More geopolitical dryness. Here's what
the Russians are thinking. Lifted again from a friend.
Russian Analysis of US Intentions:
Plan one: a symbolic and limited
intervention
This plan is already underway. We
know that there are US military advisers in the Ukraine, including at
least one general, we know that the Dutch and Australians will be
sending in a lightly armed force to "protect" the
investigators at the crash site of MH17 (although how a few men armed
with assault rifles can protect anybody from Ukie artillery, tank or
mortar fire is anybody's guess). Then there are all the reports of
foreign mercenaries, mostly US and Polish, fighting with the Ukie
death squads. There is also some good evidence that Poland is
sending military equipment, including aircraft and, possibly, crews.
Well, all of that is dumb and serves very little useful purpose, but
that is what the West is so good at: pretending. If this plans stays
at this level I would say that it is not very important. But, alas,
there is a nastier possibility here:
Plan two: a tripwire force
This is just an extension of plan one:
bring in a few men, and then have them killed. This would trigger
the needed "popular outrage" (carefully fanned and reported
by the corporate media) to force the Europeans to accept more US
sanctions in Europe or even some kind of "EU-mandated"
"peacekeeping force". Of course, if the Russians or the
Novorussians do not take the bait and fail to kill the "observers",
US/NATO false flag teams could easily do that. Just imagine what a
heavy-mortar strike on a building with these OSCE observers would
look like. The junta in Kiev would be more than happy to "invite"
such a "peacekeeping" force into Novorussia and since this
would be an "invited" force, no UNSC Resolution would be
needed. Finally, such a "peacekeeping" force would be
regularly reinforced and augmented until it could basically cover the
flanks of the Ukies in their attacks against Novorussia. This force
would also assume the command and control of Ukie forces, something
which the Ukies could greatly benefit from (their current command and
control is a mess).
Plan One and Plan Two assume that
Russian forces stay on the other side of the border and that the only
opposition to such a deployment could come from the Novorussians.
But what if the Russians decided to move into Novorussia either to
protect the locals or stop his limited US/NATO/EU "peacekeeping
force"? Then the US/NATO/EU would have to take a dramatic
escalator y step send in a much bigger force, more capable of
defending itself.
Plan three: UPROFOR on the Dniepr?
This is the “Yugoslav scenario.”
The West would send in something on the order of 10 battalions which
would each be given an area of responsibility for "peacekeeping".
Then police forces would be also sent to "maintain law and
order" and EU commissars would be sent in to "help"
the local population "express their will" and "organize"
a local government. Soon there would be some kind of EU-run election
and all the Novorussian forces would be declared "bandits"
from which the local population need to be "protected".
Since Strelkov himself fought in Yugoslavia, as did many other
Russians, I don't believe that the Russians or Novorussians would
fall for this one. I think that Russia would express its opposition
to such a plan and that if she was ignored, she would move in her own
forces along the line of contact.
This might be the US/NATO/EU endgoal:
to create a Korea like "line of demarcation" which would
isolate the Donetsk and Lugansk People's republics from the rest of
Novorussia and the rest of the Ukraine, this would mean getting
plenty of Kosovo-like "Camp Bonsteels" all along the
Russian border and it would make it looks like the "Wartime
President of the One Indispensable Nation" "stopped the
Russian Bear". Finally, it would create a perfect Cold War like
environment.
Plan four: Operation Storm in
Novorussia and Crimea?
I would not put it past the folks in
the Pentagon and Mons to try to pull off an "Operation Storm"
in Novorussia and even possibly Crimea. That is the scenario Glazev
fears: the US/NATO/EU would put enough forces inside the Ukraine to
allow it to survive long enough to mobilize a sufficient number of
men and equipment for a lightening fast attack in Novorossia and even
possibly Crimea. And, in theory, if we assume the Banderstan does
not collapse under its own weight and the economic disaster, the
Ukraine has the resources to mobilize far more men and equipment that
the tiny People's Republics of Donestk and Lugansk or even Crimea.
But that, again, assumes that Russia will let that happen, which she
won't, so now we have to look at the really crazy plans:
Plan five: First "Desert Steppe
Shield" then "Desert Steppe Storm"
That is a crazy notion: to do with
Russia what the US did with Iraq. First, to place down a "protection
force" in the Ukraine, isolate Russia, and then attack in a
full-depth and full-scale determined attack. We are definitely
talking about a continental war with a fantastic potential to turn
into a world war. This plan would have be based on two crucial
assumptions:
1) The US/NATO/EU conventional forces
would be capable of defeating the Russian military.
2) If facing conventional defeat,
Russia would not use nuclear weapons.
I think that both of these assumptions
are deeply mistaken. The first one is based on a mix of propaganda,
bean counting and ignorance. The propaganda is something which
western military are very good. They are not. Most western armies
are a pathetic joke, and those who can fight well (the Brits, the
Turks) are too little to matter. That leaves the US military which
have capabilities far in excess of what its NATO allies can muster.
Just as in WWII all the serious fighting had to be done by German
units, in case of a WWIII (or IV?) all the serious fighting would
have to be done by Americans. The problem is that the Americans
would have an extremely hard time bringing in enough forces to really
make the difference. In any case, I have the biggest doubt about the
current fighting capabilities of the US Army and Marine Corps. Faced
with a Russian battalion defending its own soil I think that an
equivalent USA/Marine force would get slaughtered.
The "bean counting" is when
you compare all the NATO APCs or tanks to the number available to the
Russian military. The corporate media loves this kind of charts in
which soldiers, APCs, tanks, aircraft and other gear are compared.
Professional analysts never use them simply because they are
meaningless. What matters is how much of that gear is actually
available for battle, the kind of tactics used, the training and
morale of the soldiers, the skills of their commanding officers, and
stuff which is *never* mentioned: supplies, logistics, petroleum,
lubricants, ammunition, lines of supply, medical standards, even food
and weather. Bean counters simply never see that. But one could
argue that the number of trucks is more important to a military than
the number of tanks. Yet trucks are never counted. But yes, on
paper NATO looks huge. Even though most NATO gear could not even
survive your average Ukrainian road, never-mind the Russian winter.
But let us assume that the Hollywood
image of the US military is true: invincible, best trained, best
armed, with a fantastic morale, led by the very best of the best
officers, it would easily defeat the primitive Russian military,
armed with antiquated weapons and commanded by fat drunken generals.
Okay, and then what? If the official Russian nuclear deterrence
doctrine holes then in this case Russia would use nuclear weapons.
Since even in Hollywood movies nobody makes the claim that the US
anti-missile systems could stop Russian Iskander behemoth missiles,
cruise missiles or even gravity bombs, we would have to accept that
the invincible US force would be turned into radioactive particulates
and, that, in turn, would leave the US President two terrible
choices: a) take the loss and stop b) retaliate and the second option
would have to include the location from where the strike came from:
Russia proper. That, of course, would place the following choices
for the Russian President: a) take the loss or b) strike at the
continental United States. At this points nuclear mushrooms would
start appearing all over the map.
Now make no mistake: Russia can not
only destroy Mons, the Pentagon and Cheyenne Mountain (just a matter
of placing enough warheads on the right spot and we've had the
technology since 1965), but also every, single major city in the
United States. Sure, the USA can retaliate in kind, but what kind of
consolation would that be for anybody left?
I cannot believe that the US deep
state would truly, deliberately, want to start a planetary nuclear
war. For one thing, US leaders can and do blink and they will not
want to take such a monumental decision. A far more likely version
is that being stupid and arrogant. Then they will stumble upon just
that outcome. Here is how:
Plan six: American football's "Hail
Mary"
In American football there is a
specific pass which is used only when seconds are left on the clock
and your teams is badly losing anyway. Basically it works like this:
every single person who is not defending the quarterback rushes to
the endzone, as do all the defenders, and the quarterback then just
throws the ball straight into that zone with the very slim hope that
one of his own players will catch it and score a touchdown. This
is called a "Hail Mary" for very good reason as only a
miracle makes such a desperate plan work. Most of the time the ball
is either fumbled or caught by the other team. But, very rarely, it
works.
I can very much imagine a desperate
Obama trying to show the American people that he "has hair on
his chest" and that he is not going to let "regional power"
challenge the "indispensable nation". So what he and,
really, his administration risks doing is the following: to play a
game of chicken hoping against all odds that the Russian will yield.
This is my worst nightmare and the worst possible assumption to make
because Russia cannot yield.
In March of this year I issued a
warning which I entitled "Obama just made things much, much
worse in the Ukraine - now Russia is ready for war". What
prompted me to issue that warning was the fact that the Council of
the Russian Federation has just unanimously passed a resolution
allowing Putin to use Russian armed forces in the Ukraine. Since,
this resolution has been repealed at Putin's request and for obvious
political motives, but the mood, the determination is still there.
In fact, I think that it has grown much stronger.
There has been much useless
speculation about Putin, his motives and his strategy. This is way
bigger than just Putin. If the US/NATO/EU really push too far, and
that includes a genocide in Novorussia, an attack on Crimea or an
attack on Russian forces, Russia will go to war, Putin or no Putin.
And Putin knows that. His real base of support is not in the Russian
elites (who mostly fear him), but in the Russian people (with whom
his current rating are higher than ever before). And Putin himself
openly spoke about the "threats to Russian sovereignty"
though he did add that because of the Russian nuclear forces there
was, in his opinion, no immediate threat to the Russian territory.
If the US decides to play a game of
chicken with Russia, then it will do the same thing as a car driver
playing a game of chicken against an incoming train: regardless of
the train's driver, the train is on tracks and its momentum is too
big: it cannot stop or veer away.
The problem is that the USA has a long
record of making absolutely irresponsible statements which end up
putting them into a corner from which they cannot bulge without
losing face. Just look at the MH17 disaster: the Obama
administration immediately rushed to blame the Russians for it, but
what will it do when the evidence to the contrary comes out? What if
Obama also draws a red line somewhere (it does not really matter
where) and then forces Russia to cross it?
Sadly, I can imagine the USA declaring
that the US/NATO will defend the Ukie airspace. I think that they
are dumb enough to try to seize a Russian ship entering or leaving
the Black Sea. Remember - these are the folks who hijacked the
aircraft of Bolivian President Evo Morales to try to find Snowden on
board. Their arrogance knows no limits. For them the organization
of false flag operations is a normal, standard procedure. They
almost triggered a war between the DPRK and South Korea by sinking a
South Korean military vessel. They used chemical weapons in Syria
not once, but several times. And the last time we had a Democrat in
the White House, he was crazy enough to send two US Aircraft Carrier
Groups into the Strait of Taiwan to threaten China.
My biggest fears
This is my biggest fear: some kind of
desperate "Hail Mary" maneuver in which the US will try to
convince Russia that "look, we are crazy enough to start this
thing, so you better back off" not realizing that Russia cannot
back off. The other thing which really scares me is that during the
Cuban Missile Crisis everybody was aware of the stakes and most
people were truly terrified. Now, thanks to the propaganda of the
corporate media, almost nobody is afraid and hardly anybody is paying
attention. Russia and the USA are on a clear collision course and
nobody cares! How come?
Because if 9/11 proved anything is
that there are things which most people are simply unwilling to
contemplate, no matter how close and real they are. It would only
make sense that the Empire of Illusion would be populated by a people
in total denial. After all, illusion and denial usually go hand in
hand.
Most of you in the business of western
analysis seem to be sharing with me a sense of total distrust in the
sanity of our leaders. When I asked you whether you believed that
the US/NATO were crazy enough to use military forces against Russia,
an overwhelming number of you answered that "yes" and a
good part of you was even emphatically sure of that. Why? Because
we all know how crazy and deluded are Imperial Overlords are. Crazy
and deluded enough not to quality as "rational actor"?
Crazy and deluded enough to play a game a chicken with a train?
Crazy and deluded enough to risk the planet on "Hail Mary?
Alas, I think that this is a very real possibility.
But what does Uncle Sam really want?
There is a gradual realization in
Russia that for Uncle Sam this is not about the Ukraine. It is about
Russia and, specifically, about regime change in Russia. A vast
majority of Russian experts seem to believe that the US wants to
overthrow Putin and that this entire war in the Ukraine is a means to
achieve that. As a very cynical joke going around Moscow now says
"Obama is willing to fight Putin down to the very last
Ukrainian". I think that this is correct. The US hopes that
one of the following will happen:
1) A Russian military intervention in
Novorussia which will allow the US to restart a Cold War v2 on
steroid and which will also fully re-enslave Europe to the USA.
Putin would then be blamed for falling in the US trap
2) The creation of a US-run
"Banderastan" in the Ukraine. That would 'contain' and
destabilize Russia. Again, Putin would be blamed for letting that
happen.
3) A "nationalist Maidan" in
Russia: this is what is behind the current Putin-bashing campaign in
the blogosphere: to paint Putin as a weak and/or corrupt man, who
traded Crimea for the Donbass (you know the tune - these folks even
comment on this blog). These efforts are supported and, sometimes,
even financed by Russian oligarchs who have a great deal of money
involved in the EU and who really don't need the current tensions.
Here Putin would be blamed for not doing enough.
In all three cases, Putin would risk a
(patriotically) color coded revolution which would, inevitably, bring
either crazy rogue ruler or a clueless fossil to power (a la
Zhirinovsky or Zuiganov) or, much better, a pro-American "liberal"
(a la Medvedev). I think that all of these plans will fail.
Putin will not give Uncle Sam the
intervention he wants. Instead, Russia continue to support the
Resistance in Novorussia until Banderastan goes "belly up",
i.e. for another 30-60 days or so. As for the "nationalist
Maidan", the Russian people see straight through this "black
PR campaign" and their support for Putin is higher than it ever
was. It's not Putin who does not want to intervene overtly in the
Donbass, it is the Russian people. The attempts at stirring up
anti-Putin by first stirring-up anti-Strelkov feelings have
completely failed and, in fact, they have backfired. A lot of these
"hurray-patriots" are now overly called "useful
idiots" for the CIA or even provocateurs.
At this point, I would not put
anything, no matter how crazy, past the US deep-state.
And that is a very scary thought.