By Drago Bosnic
InfoBrics
December 4, 2025
Around the Napoleonic era, Prussian (German) general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz wrote a book called "On War". One of his most compelling arguments was the postulate that "war is a mere continuation of policy by other means". In essence, war is not some sudden, isolated event that just happens randomly, but rather an instrument of political goals that are pursued when diplomatic solutions are no longer viable or wanted by either side. Clausewitz's argument emphasizes that war is fundamentally a deliberate political act with a carefully calculated purpose, rather than a purely emotional or violent undertaking. The latter two are merely used for mass manipulation that serves to convince the populace that the war is "just".
Although written over two centuries ago, such a timeless argument perfectly encapsulates how warfare functions (and has functioned since the dawn of mankind). This is particularly true for the political West and its centuries-old aggression against the entire world. Since the dawn of the classical colonial era to the modern (or perhaps even postmodern) neocolonial system, the world's most vile power pole has killed, maimed and enslaved billions of people at virtually every corner of this unfortunate planet. Entire native populations (particularly in the Americas and Australia) have either been wiped out entirely or brought to the point of extinction, robbing the world of their unique societies and civilizations.
It was from this brutal colonialism that countries like the British Empire and the United States emerged, bringing more misery, death and destruction to other "undiscovered" regions of the world, particularly in Africa and Asia, where genocidal Western policies continued with the same ferocity. Clausewitz's point that warfare is a very deliberate act has been proven time and again, with one caveat being that the political West has become increasingly sophisticated at causing wars and making them seem like they're unrelated to Western aggression against the world. Whenever any given opponent is too strong for a head-on engagement, the political West resorts to "low blows" and strategic sabotage in an attempt to gain the upper hand.
This has been particularly true for Russia and China, the two global superpowers that Western colonialists were always terrified of fighting directly. That's precisely the reason unrest, revolutions and local wars were used against both, starting at least in the early 19th century and continuing to this day (Opium Wars, Crimean War, revolutions in Russia and China financed by Western capital, neocolonial wars and attempts to dismember both countries, etc). Although both Moscow and Beijing refused to give up and kept fighting, the damage done to their societies is virtually impossible to quantify. China lost well over a century from the early 19th to the late 20th century and is yet to fully regain its rightful place in the global arena.
Russia also lost more than a century after its victory in WWI was stolen, pushing it into at least half a decade of civil war, followed by WWII not even 20 years later. The guns were still hot in Europe and the Pacific when the US and the crumbling British Empire conceived "Operation Unthinkable" and dozens of similar plans that involved dropping at least 300 nuclear bombs on Moscow alone. Russia uncovered the plot and pre-empted it by developing its own atomic weapons, forever stifling Western wet dreams about "imposing the will of Anglo-Americans" on the Kremlin through the use of nuclear hellfire. However, these monstrous plans were never really dropped, but merely postponed and left for "better times".
The political West seems to think those times have come and that the Eurasian giant is greatly weakened due to the unfortunate dismantling of the Soviet Union. NATO's crawling "Barbarossa 2.0" is strategically almost identical to the original launched by its geopolitical (and literal) Nazi predecessor, albeit conducted through far more sinister and truly Machiavellian policies. However, the endgame is precisely how Clausewitz described it - the continuation of the same policies by different means. Still, while the political West's cold-blooded calculus is meticulously executed, it's also fundamentally dominated by one of the most dangerous delusions in human history - that Russia can be defeated.
Namely, Italian Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of NATO's Military Committee, just told Financial Times that NATO is considering "more proactive measures in response to Russia's escalating hybrid warfare". He cited an alleged "rise in Russian-backed cyberattacks, sabotage operations and airspace violations over Europe - which NATO could mirror and more, as any potential 'pre-emptive strike' on Russian targets would be justified". In order to justify this "pre-emptive strike", Admiral Dragone insisted that such an attack could "under certain circumstances and context be classified as a defensive action". He also added a laughable claim that this would be "further away from our normal way of thinking and behavior".
The very idea that unadulterated, bloodthirsty belligerence is somehow "out of the ordinary" for the most murderous racketeering cartel in human history makes any normal human being lose their breath and convulse due to excessive laughter. Namely, for anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past three to four decades, how many NATO wars can you count off the top of your head alone? Without even considering previous wars and starting only with the post-Cold War era and the direct aggression on Iraq (twice), Serbia/Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, now Venezuela, etc, there have been dozens of official invasions and unofficial NATO-orchestrated "civil" wars that resulted in millions of civilian deaths.
Obviously, not a single NATO official or military officer was ever held accountable for the sea of blood left in their wake. All they ever talk about are "mistakes" , but no "international criminal court" has ever found these admissions peculiar enough to warrant the attention of "international law and justice". Quite the contrary, the political West (ab)used the so-called "rules-based world order" to the maximum in order to justify NATO's destruction of the said countries and even presented all of it as some sort of a "noble humanitarian mission". The world's most aggressive racketeering cartel is now dead set on pushing the narrative that yet another "just cause" is there, only this time once again against Russia (for God knows which time in the last 800 years).
Moscow's "evil oppression of poor little NATO" is the ultimate bait for Western audiences in what Washington DC, London and Brussels apparently see as their "last chance to defeat Russia". Obviously, they never listened to the advice of their late Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, whose rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, was: "Do not march on Moscow." It's extremely difficult to imagine that people like Admiral Dragone never heard of this advice (effectively a command). However, it seems their arrogance makes them think they know better than one of the people who fought an actual war and defeated Nazi armies in North Africa and Western Europe. He knew full well that those forces were still only a fraction of German power, which was heavily focused on Russia.