Regarding Ukraine potentially using long-range missile strikes on Russian territory, if it happens I don't believe it's the final escalatory step to all-out war between NATO and Russia.
The targets Ukraine may be permitted to strike - at least initially - will be military objects. Depending on the damage done, Russia can calibrate its response accordingly. This could be, for instance, an attack on a US surface vessel in the Middle East by a Russian ally. The point being, at no time is the US or Russia directly attacking the other. This holds the conflict at a level well below that of full on war between the superpowers.
I'd judge it no better than 35-40% that the US will allow Ukraine to strike targets within Russia with new long-range weapons. The consequences of doing so will not change the direction of the conflict in Ukraine, and yet could easily result in a devastating blow to the US, particularly to the reputation and deterrence of the US Navy.
The point of the matter is that it's NOT Ukraine that will be sending missiles into Russia; rather, it's NATO doing it directly since the Ukies don't have the technical capacity to do that, which is the point Putin made.
Well, not really from the point of view of escalation. The missiles will be launched by Ukrainian pilots, even though the targeting data and programming may be provided by US/NATO forces. That leaves it below the level of a direct attack by NATO.
Should Ukraine use Western weapons to strike deep into Russia, it's an incremental escalation short of direct NATO involvement. No question that it's a significant step and Mr. Putin has made that perfectly clear, but you'll note that he hasn't drawn any red lines about it nor threatened specific retaliation.
these missiles rely on nato support and logistics with nato members overseeing them, so i think you are wrong in your summation here.. it is as karl says and more folks in the west need to wake up to who is threatening.. unlike what the western msm says - it ain't putin doing the threats..
Think about it - NATO is already giving Ukraine massive support in a host of ways, including providing billions worth of lethal weapons that are being used to attack Russians and Russian soil. It's already US/NATO forces against Russia for all intents and purposes, other than a formal declaration of war. That NATO soldiers would be providing logistical support for Ukrainians to fire some new weapons changes nothing in this regard. It's still a proxy war. And its likely that if Russia were to retaliate against the US or NATO that they would use a proxy as well.
Assuming Ukraine gets the green light, what will happen is deeper and more destructive attacks inside Russia. But those attacks can't hope to alter the course of the war in Ukraine. That outcome is inevitable unless things go nuclear. So even if Ukraine scores PR points with a JASSMs attack or what have you, Russia will maintain its strategic dominance in the conflict. Ukraine will continue to lose on the current battlefields. That's where the outcome will be decided, not by desperate tactics inside Russia.
i am more curious as to when the fuck ordinary americans and europeans wake up... russia will deal with all of this as they see fit.. at the same time the west - nato and friends, continue to dig a deeper hole for themselves... we'll see just how that works out soon enough..
It doesn't appear that the masses in the Collective West *can* wake up. They are kept in an collective stupor by the informational monopoly controlled by governments and the oligarchies behind them. It takes a very inquisitive mind, spirit of independence and free time to escape from that bondage. That is not your average westerner today... not because we're stupid, but because we're fed abundantly on information that those in power want us to have. There's no space left for alternatives.
At the beginning of the SMO, I pointed to the fact that NATO has no weapons capable of defeating Russia--not even its nukes--and events have proven that true. Clearly, one of the Outlaw US Empire's policy goals at the outset of its current overall policy drive was to colonize Europe, particularly Germany, which is has mostly accomplished, although push-back is escalating. The hysterical propaganda saying Russia won't stop with Ukraine is further attempts to weld EU/NATO to the Empire, particularly its newest members Finland and Sweden. That hysteria is also aimed at suppressing the European polity that doesn't believe the Narrative, wants cooperation not conflict with Russia, and an end to their colonization by the Empire. Congressional and EU marionettes strings are being pulled by Deep State actors who don't understand the military balance of power and thus the geopolitical balance of power no longer favors the Empire, yet they all act as if it's the 1990s or early 2000s. Russia, China, and the Global Majority now write the music and sing the tune, although that reality has yet to sink into the corpuscular heads of Western elites. The historical momentum Lavrov and Putin often invoke is very real and can only be stopped by a nuclear holocaust that will completely destroy the West--particularly the Empire's homeland that too many still think protected by two oceans. Read my recent article about the West's nuclear decline for further understanding.
It's my belief that the long epoch of nation-on-nation conquest is largely over. It's not that humanity has evolved to be more peaceful. It's rather that major wars have become too expensive, even for the wealthiest nation in history. Afghanistan is the exemplar: the USA couldn't subdue the most backward nation on earth despite spending 20 years and trillions of dollars in the attempt. As for major powers, or even middling powers, the notion that one nation is going to take over another against its will is ludicrous. It's just not affordable.
But there are exceptions. Where nations are seriously at war, what we see aren't conflicts of conquest as much as they are wars of realignment, seeking to correct political anomalies left over from imperial colonialism. The prominent examples of this are the two largest wars since 1945, in Vietnam and Ukraine. Both came about because the previous imperial power left a geopolitical mess. The protagonist in Vietnam sought to mend the fracture left by the French, while Russia seeks to correct the problem left by the collapse of the USSR.
While the UN's political notion of a nation's inviolable sovereignty is a good one, it does not cope well with the residual machinations of colonialism. Imperial powers often drew borders with the express purpose of keeping people subjugated or in conflict. Under those circumstances, a war fought to free the people from such artifice is just. Sovereignty is not, and should not be regarded, as absolute. There are always exceptions to any rule.
This is a long way of saying that I agree with you: US/NATO forces have no military weapons capable of defeating Russia. But it's also true that US/NATO forces, or the Russians, or the Israelis for that matter, have no military weapons capable of defeating even much less powerful opponents, if those opponents resist. Resistance is cheap and sustained by human virtue, while subjugation is hideously expensive and borne of human wickedness.
you think it was just more of the same when russia bombed poltava early sept holding a huge number of swedes and etc etc. in it?? no.. they know how to retaliate and this suggestion that russia doesn't is a western fabrication..
If you look more closely at Russia's conduct of this war you will see that at no time have they created "red lines." They've never said, for example, 'If you blow up the Kerch bridge we're going to bomb you into the Stone Age.' This is purposeful on the part of the Russians. They don't box themselves into specific retaliatory acts. Instead they make it clear that escalatory steps will bring consequences. A simple example of this concerns cluster munitions. Even though Russia has vast quantities of these weapons they refrained from using them against Ukraine. It wasn't until the West provided cluster munitions to Ukraine that Russia started using them too. That use wasn't preceded by blustery talk of red lines, but by a simple statement of intent.
When you create a red line in your conflict with an enemy, it's an invitation for the enemy to create a strategy around what he knows you're going to do. It's more strategic to keep the enemy in the dark about your response, for obvious reasons.
"It is obvious to Moscow that Ukraine will continue terrorist attacks against Russia. Moscow will respond accordingly to Kyiv's permission to strike deep into Russian territory. " - Dmitry Peskov, Kremlin spokesman.
There's no talk of red lines or specific threats if they're crossed. It's just an advisory of how seriously the Russians view the situation.
yes, and to the quotes from putin, moa - bernhard also ended his post with a statement i agree with - "Vladimir Putin is not known for making empty threats."
Regarding Ukraine potentially using long-range missile strikes on Russian territory, if it happens I don't believe it's the final escalatory step to all-out war between NATO and Russia.
The targets Ukraine may be permitted to strike - at least initially - will be military objects. Depending on the damage done, Russia can calibrate its response accordingly. This could be, for instance, an attack on a US surface vessel in the Middle East by a Russian ally. The point being, at no time is the US or Russia directly attacking the other. This holds the conflict at a level well below that of full on war between the superpowers.
I'd judge it no better than 35-40% that the US will allow Ukraine to strike targets within Russia with new long-range weapons. The consequences of doing so will not change the direction of the conflict in Ukraine, and yet could easily result in a devastating blow to the US, particularly to the reputation and deterrence of the US Navy.
The point of the matter is that it's NOT Ukraine that will be sending missiles into Russia; rather, it's NATO doing it directly since the Ukies don't have the technical capacity to do that, which is the point Putin made.
Well, not really from the point of view of escalation. The missiles will be launched by Ukrainian pilots, even though the targeting data and programming may be provided by US/NATO forces. That leaves it below the level of a direct attack by NATO.
Should Ukraine use Western weapons to strike deep into Russia, it's an incremental escalation short of direct NATO involvement. No question that it's a significant step and Mr. Putin has made that perfectly clear, but you'll note that he hasn't drawn any red lines about it nor threatened specific retaliation.
these missiles rely on nato support and logistics with nato members overseeing them, so i think you are wrong in your summation here.. it is as karl says and more folks in the west need to wake up to who is threatening.. unlike what the western msm says - it ain't putin doing the threats..
Think about it - NATO is already giving Ukraine massive support in a host of ways, including providing billions worth of lethal weapons that are being used to attack Russians and Russian soil. It's already US/NATO forces against Russia for all intents and purposes, other than a formal declaration of war. That NATO soldiers would be providing logistical support for Ukrainians to fire some new weapons changes nothing in this regard. It's still a proxy war. And its likely that if Russia were to retaliate against the US or NATO that they would use a proxy as well.
Assuming Ukraine gets the green light, what will happen is deeper and more destructive attacks inside Russia. But those attacks can't hope to alter the course of the war in Ukraine. That outcome is inevitable unless things go nuclear. So even if Ukraine scores PR points with a JASSMs attack or what have you, Russia will maintain its strategic dominance in the conflict. Ukraine will continue to lose on the current battlefields. That's where the outcome will be decided, not by desperate tactics inside Russia.
i am more curious as to when the fuck ordinary americans and europeans wake up... russia will deal with all of this as they see fit.. at the same time the west - nato and friends, continue to dig a deeper hole for themselves... we'll see just how that works out soon enough..
It doesn't appear that the masses in the Collective West *can* wake up. They are kept in an collective stupor by the informational monopoly controlled by governments and the oligarchies behind them. It takes a very inquisitive mind, spirit of independence and free time to escape from that bondage. That is not your average westerner today... not because we're stupid, but because we're fed abundantly on information that those in power want us to have. There's no space left for alternatives.
At the beginning of the SMO, I pointed to the fact that NATO has no weapons capable of defeating Russia--not even its nukes--and events have proven that true. Clearly, one of the Outlaw US Empire's policy goals at the outset of its current overall policy drive was to colonize Europe, particularly Germany, which is has mostly accomplished, although push-back is escalating. The hysterical propaganda saying Russia won't stop with Ukraine is further attempts to weld EU/NATO to the Empire, particularly its newest members Finland and Sweden. That hysteria is also aimed at suppressing the European polity that doesn't believe the Narrative, wants cooperation not conflict with Russia, and an end to their colonization by the Empire. Congressional and EU marionettes strings are being pulled by Deep State actors who don't understand the military balance of power and thus the geopolitical balance of power no longer favors the Empire, yet they all act as if it's the 1990s or early 2000s. Russia, China, and the Global Majority now write the music and sing the tune, although that reality has yet to sink into the corpuscular heads of Western elites. The historical momentum Lavrov and Putin often invoke is very real and can only be stopped by a nuclear holocaust that will completely destroy the West--particularly the Empire's homeland that too many still think protected by two oceans. Read my recent article about the West's nuclear decline for further understanding.
It's my belief that the long epoch of nation-on-nation conquest is largely over. It's not that humanity has evolved to be more peaceful. It's rather that major wars have become too expensive, even for the wealthiest nation in history. Afghanistan is the exemplar: the USA couldn't subdue the most backward nation on earth despite spending 20 years and trillions of dollars in the attempt. As for major powers, or even middling powers, the notion that one nation is going to take over another against its will is ludicrous. It's just not affordable.
But there are exceptions. Where nations are seriously at war, what we see aren't conflicts of conquest as much as they are wars of realignment, seeking to correct political anomalies left over from imperial colonialism. The prominent examples of this are the two largest wars since 1945, in Vietnam and Ukraine. Both came about because the previous imperial power left a geopolitical mess. The protagonist in Vietnam sought to mend the fracture left by the French, while Russia seeks to correct the problem left by the collapse of the USSR.
While the UN's political notion of a nation's inviolable sovereignty is a good one, it does not cope well with the residual machinations of colonialism. Imperial powers often drew borders with the express purpose of keeping people subjugated or in conflict. Under those circumstances, a war fought to free the people from such artifice is just. Sovereignty is not, and should not be regarded, as absolute. There are always exceptions to any rule.
This is a long way of saying that I agree with you: US/NATO forces have no military weapons capable of defeating Russia. But it's also true that US/NATO forces, or the Russians, or the Israelis for that matter, have no military weapons capable of defeating even much less powerful opponents, if those opponents resist. Resistance is cheap and sustained by human virtue, while subjugation is hideously expensive and borne of human wickedness.
We'll see how it goes. All Russian red lines so far have been crossed with no significant retaliation.
you think it was just more of the same when russia bombed poltava early sept holding a huge number of swedes and etc etc. in it?? no.. they know how to retaliate and this suggestion that russia doesn't is a western fabrication..
read this for more insight..
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-9624-the-grind-continues-as
If you look more closely at Russia's conduct of this war you will see that at no time have they created "red lines." They've never said, for example, 'If you blow up the Kerch bridge we're going to bomb you into the Stone Age.' This is purposeful on the part of the Russians. They don't box themselves into specific retaliatory acts. Instead they make it clear that escalatory steps will bring consequences. A simple example of this concerns cluster munitions. Even though Russia has vast quantities of these weapons they refrained from using them against Ukraine. It wasn't until the West provided cluster munitions to Ukraine that Russia started using them too. That use wasn't preceded by blustery talk of red lines, but by a simple statement of intent.
When you create a red line in your conflict with an enemy, it's an invitation for the enemy to create a strategy around what he knows you're going to do. It's more strategic to keep the enemy in the dark about your response, for obvious reasons.
Here's another example from today:
"It is obvious to Moscow that Ukraine will continue terrorist attacks against Russia. Moscow will respond accordingly to Kyiv's permission to strike deep into Russian territory. " - Dmitry Peskov, Kremlin spokesman.
There's no talk of red lines or specific threats if they're crossed. It's just an advisory of how seriously the Russians view the situation.
yes, and to the quotes from putin, moa - bernhard also ended his post with a statement i agree with - "Vladimir Putin is not known for making empty threats."
so we'll see how this unfolds soon enough..
Thank you for this