The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/01/10/what-war-with-russia-would-look-like/

Monday, January 10th, "diplomats" from the US and Russia met in Geneva. It doesn't appear things went well. Former Iraq weapons inspector Scott Ritter described a possible scenario that lies down the road. Since the US media pays scant attention to what has been developing, it might be worth your time to see what Ritter thinks could happen.

Also, a few of you may have heard about the recent chaos in Russia's neighbor Kazakhstan. Barely mentioned here, the riots and putdown have been televised 24-7 in Russia. Many analysists see Turkish, CIA, etc. involvement similar to what kicked off in Syria. Russia intervened immediately and order seems to have been restored.

No matter what one thinks of Russia/Putin (undermined US democracy, invaded Crimea, etc.) the reality is that Russia has laid the cards on the table. They have publicly stated that NATO will not expand further and that heavy weapons shipped into Ukraine must be removed or they will consider military options. Is Eastern Europe really worth another fiasco, this time involving a nuclear power?

 

Possibly. Nukes are hard to maintain and very expensive, plus not sure what the Russians would have done in the 90's in Ukraine has kept theirs.

Real world - if the Russians want to roll into Ukraine there's nothing the feeble, impotent NATO (NATO being 90% US, 10% UK, and worthlessness from the other 93 members or whatever the count is up to) is going to do about it. German won't even cut off Russian gas sales - they're not freezing in the dark for another country, you'd have to have a hole in your head to think they would.

There would be a few days of huffing about it in the media, till the Democrat party came to a consensus on what the media should focus on as a way to claim victory - much like how in Afgan it was considered a success that we led 100 grand of people who had the sharpest elbows push their way onto planes and get flow, no background check or visa needed, to the US.

Probably no airlifts here - people from eastern Europe are not reliable Democrat voters, having seen what communism does.

 

Here's the bottom line. First, though the West would like Ukraine to join NATO (and perhaps the EU) and though many (though very far from all and perhaps not even most) Ukrainians would like to join NATO and the EU, nobody in the West is willing to wage war to get them into either.

Second, they shouldn't be willing to wage war to do it. I'm generally pro-NATO and favored some expansion of it into Eastern Europe and the Baltics, but Ukraine is a bridge too far and unnecessary. We can have good relations (even a defense relationship of sorts) with Ukraine without them joining NATO.

Third, if Putin is willing to invade Ukraine to keep them out of NATO and/or the EU, he can pretty much do it. We'll talk some **** and impose superficial sanctions that nobody really cares about, but we're not going to do anything meaningful. When we allowed the gas line between Germany and Russia to move forward, we showed our cards. We have no real spine when it comes to Russia. The anti-Russia truculence was phony and only about domestic politics.

 

The US should find ways of working with Russia to counter China.

 

Ukraine won’t be formally invited into NATO, but the continued flow of weapons and “advisors” make them a de facto member in the eyes of Russia. Hence Russia will likely respond militarily in some form. If so, the new political problem for Biden and the entire Neocon complex is whether to lose face or find a way to escalate. The latter would be frightening. Russia can turn the gas off to Europe. Russia would take an economic hit, but Europe would be crushed. And the world economic structure including the US would be under a great strain; and that’s excluding a kinetic war outside of Ukraine.

 

That's some of it, but I also think they want to push away politically complicated problems by dealing with superficially simpler ones. There's virtually no domestic support for Russia, so it's easy to talk **** about them and threaten "action" (even if it's all ********). They're an easy target. China is far more difficult to deal with - not because of how much stronger they are but because if you piss off China, the entire American business community and media will rake you over the coals.

 

We have trade with them. Trade builds bonds that prevent militarism. The problem is going along with all their crap, playing by their rules. That is a conscience decision by American businessmen and the Chinese businessmen don't have any qualms about being themselves. The weakening of American culture and confidence in that culture is the problem I think.

 

To a point it does if the nations involved are working in good faith, but China finds ways to keep their militarism in place across the board. Keep in mind that there's an agenda to China's dabbling in a market economy. I think it wants to avoid the economic collapse that hurt the Soviet Union, but the long term goal is the same, which involves the destruction of the West as we know it. They aren't our friends, and trade isn't changing that.

I agree. American businessmen really have jumped fully into the globalist business culture. They are quickly losing sight of the fact that the system that they exploit to make money relies on the American nation-state preserving a free market economy and a culture that values and rewards hard work and merit both domestically and around the world. There are other relatively free economies and cultures, but they are heavily dependent on the United States economically, militarily, or both. If the US fails (by actual collapse or just buy gradual decline and decay), the entire house of cards falls apart.

 

There ya go.
I would challenge anyone to try and buy everything they purchase ‘not’ made in China. Impossible today. I’ve tried to be diligent for the last year and some things you cannot avoid the label. My point is if the spigot of ‘made in China’ goods was suddenly turned off American consumerism would die.

 

I infer they are somewhat together against us. Quietly. Am I wrong?

 

I don't know about against us. But they are working on things to develop Central Asia that they probably wouldn't if the US was engaging Russia in a more constructive way.

 

What are the Russians trying to do to us though? Protect interests in their part of the world? They are threatening US citizens in any way. Neither is China for that matter. They are trying to exert more influence over the South China Sea. But they aren't trying to harm the US.

Regarding China the best thing the US can do is develop new supply chain to compete with China, hold their feet to the fire regarding IP theft, be honest with them about the injustices they commit, and continue to build strong relations with South Korea and Japan.

Regarding Russia, the US government should basically leave them alone. Speak out against them when they act aggressively against their neighbors. But I think much of what they do is in response to perceived threats on their front.

 

Chop, that would be an improvement over what we are doing today.

Personally, I think Ukraine should rule themselves. Right now the US and Russia are fighting for control. I think both sides are missing the point. I understand Russian not wanting a US puppet right next to them. I understand pushing back on Putin's organized crime model.

I feel similarly about Iran. No problem preventing them from having nuclear weapons. Without that I don't see them a big threat to anyone. Iran is a large producer of oil and gas. The world needs more of that not less. We shouldn't fight Israel's fights in the Middle East. Make sure they don't get nukes, then live and let live.

 

Unless we're willing to use military force, Iran is going to get nukes if they want them. In other words, we won't stop them from getting nukes unless the current regime gets overthrown and replaced by a more Western-friendly regime.

 

We could never sell this in the West. I know you're talking about a secret deal, but we'd have to at least do something. We'd have to at least impose a façade of sanctions, boost troop levels in Eastern Europe, and talk some ****.

I've always thought we should have worked out some sort of joint plan with Russia on Syria.

We can't guarantee we won't occupy Iran at least on a short to medium term basis if we actually went to war. This idea that occupation has become a dirty word is stupid and dangerous. Occupation is how you keep the war your people just got done dying in from becoming a waste.

I'm not for doing anything about Kaliningrad, but I'm not sure why it's is treated as rightfully Russian. It's a city that was stolen from Germany near the end of the War. Basically Red Army troops attacked, gang-raped all the women and then beat the **** out of and expelled the German population (from Königsberg and all of East Prussia), which was large. And we accept that as legitimate. It would be like it the US Army went into Frankfurt, turned it into Houston, and everyone just treated it as if it was normal.

Russia would never agree to that.

 

Reading the above exchanges from Chop and Deez has been an exercise on trying to analyze the opinions of two strong advocates of imperialism. But those views are mainstream; with US policy makers, Congress, and the general public. Mine or not.

Russia’s leading diplomat, Lavrov, strongly implies there will be war.
IS GENEVA 2022 MUNICH 1938 WITHOUT CHAMBERLAIN’S PIECE OF PAPER? HOW TO READ THE US PAPER FOR PEACE FOR OUR TIME

 

Quite a lot to unpack. While Russia isn't a communist state, they are a competitor state.

The US is the financial master of the world with the dollar as global reserve currency.
China is the manufacturing master of the world.
Russia is the resource master of the world in terms of energy (supplanting in many ways the Middle East).

The US is the only country that can project power anywhere on the globe. The US Navy has ruled supreme for many decades. Both China and Russia resent the US using Naval dominance and financial dominance (sea lanes, sanctions, etc.), to shape the economic lever in favor of the US. The BRI (Belt-Road Initiative) is a project headed by China to connect China to the rest of the world bypassing sea routes. The Nord Stream II pipeline which the US has fought to stop is a way of giving more financial clout to Russia via its energy reserves. As the US uses its non-military tools to fight against China and Russia, these countries view that (correctly I think) as the US using hybrid war to maintain hegemony.

Also, the US spends massive amounts of money to maintain the global military presence (800 or so foreign bases and so forth). In addition, the CIA has farmed out through various NGO groups the tasks of "educating" foreign citizens about democracy. Russia particularly sees this as another type of hybrid war using propaganda to foment color revolutions and so forth. This is modern warfare. Social media plays into the equation as well. We can argue if the Trump election win shenanigans were influenced by Russian interference or if the aftermath was a smokescreen engineered by the US Deep State. Either way, its apparent that social media has become a weapon used by the powerful.

To justify the large amount of the budget expended on the military, its helpful to point to Russia as an enemy. In much the same as Big Pharma benefits from Covid-19 hysteria, the military industrial complex benefits from Russia phobia.

Those of us outside of the elite power structure are pawns who must simply sift through the tons of propaganda and make up our own minds what to believe.

 

Russia's economy is on par with California, correct? We should treat them in that manner.

I think the game to play with Iran is to not give the majority of young Iranians an America to hate and let the mullocracy fade out/die off. Under that thin but hard crust of Islamophobia is a secular country waiting to live free.

 

Iran obviously is split between pro and con on the mullocracy. But even the anti-Mullah population doesn't view the US very favorably. The assassination by Trump of a very popular general didn't do much for our image.

 

Agree, but what you suggest could have been done at some point in the past decade. I think its too late now. That ship has probably sailed.

 

After we're done with Iran, meet the new Shah:





(little known facts: he was actually a bodyguard for the Shah of Iran for a few years, he amateur wrestled for Iran in the Olympics, was the World Champion amateur Greco-Roman wrestler in 1971, and he assistant-coached our US Olympic wrestling team, before his days in the WWF ring)

 

"if they want them" Yes. All things being equal, who doesn't want nukes? But there are political realities and pressures outside of war that disincentivizes it. Not sure the evidence points to Iran building nuclear weapon capability at this point.

 

I think the technology will meet them in the middle at some point. Pakistan has them. I don't think they're any more stable. They're just less honest with us.

 

I know you didn’t mean it that way but this statement struck me as funny. Heck it might even be absolutely true but still struck me as funny.

 

Iran doesn't need nukes as a deterrent against Israel. The Iranians have modernized their conventional arsenal of missiles to the point they have a deterrent. As long as the US has several bases in the Middle East, this arsenal is also a deterrent against the US. In my opinion, this is why Trump backed off after Iran hit the Iraq base with the missile a few years back in response to the assassination. Once the US saw what Iran's capabilities were, Trump decided (his advisers) decided to call off a counterstrike.

 

They've (China) got someone else to be worried about, someone roughly equal in power to them and not too far away that hates them very, very much--India. All that being said, I think the Chinese fear Japan more than they fear us, India, or Russia.

An amateur Euro expert can weigh in: I suspect Russia may fear Germany most for similar reasons.

 

And the Russians seem to hold Ukrainians in low regard, they undertook a genocide by starving millions of them to death in the 20th century. This is ironic, because Russian culture originated in Kiev, Ukraine. The Kievan Rus were the first Russians.

And historically, when the Russians needed shock troops, it was the Cossacks (a Ukrainian minority) that they turned to. They did some really bad things over the centuries, but they (Cossacks) were mostly effective militarily. You'd think the Russians would show some appreciation for the Ukrainians.

 

This was not a planned genocide. The starvation resulted from calamitous Communist policy which resulted in the destruction of what had been privately owned agricultural production. And there is no Ukrainian people or nation so to speak. When War War II broke out, the Ukraine region consisted of pro-Nazi sympathizers as well as a pro-Soviet Russian population. What we call Ukraine has never been a homogenous nation.

 

Look, I'm not advocating we get into a shooting war with Russia over the fricking Ukraine of all places, but historical facts are historical facts...

"Most of what is now Ukraine was formally governed by Polish-Lithuanian nobility prior to the 18th century, but these lands were predominantly inhabited by Orthodox East Slavs who began to form semi-autonomous hosts of peasant warriors – the Cossacks. Most of them felt a cultural affinity for Muscovite Russia but had no particular desire to be a part of the Muscovite state. In the 16th through 18th centuries, the Cossacks in present-day Ukraine began to form their own de facto statelets, the ‘Zaporizhian Sich’ and later the Cossack ‘Hetmanate’. They staged a major uprising against their Polish overlords in 1648. Six years later, the expanding Tsardom of Russia signed a treaty of alliance with the Zaporizhian Cossacks. Notwithstanding this temporary turn towards Moscow, the Cossacks also explored other options: In the Treaty of Hadiach with Poland in 1658, they were on the verge of becoming a fully-fledged constituent member of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth."

A simplified sports-message-board-level history of Ukrainians: Nomadic horse riding warriors with their own distinct culture and history -- controlled or influenced by Poland/Lituania and Russia at different times. They're very similar to Russians, but they're not Russians. (think Canadians and US-Americans) Also, these guys were a big chunk of the bada$$es that kept Russia from being invaded by Muslims from the South over the centuries.

In literary terms - they're the Riders of Rohan. This is far outside our sphere of influence, but what Russia is doing to them is low down and dirty. It's not worth a shooting war with Russia over, but Russia is still being a nasty bully towards Ukraine and should be scorned. All that being said, we have a bigger fish to fry at this point in history--China.

“There is no Ukraine”: Fact-Checking the Kremlin’s Version of Ukrainian History