If you ask the wrong questions, work with the wrong data, and if your assumptions about the intentions of decision makers are ‘out of the ballpark’ beside the real motives, you get the wrong answers. This is true for me, and for everybody else in the whole wide world. Hence I look at video’s, and read articles of those with an opposing reading related to the ongoing war in Ukraine. I check what they are trying to tell us, and where they think this war is heading. If their predictions prove to be wrong, I take another hard look at their data and assumptions to learn why that was the case. Next I do not dismiss them out of hand, but I look for signs which inform me about progress they made. Did they change their ‘understanding’? Or are they ‘whitewashing’ their mistakes?
From before the ‘SMO’ kicked off, my assumption was that Russia was only interested in making sure that Ukraine would not (be able to, or want to) join NATO; would get rid of the Nazi’s running the military and associated ‘agencies’ in the country; while creating the optimal conditions for Ukraine to function as ‘bridge’ between Europe and ‘BRICS’, essentially in line with what was agreed upon in the ‘Minsk-Accord’. Others, both pro-Russia and pro-Ukraine/NATO, insisted that Putin wanted to conquer all of Ukraine, while sharping his knives for an upcoming confrontation with NATO as he would be tempted to invade the Baltics to teach NATO who was boss. I insist today that my perception was ‘superior’, and that those observers were not the sharpest knives in the drawer, even though I *may* have been wrong on details. It could be that Putin and his ‘services’ actually thought the Ukrainian population would pick their side, and revolt against ‘Kiev’, even those outside the ‘Donbas’, rather than fleeing the scene by the millions. Or that Zelensky would shit his pants, and sign on the dotted line. Which would imply that they did *not* anticipate the need to switch to a war of attrition, which is the reading of professor Doctorow. Although in my reading they actually ‘came prepared’, which explains the ramping up of production of *everything* needed to win that war in no time at all, not only win from Ukraine, but defeating all of NATO in that respect as well. Which they did.
This latter conclusion is no longer a ‘fringe’ opinion, since even Mark Rutte is saying it, and events on the battlefield are reflecting it. Russia produces (at least) as much of everything needed to fight this war in three months, than *all* of NATO in a year. And for some systems and munitions that is a generous estimate, since NATO has no production to mention of these systems. Everything in their inventory is too complicated, too expensive, too heavy, and no production-line which can churn out massive numbers. Or, in the case of Europe, no production-line left, at all, nor the skilled workers needed.
In a video which was extremely pro-NATO the narrator, specializing in topics related to economic subjects, told his audience that a recent announcement by Putin that Russia would cut back on military spending was a sign of weakness. Is it? It sure does fit the narrative of nearly all the pro-NATO ‘talking heads’, though not everybody in the ‘West’, since there are plenty of observers expecting a Russian victory. Not merely militarily, but in the economic war unleashed against it as well. Are the data presented by Russia about their economic development reliable? If so, a reduction in military spending makes sense, if we accept that Russia already won the war of attrition (I call Rutte to the stand to testify), and that they are ‘coasting’ towards cashing in on that result by establishing the territorial gains they were *forced* to secure after Zelensky left the ‘Istanbul’-Accord, and declared that peace-talks were out of the question, for as long as Putin would still be in power. Zelensky even made it the law of the land.
Even NATO and the EU are not claiming they will be able to overcome the production-woes which were exposed by this war, as well as the recent ‘Twelve Day War’ Israel unleashed against Iran on short notice. Their recent decision to increase military spending is sold to us as repairs, after they gave everything they had to Ukraine, leaving those countries themselves vulnerable, especially if Trump would effectively pull out of Ukraine, and NATO, to focus on China. By the looks of it, the European NATO-countries barely managed to avoid that, by offering to serve the American Military Industrial Complex five percent of their GDP, while accepting 30% tariffs on goods exported to the US, which will sink the European economy, but save their precious ‘Project Ukraine’, while not doing the American economy any favors either. Russia switching from military investments to civil investments actually makes sense, if you ask me. Let me tell you why.
Russia is protected by the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, with state-of-the-art delivery systems. A direct war with NATO is therefore unlikely. If they conquered all the territory they can ‘handle’ (control, because the Ukrainians in those areas are not exactly fans of NATO), and they start to rebuild what has been destroyed, they will present themselves to the world as the superior power, capable of providing to the people, and creating wealth, for which they need ‘BRICS’, but not the ‘G-7/NATO-aligned’ countries. The struggling European countries, and the US, still increasing its debt-fueled ‘Disney-Economy’ producing little of substance, with even its weapons now demoted to ‘second rate’, in desperate need to serve NATO, while their industrial base is crumbling due to a lack of affordable energy and raw materials (Europe), will have to find a way to satisfy their demanding population, which was accustomed to debt-serviced purchases. The genius of how ‘West-Berlin’ was used by NATO to present the ‘peasants’ on the other side of the ‘Iron Curtain’ something these ‘peasants’ could only dream of, is going to be used against us. Back in 1948, after the war, and no Soviet atomic weapon yet, the US decided to use it’s ‘Marshall Plan’ to create a mouth-watering fairy tale in Europe, with a ‘Kaufhaus des Westens’ (KaDeWe) and associated ventures as it’s shop window, secure behind it’s nuclear deterrence and freshly launched NATO military alliance. The US could afford this because of minimal damage, its possession of the atomic bomb to deter the Soviets, and the incredible destruction and human suffering in the Soviet-Union after the Germans were finally defeated.
Today, with NATO-countries overloaded with debt, scrambling to produce things that say ‘BOOM!’, which adds nothing of value to the economy of those countries, somewhat akin to the position the Soviets were in after the Second World War, while Chinese ‘Marshall Help’ looks like it has been agreed on before hand, try to ask the right questions, and figure out which data are more accurate. Russia needing our washing-machines to stay in the race? Or the NATO-countries going ‘belly up’?
Mind you, I’m not saying it is a done-deal, since expanding the war to China, and/or irresponsible provocations, like Germany has in mind, through entering the war in Ukraine with long-range missiles, forcing a war between NATO and Russia, or moves like that from other NATO-countries, could send all of us to Heaven, or Hell prematurely. All I am saying is that if that happens, we are merely ‘sore losers’, happy to kill ourselves, or allow our leaders to set up the firing squad to punish us for their own Hubris.