building retaining wall with unopened bags of ‘concrete’ – often in the pics we see actually cement bags, looks like. Seems to be a new fashion or something. I see pics of very large areas done like this: very large retaining walls. The expense must be enormous. But they seem to have done it.

Seems crazy to me. So I asked my old friend chatgpt, ‘unreliable’ as he is, what he thought and he said:

Building retaining walls using unopened bags of cement (often mistakenly called “concrete”) is an unusual and highly questionable practice. Here’s a breakdown of the potential worth and risks of this procedure.
What Might Be the Intended Idea?

Cost-saving shortcut: People may think that stacking bags is cheaper or faster than using proper concrete blocks or poured concrete.
Hardening effect: The theory is that over time, rain will soak the bags, causing the cement inside to set and create a solid structure.
Aesthetic improvisation: Some might find it a quick DIY method without needing formwork or professional skills.

Serious Problems and Risks

Structural Integrity
    Uncontrolled hydration: Cement requires precise mixing ratios with water. Rainfall or moisture may not distribute evenly through the bag, leaving portions soft and useless.
    Weak, brittle results: Even if part of the bag hardens, it’s unlikely to achieve the strength of properly mixed concrete.
    Erosion over time: Bags won’t bind together reliably, and any hardened parts will still crumble due to poor compaction and inadequate bonding.

Durability and Weathering
    The paper or plastic bag material will degrade, leaving exposed cement prone to cracking and erosion.
    Rainwater can wash away uncured cement, weakening any structure or introducing voids within the wall.

Load-Bearing Concerns
    Retaining walls need to withstand lateral pressure from soil, especially after rain. A “cement-bag wall” won’t handle heavy loads and is prone to collapse, leading to property damage or injuries.

Aesthetic and Environmental Impact
    It looks unprofessional and quickly deteriorates into an eyesore.
    Cement can also leach alkalines into the soil, which may negatively affect plants or groundwater in the area.

Misuse of Materials
    Cement is not concrete—it’s just a component. Without aggregates (like gravel or sand), the mixture won’t achieve proper strength, even if it sets.

Situations Where It Could Have Some Limited Use

While this method is generally unsound, there are rare situations where people might find temporary use:

Emergency flood control barriers: As a very temporary solution, stacked cement bags might prevent some water flow.
Landscaping experiments: If the goal is just to create a garden feature that won’t bear significant loads, it might serve briefly—although other options (like rocks or actual concrete blocks) would still be better.

What about if it were really ‘concrete’ ? concrete can be bought in bags, just needing water, they advertise. Incredibly expensive way to buy concrete. But:

Bagged ready-mix concrete—which includes cement, sand, and gravel—has become common and only needs water to activate. However, using unopened bags of concrete for retaining walls is still problematic, though it shifts the discussion slightly. Below are the specific considerations if someone were to use unopened bags of concrete for such a project.
What Happens if Unopened Bags of Concrete Are Used?

Hydration Still Uncontrolled
    Rainwater won't permeate the bag evenly. Some areas of the concrete mix will harden, while others might remain dry or poorly cured.
    Even if part of the bag sets, it’s likely to form brittle and weak sections that don’t bond together properly. Proper concrete needs controlled water content and proper compaction to achieve strength.

Bag Decomposition Issues
    Whether paper or plastic, the bag’s material will eventually degrade, exposing the semi-hardened chunks inside to weathering and erosion. Once exposed, these sections will crack or crumble, weakening the wall.

Lack of Compaction and Bonding
    In poured concrete, compaction (removal of air pockets) and continuous bonding between layers are crucial for strength. Stacked bags won’t achieve this; instead, you'll get a pile of poorly bonded lumps.

Failure to Withstand Lateral Pressure
    Retaining walls are subject to lateral earth pressure, especially when soil becomes saturated with water. A bag-wall won't be able to handle these loads, leading to shifting, bulging, or collapse over time.

Would There Be Any Value in Using Unopened Bags of Concrete?
Temporary Use

In temporary projects, such as flood control barriers or very small garden beds, using unopened bags might offer a short-term solution. For example:
    If stacked securely and left undisturbed, the bags could act as a low barrier for a season or two.
    However, this is not a proper long-term solution since degradation will start relatively quickly.

Can This Method Be Improved?

If someone is set on using bagged concrete for convenience, here are a few better alternatives:

Open the Bags and Add Water Properly
    Dump the concrete into a wheelbarrow or mixer, mix thoroughly with water, and pour it into molds or stackable forms.

Use Bags as Formwork (Temporary Molds)
    You could use the unopened bags as temporary molds. After stacking them, pierce holes to add water manually, and let the bags cure for a short period.
    Later, peel off the bags (before they degrade) to leave hardened blocks behind. Even so, the blocks will be imperfect without proper mixing or compaction.

Dry-Stack Blocks and Mortar Fill the Gaps
    If ease of use is the goal, concrete blocks with mortar or dry-stack blocks would be much more reliable and durable than using unopened bags.

Conclusion

Even with ready-mix concrete, using unopened bags to build a retaining wall is not advisable. While this approach might result in some sections hardening, the lack of controlled hydration, compaction, and bonding makes it structurally unreliable for anything beyond short-term, low-load situations.

If you want to build a lasting and safe retaining wall, properly mixing and pouring concrete or using interlocking blocks is the way to go. This ensures your wall will handle soil pressure and weather exposure without crumbling away.

Verdict

Building a retaining wall from unopened cement bags is not advisable. It’s an unsound practice, both structurally and aesthetically. If you’re looking for a cost-effective retaining wall, alternatives such as:

Dry-stacked stones or interlocking blocks
Gabion walls
Railroad ties (for small projects)

will be far more reliable, visually appealing, and safer in the long run.

                How about this to bring truth to the elections:
(And to bring on board the 300 million 'missing' Americans who could save us all.) ?


Democracy.  Institute Democracy.

How’s that for a novel idea?  You think you have Democracy now?  Well you don’t.
And I don’t mean because of any ‘rigging’ or interference,  despoiling of the system. I mean because of the very system.  It ‘knows’ it is not what it should be.

To explain how I see it I got Chatgpt to help because I figured it would respond with the prevailing reality, truly, and it would ring true. 
Perhaps better than claims I might make in my own language. People may be more persuaded by chatgpt's language than mine.

                     So here is the discussion:

The idea is that democracy does not exist but that it could and should.

Question:
Is it not a given that our forms of democracy are admitted make-do affairs necessary because of the impossibility of duplicating a 'pure democracy' as in a theatre full of people all of whom have a voice?

Chatgpt:

Yes, that’s a crucial point: the representative forms of democracy we practice today are indeed "make-do" compromises, largely due to the logistical and practical impossibility of implementing pure or direct democracy on a large scale. Here’s a breakdown of this concept, along with some of the inherent compromises involved:

    1.  The Idea of Pure Democracy

In the theoretical sense , pure democracy or direct democracy means that every individual in a society has a say on every issue, in real time, akin to the way decisions were made in ancient Athens' Ekklesia (citizen assembly). In such a setting:
Every citizen can propose, discuss, and vote on policies directly.
There are no intermediaries (like representatives) interpreting or voting on behalf of others.
However, in practice, this is infeasible in modern, large, complex societies for several reasons.

    2. Representative Democracy as a Necessary Compromise

Modern democracies address the impracticality of everyone being directly involved in every decision by delegating power to elected representatives. While this system helps manage complexity, it introduces limitations, including:

Dilution of direct influence: Citizens hand over their political power to representatives, who might not always act in alignment with voters' intentions.

Accountability issues: Representatives govern between elections with significant autonomy, sometimes creating a disconnect between public interests and policies.

Practical expediency: Elections become a stand-in for continuous direct participation.

Thus, representative democracy is a workaround that balances broad participation with the need for efficiency and governance at scale.

    3. The Problem of Scale and Complexity

In a society of millions (or billions), not everyone can reasonably debate or vote on every issue. The limitations include:

   Time and cognitive load: Citizens cannot track or engage with every issue meaningfully.

    Geographical and technological constraints: While the internet enables online participation, it also creates challenges (like misinformation and unequal access).

In this way, today’s democracies are approximations—an attempt to uphold the spirit of democratic participation while recognizing the physical and cognitive constraints of large-scale governance.

    4. Democracy as an Evolutionary Process

Some might argue that no form of democracy, even a direct one, can fully achieve the ideal of "everyone has a voice." Human interests are too diverse, and even in ancient Athens, direct democracy was limited to a narrow segment of society (excluding women, slaves, and non-citizens).

Many political theorists suggest that democracy is an evolving system, constantly in search of better ways to balance fairness, efficiency, and participation. 

Participatory models—like deliberative democracy, citizen assemblies, or online voting platforms - attempt to address some of the limitations of representative democracy.

    5. The Theatrical Analogy

The analogy to a theatre — a space where all voices could be heard — captures both the ideal and the challenge. In smaller groups, such as a community meeting or town hall, the ideal of collective participation can work. But as the number of participants increases, the ability for each person to express their voice meaningfully diminishes, and a moderator or system of representation becomes inevitable.

Conclusion: Make-Do, but Worth the Effort?

It is right that our democratic systems are imperfect compromises, necessary given the challenges of scale and complexity. 

While representative democracy is often criticized for its flaws, many see it as the least-worst option among systems tried throughout history. 

It remains a work in progress, driven by the hope that future innovations—technological, procedural, or cultural—might bring us closer to realizing the democratic ideal of a society where all voices are heard and considered.

Question:

Has this fact been overtly recognised anywhere, perhaps in speeches or books… that you can point to?

Chatgpt

Yes, the idea that modern representative democracy is a compromise born out of necessity—due to the challenges of large-scale direct participation—has been explicitly recognized by thinkers and scholars. 

The consensus across many works is that direct democracy, where every individual has an equal voice (like in the idealized "theater full of people"), becomes impractical in the context of mass societies. As a result, representation emerged to fill the gap, enabling governance on a national or even global scale.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract, argued that representation itself is a modern invention and not a feature of earlier democracies. He lamented that genuine democracy could only function in small communities, and representation, though necessary for modern states, inherently distorts the people’s will​
.
Hannah Pitkin, a political theorist, similarly observed that under contemporary conditions, democracy has been effectively replaced by representation. She argued that while representation allows democracy to function within large societies, it fundamentally transforms the democratic ideal by turning representatives into decision-makers rather than true agents of the people​
.
Moreover, political theorist Sheldon Wolin described democracy as inherently “fugitive,” resisting formal institutionalization. Wolin emphasized that the institutional forms we associate with democracy today are compromises that diverge from the spirit of participatory governance​

.
In essence, modern representative democracy has been acknowledged by various scholars as a pragmatic adaptation to the realities of size and complexity in modern societies. The limitations and compromises inherent in this system continue to be the subject of ongoing debate, particularly among those who seek to revive more participatory forms of democracy through technological innovations or local governance initiatives.

Question:

You have references perhaps to books or articles, speeches, these people made perhaps?

Chatgpt:

Hanna Pitkin’s The Concept of Representation (1967) is one of the foundational texts in political theory, providing a nuanced examination of what it means for someone or an institution to "represent" others. 

This work dissects representation into four key dimensions: formalistic, descriptive, symbolic, and substantive, offering a framework that has since shaped much of the scholarly discourse around representation. 

While her focus was not strictly empirical or historical, 
Pitkin's insights influenced later scholars in areas like political accountability, minority group representation, and institutional legitimacy.

In her book, Pitkin argues that representation is more than simply acting on behalf of others — it is a relationship that requires ongoing interaction between representatives and their constituents. 

She emphasizes the importance of both procedural (formal) legitimacy and substantive outcomes that align with the interests of those represented. This idea has been cited in various contexts by scholars such as Jane Mansbridge and others studying dyadic and collective representation, and it remains highly relevant today​
.
For more recent discussions inspired by Pitkin’s ideas, see the evolving debate around collective representation and the role of institutions in reflecting societal diversity, such as in recent studies by Lefkofridi and Wlezien on citizen preferences for representation
​

. Pitkin’s conceptual analysis remains essential reading for anyone interested in political philosophy or the structure of modern democracies. If you're interested, the latest edition of her book is available from the University of California Press and also through library networks like OverDrive​

.
Question:

Thank you. useful. I would like to jump straight from those recognitions of technical, practical infeasibility to the computers and ubiquitous smartphone of today and point out that because of them it is now for the first time ever totally possible to not only duplicate the 'democracy' of ancient greece but do it better.


Chatgpt:

Thisidea aligns with a growing movement advocating for digital democracy, which leverages modern technology—such as smartphones and secure online platforms—to revive or even surpass the ideals of direct democracy. 

This concept builds on the recognition that large-scale participation was once impractical due to geographic and logistical limitations, a reality that early thinkers like Rousseau and Pitkin accepted. However, today's technologies open the door to overcoming these obstacles.

Digital Democracy: Surpassing the Ancient Model

The argument is that modern tools can enable continuous, meaningful participation by every eligible citizen, rather than relying on elected representatives as intermediaries. 

Here’s how contemporary technology can facilitate what might be considered a new form of "direct" democracy:

Real-Time Voting and Participation:

    With smartphones in almost every pocket, people could vote on laws and policies as easily as sending a message. Blockchain technology offers secure, transparent, and tamper-proof elections.

    Unlike ancient Athens, where physical presence limited participation, digital platforms allow for asynchronous engagement, meaning citizens can participate at their convenience.

Deliberative Processes:

    Platforms for debate, such as forums or public consultation tools, offer spaces for collective deliberation, with AI summarizing complex discussions or surfacing key themes.

    Liquid democracy models blend direct and representative democracy, allowing citizens to delegate votes on specific issues to trusted individuals or revoke that power at will.

Ubiquity of Access:

    While physical meetings in ancient democracies excluded many (e.g., women, slaves, and foreigners), a digital democracy, in theory, ensures broader participation—though equity and accessibility issues remain considerations.

Examples in Action:

    Estonia’s e-governance system allows citizens to vote online and access many government services, serving as a pioneering example of digital democracy in practice.

    In Taiwan, the government uses the platform vTaiwan to crowdsource policy solutions and conduct referendums, proving that continuous civic engagement is feasible with digital tools.
Addressing Feasibility Critiques:

    Unlike the logistical challenges that undermined the dream of universal direct democracy in the past, secure voting protocols and identity verification systems today—like biometric authentication—can ensure that only eligible participants have a voice while minimizing risks such as fraud or coercion.

Thus, technological advances provide a way to surpass the ancient model of democracy. 

They allow everyone to participate, improve decision-making with more nuanced feedback, and even reduce the potential for corruption through transparency. 

The shift toward direct participation through technology suggests that democracy can evolve beyond the limitations acknowledged by earlier theorists. 

However, challenges such as digital literacy, data privacy, and preventing manipulation must also be addressed to fully realize this potential.

Question:

I envisage the optimum solution incorporating an open source 'voting' app because this way it cannot be controlled by the existing govt and is open to inspection, the source code, by all the world's best programmers at all times.

Similarly the 'agenda' of the app would not be decided by any govt nor any govt department but by the free will of the people - the 'capturing' of the agenda being as transparently obvious to the monitoring programmers as the algorithms.

Chatgpt:

The vision you describe—an open-source, decentralized voting platform controlled by the people—embodies the ideals of radical digital democracy. 

It aims to overcome the inherent limitations of representative systems, ensuring transparency, accountability, and collective agenda-setting. 

Below, I outline the core elements needed to achieve this vision and some real-world examples that point in this direction.

    1. Open-Source Voting App: 

       Transparency: Open-source code ensures that no hidden backdoors or vulnerabilities exist. 
       Independent programmers and cryptographers can inspect the code at any time.

       Decentralization: The platform's transparency would make it difficult for governments or powerful entities to manipulate elections.

       Security through Blockchain: Blockchain can record votes immutably, protecting against tampering. Estonia and other countries have explored blockchain-based elections to strengthen digital trust.

Examples & Precedents:

ElectionGuard by Microsoft is an open-source software development kit for end-to-end verifiable elections, demonstrating that secure and transparent elections via open code are feasible.

Aragon and DAOstack are blockchain-based platforms enabling decentralized governance and decision-making for communities without intermediaries.

    2. Decentralized Agenda-Setting by Citizens:

In thisvision, not only would voting be democratized, but so too would the process of deciding what to vote on. 

Traditional democracies concentrate agenda-setting power within political institutions, but digital technologies can flip this model, allowing citizens to directly shape the agenda.

Algorithm Transparency: Algorithms used to surface issues for debate (e.g., the most popular or pressing issues) would be open to scrutiny.

Crowdsourced Agendas: Citizens could submit and vote on proposals for inclusion in referendums or policy decisions. 

Liquid democracy models could allow them to delegate decision-making on certain topics to trusted experts or community leaders.

Examples & Precedents:
vTaiwan in Taiwan crowdsources policy ideas and uses collaborative platforms to build consensus on issues before government action. 

This has helped tackle controversial topics like Uber’s regulation.

Polis, an open-source tool, enables large-scale conversations where citizens can express opinions and see areas of consensus or divergence in real time.

    3. Challenges and Solutions

While the technological foundation exists, there are practical challenges:

Digital Divide: Ensuring everyone has access to the technology and the skills to use it effectively.

Security & Privacy: Balancing transparency with the need to protect personal data and voting anonymity.


Manipulation & Misinformation: Safeguards against coordinated manipulation campaigns would be essential. Algorithms that set or prioritize the agenda must be open to public oversight.

    4. Future Potential

The concept reflects a shift toward network democracy—a system where governance emerges from the collective participation of interconnected individuals rather than hierarchical state institutions. 

By removing gatekeepers and putting decision-making directly in the hands of people, the system would align governance with public sentiment in real-time, fostering a more responsive and inclusive form of democracy.

Next Steps:

Developing a prototype app as open-source software on a platform like GitHub would attract interest from technologists and activists. 

Engaging civil society groups and existing democratic innovation initiatives would build momentum. 

With these principles—transparency, decentralization, and participatory agenda-setting—this vision could transform democracy into a truly collective process.

This approach signals not just a restoration of ancient Athenian democracy but a step beyond it, facilitated by modern tools, ensuring that power remains with the people rather than intermediaries or elites.

Read this and pass it on. Think about it. See what it says. Lunatic NATO gone fully aggressive plans for decades of war even unto nuclear apocalypse.

Don’t you want to do something about that? At least tell as many people as you can?

Or it’s fine with you?

https://scheerpost.com/2024/07/17/patrick-lawrence-brain-dead-and-dangerous-nato-proceeds/

The Donbas States have every right to self determination.

China means Australia no harm.

The USA means harm to everyone.

I keep banging on about this theme. But you have to. What’s not front and centre these days quickly gets forgotten. A new ice cream flavour hits the streets and catches everyone’s attention.

Some film star has an abortion or a bowel movement and catches everyone’s attention.

So I do it again. Bring it up again. Ukraine. And ‘Victory’. Fashionable nowadays to lament the vanishing possibility of a ‘Ukrainian victory’ and a prediction that the USA and NATO will continue the fight until there is such a victory even if it means decades of war and even if it means nuclear weapons.

The kind of lunacy we have become accustomed to. Emanates from cloud cuckoo land: the USA.

I view Mr Daniel Davis – who is actually a retired Lt Col in the American forces – pretty regularly on his ‘Deep Dive’ Youtube channel because he is a sensible, honest and true thinking man.

And I today viewed one of his videos. This one: NATO SUMMIT: European Split on Ukraine Russia War Grows

And I was struck again by the sad loose language he uses as does everyone else. They cannot think straight while they use language like that. So I made a comment putting my point of view and here it is. I have a readership of maybe three or four people by choice and a handful more who run into the blog by accident of googling or something.

Not very much. But my hope is that maybe one of those few will pass it on and maybe it will take root and start spreading out from there somewhere. I hope. That’s my hope.

Here is the comment:

With all due respect Mr Davis is using wrong terminology and it confuses and hides the issue.

It is the MSM and NATO and USA terminology, of course. And it is WRONG. It completely hides the truth. The truth about what ‘Ukraine winning’ means.

The truth about what it is. What it would be.

Listen, it is simple. First you have to make up your mind: is a nation the people or is the land or is it the government?

It is not the government. Governments come and go, rise and fall, and they issue from the people.

And it is not the land. Find unoccupied land and we say there is no nation there.

It is the people. Right? Right. Well now: when does ‘Ukraine the people’ win?

Simple: when they stop dying and being maimed, crippled, tormented, tortured, deprived of everything.

See? It really is as simple as that.

When the war stops Ukraine (the people) wins WINS.

Just like that. Because the people win. Just like that. Because they stop dying.

THAT’s when ‘Ukraine wins’ and that’s the ONLY time ‘Ukraine wins’.

See?

What “they” the lunatic manipulators, promotors of this war and all the deadhead unthinking commentator are talking about is NOT ‘when Ukraine wins’. It is when ‘The Kiev regime wins’. That’s what they really mean.

And, of course, the regime’s master: the USA regime.

Can you see? I know. It is hard to see straight. They have twisted and distorted for so long.

You probably can’t keep the thought out of your head that ‘Ukraine’ has lost if ‘it’ (that same ‘Ukraine’, currently ill defined in your mind) has ‘lost’ the Donbas States.

But just slow down. Think again. Who has lost what? Have the Ukrainian people ‘lost’ the Donbas lands?

No. No way. They are still occupied by the Ukrainian people who had them before ’22. A man who owned property there before owns it now, unless he got killed by USA prompted shelling.

A man with home and property, business, work, in Donbas still has it. He even still has his same government. He has the same local govt. and he has the same State Govt: the DPR, say, in Donetsk.

Just his govt – his, his own – has elected to Federate with the Russian Federation.

But it all still exists. Nothing has been robbed, stolen, removed, destroyed, vanished.

The Ukrainian people still have what they have before.

Who has ‘lost’ the Donbas States? Nobody. Nobody that ever owned them.

But the ruling junta of lunatic thieves they have lost the right to despoil, plunder and torment those States.

That is what has been ‘lost’. The ‘right’ of evil to exercise its will across a people and a land.

And ‘Ukraine’, the rightful ‘Ukraine’, the Ukraine that is the people, it PROFITS from that.

The world needs to see things clearly. And that ought to be clear enough.

It is very sad that Daniel Davis does not use the correct language and say ‘Kiev regime’ when that’s what he’s referring to.

It is very sad that he does not always take pains to promulgate this core message with every video: that the Ukrainian people (and hence ‘Ukraine’) WINS the minute the killing stops.

It is very sad.

It is so sad especially because NO ONE is doing it.

Macgregor does not do. All of Judge Napolitano’s large stable of excellent guests: they do not do it. MoA does not do it. Even John Helmer, probably the best of all commenters on this fiasco, even he does not do it.

Even the Russian govt and Putin, they do not do it (and I had high hopes for them), Nobody does it.

Hence nobody is speaking for Ukrainians. No one is supporting Ukrainians. No one is trying to get victory for them. They have no help, not from anywhere. Just posturings and mouthings everywhere the vilest, the filthiest of them all being, of course from the USA and its NATO lackeys.

Who are persisting in the methodical extermination of the Ukrainians while piously claiming to be ‘supporting’ them.

What total lunacy is this? I don’t know. It staggers me.

Not even the Ukrainian people say this is the way it is. That Victory for them is cessation of the killing. Even they do not say it. Or rather, it doesn’t get reported to us that they say it.

I am damn sure that 90% of all the old men and women, the mothers of the dead and crippled, etc. etc. know damn well that what they desire most of all is an end to the killing.

But it never gets reported.

The Ukrainians are magnificent people. As in fact, of course, just about all the people of the world are, the ‘ordinary’ people. But by god they don’t seem very clever. If they don’t see this simple truth and share it with each other, both sides of the line, and unite and throw the Americans out of Europe and claim their own victory.

Prof Jeffrey Sachs posted a Youtube video about American meddling in Ukraine
(Save Ukraine From American Meddling | Jeffrey Sachs, June 27, 2024 Neutrality Studies )
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3aa12ISDXY&lc=UgwHqT0dbJgcd4ncZnN4AaABAg.A5LlQpXfiqzA5TUVJgPBvj )

and I found it to be excellent and posted an enthusiastic comment that I was pleased to see it and could use it in the future to inform people and found it accurate and comprehensive.

An onlooker posted a reply to me that I was all wrong. Saying it was ‘Far from accurate and far from comprehensive’.

We exchanged a couple more emails and finally he (joe_ninety_one_5076) posted his itemised critique of Sachs video and I looked at it and found it unconvincing.

Because my response was too big Youtube would not let me post it. So I am posting it here and I’ll simply post a link to this on Youtube.

Here it is. It includes the transcript of Sach’s video:

@joe_ninety_one_5076

Well I am disappointed. The whole question here is American meddling in ‘Ukraine’. Subsumed beneath that is the corollary: the damage it has done is doing and will do to ‘Ukraine’. Meaning today of course, in popular common use, even official use: ‘Kiev Ukraine’, the American owned puppet.

But which we can more properly see as the ‘original’ ‘Ukraine’ of some 40 million people that has been irrevocable smashed forever by US meddling.
Smashed though it is we can still use the notion, the idea, of the overall landmass and its peoples and contemplate how it suffers, has suffered and will suffer.

It is up to the onlooker I guess, to see the word ‘Ukraine’ as meaning whichever he chooses.

For me it is very noticeable that all the warmongers and most vociferous supporters of ‘Ukraine’ do not mean the ‘whole’ as was and nor to they even mean the ‘Kiev Ukrainians’, the people who remain there, who still are.

We see this because they happily watch 500,000 of their own die in the course of this attempt to subjugate their own brothers. Vivid example.
But even more vivid, more lurid is their battle cry: ‘To the last man’. Pray tell how does it profit a people if they all die?

It does not. It is sheer abject lunacy to imagine that it does. Unless we histrionically postulate some other fate ‘worse than death’ – perpetual slavery beneath Roman legions or Attila the Hun or Ghenghis Khan or the American South slave owners perhaps.

There is no such histrionic fate worse than death facing anyone in Ukraine.

No. It makes sense only in one way: If all the people die but the regime, the rulers, live on THEN you/they could claim ‘victory’. But as I say, that is a victory not for the people. It is a victory that takes no account of the people whatever.

I just wanted to establish that fact. It is a sore point with me. I am disgusted at the way all the media perpetuate this loose language that masks genocide in fact.

Right. Now back the topic. The question is of American meddling. If you disagree with Sach’s video you disagree with his contention that American meddling brought this about and maintains it. A seemingly impossible position to take in light of all we see sand know but that’s what awakened my interest. Can such a position be supported? What new evidence, details, understandings are there?

You come up with these:

1. Sachs cites some neocon document in 2000. He could cite Dugin’s 1995 book, ‘Foundations of Geopolitics’, influential in Kremlin neocon circles, requiring, amongst other things, the annexation of Ukraine, dismemberment and vassalage of Georgia, vasalage of Belarus …
2. Ukraine was neutral in 2014 when Putin invaded, with little prospect of NATO membership. An inconvenient truth.
3. China/Russia in Mexico is a flawed analogy. NATO is not an authoritarian dictatorship.
4. The US spent money on democracy in Ukraine. So what? Ukraine has been the shining light of post-soviet democracy. Sachs does not say how much Russia has spent on trying to undermine it. The US is open; Russian affairs are closed. Who poisoned pro-western candidate Yushchenko in 2004?
5. The timeline of Maidan is abbreviated. He misses out the cause, which was Russian pressure to prevent Ukraine signing a free trade deal with the EU. He also misses out the violence used by the government which caused the protests to escalate. Finally he misses out the final deal, brokered by the EU, that the Russian delegate refused to sign. Yanukovych fled while still in control of the police and army. It was parliament that removed him.
6. The Nuland phone call was not about who should be in the new Ukrainian government after Yanukovich. The text of the call demonstrates this clearly. This failing alone shows Sachs to be either disingenuous or an uncritical amateur. The release of this tape actually highlights rather well Kremlin bad faith.
7. He entirely omits the immediate calling of elections by the provisional government. He entirely omits the Kremlin’s unprovoked invasion of Crimea after the Russian governor of Crimea had recognised the provisional government. He omits to mention that Donbas did not spontaneously break away in 2014. It was engineered in the Kremlin. The provisional government was justified in responding.
8. Sachs deliberately misinterprets Merkel’s comments on Minsk and avoids discussing Russian bad faith.
9. In December 2021, the US simply reminded Russia that Ukraine was a sovereign state. Russia had previously agreed this on many occasions.
10. He fails to add that Bennett also said that Bucha destroyed the peace talks after the ‘SMO’ started.
11. He keeps talking about US missiles in Ukraine as a done deal, even though the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997 forbids nuclear missiles in new NATO states. He is completely unaware of this treaty.
    Sachs is VERY biased. He was a top advisor to the Kremlin in 1991 and presided over the subsequent chaos. Perhaps he is trying to make amends.

My take goes something like this:

1. irrelevant
2. ‘legally’ neutral in fact bellicose about to mount an invasion
3. irrelevant
4. the devil is in the detail
5. I am not qualified to pronounce
6. Not qualified to pronounce but strong feelings I’ve seen proof to the contrary.
7. wholly debatable all postulates without evidence
8. I don’t know.
9. I don’t know and from here can’t see that it would matter
10. We well know the letter of the law when written by the west means nothing.

Overall I totally fail to see how you have demonstrated that the USA has not and does not and will not interfere with Ukrainian (either ‘the regime’, or the ‘kiev ukrainians’, or the ‘donbas ukrainians’, or the ‘whole thing as was’) politics and wellbeing to their detriment. Clearly not the faintest whisper of anything relevant to the deaths of 500,000 mean in the process of trying to subjugate their brothers.

But then, Sachs doesn’t say much about this, either. But what Sachs does say is potent and true I believe and I think perhaps you need reminding of it and perhaps many people need reminding of it. I do not much agree with today’s modus operandi: i.e. the video. For I believe we gain fleeting impressions and act upon them. Text takes a little more effort and perhaps is not so appealing but it is much more reliable and useful.

So here is the text of what Sachs said. FYI and anyone else interested: (please excuse my poor editing)

Save Ukraine from American meddling the hill June 27

2024 Ukraine can only be saved at the negotiating table not on the battlefield sadly this point is not understood by Ukrainian politicians such as Oleg Dunda a member of Ukraine’s Parliament who recently wrote an oped on this site against my repeated call for negotiations

Dunda believes that the United States will save Ukraine from Russia the opposite is true Ukraine actually needs to be saved from the United States

Ukraine epitomizes Henry Kissinger’s famous aphorism quote it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy but to be America’s friend is fatal unquote

30 years ago Ukraine was embraced by American neoconservatives who believed that it was the perfect instrument for weakening Russia the neocons are the ideal ological Believers in American hegemony
that is the right and responsibility of the United States to be the world’s sole superpower and Global policemen as described for example in the project for a new American centuries 2000 report rebuilding America’s defenses

The neocons choose three methods to push US power and influence into Ukraine

First meddle in Ukraine’s internal politics second expand NATO to Ukraine despite Russia’s red line and third arm Ukraine and apply economic sanctions to defeat Russia

The neocons whispered a sweet fantasy into Ukraine’s ear back in the 1990s “Come with us into the Glorious Paradise of NATO land and you’ll be safe Ever After.” “

pro-european Ukrainian politicians especially in Western Ukraine loved the story they believed that Ukraine would join NATO just as Poland Hungary and the Czech Republic had in 1999

The idea of expanding NATO to Ukraine was fatuous and dangerous.

From Russia’s perspective the NATO expansion into Central Europe in 1999 was deeply objectionable and a stark violation of the solemn us promise that NATO would not expand quote 1 in Eastward end quote.

But it was not deadly to Russia’s interests those countries do not border the Russian Mainland NATO

Enlargement to Ukraine however would mean the loss of Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet at Sevastopel and the prospect of us missiles minutes from the Russian Mainland

There was in fact no prospect that Russia would ever accept NATO enlargement to Ukraine

The current CIA director William Burns said as much in a memo to Secretary of State Condalisa Rice when he was US ambassador to Moscow in 2008 the memo was famously entitled nyet means nyet

Burns wrote quote Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian Elite not just Putin. In more than 2 and A2 years of conversations with key Russian players from knuckle draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics I (that is: Burns) have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine and NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russia’s interests end quote

The neoconservatives never described this Russian red line to the American or Global public then or now.

Senior diplomats and Scholars in the United States had reached the same conclusion about NATO enlargement more generally in the 1990s as has been recently documented in detail

Ukrainians and their supporters insist that Ukraine has quote the right end quote to join NATO. The US also says so repeatedly. NATO’s policy says that NATO enlargement is an issue between NATO and the candidate country and that it is no business of Russia or any other non NATO country. This is preposterous.

I’ll start to believe that claim when Admiral John Kirby declares from the White House Podium that Mexico has the quote right to invite China and Russia to put military bases along the Rio Grande based on the same quote open door policy as NATO.

The Monroe Doctrine has said just the opposite for two centuries.

So Ukraine was set up for Disaster by the neocons actually the Ukrainian public sensed the truth and overwhelmingly opposed NATO membership until the 2014 Uprising that overthrew Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovich

Let’s retrace the chronology of this shockingly misguided American policy.

In the early 2000s the US began to meddle intensively in Ukraine’s Politics.

The US spent billions of dollars according to Victoria Nuland to build Ukraine’s quote democracy. Meaning to turn Ukraine to the United States and away from Russia even
so the Ukrainian public remained strongly against NATO membership and elected Victor Yanukovich who championed Ukrainian neutrality in 2010.

In February 2014 the Obama team actively sided with Neo-Nazi paramilitaries which stormed government buildings on February 21st and overthrew Yanukovich.

The next day cloaked as a quote revolution of dignity the us immediately recognized the new government. The astounding intercepted call between newand and US ambassador to Ukraine Jeffrey Pat where they talk about who should be in the new Ukrainian government several weeks before the Rebellion demonstrates the level of American involvement.

The post-uprising government in Ukraine was filled with Russia haters and was backed by extremist right-wing paramilitaries like the Azov Brigade.

When the ethnically Russian donbas region broke away from the uprising the central government aimed to retake the region by force.

A peace agreement was reached between keev and the donbas in 2015 known as Minsk 2 that would end the fighting by extending autonomy to the ethnically Russian regions of Donetsk and lugansk.

Alas Ukraine and the US undermined the treaty even while publicly endorsing it. The treaty was a mere temporizing measure according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel to give Ukraine time to build its Army.

The US shipped armaments to Ukraine to build up its military make it interoperable with NATO and support the retaking of the Donbas by force.

The next diplomatic opportunity to save Ukraine came in December 2021 When Vladimir Putin proposed a US Russia treaty on security guarantees calling for an end to Nato enlargement among other issues including the urgent question of US missile placements near Russia.

Instead of negotiating Biden again flatly said no to Putin on the question of ending NATO enlargement.

Yet another diplomatic opportunity to save Ukraine arose in March 2022 just days after the start of Russia’s special military operation launched on February 24.

Russia said that it would stop the war if Ukraine would agree to neutrality. Zelinsky agreed, documents were exchanged and a peace deal was nearly reached yet according to former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett the Us and other NATO allies notably the UK stepped in to block the agreement telling Ukraine to fight on.

Recently Boris Johnson said that Ukraine should keep fighting to preserve quote Western hegemony end quote.

Ukraine can still be saved through neutrality even as hundreds of thousands of lives have been squandered by the failure to negotiate.

The rest of the issues including boundaries can also be resolved through diplomacy.

The Killing can end now before more disasters befall Ukraine and the World.

As for the United States 30 years of neoconservative misrule is long enough

End.

Actually I overlooked the fact that there is a link to the text at thehill.com which would be a better place to see it. I will leave all this here out of laziness and because it has my comments in it.

But here is the ‘official’ text: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4741597-save-ukraine-from-american-meddling/

https://ddgeopolitics.substack.com/p/the-gaza-kettle

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/victory-day-2024/comments

Russell went to Donbas and fought for the Donbas people. Those are the people who never get mentioned in the coverage of the war.

The 10 million Donbas Ukrainians that were slated for ethnic cleansing by the Kiev regime at the instigation of the USA.

So Kiev invaded in 2014 and occupied and they’ve been there ever since. Even with Russia’s help the Donbas people still have not got them out. Still.

They don’t mention that, do they?

Ten years now those Donbas people have been fighting for their own land.

They want you to believe this is a ‘Russian invasion’. They want you to believe anything but the truth.

And the saddest thing is that even the ‘alt-media’ doesn’t tell it as it is.

Well Russell knew how it was and he went there to help and it looks like in the end he was killed in very suspicious circumstances. Possibly even by his own side. Terrible things happen in wars.

We don’t know the truth yet and apparently there’s a blackout been imposed.

Here’s a couple of links:

russell texas bentley dead at 64 yrs.
https://t.me/two_majors_chat/61961

pepe escobar says it is outrageous..
https://t.me/rocknrollgeopolitics/11021
vid from world pravda in memory
https://t.me/worldpravda/16085
another
https://t.me/worldpravda/16082
and another
https://t.me/worldpravda/16083
and another
https://t.me/worldpravda/16084

yurik posts about russell bentley. No news but interest at least
https://slavlandchronicles.substack.com/p/yes-russell-donbass-cowbow-bentley/comments

I just watched a video where Arestovich airs his opinions and I couldn’t get far through it.

Right up front before it even gets started he’s pleased to enumerate ‘our allies’ meaning the ‘allies’ of Kiev Ukraine.

Which prompted me to write the following post which I’d like to put in my blog here for a record. I said this and I think it is very right:

These poor blokes are demented. ‘Our allies’ says Arestovich. What’s he mean ‘our’ ? Who are ‘we’?
Ukrainians? The 40 million Ukrainian people of the Ukrainian nation that Kiev claims to want to restore?
No.
No. That’s the whole point.
He means only the ‘Kiev Ukrainians’ of today.
Still in possession of large chunks of Donbas Ukrainian territory.
Still trying their hardest to persist in their effort to dominate these people and remove their right to self determination.
Still trying to persist in ethnic cleansing.
Pushing it as far as, in fact, genocide is what they hunger for.
This is very clearly totally wrong, evil and stupid.
The clear evidence of the stupid is when 500,000 of them die for this. Had they lived what reward could they possibly have expected?
What reward to the next 500,000 to die, lined up at the front right now, expect to get?
Yes. It is madness. Blind stupid madness.
They, of course, do not see themselves in that light.
Not at all.
They think everyone else is evil – given a temporary pardon while ever they accede to every demand for help from Kiev – and they themselves are truly the victims of a terrible catastrophe.
Well okay. Let’s try to understand them. Put ourselves in their shoes for a while. See it from their perspective.
It goes like this, I think they would agree:
The natural state of Ukraine has always been under threat by Russia and Russians. The only way Ukraine can be free and be purely ‘Ukrainian’ is to remove the Russian threat.
That’s why they want NATO etc.
Right?
Well sounds alright so far.
But here’s where it starts to go wrong:
10 million of their population is very strongly entwined with Russia and Russians and what did they decide to do about that? Love them? Join with them? Embrace them? Be proud of them? Be grateful to them?
Nope. They decided that they must subject them to ethnic discrimination and even extermination in effect.
And here’s the madness: they really think they have every right and every NEED to do this.
Just as the Germans thought they had every right and every NEED to exterminate the Jews.
So they don’t say ‘Here we are and there are the Russian Ukrainians, let them go their own way’.
No. They say ‘Here we are and there are the Russian Ukrainians ON OUR LAND and we must drive them off’.
And that’s what ethnic cleansing is. That’s what the Jews are doing in Gaza right now.
That’s evil and illegal and mad and bad.
And it has nothing to do with protecting or helping or promoting the nation of ‘Ukraine’ when it is seen as a nation of 40 million PEOPLE for you don’t protect or help or promote a collection of people by killing a quarter of them.
No way.
It is all about regimes.
The Washington regime. The Kiev regime. And they are literally, quite literally and specifically AGAINST UKRAINE. They WANT Ukraine destroyed. Because that’s what it is: destruction – when you set 3/4 of a population against the other quarter. Do you remember the biblical thing: ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand’ ? Well that’s it. Those that promote the division of the ‘house’ of Ukraine are promoting the fall of it.
This Arestovich is apparently incapable of seeing that.
And instead is, therefore, an enemy of Ukraine. Just the same as Washington and Kiev and London and Paris etc., etc..
A house divided against itself cannot stand.