Based on the way Russia reacted to provocations in the past, I'm not expecting a dramatic response myself. At the same time, sooner or later a line will be crossed where Russia will be forced to show that further escalation will not be tolerated. The war in Ukraine itself is an example of a response to a red line finally being crossed. It's hard to say whether Kursk is another such line.
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
45 points (95.9% liked)
Death to NATO
1551 readers
78 users here now
For posting news about NATO's wars in Ukraine, Serbia, Kosovo, and The Middle East, including anywhere else NATO is currently engaged in hostile actions. As well as anything that relates to it.
Rules:
-
Follow Site Rules
-
No support nor defence of Western-backed governments, NATO or Western Imperialism
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I have to be honest short of uniformed NATO troops (or say 50,000 non-uniformed but clearly NATO troops) marching into the battlefield I just don't see it happening.
Even if they let Ukraine launch their F-16s from Poland I'm convinced all that would happen would be Russia carefully targeting that portion of the Polish airfield with hypersonic missiles and nothing more. No nuclear, no escalation to wide-spread bombing of Poland. It would all be very contained and obvious tit-for-tat that isn't even escalation.
I think the west is going to continue salami-slicing their way to do whatever short of direct large-scale NATO troop involvement.
Latest reporting says Ukraine will be allowed to use US ATACMs and other long-range western supplied and operated missiles to strike deep into Russia. I don't think this will change Russia's behavior, they'll continue to try and destroy such things but they don't have the global massive surveillance network of satellites and other things that the US has so it still takes time to find and destroy these, it won't be sped up by them doing that. Russia is not going to get suddenly angry and pull a bunch of extra missile production capacity and usage out of nowhere and throw it at Ukraine, I think it looks like they're already committing their forces to the degree they feel comfortable with given the threat of a wider war necessitating some reserves still be maintained.
So gradually as the situation worsens for Ukraine they're going to be allowed to inflict worse and worse attacks on Russian civilians which is fine and beloved by western planners as a way they think to undermine support for Putin and terrorize the Russian people into submission or at least punish them enough they and others looking on will never dare rise against them again.
Both Russia and the west have accepted the idea of a long war of attrition. The west's job in their mind is to make that war as miserable for Russian people as possible, to inflict as much damage on Russia, to bleed them as much as they can before the fighting stops. And the west I still think holds out hope that they will pull more production out and be able to supply Ukraine enough they can force a stalemate which they can count as a win.
More than that though they just can't back down. The Democratic side and their bourgeoisie have doubled down on attacking Russia, I mean they're arresting former weapons inspectors and searching the homes of conservative Nixon political magazine acolytes because they're too close to Russia and they want to slap them with FARA violations. Now if Trump gets into office there is a slim chance he just winds it down because there are other voices who want Iran, who want China and don't think this war with Russia was the right way to go (for that it's worth it certainly seems the FBI and the security state have fully thrown themselves behind the Democrat's plan as opposed to that of Republicans or perhaps the Democrats have chosen the plan they most wanted enacted). There's also the chance he demands Russia make peace with unacceptable terms and escalates too but I just don't see anything but at BEST a slow war with the gloves off by the west until Ukraine's ranks fully break and they are routed under Kamala with the possibility she does her cop act and turns up the heat all the way to direct war.
I mean the reality is that none of these provocations are going to change the direction of the conflict. Given that, it makes sense why Russia doesn't want things to escalate in a significant way since it would require more resources on Russia's part, and would introduce unpredictability. If things keep going the way they are, Russia will win the war, and it's looking like that might happen within months now.
The primary goal of stunts like Kursk incursion is to convince western public that Ukraine still hasn't lost the war. For example, here's how the polling in US changed as a result
However, in terms of actual military strategy, this was a terrible move because it further accelerated the fall of Donbas. Once Russia splits the front in two between the north and the south, then it's gg well played for Ukraine. They will end up in two big cauldrons, and they will not be able to reinforce each other. The supply lines to the south will be completely cut as well. This will be the start of the general collapse of the AFU. I think this was always the plan, but Kursk sped things up significantly.
This has been the general trend throughout the war incidentally. Ukraine is always forced to hold territory long past the time it should've retreated because they're fighting a media circus. Russian army is free to make decisions without having to worry about the optics. This gives Russia a massive strategic advantage in the war.
Meanwhile, with regards to the west, Russia's been taking an asymmetric approach. They're strengthening their economic alliances with the Global South, and getting countries to join BRICS. They're now creating military alliances with DRPK and Iran, and pushing the west out of Africa and Syria. While the west is fixating on Ukraine, the empire is getting squeezed out from the rest of the world. In a sense, there's a much bigger global war of attrition happening between the west and the rest right now, and the west is losing it.
For example, here’s how the polling in US changed as a result
Huh, the average AmeriKKKan is even more braindead than I thought. I guess you learn something new each day (and the west will never fail to disappoint)
Although, it's worth noting that the graph is a bit misleading as it shows that 22% think that Ukraine is winning, but doesn't show 62% who didn't express an opinion. So most Americans either don’t think anyone is winning or do not care.
The average American is the 62% that isn't sure because they don't follow the war
I wonder if the west perceived Ukraine as a win-win for them in that they thought either Ukraine loses and they have all they need to then manufacture consent for direct war with Russia, or they win and NATO completes it's objective and is on Russia's doorstep now. Obviously that's irresponsible and crazy to us but we don't think in Empire Logic. Tfw when your state wages a war of attrition and starts atrophying :O
I think the original plan was based on a profound misunderstanding of Russian economy where the west drank its own kool aid regarding Russia having nominal GDP the size of Italy. The idea was that once the war started, western sanctions would swiftly crush Russian economy, and then there would be a possibility for regime change, and possibly even Balkanization of Russia.
Except, things didn't work out that way. Turned out that Russian military industrial base was bigger than all of the west combined, and on top of that China and India refused to go along with the sanctions which made the whole plan unworkable out of the gate.
It's also important to note that there is very little public support in the west for a direct war with Russia, hence why we continue to see the whole the west is not a party to the conflict narrative. The only option western leaders had was to continue using Ukraine as a proxy and to feed weapons there. After nearly three years of the war, it looks like the west is starting to hit the limits of the material support that it's able to provide, and the economic situation in the west continues to deteriorate as a result of the economic war.
It's really not clear to me what cards the west has left to play at this point.
Yeah I agree that this is probably going to end in the mother of all Blowbacks. It's fascinating (and scary) how the elite think that they can literally control reality, just because they can manufacture consent by lying 24/7 and having their media and cultural complex sell it. Like gods. But hey, they also think that financial speculation is the same thing as actual value and production so maybe it's not a big leap. I wonder if old school imperialists like Randolph Hearst were self-aware or if they too actually believed their own hype.
I suspect this is rooted in the idealist ideology liberals subscribe to. Idealists contend that ideas and thoughts are more fundamental than physical objects and events. In this view, reality is not solely determined by material circumstances but also shaped by our perceptions, beliefs, and values. Thus, idealism suggests the primacy of the mind over material reality, emphasizing that mental constructs can influence or even supersede tangible aspects of existence.
This inclination towards an abstract realm fosters a belief that one can conjure change by sheer willpower alone. Such idealistic perspectives often cause liberals to overlook practical considerations such as production capabilities and supply chains, leading to unrealistic expectations that remain elusive in the face of reality.
I guess being rich enough that you barely ever experience any consequences for your actions will give you the impression that yes, you do deserve to have all the wealth and power and this system is inherently good. If it gives them everything they could possibly need, it must therefore be good, right? Their utopia is our dystopia. A sober reminder that humans can believe ANYTHING under the right material conditions.
If the Ukrainians think that Russia is doing crimes against Ukrainians now just wait and see what crimes the blue helmets are gonna start doing in Ukraine when they're brought in.
ive been reading "Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam" and at some point the author points out that anti war people before the amerikkkan war in Vietnam predicted that North Vietnam would be the most bombed country in history but it actually ended up being South Vietnam their own supposed allies. Having amerikkkans "defend" "you" is probably worse than literally nothing.
The reaction to kursk will not be flashy. It will simply be another cold change of rules.
New targets targeted by cruise missiles, harsher terms for Ukrainian surrender.
We saw this after Ukraine took advantage of Russian withdrawal from kiev breaking the tacit agreement of having peace talks in exchange for the withdrawal. Russia kept attacking and stopped accepting peace talks where Ukraine doesnt accept their terms.
We saw this after Ukraine retook kharkov and attacked the kerch bridge (crimea was not part of the fighting area). Russia started punishing Ukrainian power transmission capacity.
Exactly, and in addition I expect Russia will increase exports of advanced weapons to Iran, DPRK, Syria, etc.
That's my thinking as well. I am actually kinda expecting them to do something as they had been responding to attacks on their refineries and looking at the ammount of refinneries, air bases and other things that have been hit recently toghether with the whole Kursk incursion and the west giving green light for the use of their weapons inside Russia, they kinda of are pressed to do what could be the biggest attack since the war started, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just pretend nothing of this happened too and just continue pushing in the east as they may think they will win soon.
But if they do actually do something perhaps they could take the opportunity to do it at the same time as Iran and Yemen, and even others as well, to really show that a red line has been crossed.
Exactly, Russia always has the option of asymmetric response. The people who need to know will know, while that won't escalate the conflict in the eyes of the general public. For example, this might be part of the response https://apnews.com/article/turkey-russia-patrols-syria-ypg-assad-89fcd22474497bff737b87ae6b214b3e
If US backed rebels get cleared out in Syria, then US bases there will become untenable, and US will lose control over the refineries and food producing regions. The oil that US steals from Syria goes directly to Israel, and losing that would create logistics problems for both.
What could 'severe punishment' mean?
Missile strikes in Western Ukraine, destruction of productive capabilities, disabling/denying various critical inflows of fuel, electricity, steel, etc.
How amazing would it be if BRICS sanctioned Ukraine?
What could it mean? Who knows. Russia likes to talk big but does balk at actually hitting the west. They draw red lines, the west cross them, they step back and draw some more with vague threats and glances back at their actual red line that results in use of nuclear weapons which is direct, open western troop involvement.
Like China who likes to draw red lines that the US ignores it's easy to say these things, harder to actually do something severe when you're staring down an unhinged, amoral, deranged, entitled mad civilization and empire like the US who's just glaring with a twitching eye at you and an unhinged look on their face who is likely to take any excuse, any affront to their power and sense of superiority and invincibility to react with full force and enter an unescapable escalation spiral that leads to total war. Unfortunately this leads to even more NATO/US western arrogance and boundary pushing, to salami-slice tactics, etc.
So the consequences as usual will be born by Ukrainians. Most likely doing things like taking out more/most of Ukraine's transport and electricity infrastructure to cripple them and their supply lines.
Otherwise it's most likely just talk which will be followed by some more strikes against hard military targets. But these kinds of strikes aren't really meaningful or different because well it's not like Russia is holding one hand behind their back, it's not like they know the location of Ukrainian command and control centers and intelligence bunkers run with the CIA and are just choosing not to bomb them until moments like this. So they'll do a strike they'd do anyways but film it and release that film and say that's their punishment.
The reason the Russians haven't just bombed the SBU's headquarters or other targets like that in Kiev is because they know that's not where most operations are coordinated from these days (and leaving them intact in the hope they can eventually track someone from there who messes up and leads them somewhere more interesting) but they don't know where these bunkers that the CIA helped them build under forests are where they actually are coordinating from. For that matter these bunkers could very well be in the far west of Ukraine out of reach of the kind of heavy bombs needed to penetrate them or for that matter in Poland for all we know.
it's like that Bill Hicks skit about the US being Jack Palance in the movie Shane. He throws a gun on the ground and tells some poor guy who was just on his way into town to pick up groceries to "pick up the gun" from the ground so he can shoot him for having a gun.
Whatever peace deals were on the table are off and this war's probably extended by another 2yrs because of the kursk invasion.
Peace deals don't matter as they were never going to happen and like the Minsk agreements were just a delaying tactic, an attempt to stall, maybe try and get an armistice to allow Ukraine to regroup. The west wasn't going to settle for a loss until they've used up nearly every Ukrainian as fodder or Ukraine was suffering a complete collapse of their front and even then they want terms that make them look better like holding onto some territory that's part of Russia now or getting into NATO, not signing neutrality, etc.
But I agree whatever terms Ukraine can get are getting worse and worse. And part of me thinks that's the point from the west's point of view, it gives them more motive to fight on which is what the west wants.
The peace deals were reportedly off the table for good after Ukraine started its incursions in Russia in Feb 2024 after losing avdeevka.
Ukraine has sealed its fate now, probably for the better of natives in these areas.
They will at least lose sumy, kharkov, donbass, zaporozhye and kherson. And accept that they lost crimea long ago. And probably they should be happy they won't lose dnipropetrovsk and nikolayev.
Lmao at the idea that Russian or Ukrainian operations slow in winter. They are postponed or slower in mud season, and not so much lately.