The Soros Solution, the Rand Corporation, and the Demographic Destruction of Ukraine (Part II of II)
Yes, both the NATO-proxy war and the likely devastation of Ukraine were planned years in advance as demonstrated by publicly available official statements and documents.
Thirty Years Earlier: Planning the Sacrifice of Ukraine
In Part I, your author explained how the data reveals that Ukraine is facing demographic destruction. Even if the war were to end tomorrow, Ukraine would be in desperate straits to find the needed base of workers — of economically productive tax-paying citizens — to support the elderly, the disabled, the retired, and the unemployed. To simply keep the economy running, the nation functioning. Why?
Because Ukraine has been dealing with thirty years of economic stagnation, an aging population, an ongoing population loss due to brain drain and labor migration, a fertility rate well below replacement, and now more recently, a military conscription which is devasting key age ranges in the male population, and a massive exodus of war refugees. All these challenges and more.
But the demographic destruction which Ukraine now faces was neither unexpected nor — most shockingly — unplanned. It was recognized by Western and particularly American elites as a real possibility and even a desired trade-off. Part II below will discuss the planned sacrifice of Ukraine.
Screenshot from the George Soros website (2024) cited under Fair Use.
In no uncertain terms, the current catastrophe in Ukraine had been at least twenty-nine (29) years in the making before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The ground-breaking work was done in part by George Soros in 1993, now over three decades ago. Please go to the George Soros website and search the two-word term “body bags.” As of 14 April 2024, when last tested, exactly two documents will turn up: one from 1993, and one from 2015. Both concern Ukraine and Russia.
Body Bags and a New Purpose for NATO: Soros 1993 & 2015
Let’s start with the first, “Towards a New World Order: The Future of NATO” (Soros, 1993). Since the Soviet Union had collapsed, NATO had seemingly lost its reason for existence. Or, in the words of Soros (1993): “the original mission of NATO was to defend the free world against the Soviet Empire” but now “[t]here is no direct threat from the region [of the former Soviet Empire] to the NATO countries.”
The Cold War was over; the West, victorious. Was NATO obsolete? Or should NATO take on a new and grander mission? Many of our best and brightest argued against expanding NATO. As Professor Glenn Diesen (2024) reminds us:
In 1997, 50 prominent U.S. foreign policy experts, which included former senators, diplomats, military officers, and academics sent a letter to President Clinton, warning that NATO expansion “is a policy error of historic proportions.”
The original letter, “Opposition to NATO Expansion” (26 June 1997) is available from the Arms Control Association website. The fifty (50) signatories included Robert McNamara, Stansfield Turner, Richard T. McCormack, and Sam Nunn — all individuals of distinguished service at the highest levels in times of war and of peace.
NATO expansion, they argued, would be “a policy error of historic proportions.” But George Soros was one among many others who was advocating a new and greater mission for NATO. The “Future of NATO” is that it would become the military might behind a “New World Order” (1993) — these phrases directly quoted from Soros.
According to Soros (1993), NATO should now be concerned with “conditions within states as much as relationships between states.” NATO would now intervene in the internal domestic affairs of other (previously presumed) sovereign nations — even if those nations posed “no direct threat.”
NATO would no longer be a defensive alliance but an instrument of global hegemony. To directly quote Soros (1993) again:
If NATO has any mission at all, it is to project its power and influence into the region [of the former Soviet Empire].
What does this have to do with Ukraine? Wait for it, please. Follow his logic.
Much like the Marxist-Leninist International which Soros had despised and dedicated much of his earlier life to contesting, Soros also had a progressive revolutionary vision which was to be imposed upon various peoples and nations with or without their consent. Also much like the Marxist-Leninist International, Soros understood that sacrifices needed to be made because the end justified the means.
But NATO had a critical weakness, according to Soros: the necessary military interventions might be politically (domestically) unpopular. Hence Soros offered a solution to “reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act” (1993).
That solution? Find other people to fight and die for this glorious global transformative cause. Again, to quote Soros directly (1993):
the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO would greatly enhance the military potential of the Partnership because it would reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act.
How do we know Soros had Ukraine in mind? The Eastern European nations of Russia and Belarus were then and still are now on the Soros hit list. Otherwise, Eastern Europe typically but not exclusively refers to Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine —with the Southeastern European nations of Georgia, Romania, and Moldova sometimes added. Ukraine was clearly the major population source for the “manpower” to wage war against Russia. The cost-effective solution, politically and presumably fiscally.
Moreover, in this same essay, Soros names the nations of Central Europe — not Eastern Europe — which he considers as good candidates for NATO and hence would also need their risk of body bags reduced: Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. Curiously, he excludes the Slovak Republic — perhaps they were too Slavic, too Eastern European. Moreover, two decades later, Soros returned to the motif of Eastern European body bags, Ukrainian and Russian, in his “A New Policy for Ukraine” (2015) — which added economic sanctions to a NATO-proxy war against Russia. (A matter we will discuss later in this post).
A Recipe for Forever War
Soros and the NATO expansionists would carry the day — and the mission of NATO would greatly expand. The most recent NATO statement of purpose (4 Jul 2023) clarifies that
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.
The phrase “prevent and manage crises” is a blank check, open self-permission, to intervene anywhere in the world — and not in response to direct threats but for vaguely defined crises or even potential crises situations. As defined by NATO.
For more information, the NATO statement of purpose (4 Jul 2023) refers the reader to the NATO 2022 Strategic Concept (29 Jun 2022).
The NATO 2022 Strategic Concept (29 Jun 2022) claims cyberspace as NATO domain, specifically names the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China as existing nations which “run counter to our values and interests,” and offers a general recipe for Forever War against a “vast array of threats” — the majority of which have nothing to do with military action. NATO (29 Jun 2022) now exists to
prepare for, deter, and defend against the coercive use of political, economic, energy, information and other hybrid tactics by states and non-state actors.
Who defines “coercive use”? Hint: NATO. What does it mean to “deter” the “political, economic, energy, information” and related actions taken by nations, organizations, or even individuals? Hint: whatever NATO wants it to mean.
This seems a straight-up confession of totalitarian desires and designs, even as NATO denounces “Authoritarian actors” (29 Jun 2022).
What could be more authoritarian than demanding the entire world should require NATO approval in advance for any and potentially all activities related to politics, economics, energy, and information (including media and cyberspace)?
You Now Exist by Permission Only
Obviously, the NATO 2022 Strategic Concept (29 Jun 2022) is a more sophisticated, robust, and grandiose version of what Soros (1993) called for roughly three decades earlier: NATO to establish a “New World Order” by projecting “power and influence” into Russia and other recalcitrant nations — even if these nations offered “no direct threat.” But this could get messy in a hurry. Expensive even.
Hence the Soros solution: combine the “technical capabilities of NATO” with “manpower from Eastern Europe” to “reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries” (Soros, 1993). Politically expedient, cost-effective.
The Soros Solution Endorsed and Reiterated by American Politicians
We have heard versions of the Soros solution quite recently. Please consider the following statements by prominent USA political figures on why the USA should continue the NATO-proxy war in Ukraine.
According to Congressperson Dan Crenshaw in May 2022: “investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea” (The Hill, 11 May 2022).
According to Senator Lindsey Graham in June 2022: “I like the structural path we’re on here. As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person” (qtd. in The Grayzone, 27 Sep 2022).
According to Senator Mitch McConnell in December 2022: “the most basic reasons for continuing to help Ukraine degrade and defeat the Russian invaders are cold, hard, practical American interests” (McConnell, 21 Dec 2022).
According to Senator Mitt Romney in August 2023: “it's [the USA support for the proxy war in Ukraine is] the best national defense spending I think we’ve ever done. … And we’re losing no lives in Ukraine” (PM, 27 Aug 2023). A few weeks later, Romney doubled down on the cost-effective sacrifice of Ukrainian lives in an exclusive interview with The Telegram (14 Sep 2023): “Damage caused to Russia makes Ukraine investment worth it.”
According to Senator Richard Blumenthal in August 2023: “we’re getting our money’s worth on our Ukraine investment. For less than 3 percent of our nation’s military budget, we’ve enabled Ukraine to degrade Russia’s military strength by half. ... All without a single American service woman or man injured or lost” (CT, 29 Aug 2023).
Numerous similar statements could be added to the above list. Professor Glenn Diesen, to whom your author is much indebted here, provides a thorough rundown in chapter 9 of his essential The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order (2024).
Damage caused to Russia makes Ukraine investment worth it
From Crenshaw to Graham to McConnell to Romney to Blumenthal, all of the above statements reiterate the Soros solution proposed three decades earlier. In a proxy war for NATO, exchange Ukrainian body bags for Russian body bags. Politically expedient, cost-effective. “Damage caused to Russia makes Ukraine investment worth it,” as Senator Mitt Romney did say (14 Sep 2023).
Since 1993, to use Senator Lindsey Graham’s fine phrase, Western elites been planning to “fight [Russia] to the last person.” Provided that person is Ukrainian. The weight for this by no means falls entirely or even mostly on George Soros. He generates ideas and funds their dissemination among policy-makers, but he has no executive authority.
Rand Corporation Joins the Chat
The Soros solution, although it has survived largely intact, underwent additional refinement and evaluation by the Rand Corporation, self-described as “a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decision-making through research and analysis (Rand: About, 2024), but better known as the preeminent think tank for American foreign policy and military adventurism. As such, Rand functions as an extension of the USA Security State (the military-industrial complex and the seventeen alphabet agencies comprising the intelligence community).
We turn now to the 2019 Rand report commissioned by the U.S. Army Quadrennial Defence Review Office: “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground” (2019). It retains but evaluates the Soros solution (1993) proposed over two decades earlier, and also shows possible influence from the perversely titled Soros tractate, “A New Policy to Rescue Ukraine” (8 Jan 2015) — which we will also discuss shortly. But the 325-page Rand report “Extending Russia” (2019) goes well beyond the brainstorming or trial balloon stage. It instead presents detailed and highly nuanced strategies and related cost-benefit analyses for among other concerns:
using Ukraine to weaken Russia by providing lethal aid to Ukraine;
promoting regime change in Belarus;
reducing Russia’s natural gas exports and hindering pipeline expansion;
imposing economic sanctions on Russia;
providing support for Syrian rebels;
et cetera.
One must wonder why promoting regime change, or imposing economic sanctions, or hindering Russia’s pipeline expansion and reducing their natural gas exports are concerns for the U.S. Army, the patron behind this report.
But let’s move on to the report’s substantive content for three key recommendations:
Geopolitical Measures ~ Measure 1: Provide Lethal Aid to Ukraine
Economic Measures ~ Measure 3: Impose Sanctions
Economic Measures ~ Measure 2: Reduce Natural Gas Exports and Hinder Pipeline Expansions
The above are just three (3) of the twenty-one (21) numbered measures under the categories of Economic Measures, Geopolitical Measures, Air and Space Measures, Maritime Measures, and Land and Multidomain Measures. The recommendations under Ideological and Informational Measures remain unnumbered.
Given that our best and brightest are now and have been for decades openly planning to destroy Russia, this does have implications both for diplomacy and Russian trust in whatever American officials might propose. Moscow is not paranoid about American intentions — Moscow is merely paying attention.
Body Bags for Russia and Ukraine — or a Diplomatic Solution?
The Soros solution (1993) is both recapitulated and evaluated in “Geopolitical Measures ~ Measure 1: Provide Lethal Aid to Ukraine.” The Rand report provides a generally responsible assessment. It noted the strong support among key American politicians for escalating the conflict in Ukraine:
In a February 2, 2017, open letter to President Trump, Senator John McCain urged him “to provide defensive lethal assistance to Ukraine to defend its territory against further violations by Russia and its separatist proxies” in response to the uptick in violence in Eastern Ukraine. McCain’s statement echoed a February 2015 letter from Democratic Assistant Minority Leader Senator Dick Durbin and Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman also calling for the United States to provide anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. (2019, p.98)
The report also discussed the possible benefits to escalating the conflict in Ukraine:
Expanding U.S. assistance to Ukraine, including lethal military assistance, would likely increase the costs to Russia, in both blood and treasure, of holding the Donbass region. More Russian aid to the separatists and an additional Russian troop presence would likely be required, leading to larger expenditures, equipment losses, and Russian casualties. The latter could become quite controversial at home [among the Russian public], as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. (2019, p.99)
But after weighing both the risks and the benefits, the Rand team at this time did NOT recommend turning Ukraine into a new Afghanistan:
The option of expanding U.S. military aid to Ukraine has to be evaluated principally on whether doing so could help end the conflict in the Donbass on acceptable terms rather than simply on costs it imposes on Moscow. Boosting U.S. aid as part of a broader diplomatic strategy to advance a settlement might well make sense, but calibrating the level of assistance to produce the desired effect while avoiding a damaging counter-escalation would be challenging. (2019, p.103)
According to the Rand team, the conflict in the Donbass region required a diplomatic solution, not a military one — and implementing the military option risked a “damaging counter-escalation” and more.
Contra to US Gov and MSM Propaganda
This claim that a diplomatic solution was needed runs directly counter to the last two years of American propaganda which has declared that a Ukrainian victory is inevitable, nothing else is acceptable, and that success should also necessarily involve regime change in Russia.
Moreover, still in contrast to our current dogma, the Rand team specifically expressed concerns that increasing “U.S. military aid” might well “also increase the loss of Ukrainian lives and territory or result in a disadvantageous peace settlement” and such would be “generally be seen as a serious setback for U.S. policy” (2019, p.103). Correct. Yet here we are.
A Deliberately Weak Warning and thus Ignored — But You get to Say “I Told Them So”
That said, the Rand team did hold that more lethal aid could be provided to Ukraine: “but calibrating the level of assistance to produce the desired effect while avoiding a damaging counter-escalation would be challenging” (2019, p.103). A challenge. Given that we have several American elites who evidently suffer from either pathological narcissism or outright sociopathy, our leadership no doubt considered themselves up to this challenge.
Call this a win for Soros and the Russophobes, and a loss (at least partially) for the Rand team. When push came to shove, the Rand team were merely advisors. Those with executive authority decided that the possible benefits outweighed the risks despite the poor likelihood of success. Body bags, body bags: but Ukrainian and Russian, not American.
Economic Sanctions — as Approved by the Free Trader Soros
We turn now to “Economic Measures ~ Measure 3: Impose Sanctions” (2019) and rejoin the Soros solution as updated by Soros in 2015: “A New Policy to Rescue Ukraine” (8 Jan 2015). Since the “New Policy” concerns economic sanctions as well as body bags — “You say Eastern Europeans, George Soros says body bags” — and was published four years prior to the Rand report, let’s review it first and then Rand.
Soros had seriously misread both Putin and the situation in Ukraine. In other words, Soros “got high on his own supply,” so to speak, and believed his body bag solution was working. To quote the highlights of his misunderstanding (8 Jan 2015; boldface added):
The financial crisis in Russia and the body bags from Ukraine have made President Putin politically vulnerable. The Ukrainian government has recently challenged him by renouncing its own obligations toward the separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine, under the Minsk cease-fire agreement.
After Ukraine’s challenge, Putin immediately caved in and imposed the cease-fire on the troops under his direct command. It can be expected that the troops will be withdrawn from Ukrainian territory and the cease-fire will be fully implemented in the near future.
It would be a pity to allow the sanctions to expire prematurely when they are so close to success.
Soros favored a two-prong assault. Ukrainian body bags make for Russian body bags — Ukraine becoming a second Afghanistan. Sanctions send the Russian economy into crisis. The cost of the conflict (human and financial), and Russia’s economic weakness because of the sanctions, create further political and economic vulnerabilities to be exploited. As proof, after Ukraine renounced the Minsk Agreements (at the urging of the USA, not mentioned by Soros) and resumed hostilities towards the “separatist enclaves,” Putin “immediately caved in” — showing Russia’s weakness (Soros, 2015). QED. Therefore, Ukraine needs to keep pressing Russia, and the USA-lead West needs to keep sanctioning Russia.
So Close to Success
Victory seemed just around the corner to Soros. Hence the bulk of his “New Policy” (2015) tractate was dedicated to urging, to demanding that USA and the EU continue to throw money at Ukraine (while insisting on reforms, of course, of course), so that Ukraine can both function as a state and as an antagonist to Russia. Eastern European body bags — Ukrainian and Russian — come cheap, but they don’t come for free.
We discussed in Part I how well — rather, how disastrously — Ukraine has been functioning as a state since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The poorest and most corrupt nation in Europe. Let’s update the expenditures.
The Real Cost of Propping Up a Corrupt State
To maintain Ukraine as a failed state and Russian antagonist, it is now estimated the USA and EU have spent more on this — after adjusting for inflation — than the USA did for the entire Marshall Plan which helped rebuild Western Europe after the devastation of WWII. The cost of the Marshall Plan (aka, the European Recovery Program) in 2023 dollars: $173 billion. Please do note the Ukraine Support Tracker at the Kiel Institute covers only the time period 24 January 2022 to 15 January 2024. Nevertheless, it estimates a total of 252.4 billion in euros or 271.2 billion in dollars of external support to Ukraine.
So thus far almost 100 billion dollars more than the Marshall Plan. What do we have to show for it?
What Soros Got Wrong
Soros made two fatal miscalculations. First, he greatly underestimated team Putin —Putin and his officials and experts. Where Soros saw cowardice, team Putin was exercising prudence, refusing to overcommit, and attempting to de-escalate a conflict which could only bring more suffering and misery to the Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine. Where Soros saw “caving in,” team Putin was engaged in the strategic allocation of resources, human and material. The conflict would not be fought on the terms or timetable dictated by the West.
Second, and even more grossly, Soros failed to understand that Russia was now part of a multi-polar world — with BRICS the most prominent manifestation of that multipolarity. Russia could turn away from the both the USA and the EU and still survive — indeed, perhaps even thrive. Why? Four key reasons.
First, Russia is rich in natural resources, including essential export commodities. Second, Russian (unlike the USA) has an excellent general education system, and hence a skilled and talented workforce. Third, Russia (unlike the West) has not undergone massive de-industrialization. It can still manufacture — produce — much of what it needs. Fourth and finally, Russia has trading partners other than the West.
BRICS Enters the Chat
Map of BRICS nations (Public Domain)
In fact, Russia has good relationships with India and China, the two most populous nations on earth — and home to a combined 2.8 billion consumers. Let that sink in. Since Russia and its ally Belarus also have consumers seeking goods and services, we might safely estimate that between these four nations alone Russia has access to roughly 36% of the global population.
These nations need the commodity exports which Russia has to offer. Russia is likewise on good terms with other nations in the Global South and also the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. All these nations have good cause to be concerned about Western hegemony. All these nations have stark differences with the USA — and deep reservations if not outright objections to many aspects of our foreign policy agenda. All these nations also offer consumers for Russian exports and services.
The USA-led sanctions did NOT isolate and weaken Russia as expected. Rather, they helped turn Russia to Asia and the Global South and helped strengthen a growing alliance against Western hegemony.
The Soros solution updated (2015): sanction the hell out of Russia to isolate it and destroy it economically while propping up Ukraine to keep the body bags flowing. Soros is getting his dead Eastern Europeans, particularly dead Ukrainians. But it is deeply questionable if this remains a cost-effective solution, even if it remains politically acceptable to the West. Back to our best and brightest, the Rand team.
The Rand Team: Increase Sanctions, Weaponize the US Dollar
We turn now to what Rand team believed sanctions would achieve: “Measure 3: Impose Sanctions” (2019). Not surprisingly, their discussion is nuanced, thorough, and generally insightful with one glaring blind spot — but still strongly in favor of imposing deeper and more extensive sanctions.
The Rand team (2019) realized that “U.S. and foreign interests regarding Russia might not align” which would make “instituting sanctions more difficult” (p.81). Although the “EU and the United States ended G-8 cooperation with Russia” and even “Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, and Switzerland imposed sanctions as well,” many other nations did not. In fact, even after the sanctions started in 2014, Russia continued “to actively form a variety of partnerships with Middle Eastern and Asian countries” (p.74).
Moreover, the Rand team (2019) noted that even our NATO allies broke ranks when it served their national interests:
even though both economies [USA & EU] placed limits on cooperation regarding deepwater, Arctic offshore, and shale projects, the EU allowed partnerships in place at the time to continue, whereas the United States did not. So, while ExxonMobil has suspended a relevant partnership, Italy’s Eni and Norway’s Statoil have continued with projects that might have been banned by the United States. (p.73)
So as the Rand team (2019) understood it, the greatest challenge to imposing sanctions effectively is the lack of overall cohesion — of harmony among the sanctioning nations. Effective sanctions must be multi-lateral and coordinated, not unilateral —even when the sanctioning nation is as powerful as the USA.
But the USA could do more. The Rand team (2019) did recommend further weaponizing the US dollar since it serves as the default global currency:
The largest step the United States could take would be to institute deeper or even comprehensive financial sanctions on Russia. This would prohibit the use of the U.S. banking system by Russia or any Russian entity, as well the use of the U.S. banking system by any entity—such as European banks—that dealt with Russia or Russian entities. Such a move would effectively cut Russia and Russian businesses off from use of the U.S. dollar, which constitutes the largest medium of exchange for international trade and investment transaction. (p 79)
This is where the Rand team — like George Soros — shows their commitment to living in the unipolar past. Because as far as Rand team is concerned, the greatest risk sanctions impose is that they can damage American and EU business interests connected to Russia (2019, pp.82-83).
The MAD Pact Under Revision
Instead, the weaponization of the US dollar is driving not only Russia but also China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and many other nations to seek or create alternatives to the international financial system built by the West and based on the US dollar.
Given our national debt, and the roughly 7.4 trillion dollars in USA treasury securities held internationally, the USA is engaged in a MAD pact — one of mutually assured destruction. If you do not continue to uphold the value of the US dollar, your own national treasuries will suffer. If you do continue to uphold the value of the US dollar, you both fund our wars and agree to our international financial system. As the saying goes, when Wall Street catches a cold, the world sneezes. But for the 2008 global financial crisis engendered by Wall Street hubris and greed, China did not suffer the woes shared by economies of the West and much of the then dependent Global South.
The world took notice. A plethora of nations are skillfully, slowly, and carefully decoupling themselves from the US dollar hegemony and the related international financial system. They are developing alternative institutions, working around the Petrodollar standard, and establishing new global trade arrangements which fall outside the purview of the USA. This general process has been accelerated by the American sanction regimens against Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, et cetera. Below, a sanctions map with the USA in green, and our villains color-coded to the severity of their sanctions.
Image Public Domain — We’re running out of nations to sanction!
We continue to believe that other nations cannot survive — let alone thrive — without relying on the US dollar as the default global currency, and without full integration into the global financial system we have established. So how is Russia doing? According to a recent report by the Economist Magazine, no friend of Putin, “Russia’s economy once again defies the doomsayers” (10 March 2024).
The World is Getting Sick of Our Bullshit
For “Measure 3: Impose Sanctions,” what did the Rand team (2019) predict? High likelihood of success, and high impact (p. 91). If the USA were to put the screws to Russia, which the USA later did, then
deeper sanctions would likely cause meaningful harm to the Russian economy. They could also have a disproportionate negative effect on ordinary Russian citizens while elites could maneuver to protect their assets. (p.84)
But China, India, Saudi Arabia, et alia, have NO interest in seeing Russia destroyed by sanctions. These nations know they could be next. Moreover, the world is increasingly disgusted with the American forever wars, the American sanction regimens, and the global financial crises occurring like periodical cicadas due to American greed, hubris, and recklessness. If or rather when the US dollar collapses, a plethora of nations are preparing not to go down with us. The MAD pact is undergoing revision.
Stopping the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline
Our discussion of sanctions and harming Russia economically brings us to “Economic Measures ~ Measure 2: Reduce Natural Gas Exports and Hinder Pipeline Expansions.” The Rand report (2019) specifically mentions the Nord Stream 2 pipeline a total of fourteen (14) times — it was then in the process of being built. This was the primary pipeline expansion which the Rand team recommended hindering: “A first step would involve stopping Nord Stream 2” to decrease both revenues headed towards Russia and “European dependence on Russia for gas” (p.62).
Rand deemed the Nord Stream 2 particularly troublesome because two other Russian gas pipelines, the Brotherhood and the Soyuz, were land-based and traverse across Ukraine: hence Ukraine received transit revenues, benefitting economically. Ukraine also had the de facto ability to stop the flow of gas — this could be used as leverage against Russia. Not so in the case of Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 (2019, pp.59-62).
German Interests vs. USA-NATO Interests
To their credit, the Rand team (2019) readily acknowledged that “Germany appears determined to complete Nord Stream 2,” and that when the USA attempted to sanction away the pipeline, the “German foreign minister and the Austrian chancellor argued that ‘Europe’s energy supply is a matter for Europe, not the United States of America’” (p.68).
Link to the DW article cited above; link to the Ismay mandate, “the purpose of NATO.”
So respect for German sovereignty? Well, as declared by the first Secretary General of NATO, Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay, the purpose of NATO was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down” (qtd. in Maunders, 29 Oct 2016). The USA-led NATO protects Germany from itself, evidently. The Rand (2019) report provided no meaningful dissent from the Ismay mandate.
Well, They Didn’t Say “Blow It Up” — But …
The Rand team at this time did NOT sanction using espionage to destroy the Nord Stream 2 if it were successfully completed. They discussed and clearly favored economic and political solutions to stop the pipeline, even while recognizing these efforts might prove unsuccessful (2019, pp.68-69).
Nevertheless, Rand identified the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as a danger to Western hegemony — and this in direct contrast to the earlier Western doctrine that market freedom, interconnections through trade, and the resultant shared prosperity would contribute directly to stability and peace (2019, pp.59-69).
Moreover, the Rand team did position the USA as the international czar of economic development and energy policy — no international projects or agreements which do not both benefit us and have our explicit permission. A far cry from free trade — or even from fair trade (2019, pp.59-69).
In brief, the Rand team (2019) did provide the intellectual and ideological justification for more extreme measures. This holds true even if the individual Rand team members might well astutely and vehemently oppose such extreme measures as both highly counterproductive and setting a ridiculously dangerous precedent for both nation-states and non-state actors.
The American Roll Call: Destroy Nord Stream 2
Now, with the Rand team (2019) contributions in mind, please consider the following statements made by major USA political figures — including the President of the United States, Joseph Biden — prior to the destruction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline on 26 September 2022:
In November 2019, Senator Ted Cruz produced a video for social media entitled “TIME IS RUNNING OUT, The U.S. Must Stop Nord Stream 2” (Cruz, 22 Nov 2019). Senator Cruz then followed up with repeated policy statements and legislative efforts dedicated to stopping the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
In July 2020, then USA Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asserted: “We will do everything we can to make sure that that pipeline [Nord Stream 2] doesn't threaten Europe” (RFE/RL, 30 Jul 2022). Such language might leave one to think the pipeline was an underground tunnel for terrorists smuggling weapons of mass destruction into unsuspecting European cities.
In May 2021, Senator Tom Cotton declared: “Kill Russia’s Nord Stream 2, Let It Rust In The Baltic” (Cotton, 19 May 2021).
In January 2022, still prior to Russia’s invasion in February, USA National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stated during an interview with CNN: “We have made clear to the Russians that pipeline [Nord Stream 2] is at risk if they move further into Ukraine” (At this hour with Kate Bolduan, 14 Jan 2022).
In February 2022, still prior to the Russian invasion, Senator Ted Cruz (again) implicitly sanctioned espionage against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline: “This pipeline must be stopped and the only way to prevent its completion is to use all the tools available to do that” (Cruz, 7 Feb 2022).
On the same day in February 2022, the 7th, still prior to the Russian invasion, President Joseph Biden claimed that if Russia invaded Ukraine “there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” As Biden was standing next to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at this time, a journalist challenged Biden as to how he would end this joint German-Russian project. Biden replied: “I promise you, we will be able to do that” (Video by Orf, 23 Oct 2022).
Other prominent USA officials made similar statements (Diesen, 2024: pp. 305-306).
Only One Possible Conclusion
When the Nord Stream 2 pipeline (along with Nord Stream 1) was destroyed on 26 September 2022, the American mainstream media (MSM) could arrive at only one possible conclusion: Russia did it.
The above video by Matt Orfalea unflinchingly reveals both the journalistic integrity and the investigative competence of the American MSM.
The Proxy War, for Doubters
Benjamin Abelow has written an outstanding short book, more of a classic treatise, on How the West Brought War to Ukraine (2022). He provides a succinct but comprehensive review showing
[the] underlying cause of the war lies not in an unbridled expansionism of Mr. Putin, or in paranoid delusions of military planners in the Kremlin, but in a 30-year history of Western provocations, directed at Russia, that began during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and continued to the start of the war.
He treats this 30-year history of provocations in chronological order and documents exhaustively his sources. It is calm and measured scholarship, free of both rant and moralizing. (Your author in this post lapses into both).
The Big Eight Provocations
To summarize what the USA and allies have done to create the current crisis, Abelow (2022) lists the following eight (8) provocations:
Expanded NATO over a thousand miles eastward, pressing it toward Russia’s borders, in disregard of assurances previously given to Moscow.
Withdrawn unilaterally from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and placed antiballistic launch systems in newly joined NATO countries. These launchers can also accommodate and fire offensive nuclear weapons at Russia, such as nuclear-tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Helped lay the groundwork for, and may have directly instigated, an armed, far-right coup in Ukraine. This coup replaced a democratically elected pro-Russian government with an unelected pro-Western one.
Conducted countless NATO military exercises near Russia’s border. These have included, for example, live-fire rocket exercises whose goal was to simulate attacks on air-defense systems inside Russia.
Asserted, without pressing strategic need, and in disregard of the threat such a move would pose for Russia, that Ukraine would become a NATO member. NATO then refused to renounce this policy even when doing so might have averted war .
Withdrawn unilaterally from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, increasing Russian vulnerability to a U.S. first strike.
Armed and trained the Ukrainian military through bilateral agreements and held regular joint military training exercises inside Ukraine. The goal has been to produce NATO-level military interoperability even before formally admitting Ukraine into NATO.
Led the Ukrainian leadership to adopt an uncompromising stance toward Russia, further exacerbating the threat to Russia and putting Ukraine in the path of Russian military blowback.
In this post, your author has highlighted the contributions of Geroge Soros and of the Rand Corporation. These are relatively minor to the major policy decisions and implementations discussed by Abelow, but important nonetheless.
The Structural Path We’re On Here
In 1993, George Soros was part of a larger movement within the Western elite committed to repurposing and expanding NATO — to using it to impose a New World Order (his exact phrase) upon peoples and nations with or without their consent. We know this because Soros openly said so (1993).
From the start, however, Soros realized that the nations of NATO might lack “a willingness to act” if too many of their soldiers came home in body bags. For NATO was no longer a defensive alliance but the military might behind an emergent new globalist Open Society — but NATO necessarily for the time being still consisted of nation-states, protective of their interests. Hence the Soros solution to “reduce the risk of body bags” from NATO nations: “the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO” (1993). Set Ukraine against Russia.
The Soros solution was disseminated and discussed at the highest levels in the West, and particularly in the USA. It was greenlighted because it was congruent — deeply compatible — with what other but not all Western elites were thinking. The West and USA especially knew well that Ukraine was a nation at risk: that it suffered from deep and pervasive corruption, from brain drain and labor migration, from human trafficking, from a stagnant economy, and from an aging and declining population.
The West and particularly the USA knew this because their experts researched and published extensively on these concerns. Your author has referenced in Part I of this discussion only a small fraction of the available data and reports concerning Ukraine’s economic situation, pervasive corruption, human trafficking, population trends, and the like. Sources referenced included the USA Department of Labor, USAID, IOM, and more. (Please see Part I).
We Chose to Sacrifice Ukraine … Because Democracy
We knew the population was vulnerable. We knew that war with Russia might well prove catastrophic for Ukraine — might well result in the demographic destruction of Ukraine. We knowingly and willing took that risk because Ukrainian lives —Ukrainian society — mattered less than weakening Russia, than gaining tactical advantage over Russia. In recognizing American active complicity, your author cannot improve upon the words of Senator Lindsey Graham:
I like the structural path we’re on here. As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person. (qtd. in The Grayzone, 27 Sep 2022).
For the vast part, the oligarchs have already fled with their wealth. The remaining men are being conscripted to be killed, mutilated, or traumatized. The women —deprived of sons, brothers, fathers, husbands or partners — are being forced into poverty and some into the sex trade. What is happening to the children, unspeakable. The remaining national assets, in what amounts to nominally legalized looting, are being sold to Blackrock Capital, et alia by a President who has suspended elections and taken complete control of the Ukrainian media. Because Democracy.
But Senator Graham, like some many others in the American elite, “like[s] the structural path we’re on here.” We will fight Russia to last Ukrainian man, woman, and child. Because Democracy.
Body bags, body bags.
The Soros solution. The Nuland agenda. The Graham structural path. Vetted but not entirely endorsed by the Rand Corporation. Your author does not see how the Soros solution differs greatly from what one European leader deemed the Final solution. An inferior population, Eastern Europeans in this case, must be sacrificed in a cost-effective matter for the greater good. Heil Soros, Heil Nuland, Heil Graham.
The World is Watching — and Waiting
But do understand that the Global South is watching what is happening in Ukraine. The Global South is watching what is happening in Gaza.
Your author unapologetically takes the stance of an American nationalist, and so must ask how all this or any of this truly benefits the USA.
Since neither morality nor international law nor even basic regard for other people seem to matter much right now, let’s talk money. Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen has publicly declared that we can afford to pay for two more wars — even as we have failed to pay the debts of our two previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the current national debt is over 34.6 trillion dollars, and our infrastructure is decaying, and our public education system and our public healthcare system are global disgraces.
We cannot afford the current “two more wars,” the genocide in Gaza and the NATO-proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. Nor can we afford the proposed upcoming wars with China and Iran. Our unipolar moment in history is over. We should engage in defensive war only out of survival necessity, not offensive war glibly for perceived tactical advantage. Denying this (that our unipolar moment is over) puts both us and the world at risk — and at risk for nuclear apocalypse.
Nevertheless, we are told by all the usual suspects and sources that if Russia is not defeated absolutely in Ukraine, it will mean the end of Western hegemony.
What comes after the end of Western hegemony, my fellow Americans? Quite possibly, a better world if we are willing to work for it.
"Your author unapologetically takes the stance of an American nationalist, and so must ask how all this or any of this truly benefits the USA." Here, here. Cheers.