One thing I noticed during the war in Iraq (the W version) as well as Afghanistan was that what passed for "strategy" was that the other side should be so completely defeated and prostrate that we can do whatever we might decide that we want to do after we win. Or, in other words, nobody knew what they wanted to do exactly, other than something might come up after they win.
So "winning" was paramountly important, because that was seen as the key to everything, but that "win" had to be so comprehensive that it didn't matter what the aims were.
Needless to say that this is ludicrous: you can never win THAT comprehensively, except possibly at unspeakable cost to yourself. If you don't even know what it is that you want, how can you justify such cost? This, then, leads to a dangerous mix of cowardice, delusion, and hypocrisy It makes sense only to pick fights with people whom you (think you) can defeat conprehensively, or somehow convince yourself that you can defeat your adversary comprehensively. If you wind up in a fight with an adversary that you cannot defeat comprehensively (ie almost every time), you wind up giving up everything and go home or sulk aimlessly (or both.)
What the West learned from Iraq was that nation-building is expensive, hard and thankless. Breaking things is relatively cheap and easy and gets the desired results.
Libya and Syria come to mind. For that matter, the West sees the Iraq adventure as on balance successful, as that country was turned into a failed state.
Nation building when the goal is both a neo-liberal extractive territory and a weaponized dagger aimed at its independent neighbors is exceedingly difficult. Nation building when you seek economic development along with respect for tradition is much easier.
And even with countries once thought to be pushovers the West, and particularly the US, have been proven wrong repeatedly - Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan just to name a few.
Recognises the reality that Russia (not just the West) has some very tricky dilemmas to resolve. Military “victory” in Ukraine could prove to be a Pyrrhic one. The Neo Con plan to destabilise Russia via Ukraine was in their own terms possibly a brilliant one! Albeit not one I support. Of course, it came with its own unintended adverse effects for the US that have not yet played out in full either. However, there is a tendency for some people to think in a bipolar way: the West incompetent and evil; Russia / Putin masterful and victims. Many people then think the exact opposite too. Reality is more nuanced.
The Algeria example is also interesting. I still believe that Trump’s least bad option would have been a full pull out from Ukraine back in January at the height of presidential power rather than the current drawn out and bogged down process that will go nowhere. It would have had immediate disruptive consequences but arguably far less bad outcomes than we will see from how things are now playing out. However, the moment for that has gone. His power is waning and as the mid terms get closer I suspect it will wane still further. This is now his war. He is not De Gaulle.
Appreciate the thoughtful discussion—and I agree, nuance is key. But there’s still a core asymmetry in Aurelien’s framing that should be addressed.
Russia isn’t stumbling into a post-victory quagmire. It has spent over a decade preparing—not for Ukraine, but for NATO and the EU. This includes:
Deep military defense build-up
Diversified alliances (BRICS+, CSTO, OPEC+)
Eastward energy realignment
Sanctions-proof economic restructuring
This is strategic foresight, not improvisation.
Also worth noting:
Western powers acting on memory (WWII, 9/11, Cold War) = "realism"
Russia acting on memory (1812, 1941, 1999, 2014) = "resentment"
That’s a double standard. Russia doesn’t see trauma—it sees a pattern of repeated Western attempts to breach its borders and extract its resources.
RAND and CEPA have openly discussed breaking up Russia and accessing its natural wealth. That’s not democracy. It’s resource imperialism.
So if Russia looks “rigid” or “defiant,” it’s not emotional—it’s strategic. Ukraine was never the endgame. It’s Phase One of a civilizational standoff.
Essentially, I present the case that *both* sides are acting in response to historical trauma and anachronistic ideology, and that entering the war could be considered a form of self-harm.
As an Austrian, albeit not living there since 2006, I can assure you there is a country that is neutral AND disarmed.
The Ukrainian attack on the Russian long-range bomber fleet was presumably too late to have any effect on your essay. However, it shows that your hypothetical scenario with drones launched from cargo ships in the Black Sea is a very real possibility. Particularly under the assumption that a Ukrainian government would want to pull a France 1870, such attacks could continue, would legally not be terrorism but acts of war and would be celebrated as heroic resistance of brave Ukrainians (a.k.a. unsuspecting Kazakh lorry drivers) in the western press.
Also referring to this attack, whatever misgivings one might have with the Biden administration, at least they seem to have had the good sense to tell the Ukrainians off, after the attack on a Russian early-warning radar that had f-all to do with the war effort. I am not sure that the Trump administration is intellectually capable to understand the danger of such attacks on strategic assets and the unquestioning acceptance of Ukrainian claims of success doesn't make me optimistic that it does not end up with egging them on.
I think the only way the Russians have, to have permanent peace on their western front, apart from outright genocide, would be to make it clear to the Ukrainians that to the average westerner not only they themselves are "orcs" (a.k.a. "slawische Untermenschen") but also the Ukrainians. However, that is about as easy as explaining to someone who is about to send money to the proverbial "Nigerian prince" that he is scammed. That usually ends up with that person wanting to believe into the scam and being angry with the one trying to explain.
Appreciate the thoughtful discussion—and I agree, nuance is key. But there’s still a core asymmetry in Aurelien’s framing that should be addressed.
Russia isn’t stumbling into a post-victory quagmire. It has spent over a decade preparing—not for Ukraine, but for NATO and the EU. This includes:
Deep military defense build-up
Diversified alliances (BRICS+, CSTO, OPEC+)
Eastward energy realignment
Sanctions-proof economic restructuring
This is strategic foresight, not improvisation.
Also worth noting:
Western powers acting on memory (WWII, 9/11, Cold War) = "realism"
Russia acting on memory (1812, 1941, 1999, 2014) = "resentment"
That’s a double standard. Russia doesn’t see trauma—it sees a pattern of repeated Western attempts to breach its borders and extract its resources.
RAND and CEPA have openly discussed breaking up Russia and accessing its natural wealth. That’s not democracy. It’s resource imperialism.
So if Russia looks “rigid” or “defiant,” it’s not emotional—it’s strategic. Ukraine was never the endgame. It’s Phase One of a civilizational standoff.
This is written as usual as if national governments or even the EU were 'in charge' of western tactics/strategies. They are not. They are hired help for the elite up to their necks in MIC money who want to sell arms in constant wars around the globe. Plus bankers who desperately need more resources to back their failing financialised economies. Hence 'Ukraine' and the wet dream of Moscow regime change.
These forces are quite happy to conduct terrorist campaigns on an on going basis and drones are manna from heaven for them.
The only option Russia has is to drive to the western boundary of Ukraine so that it at least removes the fig leaf of excuse for terrorist campaigns to be legitimised by a Ukrainian government.
As long as there are evil people in positions of power leverage in US/UK/EU this is never going to end. And the longer it goes on the more likely evil people will pull the levers of power in Moscow and we all face being burned ashes.
Insufficient attention paid to when Ukraine loses, and what this entails.
As I have said before: only the most asinine in Ukraine will still believe that Ukraine was not comprehensively defeated.
Those idiots will join their foreign cousins in Canada and other parts of the West to promulgate the "Ukraine will rise again" narrative, whereas the vast majority of Ukrainians actually in Ukraine - presuming the state continues to exist - will want nothing more than to be left alone to live their lives.
The Russian strategy of attrition is not only of men and material but of belief: belief that Ukraine has any business whatsoever trying to defeat a neighbor that is multiple times bigger and more wealthy and more productive.
There is nothing particularly mysterious about the future of Ukraine. Russians will gradually pass through the whole of Ukraine to the west, as it was back in the 18th and 19th centuries. As a result, the country will unite again, and I hope the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. Putin did not accidentally retell a school history textbook to Tucker. In Russia, everyone thinks about Ukraine the way Putin does. If the West stubbornly ignores that Russians are descended from Rurik, then this is the problem of the West.
In a certain sense, Ukrainian Carthage will be destroyed to the end, but without any Roman genocide. It's hard to say how long it will take, but it's obviously a lot.
And in the continuation of the discussion on the Naked Capitalism website, I will write here, too, as you actively deny the control of British intelligence over Kiev. If British intelligence really does not control the Ukrainian special services, then this is generally a disaster for London. The Ukrainians will gradually drag the British into such a story that all the English smart guys' eyes will pop out. And not from the realization of his failure, but from the high temperature, as in Pompeii. Moreover, there are no volcanoes in England.…
I understand that the last British governments are made up of temporary upstarts. But there must be some smart old gentlemen in London with connections who can bring this simple idea to the top.
I did not see those comments on NC but I think the US controls Ukraine. Britain may play a role but we have not had a true independent foreign policy since Suez. So, at best, Britain’s role in anything like this is as a pure agent of the US. Albeit there is room to influence US policy too but the US is the principal. Without them, we would dare not confront Russia in any way and all Starmer’s bellicosity has been carefully calibrated to say that in different words.
That may be an appropriate place to put blame. But it is very unlikely (impossible almost) that Britain would do anything significant without US alignment. For Russia, it could make sense though to ignore that and blame Britain alone. Far weaker than the US. If the US then leaves Britain to hang out to dry then that might concentrate some minds and be disruptive for the Trans Atlantic “alliance”. Blaming the US publicly would be far riskier and offer less upside. Starmer can hardly say: “we did this in agreement with the US”, LOL. Would destroy the illusion of great power status that the British government and media cling to.
I now read the comments on NC and strongly believe that the US knows exactly what is going on in Ukraine when it comes to any material military action. It would be far too risky for Zelensky in any case to attack Russia directly if there were a risk of a Trump hissy fit and possible negative reaction. It would have been 100% in the interests of the Ukrainian regime to make sure this operation was “cleared” via whatever joint rules of engagement are in place. If Trump himself was then unaware then that would suggest a major breakdown of the chain of command within the US system. But, I would not want to be the official who failed to ensure that my chain of command was in the loop. Far too much career risk. That chain of command then only ends at the President!
One, there is a core of British elite willing to fight Russia, no matter the cost, that is unaware of the danger. It is Britain who is going to be the first target of nuclear weapons.
Two, although deep state US is the principal leader, the same deep state US will not start a nuclear war over Britain.
"The worst example I can think of at the moment, you won’t be surprised to hear, is the western “strategy” towards Russia. Simply put, at the highest level, it doesn’t exist.
* * *
So western strategy towards Russia at the highest level doesn’t exist; or if it does exist, it’s very well hidden. Rather, there’s a soggy consensus over disconnected short-term objectives which all, or most, nations can support, and which amounts to little more than:
Keep the war going somehow.
Stuff happens.
Putin falls from power.
?"
O please. Of course there is a strategy with regard to Russia, however it cannot at this time be said out loud.
NATO will intervene, once the supply of warm live Ukrainian bodies gets low, and the Americans will be dragged in, rather than leave their european catamites to twist in the wind,
See, e.g., WWI, WWII and the War On Libya.
This was ever always only the real plan all along, aided by Russian dithering and indecision.
I just can’t see the US making that kind of commitment. I anticipate them leaving the Europeans holding the bag, just like they have done with the rest of their failed “allies” since at least Suez.
Unlike Suez, the US is the main driver of this policy.
Let me put it another way, if the US did not want to get involved, they need only state plainly and publicly that if the european poodles persist in provoking Russia, the United States will not ride to their rescue.
The US does not say this. It's the dog that did not bark.
The first casualty of any war is always the carefully laid out plan.
RAND Corporation published a report titled "Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground" in 2019. Which has pretty much been the blueprint for the US led western efforts against Russia.
The aim of this (provoked) Russia Ukraine conflict was never a Ukrainian victory. It's ultimate goal was to smash Russia right of the Brzezinki's 'Grand Chessboard' and then go after China to reestablish US led western hegemony.
In hindsight it is easy to see how the key assumptions of think tank land were dead wrong. Russia has proven to be much more resilient and united than anyone in the west assumed. Far worse is how the Global South tacitly approved the Russian SMO in Ukraine and is breaking away from the 'rules based order'.
Meanwhile the European Project is in deep trouble. Today the overriding belief among the European elite is that only Eisen und Blut (Blood and Iron) can unify and save the European Project. The problem here is that the Europeans have neither the Eisen (industries, cheap energy and resources) nor the Blut (a willingness to fight) to wage a victorious war.
The same think tanks that have gotten us into this quagmire are now stating that by 2030 Europe has to be ready to take the war to Russia - which is an impossible time frame. New battle grounds are being prepared in the Black Sea region and in Scandinavia - which is suicidal.
Maybe another great pan European war (or even worse) can still be avoided, maybe not. Regardless those efforts will bankrupt Europe either way. Russia has escalation dominance and the backing of the Global South, a fact which is still ignored in Europe.
Under the current conditions only an outside force can set up and guarantee a new lasting security architecture in Europe. Especially if (or maybe we should say 'when') the EU falls apart.
I wouldn't be surprised if in another ten years or so the terms of such a framework will be dictated by Beijing (rather than the US). Which would mark the historic beginning of the Chinese century.
"Meanwhile the European Project is in deep trouble. Today the overriding belief among the European elite is that only Eisen und Blut (Blood and Iron) can unify and save the European Project. The problem here is that the Europeans have neither the Eisen (industries, cheap energy and resources) nor the Blut (a willingness to fight) to wage a victorious war."
No amount of money will turn europeans, the biggest wimps on the planet, a retirement village for geriatric metrosexuals, into soldiers.
Everyone knows that. The plan is for the Americans to jump in, rather than leave their buttbois hanging out to dry. That plan is proceeding apace.
I agree with Aurelien that with the current objectives, no true victory can be had. What will Russia do with a recalcitrant Ukraine? But with all due respect, I do reject the idea of a bankrupt-falling-apart Europe. The EU is in a transitory state - from semi-democratic conglomerate of semi-independent states to a full blown overarching tyranny. Give it a few years and European civilians will have absolutely no say in anything - not in how they live their lives, not in how their money will be spent, or what the EU government will decide in terms of war or peace. I see all around me (I live in Holland) how both the tyranny and the military state is being built up. Now that the coalition here has fallen again, the unelected prime minister Schoof will have almost unlimited power to do as he pleases (which he did anyway), since he cannot be sent away (because he already has been sent away). This how Rutte operated when his consecutive parliaments fell. It will take another year or so before a new parliament will be installed, and this time people probably vote overwhelmingly Left, because this fallen Right cabinet was such a disappointment. I only have to point at Britain to show what will happen in Holland when it chooses a Labour government. More oppression, more favors for Islam. This will ultimately lead (as in the rest of Europe) to a monster pact between government and Islam, whereby the more draconian tyranny will be implemented under Sharia laws. Meanwhile, the war with Russia will just go on - and the objective is not "destroy Russia", but "implement a military ruled state", in other words: the abolishing of Democracy and the implementation of a new, feudal European state led by Brussels. Don't be fooled by silliness of European politicians. They are just hired clowns who are implementing this agenda.
"Give it a few years and European civilians will have absolutely no say in anything - not in how they live their lives, not in how their money will be spent, or what the EU government will decide in terms of war or peace."
Yes, but this suits the rulers just fine, and they are the only ones who count. Democracy was basically canceled in France and openly canceled in Romania, to barely a peep of protest, and cheers from Brussels.
Aurelian is right and you are wrong. I speak Russian, spent years in Russia and was just recently in Ukraine. It is pure fantasy to believe that Ukrainians will ever consent to being formally a part of Russia. The alternative is utter carnage that is the forceful occupation and reeducation of Ukraine. Not gonna happen for the reasons Aurelian cited above. On top the ultra Russian nationalist ideology that this would require would blow up Russia herself. Remember that Russia is herself multi ethnic and a hardening of Russian ethnic nationalism would result in rising tension with the minorities. Putin understands that very well and that is why Russian nationalism is tolerated only to a certain degree.
On the other hand Moscow is understandably not prepared to live with an ultra hostile state on its borders. The only possible solution is a change of regime in Kiew that sees somebody take power that has Nationalist credentials but puts Azov et al on a tight leash.
If in Europe - as seems increasingly likely - the regimes in Germany, France and Britain start to teeter than there could be a sea change. The pivotal country is Germany and I foresee big changes within the next two years.
I lived in Ukraine, speak Russian and some Ukrainian. When I lived there (2004-2012), nationalists were seen as freaks and losers. It was the fashion then to denigrate all things western.
What changed everything overnight was that it was made plain that adopting the nationalist ideology was a condition to Ukraine being allowed to join The Club.
For that matter, we saw a similar overnight sea change in Germans, once the Nazi regime took power. Formerly sober, sensible level headed people were ranting slogans and ready to start burning their fellow citizens alive.
I actually live in Moscow, and my maternal ancestors are from Ukraine. My mother was fluent in Ukrainian, she studied it at school. You have the right not to believe me, I don't care. You just have to understand that if a massacre is needed for this, then there will be a massacre. Moreover, the slaughter is already underway. You probably don't know, but thousands of civilians from Russia died in the Kursk region. They are not all even found. For example, a passenger car with a murdered woman at the wheel and an empty child safety seat was found near Suji.
No ultra-Russian ideology is needed for Ukraine's admission to Russia. We need an imperial ideology, which even Chechens perfectly understand. It was the same with Turkey.
You are living in fantasy land. Kadyrov siphons money of Russia and snubs his nose as the FSB. Remember the poor guy who burned a Koran in Volgograd? The Chechens are independent internally and once Kadyrov is gone all bets are off. Same holds for all of the Caucasus. As to Ukrainians: even the people who want to end the war no matter what hate Russians. It is sad, but it is true. Surely Russia might occupy all of Ukraine but there would never be any real peace.
Anyhow Russia is much more like the "decadent" West, than Russians care to admit. I ran an outdoors business in Siberia and Moskovites are just as smartphone addicted as youngsters in Berlin or Paris. The people going to the war in Russia do not out of conviction but because there are huge salaries. It is the poor people from the provinces that do the dying and if there should ever be a guerilla war I don´t see how Russia can prevail.
Russia is European and it is suffering from the same diseases the West is suffering from. Sure you can massacre Ukrainian nationalists but you won´t win the people that way.
Not sure about need for an overall imperialist ideology, but definitely see your point about pushing on with the war no matter the casualties. Russians must be incredibly frustrated that their government doesn't do things militarily that they're capable of doing. I don’t see any way for Russia to feel safe besides continuing west in Ukraine. And being less discriminate in their missile attacks. I mean, it's ludicrous we in the West STILL hear how Ukraine "pushed the Russians out of Kiev". Western governments live in fantasy land, bombs would at least make the narrative totally empty.
But I also can't believe the Ukrainian people still support this war in the majority. What do you know about Ukrainian public opinion? And I mostly mean the public that initially supported the war.
The first thing to understand is that modern Ukrainians are big nationalists. They are much more nationalistic than Russians. The nationalists support the entire Ukrainian army. This is an active core that is rapidly shrinking because it is dying in the war. All the other people just keep quiet so they won't be touched. They are just waiting for the result or trying to avoid conscription.
In Russia, the military profession is a common job. Honorable, of course, but also dangerous. In this sense, professional losses can be easily compensated. Moreover, the losses of Russians are lower than those of Ukrainians. The level of education in Russia is now higher than in Ukraine, and salaries in the army are very high. Therefore, public opinion in Ukraine is rapidly changing - supporters of the war are quickly dying at the front. In Russia, the opposite is true. Moreover, the military machine is only gaining momentum.
I agree with just about everything you say here, right up until the final paragraph. I just can’t see China bothering to entangle itself in Europe, the latter having been reduced to little more than a combination theme park and retirement home for wealthy Americans and Asians …
Good analysis, the path is uncertain. One thing that needs to be accounted for is the Ukrainian people themselves. Zelensky was elected on the platform of peace, yet peace did not prevail. It seems like people are not happy with street kidnappings and probably won't be happy that 6,000 bodies aren't coming home. How much discontent is there with the Ukrainians that are left? I know that Putin said he wouldn't take out Zelensky. but maybe that's his best option. Ukraine tried to drone his helicopter after all.
We are indeed heading toward a festering state of permanent conflict.
In my opinion, it confirms one more time that when European leaders have chosen the path of worsening the crisis after 2014 rather than applying their power to appeasement and sincere negotiations between the parties on issues that should never have been seen as existential for Europe, they made one of the biggest strategic mistakes in its history. Thus I believe the conclusion that will remain is that early 21st century Europe had only short-sighted politicians instead of the statesmen it most needed...
> So any agreements of this kind will have to be non-binding political declarations. One way out, which is what I would recommend if it were my job, would be a bland sentence in the next Summit Declaration, something like “We discussed the possibly of future expansion of the Alliance, and concluded that in the current circumstances, our efforts are best concentrated on more pressing issues.” Whether the Russians would buy that formulation even as a basis for possible de-escalation I don’t know, but in the end it may be all they are going to get.
> Which is not necessarily a disaster, so long as the two sides have essentially the same understanding of the situation. The West would need to accept that the game is over, and that pragmatically there will be no more expansion, and no stationing of foreign forces in Ukraine. The Russians will have to accept that there will be some rough edges, and that perhaps some foreign “advisers” and visitors will be there from time to time.
No and no. It's already been tried back in the 1991 with Gorbachev, "not a step to the East" or some such. It's literally what Putin and Russians believe now - that they trusted the assurances and it only took what? Five years to go ahead and ignore them (basically the next US administration or one after that) and expand. For the agreements and declarations to happen, Putin needs to make a 180 which won't fly domestically for obvious reasons. Not to mention that privately Gorbachev is akin to a traitor nowadays. Not to mention Minsc 1 and 2, and later admissions it was all BS to regroup from Euro/Ukr leaders.
TBH, there is a recurring problem in your essays on Ukraine. Russia does not trust the West but they'll have to return to diplomacy at some point... which they stated numerous times already that is pointless because there's no trust and that the West is "non-agreement-capable". So either they are all lying and this is just rhetoric and they will do it (heavily risking repeating the same mistake of the past 30+ years), or you're ignoring this base assumption in your reasoning.
> The risk is that after the war, a resentful and heavily-armed Russia may be drawn into over-insurance by internal political pressures, and by taking seriously the continued belligerent squeaks from the West.
> After all, they might say, Germany in 1931 was effectively disarmed: a decade later they were at the gates of Moscow. OK, they are weak at the moment, but in five years? Ten? Fifteen? Could they attack us again? How confident are you that this will never happen?
It was already stated by the Russian security guy, what was his name, Naryshkin? "We are preparing for war with Europe in 10 years". Take that as you will but I'm pretty sure the Russians are preparing.
Very good , lots of possbilities described in detail and compared to the past.
Ultimately i think its fair to say that no country in the world would accept its borders being surrounded by some other joint foreign force.
Those who want Ukraine to join NATO are basically saying that Russia should accept such joint foreign forces surrounding it.
Personally i think it does not make sense especially if that joing foreign force ( NATO ) will not allow Russia to join it.
You see if Russia was a member of NATO it would not worry about other NATO forces surrounding it.
But lets cut to the chase here , the WEST does not want an expanded NATO for defence purposes , it is not interested in getting Ukraine to join NATO in order to become secure and protected from Russia , the WEST wants to control Russia and its riches and it has constructed this situation where Ukraine was invited to join NATO and Russia refused membership of NATO so that the WEST could surround Russia , weaken Russia,s world trade by blocking trade routes through the mediterranean and then at a suitable time , attack Russia.
It is the USA that drives and steers this plot , so far the USA has gained by selling more weapons to Ukraine and the EU
Lets get something straight here they dont give weapons to Ukraine for free.
USA has also gained from selling their oil and gas to the EU after they destroyed the pipeline that brought cheaper gas from Russia to EU.
USA has also gained by reducing trade between Russia and the EU which is all part of the maga ploy to attack and weaken the trade of other countries , the main competitors of USA are seen as enemies of USA make no mistake about that , trade war turns to real military war.
China is next.
As for what happens after Ukraine is defeated , the Russians will decide that but as many of those in Ukraine are of Russian decent or speak Russian i think it is very likely that a Ukraine government that avoids threatening Russia will be get power , possibly in the same way that a Ukraine government that threatened Russia got power the difference being that Russia will finance the installation of the new government wheras it was the USA that financed the installation of the current Ukraine government.
It doesn't seem to matter in the US. The majority of the population has been against the Ukraine war for at least two years, we elect someone who says they're going to end the war (which we assume means they stop embezzling our tax dollars, calling it support for Ukraine), he gets into office and continues to permit intel sharing and weapons deliveries.
He was largely elected because the people want a government that cares about them and it was so clear the Biden regime completely disregarded public opinion on everything. EVERYTHING.
What do the western Ukrainian people want? Or does that not matter either? I cannot imagine there's majority support to continue the war. Am I being naive? I'm also unable to fathom a majority of western Ukraine supporting the Banderites now- but that could be totally wrong. I underestimated Israeli public support for genociding Palestinians until it became apparent that there *IS* majority support for that.
So, maybe there's more western Ukrainians who will tolerate the material destruction of Ukraine, especially so long as Russia doesn't attack their communities. But I have a hard time believing that people in the war zones want more war.
Maybe I've just talked myself into the need for Russia to continue pushing west, west, all the way west.
It's just striking how Western public opinion does not matter to their governments. Isn't it only the German public that want this insanity to continue? I thought majority opinion in Britain and France opposed military involvement in Ukraine. But public opinion doesn't matter. See French protests against raising retirement age as a powerful example.
Public opinion, even if it's nearly completely in a given direction, still tends to be quite weakly held or expressed. Quite some time ago, the powers that be discovered that they could ignore it at almost no peril so long as they provided distracting entertainment like Netflix and television sports.
Democracy, as a practical matter, is basically an exercise in passing the buck, in avoiding responsibility. Everyone in power claims to answer to and derive their authority from someone else, going ultimately back to "the people" who themselves do not directly exercise power, and who would find it difficult to exercise as a collective action problem, even if they had the formal authority to do so. The technical term for this is a "beard".
What this means is that real power is often in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, who typically don't even want to stand for election because they don't want the voters to know what their programs are, much less to exercise any oversight. Robert Moses is the classic example here.
Even that minimal level of scrutiny is too much for some, and real power is often exercised by people not formally part of any government structure. Corporate lobbyists or Robert Kagan come to mind.
Feral, I understand the points you made but hoped that there was some history of people forcing government action when pushed rapidly into poverty- once they can't afford food or housing. But the comments here remind me to think practically. Homelessness and hunger wouldn't provoke a movement against government. We'd be too busy and tired just trying to survive.
Public opinion is malleable (the majority of people in Ukraine began to support the independence of Ukraine once Ukraine became independent, but before that the majority supported staying in the Soviet Union) and easy to dismiss (Bolsheviks did not enjoy majority support when they seized power, overwhelmingly lost the heavily manipulated election held under their power and probably did not win the loyalty of the population at large until a few decades later; this did little to stop them; Ukraine's nationalists are or were even more isolated in society circa 2014, but that did not keep them from wielding disproportionate influence).
What matters in those situations is the readiness of a much smaller group of people to kill or die. Insofar as the security apparatus is willing to fight for the government and no real alternative to it exists, only the opinion of the ruling elites has decisive importance. If alternatives (NOT the public at large, but, say, a vanguard party or a paramilitary force in the capital) exist, and/or if the security apparatus is no longer so willing, then things become more complicated. Public opinion might indirectly affect those things, so I suppose it matters to that extent, but by itself it does nothing; and revolutions often have only the loosest connection to actual nationwide public opinion, which is typically only reconstructed after the fact, and then faultily.
Sad (I am no worshipper of democracy, but I think the public of any country can hardly be worse than its elite when it comes to questions of war and peace, if it were ever allowed to consider them properly), but true.
It's pretty easy to understand that the author doesn't speak Russian and doesn't watch Russian television. If he had been watching, he would have changed the accents. On Monday, a leading Russian journalist and TV presenter with Kremlin connections shouted from the TV screen in a way I had never heard in my life. Moreover, he clearly said that these terrorist attacks were clearly organized not by Americans, but by the British. Solid nuclear ash. Literally nuclear ashes.
Then he gave the floor to the leading weather forecaster, who said that at the moment the wind rose was pointing towards Moscow and it was necessary to wait for the wind to change to European. I couldn't help laughing, and I think everyone in Moscow was laughing.
That is funny, but I'm not sure public opinion really matters much more here than it does over there... (And I might add, a lot of Russian people not in Moscow might laugh at the idea of that wind blowing on Moscow, just so long as it stops there. Москва, по ком звонят твои колокола...)
Or is it the Kremlin connections that are significant in this case? But I think the Kremlin is fond of having certain individuals make various scary noises in public on its behalf. They're not a reliable guide to policy, though they may be a way of gauging the public mood to whatever extent Putin does care about that.
Russia can keep Odessa occupied but dangling it out there for Ukraine and the West as a prize for good behaviour. Also can concentrate on the western border of Ukraine to stop Ukraine from being supplied with problematic equipment.
And the west, if it is to be half credible, will have to return the stolen money to Russia, with the interest. But that is a tall order. The US hasn't bothered to return so far the stolen Russian diplomatic buildings in the US...
One thing I noticed during the war in Iraq (the W version) as well as Afghanistan was that what passed for "strategy" was that the other side should be so completely defeated and prostrate that we can do whatever we might decide that we want to do after we win. Or, in other words, nobody knew what they wanted to do exactly, other than something might come up after they win.
So "winning" was paramountly important, because that was seen as the key to everything, but that "win" had to be so comprehensive that it didn't matter what the aims were.
Needless to say that this is ludicrous: you can never win THAT comprehensively, except possibly at unspeakable cost to yourself. If you don't even know what it is that you want, how can you justify such cost? This, then, leads to a dangerous mix of cowardice, delusion, and hypocrisy It makes sense only to pick fights with people whom you (think you) can defeat conprehensively, or somehow convince yourself that you can defeat your adversary comprehensively. If you wind up in a fight with an adversary that you cannot defeat comprehensively (ie almost every time), you wind up giving up everything and go home or sulk aimlessly (or both.)
What the West learned from Iraq was that nation-building is expensive, hard and thankless. Breaking things is relatively cheap and easy and gets the desired results.
Libya and Syria come to mind. For that matter, the West sees the Iraq adventure as on balance successful, as that country was turned into a failed state.
Nation building when the goal is both a neo-liberal extractive territory and a weaponized dagger aimed at its independent neighbors is exceedingly difficult. Nation building when you seek economic development along with respect for tradition is much easier.
And even with countries once thought to be pushovers the West, and particularly the US, have been proven wrong repeatedly - Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan just to name a few.
Good article.
Recognises the reality that Russia (not just the West) has some very tricky dilemmas to resolve. Military “victory” in Ukraine could prove to be a Pyrrhic one. The Neo Con plan to destabilise Russia via Ukraine was in their own terms possibly a brilliant one! Albeit not one I support. Of course, it came with its own unintended adverse effects for the US that have not yet played out in full either. However, there is a tendency for some people to think in a bipolar way: the West incompetent and evil; Russia / Putin masterful and victims. Many people then think the exact opposite too. Reality is more nuanced.
The Algeria example is also interesting. I still believe that Trump’s least bad option would have been a full pull out from Ukraine back in January at the height of presidential power rather than the current drawn out and bogged down process that will go nowhere. It would have had immediate disruptive consequences but arguably far less bad outcomes than we will see from how things are now playing out. However, the moment for that has gone. His power is waning and as the mid terms get closer I suspect it will wane still further. This is now his war. He is not De Gaulle.
Trump is weak, stupid and easily manipulated.
Appreciate the thoughtful discussion—and I agree, nuance is key. But there’s still a core asymmetry in Aurelien’s framing that should be addressed.
Russia isn’t stumbling into a post-victory quagmire. It has spent over a decade preparing—not for Ukraine, but for NATO and the EU. This includes:
Deep military defense build-up
Diversified alliances (BRICS+, CSTO, OPEC+)
Eastward energy realignment
Sanctions-proof economic restructuring
This is strategic foresight, not improvisation.
Also worth noting:
Western powers acting on memory (WWII, 9/11, Cold War) = "realism"
Russia acting on memory (1812, 1941, 1999, 2014) = "resentment"
That’s a double standard. Russia doesn’t see trauma—it sees a pattern of repeated Western attempts to breach its borders and extract its resources.
RAND and CEPA have openly discussed breaking up Russia and accessing its natural wealth. That’s not democracy. It’s resource imperialism.
So if Russia looks “rigid” or “defiant,” it’s not emotional—it’s strategic. Ukraine was never the endgame. It’s Phase One of a civilizational standoff.
That’s not fear. That’s sovereignty.
This is a valid analysis, but I make the argument that Russia's invasion *still* cannot be considered "rational" here: https://jakehpark.substack.com/i/166578628/hauntology
Essentially, I present the case that *both* sides are acting in response to historical trauma and anachronistic ideology, and that entering the war could be considered a form of self-harm.
As an Austrian, albeit not living there since 2006, I can assure you there is a country that is neutral AND disarmed.
The Ukrainian attack on the Russian long-range bomber fleet was presumably too late to have any effect on your essay. However, it shows that your hypothetical scenario with drones launched from cargo ships in the Black Sea is a very real possibility. Particularly under the assumption that a Ukrainian government would want to pull a France 1870, such attacks could continue, would legally not be terrorism but acts of war and would be celebrated as heroic resistance of brave Ukrainians (a.k.a. unsuspecting Kazakh lorry drivers) in the western press.
Also referring to this attack, whatever misgivings one might have with the Biden administration, at least they seem to have had the good sense to tell the Ukrainians off, after the attack on a Russian early-warning radar that had f-all to do with the war effort. I am not sure that the Trump administration is intellectually capable to understand the danger of such attacks on strategic assets and the unquestioning acceptance of Ukrainian claims of success doesn't make me optimistic that it does not end up with egging them on.
I think the only way the Russians have, to have permanent peace on their western front, apart from outright genocide, would be to make it clear to the Ukrainians that to the average westerner not only they themselves are "orcs" (a.k.a. "slawische Untermenschen") but also the Ukrainians. However, that is about as easy as explaining to someone who is about to send money to the proverbial "Nigerian prince" that he is scammed. That usually ends up with that person wanting to believe into the scam and being angry with the one trying to explain.
Appreciate the thoughtful discussion—and I agree, nuance is key. But there’s still a core asymmetry in Aurelien’s framing that should be addressed.
Russia isn’t stumbling into a post-victory quagmire. It has spent over a decade preparing—not for Ukraine, but for NATO and the EU. This includes:
Deep military defense build-up
Diversified alliances (BRICS+, CSTO, OPEC+)
Eastward energy realignment
Sanctions-proof economic restructuring
This is strategic foresight, not improvisation.
Also worth noting:
Western powers acting on memory (WWII, 9/11, Cold War) = "realism"
Russia acting on memory (1812, 1941, 1999, 2014) = "resentment"
That’s a double standard. Russia doesn’t see trauma—it sees a pattern of repeated Western attempts to breach its borders and extract its resources.
RAND and CEPA have openly discussed breaking up Russia and accessing its natural wealth. That’s not democracy. It’s resource imperialism.
So if Russia looks “rigid” or “defiant,” it’s not emotional—it’s strategic. Ukraine was never the endgame. It’s Phase One of a civilizational standoff.
That’s not fear. That’s sovereignty.
This is written as usual as if national governments or even the EU were 'in charge' of western tactics/strategies. They are not. They are hired help for the elite up to their necks in MIC money who want to sell arms in constant wars around the globe. Plus bankers who desperately need more resources to back their failing financialised economies. Hence 'Ukraine' and the wet dream of Moscow regime change.
These forces are quite happy to conduct terrorist campaigns on an on going basis and drones are manna from heaven for them.
The only option Russia has is to drive to the western boundary of Ukraine so that it at least removes the fig leaf of excuse for terrorist campaigns to be legitimised by a Ukrainian government.
As long as there are evil people in positions of power leverage in US/UK/EU this is never going to end. And the longer it goes on the more likely evil people will pull the levers of power in Moscow and we all face being burned ashes.
Insufficient attention paid to when Ukraine loses, and what this entails.
As I have said before: only the most asinine in Ukraine will still believe that Ukraine was not comprehensively defeated.
Those idiots will join their foreign cousins in Canada and other parts of the West to promulgate the "Ukraine will rise again" narrative, whereas the vast majority of Ukrainians actually in Ukraine - presuming the state continues to exist - will want nothing more than to be left alone to live their lives.
The Russian strategy of attrition is not only of men and material but of belief: belief that Ukraine has any business whatsoever trying to defeat a neighbor that is multiple times bigger and more wealthy and more productive.
There is nothing particularly mysterious about the future of Ukraine. Russians will gradually pass through the whole of Ukraine to the west, as it was back in the 18th and 19th centuries. As a result, the country will unite again, and I hope the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. Putin did not accidentally retell a school history textbook to Tucker. In Russia, everyone thinks about Ukraine the way Putin does. If the West stubbornly ignores that Russians are descended from Rurik, then this is the problem of the West.
In a certain sense, Ukrainian Carthage will be destroyed to the end, but without any Roman genocide. It's hard to say how long it will take, but it's obviously a lot.
And in the continuation of the discussion on the Naked Capitalism website, I will write here, too, as you actively deny the control of British intelligence over Kiev. If British intelligence really does not control the Ukrainian special services, then this is generally a disaster for London. The Ukrainians will gradually drag the British into such a story that all the English smart guys' eyes will pop out. And not from the realization of his failure, but from the high temperature, as in Pompeii. Moreover, there are no volcanoes in England.…
I understand that the last British governments are made up of temporary upstarts. But there must be some smart old gentlemen in London with connections who can bring this simple idea to the top.
I did not see those comments on NC but I think the US controls Ukraine. Britain may play a role but we have not had a true independent foreign policy since Suez. So, at best, Britain’s role in anything like this is as a pure agent of the US. Albeit there is room to influence US policy too but the US is the principal. Without them, we would dare not confront Russia in any way and all Starmer’s bellicosity has been carefully calibrated to say that in different words.
So the Americans will drag London into this whole story with a bad ending. In Moscow, everyone blames the British for the latest attacks.
That may be an appropriate place to put blame. But it is very unlikely (impossible almost) that Britain would do anything significant without US alignment. For Russia, it could make sense though to ignore that and blame Britain alone. Far weaker than the US. If the US then leaves Britain to hang out to dry then that might concentrate some minds and be disruptive for the Trans Atlantic “alliance”. Blaming the US publicly would be far riskier and offer less upside. Starmer can hardly say: “we did this in agreement with the US”, LOL. Would destroy the illusion of great power status that the British government and media cling to.
I now read the comments on NC and strongly believe that the US knows exactly what is going on in Ukraine when it comes to any material military action. It would be far too risky for Zelensky in any case to attack Russia directly if there were a risk of a Trump hissy fit and possible negative reaction. It would have been 100% in the interests of the Ukrainian regime to make sure this operation was “cleared” via whatever joint rules of engagement are in place. If Trump himself was then unaware then that would suggest a major breakdown of the chain of command within the US system. But, I would not want to be the official who failed to ensure that my chain of command was in the loop. Far too much career risk. That chain of command then only ends at the President!
It is true, at two different levels.
One, there is a core of British elite willing to fight Russia, no matter the cost, that is unaware of the danger. It is Britain who is going to be the first target of nuclear weapons.
Two, although deep state US is the principal leader, the same deep state US will not start a nuclear war over Britain.
Of course, because they do not want to believe that the Americans have played them again.
$36 trillion in US federal debt. Similar macro economic tragedy in EU.
The "security" strategy of the US/EU is plunder Russian resources and complete Japan's 1930's plan for China.
US security is colonize the oppsoition.
"The worst example I can think of at the moment, you won’t be surprised to hear, is the western “strategy” towards Russia. Simply put, at the highest level, it doesn’t exist.
* * *
So western strategy towards Russia at the highest level doesn’t exist; or if it does exist, it’s very well hidden. Rather, there’s a soggy consensus over disconnected short-term objectives which all, or most, nations can support, and which amounts to little more than:
Keep the war going somehow.
Stuff happens.
Putin falls from power.
?"
O please. Of course there is a strategy with regard to Russia, however it cannot at this time be said out loud.
NATO will intervene, once the supply of warm live Ukrainian bodies gets low, and the Americans will be dragged in, rather than leave their european catamites to twist in the wind,
See, e.g., WWI, WWII and the War On Libya.
This was ever always only the real plan all along, aided by Russian dithering and indecision.
I just can’t see the US making that kind of commitment. I anticipate them leaving the Europeans holding the bag, just like they have done with the rest of their failed “allies” since at least Suez.
Unlike Suez, the US is the main driver of this policy.
Let me put it another way, if the US did not want to get involved, they need only state plainly and publicly that if the european poodles persist in provoking Russia, the United States will not ride to their rescue.
The US does not say this. It's the dog that did not bark.
The first casualty of any war is always the carefully laid out plan.
RAND Corporation published a report titled "Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground" in 2019. Which has pretty much been the blueprint for the US led western efforts against Russia.
The aim of this (provoked) Russia Ukraine conflict was never a Ukrainian victory. It's ultimate goal was to smash Russia right of the Brzezinki's 'Grand Chessboard' and then go after China to reestablish US led western hegemony.
In hindsight it is easy to see how the key assumptions of think tank land were dead wrong. Russia has proven to be much more resilient and united than anyone in the west assumed. Far worse is how the Global South tacitly approved the Russian SMO in Ukraine and is breaking away from the 'rules based order'.
Meanwhile the European Project is in deep trouble. Today the overriding belief among the European elite is that only Eisen und Blut (Blood and Iron) can unify and save the European Project. The problem here is that the Europeans have neither the Eisen (industries, cheap energy and resources) nor the Blut (a willingness to fight) to wage a victorious war.
The same think tanks that have gotten us into this quagmire are now stating that by 2030 Europe has to be ready to take the war to Russia - which is an impossible time frame. New battle grounds are being prepared in the Black Sea region and in Scandinavia - which is suicidal.
Maybe another great pan European war (or even worse) can still be avoided, maybe not. Regardless those efforts will bankrupt Europe either way. Russia has escalation dominance and the backing of the Global South, a fact which is still ignored in Europe.
Under the current conditions only an outside force can set up and guarantee a new lasting security architecture in Europe. Especially if (or maybe we should say 'when') the EU falls apart.
I wouldn't be surprised if in another ten years or so the terms of such a framework will be dictated by Beijing (rather than the US). Which would mark the historic beginning of the Chinese century.
"Meanwhile the European Project is in deep trouble. Today the overriding belief among the European elite is that only Eisen und Blut (Blood and Iron) can unify and save the European Project. The problem here is that the Europeans have neither the Eisen (industries, cheap energy and resources) nor the Blut (a willingness to fight) to wage a victorious war."
No amount of money will turn europeans, the biggest wimps on the planet, a retirement village for geriatric metrosexuals, into soldiers.
Everyone knows that. The plan is for the Americans to jump in, rather than leave their buttbois hanging out to dry. That plan is proceeding apace.
I expect that plan to fail, but expectations aren’t always reality, eh? 🤷♂️
I expect WWIII.
I agree with Aurelien that with the current objectives, no true victory can be had. What will Russia do with a recalcitrant Ukraine? But with all due respect, I do reject the idea of a bankrupt-falling-apart Europe. The EU is in a transitory state - from semi-democratic conglomerate of semi-independent states to a full blown overarching tyranny. Give it a few years and European civilians will have absolutely no say in anything - not in how they live their lives, not in how their money will be spent, or what the EU government will decide in terms of war or peace. I see all around me (I live in Holland) how both the tyranny and the military state is being built up. Now that the coalition here has fallen again, the unelected prime minister Schoof will have almost unlimited power to do as he pleases (which he did anyway), since he cannot be sent away (because he already has been sent away). This how Rutte operated when his consecutive parliaments fell. It will take another year or so before a new parliament will be installed, and this time people probably vote overwhelmingly Left, because this fallen Right cabinet was such a disappointment. I only have to point at Britain to show what will happen in Holland when it chooses a Labour government. More oppression, more favors for Islam. This will ultimately lead (as in the rest of Europe) to a monster pact between government and Islam, whereby the more draconian tyranny will be implemented under Sharia laws. Meanwhile, the war with Russia will just go on - and the objective is not "destroy Russia", but "implement a military ruled state", in other words: the abolishing of Democracy and the implementation of a new, feudal European state led by Brussels. Don't be fooled by silliness of European politicians. They are just hired clowns who are implementing this agenda.
"Give it a few years and European civilians will have absolutely no say in anything - not in how they live their lives, not in how their money will be spent, or what the EU government will decide in terms of war or peace."
Yes, but this suits the rulers just fine, and they are the only ones who count. Democracy was basically canceled in France and openly canceled in Romania, to barely a peep of protest, and cheers from Brussels.
What will Russia do with a recalcitrant Ukraine?
Ukraine will be the same as it always was in the previous 300 years, when it was part of Russia. There's nothing complicated about it.
Aurelian is right and you are wrong. I speak Russian, spent years in Russia and was just recently in Ukraine. It is pure fantasy to believe that Ukrainians will ever consent to being formally a part of Russia. The alternative is utter carnage that is the forceful occupation and reeducation of Ukraine. Not gonna happen for the reasons Aurelian cited above. On top the ultra Russian nationalist ideology that this would require would blow up Russia herself. Remember that Russia is herself multi ethnic and a hardening of Russian ethnic nationalism would result in rising tension with the minorities. Putin understands that very well and that is why Russian nationalism is tolerated only to a certain degree.
On the other hand Moscow is understandably not prepared to live with an ultra hostile state on its borders. The only possible solution is a change of regime in Kiew that sees somebody take power that has Nationalist credentials but puts Azov et al on a tight leash.
If in Europe - as seems increasingly likely - the regimes in Germany, France and Britain start to teeter than there could be a sea change. The pivotal country is Germany and I foresee big changes within the next two years.
I lived in Ukraine, speak Russian and some Ukrainian. When I lived there (2004-2012), nationalists were seen as freaks and losers. It was the fashion then to denigrate all things western.
What changed everything overnight was that it was made plain that adopting the nationalist ideology was a condition to Ukraine being allowed to join The Club.
For that matter, we saw a similar overnight sea change in Germans, once the Nazi regime took power. Formerly sober, sensible level headed people were ranting slogans and ready to start burning their fellow citizens alive.
I actually live in Moscow, and my maternal ancestors are from Ukraine. My mother was fluent in Ukrainian, she studied it at school. You have the right not to believe me, I don't care. You just have to understand that if a massacre is needed for this, then there will be a massacre. Moreover, the slaughter is already underway. You probably don't know, but thousands of civilians from Russia died in the Kursk region. They are not all even found. For example, a passenger car with a murdered woman at the wheel and an empty child safety seat was found near Suji.
No ultra-Russian ideology is needed for Ukraine's admission to Russia. We need an imperial ideology, which even Chechens perfectly understand. It was the same with Turkey.
You are living in fantasy land. Kadyrov siphons money of Russia and snubs his nose as the FSB. Remember the poor guy who burned a Koran in Volgograd? The Chechens are independent internally and once Kadyrov is gone all bets are off. Same holds for all of the Caucasus. As to Ukrainians: even the people who want to end the war no matter what hate Russians. It is sad, but it is true. Surely Russia might occupy all of Ukraine but there would never be any real peace.
Anyhow Russia is much more like the "decadent" West, than Russians care to admit. I ran an outdoors business in Siberia and Moskovites are just as smartphone addicted as youngsters in Berlin or Paris. The people going to the war in Russia do not out of conviction but because there are huge salaries. It is the poor people from the provinces that do the dying and if there should ever be a guerilla war I don´t see how Russia can prevail.
Russia is European and it is suffering from the same diseases the West is suffering from. Sure you can massacre Ukrainian nationalists but you won´t win the people that way.
Lol) Come on, wake up yourself. Moralizing read to your children
Not sure about need for an overall imperialist ideology, but definitely see your point about pushing on with the war no matter the casualties. Russians must be incredibly frustrated that their government doesn't do things militarily that they're capable of doing. I don’t see any way for Russia to feel safe besides continuing west in Ukraine. And being less discriminate in their missile attacks. I mean, it's ludicrous we in the West STILL hear how Ukraine "pushed the Russians out of Kiev". Western governments live in fantasy land, bombs would at least make the narrative totally empty.
But I also can't believe the Ukrainian people still support this war in the majority. What do you know about Ukrainian public opinion? And I mostly mean the public that initially supported the war.
I will explain what is happening with Ukraine.
The first thing to understand is that modern Ukrainians are big nationalists. They are much more nationalistic than Russians. The nationalists support the entire Ukrainian army. This is an active core that is rapidly shrinking because it is dying in the war. All the other people just keep quiet so they won't be touched. They are just waiting for the result or trying to avoid conscription.
In Russia, the military profession is a common job. Honorable, of course, but also dangerous. In this sense, professional losses can be easily compensated. Moreover, the losses of Russians are lower than those of Ukrainians. The level of education in Russia is now higher than in Ukraine, and salaries in the army are very high. Therefore, public opinion in Ukraine is rapidly changing - supporters of the war are quickly dying at the front. In Russia, the opposite is true. Moreover, the military machine is only gaining momentum.
The Russian leadership needs to read and take to heart Krishna's dialogue with Arjuna concerning the Dharma.
I agree with just about everything you say here, right up until the final paragraph. I just can’t see China bothering to entangle itself in Europe, the latter having been reduced to little more than a combination theme park and retirement home for wealthy Americans and Asians …
Good analysis, the path is uncertain. One thing that needs to be accounted for is the Ukrainian people themselves. Zelensky was elected on the platform of peace, yet peace did not prevail. It seems like people are not happy with street kidnappings and probably won't be happy that 6,000 bodies aren't coming home. How much discontent is there with the Ukrainians that are left? I know that Putin said he wouldn't take out Zelensky. but maybe that's his best option. Ukraine tried to drone his helicopter after all.
Nobody cares what Ukrainians think or want. Nobody in Washington, nobody in Brussels, nobody in Kiev.
You think a farmer cares whether his chickens want to be slaughtered?
Very insightful as always.
We are indeed heading toward a festering state of permanent conflict.
In my opinion, it confirms one more time that when European leaders have chosen the path of worsening the crisis after 2014 rather than applying their power to appeasement and sincere negotiations between the parties on issues that should never have been seen as existential for Europe, they made one of the biggest strategic mistakes in its history. Thus I believe the conclusion that will remain is that early 21st century Europe had only short-sighted politicians instead of the statesmen it most needed...
Europe is ruled by America's catamites.
Hahaha. Yes... But they still can serve more or less obsequiously.
Proof is, they are much more defiant for a few month now. So I guess they could have been so much earlier.
In any case, it is still a strategic disaster for Europe...
A dog fears Master's beatings, but fears abandonment even more.
> So any agreements of this kind will have to be non-binding political declarations. One way out, which is what I would recommend if it were my job, would be a bland sentence in the next Summit Declaration, something like “We discussed the possibly of future expansion of the Alliance, and concluded that in the current circumstances, our efforts are best concentrated on more pressing issues.” Whether the Russians would buy that formulation even as a basis for possible de-escalation I don’t know, but in the end it may be all they are going to get.
> Which is not necessarily a disaster, so long as the two sides have essentially the same understanding of the situation. The West would need to accept that the game is over, and that pragmatically there will be no more expansion, and no stationing of foreign forces in Ukraine. The Russians will have to accept that there will be some rough edges, and that perhaps some foreign “advisers” and visitors will be there from time to time.
No and no. It's already been tried back in the 1991 with Gorbachev, "not a step to the East" or some such. It's literally what Putin and Russians believe now - that they trusted the assurances and it only took what? Five years to go ahead and ignore them (basically the next US administration or one after that) and expand. For the agreements and declarations to happen, Putin needs to make a 180 which won't fly domestically for obvious reasons. Not to mention that privately Gorbachev is akin to a traitor nowadays. Not to mention Minsc 1 and 2, and later admissions it was all BS to regroup from Euro/Ukr leaders.
TBH, there is a recurring problem in your essays on Ukraine. Russia does not trust the West but they'll have to return to diplomacy at some point... which they stated numerous times already that is pointless because there's no trust and that the West is "non-agreement-capable". So either they are all lying and this is just rhetoric and they will do it (heavily risking repeating the same mistake of the past 30+ years), or you're ignoring this base assumption in your reasoning.
> The risk is that after the war, a resentful and heavily-armed Russia may be drawn into over-insurance by internal political pressures, and by taking seriously the continued belligerent squeaks from the West.
> After all, they might say, Germany in 1931 was effectively disarmed: a decade later they were at the gates of Moscow. OK, they are weak at the moment, but in five years? Ten? Fifteen? Could they attack us again? How confident are you that this will never happen?
It was already stated by the Russian security guy, what was his name, Naryshkin? "We are preparing for war with Europe in 10 years". Take that as you will but I'm pretty sure the Russians are preparing.
Very good , lots of possbilities described in detail and compared to the past.
Ultimately i think its fair to say that no country in the world would accept its borders being surrounded by some other joint foreign force.
Those who want Ukraine to join NATO are basically saying that Russia should accept such joint foreign forces surrounding it.
Personally i think it does not make sense especially if that joing foreign force ( NATO ) will not allow Russia to join it.
You see if Russia was a member of NATO it would not worry about other NATO forces surrounding it.
But lets cut to the chase here , the WEST does not want an expanded NATO for defence purposes , it is not interested in getting Ukraine to join NATO in order to become secure and protected from Russia , the WEST wants to control Russia and its riches and it has constructed this situation where Ukraine was invited to join NATO and Russia refused membership of NATO so that the WEST could surround Russia , weaken Russia,s world trade by blocking trade routes through the mediterranean and then at a suitable time , attack Russia.
It is the USA that drives and steers this plot , so far the USA has gained by selling more weapons to Ukraine and the EU
Lets get something straight here they dont give weapons to Ukraine for free.
USA has also gained from selling their oil and gas to the EU after they destroyed the pipeline that brought cheaper gas from Russia to EU.
USA has also gained by reducing trade between Russia and the EU which is all part of the maga ploy to attack and weaken the trade of other countries , the main competitors of USA are seen as enemies of USA make no mistake about that , trade war turns to real military war.
China is next.
As for what happens after Ukraine is defeated , the Russians will decide that but as many of those in Ukraine are of Russian decent or speak Russian i think it is very likely that a Ukraine government that avoids threatening Russia will be get power , possibly in the same way that a Ukraine government that threatened Russia got power the difference being that Russia will finance the installation of the new government wheras it was the USA that financed the installation of the current Ukraine government.
Does public opinion really not matter at all?
It doesn't seem to matter in the US. The majority of the population has been against the Ukraine war for at least two years, we elect someone who says they're going to end the war (which we assume means they stop embezzling our tax dollars, calling it support for Ukraine), he gets into office and continues to permit intel sharing and weapons deliveries.
He was largely elected because the people want a government that cares about them and it was so clear the Biden regime completely disregarded public opinion on everything. EVERYTHING.
What do the western Ukrainian people want? Or does that not matter either? I cannot imagine there's majority support to continue the war. Am I being naive? I'm also unable to fathom a majority of western Ukraine supporting the Banderites now- but that could be totally wrong. I underestimated Israeli public support for genociding Palestinians until it became apparent that there *IS* majority support for that.
So, maybe there's more western Ukrainians who will tolerate the material destruction of Ukraine, especially so long as Russia doesn't attack their communities. But I have a hard time believing that people in the war zones want more war.
Maybe I've just talked myself into the need for Russia to continue pushing west, west, all the way west.
It's just striking how Western public opinion does not matter to their governments. Isn't it only the German public that want this insanity to continue? I thought majority opinion in Britain and France opposed military involvement in Ukraine. But public opinion doesn't matter. See French protests against raising retirement age as a powerful example.
"Does public opinion really not matter at all?"
No.
Public opinion, even if it's nearly completely in a given direction, still tends to be quite weakly held or expressed. Quite some time ago, the powers that be discovered that they could ignore it at almost no peril so long as they provided distracting entertainment like Netflix and television sports.
this is too simple. It might largely not matter. until it does.
Humans are as easily led as sheep or dogs. Goering's words are apropos.
It is a sad fact. Means democracy is only good in theory
Democracy, as a practical matter, is basically an exercise in passing the buck, in avoiding responsibility. Everyone in power claims to answer to and derive their authority from someone else, going ultimately back to "the people" who themselves do not directly exercise power, and who would find it difficult to exercise as a collective action problem, even if they had the formal authority to do so. The technical term for this is a "beard".
What this means is that real power is often in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, who typically don't even want to stand for election because they don't want the voters to know what their programs are, much less to exercise any oversight. Robert Moses is the classic example here.
Even that minimal level of scrutiny is too much for some, and real power is often exercised by people not formally part of any government structure. Corporate lobbyists or Robert Kagan come to mind.
Feral, I understand the points you made but hoped that there was some history of people forcing government action when pushed rapidly into poverty- once they can't afford food or housing. But the comments here remind me to think practically. Homelessness and hunger wouldn't provoke a movement against government. We'd be too busy and tired just trying to survive.
Reminds me of how things are now.
Public opinion is malleable (the majority of people in Ukraine began to support the independence of Ukraine once Ukraine became independent, but before that the majority supported staying in the Soviet Union) and easy to dismiss (Bolsheviks did not enjoy majority support when they seized power, overwhelmingly lost the heavily manipulated election held under their power and probably did not win the loyalty of the population at large until a few decades later; this did little to stop them; Ukraine's nationalists are or were even more isolated in society circa 2014, but that did not keep them from wielding disproportionate influence).
What matters in those situations is the readiness of a much smaller group of people to kill or die. Insofar as the security apparatus is willing to fight for the government and no real alternative to it exists, only the opinion of the ruling elites has decisive importance. If alternatives (NOT the public at large, but, say, a vanguard party or a paramilitary force in the capital) exist, and/or if the security apparatus is no longer so willing, then things become more complicated. Public opinion might indirectly affect those things, so I suppose it matters to that extent, but by itself it does nothing; and revolutions often have only the loosest connection to actual nationwide public opinion, which is typically only reconstructed after the fact, and then faultily.
Sad (I am no worshipper of democracy, but I think the public of any country can hardly be worse than its elite when it comes to questions of war and peace, if it were ever allowed to consider them properly), but true.
It's pretty easy to understand that the author doesn't speak Russian and doesn't watch Russian television. If he had been watching, he would have changed the accents. On Monday, a leading Russian journalist and TV presenter with Kremlin connections shouted from the TV screen in a way I had never heard in my life. Moreover, he clearly said that these terrorist attacks were clearly organized not by Americans, but by the British. Solid nuclear ash. Literally nuclear ashes.
Then he gave the floor to the leading weather forecaster, who said that at the moment the wind rose was pointing towards Moscow and it was necessary to wait for the wind to change to European. I couldn't help laughing, and I think everyone in Moscow was laughing.
That is funny, but I'm not sure public opinion really matters much more here than it does over there... (And I might add, a lot of Russian people not in Moscow might laugh at the idea of that wind blowing on Moscow, just so long as it stops there. Москва, по ком звонят твои колокола...)
Or is it the Kremlin connections that are significant in this case? But I think the Kremlin is fond of having certain individuals make various scary noises in public on its behalf. They're not a reliable guide to policy, though they may be a way of gauging the public mood to whatever extent Putin does care about that.
Russia can keep Odessa occupied but dangling it out there for Ukraine and the West as a prize for good behaviour. Also can concentrate on the western border of Ukraine to stop Ukraine from being supplied with problematic equipment.
And the west, if it is to be half credible, will have to return the stolen money to Russia, with the interest. But that is a tall order. The US hasn't bothered to return so far the stolen Russian diplomatic buildings in the US...
If Russia takes Odessa they would be mad to ever give it up again.