The Ukraine War, the Great Reset, and America's Grand Strategy
A comprehensive outline of geopolitical factors informing current events
A few days ago I recorded a rather longwinded podcast episode that went in-depth exploring numerous geopolitical factors around the current situation in Ukraine. In this article I’m going to offer a written summary of my assessment with some new lines of argumentation factored in. In future articles, I’m going to expand on the outline of material offered here and, in time, I plan to produce a publication that will summarize and synthesize everything together.
Preface: Philosophical Fundamentals
On my podcast, in my written publications, and now on this Substack, I present a perspective on life that is grounded in the worldview of Esoteric Philosophy. I want to point this out at the beginning - before I offer any assessment of current events - because this philosophical worldview emphasizes that behind Earthly affairs is a Divine Plan rooted in Cosmic Law. Nothing that happens here on Earth can ever change this eternal truth.
The challenge for us is to seek to understand how this Divine Plan relates to the ongoing sequence of catastrophes that mankind has been continuously creating for itself over the past several thousand years.
Is the ultimate problem that the Universe is unjust and capricious? Or is it that it is governed by a framework of immutable laws and principles and we continuously fall into catastrophe because we don’t learn its rules or obey its laws? In other words, we live by the mantra “let not Thy will be done but mine”. Could this be the root of our problems?
The philosophical worldview of Esoteric Philosophy expresses a relatively simple set of ideas and principles that we must learn to trust in and stay centered upon. The most important of these First Principles is the idea that all existence is contained within an all-encompassing Unity. This Unity is traditionally called God.
When God enters into a creative state in order to fashion a Universe, it does so by manifesting an orderly sequence of emanations within itself. This creative act represents the emergence of diversity within the underlying context of an eternal unity.
The great philosophical schools of antiquity understood this divine Unity to be equivalent to what we now call “Consciousness”. To them, creation is the result of Consciousness moving in upon itself so that it may create for itself an experience of Self-consciousness. In this pattern of thinking, creation - what we call the Universe - exists as a great temple fashioned for the purpose of creating an immense garden of experience within which an exploration of Self-consciousness can take place.
The great psychologist Stanislav Grof called this process “The Cosmic Game” and notes that what we call “Life” is actually a process of Consciousness inhabiting a world of its own creation in order that it may undergo a sequence of evolving experiences.
This “Cosmic Game” (or as I like to think of it, this “Cosmic Meditation”) is structured and sequenced according to an archetypal pattern that is immutable and unchangeable. This was the essential teachings of Plato (an ambassador of Esoteric teachings) and we would be wise to keep our analysis tethered to his line of reasoning.
I note all of this here at the outset because this basic framework of ideas informs us that there is a Big Picture behind the fumblings and missteps of humanity. In other words, there is a divine, cosmic backdrop against which this current episode in human affairs is taking place. We do not live in a random, meaningless universe; in fact, we are moving from a place, to a place, and in some mysterious fashion this current dramatic episode in human history is part of the unfoldment of a great Divine Plan.
1. Pax Americana
Our story picks up in the early decades of the 20th century, when the centuries-long era of the British Empire gradually phased out and transitioned westward to America, where it would to be reborn as an innovative new breed of global empire.
The old saying once went: “The sun never sets on the British Empire.” This global empire dominated in the centuries preceding the onset of the industrial age.
Its dominance was rooted in the following key features: a) a vast military and state bureaucracy; b) a dominant central bank who generated the world’s reserve currency (the Pound Sterling); c) the first transnational corporations (think: the East India Company) who organized capital and labor in order to extract resources from abroad on behalf of its homeland; d) naval dominance in the policing of the major sea lanes for trade routes; and e) the forward projection of military bases all over the world in order to ensure compliance with the British system among subjugated nations and peoples.
When the American empire emerged after World War II, it would keep these same key features but would add to and advance them. In this way, it would evolve the concept of “empire” to an entirely new level. But there was a key difference between the two: with the British Empire, its peoples knew that they were an imperial force; with the American Empire, the majority of its peoples don’t see themselves as part of an extractive and domineering global force.
In the American model, empire is shrouded in public relations and marketing campaigns to such a degree that Americans have became convinced that they are always the “good guy” making the world safe for democracy and free markets, while vigilantly taking on the “bad guys”, be they communists or terrorists.
A good example of this is with modern day relations between America, Russia, and China: America sees Russia and China as the imperialist forces seeking domination over the sovereign nations in their periphery. Meanwhile, most Americans have little or no self-awareness that their own country has actually been playing the role of the imperialist aggressor to the whole world for a century or more.
Another key difference between the British and American models of empire is that, in the American version, its vassal states are not explicitly labeled or treated as such. Rather, the veneer of national sovereignty and self-determination is promoted in these nations, with America exerting an indirect influence on them via its control of various binding political, economic, and security partnerships.
For example, in the post-WWII, Cold War era, the countries of western Europe were bound together into a security pact called NATO, which America controlled and directed in its pursuit of a larger global grand strategy. Through mechanisms such as this, America is able to project its political, economic, and military influence upon the sovereign nations of world.
Meanwhile, the covert wing of America’s national security state (the “Deep State”) secretly exerts a highly targeted, coercive influence on the domestic politics of nations across the world. This they do in order to ensure that these governments (and their economies) will continue to participate in and support the American-lead global order.
In terms of the US’s own domestic politics, one should note that similar covert political activities ensure that its own politicians play ball according to the rules of the national security state’s larger grand strategy. The assassination of JFK is one very public example of the consequences that arise when our own politicians try to challenge the agenda of this vast and foreboding military-industrial complex.
In America, the two political parties are completely captured by interests who ensure that American empire remains in full effect. In its domestic politics, this imperialistic capture is denoted by the prefix “neo-”, as in “neoliberal” or “neoconservative”. Whether you vote Democrat or Republican, you’re voting for a “neo-”; the neoliberals dominate the Democratic party and the neoconservatives control the Republican party.
These political ideologies are nearly universal among the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington. Those who do not adopt them are simply not elected, hired, or promoted within the system - a dynamic which ensures the perpetuation of imperialistic groupthink within the Washington establishment. (A similar dynamic can be said to exist in Wall Street among the major banking houses who are part of the Federal Reserve system.)
Economic historian Michael Hudson notes that the primary function of the American political establishment is not to represent the voters who elect them into office but rather to deliver those voters to the power elite within the military-industrial-finance complex who fund their campaigns and set the political agendas in Washington.
Hudson observes that the dominant power brokers in American society exist as a coalescence of three main oligarchical groups. Together, these three groups drive the imperialistic grand strategy of American empire.
The Military-Industrial Complex, which includes the policymakers and bureaucrats in the Pentagon, the network of government contractors and consulting firms they partner with, and the major arms manufacturers such as Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed-Martin. This wing of American empire profits from war-making and arms sales.
The Oil, Gas, and Mining Complex. Hudson notes that “the aim of this sector is to maximize the price of energy and raw materials so as to maximize its natural-resource rent”. From the early 1900s, there has been a close relationship between the cartels who dominate the the country’s energy and mining industries, the banks who finance them, and the foreign policy establishment in Washington. Together, this coalescence of interests work to control (and monopolize) the production and trade of oil and other natural resources in world markets.
The Banking and Real Estate Complex. Hudson terms this sector FIRE, as it comprised of a coalition of Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate interests. He notes that it is “the modern finance-capitalist successor to Europe’s old post-feudal landed aristocracy living by land rents”, which is “paid largely to the banking sector in the form of mortgage interest and debt amortization.” He continues: “Domestically, the aim of this sector is to maximize land rent and the ‘capital gains’ resulting from rising land rent. Internationally, the FIRE sector’s aim is to privatize foreign economies (above all to secure the privilege of credit creation in US hands), so as to turn government infrastructure and public utilities into US-controlled, rent-seeking monopolies.” This strategy requires implementing austerity measures on the national economies of the nations it financially captures, which means privatizing and charging maximum prices for basic services such as health care, education, transportation, and communications and information technology.
2. The Role of the Deep State in American Empire
There is an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance between how the vast majority of Americans see America’s relationship with the world and what the truth of that relationship actually is. This is especially true for those working within its vast corporate-state bureaucracy - i.e. the people who responsible for running the vast infrastructure of this global empire.
While it is undoubtedly true that a) American culture has often been a positive source of inspiration for much of the world, b) American innovation has provided the world with many beneficial technologies, and c) America’s promotion of a rules-based order of international institutions has been an important element in the establishment of an interconnected global civilization, it is also true that American foreign and economic policies are responsible for d) widespread environmental destruction, e) social and political destabilization, f) the rise in inequality worldwide and the promotion of a global oligarchical class, and g) the financial impoverishment (and sometimes enslavement) of large swathes of humanity.
Factors d) through g) are the elements of America’s relationship to the world that the majority of Americans are blissfully unaware of. Instead, its media, politicians, and public intellectuals are careful to only highlight elements a) through c).
This collective cognitive dissonance is able to take place for three primary reasons:
There are consensus-forming networks that exist within various public and private branches of American society which work to ensure that only the positive aspects of American policy [elements a) through c)] are considered and promoted in public discourse, while the ugly underbelly of American empire [elements d) through g)] remain silently unacknowledged.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are two examples of this, but in reality there are many such consensus-building networks.
These penetrate the media, academia, and the public educational system so as to completely bias the way that America portrays itself to its own citizens.
Because there is not an open and honest flow of information about the ugly underbelly of America’s activities in the world, the feedback loop of information that is required for sound decision-making is violated.
When only one side of a debate is allowed to be heard, individuals are not able to see the actual consequences of their actions. Consequently, they end up developing an inflated, fantasy-based view of themselves and what they are actually contributing to the world.
In psychology, these dynamics form an ideal scenario for “cognitive dissonance” to set in - a type of psychological splitting where one’s belief about a situation is at odds with the reality of how that situation is continually presented to oneself.
An additional factor that allows the overt aspects of America’s government, corporate, and military bureaucracies to maintain a naive ignorance about the ugly underbelly of its own activities is that a largely unseen and unacknowledged hand doing much of its dirty work. This hidden, hostile, destabilizing force within the American national security state is what political scientists term “The Deep State”.
The Deep State is not so much a single, organized group but rather an entire category of covert activity that is largely outside the law and shielded from oversight from the country’s overt democratic institutions. Instead, its activities are hidden behind the American military’s widespread use of “classified” and “off-the-books” projects.
Much of its activity is also conducted outside the formal contours of the state and is instead carried out through government contractors of various types. Here, its activity is labeled as “proprietary” - a further method of shielding itself from government oversight and public awareness.
In relation to America’s imperial grand strategy, the Deep State performs several key functions:
It works to bribe and otherwise coerce political and economic leaders from other countries (and from within America itself) so that they will “play ball” with America’s imperialist grand strategy in the world.
These coercion activities are couched under the language of “promoting democracy and open-markets”. In reality, this means installing puppet regimes who will not push back against America’s security interests and global grand strategy.
For those countries and politicians who are resistant to America’s bribes and coercion efforts, the Deep State works covertly as an agent of political destabilization. In this capacity, it works to fund insurgency groups within targeted regions who will destabilize a country’s political situation so that pro-American regimes can be installed amid the chaos. At times, these covert operatives can resort to assassinations and to instigations of deadly civil wars (the history of the Middle East and Central America is littered with examples of this).
The financial and corporate wings of the Deep State can contribute to these destabilization campaigns by waging economic and financial wars on targeted regions and by conducting various manner of industrial sabotage.
In order to justify the various maneuvers required to realize its quest for global dominion, the strategists within America’s national security complex need an unfolding series of “bad guys” against whom the resources of America’s vast state-corporate-military bureaucracy can be mobilized. To achieve this, propaganda campaigns are enacted against “enemies of the state” which will justify, in the public’s mind, America’s use of offensive force in the world. In this context, one key function of the Deep State is to set up the conditions in which Bad Guys are created for the overt American system to mobilize itself against.
Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East are classic examples of this: they are products of covert Deep State activity in these regions. Based on their existence, ongoing American military activity in the region aimed at preserving America’s hegemony over the global oil trade can be justified. These terrorist organizations further work to destabilize the rise of strong nationalist governments who may seek to de-privatize their country’s national resources and direct the profits their sale away from US-based corporations and toward the development of their own national economies.
As we will be exploring in upcoming sections, one could argue that the entire Cold War was a case of this dynamic: where covert activity on the part of the Deep State set the stage for the USSR to be framed as an existential threat to America - a threat so menacing that it would justify America directing almost all of its resources toward building out the military, economic, financial, and political contours of its empire.
The innermost realm of the Deep State - the branch that’s hardest to get information about - is one that appears to leverage highly advanced technologies and scientific tools in order to exert influence and control on the population in various subliminal ways. These include mass surveillance, mind-control campaigns using targeted EMF frequencies and brain entrainment technologies, social engineering programs, and other types of hard-to-fathom mechanisms of warfare that are concealed from public awareness.
The revelation of the NSA spying program is one key indication of the existence of this type of covert activity. This program, which we still know very little about, is likely the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is actually going on in some of the dark corners of the US national security state.
For more on this line of research, see the work of Nick Begich, Elana Freeland, and Catherine Austin Fitts. Be forewarned: it gets disturbing.
Overall, the Deep State is a realm of organized human activity that exists outside the awareness and acceptance of the public and the country’s democratic institutions. Its existence has become institutionalized over the course of the past 100+ years as America’s desire for global dominion has increased and as a coalescence of military, financial, and industrial interests have congealed to realize that ambition. Without the existence of this hidden theater of political activity, America’s global empire could not have extended itself across the world in the way that it has.
While the majority of Americans perceive themselves as doing one thing, the Deep State ensures that collectively are involved with an entirely different project. And so long as Americans refuse to acknowledge and digest the harsh realities of this covert aspect of their own nation, the problems and destruction caused by the Deep State will continue.
The Deep State is, in many ways, the social equivalent to the “collective shadow” concept that we find in Depth Psychology. As with Jung’s “shadow” concept, it represents a realm of human activity that is submerged to the active consciousness of the collective. Having become repressed within civilization’s “subconscious”, it exerts a pernicious influence on the whole and metastases into a whole range of malevolent expressions and complexes that are detrimental to humanity’s social, psychological, and spiritual health.
In Jung’s view, the way to treat the “shadow” is to “make what is unconscious conscious”, meaning we must “shine a light into the darkness” in order that we may begin to confront the elements of ourselves that we have repressed and failed to constructively process or deal with.
In energetic terms, the emergence of a shadow complex represents the formation of a blockage within the flow of energy within a system. In order to promote healing and to recover from the manifestation of disease caused by the blockage, one must actively work to find the hidden, submerged elements fueling this blockage and work to clear them. In this way, the normal flow of energy within the system can be restored and health naturally regained.
3. America’s Geostrategic Approach to Eurasia
One of the primary tasks of the American empire (and before that the British empire) is to ensure that no great power arises to challenge its hegemony over the global system.
For example, the infamous Project for a New American Century - a neocon think tank featuring many of the key players that would go on to work in the Bush administration - explicitly states in its manifesto that the goal for US foreign policy entering the 21st century should be to “preserve Pax Americana” and a “unipolar 21st century” by deterring the “rise of a new great-power competitor”.
According to American (and British) grand strategists, the primary threat to America’s hegemony would come in the form of an economic, military, and political alliance between Germany and Russia.
For example, in 2015, American think tank Stratfor emphasized this sentiment by explicitly stating: “the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United States, is considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.” (cited from Engdahl)
An alliance between Russia and China could prove equally damning. And in a worse-case scenario, all three would unite in order to confront the US’s hegemony. It is thus one of the primary directives of American national security strategy to prevent such alliances from forming at all costs.
In 2018, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, Wess Mitchell, echoed this view: “ It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration’s foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power.” (also cited from Engdahl)
There are several important implications that arise from this grand strategy, notably that it is in America’s vital security interests that no other Eurasian power be allowed to develop an economic or defense strategy independent of American approval.
Basically, the national sovereignty and right of self-determination for other countries must be sacrificed in order to ensure that America’s national security interests are preserved.
This selfish and self-centered perspective on the world largely explains America’s history of forcing extractive and destabilizing economic policies on the world. It also explains the existence of America’s Deep State, who exists in order to coerce political leaders in other countries to follow its dictates. If nations were allowed to develop and form partnerships with each other according to their own interests, they might end up partnering together in order to create a world order divergent with the interests of the America’s power elite.
This foreign policy dynamic explains the US’s continuing hostile relations with China and Russia. As Engdahl summarizes: “Both nations are energetically moving, despite repeated Western economic warfare, to build their economic infrastructure independent of NATO control.” As long as this continues to be the case, these countries will remain existential enemies of American empire.
If we keep the above ideas in mind - most notably, that the US seeks to prevent an alliance between Germany and Russia at all costs - we can look over the history of the last 100+ years and find an obvious pattern:
In WWI and WWII, the US partnered with Russia in order to fight against Germany. Then, in the Cold War that immediately followed, the US partnered with Germany (Western Germany) along with other European nations (under the umbrella of NATO) in order to fight against Russia.
Coming out of the Cold War, the financial arm of the US military industrial complex moved into the collapsed USSR and economically gutted it: privatizing its key industries, subjecting its citizens to harsh austerity measures, and basically creating a situation that turned Russia into a failed state for around a decade. This bankrupting of Russia is actually what set the stage for a coalition of pro-Russia oligarchs and military interests to band together in support of Putin and his vision for a restored, prosperous Russian state.
Meanwhile, in Western Europe, US strategists worked to tether the sovereign states of Europe (notably Germany) into a binding economic and security union (the EU), where the financial, political, economic, and military sovereignty of each country would be sacrificed in lieu of its participation in this larger political project.
In military terms, the European countries are still tied-into NATO, which makes them dependents of America’s military-industrial-finance complex and the grand strategists who run it. Given that Germany is part of the EU and of NATO, this dynamic ensures that a high level partnership between an independent Germany and Russia can never take place.
4. Regime Change and Ukraine
One of the US foreign policy establishment’s main tools for ensuring compliance within the global order it has established is to covertly fund and catalyze destabilizing political activities in any country whose government threatens to go against American hegemony.
The purpose of these subversive activities is to foment an unstable environment that will lead to “regime change”, where the US foreign policy establishment can get rid of the regime that is being obstinate and replace it with one who is willing to “play ball”.
John Perkins, in his series of books documenting his career as an economic hitman, reveals in detail how these regime change activities have taken place across Central and South America over the past several decades. The never-ending series of conflicts in the Middle East (including, notably, the “Arab Springs” uprisings of the early 2010s) are also examples of this strategy.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, one of the primary tools the US establishment has leveraged in its pursuit of “regime change” across the world is the weaponization of “pro-democracy” non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Prominent examples of these include: Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the International Republican Institute (IRI), Amnesty International USA, and, perhaps most notably, the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Geopolitical analysts F. William Engdahl has tracked this story for years. He emphasizes the paradox that, while these non-profits claim to promote democracy and free markets within the countries they operate within, in reality they have been co-opted by the national security state in order to conduct all manner of covert regime change activities in order to install puppet regimes friendly to Washington policies.
So while they promise democracy, in reality they subvert democratic processes to install regimes who are often tyrannical. Likewise, the “free markets” that the NGOs claim to represent are in reality ones that are “controlled by Wall Street and European international banks, as well as Western multinational corporations, (which seek to) loot the vast state-owned resources of the collapsed communist world.”
Engdahl further unpacks this dynamic in the following quote: “The Washington regime-change operations came to be called “color revolutions” because of the distinct Madison Avenue color-logo themes each destabilization brought with it—the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Green Revolution in Iran, and so forth. In truth, what those Washington color revolution, regime-change interventions represented was an attempt to replace former communist leaders with handpicked, Washington-corrupted political leaders who would be willing to sell their national crown jewels and their people to select Western financial predators.”
This all sets the stage for us to understand the backdrop to the current situation in Ukraine: in 2004 and again in 2014, the Deep State launched two different successful regime change initiatives against democratically elected governments in Ukraine.
The intention both times was to halt the development of economic and political partnerships between Russia and a Russian-friendly Ukrainian administration. Instead, the governments installed after the coups were ones hostile to Russia. Notably, they sought to allow NATO-backed, Russia-targeted defense systems to be installed in their territory and were willing to open up the Ukrainian economy to western predatory financial institutions and corporations.
In an article on Off-Guardian, Johan Eddebo summarizes the situation:
“Ukraine has been targeted by the West for “regime change” since at least the “Orange Revolution” of 2004, which was a creation of the NGO racket and Western intelligence, ousting the pro-Russian Victor Yanukovych.
The succeeding Tymoshenko government privatized state assets and vocally supported NATO membership to ‘protect Ukraine from Russian aggression’.”
Yanukovych was again elected president in 2010, which was then followed with the 2014 coup that again ousted him. On this, Eddebo writes “The purpose of this coup was to absorb Ukraine into the EU, indirectly rendering it a NATO asset, and of course reducing its utility as a Russian market. When Yanukovych, in late 2013 or early 2014, appeared to be closing the door to this integration through an agreement with Russia, Ukraine “got coup’ed”, its government overthrown, and an armed insurgency was instigated and supported by the West.”
In his article “What You Should Really Know About Ukraine”, Bryce Greene elaborates on the above story. He writes:
“The backdrop to the 2014 coup and annexation cannot be understood without looking at the US strategy to open Ukrainian markets to foreign investors and give control of its economy to giant multinational corporations. A key tool for this has been the International Monetary Fund, which leverages aid loans to push governments to adopt policies friendly to foreign investors. The IMF is funded by and represents Western financial capital and governments and has been at the forefront of efforts to reshape economies around the world for decades, often with disastrous results.”
“In Ukraine, the IMF had long planned to implement a series of economic reforms to make the country more attractive to investors. These included cutting wage controls (i.e., lowering wages), “reforming and reducing” health and education sectors (which made up the bulk of employment in Ukraine), and cutting natural gas subsidies to Ukrainian citizens that made energy affordable to the general public.”
“In 2013, after early steps to integrate with the West, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych turned against these changes and ended trade integration talks with the European Union. Months before his overthrow, he restarted economic negotiations with Russia, in a major snub to the Western economic sphere.” However, “after the 2014 coup, the new government quickly restarted the EU deal. After cutting heating subsidies in half, it secured a $27 billion commitment from the IMF.”
In classic Deep State fashion, American intelligence operatives in Ukraine backed extremist, radicalized groups in order to obtain their desired coup. This is a strategy we’ve seen happen countless times in the Middle East. In Ukraine’s case, it came with the backing of openly Nazi elements like the Azov Battalion, a “paramilitary unit of neo-Nazi extremists.”
Press releases from the Kremlin and from Putin have emphasized Russia’s desire to “de-nazify” Ukraine. These statements are referencing the extremist underbelly of the US-installed Ukrainian regime.
As a consequence of the Ukrainian coup, two eastern provinces of Ukraine (Donetsk and Lugansk), both comprised of a predominantly Orthodox ethnic Russian population, declared succession. A bloody campaign by the Ukrainian government has ensued here to quash this rebellion - since 2014 over 14,000 lives have been lost in these regions.
Liberating these regions from Ukrainian militias and military forces has been one of the primary strategic objectives of the Russian military in the current Ukrainian war.
This map depicts the political situation immediately preceding the Russian offensive into Ukraine.
5. Russia’s Perspective on Ukraine and NATO
During the negotiations that took place during the end of the Cold War, US representatives promised the Soviets that, in exchange for cooperation on re-unifying East and West Germany, Washington would guarantee not to expand NATO eastward into Eastern Europe. Over the course of the three decades since, Washington has systematically broken that promise.
In 1999, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were officially invited to join NATO. By 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia were also extended invitations. And in 2007, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced his intention to install ballistic missile devices in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Factoring the “color revolutions” that took place in Georgia and Ukraine in subsequent years, the Russian state would have had no choice but to infer by the US and NATO’s aggressive actions that they intended to maneuver themselves so to eventually provoke a hostile confrontation with their former Cold War adversary.
Preceding Russia’s recent military offensive into Ukraine, Russian diplomats had offered the US and NATO treaty proposals that would have required a) Ukraine and Georgia not to join NATO; b) the US to remove its missiles in Poland and Romania; and c) NATO to de-escalate its military armament of Ukraine. Basically, these are the same terms that the US had originally promised the Russians in 1990.
Let’s consider some direct quotes from Russian sources on this situation in order to get a better idea of how they perceive the West’s hostile actions, particularly with respect to NATO’s gradual eastward expansion and the covert activities the US has been involved with in Ukraine and various other Eastern European countries (such as Georgia) populating the borderlands with Russia.
First, let’s consider a press release from the Kremlin:
In March 2021, a new Military Strategy was adopted in Ukraine. This document is almost entirely dedicated to confrontation with Russia and sets the goal of involving foreign states in a conflict with our country. The strategy stipulates the organization of what can be described as a terrorist underground movement in Russia’s Crimea and in Donbass.
It also sets out the contours of a potential war, which should end, according to the Kiev strategists, “with the assistance of the international community on favourable terms for Ukraine,” as well as – listen carefully, please – “with foreign military support in the geopolitical confrontation with the Russian Federation.” In fact, this is nothing other than preparation for hostilities against our country, Russia. …
Since 2014, the United States alone has spent billions of dollars for this purpose, including supplies of arms and equipment and training of specialists. In the last few months, there has been a constant flow of Western weapons to Ukraine, ostentatiously, with the entire world watching. Foreign advisors supervise the activities of Ukraine’s armed forces and special services and we are well aware of this.
Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads.
The United States and NATO have started an impudent development of Ukrainian territory as a theatre of potential military operations. Their regular joint exercises are obviously anti-Russian. Last year alone, over 23,000 troops and more than a thousand units of hardware were involved.
A law has already been adopted that allows foreign troops to come to Ukraine in 2022 to take part in multinational drills. Understandably, these are primarily NATO troops. This year, at least ten of these joint drills are planned.
Obviously, such undertakings are designed to be a cover-up for a rapid buildup of the NATO military group on Ukrainian territory. (source)
And now let’s consider a statement from Putin:
In his address on Thursday morning, Putin said the military operation he was launching was a “question of life or death” for Russia, referring to NATO’s expansion east since the late 1990s. He said:
“For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.”
Putin said the existential threat from NATO’s expansion was the main reason for military action:
“Our biggest concerns and worries, [are] the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border. (source)
In Western media and political discourse, the situation in Ukraine is framed as if Russia is undoubtedly the imperialist aggressor. But based on the Russian viewpoints expressed above, they are clearly perceiving things in the opposite manner: that the American-led NATO forces are the aggressors and that their current military action is one they were intentionally provoked into making.
In the weeks preceding the outbreak of war in Ukraine, Bryce Green (cited above) notes that “Putin had been clear that NATO’s move to the east was ‘unacceptable’ and that ‘the United States is standing with missiles on our doorstep.’” The US response to this was to shrug off Russia’s terms as "nonstarters” - as if no possible course of action could be pursued other than to systematically militarize Ukraine against Russia.
Green quotes a Washington Post article from December that reports: “Some analysts have expressed worry that the Russian leader is making demands that he knows Washington will reject, possibly as a pretext for military action once he is spurned.” The Post quoted one analyst, “I don’t see us giving them anything that would suffice relative to their demands, and what troubles me is they know that.”
On the timing of the Russian offensive, James Corbett notes that “the final straws prompting this military assault appear to have been: a) an increase in NATO threats and provocations in recent months, including joint NATO-Ukrainian drills and an unprecedented $200 million airlift of weapons and ammunition to Kiev in January; b) the US/NATO rejection of Russia's demands for a guarantee that NATO would not offer membership to Ukraine (which happened in January); and c) an increase in fighting in the Donbas region between Ukrainian troops and Russia-backed separatists, leading to the latter asking Russia for military support.”
None of this is acknowledged or discussed in western media or political discourse. Instead, the situation is being framed entirely as if Russia was the imperialist aggressor. This biased framing of the situation allows Washington to act innocent and get away with the fact that it was actually the one responsible for continually escalating tensions. In other words, instead of taking responsibility for its part in catalyzing this conflict, it is able blame the onset of war entirely on Russia.
At the date I’m writing this (March 9, 2022), the offensive in Ukraine is well underway and shows no signs of abating. The sad truth is that, through diplomacy and negotiations, the western powers behind the Ukrainian government can end this conflict whenever they want. The problem is, they don’t seem to want to.
Putin has stated that the Russian campaign will end if certain conditions are met. These are: a) Ukraine adopts a constitutional amendment ruling out membership in NATO; b) Ukraine recognizes Crimea as Russian; and c) The separatist provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk are formally recognized as independent states.
The fact that these conditions continue to be “nonstarters” for the American foreign policy establishment indicates to me that this war in Ukraine is actually desired.
Perhaps more accurately, it is not the war itself that is desired but rather the shocks to the global system that this conflict will inevitably bring which is the desired end goal here.
Russia’s transparency in what constitutes its “red line” makes its behavior somewhat predictable. If you know that Russia is going to act in a predictable defensive fashion based on the militarization of its neighbor, then you can maneuver circumstances in the surrounding geopolitical theater into a position favorable to your larger grand strategy.
When Russia makes its move, it will trigger a number of secondary and tertiary responses that have been set up beforehand - ones that are favorable to the western elite’s greater global plans.
6. A Deeper Game Being Played
Less than two weeks before Russia launched its military offensive into Ukraine, an international conference was hosted titled “Geopolitical War of the West Against Russia: The Ukrainian Case”. Batko Milacic wrote an article for The-Saker covering the event, where a variety of thought leaders representing the Russian point of view discussed what they thought the US’s underlying grand strategy might be in provoking a Russian attack. The consensus at the conference was that Washington had much to gain from a Russian war in Ukraine.
One clear consequence of such a war would be to create a political and economic divide between Europe and Russia and to foster an anti-Russian consensus across Europe that would help to maintain that divide for the foreseeable future. On this, one commentator at the event noted: “With every new piece of information about Russia’s imminent attack on Ukrainian territory, there is a wave of news about the need for new sanctions, stopping Nord Stream 2 (a major new Russia-to-Europe gas pipeline), and the correctness of sending American troops and weapons to Europe. We understand why this is being done.” Now that the war is underway, we see all of these predictions coming true in real time.
Another factor is Washington’s desire to foster political instability in Russia in order to undermine Putin’s control over the government. The economic sanctions that everyone knew would come as a result of war in Ukraine serve to weaken Russia’s economy, isolate it from the rest of the world, and drain the strength and morale of Russia’s military. All of these work to undercut Putin’s domestic popularity, which in turn strengthens Washington’s chances at fostering regime change in Russia. As one conference speaker noted, “Ultimately, the imposed sanctions should greatly undermine the position of the Russian president, turn the elites against him and thereby accelerate what Western strategists want – the removal of the Russian president.”
A third factor discussed at the conference was that the Western powers needed to create a new common enemy around which public opinion can be corralled and its vast bureaucracy mobilized. During the Cold War, this enemy was the USSR. After 1990, this was replaced with the more vague enemy of international terrorism, with an emphasis on Islam. Now that this is no longer so effective, Russia is being brought back to reprise its old role as Enemy of the State. Russia is particular effective in this part because it gives a clear rationale in which to further consolidate and strengthen the NATO block, which had “lost all meaning without a clear geopolitical opponent.”
While I think agree with the reasoning of these discussion points, I feel that there is a deeper game being played, one that also factors in:
The controlled demolition of the global economy (which has been in the works at least since the financial crisis of 2007-08 and which has greatly accelerated since the global lockdowns of 2020-22);
The global rollout of the Great Reset initiative and the transition to the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” - two campaigns that seem to be centered in the machinations of the World Economic Forum and its lead spokesman, Klaus Schwab. It is notable to point out that neither Russia or China are against these transitions and in fact appear to be willing participants in catalyzing this Reset alongside America and its allies in Western Europe.
The coordination of the central banks of the world to transform the global financial system into a new, all-digital form of existence. This new system, organized around the worldwide rollout of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), will be ushered in as a replacement for the debt-based fiat model of currency that the global economic and geopolitical order has been organized around over the past 100 years. This new digital version of currency will undoubtedly be tied to the implementation of digital ID and social credit systems like that which is being prototyped in China. The adoption of this new system will lead to a massive transformation in the way governance is practiced all over the globe, with traditional democratic institutions replaced by a new governance scheme centered in the unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies of an elite global financial, corporate, and scientific class (or what is today commonly referred to as a “technocratic elite”).
It is not so much the Ukrainian war itself that ties into these greater underlying motions of civilization; it is the series of economic and geopolitical shocks that the war inevitably brings forth. These shocks serve to catalyze these parallel motions already underway, potentially bringing things to a tipping point where the major changes to global governance that appear to be waiting in the wings might be rapidly catalyzed. This amounts to transitioning the Great Reset from its current “planning stage” to a forthcoming “implementation stage”.
Major economic and political consequences of this current Ukranian war which directly interface with Great Reset and the greater geopolitical motions referenced above include:
A rapid deconstruction of the global financial system. Since the onset of the global lockdowns of 2020, the world economy - already in an extremely unstable condition as a result of the 2007-8 global financial crisis - entered into a terminal phase. The debt super-bubble that had been ballooned up since the early 90s (though one might even track it back to early 70s) could no longer be propped up in a way that would ensure a “return to normal” for the global system. The strategic value of the lockdowns was that it allowed things to be kept afloat a little longer while the transition to a new, replacement model was being prepared. (Were it not for the lockdowns, there likely would have been a major financial crisis at the end of 2019).
The lockdowns had the effect of ballooning up global debt for one last major push. A global financial system already insolvent by 2019 had now reached its endgame. The question is, when will the collapse and resulting transition to a new global governance order take place?
Events in Ukraine may be the catalyst that is needed for a final push away from the old system and into its long-planned replacement.
The massive reorganization of the global political and economic superstructure. The economic sanctions triggered by the war in Ukrainian promise to further deconstruct international trade relationships and supply chain networks - two shifts that were already well underway thanks to the global lockdowns of 2020-22.
Current sanctions on Russia - which essentially involve a) removing Russia from participating in the global financial system, b) facilitating a near worldwide embargo on importing Russian energy or food commodities, and c) promoting a widespread corporate boycott of the Russian market - will serve to increase an already growing trend of economic fractionalization across the globe.
The West’s coordinated plan of enacting aggressive economic and financial sanctions on Russia will force Russia to make itself almost completely autonomous from the West. This is actually a move that Russia - along with its peers in Iran, China, and India - have long been preparing for. This move has often been framed as one of de-dollarization, a motion that is based on their shared desire to move outside of their historical position as being dependents of America’s dollar hegemony. It is likely, however, that the dollar’s days of being the global reserve currency are numbered anyway, as its stability as a currency has been seriously undermined due to a number of domestic factors. With a global CBDC system being planned by the US central bank in collusion with its peers around the world, perhaps an isolated Eastern Eurasia block is part of a greater global reorganization plan?
It is important to note that the homegrown solutions that these countries (Russia, China, India) have been developing to meet this new challenge feature many if not all of the same core features that western nations are looking to implement in their forthcoming financial transformations: namely, a digital currency interlinked with a digital ID and social credit system. Could there be a high level of coordination taking place between the West and East in order to bring the whole world into a new global governance superstructure at the same time? Certainly, it is possible.
There is another important factor to consider here: the political and economic elite of Russia and China share close ties with the American and European elite in their shared involvement in the now-infamous World Economic Forum. Is there a level of collusion taking place behind the scenes, where nations who openly act as if they are in conflict are, on a higher level, actually colluding toward the same end goals?
It seems likely that Russia’s expulsion from western capitalism will only push them into closer economic and political partnership with China and India.
As we explored above, it has long been a core interest of American grand strategists to prevent major partnerships from developing between Eurasian powers. But if we are moving into an explicitly international governance superstructure where the nation state is no longer central, perhaps the formation of a Central and East Asian bloc is no longer the severe threat it was once perceived to be.
If the American elite plan to transition themselves into leadership positions within this new transnational governance superstructure, perhaps their perspective on what constitutes “vital national security threats to America” will change? Under a new institutional paradigm of global governance, perhaps a East Eurasian Union between Russia and China is not so undesirable?
While current events will undoubtedly push Russia, China, and perhaps India together into closer economic and political partnership, they will also have a similar effect in the West in terms of pushing America and its allies in Britain and Western Europe into a tighter system of economic and political partnership.
The Western bloc is uniting together in the enforcement of extreme sanctions against Russia (and perhaps in the future China will be added to this campaign). This means that these Western nations will need to unite together to find internal solutions for themselves to make up for the losses in trade of energy and commodities that will result from their collective sanctioning of Russia.
We’re already seeing this with Germany, who is highly dependent on Russian gas exports: Russia’s exclusion from the Western economic system will force Germany to become more dependent on American exports to meet their energy needs. This will serve to increase the overall integration between the two countries (and more specifically, Germany’s overall dependency on the US).
The Destabilization of the Global Energy System. One of the key pillars of the Great Reset involves a global, coordinated transition away from the traditional fuels of the industrial age - oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear - and into the so-called Green New Economy. The problem is that the promoted alternatives to traditional carbon-based fuels are not adequate to meet the energy needs of the West, let alone the world as a whole.
For one, they aren’t consistent in how they produce energy. They also aren’t very green in terms of their net environmental impact. And while it is true that they are successful in their promise of reducing carbon into the atmosphere, it’s not at all settled whether the much-touted theory of a carbon-based cause for climate change is actually scientifically sound.
Even though no viable replacement exists for so-called “fossil fuels” (I have my doubts that these fuel sources actually come from decayed biotic material), the global energy economy is nonetheless being thrown into absolute chaos as a consequence of Western sanctions on Russia.
Here we come to a key question: could this unfolding energy crisis facilitate a search for and discovery of new forms of energy beyond so-called “renewables”, ones that relate to a completely different paradigm of physics, one that leverages the long-forgotten and dismissed concept of the “ether”? Such a model was once touted by Nikola Tesla, who once claimed to have developed energy technologies which drew energy out of the metaphysical fabric of space itself. Textbooks have long since forgotten about him - but could there have secretly been a group of researchers who never strayed from his ideas and continued to develop them all along?
Before we explore this vital question further, there is one additional factor related to the global energy trade that needs considering: namely, the global food economy.
One major consequence of the economic war going on between Russia (and increasingly China) and the West involves the disruption of the global food economy.
This disruption is taking place on three fronts: a) trading relationships between Russia and Ukraine and the rest of the world are adversely affected (together they produce a large percentage of global wheat exports); b) the supply chains linking producer and consumer economies are disrupted, while the price of transportation linking those markets is also simultaneously increased; and c) given that industrial agriculture utilizes synthetic fertilizers and pesticides which utilize “fossil fuels” in their production, increases in energy prices have the indirect effect of making food more costly to produce.
It is unknown what the long term political and social welfare effects will be around the world as a consequence of the increased volatility we’re seeing in global energy and food markets. These effects promise to be particularly intense in food-importing nations and in the poorer nations of the world such as those in Africa and the Middle East. These dynamics could play a major factor in driving the larger geopolitical and economic re-organization schemes taking place across the global chessboard, as discussed above.
7. The Great Unknown Factor in Human Affairs
The fact that the US military has officially admitted to the fact that UFOs exist (without offering any explanation of how they work or where they come from) suggests to me that some mysterious entity inside the American national security state has been secretly developing breakthrough technologies based on an alternate paradigm of science, one not grounded in the limitations and flaws of the now-dominant worldview of “scientific materialism”. Could a crisis in the global energy system, mixed with the move toward a transnational model of governance with full spectrum surveillance capability, set the stage for a complete revolution in energy science and technology?
This is a topic that I will return to many times in future articles, but for now it stands to reason that the great unseen hand driving current events in the direction of global governance may be a factor that goes beyond the usual explanation of greedy capitalists or sociopathic eugenicists. Rather, it could be that an unseen, off-the-books Manhattan Project-style science and technology program lies hidden beneath the heart of the American military-industrial-finance complex and its Deep State.
A survey of the respective worldviews of a) the Deep State entities we know about, b) the global capitalist and technocratic elite at the World Economic Forum, and c) the military strategists behind Pax Americana reveals that all share in common a core belief in and attachment to the paradigm of “scientific materialism”. This may not be a coincidence.
Could a secret association of scientists working on an alchemy-based model of physics have shielded themselves and their research projects from the eyes of the world by concealing themselves behind a technocratic metastructure that is trained to not believe in its existence?
In other words: while the military strategists in Washington, their allies in the Federal Reserve, and the corporate leaders of the various cartels that dominate the global economy plan to take their place as rulers of the forthcoming global governance system that they have been strategically maneuvering into place over an untold period of time, perhaps they will instead find another, hidden entity rising to take control instead - just at that very moment when victory seems so close at hand.
Perhaps the transition into a formal system of global governance, where hostile competition between nation states and capitalist enterprises is no longer supported, will finally create the conditions necessary for the externalization of this “Invisible College” to take place, a disclosure which would include not only an admission of their own secret existence, but also a revelation of the various breakthrough technologies they have developed and the alternate, ether-based paradigm of science they have refined over an unknown period of time.
This, my friends, is the great question at the heart of modern civilization: could there be an invisible hand guiding the destiny of the human race that not even the elite military and financial powers of the world know about? No one can explain the existence of the UFOs - perhaps this is the unexpected answer that this recent revelation will bring forth.
As I stated in the introduction: we are moving from a place, to a place. Perhaps there is a hidden power here on Earth silently guiding us toward a greater destiny and higher purpose - one that no one has foreseen but which has silently been here all along, waiting patiently for the world to come to a state when it could safely reveal itself. Time will tell.
