Sky News security and defence analyst, Michael Clarke, seems to have gone into full overdrive mode recently as he discusses the following topics:
- How he would approach Ukriane's negotiations with Trump and Putin;
- Russia's threats to the UK - and how Britain is already being targeted;
- Whether the idea of the US, Russia and China making a deal on Greenland, Ukraine and Taiwan is as outlandish as it sounds;
- This week's conscription drive by Putin - the biggest for 14 years;
- The current state of the British Army;
- And the likely truth about the war's casualty figures.
[1] He starts with security guarantees, saying if there's going to be a truce then "I would want guarantees for what we are going to hold on to".
He then says he would request guarantees of independence.
Clarke also explains he would want the recognition (as Ukrainian leader) "to have a right to military aid from my friends".
"I would want the same right as the Russians have to be militarily strong against an uncertain future," he adds.
Security guarantees and independence guarantees were in the 2022 Istanbul peace agreement based on Ukrainian neutrality. An agreement that the West (i.e. the USA and NATO) tore up.
Realists understand that no-one has the 'right...to be militarily strong against an uncertain future' - you only have the right if you have the people, resources, weapons etc. to 'earn that right' and the reality is that not many countries have earned that right.
NATO is starting to understand how costly it will be to earn that right if the USA withdraws its 'backstop' support. This is what Trump is saying - 'pay to play'. Otherwise you have no right to be in the game.
[2] Some guy called Steven asks:
Will Russia threaten or attack the UK? I'm really stressed and scared. If they did, would we get any warning?
Surely this was a joke made up by some Sky News staffer?
FNN advice, stop believing everything you hear/read on Sky News and from reading the MSM - that's what they want you to be: Stressed and scared. It's the old Brexit/COVID playbook dusted off and updated.
Why would anyone expect any warning of a military attack, other than maybe a few minutes from early warning systems?
If you are worried about Russian attacks on the UK then for God's sake don't read Annie Jacobsen's book Nuclear War: A Scenario - since that's what we could be headed for with the current Ukraine narrative being peddled by the MSM.
[3] Hardly outlandish. Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin carved up Europe after WW2. Why expect current leaders to behave any differently?
[4] Both sides are conscripting like mad. Ukraine because it's running out of men to man the front-lines - there's only so many far-right nationalists available to do the tough front-line fighting - and Russia because it's probably going on the offensive in a big way soon.
Life changing sums of money are definitely in play but that only reflects the fact that dying in some shitty front-line trench is also life changing for the poor buggers doing the fighting in this proxy war.
[5] Apparently the British Army is 'very professional'. Well maybe. That would be nice.
But does that mean it is ready and able to fight a war against a highly experienced 'peer' army without air superiority and a technological advantage? Something it hasn't done since Korea.
It seems unlikely, which is why the USA and NATO remain happy for the war to go on for as long as possible and Ukraine to continue to fight down 'to the last Ukrainian'.
After all, as numerous draft-dodging US political bigwigs have confirmed, the US regards the war as an investment in degrading Russia that involves minimal US casualties and will result in gaining control of Ukraine's valuable resources - something Clarke rightly calls 'extortion'.
[6] The likely truth about the war casualties appears to be:
There seem to be 750,000 - 800,000 Russian casualties....
But then Ukrainian casualties look like they are "half of that", he says.
"They are harder to estimate because Ukrainians are so secretive about it," he adds.
So the likely truth is no-one really knows what either side's casualty figures are, except the guys at the top and they aren't telling.
So why bandy about meaningless numbers from authoritative sources such as - you guessed it - Wikipedia.
Where is Wikileaks when you need it?