by Reasonable Peacekeeper
Sergei Lavrov stated that Russia does not consider itself to be at war with NATO. But actually, NATO, let’s say the US, is at war. Russia makes steady, though slow progress in Ukraine, and there are great risks when the U.S. continues to deliver more sophisticated weapons. I see two principal problems here:
- The Empire can wage war without skin in the game (Nassim Taleb). Printing their worthless fiat money does not hurt anyone; the military-industrial complex continues to make profit instead. For them, it is still a war without real cost.
- The absence of skin in the game leads to a situation where nobody takes responsibility, there is no incentive for that. With a president with advanced dementia, there is not even anyone to talk to reasonably.
Thus, by acting relatively mildly and measured as Russia did so far, it will never stop the empire’s war machine from escalating. This may lead to Armageddon. Russia therefore needs to play out its strength and point to the weaknesses of the enemy.
If the U.S. continues to help Ukraine inflicting damage on Russia (sinking of "Moskva", explosions in Russia), publicly threatening the U.S. carriers and sinking one of them must therefore be an option. With its hypersonic missiles, Russia can do that and the U.S. does not have the means to prevent that. The consequences would be the following:
- The risk of nuclear escalation is not higher, on the contrary. Europeans will whine and cry about Article 5 implementation, but beyond rhetoric, they can do nothing. The president cannot go nuclear for the loss of one carrier, because he risks the annihilation of his country. Escalating conventionally would put their entire fleet at risk.
- The US fleet is the symbol of their global dominance, such an act would demonstrate once and for all that this dominance has ended, something that has not sunk in into the U.S. public yet. A political rethinking may start once everyone realizes the vulnerability of their continent.
- The threatening of U.S. ships would sharpen the already existing conflict between the Pentagon and the warmongers in the State Department. Ideally, U.S. Navy commanders could revolt against getting sacrificed for the war hysteria in their homeland.
European leaders are stupid, coward and incompetent, but at the end, they are vassals. The villains are in Washington. There will be no peace until the empire gets at least a bloody nose. Waiting for the economic collapse, the Chinese strategy, may come too late.
—
b here:
I personally disagree with the above.
The sinking of a U.S. carrier would be propagandized by U.S. and 'western' media as another 9/11 moment. It would have the same belligerent consequences. The U.S. would most likely intensify its Ukrainian proxy war against Russia by committing NATO ground forces to Ukraine, Belarus, Transnistria, Moldova, Serbia and elsewhere in Russia's near abroad. It would also intensify sabotage acts within Russia.
The escalation potential of all of that is incalculable. The risk of global nuclear annihilation would sharply increase.
The most effective short term way to retaliate for U.S. involvement is likely to personally harm U.S. warmongers, like the Kagan Nuland duo or Congress hawks like Adams and Kinzinger. These folks are cowards when it comes to their life. Put THEIR skin into the game and things will change. Russia does not have the capabilities to do such but there are people for hire who do.
The Russian president Vladimir Putin is a very mindful man. I am sure that he and his team have thought through potential counter measures and decided to activate those that will harm the U.S. in the longer term. Their plan is to convince the deep state in the U.S., especially the rich people who own Biden, as well as the Pentagon and the CIA, that continuing the war will, over time, be more harmful to their aims than to Russia's.