The most important points are that: Ukrainian corruption could lead to an end of EU support; there’s no willingness in Poland to conventionally intervene there unless perhaps the front collapses; NATO and EU membership are unlikely; Poland doesn’t want US nukes; and it’s not serious about overthrowing Lukashenko right now.
Hard to believe that the conversation was legit! How can a person in such a position of power be such an imbecile to spill the beans over the telephone? Unbelievable! Are the "elites" really such cretins, or is this fake?
I reckon it's true. Three main reasons: 1) most likely, their lingua franca was Russian, so it wouldn't be too difficult for any prankster with just a little practice and coaching to do a fair impression of Porshenko, knowing how the Ukrainians and Poles perceive and use Russian; 2) they may have considered American (English) to be their new-and-improved lingua franca, which would make them (their egos) even more susceptible to deceptive manipulation (You know, like the Americans do.); 3) if these Siko- and Porko- guys know each other well enough to recognise each others' voices, AI, running real-time vocal modulation, might have been used.
Could be, but I'd have thought that a foreign minister would ascertain using some bulletproof means whom he's talking to before divulging such important information. Guess not ...
"...similar to a postman delivering a $1 million check to someone else."
Same as the UK, which everyone seems to somehow magically fail to notice or forget, the launch codes are all kept unsafely in US hands; effectively, the UK has no nuclear deterrent, as it's so often ((almost) always) described. Interesting to see the Poles (Siko-what's-his-name-ski) recognising that; likewise, interesting to ponder how they might sell that to their public once it's a done deal. Could the Poles be as stupid as the British?
"...the government became aware of what Sikorski revealed and formulated their policies to take maximum advantage of it."
I'm not sure it's fair to assume pranksters, particularly those of this calibre, necessarily need to be inspired or even supported by the government. Like the women of Greenham Common, there are those who genuinely believe children with nuclear weapons may grow up to become adults before too much harm is done. Like anyone who's ever helped a child understand why it's better to poo in a pot, rather than letting it go wherever it may land, it's a question of patience more than anything else.
That'll get you disinvited from dinner parties. Pathetic if that is representative of the west's best thinking. It just reraises the question of what all this was about to make discarding Minsk a strategic imperative.
There was a similar prank call last yearnwith Meloni. Doesn't matter- some minor American functionary snaps his fingers, european knees resolutely hit the floor.
What can they really expect to do if it does? They’ll have little to no warning and won’t be the least bit prepared. Not to mention they’d all need to talk. The RF would be liberating Kiev before NATO could even get a meeting together let alone reach a consensus towards a realistic and timely plan of action.
The front is already accelerating towards a collapse and they’re all still just bloviating.
Basically, Poland and Romania can move in to secure Western Ukraine (Lvov and Odessa respectively) to draw a clear red line in the sand for deterring Russia from crossing the Dnieper, which I'd personally expect Russia to comply with given Putin's reluctance to escalate at the risk of inadvertently sparking World War III.
Agreed but I still question their ability to even execute the move in a timely and organized fashion. Where’s the staging? That doesn’t happen overnight.
We haven't seen any staging thus far, but we know that Poland has sent more troops to the Belarusian border on the pretext of defending against illegal immigration.
France also has troops in Romania, as does the US, while both are speculated to have a few in Moldova too. No large-scale intervention would be required for drawing a red line in the sand since uniformed NATO troops are sufficient.
They'd serve as tripwires for escalating kinetic hostilities towards a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis, of course only if the decision is made to deploy them to Ukraine, after which everything would either de-escalate or spiral out of control.
No large-scale conventional NATO-Russian battles are expected like many thought might happen in Germany in the Old Cold War. This would be all about missile (including nuclear) brinksmanship and exchanges.
I wouldn’t necessarily agree that uniformed troops would be a deterrent. It’s in Russia’s interest to strike them immediately in a conventional means, give them a bloody nose so to speak. Anything else would definitely be considered weak. The RF has never hesitated to strike areas where foreign military officers were suspected to be gathering in Ukraine.
Since NATO cannot face them conventionally they’d be the ones to have to back off or go nuke and that would bring universal condemnation.
I don't expect NATO to deploy uniformed troops in Ukraine unless it's willing to retaliate against Russia for striking them, including by climbing the escalation ladder to the very top.
We also see how many shortcomings Russia had in its military logistics, to put it nicely, as proven by how much its supply chains were overstretched during the first few months of the SMO.
I'm unsure whether they can scale them to maintain a major breakthrough up to the river, let alone beyond. It could take time, and that'll give NATO more time to prepare too if they wanted a larger intervention force.
As for prior strikes, they weren't against uniformed troops. I haven't seen any credible reports suggesting otherwise, though there's a ton of fake news circulating around social media about it that I've come across.
We also don't really know whether Russia and NATO could face each other conventionally since NATO hasn't been tested like Russia has in Ukraine against NATO's proxy there, and the test has thus far been a very difficult one.
It's difficult for me to imagine both sides maintaining escalation control and keeping it below the brinksmanship threshold by deciding to engage in large-scale tank battles or whatnot given military advances since 1991 and 2022.
Even if they for some reason decided to do that, if either side starts losing, I just don't see how they'd retreat, lick their wounds, and everything will be okay. They'd most likely resort to brinksmanship or a first nuclear strike.
Their strategic doctrines suggest as much, and decades' worth of planning has been carried out for these scenarios. Even the conventional Old Cold War-era one assumed the likelihood of at least tactical nukes.
So this notion of them agreeing to fight conventionally, and the loser just walking away once they're done getting beat doesn't come across to me as anything realistic.
Another thing: what we observers think are in Russia's interests aren't always what policymakers think. I'm sure you probably came across a lot of optimistic predictions over the past 2,5 years. I certainly have.
I distinctly remember people predicting that Kiev would capitulate, that every Russian retreat was a clever plan to create more cauldrons, that Russia would bomb bridges across the Dnieper, take out the Rada, etc.
None of that materialized despite compellingly arguments about them being in Russia's interests. Likewise, I wouldn't rule out Russia letting NATO take Western Ukraine but remain on that side of the Dnieper.
I'm not saying that it would definitely do that, but the precedent is that popular perceptions of what's in Russia's interests have repeatedly been disproven by how policymakers ultimately act.
I totally agree that this is existential for Russia. I just don’t see any stomach for a real fight within NATO, let alone any realistic capability to field a credible conventional force.
The NATO forces along the Ukraine border are token and it’s well established their shelves are effectively bare. They’d have to institute drafts and go to full war economies just to have something halfway credible in 2+ years. Not happening; any public support they may have had has already been squandered.
Even the NAFO wet dream of an overwhelming conventional airstrike would end in humiliation.
The politicians are full of vitriol but their mouths are writing checks their asses can’t carry.
Hard to believe that the conversation was legit! How can a person in such a position of power be such an imbecile to spill the beans over the telephone? Unbelievable! Are the "elites" really such cretins, or is this fake?
I reckon it's true. Three main reasons: 1) most likely, their lingua franca was Russian, so it wouldn't be too difficult for any prankster with just a little practice and coaching to do a fair impression of Porshenko, knowing how the Ukrainians and Poles perceive and use Russian; 2) they may have considered American (English) to be their new-and-improved lingua franca, which would make them (their egos) even more susceptible to deceptive manipulation (You know, like the Americans do.); 3) if these Siko- and Porko- guys know each other well enough to recognise each others' voices, AI, running real-time vocal modulation, might have been used.
Could be, but I'd have thought that a foreign minister would ascertain using some bulletproof means whom he's talking to before divulging such important information. Guess not ...
One might have hoped...
But then, there are many, many things one might have hoped those 'elected' to represent others might or might not do.
These things were sent to try us!
"...they successfully impersonated..."
Maybe there is a good use for AI, after all?
"...similar to a postman delivering a $1 million check to someone else."
Same as the UK, which everyone seems to somehow magically fail to notice or forget, the launch codes are all kept unsafely in US hands; effectively, the UK has no nuclear deterrent, as it's so often ((almost) always) described. Interesting to see the Poles (Siko-what's-his-name-ski) recognising that; likewise, interesting to ponder how they might sell that to their public once it's a done deal. Could the Poles be as stupid as the British?
"...troublesome peace movements..."
What, you mean like Greenham Common (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Greenham_Common#:~:text=A%20Greenham%20Common%20Women's%20Peace,worldwide%20media%20and%20public%20attention.)? Been there, done that, empowered the women and got the T-shirt... Yeah, I bet the Americans are just quaking in their boots at the thought of such a prospect renewed!
"...the government became aware of what Sikorski revealed and formulated their policies to take maximum advantage of it."
I'm not sure it's fair to assume pranksters, particularly those of this calibre, necessarily need to be inspired or even supported by the government. Like the women of Greenham Common, there are those who genuinely believe children with nuclear weapons may grow up to become adults before too much harm is done. Like anyone who's ever helped a child understand why it's better to poo in a pot, rather than letting it go wherever it may land, it's a question of patience more than anything else.
That'll get you disinvited from dinner parties. Pathetic if that is representative of the west's best thinking. It just reraises the question of what all this was about to make discarding Minsk a strategic imperative.
There was a similar prank call last yearnwith Meloni. Doesn't matter- some minor American functionary snaps his fingers, european knees resolutely hit the floor.
“Unless the front collapses.”
What can they really expect to do if it does? They’ll have little to no warning and won’t be the least bit prepared. Not to mention they’d all need to talk. The RF would be liberating Kiev before NATO could even get a meeting together let alone reach a consensus towards a realistic and timely plan of action.
The front is already accelerating towards a collapse and they’re all still just bloviating.
Here are some of the analytical materials that I produced about that scenario:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/natos-debate-over-whether-to-conventionally
https://korybko.substack.com/p/poland-might-be-seeking-american
https://korybko.substack.com/p/romania-revealed-the-legal-means
https://korybko.substack.com/p/france-will-likely-seek-to-secure
https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-us-is-playing-a-dangerous-game
https://korybko.substack.com/p/interpreting-the-polish-military
Basically, Poland and Romania can move in to secure Western Ukraine (Lvov and Odessa respectively) to draw a clear red line in the sand for deterring Russia from crossing the Dnieper, which I'd personally expect Russia to comply with given Putin's reluctance to escalate at the risk of inadvertently sparking World War III.
Agreed but I still question their ability to even execute the move in a timely and organized fashion. Where’s the staging? That doesn’t happen overnight.
We haven't seen any staging thus far, but we know that Poland has sent more troops to the Belarusian border on the pretext of defending against illegal immigration.
France also has troops in Romania, as does the US, while both are speculated to have a few in Moldova too. No large-scale intervention would be required for drawing a red line in the sand since uniformed NATO troops are sufficient.
They'd serve as tripwires for escalating kinetic hostilities towards a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis, of course only if the decision is made to deploy them to Ukraine, after which everything would either de-escalate or spiral out of control.
No large-scale conventional NATO-Russian battles are expected like many thought might happen in Germany in the Old Cold War. This would be all about missile (including nuclear) brinksmanship and exchanges.
I wouldn’t necessarily agree that uniformed troops would be a deterrent. It’s in Russia’s interest to strike them immediately in a conventional means, give them a bloody nose so to speak. Anything else would definitely be considered weak. The RF has never hesitated to strike areas where foreign military officers were suspected to be gathering in Ukraine.
Since NATO cannot face them conventionally they’d be the ones to have to back off or go nuke and that would bring universal condemnation.
I don't expect NATO to deploy uniformed troops in Ukraine unless it's willing to retaliate against Russia for striking them, including by climbing the escalation ladder to the very top.
We also see how many shortcomings Russia had in its military logistics, to put it nicely, as proven by how much its supply chains were overstretched during the first few months of the SMO.
I'm unsure whether they can scale them to maintain a major breakthrough up to the river, let alone beyond. It could take time, and that'll give NATO more time to prepare too if they wanted a larger intervention force.
As for prior strikes, they weren't against uniformed troops. I haven't seen any credible reports suggesting otherwise, though there's a ton of fake news circulating around social media about it that I've come across.
We also don't really know whether Russia and NATO could face each other conventionally since NATO hasn't been tested like Russia has in Ukraine against NATO's proxy there, and the test has thus far been a very difficult one.
It's difficult for me to imagine both sides maintaining escalation control and keeping it below the brinksmanship threshold by deciding to engage in large-scale tank battles or whatnot given military advances since 1991 and 2022.
Even if they for some reason decided to do that, if either side starts losing, I just don't see how they'd retreat, lick their wounds, and everything will be okay. They'd most likely resort to brinksmanship or a first nuclear strike.
Their strategic doctrines suggest as much, and decades' worth of planning has been carried out for these scenarios. Even the conventional Old Cold War-era one assumed the likelihood of at least tactical nukes.
So this notion of them agreeing to fight conventionally, and the loser just walking away once they're done getting beat doesn't come across to me as anything realistic.
Another thing: what we observers think are in Russia's interests aren't always what policymakers think. I'm sure you probably came across a lot of optimistic predictions over the past 2,5 years. I certainly have.
I distinctly remember people predicting that Kiev would capitulate, that every Russian retreat was a clever plan to create more cauldrons, that Russia would bomb bridges across the Dnieper, take out the Rada, etc.
None of that materialized despite compellingly arguments about them being in Russia's interests. Likewise, I wouldn't rule out Russia letting NATO take Western Ukraine but remain on that side of the Dnieper.
I'm not saying that it would definitely do that, but the precedent is that popular perceptions of what's in Russia's interests have repeatedly been disproven by how policymakers ultimately act.
I totally agree that this is existential for Russia. I just don’t see any stomach for a real fight within NATO, let alone any realistic capability to field a credible conventional force.
The NATO forces along the Ukraine border are token and it’s well established their shelves are effectively bare. They’d have to institute drafts and go to full war economies just to have something halfway credible in 2+ years. Not happening; any public support they may have had has already been squandered.
Even the NAFO wet dream of an overwhelming conventional airstrike would end in humiliation.
The politicians are full of vitriol but their mouths are writing checks their asses can’t carry.