---

Consider, for a minute, this excerpt from the preamble of the report:

“The costs and risks of a long war in Ukraine are significant and outweigh the possible benefits of such a trajectory for the United States.”

This quote effectively summarizes the entire document. Think about it: For the last 11 months we have been told repeatedly that the US will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” The above quote assures us that that’s not going to happen. The United States is not going to undermine its own interests to pursue the unachievable dream of expelling Russia from Ukraine. (Even the hawks no longer believe that is possible.) Rational members of the foreign policy establishment are going to evaluate Ukraine’s prospects for success and weigh them against the growing likelihood that the conflict could unexpectedly spiral out-of-control. That, of course, would serve no one’s interest and could ignite a direct clash between Russia and the United States. Also, US policymakers will decide whether the ballooning collateral damage is worth the expense. In other words, are the ruptured supply lines, the rising inflation, the increasing energy and food shortages, and the declining weapons stockpiles a fair trade-off for “weakening Russia”. Many would say, “No.”

In some respects, the RAND report is just the first in a long line of falling dominoes. As Ukraine’s battlefield losses mount –and it becomes more evident that Russia will control all the territory east of the Dnieper River– the flaws in Washington’s strategy will become more apparent and will be more sharply criticized. People will question the wisdom of economic sanctions that hurt our closest allies while helping Russia. They will ask why the United States is following a policy that has precipitated a strong move away from the dollar and US debt? And, they will wonder why the US deliberately sabotaged a peace deal in March when the probability of a Ukrainian victory is near zero. The Rand report seems to anticipate all these questions as well as the ‘shift in mood’ they will generate. This is why the authors are pushing for negotiations and a swift end to the conflict. This is an excerpt from an article at RT:

The RAND Corporation, a highly influential elite national security think tank funded directly by the Pentagon, has published a landmark report stating that prolonging the proxy war is actively harming the US and its allies and warning Washington that it should avoid “a protracted conflict” in Ukraine…

(The report) starts by stating that the fighting represents “the most significant interstate conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences” for Washington, which includes US “interests” being actively harmed. The report makes it very clear that while Ukrainians have been doing the fighting, and their cities have been “flattened” and “economy decimated,” these “interests” are “not synonymous” with Kiev’s.” (“Rand calls for swift end to war“, RT)

---

While the report does not explicitly state that ‘US interests (are) being harmed’, it certainly infers that that is the case. Not surprisingly, the report doesn’t mention any of the collateral damage from Washington’s war on Russia, but, surely, that must have been foremost on the minds of the authors. After all, it is not the $100 billion or the provision of lethal weapons that is costing the US so dearly. It is the accelerating emergence of international coalitions and alternate institutions that has put the US empire on the fast-track to ruin. We assume that the analysts at RAND see the same things that every other sentient being sees, that Washington’s misguided conflagration with Moscow is a ‘bridge-too-far’ and that the blowback is going to be immense and excruciating. Hence, the urgency to end the war quickly. Here’s a excerpt from the report that was posted in bold print halfway through the text:

“Since avoiding a long war is the highest priority after minimizing escalation risks, the United States should take steps that make an end to the conflict over the medium term more likely.”

Interestingly, while the report details the main escalation risks, (The main risks include a broader war with NATO, a spillover of the conflict into other EU countries, and a nuclear war.) it fails to explain why exactly a ‘long war’ would be so damaging to the United States. We believe that this omission is intentional and that the authors do not want to concede that the backfiring of sanctions and the forming of anti-American foreign coalitions is clearly undermining US plans to maintain its grip on global power. Among elites, such talk is verboten. Here’s how Chris Hedges summed it up in an article at Consortium News:

The plan to reshape Europe and the global balance of power by degrading Russia is turning out to resemble the failed plan to reshape the Middle East. It is fueling a global food crisis and devastating Europe with near double-digit inflation. It is exposing the impotency, once again, of the United States, and the bankruptcy of its ruling oligarchs. As a counterweight to the United States, nations such as China, Russia, India, Brazil and Iran are severing themselves from the tyranny of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, a move that will trigger economic and social catastrophe in the United States. Washington is giving Ukraine ever more sophisticated weapons systems and billions upon billions in aid in a futile bid to save Ukraine but, more importantly, to save itself. (“Ukraine — The War That Went Wrong”, Chris Hedges, Consortium News)

---

---

Hedges sums it up perfectly. Washington’s foolish intervention is clearing the way for the greatest strategic catastrophe in US history. And yet, even now, the vast majority of corporate and banking elites resolutely back the existing policy while shrugging off the obvious signs of failure. Case in point: The World Economic Forum posted a blanket statement of support for Ukraine on its website. Here it is:

The essence of our organization is its belief in respect, dialogue, and collaborative and cooperative efforts. We therefore deeply condemn the aggression by Russia against Ukraine, the attacks and atrocities.

Our full solidarity is with Ukraine’s people and all those who are suffering innocently from this totally unacceptable war.We will do whatever is possible to help and actively support humanitarian and diplomatic efforts.
We only hope that – in the longer-term – reason will prevail and that the space for bridge-building and reconciliation once more emerges.” (Klaus Schwab and Børge Brende, World Economic Forum)

No one should be surprised by this. Naturally, the globalists are going to come-down on the side of their expansionist wrecking-crew (NATO) instead of the world’s biggest proponent of traditional values, borders and national sovereignty. That goes without saying. Even so, the Rand report suggests that support for the war is no longer unanimous among elites. And, since elites ultimately set the policy, there is now an increasing probability that the policy will change. We see this ‘splintering of elite consensus’ as the most positive development in the last 11 months. The only way the United States is going to change its approach in Ukraine is if a growing number of elites come to their senses and pull us back from the brink. We are hopeful that that will happen, but we’re not sure that it will.

---

---

The least persuasive section of the entire report falls under the heading of: “US and Allied Commitments to Ukraine’s Security”.

The problem is easy to understand. The authors want to settle on a plan for providing security to Ukraine in order to incentivize negotiations with Russia. Unfortunately,  Russia is not going to allow Ukraine to be a part of any western-backed security alliance, in fact, that is why Russia launched its invasion in the first place, to preempt Ukraine’s membership in a hostile military alliance (NATO) linked to the United States. This is a touchy subject that will undoubtedly be an obstacle in any future negotiations. But it is a matter on which there can be no ‘wiggle room’. Ukraine –or whatever is left of Ukraine– will be required to be permanently neutral and all the far-right extremists will have to be removed from the government, the military and the security services. Moscow will not pick Ukraine’s leaders, but it will make sure that those leaders are neither Nazis nor linked to any far-right nationalist organization.

---

“works for the defense establishment, and were money to dry up there, the thinktank would not exist in it current form. It serves US government interests entirely, and is dependent upon them.” (Lew Rockwell)

What this suggests is that the RAND report may represent the views of the Pentagon and the US Military establishment, who believe the United States is racing headlong towards a direct conflagration with Russia. In other words, the report may be the first ideological broadside against the neocons who run the State Department and the White House. We suspect this split between the War Department and ‘State’ will become more visible in the days ahead. We can only hope that the more judicious faction at the Pentagon prevails.

---

Towering brushfires raged across northern Israel on Tuesday following drone and rocket attacks by Hezbollah on Israeli settlements and military bases. The fires represent the latest escalation in the ongoing cross-border war that has persisted for the last 8 months. According to the Times of Israel, roughly “60,000 residents of towns and villages along Israel’s northern border have been displaced from their homes since October due to the near-daily cross-border rocket and anti-tank missile attacks by Hezbollah…” The recent uptick in violence has prompted an angry response from Israel’s political leaders who are now threatening to invade Lebanon if the attacks don’t stop immediately. This is from an article at CNN:

Netanyahu is feeling pressure from the far-right members of his war cabinet who want to invade Lebanon and eliminate the threat at its source. But that course of action would open a second front and likely divert resources from the operation in Gaza. It could also turn into a bloody killing fields like Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in July 2006 that backfired badly and left the IDF running for cover. Here’s a short recap of the debacle by historian Gabriel Kolko:

The 34-day war, starting July 12, Israel fought in Lebanon in 2006 was a disastrous turning point. .... The Israelis did not lose the war because of orders given or not given to various officers. It was a war of choice, and it was planned as an air war with very limited ground incursions in the expectation that Israeli casualties would be very low. …. (Chief of Staff) Halutz wanted to “shock and awe” the Hezbollah and their allies with Israeli power and establish a marker-all within a few days. It was to be a very short war based on the application of power. … Halutz wanted to make a critical point. Instead, he made the opposite and revealed Israel’s vulnerability based, in large part, on the fact the enemy was far better prepared, motivated, and equipped. It was the end of a crucial myth, the harbinger of yet more bloody but equal armed conflicts or a balance of power conducive to negotiations. Olmert and his generals very likely expected to have a great victory within five days, thereby increasing his popularity with the hawkish Jewish population that is a growing majority of the voters, to reverse his abysmally low poll ratings-he received three percent popularity in a TV poll in early March–thereby saving his political career….

There are many reasons the Israelis lost the war in Lebanon, but there is general agreement within Israel that the war ended in disaster and the deterrent value of the once unbeatable, super-armed IDF gravely diminished in the entire Arab world for the first time...

The Lebanon War is only a harbinger of Israeli defeats to come. For the first time there is a rough equivalence in military power … Technology is now moving far faster than the diplomatic and political resources or will to control its inevitable consequences-not to mention traditional strategic theories. This is true everywhere and the Middle East is no exception. Hezbollah has far better and more rockets-over 10,000 short-range rockets is one figure given–than it had a few years ago, and Israel’s military intelligence believes it has more firepower than it had last spring, before it was attacked…

Israel’s Last Chance, Gabriel Kolko, Counterpunch

On Tuesday, Israel’s far-right security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, visiting firefighters in the nearby town of Kiryat Shmona, said the government’s response to Hezbollah’s rockets should be war.

“No peace in Lebanon while our land is being targeted,” he said (BBC)

Not surprisingly, Ben-Gvir’s support for an invasion is shared by fellow-traveler Bezalel Smotrich who offered these remarks in a speech at the Western Wall at the end of the Jerusalem Day Flag March:

“Prime Minister, give the order, go to war with Hezbollah, destroy them,” he bellowed. “Take strength from the multitudes gathered here and give the order. Go to war with Hezbollah, subdue, destroy, move the security zone from the Galilee into southern Lebanon.”

Not to be outdone by the firebrands in Netanyahu’s war-cabinet, Israel’s President Isaac Herzog delivered the following ominous statement:

I call from here to the international community and its leaders and stress — it is impossible to remain indifferent to this terrorism, from Lebanon and in general. Israel has been attacked daily, for many months, by Iranian proxies in Lebanon, in flagrant violation of all international agreements and resolutions.

The world needs to wake up and realize that Israel has no choice but to protect its citizens and you shouldn’t be surprised when it does so with greater and greater strength and resolve, and don’t come to us with complaints when the situation gets out of control,” Herzog warned. “This is not the time to stand by and let the region escalate. This evil terrorist aggression needs to be curbed and stopped,” Times of Israel

Aside from the predictable bluster of pompous politicians and their allies, there are a few notable realists who understand that the outcome of any confrontation with Hezbollah is far from certain. Check out this excerpt from an article at the Jerusalem Post by retired Israeli Major General Yitzhak Brik who said “that any attack by the Israeli army on Hezbollah could bring terrible destruction to all of Israel”:

I warned that due to the gloomy situation in the army, it is only a matter of time before disaster strikes. And indeed, it has, with Hamas attacking communities in the Gaza border area. Fortunately, we had a miracle this time as Hezbollah did not attack us from the North, as it would have brought a disaster far worse than the one suffered by the Gaza border communities. It is doubtful if we could have recovered from it and continued living in our beloved country.

In the past, I warned, and I continue to warn now, that the army and the military are not prepared for regional warfare. If the IDF goes to war against Hezbollah and launches a significant attack – as recommended by some, including senior officials in the North and even the defense minister, with absolute ignorance of their situation and readiness of the army and the military for regional war – this could bring disaster upon the country. It is a gamble on the continuation of our lives in the State of Israel.

I warned of this when the war broke out in the Gaza Strip and the people cheered for the army, which at the end of the day did not achieve the desired result….

Those responsible for the disgrace, disaster, and terrible shame that occurred on October 7, may lead us into the next regional war, a war that will destroy our country because in the last 20 years we have not prepared the home front and the army for that war. Today, both the political and military leadership do not lift a finger to prepare the home front and the army for the next regional war. This war is the most severe threat to the country since its establishment, the security situation continues to deteriorate every day, and no one seems to care….

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former defense minister Benny Gantz, and former chief of staff Aviv Kohavi are leading us nowhere! To a path with no way back. ….

They are the ones who brought upon us the most severe hell in the history of the people of Israel since the Holocaust, they are the ones who are leading our way to the next hell without strategic thinking and rationality, but mainly out of emotions and gambling with the security of the country. They continue the fighting more and more because in their opinion it works in their favor. Despite the goals they have defined, the minimization of Hamas and the release of the hostages alive, are moving further away from us every day. And we are descending further and further in the security of the country, in the economy, in society, and in international relations. Where else will we fall? God save us. IDF general: Military, political leaders are leading Israel to disaster – opinion, Retired Israeli Major General Yitzhak Brik, Jerusalem Post

It’s an extraordinary statement and right on the money. Israelis may feel emboldened by the devastation they have inflicted on Gaza at little cost to themselves, but Hezbollah is ‘a different kind of animal’ altogether. Any invasion of Lebanon will come at a high price in terms of destruction, casualties and overall security. Are the Israeli people really prepared to make the sacrifices a war with Hezbollah require? Are they really ready to see their sons and daughters returned home in body bags?

Perhaps, Netanyahu is merely bluffing when he threatens to engage Hezbollah on the battlefield. Maybe, he’s just trying to project the image of a strong wartime leader. We don’t know. But what we do know, is that if he launches a cross-border offensive into Lebanon, he’ll get more than he bargained for. And—like Sharon and Olmert before him—he’ll live to regret it.

From Twitter—

RETIRED ISRAELI MAJ. GENERAL: Retired Israeli Major General Yitzhak Brik said that any attack by the Israeli army on Hezbollah could bring terrible destruction to all of Israel.

FOLLOW OUR LIVE BLOG https://t.co/5N6LWK58so pic.twitter.com/jKlv1rNA0R

— The Palestine Chronicle (@PalestineChron) June 6, 2024

---

President Putin’s press conference on Wednesday in Uzbekistan might have been the most unusual and extraordinary event in his 24-year political career. After addressing the Constitutional issues surrounding Ukrainian President Zelensky’s decision to remain in office beyond his four-year term, Putin delivered a brief but disturbing statement on NATO’s plan to fire long-range weapons at targets inside Russia. Putin made it clear that Russia would respond to these attacks and that the countries that provided the weapons systems would be held responsible. He also gave a very detailed description of how the systems work and how they require contractors from the country-of-origin be directly involved in their operation. What is so remarkable about Putin’s comments is not the fact that they bring the world closer to a direct confrontation between nuclear-armed adversaries, but that he had to remind political leaders in the West that Russia is not going to sit back and be their punching bag. Here’s part of what Putin said:

With regard to the strikes, frankly, I am not sure what the NATO Secretary General is talking about. When he was the Prime Minister of Norway, (we had good relations) and I am positive he was not suffering from dementia back then. If he is talking about potentially attacking Russia’s territory with long-range precision weapons, he, as a person who heads a military-political organisation, even though he is a civilian like me, should be aware of the fact that long-range precision weapons cannot be used without space-based reconnaissance. This is my first point.

My second point is that the final target selection and what is known as launch mission can only be made by highly skilled specialists who rely on this reconnaissance data, technical reconnaissance data. For some attack systems, such as Storm Shadow, these launch missions can be put in automatically, without the need to use Ukrainian military. Who does it? Those who manufacture and those who allegedly supply these attack systems to Ukraine do. This can and does happen without the participation of the Ukrainian military. Launching other systems, such as ATACMS, for example, also relies on space reconnaissance data, targets are identified and automatically communicated to the relevant crews that may not even realise what exactly they are putting in. A crew, maybe even a Ukrainian crew, then puts in the corresponding launch mission. However, the mission is put together by representatives of NATO countries, not the Ukrainian military. Putin Presser in Uzbekistan, Kremlin

Let’s summarize:

1. The long-range precision weapons (missiles) are provided by NATO countries
2. The long-range precision weapons are manned by experts or contractors from the country of origin
3. The long-range precision weapons must be linked to space reconnaissance data provide by the US or NATO
4. The targets in Russia are also provided by space reconnaissance data provide by the US or NATO

The point that Putin is trying to make is that the long-range missiles are made by NATO, furnished by NATO, operated and launched by NATO contractors, whose targets are selected by NATO experts using space reconnaissance data provided by NATO. In every respect, the prospective firing of long-range precision weapons at targets in Russia, is a NATO-US operation. Thus, there should be no confusion about who is responsible. NATO is responsible which means that NATO is effectively declaring war on Russia. Putin’s lengthy comments merely underscore this critical point. Here’s more from Putin:

So, these officials from NATO countries, especially the ones based in Europe, particularly in small European countries, should be fully aware of what is at stake. They should keep in mind that theirs are small and densely populated countries, which is a factor to reckon with before they start talking about striking deep into the Russian territory. It is a serious matter and, without a doubt, we are watching this very carefully. Putin Presser in Uzbekistan, Kremlin

Vladimir Putin Threatens ‘All-Out War’ if Ukraine Uses Western Weapons to Hit Russia — as Volodymyr Zelensky Asks Allies for Their Permission, MSN.com

Why is Putin again threatening a nuclear war?, The Interpreter

Putin warns the West: Russia is ready for nuclear war, Reuters

TYRANT’S THREAT: Vladimir Putin threatens all-out war if Ukraine uses Western weapons to hit Russia, The Sun

(and the best of all)
Time to Call Putin’s Bluff, CNN

If it is, it is a uniquely risky strategy. But there is a grain of truth to what they say. After all, Putin is warning that any attack on Russia will trigger an immediate and ferocious retaliatory strike. And he is advising the leaders of ‘small, densely populated NATO countries’ to consider how a nuclear attack by Russia might impact their prospects for the future. Would they really put their entire civilization at risk to find out whether Putin is bluffing or not? Here’s Putin again:

Look at what your Western colleagues are reporting. No one is talking about shelling Belgorod (in Russia) or other adjacent territories. The only thing they are talking about is Russia opening a new front and attacking Kharkov. Not a word. Why is that? They did it with their own hands. Well, let them reap the fruits of their ingenuity. The same thing can happen in case the long-range precision weapons which you asked about is used.

More broadly, this unending escalation can lead to serious consequences. If Europe were to face those serious consequences, what will the United States do, considering our strategic arms parity? It is hard to tell. Putin Presser in Uzbekistan, Kremlin

Putin seems genuinely mystified by the West’s behaviour. Do US and NATO leaders really think they can attack Russia with long-range missiles and Russia won’t respond? Do they really think their ridiculous propaganda can impact the outcome of a clash between two nuclear-armed superpowers? What are they thinking or ARE they thinking? We don’t know. We seem to have entered ‘uncharted stupidity’ where desperation and ignorance converge to create a foreign policy that is utter madness. This is from an article at Tass News Service:

NATO countries that have approved strikes with their weapons on Russian territory should be aware that their equipment and specialists will be destroyed not only in Ukraine, but also at any point from where Russian territory is attacked, the Russian Security Council’s Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev said on his Telegram channel, noting that the participation of NATO specialists could be seen as a casus belli.

“All their military equipment and specialists fighting against us will be destroyed both on the territory of former Ukraine and on the territory of other countries, should strikes be carried out from there against Russian territory,” Medvedev warned.

He added that Moscow proceeded from the fact that all long-range weapons supplied to Ukraine were already “directly operated by servicemen from NATO countries”, which is tantamount to participation in the war against Russia and a reason to start combat operations. NATO weapons to be hit in any country from where Russia may be attacked — Medvedev, Tass

There it is in black and white. Where Putin chose to take the diplomatic approach, Medvedev opted for the hammer-blow. ‘If you attack Russia, we will bomb you back to the Stone Age.’ Not much wiggle-room there. But perhaps clarity is what’s needed for people who do not understand the potential consequences of their actions. In any event, no one in Washington or Brussels can say they weren’t warned.

We cannot exclude the possibility that Washington actually wants to expand the war despite the fact that cities across Eastern Europe could be incinerated in the process. It could be that Beltway warhawks see a broader conflict as the only way to achieve their geopolitical ambitions. Putin knows that this is a real possibility, just as he knows that there is a sizable constituency in Washington that support the use of nuclear weapons. This might explain why he is proceeding so cautiously, because he knows there are crazies within the US establishment who look forward to a clash with their old rival Russia so they can implement their pet-theories about “usable” nukes for tactical advantage. Here’s Putin:

The United States has a theory of a ‘preventive strike’…Now they are developing a system for a ‘disarming strike’. What does that mean? It means striking at control centres with modern high-tech weapons to destroy the opponent’s ability to counterattack.

Putin has devoted a considerable amount of time studying US Nuclear Doctrine, and it has him deeply concerned. After all, didn’t the Biden administration launch an unprecedented attack on “a key element of Russia’s nuclear umbrella” just last week?

Indeed, they did.

And hasn’t the US (via its Nuclear Posture Review) rebranded the offensive use of nuclear weapons as a justifiable act of defense?

It has.

And doesn’t this revision provide US warhawks with the institutional framework needed to launch a nuclear attack without fear of legal prosecution?

It does.

And haven’t these same warhawks developed their respective theories on “first-strike”, “preemption” and “disarming strike” in order to lay the groundwork for a first-strike nuclear attack on a geopolitical rival of Washington?

They have.

And doesn’t US Nuclear Doctrine state that nuclear weapons can be used “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”

It does.

And does that definition include economic rivals like China?

Yes.

And is that a defense of a “first strike” nuclear weapon attack?

It is.

And does that mean that the United States no longer regards its nuclear arsenal as purely defensive but as an essential instrument for preserving the “rules-based order”?

Yes, it does.

And does Putin know that there are powerful actors in the political establishment and deep state who would like to see the taboo on nuclear weapons lifted so they can be used in more situations and with greater frequency?

He does.

And does he know that Washington regards Russia and China as the primary threats to US global hegemony and the “rules-based order”?

Yes.

And does he realize that if the US implements its first-strike policy Russia may not have the time to retaliate?

He does.

And does Putin realize that foreign policy analysts regard him as a restrained and reasonable man who may not pull the trigger or respond promptly when Russia faces a preemptive attack that will inflict the strategic defeat on Moscow the West seeks?

No, he doesn’t. He still thinks that possessing a large cache of nuclear weapons will deter US aggression. But a large cache of nuclear weapons is no deterrent when your opponent is convinced you won’t use them.

Sometimes being reasonable is not the best way to fend off an adversary. Sometimes you have to be a little crazy.

That’s a lesson Putin needs to learn. Fast.