Yves here. Because I have been devoting so much attention to the Iran war, I’ve been able to monitor what is going on with the Ukraine war, and the bizarre threats from many UK and EU leaders when they lack the means to do much, out of the corner of one eye. It would take at least a decade to muster even sort-of a serious threat to Russia (ex nukes), given their hollowed-out manufacturing and high energy costs and Iran-war-related commodity shortage a big headwind to reindustrialization. On top of that, as Stanislav Krapivnik has explained long-form, nominally European weapons depend on critical US-supplied components. Krapivnik has estimated it would take at least a decade, and more like two, for the EU to design and build truly indigenous weapons systems.
Oh, and how cooperative will China be in providing the needed chips and materials if the EU gets even uglier vis-a-vis Russia?
Having said that, even a weak party in a geographically favorable position can cause a lot of harm. For instance, Russia is well aware that its Kalingrad enclave and Baltic Sea shipping are exposed.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
There are really only three scenarios left: NATO finally agrees to some form of Russia’s proposals; Russia launches a preventive war against European NATO betting that the US won’t directly intervene; or Russia peacefully subordinates itself to the West.
Last weekend’s surprise call between Presidents Emmanuel Macron and Alexander Lukashenko followed Deputy Chair of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev warning about the 1941-like threat posed by Germany’s remilitarization and the UK assembling a multinational navy to contain Russia. These three developments collectively draw attention to how the Brits, French, and Germans, Russia’s traditional European rivals, are now right on its doorstep. The security implications are profound.
The Brits are nestling up in Estonia, from where they plan to lead Russia’s containment along the Arctic -Baltic front, while the Germans opened a base in Lithuania and the French just announced regular nuclear drills with Poland. As a reminder, Estonia borders “mainland Russia” while Lithuania and Poland border its exclave of Kaliningrad and mutual defense ally Belarus. The “military Schengen” between the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland might thus soon be expanded to include France and the Baltic States.
That would maximally optimize the flow of troops and equipment from Western Europe to Russia’s borders, thus conforming with Russian policymakers’ fears that the EU is gearing up for a potential invasion of their country sometime in the future. Given France’s base in Romania and military pact with neighboring Moldova, which constitute a critical flank in the Ukrainian Conflict due to enabling France to aid Odessa in the scenario of its threatened conventional intervention, they and others might join too.
To make matters even more concerning from the perspective of Russia’s national security interests, Germany recently clinched a deep-strike defense co-production deal with Ukraine, thus expanding its military footprint even deeper within what Russia considers to be its “sphere of influence”. The result is that the UK is entrenching its influence along the Arctic-Baltic front, Germany is doing so in the Baltic (Lithuanian) and Ukrainian ones, while France is already entrenched in Poland, Romania, and Moldova.
Germany aspires to build European NATO’s largest army, which would require overtaking Poland and ideally from its perspective subordinating that country as a vassal, while France and the UK are nuclear powers. The threat posed by their military-strategic convergence right on Russia’s doorstep therefore cannot be overestimated. At the very least, it could embolden their partners to behave aggressively against Russia, calculating as they might that those Great Powers would deter Russian retaliation.
That would be a mistake of epic proportions because Russia cannot allow such a scenario to unfold, let alone become the “new normal”, as it would amount to them weaponizing it for coercing never-ending concessions that would culminate in time with Russia’s subordination and ultimately “Balkanization”. In other words, a hot NATO-Russian war would likely be inevitable, though nobody can say for sure whether the US would help its European allies, nor to what extent if so, or whether it would hang them out to dry.
It’s therefore more urgent than ever that the European security architecture be reformed like Russia sought to do through diplomatic means before the special operation, the failure of which was why Putin sought to advance this through military ones instead. There are really only three scenarios left: NATO finally agrees to some form of Russia’s proposals; Russia launches a preventive war against European NATO betting that the US won’t directly intervene; or Russia peacefully subordinates itself to the West.
There is a fourth ( could lead to the first). The leaders get shown the door, and their replacements find from somewhere the backbone to tell the oligarchs to sod off, fire VdS and Kallas, and just start acting on the best basis for their citizens. Potentially Trump would be happier with the new leaders, but the US deep state would not.
The “fourth” option assumes that the civilian governments in Europe control their military/security establishments. What we have seen so far (Romania) is that any attempt to establish an opponent to warmongering is met with electoral process interference by outside forces intervening to makes sure the warmongers continue to control security policy.
The same is true in the US where recent polls show “a clear nationwide majority of 52 percent of all registered voters now condemn the military intervention as a mistake.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-poll-reveals-s%20%20ift-as-trump-voters-turn-against-iran/ar-AA23P9cE
But why should Trump and the warmongers care? If Trump goes down, only pro-war Democrats would be allowed to replace him. They’ll always manage to find just enough votes to keep it going, serially rotating the pro-war culprit so that no one will have to bear the brunt of voter blowback.
Recall 2006, when Democrats won a mandate to stop the Iraq War. Pelosi refused to act on it, preferring instead to saddle Republicans with an unpopular war for the 2008 election. She even threatened to remove the House Budget Committee Chairman, if he refused to provide funding for the “surge.”
all true
There’s likely a hard right president in France as of next year and I think the current centrist factions are working overtime to tie his hands so that nothing Ukraine or EU can be easily wound down.
The far right is treated as an acceptable option precisely because they only make noise about being against war while in opposition.
This all depends on how suicidal the Europeans are feeling. If they try to make a move on Kaliningrad, Russian missiles would annihilate any nearby military base and troop formation to that Oblast. If they tried to block Russia in at the Baltic Sea, Russia would announce that legally that is an act of war and are those Europeans sure that they want to go so far? The Europeans and Brits may move their military forces up to the Russian borders but look what Iran did to those US & NATO bases that were stationed near them. But of course time is on Russia’s side as the incompetent leadership of the EU ensures that they de-industrialize further, have less energy available to power their economies, have a very discontented population due to the heavy measure being brought in and of course the inability of the present leaders to even organize a p*** up in a brewery.
Any move on Kaliningrad will have to have a sound or ‘sound-sounding’* cassus belli to try and stay under the article five umbrella, NATO’s only real defence. Russia seems to be extremely sensitive to optics and the Euros know this so there won’t just be a surge over the border but rather a gradual series or provocations to which they’ll constantly frame Russia as the aggressor.
Of course at some point narrative will hit reality and the Russians will lash out. President Putin will probably be forced into retirement and someone more aggressive (and probably anti-western, the conservative sections of Russia have scads of people like that) will replace him.
(*I am so using ‘sound-sounding’ from now on)
Everybody is fixating on overrunning Kaliningrad, or on blockading Russia in the Baltic sea — but both of these moves would rapidly degenerate into a direct, full-scale confrontation with Russia, possibly with Bielorussia as well; furthermore, these countries are very close to the battlefield and have a strategic hinterland — which the Baltic states definitely do not have.
If Europeans attempt to push Russia around, I would rather bet they start with Transnistria. After all, it is quite isolated and fairly distant from Russia; it is completely surrounded by EU/NATO friendlies (Ukraine and Moldavia, with Romania a bit further away); it is not recognized as an independent state; its small Russian garrison would have a really hard time, since the tiny, extremely narrow territory, appears almost indefensible; finally, Moldavia is itching to reincorporate the breakaway territory.
Oddly enough, a few days ago Putin issued and ukaz making it really easy for the Transnistrians to get Russian citizenship. Half of them already have it, but now it’s available for the rest just by merely applying for it.
About as easy as it is for a Moldovan to get Romanian citizenship.
The problem for EU/NATO is that they have to go trough Moldova, which is not a member of NATO, but is well within the Russian drone/missile range. And it would, of course, assert that Russia will take Odessa and probably Gagauzia, too, when the dust settles.
If the EU ever attempts such an offensive, I suspect the idea will be to surround and capture the Russian garrison so that its members can serve as chips in the ensuing haggling about the future of Transnistria. Moldova would end up with what it wants, while Ukraine possibly lose more than what it feared.
And what do they imagine the point is? It is all misguided attempts to starve Russia of foreign trade, as if they weren’t issuing their own currency, and trade partners with a more lucrative far east? The constant play, for Israel and Europe/Ukraine, in their desperation, is to provoke escalation in hopes of drawing Uncle Sam in to deliver the definitive win…
Those European nations are already in the NATO war against Russia. If Russia attacks military targets which are part of the NATO war machine already being used to attack it, then Russia is not starting a new war.
What would “we” (the Isr-directed US military industrial complex) intervene with? Did those figures noting our depleted missile & interceptor stocks only include what we had in the Middle East? i.e. we have plenty of weapons still in Europe, to contain whatever massive missile and drone strikes Russia would hurl at European NATO forces
Nukes.
If nuclear weapons weren’t an issue, there’d already have been military strikes by the Russians on at least a couple of minor European countries, or, rather, the “Ukrainian” drone and weapons production facilities therein. Precisely because a) the Europeans, collectively, cannot stand up in conventional terms to the Russian military; and b) the US, even pre-Iran but especially post-Iran, would not have been in the mood for a full-scale conventional war with Russia over a blown-up factory in Poland or Estonia or whever.
But the danger is always that someone, somewhere, escalates this to nuclear. If it’s the US under some Article 5 pretext, then half of humanity dies (best case) and the Russian state, nay, Russian civilization, ceases to exist (ditto the Americans). So Task Numero Uno for the Kremlin is to make absolutely sure the Americans are not involved in any way, shape or form. And this means, among other things, trying to stay as far away from Article 5 as possible, while also maintaining at least some communication channels (to give the US advanced warning of any serious strikes, for example).
Then there’s the Brits and the Frogs, who both have their own nuclear arsenals, and at least some delivery systems (submarines) that would preserve counter-strike capability under any scenario. To be sure, a nuclear exchange with the Europeans would not wipe out half of humanity – just half of the Europe – but by the way, this is why the Russians are extemely sensitive to any other European country (e.g. Germany) developing nuclear capabilities. In any event, keeping Britain and France from becoming directly involved in any dust-up in Eastern Europe is Task Numero Dos, and I suspectificate that Moscow is hoping the “far right” parties in those countries will prove marginally saner than the Starmer-Macron axis.
And this is also where the announced program of “sustained” strikes on Kiev factors in. I am fairly confident that, cynical as this may sound, the college strike was more of a convenient pretext. Russian civilians die to Ukrainian strikes nearly every day, including in “mainland” Russia. But there is a pressing need to demonstrate to the (Western) Europeans that, one, Moscow is moving up the escalation ladder (after Kiev – Estonia!), and two, the US won’t do a thing about it. Whether this works, we shall see.
Welcome to real politics: none of that will happen.
NATO will not agree, because NATO cannot agree to anything Russia proposes. NATO today is a mix of diverging interests, and at the best of times cannot agree on much. Now, with a war in its east? A war which a least some of the countries see as proof of the big danger Russia is for them? There is no way for NATO to agree on anything but that.
Besides: Why Russia should trust Trump? Why should it trust the next US leader?
Russia itself certainly has no interest in a war with the most of Europe. A preventive war? It cannot win (that doesn’t mean it has to lose – only that it cannot win anything of substance). That war would unite Europe against Russia, and might even drive Europe back into the loving embrace of the US.
That kind of stupidity i’d expect from others.
And that Russia subordinates itself to the West? No way. Why should it?
That war will go on and on, until something breaks the stalemate. Either NATO breaks (which is not as unthinkable as it once was), or Ukraine breaks, or Russia breaks. I don’t know which is how likely – and i don’t know what to hope for.
An outbreak of conscience, maybe? Unlikely, i know.
“And that Russia subordinates itself to the West? No way. Why should it?”
It is interesting how MSM coverage of Russia was generally favorable when the Oligarchs owned their media and industry, but once Putin made them return their dubiously acquired assets, the MSM went on a tirade unlike anything post-1917 (the Steele Dossier, hacked the 2016 election [many Ds still adhere to this in some fashion], nonsensical chemical weapons attacks on individuals in England, bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan, targeting hospitals in Syria, etc.).
And the most amazing aspect is even people who see through the Iran BS, swallow the Russia propaganda.
Same script was against Xi.
As Aurelien and others have pointed out – NATO is already in the process of fragmenting. Poland has signed mutual defense pacts with UK, France and Germany. The Nordics are working on their own pact. Israel is luring Greece to join against Turkey. And Spain and Italy just want to be left alone.
UK can still think it’s playing the next round of the Big Game, but in real life one single Russian frigate in the Channel made Starmer to rethink the idea of Royal Navy staring to hijack tankers carrying alleged Russian oil.
Ukraine is becoming so desperate it’s trying to get Belarus to join to war to finally force NATO’s hand without realizing that it would be the crisis that would paralyze EU totally and prove to be the coup de grace for NATO.
On an another front of escalation, the Russian Central Bank has, I believe, sued both the European Council and the EU Parliament for the illegal use of Russian sovereign assets as collateral for Ukrainian loans. In EU General Court.
Both sides are discounting the old Suwalki Gap scenario, looks like expectations are Pskov to Riga and Lithuania being a step too far. Warsaw is in the wrong place for games.
The situation is getting similar to late Napoleonic times in the area, who will be the new Bernadotte ?
Did you mean Bonaparte?
Bernadotte was the french marshall who got adopted as crown prince of Sweden, led the allied armies at Leipzig against Napoleon, used his command to keep the Swedish troops in reserve and once Napoleon retreated towards France, took his swedish troops to attack Denmark from the south, forcing Denmark to give up Norway, resulting in the Swedish-Norwegian union that lasted until 1905. Which I don’t really see how it is relevant to the current situation.
In the event, it will not be a matter of winning but of destroying. There is nothing of substance in the rest of Europe west of the Dnieper that Russia will find desirable. However much you love it, if your dog becomes rabid and it is likely to attack you and your family, would you hesitate to kill it – and any other animal it has infected? From Russia’s viewpoint, destroying before you are destroyed is not only a rational and achievable strategic objective to be determined by some political or military élite, intuitively it is common sense and it will be understood to be so by the Russian people and those people lucky enough to survive the Russian Federation’s preemptive attacks to hang their “leaders” from the nearest lamp post.
Odessa/transnistria are west of the dnieper.
In the event, it will not be a matter of winning but of destroying. There is nothing of substance in the rest of Europe west of the Dnieper that Russia will find desirable. However much you love it, if your dog becomes rabid and it is likely to attack you and your family, would you hesitate to kill it – and any other animal it has infected? From Russia’s viewpoint, destroying before you are destroyed is not only a rational and achievable strategic objective to be determined by some political or military élite, intuitively, it is common sense and it will be understood to be so by the Russian people and those people lucky enough to survive the Russian Federation’s preemptive attacks to hang their “leaders” from the nearest lamp post.
Historical ironies in spades: Drang nach Osten! Wir mussen Lebensraum und Sicherheit fur Europa und Deutschland haben.
I know many are already aware but: You can’t make this stuff up, The Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz’ grandfather was a member of the SA and the Nazi party. Ol’ Freddy says Germany must prepare for war against Russia – again! On the surface this is suicidal, but Is this just a ploy to cut social spending and fund cronies in the US and EU MICIMATT? It could be an excuse and cover for kleptocracy and corruption as well as political distraction.
As Korybko, Krapivnik and many others have noted, it would take many years to raise and arm a military force with any chance of confronting Russia directly.
The long-range plan for the US and the EU/NATO vassals are to pry Ukraine away from Russia, block Russia access to Black Sea (failed), block Russia from Baltic access, impose economic warfare against Russia (seizing dollar assets, imposing illegal “sanctions” etc). force Russia to spend huge amounts on the war and military to economically cripple it (failed) and eventually break up the Russian Federation into smaller, more “manageable” states. In an abstract sense, this is essentially the same policy as the British had 150 plus years ago. Plus ca change..
From MoA who again is quoting commenter ENGLISH OUTSIDER
The whole piece is longer. I leave out the first half as I find it amounts to little material conclusions as to what really will happen from now on. Read that beginning for yourself.
The Ukraine Conflict End State? – by English Outsider
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2026/05/the-ukraine-conflict-end-state-by-english-outsider.html
The positive notion set out by EO afterwards I find more interesting:
Granting the Ukrainian people agency to end things on their terms. I have followed Ukrainian domestic voices way too little to give any verdict of my own.
I do want to remind however of Jacques Baud´s repeated accounts last year and before that many Russian attacks in the West were coordinated with the help of Ukrainian underground opposition which regards Russia at least for now helpful in getting rid of Banderites – enemy of your enemy.
If commenters on MoA ever mentioned these players often overlooked, I don´t know.
“(…)
The above is not speculation or theory. It’s what’s going to happen. But is it permissible, in a comment section, to engage in hopeful speculation?
Because there’s always something new coming up. What seemed a very remote possibility indeed a couple of years ago is now perhaps a little less remote: that the people of remnant Ukraine themselves will finally understand that they’ve been used by the West, used as a mere counter in the Western/Russian conflict, and mercilessly used to an extent now resulting in their destruction. Here on “b’s” site Jeremy Rhymings-Lang, and often others, are charting the change in public opinion in Ukraine in detail and it does look as if that change might be gathering force.
We don’t know how much of the old Ukraine is going to end up as remnant Ukraine. Nothing like as much as would have been the case had the Istanbul negotiations succeeded. But that outside chance, that the Ukrainians themselves will say, “a curse on both your houses,” and themselves prevent the use made of them by the West as a convenient Western attack dog, might just possibly be there.
It should never be forgotten that in 2019 the Ukrainians themselves voted by a landslide majority for just that course. In the intervening years the savagery of war, the increasing grip of the extremists on power, the unremitting efforts by the Wester powers to “keep Ukraine in the fight”, and the heroic obstinacy of the Ukrainians themselves, has seemed to rule that 2019 decision out. The chance is still there.
End of hopeful speculation. But given that the end state of remnant Ukraine is inevitable, it’d be good if that’s how that end state was arrived at.
(…)”
p.s. This is something also Nicolai Petro with Pascal Lottaz brought up 2024/25.
I haven´t heard Petro speak for a few months now, though.
Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern with Joe Lauria:
Karaganov or Not? – Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern Debate What Russia’s Military Strategy Will Be | Russia’s nuclear accusations against Britain and France: tensions rising over Ukraine
62 min.
https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2026/05/karaganov-or-not-scott-ritter-and-ray-mcgovern-debate-what-russias-military-strategy-will-be-russias-nuclear-accusations-against-britain-and-france-tensions-rising-over-ukraine/
Sorry this was 10 days ago…I didn´t realize.
Anyway Ritter is going a bit nuts as he does sometimes unfortunately…
He actually sounds like Kaja Kallas when he is suggesting that RU would be beaten by the summer if nothing happens because he claims RU lost 20% of oil production facilities due to drones so far.
Is he aware that he is undermining his arguments of previous years (demilitarizing NATO, RU supremacy etc.)
Also: It´s odd to suggest that, while Russia pioneered this technology, they were not prepared for what would come of this?
I don´t think so…
Losing 20% production isn’t so bad if the price of what you’re selling is up 80%.
Right. Perhaps he considered that part since.
Commentariat of ConsortiumNews on this podcast actually pointed the price issue out too.
He likes to be dramatic with good intentions but sometimes he achieves the opposite.
Still I don´t entirely understand this whole sudden surge in warnings by the Russians. Or at least some Russians who also have an audience in the West.
But then Mark Sleboda appears rather calm.
And so does Ray McGovern.
He tries to e.g. differentiate precisely what OSCE´s Poljanski said and what not.
Every time NATO crosses a “red line,” Russia should respond with action that achieves a military or strategic advantage. This should be done regardless if that action could trigger a larger response from NATO. This is for Russia’s MOD to weigh the advantages and the possible NATO responses. At least as Russia does this and NATO does not respond in a significant way, Russia position will continue to improve. Otherwise, its position will continue to deteriorate until NATO could possibly become strong enough to dominate. This action could occur within Ukraine’s borders of not. If NATO responds in a significant way, then Russia will have to keep responding this way. Iran has demonstrated how limited the West’s actions are in response to their actions, and Russia is a much more formidable enemy. Russia and China have figured this out.
The western strategy is to relentlessly escalate in little nibbles, but never stopping. That way when their enemy retaliates for the most recent teeny escalation they can act as though such retaliation was heavy handed. Meanwhile they just keep nibbling.
Korybko, meet wrong end of stick. Again. The idea that Europe (even with theoretical US assistance) could, or could even think of “invading Russia,” is beyond surreal. Just look at a map. Better, look at how quickly a three-million strong German plus allied Army ran out of logistics and supply in 1941.
No, this is about the size and shape of European security arrangements after the defeat in Ukraine: what they will be, and who will be influential. Europe will be weak, divided, economically battered, and confronted with a strong and angry Russia that will owe it no favours. It will somehow have to evolve a security policy which is defensive and un-threatening but falls short of actual surrender. The race is therefore on to define and control the future shape of these arrangements, since NATO, as such, will be mostly irrelevant. The two obvious nations to take the lead are Britain and France, and both have been making gestures in this direction. (Germany is as far away from being a serious military power as it has been since 1945.)
Yes but Britain and France don’t exactly have significant military forces either. The entire situation appears unrealistic, and self-destructive, and even pathetic.
One clear “benefit” for the politicians and certain economic interests: The self-imposed “security arrangements” provide strong political excuses to divert large amounts of public resources into MIC (MICIMATT) and provide excuses to massively cut social spending and other programs. By focussing on Russia etc. it also provides a strong political distraction away from domestic troubles.
Narrow economic/financial interests are touted as “national security interests”
(not to mention likely corruption with the large amounts of money involved)
I doubt if it will be as drastic as that. No European state is going to be able to significantly expand its military, and that’s not really the point. After a while people will calm down and realise that. The issue is how to construct a collective security policy faced with an angry and powerful Russia, and whenever you have that kind of question you have a struggle for power and influence. Britain and France have historic military traditions, militaries used to deploying and centuries of experience, which will give them a relative advantage in these internal struggles. As I’ve pointed out many times, Europe (like the US in many ways) faces massive structural problems over defence which no amount of money can cure. Another armoured brigade here or there will change nothing, and at some point rational European governments will arise who will realise this.
Drastically expanding military capability is one thing, drastically expanding allocation of public finances to military and related activity (no matter if effective or not) is another. Using the US as an example, we have seen very significant institutional corruption preventing the development of cutting-edge military tech, and military in general. This is despite record amounts of expenditure.
In EU-land, at least in part, the aim is to distract and misinform domestic audiences, cut social programs, and handing out more public funds to private interests (aka neoliberal austerity economics). We see plans to cut health care, pensions and social programs in Germany, UK, France and elsewhere.
Just saw this from our friend Sir Tony Blair:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-welfare-pension-triple-lock-unsustainable-b2984243.html
As far as building new security architecture for Europe: there will have to be a rapprochement with Russia one way or the other as you implied, but that does not appear likely in the near-term.
👍
Rocky: But that trick never works!
Bullwinkle: This time for sure!
How does that saying go, about the mental state of people who are “trying the same thing and expecting different results?”
Rocky and Bullwinkle, don’t forget the evil Boris and Natasha…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK1yTj1uZEs
CONSORTIUM NEWS Joe Lauria in conversation with German (war) reporter Patrik Baab
The Rise of the New German Militarism
May 28, 2026
In an interview in Berlin, German journalist Patrik Babb explains the rise of the new German militarism and why Germany is so obedient to the U.S.
72 min.
https://consortiumnews.com/2026/05/28/listen-the-rise-of-german-militarism/
Joe Lauria and Consortium is great, thanks. Robert Parry would be proud.
And what if F, UK and D go bankrupt? In the case of UK they doesn’t even have the euro tap, hard IMF (maybe) available only. Yes, IMF could do something (actually is helping Ukraine via dropping money in the shitter and flushing the toilet, it’s the economic high concept of toilet as an event horizon), and their national parliaments could say something. Or not. Or trying to catch some money before it goes far away through the event toilet (as Ukrainians MPs do).
At the end of the day, Nabbulione Buonaparte aka Le Sire, was totally right: war needs three things: money, money and more money.
“And what if F, UK and D go bankrupt?” . . .then they’d be F,UK,D.
IMO that’s the plan: to provoke Russia enough so it provides a pretext for war, which will pivot along the Naval Blockade of Russia’s ports but will also reinforce the Ukrainian front and open new fronts in Kaliningrad (and Belarus surely) and in Finland-Karelia. Estonia and Latvia are probably just sacrificial pawns.
When this dawned to me last summer, I thought that the war would begin in April. Apparently not but I do think that we are very very close to its beginning. The goal is not to actually invade Russia but rather to push it hard enough so it has to make a bad peace deal in Ukraine. Also, in the meantime, negate Russia’s exports (most of them) and their influence in Africa and the Caribbean.
even if the US does intervene, it wouldn’t be able to do much. It can send troops to Ukraine, where staging would be easier than in the Iran theatre, but Russia can take them out.
The problem Russia has is a lack of deterrence, which is ironic given it has the world’s most lethal nuclear arsenal. It needs to re-establish it by ruthlessly taking out some high-value, non-strategic assets the EU has, giving the EU/NATO the choice: escalate, and there’ll be much more where that came from.
The calculus the West always make with their opponents is that they will respond tit-for-tat and never escalate. This allows them to choose the targets they’re willing to swap. By not responding when their red lines were progressively crossed, Russia has exposed itself to further escalation. The reason for not responding was always that we’re winning, so no need to put that in jeopardy by widening the conflict, but it was a miscalculation because it allowed the west to keep escalating and widen the conflict anyway, but on their terms. The sensible thing to do when you don’t have to pay any real costs.
A wise man once said, if you know that you have to fight, you may as well get in the first blows. President Putin would do well to heed his advice now.
Putin knows this. In 2015, he himself said: “Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one rule: if a fight is inevitable you have to strike first.”
But you make good points about the logic of escalation.
Canada is on Russia’s doorstep, too. We’ve put a mechanized brigade in Latvia.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/operations/military-operations/current-operations/operation-reassurance.html
NATO can’t ramp up quickly, but the Russians seem willing to give us the time (they gave Canada the three years it took to deploy in Latvia.) Canada will be trebling its military expenditure over the next few years, as Trump has demanded. There is a lot of investment in drone warfare going on now, too.
How ludicrous, to witness a bunch of countries, every one of which has demographics trending towards self-extinction, all engaging in costly, prolonged, and indecisive armed conflict with one another.
So much of the Western / NATO / European calculus is based on faulty understanding, intelligence and reasoning.
– poor quality intelligence about the realities of the conflict, relying far too heavily on heavily skewed Ukrainian ‘intelligence’,
– belief that, because it has taken so long to capture the Donbas, Russian military strategy and strengths aren’t very good, and that it is really quite weak,
– failure to understand the nature & purpose of attritional warfare,
– belief that Russia’s economy is buckling under the strain of the war and is near to collapse,
– belief that Russia dare not retaliate through fear of the US getting involved and triggering a nuclear exchange,
– belief / hope that if things get bad for the Europeans and NATO, the US will come to their rescue,
– belief that Russian red lines are all bluff and bluster, and can be crossed without fear of retaliation,
– failure to understand the implications of a) the new type of drone warfare and b) the power and versatility of the new Russian hypersonic missiles.
These are just some that make up the mindset in Europe & NATO, but enough for them to make some catastrophic errors of judgement and the subsequent mistakes that will come from them [just like the US has done attacking Iran].
Russia certainly isn’t going to buckle under and subordinate itself to the West – that much is certain. Neither Europe nor NATO are showing any genuine signs of sitting down with Russia to agree on a new security framework.
Which means that either Europe/NATO will be dumb enough to start something and then get a bloody nose when Russia hits back, or Russia will undertake some form of ‘warning’ preemptive military action that will demonstrate clearly that they are serious and are prepared to fight back if attacked.
At this point, I think that Russia will take some kind of preemptive action to signal a warning that can’t easily be misunderstood – say, an Oreshnik strike against one or more ‘abandoned’ targets in Europe preceded by a timed warning. Or perhaps, a series of such strikes in different countries to make sure each one gets the message – loud and clear.
“Don’t even think about it. We can reach you anywhere and strike before you even know it’s coming. With or without nukes – your choice!”