The conflict in Ukraine is depressing and sickening—and could have been avoided. But I ultimately think it is a positive and necessary development for European civilization and consciousness.
We are returning to the 20th century, to a divided world (probably a trifurcated, instead of a bifurcated one). The 30-year period of true globalism—"The End of History," Unipolar Moment"—is over. It was America's time, when it projected itself across the globe, and it is over.
The difference between the new 20th century and the old is that the three sides (U.S./EU/NATO; Russia; and China) have been evacuated of ideology.
The Soviet Union (for better and for worse) was in the hopes and dreams of intellectuals around the world: a grand vision of progress and futurism. The new Russian sphere will be attractive to no one.
Putin looks the part of a Great White Leaders—and, to his credit, he is actively seeking to enter the stage of Russian, and world, history, alongside Peter. But he's just a gangster; and Russia's "traditionalism" is mostly a function of poverty, alcoholism, and backwardness.
Ideologies like "Eurasianism" are vague, fantasy-projections onto a petrol-state. There are many good reasons to hate America and Western liberalism, but an ideology cannot be born simply out of resentment and an embrace of being left behind.
Right-wingers going gaga over Russia are simply powerlessly lashing out at the world (again, perhaps with good reason, but without any vision of a future or any will or ability to enact it).
America and the West were once attractive to higher minds; so much of that has been lost due to the stupidity and hypocrisy of Washington's Middle East boondoggles and, more recently, its unbearable "woke" ideology.
But "wokeness" is obviously a symptom of too much luxury—of not having a real enemy in the globalist era and turning on one's self.
What Putin has accomplished by his action is a making clear of what was once ambiguous, a consolidation of the Russian sphere. He has, perhaps unwittingly, revived the original purpose of the NATO alliance and reestablished "The West" as an identitarian and fighting bloc.
We can laugh at the silliness of the "Woke Empire"—with quite a bit of justification. But we should remember that the "woke" are the ones in charge of armies and institutions; they are the ones with nuclear weapons; they are the ones who must face this moment.
The reality of the situation—facing off against Russia—and the cunning of reason will force the West to move off its "woke" fantasies and self-destructive path and define itself as an identitarian and fighting bloc.
There's nothing like enmity, violence, and danger to sharpen the mind and redefine consciousness. In embracing Russia, the populist Right (already waning and descending into stupidity) is simply lashing out at the powerful and the one's tasked with making decisions.
The "woke," on the other hand, will be forced into an existential dilemma; either pursue their self-reconstructive agenda to its finale or redefine themselves in terms of territory and power. I have hope.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There’s a funny rhyming or symmetry to Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine and America’s 2003 Iraq debacle.
Both Moscow and Washington justified war as “liberation,” “protecting minorities,” and even “de-Nazification.” The Donbas region, supporting anti-Saddam liberals, the Azov battalion, and sending Iraqi girls to college can all be mixed and matched.
Both invasions also started out with spectacular “shock and awe” campaigns. In 2003, many analysts warned of Iraq’s military’s prowess, not to mention WMDs. Last night, I was amazed at the speed of the Ukrainian military’s collapse, barely putting up a fight.
Putin has already sent forces of some kind into the break-away regions. A full invasion of the country, including Kyiv, is more that possible. I’d say it’s probable, and I’ve been saying this for a while. The reasoning behind my assessment is the basic structure of the conflict.
Returning Ukraine to the Russian sphere—the long-term Russian empire, which stretches back further than the USSR—means quite a bit to Moscow, and, apparently, Putin in particular. It means more to Moscow than the option of Ukraine entering NATO does to Washington.
Biden might change his tune (as Macron seemed to suggest…), but he told the world in clear language that Washington will not send ground troops into Ukraine. It follows—or I hope it follows—that catastrophic retaliation, like aerial bombing or nukes, is off the table.
Returning Ukraine to the Russian sphere is far more important to Moscow than bringing Ukraine into NATO is to Washington—which is why Biden explicitly said he won’t send in troops. Putin, however, *is* willing to invade.
The pro-Russia (“anti-imperialist”) Left has offered some of the dumbest analysis of this conflict. In some ways, it would be worse if they’re *not* getting paid to spread falsehoods. It’s worse if they actually believe this nonsense.
Perhaps the oddest thing about the Whoopi Goldberg controversy is the actress’s choice of stage names—“Goldberg.” To make matters even odder, Whoopi—born Caryn Johnson—truly believes that she has Jewish heritage.
According to Whoopi: “My mother did not name me Whoopi, but Goldberg is my name, it's part of my family, part of my heritage. Just like being black."
The article mentions a less charitable theory: Whoopi chose the name as a way of getting a leg up in Hollywood and Broadway, as many Jews are successful king-makers in the entertainment industry. For what it’s worth, her star turn came in Steven Spielberg’s *The Color Purple.*
A typically stupid statement by Scott Adams. PF would never be able prove they’re *not* feds to his satisfaction; any evidence to the contrary would be spun by this loon as part an even deeper conspiracy.
That said, reactions like this, which are widespread, seem to reveal something important about where Alt-Right activism and “optics” have ended up in 2022.
PF is attending a mainstream pro-life rally while wearing masks—surrounded by people showing their faces. They carry shields, even though Antifa isn’t attacking anyone. They’re uninvited guests, or a protection squad that the organizers don’t need or want.
There is no evidence, and no reason to believe, that Patriot Front are "feds," in the sense that they are government agents on a mission to "make conservatives look bad," provoke another J6, or whatever it is they're being accused of.
Conservatives making the "fed accusation" are acting in bad faith, and I bristle at this, as someone who's been called a "fed" by various right-wing figures, with no evidence offered or required.
Whatever your opinion might be of Patriot Front—mine is mixed and ambivalent—there is no question that they demonstrated organizational ability and group discipline and cohesion in what was, on the whole, a successful event.