"Russia’s ultimatum to the West"
The Vineyard of the Saker December 19, 2021)
To understand what just happened, we need to look at two things: how Russia chose to communicate her demands and then the contents of the demands themselves. However, before I do that, I want to recommend two other point of views, both of which are, in my opinion, very helpful:
Andrei Martyanov’s https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2021/12/people-asked-i-respond-on-run.html
I recommend you read them before we continue. This being said, let’s look in more details at just what happened.
First, this was clearly an ultimatum. Second, it was a public ultimatum.
This is absolutely crucial, as it marks, at the very least, a total break with normal Russian (and Soviet) diplomatic practice.
It is also pretty obvious that both the form and the substance of that ultimatum would be unacceptable to the USA and the US colonies in Europe.
Which begs the question: what are the Russians trying to achieve here?
Some will say that the Russians (or Putin personally) are simply stupid and that they are too arrogant to realize that their ultimatum would never be accepted. Well, if the USA (the only part of the “West” which matters because it has actual agency) ignores that ultimatum and then merrily continues on the path it has been on since at least Bill Clinton, and if the Russians (or Putin personally) do nothing, then those who believe that the Russians are stupid will be proven right.
Now let’s look at what else might happen.
The first thing we need to understand is that Russia holds all the military cards (read Martyanov for details I won’t bother repeating it all here). So let’s quickly worst case: “Biden” ignores Russia and Russia replies by deploying weapon systems, including hypersonic weapons, which will threaten the US not only in Russia, but in Belarus, the Arctic, and the mid Atlantic. Then the US will feel the same way Moscow does: 5 minutes away from annihilation. Will that be good for “Biden”?
Let’s imagine that “Biden” decides to play tough and creates some kind of incident which will force the Russians to either sink a USN ship or shoot down a USAF aircraft. That would mean war. Here “Biden” would have two options: keep the war below the nuclear threshold and lose that war (the NATO military infrastructure would be gone) or go nuclear and risk a nuclear holocaust. Will either one of these be good for “Biden”?
Now let’s say that “Biden” agrees to negotiate with Russia (while, of course, keeping up with all the pretenses about “consulting with partners and allies”) and the two sides come to some kind of deal. How would that deal manifest itself? Well, that is quite obvious – NATO would have to give up its expansion while Russia would have to provide verifiable guarantees that she will not attack any NATO country. I know, I am skipping over a gazillion of details in which, as the expression goes, the devil lies, but for our purposes this is sufficient. Then, again, I would ask the same question as above: would that be a good outcome for “Biden”?
We need to look at this possibility even further:
First, some of the US EU vassals would be incensed and they would do two things: verbally protest as loudly as possible and engage in whatever action they could come up to force the situation and create a crisis. And no, that would not be good for “Biden” at all. But, consider this: first, “Biden” can tell the EU vassals to shut up and behave. But even more importantly, that “bad option” will will look “less bad” to “Biden” than either one of the two options mentioned above (place the entire USA 5min away from destruction or face a fullscale war).
Remember how I said that Russia holds all the military cards?
Russia also holds much stronger political and economic cards than the USA which has close to nothing. Politically, Russia is now “more than an ally” to China, she is a close partner to India (to the fury of the White House) and politically, she is much less isolated than the USA! Even the map on the right does not give the full measure of the situation. Why?
Because most of the “international community” which “supports” (well, obeys) the USA is the EU, which itself is in a terminal crisis on too many levels to count here!
Compare the red and the grey zones on the map, and ask yourself these questions: which zone has the most powerful military? which zone has most natural and human resources? which zone has the most promising trading routes? which zone has a real GDP, as opposed to a purely FIRE one? Which one is literally dying spiritually under the trans-national “Woke” ideology and which one has retained the willingness and ability to fight for its spiritual, cultural and civilizational values? Finally, which zone has a viable vision of the future?
I could go on and on with many more such questions, but I think that you see my point: the USA is not only losing militarily, it is losing on all fronts!
Next question: what does the USA need most?
Well, there are plenty of things the USA need, but I would single out one: time. Why? Because the truth is that the USA has only two options left: a “Kabul style” retreat from Europe or an orderly, negotiated “rearrangement” of the European collective security system (which, let’s not forget, the USA screwed-up all by itself, a true disaster for which the USA is now totally responsible for).
[Sidebar: there is not such thing as unilateral security. All real security is always collective. That truism is now a dangerous political heresy in the West for which folks get (figuratively) burned at the stake for in the West. Unilateralism is just a trigger for insecurity and, eventually, war.]
If there is no war, then NATO will survive, at least politically. If there is no war, “Biden” will be able to say that the West’s “firm and united” stance forced Russia to make concessions: remember how the Cuban missile crisis was presented by the USA as a US victory when, in fact, it forced the USA to withdraw missiles from Turkey? It has been many decades since the Cuban missile crisis, yet something like 99% of the people in the US and EU sincerely believe that the US “won”! The AngloZionist propaganda machine can easily repeat that once more. Except for a “small” problem: this time around, Russia presented her ultimatum first, and made so very publicly.
Why did the Russians chose this method?
Well, I don’t know, I cannot read the Kremlin’s mind, but my guess is that Russia wants way more than just a “draw” (which is what the Cuban missile crisis was). Russia wants a full victory which she would define as “defanging NATO“, at least in Europe. Why?
Now let’s look at Russia’s options:
Do nothing aka “more of the same”: that means full surrender to the West, followed by a partition of Russia and a US attack on China. To say that this is unacceptable to Russia would be an understatement.
Gradually step down from the demands of the ultimatum: that is a more interesting one and it is again a case of “the devil is in the details”. For example, the existence of NATO by itself means nothing to Russia. Ditto for the EU, by the way. All these are in reality are irrelevant Kaffeeklatsch pretexts for politicians with no future, and countries with no agency. The biggest mistake made by both the EU and NATO was its “glorious” expansion to the East only to find out that all this achieved was irreparably weaken both the EU NATO as the newcomers were, how shall I put it politely, quite terminally stupid, corrupt and infantile. When I listen to EU and NATO politicians, I think of a Kindergarten on crack-cocaine or something equally insane (see here for a perfect example).
So one option for Russia would be to “creatively revisit” the terms of her ultimatum and then keep the substance while jettisoning the hostile tone and giving the West some symbolic “concessions”. Would that be a good option for Putin? Well, it all will depend on the mentioned “devil in details”. If at the end of the process NATO is defanged, than yes. If NATO remains as aggressively hostile as it is today, then no.
Which begs the question: what will Russia do in such a case?
Here we need to at least consider one option: a Russian recognition of the LDNR justified by Kiev’s total rejection (de facto and de jure) of the Minsk Agreements and the constant Ukronazi provocations and attacks on the LDNR: remember two things Putin said recently. He spoke of a “not yet recognized republics” and he spoke of “genocide“.
“Responsibility to protect” anyone?
Of course, the Ukronazis would have to attack (even at least symbolically), which would allow Russia to make a military move against the Ukraine, free the LDNR and deploy Russian forces inside these republics, fully backed by Belarus, of course, and, possibly, even China (politically). Notice I did not say “invasion”. Let’s imagine that Russia will use her standoff weapon systems to defang the Ukies, liberate the LDNR, and then will turn to the rest of Europe with a “smile” strongly suggesting the following “which of you guys wants to be next?” This would result in a total panic in Europe, especially in Mons, Brussels and Warsaw.
And here is the beauty of that option: Russia can easily strike Mons and Brussels (or Warsaw) with conventional weapons and leave most of these cities in mint shape. And if the EU/NATO decides to strike back, than Russia will wage a fullscale war against the EU/NATO and she will win it.
What about the “Biden” administration in such a scenario? The Pentagon knows what Russian missiles can do it it and any other military objective in the continental USA. I very much doubt that the US deep state will be willing to commit mass suicide just to try (and fail!) to protect the EU. Besides, the Russians have no intentions, or capabilities, to invade the EU anyway, so why destroy the USA for a threat which does not even exist?!
Does “Biden” want to go down in history as “the President who lost Europe”?
Would “the President who triggered a nuclear holocaust” sound any better?
So by making her demands public, Russia has (for the first time and finally!!) also send a message to the people of the West. This message can be summarized like this: we don’t want war, but if you insist, we will oblige [emphasis added].
And, for the first time since 1991, Russia does have the objective means to achieve her results.
So there, we have it, I think.
Now we also need to address the elephant in the room: the US War Party and, even more so, the EU infantiles on crack-cocaine. For them, defanging NATO would be utterly unacceptable…
… or would it?
The US War Party is just that, US based. And while some of the talking heads on the idiot tube do sound like real “hawks”, the military professionals in the US armed forces know the real score. Not only that, but the “smart wing” of the War Party understands that the USA desperately needs time and an orderly draw-down, even if just a temporary one! Their game is, as I said it many times, a game of what I call “nuclear chicken” but, crucially, a game short of actual nuclear war which they don’t need at all (if only because they would likely die themselves).
Which leaves the EU infantiles on crack-cocaine. Here I am going to say something terrible, and I feel really bad for writing this, but I only see one method to get the Europeans back from lala-land to the real world: Russia has to defeat them militarily, yet again, as she did over and over in her history. Somehow, the narcissistic megalomaniacs who currently administer the European continent on behalf of the USA won’t read history and won’t rein in their deep sense of racial superiority over the Russia Asiatic hordes. These modern Kulturtraegers and assorted Herrenvolk still hate Russia for defeating Hitler, Napoleon and the rest of them and for them, and their phobia (in the sense of both hate and fear) of everything Russian is now part of their identity, something quite sacred to them and to hell with those who think otherwise.
This is what it took the last time around
The way to bring the European Master Races back to reality is well-know (see picture).
I would argue that such an outcome goes directly against the interests of BOTH the USA and Russia. And, most obviously, it goes totally against the interests of the people of Europe.
But if the latter do nothing to prevent such an outcome, then it is for the USA and Russia to prevent it.
And if the USA won’t prevent it, then Russia will deliver.
As for the notion that boycotts, sanctions (even from hell!) or the cancellation of NS2 will stop the Russians -it is truly beyond ridiculous. Last time around, Russia lost 27 million people, and then rebuilt her economy in a decade.
This is no Russian bluff but a real ultimatum. In fact, it is so real that it was made public for two reasons I believe: first, of course, to try to appeal to the people of the West and, second, to morally “untie the hands” of Russia should it come to a full-scale war.
Analysts in the West always assume that public gestures is somehow exclusively aimed at them. They are wrong. This ultimatum is also addressed to the Russian people and Russian armed forces and says this to them: “people of Russia, we tried all we could to avoid this, we pleaded and begged for decades, and we retreated on many fronts, yet in spite of that, the West keeps pressing on. We will never allow a June 22nd to happen again. Prepare for war“.
I will leave the last (three) words to Putin:
“As a citizen of Russia and the head of the Russian state I must ask myself: Why would we want a world without Russia?”
“Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight’s inevitable, you must strike first”
“Any aggressor should know that retribution will be inevitable and he will be destroyed. And since we will be the victims of his aggression, we will be going to heaven as martyrs. They will simply drop dead, won’t even have time to repent,”