Today, I want to discuss some rather depressing issues. I have had them on my list for some time, and now I decided to write about them. The topic is essentially what is currently at stake in Ukraine for all parties involved.

And I’m certainly going to touch upon several topics which might be very concerning, depressing, and certainly – unpleasant.

However, we should all be aware of these things because their effects and consequences will influence our lives and, in some cases, end them.

The Stakes are High

Those who have followed my blog for some time know what is at stake. I’m going to summarize it here briefly. 

For some time, there has been a window to contain the Ukraine conflict and end it there. This was the case until the Istanbul negotiations eventually failed.

Much of what we will discuss in this article will deal with the number of Russian casualties, as alluded to in the introduction. Russia suffered a horrendous number of dead soldiers within the first few weeks of the conflict, maybe up to 10,000. That’s the price of big arrows on modern battlefields with full intelligence/information/reconnaissance/artillery/drone coverage of the battlefields.

However, (up to) 10,000 dead is still a price that would have been worth paying to achieve the goals in Ukraine without going into a full-scale war. Had there been an agreement in Istanbul that would have terminated the conflict, ensured the rights of Russians in Ukraine, and kept Ukraine out of NATO and NATO out of Ukraine, one could remotely argue that “it was worth it.”

We all know what happened instead. As with all agreements that are not guaranteed with a gun on the West’s head, the West will ignore or scrap it at will. As happened with the Istanbul agreement.

What followed was the beginning of a full-scale land war in Ukraine. I classify it as a Russian civil war. Almost all the territory of the so-called “Ukraine” is Russian historic territory, including the people living there. Decades of brainwashing by “the West” transformed many people of these territories into Russia-(self)-hating zombies. Congratulations. Now, Russia is essentially fighting itself on its own territory.

If Russia wins, Russia loses. If Russia loses, Russia (obviously) also loses. How can you win against yourself? It (Western cultivated Nazism) is like cancer. It spreads everywhere until the host is dead if you don't stop it. What Russia is currently doing, explained with an analogy, is hammering with a little hammer for weeks on its hand, until the hand is eventually smashed and falls off on its own. Does Russia win in this case? This is a rhetorical question.

But what does this have to do with what is at stake in Ukraine? It is all about demography and losses. I think we all can agree that the “Ukrainian” idea is currently being killed on the territory of the so-called “Ukraine.” What is currently being done to Ukraine on behalf of the West and executed by the traitorous leaders of this artificial entity is essentially the extermination of Ukraine’s population. There is no turning back and no relief. More about that later.

Nevertheless, the war is also a burden on Russia in terms of demographics. President Putin is doing everything he can to stimulate the birth rate in Russia. On the other hand, we have the disaster in Ukraine. Up to two million people could be processed through the war during its duration, provided it does not expand. At the same time, Russia urgently needs people to keep its industry and economy running. Lastly, children are needed to keep the population growing and the social system viable.

Since most Russian males become fathers very late in their lives, we have the following problem: Hundreds of thousands of males are going to war. According to an interview given by President Putin, Russia lost up to 80,000 people. This is horrific.

If we look at that figure not with emotions but from a national standpoint, then we can assume the following: Most of these people might not have been fathers yet when they died. This means that from a national and demographic, maybe also macroeconomic point of view, their lives and birth were in vain. If it had been women, it would have been far worse. However, the highest purpose for people from a demographic and national point of view is to have two or more children. Dying without any children is a catastrophe.

Don’t get me wrong. I intentionally ignored emotions here to explain the rational point of view. It is important to understand that fact to understand some actions that could result from this. President Putin, in particular, is a person who reasons, and this is precisely his thinking pattern. Therefore, it is important to understand this perspective, whether you agree with it or not.

Now that I have laid some groundwork, we can conclude the following :

1. If Russia loses this war, the Nazi virus/cancer would spread forcefully within Russia and destroy it. Don’t underestimate this angle. It is very much a possible scenario in case of a military defeat for Russia.

2. This leads me to point two. Everyone knows Russia will not be militarily defeated, but it might be internally defeated. I think there is a certain threshold of dead Russian soldiers in this war that is tolerable to the Russian leadership. If I were forced to guess, I would say the number is around 300,000 men. But that is pure speculation.

   Suppose the number gets too high and the Russian leadership contains the war on Ukrainian territory with rather a soft approach. In that case, we will see riots and mass protests across Russia against the current Russian approach. I’m not talking about several hundred woke, drug-addicted zombies protesting on behalf of the CIA. I’m talking about protests that could get out of control, eventually leading to Russia's end.

I will continue this topic later.

This is what is at stake for Russia. In other words, if Russia loses too many people in Ukraine or loses militarily, then it would be the end of the Russian Federation. The West knows this, and the gamble is that Russia will not end the world in the process, just like the Soviet Union was dismembered without taking the world down in the process.

In other words, The West hopes Russia feels some common responsibility for humankind.

Frankly, It doesn’t.

Equilibrium of Forces

There is something good in the things that are happening. A mighty counter-alliance to the West is forming. I’m not talking about BRICS. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are the fundamental parts of this new MILITARY alliance.

This alliance aims to ensure the members' safety and the safety of other nations that might be attacked “democratically” if they don’t obey the West’s “Rules-Based International Order.” Democratically, because the civilian population that supports the government would be killed by democratic bombs. After that, there would be a solid democratic majority by the opposition. You see? Democratic bombing works! Just kill those disagreeing people, and the democratic results change in your favor.

This alliance is needed as well as BRICS:

• The military arm will create an “Equilibrium of Forces” like in the Cold War days. Such an equilibrium is needed to ensure that international agreements will be adhered to. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the West did what it wanted because it couldn’t be held accountable by anyone. Who cares about agreements and laws if nobody can punish you? Or at least stop you from committing your crimes. This deterrence will be restored now. It is already almost restored.

• BRICS is needed to offer an alternative financial and trade system that allows any nation to trade freely globally without the possibility of being sanctioned.

The defeat of the West on the battlefield is a prerequisite to a robust military deterrence. When Ukraine falls, the West’s military dominance will be buried in the history books.

Now we can finish the question about what is at stake: everything for Russia and everything for the West. The winner takes all, and the loser will essentially disintegrate.

This is also the reason why there will be no actual negotiations. All parties will pretend to appease the public by saying they want to negotiate. And perhaps, at times, there even will be some official negotiations. Again, only for the global public. The war will be fought until either Russia disintegrates (and kills us all) or until the West disintegrates.

Now, the question arises whether the West would kill us all if it goes down. In my opinion, it will not. Of course, I could be fatally wrong here. And here is why I think it won’t: Russia is acting from a national [existential] point of view. If there is no Russia, no one else should be there. That is literally what President Putin stated in an interview. The West is controlled by its oligarchs. And they are solely interested in their wealth. They would never approve of a situation where they would lose their power and wealth. And Armageddon would be such a situation. These Oligarchs will gradually withdraw only when there is no other possibility to avoid the nukes from flying. This is evident.

Collectivism vs. individualism.

The End of “Ukraine”

Since this opportunity has been missed, there is now only one possible outcome: the end of the “Ukrainian” idea. Since Ukraine will be defeated physically and comprehensively, it is to be assumed that the Russian language will be the dominant language again. The Ukrainian language will be there for some decades until it fades away.

As I stated many times, most parts of Ukraine will become part of Russia again. However, some parts might be left for Ukraine’s neighbors as a poison pill for the EU and NATO. Many central and Western European nations would have issues if Poland, Romania, and Hungary incorporated former territories of Ukraine. This is part of several poison pills that Russia and its allies are preparing to feed the West to help it disintegrate without a World War.

I want to be very clear here: There will be NO parts of Ukraine left that are Ukraine. Everything will be shared by agreement among Russia, Romania, Hungary, and Poland. A Rump Ukraine would be impossible. Why? First, it would keep the Ukrainian idea alive in the territory of former Ukraine. This could be used to reactivate Nazism, even in 100 years. Moreover, if this tiny rump Ukraine, however tiny it might be, would NOT join NATO, then it could always serve as a tool of plausible deniability to launch attacks and subversion against Russia and former parts of Ukraine, which are then parts of Russia.

In other words, after this war, everything that is Ukraine today needs to be either Russia or NATO. And since Russia will certainly incorporate the biggest share of Ukraine, only former territories of the neighbors can be given to these neighbors (therefore NATO). This puts the MAD (mutually assured destruction) responsibility on the future owners of the respective territories.

So, there will not be a thing like “Ukraine” anymore. And here is where the problems start. The West has already incorporated millions of Ukrainians (Russians!). This helped solve their demography problems for several years and provided a cheap workforce. Remember the “Ostarbeiter” in WW2?

When Ukraine starts to collapse, then there will be several more millions of Ukrainians that will flee to either Russia or the West. This will happen at the latest in the Winter since there will be no heat or electricity. Or very little.

The problem is that there will be a huge diaspora of “Ukrainians” in the West. So the Nazi ideology will be cultivated in the West by the Ukrainian diaspora, and the idea of Ukraine and Stepan Bandera will be further advanced.

And from this pool of people, the West is going to recruit as many saboteurs as needed to conduct “lone wolf” sabotage and terrorist acts within Russia forever. Or to conduct subversion and agitation of the Nazi ideology on the territory of Ukraine.

And Russia certainly cannot take care of thousands of people in the West, and it cannot start a nuclear or conventional war because of this, depending on the severity of the actions.

Hence, the actions of the West need to be ended. But how?

I often think about Andrei Martyanov's words, which I heard more than a year ago. Russia is currently setting up tribunals to be held after the war. All the crimes of the West and the Ukrainian Nazis will be exposed there. But how do we hold the responsible people accountable if most of them live in the West anyway? And those who are not living in the West will certainly be evacuated to the West, if possible, when Ukraine starts to collapse.

As I said, I thought about how they should be punished for many months. And I think I have an idea of what that might look like. I will discuss that in the following section.

The End of the West 

We know that BRICS and the new military alliance of several BRICS states aim to ensure the safety of many countries from democratic bombing and democratic genocide. BRICS itself will ensure that these countries can no longer be sanctioned. At this point, the West will become superfluous. It will no longer be needed, resulting in the West's collapse.

New land-based trade corridors will be established in Europe through Russia (former Ukraine) and Serbia. Europe will be connected with Asia and the new trading spaces by land.

This, of course, will trigger a full-blown collapse of the current American-led puppet parties and politicians in the EU, which currently get changed like underwear because the public doesn’t want them. Considering how many are currently wasted, I wonder where they will train and find so many puppets. It doesn’t matter who you vote in. All parties that are allowed to win without being “Fico-ed” are forced to plug into the NATO/EU/Ukraine above everything nonsense.

For European countries to be able to plug into the BRICS financial and trade system, they will eventually need to drop their imperial governments and extradite all people prosecuted by the war-criminal tribunals in Moscow, Mariupol, and especially Odessa. That’s how they will be held accountable. Still, I have a hard time imagining how this could work with the United States.

I think, and I have written it numerous times, that Europe will go through an ugly period of collapse before all of this can happen. A collapse that will be necessary to squeeze all of the imperial WEF-trained puppets out of the European countries and decolonize them. A collapse that, from my point of view, will be 80% economic and 20% kinetic. I mean civil wars and wars between European nations amounting to 20% of the overall collapse damage.

BRICS will be on the sidelines, waiting and watching until the fighting (economic and kinetic) is over and governments are in place that will agree to the conditions to plug into BRICS. These conditions will most likely include demands to extradite the people responsible for events against Russia.

I’m afraid the Americans will have even bigger trouble by 2030. That is the forecast of the Chinese intelligence services. By 2030, the American problem will have solved itself without intervention.

As a European, I pray that our governments will do the right thing and consider their interests, exit the escalation spiral, and unilaterally make peace and conduct business with Russia. Some countries like Hungary and Slovakia are already trying. I don’t want to see downfall and war here again.

Pushing the Button

Now, we often hear that Russia is ready to use tactical nuclear weapons. Moreover, President Putin himself said that before Russia is defeated or gets into the process of disintegration, it would blow up the rest of the world and go as a martyr to heaven. Moreover, it was stated in a discussion between me and Russian Colonel (Reserve) Vladimir Trukhan that in case of a large-scale NATO air attack against Russia, Russia would use nuclear-tipped air defense means. What does this mean? And why?

I will go through these questions, but before, I will add another angle. There is constant talk that if the West does X (e.g., strikes on Russian airfields), then Russia would have the right to strike at NATO territory.

That’s right, and the rhetoric is reasonable as well. So many things have happened already that would, according to international law, allow immediate Russian counterstrikes against Western targets. These counterattacks never took place and hopefully will never take place. Now, we can move to the “Why” question.

In case it is absolutely clear to Russia (President Putin) that there will be a big conventional war with NATO OR that more than the threshold of dead Russian soldiers is reached (my estimation is 300,000), President Putin will make sure that such a war does not happen. How?

Read very carefully:

In case an event takes place that indicates to President Putin that World War 3 is inevitable or that more than X Russians are already dead, the following will happen: Russia will fire all available carriers of tactical nuclear weapons across Europe and target the whole of NATO military infrastructure and civilian infrastructure that is used to support the military. In other words, it will atomize NATO in Europe. Knowing the consequences. Now, there will be a very short period in which NATO, or rather the United States, can decide whether they are willing to retaliate or back down and leave. If the indication is that the United States is willing to retaliate, Russia is going to preemptively fire off everything it has against all Western affiliated countries. Knowing full well that the US would do the same and that this would be the end for all of us, Russia fully accepted it. Amen.

Now the question is, of course, Why?

This question is very easy to answer for anyone who has lived in a warzone, seeing suffering (children), dead(children), starvation, rape, etc.

I won’t pretend that I went through this since I didn’t. But most of my family, including my own brother and my wife, did. So, I know a thing or two about war.

So, suppose President Putin concludes that there will be a world war. In that case, it has the following implications: Death, sorrow, destruction, violence, starvation, rape, etc., for several years until one of the parties involved prevails. At this point, the weaker party would start its nuclear arsenal, and everyone would die.

It is rational, straightforward, and an act of mercy to jump over all of these years of human suffering and directly trigger the end and go to heaven/hell, depending on where you belong.

So, my advice is the following: I know many of you can’t wait to see Russian strikes against NATO as a retaliation for XYZ. But this is a call for your death. If it happens, then it is almost certain that we will all die. I know there is a little window of hope that the Americans would back down after such strikes because their Oligarchs would want to survive, but there are too many uncertain factors to rely on such a hope.

The way to win for Russia is to defeat Ukraine (NATO) on the territory of former Ukraine, feed NATO and the EU with poison pills, and develop the military and economic alliances to make the West superfluous and thereby make it collapse internally.

Then everything that we see now in Ukraine, which Russia is doing to itself (Ukraine), will be seen in the West as well.

And again, as a European, I’m in horror when thinking about that. I am far from being happy about these prospects.

The next articles will be positive again, but today I’m going to leave you with the following homework if you live in the West:

Take a walk in your town and observe the big, strong, and dumb-looking people around you. And try to guess which one(s) of them will drag you into forced conscription for your civil war by 2030.

[i] Edited by Piquet (EditPiquet@gmail.com)

This essay is adapted from the chapter of It’s Debatable: Talking Authentically about Tricky Topics (by Robert Jensen) that the publisher would not include in the printed book or e-book. But that chapter is available free online. For more details, go to https://robertwjensen.org/books/its-debatable/.

Many people like to joke about the expanding acronym for what began as the lesbian/gay movement and has grown to LGBTQIA+ (for the time being, at least).

The problem isn’t with the number of letters, unwieldy though it may be, but the way the letters don’t all fit together very well, especially the T. Linking transgenderism to the movement for lesbian and gay male liberation obscures how fundamentally different the two movements are.

Lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals have long argued that their sexual orientation is not pathological and that they do not need treatment, but simply need to be left alone, free from violence and discrimination. That’s why the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans) label is confusing—the L, G, and B have little in common with the T. Adding more letters, such as QIA+ (queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, and many other terms) confuses more than clarifies.

The London Pride 2024 is starting to look more and more like the Rio Carnival.

Lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals—along with everyone else—can support the transgender movement’s goal of ending violence and discrimination in such things as policing, employment, and housing without endorsing the dominant ideology of the trans movement. That ideology denies the reality of sex (which is binary and biological) and replaces it with an internal subjective experience of gender (rejecting the longstanding feminist analysis of gender as social norms imposed in patriarchy). Progressive politics do not require that anyone support risky medical treatments or claims by males who identify as women to have a right to be in single-sex female spaces, such as changing rooms.

Here’s another way to make this point to people supporting transgender ideology: If you learned that a child you loved was gay or lesbian, how would you react? Is that different than how you would react if you learned that child reported gender dysphoria and wanted medical interventions (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, surgery) that have not been proven safe or effective? Even strong supporters of the transgender movement’s policy demands are hesitant to equate the two.

Depending on where one lives, children coming out as lesbian or gay might face violence and abuse. Lesbian and gay kids often get bullied, no matter where they live. But the challenges of being lesbian or gay are social. Lesbians and gay men may seek psychotherapy, not (except in rare cases) to change their sexuality but to deal with the pain of being stigmatized and/or the emotional problems that many people experience. Lesbians and gay men don’t need medical treatment because same-sex attraction is not pathological, not the result of disease.

Kids acknowledging same-sex attraction need social support, which progressive people are usually eager to provide. That’s quite different from embracing invasive medical procedures for kids who identify as trans.

That’s the contradiction at the heart of transgender ideology. Medical treatment is appropriate to treat disease and injuries that pose a threat to a person’s health. If trans activists argue that in some cases, drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgery are medically necessary, that is a recognition that at least in some cases, transgenderism is a pathological condition that requires treatment. Yet the transgender movement also argues that transgenderism should not be pathologized. Proposals for a World Professional Association for Transgender Health language policy include:

Avoid language which has the intention (or likely effect) of stigmatizing or pathologizing gender and bodily diversity (including a diversity of gender expressions and identities, as well as bodily characteristics). Stigmatizing and pathologizing language (e.g., “disordered” or “abnormal” or “malformation”) should be avoided altogether.

David Tennant, who peddles the notion of ‘trans children’

When Spain passed a law allowing anyone over 16 to change their gender on legal documents without undergoing psychological and medical evaluations to show gender dysphoria, the minister of equality stated: “Trans people are not ill people. They are people, full stop.” The statement is hard to understand. In the context of other medical conditions, no one suggests that people who are ill are somehow lesser people. These two claims—that trans is merely one aspect of human diversity but yet also is a condition requiring treatment—are contradictory.

Even when acknowledging that, trans activists try to deny it. Masha Gessen, a female journalist who identifies as trans and nonbinary, found it difficult to explain this contradiction in an interview:

Being trans is not a medical condition, but it marries you for life to the medical system. It almost always—not always—involves some kind of medical intervention. … I hate using the word “treatment.” I’m always stumbling over it because it’s not actually treatment, but it is treatment. But it’s not a medical condition.

Given how little we know about the etiology (the cause or set of causes) of gender dysphoria, there’s not much we can say about what transgenderism actually is in definitive terms. But whatever one believes transgenderism is, it can’t be both a routine part of healthy human diversity and a condition requiring medical treatment. If one isn’t ill in some way, why would one need such treatment? Simply saying there are lots of different types of trans people doesn’t get us any closer to understanding what the terms mean.

This issue arose when the American Psychiatric Association revised the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to eliminate “gender identity disorder” in favor of “gender dysphoria.” One medical news website pointed out the tension:

[W]hile the move is seen as a win by some, others worry about what it could mean. Currently, insurance carriers may pay for sexual reassignment surgery because the procedure is for a medical problem, not for plastic surgery. Having the condition reclassified may cause problems with surgery for an already marginalized group.

A trans scholar who states that “gender identity and gender assigned at birth is increasingly understood as a matter of human diversity rather than as pathology” notes that the DSM and WPATH definitions of gender dysphoria are different, and therefore:

[C]linicians should not routinely diagnose patients who wish to access transition-related interventions with gender dysphoria. A diagnosis of gender dysphoria should be limited to situations in which it is genuinely necessary (such as for insurance coverage) or is done at the express request of the patient.

 

What responsible physician would consider a diagnosis “genuinely necessary” based on insurance or when the patient requests it? It’s an understatement to conclude, as did one research team, “All physicians included in gender dysphoria treatment are facing great bioethical challenges and dilemmas.”

This contradiction—don’t think of trans identity as a pathological condition but embrace medical treatment to “fix” the bodies of those who identify as trans and want drugs, hormones, and/or surgery—is a feature, not a bug, of the movement’s ideology.

Society should provide people with gender dysphoria psychological support to deal with the distress, just as we should provide such support to anyone experiencing distress of any kind. But in other medical arenas, wariness about solving complex problems with drugs and surgery is common, such as when the American Academy of Pediatrics released guidelines on childhood obesity that advocated intensive therapy for children as young as 6, weight loss drugs for those as young as 12, and surgery for teens as young as 13. A journalist reported that professionals on both sides of the debate “express uneasiness about the potential long-term consequences of putting millions of children on drugs or under the knife, instead of doing more to prevent the condition in the first place” and quoted a leading medical ethicist:

“Turning to surgery and pills is quintessentially American,” said Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine who said he struggles with weight himself. Caplan called obesity “one of the biggest moral challenges” our society faces but described medication and surgery as just “Band-Aids in a society that can’t figure out what to really do to protect the interests of its kids.”

Those comments reflect a concern for the health of children and a wariness about rushing to industrial solutions. A parallel analysis of gender-affirming health care is appropriate but would generate accusations of transphobia. Simply challenging the appropriateness of LGBTQIA+ can make one a target.

Let’s go back to the remaining letters. First, a small portion of the human population is born “intersex,” with what are called disorders of sexual development, although some prefer differences in sexual development. There are important questions about treatment for those conditions, but they are separate from issues involving sexual orientation or transgender ideology.

Share

The other letters raise other issues. I don’t use the term “queer,” either as a synonym for lesbian and gay, or as an all-encompassing term for “something other than heterosexual.” The term can’t be separated from “queer theory,” a postmodern academic fad that sometimes anti-feminist and always weighed down by unnecessary jargon. The recent explosion of terms such as asexual (along with pansexual, demisexual, and on and on) describe, if anything, psychological states or personal preferences that typically don’t have public-policy implications.

Many people I know with progressive politics accept the alphabet-soup label out of a desire to not rock the boat, with an unstated plea, “Can’t we all just get along?” There’s no reason we can’t get along while also airing principled disagreements about complex questions.

I continue to support the lesbian, gay, bisexual movement. I also critique the contradictions and confusion in transgender ideology and reject the trans movement’s policy demands that aren’t based on sound medical standards or undermine women’s right to privacy and safety. I support people born intersex in their quest for dignified medical treatment. As for the many other labels that people want to claim, well, I wish them well in their attempts to understand themselves and form communities.

These positions are, to me, all consistent with critical thinking and progressive politics.

It’s Debatable: Talking Authentically about Tricky Topics, published by Olive Branch Press, June 2024