Paul Craig Roberts has been predicting the imminent demise of the United States for at least the past 10 years. He's something akin to being the Peter Schiff of geopolitics.
The problem with his "nuclear war is inevitable" analysis is that it ignores the pressures that existed within the Kremlin during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev and the Soviet leaders were equally convinced that the US meant to bury the Soviet system--there was a tit-for-tat aspect to putting missiles in Cuba after the US stationed Jupiter missiles in Turkey. Yet when the US Navy instituted a quarantine of Cuba, and proceeded to interdict flows of weapons and missile gear to Cuba, the Soviets blinked and decided not to go for the nuclear option.
By the same token, JFK also blinked, and thus the behind-the-scenes agreement whereby the US would pull the Jupiter missiles and pledge never to invade Cuba in return for pulling the Soviet missiles out of Cuba was born.
Post WW2, it has become baked into every geopolitical discussion that first use of nuclear weapons is a psychotic level of insanity. Every country that has nuclear weapons ultimately is betting on the fear factor precluding the need for their use. A first strike by Russia against the US eliminate Russia as a nation among the community of nations. Not only would US retaliatory strikes pretty much end Russia's economy, but the opprobrium of first use likely would cancel any sympathies Russia might currently enjoy internationally. There would be no Marshall Plan to rebuild a post-nuclear war Russia, while the US still would possess the capacity to rebuild using resources entirely within the North American continent (and still just as protected from invasion by the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans).
Russia launching nuclear weapons at the US would entail not just Putin but the whole of the Kremlin feeling backed into a corner where they thought there was no other option. That's a pretty hefty initial assumption, and requires 100% buy-in to the Ukrainian War within the Kremlin, which is simply not the case.
Russia's demographic collapse is apparent to anyone with access to the data--which means everyone in the Kremlin. One thesis as to why Putin chose 2022 to start a war with Ukraine is that if he'd waited too many more years there would not be anywhere near the number of combat capable conscripts needed to prosecute an extended war with Ukraine and/or NATO. Yet with or without the Ukrainian War Russia runs out of young men sometime in the 2030s, which means even if Putin survives this war his successor will last about as long as Gorbachev before the second phase of Russian collapse takes hold.
Putin's problem is that he has to win in Ukraine, whereas NATO "wins" just by Ukraine not losing. In fact, the longer the attritional phase of the war in Ukraine lasts, the better it is for NATO. As long as Ukraine stops their troops at the Russian border, Russian first use of nuclear weapons is unlikely. A first strike is not a gamble as was the case with invading Ukraine, it's a suicidal move designed to take Russia out in a blaze of glory. Putin might be that unhinged, but it's unlikely the rest of the Kremlin is.
Thanks. I feel a little better after reading your response!
However, it seems the neocons continue to take US foreign policy in a bellicose and destructive direction, regardless of which party controls whatever branch of government.
That's always been the case. What we call "neocons" today have always oscillated between the political parties, and always pursuing a "national security" agenda that has absolutely no bearing on the shifting electoral politics.
The problem with the Deep State was never that it was a conspiracy, but rather a bureaucracy. Even when given the rather anodyne term "permanent administrative State" there as for quite some time been a tacit admission even in the corporate media that the bureaucracies in Washington are their own center of political gravity and governance.
Most people missed it but Vindeman's testimonies surrounding Trump's impeachment kept making constant reference to "the interagency" and how Trump was misbehaving for not following the scripts, the protocols, and the objectives of "the interagency."
Anyone who followed Vindeman's testimonies and caught that detail had any remaining doubts about the existence of "the Deep State" eliminated. While connections to groups like Davos and the WEF are somewhat problematic and exaggerated, that there is an unelected "shadow government" in Washington as well as in other capitals of the world is every bit the open secret as Ukrainian biolabs.
It's not that the neocons are bellicose per se. It's that the military-industrial complex about which Eisenhower tried to warn everybody as he was heading for the exit has its own motives, its own plans for securing its own profits--and with the "national security state" at their disposal, what better way to secure profits than by perpetuating war?
This is the kind of data that makes for interesting speculation. Will the Russian citizens - who were never enthusiastic about the war, and are now facing a declining standard of living - dare to slowly build up a grassroots movement against Putin? Will the Russian oligarchs - annoyed that their oil profits are down and assets have been confiscated by other world powers - rally to hurry up and end the war, or will they simply conspire to replace Putin? Will China’s top dogs be more inclined to partner militarily with Russia - because they can impose more favorable terms - or decide that Putin’s a loser and turn their attention elsewhere? What an intriguing year this might be!
Thanks for the update.
What do you make of this depressing analysis?
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2023/03/30/does-america-have-a-future-3/
Paul Craig Roberts has been predicting the imminent demise of the United States for at least the past 10 years. He's something akin to being the Peter Schiff of geopolitics.
The problem with his "nuclear war is inevitable" analysis is that it ignores the pressures that existed within the Kremlin during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev and the Soviet leaders were equally convinced that the US meant to bury the Soviet system--there was a tit-for-tat aspect to putting missiles in Cuba after the US stationed Jupiter missiles in Turkey. Yet when the US Navy instituted a quarantine of Cuba, and proceeded to interdict flows of weapons and missile gear to Cuba, the Soviets blinked and decided not to go for the nuclear option.
By the same token, JFK also blinked, and thus the behind-the-scenes agreement whereby the US would pull the Jupiter missiles and pledge never to invade Cuba in return for pulling the Soviet missiles out of Cuba was born.
Post WW2, it has become baked into every geopolitical discussion that first use of nuclear weapons is a psychotic level of insanity. Every country that has nuclear weapons ultimately is betting on the fear factor precluding the need for their use. A first strike by Russia against the US eliminate Russia as a nation among the community of nations. Not only would US retaliatory strikes pretty much end Russia's economy, but the opprobrium of first use likely would cancel any sympathies Russia might currently enjoy internationally. There would be no Marshall Plan to rebuild a post-nuclear war Russia, while the US still would possess the capacity to rebuild using resources entirely within the North American continent (and still just as protected from invasion by the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans).
Russia launching nuclear weapons at the US would entail not just Putin but the whole of the Kremlin feeling backed into a corner where they thought there was no other option. That's a pretty hefty initial assumption, and requires 100% buy-in to the Ukrainian War within the Kremlin, which is simply not the case.
Russia's demographic collapse is apparent to anyone with access to the data--which means everyone in the Kremlin. One thesis as to why Putin chose 2022 to start a war with Ukraine is that if he'd waited too many more years there would not be anywhere near the number of combat capable conscripts needed to prosecute an extended war with Ukraine and/or NATO. Yet with or without the Ukrainian War Russia runs out of young men sometime in the 2030s, which means even if Putin survives this war his successor will last about as long as Gorbachev before the second phase of Russian collapse takes hold.
Putin's problem is that he has to win in Ukraine, whereas NATO "wins" just by Ukraine not losing. In fact, the longer the attritional phase of the war in Ukraine lasts, the better it is for NATO. As long as Ukraine stops their troops at the Russian border, Russian first use of nuclear weapons is unlikely. A first strike is not a gamble as was the case with invading Ukraine, it's a suicidal move designed to take Russia out in a blaze of glory. Putin might be that unhinged, but it's unlikely the rest of the Kremlin is.
Thanks. I feel a little better after reading your response!
However, it seems the neocons continue to take US foreign policy in a bellicose and destructive direction, regardless of which party controls whatever branch of government.
That's always been the case. What we call "neocons" today have always oscillated between the political parties, and always pursuing a "national security" agenda that has absolutely no bearing on the shifting electoral politics.
The problem with the Deep State was never that it was a conspiracy, but rather a bureaucracy. Even when given the rather anodyne term "permanent administrative State" there as for quite some time been a tacit admission even in the corporate media that the bureaucracies in Washington are their own center of political gravity and governance.
Most people missed it but Vindeman's testimonies surrounding Trump's impeachment kept making constant reference to "the interagency" and how Trump was misbehaving for not following the scripts, the protocols, and the objectives of "the interagency."
Anyone who followed Vindeman's testimonies and caught that detail had any remaining doubts about the existence of "the Deep State" eliminated. While connections to groups like Davos and the WEF are somewhat problematic and exaggerated, that there is an unelected "shadow government" in Washington as well as in other capitals of the world is every bit the open secret as Ukrainian biolabs.
It's not that the neocons are bellicose per se. It's that the military-industrial complex about which Eisenhower tried to warn everybody as he was heading for the exit has its own motives, its own plans for securing its own profits--and with the "national security state" at their disposal, what better way to secure profits than by perpetuating war?
Or by eliminating dissent by implementing totalitarian measures including CBDCs…
Russia is pushing forward with their digital ruble, but I haven't seen anything to suggest their experience is any better than China's with the eCNY.
A CBDC still has a significant regulatory hill to climb for actual implementation in the US.
This is the kind of data that makes for interesting speculation. Will the Russian citizens - who were never enthusiastic about the war, and are now facing a declining standard of living - dare to slowly build up a grassroots movement against Putin? Will the Russian oligarchs - annoyed that their oil profits are down and assets have been confiscated by other world powers - rally to hurry up and end the war, or will they simply conspire to replace Putin? Will China’s top dogs be more inclined to partner militarily with Russia - because they can impose more favorable terms - or decide that Putin’s a loser and turn their attention elsewhere? What an intriguing year this might be!