Jun 24, 2022·edited Jun 24, 2022Liked by Brad Pearce
Since it was clear right from the beginning what would happen "if the Nato barks at the Russian border" (as pope Francesco puts it) or that the "Joint statement on the US-Ukraine strategic partnership" amounts essentially to a declaration of war against Russia the question arises why the geopolitical strategists have been provoking this war. One obvious reason is to cut off Russia from Europe - or to cut off Europe from Russia - a task which seems to have worked out quite well. But there could be another reason: Dragging Russia into a long and tiresome war in Ukraine diverting thus energy and attention to launch a surprise first nuclear strike against the Russian nuclear missiles sites. The advent of "invisible" aircrafts and "undetectable" ipersonic missiles (invisible for the radar based ballistic missiles defense system) have changed the long standing standoff concerning nuclear war in which a nuclear attack was rendered basically impossible because of the certainty to receive an equally destructive retaliation. This situation of nuclear deterrence is being changed profoundly in these days because "invisible" aircraft and "undetectable" ipersonic missiles allow a nuclear first strike against adverse nuclear missiles sites without being intercepted by bmd systems. All the defending side can do is trying to hide its sites, but the sites themselves become not just extremely vulnerable, but basically undefendable. In a situation where both sides have not detectable armaments the first strike strategy might become actually a military imperative. (My two cents)
My biggest argument is that Putin was always going to invade, but based off of the milquetoast reaction of Biden, he knew an invasion wouldn't "hurt" Russia.
What proof do I have for my assertion? 2 things: 1) Putin started amassing troops on the border 39 days after Biden was inaguarated, and 2) Russia already invaded 8 years prior, and seized 2 large territories of a sovereign country (also shot down a commercial airline while they were at it, but that was all acceptable to Obama 8 years ago). Putin's move 8 years later was to "finish the job" started under Obama.
“But I will tell you one thing: despite all we’ve been told, this seems to be going incredibly well for Putin and Russia, militarily, economically, and diplomatically.” Perfectly stated, and brilliant title for the piece.
Here's something I wrote about the problem of dirty hands. I specifically discuss Machiavelli and how he has been misconstrued (because people don't read)... https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=21
Since it was clear right from the beginning what would happen "if the Nato barks at the Russian border" (as pope Francesco puts it) or that the "Joint statement on the US-Ukraine strategic partnership" amounts essentially to a declaration of war against Russia the question arises why the geopolitical strategists have been provoking this war. One obvious reason is to cut off Russia from Europe - or to cut off Europe from Russia - a task which seems to have worked out quite well. But there could be another reason: Dragging Russia into a long and tiresome war in Ukraine diverting thus energy and attention to launch a surprise first nuclear strike against the Russian nuclear missiles sites. The advent of "invisible" aircrafts and "undetectable" ipersonic missiles (invisible for the radar based ballistic missiles defense system) have changed the long standing standoff concerning nuclear war in which a nuclear attack was rendered basically impossible because of the certainty to receive an equally destructive retaliation. This situation of nuclear deterrence is being changed profoundly in these days because "invisible" aircraft and "undetectable" ipersonic missiles allow a nuclear first strike against adverse nuclear missiles sites without being intercepted by bmd systems. All the defending side can do is trying to hide its sites, but the sites themselves become not just extremely vulnerable, but basically undefendable. In a situation where both sides have not detectable armaments the first strike strategy might become actually a military imperative. (My two cents)
Excellent read--thank you!
My biggest argument is that Putin was always going to invade, but based off of the milquetoast reaction of Biden, he knew an invasion wouldn't "hurt" Russia.
What proof do I have for my assertion? 2 things: 1) Putin started amassing troops on the border 39 days after Biden was inaguarated, and 2) Russia already invaded 8 years prior, and seized 2 large territories of a sovereign country (also shot down a commercial airline while they were at it, but that was all acceptable to Obama 8 years ago). Putin's move 8 years later was to "finish the job" started under Obama.
“But I will tell you one thing: despite all we’ve been told, this seems to be going incredibly well for Putin and Russia, militarily, economically, and diplomatically.” Perfectly stated, and brilliant title for the piece.