Almost everyone seems to follow war “news” like lemmings, jumping from every “breaking” story to the next, careful not to stray from the templated talking points laid out for his internet tribe. There are developments that I consider huge, but got very little attention.
But first, concerning the S-300 missile that went astray earlier this week and blew up a tractor in Poland. Here’s a synopsis of what happened:
-Russia launches the largest barrage of missiles since the beginning of their special military operation (When Russia doesn’t shoot missiles this is proof that they’re running out, when they do shoot missiles this is also proof they’re running out).
-A missile of initially unclear origins wanders into Polish territory and blows up a tractor, killing two people.
-Ukraine immediately blames Russia and, essentially, demands an invocation Article 5 and World War III.
-Poland makes a lot of noise about NATO consultations in response to the attack.
-American media howls about “Russian-made” missiles striking Poland, British media goes a step further and openly claims it was a deliberate attack ordered by Putin.
-Within hours of the strike, photos appear online showing fragments that (if various commentators are to be believed) were from an old Soviet-era missile
-USA quickly clarifies that this was not a Russian attack and Poland backtracks on wanting NATO consultations.
-The attack, and its casualties, go into the dustbin with all the other scandals from Ukraine over the past 9 months.
Let’s break this down piecemeal. Anti-aircraft weapons causing fratricide and collateral damage isn’t new, with such incidents dating back to the early days of aviation. Spooked gun crews sometimes shoot down their own planes, and there’s the inherent problem of lobbing explosives into the air – if those bombs don’t hit something, they have a nasty tendency to drop back down to earth. Even shells that do explode create shrapnel and debris that can kill they’re supposed to be defending.
Yes, what goes up (usually) must come down, and you don’t need to be an expert in military history to know, it’s obvious to anyone who isn’t an idiot. But Zelensky’s government went with the “Russia did it” story anyway and NATO media outlets uncritically repeated it. We shouldn’t actually be surprised that Kiev would lie so brazenly and there’s plenty of precedent for it.
There are stories of “Russia is using S-300 for ground attack because they’re running out of missiles” is a talking point that goes all the way back to Spring. Consider one incident from September: Ukrainian forces used an S-300 missile against a civilian convoy of refugees trying to escape into Russian-held territory, claimed the Russians attacked their own civilians for some reason, and western news outlets like CNN and the Guardian repeated this claim as unquestioned fact. The Kiev regime understands that they can openly attack civilians, claim Russia did it, and their NATO sponsors will accept the story and stonewall any investigations that would prove otherwise. Most importantly, Ukrainians know that they can specifically use the S-300 in false flag because the western media has worked so hard to make everyone believe that this is a plausible Russian ground-attack weapon.
So when an S-300 missile wandered into Poland, can we really be surprised that Zelensky immediately blamed Russia? Why wouldn’t he? He had no reason to think his claim would be challenged. We also must realize that there is a possibility, however small, that the S-300 strike was deliberate. NATO has given Ukraine every reason to believe that they can do anything with absolute impunity and not suffer consequences for it. Every other deliberate false-flag attack with the S-300 was accepted as fact, so why wouldn’t this one be too?
Next – Poland had plenty of motivation to accept the Ukrainian explanation, however absurd it was. Poles were noisy (as usual), but careful to not make any bold steps that couldn’t be taken back later before they had time to consult with Washington. I suggest that this noise about Article 4 consultations with NATO was Poland’s way of asking if this incident was enough to justify annexing western Ukraine, and I don’t think this is even controversial for me to say. Because really, if Poland decided to take military action, what would be their options? They really only had two:
-Military action against Belarus and/or Kaliningrad, triggering almost-certain nuclear war.
-Military action into Ukraine, probably under the pretext of “protect the civilians against Russian aggression” or whatever. Poland could probably seize everything up to the Dnieper, especially if the corrupt Ukrainian government agreed with this and painted it as allies coming to help.
But contrary to all Ukrainian (and possibly Polish) expectations, this ploy didn’t work. And there were clear warning signs right away suggesting that the ploy didn’t work. The first sign was the incriminating photos of S-300 debris. If NATO wanted a pretext for directly attacking Russia, why would they blow it by deliberately posting photos contradicting the narrative? They could have just as easily not published photos, this was a conscious choice and the reasoning behind it is obvious. NATO does not want a direct war with Russia. The second sign is that (most) western outlets were cautious about directly claiming the missile came from Russia. The journos used more ambiguous wording while they waited for permission from their masters in Washington. Their instructions came in the form of God Emperor Biden himself stating that Russia probably wasn’t responsible.
Interestingly, British propaganda outlets did go all the way and claim Putin was responsible for the attack, which I find curious. To me, that strongly suggests that the Brits do want a direct war with Russia and are confident that their colony former colony in North America will volunteer to soak up all the casualties. Right now, the British are fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian, but they are also willing to fight to the last American, and I think that’s very important to remember.
All that said, here’s the real news that I find significant, and the reason why NATO doesn’t want a direct war with Russia. Up until recently, NATO propaganda has painted a picture of superhuman Aryan Ukrainians slaughtering entire hordes of subhuman Russian orcs. But very suddenly, that ruse stopped this month. As I mentioned in my last post, Gen. Mark Milley himself acknowledged that 200,000 soldiers have been killed and injured since Feb. 24, and at least 100,000 of these were Ukrainians. Compared with other sources, including from the Russian MoD, Milley’s claim is at least in the ballpark of being true. What he stated is that in the fight between Russian and NATO-proxy soldiers, the casualties are 1:1. In reality, it’s more likely 1:5 in Russia’s favor (and 1:10 when counting only official Russian soldiers, not allied troops).
In other words, if NATO forces directly attacked Russian forces – even if nuclear weapons from both sides were kept out of play – it would be a blood bath. It goes almost without saying that European soldiers would be almost worthless and American servicemen would bear almost 100% of the brunt of the war. The Pentagon would have to mobilize the National Guard and Reserves, which would pull tens or hundreds of thousands of American men away from their jobs and families, and thrown into a war which would kill many of them. If the war went on for more than a few weeks without a resolution, Congress would have to implement a draft to conscript civilian men to replace the losses.
The US military has a serious recruiting problem which I wrote about a few months ago. Conservatives like to complain that Milley’s army is too woke, and that’s the reason more young people don’t want to sign up. I think these conservatives are idiots. At the time I wrote that post, I stated that the real reason more young people don’t want to join the military is because we have been at war continuously for more than 20 years. Recruiting problems had nothing to do with the Pentagon being too woke, and that statement was all but proven by the midterm elections this month, when young people overwhelmingly voted Democrat.
None of this is hypothetical. Consider the draft fiasco in our war in Vietnam. The draft was hugely unpopular, forcing the Pentagon to go to absurd lengths to avoid drafting eligible college-age men. Public resentment of conscription was so severe, the Army literally had to draft mentally retarded men from impoverished backgrounds to avoid angering middle class and affluent families.. They also, ironically, had to avoid mobilizing reservists. At this point in our history, American Reserve components were the place well-to-do young men like George W. Bush went to wear a uniform and play army for a few years, but in complete safety without the risks of being sent into a real war. Now, reservists can and are sent to fight in the Middle East, and if a hot war with Russia breaks out, they would be sent into that meat grinder too.
So I conclude that, however badly the liberals of the US State Department want to go to war with Russia, the military is 100% against this idea, which is why Zelensky’s attempts to trigger Article 5 fail, and will (hopefully) continue to fail.
Ian Kummer
Support my work by making a contribution through Boosty
All text in Reading Junkie posts are free to share or republish without permission, and I highly encourage my fellow bloggers to do so. Please be courteous and link back to the original.
I now have a new YouTube channel that I will use to upload videos from my travels around Russia. Expect new content there soon. Please give me a follow here.
Also feel free to connect with me on Quora (I sometimes share unique articles there).
I think Russia will not use nukes as long as it will be able to win the war without killing too many Russians while inflicting [very] severe losses on the enemy.
when monkeys are given grenades to toy with – https://t.me/Z4LPR/309
Good post Yan, and I agree with most of it.
But there’s another angle almost no one mentions. If the U.S. were to put in Europe a force of, say, half million men they’d have to cross the Atlantic. But would the Russian Navy, submarines, air force and assorted missiles let it?
Thank you for posting this. What an interesting take on that situation.
I’ve read several theories on that one. One author suggested that the missile in Poland might be a plot by some group witin the Ukrainian special services, which their president didn’t know about. Which in turn let him act in public with such ardent conviction. Still, methinks the Ukrainian president is a good actor so there’s no need for him to be kept in the dark about important developments.