Apr 14, 2023·edited Apr 14, 2023Liked by John Robb
As time goes by, I've come to believe that it is actually the US (and not Russia) who is backed (more?) into a corner and therefore capable of 'heinous acts' to win the day. For the US, losing in Ukraine is almost equivalent to Russia losing. For Russia, it's existential and it cannot/will not allow the West to defang them. For the US, though, it is existential to the unipolar hegemony......which is an absolute threat to our current way of life in the US. This has led me down the thinking that perhaps it's the US that will act more aggressively (use nukes in a "Nordstream-like-way") to win the day? It feels vicious and brutal beyond belief for me to even entertain this idea - but I haven't been able to let it go as the timespan of the war continues to extend. Relatively speaking, who has more to the lose?
I still think it’s Russia. A good test of that: would a loss end in a regime change? Or would a loss greatly diminish security? For Russia the answer would be a qualified yes. For the us, no. In fact, a loss would intensify the US focus on enemies both external and internal. Win or lose, the United States has greatly weakened it global position and a loss could put Russia into a position where it would feel it was forced to use nukes to protect itself.
Thanks John - a cogent analysis of where we find ourselves.
Just one query - when you state ‘Russia’s botched invasion of Ukraine’ - are you referring to the instigation of the ‘invasion’ or the tactical aspects of the operation?
The entire operation has been a fiasco for everyone, however, the early attempt to use maneuver forces in a low casualty/disruption operation to quickly take control of the capital and the country, forcing a change of a government was particularly bad from a military standpoint for many reasons.
I’d like to suggest that it hasn’t been a fiasco for the military-industrial complex in the west - quite the reverse. But that’s a convo for another day.
With respect John, can we be certain that Russia really wanted to seize all of Ukraine? Could the thrusts towards Kiev have been feints while they moved into the Donbass?
Due to the low numbers of troops involved it seems like the priority with the initial invasion was to show the West they weren't messing around anymore and wanted to bring about negotiations again (Minsk 3).
They got their nose bloodied but with the reserve mobilisation seemed to have changed the strategy to one of relatively low cost attrition of AFU with artillery/rockets and destruction of infrastructure. We can't be sure of the casualties on either side in this info environment but if guys like Col. MacGregor are to be believed the Ukrainians have been absolutely mauled over the last 6-9 months.
Is the danger of escalation coming from Russia or a desperate NATO that: 1) over-estimated it's own strength and 2) underestimated Russian strength? I am fearful of further NATO provocation, covert attacks and false flag ops.
“can we be certain that Russia really wanted to seize all of Ukraine?” Yes, I think we can. It was an attempted coup de main by maneuver forces - seize the city before it can be defended. Plus low damage air campaign, particularly in regards to infrastructure. It was also designed to resolve the conflict fast, before the west mobilized opposition, although they never envisaged the networked escalation. I don’t think they intended to annex the entire country though, rather change the government and extract territorial concessions.
In terms of escalation, the danger is that Russia is put into a corner - use nukes or accept a humiliating peace. The other danger is that with tensions so high and the situation so muddled, a small incident could set in motion a cascade of actions that lead to a nuclear catastrophe.
"Many more options and potential outcomes are available..."
Could you elaborate?
Rather than botch it in a comment, I would need to write a report to lay out a framework for it.
As time goes by, I've come to believe that it is actually the US (and not Russia) who is backed (more?) into a corner and therefore capable of 'heinous acts' to win the day. For the US, losing in Ukraine is almost equivalent to Russia losing. For Russia, it's existential and it cannot/will not allow the West to defang them. For the US, though, it is existential to the unipolar hegemony......which is an absolute threat to our current way of life in the US. This has led me down the thinking that perhaps it's the US that will act more aggressively (use nukes in a "Nordstream-like-way") to win the day? It feels vicious and brutal beyond belief for me to even entertain this idea - but I haven't been able to let it go as the timespan of the war continues to extend. Relatively speaking, who has more to the lose?
I still think it’s Russia. A good test of that: would a loss end in a regime change? Or would a loss greatly diminish security? For Russia the answer would be a qualified yes. For the us, no. In fact, a loss would intensify the US focus on enemies both external and internal. Win or lose, the United States has greatly weakened it global position and a loss could put Russia into a position where it would feel it was forced to use nukes to protect itself.
Thanks John - a cogent analysis of where we find ourselves.
Just one query - when you state ‘Russia’s botched invasion of Ukraine’ - are you referring to the instigation of the ‘invasion’ or the tactical aspects of the operation?
The entire operation has been a fiasco for everyone, however, the early attempt to use maneuver forces in a low casualty/disruption operation to quickly take control of the capital and the country, forcing a change of a government was particularly bad from a military standpoint for many reasons.
I’d like to suggest that it hasn’t been a fiasco for the military-industrial complex in the west - quite the reverse. But that’s a convo for another day.
Thanks for the reply.
With respect John, can we be certain that Russia really wanted to seize all of Ukraine? Could the thrusts towards Kiev have been feints while they moved into the Donbass?
Due to the low numbers of troops involved it seems like the priority with the initial invasion was to show the West they weren't messing around anymore and wanted to bring about negotiations again (Minsk 3).
They got their nose bloodied but with the reserve mobilisation seemed to have changed the strategy to one of relatively low cost attrition of AFU with artillery/rockets and destruction of infrastructure. We can't be sure of the casualties on either side in this info environment but if guys like Col. MacGregor are to be believed the Ukrainians have been absolutely mauled over the last 6-9 months.
Is the danger of escalation coming from Russia or a desperate NATO that: 1) over-estimated it's own strength and 2) underestimated Russian strength? I am fearful of further NATO provocation, covert attacks and false flag ops.
“can we be certain that Russia really wanted to seize all of Ukraine?” Yes, I think we can. It was an attempted coup de main by maneuver forces - seize the city before it can be defended. Plus low damage air campaign, particularly in regards to infrastructure. It was also designed to resolve the conflict fast, before the west mobilized opposition, although they never envisaged the networked escalation. I don’t think they intended to annex the entire country though, rather change the government and extract territorial concessions.
In terms of escalation, the danger is that Russia is put into a corner - use nukes or accept a humiliating peace. The other danger is that with tensions so high and the situation so muddled, a small incident could set in motion a cascade of actions that lead to a nuclear catastrophe.
Appreciate the perspective John, thank you for addressing the question.