Here is yet another one "the war is coming" piece, now by Glenn Diesen on RT. It is symptomatically titled: Russia-NATO war over Ukraine is becoming increasingly unavoidable. In it, Diesen does what all political "scientists" do--speaks about the subject of which he has a very vague understanding--war. Make no mistake, taxonomy is provided by Diesen.
Deterrence rests on the three Cs: capability, credibility, and communication. Russia has the military capability to act if its red lines are crossed, it’s demonstrated credibility in terms of its preparedness to act on threats, and it knows the specifics must be communicated clearly to avoid the West making any mis-steps that would necessitate a forceful response. However, the weakness in its red lines is the current lack of detail as to what would happen if another nation took a step too far.
Sure, there is one problem--it is this first C which political "scientists" have huge problems with understanding. I start with this:
NATO and Russia certainly now appear to be heading towards war in Ukraine. Every meeting, phone call, and summit result in a commitment to the statement that there is “no alternative to the Minsk Agreement.” The Minsk Agreement identifies two conflicting parties, Kiev and Donbass, and the first action to be taken was identified as immediately establishing a dialogue between them to work out the constitutional changes that would grant autonomy to Donbass. Yet Kiev has stated in no uncertain terms that it will not talk to Donbass and thus not implement the agreement, and the NATO powers have demonstrated that they do not intend to push it into abiding by it. If the agreement is rejected and no alternative is established, then war becomes the only possible outcome.
Diesenl fails to understand that Moscow created Minsk Agreement for it not to be implemented. It was created to precisely freeze the conflict and allow Russia to complete relatively calmly the process which is the title of my first book: Losing Military Supremacy. The Myopia of American Strategic Planning. From the get go Russia knew that there was nothing to talk about with both West, let alone 404. Russia needed to rearm and to mobilize, which she did to a large degree due to:
1. Not "liberating" the rest of the 404;
2. Being able to contain the West, not least through steady reintegration (a fully unexpected variable in operation of a return of Crimea in 2014) of LDNR's forces and now economies with Russia's.
I wrote about it long time ago (more than 3 years ago) in the article titled: Russia as a Cat. And now about the definition of the "War". Diesen, evidently, cannot define clearly what war NATO and Russia are going to fight "over Ukraine". So, I'll try to answer.
1. NATO's war against Russia IN Ukraine with full blown mobilization of forces on the level of military districts and services, forming of Fronts in 404, Baltics etc. OK. Just two days ago I elaborated on this contingency in the piece symptomatically titled Never in the Ballpark. There is nothing scarier than Ph.D in political economy or science waxing military-strategic. To avoid elaborating yet again on this issue I will quote (yet again) a former senior officer of Russia's General Staff Colonel Vladimir Trukhan: "We don't even sweat about NATO". I'll give Diesen a hint--it has everything to do with the first and the most important C. I have a whole second book describing what this C is. I am writing another one on that too. NATO big honchos are not completely suicidal yet. They may become such, but for now this scenario is not likely.
2. NATO pushing 404 into war by means of attacking LDNR and providing it with a "military aid" (by means of supplying some old military junk and some ammo) in a desperate attempt to lure bear out of his lair. Sure! If Diesen means this war, well--even in this war NATO has zero resources and negative escalation dominance unlike Russia who may open Voentorg again and once the North Wind will begin to blow who is to say that it will not stop in Kiev? Not that this shithole is of any use for Russia. But if Diesen writes about this war, then sure. But that will not be the war between NATO and Russia, it will be the war between LDNR and 404 supported by NATO by such means like sending (ooh, scary) 600 SAS people or providing targeting and recon for 404. Absolutely, this all goes without saying.
NATO will sanction Russia war in LDNR notwithstanding and the split between Russia and combined West is a fait accompli. But because Diesen doesn't understand the nature of this first C, he continues to completely mislead his readers and provides not an analysis but a crude propaganda pamphlet. Nobody wants the war--a real one--because if the war between NATO and Russia starts, number of the Western nations will cease to exist as operational states, and Brussels and D.C., especially Pentagon, are keenly aware of that. And yes, NATO cannot assemble a required force to fight Russia no matter how desperately it will try and that is what I wanted to explain in my next post on Salvo Model and force size but had to respond to this ridiculous piece about war and Capability--a thing which is taught in military academies and requires a set of skills and knowledge which are beyond the grasp of political "scientists". Meanwhile, the probability of 404 attack on LDNR remains high but we knew this from the inception.