|
Mearsheimers Latest Talk On The War In Ukraine
Yesterday the well known international relations scholar John Mearsheimer gave a talk (video, 1:33h) about the war in Ukraine to the Committee for the Republic.
Mearsheimer made two major points:
Ukraine can not win this war because the kill ratio in this war is in its disfavor. Mearheimer estimates that two Ukrainians die for one Russian soldier but says that many of his friends think that the ratio is more like 3:1 or 4:1. The reason for this is the WWI-style static war in which artillery is the most deadly weapon. Russia has an immense artillery advantage. During an offensive the attacker will often have more casualties than the defender. But in this war the Ukraine side has been (counter-)attacked most of the time while the Russians defended.
The Ukraine also has a much smaller population than Russia. The current ratio is about 5 Russians for 1 Ukrainian. With a much smaller population and much higher casualties the Ukraine will run out of able bodies way before Russia does.
Mearsheimer expects that Russia, which already has incorporated four Ukrainian oblast plus Crimea, will take another four oblast from Ukraine. (I predicted this on February 24 2022, the day the war began. Those eight oblast plus Crimea are historically Russian land inhabited by Russian people. During the last thirty years they have consistently voted for pro-Russian candidates while the people in west Ukraine consistently opted for anti-Russian candidates.) Ukraine will end up as a dysfunctional (and poor) rump state.
Mearsheimer says that there will be no peace agreement in Ukraine. The war is seen by both sides as existential. Ukraine insists of regaining territory it sees as part of the country. Ukraine wants security guarantees from the 'west' which Russia opposes. The problem of hyper-nationalism (fascism) on the Ukrainian side also makes peace impossible. Then there is the problem that Russia, after having been lied to over the Minsk agreements, has zero trust in any 'western' word.
THE FUTURE OF THE SMO INSTALLMENT 4
“The goal is NOT to win the war. The goal is to use the war to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States and out of the tax bases of European countries and back into the hands of a Transnational Security Elite. THAT is the goal. To have an ENDLESS war, NOT a SUCCESSFUL war.”
~ Julian Assange – Stop the War
Interview – 8 October 2011
How Many Battles?
My preference is Col(Rtd) Douglas Macgregor over Professor Mearshimer when it comes to an astute analysis of the kinetic conflict occurring in 404.
Note the avoidance of the use of the term War. 404 commenced its attack against the citizens of the Donbass under the rubric of the ATO – Anti-Terrorist Operation. RF entry into the conflict came in the form of the SMO – Special Military Operation.
A reasonable person would state these euphemisms are nonsense. When a conflict goes kinetic, when in excess of 300,000 lives are lost, when the cities of the Donbass come to resemble the ruins of Stalingrad, when destruction rains down on the territories of both combatants, the event can only be described as war.
I would counter with the fact that it is not peace. That it may best be described as “Hybrid Warfare.” This mode of conflict involves mobilization of the entirety of the state apparatus in order to achieve a desired goal. It embraces the use of regular and irregular forces, sabotage and terrorist teams, attacks on any vital infrastructure of the enemy, suppression of information, control of public opinion, the application of initiatives in economic, social, informational, psychological, bio-tech, cyber-tech, electronic, and space domains. It is in effect total warfare but the use of the word War is banned. Such usage is impolite.
Current US Military Doctrine is called “Full Spectrum Dominance.” The Russian equivalent may be known as the “Gerasimov Doctrine” after the present Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. It is claimed Gerasimov did not create such a doctrine but he did define the concept of New Generation Warfare (Война нового поколения) which is supposed to be very similar to a 1999 Chinese military doctrine described as “Unrestricted Warfare.” It is reported that Gerasimov’s work in this area arose from his attempt to understand and explain the latest Western mode of warfare and the increasing significance of non-military instruments in achieving military objectives. We will leave the final word on this conflicted topic to President Merkin Muffley “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room.”
In a recent video:
https://youtu.be/tj1CNKDZN_s
titled Douglas Macgregor: U.S. NATO Council to give the Russians a role in Europe, host Mike Kupra interviews US diplomat Chas Freeman and Col Macgregor. (A note of warning. When I went to check the above URL YouTube presented a 2 minute video with the same title. This was not the item I had watched. I had to search my YouTube history to locate the genuine discussion which runs for 59 minutes. This redirection may itself be an example of Full Spectrum Dominance)
At the 8 minute mark Ambassador Freeman introduces the fact that there are presently 4 ongoing wars (sic) taking place in 404:
#01 – Between Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers in the East
#02 – Between the Government of Kiev and the Government of Russia
#03 – Between the United States and Russia
#04 – Between NATO and Russia
These are described as four different wars. The Ambassador makes the point that Russia presented proposals for a future European security architecture that addressed the interests of all parties but the West refused to enter into any form of discussion on this Russian proposal.
14:30 introduces 404 neutrality as a reasonable solution for RF and EU.
#05 – Conflict between 3 core US oligarchies and their objectives in 404. This is described in Michael Hudsons essay: America Defeats Germany for the Third Time in a Century
SOURCE
https://michael-hudson.com/2022/02/america-defeats-germany-for-the-third-time-in-a-century/
#06 – Conflict between US and German interests:
So the most pressing U.S. strategic aim of NATO confrontation with Russia is soaring oil and gas prices, above all to the detriment of Germany. In addition to creating profits and stock-market gains for U.S. oil companies, higher energy prices will take much of the steam out of the German economy. Thus looms the third time in a century that the United States will have defeated Germany – each time increasing its control over a German economy increasingly dependent on the United States for imports and policy leadership, with NATO being the effective check against any domestic nationalist resistance.
See Hudson Ibid. Also Macgregor at 53.17.
#07 – Conflict between Polish Government and RF introduced by host Krupa at 29.50
#08 – Conflict arising in the Global South and the BRICS nations who wish to trade and grow their economies an aspiration being frustrated by US extra legal sanctions. Introduced by Ambassador Freeman at (unknown) and again forcefully by Macgregor at 36.44 with respect to the Chinese interest in peace and stability which includes 404 as an element of the Belt and Road initiative.
#09 – Add EU vs NATO or EU vs US. This is found in recent statements by Macron of France (Krupa 46:06) advocating a new European led security architecture an initiative which would likely ultimately replace NATO. This is introduced by Macgregor at 41:50.
#11 – Conflict between the public interest and the corporate media. Introduced by Ambassador Freeman at 53.41. Described as the West being held a prisoner of its own propaganda.
#12 – Growing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Washington. Ambassador Freeman at 54.59
#13 – US vs China This has another dimension not raised in the debate. It is raised as an aspect of Michael Hudsons interpretation of the conflict and also by Pepe Escobar.
404 is a belt and road access point to the EU. The US has declared its intent to frustrate the further growth of China and has instituted a number of policies directly targeting Chinese economic growth.
A ground conflict in 404 prevents it from being developed as a link between East and West. Neutrality would permit 404 to benefit as a Belt and Road transit point. Inciting the present conflict therefore serves the US triple interest in the vassalization of Germany and in the frustration of Chinese and Russian economic growth. By cutting East West trade routes the US ensures future EU dependency on American high cost producers. This will hurt the EU consumer who is already facing the increased costs of conflict in higher security and arms spending, increased domestic subsidies, and transfers to immigrants fleeing 404.
If Ukraine remain a US satellite, or vassal state, this halts all Belt and Road land transit. But If US unable to fully obtain control of the Black Sea this then becomes a maritime transit alternate route (Black sea to Sea of Azov to Volga Canal to Volga River to Caspian sea to rail connection with Iran and overland rail to an Iranian port such as Chabahar on the Arabian Sea)
In June 2009 the President of Kalmykia, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, signed a protocol of intent with the Chinese SCINOHYDRO Corporation about cooperating in the construction of the Manych Ship Canal – Eurasia Canal.
SOURCE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia_Canal
CONCLUSION
This review gives a brief introduction to the range of conflicting interests present in 404. The issue is not the question of which army prevails on the field, or which wunderwaffen turns the tide. The core issue is what set of issues, or set of rapprochements and accommodations between parties, will result in the identification of shared interests best served by bringing the war to an end.
Ukraine is a US vassal state; it has no room for independent action. Any such move would see its multi billion dollar monthly allowance terminated and the state suffer immediate collapse.
Russia views the conflict as existential and has repeatedly sought recognition of its legitimate security interests. None of the EU satrapies will entertain a dialogue with Russia.
China may attempt to mediate for peace but the US has declared itself an enemy of China and will seek to frustrate any Chinese intervention.
For the US the issue is also existential. The conflict arose from a series of US foreign policy blunders, a gross sense of hubris, an imposed diktat, and total disregard for any interests other than its own. This is evident to parties in the EU, in the Middle East, and in the Global South. For the US to fail implies, if not the total loss of hegemonic status, a severe impairment of the American ability to govern the world.
Posted by: Sushi | May 24 2023 21:10 utc | 206
Posted by: Trubind1 | May 25 2023 0:18 utc | 274
How Russia “legalizes” the de facto re-absorption of Ukraine into the Russian Federation and/or CSTO is basically irrelevant. It will be done. I originally thought that Russia might remove the existing regime – obviously necessary due to “de-Nazification” – and replace it with a Ukrainian regime which is partial to Russia, as well as changing the Constitution to remove NATO memberships as an option and “insure neutrality”. But now I think they may not bother with much of that and merely impose a Russian-based government, even if fronted by (Russian-speaking) Ukrainians. As I say, it really doesn’t matter. They may leave such a fig-leaf, like they have with Lukashenko in Belarus. But the end result is the same in both countries: both will be the front line security of Russia.
Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | May 25 2023 0:30 utc | 276
No, Russia won’t do that – unless, of course, Poland and/or Romania enters the war directly (or NATO does explicitly rather than covertly), in which case in the course of dealing with that, Russia will “conveniently” take out the Aegis Ashore installations in both countries. They won’t need nukes for that, either.
All:
Just listened to McGovern on Judging Freedom. He carefully explains to Napolitano that Putin had no other option but to invade, and that all those who claim Putin had other options can’t produce any except the meaningless phrase “opt for peace.” But then McGovern asks is he justifying the war? He answers: “No”, then explains that as a CIA analyst he doesn’t produce moral judgements, he just analyzes the facts. Well, all well and good, but since Putin had no other options, it becomes merely a syllogism to conclude that the war, at least from the Russian side, was entirely justified.
But McGovern is like everyone else in the West (except Martyanov and me) who subconsciously is afraid that Russia will actually win the war, and possibly win a war with NATO as well. Even Martyanov believes Russia might give up western Ukraine; since he doesn’t like Ukrainians, because Ukrainians don’t like Russians, he thinks Russia doesn’t like western Ukraine, so Russia will give up western Ukraine. None of that follows logically, he’s just reacting emotionally because of his own dislike for Ukrainians.
I’m the only one who looks at all this from the “real realist” view (as opposed to the “faux realist” view of people like Mearsheimer.) This is because of two things: 1) as an anarchist, I know how the state – every state – works. and 2) I live in the “real world”. You know the real world? It’s a bad neighborhood at three in the morning. I live in the Tenderloin in San Francisco; not the worst neighborhood in town, but not great, either. I also spent most of nine years in Federal prison – also the real world.
This is why I can confidently say Putin will do as I aver – because from all indications, as a former KGB operative, and a guy who says things like “if you’re going to be struck, strike first”, he lives in the real world, too. His military advisers do, too. People like McGovern – a “peacenik”, as they used to call them, who gives speeches to church peace organizations – don’t.
People like Mearsheimer are too devoted to arguing from the side of the US, “realist” or not”. They talk about what benefits the US.
The US doesn’t deserve any benefit. A quote I like to refer to said:
America is a bully who was conceived in deceit, nursed on greed and blood, and whose adolescent appetites gorged on political and corporate corruption.
How can any crime I commit even approach that level of evil?
So fuck the US (and Europe). It’s just my misfortune that I might go down with it. Unless, of course, I figure out a way to prevent that happening to me. We’ll see. But the US and the collective West are The Fucked. The only question remaining is will it take a nuclear war to do it. And I suspect it will.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | May 25 2023 4:56 utc | 293
|
