.....дълго, но си струва да се прочете - един възможен сценарий как би протекъл първия разговор на Тръмп с Путин....мдааааа.
...източник -
https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/dictating-termsDictating Terms
William Schryver
Dec 13, 2024
The White House, Washington, D.C.
A great many people in America and around the world are convinced that, come January 20, 2025, when Donald J. Trump is again inaugurated as President of the United States, he will (as he has already boldly asserted)
call Vladimir Putin on the phone and say, in effect, “You must end this war immediately, or else we’re going to get real serious, and you will not like the consequences.”Trump disciples genuinely believe he can impose his will on Putin to bring an end to the Ukraine War. At the very least, they are convinced Trump can "cut a deal" in the form of an offer Putin cannot refuse.
They simply don't realize that the only "deal" to be made at this juncture is the US/NATO agreeing to the terms Russia dictates.
That is what happens in the real world when you win a big war.
Naturally, Putin KNOWS the US will never accede to the long-established and often-repeated Russian stipulations regarding both Ukraine specifically and Russian security concerns in general — especially in the context of the opening days of Trump’s triumphant return to the White House.
Trump, consistent with his longstanding mantra to “Make America Great Again”, is going to come to the conversation with his OWN terms, which he will present with his awkwardly charming "take it or leave it" affectation.
And, of course, Putin will then bid Trump a polite прощай, and hang up.You see, unless the fevered folklore of American "alien-derived military super-tech" is true, then the simple fact at this point in time is that the US has precious little credible bargaining power.
The people in the imperial realm, especially Americans, need to come to grips with the fact that they have, for years now, been fed a steaming pile of fantastical disinformation about Russia, Putin, and this war.
Russia is not a gas station with nukes. It is not weak, technologically backward, cripplingly corrupt, economically feeble, operationally inept, and certainly not strategically defeated.
And, most pertinently, Russia is NOT militarily inferior to the United States — at least not in the context of a war in its own neighborhood.
Even among the relative handful of people that have closely followed its developments, most are incorrectly interpreting the inherent nature and evolution of this war. We are witnessing generational revolutions in warfare — even as most western observers and so-called “military experts” look down their noses at what they inexplicably imagine to be barbarian Slavs bludgeoning each other to death with clubs.
Here is the cold hard truth: the United States military — in all its branches — is simply not prepared to deal with the dynamics of 21st century warfare as it has now developed. The entire American force structure is anachronistic and, by all indications, impervious to expeditious reform.
The Russians now hold asymmetric military advantages in many decisive respects — most importantly integrated air defenses and effectively unstoppable offensive strike missiles. And, unlike the United States, Russia possesses an extremely potent and rapidly expanding industrial base — one which is able to produce many multiples of the anemic capacity of the entire NATO bloc.
Consider these two critical realities: the Russians are now able to routinely and consistently defeat 90%+ of the best western strike missiles, while simultaneously being able to routinely and consistently defeat the "few and far between" (and manifestly inferior) western missile defense systems.
Oh, sure, it is widely believed by both the general public and the flag officer punditry that American air defense systems are “best in class” and have had no trouble at all intercepting the best Russian missiles they have encountered in Ukraine. This myth is a primary tenet of what I have long called “The Imaginary War” — but it has no relationship to reality.
That said, the woefully misinformed and mostly imbecilic policy makers in the imperial halls of power are almost universally ignorant of this reality, and will resolutely refuse to accept it until it is indisputably proven on the battlefield. For this reason, Trump and his incoming administration, in the face of an explicit Russian rebuff of American demands, will almost certainly conclude that they must “teach the Russians a lesson they will not soon forget”.
Exactly what form this “lesson” will take remains uncertain, but given the pervasive perception that US air power is unquestionably preeminent, it can be confidently assumed that any American response to Russian impudence will consist of some species of conventional air campaign against high-value Russian targets.
And if that is the course the US pursues, I remain convinced it will result in a disastrous defeat that will shock not only the populace of the so-called “western democracies”, but most of the inhabitants of nations around the globe. (I treat upon this topic in what I believe to be one of my most cogent analyses of the current state of global military affairs: Staggering Towards the Abyss.)
Of course, historically speaking, all military advantages are notoriously fleeting. But at present, and at least until the end of this decade, the Russians will possess the most potent combination of comparative advantages they have had in a long, long time.
If Putin fails to exploit this opportunity to seize strategic depth — including AT LEAST everything east of the Dnieper, and all of Odessa — then I believe he could very well be deposed by the large and powerful component of the Russian leadership class that views such a course of action as a strategic imperative.
Ends of empire come around very seldom, and if you are not bold enough to strike while the iron is hot, someone else surely will.
Of course, many firmly believe that such a sequence of events will result in a massive nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia. I acknowledge that valid concern, but as I wrote in a January 24, 2024 essay on this question (To Nuke or Not to Nuke), I continue to believe:
Resorting to nuclear weapons is a "point-of-no-return" decision.
It's a murder-suicide move.
And I strongly doubt any of the great nuclear powers are suicidal.
At least not yet.
