Is the World War knocking on the door? Subjectively; Yes, objectively; No.
Keeping in mind the fact that
Russia (and for that matter, surprisingly, Iran) has been exceptionally calm and restrained
against all kinds of provocations. We can argue that Russia (and Iran) will not take any serious action till the
next BRICS summit.
What is the significance of the “approval
“ of the use of these long-range missiles?
In short, as far as the war in Ukraine is concerned, it has no significance. That will not change the outcome of the war in Ukraine. These missiles already have been used in the war and Russia has shown it’s capability to shoot the majority of them down. Deep in Russian territory? Russia is a huge country with over 6,000 miles from one end to other and most of its strategic weapons are out of reach spread in the east.
The missiles in question; Storm Shadow Missiles — a British-French missile that the UK supplied to Kyiv last year are air-launched cruise missiles capable of hitting targets up to 155 miles away.
Tactical Missile Systems
(ATACMS) - supersonic, ballistic
missile that can travel as far as 186 miles away.
Both of the missiles have been used against Russia, and Russia was able to do
reverse-engineering and adjusted its air
defense to counter these missiles. In simple words, they have no significant
value as far as influencing and changing
the direction of the war. They only have value in “provocation” in order to
have Russia to respond in a way that may bring about its isolation from the
countries and people of the real world. However, as we have noted in our assessment at the beginning of the war, Russia has a strategy with set goals one of which is that Russia is playing for the hearts and minds of the world population and thus very careful in presenting itself as “reasonable” in practice. They have not and will not react to provocations in order to achieve their strategic goals. The strategy which was extended, combined and strengthening with the BRICS.
One that is not confirmed is the JASSM missiles by the US which has a range from 230 miles to 575 miles , latest one is 1000 miles. Only those missiles have never been used against
Russia and have the chance to penetrate 1000 miles deep in Russia. The question
here is, would the US let Ukraine use this missile against Russia and give them a chance to
study and reverse-engineer it for its defense? Or will US risk its assets and soldiers spread
around the world with over 800 military bases with so many adversaries on each
region? We will wait and see shortly if US will take that risk or not.
In other words, the question is
not if the missiles that will play any role of game-changing in the Ukraine war. It
is not even the act of authorizing the use of them, but it is the fact that
Ukraine has no capability of using these missiles; only the “supplier countries’
technical men” can use these missiles in coordination with the technology of
the suppliers like satellites and programming . Russia warned at the United
Nations that allowing Ukraine to fire missiles far into Russia would turn NATO
into "a direct party to hostilities against a nuclear power". As noted; flight missions for the West-supplied missile
systems "can essentially only be input" by NATO military personnel,
not Ukrainians, and any decision to allow Kyiv to use them means nothing
less than NATO's direct involvement in the conflict. That is why, such
strikes will be considered as direct involvement of the suppliers and might
risk a direct war between NATO and Russia.
A “direct war” between
superpowers as we understand it, is increasingly becoming a thing of the
past. It is being replaced by “proxy wars” and will remain so for a long
time . By the way no country in Europe is a superpower, not even a serious military power.
As long as the “supplier
countries’” do not have mass foot soldiers on the ground and as long as they
do not attack, use such missiles from
their origin i.e., directly from France or Britain, it is highly
unlikely that Russia will attack these countries directly. Putin has
already disclosed their tactics on the subject much earlier; "will be
responded in kind." It literally means; “If you supply and use weapons
against us, we will supply all your adversaries around the world- in the
sea and on the ground to attack you.”
British have assets and
soldiers in South Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, Brunei, Iraq, Kenya.. No-significant,
weak British navy sailing in dangerous waters of the world. French has assets
and military forces in Africa and already in the process of being kicked
out in so many countries. It has military presence in its various colonies
where uprisings are already a daily occurrence.
As I mentioned above, US
is the most vulnerable of all with its 800 plus military bases around the
world most of which are hot-bed with increasing anti-American feelings.
So, why would Russia chose
attacking British, France or US directly while a justified and “deniable”
alternative is available for them; arm, support and activate the adversaries
of the US and West all over the world. Obviously, that is what Putin had in mind when
he articulated the “response in kind”.
Neo-Cons and their followers,
living in a fantasy land cannot distinguish confidence from weakness.
US Representative Jason Crow, a
member of the House intelligence and foreign affairs committees, says; ”Russian
forces does not have the strength for a wider war. ..I don't believe there's
any indication that Vladimir Putin has an interest in picking a fight with
NATO," "Vladimir Putin is not 10-feet tall. We have seen that
repeatedly over the last couple of years. He's very vulnerable and, frankly,
he's in a position of significant weakness."
It is true that Putin-Russia
has no interest in picking a direct fight with NATO. Such an action has no
economic or political benefit for Russia. It is not “weakness” it is the
objective reality in where Russia has been forced to be the “strongest
army “ in the world, and through the sanctions against it, it has grown
economically to be the 4th or 5th in the world. Is
that a “position of weakness”?
Neo-Cons should listen to the
anti-communist, American Nationalist military experts, ex- CIA analyst , their well known and “credible”
Professors, all of whom talk in detail about the military weakness and
vulnerabilities of the US.
Neo-Con and subjective analysis driven from fantasy rather than the objective
reality of the world is actually, for the US-West, more dangerous than
the “approval of the long-range missiles.”
Being technically "at war" does not mean "direct military conflict". Japan and Russia is technically "at war" since 1940s, no "peace agreement is signed between the two. The war continues in different forms and shapes. Incase of an escalation between Russia and few European countries, it will transfer the statuesque in to a state of war, but not necessarily a "direct military conflict". None of the European countries or all of them combined has any military power to challenge Russia. So, their most likely choice will be "talk but not walk" rather than the choice of their total destruction both economically and militarily against Russia (which means China-North Korea).
In worse case scenario, in the final analysis US will desert the EU to its
destruction, and NATO to its dissolution . The current objective reality is
that the declining US empire has no military power to even wage a
conventional war against Iran, let alone against Russia.
Here comes the real danger if one to speak about the possibility of a world war; Israel's genocidal war in Palestine. The conflict in Middle East and the provocations of Israel presents more danger for a world-war than the escalation of war in Ukraine and a war between France, Brits, and Russia. US Neo-Cons, the finance capital and military industrial complex will have no quarrel about cutting and running from Europe and leaving them to themselves against Russia, but on the question of Israel it seems that it would be very difficult for US to cut and run from the fate of already isolated Israel which is collapsing both economically and militarily yet continuing to its provocations in order to draw the US to a war in the Middle East. Specifically to a war against Iran. Despite all the public denial of the fact of Russia-China-North-Korea, now Iran alliance to a degree, the real US decision makers behind the curtain are aware of that hard to swallow fact and that alliance most likely will not let Iran to be defeated.
They are cornered
in Israel issue, but they are already setting up a “face saving” exit from the Ukraine war issue.
That is another subject to
discuss.
September 13, 2024
Thailand
Follow up article
Is the US getting ready for a “face saving exit” from the Ukraine war?
.jpg)
No comments