They won't. It is written that science progresses, one funeral at a time. If there is to be any progress in diplomacy, it will happen in a comparable fashion, perhaps one election at a time, probably not.
It’s problematic to imagine, perhaps foolish to depend upon, the progress of diplomacy given the current generation in the West. The idea behind Planck’s insight is a new gen of scientists has different ideas to test, whereas the predominant characteristic of western diplomacy has as analogue, infection. Cult of belief is different from an inquiring mind. Nevertheless, your point is on point.
'The five stages of grief are ingrained in our cultural consciousness as the natural progression of emotions one experiences after the death of a loved one. However, it turns out that this model is not science-based, does not well describe most people's experiences, and was never even meant to apply to the bereaved'
dude, i'm not using the five stages as a model of *bereavement*, but as one for what one has to go through when one's mental model of how the ukraine conflict will progress turns out not to comport with reality
denial, anger, attempted negotiation and depression all seem likely, although the order may well be mixed up and many will not reach acceptance/paying in rubles, as feral finster points out
I have never understood the irrational hositility of Western leaders to Russia. This is not a new thing: it goes back to at least Napoleon or the British Great Game in Central Asia. Why do we needlessly antagonize a country that so desperately wants to be European and part of the international order? Madness.
Once you understand that we are ruled by high-functioning (in the sense that they can fake empathy) sociopaths, everything they do makes perfect sense.
I honestly think that these are important and significant but still relatively superficial signs. People who went through 90s (maybe also 80s) and 2000s, living in the atmosphere of absolutely unconditional "understanding" that everything "there" is absolutely superior to anything "here" would be very hard to change deep inside, it is really set in stone, on the very deep subconscious level. I would bet a lot of money that if right now (let's say tomorrow or in a year) the friendship with the West is restored, whatever that friendship is deep inside, there would be a massive restoration of admiration towards the West. I would think that it should take some time on the order of a generation or two, and not just being disconnected from the West - that void must be filled with maybe more objective interaction with the non-western world, to have a long lasting robust effect. Так конечно нехорошо говорить но What might also help (a lot) in breaking that "admiration" is if for example Europe will keep being shaken politically and economically, and this process will be accelerating. This might help, but I am afraid it is still a matter of maybe a generation (~15-20 years). Не согласны?
Насчет restoration of admiration, не думаю, вот по каким причинам:
1) большинство admirers, за исключением сильно старшего поколения и неудачников, уже свалили в обожаемые ими края
2) очень многие из тех, кто много ездили в Европу/Штаты и не остались там, отмечают, что жизнь в РФ сейчас не только не хуже, но во многом лучше и удобнее
3) вскрывшийся гнойник ядовитой неприязни Запада к РФ - как к стране, так и к народу и культуре - многим открыл глаза на реальное положение вещей; всем, кто читает/смотрит западные новости ясно, что эти чувства искренние и глубокие.
Так что если Запад, зажав нос, будет все-таки вынужден вернуться к кооперации, РФ примет это, но исключительно как transactional relationship, и будет ожидать подвоха на каждом шагу. Admiration будет, скорее всего, сугубо маргинальной позицией.
Хотя если условия в РФ изменятся и уровень жизни покатится по наклонной (и это включает культурную и общественную жизнь), то, конечно, все может быстро поменяться.
Насчет 2) и 3) я согласен. Насчет 1) я не вполне уверен. Мне кажется некоторые часто переоценивают мобильность людей. Не очень просто взять и уехать. Это ведь может быть работа, бизнес, семья наконец. Очень сильно непросто, я думаю, взять и уехать когда скажем на тебе семья, а шансов уехать скажем в Европу и получить там работу со сравнимым доходом очень немного. У меня близкие мне люди такие есть. Не айтишники, так что вот так вот взять и уехать очень сложно. Ну правда тогда можно их записать в неудачники... Но это как-то слишком удобно и легко получается, просто всех кто скажем не согласен но не уехал записать в неудачники. При этом у меня конечно никакой статистики нет насчет того сколько таких людей, я просто как-то вот так считаю что уехать вообще не очень просто если ты не студент или айтишник, например. Я когда уезжал студентом, 20 лет назад, без семьи, без нифига, взял да и поехал. Делов-то. Сейчас на свою семью смотрю, ну вот как бы я что-то такое стал бы делать??? Ну может есть люди гораздо более легкие на подъем.
There is no reason for Russia to break the deep and broad cooperation they have with Eurasia in general and with China in particular. Certainly not for anything Brussels and Washington could offer them. There were good reasons for Tsarist Russia to look to Europe and imitate the French (for example) cultural and technical sophistication. How much of that is left in Paris or London now?
I personally have encountered many Russians in China, older scientists and technicians and the younger students working and studying thigs such as materials science, digital systems engineering, robotics etc. The roots of this cooperation go back decades and are only growing deeper.
Neoconservative movement in the USA is derived from New York Trotskyists. Russia killed their god.
That is how it started. The anti-Russia sentiment has become pathologized and the original reasoning is now long lost. Like a psychological complex that developed from some long forgotten childhood trauma.
It is confusing and it doesn't make sense, but we are not dealing with rational people here. It isn't a Democrat vs Republican party thing either.. since Neocons exist and have significant influence in both parties.
I call it "crackpot realism" they are living in a hyper-reality reinforced by their own political power, cultural isolation, and self inflated sense of importance. Everything they believe just feels so real, so right, and so absolute that they are blind to their own lack of self awareness and delusion.
The late stages of the cold war was their high water mark, psychologically speaking. So utterly sure about their own importance and world view that they didn't see the end coming. They were completely blindsided by the fall of the Soviet government. They saw their life's purpose turned to dust right before their eyes.
And they have been struggling to get back to that world since then.
We in the West put an enormous amount of capital into “stealth” aircraft that are supposedly hard to shoot down with missiles. The F-35 is the most expensive program in history. Russia took a less expensive approach, building advanced missiles that are hard to shoot down. Russia seems to be very good at maximizing their defense budget.
It's true. Stealth measures do not make an object (plane, ship etc.) invisible to sophisticated radar, although they reduce the visibility range, possibly by as much as half, thus giving the defender less time to respond.
James, you started out with an obvious fact that everyone knows, that stealth is not invisibility. The facts in dispute are what range can F-35 be detected and the range they can be targeted. It’s hard to find that information, but one article claimed S300 couldn’t target a F-35 until the range was about 18km - less than 10% of a conventional plane. if that is true that means S300 has no chance.
When you have to make "well, technically" arguments, you've already lost. It's like Mormon teenagers claiming to be "technical virgins" because he didn't move it around after he put it in.
But the majority are being destroyed and damage seems limited. Having been following this war daily for 2 years now, it is crystal clear Putin has played a masterful game and all the propaganda from Western media has now largely been shown to anyone who pays attention to be just that, propaganda. The Western neocons are desperately trying to get Putin to step outside the "box" and do something, anything that enables them to cry havoc and let loose the kittens of war.
It seems that Western, especially European, politicians literally do not want to hear the message. The German call for ‘readiness for war’ seems bizarre under the circumstances described by Aurelien.
One thing is for sure: the MIC will profit.
But is it not also conceivable that the war cry is aimed at building up pressure and discipline, censorship and repression within Western states?
My biggest problem with your thesis is that despite the West's "organised retreat from reality", already, it has made a global nuclear war (due to a US First Strike or some other significant crossing of Russian nuclear use Red Lines) very unlikely.
I think it is more likely than ever before.
"Ever before" includes Gen. Curtis LeMay's advice to President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis to do a first strike on the USSR because of a few of their missiles in Cuba. LeMay's first strike was suggested to include the rest of the Commies: like China and most of Eastern Europe.
Multiple US Wargames since then, run multiple times, routinely escalate to include nuclear war, repeatedly.
Although the very biased Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has not moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight lately (it is still at 90 seconds to midnight), many are convinced that the current global situation is the most dangerous ever vis a vis nuclear war.
Many prefer to presume the more comfortable view that the politicians and militaries of all major players are rational, believe nuclear war is unwinnable, and therefore rule out use of nuclear weapons, even in self-defense.... This seems to be wishful thinking for a variety of reasons, especially given a high ranking Officer in the US Strategic Command recently said that the US could survive a nuclear war and have enough nukes left over to launch a second time.
One reason nuclear war is MORE likely is that the US has inadequate war supplies to fight a prolonged widespread CONVENTIONAL war. It seems obvious that most NATO armies are structured to fight small wars against less-than-peer opponents....
No individual NATO country could take the place of Ukraine in the current conflict and win. Imagine Britain trying. It would last until the Russians could find them. After Russian retaliation, the UK would only be left with nukes on subs, if the subs had been hiding underwater somewhere. NATO combined replacing the Ukrainians would be badly outmatched by 500k to 700k Russian combat troops in Ukraine. What would be the only way for NATO to vanquish the Russians, given the US/NATO arsenal?
Nukes.
It would take many years for the US (or any other NATO country save Turkiye) to reinstitute conscription, draft and train 100Ks of troops, equip all the troops, have the MIC build factories and increase production of scores of types of equipment by 10 to 50 times current production rates.
The other alternative?
PREEMPTIVE SELF DEFENSE, aka a FIRST Nuclear STRIKE.
As an example why it would take so long to prepare to fight conventionally: Patriot Missiles
Lockheed makes 500 missiles/year and hopes to raise that to 650/yr in 2027. When Ukraine uses one of its few Patriot Systems left, it often uses all 32 missile in a launcher to try to ward off 1 attack. That means that Ukraine would run out of all US 2024 newly produced missiles with just 16 full launches during the year. Air Defense once a month for a few minutes = no Air Defense.
An no Patriot missiles used in any of the 800 to 1000 US foreign bases would get any replacement missiles all year.
In conclusion, If we agree that hypersonics almost all get through NATO defenses and NATO has a tiny fraction of manpower and air defense it needs to fight a small, but real, war like the one in Ukraine.
What besides strategic nuclear weapons does the West (aka USA) really have?
How can this work as a deterrent if this is ONLY a threat, and NOT A REAL POSSIBILITY based upon PAST First/Preemptive Strikes by the US?
Given the structure of NATO (really US), the fallback position appears ONLY to be nuclear.
That MUST cause fear of a real Nuclear War to be an effective threat.
How come so many, who do not WANT the threat be REAL, assume that it is not REAL?
Assuming the threat is NOT REAL, means it is not an EFFECTIVE Threat and gives the enemy much lore escalation latitude.
And there are a variety of other Hypersonics that are accurate, too, not just Oreshnik.
I agree with you. When the Chess game is clearly lost there are two possibilities. Accept and retire or throw the board at your opponent in a tantrum. And in this war, which is about the dollar essentially, accepting defeat means USA has a huge debt it cannot repay and a bleak future in the new world. A nuclear war is a good solution. And I have done some calculations that show such a war will resolve most of the USA problems. As Stalin famously said, No people, No problem.
Thanks for the info. I had not heard of the "Dead Hand" but I have long been aware of Dead Man Switches (or Triggers), which have the same purpose of causing an explosion if those in charge of it are incapacitated before setting it off.
According to Wikipedia, the Dead Hand may no longer be used, although I am always wary of the veracity and completeness of Wikipedia, given that it has significant input from and is overseen by those who include representatives of the Deep State. After all, Wikipedia would never have published what was published in Wikileaks.
The only ray of hope there is is the fact that the majorities in all western countries would be dead against starting a direct confrontation with Russia.
The majority of many NATO countries are against continuing the Proxy war against Russia and that has not stopped their govt. from sending money, weapons and troops, without a Declaration of War or Having a referendum on going to war in the current low-level of confrontations.
That is very different from sending people to the front lines, to die. All the while conscription being now the hpt topic among many of the western governments. Which everyone admits is flying like lead baloons among the population.
"a high ranking Officer in the US Strategic Command recently said that the US could survive a nuclear war and have enough nukes left over to launch a second time."
Then the 'high ranking officer is an idiot. Russia has more missiles/warheads than the US (plus you can add China's), and Russia has a much bigger land mass with a proportion of its population dispersed over it. So if it works for the US, then it works even more so for Russia. Plus as Aurelian has pointed out, Russia has more expertise in the field. The US has been trying to both upgrade and replace its ICBM system for years, but has so far failed. I believe that they have abandoned the 'replacement' part, while the existing missiles are both obsolete and decaying.
It would seem that being detached from reality is not simply an unfortunate side-effect, but the actual modus operandi, if not raison d'etre for the leaders of the Western nations. Not a pretty picture.
I wish I could remember the name, but read a excerpt from a USN admiral's bio where he mentioned being constantly stymied in getting funding for long range missiles by a lobbying blob of Navy Pilots Associations, Aircraft Carrier shipyards, etc. I'd assume the same was true in the US Airforce, and US Army. It's interesting that even the Marines have their own air arm, much less the Army, which seems to defeat the purpose of having an air force, but makes perfect sense if you see the military as a way to extract money.
Consider this may be a result of choices deliberately made to prevent the US military leadership across branches from colluding and engaging in any kind of combined arms operation to overthrow our civilian government?
It became a culture by the last stages of the cold war (and especially, AFTER dissolution of USSR due to threat of budget cuts!) where the various branches endlessly competed via bureaucratic infighting, procurement lobbying and PR campaigns. Why you see Madison Ave. warfare campaigns to capture budgets with splashy advertising for weapons systems in MSM publications, at airports and on billboards? Probably don't see that day to day in RF or China as we do here, possibly at military equipment shows & foreign sales events.
At the top officer level over several decades during their struggle against any threat of a "peace dividend" (including the PNAC, GWOT and "forever war" flavors of the month)? Our various service managements energy and attention most often were concentrated in the struggle against EACH OTHER for dominance in the budget theater. Where your attention is, there your life is.
Meanwhile, our intelligence service took a different route to securing their fife. To escape such a contest they developed their OWN sources of "black" funding, largely separated themselves from budgetary control by the electoral dog & pony show, seeded the new information technology sector with venture capital and used the information control so acquired to pursue their own (and certain others?) agendas, wagging dogs as required along the way.
As far as I read into the history of this, you are very much correct with the first issue. It was always the fear in the Navy that if they develop such large and potent missiles at the Soviet Union, someone in congress would ask the question why then one needs aircraft carriers.
As to the Marines, this is because the Navy abandoned them at Guadalcanal and they were left with whatever aircraft they found on Henderson Field. Since then they insist on their own air arm.
Thank you. It's an interesting story about Guadalcanal, as there were both Marine and Navy Pilots flying out of there, so the Marine Aviation already existed as a thing, but it is given as the excuse for the birth of Marine Aviation. Makes me think.
So, if I understand your point, we better hope that, even if they won't admit it in public, Western leaders get the Dnipro message loud and clear.
And, somehow, it seems that not so many long range missiles flew from Ukraine to Russia lately (while a big batch of them were supposedly and, if so, quite conveniently destroyed near Odessa). So it might be the case. So far.
I have been reading your weekly essays for several months and have finally decided to subscribe. I look forward to a new topic each Wednesday. I usually agree with most of your analysis, though I have no expertise. I vacillate between being very worried and being confident that nothing world-ending will happen.
It seems that Russia will continue to exercise caution and restraint in Ukraine, so it seems to me, the Middle East is the hotspot more likely to explode beyond anyone’s control. The U.S.A wants that oil and is loathe to relinquish it.
"Which brings us to the third possibility, which I consider by far the most likely: unspoken intimidation."
Perhaps. But intimidation only works if there is a legitimate threat involved. Russia can have the world's most splendiferous weapons ever. But if they are afraid to use them, then are they really a threat? The West is lead by crazy and/or stupid people. The only thing that MIGHT, only MIGHT, get through their heads is an actual strike on a NATO asset. The Aegis Ashores would be my move. Total destruction. Short of that, it's just Putin making noises. And it is. He needs to show a willingness, the balls, to actually follow through. THEN, and only then, will you perhaps see reason seep into the mush brains of Western leadership. And if they respond with force, well, tis better to die standing than live on your knees. If necessary, burn it all down.
I feel I must inject some news into this excellent argument. There is a new weapon, which has all the characteristics of what little we are told about Oreshnik. It is a novel technology being currently deployed by Israel. It is a neutron producing, high temperature Uranium deuterium cold fusion warhead. The exothermic Uranium combustion enthalpy of some 3500 kJ per mol is such that a 50kg uranium warhead will flash at 4500 degrees. Much the same temperature Putin referred to. The use of this technology leaves behind enriched Uranium residues and some excess radiation due to neutron activation. Everything nearby 200 m is vapourised. my contacts in Lebanon informed me that the nasrullah bomb crater was 20 times background in radiation just after the hit, and a sample was analysed showing excess Uranium.
There is a limit it the sheer mass that can be carried by Oreshnik and a simple half em vee squared calculation using the 3.5 km per second velocity and m as 50kg gives far too few Joules of energy to write home about. So something else is happening there.
Aurelian says "... the West is now virtually unable to respond to Russian missile developments... the governing classes ... have [not] begun to understand the nature of the problem."
The leaders of the U.S. and the West consistently miscalculate. This is due to many factors, including plain laziness and stupidity. But despite billions of dollars spent on intelligence collection and analysis, all too often good information doesn't get through to the top or is ignored.
It would seem that the "blob" -- CIA, DOD and the many other intelligence agencies (MI6) -- totally misread Russia's military capabilities, its ability to work around sanctions, etc. This happens again and again.
The President gets daily intelligence briefings. It would seem that these briefings are full of confirmation bias. As Larry Johnson has said, the CIA and other intelligence agencies are now so politicized that any intelligence that contradicts the desired political narrative is suppressed (or not even gathered).
There IS accountability. We just had an election. Biden was repudiated. But is Trump going to reform this corrupt system or just make it worse? I expect the latter. As in Trump's first term, the con man will want con men to run his con-agencies.
Who will dare to tell the leadership of the U.S. and the NATO countries the truth about this rapidly changing world?
Even assuming that Russian capabilities really are what they are cracked up to be here, everyone from the lowest broom-pusher all the way up to the head of the CIA knows that you do not get ahead in that organization by telling the boss something he does not want to hear.
seriously? you think when the fate of the world depends upon an attack you'd take the word of someone on a telephone line? Let me give you a call. I know where you can get a good deal on a couple of bridges...
The Russians called Washington about the Donetsk attack half an hour before, and Putin said he would do so again every time Oreshnik is used to allow civilians to evacuate.
It's all very sensible, in fact it's MORE intimidating than a surprise assault. He said what he was going to do and then he did it exactly as he said he would. This is the equivalent of the local Mafia Don calling you up and saying "I'm coming around in 30 minutes to burn your house down and there is nothing you can do about it, better get the wife and kids out now".
And then he arrives with the boys and the gasoline, 29 minutes and 57 seconds after he hangs up the phone.
Thank you for another very interesting essay. It reflects comments made by JMG at Ecosophia and a few other independent commentators, but takes things a little further. The very last sentence begs the question: if the person you are trying to intimidate is too dim to realise they are being intimidated, or pretends not to understand as a way of calling the bluff, what do you -as Russia - do? If you spell it out in words of one syllable in public, you look - as mentioned - like a nasty bully who could lose allies and attract hostility from those who remained neutral. Perhaps the result is much the same if you stage a demonstrative attack on some pretext, again as suggested in the essay. Is perhaps playing down the importance of the - so far - single Oreshnik strike and avoiding provoking another, the best course for the West at present?
The Western MSM have not really acknowledged any major change in the military landscape and I don't detect any change in the perception of the West's position among the public as yet. Given that, what might Russia do to leverage their new capability?
"if the person you are trying to intimidate is too dim to realise they are being intimidated, or pretends not to understand as a way of calling the bluff, what do you -as Russia - do?"
If you will permit the gangster analogy, if the man you are trying to intimidate is too stupid to realize he is being intimidated then you would punch him in the face and break his nose, maybe steal his watch. But you wouldn't cut his throat or burn his house down.
You might well be right. If Storm Shadows get used again and do some serious damage inside Russia, well, I'm not sure I'd like to be at RAF Akrotiri. That would really be a message that could not be ignored.
Your - "The western response to this incident has been interesting: a mixture of utter bewilderment, residual delusions of technical superiority, and a hope that there is only one such missile, and so the problem will simply go away." - might be best explained here - https://theunclejohnsband.blogspot.com/2024/10/information-processing-and-functional.html?m=1 - most folks are unable to process new information which goes too far from their present knowledge base, thus the statement on my T shirt - "I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you!"
treating russia with respect is going to be psychologically challenging for people like von der leyen and her numerous ilk
i fear all the kubler-ross stages will have to be gone through
They won't. It is written that science progresses, one funeral at a time. If there is to be any progress in diplomacy, it will happen in a comparable fashion, perhaps one election at a time, probably not.
It’s problematic to imagine, perhaps foolish to depend upon, the progress of diplomacy given the current generation in the West. The idea behind Planck’s insight is a new gen of scientists has different ideas to test, whereas the predominant characteristic of western diplomacy has as analogue, infection. Cult of belief is different from an inquiring mind. Nevertheless, your point is on point.
While pesimistic, this is a sensible comment, rooted in reality.
*It’s Time to Let the Five Stages of Grief Die*
'The five stages of grief are ingrained in our cultural consciousness as the natural progression of emotions one experiences after the death of a loved one. However, it turns out that this model is not science-based, does not well describe most people's experiences, and was never even meant to apply to the bereaved'
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-history/its-time-let-five-stages-grief-die
.~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Stages of Grief: The Harmful Myth That Refuses to Die*
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/laugh-cry-live/202303/stages-of-grief-the-harmful-myth-that-refuses-to-die
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm just a messenger.
dude, i'm not using the five stages as a model of *bereavement*, but as one for what one has to go through when one's mental model of how the ukraine conflict will progress turns out not to comport with reality
denial, anger, attempted negotiation and depression all seem likely, although the order may well be mixed up and many will not reach acceptance/paying in rubles, as feral finster points out
I have never understood the irrational hositility of Western leaders to Russia. This is not a new thing: it goes back to at least Napoleon or the British Great Game in Central Asia. Why do we needlessly antagonize a country that so desperately wants to be European and part of the international order? Madness.
Once you understand that we are ruled by high-functioning (in the sense that they can fake empathy) sociopaths, everything they do makes perfect sense.
Not "wants" - "wanted".
That train has left the station.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/07/24/moscows-square-of-europe-renamed-to-square-of-eurasia-a85815
I honestly think that these are important and significant but still relatively superficial signs. People who went through 90s (maybe also 80s) and 2000s, living in the atmosphere of absolutely unconditional "understanding" that everything "there" is absolutely superior to anything "here" would be very hard to change deep inside, it is really set in stone, on the very deep subconscious level. I would bet a lot of money that if right now (let's say tomorrow or in a year) the friendship with the West is restored, whatever that friendship is deep inside, there would be a massive restoration of admiration towards the West. I would think that it should take some time on the order of a generation or two, and not just being disconnected from the West - that void must be filled with maybe more objective interaction with the non-western world, to have a long lasting robust effect. Так конечно нехорошо говорить но What might also help (a lot) in breaking that "admiration" is if for example Europe will keep being shaken politically and economically, and this process will be accelerating. This might help, but I am afraid it is still a matter of maybe a generation (~15-20 years). Не согласны?
I suspect when someone(s) have caused you great loss -- say, of a loved one -- you may forgive, but forget does not come so easily.
Being ostracized is not in the same category as being actively attacked.
Насчет restoration of admiration, не думаю, вот по каким причинам:
1) большинство admirers, за исключением сильно старшего поколения и неудачников, уже свалили в обожаемые ими края
2) очень многие из тех, кто много ездили в Европу/Штаты и не остались там, отмечают, что жизнь в РФ сейчас не только не хуже, но во многом лучше и удобнее
3) вскрывшийся гнойник ядовитой неприязни Запада к РФ - как к стране, так и к народу и культуре - многим открыл глаза на реальное положение вещей; всем, кто читает/смотрит западные новости ясно, что эти чувства искренние и глубокие.
Так что если Запад, зажав нос, будет все-таки вынужден вернуться к кооперации, РФ примет это, но исключительно как transactional relationship, и будет ожидать подвоха на каждом шагу. Admiration будет, скорее всего, сугубо маргинальной позицией.
Хотя если условия в РФ изменятся и уровень жизни покатится по наклонной (и это включает культурную и общественную жизнь), то, конечно, все может быстро поменяться.
Насчет 2) и 3) я согласен. Насчет 1) я не вполне уверен. Мне кажется некоторые часто переоценивают мобильность людей. Не очень просто взять и уехать. Это ведь может быть работа, бизнес, семья наконец. Очень сильно непросто, я думаю, взять и уехать когда скажем на тебе семья, а шансов уехать скажем в Европу и получить там работу со сравнимым доходом очень немного. У меня близкие мне люди такие есть. Не айтишники, так что вот так вот взять и уехать очень сложно. Ну правда тогда можно их записать в неудачники... Но это как-то слишком удобно и легко получается, просто всех кто скажем не согласен но не уехал записать в неудачники. При этом у меня конечно никакой статистики нет насчет того сколько таких людей, я просто как-то вот так считаю что уехать вообще не очень просто если ты не студент или айтишник, например. Я когда уезжал студентом, 20 лет назад, без семьи, без нифига, взял да и поехал. Делов-то. Сейчас на свою семью смотрю, ну вот как бы я что-то такое стал бы делать??? Ну может есть люди гораздо более легкие на подъем.
Agreed.
There is no reason for Russia to break the deep and broad cooperation they have with Eurasia in general and with China in particular. Certainly not for anything Brussels and Washington could offer them. There were good reasons for Tsarist Russia to look to Europe and imitate the French (for example) cultural and technical sophistication. How much of that is left in Paris or London now?
I personally have encountered many Russians in China, older scientists and technicians and the younger students working and studying thigs such as materials science, digital systems engineering, robotics etc. The roots of this cooperation go back decades and are only growing deeper.
When I lived in Ukraine (2004 - 2012) it was fashionable for Kiev yuppies to denigrate everything Western.
The moment they thought that the West might welcome them, they were back with open arms, All Is Forgiven!
Neoconservative movement in the USA is derived from New York Trotskyists. Russia killed their god.
That is how it started. The anti-Russia sentiment has become pathologized and the original reasoning is now long lost. Like a psychological complex that developed from some long forgotten childhood trauma.
It is confusing and it doesn't make sense, but we are not dealing with rational people here. It isn't a Democrat vs Republican party thing either.. since Neocons exist and have significant influence in both parties.
I call it "crackpot realism" they are living in a hyper-reality reinforced by their own political power, cultural isolation, and self inflated sense of importance. Everything they believe just feels so real, so right, and so absolute that they are blind to their own lack of self awareness and delusion.
The late stages of the cold war was their high water mark, psychologically speaking. So utterly sure about their own importance and world view that they didn't see the end coming. They were completely blindsided by the fall of the Soviet government. They saw their life's purpose turned to dust right before their eyes.
And they have been struggling to get back to that world since then.
We in the West put an enormous amount of capital into “stealth” aircraft that are supposedly hard to shoot down with missiles. The F-35 is the most expensive program in history. Russia took a less expensive approach, building advanced missiles that are hard to shoot down. Russia seems to be very good at maximizing their defense budget.
Based on what I’ve read, stealth was very much wishful thinking and counteracted in the early stages…..
I don’t know if that is true.
It's true. Stealth measures do not make an object (plane, ship etc.) invisible to sophisticated radar, although they reduce the visibility range, possibly by as much as half, thus giving the defender less time to respond.
James, you started out with an obvious fact that everyone knows, that stealth is not invisibility. The facts in dispute are what range can F-35 be detected and the range they can be targeted. It’s hard to find that information, but one article claimed S300 couldn’t target a F-35 until the range was about 18km - less than 10% of a conventional plane. if that is true that means S300 has no chance.
The missile may always get through, but the West is betting that the Russian leadership will continue to be dithering and indecisive.
Was Russia dithering when taking over Crimea, or giving a beating to Georgia, or starting this war in Ukraine, or supporting Assad in Syria?
This struggle is one of attrition and lucky for Russia, there is a lot of attrition from within in the west...
Russia wasn't dithering or indecisive, and Russia was successful. Instead, we hear excuse after excuse, even as rockets hit Russia and more to come.
Any sign of scalp or atcam recently ? 🤓
Several times lately.
There have been only short range missiles / drones since 'Hazel' - no long range missiles.
Oh, well in that case.....
When you have to make "well, technically" arguments, you've already lost. It's like Mormon teenagers claiming to be "technical virgins" because he didn't move it around after he put it in.
But the majority are being destroyed and damage seems limited. Having been following this war daily for 2 years now, it is crystal clear Putin has played a masterful game and all the propaganda from Western media has now largely been shown to anyone who pays attention to be just that, propaganda. The Western neocons are desperately trying to get Putin to step outside the "box" and do something, anything that enables them to cry havoc and let loose the kittens of war.
Sounds like cope.The US would not put up with "well, only a few missiles hit us, and it wasn't in a really important place..." nonsense.
It seems that Western, especially European, politicians literally do not want to hear the message. The German call for ‘readiness for war’ seems bizarre under the circumstances described by Aurelien.
One thing is for sure: the MIC will profit.
But is it not also conceivable that the war cry is aimed at building up pressure and discipline, censorship and repression within Western states?
Europeans like being slaves.
Or: Those who like to command also like to obey.
The european is a good slave but a bad master. Kiss up, kick down.
Nobody likes being a slave. These kind of stupid pronouncements got you kicked from NC...
Then maybe try not acting so slavish?
"Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master." - Sallust
Bullshit. Most animals won't risk their neck wantonly. But when the treshold is reached, almost everyone springs up.
Ever met a dog, a sheep, a lemming?
Have you?
Very interesting and useful essay: thanks!
My biggest problem with your thesis is that despite the West's "organised retreat from reality", already, it has made a global nuclear war (due to a US First Strike or some other significant crossing of Russian nuclear use Red Lines) very unlikely.
I think it is more likely than ever before.
"Ever before" includes Gen. Curtis LeMay's advice to President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis to do a first strike on the USSR because of a few of their missiles in Cuba. LeMay's first strike was suggested to include the rest of the Commies: like China and most of Eastern Europe.
Multiple US Wargames since then, run multiple times, routinely escalate to include nuclear war, repeatedly.
Although the very biased Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has not moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight lately (it is still at 90 seconds to midnight), many are convinced that the current global situation is the most dangerous ever vis a vis nuclear war.
Many prefer to presume the more comfortable view that the politicians and militaries of all major players are rational, believe nuclear war is unwinnable, and therefore rule out use of nuclear weapons, even in self-defense.... This seems to be wishful thinking for a variety of reasons, especially given a high ranking Officer in the US Strategic Command recently said that the US could survive a nuclear war and have enough nukes left over to launch a second time.
One reason nuclear war is MORE likely is that the US has inadequate war supplies to fight a prolonged widespread CONVENTIONAL war. It seems obvious that most NATO armies are structured to fight small wars against less-than-peer opponents....
No individual NATO country could take the place of Ukraine in the current conflict and win. Imagine Britain trying. It would last until the Russians could find them. After Russian retaliation, the UK would only be left with nukes on subs, if the subs had been hiding underwater somewhere. NATO combined replacing the Ukrainians would be badly outmatched by 500k to 700k Russian combat troops in Ukraine. What would be the only way for NATO to vanquish the Russians, given the US/NATO arsenal?
Nukes.
It would take many years for the US (or any other NATO country save Turkiye) to reinstitute conscription, draft and train 100Ks of troops, equip all the troops, have the MIC build factories and increase production of scores of types of equipment by 10 to 50 times current production rates.
The other alternative?
PREEMPTIVE SELF DEFENSE, aka a FIRST Nuclear STRIKE.
As an example why it would take so long to prepare to fight conventionally: Patriot Missiles
Lockheed makes 500 missiles/year and hopes to raise that to 650/yr in 2027. When Ukraine uses one of its few Patriot Systems left, it often uses all 32 missile in a launcher to try to ward off 1 attack. That means that Ukraine would run out of all US 2024 newly produced missiles with just 16 full launches during the year. Air Defense once a month for a few minutes = no Air Defense.
An no Patriot missiles used in any of the 800 to 1000 US foreign bases would get any replacement missiles all year.
In conclusion, If we agree that hypersonics almost all get through NATO defenses and NATO has a tiny fraction of manpower and air defense it needs to fight a small, but real, war like the one in Ukraine.
What besides strategic nuclear weapons does the West (aka USA) really have?
How can this work as a deterrent if this is ONLY a threat, and NOT A REAL POSSIBILITY based upon PAST First/Preemptive Strikes by the US?
Given the structure of NATO (really US), the fallback position appears ONLY to be nuclear.
That MUST cause fear of a real Nuclear War to be an effective threat.
How come so many, who do not WANT the threat be REAL, assume that it is not REAL?
Assuming the threat is NOT REAL, means it is not an EFFECTIVE Threat and gives the enemy much lore escalation latitude.
And there are a variety of other Hypersonics that are accurate, too, not just Oreshnik.
I agree with you. When the Chess game is clearly lost there are two possibilities. Accept and retire or throw the board at your opponent in a tantrum. And in this war, which is about the dollar essentially, accepting defeat means USA has a huge debt it cannot repay and a bleak future in the new world. A nuclear war is a good solution. And I have done some calculations that show such a war will resolve most of the USA problems. As Stalin famously said, No people, No problem.
All US obligations are owed exclusively in US dollars, which the Federal Reserve can create at will.
Are you aware of the Russian "Dead Hand" system, commonly known as "Perimeter" «Периметр» ?
It's real Dr. Strangelove stuff and still exists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand
Thanks for the info. I had not heard of the "Dead Hand" but I have long been aware of Dead Man Switches (or Triggers), which have the same purpose of causing an explosion if those in charge of it are incapacitated before setting it off.
According to Wikipedia, the Dead Hand may no longer be used, although I am always wary of the veracity and completeness of Wikipedia, given that it has significant input from and is overseen by those who include representatives of the Deep State. After all, Wikipedia would never have published what was published in Wikileaks.
The only ray of hope there is is the fact that the majorities in all western countries would be dead against starting a direct confrontation with Russia.
The majority of many NATO countries are against continuing the Proxy war against Russia and that has not stopped their govt. from sending money, weapons and troops, without a Declaration of War or Having a referendum on going to war in the current low-level of confrontations.
That is very different from sending people to the front lines, to die. All the while conscription being now the hpt topic among many of the western governments. Which everyone admits is flying like lead baloons among the population.
"a high ranking Officer in the US Strategic Command recently said that the US could survive a nuclear war and have enough nukes left over to launch a second time."
Then the 'high ranking officer is an idiot. Russia has more missiles/warheads than the US (plus you can add China's), and Russia has a much bigger land mass with a proportion of its population dispersed over it. So if it works for the US, then it works even more so for Russia. Plus as Aurelian has pointed out, Russia has more expertise in the field. The US has been trying to both upgrade and replace its ICBM system for years, but has so far failed. I believe that they have abandoned the 'replacement' part, while the existing missiles are both obsolete and decaying.
So, so far, so moronic.
It would seem that being detached from reality is not simply an unfortunate side-effect, but the actual modus operandi, if not raison d'etre for the leaders of the Western nations. Not a pretty picture.
I wish I could remember the name, but read a excerpt from a USN admiral's bio where he mentioned being constantly stymied in getting funding for long range missiles by a lobbying blob of Navy Pilots Associations, Aircraft Carrier shipyards, etc. I'd assume the same was true in the US Airforce, and US Army. It's interesting that even the Marines have their own air arm, much less the Army, which seems to defeat the purpose of having an air force, but makes perfect sense if you see the military as a way to extract money.
@J M Hatch
Consider this may be a result of choices deliberately made to prevent the US military leadership across branches from colluding and engaging in any kind of combined arms operation to overthrow our civilian government?
It became a culture by the last stages of the cold war (and especially, AFTER dissolution of USSR due to threat of budget cuts!) where the various branches endlessly competed via bureaucratic infighting, procurement lobbying and PR campaigns. Why you see Madison Ave. warfare campaigns to capture budgets with splashy advertising for weapons systems in MSM publications, at airports and on billboards? Probably don't see that day to day in RF or China as we do here, possibly at military equipment shows & foreign sales events.
At the top officer level over several decades during their struggle against any threat of a "peace dividend" (including the PNAC, GWOT and "forever war" flavors of the month)? Our various service managements energy and attention most often were concentrated in the struggle against EACH OTHER for dominance in the budget theater. Where your attention is, there your life is.
Meanwhile, our intelligence service took a different route to securing their fife. To escape such a contest they developed their OWN sources of "black" funding, largely separated themselves from budgetary control by the electoral dog & pony show, seeded the new information technology sector with venture capital and used the information control so acquired to pursue their own (and certain others?) agendas, wagging dogs as required along the way.
And here we are today!
As far as I read into the history of this, you are very much correct with the first issue. It was always the fear in the Navy that if they develop such large and potent missiles at the Soviet Union, someone in congress would ask the question why then one needs aircraft carriers.
As to the Marines, this is because the Navy abandoned them at Guadalcanal and they were left with whatever aircraft they found on Henderson Field. Since then they insist on their own air arm.
Thank you. It's an interesting story about Guadalcanal, as there were both Marine and Navy Pilots flying out of there, so the Marine Aviation already existed as a thing, but it is given as the excuse for the birth of Marine Aviation. Makes me think.
So, if I understand your point, we better hope that, even if they won't admit it in public, Western leaders get the Dnipro message loud and clear.
And, somehow, it seems that not so many long range missiles flew from Ukraine to Russia lately (while a big batch of them were supposedly and, if so, quite conveniently destroyed near Odessa). So it might be the case. So far.
I have been reading your weekly essays for several months and have finally decided to subscribe. I look forward to a new topic each Wednesday. I usually agree with most of your analysis, though I have no expertise. I vacillate between being very worried and being confident that nothing world-ending will happen.
It seems that Russia will continue to exercise caution and restraint in Ukraine, so it seems to me, the Middle East is the hotspot more likely to explode beyond anyone’s control. The U.S.A wants that oil and is loathe to relinquish it.
"Which brings us to the third possibility, which I consider by far the most likely: unspoken intimidation."
Perhaps. But intimidation only works if there is a legitimate threat involved. Russia can have the world's most splendiferous weapons ever. But if they are afraid to use them, then are they really a threat? The West is lead by crazy and/or stupid people. The only thing that MIGHT, only MIGHT, get through their heads is an actual strike on a NATO asset. The Aegis Ashores would be my move. Total destruction. Short of that, it's just Putin making noises. And it is. He needs to show a willingness, the balls, to actually follow through. THEN, and only then, will you perhaps see reason seep into the mush brains of Western leadership. And if they respond with force, well, tis better to die standing than live on your knees. If necessary, burn it all down.
Sadly true.
I feel I must inject some news into this excellent argument. There is a new weapon, which has all the characteristics of what little we are told about Oreshnik. It is a novel technology being currently deployed by Israel. It is a neutron producing, high temperature Uranium deuterium cold fusion warhead. The exothermic Uranium combustion enthalpy of some 3500 kJ per mol is such that a 50kg uranium warhead will flash at 4500 degrees. Much the same temperature Putin referred to. The use of this technology leaves behind enriched Uranium residues and some excess radiation due to neutron activation. Everything nearby 200 m is vapourised. my contacts in Lebanon informed me that the nasrullah bomb crater was 20 times background in radiation just after the hit, and a sample was analysed showing excess Uranium.
There is a limit it the sheer mass that can be carried by Oreshnik and a simple half em vee squared calculation using the 3.5 km per second velocity and m as 50kg gives far too few Joules of energy to write home about. So something else is happening there.
Aurelian says "... the West is now virtually unable to respond to Russian missile developments... the governing classes ... have [not] begun to understand the nature of the problem."
The leaders of the U.S. and the West consistently miscalculate. This is due to many factors, including plain laziness and stupidity. But despite billions of dollars spent on intelligence collection and analysis, all too often good information doesn't get through to the top or is ignored.
It would seem that the "blob" -- CIA, DOD and the many other intelligence agencies (MI6) -- totally misread Russia's military capabilities, its ability to work around sanctions, etc. This happens again and again.
The President gets daily intelligence briefings. It would seem that these briefings are full of confirmation bias. As Larry Johnson has said, the CIA and other intelligence agencies are now so politicized that any intelligence that contradicts the desired political narrative is suppressed (or not even gathered).
There IS accountability. We just had an election. Biden was repudiated. But is Trump going to reform this corrupt system or just make it worse? I expect the latter. As in Trump's first term, the con man will want con men to run his con-agencies.
Who will dare to tell the leadership of the U.S. and the NATO countries the truth about this rapidly changing world?
"This is due to many factors, including plain laziness and stupidity."
No.
It's a highly sophisticated laziness and stupidity.
Thanks-- this guy writes pure manure
Even assuming that Russian capabilities really are what they are cracked up to be here, everyone from the lowest broom-pusher all the way up to the head of the CIA knows that you do not get ahead in that organization by telling the boss something he does not want to hear.
n.b. Celine's Second Law.
There's something about the Oreshnik that Putin referred to in regard to nato/us missiles. Even in regard to their F16's I think.
And that is that the target cannot know if it is nuclear armed or not.
So it has to be treat as though it is.
So they cannot be used.
Putin made this point with nato's escalation in regard to F16's I think and so on.
Threatening that Russia would have to assume nuclear armament aiming right at them and respond in kind.
This applies to the Oreshnik, clearly.
To say they have a non nuclear capacity to inflict this destruction is not quite right in practice therefore.
In practice they don't. Not if every use will be seen as a nuclear use by the enemy and elicit appropriate responses. This is a somewhat large factor.
And what happened at the target zone? Still no photos/good reports. Why?
"...every use will be seen as a nuclear use by the enemy and elicit appropriate responses"
Not if they telephone the attack ahead of time.
seriously? you think when the fate of the world depends upon an attack you'd take the word of someone on a telephone line? Let me give you a call. I know where you can get a good deal on a couple of bridges...
The Russians called Washington about the Donetsk attack half an hour before, and Putin said he would do so again every time Oreshnik is used to allow civilians to evacuate.
It's all very sensible, in fact it's MORE intimidating than a surprise assault. He said what he was going to do and then he did it exactly as he said he would. This is the equivalent of the local Mafia Don calling you up and saying "I'm coming around in 30 minutes to burn your house down and there is nothing you can do about it, better get the wife and kids out now".
And then he arrives with the boys and the gasoline, 29 minutes and 57 seconds after he hangs up the phone.
I do not see it as sensible. On the surface it appears so of course but i already pointed out that Putin himself makes the point that you cannot know.
Putin makes that point. Uses it as a threat. Do I need to keep saying that?
And from there it is simple 'warfare logic' that you don't believe your enemy when he says 'this horse I'm sending has got nothing in it'.
Do you?
I'm just repeating myself. That's enough. No more.
Thank you for another very interesting essay. It reflects comments made by JMG at Ecosophia and a few other independent commentators, but takes things a little further. The very last sentence begs the question: if the person you are trying to intimidate is too dim to realise they are being intimidated, or pretends not to understand as a way of calling the bluff, what do you -as Russia - do? If you spell it out in words of one syllable in public, you look - as mentioned - like a nasty bully who could lose allies and attract hostility from those who remained neutral. Perhaps the result is much the same if you stage a demonstrative attack on some pretext, again as suggested in the essay. Is perhaps playing down the importance of the - so far - single Oreshnik strike and avoiding provoking another, the best course for the West at present?
The Western MSM have not really acknowledged any major change in the military landscape and I don't detect any change in the perception of the West's position among the public as yet. Given that, what might Russia do to leverage their new capability?
"if the person you are trying to intimidate is too dim to realise they are being intimidated, or pretends not to understand as a way of calling the bluff, what do you -as Russia - do?"
If you will permit the gangster analogy, if the man you are trying to intimidate is too stupid to realize he is being intimidated then you would punch him in the face and break his nose, maybe steal his watch. But you wouldn't cut his throat or burn his house down.
You might well be right. If Storm Shadows get used again and do some serious damage inside Russia, well, I'm not sure I'd like to be at RAF Akrotiri. That would really be a message that could not be ignored.
Your - "The western response to this incident has been interesting: a mixture of utter bewilderment, residual delusions of technical superiority, and a hope that there is only one such missile, and so the problem will simply go away." - might be best explained here - https://theunclejohnsband.blogspot.com/2024/10/information-processing-and-functional.html?m=1 - most folks are unable to process new information which goes too far from their present knowledge base, thus the statement on my T shirt - "I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you!"