Russia cannot afford to have its adversaries capture and hold Belarusian territory because of the national security threat that this presents and also because it would greatly undermine its negotiating position.
I would dare NATO to attack Belarus if only it would strengthen Russian resolve to force Ukraine's surrender before NATO gets a chance to get in good defensive positions to support AFU troops. Russia just needs to stay calm and make it known that any NATO forces attacking Belarus will be soundly annihilated and returned home in body bags. It would be prudent for NATO not to threaten the Russians with a good time and ignite Belarus into the conflict. Which NATO country wants to attack first and lose its entire expeditionary force? I'd like to see the French and British send in their volunteer kamikaze force first since they're the most eager to participate—a reminder to Macron that there are no woke prizes for participation in this type of conflict. It's a matter of life and death as soon as his invading force touches Belarus' soil. Only the Grim Reaper awaits them.
US policy may conclude that war in Europe is preferable to a humiliating NATO defeat. US policy fears most of all a future Germany and Russia sharing a condominium over western Eurasia. The purpose of NATO is to make sure that nightmare future never happens.
It was hoped that crippling the German economy by starving its industry of Russian energy would be enough to pressure Germany into confronting Russia, but now pro-peace domestic forces are emerging in Germany (and the rest of Europe) that are frustrating this hope.
The Nordstream incident demonstrated that the US would do almost anything to prevent German-Russian economic integration, but it now appears that such coercion alone may be inadequate in the face of Ukrainian losses and European pro-peace sentiment. The looming Trump assumption of power makes the situation even more dire.
It is possible that the US war faction is now not entirely opposed to a limited nuclear war as long as the theater of operations is confined to Europe and Russia. This possibility follows If you assume, as I do that the entire raison d'etre for confronting Russia is to prevent a Russo-German detente and economic integration.
It is not obvious to me that the destruction of continental Europe and Western Russia would be viewed negatively in Washinton, humanitarian considerations aside. So, the possibility that some factions in Washington would welcome a limited nuclear war can't be dismissed.
"...Putin is finally climbing the escalation ladder."
That's an interesting choice of words. Very much under the radar and wire, it implies the RF (represented by its elected President) might be escalating in its own right, as much as it is responding to aggressors' provocative attempts to escalate; that Russia has agreed to participate in escalation, as coerced by more aggressive states, on the same terms as more aggressive states. I see no recognition of Russia's need, and right, to defend itself in this implication; nor, indeed, any definition or clarification of defence and aggression and their actors. Are you suggesting Russia's 'climbing the escalation ladder' might, in some way, be the same as its opponents attempts to escalate? Can you define 'defence' (reaction) and 'aggression' (provocation) in this context? Let's not forget our Great Leader, Joe Buddy Biden's (Brezhden's) explanatory mantra: '...Russia's unprovoked aggression...' Have we forgotten already?
"...freezing the conflict along the existing Line of Contact without anything else in exchange."
This is the first time I've seen anything like a suggestion of anything like such a possibility; no-one, as far as I'm aware, has ever suggested this might be possible.
"...climbing the escalation ladder and throwing some of his previous caution to the wind...", "...influenced by hawkish advisors into seeing that as an opportunity to flex Russia’s muscles.", "...the West’s prerogative..."
The RF's response to an invasion of Belarus will likely be ferocious and significantly more intense than the response to Kursk given the higher strategic significance of Belarus. I believe it may finally include kinetic responses to NATO assets outside Ukr.
So, why would the West be this reckless? It could not be to improve its negotiating position since it will get its ass handed back to it. So then, it must be a poison pill to enrage the Russians as to prevent a negotiated settlement.
Mr. Lukashenko has a very good chance to make history. I hope he makes a wise decision and places his personal power aside. He has an excellent chance of coming out well ahead of Mr.Sheng below and keeping a much better reputation.
In late 1941 to mid-1942, Xinjiang local warlord Sheng noticed that local minorities under USSR provocation and cooperated with CCP were planning to launch an armed rebellion against him and take Xinjiang into USSR. After some secret exchange with the central government of the Republic of China, Sheng launched a brutal purge and greatly reduced USSR influence in Xinjiang. Even graduates of the RoC Central Military Academy were welcomed to Xinjiang to help control the local military. Sheng attempted to flip back to USSR in late 1944 but was rejected by Stalin. He chose to "surrender" to RoC government and accepted a cabinet minister position in the RoC central government.
But what would they hold it with? I've been to Belarus as a tourist, most of the women there are stronger than the average EU male, and the later would be going in almost naked.
Arguably, the most effective deterrent of a Western incursion into Belarus would be for Moscow to deploy Oreshniks in Iran. Or threaten to do so. That would put the brakes on NATO.
Almost as if on cue, Lukashenko is up for re-election on Jan. 26 next year. So I can imagine Belarus being ripe for some more Western attention soon.
I would dare NATO to attack Belarus if only it would strengthen Russian resolve to force Ukraine's surrender before NATO gets a chance to get in good defensive positions to support AFU troops. Russia just needs to stay calm and make it known that any NATO forces attacking Belarus will be soundly annihilated and returned home in body bags. It would be prudent for NATO not to threaten the Russians with a good time and ignite Belarus into the conflict. Which NATO country wants to attack first and lose its entire expeditionary force? I'd like to see the French and British send in their volunteer kamikaze force first since they're the most eager to participate—a reminder to Macron that there are no woke prizes for participation in this type of conflict. It's a matter of life and death as soon as his invading force touches Belarus' soil. Only the Grim Reaper awaits them.
https://youtu.be/lriWlHZAy8A
US policy may conclude that war in Europe is preferable to a humiliating NATO defeat. US policy fears most of all a future Germany and Russia sharing a condominium over western Eurasia. The purpose of NATO is to make sure that nightmare future never happens.
It was hoped that crippling the German economy by starving its industry of Russian energy would be enough to pressure Germany into confronting Russia, but now pro-peace domestic forces are emerging in Germany (and the rest of Europe) that are frustrating this hope.
The Nordstream incident demonstrated that the US would do almost anything to prevent German-Russian economic integration, but it now appears that such coercion alone may be inadequate in the face of Ukrainian losses and European pro-peace sentiment. The looming Trump assumption of power makes the situation even more dire.
It is possible that the US war faction is now not entirely opposed to a limited nuclear war as long as the theater of operations is confined to Europe and Russia. This possibility follows If you assume, as I do that the entire raison d'etre for confronting Russia is to prevent a Russo-German detente and economic integration.
It is not obvious to me that the destruction of continental Europe and Western Russia would be viewed negatively in Washinton, humanitarian considerations aside. So, the possibility that some factions in Washington would welcome a limited nuclear war can't be dismissed.
"...Putin is finally climbing the escalation ladder."
That's an interesting choice of words. Very much under the radar and wire, it implies the RF (represented by its elected President) might be escalating in its own right, as much as it is responding to aggressors' provocative attempts to escalate; that Russia has agreed to participate in escalation, as coerced by more aggressive states, on the same terms as more aggressive states. I see no recognition of Russia's need, and right, to defend itself in this implication; nor, indeed, any definition or clarification of defence and aggression and their actors. Are you suggesting Russia's 'climbing the escalation ladder' might, in some way, be the same as its opponents attempts to escalate? Can you define 'defence' (reaction) and 'aggression' (provocation) in this context? Let's not forget our Great Leader, Joe Buddy Biden's (Brezhden's) explanatory mantra: '...Russia's unprovoked aggression...' Have we forgotten already?
"...Cuban-like brinksmanship..."
Again with the semantics! See https://www.globalresearch.ca/russias-final-warning-to-nato-youll-get-your-war-but-itll-be-over-in-15-minutes/5873516 — "It should really be called 'Turkish' or something along those lines."
"...freezing the conflict along the existing Line of Contact without anything else in exchange."
This is the first time I've seen anything like a suggestion of anything like such a possibility; no-one, as far as I'm aware, has ever suggested this might be possible.
"...climbing the escalation ladder and throwing some of his previous caution to the wind...", "...influenced by hawkish advisors into seeing that as an opportunity to flex Russia’s muscles.", "...the West’s prerogative..."
There can be no mistaking the tone.
Escalating to de-escalate works both ways.
The RF's response to an invasion of Belarus will likely be ferocious and significantly more intense than the response to Kursk given the higher strategic significance of Belarus. I believe it may finally include kinetic responses to NATO assets outside Ukr.
So, why would the West be this reckless? It could not be to improve its negotiating position since it will get its ass handed back to it. So then, it must be a poison pill to enrage the Russians as to prevent a negotiated settlement.
If - if this happens, Russian dithering and indecision are to blame.
Mr. Lukashenko has a very good chance to make history. I hope he makes a wise decision and places his personal power aside. He has an excellent chance of coming out well ahead of Mr.Sheng below and keeping a much better reputation.
In late 1941 to mid-1942, Xinjiang local warlord Sheng noticed that local minorities under USSR provocation and cooperated with CCP were planning to launch an armed rebellion against him and take Xinjiang into USSR. After some secret exchange with the central government of the Republic of China, Sheng launched a brutal purge and greatly reduced USSR influence in Xinjiang. Even graduates of the RoC Central Military Academy were welcomed to Xinjiang to help control the local military. Sheng attempted to flip back to USSR in late 1944 but was rejected by Stalin. He chose to "surrender" to RoC government and accepted a cabinet minister position in the RoC central government.
🙏🙏
The Bible prophesied 7-year Tribulation is at humanity's doorstep & the time to escape is very short. To read more, pls visit https://bibleprophecyinaction.blogspot.com/
I don't think russia would nuke Ukraine. Nukes are reserved for NATO wolf pack
But what would they hold it with? I've been to Belarus as a tourist, most of the women there are stronger than the average EU male, and the later would be going in almost naked.
lol, JM.
Arguably, the most effective deterrent of a Western incursion into Belarus would be for Moscow to deploy Oreshniks in Iran. Or threaten to do so. That would put the brakes on NATO.
No, it would just give Trump et al. a big hard-on.