This is about the future of the world, and if there is to be one. Decisions are being made right now that will be instrumental in forming that future.
Today, The Saker, Andrei Raevsky, talks about two decisions. Don’t worry, they are decisions personal to himself – but he does clearly present his views on the overarching issue of the day, in a perhaps an even more open and candid way than usual. Please read his blog post and then I will give my own views – rather presumptuous of me I know – on the matter. But also rather presumptuous of Raevsky to assume his personal situation (or that of his contemporary ‘westernised’ bloggers) is of more than passing interest to anyone else, especially given the setting of the narrative.
‘Day 22 – where do we go from here? Two decisions’ – The Saker blog
So, armed with that information, if you still want my view – and I make no assumptions on that – please read on…
First let me say that this was a well put and a well thought out piece by the Saker – a man obviously deeply involved on a personal level in the situation and fully committed to presenting a factual account where possible and giving his best opinions as an informed observer of current events and those yet to unfold. He also, I’m sure, has far better contacts in this area than I could ever presume.
And yet, while I am in agreement with much that is said, my own views differ on some of the detail. You can make of that whatever you like.
Firstly, I like his use of the Readovka maps, which I have also found useful. The lastest one showing there is not much left of Ukraine that is not either liberated by Russia or engaged in a more or less one-sided contest to the same end and I recall also saying myself in earlier days that the result was a foregone conclusion by the end of day 1. It is easy to make the jump from that first map to the second one (which I don’t personally like because of its association with a source scornful – with erroneous mathematical calculations – of Russia’s ability to hold on to the land gained), which provides a reasonable idea of where the eventual western borders of what remains of Ukraine will be set. The unmarked areas to the west of that line being up for grabs by neighbouring nations and most of the regions currently marked in red in the first map forming the boundary of a Novorussia. This will provide a land-bridge from Russia to any western nations (former Soviet States and others) who may in the future wish to have better links with the EAEU states after the collapse of the doomed European initiative and the passing of NATO. That does not mean that Russia will not venture into those far west areas of Ukraine before terminating its current operation, the stated objectives of which, demand that it will find that to be necessary unless concessions are made to Russia’s satisfaction to have those areas neutralised and de-nazified by others. How long before we see a conclusion which brings us to the point where Russia is satisfied its objectives have been met? The Saker says around two more weeks. I made exactly that projection several days ago. For Russia, and for the world (whether the folk of the world like it or not), happily, this is all going to plan.
Secondly, unlike the Saker, I don’t see it as being inevitable or even likely that a US/NATO military project will result from any of these actions by Russia – and therefore the question of a World War III or a precipitated nuclear contest will also not follow. Yes, US/NATO still harbour such thoughts of their own might and grandeur, but they totally lack either the commitment and the will, or the means of assuring themselves a more than token victory, if that, and probably nowhere even close to that. That NATO chief Stoltenberg and US SoD Austin are having wet-dreams of raising hundreds of thousands of troops for a tilt at Russia is, I think, no more than a passing fancy. And even if they could manage to find all those people of unsound mind to form such a force: a) the crouds of ex-professionals already streaming back to Momma, fresh from nightmares in Ukraine before firing a single shot, should dampen any enthusiasm for such a rash venture; b) how are they going to get such an army delivered to site? c) With what more than second-class weapons will they equip them to fight? And d) Where will they bury all their dead – assuming they can find more than small pieces of them? Russia has so far shown only a very small contingent of its own massive manpower and few of its weapon options up to this point. The gloves are definitely still on at this stage. Woe betide the West if they come off. And should the nuclear option raise its ugly head, I also think that if demented minds opt for such a disgraceful conclusion to the supposed age of civilised man, there are enough sane military minds within the senior ranks of those western nations to put a stop to such insanity. Failing that, even though they would be in deep mourning, there would still be a Russia. There would be no USA to ever rise again. But I don’t think it will come to that, because those things are known.
So, on the whole, I like what the Saker says, and I always read his pieces as part of the build of my own global view, but I also consult many other sources (according to my time and their availability), to flesh out and broaden that view. And while I consider myself an optimist, I have for long now projected an end to the dominance of mankind on this world – due mainly to our own unmanaged and unbridled efforts. I do not see more than a faint possibility of our total demise as a species. Though all species come and go, eventually, there are some which adapt to whatever conditions emerge, and they hang around for periods measured in millions of years. I am not saying that will be our story, but there will be men and women of some kind and number dwelling here for a long time to come. Though it won’t be any of us. And they will not live by our rules, and the manner of their lives will bear little or no resemblance to ours. Hopefully, they will be much wiser than we – and harbour fewer illusions.