Putin’s Bluff? I think not…

Who survives a nuclear war? And perhaps just as important; who thrives if there isn’t one!?

22th September 2022

I have been thinking about the statements from President Putin about nuclear war and Ukraine along with the reactions from governments in the west. It appears that the intelligence services in the west do not seem to understand Russian thinking and pass their ignorance off as “he is bluffing”. The reality of the situation seems very different and very dangerous.

For the Russians it appears “breaking even” with a nuclear exchange is the next best thing to winning outright. If you are going to go, take the enemy with you seems a reasonable choice.

The following is very much my assessment of the situation. It is a personal interpretation on what appears to be happening.

Ignoring for a moment the justifications for action there is a more important issue. The west appears confused by Putin not behaving as they expect him to behave.

Are the western intelligence services actually capable of assessing Russian actions and statements?

Assumptions

All too often we find people listening to the words and then interpreting them in a way that will satisfy their bias. Learning a language of an adversary without actually learning the history and the mindset of the people is always going to derive bad assumptions.

People in intelligence services are those who believe strongly that “they are the best”, “they are working for a moral position” and “their countries perspective is fair”. Yet these are the people supposedly neutrally interpreting what another country thinks!?

Assuming others think as we do, or will act as we would, is the very thing that got the west into this mess in the first place. By using salami tactics to eat the countries up to the border of Russia we assumed that Russia would find it difficult to push back. Indeed had the same been done to the west we would indeed have found it difficult to legitimise a reaction. Not so for Russia it seems.

The west gladly ignored the plight of the east Ukrainians with Russian origins and ties. Did we assume Russia would do nothing and ignore these people too?

The moment Russia behaved in a way that was not expected, is surely the moment we in the west should have been a little more cautious. So either we expected and indeed wanted this reaction from Russia or alternatively we are totally blasé and naive with regard to other peoples interests and peace. Which?

Pride in killing the enemy

It appears to me that the Russians are proud when they have killed the enemy. This is in stark contrast to the west. As a comparison think of Britains attitude to the deaths with the Falklands Conflict. Clearly we are proud we recovered the islands, but we also have an aversion to all deaths involved in doing so.

The Russians lost many in WWII and they also dealt much back and this seems to form their mindset. It would seem that the expectation of having to kill their enemies is par for the course in Russian survival thinking and not a necessary evil as we in the west would feel. Indeed the question is one of survival. In reality slavish checks for morality and ethics are a weakness if someone is holding a loaded weapon to your head. Either you do now what it takes to survive or you die!

So being proud of “survival at all costs” is not as stupid a strategy as we in the soft west would consider. There is a limit to what value accommodating “table manners” plays in a conflict for survival.

Indeed the west seems to over play “table manners”. We have problems at the moment deciding what is a woman; what constitutes an asylum seeker; and what is sovereignty. All issues Russians also have no such qualms about.

America said the purpose is to break up Russia

US military spokes-people along with politicians have clearly stated the aim of the Ukraine situation is to destroy and undermine the Russian state. Sure they worded it as attacking Putin, but it is the same thing in the eyes of Russia. NATO expansion was not against Putin, it was against Russia and the Russian people.

The Americans seem to repeatedly engineer positions with “diplomacy” but often fail to plan an exit strategy. Neither do they consider a deescalation plan if their wisdom is flawed. I considered a reversal plan in my article “Ukraine, a lawless playground for NATO?” but I think we have gone too far to think Russia would be confident we would deliver now. ttps://alexjacksonsmith.com/2022/ukraine-nato-s-lawless-playground/

We have seen American “diplomacy” with Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, all the way back to Vietnam. The saving grace in each of these previous scenarios was the adversary was of limited threat and not a nuclear power. Russia is a very different case.

Cultural Readiness for War

Very few citizens in a western society could survive a nuclear exchange. This I think would not be the case with Russia and some other eastern European countries. Their peoples are very much more in-tune with nature, growing their own food and laying down supplies for winter. Indeed many Russians with dachas and houses have underground stores for food they have prepared through summer. A type of cellar for the garden appears to be quite common. Also people using a well to get water is also not uncommon.

Many of their outlying communities are very used to poor connections both in terms of travel and communications. Which makes them more self-sufficient and also mentally ready for times of hardship. A nuclear exchange is such a time of hardship.

As we have seen with both lockdown and with the impact of energy costs, the west seems far from self sufficient; exposing dependencies on supermarkets, fossil fuels and connectivity simply to survive.

Russians seem to do more than survive in such environments, they actually seem to thrive.

Creating an anti-American world

Only two days ago African states made it clear they want no part of this American/Ukraine issue. China according to some accounts is providing military assistance to Russia. BRICS seems likely to be the most dominant geo-political group; and, on the proviso nuclear war is avoided, the most dominant economic block too.

Either way the USA and its allies loose.

By backing the USA engineering an attack on Russia the west has generated a mistrust within BRICS and Africa where much of the world’s energy, food and raw materials exist, not to mention the largest populations too.

If there is nuclear war the west looses more. If there is no nuclear war the west looses more and plays second fiddle to a world dominated by BRICS. All because the USA did not want to have to work at maintaining its position and felt an entitlement?

I can’t help thinking we would have faired better by not bullying in the playground; after all the United Nations is not the teacher the west can run to crying when we get our bloody nose.