A two parter really: in the first half an in-depth look at potential developments in US military policies prompted by the Ukraine war.
Nothing particularly shocking here for those who have been paying attention and as the analysis says it is unlikely that the US can turn its military decline around. (Ignore the insert by the conservative author about identity politics and quotas in the US military, none of that has no relevance or bearing on anything being discussed here; the rest of the article is solid.)
The more interesting part comes in the second half with the discussion of a recent RAND think tank paper that reveals how the Atlanticists are desperate to try and find ways to push Russia’s buttons to get them to escalate, as things are not going well for the West in Ukraine and they desperately need a PR win and a casus belli for more direct intervention.
Just as with previous papers from this neocon think tank, such as the one about “extending Russia” which provided a roadmap to provoking conflict in Ukraine which was followed almost to the letter, we can expect most of their proposals for various escalations and provocations to be implemented sooner or later.
I wonder/worry whether NATO could plan a similar anti-Russia stunt in Estonia, tbh. The next provocation might not be in Ukraine and if it isn’t, it kinda supports a lot of the propaganda narrative about Russian plans. I doubt Putin would go for it, though, as he seems/ed more concerned with NATO nukes so close to Moscow rather than attacks on ethnic Russians.
This is just my own hypothesis as of now, based on the events and behaviours displayed:
Project Ukraine got started in the Obama years (likely as a response to Russian intervention in Syria), and the plan probably was to have Hillary carry it onwards. However, Hillary failed to get elected and the whole thing got frozen. This is probably one of the reasons why Democrats were so quick to shout that Trump was a Russian puppet. Because he wouldn’t go along with their plans for Ukraine. They even tried to impeach him when he tried to roll back their progress at rearming Ukraine for the upcoming war. These 2 actions show how the Democratic establishment viewed the world through the lens of fighting Russia. As such, they used Trump’s presidency to stir up the US public in an anti-Russian hysteria, so they could better present the Ukraine war when it came.
Once Biden got elected, the Project was going to get back on track, but first they had to deal with Covid as quickly as possible, because nobody would accept fighting/financing a war during a pandemic. As soon as the pandemic started retreating, then Ukraine intensified their Donbass shelling, and in February the war began.
As things stand currently, this multi-year, multi-term project has utterly failed. If Democrats lose their elections, then the whole thing will collapse. But even if Democrats win, then there’s not going to be much willingness to back the people who orchestrated this (like Victoria Nuland or Anthony Blinken) or repeat the whole thing again on a now-vigilant Russia. On the contrary, there’s momentum for focusing on China, so that shift will probably occur as soon as this mess is over. We see the same hallmarks before the elections:
anti-Chinese propaganda focused on how China is spying on the West (balloons, spy stories), how China is an expansionist force (poor Taiwan, artificial islands), and how China is interfering in American politics and the economy (hysteria over Chinese investments in third-world countries, microchips, Chinese companies bribing European politicians etc).
constant tears over poor defenseless Taiwan
the US is furious at the recent African coups and will likely soon start blaming China (and Russia) for them.
–
All that is missing is a “China puppet”.
So, I don’t think that NATO will try steering shit near Russia in the near future again IF the Ukraine war is over. They still might try steering up shit with Russia right now in Ukraine. This would allow the next Democratic candidate to continue the Ukraine war, or force the next Republican candidate to continue it as well. It might also safe them face for the upcoming elections.
Recently:
US and Turkish ships have provoked Russian Black Sea Fleet ships on patrol, using unmanned boats and dangerous maneuvers on near-collision course.
Ukrainian irregular units have tried crossing the northern borders and stir shit up in Russian villages near Kursk.
For the first time, a Ukrainian regular unit tried to invade the Kursk area in Russia proper
Intensification of drone strikes and artillery attacks, which are increasingly brazen and increasingly more obvious that they are performed under NATO satellite intelligence.
UK (and I think Germany?) announcing that they will be sending instructors in Ukraine to train new Ukrainian units, essentially turning British (and German?) military personell into legitimate targets in a warring country.
Good points. It’s strange but your comment made me realise that Nuland and Blinken are operating under the Dems. Shocking how anyone can think the Dems are progressive when these two are on the roster.
I agree with almost everything you said here, just bear in mind the point that @freagle made: the arming of Ukraine still happened regardless who was president.
Indeed, but I’m saying that currently a good chunk of Republicans are advocating for a shift towards China. So if they win the elections, we can expect that to be where the next provocation will occur. If they lose, then they can be expected to hinder the efforts in Ukraine or near the Russian border until they get their way. Previously, they were more willing to engage in the Ukraine adventure, even if Trump was president.
That’s true, circumstances have changed, the war on China is a much more pressing issue today and the Ukraine misadventure is increasingly viewed as a distraction.
The problem with this framing is that Trump was the first president ever to authorize weapons transfers to Ukraine. Obama wouldn’t give Ukraine weapons because it was considered too provocative.
It’s more likely that Trump’s behavior with extorting Ukraine was either a rogue move that served the interest of the cabal around Epstein (he trafficked many young children from Eastern Europe), or it was part of the planned operation to get Zelensky to heel.
Very good and correct point!
You better get royalties for this episode of Blowback 😂
lol :D
In my opinion, if there are people who think that way they are very much miscalculating. Instead of rallying renewed western support behind the war on Russia, what provoking Russia to intervene in the Baltics would do is expose NATO’s alleged commitment to defense of its members as a bluff. With the exception of a few delusional fanatics like the UK, the other Baltics and maybe Poland, the rest of NATO would likely chicken out. Or can you see Germany and France choosing to fight a war with Russia over some Baltic backwater? Especially when Russia will have clearly and severely been provoked…
And the US doesn’t want to commit its own military to a massive war in Europe because they need everything they have and more for the much more important war they want to have with China. It would be an unmitigated disaster for whoever tried to send their own troops to fight Russia and the backlash at home over such horrific casualties would be enormous. NATO would likely disintegrate as a result. And with the exception of a few diehard anti-Russia freaks i suspect most of NATO knows this so they will always stop just short of actually forcing Russia to go to war with a NATO country.
Just my opinion. Can’t say i’m eager to have it put to the test though, the risks for an uncontrollable escalation are still considerable.
Great points. I really hope you’re right that they don’t test the relationship. I think you are right about what would happen to the organisation. But it wouldn’t be without it’s casualties.