|
|
By Paul Craig Roberts, Institute for Political Economy
Consider the conflict that seems to be shaping up. The Russian offensive is on hold as the Kremlin went to war without sufficient soldiers and no reserves. This passed the initiative to Ukraine fortified with Western weapons.
Ukraine launched two offensives. The one in the south failed. Ukraine suffered heavy casualties in soldiers and equipment. The one in the north succeeded in forcing a Russian pullback, but at heavy cost to Ukraine’s forces, not to Russia’s.
A month from now 300,000 Russian soldiers called up by the Kremlin will be deploying. If these soldiers are well trained and equipped and motivated, Ukraine’s forces, ground down in unsuccessful offenses, are likely to be overwhelmed even if Putin continues his Goody Two Shoes behavior of doing little to prevent Kiev’s ability to conduct war.
Faced with Ukraine’s defeat, what will Washington do?
Will Washington have organized a “coalition of the willing,” as General David Petraeus suggests, and bring boots on the ground to Ukraine’s rescue?
Do we take seriously the statements of General John Lubas, deputy commander of the U.S. 101 Airborne Division, that his forces are a “combat deployment” 3 miles from the Ukraine border and are “fully prepared” to cross into Ukraine at a moment’s notice to fight against Russia?
What happens if they do? Normally, airborne troops lack the heavy weapons of infantry. The lightly armed airborne division would possibly be cut to pieces by the heavy armor of Russian heavy infantry.
If so, how does Washington react to such a defeat and loss of such a prestigious division as the “Screaming Eagles”?
I think we all know that the result would be escalation by Washington.
So, where is Putin’s “limited military operation” headed? Armageddon seems the certain destination. If ever a conflict needed to be ended quickly and decisively, it was Russia’s intervention in Donbass. By trying to limit the conflict, Putin has greatly expanded it.
Consider other dangers with which the situation is fraught:
- A false flag dirty bomb that the Western presstitutes pin on Russia, thus ginning up more outrage to support more war against Russia.
- Ukraine destroys a dam that floods Kherson, and Russia responds by destroying a dam whose released waters deliver a large part of Ukraine into Russian hands.
- A new more dangerous “Covid variant,” such as the one developed at Boston University, suddenly appears among the Russian troops, rendering them ineffective.
Despite all evidence, the Kremlin still seems to have naive expectations.
The Kremlin discovered Ukraine’s ability to produce a dirty bomb and alerted the West, asking the UN for an investigation. Washington’s response is to accuse Russia of making a dirty bomb to use in a false flag operation in order to justify Russia escalating the war. It seems that there will be a dirty bomb blamed on Russia and used to harden opposition to any favorable outcome for Russia from the conflict.
On top of it all, the media in Finland report that the government places no limits on NATO’s presence in Finland, including nuclear weapons. Clearly Russia cannot accept nuclear weapons deployed in Finland.
Notice that no one in the West is making any effort toward de-escalation of the conflict. All movement is toward escalation. In order to prevent Russia from reincorporating territory that is historically Russian, we are going to escalate right up to nuclear war, which means the extinction of life on Earth.
The beginning of End Times was 2014 when Washington overthrew the elected Ukrainian government and installed an anti-Russian puppet government. The Kremlin let pass the opportunity to prevent the conflict which began in the Donbass by refusing Donbass’ request to be reincorporated into Russia like Crimea. Russia then waited 8 years while a Ukrainian army was trained and equipped and poised to overthrow the Donbass republics.
When the Kremlin had to intervene, it did so in a limited, ineffective way that gave the West ample time to widen the war, making a mockery of Putin’s claim of a “limited military operation.”
What was required of Russia was a dramatic show of force and immediate end to the conflict, but the Kremlin failed to understand the situation and blundered into placing the initiative in Washington’s hands, which has resulted in an ever widening war that no one in the Western governments shows any desire to stop.
The road to Armageddon seems to be unobstructed and completely open.
People whine about global warming, while ignoring the threat of nuclear winter. No discussion or even acknowledgment of the threat. No peace movement. No voices calling attention to the extinction of mankind that stares us in the face. Instead, we get reassurances that the U.S. and Russian militaries won’t permit nuclear war.
What are these assurances based on? Certainly not on the war doctrines of the two countries. The U.S. and Russian defense ministries have made no joint declaration that they will not engage in nuclear war. If nuclear war is not on the table, what is the purpose of President Obama’s trillion dollar nuclear force modernization?
What is the purpose of the rushed upgrade of U.S. nuclear bombs based in Europe?
How do we survive when vastly more political effort is directed at transgendering children and discrediting Trump than in de-escalating a conflict far more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis?
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author[s] and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Trends Journal.