This fragment caused me some confusion: "...yet the stranglehold of US propaganda is almost immutable, not least among the working class." Is this referring to the working class in Europe? the US? Asia? I don't know the basis for this claim. In the US, the stranglehold is definitely not "immutable," and is deteriorating daily. The propaganda claims are so ludicrous on all fronts -- Covid, Ukraine, Palestine, the economy, etc. -- that it is hard to find anyone outside the managerial class who accepts any of it. Our overlords have overplayed their hands. They want to characterize (in the US) all opposition as "right wing," but that's not even close to accurate. So now we are moving on to overt repression - police/FBI violence, tighter surveillance, economic warfare. That is unlikely to go well for the overlords.
Yeah, that's my own pessimistic & Ellulian interpretation of the situation, but I think you're right, and I think I'm almost veering into defeatism there.
What I see here is rather the significant hold of legacy propaganda's basic and deep framework, the worldview/weltanschauung aspects of the core narratives, which seem intact even if there's quite a bit of dissent among the natives. There's also propaganda's detrimental effects on the capacities for critical thinking working in concert with the influence of technology and mass culture that I sort of throw in the mix here.
The middle class is probably most affected, but I do catch a lot of flak from friends and acquaintances among the proles if I so much as breathe a word against the purity of Ukraine's holy mission, so that's probably where this comes from. :)
I often drift into the same pessimistic interpretation, and I do not mean to minimize the impact of propaganda. (Ask almost anyone who destroyed the World Trade Center in 2001 and you tend to get "terrorists" or whatever as a response.) But in the U.S. at least, the deep working class distrust/disgust for the political elites and their media lapdogs is everywhere present. We may still lose this fight, but there is a fight going on.
Raising the stakes indeed. I argued that Europe's natives were restless, possibly moving towards renegotiating the stance towards the NATO operation and the Ukraine situation, and then this happens.
Our propaganda machine will immediately run with it and blame it on Russia, in spite of them just having to flip a switch and achieve the same result, and in spite of them actually needing European energy markets.
Guess who don't need the Russian Federation's market share?
So, USA must "break Russia and wrest control" of its energy!~ At least that would be a goal, albeit impossible, for this Administration's proxy dance with disaster and a more persuasive rationale than its stated objective of making Ukraine safe for democracy. If we really need their oil b/c Enviro-Whackos forbid USA to develop its own, wouldn't it be easier to take it from Venezueala and Iran rather than trying to wrest it from Russia, since Venezuela and Iran lack nuclear warheads (althought Biden's trying to fix that), vast natural resorces, the economic capacity to cripple western Europe, the military capacity to prevent US invasion and occupation, and the historically-demonstrated will to sacrifice tens of millions of its citizens in defense of its homeland? And only a fool (lots of those running this proxy war) would think that Russia would lose the Donbas and Crimea, allow USA to nuclear weaponize Ukraine, and take Russia's oil and gas, without Russia using its nuclear arsenal, which thanks to Obama greatly exceeds USA's. And why would China, which needs Russian energy more than USA, watch all that happen without defending Russia and bleeding USA much more than at present?
Well, Venezuela's oil is not light sweet crude, it's heavy, viscous stuff that needs extensive treatment along the line of shale. Moreover, it's off-shore. In other words, the EROI of Venezuelan assets is rather low even if the reserves are huge, and that's probably the main reason they peaked back in the late 90s.
Russia, the Arctic, and the Caspian region contain some of the last relatively undeveloped reserves of light sweet crude with very high EROI.
Exactly. It’s so easy to break Russia. If it’s not done yet, just keep trying harderrrr! Just a little more try, and it will all come collapsing down. Just a little more…
If you go to the Saker as an example you do not see them discussing this as an energy war per se, though they do discuss the changes in the economics and politics. I think keeping the energy war aspect on the front burner as Europe freezes this winter due to their sanctions is important. Especially as the tactical nuclear option comes into play.
I agree completely. The energy aspects of the situation are rarely mentioned at all, which I think sends people scrambling for more or less implausible explanations.
Isn’t “the west’s” bid for full spectrum global dominance (no rivals, no independent states) a common enough explanation among reasonable analysts and from the horse’s mouth itself?
By the way, given that China operates an exceptionally large industrial economy on fuel largely imported from Russia, why is Europe unable to do the same? (See above)
In that context it’s easy to see they drank their own kool-aid and convinced themselves Russia would collapse like a house of cards after their mother of all sanctions.
The west’s objective (full spectrum dominance) is out of reach as it should be, the dream of psychotics.
And history’s back. The military industrial technological gap, between Russia and those who’d break it, is greater today than ever before. The west holds no cards. Only delusions.
Sure! I wouldn't discount that set of explanations, and I think they're even more reasonable in light of the energy issues. Given those, the push towards "full spectrum dominance" gets a very clear rationale.
Europe has to cut its energy supply and replace it with American energy platforms and don’t worry… “Russia will run out of cash before Europe runs out of energy” (C. Rice)
—Connect the dots
US plan was always to stop EU buying Russia's gas
*Jan 2022 Victoria Nuland :
If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.
*Feb 2022 Biden: "If Russia invades, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
Reporter: "But how will you do that exactly, since the project is in Germany's control?"
Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."
*2014
Rice:"You want to change the structure of energy dependence. You want to depend more on the North America energy platform ... to have pipelines that don't go through Ukraine & Russia"
*1997 Biden
Biden in 1997 saying that the only thing that could provoke a "vigorous and hostile" Russian response would be if NATO expanded as far as the Baltic states
I'm not exactly sure what's being suggested here. I see coal liquefaction and thorium reactors, but I'm not certain how they're meant to synergize. Will have to give it a more focused read-through in the morning. :)
I would not discount that these types of solutions can play a significant role in preserving certain aspects of industrial civilization, however, but there's always these supply chain issues and their EROI aspects.
Friedemann has written a few acerbic pieces on thorium which may be interesting to you as well:
Thanks, good link. The main benefit of thorium in Denninger's idea is that (assuming it can be extracted appropriately) it would be readily available as a byproduct of coal usage. I wasn't aware of the need for neutrons for thorium reactors, that's a downside for sure; and it would certainly take time to develop/build out thorium infrastructure.
Ha ha, what is the difference of this geopolitical considerations from the geopolitical views of the globalists? Is it analysis of the RF aggression in Ukraine without a word about Ukraine as the key player in this situation? Has Ukraine its own goals, his own say or only geopolitical views are taken into account? All boarder states are grouped as a kind of proxies. Is Sweden a proxy of US or RF, as it also has proximity to RF via water? Is Sweden more likely a proxy of US? Arn’t these also globalist views but in an opposite direction, i.e. according to the Hegelian thesis, antithesis and synthesis..
Most likely occurrence? Right. That sort of disconnect from reality in the administrative classes is really disconcerting.
Fewer surprises indeed. Impossible to make sense of these developments if one has no insight in the energy situation. And I guess this connects with both climate change/transition to renewables narratives as well as people's ready acceptance of outlandish explanations of political processes.
This fragment caused me some confusion: "...yet the stranglehold of US propaganda is almost immutable, not least among the working class." Is this referring to the working class in Europe? the US? Asia? I don't know the basis for this claim. In the US, the stranglehold is definitely not "immutable," and is deteriorating daily. The propaganda claims are so ludicrous on all fronts -- Covid, Ukraine, Palestine, the economy, etc. -- that it is hard to find anyone outside the managerial class who accepts any of it. Our overlords have overplayed their hands. They want to characterize (in the US) all opposition as "right wing," but that's not even close to accurate. So now we are moving on to overt repression - police/FBI violence, tighter surveillance, economic warfare. That is unlikely to go well for the overlords.
Yeah, that's my own pessimistic & Ellulian interpretation of the situation, but I think you're right, and I think I'm almost veering into defeatism there.
What I see here is rather the significant hold of legacy propaganda's basic and deep framework, the worldview/weltanschauung aspects of the core narratives, which seem intact even if there's quite a bit of dissent among the natives. There's also propaganda's detrimental effects on the capacities for critical thinking working in concert with the influence of technology and mass culture that I sort of throw in the mix here.
The middle class is probably most affected, but I do catch a lot of flak from friends and acquaintances among the proles if I so much as breathe a word against the purity of Ukraine's holy mission, so that's probably where this comes from. :)
I often drift into the same pessimistic interpretation, and I do not mean to minimize the impact of propaganda. (Ask almost anyone who destroyed the World Trade Center in 2001 and you tend to get "terrorists" or whatever as a response.) But in the U.S. at least, the deep working class distrust/disgust for the political elites and their media lapdogs is everywhere present. We may still lose this fight, but there is a fight going on.
And guess who blows up Nord Stream 1 & 2?
Raising the stakes indeed. I argued that Europe's natives were restless, possibly moving towards renegotiating the stance towards the NATO operation and the Ukraine situation, and then this happens.
Our propaganda machine will immediately run with it and blame it on Russia, in spite of them just having to flip a switch and achieve the same result, and in spite of them actually needing European energy markets.
Guess who don't need the Russian Federation's market share?
So, USA must "break Russia and wrest control" of its energy!~ At least that would be a goal, albeit impossible, for this Administration's proxy dance with disaster and a more persuasive rationale than its stated objective of making Ukraine safe for democracy. If we really need their oil b/c Enviro-Whackos forbid USA to develop its own, wouldn't it be easier to take it from Venezueala and Iran rather than trying to wrest it from Russia, since Venezuela and Iran lack nuclear warheads (althought Biden's trying to fix that), vast natural resorces, the economic capacity to cripple western Europe, the military capacity to prevent US invasion and occupation, and the historically-demonstrated will to sacrifice tens of millions of its citizens in defense of its homeland? And only a fool (lots of those running this proxy war) would think that Russia would lose the Donbas and Crimea, allow USA to nuclear weaponize Ukraine, and take Russia's oil and gas, without Russia using its nuclear arsenal, which thanks to Obama greatly exceeds USA's. And why would China, which needs Russian energy more than USA, watch all that happen without defending Russia and bleeding USA much more than at present?
Well, Venezuela's oil is not light sweet crude, it's heavy, viscous stuff that needs extensive treatment along the line of shale. Moreover, it's off-shore. In other words, the EROI of Venezuelan assets is rather low even if the reserves are huge, and that's probably the main reason they peaked back in the late 90s.
Russia, the Arctic, and the Caspian region contain some of the last relatively undeveloped reserves of light sweet crude with very high EROI.
This is a good bit on mainly Venezuela by Nafeez Ahmed:
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/venezuelas-collapse-is-a-window-into-how-the-oil-age-will-unravel-f80aadff7786
"The West literally needs to break Russia and wrest control of the resources under its hegemony."
Well if there's one thing I know about Russians, it's that they're pliable and easily conquered.
Exactly. It’s so easy to break Russia. If it’s not done yet, just keep trying harderrrr! Just a little more try, and it will all come collapsing down. Just a little more…
Great essay.
Thanks man. Little new I thought, but maybe there are connections in this wall of text I'm missing.
If you go to the Saker as an example you do not see them discussing this as an energy war per se, though they do discuss the changes in the economics and politics. I think keeping the energy war aspect on the front burner as Europe freezes this winter due to their sanctions is important. Especially as the tactical nuclear option comes into play.
I agree completely. The energy aspects of the situation are rarely mentioned at all, which I think sends people scrambling for more or less implausible explanations.
Isn’t “the west’s” bid for full spectrum global dominance (no rivals, no independent states) a common enough explanation among reasonable analysts and from the horse’s mouth itself?
By the way, given that China operates an exceptionally large industrial economy on fuel largely imported from Russia, why is Europe unable to do the same? (See above)
A useful view here on the uselessness of intel agency analysis in the US (ditto UK etc.) https://sonar21.com/understanding-why-current-cia-analysis-generally-is-useless/
In that context it’s easy to see they drank their own kool-aid and convinced themselves Russia would collapse like a house of cards after their mother of all sanctions.
The west’s objective (full spectrum dominance) is out of reach as it should be, the dream of psychotics.
And history’s back. The military industrial technological gap, between Russia and those who’d break it, is greater today than ever before. The west holds no cards. Only delusions.
Sure! I wouldn't discount that set of explanations, and I think they're even more reasonable in light of the energy issues. Given those, the push towards "full spectrum dominance" gets a very clear rationale.
Hey yesterday was so “interesting”. Now here’s video from May 2014, useful for anyone who wonders what’s going on.
Rest assured now. Condoleeza Rice, Bush, Biden, Obama et al had it all figured out back then, and still do:
https://youtu.be/aF0uYIjaTNE
Europe has to cut its energy supply and replace it with American energy platforms and don’t worry… “Russia will run out of cash before Europe runs out of energy” (C. Rice)
—Connect the dots
US plan was always to stop EU buying Russia's gas
*Jan 2022 Victoria Nuland :
If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.
*Feb 2022 Biden: "If Russia invades, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
Reporter: "But how will you do that exactly, since the project is in Germany's control?"
Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."
*2014
Rice:"You want to change the structure of energy dependence. You want to depend more on the North America energy platform ... to have pipelines that don't go through Ukraine & Russia"
*1997 Biden
Biden in 1997 saying that the only thing that could provoke a "vigorous and hostile" Russian response would be if NATO expanded as far as the Baltic states
What do you think of this solution? https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2491667
I'm not exactly sure what's being suggested here. I see coal liquefaction and thorium reactors, but I'm not certain how they're meant to synergize. Will have to give it a more focused read-through in the morning. :)
I would not discount that these types of solutions can play a significant role in preserving certain aspects of industrial civilization, however, but there's always these supply chain issues and their EROI aspects.
Friedemann has written a few acerbic pieces on thorium which may be interesting to you as well:
https://energyskeptic.com/2014/thorium-not-a-near-term-commercial-nuclear-fuel/
Thanks, good link. The main benefit of thorium in Denninger's idea is that (assuming it can be extracted appropriately) it would be readily available as a byproduct of coal usage. I wasn't aware of the need for neutrons for thorium reactors, that's a downside for sure; and it would certainly take time to develop/build out thorium infrastructure.
The best energy source would be fusion, be nice if Helion was real: https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/05/helion-series-e/
Ha ha, what is the difference of this geopolitical considerations from the geopolitical views of the globalists? Is it analysis of the RF aggression in Ukraine without a word about Ukraine as the key player in this situation? Has Ukraine its own goals, his own say or only geopolitical views are taken into account? All boarder states are grouped as a kind of proxies. Is Sweden a proxy of US or RF, as it also has proximity to RF via water? Is Sweden more likely a proxy of US? Arn’t these also globalist views but in an opposite direction, i.e. according to the Hegelian thesis, antithesis and synthesis..
Most likely occurrence? Right. That sort of disconnect from reality in the administrative classes is really disconcerting.
Fewer surprises indeed. Impossible to make sense of these developments if one has no insight in the energy situation. And I guess this connects with both climate change/transition to renewables narratives as well as people's ready acceptance of outlandish explanations of political processes.