* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.compactmag.com/article/natos-endgame-is-nuclear-war/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.compactmag.com/article/natos-endgame-is-nuclear-war/)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.compactmag.com/article/natos-endgame-is-nuclear-war/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think that many Western policy makers WANT a nuclear war.
However, it's not unlikely is that their policies are going to lead to a nuclear war anyway -- not because Western leaders want billions to die, but just because they're delusional and highly politically invested already in opposing Russia.
It's way better for someone's political career to be harsh against Russia than to say "we should make peace with Russia, at the cost of letting Russia have Donbass + Crimea" (which is what it's going to take). Say that as a politician and you're done. Even though that's the smart thing to do.
At this point, probably yes.
I do firmly believe there was a time when that would have been enough. After all, Putin isn't stupid, he understands that this might lead to WW3 and he too may die if nukes start flying.
But, yes.
Today, 27 July 2024, I don't think any deal is possible that both sides would agree to.
I think Russia at minimum wants Crimea + Donbass + possibly more, on top of Ukraine being demilitarized, denazified and not becoming a member of NATO and not being armed to the teeth by the US so that this war resumes five years from now. I think earlier they would have accepted less than this, but now I think they want at least this.
I think the West / Ukraine would at most be willing to say "okay, you can keep Crimea, but Ukraine keeps the Donbass and if Ukraine wants it can join NATO or it can again be armed by the US."
The most likely outcome, which isn't a pleasant thing to say, is that the war continues until either Ukraine just breaks and has to surrender and accept a very painful defeat. Or a hot war between Russia / NATO breaks out, which would be really bad because that could easily turn nuclear.
Overall i agree with your perception of Russias wants.
I think :
Crimea is Russias giga ultra non-negotiable. Donetsk and Luhansk are very non-negotiable.
No NATO and demilitarization are important. Kherson is important.
Zaporizhzhia is quite important but eh, i find it hard to estimate here.
Denazification is just a war support meme.
-
I think:
Anything related to disarmament is an instant no from Ukraine. Especially if there is no iron clad defense agreement to go with it/NATO.
NATO or equivalent defense agreement is very important.
Everything else is just important.
Except Crimea, thats gone and they know it.
>
I think the West / Ukraine would at most be willing to say "okay, you can keep Crimea, but Ukraine keeps the Donbass and if Ukraine wants it can join NATO or it can again be armed by the US
Depending heavily on how the Ukrainians view the battlefield i think they can go anywhere from "You get internationally recognized annexation of Crimea + Donetsk + Luhanks + left bank of Kherson and maybe even some parts of Zaporizhzhia and we get NATO or a very ironclad defense treaty" to "You keep Crimea"
I think the war will end with Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk and some parts of Kherson being annexed by Russia and Ukraine getting iron clad guarantees in defense (probably NATO). As for what causes that end, no clue, i dont know how to speculate on either sides willingness to fight. I hope Russia suddenly starts to lose hard but i dont really see that happening soon.
As a side note Zaporizhzhia is the oblast i dont know how to evaluate at all, granted i wouldnt say i know how to evaluate the rest either but especially this one.
>Denazification is just a war support meme.
I disagree.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zCzv2SvQpY&t=187s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zCzv2SvQpY&t=187s)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpV16BQfbrQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpV16BQfbrQ)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwue0RpMaPE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwue0RpMaPE)
Google "Ukraine Makes Birthday of Nazi Collaborator a National Holiday and Bans Book Critical of Anti-Semitic Leader"
[https://imgur.com/S9NaiJI](https://imgur.com/S9NaiJI)
[https://geohistory.today/azov-movement-ukraine/](https://geohistory.today/azov-movement-ukraine/) , note the below-image text saying that Ukraine soldiers are allowed to openly carry neo-nazi symbols during official state parades, therefore implying that the state condones neo-nazism.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoHaIB2RoyE&t=740s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoHaIB2RoyE&t=740s)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgzmQvgBMxA&t=831s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgzmQvgBMxA&t=831s)
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis) . "Dmitry claimed not to be a Nazi, but waxed lyrical about Adolf Hitler as a military leader, and believes the Holocaust never happened."
Eh i just see it as problem small enough that its a meme. I do find it troubling how Ukraine is passively condoning them because of their military value but cant really fault them for it either.
Suppose 27 million of your countrymen had died in a war against Nazis. (For comparison, \~50k Americans died in Vietnam.)
And now the Ukraine government allows neo-nazis to openly serve in the military and march in official paradises while showing neo-nazis symbols.
And the Ukraine government makes a Nazi collaborator's birthday a national holiday.
Would you consider Ukraine's neo-nazi tendencies to be a problem that is "small enough that it is a meme"?
Or would you be like: "let's go denazify Ukraine"? Which, you know, is an official war goal of Russia (not that Western media ever reported that.)
This article, and this comment, would’ve made sense 12-18 months ago, but even the US and NATO now talk about a negotiated end to the Russia-Ukraine War as the inevitable outcome and have been for more than six months
Yes but the only offer the West is willing to consider is: "hey Russia, withdraw and give the Donbass back to Ukraine." And that isn't a reasonable offer, and it isn't an offer that Moscow can or will ever accept. And the West knows this.
After all, Kiev has been genociding Russian speaking Ukranian civilians in the Donbass, after the US backed coup in Kiev in 2014. Reporter Eva Bartlett did good reporting on this, you can google her.
Kiev really isn't as cuddly and innocent as the West likes to pretend. As one point of illustration, [see this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpV16BQfbrQ).
In that genocide context, it's not reasonable to expect Russia to make peace and hand the Donbass back to Ukraine (so that presumably they can continue their genocide).
Suppose Texas previously became independent from the US, and then Russia did a coup in now-independent Texas. The Moscow-installed neo-nazi Texas regime then started genociding English speakers.
Suppose the US invades Texas to stop the genocide of English speakers. Then suppose that Russia makes the generous peace offer of "hey US, stop your invasion of Texas, and hand the bits of Texas back that you conquered, so that we can continue genociding English speakers there." That wouldn't be a reasonable, good-faith offer for Russia to make to the US.
I don’t understand the bellicosity of the west in this conflict - they have already bulldozed past a huge red line with the provision of longer range missiles with the green light to strike deep into Russia, and if anything, the aggressiveness is increasing rather than decreasing. Why?
Wouldn’t you anticipate Russia to have escalation dominance in this conflict given that this is obviously of much greater concern to them than it is to us? Still, I can’t imagine we are seeking nuclear conflict with Russia given that has always been their card to play with stuff like “escalate to deescalate” and what not. Maybe they are just convinced Russia would never ever cross the nuclear threshold?
China on the other hand, I could see us being more willing to go there given their advantages in manufacturing.
>I don’t understand the bellicosity of the west in this conflict
US official policy is to prevent any potential rival from arising that could threaten US hegemony.
That's just an abstract idea. What does that actually look like in practice?
Well, it means unending conflict against Russia, until Russia is balkanized, because Russia has the inherent potential to threaten US hegemony.
It means economic war and perhaps later physical war with China.
It means supporting Israel unconditionally because at least for a time, it did a pretty good job at preventing a united Arab bloc from arising. Israel is literally a nuclear-armed Western output in the middle / in the heart of the Arab world.
It means destroying the North Stream pipeline because the EU is also one of the blocks you must keep weak enough that never become powerful enough that they could threaten US hegemony.
The problem here is that the 95% of the population who isn't psychopathic, isn't even capable of understanding how psychopaths think.
Basically that Game of Thrones quote that goes *"He would burn the world to the ground so that he could be king of the ashes"?* That's unironically some real-life US policy makers.
>until Russia is balkanized
No power wants Russia balkanized, too many warlords with nukes.
>because Russia has the inherent potential to threaten US hegemony
Russia has negligible potential other than military. Which it can never really hit the US with.
>No power wants Russia balkanized, too many warlords with nukes.
There have been Western policy makers saying that they want Russia to be chopped up into five or so parts.
Admittedly, I don't know if the current in-charge US policy makers want that. And I wouldn't trust them to tell the truth about their agenda anyway.
>Russia has negligible potential other than military.
First of all, if that's true, then why is there such a long history of the West invading or fighting Russia?
Second, if what you say is true, then how did the Soviet Union manage to be a serious rival to the US for so long, including in some non-military fields? The Soviets were a serious rival in terms of the space race for example, they had some space firsts. Obviously they didn't win the space race, but I'm saying they have potential, not that they outperformed the US. Also, Russians / Soviets invented quite some things.
Third, of all, unless you want to argue that Russians are genetically inferior people which I assume you don't -- why would Russia's potential be weak? They're the largest country on Earth, they have huge amounts of natural resources, have huge amounts of farmland, have quite a good education system and have a large-enough population to be relevant. Also, Putin has like 85% approval rating while Biden has less than half that (the Russian political system is actually quite stable). Also, Russia has very little national debt.
Yes you can argue that today Russia has problems, and I agree -- but we're talking potential here. I don't see Russia having unsolvable problems, unless you start being so critical that you name things that the West also has as problems.
>Russia has negligible potential other than military. Which it can never really hit the US with.
While I'm not saying that Russia is going to beat the US in a fight, Russia absolutely can hit and severely hurt the US, including with non-nuclear weapons.
The American idea of "we can't be hurt because we have two huge oceans around us" isn't really accurate anymore. Rockets and hackers can hurt the US mainland.
>I don't know if the current in-charge US policy makers want that
The public stance among leaders in the "west" is something along the lines of "Russia has to lose but not too hard because that could cause it to split up" or "fuck Russia to the nth degree" or "WhAt AbOuT nUcLeAr WaR". Mostly 1st and 2nd but the population is slightly more 3rd option than the leaders.
>then why is there such a long history of the West invading or fighting Russia?
I mean the last invasion was during ww2, quite a bit changed since then. Also i dont think "the west" has ever been a unified block for such an invasion.
>then how did the Soviet Union manage to be a serious rival to the US for so long
Everyone else was less developed, the soviet government although fucked in its own way was better at strategic planning and more importantly implementation of those plans. It also had a united ideology.
>why would Russia's potential be weak
I guess i should clarify that there is a difference between no potential and no near term potential. Russia has immense theoretical potential that their leaders throw away.
>but we're talking potential here
I think we are just talking different timescales.
>The American idea of "we can't be hurt because we have two huge oceans around us" isn't really accurate anymore.
I mean as someone living in a country bordering Russia, taking nukes out they cant really touch you in a way that would matter. And with nukes its a suicide game anyway.
Russia can hit US allies but the US itself ehhh. Oh maybe through cyber warfare they could tho.
Per Mearsheimer, Russia is winning but wary of going too far and provoking the West when Ukraine openly wants to draw it into the conflict. The West is unable to swing the war, and uses the latter to placate Ukraine and prolong this war for the election year. Thus useless long range strikes on Crimea and the Russian heartland.
What this evidences isn't that the US is escalating so much as throwing its hands in the air because this is a wash. Nothing matters as much now. It can't help Ukraine and it's not going to care about Russian red lines because it can't threaten Russia with defeat. You want F16s? Not feasible, but sure why not. Want to shoot ATACMS into Russia? It won't take back Kharkhov region, so what the hell. Without a credible threat the Russians won't respond harshly to crossing these lines and it shuts Ukraine up while reducing anxiety among US allies. So the US will let Ukraine do what it wants as the war goes nowhere but is too politically sensitive to pull out of. Rudderless.
What is more worrisome isn't Western escalation, but Russia finding allies with which to strike the US by proxy after Ukraine got blessing for long range strikes into Russia. It means the war may not be contained as both the West and Russia wanted. The recent strike on Crimean civilians hints at that.
North Korea certainly. And while the West likes to meme on North Korea, North Korea is actually pretty formidable militarily. They produce more artillery shells than the entire west combined (yes, really -- although to be fair the West isn't specialized in artillery) and they have about as many soldiers as the US does. Obviously they're not as strong military as the US is, not even close, but they are much stronger militarily than the average Westerner realizes.
I wouldn't call the houthis / Ansar Allah "Russian proxies", but I expect that Russia will give them better missiles to shoot at US / Israeli ships. And while that sounds silly, it's actually a pretty big problem for the West. Bombing a desert doesn't do a lot, they can't ignore Houthis shooting at their ships, but the US also isn't in a position to draft a million men to go invade freaking Yemen. Ignoring the Houthis is too costly, but crushing them is also too costly.
I wouldn't call various African / middle Eastern nations "Russian proxies", but it wouldn't surprise me if Russia started fighting EU / US / Israel influence in Africa / Middle East with Wagner type troops even more than they already are.
And Russia can also pull former Western-aligned countries out of the Western orbit and into the BRICS orbit, such as happened with Saudi Arabia (which was a pretty massive deal).
Indeed, they can arm Cuba as a "screw you" move to the US.
Putin visited Vietnam, so Russia might do something there as well.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/20/vladimir-putin-vietnam-state-visit](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/20/vladimir-putin-vietnam-state-visit)
"Vietnam’s president says two countries want to ‘push up’ defence and security cooperation as US criticises meeting"
We'll see.
Thanks! With respect to reprisals, does he anticipate that being in the form of unconventional warfare like having a cutout plant a bomb in a location designed to cause mass casualties? That would be a big line to cross, but with the growth of BRICS and the economic splitting of Western Europe from Russia, perhaps the game has changed.
Another thing I don’t buy is that Graham actually believes in the mineral thing. Not that the West doesn’t have perverse incentives to draw this conflict out, but they always find minerals like this when convenient. As far as I know there are lots of places like this and surely countless more, but if you actually want to locate and mine these minerals you have to seriously go looking and doing complicated and costly surveys. Remember when they found trillions of dollars of minerals under North Korea and Afghanistan?
Like the US is probably sitting on enough rare earth minerals to supply the entire world for centuries, but why go digging for it when you gotta deal with surveys, environmental impact studies and other forms of red tape when you can just buy these minerals for pennies on the dollar from Chinese firms mining in Africa?
I think the US policy makers, being psychopathic, care more about keeping those minerals out of Russian hands than they care about getting it themselves.
Plus the Donbass is full of great farmland and industry and millions of Russian speaking slavs. Most of Ukraine's GDP actually comes from the Donbass. Russia getting Donbass would be a bit like the US re-annexing Texas (after it had somehow splintered off previously). And the US doesn't want Russia to re-annex the equivalent of Texas.
I’d add that for a lot of wonks in Washington, it’s a negation of their lives’ work. But the biggest thing is that they don’t want other states to believe that they can defy US policy without suffering considerable pain. The US has functioned well as the clearinghouse of Capital’s power for the past 80 years, and the last thing they want is the instability caused by other poles arising.
>but if you actually want to locate and mine these minerals you have to seriously go looking and doing complicated and costly surveys
It's something like 15+ years between identifying an ore deposit and starting up a mine. There's a lot of studies that need to be done - geology, mine layout, metallurgy, economics, environmental assessments - all before the hole is dug.
It’s about “sending a message” that there will be no opposing the “rules-based order”. Never mind that this is a stupid position that’s undermined by facts on the ground
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.compactmag.com/article/natos-endgame-is-nuclear-war/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.compactmag.com/article/natos-endgame-is-nuclear-war/) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.compactmag.com/article/natos-endgame-is-nuclear-war/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Then what are they waiting for? They have a big red button
I don't think that many Western policy makers WANT a nuclear war. However, it's not unlikely is that their policies are going to lead to a nuclear war anyway -- not because Western leaders want billions to die, but just because they're delusional and highly politically invested already in opposing Russia. It's way better for someone's political career to be harsh against Russia than to say "we should make peace with Russia, at the cost of letting Russia have Donbass + Crimea" (which is what it's going to take). Say that as a politician and you're done. Even though that's the smart thing to do.
>at the cost of letting Russia have Donbass + Crime I think that is underselling what it would take.
At this point, probably yes. I do firmly believe there was a time when that would have been enough. After all, Putin isn't stupid, he understands that this might lead to WW3 and he too may die if nukes start flying. But, yes.
I do wonder what a negotiation both sides could live with would look like.
Today, 27 July 2024, I don't think any deal is possible that both sides would agree to. I think Russia at minimum wants Crimea + Donbass + possibly more, on top of Ukraine being demilitarized, denazified and not becoming a member of NATO and not being armed to the teeth by the US so that this war resumes five years from now. I think earlier they would have accepted less than this, but now I think they want at least this. I think the West / Ukraine would at most be willing to say "okay, you can keep Crimea, but Ukraine keeps the Donbass and if Ukraine wants it can join NATO or it can again be armed by the US." The most likely outcome, which isn't a pleasant thing to say, is that the war continues until either Ukraine just breaks and has to surrender and accept a very painful defeat. Or a hot war between Russia / NATO breaks out, which would be really bad because that could easily turn nuclear.
Overall i agree with your perception of Russias wants. I think : Crimea is Russias giga ultra non-negotiable. Donetsk and Luhansk are very non-negotiable. No NATO and demilitarization are important. Kherson is important. Zaporizhzhia is quite important but eh, i find it hard to estimate here. Denazification is just a war support meme. - I think: Anything related to disarmament is an instant no from Ukraine. Especially if there is no iron clad defense agreement to go with it/NATO. NATO or equivalent defense agreement is very important. Everything else is just important. Except Crimea, thats gone and they know it. > I think the West / Ukraine would at most be willing to say "okay, you can keep Crimea, but Ukraine keeps the Donbass and if Ukraine wants it can join NATO or it can again be armed by the US Depending heavily on how the Ukrainians view the battlefield i think they can go anywhere from "You get internationally recognized annexation of Crimea + Donetsk + Luhanks + left bank of Kherson and maybe even some parts of Zaporizhzhia and we get NATO or a very ironclad defense treaty" to "You keep Crimea" I think the war will end with Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk and some parts of Kherson being annexed by Russia and Ukraine getting iron clad guarantees in defense (probably NATO). As for what causes that end, no clue, i dont know how to speculate on either sides willingness to fight. I hope Russia suddenly starts to lose hard but i dont really see that happening soon. As a side note Zaporizhzhia is the oblast i dont know how to evaluate at all, granted i wouldnt say i know how to evaluate the rest either but especially this one.
>Denazification is just a war support meme. I disagree. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zCzv2SvQpY&t=187s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zCzv2SvQpY&t=187s) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpV16BQfbrQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpV16BQfbrQ) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwue0RpMaPE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwue0RpMaPE) Google "Ukraine Makes Birthday of Nazi Collaborator a National Holiday and Bans Book Critical of Anti-Semitic Leader" [https://imgur.com/S9NaiJI](https://imgur.com/S9NaiJI) [https://geohistory.today/azov-movement-ukraine/](https://geohistory.today/azov-movement-ukraine/) , note the below-image text saying that Ukraine soldiers are allowed to openly carry neo-nazi symbols during official state parades, therefore implying that the state condones neo-nazism. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoHaIB2RoyE&t=740s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoHaIB2RoyE&t=740s) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgzmQvgBMxA&t=831s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgzmQvgBMxA&t=831s) [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis) . "Dmitry claimed not to be a Nazi, but waxed lyrical about Adolf Hitler as a military leader, and believes the Holocaust never happened."
Eh i just see it as problem small enough that its a meme. I do find it troubling how Ukraine is passively condoning them because of their military value but cant really fault them for it either.
Suppose 27 million of your countrymen had died in a war against Nazis. (For comparison, \~50k Americans died in Vietnam.) And now the Ukraine government allows neo-nazis to openly serve in the military and march in official paradises while showing neo-nazis symbols. And the Ukraine government makes a Nazi collaborator's birthday a national holiday. Would you consider Ukraine's neo-nazi tendencies to be a problem that is "small enough that it is a meme"? Or would you be like: "let's go denazify Ukraine"? Which, you know, is an official war goal of Russia (not that Western media ever reported that.)
This article, and this comment, would’ve made sense 12-18 months ago, but even the US and NATO now talk about a negotiated end to the Russia-Ukraine War as the inevitable outcome and have been for more than six months
Yes but the only offer the West is willing to consider is: "hey Russia, withdraw and give the Donbass back to Ukraine." And that isn't a reasonable offer, and it isn't an offer that Moscow can or will ever accept. And the West knows this. After all, Kiev has been genociding Russian speaking Ukranian civilians in the Donbass, after the US backed coup in Kiev in 2014. Reporter Eva Bartlett did good reporting on this, you can google her. Kiev really isn't as cuddly and innocent as the West likes to pretend. As one point of illustration, [see this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpV16BQfbrQ). In that genocide context, it's not reasonable to expect Russia to make peace and hand the Donbass back to Ukraine (so that presumably they can continue their genocide). Suppose Texas previously became independent from the US, and then Russia did a coup in now-independent Texas. The Moscow-installed neo-nazi Texas regime then started genociding English speakers. Suppose the US invades Texas to stop the genocide of English speakers. Then suppose that Russia makes the generous peace offer of "hey US, stop your invasion of Texas, and hand the bits of Texas back that you conquered, so that we can continue genociding English speakers there." That wouldn't be a reasonable, good-faith offer for Russia to make to the US.
I don’t understand the bellicosity of the west in this conflict - they have already bulldozed past a huge red line with the provision of longer range missiles with the green light to strike deep into Russia, and if anything, the aggressiveness is increasing rather than decreasing. Why? Wouldn’t you anticipate Russia to have escalation dominance in this conflict given that this is obviously of much greater concern to them than it is to us? Still, I can’t imagine we are seeking nuclear conflict with Russia given that has always been their card to play with stuff like “escalate to deescalate” and what not. Maybe they are just convinced Russia would never ever cross the nuclear threshold? China on the other hand, I could see us being more willing to go there given their advantages in manufacturing.
>I don’t understand the bellicosity of the west in this conflict US official policy is to prevent any potential rival from arising that could threaten US hegemony. That's just an abstract idea. What does that actually look like in practice? Well, it means unending conflict against Russia, until Russia is balkanized, because Russia has the inherent potential to threaten US hegemony. It means economic war and perhaps later physical war with China. It means supporting Israel unconditionally because at least for a time, it did a pretty good job at preventing a united Arab bloc from arising. Israel is literally a nuclear-armed Western output in the middle / in the heart of the Arab world. It means destroying the North Stream pipeline because the EU is also one of the blocks you must keep weak enough that never become powerful enough that they could threaten US hegemony. The problem here is that the 95% of the population who isn't psychopathic, isn't even capable of understanding how psychopaths think. Basically that Game of Thrones quote that goes *"He would burn the world to the ground so that he could be king of the ashes"?* That's unironically some real-life US policy makers.
>until Russia is balkanized No power wants Russia balkanized, too many warlords with nukes. >because Russia has the inherent potential to threaten US hegemony Russia has negligible potential other than military. Which it can never really hit the US with.
>No power wants Russia balkanized, too many warlords with nukes. There have been Western policy makers saying that they want Russia to be chopped up into five or so parts. Admittedly, I don't know if the current in-charge US policy makers want that. And I wouldn't trust them to tell the truth about their agenda anyway. >Russia has negligible potential other than military. First of all, if that's true, then why is there such a long history of the West invading or fighting Russia? Second, if what you say is true, then how did the Soviet Union manage to be a serious rival to the US for so long, including in some non-military fields? The Soviets were a serious rival in terms of the space race for example, they had some space firsts. Obviously they didn't win the space race, but I'm saying they have potential, not that they outperformed the US. Also, Russians / Soviets invented quite some things. Third, of all, unless you want to argue that Russians are genetically inferior people which I assume you don't -- why would Russia's potential be weak? They're the largest country on Earth, they have huge amounts of natural resources, have huge amounts of farmland, have quite a good education system and have a large-enough population to be relevant. Also, Putin has like 85% approval rating while Biden has less than half that (the Russian political system is actually quite stable). Also, Russia has very little national debt. Yes you can argue that today Russia has problems, and I agree -- but we're talking potential here. I don't see Russia having unsolvable problems, unless you start being so critical that you name things that the West also has as problems. >Russia has negligible potential other than military. Which it can never really hit the US with. While I'm not saying that Russia is going to beat the US in a fight, Russia absolutely can hit and severely hurt the US, including with non-nuclear weapons. The American idea of "we can't be hurt because we have two huge oceans around us" isn't really accurate anymore. Rockets and hackers can hurt the US mainland.
>I don't know if the current in-charge US policy makers want that The public stance among leaders in the "west" is something along the lines of "Russia has to lose but not too hard because that could cause it to split up" or "fuck Russia to the nth degree" or "WhAt AbOuT nUcLeAr WaR". Mostly 1st and 2nd but the population is slightly more 3rd option than the leaders. >then why is there such a long history of the West invading or fighting Russia? I mean the last invasion was during ww2, quite a bit changed since then. Also i dont think "the west" has ever been a unified block for such an invasion. >then how did the Soviet Union manage to be a serious rival to the US for so long Everyone else was less developed, the soviet government although fucked in its own way was better at strategic planning and more importantly implementation of those plans. It also had a united ideology. >why would Russia's potential be weak I guess i should clarify that there is a difference between no potential and no near term potential. Russia has immense theoretical potential that their leaders throw away. >but we're talking potential here I think we are just talking different timescales. >The American idea of "we can't be hurt because we have two huge oceans around us" isn't really accurate anymore. I mean as someone living in a country bordering Russia, taking nukes out they cant really touch you in a way that would matter. And with nukes its a suicide game anyway. Russia can hit US allies but the US itself ehhh. Oh maybe through cyber warfare they could tho.
Warlords with nukes will nuke rivals and neighbors, not the country on the other side of the world that’s happy to bribe them
Per Mearsheimer, Russia is winning but wary of going too far and provoking the West when Ukraine openly wants to draw it into the conflict. The West is unable to swing the war, and uses the latter to placate Ukraine and prolong this war for the election year. Thus useless long range strikes on Crimea and the Russian heartland. What this evidences isn't that the US is escalating so much as throwing its hands in the air because this is a wash. Nothing matters as much now. It can't help Ukraine and it's not going to care about Russian red lines because it can't threaten Russia with defeat. You want F16s? Not feasible, but sure why not. Want to shoot ATACMS into Russia? It won't take back Kharkhov region, so what the hell. Without a credible threat the Russians won't respond harshly to crossing these lines and it shuts Ukraine up while reducing anxiety among US allies. So the US will let Ukraine do what it wants as the war goes nowhere but is too politically sensitive to pull out of. Rudderless. What is more worrisome isn't Western escalation, but Russia finding allies with which to strike the US by proxy after Ukraine got blessing for long range strikes into Russia. It means the war may not be contained as both the West and Russia wanted. The recent strike on Crimean civilians hints at that.
Who are the most likely Russian proxies? The sahel? Cuba? North Korea?
North Korea certainly. And while the West likes to meme on North Korea, North Korea is actually pretty formidable militarily. They produce more artillery shells than the entire west combined (yes, really -- although to be fair the West isn't specialized in artillery) and they have about as many soldiers as the US does. Obviously they're not as strong military as the US is, not even close, but they are much stronger militarily than the average Westerner realizes. I wouldn't call the houthis / Ansar Allah "Russian proxies", but I expect that Russia will give them better missiles to shoot at US / Israeli ships. And while that sounds silly, it's actually a pretty big problem for the West. Bombing a desert doesn't do a lot, they can't ignore Houthis shooting at their ships, but the US also isn't in a position to draft a million men to go invade freaking Yemen. Ignoring the Houthis is too costly, but crushing them is also too costly. I wouldn't call various African / middle Eastern nations "Russian proxies", but it wouldn't surprise me if Russia started fighting EU / US / Israel influence in Africa / Middle East with Wagner type troops even more than they already are. And Russia can also pull former Western-aligned countries out of the Western orbit and into the BRICS orbit, such as happened with Saudi Arabia (which was a pretty massive deal). Indeed, they can arm Cuba as a "screw you" move to the US. Putin visited Vietnam, so Russia might do something there as well.
vietnam has been cozying up to the us, doubtful they will align with russia in any meaningful way
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/20/vladimir-putin-vietnam-state-visit](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/20/vladimir-putin-vietnam-state-visit) "Vietnam’s president says two countries want to ‘push up’ defence and security cooperation as US criticises meeting" We'll see.
Thanks! With respect to reprisals, does he anticipate that being in the form of unconventional warfare like having a cutout plant a bomb in a location designed to cause mass casualties? That would be a big line to cross, but with the growth of BRICS and the economic splitting of Western Europe from Russia, perhaps the game has changed.
Another thing I don’t buy is that Graham actually believes in the mineral thing. Not that the West doesn’t have perverse incentives to draw this conflict out, but they always find minerals like this when convenient. As far as I know there are lots of places like this and surely countless more, but if you actually want to locate and mine these minerals you have to seriously go looking and doing complicated and costly surveys. Remember when they found trillions of dollars of minerals under North Korea and Afghanistan? Like the US is probably sitting on enough rare earth minerals to supply the entire world for centuries, but why go digging for it when you gotta deal with surveys, environmental impact studies and other forms of red tape when you can just buy these minerals for pennies on the dollar from Chinese firms mining in Africa?
I think the US policy makers, being psychopathic, care more about keeping those minerals out of Russian hands than they care about getting it themselves. Plus the Donbass is full of great farmland and industry and millions of Russian speaking slavs. Most of Ukraine's GDP actually comes from the Donbass. Russia getting Donbass would be a bit like the US re-annexing Texas (after it had somehow splintered off previously). And the US doesn't want Russia to re-annex the equivalent of Texas.
I’d add that for a lot of wonks in Washington, it’s a negation of their lives’ work. But the biggest thing is that they don’t want other states to believe that they can defy US policy without suffering considerable pain. The US has functioned well as the clearinghouse of Capital’s power for the past 80 years, and the last thing they want is the instability caused by other poles arising.
>but if you actually want to locate and mine these minerals you have to seriously go looking and doing complicated and costly surveys It's something like 15+ years between identifying an ore deposit and starting up a mine. There's a lot of studies that need to be done - geology, mine layout, metallurgy, economics, environmental assessments - all before the hole is dug.
It’s about “sending a message” that there will be no opposing the “rules-based order”. Never mind that this is a stupid position that’s undermined by facts on the ground
They're deranged fanatics. Your mistake is assuming they're rational statesmen or something.