Time for war

After a lot of consideration, I have come to a conclusion regarding the war in Ukraine.

It is time for the West to join forces with the Ukrainian defenders and defeat ALL Russian miliary units in Ukraine. That includes the previously annexed Crimea too.

"War is merely the continuation of politics by other means" (von Clausewitz)

Let me explain.

Russia is conducting an imperialistic, expansionistic and fascist war of extermination against the people and nation of Ukraine. Russia is also conducting a war against the core of the rule based international system. And an economic/energy war against EU member states.

The only correct moral obligation of the West is to use all necessary military means to defeat Russia in Ukraine.

If we examine von Clausewitz trinity, we will find logic in going to war against Russian forces in Ukraine.

First and foremost, political reasons. The Russian war has created an unbearable economic burden on the European people, if you look at the cost of energy, inflation, food prices etc. All theese factors are largely affected by the Russian war in Ukraine.

We should have a passion to save the Ukrainian people from genocide and extermination as a nation. Putin is closer to Hitler than any other current or historical leader of a country. Therefore, we must feel an obligation to meet this agression as quickly as possible. I'm confident that the population of the West would prefer a quick defeat of Russian forces in Ukraine, within a year, than a long war of attrition that could take years or even decades.

The unique chance in this is that the Russian military forces have performed badly, and the Russian possibility to mobilize troops of a high standard regarding personnel and equipment is very low. Even if Russia would mobilize its reserves, they wouldn't have the capability to equip the troops to a level, that would have a chance against the Ukrainian and Western military forces.

The problem with going to war against Russia in Ukraine is that the Western political leaders haven't understood that they are facing a Hitler type of leader in Putin. Therefor they lack the insight to go to war early. The war will come, but way to late and with a lot of Ukrainian casualties. You could say that the current leaders of the West lack the moral fibre to decide that they have to go to war now.

The people of the West are spoiled, and can't really comprehend that it's time for war. They're used to the comforts of life and haven't really understood that after the Ukrainians, they might be the next target of Russian military actions.

Regarding the military forces of the West, it's quite clear, that they have enough with capabilities and experience to defeat all Russian forces in Ukraine. The only improvements must be in logistics and war time production of ammunition and other expendables.

What about WW3 and Russian nukes? Wouldn't we be doomed to destruction?

NO, nuclear weapons are a political weapons.

Remember that the Soviet Union, and Russia, has had political leaders who were at times gravely alcoholic or had signs of dementia. So no historical leader in Soviet Union or Russia ended the world with strategic nuclear weapons. Why not? Probably because there are safeguards against a single person launching strategic weapons, even in Russia. So the end of the world will not come.

What about tactical nuclear weapons? Yes, the safeguards of launching tactical nuclear weapons are possibly within the powers for the president of Russia to decide by himself.

You can read about Russian nuclear weapons doctrine in this article.

The problem for Russians to use tactical nuclear weapons are that they have to have a target. Which we don't need to give them. Regarding the threat to the nation of Russia, that could be dealt with a clearly stated ROE for Western military forces.

Firstly the ROE. Western troops will ONLY target Russian troops within the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine. That includes ALL the occupied territories.

Secondly, all targets outside of Ukraine proper can be targeted by Ukrainian troops at their discretion. Weapons that have such capabilities may be provided by the West.

Thirdly, the Western support will be in the form of a no fly zone over Ukraine proper and Western air forces would launch air to air and air to ground operations within the borders of Ukraine. Logistical support from the West will be provided to the military forces of Ukraine. As you know, it's very hard to nuke air forces out of the sky. This would ensure air dominance for the West and Ukrainian forces.

Russian ground forces and naval forces within Ukraine would be quickly defeated by the air forces of the West and the targeting support provided to the Ukrainians.

What IF Russia would use a single or a few tactical nuclear weapons to show that they mean business? Well, if that happens, then I would guess that Russia would become such a pariah state in the international community, that no state would like to have to do anything with Russia, with the possible exception of North Korea and Iran.

Also, in order to eliminate the different Russian intelligence operations in the West, with their hit squads and private military companies such as the Wagner group, we must act decisively. I propose that all such Russian entities should be designated as state sponsored terrorist groups. With free targeting of them for Western military and intelligence agencies. Open season for Wagner group.

Would Putin use strategic nuclear weapons against the West? No, because he knows that the West would devastate the large cities of Russia. Also, in essence, he's a thief, a maffia guy where he's the top rooster. Most of the loot that Putin and his associates have stolen from the Russian people are invested in the West in the form of property and money in Euros and USD. Why would you bomb the bank that holds your wealth and money?

Couldn't we wait with the war for a couple of years?

No, because there is not an unlimited supply of Ukrainian forces. That nation has to be saved. Also, the economical burden for the people of the West can't be upheld for a long time. The political will to sell out Ukraine will increase with time, even if it means only a short time of peace before the next Russian war of annexation. Next time it will be Moldova and all of Georgia. And what will be next? Who knows? Finland? The Baltic states? Parts of Poland, Bulgaria and Romania?

It's time now to show the people under Putin that they have to oust him from power and come to their senses regaring their imperialistic ambitions.

And it's really time for the leaders of West to realize that there will not be any better time to tame the Russian bear than now. Later, it will be too late.....

Also, the determination of the West in this war could deter future expansionistic wars, such as China-Taiwan or other wars in the Middle East or Africa.

I think that president Zelensky embodies von Clausewitzs' quote; "Boldness governed by superior intellect is the mark of a hero."

Our Western leaders have to be heroes too, not cowards. 

NATO for dummies

 Hej alla påhejare och belackare till ett svenskt NATO medlemskap.

Nu kommer det en guide som ska ge er lite bättre kunskaper och fakta om NATO, Ryssland, Ukraina och svensk alliansfrihet.

Vi börjar först med fakta om det svenska atombombsprogrammet. Väl att notera att Sverige och socialdemokraterna avskaffade inte kärnvapenprogrammet gratis, utan fick ett bilateralt kärnvapenparaply av USA. Det var alltså inte det socialdemokratiska kvinnoförbundet som kan ta åt sig äran för att programmet avslutades.

Bara att lyssna på SR, dvs. vår public service.

Det finns ännu mer hos SR.

Så, då är vi överens, svenska kärnvapen var viktigt, ända tills vi fick en försvarsgaranti av USA att deras kärnvapenparaply skulle även gälla Sverige.

Alliansfrihet och neutralitet har tjänat Sverige väl. Det är tidernas största hyckleri. Det är inte bara så att socialdemokraterna fick försvarsgarantier från USA. Man hade intensivt samarbete på bilateral basis med i princip alla NATO-medlemsstater som var relevant för svenskt försvar. Mikael Holmström belyser detta mycket väl, med dokumentation, i sin bok "Den dolda alliansen".

Den så kallade allianslösheten punkteras på alla punkter. Problemet inom socialdemokratin är att detta var så hemligt internt, att många i ledande ställning idag har inte ens koll på partiets sanna historia när det gäller försvarspolitik.

Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut med dess rapporter är också en källa för hur saker och ting förhåller sig. Vi tar det här med kärnvapen till att börja med. Tro inte på påståenden som debattörer säger på sociala medier. Läs korrekta rapporter istället.

Fakta om kärnvapen kan ni hitta i rapporten ovan.

Självklart ska ni också läsa på om NATO i ett historiskt perspektiv, innan den utökade invasionen av Ukraina.

Vi börjar med den om NATO 2012.

Och en lite mer aktuell från 2017 om väpnad solidaritet.

Självklart ska ni också läsa om rysk kärnvapendoktrin, så att ni inser att det finns många möjligheter för Putin att motivera användandet av kärnvapen, både mot Ukraina och andra länder.

Har Ryssland någon rätt i sin invasion av Ukraina? Nej, faktiskt inte, det kan ni läsa om här.

Så, då har ni fått en ordentlig duvning i fakta kring NATO, Ryssland, Ukraina med mera.

Som ni förstår, så har dagens socialdemokrater ingen koll på sin egen historia, eller så försöker de fortfarande mörka hur det har förhållit sig historiskt när det gäller svenskt försvar och försvarssamarbeten med USA och övriga NATO-medlemmar.

Alliansfriheten har inte tjänat oss väl, eftersom den har aldrig funnits.

Det har aldrig funnits ett löfte till Ryssland om att NATO skulle inte få ta in nya medlemmar.

Ryssland är en stat som försöker utöka sitt territorium i strid med FN-stadgan.

Ryssland har en mycket vid tolkning av NÄR man ska använda kärnvapen.

NATO är en FÖRSVARSALLIANS!

NATO expanderar inte, suveräna stater söker medlemskap i NATO.

Suveräna stater har rätt att bestämma över sin egen säkerhetspolitik.

Om Ukraina hade haft kvar sina kärnvapen från Sovjetunionen, hade Ryssland invaderat 2014?

Finland har haft krig mot Ryssland i modern tid. Man väljer NATO, för att man inser att man är annars öppen för utpressning med kärnvapen.

Vad föredrar vi, en världsordning baserad på USA:s och europeisk politik, eller rysk och kinesisk politik?

Where are the hands of the magician?

 

Now, everybody are looking at the magicians hand in Eastern Ukraine. Luhansk and Donbass and the possibility of further invasion by Russian troops into the rest of the Oblasts of Luhansk and Donbass that are in Ukrainian control.

Putin is doing the same thing as a magician. You're looking into the hand that the magician want you to focus on. At the same time, you should ask, where is the other hand and what is it doing?

One thing is sure, Putin can count, and know his numbers. So it is possible that the Oblasts are a deception/maskirovka due to relatively even forces on both sides.

So, what could the other hand do, while we're looking the wrong way?

Imagine now that the Russian forces would invade down on the West side of Kyiv in order to close the gap between Belarus and Transnistria in Moldova. At the same thing, block the Black Sea and Sea of Azov for maritime traffic to and from Ukraine. S-300 and S-400 AD deployed along the Western flank.

This would in all practical terms deny sea, naval and land support to Ukraine from the rest of the world. The distance to close the gap would be about 250-300 km for the Russian forces. That means no replenishment of supplies and of course, no reinforcements for the Ukrainians. At the same time, if Ukrainian forces would deploy to their West flank, the East flank would be overrun by the Russian forces in Luhansk and Donbass.

How long would it take for Putin to install a puppet regime, conduct a referendum and alas, they would be "independent", but rely on Putins goodwill for their powers.

The Western front can't be defended by the Ukrainian forces at the same time, when they're tied up in the East.

So, who should cover the West? I have my opinion clear, it should be done by the US, EU and NATO, in order to give the Ukrainians a fair fight in the East.

That concludes my analysis of the current situation.

A decent proposal

 

It is quite clear that an invasion from Russia and Belarus is quite possible in the near future. When looking at boots on the ground, Ukraine will probably prevail against Russia and Belarus.

The problem is that most likely Ukraine will not be able to protect it's airspace against Russian air power. If Russia is allowed to use Ukraine's air space at their own discretion, then it's possible that Ukraine will loose a war against Russia.

How can Russian air dominance over Ukraine air space be avoided?

Well, there is actually a solution to this dilemma. In accordance with International Civil Aviation Organization rules it's quite clear that Ukraine owns the mandate tor regulate it's own airspace.

So what?

Ukraine can decide to create a no fly zone, let's say 5 kilometers within it's own border and only have a few flight corridors for civil aviation. All aircraft within the no fly zone that are not positively identified by Ukraine air traffic control will be shot without visual identification.

Of course Ukraine's air force will have a hard time to control the vast areas and cover them with their own air force. So, alas, why not a coalition of the willing, supporting Ukraine with combat aircraft with BVR capabilities? This would be a powerful signal to Russia that it's air force will not be able to roam the skies of Ukraine without penalty. There is no legal restrictions for a no fly zone and a coalition of the willing.

The main obstacle would of course be to identifiy which countries would take part in policing such a no fly zone, but as far as I can see, at least US and UK would be hard pressed not to participate, if for no other reason, but they are signatory states of the Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances. 

Maybe that would be an incentive for other European states to support a no fly zone?

I can imagine that such a coalition of the willing with some major EU member states and USA would be a real deterrent for an invasion. The best part would be that the coalition don't have to be based in Ukraine, they could be based in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria or Turkey.

Without air power over Ukraine, Russia can not win this war. Which of course is the main objective for a working deterrence.