‘There Can Be Only One’, the central meme of ‘The Highlander’ movie and Tv series of the previous century, was my second choice for a title of this piece and carried the extension, ‘…every other contender loses their head’, with the obvious result of being taken out of the contest for ever. That is, whether either contender would admit it or not, the stark reality of the one-sided contest being fought just now within the confines of Ukraine but destined soon to spread much further, and expand from the tussle between the latest USA proxy army of nazi-infused cannon-fodder and certain limited militias aligned with the Russian Federation.
Neither side has so far officially committed their own armed forces to the fray, which looks like a series of to’s and fro’s with the Russian militias so far scoring twice as many to’s and suffering half as many fro’s as the US zombie-nazi hordes and a casualty ratio among the combatants of something near 8.5:1 in manpower and similar numbers in the gear of war, all in Russia’s favour. In fact this may soon come to a head with the zombies turning tail and running from the militias (the only side with any air support, many more usable guns and seemingly unlimited ammo). That’s when this all gets interesting and makes it worthwhile my saying what follows, with a more serious note than used so far. If you want a credible point-by-point account of this conflict, I can recommend none better than this which is the second part in an as yet unfinished trilogy of articles by Natasha Wright at Strategic Culture Foundation, on the subject.
Neither side have also so far used their best weapons, the Russians of course saving them for the inevitable later expansion of hostilities and any unforeseen examples of the deceitful and underhand trickery the west is both capable of and famous for (an example being another repeat – of many previous – of the 7th cavalry syndrome of arriving in the nick of time to save the day after the enemy has been thoroughly weakened). The US, on the other hand, simply possesses no superior or ‘best’ weapons to introduce and are also loathe to field even their largely either obsolete or disfunctional (in a real war) bestest ever stuff to suffer the ignominy of having its shortcomings revealed in actual combat conditions. The US has in recent times become the butt of serious humour around the nature of its stated ‘essential’ quality and its ‘exceptional’ destiny, and while the US dollar still enjoys reserve currency status its actual destiny will be considerably less lustrous than that before long.
It is a long-stated position of Russia on the Ukraine situation, now entering its second year of direct military confrontation with any Russian involvement, that no settlement agreement can be made with regard to the conflict that does not provide complete fulfillment of all Russian security demands as laid down in documents handed to the relevant western authorities back in December of 2021. No documented response to those demands was provided back then, nor since. That position, in the Russian mind and whether the west agrees or not, is both resolute and irreversible. That was the starting position. Subsequently, Russia has added, by legal agreement of the people via popular referendum in four newly liberated territories (plus Crimea, earlier) in the southern and eastern parts of what used to be Ukraine, by incorporating those territories into the lands of The Russian Federation. This action is also both resolute and irreversible. Thus extending Russian demands – whether the west agrees or not, to include those territories as being of Russian ownership. No other, meaning, giving concession to lesser or weakening conditions will be acceptable to Russia, under any circumstances.
Until the whole world understands that immovable principle, and its full implications, there can be no peace for the entirety of humanity. Of course the world, being largely ignorant of these facts – for whatever reason – goes blithely on its way, almost totally unconcerned with
Europe’s NATO’s UKraine’s little war (actually all three but that is not the general public impression). As a result, the world – the western parts anyway – are contented with the waving of some little blue and yellow flag because, well, that’s what’s expected, isn’t it, given the popular knowledge of the circumstances? And until that impression changes, whether spontaneously or as a result of the impact of some attention grabbing event which cannot be ignored (several come to mind), this situation could continue to persist for years and years. It will not do so of course. The world – that is humanity’s weakly constructed and constantly dilapidating civilisational edifice to self – will not last under these conditions for much longer. As far as it affects that part which is of concern to western civilisation, anyway.
So how will this end? Well, on this there is no doubt – Russia will win. All Russia’s demands will be guaranteed, and enforced – or it will not matter to any of us but especially to the west and especially to the northern hemisphere. I will explain what I mean by ‘Russia will win’, after a few more necessary explanations.
I should make it clear at this point, and possibly should have done this earlier, that these views in which I sublimely state the intentions and capabilities of various warring nations as though these were actual facts, that they are merely my own views on the situation, gathered from what I have read and the conclusions I have personally drawn from those things by following the situation fairly closely and long studying the nature of war and the parties involved in this particular conflict. My views, I am aware, may or may not correspond with reality. I, of course, do think I have a reasonable grasp on that reality, or I would not waste my time on a venture such as this, for which I receive no reward other than a little self-satisfaction as I see events unfold over time. The reader, I hope, is intelligent enough to take what is said here, accept and merge it with their own ideas, or discard it as nonsense. I will accept only time’s judgement as to whether I am right or not.
The opposite condition to ‘Russia wins’ is of course that NATO – a euphemism for ‘the USA plus assorted rabble’ – wins. But such a result is actually an impossibility because the end-result would be exactly the same as a win for Russia. I will explain that below also. The two are obviously connected.
I am not a lone voice making these assertions by any means. If you follow the various writings on the subject – online and media – you will see that apart from a few die-hards who have nailed their colours to the wrong mast and can now not extricate themselves from that position, even authorities in the west are coming around to agreeing the war is lost. They are mostly, however, just talking about a different war. For Russia this is not yet even a war, but that is beside the point. By ‘the war’, both authorities and media simply refer to what is going on in Ukraine as though that is both the ‘be all and end all’ of the issue. This is simply not the case, for the Russians, and it is becoming also not the case for the US (as distinct from NATO, which may not even survive the Ukraine conflict beyond its completion – at least not in the same capacity as that now function deficient club has existed heretofore).
No, and by way of explanation, let me take the case of the USians first, because it also forms and informs part of the Russian explanation. I use that term ‘USians’ in preference to ‘Yanks’, ‘Gringos’, ‘Pindos’*, or any other derogatory term that may be rising within the growing ranks of the disaffected who have been ‘touched’ by the inappropriate imposition of western democracy over the years – since their (the USians) misappropriation of the term ‘Americans’ to themselves – which rightly is a descriptive word for all the great inhabitants of the two great twin continents separating the two great oceans of the world – gets under my skin in recent times. They (the USians) will soon, in any case, if the prognostications of myself and many others comes about, need to find new names for the various regional groupings which are set to form following the collapse of the current national entity from the status of ‘United’ to something else arising out of a period of coming chaos – which is not necessarily directly related to, but will not be mitigated by, anything which happens in the land of the former Ukraine in coming days/months.
*If unfamiliar with the term ‘Pindos’, you may find this discussion helpful. It is quite comprehensively written.
So, the US has two cases to consider. First, Russia loses in Ukraine, which cannot happen as I described earlier but, for the sake of argument, what would the US (plus NATO, if it is still an operable entity by then) do? And I am still not on my own in saying the following. The US would not be content to stop there and allow Russia to carry on as a sovereign nation. I’m sure there are already published plans for how Russia would be cut up into regions that would never be capable of challenging US hegemony in the future. That is a certainty, guaranteed from the US standpoint. You may have already have read something along those lines. I will not waste further discussion on that outcome since it is an impossibility. The US, the west generally, and the wider world should know that Russia is fully aware that is to be their projected fate if they were to lose in Ukraine. You may have read of the word ‘existential’ being used to describe this conflict. What I have just said fully explains why that is the case. There is further explanation required of course, which will be coming when I get to talking about Russia.
The second case the US has to consider is that Russia wins in Ukraine – the most likely, in fact all but guaranteed, outcome. I could dissect what a win for Russia actually means but all that matters at the moment is what the US considers as a Russian victory. I cannot imagine that the US would even consider a Russian occupation of the whole of that country but maybe just as liberation of the regions they have stated as being part of Russia already or even perhaps all land east of the Dneipr river. It doesn’t matter. Whatever line of advance the US has in mind as being a Russian victory, that will not alter the situation. The fact is that they have no intention of allowing things to end there and a settlement process to determine future conditions.
So, it matters not whether Russia wins or loses Ukraine in the minds of the westerners – the west will not stop there. They cannot afford to allow things to stop there. They must by any means destroy Russia. Many articles have been written on that situation. I cite just one of them. This is from News-Front – not the only notable Russian news source to reference the work of an unknown writer who is billed as a ‘US Military Veteran’ going by the tag Noctis Draven. But is he genuine? There is footage of him in uniform, driving a US light armoured vehicle in some West Asian setting and he has a YouTube channel and a Twitter feed, among other sources. But can he be classed as a military veteran worthy of quoting? He is a boy, a product of what passes today as a US education and the decaying and dying culture which surrounds it, and he is also young enough to be my grandchild. What could he possibly know of real-world situations (unless he is fronting for someone or some organisation)? Yes, he is saying some of the right things, which tend to make him believable. And yes he has all the necessities to speak to a modern youth culture in his own land, but where does he get his information? OK, well it is for others to determine his popularity, I simply cite this reference (I could have chosen others) simply because it fits in with my current project but also to highlight the care that is needed in using sources of proven credibility when discussing such serious issues. None of that alters the facts of course, that…
‘The West will not stop after the conflict in Ukraine ends – US military veteran’ – News-Front
I don’t doubt the truth of that at all and, as I have argued above, this applies whether or not Russia gains a victory in Ukraine. The war will be continued, for ever if necessary, by the US. That, as I’m sure they recognise, is an existential cause for them. And they will stop at nothing – other than total defeat or annihilation – to ensure their own victory.
And what about the Russian side of things? Where do they stand?
It is well known that Russia also considers victory in this matter to be existential to the continued existence of the Russian nation and people. I have written specifically on this in a number of posts here over the past year and I do not want to simply repeat what I said earlier. Be assured, for Russia, Defeat is not an option. And so they must also win by any means possible. I will discuss some things around how this is likely to proceed after the next paragraph which is of paramount importance for the whole world.
All out war is about to break out – without a shadow of a doubt. It is of the greatest importance that every human being on Earth understands that. It is also of the utmost importance that we understand the inevitability of this situation. There is no stopping or preventing it from taking place. There is therefore no point in anybody or any organisation attempting to organise peace talks based on agreed principles that could be acceptable to either party. There are no such principles or agreement conditions that apply to this situation. Do you not see – This Is A Fight To The Death – which will entail the deaths of at least one of the parties and possibly touching the whole of mankind? Do you not see that neither party can back down? Do you not see that the parties have also changed? There is no place in this situation for a Ukrainian voice to be heard. Nor for NATO. Not even for the United Nations. Those parties are relegated to the sidelines – outside of all considerations. Nothing can prevent this, possibly the last battle of humanity on Earth, from taking place and there being at most only one victor emerging from the contest. The nations of the Earth may decide to choose to side with the part of one or other of the two concerned parties, or to remain neutral – though maintaining neutrality when existence is also at stake is not a wise path to take, unless you are powerless to intervene of course. Those that do choose to intervene are likely to suffer the same ignominious fate as, or enjoy the same glorious ascendance of, their chosen champion.
So, how is the final Death-Match going to start? Where will it be played out? What must happen for there to be a binding result?
I have started so far by discussing the US position first. This time let’s begin with the Russian thoughts. I should add that this is merely my own thoughts on what the Russian position actually is. I have no link to any source other than what is publicly discussed on these matters, but even Blind Freddy can see which way the wind blows.
The basis of the Russian position is that they will not allow, under any circumstances, their national sovereignty to be destroyed or their lands to be divided as spoils to any entity. They will not consider any form of loss to their national identity or imposition of conditions to their people’s rights and activities, other than as laid down in International Law for the good conduct of all nations and which may not supercede Russian state law. They may not state it in exactly the same way but I think that is what is basically meant.
Russia knows there are actors on the world stage who do not harbour good will or intent toward their nation. Some of which actors actually want to see Russia subdued and cut up into smaller, less powerful regions in order for themselves to continue as dominant actors to enforce their own principles and rules on the wider world. Russia has no similar ambitions but seeks to help raise other nations to fulfill whatever destiny they are capable of achieving, in concert with the whole family of nations and without duress or infiltration from and by others. Russia is not alone in this endeavour and many independent nations are coming to see this move as a vehicle to foster the best possible outcome for the human family. Such a vision would not be possible if Russia were to be destroyed. As I said in my previous post – “If Russia survives, the whole world will survive”.
So, Russia must not lose.
It is debatable as to whether Russia needs support in order to be victorious in this wider conflict. I believe Russia is ready and has quiet confidence in the outcome – but it would not hurt for any other nation, keen to see a cohesive and progressive world, to pledge their support (be it of whatever kind or volume) to the Russian effort. You need not fear reprisals from vindictive losers. They will not be in a position to inflict their venom on anyone. In fact the bulk of their peoples, those who can euphemistically lift their faces above the level of the grass, long for release from the falsity of the warped democracy under which they have been held captive, to feel the freedom of government which works in their favour, rather than those who have illegally and criminally governed them for so long.
How will Russia win? First, Russia must complete its mission to liberate and ensure the security of its newly acquired but long held regions in the south and east of what used to be (for only a short while) Ukraine.
What that statement actually means or entails depends entirely on the attitude of the west once Russia has established her borders – which has not yet been achieved. At that point, the west must be prepared to end its belligerence against Russia by disbanding NATO and withdrawing all US forces from Europe. Unless the west has been decisively whipped or there has been some sort of economic breakdown in either or both Europe and the US in the lead up to that situation, such military concessions are unlikely. In which case, Russia has no choice but to carry the conflict further west, through Europe, until such conditions are settled by agreement.
So, where does the Death-Match begin? Well, I think it is safe to say that neither Russia nor the US actually want to be the party to decide to begin that match – the US because it knows it cannot either win or survive such a contest, and Russia because it operates under a code of morality and ethical principles. But there are conditions where either side might launch a limited strike as a ‘persuader’ to the other side.
There are two scenarios to consider. The first is a single, or small number, weapon targeted strategically as a warning to further escalation if conditions are unmet or unchanged. Who would do that? Well, I think only the west, since it would be their only chance to gamble before using all the cards they have in hand. You only have to think about the threatened Ukrainian dirty bomb which failed to materialise in 2022. That would signal an intent without possibly compromising the threat of the main deterrent force through some unfortunate technical mission failure. I can’t see Russia using those tactics. In their case they are either all-in or not at all.
In the other major scenario, where there is a decision to go all-in, I don’t think either side would first launch a full scale first strike attack, except under a very few extreme circumstances, the US because they would have nothing left to fight with or to deter either the Russians or anyone else, and know they may never be able to come out from under the ground again for fear of retaliation, and they could not be sure their strike weapons would achieve the goal of destroying Russia and its ability to strike back. In fact, with the aging nature of much of its nuclear forces, the US must be harbouring serious doubts about its capabilities in that field to even reach its targets. And not least that there are double if not triple the number of nuclear weapons aligned against them than they themselves could actually throw (Russia/China/North Korea and perhaps other nations once they have seen the US now laying exposed). So, in order to ensure or reduce the risk of later retaliation from any source, they would have to split their nuclear arsenal several ways at a number of different national targets.
And then there is Russia. I feel sure that Russia would love to see (in preference to having to do it themselves) a first strike launched by the US and/or NATO. I’m not even sure that NATO nations would follow a US lead in this – unless they have signed over launch rights to that country and it is all out of their hands anyway. I wouldn’t discount that possibility until proven to be otherwise. If Russia sees a US nuclear first strike coming their way, and I assume it would come in waves – the three arms (air-launched, naval-launched, and silo-launched) presumably acting separately, then they would have some assurance that they have won. Russia’s land-based air defence systems are second to none and fully capable of handling something like a thousand nuclear warhead armed missiles before they ever reach Russian soil. There are, in any case, likely only to be something between one third and a half of that number actually targeting Russia, for reasons I gave earlier, and that number would be discounted again by failures to launch and other mechanical losses en route. Not to mention the outer ring defences of strategically placed naval air defence systems taking further toll, including on the carriers of air-launched missiles.
It is doubtful that all incoming weapons can be stopped before reaching land or crossing borders, but I feel confident that most would be caught and destroyed. Then it would be up to Russia’s excellent multi-layered land defences to get the rest. A few may get through all the way to perform their ground or air-burst detonations but it will not be the civilisation ending onslaught that has permeated the collective conscious of modern humans for more than 70 years now.
The great question, which I have asked before, is what happens to all those destroyed missiles which fell into Arctic or Atlantic waters or over Europe? Are those warheads capable of detonation on destruction of their carrier or on ground impact? That does potentially present something of a problem. Hopefully someone has already thought of that.
But, all that aside, the question remains – Russia still stands, largely intact and presumably with its full complement of nuclear armaments ready to go (although some may have been used to negate any possibility of reloads for missile sites and other military installations in the US), Europe potentially largely destroyed as collateral damage from falling nuclear warheads, and North America now largely defenceless – having shot its load with little effect (other than on its allies). Russia then has a smorgasbord of options. There could be a once and for all, unopposed annihilation of the US, or Russia could take the humanitarian path of ensuring peace, stability, and security for all nations – as it did (or was in the process of doing) a little earlier in Ukraine and Europe, by the process of denazification and demilitarisation – by performing the same Special Military Operation, this time largely free from death and destruction, in the US. With US tentacles spread everywhere, that would be a truly global initiative, but very worthwhile and necessary.
I’m sure there is lots more I could say, a lot of detail skipped over, issues unpursued, but I will finish at this point. Who is going to read it anyway?
I just want to emphasize the point that unless there is a massive change of heart, chiefly among the anglo-saxon minority in the world, something along these lines, or much, much, worse, will inevitably happen in the very near future. Be advised.
Leave a Reply