Day 61, Time for new approach?

 BOTH UKRAINE AND IRAN WARS COULD BE ENDED QUICKLY?

COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE INCALCULABLE

We continually hear that the war in Ukraine will end when Putin decides that the cost of continuing is too high to continue. Then we hear a similar narrative concerning the Iran war, Iran will submit when they consider the cost too high. In both cases, Russia and Iran consider these conflicts an existential fight for the survival of their nations. 

Russia, we are told is not winning and the conflict is at a standstill, this narrative is all about hoping for a positive outcome for Ukraine and its benefactor NATO. We no longer hear the narrative that Putin wants to reassemble the Soviet Union, that if not stopped in Ukraine, he will march to the Atlantic. A contradiction if anyone really believes they are stymied in Ukraine. Russia could end this war in a very consolidated time if they decided to reap devastation on Ukraine by using their capabilities and likely without the use of nuclear weapons. There has been continuous debate in Russia by many to end this as soon as possible, it has been rejected by Putin and those presently in power.

Few are willing to admit that his war is about NATO expansion, the encirclement of Russia, a clear security threat to Russia.  It is always the narrative about the expansionist hunger of Putin. No one ever explains what Russia would want from western Europe, by expanding westward. Russia has the largest store of natural resources in the world and would likely want a peaceful existence to develop those resources for the prosperity of Russia. Before this conflict, Russia had a small but technologically advanced military and of course, nuclear weapons. Russia was not threatening anyone and attempted to come to a resolution of NATO expansion by peaceful means. While many would rather entertain that Russia is a villian, the reality is the west covets the resources of Russia, wants to own them, not buy them, as this would increase the wealth of Russia, considered a threat for the future. All competitors must be contained so as they are less wealthy than the U.S. and western Europe. Forget about mutual prosperity, something that was working quite well with the supply of energy from Russia to western Europe.

While many still want to focus on nuclear weapons in Iran, it is clear to anyone who wants to see the truth that Iran did not have nuclear weapons or a desire for them. They engaged in and revealed their enhanced enrichment only after the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal that they had complied with. The U.S. never fulfilled their part to end economic sanctions, which have been ongoing since 1979. The enhanced enrichment was a strategy to being back a negotiated settlement, There is no desire of any such settlement by the U.S., it wants the oil and Israel wants Iran to be far weaker than Israel.  The U.S. has been hoping to topple the government of Iran since 1979, by one means or another, all because it covets the oil and other resources of Iran. Again, keep Iran contained, as if left to engage in free enterprise they would become wealthy and that is to be opposed. 

In Ukraine, if Russia decides to take out all the bridges and rail in Ukraine, which it has resisted doing, hoping for a gradual decimation of Ukraine's ability to resist, it could hasten the end of this conflict.  If Europe truly wants so raise an army and go to war with Russia, the whole of western Eurasia will be destroyed in the process.

If the U.S. wants to do the same to Iran, it will result in a global economic downturn that will last for decades. 

Much of the reason for a strong desire to double down rather than really seek a long term peaceful solution is Hubris, needing to be a winner, both for NATO and the U.S. . While many desire all out war to come to a conclusion, a realization that a new cooperative seeking of mutual prosperity, may still be possible. Can it be accomplished by real negotiations or does the world first need to experience global catastrophe.