The Institute For The Provoking Of World War 3

Russian War Analysis: Examining The Institute For The Study Of War

There is an organization called “The Institute For The Study Of War”. It is a think tank (“a public policy research organization”) out of Washington D.C. 

I’ve nicknamed them The Institute For The Provoking Of World War 3 given their non-stop barrage of ‘Attack Russia’ stances. But I’m open to reader suggestions on improvements to the rebranded name.

It is a very politically connected think tank. A lot of their recommendations get put before Congress and many of the members of Congress end up using this think tank’s arguments to put forward new geopolitical strategies.

They are #90 out of the list of 100 Top Think Tanks. I would wager to bet that they’re probably the biggest neocon war-policy institution around the D.C. area. I know that is a big claim, but I think what I’m gonna show you today will help point you toward that conclusion as well. 

This organization recently put out arguments in favor of Ukraine striking Russian territory with American-made weapons.

Not only do they claim this is a logical thing to do, they claim it is a “moral” thing to do!

I’d say they’re out of their minds, but I only could wish it was that easy. I think they’re genuinely evil instead.

They recently published some interesting graphics showing how the Russians can strike within Ukraine from their own territory (thereby creating a “sanctuary”), arguing that it is unfair that Ukraine cannot strike back.

While I do not believe the claim that the Russians are truly only launching from their own territory and hiding in their land to prevent Ukraine from attacking back (that is clearly neocon propaganda), the maps are still interesting to see the ranges of the weaponry and the thought process of the neocon mind. You can find those images below:

[right click -> image in new tab for larger size]

Unsure of what these are showing? See below regarding notes from the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair (also further proving my point that this Institute has direct-to-Congress access):

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Rep McCaul posterized ISW–Critical Threat’s map of Russian military and security services bases in the Russian Federation within the range of US weapons for today’s appearance before the committee of Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

The bold, outermost line shows the maximum range of ATACMS (300km); the solid line before that shows the maximum range of the mid-range ATACMS the US has provided to Ukraine (170km); and the dotted, innermost line shows the maximum range of HIMARS (77km).

The shaded parts of northeastern Ukraine represent Ukrainian territory in range of glide bombs launched from Russian airspace (60km).

“[What the Russians] are doing is lining up all of their artillery and rockets and missiles just across the Ukraine border that they then use to attack Ukrainians. However, the administration has restricted [Ukraine’s] arms use so that Ukraine cannot defend itself and fire back at Russia.” — Chair McCaul

You can find the article underlying this map and data here, or simply read the cliff notes below:

PUTIN’S SAFE SPACE: DEFEATING RUSSIA’S KHARKIV OPERATION REQUIRES ELIMINATING RUSSIA’S SANCTUARY

Current US policy prohibiting Ukraine from using US-provided weapons in the territory of the Russian Federation is severely compromising Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against the renewed cross-border invasion Russia has recently launched in Kharkiv Oblast.  US policy has effectively created a vast sanctuary in which Russia has been able to amass its ground invasion force and from which it is launching glide bombs and other long-range strike systems in support of its renewed invasion.  Whatever the merits of this US policy before the Russian assault on Kharkiv Oblast began, it should be modified immediately to reflect the urgent realities of the current situation.

The Russian military began an offensive operation along the Russian-Ukrainian border in northern Kharkiv Oblast on May 10 — an effort that will pose serious challenges to Ukrainian forces over the coming months. The operation seeks to fix Ukrainian forces across the theater and thin them out along the 600-mile frontline to create opportunities, specifically in Donetsk Oblast, among other significant objectives that ISW has warned about at length.[1] Russian forces will likely leverage their tactical foothold in northern Kharkiv Oblast in the coming days to intensify offensive operations and pursue the initial phase of an offensive effort likely intended to push back Ukrainian forces from the border with Belgorod Oblast and advance to within tube artillery range of Kharkiv City.[2] The operation could set conditions for a major offensive operation that seeks to seize Kharkiv City, though Russian forces’ current limited efforts do not suggest that Russian forces are immediately pursuing a large-scale sweeping offensive operation to envelop, encircle, or seize Kharkiv City.[3] Russia’s operation is still nonetheless dangerous and is already diverting some Ukrainian forces and resources from Donetsk to Kharkiv.[4] Russia’s Kharkiv operation will force Ukraine to make difficult prioritization decisions that can generate significant operational effects in favor of Russia in the coming months.

[…]

Reevaluating Russia’s sanctuary is not an all or nothing affair. Standing US prohibitions on how Ukrainian forces may use US-provided weapons will not prevent Western weapons from striking Russia. Western states are already beginning to reevaluate Russia’s sanctuaries in part or in whole. The United Kingdom (UK) officially eliminated Russia’s sanctuary from UK weapons when Foreign Minister David Cameron announced in early May 2024 that London now permits Ukraine to strike Russian territory with UK-provided weapons.[21] Ukraine has long struck legitimate targets in Russia with any weapons it can and will continue to do so.

The US need not greenlight the use of all US-provided military systems against any target in the Russian Federation and still lift its restrictions enough to allow Ukrainian forces to defend themselves against immediate operational assaults.  Neither Russia nor any other state has the right to view its sovereign territory as inviolable in a war of aggression that it has initiated.  Establishing the principle that nuclear-armed states can earn such inviolability through threats of escalation encourages other such potential predators to imagine that they, too, can attack with impunity and demand sanctuary in their own territory.  US restrictions on Ukraine’s use of US-provided weapons were one thing when the question was of a possible long-range strike into the deep Russian rear.  Preventing Ukraine from using all of the resources at its disposal against a renewed cross-border invasion makes no sense.

In effect, The Institute For The Study Of War is claiming that because Russia can strike a limited way into Ukraine without leaving their own territory, we should greenlight Ukraine to bomb far into Russia with our own weapons. They claim it would be in a “limited capacity”, at first. Naturally, we would expect this “limited capacity” to increase, as it always does with U.S. interventionism.

I guess they don’t really see this as an escalation on the side of America’s part. They just claim that it is a moral and logical thing for Ukraine to be able to attack Russia territory proper.

This is the mind of a neocon. This is what they think and believe. They never stop to think, “Hey, maybe Ukraine can’t win this war. Maybe we shouldn’t provoke the Russians even further.” Nope, never crosses their minds.

This article also pairs nicely with my article from last week: A Primer On Geopolitics: The United States’ So-Called “Red Lines”. The U.S. hegemon currently claims that the United States has a redline against Ukraine attacking inside of Russia. But all the think tanks and neocon institutions that are directing our “red lines” are in favor of attacking Russia inside its territory.

This clearly indicates that our elites have one public policy and one private policy. Publicly, they claim Ukraine can’t attack Russia with our weapons. Privately, they are fine attacking Russia. And our rapidly advancing that as a reasonable policy proposal through these kind of institutions.

This institution, and many others, are preparing the groundwork for the next stage of this war. That stage is once America and the rest of the West openly allow Ukraine to attack within Russia’s territory openly. Heck, they might even openly encouraging it. To get a larger response out of Russia, which could then give them the ability to be even more confrontational. They could even aim to get Russia to strike NATO first by continually pushing them. Many options. All bad for us regular people.

There is a lot here from this neocon institution that we can break down. But one thing is for certain. And that is that these people are complete lunatics.

Ukraine is not going to win this war, but they are going to make sure there is chaos until this inevitable defeat occurs.

Institutions like these that continue to drag this on have a lot of blood on their hands. Ukraine will probably never be able to rebuild following being used as NATO’s pawns in this capacity.

The West provoked this conflict in 2014. And that truth will inevitably come out. Once it does, the Ukrainians will hate us a hell of a lot more than they hate the Russians. 

If there are any of them left, that is.

Read Next: A Primer On Geopolitics: The United States’ So-Called “Red Lines”

If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.

You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.

Help fight the censorship – Share this article!