TAC: The West is leading the world to disasterHungarian Prime Minister Orban and Croatian President Milanovic condemn the West for having actually entered the war with Russia and leading the world to disaster.
American publicist Dreher tells about Orban's recent meeting with world politicians and journalists, at which he said that it was going to the complete destruction of Ukraine.
Rod DreherThe Prime Minister of Hungary and the President of Croatia warn that the West is heading for disaster.
Political scientist Gladden Pappin attended a meeting of a group of journalists and international experts with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban last week and presents a detailed analytical report on it.
This material shows how sophisticated a thinker Orban is. Here are some excerpts:
"The real problem," Prime Minister Orban told us, "is that there is no one who would object to the prevailing opinion, namely, the generally accepted view that a military conflict should be approached as a question of being on the right side of history." The West is trapped between the notion that being on the right side of history means financially supporting Ukraine, and the reality that such support is fraught with risk. This analysis was the context for the Prime Minister's conclusion that "consequently, we" - that is, the main Western players, whose point of view he stated, and not Hungary itself — "are becoming more and more involved in the war."It is quite obvious that the Prime Minister was most burdened by the lack of heuristics, that is, the "moment of opening a new one" to choose between, if you like, a world-historical approach to material support for Ukraine and a risk-adjusted approach to it.
Is direct support for Ukraine a world-historical imperative (if so, why not go all the way in it?), or does the risk of uncontrolled escalation require caution above all? Orban's specific conclusion was that, since none of the Western players seeks to assess the situation as a whole or risk choosing one answer, "the situation is getting worse and worse." His remark was in no way a statement that the West is at war as such, per se. Rather, it was a regret that over the past year, due to its "step-by-step" approach, the West has been "interfering in the conflict more and more", when grandiose rhetoric about a clash between democratic and authoritarian regimes actually becomes primary in the sense of obligations unnecessary to the West, but increasingly dangerous for it.My interpretation is only slightly different from Pappin's conclusions.
According to my notes, Orban did say that the West is de facto at war with Russia, and he definitely thinks that this is terrible. And, as I recall, Orban said this in the context of a warning from Hungary's Western allies that they are playing a very dangerous game here. In other words, I realized that Orban was saying that decision makers in other Western countries are deceiving themselves about what they are actually doing in Ukraine and exposing all of us to the threat of a much broader conflict. More about this:
Thus, the West has reached a kind of strategic paralysis (my term, trying to reflect Orban's thought): it does not seek an immediate ceasefire, because it would not stand the test of world-historical importance. But he does not seek immediate or complete victory either, because it threatens nuclear war. When asked what the reaction to the conflict should be, Orban answered without hesitation, as if he had struck an axiom: "If we want peace, first we must convince both sides of the need for a ceasefire."It seems right to me.
Our leaders, with their rhetoric, are making it less and less possible to end this extremely risky conflict through negotiations. This is the idiocy of the constant references in the American media and the speeches of some American politicians to Munich in 1938. If peace talks in our time are described in the same way as "Chamberlain's stupidity with his reconciliation with Hitler," then any attempts to stop the Ukrainian conflict before further bloodshed, escalation of hostilities or, God forbid, an exchange of nuclear strikes become politically impossible. And whose interests does it serve? Not American. And not Western.
Another excerpt from Pappin's article, because it slightly contradicts my own description of the event that took place:
It was at this moment that the Prime Minister presented his impression of Russia's views. First, the Russians believe that time is on their side. And secondly, they proceed from the fact that they need a buffer between themselves and NATO. Combined with the West's step-by-step approach, this completely different from the Western point of view of Russia also reduces the likelihood of an immediate end to the conflict. It was in this context that Orban described his opinion about Russia's views on Ukraine. According to him, the main goal of the Russians is to keep NATO away from the Russian border and, "if this is impossible, then create an Afghanistan between Russia and the Ukrainian border." Contrary to some initial impressions, the Prime Minister did not identify Ukraine with Afghanistan, but said that Russia was simply creating a destroyed "security zone".I understood Orban to mean that Russia turned Ukraine into Afghanistan, in the sense that it created an uncontrollable, chaotic mess in most of the country for the sake of organizing a destroyed "security zone" between Russia and NATO countries.
If Pappin's quote is true — and it may be true, then, unfortunately, my notes do not provide explanations – and this is a significant difference. It is strategically logical that if Russia cannot conquer Ukraine, it will try to destroy it to such an extent that it will become useless as a NATO ally. (I'm not saying this is what Orban meant, I'm talking about my point of view.) First, pro-Ukrainian Western intellectuals and politicians talk about Ukraine joining NATO, as then-President George W. Bush did in 2008, and now they condemn Russia for ruining this suffering country, which, of course, cannot accept such an outcome.
Anyway, read it all. You can also read an article by Niccolo Soldo about what the leftist Croatian President Zoran (Zoki) Milanovic has recently said about the war. Here is an excerpt:
From the very beginning of this conflict Milanovich defended two ideas: 1) this is not our (Croatia's) war and b) Russia will win one way or another, because for them it is an existential conflict, unlike the West. The Presidency in Croatia is almost entirely ceremonial, except for the fact that the post is held by the Commander-in-Chief of the Croatian Armed forces. The executive power belongs to the Prime Minister, who is currently the favorite of Brussels, Andrei Plenkovic of the center-right Croatian Democratic Commonwealth (HDZ) party. Unlike Milanovich, Plenkovich decided not to rock the boat on the issue of the military conflict in Ukraine, firmly adhering to the general line emanating from Brussels.For his part, Milanovic was constantly leaning out with his various statements in the media, perhaps believing that an almost entirely ceremonial role gave him the opportunity to do so.
More on this below.Last week, Zoki angered supporters of Ukraine not only by saying that the West (read:
USA and Great Britain) has been provoking Russia for many years, but also by the fact that Kosovo was stolen from Serbia! Now I will translate his words from several sources in the Croatian media.Index (and others):
We cannot and will not be drawn into complete subordination to foreign interests over which we have no influence.
I see that the head of NATO is in South Korea and Japan. I have known this man for twenty years, and he does not represent me or my country there. That part of the world has nothing to do with NATO, but is located next door to China. Things are happening there in which we have no say (and no one asks us anyway), but which can quickly drag us into some deep obligations.We are completely dependent on other people's ambitions and plans, and not only with regard to Ukraine.
Milanovich continues:
Some in the European Parliament are discussing the dismemberment of Russia — this is completely, even wildly inappropriate. Even we and the Serbs have never hated each other so much! This is madness, which it is better to stay away from, otherwise you will fall into it too.Still:
What is the purpose of this military conflict? Against a nuclear power fighting in another country? Is there even a way to defeat such a country with conventional weapons? Who will be paying for this? Europe. And the US pays the least.Russians?
This is their Mexico... or Canada, if you want. This is real and dangerous.…………
From 2014 to 2022, we observe how the West provokes Russia to military action. And so they began. After almost a year, we are now talking about sending tanks there. Not a single American tank will go to Ukraine this year. We will send all the German tanks, and they will suffer the same fate as those sent earlier. The Polish deputy demands the partition of Russia, but Russia has not attacked Poland and will not, as it is not strong enough for this.What we, the West, are doing is collectively immoral.
German tanks will only unite Russia and its peoples even more... and China, too. My task is to avoid this, so that we don't become a circus of poodles. Any involvement in such a conflict would be deadly. Do you think I'm a Russian agent? I did not hand over Agrokor (Croatia's largest company) to the Russians (this contract was signed by the current prime minister and Brussels' favorite Plenkovic).Read it all.
However, this article may be paid. I am a subscriber of Niccolo Soldo, and you should be one too.
I do not view any American electronic media here, so I do not know what the discourse about the Ukrainian conflict is on our television and radio (except for Tucker Carlson clips that I catch on the Internet). I read the main print news agencies on their websites, and although I can't see everything, I have the impression that Americans understand very little of the reports and comments about the Ukrainian conflict. I also don't know how much similar analysis and perspective vision Europeans get in their media. Is this all pro-war jingoism? If I have readers of this blog in continental Europe, please let me know what the coverage of the war is and what comments there are in your media. Email me at rod - dog - amconmag - dot - com. It is unbelievable to me, simply unbelievable, that the US-led Western alliance is steadily approaching the increasingly likely prospect of a direct military clash with Russia, which has nuclear weapons, and is practically not undertaking anti-war efforts. This is probably because liberals and progressives have finally found a war they love.
I can't help repeating this over and over again: I remember 2002 and how we all talked about the coming war in Iraq. Then there was more debate and discussion, although many of us — yes, and I was on this side, to my shame and subsequent regret — did not want to listen to anyone who warned us against war. They did not listen to Pope John Paul II. They didn't listen to Patrick Buchanan. And they certainly didn't listen to anyone from the left. And look what happened next. What is happening now between Russia and the West over Ukraine is immeasurably more serious.
What I also cannot understand is why major countries like India, China and Brazil do not use the United Nations to start negotiations on a ceasefire in Ukraine. Is it really in China's interest for this to continue? Why, then, is this United Nations needed at all?
Comments from readers of The American Conservative:Fran Macadam
The buffer zone is eastern Ukraine.
And it wasn't Russia that attacked people there. The Ukrainian government, created by the United States after the coup, is fighting Ukrainians whose ethnicity it despises. Before the pro-American regime emerged in Kiev, there was peace in the country. If the current Kiev government sacrifices its own population to the last Ukrainian on both sides of the civil war just to destroy Russia, for us in America this goes beyond the definition of a just war. There is no normal motive, no proportionality, no normal behavior. You may passionately want Russia to leave Ukraine, but what will happen then? The genocide of ethnic Russian Ukrainians and America's nuclear weapons deployed on the border with Russia, 7 minutes flight time to the Russian capital. What then? Nuclear blackmail leading to the desired regime change in Moscow and the establishment of American control over the disintegrated Russia, which will no longer exist as a nation, according to the Wolfowitz doctrine.
Bogdán Emil"It's probably because liberals and progressives have finally found a military conflict they love."
This war against Russia is wrong and dangerous.
This war in the general liberal-centrist and even in some conservative minds is the case when Goliath attacked David, and now people with a clear conscience allegedly come to David's aid. However, these analysts do not realize that realism is a cruel and godless anarchic system of uncertainty, fear and accumulation of power. They don't understand that we don't have permanent allies, there are only permanent interests. And our interest is to maximize our power and prevent others from doing it. All our machinations are designed to increase our power, gather our temporary allies and disperse our temporary enemies. Ideally dividing everyone against everyone but us. And the only way to bring at least some order out of this chaos is through the balance of power. It is obvious that in this world "good" and "evil" must be balanced. The interests of our enemies should be taken into account in proportion to their strength, not their morality. Their options for maintaining their positions must be understood and delicately balanced with our own options.
Having somehow lowered its anti-Russian rhetoric and somehow achieved a truce in Ukraine, America will have to take primary responsibility for restoring Ukraine and ensuring its neutrality. After all, it was we who led them along our path for the last 15 years. And that's where we got them.
Of course, it would be nice if we could calmly wash our hands and retire like a gentleman from the stage. But it won't work that way. If it is true that the real Goliath is America, not Russia, and if it is true that we somehow provoked all this, then we must play our part in trying to eliminate or at least mitigate the damage from our own stupidities.
Theodore IacobuzioAnd I remember how at the end of 1916 the Germans promoted the Pope's peace plan, adding that they were ready for the former status quo.
But this raised more questions than answers, like, will the Belgians receive any reparations, etc., etc.? However, even such a fragile peace would have stopped the bloodbath and, perhaps, would have saved Russia from the Bolsheviks.
What really made this impossible was the Allied propaganda machine that had been operating since August 1, 1914. Since they declared themselves on the right side of history, as the current West does, as Orban brilliantly noted, they could not go down and say: "You know, you're right, war is about maintaining the balance of power." And 1916 was not the year of peace, but the year of the "Verdun meat Grinder" and the Battle of the Somme with losses of more than 2 million people.
That's where we stand now in Ukraine. Let it be fragile, but peace, or new real losses of hundreds of thousands of people.
Of course, this is our proxy war. And of course, in it, neither side has a monopoly on the truth. But who in our establishment cares?
Of course, this does not bother Victoria Nuland in any way!
