In the Military Reality vs. Political Reality post today I quoted the guys at The Duran extensively, including their fears that the US would be conned by Poland and the Baltics (and perhaps a couple of additional nations) into putting US boots on the ground in Ukraine—in an official war fighting capacity, rather than in a support capacity. Unofficially, it’s already possible that US personnel are manning or commanding the M777 howitzer and HIMARS missile systems in Ukraine. It’s beyond doubt that the US is providing the required targeting and guidance support for the efficient operation of these systems. On the other hand, The Duran guys do also suggest that the likelihood is that the US will, in the fairly near future, face considerable pressure to find an off ramp, due to the developing de-dollarization process that will make continued support for the war financially non-viable.
My concern is that the US could blunder into a shooting war on some scale, without ever putting “boots” on Ukrainian soil in a deliberate deployment. What I have in mind is the degree of participation in the fighting that the US is already engaged in, and its support for other nations, like Poland, that are involved in a very direct fashion. Recent public statements by the Russian government suggest that the Russians are losing patience."
I think the likeliest scenario for direct US involvement would be a decision to send in troops if Ukraine is going down. Before I get a welter of replies about why that would be insane, or deriding American prospects of success, let me say that the Biden people have an enormous sunk cost here and I'm not sure they can bear to see their investment go down the tubes. Anyone who says that a US military rescue would be a mistake will get no argument from me. Then again getting this deeply involved in Ukraine was a mistake and yet here we are, and they might just ride that mistake to the bottom.
EDIT: I found this graphic on time to replace the hardware we've shipped to Ukraine. It's worse than I thought.
Mark, have you seen this Glenn Greenwald interview with the German leftist-populist anti-war politician, Sahra Wagenknecht? She is drawing a lot of support from both the left and the right. A smart, knowledgeable, and engaging woman. I'd love to get your opinion. (A couple of years ago I wouldn't have imagined I'd ever want to have anything to do with Glenn Greenwald, but times do change!) https://rumble.com/v27rlj8-system-update-31.html
If there's one thing that the increasing prominence (and power!) of the fusion of the neoliberal and neoconservative movements that emerged from the Clinton and Dubya Admins, respectively (although the neolibs have been "march[ing] through the institutions" for more than a century) has shown us, it's that the true left and true right as anyone over 45-50 knew them (I term them paleolibs and paleocons) have WAY more in common with each other right now than they ever will with the neolib/neocon "Borg." Both are anti-authoritarian by nature, consider the Bill of Rights sacrosanct, are generally anti-war (on the paleocon side, I'd say we're more anti-interventionist than "anti-war," per se) and pretty much just want to be left alone on the civil liberties' side. These are fundamental--the biggies--for any rational American, left or right, so I consider Greenwald, Taibbi and other strong investigative journalists of the paleo-left as allies in our common American cause. Once we get the ship righted on these fundamentals, we can go back to bickering over tax policies, social spending and such.
These people who talk of actually putting people on the ground - do they understand logistics? I'm not very quick when it comes to math but, don't soldiers need to be supplied with weaponry, food stuffs, clothing, fuel, oil, spare parts ,etc to fight a war? How in holy hell are we financially capable of supplying a force of sufficient size to ward off whatever it is these fools wish to ward off? They claim a few Abrams tanks are gonna talk A YEAR to get there. Our industrial capacity is shot full of holes...
A German Field Marshall (can't recall the name right off) told Hitler and his lackeys they were in "cloud cuckoo land" at some point during their romp through Europe. Or maybe it was when Herr Hitler was moving ghost divisions around his map circa late April 1945. Whenever and whomever it was, we are right back there now.
I don't want to be the party pooper here, but Martin Armstrong's latest thoughts are very sobering. And he has a good track record on predictions: "Zelensky is an actor and he is playing the role given to him by the West to start World War III. Everything he does is to expand the war and to suck in NATO and the United States to create this war. He is succeeding. I can object all I want, but our computer will be right and we are looking at World War III between 2025 and 2027. So batten down the hatches." Here in Switzerland, every house by law has to have a nuclear shelter. I might get down there this weekend and check it's in order! :)
That's my fear too, Mark. As MoA points out, any kind of US deployment on the ground that would make any difference is now impossible. But if the Russians take out any of the current or future US logistical or advisory assets that are there, it could lead to escalation. The Poles are completely crazy at the moment. They need to cool their jets!
I've been thinking along similar lines for awhile now. I can envision Russia taking a page from the Mossad and their ilk. Like the drone strike in Iran etc... I mean why not if airports in Germany or Romania are considered fair game for potential F-16's.
Unfortunately for us, Putin may well be the genius Trump called him, and the ones we have in charge are idiots. There will in all probability be no WWIII nor any peace agreement, just more of the same old same. Putin will just get bogged down, poor thing, and accept the role of loser. That way he can continue the war of attrition indefinitely, wearing down our military capabilities and more importantly our economy. Our big shots can continue to play the role that they are winning against Russia, and blame our economic disasters on Putin, insisting we bear with the necessary sacrifices. The old adage that only death and taxes are for sure will prevail, only more so.
Without sugar-coating Putin, Perle, I think it should be "fortunately" for us. At the moment, he's the only guy taking on the globalist and their evil cultural and military imperialism. As for the DS, I think the gloss is wearing off their tactics. The US and Europe are in dire straits economically, and when the crunch comes, I'm not sure many people, fighting for their and their families' existence, are going to buy the "It's Putin, Stupid!" line. We shall see.
After reading as many independent journals, reporting & blogs as I can, along with watching hundreds of hours of interviews encompassing dozens of differing viewpoints and after having put as much critital thought as I can into it...I have reached the the conclusion that the World is run by Insane Clowns, Inc.
My gut senses that Trump could do it...if he is scrupulously honest with the American people. No BS. Could he be? Could he do it? I, too, honestly don't know.
My theory is NATO peacekeeper forces to act as a buffer, think Lebanon, Sinai, etc, with the theory that the Russians would not dare attack them! That seemed to be the idea Petraeus was floating a while back. Perhaps located in an area the Russians have not advanced to yet, behind the front lines. And if the Russians attack, it's RUSSIAN AGRESSION! They attacked NATO.
Maybe, but what will Nato do about it? They've already emptied their cupboards, and don't have the manpower to do anything. Also, it would time to set this force up, and Putin would know about it long before it happened. He would just tell the Armageddon Twins to up the pace and take out the whole of Ukraine with overwhelming force.
Interesting thought; however I don't see Putin going for this. I see it more similar to the future DMZ in Korea. AND that's after Putin gains all the victories he wants.
I think Putin will try and fulfil his original aims of securing the Donbas and destroying the Ukie military. If that keeps Russia and the ethnic Russians in Ukraine safe, I would imagine he'd stop. However, the hysterical calls for escalation might push him to go further and take the whole country rather than risk a "DMZ" or "neutral" Ukraine where Nuland and Co would soon be up to their evil tricks again.
Bernie Madoff was a more honorable man than Zhou! I don't think Putin has plans to take more than the Donbass. It would be like inheriting a slum full of people who hate you. However, if he doesn't I wonder how he will ensure that the rump of Ukraine is never militarised again? I still think he should take Odessa to safe guard the Black Sea fleet and keep Moldova in order.
I see your theory as the most-likely face-saving resolution here. Once the back channels give US/NATO a fair sense of where/how Russia would be willing to end their SVO, we place personnel in places Russia doesn’t even want and then claim that we backed them down. That said, I continue to worry about what Mark notes as the possibility of blundering into direct conflict as a result of our IC’s/MiC’s underestimation of the level of provocation Russia feels.
I only see this happening if Putin lets them do this. He has the deciding vote, and why on Earth should he trust Nato and the West? I think the Russians will settle nothing less for solid rock promises that no Nato or US troops set foot in Ukraine.
Agreed. That's why I think US/NATO will first get a preview of what Putin is willing to accept--basically, an agreement in principal terms--and then position themselves to look good right before a final, rock-solid deal is inked.
Could well be, KLG. Team Putin is miles ahead of "our" leaders on every level. However, it could have been a mix of both. Maybe they genuinely believed that a light force that they began with in Feb last year would knock some sense into Kiev, and then went for the slower, heavier meatgrinder. We just don't know. As for dragging things out, while it's very satisfying to see the neocons and EU fools getting their plans destroyed, I still have a feeling that the longer this goes on, the crazier the globalists will act. As the Duran boys said a few days ago, the neocons will come up with a new plan and it will be a very, very stupid one!
An off-ramp doesn't have to involve negotiations. Don't forget, Gavin, these are neocons. They don't do negotiations or reasoned compromise. If they do go for an off-ramp - and that's still a big if - they will do the same as Afghanistan: skedaddle in the dead of night and get their buddies in the MSM to distract and divert the great stupid public. Of course, such a diversion is going to have to be enormous to dig the neocons out of this one.
My concern is that the US could blunder into a shooting war on some scale, without ever putting “boots” on Ukrainian soil in a deliberate deployment. What I have in mind is the degree of participation in the fighting that the US is already engaged in, and its support for other nations, like Poland, that are involved in a very direct fashion. Recent public statements by the Russian government suggest that the Russians are losing patience."
I think the likeliest scenario for direct US involvement would be a decision to send in troops if Ukraine is going down. Before I get a welter of replies about why that would be insane, or deriding American prospects of success, let me say that the Biden people have an enormous sunk cost here and I'm not sure they can bear to see their investment go down the tubes. Anyone who says that a US military rescue would be a mistake will get no argument from me. Then again getting this deeply involved in Ukraine was a mistake and yet here we are, and they might just ride that mistake to the bottom.
EDIT: I found this graphic on time to replace the hardware we've shipped to Ukraine. It's worse than I thought.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/01/war-games-2.php
Mark, have you seen this Glenn Greenwald interview with the German leftist-populist anti-war politician, Sahra Wagenknecht? She is drawing a lot of support from both the left and the right. A smart, knowledgeable, and engaging woman. I'd love to get your opinion. (A couple of years ago I wouldn't have imagined I'd ever want to have anything to do with Glenn Greenwald, but times do change!) https://rumble.com/v27rlj8-system-update-31.html
Here is a transcript of the interview. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/sahra-wagenknecht-on-the-ukraine
Tx. Easier to deal with than reading English closed captions on screen.
If there's one thing that the increasing prominence (and power!) of the fusion of the neoliberal and neoconservative movements that emerged from the Clinton and Dubya Admins, respectively (although the neolibs have been "march[ing] through the institutions" for more than a century) has shown us, it's that the true left and true right as anyone over 45-50 knew them (I term them paleolibs and paleocons) have WAY more in common with each other right now than they ever will with the neolib/neocon "Borg." Both are anti-authoritarian by nature, consider the Bill of Rights sacrosanct, are generally anti-war (on the paleocon side, I'd say we're more anti-interventionist than "anti-war," per se) and pretty much just want to be left alone on the civil liberties' side. These are fundamental--the biggies--for any rational American, left or right, so I consider Greenwald, Taibbi and other strong investigative journalists of the paleo-left as allies in our common American cause. Once we get the ship righted on these fundamentals, we can go back to bickering over tax policies, social spending and such.
These people who talk of actually putting people on the ground - do they understand logistics? I'm not very quick when it comes to math but, don't soldiers need to be supplied with weaponry, food stuffs, clothing, fuel, oil, spare parts ,etc to fight a war? How in holy hell are we financially capable of supplying a force of sufficient size to ward off whatever it is these fools wish to ward off? They claim a few Abrams tanks are gonna talk A YEAR to get there. Our industrial capacity is shot full of holes...
A German Field Marshall (can't recall the name right off) told Hitler and his lackeys they were in "cloud cuckoo land" at some point during their romp through Europe. Or maybe it was when Herr Hitler was moving ghost divisions around his map circa late April 1945. Whenever and whomever it was, we are right back there now.
I don't want to be the party pooper here, but Martin Armstrong's latest thoughts are very sobering. And he has a good track record on predictions: "Zelensky is an actor and he is playing the role given to him by the West to start World War III. Everything he does is to expand the war and to suck in NATO and the United States to create this war. He is succeeding. I can object all I want, but our computer will be right and we are looking at World War III between 2025 and 2027. So batten down the hatches." Here in Switzerland, every house by law has to have a nuclear shelter. I might get down there this weekend and check it's in order! :)
That's my fear too, Mark. As MoA points out, any kind of US deployment on the ground that would make any difference is now impossible. But if the Russians take out any of the current or future US logistical or advisory assets that are there, it could lead to escalation. The Poles are completely crazy at the moment. They need to cool their jets!
"And Ukraine is 5x larger than the Ukrainian theater would be."
I think you meant to say something along the lines of Ukraine is 5x larger than the Desert Storm theater was. ;)
Cheers
Right. Something VERY like that. :-)
I've been thinking along similar lines for awhile now. I can envision Russia taking a page from the Mossad and their ilk. Like the drone strike in Iran etc... I mean why not if airports in Germany or Romania are considered fair game for potential F-16's.
Unfortunately for us, Putin may well be the genius Trump called him, and the ones we have in charge are idiots. There will in all probability be no WWIII nor any peace agreement, just more of the same old same. Putin will just get bogged down, poor thing, and accept the role of loser. That way he can continue the war of attrition indefinitely, wearing down our military capabilities and more importantly our economy. Our big shots can continue to play the role that they are winning against Russia, and blame our economic disasters on Putin, insisting we bear with the necessary sacrifices. The old adage that only death and taxes are for sure will prevail, only more so.
Without sugar-coating Putin, Perle, I think it should be "fortunately" for us. At the moment, he's the only guy taking on the globalist and their evil cultural and military imperialism. As for the DS, I think the gloss is wearing off their tactics. The US and Europe are in dire straits economically, and when the crunch comes, I'm not sure many people, fighting for their and their families' existence, are going to buy the "It's Putin, Stupid!" line. We shall see.
After reading as many independent journals, reporting & blogs as I can, along with watching hundreds of hours of interviews encompassing dozens of differing viewpoints and after having put as much critital thought as I can into it...I have reached the the conclusion that the World is run by Insane Clowns, Inc.
It is terrifying how few leaders there are out there who sound like rational human beings. I can only think of a few: Putin, Orban, Ron Paul...
Donald Trump?
My gut senses that Trump could do it...if he is scrupulously honest with the American people. No BS. Could he be? Could he do it? I, too, honestly don't know.
We are in perilous times.
Or maybe Malevolent Clowns?
Insane, malevolent clowns. I think that covers most of the angles.
I think that the Insane Clown Posse, aka Violent J & Shaggy 2 Dope might be in charge, if not maybe they should be?
🤣. My first thought, before I figured nobody would get the reference
The Juggalos gathered in Davos . . . or, I'm confused now.
The sole exceptions to the extreme face-rec technologies deployed for our betters at WEFfest 😏
the recent declaration of the Italian ministry (https://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2023/01/27/wwiii-would-come-if-russian-tanks-get-to-kyiv-says-crosetto_24530adf-4672-49a1-9035-7886795b84a2.html) is quite disappointing for those who, like me, hoped Meloni's gouvernement would be a balancing force in Europe's crazy drive to war with Russia. We can only hope for a swift conventional victory of the Russians, otherwise it's nuclear war...
My theory is NATO peacekeeper forces to act as a buffer, think Lebanon, Sinai, etc, with the theory that the Russians would not dare attack them! That seemed to be the idea Petraeus was floating a while back. Perhaps located in an area the Russians have not advanced to yet, behind the front lines. And if the Russians attack, it's RUSSIAN AGRESSION! They attacked NATO.
Maybe, but what will Nato do about it? They've already emptied their cupboards, and don't have the manpower to do anything. Also, it would time to set this force up, and Putin would know about it long before it happened. He would just tell the Armageddon Twins to up the pace and take out the whole of Ukraine with overwhelming force.
Interesting thought; however I don't see Putin going for this. I see it more similar to the future DMZ in Korea. AND that's after Putin gains all the victories he wants.
I think Putin will try and fulfil his original aims of securing the Donbas and destroying the Ukie military. If that keeps Russia and the ethnic Russians in Ukraine safe, I would imagine he'd stop. However, the hysterical calls for escalation might push him to go further and take the whole country rather than risk a "DMZ" or "neutral" Ukraine where Nuland and Co would soon be up to their evil tricks again.
Putin won't go further than his original plan. He won't take Kiev or further west. He's actually a more honorable man than Zhou.
Bernie Madoff was a more honorable man than Zhou! I don't think Putin has plans to take more than the Donbass. It would be like inheriting a slum full of people who hate you. However, if he doesn't I wonder how he will ensure that the rump of Ukraine is never militarised again? I still think he should take Odessa to safe guard the Black Sea fleet and keep Moldova in order.
I see your theory as the most-likely face-saving resolution here. Once the back channels give US/NATO a fair sense of where/how Russia would be willing to end their SVO, we place personnel in places Russia doesn’t even want and then claim that we backed them down. That said, I continue to worry about what Mark notes as the possibility of blundering into direct conflict as a result of our IC’s/MiC’s underestimation of the level of provocation Russia feels.
I only see this happening if Putin lets them do this. He has the deciding vote, and why on Earth should he trust Nato and the West? I think the Russians will settle nothing less for solid rock promises that no Nato or US troops set foot in Ukraine.
Agreed. That's why I think US/NATO will first get a preview of what Putin is willing to accept--basically, an agreement in principal terms--and then position themselves to look good right before a final, rock-solid deal is inked.
Along the same lines:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/01/nato-continues-its-disarmament.html#more
Could well be, KLG. Team Putin is miles ahead of "our" leaders on every level. However, it could have been a mix of both. Maybe they genuinely believed that a light force that they began with in Feb last year would knock some sense into Kiev, and then went for the slower, heavier meatgrinder. We just don't know. As for dragging things out, while it's very satisfying to see the neocons and EU fools getting their plans destroyed, I still have a feeling that the longer this goes on, the crazier the globalists will act. As the Duran boys said a few days ago, the neocons will come up with a new plan and it will be a very, very stupid one!
Vox Day has a book titled Sjw always double down.
The idea being sjw can’t accept defeat, being on the right side of history, and just increase the pressure.
An off-ramp doesn't have to involve negotiations. Don't forget, Gavin, these are neocons. They don't do negotiations or reasoned compromise. If they do go for an off-ramp - and that's still a big if - they will do the same as Afghanistan: skedaddle in the dead of night and get their buddies in the MSM to distract and divert the great stupid public. Of course, such a diversion is going to have to be enormous to dig the neocons out of this one.
Russia won't be surprised by anything we do.
I'd be very surprised if they were.