RE: Ukraine War outcomes, and crossing "red lines"
(The comments below are part of a long thread on Moon of Alabama, a leading anti-imperialist geopolitical analysis site. Please visit this site to get the full flavor and benefit from these materials).

@Bernd 2

There is a term for people who project their naïve notions of "red lines' onto Russia, and are then astonished when Russia is not distracted when these imaginary concepts are violated. I'm sure you can figure out what that term might be. When Russia's actual red lines have been violated, a price will be paid. That price may be military, social, economic, or geostrategic, and will occur at a time of Russia's choosing. For somebody, not a member of Russia's security and military councils to speculate on the how, when, where and who of the Russian response would be entirely a waste of effort.

It is not Russia that is "wasting men and equipment", it is the Ukraine, because no matter what the Ukraine does, it is unable to change the outcome of the current conflict. At this point it will surrender unconditionally or be utterly defeated. Adding weapons to the mix will simply cause more Ukrainian deaths and destruction, and a greater financial burden on those counties provisioning them. The US has expensive but vulnerable bases and interests all around the world. The cost of defending all of them from any possible attack is astronomical, while an attacker need to find only one weakness at one point at one time to inflict a major defeat on the USA.  And given that the USA has spent its entire existence making enemies, Russia has access to a huge number of resources that would love to hurt the US which is already in a state of near economic, social and infrastructural collapse, making the risk to the US asymmetric and existential. Do you really imagine that the USA is sufficiently delusional to expose the contents of their Pandoran container of helminths in which they have invested so much to inspection and possible eradication?

Rand Corp, the US War College, College of Naval Warfare, and many US think tanks have determined that NATO, which can draw on trained reserves of around 3.5 million could not prevent a determined Russian incursion (and Russia has trained reserves of around 24 million) into Western Europe except through the use of nuclear weapons.

How do you imagine that the Ukraine, which may once have had reserves of 1.5 million, but has since lost every intelligent military age draftee and probably over 400,000 troops, is going to prevent Russia from doing whatever it wants, particularly as the Ukrainians no longer have a logistical system, vehicles or fuel capacity capable of supplying and supporting it's existing troops and weapon systems, especially given that NATO weapons tend to be complicated, with high training and maintenance requirements, that the Ukraine has no way of acquiring in a realistic rime-frame.

The idea that "Foggy Bottom" is capable of any kind of thought is entirely unsupported by evidence.

Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 17:57 utc | 21

Are There Any U.S. Red Lines? MoA 2 Jan 2023

@ b.

Keenly analyzed and well-stated demolition project on the protestations of the retired British "diplomat". It appears to me that he is whistling in the dark. In the first instance, as you clearly point out, Russia has time and again declared that they would not be the first to resort to nuclear weaponry. Very wise of them, as their red lines do not depend on them.

Why does Russia not need to employ a nuclear first strike? Quite simple, really. In addition to and capitalizing on their overall weapons superiority, the RF possesses two discrete grades of hypersonic missilry. The most sapient course, I have long argued would be for a strictly kinetic (no nukes) strike upon the Eye of the Octopus, the center of international banking, insurance, metals markets, shipping and, of course, mass media...the City of London. The shots are being called from the vaulting ambitions concentrated in the Rottenchild Bank and in its subsidiaries, the Bank of England and in Basle, Switzerland, the International Bank of Settlements. City of London, NOT the Di$trict of Corruption or Wall $treet, happens to be the heart of the Beast...to use another metaphor.

Needless to say, we need to consider possible consequences. It would be a given, that simultaneous with the strike on the Bank$ter imperium, Russian strategic forces would go on full alert, with strategic bombers on a 24/7 aerial presence, done in shifts. This pre-prep would be fully visible to U$$A satellites. Pentagon analysts would promptly realize that a nuclear response would be utterly consequential. There would be panic and confusion in a number of quarters. Here is where American military leadership (at least the cooler heads amongst them) would need to draw their OWN red line, such as "Houston, we have a problem". It would be a no-go if those cooler heads (mindful of their own ongoing existence in this dimension and of those of family and all) would realize that the game is up and that an entirely new international architecture of diplomacy would be essential.

Point is that Russia's Red Line would be an obvious response to an extreme provocation and one that forms a crescendo from previous ones, adding up to a highly evident existential threat. To all discerning minds, the demonstration would be perfectly clear...that there is a new Big Dog and "why should we not immediately become "agreement capable".

Posted by: aristodemos | Jan 2 2023 18:02 utc | 24

Are There Any U.S. Red Lines? MoA 2 Jan 2023

There is certainly a case to be made for the lack of fear that NATO has so far shown in escalating the war and the mild (if any) responses Russia has resorted to, and of all the various acts: the sinking of the Moskva, murder of Dugina, the bombing of the Crimean bridge, attacks on Russian villages and cities near the border, weapons supplies, sanctions, confiscation of reserves, the campaign of russophobia - but none were as obvious an act of external aggression as the destruction of the NS pipeline. Also, none had as obvious a retaliatory move - any number of UK, Scandinavian or other major infrastructural western assets out at sea could have gone up in smoke. Yet Russia did nothing. This leads to an open invitation to continue, so continue they will.

Posted by: Boo | Jan 2 2023 18:04 utc | 26

Are There Any U.S. Red Lines? MoA 2 Jan 2023

@Bernd you need to get off your high horse man ! Ukronazies killed 100+ ruskies on Jan 1st but Russia kills more than 5 times that every single day. Ukraine has lost most of its first army and it's NATO mercs that are left fighting in the meat grinder in Bakmut. Even the US has acknowledged that they don't have enough weapons to keep up the fight when at the same time Russia is just scratching the surface of 1990s stockpiles of 155 mm artillery shells that the west doesn't have anymore... Now the real question is how long the US can keep themselves engaged without using the tactical nukes my guess is 3 to 6 months after that if they resort to nukes then there will be no more foggy bottom.

Posted by: Laphomic | Jan 2 2023 18:09 utc | 27

Are There Any U.S. Red Lines? MoA 2 Jan 2023

In the US what we've done is combine an arrogant, bankrupt govt. with an ignorant, bankrupt population. On one hand, people will say all news is "fake" yet on the other they refuse to believe anything else. We are the "good guys" and that's final.

This symbiotic relationship has metastasised into a malignant tumor on the world that must be amputated before it's too late.

From Putin's words, one can conclude he understands this and drew his line when he had his military launch an attack on US led NATO and the former state of Ukraine.

Posted by: chunga | Jan 2 2023 18:11 utc | 28

Are There Any U.S. Red Lines? MoA 2 Jan 2023

In a sense, Russia no longer has red lines re "Ukraine." As the conflict has continued, Russia's de facto positions have changed: Russian position now, stated multiple times in public communications, I think, is really expulsion of Poland, Romania, and the Baltic States, at minimum, from NATO, as well as whatever Moscow has in mind for Ukraine. "Winning" (just) in Ukraine is (sort of) meaningless to Moscow now, beyond bleeding the West dry so to speak. By committing itself more and more, materially and psychologically to Ukraine, the West is trapping itself further. Looking forward, it is much more advantageous for Russians to smash the Polish and Romanian armies, plus whatever expeditionary force US and other NATO states might put together, if the war continues after Ukraine runs out of warfighting capability, near Kiev, or, symbolically, near Poltava, even, than at Warsaw or the Fulda Gap--assuming, that is, if NATO still has the ability to pull that off when it comes to that.

Posted by: hk | Jan 2 2023 18:18 utc | 31

Are There Any U.S. Red Lines? MoA 2 Jan 2023

@ Hermit 21

(and Russia has trained reserves of around 24 million)

Please provide your source, because this sounds ridiculous. The total male population (all ages) in Russia is less than 68 million. You are suggesting that over a third of all males in Russia are trained reserves?

Posted by: ROCK | Jan 2 2023 18:16 utc | 30

Are There Any U.S. Red Lines? MoA 2 Jan 2023

@ROCK 30

While the exact numbers are classified, from 1967 when service terms were reduced, till the Soviet Union was disestablished, every citizen of the USSR had two years of service and up to 2 refresher camps per year. This continued in Russia until 2007, 2008 when the primary term was reduced to 1 year and camps were limited. Trained graduates and volunteers, male and female, also enter the reserves (мобилизационный людской ресурс). So most men and a fair number of women living in Russia form the Russian reserves. Chuprin, Konstantin (2009). Taras, Anatoliy (ed.). Вооружённые силы стран СНГ и Балтии. Справочник [Armed forces of CIS countries and Baltic states. Handbook]. Moscow: Современная школа. ISBN 978-985-513-617-1. contains the estimate that a wartime mobilization would raise armies totalling 31 million trained personnel.

Posted by: Hermit | Jan 2 2023 19:48 utc | 67

Are There Any U.S. Red Lines? MoA 2 Jan 2023