John: Highlighting for you an irreverent read from Dmitry Orlov that was on Zerohedge that takes a different perspective with regards to the possibility of nuclear war. You might remember him from some very early and interesting books about collapse during post-Soviet times and as someone who has lived extensively in both Russia and the U.S.
TL;DR -> his view is that while the West may be accelerating towards *provoking* a nuclear war, it is an ineffectual gambit because Russia hasn't been materially weakened by the West, in contrast to the West (and Europe particularly) being substantially weakened by cutting off Russia. Hence, it has no use for nuclear weapons and need merely defend the territory is has won in the Ukraine, while waiting for the energy / food situation in the West to deteriorate further.
Would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this one. Thanks.
I've met Dmitry years ago and we've talked on and off over the years. He used to live on a boat in Boston Harbor (ready to turn his hand to delivering supplies up river if things went bad, or sail away).
This is Putin's gambit now that the campaign season is winding down. He's trying to hold ground until the effects of energy and food disruptions/tightening have an impact, dividing the alliance against him. Also, he's waiting for the US/EU relationship with China to worsen, forcing China into his camp by spring.
Thanks John. It seems the key question is whether Dmitry's assessment of the Russian gambit to some extent alleviates the concern that we could stumble into nuclear war?
In other words, how strong or week is Russia, truly? Are the sanctions and disconnection actually crippling, or is Russia doing OK? I don't have a clear answer. I sense some serious bias in Dmitry's article on this point. OTOH, we probably have the opposite bias here in the U.S.
It does. Top triggers include encirclement and entry into Crimea. Not close to that right now. BTW: They are only triggers because of the larger backdrop; the disconnection, the reframing of the war, and the degree of support provided.
How does the swarm/network compete with the adage that "nation states always act with their own interests?" Is that the crux of what is changing here? That the swarm/network undermines this adage - resulting in chaos and unpredictable outcomes?
Perhaps it’s both. Maybe state leaders conclude in a roundabout way that the best interests of the nation state are realized by following the swarm’s lead.
Completely agree. I worked the region for many years for the defense department, and produced much of the prominent analysis for the Pentagon post-Crimea. I've never seen such recklessness regarding Russia specifically or nuclear war in general. Now that I'm in the private sector, I get to express these things publicly. I recently described precisely how and why escalation could lead to nuclear war: https://deepdivewithleeslusher.substack.com/p/amateur-hour-armageddon
John: Highlighting for you an irreverent read from Dmitry Orlov that was on Zerohedge that takes a different perspective with regards to the possibility of nuclear war. You might remember him from some very early and interesting books about collapse during post-Soviet times and as someone who has lived extensively in both Russia and the U.S.
TL;DR -> his view is that while the West may be accelerating towards *provoking* a nuclear war, it is an ineffectual gambit because Russia hasn't been materially weakened by the West, in contrast to the West (and Europe particularly) being substantially weakened by cutting off Russia. Hence, it has no use for nuclear weapons and need merely defend the territory is has won in the Ukraine, while waiting for the energy / food situation in the West to deteriorate further.
Would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this one. Thanks.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/orlov-new-cuban-missile-crisis-isnt
I've met Dmitry years ago and we've talked on and off over the years. He used to live on a boat in Boston Harbor (ready to turn his hand to delivering supplies up river if things went bad, or sail away).
This is Putin's gambit now that the campaign season is winding down. He's trying to hold ground until the effects of energy and food disruptions/tightening have an impact, dividing the alliance against him. Also, he's waiting for the US/EU relationship with China to worsen, forcing China into his camp by spring.
Thanks John. It seems the key question is whether Dmitry's assessment of the Russian gambit to some extent alleviates the concern that we could stumble into nuclear war?
In other words, how strong or week is Russia, truly? Are the sanctions and disconnection actually crippling, or is Russia doing OK? I don't have a clear answer. I sense some serious bias in Dmitry's article on this point. OTOH, we probably have the opposite bias here in the U.S.
It does. Top triggers include encirclement and entry into Crimea. Not close to that right now. BTW: They are only triggers because of the larger backdrop; the disconnection, the reframing of the war, and the degree of support provided.
How does the swarm/network compete with the adage that "nation states always act with their own interests?" Is that the crux of what is changing here? That the swarm/network undermines this adage - resulting in chaos and unpredictable outcomes?
It can overwhelm governments, driving events so quickly or changing the conditions of the public debate it can't do anything but comply.
Perhaps it’s both. Maybe state leaders conclude in a roundabout way that the best interests of the nation state are realized by following the swarm’s lead.
Completely agree. I worked the region for many years for the defense department, and produced much of the prominent analysis for the Pentagon post-Crimea. I've never seen such recklessness regarding Russia specifically or nuclear war in general. Now that I'm in the private sector, I get to express these things publicly. I recently described precisely how and why escalation could lead to nuclear war: https://deepdivewithleeslusher.substack.com/p/amateur-hour-armageddon