Tag: war

Suicide UK

Just in case you weren’t absolutely certain that the so-called leaders of the United Kingdom are hell-bent on destroying the English nation.

Boris Johnson urges UK to offer ALL its fighter jets and tanks to Ukraine: Ex-PM says the ‘best use’ for military kit is battling Russia after Zelensky issues plea in emotional speech to MPs and peers.

In a statement after the speech, Mr Johnson said: ‘It is time to give the Ukrainians the extra equipment they need to defeat Putin and to restore peace to Ukraine. That means longer range missiles and artillery. It means more tanks. It means planes. We have more than 100 Typhoon jets. We have more than 100 Challenger 2 tanks. 

‘The best single use for any of these items is to deploy them now for the protection of the Ukrainians – not least because that is how we guarantee our own long-term security.

‘Today’s investment in helping Ukraine will avert instability and chaos for years to come. By helping Ukraine to push back Putin, we can make our world safer – and above all, save an innocent country from destruction.’

This is what happens when you allow foreigners to invade your nation en masse. Once they take over, they promptly begin ruling in their own interests, no matter how badly it harms the nation. Churchill would have had Johnson hung for treason.

Why stop with all the jets and tanks? Why not just send the entire British Army and Royal Navy to die in Ukraine? It’s not as if they’re going to make any difference whatsoever with regards to the inevitable outcome.

It’s really starting to look like either a) there is something in Ukraine that Clown World is absolutely desperate to protect, or b) Clown World is actively seeking to strip the West of all its defenses.

DISCUSS ON SG

Intelligence of Intent

Ukrainian sources are buzzing with what they believe to be the incipient winter offensive by Russia starting within the next ten days.

The Financial Times writes that Kyiv has obtained “very solid intelligence of intent” by Russia to launch a new attack. The Russian offensive will likely aim to capture the entire Donbas region and may begin in the west of Luhansk Oblast, near the cities of Kreminna and Lyman, where Russia has been assembling forces for several weeks.

The Financial Times also notes that Russia is building up its troops in the south of Donetsk Oblast, with additional forces being deployed to villages around occupied Mariupol. According to the Financial Times, Russia’s goal is to launch the offensive before Ukraine receives Western tanks and weapons.

The anonymous Ukrainian military adviser said a renewed Russian attack would probably be spearheaded by elite units.

It appears the “Russia is out of weapons and totally losing” crowd is about to get an object lesson in what the actual Russian army looks like. If the Turkish earthquakes were the unnatural results of a geophysic strike, one assumes that any last Russian doubts about the wisdom of bringing the war in Ukraine to a rapid end have been settled.

Or perhaps this is just more fog of war being spread about by one of Clown World’s leading media organs. We’ll find out soon enough.

UPDATE: The media preparations for the Narrative shift are underway.

Vladimir Putin is about to make shock gains

With Russia back on the offensive after significant Ukrainian combat successes around Kharkiv and Kherson in the second half of 2022, the past few weeks have been the bloodiest so far of an already bloody war, with both sides taking extraordinarily heavy casualties. Expect it to get worse.

DISCUSS ON SG

An Unnatural Disaster

Yesterday’s pair of earthquakes in Turkey and Syria were not necessarily natural events, as they may have been an intentional strike by the USA against a recalcitrant Turkish utilizing geophysical weapons technology.

The Russian State Duma has expressed concern about the United States’ program to develop a qualitatively new type of weapon.
“Under the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), the U.S. is creating new integral geophysical weapons that may influence the near-Earth medium with high-frequency radio waves,” the State Duma said in an appeal circulated on Thursday.
“The significance of this qualitative leap could be compared to the transition from cold steel to fire arms, or from conventional weapons to nuclear weapons. This new type of weapons differs from previous types in that the near-Earth medium becomes at once an object of direct influence and its component.
These conclusions were made by the commission of the State Duma’s international affairs and defense committees, the statement reads. The committees reported that the U.S. is planning to test three facilities of this kind. One of them is located on the military testing ground in Alaska and its full-scale tests are to begin in early 2003. The second one is in Greenland and the third one in Norway.

Russian parliament concerned about US plans to develop new weapon, 8 August 2002

When one combines the strange skies over Turkey with the earthquake warning from the Solar System Geometry Survey and the growing desperation of the Clown World governments, it is more likely than not that the “natural disaster” was not entirely natural.

Sure, it’s absolutely possible that it was just plate tectonics and bad luck for the Turkish people, but I think a rational analysis has to view this particular earthquake, in this particular circumstances, as intrinsically suspicious as a pair of simultaneous tidal waves that just happen to engulf New York City and Los Angeles in the spring.

UPDATE: Yes, it’s a weapon.

The Crimean Peninsula in southwestern Russia could one day see an earthquake comparable to the natural disaster that struck Türkiye and Syria on Monday, a scientist has warned. The last time the region was struck by a major quake was nearly 100 years ago.

DISCUSS ON SG

Strategically Incapable

The USA is not only “agreement-incapable”, it is now also strategically incapable, as Reminiscence of the Future correctly observes:

You cannot explain to 99.99% of people within the Beltway what real war is, how military strategy is subordinated to the strategy of the state (meaning geopolitics in a larger sense). Lastly, you cannot explain it to the average US MSM journo or “analysts” (or “expert”) which is a euphemism for the general lack of culture and ignorance.

The war in Ukraine is reaching a new phase, and US strategy is undergoing an important shift. Fears of Russian nuclear escalation are receding as fears of a long war featuring unrelenting attrition are increasing. So President Joe Biden’s administration is ramping up support for Ukraine now in hopes of producing an eventual diplomatic resolution — an “escalate to de-escalate” strategy that may prove very difficult to execute. Nearly a year into the war, uncertainty about its course is greater than ever. For the first six months, Russia had the initiative: The major questions were when, where and with what success it would attack. Over the following five months, Ukraine had the initiative, and analysts tried to divine the location and prospects of its counteroffensives.

The United States can not do “strategy”, it never could after WW II. It took SMO to expose utter incompetence of the US “elites” with all their military, diplomatic and academic institutions. It is a parade of the ambitious amateurs who are no good for any serious task of statesmanship, despite all their hefty fraudulent degrees. US “diplomacy” is a butt of jokes among the rest of the world, US military cannot fight a serious combined arms conflict with peer, without sustaining catastrophic losses.

The reason the USA is not capable of constructing a grand strategy is that it is not a nation. It is an empire which is ruled by a foreign elite, rather like the Roman Empire once the emperors ceased to be Roman.

In China’s Grand Strategy: Trends, Trajectories, and Long-Term Competition, the seven RAND scholars define the concept of grand strategy: Grant strategy is the process by which a state relates long-term ends to means within the rubric of an overarching and enduring vision to advance the national interest.

But when the state is controlled by an elite that has interests which are separate, distinct, and in some cases contradictory to the national interest, it is not possible to create any overarching and enduring vision, because the overarching and enduring objective of the elite is to remain in power.

This built-in contradiction between the national interest and the foreign elite’s interest will necessarily and inevitably lead to growing incoherencies that are even more readily apparent to enemies outside the state than nationals within it. Which, no doubt, is why Wang Hunin was able to observe the incoherencies and write America Against America 20 years before I made some of the same observations, which was nearly 20 years before it became obvious to most Americans that “defending democracy” looked a lot like “installing a puppet regime” in Ukraine.

What is the USA’s grand strategy? No one can say. Even the US strategists readily admit that they have no idea what it is. Defending the petrodollar is not a grand strategy. Preventing the rise of Russia and China is not a grand strategy. Maintaining the largest GDP or the highest GDP per capita is not a grand strategy. Eliminating the European population within a state is a grand strategy of sorts, but it is an evil, insane, and observably inimical to the national interest, ergo it is not a viable one for the United States.

And the incoherency produced by having a state with separate interests from the nation is why the USA is absolutely destined to defeat at the hands of nation-states with genuine grand strategies. There are other valid reasons, of course, beginning with industrial capacity, but on the most basic level, it should be easy to understand that it is much more difficult to successfully reach a destination when one doesn’t even have a particular one in mind.

DISCUSS ON SG

Surrender Means Success

The neocons are still practicing their insane word magic as they try to convince Russia to let them surrender Ukraine without openly admitting that they lost their proxy war on Russia.

David Ignatius has been a career-long mouthpiece for the US State Department. He has just been called in by the current Secretary of State Antony Blinken to convey an urgent new message to President Vladimir Putin, the Security Council, and the General Staff in Moscow.

For the first time since the special military operation began last year, the war party in Washington is offering terms of concession to Russia’s security objectives explicitly and directly, without the Ukrainians in the way.

The terms Blinken has told Ignatius to print appeared in the January 25 edition of the Washington Post.

The territorial concessions Blinken is tabling include Crimea, the Donbass, and the Zaporozhye, Kherson “land bridge that connects Crimea and Russia”. West of the Dnieper River, north around Kharkov, and south around Odessa and Nikolaev, Blinken has tabled for the first time US acceptance of “a demilitarized status” for the Ukraine. Also, US agreement to restrict the deployment of HIMARS, US and NATO infantry fighting vehicles, and the Abrams and Leopard tanks to a point in western Ukraine from which they can “manoeuvre…as a deterrent against future Russian attacks.”

This is an offer for a tradeoff – partition through a demilitarized zone (DMZ) in the east of the Ukraine in exchange for a halt to the planned Russian offensive destroying the fortifications, rail hubs, troop cantonments, and airfields in the west, between the Polish and Romanian borders, Kiev and Lvov, and an outcome Blinken proposes for both sides to call “a just and durable peace that upholds Ukraine’s territorial integrity”.

Also in the proposed Blinken deal there is the offer of a direct US-Russian agreement on “an eventual postwar military balance”; “no World War III”; and no Ukrainian membership of NATO with “security guarantees similar to NATO’s Article 5.”

Blinken has also told the Washington Post to announce the US will respect “Putin’s tripwire for nuclear escalation”, and accept the Russian “reserve force includ[ing] strategic bombers, certain precision-guided weapons and, of course, tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.”

Russia isn’t going to accept this offer or even use it as a point to begin negotiations, because they already tried negotiating with the West with the Minsk Accords of 2014 and 2015. But, as Angela Merkel and other Western leaders have publicly admitted, the agreements were a sham from the start, and were only intended to buy Ukraine more time to prepare its defenses.

Various Russian leaders have stated that both the USA and Ukraine are “non-agreement capable” and they are absolutely correct to have reached that conclusion, as Clown World’s leading neocons are still making plans to win a war that was not only unwinnable from the start, but has already been lost.

Because what they really need to prepare for is success, you see!

Success. That’s the potential outcome that the United States, Ukraine, allied and partner governments, and private-sector actors must now prepare to confront. Ukraine’s counteroffensives, backed by expanded and accelerated US and allied support, continue to push Russian forces out of Ukrainian territory, although at a reduced rate. These hard-won successes, however, bring with them possible challenges that also must be addressed.

In the short term, there are fresh threats from Moscow—attacks on electricity, water, and heat as winter approaches, sham annexations of occupied territories, mobilizations of new troops, reduced but persistent nuclear risk, and Russian prisoners to manage. Areas that Ukraine has liberated from Russian forces need immediate governance, cleanup, humanitarian assistance, and economic revival. Over the longer term, Ukraine will have to rebuild destroyed infrastructure; institute the economic and political reforms required for European Union (EU) membership; and be capable of ensuring its security.

How exactly to meet these looming challenges while exploiting present and future opportunities?

It is, of course, up to the Ukrainians to determine their priorities and their supporters to assist as much as possible, which is also consistent with US interests. But what’s urgently needed is a four-front, long-haul strategy for helping Ukraine win the war against Russia and the peace that follows—one built to withstand the dramatic developments that are sure to play out over the coming years, not just over the next weeks and months of this rapidly evolving conflict.

Preparing for victory: A long-haul strategy to help Ukraine win the war against Russia—and secure the peace, Atlantic Council, November 30, 2022

This isn’t quite Hitler in the bunker giving orders to nonexistent divisions levels of delusion, but they’re observably on their way. And, of course, the word magic failed. No deals. I find it particularly interesting that they went out of the way to mention Nuland’s name. I think they’re making it clear they know perfectly well who is calling the shots in Washington.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has dismissed proposals issued this week in Washington by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his Under Secretary, Victoria Nuland. Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova has confirmed that Russia’s military plan for the Ukraine will not be interrupted or delayed.

Clown World’s desperation is observably increasing, as both China and Russia have gone largely silent. This leads me to suspect that both nations will make their next major moves in concert with each other. Exactly what those will be, we can only offer our best surmises, but it would not be surprising if both Ukraine and Taiwan are entirely lost to Clown World by the end of this year.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Saker Closes Shop

It’s a pity, but it’s understandable that the Saker is ending his very valuable blog given that Andrei understands the difficult position he’s likely to be in once WWIII goes hot much better than most. Anyone who followed the site had a much better idea of what was happening in Ukraine, and why it was happening, than everyone getting their news from the various organs of the mainstream media.

  • First, I will shut down the blog no later than at the end of February.
  • Second, for a host of reasons, I cannot transfer the blog to any one person or group of trusted people. This sounds like a great idea until you look at tons of details and it becomes an impossible one.
  • Third, yes, I would like to keep the entire archive of the blog available somewhere on the Internet.
  • Everything I posted on the blog was licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). Which means that ANYBODY can copy and post and even modify ANYTHING I have ever posted. There is no need to ask for permission or get my approval or anything like that.
  • In practical terms this means this: if you can grab it all (or parts) and reposted it elsewhere, anywhere, you will have my eternal gratitude.
  • Furthermore, I personally would prefer that the archive be available on as many sites as possible (for obvious redundancy reasons). I would therefore not agree to grant anybody “exclusive rights” or anything like that.
  • Please notice that while I never monetized the blog, you are not under any obligation to follow my example, but only as long as you don’t claim any exclusive copywrong “rights” or object on anybody else doing the same thing (or not).

I very much appreciate the landmark work that Andrei has done in effectively chronicling the start of World War III since its inception in 2014, and I suspect future historians will find it extremely useful and informative as well. I wish him well in his future endeavors.

And I would encourage the autists and archivists who read this site to download, archive, and publish mirrors of the Saker’s site for future reference. Regardless of whether the future unfolds in the general direction that we envisage or not, they will be an important record of recent historical events.

DISCUSS ON SG

Advantage: China

Extrapolating from a 2015 US think tank report, China has now almost certainly surpassed parity with US air and sea forces in the South China Sea and now possesses a military advantage in the region. While the most recent reports are moderately more favorable to the US military, they are based in part on weapons systems and stocks that are not even available to the US forces yet, so for the purposes of comparing the capabilities of the two sides, it is more reasonable to extrapolate from the past analyses than utilize the current one.

Also, neither the past nor the present analysis takes into account the possibility of the US military being simultaneously involved in a war with Russia, which is currently the case. The point here is not to determine whether this is likely to be a positive development or a negative one for any particular party, but rather, to ascertain what the actual military situation happens to be at what is an obvious historical nexus.

Remember, it doesn’t matter what you think of the CCP, Clown World, Old Glory, or the US Marines, or what you want to believe. The material facts, and the military capabilities, are what they actually are.

Over the past two decades, China’s People’s Liberation Army has transformed itself from a large but antiquated force into a capable, modern military. Its technology and operational proficiency still lag behind those of the United States, but it has rapidly narrowed the gap. Moreover, China enjoys the advantage of proximity in most plausible conflict scenarios, and geographical advantage would likely neutralize many U.S. military strengths. A sound understanding of regional military issues — including forces, geography, and the evolving balance of power — will be essential for establishing appropriate U.S. political and military policies in Asia. This RAND study analyzes the development of respective Chinese and U.S. military capabilities in ten categories of military operations across two scenarios, one centered on Taiwan and one on the Spratly Islands. The analysis is presented in ten scorecards that assess military capabilities as they have evolved over four snapshot years: 1996, 2003, 2010, and 2017. The results show that China is not close to catching up to the United States in terms of aggregate capabilities, but also that it does not need to catch up to challenge the United States on its immediate periphery. Furthermore, although China’s ability to project power to more distant locations remains limited, its reach is growing, and in the future U.S. military dominance is likely to be challenged at greater distances from China’s coast. To maintain robust defense and deterrence capabilities in an era of fiscal constraints, the United States will need to ensure that its own operational concepts, procurement, and diplomacy anticipate future developments in Chinese military capabilities.

The U.S.-China Military Scorecard, RAND, 2015

DISCUSS ON SG

When the Plan Fails

A Rand report published in April 2019 laid out US strategy vis-a-vis Russia, which as you can see in hindsight, was followed fairly closely to the letter. Note that “extending” Russia is shorthand for “causing the Russians to overextend and unbalance themselves”.

This report examines a range of possible means to extend Russia. As the 2018 National Defense Strategy recognized, the United States is currently locked in a great-power competition with Russia. This report seeks to define areas where the United States can compete to its own advantage. Drawing on quantitative and qualitative data from Western and Russian sources, this report examines Russia’s economic, political, and military vulnerabilities and anxieties. It then analyzes potential policy options to exploit them — ideologically, economically, geopolitically, and militarily (including air and space, maritime, land, and multidomain options). After describing each measure, this report assesses the associated benefits, costs, and risks, as well as the likelihood that measure could be successfully implemented and actually extend Russia. Most of the steps covered in this report are in some sense escalatory, and most would likely prompt some Russian counter-escalation. Some of these policies, however, also might prompt adverse reactions from other U.S. adversaries — most notably, China — that could, in turn, stress the United States. Ultimately, this report concludes that the most attractive U.S. policy options to extend Russia — with the greatest benefits, highest likelihood of success, and least risk — are in the economic domain, featuring a combination of boosting U.S. energy production and sanctions, providing the latter are multilateral. In contrast, geopolitical measures to bait Russia into overextending itself and ideological measures to undermine the regime’s stability carry significant risks. Finally, many military options — including force posture changes and development of new capabilities — could enhance U.S. deterrence and reassure U.S. allies, but only a few are likely to extend Russia, as Moscow is not seeking parity with the United States in most domains.

Key Findings

Russia’s weaknesses lie in the economic domains

  • Russia’s greatest vulnerability, in any competition with the United States, is its economy, which is comparatively small and highly dependent on energy exports.
  • The Russian leadership’s greatest anxiety stems from the stability and durability of the regime.

The most promising measures to stress Russia are in the realms of energy production and international pressure

  • Continuing to expand U.S. energy production in all forms, including renewables, and encouraging other countries to do the same would maximize pressure on Russia’s export receipts and thus on its national and defense budgets. Alone among the many measures looked at in this report, this one comes with the least cost or risk.
  • Sanctions can also limit Russia’s economic potential. To be effective, however, these need to be multilateral, involving (at a minimum) the European Union, which is Russia’s largest customer and greatest source of technology and capital, larger in all these respects than the United States.

Geopolitical measures to bait Russia into overextending itself are likely impractical, or they risk second-order consequences

  • Many geopolitical measures would force the United States to operate in areas that are closer to Russia and where it is thus cheaper and easier for Russia than the United States to exert influence.

Ideological measures to undermine the regime’s stability carry significant risks of counter escalation

  • Many military options — including force posture changes and development of new capabilities — could enhance U.S. deterrence and reassure U.S. allies, but only a few are likely to extend Russia, as Moscow is not seeking parity with the United States in most domains.
Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground, RAND, 24 April 2019

This was followed up by a report five months later, which provided specific actions intended to achieve the objectives identified in the initial report, entitled Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options.

Insert deep movie trailer voice: They did not correctly assess the impact of the cost-imposed options.

What’s fascinating is that now RAND is rapidly backtracking on the idea of extending Russia, because the US attempts to extend Russia have turned out to extend the USA, its NATO proxies, the other European states, and Clown World itself. Remember what I said in the previous post about NATO needing to win fast? That’s why Rand wants to pull a Vietnam/Afghanistan, call it a win, and get the US military out of Eastern Europe as quickly as possible.

The Andrew Anglin committee has correctly assessed the situation.

Here’s the deal: everyone understands that Russia is only a power capable of competing with the US because it is backed by a much larger and much wealthier country called “China.” Russia needs their economy to survive. India wouldn’t be standing up to the US, nor would Saudi or any of the other former allies pushing back, if they weren’t getting cover from China.

The think tanks were all pushing for China to be the target of the next US war.

However, Pentagon people said Russia is much weaker, so they went with that. Now it’s a boondoggle. The West is destroying its economy, they are alienating the whole world, and they’re accomplishing what exactly? Russia can keep fighting indefinitely. It’s not costing them anything…

The US can’t possibly open up the China front while the Ukraine is ongoing, and time is on China’s side over there.

This is why RAND is mad.

However, wars do not take place in a vacuum and they have a way of creating a new reality that is unforeseen even by the architects of the best-laid warplans. There is no reason for Russia to let NATO and the US military off the hook just because it suits RAND, and there is absolutely zero chance that Xi Xinping and the extremely astute Chinese warplanners are going to be blind to the advantages of making sure that the first front stays active until the second one is opened by one of the two parties concerned.

Remember, the failure of a plan doesn’t mean it never existed, it simply means it didn’t work.

DISCUSS ON SG

NATO Calls the Shots

The Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee pulls the curtain away and reveals that the “alliance” is in fact the military bureaucracy of the US empire.

NATO is prepared to fight Russia if a direct conflict erupts between the two, Rob Bauer, the chairman of the alliance’s Military Committee, said on Saturday. In an interview with Portuguese RTP TV, when asked whether the US-led military block is ready for a direct confrontation with Russia, Bauer unequivocally stated, “We are.”

The official noted that when the hostilities broke out in Ukraine in February 2022, NATO already had a number of battle groups along its eastern flank. During a summit in Madrid which took place in June 2022, the alliance’s leaders decided to create four more battle groups in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, Bauer said.

Bauer went on to say that for decades, many NATO nations thought they were the ones who decide when and where to deploy their forces, but the Ukraine conflict was a gamechanger.

If a nation isn’t able to decide when and where to deploy its own military forces, it isn’t a sovereign nation anymore. This is why signing up for all of these supranational organizations was always short-sighted and foolish, as they intrinsically necessitate giving up sovereignty and democracy.

The Russian generals get more of a vote where the NATO generals establish their forces than the elected leaders or the people of any of the NATO nations.

As for whether NATO is ready for direct war with the Russian military, well, its proxies haven’t fared very well against the Russian proxies. I suppose they’re about as ready as they’re ever going to be, I just don’t think “readiness” should be confused with “having a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning”.

Remember, we’re talking about a military that can’t even defend its own borders.

UPDATE: The US empire is apparently not ready to fight China, however.

A four-star US air force general predicted that the US and China will be at war in two years, most likely over the Taiwan region, and called on troops under his command to pursue battle readiness in a recently disclosed memo, a move Chinese experts on Saturday decried as a reckless and provocative hyping of “China threats,” which would inflame tensions and deepen strategic mistrust between the US and China when ties are already at a low ebb.

It cannot be ruled out that the move may serve as a way of putting pressure on China to gain more leverage ahead of a potential China trip by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, analysts said.

In the memo, first obtained by NBC News on Friday but dated February 1, General Michael Minihan, head of Air Mobility Command (AMC), said that “my gut tells me will fight in 2025,” as both US and Taiwan regional authorities will have elections in 2024, and the US will be “distracted,” which gives the Chinese mainland an opportunity.

Minihan listed his goals of military preparation for a “fight with China” to his soldiers in the AMC, including building “a fortified, ready, integrated, and agile Joint Force Maneuver Team ready to fight and win inside the first island chain,” according to an NBC report.

Better beat those Russians fast…

DISCUSS ON SG

No Part of It

Croatia very sensibly wants no part of NATO’s war on Russia:

Commenting on the German foreign minister’s declaration that Europe is “fighting a war against Russia,” Croatian President Zoran Milanovic said on Thursday that this was news to him, and wished Berlin better luck than in WWII. Croatia “should in no way help” Ukraine militarily, Milanovic said…

“Now the German foreign minister says we must be united, because I quote, we are at war with Russia. I didn’t know that. Maybe Germany is at war with Russia, but then, good luck, maybe this time it turns out better than 70-odd years ago.”

Neither, apparently, does France.

Decisions by the US, Germany and several other countries to supply main battle tanks to Ukraine do not mean NATO is at war with Moscow, the French Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday. The comments from Quai d’Orsay come after a controversial speech by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock in the European Parliament earlier this week. “We are not at war with Russia and none of our partners are,” ministry spokeswoman Anne-Claire Legendre said on Thursday, according to AFP. “The delivery of military equipment… does not constitute co-belligerence.”

But while it takes two to tango, it only takes one to war. And Russia is now “at war with NATO and the West” thanks to the neocons’ successful escalation of the conflict in Ukraine.

Russia is now at ‘war against NATO and the West’ and has taken the invasion of Ukraine to a ‘different stage’, a senior EU official has admitted, raising the terrifying spectre of a global conflict.

The Asian and Arab nations have already taken Russia’s side. The African nations don’t really matter, but they will do so as well. I expect that more than a few European nations will follow suit once it becomes abundantly clear to even the most casual observer that NATO has zero chance of winning the war. And when I say zero, I mean ZERO. None whatsoever.

Based on a comparison of the technological and industrial capacities, the United States and the UK have about the same chance of defeating the Sino-Russian alliance as Japan had of defeating the US/UK alliance in WWII. Which is just one reason why no American or European should lift a finger, let alone risk his life, for Clown World and its wicked disorder.

DISCUSS ON SG