"Why Some Are Steering Towards a Third World War -
A Narrative on Ukraine"
by Mattias Desmet
"I want to share a few thoughts that are clearly emerging in the early morning air. Why are some people nowadays trying so hard to provoke a third world war? The dark figure of a global nuclear conflict is indeed knocking on our door. The conflict in the Middle East is intensifying, and the conflict in Ukraine threatens to escalate into a third world war. It is mainly about the latter that I want to say something today. The stories about that conflict vary quite a bit.
The story in the media sounds roughly as follows: in the icy Russia, disorganized and divided after the Soviet Union lost the Cold War, a cold dictator, a new Hitler, seized power over the last twenty years. His name is Putin. He first became director of the FSB, the successor of the KGB, the ruthless and horrific secret service of the Soviet Union. That says enough about the type of person we are dealing with.
After that, he crept in a sly and ruthless manner onto the Russian presidential throne. Even that did not satisfy his hunger for power. He wanted to expand his Russian empire without limit and become a sort of new Tsar. In 2014, he slyly conquered Crimea by manipulating the population through propaganda and using a – likely falsified – referendum as a pretext to annex Crimea. In 2022, he took his next step: the military conquest of democratic Ukraine.
But fortunately, there is the noble NATO, which under the leadership of the USA courageously opposes this cold criminal. They are trying to allow Ukraine to join their alliance, just like the other helpless Eastern European countries that have already joined earlier, in order to protect it against the Russian threat. That is one story.
There is also another story, also just a story, but a story that deserves to be heard in these ominous times. It also begins with the end of the Soviet Union in 1989 and goes as follows:
The Soviet Union didn’t really lose the Cold War. A complex interplay of internal and external factors led the Soviets to grow tired of their own totalitarian society and made them decide to dissolve the Warsaw Pact and dismantle the Soviet Union. In a sincere moment of political naivety, top Soviets like Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and the young Putin believed that the West would welcome them with open arms; Russia would become their playmate in the great democratic playground of the Free Western Market. They quickly realized that the terms 'democratic' and ‘free’ are highly relative in the West.
What they encountered was a velvet totalitarianism that in some respects was as totalitarian as the Soviet Union they had just dismantled. NATO, supposedly established to counterbalance the Soviet Union, refused to disband when the Soviet Union dissolved. Even more: contrary to all implicit and explicit agreements made with Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin, NATO steadily moved its borders eastward, towards Moscow.
The whole idea of NATO's eastward expansion was devised by an American power bloc with one big goal: to create a unipolar world dominated in which one superpower, the United States, controls and contains the global geopolitical situation. The main geostrategist was Zbigniew Brzezinski, a brilliant American professor born in Poland, whose visceral aversion to Bolshevism, ingrained in his blood, brought everything related to Russia to life. That is, of course, human, just as it is human and understandable that the inhabitants of Eastern European countries transform their deeply ingrained fear of Stalin and the Soviets today into a desire to belong to NATO.
Brzezinski was an advisor to several American presidents and chaired various committees set up to execute the NATO plan. From the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, he outlined his strategy in various articles and interviews: Russia must never again become a world power, and to prevent that, we must isolate the country from the Black Sea by expanding NATO to the east. In doing so, he adopted a Russian strategy that European powers had already followed in the nineteenth century.
When the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire began to lose strength in the nineteenth century, Russia prepared to fill the resulting vacuum and expand its sphere of influence through the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. This threatened the economic and territorial interests of the then-superpower Great Britain. In the worst case, the British could even see their access to their colonies in the Middle East and India blocked by the Russians.
It was within this tension that the Crimean War started in 1853, a conflict between Russia on the one hand and a European alliance of the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Second French Empire, and the Kingdom of Sardinia on the other. This war is historically significant in many ways, among other things because it was the first industrialized and heavily propagandized war.
The industrialization of the war (use of advanced firearms, supply of war materials via railroads, use of naval mines, etc.) resulted in enormous numbers of casualties, with estimates ranging from 400,000 to over 750,000 deaths in just three years. What determined the course of the war was no longer the military-tactical intelligence of the leading officers or the size and loyalty of the troops, but rather who had the most sophisticated war industry and technology, and, last but not least, who had the most effective propaganda apparatus.
It is that last point that interests us most, the importance of propaganda. After the French Revolution and the replacement of the ancien régime by the modern democracy, propaganda became an obvious instrument of power. The old elite, before the French Revolution, did not really need to manipulate public opinion that much. Public opinion didn’t matter all that much. They had to massage and manipulate the population here and there, but ultimately, the elite could impose its policy without much justification. If the elite wanted to go to war, they would simply inform the people, and they had to accept it. God had willed it so: some were born to command, and others to obey.
In the new, materialistic worldview, there was no God to be found, and leaders could no longer rely on his authority to send people to war. The only option leaders had to get the population excited about war was large-scale manipulation of public opinion through propaganda.
The nineteenth-century Crimean War was the first war in which modern propaganda was of decisive importance. Emerging technology for the first time gave leaders the material means to directly and massively manipulate the population. The invention of the telegraph and the camera, along with the rise of mass media (primarily the widespread distribution of newspapers), allowed European powers to bring vivid and convincing war stories, illustrated with photos, to the home front within just five days. The Allies perfectly understood that such forms of war communication were crucial to creating public support for the war.
The real reasons for the European countries to go to war against Russia were primarily economic in nature. But those reasons alone would not suffice to overcome the population’s fear of the horrors of war, nor would they make people willing to pay the huge sums of taxes needed for the war. Therefore, the European powers decided to portray Russia as a military threat that urgently needed to be stopped. The lie is often more efficient than the truth in making a population eager for war.
The propagandists carefully spread fabricated, ominous information about the Russian enemy among the population. The Russian soldiers were portrayed as outright savages and barbarians, and Russia as a radically expansionist power. Historians agree that this was a propagandistic and false representation of the facts (see here and here). Once the war had started, the propagandists directed triumphant war stories, supplemented with photographs and neatly supervised by a military censorship apparatus: we are winning, the barbaric Russians are being defeated, humanity is triumphing, but not quite yet—keep paying war taxes for a while longer.
Russia, at that time, was inferior in terms of both industrialization and propaganda. They lost the Crimean War in 1856, and that also marked the fall of Russia as a European great power. Russia would only restore its position after the Russian Revolution and the rise of the totalitarian Soviet Union under Lenin and (especially) Stalin. That marked the point where Russia itself began to fully exploit the power advantages of industrialization, technology, and propaganda.
Now, back to the core strategy during the nineteenth-century Crimean War: the goal of the war was to deny Russia access to the Black Sea. Lord Palmerston, the then British Foreign Secretary, was the first to fully grasp the economic and strategic importance of the Black Sea for Russia and developed a military strategy around it: block Russia’s access to the Black Sea, and you block Russia’s only ice-free gateway to the Mediterranean and the rest of the world. In other words, if you can ensure that Russia no longer has access to the Black Sea, Russia will lose its economic and military power within a few decades.
The same motives are currently at play in the lead-up to the war in Ukraine. Reread the paragraphs above: the current narrative regarding the tensions between Russia and NATO is essentially a reflection of the story from the First Crimean War. We will outline a number of facts concerning the buildup to the current war in Ukraine.
A neoconservative power group in the U.S. reverted to Lord Palmerston’s strategy at the end of the twentieth century, attempting to permanently eliminate Russia as a great power: NATO would isolate Russia from the Black Seathrough a gradual expansion to the East. This strategy was developed by Brzezinski in 1989, immediately following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, notably in his book The Grand Chessboard.
Thanks to the archival documents released after the Freedom of Information Act was enacted in the U.S. in 2017, we also know that this strategy was adopted as a strategic guideline by the Clinton administration in 1994. It was essentially followed by all subsequent American presidents, including Trump, and their administrations. Whether Trump will keep his promise to break with this “tradition” if re-elected remains to be seen.
This strategic plan was gradually implemented from the 1990s onward. In 1999, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary were added to NATO; in 2004, the Baltic states Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as well as Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania were added; in 2009, Albania and Croatia; in 2017, Montenegro; and in 2020, North Macedonia. These countries were immediately provided with temporary or permanent NATO military bases. The issue is that NATO is not a lion without military teeth. Somewhere along the way, in 1999, NATO also bombed Belgrade to establish a NATO-supervised state of Kosovo and to set up Camp Bondsteel, the largest NATO base in Southern Europe.
The final step was the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO, something that Brzezinski viewed as the crowning achievement of the entire strategy to deliver the final blow to Russia as a great power. Initially, European leaders like Merkel and Sarkozy fiercely resisted because they realized that the annexation of Ukraine made the risk of nuclear war a reality. However, at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, President Bush Jr. made it clear that there was no room for discussion: Ukraine would “have the chance” to join NATO. At that same summit, Putin also made something clear: this would be the step too far in NATO’s advance to the East.
The neoconservative faction in America, backed by the whole dismal CIA regime-change machine, was not deterred by the prospect of a war between powers, each possessing around 6,000 nuclear warheads. They began their démarche with the so-called Maidan revolution in 2014, during which President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted from power. Essentially, there is little doubt that this was not so much a popular uprising but rather a NATO-directed overthrow of a previously neutral and democratically elected president (see, among others, this interview with American top diplomat Professor Jeffrey Sachs and the documentary Ukraine on Fire by Oliver Stone). Yanukovych fled to Russia after the Maidan revolution, not because he was a puppet of Putin, but because Russia was about the only place on earth where he could be somewhat safe. After his departure, his government was replaced by a pro-Europe and pro-NATO regime.
As described above, the motives for bringing Ukraine into NATO were perhaps primarily ideological and strategic in nature. However, they intertwined with enormous economic-commercial motives. This becomes clear when considering the fate of Ukraine’s extraordinary natural wealth. Ukrainian agricultural land is among the most fertile in the world, earning Ukraine the nickname "the breadbasket of Europe."
Moreover, enormous quantities of iron ore, coal, and rare and strategically important minerals such as uraninite (the base raw material for uranium), rutile, and ilmenite (the base raw materials for titanium), as well as lithium (crucial for battery production), are also found in Ukrainian soil. According to some estimates, about 5% of the world’s mineral reserves are located in Ukraine. Depending somewhat on market conditions, its value is estimated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars (some say about 19 trillion dollars) (!).
Immediately after the pro-NATO government came to power in 2014, lobbying began to lift the moratorium that stated foreigners could never buy more than two hectares of Ukrainian land. In an April 2021 report, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the monetary infrastructure of NATO, explicitly stated that lifting this moratorium was a necessary condition for providing funds to Ukraine. In June 2021, Ukraine capitulated and effectively lifted the moratorium. Subsequently, giant American companies like Monsanto, Cargill, and DuPont bought up approximately 170 million hectares, or one-third of Ukraine’s agricultural land, in no time.
Behind these companies are the financial giants of the world: BlackRock, Vanguard, and Blackstone, asset managers of astronomical proportions. Following the rise in agricultural land prices from €2,500 to €10,000 that followed these massive purchases, these giants immediately multiplied their invested capital. That the land has now become too expensive for countless small Ukrainian farmers to earn a living from should not concern someone striving for world dominance.
In the same movement, the economic giants took another step. BlackRock, Vanguard, and Blackstone are heavily entrenched in the American military industry, and since NATO’s actions would almost inevitably lead to war, they could also prepare for a new round of monstrous profits (at the expense of the American people).
Moreover, BlackRock and Vanguard are also significant shareholders in American construction companies Bechtel and AECOM, which signed contracts at the onset of the war for the future reconstruction of Ukraine once it would have been nearly completely leveled by the war.
Adding to this is the fact that BlackRock, McKinsey, and JPMorgan Chase established a reconstruction bank for Ukraine together, leading to the staggering conclusion: the same companies that earn fortunes from buying up Ukrainian agricultural land and its natural resources also profit immensely from supplying the weapons to devastate Ukraine and will ultimately profit from rebuilding it.
The grinding gears of this money machine have meanwhile crushed more than a million young Ukrainian and Russian soldiers’ bodies; the thrum of the money press drowns out the moans of thousands of tortured bodies, the sobbing of thousands of raped women, the cries of a country bleeding from every pore of its fertile land. Trying to make money is undoubtedly human, but at the top, where it is ruthlessly elevated to the highest goal, it takes on diabolical forms.
After the Maidan power takeover in 2014 and the advancing NATO militarization of the entire Black Sea region, Putin anticipated the next step: after Ukraine, NATO would set its sights on Crimea. This meant that Russia would be cut off from its fleet in Sevastopol. Putin did not wait and annexed Crimea via a referendum, increasing Russia's military presence on the peninsula. As a side note, Putin used social media and the internet for this referendum, which would be the reason Google and social media would significantly ramp up censorship thereafter (see this interview with Mike Benz).
With the referendum, Putin scored a significant victory but also suffered an inevitable defeat in terms of image and propaganda. This step was portrayed in the free West as the definitive outbreak of an emerging dictator who was no longer satisfied with tyrannizing his own people but was now embarking on a foreign conquest. The evidence was now provided: Putin is the new Hitler who wants to conquer all of Europe. This image was further reinforced when Putin made the next counter-move on the great global chessboard: invading Ukraine.
Through this propaganda, a psychological support base was created among the European and American populations, impoverished by the corona and other crises, to gradually mobilize for a large-scale conflict with Russia, or in other words, for World War III. That global conflict is now also approaching on another front. In the Middle East, the same Brzezinski-esque geopolitical strategy is now preparing to bring another strategic line to an end, moving towards the endgame of striving for geopolitical hegemony. Everything is being readied there to level Iran.
Thanks to the work of Pulitzer Prize winner and investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, we know that the list of countries to be destroyed in the Middle East was already on paper in 2001 (and perhaps even earlier). The list began with Iraq, included Syria and Libya, and ended with Iran.
We ultimately ask ourselves: what drives NATO, and particularly the American power bloc that calls the shots, to steer towards a third world war? The causes of any war are complex and usually rooted in a blind destructive and self-destructive death drive. However, at a certain level, they are also simple. The USA still has military power, but economically, it is rapidly losing its position. The USA is part of the economic power bloc of the G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States); it’s economical counterpart are the BRICS countries, including its arch-enemy Russia (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
To illustrate the decline of the G7 and the rise of the BRICS countries economically: in 1950, the G7 countries accounted for about 70% of global market share, in 1990 this decreased to about 50%, and by 2020, it further dropped to 40%. It is expected to be around 30% by 2040. The BRICS countries are going in the opposite direction. Before 1990, their share was negligible; after 1990, it rose to about 15%, and in 2020 it was approximately 30%. It is expected that by 2030, the BRICS countries could surpass the G7’s share.
The aforementioned American power bloc knows that the loss of economic power inevitably leads to the loss of military power. The only way to maintain power is to use the remaining military superiority to crush the emerging economic power of the BRICS countries and thus restore economic dominance. In other words: to provoke a third world war. The total destruction of humanity and humanity itself does not deter some from relinquishing their grip on power.
To unleash this third world war, the war machinery, again, needs the consent of the populace and must manipulate public opinion. As again: what brings people to war is a highly complex dynamic, yet there are people involved, people who take the lead. This is happening abundantly in light of the war in Ukraine. Thera are people who are blowing up a pipeline or dam here and there, people who produce propaganda in all its diversity. People who are proposing a NATO Secretary-General (the Dutch Mark Rutte) who has already convincingly demonstrated that he is willing to fully escalate the conflict with Russia. The man in question employs a kind of war rhetoric that suggests he is not genuinely inclined to empathize with the hundreds of thousands of war victims that NATO’s strategy in Ukraine has already caused, nor with the billions of potential victims that it could still create. I hope he changes his mind. A human is always a human. It is an ethical duty to assume that he can still turn for the better.
In a sense, all world powers are players on the same ‘Grand Chessboard’ of Brzezinski. The rules of this chess game are set by the symbolic structure within which our global society currently operates: the materialistic-rationalistic worldview. No one escapes the power of this symbolic framework, neither Russia nor America, Europe nor China. They all use propaganda, they all participate in the arms race, and they are all caught in the relentless logic of a market that is only free in appearance.
Ultimately, the enemy is not a Russian or an American or any other person. The enemy lies in an ideology, a way of thinking, in a certain metaphysical force or spirit. The real problem, the actual enemy, is situated in a worldview that reduces the entire world and existence to a material phenomenon, in which human beings are no more than biological machines, biochemical processes devoid of Spirit or Soul. In such a context, biological survival and the pursuit of absolute dominance without any ethical or moral limits easily become the ultimate goal. Within that worldview, this is also perfectly logical: in a purely material world, ethics and morality are nothing more than an illusion arising somewhere in the biochemical machinery of our brains. Why should we allow ourselves to be hindered in the great game of survival of the fittest? Anyone who views life through that lens is already an instrument of destructive drive.
As I type the last letters of this article, I see the sun sending its light through the morning mist, a golden gift at the start of a new day. The trees in the castle park exude a majestic power through the tenderness of their autumn leaves. Their meter-wide trunks fearlessly send their roots into the depths of the dark autumn ground; their branches lift their trembling twigs high above the mists into the sparkling morning light.
I am ready to give a workshop, a workshop in which I will practice the art of sincere speaking with the participants, an art that requires exploring the unfathomably dark depths of the human being, an art that elevates humanity to its highest heights, a strand of words that connects darkness with light, an art that is the opposite of the practice of propaganda. While the thudding of the propaganda drum sets the war machine in motion, I feel people everywhere becoming aware that only the Act of sincere speaking offers a way out of the hopelessness of humanity that has lost itself in appearance and manipulation.
Do not remain silent, stay true to the ethical duty to speak as a human in times when society blindly follows a discourse that leads to ruin. Speak calmly, speak steadily, try not to convince too much, but rather to testify; speak from your belly rather than your head. I hope this article can be a small spark, a small contribution to the rise of a group of people united by the act of sincere speaking, a group where the opinion itself does not take precedence but the right of every person to express their opinion; a group that does not get lost in the narcissism of a collective ideal image and enemy image but cherishes the love for the uniqueness and singularity of each individual; this is the group that can provide a counterweight to the death drive of the propagandized masses."
