The Biden administration's tactics are well understood. The White House adheres to the tactics of “unbreakable commitments” or frontal attack and at the same time constantly raises the stakes with bad cards in its hands. Whoever came up with the idea to play with Putin like that, the Americans will figure it out themselves someday. I can only guess.
As a result, Putin is not afraid - no one has ever been able to scare him. He acts rationally. Surely tactical warheads, under the guise of exercises, are already loaded into missiles on the ground, on planes and ships.
If the White House doesn't back down and stop trying to make a chicken out of Putin, there will be a blow. I think the United States is hoping to stop in time. But you may not be able to stop in time due to an incorrect assessment of the situation.
The problem is that Russia has allowed the West to cross red line after red line with impunity.
The West sees this unwillingness to escalate, not as reason or as humanitarianism, but as contemptible weakness. The West is ruled by sociopaths, although most western rulers are able to fake empathy when called upon to do so.
Be careful when talking about Russian red lines to distinguish whether Putin established something as a red line or whether it was presented as a red line by someone other than Putin. Whether it's Russia's equivalent to someone like Senator Lindsey Graham or even just the western media
Also, don't allow yourself to get caught up in thinking that Putin's response to such a crossing would look like what you have been told to expect, and when you should expect it see it.
Putin just sent a tiny force into the Caribbean. The Biden administration wanted to talk about anything during the runup to the election other than hostile nuclear armed Russian forces in your face present a couple of hundred miles off the U.S. coast. But Trump will love having the issue especially since Biden will look like a deer in the headlights. Putin's inner circle are all high fiving themselves right now, yelling ...who'se your daddy now, Biden?.....
In the current century, the foreign policy style of the US is escalate, and if the desired result is not obtained, double down. The Blinken-Sullivan generation adds to this the occasional headfake - e.g. make a conciliatory verbal gesture, talking in a non-specific non-actionable way about the need for dialogue during a diplomatic visit. And then have another department (e.g. Commerce) do another provocative poke (e.g. sanctions on allies to stop some key firm trading with China) immediately when getting off the plane coming home. At no point is there any substantive quid pro quo by the US with the its principal interlocutors (ie China and Russia, occasionally Iran). So in other words, one shouldn't waste too much time holding out hope for the US to seek a compromise of any kind. When the US has exhausted its options and sacrificed all of its allies, it will stop. This is widely understood now.
The wave of "right wing" (really: populist, anti-globalist) electoral shifts across Europe is in large part an anti-war sentiment. Not because the public are pacifists but because they see this war as just not in their interests, dangerous, and part of the constant deflection away from issues ordinary non-elite Europeans care about.
Nobody will ask the people what they want, nor does anyone of influence and authority care.
A man named "Hermann Goering" offered a certain practical experience and insight into how this works.
Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship." I call it something else, to put it more clearly. What do fascism, socialism, communism, capitalism, and imperialism have in common? They all end in ismus, or else is and must. The Psychology of the Masses is the title of Gustave Le Bon's most famous book, published in Paris in 1895, or the well-known 1984 by G. Orwell. We have seen in three years of a pandemic how the masses are controlled, and if it's true, the WHO is just trying to beat those who refuse to get arrested. The EU elections in Germany alone have drawn an interesting map, the area of the former GDR blue and the used countries of the old FRG black - why? In the old FRG people have already forgotten after 3 years what 16 years of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have done with Chancellor Merkel, we do not need to talk about the current traffic light government. How many readers here know about the fact that Germany has a children's book author as Minister of Economics and a self-proclaimed international lawyer without qualification as Minister of Foreign Affairs, this can be continued indefinitely. We have a Federal Chancellor who is involved in financial scandals and a Finance Minister who also has problems with money - keyword Moomax bankruptcy. Politicians without professional qualifications and abandoned studies populate the political caste in Germany. Just the kind of people it takes for the Anglo-Americans to send Germany three times in a campaign to the East. Except this time, the U.S. and U.K. are going to be presented with a heavy bill. Presumably, mankind is going to experience a real world war this time,
With the rise of the Internet and independent commentary by people like Stephen Bryen the mass propaganda of war has largely been blunted. False flags such as 911 and October 7 still seem to be effective for stampeding nations into wars and genocides. But there are limits on how many of these staged Terror Spectacles can be produced.
I dunno, the rulers seem pretty able to control the narrative from here.
Take COVID. Or Nordstream, ferinstance. The United States commits an act of war on Germany and nobody so much as raises a peep. Scholz scurries off to Washington to show what a loyal little muppet we are and the german chattering classes mumble something about how bad slaves deserve their beatings.
Finster, you seem oblivious to the fact that there has been a decisive turn over the question of COVID Origins. Fauci himself now claims to be agnostic on the question.
Nordstrom is a little pertinence to Americans at least. Scholz and his coalition are simply traitors. However the sad fact is that Greenie ideology is so pervasive in Germany that destruction of fossil fuel infrastructure is actually welcome many quarters.
The constant narrative "right," "right," etc., is a mockery of language. Which we can see very clearly in Germany. Sometimes I wonder when the "grannies against right" forbid turning right or going to the right, and maybe they're trying to ban the word "right" from the Duden. If we were to replace right for extremism, all the crowds of right hysterics when they stand in front of the mirror would be always on the right, what would that mean, we destroy all mirrors? I take a pragmatic view of the whole thing. Particularly here in eastern Germany, people in large parts have their heads not only cut to their hair. The GDR education system has fallen on the toes of the GDR state, and now it is turning against the warmongers, that gives me hope. The right has nothing to do with populism here, but with independent thinking and questioning. Of course, this does not suit the media or politics, particularly here in Germany, so there are fact checkers and corrective who do not shy away from lies. Indeed, even politicians like Anton Hofreiter of the Green Party recently reheated the old lie that the RF had invaded Georgia. Unfortunately for him, a retired Colonel W. Judge of the German Armed Forces who admitted to having been there at the time, publicly convicted him of the lie by making it clear that Georgia started the war. Talk show that Putin is running out of money, you can only shake your head. But it is such people who are sending Europe, not just Germany, to war.
Feral is right that there is nothing accidental about the constant doubling down and window-shifting by NATO. It's not just a fantasy of Russian capitulation that's driving this. Unfortunately it's a win-win calculus for the Atlanticist elites. If Russia backs down (unlikely), they win. If the war continues, they win: further demonise Russia, they crush dissent, label all opponents as pro Russia, centralise power, divert money and debt into weapons and the national security state.
More like they're just on autopilot, and US doubling down on strategy of provocation is the only move that is acceptable to everyone with veto power on the committee in any given year. There are many cases where a more thoughtful strategy would have yielded results, e.g. Obama's Iran deal. Instead, the principal rival of the US, China now has the majority of the world on its side. Washington brain trust FTW
The war will spill into Europe. This is baked in the cake.
NATO has already thrown so much material and diplomatic support at Ukraine that it cannot allow Ukraine to lose. This means that France, Poland, etc, will have to organize a "coalition of the willing" to rescue the regime there. At the same time, NATO cannot allow the forces of any such coalition to be left out to dry, nor can NATO allow attacks on NATO territory, regardless whether such territory is used to attack Russia.
This abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy is entirely intentional, and Russian dithering and indecision only makes NATO more aggressive.
"Russia's end-game strategy is murky." Yes and no. From Day One, Russia explicitly laid out its end-game for Ukraine: de-Nazification and de-militarization. So yes, we do know what the end-game is from Russia's perspective. What we don't know is what exactly Ukraine will look like once Russia achieves that, assuming they can. It's quite possible the Russians don't know themselves, which is understandable because there's many ways this could play out. But what is certain is that the longer the war goes on, the greater will be the territory that Ukraine loses to Russia. And whatever rump of Ukraine remains, if any, it will not pose a threat to Russia.
This is just an opinion, but unless Ukraine comes to its senses and agrees to peace on Russia's terms above, then it's likely that Russia will take most of Ukraine. It has to in order to nullify Ukraine's military threat to Russian territory. This means everything east of the Dnieper, as well as Zaphorizhia, Kherson, Nikolyev and Odessa. Perhaps Kiev too.
F-16's: if F-16's take-off from NATO soil and launch attacks on Russian soil, that is a casus belli. Russia would have every right to strike back at those countries that hosted the F-16's, and Russia has promised to do so. And that could mean a massive escalation to all-out conventional war, at least. It's hard to believe that NATO would be so stupid to go down that path. A grey area would be if the F-16's launched from a NATO country, but only attacked Russian forces in Ukraine. Russia is unlikely to accept that, either. Short story, if the F-16's launch from NATO soil and engage in hostilities with Russia, then Russia will target them wherever it can, including in NATO countries.
NATO use of Romanian airports for F16s... leading to Russian attack of the bases, will then create an EXISTENTIAL Risk to NATO: NATO is useless to the Vassal States if the rest of NATO does not defend a member who is attacked.
What is the reality though, given European NATO members are paper tigers, is whether the US wants to see its own territory attacked by Russia, if the US as part of NATO attacks Russia directly pursuant to an invocation of Article 5 (regardless of the use of the Article 5 pretext is actually valid, given Romania would have been the aggressor allowing F16s to start missions from its bases).
"Existential risk to NATO": There are nuances to that. First, it will be up to NATO to determine if the attack represents an existential risk that warrants invoking Article 5. Given that doing so would bring, at a minimum, an all-out conventional war with Russia, NATO might not take that step.
Article 5 is the cornerstone of NATO's Charter, but it's a bit more fluid than it first appears. An attacked NATO country can't invoke Article 5 for all of NATO by itself. It has to be a collective decision. And even if Article 5 is collectively invoked, it doesn't commit NATO to any specific type of assistance to the attacked country. Yes, it could mean a full on military response, but it could also mean a nice sympathy card and flowers.
If Russia only (conventionally) attacks a NATO airport that F-16's fly from, it wouldn't be an existential risk to that country. It would be a symbolic blow to its sovereignty of course, but it's not like an invasion. So NATO could stay its hand, as I believe it probably would. The alternative would be a massive, possibly world-ending escalation. Is it worth it for a clapped out F-16 and slap in the face to Romania or wherever. No way.
You interpret "Existential Risk" to NATO less literally (or at least differently) than I do.
I am referring to the existence of NATO as an organization, not the existence of the countries that are members of the organization.
All NATO countries, other than the USA are LOOKING FOR THE US TO DEFEND THEM.
The US uses NATO as a way to bind their vassals to them, sell them weapons, have a benign (appearing) reason to "occupy them" and control their policies.
Without the US promising to defend other NATO members, there is little to no reason to yield much of non-US NATO nations' sovereignty to the USA except via direct threat of sanctions (and for Canada, with 80% of its trade with the US, potential sanction threats are permanently built in).
Therefore, if the US fails to respond to a supposed Article 5 invocation, it demonstrates that there is no longer the guarantee that is the main basis for NATO membership for all members ex- the US itself.
IOW, basing F16s in a NATO nation and flying missions against Russia poses an Existential Threat to the continuing existence of the NATO alliance (and at the same time may not pose a truly EXISTENTIAL threat to any NATO country, with the possible exception of the country that allows the F16s to fly missions from its airports.
I'd guess that, other than Ukraine and Romania, no NATO nation would be in favor of a nuclear WW3 starting as an acceptable price to pay for defending Romania, if Russia attacks them over hosting F16s... and that would be the path MORE likely to be traveled if/when this happens.
My analysis indicates that the WW3 probability estimate I mentioned in my first comment would be significantly higher than it is now, should Russia attack Romania after they foolishly allowed Ukrainian F16s to use Romanian bases (runways, hangers, maintenance facilities) and airspace.
Obviously, I view this as an outcome to be avoided.
Yes we're using the term 'existential' somewhat differently. I'm using it the way a unbiased historian might use it, to describe an objective threat that could easily mean the destruction of a state, its government and many of its people. (This kind of threat is what triggers the use of nuclear weapons by Russia under their strategic doctrine.) I'm not using it as a frightened little NATO country might use it to persuade its allies to come to its aid after a missile strikes the military base the country used to attack Russia. And I'm not using it subjectively, as perhaps you are about NATO falling apart should it fail to declare war after that country asks for help. Should problems arise in the NATO alliance, there are many things they could do to keep it together. It would be all politics at that point.
Keep in mind that NATO's Article 5 doesn't require NATO to declare war against an attacker, should one of NATO's members be attacked. In fact it doesn't spell out what the response must be in any way. It simply says that an attack against one member state will be considered an attack on them all, and they will take the steps necessary to preserve the security of the alliance.
In that context, consider the possibility of Russia attacking F-16's on the ground in, say, Romania. Yes, that's a slap at Romania's sovereignty, and yes that could certainly justify NATO invoking Article 5. If NATO actually wanted to declare war on Russia, then off we'd go. However NATO most definitely doesn't want to declare war on Russia. And given that there's no ongoing threat to Romania, assuming that the Russian missiles do their job in this scenario, why would NATO put the existence of its alliance at stake over Article 5? Instead, NATO would condemn Russia, make a great show of supporting Romania, sending them troops, etc without going the Article 5 route, justifying that decision because there's no ongoing existential threat to Romania. That way NATO doesn't have to go to war with Russia and can preserve its alliance.
In my opinion, NATO's existence isn't black and white over Article 5. Whether or not to invoke Article 5 would be a political decision, not an existential one.
I agree...and Russia does not play with red lines. They act according to the interests over time. History is a movie...not a collection of photos that frrrze tome. Yhe RiMoD figures show UAF losses over a THOUSAND daily and 2 THOUSAND on really bad days. Strategic patience wins the game...not Hollywood tit for tat shootouts.
Strategic patience... good expression. If Russia wasn't fighting the entire Collective West, and if the ultimate stakes weren't so high, (a new world order) it could probably go harder and faster in Ukraine. But Russia is fighting the US/EU/G7/NATO/AUKUS. That is a formidable opponent, to say the least, especially given that the opponent is more than willing to fight dirty. So a relatively slow, methodical approach that doesn't leave many openings for the enemy to counter-attack is a good strategy.
Who would step in, if let's say Romania and Poland get nuked?
Would NATO step in? Can you imagine someone in the UK or Germany fight for Poland or Romania?
I don't want to be racist here, but in a poll a few years ago, only 16% of German men said they would die for their own country. Who on earth will die for Poland or Romania?
"The Crimea attacks have no actual military purpose because Ukraine lacks the ground force needed to fight a battle there. The idea is to humiliate the Russians, but the likely result may be the reverse. As the pressure is stepped up one can anticipate that Russia will respond and use brutal force, either attacking Kharkiv, Odesa or Kiev (or some or all of the above). Russia has more long range rockets than NATO can supply and Kiev does not have enough surviving air defenses to protect its cities from devastation."
Keep in mind that, from the NATO perspective, increased Russian attacks are a win. That Ukrainians die, freeze, or starve is of no concern to them, any more than a Blinken or a van der Leyden cares about the feelings of the chickens that go into Chicken McNuggets.
“That Ukrainians die, freeze, or starve is of no concern to them, any more than a Blinken or a van der Leyden cares about the feelings of the chickens that go into Chicken McNuggets.”
God, that’s dark. But not wrong, particularly if you invest eating chicken nuggets with missionary zeal.
Stephen, let's be honest. Biden is merely the poster Boy, the public face of the White House. Biden is in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's. My mother went out with Alzheimer's and Biden exhibits the same symptoms. All journalists should ascribe white house policy decisions to President Blinken/Sullivan. President Blinken/Sullivan's approval ratings are so low that it is a clear and present danger to humanity. Who knows what they will do in desperation to avoid defeat prior to the Nov elections. Zelensky has every incentive to drag the U.S. into a direct, boots on the ground, war against Putin. He avoids a coup that could end his life.
Going to repeat it again ever since the war started. Russia can't lose this war, it's of national security. Even the biggest Russia hater must realize you cannot expand to their borders and place weapons aimed at Russian cities. On the other hand we have narcists who will never admit defeat. You can not reason with narcists, they are stuck in their own fantasy world. They rather burn it all down than ever admiting their mistakes or accept defeat. That's why on day 3 of the war I gave it a 70% chance in ending in a nuclear war. Yes people might look at you as if you're an idiot, but I stick with my prediction. Now I would say we are already over the 70% chance.
There's no way out. Most understand function creep, now we have, again, war creep. Everyone is taking baby steps towards preperations for war, which eventually will end in a war. With no one talking there won't be a peaceful solution. You just cannot talk with narcists.
And it's sad to say NATO fanboys everythime they hit a bridge or destroy AD systems. Russia did answer those escalations. They took out the entire power grid. Just saying...
It is possible that at the heart of the problem lies the culture and psychology if hegemony. Which is like the bicycle : if it stops moving forward, it falls. Despite being false (the Roman empire fell 5 centuries after it stopped growing in the West, 10 in the East, for instance) this opinion seems prevalent in Western leadership circles. Practically, despite repeated Russian warnings, NATO kept expanding during past 2 decades, peace offers were and are systematically rejected or used in bad faith as pause to build up the next round of conflict. And invariably the argument is that any agreement is a defeat because it means renouncing the freedom of the West to do what it wants without consideration for anyone else's interest. If that "freedom" is not hegemony, one wonders what it is... Now the situation gets even more difficult because Western leaders have invested so much political, economical and military capital, that anything short of an Ukrainian victory will indeed be a defeat. But prolonging the war through escalation obviously means going towards either a bigger and more painful defeat latter or a potentially apocalyptic war against Russia. Were are the wisemen ?
When US politicians are saying they can't loose trillions of dollars of minerals in Ukraine, but then go to sleep in their villas on the opposite side of Ukraine, as they gave instructions to those US puppets of EU Leaders to do the dirty job, you understand who's the enemy here and what is the real plan.
Same plan as in 1930s and '40s, do those hated corrupted europeans face the worst scenario and then arrive with trumpets and horses as the "liberators", as the heroes that save those servants of US Empire or simply of the Evil Empire. We do not forget that movie of 1944/45. Remember Americans, we will not forget!
Once again the only plan that US is capable of is organizing, finance and make the wars away from their country and who cares of millions of civilian deaths when we nazi American can live safe at home and, as CIA head wrote, make billions of dollars out of it.
The World has a big problem and that problem is only USA. The sooner you realize it the better!
I've been convinced Biden did all this for what he thought would be a boost politically. Republicans were like trained seals clapping him on. They still are. I am blown away that the Democrats have become the war party. It looks inevitable that a clash is coming and soon. Perhaps the West needs a good scare to come to its senses.
The Biden administration's tactics are well understood. The White House adheres to the tactics of “unbreakable commitments” or frontal attack and at the same time constantly raises the stakes with bad cards in its hands. Whoever came up with the idea to play with Putin like that, the Americans will figure it out themselves someday. I can only guess.
As a result, Putin is not afraid - no one has ever been able to scare him. He acts rationally. Surely tactical warheads, under the guise of exercises, are already loaded into missiles on the ground, on planes and ships.
If the White House doesn't back down and stop trying to make a chicken out of Putin, there will be a blow. I think the United States is hoping to stop in time. But you may not be able to stop in time due to an incorrect assessment of the situation.
The problem is that Russia has allowed the West to cross red line after red line with impunity.
The West sees this unwillingness to escalate, not as reason or as humanitarianism, but as contemptible weakness. The West is ruled by sociopaths, although most western rulers are able to fake empathy when called upon to do so.
Be careful when talking about Russian red lines to distinguish whether Putin established something as a red line or whether it was presented as a red line by someone other than Putin. Whether it's Russia's equivalent to someone like Senator Lindsey Graham or even just the western media
Also, don't allow yourself to get caught up in thinking that Putin's response to such a crossing would look like what you have been told to expect, and when you should expect it see it.
Putin just sent a tiny force into the Caribbean. The Biden administration wanted to talk about anything during the runup to the election other than hostile nuclear armed Russian forces in your face present a couple of hundred miles off the U.S. coast. But Trump will love having the issue especially since Biden will look like a deer in the headlights. Putin's inner circle are all high fiving themselves right now, yelling ...who'se your daddy now, Biden?.....
In the current century, the foreign policy style of the US is escalate, and if the desired result is not obtained, double down. The Blinken-Sullivan generation adds to this the occasional headfake - e.g. make a conciliatory verbal gesture, talking in a non-specific non-actionable way about the need for dialogue during a diplomatic visit. And then have another department (e.g. Commerce) do another provocative poke (e.g. sanctions on allies to stop some key firm trading with China) immediately when getting off the plane coming home. At no point is there any substantive quid pro quo by the US with the its principal interlocutors (ie China and Russia, occasionally Iran). So in other words, one shouldn't waste too much time holding out hope for the US to seek a compromise of any kind. When the US has exhausted its options and sacrificed all of its allies, it will stop. This is widely understood now.
The wave of "right wing" (really: populist, anti-globalist) electoral shifts across Europe is in large part an anti-war sentiment. Not because the public are pacifists but because they see this war as just not in their interests, dangerous, and part of the constant deflection away from issues ordinary non-elite Europeans care about.
Nobody will ask the people what they want, nor does anyone of influence and authority care.
A man named "Hermann Goering" offered a certain practical experience and insight into how this works.
Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship." I call it something else, to put it more clearly. What do fascism, socialism, communism, capitalism, and imperialism have in common? They all end in ismus, or else is and must. The Psychology of the Masses is the title of Gustave Le Bon's most famous book, published in Paris in 1895, or the well-known 1984 by G. Orwell. We have seen in three years of a pandemic how the masses are controlled, and if it's true, the WHO is just trying to beat those who refuse to get arrested. The EU elections in Germany alone have drawn an interesting map, the area of the former GDR blue and the used countries of the old FRG black - why? In the old FRG people have already forgotten after 3 years what 16 years of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have done with Chancellor Merkel, we do not need to talk about the current traffic light government. How many readers here know about the fact that Germany has a children's book author as Minister of Economics and a self-proclaimed international lawyer without qualification as Minister of Foreign Affairs, this can be continued indefinitely. We have a Federal Chancellor who is involved in financial scandals and a Finance Minister who also has problems with money - keyword Moomax bankruptcy. Politicians without professional qualifications and abandoned studies populate the political caste in Germany. Just the kind of people it takes for the Anglo-Americans to send Germany three times in a campaign to the East. Except this time, the U.S. and U.K. are going to be presented with a heavy bill. Presumably, mankind is going to experience a real world war this time,
With the rise of the Internet and independent commentary by people like Stephen Bryen the mass propaganda of war has largely been blunted. False flags such as 911 and October 7 still seem to be effective for stampeding nations into wars and genocides. But there are limits on how many of these staged Terror Spectacles can be produced.
I dunno, the rulers seem pretty able to control the narrative from here.
Take COVID. Or Nordstream, ferinstance. The United States commits an act of war on Germany and nobody so much as raises a peep. Scholz scurries off to Washington to show what a loyal little muppet we are and the german chattering classes mumble something about how bad slaves deserve their beatings.
Finster, you seem oblivious to the fact that there has been a decisive turn over the question of COVID Origins. Fauci himself now claims to be agnostic on the question.
Nordstrom is a little pertinence to Americans at least. Scholz and his coalition are simply traitors. However the sad fact is that Greenie ideology is so pervasive in Germany that destruction of fossil fuel infrastructure is actually welcome many quarters.
You are missing the point. In both cases, what the rulers wanted, the rulers got.
From the movie "Hell or High Water": "3 Tours in Iraq but no bailout for people like us."
The constant narrative "right," "right," etc., is a mockery of language. Which we can see very clearly in Germany. Sometimes I wonder when the "grannies against right" forbid turning right or going to the right, and maybe they're trying to ban the word "right" from the Duden. If we were to replace right for extremism, all the crowds of right hysterics when they stand in front of the mirror would be always on the right, what would that mean, we destroy all mirrors? I take a pragmatic view of the whole thing. Particularly here in eastern Germany, people in large parts have their heads not only cut to their hair. The GDR education system has fallen on the toes of the GDR state, and now it is turning against the warmongers, that gives me hope. The right has nothing to do with populism here, but with independent thinking and questioning. Of course, this does not suit the media or politics, particularly here in Germany, so there are fact checkers and corrective who do not shy away from lies. Indeed, even politicians like Anton Hofreiter of the Green Party recently reheated the old lie that the RF had invaded Georgia. Unfortunately for him, a retired Colonel W. Judge of the German Armed Forces who admitted to having been there at the time, publicly convicted him of the lie by making it clear that Georgia started the war. Talk show that Putin is running out of money, you can only shake your head. But it is such people who are sending Europe, not just Germany, to war.
You are quite right, "independent thought" is a more accurate term than "populist".
Feral is right that there is nothing accidental about the constant doubling down and window-shifting by NATO. It's not just a fantasy of Russian capitulation that's driving this. Unfortunately it's a win-win calculus for the Atlanticist elites. If Russia backs down (unlikely), they win. If the war continues, they win: further demonise Russia, they crush dissent, label all opponents as pro Russia, centralise power, divert money and debt into weapons and the national security state.
Gilgamesh, I think you’re correct it is their game, they have the ability to define the rules and outcome. They will lose and declare victory.
More like they're just on autopilot, and US doubling down on strategy of provocation is the only move that is acceptable to everyone with veto power on the committee in any given year. There are many cases where a more thoughtful strategy would have yielded results, e.g. Obama's Iran deal. Instead, the principal rival of the US, China now has the majority of the world on its side. Washington brain trust FTW
The war will spill into Europe. This is baked in the cake.
NATO has already thrown so much material and diplomatic support at Ukraine that it cannot allow Ukraine to lose. This means that France, Poland, etc, will have to organize a "coalition of the willing" to rescue the regime there. At the same time, NATO cannot allow the forces of any such coalition to be left out to dry, nor can NATO allow attacks on NATO territory, regardless whether such territory is used to attack Russia.
This abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy is entirely intentional, and Russian dithering and indecision only makes NATO more aggressive.
Who is going to do the fighting?
Revisit the Goering quote.
Perhaps, Germany and Russia will need to split Poland in half again...
"Russia's end-game strategy is murky." Yes and no. From Day One, Russia explicitly laid out its end-game for Ukraine: de-Nazification and de-militarization. So yes, we do know what the end-game is from Russia's perspective. What we don't know is what exactly Ukraine will look like once Russia achieves that, assuming they can. It's quite possible the Russians don't know themselves, which is understandable because there's many ways this could play out. But what is certain is that the longer the war goes on, the greater will be the territory that Ukraine loses to Russia. And whatever rump of Ukraine remains, if any, it will not pose a threat to Russia.
This is just an opinion, but unless Ukraine comes to its senses and agrees to peace on Russia's terms above, then it's likely that Russia will take most of Ukraine. It has to in order to nullify Ukraine's military threat to Russian territory. This means everything east of the Dnieper, as well as Zaphorizhia, Kherson, Nikolyev and Odessa. Perhaps Kiev too.
F-16's: if F-16's take-off from NATO soil and launch attacks on Russian soil, that is a casus belli. Russia would have every right to strike back at those countries that hosted the F-16's, and Russia has promised to do so. And that could mean a massive escalation to all-out conventional war, at least. It's hard to believe that NATO would be so stupid to go down that path. A grey area would be if the F-16's launched from a NATO country, but only attacked Russian forces in Ukraine. Russia is unlikely to accept that, either. Short story, if the F-16's launch from NATO soil and engage in hostilities with Russia, then Russia will target them wherever it can, including in NATO countries.
NATO use of Romanian airports for F16s... leading to Russian attack of the bases, will then create an EXISTENTIAL Risk to NATO: NATO is useless to the Vassal States if the rest of NATO does not defend a member who is attacked.
What is the reality though, given European NATO members are paper tigers, is whether the US wants to see its own territory attacked by Russia, if the US as part of NATO attacks Russia directly pursuant to an invocation of Article 5 (regardless of the use of the Article 5 pretext is actually valid, given Romania would have been the aggressor allowing F16s to start missions from its bases).
"Existential risk to NATO": There are nuances to that. First, it will be up to NATO to determine if the attack represents an existential risk that warrants invoking Article 5. Given that doing so would bring, at a minimum, an all-out conventional war with Russia, NATO might not take that step.
Article 5 is the cornerstone of NATO's Charter, but it's a bit more fluid than it first appears. An attacked NATO country can't invoke Article 5 for all of NATO by itself. It has to be a collective decision. And even if Article 5 is collectively invoked, it doesn't commit NATO to any specific type of assistance to the attacked country. Yes, it could mean a full on military response, but it could also mean a nice sympathy card and flowers.
If Russia only (conventionally) attacks a NATO airport that F-16's fly from, it wouldn't be an existential risk to that country. It would be a symbolic blow to its sovereignty of course, but it's not like an invasion. So NATO could stay its hand, as I believe it probably would. The alternative would be a massive, possibly world-ending escalation. Is it worth it for a clapped out F-16 and slap in the face to Romania or wherever. No way.
You interpret "Existential Risk" to NATO less literally (or at least differently) than I do.
I am referring to the existence of NATO as an organization, not the existence of the countries that are members of the organization.
All NATO countries, other than the USA are LOOKING FOR THE US TO DEFEND THEM.
The US uses NATO as a way to bind their vassals to them, sell them weapons, have a benign (appearing) reason to "occupy them" and control their policies.
Without the US promising to defend other NATO members, there is little to no reason to yield much of non-US NATO nations' sovereignty to the USA except via direct threat of sanctions (and for Canada, with 80% of its trade with the US, potential sanction threats are permanently built in).
Therefore, if the US fails to respond to a supposed Article 5 invocation, it demonstrates that there is no longer the guarantee that is the main basis for NATO membership for all members ex- the US itself.
IOW, basing F16s in a NATO nation and flying missions against Russia poses an Existential Threat to the continuing existence of the NATO alliance (and at the same time may not pose a truly EXISTENTIAL threat to any NATO country, with the possible exception of the country that allows the F16s to fly missions from its airports.
I'd guess that, other than Ukraine and Romania, no NATO nation would be in favor of a nuclear WW3 starting as an acceptable price to pay for defending Romania, if Russia attacks them over hosting F16s... and that would be the path MORE likely to be traveled if/when this happens.
My analysis indicates that the WW3 probability estimate I mentioned in my first comment would be significantly higher than it is now, should Russia attack Romania after they foolishly allowed Ukrainian F16s to use Romanian bases (runways, hangers, maintenance facilities) and airspace.
Obviously, I view this as an outcome to be avoided.
Yes we're using the term 'existential' somewhat differently. I'm using it the way a unbiased historian might use it, to describe an objective threat that could easily mean the destruction of a state, its government and many of its people. (This kind of threat is what triggers the use of nuclear weapons by Russia under their strategic doctrine.) I'm not using it as a frightened little NATO country might use it to persuade its allies to come to its aid after a missile strikes the military base the country used to attack Russia. And I'm not using it subjectively, as perhaps you are about NATO falling apart should it fail to declare war after that country asks for help. Should problems arise in the NATO alliance, there are many things they could do to keep it together. It would be all politics at that point.
Keep in mind that NATO's Article 5 doesn't require NATO to declare war against an attacker, should one of NATO's members be attacked. In fact it doesn't spell out what the response must be in any way. It simply says that an attack against one member state will be considered an attack on them all, and they will take the steps necessary to preserve the security of the alliance.
In that context, consider the possibility of Russia attacking F-16's on the ground in, say, Romania. Yes, that's a slap at Romania's sovereignty, and yes that could certainly justify NATO invoking Article 5. If NATO actually wanted to declare war on Russia, then off we'd go. However NATO most definitely doesn't want to declare war on Russia. And given that there's no ongoing threat to Romania, assuming that the Russian missiles do their job in this scenario, why would NATO put the existence of its alliance at stake over Article 5? Instead, NATO would condemn Russia, make a great show of supporting Romania, sending them troops, etc without going the Article 5 route, justifying that decision because there's no ongoing existential threat to Romania. That way NATO doesn't have to go to war with Russia and can preserve its alliance.
In my opinion, NATO's existence isn't black and white over Article 5. Whether or not to invoke Article 5 would be a political decision, not an existential one.
No, there's no rule that says NATO will shield a member state from doing something suicidal.
Fucking Christ
Please do not use inappropriate language.
I agree...and Russia does not play with red lines. They act according to the interests over time. History is a movie...not a collection of photos that frrrze tome. Yhe RiMoD figures show UAF losses over a THOUSAND daily and 2 THOUSAND on really bad days. Strategic patience wins the game...not Hollywood tit for tat shootouts.
Strategic patience... good expression. If Russia wasn't fighting the entire Collective West, and if the ultimate stakes weren't so high, (a new world order) it could probably go harder and faster in Ukraine. But Russia is fighting the US/EU/G7/NATO/AUKUS. That is a formidable opponent, to say the least, especially given that the opponent is more than willing to fight dirty. So a relatively slow, methodical approach that doesn't leave many openings for the enemy to counter-attack is a good strategy.
De-nazification wasn't realistic. De-militarization, in a grim sort of way, is. The territory is largely irrelevant.
"NATO is already perilously close to turning itself into an aggressor alliance"
LOL, are you serious? Have you missed the last 25 years?
Indeed.
NATO has long been simply the enforcement arm of American neoimperialism.
(And a gravy train for Big Offense aka MIC.)
Who would step in, if let's say Romania and Poland get nuked?
Would NATO step in? Can you imagine someone in the UK or Germany fight for Poland or Romania?
I don't want to be racist here, but in a poll a few years ago, only 16% of German men said they would die for their own country. Who on earth will die for Poland or Romania?
"The Crimea attacks have no actual military purpose because Ukraine lacks the ground force needed to fight a battle there. The idea is to humiliate the Russians, but the likely result may be the reverse. As the pressure is stepped up one can anticipate that Russia will respond and use brutal force, either attacking Kharkiv, Odesa or Kiev (or some or all of the above). Russia has more long range rockets than NATO can supply and Kiev does not have enough surviving air defenses to protect its cities from devastation."
Keep in mind that, from the NATO perspective, increased Russian attacks are a win. That Ukrainians die, freeze, or starve is of no concern to them, any more than a Blinken or a van der Leyden cares about the feelings of the chickens that go into Chicken McNuggets.
“That Ukrainians die, freeze, or starve is of no concern to them, any more than a Blinken or a van der Leyden cares about the feelings of the chickens that go into Chicken McNuggets.”
God, that’s dark. But not wrong, particularly if you invest eating chicken nuggets with missionary zeal.
What i try to do is to describe observable reality. Dark has nothing to do with it.
Stephen, let's be honest. Biden is merely the poster Boy, the public face of the White House. Biden is in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's. My mother went out with Alzheimer's and Biden exhibits the same symptoms. All journalists should ascribe white house policy decisions to President Blinken/Sullivan. President Blinken/Sullivan's approval ratings are so low that it is a clear and present danger to humanity. Who knows what they will do in desperation to avoid defeat prior to the Nov elections. Zelensky has every incentive to drag the U.S. into a direct, boots on the ground, war against Putin. He avoids a coup that could end his life.
More like Obama's third term
Going to repeat it again ever since the war started. Russia can't lose this war, it's of national security. Even the biggest Russia hater must realize you cannot expand to their borders and place weapons aimed at Russian cities. On the other hand we have narcists who will never admit defeat. You can not reason with narcists, they are stuck in their own fantasy world. They rather burn it all down than ever admiting their mistakes or accept defeat. That's why on day 3 of the war I gave it a 70% chance in ending in a nuclear war. Yes people might look at you as if you're an idiot, but I stick with my prediction. Now I would say we are already over the 70% chance.
There's no way out. Most understand function creep, now we have, again, war creep. Everyone is taking baby steps towards preperations for war, which eventually will end in a war. With no one talking there won't be a peaceful solution. You just cannot talk with narcists.
And it's sad to say NATO fanboys everythime they hit a bridge or destroy AD systems. Russia did answer those escalations. They took out the entire power grid. Just saying...
Your last paragraph says it all. What idiot thinks there is popular support anywhere in the west for war?
It is possible that at the heart of the problem lies the culture and psychology if hegemony. Which is like the bicycle : if it stops moving forward, it falls. Despite being false (the Roman empire fell 5 centuries after it stopped growing in the West, 10 in the East, for instance) this opinion seems prevalent in Western leadership circles. Practically, despite repeated Russian warnings, NATO kept expanding during past 2 decades, peace offers were and are systematically rejected or used in bad faith as pause to build up the next round of conflict. And invariably the argument is that any agreement is a defeat because it means renouncing the freedom of the West to do what it wants without consideration for anyone else's interest. If that "freedom" is not hegemony, one wonders what it is... Now the situation gets even more difficult because Western leaders have invested so much political, economical and military capital, that anything short of an Ukrainian victory will indeed be a defeat. But prolonging the war through escalation obviously means going towards either a bigger and more painful defeat latter or a potentially apocalyptic war against Russia. Were are the wisemen ?
Excellent points. But I hope everyone here is wrong and we get to a settlement soon!
"NATO is already perilously close to turning itself into an aggressor alliance".
It's been an aggressive alliance for a long time already -- Attacks on Serbia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan.
When US politicians are saying they can't loose trillions of dollars of minerals in Ukraine, but then go to sleep in their villas on the opposite side of Ukraine, as they gave instructions to those US puppets of EU Leaders to do the dirty job, you understand who's the enemy here and what is the real plan.
Same plan as in 1930s and '40s, do those hated corrupted europeans face the worst scenario and then arrive with trumpets and horses as the "liberators", as the heroes that save those servants of US Empire or simply of the Evil Empire. We do not forget that movie of 1944/45. Remember Americans, we will not forget!
Once again the only plan that US is capable of is organizing, finance and make the wars away from their country and who cares of millions of civilian deaths when we nazi American can live safe at home and, as CIA head wrote, make billions of dollars out of it.
The World has a big problem and that problem is only USA. The sooner you realize it the better!
I've been convinced Biden did all this for what he thought would be a boost politically. Republicans were like trained seals clapping him on. They still are. I am blown away that the Democrats have become the war party. It looks inevitable that a clash is coming and soon. Perhaps the West needs a good scare to come to its senses.