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.
I really like the setup because indeed all these events happened, the US has run its ammunition dry. I would call this scenario "enforcing peace below the threshold".
Small, tactical "victories" have not turned any tides. They have led to massive destruction of Ukr forces in exchange for indefensible territory.
Russia is seeking to destroy Ukr's military, while minimizing damage to itself. The territory can, & is, being re-taken. The soldiers lives cannot be resurrected.
i think your scenario inverts cause and effect: the collapse of the "West" (e.g. Germany opens NS2) will be the cause and not the consequence of the russian military victory in Ukraine.
I think US position looks a lot like athenian one after Syracuse debacle: i forsee a future where US quells rebellion between its allies.
I also think that the need to reshore will reproduce the same social dynamics that produced the Beveridge Consensus since workers cooperation will be needed to man "the Garden": China managed to develope without a Fordian bargain, i.e. sharing its welth to transform workers in consumers, only because it found the consumers in the USA.
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.
Appreciate the feedback Robert, I hope you read through scenario C and D at some point in time.
I wrote this in a shorter span than you might imagine and was only able to proof read through it once. Tense mistakes/syntax mistakes are due to editing errors. At some point I will try and give it a proper final proofing. There are also a few points I missed.
I prefer not to dive into ethnic issues and prefer to keep it high level. I appreciate some countries have undue influence on others but I do not wish to get into that in this particular article because it clouds the strategic imbalance which was my primary concern when I wrote this.
Really, the title is the point of the start of the article: Russia will not use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
The scenarios, up to the conclusion is a call for a brainstorm. I am quite happy with the people who have participated earnestly so far.
Unfortunately, for my trouble, twitter seems to have locked my account.
Cirno, I wasn't going to bring it up because whining about grammar instead of addressing the content is embarrassing. But, since someone else did the dumb part for me, would you like me to do an edit pass for you? The grammar errors only detract slightly, but I would be happy to perform the work as payment for an excellent piece that I hope spreads far and wide.
Well, I've been given my "dumb whiner's" comeuppance. In retrospect, I should have applied my challenged eyes, mid-dementia'd mind, and 79 yo aged-and-exhausted body to the task *after* a night's slumber. It is a fact that I am OCD-supreme; my instincts tell me that a commentary written and presented as was tends to make the "substance" of it perforce suspect....but Cirno was gracious in his response to my editorial critique. (I did, to be sure, make what I firmly believe was/is a "substantive critique." Oddly, you, OM, made no reference to it...might you be a PEP-cum-Israel Firster? Yes, my issue is Palestine, and it has been so for 60 years of my life. And Palestine Is Still THE Issue! Fix Palestine, clean up the US' hypocritical and paying-tribute-to-Zionism image! Then the global village can, one by one, focus on the many other festering human-rights, justice, national-interests et al flashpoints embarrassing us here, there, everywhere--very much including Russia/Ukraine-NATO-EU-USA-Iran-China....)
Have at your "gratis" edit, Mr. Misanthrope. I look forward to the result. Let us know.
Then don't (choose). "Dislike" -- and that's the end of this for me. (Except that I ask: does your first name "Outgoing" relate to "Outgoing as in 'leaving the scene'," or to "Extroverted"?)
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.
I really like the setup because indeed all these events happened, the US has run its ammunition dry. I would call this scenario "enforcing peace below the threshold".
@Just Me...
Every thing you said made perfect sense to me except this ....
"the West remaining one of the poles, and perhaps even the single most powerful pole, in a newly multipolar world."
How could that work when ~90% of the globe's population are alreay aligning with the Zone B BRIICS+++ initiatives?
Small, tactical "victories" have not turned any tides. They have led to massive destruction of Ukr forces in exchange for indefensible territory.
Russia is seeking to destroy Ukr's military, while minimizing damage to itself. The territory can, & is, being re-taken. The soldiers lives cannot be resurrected.
Greetings
i think your scenario inverts cause and effect: the collapse of the "West" (e.g. Germany opens NS2) will be the cause and not the consequence of the russian military victory in Ukraine.
I think US position looks a lot like athenian one after Syracuse debacle: i forsee a future where US quells rebellion between its allies.
I also think that the need to reshore will reproduce the same social dynamics that produced the Beveridge Consensus since workers cooperation will be needed to man "the Garden": China managed to develope without a Fordian bargain, i.e. sharing its welth to transform workers in consumers, only because it found the consumers in the USA.
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.
Finally an article that has integrity and is not masking what is really going on!This is the first article ever that mentions NWO.🙏
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.
Cirno were you will post since your account has been canceled?
Christ Gnosis is right, Korobochka is a great follow on X. Scrolling down to find all the great threads there now. Christ be with you, fren.
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.
I forgot to mention, China, Serbia, Italy & a slew of others are closing their Kiev embassies & recommending their citizens get out of Ukraine.
General Armageddon says its a matter of a couple weeks to the Nato/Ukr planned offensive in Kherson.
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.
Appreciate the feedback Robert, I hope you read through scenario C and D at some point in time.
I wrote this in a shorter span than you might imagine and was only able to proof read through it once. Tense mistakes/syntax mistakes are due to editing errors. At some point I will try and give it a proper final proofing. There are also a few points I missed.
I prefer not to dive into ethnic issues and prefer to keep it high level. I appreciate some countries have undue influence on others but I do not wish to get into that in this particular article because it clouds the strategic imbalance which was my primary concern when I wrote this.
Really, the title is the point of the start of the article: Russia will not use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
The scenarios, up to the conclusion is a call for a brainstorm. I am quite happy with the people who have participated earnestly so far.
Unfortunately, for my trouble, twitter seems to have locked my account.
Cirno, I wasn't going to bring it up because whining about grammar instead of addressing the content is embarrassing. But, since someone else did the dumb part for me, would you like me to do an edit pass for you? The grammar errors only detract slightly, but I would be happy to perform the work as payment for an excellent piece that I hope spreads far and wide.
Sure thing no problem please do, I won't be able to give it another pass in quite some time.
Well, I've been given my "dumb whiner's" comeuppance. In retrospect, I should have applied my challenged eyes, mid-dementia'd mind, and 79 yo aged-and-exhausted body to the task *after* a night's slumber. It is a fact that I am OCD-supreme; my instincts tell me that a commentary written and presented as was tends to make the "substance" of it perforce suspect....but Cirno was gracious in his response to my editorial critique. (I did, to be sure, make what I firmly believe was/is a "substantive critique." Oddly, you, OM, made no reference to it...might you be a PEP-cum-Israel Firster? Yes, my issue is Palestine, and it has been so for 60 years of my life. And Palestine Is Still THE Issue! Fix Palestine, clean up the US' hypocritical and paying-tribute-to-Zionism image! Then the global village can, one by one, focus on the many other festering human-rights, justice, national-interests et al flashpoints embarrassing us here, there, everywhere--very much including Russia/Ukraine-NATO-EU-USA-Iran-China....)
Have at your "gratis" edit, Mr. Misanthrope. I look forward to the result. Let us know.
You've given me so many options to ridicule that I can't decide which to choose.
Then don't (choose). "Dislike" -- and that's the end of this for me. (Except that I ask: does your first name "Outgoing" relate to "Outgoing as in 'leaving the scene'," or to "Extroverted"?)
Thanks for your comprehensive response. Good luck to you in your worthy endeavors -- and good luck to humankind!
If Putin declares Israel complicit and therefore a legitimate first strike target there might be a sudden re-think of US strategy!
Ukraine just asked Israel for missile defense systems & training
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23168259-ukraine-israel?responsive=1&title=1
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-tel-aviv-4209afb3-2553-4d17-b9c5-a0fb29932e0b.html
This is long.
Haven't seen you in a while, I hope you are OK!
Cirno are you ok? What happened to your twitter account?
Cirnosan where will we follow you?
Scenario X : RUSSIA, CHINA AND NORTH KOREA TAKE CARE OF THE UNITED STATES IN A SINGLE ATTEMPT.