As its Ukrainian proxy faces defeat, the US-led bloc is becoming increasingly reckless. Where will this hubris lead us?
By Igor Istomin, acting head of the Department of Applied Analysis of International Problems at MGIMO University.
The possibility of a trans-European war is closer today than at any time since the mid-20th century. Western analysts discuss various scenarios of a possible conflict, while officials openly speculate about its likelihood and even discuss specific time horizons.
In a recent speech, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that the actions of Western governments had brought the world “to the point of no return.” At the same time, domestic debate in Russia is dominated by the belief that the US and its allies recognize the catastrophic risks of a direct military confrontation with Moscow and will seek to avoid it for reasons of self-preservation.
Such judgments are based on the assumption that the West, despite its aggressiveness and arrogance, is guided in its policies by a rational balance of benefits and costs based on the existing balance of power. Past experience, however, does not convince us that the US-led bloc is capable of pursuing a balanced, calculated course.
A recent admission by US President Joe Biden is telling: “If we ever let Ukraine fail, mark my words, you will see Poland go, and you will see all these countries along Russia’s actual border negotiate on their own.” Thus, the good old ‘domino theory’ is back in the minds of Western strategists.
[…]
The growing adventurism is clearly visible in the debate over the deployment of Western troops in Ukraine. Moreover, not only hysterical Western European leaders, but also seemingly more responsible American generals have begun to speak out on the issue. For example, the head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Charles Brown, has concluded that the deployment of NATO troops to the country is inevitable.
[…]
NATO members are openly practising combat scenarios in potential theatres in Eastern and Northern Europe. Much emphasis is being placed on learning lessons from the armed struggle in Ukraine. To this end, a special center is being set up in Bydgoszcz, Poland, to ensure a regular exchange of experience between Western and Ukrainian military personnel.
The weak link in the Western effort has long been the limited capabilities of its military industry. Nevertheless, NATO members are paying increasing attention to overcoming this problem. **It would be foolhardy to expect that they will not be able to increase production over time, including by increasing Western European firms’ links with the US military-industrial complex. **
(Full article at the link)
It seems to me the west is salami slicing their way towards an open conflict with Russia with NATO boots on the ground. This can only end in disaster and possibly full nuclear war. Time is not a friend for Russia here. The west has been caught without proper production but they’re not going to sit on their hands and continue to fail to fix that forever, they’re doing so more slowly than Russia obviously and sure some of the more high tech stuff they’ll never be able to churn out like Russia/China but they don’t need that stuff to fight and win a war. So the longer this goes on the more the west is able to get production into play that gets them closer to being able to either better supply their Ukrainian fodder to inflict damages on Russia and/or to be confident they have enough to enter the conflict directly as NATO troops and to challenge Russia, most likely by setting up defensive lines and waiting for Russia to hit them first, trying to force a Korea DMZ situation that still allows the US to station nukes near Russia and to build up massive armies and arms.
According to the Russians, Ukraine is preparing for another big counter offensive near Kharkhov and Zhaporozhia in July/August. This time with Western troops on the ground, in support roles (mostly running medical aid, AA and electronic warfare) and with significant amount of weapon systems and supplies being shipped from the West.
I foresee that this is going to be the last effort if it fails.
This will likely be the most dangerous phase of the war because when this effort fails, the west will be forced to accept defeat. How far the west will go is an open question.
Of course, Russia fears a NATO attack. They’re sane people, unlike the goose-stepping demagogues of the west who think they’re the ubermensch, the “garden” with divine mandate to rule the world. (arguably NATO is already attacking, but the Russians sensibly fear- but will bravely face any escalation necessary).
The west has been caught without proper production but they’re not going to sit on their hands and continue to fail to fix that forever, they’re doing so more slowly than Russia obviously and sure some of the more high tech stuff they’ll never be able to churn out like Russia/China but they don’t need that stuff to fight and win a war
I have to disagree (with caveats) on the first point, and fully on the second.
They can’t ever fix their production, not in ways comparable to China or Russia, without abandoning the neoliberal policies that led to their de-industrialization, and rooting out the corruption and inefficiencies within their for-profit MIC systems- and also, without all the various US vassals largely abandoning their own for-profit MIC systems, in favor of at least an even more extensive (and inevitably, even more American) NATO standardization system. Neither of these issues are going to be easily accepted- and even if the political will existed, neither of these issues will be easy to overcome.
As for the second point- no, they aren’t going to win. They don’t have the ability to “fight and win a war” with Russia/China, and if they try, all they will be doing is invoking MAD at worst- this has not changed, and is not at all likely to change in the future (if anything, hopefully the opposite as time goes on). The idea they could “win” is a delusion, even within Ukraine, fact of the matter is that before things ever get to that point (which is not the direction things are headed at all) things will go nuclear.
Perhaps the range of responses could also include the shooting down of drones carrying out reconnaissance for Ukraine over the Black Sea. This would also allow for a total ban on their flights in the adjacent waters. Russian deterrence could also be complemented by maneuvers in the Baltic, Mediterranean or North Atlantic with other states that are considered to be Western adversaries.
The expectations from use of deterrence should be weighed against historical experience, which shows that the response to such actions is more often to harden the adversary than to encourage them to make concessions. In particular, this calls into question the validity of sometimes heard suggestions of nuclear strikes for demonstration purposes. Such actions are more likely to have the opposite effect to that envisaged by their authors, i.e. to bring direct military confrontation with NATO closer rather than further away.
I don’t think it is possible to enforce deterrence against an enemy who actively wishes for war. Unless Russia can somehow convince NATO that a war with Russia will be a guaranteed defeat, there isn’t much that can be done. Even the threat of MAD does not faze the western leadership, as a significant portion of the western populations and leaderships prefer ruling a kingdom of ashes to being equals in a prosperous world.
The type of deterrence which shows that winning against Russia is more difficult than anticipated might however work. But this comes with a risk. Either the deterrence demonstrated is strong enough to sober up the western leaders, or it is too weak and ends up being seen as provocation.
Even the threat of MAD does not faze the western leadership, as a significant portion of the western populations and leaderships prefer ruling a kingdom of ashes to being equals in a prosperous world.
From what I’ve seen, neither are libs fazed by MAD. People I’ve spoken to IRL seem to be in agreement that NATO should’ve already invaded/nuked Russia. One of them point blank admitted it’s worth it to have a nuclear war if it means destroying Russia. And these libs haven’t even been scratched yet. Reddit clowns
Western leaders think Russia is bluffing on nuclear war because Putin consistently chooses de-escalation over provocation.
Many western citizens also think it’s impossible that any country will start nuclear war, because it would mean the end of humanity (right guys?). Therefore their governments are justified in aggravating the bad evil Russian Empire and protecting the poor little innocent Nazis in Ukraine.
Then there’s all the idiots trying to play up being Ukraine’s patrons, like Sean Penn, who say we shouldn’t let nuclear war hold us hostage to Putin.
These people are such lunatics, that the Doomsday Clock now is at 90 seconds before midnight.
Scary stuff. So NATO really will intervene sooner rather than later. I just don’t think Russia will accept a frozen conflict, which means things will get worse real fast.
Lmao I still can’t access RT due to sanctions
One of the reasons I provide archive links still (I hope those work for you).
