First, I have to explain the title: "A scorecard for US war on Russia": what we are witnessing today is beyond any doubt a US war on Russia, except that it that is is neither quite "cold" nor "hot": it's tepid, lukewarm. Not for the people dying of course, but by it's choice of methods. It is not a Cold War because people are dying, because tanks, artillery and airpower is being used on a daily basis now, but it is not a Hot War either, because while people in the Ukraine are being killed, the real target of this war is, of course, Russia. In other words, this is not a Russian-Ukrainian war, nor is it a US-Ukrainian war, it is a US-Russian war, fought in the Ukraine with "Hot War" methods, but whose real target are not the murdered people in the Ukraine but Russia as a country and a civilizational project. I think that it is crucial to state that to make a correct analysis of what is going on.
STRATEGIC LEVEL ANALYSIS
The USA has no special interests in the Ukraine at all. The only reason why Uncle Sam got so heavily involved is the (totally mistaken) belief - expressed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hillary Clinton - that "without the Ukraine Russia cannot be a superpower" and that "Putin is trying to recreate the Soviet Union". Since a reborn USSR would be the single major threat to the US domination of the planet, the US shall spare no effort into making sure that the Ukraine not only breaks away from Russia, but turns into a US colonial protectorate like Poland or Lithuania: rabidly anti-Russian, administered by the EU and controlled by NATO. Of course, the "prize of prizes" would have been Crimea with Sevastopol as a base for the USN and a fantastic "unsinkable carrier" to project US subversive efforts throughout southern Russia, the Caucasus and even the Middle- East. Alas, Putin's lightening fast action in Crimea completely foiled this part of the plan: instead of getting the entire Ukraine including its crown jewel, Crimea, the AngloZionists were left in full control of West-Central Ukraine (aka "Banderastan") and an uprising in East-Central Ukraine (aka "Novorossia). However, Uncle Sam also walked away with some real successes: not only was the democratically elected President Yanukovich "regime-changed", the secession of Crimea and the uprising in the Donbass made the "more or less election" of a pro-US puppet like Poroshenko finally possible. So far so good, but remember, this is not about the Ukraine at all, this is about Russia and only Russia. So the relevant question is not whether the US succeeded in putting a puppet regime in power, but what good it does to the AngloZionist Empire to have Poroshenko in power in Kiev. The answer to that is, of course, very little, if any.
Again, to understand the US position you have to stop thinking like a rational and mentally sane person, and try to think like an imperialistic maniac hell-bent on world domination who sincerely sees Russia at the #1 obstacle to the realization of this goal. Such a maniac will ask himself a basic question: how much, if at all, is Russia weakened by the current situation in the Ukraine? And, again, the obvious answer is only marginally. Here is how a hypothetical US "1% deep-stater" will think about Russia's current position:
They got Crimea, so all our hopes about the Black Sea region, the Caucasus and the Middle-East are gone. In fact, now that Crimea is fully Russia, it is the Russian position in the Black Sea region, the Caucasus and even the Middle-East which has become stronger, much stronger in fact. Worse, by chopping off the Crimea from the rest of the Ukraine, the Russikies have not only created a very dangerous precedent, they have deeply destabilized the richest and best educated part of the Ukraine - the Donbass - leaving us with the a poor, phenomenally corrupt basically broke "Banderastan" to run. Worse, if we did not have our various CIA run death-squads ("Maindanites", "Right Sector", "National Guard", "soccer hooligans", etc.) then Poroshenko would probably last less than 1 month in power anyway, especially with the accursed Russikes about to turn off the gas spigot if the Ukies don't come up with a payment plan they cannot afford anyway. The only thing our symbolic pseudo-sanctions against Russia have achieved so far was to push the Russkies to do what they should have done a decade ago: to lower their dependence on the US-controlled banking system, to sever their ties with the Ukie military-industrial complex and to push the Russian business community towards seeking stronger ties with Asia.
The bottom line is that at least so far the AngloZionist Empire has failed to secure any strategic objective. Russia is as powerful as ever, arguably even more powerful than before the crisis began.
Complete story at - The Vineyard of the Saker: A scorecard for the US "lukewarm war" on Russia - strategic and tactical levels
STRATEGIC LEVEL ANALYSIS
The USA has no special interests in the Ukraine at all. The only reason why Uncle Sam got so heavily involved is the (totally mistaken) belief - expressed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hillary Clinton - that "without the Ukraine Russia cannot be a superpower" and that "Putin is trying to recreate the Soviet Union". Since a reborn USSR would be the single major threat to the US domination of the planet, the US shall spare no effort into making sure that the Ukraine not only breaks away from Russia, but turns into a US colonial protectorate like Poland or Lithuania: rabidly anti-Russian, administered by the EU and controlled by NATO. Of course, the "prize of prizes" would have been Crimea with Sevastopol as a base for the USN and a fantastic "unsinkable carrier" to project US subversive efforts throughout southern Russia, the Caucasus and even the Middle- East. Alas, Putin's lightening fast action in Crimea completely foiled this part of the plan: instead of getting the entire Ukraine including its crown jewel, Crimea, the AngloZionists were left in full control of West-Central Ukraine (aka "Banderastan") and an uprising in East-Central Ukraine (aka "Novorossia). However, Uncle Sam also walked away with some real successes: not only was the democratically elected President Yanukovich "regime-changed", the secession of Crimea and the uprising in the Donbass made the "more or less election" of a pro-US puppet like Poroshenko finally possible. So far so good, but remember, this is not about the Ukraine at all, this is about Russia and only Russia. So the relevant question is not whether the US succeeded in putting a puppet regime in power, but what good it does to the AngloZionist Empire to have Poroshenko in power in Kiev. The answer to that is, of course, very little, if any.
Again, to understand the US position you have to stop thinking like a rational and mentally sane person, and try to think like an imperialistic maniac hell-bent on world domination who sincerely sees Russia at the #1 obstacle to the realization of this goal. Such a maniac will ask himself a basic question: how much, if at all, is Russia weakened by the current situation in the Ukraine? And, again, the obvious answer is only marginally. Here is how a hypothetical US "1% deep-stater" will think about Russia's current position:
They got Crimea, so all our hopes about the Black Sea region, the Caucasus and the Middle-East are gone. In fact, now that Crimea is fully Russia, it is the Russian position in the Black Sea region, the Caucasus and even the Middle-East which has become stronger, much stronger in fact. Worse, by chopping off the Crimea from the rest of the Ukraine, the Russikies have not only created a very dangerous precedent, they have deeply destabilized the richest and best educated part of the Ukraine - the Donbass - leaving us with the a poor, phenomenally corrupt basically broke "Banderastan" to run. Worse, if we did not have our various CIA run death-squads ("Maindanites", "Right Sector", "National Guard", "soccer hooligans", etc.) then Poroshenko would probably last less than 1 month in power anyway, especially with the accursed Russikes about to turn off the gas spigot if the Ukies don't come up with a payment plan they cannot afford anyway. The only thing our symbolic pseudo-sanctions against Russia have achieved so far was to push the Russkies to do what they should have done a decade ago: to lower their dependence on the US-controlled banking system, to sever their ties with the Ukie military-industrial complex and to push the Russian business community towards seeking stronger ties with Asia.
The bottom line is that at least so far the AngloZionist Empire has failed to secure any strategic objective. Russia is as powerful as ever, arguably even more powerful than before the crisis began.
Complete story at - The Vineyard of the Saker: A scorecard for the US "lukewarm war" on Russia - strategic and tactical levels
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments subject to moderation.