Neoconservative panic

Whatsapp
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Telegram

By SIMPLICIUS THE THINKER*

Neoconservatives admit that a victorious Russia will be the most formidable force since the end of the Cold War

As many know, ISW (Institute for the Study of the War – Institute for the Study of War) is a neoconservative corporation based in Washington and directed by Kimberly Kagan, sister-in-law of neoconservative Robert Kagan (founder and director of both PNAC – Project for the New American Century – and his successor, the Foreign Policy Initiative). This, in turn, is the husband of the Undersecretary of State, the neoconservative Victoria Nuland.

[On December 14th and 22nd, the Institute for the Study of the War made public a report, in two parts, entitled “The high price of losing Ukraine”. A first part is signed, among others, by Robert's brother, Frederick W. Kagan, and the second is signed by Nataliya Bugayova, a Ukrainian intelligence analyst who works both for the Institute for the Study of the War as well as the neoconservative Hertog foundation. Materials are available for download in PDF].

This report is particularly significant, as it signals and underlines, in fact, the real intentions of the Beltway gang and Deep State henchmen, giving us a rare insight into the specters that haunt their minds, as well as its ramifications on the strategic perspectives of long term for the conflict in Ukraine, especially if Russia wins it, which is the “great danger” around which the report revolves.

The report begins, bluntly, with a grand series of confessions: “The United States has a much greater interest in Russia's war against Ukraine than most people think. The Russian conquest of all of Ukraine will by no means be impossible if the United States cuts off all military assistance and Europe follows suit. Such an outcome would bring a broken but triumphant Russian army to the borders of NATO, from the Black Sea to the Arctic Ocean.”

Once again, beyond the gestural brilliance of commercial media headlines, which have to promote a highly seductive narrative bias for the common people – where Russia would trigger, at best, a “freezing of positions” – we see here the real drivers and agitators within the machinery of the Military-Industrial Complex foreseeing the conquest of all of Ukraine by Russia if Western military assistance is stopped.

They continue with even heavier blows: “A victorious Russian army at the end of this war will have combat experience and be considerably larger than pre-2022 Russian ground forces. The Russian economy will gradually recover as sanctions inevitably erode and Moscow develops ways to circumvent or mitigate those that remain. Over time, it will replace its equipment and rebuild its coherence, drawing on a wealth of hard-won experience fighting mechanized warfare. It will bring with it advanced air defense systems that only American stealth aircraft – critically needed to deter and confront China – can reliably penetrate. Russia could pose a major conventional military threat to NATO for the first time since the 1990s, within a time frame largely determined by how much the Kremlin is willing to invest in its armed forces. Given that Moscow has already committed to an ambitious post-war military expansion program, the United States cannot be confident that this time frame will be very long.”

In short, neoconservatives admit that a victorious Russia will be the most formidable force since the end of the Cold War. But here is why this specter terrifies them so much: “To deter and defend itself against a new Russian threat after its total victory in Ukraine, the United States will have to send a considerable part of its ground forces to Eastern Europe. . The United States will have to station a large number of stealth aircraft in Europe. Building and maintaining these aircraft is inherently expensive, and the challenges of rapidly manufacturing them will likely force the United States to make a dire choice between keeping enough in Asia to defend Taiwan and its other Asian allies and deterring or defeating a Russian attack. to a NATO ally. The entire enterprise will cost a fortune, and the cost will last as long as the Russian threat continues – potentially indefinitely.”

Here is the crux of the matter. There are certain safety levers that should trigger automatically when your opponent makes a move. It is not that a politician, like a president, for example, can make a momentary choice, make a “decision”. No! This is inscribed in the defense doctrine with the same certainty as the code of a programming language. If X amount of forces move in and threaten someone, they will have no choice but to organize Y amount of their own preventative forces.

This is why Russia had no choice but to immediately organize a huge army of 500 new troops on the eve of Finland and Sweden's accession to NATO this year, with the reactivation of the Moscow and Leningrad Military Districts, which had been discontinued long ago. a long time. It is simply unthinkable for a nation to have hostile armies directly on its borders, with nothing to neutralize them.

Likewise, here, the American Military Industrial Complex enjoyed the luxury of having multiple proxies who kept Russian military forces coerced and busy so that the United States could divert its forces elsewhere in order to maintain its hegemony. all around the world. But now, a total and decisive Russian victory in Ukraine could undo all of that and, in the neocons' own words, would require the United States to station “a considerable part of its ground forces” in Eastern Europe.

This would mean a tremendous headache for American plans, particularly with regard to China, considering that these planners then record that they would have to produce and station large quantities of stealth aircraft in Europe, which would frustrate their projects in Taiwan. In short, they argue that a Russian victory would bring the Military Industrial Complex to an impasse, requiring a new, unsustainable level of military escalation.

Any other outcome would be better than this, they write: “Virtually any other outcome of the war in Ukraine is preferable to this one. Helping Ukraine keep the lines where they are, through continued Western military support, is much more advantageous and cheaper for the United States than allowing Ukraine to lose. ‘Freezing’ the conflict is worse than continuing to help Ukraine fight: it would only give Russia time and space to prepare for a new war, to conquer Ukraine and confront NATO.”

These words would not carry so much weight if they were not uttered from the jaws of the beast itself: the most powerful neoconservative Deep State “shadow elite,” which has guided the United States Military Industrial Complex for decades and which therefore speaks in its own right. name. Reading carefully, one notices an almost desperate urgency in his tone; which, in itself, is already extremely revealing.

They move forward, mapping out potential scenarios for how another war could happen. Before 2022, Russia “posed no threat” to any NATO state other than the Baltics, as Russia, they said, only “disposed of one airborne division and one mechanized infantry brigade near the borders of Estonia and of Latvia and the equivalent of a division in the Kaliningrad exclave. (…) No Russian troops threatened Slovakia, Hungary or Romania.”

Furthermore, they claim that Russian air defense networks had large gaps in southern Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, etc., because Russia had no way of placing air defense systems in Ukraine.

What is remarkable so far is how little consideration is given to the national security interests of any country other than the United States. There is an existential tone when it comes to discussing any Russian assets that could even remotely pose some kind of threat or put pressure on some point on NATO territory. However, the fact that NATO can carelessly head east and place entire armies at Russia's doorstep is beside the point. This is the essence of the “rules-based order”: those rules are for others; the United States, they can dominate the world without any rule.

In fact, they even openly advocate unreserved economic coercion, which in any other language means open terrorism or political interference in a country: “It is a priority to move from the passive imposition of sanctions to their proactive and aggressive application, combined with the use of economic coercion to restrict trade with Russia.”

Note that the coercion they refer to is directed against their own allies. Russia is already coerced, therefore, it is not about her. What they intend is to extend coercion to the intransigent European Union/NATO allies or any other associated country, to repress any possible evader or challenger of the sanctions regime against Russia.

Now that they have prepared the ground to alarm their audience, they move on to the final part: showing what would happen if Russia fully occupied Ukraine after a decisive victory.

First, they somberly repeat the warning, to hammer home the seriousness of the threat: “The sudden collapse of Western aid would likely lead, sooner or later, to the collapse of Ukraine's ability to contain Russian forces. They could advance to Ukraine's western border in such a scenario and establish new military bases there, on the borders of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. The Russians are preparing military occupation forces to deal with the almost inevitable Ukrainian insurgency, while leaving frontline troops free to threaten NATO.”

Once again, it is worth highlighting – because it is of the utmost importance – the gigantic disparity between what can be reported for mass consumption and what is actually discussed by real war planners and strategists. Once again, one can see the entirely sincere admission that if Western aid is cut off, Russia will not only win, but will advance to Ukraine's western border. It is worth comparing an admission as surprising as this with what is allowed to be said in superficial discourse, where it is still forbidden to insinuate that Russia could “break the impasse”, even at a local level, advancing, perhaps, to the banks of the Dnieper , or something a little further.

“The Russians expanded the structure of their army to fight this war, and have already indicated their intention to maintain it after it. They could easily station three complete armies (the 18th Combined Arms Army, the 25th Combined Arms Army, newly created for this war, and the 8th Guards Combined Arms Army) on the borders of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania.” .

Oops! This means that the poor Russian army, broken, beaten and beaten, to which they were previously referring - and which, according to the Western commercial media narrative, had 95% casualties - is suddenly capable of bringing together three armies of complete camps, just for the task of guarding the Polish borders?! This is a whole world of difference in relation to what is allowed for public consumption of information.

Strictly speaking, what they now claim that Russia will be able to bring together, along the entire front with NATO, is absolutely stunning: “(…) a total force of around 6 mechanized divisions (18 brigades) in Ukraine. They could move divisions that were stationed on Ukraine's eastern borders into Ukraine itself, as reserves for front-line divisions. The Kremlin has made great progress in its long-term project of securing control of the Belarusian armed forces. And victory in Ukraine will probably do the rest of the work. The Russians would likely mobilize, on a permanent or nominally rotational basis, an airborne division (three brigades) and a mechanized infantry division (probably three brigades) also in southwestern and northern Belarus. They would be capable of launching a lightning mechanized offensive against one or several NATO states with at least 8 divisions (21 mechanized or tank brigades and three airborne brigades), supported by significant reserves, including the 1st Guards Tank Army, which would be reconstituted around Moscow, and which was always intended to be the main strike force against NATO. They could carry out such an attack and still threaten the Baltic States and Finland with the forces already present there, plus the reinforcements they have announced they will station along the Finnish borders. Russian ground forces would be covered by a dense air defense network of long-range S-300, S-400 and S-500 anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems, with overlapping coverage across the entire front.”[I]

Where did these dozens of divisions suddenly emerge from? Well, that is the power of advertising. This just goes to show that virtually everything we see in the media is just grist for the mill of public consumption, propaganda intentionally designed and directed to underestimate Russian forces in every conceivable way – from their quantity to their quality, and everything in between. is among them.

But the real planners, the behind-the-scenes éminences grise, see what the public does not: huge, unprecedented buildups of Russian forces, which are not being significantly depleted in Ukraine.

And then comes the next bombshell: “NATO would be unable to defend itself against such an attack with the forces currently in existence in Europe. The United States would need to deploy large numbers of American troops across NATO's eastern border, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, to deter Russian adventurism, and be prepared to defeat a Russian attack. The United States would also need to permanently dedicate a significant proportion of its stealth aircraft fleet to Europe. NATO's defense strategy relies on air superiority, not only to protect its troops from enemy attacks, but also to utilize air power to compensate for NATO's own smaller ground forces and limited artillery stocks. The United States would have to maintain large numbers of stealth aircraft available in Europe to penetrate and destroy Russian air defense systems, and prevent the Russians from re-establishing effective air defense, so that non-stealthy aircraft and cruise missiles can target their own. targets. The requirement to send a significant fleet of stealth aircraft to Europe could seriously degrade the U.S. ability to respond effectively to Chinese aggression against Taiwan, since all of the Taiwan scenarios rely heavily on the same stealth aircraft that would be needed to defend Europe.”

So now we come to the truth about why stealth fleets (stealth) mentioned above are so necessary. Note: They admit that NATO has no real ground forces to speak of, nor any artillery left after giving everything to Ukraine – not that they had much to begin with. Strictly speaking, NATO is little more than a fragile glass jet fighter disguised as a military alliance.

But the problem is that they admit that the Russian air defense networks are so dense that their air force will not be able to penetrate them without the help of stealth fighters, which are not only very few in number but also extremely necessary for the front. China-Taiwan.

There are so many things to be said about stealth aircraft that it could take up an entire series of articles, at least one article or even a few paragraphs. But one thing that can be said here is that aircraft stealth they degrade very quickly without heavy support and maintenance, which is impossible in high-intensity conflicts. For example, its radiation-absorbing material (RAM: anti-radar protection) coatings need to be reapplied every few missions, which requires a lot of time and manpower – something that will by no means be on hand in a real conflict. Once these coatings are eliminated, the planes will be clearly visible to radars, as the United States itself admits that the RAM coating is responsible for a large part of the “stealth” capabilities of fifth and sixth generation aircraft – particularly the new B21 Raider.

This means that the longer a conflict lasts, the less stealthy and more vulnerable the only “ace in the hole” available to the United States will become. Which means, once again, that Russia maintains the upper hand, and will become progressively stronger as the conflict progresses ― as is happening in Ukraine.

And, moving forward with the analysis, the prospects only get worse: “The cost of these defensive measures would be astronomical, and would likely be accompanied by a period of very high risk, when United States forces were not adequately prepared or positioned to deal with the Russia or China, much less both together.”

So the United States wouldn't be able to deal with one of them... much less both?! Things become, in fact, extremely desperate when one is forced to make admissions of this nature and magnitude clear.

Finally, they move towards what would be their dream scenario: a total victory for Ukraine, something obviously impossible and with zero probability of happening – which makes it an irrelevant scenario, which does not require in-depth coverage. There is, however, a relevant point in it, stated openly: “Reestablishing Kiev's control over the entire territory of Ukraine, including Crimea, is important for the United States and NATO, as well as for Ukraine. Russia's possession of Crimea makes it the dominant power in the Black Sea, and allows Russian aircraft to threaten NATO's southeastern flank as well as deploy long-range air defenses on the peninsula. Positions on the eastern (left) bank of Kherson Oblast, which Russia currently controls, provide bases further west of Crimea. NATO will have to face these challenges once the war ends, if these areas remain in Russian hands. However, if Ukraine regains its 1991 borders, pressure on NATO will decrease dramatically. The closest Russian troops to Romania would be almost 800 kilometers away. The Black Sea would practically become a NATO lake. Moscow would likely complete its military control over Belarus and base its forces there even in this scenario. The threat to NATO from such bases, however, would take on a very different aspect in a scenario in which Belarus is a major salient facing NATO forces on two sides and with a large and powerful independent Ukraine along its entire border. south. The task of defending northeastern Poland and the Baltic States from Russian troops operating from Belarus, Kaliningrad and Russia itself is a much more palatable and less expensive proposition than defending the entire NATO line from the Black Sea to to the Arctic Ocean.”

And there it is! Complete, naked and in the open, the true objective of NATO's dirty hands: finally revealed without art or varnish: “The Black Sea would practically become a NATO lake”. This is the unfulfilled dream of a lifetime, finally confirmed in public. There is not much more to say after this, because this admission alone validates every step Russia has taken in this conflict thus far, and completely exonerates Russia of any international wrongdoing, as it proves beyond doubt that NATO has always sought nothing more than to surround and strangle Russia on all sides, robbing it of land and wealth.

On December 22, ISW released the second part of its analysis, which follows the same trend as the previous one. There is no need to address her in the same depth, especially because she tediously repeats the same points, as if it were just insistence, further highlighting her own desperation and urgency. However, there are some irresistible points to note.

Firstly, they again contradict the current public narrative, by assessing that cutting aid would not result in a mere “impasse”, like the CNN and many other outlets would like to point out so much, but rather that this will end Ukraine's ability to contain Russia, leading Russia to simply defeat them: “A self-imposed defeat in Ukraine will confront the United States with the real risk of another war in Europe, with greater risks of escalation and higher costs. Cutting aid to Ukraine will not freeze the front lines, as ISW has already assessed. Instead, it will diminish Ukraine's ability to contain the Russian military and accelerate Russian military momentum ever further west, because the fundamental engine of this war – the Kremlin's intention to eradicate Ukraine's identity and statehood – will not changed".

Thus, another popular narrative in the West is dispelled here: that which says that Russia will be “severely weakened” after this war, picking up the scattered debris of whatever destroyed territories it manages to annex. In fact, Russia is gaining immensely more than it loses: in new populations and wealth in land and resources.

ISW agrees: “Absorbing parts of Ukraine and Belarus would significantly increase Russia’s power, adding millions of people, including skilled labor, remaining industrial assets, and undevastated territory, for the Kremlin to utilize. in reconstituting Russian military strength.”

They then continue, once again, on a weighty note, implying the very existence of NATO: “The future of NATO is much more linked to the future of Ukraine than most people imagine”.

“The Kremlin would approach a real opportunity to break up NATO. Putin sought to use the invasion of Ukraine to break it up – a goal he failed at but continues to pursue. One of the main Russian threats to NATO is the risk that the Kremlin will manipulate it into repudiating its principles. NATO will be discredited if Russia maintains its gains in Ukraine, as its defense guarantees will be undermined. NATO Article 5 – the commitment to mutual self-defense – is not a magic shield. Its legitimacy lies, in part, in the persistent resolve of the United States to compromise with its partners. American leaders must remember, as the Russians certainly do, that any NATO State under attack can invoke Article 5, which states that in the event of an armed attack on a Member State, each other Member State will take 'immediate and individually, in agreement with the other parties, the measures it deems necessary'. Article 5 does not automatically and legally oblige all NATO members to use military force to defend another member under attack. Each NATO state will have to decide how to act.”

Not only is it suggested here that NATO could collapse entirely, but what is said also validates – for those who might need to hear it from a more “authoritative” source – what Scott Ritter and I have been insisting on for a long time: that Article 5 means nothing. Without an effective will to act, it does not legally oblige Alliance countries to do much, especially in defense of a country whose only ties to NATO may be quite artificial, and about whom they do not care much.

Next, another rather surprising and even counterintuitive admission is made: that Russia's greatest strength is, in fact, its dominance in the information sphere. Who would have thought of that? Media influencers tell us exactly the opposite: that Russia would be a “singular laughing stock” on the world stage, and that its propaganda campaigns fall apart like a bad comedy on the stage of a hellish farmhouse.

But once again, beneath the surface, a different tune is being sung in the ISW document, and the real movers and shakers appear to be being overwhelmed and intimidated by the force of Russia's informational achievements in Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): “This scenario [Russian victory in Ukraine] would necessarily mean that one of the few Russian capabilities that poses a real threat to the United States – information-based warfare – has had a major boost. Russian information-based warfare and reflexive control, specifically, have been among the strongest Russian capabilities and a central element of Russia's strategy against the United States for years.[ii] Reflexive control is how Russia fights, and it is one of the effective ways in which Russia poses a threat to the United States beyond its nuclear arsenal. Russia's true sphere is its global information space – communities penetrated by Russian narratives, including in the United States. If Russia wins in Ukraine, it will likely mean that Russia has managed to change the United States' perception of itself, its interests, and the risks and costs it is willing to incur, and to what end.”

But here they give up on the plot, getting to the heart of the matter. And they describe what, in their opinion, is the most serious threat of all: that Russia can, single-handedly, change the United States' perception of itself, or rather, change the very idea of ​​what the United States is: “Changing the American will is no small feat. The United States is an idea. The United States is a choice. The United States believes in the value of action. American internal resilience and global power come, to a large extent, from the people and countries that choose the United States, and from Americans who preserve their agency to act on behalf of their interests. An adversary that learns to alter these realities is an existential threat, especially when ideas are that adversary’s main weapon.”

Now we come to the metaphysics of it all. Note: the sheep was sheared, exposing its butt for everyone to see, but only the most discerning can glean the deep esoteric secrets it reveals.

What the ISW has just outlined goes beyond the limits of any insignificant material matters of war and all things corporeal. In fact, he uncovered the very ontological essence of the Empire's global hegemony, and this is something that was coincidentally evoked a little while ago in the blog de Andrey Martyanov.

His article itself is thought-provoking and quite good, but it is the main commentary to it that gets to the heart of things like a chant: “There is America as a myth and the United States as a country. (…) America, the myth, floated over all this [the history of North American impostures and iniquities]. It was a widespread catechism of American religion, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to swallow. We are becoming American atheists, and when people stop believing their own myths, they perish.”

Let us compare this observation with ISW exegesis. Here it is! American power is embodied in nothing more than a myth of supremacy and privilege, itself surrounded by the most varied euphemistic evasions and ethereal disorientations, such as the “rules-based order”.

What the neoconservatives have revealed here is the master key to everything: Russia is about to shatter the Myth or, rather, the Big Lie, which embodies not some true America that may once have existed, but the sublimated neoconservative distortion of it: what she became, the deformed giant, the Boeotian Leviathan who scourges the entire world with his spurred tail and noxious breath.

These fanatics, who have co-opted the country and its foreign policy, have in effect turned America into nothing more than a shambling Golem, naked as its dark emperor. Now, they fear nothing more than that Russia will destroy this misplaced “idea”, this fraudulent and barnacle-filled “dream”, which exists only in the bloodthirsty minds of its neocon usurpers, because something like that would destroy the illusion once and for all. all of them, not only freeing the planet from the clutches of this Leviathan, but also destroying the ankylosed neoconservative obsessions.

Note the very peculiar idiomatic use of “altering these realities”. Note: “altering” the substitutive reality imposed by neoconservatives corresponds to destroying the beast once and for all, amputating the inflicted cancerous growth, which strangles the heart of what may once have been “America”. This is what they fear, and they translated it as best they could, formulaically codified. The America they have distilled only exists as a simulation in a matrix, and they fear that Russia has found the key to unplugging their false reality-construction, awakening an entire generation to a crystal-clear truth: that the country and everything it has always stood for was entirely hijacked by a criminal conspiracy.

More than anything, they revealed that the power of “America” depends on a spell cast on its closest ally, the completely subjugated homo europeus. As soon as Russia “breaks” this spell, the game ends: “American internal resilience and global power come, in large measure, from the people and countries that choose the United States, and from Americans who preserve their agency to act in the name of their interests.”

The “sacred” idea of ​​“America” summarized here is nothing more than an imperial illusion, a web cast over the eyes of a European continent under complete occupation since the end of the Second World War. What they are ultimately saying is: there is no sacredness inherent in this fabricated ideal, but rather a forced illusion, as fragile as chalk, when people awaken to it. And neoconservatives still believe that Russia's awakening powers are an existential threat!…

Dark stuff, no doubt. But that's why their tone is so evidently strident and exasperated in this angry report. Russia has cornered the rats. And they are panicking.

*Simplicius, The Thinker is the journalistic pseudonym of an analyst American military and geopolitical.

Translation: Ricardo Cavalcanti-Schiel.

Originally published in Substack/ Simplicius's Garden of Knowledge.

Translator's notes


[I] The Brazilian designation was assumed here, translating the term into English “regiment” for what it corresponds to in Portuguese, in terms of tactical echelon, as “brigade” (the large unit that, in tactical symbology, is specified by the “X” above the geometric figure corresponding to the specific force: Manual MD33-M-02 , from the Ministry of Defense, which replicates the NATO APP-6D Manual). The brigade is the level just below the division. It brings together, in turn, battalions (infantry, symbol ǀǀ) or regiments (cavalry, symbol ǀǀǀ) and other logistical units. For a study of the historical evolution of the designation of military units, see, for example: Pedrosa, Fernando V. G. 2020. “Regiments and Battalions, Brigades and Divisions: organization and denomination of western military units through time”. Meira Mattos Collection 15(52): 39-60. Available in: http://ebrevistas.eb.mil.br/RMM/article/view/4755.

[ii] The original document refers here to another report from the same Institute for the Study of War, this one: https://www.understandingwar.org/report/confronting-russian-challenge. It is a document from which very little objective demonstration can be extracted, whether in terms of sociological analysis or in terms of semiotic analysis, constituting, first of all, a long ideological peroration of gratuitous, rhetorical and putative moral condemnation ( about Russian President Vladimir Putin, especially), in which the supposed Russian capacity to “shape the information space” seems to respond, rather, to the fact that Russian initiatives are recognized by the rest of the world as, simply, endowed with sufficient legitimacy . For an intellectual tradition that believes in “illocutionary magic” (cf. Pierre Bourdieu, the symbolic power) (or agentive magic), it is really difficult to understand the logic behind the achievement of legitimacy (since it is not, by far, driven by pragmatic prescriptions ― but can be driven by cultural intuition, something of which imperial arrogance American woman is atavistically incapable when it comes to others). This means that, despite the mirages around the soft power, Russia may simply be winning the international political debate on its symbolic foundations (the recognition of legitimacy), and that the ghost of 5GW may be nothing more than that: a ghost (like the farcical ghost of Russiagate). This all means that Western war propaganda, supported by the commercial media, may be no more than a short-lived “narrative”, where its apparent initial victory (proclaimed especially in the case of the Ukrainian conflict) may not be sustainable in the long term. . And that seems to be what is happening.


the earth is round exists thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE

See this link for all articles

10 MOST READ IN THE LAST 7 DAYS

______________

AUTHORS

TOPICS

NEW PUBLICATIONS