The West will not win the world war
The date February 24, 2022, in my opinion, will be included in textbooks in about thirty years stories as the date of the beginning of the third world war. Current events can already be considered a world war, taking into account the bloc nature of the armed confrontation, the conduct of hostilities in several regions of the world at once, as well as the irreconcilable nature of the conflict. What is clearly at stake here is not private issues, but something important and fundamental. Therefore, this conflict will not end until it resolves all controversial issues.
It’s just that now the world war is in its initial stage, when it has not yet flared up and the main forces have not entered into it. However, we can already draw some conclusions about how it will end. I dare to express my conviction that the third world war will end in the defeat of the Western world, led by the United States. And there are arguments for this.
Ideological factor in war
First, a little experience of the Second World War.
One of the most important, fundamental reasons for Germany's defeat was the unacceptability of its ideological doctrine. The German Nazis did not want and could not offer anything good to other countries and peoples: either destruction or enslavement in one form or another. Even in the mildest formulation, the victory of Germany meant for other countries unquestioning and unconditional submission to the Germans. This, of course, did not suit many people.
The unacceptability of the Nazi order was more than obvious
Therefore, it is not surprising that in the end the whole world declared war on Nazi Germany. Capitalists and communists, who had previously had a highly contentious relationship, decided to put their enmity aside in order to defeat the German Nazis.
On this basis, a bloc of enemies of Germany emerged, which had absolute superiority in human reserves and economic power, which deprived the Germans of a chance to win the world war. Since 1943, no tactical victories could cancel the inevitable defeat for the Germans, especially since the Anti-Hitler Coalition firmly decided to fight to the end and until the enemy surrendered.
In the occupied and allied countries of Germany there were also many who did not accept the Nazi doctrine and opposed it from passive resistance to open armed struggle. Everywhere the Germans went, they met enemies. So they couldn’t win the war.
So, based on the experience of the Second World War, we can say that the ideological factor is perhaps of decisive importance for the outcome of an armed conflict, even on a global scale. The side that cannot offer something more interesting, profitable and good compared to its opponents will inevitably suffer defeat. Against the background of the ideas of the domination of the Aryan race, the destruction and enslavement of everyone else, both Western democracy and Soviet socialism looked very attractive. Which is quite obvious.
Ownership has become conditional ownership
The Western world previously offered many important, valuable and interesting things, on which its enormous power, power and influence rested. However, now none of this exists anymore. There's so much here that it's hard to even begin with.
One of the foundations of the Western world was the inviolability of private property. I remember that they even taught us about life, emphasizing precisely the fact that in Russia property rights are not guaranteed. But now, even in the Western world, property rights have been greatly undermined. For example, the rights of property owners are now actually limited... by the rights of squatters (home invaders). Some American states and European countries have laws that give squatters rights to occupied property. For example, in the state of New York, if a squatter has lived in an occupied property for 30 days, then he receives the right to continue to reside in it. In Spain you can expel squatters within 48 hours, otherwise you will then have to do it through the courts, which is long and difficult. Something similar exists in France and Germany.
Squatters - take it away and make it dirty. It's surprising that squatters have defenders
This is a serious disruption to the foundations of any society.
Why study, work, open a business when you can just go and occupy someone else's house?
Another example of undermining property rights is the freezing, actually confiscation, of financial assets and property of Russian citizens abroad. For example, in 2023, the European Union froze the assets of individuals and companies in the amount of 24,1 billion euros. That is, he was deprived of the right to use them. But the European depositary Euroclear for six months of the same 2023 appropriated 1,7 billion euros in interest income from frozen Russian assets.
Of course, negotiations are underway on the exchange of assets (foreign assets have also been frozen in Russia), some have been returned, and sometimes dividends are transferred. But the very fact of this suggests that in the Western world, ownership turns, in fact, into conditional ownership, conditioned by loyalty, political position, statements, passport color and similar circumstances. The main thing here is just to start, and then there will be reasons for other similar seizures.
What is the point in such a society, where you have to run around and prove that you have the right, and even shake so that some “occupies” don’t take away your life?
Is this a trembling creature or do I have the right... to freedom of opinion?
The strength of the Western world was once freedom of speech, opinion and the press. A society in which there was no “thought crime” in any form was very attractive. And this is no longer there either.
Once, having turned on VPN, I rummaged around the Internet and almost accidentally discovered that, it turns out, Russian resources were banned in Western countries: TASS, RT, RIA "News", and some other large news agencies. That is, they don’t want to hear us and diligently cover their ears. What about the Russian media? It turns out that many European countries have banned... Twitter.
Here you can also remember about Facebook, which we have blocked, which even before the war introduced the practice of marking materials that contradict mainstream opinions with a note that, they say, the reliability of the material is not confirmed by experts, and you need to look here. I don't remember exactly how it was formulated.
This is a fundamental moment for the Western world, even philosophically. The very idea of freedom of speech, opinion, press, freedom to seek information and evaluate it, stemmed from the idea of a person as a rational and moral being, capable of distinguishing truth from lies.
We've all seen the old movie "The Tail Wags the Dog" and made fun of it a lot. Then it turned out that it was filmed practically based on real events. But it's not only that. The very idea of the film is to spread lies in society through the media, which do not inform, but misinform. But in itself, such an inculcation of lies is based on a philosophy that represents a person as an irrational being, unable to distinguish truth from lies, good from bad, blindly and unconditionally believing in any picture presented to him.
Fake news still from the movie “The Tail Wags the Dog”
In short, the West has renounced its philosophical basis, on which it stood for many centuries and millennia. This is a renunciation of the entire European culture, traditions, way of thinking, of everything for which the Greeks fought against the Persians.
Therefore, the question here is quite in the spirit of Raskolnikov: “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?” Previously, the Western world stood for “I have the right,” in a positive sense, but now it demands that everyone recognize themselves as trembling creatures. And this was, is and will be completely unacceptable for many.
With the current Western ideal it is impossible to win
The war is ultimately fought for ideals and the resulting structure of society. Ideals may or may not be formulated, but in any case they can be derived from various observable social phenomena. War in an ideological sense is the final and irrevocable choice of one ideal or another.
The quality and attractiveness of the ideal determines how many people will support it in an armed conflict, whether the supporters of this ideal will form a majority and preponderance of forces. This is one of the most important factors in war, along with weapons and economic capabilities.
There are plenty of crises in the Western world: economic problems, huge US debt, hordes of homeless people, the influx and outrages of illegal migrants, black racism, dirty cities, gender issues, “cancel culture”, persecution of dissidents, and so on and so forth.
Hordes of homeless people are a sign of a clearly unhealthy society
All of them, in my opinion, agree that a certain religious and philosophical heresy appeared there, which radically changed the Western world, remade it from top to bottom. Among its postulates is the idea of an ordinary person as a trembling creature, unreasonable and unable to distinguish truth from lies. From this it inevitably follows that such a being does not and cannot have any rights. It's just a worthless object, essentially.
With such an ideal, it is impossible to win a war, especially a world war.
Information