Another option for Russia after the first deep strike: An EMP attack on the Ukraine. That would collapse the AFU, the Ukraine government and unleash 20 million refugees into Europe. Game set & match.
Oh, and not to forget: It would also serve as a warning against any other funny business.
Just look at how Russia has been reacting to all the provocations. With each provocation/escalation from Ukraine/Nato, Russia has been targeting important infrastructure.
They could have done it from day one.
What the West doesn't get is, the more the West escalates, the less will remain of Ukraine. It's that simple.
Fact also remains, the ratio between civilian to military casualties are the lowest in any war after WW2. Compare how many civilians died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or even Gaza.
The Russian are mature and know what has happened to ordinary Ukrainians is not necessarily their fault. Their are simple being used as a pawn by the Western/Ukrainian elites.
Russia has been targeting infrastructure? Where? Last I checked, the trains are still running and the bridges standing, the water running and sewage processed.
There are 3 kinds of Ukrainians: the Russian Ukrainians, the Ukrainian Independence Ukrainians, and the Polish Ukrainians. Separating the people into 3 groups can be done in theory. However, their claims on land cannot be simultaneously satisfactory to all.
Poland will end up with its former historical territory. Hungary will get back what Stalin stole from them. They are very much ready to act. Nobody will want a moonscape Western Ukraine.
Yes. But with Poland in NATO, there is an issue of whether Russia should push all the way to the Galicia border. I think they should, and leave no rump state between Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania. As for the Ukrainian refugees who fled into Poland, I think Russia should NOT take them back unless they swear allegiance to Russia.
they do but politics and events suppress such sentiments. Historically they are very close to each other both coming from the early Kievan Rus period. No significant dna differences. Don't forget, the Ukies hate the Poles about as much.
Qualms: Care to offer examples? An EMP would cost many lives, so I would be looking for an example that would cost at least, say, 50.000 civilian lives and hardly any military.
Btw: I do not expect Russia to use an EMP against the Ukraine. Its only something they could do.
Everyone talking about various kinds of EMP attacks makes me wonder just how focused such an attack can actually be. For instance, one thing going around has Russia setting off a nuclear blast in space, destroying all satellites. How is Russia able to shield its own orbiting equipment from such a blast?
Or another: Is it even possible to set off a blast that will reliably limit its effects to, say, Ukraine alone, without the risk of affecting any of the surrounding nations?
It is possible to affect the circle of impact on the ground by controlling the height of the detonation.
I do not know about satellites. I presume those sat-killers do not use the earth ionization layers but have some other mechanism. Problem with sat's is that these are distributed over the entire earth, and simply killing all in a radius of say 200km will not affect that much sat's. Besides sats are made to survive a very dangerous environment, and are probably less susceptible to emp blasts.
The weak point of a sat is its orbit. Orbits are very well known and bringing an object on a collision course with a sat (with possibly some fine-tuning towards the end) would seem to be the easiest/cheapest way to destroy one.
If helps to have some sort of medium surrounding a nuclear blast, otherwise a neutron bomb would probably be the better choice, but even that would be a rather inefficient means of taking out satellites.
1. Pretend that Russia were supplying Cuba with targeting information and missiles to lob into the
US. How would the United States respond?
The West sees Russian forbearance as contemptible weakness and responds accordingly. Our lives are a sacrifice that the rulers of the West are happy to make to maintain global hegemony.
2. We hear this at every escalation, that escalation is unpopular, will lead to war, is insane and reckless.
NATO escalates anyway. Clearly, they believe that these are just more idle Russian threats.
3. NATO will enter the war directly, after the US elections in November.
Nato has nothing to enter with. They can't fight a war of this magnitude. The industrial capabilities aren't there and Russia would nuke European cities. There is no way NATO can win. Hence they let Ukraine do their dirty work.
NATO has plenty of nuclear weapons- in excess of what it will take to make this world uninhabitable.
This would suit the globalists and their creatures fine. The high ups will be protected by bunkers created ("continuation of government") long ago (although Scott Ritter, a former Iraq arms inspector, says that maintenence and stockpiles have not been maintained) long ago for government protection in advent of nuclear war. Globalists seem to have purchased many government officials, in many countries, but maybe globalists figure there are still too many loyal people left- in this case globalists may figure that war, including nuclear war, would be a more straightforward and certain war to sieze power over the globe.
WEF tries to pretend concern for racial "difficulties", but they use every opportunity for division.
History shows people who are willing to size power are careless about "collateral damage", in addition the covid "vaccine" plans shows WEF wants depopulation anyway
This is correct. Just recently, Stephen's colleague recalled that he would speak with the officials at the Defense Department about nuclear war and he said that even when he firmly mentioned that America as we know it would be destroyed they still thought that there still would be something left to lord over...
They will not enter the fight directly because their armies and air forces are not capable of doing it. Most of them will run out of ammo in a few weeks with no hope for resupply. And then there are NUKES which WILL BE used if Moscow is seriously threatened.
When Lyndon Johnson declined to run for another term he maintained an active role in the Vietnam War. He bent over backwards to try and create a negotiated peace agreement. Nixon and even Humphrey, who were the main candidates for the "68 election, both declined to speak out or interfere with Johnson's efforts as the war was the single biggest issue in the country at the time. Things did not work our well for Johnson, but at least, as a lame duck President, he worked in the best interest of the American people.
Fast forward to another lame-duck President, Biden has failed to even speak with Russia's Putin in an attempt to begin a dialogue towards peace negotiations. He does not have the same full support of the American citizens as Johnson did, we do not have troops involved (yet) and his motivation is not to end the war but to expand NATO's presence in eastern Europe behind a weak narrative that Putin will not stop at Ukraine. It is clear that allowing NATO to strike deeply into Russia will definitely expand the war and not reduce it. His vision is clouded by neo-con advice, disinformation and a weakness of common sense due to a declining ability to cognitively recognize issues and problems. Legislators and influential members of government that have a clear vision as to the damage that would be caused by NATO's expansion need to speak out forcefully and loudly. Biden, in his condition, should be prevented from making such an enormous decision, and NATO members need to stand up against Biden and realize the damage to their countries that will occur.
I am completely alienated from this government. I've never felt more helpless since the 70's when we came too close to Nukes being used. I grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation. I was in the duck and cover generation. I keep thinking there is much more to the story that we know. I'm wondering what this really is about as the West's actions keep detaching from reality and reason. I also keep thinking of that moral reprobate Lindsay Graham who is quoted as saying numerous times, "we will fight to the last Ukrainian". Was there really no recognition of this in Ukraine? That great powers were intent on destroying them and they had the short end of a very sharp stick?
People used to remember the constant terror of a possible nuclear war. There was no confusion about how terrible it would be. Now these younger than Boomers are seemingly oblivious to the threat. Who is making the big decisions here?
The more I reflect on the Brits the more I disdain them. They are more sinister and calculating than most know. They had undue influence over us since before WW1 and sucked us into a stupid war. They have lost their minds over there.
I'm merely an interested observer, not an expert, but I believe the current situation is far less dire than the author describes. No one is declaring war. Rather, it appears to be a continuation of the West's micro-escalations, which we have all seen many times since the start of the SMO.
Note that Ukraine is already attacking the sovereign soil of Russia, both on the ground and with drones, missiles and artillery. The only question in this new possibility is the depth to which Ukraine might strike, and how effective those strikes might be. The short answer to that is, regardless of depth, not very effective at all. There isn't any strike that Ukraine can make (with the mooted weapons) that could change the course of the war.
Note also that an attack with any new weapons will be launched by Ukrainians, not US/NATO forces. Yes certainly US/NATO forces will be involved, but the button to launch the attack will be pressed by a Ukrainian soldier or pilot. Some might say that's a difference without a distinction, and in many ways they would be right. But this is a game of high-stakes brinkmanship between US/NATO and Russia. In this game nuances are important.
One can see clearly from Mr. Putin's comment that Ukraine attacking deep into Russia doesn't mean all out war. His language is actually quite bland and diplomatic. He makes it abundantly clear that Russia will view it as an escalation, and take appropriate steps thereafter. But he draws no Red Line nor makes any specific threat.
Mr. Putin is a realist. Yes, Ukraine striking deep into Russia could potentially be a serious blow but it's not going to change anything strategically. It's unlikely that the US will gave Ukraine freedom to attack anything other than military targets actually involved in the war. Should such an attack happen, Russia will calibrate its response, rather than going mental over it. One obvious Russian reply would be to have a proxy in the Middle East destroy a US Navy warship. That would be a perfect mirror response to the US having its Ukrainian proxy attack Russian soil. Moreover, it would be strategically asymmetric in Russia's favour. Ukrainian missiles can't change the course of the war, but the sinking of a US warship would certainly have strategic impact on the US.
Because Russia's next escalatory step would have big strategic consequences for the US, I'd put the likelihood of Ukraine getting the green light to be less than 50%. But whether or not it happens, it's simply another step up the ladder of brinkmanship in this conflict. It does not mean Russia and the US are at war.
I respectfully disagree. Firing missiles into Russia essentially by NATO is a huge escalation and it is designed to get the Russians to over-react, then the next step will be NATO boots on the ground. This is a very dangerous and reckless move and goes far beyond all the others.
The Russians well know that Ukraine is losing and that Ukraine will resort to terror and other acts of dispair.
The Russians also know that time is on their side as well and that a few long term missiles won't change the outcome.
Why would Russia act in a way to drag NATO into the war? It wouldn't make any sense and wouldn't align with Putin's previous responses.
I think Richard is right. Russia may respond asymmetrically or they may answer any additional escalation the same way they have answered all previous ones, by wrecking Ukraine's infrastructure.
I hope you are right Richard. I don't want to find out how a nuclear blast feels like.
I think the recent development is also somewhat Putin's fault. If someone repeatedly crosses your red lines, don't be surprised if they won't be scared of you anymore.
I used to mentally imagine rushing out of town to a deeply rural area and try to survive. Being older, its clear that I would be better off just getting blown to hell right away. Nobody wins. We all die.
This is such a volatile situation and I know Blinken and the DC gang are getting in over their heads, and by the way, putting not only the USA at risk of being attacked by deep strikes, but the entire globe at risk of nuclear devastation. Poland told Blinken to pound sand!
This should have been nipped in the bud but the Biden-Harris Administration is clueless. Zelensky stay home! US Congress: No More $$$ or arms to Ukraine... time to stop this insanity and agree on an end to this death wish!
And yet the Polish people recently voted to go whole hog on getting into the conflict. Rather than advocate caution on the part of the major players in a limited way as was the case previously, they voted for an extreme position on one side of the conflict.
I know the Polish mentality well. Poles would slit their own children's throats, if that were what it takes to get some American somewhere to call them a "good dog".
The Polish citizens voted recently for the current governing politicians. A dominant theme in the election was the war happening on their border. One has to conclude that a meaningful cohort of Polish citizens have decided to go all in on the conflict by supporting without any reservation, one side of that conflict. Not only supporting but wanting to intensify the conflict. Not only intensify but reverse the months long direction the conflict has taken by doing whatever seems necessary.
This gives us a strong hint about who is going to win the election. Whether the “They” who are hiding behind Biden have seen that Kamala can’t win, or they’ve decided to create nuclear chaos and let Trump win. “Here’s the country you wanted to run, Chump. Enjoy holding the bag.” Either way, they are acting as if their window to get the war they desperately want is closing.
What is the big secret they need WW3 to obfuscate? Maybe that our country is bankrupt and need a war to blame for those who have been robbing the treasury? Maybe that the EU countries are all mostly bankrupt? Why would the banks who are pouring money into Kamala’s campaign want an administration that will regulate them and tax them more? Maybe the banks are a big part of the secret.
We’ve had an inexplicable relationship with Ukraine for many years. Maybe the U.S. or NATO have been building an illegal arsenal on Russia’s doorstep and are about to be outed.
Maybe They fear their secret is not safe with Trump or that Trump will hold some of them criminally accountable. Maybe They believe Trump is going to uproot major parts of the entrenched bureaucracy and they’re making themselves indispensable.
Whatever the reasons are, my money says The Bad Guy is us, the reasons are nefarious, and they’ll be “classified” for generations to come.
I will only comment on one aspect of what you have written, namely that it seems to me that either Washington/UK/NATO thinks they can get away with the missile escalation or they have not calculated the consequences. NATO is poorly prepared for war; it lacks transport, weapons, munitions and coherent leadership, meaning that if there is any larger war it will be the US against Russia. The US has around 100,000 troops altogether in Europe, but of course more can be sent (if there is time). That is a drop in the bucket as Russia has around 500,000 available plus reserves, and it can also mobilize. As it is contiguous more or less to Europe, a Russian military operation does not involve long range support or allies under attack. To me the calculus is that NATO needs to avoid a war for military reasons only. In terms of Europe's economy and politics, war would be fatal.
I’m not a military person and the reasons we are poking the Russian bear are a mystery to me, but it does appear there are effective forces trying to take us to war or the brink of war. Thanks for adding your insights.
I have the exact same thinking as you laid out. Globalists have purchased the US government. If Trump gets in, he can use espionage laws (all kinds of laws were/are being broken, we have the last fraudulent election, the attempted assassination- there is a LONG list- just think how much we DONT KNOW, if we KNOW Biden has been paid 25 million, found on Hunters laptop!?)
I think that there is a possibility that we may be entering a war that has nuclear possibilities. It may have already have been decided. The super rich will be protected, either through government or by bunkers for the super rich and enormous storage.
However Scott Ritter said if people think they'll be safe from nuclear war by "continuation of government" the billions spent to house our government in safety, he said money HAS NOT been spent on maintenence/upkeep and that if the platters think they'll be safe using government resources, that they may be in for a unpleasant surprise
More likely is that the administration wants to avoid any flareup or crisis before the election, including escalation in Ukraine or Ukraine collapsing. If they can keep Ukraine roughly as it is now, even with minor losses in the East, they'll let the next administration clean up the mess.
That argues against escalation in Ukraine.
Harris has already said major figures in the Biden administration will not be reappointed in hers and the same clearly holds if Trump wins.
China is a nuclear power. Suppose, tomorrow, China invades Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America, and Canada. I suppose by your "logic" we should just say, "Nuclear powers get to play by their own rules. Nothing to be done about it. I don't want any blood on my hands."
It seems that the extreme left and right are united in a policy of pacifism and allowing tyrants to have their way, if not positively praising them.
The latest line from these boot-lickers is that Churchill was a war criminal for standing up to Hitler. Ergo, anyone who stands up to Putin is a war criminal. I assume most or all of this crap is funded by the Kremlin.
I believe that one of the weaknesses of the US is that we fail to see how the world looks at us when it comes to nuclear weapons. We tend to forget that we are the only nation in the world to have used them against an enemy. This is the main reason that the news out of Washington about allowing long-range missile strikes against Russia really frightens me - because when Russia retaliates with nuclear weapons and we are shocked, the rest of the world will look at us and say "why did you think you get to use them and no one else?"
No, the rest of the world has long forgotten Hiroshima dn Nagasaki. Even the mayor of Hiroshima on Hiroshima Day went out of his way to blame Russia for the threat of nuclear war, but could not bring himself to mention who dropped the atomic bomb on his own city.
That's how soft power works. America has it. Russia does not. Fair? No, it is not fair, but "fair" has nothing to do with it.
"President Biden appears on the verge of clearing the way for Ukraine to launch long-range Western weapons deep inside Russian territory, as long as it doesn’t use arms provided by the United States, European officials say."
I'd say it's pretty unlikely that the Kremlin is going to play along with this charade, or some wink-wink nod-nod deal where he allows Long range missiles to strike Russian territory. The stakes will be high for Putin because retaliation might have a disruptive effect on the crucial BRICS Plus conference coming up in a few weeks.
Russian Retaliation can come in the form of taking out US satellites necessary to Interface with weaponry and pinpoint an attack. Or it may come in the form of arming the Houthis with Zircon hyper sonic missiles which will allow them to sink US carriers in the Mediterranean.
Another option for Russia after the first deep strike: An EMP attack on the Ukraine. That would collapse the AFU, the Ukraine government and unleash 20 million refugees into Europe. Game set & match.
Oh, and not to forget: It would also serve as a warning against any other funny business.
Which raises the question why Russia did not do this long ago, if they could.
Because they see Ukrainians as their brothers. That's what the civilian casualties are so low compared to other wars.
That's the thing the Western people don't get, Putin fills pitty for ordinary Ukrainians and the West thinks it's weakness.
Sounds like cope, since Ukraine does not see things in a similar light.
Has nothing to do with cope.
Just look at how Russia has been reacting to all the provocations. With each provocation/escalation from Ukraine/Nato, Russia has been targeting important infrastructure.
They could have done it from day one.
What the West doesn't get is, the more the West escalates, the less will remain of Ukraine. It's that simple.
Fact also remains, the ratio between civilian to military casualties are the lowest in any war after WW2. Compare how many civilians died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or even Gaza.
The Russian are mature and know what has happened to ordinary Ukrainians is not necessarily their fault. Their are simple being used as a pawn by the Western/Ukrainian elites.
Russia has been targeting infrastructure? Where? Last I checked, the trains are still running and the bridges standing, the water running and sewage processed.
70% of all electricity is gone.
Again, it's a war against the army not against the population. I know Americans fight wars differently. That's because they have no hearts.
There are 3 kinds of Ukrainians: the Russian Ukrainians, the Ukrainian Independence Ukrainians, and the Polish Ukrainians. Separating the people into 3 groups can be done in theory. However, their claims on land cannot be simultaneously satisfactory to all.
Poland will end up with its former historical territory. Hungary will get back what Stalin stole from them. They are very much ready to act. Nobody will want a moonscape Western Ukraine.
Yes. But with Poland in NATO, there is an issue of whether Russia should push all the way to the Galicia border. I think they should, and leave no rump state between Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania. As for the Ukrainian refugees who fled into Poland, I think Russia should NOT take them back unless they swear allegiance to Russia.
they do but politics and events suppress such sentiments. Historically they are very close to each other both coming from the early Kievan Rus period. No significant dna differences. Don't forget, the Ukies hate the Poles about as much.
Beyond pity I think he would prefer not to have a damaged and lawless political entity right next door.
Russia already had that for eight years.
Simple answer: Because Russia is not the west.
They don't think and act like we do. Your question presupposes a lot, most of which does not apply to Russians.
This is one of those thought-terminating clichés that is used to excuse Russian indecision.
Russia had no such qualms st various other times in its recent history.
Cliche: That does not make it untrue.
Qualms: Care to offer examples? An EMP would cost many lives, so I would be looking for an example that would cost at least, say, 50.000 civilian lives and hardly any military.
Btw: I do not expect Russia to use an EMP against the Ukraine. Its only something they could do.
Sure, WWII, Operation August Storm, the Second Chechen War, etc..
If Russia had such a weapon, they would have used it.
Pre nuclear, there were no such weapons, not even comparable. Thus the first two don't count.
The second Chechen war did not have even close to the number of civilian casualties that we are talking about.
Edit: In WW2, yes I am convinced they would have used it if they would have had it.
Everyone talking about various kinds of EMP attacks makes me wonder just how focused such an attack can actually be. For instance, one thing going around has Russia setting off a nuclear blast in space, destroying all satellites. How is Russia able to shield its own orbiting equipment from such a blast?
Or another: Is it even possible to set off a blast that will reliably limit its effects to, say, Ukraine alone, without the risk of affecting any of the surrounding nations?
It is possible to affect the circle of impact on the ground by controlling the height of the detonation.
I do not know about satellites. I presume those sat-killers do not use the earth ionization layers but have some other mechanism. Problem with sat's is that these are distributed over the entire earth, and simply killing all in a radius of say 200km will not affect that much sat's. Besides sats are made to survive a very dangerous environment, and are probably less susceptible to emp blasts.
The weak point of a sat is its orbit. Orbits are very well known and bringing an object on a collision course with a sat (with possibly some fine-tuning towards the end) would seem to be the easiest/cheapest way to destroy one.
If helps to have some sort of medium surrounding a nuclear blast, otherwise a neutron bomb would probably be the better choice, but even that would be a rather inefficient means of taking out satellites.
1. Pretend that Russia were supplying Cuba with targeting information and missiles to lob into the
US. How would the United States respond?
The West sees Russian forbearance as contemptible weakness and responds accordingly. Our lives are a sacrifice that the rulers of the West are happy to make to maintain global hegemony.
2. We hear this at every escalation, that escalation is unpopular, will lead to war, is insane and reckless.
NATO escalates anyway. Clearly, they believe that these are just more idle Russian threats.
3. NATO will enter the war directly, after the US elections in November.
Nato has nothing to enter with. They can't fight a war of this magnitude. The industrial capabilities aren't there and Russia would nuke European cities. There is no way NATO can win. Hence they let Ukraine do their dirty work.
NATO has plenty of nuclear weapons- in excess of what it will take to make this world uninhabitable.
This would suit the globalists and their creatures fine. The high ups will be protected by bunkers created ("continuation of government") long ago (although Scott Ritter, a former Iraq arms inspector, says that maintenence and stockpiles have not been maintained) long ago for government protection in advent of nuclear war. Globalists seem to have purchased many government officials, in many countries, but maybe globalists figure there are still too many loyal people left- in this case globalists may figure that war, including nuclear war, would be a more straightforward and certain war to sieze power over the globe.
WEF tries to pretend concern for racial "difficulties", but they use every opportunity for division.
History shows people who are willing to size power are careless about "collateral damage", in addition the covid "vaccine" plans shows WEF wants depopulation anyway
Question is, if they grab everything and it's been nuked - what are they grabbing? There is no profit motive for a nuke war.
Marxist critiques are not relevant. This is existential now.
We hear that at every escalation as well.
and its true
Doesn't stop them.
NATO entered the war directly through the presence of Angela Merkel and François Hollande at the Minsk negotiations.
I don't think you understand.
You are clearly more confused than I am.
I am going to pretend that you were attempting to make a substantive remark and not simply your usual practice of slinging stupid insults.
Merkel and Hollande did not directly and openly intorduce NATO troops into combat in Ukraine in 2014.
You apparently are ignorant about the Minsk agreements.
"openly"
Were you there then?
Global hegemony is impossible in a post nuclear war world.
They are convinced that they'll rule the cinders.
Ever see "Don't Look Up!"?
This is correct. Just recently, Stephen's colleague recalled that he would speak with the officials at the Defense Department about nuclear war and he said that even when he firmly mentioned that America as we know it would be destroyed they still thought that there still would be something left to lord over...
What is 'Don't Look Up?'
A moive that you ought to watch.
Is it a documentary?
Not exactly.
They will not enter the fight directly because their armies and air forces are not capable of doing it. Most of them will run out of ammo in a few weeks with no hope for resupply. And then there are NUKES which WILL BE used if Moscow is seriously threatened.
When Lyndon Johnson declined to run for another term he maintained an active role in the Vietnam War. He bent over backwards to try and create a negotiated peace agreement. Nixon and even Humphrey, who were the main candidates for the "68 election, both declined to speak out or interfere with Johnson's efforts as the war was the single biggest issue in the country at the time. Things did not work our well for Johnson, but at least, as a lame duck President, he worked in the best interest of the American people.
Fast forward to another lame-duck President, Biden has failed to even speak with Russia's Putin in an attempt to begin a dialogue towards peace negotiations. He does not have the same full support of the American citizens as Johnson did, we do not have troops involved (yet) and his motivation is not to end the war but to expand NATO's presence in eastern Europe behind a weak narrative that Putin will not stop at Ukraine. It is clear that allowing NATO to strike deeply into Russia will definitely expand the war and not reduce it. His vision is clouded by neo-con advice, disinformation and a weakness of common sense due to a declining ability to cognitively recognize issues and problems. Legislators and influential members of government that have a clear vision as to the damage that would be caused by NATO's expansion need to speak out forcefully and loudly. Biden, in his condition, should be prevented from making such an enormous decision, and NATO members need to stand up against Biden and realize the damage to their countries that will occur.
Why would Biden? As far as the US is concerned, things are going just swimmingly in Ukraine.
Чи гарна сьогодні погода в Україні?
Как по-русски сказать правильно "wishful thinking on your part"?
I am completely alienated from this government. I've never felt more helpless since the 70's when we came too close to Nukes being used. I grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation. I was in the duck and cover generation. I keep thinking there is much more to the story that we know. I'm wondering what this really is about as the West's actions keep detaching from reality and reason. I also keep thinking of that moral reprobate Lindsay Graham who is quoted as saying numerous times, "we will fight to the last Ukrainian". Was there really no recognition of this in Ukraine? That great powers were intent on destroying them and they had the short end of a very sharp stick?
People used to remember the constant terror of a possible nuclear war. There was no confusion about how terrible it would be. Now these younger than Boomers are seemingly oblivious to the threat. Who is making the big decisions here?
The Russians have an interesting saying: Don't be scared, I'm scared myself.
The more I reflect on the Brits the more I disdain them. They are more sinister and calculating than most know. They had undue influence over us since before WW1 and sucked us into a stupid war. They have lost their minds over there.
They're doing the same as many western gov's. Namely, covering for pretty stark domestic failures
I'm merely an interested observer, not an expert, but I believe the current situation is far less dire than the author describes. No one is declaring war. Rather, it appears to be a continuation of the West's micro-escalations, which we have all seen many times since the start of the SMO.
Note that Ukraine is already attacking the sovereign soil of Russia, both on the ground and with drones, missiles and artillery. The only question in this new possibility is the depth to which Ukraine might strike, and how effective those strikes might be. The short answer to that is, regardless of depth, not very effective at all. There isn't any strike that Ukraine can make (with the mooted weapons) that could change the course of the war.
Note also that an attack with any new weapons will be launched by Ukrainians, not US/NATO forces. Yes certainly US/NATO forces will be involved, but the button to launch the attack will be pressed by a Ukrainian soldier or pilot. Some might say that's a difference without a distinction, and in many ways they would be right. But this is a game of high-stakes brinkmanship between US/NATO and Russia. In this game nuances are important.
One can see clearly from Mr. Putin's comment that Ukraine attacking deep into Russia doesn't mean all out war. His language is actually quite bland and diplomatic. He makes it abundantly clear that Russia will view it as an escalation, and take appropriate steps thereafter. But he draws no Red Line nor makes any specific threat.
Mr. Putin is a realist. Yes, Ukraine striking deep into Russia could potentially be a serious blow but it's not going to change anything strategically. It's unlikely that the US will gave Ukraine freedom to attack anything other than military targets actually involved in the war. Should such an attack happen, Russia will calibrate its response, rather than going mental over it. One obvious Russian reply would be to have a proxy in the Middle East destroy a US Navy warship. That would be a perfect mirror response to the US having its Ukrainian proxy attack Russian soil. Moreover, it would be strategically asymmetric in Russia's favour. Ukrainian missiles can't change the course of the war, but the sinking of a US warship would certainly have strategic impact on the US.
Because Russia's next escalatory step would have big strategic consequences for the US, I'd put the likelihood of Ukraine getting the green light to be less than 50%. But whether or not it happens, it's simply another step up the ladder of brinkmanship in this conflict. It does not mean Russia and the US are at war.
I respectfully disagree. Firing missiles into Russia essentially by NATO is a huge escalation and it is designed to get the Russians to over-react, then the next step will be NATO boots on the ground. This is a very dangerous and reckless move and goes far beyond all the others.
Surely, NATO can see what would happen if they put boots on the ground in Ukraine.
Certainly they’re blinded by bias, but they have to know they’d be decimated.
I can’t see that ever happening.
The Russians well know that Ukraine is losing and that Ukraine will resort to terror and other acts of dispair.
The Russians also know that time is on their side as well and that a few long term missiles won't change the outcome.
Why would Russia act in a way to drag NATO into the war? It wouldn't make any sense and wouldn't align with Putin's previous responses.
I think Richard is right. Russia may respond asymmetrically or they may answer any additional escalation the same way they have answered all previous ones, by wrecking Ukraine's infrastructure.
The NATO boots on the ground are coming, no matter what Russia does, short of nuclear weapons.
LOL! You think the French will suit up and march off to Russia again? You really think the people won't riot in the streets to stop it?
Nobody will ask europeans what they want.
You could be right. We will probably know for certain before long.
I hope you are right Richard. I don't want to find out how a nuclear blast feels like.
I think the recent development is also somewhat Putin's fault. If someone repeatedly crosses your red lines, don't be surprised if they won't be scared of you anymore.
I used to mentally imagine rushing out of town to a deeply rural area and try to survive. Being older, its clear that I would be better off just getting blown to hell right away. Nobody wins. We all die.
This is such a volatile situation and I know Blinken and the DC gang are getting in over their heads, and by the way, putting not only the USA at risk of being attacked by deep strikes, but the entire globe at risk of nuclear devastation. Poland told Blinken to pound sand!
This should have been nipped in the bud but the Biden-Harris Administration is clueless. Zelensky stay home! US Congress: No More $$$ or arms to Ukraine... time to stop this insanity and agree on an end to this death wish!
I don't blame Poland - every time Russia and Germany get ready to go at it, Poland winds up getting the worst of it...
And yet the Polish people recently voted to go whole hog on getting into the conflict. Rather than advocate caution on the part of the major players in a limited way as was the case previously, they voted for an extreme position on one side of the conflict.
I know the Polish mentality well. Poles would slit their own children's throats, if that were what it takes to get some American somewhere to call them a "good dog".
by they do you refer to the Polish citizens or Polish politicians?
The Polish citizens voted recently for the current governing politicians. A dominant theme in the election was the war happening on their border. One has to conclude that a meaningful cohort of Polish citizens have decided to go all in on the conflict by supporting without any reservation, one side of that conflict. Not only supporting but wanting to intensify the conflict. Not only intensify but reverse the months long direction the conflict has taken by doing whatever seems necessary.
How convenient that Harris will likely become the next president, a total puppet and brainless scarecrow that doesn't understand anything.
This gives us a strong hint about who is going to win the election. Whether the “They” who are hiding behind Biden have seen that Kamala can’t win, or they’ve decided to create nuclear chaos and let Trump win. “Here’s the country you wanted to run, Chump. Enjoy holding the bag.” Either way, they are acting as if their window to get the war they desperately want is closing.
What is the big secret they need WW3 to obfuscate? Maybe that our country is bankrupt and need a war to blame for those who have been robbing the treasury? Maybe that the EU countries are all mostly bankrupt? Why would the banks who are pouring money into Kamala’s campaign want an administration that will regulate them and tax them more? Maybe the banks are a big part of the secret.
We’ve had an inexplicable relationship with Ukraine for many years. Maybe the U.S. or NATO have been building an illegal arsenal on Russia’s doorstep and are about to be outed.
Maybe They fear their secret is not safe with Trump or that Trump will hold some of them criminally accountable. Maybe They believe Trump is going to uproot major parts of the entrenched bureaucracy and they’re making themselves indispensable.
Whatever the reasons are, my money says The Bad Guy is us, the reasons are nefarious, and they’ll be “classified” for generations to come.
I will only comment on one aspect of what you have written, namely that it seems to me that either Washington/UK/NATO thinks they can get away with the missile escalation or they have not calculated the consequences. NATO is poorly prepared for war; it lacks transport, weapons, munitions and coherent leadership, meaning that if there is any larger war it will be the US against Russia. The US has around 100,000 troops altogether in Europe, but of course more can be sent (if there is time). That is a drop in the bucket as Russia has around 500,000 available plus reserves, and it can also mobilize. As it is contiguous more or less to Europe, a Russian military operation does not involve long range support or allies under attack. To me the calculus is that NATO needs to avoid a war for military reasons only. In terms of Europe's economy and politics, war would be fatal.
I’m not a military person and the reasons we are poking the Russian bear are a mystery to me, but it does appear there are effective forces trying to take us to war or the brink of war. Thanks for adding your insights.
We hear this at every escalation, NATO escalates all the same.
And nobody cares what europeans think.
I have the exact same thinking as you laid out. Globalists have purchased the US government. If Trump gets in, he can use espionage laws (all kinds of laws were/are being broken, we have the last fraudulent election, the attempted assassination- there is a LONG list- just think how much we DONT KNOW, if we KNOW Biden has been paid 25 million, found on Hunters laptop!?)
I think that there is a possibility that we may be entering a war that has nuclear possibilities. It may have already have been decided. The super rich will be protected, either through government or by bunkers for the super rich and enormous storage.
However Scott Ritter said if people think they'll be safe from nuclear war by "continuation of government" the billions spent to house our government in safety, he said money HAS NOT been spent on maintenence/upkeep and that if the platters think they'll be safe using government resources, that they may be in for a unpleasant surprise
In the unlikely event Trump is elected, he will remain what he is - weak, stupid and easily manipulated.
Putin has been very clear that the depleted uranium used by the British missiles makes them nuclear weapons.
More likely is that the administration wants to avoid any flareup or crisis before the election, including escalation in Ukraine or Ukraine collapsing. If they can keep Ukraine roughly as it is now, even with minor losses in the East, they'll let the next administration clean up the mess.
That argues against escalation in Ukraine.
Harris has already said major figures in the Biden administration will not be reappointed in hers and the same clearly holds if Trump wins.
I headlined about this today “Biden might decide today whether to initiate WW3 against Russia.” at https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/biden-might-decide-today-whether
Any time you read an artile like that, the decision has already been made. The discussion and deliberation are for public show.
China is a nuclear power. Suppose, tomorrow, China invades Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America, and Canada. I suppose by your "logic" we should just say, "Nuclear powers get to play by their own rules. Nothing to be done about it. I don't want any blood on my hands."
It seems that the extreme left and right are united in a policy of pacifism and allowing tyrants to have their way, if not positively praising them.
The latest line from these boot-lickers is that Churchill was a war criminal for standing up to Hitler. Ergo, anyone who stands up to Putin is a war criminal. I assume most or all of this crap is funded by the Kremlin.
That is not my logic at all.
I believe that one of the weaknesses of the US is that we fail to see how the world looks at us when it comes to nuclear weapons. We tend to forget that we are the only nation in the world to have used them against an enemy. This is the main reason that the news out of Washington about allowing long-range missile strikes against Russia really frightens me - because when Russia retaliates with nuclear weapons and we are shocked, the rest of the world will look at us and say "why did you think you get to use them and no one else?"
No, the rest of the world has long forgotten Hiroshima dn Nagasaki. Even the mayor of Hiroshima on Hiroshima Day went out of his way to blame Russia for the threat of nuclear war, but could not bring himself to mention who dropped the atomic bomb on his own city.
That's how soft power works. America has it. Russia does not. Fair? No, it is not fair, but "fair" has nothing to do with it.
The New York Times today reports the latest ruse:
"President Biden appears on the verge of clearing the way for Ukraine to launch long-range Western weapons deep inside Russian territory, as long as it doesn’t use arms provided by the United States, European officials say."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/12/us/politics/biden-ukraine-weapons.html
I'd say it's pretty unlikely that the Kremlin is going to play along with this charade, or some wink-wink nod-nod deal where he allows Long range missiles to strike Russian territory. The stakes will be high for Putin because retaliation might have a disruptive effect on the crucial BRICS Plus conference coming up in a few weeks.
Russian Retaliation can come in the form of taking out US satellites necessary to Interface with weaponry and pinpoint an attack. Or it may come in the form of arming the Houthis with Zircon hyper sonic missiles which will allow them to sink US carriers in the Mediterranean.
Any time you read an article like that, the decision has already been made. The discussion and deliberation are for public show.
It’s tricky.
On the one hand, we don’t want WW3.
On the other hand, we really need the Russian government to burn its fingers on Ukraine, to discourage repetition.
On the gripping hand, Putin is trying to hide his failures behind a rebuilt Russian Empire.