In a reckless last gasp to salvage his Ukraine legacy, Biden authorizes NATO missile strikes on Russia-proper. In response arrived a sinister new Russian weapon system—straight out of science fiction.
The last paragraph sums up my opinion on the situation. I think Trump encouraged Biden to greenlight long range strikes in Russia in order to escalate to de-escalate. Having Biden do it, so Trump can keep his hands is the icing on the cake for Trump. Trump has publicly said, many times, that he likes to have war hawks around him because they represent the stick in the negotiating process. You can't make a deal without leverage, all you can do is take a deal. Putin needs a reason to negotiate.
This is certainly Trump's way of thinking. If you come into a negotiation weak then it might not go so well. The problem is the US is trying to create false leverage that Russia can see right through, like for example the threat to increase support for Ukraine at levels even higher than before. The West is running low on weapons and with things heating up in the Middle East, choices will be made.
Beyond that, I doubt RU and USA can meaningfully negotiate. RU’s baseline conditions (just to start
a dialogue) are nearly non-starters for the USA.
But even if there was an effort, how could RU trust the USA, who has torn up the vast majority of treaties? The word of a president at this time is meaningless; in Trump’s case it has a shelf life of 4 years.
Ergo, my own thinking is that the war will be fought to its logical conclusion. Ukraine has 2 choices: defeat or (nearly complete) destruction.
Thanks! I was just reflecting on my habit of making unusual connections and thought of it as a form of situational schizophrenia. The key, of course, is to ground the analogy in reality through the article.
I’m also extremely sceptical that any meaningful agreement can be reached among the drama triangle of the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia. My only hesitation comes from the introduction of this new weapon by Russia, which has the potential to be a major game-changer. Everything will hinge on the battle damage assessment—how powerful and accurate the weapon proves to be. Given its apparent ability to evade all air defense systems, this creates a recipe for serious trouble.
The other critical question is quantity: how many of these systems has Russia already produced? It’s reminiscent of the advent of nuclear weapons, though potentially worse, because this missile system is actually usable due to its conventional nature.
All of NATO's airbases and aircraft carriers are now vulnerable. Russia will have a sub-nuclear, first strike capability once they have say a hundred deployable systems. NATO cannot therefore respond with nuclear weapons, which in any case would mean the end of the world. Russia will naturally share this system with at least the Chinese, and perhaps sometime in the future with Iran. This scenario bears echoes of Hiroshima, where the United States achieved a qualitative leap over the rest of the world with its nuclear breakthrough.
The West now faces the prospect of years of catching up, given the complexities of replicating such a technological leap. Unlike Stalin's Soviet Union, which infiltrated the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC) with numerous spies during the 1940s, it is doubtful that the West has penetrated Russia's defense sector to the same extent today.
I’d hope that the western hotheads will cool off a bit now and maybe reality / logic prevails; but I cannot (yet) ignore western desperation and stupidity.
The last paragraph sums up my opinion on the situation. I think Trump encouraged Biden to greenlight long range strikes in Russia in order to escalate to de-escalate. Having Biden do it, so Trump can keep his hands is the icing on the cake for Trump. Trump has publicly said, many times, that he likes to have war hawks around him because they represent the stick in the negotiating process. You can't make a deal without leverage, all you can do is take a deal. Putin needs a reason to negotiate.
This is certainly Trump's way of thinking. If you come into a negotiation weak then it might not go so well. The problem is the US is trying to create false leverage that Russia can see right through, like for example the threat to increase support for Ukraine at levels even higher than before. The West is running low on weapons and with things heating up in the Middle East, choices will be made.
I always like your analogies. Very original.
Beyond that, I doubt RU and USA can meaningfully negotiate. RU’s baseline conditions (just to start
a dialogue) are nearly non-starters for the USA.
But even if there was an effort, how could RU trust the USA, who has torn up the vast majority of treaties? The word of a president at this time is meaningless; in Trump’s case it has a shelf life of 4 years.
Ergo, my own thinking is that the war will be fought to its logical conclusion. Ukraine has 2 choices: defeat or (nearly complete) destruction.
Thanks! I was just reflecting on my habit of making unusual connections and thought of it as a form of situational schizophrenia. The key, of course, is to ground the analogy in reality through the article.
I’m also extremely sceptical that any meaningful agreement can be reached among the drama triangle of the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia. My only hesitation comes from the introduction of this new weapon by Russia, which has the potential to be a major game-changer. Everything will hinge on the battle damage assessment—how powerful and accurate the weapon proves to be. Given its apparent ability to evade all air defense systems, this creates a recipe for serious trouble.
The other critical question is quantity: how many of these systems has Russia already produced? It’s reminiscent of the advent of nuclear weapons, though potentially worse, because this missile system is actually usable due to its conventional nature.
All of NATO's airbases and aircraft carriers are now vulnerable. Russia will have a sub-nuclear, first strike capability once they have say a hundred deployable systems. NATO cannot therefore respond with nuclear weapons, which in any case would mean the end of the world. Russia will naturally share this system with at least the Chinese, and perhaps sometime in the future with Iran. This scenario bears echoes of Hiroshima, where the United States achieved a qualitative leap over the rest of the world with its nuclear breakthrough.
The West now faces the prospect of years of catching up, given the complexities of replicating such a technological leap. Unlike Stalin's Soviet Union, which infiltrated the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC) with numerous spies during the 1940s, it is doubtful that the West has penetrated Russia's defense sector to the same extent today.
Valid points and agreed.
I’d hope that the western hotheads will cool off a bit now and maybe reality / logic prevails; but I cannot (yet) ignore western desperation and stupidity.
Interesting read. Quite thought provoking. Will be sure to read the book by the Swiss author.
Thanks. Jacques Baud also very often gives interviews (in both English and French) to discuss the war.