Various sources. Let’s start with John Mearshimer:
Candace Owens takes a different approach, but I like it:
Commenter T. Paine Redux was extolling the prowess of Army Group South in advancing through the same terrain, negatively comparing the RF forces to von Rundstedt’s and von Manstein’s boys. For perspective, Army Group South wasn’t exactly solicitous for the civilian population:
Also, Gilbert Doctorow:
This map illustrates what appears to be the overall Russian strategy—a major envelopment of Ukrainian forces east of the Dnieper, with a separate assault on Kiev:
Now …
Michael Snyder specializes in disaster or even catastrophe prediction. Nevertheless, I like this perspective from two days ago:
…
On Thursday, State Department spokesman Ned Price made a stunning admission regarding what this war is really all about.
According to Price, Russia and China “also want a world order”, but he warned that if they win their world order “would be profoundly illiberal”…
China has given “tacit approval” for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s latest invasion of Ukraine, in the judgment of U.S. officials, as part of a joint effort to undermine the institutions that American and allied leaders established to minimize conflict in the decades following World War II.
“Russia and the PRC also want a world order,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said Wednesday. “But this is an order that is and would be profoundly illiberal. … It is an order that is, in many ways, destructive rather than additive.”
It would take an entire book to unpack everything that Price said there.
First of all, …, he was tacitly admitting that the United States and other western nations desire to have a “world order” of their own.
And he implied that what we are witnessing is a battle over who will ultimately run the “world order”.
That should deeply alarm all of us.
…
I also want to point out that Price used the term “profoundly illiberal” to describe a “world order” led by Russia and China, and that suggests that a “world order” led by the United States and other western nations would be “liberal”.
And that is actually quite an accurate statement. In virtually every western nation today, even the political parties that are supposed to be “conservative” are extremely liberal.
If you Google the phrase “liberal world order”, you will find that it has been used by elitists for many years. But I certainly don’t want a “liberal world order” and neither should you.
Of course I don’t want a “world order” run by Russia and China either.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that we get a vote in this.
Now that World War III has begun, things are going to move very quickly. NBC News is reporting that Joe Biden is considering launching “massive cyberattacks” against Russia…
President Joe Biden has been presented with a menu of options for the U.S. to carry out massive cyberattacks designed to disrupt Russia’s ability to sustain its military operations in Ukraine, four people familiar with the deliberations tell NBC News.
...
That would be an act of war, and the Russians would inevitably strike back really hard.
And needless to say, we are very vulnerable to cyberattacks.
If we start going back and forth with the Russians, eventually we will be pushed to the brink of nuclear war.
In fact, Vladimir Putin has already raised the possibility of using nukes…
Broadcast live on television at 5.45am Moscow time, President Putin said: “Whoever tries to impede us, let alone create threats for our country and its people, must know that the Russian response will be immediate and lead to the consequences you have never seen in history.”
“All relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me.”
When I first saw that, I could hardly believe what I was reading.
But it is right there in black and white.
It is so simple that even a child can understand what he was saying, but this is how Biden responded when he was asked about Putin’s statements…
REPORTER: “Putin said the West will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history. Is he threatening a nuclear strike?”
BIDEN: “I have no idea.”
Are you kidding me?
And so Snyder concludes—after considering the China angle:
It would be so easy for [] dominoes to start falling.
The existing “world order” is starting to come apart at the seams, and a time of great chaos is directly ahead of us.
Ultimately, someone will end up dominating the entire globe once World War III is over, and all of our lives will look very different once we get to that point.
My own view is that it won’t get to that, but …
Let us hope so. That last post gave me a little chill. Things can certainly spin out of control as they have in the past. Re: Geroman and his comments regarding how the German's conducted combat in WWII Russia. They certainly preceded most major offensive actions with massive artillery strikes. They also had little concern for civilian casualties, particularly in Russia where the plan was to starve about 20 million of them to save on food. These are no brainers for any student of World War II. They also blasted Stalingrad to bits before entering the city proper- much to their later disadvantage. My point was that the Russians seem to be moving rather slowly over some open terrain that Germans slashed and burned through. Tactical air prior to an armor breakthrough and encirclement, to be reduced later by follow on infantry. Of course war is different now but overall, technological advances should make the same techniques faster, especially against an army that is not armed as well.
In line with my last expressed view, above, USDoS appears to be conceding that Ukraine can choose neutrality:
https://ru.usembassy.gov/briefing-with-deputy-secretary-sherman-on-the-us-russia-strategic-stability-dialogue-011022/
"Wendy R. Sherman: ... On the idea of neutrality, we have a really critical principle: No decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine. Ukraine gets to decide its foreign policy orientation. It gets to decide its future. ..."
Has the Zhou admin gazed into the abyss ... and stepped back?