"Oh, there were a few people with fantasies of rolling towards the Russian frontier, but they weren’t influential."
Those people are in the driver's seat now, and Russian dithering and indecision have them licking their chops. Stop kidding yourself. NATO will only escalate, until the Americans are forced to intervene, trapped by Trump's own fool mouth and the abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy.
The history of American involvement in WWI, the first time that europeans called on the United States to fight their wars for them, is most instructive.
Trump may be reluctant. It doesn't matter. The missiles still will fly just the same. The war will be unpopular. It doesn't matter. Nobody cares what the masses want.
Before 1917, we also heard that the Americans could not and would not fight, for a variety of reasons. Similarly, it beggars belief that if NATO truly were out of everything from cheese curds to cat treats, that nobody in the Pentagon, nobody in Whitehall, nobody in Hexagone Balard could not recognize this and take the politicians aside and tell them that they need to stop running their yaps. And the generals, being glorified politicians, are very good at getting the message out, if the politicians won't or don't listen.
Admittedly, Epstein is the wild card.
"This can't be happening, can it? But it is". It will happen. We hear this before every escalation, that it is reckless, that it is unpopular, that it is costly, that it is likely to end in WWIII. All true. But NATO smells blood. Every time, the escalations happen just the same.
Did I miss it or did Aurelien omit the money incentives to playing along? All this idiocy and empty words are motivated by embezzling taxpayer funds. American leaders do what Money tells them to do. Then enter Aurelien's description of their behavior. But the behavior and dumbassery follow from the money. Do you agree? Note I'm sure they're also mentally slow, and wanting to "fit in" to keep their position, but ultimately isn't Money the reason why Trump didn't shut Ukraine down? Or the most likely reason? He was bought off!
You seem to have a death wish. It's not healthy, even if you probably justify it as being 'realistic'. There's more to life than 'realism', and you should investigate.
It's not psychoanalysis - it is an urge to consider the more spiritual aspects of life. If you are a convinced materialist, then probably this will mean nothing to you, but if you are not - more research required. In fact, there are very profound problems with the philosophical implications of materialism, and thus again, more research required.
When one pathway dominates, the field’s imagination of what is possible (in terms of actions and policies) atrophies.
Dissent isn’t debated. It is rendered invisible and only actively excluded if it becomes too visible and loud. Such a hegemonic system, operating on a smaller scale among political elites, functions like a theological seminary, where deviation marks heresy and compliance brings canonization.
You can deal with spirituality being materialist, there is no opposition between, except in a false dilemma. Maybe you enjoy the reading of Santayana or the lessons given by the Buddha or Spinoza.
I've read some authors and people that are critical with materialism, but they usually made an strawman of it (I don't say it's your case, I mentioned as general point), like, to be fair, is done of spirituality by many materialists guys.
Consider the possibility that your analytical framework, while quite useful and which worked in predicting the past, may not always work. The world is quite non-linear.
Finster: I’m not sure how we can say Russia has dithered or is indecisive. On the contrary - it seems to me that Russia has applied itself from 2014, to the task of eliminating the Ukrainian/NATO threat to its existence as a sovereign state, with focus, creativity, adaptability, and energy. Where are we now? Russia is immeasurably stronger (from a 2024 baseline) militarily, industrially, economically, politically, socially. It’s taken on the hegemon, and knows it’s going to win. It has rock solid strategic allies in China, N Korea, and Iran; also massive support outside the G7 vassals. Where is the west by comparison? I live in it, and to me it has the feel of a dead man walking. All the metrics point down, and our elites, and their avatars in politics are in complete denial. Good call from Russia in taking their time - a) not to frighten the horses, b) let the west weaken itself over time. At some point The Empire will have to make a decision……. slink away, or start a nuclear war.
That the war is continuing while NATO missiles hitting Russia with total impunity is evidence enough of indecision. Not to mention that NATO has been emboldened since 2022. Pretend that Russian missiles were to hit any US target. There would be a decisive and unmistakable response.
But when have NATO missiles hit Russia with impunity, let alone total impunity? What is the current count on the use of HIMAAR, Taurus or Storm Shadow? I honestly haven't read any reports of their use against targets inside pre-2022 Russia for quite some time.
Not saying they haven't or don't want to, just don't recall any recent occurrences.
The United States has shown the alternative. Had Russia used adequate force from the outset, the point would be moot.
Anyway, perhaps you recall missile and drone attacks on Russian airbases a couple of months ago? Those were not done by Ukrainians acting without NATO assistance.
I recall drones, yes. Not missiles in the airbase attacks. And if there were missiles, no reports I've seen have said what exact models/versions of missiles were used.
This was followed by heavy Russian missile attacks on Ukraine, including Western Ukraine and NATO assets. Of course we won't be hearing about any NATO casualties here in the collective waste media. Perhaps some of the recent "events" like mass shootings on US military bases could be cover for the deaths in Ukraine?
Regardless what models were used, the attacks happened.
And the idea that NATO has suffered significant human losses in Ukraine is more cope, since we're not seeing the things we'd see if such losses were real, the large numbers of war invalids, the veterans with garish tales, the dozens of wives, girlfriends and mothers who are unable to get answers as to where Johnny went, nobody has heard from him in minths. The Soviet Union was unable to conceal relatively light losses in Afghanistan, and they had the KGB and total censorship.
But what is the alternative, but to endure……. Myself I would love to see Russian missile strikes on Rammstein, but apart from making us all feel good, how would that help win the war? Russias restraint is frustrating, but the best response to Empire provocations is surely to win decisively, and push The Empire irrevocably to crushing defeat.
About the NATO decision making process: Anatol Lieven once mentioned that when Georgia was supposed to become a NATO member, shortly before the war, he asked one of his contacts in the NATO headquarter what the plan was in case Georgia got into a conflict with Russia. The answer was that nobody ever mentioned this possibility. Because if anyone had brought this up this person would have been regarded as being against NATO-expansion, which would result in him being sent home and kissing his career goodbye.
“Historians are starting to look through the files of western governments from the early 90s, and find to their surprise that there was very little interest in, or discussion of, NATO expansion.”
If that is your explanation of the advance of NATO, then you have an implied obligation to provide an explanation of how this expansion actually took place. A fit of absence-mindedness? I don’t think so.
As for the rest, your descriptions have the ring of truth. But the important questions are ‘How did we get here’ and how do we get to somewhere more advantageous to the general population’? “(Yes, once were statesmen, but that’s a long time ago.)” - where did these statesmen come from, and why are they ‘no more’? - My guess is that now most politicians are just salesmen, and are profoundly self-interested and even more profoundly ‘not serious’ about public service, while many of those who fought in the ‘World Wars’ had a different view on the seriousness of life.
“Now you may uncomfortably feel that something is missing from the list”. Yes, but it’s not the ‘outside world’ - it’s the lack of any moral position, which is replaced by the acceptance of ‘Machiavellianism’ and ‘expediency’ as a norm. This is (or at least should be) unacceptable. I imagine that the reply would be that ‘morality’ has no place in politics, but then one has to ask ‘why’? If morality is good enough for judging ordinary social conduct, then why the restriction?
Lastly “the Russians, over-interpreting things as usual, will probably freak out.” - as would any polity which has the interests of its citizens at heart, and given the history of Russia over the past 400 odd years, (attempted invasions by Sweden, France Britain+France, Britain+France+USA, Germany [twice] and NATO) who could blame them?
Left out a few things related to JAPAN on the list of Russian invasions:
Attempted (and somewhat successful) invasion of Russian Empire by Japan (1905) then ridiculously by Japan + Britain + France + USA (1918 - 1922!), then Japan tried invading AGAIN (1938 - 1939).
Another great article but it overlooks one key factor which is Resources. In an increasingly resource constrained world if Europe and the UK don't get unrestricted access to Russia's resources they will expire economically, militarily and poltiically.
This is what's driving the conflict. It's what will continue to drive the conflict no matter the outcome. They don't want to trade for the resources, they want to control them.
Resources may have lit the idea candle in the minds of the Western elite. When they dreamed this up 10-15 years ago (to occupy Ukraine, use it as a US proxy.) But now, I think that Aurelien's essay explains how inertia, sunk costs, ignorance, the reality of political advancement, etc are the current driving factors.
I'd add to that personal profiteering by all these leaders (money laundering).
Ego. I am thoroughly fed up with ego. Fed up with pretense. Fed up with the very existence of NATO and of the EU. NATO has no purpose. It ceased to have any rationale with the demise of the USSR. The EU has been going downhill since its birth as the Coal and Steel Community. I will hedge that and allow some utility to The Six. I can count on the fingers of one had the current political leaders who dignify the word leader.
That is the danger. We have fools planning how to win a nuclear war, but in the heart of hearts planning how they shall survive. Moving nuclear weapons to Europe? Brilliant move. Making mouth noises about positioning submarines that are already in their patrol areas. A general who failed upward planning to invest Kaliningrad, put NATO forces openly in Ukraine. Beyond stupid. For each and every danger point, rinse and repeat the above.
Were Europe not in the grip of its blind hatred and fear of Russia, something might be done. Someone might even ask of Russia, what do you have in mind for the collective security of us all? No ego damage in that. You can always scoff and laugh at its silly ideas. But you might hear
something interesting, something worth saying, if nothing else, please elucidate.
The states from Bulgaria to Finland have a common interest. They all have a land border with Russia or border the Black Sea. Absent the hysterical suspicion, hatred, and fear they might ask that question about collective security on their collective behalf?
On the other hand might not some individual or group perform a public thought experiment, while disavowing any official standing, saying if I/we were the Russian government these are what we would propose to ensure collective security. But those draft treaties of December 2021 did that didn't they?
To use the weary metaphor, the ball is in the West's court and such is the nature of individual and collective ego, no on dares return serve.
One item that I think is important on the reasons the combined West has a big animus against Russia. That is covetousness. The looting that happened in Russia for a decade after 1991, benefited Eall Street with trillions. That was like hitting the dragon for first heroin users, and then ever chasing the feeling.
The Energy II or III Package, don't remember exactly, tried to ultimately force Russia to privatize its oil and gas piplines going to Europe. One can dream, no?
"I continue to believe that we are seeing the replacement of a political generation which lived in a permanent state of adolescence by the children of that generation, for whom permanent adolescence was a model to imitate."
Any spasm of adulthood on the part of leadership has been the exception. Leaders that act like egomaniac toddlers, toddlers with the legal right to chop your head off because they didn't get the biggest cookie, those are the norm.
Look at, for instance, a Henry VIII. He's pretty depressingly typical, and such willfulness is in fact encouraged in ruling classes.
What we are seeing now is but the regression to the mean.
We seem to be at a stage where Russian forces are accelerating the tempo of their advances Westward in Ukraine. I think we are seeing signs of a military tipping point. I believe Aurelien mentioned this (maybe with different words) in his last essay. Alex Mercouris, among others, seems to be saying the same thing in his latest podcasts.
A problem with victory in war is knowing when to stop the advance and say "enough". The mounting, near hysterical belligerence by Europe and Ukraine toward Russia may convince Russia that it needs to solve the Ukraine problem once and for all by seizing all of Ukraine. Would Russia then say "enough" if this is accomplished? Maybe not.
If and when Russian troops are positioned on Ukraine's western border, Russia will have demonstrated the awesome military power of defeating US/NATO technology and NATO trained Ukrainians in a long war of attrition. Russian military depots will be stocked to the brim with weapons and roughly 700K+ soldiers will be at the ready, while NATO's depots will be depleted and its member nations politically divided. With 700K troops waiting for marching orders, would Russia order "stop!" and then say "enough"?
If Europe remains highly belligerent, (with U.S. cheerleading, e.g. swagger about taking Kaliningrad), Russia may well decide that more NATO thorns need removal even after taking all of Ukraine. Various NATO countries on Russia's doorstep like the Baltic States and Finland are barely half an hour drive from St. Petersburg -- including places like Vyburg, Finland, where the U.S. reportedly is building NATO military bases. I think it's quite possible that Russia -- given its strength -- might calculate that Russia is sufficiently strong, and the U.S./NATO sufficiently weak, to force these countries to quit NATO or face invasion.
The problem with NATO expansion is that the addition of new marginal countries arguably made NATO weaker not stronger, particularly with regard to the credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. It is hard to see the U.S. being willing to risk WW III over Helsinki or Riga. These nations on the periphery of NATO are where the incremental security risks to Russia are the greatest and those to the U.S. are minimal. It's easy to see the U.S., in its weakness, and in extremis, deciding to throw these countries under the bus, even given the high political costs of doing so (remember Munich!). This may be Russia's calculation, anyway. It may roll the dice.
With these dire potential outcomes in mind, it would seem that the right diplomatic moves toward Russia must be making credible confidence-building gestures ASAP. The U.S., EU and NATO should stop the belligerence, the military base construction on Russia's doorstep, and other provocative actions. This would set the stage for a credible push for a grand security architecture for Europe that Russia has been seeking.
Mr. Trump, a grand "deal" awaits, and the time is NOW to pursue it vigorously. What the hell are you waiting for? Do you really think your economic sanctions and PR move the needle at all?
The West's leadership classes need to concentrate their minds that Russia may have what John Mearsheimer calls "escalation dominance." Russia may calculate that their troops can go beyond Ukraine's western border, even if that is not their conscious intention as of now. Given the fog of war, then what?
Of course, if Western leadership classes are incapable of such foresight (as Aurelien suggests) we are in deep trouble.
We're in deep trouble alright. Trump is little more than a captive Zionist stooge, and he's probably still the best political alternative out there. Sobering, indeed!
Fortunately, the best outcome out there, US dollar hegemony collapse, is ever-looming. The Ponzi can't go on forever. Then the bureaucrats can preoccupy themselves with assessing blame for *that*.
This could be a reference to the planned Northern European Ground Forces headquarters in Mikkeli, Finland. Not sure. Link: https://yle.fi/a/74-20112498
Aurelien writes knowingly of the "Yes Minister" internal dynamics of the bureaucracy. It is like a treatment for a situation comedy, or tragedy.
Attributed to the scheming, purblind, and conformist stock characters I counted a number of references to fear (eight, if you want to put a number on them) and hatred (two). Well and good. They're both strong motivators that audiences relate to. Yet a story editor, after duly praising the draft, might ask for revisions.
Where is the greed? Is greed not a factor in these farcical NATO shenanigans? (Perhaps Marx got the order wrong in his dictum about historical repetition.) Surely a moving picture of the apparatchiks and the executive committees of the bourgeoisie would do well to take account of not only what they move away from but what they move toward. As well as whose hands are on the goads.
Reason and sanity left Western political and military thinking with the domino theory and Vietnam. Since then options have, one by one, dropped by the wayside.
The analysis of the politicians' modus operandi is probably spot on, at least in the vast majority of cases. There are just about no statesmen and just about no leaders who would care for anything apart from their own wellbeing. Their skills and abilities are reflective of that. They're highly proficient in scheming, backstabbing, kissing ass, spreading legs, sucking dick, and stuff of this sort. For the most part, they see no further than the tip of their fucking nose, and few are even aware that there exists something therebeyond.
In that context, one is grateful when something reminiscent of a long-term vision emerges once in a while, such as the Trimarium a.k.a. Three Seas Initiative, despite it being patently idiotic.
Now, despite the clearly dysfunctional nature of democracy as such, where the populace only has some say in electing deputies and has no means to influence their actions once their asses have been elected, things ultimately does do boil down to what people think, are willing to swallow, and then act on it.
So, where do people stand as regards the current situation? Are they just as fucked up as politicians? Or does common sense exist among the masses, providing hope that people will eventually be able to elect politicians who are not such empty vessels (or not so full of shit)? Good question!
Perusing, at best some of the comments except for one there are dynamic forces missing from these discussions because so many of us are focused on government and official accogoveunts of politics. First, governments in the West (the Empire) technically have power, i.e., in the bureaucracy, but it is not the most important power in the mix. First of all official politics masks real politics which consist of the struggle between various faction that wield Big Money and those things that money can buy. While bribery, of one form or another, may be important it is also backed up with violence. People are killed or threatened with their family's demise when the stakes are high enough. If I'm an oligarch and an invention or a revelation threatens my domain and those of my allies we will, if all else fails, summon in "security" to eliminate the enemy whether it is one person of several. This is logical. Shouldn't we know this after all the research on JFK/MLK/RFK and many others who committed "suicide" over the years. This framework of politics is always missing in alternative discourse who don't understand that law and morality have all broken down in the world except in highly regulated societies. The Empire itself is entirely lawless as we can see from the Gaza genocide and multiple agreements broken whenever convenient by the Washington bureaucracy (always at the behest of some private condominium of forces).
Just as reference, I am my familiar with both the world of Washington and on "the street" (only in my youth but the same laws of power operate, as they always have) and, of course, from the ancient historians who seem to me to be far more believable than our current crop of academic historians.
"Oh, there were a few people with fantasies of rolling towards the Russian frontier, but they weren’t influential."
Those people are in the driver's seat now, and Russian dithering and indecision have them licking their chops. Stop kidding yourself. NATO will only escalate, until the Americans are forced to intervene, trapped by Trump's own fool mouth and the abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy.
The history of American involvement in WWI, the first time that europeans called on the United States to fight their wars for them, is most instructive.
Trump may be reluctant. It doesn't matter. The missiles still will fly just the same. The war will be unpopular. It doesn't matter. Nobody cares what the masses want.
Before 1917, we also heard that the Americans could not and would not fight, for a variety of reasons. Similarly, it beggars belief that if NATO truly were out of everything from cheese curds to cat treats, that nobody in the Pentagon, nobody in Whitehall, nobody in Hexagone Balard could not recognize this and take the politicians aside and tell them that they need to stop running their yaps. And the generals, being glorified politicians, are very good at getting the message out, if the politicians won't or don't listen.
Admittedly, Epstein is the wild card.
"This can't be happening, can it? But it is". It will happen. We hear this before every escalation, that it is reckless, that it is unpopular, that it is costly, that it is likely to end in WWIII. All true. But NATO smells blood. Every time, the escalations happen just the same.
Did I miss it or did Aurelien omit the money incentives to playing along? All this idiocy and empty words are motivated by embezzling taxpayer funds. American leaders do what Money tells them to do. Then enter Aurelien's description of their behavior. But the behavior and dumbassery follow from the money. Do you agree? Note I'm sure they're also mentally slow, and wanting to "fit in" to keep their position, but ultimately isn't Money the reason why Trump didn't shut Ukraine down? Or the most likely reason? He was bought off!
You seem to have a death wish. It's not healthy, even if you probably justify it as being 'realistic'. There's more to life than 'realism', and you should investigate.
It doesn't matter what we wish for, your attempts at amateur psychoanalysis notwithstanding.
The world is indifferent to us and our desires.
It's not psychoanalysis - it is an urge to consider the more spiritual aspects of life. If you are a convinced materialist, then probably this will mean nothing to you, but if you are not - more research required. In fact, there are very profound problems with the philosophical implications of materialism, and thus again, more research required.
Sounds like the "Scholar's Error" - do more research until you agree with me, then stop.
Anyway, if you want to live your life on the basis of wishful thinking, be my guest.
Straw man fallacy, but it's your loss, if you can't consider other possibilities.
When one pathway dominates, the field’s imagination of what is possible (in terms of actions and policies) atrophies.
Dissent isn’t debated. It is rendered invisible and only actively excluded if it becomes too visible and loud. Such a hegemonic system, operating on a smaller scale among political elites, functions like a theological seminary, where deviation marks heresy and compliance brings canonization.
You can deal with spirituality being materialist, there is no opposition between, except in a false dilemma. Maybe you enjoy the reading of Santayana or the lessons given by the Buddha or Spinoza.
I've read some authors and people that are critical with materialism, but they usually made an strawman of it (I don't say it's your case, I mentioned as general point), like, to be fair, is done of spirituality by many materialists guys.
Consider the possibility that your analytical framework, while quite useful and which worked in predicting the past, may not always work. The world is quite non-linear.
Finster: I’m not sure how we can say Russia has dithered or is indecisive. On the contrary - it seems to me that Russia has applied itself from 2014, to the task of eliminating the Ukrainian/NATO threat to its existence as a sovereign state, with focus, creativity, adaptability, and energy. Where are we now? Russia is immeasurably stronger (from a 2024 baseline) militarily, industrially, economically, politically, socially. It’s taken on the hegemon, and knows it’s going to win. It has rock solid strategic allies in China, N Korea, and Iran; also massive support outside the G7 vassals. Where is the west by comparison? I live in it, and to me it has the feel of a dead man walking. All the metrics point down, and our elites, and their avatars in politics are in complete denial. Good call from Russia in taking their time - a) not to frighten the horses, b) let the west weaken itself over time. At some point The Empire will have to make a decision……. slink away, or start a nuclear war.
That the war is continuing while NATO missiles hitting Russia with total impunity is evidence enough of indecision. Not to mention that NATO has been emboldened since 2022. Pretend that Russian missiles were to hit any US target. There would be a decisive and unmistakable response.
Which is why nobody would try such a stunt.
But when have NATO missiles hit Russia with impunity, let alone total impunity? What is the current count on the use of HIMAAR, Taurus or Storm Shadow? I honestly haven't read any reports of their use against targets inside pre-2022 Russia for quite some time.
Not saying they haven't or don't want to, just don't recall any recent occurrences.
The United States has shown the alternative. Had Russia used adequate force from the outset, the point would be moot.
Anyway, perhaps you recall missile and drone attacks on Russian airbases a couple of months ago? Those were not done by Ukrainians acting without NATO assistance.
I recall drones, yes. Not missiles in the airbase attacks. And if there were missiles, no reports I've seen have said what exact models/versions of missiles were used.
This was followed by heavy Russian missile attacks on Ukraine, including Western Ukraine and NATO assets. Of course we won't be hearing about any NATO casualties here in the collective waste media. Perhaps some of the recent "events" like mass shootings on US military bases could be cover for the deaths in Ukraine?
Regardless what models were used, the attacks happened.
And the idea that NATO has suffered significant human losses in Ukraine is more cope, since we're not seeing the things we'd see if such losses were real, the large numbers of war invalids, the veterans with garish tales, the dozens of wives, girlfriends and mothers who are unable to get answers as to where Johnny went, nobody has heard from him in minths. The Soviet Union was unable to conceal relatively light losses in Afghanistan, and they had the KGB and total censorship.
But what is the alternative, but to endure……. Myself I would love to see Russian missile strikes on Rammstein, but apart from making us all feel good, how would that help win the war? Russias restraint is frustrating, but the best response to Empire provocations is surely to win decisively, and push The Empire irrevocably to crushing defeat.
About the NATO decision making process: Anatol Lieven once mentioned that when Georgia was supposed to become a NATO member, shortly before the war, he asked one of his contacts in the NATO headquarter what the plan was in case Georgia got into a conflict with Russia. The answer was that nobody ever mentioned this possibility. Because if anyone had brought this up this person would have been regarded as being against NATO-expansion, which would result in him being sent home and kissing his career goodbye.
There are no consequences for being wrong, but there are consequences for opposing the consensus.
“Historians are starting to look through the files of western governments from the early 90s, and find to their surprise that there was very little interest in, or discussion of, NATO expansion.”
If that is your explanation of the advance of NATO, then you have an implied obligation to provide an explanation of how this expansion actually took place. A fit of absence-mindedness? I don’t think so.
As for the rest, your descriptions have the ring of truth. But the important questions are ‘How did we get here’ and how do we get to somewhere more advantageous to the general population’? “(Yes, once were statesmen, but that’s a long time ago.)” - where did these statesmen come from, and why are they ‘no more’? - My guess is that now most politicians are just salesmen, and are profoundly self-interested and even more profoundly ‘not serious’ about public service, while many of those who fought in the ‘World Wars’ had a different view on the seriousness of life.
“Now you may uncomfortably feel that something is missing from the list”. Yes, but it’s not the ‘outside world’ - it’s the lack of any moral position, which is replaced by the acceptance of ‘Machiavellianism’ and ‘expediency’ as a norm. This is (or at least should be) unacceptable. I imagine that the reply would be that ‘morality’ has no place in politics, but then one has to ask ‘why’? If morality is good enough for judging ordinary social conduct, then why the restriction?
Lastly “the Russians, over-interpreting things as usual, will probably freak out.” - as would any polity which has the interests of its citizens at heart, and given the history of Russia over the past 400 odd years, (attempted invasions by Sweden, France Britain+France, Britain+France+USA, Germany [twice] and NATO) who could blame them?
@Jams O'Donnell
Left out a few things related to JAPAN on the list of Russian invasions:
Attempted (and somewhat successful) invasion of Russian Empire by Japan (1905) then ridiculously by Japan + Britain + France + USA (1918 - 1922!), then Japan tried invading AGAIN (1938 - 1939).
Yes. Thanks for filling in these gaps.
all we need is a western political class capable of doing that.
Why not outsource it and hire China's B Team?
Another great article but it overlooks one key factor which is Resources. In an increasingly resource constrained world if Europe and the UK don't get unrestricted access to Russia's resources they will expire economically, militarily and poltiically.
This is what's driving the conflict. It's what will continue to drive the conflict no matter the outcome. They don't want to trade for the resources, they want to control them.
Well, yes. The West has made a double-or-nothing bet, and has lost.
Resources may have lit the idea candle in the minds of the Western elite. When they dreamed this up 10-15 years ago (to occupy Ukraine, use it as a US proxy.) But now, I think that Aurelien's essay explains how inertia, sunk costs, ignorance, the reality of political advancement, etc are the current driving factors.
I'd add to that personal profiteering by all these leaders (money laundering).
Ego. I am thoroughly fed up with ego. Fed up with pretense. Fed up with the very existence of NATO and of the EU. NATO has no purpose. It ceased to have any rationale with the demise of the USSR. The EU has been going downhill since its birth as the Coal and Steel Community. I will hedge that and allow some utility to The Six. I can count on the fingers of one had the current political leaders who dignify the word leader.
That is the danger. We have fools planning how to win a nuclear war, but in the heart of hearts planning how they shall survive. Moving nuclear weapons to Europe? Brilliant move. Making mouth noises about positioning submarines that are already in their patrol areas. A general who failed upward planning to invest Kaliningrad, put NATO forces openly in Ukraine. Beyond stupid. For each and every danger point, rinse and repeat the above.
Were Europe not in the grip of its blind hatred and fear of Russia, something might be done. Someone might even ask of Russia, what do you have in mind for the collective security of us all? No ego damage in that. You can always scoff and laugh at its silly ideas. But you might hear
something interesting, something worth saying, if nothing else, please elucidate.
The states from Bulgaria to Finland have a common interest. They all have a land border with Russia or border the Black Sea. Absent the hysterical suspicion, hatred, and fear they might ask that question about collective security on their collective behalf?
On the other hand might not some individual or group perform a public thought experiment, while disavowing any official standing, saying if I/we were the Russian government these are what we would propose to ensure collective security. But those draft treaties of December 2021 did that didn't they?
To use the weary metaphor, the ball is in the West's court and such is the nature of individual and collective ego, no on dares return serve.
i live in fear that someone's going to think menacing kaliningrad is a good idea
@Adrian Smith
Don't look now, but...
https://youtu.be/nbJ3iq1wq34?si=OQ1J3-xPVss82W51
One item that I think is important on the reasons the combined West has a big animus against Russia. That is covetousness. The looting that happened in Russia for a decade after 1991, benefited Eall Street with trillions. That was like hitting the dragon for first heroin users, and then ever chasing the feeling.
The Energy II or III Package, don't remember exactly, tried to ultimately force Russia to privatize its oil and gas piplines going to Europe. One can dream, no?
Something Aurelien wrote on NC:
"I continue to believe that we are seeing the replacement of a political generation which lived in a permanent state of adolescence by the children of that generation, for whom permanent adolescence was a model to imitate."
Any spasm of adulthood on the part of leadership has been the exception. Leaders that act like egomaniac toddlers, toddlers with the legal right to chop your head off because they didn't get the biggest cookie, those are the norm.
Look at, for instance, a Henry VIII. He's pretty depressingly typical, and such willfulness is in fact encouraged in ruling classes.
What we are seeing now is but the regression to the mean.
"There are so many players, so many interest groups and so much money "
You mentioned money almost as an afterthought rather than as the driving force behind so much of this.
We seem to be at a stage where Russian forces are accelerating the tempo of their advances Westward in Ukraine. I think we are seeing signs of a military tipping point. I believe Aurelien mentioned this (maybe with different words) in his last essay. Alex Mercouris, among others, seems to be saying the same thing in his latest podcasts.
A problem with victory in war is knowing when to stop the advance and say "enough". The mounting, near hysterical belligerence by Europe and Ukraine toward Russia may convince Russia that it needs to solve the Ukraine problem once and for all by seizing all of Ukraine. Would Russia then say "enough" if this is accomplished? Maybe not.
If and when Russian troops are positioned on Ukraine's western border, Russia will have demonstrated the awesome military power of defeating US/NATO technology and NATO trained Ukrainians in a long war of attrition. Russian military depots will be stocked to the brim with weapons and roughly 700K+ soldiers will be at the ready, while NATO's depots will be depleted and its member nations politically divided. With 700K troops waiting for marching orders, would Russia order "stop!" and then say "enough"?
If Europe remains highly belligerent, (with U.S. cheerleading, e.g. swagger about taking Kaliningrad), Russia may well decide that more NATO thorns need removal even after taking all of Ukraine. Various NATO countries on Russia's doorstep like the Baltic States and Finland are barely half an hour drive from St. Petersburg -- including places like Vyburg, Finland, where the U.S. reportedly is building NATO military bases. I think it's quite possible that Russia -- given its strength -- might calculate that Russia is sufficiently strong, and the U.S./NATO sufficiently weak, to force these countries to quit NATO or face invasion.
The problem with NATO expansion is that the addition of new marginal countries arguably made NATO weaker not stronger, particularly with regard to the credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. It is hard to see the U.S. being willing to risk WW III over Helsinki or Riga. These nations on the periphery of NATO are where the incremental security risks to Russia are the greatest and those to the U.S. are minimal. It's easy to see the U.S., in its weakness, and in extremis, deciding to throw these countries under the bus, even given the high political costs of doing so (remember Munich!). This may be Russia's calculation, anyway. It may roll the dice.
With these dire potential outcomes in mind, it would seem that the right diplomatic moves toward Russia must be making credible confidence-building gestures ASAP. The U.S., EU and NATO should stop the belligerence, the military base construction on Russia's doorstep, and other provocative actions. This would set the stage for a credible push for a grand security architecture for Europe that Russia has been seeking.
Mr. Trump, a grand "deal" awaits, and the time is NOW to pursue it vigorously. What the hell are you waiting for? Do you really think your economic sanctions and PR move the needle at all?
The West's leadership classes need to concentrate their minds that Russia may have what John Mearsheimer calls "escalation dominance." Russia may calculate that their troops can go beyond Ukraine's western border, even if that is not their conscious intention as of now. Given the fog of war, then what?
Of course, if Western leadership classes are incapable of such foresight (as Aurelien suggests) we are in deep trouble.
We're in deep trouble alright. Trump is little more than a captive Zionist stooge, and he's probably still the best political alternative out there. Sobering, indeed!
Fortunately, the best outcome out there, US dollar hegemony collapse, is ever-looming. The Ponzi can't go on forever. Then the bureaucrats can preoccupy themselves with assessing blame for *that*.
I'd love to see a reference to US plans for a military entity in Vyborg, Finland. Mainly because Vyborg (Выборг) is in Russia's LenOblast.
Also because the finnish name for Vyborg is "Viipuri" - at least on all the signs leading to and in it...
There is a tiny village northwest of Helsinki named Viipuri. But that would be closer to a five hour drive from Petersburg..
Apologies, you are right. The NATO base under development in Finland is 30 km from Vyborg, Russia. Here's the link.
https://www.pentapostagma.gr/en/world/armed-conflicts/7191969_nato-base-30-km-st-petersburg-targeted-russian-ballistic-missiles
This could be a reference to the planned Northern European Ground Forces headquarters in Mikkeli, Finland. Not sure. Link: https://yle.fi/a/74-20112498
Aurelien writes knowingly of the "Yes Minister" internal dynamics of the bureaucracy. It is like a treatment for a situation comedy, or tragedy.
Attributed to the scheming, purblind, and conformist stock characters I counted a number of references to fear (eight, if you want to put a number on them) and hatred (two). Well and good. They're both strong motivators that audiences relate to. Yet a story editor, after duly praising the draft, might ask for revisions.
Where is the greed? Is greed not a factor in these farcical NATO shenanigans? (Perhaps Marx got the order wrong in his dictum about historical repetition.) Surely a moving picture of the apparatchiks and the executive committees of the bourgeoisie would do well to take account of not only what they move away from but what they move toward. As well as whose hands are on the goads.
Reason and sanity left Western political and military thinking with the domino theory and Vietnam. Since then options have, one by one, dropped by the wayside.
The analysis of the politicians' modus operandi is probably spot on, at least in the vast majority of cases. There are just about no statesmen and just about no leaders who would care for anything apart from their own wellbeing. Their skills and abilities are reflective of that. They're highly proficient in scheming, backstabbing, kissing ass, spreading legs, sucking dick, and stuff of this sort. For the most part, they see no further than the tip of their fucking nose, and few are even aware that there exists something therebeyond.
In that context, one is grateful when something reminiscent of a long-term vision emerges once in a while, such as the Trimarium a.k.a. Three Seas Initiative, despite it being patently idiotic.
Now, despite the clearly dysfunctional nature of democracy as such, where the populace only has some say in electing deputies and has no means to influence their actions once their asses have been elected, things ultimately does do boil down to what people think, are willing to swallow, and then act on it.
So, where do people stand as regards the current situation? Are they just as fucked up as politicians? Or does common sense exist among the masses, providing hope that people will eventually be able to elect politicians who are not such empty vessels (or not so full of shit)? Good question!
Anyway, excellent article, a very good analysis!
My usual translation into Italian (with a slight delay due to the summer holidays...):
"La situazione peggiora.
Questa volta ci saranno delle conseguenze."
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2025/08/la-situazione-peggiora-questa-volta-ci.html
Perusing, at best some of the comments except for one there are dynamic forces missing from these discussions because so many of us are focused on government and official accogoveunts of politics. First, governments in the West (the Empire) technically have power, i.e., in the bureaucracy, but it is not the most important power in the mix. First of all official politics masks real politics which consist of the struggle between various faction that wield Big Money and those things that money can buy. While bribery, of one form or another, may be important it is also backed up with violence. People are killed or threatened with their family's demise when the stakes are high enough. If I'm an oligarch and an invention or a revelation threatens my domain and those of my allies we will, if all else fails, summon in "security" to eliminate the enemy whether it is one person of several. This is logical. Shouldn't we know this after all the research on JFK/MLK/RFK and many others who committed "suicide" over the years. This framework of politics is always missing in alternative discourse who don't understand that law and morality have all broken down in the world except in highly regulated societies. The Empire itself is entirely lawless as we can see from the Gaza genocide and multiple agreements broken whenever convenient by the Washington bureaucracy (always at the behest of some private condominium of forces).
Just as reference, I am my familiar with both the world of Washington and on "the street" (only in my youth but the same laws of power operate, as they always have) and, of course, from the ancient historians who seem to me to be far more believable than our current crop of academic historians.