Leave a Reply --Link to Moderation Policy--
Only Logged in users can comment.
New Commentators Register here to comment.
Saker Message:
Only Logged in users can comment.
New Commentators Register here to comment.
The US, UK, Israel and it’s vassal servant EU states don’t abide by International Rules. US rules based order means “rules for thee and not for me”. If this is not blatantly obvious to anyone then you are “brain dead”.
Let me rephrase the last sentence, “If it is not blatantly obvious to anyone (decent and honest) then you are “brain dead””
Lavrov always carpet bombs MSM journalists daring to play him out.
This reminds me of an absolutely must-see interview with Roger Waters on CNN:
https://youtu.be/ml373MHAtXo
Mr. Lavrov is truly the best council a leader can have on his side. I truly admire his style.
Pretty obvious the west wants and needs war. How big will be the war be is the question I have. I will hope it is contained to Ukraine, but have my doubts for after the resolution of the eastern block of the Ukraine called the Donbas is complete I believe the war will expand. Russia will need to take all of Ukraine for a buffer zone because the western nations want war. Will it stop in Ukraine, let us hope so.
It is already not limited to Ukraine. The kinetic aspect of war is on Ukraine territory.
The propaganda, economic and financial aspects of WWIII are global and well under way. The kinetic aspect can easily extend beyond Ukraine … hopefully it does not. But escalation is very possible.
Both Putin and Lavrov are meticulously identifying that the conflict operates on a legal basis within long standing treaties, conventions and the UN charter.
An obvious escalation that was hinted at by Lavrov. Self defence of Russian territory by any or all means, PLUS the non-neutrality of the collective West by supplying weapons, and command and control.
IF (hypothetically) Russia declared actual war against Ukraine after some attack on what will now be Russian territory, the collective West intermediately becomes a participant because they are not neutral. (from a legal perspective).
That makes the West legitimate targets .. legally – and also from the “law of the jungle” perspective.
But no doubt, that level of escalation is undesirable. However when you look at the “leaders” of the West, you notice that they actually believe their own propaganda … so the odds of them make sane rational decisions are horribly low.
Unfortunately, it may take the use of a (single) nuclear weapon, with at least a *weeks advance notice of the intent, to bring reality to the view from the West.
Justification: “to shorten the war and reduce the number of our soldiers killed” [the same excuse as the USA used for Hiroshima and Nagasaki]
———
*a weeks notice of intent to avoid misunderstanding of the event. A demonstration of how serious this is but not the beginning of MAD
Unfortunately, it may take the use of a (single) nuclear weapon, with at least a *weeks advance notice of the intent, to bring reality to the view from the West.
Nuclear weapons are obsolete, have very limited benefits, and blowback that massively exceeds those benefits. That statement is true for both Russia and the US, although for different reasons, and while Russia is well cogniscent of its truth the madmen in the US are not.
From a merely military point of view the theoretical advantage of the nuclear weapon is the power in the blast which means that it can destroy its target even if the targetting accuracy of the blast is not that good (as was the case in Nagasaki and Hiroshima). But modern conventional weapons can achieve the identical military destruction by relying on pinpoint targetting accuracy, with minimal collateral damage by comparison, and zero risk of nuclear winter (except for the risks of nuclear retaliation of course). I believe it is beyond question that whatever targets Russia might as a last resort send nuclear weapons to would be strictly military and strategic targets, with zero intention to maximise civilian deaths. That is why nuclear weapons are obsolete and useless from the Russian point of view, except as strategic deterrant against madmen.
The US point of view is very different. History demonstrates unequivocably that both the US and UK would relish the maximisation of civilian deaths from their nuclear weapons under appropriate scenarios. However their nuclear weapons are technologically highly obsolete compared to the Russian ones, and unlike Russia they have no workable ABM defence. For the US/UK shooting nuclear weapons against Russia is guaranteed self-destruction (and on top of that it is guaranteed to do less damage to Russia than to themselves. That is why they are obsolete and useless to the US – although madmen do mad things, especially in desperation.
Putin never mentioned nuclear weapons by name (it was only Medvedev who specifically mentioned them, and I think he is a bit mad, but fortunately not in charge). I personally believe that what Putin really meant was the possibility of a Russian first strike against the US using purely conventional weapons, no nuclear weapons, but with the aim of destroying the US ability to use any nuclear weapons, followed by systematic demilitarisation. According to Martyanov such a conventional strike is probably possible for Russia (but obviously definitely not possible for the US).
Unlike the US, whatever strategic moves Russia makes against the US will have been exhaustively gamed out for the effects of multiple levels of mutual escalation in response. That is obviously why Russia has not responded or only in a limited way to so many terrible provocations by the US – and that is why Russia took 8 years to fully hit back in Ukraine, waiting until she had the full capability of handling multiple levels of escalation.
By the same logic, when Russia does eventually make a major escalation, it will not be in small increments like the US provocations, but in one big leap that responds not only to the most recent provocation but to the SUM of all previous provocations PLUS countermeasures to make further escalation by the US virtually impossible. In such a scenario, a massive conventional first strike may seem a plausible scenario – but only, obviously, if Russia can be absolutely certain of complete success.
(One single nuclear weapon as “warning” is the absolute worst possible option – a nuclear counter-strike is guaranteed, and Russia automatically loses the strategic advantage of first strike. In any case any use of of nuclear weapons against Ukraine makes no sense at all – it would be against the US, in full, or not at all.)
Lavrov wields the truth like a laser beam…
I particularly liked the way Mr Lavrov slapped that silly cow from Reuters. A typical dishonest Australian whore of the Zionazis.