NATO chief demonstrates his inability

Most people in the West and almost all mainstream media have shared their preferred narrative of the Ukrainian war. This is a conflict between Russia, a kind of invader and an unsuspecting victim of Ukraine’s Russia whose sovereignty was violated without provocation. Another narrative, far from popular but impossible to dismiss, is an alternative war between the United States and Russia from the beginning. It was simply to extend a state of affairs called the Cold War, which suspended appearances during the collapse of the Soviet Union in the last decade of the 20th century.

How politicians and journalists explain the relationship between major actors – first, Ukraine and Russia, as well as NATO, the United States and the European Union – depends on an individual’s preference for a certain standard narrative style. One option is the David and Goliath templates. This fact complicates the fact that David (Ukraine) recruits Godzilla (US and NATO) to this battle, unless – given the obvious existence of Godzilla – people prefer to see it as Godzilla vs. Kingkong (Russia), with Ukraine playing a Hollywood character with Ukraine, extinguishing one or other part or other part of the character under the feet by one or other Hollywood characters under the feet.

Another option is Rudyard Kipling’s “East is East, West is West”, “Two strong men face to face, they come out from the end of the earth!” This narrative is the secret of another eternal war.

Given the connection to fatigue rooted on one side or the other in the inevitable conflict, Kipling may have won the day, which explains why Trump’s 24 hours a long time ago. The language of the Western Powers (NATO) seems to prove this. Ukrainska Pravda is Ukraine’s leading online newspaper covering the latest assessment of the nature of Russia’s threat by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.

“Ruit believes that Moscow’s current capabilities in space are outdated and different from those in the West: ‘Therefore, developing nuclear weapons in space is a way for Russia to improve its capabilities. This is a very concerned issue”.

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Function:

A term used to match the level of threat posed by a competitor or opponent, which will be systematically underestimated when the purpose of political speech is to prepare for the preparedness of confrontation and overestimate the purpose of inculcating fear and justifying mobilization.

Context Comments

The key ideas Rutte proposed are included in the term “a very concerned issue.” His logic or lack of logic stems from the ambiguity of the meaning of “ability”. People should always seek to understand reality and get reasonable reasons when paying attention to the feelings of facts. In other words, when reality proves to be a threat, it is a very concern. In this sense, awareness of existing power and capabilities is always a detriment to a person who does not trust.

But capabilities can also suggest future potential, although especially in military rhetoric, that doesn’t mean that. Being able to develop functions is completely different from having capabilities.

So, what is Rutte saying here? First, he proudly asserts that NATO is powerful because Russia’s “current capabilities in space are outdated.” This should be reassuring. If he could say that Russia’s capabilities were outdated, it would mean that NATO itself is the latest. Just like in Zeno’s attractive (but undoubtedly) Achilles paradox, the turtle is a big start, because Achilles has the ability to speed, and the turtle obviously lacks the ability to speed, which doesn’t matter, we divide the distance between the athletes at a distance and the turtle who moves forward, knowing that his competitors will win the competitors, he will compete and win the game.

Rutte hopes we believe Russia is weak so that NATO can trust its strength and speed in Achilles’ role. Thanks to this reinforcement of knowledge, we can boldly draw our routes to win the game and be sure we will win. But then Lat hit a serious obstacle. If we think Russia is weak, NATO doesn’t have to spend money on tools, and there is even no reason to exist.

To overcome his equally wonderful paradox, Rut felt obliged to evoke a future where Russia could become powerful. “We know Russia is exploring the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons in space.” Does the word “capacity” have the same meaning, or does it have any meaning when Russia “may become powerful”?

In short, the word “ability” is a clumsy fool, which will undoubtedly be cherished, as Lewis Carroll pointed out in his conversation with Alice: “When I In a disdainful tone, “that means I choose what it means – neither more nor less.” Russia’s true ability is weak for Rutte, but the imagination of the future may be worrying.

History

NATO was born 75 years ago after World War II. Whether or not its historical reasons are clearly understood, its creation responds to two perceived goals. The first is to provide a structure that could prevent European countries from acting irresponsibly, which led to two devastating world wars. If Europe’s more powerful countries could unite militarily and take orders from the most powerful nations across the Atlantic, they would find it difficult to fight between themselves.

The second reason is both ideology and finance. This is fear and disgust of communism. This became an obsessive theme sent out by the United States and the United Kingdom. In an important aspect, it proved to be the dominant culture of the Anglo-Saxons in the national concert: the consciousness of identity driven by the governing elite is more important than their economic ideology and cultural, religious and linguistic traditions. Their leaders suspect the vulnerability of their hypercompetitive ideology that may alienate obedient castes, including the middle class. They were permanently worried about the attack on an undefined but fully functional system called capitalism, whose architectural and operating manuals were designed and refined from the experience of four centuries of European colonialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pugpztdbzvc

The obvious source of this attack would be their wartime allies, the Soviet Union, whose official ideology challenged the legitimacy of capitalism and colonialism. Instead of studying some kind of stable relationship based on mutual respect, Western victors chose the position of the direct ideological opposition composed of military postures. Things may vary, especially in Europe. But because it is inevitable that the view of inequality and inequality within the nominal democratic regime is viewed as always vulnerable to their ideology. The Soviet Union was an ideal enemy and it made sense to organize it in a military manner.

NATO is not only a military alliance. It also plays three other important roles. Most importantly, it is the hall of arms industry, with the U.S. industry in a dominant and unified or standardized position. The key concept here is interoperability. The second is that NATO provides a sense of geographical identity to its member states, whose stretching power has greater stretching power than European borders, which is the source of so many historical conflicts in history. Therefore, NATO defines an illusory space that people feel safely occupy.

NATO’s third non-military role is purely psychological. Due to the shared military order, this is related to the feeling of the body interconnected by the member states. This helps to reduce the impact of their visible cultural diversity and to cope with the natural centrifugal force of linguistic and cultural differences. Thanks to its technology and supranational organization, NATO allows Europeans to believe that their collective influence is a geopolitical force.

NATO’s role as the hall reflects and supports the financial superstructure of the Western Union. It directly responds to the desire not to defend its member states, but to defend the financial system that underpins it. It can be reasonably opposed that NATO’s cultural and psychological strength is fundamentally psychological, which is a belief in the muscle strength of the country. It fails to prove that its power in the Ukrainian war emphasizes this. But even if these abilities exist only in theory, people’s belief in a person’s “capacity” has become a fundamental necessity for capitalist countries to compete for the world.

* (In the time of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of ironic definitions, ironic definitions of common terms, illuminating their hidden meaning in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published it as a book and used it as a book, and he mastered his depliment in 1911, and in the continuous effort, his title was ongoing, his title was shame, and his title was ongoing effort. Fair Observer Devil Dictionary)

Lee Thompson-Kolar Edited this. )

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of fair observers.