Sounds like this is the meeting where they will officially decide if Ukraine is worth WW3
That’s what I’m guessing. Hopefully they suffer an outbreak of common sense here.
I keep thinking (and hoping) they’re just doing Nixon’s madman thing. They’re pretending to Russia that they’re willing to risk it all, to go all the way and that they’ll gaslight the world right up to and through that moment about Russia being responsible.
But as Mao said these tend to be paper tigers and I don’t think project Ukraine is quite worth it though if Russia starts showing a little resolve the west might push them to show a lot more before they finally retreat.
That’s my hope as well, unfortunately they’re also scared and desperate which tends to be a bad combination. At this point, the empire is like a rabid dog backed into a corner.
Given they’re trying to expand NATO and intentionally provoke a conflict to weaken an adversary through attrition. They need to be backed into a corner and then the world can leave them alone to rot and turn their violence inward. So it’s more like a rabid dog running around and biting people through a street then snarling and getting into attack stance whenever someone tries to corner it to alleviate the danger. They knowingly chose a conflict with a nuclear power, a former superpower because they thought it would be easy. It’s their problem that their planners are so inept they never considered that they could lose, Russia could stand, and they’d look bad and apparently now that it’s possible it’s unacceptable to them to which we and Russia can only say “tough shit, fuck around and find out”.
I maintain though Russia needs to figure out some sort of strategic big “fuck off” move to hit back against the west in a way that makes it minimally likely compared to other options that they escalate to direct war or nukes and which dissuades them strongly. I really do say give Ansar Allah anti-ship missiles and help them sink a large US navy ship, cost the US some billions and humiliate them and most importantly show them they can’t escalate without a cost, that the Russians have the resolve to hit back and they need to not do so because it isn’t safe or rational. Not their fault the US’s missiles suck and can’t hit Russia 90% of the time while Russia’s can get through. Because if they don’t, no amount of rhetoric or saber-rattling is going to dissuade the west from continuing to escalate to a direct conflict as they’ve seen so far such rhetoric doesn’t amount to actual consequences for the west so why wouldn’t they continue trying to boil the frog one slow escalation at a time?
IMO given the west’s resistance to losing, their likelihood of escalating to try and prevent that loss and all the other factors, Russia has a few options assuming Trump doesn’t de-escalate and cut off Ukraine or negotiate something amenable to Russia (we can always hope):
-
Dissuade them with concrete action, a fuck-off type action. The danger here is this could lead to escalation of course. The danger of not doing it, is escalation will certainly happen but perhaps in a more controlled fashion though if Ukrainian lines shatter all bets may be off and the west might go all in anyways and dare Russia to make good on its nuclear threat.
-
Do nothing, just let the west continue up the escalation ladder and hope Russia can break Ukraine and defeat them without the west doing more than these types of things. I personally think this only emboldens them and encourages the dangerous idea among their planners that they can do anything including pouring NATO troops into Ukraine to freeze the conflict and a score a win through militarizing most of Ukraine for NATO as well as plundering it through the purchases Blackrock and the like have made which is a notched victory for the capitalists and their investments and not just the empire which benefits them in a more round-about way. But I could be wrong, they could end up doing nothing. I just know Europe has a few too many fanatical believers in “the garden” who are willing to self-immolate for my comfort. Given Europe can’t go back to cheap Russian energy which they somewhat want without a Russian loss and humiliation to justify them dropping sanctions and resuming trade.
Another issue is time seems to give the west resolve. They do at times seem somewhat nervous, doing toe-dipping into the pool like one country at a time escalating or sending up flares about threatening actions they could take to see the Russian reaction. But this is merely a process that takes time and the more time they have the more they salami-slice or to revisit the pool metaphor, the deeper they dare wade in. Europe in particular I think has many states that want to go all in, who have destroyed their economies already with this war and think basically they’re in for a penny they’re in for a pound and they either win or destroyed themselves for nothing (but the benefit of the US which is not a pill any of those liberals want to even contemplate).
- Slow the pace of the war intentionally. Don’t make attempts to completely break Ukrainian lines or push a break-through to Kiev, instead just grind down the front to remove the threat somewhat but don’t move it anywhere beyond the regions that voted to join Russia. Allow the west to feel they can wind the war down gradually like all their other losses in places like Vietnam and hope with time they accept the loss because it looks less bad if Ukraine lasts another 3 years say and their populations move on and some narrative is crafted to allow them to lose gracefully. The problem with this is they’ll still be dealing with attacks using western systems behind the lines all the while and of course doing this accepts the Ukrainians continuing to feed even more of their people into the meat grinder to die for the west. It also has the issue of giving the west more time in which they may decide upon more and more gradual escalations including troops so there’s no guarantee this plan would work and could actually put the Russian armed forces in a worse position if they do end up in any kind of conflict with NATO.
Another issue is the west may not be open to continuing the conflict that long because it interferes with their time-table for attacking China. Maybe the US will let Europe handle it and go off on its own and use its Asian vassals plus Australia to confront China and if they do I worry with both wars burning and the US updating nuclear policy to “neutralize” Russia + China + DPRK at once that they might take the opportunity to settle all the scores at once with first strike sneak decapitating attacks via missile subs/launches from deranged Baltic countries followed up by the massive larger salvo of total suppression and destruction.
Which is why I really want to see this loss firmly notched in the west’s belt and the whole thing behind us by next year as I think that kind of humbling may be enough to shake some sense into enough western planners to save the world from wide use of nuclear weapons.
I definitely expect that the most likely scenario is that the US dumps Ukraine on Europe and focuses on China going forward. This is already kind of hinted by Trump’s picks, a lot of whom are China hawks. My prediction is that the downfall in the west is going to be economic as opposed to a big military defeat.
Europe is already in a recession, and things are only looking worse every day. There’s absolutely no way to turn that around at this point. Meanwhile, there are big problems brewing in the US economy as well. The US did an amazing job kicking the can down the road so far, but you can only do that for so long and all that means is that the crash is going to be that much bigger when it comes.
The signs are already visible. Credit card and auto delinquencies are at all time high, other defaults on debt like mortgagees are likely not far off. The salaries are not keeping up with the cost of living, so discretionary spending is going down which results in companies rate of profit crashing. The tariffs Trump is promising are only going to make things worse as they drive up prices for the consumers. Once the defaults hit a certain point then we’ll see a big debt crisis unfold akin to 2008. The oligarchs like Buffets and Bezos are already pulling money out of stocks in anticipation. While all that’s happening, the US is also losing economic war against the BRICS with more and more countries dedollarizing. Even worse, China is now issuing dollar bonds of their own which are directly competing with the US.
The western public is already becoming angry, and a big economic crash is very likely to lead to mass unrest across the western world.
-
Aren’t ballistic missiles usually hypersonic, especially above a certain size?
Is that what the escalation is?
BBC actually has a decent explainer.
If Putin’s description is correct, the missile is at the upper edge of the definition of hypersonic, and few things can achieve this.
Speed is important because the faster a missile travels, the quicker it gets to target. The quicker it gets to target, the less time a defending military has to react.
A ballistic missile generally gets to target by following an arcing path up into the atmosphere and a similar one down towards its destination.
But as it descends, it picks up speed and gains kinetic energy, and more kinetic energy gives it more options. This allows it to manoeuvre down towards the target - by performing some kind of defending wriggle - that makes interception by surface-to-air missile systems (such as Ukraine’s US-built Patriot defence missile system) particularly difficult.
Russia escalated?
Yeah, because Ukraine launching those long range missiles is definitely not an escalation that caused this retaliation. I love when media maliciously reframes the facts.
The problem wasn’t so much that “Ukraine launched” the missiles but that it was the US, UK and France that launched them inside Russia and killinig Russians as well.
For that reason, if Putin had sneezed after the atacms launch, it would have been called an escalation.
Ukraine hit Russia in parts of Russia they couldn’t hit before with U.S.- and UK-supplied missiles that may have required NATO personnel to aim and/or fire. That’s an escalation – hasn’t been done before, brings NATO countries more directly into the war.
Russia hit parts of Ukraine they could already hit, but with a much more advanced type of missile that can carry a nuclear payload. That’s not an escalation – Russia could already strike there! – but it is a reminder about what further escalation could bring.
What Russia did was respond.
U.S.- and UK-supplied missiles that may have required NATO personnel to aim and/or fire
“May” is the wrong word here. The word you’re looking for is definitely. The Ukrainians themselves have admitted as much on their Telegram channels from what i’ve seen. They complain that they have to wait too long for US to authorize the next strikes because the only way that they can employ these missiles is with NATO satellites providing all of the targeting and guidance in live time. That means that Ukraine is doing nothing but pressing the button, everything else is done by NATO. The Russians also said this would be the case in advance and they are 100% right when they say the use of these missiles now is a direct attack on them by NATO. Even the pretense of a proxy has essentially been dropped and both sides know it, it’s only the western media that is still trying to gaslight the world.
You love to see the “Backstab Myth” forming in real-time under a right-wing nationalist military sponsored by the west. Real-talk, do you think America is fully aware of this or are they just hoping leadership can keep it suppressed enough before further “imagined gains”?
Ukrainians pushing the button is still a proxy, and the legal/political doctrines are still ambiguous because of it
$5 says that they won’t back down on allowing use of midrange missiles into russia because they don’t believe russia has anymore and/or to save face on the narrative that russia is on the ropes over ukraine.
The real question is what they will do if Russia responds by sending an Oreshnik to UK. It’s basically what Putin said would happen in response to next attack.
I don’t think hitting the UK is where it’s at. Russia’s escalatory path is two fold: 1) destroying Ukrainian infrastructure to stop the attacks and 2) Africa
I mean Russia has a lot of options here. Hitting the UK would make a huge statement though because it would expose NATO as being a paper tiger. Of course, the risk there is is far higher than other options as well.
Yeah, I think the risk is too high to the Russian people. Launching a missile at that distance opens up all of Russia for retaliation from a large number of USA bases and naval launch systems. Further, I’m not sure it’s possible to determine if such a missile is nuclear tipped or not, possibly triggering a whole mess of MAD protocols.
I think, like Ho, bin Laden, and Xi, Putin is actively engaged in bleeding the empire out and it’s presently working with minimal risk to the Russian and Chinese people. I think the continued expansion of China economically and maintaining and expanding the quagmires that the empire is in will lead to greater results in the near term, especially since doing so will continue to increase unrest in the West, whereas a direct attack would likely galvanized the population.
Better to let the empire continue to fight smaller battles on multiple fronts far away from home. At least this is what it seems like is happening
I do suspect that the risk here might be too high as well, but I wouldn’t rule this out entirely given where we’re at now. Putin was very explicit in his statement that at this point Russia sees US and UK as being direct participants, that Russian citizens died on Russian territory as a result of a NATO strike, and Russia sees direct retaliation on NATO territory as perfectly justified. While there is a danger in Russia actually following through, there is also danger for Russia in NATO treating their red lines as a bluff, as that invites further escalation. Russia has been extremely restrained for the past three years, but that won’t last forever.
There is pretty much zero chance that the US would start a nuclear war over Europe. Doing so would go directly against the US interests, and that would be the end of America. I’m quite certain that the oligarchs running the place would prefer not to spend the rest of their lives in a bunker. Europe would be left to hang if it came to that.
All that said, I agree that the most likely scenario is that Russia doesn’t take the bait, and finds a way to respond asymmetrically in a way that would be unpleasant enough for US to drop the idea of striking within Russia. Ultimately, the best move is to respond in a way that will force the west to back off without inviting further escalation.
I’ll challenge that last point. I think Putin is fully committed to bringing an end to American hegemony, and that means the best move is to respond in a way that causes the West to commit more resources in more fronts in ways that continues to erode the stability of Western relationships domestically and globally.
Oh yeah I agree there, but Russia would want to do it in a way where it doesn’t directly escalate their own problems. I think sending weapons to Yemen is one of the most obvious moves. Another option would be to start giving more advanced weapons to DPRK because it further pins US forces in occupied Korea and might even force them to send more stuff there in response.
i get the feeling that the labour government believes that russia is merely saber rattling again and i don’t like where this is going if labour displays the same obstinacy as the democrats did during & after the election.
Exactly, if they think Russia is bluffing and Russia actually hits the UK then we’re firmly in WW3 scenario.
I mean, what would the UK do if they got hit by a Russian missile? Can they even fight a war with Russia? Would the US care?
Why would Russia ever hit the UK? Outside of the situation where they have lost and the Russian state itself is going to collapse and be balkanized. They’re making steady gains in Ukraine and everyone is waiting to see what Trump ultimately does. Putin as the Western media portrays him would, I guess, but actual Putin went to war with Ukraine to ensure Russia’s future, not doom it.
The UK can’t do much of anything on their own, so the real question would be whether the US would risk a nuclear holocaust over UK or not. If the US does nothing then the whole NATO scam is going to collapse overnight though.
Incidentally, the FT just described UK military as a Potemkin village
The result is that Britain has a Potemkin village military retaining the emblems of a pocket superpower, but without the necessary hard capabilities. The present disordered world does not leave room for such tricks.
i believe the US absolutely would retaliate, because just like you said, NATO would be done in a day if they didn’t.
NATO serves to bolster US interests though, and having an all out nuclear war is not what US oligarchs want as Trump victory shows. So, I think there’s a very good chance they cut their losses. It’s not like Europe wouldn’t be dependent on US without NATO at the end of the day.
