Paul Craig Roberts Asks A Question Of Sorts.

In his latest, Dr. Roberts makes a valid point: 

Martyanov believes that Washington’s guarantee to Ukraine is a temptest in a teacup as Washington will not really risk confronting Russia militarily.  https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com I wonder if Martyanov is giving Washington too much credit for awareness.  If Washington were reading the situation correctly, would the US Secretary of Defense have given Ukraine a guarantee against Russian intervention if Ukraine, now better armed by Washington, renews its assault on Donbass?  Washington wants conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the purpose of giving the guarantee is to produce conflict.  Martyanov might be correct that Ukraine is too wary to trust the guarantee, and that Washington would not stand behind it.  But escalation can have momentum of its own. The publicized guarantee could result in extreme elements pushing the Ukrainian president into foolhardy action.  Neocons and liberal interventionists could insist Washington’s word and reputation are at stake and demand that Biden go to Ukraine’s aid.  I agree with Martyanov that it would be a war based on stupid nonsense, but these things do happen. I only raise questions. Saker and Martyanov are better informed on these matters than I. Nevertheless, I think the risk is high that the American people are going to be very regretful that they permitted the military/security complex to use the dumbshit Democrats to prevent President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia.

I totally agree that confrontation can turn into the full out war very quickly, especially considering an appalling lack of competence and excessive supply of arrogance and stupidity of current administration. But Washington was misreading and misjudging Russia for the last 20+ years at least, in reality--much longer.  But that is the whole point, both Lavrov and Putin are on record when warning about "Ukrainian statehood" in case Ukraine decides to go all the way, especially under the pressure from Washington which needs war in which Russia will be involved. Washington DOES NOT have military resources to do anything with Russia in Ukraine. In general US troops in Europe, in whatever configuration, are merely targets for Russia, let alone if Washington does commit its feeble military resources "in support" of Ukraine. Yes, this could turn ugly very fast and this will create a danger of of an escalation towards nuclear threshold because the United States cannot win conventionally. 

But then again, I am on record for years that the US is increasingly desperate and feels its marginalization, both economically and militarily, in Eurasia. It is ready to do even unthinkable, once one considers the mental state of the US "elites", to hold on to whatever is left of the American Empire. In this case, what is left to mitigate this insanity is Russia's calm but firm posture and I can guarantee that Russians conveyed to the American side what it may expect if it continues on this path. Russia DOES posses escalation dominance and people in Washington know that Ukraine armed forces will be obliterated but think that it gives Washington a pretext to isolating Russia from Europe. What can I say, Russia completed her reorientation towards Asia, so, it is up to Europe to decide what it wants to do. But Russia WILL resolve the issue of Ukraine now and if the United States will stand in the way, well, God help us all. In conclusion: I disagree that Trump really wanted to improve relations with Russia. In his view, it was merely a tactical maneuver, an obverse Nixon's China policy of sorts. Russians didn't buy it. Russia and the United States today are in irreconcilable positions and no dialogue is possible with current US "elites" for a variety of geopolitical, economic, historic and, importantly, moral-ethical reasons.