I’ve predicted the same thing- Ukrainian Terrorism in Europe after the Ukraine falls. They did sacrifice over a million men, under the promise that the West “would be with them till the end”, which every student of US history knows is a virtual death sentence! Also, as an aside, I get a warning about “malware” when trying to comment on the article itself… odd!
Thank you for the warning, I will contact the people who own the server.
Yes, I didn't want to encourage terrorism but Ukrainians do have a solid reason to be angry with the West. What I will say is that if Ukrainians had picked up a history book, they would have realized they would follow the fate of the Kurds, Hmong and South Vietnamese.
«These fighters, many of whom hold neo-Nazi or ultranationalist ideologies, have been instrumental in defending blood and soil in Ukraine against Russian-backed separatists»
Their pride is to have defended the "soil in Ukraine" of the Donbas and Crimea that they believe belongs to the people of Volhynia and Galicia, not to the people of Donbas and Crimea who are in their eyes not pure aryan slavs but tatar-slav mongrels who have only been squatting there without the permission of the people of Volhynia and Galicia and without paying rent to them for just a few hundred years.
Me encanta que desarrolles estos artículos como una serie ya que es tanta la información que en verdad es necesario analizarla desde su contexto histórico para que podamos entenderla. Estaré esperando los próximos artículos con ansia. Gracias Kevin por ayudarnos a entender toda la realidad de lo que está pasando en la actualidad.
¡Muchas gracias, Claudia, por tus amables palabras! De hecho, fue tu sugerencia de desarrollar los artículos en una serie lo que me inspiró a tomar este enfoque.
Como ex arquitecto, estoy descubriendo que planear una serie se siente mucho como planear un conjunto de planos: cada pieza se construye sobre la anterior, creando una estructura cohesiva. Es liberador trabajar de esta manera, especialmente porque siempre estoy luchando contra los límites de palabras. Dividir las ideas en una serie me permite profundizar en cada tema sin sentirme atado.
¡Espero que encuentres los próximos artículos tan interesantes como esta primera entrega!
Kevin - at this point, how many Azov, Aidar, etc. members are there still remaining in Ukraine? I assume that a huge proportion of them have been killed or severely wounded at this point?
No one knows how many are left—numbers are murky. I’d guess Zelensky’s trying his best to bleed them dry before they turn on him. Defeat, when it comes, will fuel their revenge, swelling their ranks—especially in western Ukraine, less battered than the east. The West’s perceived betrayal, along with Russia's harsh terms, will pack their roster tighter than ever. A key faction will be veteran drone operators. But then again, the new recruits will be easily trainable in drone terrorism. It's much less demanding than combat.
«A Lost Cause, forged in betrayal, now emerging and turning to the only path left: vengeance?»
That was always the plan for the USA: a painful and bloody ukrainian defeat feeding the resentment and vengeance of ukrainian fascist fanatics, like the guerrilla war they did against the USSR from 1945 to 1954, funded and directed by the CIA:
«The CIA is overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel, according to five former intelligence and national security officials familiar with the initiative. The program, which started in 2015, is based at an undisclosed facility in the Southern U.S., according to some of those officials [...] “The United States is training an insurgency,” said a former CIA official, adding that the program has taught the Ukrainians how “to kill Russians.” [...] the CIA and other U.S. agencies could support a Ukrainian insurgency, should Russia launch a large-scale incursion. [...] “We’ve been training these guys now for eight years [...]”. [...] If the Russians launch a new invasion, “there’s going to be people who make their life miserable,” said the former senior intelligence official [...] “All that stuff that happened to us in Afghanistan,” said the former senior intelligence official, “they can expect to see that in spades with these guys.”»
PS: Some previous examples of CIA sponsored "freedom fighters":
Thanks for these links. Of course the problem is that these insurgents, depending on how things end, may take this training and turn it against the EU and US. I'm sure Russia is ready to conduct counterinsurgency operation in which ever parts of Ukraine they annex, they surely already are. It's the West who will be unprepared when this blows back.
«these insurgents, depending on how things end, may take this training and turn it against the EU and US.»
And who is going to fund and resupply them? Insurgencies work well only if some states train, fund and supply them and provide them with sanctuaries. Some of the funding, training, supplies for anti-RF operations may end up in revenge anti-EU operations, but I doubt the effect will be significant, and it may be welcome in the EU to "justify" ever more brutal repressive EU rules.
«I'm sure Russia is ready to conduct counterinsurgency operation in which ever parts of Ukraine they annex»
In the period 1945-1954 the USSR lost 35,000 soldiers and party members to the bandera militants, even if there were no NATO states on the frontiers of the Ukranian SSR.
In the present the bandera militants can be quickly and easily funded, trained and resupplied and given sanctuary from a chain of USA and NATO bases near some pretty long ukrainian frontiers: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania; plus surely Moldova even if not yet in NATO; it will be pretty hard to stop them. There is already a low-level bandera-style insurgency in Belarus for the same reason.
«they surely already are.»
There are rumors that the "filtration" operations in the Donbas and Crimea are pretty ruthless.
In the US, Azov will be funded by "rogue" elements of the War Party who share a common interest in seeing Trump and his Tech Bros eliminated. In Europe they will be funded by forces who want to see much more European integration, for Europe to become a full-fledged sovereign entity. The problem is that "Europe" is not a nation, it is more of an imperial apparatus. So this glaring contradiction must be resolved, the EU must answer its "Imperial Question" just as Marxism struggled with its "National Question" until China solved it.
«Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, has seized the Ukraine war as an opportunity to recentralize and expand the European Union’s authority»
People unfamiliar with the french language and with the EU political structure do not seem to know that von der Leyen is just the head of the EU bureaucracy (called the "EU Commission" because "commis" in french means "bureaucrat") and she has no votes or decisional power as to the policies of the EU, which are decided mainly or solely by the EU Council which is the collective body of the heads of government of the EU member states. The president of the EU commission is just the spokesperson for the EU Council.
I live in Brussels, speak French, and while I’m not a precise expert, I have a solid grasp of the EU’s structure. The best way to understand it is through an analogy to the 19th-century German Empire.
The EU Council is the highest legislative authority, akin to the monarch in that system. In this sense, the President of the EU Council, António Costa, is the "King" of Europe—the modern equivalent of Wilhelm I. Meanwhile, the EU Commission serves as the executive branch, and in a rough parallel, von der Leyen plays a role similar to Bismarck—attempting to consolidate power beyond her official mandate.
This tension was evident in her clashes with Charles Michel, who ultimately backed down after she framed his resistance as sexism. Costa, for his part, seems unwilling to assert himself, having learned not to challenge her girlboss persona. While von der Leyen is not the official spokesperson for the EU Council, she often operates above the power her institution technically holds—much like how Bismarck was never the true sovereign of Germany, yet in many ways, he effectively ran it.
«I have a solid grasp of the EU’s structure. The best way to understand it is through an analogy to the 19th-century German Empire.»
The best analogy is the french republic :-)
«The EU Council is the highest legislative authority»
Congratulations on that, very few people know that it is the EU Council and not the EU Parliament the main legislative body, the "lower house".
«President of the EU Council, António Costa, is the "King" of Europe»
The president of the EU Council is not a member of the EU Council and cannot vote; he is actually just the secretary of the EU Council. His role is to be the chair of the *meetings* of the EU Council and to run its secretariat, so the heads of government who are the members and can vote on both legislative and executive actions of the EU Councils do not have to put up one of themselves to chair the meetings.
«EU Commission serves as the executive branch»
It is the apolitical *administrative* branch, the civil service, subordinate to the political executive branch. The members of the EU Commission including President have no political power and responsibility, each is just a bureaucrat, an official, a "commis", a high-level "fonctionnaire".
The real executive branch is the combination of the EU Council (which is also as you say the main legislative branch) and the Councils of the EU (there is one for every policy area, like economy, competition, etc.).
The EU Council collectively is the "prime minister" of the EU, and the Councils of the EU are each collectively the "ministers" of the EU, with the Councils of the EU together being the "cabinet" of the EU. So in the EU the office of prime minister and of each of the ministers is held by a committee rather than an individual. The Councils of the EU also have political power and responsibility for their policy area, following the directives of the EU Council.
The way it works: the legislative chamber and the head of government is the EU Council, which issues EU laws and strategic political directives to the Councils of the EU, which is the executive cabinet of the EU, and each Council of the EU then gives orders to the EU Commission member which is the head of the administrative service of the EU for that area.
Note: the EU Council is very tightly closed, the heads of government are very jealous of their position, and when there are serious negotiations and votes all the aides and bureaucrats, including the President of the Commission and the President of the EU Council, neither of which has any political power or vote, are asked to go outside. Even the ministers of the member states who are part of the Councils of the EU are not allowed to attend the EU Council unless invited.
«von der Leyen plays a role similar to Bismarck—attempting to consolidate power beyond her official mandate. This tension was evident in her clashes with Charles Michel»
Neither of them has any political power or a vote in EU political institutions, and neither does Costa. Of course they are powerful bureaucrats and the members of the EU Council and of the Councils of the EU usually ask their advice, but they are not allowed to set policy. As powerful bureaucrats they try to influence the EU Council etc., and they are rivals for the attention of the members of the EU Council.
Even the famous power of the Commission to propose laws is purely bureaucratic: they cannot vote on them and usually they only propose EU laws as directed by the EU Council or by one of the Councils of the EU. Their job is as a rule to draft the laws (which gives them a lot of influence of course, but not political power). The EU does not allow any member state political representative to draft laws because all laws must be written in all official languages and the texts must have the same meaning, and the EU Commission is supposedly both apolitical and not on the side of any member state.
Maybe those “administrators” responsible for the NHS’s unresponsive stonewalling should have some bones removed from their wrists. So they will be better able to empathise with the victims. Because that’s so important, isn’t it?
I’ve predicted the same thing- Ukrainian Terrorism in Europe after the Ukraine falls. They did sacrifice over a million men, under the promise that the West “would be with them till the end”, which every student of US history knows is a virtual death sentence! Also, as an aside, I get a warning about “malware” when trying to comment on the article itself… odd!
Thank you for the warning, I will contact the people who own the server.
Yes, I didn't want to encourage terrorism but Ukrainians do have a solid reason to be angry with the West. What I will say is that if Ukrainians had picked up a history book, they would have realized they would follow the fate of the Kurds, Hmong and South Vietnamese.
«These fighters, many of whom hold neo-Nazi or ultranationalist ideologies, have been instrumental in defending blood and soil in Ukraine against Russian-backed separatists»
Their pride is to have defended the "soil in Ukraine" of the Donbas and Crimea that they believe belongs to the people of Volhynia and Galicia, not to the people of Donbas and Crimea who are in their eyes not pure aryan slavs but tatar-slav mongrels who have only been squatting there without the permission of the people of Volhynia and Galicia and without paying rent to them for just a few hundred years.
Exactly!
Me encanta que desarrolles estos artículos como una serie ya que es tanta la información que en verdad es necesario analizarla desde su contexto histórico para que podamos entenderla. Estaré esperando los próximos artículos con ansia. Gracias Kevin por ayudarnos a entender toda la realidad de lo que está pasando en la actualidad.
¡Muchas gracias, Claudia, por tus amables palabras! De hecho, fue tu sugerencia de desarrollar los artículos en una serie lo que me inspiró a tomar este enfoque.
Como ex arquitecto, estoy descubriendo que planear una serie se siente mucho como planear un conjunto de planos: cada pieza se construye sobre la anterior, creando una estructura cohesiva. Es liberador trabajar de esta manera, especialmente porque siempre estoy luchando contra los límites de palabras. Dividir las ideas en una serie me permite profundizar en cada tema sin sentirme atado.
¡Espero que encuentres los próximos artículos tan interesantes como esta primera entrega!
They should have taken notice of Henry Kissinger's famous quote, "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
Kevin - at this point, how many Azov, Aidar, etc. members are there still remaining in Ukraine? I assume that a huge proportion of them have been killed or severely wounded at this point?
No one knows how many are left—numbers are murky. I’d guess Zelensky’s trying his best to bleed them dry before they turn on him. Defeat, when it comes, will fuel their revenge, swelling their ranks—especially in western Ukraine, less battered than the east. The West’s perceived betrayal, along with Russia's harsh terms, will pack their roster tighter than ever. A key faction will be veteran drone operators. But then again, the new recruits will be easily trainable in drone terrorism. It's much less demanding than combat.
«A Lost Cause, forged in betrayal, now emerging and turning to the only path left: vengeance?»
That was always the plan for the USA: a painful and bloody ukrainian defeat feeding the resentment and vengeance of ukrainian fascist fanatics, like the guerrilla war they did against the USSR from 1945 to 1954, funded and directed by the CIA:
https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-may-take-central-role-if-russia-invades-185258008.html
«The CIA is overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel, according to five former intelligence and national security officials familiar with the initiative. The program, which started in 2015, is based at an undisclosed facility in the Southern U.S., according to some of those officials [...] “The United States is training an insurgency,” said a former CIA official, adding that the program has taught the Ukrainians how “to kill Russians.” [...] the CIA and other U.S. agencies could support a Ukrainian insurgency, should Russia launch a large-scale incursion. [...] “We’ve been training these guys now for eight years [...]”. [...] If the Russians launch a new invasion, “there’s going to be people who make their life miserable,” said the former senior intelligence official [...] “All that stuff that happened to us in Afghanistan,” said the former senior intelligence official, “they can expect to see that in spades with these guys.”»
PS: Some previous examples of CIA sponsored "freedom fighters":
https://blissex.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/poliusadonatemujaheddin-1981.png
https://blissex.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/poliusadonatethecontras-1985.png
https://blissex.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/poliusaafgdonateterror-198x.jpg
Thanks for these links. Of course the problem is that these insurgents, depending on how things end, may take this training and turn it against the EU and US. I'm sure Russia is ready to conduct counterinsurgency operation in which ever parts of Ukraine they annex, they surely already are. It's the West who will be unprepared when this blows back.
«these insurgents, depending on how things end, may take this training and turn it against the EU and US.»
And who is going to fund and resupply them? Insurgencies work well only if some states train, fund and supply them and provide them with sanctuaries. Some of the funding, training, supplies for anti-RF operations may end up in revenge anti-EU operations, but I doubt the effect will be significant, and it may be welcome in the EU to "justify" ever more brutal repressive EU rules.
«I'm sure Russia is ready to conduct counterinsurgency operation in which ever parts of Ukraine they annex»
In the period 1945-1954 the USSR lost 35,000 soldiers and party members to the bandera militants, even if there were no NATO states on the frontiers of the Ukranian SSR.
In the present the bandera militants can be quickly and easily funded, trained and resupplied and given sanctuary from a chain of USA and NATO bases near some pretty long ukrainian frontiers: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania; plus surely Moldova even if not yet in NATO; it will be pretty hard to stop them. There is already a low-level bandera-style insurgency in Belarus for the same reason.
«they surely already are.»
There are rumors that the "filtration" operations in the Donbas and Crimea are pretty ruthless.
In the US, Azov will be funded by "rogue" elements of the War Party who share a common interest in seeing Trump and his Tech Bros eliminated. In Europe they will be funded by forces who want to see much more European integration, for Europe to become a full-fledged sovereign entity. The problem is that "Europe" is not a nation, it is more of an imperial apparatus. So this glaring contradiction must be resolved, the EU must answer its "Imperial Question" just as Marxism struggled with its "National Question" until China solved it.
Oops there was a truncated paste, here are the other examples of CIA "freedom fighters":
https://blissex.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/poliusadonatethecontras-1985.png
https://blissex.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/poliusaafgdonateterror-198x.jpg
«Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, has seized the Ukraine war as an opportunity to recentralize and expand the European Union’s authority»
People unfamiliar with the french language and with the EU political structure do not seem to know that von der Leyen is just the head of the EU bureaucracy (called the "EU Commission" because "commis" in french means "bureaucrat") and she has no votes or decisional power as to the policies of the EU, which are decided mainly or solely by the EU Council which is the collective body of the heads of government of the EU member states. The president of the EU commission is just the spokesperson for the EU Council.
I live in Brussels, speak French, and while I’m not a precise expert, I have a solid grasp of the EU’s structure. The best way to understand it is through an analogy to the 19th-century German Empire.
The EU Council is the highest legislative authority, akin to the monarch in that system. In this sense, the President of the EU Council, António Costa, is the "King" of Europe—the modern equivalent of Wilhelm I. Meanwhile, the EU Commission serves as the executive branch, and in a rough parallel, von der Leyen plays a role similar to Bismarck—attempting to consolidate power beyond her official mandate.
This tension was evident in her clashes with Charles Michel, who ultimately backed down after she framed his resistance as sexism. Costa, for his part, seems unwilling to assert himself, having learned not to challenge her girlboss persona. While von der Leyen is not the official spokesperson for the EU Council, she often operates above the power her institution technically holds—much like how Bismarck was never the true sovereign of Germany, yet in many ways, he effectively ran it.
«I have a solid grasp of the EU’s structure. The best way to understand it is through an analogy to the 19th-century German Empire.»
The best analogy is the french republic :-)
«The EU Council is the highest legislative authority»
Congratulations on that, very few people know that it is the EU Council and not the EU Parliament the main legislative body, the "lower house".
«President of the EU Council, António Costa, is the "King" of Europe»
The president of the EU Council is not a member of the EU Council and cannot vote; he is actually just the secretary of the EU Council. His role is to be the chair of the *meetings* of the EU Council and to run its secretariat, so the heads of government who are the members and can vote on both legislative and executive actions of the EU Councils do not have to put up one of themselves to chair the meetings.
«EU Commission serves as the executive branch»
It is the apolitical *administrative* branch, the civil service, subordinate to the political executive branch. The members of the EU Commission including President have no political power and responsibility, each is just a bureaucrat, an official, a "commis", a high-level "fonctionnaire".
The real executive branch is the combination of the EU Council (which is also as you say the main legislative branch) and the Councils of the EU (there is one for every policy area, like economy, competition, etc.).
The EU Council collectively is the "prime minister" of the EU, and the Councils of the EU are each collectively the "ministers" of the EU, with the Councils of the EU together being the "cabinet" of the EU. So in the EU the office of prime minister and of each of the ministers is held by a committee rather than an individual. The Councils of the EU also have political power and responsibility for their policy area, following the directives of the EU Council.
The way it works: the legislative chamber and the head of government is the EU Council, which issues EU laws and strategic political directives to the Councils of the EU, which is the executive cabinet of the EU, and each Council of the EU then gives orders to the EU Commission member which is the head of the administrative service of the EU for that area.
Note: the EU Council is very tightly closed, the heads of government are very jealous of their position, and when there are serious negotiations and votes all the aides and bureaucrats, including the President of the Commission and the President of the EU Council, neither of which has any political power or vote, are asked to go outside. Even the ministers of the member states who are part of the Councils of the EU are not allowed to attend the EU Council unless invited.
«von der Leyen plays a role similar to Bismarck—attempting to consolidate power beyond her official mandate. This tension was evident in her clashes with Charles Michel»
Neither of them has any political power or a vote in EU political institutions, and neither does Costa. Of course they are powerful bureaucrats and the members of the EU Council and of the Councils of the EU usually ask their advice, but they are not allowed to set policy. As powerful bureaucrats they try to influence the EU Council etc., and they are rivals for the attention of the members of the EU Council.
Even the famous power of the Commission to propose laws is purely bureaucratic: they cannot vote on them and usually they only propose EU laws as directed by the EU Council or by one of the Councils of the EU. Their job is as a rule to draft the laws (which gives them a lot of influence of course, but not political power). The EU does not allow any member state political representative to draft laws because all laws must be written in all official languages and the texts must have the same meaning, and the EU Commission is supposedly both apolitical and not on the side of any member state.
Maybe those “administrators” responsible for the NHS’s unresponsive stonewalling should have some bones removed from their wrists. So they will be better able to empathise with the victims. Because that’s so important, isn’t it?