Do you mean James 'Jutras', or something like that? Never heard of Jetra. And I suspect that neither metaphors nor anything else from Charlie Brown (or the Jetsons) will last the way Dostoyevsky's somewhat weak and simple early short story White Nights apparently has, hitting the top of the discussed and read list among young Westerners. I think all references to American 'culture' ought to be subjected to a smell test before posting. Not that you failed to do that. You deconstructed it quite admirably.
Overall, your posts get better and better. I guess if you do a thing long enough and meet the criteria in the chart at the end of your article, that becomes inevitable. Thanks, man!
Maybe that bunker buster Oreshnik took out more than we will ever know. Remember when Russia used bunker busters in Allepo and took out terrorist command centres manned by the usual bunch of rogue elements from the Garden of Europe, the Land of the Free and the Only democracy in the Middle East?
Please don't forget to mention the largest continent on the world, Africa, when it comes to Russian/Chinese diplomatic and military affairs...and commodities to be fought over.
I believe you are on the right track. I don't know what the Putin Administration will do, but I agree with you on what they won't do. If it were my decision to make, because the air bubbles are starting to form on the bottom of the pan and some are even making it to the surface, I would take out more infrastructure. Let the Ukrainian people decide, in a cold dark corner, if taking the general out was a good idea. In addition if you get the opportunity, take out one or more of the groups gathering for the offensive, viciously.
The Lucy Football metaphor used by B didn't satisfy me. It's too easy, I would even say too American for the complexity of the context. It masks more realities than it shows.
On the importance of this general (which in no way invalidates your point), see Maria Zakharova's highly instructive contribution:
If Trump's aptly named Special Representative Kellogg "Special K" assigned to negotiate a resolution of the conflict ever gets to Putin's table, the latter will eat him for breakfast ~ the clue is in the name: Kellogg's Special K indeed!
Ole Chuck was able to kick the football when he was invisible. Hypersonics are invisible to radar, until it is too late. Ergo, if the analogy is appropo, then a sensitive location may get a chestnut calling card.
Russia has been clear since the beginning about their goals. All one needs to do is look at how they put an end to the NAZIs and Hitler the last time they faced them. Zelensky is a Dead Man Walking/Talking.
"No, they insist, there must be either a genuine, definitive, binding settlement that ensures a lasting peace based on mutual security..."
There are no "binding agreements". That's where a player promises solemnly, cross his heart and hope to die, that he won't necessarily do something that would be advantageous for him.
Like that would ever happen.
The only agreement that is "binding" is one where the bindee sees a loaded shotgun in steady hands aimed right at his face.
In which case, who needs the agreement?
See the Melian Dialogue... ever and always, as long as humans are human.
I think the Lucy’s football analogy was about Russia's apparent historical willingness to accept the West’s word at face value (e.g. The Minsk Accords). One would hope that they truly recognize that the usual suspects are not agreement capable.
Julian, exceptional article. Thanks for taking the time.
I have been thinking about an alternative way of solving the conflict that has pretty much become characterized as:
The Epic War between The Outlying- and Offshore Islands Empire and The World-Island Alliance...
No Defeat of Ukraine.
No Freeze.
No "Peace-Treaty".
But The reparation of the cause of this Frightening Escalating Battle.
RE-ESTABLISH THE CANCELLED NUCLEAR TREATIES !!
-1957: IAEA still existing, but misused as weapon against small countries that seek defence against the Empire.
-1957: ICBM's and Satellites, increase of Nuclear tests.
-1962: Cuban missile crisis. No Nuclear missiles in Cuba and Turkey.
-1962: Limited Test-Ban Treaty.
-1986: Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) on July 1, 1968, BROKEN in practice (Israel, Pakistan, India, N-Korea and more going there -Iran).
~1970: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, or SALT. Talks.
-1972: Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty limits the countries’ deployment of missile defense systems to their national capital and one ICBM site, and SALT I, which restricts their number of nuclear missile silos and submarine-launched missile tubes for a five-year period. SALT I does not address strategic bombers or warhead arsenals.
-1979: United States and Soviet Union sign a SALT II agreement that would have placed further limits on their nuclear weapons and launch platforms, including strategic bombers, and imposed certain notification requirements and new testing bans. But in December, the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan, starting a nine-year war in which its forces and allied Afghan communists battle the U.S.-funded mujahideen resistance. U.S. President Jimmy Carter responds to the Soviet invasion by asking the Senate to freeze consideration of the SALT II treaty.
-1981: Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, which seeks deep cuts in warhead counts and delivery vehicles. Soviet concerns are heightened as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) begins to deploy upgraded Pershing missiles in Western Europe, capable of striking targets in Russia. The Pershing II rollout triggers massive anti-nuclear protests in European NATO states.
-1983: Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) to create a space-based ballistic missile shield that could protect against a Soviet nuclear attack. SDI seems to mark a major shift in a U.S. posture that had so far embraced the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, or MAD, to maintain strategic stability. Critics say that the SDI, if technologically viable, would run afoul of the ABM treaty.
-1987: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) Gorbachev and Reagan sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, agreeing to eliminate by 1991 their countries’ arsenals of ground-launched, midrange nuclear missiles (ranging from about 300 to 3,400 miles).
-1991: End of Cold War and START Signed. President George H.W. Bush and Gorbachev sign the START treaty. The agreement is a success as both sides, which each had more than ten thousand deployed warheads in 1990, pledge to reduce their arsenals to well below six thousand by 2009.
-1993: Open Skies and Ex-Soviet Republics Disarm. In March, the United States, newly independent Russia, and twenty-five other countries sign the Treaty on Open Skies, which allows members to conduct scheduled reconnaissance flights over another’s territory. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine sign the Lisbon Protocol to the START agreement in May, committing the newly independent states to transferring the former Soviet nuclear arsenals to Russia and to joining the NPT as non-nuclear-weapons states.
-1993: START II Signed but Not Implemented... The United States and Russian sign START II, which aims to limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons that the parties can hold to 3,500, respectively. The ratification process, however, would be complicated by many factors and drag on into the next millennium. The treaty never comes into effect.
-1997: ABM Treaty Amended. To redefine and strengthen the ABM treaty of 1972, U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin ink a joint statement in March that delineates between strategic and non-strategic, or theater, missile defense systems. Russia ratifies the agreement in 2000, but the measure is never sent to the U.S. Senate. In 2001, President George W. Bush announces that he will withdraw the United States from the ABM, effectively ending the agreement.
-2002: SORT and Missile Defense. President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin sign the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), also known as the Moscow Treaty, agreeing to significantly cut the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads within ten years. President Bush withdraws the United States from the ABM, claiming it limits United States’ ability to develop missile defenses against terrorists and so-called rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea. The move angers Russia, which views U.S. foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11 with increasing concern.
-2010: New START. In April, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sign a new strategic arms reduction agreement in Prague, replacing the first START treaty, which expired in 2009. The so-called New START treaty commits Washington and Moscow to another round of cuts to their strategic offensive arsenals. The package sets a 30 percent reduction on deployed warheads and lower caps on deployed and non-deployed intercontinental ballistic missile launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons. The treaty is approved by the U.S. Senate in a decisive bipartisan vote. The Russian parliament approves it in early 2011.
-2018:
U.S. Withdraws From INF Treaty BY TRUMP. In August, the Donald J. Trump administration announces it will pull the United States from the Cold War–era pact that bans midrange, ground-launched nuclear missiles. For years, the United States had claimed that Russia tested and deployed a cruise missile prohibited by the treaty, an allegation Moscow denied. The U.S. withdrawal, which takes effect in August 2019, is supported by NATO allies and comes amid a series of disputes with Russia over Ukraine, Syria, and interference in U.S. elections.
OK.
My suggestion is to establish peace in Europe by re-introducing the INF in Europe, West of the Ural Mountain range, North of the Mediterranean and the South Caspian Sea.
Since Trump killed it, he should repair it.
Consequence: No Oreshnik, No US Tomahawks, Storm Shadow, ATACMS etc. in all of Europe.
It could be extended by Both sides (Britain, France & Russia) wil have comparable number and type of Nukes in Europe on LAND.
It could be extended with: Both sides the same number of soldiers, Tanks, Artillery on the same distance of the Border-region and NO Non-European troops (US and N-Korea).
This path wil create a peaceful Europe and stop the extremely dangerous escalation.
Sander.
PS. But my estimate that this plan will come within 5 years is <5%.
Do you mean James 'Jutras', or something like that? Never heard of Jetra. And I suspect that neither metaphors nor anything else from Charlie Brown (or the Jetsons) will last the way Dostoyevsky's somewhat weak and simple early short story White Nights apparently has, hitting the top of the discussed and read list among young Westerners. I think all references to American 'culture' ought to be subjected to a smell test before posting. Not that you failed to do that. You deconstructed it quite admirably.
Overall, your posts get better and better. I guess if you do a thing long enough and meet the criteria in the chart at the end of your article, that becomes inevitable. Thanks, man!
"Remember how they reacted to 9/11? A million people died..."
Over 3 million in Iraq alone. And without coming within - let's say - 500 miles of those actually responsible.
But of course it's nothing personal - just business. O-peration I-raqi L-iberation, remember?
Amidst the bias and hysteria you accurately inform and divine the truth.
A marvellous appraisal, Hats off to you.
Assasinations are terrorism.
Nordstream was terrorism.
Syria is terrorism.
Do you negotiate with terrorists?
Maybe that bunker buster Oreshnik took out more than we will ever know. Remember when Russia used bunker busters in Allepo and took out terrorist command centres manned by the usual bunch of rogue elements from the Garden of Europe, the Land of the Free and the Only democracy in the Middle East?
Please don't forget to mention the largest continent on the world, Africa, when it comes to Russian/Chinese diplomatic and military affairs...and commodities to be fought over.
I believe you are on the right track. I don't know what the Putin Administration will do, but I agree with you on what they won't do. If it were my decision to make, because the air bubbles are starting to form on the bottom of the pan and some are even making it to the surface, I would take out more infrastructure. Let the Ukrainian people decide, in a cold dark corner, if taking the general out was a good idea. In addition if you get the opportunity, take out one or more of the groups gathering for the offensive, viciously.
Great article!
The Lucy Football metaphor used by B didn't satisfy me. It's too easy, I would even say too American for the complexity of the context. It masks more realities than it shows.
On the importance of this general (which in no way invalidates your point), see Maria Zakharova's highly instructive contribution:
https://karlof1.substack.com/p/maria-zakharova-on-general-kirillovs
If Trump's aptly named Special Representative Kellogg "Special K" assigned to negotiate a resolution of the conflict ever gets to Putin's table, the latter will eat him for breakfast ~ the clue is in the name: Kellogg's Special K indeed!
J'aime vos approches, angles de vue, analyses et le tout avec un humour que j'adore.
Ole Chuck was able to kick the football when he was invisible. Hypersonics are invisible to radar, until it is too late. Ergo, if the analogy is appropo, then a sensitive location may get a chestnut calling card.
Isn’t it “Jatras” instead of “Jetra”?
Russia has been clear since the beginning about their goals. All one needs to do is look at how they put an end to the NAZIs and Hitler the last time they faced them. Zelensky is a Dead Man Walking/Talking.
"No, they insist, there must be either a genuine, definitive, binding settlement that ensures a lasting peace based on mutual security..."
There are no "binding agreements". That's where a player promises solemnly, cross his heart and hope to die, that he won't necessarily do something that would be advantageous for him.
Like that would ever happen.
The only agreement that is "binding" is one where the bindee sees a loaded shotgun in steady hands aimed right at his face.
In which case, who needs the agreement?
See the Melian Dialogue... ever and always, as long as humans are human.
I think the Lucy’s football analogy was about Russia's apparent historical willingness to accept the West’s word at face value (e.g. The Minsk Accords). One would hope that they truly recognize that the usual suspects are not agreement capable.
Julian, exceptional article. Thanks for taking the time.
The most interesting thing I heard not sure if it’s true is that the Ukraine agency behind the assassination has 300 thousand members
Paid for with our tax dollars I suppose as Ukraine is bankrupt
Wow
Sincere thanks, Julian. You are a miracle, and getting better and better.
Thank you for the Analysis.
I have been thinking about an alternative way of solving the conflict that has pretty much become characterized as:
The Epic War between The Outlying- and Offshore Islands Empire and The World-Island Alliance...
No Defeat of Ukraine.
No Freeze.
No "Peace-Treaty".
But The reparation of the cause of this Frightening Escalating Battle.
RE-ESTABLISH THE CANCELLED NUCLEAR TREATIES !!
-1957: IAEA still existing, but misused as weapon against small countries that seek defence against the Empire.
-1957: ICBM's and Satellites, increase of Nuclear tests.
-1962: Cuban missile crisis. No Nuclear missiles in Cuba and Turkey.
-1962: Limited Test-Ban Treaty.
-1986: Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) on July 1, 1968, BROKEN in practice (Israel, Pakistan, India, N-Korea and more going there -Iran).
~1970: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, or SALT. Talks.
-1972: Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty limits the countries’ deployment of missile defense systems to their national capital and one ICBM site, and SALT I, which restricts their number of nuclear missile silos and submarine-launched missile tubes for a five-year period. SALT I does not address strategic bombers or warhead arsenals.
-1979: United States and Soviet Union sign a SALT II agreement that would have placed further limits on their nuclear weapons and launch platforms, including strategic bombers, and imposed certain notification requirements and new testing bans. But in December, the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan, starting a nine-year war in which its forces and allied Afghan communists battle the U.S.-funded mujahideen resistance. U.S. President Jimmy Carter responds to the Soviet invasion by asking the Senate to freeze consideration of the SALT II treaty.
-1981: Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, which seeks deep cuts in warhead counts and delivery vehicles. Soviet concerns are heightened as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) begins to deploy upgraded Pershing missiles in Western Europe, capable of striking targets in Russia. The Pershing II rollout triggers massive anti-nuclear protests in European NATO states.
-1983: Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) to create a space-based ballistic missile shield that could protect against a Soviet nuclear attack. SDI seems to mark a major shift in a U.S. posture that had so far embraced the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, or MAD, to maintain strategic stability. Critics say that the SDI, if technologically viable, would run afoul of the ABM treaty.
-1987: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) Gorbachev and Reagan sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, agreeing to eliminate by 1991 their countries’ arsenals of ground-launched, midrange nuclear missiles (ranging from about 300 to 3,400 miles).
-1991: End of Cold War and START Signed. President George H.W. Bush and Gorbachev sign the START treaty. The agreement is a success as both sides, which each had more than ten thousand deployed warheads in 1990, pledge to reduce their arsenals to well below six thousand by 2009.
-1993: Open Skies and Ex-Soviet Republics Disarm. In March, the United States, newly independent Russia, and twenty-five other countries sign the Treaty on Open Skies, which allows members to conduct scheduled reconnaissance flights over another’s territory. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine sign the Lisbon Protocol to the START agreement in May, committing the newly independent states to transferring the former Soviet nuclear arsenals to Russia and to joining the NPT as non-nuclear-weapons states.
-1993: START II Signed but Not Implemented... The United States and Russian sign START II, which aims to limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons that the parties can hold to 3,500, respectively. The ratification process, however, would be complicated by many factors and drag on into the next millennium. The treaty never comes into effect.
-1997: ABM Treaty Amended. To redefine and strengthen the ABM treaty of 1972, U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin ink a joint statement in March that delineates between strategic and non-strategic, or theater, missile defense systems. Russia ratifies the agreement in 2000, but the measure is never sent to the U.S. Senate. In 2001, President George W. Bush announces that he will withdraw the United States from the ABM, effectively ending the agreement.
-2002: SORT and Missile Defense. President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin sign the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), also known as the Moscow Treaty, agreeing to significantly cut the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads within ten years. President Bush withdraws the United States from the ABM, claiming it limits United States’ ability to develop missile defenses against terrorists and so-called rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea. The move angers Russia, which views U.S. foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11 with increasing concern.
-2010: New START. In April, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sign a new strategic arms reduction agreement in Prague, replacing the first START treaty, which expired in 2009. The so-called New START treaty commits Washington and Moscow to another round of cuts to their strategic offensive arsenals. The package sets a 30 percent reduction on deployed warheads and lower caps on deployed and non-deployed intercontinental ballistic missile launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons. The treaty is approved by the U.S. Senate in a decisive bipartisan vote. The Russian parliament approves it in early 2011.
-2018:
U.S. Withdraws From INF Treaty BY TRUMP. In August, the Donald J. Trump administration announces it will pull the United States from the Cold War–era pact that bans midrange, ground-launched nuclear missiles. For years, the United States had claimed that Russia tested and deployed a cruise missile prohibited by the treaty, an allegation Moscow denied. The U.S. withdrawal, which takes effect in August 2019, is supported by NATO allies and comes amid a series of disputes with Russia over Ukraine, Syria, and interference in U.S. elections.
OK.
My suggestion is to establish peace in Europe by re-introducing the INF in Europe, West of the Ural Mountain range, North of the Mediterranean and the South Caspian Sea.
Since Trump killed it, he should repair it.
Consequence: No Oreshnik, No US Tomahawks, Storm Shadow, ATACMS etc. in all of Europe.
It could be extended by Both sides (Britain, France & Russia) wil have comparable number and type of Nukes in Europe on LAND.
It could be extended with: Both sides the same number of soldiers, Tanks, Artillery on the same distance of the Border-region and NO Non-European troops (US and N-Korea).
This path wil create a peaceful Europe and stop the extremely dangerous escalation.
Sander.
PS. But my estimate that this plan will come within 5 years is <5%.