ALERT RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE - Consolidated Thread

[Red Baron]

1:45

First Confirmed Loss of the S-400 SAM System

View: https://youtu.be/kXZw8T21RKk

 

[WTSR]

Lindsey Graham Calls for Tanks for Ukraine: ‘World Order Is at Stake’​

Sen. Lindsey Grahm (R-SC) in Ukraine on Friday called for more military aid to Ukraine, charging that the “world order is at stake.”

Graham said, “We will continue to ask the American people and the congress to send aid to Ukraine, economic aid and military aid to accomplish the objective of driving the Russian invader out of Ukraine.”

Sens. Graham, Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) met with U.S. officials and Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelensky.


“To achieve that goal, the Ukrainian military needs tanks. I am tired of the s*** show surrounding who is going to send tanks and when are they going to send them. Putin is trying to rewrite the map of Europe by force of arms. World order is at stake,” the South Carolina senator said.

“To the Germans: Send tanks to Ukraine because they need them. It is in your own national interest that Putin loses in Ukraine. To the Biden Administration: Send American tanks so that others will follow our lead,” he said.
“If Putin gets away with this, there goes Taiwan. If Putin’s successful in Ukraine and isn’t prosecuted under international law, everything we’ve said since WWII becomes a joke. He will continue beyond Ukraine,” Graham continued:

The bipartisan group of senators called for:

• Designating the Russian paramilitary organization the Wagner Group as a foreign terrorist organization under U.S. law
• Designating Russia a state sponsor of terrorism
• Assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC) to bring war crimes charges against Russians who have allegedly committed war crimes
• Continued military and economic aid to Ukraine

Blumenthal said today the conflict is in Ukraine but “tomorrow it will be us if we do not stop [Vladimir] Putin now.”
“We should not send American troops to Ukraine, but we should provide Ukraine with whatever we would give our troops if they were fighting on the ground,” the Connecticut senator said.

Breitbart News’s Kristina Wong reported that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the U.S. will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes” after the Biden administration just announced another multibillion-dollar aid package to the country. This brings military assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of 2021 to $27.5 billion.

The U.S. has provided more than $100 billion since the conflict began.

Meanwhile, defense contractors have been raking in millions of dollars as the Biden administration continues its endless support for Ukraine.

Lindsey Graham Calls for Tanks for Ukraine: 'World Order Is at Stake'

Sen. Lindsey Grahm (R-SC) in Ukraine on Friday called for more military aid to Ukraine, charging that the "world order is at stake."

www.breitbart.com

You did notice where they were when they said this, right? Ukraine.

What a minute, the WORLD ORDER is NOW AT STAKE?

Everyone has been telling me this whole thing is about BAD RUSSIA attacking LITTLE INNOCENT UKRAINE!

How suddenly did this become a WORLD WAR?

 

[mzkitty]

Very intense. You are warned:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-npE2MkVmt4

 

[Tom McDowell]

Russo-Ukrainian War: The World Blood Pump​

Gradually, and then Suddenly​

Big Serge

20 hr ago




Iron, Ash, and Blood

Since Russia’s surprise decision to voluntarily withdraw from west bank Kherson in the first week of November, there has been little in the way of dramatic changes to the frontlines in Ukraine. In part, this reflects the predictable late autumn weather in Eastern Europe, which leaves battlefields waterlogged and clogged with mud and greatly inhibits mobility. For hundreds of years, November has been a bad month for attempting to move armies any sort of significant distance, and like clockwork we started to see videos of vehicles stuck in the mud in Ukraine.

The return of static positional warfare, however, also reflects the synergistic effect of increasing Ukrainian exhaustion along with a Russian commitment to patiently attriting and denuding Ukraine’s remaining combat capability. They have found an ideal place to achieve this in the Donbas.

It has gradually become apparent that Russia is committed to a positional attritional war, as this maximizes the asymmetry of their advantage in ranged fires. There is an ongoing degradation of Ukraine’s warmaking ability which is allowing Russia to patiently maintain the current tempo, while it organizes its newly mobilized forces for offensive action in the coming year, setting the stage for cascading and unsustainable Ukrainian losses.

In Ernest Hemingway’s novel, The Sun Also Rises, a formerly wealthy, now down on his luck character is asked how he went bankrupt. “Two ways”, he replies, “gradually and then suddenly.” Someday we may ask how Ukraine lost the war and receive much the same answer.

Verdun Redux​

​

It is safe to say that western regime media has set a very low standard for reporting on the war in Ukraine, given the extent to which the mainstream narrative is disconnected from reality. Even given these low standards, the way the ongoing battle in Bakhmut is being presented to the population is truly ludicrous. The Bakhmut axis is being spun to western audiences as a perfect synthesis of all the tropes of Russian failure: in a nutshell, Russia is suffering horrible casualties as it struggles to capture a small town with negligible operational importance. British officials, in particular, have been highly vocal in recent weeks insisting that Bakhmut has little to no operational value.

The truth is the literal opposite of this story: Bakhmut is an operationally critical keystone position in the Ukrainian defense, and Russia has transformed it into a death pit which compels the Ukrainians to sacrifice exorbitant numbers of men in order to hold the position as long as possible. In fact, the insistence that Bakhmut is not operationally significant is mildly insulting to the audience, both because a quick glance at a map clearly shows it at the heart of the regional road network, and because Ukraine has thrown a huge number of units into the front there.

Let’s take a step back and consider Bakhmut in the context of Ukraine’s overall position in the east. Ukraine began the war with four operable defensive lines in the Donbas, built up over the last 8 years both as part and parcel of the simmering war with the LNR and DNR, but also in preparation for potential war with Russia. These lines are structured around urban agglomerations with road and rail links between each other, and can be roughly enumerated as follows:


Ukraine Defensive Lines in the East (Map by me)

The Donbas is a particularly accommodating place to construct formidable defenses. It is highly urbanized and industrial (Donetsk was the most urban oblast in Ukraine prior to 2014, with over 90% of the population living in urban areas), with cities and towns dominated by the typically robust Soviet buildings, along with prolific industrial complexes. Ukraine has spent much of the last decade improving these positions, and the frontline settlements are riddled with trenches and firing positions that are clearly visible on satellite imagery. A recent video from the Avdiivka axis demonstrates the extent of Ukrainian fortifications.

So, let’s review the state of these defensive belts. The first belt, which ran roughly from Severodonetsk and Lysychansk to Popasna, was broken in the summer by Russian forces. Russia achieved a major breakthrough at Popasna and was able to begin the full rollup of this line, with Lysychansk falling at the beginning of July.

At this point, the frontline sits directly on what I have labeled as the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian defensive belts, and both of these belts are now heavily bleeding.

The capture of Soledar by Wagner forces has severed the connection between Bakhmut and Siversk, while around Donetsk, the heavily fortified suburb of Marinka has been almost completely cleared of Ukrainian troops, and the infamous keystone Ukrainian position in Avdiivka (the place from which they shell Donetsk city’s civilian population) is being flanked from both directions.


The frontline around Avdiivka (map courtesy of MilitaryLand)

These positions are absolutely critical for Ukraine to hold. The loss of Bakhmut will mean the collapse of the last defensive line standing in the way of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk, which means Ukraine’s eastern position will rapidly contract to its fourth (and weakest) defensive belt.

The Slavyansk agglomeration is a far worse position for Ukraine to defend than the other belts, for several reasons. First and foremost, as the belt farthest to the west (and thus the farthest from the February 2022 start lines), it is the least improved and least fortified of the belts. Secondly, lots of the, shall we just say “good stuff” around Slavyansk is to the east of the city, including both the dominating high ground and the major highways.

All this to say, Ukraine has been very anxious to hold the Bakhmut line, as this is a vastly preferable position to hold, and accordingly they have been pouring units into the sector. The absurd levels of Ukrainian force commitment in this area have been well noted, but just as a quick refresher, publicly available Ukrainian sources locate at least 34 brigade or equivalent units that have been deployed in the Bakhmut area. Many of these were deployed months ago and are already shattered, but over the full span of the ongoing battle this represents an astonishing commitment.


Ukrainian units around Bakhmut (Map courtesy of MilitaryLand)

Russian forces, primarily Wagner PMC and LNR units, have been slowly but surely collapsing this Ukrainian stronghold by making liberal use of artillery. In November, now former Zelensky advisor Oleksiy Arestovych admitted that Russian artillery on the Bakhmut axis enjoyed roughly a 9 to 1 tube advantage, which is turning Bakhmut into a death pit.

The battle is being presented in the west as one where Russians - usually stereotyped as convict soldiers employed by Wagner - launch frontal assaults on Ukrainian defenses and take horrible casualties attempting to overwhelm the defense with pure numbers. The opposite is much closer to the truth. Russia is moving slowly because it irons out Ukrainian defenses with artillery, then pushes forward cautiously into these pulverized defenses.

Ukraine, meanwhile, continues to funnel units in to more or less refill the trenches with fresh defenders. A Wall Street Journal piece about the battle, while trying to present a story of Russian incompetence, accidentally included an admission from a Ukrainian commander on the ground who said: “So far, the exchange rate of trading our lives for theirs favors the Russians. If this goes on like this, we could run out.”

The comparisons have been liberally made (and I cannot take credit for them) to one of the most infamous battles of World War One - the bloody catastrophe at Verdun. While it does not do to exaggerate the predictive value of military history (in the sense that a thorough knowledge of the first world war does not allow one to predict events in Ukraine), I am, however, a great fan of history as analogy, and the German scheme at Verdun is a useful analogy for what’s happening in Bakhmut.

The Battle of Verdun was conceived by the German high command as a way to cripple the French army by drawing them into a preconfigured meatgrinder. The notion was to attack and seize crucial defensive high ground - ground so important that France would be forced to counterattack and attempt to recapture it. The Germans hoped that France would commit their strategic reserves to this counterattack so that they could be destroyed. While Verdun failed to completely sap French combat power, it did become one of the most bloody battles in world history. A German coin commemorating the battle depicted a skeleton pumping blood out of the earth - a chilling but apt visual metaphor.


“The World Blood Pump” - commemorating the meatgrinder at Verdun

Something similar has indeed occurred in Bakhmut, in the sense that Russia is pressing on one of the most sensitive points on the front line, drawing Ukrainian units in to be killed. A few months ago, on the heels of Russia’s withdrawal from west bank Kherson, the Ukrainians talked ecstatically of continuing their offensive efforts with a strike southward in Zaparozhia to cut the land bridge to Crimea, along with continued efforts to break through into northern Lugansk. Instead, forces from both of these axes have been redirected to Bakhmut, to the point where this axis is actively draining Ukrainian combat strength in other areas. Ukrainian sources, previously full of optimism, now unequivocally agree that there will be no Ukrainian offensives in the near future. As we speak, Ukraine continues to funnel forces into the Bakhmut axis.

At the present moment, Ukraine’s position around Bakhmut has badly deteriorated, with Russian forces (largely Wagner infantry supported by Russian army artillery) making substantial progress on both of the city’s flanks. On the northern flank, the capture of Soledar pushed Russian lines to within spitting distance of the north-south highways, while the near simultaneous capture of Klishchiivka on the southern flank has propelled the frontlines to the dootstep of Chasiv Yar (firmly in Bakhmut’s operational rear).


The contact line around Bakhmut, Jauary 20, 2023 (Map by me)

The Ukrainians are not presently encircled, but the continued creep of Russian positions ever closer to the remaining highways is easily discernable. Currently, Russian forces have positions within two miles of all the remaining highways. Even more importantly, Russia now controls the high ground to both the north and south of Bakhmut (the city itself sits in a depression surrounded by hills) giving Russia fire control over much of the battle space.

I am currently anticipating that Russia will clear the Bakhmut-Siversk defensive line by late March. Meanwhile, the denuding of Ukrainian forces on other axes raises the prospect of decisive Russian offensives elsewhere.

At the moment, the front roughly consists of four main axes (the plural of axis, not the bladed implement), with substantial agglomerations of Ukrainian troops. These consist, from south to north, of the Zaporozhia, Donetsk, Bakhmut, and Svatove Axes (see map below). The effort to reinforce the Bakhmut sector has noticeably diluted Ukranian strength on these other sectors. On the Zaporozhia front, for example, there are potentially as few as five Ukrainian brigades on the line at the moment.

At the moment, the majority of Russian combat power is uncommitted, and both western and Ukrainian sources are (belatedly) becoming increasingly alarmed about the prospect for a Russian offensive in the coming weeks. Currently, the entire Ukrainian position in the east is vulnerable because it is, in effect, an enormous salient, vulnerable to attack from three directions.

Two operational depth objectives in particular have the potential to shatter Ukrainian logistics and sustainment. These are, respectively, Izyum in the north and Pavlograd in the South. A Russian thrust down the west bank of the Oskil river towards Izyum would simultaneously threaten to cut off and destroy the Ukrainian grouping on the Svatove axis (S on the map) and sever the vital M03 highway from Kharkov. Reaching Pavlograd, on the other hand, would completely isolate the Ukrainian forces around Donetsk and sever much of Ukraine’s transit across the Dneiper.


The Big Serge Plan (Map by me)

End Part 1
===
.

 

[Tom McDowell]

Part 2

Both Izyum and Pavlograd are roughly 70 miles from the start lines of a prospective Russian offensive, and thus offer a very tempting combination - being both operationally significant and in relatively manageable reach. Beginning yesterday, we started to see Russian advances on the Zaporozhia axis. While these consist, at the moment, mainly of reconnaissance in force pushing into the “grey zone” (that ambiguous interstitial frontage), RUMoD did claim several settlements taken, which could presage a genuine offensive push in this direction. The key tell would be a Russian assault on Orikhiv, which is a large town with a genuine Ukrainian garrison in it. A Russian attack here would indicate that something more than a probing attack is underway.

It is difficult sometimes to parse out the difference between what we predict will happen and what we want to happen. This, certainly, is what I would choose if I was in charge of Russian planning - a drive south along the west bank of the Oskil river on the Kupyansk-Izyum axis, and a simultanious attack northward past Zaporozhia towards Pavlograd. In this case, I believe simply screening Zaporozhia in the short term is preferable to getting bogged down in an urban battle there.

Whether Russia will actually attempt this, we do not know. Russian operational security is much better than either Ukraine’s or their proxy forces (Wagner and the LNR/DNR Milita), so we know significantly less about Russia’s deployments than we do about Ukraine’s. Regardless, we know that Russia enjoys a strong preponderance of combat power right know, and there are juicy operational targets within range.

Please Sir, I Want Some More​

​

The bird’s eye view of this conflict reveals a fascinating meta-structure to the war. In the above section, I argue for a view of the front structured around Russia progressively breaking through sequential Ukrainian defensive belts. I think that a similar sort of progressive narrative structure applies to the force generation aspect of this war, with Russia destroying a sequence of Ukrainian armies.

Let me be a bit more concrete. While the Ukrainian military exists at least partially as a continuous institution, its combat power has been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times at this point through western assistance. Multiple phases - life cycles, if you will - can be identified:

• In the opening months of the war, the extant Ukrainian army was mostly wiped out. The Russians destroyed much of Ukraine’s indigenous supplies of heavy weaponry and shattered many cadres at the core of Ukraine’s professional army.
• In the wake of this initial shattering, Ukrainian combat strength was shored up by transferring virtually all of the Soviet vintage weaponry in the stockpiles of former Warsaw Pact countries. This transferred Soviet vehicles and ammunition, compatible with existing Ukrainian capabilities, from countries like Poland and the Czech Republic, and was mostly complete by the end of spring, 2022. In early June, for example, western sources were admitting that Soviet stockpiles were drained.
• With Warsaw Pact stockpiles exhausted, NATO began replacing destroyed Ukrainian capabilities with western equivalents in a process that began during the summer. Of particular note were howitzers like the American M777 and the French Caesar.

Russia has essentially fought multiple iterations of the Ukrainian Army - destroying the pre-war force in the opening months, then fighting units that were refilled from Warsaw Pact stockpiles, and is now degrading a force which is largely reliant on western systems.

This led to General Zaluzhny’s now-famous interview with the economist in which he asked for many hundreds of Main Battle Tanks, Infantry Fighting Vehicles, and artillery pieces. In effect, he asked for yet another army, as the Russians seem to keep destroying the ones he has.

I want to note a few particular areas where Ukraine’s capabilities are clearly degraded beyond acceptable levels, and observe how this relates to NATO’s effort to sustain the Ukrainian war-making effort.

First, artillery.​

​

Russia has been prioritizing counterbattery action for many weeks now, and seems to be having great success hunting and destroying Ukrainian artillery.

It seems that this partially coincides with the deployment of new “Penicillin” counterbattery detection systems. This is a rather neat new tool in the Russian arsenal. Counterbattery warfare generally consists of a dangerous tango of guns and radar systems. Counterbattery radar is tasked with detecting and locating the enemy’s guns, so they can be destroyed by one’s own tubes - the game is roughly analogous to enemy teams of snipers (the artillery) and spotters (the radar) attempting to hunt each other - and of course, it makes good sense to shoot the other side’s radar systems as well, to blind them, as it were.

The Penicillin system offers potent new capabilities to Russia’s counterbattery campaign because it detects enemy artillery batteries not with radar, but with acoustic locating. It sends up a listening boom which, in coordination with a few ground componants, is able to locate enemy guns through seismic and acoustic detection. The advantage of this system is that, unlike a counterbattery radar, which emits radio waves that give away its position, the Penicillin system is passive - it simply sits still and listens, which means it does not offer an easy way for the enemy to locate it. As a result, in the counterbattery war, Ukraine currently lacks a good way to blind (or rather, deafen) the Russians. Furthermore, Russian counterbattery abilities have been augmented by increased use of the Lancet drone against heavy weapons.


The Penicillin acoustic boom listens for the sound of enemy guns

All that to say, Russia has been destroying quite a bit of Ukrainian artillery lately. the Russian Ministry of Defense has made a point of highlighting counterbattery success. Now, I know at this point you’re thinking, “why would you trust the Russian Ministry of Defense?” Fair enough - let’s trust but verify.

On January 20, NATO convened a meeting at Ramstein Airbase in Germany, against a backdrop of a massive new aid package being put together for Ukraine. This aid package contains, lo and behold, a huge amount of artillery pieces. By my count, the aid announced this week includes nearly 200 artillery tubes. Multiple countries, including Denmark and Estonia, are sending Ukraine literally all of their howitzers. Call me crazy, but I seriously doubt that several countries would just spontaneously decide, at the exact same time, to send Ukraine their entire inventory of artillery pieces were Ukraine not facing crisis levels of artillery losses.

Furthermore, the United States has taken new, unprecedented steps to supply Ukraine with shells. Just in the past week, they have dipped into its stockpiles in Israel and South Korea, amid reports that American stocks are so depleted that they will take more than a decade to replenish.

Let’s review the evidence here, and see if we can make a reasonable conclusion:

1. Ukrainian officials admit that their artillery is outgunned by 9 to 1 in critical sectors of the front.
2. Russia deploys a cutting edge counterbattery system and increased numbers of Lancet drones.
3. The Russian MoD claims that they have been hunting and destroying Ukrainian artillery systems in large numbers.
4. NATO has hurried to put together a massive package of artillery systems for Ukraine.
5. The United States is raiding critical forward-deployed stockpiles to supply Ukraine with shells.

I personally think it is reasonable, given all of this, to assume that Ukraine’s artillery arm has been largely shattered, and NATO is attempting to rebuild it yet again.

My kingdom for a tank​

​

The main point of contention in recent weeks has been whether or not NATO will give Ukraine Main Battle Tanks. Zaluzhny hinted at a badly depleted Ukrainian tank park in his interview with the Economist, in which he pleaded for hundreds of MBTs. NATO has attempted to provide a stopgap solution by giving Ukraine various armored vehicles like the Bradley IFV and the Stryker, which do restore some mobility, but we must unequivocally say that these are in no way substitutes for MBTs, and they fall far short in both protection and firepower. Attempting to use Bradleys, for example, in the MBT role is not going to work.


Good Morning

Thus far, it appears that Ukraine is going to receive a small handful of Challenger tanks from Britain, but there is also talk of donating Leopards (German make), Abrams (American), and Leclercs (French). As usual, the battlefield impact of Ukraine receiving tanks is being both greatly overstated (by both Ukrainian shills and pessimistic Russians) and understated (by Russian triumphalists). I suggest a middle ground.

The number of tanks that can be reasonably given to Ukraine is relatively low, simply because of the training and sustainment burden. All of these tanks use different ammunition, special parts, and require specialized training. They are not the sort of systems that can simply be driven off the lot and directly into combat by untrained crew. The ideal solution for Ukraine would be to receive only Leopard A24s, as these might be available in decent numbers (perhaps a couple hundred), and at least they would be standardized.


A burned out Turkish Leopard in Syria

We should also note, of course, that these western tanks are not likely to be game changers on the battlefield. The Leopard already showed its limitations in Syria under Turkish operation. Note the following quote from this 2018 article:

“Given that the tanks are widely operated by NATO members - including Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece and Norway - it is particularly embarrassing to see them so easily destroyed by Syrian terrorists when they are expected to match the Russian Army.”

Ultimately, the Leopard is a fairly mundane MBT designed in the 1970’s outclassed by the Russian T-90. It’s not a terrible piece of equipment, but it’s hardly a battlefield terror. They will take losses and be attrited just like Ukraine’s prewar tank park was. However, that doesn’t change the fact that a Ukrainian army with a few companies of leopards will be more potent than one without them.

I think it’s fair to say that the following three statements are all true:

1. Receiving a mixed bag of western tanks will create a difficult training, maintenance, and sustainment burden for Ukraine.
2. Western tanks like the Leopard have limited combat value and will be destroyed like any other tank.
3. Western tanks will raise the combat power of the Ukrainian army as long as they are in the field.

Now, with that being said, at this point it does not appear that NATO wants to give Ukraine main battle tanks. At first it was suggested that tanks from storage could be dusted off and given to Kiev, but the manufacturer has stated that these vehicles are not in working order and would not be ready for combat until 2024. That leaves only the possibility of dipping directly into NATO’s own tank parks, which thus far they are reticent to do.

Why? My suggestion would simply be that NATO does not believe in Ukrainian victory. Ukraine cannot even dream of dislodging Russia from its position without an adequate tank force, and so the reticence to hand over tanks suggests that NATO thinks that this is only a dream anyway. Instead, they continue to prioritize weaponry that sustains Ukraine’s ability to fight a static defense (hence, the hundreds of artillery pieces) without indulging in flights of fancy about a great Ukrainian armored thrust into Crimea.

However, given the intense war fever that has built up in the west, it’s possible that political momentum imposes the choice upon us. It is possible that we have reached the point where the tail wags the dog, that NATO is trapped in its own rhetoric of unequivocal support until Ukraine wins a total victory, and we may yet see Leopard 2A4s burning on the steppe.

Summary: The Death of a State​

​

Ukraine’s military is extremely degraded, having taking exorbitant losses in both men and heavy weaponry. I believe Ukrainian KIA are approaching 150,000 at this point, and it is clear that their inventories of both artillery tubes, shells, and armored vehicles are largely exhausted.

I expect the Bakhmut-Siversk defensive line to be cleared before April, after which Russia will push towards the final (and weakest) defensive belt around Slavyansk. Meanwhile, Russia has significant combat power in reserve, which can be used to reopen the northern front on the west bank of the Oskil and restart offensive operations in Zaporozhia, placing Ukrainian logistics in critical danger.

This war will be fought to its conclusion on the battlefield and end in a favorable decision for Russia.

Coda: A Note about Coups​

​

Feel free to ignore this segment, as it’s a little more nebulous and not concretely related to events in Ukraine or Russia.

We’ve seen lots of fun rumors about coups in both countries - Putin has foot cancer and his government will collapse, Zelensky is going to be replaced with Zaluzhny, on and on it goes. Patriots in control and all that good stuff.

In any case, I thought I would just generally write about why coups and revolutions never seem to lead to nice and cuddly democratic regimes, but instead almost always lead to political control passing to the military and security services.

The answer, you might think, is simply that these men have the guns and the power to access the important rooms where decisions are made, but it is not only that. It also relates to a concept in game theory called Schelling points.

A Schelling point (named after the gentleman that introduced the concept, an economist named Thomas Schelling) refers to the solution that parties choose given a state of uncertainty and no ability to communicate. One of the classic examples to illustrate the concept is a coordination game. Suppose that you and another person are each shown four squares - three are blue and one is red. You are each asked to choose a square. If you both select the same square, you receive a monetary prize - but you are unable to talk to one another about your choices. How do you choose? Well, most people rationally choose the red square, simply because it is conspicuous - it stands out, and you therefore presume that your partner will also choose this square. The red square isn’t better, per se, it’s just obvious.

In a state of political turmoil, or even anarchy, the system works itself towards Schelling points - obvious figures and institutions that radiate authority, and are therefore the conspicuous choice to assume power and issue commands.

The Bolsheviks, for example, understood this very well. Immediately after declaring their new government in 1917, they dispatched commissars to the various office buildings in Saint Petersburg where the Tsarist bureaucracies were headquartered. Trotsky famously turned up at the foreign affairs ministry building one morning and simply announced that he was the new Foreign Minister. The employees laughed at him - who was he? how did he presume to be in charge? - but for Trotsky the point was to insinuate himself on a Schelling point. In the state of anarchy that began to spread in Russia, people naturally look for some obvious focal point of authority, and the Bolsheviks had cleverly positioned themselves as such by claiming control over the bureaucratic offices and titles. On the other side of the civil conflict, political opposition to the Bolsheviks clustered around Tsarist army officers, because they too were Schelling points, in that they already had titles and position within an existing hierarchy.

All of this is to say that in the event of a coup or state collapse, new governments are virtually never formed sui generis - they always arise from preexisting institutions and hierarchies. Why, when the Soviet Union fell, did political authority devolve to the Republics? Because these Republics were Schelling points - branches that one can grab for safety in a chaotic river.

I simply say this because I am tired of phantasmagorical stories about liquidation of the regime in Russia and even territorial dissolution. The fall of Putin’s government will not and cannot lead to an acquiescent, western-adjacent regime, because there are no institutions of real power in Russia that are thus disposed. Power would fall to the security services, because they are Schelling points, and that’s where power goes.

=======

Russo-Ukrainian War: The World Blood Pump

Gradually, and then Suddenly

bigserge.substack.com

===
.

 

[CaryC]

What a minute, the WORLD ORDER is NOW AT STAKE?

Everyone has been telling me this whole thing is about BAD RUSSIA attacking LITTLE INNOCENT UKRAINE!

How suddenly did this become a WORLD WAR?

You've been asleep in a pod in a fantasy world of your own making. You just woke up.

LOL Just poking. Here take this pill, it will calm your nerves.

 

[DuckandCover]

All I can report on - having worked on the plans - NATO in 1970 had NO WAY to stop the Soviet Armor if they went West - other posts from others in the Service in the 80's again confirm NATO had little to no expectation they could stop Soviet Armor without using nukes. This was when NATO was at its strongest - before the downsizing "peace dividend"
So a direct US / NATO vs Russia today? We can HOPE we never find out.

I agree with the 1970s / 80s assessment. My point is that Russia is barely a shadow of what the USSR was then.

 

[Tom McDowell]

January 21, 2023

Ukraine - Russian Army Activates Southern Front​

The long expected Russian offensive in Ukraine has begun.


The Ukrainian army, egged on by its U.S. controllers, had put most of its resource into the static defense of the Bakhmut (Artyomovsk) - Soledar sector of the eastern front. An insane number of Ukrainian brigades, though many partially depleted, were concentrated on that 50 kilometer long front. This left other sectors nearly empty of Ukrainian troops.

Source: Military Land Deployment Map - bigger

I count the equivalent of some 27 brigade size formations in that area. The usual size of a brigade is some 3,000 to 4,000 men with hundreds of all kinds of vehicles. If all brigades had their full strength that force would count as 97,500 men. In a recent interview the Ukrainian military commander Zaluzhny said that his army has 200,000 men trained to fight with 500,000 more having other functions or currently being trained. The forces which are currently getting mauled in the Bakhmut area constitute 50% of Ukraine's battle ready forces.

On the southern and northern sectors of the battle-line the Ukrainian forces have been thinned out and are only able to defend against minor forces.


The Ukrainian forces in the north and south are in the same position Russian troops had been in when the Ukrainian army last year launched a blitz attack in the Kharkiv region. The Russian screening force of some 2,000 boarder guards and federal police retreated and used its artillery to destroy the oncoming Ukrainian forces. The attack ran out of power and came to a halt after progressing some 70 kilometers on a rather large front. But Ukraine no longer has, unlike the Russians at that time, the artillery that is need to stop a larger thrust.

The big Ukrainian concentration in Bakhmut is now in an operational encirclement. The Russian forces have progressed north and south of the city and their artillery can easily control the western exit roads of Bakhmut. This a Verdun like situation. Russian artillery is by far numerical superior and can slaughter the Ukrainian troops at will. Even the U.S. military is now suggesting that Ukraine should give up on that city. Should the government in Kiev agree to that it will be a retreat under fire with likely high casualties. Not retreating though will make things even worse.

Source: Live UA Map - bigger
The Ukrainian concentration on Bakhmut put its other frontlines into jeopardy. I and others have suggested for quite some time that the Russian forces will use the southern Zaporizhia region for a large thrust into the far back of the Ukrainian forces around Bakhmut.

The Russian moves against the third and fourth Ukrainian defense lines will likely be supported by a move from the south that will liberate the rest of the Zaporiziha and Donetsk oblast.
Aside from those operations the Russian command has sufficient number of troops available to run another major attack. This could come from the north into the Kharkiv region behind the Ukrainian troops currently attacking the Russian lines further east.

Source: Live UA Map - bigger
The Military Land Deployment map, sympathetic to the Ukrainian side, shows just three Territorial Defense brigades covering a 100 kilometer long southern defense line. These brigades are infantry rich but not mobile. They have only little heavy equipment. The Ukrainian 65th Mechanized Brigade is the only capable force in the area. It is screening Zaporizhzhia city but has been heavily bleeding it its position for quite a while.


One Motorized Infantry brigade, the 56th, was added to the southern front some six days ago. Back in August this brigade had been severely mauled in its defense of Peski at the eastern front. It has since been reconstituted with new conscripts and a smorgasbord of 'western' delivered equipment. It can not be regarded as a fully capable unit.

bigger
There is no Ukrainian artillery brigade in the sector. There are thereby no counter-artillery capabilities available.


The attacking Russian force is the 58th army of the Russian Federation. These are not lightly armored, air deployable VDV forces like those who fought around the Hostomel Airport airport near Kiev. These are not militia of the Donbas republics seen on the eastern front. These are not Chechen forces storming Mariupol. These are not the Wagner mercenaries surrounding Bakhmut.


This is the real Russian army, the Red one, with all its heavy resources and capabilities to wage combined arms warfare.


The first probing Russian attacks in the area were launched two days ago. The Ukrainian lines immediately broke down and the Russian forces advanced some 5 kilometer on the very first day. Yesterday they advanced further.


Everything in red and yellow north of the closed red line are recent Russian advances.

Source: ISW - bigger
A few weeks ago, in an interview with the Economist, the Ukrainian army commander general Zaluzhny called a Russian attack at this time the "worst" possible situation:

But the main reason Russia has dragooned so many young men, the generals believe, is to go back on the offensive for the first time since its bid to overrun Donbas fizzled out in the summer. “Just as in [the second world war]…somewhere beyond the Urals they are preparing new resources,” says General Zaluzhny, referring to the Soviet decision to move the defence industry east, beyond the range of Nazi bombers. “They are 100% being prepared.” A major Russian attack could come “in February, at best in March and at worst at the end of January”, he says.

Zaluzhny has claimed to be building reserves but he has since send even more troops to Bakhmut:

The temptation is to send in reserves [to Bakhmut]. A wiser strategy is to hold them back.
...
“May the soldiers in the trenches forgive me,” says General Zaluzhny. “It’s more important to focus on the accumulation of resources right now for the more protracted and heavier battles that may begin next year.”

It is unlikely that any reserves he currently has are equipped, trained and battle ready. They will be too small to stop a fully mechanized Russian attack through the rather sparsely settled southwest of Donetzk province.


The aim of the Russian thrust in the south will not be to take cities like Zaporiziha. The aim is to bring the main transport routes, railways and roads, from west-Ukraine to the front in east Ukraine under Russian artillery fire. This will prevent not only the re-supply for the Ukrainian troops on the eastern front but also their exit from the front line. A 100 kilometer (60 miles) thrust to the north would mostly do that. A complementary thrust from the north towards south, which may or may not be coming, would finally close the cauldron.


---
Twice a year I ask my readers to contribute to Moon of Alabama. Please donate here.

Posted by b on January 21, 2023 at 9:56 UTC | Permalink

===
.

 

[Tom McDowell]

Is Andrei Martyanov right in his criticism of US ruling “elites”?​

22100 Views January 20, 2023 58 Comments


Those of you who, like myself, try not to miss any videos or articles by Andrei Martyanov know that one of his “favorite” topics is the utter incompetence of western elites in general and US ruling elites specifically. I am sure that his criticisms appear to be over the top to many people and that is normal. It is completely counter-intuitive to assume that the ruling class (because that is what we are dealing with) of a nuclear superpower and, arguably, the most powerful country on the planet, could be ruled by clueless, ignorant, dishonest imbeciles.

So, is he right or not? Does he speak because he is “anti-US” or a “Russian propagandist”?
I decided to chime in, because I know from the inside what Martyanov describes from the outside, so I want to share with you my own observations on this topic.

I studied in the USA for five years, from 1986 to 1991 and I got two degrees in this time period: one BA in International Relations from the School of International Service (SIS) at the American University and a MA in Strategic Studies from the Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at the Johns Hopkins University. During these same years I also worked for several (very conservative) think tanks. The following is a summary of observations I made during this time period and after.

First, and I think that this is crucial, I would argue that a generational change took place in the late 80s, but it all truly began with Ronald Reagan’s Presidency. Let me explain.

It is an undeniable fact that, in the past, US colleges had a very good reputation worldwide. Just the number of foreign students coming from all over the world is a good indicator of this reality. And you cannot have a solid university/college/academy without solid, knowledgeable teachers. During my 5 years in Washington DC, I had the chance to have teachers with very diverse and interesting backgrounds including people with the following backgrounds: (just a few examples I remember best)

• UN Naval Intelligence
• Office of Net Assessment
• DoD (all branches except Marines)
• White House
• CIA
• Northrop/McDonnell Douglas Corporation (YF-23 division)
• PMCs (Israeli)
• GAO

Most of our adjunct teachers, as opposed to tenured academics, had teaching as an “evening job” (literally) while during the day they would work on their “normal/real” jobs. Even during the Gulf War, we had teachers who were planning strikes in Iraqi targets during the day and come teach classes in the evenings.

I would describe many of them as the “Colonel Macgregor types” as he is very much of that old, Cold War, generation who had no use for the “crazies in the basement” and whose expertise was indisputable, even when their politics were not.

And yes, we also had the option of taking classes from folks form the CIA and the DoS. But those are a special category, and here is why: most, but not all, of the folks which came from the agencies I listed above did not have early in their careers strong views about the USSR, Russia or the Russian people. Instead, they would follow a rather “technical” career path first and then, over time, they would develop views about the Soviet Union and Russians. Say a guy skilled with radar systems would end up studying Soviet radars and gradually develop a natural interest towards the people operating these Soviet radars. In most cases, I would sum the views of this generation of people as follows: a strong dislike for Marxism, Communism and even Socialism (which, frankly, most of them were totally ignorant of) but without any idealization of US tubocapitalism or imperialism which they viewed quite cynically as “we do it because we can” combined with “we take orders”. They also had a very healthy respect for the professionalism of their Soviet counterparts and, quite often, a real fondness (no, I am not kidding) for the Russian people and culture. One of my absolute best teachers was a former USN intelligence officer who spoke pretty good Russian and who was of Polish (!) origin. We became good friends and I can absolutely attest to the fact that this man was a true russophile. Now, I would not say that all our teachers were necessarily pro-Russian, but most of them saw the Marxist USSR as the ideological enemy and not the Russian people or culture as such.

There was not #cancelRussia in their minds.
Things were quite different with the folks from the CIA or the State Department. I believe that most (but probably not all) of their members INITIALLY chose “anti-Soviet” careers because they were motivated by a hatred of Communism/USSR/Russia and so they made their careers by being “hardliners”, i.e. folks who would parrot any kind of cliches about the Soviet Union, no matter how silly.

I should add that the former generation was mostly found in departments like international relations, security studies, strategic studies and the like while the latter typically taught in departments like political science or government studies. At SIS/SAIS we called them “political science freaks” and they did not interact much with them. And yes, those with STEM brains would typically come from STEM fields to an appreciation of Russian people and culture, while there were very few STEM types amongst the “political science freaks” (hence their choice of more ideological courses over more technical ones).

But then, as I mentioned above, Ronald Reagan happened, and that had a huge impact on the US political scene.
Before Reagan, you had paleo-liberals and paleo-conservatives, the former would be inclined to get degrees in stuff like “peace studies” while the latter would study get more “geostrategic” degrees or even military academies. Then Jimmy Carter became president and his many failures and weaknesses secured the triumphant election of Reagan. At that time, there already was a small and nasty group of ideologues which, over time, became known as the Neocons. These Neocons, while not bright be any measure, were clever enough to understand that the Democratic Party was crushed by Reagan and that the power now was with the GOP.

So here is what they did:

The (proto-)Neocons began financing (paleo-)conservative think tanks like, say, the Heritage Foundation. Then, as major sponsors of the many think tanks around DC, they would get their own people elected to the board of directors of these think tanks. Pretty soon, the typically (paleo-)conservative Presidents/Chairmen/CEOs of these think tanks would be replaced by real, hardcore, Neocons. After that, it was RIP for any form of real, traditional, US conservatism.

Needless to say, the “old guard” (mostly Anglos) only had disgust and contempt for these ideological freaks, if only because the latter were amazingly ignorant. But money talks, and over the years, expertise was replaced with “hardliner loyalty” and a very strong ideological alignment on the worst of the worst of what used to be called “the crazies in the basement” (which referred to both the Pentagon’s basement and the White House basement).

Now it is crucial to understand how much the Neocons hate Russia, which is rather difficult and very counter-intuitive for normal people. The Neocon level of hatred for Russia very much qualifies as crass racism of the worst kind.

[Sidebar: I have been warning about that since at least 2008, see here: “How a medieval concept of ethnicity makes NATO commit yet another a dangerous blunder“. And now, FIFTEEN years later, I am quite horrified that my predictions are now coming true before our eyes. I really, sincerely, wish I had been wrong…]

That kind of rabid mindset is something which might have existed amongst some paleo-conservatives, but I personally never met such people (at least in the USA; in the UK the entire British ruling class has been viscerally racist and russophobic for centuries!). It is thus not surprising at all that in lieu of competence, these Neocons would instead “compete” on “who could be the most anti-Russian” and to achieve this status ANY argument – no matter how self evidently stupid – was uncritically considered as valid and legitimate.

You might wonder why the “old guard” did nothing to stop that infections rot. And, in fact, some tried, I personally know of two think tank directors who tried, but they were betrayed by the Reagan Administration which seemed quite happen to have rabid russophobic racists even in very high positions. Finally, this is the US of A, the “best democracy money can buy” and where the dollar is king. Simply put, the Neocons had A LOT of financial resources, much more than the paleo-conservatives, and they simply “bought their way in” into the US ruling elites.

Then the inevitable happened: when the professionally competent paleo-conservatives saw their institutions and organizations overrun with incompetent ideological freaks, they either kept a low profile and waited to retire or simply resigned.

This triggered a precipitous decline in the competence of the US ruling class.
In the meantime, the liberals began to realize that the Neocons were ridiculing them as “weak on defense” and, basically, as losers. So they tried to show that they too could be as “hardline” as the next guy. This is something which affected liberals not only in the USA, but also in all of Zone A (including all of Europe). Simply put: the liberals did not have the courage, fortitude and honor to fight for their values, so they simply caved in to the trend set by the Neocons and the ugly phenomenon known as “Neolib” increasingly completely replaced old style liberals.

This is why today we see the ugly sight of pseudo-liberals trying to out-Neocon the Neocons.
And, again, just like their paleo-conservative counterparts, the paleo-liberals either kept a low profile and waited for their retirement or resigned.

Some, like the late Professor Stephen Cohen did resist and refused to go with the flow, but he was vilified, ostracized and, eventually, completely ignored. Yet, to his last breath, Professor Cohen remained a world-class historian and analyst, true to his ideals, and a sincere friend of Russia.

But in the public discourse, the few “Stephen Cohens” were replaced by the many “Eliot Cohens”.
After that, is was all downhill for the US polity.

George H.W. Bush was probably the last “old style” President, then one freak replaced another. Clinton was a total puppet of the Neocons. As was Dubya. Obama, apparently, did not come out of the Neocon camp, but he was so quickly co-opted that it made zero difference. And, as we all know, while Trump promised to “drain the swamp”, the Neocons got him to heel in less than 1 month (when they made him betray Gen Flynn and got the latter’s head “served on a platter” to them by Trump and Pence). As for Biden, his administration is pure, genuine, 100% certified Neocons with Neolibs and assorted woke freaks thrown in for “diversity” purposes.

Why does that matter? Because he who controls the White House controls the money flows which, in the reality of US politics, is the one thing that matters most.

By the way, 9/11 played a crucial role here.
It is quite obvious that 9/11 was a Neocon “inside job” and that is served as a pretext to start the GWOT. However, it also had another very important role: it forced each public figure in the USA to chose one of two camps:

• Be obedient and accept the (terminally idiotic) conspiracy theory of the White House or
• Lose your job, position, reputation and means of income.

Most, unsurprisingly, caved in and 9/11 ended “biding up together” the entire US ruling class. That type of bond is the type criminal accomplices have: if one goes down, everybody goes down, hence the omertà around the topic of 9/11 even though it was proven by a preponderance of evidence and even beyond reasonable doubt that 9/11 was, indeed, an inside job. After 9/11, true dissent was completely removed from the US political discourse.

By the way, something similar happened to Europe, except that the categories were somewhat different. In Europe (I am talking about the real Europe, not the “enlarged” EU with eastern Europe included) there were real patriots in most countries. Yes, the USA was the senior partner, but there were enough political leaders which were capable of saying “no” to the US and care for their national interests first (I think of Mitterrand and even Chirac here). That generation of politicians and decision-makers gradually was replaced by a new generation of actors whose entire career plan was to unconditionally and fervently serve US interests, even at the expense of their own countries (Macron, Scholz). And while I would not call EU politicians “Neocons”, I will say that they are the faithful, loyal, servants and slaves of the Neocons.

And, just as in the USA, the competent and patriotic decision-makers were replaced with ideological stooges who has zero expertise or honor, but whom the USA would support as “loyal servants”. Opposition to US imperialism in Europe was relegated to a distant margins of public discourse.

I would argue that the 90s were the years of the absolute triumph of the Neocons who took total control of both the USA and the EU.
So what are Neocons really like? First and foremost, they are extreme narcissists and, as is often the case with narcissists, their obnoxious self-worship, sense of entitlement and hatred of the “other” all come from a deep seated inferiority complex (believe me, they *knew* the contempt they were held in by the old generation of US decision makers, and they *knew* that they were seen as the “crazies in the basement”). So besides being self-worshiping racist narcissists, they were also filled with resentment, a desire for revenge and a unbreakable “us vs them” mentality..

Also, and contrary to popular belief, they were not very smart (if only because being truly smart requires both humility and expertise, something the Neocons are totally devoid from). In reality, the big competitive advantage of the Neocons over the “old guard” was not brains, but drive. This is something we often observe in history: the folks who actually seize power are rarely the smartest ones, much more often you see folks with a tremendous ideological drive. A perfect example? The German Nazis. Please name me one truly educated and smart Nazi! Hitler? Nope. Himmler? Nope. Goering? Nope. Speer, better, but he was not much of a Nazi to being with. Hess? Nope. Karl Haushofer, Dietrich Eckart or Alfred Rosenberg? Pheuleeze! And I won’t even go into the true morons à la Streicher or Strasser.

Yet the Nazis not only took power in Germany, they managed to convert most of Europe (with shamefully little resistance!) to their idiotic ideology or their genocidal policies. It is quite a testimony to the power of evil stupidity to see how eighty years later(!), the united West is now openly following the exact same policies as the Nazis did in their very short rule (the promised “thousand year Reich” turned out to last 12 years only!).

Finally, I have to mention one more thing: for the US Neocons the election of Trump was quite literally a slave revolt and a slap in the face. While Trump proved to be sub-pathetic by any measure, the fact that a majority of US citizens were willing to prefer him to the “Neocon & Woke diva” Clinton was absolutely traumatic. Having the total control of the three branches of government, AND the media, AND academia AND the financial sector gave the Neocons the illusion that they had finally “made it” and then suddenly, and pardon my French, the people of the USA send them a loud and heartfelt “f*ck you!” and voted for the one candidate which the Neocons had absolutely demonized.

====
Part 1

===
.

 

[Tom McDowell]

Part 2

This was perceived by the Neocons and their cohorts as a blasphemy, a sacrilege, an absolutely unacceptable “revolt of the serfs” and that is why the Neocons decided never EVER to allow such a thing to happen again (and we all know what they did next).

The bottom line is this: the USA faced a perfect storm:

• A social model in which the Almighty Dollar decides of everything
• The most formidable propaganda machine in history
• A “old guard” ruling class too weak, cowardly, confused and (comparatively) poor to resist
• A terminally corrupt Uniparty system which is easy to suborn
• A society which does not instill the kind of demonic ideological fervor which Neocons are raised in, which makes non-Neocons easy prey for the Neocons.
• A country and society in which the concepts “right” and “wrong” have become meaningless and have been fully replaced by “might makes right”, not just de facto, which already had been the case for centuries, but also de jure.

Add to this the (mistaken) notion that the US had won the Cold War and even the (even more mistaken) notion that the US had won WWII, and you have the narcissistic explosion we witnessed in the 90s. And here is the irony: the flag-waving “patriots” which “support out troops” never realized that they were (and still are) being used by the Neocons which, in reality, are the *least* patriotic of any political force in the USA.

Again, 9/11 and the subsequent GWOT are a direct consequence of the pseudo-patriotic fervor which overcame the US society like a tsunami (the USA before 9/11 was a very, dramatically different, country form the post 9/11 USA).

This is all relevant to understand the current Neocon stance: while they have been successful in putting down the “revolt of the MAGA serfs”, Russia, which used to be run by arguably the most corrupt ruling class on the planet for decades (imho: from Krushchev on and including Eltsin) suddenly also revolted!

That was categorically unacceptable to the Neocons.

By the way, it is interesting to note that while now we have irrefutable evidence that Russia did not interfere with US elections, the Neocons almost instinctively make a connection between the “revolting MAGA serfs” inside the USA and the “revolting Russian serfs” outside. And, truth be told, I would argue that the people of the USA and the people of Russia have the exact same enemy. The difference is that the US political system, a truly totalitarian system, cannot be subverted from the inside, but it can very much be defeated externally (if only because this system is BOTH non-viable – it is based on exploitation and imperialism – AND non-reformable – because it is absolutist in nature).

Fundamentally, the Neocon contempt, hatred and fear of Russia is no different than their contempt, hatred and fear of the “deporables”. For those who view the world through an “us vs them” ideological prism all the “non-us” are dangerous “thems” which need crushing.

Conclusion: we have what we have

Andrei Martyanov is absolutely correct – the US is run by absolutely ignorant, incompetent and outright evil narcissists. For such people, expertise is not at all a desirable trait, if anything, it is potentially very dangerous. Loyalty, which in the Neocon context means “corruptibility”, is much more desirable. One example to illustrate the point:

It was not enough for the Neocons to take control of US think tanks and academia. Even RAND, AEI, CSIS & Co. was “too scary” for them, hence their own creation of the so-called “Institute for the Study of War” which is not an institute and which does not study anything, least of all, wars (Neocons have zero military expertise). And now even Russian (!!!) sources refer to the “studies” of this “institute” as something credible. Such is the power of the media.

Which is hardly surprising if we think of what kind of expertise modern does a journos have? At best, they are only actors. At worst, clueless presstitutes.

Again, Martyanov is right, the overwhelming majority of the political commentators and talking heads out there get their “understanding” of war from Tom Clancy books, Hollywood propaganda movies and clever marketing by the US MIC and Pentagon. At best, these journos can write summaries, find “angles”, including the obligatory “human interest” bull, and they have *access*. But what they don’t know, or even care, is that that access is granted only to the doublepluspoliticallycorrect journos. Mostly, they have no morals at all and they don’t care. They are in for the money, nothing else. My only objection to the term “presstitute” is that is is very unfair to prostitutes (who, after all, usually DO deliver what they get paid for!). Sadly, I can only agree with the French philosopher Alain Soral (who is being viciously persecuted for his views, but not “human rights” organization would ever dare to defend, if anything, they want him lynched!) who said that there are only two type of journos left: prostitutes and unemployed.

That is true of all of Zone A.

So no, as somebody who has seen all this from the inside (I had plenty of journalist friends, by the way, I know that world too), I can only fully confirm what Martyanov repeats over and over again: all of Zone A of 2023 is run by either the Neocons or their loyal servants, and the past 30 years or more have seen an absolutely epic, historical, cataclysmic brain drain form the western ruling classes.

One last thing: it gives me no joy to write the above. Frankly, if it was just a purely internal US issue, I would not care very much (their country, their problem, their choice). But that reality is the single biggest threat to our entire planet right now. And it absolutely terrifies me when I see how few people out there understand and realize that Martyanov is quite correct. And, for the record, there are plenty of topics in which Martyanov and I disagree, so I am not siding with him because I consider him a friend (which I do) or because he is my “maître à penser” (which I don’t). No, I fully back him on this issue because for as long as the USA will be the proverbial “monkey with a (nuclear) hand grenade” the Neocons will continue to represent an existential threat to our planet. And with the Neocons in total control of Zone A, that risk will remain with us until these crazies are sent back to some basement or they blow up the entire northern hemisphere.

Andrei

***

Okay, it still if Friday, so some music is in order (if only to lighten the mood!). Today I want to share with you what I think was the best rock singer plus best rock guitarist in history, bar none. I am talking about Ronnie James Dio and Richie Blackmore, of course, who both reached the peak of their creativity when the joined forces in the (alas short-lived) “Rainbow” group. But, rather than post a few videos as usual, I will post three links:

The first two to their best best albums:

Rainbow Rising: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6ogdCG3tAWjZkXZvDRPOfgOLgYU18MaC (playlist)

and

Rainbow On Stage:

View: https://youtu.be/O75GMtgl1l4
(single video)

And, finally, a rare but absolutely amazing concert of Rainbow in 1977: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYFAAfhX89-cwT7ejpxzy3AaTgoBS_8uR (playlist)

And, just as there can be no “Pink Floyd” without Roger Waters and there cannot be any “Deep Purple” without Richie Blackmore, there cannot be any real “Rainbow” without Ronnie James Dio. It is too bad that Blackmore’s ego simply could not stand sharing the stage with a (actually small!) giant like Dio (who was also a very kind and gentle person, quite unlike Blackmore). Their collaboration was short, but I do believe that it was the talented duo ever seen on a rock stage. Enjoy!

Is Andrei Martyanov right in his criticism of US ruling “elites”? | The Vineyard of the Saker

A bird's eye view of the vineyard

thesaker.is

===
.

 

[WTSR]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616847541571653632

View: https://twitter.com/ArthurM40330824/status/1616847541571653632


“I am now an unofficial person, I can say what I want. If everyone thinks that we are guaranteed to win the war, then it is very unlikely."

 

[LightEcho]

I agree with the 1970s / 80s assessment. My point is that Russia is barely a shadow of what the USSR was then.

Not true. Russia has a positive economy. Its navy is equipped with things we cannot stop or even track. Russia has energy resources and minerals with a thriving industrial base. Russia is partnered with China, albeit out of a temporary convenience. They both have a common interest against the US.
Yes, the bear has been hibernating, while modernizing. Now the bear is fully awakened thanks to the encroachments of NATO (NWO/WEF clowns) and the atrocities committed by the Azov nazis in Donbas for the last 10 years. So as little asshats like Lindsey Graham cry out the world order is at risk and his masters are concerned with "climate change" [codeword for over-population] they are pushing into the "final solution" of depopulation. This was all prophesied 2000 years ago. We are watching it unfold as truth is mixed with deception.

Here is how it unfolds. China will take Taiwan but in order to do that, it needs to remove US & Japan & South Korea from the picture. This is what Russia is waiting for. China will destroy Guam, Pearl Harbor, and Japan. I expect one of the "tells" for the watchers (if they cared) would be those cargo ships loaded with missile launchers and soldiers heading for our ed. eastwest coast. Russian subs will be out in the Atlantic, not near our coastline initially because they will use Poseidon torpedoes to wipe main ports/ cities, then the subs come in closer to launch their missiles. Surface fleets will be destroyed in the same hour as the coastlines being attacked.

Russia will hit key European & US targets with hypersonic nukes in a coordinated attack. I don't think they want to do this yet. But, if pushed, they will launch. Right now, they have the surprise advantage was we think they are boxed into Ukraine. Ukraine is a small skirmish compared with what is coming.

 

[danielboon]

Well this is a dot

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616864621230538753

View: https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1616864621230538753

 

[danielboon]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616854739593072640

View: https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1616854739593072640

 

[Boomer Sooner]

Is Andrei Martyanov right in his criticism of US ruling “elites”?​

22100 Views January 20, 2023 58 Comments


Those of you who, like myself, try not to miss any videos or articles by Andrei Martyanov know that one of his “favorite” topics is the utter incompetence of western elites in general and US ruling elites specifically. I am sure that his criticisms appear to be over the top to many people and that is normal. It is completely counter-intuitive to assume that the ruling class (because that is what we are dealing with) of a nuclear superpower and, arguably, the most powerful country on the planet, could be ruled by clueless, ignorant, dishonest imbeciles.

So, is he right or not? Does he speak because he is “anti-US” or a “Russian propagandist”?
I decided to chime in, because I know from the inside what Martyanov describes from the outside, so I want to share with you my own observations on this topic.

I studied in the USA for five years, from 1986 to 1991 and I got two degrees in this time period: one BA in International Relations from the School of International Service (SIS) at the American University and a MA in Strategic Studies from the Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at the Johns Hopkins University. During these same years I also worked for several (very conservative) think tanks. The following is a summary of observations I made during this time period and after.

First, and I think that this is crucial, I would argue that a generational change took place in the late 80s, but it all truly began with Ronald Reagan’s Presidency. Let me explain.

It is an undeniable fact that, in the past, US colleges had a very good reputation worldwide. Just the number of foreign students coming from all over the world is a good indicator of this reality. And you cannot have a solid university/college/academy without solid, knowledgeable teachers. During my 5 years in Washington DC, I had the chance to have teachers with very diverse and interesting backgrounds including people with the following backgrounds: (just a few examples I remember best)

• UN Naval Intelligence
• Office of Net Assessment
• DoD (all branches except Marines)
• White House
• CIA
• Northrop/McDonnell Douglas Corporation (YF-23 division)
• PMCs (Israeli)
• GAO

Most of our adjunct teachers, as opposed to tenured academics, had teaching as an “evening job” (literally) while during the day they would work on their “normal/real” jobs. Even during the Gulf War, we had teachers who were planning strikes in Iraqi targets during the day and come teach classes in the evenings.

I would describe many of them as the “Colonel Macgregor types” as he is very much of that old, Cold War, generation who had no use for the “crazies in the basement” and whose expertise was indisputable, even when their politics were not.

And yes, we also had the option of taking classes from folks form the CIA and the DoS. But those are a special category, and here is why: most, but not all, of the folks which came from the agencies I listed above did not have early in their careers strong views about the USSR, Russia or the Russian people. Instead, they would follow a rather “technical” career path first and then, over time, they would develop views about the Soviet Union and Russians. Say a guy skilled with radar systems would end up studying Soviet radars and gradually develop a natural interest towards the people operating these Soviet radars. In most cases, I would sum the views of this generation of people as follows: a strong dislike for Marxism, Communism and even Socialism (which, frankly, most of them were totally ignorant of) but without any idealization of US tubocapitalism or imperialism which they viewed quite cynically as “we do it because we can” combined with “we take orders”. They also had a very healthy respect for the professionalism of their Soviet counterparts and, quite often, a real fondness (no, I am not kidding) for the Russian people and culture. One of my absolute best teachers was a former USN intelligence officer who spoke pretty good Russian and who was of Polish (!) origin. We became good friends and I can absolutely attest to the fact that this man was a true russophile. Now, I would not say that all our teachers were necessarily pro-Russian, but most of them saw the Marxist USSR as the ideological enemy and not the Russian people or culture as such.

There was not #cancelRussia in their minds.
Things were quite different with the folks from the CIA or the State Department. I believe that most (but probably not all) of their members INITIALLY chose “anti-Soviet” careers because they were motivated by a hatred of Communism/USSR/Russia and so they made their careers by being “hardliners”, i.e. folks who would parrot any kind of cliches about the Soviet Union, no matter how silly.

I should add that the former generation was mostly found in departments like international relations, security studies, strategic studies and the like while the latter typically taught in departments like political science or government studies. At SIS/SAIS we called them “political science freaks” and they did not interact much with them. And yes, those with STEM brains would typically come from STEM fields to an appreciation of Russian people and culture, while there were very few STEM types amongst the “political science freaks” (hence their choice of more ideological courses over more technical ones).

But then, as I mentioned above, Ronald Reagan happened, and that had a huge impact on the US political scene.
Before Reagan, you had paleo-liberals and paleo-conservatives, the former would be inclined to get degrees in stuff like “peace studies” while the latter would study get more “geostrategic” degrees or even military academies. Then Jimmy Carter became president and his many failures and weaknesses secured the triumphant election of Reagan. At that time, there already was a small and nasty group of ideologues which, over time, became known as the Neocons. These Neocons, while not bright be any measure, were clever enough to understand that the Democratic Party was crushed by Reagan and that the power now was with the GOP.

So here is what they did:

The (proto-)Neocons began financing (paleo-)conservative think tanks like, say, the Heritage Foundation. Then, as major sponsors of the many think tanks around DC, they would get their own people elected to the board of directors of these think tanks. Pretty soon, the typically (paleo-)conservative Presidents/Chairmen/CEOs of these think tanks would be replaced by real, hardcore, Neocons. After that, it was RIP for any form of real, traditional, US conservatism.

Needless to say, the “old guard” (mostly Anglos) only had disgust and contempt for these ideological freaks, if only because the latter were amazingly ignorant. But money talks, and over the years, expertise was replaced with “hardliner loyalty” and a very strong ideological alignment on the worst of the worst of what used to be called “the crazies in the basement” (which referred to both the Pentagon’s basement and the White House basement).

Now it is crucial to understand how much the Neocons hate Russia, which is rather difficult and very counter-intuitive for normal people. The Neocon level of hatred for Russia very much qualifies as crass racism of the worst kind.

That kind of rabid mindset is something which might have existed amongst some paleo-conservatives, but I personally never met such people (at least in the USA; in the UK the entire British ruling class has been viscerally racist and russophobic for centuries!). It is thus not surprising at all that in lieu of competence, these Neocons would instead “compete” on “who could be the most anti-Russian” and to achieve this status ANY argument – no matter how self evidently stupid – was uncritically considered as valid and legitimate.

You might wonder why the “old guard” did nothing to stop that infections rot. And, in fact, some tried, I personally know of two think tank directors who tried, but they were betrayed by the Reagan Administration which seemed quite happen to have rabid russophobic racists even in very high positions. Finally, this is the US of A, the “best democracy money can buy” and where the dollar is king. Simply put, the Neocons had A LOT of financial resources, much more than the paleo-conservatives, and they simply “bought their way in” into the US ruling elites.

Then the inevitable happened: when the professionally competent paleo-conservatives saw their institutions and organizations overrun with incompetent ideological freaks, they either kept a low profile and waited to retire or simply resigned.

This triggered a precipitous decline in the competence of the US ruling class.
In the meantime, the liberals began to realize that the Neocons were ridiculing them as “weak on defense” and, basically, as losers. So they tried to show that they too could be as “hardline” as the next guy. This is something which affected liberals not only in the USA, but also in all of Zone A (including all of Europe). Simply put: the liberals did not have the courage, fortitude and honor to fight for their values, so they simply caved in to the trend set by the Neocons and the ugly phenomenon known as “Neolib” increasingly completely replaced old style liberals.

This is why today we see the ugly sight of pseudo-liberals trying to out-Neocon the Neocons.
And, again, just like their paleo-conservative counterparts, the paleo-liberals either kept a low profile and waited for their retirement or resigned.

Some, like the late Professor Stephen Cohen did resist and refused to go with the flow, but he was vilified, ostracized and, eventually, completely ignored. Yet, to his last breath, Professor Cohen remained a world-class historian and analyst, true to his ideals, and a sincere friend of Russia.

But in the public discourse, the few “Stephen Cohens” were replaced by the many “Eliot Cohens”.
After that, is was all downhill for the US polity.

George H.W. Bush was probably the last “old style” President, then one freak replaced another. Clinton was a total puppet of the Neocons. As was Dubya. Obama, apparently, did not come out of the Neocon camp, but he was so quickly co-opted that it made zero difference. And, as we all know, while Trump promised to “drain the swamp”, the Neocons got him to heel in less than 1 month (when they made him betray Gen Flynn and got the latter’s head “served on a platter” to them by Trump and Pence). As for Biden, his administration is pure, genuine, 100% certified Neocons with Neolibs and assorted woke freaks thrown in for “diversity” purposes.

Why does that matter? Because he who controls the White House controls the money flows which, in the reality of US politics, is the one thing that matters most.

By the way, 9/11 played a crucial role here.
It is quite obvious that 9/11 was a Neocon “inside job” and that is served as a pretext to start the GWOT. However, it also had another very important role: it forced each public figure in the USA to chose one of two camps:

• Be obedient and accept the (terminally idiotic) conspiracy theory of the White House or
• Lose your job, position, reputation and means of income.

Most, unsurprisingly, caved in and 9/11 ended “biding up together” the entire US ruling class. That type of bond is the type criminal accomplices have: if one goes down, everybody goes down, hence the omertà around the topic of 9/11 even though it was proven by a preponderance of evidence and even beyond reasonable doubt that 9/11 was, indeed, an inside job. After 9/11, true dissent was completely removed from the US political discourse.

By the way, something similar happened to Europe, except that the categories were somewhat different. In Europe (I am talking about the real Europe, not the “enlarged” EU with eastern Europe included) there were real patriots in most countries. Yes, the USA was the senior partner, but there were enough political leaders which were capable of saying “no” to the US and care for their national interests first (I think of Mitterrand and even Chirac here). That generation of politicians and decision-makers gradually was replaced by a new generation of actors whose entire career plan was to unconditionally and fervently serve US interests, even at the expense of their own countries (Macron, Scholz). And while I would not call EU politicians “Neocons”, I will say that they are the faithful, loyal, servants and slaves of the Neocons.

And, just as in the USA, the competent and patriotic decision-makers were replaced with ideological stooges who has zero expertise or honor, but whom the USA would support as “loyal servants”. Opposition to US imperialism in Europe was relegated to a distant margins of public discourse.

I would argue that the 90s were the years of the absolute triumph of the Neocons who took total control of both the USA and the EU.
So what are Neocons really like? First and foremost, they are extreme narcissists and, as is often the case with narcissists, their obnoxious self-worship, sense of entitlement and hatred of the “other” all come from a deep seated inferiority complex (believe me, they *knew* the contempt they were held in by the old generation of US decision makers, and they *knew* that they were seen as the “crazies in the basement”). So besides being self-worshiping racist narcissists, they were also filled with resentment, a desire for revenge and a unbreakable “us vs them” mentality..

Also, and contrary to popular belief, they were not very smart (if only because being truly smart requires both humility and expertise, something the Neocons are totally devoid from). In reality, the big competitive advantage of the Neocons over the “old guard” was not brains, but drive. This is something we often observe in history: the folks who actually seize power are rarely the smartest ones, much more often you see folks with a tremendous ideological drive. A perfect example? The German Nazis. Please name me one truly educated and smart Nazi! Hitler? Nope. Himmler? Nope. Goering? Nope. Speer, better, but he was not much of a Nazi to being with. Hess? Nope. Karl Haushofer, Dietrich Eckart or Alfred Rosenberg? Pheuleeze! And I won’t even go into the true morons à la Streicher or Strasser.

Yet the Nazis not only took power in Germany, they managed to convert most of Europe (with shamefully little resistance!) to their idiotic ideology or their genocidal policies. It is quite a testimony to the power of evil stupidity to see how eighty years later(!), the united West is now openly following the exact same policies as the Nazis did in their very short rule (the promised “thousand year Reich” turned out to last 12 years only!).

Finally, I have to mention one more thing: for the US Neocons the election of Trump was quite literally a slave revolt and a slap in the face. While Trump proved to be sub-pathetic by any measure, the fact that a majority of US citizens were willing to prefer him to the “Neocon & Woke diva” Clinton was absolutely traumatic. Having the total control of the three branches of government, AND the media, AND academia AND the financial sector gave the Neocons the illusion that they had finally “made it” and then suddenly, and pardon my French, the people of the USA send them a loud and heartfelt “f*ck you!” and voted for the one candidate which the Neocons had absolutely demonized.

====
Part 1

===
.

You spelled Zionist wrong.

 

[Boomer Sooner]

Well this is a dot

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616864621230538753

View: https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1616864621230538753

WW3

 

[LightEcho]

The F-16s will be wiped quickly, but it does push us a step closer to direct war. Think about this:
1. How will F-16s get into Ukraine? If Russia is smart at all, they declare a warzone no-fly space over Ukraine and shoot anything that comes in.
2. Where will such warplanes be housed? There is no airbase that cannot be hit with missiles at any time.
3. Russia is supplying Europe with oil. Remember the "sanctions" thing? Russia should apply cost increases to any nation authorizing their equipment to be used in killing Russians. (They probably already have that worked out.)

For every step taken, there are counter-steps to beware of.

 

[Abert]

1:45

First Confirmed Loss of the S-400 SAM System

View: https://youtu.be/kXZw8T21RKk

VERY interesting article - BUT - always a BUT - the lead was buried - that this confirms that Russia is moving their better S-400 system in the area North of the "land bridge" along the coast. While this WAS NOT an S-400 system but only one of several launchers - not deployed. It appears Russia is actively reinforcing the contact line - this will provide additional problem for the US/NATO should they enter this conflict - obtaining control of the air space will be very difficult and costly if not impossible.

The extensive Ukrainian(NATO) defense lines - built up over the last 7 or so years - have proven very effective in slowing the Russian advances - but on overtaking these areas the Russians have been building their own fortification - especially massive "tank traps" and now deploying their S-400 AA (vs the Ukrainian S-300). Given that Ukraine effectively has NO Air force and they are begging for more tanks (after a loss of some 2 to 3+ thousand) It is likely these actions are not for any so called Ukrainian counter-offensive - but in prep (insurance) for a direct NATO entrance into the war.

While the outcome of this war does not turn on the loss of one S-400 launcher or the addition of 14 tanks from the UK. It does point to the ongoing expansion (on both sides) - with no end in sight!

 

[Oreally]

no end in sight

 

[Doc1]

Russian talking heads on state TV have repeatedly stated that the old boundaries of the Soviet Union should be reestablished.

Perhaps, but that is not the same as conquering all of Europe.

Best
Doc

 

[Abert]

no end in sight

Well as noted before - and confirmed - you "president" backed out of a settlement back in April that would have ended this. It only needed final approval - but your leader refused - so 100 to 150,000+ dead and - NO END IN SIGHT

 

[wait-n-see]

Russia Offensive Zaporozhye Fast Gains, Ukraine Operational Crisis Bakhmut; German No To Tanks​

Runtime - 58:24

 

[wait-n-see]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616918498038648832

 

[wait-n-see]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616858093316636673

 

[von Koehler]

Perhaps, but that is not the same as conquering all of Europe.

Best
Doc

These people are following Putin's goals; they wouldn't dare cross him. It's the party line.

They clearly show Putin's intention.

Ukraine was meant as the first step, the rest to follow afterwards..

Putin was certain was going to be an easy invasion, maybe three day max before Ukraine surrendered.

 

[Ragnarok]

I expect one of the "tells" for the watchers (if they cared) would be those cargo ships loaded with missile launchers and soldiers heading for our ed. eastwest coast.

You can bet they are already prepositioned.

 

[LightEcho]

If Russia is using attack aircraft- i.e. helicopters, bombers and jet fighters, then they are doing a combined whipping of the front lines. The concept is that if you prep with artillery and really blanket suspected enemy positions, immediately hit with tanks, followed by ground troops to clear the hides, the aircraft are not so much threatened by stingers or MANPADs because they get the defenders running if they can run or walk. Shooting at aircraft during a bombardment is one difficult thing to try. Looking at some of the videos, you can see how much the tree & hedge cover is splintered. Hiding on the ground will be difficult. The advantage goes to the tanks with large numbers blazing the hedgerows and moving which makes it difficult for anti-tank missiles to hit. Alot of hell breaking loose there.

 

[Ragnarok]

Well as noted before - and confirmed - you "president" backed out of a settlement back in April that would have ended this. It only needed final approval - but your leader refused - so 100 to 150,000+ dead and - NO END IN SIGHT

Because of UK and US pressure; The desire to weaken Russia.

 

[Red Baron]

Oh, Snap!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616592747883859968

View: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1616592747883859968

 

[Housecarl]

Well this is a dot

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616864621230538753

View: https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1616864621230538753

Unless they've been training on them since the invasion, the UkAF isn't going to get much use out of them if they are "transferred"...

 

[155 arty]

You've been asleep in a pod in a fantasy world of your own making. You just woke up.

LOL Just poking. Here take this pill, it will calm your nerves.

Welcome to reality...been telling acouple buddies that ukrain was gonna lose this and not to believe what they are being told....but no I'm wrong

 

[danielboon]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616952772787576834

View: https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1616952772787576834

 

[danielboon]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616956317889093634

View: https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1616956317889093634

 

[wait-n-see]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616863574013652992

 

[Oreally]

Well as noted before - and confirmed - you "president" backed out of a settlement back in April that would have ended this. It only needed final approval - but your leader refused - so 100 to 150,000+ dead and - NO END IN SIGHT

honestly, no one outside of the governments is really sure what happened in april. or why. i was in favor of a settlement then, and even ,actually, came up with part of what was carried by the people here.

so i am not at all happy about what is going on. obviously evil forces somehow blocked it.

so here we are. another year of war, and worse probably.

but don 't blame that idiot biden. look to the man behind the curtain.

when my sainted mother first saw him in 2003, before she passed, the first thing she said was, with real amazement and awe in her voice, was

'0h, i. don't. like. him..."

 

[jed turtle]

LOL they just might, but on a serious note: I tend to differ on the future plans of Russia. For Europe, Ukraine is it. Won and done.

However for the west in general, there is another play. IMHO and that is economic. To hurt the west and to hurt it badly for its interference. Not war but economic nukes.

And we have already given the Russians the idea on how to do it. Oil/natural gas.

Cut the west off from it's oil and petrodollar and it will be on it's knees begging for oil. Russia isn't there yet. They either need to own, or be in control of, all the oil coming out of the middle east. Corner the market.

So in my arm chair recliner with sweet tea, and a warm fire, Russia's next move will be south, to gain control of those pipelines. You bombed ours we will possess yours.

BTW SA oil goes to Europe through Iraq.

Russia have you come to take a spoil?

Russia doesn’t need another front to bring Europe and thus NATO to its knees. Israel and Iran however might bring the US and Russia together yet...

 

[jed turtle]

RT 18:51

More Tanks & Ukrainians training in US - Col Doug Macgregor​

73,859 views
Streamed live 20 hours ago

RT 21:28

Ritter - More Tanks & Ukrainians training in US​

89,935 views
Streamed live 22 hours ago

RT 16:02

Ukraine. Military Summary And Analysis 18.01.2023​

4,053 views
Premiered 28 minutes ago

Military Summary

80.7K subscribers

This video describes the military situation in Ukraine on the 18th of January 2023

====

The titles on Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom videos are not descriptive relating the majority of subject matter.

Ritter goes into depth on the Nuclear War scenario.

Col. McGreggor cover a wide range of topics, Ukrainian casualties, cutting off Ukrainian (NATO) supply lines, and his fears on Nuclear War.

Dima illustrates the methodical approach to Russian strategy. It does seem that Dima is focused on land gains. The reality is the Russians are wholly invested in demilitarization and de-nazification. In this case Russsia has exercised strategic moves which result in reducing the Ukrainian abilities to make war. Reductions in number of weapons and manpower.

A few of you may recall I've been following this subject for much more than just the past year.
I've consistently stated that this entire fiasco was ill advised for a variety of factual reasons. Several times I've voiced an opinion the US should sue for peace. This of course is considered an absurdity.

Not many of the citizens of the USA are invested in a war with Russia, infact the majority has had absolutely no say whatsoever in our participation. Scott Ritter (say what you will about him), speaks to the capabilities of those leading the US and the collective West in this endeavor. Keep in mind he is experienced in arms control agreements as a direct participant.

What I glean is the logical progression of the movements by both parties will end in catastrophe. Tit for tat, if else, move countermove. Frankly speaking I really can not envision a method which will appear on the near horizon which can avert such.

There are a few board members who understand what I'm trying to convey. There are also more that a few which refuse to see. My maxim has been, "You can lead a man to information, but you can't make them think."

For over twenty years I've participated here, and during that time I found the best practice is not to engage in rigorous debate. Be careful of what you say and who you say it to. Time passes quickly, posts can last forever.

It is in this practice not responding to bait is sometimes difficult, yet in this case we have more at stake in terms of real survival than at the time of the boards inception.

How then can we help to bring an end to this madness? Call on our representatives? Find a safe space and hunker down? Join a coalition of the unwilling?

I've mentioned John Titor a time or two. Is it deemed we must endure nuclear strikes on American soil - for our own good?

Sorry to ramble with no conclusion, grist for the mill, I suppose.

===
.

Very good post. Our elitist leaders are intentionally “leading” us into world war. seems like they are trying to destroy the US with every trick in the book. We who might survive will remember it as the hour that Babylon the Great died. Wait till China gets involved...

 

[night driver]

tom McDowel, THANK YOU for bringing The Saker to the notice of folks here.
Yeah, he's a Rusky Intel Expert, except that the US is his area of expertise.

In my never to be humble opinion he comes as close to an unbiased analyst of the USA (ZUSA) as ANY American writer. He and Jim Kunstler SHOULD be weekly in depth reads for all of us here.

BUT he actually DOES have a bias, and, yeah, his is for Christian Mother Russia. Folks would do well to spend some time with his articles and his blog. ==> The Vineyard of the Saker | A bird's eye view of the vineyard

 

[Melodi]

tom McDowel, THANK YOU for bringing The Saker to the notice of folks here.
Yeah, he's a Rusky Intel Expert, except that the US is his area of expertise.

In my never to be humble opinion he comes as close to an unbiased analyst of the USA (ZUSA) as ANY American writer. He and Jim Kunstler SHOULD be weekly in depth reads for all of us here.

BUT he actually DOES have a bias, and, yeah, his is for Christian Mother Russia. Folks would do well to spend some time with his articles and his blog. ==> The Vineyard of the Saker | A bird's eye view of the vineyard

And I've heard he is honest enough to say that if (not when) the US enters the war directly against Russia, he will stop blogging for the duration, at least on that topic. He can not be unbiased and doesn't want to risk harm to either his adopted or his home country. Now that's a man with principles.

 

[raven]

. . . which is why the WEF is openly considering the use of nukes in Ukraine . . . they think nukes are the same as cow farts.