As the US attempts to set Russia up with a nuclear false-flag in Ukraine, it may soon find itself annihilated through unpunishable nuclear strikes from Russia.
In recent weeks there have been more and more murmurs that the United States, which is the centre of gravity at this point for the Kiev regime, is increasingly worried about the course of the war despite articles about how Ukraine has turned the tide with its September offensives.
On 9 October the Pentagon Spokesman Admiral John Kirby said on the American television network ABC news that the United States thinks the war has gone on too long and is 'of course' in favour of peace and diplomacy. This is despite ostensibly war changing victories by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (VSU) in September.
Then on 15 October came a Fox News report that it is not just European nations which have run down their reserves for war and have to dip into active duty stocks if the West keeps hoping to supply Ukraine with weapons, but the United States itself. Indeed, the United States is so short of HIMARS ammunition that it did not have enough for live fire exercises this month with the Japanese Self Defence Forces. The Washington Post also reported Biden is increasingly irritated with Zelensky's continued insistence on more and more weapons, more dangerous weapons - while insisting that Ukraine is winning. In brief, key American decision makers know that Ukraine is not winning and it is burning through NATO war stocks while losing. Diplomatically, most of the world is - while still wary - treating Russia like the winner.
In this scenario some time from late October to early December - the Russians attack. The goal would be to drive the Ukrainians out of Donbass and expand the foothold on the right bank of the Dnepr around Kherson while concurrently opening up a front in northern Ukraine - presumably around Chernigov with the aim of capturing the entire Oblast and Chernigov city if possible. This new front will draw VSU troops from the south allow the Russians to make further gains in Kherson, Donbass, Zaporyzhia and retake territory around Kharkov and possibly even put Kharkov under siege. The aim of this Russian offensive would be to have by the end of March 2023 cleared Donbass, captured Kharkov city, and put Zaporyzhia and Dnepropetrovsk under the beginnings of a siege, as well as possibly having captured the towns north of Energodar to remove any immediate threat to the Zaporyzhia Nuclear Power Plant near Energodar. This is accompanied with accelerated strikes on Ukraine's power grid which further collapses much of its economy though does not outright destroy the grid but does further undercut Kiev by making the hardships of war come into every Ukrainian home and encourage people to flee the country.
At this point Ukraine would be in a death spiral having lost anywhere from 1/3 to 40% of its pre-2014 territory and much of its population - meaning the VSU itself would no longer be able to sustain manpower replacement and would have had much of its equipment destroyed. Concurrently a hard winter would have severely hurt European economies and their ability to support Ukraine, and where Europe's economy is hurt the US' is inevitably hurt too. Seeking a way out and with not much choice the Europeans and Americans scale back but do not halt military support for Ukraine while seeking to initially freeze the conflict. Putin insists that in addition to the four new Oblasty which joined the Russian Federation in October 2022 that Kharkov and possibly even Dnepropetrovsk Oblasty are now also required.
The Ukrainians vow to fight on and concede nothing - Zelensky and his inner circle are dead men if they stop fighting - for the rest of 2023 the Ukrainians are - with a devastated economy and with reduced military aid pushed back and back until, possibly into 2024 Ukraine is finally captured in its entirety. At that point Ukraine will cease to exist. Depending on the economic and territorial situation collapse may occur as early as 2023. Millions will flee west and those that stay will, with the Russians, try to pick up the pieces and rebuild. NATO and the United States will claim victory of a kind and refuse to recognize the territorial changes de jure but will de facto. Subversion against the reunified Russia and Ukraine will be attempted but unsuccessful. Slowly but surely relations will be normalized, albeit at a much more tense level.
A multipolar world though will emerge from the war as other countries around the world will see they do not need to be afraid of the West. The West will become more authoritarian as it attempts to construct a 'world apart' from the rest and withdraw from engagement outside of itself. It will attempt to become 'the garden' and view the rest of the world as 'the jungle' as described this past week by EU foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell.
Whether the West will stay together will be an open question. The war has papered over deep fissures beneath the surface. It is entirely possible that countries like Hungary and even Germany will look to exit the EU. US political unity is also a factor - and one unrelated to the war. If the USA fractures further politically, perhaps even territorially, NATO will defacto cease to exist and European nations will have to look to a modus vivendi with a Moscow that will - by this time - not be led by Vladimir Putin.
In brief this Scenario U is a managed collapse that averts armageddon - at maximum cost the West can extract from Russia short of nuclear war - but also one that keeps the possibility alive of the West remaining one of the poles, and perhaps even the single most powerful pole, in a newly multipolar world.
Thank you for playing the tape forward. It's been conspicuously lacking from the public discourse, on any intelligent level.
Putin seems to be allowing a "rope-a-dope" play at home as more Russians are starting to say he's being too restrained while he "slow-walks" it. With the west, he can "boil the frog" because he can take a long term view. He may be thinking about his legacy in Russian history at this point. He'd like to reverse the "catastrophe of 1991" and reunite Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia.
For the west however, I don't think it can be predicted mainly by macro influences, like the state of its reserve currency. Its politics has cycles at various time scales. The "mockingbird media" only has power over emotions it can arouse on a daily basis. The political fragmentation prevents it from having a coherent long term approach and dampens any strategic bold moves unless they're reactive. Essentially no grand narrative, except in the mind of some neocon think tanks whose influence is spotty.
The conflict serves the politicians in their very short timeframes of interest. The ongoing conflict is a source of money and influence for them individually, and they will allow the war droning on without converging to a meaningful outcome. When everyone wears out, new politicians take credit for compromises that end the war.
Certainly, the world will be changed by the whole episode in ways that I don't have the knowledge to determine, but I think the overall course would be pretty "boring" or un-dramatic strategically (except for the more "tactical" surprises and reactions). Also the major actions won't add up to anything like chess moves, though undoubtedly there is a lot of war-gaming being done. All the powers involved will manage to grind on certain boundaries of power in the direction they prefer, while the whole system stays at fairly stable balance along the way. The media and public opinion may well be sources of stability and friction rather than radical bold actions. Someone may break the nuclear taboo, but in a way they can claim the high road (like destroying Norway's offshore rigs without killing a lot of people). The public's reaction could be to go back to pretend the taboo still exists and prevent any reactions, or only a proportional reaction which ends the nuclear part of the war.
In effect, my hope is that public opinion has a much heavier dampening effect on fast and bold changes than is visible on the surface. The war will then fizzle like the other modern wars, but with some effect on the lines of soft power around the world. Also, since it's near Europe, it'll leave more scars emotionally, financially, physically, etc., than the other recent wars.
It had to be that big, without knowing the history you can't understand the present and if you don't understand the present you can't predict the future possibilities.
One should take into account instead of what kind of predictions think tanks like Stratfor are making. These know what people in the lead in Washington know and who of these people can push a political-military decision. Not everything we may hear publicly stems from people in actual decision positions. These are simply testing the terrain, such as Borell, etc.
Friedmann, the chief of Stratfor, predicted attacking Moldavia and Romania next after Russia's defeat of Ukraine.
On the other side, the president of Serbia predicted a turn to WW conditions within 2-3 months.
Both analyze probably the same data from different angles.
Russia's only real military move during this winter and autumn can be the conquest of Odessa. Friedmann assumed that Ukraine's leadership is probably decapitated, and because of the lack of game-changing Western weapons, this front will be considered frozen till early summer.
After the conquest of Odessa, if Friedmann's projected scenario is correct, Russia will find itself immediately in Transnistria. It will have to deal with Moldavia next, which will probably, since Romanian, immediately surrender. I am an ex-Romanian; I know, thus, overwhelming Romanian enthusiasm for games with no rewards. Romanians are no Ukrainians. Everybody of you will agree with this formulation.
The next will be from the viewpoint of Friedmann (which I am here reverse engineering), the American basis in Romania, Deveselu, which holds 40 nuclear rockets moved there from Incirlik. The base is most probably under permanent Russian surveillance. This will possibly bring within 2-3 months NATO into a direct confrontation with Russia - as according to the Serbian analysis and the Stratfor partially disclosed analysis.
From this, we cannot conclude what Russia will do. But we know what the US will not do until the fall of Odessa.
I assume Biden has conveyed a message of nuclear threat to Russia; in the case, Odessa should be taken by the Russians. This act would force, according to the game theory analysis offered by Friedmann, the Russians to attack as next Deveselu after the fall of Odessa. Putin´s allusion to nuclear threats from the West may allude to this.
My point: this means the USA had no plans to use a nuclear bomb until their red line was crossed, namely the fall of Odessa.
My next point: since the Russians know game theory too, they will try not to conquer Odessa but to somehow invert their strategy and reverse the order of their actions or take some unaccounted steps.
This will bring significant problems to the NATO war planners, having to draw up entirely new plans. In a panic mood, there can happen a lot of shit.
Scenario U: Russia has no need to go nuclear. They can take out all our satellites.
They also have a weapon that uses "new physics" to create an emp attack that destroys all electronics within a given range. I can't remember its name & lost my link to it. It was described at deagel.com(?) & obliquely referenced in a Global Times article not too long ago.
More & more countries are signing onto Brics. SA just asked to join.
Russia is evacuating civilians from Kherson right now, in expectation of an intense fight.
Russia's 300,000 new forces are already moving into position to defend Luhansk & most of Donbass, freeing the experienced, battle-hardened soldiers to resume the offensive.
You misunderstand Karkhov, which is not strategic to Russia. The retreat was planned, operational &, at great cost to Ukr, successfully drew Ukr & Nato forces into a potential firebag on hard to defend, open steppe. Russia can take the land back if & when they choose. Ukr cannot resurrect their dead & disabled soldiers or destroyed equipment.
Russia & Belarus joint forces are amassing at Ukr's north border. Russia has moved massive amounts of heavy weapons, including Iskanders, into Belarus. Weeks ago, Lukashenko asked Russia for nukes. Putin agreed. Don't know if they are there now. Haven't seen anything about it since.
Videos show ridiculous # of brand new looking tanks have been heading toward theatre on long long lines of trains.
The descriptions of the neocons' expectations re:Russian response show how little they understand of Russia outside their narcissistic bubbles.
Too long; I gave up at about Scenario C, skipping to the Conclusion.
Is this a translation (from....?...)? There are many failures in tense, syntax, cohesion....
A major malign factor omitted: the influence and "entangling alliance" of colonial Zionism via its platform Israel in the MidEast and the inordinate Jewish-Zionist presence in PNAC (recall Richard Perle?) Libya, Iraq (Zionists brazenly cruising through the halls of DoD...), Syria (yet under US occupation)...next Iran?...all to serve the USrael/Zionist goal of full-spectrum global dominance.
you are my main source of information on the interwebz - but I just saw that you set your tweets (which I read through nitter) to "protected". Would you be so kind and reconsider? There are many people like me out there who just feel "cut off" - and we need your informed opinion!
Kind regards,
KM
P.S.: I just created a twitter account (actually just for you!), KarlMarx/FreddieCouples. Please let me in... ;-)
Very nice, i have not read it thoroughly yet, i probably will. Regarding the Poseidon/Kanyon: « Russia deploys two of its Poseidon nuclear torpedoes carrying a 200MT warhead ». What do you mean 400MT total ? I have not seen sources claiming more than a 100MT warhead. And even this looks rather not useful. The Tsar Bomba was larger than the design of the torpedo would allow but had a yield of 50MT, and had a mass of 27t. Explosive power is pretty much determined by mass/volume. I have not studied the purported designs but >100MT looks unlikely. More importantly it does not seem economically clever to build a custom single warhead for that vector, instead of cramming several "standard" 1MT warheads. I have seen opinions which look reasonable that the total yield of the Poseidon would be lower than 10MT. Add a perhaps even more important point: the destruction caused by a detonation at optimal destruction altitude of 50 1MT nuclear explosions (something like 600m) is much greater than that of a single 50MT explosion. I don't remember the area destroyed but that would be something like 10 times more with 50 explosions, and that is obviously more flexible and robust/failsafe/sure-to-hit than one single explosion. So here are a few elements that should be taken into account to get things right when speculating on Poseidon.
Thank you for all this work. Can we know a bit about your formation ? It is hard for me to guess with any confidence, i've had several ideas but always with contradictory elements.
This might be the best and more troughly analysis of this matter that i came across. very well done! I sense some points missing but overal it's very good.
some corrections I would suggest:
* it was not the defense minister of Ukraine that called for a nuclear first strike. it was Zelensky himself.
* you say "On February 23rd, 2022, Russia launched its first intervention since 2008". Not sure what you are referring to "intervention" but there was the 2014 Crimea annexation and the intervention on Syria.
* you say "on August of the year of writing, Russia suspended the final piece of nuclear arms control and left the New START treaty.". Russia denied inspection by US and only on February 2023 has formerly suspended the participation in the new START treaty
Thanks for this great and thoughtful analysis and especially thorough description of the recent history over the last 20 years.
I think there is one element missing in this and the possible scenarios for the future.
I must admit, I am still not sure about the final purpose of this „element“ in this great power conflict scenario but nevertheless I am certain it must be a part of it.
I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts on this.
COVID and the gene-therapy vaccines..- What Do you think is their role in this global conflict?
The lockdowns and then subsequently the generalised push by all countries involved to force their populations to take novel vaccines.
Their justification has always been very questionable given that all authorities knew the vaccines were actually not reducing the spread of the virus nor did this virus actually pose a serious health threat for reasonably healthy people unless very old ( see COVID case fatality rate estimates bei Prof Ioannidis 2020)
It is notable that the vaccine roll out in all NATO states was a matter of a military operation!
At the same time these chinese vaccines were never allowed in any NATO and allied countries- despite good safety record and proven old vaccine technology.
While any of the western gene therapies are up to now not allowed in China or Russia.
So there are obviously sign. military concerns about their purpose on both sides.
The continued on fifst impression non-sensical COVID lockdowns in China only add to the impression that this whole COVID theatre has a strong militarily purpose. (Lets not forget Putins long long tables… :-)
So lets propose a new scenario besides nuclear war- biological warfare coming 2023….
I don't think the USA & NATO can EVER be trusted. If their military capabilities are not destroyed once and for all, Russia will never be safe. I think Russia has no choice but to make the maximum pre-emptive strike on ALL NATO big cities and military facilities, including airports, airfields and industrial capacity, so that there is no possibility of the West ever being able to rebuild a nation-threatening or world-threatening military capability. Game Theory specifies that this scenario is necessary. Very sad, but i see no other alternative.
My Scenario U:
"Russian victory and slow new settlement"
In recent weeks there have been more and more murmurs that the United States, which is the centre of gravity at this point for the Kiev regime, is increasingly worried about the course of the war despite articles about how Ukraine has turned the tide with its September offensives.
On 9 October the Pentagon Spokesman Admiral John Kirby said on the American television network ABC news that the United States thinks the war has gone on too long and is 'of course' in favour of peace and diplomacy. This is despite ostensibly war changing victories by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (VSU) in September.
Then on 15 October came a Fox News report that it is not just European nations which have run down their reserves for war and have to dip into active duty stocks if the West keeps hoping to supply Ukraine with weapons, but the United States itself. Indeed, the United States is so short of HIMARS ammunition that it did not have enough for live fire exercises this month with the Japanese Self Defence Forces. The Washington Post also reported Biden is increasingly irritated with Zelensky's continued insistence on more and more weapons, more dangerous weapons - while insisting that Ukraine is winning. In brief, key American decision makers know that Ukraine is not winning and it is burning through NATO war stocks while losing. Diplomatically, most of the world is - while still wary - treating Russia like the winner.
In this scenario some time from late October to early December - the Russians attack. The goal would be to drive the Ukrainians out of Donbass and expand the foothold on the right bank of the Dnepr around Kherson while concurrently opening up a front in northern Ukraine - presumably around Chernigov with the aim of capturing the entire Oblast and Chernigov city if possible. This new front will draw VSU troops from the south allow the Russians to make further gains in Kherson, Donbass, Zaporyzhia and retake territory around Kharkov and possibly even put Kharkov under siege. The aim of this Russian offensive would be to have by the end of March 2023 cleared Donbass, captured Kharkov city, and put Zaporyzhia and Dnepropetrovsk under the beginnings of a siege, as well as possibly having captured the towns north of Energodar to remove any immediate threat to the Zaporyzhia Nuclear Power Plant near Energodar. This is accompanied with accelerated strikes on Ukraine's power grid which further collapses much of its economy though does not outright destroy the grid but does further undercut Kiev by making the hardships of war come into every Ukrainian home and encourage people to flee the country.
At this point Ukraine would be in a death spiral having lost anywhere from 1/3 to 40% of its pre-2014 territory and much of its population - meaning the VSU itself would no longer be able to sustain manpower replacement and would have had much of its equipment destroyed. Concurrently a hard winter would have severely hurt European economies and their ability to support Ukraine, and where Europe's economy is hurt the US' is inevitably hurt too. Seeking a way out and with not much choice the Europeans and Americans scale back but do not halt military support for Ukraine while seeking to initially freeze the conflict. Putin insists that in addition to the four new Oblasty which joined the Russian Federation in October 2022 that Kharkov and possibly even Dnepropetrovsk Oblasty are now also required.
The Ukrainians vow to fight on and concede nothing - Zelensky and his inner circle are dead men if they stop fighting - for the rest of 2023 the Ukrainians are - with a devastated economy and with reduced military aid pushed back and back until, possibly into 2024 Ukraine is finally captured in its entirety. At that point Ukraine will cease to exist. Depending on the economic and territorial situation collapse may occur as early as 2023. Millions will flee west and those that stay will, with the Russians, try to pick up the pieces and rebuild. NATO and the United States will claim victory of a kind and refuse to recognize the territorial changes de jure but will de facto. Subversion against the reunified Russia and Ukraine will be attempted but unsuccessful. Slowly but surely relations will be normalized, albeit at a much more tense level.
A multipolar world though will emerge from the war as other countries around the world will see they do not need to be afraid of the West. The West will become more authoritarian as it attempts to construct a 'world apart' from the rest and withdraw from engagement outside of itself. It will attempt to become 'the garden' and view the rest of the world as 'the jungle' as described this past week by EU foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell.
Whether the West will stay together will be an open question. The war has papered over deep fissures beneath the surface. It is entirely possible that countries like Hungary and even Germany will look to exit the EU. US political unity is also a factor - and one unrelated to the war. If the USA fractures further politically, perhaps even territorially, NATO will defacto cease to exist and European nations will have to look to a modus vivendi with a Moscow that will - by this time - not be led by Vladimir Putin.
In brief this Scenario U is a managed collapse that averts armageddon - at maximum cost the West can extract from Russia short of nuclear war - but also one that keeps the possibility alive of the West remaining one of the poles, and perhaps even the single most powerful pole, in a newly multipolar world.
Great article.
Thank you for playing the tape forward. It's been conspicuously lacking from the public discourse, on any intelligent level.
Putin seems to be allowing a "rope-a-dope" play at home as more Russians are starting to say he's being too restrained while he "slow-walks" it. With the west, he can "boil the frog" because he can take a long term view. He may be thinking about his legacy in Russian history at this point. He'd like to reverse the "catastrophe of 1991" and reunite Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia.
For the west however, I don't think it can be predicted mainly by macro influences, like the state of its reserve currency. Its politics has cycles at various time scales. The "mockingbird media" only has power over emotions it can arouse on a daily basis. The political fragmentation prevents it from having a coherent long term approach and dampens any strategic bold moves unless they're reactive. Essentially no grand narrative, except in the mind of some neocon think tanks whose influence is spotty.
The conflict serves the politicians in their very short timeframes of interest. The ongoing conflict is a source of money and influence for them individually, and they will allow the war droning on without converging to a meaningful outcome. When everyone wears out, new politicians take credit for compromises that end the war.
Certainly, the world will be changed by the whole episode in ways that I don't have the knowledge to determine, but I think the overall course would be pretty "boring" or un-dramatic strategically (except for the more "tactical" surprises and reactions). Also the major actions won't add up to anything like chess moves, though undoubtedly there is a lot of war-gaming being done. All the powers involved will manage to grind on certain boundaries of power in the direction they prefer, while the whole system stays at fairly stable balance along the way. The media and public opinion may well be sources of stability and friction rather than radical bold actions. Someone may break the nuclear taboo, but in a way they can claim the high road (like destroying Norway's offshore rigs without killing a lot of people). The public's reaction could be to go back to pretend the taboo still exists and prevent any reactions, or only a proportional reaction which ends the nuclear part of the war.
In effect, my hope is that public opinion has a much heavier dampening effect on fast and bold changes than is visible on the surface. The war will then fizzle like the other modern wars, but with some effect on the lines of soft power around the world. Also, since it's near Europe, it'll leave more scars emotionally, financially, physically, etc., than the other recent wars.
Such a thorough analysis
It had to be that big, without knowing the history you can't understand the present and if you don't understand the present you can't predict the future possibilities.
You brought it all together excellently
Now I'm going to explore all the links
Top work fren, now get some sleep
One should take into account instead of what kind of predictions think tanks like Stratfor are making. These know what people in the lead in Washington know and who of these people can push a political-military decision. Not everything we may hear publicly stems from people in actual decision positions. These are simply testing the terrain, such as Borell, etc.
Friedmann, the chief of Stratfor, predicted attacking Moldavia and Romania next after Russia's defeat of Ukraine.
On the other side, the president of Serbia predicted a turn to WW conditions within 2-3 months.
Both analyze probably the same data from different angles.
Russia's only real military move during this winter and autumn can be the conquest of Odessa. Friedmann assumed that Ukraine's leadership is probably decapitated, and because of the lack of game-changing Western weapons, this front will be considered frozen till early summer.
After the conquest of Odessa, if Friedmann's projected scenario is correct, Russia will find itself immediately in Transnistria. It will have to deal with Moldavia next, which will probably, since Romanian, immediately surrender. I am an ex-Romanian; I know, thus, overwhelming Romanian enthusiasm for games with no rewards. Romanians are no Ukrainians. Everybody of you will agree with this formulation.
The next will be from the viewpoint of Friedmann (which I am here reverse engineering), the American basis in Romania, Deveselu, which holds 40 nuclear rockets moved there from Incirlik. The base is most probably under permanent Russian surveillance. This will possibly bring within 2-3 months NATO into a direct confrontation with Russia - as according to the Serbian analysis and the Stratfor partially disclosed analysis.
From this, we cannot conclude what Russia will do. But we know what the US will not do until the fall of Odessa.
I assume Biden has conveyed a message of nuclear threat to Russia; in the case, Odessa should be taken by the Russians. This act would force, according to the game theory analysis offered by Friedmann, the Russians to attack as next Deveselu after the fall of Odessa. Putin´s allusion to nuclear threats from the West may allude to this.
My point: this means the USA had no plans to use a nuclear bomb until their red line was crossed, namely the fall of Odessa.
My next point: since the Russians know game theory too, they will try not to conquer Odessa but to somehow invert their strategy and reverse the order of their actions or take some unaccounted steps.
This will bring significant problems to the NATO war planners, having to draw up entirely new plans. In a panic mood, there can happen a lot of shit.
Scenario U: Russia has no need to go nuclear. They can take out all our satellites.
They also have a weapon that uses "new physics" to create an emp attack that destroys all electronics within a given range. I can't remember its name & lost my link to it. It was described at deagel.com(?) & obliquely referenced in a Global Times article not too long ago.
More & more countries are signing onto Brics. SA just asked to join.
Russia is evacuating civilians from Kherson right now, in expectation of an intense fight.
Russia's 300,000 new forces are already moving into position to defend Luhansk & most of Donbass, freeing the experienced, battle-hardened soldiers to resume the offensive.
You misunderstand Karkhov, which is not strategic to Russia. The retreat was planned, operational &, at great cost to Ukr, successfully drew Ukr & Nato forces into a potential firebag on hard to defend, open steppe. Russia can take the land back if & when they choose. Ukr cannot resurrect their dead & disabled soldiers or destroyed equipment.
Russia & Belarus joint forces are amassing at Ukr's north border. Russia has moved massive amounts of heavy weapons, including Iskanders, into Belarus. Weeks ago, Lukashenko asked Russia for nukes. Putin agreed. Don't know if they are there now. Haven't seen anything about it since.
Videos show ridiculous # of brand new looking tanks have been heading toward theatre on long long lines of trains.
The descriptions of the neocons' expectations re:Russian response show how little they understand of Russia outside their narcissistic bubbles.
Too long; I gave up at about Scenario C, skipping to the Conclusion.
Is this a translation (from....?...)? There are many failures in tense, syntax, cohesion....
A major malign factor omitted: the influence and "entangling alliance" of colonial Zionism via its platform Israel in the MidEast and the inordinate Jewish-Zionist presence in PNAC (recall Richard Perle?) Libya, Iraq (Zionists brazenly cruising through the halls of DoD...), Syria (yet under US occupation)...next Iran?...all to serve the USrael/Zionist goal of full-spectrum global dominance.
I think it was really unnecessary for you to block me on Twitter for emphasizing the importance of evidence. Please reconsider.
Dear cirnosad,
you are my main source of information on the interwebz - but I just saw that you set your tweets (which I read through nitter) to "protected". Would you be so kind and reconsider? There are many people like me out there who just feel "cut off" - and we need your informed opinion!
Kind regards,
KM
P.S.: I just created a twitter account (actually just for you!), KarlMarx/FreddieCouples. Please let me in... ;-)
Very nice, i have not read it thoroughly yet, i probably will. Regarding the Poseidon/Kanyon: « Russia deploys two of its Poseidon nuclear torpedoes carrying a 200MT warhead ». What do you mean 400MT total ? I have not seen sources claiming more than a 100MT warhead. And even this looks rather not useful. The Tsar Bomba was larger than the design of the torpedo would allow but had a yield of 50MT, and had a mass of 27t. Explosive power is pretty much determined by mass/volume. I have not studied the purported designs but >100MT looks unlikely. More importantly it does not seem economically clever to build a custom single warhead for that vector, instead of cramming several "standard" 1MT warheads. I have seen opinions which look reasonable that the total yield of the Poseidon would be lower than 10MT. Add a perhaps even more important point: the destruction caused by a detonation at optimal destruction altitude of 50 1MT nuclear explosions (something like 600m) is much greater than that of a single 50MT explosion. I don't remember the area destroyed but that would be something like 10 times more with 50 explosions, and that is obviously more flexible and robust/failsafe/sure-to-hit than one single explosion. So here are a few elements that should be taken into account to get things right when speculating on Poseidon.
Thank you for all this work. Can we know a bit about your formation ? It is hard for me to guess with any confidence, i've had several ideas but always with contradictory elements.
I wish you the best Korobochka.
This might be the best and more troughly analysis of this matter that i came across. very well done! I sense some points missing but overal it's very good.
some corrections I would suggest:
* it was not the defense minister of Ukraine that called for a nuclear first strike. it was Zelensky himself.
* you say "On February 23rd, 2022, Russia launched its first intervention since 2008". Not sure what you are referring to "intervention" but there was the 2014 Crimea annexation and the intervention on Syria.
* you say "on August of the year of writing, Russia suspended the final piece of nuclear arms control and left the New START treaty.". Russia denied inspection by US and only on February 2023 has formerly suspended the participation in the new START treaty
Thanks for this great and thoughtful analysis and especially thorough description of the recent history over the last 20 years.
I think there is one element missing in this and the possible scenarios for the future.
I must admit, I am still not sure about the final purpose of this „element“ in this great power conflict scenario but nevertheless I am certain it must be a part of it.
I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts on this.
COVID and the gene-therapy vaccines..- What Do you think is their role in this global conflict?
The lockdowns and then subsequently the generalised push by all countries involved to force their populations to take novel vaccines.
Their justification has always been very questionable given that all authorities knew the vaccines were actually not reducing the spread of the virus nor did this virus actually pose a serious health threat for reasonably healthy people unless very old ( see COVID case fatality rate estimates bei Prof Ioannidis 2020)
It is notable that the vaccine roll out in all NATO states was a matter of a military operation!
At the same time these chinese vaccines were never allowed in any NATO and allied countries- despite good safety record and proven old vaccine technology.
While any of the western gene therapies are up to now not allowed in China or Russia.
So there are obviously sign. military concerns about their purpose on both sides.
The continued on fifst impression non-sensical COVID lockdowns in China only add to the impression that this whole COVID theatre has a strong militarily purpose. (Lets not forget Putins long long tables… :-)
So lets propose a new scenario besides nuclear war- biological warfare coming 2023….
I hope I am wrong
UwU~
I don't think the USA & NATO can EVER be trusted. If their military capabilities are not destroyed once and for all, Russia will never be safe. I think Russia has no choice but to make the maximum pre-emptive strike on ALL NATO big cities and military facilities, including airports, airfields and industrial capacity, so that there is no possibility of the West ever being able to rebuild a nation-threatening or world-threatening military capability. Game Theory specifies that this scenario is necessary. Very sad, but i see no other alternative.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0995454884