Very interesting to get this different perspective.
I believe Mr Bhadrakumar may have a valid point that Putin should first talk to Trump and not blindly retaliate by blowing up US nuclear installations. He also makes a good point that if talking to Trump goes nowhere (very likely) then Russia needs to show it is serious by finishing the Ukraine war one way or another.
The whole thing is a tragedy whichever way you look at it.
Finally somebody who no longer maintains the idea that Trump intended effective peace negotiations with Russia. They never had the intention to lead anywhere. Same with talks regards the Middle East and Iran. He also clearly sees the continuity of the Trump-Biden-Trump administrations. Trump is louder and more vulgar, but then it was Biden who called Putin a "son of a b*tch" and "saw a killer when he looked him into the eye". Little helpful are speculations about who causes what in the White House. It reminds me of what in the Soviet era was called the "Cremlinologists", who were discussing who is how powerful there. It always was pretty pointless.
We also should abandon the idea, that there are any deep divisions between Europe and the US: it is all just a facade. European leaders, including of the opposition leaders, are hand selected for their loyalty to the US. See how nicely and in unison they are now calling for a 30 day ceasefire, after insisting in unison on war must go on just weeks ago? The same unison they had when selecting the day when they decided to formally criticise a bit the genocide in West Asia.
To all who don't know it yet, I recommend the Ambassador's blog "Indian Punchline".
Too many reasons for Russia to respond. The more difficult issues are: how much penalty to exert and how to exert. Direct attack on NATO countries' territory is not on the table, at least for now. Using tactical nuke is what has been expected and wished for by NATO countries. A large missile strike is the most likely method. The next step is to decide targets. I would suggest that Russia NOT to show off any new weapon (you need to have a couple of tricks in the bag) and just use Oreshnik and cruise missiles.
Well, but Nato and its war supporting population will in all likelihood only be deterred if Russia retaliates, not against Ukraine, but against Nato, which since the start of the war has in reality waged direct escalating war against Russia through its proxy in Kiev. Nato and its war supporters almost laugh at Russia´s empty threats, so I see no other way for Russia to retaliate to establish itself in a position of respect. Mutual respect, also referring to realist theory, may lead to deescalation and real peace negotiations in which Russian views are seriously included. To leave the current deadlocked status quo situation, where Nato via Ukraine intensifies its attacks against Russia, and Russia subsequently reacts against Ukraine while issuing empty threats against the war adversary itself, will for sure not lead to peace, but much more likely to all out war.
Very true. However, if I were in Putin's place, I would not take the risk of bringing the world to WW3 that close by attacking NATO territories now. Furthermore, Russians are not strong enough to sustain a conventional WW3. Without clear targets in sight, it is better to bite the bullet a little bit later and grind down the Ukrainians further. Perhaps Russians have to make serious plans about swallowing Galicia, as Poland may not want the trouble in its belly. A surviving rump state is difficult to pacify, yet still can serve as a springboard for future attacks.
Therefore, were I to plan for Russians, I would do what they had done: "Retaliation will come; timing is our choice." Russia as a nation can endure this conflict for another 3 years. European economies and social unrest after another 3 years of conflict will bleed white. If there is neither political flipping nor civil war, then the supply issue of energy and raw materials into Europe would reduce Europe's war-making ability to rock bottom, much like the UK in 1936. USD would still be fighting for its own remaining hegemony, but there will not be enough USD to save the EURO. For the EU to survive as a techno-authoritarian regime, the EU needs a lot of money or to be able to print at will.
Russia may or may not need further military mobilization. However, Russia needs further economic mobilization. Russians have enough RMB, which can be used to get Chinese factories humming and strengthen China. The last action will also increase the strength of the small pro-Russia faction in the CCP, or at least help China to sustain the economic war against the US for a longer time. Ditto for NK and even Iran.
In the very short term, a viable option to retaliate is missile strikes against targets on the western side of Galicia, including the northern part of the Romania-Ukraine borders (Odesa area needs special care). The density of Banderite and NATO facilities is higher there, and the main weapon supply route is through that area. Numerous Polish Volunteers rotating through that area will have a chance to see an Oreshnik in action and propagate the news to their fellow Poles at home. I don't think Russia has the necessary inventory for that strike now. It will take at least several months and the mobilization of more technical people.
Finally, about the long-term peace. A herder with a few cows and sheep was surrounded in the African hinterland. There are no laws and no friends (at least not close by). Hungry wild dogs surrounded them. One cannot reason with the wild dogs, nor wipe them all out. Just a pair of escaped wild dogs can bring back a new swarm in a year. Europe is running low on natural, human, and financial resources. Swallowing Russia is the only way for Europe to survive in the old way. Otherwise, Europeans need to drive out foreign population, reduce domestic population to within their means, and revive their old traditions of producing versatile products. Only when Europe prospers again and does not depend on exploiting other people can there be long-lasting peace. It will take a while.
Well, well, that´s roughly the way, Russia thinks, which is reflected in its strategy towards Nato But as long as Russia keeps retaliating assymetrically against the proxy, and not against Nato, everything indicates that Nato will go on intensifying the attacks against Russia, That´s what the enormous armament with Nato and the EU of 5 pct. of BNP is for. Nato has a much stronger economy than Russia, so as time goes, Russia may be cornered having no other survival options than resorting to nuclear counter attacks. Russia is basically fighting alone against Nato (the EU and the USA). China does not dare help Russia militarily - so at least counter attacking Nato, before being cornered, could be a potential game changer. People in Europe are not used to be directly counter -threatened. Throughout the Cold war, they lived in relative safety, and so they have lived throughout the current post Cold war - or rather hot war against Russia. But being directly threatened, they may wake up realising that the EU/ their governments are not conducting security policy, but the opposite putting their lives at risk. Hopefully such a situation will make people pressure their governments for a peace solution involving Russia´s point of view. Otherwise people may be doomed, and so they may deserve.
I’m not sure he understands fully what it means to be responsible, I mean truly responsible for a nation and it’s people. He’s decrying that Putin doesn’t have things under control like they were in the Soviet Union. Perhaps it is because Putin and much of the Russian leadership has a different mindset and fundamental beliefs than in the time of the Soviet Union. Power and control are NOT the only drivers for the Russians. He is in fact advocating initiating WWIII and - (thank the Lord) the Russians are smarter than that! His perspective is interesting but I hope his advice is not heeded!
I can't think of anything more responsible that Putin could do than get a grip on domestic terrorism. It's surely the number one priority of any government, Russian or otherwise.
Evidently there are Ukrainians and Islamic fundamentalists wandering around Russia with very little control over them. The days of the once-feared KGB seem to be long gone.
Bhadrakumar's assessment of Putin was brutal, but hardly lacking in justification. You cannot keep drawing lines in the sand and then when they are crossed simply step back and draw a new line. Sooner or later the West will just launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike and that will be the end of Russia. There are Western 'figures' mad enough to do it.
[Doctor StrangeLindsey seems the likeliest starter of World War Three at the moment]
Bhadrakumar is saying that inaction is as dangerous if not more dangerous than action. I think the reference to hitting strategic bombers US bases was a little tongue in cheek, but the call for Putin to finish the war, without delay, was not. Sooner or later the West will begin to ramp up the supply of drones and then Russia will be even deeper into a drone war with a neighbour that can hit targets in Russia at will. Whatever about Russia having the best air defence in the world. No air defence can cope with thousands of drones.
This is where we are heading if Putin doesn't take his foot off the brake.
Until now, the whole world has Putin to thank for having a steady nerve, and a resolve not to cause 'mass' civilian casualties. I'm grateful for it and so should we all be.
But Russia is losing her men too, in small numbers compared to Ukraine, but at some point Putin is going to have to consider the damage to Russia's demographics.
That means he's going to have to authorise actions he has hitherto been reluctant to.
Nord Stream 2 ble ferdig bygget i 2021, men aldri tatt i bruk.
USA under Trump innførte sanksjoner mot selskaper som jobbet med Nord Stream 2. Dette forsinket prosjektet, men stanset det ikke helt.
Selve eksplosjonene på rørledningene skjedde i september 2022, under Biden.
Trumps utsagn er ikke en reell innrømmelse.
Det er mest sannsynlig skryt i etterpåklokskapens ånd: at han “advarte” Tyskland mot avhengighet av russisk gass og mener det er hans fortjeneste at det ikke ble tatt i bruk.
Very interesting to get this different perspective.
I believe Mr Bhadrakumar may have a valid point that Putin should first talk to Trump and not blindly retaliate by blowing up US nuclear installations. He also makes a good point that if talking to Trump goes nowhere (very likely) then Russia needs to show it is serious by finishing the Ukraine war one way or another.
The whole thing is a tragedy whichever way you look at it.
Russia must fire back at Nato. Otherwise the beast alliance will go on escalating the war to an all out (nuclear) war with Russia.
Finally somebody who no longer maintains the idea that Trump intended effective peace negotiations with Russia. They never had the intention to lead anywhere. Same with talks regards the Middle East and Iran. He also clearly sees the continuity of the Trump-Biden-Trump administrations. Trump is louder and more vulgar, but then it was Biden who called Putin a "son of a b*tch" and "saw a killer when he looked him into the eye". Little helpful are speculations about who causes what in the White House. It reminds me of what in the Soviet era was called the "Cremlinologists", who were discussing who is how powerful there. It always was pretty pointless.
We also should abandon the idea, that there are any deep divisions between Europe and the US: it is all just a facade. European leaders, including of the opposition leaders, are hand selected for their loyalty to the US. See how nicely and in unison they are now calling for a 30 day ceasefire, after insisting in unison on war must go on just weeks ago? The same unison they had when selecting the day when they decided to formally criticise a bit the genocide in West Asia.
To all who don't know it yet, I recommend the Ambassador's blog "Indian Punchline".
Too many reasons for Russia to respond. The more difficult issues are: how much penalty to exert and how to exert. Direct attack on NATO countries' territory is not on the table, at least for now. Using tactical nuke is what has been expected and wished for by NATO countries. A large missile strike is the most likely method. The next step is to decide targets. I would suggest that Russia NOT to show off any new weapon (you need to have a couple of tricks in the bag) and just use Oreshnik and cruise missiles.
Well, but Nato and its war supporting population will in all likelihood only be deterred if Russia retaliates, not against Ukraine, but against Nato, which since the start of the war has in reality waged direct escalating war against Russia through its proxy in Kiev. Nato and its war supporters almost laugh at Russia´s empty threats, so I see no other way for Russia to retaliate to establish itself in a position of respect. Mutual respect, also referring to realist theory, may lead to deescalation and real peace negotiations in which Russian views are seriously included. To leave the current deadlocked status quo situation, where Nato via Ukraine intensifies its attacks against Russia, and Russia subsequently reacts against Ukraine while issuing empty threats against the war adversary itself, will for sure not lead to peace, but much more likely to all out war.
Very true. However, if I were in Putin's place, I would not take the risk of bringing the world to WW3 that close by attacking NATO territories now. Furthermore, Russians are not strong enough to sustain a conventional WW3. Without clear targets in sight, it is better to bite the bullet a little bit later and grind down the Ukrainians further. Perhaps Russians have to make serious plans about swallowing Galicia, as Poland may not want the trouble in its belly. A surviving rump state is difficult to pacify, yet still can serve as a springboard for future attacks.
Therefore, were I to plan for Russians, I would do what they had done: "Retaliation will come; timing is our choice." Russia as a nation can endure this conflict for another 3 years. European economies and social unrest after another 3 years of conflict will bleed white. If there is neither political flipping nor civil war, then the supply issue of energy and raw materials into Europe would reduce Europe's war-making ability to rock bottom, much like the UK in 1936. USD would still be fighting for its own remaining hegemony, but there will not be enough USD to save the EURO. For the EU to survive as a techno-authoritarian regime, the EU needs a lot of money or to be able to print at will.
Russia may or may not need further military mobilization. However, Russia needs further economic mobilization. Russians have enough RMB, which can be used to get Chinese factories humming and strengthen China. The last action will also increase the strength of the small pro-Russia faction in the CCP, or at least help China to sustain the economic war against the US for a longer time. Ditto for NK and even Iran.
In the very short term, a viable option to retaliate is missile strikes against targets on the western side of Galicia, including the northern part of the Romania-Ukraine borders (Odesa area needs special care). The density of Banderite and NATO facilities is higher there, and the main weapon supply route is through that area. Numerous Polish Volunteers rotating through that area will have a chance to see an Oreshnik in action and propagate the news to their fellow Poles at home. I don't think Russia has the necessary inventory for that strike now. It will take at least several months and the mobilization of more technical people.
Finally, about the long-term peace. A herder with a few cows and sheep was surrounded in the African hinterland. There are no laws and no friends (at least not close by). Hungry wild dogs surrounded them. One cannot reason with the wild dogs, nor wipe them all out. Just a pair of escaped wild dogs can bring back a new swarm in a year. Europe is running low on natural, human, and financial resources. Swallowing Russia is the only way for Europe to survive in the old way. Otherwise, Europeans need to drive out foreign population, reduce domestic population to within their means, and revive their old traditions of producing versatile products. Only when Europe prospers again and does not depend on exploiting other people can there be long-lasting peace. It will take a while.
Well, well, that´s roughly the way, Russia thinks, which is reflected in its strategy towards Nato But as long as Russia keeps retaliating assymetrically against the proxy, and not against Nato, everything indicates that Nato will go on intensifying the attacks against Russia, That´s what the enormous armament with Nato and the EU of 5 pct. of BNP is for. Nato has a much stronger economy than Russia, so as time goes, Russia may be cornered having no other survival options than resorting to nuclear counter attacks. Russia is basically fighting alone against Nato (the EU and the USA). China does not dare help Russia militarily - so at least counter attacking Nato, before being cornered, could be a potential game changer. People in Europe are not used to be directly counter -threatened. Throughout the Cold war, they lived in relative safety, and so they have lived throughout the current post Cold war - or rather hot war against Russia. But being directly threatened, they may wake up realising that the EU/ their governments are not conducting security policy, but the opposite putting their lives at risk. Hopefully such a situation will make people pressure their governments for a peace solution involving Russia´s point of view. Otherwise people may be doomed, and so they may deserve.
Thanks for your great work Glenn!
We've shared the link on our daily report.
A Skeptic War Reports
https://askeptic.substack.com/
Good interview, I felt it brought much needed realism to the situation rather than us constantly inferring Putin's Trump's MI6 motives.
No, Russia has to act against terrorism.
Yes.
I’m not sure he understands fully what it means to be responsible, I mean truly responsible for a nation and it’s people. He’s decrying that Putin doesn’t have things under control like they were in the Soviet Union. Perhaps it is because Putin and much of the Russian leadership has a different mindset and fundamental beliefs than in the time of the Soviet Union. Power and control are NOT the only drivers for the Russians. He is in fact advocating initiating WWIII and - (thank the Lord) the Russians are smarter than that! His perspective is interesting but I hope his advice is not heeded!
I can't think of anything more responsible that Putin could do than get a grip on domestic terrorism. It's surely the number one priority of any government, Russian or otherwise.
Evidently there are Ukrainians and Islamic fundamentalists wandering around Russia with very little control over them. The days of the once-feared KGB seem to be long gone.
Bhadrakumar's assessment of Putin was brutal, but hardly lacking in justification. You cannot keep drawing lines in the sand and then when they are crossed simply step back and draw a new line. Sooner or later the West will just launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike and that will be the end of Russia. There are Western 'figures' mad enough to do it.
[Doctor StrangeLindsey seems the likeliest starter of World War Three at the moment]
Bhadrakumar is saying that inaction is as dangerous if not more dangerous than action. I think the reference to hitting strategic bombers US bases was a little tongue in cheek, but the call for Putin to finish the war, without delay, was not. Sooner or later the West will begin to ramp up the supply of drones and then Russia will be even deeper into a drone war with a neighbour that can hit targets in Russia at will. Whatever about Russia having the best air defence in the world. No air defence can cope with thousands of drones.
This is where we are heading if Putin doesn't take his foot off the brake.
Until now, the whole world has Putin to thank for having a steady nerve, and a resolve not to cause 'mass' civilian casualties. I'm grateful for it and so should we all be.
But Russia is losing her men too, in small numbers compared to Ukraine, but at some point Putin is going to have to consider the damage to Russia's demographics.
That means he's going to have to authorise actions he has hitherto been reluctant to.
Nord Stream 2 ble ferdig bygget i 2021, men aldri tatt i bruk.
USA under Trump innførte sanksjoner mot selskaper som jobbet med Nord Stream 2. Dette forsinket prosjektet, men stanset det ikke helt.
Selve eksplosjonene på rørledningene skjedde i september 2022, under Biden.
Trumps utsagn er ikke en reell innrømmelse.
Det er mest sannsynlig skryt i etterpåklokskapens ånd: at han “advarte” Tyskland mot avhengighet av russisk gass og mener det er hans fortjeneste at det ikke ble tatt i bruk.