ANALYSIS BY EMOTION

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn ACCUSATIONS, PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, WAR ON RUSSIA, WORLD POWER RELATIONSHIPS

A couple of years ago I had lunch with a former colleague. We had worked together for several decades and I had always regarded him as a very good analyst. He was able to find evidence, evaluate it and put together a competently argued thesis to explain or describe objective reality. As I have said before I, and he, were not formally in an intelligence unit but our work was similar: trying to figure out what’s going on in Country X.

So we’re talking away and I make the comment that some of what Russia is doing in Ukraine reminds me of the tactics used by Brusilov in 1916. (see my piece here). Immediately came an outburst – Russia is a shithole country, Bucha, unprovoked invasion, Bucha, shithole. Quite passionate and sounding almost as if he had rehearsed it and was just waiting for the cue to unload.

Now a real analyst would have responded by asking what I meant, listening, questioning, contradicting with an argument and so on. At the end of the process we would have got a bit closer to reality. Or, alternatively, just said he didn’t want to talk about it.

Some time ago Paul Robinson observed that there were two approaches to foreign policy operating in the world today. One is a belief in “a traditional, Westphalian, order in which states are equal sovereign entities”. The other is quite different:

By contrast, human rights reasoning has pushed the West in an opposite direction, towards a preference for legal asymmetry. In this model, the just and the unjust, those who respect and those who don’t respect human rights, are not legally or morally equal.

A very perceptive observation, in my opinion, and I wrote my own essay on why I thought Russia took a “Westphalian” view of things. My argument, in essence, was that Moscow had spent seven decades pushing an exceptionalist/moralist view – the world’s first socialist state, the bright future of mankind and all that stuff – and had found it to be a complete failure. It had learned the hard way that countries are as they are and have to be dealt with as they are. Moralistic posturing leads to failure.

Readers of this site will no doubt have concluded that I come down on the “Westphalian” side of the argument. You may not like your neighbours but they won’t disappear if you shut your eyes and disdain them. You may feel smug for a while but, when you open your eyes again, nothing will have changed. To deal with them, you have to try to understand them; try and see the world from their point of view. A veil of moral superiority obstructs a clear view.

But getting back to my colleague’s response, what do we see here but feelings substituted for reason? Don’t bother to make the effort to try to understand how Moscow sees things, just say it’s a shithole country. Judgement and condemnation supplant thinking and understanding.

The essence of intelligence is the attempt to see the other guy’s point of view. How does he see things? What’s he trying to do? What threats does he see? What is he able to do about it? That’s the whole point of intelligence, analysis, international relations, diplomacy and all that sort of thing. It’s difficult and you’ll never entirely get it right but you must keep your moral judgements to yourself and try and see reality. And that’s what disappointed me about his rant: I thought he was better than that. He just sounded like some think wank “expert” on TV saying we’re great and they suck. Moralism is easy, analysis is hard.

The first problem with the moralistic worldview is that one soon becomes very restricted on whom one can talk with. After all, the Good cannot acknowledge the Bad. Especially after all the carefully constructed war words have been deployed: the “regime’s” “claims” are “unverified”, they’re “disinformation” spread by “state media; they’re “talking points” from the “playbook”. The Good, The Just, by contrast, have democratic governments, speak the truth and have a free media. The more the Good stresses the evil of the other, the less it can know or understand. And certainly can never pollute its purity by meeting with The Bad. Here’s the essence of Robinson’s legal asymmetry expressed by one of its chief practitioners: Putin’s a monster, “there you go” “Russian talking points” and NATO is defensive. What more do you need to say or think?

When moral superiority becomes entrenched, other superiorities soon take root. We’re morally better and everything we do is better too. Evil fails across the board, in war and in peace. Our tools work better and we use them better. The morally inferior are worse at war too. And so we come, to quote a certain Austrian watercolourist, to the expectation that “one good kick at the door and the whole rotten edifice will collapse”. But the USSR did not collapse in 1941 and neither did Iran in 2026.

And there are so many wars because there is so much evil that cannot – ought not – be reasoned with and certainly not left alone. And so NATO, that alliance of the morally superior, had to intervene in the Balkans, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine. War all the time and everywhere.

Essentially, NATO not only helps to defend the territory of its members, but also engages – where possible and when necessary – to project its values further afield, prevent and manage crises, stabilise post-conflict situations, and support reconstruction

Interesting how often this “projection of values” involves bombing isn’t it? Here’s a picture of NATO’s values projected into Raqqa.

The moralistic view is disastrous for its practitioners (to say nothing of thousands and thousands of the recipients). The moralists never see reality – how can they when it’s so evil!? They underestimate the opponent and over estimate themselves.

It’s hard to see reality, but reality has teeth that eventually bite. (Vide Washington and Iran at the moment.)

Moralism is fatal for intelligent decision making and it absolutely blocks the real purpose of intelligence. But I fear that moralism has taken over in the West and all “analysts” today have to agree with Nuland that Putin is a monster. Anyone who swims against the tide is a “Putin apologist” (which I have been called) and therefore at least a little bit monstrous too.

No wonder all of NATO’s wars have been defeats.

(And a good thing I retired 16 years ago.)

*********************************

And then we suddenly discover that the “talking points” from the “monster’s” “playbook” were the truth. Here’s RFE trying to put the spin on the fact that the US was conducting gain of function experiments with really dangerous compounds all over the world. Read it and then take a look at the actual declassified evidence.

MORE “RUSSIAN LIES” PROVED TRUE

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn ACCUSATIONS, HISTORY, PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, WAR ON RUSSIA

Biolabs in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Nonsense. Russia propaganda. Just the kind of thing they would say. They’re doing it themselves. Another lie from the Russian lie-making factory they assured us – Psaki, Kirby, Biden, Thomas-Greenfield. Especially fun is watching then-DNI Haynes try to slither away from Nuland’s remark that let the cat out of the bag.

Catch the Wikipedia entry before it goes down the memory hole:

In March 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian officials falsely claimed that public health facilities in Ukraine were “secret U.S.-funded biolabs” purportedly developing biological weapons, which was debunked by multiple media outlets, scientific groups, and international bodies.[5] The claim was amplified by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Chinese state media,[10] and was also promoted by followers of the QAnon conspiracy theory and subsequently supported by other far-right groups in the United States.[17]

**************************************

But they were the ones lying. EcoHealth – gotta be the greatest gaslighting title of all time, eh?

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a series of intelligence documents on Friday detailing a network of biological laboratories operating in Ukraine.

Here it is on the DNI site.

News of course to the people who get their information from what Trump calls, for some inexplicable reason, the fake news.

But not to me: one of the reasons why Putin pushed the button in 2022.

WEF 2026

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn POLITICS AND POWER, THE WORLD IS CHANGING, WORLD POWER RELATIONSHIPS

Instead of the usual smugfest we had a number of speakers – not just the Americans – say that the WEF-view was a bust.

In this regard I suggest this written eight years ago

WHY MOSCOW’S FOREIGN PHILOSOPHY IS “WESTPHALIAN”

The “Westphalian system” was a brutally taught lesson. Maybe a series of unbroken failure, capped by more brutal wars, has set the triumphalists, the exceptionalists, normally autobasting in the sauce of righteousness at Davos, on the long painful path of re-learning it.

Cuius regio, eius religio. Not just religion, of course.

PS China was also an exceptionalist power in its day. It, like Russia, has learned the hard way. There’s no profit, no benefit in being the Arbiter of Morality. Only ruin at the end.

TRUMPERY: MAKING SOMETHING OUT OF HOT AIR AND PRESTIDIGITATION.

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn THE WORLD IS CHANGING, TRUMP MYSTERY, WORLD POWER RELATIONSHIPS

My goodness! Trump’s done it again. From a mess of bloviation, trash talking, boasting, theatrical productions, deception and deflection, empty gestures and gas, he’s made something. The Israel-Iran war is apparently stopping (for now). And, part of the deal is that we are all supposed to agree that Iran’s nuclear program has been obliterated so we must all stop talking about it. (Interesting to see how that bit of mental gymnastics is handled.)

Some people whose analysis I respect (notably “Armchair Warlord” and “Simplicius”) suspected a theatrical production from the start (did any B2s even fly there?) and I was reminded of other wonderful, spectacular, powerful nothingburgers from Trump.1. For example in 2017 the loud and completely ineffective strike on Syria with a reprise the next year. Inconsistent inconsistencies I called them. The American strike was matched by Tehran’s equally theatrical production today: advance warning, loud bangs, victory claims and not much else. (But from Tehran’s perspective some more Patriot missiles used up: how many are left in the locker do you suppose? 600 to be produced this year they say but they keep needing more and more in Ukraine and there’s a lot to be replaced in Israel.)

So, what have we learned?

  • Iran is a lot more powerful than many people thought.
  • Western air defence systems aren’t very effective.
  • Who knew those little Iranian lawnmower-engined dorito drones could get all the way to Israel?
  • Hypersonic missiles are invulnerable and very frightening.
  • Tehran now knows which missiles in its arsenal are most effective and which most effectively soak up the enemy’s air defence and will build accordingly
  • Tehran’s decision to follow the missile-based armament route is vindicated. Suvorov: “Fight the enemy with the weapons he lacks“; Sun Tsu: “avoid strength and strike weakness“. `Others will notice.
  • Israel has used up the sleeper cells and intelligence penetration that it had built up in Iran.

Questions for the future

  • Has Tehran learned that the Kims were right all along?
  • Israel was supposed to be the place where Jews were safe; how many feel that way now?
  • Has Israel learned anything? Its wars have been rather offstage since 1973; the people are not used to seeing collapsed buildings in their neighbourhoods.
  • Is this the end of Netanyahu?
  • Do you think NATO is more cohesive or less cohesive after this 12-day rollercoaster ride in which every time they dutifully snapped to attention, they had to salute something different?

My predictions.

  • The damage in Israel will be much greater and much more effective than we have been told.
  • In Iran, not so much.

One final observation.

For 500 years, the West has been confident that all the best, the most powerful, the most sophisticated weapons have been in its arsenal. That hasn’t been true for some time and now the world has seen so. I was fascinated that Israel would show these photos of F14s it had destroyed as if it had accomplished something. Manned aircraft? That’s so yesterday.

HISTORY IN NATOLAND

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn HISTORY, PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE

In what was no doubt intended to strike his listeners dumb with awe, the current NATO GenSek said today:

NATO is the most powerful defense alliance in world history. Even more powerful than the Roman Empire. And more powerful than the Napoleon Empire. We are the most powerful defence alliance in world history…

First “defensive”. Do you think Hispania, Britannia, Gallia, Germania, Aegyptus would agree? But, more to the point, most of the times you hear the Roman Empire mentioned these days, it’s in a sentence like this “the Roman Empire fell because it was doing what (insert name of country, or alliance.) is doing now.”

Not, perhaps, the most felicitous comparison.

But the other is even worse. As to defensive, see above. But has he forgotten a certain decision Napoleon made in 1812 that led to the Russian Army entering Paris two years later and inventing the bistro? And this while he’s ginning up a fear of Russia? Who briefs these guys: Alfred E Newman? (NOTE: You’d think that a guy who had wasted his youth reading Mad magazine would know it was spelled Neuman, wouldn’t you? Thanks to a reader)

My advice to the GenSek is that in his pleading for more money at the end of the month, he add that a Directorate of Scary Historical Analogies will be established that is actually competent.

ANTI-RUSSIA THROUGH THE YEARS

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn ACCUSATIONS, HISTORY, PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, WAR ON RUSSIA

One of the things I’ve often heard and seen Russians say is that the West has always hated Russia and always will. When it needs Russia it will pretend friendship but when the emergency is over it’s back to the same. Britain is often named as the chief hater. I’ve filed this away as something Russians believe to be true but may be exaggerated; after all, every nation is the innocent hero of its own stories. And as Palmerston (of whom more below) said “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests“. Take Britain for example. At the moment London is the principal actor in the anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine camp; before that Cold War opponent; then ally against Hitler; then variable; then ally against Germany; then opponent in the Great Game; then enemy in the Crimean War; then ally against Napoleon and back and forth we go until the first and reasonably amicable trade contacts in Elizabeth’s time. From one to the other as interests dictated.

But a month ago I read something that made me wonder if maybe the Russians had a point. It was Orlando Figes’ book on the Crimean War and I was astounded to see the same anti-Russia tropes that we see today. (All page numbers from Kindle edition)

  • The first difficulty for the Allied propagandists in this very ostentatiously Christian age was to justify going to war against a Christian country in support of a Muslim country. For a French newspaper, it was about stopping “the Greek heresy [from being] imposed by Cossack arms on all of us”. (209) In Britain by the assertion that Christians in the Ottoman Empire were perfectly safe (with the British and French overlooking) while Russian dominance would see “their places of prayer either demolished, or converted into temples of a faith as impure, demoralizing, and intolerant, as Popery itself. What British Christian can hesitate as to the course proper for such a country as ours, in such a case as this? (223) Whew! Russia, “blessed by inhuman Priests” (368), isn’t really Christian after all. (But what an image! Cossack sotnyas galloping through Barsetshire to sabre Archdeacon Grantley!)
  • And they were as loathsome as their religion. The war was “the crusade of civilization against barbarism” (209) “The defence of mankind” against a “hopeless and degenerate people” bent upon the conquest of the world, a “religious war”. (224) “For the cause of right against injustice”. (223) Against “a country which makes no advances in any intellectual or industrial pursuits, and wholly omits to render her influence beneficial to the world”. (449) Insolence, arrogance and pride; a “bully”. (554) “A Holy War” against the Russians, “heathens”, “infidels” and “savages”. (650) An Anglican clergyman thundered that Russia’s offensive against Turkey was an attack “on the most sacred rights of our common humanity; an outrage standing in the same category as the slave trade, and scarcely inferior to it in crime”. (223)
  • These horrid people were unrelentingly expansionist. A popular pamphlet dating from 1828, On the Designs of Russia, written by a future Crimean War general, projected a desire to conquer all of Asia Minor and effect the collapse of British trade with India. (73) The foundation of this was the forged Testament of Peter the Great (102) which set out a plan to conquer Europe; it was widely quoted for years.
  • To return to Lord Palmerston. Tremendously influential for decades and Prime Minister for the last year of the Crimean War, he was very anti-Russian. As far as he was concerned, “The main and real object of the war was to curb the aggressive ambition of Russia.” (267) The fighting in the Crimea was just the start and his desired result was put forth in his memorandum to the British Cabinet in March 1854. The Crimea and Caucasus to the Ottoman Empire; Finland to Sweden, the Baltics to Prussia, Bessarabia to Austria, Poland independent. (540) Liberation movements against tsarist rule to be supported. (443) (Britain had already been providing weapons to Imam Shamyl’s forces in the long-running Caucasus war. (453)) Poland enthusiastically supported the idea (449) It was generally expected that the fall of Sevastopol would bring Russia to its knees and the Western powers could impose their conditions on the Russians. (269) But, when it finally fell in September 1855, Russia didn’t. Now what? France, which had done the heaviest fighting, was not sympathetic to Palmerston’s desires for more war in the Balkans or the Baltic. The Allies certainly weren’t about to commit the forces required to hold Sevastopol. And so they departed six months later. As the Emperor himself said “Sevastopol is not Moscow. The Crimea is not Russia. Two years after the burning of Moscow, our victorious troops were in Paris”. (535) And he was right: at the end the map hadn’t changed much.
  • And, of course, people who objected to this were “pro-Russian” and therefore “un-English” (204)

**************************************

Back then Russia was an autocracy ruled by a man ruling by Divine Right (and the Brits happily allied with the last of the series in 1914); then it became “the world’s first socialist state” (and the Brits happily allied with that in 1941 – earlier if Churchill had got his way) and now it’s Russia again but without a hereditary ruler and an all-encompassing ideology. None of these changes, apparently, have made a bit of difference: still expansionist, all round nasty, contributing nothing good to the world, contumacious, better broken up but very unstable and soon to collapse. Our side, of course, from its morally immaculate position, is ever in defence of the Right. If you disagree, you’re “pro-Russian” and therefore “un-English/American/Canadian/European/everything good”.

We dealing with something here that doesn’t seem to be very fact-based. Maybe the Russians do have a point.

VICTORY DAY 80

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn HISTORY, PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE

A couple of days ago I read a rather distressing discussion on X about US lend-lease to the USSR. Distressing because of the combination of impenetrable ignorance and unshakeable conviction. One side yelling that US lend-lease made no difference at all and you’re an idiot; the other yelling that it made all the difference and you’re the idiot. Like a bunch of drunks arguing about something in the Star Wars movies.

More ignorance on the Western side than on the Russian? Not sure actually in what I read although we have to agree that Trump just set the American bar pretty high. And it soon degenerated into who Hitler’s best friends were. Each was certain that he had all the facts and the other side had none.

Would the Soviets have beaten the nazis without US (and British and Canadian) aid? I’m inclined to think so although certainly at a greater cost and more years of struggle. Did the aid make a difference? Of course it did; in food and trucks especially. But you can make the argument that the Germans had lost their best chance after the Battle of Moscow in 1941 and after Stalingrad there was no chance. David Glantz has put it quite neatly I think: the Germans won the summers of 1941 and 1942 but the Soviets won the other summers and all the winters. Lend-lease took some time to build up and didn’t really peak until 1943 so less of an effect in those vital years of 1941 and 1942. (Years ago I was surprised to see a Canadian-made Valentine tank in a Berlin battle film. Apparently the Soviets liked the tank because it was well-armoured and easy to maintain, but I can’t think the 2-pounder gun was much use in 1945.)

Who won the war? The Allies did. But you can’t forget the 80/20 division. Who suffered the most? The Soviets undeniably. Where were the most important Axis defeats? On the Eastern Front, no question. (Except for the Battle of Britain.)

Who started the war? Well we all had a responsibility: Stalin spent six years trying to organise an anti-Hitler coalition but failed for various reasons and then became the last man to do a deal with Hitler. (It was infuriating in those X rants and counter-rants when some ignoramus threw out the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement as if that were the final word. The certainty of facts without context.)

Probably the most noticeable thing on the Western side was the incomprehension of the gigantic scale of the fighting on the Eastern Front. I remember remarking when I first read Liddell-Hart’s history 40-50 years ago on the disproportionate space given to the North African fighting versus the Eastern Front. I have some sympathy for him because the Soviets weren’t telling us much then but still. And that disproportion persists in the West although there’s no excuse any more. And so does the view that the Soviets had no skill: on the contrary, once they got going, they beat the Germans strategically and operationally and surprised them almost every time. These people should be required to read at least one book by Glantz before they’re allowed to open their months again. And listen to the lecture by Jonathan House about the three German alibis.

And from the Russian side the tiresome conviction that D-Day only happened because the Western allies saw that the Soviets were winning and felt they’d better jump in. No, D-Day happened as soon as it could. I don’t think the Soviets had any idea of how difficult a seaborne invasion is against a defended coast. And how would they? Have the Russians or Soviets ever done one?

The Europeans secretly supported Hitler. Yes, many did, but they lost that argument in 1939.

Or Allen Dulles fooling around in Switzerland. He did but it was a personal initiative by a guy whose whole career was based on the assumption that the rules were whatever he said they were. Unconditional surrender was primarily Roosevelt’s initiative and he and Churchill agreed to it in January 1943. That, not Dulles’ fantasies, was and remained official policy.

Operation Unthinkable. Well, maybe the name gives you a clue.

But over the years much has been forgotten. The clearest example is that opinion poll record that shows the French in 1945 knowing the Soviets had played the biggest part (80/20) but these days believing the USA had.

As for Trump’s recent assertion, I have a horrible feeling that most of my neighbours, few of whom have ever heard of Canada’s Hundred Days, would agree with him.

********************************

I was there for the 50th. A different time. The Western Allies showed up to do honour. In those far-off days we knew the difference between Stepan Bandera and Lyudmilla Pavlichenko and which side which was on. Today the Canadian Parliament and British VE-Day ceremony organisers have forgotten.

Which, of course, feeds into the conviction many Russians already have that Marshal Zhukov got it right when he (reportedly) said “We have saved Europe from fascism and they will never forgive us for it”. (Did he actually say that? Certainly lots of Russians seem to think he did.)

THE NEWS THAT WAS FIT TO PRINT YESTERDAY DOESN’T FIT TODAY

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, RUSSIA'S NEIGHBOURS, THE WORLD IS CHANGING, UKRAINE

Remember this from 2023? “Neither NATO nor NATO Allies are party to the conflict.” Or this? “In response, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin emphasized Thursday that U.S. is not at war with Russia”. How about this from 2024? “NATO is not at war with Russia and is not party to the war Russia is waging on Ukraine.” How many times did you hear “NATO is not a party to the conflict”? Hundreds. Why NATO itself officially told us that to say “NATO is at war with Russia in Ukraine” was “Russian disinformation”.

Well, fuhgeddaboudit it! While you were sleeping, disinformation became information and there’s a new Party Line now. And here it is. “Key Takeaways From America’s Secret Military Partnership With Ukraine: An investigation by The New York Times has revealed that America was woven into the war far more than previously known.“

Of course, as Larry Johnson has pointed out, the real purpose of this propaganda shift is the underbussing of the Ukraine disaster.

I can summarize the massive story in one sentence — Ukraine would have destroyed the weak, incompetent Russians if only the Ukrainian generals had followed the guidance from the US military. If you’re looking for a signal that the war in Ukraine is on its last legs, this article is it. This is a ridiculous attempt to burnish the image of the Pentagon and US European Command as strategic and tactical geniuses who could have beaten the Russians if only those damn Ukrainians had followed their advice.

It’s the signal for the sheep to start bleating a new tune (remember the scene in Nineteen Eighty-Four when, right in the middle of Hate Week, the Enemy becomes the Ally? Creepy how much Orwell foresaw, isn’t it?) As “Simplicius” remarks: “Of course, most of it is news only to the NPCs who’ve subsisted on main courses of MSM consumption.”

The real news is not what they say; it’s

that they say it.

I didn’t bother to read the whole thing but I saw enough to recognise a familiar tune. One of the principal themes of my writings in this site is that Washington and the West generally have very poor knowledge of Russia (here I am in 2018). Most of it is based on unexamined assumptions complacently adhered to. And here we see it again. Let’s start a short, victorious war. And we know that it will be short and victorious because Russia’s economy is weak and sanctions will collapse it in a couple of months; Putin’s underbosses will whack him out if we can make them hurt; their weapons are ancient junk; their generals are unimaginative clods; their tactics are inept; their soldiers are poorly trained dregs. We. on the other hand, are the greatest warriors with the best generals and the best weapons ever.

My very favourite example of this ill-informed self-satisfied overconfidence all in one go from a British source from 2023 just before the big offensive:

As a former tank commander, I can say one thing for certain: Putin’s demoralised conscripts are utterly unprepared for the shock action now hitting their lines. Ukrainian armoured formations are beginning to meet Russian forces in battle, and they are going to pulverise Russia’s defensive lines. I am confident for one simple reason: Ukraine will follow the Western ideology of manoeuvre warfare in a combined arms context, while the Russians will follow Soviet doctrine, relying on attrition and numbers. The Russians will find that the armour of Western tanks is far more resilient than flesh and bone, they will die in great numbers, and they will lose.

Whatever else it may be, war is the ultimate reality test and, when the confident assurance fades, step by step, the sunk cost fallacy will drag the West deeper into the bog. Babbling about Russia’s dependence on refrigerators is replaced by they’re out-producing us four-to-one. The years roll by and it’s suddenly time to get out however you can. Just like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. And, like those, no lessons will be learned because we won or at least we would have if only the wind hadn’t blown so hard or our allies weren’t so useless or something else beyond our control. (Do they read Clausewitz at West Point? Ever heard of the Correlation of Forces? How about Sun Tzu’s famous quotation about knowledge?)

Nothing short of genius can account for losing so consistently given the enormous resources available to American forces. In light of this very low level of military competence, maybe wars are not our best choice of hobby.

As the toilers at MiniTrue re-write and the Memory Hole burns, we wait for the next Russian disinformation to suddenly turn into information. Lots of NATO troops in Ukraine? “The Revolution of Dignity” was Made in America? NATO provoked the war? Every chance to settle the problem peacefully was torpedoed by Washington or London? Ukraine is full of Galician nazis actually making the big decisions? Bucha was a fake? So was the maternity hospital?

*************************************

(By the way, as most of you already knew, because propaganda is about impressions not details, there’s no penalty for failed predictions and the British guy quoted above is still at it: “Whisper it, but the tide might just be turning against Putin:The American president has lost patience with the Russian leader – so has his own people… within Russia’s top brass, the knives are out for their leader”. Evidence? A mis-interpretation, two false “facts” and the usual inflated casualty figures.)

GROK IS PRETTY IMPRESSIVE

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn HISTORY

I’m sitting here with a glass of Scottish mineral water thinking about the differences between the Russian civilisation state and the European civilisation. And one of my thoughts is that while European kings are calling themselves kings of a people, the Russians already have the concept of the Russian Land.

So I think to ask Grok.

First question: “When did the King of England stop being called Rex Anglorum and become Rex Angliae?”. Answer: King John (1200s), with lots of details.

Second question. Ditto for Rex Francorum and Rex Franciae. Answer (again lots of intelligent detail): Louis IX (1200s).

Third question. Русская Земля . Answer 800s.

That’s pretty impressive. I left out the very detailed and intelligent discussions of the questions and the developments over time. Do it yourself.

*************************

My experience with Grok has been that it gives you the mean sea level answer to your question. But I guess that is to be expected, given that it is sifting the Web which is polluted by the MSM. But it’s much faster than Googling it and then figuring out the answer from the various pieces of information. (Let alone the good old days of spending hours in a library. I spent hours and hours in the Public Record Office when it was on Chancery Lane. Gadzooks – let’s see if Grok can do my PhD thesis!)

But as always – and if there is a golden rule to the Net, this is it – you have to have a solid basis of knowledge in your own head to start with to give context and, as well, the ability to sift wheat from chaff.

For those of you who fell asleep in language classes: King of the English, King of England, King of the French, King of France, Russian Land.

*************************

A thought. Thanks to Grok, I write this short burble. In the Google days it would have been an essay. In the archive days, it would have been a thesis.