The West's aim is/was to destroy Russia. Russia must decide to completely defeat European NATO or to allow it to rebuild its power so it can try yet again.
Those words are correct but not very diplomatic. Adjustments to the security apparatus in Europe need to be made, making the Europeans self reliant; so to speak. NATO, politically and militarily has outlived its usefulness for some time now. What are the new security needs of the various EU nations and how can they be best accomplished? The US seems to switch its focus to the Far East, good bad, or indifferent.
Maybe the Europeans can get by with less? What really are their security needs and are they at the EU level or for each member nation all by itself? Head on dissolving of NATO is a tall order. The proper euphemisms would to refocus on its mission, etc. blah, blah.
Russia would rather not get involved in other nations internal politics. Unfortunately, those politics affect the security calculation. For Europe as a whole, peace can only prevail if all nations are complementary which means they have no desire to threaten anyone and security can thus be indivisible as all three prior OSCE Treaties stated. What changed wasn't Russia; rather, it was the politicians who gained control of the EU and its nations, almost all of whom were US stooges since WW2. It was always easier for all to treat Russia/USSR as a pariah. But after 1991, Russia asked to become one with the rest of Europe. The various OSCE Treaties were an attempt to gain that entry, but that went against the Outlaw US Empire's policy of Full Spectrum Domination announced in 1996. So, there was no way Russia could be allowed to become one with Europe no matter how hard it tried or desired. That reality is hard for many to accept. But look at US policy toward Russia since 1880, and UK policy since the 1840s versus Russia and you'll see the proof.
So, the only way Europe can be friends with Russia is for the influences of the UK and USA must be removed along with their troops and bio labs. But there's still more to the issue.
my only question on the last paragraph is how long does something like that need? it seems to me while the uk / usa continues to fall from the heights of its imperialistic position, it still has a long way to go.. not sure how long that takes to happen.. could be another 50 years.. maybe more..
Russia remains a developing nation with quite a lot to accomplish and it needs to replenish the human capital that was destroyed during the 20th Century--roughly 150 million people. And until the Outlaw US Empire becomes a peaceful law-abiding nation, the threat will remain. IMO, very few Russians would define Russianness as being shaped by external threats, although that would be an excellent subject for a sociological examination in Russia.
I can’t say l know Russia well, but I’m of the opinion the big part of Russianness (the unity of about 150 different peoples of it’s territories), from the time of Mongol yoke has been shaped by never ending threats of foreign invasions. I find the concept of World Island fascinating.
I suspect, by depriving Russians from their enemies, one takes away their purpose to exist (to overcome the enemy by the way of enduring a greater struggle then the enemy), and that could be the end of Russia as a country.
Fortunately for them there is no shortage of Russia’s enemies.
Curious. In your hypothesis, unlike the Outlaw US Empire, Russia doesn't need to manufacture existential enemies. Rusia's Mongol experience was very useful as Vernadsky tells us in his history , "The Mongols and Russia," which is available here, https://archive.org/details/mongolsrussia0000geor/page/n7/mode/2up
Let me ask you this, Karl: in your opinion, is what the United States going through right now (let’s call it Frankfurt school Critical Theory) similar to what the Russian Empire already experienced in the early 20th century (Marxism), or is this coming Russia’s way next?
Thanks for your reply. What the USA is experiencing is unique in history to a degree--it's been taken over by an financially-based oligarchy that controls the three branches of the federal government, although it doesn't yet control the entire nation. The oligarchy also controls major media and most electronic communication platforms. Dr. Hudson says the closest analogue is the late Roman Empire, which is what his "Collapse of Antiquity" aims to prove. The major difference is the Marxists claimed its aim was to benefit the masses, whereas Neoliberalism only aims to further enrich the already rich; so, Russia's experience wasn't at all like what's happened in the USA. Yes, an oligarchic clique arose so Democratic Centralism was never able to evolve, which is one of the major reasons why the USSR failed. There's an argument saying that was caused by the continual assault by Western Capitalism to eliminate Russian Communism, which is an unprovable What If?
The fundamental basis of Russia's current political-economic philosophy has its roots in Russia's 1905 Social-Democrat thought, whose program was to uplift the masses so they could compete with not just Europe but also Japan, and a China that at some point would become vigorous again. Putin brought up this historic parallel in the opening parts of his speech to the Council of Legislators on April 28 this year, which can be read here, https://vk.com/@580896205-putins-speech-to-the-council-of-legislators Here's the main passage:
'The first Chairman of the Duma, Sergei Andreevich Muromtsev, highly appreciated the potential of institutions of broad popular representation, believed that their main task was to strengthen people's faith "in statehood as a bulwark of their rights and a source of sincere concerns about the people's welfare", and the state as a whole, according to him, should be "the subject of the people's cause".'
More follows in the current context making the message very clear.
I suggest we concentrate on the immediate end game before speculating on what Russia will do to impose its security proposals on the West. The purpose of the SMO is specifically to counter the NATO installations in Poland and Romania and the presumed and ongoing buildup of NATO forces in those countries and in the region. Russia is going to build an "Iron Curtain 2.0" from the Black Sea to the Arctic with enough military force to insure that no NATO aggression will be possible, at least, not one that could succeed. As I've said before, WWI - shame on you. WWII - shame on me. WWIII (conventional) - not going to be allowed.
The first order of business is to guarantee that a ground invasion from NATO can't work. This forces NATO to have to resort to nuclear threats. This is itself a non-starter for the rest of the world. This alone essentially neuters NATO as a world force geopolitically. Neither the US alone or combined with NATO have the military power to take on either Russia or China, let alone the alliance of both. So unless the US and NATO want to continue beggaring their economies by shifting to a "war economy" to try to outspend the combination of Russia and China - and the rest of the world - well, good luck with that.
I'm sure Russia has some sort of game plan to speed up this process so it doesn't take another two or three decades. But I don't know what it is. And it's too soon to care if one doesn't have a good idea.
Aug 18, 2023·edited Aug 18, 2023Liked by Karl Sanchez
I agree with your analysis that the SMO was essentially defensive in conception and aimed to improve Russian security against what it saw as NATO encroachment using a dangerous anti-Russian (Nazi) proxy. Whereas Russia might like to see NATO dismantled they cannot make that happen - at least by military means - and much like Russia would resort to nukes in an existential crisis, so would NATO. I disagree with Karl's analysis (apologies) but don't see that Russia has either the will, motivation or means to compel the defeat of NATO. It can certainly embarrass it and destroy a lot of its equipment in the Ukraine. But launching an attack [west] into the heart of NATO proper - no way in my view.
I also don't buy the notion that Russia is a paragon of virtue and acts to save the world from an evil NATO/Empire. All nations act in their own interests (well maybe not Germany....) and no government or their leaders can be trusted. The SMO and all that preceeded it and has followed are geo-political power games, not some sort of moral crusade IMHO.
A lot of people take me for being pro-Russian but that would be incorrect. I am pro-truth and have been p*ssed off mightily by the lies spewed out by western governments and their tame MSM. They try to paint this struggle as a manichean conflict between good and evil. It repeats the error in my view to assign the same dicotomy of moral certainty the other way around.
In my view Russia has been treated badly by the West and the SMO was justified and even essential. Doesn't make them the "good guys" per se.
Well said. I pretty much agree with every word, especially the part about ascribing too much "morality" to the Russian state. As an anarchist I recognize that "morality and "state" are by definition incompatible terms (leaving aside my problems with the entire concept of "morality" which is a whole other story.)
I would say that Russia will try to "compel" - in some sense, at least - NATO to be eliminated or reduced so much in capability and geopolitical influence that it can no longer threaten Russia (and preferably no one else, either.) The only question is how this can be done short of military conflict. Russia would prefer some non-military means in order to avoid nuclear war. To some degree that is dependent on how stupid NATO is - and they're pretty stupid. So it boils down to how things will progress from the NATO side and whether Russia will be able to interdict any NATO efforts before they rise to the level of conventional and still less nuclear war. I assume Russia is planning along those lines, but I have no idea what they might be planning - and neither does anyone else outside of the Russian General Staff and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Putin's closest confidants, I suspect. Hopefully, THEY know.
This is the fundamental risk of the situation we're heading into. There are no guarantees how it will turn out. So it behooves everyone to pay attention to the situation and make plans should it appear that things are getting out of hand. Conventional war and nuclear war are both high probability events going forward, at least compared to where they were in, say, 2000.
I'm guessing that both NATO and Russia have many contingency plans and have gamed them out. I do recall reading that NATO ran 100 games pre-war of a situation where Russia and NATO started shooting at each other in Ukraine and in every one MAD ensued. The risk of uncontrolled escalation is high - or at least much higher than I am comfortable with, though not apparently John Bolton.
The underlying analysis it seems to be is that there is a US plan to undermine, break up and then control Russia; and provoking them into a war seemed the best way to catalyse political and economic dislocation leading to that outcome. So this is existential for Russia. It remains to be seen whether or not the West believes that this is now an existential struggle for them also.
Cutting through the BS about "saving democracy", I cannot see that the West has any real interest in preserving the Ukraine except as a buffer, a source of corrupt money, and a route for energy transfer. However Europe appears to be led by the feeble minded and/or compromised so who knows what they might think or do?
It could be argued that the USA has successfully diminished a potential future rival in the EU by involving it in this war. If the damage became kinetic and not just economic then, by the same logic, the USA would also "win". This would give rise to a motivation for a more general European war but one that leaves the USA undamaged. Maybe. But the lame following of US policy in Europe has starkly highlighted where the real power lies - for those that are concentrating.
Yes, I have long believed that the neocons want a war between Russia and NATO not just to weaken Russia but to weaken the EU and insure continued US control of Europe. In that part, the US is definitely winning - so far. There's still the possibility of the major EU countries ending up getting their governments toppled and new leaders installed who are more nationalist and less compliant to Washington. We'll see. The EU itself may have to collapse first.
Russia, of course, can see that clearly and will do what it can to avoid any such war. But as I said, the problem is how stupid the US and Europe is. As someone once said, "You can't cure stupidity." Or as Andrei Martyanov likes to say, "You can't convince an imbecile he's an imbecile because he's an imbecile."
As Martyanov also says, leaving the US "undamaged" may not be in the cards. The US has a lot of forces in Europe and unless they are withdrawn, they will be legitimate targets in any Russia-NATO conflict. And then the US electorate will demand US involvement. And ANY US involvement will result in, as Martyanov says, hypersonic missiles - with conventional warheads only - "rearranging the stones" in Washington. If Washington wants to respond with nukes, well, as Andrei also likes to say, "there you go!" That's the risk.
BTW, living this side of the pond I see no sign whatsoever that the western Europeans will topple governments over this issue or almost any other. I could be wrong - it has been known ... ;-) ... but folk are very compliant and gullible "here". Generally peole here think government is a good thing and the more of it the better, and believe whatever their government tells them. Simplifying things significantly.
I think we're all probably on different time lines. The critical thing for Russia is to cut east Ukraine and the black sea off from the imperialists. That I feel will be done within a year max.
You both may be right over the long term like say the next ten years, but as the only party pressed for time is US imperialism, there is some benefit to tidying up in Ukraine, then using an armistice to plot out the endgame.
"so, what does Russia do with them since its damned if it treats them good or bad?"
I think that's the truth and therefore it's likely it will end with a drive to the dneiper and the full incorporation of east Ukraine into Russia. No treaty, just a non-binding mutual agreement to stop fighting. With defensive lines along the river, continued Ukie attacks will be handled like they are today.
Russia is in no hurry. It's ready for the long haul and developing a closer partnership with China which will mature much more easily with an armistice in Ukraine. This will give them time to collectively prepare an end game strategy while watching the west deteriorate.
The west on the other hand is just hanging off a cliff. If it remains on that trajectory, which is likely, it's just a matter of time before it fatally weakens itself. Russia can chase the dying animal and risk injury and fatigue or it can simply let it slink away and die, then collect the prize with no hassle.
Stopping at the Denier would be ok if the Ukraine collapses and a pro-Russian government for the western portion is voted in, plus a treaty of permanent total disarmament and neutrality, with other measures to ensure that's the way it stays.
I take the point but there are other stop lines further West between the Dnieper and the western borders. But that does not mean that the Oder is a stop line either! :-)
The West's aim is/was to destroy Russia. Russia must decide to completely defeat European NATO or to allow it to rebuild its power so it can try yet again.
Those words are correct but not very diplomatic. Adjustments to the security apparatus in Europe need to be made, making the Europeans self reliant; so to speak. NATO, politically and militarily has outlived its usefulness for some time now. What are the new security needs of the various EU nations and how can they be best accomplished? The US seems to switch its focus to the Far East, good bad, or indifferent.
Maybe the Europeans can get by with less? What really are their security needs and are they at the EU level or for each member nation all by itself? Head on dissolving of NATO is a tall order. The proper euphemisms would to refocus on its mission, etc. blah, blah.
Russia would rather not get involved in other nations internal politics. Unfortunately, those politics affect the security calculation. For Europe as a whole, peace can only prevail if all nations are complementary which means they have no desire to threaten anyone and security can thus be indivisible as all three prior OSCE Treaties stated. What changed wasn't Russia; rather, it was the politicians who gained control of the EU and its nations, almost all of whom were US stooges since WW2. It was always easier for all to treat Russia/USSR as a pariah. But after 1991, Russia asked to become one with the rest of Europe. The various OSCE Treaties were an attempt to gain that entry, but that went against the Outlaw US Empire's policy of Full Spectrum Domination announced in 1996. So, there was no way Russia could be allowed to become one with Europe no matter how hard it tried or desired. That reality is hard for many to accept. But look at US policy toward Russia since 1880, and UK policy since the 1840s versus Russia and you'll see the proof.
So, the only way Europe can be friends with Russia is for the influences of the UK and USA must be removed along with their troops and bio labs. But there's still more to the issue.
my only question on the last paragraph is how long does something like that need? it seems to me while the uk / usa continues to fall from the heights of its imperialistic position, it still has a long way to go.. not sure how long that takes to happen.. could be another 50 years.. maybe more..
You answered your question--the amount of time is unknown.
my brilliance and stupidity are regularly highlighted, lol.. thanks karl...
Neonaziliberalism! nailed it. xo
One may ask, what would become of Russia if there were no external threat any longer…
Russia remains a developing nation with quite a lot to accomplish and it needs to replenish the human capital that was destroyed during the 20th Century--roughly 150 million people. And until the Outlaw US Empire becomes a peaceful law-abiding nation, the threat will remain. IMO, very few Russians would define Russianness as being shaped by external threats, although that would be an excellent subject for a sociological examination in Russia.
I can’t say l know Russia well, but I’m of the opinion the big part of Russianness (the unity of about 150 different peoples of it’s territories), from the time of Mongol yoke has been shaped by never ending threats of foreign invasions. I find the concept of World Island fascinating.
I suspect, by depriving Russians from their enemies, one takes away their purpose to exist (to overcome the enemy by the way of enduring a greater struggle then the enemy), and that could be the end of Russia as a country.
Fortunately for them there is no shortage of Russia’s enemies.
Curious. In your hypothesis, unlike the Outlaw US Empire, Russia doesn't need to manufacture existential enemies. Rusia's Mongol experience was very useful as Vernadsky tells us in his history , "The Mongols and Russia," which is available here, https://archive.org/details/mongolsrussia0000geor/page/n7/mode/2up
Let me ask you this, Karl: in your opinion, is what the United States going through right now (let’s call it Frankfurt school Critical Theory) similar to what the Russian Empire already experienced in the early 20th century (Marxism), or is this coming Russia’s way next?
Thanks for your reply. What the USA is experiencing is unique in history to a degree--it's been taken over by an financially-based oligarchy that controls the three branches of the federal government, although it doesn't yet control the entire nation. The oligarchy also controls major media and most electronic communication platforms. Dr. Hudson says the closest analogue is the late Roman Empire, which is what his "Collapse of Antiquity" aims to prove. The major difference is the Marxists claimed its aim was to benefit the masses, whereas Neoliberalism only aims to further enrich the already rich; so, Russia's experience wasn't at all like what's happened in the USA. Yes, an oligarchic clique arose so Democratic Centralism was never able to evolve, which is one of the major reasons why the USSR failed. There's an argument saying that was caused by the continual assault by Western Capitalism to eliminate Russian Communism, which is an unprovable What If?
The fundamental basis of Russia's current political-economic philosophy has its roots in Russia's 1905 Social-Democrat thought, whose program was to uplift the masses so they could compete with not just Europe but also Japan, and a China that at some point would become vigorous again. Putin brought up this historic parallel in the opening parts of his speech to the Council of Legislators on April 28 this year, which can be read here, https://vk.com/@580896205-putins-speech-to-the-council-of-legislators Here's the main passage:
'The first Chairman of the Duma, Sergei Andreevich Muromtsev, highly appreciated the potential of institutions of broad popular representation, believed that their main task was to strengthen people's faith "in statehood as a bulwark of their rights and a source of sincere concerns about the people's welfare", and the state as a whole, according to him, should be "the subject of the people's cause".'
More follows in the current context making the message very clear.
I suggest we concentrate on the immediate end game before speculating on what Russia will do to impose its security proposals on the West. The purpose of the SMO is specifically to counter the NATO installations in Poland and Romania and the presumed and ongoing buildup of NATO forces in those countries and in the region. Russia is going to build an "Iron Curtain 2.0" from the Black Sea to the Arctic with enough military force to insure that no NATO aggression will be possible, at least, not one that could succeed. As I've said before, WWI - shame on you. WWII - shame on me. WWIII (conventional) - not going to be allowed.
The first order of business is to guarantee that a ground invasion from NATO can't work. This forces NATO to have to resort to nuclear threats. This is itself a non-starter for the rest of the world. This alone essentially neuters NATO as a world force geopolitically. Neither the US alone or combined with NATO have the military power to take on either Russia or China, let alone the alliance of both. So unless the US and NATO want to continue beggaring their economies by shifting to a "war economy" to try to outspend the combination of Russia and China - and the rest of the world - well, good luck with that.
I'm sure Russia has some sort of game plan to speed up this process so it doesn't take another two or three decades. But I don't know what it is. And it's too soon to care if one doesn't have a good idea.
I agree with your analysis that the SMO was essentially defensive in conception and aimed to improve Russian security against what it saw as NATO encroachment using a dangerous anti-Russian (Nazi) proxy. Whereas Russia might like to see NATO dismantled they cannot make that happen - at least by military means - and much like Russia would resort to nukes in an existential crisis, so would NATO. I disagree with Karl's analysis (apologies) but don't see that Russia has either the will, motivation or means to compel the defeat of NATO. It can certainly embarrass it and destroy a lot of its equipment in the Ukraine. But launching an attack [west] into the heart of NATO proper - no way in my view.
I also don't buy the notion that Russia is a paragon of virtue and acts to save the world from an evil NATO/Empire. All nations act in their own interests (well maybe not Germany....) and no government or their leaders can be trusted. The SMO and all that preceeded it and has followed are geo-political power games, not some sort of moral crusade IMHO.
A lot of people take me for being pro-Russian but that would be incorrect. I am pro-truth and have been p*ssed off mightily by the lies spewed out by western governments and their tame MSM. They try to paint this struggle as a manichean conflict between good and evil. It repeats the error in my view to assign the same dicotomy of moral certainty the other way around.
In my view Russia has been treated badly by the West and the SMO was justified and even essential. Doesn't make them the "good guys" per se.
Well said. I pretty much agree with every word, especially the part about ascribing too much "morality" to the Russian state. As an anarchist I recognize that "morality and "state" are by definition incompatible terms (leaving aside my problems with the entire concept of "morality" which is a whole other story.)
I would say that Russia will try to "compel" - in some sense, at least - NATO to be eliminated or reduced so much in capability and geopolitical influence that it can no longer threaten Russia (and preferably no one else, either.) The only question is how this can be done short of military conflict. Russia would prefer some non-military means in order to avoid nuclear war. To some degree that is dependent on how stupid NATO is - and they're pretty stupid. So it boils down to how things will progress from the NATO side and whether Russia will be able to interdict any NATO efforts before they rise to the level of conventional and still less nuclear war. I assume Russia is planning along those lines, but I have no idea what they might be planning - and neither does anyone else outside of the Russian General Staff and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Putin's closest confidants, I suspect. Hopefully, THEY know.
This is the fundamental risk of the situation we're heading into. There are no guarantees how it will turn out. So it behooves everyone to pay attention to the situation and make plans should it appear that things are getting out of hand. Conventional war and nuclear war are both high probability events going forward, at least compared to where they were in, say, 2000.
I'm guessing that both NATO and Russia have many contingency plans and have gamed them out. I do recall reading that NATO ran 100 games pre-war of a situation where Russia and NATO started shooting at each other in Ukraine and in every one MAD ensued. The risk of uncontrolled escalation is high - or at least much higher than I am comfortable with, though not apparently John Bolton.
The underlying analysis it seems to be is that there is a US plan to undermine, break up and then control Russia; and provoking them into a war seemed the best way to catalyse political and economic dislocation leading to that outcome. So this is existential for Russia. It remains to be seen whether or not the West believes that this is now an existential struggle for them also.
Cutting through the BS about "saving democracy", I cannot see that the West has any real interest in preserving the Ukraine except as a buffer, a source of corrupt money, and a route for energy transfer. However Europe appears to be led by the feeble minded and/or compromised so who knows what they might think or do?
It could be argued that the USA has successfully diminished a potential future rival in the EU by involving it in this war. If the damage became kinetic and not just economic then, by the same logic, the USA would also "win". This would give rise to a motivation for a more general European war but one that leaves the USA undamaged. Maybe. But the lame following of US policy in Europe has starkly highlighted where the real power lies - for those that are concentrating.
Yes, I have long believed that the neocons want a war between Russia and NATO not just to weaken Russia but to weaken the EU and insure continued US control of Europe. In that part, the US is definitely winning - so far. There's still the possibility of the major EU countries ending up getting their governments toppled and new leaders installed who are more nationalist and less compliant to Washington. We'll see. The EU itself may have to collapse first.
Russia, of course, can see that clearly and will do what it can to avoid any such war. But as I said, the problem is how stupid the US and Europe is. As someone once said, "You can't cure stupidity." Or as Andrei Martyanov likes to say, "You can't convince an imbecile he's an imbecile because he's an imbecile."
As Martyanov also says, leaving the US "undamaged" may not be in the cards. The US has a lot of forces in Europe and unless they are withdrawn, they will be legitimate targets in any Russia-NATO conflict. And then the US electorate will demand US involvement. And ANY US involvement will result in, as Martyanov says, hypersonic missiles - with conventional warheads only - "rearranging the stones" in Washington. If Washington wants to respond with nukes, well, as Andrei also likes to say, "there you go!" That's the risk.
Indeed. 100 out of 100 games ended up in MAD.
BTW, living this side of the pond I see no sign whatsoever that the western Europeans will topple governments over this issue or almost any other. I could be wrong - it has been known ... ;-) ... but folk are very compliant and gullible "here". Generally peole here think government is a good thing and the more of it the better, and believe whatever their government tells them. Simplifying things significantly.
what about the chances of a change in germany with the afd?
I think we're all probably on different time lines. The critical thing for Russia is to cut east Ukraine and the black sea off from the imperialists. That I feel will be done within a year max.
You both may be right over the long term like say the next ten years, but as the only party pressed for time is US imperialism, there is some benefit to tidying up in Ukraine, then using an armistice to plot out the endgame.
"so, what does Russia do with them since its damned if it treats them good or bad?"
I think that's the truth and therefore it's likely it will end with a drive to the dneiper and the full incorporation of east Ukraine into Russia. No treaty, just a non-binding mutual agreement to stop fighting. With defensive lines along the river, continued Ukie attacks will be handled like they are today.
Russia is in no hurry. It's ready for the long haul and developing a closer partnership with China which will mature much more easily with an armistice in Ukraine. This will give them time to collectively prepare an end game strategy while watching the west deteriorate.
The west on the other hand is just hanging off a cliff. If it remains on that trajectory, which is likely, it's just a matter of time before it fatally weakens itself. Russia can chase the dying animal and risk injury and fatigue or it can simply let it slink away and die, then collect the prize with no hassle.
IMO, stopping at the Dnieper results in the frozen conflict Russia has said it won't accept/allow.
Stopping at the Denier would be ok if the Ukraine collapses and a pro-Russian government for the western portion is voted in, plus a treaty of permanent total disarmament and neutrality, with other measures to ensure that's the way it stays.
I take the point but there are other stop lines further West between the Dnieper and the western borders. But that does not mean that the Oder is a stop line either! :-)