According to the Wall Street Journal Henry Kissinger should have uttered "it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
As you point out in this analysis we can see that our young European, inexperienced leaders are addicted and obsessed with the idea of becoming the maybe next NATO Secretary General or even the next President of the European Commission. They are blinded by the same intoxication that young, rootless gang members have when they have to earn their way into a biker gang or worse. The most striking thing about these criminal activities is that our criminal governments are not prosecuted while criminal gang members to some extent are. Who can blame them with our governments as role models?
Former Danish Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is clear proof of this. To be a "success" in politics, Washington's only requirement is blind obedience to their military-industrial complex. Our current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen exhibits the same hallmarks of hubris and intellectual deficits that could qualify her for a higher position in the West's totalitarian regime.
In these times, government members always value their own careers more than the people they rightfully should be fighting for. Their own safety comes before ours.
I attribute this, to quote (from memory) Jan Øberg, with whom I very much agree, to a general intellectual disarmament in the West, largely thanks to docile state-sponsored propaganda media and the decline of the independent academia. The result is extremely scaring; a totally ignorant population. Democracy, if we ever had it, is relatively quickly transformed into totalitarianism and fascism. A West that only focuses on alienating humanity, which now only has its military left, is a society in decay. Very sad, but it's obviously a process we have to go through as long as there are foolish people who think they have influence on politics by voting every 4 years...
Great analysis as always. Thank you very much Ola.
Well, everything indicates that the mainstream population in the US and Europe doesn´t understand the seriousness you describe - that they have to feel it themselves before it dawns on them.
They are ignorant people easy to manipulate by the US/EU media, about Syria for example they unconditionally trust the media that the secular Assad regime was a "tyrannical dictatorship" imprisoning innocent people.
It is disgusting to watch all the pro-islamic terrorist anti-Assad propaganda in tv and all the other unidirectional media which is being repeated and indoctrinated into people over and over again.
So the deceived American and European mainstream masses uncritically and fully trust their political establishment and their opinion forming agents. In other words, they support the US, EU and their false stories about Syria and Russia/Ukraine meaning that they support the terrorists in Syria and nazis in Ukraine.
So do they deserve one of the scenario Tunander describe?
Will the US really stay out of scenario "C"? An American top-level nuclear admiral of some sort, named Buchanan, recently spoke at a seminar about maintaining a degree of deterrence while actually fighting the nuclear war. Not sure what he meant, but as I imagined it they would use the American nukes stationed in Europe and perhaps also the ones at sea, but refrain from firing the US-based ICBM:s in order to keep Russia from hitting the US. He was also asked what "victory" means in a nuclear war, and answered that it means the US continues to lead the world.
Putin also spoke, I can't remember when, about a limited exchange of short- and medium-range nuclear weapons - but not intercontinental strategic ones - that would primarily cause suffering in our part of Europe. He urged the Europeans to consider what role the US is assigning them in this scenario.
Thanks. Of course, the US has strong reasons to avoid the destruction of a nuclear war, but nobody knows, and Buchanan's comments would indicate the opposite. If they enter the nuclear exchange, we will reach Scenario D. Thanks.
The analysis ignores the most important fact. The European leaders lack the moral fibre to take on Russian in Ukraine with troops or in a missile war. They are to a man, woman and dog, cowards.
In addition the US, who holds the europoodle leash , would simply tighten it. They have no capacity to act independently, just yap ineffectually.
Russia will achieve it’s goals in Ukraine, the US will turn a blind eye, European impotence will increase.
Sound analysis! It captures with precision how the West’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate security concerns, particularly the demand for a neutral Ukraine, has turned a preventable regional conflict into a potentially global catastrophe. The reality is that Moscow’s objective has always been strategic security, not conquest, and every escalation by NATO only deepens the spiral of mutual existential fear.
A few additional insights build on your argument. First, Western leaders have fundamentally misread Russia’s strategic culture. For Moscow, survival and sovereignty take precedence over ideology or image, which means deterrence will always escalate to defense if pushed too far.
Second, the West’s own industrial and demographic limits make long-term confrontation unsustainable. Russia’s wartime economy and de facto alliance with China have already shifted the global balance.
Finally, the refusal to return to the principle of common security, which anchored détente in the 1970s, ensures that escalation remains the default path. Until Washington and Brussels accept that multipolarity is irreversible, they will keep walking Europe toward strategic and moral ruin.
Excellent artiicle.. I said much the same thing 3 years ago, in my “Will There Be A Nuclear War?”
This scenario is made more possible by the fact that the West—especially the US—has no idea what kind of danger they face in getting into it. Americans think they can bluff, intimidate, and escalation-dominate any adversary. They do not think it’s possible that they will suffer a nuclear attack, because they think their nuclear weapons are the thing that has protected and always will protect them from that, when it’s actually been the admirable caution of been the admirable caution of been the admirable caution of Soviet submarine and early warning officers who prevented their annihilation. This time, there will be no bluff.
What will not happen, Scenario Null, is some Solomonic negotiation that stops the fighting before it gets out of hand. There will be no Minsk 3. …
The only negotiation will be over terms of surrender once things are settled on the battlefield. The result will be that one side or the other suffers a decisive, unallowable defeat. …
Both sides know this. The principals on both sides have eliminated any possibility of mutually acceptable compromise and are fully invested in fighting to win a definitive victory. There's no outside force—no international organization or group of domestic anti-war politicians (who do not exist in the US., anyway)—that is going to impose a peace. All the powers that could do so are the principal protagonists in this conflict, too heavily invested in it to accept anything less than decisive victory, and too rightfully afraid to accept the unacceptable defeat that is the only alternative.
Differently from the majority of the people out there, I praise for a nuclear war. There is no medicine for the abomination the west became. Only full extermination will heal the plague.
It will end when the Russian nazi regime leave Ukrainian land. It might take 20 years but partisan war in occupied territories will bleed Russia forever.
According to the Wall Street Journal Henry Kissinger should have uttered "it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
As you point out in this analysis we can see that our young European, inexperienced leaders are addicted and obsessed with the idea of becoming the maybe next NATO Secretary General or even the next President of the European Commission. They are blinded by the same intoxication that young, rootless gang members have when they have to earn their way into a biker gang or worse. The most striking thing about these criminal activities is that our criminal governments are not prosecuted while criminal gang members to some extent are. Who can blame them with our governments as role models?
Former Danish Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is clear proof of this. To be a "success" in politics, Washington's only requirement is blind obedience to their military-industrial complex. Our current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen exhibits the same hallmarks of hubris and intellectual deficits that could qualify her for a higher position in the West's totalitarian regime.
In these times, government members always value their own careers more than the people they rightfully should be fighting for. Their own safety comes before ours.
I attribute this, to quote (from memory) Jan Øberg, with whom I very much agree, to a general intellectual disarmament in the West, largely thanks to docile state-sponsored propaganda media and the decline of the independent academia. The result is extremely scaring; a totally ignorant population. Democracy, if we ever had it, is relatively quickly transformed into totalitarianism and fascism. A West that only focuses on alienating humanity, which now only has its military left, is a society in decay. Very sad, but it's obviously a process we have to go through as long as there are foolish people who think they have influence on politics by voting every 4 years...
Great analysis as always. Thank you very much Ola.
Well, everything indicates that the mainstream population in the US and Europe doesn´t understand the seriousness you describe - that they have to feel it themselves before it dawns on them.
They are ignorant people easy to manipulate by the US/EU media, about Syria for example they unconditionally trust the media that the secular Assad regime was a "tyrannical dictatorship" imprisoning innocent people.
It is disgusting to watch all the pro-islamic terrorist anti-Assad propaganda in tv and all the other unidirectional media which is being repeated and indoctrinated into people over and over again.
So the deceived American and European mainstream masses uncritically and fully trust their political establishment and their opinion forming agents. In other words, they support the US, EU and their false stories about Syria and Russia/Ukraine meaning that they support the terrorists in Syria and nazis in Ukraine.
So do they deserve one of the scenario Tunander describe?
Brilliant, Ola, and scary like hell. When will the Norwegians and others start listening to you and come to their senses?
With Russia dictating the terms. Russia didn't start it that was USA and NATO
Will the US really stay out of scenario "C"? An American top-level nuclear admiral of some sort, named Buchanan, recently spoke at a seminar about maintaining a degree of deterrence while actually fighting the nuclear war. Not sure what he meant, but as I imagined it they would use the American nukes stationed in Europe and perhaps also the ones at sea, but refrain from firing the US-based ICBM:s in order to keep Russia from hitting the US. He was also asked what "victory" means in a nuclear war, and answered that it means the US continues to lead the world.
Putin also spoke, I can't remember when, about a limited exchange of short- and medium-range nuclear weapons - but not intercontinental strategic ones - that would primarily cause suffering in our part of Europe. He urged the Europeans to consider what role the US is assigning them in this scenario.
Thanks. Of course, the US has strong reasons to avoid the destruction of a nuclear war, but nobody knows, and Buchanan's comments would indicate the opposite. If they enter the nuclear exchange, we will reach Scenario D. Thanks.
(Putin) "urged the Europeans to consider what role the US is assigning them".
Funny: vassals. - Why on earth are the Europeans accepting this? Destroying their own industry etc. ....
- We need some "national psychologist" of sort, to entangle this idiocy and deep lack of self-respect.
Good analysis. Thank you.
The analysis ignores the most important fact. The European leaders lack the moral fibre to take on Russian in Ukraine with troops or in a missile war. They are to a man, woman and dog, cowards.
In addition the US, who holds the europoodle leash , would simply tighten it. They have no capacity to act independently, just yap ineffectually.
Russia will achieve it’s goals in Ukraine, the US will turn a blind eye, European impotence will increase.
It won't end. Haven't you read 1984?
Sound analysis! It captures with precision how the West’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate security concerns, particularly the demand for a neutral Ukraine, has turned a preventable regional conflict into a potentially global catastrophe. The reality is that Moscow’s objective has always been strategic security, not conquest, and every escalation by NATO only deepens the spiral of mutual existential fear.
A few additional insights build on your argument. First, Western leaders have fundamentally misread Russia’s strategic culture. For Moscow, survival and sovereignty take precedence over ideology or image, which means deterrence will always escalate to defense if pushed too far.
Second, the West’s own industrial and demographic limits make long-term confrontation unsustainable. Russia’s wartime economy and de facto alliance with China have already shifted the global balance.
Finally, the refusal to return to the principle of common security, which anchored détente in the 1970s, ensures that escalation remains the default path. Until Washington and Brussels accept that multipolarity is irreversible, they will keep walking Europe toward strategic and moral ruin.
So many have died, for nothing. It must stop.
How it’ll end? In tears for the neocons.
Russia and the USA have a common goal: insure no nuclear weapons are used in their territory, but they may not feel the same about Europe.
Excellent artiicle.. I said much the same thing 3 years ago, in my “Will There Be A Nuclear War?”
This scenario is made more possible by the fact that the West—especially the US—has no idea what kind of danger they face in getting into it. Americans think they can bluff, intimidate, and escalation-dominate any adversary. They do not think it’s possible that they will suffer a nuclear attack, because they think their nuclear weapons are the thing that has protected and always will protect them from that, when it’s actually been the admirable caution of been the admirable caution of been the admirable caution of Soviet submarine and early warning officers who prevented their annihilation. This time, there will be no bluff.
What will not happen, Scenario Null, is some Solomonic negotiation that stops the fighting before it gets out of hand. There will be no Minsk 3. …
The only negotiation will be over terms of surrender once things are settled on the battlefield. The result will be that one side or the other suffers a decisive, unallowable defeat. …
Both sides know this. The principals on both sides have eliminated any possibility of mutually acceptable compromise and are fully invested in fighting to win a definitive victory. There's no outside force—no international organization or group of domestic anti-war politicians (who do not exist in the US., anyway)—that is going to impose a peace. All the powers that could do so are the principal protagonists in this conflict, too heavily invested in it to accept anything less than decisive victory, and too rightfully afraid to accept the unacceptable defeat that is the only alternative.
https://thepolemicist.substack.com/p/will-there-be-a-nuclear-war
United States is the Mrin Kampf real-time
Differently from the majority of the people out there, I praise for a nuclear war. There is no medicine for the abomination the west became. Only full extermination will heal the plague.
It will end when the Russian nazi regime leave Ukrainian land. It might take 20 years but partisan war in occupied territories will bleed Russia forever.