A sterling essay. Enjoyable to read, and hopefully also correct about outcomes. The hypothetical speech you concocted was great. Thoroughly cohesive, and rational sounding (if only by way of being internally consistent), making it easily believable for those who believe easily, and therefore independent of any need for its featured postulates to be true, which as you noted, isn’t essential stuff, and often just a bother to worry over anyway. It was also amusing. When I’m ready to roll out my plans to take over the world, your speech writing talents will come in handy.
I do wonder if another analogy to the current situation in the West can be drawn: Chinese Empire around the time of the Opium War.
The "primacy" of China by the beginning of 19th century was held up, even among its neighbors, more by pretense than reality: when the Chinese armies were beaten rather thoroughly by the Burmese/Myanmarese, the latter still kept up with the old protocols that presumed Chinese primacy because it was not worth the trouble to upset the institutional status quo. Thus, Qianlong Emperor could celebrate his "ten triumphs," counting the Burma/Myanmar campaign among them. This was necessary because whatever happened on China's frontiers could not be shown easily to the imperial court in Beijing. The Chinese emperor was far away and could keep the war going, even if Burmese/Myanmarese could defeat multiple expeditionary armies sent by Beijing. There was no way that China's foes on the frontiers could impose the victory on Beijing itself and force the imperial court to face the consequences directly. So they had to appease the emperor, humor him with ritualistic displays of submission--even if they actually won--so that the conflict would stop.
The British (and the French) were different. They actually had fairly modest aims at the beginning: awe the Chinese enough with their military prowess to resume the trade under favorable terms at Canton. The British were interested in shaping the conditions of the trade in the direction that they liked, but not so much interested in expanding the war (or anything else, really) beyond a sliver of Southern Chinese coastline where they could trade profitably. But the Chinese officials on the scene, both the provincial officials and envoys sent by Beijing, would not play ball: they lied to both their emperor and the British. They pretended to agree with the British demands and reported exact opposite to Beijing. When their interlocutors on both sides tried to follow up, they tried to muddy things up by conjuring up more lies and passing blame to everyone else. Eventually, the British got fed up with their antics and decided that a more aggressive campaign to force Chinese hand was necessary. Except even that wasn't quite enough: Chinese armies that arrived to fight them were badly prepared alright: they built their plans more on presumed deficiencies of the Westerners (mostly conjured out of their imaginings) and, when they broke down, their commanders made up for their failures by lying to their superiors--including claiming great victories that never happened, further confusing the planning of responses by the Chinese government (like what the Ukrainians are doing today). (Now, many of them (Especially Manchu and Mongol troops who formed the Qing Dynasty's "elite" units) did fight hard on the battlefield, but that wasn't exactly enough to make up; for massive deficiencies in technology, training, and organization.) In the end, the British had to march all the way to Beijing to make it plain to the Chinese imperial court that the situation was serious, it could not be muddled away by obfuscation and lies, and that the Chinese Empire had to negotiate seriously.
I see something similar unfolding for the West. The people who came up with the idea of "Ukrainian counteroffensive" seem no more grounded in reality than the Chinese generals during the Opium War. Now, I wonder if Western "leaders" are at the phase where the blame is on the ethnic Han Chinese troops, coupled with the expectation that the Manchus and Mongols, warrior peoples and all, would make short work of the "inherently inferior" Westerners. Admittedly, some Western military commanders, like some of the better Chinese generals in mid-19th century, know full well that their own armies are in horrible shape and their adversaries are capably led, well trained, and enjoy a great deal of technological advantage. But, what'll they do? Contradict their emperor and his advisors? So they might as well try to muddle along by making stuff up and hoping that things will blow over. But such a state of confused deception does not bring what their opposite numbers want and the other side has no reason to let the matter drop. The British in mid 19th century wanted specific terms under which they could trade that were guaranteed (which, they concluded, they had to impose on the emperor himself, after all the bad faith dealings with emperor's servants). The Russians in 2024 want specific and guaranteed terms under which their security could be assured (I assume they will deal only with the emperor in Washington, and possibly, from a position of military superiority like their British predecessors?) . Neither British in 19th century nor Russians in 2024 want "total victories," as they both know they can't afford them and they would welcome a workable "compromise" where they can conserve their resources and still get most of what they want with some assurances. They do not want more war, if a good enough outcome--an outcome with clarity--could be obtained: a long war breeds instability and their military resources are limited. Political aftermath after a military victory would be messy, even if they could achieve one (The British and French had to back up the Qing dynasty militarily at great cost to prevent it from collapsing under the weight of multiple rebellions right after the Second Opium War.). Both are, among other things, short on military resources (the British and later, the French, could call upon only a fairly small colonial army that they could not expect to conquer all of China. Russia does not have enough military resources, certainly not yet and possibly never, that would allow them to roll up all of Europe.) I do think Russians vis-a-vis Western Europe, like the British and French vis-a-vis China, have enough to forcibly show their adversaries that they mean business. Maybe the Russians will duplicate what the British did in 1860 (during the Second Opium War) and burn the Elysee, much the way the British and French did to the Old Summer Palace. Maybe they won't have the choice to do otherwise, for their opposite numbers have a shoddy grip on the reality.
I am not sure that either Macron nor the bloated French bureaucracy are in the same league as their predecessors. Nowadays pretty much anyone in a position of power in Europe is Atlanticist, globalist and neo-liberal because this benefits them personally, rather than benefiting national interests.
The recent loss of Françafrique will have dire consequences for the French Fifth Republic - far more than people realize right now. The plunder from Africa was not only critical to French (state sponsored) enterprises, it provided the French state finances with a safe collateral that was leveraged into the extreme by the Banque de France on the international capital markets.
A hundred years ago France was still a top tier world power, today it isn't even second tier. Macron's attempts to divert attention from internal politics and to create some geopolitical wiggle room will backfire badly. This didn't work when the French occupied Odessa in 1918-1919 and is even more unlikely to work today.
The Élysée does strange things to the people occupying it. Macron has nothing to win but a world to lose. A military adventure in Ukraine will only help to expose that the French emperor has no clothes. Whatever leverage France still has left in the (Francophone) world will vanish in the wake of a French defeat.
The MIC manufacturers have gotten so good at making money on ‘change orders’ they can’t actually make a decent weapons system, look at the F35. Even when working it is out maneuvered by Russian gen 5 aircraft. Not stealth since it has a heat signature slightly smaller the a volcano
Macron seeks to get ahead of the curve. I have seen other arguments that an outcome of this war will be Europe moving away from the U.S. Ultimately. When we all wake up. But this is the first essay I have seen that links Macron’s statements to that. The French have a reputation for being intellectually pure unlike we Anglos who are happy to muddle through. So it makes sense that French decision makers would get to this conclusion first.
We British will be last to get there, I expect. Still clinging to an idol of the alleged but unrequited Special Relationship.
"The alternative view is that we are now helplessly rolling towards World War III, which will begin with “NATO escalation,” and move through all-out conventional war generally in the direction of a nuclear holocaust. Comparisons with 1914 seem to be everywhere at the moment."
You are getting warmer. We are led, not by well-meaning bumblers, but by full-blown sociopaths, who would without hesitation kill 99% of life on earth, if that were the price of dominion over whatever is left, or simply what it took to keep the other guys from getting too strong.
Thank you very much. That is an educative essay for me. Of particular interest for me is the last third, which deals with the probable outcome, starting with your »speech points«. France is the center of that, and I can verify all the points you mentioned about that state, its policies in the past, and the pursuit of its national interests, which — through my own studies — I knew about before. So, thank you again for that. Now, could you write a similar piece on the policies of the German PMC? That would be great! I have an opinion, of course (I am German), but I could not find such an analysis so far. It seems to me there is none. Especially (and sadly, but also a perfect reflection on the state of affairs in this failed nation), there is none written by a German; it seems there are no more geopoliticians here and realpolitik analysts like John Mearsheimer in the US (in fact, Mearsheimer is almost unknown here). So, how about such an essay, dear Aurelien? P.S. I tend to assume that in Germany the ruling elite has totally erased and forgotten the concept of »national interest« and thereby descended into the hell of ideology and ›morality‹, in short: values, the greatest of which is to be a vassal of the US (and the Zionist) »power elite«.
> It’s clear that the US will never again be a major player in European military issues.
I thought this sentence was worth singling out. It might be true. Idk. But it doesn't seem likely that it will be acknowledged publicly and used as a premise for policy making any time soon.
> The sheer unwillingness of those involved in this controversy—on all sides—to just inform themselves about the basics of strategy, military organisation and deployments...
"All sides" would obviously include Russia. But it seems to me a great advantage that Russia has going into this new era is more realistic understanding of the world and even, it seems, taking advantage of their understanding of how weird the Western pols have become. So I suspect that's not what you meant.
It is understood by most under 60yo that politics and journalism are auditions for the real payday working for multi-nationals/oligarchs. It is more than obvious to the under 40s that "their" govts care no more for them than the young men being fed into the war grinder or the young men being imported for slave labour.
Thanks for the enjoyable and educational read and the analysis.
I have a bit of a problem with the last step of the analysis, though.
I can buy the willful ignorance and false beliefs (of Western superiority and Russian weakness) in the Western political classes, leading to a long sequence of foolish counterproductive policy and actions.
My problem is that I see no reason why Russia's continuing advances will (or has already) inevitably ended the Western delusions. The Western politicians continue to repeat false beliefs and continue to invest their credibility (sic), as well as additions to the $100s of billions already burnt in fraud, depopulation of Ukraine, and well over a million dead and severely wounded.
We know from experience that the more lies are repeated, the more they are believed, even by those who repeat them, having known initially that they were lies and distortions.
Data on tests of Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CD) consistency showed that the greater the psychological investment, the more CD is caused and the greater the tendency to reduce it by one or more of 4 classes of coping tactics; the least likely of which is to admit they were foolishly wrong.
The foolish Ideologues, apparently ignorant still ignorant of the fact that Russia outperforms Ukraine in almost every way, reduce their CD by blaming Ukraine, whether focusing on specifics like failure to retreat to defensible lines, to use combined arms effectively, running out of shells, and/or having too few Patriot Systems.
CD theoyr suggest that those deluded Western elites who got their countries into the mess will be more likely to blame the Ukrainians more than their own failures in provided enough training, weapons, guidance.
So why will these same Western Elites suddenly no longer reject cautionary statements about logistical problems, weapons and troop numbers and start to believe that direct NATO action would not beat the Russians? Surely they still believe NATO is stronger and more capable than the Ukrainians. OK, the fearful European vassal States may blame US disengagement to avoid blame, but the CD theory suggests the US will not admit that NATO is not going to confront Russia in Ukraine for fear of losing to a stronger foe.
US politicians from the UniParty have repeatedly opined that the US (alone) can win wars with Russia and China, at the same time... apparently without fear that their audience or questioning "journalists" will be laugh them off the podia. Why will they suddenly find it impossible to continue to believe that the combined might of NATO can easily best Russia in Ukraine?
I'd like to read your scenario of how, in an election year, the US will give up on Ukraine as Russia takes more territory, including Odessa. Can the Biden Administration get out of this CD bind, just by blaming Putin and Trump, as usual? How many times will that work?
This proves that the plebs are not the only Western rabble to have succumbed to the dumbing down after WWII. Say what he will, Santa Klaus has quite a few low-wattage bulbs in his box.
I appreciate this because I hadn’t considered the angle of France jockeying for position within Europe. What seemed nonsensical makes a lot more sense now.
Thank you! A really good analysis of the present. My favourite claim is: “Liberal societies, after all, work by inductive reasoning from arbitrary postulates.”
A sterling essay. Enjoyable to read, and hopefully also correct about outcomes. The hypothetical speech you concocted was great. Thoroughly cohesive, and rational sounding (if only by way of being internally consistent), making it easily believable for those who believe easily, and therefore independent of any need for its featured postulates to be true, which as you noted, isn’t essential stuff, and often just a bother to worry over anyway. It was also amusing. When I’m ready to roll out my plans to take over the world, your speech writing talents will come in handy.
I do wonder if another analogy to the current situation in the West can be drawn: Chinese Empire around the time of the Opium War.
The "primacy" of China by the beginning of 19th century was held up, even among its neighbors, more by pretense than reality: when the Chinese armies were beaten rather thoroughly by the Burmese/Myanmarese, the latter still kept up with the old protocols that presumed Chinese primacy because it was not worth the trouble to upset the institutional status quo. Thus, Qianlong Emperor could celebrate his "ten triumphs," counting the Burma/Myanmar campaign among them. This was necessary because whatever happened on China's frontiers could not be shown easily to the imperial court in Beijing. The Chinese emperor was far away and could keep the war going, even if Burmese/Myanmarese could defeat multiple expeditionary armies sent by Beijing. There was no way that China's foes on the frontiers could impose the victory on Beijing itself and force the imperial court to face the consequences directly. So they had to appease the emperor, humor him with ritualistic displays of submission--even if they actually won--so that the conflict would stop.
The British (and the French) were different. They actually had fairly modest aims at the beginning: awe the Chinese enough with their military prowess to resume the trade under favorable terms at Canton. The British were interested in shaping the conditions of the trade in the direction that they liked, but not so much interested in expanding the war (or anything else, really) beyond a sliver of Southern Chinese coastline where they could trade profitably. But the Chinese officials on the scene, both the provincial officials and envoys sent by Beijing, would not play ball: they lied to both their emperor and the British. They pretended to agree with the British demands and reported exact opposite to Beijing. When their interlocutors on both sides tried to follow up, they tried to muddy things up by conjuring up more lies and passing blame to everyone else. Eventually, the British got fed up with their antics and decided that a more aggressive campaign to force Chinese hand was necessary. Except even that wasn't quite enough: Chinese armies that arrived to fight them were badly prepared alright: they built their plans more on presumed deficiencies of the Westerners (mostly conjured out of their imaginings) and, when they broke down, their commanders made up for their failures by lying to their superiors--including claiming great victories that never happened, further confusing the planning of responses by the Chinese government (like what the Ukrainians are doing today). (Now, many of them (Especially Manchu and Mongol troops who formed the Qing Dynasty's "elite" units) did fight hard on the battlefield, but that wasn't exactly enough to make up; for massive deficiencies in technology, training, and organization.) In the end, the British had to march all the way to Beijing to make it plain to the Chinese imperial court that the situation was serious, it could not be muddled away by obfuscation and lies, and that the Chinese Empire had to negotiate seriously.
I see something similar unfolding for the West. The people who came up with the idea of "Ukrainian counteroffensive" seem no more grounded in reality than the Chinese generals during the Opium War. Now, I wonder if Western "leaders" are at the phase where the blame is on the ethnic Han Chinese troops, coupled with the expectation that the Manchus and Mongols, warrior peoples and all, would make short work of the "inherently inferior" Westerners. Admittedly, some Western military commanders, like some of the better Chinese generals in mid-19th century, know full well that their own armies are in horrible shape and their adversaries are capably led, well trained, and enjoy a great deal of technological advantage. But, what'll they do? Contradict their emperor and his advisors? So they might as well try to muddle along by making stuff up and hoping that things will blow over. But such a state of confused deception does not bring what their opposite numbers want and the other side has no reason to let the matter drop. The British in mid 19th century wanted specific terms under which they could trade that were guaranteed (which, they concluded, they had to impose on the emperor himself, after all the bad faith dealings with emperor's servants). The Russians in 2024 want specific and guaranteed terms under which their security could be assured (I assume they will deal only with the emperor in Washington, and possibly, from a position of military superiority like their British predecessors?) . Neither British in 19th century nor Russians in 2024 want "total victories," as they both know they can't afford them and they would welcome a workable "compromise" where they can conserve their resources and still get most of what they want with some assurances. They do not want more war, if a good enough outcome--an outcome with clarity--could be obtained: a long war breeds instability and their military resources are limited. Political aftermath after a military victory would be messy, even if they could achieve one (The British and French had to back up the Qing dynasty militarily at great cost to prevent it from collapsing under the weight of multiple rebellions right after the Second Opium War.). Both are, among other things, short on military resources (the British and later, the French, could call upon only a fairly small colonial army that they could not expect to conquer all of China. Russia does not have enough military resources, certainly not yet and possibly never, that would allow them to roll up all of Europe.) I do think Russians vis-a-vis Western Europe, like the British and French vis-a-vis China, have enough to forcibly show their adversaries that they mean business. Maybe the Russians will duplicate what the British did in 1860 (during the Second Opium War) and burn the Elysee, much the way the British and French did to the Old Summer Palace. Maybe they won't have the choice to do otherwise, for their opposite numbers have a shoddy grip on the reality.
An insightful essay.
I am not sure that either Macron nor the bloated French bureaucracy are in the same league as their predecessors. Nowadays pretty much anyone in a position of power in Europe is Atlanticist, globalist and neo-liberal because this benefits them personally, rather than benefiting national interests.
The recent loss of Françafrique will have dire consequences for the French Fifth Republic - far more than people realize right now. The plunder from Africa was not only critical to French (state sponsored) enterprises, it provided the French state finances with a safe collateral that was leveraged into the extreme by the Banque de France on the international capital markets.
A hundred years ago France was still a top tier world power, today it isn't even second tier. Macron's attempts to divert attention from internal politics and to create some geopolitical wiggle room will backfire badly. This didn't work when the French occupied Odessa in 1918-1919 and is even more unlikely to work today.
The Élysée does strange things to the people occupying it. Macron has nothing to win but a world to lose. A military adventure in Ukraine will only help to expose that the French emperor has no clothes. Whatever leverage France still has left in the (Francophone) world will vanish in the wake of a French defeat.
The MIC manufacturers have gotten so good at making money on ‘change orders’ they can’t actually make a decent weapons system, look at the F35. Even when working it is out maneuvered by Russian gen 5 aircraft. Not stealth since it has a heat signature slightly smaller the a volcano
Very well argued.
Macron seeks to get ahead of the curve. I have seen other arguments that an outcome of this war will be Europe moving away from the U.S. Ultimately. When we all wake up. But this is the first essay I have seen that links Macron’s statements to that. The French have a reputation for being intellectually pure unlike we Anglos who are happy to muddle through. So it makes sense that French decision makers would get to this conclusion first.
We British will be last to get there, I expect. Still clinging to an idol of the alleged but unrequited Special Relationship.
"The alternative view is that we are now helplessly rolling towards World War III, which will begin with “NATO escalation,” and move through all-out conventional war generally in the direction of a nuclear holocaust. Comparisons with 1914 seem to be everywhere at the moment."
You are getting warmer. We are led, not by well-meaning bumblers, but by full-blown sociopaths, who would without hesitation kill 99% of life on earth, if that were the price of dominion over whatever is left, or simply what it took to keep the other guys from getting too strong.
https://www.compactmag.com/article/why-europe-sacrificed-ukraine/
Never let a crisis go to waste. There are agendas at play here, but we can just catch glimpes of them.
Thank you very much. That is an educative essay for me. Of particular interest for me is the last third, which deals with the probable outcome, starting with your »speech points«. France is the center of that, and I can verify all the points you mentioned about that state, its policies in the past, and the pursuit of its national interests, which — through my own studies — I knew about before. So, thank you again for that. Now, could you write a similar piece on the policies of the German PMC? That would be great! I have an opinion, of course (I am German), but I could not find such an analysis so far. It seems to me there is none. Especially (and sadly, but also a perfect reflection on the state of affairs in this failed nation), there is none written by a German; it seems there are no more geopoliticians here and realpolitik analysts like John Mearsheimer in the US (in fact, Mearsheimer is almost unknown here). So, how about such an essay, dear Aurelien? P.S. I tend to assume that in Germany the ruling elite has totally erased and forgotten the concept of »national interest« and thereby descended into the hell of ideology and ›morality‹, in short: values, the greatest of which is to be a vassal of the US (and the Zionist) »power elite«.
> It’s clear that the US will never again be a major player in European military issues.
I thought this sentence was worth singling out. It might be true. Idk. But it doesn't seem likely that it will be acknowledged publicly and used as a premise for policy making any time soon.
It also seems to imply the end of Nato.
> The sheer unwillingness of those involved in this controversy—on all sides—to just inform themselves about the basics of strategy, military organisation and deployments...
"All sides" would obviously include Russia. But it seems to me a great advantage that Russia has going into this new era is more realistic understanding of the world and even, it seems, taking advantage of their understanding of how weird the Western pols have become. So I suspect that's not what you meant.
This is not an original thought but I have to repeat it without attribution as I can’t remember who said it (Zero Hedge circa 2014?)
The Russians get the military equipment that keeps Russia safe. The U.S. gets the military equipment that keeps the Military Industrial Complex rich.
It’s even worse now since the military has gone woke (transgender surgery on demand, forced vaccinations, pregnant person flight suits for F35 combat)
It is understood by most under 60yo that politics and journalism are auditions for the real payday working for multi-nationals/oligarchs. It is more than obvious to the under 40s that "their" govts care no more for them than the young men being fed into the war grinder or the young men being imported for slave labour.
Thanks for the enjoyable and educational read and the analysis.
I have a bit of a problem with the last step of the analysis, though.
I can buy the willful ignorance and false beliefs (of Western superiority and Russian weakness) in the Western political classes, leading to a long sequence of foolish counterproductive policy and actions.
My problem is that I see no reason why Russia's continuing advances will (or has already) inevitably ended the Western delusions. The Western politicians continue to repeat false beliefs and continue to invest their credibility (sic), as well as additions to the $100s of billions already burnt in fraud, depopulation of Ukraine, and well over a million dead and severely wounded.
We know from experience that the more lies are repeated, the more they are believed, even by those who repeat them, having known initially that they were lies and distortions.
Data on tests of Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CD) consistency showed that the greater the psychological investment, the more CD is caused and the greater the tendency to reduce it by one or more of 4 classes of coping tactics; the least likely of which is to admit they were foolishly wrong.
The foolish Ideologues, apparently ignorant still ignorant of the fact that Russia outperforms Ukraine in almost every way, reduce their CD by blaming Ukraine, whether focusing on specifics like failure to retreat to defensible lines, to use combined arms effectively, running out of shells, and/or having too few Patriot Systems.
CD theoyr suggest that those deluded Western elites who got their countries into the mess will be more likely to blame the Ukrainians more than their own failures in provided enough training, weapons, guidance.
So why will these same Western Elites suddenly no longer reject cautionary statements about logistical problems, weapons and troop numbers and start to believe that direct NATO action would not beat the Russians? Surely they still believe NATO is stronger and more capable than the Ukrainians. OK, the fearful European vassal States may blame US disengagement to avoid blame, but the CD theory suggests the US will not admit that NATO is not going to confront Russia in Ukraine for fear of losing to a stronger foe.
US politicians from the UniParty have repeatedly opined that the US (alone) can win wars with Russia and China, at the same time... apparently without fear that their audience or questioning "journalists" will be laugh them off the podia. Why will they suddenly find it impossible to continue to believe that the combined might of NATO can easily best Russia in Ukraine?
I'd like to read your scenario of how, in an election year, the US will give up on Ukraine as Russia takes more territory, including Odessa. Can the Biden Administration get out of this CD bind, just by blaming Putin and Trump, as usual? How many times will that work?
This proves that the plebs are not the only Western rabble to have succumbed to the dumbing down after WWII. Say what he will, Santa Klaus has quite a few low-wattage bulbs in his box.
I appreciate this because I hadn’t considered the angle of France jockeying for position within Europe. What seemed nonsensical makes a lot more sense now.
Thank you! A really good analysis of the present. My favourite claim is: “Liberal societies, after all, work by inductive reasoning from arbitrary postulates.”