Although they’re playing a dangerous game of nuclear chicken with Russia, NATO is still exercising a degree of self-restraint, albeit solely due to its self-interest and not out of any so-called “responsibility”.
Not sure 'still' is the best applicable adverb here. It implies their reluctance to escalate is a continuation of their previous reluctance, if indeed 'reluctance' had ever been an appropriate description of NATO's approach to escalation until now. I don't believe it ever has been; in fact, I would posit the US, using NATO as a mask, has been anything but reluctant, and only too eager to escalate, since they perceived Russia as being unable to resist their will, since the conscious decision to expand NATO eastward, and ultimately overwhelm Russia to reduce it to more easily-managed and -controllable state(let)s, as the former Yugoslavia so dramatically, later, demonstrated, by the application the Reagan/Baker/Bush means of dealing with the dissolution of the USSR and reunification of East and West Germany. [end run-on sentence №1] In fact, I believe the escalation went back further than that, to operation 'Paperclip' and the dispersion of ex-German (Nazi party) collaborators from the Ukraine throughout the nations of the 5-eyes. There's a strong argument to say the Balfour Declaration (1916) would have been a good place to start, or success of the British military campaign in Crimea (https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/crimean-war) of 1854-56. In any case, I have trouble accepting 'reluctance (to escalate)' as part of any description of the UK(UN)US (NATO)'s approach to Russia's access to an ice-free port.
"...NATO is still exercising a degree of self-restraint, albeit solely due to its self-interest..."
Well, yes, I agree with that, but I'd more comfortably call it 'self-preservation' than 'self-restraint'.
Michael Witney (https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/mike-whitney) has long been one of my favourite sources of confirmation bias. Recently, particularly these past couple of years, he's been joined by a veritable plethora of other such skilfully perceptive analysts and writers, such as your good self, Mr Korybko. There's a far deeper wealth of intelligence for NATO analysts to take advantage of than there ever has been before. Increasingly, it would be difficult for them to ignore this wealth.
Yesterday, Global Research published a piece of Mr Witney's work (https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-defeat-nato-ukraine/5862824), quoting analysis from Will Schryver (on 'Twitter' ['X']), "The current front-line inventory of US tactical ballistic missiles and sea- and air-launched cruise missiles would present no greater technical challenge for Russian air defences than what they have already seen and defeated in the Ukraine War. The significance of this battlefield development defies exaggeration. It alters the war-fighting calculus that has been assumed for many decades. 'Empty Quiver', Will Schryver, 'Twitter'". This is just one of a multitude of reasons to explain how and why Russia has defeated the US and NATO in the Ukraine. NATO, and it's most lofty Ivy league US analysts, are only too painful aware of them. They may still be desperately looking for some means to explain the temporary setback they are experiencing in their efforts to overwhelm, dissolve and take over the Russian state(lets). 'It's because Biden's too old.' 'It's because Vance is a hillbilly redneck and Americans are too stupid to know what's good for them.' 'It's because... Everybody else is a pussy and no-one's brave enough to step up like Uncle Sam has...' Yeah, right!
The simple truth is that the Russians have thrashed all three shades of shit out of the Americans' perceived 'projection potential' — defeated them incontrovertibly — and there's nothing the Americans, nor all their kings' men, can do to change that. The more noise they make, the more obvious (and embarrassing) their defeat will be for them. They should be SO profoundly grateful the Russians aren't bigmouths, shouting their tits off about how they've vanquished the Americans c/w vassals. Fortunately, so unlike the Americans, they're wiser than that.
To go back to the beginning (here), 'reluctance' has little to do with it. It's all about practicality.
"...still reluctant to escalate..."
Not sure 'still' is the best applicable adverb here. It implies their reluctance to escalate is a continuation of their previous reluctance, if indeed 'reluctance' had ever been an appropriate description of NATO's approach to escalation until now. I don't believe it ever has been; in fact, I would posit the US, using NATO as a mask, has been anything but reluctant, and only too eager to escalate, since they perceived Russia as being unable to resist their will, since the conscious decision to expand NATO eastward, and ultimately overwhelm Russia to reduce it to more easily-managed and -controllable state(let)s, as the former Yugoslavia so dramatically, later, demonstrated, by the application the Reagan/Baker/Bush means of dealing with the dissolution of the USSR and reunification of East and West Germany. [end run-on sentence №1] In fact, I believe the escalation went back further than that, to operation 'Paperclip' and the dispersion of ex-German (Nazi party) collaborators from the Ukraine throughout the nations of the 5-eyes. There's a strong argument to say the Balfour Declaration (1916) would have been a good place to start, or success of the British military campaign in Crimea (https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/crimean-war) of 1854-56. In any case, I have trouble accepting 'reluctance (to escalate)' as part of any description of the UK(UN)US (NATO)'s approach to Russia's access to an ice-free port.
"...NATO is still exercising a degree of self-restraint, albeit solely due to its self-interest..."
Well, yes, I agree with that, but I'd more comfortably call it 'self-preservation' than 'self-restraint'.
Michael Witney (https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/mike-whitney) has long been one of my favourite sources of confirmation bias. Recently, particularly these past couple of years, he's been joined by a veritable plethora of other such skilfully perceptive analysts and writers, such as your good self, Mr Korybko. There's a far deeper wealth of intelligence for NATO analysts to take advantage of than there ever has been before. Increasingly, it would be difficult for them to ignore this wealth.
Yesterday, Global Research published a piece of Mr Witney's work (https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-defeat-nato-ukraine/5862824), quoting analysis from Will Schryver (on 'Twitter' ['X']), "The current front-line inventory of US tactical ballistic missiles and sea- and air-launched cruise missiles would present no greater technical challenge for Russian air defences than what they have already seen and defeated in the Ukraine War. The significance of this battlefield development defies exaggeration. It alters the war-fighting calculus that has been assumed for many decades. 'Empty Quiver', Will Schryver, 'Twitter'". This is just one of a multitude of reasons to explain how and why Russia has defeated the US and NATO in the Ukraine. NATO, and it's most lofty Ivy league US analysts, are only too painful aware of them. They may still be desperately looking for some means to explain the temporary setback they are experiencing in their efforts to overwhelm, dissolve and take over the Russian state(lets). 'It's because Biden's too old.' 'It's because Vance is a hillbilly redneck and Americans are too stupid to know what's good for them.' 'It's because... Everybody else is a pussy and no-one's brave enough to step up like Uncle Sam has...' Yeah, right!
The simple truth is that the Russians have thrashed all three shades of shit out of the Americans' perceived 'projection potential' — defeated them incontrovertibly — and there's nothing the Americans, nor all their kings' men, can do to change that. The more noise they make, the more obvious (and embarrassing) their defeat will be for them. They should be SO profoundly grateful the Russians aren't bigmouths, shouting their tits off about how they've vanquished the Americans c/w vassals. Fortunately, so unlike the Americans, they're wiser than that.
To go back to the beginning (here), 'reluctance' has little to do with it. It's all about practicality.
Give it a little time. We go through this dance with every escalation.