1993: The Barry R. Posen Plan for War on Russia via Zombie State Ukraine-

[gringo]

https://www.thepostil.com/1993-the-barry-r-posen-plan-for-war-on-russia-via-zombie-state-ukraine/

    Anyone who still believes in the "Unprovoked Russian Invasion" nonsense should have a read of this. Everybody else who know that it is US/NATO provoked should also read it. So many questions answered, some we hadn't even thought to ask. Any doubt that everything happening in Ukraine now is as a result of US/NATO plans going back decades is dispelled. The remarkable prescience of "The Morgese case study" and the MOU between US Dept of Defence and Ukraine MOD make clear that it is not "prescience" but foreknowledge. The details are too specific to be anything but.
    Opening paras below to give a flavour;

   " On July 27, 1993, the US Department of Defense (DoD) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense (MoD) signed a Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation on Defense and Military Relations, establishing a programme of defence cooperation at the Department-Ministry-level, with “substantive activities” between those offices being launched in July 1994 (Cf. Lt. Col. Frank Morgese, US-Ukraine Security Cooperation 1993-2001: A Case History). Since that date, the Ukraine has teemed with US military advisors of every stripe.

The Morgese case study is a blow-by-blow review of the US military activity in the Ukraine between 1993 and 2001, designed to set up the Ukraine for her destruction. So detailed a review, that it would swamp the layman. Accordingly, we propose another document dating from 1994, readable by the laymen amongst us, and which spells out thirty years in advance, the full-blown War Plan for a zombie Ukraine.

Its author, Barry R. Posen (Rand, CFR, MIT, Woodrow Wilson Foundation), belongs to the leather-armchair school of strategy the US so excels in: arranging for others to die for the US living standard.

For obvious reasons, only Posen’s assessment of Russian military strength is dated. The remainder of his study predicts with such ghastly exactitude both events in the Ukraine over the last 20 years and the expected, indeed hoped for, Russian response, that one readily perceives that this is no prediction, but rather a fully-formed proposal for War—complete with Posen’s dismay, very faintly-veiled, at Operation Barbarossa’s failure, and his pleasure at the “high cost” Barbarossa exacted on Russia."

    The papers linked to in the article are eye opening. Links to the "Morgese case study" and the "US/Ukraine Memorandum of Understanding" are below and essential reading.

https://www.thepostil.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/US-Ukraine-Security-Cooperation-1993-2001-A-Case-History.pdf

https://www.thepostil.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/A-Defense-Concept-for-Ukraine-Posen-1994.pdf

     Remember that these were written in 1993/4.
     Unprovoked invasion? or the realisation of long laid plans-You decide?

   

[David1819]

What weird conservative creationist blog have you come across now? 

[gringo]

     What weird conservative creationist blog have you come across now? 


https://polisci.mit.edu/people/barry-r-posen

"Barry R. Posen is Ford International Professor of Political Science at MIT, Director Emeritus of the MIT Security Studies Program, and serves on the Executive Committee of Seminar XXI. He is the author of Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy, (Cornell University Press 2014), Inadvertent Escalation: Conventional War and Nuclear Risks (Cornell University Press 1991), and The Sources of Military Doctrine (Cornell University Press 1984 ). The latter won two awards: The American Political Science Association's Woodrow Wilson Foundation Book Award, and Ohio State University's Edward J. Furniss Jr. Book Award. He is also the author of numerous articles, including "Europe Can Defend Itself," Survival, December 2020, "The Rise of Illiberal Hegemony--Trump's Surprising Grand Strategy," Foreign Affairs, March/April 2018, "It's Time to Make Afghanistan Someone Else's Problem," The Atlantic, 2017, "Contain ISIS," The Atlantic, 2015, “Pull Back: The Case for a Less Activist Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, and "Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony," International Security, (Summer, 2003.) He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 2016 he was appointed Henry A. Kissinger Chair (visiting) in Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Library of Congress, John W. Kluge Center. He is the 2017 recipient of the International Security Studies Section (ISSS), International Studies Association, Distinguished Scholar Award, and in 2019 received the Notre Dame International Security Center's Lifetime Achievement Award.

He has been a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow; Rockefeller Foundation International Affairs Fellow; Guest Scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Woodrow Wilson Center Fellow, Smithsonian Institution; Transatlantic Fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the United States; and a Visiting Fellow at the John Sloan Dickey Center at Dartmouth College."



    The papers he links are from MIT and the USAWC(US Army War College).

    I take it you know who/what MIT and RAND are? and their links to and funding from the US government/US Dept of Defence?
    This is the only reply you will receive from me on this thread unless you raise a legitimate point of discussion, which I doubt. According to you everyone is a "weird conservative creationist" even when they are self evidently neither conservative nor believers in "Creationism"? Have you been hurt by a "conservative creationist"? or is there some other reason for your strange choice of insult?
     David can you show us on the doll where...?
     I will highlight some of the more interesting/disturbing items in the linked  papers over this thread whilst ignoring any more of David's witless contributions.
     First up. Written in 1994 remember;

Plan of the essay
First I broadly lay out the Ukrainian strategic situation, including the military geography of
the country. Then the country's diplomatic situation is reviewed. The potential military capability
and objectives of the most demanding potential adversary — Russia — are then discussed.
Ukraine's potential military assets are also reviewed. I then develop the alternative military
strategies available to Russia and to Ukraine, and assess their relative merits.
Briefly, I will argue that Ukraine can address most of its plausible threat scenarios, with
modest effectiveness, through a military strategy that could be termed a "strategic defense in
depth." This strategy cannot hope actually to hold all of Ukraine against all challenges, but it can
pose an impressive array of probable costs and plausible risks to a future aggressor. If properly
organized, Ukrainian forces should be able to fight a tough delaying action in the eastern half of
the country.
Ukrainian forces should then be able to mount a positional defense of the other half of the country, west of the Dnipro, against a very strong attack. This defense could impose very
high costs on an attacker, though it too would ultimately fail if Ukrainian forces cannot produce
or, more realistically, receive as military aid, the fuel, replacement weaponry, and munitions
necessary to sustain modern warfare. Ukrainians might wish for something better than this, but
for reasons that will become clear, it will be very difficult for them to achieve a high-confidence
conventional defense of most of their territory. If the broad brush plan I propose seems
plausible, it would be reasonable for interested parties to explore its strengths and weaknesses
more thoroughly through war games and simulations.[/b]

    I will post more highlights throughout the thread. It puts to bed any doubt who is the aggressor.

[David1819]

So, what do we know about the "thepostil"?

Apologists for the British Empire

https://www.thepostil.com/the-merits-of-the-british-empire/


And promoting these books in the "stuff we love" section

The Dark World of Left-Wing Brainwashing
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/163006226X/ref=nosim?linkCode=gs2&tag=postil16-21

On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ: Selected Writings from St. Maximus
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/088141249X/ref=nosim?linkCode=gs2&tag=postil16-21

The Battle of Stalingrad Through German Eyes
https://www.amazon.com/dp/139811071X/ref=nosim?tag=postil17-20

 

Seems our Tankie has gone full circle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

[gringo]

        Encourage the Ukrainians to Blow Up their Own Cities and Infrastructure

Extensive demolitions would supplement more conventional military operations to slow the attackers’ progress, and complicate their subsequent logistics. Much of this could be organized well in advance; critical facilities can be “pre-chambered” to speed the placement of explosives. Necessary explosives can be cached close to the designated targets, under the control of local police forces or reserve military formations, as is done in Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, and even Germany. As the Ukrainians retreat into geographical areas where Ukrainians constitute a greater ethnic majority, it may prove possible to organize “stay-behind” forces to collect intelligence on the Russians and engage in partisan warfare. This too should be planned in advance. 

    Kakhova Dam, anyone? Is the Zap Nuclear Power Plant the next piece of this strategy?

    Remember that these are excerpts from "A Defence Concept for Ukraine" written in 1994 by Dr. Barry R Posen of the US DOD funded MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

[David1819]

In Tankie fantasy world, all the evidence implicating Russia in the destruction the dam is fake. It was the Ukrainians. 

It never occurred to the Ukrainians to destroy the dam in February of 2022 when such an action would have actually prevented the Russians from taking Kherson in the first place. They only destroy it now once the Russians have retreated from Kherson and Ukraine have prevented their own counter-offensive from the crossing the river thus helping the Russians.

[gringo]

     Our resident troll as usual filling the thread with mindless insults and Gif's. Almost as if he has nothing of value to add. Oh well, trolls gonna troll. You spent a couple of posts attacking "The Postil" in an attempt to, in your tiny mind, discredit the messenger. Typically for you, it was the wrong target. All of the quotes and analysis was from the two PDF's that I linked to. They were written for MIT and the US Army War College. Granted that at 33 and 47 pages, these were too much for your three minute attention span, but nonetheless the papers are from US govt. funded establishments. The author of the first paper (Dr. Barry Posen) ;

Posen worked as a consultant for the RAND Corporation and an analyst for the Department of Defense and Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The Postil linked to and quoted directly from these two papers so the answer to your ill judged "question", "What weird conservative creationist blog have you come across now?" is the US Army War College, RAND Corporation, MIT and the Carnegie Endowment.
    You were shooting the wrong messenger because you didn't even read the information contained. You clearly just looked for criticism of The Postil, who didn't write the papers but merely reported the existence of and link to the papers. They are massively significant if you read and digest them. If you're too intellectually lazy to read them, the easy way out is to shoot the messenger. If you choose this route, at least make sure you're aiming in the right direction though, otherwise you are likely to end up looking really dumb.
     The essays make crystal clear the US involvement and planning from the get go. Before Russia's "uNpRoVoKeD iNvAsIoN", before Maidan. Long in the planning and spelt out with such clarity exactly the strategies and likely outcomes unfolding now. It is eye opening in getting to the bottom of the matter. The ideas dismissed as conspiracy theory now openly planned in advance with uncanny "prescience".
     

[gringo]

"I have termed the third alternative strategy "strategic defense in depth." The strategy and
force posture of Switzerland provides a weak analogy...
Ukraine has a much bigger military problem executing this strategy than does
Switzerland because its terrain is not nearly as favorable. Unlike Switzerland or other armed
neutrals, Ukraine would be the primary rather than an ancillary objective of the aggressor, so its
dissuasive task is also politically more difficult. Nevertheless, a careful exploitation of the Pripet
Marshes to the North and the Dnipro River should permit the Ukrainians to develop a plausible
bastion that the Russians would have to pay a high price to attack. It must be noted, however,
that for two or three months of the year rivers and marshes freeze, perhaps sufficiently to much
reduce the defensive value of these barriers. Thus, these barriers must be viewed as building
34
blocks in a defensive system, not solutions in themselves.
Western Ukraine, though weak industrially, is agriculturally rich and ought to be able to
feed itself. It does have considerable light industry which could be turned to military uses. Most
importantly, it borders Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary, all potential sources of supply if NATO
admits these countries, applies diplomatic pressure, and provides resources. These are big "ifs,"
but for the diplomatic reasons outlined above, there are reasons for hope. If Ukraine makes its
western reaches strong enough to resist for a lengthy period, at least several months, and
employs its mobile forces effectively to generate serious combat from the outset of the war,
Ukrainian diplomacy will have a chance. If the Ukrainian bastion can garner enough western
european logistical assistance to survive, Russia will face the prospect of having to employ
large active forces to contain it. It will go even worse for them if western Ukraine can get into
NATO. A divided Ukraine would then assume the role in a new Cold War that divided Germany
assumed in the last one. But the "inner-Ukrainian border" would be much closer to the centers
of Russian power than was the "inner-German" border"

     The above from pages 26 and 27 of, "A defence concept for Ukraine", written in 1994.

     The Russian reactions to most of the provocations has been the opposite of the expected and gamed response. It's a chess game where one side (Russia) is already aware of the opponents strategy. NATO seem at a loss to penetrate the Russian strategies.