No Boots in Ukraine: Diplomacy and Conspiracy trough Griboedov and Alex Jones
Written by contributor M. Book
I have realized, I will not feign it was intentional, but I have realized that my various writings can be taken as a central thesis. This will serve as a cornerstone of that writing, a final thrust to make a larger point. Simply, you will not see American boots stepping on Ukrainian soil in any formal sense. Although I do not normally align myself with the “Nothing Ever Happens” coalition of war spectators, I can assure you that “World War 3” news is remarkably similar to the Covid Crisis. I have discussed the lucrative potential of focusing on the Ukraine farmland conflict, and if guys with YouTube channels can make money, imagine where the billions from American and European taxpayers are going. I’m not sure where the banking capital of the world is, (London? Switzerland? My guess is UAE.) but I can assure you money is flowing. Perhaps it would be more enlightening to discuss the finer points of how the money is moving, but you can find that easily enough from professional reporters. Instead, I will attempt the ambitious task of discussing the strategy of Europe and the US through the lens of a review of Tynyanov’s, “The Death of Vazir Mukhtar.” Simply stated, this is a book report that might be useful as a Rosetta stone to understand US ambitions within Ukraine. To undermine any sense of academic worth of the review, I will also bolster my argument with Alex Jones reporting on the Ukraine in 2014.
Tynyarov’s work is especially interesting because of its place within the school of Russian Formalism, which would soon face the Soviet machine bearing down on their predilections for bourgeois techniques. The Bolsheviks would prefer Soviet Realism, as the simpler speech and focus on marxist values was considered more consistent with their ideology. The subject, the diplomat and writer Alexander Griboedov, was the antithesis of Soviet thought at the time. Interestingly enough, I think the case can be made for certain similarities of Russian Formalism and Pound’s Imagism. I say this mostly in regards to the actual prose of the book, the writing is tight at times, poetic often. The highest praise I can offer is that, while Balzac ignited a fire for writing in me, Tynyanov made me question whether it was worth writing at all.
The book itself is a historical biography of Griboedov, which takes place in the 19th century, however, where most historical biographies can be stale or thinly veiled hagiographies, “The Death of Vazir Mukhtar” is highly stylized and has no qualms about taking liberties in order to create a more entertaining story. Griboedov, it’s theorized, was partly sent to Persia, today referred to as Iran, in order to ensure compliance with a treaty that the recently conquered nation found humiliating. The book implies his brilliance as a diplomat and expertise of the culture was in part the reason for sending him, but many speculate whether it had anything to do with his perceived support for the Decemberist uprising. The book makes frequent mention of people who lost everything because of accusations of participation, some of whom were accused simply for sharing a surname, which might indicate the author shares this belief as well.
Whereas Teran and Moscow might be on friendlier terms now, for close to two hundred years, starting in the 17th century, a series of conflicts resulted in Russia consolidation of the Transcaucasia. Yet, before the proliferation of NGOs and other quasi government bodies to curb political opinion and ferment dissent, this power was held by “private” companies and professionals who could promise more direct help. For example, the book discusses how the British doctor wielded considerable power, simply because he could treat the Sha’s harem and various inbred offspring. I don’t mean to imply diplomats are powerless, yet it sometimes seems their only function today is to die terribly to justify military action. In fact, that may have been Britain's plan for Griboedov. There is a significant historical argument about whether the mob was incensed by British powers in order to provoke a war with Russia and Persia. S. V. Shostakovich claims it was done intentionally; D. P. Costello disagrees. Interestingly, Costello wrote his criticism in the 60’s, while in 1918, G.A. Birkett discussed the Persian and Turkish antagonism towards Russia, and the English Crowns attitude, “The attitude of Great Britain was determined by her traditional fear of Russia, which recent events had only enhanced.” (Birkett 415) This was discussing Russian plans in Greece, right after detailing the conclusion of the Russian Turkish war. Practically speaking, England was concerned with Russian successes in both Persia and Turkey (turzejiey). Although this doesn’t take into consideration the substantial financial support the English crown was providing the Sha. Unfortunately, they couldn’t rely on IMF loans instead. What we can infer from all of this, the horrific murder of Griboedov could have simply been another stab of political intrigue that dominates fringe regions like Iran, or perhaps, Ukraine?
There are certain areas of the world that are not entirely under the control of the West, but also not so bitter as to not accept gifts and influence. Persia wasn’t dependent on any country, and it desperately wanted to reclaim their territory, even making an attempt to siege Tiflis a few years before Griboedov received orders. The novel draws significant tension from this seemingly impossible situation, having to dodge not only English diplomats with their own agendas, but hordes of insulted Persian nationalists. Eventually, whether by political backroom deals or Muslim rage, the Persians attacked the Russian diplomats and killed Griboedov. I was not thrilled with Iran when I finished the book. Still, what Costello asks, to what end was there to provoke a diplomatic war between Persia and Russia? For a start, a joint war of Turkey and Persia could have potentially caused significant damage to Russia. This would have checked Russian encroachment to British interests, on the other hand, it could have also led to Russia amassing more, formerly Persian, territory. Yet, without a structure like the East India Trading Company to facilitate exploitation of Persia, it’s doubtful the area would have been of much use for them, not to mention a direct assault on Tehran would cost significant Russian casualties. Still, the end goal may not have been the region south of the Transcaucasia, as moving troops there might give Poland better conditions in order to rebel. Persia, the potential bloodshed, the resulting fallout, could have been a small tool to inflict enough damage to potentially distract, or fraction Russian interests elsewhere.
No one was under the misconception that Britain actually cared about Persia, the Sha referred to both the Russians and British as dogs to be entertained by. There were no discussions about the sanctity of Persian land, or the evils of colonialism. Despite any intended function these “woke” concepts might have had, these have been successfully absorbed by NGOs and think tanks in order to further their plans. The goal, to weaken Russia, is made separate from any moral scruples, and the justification on moral grounds are created afterwards. Previously, mediation for war resolution would be based on the grounds that no European power could become so powerful as to upset the balance and trigger a continental war. Conversely, now there is no major power that could preside over such a resolution, as the world incredibly becomes either pro or anti West. This is the very nature of a monopolar world. Sure, in the future, it might change, but when Russia had to mediate a Ukrainian civil war, where one party desperately wanted to formally unite itself with the Federation, there was little choice.
However, it does create an incredible opportunity for America. The Ukraine farmland has been a coveted jewel for some time now and was a key reason the German Nazis wanted to invade the U.S.S.R. Kissinger, for a while, didn’t even consider it a possibility, but many foreign policy experts agree that Western control of Ukraine would be a severe blow to Russia and make whatever power controls it, dominant in the region. This dominance is twofold. Firstly, the rich black soil of Ukraine is unique, making it a breadbasket for Europe, with America’s farmland being the only real competition. The second critical function of Ukraine, for Russian history, is being a buffer between Moscow and invading forces coming from the West. Of course, this makes Ukraine just as critical for Russia, as anyone attempting to conquer Russia.
This is partly why, when Eastern Ukraine became an interest for the entire world, Alex Jones became fixated on it. This was around April in 2014, when Slavyansk was desperately trying to hold out for Russian support. Many of InfoWars (There’s a war for your mind) opening episodes would recap the most recent events of the Donbass situation. These episodes are becoming increasingly more difficult to find. Interestingly, Alex quickly confirms that the situation, being the Maidan coup and the resulting fallout, is mostly started by American influence. From his perspective, Americans have been heavily investing in the Ukraine in order to sway political influence in their favour. The intended effect, like many colour revolutions, would be that Western sympathizing leaders would be brought to power, and rival political groups that might prefer Russia, would be crushed. Even if this fails, America can then condemn the resulting political crackdown on rogue, western forces and alienate the host country from the rest of the world. There is an interesting situation that Jones mentions. Is it possible that America and Russia were simply dividing Ukraine?
It could be theoretically possible that Western Ukraine will simply be absorbed by Poland, already a NATO member, and Russia would bring New Russia into the fold. The political situation around the annexation of territory would be obfuscated by the news media, which would convince the public that the absorption of the Ukraine was done benevolently. Jones dismisses this idea, and for good reason. Despite Russia’s previous annexation of Crimea, it’s doubtful whether the Russian Federation was in a position to effectively take the financial hit of Western sanctions should it continue to expand westward. Conversely, America realized that the Russian population of Donbass would continue to be antagonistic to increasing American influence. Dividing the country might be beneficial to both America and Russia, but the fallout could be far more costly.
This is why Jones dismisses Russian and American cooperation in the division of Ukraine. Instead, the 5 billion of Western funds flooding the country would be more effectively used to create division and strife, right in Russia’s front yard. Imagine if Mexican cartels became highly ideological and received billions from Russia. This could potentially spawn multiple terrorist cells, perhaps like the Azov battalion, that would orchestrate terrorist attacks and attract sympathetic international attention to the terrorists. Actually, you don’t have to imagine, the CIA did just that for the Irish Republican Army. Despite supposedly being an ally to Great Britain, the United States funded child killers and paedophiles in the IRA, supposedly to prevent USSR expansion of influence. Still, this justification is pure speculation. The IRA had already voiced support for Communism. The idea that CIA support would limit communism is purely fabricated. Perhaps it could have been as simple as unloading some extra gear on a couple fenians, but when US support for Algeria is taken into consideration, the true intent of fracturing rival empires, regardless of their cooperation, becomes apparent. However, it’s difficult to imagine what the diverted attention saved for American interests.
Potentially, this is what Western powers are hoping for in the Ukraine. Even if Russia successfully completes the Special Military Operation, it’s entirely possible that Russia will be dealing with potential terrorist attacks for decades to come. I’m sceptical of this, mainly from Russia’s actions in Chechnya, but also because of the need for Ukrainian agriculture. Possible, nonetheless. Compare this to Persia, within the book The Death of a Vazir Mukhtar, which received substantial British support, encouragement from Britain, but never British protection. Similarly, the Ukraine will enjoy American support, American encouragement, but never NATO protection. Russia requires the Ukraine for territorial support and agriculture, but America can easily sacrifice the Ukraine, forming a quasi-terror state like Syria, just to prevent Russia from claiming it.
Even if the Ukraine was transformed into a hellscape of trenches and irradiated land, America has its own farmland, its own protective borders in the form of a sea and two differential countries, and as many migrants as it can put to work. Simplistically, it could be understood that America choosing to sacrifice Ukraine is a situation of, “If I can’t have it, no one can.” But it’s greater than that. Ukraine represents an economic competitor because of its farmland and Russia is a competitor in liquid natural gas. In some sense, an elimination of both the Ukraine and Russian markets in Europe would make the EU dependent on American resources. Despite the fact that I truly believe the West was profiting from Ukrainian prostitutes and “wombs'' for “surrogate motherhood,” a greater form of control could be enjoyed by the people who provide the food and energy. It’s also critical to understand the Chinese intent to buy up Ukrainian farmland. China has become increasingly influential in key areas of American interest, such as the Ukraine and Africa. In one diplomatic move, the US of America has been able to limit European use of Russian resources, sabotage Ukrainian farmland for both Europe and China, and boost its own military and energy economies. This neglects the fact that 60% of Ukrainian exports go to former Soviet Union bloc countries, consisting mostly of iron, steel, and wheat.
Perhaps now the reality is becoming more apparent. There is no need to “defeat” Russia, merely economically cripple it for years to come by trying to artificially trigger a rise in food costs and other simple goods. Even if all the money spent on Ukraine was merely a cover to sabotage the Nord stream pipeline, increase sanctions, and funnel money into the arms manufacturers, while giving them a theatre to test the weaponry, I’d argue that this has been successful. All of this to say, there is no real reason to engage in a traditional war anymore. The tangible benefits, for the most part, have already been realized. Sending any American boots to the Ukraine now would only endanger what little support for the war America still has. Imagine the political situation if, on top of the current political strife, should America also be burdened by losing a war?
But why is any American action required? One thought I keep coming back to, rolling the concept around in my mind, is the Sha’s harem. Well not so much the women (I belong to the Bogdan school of gender relations) but the taxes. Tynyanov describes a situation within Persia of brutal taxes enforced on the lower leaders of the country. Effectively, the Sha must amass a massive harem in order to project strength to his underlings, lest they try to seize power from him. The greater the harem, the more secure his position appears. In order to provide from this harem, he imposes heavier taxes, which are ultimately paid by the people of the kingdom. Even if the Sha wanted to lower taxes by reducing the harem, he would be seen as weak and would be replaced. I believe America is in a similar situation. America has created a vast network of countries that are little more than vassals. Germany sacrificed a staggering amount of their already abysmal military gear, just for the whims of the US. Prices are increasing everywhere in Europe, and there is little doubt that Australia will be endangered by increasing US provocation of China. Canada has recently defied American designs by quarrelling with India, one of the few countries with the economic power to be an international player, so we’ll see how long Trudeau is able to hold on to power.
If America were to simply allow Russia to absorb the Ukraine it might make people think the empire is on the decline. For that reason, America has to intervene in The Ukraine, in Syria, across Africa, because like the Sha, once that power is in doubt, new players will start to wrestle away some control. Imagine an AFD Germany with real power, or a Japanese military who starts to truly test its military might, unfettered by American interference. So, the US wants to interfere, because it must interfere. If the Sha’s wives don’t wear diamonds, if the CIA doesn’t attempt colour revolutions, people begin to realize power is waning.
Read the book. There won’t officially be US boots on the ground. The conclusion is simple.
Birkett, G.A “Russia From the Varangians to the Bolsheviks” Oxford Press 1918
Great to see some writing coming through book but I don't know where you get your ideas about the IRA and how that whole ireland area operated? Americans can really take the Joe rogan simplistic approach with a lot of global issues and live in soundbites, the idea that the IRA were communist leaning is a total reminder as iin fact they actually burned the communist party headquarters in Ireland and laid siege to it. Reminds me of the likes of English writers like Figgis or whatever that write books on the story of Russia etc when they can't grasp the situation or country at all. Anyway still enjoy the writing keep it up! Oh and did the Irish do something on you as I heard a few comments before probably on the livestream about ireland which were wide of the mark?
Very interesting essay. Thank you