Grzegorz Ochman
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Recently I’ve been asking for comments on my posts all the time, and unfortunately I don’t get many. I really appreciate your likes, but it would be really nice to know your opinion and read some comments.
I just had a talk with someone and I would like your opinion on it. The person I spoke with is highly intelligent and highly educated, and people who follow my posts know what I think about higher education — anyway, I don’t want to get into that in this post. I really respect that person and I know he is a good person, but at the same time I think his understanding of the world is wrong. He tells me I am manipulated by socialism and that it’s my ideology, and that my brain is rotten from Marxism. His main argument is that I have no higher education so I don’t have the tools to do my analysis. He often uses the fact that, for example, I don’t know formal logic and mathematics as a reason why I am wrong.
If any of you studied formal logic, have higher education, and know mathematics, I would like you to tell me where I am wrong. The person I spoke with told me I am making logical mistakes because I don’t know formal logic, and that it can be proven using formal logic and mathematics that my analysis is wrong. That’s why I would like your opinion on it, especially if you are highly educated and know formal logic and mathematics well.
During my discussion with that person I said that America is the one who started the war in Ukraine, and I explained my whole thinking like I did in many of my posts. I explain the whole thing about a German neocolonial project and what George Friedman said in the quote I constantly use — that the biggest threat for America is German–Russian cooperation — an idea which was shared by Einar Tangen in an interview with Glenn Diesen, which I referenced in my recent post. People who follow what I post should know what I mean. If not, you can find my recent post on The Duran.
In response to my analysis, that person said I was wrong and proposed a theory that America didn’t want war in Ukraine and that China was the one who wanted the war. I strongly disagree with this theory — it’s completely irritating and illogical to me — and I presented him with my reasoning and analysis for my theory that America is behind the war in Ukraine. Now I will present to you my theory and my reasoning, which that person told me is wrong and irrational and allegedly contradict formal logic and mathematics. I would like someone educated in formal logic and mathematics with a higher degree to tell me in the comments where my logic and reasoning are wrong.
My analysis: why America is behind the war in Ukraine — great-power politics and the struggle for world domination.
My first argument was that if America didn’t want war in Ukraine and wanted to work with Russia, why did Trump during his first presidential term try to block Nord Stream, a policy that continued during Biden’s term? Then we got Biden saying standing next to the German chancellor that if Russian tanks cross the Ukraine border he will stop Nord Stream in a famous clip:
Biden says he’ll shut down Nord Stream 2 pipeline if Russia further invades Ukraine
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
I have used this video many times in my posts; I love the journalists’ consternation and confusion — “but, but how will, how will you do that exactly?” She literally repeated herself; she was so stunned by what Biden said. I even argued to the person I discussed with that we can assume America did not necessarily blow up Nord Stream and only sanctioned it, because I know he would say I can’t prove the U.S. blew up Nord Stream and that it’s my conjecture. In my opinion, we can be almost 99% sure America blew it up, but for him it’s still an open question since I have no concrete proof. Even if I agree with his position that we don’t know who blew up Nord Stream, America did try to stop it, and that is confirmed by both Trump and Biden — and Trump, like an idiot, still brags that he stopped Nord Stream. We also have a notable video of Condoleezza Rice saying much of this a long time ago; that video was posted 11 years ago, so the interview is at least 11 years old, which I have also posted many times.
Now my argument is: how can someone say America was against this war and wanted to work with Russia if America was trying to stop exports of Russian gas to Europe, which was the basis of cooperation between Russia and the West? You want to deepen cooperation with Russia and at the same time want to stop the things on which Russia’s cooperation with the West depended. If I am wrong, please tell me in the comments and explain where my logic is wrong, or explain how the person I discussed with could be correct in his assessment that at the same time America can block Russian gas exports to Europe while wanting better cooperation with Russia.
That person argued that America didn’t want Russia to get closer to China and therefore worked with Russia, and that America wanted closer cooperation with Russia — which, in my opinion, is wrong because, as I just pointed out, America was the one blocking exports of Russian gas to Europe, which was the basis of Russo–Western cooperation.
Now my geopolitical analysis is a little different, and here is my view. As Einar Tangen said in an interview with Glenn Diesen, America doesn’t allow peer competitors to arrive, and as George Friedman’s quote says, German–Russian cooperation scares America because it’s the only thing that threatens American domination.
The US successfully, in essence, cut off a reliable source of cheap energy: Russian gas. Whether you think this was deliberate or not, or if it was simply part of the conflict, the fact remains that the United States would never allow Europe to unite with Russia. If they did, a combination of Russian resources and European manufacturing would create a peer competitor, and perhaps even a superior competitor, to the United States. And we do not allow that.
— Einar Tangen
For the United States, the primordial fear is German capital and German technology, and Russian manpower with Russian natural resources. That is the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States.
— George Friedman
Now it’s true that this war has got Russia closer to China, which America didn’t want, but in my opinion they did it anyway because the alternative was even more scary: Europe getting too strong and becoming “a peer competitor, and perhaps even a superior competitor to the United States,” and becoming independent. But there was a problem which George Friedman explained:
Germany is in a very peculiar position. Its former chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, is on the board of Gazprom. They have a very complex relationship. The Germans themselves don’t know what to do. They must export, but the Russians can’t take up the export. On the other hand, if they lose the free trade zone, they need to build something different.
There was a solution for that, and that solution was China. Merkel and her faction were working closely with China and improving cooperation because she understood what George Friedman explained in that fragment. So what if Europe got cheap energy and cheap resources from Russia while most of our products were sold to America? Even if our products were cheaper and better, America could simply tariff us and hurt us, so what if we got cheap resources from Russia and great products but didn’t have buyers? The solution was to get cheap resources and energy from Russia, create products, and secure markets for them in China — in essence building a coalition of Europe–China–Russia. Russia would provide cheap energy and resources; Europe would provide capital, technology, and high-end production; China would provide low-end production and a big market. China would be okay with that because if Chinese people bought high-end European products (like cars) instead of Chinese cars — which would hurt China a little — it would still be worth it to help Europe become independent from America, which in turn could make Europe a Chinese ally.
This is connected to recent events regarding the Dutch confiscating Chinese companies (allegedly under U.S. pressure). China understood that as long as Europe remained dependent on America, it could be forced by Americans to become China’s enemy. That’s why China might be willing to sacrifice parts of its own industry by allowing Europe to dominate some of Chinese high-end markets if that would make Europe independent and allow them to ally with China. If Europe got cheap energy and resources from Russia, making it a peer competitor to America, and if Europe secured markets in China, America would lose control over Europe. For example, if America pressured the Dutch to confiscate Chinese companies, an independent Europe could refuse, because it would have Chinese markets for its products and wouldn’t need to care about U.S. threats. In that situation America would lose control over Europe, and Europe would be a peer competitor to the United States — which, as Friedman said, scares Americans. Russia would be willing to become a cheap source of resources for Europe and China a market for its goods, even at a cost to themselves, because it would be worth it to gain a powerful ally like Europe.
So while America didn’t want Russia to get close to China, the alternative — a Europe–China–Russia alliance that would make Europe independent — was even more threatening. That’s why America tried to stop Russian gas going to Europe: to prevent Europe from becoming a peer competitor and to keep Europe weak and dependent on America as a vassal. That dependency allows Americans to, for example, pressure the Dutch to confiscate Chinese companies. If not for the project Ukraine an alliance with Europe–China–Russia could be made which would make Europe independent and able to ally with and defend China. America would want Europe to help them with China, but if China were a market for European goods, why would Europe want to weaken China? If China were a market for European goods, a strong China would mean a bigger market for European goods, and in that sense Europe might side with and defend China against America. That’s why China might be willing to sacrifice its own high-end market (for example, cars) to allow Europe to dominate Chinese high-end markets at the cost of Chinese domestic companies, if that would help Europe stand up to America in defense of China.
That’s why the argument that China was behind the war in Ukraine is, in my view, illogical: China would want a strong and independent Europe. A strong Europe independent from America and relying on China as a market for its goods would ally with China instead of America, and gaining such an ally against America would be worth some harm to China’s domestic high-end industry.
The whole Ukraine project was to destroy the possibility of an independent Europe and a Europe–China–Russia alliance. Yes, the project brought Russia closer to China, but at the same time it weakened Europe so it could not become independent from America or a competitor to America and thus prevented a Europe–China–Russia alliance. The whole thing was about the question: will Europe be part of resistance against the American empire or will it be an American vassal? In my opinion, the possibility of Europe becoming independent and joining the axis of resistance to America was an even bigger threat than Russia getting closer to China. That’s why the Ukraine project was started: to weaken Europe and make sure it can’t join the axis of resistance against America and will remain American vassals, even if that means Russia will get closer to China.
This is my analysis and my thinking. That’s why I think it’s America who wanted this war, not China, as the person I discussed with says. China wants a strong and independent Europe because a strong, independent Europe can become its ally, while a weak Europe — a vassal — will be forced by America to be China’s enemy.
I would like your opinion on my analysis in the comments, especially if you are highly educated and know formal logic and mathematics. According to the person I discussed with, my logic is flawed and it goes against formal logic and mathematics and I am wrong. Please tell me if I am wrong, explain where my logic and analysis are flawed, and if what I say makes any sense. I would really appreciate your inputs and comments.
Thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always…
“Knowledge will make you be free.”
― Socrates
+
“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”
― Richard P. Feynman
=
“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”
― Grzegorz Ochman
“Drop out of school before your mind rots from exposure to our mediocre educational system. Forget about the Senior Prom and go to the library and educate yourself if you’ve got any guts. Some of you like Pep rallies and plastic robots who tell you what to read.”
― Frank Zappa
“Schools train you to be ignorant with style […] they prepare you to be a usable victim for a military industrial complex that needs manpower. As long as you’re just smart enough to do a job and just dumb enough to swallow what they feed you, you’re going to be alright […] So I believe that schools mechanically and very specifically try and breed out any hint of creative thought in the kids that are coming up.”
— Frank Zappa
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Awful. You need to go to Interview School 101. Tell Susan ? to shut up, etc.
You do well here with the minutiae but need not to. America poured many hundreds of billions into arming and training Ukraines military between 2014 till now, they are open about choosing it’s government and the CIA is open about command and control involvement in this conflict from the beginning. The us Pentagon, the CIA and the us state department do not, in anyway, work with the Chinese. As for Europe, it showed its hand with the covid great reset plan, a world run completely from Brussels and America neutered. What do you know, massive Ukrainian military build up, which… Read more »
Re: “If any of you studied formal logic, have higher education, and know mathematics, I would like you to tell me where I am wrong.”
I completed two degrees in the 1990s, the first in Electronic Engineering and the second in Computer Science, with Logic and Mathematics been key elements in both, and your
routine mistakenness has got little to do with a deficiency in Logic or Mathematics, as it is ideological and spiritual in nature.
The inconvenient truth is that you are intellectual Pygmy Grzegorz Ochman, trying to stand on the shoulders of your ostensible giants, quoting these charlatans ad nauseam and contemptibly wishing yourself to be their equals, by including your “own” mimicked quote with their tedious citations, at the end of your blathering articles.
You have achieved in life, more or less what an Actuary would have predicted you would accomplish, giving your weighed up Intelligence quotient, which is one of a Blue-collar worker (Warehouse staff), which you are unable to accept, because of your folie de grandeur, which is pathetic, as you are a featherweight who comically thinks he can compete in the heavyweight division!
What is with those darn intellectuals, lol. You know, what is the difference between an intellectual and an intelligent person? An intelligent person knows that he is not better than others. You really sound like the person I was talking to—an intellectual elitist—and just like him, you talk about me instead of tackling my arguments. You know I was forcefully promoted at work; they told me if I didn’t take the promotion, I wouldn’t get a contract. I am constantly promoted to higher positions at work, but I don’t get validation and my self-worth from work and my career. I… Read more »
Don’t take those last responses to heart. Ten year’s ago any out of the box thinking was met with a loud chorus of personal abuse instead of logic, in a way it indicated you are on the right track, over the target so to speak. Thankfully there is much less mindless trolling now.
Thank you for your response. While I appreciate the effort taken to engage with the text, the personal attacks and vulgar language directed at the author are entirely unwarranted and have no place in a serious intellectual discussion. Ad hominem attacks, such as those regarding intelligence, profession, or status, only serve to discredit the speaker and distract from the substantive points being raised. Such behaviour is a fundamental failure of intellectual conduct. However, setting aside the unacceptable abuse, I must acknowledge the core methodological critique you raised. You correctly identified that the routine errors in the original author’s conclusion are… Read more »
The world and people acting in it are not acting in a field of mathematics and this kind of logic. In the last couple of years I have come to the conclusion that people who claim to have a so call higher education are have a very small range of thinking and that very often people without these so called higher educations understand things much better because theirs brains are not so muddled from „ higher education „. One doesn’t learn to really think in an independent way in universities. You do and you are able to connect the dots.… Read more »
Dear Mr. MoLa, Thank you for sharing your perspective on the role of higher education. Your comment touches upon a genuinely important philosophical question regarding the relationship between formal learning and true independent thought. While I appreciate the skepticism towards any system that might be perceived as limiting creative thinking, I believe the assertion that universities inherently stifle original thought or produce “muddled brains” may overlook the core function and long-term value of these institutions. Higher education does not claim to teach thinking in a vacuum; it teaches structured, rigorous methodologies—the very “kind of logic” you reference—that underpin scientific, historical,… Read more »
I have a 1985 BSEE, 1994 MSEE and worked 38+ years in medical and defense microelectronics with a specialty in failure analysis and reverse engineering. I also have a patent for a magnetic field detection sensor. The older engineers that mentored me were geniuses in electronics, physics, math and logic. (Some of the best never went to college.) Most of them openly discussed “conspiracy theories” because it is obvious that our government routinely manipulates economic and scientific data and propagates ridiculous narratives like the “magic bullet” JFK assassination, the “19 amateur pilot hijackers with box cutters” and the relative, not… Read more »
Thank you for sharing this thought-provoking analysis. Your willingness to challenge the mainstream narrative and seek deeper strategic mechanisms behind global events is highly commendable and is the hallmark of a true analyst. Your focus on Europe’s role as the central strategic prize is entirely correct, and it is crucial to question the assumed motives of major powers. I want to acknowledge, based on the conversation you mentioned, that while your methodology here is flawed, your ultimate conclusion might still prove correct; an analyst must always remain open to possibilities. In requesting an assessment of the formal logic and methodology… Read more »
Thank you very much for your response. I really appreciate your deep analysis of what I wrote. Let me address your points, and I hope you will respond. 1)”Your entire foundation rests upon a singular, flawed premise: the forced choice that “The whole thing boiled down to the question: would Europe be part of the resistance against the American empire or would it be an American vassal?” This is a classic logical fallacy that severely limits the scope of strategic possibility. You actively eliminate the third, highly rational option pursued by key European powers: Strategic Autonomy, which is seeking… Read more »
Thank you very much for your comprehensive response and your willingness to further deepen this fascinating strategic discussion. From the perspective of my task, I must note with satisfaction that my initial request to identify methodological flaws has been fully executed, leading to a tremendously fruitful exchange of arguments. I am grateful for such a rigorous approach to critique and the opportunity to continue the dialogue at such a high substantive level. Turning to your points, I observe that the key differences between our positions stem not from differing interpretations of historical facts, but from the way I model the… Read more »
1) a) In strategic analysis, a threat does not equate to full-scale invasion. NATO’s “necessary security” encompasses a range of actions: political blackmail (energy), cyber destabilization, hybrid information warfare, and sovereignty violations, all of which I have observed over the past decade. Dismissing Russia’s potential to destabilize Europe is a bias in the analysis, even if one discounts the invasion scenario. Regarding this, I would argue that Russia never wanted to attack Europe. I am not referring only to a military invasion, but also to the forms of “attack” you mention here: political blackmail (energy), cyber destabilization, hybrid information warfare,… Read more »
Thank you very much for your detailed counter-argumentation. This discussion is exceptionally insightful because it allows me to precisely define the points of convergence and divergence between my perspective and your analytical model. I appreciate your consistency in defending your adopted paradigm. I wish to continue the dialogue by focusing on the evidentiary requirements demanded by strategic analysis. Addressing Russian Threat and Aggression. I must challenge your assertion that Russia has not engaged in destabilizing activities against Europe. You argue that Russia needed allies (Europe) against the US and therefore would not attack. My methodological response is this: the Kremlin’s… Read more »
Thank you for your response. You think I am wrong about, but only because you don’t understand everything, which is why you don’t see the big picture, in my opinion. The most important thing is money supply, the USD as a reserve currency, and leeching off the global economy, which you don’t understand, and that’s why you say that my theory is wrong. I have explained in the comment of my most recent post, why America is acting this way, and it’s all about the USD as a reserve currency. The USD is an unpayable IOU which America needs to… Read more »
Hello there, Mr. Ochman. I am someone who has been following your blog for quite a while now, and since you have asked for feedback, I thought I might join this conversation. While I did not receive a higher education, my interests in economics and geopolitics allow me to have some insights. I’d like to start by stating that fairly often your geopolitical analysis is correct, as far as I can tell. Rarely do I find myself completely disagreeing with your work on this subject, and more than once I have learned about events happening in the world here. At… Read more »
Thank you very much for your comment. I understand your points, and let me address your points and explain things further. Everything I am saying can be explained, at least as I see it. When I write, I have problems containing myself to a few pages, because in my analysis and in my view of the world, everything is connected. To explain one subject, I would have to address other subjects, and every post of mine should really be around 100 pages or more to fully explain everything. That’s why I ask people questions, since explaining everything would be too… Read more »
Thank you for your response. I really appreciate this opportunity to engage in a discussion on geopolitics and economics. I am especially thankful for your unique Polish viewpoint. Let me start with something that really caught me by surprise. I always thought that Poles were strongly opposed to the idea of Russian panslavism.. Was I wrong there, or is it simply something unique to you? I am really curious about that. “For example, both Germany and Poland are part of the West and part of Europe and the European Union, and I can speak about those entities and what those… Read more »
Thank you for your response. First, I would like to point out that I would appreciate it if you did not add links to your responses. I don’t need to approve your posts, but when you add links, my approval is required for your comment to be posted. In this case, I approved your comment despite it containing links, but I still needed to check the link first because I am concerned that some people may add harmful links. That is why I usually do not approve comments with links; however, in your case, I made an exception. “Let me… Read more »
Dear Grzegorz, Thank you for your extensive response. I must admit that I thought long and hard about the form and content of my reaction, as your text is dense with emotion and very specific interpretations. I appreciate the passion with which you defend your worldview and your determination to link such distant threads as dollar issuance and the inner workings of Polish foreign policy. This speaks to an extraordinary analytical capacity and a talent for building multi-layered narratives. One could list the logical, methodological, and factual errors in your argument almost endlessly, but detailing each one might overshadow the… Read more »
First, I want to say that I am sorry for my very emotional and rude response. It was not professional and was wrong on my part, and I apologize for that. In my opinion, however, your argument about the autonomy of Russia was unfair, which frustrated me and is why my response was so emotional and rude. I am sorry for that. Regarding Michael Hudson and his work on ancient times, I can’t fully defend it, since I admit that I am not a specialist in ancient history. In my opinion, his analysis is largely correct, but as I said,… Read more »
Dear Grzegorz, I rarely engage in internet discussions, but I have made an exception this time. Firstly, because you asked for a review of your logic, and secondly, because as someone with extensive experience in the world of science, I have seen too many people get trapped in similar patterns. I must admit that your frequent use of terms like “brain rot” toward educated people concerns me. I say this without malice; it would simply be a pity if this bubble were to infect others. I appreciate that you changed your tone and apologized—it speaks well of you and allows… Read more »
It’s your “educated” friend who flunked Logic 101, by neglecting the most basic premise of Cui Bono.
What does China gain by starting this war? To harm Russia, its great and indispensable friend and ally?
Without which China would probably fail before the onslaught of USA, Japan and NATO.
Meanwhile, everything you said is logically linked.
I would only add that underneath everything is the eternal plan for the Judaic domination of the world.