Ceasefire in Lebanon and Israel; "Cognitive Occlusion" and Ukraine ceasefire illusions; and soon a likely Russian asset in the White House

"Cognitive Occlusion" and the inability to see things right in front of us that are too terrible to behold

November 29, 2024 by James Rowles

BACKGROUND

See,

1) Olga Latman, “What’s Going on Between Trump and Russia? ;From Praise to Mafia Style Concerns About Trump’s Safety,” Unmasking Russia, November 19, 2024.

2) James Rowles, “”Russia’s Man in Washington” Prepares Pro-Putin and Pro-Russian U.S. Administration,”Trenchant Observations, “November 14, 2024;

3)Régis Genté, Notre homme à Washington, Trump dans la main des Russes (Paris: Editions Grasset, October 15, 2024).

4) James Rowles, “Eight great illusions about the war in Ukraine; "Cognitive occlusion" July 14, 2022;

5) Willem Marx, “lIsrael and Hezbollah have a ceasefire agreement. Here's what it says,” NPR, November 28, 2024 (11:50 a,M. EST);

6)James Rowles, “International Law and the structural impediments to a ceasefire or peace settlement in Ukraine,” Trenchant Observations, November 8, 2022.

The ceasefire deal in southern Lebanon and and northern Israel is a great blessing, not the least because it gives effect to a U.N. Security Council resolution and is otherwise consisten with international law.

The contrast with much current thinking about a ceasefire deal in Ukraine recognizing Russian control over Ukrainian territory it has conquered by military force could not be greater.

The ceasefire agreement in Israel and Lebabon upholds and is backed by international law.

The illusion of a ceasefire in Ukraine based on what supporters euphemistically term “territorial concessions”–-the surrender of territory to an invading army–-cripples U.S. and Western military and diplomatic decision-making, It also leads to short-sighted decisions regarding the production of munitions.

Moreover, it obscures hard realities and the need for planning for various military contingencies, including the use of nuclear weapons, the introduction of troops from NATO countries and other allies into Ukraine, and even the use of NATO forces to defend Ukraine against missile and drone attacks emanating from bases and aircraft in Russia, if required to prevent a Ukrainian defeat and Russian takeover of Ukraine.

From the beginning, Western leaders have avoided facing these hard realities. Perhaps they avoided looking at them as a result of a phenomenon known as “cognitive occlusion”.

In an outstanding article in El País¹ Borja Lasheras describes how the mind defends itself from hard truths:

It is difficult for us to accept truths that involve extreme evils. Let’s call it cognitive occlusion: the mind is blocked like a camera, and the light does not pass, because it is a terrible light. It is easy to see horrible truths from the past (Holocaust), but not so much when similar events can happen today.

U.S. and British intelligence clearly predicted the Russian invasion. But in Kyiv and elsewhere, people did not want to believe it was possible.

After the initial shock and indignation, this cognitive problem (cognitive occlusion) conditions the debate about the end of this war. To this is added another attitude: in the face of Dantesque images like Kremenchuk at the end of June, with people burned alive in a shopping center destroyed by Russian missiles, we want the horror to end. Or we’ll disconnect.

But it’s not a territorial war. The Russian leadership yearns for the destruction of Ukraine…

“Cognitive occlusion”. A wonderful term to describe the inability of people to see what is right before them, the hard realities they do not want to see. The hard realities that are too terrifying to look at.

What if we are, in fact, engaged in a war with the Russians like the struggle against Adolf Hitler and Germany in World War II?

That would have massive implications for our personal lives. That would throw into question all of our plans for the rest of our lives.

At a deep subconscious level, we don’t want to think about it. Perhaps “cognitive occlusion” is the mind’s way of protecting us from thinking about it.

Nonetheless, government and other leaders must deal with reality. They must look at these hard truths.

They must lead us in taking action, collectively, that will deal with these hard truths and protect us from the worst outcomes that are likely if no resolute action is taken in the face of these hard truths.

Notwithstanding the phenomenon of “cognitive occlusion”, many of the Western leaders must know by now that a negotiated ceasefire or peace settlement is not in the cards. Such a development is highly unlikely because: 1) Vladimir Putin shows zero inclination toward accepting any agreement consistent with international law, and 2) neither Ukraine nor its NATO and European allies could ever accept an agreement which in effect would be a repudiation of the United Nations Charter and the fundamental principles on which the organization was founded.

Even if Ukraine were forced by the U.S. to reach such an agreement, it would be void under international law and consequently highly unstable. It would certainly be viewed as a victory by Russia,, and would encourage military aggression by other states such as China, which might take it as a green light to invade Taiwan.

Western leaders who hold out prospects of a negotiated ceasefire or peace settlement in Ukraine at this late date are acting in bad faith, in essence telling their people and themselves lies in order to avoid the political consequences of telling the truth.

For these leaders the truth may be too shocking to be faced or admitted. It points to a long road of sacrifice and pain in a twilight struggle whose outome is far from clear.

How the ascension to the Presidency of Donal Trump will affect these realities is uncertain Whether “Moscow’s Man in Washington” will in the event be as pliant as Moscow hopes is not a given. Perhaps a bit nervous on this point, Moscow seems to be threatening Trump with his life if hr doesn’t do as Putin directs, according to the incisive analysis of Olga Latman (See article cited in BACKGROUND, above).

That Trump is a likely Russian asset would appear to be well-established by Régis Genté in his new book, Notre homme à Washington, Trump dans la main des Russes (Paris: Editions Grasset, October 15, 2024), and other sources.

If we are unable to appreciate this fact, despite the details in the Robert Mueller Report, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, and Genté’s book, among others, it may be that we ourselves are suffering from “cognitive occlusion”.

1. Borja Lasheras, “La guerra de Ucrania durará; El que Putin no pudiera tomar Kiev al inicio de la invasión no ha mitigado su obsesión por el territorio. Rusia quiere la destrucción del país. El conflicto puede prolongarse al menos uno o dos años más,” El País, el 10 de julio 2022 (23:00 EDT);

English translation

Borja Lasheras, “The war in Ukraine will last; The fact that Putin could not take Kiev at the beginning of the invasion has not mitigated his obsession with the territory. Russia wants the destruction of the country. The conflict can last at least one or two more years, (Google translation on website), El Paîs, July 10, 2022 (23:00 EDT);