This Could Not Be Verified

Not only is it impossible to verify Ukraine’s claims of Russian losses in the Special Military Operation, it is impossible to take them seriously on a statistical basis.

The scale of Russian troop losses in Ukraine has tipped 21,000 as Putin’s war rumbles into its third month today.

The latest statistics, published by the Ukrainian Land Forces this morning, suggest 21,800 Russian fighters have been killed amid bitter resistance from Ukraine’s armed forces and territorial defence units – though this figure could not be verified.

Meanwhile, the land forces claim to have dealt massive damage to Russia’s military equipment and machinery.

A total of 873 tanks are said to have been destroyed, along with 2238 armoured vehicles, 179 planes, 154 helicopters and 408 artillery systems.

According to the same article, “On February 24, Russia’s land army consisted of 280,000 full-time active soldiers compared with Ukraine’s 125,600.”

Now, the number of casualties in war is always a multiple of the number of fatalities. For example, the USA lost 407,316 KIA during WWII and 671,846 WIA out of 16.4 million troops, for a Cas/Fat ratio of 1.65. As medical science improved, this ratio increased over time, to 2.6 for Vietnam, 7.2 for Iraq, and 8.6 for Afghanistan.

So, if the most recent US war is a reasonable comparative, the Ukrainian claims would indicate an additional 180,600 wounded Russians for a total of 201,600 Russian casualties, which would mean that the Russian casualty rate of 72 percent exceeds that of the German, Japanese, and Soviet militaries during the entirety of World War II. And at 7.5 percent, the fatality rate is three times the US WWII fatality rate of 2.5 percent in just two months.

In other words, we can state with certainty that these reports are highly improbable, and logically conclude that they are false.

You Have to Wonder

AC raises a pertinent question for even the most devoutly secular historian:

You have to wonder why so many disparate civilizations all over the globe and throughout time, all came to the conclusion that if they brutally tortured/murdered children/babies, as a “sacrifice” to some unseen other, the unseen other would look kindly on their gesture of fealty, and bestow great things upon them, almost magically.

You do indeed. And then ask yourself what religion happens to posit a fallen world ruled by a wicked immortal spiritual creature, and how the present rulers of this world happen to regard that religion. I found the subsequent excerpt from an 1805 inquiry into the fall of nations, which compares the historical accounts of Rome and of Carthage, to be somewhat suggestive in that context:

All the historians that give us the character of the two nations were Romans and of the victorious party; yet most of them are more equitable than the historians of modern times, for they had not seen their own country in its last state of degradation and misery. Those who now make the comparison have proper materials; and it is the business of the writers of history to free it from the errors into which contemporary authors fall, whether from prejudice, or from want of knowing those events which happened after their days.

In the case of the Roman historians, the error arose from a combination of three different causes. In the first place, they compared Rome in its healthy days and its vigour, to Carthage in its decline. They were, next to that, led into an error, by not knowing that all countries that have been long rich are liable to the same evils as Carthage. And, last of all, they wrote with a spirit of party, and a predilection in favour of Rome. These three causes are certain; and, perhaps, there was another. It is possible they did not dare to speak the truth, if they did know it.

One wonders what that truth, which historians know but of which they dare not speak, could possibly have been?


The Five Fronts of Imperial Collapse

A fascinating interview with Sergey Glazyev, who points out that events of the sort we are witnessing “only happen once a century”.

Among the Russian elite there are many opponents of an alliance with China. At least, before the special operation in Ukraine, it seemed to these people that American and Western culture is more understandable and closer to us than hieroglyphic Chinese wisdom, and that we will always find a common language with our “Western partners”.

– You know, back in 2015 I wrote the book The Last World War. The USA is Starting and Losing, which you mentioned at the beginning of the conversation – everything was thought out and justified there. The United States embarked on a worldwide hybrid war – started with the Orange Revolutions to disrupt regions of the world it did not control – in order to strengthen its position and weaken the position of geopolitical rivals. After the famous Munich speech of President Putin in February 2007, they realized that they had lost control over Yeltsin’s Russia, and this seriously worried them. In 2008, the financial crisis broke out and it became clear that the transition to a new technological order was beginning, and the old world economic order and the previous management system no longer ensured sustainable economic development. China was now leading the way. Well, then afterwards the logic of deploying of a world war happens, only not in the forms that existed 100 years ago, but on three conditional fronts – monetary-financial (where the United States still dominates the world), trade-economic (where they have already lost superiority to China) and information-cognitive (where the Americans also have technologies that are superior to ours). They use all three of these fronts in an attempt to keep the initiative and maintain the hegemony of their corporations.

Well and finally, the fourth front is the biological one, which opened with the advent of the coronavirus from the US-Chinese laboratory in Wuhan. Today we see that a whole network of biological laboratories existed in Ukraine. So the United States has long been preparing to open the biological front of the world war.

The fifth, and most obvious, front is, in fact, the front of combat fighting – as the last tool for forcing the states that they control into unquestioning obedience. Today, the situation on this front is also escalating. That is, active operations are underway on all five fronts of the world hybrid war, and the result can be predicted. The Americans will not be able to win, just as the British did not succeed in their time. Although Britain formally won World War II, they lost politically and economically. The British lost their entire empire, losing more than 90 percent of the territory and 95 percent of the population. Two years after World War II, where they were the winners, their empire collapsed like a house of cards, because the other two winners – the USSR and the USA – did not need this empire and viewed it as an anachronism. Also, the world will not need American transnational corporations, the American dollar, American monetary and financial technologies and financial pyramids. All this will be a thing of the past in the near future. Southeast Asia will become the obvious leader in world economic development, and a new world economic order will be formed before our very eyes.

God blessed America, and Americans threw away that blessing in favor of hedonism, sin, tolerance, and world domination. Now Americans are ruled by women and foreigners, and the world is passing it by, just as it has always forgotten the past hosts of The Empire That Never Ended.


A Eulogy for Boomers

A lot of Boomers think I’m too harsh on them. They have absolutely no idea how history is going to regard them. Or how many members of the succeeding generations consider me to be a squishy moderate on the subject. But this summation by Ivan Throne should give them a clue.

It seems the sole and total purpose of Boomers was to groom the entire Western world into solipsistic death with its ankles in the air on a mattress stained with bloody andrenochrome and the flopsweat of Klaus Schwab.

What a filthy generation.

It shat on a thousand years of heritage and damned its descendants to slavery under the most grotesque, befouled, and hideous collapse imaginable.

Is it fair? Not entirely. But since when was recorded history ever fair? And no generational description can ever address the behavior of a single individual. Nevertheless, if one is concerned about one’s legacy, then perhaps one should live with an eye to how those who will be judging it are likely to regard it.

After all, there is no spin coming from the grave.


Russia Will Go Nuclear… if necessary

Dominic Cummings points out that US nuclear strategy has always rested on false and self-serving assumptions.

In the Cold War America based its nuclear strategy on an intellectual framework that was false.

It defined standards of ‘rationality’ then concluded the Soviets would not use nuclear weapons in many scenarios. There was a governing tautology: rational leaders would be deterred otherwise they would be irrational. Given this tautology, more vulnerability improves ‘stability’ (e.g submarine launched weapons), while better defence is ‘destabilising’ (e.g missile defence).

The Cold War was won. The West concluded ‘we were right’. Many in the world of policy concluded: there is a reliable theory of nuclear strategy that allows us to send carefully calibrated signals, like ‘escalate to de-escalate’. You can see this false confidence in many politicians, journalists and academics over the past month. E.g Professor Elliot Cohen’s calls for America to attack Russian forces because he’s confident Putin is bluffing.

After the 1991 collapse some scholars went to talk to those actually in charge in Russia. They read documents. They discovered that we’d been wrong in crucial ways all along. Actually the Soviets planned early and heavy use of nuclear weapons in many scenarios including outbreak of conventional war in Europe.

The theoretical basis of some of the west’s analysis, such as game theory from the likes of the economist Schelling, had been disastrously misleading. More important (I think) was the development of a theory that encouraged leaders/strategists to ignore an eternal lesson of history: one story after another of people risking death in ways opponents or observers thought ‘irrational’, ‘crazy’.

Despite being a game designer, I would not hesitate to declare that history is a much more reliable guide to anticipating human behavior than game theory. Because humans are irrational creatures and game theory relies upon something that is observably rare, to the extent it can even be said to exist at all, which is to say human rationality.

Cummings also points out that the globalist narrative concerning the Russian leader flies directly in the face of these strategic assumptions.

The more you think ‘Putin made a terrible blunder in invading Ukraine, he’s lost the plot, isolated by covid fear, the institutions around him don’t work, he’s fed lies by sycophants’ — which is the standard view in London and DC today — the more sceptical you should be that simplistic ideas from the Cold War about ‘rationality’ and deterrence would work as planned.

Fortunately, the globalist narrative is entirely false. Which, no doubt, is why Cummings has reached the correct conclusion that should be shared by every Christian, every defender of Western civilization, and anyone who cherishes the Good, the Beautiful, and the True.

If you care about ‘preserving western values’, I strongly advise that you focus on regime change in London and Washington, not in Moscow. Putin is less dangerous than our own idiocracy.


Truth is the First Casualty

Ukraine reports Russia’s losses, but not its own.

12,000 Russian troops have now died fighting in Ukraine, while 300 tanks have been destroyed along with more than 1,000 armoured vehicles, 48 planes, 80 helicopters and three boats.

That’s after 12 days of combat. Let’s compare the enemy-reported losses to the self-reported losses from some famous historical battles:

  • Normandy: 87 days. 20,668 US KIA. 2,000 tanks destroyed.
  • Tarawa: 3 days. 1,009 US KIA.
  • Iwo Jima: 35 days. 6,862 US KIA. 137 tanks destroyed.
  • Battle of the Bulge: 40 days. 19,246 US KIA. 733 tanks destroyed.

So, if the Ukrainians are to be believed, they are killing 3.45x more Russian soldiers per day, in an invasion that is advancing faster than Desert Storm, the Six-Days War, or Operation Barbarossa, than the US military lost in four of its bloodiest battles of World War II.

My estimate of Russian losses after 12 days is 2,850 KIA, 9,250 wounded, and 220 tanks lost.

This is considerably higher than the 1,100 KIA I would have estimated due to the Russians utilizing their second-line troops and refraining from making efficient use of their artillery and air power. But the Russian generals are clearly saving their first-line troops and equipment for a potential future engagement with NATO forces, while taking advantage of the situation to blood and level-up the second-line soldiers. And, to Vladimir Putin’s credit, he has decided to accept a higher rate of Russian military casualties in order to reduce the number of Ukrainian civilian casualties by at least an order of magnitude.

You may wish to note that my first estimate was 250 to 500 KIA at a time when the Ukranians were reporting 9,000 KIA. The Russians subsequently reported 498 KIA for that period. The reason I set the range too low was because at the time I calculated the estimate, I did not know that the Russians were relying upon second-line troops or that they would eschew artillery and air support for the first five days of the operation.

The lesson, as always, is this: the past is prelude.


Now Do the Showers

How many Holocaust claims need to be publicly proven to be lies by scholars before it is eventually concluded that the general theme itself is, at the very least, a fantastic exaggeration of a historical atrocity?

Herman Rosenblat received international attention for his tale about being a hungry little boy in a Nazi concentration camp who was thrown apples every day by a little girl named Roma, on the other side of the fence.

Years later, according to the story, Rosenblat met that same girl on a blind date in New York City and proposed to her on the spot.

The only problem was, Rosenblat’s story, which he and his wife had been telling for 13 years, was a lie.

Six weeks ago Holocaust scholars proved that it was physically impossible for prisoners to approach the fence at the concentration camp where Herman was kept and that Roma’s family was actually 200 miles away at the time.

Wednesday, for the first time, Rosenblat spoke out in an exclusive interview with “Good Morning America” to share his side of the story.

“It wasn’t a lie,” he told “GMA.” “It was my imagination. And in my imagination, in my mind, I believed it. Even now, I believe it, that she was there and she threw the apple to me. … In my imagination, it was true.”

And at what point is it going to occur to people that all of these survivors telling ridiculous stories about their lives in the concentration camps tend to suggest that they, at least, weren’t there to be killed in the first place? After all, scholars have already determined that there was no “rollercoaster of death” at Auschwitz, that four million people didn’t die at Auschwitz, and that no one ever put a bear, an eagle, and a jew in a cage together anywhere on the planet, much less every single day.

Imagine if the Japanese had started telling stories like these about their own internments in the United States. Or if any of the vast majority of the other people being held in the same Nazi camps did. Where are all the Polish and Romanian stories about “the trapeze of death”, “the marmot, the snake, and the Slav”, or the mass slaughter that took place in the terrible pillow chambers? Would the world similarly genuflect before their nonsense?

And forget the damning forensic evidence and the wooden doors. I figured out that the “showers of death” also had to be a lie when I simply thought for a few seconds about what would be necessary to make it safe for the disposal crew to enter them after a round of executions. After all, it’s easier, safer, faster, less expensive, and much more lethal to simply remove the oxygen from an air-tight chamber than it is to pump it full of poison gas, then purge the gas from it.

A children’s version of the story, entitled Angel Girl (ISBN 978-0822-58739-2), written by Laurie Friedman and illustrated by Ofra Amit, was published in September 2008 by Carolrhoda Books of Lerner Publishing Group.

Of course it was. In fact, it’s still available on Amazon. Because when you live in an Empire of Lies, a substantial percentage of what you think you know is actually false.


The Neocon Perspective

The irony of the neocons, who couldn’t hold onto Iraq or Afghanistan over the course of two decades, babbling about how Russia has failed after a single week of military operations on a grand scale, should not escape you:

Putin rolled the dice of war and didn’t beat Ukraine. This, in strategic terms, probably means he lost the campaign. In retrospect, the Kremlin’s plan consisted of an airborne/airmobile/Spetsnaz descent on Kyiv, the mission of which was to establish an airhead in the capital and capture the Ukrainian government until relieved by mechanized forces racing in from the north. An airmobile assault was attempted at Gostomel to Kyiv’s immediate north.

But things went badly wrong. The Russian battalion-sized airmobile force met stiff air defense and was immediately counterattacked by the Ukrainian mobile reserve. Unable to land follow-on forces, the paratroopers could not withstand heavy weapons and were scattered or wiped out. Equally serious for the Russians was the failure of their northern pincer to advance on schedule.

Desperate to “bag” the Ukrainian government, the Russians attempted a large-scale airborne assault for Vasylkiv Airfield to the south of Kyiv to establish a blocking position to catch withdrawing units. But this failed, with two C-17 counterpart IL-76s loaded with paratroops destroyed, and with them, two infantry companies of the Kremlin’s finest. Crucially the Russian mechanized elements trickling into Kyiv proved too weak to break through the city defense.

When it was clear Zelensky, and hence the Ukrainian government, could not be bagged and was quite capable of retreating in good order to fallback positions in the West, it was obvious that Putin could not conclude the campaign with the political time and the military forces at hand. At this, the diplomatic floodgates opened, with even China urging a diplomatic solution, and much of the world, scared to death of a third world war, timidly then more forcefully chiming in.

Ukraine has not won, not in the military sense. It has lost territory, suffered significant losses to soldiers and civilians, and endured massive property damage. But crucially, it has not lost — and that may be enough.

Playing for an immediate checkmate doesn’t come off doesn’t mean you lose the game. It certainly doesn’t mean that your plan failed either. It’s just an aggressive opening gambit from which you proceed with your primary plan if, as you must always anticipate, you fail to get lucky and score an easy win. The strike battalion’s failed attempt to decapitate Ukraine’s foreign leadership on the first day of the operation was no different than the US Air Force’s attempt to bomb Saddam Hussein at the beginning of the 2003 Iraq campaign.

After all, it’s not as if the defeat at Arnhem, the famous “bridge too far” which caused the failure of Operation Market Garden, prevented the Allies from defeating Germany. It just meant that the war ended in May 1945 instead of before Christmas 1944, and that the Soviets took Berlin instead of the Americans.

Those with even a modicum of familiarity with military history are aware that the Russian operation is a model of near-textbook efficiency, bypassing the cities and enveloping enemy units by striking on multiple fronts.

Russia has already won the first battle of the Global Crusade, as the outcome of the Ukro-Russian war is no longer in any doubt, but the war between The Empire That Never Ended and the free nations of the world is very, very far from over.


Ukraine Invasion: A Comparative Analysis

This is an analysis of Russian invasion of Ukraine compared to historical invasions known for their speed and success. The DuPuy Institute’s data was utilized for some parts of this analysis. Posted with the permission of the anonymous author. – VD

Russia’s rate of conquest is extraordinary: 1.43 times faster than Israel in 1967, 1.85 times faster than US in Iraq in 2003, and 10 times faster than US in Kuwait in 1991.
Russia has plausibly lost up to 15% of its tank force but the alleged death toll of 5,000+ is grossly exaggerated. Russian deaths are in the range of 234 to 1100 dead at most. Ukraine has plausibly lost 36% of its tank force.
If Russia wants to conquer all of Ukraine, victory will be complete by the end of March, after around 41 days of fighting.

SIX DAY WAR (1967)
Israel conquered the Golan Heights (690 square miles), the West Bank (2173 square miles) and Sinai (23,000 square miles), for a total of 25,863 square miles.
Israel deployed 264,000 troops vs. 100,000 Egyptians; 75,000 Syrians; and 55,000 Jordanians. Israel started with 800 tanks and 300 combat aircraft. The Arabs started with 2,054 tanks and 957 combat aircraft.
It took 6 days for Israel to conquer the theater, for a rate of conquest of 4280 square miles per day or .016 square miles per soldier per day.
The DuPuy Institute rates the Combat Effectiveness Values (CEV) of these soldiers as Israeli 3.5, Jordan 2.27, Egyptian 2, and Syrian 1.33. So the overall force ratio was (264,000 x 3.5) vs. (200,000 + 99,750 + 124,850), or 924 vs 424, or 2.2 to 1.
In conquering the Golan Heights, West Bank, and Sinai, Israel lost 983 soldiers (0.3%), 400 tanks (50%) and 46 aircraft (15%). The Arabs lost 17,500 soldiers (7.6%), 950 tanks (46%), and 452 aircraft (47%). There were very few civilian casualties.
Note that the Israelis suffered per-capita armored vehicle losses that were higher than the Arabs. This is because fast-moving tank attacks incur more losses, many of which are mobility kills.

GULF WAR (1991)
The US conquered Kuwait, a total of 6,880 square miles.
US deployed 700,000 troops vs Iraq’s 650,000 troops. US started with 2,300 tanks. Iraq started with 4280 tanks.
It took 4.25 days to conquer Kuwait, for a rate of conquest of 1618 square miles per day, or .0023 square miles per soldier per day.
The DuPuy Institute rates the US CEV as somewhere between 4 and 6 to Iraq’s CEV of 1. I assume a mid-range CEV of 5. The force ratio was therefore 3,500,000 to 650,000 or 5.38 to 1.
In conquering Kuwait, the US lost 292 soldiers (.04%). It lost 31 tanks (1.3%). Iraq lost 50,000 soldiers (7.7%) and 3700 tanks (86%). There were approximately 5,000 civilian casualties.
Here we see that, despite having a force ratio twice as good as Israel’s in 67, the US only conquered Kuwait at a speed of about 1/7th the speed that the Israeli conquered its territories. But US only suffered per-capita losses of 1/10th the men and 1/35th the tanks. The Iraqis, meanwhile, suffered similar levels of total deaths (7.7%) as the Arab League in ’67 (7.6%).
Desert Storm is often perceived as a blitzkrieg or maneuver war but it was actually a methodical battle of annihilation in which carefully advancing shock armies followed on air strikes to destroy everything in their path.

US conquered Iraq, a total of 169,285 square miles.
US deployed 310,000 troops vs Iraq’s 538,000 troops.
It took 41 days to conquer Iraq, for a rate of conquest of 4,128 square miles per day, or .013 square miles per soldier per day.
The DuPuy Institute has not offered a CEV rating for the 2003 war. I assume a CEV of 6. The force ratio was therefore 1,860,000 to 538,000 or 3.46 to 1.
The US lost 196 soldiers (.06%). Iraq lost 30,000 killed (5.6%). Data on armored vehicle losses isn’t available but we know they were very high for Iraq. There were approximately 7,300 civilian casualties.
Here we see that the force ratio was 57% better than the force ratio in the Six Day War, but only 64% as good as the force ratio in Desert Storm. The rate of conquest was almost as fast as that in the Six Day War, and much faster than that of the Gulf War. The US losses were 50% higher per-capita than the Gulf War. The Iraqi casualties were lower (5.6%).
The 2003 invasion of Iraq, with its thunder runs, seems to have been more like a maneuver war with fast movement and somewhat higher casualties.

1967, winner: 0.3% deaths, 50% tank losses – tank losses 167x deaths; 0.016 square miles per soldier-day
1967, loser: 7.7% deaths, 46% tank losses – tank losses 6x deaths
1991, winner: 0.04% deaths, 1.3% tank losses – tank losses 33x deaths; .0023 square miles per soldier-day
1991, loser: 7.6% death, 86% tank losses – tank losses 11x deaths
2003, winner: .06% deaths; .013 square miles per soldier-day
2003, loser: 5.6% deaths

Russia invaded Ukraine, which is 233,062 square miles.
Russia has allegedly deployed 234,000 troops vs Ukraine’s 125,000 ground troops. Russia allegedly has 1,200 tanks amassed. According to Global Security, Ukraine has 620 T-64, 100 T-64BM Bulat, 133 T-72s and 5 T-84 Oplots, for a total of 858 tanks. The T-64s and T-72s are vintage Soviet equipment, so only 105 tanks are modern. The Russian tank makeup is unknown.
What is the force ratio? Sadly the DuPuy Institute does not give us CEV for Ukraine and Russia. If we assume they are equal, the force ratio is 1.872. If we assume the Russians are better than the Ukrainians to the same ratio that Israelis were better than Jordanians, then the force ratio is 2.88. Based on the rate of advance (discussed below), the figure of 2.88 to 1 seems right.
By my estimates (plotting areas of advance on Google Earth), the Russians have conquered 33,465 square miles of terrain in 6 days. That represents .024 square miles per soldier day. That is 1.43 times faster than the Israel advance during the Six Day War, 10x times faster than the US advance during the Gulf War, and 1.85 times faster than the US advance in 2003.
So any suggestion that the Russians are moving slow is revealed as absolute nonsense.
What are the casualties? Ukraine claims to have killed 3,500 soldiers (1.4%). Losing that many men in just a few days would mean the Russians are on track to defeat (7.7% deaths being enough for Arabs to lose in 67 and 91). It seems to me to be a very carefully selected number – low enough to seem plausible, high enough to hint at defeat. But the number is certainly wrong. The US Army, in the first 25 days of Operation Overlord, lost 2,811 killed. It is implausible to believe that Russia has lost forces at 625% of the rate of the losses we incurred storming Omaha Beach and fighting through the bocage. With the entire world watching via satellite and mobile phone, it would be impossible for Russia to disguise losses like that.
Ukraine claims have destroyed 191 tanks (15.9%). That number of losses is plausible for an aggressive tank attack against a near-peer. The Israelis, after all, suffered higher tank losses in 1967, and the Russians are advancing 43% faster. If we look to history, this would suggest Russian loss of life would be somewhere around 0.1% to 0.5%, or 234 to 1170 dead.
Russia has said very little about kills, but it claims to have destroyed 314 tanks. That would be 36.5% of Ukraine’s tank force. That is a very plausible figure. Remember that Israeli inflicted 46% tank losses in 1967 by the end of the war. Here, the war is still ongoing. Ukraine’s death toll is then somewhere around 6% of its troops, or 7,500 soldiers, putting it very close to the point at which the Arabs routed.
If the above analysis is correct, Russia will have captured all of Ukraine in 41 days. The war will be over around the end of March.

I further note that the 5,300 Russian soldiers reported killed in four days of combat by the Ukrainian defense ministry is not even remotely credible when one considers that 5,732 Russian soldiers were reported killed or missing in 625 days of combat in the Chechen defeat of Russia during the First Chechen War. – VD


Epic Stupidity in Switzerland

The Swiss government just sacrificed the historic neutrality of Switzerland on the altar of globohomo:

Switzerland’s historic neutrality is no longer: moments ago Reuters reported that the Swiss government had joined the EU in adopting sanctions on Russia, freezing assets of targeted companies and people effective immediately:

Swiss President Ignazio Cassis said that adopting the EU sanctions against Russia was a unique, difficult step that required careful consideration. Previously, on Sunday, he said that Switzerland’s neutrality must be preserved and it stood ready to offer its good offices for diplomacy if talks between Ukrainian and Russian officials on the Belarusian border do not succeed, for example by reaching an armistice.

This is an unbelievably stupid act that will have negative consequences that last decades. The Swiss people will need to respond strongly to this by passing a referendum forbidding the government from further violating their neutrality in the future.

But it’s not a surprise. The globalists in the Swiss government have been working toward this moment for years, constantly chipping away at the commitment to neutrality through signing up for various NATO, EU, and UN programs that could be defended as not actually taking a side. However, this action, in taking sides at the behest of one belligerent party against another, is a clear and obvious violation of their historic neutrality.

Having abandoned both banking privacy and neutrality, one wonders what the Swiss government will turn against next. Cheese? Chocolate?

This is a massive mistake and there can be little doubt that the Swiss will come to regret it. With one idiotic move, the Swiss just removed themselves from any future involvement on the world stage. That being said, the fact that the globalists are rapidly pulling out all the stops, including some that have never before been pulled out, tends to underline their desperation as well as their impotence.

Information is not power. Influence is not power. Money is not power. Power is power.

UPDATE: The UK is attempting to surpass the Swiss stupidity. Their idiotic bellicosity is such that one can’t rule out the Boris Johnson government declaring war on Russia.

Toppling Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is the goal of the new wave of international sanctions introduced in response to Moscow’s offensive in Ukraine, a spokesman for Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson told reporters on Monday. “The measures we are introducing, that large parts of the world are introducing, are to bring down the Putin regime,” the unnamed official said.

Downing Street later clarified that the spokesperson had “misspoken”.

UPDATE: The Swiss are already discovering that taking sides means making enemies, even if you try to cover yourself with the ridiculous claim that you haven’t stopped being neutral while striking at one side at the demand of the other.

Moscow has closed its airspace to Swiss planes, mirroring Bern’s decision on Monday to prohibit Russian aircraft from flying over the Alpine country. Russia’s aviation authority released a statement on Tuesday saying that “in keeping with international law and as a retaliatory measure” in the wake of the ban Switzerland had imposed on Russian aircraft, Moscow was “restricting flights by civil aircraft” belonging to or registered in Switzerland.

Not only that, but Switzerland has already lost all of the considerable revenues it would have made from the Nordstream 2 pipeline that will deliver Russian gas to Germany, as the Russian-owned Swiss company just fired all of its 150+ employees, presumably in preparation for being shut down.