Agreed Stephen. But the policy machine starts with corporate funded think tanks such as RAND and proliferates down to politicians and legislators whose job it is to manufacture and sell a consensus. In retrospect, many conflicts seem to be scripted by these think tanks. That's why it's worthwhile paying a little attention to what's coming out of policy mills.
I personally think Putin is naive if he thinks that someone will talk to him. There is nobody to talk to in the West.
It may sound harsh, but his best option may be to wreck the state of Ukraine, cause another wave of millions of refugees and push the Western citizens onto the streets to protest against their own governments.
My questions to Stephen Bryen, If NATO gets involved, how likely are nuclear strikes on Romania and Poland and if that happens how likely is NATOs intervention then? Are the Americans, Germans, British and French ready to go to a full on nuclear exchange? Personally, I can't see anyone in the West wanting to die for Eastern Europe....
How would Russia respond then if NATO were to start a somewhat successful air campaign?
I don't expect the Russian bear will just sit there and watch. Russian cruise missiles may destroy some landing strips but would that be an effective deterrent?
NATO needs to understand at one point, enough is enough.
Perhaps, Putin is really hoping Biden will leave office. Him and his handlers are too unpredictable. And let's not forget that the US administration wouldn't care much if Europe gets nuked... as long as the war doesn't come home.
I am sure Russia has plans on how to respond, part of which will be to attack NATO air bases. I think it is reckless of NATO's Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to tell Ukraine to use its F-16's over Russian territory. Russia will interpret that as a NATO attack and all hell will break loose in Europe. Stoltenberg is a war monger and threat to peace and should be fired now.
Once again you have provided a strategic picture of the Ukraine-Russian War that no one in the western media is either willing or capable of producing. Keeping the American public ignorant about the developments in the war is intentional. It provides them a cushion against their (poor) policy decisions and prevents any significant protest against the enormous amounts of money, weapons and ammunition paid for with American tax dollars. Thank you for your continued reporting and insight.
Stephen does a great job. I plan on becoming a subscriber myself.
But there are plenty of other commentators whose thoughts and observations are pretty much in the same ballpark. Some names that jump out right away are: Brian Berletic (" The New Atlas"); Alexander Mercouris and the "Duran"; Col. Douglas McGregor (retired); Judge Napolitano; Tucker Carlson; Ray McGovern; Larry Johnson; Pepe Escobar; Glenn Diesen; Yves Smith ("Naked capitalism"); Bernard at "Moon of Alabama"; Profs. Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer, Dima at the Military Summary channel ... and more. There's a whole ecology of dissident experts--people with military backgrounds and history backgrounds-- who have called out the lies and disinformation surrounding the War in Ukraine almost from the inception.
Thank you, Pisa. I will look forward to the opinions of those you mentioned. I was referring primarily to the general public who don’t spend the time or effort to search for the truth and rely on the narrative produced by the mainstream media.
I've had some disagreements with Stephen about the Middle East, but this is better than anything anything I've read about the current situation in Ukraine.
what I was saying is how NATO would response after using their own aircraft to attack Russian targets in Ukraine, then Russia responded by attacking their NATO bases, leading to an incident and of course one of the NATO states invoking Article 5.
However, if the masters of the universe think they will be able to operate their NATO aircraft against Russian targets in Ukraine from 'sanctuaries' within NATO-member states with total impunity, then they are truly ignorant, incompetent, and reckless.
But perhaps the US/NATO really does want to move more than a few rungs up the escalation ladder. Their program to date has not yielded results.
Nuland would be pleased (and maybe Blinken, Sullivan, and Burns as well). I doubt if Biden knows what is going on.
"We are ruled by people who are ignorant, incompetent, and (most dangerously) reckless."
They are certainly all of those things, and in fact the rulers of the West exhibit behaviors indistinguishable from those of sociopaths, but they also also rule.
Excellent commentary Stephen. The realism perspectivein your commentary is much appreciated. Will file a support pledge in a week or two.
Anyway, for me, it's hard to imagine NATO would contemplate war with Russia. Any such conflict would immediately open a Pandora's Box of near-term nuclear weapons exchanges.
I've taken the 2019 Rand proposal "Extending Russia" as a blueprint for provoking a Russian response that would lead to regime change in the Kremlin.
My interpretation of the "Extending Russia" report is that the Randians saw a Ukraine initiative to be a low-risk, low-cost, High-return strategy with the potential to yield "A great ROI" as Romney and Biden like to put it. But RAND was at pains to note that this initiative was just kind of a speculative venture and shouldn't be seen as a lit fuse towards open military conflict. Since then RAND has counseled that it is time to bank profits (in terms of dead Russian soldiers) and back off of further escalation with Russia.
That's why I should think there's a low probability of a NATO attack against Russia. But the door was opened, a devastating real war is underway, so anything can happen under such conditions.
More likely the purpose of militaristic rhetoric is to convince populations to blow huge amounts of dwindling revenues on building up military production industries. That's probably a fools errand since Post-industrial "windmill" economies in the West can't reverse decades of Green Tech indoctrination and Climate Change de-industrialization. Military industrial programs of course will have to be funded by cuts in social safety nets across the West. Citizens are not in a mood for that kind of nonsense and will vote out such governments that already barely thrive on thin ice.
See yesterday that Germany has agreed to send "unspecified long range weapons" to Ukraine. The Biden Administration has signaled that ATACMS are on the way, doubtless to be operated by sheep-dipped US troops.
Stop kidding yourselves, unless and until the sociopaths running the West start to face very real consequences, they will only continue to double down. This is the entirely predictable outcome of Russian indecision and refusal to countenance just how power-crazed those who run the West are.
Read more carefully - the Bundestag voted "no" to sending Taurus missiles but voted "yes" to unspecified "long-ranged weapons".
Über einen Antrag der Ampelfraktionen, der die Lieferung von „weitreichenden Waffensystemen“ fordert, Taurus aber nicht explizit nennt, wurde ebenfalls am Donnerstag abgestimmt. Er wurde mit den Stimmen von SPD, Grünen und FDP im Bundestag beschlossen. 382 Abgeordnete stimmten dafür, 284 dagegen, es gab zwei Enthaltungen.
Basically, this was a figleaf so that the Bundestag could claim to be "for" and "against" at the same time, but we all know what the puppets in the german government will do.
all they really have is Taurus so I see what you are reporting but I don't think it matters. Anyway the German government is so badly compromised they would send their grandchildren to the Ukrainian army if Biden asks.
Yes, it is reckless, short-sighted and not in the interests of Germany, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what they do.
Sort of like it might not be in the best long-term interests of a schoolyard bully that he spends his time tormenting his more studious classmates instead of boning up on math with them, but that won't help the kids he torments.
The larger point is this - this is not the behavior of anyone seeking a ceasefire.
Thank you. I have a very low opinion of RAND.
Best
Agreed Stephen. But the policy machine starts with corporate funded think tanks such as RAND and proliferates down to politicians and legislators whose job it is to manufacture and sell a consensus. In retrospect, many conflicts seem to be scripted by these think tanks. That's why it's worthwhile paying a little attention to what's coming out of policy mills.
I personally think Putin is naive if he thinks that someone will talk to him. There is nobody to talk to in the West.
It may sound harsh, but his best option may be to wreck the state of Ukraine, cause another wave of millions of refugees and push the Western citizens onto the streets to protest against their own governments.
My questions to Stephen Bryen, If NATO gets involved, how likely are nuclear strikes on Romania and Poland and if that happens how likely is NATOs intervention then? Are the Americans, Germans, British and French ready to go to a full on nuclear exchange? Personally, I can't see anyone in the West wanting to die for Eastern Europe....
I don't think anyone wants to use nuclear weapons and I cannot imagine anyone proposing to use them.
How would Russia respond then if NATO were to start a somewhat successful air campaign?
I don't expect the Russian bear will just sit there and watch. Russian cruise missiles may destroy some landing strips but would that be an effective deterrent?
NATO needs to understand at one point, enough is enough.
Perhaps, Putin is really hoping Biden will leave office. Him and his handlers are too unpredictable. And let's not forget that the US administration wouldn't care much if Europe gets nuked... as long as the war doesn't come home.
I am sure Russia has plans on how to respond, part of which will be to attack NATO air bases. I think it is reckless of NATO's Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to tell Ukraine to use its F-16's over Russian territory. Russia will interpret that as a NATO attack and all hell will break loose in Europe. Stoltenberg is a war monger and threat to peace and should be fired now.
There is no incentive for the West to stop either, since the sociopaths running the West themselves never face any consequences.
The Never Russians in our western world are magic thinkers. “We hate them so we can kill them.”
Thank you for your work.
Once again you have provided a strategic picture of the Ukraine-Russian War that no one in the western media is either willing or capable of producing. Keeping the American public ignorant about the developments in the war is intentional. It provides them a cushion against their (poor) policy decisions and prevents any significant protest against the enormous amounts of money, weapons and ammunition paid for with American tax dollars. Thank you for your continued reporting and insight.
Stephen does a great job. I plan on becoming a subscriber myself.
But there are plenty of other commentators whose thoughts and observations are pretty much in the same ballpark. Some names that jump out right away are: Brian Berletic (" The New Atlas"); Alexander Mercouris and the "Duran"; Col. Douglas McGregor (retired); Judge Napolitano; Tucker Carlson; Ray McGovern; Larry Johnson; Pepe Escobar; Glenn Diesen; Yves Smith ("Naked capitalism"); Bernard at "Moon of Alabama"; Profs. Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer, Dima at the Military Summary channel ... and more. There's a whole ecology of dissident experts--people with military backgrounds and history backgrounds-- who have called out the lies and disinformation surrounding the War in Ukraine almost from the inception.
Thank you, Pisa. I will look forward to the opinions of those you mentioned. I was referring primarily to the general public who don’t spend the time or effort to search for the truth and rely on the narrative produced by the mainstream media.
I've had some disagreements with Stephen about the Middle East, but this is better than anything anything I've read about the current situation in Ukraine.
"But NATO's dilemma is that not all NATO members will agree to implement Article 5 of the Treaty to start a war with Russia."
Have the fools at NATO (all of whom of course take their orders from the District of Columbia) forgotten that Ukraine in NOT a member of NATO?
Supposedly Article 5 is invoked when a member of NATO is under attack. Or have I missed something?
This gets more surrealistic with each passing day. We are ruled by people who are ignorant, incompetent, and (most dangerously) reckless.
what I was saying is how NATO would response after using their own aircraft to attack Russian targets in Ukraine, then Russia responded by attacking their NATO bases, leading to an incident and of course one of the NATO states invoking Article 5.
I see your point.
However, if the masters of the universe think they will be able to operate their NATO aircraft against Russian targets in Ukraine from 'sanctuaries' within NATO-member states with total impunity, then they are truly ignorant, incompetent, and reckless.
But perhaps the US/NATO really does want to move more than a few rungs up the escalation ladder. Their program to date has not yielded results.
Nuland would be pleased (and maybe Blinken, Sullivan, and Burns as well). I doubt if Biden knows what is going on.
"We are ruled by people who are ignorant, incompetent, and (most dangerously) reckless."
They are certainly all of those things, and in fact the rulers of the West exhibit behaviors indistinguishable from those of sociopaths, but they also also rule.
Great read Stephen! Thanks.
A Skeptic War Reports
https://askeptic.substack.com/
Great work Skeptic! Keep up the reports!
Thanks Stephen for sourcing the quotes and references, as well as the clear-eyed analysis.
I think lthe DC focus has moved beyond Ukraine and Israel to the Pacific, as US elections approach.
There will soon be FIVE aircraft carriers in the Western Pacific.
Milley had to phone his Chinese counterpart in October 2020 to assure him Trump wasn't planning a pre-election confrontation.
Brown, who succeeded Milley last October, previously commanded the Pacific Air Forces.
And Nuland has just been replaced at State by a China hawk.
Go figure...
Excellent commentary Stephen. The realism perspectivein your commentary is much appreciated. Will file a support pledge in a week or two.
Anyway, for me, it's hard to imagine NATO would contemplate war with Russia. Any such conflict would immediately open a Pandora's Box of near-term nuclear weapons exchanges.
I've taken the 2019 Rand proposal "Extending Russia" as a blueprint for provoking a Russian response that would lead to regime change in the Kremlin.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
My interpretation of the "Extending Russia" report is that the Randians saw a Ukraine initiative to be a low-risk, low-cost, High-return strategy with the potential to yield "A great ROI" as Romney and Biden like to put it. But RAND was at pains to note that this initiative was just kind of a speculative venture and shouldn't be seen as a lit fuse towards open military conflict. Since then RAND has counseled that it is time to bank profits (in terms of dead Russian soldiers) and back off of further escalation with Russia.
That's why I should think there's a low probability of a NATO attack against Russia. But the door was opened, a devastating real war is underway, so anything can happen under such conditions.
More likely the purpose of militaristic rhetoric is to convince populations to blow huge amounts of dwindling revenues on building up military production industries. That's probably a fools errand since Post-industrial "windmill" economies in the West can't reverse decades of Green Tech indoctrination and Climate Change de-industrialization. Military industrial programs of course will have to be funded by cuts in social safety nets across the West. Citizens are not in a mood for that kind of nonsense and will vote out such governments that already barely thrive on thin ice.
See yesterday that Germany has agreed to send "unspecified long range weapons" to Ukraine. The Biden Administration has signaled that ATACMS are on the way, doubtless to be operated by sheep-dipped US troops.
Stop kidding yourselves, unless and until the sociopaths running the West start to face very real consequences, they will only continue to double down. This is the entirely predictable outcome of Russian indecision and refusal to countenance just how power-crazed those who run the West are.
The Bundestag voted no to sending Taurus cruise missiles. See https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-lawmakers-reject-taurus-missiles-ukraine-after-nearly-2-years-war-2024-02-22/
Read more carefully - the Bundestag voted "no" to sending Taurus missiles but voted "yes" to unspecified "long-ranged weapons".
Über einen Antrag der Ampelfraktionen, der die Lieferung von „weitreichenden Waffensystemen“ fordert, Taurus aber nicht explizit nennt, wurde ebenfalls am Donnerstag abgestimmt. Er wurde mit den Stimmen von SPD, Grünen und FDP im Bundestag beschlossen. 382 Abgeordnete stimmten dafür, 284 dagegen, es gab zwei Enthaltungen.
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/taurus-lieferung-abgelehnt-merz-kritisiert-scholz-zeitenwende-19537190.html
Basically, this was a figleaf so that the Bundestag could claim to be "for" and "against" at the same time, but we all know what the puppets in the german government will do.
all they really have is Taurus so I see what you are reporting but I don't think it matters. Anyway the German government is so badly compromised they would send their grandchildren to the Ukrainian army if Biden asks.
Yes, they would do so. That's precisely my point.
Yes, it is reckless, short-sighted and not in the interests of Germany, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what they do.
Sort of like it might not be in the best long-term interests of a schoolyard bully that he spends his time tormenting his more studious classmates instead of boning up on math with them, but that won't help the kids he torments.
The larger point is this - this is not the behavior of anyone seeking a ceasefire.
Thanks for the commentary. At the end of the day ministers can threaten and bluster but it does seem as if they really don't have any cards to play.
Good update to thank you.
It would seem Putin has won.