Are There Any U.S. Red Lines?
The Biden administration has so far refrained from sending longer range missile to Ukraine. It fears a severe Russian reaction should it change that policy. Some warmongers dislike such sensible restrain.
In today's New York Times some former British diplomat, now working for a pro-war think tank, is arguing for the delivery of longer range weapons to Ukraine.
“What are Putin’s red lines?”This question, asked with growing urgency as Russia loses its war in Ukraine but does not relent in its aggressions, is intended to offer analytical clarity and to guide policy. In reality, it is the wrong question, because “red line” is a bad metaphor. Red lines are red herrings. There are better ways to think about strategy.
Red lines, where a consequence is threatened when an opponent does a specified escalating move, do not really exists, says the author. Red lines are movable, responding to a red line violation is a cost to the one who drew the line and red lines invite deceptions - says the author.
After spending several hundred words arguing that red lines are a useless concept the author argues that the 'west' should draw a big one:
Concerns about Russia’s “red lines” are driven above all by the fear that Russia might resort to nuclear escalation. The West should avert this by deterring Russia rather than by restraining itself — or pressuring Ukraine to do so — for fear of “provoking” Russia. It can do so by communicating the certainty of severe consequences should Russia use nuclear weapons.
For the record: Russia has never threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. It is a false assertion by the Biden administration that Russia did so.
Communicating that the 'west', i.e. the U.S, will do severe consequence X if Russia does Y is drawing as red a line as I have ever seen.
So what is the purpose of that red line:
Russia has no red lines: It only has, at each moment, a range of options and perceptions of their relative risks and benefits. It only has, at each moment, a range of options and perceptions of their relative risks and benefits. The West should continually aim, through its diplomacy, to shape these perceptions so that Russia chooses the options that the West prefers.America has done this before. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the most dangerous nuclear confrontation so far, the Soviet Union’s position shifted in a matter of days, ultimately accepting an outcome that favored the West.
The former British diplomat obviously lacks a decent education in history. The Soviet missiles in Cuba were stationed there because the U.S. had stationed nuclear capable Juniper mid range missiles in Turkey and Greece. Those missiles threatened Moscow. They had crossed the Soviet red line. The missiles in Cuba were a counter threat to what the U.S. had done. When the Kennedy administration recognized that it negotiated the removal of its missiles in Turkey and Greece in exchange for the removal of the Soviet missiles in Cuba.
It were the Soviets who had won that round of the Cold War, not the U.S.
As he does not know the history of the Cuba crisis the author is drawing false conclusions from it:
While Russia is more invested in subordinating Ukraine than it was in deploying missiles to Cuba, the logic is the same. In 1962, America persuaded the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, that removing nuclear weapons from Cuba was, however unpalatable, a better choice than deploying them. Similarly, the West should now aim to persuade Mr. Putin that withdrawing his forces from Ukraine is less perilous than fighting.
To convince Russia to retreat, says the author, the 'west' should not restrain itself in weapon deliveries to Ukraine. It should increase sanctions on Russia to increase its costs. It should communicate that a retreat from Ukraine would not mean regime change in Moscow. (Even when that in fact is the obvious U.S. endgame.)
Pursued firmly and resolutely, these diplomatic “shaping operations” in support of Ukraine’s military campaign can ensure that Russia’s least-bad option aligns with what the vastly more powerful West wants. Such a strategy is the opposite of accepting red lines.
...
Mr. Putin [..] should not be allowed to define the limits of Western policy now. Strategy needs rigorous thought, not lazy metaphors.
A lazy metaphor is like arguing against red lines while drawing a new one. A lazy metaphor is like faking history to draw the intended but wrong conclusion from it. The op-ed is not rigorous thought but muddled gibberish.
As soon as it becomes obvious to everyone that the Ukraine is losing the war, the Biden administration is likely to deliver more long range weapons to Ukraine with the advice to use them within Russia. Russia will respond to that. But most likely not in Ukraine, but in a place and at a time where it hurts the U.S. more than anything that can be done to it in Ukraine.
Posted by b on January 2, 2023 at 17:07 UTC | Permalink
next page »The author of the NYT piece is likely correct. Even pro-Russian telegram channels have made a mockery of the ever shifting red-lines of the Kremlin. First it was invading Russian territory (according to the Russian constitution), then the attack on the Kerch Strait bridge, and later an attack deep into Russian territory where Russia houses strategic nuclear bombers.
b is correct, the US does not want Ukraine to win outright, it will give aid as required to ensure Russia keeps wasting men and equipment. If Ukraine faces setbacks then they will transfer long-range missiles, but for now the front is stable.
In other news, Ukrainians attacked a Russian barrack exactly on New Year, 0000 hours on 1st January 2023 with HIMARS, the attack likely killed over 100 Russian conscripts in one blow.
If need be, I think the West could give Ukraine the weapons to retake all territory back to its 1991 borders, but Foggy Bottom likely thinks the better strategy is to bleed Russia dry.
Posted by: Bernd | Jan 2 2023 17:15 utc | 2
I am readin a book (!) about ww1 by Fleming.
Describes that Britts took it upon selves to help us with motivation to war (several US papers are british owned). And is claimed that british "intelligence" is embedded in US government - helping to keep policy on track.
Posted by: jared | Jan 2 2023 17:17 utc | 3
Minor note: I think the nuclear-capable missiles the US put in Turkey and Greece that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis were Jupiter missiles, not Juniper.
Eric Schlosser's "Command and Control" has an excellent section on this. The whole book is a withering catalog of America's nuclear idiocy, pinned on the explosion of a nuclear missile in Arkansas in 1982.
Standard british political arrogance and word salad.
Portray reality not how it is, but how you want to remember the empire! Invert good man invert!
Take a closer look at this line:
> is intended to offer analytical clarity and to guide policy. In reality, it is the wrong question, because “red line” is a bad metaphor. Red lines are red herrings. There are better ways to think about strategy.
We substitute your reality with our own. *Your* ultimatums do not result in negotiation. Only a guide to policy with new strategies. The goal remains the same.
Posted by: S.O. | Jan 2 2023 17:25 utc | 5
Over time you learn to read US articles.
This question, asked with growing urgency as Russia loses its war in Ukraine but does not relent in its aggressions
This is called projection, as NATO is losing the war, but is relentless in its aggression.
After spending several hundred words arguing that red lines are a useless concept the author argues that the 'west' should draw a big one
This is the western rules-based order. Nato can draw red lines, everybody else cannot. It's the rule.
It should communicate that a retreat from Ukraine would not mean regime change in Moscow.
This is an example of the infamous "we lie, we cheat, we steal" policy.
the Biden administration is likely to deliver more long range weapons to Ukraine with the advice to use them within Russia.
At some point the US will consider delivering aircraft carriers and nuclear warheads.
Posted by: Vikichka | Jan 2 2023 17:29 utc | 6
Clearly the NYT is gaslighting its readers (I am one). But why? I can vote my heart out and make no change to US foreign policy. I know my thoughts are totally inconsequential, why bother with me? Just maybe the gaslighting is for someone else.
The USA models used to predict outcomes of sanctions must be horribly flawed, I'd like to know more about the sanction creation process. Where do they come from who designs them?
To me it seems that the flawed logic is: since the dollar value of Russian energy to Europe is low then it can be easily replaced. Conclusion is: real pain for Russia and minor irritation to Europe. I dont think the USA understood the impact on Europe, and that will blow back hard and fast. The cost of air to breathe is negligible so replacement should be easy! Right.
Posted by: Klutch Kargo | Jan 2 2023 17:29 utc | 7
I like most of what you say about the "red line" issue. I disagree however that the Soviet Union won the round of the Cuban missile crisis, though I might need to go back and check on a few issues.
As I recall, the agreement about the US removing missiles from Turkey and Greece was only tacit, and the US agreed to do it later and without publicly announcing quid pro quo. Publicly, it appeared that Kruschev had backed down. I have seen it argued that this was a contributing factor to Kruschev's removal.
Posted by: Chip Poirot | Jan 2 2023 17:31 utc | 8
Well noted, thank you B. Embarassing op-ed by a former UK ambassador to Belarus, a further blemish to the FT.
Posted by: RR | Jan 2 2023 17:33 utc | 9
One of the worst things about Democracy is that leaders can never admit "defeat". If they do, they will lose their next election, badly. This is especially true in a two-party system (USA, Britain), and especially true when the owners and managers of most powerful Media corporations have common interests in Foreign Policy.
Kennedy was able to frame the Cuban Missile Crisis as a "win", and so was Khrushchev. Both were diplomatic enough to avoid embarrassing the other leader, and US media were quite willing to go along with Kennedy's version.
Posted by: elkern | Jan 2 2023 17:36 utc | 10
All the wars are result of british or rather english plot. anywhere there is destruction , you will find dirty hands of english pirate race.
That is why england must be annihilated.
What to hell is putin waiting for ?
Posted by: Sam | Jan 2 2023 17:39 utc | 11
The Russian response is seldom, if ever, a knee-jerk reaction, so when a red line is crossed and there isn't an immediate escalation in response it's shortsighted to assume that Russia has backed down. It may just as well indicate that a long-term plan has been set in motion with the intention to cause significant damage further down the line. In this regard, red lines are not intended to ward off specific acts of aggression, but are more like the common courtesy of making it clear when a response is inevitable. Whether your opponent understands it in a timely matter isn't being treated as a high priority.
Posted by: Skiffer | Jan 2 2023 17:43 utc | 12
All wars in Europe have been consequence of english plots to make two European nations (usually the two strongest ones) fight each other. Including 1st world war and then 2nd World War.
Gulf war was plotted by witch thatcher, first Iraq war by criminal tony blair- this Syrian war again by english rats which borne their ugly child ISIS.
Tony Blair, who, when occupied Iraq, claimed that "we will become the British Empire again," meaning that he will occupy the rest of the world too!
Now the british are repackaging their dream as global Britain. Only when wars become unpopular, the english stop taking credit for that and let blame be placed on Jews.
and stupid people including hitler blamed jews while it was all along the english parasites who l destabilise, plot and run the war (but those cowards do not fight in beginning-they come late to feast on already weakened enemy of the day.
Posted by: Sam | Jan 2 2023 17:44 utc | 13
I can vote my heart out and make no change to US foreign policy. I know my thoughts are totally inconsequential, why bother with me?
Posted by: Klutch Kargo | Jan 2 2023 17:29 utc | 7
This quote from Ayn Rand applies.
Ask yourself why totalitarian dictatorships find it necessary to pour money and effort into propaganda for their own helpless, chained, gagged slaves, who have no means of protest or defense. The answer is that even the humblest peasant or the lowest savage would rise in blind rebellion, were he to realize that he is being immolated, not to some incomprehensible noble purpose, but to plain, naked human evil.
Posted by: Vikichka | Jan 2 2023 17:48 utc | 14
I will play editor. Not 'Juniper' missiles. Jupiter.
Posted by: olhippie | Jan 2 2023 17:53 utc | 15
the empire is in decline, it's amoral stable: rules based world order is immoral and widely recognized to be propaganda.
the us' federal debt at 30 trillion inflated us fiat is roughly equal to the military industry complex' gros revenues from 1947 to now.
the eu is possibly more bankrupt.
russia's red line was crossed in kosovo, but the empire had not mortgaged itself sufficiently.
winter 2021 russia made its demand to neutralize the empire's colony in kiev, at that point russia realized it was ready and the empire in decline was not.....
the way out of imperial bankruptcy is to grab the vast wealth of russia.
russia bombing kiev infrastructure is roughly same as kennedy blockading cuba, the logistics war is too much for the empire so
send in more wunderwaffen....
ny times is useless.
Posted by: paddy | Jan 2 2023 17:53 utc | 16
I remain unconvinced that the Cuban missile gambit was a win for either side. It was pure theatre for domestic consumption. Both Kennedy and Khrushchev got to appear tough for their respective support base.
The US could have invaded and stopped construction of the missile silos any time via an invasion. It would have only taken a week or two longer than Grenada. Or it could have blockaded delivery of materials to the harbor.
It all goes back to the Cuban Revolution where the military stands down and lets Castro and a handful of revolutionaries walk into Havana. The US wanted a failed Communist State close to it's borders for domestic propaganda purposes.
Posted by: Opport Knocks | Jan 2 2023 17:53 utc | 17
re:"growing urgency as Russia loses its war in Ukraine" . . .after ten months
. . . .Just a reminder of what the vaunted US military went through in Iraq when that country didn't even have a true government nor a national military force.
The US and its 'coalition of the willing' invaded Iraq in the Spring of 2003, overthrew the government, and failed to pacify the country especially its capital Baghdad. An anti-American insurgency soon expanded into a broad communal struggle for power and influence in the new Iraq. The United States Army, which was trained and equipped primarily for conventional combat, had to reorient itself for unconventional operations in a complex, irregular war. Over four years after the invasion, by 2007, the Bush administration concluded that this approach was failing. To turn the tide, in 2007 it deployed additional U.S. troops to protect the Iraqi population, cut off insurgent forces from their bases of support and supply, and restore stability. On September 10, 2007, over four years after the invasion, David Petraeus delivered his part of the Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq. He concluded that "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met.". .here
The facts suggest that you should stop your picking on Russia and your supposing that you're smarter than President Putin.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 2 2023 17:56 utc | 18
The point about the "Cuban Missile" crisis is that it involved stationing, or threatening to station, missiles in Cuba.
It is hard to believe that Russia could not find a Latin American or Caribbean country willing to host a missile and air base within a few minutes flying time of Miami, Washington or Cleveland. Such a base would serve an enormously important educational purpose by waking north Americans up to the reality faced by Europeans and Asians, living within range of US missile launchers, every day.
It is now clear to Putin and his supporters that the chances of making an agreement with the USA that does not involve surrender followed by plundering followed by subjection to imperial diktats, is in the range of nil. This would change very quickly after the signing of the South Atlantic Treaty to defend Americans from the Monroe Doctrine being practised.
A missile base in Port au Prince would be a marvellous and historically significant advance. It would also provide employment opportunities for Haitian workers. As such it ought to appeal to Trump and other anti-migrant demagogues.
Posted by: bevin | Jan 2 2023 17:57 utc | 19
The Ukraine conflict fits into a global conflict, it can be called the "quest for what is left [resources]". Judging what is a win is judging at once the tides of Syria, interior policies everywhere on the globe, Irael, Turkey, China etc. ...and yes what Russian moves.
Not simple, it involves the moon, technology [satellites, chips, scientific nuclear, logistics, resources, food, energy, human quadrants].
I have but one critique with this site [not particular to this site], the analysis is too narrow. Asymmetricals win or loose this "war", concepts never used in history as yard-sticks will judge and attribute. Time-lines are far longer then years, think decades, think half a dozen of these. Generational spans of leaders, thinkers [not think-tanks, not Trump or other] will create a global convenance, and global [not as in Western Globalism necessarily or at all] it will be.
The players are of yet ill defined, Jew, Zion, Israel, West, elites, UK, nations, red lines, policies, logistics, all of these and more blend probably into new concepts as 'war (as anything we think of as war) is obsolete'. It might be ultimately a creeping dawn of global truth that stilts on new ideas and concepts.
Posted by: PetrOldSack | Jan 2 2023 17:57 utc | 20
@Bernd 2
There is a term for people who project their naïve notions of "red lines' onto Russia, and are then astonished when Russia is not distracted when these imaginary concepts are violated. I'm sure you can figure out what 5hat term might be. When Russia's actual red lines have been violated, a price will be paid. That price may be military, social, economic or geostrategic, and will occur at a time of Russia's choosing. For somebody not a member of Russia's security and military councils to speculate on the how, when, where and who of the Russian response would be entirely a waste of effort.
It is not Russia that is "wasting men and equipment", it is the Ukraine, because no matter what the Ukraine does, it is unable to change the outcome of the current conflict. At this point it will surrender unconditionally or be utterly defeated. Adding weapons to the mix will simply cause more Ukrainian deaths and destruction, and a greater financial burden on those counties provisioning them. The US has expensive but vulnerable bases and interests all around the world. The cost of defending all of them from any possible attack is astronomical, while an attacker need find only one weakness at one point at one time to inflict a major defeat on the USA. And given that the USA has spent it's entire existence making enemies, Russia has access to a huge number of resources that would love to hurt the US which is already in a state of near economic, social and infrastructural collapse, making the risk to the US asymmetric and existential. Do you really imagine that the USA is sufficiently delusional to expose the contents of their Pandoran container of helminths in which they have invested so much to inspection and possible eradication?
Rand Corp, the US War College, College of Naval Warfare and many US think-tanks have determined that NATO, which can draw on trained reserves of around 3.5 million could not prevent a determined Russian incursion (and Russia has trained reserves of around 24 million) into Western Europe except through use of nuclear weapons.
How do you imagine that the Ukraine, which may once have had reserves of 1.5 million, but has since lost every intelligent military age draftee and probably over 400,000 troops, is going to prevent Russia from doing whatever it wants, particularly as the Ukrainians no longer have a logistical system, vehicles or fuel capacity capable of supplying and supporting it's existing troops and weapon systems, especially given that NATO weapons tend to be complicated, with high training and maintenance requirements, that the Ukraine has no way of acquiring in a realistic rime-frame.
The idea that "Foggy Bottom" is capable of any kind of thought is entirely unsupported by evidence.
Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 17:57 utc | 21
LOL. International-Rules-Based-Order, Exceptionalism, Imperium, Sole remaining Superpower, yet ...
It were the Soviets who had won that round of the Cold War, not the U.S.
Indeed. Serial falsified history, especially via Hollywood. Normandy D-Day landings Remembrance ... no invitation to Russia, the then ally. Petty, petulant, vindictive. Same for Germanys official surrender to the 'Allies', two separate 'official' dates for VE Day '45 ...
As soon as it becomes obvious to everyone that the Ukraine is losing the war, the Biden administration is likely tobugout & promptly abandon its expendable proxies to their fate. As is its long worn practice, past performance as an indicator re the future, methinks.
Not only does the Empire have wretched worn soiled rags for clothes, the bully is, ultimately, an absolute coward at heart. When facing a near peer, let alone equal(greater) Great Power. Yet China, Iran, DPRK ?
Given the impotence conventionally of Empire re The Ukraine, when up against two Great Powers &/or one or two regional powers as well, let alone the current RF ?
The UK & Baltics muddying the waters & seeking to ensnare/entangle/entrap, on the other hand ?
US will deliver long range what? Were it to become clear that something good were on the way Russia could and would prevent delivery. Not that we have much that Ukraine would be able to use. Far simpler to launch the whatever from Poland. Or Latvia. Game on.
Posted by: oldhippie | Jan 2 2023 18:02 utc | 23
@ b.
Keenly analyzed and well-stated demolition project on the protestations of the retired British "diplomat". It appears to me that he is whistling in the dark. In the first instance, as you clearly point out, Russia has time and again declared that they would not be the first to resort to nuclear weaponry. Very wise of them, as their red lines do not depend on them.
Why does Russia not need to employ a nuclear first-strike? Quite simple, really. In addition to and capitalizing their overall weapons superiority, the RF possesses two discrete grades of hypersonic missilry. The most sapient course, I have long argued would be for a strictly kinetic (no nukes) strike upon the Eye of the Octopus, the center of international banking, insurance, metals markets, shipping and, of course, mass media...is City of London. The shots are being called from the vaulting ambitions concentrated in the Rottenchild Bank and in its subsidiaries, the Bank of England and in Basle, Switzerland, the International Bank of Settlements. City of London, NOT the Di$trict of Corruption or Wall $treet, happens to be the heart of the Beast...to use another metaphor.
Needless to say, we need to consider possible consequences. It would be a given, that simultaneous with the strike on the Bank$ter imperium, Russian strategic forces would go on full alert, with strategic bombers on a 24/7 aerial presence, done in shifts. This pre-prep would be fully visible to U$$A satellites. Pentagon analysts would promptly realize that a nuclear response would be utterly consequential. There would be panic and confusion in a number of quarters. Here is where American military leadership (at least the cooler heads amongst them) would need to draw their OWN red-line, such as "Houston, we have a problem". It would be a no-go if those cooler heads (mindful of their own ongoing existence in this dimension and of those of family and all) would realize that the game is up and that an entirely new international architecture of diplomacy would be essential.
Point is that Russia's Red Line would be an obvious response to an extreme provocation and one that forms a crescendo from previous ones, adding up to a highly evident existential threat. To all discerning minds the demonstration would be perfectly clear...that there is a new Big Dog and "why should we not immediately become "agreement capable".
Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 2 2023 18:02 utc | 24
AS FOR "RED LINES" AND BOARDING BOARDErDErS OF ANGLI-SAXONIST JUDAIC IMPERIAL STRATEGU, I OPT TO VIEW IT THUS:I always think of "red lines" as being a kind of vest for the West: i.e.the kind of outside under-garment displayed outwardly by haute coiture West European nobles and royality during the late middle and early modern ages. I.e.; Used to display the importance and size of their penises,
(The Queen of Denmark even wore one on the outside of her skirts to show off her mail dominance ca. the year 1380. (Margaretha the 1st: She ruled Denmark, (including Sweden, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Sweden , Sleswig, Holstein end Estonia)
The present boikott of Russia is akin to the impots demanded by Denmark 1925-1960 fromall shipments passing Helsingør (where Hamlet lived) to and from the Baltics. Good riddance thence .. and hopefully after 2013 now!
Posted by: Tollef Ås/秋涛乐/טלפ וש | Jan 2 2023 18:04 utc | 25
There is certainly a case to be made for the lack of fear that NATO has so far shown in escalating the war and the mild (if any) responses Russia has resorted to, and of all the various acts: sinking of the Moskva, murder of Dugina, bombing of the Crimean bridge, attacks on Russian villages and cities near the border, weapon supplies, sanctions, confiscation of reserves, campaign of russophobia - but none were as obvious an act of external aggression as the destruction of NS pipeline. Also, none had as obvious a retaliatory move - any number of UK, scandinavian or other major infrastructural western assets out at sea could have gone up in smoke. Yet Russia did nothing. This leads to an open invitation to continue, so continue they will.
Posted by: Boo | Jan 2 2023 18:04 utc | 26
@Bernd you need to get off your high horse man ! Ukronazies killed 100+ ruskies on Jan 1st but Russia kills more than 5 times that every single day. Ukraine has lost most of its first army and it's nato mercs that are left fighting in the meat grinder in Bakmut. Even the US has acknowledged that they don't have enough weapons to keep up the fight when at the same time Russia is just scratching the surface of 1990s stock piles of 155 mm artillery shells that the west doesn't have anymore... Now the real question is how long the US can keep themselves engaged without using the tactical nukes my guess is 3 to 6 months after that if they resort to nukes then there will be no more foggy bottom.
Posted by: Laphomic | Jan 2 2023 18:09 utc | 27
In the US what we've done is combine an arrogant, bankrupt govt. with an ignorant, bankrupt population. On one hand people will say all news is "fake" yet on the other they refuse to believe anything else. We are the "good guys" and that's final.
This symbiotic relationship has metastised into a malignant tumor on the world that must be amputated before it's too late.
From Putin's words one can conclude he understands this and drew his line when he had his military launch an attack on US led NATO and the former state of Ukraine.
Posted by: chunga | Jan 2 2023 18:11 utc | 28
Bernd | Jan 2 2023 17:15 utc | 2
The building was not a Russian barracks. The Russians were temporarily deployed in a Vocational School. MoD Russia has posted that there were 63 Russians killed in the attack.
Posted by: Belle | Jan 2 2023 18:14 utc | 29
@ Hermit 21
(and Russia has trained reserves of around 24 million)
Please provide your source, because this sounds ridiculous. The total male population (all ages) in Russia is less than 68 million. You are suggesting that over a third of all males in Russia are trained reserves?
Posted by: ROCK | Jan 2 2023 18:16 utc | 30
In a sense, Russia no longer has red lines "Ukraine." As the conflict has continued, Russia's de facto positions have changed: Russian position now, stated multiple times in public communications now, I think, is really expulsion of Poland, Romania, and the Baltic States, at minimum, from NATO, as well as whatever Moscow has in mind for Ukraine. "Winning" (just) in Ukraine is (sort of) meaningless to Moscow now, beyond bleeding the West dry so to speak. By committing itself more and more, materially and psychologically to Ukraine, the West is trapping itself further. Looking forward, it is much more advantageous for Russians to smash the Polish and Romanian armies, plus whatever expeditionary force US and other NATO states might put together, if the war continues after Ukraine runs out of war fighting capability, near Kiev, or, symbolically, near Poltava, even, than at Warsaw or the Fulda Gap--assuming, that is, if NATO still has the ability to pull that off when it comes to that.
Posted by: hk | Jan 2 2023 18:18 utc | 31
Jered @ 3
The newspaper ownership question is actually quite huge. J.P. Morgan, an agent in essence of the Rottenchild crime clan, got together with his various bankster associates and bought up what they considered to be the 25 most widely read dailies right across the fruited plain. Soon, taking their cues from the big ones, and also the major media transmission systems, Reuters, long a Rottenchild holding and the Associated Press; smaller publications soon got on message with the biggies and changed their points from anti-war to a heavy bias toward the Allied "cause".
Wild tales from British intel and media sources of Germans bayonetting Belgian babies became all the rage, gradually pushing American public opinion to gradually swing towards a 180 from their previous positions. The thing got further blown up when a German U-Boat, containing numerous American passengers (and later determined by diving expeditions, a huge quantity of munitions in the hold...information of which had been filtered into known German intel assessors) torpedoed the SS Lusitania, virtually within sight of the Irish coast. The controlled media kept pounding out their takes on the U-Boat menace.
Meanwhile, Morgan and other major armaments firms investors, who had sold on credit to the Brits and the French, immense quantities of armaments and munitions to those Allied powers right on through the war, broke out into backslapping and Cheshire Cat grins, as their long blackmailed Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who had campaigned for re-election on a platform promise of "He Kept Us Out of the War", within three scant weeks of his second Inauguration, stood before a joint session of Congress and demanded a Declaration of War against Germany and the Habsburg Empire.
Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 2 2023 18:18 utc | 32
@ Posted by: Boo | Jan 2 2023 18:04 utc | 26
True. Yet many of those events (ns2 in particular) where obvious provocations - intended to force an expected response. When enemy tries to force or induce you to an action, one should proceed with caution. Russia is avoiding being knocked off a cautious and focused course yet reassesses as needed - is not acting for public aclaim or entertainment. Russia remains focused on objective and there are factors which we as outsiders, lay people dont dont has access to information to consider all factors. In general things are simple, for simple people.
Posted by: jared | Jan 2 2023 18:22 utc | 33
Klutch Kargo @7
Initially I wondered why you continue to read the publication I have long described as the Chew Pork Slymes. Then it dawned on me that you wish to understand why this rag, which appeals to one,the intellectual classes (their crossword puzzles, particularly the Wednesday and Thursday ones are nonpareil); two, the connected ones amongst the Judaic populations( matzo bread for the hyper-literate) and finally, three the more professional elements amongst the upper middle-class.
Please inform me if my observations are other than accurate.
Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 2 2023 18:27 utc | 34
Boo | Jan 2 2023 18:04 utc | 26
This leads to an open invitation to continue, so continue they will.
from the reasonable info here, the blog, and apparent facts on the ground, there is only one war: that of the USG against its populace, with European leaders riding in that wake. the war is over. the fighting will continue as long as the western ruling class can screw over its populace.
short of going nuclear, it doesn't matter what russia does. the war is not against russia.
btw, as we don't give a crap about another member of the ruling class getting his long deserved deserts, Benedict, that is, let us do remember that 63 people are not a fucking pinprick to the individuals and families involved. but people love their missiles.
Posted by: rjb1.5 | Jan 2 2023 18:28 utc | 35
@Posted by: Boo | Jan 2 2023 18:04 utc | 26
Their was no clear response to the sinking of the Moskva true. But it's also not in the interest of Russia to antagonize the whole Ukrainian population of which the murder of Dugina and the hoped for response was a clear example. The relentless targetting of the electricity infrastructure is a direct result of the Crimean bridge bombing. The sanctions and confiscations were received with retaliatory actions. The NS pipeline destruction was as much an attack on US vassal Germany in to a larger extent the whole of Europe. Although I do think that Russia could do more (like symmetrically providing lethal weaponry to be actually used in let's say Syria against US assets) to say that it did nothing is unfounded. Additionally, for a country like Russia deeply involved in a war not only Ukraine against but the whole West, it's economically surprisingly well. If Russia would be ruled by let's say Ramzan Kadyrov, the picture would have been totally different by now.
Posted by: xor | Jan 2 2023 18:28 utc | 36
Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 17:57 utc | 21
"Rand Corp, the US War College, College of Naval Warfare and many US think-tanks have determined that NATO, which can draw on trained reserves of around 3.5 million could not prevent a determined Russian incursion (and Russia has trained reserves of around 24 million) into Western Europe except through use of nuclear weapons."
Yes, I have read about these studies. They were made during the cold war. Now, after watching Russias 15 minute blitzkrieg through all of Ukraine (NOT) I'm guessing, that by the end of this year Rand & others will make a new assesment, if they haven't already done so. With quite different predictions.
And if you are going to say, Russia could have been faster, but didn't want to, for whatever reason. I reply, why should we assume Russia would want to conquer Western Europe any faster?
Posted by: Membrum Virile | Jan 2 2023 18:30 utc | 37
[email protected] of Russia's red lines have been repainted in the colours of the rainbow.....well that's what some unelected twat from the EU said would happen....the long range HIMARS ordinance will show up when Russia begins the 'forecasted offensive'....can someone get Nostradamus on the phone.....on second thought make that a carrier pigeon.
Cheers M
Posted by: sean the leprechaun | Jan 2 2023 18:35 utc | 38
I always think of "red lines" as being a kind of vest for the West: i.e.the kind of outside under-garment displayed outwardly by haute coiture West European nobles and royality during the late middle and early modern ages. I.e.; Used to display the importance and size of their penises,
(The Queen of Denmark even wore one on the outside of her skirts to show off her mail dominance ca. the year 1380. (Margaretha the 1st: She ruled Denmark, (including Sweden, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Sweden , Sleswig, Holstein end Estonia)
Much of royal wealth in Denmark 1300-1650 stemmmed from taxing maritime trefficing throug the Sunds and Belts beteen Sweeden and Mainland Europe. Gustav Wasa and Gussy the 6th did put an and to this encroatchment against "the freedom of the seas".
But presently, the US&UK Reich are re-imposing the thralldom of the seas assisted by their slaves in Scandinavia to want to stop Russian free trade and also Russian navies. --What a loosing proposition for both Scandinavia & Britan!
Posted by: Tollef Ås/秋涛乐/טלפ וש | Jan 2 2023 18:36 utc | 39
@jared
They may have been provocations, but a great many people died and a lot of property was destroyed. It goes against the logic of a great power to let things like that slide, and while it doesn't mean they won't retaliate at some convenient moment in the future, at the moment its quite a collection of black eyes.
@xor
The targeting of electricity infrastructure only coincided with the Crimean bridge bombing, but it's done out of military necessity to cripple logistics and put pressure on the industry and populace of Ukraine.
I would even argue that the lack of escalatory moves on Russia's part is partly due to how well the economy has held up. I have a feeling that the Russian leadership is inclined to let a great deal of things slide because they feel they are getting their way in Ukraine, in the international domain and in internal stability, so they prefer the current 'controlled situation', even with some losses. On the other hand, there's a case to be made that a significant escalation up to the threat of all out war could have caused a serious crack in NATO at the start of the war, while things were still raw.
Posted by: Boo | Jan 2 2023 18:39 utc | 40
The West has crossed too many red lines.
Now Russia is brandishing its nuclear arsenal as a continual warning to the USA and any of the other NATO nations that are willing to listen. This is VERY, VERY SERIOUS. Yet, the West in their corruption and degeneracy are both spiritually and practically blinded to realities.
After Russia takes and secures the Donbas, this is an ideal time to launch against the USA. It will be a massive nuclear launch taking out the USA within one hour (Daniel 7:5, Revelation 18). Any of the other NATO nations that retaliates will be served the same nuclear supper that was presented to the USA.
The main question is "WHEN WILL RUSSIA TAKE AND SECURE ALL OF THE DONBAS?" According to recent 14 day weather forecast of Donetsk City, the ground will not start to freeze until January 8th. The weather has been unseasonably warm in Ukraine. If you average the daily Hi and Lo temperatures, that average does not drop below freezing until January 8th. After January 8th, the average HI/LO temperature for Donetsk City is 27 degrees. I have no idea how many days of this average will be necessary to freeze the ground solid throughout the zero line in the Donbas???
NOTE: HAARP and/or other may be at work to continue to bump the temperature above freezing. So, any weather forecast for Ukraine may turn out to be incorrect.
Whenever the ground freezes solid, the Russians will mobilize in a BIG way. Until then, Russia will continue to open up more new fronts to dissipate the Ukrainian army at the very long zero line.
Posted by: young | Jan 2 2023 18:40 utc | 41
@jared 3
It is perhaps worth noting that Lord Rothschild (Lionel Walter Rothschild) agreed to bring the USA into the war on behalf of the British IFF Brittain agreed to establishing a homeland for the Jews. Once the political secretary to the War Office, Leo Amery, a crypto-Zionist, had agreed to this condition, the Zimmerman telegram was published and the anti-war US public dragged into the war on Britain's side on a wave of outrage, exactly as promised, with Wilson, who had been elected on an anti-war pledge requesting a declaration of war on April 2, the Senate voting for war on April 4 and the House on April 6. In consequence the Zionist Political Committee met at the Imperial Hotel in London on July 17, producing the first handwritten draft of what would become the Balfour declaration. This was modified by Lord Balfour who sent a typed version to Leo Amery who was responsible for the final formulation before it was returned to Lord Rothschild to forward to the Zionists.
So no matter what the intelligence services did, it was ultimately the Zionists and Rothschild who, against sense, ethics and the public will, pushed the US into WW I.
Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 18:40 utc | 42
@ young
Russia has changed nothing about its nuclear posture this entire war. If anything, they pop up from time to time to mention they won't nuke anyone to calm the excitable children they have to deal with on a daily basis.
Posted by: Boo | Jan 2 2023 18:48 utc | 43
@ Posted by: Boo | Jan 2 2023 18:39 utc | 40
A big part of winning a fight is being able to take a beating without losing track of objective.
Anyway -
1) Ukraine and the military conflict (so far) are at most 10% of what matters - the far more serious blows are in the economic war. It reflects on us that we focus on the action.
2) We do not have knowlege our experience to determine proper course of action. Would be great if was video game and we could test our mettle.
As good soldiers are left to hope someone in charge knows what they are doing. I have been surprise by much of it already. Maybe next world war, I will know what to do.
Posted by: jared | Jan 2 2023 18:51 utc | 44
It was Jupiter missiles in Turkey and Italy, not Greece, that lead to the Caribbean Crisis. The agreement to withdraw the missiles was a secret codicil, allowing the USA to crow victory at the time and for many years after. As always, the US later violated the agreement by again locating nuclear missiles in Europe. The US currently has an estimated 100 nuclear warheads stored at air bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, according to the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 18:54 utc | 45
There is only one red line that matters and that is the profit-line of the greed-mongers that run the world. In the end our extinguished 'civilization' is caused by idiots full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
And what is more 'peak Orwell' than "...Russia loses its war in Ukraine but does not relent in its aggressions."
The 'west' believes it is immune from the consequences of its actions. And not one tear will shed as the US Capitol is vaporized by the multi-polar world.
Posted by: gottlieb | Jan 2 2023 18:59 utc | 46
Sam@13
Appears that you are approximately one-quarter correct regarding Perfidious Albion and its nasty set of leaders...but absolutely not owners and shot-callers. The Rottenchild Bank in City of London has since Wellington's victory over Napoleon in 1813, OWNED the Bank of England and the Crown. Those Parliamentarians are mere minions, servants and well recognized actors in a very Shakespearian global theatre.
Sam, to judge by your tender sympathies towards Judaics, I would assume that you are of the Tribe. As you should well know, there is no Jewish people, rather Jewish peoples, with many different customs, propensities and allegiances. Only the Bank$ter elites have a fairly comprehensive picture of how things work in contemporary reality, as their almost totally owned mass media of misinformation just happens to manifest messaging for managing the masses.
Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 2 2023 19:00 utc | 47
@ Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 2 2023 18:18 utc | 32
Yes, the sinking of the Lusitania with women and children on board. Which was later admitted was also carrying ammuniton, and which gave impetus for Wilson to change his position.
Posted by: jared | Jan 2 2023 19:00 utc | 48
I always think of "red lines" as being a kind of vest for the West: i.e.the kind of outside under-garment displayed outwardly by haute coiture West European nobles and royality during the late middle and early modern ages. I.e.; Used to display the importance and size of their penises,
(The Queen of Denmark even wore one on the outside of her skirts to show off her mail dominance ca. the year 1380. (Margaretha the 1st: She ruled Denmark, (including Sweden, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Sweden , Sleswig, Holstein end Estonia)
No matter what, the Russians will find their way out,
And as the prpruphet Mohammed said (rest his soul): "In search of Trusth, no travel is too far: Go as lióng as possible -- even all the way to China!"
Posted by: Tollef Ås/秋涛乐/טלפ וש | Jan 2 2023 19:02 utc | 49
It is considered a mistake for a national leader, such as a US president, to explicitly issue, or deny, 'red lines' or advanced signals of actions that a nation might, or might not, take. President Ford noted this in at least one of his debates with Jimmy Carter in 1976, in reference to Carter saying that, as President, he would not intervene in Yugoslavia after Tito's death. Signaling one's intentions in advance, Ford suggested, would limit the Presidents actions and thereby encourage aggression.
I don't see that Putin, nor Russia, has issued explicitly defined red lines; intentionally vague ones, yes.
Posted by: David Wooten | Jan 2 2023 19:04 utc | 50
Sweet Jesus, this conflict makes you scratch your head. Is it gross incompetence, 5th columns or genuine deficiencies?
First the FUBAR of bad intelligence at the very start which cost lots of Russian lives in a supposed masterful feint.
Then the masterful grinder which amazingly pushed the enemy nowhere while allowing civilians to be bombed, not to mention the genius withdrawals.
Reminds me of Trump, 4d chess turned into incompetence and then operation warpspeed showed he was a shill afterall.
Posted by: Johnycomelately | Jan 2 2023 19:11 utc | 51
Why do say, "For the record: Russia has never threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine". I think he has. This is the unfortunate consequence of annexing the Dombass. It bring disputed parts of Ukraine under the Russian nuclear umbrella.
Posted by: tmellman | Jan 2 2023 19:15 utc | 52
@Opport Knocks 17
You are completely wrong.
From the CIA controlled Wikipedia
Possibility of nuclear launchIn early 1992, it was confirmed that Soviet forces in Cuba had already received tactical nuclear warheads for their artillery rockets and Il-28 bombers when the crisis broke. Castro stated that he would have recommended their use if the US invaded despite Cuba being destroyed.
Fifty years after the crisis, Graham Allison wrote:
Fifty years ago, the Cuban missile crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster. During the standoff, US President John F. Kennedy thought the chance of escalation to war was "between 1 in 3 and even", and what we have learned in later decades has done nothing to lengthen those odds. We now know, for example, that in addition to nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, the Soviet Union had deployed 100 tactical nuclear weapons to Cuba, and the local Soviet commander there could have launched these weapons without additional codes or commands from Moscow. The US air strike and invasion that were scheduled for the third week of the confrontation would likely have triggered a nuclear response against American ships and troops, and perhaps even Miami. The resulting war might have led to the deaths of over 100 million Americans and over 100 million Russians.
AND
Submarine close callArguably, the most dangerous moment in the crisis was not recognized until the Cuban Missile Crisis Havana conference, in October 2002. Attended by many of the veterans of the crisis, they all learned that on October 27, 1962, USS Beale had tracked and dropped signalling depth charges (the size of hand grenades) on B-59, a Soviet Project 641 (NATO designation Foxtrot) submarine. Unknown to the US, it was armed with a 15-kiloton nuclear torpedo. Running out of air, the Soviet submarine was surrounded by American warships and desperately needed to surface. An argument broke out among three officers aboard B-59, including submarine captain Valentin Savitsky, political officer Ivan Semyonovich Maslennikov, and Deputy brigade commander Captain 2nd rank (US Navy Commander rank equivalent) Vasily Arkhipov. An exhausted Savitsky became furious and ordered that the nuclear torpedo on board be made combat ready. Accounts differ about whether Arkhipov convinced Savitsky not to make the attack or whether Savitsky himself finally concluded that the only reasonable choice left open to him was to come to the surface. During the conference, McNamara stated that nuclear war had come much closer than people had thought. Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, said, "A guy called Vasily Arkhipov saved the world."
Unmentioned by the article is the agreement in a secret meeting between Khrushchev and Castro in July 1962 that the USSR would use thermonuclear devices to eliminate US forces on Cuba should Cuba fall to the USA.
Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 19:18 utc | 53
Flagrant proof that the entire generation of the leading personnel of the Empire believes its own propaganda. The earlier one was led by bastards who knew better while producing propaganda for the masses.
That's good: they are fucked. The bad news: so are we who live in the countries they control, without a possibility to escape the short-term disaster.
Posted by: Piero Colombo | Jan 2 2023 19:21 utc | 54
Hermit | Jan 2 2023 18:40 utc | 42
To differentiate between between the 'intelligence services', and the Zionists & Rothschild's, is as artificial as trying to differentiate between the Democrats and Republicans. The Bankers control the USA. They have been firmly in control since JP Morgan and the Harriman's pulled off their "Green" color revolution of the US in the late 19th century.
Posted by: Eric Blair | Jan 2 2023 19:21 utc | 55
Russia has~4X the population of the Ukraine and ~10X the economy and only a small fraction of the corruption and very competent leadership, certainly compared to the Ukraine or anywhere in the west for that matter. Now, I could take on Iron Mike Tyson and you could give me all kinds of weapons but short of giving me a gun I would loose and if I pissed Mike Tyson off, I would loose very badly which I believe is a good comparison. The Minsk agreement was essentially a Quebec in Canada solution that saved the country and made most people happy. What's happening now is a version of the "phoney war" that preceded WWII. Churchill, of course is the criminal who really started WWII by bombing German civilians, pissing Hitler off and so because of Churchill's imperial arrogance and Hitler's lack of emotional regulation especially when he stopped attacking the British Air force and started bombing the civilian cities, especially London the war was lost sooner than it needed to be. President Putin is no Hitler with too much arrogance and too little emotional regulation and western leadership is more hubris driven and dumber and less competent than Churchill. This can still go very badly wrong and I have zero confidence in the western leadership. Good luck to us all. President Putin misread the situation and western leadership misread it even worse so we're in uncharted territory.
Posted by: Bob | Jan 2 2023 19:24 utc | 56
"As russia loses its war with Ukraine". That's the standard narrative with certain publications and of course on Colonel Laing's blog. They all want it to be so, but I doubt their version of reality will be realised in the end.
One thing they all talk about is "Regime Change"; we always do that in any situation involving a govt. we don't like and we always think whatever takes the place of the "brutal dictator" du jour will be an improvement despite the historical record's contrasting evidence to the contrary. The other guy is always the worst of the worst and we operate on the assumption (unconscious though it may be) that the new guy will be more accommodating. We could get rid of Putin and find out instead that the next guy is far more hardnosed than Putin ever has been. We just never consider what's behind the next door. Why are we so obtuse or willfully ignorant?
Posted by: A. Pols | Jan 2 2023 19:27 utc | 57
Young @41
Perhaps as a product of your religious preconceptions having overburdened your innate sense of reality; you have gone into No-Man's-Land; an insane fascination with nuclear warfare bringing on the imagined Armageddon.
Why not instead, consider the Greek term "Apocalypse" which is not the Ragnarok end of all existence in this dimension of time? Apocalypse, is the meaning and contains that meaning of "Revelation", an opening spiritually and intellectually to a totally new timeline, as per the fact that Jesus was the Avatar of the Age of Pisces (symbolized by the original Jesusites as the Fish) and that we now are on the dawning stages of the Age of Aquarius...an era of broadening realizations of enlightenment.
"Judeo-Christian Civilization", as propounded by some, is better described as the JudieChristie MagickMindfuck, commencing with the Dark Ages, an era in which in the Western World, the Vatican and its priestcrafty ones were the only literates and the only allowed literature happened to be the emperor Constantine's Bible.
Western tribal peoples were deracinated and came to accept the mythologies centering on the Tribal WarGod of the ancient Hebrews, a desert and desolate religiosity which separated people from their innate connexions with the natural world and the entirety of the Cosmos as the reality of Creator.
Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 2 2023 19:29 utc | 58
@ Hermit | Jan 2 2023 19:18 utc | 54
Indeed. This has been covered numerous times on MoA. In any case the declassified records after 60 years, as at Dec132022.
A false belief, or merely strongly held opinion, is never an actual, fact.
Cuban Missile Crisis @ 60The National Security Archive marks the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis with new revelations and historical evidence from the 59-day nuclear weapons deployment that brought the world to the brink of a catastrophic war
re: bevin | Jan 2 2023 17:57 utc | 19
Remember that at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, the US and Russia had only just begun deploying intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The main strike forces against the Soviet Union and US in 1962 were long-range bombers with flight times of hours before reaching their targets. To suddenly have Soviet nuclear missiles, with flight times of about 10 minutes that could hit targets in most of the continental US, came as a terrible shock to US political and military leaders. I'm sure the Soviets also felt the same about US Jupiter missiles in Turkey.
I suppose having a Russian base in Latin America would provide a very visible reminder of Russian nuclear capabilities, but Russian subs parked off the US coast can hit US targets with nuclear warheads in a few minutes. So the threat and capability is already there.
side note: Russia actually had deployed a regiment of its liquid fueled ICBMs in the Ural Mountains by November 1962, something the US apparently was not aware of at the time. I was told about this by my friend, Colonel Valery Yarynich (who helped design the Russian nuclear command and control system and who served on the General Staff for 7 years,now deceased). Download his book C3: Nuclear Command, Control, Cooperation The day before the Cuban Missile Crisis ended, Yarynich (who was at the site in the Urals with the regiment of Soviet ICBMs) received a communication that the facility was to switch over to wartime communication systems. This had never happened before and it signaled that nuclear war was imminent. Valery told me that when he handed the message to the commanding officer, his hand shook and a deathly silence came over the launch center. That was the event that eventually led him to work to prevent nuclear war.
Posted by: Steven Starr | Jan 2 2023 19:32 utc | 60
I firmly believe the reason we will not send the short range ballistic missile ATACMS is because Russian air defense can easily deal with them, it has nothing to do with Red Lines.
Posted by: Gregory Puecell | Jan 2 2023 19:34 utc | 61
Johnnycumlately @52
Oh do please come by again some time in the future once you have lurked sufficiently on this site to achieve sufficient knowledge to present fully matured perspectives.
Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 2 2023 19:36 utc | 62
That is why england must be annihilated.
What to hell is putin waiting for ?
Posted by: Sam | Jan 2 2023 17:39 utc | 11
Oh really? GFY SAM.
Posted by: DJS | Jan 2 2023 19:37 utc | 63
Hermit @ 54
Thanks for the info on the submarine story and the role of third officer Arkhipov. When a new Reunited Nations is created and located in some truly neutral location; a statue of Arkhipov as a savior of humanity should be central to that building's atrium.
Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 2 2023 19:41 utc | 64
Steven Starr @ 61
Thank you for this tidbit of historical enlightenment.
Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 2 2023 19:47 utc | 65
@ROCK 30
While the exact numbers are classified, from 1967 when service terms were reduced, till the Soviet Union was disestablished, every citizen of the USSR had two years of service and up to 2 refresher camps per year. This continued in Russia until 2007, 2008 when the primary term was reduced to 1 year and camps were limited. Trained graduates and volunteers, male and females, also enter the reserves (мобилизационный людской ресурс). So most men and a fair number of women living in Russia form the Russian reserves. Chuprin, Konstantin (2009). Taras, Anatoliy (ed.). Вооружённые силы стран СНГ и Балтии. Справочник [Armed forces of CIS countries and Baltic states. Handbook]. Moscow: Современная школа. ISBN 978-985-513-617-1. contains the estimate that a wartime mobilization would raise armies totalling 31 million trained personnel.
Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 19:48 utc | 66
aristodemos @37
My wife subscribes to the physical edition and watches NPR. I look at the Sunday edition late in the week and enjoy the books section. As a kid I read it at home and had to read it for a high school class. The gray lady and I have a long and complicated relationship. What was once gospel is now mostly unbelievable and frankly insulting. Reviews of broadway plays still pretty good.
Here is a joke for you: "I am not going to wear my Trump tee-shirt anymore. The last time I was scratched, spit on and kicked, and that was before I got out of the house."
Posted by: Klutch Kargo | Jan 2 2023 19:48 utc | 67
@ Hermit | Jan 2 2023 19:18 utc | 54
Further (nsarchive.gwu.edu) to:
Unmentioned by the article is the agreement in a secret meeting between Khrushchev and Castro in July 1962 that the USSR would use thermonuclear devices to eliminate US forces on Cuba should Cuba fall to the USA.
“Khrushchev then stated specifically that the Soviet Union had an anti-aircraft missile [sic] in Cuba as well as ballistic missiles with both conventional and nuclear warheads…. They would never be fired except in defense of Cuba and then only on the personal instructions from Khrushchev.” (not quite true ...)Knox reported, “Khrushchev added that if the United States did not believe this it should attack Cuba and it would find out the answer. Guantanamo would disappear the first day.” The author Michael Dobbs identified this warning as a direct allusion to the Soviet short-range cruise missiles that would be targeting the U.S. Navy base.
...
In addition to the missiles, the United States demanded that the USSR repatriate the IL-28 bombers it had brought to Cuba, which the Soviets had already promised Castro they would leave behind.
The Soviets had also promised to turn over the nearly 100 tactical nuclear weapons they had secretly brought to the island—a commitment that Khrushchev’s special envoy to Havana, Anastas Mikoyan, determined was a dangerous mistake that should be reversed.
...
“Nobody knew that Cuba almost became a nuclear power in 1962.”
@Membrum Virile 37
Since the National Defense Strategy Commission determined in 2018 that the US would probably not win a regional war with Russia or China alone, let alone simultaneously or as allies, not a single credible wargame has reflected an American victory. There are reasons. Gazis">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-military-might-struggle-to-win-or-perhaps-lose-war-with-china-or-russia-report-says/">Gazis Olivia (2018-11-14). U.S. military might "struggle to win, or perhaps lose" war with China or Russia, report says. CBS.
Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 20:01 utc | 69
thanks b.. many good posts... i want to highlight one..
@ jared | Jan 2 2023 18:51 utc | 44
thanks jared. you sum it up very well here..
-------------
my own impression is many folks are filtering what is happening thru a western, or usa type lens... i think this interferes in their ability to see all of what is happening here..
Posted by: james | Jan 2 2023 20:02 utc | 70
Military Summary is suggesting that much more than 63 Russian soldiers were killed in the attack.
Saker thinks that Putin and the Russian Military Command are geniuses. The family of the dead Russian soldiers would disagree.
Saker guaranteed that Russia would not leave Kherson. Now he is guaranteeing that there will be a winter offensive.
Russia has just been attacked inside of Russian territory. If it doesn't start a winter offensive it will mean it has no red lines.
Posted by: Anton Gorbatow | Jan 2 2023 20:09 utc | 71
From the CIA controlled WikipediaPosted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 19:18 utc | 54
Your opening sentence says it all, the CIA hires only the best fiction writers in the world and sometimes sublets them to Hollywood. Those who are promoted also vet Hollywood scripts.
Posted by: Opport Knocks | Jan 2 2023 20:10 utc | 72
There are red lines. And while NATO may, perhaps, possibly, try not to cross all of them at once, the Ukrainian government seems to take the opposite approach in its attempts to escalate the conflict. Just look at the evolution of the conflict (check better timelines on the internet, this is just the gist):
1. March 11 2021: Ukraine announces the decision of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) of Ukraine dated March 11, 2021 on the Strategy for the de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. By all means necessary, including military ones. With help of the "international community".
2. The Ukrainian army increased artillery fire on cities and villages in the eastern in the days before the war, with the Russian army already in position.
3. Whether the withdrawal of Russian troupes from Kiew, Snake Island, Kherson etc. were glorious victories of the heros of Ukraine or negotiated deals is unclear. They might be concessions from the Russian side to nudge along negotiations. It seems clear though, that not just from Merkels and Hollande's statements, one might get the impression that Ukraine does not appear to reciprocate good faith from the Russian side.
4. Russia's attacks on Ukraine (energy) infrastructure started soon after the "unfortunate incident" on the Kerch bridge. One can not help wonder if Kerch Bridge might be something similar to Russia as the Twin Towers were to the US.
5. Subsequent drone and missile attacks were often preceded by Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory.
6. An then there was the "Russian" (W. Selensky) missile attack on Poland. The continuous shelling of the Zaporitscha nuclear power plant. And of Donezk city. Even with cluster ammunition.
7. The attacks on Engels airbase may be seen as legimate attacks on the planes used to shell Ukraine. On the other hand, if there are nuclear weapons on the base, an attempt to destroy those nuclear weapons could be seen as an attempt to start a nuclear war. There are a couple of incidents where soldiers charged with protecting nuclear sites were close to "respond" to incoming missiles.
As for western governments: Germany was not willing to support Ukraine with anything beyond 5000 helmets back in February. Soon after the invasion, trains started rolling with ammunition, with howitzers, with air defense systems, anti-tank mines. The US is delivering everything short of planes, long-range missiles and battle tanks, for now. And somenone thought it was safe to blow up a russian gas pipeline.
If the "Red line" refers to armageddon, than yes, it has not been defined and probably won't be defined, since that would just encourage the other side to advance all the way to the line.
If "Red line" refers to an action that will trigger the next round of escalations, than both sides seem very happy crossing them.
Posted by: Marvin | Jan 2 2023 20:14 utc | 74
Russian military doctrine was defensive until 2021.
Then Putin and his generals decided to go offensive against the UA in 2/22.
This led to various conflicts both in the military leadership and among the ground forces deployed.
It took months for changes in military doctrine to begin and caused numerous casualties among all of Russia's military ranks.
Today, as an expert on the military doctrine of the Red Army of the 1980s, I conclude that the Russians suffer from forgetfulness. They were always ready to sacrifice whole divisions in order to take Amsterdam, for example, from East Germany within 24 to 48 hours - without using nuclear weapons. What is happening today,that NATO transports thousands of tons of fuel,ammunition and war equipment to the UA every day,would have been unimaginable at the time.The most important goal was a rapid occupation of Western Europe in the event of war,to make any supplies from Britain and the USA impossible.
When I look at the UA at present, I see the opposite.
For me, Putin's policy is fraught with an infinite number of question marks.
And probably even more so for all the senior Russian military officers of the 1980s who are still alive today.
Posted by: Oberbayer | Jan 2 2023 20:16 utc | 75
@Opport Knocks 73
And there you took precisely the wrong message from my pointing out that NOT EVEN THE CIA can bury the indubitable reality that neither the US government nor the US military had any idea that they were facing a nuclear armed.opponent in Cuba, and that US forced attacking Cuba would have been vaporised, anymore than they realized that they almost triggered WW III on multiple occasions. See e. g. Birch Douglas (2013+05-28). The U.S.S.R. and U.S. Came Closer to Nuclear War Than We Thought. A series of war games held in 1983 triggered 'the moment of maximum danger of the late Cold War.' The Atlantic.
Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 20:21 utc | 76
There is obviously an inexhaustible supply of armchair generals willing to spew nonsense in the MSM.
"Concerns about Russia’s “red lines” are driven above all by the fear that Russia might resort to nuclear escalation. The West should avert this by deterring Russia rather than by restraining itself — or pressuring Ukraine to do so — for fear of “provoking” Russia. It can do so by communicating the certainty of severe consequences should Russia use nuclear weapons."
Consequences? Both sides know that use of any nuclear weapons sends everyone down the slippery slope. We've heard the 'severe consequences' line before, like the catholic school nun waiting to rap a wayward young schoolboy on the knuckles with a ruler. It smacks of western paternalism coming from insecure, authoritarian little people.
There are a lot of escalatory rungs on the ladder before going nuclear that Russia can employ: S-500's neutralizing US satellites when their orbit circles over Russia, or taking out NATO command centers in neighboring states. It depends on how far the West wants to go in their quest to hold on to their NATO proxy state. This idiot Brit seems to think that a nuclear war only has consequences for the other side.
Posted by: Mike R | Jan 2 2023 20:27 utc | 77
Bob @ 57
No. Russia has ten times the population of rump Ukraine. If you use the populations of twenty years ago you would be correct. Moving Crimea and the four oblasts to the Russian column and out of Ukrainian tally lifted Russia 11 to 14 million. We have been through the numbers here before. It is flat imposible to know with any certainty because there has been no census in thirty years and everyone lies to their agenda.. Major gymnastics are required to claim Ukraine still haas 20. Ten would be more likely than twenty. I am using 15 million as top bound and the lower bound could be below ten.
Ukraine has become a small impoverished hole of corruption committing suicide. If Russia just wanted aa pile of dead bodies they could do that very quickly.
Posted by: oldhippie | Jan 2 2023 20:30 utc | 78
"The former British diplomat obviously lacks a decent education in history. The Soviet missiles in Cuba were stationed there because the U.S. had stationed nuclear capable Juniper mid range missiles in Turkey and Greece. Those missiles threatened Moscow. They had crossed the Soviet red line. The missiles in Cuba were a counter threat to what the U.S. had done. When the Kennedy administration recognized that it negotiated the removal of its missiles in Turkey and Greece in exchange for the removal of the Soviet missiles in Cuba.
It were the Soviets who had won that round of the Cold War, not the U.S."
This is very nicely explained in the book,
"JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" - 19 Octubre 2010
by James W. Douglass
To understand the Cuba "red line" one needs to bring into the picture other piece which were in play at the same time.
Posted by: Tom_12 | Jan 2 2023 20:31 utc | 79
Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 20:01 utc | 70
Thanks for this. hadn't seen so recent report. It doesn't quite say that only way US could stop Russia in western Europe is by nukes. And of course, done before latest Russian invasion.
Do you, or anybody else know where I could get the whole report, or at least some kind of summary?
Maybe the actual report says something like it, the story is a little light on those kind of details.
Oh, I did laugh out loud when I read this part:
"We have basically been underfunding the Defense Department for quite a period of time,"
Sure you have. And you are in no way trying to get more money for yourself :)
Posted by: Membrum Virile | Jan 2 2023 20:40 utc | 80
American intelligence and analysis is deeply flawed because America rarely knows its own history well enough to draw any conclusions from it. A “textbook” historical account exists for everything; discrepancies with reality, deeper detail and its attendant context, and honest assessment of American motivations are categorically dismissed or simply ignored. Everything that flows from domestic analysis of US behavior is generally flawed because of it.
Posted by: Lex | Jan 2 2023 20:41 utc | 81
#7 asks:
"NYT is gaslighting its readers [por que]...my thoughts are totally inconsequential, why bother with me? Just maybe the gaslighting is for someone else?
Indeed, the NYTimes gaslights it's readers to inform them what they are supposed to think. The NYTimes is far more injunctive than Pravda or Izvestia ever was in Brezhnev's day. DC's modern day politburo needs to speak with one voice but, just as with the USSR it's best if it seems there are two voices hence, WaPo.
Interestingly enough, the KGB...er..ah...one of the USA's 3LA's loaned the country's richest man money to...wait for it...buy WaPo.
Posted by: S Brennan | Jan 2 2023 20:41 utc | 82
When people talk glibly about the USA using tactical nuke, they seem to forget that the Russians are not passively waiting to see that happen. All the reckless utterances coming out of the US and its paid propagandists are not substitutes for real war.
Posted by: Steve | Jan 2 2023 20:57 utc | 83
After this the talk of us red line's is over!
donetsk barracks
Posted by: jpc | Jan 2 2023 21:01 utc | 84
"Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 19:48 utc | 67" "contains the estimate that a wartime mobilization would raise armies totalling 31 million trained personnel."
Anyone trained more than a few years back will be of marginal utility. 1) they are older and likely worse physical shape, 2) a lot of the weapons systems have changed to some degree.
And more interestingly, what weapons are they going to outfit these 31 million soldiers with?
Posted by: Bill Smith | Jan 2 2023 21:05 utc | 85
The US provided targeting for the Makeevka strike, so I imagine that the hotel in Kiev full of NATO advisors struck earlier must have contained US personnel. I do not think that this would have happened unless NATO and the US were panicking.
Posted by: Kaiama | Jan 2 2023 21:06 utc | 86
"and stupid people including hitler blamed jews while it was all along the english parasites who l destabilise, plot and run the war"
Actually, you'll read in Carroll Quigley's (professor at Georgetown University) "Anglo-American Establishment" that the British actually threatened France to go to war WITh the Nazis against France, if the latter had invaded Germany to cull the German rearmament in the '30ies.
Posted by: Nanabozho | Jan 2 2023 21:07 utc | 87
(in Berlin right now the phrase "having run out of rockets" actually is a good thing)
Posted by: AG | Jan 2 2023 21:09 utc | 88
Posted by: Mike R | Jan 2 2023 20:27 utc | 78 " Russia can employ: S-500's neutralizing US satellites when their orbit circles over Russia"
Including the ones in geosynchronous orbit?
While this is happening, what would NATO be doing?
Let’s start a conspiracy theory:
What are the limits to the maneuverability of the thousands of Starlink satellites up there? Aren't the news ones equipped with lasers :)
Posted by: Bill Smith | Jan 2 2023 21:12 utc | 89
As I recall, the agreement about the US removing missiles from Turkey and Greece was only tacit, and the US agreed to do it later and without publicly announcing quid pro quo. Publicly, it appeared that Kruschev had backed down. I have seen it argued that this was a contributing factor to Kruschev's removal.
Posted by: Chip Poirot | Jan 2 2023 17:31 utc | 8
*******
Had Khrushchev been like Trump, he would never have agreed. Semi Irony Alert. That I can see, just as Kennedy as American could not afford to look like a loser.
If America, never mind tacitly, withdrew missiles from Turkey and Greece, Khrushchev still won! At least if he only brought missiles to Cuba to make that happen. No? I can see that the US admin in charge could not allow to not have the US president win, at least publicly.
Because Khrushchev did not worry about image/his PR but about solid matters at hand, he lost? I enjoyed how he banged his shoe on the table. Wasn't that him? Memorable:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clIrbitQLI0
Posted by: LeaNder | Jan 2 2023 21:25 utc | 90
Sorry, lately I am really bad at proofreading whereever I babble. Should have checked the closing tag. Obviously did not.
Posted by: LeaNder | Jan 2 2023 21:26 utc | 91
@Bill Smith 86
Your goalposts appear to be Gish Galloping away at a rate up with which, I, who have a life to lead and things to do, cannot keep.
The point being not that Russia needs to call up 31 million people, but only enough to defeat the West. Neither does it need to.produce infinite amounts of it's very effective weapons, only sufficient to defeat the West. With huge reserves and a vast armaments industry, much of which not being constrained by a need to satisfy rapacious stockholders and banksters, this 8s.very much easier for Russia than any other country aside from China and perhaps India, both of which also happen to be members of BRICS+ and deeply skeptical 9f the West and all its devious works
Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 21:26 utc | 92
American long range weapons mean American advisors, aka, operators. Depending on what they hit, Russia might decide to return the favor in the target-rich environment of NATO. And away we go.
Posted by: paperlesstiger | Jan 2 2023 21:28 utc | 93
Hypocrisy on display.
Polish Prime Minister Expressed Indignation Over Celebration of Bandera's Birthday
WARSAW (Sputnik) - Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki expressed his outrage on Monday to Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal over the celebration of the birthday of the controversial Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera.On January 1, the Ukrainian authorities held a series of events on the occasion of Bandera's birthday.
"I don’t have enough words of indignation about all sorts of actions that praise or salute those responsible for the crimes in Volhynia. From 100,000 to 200,000 Poles died at the hands of Ukrainians then. It was genocide. We will never forget about it ... Today, a couple of hours ago, I talked about this with the Prime Minister of Ukraine and expressed to him my absolutely negative attitude towards everyone who does not understand this and perpetuates the memory of Bandera," Morawiecki said, answering citizen’s questions on social media.
The issue of massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia in 1943-1945 is one of the most difficult issues in relations between Poland and Ukraine. [.]
In 2016, the lower house of the Polish parliament adopted a resolution recognizing July 11 as the national day of remembrance for the victims of the genocide committed by Ukrainian nationalists against the inhabitants of the Second Polish Republic. [.]
(emphasis original)
(Source: Sputniknews)
SO will the troops in Ukraine be recalled and materiel help cease?
Never mind the Polish parliament's 2016 resolution, you can bet there is a "However"
The Poles will continue to participate and profit from the Ukr war. Their Russia-phobia supersedes their indignation.
Posted by: Likklemore | Jan 2 2023 21:30 utc | 94
How about this: The Outlaw US Empire has crossed Humanity's Red Lines for decades and is now finally being challenged. Read "Systems Dynamics Follow Their Own Rules – and Not Groupthink", Crooke's first full essay of the new year while thinking about that concept. I'll be back later to discuss the matter.
@Membrum Virile 81
I'm out of time, but it is not difficult to find sources for unclassified reports.
LMGTFY US would lose regional war with Russia".
Defense News has dozens of relevant articles. So does Rand Corp.
Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 21:37 utc | 96
@ Kaiama | Jan 2 2023 21:06 utc | 87
reasonable... you might be correct on that.. hard to know 100% though.. thanks.
Posted by: james | Jan 2 2023 21:38 utc | 97
"As I recall, the agreement about the US removing missiles from Turkey and Greece was only tacit, and the US agreed to do it later and without publicly announcing quid pro quo. Publicly, it appeared that Khrushchev had backed down. I have seen it argued that this was a contributing factor to Kruschev's removal."
Posted by: Chip Poirot | Jan 2 2023 17:31 utc | 8
Yes, the removal of the Cuban Missiles by the Soviets and the removal of US missiles in Turkey did not happen simultaneously; but how could it? The war hawks in the Pentagon, the CIA, and the US Congress would never stand still for it if it appeared as a quid pro quo, which it was. And yes, Khrushchev did get his fair share of abuse from the Hawks in the Soviet Union. But a decision was made between Kennedy and Khrushchev to proceed this way, and it worked, and I think that both knew that there was a price to be paid for their decision.
Today, it would not have worked because the US has destroyed any possibility that Russia could trust the US (or anyone in the collective west) to uphold its part of the agreement.
Both Khrushchev and Kennedy paid a high price for saving humanity from a nuclear war; Khrushchev may have gotten nudged out of his Chairmanship by his War Hawk's, but Kennedy got a bullet in the head for crossing the US war hawk's red line.
Posted by: Ed | Jan 2 2023 21:39 utc | 98
Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 17:57 utc | 21
I would add that the destruction and eventual rebuilding of Ukraine is on the top of the disaster capitalists' list for the reasons behind this war. Who gets to finance the construction? Which multinational firms get to do the design and construction? Which western financial "services" corporations get to swoop in and monetize the bits and pieces of what should be a working social safety net?
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Jan 2 2023 21:47 utc | 99
Red lines or whatever, the operative memory, which is never brought up, should be; The genesis of the "Ukraine situation" was brought on by the U$A's regime change in 2014.....
Posted by: vetinLA | Jan 2 2023 21:47 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
Well Putin had "red lines". He wrote them down. We crossed them.
Posted by: jared | Jan 2 2023 17:12 utc | 1