Hi All,
So the coup in Russia failed. Or did it? I've been told by Putin bots that apparently being able to seize a quarter of Russia's military assets and then march half way to Moscow unopposed was actually Putin's genius and one of his "4 dimensional chess player moves". The theory goes that Putin and Wagner Group actually staged this coup attempt in order to weed out potential threats to Putin to see who did or didn't not come out in support. The problem with this opinion is that secure dictators don't flee in an aeroplane with the transponder switched off. Nor would any one with a sound mind allow for their own air pilots to be killed by Wanger, given that the Russians are already suffering from a manpower shortage in capable pilots or for that matter show how exposed Russia is if they were ever in a situation in which the Ukrainians pushed Russia across the border.
In any event it seems that this had been building for months and this also puts the lid on another conspiracy theory ; It was the CIA. In actual reality, it is doubtful that any western intelligence service would want to put Prigozhin into the Kremlin as a puppet ruler, given that he and his acolytes were complaining not about the war itself, but the failures of it and therefore wanting to 'win' instead. In fact compared to many Russian nationalists Putin is something of a 'moderate', given that there are those out there who are advocating nuclear strikes and radioactive tidal waves against Britain. As to why these nationalists focus on Britain, rather than Amerika or NATO in general? Well that is because America is by far a stronger power, but Britain - whatever Americans like to say about it- is actually the most vocal supporter of weapons supply to Ukraine and per capita is giving a lot to this war effort- is seen as something that Russia could easily defeat in the equivalent of a Musk- Zuckerberg 'cage fight'. It would be one thing to nuke New York, but another to nuke Southend on Sea. Or at least from the Russian nationalist perspective.
In fact this may seem light laughable hyperbole, but Russia does see us as a threat. No-one in Parliament was given a chance to vote on this, as we did with Iraq. The liberal newspaper The Guardian and the other centre- left papers are this time in full support of Ukraine, unlike Iraq. This to my mind is due to the fact Putin is a good hate figure over LBGTQWERTY Plus 'activists'. The right see it differently in geo-strategic terms and the alt right don't want to get involved at all. What all this means is the equivalent of the nonsense of the clapping for the NHS during pandemic, an utterly un-British display of sentiment when what was needed was practical help, not virtue signalling rubbish. In any event the British public are not prepared on the consequences of an undeclared war against Russia and while it is a good virtue signal, putting up a Ukraine flag in civic and private buildings is a clear sign of taking sides, but people seem to think of war as being like the one against ISIS. In that campaign a handful of RAF warplanes were dropping bombs, rather than the trench warfare that is going on right now in Ukraine. Both wars in the same sense of buying a chocolate bar and a BMW can be classed as shopping.
If we did cross the threshold into full war, when that happens, it will not be like the first gulf war, but like world war 1trench at best, but at worse it would be a limited or near total nuclear confrontation. Even in a limited nuclear attack- say the Russians destroyed Gloucester or Northampton- using Hiroshima level nukes, which would be considered in today's terms 'tactical' and not 'strategic' nukes as 20 kiloton weapons have been replaced by megaton range weapons, then that would be enough to bring the NHS to its knees, among other things. In respect of the trench warfare scenario, you may think we have all the smart and stealth weapons to hand, but Russia does attrition well. The sheer expense of this weapons and the lead time (that is the time it takes to replace stocks) means that even America, let alone Britain or Germany, would quickly run out of them.
If you don't believe me, just look at the quick depletion of weapons that France and Britain experienced during the limited warfare of the Libyan civil war or why British soldiers in Afghanistan were dubbed 'the borrowers' by their American counterparts. Warfare today is built on the premise (similar to that before WW1) that things will be over by Christmas and that high tech 'force multipliers' will win the day. America spends $600 million per F35, but produces far less than other, cheaper aircraft, which in the hands of trained pilots can do a lot of damage. Israel against the Soviets in the war of attrition springs to mind, where MIGs were downed by Israelis flying French Mirages. The Royal Navy has far less submarines than previously because of the belief that a single sub can somehow not get overwhelmed by dozens of older and cheaper Russian or Chinese versions.
Look at world war 2, when it was Germany who had a better staffed (Stalin had purged his army corps and replaced them with political cronies), better fed, better trained and technologically advanced army. But the Russians simply had more men and were able to mass produce cheaper tanks which prevailed on the battlefield. I could well imagine a scenario in which the modern weapons are used up or are simply overwhelmed by the amount of enemy forces and because of the times it takes to replace them, armies revert back to trench warfare. Russia is prepared for this, given that their ideal war model is one of attrition and this is why Ukraine is having problems in its much vaunted counter offensive.
Russia is heavily dug in with minefields and trenches, it may be ordering dishwashers to get modern chips (imported via Kazakhstan) for its military, but it also has plenty of cold war tanks that don't rely on modern tech. Thus attritional warfare in which it matters you have quantity and not quality may well swing things in Russia's favour, unless the west begins conscription. 'The Draft' as American's would say, would not be popular if NATO were enter the Ukraine war today. It is one thing to virtue signal and another to be willing to die for someone else's country that is not an ally or historically an ally . Unless a European country or even Britain was attacked directly (if God forbid Gloucester or Northampton were nuked) then there would be no rush of men willing to enlist.
But I digress. The thing is we didn't have a discussion on this and that is important because now we are fully committed to this war, which is a proxy fight between NATO and Russia. Now we can see why Poland, the Baltics and east Europe support Ukraine (except for when it comes to grain supplies!) as these countries have for the past 300 years come under Russia's 'near abroad'. From the Russian perspective this desire to dominate central Europe is nothing to do with imperialistic ambitions, but as a self defence mechanism. The gateway to Russia's main population and industry is steppe and easily attacked from the west. So given that Russia has been attacked from the west multiple time and the last time this happened 25 million Russians died, you can see why from a 'nationalist' perspective they'd want to control as much of the gateways as possible.
I am not excusing this imperialism, but explaining it, for it is true that NATO is a defensive alliance and not an offensive one, to the extent in the Baltic states, there is no 'BAOR' (British Army of the Rhine) as there was in the cold war Berlin/Germany. There is only token force in the Baltics for the very sane reason that NATO doesn't want to provoke Russia with a garrison border, but the result is this tiny NATO force wouldn't hold out for long in a NATO-Russian war.
And yes it is true that a full blooded Russian Nationalist would go further and say if Russia could, then the entire Eurasian landmass should be under Russia's control.. This was tried in the 19th century and was ultimately checked by 1) the creation of a unified and strong German Reich. 2) The British Indian Empire in what was called 'the great game' and 3) The Japanese in China, culminating in Russia's humiliation in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904/5.That Russia under the Soviets had India as an ally was challenged by the Chinese claims to Russian territory and if I were a Russian strategist I would be more concerned with China's imperial ambitions. The Chinese did not have the will or power to do so for the past 100 years, but today they do (which in true fashion the Chinese think of it as retaking stolen or rebel territory that really belongs to the PRC).
It is not that I am a Putin bot, but full disclosure I have Russia Jewish relatives ( albeit via Essex and France, called 'Refuseniks', whose grandparents were put into Siberian Gulags) by marriage and it is not true that every Russian is a warmonger oligarch. In fact for the ordinary Russian, they are trying to live just like anywhere else, but are fed the propaganda (as Russia has no free press) that everyone in the west wants to nuke and attack Russia, given half a chance and yes they are told that Ukraine is run by Nazis propped up by the equally fascist NATO who will do to Russia what the Nazis did in 1941.
To conclude I am not writing against Ukrainian aid or welcoming refugees. Or for that matter direct intervention. What I am trying to convey is that the British public is being led into a war that we are not prepared for and we are not having this fully explained or disclosed to us as to why it may or may not be in the national interest to do so. That Britain was woefully unprepared for Afghanistan and Iraq was bad enough, but all the Treasury does is cut the military and yet at the same time this military is supposed to act in the same fashion at its Imperial height of 1900. These two things are criminal and when we do go to war we will be found wanting and on our knees. The politicians and the civil servants who decided all of this will be long retired and making a fortune on the lecture circuit and newspaper columns.
