I think Betz was being unusually outspoken, given where he works and what field he is into.
If he'd been even more clear and naming names (islam f.e.) he'd been too far beyond the pale would instead have found himself tarred and tarnished as an extremist (add the usual babble of labels).
We need to apply Kremlology when reading statements such as these. KKRVA (the horrendously acronym-ed Royal Academy of War Science; Kungliga Krigsvetenskapsakademien in Swedish) has essays and debates on this topic, some a decade or or more old by now, and they use them same hedged language, treading very carefully lest they'd be accused of things as per usual by the "keep the lid of the pot bolted on"-crowd.
Everyone knows it'll be moslems+lefties vs indigenous, and everyone understands that at least initially elite-controlled state forces will favour the moslem/lefty alliance, and that there's real risk of police and military splintering along indigenous/nationalist, elite/lefty and moslem lines of conflict (as did Jugoslavia's military and police forces and Lebanon's too I think).
But it's like pointing out that the Emperor's wife is a common whore - it's your head on the block for saying the truth that may not be spoken, and Betz is acutely aware of this, especially as he works in the UK where he (just as here) can go to prison for stating an objective truth if it is against policy as decided by prosecutors and judges.
A side note: making people think "it can't happen" or even unable to think about what could happen is one of the stock tricks for con-artists and investment bankers.
One of the main drawbacks of academia these days is--even massively hedged lingo can get you in trouble (as can virtually everything else you say/do due to bureaucratic-admin. abuse).
And then there's the massive, if not overwhelming, superiority of pro-establishmentarian sentiments shared by politicos™, experts™, and journos™ alike: they are all, and firmly so, pro-EU/Transatlanticism.
Last aspect: I mention this in my piece--this could be predictive programming, for it's not just con artists and investment bankers who do this; the powers-that-be may (ab)use their stranglehold over MSM to seed such ideas…
Sounds like a job for NATO! ;-) Whatever is happening in Europe (and in the rest of the Western Empire) is ultimately the responsibility of imperial architects. The outcome around us is what they desire. If there is any civil strife it will be triggered by them to achieve their ultimate goals. People are no longer capable of organic self-organizing; the structure of rebellion will be provided by the same forces which have brought us here.
A valuable point: we'll be sold a solution™ by these people; I'd bet it'll include lockdowns, social distancing, domestic passports, and, of course, time-dependent access crap. Oh, lest I forget, rationing via CBDCs.
NATO may well, in case of a civil war spreading over national borders inside the EU, be used as a rallying-flag for the national militaries.
This would then enable these to act with impunity against all groups in such a war, with the overt support of the USA.
The end result would be the EU-dream realised: national borders completely abolished by an EU-politbüro ("emergency rule") supported by a USA-backed NATO post-national corporatised military.
I.e. the Soviet Union 2.0, but even more evil and stupid.
That sounds supremely plausible, for no Western military is capable of more than doing police op-scale mop-up operations (and I'm honestly unsure if the Russian, Chinese, or Indian armies could do it--they, too, lack the total war capabilities, if for different reasons: both India and China could mobilise masses and produce small arms etc., but provided nothing nuclear is going on, there's a huge question mark over deploying mass armies much beyond their borders; as regards Russia, manpower and the ability to conduct sweeping attack ops--which require both logistics and superior numbers--I remain wary, too. As long as this is something like the SMO, it's doable, but the stability of the home front is questionable in terms of durability).
My gut feeling is that the EU 'emergency rule' is closer than one things, esp. given the EHRC's Art. 15 possibility--the final frontier being, I'd submit, the issue if the EU Commission could act as if it was a sovereign co-signatory.
Something that would make it possible for Russia to conduct a total war campaign against the EU, would be if the EU nations en masse lost the capability for modern warfare and had to rely on WW2-1990s era technology.
Doesn't have to be EMP-caused, could just be ability lost via attrition.
1) Conduct total war on all fronts short of actual troop deployments or invasions
2) Continue this while bleeding the EU of manpower and resources it cannot easily replace (the same idea being used against Russia currently)
3) Exploit and inflame internal tensions, not between EU nations (they'll do that better without interference) but within each between nationalists, migrant communties and elite groups
4) Try to cause 3) to erupt into if not open civil war then at least civil unrest to such a degree the defensive capabilities are severly diminished
5) Once 3) and 4) are thoroughly met, launch a wide-front infantry invasion supported by tanks (i.e. WW3-era Soviet tactics) forcing the defenders to choose where to fight and where to let the enemy break through the lines
6) Continue as far West as possible
7) Once the advance seem to falter and risk being bogged down (US/NATO open support f.e.) then start a Scorched Earth-withdrawal in the style of the Swedish Army during the Thrity Years War paying special attention to completely destroy anything related to logistics, energy and food production, while looting anything that's worth stealing (same way the Red Army acted during the invasion and occupation of Germany)
8) Make punitive demands
9) Profit
10) Re-invade some time later due to "humanitarian concerns over the ongoing disastrous civil unrest and starvation running rampant in parts of the EU" (aka the USA-playbook for "democratisation")
(While I haven't done this on a professional level - and if I had I wouldn't be discussing this in the first place - the above seems reasonable enough given the Russian experience and perspective from 1995 to present, and it has the benefit of a) not risking nuclear exchanges possibly exposing what a sham and shambles the Russian nuclear force really is and b) not risking direct American/UK involvement - the US "saving Europe" for a third time is a no-sell among all political groups in the US.)
Untirely plausible scenario, so much so that I am sure it is being gamed within the secret imperial quarters. And I agree, both more evil and stupid than CCCP!
bombing Yugoslavia to smithereens was an international disgrace, TQ Madeline Albright (NATO/US). unfortunately, look at where the world is now. thanks for introducing the opinion of this professor and his belief in settled science™ (indeed), one more voicing the opinions expressed by some of the other trans-atlantic "think tanks" - whose main job it is to forward powerful, pro-establishment PR. the only civil war that might engulf Europe will be directed against the EU (the one that will, hopefully, make the Euro implode).
I do wonder about the Berliner Zeitung's stance, though: they've been admittedly better than most other MSM outlets in Germany on some issues, and I just saw that one of the more daring journos™, Philippe Debionne, will take over as chief editor on 1 Nov.:
unfortunately the powers-that-shouldn't-be will continue throwing a tantrum in their efforts to deflect from the inevitable (critical site Moon of Albama no longer accessible).
I think Betz was being unusually outspoken, given where he works and what field he is into.
If he'd been even more clear and naming names (islam f.e.) he'd been too far beyond the pale would instead have found himself tarred and tarnished as an extremist (add the usual babble of labels).
We need to apply Kremlology when reading statements such as these. KKRVA (the horrendously acronym-ed Royal Academy of War Science; Kungliga Krigsvetenskapsakademien in Swedish) has essays and debates on this topic, some a decade or or more old by now, and they use them same hedged language, treading very carefully lest they'd be accused of things as per usual by the "keep the lid of the pot bolted on"-crowd.
Everyone knows it'll be moslems+lefties vs indigenous, and everyone understands that at least initially elite-controlled state forces will favour the moslem/lefty alliance, and that there's real risk of police and military splintering along indigenous/nationalist, elite/lefty and moslem lines of conflict (as did Jugoslavia's military and police forces and Lebanon's too I think).
But it's like pointing out that the Emperor's wife is a common whore - it's your head on the block for saying the truth that may not be spoken, and Betz is acutely aware of this, especially as he works in the UK where he (just as here) can go to prison for stating an objective truth if it is against policy as decided by prosecutors and judges.
A side note: making people think "it can't happen" or even unable to think about what could happen is one of the stock tricks for con-artists and investment bankers.
Same in the EU, as you correctly say.
One of the main drawbacks of academia these days is--even massively hedged lingo can get you in trouble (as can virtually everything else you say/do due to bureaucratic-admin. abuse).
And then there's the massive, if not overwhelming, superiority of pro-establishmentarian sentiments shared by politicos™, experts™, and journos™ alike: they are all, and firmly so, pro-EU/Transatlanticism.
Last aspect: I mention this in my piece--this could be predictive programming, for it's not just con artists and investment bankers who do this; the powers-that-be may (ab)use their stranglehold over MSM to seed such ideas…
Sounds like a job for NATO! ;-) Whatever is happening in Europe (and in the rest of the Western Empire) is ultimately the responsibility of imperial architects. The outcome around us is what they desire. If there is any civil strife it will be triggered by them to achieve their ultimate goals. People are no longer capable of organic self-organizing; the structure of rebellion will be provided by the same forces which have brought us here.
A valuable point: we'll be sold a solution™ by these people; I'd bet it'll include lockdowns, social distancing, domestic passports, and, of course, time-dependent access crap. Oh, lest I forget, rationing via CBDCs.
NATO may well, in case of a civil war spreading over national borders inside the EU, be used as a rallying-flag for the national militaries.
This would then enable these to act with impunity against all groups in such a war, with the overt support of the USA.
The end result would be the EU-dream realised: national borders completely abolished by an EU-politbüro ("emergency rule") supported by a USA-backed NATO post-national corporatised military.
I.e. the Soviet Union 2.0, but even more evil and stupid.
That sounds supremely plausible, for no Western military is capable of more than doing police op-scale mop-up operations (and I'm honestly unsure if the Russian, Chinese, or Indian armies could do it--they, too, lack the total war capabilities, if for different reasons: both India and China could mobilise masses and produce small arms etc., but provided nothing nuclear is going on, there's a huge question mark over deploying mass armies much beyond their borders; as regards Russia, manpower and the ability to conduct sweeping attack ops--which require both logistics and superior numbers--I remain wary, too. As long as this is something like the SMO, it's doable, but the stability of the home front is questionable in terms of durability).
My gut feeling is that the EU 'emergency rule' is closer than one things, esp. given the EHRC's Art. 15 possibility--the final frontier being, I'd submit, the issue if the EU Commission could act as if it was a sovereign co-signatory.
Something that would make it possible for Russia to conduct a total war campaign against the EU, would be if the EU nations en masse lost the capability for modern warfare and had to rely on WW2-1990s era technology.
Doesn't have to be EMP-caused, could just be ability lost via attrition.
1) Conduct total war on all fronts short of actual troop deployments or invasions
2) Continue this while bleeding the EU of manpower and resources it cannot easily replace (the same idea being used against Russia currently)
3) Exploit and inflame internal tensions, not between EU nations (they'll do that better without interference) but within each between nationalists, migrant communties and elite groups
4) Try to cause 3) to erupt into if not open civil war then at least civil unrest to such a degree the defensive capabilities are severly diminished
5) Once 3) and 4) are thoroughly met, launch a wide-front infantry invasion supported by tanks (i.e. WW3-era Soviet tactics) forcing the defenders to choose where to fight and where to let the enemy break through the lines
6) Continue as far West as possible
7) Once the advance seem to falter and risk being bogged down (US/NATO open support f.e.) then start a Scorched Earth-withdrawal in the style of the Swedish Army during the Thrity Years War paying special attention to completely destroy anything related to logistics, energy and food production, while looting anything that's worth stealing (same way the Red Army acted during the invasion and occupation of Germany)
8) Make punitive demands
9) Profit
10) Re-invade some time later due to "humanitarian concerns over the ongoing disastrous civil unrest and starvation running rampant in parts of the EU" (aka the USA-playbook for "democratisation")
(While I haven't done this on a professional level - and if I had I wouldn't be discussing this in the first place - the above seems reasonable enough given the Russian experience and perspective from 1995 to present, and it has the benefit of a) not risking nuclear exchanges possibly exposing what a sham and shambles the Russian nuclear force really is and b) not risking direct American/UK involvement - the US "saving Europe" for a third time is a no-sell among all political groups in the US.)
Untirely plausible scenario, so much so that I am sure it is being gamed within the secret imperial quarters. And I agree, both more evil and stupid than CCCP!
bombing Yugoslavia to smithereens was an international disgrace, TQ Madeline Albright (NATO/US). unfortunately, look at where the world is now. thanks for introducing the opinion of this professor and his belief in settled science™ (indeed), one more voicing the opinions expressed by some of the other trans-atlantic "think tanks" - whose main job it is to forward powerful, pro-establishment PR. the only civil war that might engulf Europe will be directed against the EU (the one that will, hopefully, make the Euro implode).
Hear, hear (about the EU).
I do wonder about the Berliner Zeitung's stance, though: they've been admittedly better than most other MSM outlets in Germany on some issues, and I just saw that one of the more daring journos™, Philippe Debionne, will take over as chief editor on 1 Nov.:
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/berliner-zeitung-chefredakteur-tomasz-kurianowicz-geht-holger-friedrich-hat-bereits-neuen-chef-a-319223b2-e0c7-4746-aa87-d388b8aa8191
He's on the record stating that 'personal feelings don't matter for journalists' (or something to this effect).
As to the EU's future (hopefully: none), it may well be that events are moving too fast for the Eurocrats to avoid major problems.
unfortunately the powers-that-shouldn't-be will continue throwing a tantrum in their efforts to deflect from the inevitable (critical site Moon of Albama no longer accessible).
Oh, I didn't know that MoA is down--what a shame (and tell-tale sign).
exactly :-((