NATO v Russia: WWIII Part II. Tactical Battlefield 15 kiloton nukes.

   In my last post over New Years', I honestly tried to make a case that this war must end, a peace deal must be had or the danger of contagion and escalation is too great to allow this war to continue. Guess what, nobody read it. A border dispute between two neighboring countries has engulfed the planet, drawn factions, split alliances and is on its way to places I can't imagine. I became politically aware in the late '80s and even I knew as a kid that the Berlin Wall crumbling was something. I grew up in a time where nukes were a very real and ever present possibility. And today, the chances of such a war are higher than ever and the kids don't care. Because they don't know. So, since a call for peace gets me nowhere, let me show you war.

   For those of you with a distaste for horror, close this article now because I'm going to show some sick shit just to know what your taxes are paying for. If peace doesn't sell, then at least know what you are buying.

   First off, let's analyze the war. 

   Let me show you your death.

    Or your children's death. These are the weapons in play...

   Russia should have won it in six months. The feint toward Kiev from the north was supposed to induce a surrender. The other attacks from Sumy, south of Kharkov, north from Crimea and the main armored thrust to the vital rail hub at Mariupol was supposed to overwhelm the Ukrainians. A peace deal then would have ended it. Donbass and Luhansk go to Russia since that's what the people who live there want. Bring in the UN and hold a vote. Ukraine cannot join NATO would be Russia's only stipulation because such a measure puts short range nukes within 200 miles of Moscow. And allows NATO to put bases miles from Moscow which are simply untenable and unfair after the tacit post war agreement that was made by Clinton after the collapse of the Soviet Union; NATO would not encroach on former territories and place once governed by the Soviets. (Cuban missile crisis all over again). In fact, what need of NATO in 1991 since the Warsaw Pact had dissolved? It's whole reason for being had evaporated. If this take makes me a Russian shill go make a case in the comments. 

   Power once accumulated never dissolves by itself. (NATO) It only gets destroyed by a greater power.

   Yes, the Russians have nukes but so do the US and the idea was lets work together to stop their proliferation and reduce our stockpiles. That was a fair deal in 1997. We we're on the cusp of a new age. Each country-built modules for the International Space Station and it all worked. And look where we are now? Closer to nuclear war than in all of history. Check the Doomsday Clock. Think about that? How did humanity degrade intellectually and morally and let that happen?

   But that's a philosophical question right?

   I'm here to talk raw war and what's coming will come while you sleep unless something drastically changes.

    The West has gone from sending money, taxpayer money, most of it laundered back to US defense contractors (through Ukrainian banks) and back to US political campaigns to keep the extraction of the work and daily grind of the US and European people as a source of  income that can be skimmed and the use of it in the building of a massive security and surveillance state. The rest is being sold off as soon as if arrives in Lviv. Shoulder mounted missiles that can shoot down  a civilian airliner are being sold on the Dark Web as as I type. All of them supplied to Ukraine officials via the US and EU. Assange is still in jail for saying exactly this. With proof.

Now swap Afghanistan for Ukraine. It's a money laundering operation.

  "The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects, and its object is not victory over Russia or China, but to keep the very structure of society intact."

    With NATO pushing this war beyond what is necessary or logical, sending tanks, artillery, satellite intelligence, targeting information, advanced missiles, advanced jamming tech, high tech radar; at what point does Russia, whose population now see this war, for good or ill, as an existential war for survival, accept a loss?

   Let me give you a battlefield example.

   Let's take the city of Bakhmut. It's a major transport hub with what used to have 70k people living in it. It's the administrative capital of a an Oblast(State) in Donbass.. The Ukrainians have poured at best reckoning 50k troops into defending it. It's a built up area so a nightmare for the Russians to clear building by building without incurring terrible losses against defenders in prepared positions.

In the interest of neutrality, the red  circle shows what the Russians captured last week. Bakhmut, is in danger of encirclement. I rarely show maps on this blog because due to the fog of war, I believe both sides are lying but people I know and trust say it's true.

   Bakhmut is now "operationally surrounded". That means the Russians have the town of Soledar to the North (circled), Wagner forces are in possession of the road and rail from the South West and the only road in from larger towns to the East like Kramatorsk which is a conurbation ( of over 200k people mostly evacuated) along with a string of other towns in token amounts that form a defensive line 40 miles to Bakhmut's rear. There are by NATO estimates 50,00 Ukrainian, Polish, mercenary troops in Bakhmut. That road from Kramatorsk is useless because even though the Russians do not hold it, they can lay down artillery and destroy anything that attempts to move along that road. So Bakhmut is effectively caught in what the Russians call a cauldron and western military call surrounded in effect..

   So here's your horror story.

    The Ukrainians do not surrender. They sit on half rations and wait from a NATO armored brigade to break through and rescue 50,000 Ukrainian troops from a otherwise Russian war winning scenario.

   Is it possible?

    I don't think so. But if the Russians saw that a hard fought war winning end to fighting in Donbass and if foreign forces were rescued by a NATO armored division, would not the temptation be to launch a battlefield small 15 kiloton yield nuke into Bakhmut and airburst it over the town hall and at least fry half the the enemy? After all, the object of war is to win. And since Russia is a a country if 130 million people under attack now by NATO, a billion people, why would they not feel justified in using such a weapon? I am not saying they would be right, I'm saying they could be pushed into a corner where they say, if we go down, then you go down. It is not a moral argument. It is an emotional one. If I were to list the amount of battles fought and lost on emotion, I think I could go 40%

    This is the danger the world is playing with. Worse, a few people are playing with.

 

This was in the 1950s. Just imagine what they have now. Limited, battlefield nuclear ordinance. Airburst, minimal fallout, follow up attack by armored vehicles. It's coming while you sleep and worry about the gas bill and sausages.

   WWIII is in full effect. Not tomorrow. Not yesterday. Now.

    It's just the average person doesn't even know it yet beyond the cost of heating his home, eggs are expensive and good luck finding a steak you can afford. I don't know what to say but the people in charge lied to you about a bug no more dangerous than the flu and they are lying to you now. Ukraine could surrender in the morning and keep three quarters of its land area. A deal could be made. But it cannot be allowed.

   The West's goal is to attrite Russia because of her vast raw material wealth. Her existence has become too dangerous. Her alliance with China is even more terrifying. This has all been known for a decade. It's a belt and road initiative the US has no answer for. The danger is in the unity of the Eurasian landmass that puts the US an island an isolated block in the sea.

  But now we are on the edge of a hot war.

  And very few, least of all the politicians providing these weapons, know the heat of the fire they are playing with. 

    If we are to die in a war like this, then let us deserve it.

    But not like this. Not in our name. Otherwise, let's stop it.

    This war is over. NATO can throw in some vehicles to prolong it a few weeks. But Ukraine is done. The only question left is how much does Russia want? Donbass will crush the Ukrainian Army. That's already happening.

   In my opinion, the Russian capture of Odessa would destroy Ukraine forever. No access to the sea, I believe the Russians will call a halt here and take the win. They will leave Kiev to the Europeans, a black hole of corruption, money laundering and theft. Let them pour billions into keeping it running.

  Meanwhile, the Russians will relax on the beach and get there sunburn from the sun or the sun NATO fission detonates out of frustration

  Either way, we all burn.