THE MANUFACTURED CRISIS OF RUSSIAN TROOPS MASSING ON UKRAINE'S BORDER

First posted 16th February 2022.

The recent and ongoing "crisis" of Russian troops massing on (in fact 200 kilometres away from) the Ukraine border is a manifestation of group-thought.

An elite group has become over-invested in the need for a group representing an anti-version of itself and speaks to this manufactured creation rather than to the realities of the situation.

There was a set of needs felt by one (combined and seamless) group of political elites in the United States and United kingdom which manifested itself in the creation of one of the most exaggerated campaigns of misinformation ever seen in modern times. 

Due to the disposition of Russian and Belarusian troops and materiel during a planned joint military exercise certain bells went off across and within the minds of certain individuals within power nodes of the US/UK grouping. These reflected the notions within the group-thought fixed universe of stimuli associated with the anti-group in question, 'The Russians'.

A unit highly favoured for reasons connected to the perceived survival and if possible expansion of group A (USA and UK) happened to be Ukraine, closely located to the perceived "danger" of Group B (Russia and Belarus). This stimulated the manufacture by contagion of the massive campaign of erroneous and unwarranted fear we have seen recently and which continues to reverberate.

From the Ukraine side we have seen a somewhat confused response to the apparently surprising (to them) eruption of this sudden mix of paranoia, panic and propaganda. Group A is manifesting the results of sensing itself vulnerable, in a state of incipient weakness and over inclined to react with emotions and actions that extend far beyond those rational or necessary. These aberrant reactions of Group A has clearly bemused the political authority figures within Ukraine and caused them to release conflicting statements, among them that they see no great need for the reactions they are hearing from Group A.

While expressing a degree of confusion, indicating a high degree of being kept outside 'the loop' in respect of the geopolitical tactics involved, the Ukrainian authority figures have been playing catch-up by attempting to configure responses that support their own previously expressed memes concerning Group B. This has served to muddy the waters of the entire enterprise and the clearly much desired, highly effective campaign by Group A

While all this has gone on Group B have surely been in a state of some confusion also in respect of how precisely to react to this eruption of strident messages of alarm from Group A and their perception of the confusion within the political leadership of Ukraine. This degree to which this confusion arose of course depends upon the intentions behind the joint military exercises the Russians had in bringing them into existence. From an evidential perspective there is no clear reason to believe the intent is or was that expressed by Group A, to threaten Ukraine with attack or invasion.

If Russia wished to occupy part of or the entirety of Ukraine it surely simply would do so rather than merely threaten to. It has the capacity, the manpower, the technical expertise and the military infrastructure, why merely threaten to do so? The possible answer in this context is of course to obtain some identified advantage and promotion of a desired outcome that it was perceived was unavailable by any other means. In this case the reduction of the power and presence of NATO close to Russia's borders and the exclusion of Ukraine (and Georgia) from membership in NATO.

As described above, attacking and occupying part of or the entirety of Ukraine could be accomplished by Russia if that was seen as forwarding the desired outcomes of Russia. But this scenario has not occurred. Russian troops remaining relatively stationary in their positions has been seen to be the case. This indicates that the second scenario of exerted pressure to obtain a desired outcome is at play rather than the first scenario as a build up leading to the fulfilment of the intent to attack, invade and occupy part or all of Ukraine.

This is why I call this a manufactured crisis, one that mirrors to a large extent one seen some eight years ago when multiple headlines and statements from Group A politicians used the same words as now, the 'massing' of Russian troops 'on the Ukraine border'. This very similar if not identical campaign ran for many weeks in mid-2014, but resulted in no attack upon Ukraine or invasion of it. It is to be expected then that the present "crisis" will eventually fade and disappear also although the impetus this time from Group A I would posit indicates an increasing anxiety by it of the corroding position of their expectations of maintaining dominance overall. (An expectation which by the way the figures within Group A consider a vital and indispensable part of their group psychology.)

Thus we have a massive facade of crisis engendered, one that has reached farcical proportions in some facets of its singularly ardent and widespread promotion. An almost global phenomenon has been constructed by Group A with hesitant support from Ukraine, supposedly the central figure at the forefront of all this frenetic activity, panic, paranoia, massively engendered fear and controversy. Emotions have been heightened to almost heart-attack creating levels within the body politic of western elite institutions from the political sphere across the world of western mainstream press and media filtering down to a lesser but still potent degree to the general public and population of the western sphere of influence.

In conclusion I restate the logic inherent in the facts as they are known. Russia has the ability to do what it is accused of. If it had the overwhelming need to enact the scenario claimed by Group A it surely would have done so abd without the 'will they, won't they' scenario engendered by the anti-Russian campaign which arose in response to the actions Russia took in arranging its present troop dispositions and joint military exercises with Belarus. I therefore see no reason to conclude that it was any part of the Russian plan to attack and invade Ukraine but that other motivations entirely were involved. This is why I concluded that whether due to a perceived weakness on the part of group A, an awareness of a potential weakness to come or a mere stimulation of massive anxiety featuring both panic and paranoia due to fixation on the group-thought facade spoken of at the start of this commentary is not clear.

But in any event I conclude that this whole episode has been a crisis manufactured out of irrational/intentionally tactical motivations and does not in any real sense reflect a true crisis at all, except in the perceptions of those who feel endangered by the continuing resistance of Group B (Russia) to being dominated by Group A (USA and UK).