Global War Roundup 6/27/24
An important question that comes up regularly is: What does the continual American escalation of its war against Russia hope achieve. A common response is one that runs along the lines that Alastair Crooke presented this past Monday. According to Crooke the hope is to goad Russia into an over the top response. Which simply raises the further question: What would that achieve? Justify a US first nuclear strike? To me it doesn’t make sense. My response to Crooke’s idea was that I believe the continual escalation is caused by the failure of each previous escalation to achieve the real goal—which is regime change in Russia. Each level of escalation is intended to alarm the Russian public as well as power brokers at a lower level than Putin, to convince them that Putin is leading Russia down a path of destruction, and so must go. Sanctions to cause economic hardship, wunderwaffen to increase Russian casualties on the battlefield, missiles to strike ever more deeply into Russia—they’re all intended for that purpose. And as each round of sanctions and each new tranche of wunderwaffen, each new terror attack inside Russia, all fail to make a dent in Putin’s standing with the Russian public, a new and more dangerous level of escalation is rolled out. It’s brinksmanship, but as with all games of brinksmanship it’s essentially a bluff.
Simplicius the Thinker addresses this today, although his post is not primarily focused on this issue—I think he more or less takes it for granted at this point:
SITREP 6/26/24: Things Heat Up With Reports of North Korean Troops to Donbass
Simplicius spends a great deal of time discussing technical aspects of the deadly missile strike on the Crimean beach, but also mentions in passing the terror attack in Dagestan. He is struck by the unapologetically callous responses in the West to Russian outrage:
Ukrainian presidential advisor Mikhail Podolyak simply stated that there no civilians in Crimean, because it’s occupied territory—thus justifying attacks on Russian civilians.
“Sociopathic EU apparatchik Gunther Fehlinger” openly stated that, just as Russia was supposedly defeated in Afghanistan by arming the Taliban, so too must the West now defeat Russia “by arming Russian internal Islam … to dismantle Russia.” A clear call to support what, by now, has become a standard American tactic—the enabling of brutal jihadist terror campaigns. The goal being to dismember the Russian Federation.
Pentagon spokesman Pat Ryder responded by saying, in so many words: If the Russians don’t like their civilians being killed they should just leave. Utterly unapologetic.
And the final example from a Dutch newspaper: Attacks must make Crimea untenable for Russia.
Simplicius explains, in effect—I’m extrapolating—that these narratives aren’t intended so much as responses to Russian officials but as messaging to the Russia public: Expect more of the same. Unless you get rid of Putin and allow us to rape and pillage Russia, just like under Yeltsin. Simplicius puts it like this:
… the goal of the narrative becomes clear: an information war along the precise scheme I described last time, to turn Russian society against Putin, which is repeatedly signaled by Western press, in this case a Dutch paper:
But of course there are very real risks of miscalculation in playing stupid games like this. The Russians appear to be preparing to up the ante. The US is conducting all sorts of nuclear drills, and Russia is doubling down. It’s becoming amply clear that Putin believes he’s dealing from a position of real strength.
Will Schryver has two brief but informative pieces on some aspects of this—conventional aspects:
"Neither the United States, nor any of its largely impotent client nations, possess magazine depth sufficient to prosecute anything more than a relatively brief campaign against their potential peer adversaries: Russia, China, Iran—and all or any of their lesser-power partners."
Magazine Depth and Shields
https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/magazine-depth-and-shields…
I like that idea of the “rapid democratization of firepower.” It’s exactly what we’re seeing in Yemen, Gaza, Lebanon and elsewhere. And hugely powerful ISR doesn’t change that.
The Last Wunderwaffe F-16s, Romanian bases, and NATO pilots
https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/the-last-wunderwaffe…
This second article was sparked by news that the US is building the largest NATO airbase in Europe in Romania. Russia is busy changing the situation on the ground to make such ventures literally indefensible. One way to do that is by turning the Black Sea back into a Russian lake. Peeling off Turkey—which wants to join BRICS—from NATO would be helpful. Driving all the way to Lwów in the West, to Odessa and beyond to the Romanian border—perhaps right through Moldova—is another way to accomplish that end. These considerations are probably what persuade Doug Macgregor to argue that Russia will put an end to Ukraine by September.
Speaking of Macgregor, both he and Mearsheimer did segments with Judge Nap today. The Judge asked each of them two questions: Is the US at war with Russia? and, Where do you expect WW3 to start?
Macgregor responded without hesitation that, yes, of course America is at war with Russia. It was never voted on, but that’s the reality. As for WW3, Macgregor believes that the Russian advantage in Ukraine is so overwhelming that WW3 won’t start there. Instead, he opts for WW3 beginning with Israel using tactical nukes in Lebanon. That is his big fear and, like me, he points to Israeli claims that they can defeat Hezbollah “in a minute.”
Mearsheimer basically agrees regarding the American war on Russia, although he framed his response in legalese—de facto v. de jure. As for WW3, Mearsheimer believes cooler heads will prevail, due to the threat of any war turning nuclear. Both Macgregor and Mearsheimer are firmly convinced that Russia will simply not allow Iran to be destroyed—not by Israel, not by the US, and not by any combination of the two.
Speaking of Mearsheimer, here’s a nice statement he put out after speaking with Danny Davis the other day:
I’m gonna go out on a limb, as I have in the past, disagreeing with both Macgregor and Mearsheimer. I would argue that Israel is the party that’s desperate. Israel is not desperate to go to war with Hezbollah—it’s desperate to have the US go to war with Hezbollah. And the US is resolutely opposed to any such lunacy. Everyone knows that if Israel can’t defeat Hamas with the full support of the US and UK, then it hasn’t a prayer against Hezbollah. The US just has to continue saying ‘No’ and call Netanyahu’s tactical nuke bluff. We’ll see. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think that, as in Ukraine, this is bluff and bluster trying to pressure the US into agreeing to go to war with Hezbollah. Without US boots on the ground, it’s a no go.
As an example of how bad things are getting for Israel, both Macgregor and Mearsheimer stated that they have received reports that Israel has a major problem with reserves refusing to show up for 2nd and 3rd mobilization calls—in an army that is basically a reserve force, that’s a huge morale problem. Further, everyone knows that the vaunted Iron Dome can’t stop ballistic missiles, and neither can US AEGIS air defense systems—Iran demonstrated that convincingly. Patriots? All you need to know about their effectiveness is that the US and Israel are planning to send Israel’s Patriots to Ukraine. To use against cheap drones.
On the other hand, while Netanyahu has plenty of influence with nitwit GOPers in Congress, there are other political considerations that militate against the US going to war against Hezbollah. Of course, the Zhou regime has to support Israel by sending weapons and munitions, due to the power of Jewish money in the presidential elections. On the other hand, launching a serious Middle East war would almost certainly be the kiss of death as far as the Dem base is concerned. Sure, the GOP are just as war mongering as the regime, but they’re not the regime. The Dems are riding a tiger—scared to ride, scared to try a dismount. Lose Jewish money or lose their base voters. So the strategy is to provide weapons and rhetoric but draw the line at boots on the ground—which is what Israel needs. The problem is that this situation is inherently unstable. Macgregor and Mearsheimer agree that the entire Zionist Project is in a serious existential crisis, with no obvious solution.
But, of course, Americans don’t know the half of it. Listening today to Danny Davis it turns out that the US actually does have boots on the ground in the Gaza genocide. Here’s how that works. US/UK ISR assets have been flying over Gaza and Lebanon continuously in support of Israel—because Israeli ISR capabilities aren’t up to the job. The information is relay, as collected, to troops on the ground who provide it to the Israelis. That’s what I meant by “full support.” And yet Hamas survives.
Finally, on the China front there have been two developments—both of which indicate that the US strategy of surrounding China and hemming it in is encountering rough seas. Readers may be aware of the recent violent incident (no deaths) between the Chinese coast guard and Filipino fishing boats in the South China Sea. The Philippines government appears to be taking a rather conciliatory approach, stressing the need for “dialogue”. That’s understandable, for a country whose economy and future development is almost entirely dependent on China. My guess is that the crux of the situation, for China, is the close military cooperation between the Philippines and the US—because the Philippines and US bases lie athwart China’s energy supply sea lanes. It may, therefore, be significant that the Philippines took an additional step in trying to kiss and make up with China—a step that involved distancing itself from the US: Philippines has not sought US resupply support in China dispute -ambassador.
The second development involves Vietnam, a country that the US has been assiduously courting as an ally in surrounding China:
“Vietnam supports China's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and opposes the politicization of economic, trade and sci-tech issues, Chinh said.
……
Noting that Vietnam supports China's position on the Taiwan question and firmly adheres to the one-China principle, Chinh said that it is the top priority and strategic choice of Vietnam's foreign policy, which will not be disrupted by external interference, to deepen strategic mutual trust and pragmatic cooperation with China, and build a Vietnam-China community with a shared future that carries strategic significance.”
Quote
Beijing Review @BeijingReview
Jun 26
Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Prime Minister of Viet Nam Pham Minh Chinh in Beijing on Jun 26. Chinh is in China to attend the 2024 #SummerDavos. https://bjreview.com/World/202406/t20240627_800369949.html…
Great write-up, Mark! Thank you. This is a real poop show, thanks to the NeoCons. I had a question about the "brilliant" idea to foment Putin's overthrow. My understanding is that Vladimir Vladimirovich is actually more pro-Western than many of those "in line" to replace him. For example, Medvedev is fulminating about NATO/US and their antics in Ukraine. This might well be something that the NeoCons should be careful about that for which they wish! Play stupid games...
Get rid of Putin? I guess those who want him gone do not really understand. If Putin goes there is a good chance you could get an Igor Girkin type. There is a contingent of Russian elites/thinkers who believe that Putin has been too soft and he is weak.
Also, There have been a lot of Russians saying , for a while, that we need to attack NATO now. Because with our hypersonics, our S500s, Poseidons and other weapons, we have the advantage. Also a lot of Russians saying , NATO wants us dead. AND all of the ideas above are now part of the Russian thought stream.
So the wishful thinking that if Putin leaves that the Russians will turn to the West? No, I do not think so.
As far as reasons American Leadership bullying the Russians and risking WW3 there are several possibilities
a. That the American leadership is a bunch of irrational NEOCONs who are ideologically driven and not capable of rationality when it conflicts with their ideology.
b. It has been postulated that American is broke and soon to have a financial collapse. The concept is that the American elites want a war to cover their tracks concerning the causation of this financial crisis.
c. The poison of Hillary Clinton and John McCain has over the years had its affect and this current group of leaders are just "Taking the Bus to Abilene" with no critical thought attached or courage to say no.
d. This is partly a revenge case. The American elites hate Putin and have never forgiven him., because he saved Russia from the abject demoralization and decline of the Yeltsin years. The idea is that American elites were extremely happy that Russia was turning into Weimar 2.0 and Putin stopped all that.
e. Any combination of the above.
f. Pick another reason, because this whole anti-russian scenario of the last 10 to 15 years does not make sense.