The whole thing is very disturbing: The US and UK are leading the world off a cliff. I cannot recall the US playing this kind of role provoking and instigating a serious and potential nuclear conflict before. However, in the 1960's the Joint Chiefs did want a war with the Soviets, even at the risk of nuclear war, but they didn't get their way then. Now there is no JFK to stop these people who seem to me to be certifiably insane. Thank you so much for your thoughtful and clear headed analysis, Mr. Bryen.
In addition, in the end it is the Anglo-Saxons who still believe in their empire. Of course there are enough belligerents in the USA, especially among the Democrats H.Clinton. But if you look at the financial background in general, it is GB that the USA has brought into this role. Why I think this, there is once the book about the history of the Rothschilds, then the book the only world power, in both you find enough clues to the current seismology of world history. In the USA there are enough people who know exactly what will happen if they sit out even further, the consequences of the last attack on Crimea with Atacms for those responsible has not yet happened, but the fact that GB has already sent its scouts out with hunting protection speaks volumes.
I devoutly hope that you prove correct, but I can tell you why Macron called the french elections when he did and that is to ensure that the elections take place before france and other American catamites openly and directly intervene in Ukraine, lest the elections be seen as a referendum on that war.
He has prepared it (NATO troops to Ukraine) and the next government in France can no longer stop it, see also the EU election and what results it brought - Russophobia will increase even more.
Your reading of the situation about why there will be not negotiated settlement, is logical and makes sense.
Where you theme breaks down, I am afraid, is in the apparent assumption that the US and NATO will return to a reality-based policy:
- acknowledging their part in causing the conflict,
- mercilessly bleeding the Ukrainians, and
- agreeing to the only package the Russians indicate they will accept:
- a verifiable and permanent cordon sanitaire between NATO weaponry and the RF
- an end of all sanctions
- an inspection/enforcement mechanism that will not allow another Minsk Agreement Fiasco to occur.
I would be very interested in your take on what kind of changes in the Washington regime would have to occur to get a serious and enforceable agreement with Russia, given the upcoming elections and the overall question about who/what really controls the US UniParty State?
Everything will happen as always. Look at Afghanistan. The Afghans expelled all foreigners from their country and other countries began to recognize them. Of course, gradually. After the Russians drive Western forces and Western people out of Ukraine, the process will go in the same direction. There will even come a time when everyone will compete to see who will be the first to restore relations with Moscow.
It is not only Afghanistan, also in Iraq the parliament had already decided in 2020/21 that the US and its vassals must leave the country. The current Israel/Gaza/Lebanon conflict is also going in the direction. The US also has some clear heads, I assume at least, because they are somehow trying to convince Israel not to invade Lebanon, that would not only be violent for Israel but completely throw the US and the UK out of the Middle East. So the US must somehow try to keep one foot in it.
Unlike Afghanistan, Ukraine will not emerge from the Special Military Operation intact. And regrettably, given the lack of diplomacy and hate mongering in the West, which has a goal of regime change in Russia and breaking up the country, we can’t be sure what will be left of NATO or Russia when the current war ends.
Last week Russia called in our Ambassador in Moscow to issue a demarche. They no longer consider the U.S. and Russia to be in a state peace. They consider the U.S. a direct participant in the war (first time they've said it in an official public news release after the meeting). They blamed us for the killing of civilians in Sevastopol. Russia understands full well that this is an American War directed at hurting them. The U.S. will not end this slaughter until after the election because President Blinken/Sullivan are already in deep trouble. We won't end the war because we cannot own up to the disaster we created. Bryen is correct. The Ukrainians will have to sue for peace. Two parties at a very minimum are required to any negotiated settlement: The aggressor- us and Russia. That's been made clear by the demarche. I'm surprised Zelensky is still alive. President Blinken/Sullivan have to answer for the deaths of over 600,000 Ukrainians criminally expended by the U.S; for the destruction of their country. They have to answer for the genocide in Gaza. Very soon Israel will drag us into a war with Hezbollah and we will be in a regional (possibly world) conflict that we cannot win that will add to the list of Blinen/Sullivan war crimes against humanity. Hopefully, some country will muster the courage to indict the U.S. and its leaders at the ICJ and ICC for the record. Obviously, actual justice will never happen.
How would a dismissal/withdrawal of Bidens second presidential bid factor in?
Would a Trump win weaken the anglo-sakson position enough to allow a peace deal?
That said, I believe you are right. I also think that Russia wants the Ukraine to surrender and not a peace-deal. They need to control Ukraine politics for some years to come, and that is near impossible with a peace-deal. But Russia needs to be careful about this, they cannot signal this to the outside world as they want to ensure the BRICS success. Which would be thrown in doubt if Russia started playing the strong man.
Btw; Rutte is a US controlled puppet. He won't even fart without US permission. JMO.
Trump, if he wins, will only take office on January 20 --almost 7 months from now. My own sense is the war can't continue that long. That does not mean that Trump, if elected, won't seek a summit with Putin. I think there is much more to discuss than Ukraine.
The RF mistake that I see coming is the fact that they still want to allow Ukraine to join the EU. Why I see this as a mistake, one should be aware that the EU is the political arm of NATO, linked by means of the Treaty see https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press/press-releases/2023/01/10/eu-nato-joint-declaration-10-january-2023/. If Ukraine is in the EU, it is almost simultaneously in NATO. The EU Ukraine Security Agreement has a clear formula: "The EU's security commitments to Ukraine are valid as long as Ukraine takes the European path."
North Korea, for one thing. Few analysts have even begun considering the implications of Pyongyang potentially acquiring Russian glide bomb technology. How the hell are we supposed to defend Seoul when it's already within range of regular artillery? It'd be a bloodbath, for the people of South Korea and the US military. We definitely don't want the Russians doing to us what we're doing to them.
Indeed, BRICS is more important than the Ukraine for starters.
The reason for asking about Biden/Trump is that I see a small possibility that they will pin the Ukraine disaster on Biden and a new presidency might pull out of the conflict entirely. Agree though that 7 months is quite a long time given the current situation.
IMO- if Trump gets elected, there'd probably be less difference in giving Ukraine hawks a green light, compared to the campaign rhetoric. Likewise probably not much difference in the other big crisis in Israel/Palestine/Lebanon/Iran/Yemen.
The potential for change in policy would be if Kamala Harris took Biden's place, i.e. by Biden potentially being re-elected and then deteriorating further after inauguration. Would she bring more of Obama's people in, at the expense of the neocons? (probably wouldn't impact Ukraine directly, but indirectly via more willingness to make compromises in Middle East and Asia... my 2cents only)
I agree with some of your points. I suspect that some NATO partners will commit ground forces to keep the proxy war going. France has committed a portion of the legion and Poland is arming up for follow on conflicts after the Ukraine debacle ends. The introduction of more advanced NATO weapons along with Russian civilian casualties may force Putin to retaliate outside the borders of Ukraine. I want a peaceful solidarity to this slow boil war, but too many have too much to lose for it to end in a Russian victory.
It’s asymmetrical warfare, they may attack anywhere in anyway possible to affect NATO affiliated countries. Infrastructure, defense, anything is on the table. Russia can’t win by conventional means and NATO weaponry has so far proven massively affective against Russian forces with the amount that has been given. Russia will keep throwing waves of meat at Ukraine while implementing cyberattacks, financing terrorist groups and working with dangerous military states (North Korea).
Russia IS in fact, winning by conventional means. So far they’ve countered everything NATO has thrown at them. They capture US weapons and reverse engineer them and then come up with counter measures. That’s not to say they won’t use asymmetrical measures…they will because they are trying to avoid further escalation. For example, it would make sense from their perspective to help out the Houthis.
Countered what? The drones? The ATTACMS? I was talking about NATO vs Russia, not just Ukraine. You talking about the turtle tank!??! They don’t have air superiority either. If NATO steps in it’s over.
Why do you think Russia tosses threats at every NATO member that gives aid? Why do you think Putin went and sucked off North Korea? What about their oil economy? Ukraine has been doing a pretty good job of crippling important targets throughout Russia with little no interference from AA. Do you think the F16s will have an impact? I fucking do. Will Ukraine win? I don’t know. The US can make Russia look like their little bitchboys with old equipment sitting on the shelf.
You seem completely misinformed. This is a NATO proxy war. We’re at the end of the NATO escalation ladder. All that’s left is a full mobilization and invasion of Ukraine by NATO and the risk of nuclear war. Most of us (US and Europe) find that risk completely unacceptable and I don’t think there’s any stomach to put boots on the ground. Macron suggested that and he just got his ass handed to him on a platter. In the meantime, the World Bank has recently listed Russia’s economy as 4th in the world - supplanting Japan - and conceding that they can’t measure their financial volume completely, because the bulk of their financial transactions aren’t going through the Swift system anymore; the volume of trade exports by BRICS countries now exceeds those of the G7 countries. Europe is still getting a substantial amount of its energy from Russia by way of India and paying more for it. The world has dramatically changed and our analysis of the situation is woefully out of sync with reality…which I guess explains your comments.
I know it is a proxy war. A full mobilization may be coming if Kiev is taken due to pressures from Ukraine’s neighbors not wanting another WW2 situation. I agree nuclear war is a continual threat and the escalations will continue as long as the Ukraine war continues, but Putin is trying to hold the world hostage so they don’t give support to Ukraine. His only trump card is nukes, that’s why he throws nuclear threats around whenever a NATO package is approved for Ukraine. Putin is putting all his card on the Ukraine, and his desperation is palpable.
Also, what is your point about rating Russia as fourth in the world? They have switched to a wartime economy and you said yourself that the world bank conceded that they cant track the financial volume completely. Plus, do you know the relative size of economies between the US and China and everyone else (hint: It’s really significant)?
Also, China is not their number one ally anymore. China is dependent on other countries for their goods. China isn’t in a position to warmonger either but no doubt will support them in other ways.
I just did. I’ve been following this war very closely too and I have a pretty sound understanding of Russia’s capabilities. We have been idiots to underestimate them.
No, it was a good try though and I do agree with a lot of what you said including underestimating them. The EU is way too dependent on Russian oil and Putin used that to his advantage.
Macron is facing loss of support in the National Assembly…it also looks like Sunak in GBR is on his way out. Recent EU elections suggest a shift to the right among the population in several EU countries. It appears that most Europeans do not want war with Russia. Germany will walk back their support of this conflict…they’ve been ambivalent since the beginning. Poland will retreat from their aggressive stance once they understand Europe at large has no stomach for this conflict. Obviously it would have been far better to have negotiated in good faith with Russia….the US had multiple opportunities to do so since 2008. Now we will have to face another failed US-backed conflict. Yet this outcome was completely foreseeable. We should be questioning the analytical and decision making processes in the foreign policy and national security apparatus in the US…and remedy the obvious failures. Is this even possible?…it’s become a deeply rooted and many-headed leviathan that exists in an echo chamber.
Plus, European ruling circles know that the narrative that "Putin" is just waiting to attack the Balkans or Poland once Ukraine is defeated is just propaganda bullshit they put out there to deceive the peasants.
Then Russia will have nuke Polish troops and Polish military bases. NATO can call article 5 but does anyone in the West want to sacrifice their lives for Poland?
A few years ago, they asked European men if they would be willing to die for their country. 14% of Dutch men said yes, so did 16% of German men (vs 65% in Russia). Imagine how many would be willing to die for Poland....
This would explain the recent moves toward conscription in various Western countries. Once something like this starts, I don't think there will be too many volunteers.
When Poland, which has learned nothing from its history, says it wants to build the largest and strongest army in Europe, it is a bit like in 1938/39 when Polish politicians also thought about invading Germany and thus solving their possible problem, the result we know, the UK and France did not fulfill their obligations and Poland lost. The megalomania of that time is the same as today. The British and the US have no interest in Poland or Germany. As Brzezinskis wrote - The USA, its vassals and tax-paying countries. the EU countries are needed so that the USA can somehow still save itself and consolidate.
“too many have too much to lose for it to end in a Russian victory” can you elaborate? who will lose and what will be lost? It seems many Ukrainians and Russians have already lost too much; peace and neutrality was and still is the best path forward for Ukraine and Russia.
The obstinance of Zelensky is evidence that supports your views. A leader with little or no compassion for it's citizen's welfare by refusing to even negotiate at any level will eventually result a surrender. Add that to Biden's reluctance to even speak with Russia regarding the war is a demonstration of his pathetic and feckless leadership skills that exacerbate the situation. Neither Zelensky nor Biden should be allowed to continue with this attitude. Zelensky needs to wake up and realize that a surrender will remove his power and destroy his legacy, whereas, a negotiated peace will stop the killing and destruction and perhaps allow Ukraine to keep it's independence and rebuild a stronger economy and geopolitical presence. The lack of leadership coming from Ukraine and from the U.S. is evident . We need intelligent and compassionate leaders- not comedians and dementia-aged politicians.
The problem for RF is not the result of Ukraine to digest. Europe will ultimately no longer play a role in geopolitics, they are just a vassal of the USA today and later, who knows. Let's remember George Orwell's 1984
Macron might have been a submarine of the CIA, but he is French, rejoiced in the prospect of NATO being "brain dead" at the end of Trump's term, was the last EU head of state to talk to Putin, except Orban and Meloni, and floated the concept of Europe's "geostrategic autonomy". ... And, I was about to forget: he asked, unsuccesfully, to be invited to the BRICS ( see www.globaltimes.cn of June 16, 2024)
Succinct and well stated. Thank you Stephen. Nonetheless it is heartbreaking to think of the loss of life that occurs every single day in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, let's not forget Russia has a vendetta with the US for Russian civilians killed by US supplied ATACMS in Sevastopol. Russia now declares that relations with the US are "no longer at peace". Consequently, It appears that aerial surveillance drones over the Black Sea will no longer be tolerated find Russian armed forces. What happens then? Will US pilots take over surveillance duty?
Or Suppose Russian retaliation occurs by handing the Houthis hypersonics to take out US naval assets in the Mediterranean?
What's the US response going to be? Who's gonna make the call about a US response? The guy with dementia that we saw paraded out last Thursday?
I don't have any information that the US has curtailed Black Sea operations nor do I have any information that the Russians are doing anything about them, although there is a report that the MOD in Russia has been ordered to prepare a plan to deal with the Black Sea threat,
Victoria Nuland, one of the key architects of Russia policy since 2014, was forced to retire instead of getting the number 2 job at the State Department.
This indicates that maybe the US is preparing for a change of direction with Eastern Europe.
Victoria Nuland misunderstood the lesson of Pelopponesian war as told by Xenofont. Athens a maritime empire has had a choice, and decided to start war with Sparta, a conventional, land based force and lost. Athens was gambling on something akin to today‘s unipolar moment.
American scolars, later, reinterpreted Cuban missile crisis, a standoff betwen US and USSR, as Kenedy being weak. If only had Kennedy pushed harder… like Reagan 20 years later
if this reasoning is beneath US deep state pushing for war with Russia, there can be o change of direction based on thinking.
There is a disconnect here. This thesis rests on the expectation of a general collapse of the Ukraine, which is not thus far evident.
The Ukraine leadership remains in thrall to its NATO paymasters and its military is led by Azov style bitter enders. Surrender by either the government or the military consequently appears unlikely
Ukraine still appears to be holding its own fairly well, despite the increasing Russian manpower superiority.
On the face of it, the situation seems analogous to the US Civil War after Vicksburg and Gettysburg.
The South was clearly headed for defeat, but was able to struggle on for years. This war likewise seems likely to conclude with a surrender, but it is not imminent.
I always thought Robert E Lee's great failure was not to end the war after Gettysburg. He cost both sides tens of thousands more dead, wounded and maimed.
However, there is plenty of evidence that the Ukrainian army is starting to collapse. Even Zelensky's latest trip to the front turned out to be very sobering for him. I assume he already has bought his tickets.
Agree…the losses in Ukraine are staggering. I’ve read an analysis that they are outmanned 5:1. They can’t possibly mobilize enough people to keep fighting much longer. Recent estimates I have seen are showing losses of 2,000 soldiers each day now. It is reported that newly enlisted troops in Ukraine are being sent to the front lines with only a few weeks training. It’s an horrific situation.
The fact that Ukraine somehow still exists is not a success of the Ukrainian leadership or NATO, because if 1500 - 2000 soldiers die or are wounded every day, it does not contribute to morale. Unless one acts like Stalin in the great patriotic war, he also has no regard for his soldiers. The Russian leadership wants to keep the dead and wounded small and also convince the Ukrainians that they are the good ones, to put it simply.
In a territorial conflict, progress is easy to see by simply looking at a map. However, given the nature of a war of attrition, which is Russia's strategy, the only metric for judging how well either side is "holding its own" is the state of materiel and manpower, until the conflict is very near the end. Due to the fog of war, we don't have completely reliable figures on these metrics.
The whole thing is very disturbing: The US and UK are leading the world off a cliff. I cannot recall the US playing this kind of role provoking and instigating a serious and potential nuclear conflict before. However, in the 1960's the Joint Chiefs did want a war with the Soviets, even at the risk of nuclear war, but they didn't get their way then. Now there is no JFK to stop these people who seem to me to be certifiably insane. Thank you so much for your thoughtful and clear headed analysis, Mr. Bryen.
You are exactly right. Thank you for your kind comment.
I read your analysis all the time, Mr. Bryen. Thank you from Russia!
In addition, in the end it is the Anglo-Saxons who still believe in their empire. Of course there are enough belligerents in the USA, especially among the Democrats H.Clinton. But if you look at the financial background in general, it is GB that the USA has brought into this role. Why I think this, there is once the book about the history of the Rothschilds, then the book the only world power, in both you find enough clues to the current seismology of world history. In the USA there are enough people who know exactly what will happen if they sit out even further, the consequences of the last attack on Crimea with Atacms for those responsible has not yet happened, but the fact that GB has already sent its scouts out with hunting protection speaks volumes.
I devoutly hope that you prove correct, but I can tell you why Macron called the french elections when he did and that is to ensure that the elections take place before france and other American catamites openly and directly intervene in Ukraine, lest the elections be seen as a referendum on that war.
An interesting and plausible speculation.
I think this is not entirely correct, Macron has WEF on behalf - he is a child of the WEF = CIA see also https://www.younggloballeaders.org/community/?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Macron&x=9&y=7&status=&class_year=§or=®ion=#results
He has prepared it (NATO troops to Ukraine) and the next government in France can no longer stop it, see also the EU election and what results it brought - Russophobia will increase even more.
Zelensky walked walked away from a negotiated agreement, as he was directed by NATO.
It is already clear that Biden is leaving, Macron is leaving, Sunak is leaving. Only Putin remains. He will win.
We're hoping to be rid of Trueau next year.
Thanks for the interesting read!
Your reading of the situation about why there will be not negotiated settlement, is logical and makes sense.
Where you theme breaks down, I am afraid, is in the apparent assumption that the US and NATO will return to a reality-based policy:
- acknowledging their part in causing the conflict,
- mercilessly bleeding the Ukrainians, and
- agreeing to the only package the Russians indicate they will accept:
- a verifiable and permanent cordon sanitaire between NATO weaponry and the RF
- an end of all sanctions
- an inspection/enforcement mechanism that will not allow another Minsk Agreement Fiasco to occur.
I would be very interested in your take on what kind of changes in the Washington regime would have to occur to get a serious and enforceable agreement with Russia, given the upcoming elections and the overall question about who/what really controls the US UniParty State?
Everything will happen as always. Look at Afghanistan. The Afghans expelled all foreigners from their country and other countries began to recognize them. Of course, gradually. After the Russians drive Western forces and Western people out of Ukraine, the process will go in the same direction. There will even come a time when everyone will compete to see who will be the first to restore relations with Moscow.
It is not only Afghanistan, also in Iraq the parliament had already decided in 2020/21 that the US and its vassals must leave the country. The current Israel/Gaza/Lebanon conflict is also going in the direction. The US also has some clear heads, I assume at least, because they are somehow trying to convince Israel not to invade Lebanon, that would not only be violent for Israel but completely throw the US and the UK out of the Middle East. So the US must somehow try to keep one foot in it.
Unlike Afghanistan, Ukraine will not emerge from the Special Military Operation intact. And regrettably, given the lack of diplomacy and hate mongering in the West, which has a goal of regime change in Russia and breaking up the country, we can’t be sure what will be left of NATO or Russia when the current war ends.
Last week Russia called in our Ambassador in Moscow to issue a demarche. They no longer consider the U.S. and Russia to be in a state peace. They consider the U.S. a direct participant in the war (first time they've said it in an official public news release after the meeting). They blamed us for the killing of civilians in Sevastopol. Russia understands full well that this is an American War directed at hurting them. The U.S. will not end this slaughter until after the election because President Blinken/Sullivan are already in deep trouble. We won't end the war because we cannot own up to the disaster we created. Bryen is correct. The Ukrainians will have to sue for peace. Two parties at a very minimum are required to any negotiated settlement: The aggressor- us and Russia. That's been made clear by the demarche. I'm surprised Zelensky is still alive. President Blinken/Sullivan have to answer for the deaths of over 600,000 Ukrainians criminally expended by the U.S; for the destruction of their country. They have to answer for the genocide in Gaza. Very soon Israel will drag us into a war with Hezbollah and we will be in a regional (possibly world) conflict that we cannot win that will add to the list of Blinen/Sullivan war crimes against humanity. Hopefully, some country will muster the courage to indict the U.S. and its leaders at the ICJ and ICC for the record. Obviously, actual justice will never happen.
How would a dismissal/withdrawal of Bidens second presidential bid factor in?
Would a Trump win weaken the anglo-sakson position enough to allow a peace deal?
That said, I believe you are right. I also think that Russia wants the Ukraine to surrender and not a peace-deal. They need to control Ukraine politics for some years to come, and that is near impossible with a peace-deal. But Russia needs to be careful about this, they cannot signal this to the outside world as they want to ensure the BRICS success. Which would be thrown in doubt if Russia started playing the strong man.
Btw; Rutte is a US controlled puppet. He won't even fart without US permission. JMO.
Trump, if he wins, will only take office on January 20 --almost 7 months from now. My own sense is the war can't continue that long. That does not mean that Trump, if elected, won't seek a summit with Putin. I think there is much more to discuss than Ukraine.
The RF mistake that I see coming is the fact that they still want to allow Ukraine to join the EU. Why I see this as a mistake, one should be aware that the EU is the political arm of NATO, linked by means of the Treaty see https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press/press-releases/2023/01/10/eu-nato-joint-declaration-10-january-2023/. If Ukraine is in the EU, it is almost simultaneously in NATO. The EU Ukraine Security Agreement has a clear formula: "The EU's security commitments to Ukraine are valid as long as Ukraine takes the European path."
North Korea, for one thing. Few analysts have even begun considering the implications of Pyongyang potentially acquiring Russian glide bomb technology. How the hell are we supposed to defend Seoul when it's already within range of regular artillery? It'd be a bloodbath, for the people of South Korea and the US military. We definitely don't want the Russians doing to us what we're doing to them.
Indeed, BRICS is more important than the Ukraine for starters.
The reason for asking about Biden/Trump is that I see a small possibility that they will pin the Ukraine disaster on Biden and a new presidency might pull out of the conflict entirely. Agree though that 7 months is quite a long time given the current situation.
IMO- if Trump gets elected, there'd probably be less difference in giving Ukraine hawks a green light, compared to the campaign rhetoric. Likewise probably not much difference in the other big crisis in Israel/Palestine/Lebanon/Iran/Yemen.
The potential for change in policy would be if Kamala Harris took Biden's place, i.e. by Biden potentially being re-elected and then deteriorating further after inauguration. Would she bring more of Obama's people in, at the expense of the neocons? (probably wouldn't impact Ukraine directly, but indirectly via more willingness to make compromises in Middle East and Asia... my 2cents only)
I agree with some of your points. I suspect that some NATO partners will commit ground forces to keep the proxy war going. France has committed a portion of the legion and Poland is arming up for follow on conflicts after the Ukraine debacle ends. The introduction of more advanced NATO weapons along with Russian civilian casualties may force Putin to retaliate outside the borders of Ukraine. I want a peaceful solidarity to this slow boil war, but too many have too much to lose for it to end in a Russian victory.
I don't think that will happen. Where will they go and do what? It will happen fast and NATO won't be able to intervene.
It’s asymmetrical warfare, they may attack anywhere in anyway possible to affect NATO affiliated countries. Infrastructure, defense, anything is on the table. Russia can’t win by conventional means and NATO weaponry has so far proven massively affective against Russian forces with the amount that has been given. Russia will keep throwing waves of meat at Ukraine while implementing cyberattacks, financing terrorist groups and working with dangerous military states (North Korea).
Russia IS in fact, winning by conventional means. So far they’ve countered everything NATO has thrown at them. They capture US weapons and reverse engineer them and then come up with counter measures. That’s not to say they won’t use asymmetrical measures…they will because they are trying to avoid further escalation. For example, it would make sense from their perspective to help out the Houthis.
Countered what? The drones? The ATTACMS? I was talking about NATO vs Russia, not just Ukraine. You talking about the turtle tank!??! They don’t have air superiority either. If NATO steps in it’s over.
Why do you think Russia tosses threats at every NATO member that gives aid? Why do you think Putin went and sucked off North Korea? What about their oil economy? Ukraine has been doing a pretty good job of crippling important targets throughout Russia with little no interference from AA. Do you think the F16s will have an impact? I fucking do. Will Ukraine win? I don’t know. The US can make Russia look like their little bitchboys with old equipment sitting on the shelf.
Been following the war for a while.
You seem completely misinformed. This is a NATO proxy war. We’re at the end of the NATO escalation ladder. All that’s left is a full mobilization and invasion of Ukraine by NATO and the risk of nuclear war. Most of us (US and Europe) find that risk completely unacceptable and I don’t think there’s any stomach to put boots on the ground. Macron suggested that and he just got his ass handed to him on a platter. In the meantime, the World Bank has recently listed Russia’s economy as 4th in the world - supplanting Japan - and conceding that they can’t measure their financial volume completely, because the bulk of their financial transactions aren’t going through the Swift system anymore; the volume of trade exports by BRICS countries now exceeds those of the G7 countries. Europe is still getting a substantial amount of its energy from Russia by way of India and paying more for it. The world has dramatically changed and our analysis of the situation is woefully out of sync with reality…which I guess explains your comments.
I know it is a proxy war. A full mobilization may be coming if Kiev is taken due to pressures from Ukraine’s neighbors not wanting another WW2 situation. I agree nuclear war is a continual threat and the escalations will continue as long as the Ukraine war continues, but Putin is trying to hold the world hostage so they don’t give support to Ukraine. His only trump card is nukes, that’s why he throws nuclear threats around whenever a NATO package is approved for Ukraine. Putin is putting all his card on the Ukraine, and his desperation is palpable.
Also, what is your point about rating Russia as fourth in the world? They have switched to a wartime economy and you said yourself that the world bank conceded that they cant track the financial volume completely. Plus, do you know the relative size of economies between the US and China and everyone else (hint: It’s really significant)?
Also, China is not their number one ally anymore. China is dependent on other countries for their goods. China isn’t in a position to warmonger either but no doubt will support them in other ways.
You're lost, man. lol
Illuminate me then, man :)
Oh and China is their major ally 🙄
I just did. I’ve been following this war very closely too and I have a pretty sound understanding of Russia’s capabilities. We have been idiots to underestimate them.
No, it was a good try though and I do agree with a lot of what you said including underestimating them. The EU is way too dependent on Russian oil and Putin used that to his advantage.
Macron is facing loss of support in the National Assembly…it also looks like Sunak in GBR is on his way out. Recent EU elections suggest a shift to the right among the population in several EU countries. It appears that most Europeans do not want war with Russia. Germany will walk back their support of this conflict…they’ve been ambivalent since the beginning. Poland will retreat from their aggressive stance once they understand Europe at large has no stomach for this conflict. Obviously it would have been far better to have negotiated in good faith with Russia….the US had multiple opportunities to do so since 2008. Now we will have to face another failed US-backed conflict. Yet this outcome was completely foreseeable. We should be questioning the analytical and decision making processes in the foreign policy and national security apparatus in the US…and remedy the obvious failures. Is this even possible?…it’s become a deeply rooted and many-headed leviathan that exists in an echo chamber.
Plus, European ruling circles know that the narrative that "Putin" is just waiting to attack the Balkans or Poland once Ukraine is defeated is just propaganda bullshit they put out there to deceive the peasants.
I hope so…in the US often it seems that the “ruling elite” believe their own spin. 🙉🙈🙊
The underlings in the system do, but those who create the propaganda know better, of course.
It would seem even the underlings would know by now that the “domino theory” has been totally discredited. It’s about money and power…it always is.
Then Russia will have nuke Polish troops and Polish military bases. NATO can call article 5 but does anyone in the West want to sacrifice their lives for Poland?
A few years ago, they asked European men if they would be willing to die for their country. 14% of Dutch men said yes, so did 16% of German men (vs 65% in Russia). Imagine how many would be willing to die for Poland....
This would explain the recent moves toward conscription in various Western countries. Once something like this starts, I don't think there will be too many volunteers.
Of course there won't be volunteers. Doesn't matter.
When Poland, which has learned nothing from its history, says it wants to build the largest and strongest army in Europe, it is a bit like in 1938/39 when Polish politicians also thought about invading Germany and thus solving their possible problem, the result we know, the UK and France did not fulfill their obligations and Poland lost. The megalomania of that time is the same as today. The British and the US have no interest in Poland or Germany. As Brzezinskis wrote - The USA, its vassals and tax-paying countries. the EU countries are needed so that the USA can somehow still save itself and consolidate.
Nobody will ask europeans what they want. You think the farmer asks his chickens whether they want to end up as McNuggets or maybe a sandwich?
Sadly, I agree with you. I don't think the powers-that-be will allow an outright Russian victory, no matter the cost.
“too many have too much to lose for it to end in a Russian victory” can you elaborate? who will lose and what will be lost? It seems many Ukrainians and Russians have already lost too much; peace and neutrality was and still is the best path forward for Ukraine and Russia.
The obstinance of Zelensky is evidence that supports your views. A leader with little or no compassion for it's citizen's welfare by refusing to even negotiate at any level will eventually result a surrender. Add that to Biden's reluctance to even speak with Russia regarding the war is a demonstration of his pathetic and feckless leadership skills that exacerbate the situation. Neither Zelensky nor Biden should be allowed to continue with this attitude. Zelensky needs to wake up and realize that a surrender will remove his power and destroy his legacy, whereas, a negotiated peace will stop the killing and destruction and perhaps allow Ukraine to keep it's independence and rebuild a stronger economy and geopolitical presence. The lack of leadership coming from Ukraine and from the U.S. is evident . We need intelligent and compassionate leaders- not comedians and dementia-aged politicians.
Zelenskii will simply bugger off to one of his villas and leave others to pick up the pieces, much like Ghani or Saakshvili did.
We all know, thanks to articles like these, that Russia will eventually win the war.
However, we probably all know that nobody in the West will remove the sanctions on Russia.
Thus, Russia will have no choice but become a massive spoiler for the West, Europe in particular.
I bet Putin will aim to put Europe on its own knees and give the EU some of its own medicine, and force the Europeans to decide between US and Russia.
The problem for RF is not the result of Ukraine to digest. Europe will ultimately no longer play a role in geopolitics, they are just a vassal of the USA today and later, who knows. Let's remember George Orwell's 1984
Europe will adapt. Nothing new. Everything will happen gradually - Russia will take a long time to digest Ukraine. This is a 10-20 year task
Macron might have been a submarine of the CIA, but he is French, rejoiced in the prospect of NATO being "brain dead" at the end of Trump's term, was the last EU head of state to talk to Putin, except Orban and Meloni, and floated the concept of Europe's "geostrategic autonomy". ... And, I was about to forget: he asked, unsuccesfully, to be invited to the BRICS ( see www.globaltimes.cn of June 16, 2024)
Trump should end NATO along with the UN
terrific report.
major news, with expert analysis.
Succinct and well stated. Thank you Stephen. Nonetheless it is heartbreaking to think of the loss of life that occurs every single day in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, let's not forget Russia has a vendetta with the US for Russian civilians killed by US supplied ATACMS in Sevastopol. Russia now declares that relations with the US are "no longer at peace". Consequently, It appears that aerial surveillance drones over the Black Sea will no longer be tolerated find Russian armed forces. What happens then? Will US pilots take over surveillance duty?
Or Suppose Russian retaliation occurs by handing the Houthis hypersonics to take out US naval assets in the Mediterranean?
What's the US response going to be? Who's gonna make the call about a US response? The guy with dementia that we saw paraded out last Thursday?
I don't have any information that the US has curtailed Black Sea operations nor do I have any information that the Russians are doing anything about them, although there is a report that the MOD in Russia has been ordered to prepare a plan to deal with the Black Sea threat,
"although there is a report that the MOD in Russia has been ordered to prepare a plan to deal with the Black Sea threat,"
Yes that's what I'm referring to Stephen.... ... The order came from the new Defense minister
Victoria Nuland, one of the key architects of Russia policy since 2014, was forced to retire instead of getting the number 2 job at the State Department.
This indicates that maybe the US is preparing for a change of direction with Eastern Europe.
Victoria Nuland misunderstood the lesson of Pelopponesian war as told by Xenofont. Athens a maritime empire has had a choice, and decided to start war with Sparta, a conventional, land based force and lost. Athens was gambling on something akin to today‘s unipolar moment.
American scolars, later, reinterpreted Cuban missile crisis, a standoff betwen US and USSR, as Kenedy being weak. If only had Kennedy pushed harder… like Reagan 20 years later
if this reasoning is beneath US deep state pushing for war with Russia, there can be o change of direction based on thinking.
Only a defeat can teach US. It will take time
There is a disconnect here. This thesis rests on the expectation of a general collapse of the Ukraine, which is not thus far evident.
The Ukraine leadership remains in thrall to its NATO paymasters and its military is led by Azov style bitter enders. Surrender by either the government or the military consequently appears unlikely
Ukraine still appears to be holding its own fairly well, despite the increasing Russian manpower superiority.
On the face of it, the situation seems analogous to the US Civil War after Vicksburg and Gettysburg.
The South was clearly headed for defeat, but was able to struggle on for years. This war likewise seems likely to conclude with a surrender, but it is not imminent.
I always thought Robert E Lee's great failure was not to end the war after Gettysburg. He cost both sides tens of thousands more dead, wounded and maimed.
However, there is plenty of evidence that the Ukrainian army is starting to collapse. Even Zelensky's latest trip to the front turned out to be very sobering for him. I assume he already has bought his tickets.
Agree…the losses in Ukraine are staggering. I’ve read an analysis that they are outmanned 5:1. They can’t possibly mobilize enough people to keep fighting much longer. Recent estimates I have seen are showing losses of 2,000 soldiers each day now. It is reported that newly enlisted troops in Ukraine are being sent to the front lines with only a few weeks training. It’s an horrific situation.
In this case, Zelenskii is richly rewarded for every day he continues the war.
The fact that Ukraine somehow still exists is not a success of the Ukrainian leadership or NATO, because if 1500 - 2000 soldiers die or are wounded every day, it does not contribute to morale. Unless one acts like Stalin in the great patriotic war, he also has no regard for his soldiers. The Russian leadership wants to keep the dead and wounded small and also convince the Ukrainians that they are the good ones, to put it simply.
In a territorial conflict, progress is easy to see by simply looking at a map. However, given the nature of a war of attrition, which is Russia's strategy, the only metric for judging how well either side is "holding its own" is the state of materiel and manpower, until the conflict is very near the end. Due to the fog of war, we don't have completely reliable figures on these metrics.