It's all over bar the shouting. But the fat lady must sing before the end & has a three-part song soliloquy to render. Will the audience applaud... & what might subsequent reviewers say about it all?
That Russia holds the winning hand in Ukraine has been clear to the most astute observers for well over a year now. When western economic and financial sanctions against Russia failed there really could only be one outcome, especially when major trading nations such as India failed to rally to the side of the USA, UK and EU who had expected a united front against Russia for form. In the first three to six months from February 24th 2022 when Russia’s special military operation began we began to see that whatever plan the western powers had with which to see Russia on her knees was failing and failing fast. Then, in 2023, with the defeat of the Ukrainian regime’s Summer offensive, the seal was set without any doubt remaining, on what the final outcome would be.
That Russia will take the Ukrainian regime all the way to a total capitulation no longer remains in doubt. However, as everyone is now fully aware, this entire conflict, from start (in 2014) to finish, is only very marginally about Ukraine from the western perspective. The view from Washington, Whitehall and Brussels takes in a far wider perspective, one that simply cannot countenance defeat in Ukraine. We can only speculate regarding what options they have devised in the inevitable total defeat and quite possibly chaotic and utterly humiliating rout of the Ukrainian army. These possible options are the subject of this present commentary.
What are the major factors informing the view of western political elites regarding the wider geopolitical implications of the conflict in Ukraine?
It is clear that Ukraine holds inordinate influence over the thinking of the western powers. Despite Ukraine having less obvious vital assets for the western leadership than previous interventions by them in the Middle East, it is clear that Ukraine invokes some especially unrelenting intent in them. Why should this be so?
#1 THE NUCLEAR OPTION
The intransigence and depth of commitment to never backing down but always taking things to the next level, forever doubling down with no end in sight without much doubt begins in the hours immediately following 9/11.
It is in the meetings in those hours when the total, and never to be backed away from, goal of eliminating all those who were considered to be active or potential threats to the United States was formulated.
Nothing else in recent times has the power of 9/11 to engender such an open ended commitment.
No enemy, possible enemy or nascent enemy of the USA would henceforth be allowed to stand, all were required to be wiped off the face of the earth and replaced. There was to be no Plan B. This goal was never to be questioned, never amended and would be followed to the bitter end until accomplished.
This, it is clear, is why we are most likely headed toward a nuclear encounter, an attack, most probably limited, at least at first.
The Russian leadership, after achieving a clear victorious conclusion to its special military operation in Ukraine will quite probably be given an initial ultimatum to stand down. The seriousness of this ultimatum would be given in some manner, directly most likely to the Russian president himself. This would be the threat of a nuclear attack.
The president would not act on this threat, not with a nuclear response. But would he order the Russian military to stand down if he was made to understand the threat was real? Perhaps. He would most likely be given 24 hours or less to consider his options. If at the end of that time he had not given the order and some sign of him giving that order was not seen by the U.S. state then I am quite certain a limited tactical nuclear strike would be made on some target within the Russian federation. Not one of the major sites, not a city, most likely a significant military site of some kind.
The calculation made by the U.S.president and his advisers would be that the Russian president would not wish to engage in an all-out nuclear war and would be cowed into no retaliatory return strike at that moment. Then another ultimatum would be given.
If Russia was made to stand down in this manner then further threats would likely be made that would attempt to have Russia back down even further and retreat to the pre-February 24th 2022 borders of the Russian Federation. This might well come with a sweetener however along the lines of the Minsk Accords, perhaps NATO retreating to its positions at the time of German reunification, or the creation of the European security architecture including Russia that Russia asked for just before the start of its special military operation. Standing down like this would be a very bitter pill to swallow. But what would be the alternative? That alternative doesn’t bear thinking about. Would Putin blink? That’s the billion dollar question.
It is only a remote possibility that any of these sweeteners would be actualised however as the 9/11 protocols insist that ALL present, possible and nascent opposition be eliminated and replaced. It is much more likely that further threats of nuclear attacks would be made to get Vladimir Putin to resign and even to have Russia's present governmental system disbanded and a western system put in its place.
All of this because of the unquestioned 9/11 goal has no Plan B, no reverse gear. All forces deemed to have the potential to effect harm on the USA MUST be eliminated. The goal requires Russia to be rendered completely toothless and no longer a potential threat of ANY kind. Once the Russia campaign was taken to full completion the ongoing campaign against China would receive even greater weight, power and dedication until the potential opposition in China too removed or else the nation was rendered to a state akin to the weakness level engendered in Syria. In tandem, most probably Iran, or undermined to an extent where its president, government and system of governance will be eliminated and replaced also. Step by step the intention is to effect the post 9/11 plan to the full.
#2 THE WRECKING BALL OPTION
A Russian victory in Ukraine currently remains totally unthinkable to all western leaders that are presently fully committed to winning in Ukraine. Their concept of winning however, requires to be examined. It does not require the Ukrainian regime of the Ukrainian people to win. It is they who must win, those in control of western power who must faithfully bring the 9/11 plan to fruition. If this means making Ukraine completely unlivable for either Ukrainians or Russians, so be it.
In this scenario each of the western powers would commit to doing everything possible to disrupt anything approaching a peaceful solution in Ukraine. Diplomacy died with 9/11 and no return to life will be granted. The 9/11 protocols demand total and unflinching war with every “enemy” out there without relenting for a moment. Nothing but destroying the “enemy” will remain sacred. No nation, no people, no principle.
Every possible weapon from subversion to assassination to the fomenting of coups to dirty tricks of every possible kind, not excluding sabotage to nuclear reactors across Ukraine. No rest to be given to either side in a chaos-creating deluge of disastrous events for any and all sides, putting each against the other to make things utterly unmanageable for the Russians in particular.
The hope would be, once again, to bring Russia to its knees and as detailed above, with no respect whatsoever to any ethical or moral considerations whatsoever. By all means necessary in short.
#3 THE UNTHINKABLE OPTION
Again, Russia wins a resounding victory. The Ukrainian army is in complete disarray and the Zelensky regime collapses along with the virtual end of all state administrative functions. All governmental salaries payments end along with pension payments, social security allowances and essentially, all state financial outflows simply cease. What happens next?
Next it is agreed that Poland, Romania and Hungary enter western Ukraine and take certain predefined territories as protectorates on what is termed on a “temporary basis”, a temporary basis that it becomes clear quite soon is on an open-ended basis. Other nations may well be invited to take a slice also with the parcelling out administered most likely through the UN and OSCE.
Meanwhile the Blackrock conglomerate buys up significant portions of rump Ukraine and proceeds to sub-let at a hefty profit to significant numbers of big name companies across western Europe looking to cut their bottom line staff costs. The European Union becomes the biggest cash cow with billions of euros in aid flowing constantly to the benefit of western and U.S. construction concerns such as Halliburton.
What is unthinkable about all this? Nothing. So, what does the unthinkable option consist of?
All of the above assumes that Russia is left to administer the eight regions it now has subsumed within the Russian Federation, that is all territory from the east bank of the Dnieper River to the Azov Sea. This is what is unthinkable and surely anathema to the West. The 9/11 protocols would have completely failed at this point. Russia would continue to thrive after the war and indeed would have very productive new lands to invest in and make exceedingly profitable for the Russian economy.
All of the above is unthinkable from the western elite perspective. But there it is. It is an option. Halt the entire campaign of destroying and replacing all forces of opposition and in addition, forget the necessity (as seen by those immediately after 9/11) of achieving full spectrum dominance worldwide. Undermining China under this option becomes a completely unattainable goal with Russia surviving and now prospering more than ever.
In addition to the above the West and NATO find themselves to be completely humiliated, reduced hugely in stature and relegated to has-been status with the vast majority of nations now looking to Russia, China and the BRICS for leadership, not them. Unthinkable indeed!
So, which option do you think is most likely to be taken over the next three to six months for that is the approximate time period when the decision will require to be made.
1, 2 or 3… or perhaps 4?
What say you?
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment