NATO is a manifestation of the metamodern simulacrum that is simultaneously and perpetually at war and not at war with Russia.
Postmodernism was the rejection of universal truth, acknowledging that there are shades of gray and conflicting human perceptions of truth. Metamodernism insists upon a universal truth, which is defined by the regime, and means anything and nothing at the same time.
George Orwell somewhat predicted this future in his dystopian novel 1984, but the real thing went beyond what even he imagined. In 1984, the proles believe contradictory things and don’t realize the contradiction because the talking points are separated by time. “We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia.” But then the next day when there is peace with Eurasia against the mutual enemy East Asia, everyone forgets what was said yesterday. See, Orwell’s dystopia was only limited by his own imagination. In reality, the regime can have people believe contradictory and mutually exclusive things simultaneously.
Covid was an excellent field experiment to compel the population to say and do foolish things as a loyalty test, and anyone who refused for any reason was branded as an enemy who literally needed to be put in camps, or at least isolated from everyone else. There was indeed a virus to be contained, but it wasn’t the microscopic kind. The virus was humans who did not comply and insisted on committing wrong think. There is such a thing as power for its own sake, but a practical use for the Covid regime came in 2022 with the war against Russia. Now internal enemies could be accused of collaboration with an external enemy. The association of all internal enemies regardless of topic or context isn’t new, but the concept was distilled to a weaponized form never seen before, even in the McCarthy period.
So now instead of saying “we are at war with East Asia” one day and “we are at war with Eurasia” the next, people say “we are at war with Russia” and at the same time, “we are not at war with Russia.” But it’s even better than that. If someone says “we are at war with Russia” and means it as a good thing because Russia is evil, he is praised. But anyone who says “we are at war with Russia,” but means it as a bad thing, is spreading Russian disinformation so should be punished as a traitor… because we are at war with Russia.
Consider this new ISW article about Ukraine: Eyes on the Target: Seizing the Strategic Initiative Against Russia. NATO itself defines initiative as: Initiative in a military context is whether or not you have the choice to take the offensive (i.e. make threats that cannot be ignored), forcing your opponent to respond before they are prepared. Ideally, your enemy will waste effort and resources on responding to your threat rather than getting closer to reaching their objective, either physically or metaphorically. Seeking to have the initiative in battle is seeking to have an advantage. Every commander in battle seeks advantage over their adversary.
Notice the prominence of “offensive” and “threat” in this definition. So quite literally, Ukraine is NATO’s greatest threat, or weapon, against Russia.
If someone says the same thing but with a negative connotation, like Tucker Carlson, that Ukraine is a NATO weapon, or a threat against Russia, he is a Kremlin asset pushing Russian disinformation. Because we are not at war with Eurasia, and we have never been at war with Eurasia. It’s the perfect metamodern reality of being at war and not at war with someone.
Of course, and this is crucial, anything resembling theory of mind is also branded as disinformation. The enemy is insane and senseless, and anyone who even suggests they might have logical goals is a traitor who should be locked up. That’s why NATO’s own think tanks and war plans can openly state the importance of doing things to make Russia react to them, but if a critic says Russia is just reacting to things NATO did, he is a traitor who has to be silenced. Claiming that the enemy (who is also not the enemy) is a rational, predictable actor means that person agrees with the enemy, and is a traitor.
That might sound strange, but there is a perfectly sound explanation. If it is acknowledged that the enemy is aggressive on predictable circumstances, he can be acted upon in a way he would predictably be not aggressive, or peaceful. Or in other words, NATO would be exposed as a self-fulfilling prophecy, Russia is only a threat because NATO does things that makes them a threat. Claiming that the enemy/not enemy can be even hypothetically peaceful is treasonous wrong think. And claiming that the enemy/not enemy is reacting to things NATO did that NATO itself explicitly said were intended to make the enemy/not enemy react is also treasonous wrong think.
Ukraine is just as metamodern. They use asymmetric fourth generation warfare to “bring the war to the Russian people” and “humiliate Putin because the people realize he can’t protect them.” These are openly stated goals of the Ukraine drone campaigns. But saying that Ukraine intentionally strikes the Russian people, or that Russia is acting to protect the Russian people from Ukraine, is treasonous wrong think. Ukraine has the long range weapons to annihilate Moscow, but saying that Russia attacks Ukraine because they can annihilate Moscow is treasonous wrong think.
And don’t you even dare try to apply this logic to other wars. Iran strikes US bases in the Middle East because they’re insane and evil, not because they’re defending themselves. We have to strike Iran before they develop weapons to strike the US mainland, and the fact that they struck US bases actively attacking them is proof that they want to strike the US mainland. We also have to attack to save the Iranian people from oppression, and if that doens’t work we have to annihilate the Iranian people. It’s that simple and any argument to the contrary is Kremlin disinformation. Of course, and this goes without saying, Ukraine has full right to strike any third country infrastructure and disrupt any global economic activity necessary to defend their sovereignty, but Iran blocking the strait of Hormuz is illegitimate and they’re only doing it because they’re insane and evil.
The metamodern simulacrum holds up even when nukes are added to the equation. Putin is an insane, irrational dictator, but he won’t use nukes because that would be insane and irrational. So Russia would not irrationally use nukes. But at the same time, Russia would not rationally use nukes to save themselves from an existentially crushing military defeat, because that would make NATO support of Ukraine dangerous and with potentially bad consequences. So Russia cannot rationally or irrationally use nukes. Russia’s nukes have been effectively erased from the simulacrum, they’re not even the cat that is both alive and dead, they just don’t exist at all.
Metamodern simulcra can be compared to miracles in a religion, except there is no God or saints helping you. The true believer can simply wish things into existence if he and the other faithful collectively say it enough. Russia will collapse if it’s said often enough. China will annex Siberia (whereever it is) if it’s said enough. Ukraine will win if it’s said enough. Defeat is unimaginable, but if it does happen, it’s a stab in the back by Kremlin bot traitors committing wrong think like “What if Ukraine doesn’t win?” or “What if Iran doesn’t collapse?” Such logic can be called ridiculous, and the equivalent of wishing that your enemy would drop his weapons and start punching himself in the face, but that’s because the metamodern believer is not engaging in logic in the first place, it’s a religion.
Ian Kummer
I now have a new YouTube channel that I will use to upload videos from my travels around Russia. Expect new content there soon. Please give me a follow here.
Also feel free to connect with me on Quora (I sometimes share unique articles there).
