As Sun Tzu stated in The Art of War “What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.” The U.S. and NATO were clear what the strategic objectives of this war was from the Western perspective. Weaken Russia militarily and economically to cause the collapse of the Russian government and the subsequent exploitation of the spoils. Russia was clear in its strategic objectives of the SMO in Ukraine which was to demilitarize Ukraine and create a neutral non NATO buffer zone on its southern flank and maintain unrestricted access to its Black Sea ports.
Of the two competing strategic objectives, short of all out nuclear war, the Russian objectives look to be the one which will prevail in the end. This is primarily due to the fact that from the Western perspective this was a political exercise in power politics, from the Russian perspective this is an existential threat, and that tends to focus the mindset towards a more complex and decisive solution set.
This is a war thirty years in the making, with one broken agreement after another between the West and Russia, and with this latest escalation and counter attack it is clear, this war will be settled on the battlefield, not the conference table.
Marv's / mirv's have been a part the arsenal of all nuclear superpowers, except Pakistan and NK. US phased out these ICMB as part of the 'new start' Nuclear Treaty which Russia stepped out of in Februari 2023.
Perun has made a great video on the topic. Highly recommended.
I'm appalled that our administration is walking a nuclear tightrope - for what??
To settle the conflict in Ukraine with a partition that Biden could have at least attempted to negotiate BEFORE the destruction of the country and a couple hundred thousand dead?
How could our planners envision that ANY Russian leader would ever accept NATO in Ukraine? My Russian family encouraged me to look at the situation from both sides. Push the Bear into a corner, and you had better watch out!
I'm not a rocket scientist either, just an informed citizen; isn't it becoming obvious that the development of hypersonic missiles by China and Russia makes the US carrier force obsolete, and with it, our ability to project power?
The West, American governments included, seem to consistently underestimate Putin, his military technology and his strategic abilities. This time the escalation has put the rest of Europe in real danger, just when Trump is likely to withdraw at least some support to NATO allies.
That said, both Russia and Europe have lived with the weaponry to destroy each other's countries for many decades without using it. We are all reliant on political solutions now, and I think perhaps it is time for Europe to separate it's decisions from American policies. America is fond on making wars on other people's territories, and Ukraine is now a proxy war that could engulf Germany, Poland and others.
Time to step back, reconsider, and perhaps settle in Ukraine?
It's easy to underestimate someone who fumbles all the time. As you go on to say, this weapon changes nothing. NATO still has conventional and nuclear superiority. Russia still can't beat a crippled Ukraine. Europe has made it clear that they want Russia's impotent aggression defeated and Ukraine still doesn't want to surrender.
We've been hearing about Russian 'wunderwaffe' that will end the war tomorrow ever since 2014. Weird that they never seem to live up to the hype...
I'm hoping Putin's Russia is about to tank, along with the Rouble and the oil and gas market. That would be a very welcome Christmas present for those of us here in Europe.
I do have a concern, one from the very start of Putin's attack on Ukraine, that if Putin finds he cannot win, he will use a nuclear warhead on Kyiv to decapitate the Ukrainian government as a last, all-or-nothing, desperate action. Doing so could well give Putin the whole of Ukraine, so high stakes - everything to win, and little to lose.
Russia fighting to its strength - land war in Eurasia, with all the modern trimmings. US bluffing with threats of escalation, when its clear there is no appetite for even a fraction of the intensity of the human sacrifice the Zelensky regime is willing to do (thanks to out-of-this-world corruption funded by US taxpayers).
Real strength of US military was NAVY ... And they have been neutralized for a full year by Yemen's Ansar-Allah! Draw conclusions with respect to China, a-fortiori. End of the FONOP era. A sea-change, forgive the pun.
A „very obvious provocation of Russia“ indeed. How dare these mischievous Ukrainians assault peace-loving Russia which has in such a friendly and reasonable way merely suggested a minor correction of the border? They are just as obstreperous and bloody-minded as their neighbours to the east 85 years ago who resisted a similiarly innocuous request by Germany. What a calm and beautiful place world could be if it wasn‘t for war-mongering Ukrainians to disturb our peace?
This gets a lot of airtime on certain blogs, but it collapses with less than a second's thought. Russia is fine with Estonia, Finland and Latvia being in NATO. Demonstrably, Russia doesn't care about NATO being on their border.
Trying to invade Russia from Estonia or Finland is difficult. Invading via Ukraine is the preferred route. A glance at a map, or a knowledge of history, would have made this obvious.
Can you remind me which countries NATO has invaded in the 75 years of its existence? I think intervention in Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya were in response to a preexisting Civil War. I think the invasion of Afghanistan probably qualifies although the Article 5 was declared in response to the 9/11 attacks. Post soviet Russia on the other hand, Chechnya x2, South Ossetia, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine. While Donetsk did have a civil war type situation the others were invasions and in Crimea the "little green men" wouldn't even admit they were Russian which kinda suggests they knew they were breaking international law....There are reasons why the Ukrainian people want NATO protection
Oh it's definitely a weapon designed to carry nukes. Designed to defeat AEGIS and THAAD, and takes us firmly back to the pre-IRBM-Treaty era (another one foolishly abandoned by US, though that treaty had benefitted Europe more so than US or USSR, as the natural testing ground for nuclear land war - saving the principal actors in the cold war from damage - was removed from the escalation ladder).
As Sun Tzu stated in The Art of War “What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.” The U.S. and NATO were clear what the strategic objectives of this war was from the Western perspective. Weaken Russia militarily and economically to cause the collapse of the Russian government and the subsequent exploitation of the spoils. Russia was clear in its strategic objectives of the SMO in Ukraine which was to demilitarize Ukraine and create a neutral non NATO buffer zone on its southern flank and maintain unrestricted access to its Black Sea ports.
Of the two competing strategic objectives, short of all out nuclear war, the Russian objectives look to be the one which will prevail in the end. This is primarily due to the fact that from the Western perspective this was a political exercise in power politics, from the Russian perspective this is an existential threat, and that tends to focus the mindset towards a more complex and decisive solution set.
This is a war thirty years in the making, with one broken agreement after another between the West and Russia, and with this latest escalation and counter attack it is clear, this war will be settled on the battlefield, not the conference table.
Excellent take, many thanks!
Marv's / mirv's have been a part the arsenal of all nuclear superpowers, except Pakistan and NK. US phased out these ICMB as part of the 'new start' Nuclear Treaty which Russia stepped out of in Februari 2023.
Perun has made a great video on the topic. Highly recommended.
https://youtu.be/xSnZLWjOkHU
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
I'm appalled that our administration is walking a nuclear tightrope - for what??
To settle the conflict in Ukraine with a partition that Biden could have at least attempted to negotiate BEFORE the destruction of the country and a couple hundred thousand dead?
How could our planners envision that ANY Russian leader would ever accept NATO in Ukraine? My Russian family encouraged me to look at the situation from both sides. Push the Bear into a corner, and you had better watch out!
I'm not a rocket scientist either, just an informed citizen; isn't it becoming obvious that the development of hypersonic missiles by China and Russia makes the US carrier force obsolete, and with it, our ability to project power?
Very good post and an intelligent analysis.
The West, American governments included, seem to consistently underestimate Putin, his military technology and his strategic abilities. This time the escalation has put the rest of Europe in real danger, just when Trump is likely to withdraw at least some support to NATO allies.
That said, both Russia and Europe have lived with the weaponry to destroy each other's countries for many decades without using it. We are all reliant on political solutions now, and I think perhaps it is time for Europe to separate it's decisions from American policies. America is fond on making wars on other people's territories, and Ukraine is now a proxy war that could engulf Germany, Poland and others.
Time to step back, reconsider, and perhaps settle in Ukraine?
It's easy to underestimate someone who fumbles all the time. As you go on to say, this weapon changes nothing. NATO still has conventional and nuclear superiority. Russia still can't beat a crippled Ukraine. Europe has made it clear that they want Russia's impotent aggression defeated and Ukraine still doesn't want to surrender.
We've been hearing about Russian 'wunderwaffe' that will end the war tomorrow ever since 2014. Weird that they never seem to live up to the hype...
I'm hoping Putin's Russia is about to tank, along with the Rouble and the oil and gas market. That would be a very welcome Christmas present for those of us here in Europe.
I do have a concern, one from the very start of Putin's attack on Ukraine, that if Putin finds he cannot win, he will use a nuclear warhead on Kyiv to decapitate the Ukrainian government as a last, all-or-nothing, desperate action. Doing so could well give Putin the whole of Ukraine, so high stakes - everything to win, and little to lose.
Something else. Russia is outproducing all of european NATO by 4x in terms of it's military equipment. (even admitted by european nato)
if you run the stats however my expecation is that Russia at least reaches parity in terms of its weapon production with the entire western world.
In short. Russia is at least as great a military power as the USA is.
Russia fighting to its strength - land war in Eurasia, with all the modern trimmings. US bluffing with threats of escalation, when its clear there is no appetite for even a fraction of the intensity of the human sacrifice the Zelensky regime is willing to do (thanks to out-of-this-world corruption funded by US taxpayers).
Real strength of US military was NAVY ... And they have been neutralized for a full year by Yemen's Ansar-Allah! Draw conclusions with respect to China, a-fortiori. End of the FONOP era. A sea-change, forgive the pun.
yes. if only our leaders could recognize all of this
but apparently reality is too obvious to see
Biden was a gift to Putin. Easily outfoxed Blinken.
Who can really blame Putin given the opportunities ?
A „very obvious provocation of Russia“ indeed. How dare these mischievous Ukrainians assault peace-loving Russia which has in such a friendly and reasonable way merely suggested a minor correction of the border? They are just as obstreperous and bloody-minded as their neighbours to the east 85 years ago who resisted a similiarly innocuous request by Germany. What a calm and beautiful place world could be if it wasn‘t for war-mongering Ukrainians to disturb our peace?
I think you are missing the point. It is unacceptable to Russia, for Ukraine to be a part of NATO, or to pose a military threat to Russia.
This gets a lot of airtime on certain blogs, but it collapses with less than a second's thought. Russia is fine with Estonia, Finland and Latvia being in NATO. Demonstrably, Russia doesn't care about NATO being on their border.
Trying to invade Russia from Estonia or Finland is difficult. Invading via Ukraine is the preferred route. A glance at a map, or a knowledge of history, would have made this obvious.
Can you remind me which countries NATO has invaded in the 75 years of its existence? I think intervention in Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya were in response to a preexisting Civil War. I think the invasion of Afghanistan probably qualifies although the Article 5 was declared in response to the 9/11 attacks. Post soviet Russia on the other hand, Chechnya x2, South Ossetia, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine. While Donetsk did have a civil war type situation the others were invasions and in Crimea the "little green men" wouldn't even admit they were Russian which kinda suggests they knew they were breaking international law....There are reasons why the Ukrainian people want NATO protection
Could the end game come even before Trump's inauguration? No need to negotiate at that point.
Oh it's definitely a weapon designed to carry nukes. Designed to defeat AEGIS and THAAD, and takes us firmly back to the pre-IRBM-Treaty era (another one foolishly abandoned by US, though that treaty had benefitted Europe more so than US or USSR, as the natural testing ground for nuclear land war - saving the principal actors in the cold war from damage - was removed from the escalation ladder).