Dear Brian, weapons, munition and tools are coming from NATO states _and_ non 
NATO states. 

Since you shared this weird opinion piece of D’Eramo just for the list of 
equipment which the US alone has sent, I would think it makes sense to keep in 
mind that this amount is just a fraction of what the US sent to the Soviet 
Union from 1941 on after Hitler Germany assaulted the up to this point ally in 
Stalin. I doubt you’d argue this made the UdSSR's war against Hitler Germany a 
proxy war. 

After being raided the Ukraine to my knowledge had to buy lot of equipment from 
arms dealer for months for inflated prices. On the, I suppose, free market for 
weapons. This is to a good extend because before the Ukraine was not allowed to 
buy equipment from "the western". 

Besides weapons, if we are talking involvement of the US, I presume the 
intelligence provided by the US is probably as significant as the now not 
anymore totally refused weapons delivery. Does the sharing of information that 
another regime is amassing troops, that an echelon is coming from these 
coordinates and one from there, does that, as it is vital for the course of the 
war and for defeating Russian troops, does that qualify the term of a proxy war 
or is that fair warning and vital help.

I see Putin's Russia very much as an imperial death cult the likes that 
Theweleit was analyzing so ingeniously. Yes, a defeat of Russia certainly will 
change the global security system. On the one hand I wonder why that is viewed 
as something bad and something one can intervene with and something that we can 
influence with anti-americanism while thousands die in the trenches and 
civilians get attacked constantly. Anyway, a defeat of Russia comes with huge 
risks for sure. As well as a defeat of the Ukraine. And there's all the other 
undeniable factors whose spillovers affect most people, as you wrote. At least 
there seems to be a larger-than-zero chance that one very powerful imperial 
death cult in our world might discontinue. May this cult crumble soon and it’s 
followers be forced to face it’s life-hostile 
<> ugliness. 

On the other hand, no, I don’t think it’s so easy as to extrapolate from what 
was the NATO up until a while ago and expect uncontested Western military 
superiority. Even less so in the form as US superiority and the means to 
enforce the neoliberal capitalism the way it was enforced till f.e. the 
punishment of Greece (by Germany). 

There are more countries joining NATO (Sweden and Finnland, possibly Ukraine 
and Georgia) and in the last year already it was the baltic states and Poland 
beside Scandinavia that were pushing "the west". The power structure inside 
NATO, inside "the west" seems to have changed quite a bit and where will it go 
from there? The same "west" has not just one but many countries that are on 
track of their own fascisms (imperial death cults included). As far as we 
experienced, fascism might be chaperoned with isolationism and even with strong 
opposition to NATO. 

So, while NATO might grow in number it looks to me as it could get weaker and 
might disintegrate from within. Then there’s China that emerged clearly as more 
powerful than Russia. Russia as an empire might dissolve. But it’s not a given 
whose colonies the parts of the remains with all those resources will become. 
BRICS seems broken and the change from Lula to Bolsonaro back to Lula should be 
another reminder of the volatility of this world. Modi in India seems just as 
damn scary to me as the Arabic powers. Pakistan is huge, has nuclear weapons as 
well and faces a near future where most of the country will be to hot to 
survive is. Speaking of petro power, as an example, Austria’s chancellor looks 
to have opposed a gas-price brake (even on EU level) only because the emirates 
wealth funds have a big enough stake in the Austrian energy providers that his 
alliance lies with the emirates. Even against his voters.

Certainly dangerous time with immense future consequences. Feels like this is 
building up decade over decade honestly. A foreseeable future with huge areas 
of the planet made uninhabitable. Fascism permeating everywhere. A few times 
already made me cower in fear. 

I remember specifically a period from 2007 to 2009 where I was struggling a lot 
with this paralyzing vista and it’s influence on my psyche. I same time found 
that immensely dangerous in itself. Dangerous and honestly very self centered. 
Since then I believe that this chilling effect is very dangerous for the 
individual psyche and our collective thinking. (Like D’Eramo who seems to argue 
that criminals with atom bombs should be allowed free terror reign because, 
well, they have the nuclear threat and look how stressed they are. I mean, it’s 
clearly not going the way he dreamed it up. Now that is making D'Eramo afraid 
and wouldn’t that be understandable? Poor fellow. Fuck real victims, I have my 
own problems, I am shitting myself.)

Sorry. Well, I absolutely second that it is important to analyze the new 
security systems emerging. Even more so as I guess they will not be very 
stable. In analyzing I hope we are wary of carrying forward outdated 
projections, bogeymen and conceptualities … and emotions. That, btw, in my 
world certainly does not come with amnesties for past crimes or historical 
misrepresentation of what NATO, the US and the likes did. 

sry for my English

ps: pretty sure there was a positive reference to Daniel Ganser in D’Eramo’s 
text when I read it first that is not there anymore. Talking about dangerous. 
These men and women who make big bucks and a wealthy living in the business of 
conspiracy theories. They are thriving.

> Am 13.02.2023 um 21:28 schrieb Brian Holmes <>:
> Felix, I understand what you're reacting to, and to be clear, I support the 
> Ukrainians in their war against Russian aggression. I think it's a necessary 
> war for NATO to engage in, as I've said before. I also agree the term 
> "liberal fascism" is meaningless, btw.
> But this is also a great power war, fought with NATO weapons in Ukrainian 
> hands. Up to now that's been called a proxy war, but if there's a better 
> term, I'll take it. The point is definitely not to wallow in outdated 
> concepts, but to grasp what's happening now. 
> I think this war is perceived by US and other Western strategists as the 
> means for the installation of a new global security system in the face of 
> increasing challenges to the post-WWII order. That order, originally defined 
> by the US and cemented by NATO, is now fundamentally threatened by climate 
> change and by the rise of East Asia. The intense bellicose signalling between 
> China and the US reveals the larger stakes. Putin attempted to take advantage 
> of this situation by establishing a partnership with China, but he failed.
> Victory in Ukraine would reestablish uncontested Western military superiority 
> at the global level, and allow the NATO countries to organize the next phase 
> of capitalist development, just as the Gulf War did at the outset of 
> neoliberalism in the 90s. But the world is now far more unstable than in the 
> 90s. The Ukrainians are pushing for total victory,  which is hard to imagine 
> without Putin's fall. I doubt it is possible to achieve regime change in 
> Russia without NATO troops on the ground. 
> My point is that this is a dangerous time with immense future consequences. 
> It would be important to analyze the new security system as it emerges. 
> Support for the Ukrainians does not mean turning a blind eye to what the most 
> powerful countries are doing. The international system that emerges from this 
> war will be the one that deals with the existential challenge of climate 
> change. 
> Thoughtfully, Brian 
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023, 11:41 Felix Stalder < 
> <>> wrote:
>> On 12.02.23 20:50, Brian Holmes wrote:
>> > -- There's a war on in Europe, which is a proxy war that pits NATO 
>> > against Russia, via the fighting force of Ukraine. Definitely check 
>> > out the list of equipment which the US alone has sent: 
>> > 
>> > <> (list 
>> > begins in paragraph 3)
>> I know this is not your point here, but to see this only as a proxy
>> war really reductive and reeks of a "great powers" analysis in which
>> some countries/people are just have to accept the fact that they are 
>> subordinate.
>> The author of the NLR article comes right out with this world view:
>> > Ten years ago, nobody could have imagined that Europe would risk
>> > such a catastrophe for the sake of the Donbass – a region that few of
>> > us would have been able to locate on a map.
>> I'm sure most Ukrainians knew already 10 years ago where the Donbas was,
>> but why bother with their view. Also, the war in the Donbas started
>> 2008, so not to know where the Donbas was in 2012 is really an act
>> of metropolitan ignorance. It happens, nothing to be proud of.
>> So, this war is primarily one of Ukrainian survival. I'm sure that many
>> in the US security apparatus see it also as a proxy-war, but I think
>> also Biden's theme of democracy-vs-authoritarianism plays a role. I
>> don't think it's a given that a republican administration under Trump
>> would have done the same (even if some in the military would still have
>> liked to fight a proxy war).
>> On 13.02.23 08:45, Stefan Heidenreich wrote:
>> > - the defeat of NATO could lead to a "decolonization" of Western
>> > Europe (not that this by itself leads to positive results. Repressive
>> > "liberal" fascism remains as likely an outcome as some sort of
>> > independence.)
>> Oh my, what this is supposed to mean, only chatGPT can explain.
>> -- 
>> | |||||||||||||||| <> |
>> | for secure communication, please use signal |
>> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
>> #  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
>> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
>> #  more info:
>> #  archive: <> contact: 
>> <>
>> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> #  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info:
> #  archive: contact:
> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info:
#  archive: contact:
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Reply via email to