It was not the threat to Japan's cities but the Soviet mauling of the Japanese army in Manchuria, in an offensive that "ruptured Japanese lines immediately, and rapidly penetrated deep into the rear," that had "a devastating effect on Japanese calculations of the prospects for home island defense." For years, the U.S. Navy Museum exhibit said "The vast destruction reached by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made little impact on the Japanese military. However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria changed their minds."
Armies don't surrender because civilians are killed; they surrender when the army itself can no longer fight. That's been the basis of Russian strategy in Ukraine: to methodically degrade the fighting power of the Ukrainian military in preparation for destroying the bulk of its forces in the east. It has fought hard for crucial cities that were part of the Donbass republics and redoubts of major fascist forces, and it will attack any source of fire or command and control as necessary, but Russia was never seeking to take and occupy cities throughout Ukraine. If Russia succeeds in eliminating the Ukrainian army in the east, and therefore Kiev's ability to re-take the Donbass republics and Crimea or to initiate further aggression, then maybe Kiev would accept the terms of surrender negotiation that Russia proposed to begin with.
Of course, the United States, Russia's real protagonist here, knows this, and I am afraid it's becoming increasingly likely that the U.S. will either a) intervene militarily to prevent the defeat of the Ukrainian army in the east, or b) insist that Kiev never surrender and promise to re-build its army for an ongoing offensive against Donbass and Russia, which would effectively challenge Russia to prolong and extend its offensive throughout Ukrainian territory. The U.S. does not want the war to stop.
There is already a lot of pressure for direct American military involvement. Among neocons, cable news pundits, and Hollywood Bad Boys there persists the notion that the U.S. can inflict some kind of "bloody nose"--nuclear, if necessary--that will make Russia back down. It's the continuing assumption of American omnipotence and Russian weakness. This, in a country whose entire chain of leadership--Biden, Harris, Pelosi--consists of people who can't string together two coherent sentences. (Who is running the show? Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and Victoria Nuland? Or do they have Hillary or Barack calling plays on the phone? Maybe Sean Penn can tell us.)
All of this makes the current conjuncture more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Many more loose variables, and many more profoundly stupid actors. Ironically, the thin reed of hope this time around is that there are cooler heads in the Pentagon who might put on a brake. Very thin.
What is it good for?
Kid yourself not: Any direct American military intervention, including via game-changing weapons supplies, will result in a wider war that is virtually certain to go nuclear very quickly--and that decision is not going to be determined by the U.S. alone. Russia will not submit to U.S. escalation dominance, and will not fight a war in which its enemy's territory is exempt from destruction. No house will be passed over. Blinken, Sullivan, Penn, Europe (which will burn first and most), and the rest of us better be prepared to lose it all--for, don't forget, NATO's right of infinite expansion. 'Cause that's something Russia is willing to go to the mat about.
I'll post this clip again, because everyone has to understand there is no bluffing:
"If the fight is inevitable, strike first."
I sincerely hope The Saker is wrong:
It is now becoming almost certain that a real, much larger, war to crush the Ukrainian military will be needed, and it will have to be fought with much larger forces and means.
The Empire of Hate and Lies has decided to "go max" and is acting exactly as it would be in preparations for a much larger war in Europe.
But he's not.
Want to plead for negotiation rather than escalation? Go right ahead, but do not allow such language to wishfully avoid the single, hard, determinative question in this conflict: Who will accept defeat?
_______________________________
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
