Simplicius Dives Deep On The Collective West's Russia Dilemma

Most readers probably know Simplicius the Thinker for his SitReps on the Neocons’ Ukraine proxy war on Russia, as well as his expositions of more technical aspects of the new form of warfare that we’re seeing there. Today, however, Simplicius goes geopolitical, in the sense that he seeks to tie together several recent news bombshells that have exploded over the past week or so. The case he’s making is that these are all related and are symptomatic of Western desperation and division. The collective West is floundering around looking for a way forward that doesn’t involve admitting its humiliation and defeat at the hands of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation.

Simplicius begins with the most recent, the third, bombshell, which we referred to yesterday:

A bombshell wiretap leak has set the intelligence and geopolitical world ablaze today, revealing high ranking members of the German Bundeswehr openly discussing plans to supply the Taurus missiles and help Ukraine destroy Russia’s Kerch Bridge.

My assumption has been that the overhear was conducted by some branch of Russian intel, and was subsequently leaked via RT. The motive would be fairly obvious, given the story has been a bombshell in Europe: Make the European public aware of the reckless course its ruling class is on.

However, Simplicius suggests that another explanation could be equally plausible: that “German insiders” themselves were responsible for the leak of the recording—the authenticity of which nobody really disputes. In this scenario, the beneficiary would be Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, who has in recent days been publicly adamant that he is not going to lead Germany into war with Russia—his public claim has been that supplying the Taurus to Ukraine would require the deployment of German operators, and thus would be an act of war.

Whoever these “German insiders” are, the purpose of this leak would be, again, to alert the European—and especially German—public to the dangerous path that others in the European ruling class (Macron, Sunak, US Neocons) are on toward WW3. Thus the leak flowed—in all probability, under this scenario—from the second of the bombshell news events: Macron’s suggestion that European military forces should be deployed in Ukraine, presumably as a warning to Putin to go no further—or only to a certain point. It should be noted, that the alternative of a Russian leak also works as flowing from Macron’s hair brained scheme. Russia, too, would have an interest in alerting the Western public to the danger of WW3 that flowed from the Paris meeting. In the event, Macron’s idea was resoundingly rejected by other European leaders.

Simplicius, very reasonably, sees these two news events as clear evidence of sharp divisions within the European ruling class. The struggle pits “the last remaining sane faction against the hardliners pushing WWIII.” I’m not convinced that anyone is truly “pushing WWIII,” although it’s clear that there is a faction that believes confrontation with Russia can be pushed further—perhaps to somehow attain a better bargaining position for an end to the war. I assume that Simplicius, like me, regards that notion as pie in the sky.

Simplicius then reviews what we also pointed to yesterday—the slew of charges and counter charges in the European media about the varying degrees of involvement of France, Germany, and the UK in the war. All of these point to what, under any reasonable interpretation, amount to semi-covert but direct involvement in the war. None of which is news to Russia, but might be news to the European public and electorate. The reality is that most of the NATO weapons systems—certainly those involving air defense or missile strike capabilities—have been operated by NATO personnel. There simply has not been enough time to train Ukrainians on these complex systems. Probably more importantly, most of these systems rely on NATO ISR, which is mostly controlled by NATO.

Simplicius quotes from an article in the leading French outlet, Le Monde, to present an argument for what the hardliners are after. It’s at this point that Simplicius brings in the first bombshell, the NYT article on the CIA’s role in Ukraine, spanning over a decade of skullduggery. It’s worth quoting this at some length. Simplicius has been discussing Macron’s wacky idea of NATO troop deployments to Ukraine. Then:

The French government allegedly views such a troop deployment as a way of posing a “strategic dilemma” for Moscow, the paper said, adding that it could “constrain” Russia’s targeting and strike capabilities. In particular, it may prove to be “essential” ahead of the arrival of US-made F-16 fighter jets, scheduled to take place later this year, the French daily added.

Keep in mind, ostensibly, they’re referring to a small contingent of troops placed somewhere in the rear to ‘train’ Ukrainian soldiers. But the ‘strategic dilemma’ part is very interesting—what could they possibly mean by that?

The article makes some interesting revelations. For instance, it seems to suggest that the timed release of all the current hints is a precisely choreographed CIA campaign meant specifically to give signals to Moscow:

US intelligence services's controlled transparency operation – known as "campaigning" – is part of their plan to reinforce a form of strategic ambiguity that was initiated by Monday's meeting of allies in Paris, several sources close to the matter told Le Monde. Although the US was not involved in the precise wording of what Macron was going to say and may have been surprised by his remarks, the prospect of sending Western troops to Ukraine had been talked about in advance. The US had also sent a representative to Paris. The growing pressure from Moscow on Europe's eastern flank is worrying the US as much as the other participants.

Simplicius rightly asks, What could “they” possibly mean by such a troop deployment posing a “strategic dilemma” to Russia? The key is that Le Monde links this ploy to the arrival of F-16s “later this year.” So, as I read it—in light of the second paragraph’s revelation of US background involvement at the Paris meeing—Macron was floating a Neocon scheme by which the NATO troop deployment would present Russia with a dilemma that would lead Russia to stop more or less in its tracks—fearful of attacking areas “secured” by NATO troops. That would buy time for the deployment of F-16s “later this year.” The F-16 Wunderwaffen would presumably pose a further dilemma for Russia, leading Russia to ultimately sue for peace on favorable terms to NATO.

Now, I regard this plan as typically Neoconnish, meaning, divorced from reality. Simplicius suggests an elaboration of this plan which has the benefit of suggesting what the minimum metrics for success involve:

Recall my earliest predictions about NATO coming in to ‘secure’ certain critical areas of West Ukraine from Russian takeover at the final hour when all else fails and it seems certain that Russia will overrun the AFU. I spoke specifically about Odessa, with the 101st and 82nd coming to dogpile and squat on it simply in the hopes that Russia will cautiously refuse to send troops, in fear of ‘clashing’ with NATO forces and starting WWIII.

I believe Simplicius is basically correct on this, as regards the goals. I don’t think Western Ukraine is all that important on its own—only as a necessary backstop for the key goal: retaining Odessa, with its outlet to the Black Sea. Maintaining a de facto NATO outlet on the Black Sea in close proximity to Crimea is the strategic goal that would be part of the larger strategy of turning the Baltic into a NATO lake and positioning US missiles in Sweden and Finland—i.e., in close proximity to Russia’s important warm water Arctic port of Murmansk. In other words, the overall strategy is one of a naval blockade of Russia sea access to the West.

Putin himself poured cold water all over this strategery. In his state of the Federation address he pointedly reminded the West that Russia has the weapons to reach anywhere it feels threatened. I personally believe that a US move toward Odessa would call forth that response.

Simplicius has a lot more to say, all of it worthwhile, on specific military issues. However, his bullet point summary of the strategic considerations and what they betoken is worth quoting:

The key summarizing takeaways are the following:

• The West is absolutely desperate to staunch Ukraine’s impending collapse and have doubled down on taking out the Kerch Bridge as their final ‘holy grail’ of salvation

• The West is in disarray, with secret infighting, backbiting, double-crossing, or outright revolt amongst the ranks due to terminal fear of uncontrollable escalation

• The combination of the above is a decisive confirmation that the Ukrainian military is getting down to its dregs and could be on its final legs

I’ll append an excellent video by Danny Davis, from just this morning. In the video, among other topics, Davis explains why the notion of taking out the Kerch Bridge is nonsensical under virtually any scenario. He also discusses the F-16 deployment in detail, making mincemeat of the idea that “accelerated training” of Ukrainian pilots on an aircraft that requires three full years of training for NATO pilots—as well as very demanding maintenance to keep in the air—is workable or realistic. Davis’ bottom line is that he believes Ukraine’s military will collapse by “spring or summer.” That simply doesn’t provide time to save it by Neocon strategery.