Peloni: So will Putin stay the course or respond in kind to the insane escalation taken by NATO authorization allowing targeting deep into Russia over the next two months?
Andrew Korybko | Nov 18, 2024
It remains unclear what Putin will ultimately do, but whichever of these two choices he makes will determine the trajectory of this conflict from now on, either more escalation or a possible compromise.
Reports emerged on Sunday that the US finally approved Ukraine’s request to use long-range ATACMS missiles against targets inside of Russia’s pre-2014 borders, which was followed by other reports claiming that France and the UK then followed suit. They’ve yet to be used at the time of writing, but Zelensky ominously implied later that day that this could happen very soon. The reason why this is the moment of truth is because Putin earlier warned that it would amount to NATO’s direct involvement in the conflict.
This analysis here about Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine hyperlinks to eight related analyses about everything from “red lines” to the “war of attrition” that readers should review for background context. It also points out how this new policy “regard[s] an aggression against Russia from any non-nuclear state but involving or supported by any nuclear state as their joint attack against the Russian Federation” in Putin’s own words. The stakes therefore haven’t ever been this high.
The reason why the US only just now greenlit Ukraine’s request is because the outgoing ruling collective wants to create the conditions for ensuring that Trump either perpetuates or escalates the conflict. There was concern after his historic electoral victory that he’d completely cut Ukraine off of aid and thus hand Russia its desired maximum victory that would then lead to the US’ worst-ever strategic defeat. It was explained here, here, and here, however, that he was always more likely to “escalate to de-escalate”.
In any case, what’s most important is how perceptions of those who are still in power shape their policy formulations, which in this example manifested themselves through granting Ukraine the use of Western long-range missiles despite Russia’s prior warnings. The whole point is to intensify the conflict over the next two months before Trump’s reinauguration so that he inherits a much more difficult situation than at present. This is expected to push him into adopting a more hawkish position on the conflict.
Realistically speaking, however, all that’ll likely happen between then and now is that Russia carries out more missile strikes against military targets in Ukraine. Nothing extraordinary like its speculative use of tactical nukes or bombing NATO is expected, both possibilities of which were addressed in the pieces that were enumerated in the earlier analysis about Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine. At most, it might destroy a major bridge across the Dnieper or carry out decapitation strikes, but even those are unlikely.
Putin is averse to escalation since he sincerely fears everything spiraling out of control into World War III. Time and again, precedent proves that he’ll do his utmost to avoid that worst-case scenario as proven by him refusing to significantly escalate after Ukraine bombed the Kremlin, Russia’s early warning systems, strategic airfields, the Crimean Bridge, oil refineries, and residential areas, among its many other targets. There’s accordingly no reason to expect him to jump out of character and significantly escalate after this.
Having said that, sometimes even the most patient people snap, and it’s always possible that Putin might have enough and decide to do what many of his supporters have wanted from the get-go. This could take the form of replicating the US’ “shock and awe” bombing campaign, no longer caring about civilian casualties, and proverbially throwing the kitchen sink at Ukraine. In other words, Russia could take a page from Israel’s playbook as was explained here, which could raise the odds of a maximum victory.
If he stays the course and doesn’t escalate after Ukraine uses Western long-range missiles against targets inside of Russia’s pre-2014 borders, then that could be seen as yet another “goodwill gesture”, which would be aimed at making it easier for Trump to broker a peace deal. The trade-off though is that he might be convinced by some of the hawks around him into interpreting this as weakness, thus emboldening him to “escalate to de-escalate” and leading to serious opportunity costs for Russia.
In that event, it would have been better in hindsight for Russia to escalate just below the level of a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis, enough to advance as many of its interests as it can while also not going as far as to provoke an “overreaction” from the West that could lead to freezing the conflict pronto. It remains unclear what Putin will ultimately do, but whichever of these two choices he makes will determine the trajectory of this conflict from now on, either more escalation or a possible compromise.
@Rafi
This has nothing to do with stupidity.
The idea in both cases (Israel and Russia) is to create an endless meat grinder and when the stupid aborigines finally bleed each other white – to take over.
Actually, I have to change it.
The above is true in case of Russia and Ukraine.
In the case of Israel, the idea is to bleed and exhaust Israel and to make it disappear.
Hizballah might but Russia won’t.
Russia will wait, and wait, and wait for its enemies to come to their senses, and if they keep at it and Russia finds its back to the wall, it will strike them in the deadliest way possible.
IDF finding far more Russian arms in Hezbollah’s possession than expected – report
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-finding-far-more-russian-arms-in-hezbollahs-possession-than-expected-report/
As I’ve been saying for several years now, Russia is Israel’s enemy. Someone send Peloni the memo.
Peace comes easier through strength and its projection.
So when Biden holds back Israel or Ukraine from winning its wars, it prolongs the conflict and causes more casualties on its friends.
Whether Hezbollah or Russia if it perceives its enemy can hurt it seriously it, they will be inclined to come to the peace table more readily to stop the conflict.
Biden and company in their stupidity have caused more deaths to Israeli soldiers and Ukrainians by limiting or trying to limit their military responses.
Biden is now holding back supplying ordered bulldozers to Israel that it uses to destroy enemy fortifications. This is doubling down on dumb! Israel alternative is to bomb the fortifications and this can cause more deaths. Optionally the IDF sends soldiers in on the ground exposing them to booby traps and ambushes.
@Adam
I think it is unavoidable to conclude that the purpose of this war, which was entirely avoidable, was to see a great many dead Slavs, recalling what Tom Luongo stated nearly 3yrs ago,
“What does the US call a million dead Slavs? A good start.”
@Rafi
Like any comparison between Israel and Ukraine, this is not equatable. Iran is not Russia, and the Mullah’s, unlike Putin, is quite vulnerable. Of course, the reason the Mullahs appear to be the Teflon Don’s of the Middle East is that the US has refused over the past 40yrs to actually do anything besides support the Iranian power expansion after seeing the Mullahs installed.
So, while the war in Ukraine is against the greatest land military force in Europe, which also holds the greatest nuclear arsenal, the Mullah’s military is limited, and their nuclear status is so far unrealized. What is more is that while Russia is, well, Russia, they are not Armegeddonist barbarians intent upon wholesale slaughter and subjugation of any non-coreligionist. Hence, the distinctions between Russia and Iran are the basis upon which wiser minds should focus upon negotiations with Russia while eliminating the Mullahs utterly. This is why it would be prudent to not have allowed the war in Ukraine to begin, much less fund, arm and coordinate it, while war with Iran is unavoidable, and delaying this inevitability simply makes the price of the war all the greater.
More specifically, enabling the use of these long range missiles into Russia is intended, not to preserve or support Ukraine which is losing because of lack of morale, men and munitions, but to frustrate Trump’s intended resolution to the war. Meanwhile, preventing Israel from striking Iran is premised upon the desire to preserve Iran. In short, the two situations and the current US outlook for each are not equatable in any way at all, or so I would argue.
@RufusG
Yes, Sachs is quite reliable and rational until any mention of Israel is raised, and then, like so many of the alt-Right Hamas supporting savages, he seems to completely lose his bearing on reality. Of course, as Mearsheimer famously stated, he doesn’t have to apply the same standards to what is going on in Ukraine to what is going on in Israel, but then again, the fact that they do not is quite telling in and of itself.
Here is a good discussion on these matters between Gen. Michael Flynn, Ret. and Trump advisor Roger Stone:
https://rumble.com/v5qqhtw-are-we-heading-for-world-war-iii-general-michael-flynn-joins-the-stonezone-.html?e9s=rel_v2_ep
Nothing conclusive can be said about this war, until President Biden vacates his office or a peace deal or ceasefire is signed between Russia and the Ukraine
It was always stupid for Biden and company to provide weapons to Ukraine and then tell them to NOT fully use them. Sort of like they have tried with Israel to tell them fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
Brilliant history lesson on #Russia v #Ukraine
By the man who has been there every step of the way, Jeffrey Sachs.
https://x.com/ivan_8848/status/1852163971501166661
Thanks,Adam
It’s good to be right, now and then 🙂
That’s about the most sensible assessment ot this war that I’ve seen so far.
Michael is right.
I don’t think the “Green light” for ATACM stikes in the few weeks before a new administration comes in will make a difference in the outcome of the war.. If the Biden administration had okayed these strikes two or three years ago when the Ukrainians first asked for them, I think they may have made a difference. But not now, when the Ukraine is on its last legs and near total collapse, as Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have publicly admitted.
I don’t think the Biden administration ever wanted the Ukrainians to win the war. Rather the objective in providing the Ukrainians with modest amounts of military aid–and this aid was always in modest quantities despite the bold-faced lie by Congressional leaders and the Biden-Blinken administration that the Congress had voted “61 billion” in aid to Ukraine (more on this subject later)–was to undermine Russia’s plans to expand its sphere of influence, and to cause Russia to expend most of its military resources, both human and material, on an unsuccessful war. in Europe for a relatively low cost to the U.S. Treasury. I believe that the Blinken-Harris-Biden administration had always intended, from the beginning of the war, to make a deal with the Russians to recognize U.S. supremacy in Europe. What happens to the Ukrainians in the process has never been a primary concern for the U.S. administration, despite its making humanitarian noises from time to time.
The Moment Of Truth: How Will Russia Respond To Ukraine’s Use Of Western Long-Range Missiles?
It already has:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14093077/North-Korea-send-100-000-fighters-help-Russia-Putins-missiles-crippled-Ukraines-energy-grid-ruthless-attack-ahead-cold-winter-months.html