Representing the Voters in a Representative Democracy
Viktor Orbán, an upcoming "greatest offensive" in Ukraine and the 14th EU sanctions war-package
Published: 2024-06-22
The 3rd Greatest Counter Offensive
Dima from Military Summary outlined the contents of a piece of news which he described as coming from a very reliable Russian source (see Sources). In it a list of munitions to be supplied to and then the specifics of field hospitals to be established in Ukraine are provided. Using his experience from two and half years of reporting on the international phase of the conflict in Ukraine, Dima infers that these are the signs of an upcoming offensive by Ukraine. One does not construct a 30 000 bed field hospital for nothing.
Dima universally uses the phrase "greatest counter-offensive" whether Ukrainian or Russia in his commentary. This injection of humor into his coverage helps balance the constant flow of the detail of the horror of a war. Assuming the news is accurate, Dima deduces that this upcoming, third, Ukrainian greatest counter-offensive, will correspond with the upcoming NATO meeting in Washington D.C. in early July.
One of the most important media elements of this meeting will be the announcement of the replacement for Jens Stoltenberg as the new Secretary General, or public mouthpiece, of NATO. The alliance has predictably fallen in line behind the candidate which Washington has declared it supports, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte. He recently burnished his credentials of offering to have destroyed in the skies of Ukraine numerous dutch F-16 fighter planes by also authorizing them to attack Russia within its 1991 borders.
Representation
One of the few European leaders to consistently voice his opposition to the NATO war against Russia in Ukraine is Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Neither he nor his supporters can pick Hungary up and move it. The land locked nation is where it is. Its industry depends upon the affordable energy supply from Russia. Its people understand Russia. In the most recent national election in Hungary the entire opposition, from all corners of the political field, united to remove Orban. They were funded by the EU in this attempt to remove Europe's strongest opponent to the fighting, arms supply and most vociferously the economic war against Russia. The result was a solid return for Orban. The recent EU parliament elections saw universal losses for the advocates of the NATO war. Orban's Fidesz party achieved 150% of the second party's vote for Hungarian seats in the EU parliament. Both returns indicate strong support for his pro-peace policies.
NATO and the EU, when appointing positions, operate by consensus. Achieving consensus requires various trading. Votes for candidates who represent unpopular positions come with a cost. Orban's price to support The Netherlands' Mark Rutte as NATO Secretary General was a public declaration, on a document with his signature. Rutte's public statement negotiated by Orban contains:
"I am aware of the outcome of talks between Jens Stoltenberg and you regarding NATO's support for Ukraine. It is my understanding that you stressed that no Hungarian personnel will take part in these activities and that no Hungarian funds will be used to support them. [And you wont oppose NATO, and you will do what you must as a NATO member.]
In a possible future capacity as NATO Secretary General, I will fully support this outcome of the talks between Jens Stoltenberg and you.
Orban is representing his voters as strongly as he can while also his nation’s NATO membership. He has traded their vote to secure the policy for which Hungary's voters elected him.
Meanwhile …
The Institute for Global Affairs recently published a survey of 3360 participants in the US, UK, Germany and France. Its findings echo the admonishment received by national parties, in the recent EU parliament election, which have been supporting NATO's war,
The survey authors summarised their findings as:
… respondents expressed more support for objectives related to avoiding escalation [rather] than those ... which are articulated by political leaders.
The Europeans surveyed responded dominantly to avoiding escalating or widening the war. They were less motivated by avoiding suffering for Ukrainians that their US counterparts.
The trouncing of the war-mongering political parties in the EU elections was obviously not only about the NATO war. Inflation in Europe has been steadily rising. The rises in costs for fresh food and energy have been marked. Consumers feel this. How well they connect this to the military and economic war against Russia is not clear, but one must expect that some can see the obvious. US LNG supplies are more than 3 times more expensive than the previously supplied Russian natural gas.
The EU is just finalizing their 14th, yes 14th, round of sanctions against Russia to further the EU's component of the economic war. To date, these sanctions have had no noticeable effect on Russia, with its economy still solidly in growth. This is not to say that Russia's military expenses have not been impacting on their economy; Russia's new Minister of Defence is an economist for a reason. That which is the case, is that Europe's economies have been suffering far in excess of Russia's and it is Europe's citizens who are experiencing this hardship.
John Helmer's latest article outlines changes in global Helium trade which will come over the next few months and then years. The EU is about to impose import bans on Russian Helium which will follow the exact same trend in the short term: no effect on Russia, but an increase in costs for Europe. In the long term, suggests Helmer, Russia will gain control of a sizable percentage of the world's Helium trade as they are about to invest in additional production capacity from their extensive natural reserves. This increase in production is likely to price US producers out of the global market.
The upcoming elections in Britain and the UK will give some understanding of just how suicidal a course their illiberal "centrist" parties and politicians choose to take. Support for NATO's European war plummeted during the previous northern winter, following the much vaunted Ukrainian offensive which with all its wunderweapons achieved nothing more than hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians and no change in NATO's refusal to negotiate an end to this horror.
Support for that blind obedience to stupidity and for the profit of a few elites and various Western weapons industries is beginning to wear very, very thin on both sides of the Atlantic.
or support this work via Buy Me A Coffee or Patreon.
Sources
US-Supported Rutte to Become Next NATO Secretary General, Kyle Anzalone, Antiwar, 2024-06-21
The Western public want the war in Ukraine to end, but downplay Russia's role in the WWII victory, polls find, bne, Natylie's Place: Understanding Russia (originally IntelliNews), 2024-06-21 (2024-06-09)
THE NEW ATLANTICISM, Mark Hannah, Lucas Robinson, Olivia Chilkoti, Institute for Global Affairs, 2024-06
The Helium balloon goes up – russia’s helium industry goes to war against NATO, John Helmer, Dances with Bears, 2024-06-21
Netherlands, Denmark Pledge to Provide Ukraine With F-16s, Dave DeCamp, Antiwar, 2023-08-21
Netherlands Says Ukraine Can Use F-16s To Strike Targets Inside Russia, Kyle Anzalone, Antiwar, 2024-05-31
The Heat ｜ FAB3000 Enters The Game ｜ The US Throws Everything In Ukraine. Military Summary 2024.6.20, Dima, Military Summary, 2024-06-20
Copyleft: CC0
There is one shocking piece of data in the The Institute for Global Affairs poll there.
Specifically less than half of both Americans and Europeans think that direct war between nuclear powers should be avoided. I mean what are the rest smoking when they answered this question ? One of the biggest reason they all have nukes.....is to avoid being forced to capitulate conventional war.
Direct war between such powers therefore, at best means a multiyear meat grinding killing millions of young people likeWW I or the Iran-Iraq war. And at worst it means one loses the conventional war and launches the nukes to avoid being overrun.
Even indirect war is far too risky and in the past 18 months in indirect war we have already seen some crazy levels of risk of escalation to nuclear war.
Direct war must be avoided at all costs.
But we are not going to avoid it as long as both the US govt, especially State Department has no diplomats and is run by zealots of the three letter agencies - and all of Europe is run by puppets who are assets of those three letter agencies.