Russia vs the West: A War Scenario and a New Logic of Confrontation

It has begun. The Western aggression to start kinetic WW3 has been unleashed jointly by the US-UK and France military against militarily inferior Syria, all of which are based on the “red line”chemical attack perpetrated by the UK-based pseudo humanitarian White Helmets.
Early on Saturday, the US, the UK and France fired more than 100 missiles from ships and manned aircraft at Syria in response to an alleged chemical attack in the city of Douma blamed on Damascus.

“Last year, President Trump made clear that the use of chemical weapons crosses a red line. Tonight, under American leadership, the United States, France and the United Kingdom enforced that line,” an Israeli official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
He stressed that missile strikes at Syria are “justified.”

This aggressive action against the Syrian is meant to provoke Russia into a war that will free the Khazarian Mafia from last month’s Chinese inauguration of PetroYuan and the decade long systematic and massive global dumping of the petrodollar.
China has put a choke hold on the Deep State financial system by launching its PetroYuan, beginning March 26th of this year. This is one of the geoeconomic weapons that has been considered for years post WTC-911 “War of Terror,” which plunged the whole world into aggressive intrusion to privacy and outright regime changes against countries where leaderships are independently minded.
This latest Western action illustrates the inability of the White House to control Pentagon, whose current secretary even deceptively acknowledged the absence of evidence to the chemical attack of Douma, Eastern Syria, as allegedly perpetrated by the Assad government.
If Trump is being threatened to approve of such decision by burning one of his high rise properties in New York, then the same is not fit for the job to free America from the Khazarian control.
This is the time for the Americans to do whatever is needed to be done, or it’s too late.The featured article below was written a few days prior to the US coalition strike in Syria.

Russia vs the West: A War Scenario and a New Logic of Confrontation

How can Moscow respond to a possible US strike on Syria? Will it be forced to admit its defeat? Yes, Russia is a nuclear power, but will it decide to launch a nuclear strike because of the standoff with Americans in Syria, considering that it would be followed by retaliatory strike? The American rational choice theory can fail to estimate the options, when confronted with the Russian strategic culture and its tradition. Russians could push the red button.
The aggravation of rivalry between Russia and the West in the past few months is raising the urgent question of a possible further escalation of tensions and its forms and consequences. Political relations between Moscow and Western capitals have gone beyond the critical point. The threadbare thesis about the lack of trust can be confidently discarded. Things are much worse. The sides do not want to and cannot listen to each other. Official positions and signals are perceived as provocations and trolling. Any opinion is described from the very start as manipulation, propaganda or diversion. Pragmatic voices are sinking in the growing flow of populism. The small islands of dialogue on common issues are rapidly narrowing or disappearing altogether. Hysteria in the media, hostility and vulgarity of rhetoric far exceed Cold War levels. We have entered a new and much more dangerous stage of the conflict, a stage that did not exist several weeks ago.
The current situation is fundamentally different from what existed since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis and up to the Skripals case. The former logic of relations was obviously confrontational. The sides had sharp differences on major issues. But they continued political dialogue that was generally rational and relatively predictable. Any hostile actions against one another had a specific and more or less verifiable pretext. The exchange of sanctions was based on understandable reasons. Various incidents were thoroughly and repeatedly verified and taken with much caution. We might dislike Ukraine-related EU sanctions but Brussels carefully avoided any escalation of sanctions for “promoting propaganda and undermining democracy,” an accusation that is hard to verify but easy to turn into a conflict-prone and provocative form. We might dislike Robert Mueller’s investigation and the very pretext for it but it was at least systematic and relatively transparent. It was hard to suspect the EU and the US of encouraging Russia’s restrictions on their food exports but, albeit unpleasant, Russian counter- sanctions had a transparent and understandable logic. Both sides were concerned over potential incidents at sea or in the air but the military actively cooperated with each other to prevent them, despite deep political differences. Apparently, in the current confrontational conditions “stable deterrence,” a scenario that seemed to be the least harmful, is receding into the past.
At least three events have triggered the new logic of confrontation: the Skripal case, Washington’s new sanctions and the chemical incident in Syria. The Skripal case stands out because the collective West went for a sharp escalation without having authentic and transparent facts indicating Russia’s involvement in the incident. Not a single fact meeting these requirements has been presented to the public at large so far. The theory of Russia’s involvement is based on verbal lace, references to its “bad reputation” and some “secret information” whose value as evidence equals zero unless it is openly presented to the public. At the same time, more and more questions and discrepancies are arising, starting with the nature and origin of the toxic chemical and ending with the methods of its use. Symptomatically, the case of the recovering Skripals has become the subject of a growing number of jokes. However, the grotesque does not reduce the danger of it being a precedent. What if a similar provocation is staged tomorrow? What if several provocations are staged at the same time? What will our Western partners do and how will Russia react to this? Expel the remaining diplomats, including security officers and chefs? Or adopt some tougher measures?
The second event is Washington’s new sanctions against Russian companies, politicians and entrepreneurs. It would seem that everyone has already got used to sanctions. However, politically today they are like a nervous cowboy from a Western comedy, who is firing his two six-shooters, whether he has to or not. Previously, new sanctions were based on a specific pretext, whereas today they are becoming similar in nature to daily carpet bombings. No doubt, they are doing harm to Russia’s economy, business and citizens. But this version of sanction policy can only anger Moscow and perplex observers by the absence of any clear-cut strategy. Sanctions are losing their value as a tool of diplomacy and becoming an implement of war. Such an approach to sanctions is good for the domestic audience. Probably, it would have been rational in its own way were it not applied to a nuclear power that should hardly be overrated but certainly should not be underrated.
The third event is yet another chemical attack in Syria. This event was expected but is no less dangerous for that reason. Any objective investigation is highly unlikely under the circumstances. The sides will consider any version of events as fake, with the threat of force emerging as the only argument. And this is where the main danger lies. Today, Syria is the place where there is the greatest danger of the confrontation between Russia and the West turning into an open armed conflict. Such a scenario is easy to visualize.
Suppose another “chemical” or some other incident takes place in Syria. The “chemical” trigger looks most likely. This theme is well-covered by the media and is a serious pretext. Suppose Washington decides to use force, not just a cosmetic strike with ten or twenty Tomahawks, but a massive attack on the remaining military and civilian infrastructure of the Syrian Government. This is the scenario’s first bifurcation, or the matter of Russia’s involvement. Its bases can remain intact. But if Moscow uses its forces (as its military promised) a strike will be delivered at Khmeimim and Tartus. Technically it is possible to launch such a strike and destroy both bases and their military personnel, especially if US troops die during an attack on Bashar al-Assad.
This course of events could be unintentional but it could also be planned. The Russian group in Syria has done an excellent job fighting terrorists but it would be vulnerable in the event of a clash with the Americans. The TO is remotely located and it is difficult to deliver supplies. The Americans have an advantage as far as the concentration and support of their attack force is concerned. Stakes may be made on an utterly tough, hard-hitting and humiliating defeat of Russia as the result of a lightning strike. This could be like a new 19th-century Crimean war, albeit extremely compressed in time and space.
This scenario may seem extremely risky (if not crazy) but upon closer analysis it has logic of its own. And here comes the next bifurcation. What will Moscow do, if this happens? The first option (that would be the most desirable for Washington): Russia would have to bite the dust and admit defeat. Yes, Russia is a nuclear power but will it mount a nuclear strike because of a clash with the Americans in Syria, knowing that its strike will result in retaliation? In other words, the stakes here are on the hope that Moscow will not press the button because this would mean suicide. In this scenario, victory would be on Washington’s side without reservation. It will show that it is possible and necessary to cut down to size an opponent that has crossed the line. This will be a powerful signal to all the rest while America and Trump personally will gain the reputation of an uncompromising and tough player.
But there is also a second option. It is difficult to analyze it on the basis of the theory of rational choice. It may simply not work within Russia’s strategic culture and tradition. The Russians may press the button. Moscow is not confined to the option of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It can also offer a limited, albeit very painful, response. Technically this is also possible and dangerous in its own way. If, say, an aircraft carrier or a big warship is demonstratively sunk, it is Washington that risks biting the dust. But this is not in the US tradition, either. As a result, tensions will escalate, considerably increasing the risk of MAD.
This scenario may seem excessively alarmist. The consciousness of people, who lived amid the stability of the Cold War and the subsequent 30 peaceful years, naturally rejects it as unrealistic. However, history shows that disasters happen contrary to usual patterns and are merciless to their makers.
It is possible to avoid the disaster in two ways: either by starting negotiations and finding a compromise or by strengthening alliances and maintaining a balance of power. The current realities are making the second option more likely. In all probability, Moscow will continue its course towards a rapprochement with China and other players and a new model of bipolarity will take shape in the world. However, making forecasts in international relations is a thankless task. History will follow its own path, a path it alone can fathom.
Author: Ivan Timofeev is Programme Director of the Valdai Discussion Club, Director of Programs at Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

Indeed, with continued American inaction, the fate of the planet rest on how the RIC Alliance would respond to this latest Deep State aggression against Syria.

In the meantime, the Syrians are happy to have thwarted this latest attack on their sovereignty, using Russian made air defense system.

You can actually participate in the global efforts to cripple the Deep State organized criminal cabal's ability for genocide, while enjoying healthcare freedom at the same time, by boycotting Big Pharma for good.

8 thoughts on “Russia vs the West: A War Scenario and a New Logic of Confrontation”

    True to form, the Turnbull government has rushed to endorse the latest fabricated pretext for war on Syria. Australia does not have an independent foreign policy, but takes direction from the USA and UK, which along with Syria’s former colonial master France have pursued regime change in Syria since 2011. The government, which constantly harps on about the “rules-based order” and “rule of law”, has no evidence Syria is responsible for a chemical weapons attack, because there is none, but nevertheless has endorsed the demands of Anglo-American neoconservatives and liberal interventionists for an attack on Syria in violation of international law. In doing so, they are putting every Australian at risk of nuclear war, as an attack on Syria risks a direct confrontation with Russia, which has made clear that there was no chemical attack by the Assad government, and therefore it won’t tolerate an attack that puts Russian service personnel at risk.
    In the 11 April issue of the CEC’s weekly Australian Alert Service magazine, Richard Bardon summarises the latest Syria chemical weapons attack misinformation campaign in “Will Trump start WWIII over the least plausible false flag yet?”
    The target of this misinformation is Trump himself, who just prior to the claimed attack on 7 April had repeatedly said he intended to withdraw US forces from Syria. Trump was elected on the promise of ending regime-change wars, as the American people had grown sick of the lies and blood. This isn’t unique to the USA, and is one of the factors in the public support for UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a consistent opponent of regime change. But the “war party” factions of the USA and UK, and their corrupted intelligence agencies from which Australia takes orders via the Five Eyes spying apparatus, are determined to stop Trump or anyone else derailing their agenda. When the Australian government weighs in, it serves nothing except to present to Trump a united front of US “allies” who are pushing him to war, not in our national interest, but in the interests of preserving the power of the war party.
    The American, British and Australian people must see through this and demand, once and for all, an end to the regime-change agenda that has brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.
    Click here for a free copy of the latest issue of the CEC’s Australian Alert Service magazine, which includes the articles “Will Trump start WWIII over false flag?”, and “Israeli atrocities in Gaza expose Western hypocrisy”, and much more.
    Click here to join the CEC as a member.
    Click here to refer others to receive regular email updates from the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia.

  2. I believe this whole mess is MORE about saving the VERY Corrupt International Stock markets than about saving mankind from total destruction via WAR.

  3. Despite the chaos of this week, President Donald Trump remains “laser beam” focused on protecting America.
    This President, when all of this is going on, is focused, like a laser beam, on protecting America.
    I’ve never seen him get distracted. He is a very focused guy. He is a disciplined guy and that’s why he won the presidency.
    I think we’re much more respected and safer today since he became President.

    1. lol protected from what or who?? No one is threatening USA, although the way its aggressive actions around the globe, the whole world should be against the insane actions of such immature psychopaths running the show, for that is what it is a show..
      Trump is just another zionist puppet of Israel,says what the sheeple wanted to hear before election, then does the same as all the others are told to do, same old same old Corporate merika the Insane. doing the zio dirty work whilst you pay for it all via your taxes and stolen countries wealth, but good luck enjoying your delusion.
      You do know the wall is to stop merikans from leaving dont you, as it will affect the tax dollars the loss of so many humans rushing to dump their citizenship to get out of the lunacy which merika has become.

      1. Trump, another puppet of the Khazarian-fifth column, can’t protect the American country from the enemy within that he serves.
        An American citizen, not US subject.

  4. We have since about 2013 been watching one of the largest Chess games in the history of the world. Putin and friends against the Khazarian run Western tyranny.
    Russia is blocking in Syria and Iran the Khazarians’ attainment of Greater Israel and Middle East hegemony. Putin is always about two or three moves ahead.
    Putin is also aware that the Western Tyranny has no resources or ability for a confrontation with Russia. What resources available are reserved for the destroying of Iran.
    Putin’s parrying of the Khazarians’ moves in the Ukraine in to the absorption of the Crimea was a master stroke. Just brilliant.
    Sadly, more to come, as the Beast riding Harlot has nothing to lose but more of other people’s lives.
    One is not a true American until resident in the ADL’s database.

  5. Just look at how all the ships submarines and missile launchers of USA UK F were all place, which takes months of organizing let alone getting 3 countries all togther , this whole thing has been a put up job from the get go, I feel sure if the zioisreali HQ was removed all this would fade away..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *