Dr Starr's piece triggered a few thoughts. Might as well share them, for what they're worth.
He may prove to be right but if so, any such escalation would I fear be a grave error on Russia's part.
As things stand, for most of the world Russia still occupies the moral high ground. While no one (very much including Russia) likes the SMO, given the intransigence of its adversaries the need to carry on is generally acknowledged outside the west and Russia's patience and restraint are appreciated.
The net result, in my view, is that the small cracks in western unity are slowly widening. While most of the elites are still committed, the economic and social consequences of the anti-Russia crusade are uniformly negative. Domestic politics, particularly in Europe, are becoming ever more fractious. In short, time is on Russia's side.
A dramatic escalation would derail all that. And for what? If one thing has become clear in the last three years, it's just how much military force is required to subdue a determined opponent who has substantial external assistance.
Short of nuclear armageddon, in which everyone loses, how likely is it that any stepped up attack, or sequence of attacks, would break the will of Russia's opponents? More likely, I suspect, would be a further hardening of their attitudes and, perhaps, an increase in their number.
While I'm still not sure launching the SMO was the best strategy, having done so the cool, calm, methodical and careful manner in which it's been conducted has made the best of Russia's exquisitely difficult situation. With the military endgame in Ukraine in sight, changing the plan in an essentially emotional response to these latest provocations would not only be hugely risky, but quite likely counter-productive.
Putin has always kept the end game in mind. Namely, what sort of world will we be left with after the SMO is complete? The path to a livable, at least marginally cooperative one is narrow and demonstrations of destructive capability are unlikely to help.
In a Truth Social post yesterday, Trump said "President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields."
He made no further comment on that aspect. Instead, he moved on to note that he and Putin had also discussed Iran, with Putin suggesting Russia might be able to assist in the negotiations in order to arrive at a peaceful solution.
Question is whether Trump knew about the attack on the Russian military airfields. If he really didn't, and if his senior national security people also didn't know - in other words, it was in effect a (carryover?) rogue operation, probably by some combination of the CIA, MI6 and Ukraine - these lethally dangerous operations may have acted as a wake-up call for the administration.
If so, improbable though it all seems, they will have to set to work more thoroughly rooting out and quashing these rogue elements. Hard to imagine that can be done covertly so we will probably know the truth before too long.
Based on Trump's apparent calm acceptance of Russia's stated need to seriously retaliate for the airfield attacks, we will probably also know the nature of that response fairly soon. I still think it's likely to be restricted to non-nuclear actions within Ukraine, but they may be, and arguably need to be, very severe indeed.
That would not, I think, jeopardise the way Russia is perceived in the non-west but might serve the purpose of (finally) convincing some in the west of the dangers of continuing provocations.
Well surely the SMO ended summer 2022 with the appointment of Surovikin and the start of attrition warfare. I have not heard of Russians being arrested for calling the SMO a war since then.
Some context. Russia has 100k+ military dead, true. But Ukraine has 1.2million military dead. Ukraine is about to collapse at any moment - hence the wild terrorism and sabotage being promoted as Ukrainian success. That Western media still write up this nonsense as a real threat to Russia shows that western media understands how close to collapse Ukraine (and Nato) is.
Meanwhile weapon wise US and Nato look pathetic with their wunderwaffen being quite ineffective while Russia's hypersonics have proved vastly superior to anything the west has (and Yemen undelined the point too).
Russia has switched its economy to supplying BRICS with raw materials and demonstrated the ineffectiveness of sanctions not just on Russia but on anyone else too.
US has pretty much pulled out of Nato and what remains is collapsing (all the talk is of much higher military spending by 2030 so we know there is nothing at present).
Russia has known it was fighting Nato since 2014 or earlier. It chose not to back LPR/DPR rebels in 2014/15 because at that time direct conflict with Nato soldiers in Nato uniforms would have been unpleasant at best and perhaps worse. instead it accepted the obviously false Minsk agreements which (though Putin claims not to hav been deceived) they certainly knew would not be kept by Nato controlled Ukraine.
It is of course the Karate Kid or one of many hollywood movies, Nato bullies Russia in 1990, in 2000s, in 2010s and continues in 2020s. (Just look at the maps of Nato year by year). Perfectly sensible policy in 1990s when Russia was very weak. Less wise in 2000s when Nato had taken the peace dividend. Russia went to the gym, Nato sat and drank beer. By 2010s Nato was weak but still the bully boy - Nato learnt its lesson in 2022.
In 2017 Trump told a few truths - MAGA (still the only acknowledgement by any western leader that US or West was on the way down. And the 2% of GDP on defence for European Nato countries or US will not defend you - was a direct warning of the planned war with Russia.
So the good news is that Nato is already defeated, Russia prepared for a 2020s war with Nato, Nato claims to be preparing for a 2030s war. It is not happening now.
Dr Starr's piece triggered a few thoughts. Might as well share them, for what they're worth.
He may prove to be right but if so, any such escalation would I fear be a grave error on Russia's part.
As things stand, for most of the world Russia still occupies the moral high ground. While no one (very much including Russia) likes the SMO, given the intransigence of its adversaries the need to carry on is generally acknowledged outside the west and Russia's patience and restraint are appreciated.
The net result, in my view, is that the small cracks in western unity are slowly widening. While most of the elites are still committed, the economic and social consequences of the anti-Russia crusade are uniformly negative. Domestic politics, particularly in Europe, are becoming ever more fractious. In short, time is on Russia's side.
A dramatic escalation would derail all that. And for what? If one thing has become clear in the last three years, it's just how much military force is required to subdue a determined opponent who has substantial external assistance.
Short of nuclear armageddon, in which everyone loses, how likely is it that any stepped up attack, or sequence of attacks, would break the will of Russia's opponents? More likely, I suspect, would be a further hardening of their attitudes and, perhaps, an increase in their number.
While I'm still not sure launching the SMO was the best strategy, having done so the cool, calm, methodical and careful manner in which it's been conducted has made the best of Russia's exquisitely difficult situation. With the military endgame in Ukraine in sight, changing the plan in an essentially emotional response to these latest provocations would not only be hugely risky, but quite likely counter-productive.
Putin has always kept the end game in mind. Namely, what sort of world will we be left with after the SMO is complete? The path to a livable, at least marginally cooperative one is narrow and demonstrations of destructive capability are unlikely to help.
A coda to the above.
In a Truth Social post yesterday, Trump said "President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields."
He made no further comment on that aspect. Instead, he moved on to note that he and Putin had also discussed Iran, with Putin suggesting Russia might be able to assist in the negotiations in order to arrive at a peaceful solution.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114626383407680212Truth Details | Truth Social
Question is whether Trump knew about the attack on the Russian military airfields. If he really didn't, and if his senior national security people also didn't know - in other words, it was in effect a (carryover?) rogue operation, probably by some combination of the CIA, MI6 and Ukraine - these lethally dangerous operations may have acted as a wake-up call for the administration.
If so, improbable though it all seems, they will have to set to work more thoroughly rooting out and quashing these rogue elements. Hard to imagine that can be done covertly so we will probably know the truth before too long.
Based on Trump's apparent calm acceptance of Russia's stated need to seriously retaliate for the airfield attacks, we will probably also know the nature of that response fairly soon. I still think it's likely to be restricted to non-nuclear actions within Ukraine, but they may be, and arguably need to be, very severe indeed.
That would not, I think, jeopardise the way Russia is perceived in the non-west but might serve the purpose of (finally) convincing some in the west of the dangers of continuing provocations.
Well surely the SMO ended summer 2022 with the appointment of Surovikin and the start of attrition warfare. I have not heard of Russians being arrested for calling the SMO a war since then.
Some context. Russia has 100k+ military dead, true. But Ukraine has 1.2million military dead. Ukraine is about to collapse at any moment - hence the wild terrorism and sabotage being promoted as Ukrainian success. That Western media still write up this nonsense as a real threat to Russia shows that western media understands how close to collapse Ukraine (and Nato) is.
Meanwhile weapon wise US and Nato look pathetic with their wunderwaffen being quite ineffective while Russia's hypersonics have proved vastly superior to anything the west has (and Yemen undelined the point too).
Russia has switched its economy to supplying BRICS with raw materials and demonstrated the ineffectiveness of sanctions not just on Russia but on anyone else too.
US has pretty much pulled out of Nato and what remains is collapsing (all the talk is of much higher military spending by 2030 so we know there is nothing at present).
Russia has known it was fighting Nato since 2014 or earlier. It chose not to back LPR/DPR rebels in 2014/15 because at that time direct conflict with Nato soldiers in Nato uniforms would have been unpleasant at best and perhaps worse. instead it accepted the obviously false Minsk agreements which (though Putin claims not to hav been deceived) they certainly knew would not be kept by Nato controlled Ukraine.
It is of course the Karate Kid or one of many hollywood movies, Nato bullies Russia in 1990, in 2000s, in 2010s and continues in 2020s. (Just look at the maps of Nato year by year). Perfectly sensible policy in 1990s when Russia was very weak. Less wise in 2000s when Nato had taken the peace dividend. Russia went to the gym, Nato sat and drank beer. By 2010s Nato was weak but still the bully boy - Nato learnt its lesson in 2022.
In 2017 Trump told a few truths - MAGA (still the only acknowledgement by any western leader that US or West was on the way down. And the 2% of GDP on defence for European Nato countries or US will not defend you - was a direct warning of the planned war with Russia.
So the good news is that Nato is already defeated, Russia prepared for a 2020s war with Nato, Nato claims to be preparing for a 2030s war. It is not happening now.
Let us hope that calmer heads and clearer thinking prevail.
The Banderites must be defeated.