I honestly don't think this is true, but it sure is fun!

💢 XF: Naturally there are concerns that the collective west can stay in this conflict game with Russia indefinitely. The real concern is that the US is railroading Europe into collapse, and not by virtue of error but rather by plan.

Fortunately, these concerns are based on big misunderstandings about what's going on in the West.

Europe can't print tanks and ammo, Europe's financial sector is overly tied up with the American, and this in turn is driven by a monetary policy which is incompatible with large scale investment into the means of destruction, especially in such case where such investment cannot ever 'pay off'. This is because Russia has already made it clear that if they are existentially threatened, they will use nukes. They have no illusion that this will provoke a full response and exchange and that it will be the end of human civilization 'and we go to heaven as martyrs, and that is all' to paraphrase Putin.

The markets in the US and Europe today are driven by debt, which in turn has behind it a certain monetary policy (in reality, theory aside) that is based on cost externalization and financialization of existing physical assets without building or creating new ones. This is in part due to larger overarching problems such as the inherent deflation/disinflationary trajectory of implemented labor saving new technologies. The definition of economic development is also part of the definition of the law of diminishing returns in the fullest sense.

So in terms of the military-industrial complex in Europe - this can be funded for a short time by debt and borrowing within something close enough to the present schema. But this would be Europe owing to the US.

But for a short time, this can be attractive if it causes Europe to wear itself down further against Russia.

So the US arming Europe, especially if this is either through financial dependence from loans in the German (for example) MIC producing more Leopards, or through other European countries replacing equipment they donated or sold with new American orders, will place Europe further into debt and the cause of further austerity within Europe. This will cause 'bigger than France' like blowback in lots of Western Europe. The definition of blowback though includes that it could be seen coming. Which means, if you're seeing it, it's part of the plan.

This is the Anglo-US against Europe. 'Russia' is just the reason that Europe weakens itself further, and the Anglo-US can come in and reassert control over whatever parts of Europe it didn't yet control, and Russia can have the Ukraine it was going to have anyhow, but had to pay a high enough price for it across numerous vectors.

Revassalization of the productive sectors in Europe is one of the US goals against Europe.

But also the US does not want Europe to develop an MIC larger in Europe than what it is now to any extent that would it allow it to have an independent policy from the US on matters of war and alliances.

Unless that in turn is a design by the Anglo-Americans to bring harm and cataclysm to Europe, which is far more likely the plot afoot than any serious belief that Russia can be defeated militarily or that Putin is on the edge of being deposed.

Absolutely this cannot go on 'forever' (as in decades), this is a big misconception anyhow. For 'some time', but then the question is 'towards what end', since even this will not change Russia's defensive advantage.

All together then, Europe is the target, Europe is the low hanging fruit - BRICS can be used as part of a two-pronged attack on Europe once idiot European leaders place sanctions on not just China but countries that trade with China.

[cont'd 👇🏽]

Subscribe @NewResistance

💢 XF - pt. II [pt. 1 is above ]-The US and England can back-door themselves into BRICS through the South African minerals and natural resources still controlled by the British and Dutch.

Though not as its controllers, but within the framework of something akin to a more perfect version of say the WTO, or other proposed institutions and features of Bretton-Woods that were previously subverted by the British and never implemented.

But in short, the British did this because they could, and more to the point because they had and have today a philosophy of doing things on the rationale that might makes right .

Mind you, they aren't any the more enlightened now. The world has simply 'grown up' as it were. They just do not have the economic clout that they used to have because other countries have industrialized.

Indeed, the service economies are in some ways cheaper to develop once you have an educated population (a different kind of investment).

The West can transform its economies to focus on industry and production and less dependency on the now 'developed' world, and in many ways it has to because as those developing countries developed, their labor costs went up, and the cost advantages to the historical centers of capital development in the West were lost.

For these reasons and others I have articulated, Europe not Russia is the ultimate target of US aggression in Europe/Eurasia right now.

XF

Subscribe @NewResistance

We are witnessing a series of provocations against Islam. The Koran is being desecrated almost on a daily basis in Sweden and Denmark, causing a wave of mass protests especially in Iran and Iraq, and diplomatic tensions. Cui Prodest? Context: the U.S. is sending more warships and thousands of Marines to the Middle East. @LauraRuHK

Just imagine.