The entire point of this war from America’s perspective is to weaken Russia by taking the opportunity to kill a bunch of Russians while making Joe Biden look like a big man. America will keep this war going as long as the defense contractors are making money and Biden is still able to emulate coherence for a few hours a day. Collateral damage such as dams and/or dead humans plays no part in this calculation.
And translating into an excuse for higher prices to consumer of flours and wheat and corn products globally as the retailers scream "war in Ukraine" again. The farmers have already been buckling under due to fertilisers increasing still, so they have already as of last year, reduced plantings, which has already increased demand. But yep, here we go again. Boy! If someone really was trying to cripple the agricultural industry and drown the consumer in inflationary cost of living, for reasons of their own, then they'd be doing a really good job.
Oh and I wish someone would check Zalensky's investment portfolio for wheat...🤔🤔😐🤨
Of course they have. The longer Russia remains locked in a war of attrition in Ukraine the weaker they become, militarily. Even with a conservative estimate of Russian casualties, nearly all of Russia's initial invasion force has been attrited. And by even a generous reading of the economic data, Russia's military industrial complex is not able to keep Russia's troops in Ukraine adequately supplied.
Meanwhile, neither US nor NATO formations are being degraded. And Poland is steadily building up its military capacity.
So long as Russia doesn't draw NATO directly into the war, this war ends with an effectively demilitarized Russia spiraling down into demographic and economic collapse.
It's an appallingly cynical strategy worthy of Henry Kissinger himself... and it may very well succeed.
Meanwhile, the entire American military arsenal of tanks, bombs, APCs, etc. ships over to be destroyed on the other side of the world, and Zelinski helps himself to a few more hundred million skimmed off of the top. Everyone comes out ahead, except Russia and the USA.
Add the dam, the nuclear plant, the flooded towns and that many more ruined lives to your victory over Russia, Obviously, they never intended to fight a conventional war with NATO, now, they don't even have an army to take the ground (that will be glowing in the dark) after their big victory.
Unless NATO is drawn into combat directly, there is minimal likelihood of a nuclear exchange.
Tactical weapons only make tactical sense as a means of creating a barrier across otherwise indefensible territory. Strategic weapons only make sense as a deterrent or as a last resort.
Without direct NATO engagement, the conditions which would make nuclear weapons even momentarily plausible do not arise.
Shifting the focus on strategic nuclear weapons from fallout to EMP doesn't alter the strategic calculus. Neither Russia nor China can launch a strategic nuclear strike without reprisal.
When a state like Iran gains nuclear weapons, that calculus might change, especially if the mullahs decide nuclear holocaust will bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam, which is a core tenet of Twelver Shia eschatology.
Outside of a rogue state with an apocalyptic agenda, the EMP threat doesn't change the probability of nuclear exchange.
An EMP attack may indeed come from Iran, or North Korea, both are deployments of Russia/Chinese forces.
But that won't have anything to do with the 400 holes in the ground where our ICBMs used to be located, and that's only 400 warheads because we removed (and destroyed) the busses that would have allowed us to upload them back to three.
For information, the Russians and the Chinese have rockets capable of carrying (and equipped with) ten or more RVs.
You say neither can launch a strike without reprisal, sure about that? We are talking about the Biden Administration.
Yes. When this war first started, I didn’t pay much attention to it, because I thought someone would surely assassinate Putin and end the situation quickly. There are people in the old KGB who would benefit, Russian oligarchs, everyone in Ukraine, and probably in the CIA.
However, European geopolitics have revolved around 4 locii of power since the 18th century: London, Paris, Berlin, and Moscow. Tensions among them have driven everything from the Napoleonic Wars to who was on which side in WW2.
Moscow fell from Great Power status in 1992, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin's singular goal upon achieving the Presidency in 1999 was to restore Moscow to Great Power status. This he arguably had achieved by the time he annexed Crimea in 2014.
Paris and Berlin are jockeying for influence within the EU, with the EU jockeying for hegemonic influence over Europe with Moscow. London sits on the side not wanting any nation on the continent to hold too much sway.
"Both sides will press for more war. Both sides will achieve only more death and more destruction by so doing. Neither side will achieve victory." I suspect destruction and confusion may be a feature, not a bug.
The entire point of this war from America’s perspective is to weaken Russia by taking the opportunity to kill a bunch of Russians while making Joe Biden look like a big man. America will keep this war going as long as the defense contractors are making money and Biden is still able to emulate coherence for a few hours a day. Collateral damage such as dams and/or dead humans plays no part in this calculation.
And translating into an excuse for higher prices to consumer of flours and wheat and corn products globally as the retailers scream "war in Ukraine" again. The farmers have already been buckling under due to fertilisers increasing still, so they have already as of last year, reduced plantings, which has already increased demand. But yep, here we go again. Boy! If someone really was trying to cripple the agricultural industry and drown the consumer in inflationary cost of living, for reasons of their own, then they'd be doing a really good job.
Oh and I wish someone would check Zalensky's investment portfolio for wheat...🤔🤔😐🤨
One major problem is that the self-proclaimed “world policeman” wants the bloodbath to continue. The US has repeatedly derailed all talk of peace.
https://open.substack.com/pub/seymourhersh/p/blinkens-battle-hymn
Of course they have. The longer Russia remains locked in a war of attrition in Ukraine the weaker they become, militarily. Even with a conservative estimate of Russian casualties, nearly all of Russia's initial invasion force has been attrited. And by even a generous reading of the economic data, Russia's military industrial complex is not able to keep Russia's troops in Ukraine adequately supplied.
Meanwhile, neither US nor NATO formations are being degraded. And Poland is steadily building up its military capacity.
So long as Russia doesn't draw NATO directly into the war, this war ends with an effectively demilitarized Russia spiraling down into demographic and economic collapse.
It's an appallingly cynical strategy worthy of Henry Kissinger himself... and it may very well succeed.
Meanwhile, the entire American military arsenal of tanks, bombs, APCs, etc. ships over to be destroyed on the other side of the world, and Zelinski helps himself to a few more hundred million skimmed off of the top. Everyone comes out ahead, except Russia and the USA.
Or result in nuclear destruction!
This whole damn episode has gone on long enough.
Add the dam, the nuclear plant, the flooded towns and that many more ruined lives to your victory over Russia, Obviously, they never intended to fight a conventional war with NATO, now, they don't even have an army to take the ground (that will be glowing in the dark) after their big victory.
What a f-cking mess.
Unless NATO is drawn into combat directly, there is minimal likelihood of a nuclear exchange.
Tactical weapons only make tactical sense as a means of creating a barrier across otherwise indefensible territory. Strategic weapons only make sense as a deterrent or as a last resort.
Without direct NATO engagement, the conditions which would make nuclear weapons even momentarily plausible do not arise.
Obviously, you never read anything written by the late Peter Pry.
About the dangers of EMP? Yes, I have.
Shifting the focus on strategic nuclear weapons from fallout to EMP doesn't alter the strategic calculus. Neither Russia nor China can launch a strategic nuclear strike without reprisal.
When a state like Iran gains nuclear weapons, that calculus might change, especially if the mullahs decide nuclear holocaust will bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam, which is a core tenet of Twelver Shia eschatology.
Outside of a rogue state with an apocalyptic agenda, the EMP threat doesn't change the probability of nuclear exchange.
An EMP attack may indeed come from Iran, or North Korea, both are deployments of Russia/Chinese forces.
But that won't have anything to do with the 400 holes in the ground where our ICBMs used to be located, and that's only 400 warheads because we removed (and destroyed) the busses that would have allowed us to upload them back to three.
For information, the Russians and the Chinese have rockets capable of carrying (and equipped with) ten or more RVs.
You say neither can launch a strike without reprisal, sure about that? We are talking about the Biden Administration.
The Nuclear 911 in Our Future
Peter Pry, March 17. 2022
https://edwin797.substack.com/p/the-nuclear-911-in-our-future?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Madness. I have been asking since day one why doesn’t someone take out Putin ? He is responsible.
Yes. When this war first started, I didn’t pay much attention to it, because I thought someone would surely assassinate Putin and end the situation quickly. There are people in the old KGB who would benefit, Russian oligarchs, everyone in Ukraine, and probably in the CIA.
The fact that he's still alive makes me think someone wants him to stay alive and this war to continue.
There's little doubt but that NATO's strategy is to grind up Russia's military using Ukrainian troops as the cannon fodder.
But why? Are they scared of Russia?
Not as such.
However, European geopolitics have revolved around 4 locii of power since the 18th century: London, Paris, Berlin, and Moscow. Tensions among them have driven everything from the Napoleonic Wars to who was on which side in WW2.
Moscow fell from Great Power status in 1992, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin's singular goal upon achieving the Presidency in 1999 was to restore Moscow to Great Power status. This he arguably had achieved by the time he annexed Crimea in 2014.
Paris and Berlin are jockeying for influence within the EU, with the EU jockeying for hegemonic influence over Europe with Moscow. London sits on the side not wanting any nation on the continent to hold too much sway.
"Both sides will press for more war. Both sides will achieve only more death and more destruction by so doing. Neither side will achieve victory." I suspect destruction and confusion may be a feature, not a bug.
It's certainly hard to argue otherwise.