Glenn Diesen Jacques Baud Richard Sakwa Benoît Paré
I'm sure there are others.
Though I do look forward to Maté's book. I hope it's got a good chronology.
Maybe he should get the word Ukraine into the title. Sub-title is not enough. The last thing we need is a good book whose contents are obscure and a lot of books are still bought by browsers in bookshops. That sounds odd - the word browsers has taken on a whole new meaning.
Thanks for the blessing. I'll sell it to somebody on ebay.
Thanks for the blessing. I'll sell it to somebody on ebay.
Scott Horton's book, Provoked, is a good read but it is over 600 pages.
It provides a wider context starting from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the re-purposing of NATO.
The tragedy is that the end of the Cold War should have led to the creation of a pan-European security framework (to include Russia).
Instead, US imperial hubris and the fantasy of perpetual unipolar hegemony held sway. In the '90s Russia was severely weakened and China had not yet risen sufficiently, economically and technologically.
US misplaced hubris has led to where we are today. China and Russia (and Iran) have been pushed together - totally unanticipated.
Europe has isolated itself from the rest of the rising Eurasian heartland, subordinating itself to US interests entirely. But is now in a state of panic because it cannot be sure if the US has got its back or not.
Ukraine, which could have been a bridge between Europe and Asia, has allowed itself to be destroyed serving the US illusion that it could be used to weaken or destroy Russia.
The question is: will the Europeans be stupid enough to allow themselves to be used to try to do to Russia what the Ukrainians have failed to do?
Burnham has already commited himself to the long term security of Ukraine.
Well, apparently, welfare spending in western European countries could only happen because our defence (against USSR) was covered by US. Of course, it also prevented western European countries embracing full-on Communism, supposedly.
So, if the US is not covering for us anymore, we have to spend more on defence, paid for by welfare cuts. Or, so the argument goes.
And it is hoped defence spending can help kick start our stagnant economy - military Keynesianism.
If there is a threat from Russia, it is of our own making thanks to our 'support' for Ukraine.
Re: Burnham has already commited himself to the long term security of Ukraine.
Asked AI What percentage of NATO's armaments are sourced from the US?
"The United States supplied 58% of major arms imported by European NATO member states for the 2021–2025 period, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
Recent Trend: The U.S. share of European NATO arms imports decreased from a peak of 64% during the five years through 2024 down to 58% as European nations diversify suppliers."
Of course that massive spend on grossly overpriced US war meat doesn't even take into account the hot side salads: other boondoggles like the UKs supposed share of US Trident nuclear missile systems at £12.5 billion, which as the last two attempts have shown, can't even be launched successfully.
My own view and I'm surely not alone in this, is that the idea that the US somehow spends a fortune defending Europe from, well after the USSR imploded, effectively no one at all: until they deliberately manufactured a new enemy in Russia of course, is just a scam to sell overpriced crap to foolish Brits and Europeans and that the game for the US is and has probably always been highly lucrative for the US military Industrial complex.
They screw their own people to buy this shit too, sure, but I don't buy the infantile narrative of generous big brother Yanqui spending his hard earned dollars to save little Brits and Euros out of the goodness of their hearts: we're just a satellite subsidy for the US arms industry and likely always have been.
Even if the shit were to hit the fan, the Yanquis have no intention of running to our rescue any more than they did the Gulf states whom they screwed for billions of protection money likewise: start the shit show, but take the money and run. That's what they did in Ukraine and what they are doing in the Gulf.
I wonder likewise how much of the new Euro and Brit mega-funding for Ukraine to pay for the war the Yanquis started and then handed over is still ultimately going into US coffers.
Maybe someone can prove to me that the American military Industrial complex is indeed all heart with some hard figures, but up till that point I continue to believe it's a multi billion dollar scam worked by chancers and that those selling that "big hearted Yanqui" tale are hucksters.
The only other real beneficiary apart from the US itself is if course Israel: the hucksers huckter.
-It takes a lot of free bombs for "tiny little Israel" to work a genocide, an invasion or two, the demolition of an entire city of millions and long range attacks on distant chosen enemies all at the same time.
-Billions of free bombs which are a great return for the paltry millions it invests in corrupting the US political system...but we're to understand it's US approved corruption so that's fine.
on July 26, 2026, 5:06 pm