Francoska izkušnja z Rusijo: Od Napoleonovega napada na Moskvo do ruskega zavzetja Pariza

Let’s put an end to Russia’s destructive influence: How the Napoleonic War of 1812 began.

So, here’s the scoop: On June 24, 1812, Napoleon rolled into Russia with his army, kicking off what he called the Second Polish War. He claimed this whole thing was about stopping Russia from messing with Europe too much. But, as usual, there was way more going on behind the scenes.

Back in 1807, France and Russia had signed the Treaty of Tilsit. It wasn’t perfect, both sides broke some rules here and there, but they mostly tried to stick to it. The big thing Napoleon wanted was for Russia to enforce the Continental Blockade, his plan to cut off Britain’s trade and crush their economy. But, surprise, surprise, Russia wasn’t super into it.

Now, here’s where it gets juicy. Back then, foreign policy wasn’t always about logic or strategy, it was often about ego and personal drama. Napoleon, trying to cozy up to Russia, decided the best way to seal the deal was to marry into the Russian royal family. He first proposed to Grand Duchess Ekaterina in 1808, and when that didn’t work, he tried again in 1810 with 14-year-old Anna. Both times? Big fat no. For Napoleon, this was a massive slap in the face. The Russian court didn’t want anything to do with what they saw as a social climber, and this rejection just made things worse between the two countries.

Nadaljujte z branjem

Bidnova zadnja bitka proti Rusiji in Putinu, preden Trump konča vojno

Seymour Hersh:

The scene came to mind this week as I considered the bitterness of President Joe Biden, who seems to be full of resentment because a group of Democratic Party bigwigs, aware that he was failing, forced him to give up his planned re-election campaign and turn over the fight against Donald Trump to Vice President Kamala Harris, and all the more resentment because she failed to beat Trump as Biden did in 2020.

The president is no longer talking about his failed policy in the Middle East, though American bombs and other weaponry are still flowing to Israel and being put to deadly use. Biden is now trying to stem the losses in Ukraine’s war with Russia. A week ago he gave the Ukraine government, headed by President Volodymyr Zelensky, permission to fire a long withheld advanced American ballistic missile capable of hitting targets 190 miles inside Russia. Days later, he decided to provide Ukraine with landmines capable of maiming and killing all whose paths cross them, young and old, friendly and not. 

I have been told that the strategic implications of the president’s escalation—both Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin have nuclear bombs at their fingertips—had not been fully analyzed inside the Pentagon, and that some important offices, sure to have different views about escalation, were never asked for their input. Putin responded by escalating in turn by firing a nuclear-capable ballistic missile at Ukraine and said in a speech that what had been a regional conflict “had now acquired elements of a global character.” The New York Times noted that the response “was meant to instill fear in Kyiv and the West.”

Putin’s explicit warning came a day after Biden’s decision to permit the use of American anti-personnel landmines in an effort to slow Russian advances in the Donbas region. Neither Washington nor Moscow are signatories to the international mine ban treaty that has been signed by 164 parties, but Biden’s decision to deploy the weapon was widely criticized by international human rights groups.

Nadaljujte z branjem

Strategi, politiki in diplomati, ki so svarili pred širitvijo Nata v Ukrajino. In imeli prav

Da ne bo kdo rekel, da nismo vedeli, da bo ameriško forsiranje širitve nata v Ukrajino imelo tragične posledice. Predvsem za Ukrajino – tragično v vseh pogledih. Za Evropo – izjemno škodljivo gospodarsko, politično in varnostno. Za globalno varnost – dramatično škodljivo lansiranje nove hladne vojne. To ameriško forsiranje je bilo povsem nepotrebno in izjemno škodljivo.

Vedeli smo, da se bo to zgodilo. Vodilni intelektualci, strategi, politiki in diplomati so na to opozarjali. Spodaj je nabor njihovih svaril. Pa vendar smo Američanom pustili, da svojo igrico uresničijo in jim v Evropi služili in še vedno služimo kot koristni idioti.

I get asked this all the time, so I am reposting my famous thread of all the top strategic thinkers – from Kissinger to Chomsky – who warned for years that war was coming if we pursued NATO expansion, yet had their advice ignored (which begs the question: why?).

The first one is George Kennan, arguably America’s greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. As soon as 1998 he warned that NATO expansion was a “tragic mistake” that ought to ultimately provoke a “bad reaction from Russia”. Image

Nadaljujte z branjem

Vojna v Ukrajini: Odboj mrtve mačke?

Kdaj bo konec vojne v Ukrajini? Putin, kolikor se spomnim, je sicer leta 2022 napovedal, da vojne ne bo konec pred letom 2025. Napoved spodaj na podlagi zgodovinskih analogij, ko je neka država v izgubljenem položaju izvedla obupni poskus diverzije (kot Ukrajina v primeru operacije Kursk), kaže na konec vojne sredi leta 2025 – če bo Ukrajina začela z mirovnimi pogajanji. Sicer pa leto kasneje, ko bo morala brezpogojno kapitulirati.

(Moj dodatek: seveda pod predpostavko, da se v vojno neposredno ne vključijo Nato države in pošljejo denimo armado z milijonom vojakov v Ukrajino. Kar pa bi pomenilo neposredno vojno z Rusijo in s tem jedrsko eskalacijo. Takrat pa je že vseeno, ker ne bo nihče zmagal).

Let’s talk about dead cats bouncing.  Strategically.

Last time I made a big prediction it was that Ukraine would begin to collapse after Spring 2024, and the Donbass front cracked and Ukraine launched a desperation push in Kursk in Summer ’24.

We can see the end from here.

So first, what is a dead cat bounce offensive?  It’s a last-ditch attack undertaken by a power that is already in military collapse, seeking to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat after the strategic balance has turned decisively against them.  Absent some level of divine intervention – see the French Orleans Campaign of 1429-30 – these operations are generally very counterproductive and significantly hasten the defeat of the power launching them.

There have been a lot of dead cats bouncing over the course of miliary history, enough that we can actually make predictions using them.  So let’s do exactly that and examine three such operations from the conflict closest in character to the Ukrainian War: World War One.

Nadaljujte z branjem