Disasters in Ukraine 2

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/ukraine-why-defeat-is-inevitable-part-2/

Gradually recognized Western commentators begin to realize that the replacement war in Ukraine is lost. Take, for example, Colonel Richard Kemp, an exceptionally hawky commentator of the conflict in Ukraine at The Telegraph. He admitted recentThat the summertime offensive is doomed to failure, thus humiliating the NATO alliance. It's true. However, the cure proposed by him, orthodoxy of neoconservative hawks, is to "double" our efforts to arm the Ukrainians for the legendary large triumph next year – a re-spring offensive resulting in the Russian army yet falling apart. I'm certain we've heard all this before. specified naive incorrect reasoning fits into the general tendency of utopian delusions, which are now spreading in the modern West—the large “nonsense machines ” described by the late British philosopher Roger Scruton.

However, this aggressive pursuit of endless war is the view of the establishment commentator. As he notes Outstanding global relations investigator John Mearsheimer, many erstwhile elder officers and another “experts” knows that their position as de facto Military consultants of the Western elite depend on repeating these ideological lies over and over again. An accepted commentator is expected to insist that Russia is forever on the verge of falling and that Ukraine will abruptly win if it receives more equipment. Indeed, David Petraeus, erstwhile U.S. Army general and CIA director, argued recentlyHe hoped that the Russian army would “fall apart” in the face of the Ukrainian offensive, and insisted that more equipment be delivered to Kiev to warrant the upcoming victory. As we saw on these pages, There are exceptions. However, the characteristic feature of our era is that recognized “experts” are unpunishedly mistaken continuously and disastrously.

In their ignorance these people believe they embody Churchill's spirit. But the moral of Churchill's communicative is that He's opposed. He suffered from the spirit of his era and consequently at the hands of a hysterical, ideologically unified crowd. And vice versa, these modern hawks are thoughtlessly orthodox: they give the epoch what it wants in the form of a simplified and a historical communicative of morality, which proclaims the rejection of diplomacy and glorifies a terrible dedication to a hopeless cause.

The proposed neoconservative strategy in Ukraine is clearly absurd. Who will supply thousands of additional tanks and armored vehicles necessary to accomplish the parity with Russian forces? What good is the tiny fleet of F-16 fighters against above 700 Russian fighter aircraft as well as ground-based air defence systems specially designed to combat F-16 ? Which nation will cover the vast ammunition shortages, Which Kiev faces? Who will fund specified a strategy? Who will supplement the dedicated equipment of our own armies? The full thought of arming Ukrainians to triumph over the overwhelming Russian force is both ignorant and naively fancy.

As Mearsheimer notes, Russian war production aggressively overtakes western production, which chronically suffers from private contractors. In the study of the Royal United Institute of Services (RUSI) It was noted that "the Russian attack uses ammunition at a rate well above both US forecasts and current ammunition production". Russian defence manufacture employs from 2.5 to 3 million workers. The US defence manufacture employs about 800,000 workers. Moreover, Putin announced recentlythat military spending will account for almost a 3rd of Russia's full expenditure in 2024. How in September reported "New York Times", the Moscow military-industrial base already far exceeds American and European production combined. Therefore, the hysterical strategies of the advanced priests of the commentariat are nothing but naive illusion – a fantasy that ignores our own strategy limitations. Ukrainians are asked by their western guardians to fight to the death, despite the known chronic deficiency of material resources essential for victory.

However, a deeper question arises from neoconservative recipes: what would happen if Russia failed rapidly in east Ukraine? In January 2023, RAND Corporation, sponsored by the U.S. government investigation institute dealing with global affairs, published detailed essay on the hard realities of this war, which caught the attention of many Western officials. First, the authors acknowledged that Russia sees this war as existential: the Kremlin – and, most importantly, the Russian people – consider Ukraine to be a vital strategical territory which in no case can fall into NATO's hands. The geographical way to Moscow is the plains of Ukrainian steppe, repeatedly utilized by European invaders. Step is simply a historically and strategically dedicated place to the Russian people. This fundamental fact, essential for knowing the origins of war, is seldom mentioned in mainstream comments.

For this reason, too, as previously written in TCWThe Kremlin has made all effort to legally incorporate the occupied territories into the Russian state. The 4 easternmost circuits (regions) Ukraine includes at least 60 percent of Ukrainian manufacture and natural resources, and are now subject to Moscow. These territories so constitute de facto The western edge of the Homeland and will be defended by all available means. In any event, another than the full failure of Russia, these lands will no longer be subject to negotiation and, most importantly, any future peace agreement will be limited by this provision.

Second, the RAND article argues that Russian military strategists consider tactical atomic weapons to be a legitimate tool on the battlefield in times of crisis. In the case of Russian military implosion, the usage of specified weapons against military or civilian purposes constitutes a ‘probable eventuality’. atomic escalation is not an idle threat, as Western neoconservatives constantly like to claim. It is alternatively built into the Russian strategical column: the eventual defence against the fall of the holy western flank of Moscow. I repeat, it's not the Russians. they rightly perceive their atomic arsenal like this: the fact is that That's what they think.. The fact that this deep threat is treated with specified shallow recklessness shows the deepening foolish ignorance of the modern Western statesman.

Thirdly, most importantly, RAND authors claim that the Russian usage of tactical atomic weapons would inevitably turn into a strategical atomic exchange in which American, European and Russian cities are razed in respective hours apart as a consequence of chaotic events that no government can realize or control. As I explained in another place, Leading investigation institutes and erstwhile officials of the U.S. Department of defence consider the fall of the Russian Army on its western flank as the main possible origin triggering atomic warfare in the modern era. Moreover, specified experts note that the Russian atomic arsenal is both larger and more technologically advanced than the US, as it was renovated in the first decade of the 21st century in consequence to the extension of the NATO alliance to east Europe.

What's important, We have never been told that there is no effective defence against strategical atomic weapons, each falling into multiple hypersonic heads, moving at 7 miles per second. They're fundamentally unstoppable. That's why the Kremlin likes to point out that the American people are de facto Annihilated, it is adequate for 1 to hit the east coast of the US and the another to hit the west coast of the USA. The only conceivable “defence” is the analogous annihilation of the Russian people: a terrible spectrum of mutually assured destruction, which many have reportedly passed into past with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Two points are so clear. The best Western experts say that the Russian threat of atomic war is not a bluff, but in fact a serious possible that will lead to a global disaster. Moreover, it is the fast breakdown of the Russian army in Ukraine – precisely what the elite hawks of the mainstream year long for – according to scientists, that is to start this atomic disaster. It is apparent that we have listened to the incorrect people: the strategy of the neoconservative crowd has failed; and if this had worked, it would almost surely have caused disaster.

This failed, stupid, deadly policy in Ukraine is only a manifestation of the delusional political idealism that presently prevails in the West – a device of nonsense. As we will see in the latest essay of this series, neoliberal incitement to war will shortly meet with its enemy.