Meeting in Ukraine: Putin. Nietzsche. Biden. (I)
Neo-Conism and The Peripeteia of The Will-to-Power
I
Rarely if ever does History offer itself as a testing ground for postulations from Philosophy. But the Ukraine war would seem to be a pragmatical illustration thereof. Viewing it from a philosophical standpoint such as I will be expounding herein, which understands all wars as the final outcome of the interlacing of infinitesimal, essentially peaceful events, then the war still ongoing in Ukraine would seem to have been arranged by History for the unique purpose of probing into some uniquely original philosophical postulations on Western European geopolitics. Likewise, rarely if ever does philosophical thinking reveal at once both its limitations and its almost uncanny power to look at the depths of History, while nonetheless revealing its capacity to foresee its developments, and to somehow transcend them. So being it, here we will be delving into such philosophical perspective, as offered to us by Nietzsche.
Nietzsche's geopolitical observations, which in turn rest on a philosophical assessment of the psychological state of the Will-to-Power in Europe towards the last three to four decades of the Nineteenth Century, offered in the aphoristic format preferred by his writing style, are contained in The Twilight of the Idols and in Beyond Good and Evil. Therein, he manages to foresee tendencies and developments which from his standpoint in the past, were still far into the distance, but which came to materialize relatively shortly after his death and whose consequences link up to the present. Which is indirectly stating that the most decisive, long-in-the-making geopolitical moves by opposite parties, whose infinitesimal interlacing is being presented by History as “the Ukrainian-Russian War,” can more adequately be followed philosophically, rather than, say, “journalistically,” as it is usually done.
In truth, Nietzsche's philosophical thinking about what he called the "petty politics" of Western Europe, unexpectedly proves itself to be a most reliable guide to the archeological site where the force originated which, since the rise and defeat of fascism in Europe, has been perpetrating the politics and carrying out the plans and the programs on both sides of the Atlantic, which led Russia to eventually do war on Ukraine. So, Nietzsche's evaluation of the political state of things as that century moved toward its closing, traces a line in the history of European thinking, which via Nazism and its reincarnation in the West in our very days, directly connects to the so-called American "Neo-Cons." For you see, well-understood, what goes by that name reveals itself in analysis to be but the American variation of a very specific historic-ideological movement, primordially anti-Russian, with geographical roots and ethic claims primarily among Germanized Slavs and Jews, from Germany and Poland.
For, as the historical movement that it is, what is known as "Neo-Cons" is not just a pack of individuals entrenched in some corners of the centers of power in one or both sides of the Atlantic, with their headquarter in Washington. And likewise, as a specific historical movement, "Neo-Conism," as I prefer it, is neither of the Right nor of the Left. Rather, it is an ideological movement that supersedes such an artificial divide, to better be able to stride both tendencies in accordance with the pursuit and perpetration of its uniquely nihilistic, long-term finality. Which is?
Simply put, as a historical movement, in the main Neo-Conism seeks to inflict itself on, to do harm and hurt and bring down and destroy anything in good terms with Russia, and ultimately, Russia itself.
It seeks to solve on its own terms what it regards as the historically unsettled business of the military, but as we are witnessing right now, the political and ideological defeat of Nazis ideas and programs, by the Russians, throughout the Second World War. And so, Neo-Conism is also a militaristic revengeful movement which, although primordially anti-Russian, is inimical to anyone whom it might consider to be a friend of Russia’s. As a movement, Neo-Conism is animated by its refusal to accept to coexist in a world with a people, with institutions, and with a culture which from its very emergence in modern history was declared by its ideological ancestors to be salvage, even barbaric, genetically non-European but Asian, and therefore culturally inferior to the West.
But, to be sure, Neo-Conism also reviles Russia because, it being the land of a race supposedly inferior, as it is today propagated in Ukraine and condoned by the political West, it has at the same time incomprehensibly been blessed, in their intimations, presumably by the Devil herself. It dumbfounds and confounds Neo-Conism that the land of such an inferior race would have deserved to be gifted with a Nature that seems to be an endless deposit of the wealth the West has always needed for the survival of its collective lifestyle. All that metastasizes in a very kind of implacable hatred— the kind which is leading the political West to self-destroy.
Now, to walk alongside the line that Nietzsche's writing traces to Neo-Conism as a historical movement, one must pay dutiful attention to the evaluation he performs of the psychological states of the dominant classes of both the Eastern and Western European nations towards the end of the Nineteenth Century. It was then that the Old Continent had begun to set the ground for the "warlike age" that would bring us the First and the Second World Wars, but which before those wars, in time brought on the Franco-German War, by Germany in each instance.
In focusing on the psychological motivations behind the actions and inactions of the collective European nobility and the respective centers of power of his time, Nietzsche sought to fathom the depths of the reservoir of willing, that is, of the inescapable universal capability peoples, institutions, and nations possess for action, for decision-making, for taking a stand, execute, and in general, for committing themselves to their chosen pursuits. In races and classes, as much as in individuals, such universal capacity expresses itself as the specific inner disposition to say Yes and do Yes, and/or to say No and do No in all their dealings, doing, and deeds. In short, Nietzsche was interested in discerning the quanta of the Will-to-Power in the nations of the West at a given point, to attempt to establish its status and potentialities vis-a-vis Russian's.
But, how did Nietzsche come to the conclusion that understanding was lacking here, and that light needed to be shed on this phenomenon?
To cut through the chase, the author of Beyond Good and Evil came one day to the realization that if Europe wanted to amount to something of importance in the coming centuries, it would have to adopt a collective, comprehensive geopolitics, to be pragmatically incorporated into the national reality of its member States, and consistently implemented throughout the continent, to which the "small" politics corresponding to local interests had to be subordinated and answerable to. That implied resolutely putting an end to inter-European warring between and among the nobilities of each nation against one another, and to commit themselves to establishing common ground toward their becoming a solid, univocal entity. Only, he was not talking “European-Unionism.”
And Nietzsche had, too, come to the realization that the future position of Western Europe in the coming ages depended on one and only one contingent, aleatory, and at the same time, ironic act: it depended on whether Russia eventually got "in the mood" and decided to attack its neighbors to the West, Germany or France, for example. Oh, here one must rush to state that it was not as if Russia had then been sending off signals, beaming off aggressive shadowboxing, or amassing forces at the borders, as the political West pushed it to do recently on Ukraine. Punctually knowledgeable of the ins-and-outs of European history as he was, Nietzsche was aware that neither in his own time nor in the historical past, say, through the Seventeenth and the Eighteenth Centuries, had Russia been more aggressive, than, say, the Prussian Empire. He knew that, actually, Russia had been less so. And Russia had been less so too than France, and, by way of an example, less chaotic and provocative than, say, Poland. In addition, Nietzsche was also cognizant that, for its being an Empire, Russia for the most part limited itself to the conquest of territories already inhabited by large number of ethnic Russians; or territories that were contested and claimed by a multiplicity of parties, especially by parties from the Baltic states or from Prussia, in which Russians had a right to stake claims, usually because such territories were too close to their mainland for comfort.
But Nietzsche was aware, again, that for being an Empire, Russia never attempted to invade and incorporate lands in the possession of any legitimately constituted government or authority. On this, the best example to be given is how, having militarily occupied Berlin in 1860 after defeating it on behalf of Austria, Russia willingly moved its troops out after two years, and did so without preconditions and without making any compensatory demands on the Prussians. Be sure that Nietzsche would have been well-informed on that. But what Nietzsche also punctually knew was that, A) the Russian Empire always carried out to the end any war it got itself involved for one reason or another; B) that it was very resourceful, utmost resilient, and courageous in battle, and a very reliable ally; C) that although it had lost few battles, it had never lost a war; and D) that consequently, it remained invictus throughout its history.
Through two centuries of imperialist conquests and reconquests between and among the eastern and western sides of Europe and beyond, Russia had shown it had more than enough courage and knew how to win wars both alongside allies, and, when allying itself did not work, alone. It fought with and against Prussia; with and against Great Britain; with France and against it; it buried the supposedly invincible and/or unstoppable Ottoman Empire. In all the European scenarios which Russia was called by History to intervene, it showed steadfastness and warring efficiency, albeit not always political wisdom, which the mismanagement of its Polish territories is a regrettable example of. In any case, even before it got to commandeer Poland, Russia had already proven itself to ever be light and fast on its feet to forge, abandon, and/or recompose suitable alliances in order to go for and after whatever its State needed to strengthen itself and to grow, and to defend the ethnic Russian populations beyond its official borders. Such indomitable disposition had to naturally raise fear onto their faint, effeminate, and nervous neighbors to their West. Hence the myth of a “Russian threat.”
From that, one can infer what Nietzsche was referring to when speaking of "mortal danger," to describe the situation his own country was in vis-a-vis Russia. In quite fewer words, Nietzsche knew the depths of the Will-to-Power residing in the "Russian soul." If ever the Russians had the need to conquer the West for good, beginning in, say, France or Berlin, the latter would have stood not a chance. But you see, the Russians never even tried.
Yet, why would have the nations of the West stood no chance then, in that specific historical past, in the face of hypothetical rapacious move by Russia? The short answer here is: the nations of Continental Europe had become weak-willed overtime, a clear symptom of their collective decadence. You see, when one has become weak-willed, weakness of the Will being the dominant trait in one's entire psychological disposition, weak-will-ness cannot be conjured at will. Logically so. For then one lacks the capacity and capability for willing oneself out into a different psychological state. That’s when one is “deeply depressed.” That was the condition identified by Nietzsche in the Western European mind in Beyond Good and Evil. Therein, he diagnosed that condition as the "nervous debility and sickliness" of the Western Europeans.
That affliction gets expertly recognized by the philosopher who on that account is also at the same time a psychologist of the soul. Briefly explained: the organism or entity that becomes prey to, which has become the object of its own systematic questioning and doubting; that is, an organism that turns skeptical toward itself— will in time inevitably reach a point of inner paralysis, or a permanent or recurring state of utter indecisiveness. And that is so whether that organism or entity be an individual, a class, a race, or a nation, or even a whole continent. Having thus become weak-willed, the organism becomes sick of the Will, the ultimate consequence of a kind of skepticism that is driven inwardly instead of outwardly, as would be the case under normal conditions. Because, as suggested above, weak-will-ness cannot will itself out of this psychological state, a process of viral corruption and decadence sets in that cannot be overcome by any self-generated means. To be sure, such skepticism is sickly self-questioning and self-doubting rather than introspective, with no clear rationalizations thereof. The question is, how did Western Europe acquire such state of psychological decomposition?
For the sake of brevity, here is a restrictive answer.
As can happen to a race, social, class, or an individual— a nation can also turn skeptical in the sense above through sustained uncritical interaction with elements foreign to their culture that are at the same time incompatible with its own. That is most likely to happen when, again as Nietzsche observed, social classes and races, but I will add to that— nationalities, sexes, and sexualities that never before lived together are somehow forced to "suddenly" share lebensraum, usually by political or social events of one kind or another, like, say— democratic liberalism, and even more “suddenly,” by a social revolution. Whenever that happens, the organism psychologically and physiologically slowly gets first "swamped" by what is extraneous to it, and subsequently sapped of all its self-sustainability, until it is rendered unable of self-assertion and self-affirmation. At some point, confusion about even its identity spreads, and comes to prevail on it. And lastly, a nation that for example started by self-questioning, eventually "progresses" into self-doubting, as its will-power for self-affirmation goes on diminishing; then self-mistrust sets in, and the rest is occupied by self-denying.
Voila! I have here given you the history of the psychological decadence of the West in an egg shell!
Such history began with, and developed further, after the French Revolution. That is when France started to turn into the most racially variegated place in the continent, where radical experiments were first made with the indiscriminate mixing and intermixing of the races, and of the social classes, however opposite and incompatible with one another. After that, nobody could ever be sure of their own identity; nobody could ever be certain of their family and racial backgrounds, or of their social pedigree. In other words, nobody knew who they were.
And thus were the floodgate thrown open to the generalized, insidious self-questioning and self-doubting, until such mood engulfed the whole nation, to become the mode of being of the French people, and, through influence and imitation, of the whole of Europe, minus Russia. Nietzsche correctly understood that situation as the breeding of social hybridism. Accordingly, whole generations were raised in Western Europe of elements not only culturally, ethnically, racially, and socially hybrid, but who also would have evolved to be psychologically, and therefore also physiologically so. The constant, inescapable struggle in the innermost psychological of hybrid human entities, in which different, diverse, and opposite tendencies, predispositions, and inclinations pull them in more than one direction at once, resulted in the inner chaos, instability, and in the indecisiveness that characterizes modern individuality. But then, that is the manifestation of a compromised, precarious Will that easily erodes and wears off from weakness.
Although it started with the French Revolution, what Nietzsche thought under the rubric of "hybridism" is very much alive and well still today; except it is not any more a Western European phenomenon as in the historical past. And such phenomenon is no longer "hybrid." In the same way that the "hybridism" phenomenon at some point spread from France to the whole of Western Europe, from there it eventually reached the US of A under the "multiculturalist" rubric. Since it has continually been reimported back and forth from the Second World War onward, the decadence and corruption of the Will has to all effects and consequences come to prevail in the US of A to the same degree as when Nietzsche first identified it in Western Europe, and at all the same levels. For that very reason and to the same extent, the nervous disease and decaying sickliness in the combined West has come full circle, and it's now complete. Of that, Biden, for instance, is Exhibit A.
II
And that is what we are witnessing taking place in Ukraine. What we are witnessing there is a war that was absolutely preventable if only the West were not as belligerent. But then, belligerence is something good psychologists understand as being an expression of weakness.
The reality of the war going on in Ukraine forces the conclusion that Western Europe never managed to acquire a Will-to-Power since the historical time covered by the reflections above. That is demonstrated by the pusillanimity of Western Europe— at the same time allowing and lending itself as a tool of the Neo-Conism ideology. While preeminently anti-Russian, the ideology of Neo-Conism as a historical movement is not, on that account necessarily pro-Europe; far from that. But this continues to escape the Western European elites; they simply lack the Will-to-Know, as well, which is intrinsic to progression of decadence.
As exemplified by Germany, the whole Europe has actively renounced its own national interests to embrace Washington strategic geopolitics even though it is clear as daylight that it has been ominously calculated to de-industrialize the Continent, beginning with Germany itself, to guarantee its almost absolute economic dependence from Washington for decades to come. For further demonstration, look at Germany again. Nobody in the Bundestag or the German mainstream media has been willing to muster the courage even to publicly acknowledge that, to all evidence, Washington authored the destruction of the Russo-German pipelines. Such failing of the Will to either say Yes or No to that, is bona fide empirical confirmation of Nietzsche's psycho-philosophical insights concerning the sickliness and weakness of the nations comprised in the Western Europe of his time. But, for that same reason, the proxy war going on in present-day Ukraine also serves as the historical proof that Western Europe has for a long time been suffering of nervous paralysis: It was on them not to let things come to this. For, had Europe ever gotten around to recovering from this disease since Nietzsche first made his diagnosis; if it subsequently had acquired a Will-to-Power, this war would have probably never come to pass.
Furthermore, assuming that the capabilities and potentials of a strong and healthy Will to say "No" and to proceed accordingly whatever the consequences are taken into account, as proposed by Nietzsche, one comes to see that the First World War, and for that matter, the Second, needed not to have been, either.
Indeed, some recent historical evaluations of the specific historical circumstances in which for instance the First was "put" on its way, namely by Germany, agree that there were no concrete factors or scenarios to which the only necessary and inevitable response was war. Western Europe went into its First "great" World War without a casus bellum. Germany made itself militarily ready as its saw fit, and went along cagily instigating and manipulating events, hiding its intentions from its allies (Austria and Italy), while doing the utmost to tilt the international scenarios on its favor. Until the war came closer. For Germany had in record time succeeded in shaping every political, military, and diplomatic events as to make sure that the only possible outcome from any disagreements with or misstatements from the parties over whom it wanted to prevail (France and Russia, and by extension, England) would have had to be the kind of war which it was certain it could fight on multiple fronts at once, and win.
The question here is why did Germany want its war so badly.
To be sure, after the totality of the economic, geopolitical, and military facts has been exhaustively researched, thoroughly discussed, and analyzed in even their minor details; after all the historical factors that went into placing Western Europe on the path to war have been pored over and accounted for in their entire totality— one is still awed to realize how far and deep into the soullessness of the continent had Nietzsche so clearly seen already in 1886. That was four years before Bismarck came to power to launch and prevail in the Franco-German war, and four decades and four years before the First ("Great") War.
Thus, behind economic facts and military and militaristic factors, an ultimate truth stands. Which is this: the European war of 1914 happened because Germany was out attempting to demonstrate, for itself and to others, that it had by then reacquired the militaristic predisposition of the Bismarck period. That is to say, it needed to show that, as it had done under Bismarck, to say it in Nietzsche's terminology, it no longer suffered from sickliness and nervousness of the Will. It had now, in its own self-evaluation, self-deceptively established that whereas it previously had not only provoked an unnecessary war with the French, which it necessarily won, it now was in an even more resolved disposition to do it again, this time around not only in one front. It was, of course, misleading itself into confusing its militaristic predisposition, induced by an overwhelming accumulation of large armaments, with a strong, healthy Will. That must be why, working from sources that do not directly refer to Nietzsche, historians call attention to how, believing itself "too strong," Germany made a point of refusing to negotiate and to acquire allies, even as France and/or Britain would have welcomed it, and even as Russia was quite available and well-disposed to ally itself with Germany, as much as it had in former times been pragmatically allied to Prussia.
And that precisely reveals in all its philosophical and psychological complexities what is entailed in the Nietzschean conceptualization of the Will, which must be kept in mind, is always and in every instance "Will- to-power," and therefore always political, whether it expresses itself as a yes or as a no. Something lamentable if not outright horrible is likely to happen whenever the Will equivocates and swaps "No" for a "Yes," or vise-versa. In either case, a nation might provoke a war that it will lose; in Germany’s case, that happened twice: it twice brought about its own defeat. The same is happening all over again in Ukraine, only this time around it is by the collective West that will lose…
And yet, despite their defeat in a war that not feeling "too strong" to provoke would have led Germany to avoid; and, in addition to whatever other motivations that are no doubt more easily accessible to historians, the Germans apparently had no choice but to again try to demonstrate their assumed reacquisition of a Will for the battlefields— in accordance with their reductive apprehension of a concept quite germane to German philosophy. For, when it expresses itself politically, a sickly and enfeebled Will wills nothing but war.
The geo-strategical ideology practiced and propounded by Neo-Conism is not, however, historically and genealogically linked to the Germanic First World War failure at mustering militaristic power to lord it over the entire continent. The Second World War, but more pointedly, the bitter scenarios in which that war ended for Germany, is such.
If, as stated above, the "Great" First World War was deemed necessary by Germany because it needed to demonstrate its reacquired militaristic predisposition before the French, the Second World War happened because now Germany felt it needed to reaffirm itself before, or rather, against the Russians. The "logic" of the sickly and enfeebled Will is revealed in the fact that in both instances Germany found the "correct" rationales to be first to attack. It is not for nothing that in both cases its rationales were one and the same, the latter being just a variant of the former. Such rationales ran thusly: When it comes to France, the Revolution had to be negated and the social order of the Ancient Regime had to be restored. When it comes to Russia, again, the Revolution had to be negated, Bolshevism stopped from spreading and threatening the "international order," and, given that there the Ancient Regime could not be restored, the emphasis had to be placed on sparing, or rather "protecting" Western Europe from it. In other words: Germany was in each case rotting to start a war.
To rush to make the point: had Germany been able to prevail and thus to submit the whole of Europe, but namely, France, Russia, and England, to its militaristic power; had it been able to come out better off from the First World War— that is, come out convinced that superiority in weaponry and militaristic disposition amounted to a strong, healthy Will that was free from equivocations between its Yes and its No— then, more likely than not, World War Two would have not come to pass.
III
The above suggests there might be an as to now neglected element to complete the answer to the very pertinent questions historians and political scientists have been formulating through the eight decades after the end of the Second World War, about the origin of fascism and the rise of Hitler, and whose downfall takes us straight up to Neo-Conism getting brewed in the US of A.
It all has to do with what to readers of German philosophy and literature is known as the so-called “German Spirit.” In few words: that concept has as its essence the predominant inclination of the German Spirit to Romanticize, and consequently, to mythologize and falsify German history, German identity, and cultural expressions, and, most prominently, the German language itself. The concept of the “German Spirit” is thus the product of the Romantic mytho-poetic origin of German Idealismus, as handed down by Fichte, who made into a philosophical system, and by Wagner, who quite successfully put it into operatic music. From these two primary sources it is that modern Germans acquire their collective self-consciousness, implicitly false and falsifying, of what they themselves are and have been throughout their history. It is in this connection that Hitler and German Nazism are herein said to be the epitome of the self-Romanticizing and self-mythologizing of a none-existing German Will-to-Power, which the German Spirit confuses with militaristic prowess and adventurist military undertaking.
Hitler himself was the most vulgar and bloody embodiment of the attempt by the "German Spirit" to fabricate for itself a Will. From this perspective, the Second World War provoked by Germany was the manifestation on the battlefields of the German Spirit, rotting out to again demonstrate to itself, but also to France and to Russia specifically, that it had already restored its capability and capacity for dominion. And so did the “German Spirit” deceive the German people into believing their nation had by then recovered from the spectacular debacle which its previous attempt at the same ended in— just as Bismarck had in his own time “demonstrated” to the French. Thus, the Second World War was engineered by the Idealismus of the myth-making "German Spirit" as a practical statement about it having reached the optimal state to reassert itself, presumably having reacquired its self-assertive Will-to-Power. That is explicitly and implicitly the leitmotiv, the recurring notes through all the speeches by Hitler everywhere he opened his mustached mouth. Something not exactly similar but alongside the same line is happening today in Herr Scholz Germany in connection to Ukraine and vis-à-vis Russia.
Exemplary mythologizer of the Romantic German Spirit that he was, Hitler closed his understanding to the fact that with Karl der Grosse, and more to the point, with Frederick II, “Spirit” had already given the Germans everything it had potentials for. Animated by such mythological “Spirit,” Hitler believed he could do better than the former and blissfully ignored that such Romantic entity had come away conclusively shattered from the Thirty Yeas War; had been left half-dead by Napoleon in Jena; had later been left half-alive, again by the French in the German-Franco War; had, like a revenant, stumbled back just long enough to provoke the "Great" First World War only to be one more time hacked down to its bones by the French… But lo and behold! It has now reappeared in the US of A… Maybe there is something real about this “German Spirit,” after all?
The material, political, military, and moral ruins of Nazism are the historical sites where the Neo-con ideology germinated, and from where it rose and took its literally trans-Atlantic flight to the U.S of A. To insist on this point: Neo-Con ideology rose from the debris of the material demolition of fascism and Hitlerism in Germany and in Europe. It could indeed safely be said that Neo-Conism was the first import by the US Government from Germany upon the ending of the War. That import landed in the US in the form of the several dozens of former Nazi spies, numerous elements from the highest echelons of the vanquished Nazi military, and mid-level former members and functionaries of the Nazi Partie, added to which were hundreds of scientists and experts in many fields, many of whom still clung to the Nazi-Socialist ideology.
Alas! With time this political specimen grew and reproduced, that is— the initial quantities scaled up their numbers as others of their ilk exported themselves to the US of A, where, reunited, they began by marring and procreating with each other and later with other sorts, along ideological lines, while obtaining and accumulating the kind of professional and financial positions and prestige, and gaining the kind of influence that, exerted on the right people in the right places at the right time, converts to decisive, decision-making political power. In short, so effective has Neo-Conism been in scaling up, multiplying, and spreading, that it has by now become an ingrowth in the brain and the heart of both main political parties.
And so, to all intents and consequences, that has put the US of A on the path toward the one-party political system. The sweeping influence of the Neo-Conist ideology has managed to make one party of what used to be two. Consequently, fully embraced and converted to it, political operatives like the late John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden, all three of which made their apprenticeship "on the ground" in Ukraine, in addition to Neo-Conist mastermind honchos like Obama and Hillary, such an ideology holds ostensible sway in all aspects concerning US domestic foreign policies and official discourse. What such development more openly discloses, is that Neo-Conism is what the fascist ideology transmogrifies itself into, once it has grown roots in American soil, branching out through its highest circles of power. Thus, as an ideological movement from the Twentieth Century that is primordially anti-Russian even before it was put on its way to the US of A, Neo-Conism is the American reincarnation of Germanic Neo-fascism. Through it, Hitlerism is still much alive. The “German Spirit” still lives on.
So that, Hitlerism has presently crawled back one more time again, maybe to give its last ghost? That is what we are presently witnessing taking place in Ukraine, which had to be turned into a battlefield by Russia. That battlefield is an allegory for how it became inevitable that, through the trans-Atlantic agency of Neo-Conism, the infinite concatenation of finite political events— that is, History itself, had to summon Putin, Nietzsche, and Biden there. In Ukraine, Hitlerism is in its very last try at demonstrating a Will-to-Power. One cannot deceive oneself on this simply because it goes by another name and it presents itself embalmed into a wannabe Führer. The importation, in the form of a retrieval, of hundreds of Nazi elements in their many capacities by the US Government in the end has come out to have been the tactical retreat of Hitlerism.
Such tactical retreat was something equivalent to a Neo-fascist Grand March not through dangerous terrains as Chairman Mao Tse-Tung did in the Communist Revolution, but through genetics and historical time. Such tactical retreat through history is what by way of an example, gets embodied in people like Tony Blinken and Victoria Nuland, and similarly represented in their allies: the Clintons, the MacCains, the Grahams, and the Bidens in American politics. So, the anti-Russian ingrowth in the circles of US power has a significant genetic component: it is literally in the genes of several generations of the most representatives of Neo-Conism both to the left and the right of the One-Party System. Therefore, the Russians have plenty of work ahead of them before they can again claim to have conclusively finished their job.
That is to say, from the very start of the American importation, Russia was the decades-long strategic target of what, with the maturity of time, has finally revealed itself to have been carried out to guarantee Nazism to live to fight another day. And so, by dint of that maneuver, the US of A inducted itself as the historic guarantor of Hitlerism. That is the whole meaning of Biden's presence in Ukraine. Camouflaged though it is, Biden in Ukraine happens as the historical engineering of the delusory "German Spirit," still persisting in demonstrating to no avail that at long last it can impose itself over Russia. With the Clintons, Obama, and ever more so with Biden, the old idiosyncratic rivalry of "democratic" America against "aristocratic" Russia first identified by Tocqueville has evolved into Neu-Fascismus. Make no mistake here: Biden is just taking over the work left undone by Hitler. For, Hitler’s endgame continues to be what Biden is out to achieve: the weakening, hurting, killing of Russians; the murdering or suppressing their authorities and in the end, the destruction and conquest of their land. That is what for example Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Nuland and other high-placed Neo-Conist have been either loudly stating, or sneakily concealing on Ukraine.