vague wishes into measurable objectives.

-Then for each you need resources, and so a strategy:  a strategy is what you'll create to plan best use of resources to achieve your objectives.

-Then, you get to the policies, which are the rules governing running the strategy; and the organisation units you need to man the processes.

The machinery of government

The DoD, Blinken and Powell, are sitting in the Pentagon running foreign policy over 

Executive. Biden in the White House and 

Legislative. Congress. The Senate Foreign Reln.s Cttee and the House Cttee on Foreign Affairs, 

On behalf of The People.

Next

Next

Read More

ANOTHER STEP TOWARDS NUCLEAR OBLIVION

3 August 2022

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-united-states-is-directly-involved-ukraine-war-2022-08-02/

Another step towards nuclear oblivion.

We've known this for a long time anyway, we've known perfectly well that the strategy and the planning - not just the training and the supply of arms - is down to the Western powers

 if it's the M142 HiMARS, it's Lockheed Martin, it's the Americans who plan the launch

 if it's the M270 MLRS launchers with GMLRS munitions, it's still Lockheed Martin, but from British stocks, it's gotta be the British who plan the launch.

 if it's the MARS M270 Mittleres Artillerie Raketen System, it's Lockheed Martin more $$$$$$ ohhhh now I get it, from German stocks, it's gotta be the Germans who plan the launch. Target practise.

 if it's a Caesar truck-mounted artillery, it's the French 155mm 52-calibre self-propelled gun, it's Nexter Systems (formerly Giat), taken from French stocks (they are very worried about this as apparently they've already sent over almost half their stock), it's gotta be the French who proudly plan the launch and add the ghastly glossy photos to their marketing collaterals.

You can't expect reservists and pig farmers and remnants of a professional army to understand the ins and outs of these 1980s technologies!

They take us for fools.

Read More

THE UNITED SELF

2 Aug 2022

self and identity - a biography of our self - who we are - our identity

https://youtu.be/ZD52aZ5Jh7A

"personality modernity and the storied self"

modern

modernity means modern times. Especially in the West ("The West" by this time in the 21st century includes many non Western countries like South Korea or Japan, according to the following framework...).

we have to make a difference between pre modern or pre-industrial times and times since the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries.

what makes our time "modern" is: capitalism, markets, democracy, the nation-state, the dominance of Science and Technology.

drivers

and we should look at social, political and economic changes as causing, driving, the changes to our idea of self, of who we are.

characteristics of people's living in modern Western times

1. a scepticism towards religion and other traditional sources of authority and a preference instead for a data-driven approach based on science, reasoning, objectivity, evidence, positivism etc ... a belief that if we take an evidence-based approach this will lead to improvement in our world

2. difficulty in keeping a coherent sense of one's modern self across the past, present and future and across even yesterday compared to today or tomorrow.

also keeping up that coherence or integrity across the different roles and contexts and situations that we operate in.

it's especially challenging for people living in societies with a lot of diversity or to put it another way, a low homogeneity.

For example, societies with different ethnic and religious mixes.

3. there's also more emphasis on our uniqueness rather than on conformity with the tribe or group and this is challenging because at the same time as we seek to be different we also seek to remain connected.

Six characteristics of the modern self

1. work in progress. we are all a work in progress, we are a project we are working on, the "I" is forever improving a "Me". it can be thought of as a reflexive project reflexive because we are turned towards our self we are changing our self.

this is modern because compare with pre modern times where a person was given a role or a position or a post and told to get on with it. they were not responsible for creating a unique self or innovating and updating a persona.

2. Agency. in pre-modern times it was the king, or the church or mosque, or the tribe that assigned us a role; but today, we have to work out our own identity and roles in a more day-to-day context of family and work and friends.

3. multi-layered and deep. compare the simple role that Hindu people in Bali have and live by, compare that with the situation in which modern man or woman find themselves. A modern person has multiple roles and overlapping roles all depending on the context and the person and so on and this complexity creates a challenge to know who we are and is why many people are Forever on a voyage of self-discovery and why self-help groups are so popular

so before it was the church or mosque that was a moral authority, but these days, in the absence of that moral authority, it is us, we ourselves, who decide our own beliefs and values and and finally are our own identity and it is the search for this authentic identity that drives the projects to modernise ourselves

4. self development. we saw in the points above that the self is a project, for which we are responsible, and this project of ours is a voyage of self-discovery, adaption and improvement - a work in progress. now consider this as a series of projects, over the longer life that we live.

At the start of the 20th century, the average lifespan was maybe 50 years, but by the end it had reached 75 years and splits into different phases.

We go through different phases in that time span and so we have evolving roles and contexts and thus projects with different objectives for our self, as we mature and develop.

5. Coherence. we go from childhood to adolescence to young adulthood to middle age to old age or maybe more phases than that ("the seven ages of man") and we have different roles and contexts to adapt to that we also look for a coherence across all those phases so that we have a story to tell, a narrative, which stitches everything together and brings us one coherent picture of who we are.

this coherent narrative is our auto-biography and it's really important, this sense of coherence across the different phases of our life, because it's how we construct our idea of who we are, in other words our identity, our sense of self

6 connection and the "pure relationship". the 6th and final characteristic of modern selves is that two separate selves can connect to each other to form what we all look for, which is a pure or perfect relationship, in terms of connectedness, love and intimacy.

Modern love is not something dictated to us by our parents or arranged by the group or or determined by the church or mosque it is something we choose for ourselves in order to fulfil our deepest needs and desires, needs and desires that we have defined and which are part of our uniqueness.

the two persons, each true and authentic to themself, have a relationship which is honest and open and flexible and negotiable between the two of them. The focus is on both parties achieving what you might call self-actualisation or self-transcendence. Of course, anyone who's been in a modern romantic relationship knows that this is a pure fiction! ... but nonetheless it is an ideal and a vision that we can aim for.

Summary. we saw in the points above that the self is a project about constructing our sense of identity, who we are. We are responsible for this project. It is a voyage of self-discovery, adaption and improvement - a work in progress seeking uniqueness, connectedness and authenticity. It is a series of projects, over the longer life that we live. Like ying and yang, we seek union with another like-minded soul .

Read More