Walt, Mearsheimer and the 'realists' of the Quincy Institute represent my best hope for America, the (relatively) declining American empire, and the world.
But as I suggested in another comment, reality is under severe threat right now.
I have to wonder if part of message Burns delivered was to tell Zelensky to knock off the public infighting. At least appear unified, instead of internal factions slugging it out publicly. It could easily unravel public unity in Ukraine, which is already a fragile society at this point.
"NATO expansion is running its full course, changing NATO into an offensive, not a defensive, alliance. It was never intended thus." Professor Sean Gervasi, in 1996, attended a Conference on the Enlargement of NATO in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean and presented a paper he had written on NATO expansion and how its intervention in Yugoslavia was the transformation of NATO into an expansionist, offensive alliance. He saw the EU economic policies as part of this; he stated why all of this was a bad idea, why it would probably happen anyway & the outcome. He foresaw conflict with Russia, Albania/Kosovo, even Nagorno-Karabakh amongst other outcomes. I re-read it about a week ago and it is frighteningly prophetic.
If the USA and EU big wig politicians were willing to push a lethal/ destructive vac on their population and push an economic mindset of mandated closed shops and ruined retirements they have little problem with pushing a massive war to remove Russia by any method possible. The deep unelected admin State managers thru out the western world are so inclined to destroy Russia for globalism...aka the China model of control....they will have no problem creating a false flag to put NATO troops and bases on the Russian border....and force Russia to think twice about what they are to do....The goal by these globalist politicians and military members is for Russia to bow and surrender their independence and nationalism....totally crazy are warmongering folks all.
Another excellent article by someone who understands what is going on in this conflict. I like the point about the more Ukraine scores a high profile but otherwise minor damage to Russian territory, the more Russians are convinced that the issue has to be settled for good.
Russia is in control of the tempo in Ukraine. They have no intention of following Biden's time table by waiting for Biden to be re-elected. He won't be nominated again anyway.
If Zelensky does implement the night of the long knives as you suggest, Russia will take the opportunity to cross the Dnieper in force and compel an end to the whole struggle. Putting in NATO forces of a meaningful size means conscription to go fight. And that is just not going to happen. Not in Europe and definitely not in America.
1943??!!??? Germany lost a half million troops defending the river before The Soviet Union eventually crossed. Half a million troops Germany couldn't afford to lose. It was the Soviet Union that crossed the river. Not, not, not Russia.
Anyway, the Soviet Union ended up with all of Ukraine, all of Poland and half of Germany. (plus assorted other contries) It worked out to be a successful campaign for them and a massive defeat for Germany. I'm not sure why you point to it as a bad omen.
I'm even more unsure why you and others want Russia to fight your notion of what a war should be. NATO is fighting an offensive war with equipment designed to implement it and losing on the terms that they have laid out. Russia is fighting a defensive war with equipment designed to implement it and winning on the terms that they have laid out. Russia has no intention of changing its currently successful doctrine.
Russia will cross the river when NATO is unwilling and Ukraine is incapable of deterring them. It looks like those conditions are coming soon. Russia will keep rolling as far as they wish. Unless someone asks them nicely not to do that. More and more of NATO's leadership is suggesting that asking Russia nicely not to do that is a good idea. But not Amerca. Yet.
The only issue is...willl America commit to a ground war in Eastern Europe and bring in the conscription needed to field the necessary force. Wait until you try and draft all those Black Lives Matter people and send them off to die in a white man's war in frozen Eastern Europe! Wait until you try and draft all those trans influencers and tell them .....you're in the army now, buddy, here's your rifle, the enemy is over there, start moving......
Going a bit further back, there was a peace deal - or rather a truce - negotiated at Andrusovo in 1667 after an earlier war from 1654 between Russia and The West (the Russian or Muscovite empire, of which the USSR was the C20th continuation).
It gave Russia the left bank of the Dnieper and 'The West' the right bank.
Yes, after Stalingrad, Russia pushed back across the Dnieper and ended up in Berlin.
My point was that they didn't get so far last year, and I see that as significant.
I don't see any move in the Baltic theatre this time either, despite all the Western paranoia.
Call me old-fasiioned, but I see 1654-67 as a better model now than 1941-5.
PS: I'll leave the Zaporozhian Cossacks, Azov, the links between Peter the Great's Baltic and Pontic expansion, and the Ottomans out of the equation for now.
History is quite long and rather complicated, but there are some basic symmetries and cycles.
The bust of Putin's hero Peter in his Kremlin office seems to me more about the contraction of the Empire after the high point in 1945, toward the situation before the C18th, rather than a model for renewed expansion after 1991.
This was predictable early on. And several did so. I knew it. John Meirshimer knew it.
Walt, Mearsheimer and the 'realists' of the Quincy Institute represent my best hope for America, the (relatively) declining American empire, and the world.
But as I suggested in another comment, reality is under severe threat right now.
Many thanks again for telling it like it is.
The gap between reality and official PR gets more and more surreal.
I have to wonder if part of message Burns delivered was to tell Zelensky to knock off the public infighting. At least appear unified, instead of internal factions slugging it out publicly. It could easily unravel public unity in Ukraine, which is already a fragile society at this point.
"NATO expansion is running its full course, changing NATO into an offensive, not a defensive, alliance. It was never intended thus." Professor Sean Gervasi, in 1996, attended a Conference on the Enlargement of NATO in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean and presented a paper he had written on NATO expansion and how its intervention in Yugoslavia was the transformation of NATO into an expansionist, offensive alliance. He saw the EU economic policies as part of this; he stated why all of this was a bad idea, why it would probably happen anyway & the outcome. He foresaw conflict with Russia, Albania/Kosovo, even Nagorno-Karabakh amongst other outcomes. I re-read it about a week ago and it is frighteningly prophetic.
If the USA and EU big wig politicians were willing to push a lethal/ destructive vac on their population and push an economic mindset of mandated closed shops and ruined retirements they have little problem with pushing a massive war to remove Russia by any method possible. The deep unelected admin State managers thru out the western world are so inclined to destroy Russia for globalism...aka the China model of control....they will have no problem creating a false flag to put NATO troops and bases on the Russian border....and force Russia to think twice about what they are to do....The goal by these globalist politicians and military members is for Russia to bow and surrender their independence and nationalism....totally crazy are warmongering folks all.
When did Ukraine send bombers to strike Russian airfields? Not just bombers, but nuclear bombers.
Ukraine didn't send bombers, I think they used drones to attack a russian airfield with parked nuclear bombers
correct, it was a drone attack
see https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk-says-supersonic-russian-bomber-likely-have-been-destroyed-drone-attack-2023-08-22/
Right. The author did write that "nuclear bombers" were used.
Another excellent article by someone who understands what is going on in this conflict. I like the point about the more Ukraine scores a high profile but otherwise minor damage to Russian territory, the more Russians are convinced that the issue has to be settled for good.
Russia is in control of the tempo in Ukraine. They have no intention of following Biden's time table by waiting for Biden to be re-elected. He won't be nominated again anyway.
If Zelensky does implement the night of the long knives as you suggest, Russia will take the opportunity to cross the Dnieper in force and compel an end to the whole struggle. Putting in NATO forces of a meaningful size means conscription to go fight. And that is just not going to happen. Not in Europe and definitely not in America.
Russia crossed the Dnieper in 1943 and 2022.
I don't think they'll be crossing again any time soon.
don't be so sure
Can't claim Odessa, the rest of Kherson, Nicolaev Russia has to claim the river. Ukraine won't need it.
Martin
1943??!!??? Germany lost a half million troops defending the river before The Soviet Union eventually crossed. Half a million troops Germany couldn't afford to lose. It was the Soviet Union that crossed the river. Not, not, not Russia.
Anyway, the Soviet Union ended up with all of Ukraine, all of Poland and half of Germany. (plus assorted other contries) It worked out to be a successful campaign for them and a massive defeat for Germany. I'm not sure why you point to it as a bad omen.
I'm even more unsure why you and others want Russia to fight your notion of what a war should be. NATO is fighting an offensive war with equipment designed to implement it and losing on the terms that they have laid out. Russia is fighting a defensive war with equipment designed to implement it and winning on the terms that they have laid out. Russia has no intention of changing its currently successful doctrine.
Russia will cross the river when NATO is unwilling and Ukraine is incapable of deterring them. It looks like those conditions are coming soon. Russia will keep rolling as far as they wish. Unless someone asks them nicely not to do that. More and more of NATO's leadership is suggesting that asking Russia nicely not to do that is a good idea. But not Amerca. Yet.
The only issue is...willl America commit to a ground war in Eastern Europe and bring in the conscription needed to field the necessary force. Wait until you try and draft all those Black Lives Matter people and send them off to die in a white man's war in frozen Eastern Europe! Wait until you try and draft all those trans influencers and tell them .....you're in the army now, buddy, here's your rifle, the enemy is over there, start moving......
Going a bit further back, there was a peace deal - or rather a truce - negotiated at Andrusovo in 1667 after an earlier war from 1654 between Russia and The West (the Russian or Muscovite empire, of which the USSR was the C20th continuation).
It gave Russia the left bank of the Dnieper and 'The West' the right bank.
Yes, after Stalingrad, Russia pushed back across the Dnieper and ended up in Berlin.
My point was that they didn't get so far last year, and I see that as significant.
I don't see any move in the Baltic theatre this time either, despite all the Western paranoia.
Call me old-fasiioned, but I see 1654-67 as a better model now than 1941-5.
PS: I'll leave the Zaporozhian Cossacks, Azov, the links between Peter the Great's Baltic and Pontic expansion, and the Ottomans out of the equation for now.
History is quite long and rather complicated, but there are some basic symmetries and cycles.
The bust of Putin's hero Peter in his Kremlin office seems to me more about the contraction of the Empire after the high point in 1945, toward the situation before the C18th, rather than a model for renewed expansion after 1991.