Britain and France are essentially NPINO (Nuclear Powers In Name Only). The British nuclear "deterrent" rests in 4 clapped out submarines and Trident missiles that fail immediately on launch. Britain is threatening the purchase of 12 (!) F35A aircraft to carry gravity nuclear bombs. The Russian integrated air defense system will take care of this.
France is in a similar state.
3.5 million Germans formed the backbone of "Barbarossa", and we know how that turned out. Does anybody seriously think that that military force (probably the best in human history) can be replicated with the youth of today? (Not a bad thing BTW).
The political leadership of almost the entire West is mired in delusion. We can only hope that their stupidity doesn't cost us our lives.
I often read veiled criticism of the youth of today in the west. Let me break a lance for them, for people that in general abhor violence. Which it’s another factor in the future avoidance of a generalised war in the style of both WWs. And since we’re talking about this, the much lionised golden generation (which should really include the German, Japanese and Italian too really, at the end of the day they too were patriotic) always struck me as incredibly easy to turn into killing machines. You only have to see YouTube personal accounts of US veterans to shudder at the sheer amount of violence they proved capable of unleashing. Ghastly. All in the name of capital, from countries that in some cases weren’t really threatened directly.
We don’t have that youth today. You can criticise their green hair all you like but they won’t switch off their humanity in a moment's notice just because a politician is barking from a podium.
Yes, there is hope with the youth of today. Perhaps because their prospects are so much worse, they appear to have a healthy cynicism about our political leadership.
I have warned my grandchildren about military service. TPTB will attempt to seduce you with patriotic mumbo jumbo, but, if necessary they will use you like a carpenter uses nails.
Or to state it as a "principle": The rulers of the last generation has been remarkably skilled in what a friend of mine called "moral positioning". That is, everything is posed as a moral issue, with a hero, a villain and a victim, like in a Hollywood drama. Part of their removal from reality, probably. But the shrilly thing is that they have taken so many with them.
France is in a markedly better state ; its submarines and missiles are at least working, and can be independently launched. The squadron of ASMP-launching Rafale is also head and shoulders more operational than anything as silly as a F35 (barely working plane) launching a gravity nuclear bomb (i.e. a kamikaze operation).
The plan ever always only was for the United States to intervene. There never really was any other serious plan. Not europe (europeans are geriatric metrosexuals who make Liberace look like Audie Murphy by comparison) but the United States
Trump is mousetrapping himself nicely into giving the europeans the war they so evidently crave.
NATO is betting that nuclear war is survivable, at least for the people who matter, and besides, Russia lacks the stomach to push the button. They, of course, have no such scruples, and see Russian reticence as contemptible weakness.
n.b. British and french nuclear power is negligible. Both are entirely dependent on their American Master.
And if the United States intervenes, its Paper Tiger military will be shredded in short order.
As Aurelien observes, the US is in no position to intervene effectively. I continue to be astonished at the naive faith that Europe has in American military might.
Oh that poor mousetrapped Trump... Frankly, i hear their that blind snobbism of a self-imposed elite nation, that at the very same time laughs at "subhumans" attempts to pretend being equal, yet pretends being equal to real elites anf failing to hear their laughter. How can those two aspects come together always puzzled me.
Or in less abstract tetrms. So the alleged EU/NATO game is to force USArmy to intervene. And speaking about "mousetrapping" you protest that game succeeded. I fail to see any success, except a self-imposed blindness.
EuroUkraine for at least ten years, 2014-2024, were beating the drums of "effectively" being part of EU/NATO and looking down upon "DNA handicapped" Russians. They considered themselves that very important probing brat, that gang dispaches to annoy civilw to create the pretext for "justified" robbery. Except they never were important and never were considered equal by Europeans themselves.
EuroUkrainians had but religiois faith that they only need to get few bruises and Europe would be forced to attack Russia to retaliate their proxies. Well, so allegedly Brussels "mousetrapped" itself like Trump and EU armies are warring Russia now?
They do not. This idea being nothing by contrick was obvious to everypne but Ukrainian. All their intense preaching "Europe cannot afford seeing us defeated. We would force them fight our war" culminated with nothing, when Russia did come to the battlefield.
Israel was equally self-delusioning it would only take them to get few bruises and America would be forced to send armies, because America can not afford yada-yada. Well, they did get their bruises from Iran and America... Well, it at least did something. It produxed one bombing raid, and called it a day. This single raid was infinitely more than what EuroMaidan regime got from NATO armies, but still much less than Israel believe they would get for granted.
Now i see EU guys are repating thats script of self-delusioning. For the saod ten years they never seriously thought bthey would ever send their valuable army fight for aborigines of Ukraine interests. Yet for some aberation EU cannot see the same relation between themselves and American master nation.
America easily and without much hesitation DID afford to just ignore Israel war on Iran. Does anybodt have doubts Israel stands much above EU in the West's pecking order? There is no reason to think ignoring EU's war on Russia would not be much easier and self-evident for America, than ignoring Israel war was, or than Ignoring EuroMaidan war was for EU itself.
If EU/NATO really play into that delusional idea to force America to fight their coming war on Russia in their stead, i believe, they absolutely conned themselves beyong any point of reason no-return. Would Russia even really bomb Berlin and Paris like Kiev, America might loose their vocal chords but not their sleep
We hear similar self-assurances at every NATO escalation.
I have zero sympathy for Trump BTW. It does not matter why he does what he does, whether he is frantically trying to distract from Epstein, whether he is bribed, blackmailed, pr trapped by his own fool rhetoric.
Escalations as in "pick a small shithole country and throw it against the wall" ? Sure, sure. The cases, where NATO armies was outnumbering the picked victim at least 10:1 and so was not threatened at all.
Then, when Turkey attacked Greece over one island there was no mighty America rushign for fight othewrs wars, was it? America just warmed popcorn and watched the war show.
In case EU would docile enough to make their war on Russia hot, like EuroMaidan regime was, America would again blissfully stay on the sidelines enjoying free horror movie. Why not, The ALWAYS did it when a threat to their army was above infinitesimal.
If you have not noticed, NATO has done nothing but escalate since the war began, taking steps that would have been unthinkable, even after the war had run for some time.
Oh, i do neglect. Tell me, what NATO did do during ww1 and ww2.
NATO does escalate in the same tired way of "send more zombie aborigines and mercenaries", like they ecer did after 2014 coup. And thry already spent their best zombies and their best mercs. Sending substandard ones would not impress Russia much.
But hey, you were singng one rather different tune. You were saying that some how by some divine order USA now must sent their army, GI boots over Ukrainian hills, USAF over Ukrainian rivers, "intervene" you said. Laughable, indeed.
Now you backtracked from this specific but wrong prediction "USA is forced to intervene" to the meaninglessly vague "NATO will escalate". This latter claim is safe for you because to means everythng and nothing. Would the puppet chairing NATO (i sincerely don't rememeber the current namesake) tomorrow kick a stray dog you can honestly said that was the NATO escalation. Because it truly would be, one of many. But why should that impress anyone?
Vague threats do not impress because during last ten years we all had seen how little they mean, how oversold and cheap western words are.
Specific threats do not impress because they are unrealistic.
This is the sad fork EU/NATO created for themselves, the rosehips-laden bed for all Europeans to sleep in. By Europeans, for Europeans. And it is futile calling daddy Trump to lie down into that bed with you, twice so to bed for bringing USArmy with him. Fool he is but idiot he is not.
Don't play stupid. And yes, American intervention now is only a matter of time, with Epstein as the wild card.
BTW, the idea thst NATO had sent any substantial numbers of troops is more wishful thinking, unless you can point to thousands of prisoners, war invalids, mothers, wives and girlfriends who don't know where Johnny went and can't get any answers.
On French TV, you can see almost every day pundits and self-styled experts openly rejoicing that soon Europe could go to war with Russia. If only Trump, whom they despise and loath as much as they can, would change his mind, a quick and sweeping victory would be a given.
They want this war. As if they haven't learned a thing from history. It's downright frightening.
No later than today, there was this guy, some retired general or something, saying that since the US have hundred of fighters and bombers, instead of giving a few at the time to the Ukrainian regime, Trump could just give the order to bomb Russia to submission. And these people speak freely on TV like whatever they are saying is plain common sense...
There are two alternatives, not mutually inconsistent.
One is the dream of madmen in DC who really believe a nuclear war is winnable.
The second is led by the Brits, which is a never ending war of low key attrition using drones and subversive players engineering internal disputes in Russia.
The problem Russia faces is a still powerful enemy it can't attack with it's superior forces because of geography, the US. And the dangers of a slowly building internal fracture brought about by constant interference.
Russia will win the war, but can it win itself any peace.
The madmen in DC need to be rounded up and quietly confined until they sober up. I would put their pretensions another way. They believe that they would survive a nuclear war and that somehow that is a desirable outcome. As to the rest of us, when you see yourself as one of the important people, we do not matter.
Another excellent essay. I had thought conscription might be a realistic possibility in at least Germany and the UK, but re-reading the earlier essays mentioned, it seems not. It has been promoted here in the UK mostly by older people and female HR-types, possibly because it would be good life training for what they see as complacent, lazy and unpatriotic young males. Another reality at the moment is that the level of credibility of the current government is at an all-time low already and any serious mention of conscription would likely bring about enough civil disobedience and disorder to destroy it.
I wonder how many British people are aware of how weak the West is militarily? Mostly it does not get mentioned in the MSM but the Daily Telegraph at least, has at least three columnists regularly spouting nonsense - how Putin is "cornered", Russia is on the point of collapse, they could never defeat NATO, our new super weapons are just around the corner, etc - that might as well be handed directly to them by the MoD and MI6. I fear the gap between rhetoric and reality will last a long time, even after Ukraine has collapsed.
Another obvious factor is that most European countries are headed for a steep, debt-driven economic decline anyway and will have little or no extra money to throw at defence. Russia will doubtless try to accelerate and exacerbate this, both directly and through BRICS. In terms of internal conflict, I don't think it will take long to blow up with fingers pointed at Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia. Goodness knows where that will take us - probably to the fragmenting of the EU as predicted here, within a decade or less. Interesting times ahead!
The point of this rhetoric is to convince the public that one push is all that is needed, just one expeditionary force and victory is assured.
Of course, once the balloon goes up and the rosy predictions of easy victory prove false, it will be too late to do anything about it.
The politicians know this full well, just as the admissions that maybe Iraq wasn't exactly chock-a-block with WMDs came only after the neocons had already gotten the war that they hungered for and it was too late to stop now, oopsies!
The territorial ambitions of, and US fealty to, the state of Israel puts another twist into an already overextended American commitment around the world. It now has naval vessels in the western Pacific to counteract China as well as presences in the Mediterranean and Caribbean waters, not to mention Arctic patrols.
Military presence is also found in much of Northern Africa, Europe and the Middle East.
Reading this essay all my own views have been confirmed and unless we are all missing something the UK and US must be aware of the state of things too and so it surprises me that they continue with the provocations they do. There are a couple of points that I'd like to add.
The first is the national unity and support for the Russian military WITHIN Russia. The army believes in the fight, hard as it is. I see no equivalent morale in the west and declining morale within Ukraine itself. All we get is insults and copium about Russia 'about to collapse' and Putin terminally ill with cancer. It really is infantile.
The second thing is the recent EU/US negotiations over tarrifs in which the main strategic aim of the EU was about maintaining a US commitment to Europe with huge amounts of (largely ficitious) EU money going to the USA. Criticism of Ursula Von Der Leyen seems to be that she just 'rolled over' - but a deeper look at the figures (by the Australian economist Warrick Powell) shows that it was a lot of smoke and mirrors. Trump announced a victory, Von Der Leyen looked suitably embarrassed BUT achieved what she set out to achieve - tieing Trump to Europe BECAUSE THERE IS NO TIMELY MILITARY ALTERNATIVE. This illustrates the level of panic in Europe. The emphasis is on buying expensive American weapons. The so-called Keynsian military growth plan announced by Mertz to reinvigorate German industry must be a casualty given the costs of this. Trump wants the EU to pay for the American defence of Europe - it really is a Protection Racket.
The third point is the relationship of Russia to Europe - Putin has made it clear that Russia now faces East. Prior to the intervention in Ukraine it seemed to me that the intelligent thing to do would be to fortify Russia's eastern border and re-orientate to China. Since then we have learned about Blinken's plan to locate missiles in Ukraine and about the bio-labs and the CIA stations (12 according to the New York Times). Along with the attacks carried out by the Ukrainian army on the Russian speaking Donbas, Putin decided after years of provocations and the betrayal of the Minsk treaty on a pre-emptive strike - and I can see the justification later amplified by betrayal of the emerging Istanbul accords. The provocation from the west (outlined in the Rand Corporation document 'Extending Russia') was to use Ukrainian blood and 'western weapons and intelligence' to defeat Russia and while that has failed it has still cost Russia a lot and will cost more in the future because 'western strategy will be to encourage and finance unrest in its well-worn Galician stomping ground. I note yesterday that according to Dr Brovkin citing the Russian press, 2 UK special services and one MI6 officer were captured by Speznatz on a raid on Odessa. I suspect such elements are running rampant in Ukraine.
The final point is this: Russia has no strategic interest in invading west but could be provoked if people like Kajja Kallas keep talking about the need for 'the west' to invade and dismember Russia. They need to dismiss such provocations. All Russia has to do is to defend itself in order to defeat 'the west' while at the same time growing its economy to the east. China and Russia are bound NOT (these days) by ideology but by geo-political self interest. This is effectively what a very angry Wang Ye told Kallas at the recent EU/China summit and he is right. They need each other.
I don't understand what you say about the interpretation of EU-USA tariffs (well, what the australian say). ¿You mean that for the EU this deal has forced a military compromise of the USA? I see this in a more simple way: sell a bit more of american industries and make that European countries pay more of the NATO. Will see if the compromise of the USA with the NATO is really tested some day and what happen then (for example: issues between Spain and Morocco, allied of the USA), but the military problems of the USA are huge and they probably want good relations in the near future with Russia.
With this I mean that "trick" of the EU to force the USA to compromise it seems to me will not work. Imagine that in a future some serious provocations are made on the Baltics against russian population and Russia act in some way. ¿Will the US engage with this when they would need a minimum of good relations with Russia because of China (and Russia had, has and will have issues with China)?
Von der Leyen's main strategic aim was to keep the USA 'in'Europe - and so she just rolled over. In doing so she sacrificed the economic interests of much of Europe. will the USA intervene? It depends on who, where and what.
Thanks, I see your point (very good seen, by the way).
However, I see it mainly as an attempt to scape and keep in power of the EU elits. If conflicts arise in any place in Europe, I have strong doubts that the EEUU will make something.
For make richer the talk:
1:- Trump has pressure of "isolationist" groups, tired of EEUU foreign adventures. With Israel we have the lobby, but there is not such lobby of european interestrs (however, maybe the Democrat Party could use this as a tool).
2.- Not building a common army in Europe (is impossible in my view, but talking of a possible attempt) will make even harder a cohesive EU.
I know it’s an oversimplification of the whole article and specifically the last paragraph but I think the way forward for the west is to start following the advice my mum gave me on my first day of school, “be good, listen to your teachers and don’t be naughty to the other children”. And here I am, fifty years later, safe and with a friend or two (but stuck in a country run by bullies).
Another remarkable essay Aurelian, I have almost nothing to add except on this point,
"The armed forces of those two countries, including headquarters, assembly areas, military ports, airfields and supply and repair depots, could be dismantled by long-range missiles in a matter of hours, and no response would be possible."
I think I remember Signor Gus, the aeronautical engineer and military technology enthusiast from the YouTube channel Millenium7*
saying in one of his videos that he was confident that the Russians are always holding enough missiles in reserve to launch a strike on every military airbase in Europe. Probably true.
I also think that the Special Forces, Dirty Tricks Brigades and Ninja Stealth Assassins that NATO have relied on so heavily for so long have reached about the maximum limit of their effectiveness. Of course there will continue to be espionage and sabotage, and a few senior officers and politicians will continue meet sudden and sticky ends, but there's a limit to such things, can you send over 10,000 assassins to bump off 10,00 top leaders?
What is the likelihood that a Western country - say Italy for instance - realises that trade and cooperation with Russia and China is the winning formula and recognises that the EU-NATO is a busted flush and starts to profit from that realisation? Would they be threatened with sanctions, tariffs, etc? Is there any possibility of this happening?
A thorough, well thought out analysis as usual. I am missing two elements though.
You haven't mentioned the rising role of AI in changing the face of modern warfare. China, arguably, is leading the field in AI-enabled drone swarms, micro and nano drones for surveillance, and all-terrain combat robots. Russia and US are not sitting on their backsides either. The shortage of military personnel could be addressed by armies of autonomous robots. Such a transformation will depend on the multiple issues you have covered very well with regard to the availability of raw material, supply chains, industrial infrastructure, manufacturing capabilities and technological prowess. One way or another, the major powers are likely to get to that moment of singularity within the next two decades.
Second, while your scenario of a Russia-dominated Europe is more than plausible in the same time horizon, the role of US needs to be thought through. Besides being an island fortress, US dominates and has easy access to a vast hinterland comprising the resource rich North and South Americas. It can draw from this to recast itself as a 'defensive' military power in the coming post-unipolar world. A tectonic shift from its entrenched role of projecting offensive power all over the world to manning the ramparts of an impregnable defensive citadel. This implies a complete restructuring of its economy aligned to a much restricted global trade outreach, and the end of its economic dictatorship via dollar hegemony.
Your vision of the US as a future defensive power seems right, but permanent and unproblematic access to the resource base of South America does not seem realistic. The south has a long tradition of resisting the gringos, and with ever improving trade opportunities with China and the world, currently dormant anti-imperial tendencies will re-awaken. The US is a declining economic power, though still huge, and it will decline further when it can no longer leverage geopolitical hegemony to forcing its way economic advantage. The internal rot of its quarterly earnings-focused corporate culture and finance-driven economy and of the American social base characterized by soaring inequality is already well advanced, and will only grow worse. I envision the fortress state you evoke developing a parallel function of internal repression justified by an exaggerated external threat. Propaganda and information control will reach 1984-levels and we will “have always been at war with Eastasia.” The wealthy will, of course, continue to live splendid lives and will continue to support the system that makes that possible. The only course correction that could avert this scenario would be a revival of genuine popular democratic control over the state apparatus, but I fear the window for that closed permanently in 2016. Though as Aurelien reminds us, prediction is difficult “when it concerns the future.”
Your scenario is just as possible. The central cause of America's decline has been the plowshares beaten into swords for the two world wars have not reverted to their original state. Until then, in spite of the Monroe Doctrine, it was a great power short of superpower status.
Almost every excess of the country can be traced to these back to back wars. The decline of its democracy, rise of a fascist oligarchy, extreme income and wealth inequality, financial oppression, out of control debt, dollar hegemony, breakdown in societal order, and reconfiguration of the economy to sustain a permanent state of war against the whole world. Future historians may call America's emergence from WWII as the dominant superpower a pyrrhic victory for its people.
You might find John Birmingham's 'After America' an interesting read.
I believe you are wrong about marine power. The important issue is the Baltic. And you have missed the way in which the Russians think about other Russians being marginalized and treated generally. I live in Latvia and the direction the Baltic States have moved against Russians in those countries has seriously pissed off Putin. Add to this the issue of Kaliningrad and the antics of those declaring the Baltic a nato Sea, and you can make a good case for an swift invasion of Latvia and Lithuania to make the Baltic safe for Russian export sea lanes. There are lots of Russian speakers in Latvia and control of the society would be easy. And Riga has always been the best port in the Baltic. I used to think Russia did not need to invade. It already controlled Latvia sufficiently for it's purposes. But the anti Russian behaviour that has developed here and in Estonia in the last 10 years will have been registered. And all the Russians need to take over is shoes.
Note that, while it doesn't solve the equipment issue, for one who still got the money, there is one age-old solution to the recruitment one : mercenaries. With hundreds of millions of people south of the Mediterranean and a deteriorating climate and economic situation, there is almost infinite potential.
In desperate times, more than one empire resorted on it. And if things have always ended the same way when the money runs out, sooner or later the temptation may be too strong...
Mercenaries can plug gaps, but not constitute an army. Armies are complex structures whose many positions people must be slowly trained up to fill, as Aurelien has described briefly above and in more detail in previous essays. Above the ground level, this level of organization requires staff who are longterm loyal and who trust one another’s loyalty.
A partial exception is the private military contractor, a profit-driven corporate entity staffed by aleady trained former soldiers and officers, some portion of whom are bound to one another by previous personal or organizational ties. Wagner PMC was a successful example that also show the limits of this model.
Yes, you're right on the individual or small unit level. The way we can see it right now with Polish, maybe Colombians or others serving on both side of the front.
But, as you said, it's a different matter when talking about larger units with generals and all. Indeed, the Russians tried it with Wagner and the Chechen militias. And quickly see the downsides.
In the mean time, from the Thirty Years War, the Italian Renaissance and all the way to antiquity, there are plenty of exemple of large mercenaries companies fighting wars for cities or kings who had to rely on them because they see no other way to defend themself. Or sometime just to keep them busy. As long as they could pay, that is.
So, granted, we are still far from it. But I would not discard the idea so easily...
“In many periods it was the only (or preferred) option. But do you see it as a viable option for NATO today? I should think that the disadvantage Aurelien mentions of NATO’s nationally subdivided military vs Russia’s single force would apply all the more so wrt mercenary forces.”
That's my point. Of course it's not viable. But when the situation will be ripe for it, it could very well looks like it. It might be the only option available to keep going a bit longer.
And anyway, since when have Eurocrats chosen viable options in this whole matter ?
Right. In many periods it was the only (or preferred) option. But do you see it as a viable option for NATO today? I should think that the disadvantage Aurelien mentions of NATO’s nationally subdivided military vs Russia’s single force would apply all the more so wrt mercenary forces.
Britain and France are essentially NPINO (Nuclear Powers In Name Only). The British nuclear "deterrent" rests in 4 clapped out submarines and Trident missiles that fail immediately on launch. Britain is threatening the purchase of 12 (!) F35A aircraft to carry gravity nuclear bombs. The Russian integrated air defense system will take care of this.
France is in a similar state.
3.5 million Germans formed the backbone of "Barbarossa", and we know how that turned out. Does anybody seriously think that that military force (probably the best in human history) can be replicated with the youth of today? (Not a bad thing BTW).
The political leadership of almost the entire West is mired in delusion. We can only hope that their stupidity doesn't cost us our lives.
I often read veiled criticism of the youth of today in the west. Let me break a lance for them, for people that in general abhor violence. Which it’s another factor in the future avoidance of a generalised war in the style of both WWs. And since we’re talking about this, the much lionised golden generation (which should really include the German, Japanese and Italian too really, at the end of the day they too were patriotic) always struck me as incredibly easy to turn into killing machines. You only have to see YouTube personal accounts of US veterans to shudder at the sheer amount of violence they proved capable of unleashing. Ghastly. All in the name of capital, from countries that in some cases weren’t really threatened directly.
We don’t have that youth today. You can criticise their green hair all you like but they won’t switch off their humanity in a moment's notice just because a politician is barking from a podium.
Yes, there is hope with the youth of today. Perhaps because their prospects are so much worse, they appear to have a healthy cynicism about our political leadership.
I have warned my grandchildren about military service. TPTB will attempt to seduce you with patriotic mumbo jumbo, but, if necessary they will use you like a carpenter uses nails.
Wolfgang Streeck thinks differently – that "It seems remarkably easy to convince the younger generation of today that the world is divided in good and evil and that it is our duty to fight evil even at the cost of thousands, if not millions, of human lives – for ‘justice’." (https://www.counterfire.org/article/ukraine-europe-and-its-discontents-interview-with-wolfgang-streeck/).
I am inclined to agree to some degree... The idea that interests should govern politics seem incredibly alien to others than the bunch that rules.
Or to state it as a "principle": The rulers of the last generation has been remarkably skilled in what a friend of mine called "moral positioning". That is, everything is posed as a moral issue, with a hero, a villain and a victim, like in a Hollywood drama. Part of their removal from reality, probably. But the shrilly thing is that they have taken so many with them.
France is in a markedly better state ; its submarines and missiles are at least working, and can be independently launched. The squadron of ASMP-launching Rafale is also head and shoulders more operational than anything as silly as a F35 (barely working plane) launching a gravity nuclear bomb (i.e. a kamikaze operation).
The plan ever always only was for the United States to intervene. There never really was any other serious plan. Not europe (europeans are geriatric metrosexuals who make Liberace look like Audie Murphy by comparison) but the United States
Trump is mousetrapping himself nicely into giving the europeans the war they so evidently crave.
NATO is betting that nuclear war is survivable, at least for the people who matter, and besides, Russia lacks the stomach to push the button. They, of course, have no such scruples, and see Russian reticence as contemptible weakness.
n.b. British and french nuclear power is negligible. Both are entirely dependent on their American Master.
Have you seen this one from British historian Mark Felton?
"Rented Missiles & Worn Out Submarines: The Shocking State of Britain's Nuclear Deterrent"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Z0Y-mFMBk
I had not seen that, but it doesn't surprise me.
And if the United States intervenes, its Paper Tiger military will be shredded in short order.
As Aurelien observes, the US is in no position to intervene effectively. I continue to be astonished at the naive faith that Europe has in American military might.
Obviously both NATO and Russia disagree What do you know that they do not?
Even if you were correct, all that means is that the conflict will go nuclear very quickly.
I think you need to re-read Aurelien's essay, focusing on the part where he explains why threats of ground troops are empty.
I read the essay. Both Russia and NATO obviously think otherwise.
So let it go nuclear, so what? You are a coward.
Because anyone who fears mutually assured destruction is a weakling?
Not the smartest opinion I have ever heard.
O Vd. es un "valiente" tonto.
Oh that poor mousetrapped Trump... Frankly, i hear their that blind snobbism of a self-imposed elite nation, that at the very same time laughs at "subhumans" attempts to pretend being equal, yet pretends being equal to real elites anf failing to hear their laughter. How can those two aspects come together always puzzled me.
Or in less abstract tetrms. So the alleged EU/NATO game is to force USArmy to intervene. And speaking about "mousetrapping" you protest that game succeeded. I fail to see any success, except a self-imposed blindness.
EuroUkraine for at least ten years, 2014-2024, were beating the drums of "effectively" being part of EU/NATO and looking down upon "DNA handicapped" Russians. They considered themselves that very important probing brat, that gang dispaches to annoy civilw to create the pretext for "justified" robbery. Except they never were important and never were considered equal by Europeans themselves.
EuroUkrainians had but religiois faith that they only need to get few bruises and Europe would be forced to attack Russia to retaliate their proxies. Well, so allegedly Brussels "mousetrapped" itself like Trump and EU armies are warring Russia now?
They do not. This idea being nothing by contrick was obvious to everypne but Ukrainian. All their intense preaching "Europe cannot afford seeing us defeated. We would force them fight our war" culminated with nothing, when Russia did come to the battlefield.
Israel was equally self-delusioning it would only take them to get few bruises and America would be forced to send armies, because America can not afford yada-yada. Well, they did get their bruises from Iran and America... Well, it at least did something. It produxed one bombing raid, and called it a day. This single raid was infinitely more than what EuroMaidan regime got from NATO armies, but still much less than Israel believe they would get for granted.
Now i see EU guys are repating thats script of self-delusioning. For the saod ten years they never seriously thought bthey would ever send their valuable army fight for aborigines of Ukraine interests. Yet for some aberation EU cannot see the same relation between themselves and American master nation.
America easily and without much hesitation DID afford to just ignore Israel war on Iran. Does anybodt have doubts Israel stands much above EU in the West's pecking order? There is no reason to think ignoring EU's war on Russia would not be much easier and self-evident for America, than ignoring Israel war was, or than Ignoring EuroMaidan war was for EU itself.
If EU/NATO really play into that delusional idea to force America to fight their coming war on Russia in their stead, i believe, they absolutely conned themselves beyong any point of reason no-return. Would Russia even really bomb Berlin and Paris like Kiev, America might loose their vocal chords but not their sleep
We hear similar self-assurances at every NATO escalation.
I have zero sympathy for Trump BTW. It does not matter why he does what he does, whether he is frantically trying to distract from Epstein, whether he is bribed, blackmailed, pr trapped by his own fool rhetoric.
The missiles fly all the same.
Escalations as in "pick a small shithole country and throw it against the wall" ? Sure, sure. The cases, where NATO armies was outnumbering the picked victim at least 10:1 and so was not threatened at all.
Then, when Turkey attacked Greece over one island there was no mighty America rushign for fight othewrs wars, was it? America just warmed popcorn and watched the war show.
In case EU would docile enough to make their war on Russia hot, like EuroMaidan regime was, America would again blissfully stay on the sidelines enjoying free horror movie. Why not, The ALWAYS did it when a threat to their army was above infinitesimal.
If you have not noticed, NATO has done nothing but escalate since the war began, taking steps that would have been unthinkable, even after the war had run for some time.
Of course, you neglect to mention WWI and WWII.
Oh, i do neglect. Tell me, what NATO did do during ww1 and ww2.
NATO does escalate in the same tired way of "send more zombie aborigines and mercenaries", like they ecer did after 2014 coup. And thry already spent their best zombies and their best mercs. Sending substandard ones would not impress Russia much.
But hey, you were singng one rather different tune. You were saying that some how by some divine order USA now must sent their army, GI boots over Ukrainian hills, USAF over Ukrainian rivers, "intervene" you said. Laughable, indeed.
Now you backtracked from this specific but wrong prediction "USA is forced to intervene" to the meaninglessly vague "NATO will escalate". This latter claim is safe for you because to means everythng and nothing. Would the puppet chairing NATO (i sincerely don't rememeber the current namesake) tomorrow kick a stray dog you can honestly said that was the NATO escalation. Because it truly would be, one of many. But why should that impress anyone?
Vague threats do not impress because during last ten years we all had seen how little they mean, how oversold and cheap western words are.
Specific threats do not impress because they are unrealistic.
This is the sad fork EU/NATO created for themselves, the rosehips-laden bed for all Europeans to sleep in. By Europeans, for Europeans. And it is futile calling daddy Trump to lie down into that bed with you, twice so to bed for bringing USArmy with him. Fool he is but idiot he is not.
Don't play stupid. And yes, American intervention now is only a matter of time, with Epstein as the wild card.
BTW, the idea thst NATO had sent any substantial numbers of troops is more wishful thinking, unless you can point to thousands of prisoners, war invalids, mothers, wives and girlfriends who don't know where Johnny went and can't get any answers.
We are still far from that...
On French TV, you can see almost every day pundits and self-styled experts openly rejoicing that soon Europe could go to war with Russia. If only Trump, whom they despise and loath as much as they can, would change his mind, a quick and sweeping victory would be a given.
They want this war. As if they haven't learned a thing from history. It's downright frightening.
No later than today, there was this guy, some retired general or something, saying that since the US have hundred of fighters and bombers, instead of giving a few at the time to the Ukrainian regime, Trump could just give the order to bomb Russia to submission. And these people speak freely on TV like whatever they are saying is plain common sense...
There are two alternatives, not mutually inconsistent.
One is the dream of madmen in DC who really believe a nuclear war is winnable.
The second is led by the Brits, which is a never ending war of low key attrition using drones and subversive players engineering internal disputes in Russia.
The problem Russia faces is a still powerful enemy it can't attack with it's superior forces because of geography, the US. And the dangers of a slowly building internal fracture brought about by constant interference.
Russia will win the war, but can it win itself any peace.
The madmen in DC need to be rounded up and quietly confined until they sober up. I would put their pretensions another way. They believe that they would survive a nuclear war and that somehow that is a desirable outcome. As to the rest of us, when you see yourself as one of the important people, we do not matter.
It's not just the Americans but their european poodles as well.
It's not just the brits but the entire pack of europoodles. And the plan is for the Americans to ride to the rescue once again.
Another excellent essay. I had thought conscription might be a realistic possibility in at least Germany and the UK, but re-reading the earlier essays mentioned, it seems not. It has been promoted here in the UK mostly by older people and female HR-types, possibly because it would be good life training for what they see as complacent, lazy and unpatriotic young males. Another reality at the moment is that the level of credibility of the current government is at an all-time low already and any serious mention of conscription would likely bring about enough civil disobedience and disorder to destroy it.
I wonder how many British people are aware of how weak the West is militarily? Mostly it does not get mentioned in the MSM but the Daily Telegraph at least, has at least three columnists regularly spouting nonsense - how Putin is "cornered", Russia is on the point of collapse, they could never defeat NATO, our new super weapons are just around the corner, etc - that might as well be handed directly to them by the MoD and MI6. I fear the gap between rhetoric and reality will last a long time, even after Ukraine has collapsed.
Another obvious factor is that most European countries are headed for a steep, debt-driven economic decline anyway and will have little or no extra money to throw at defence. Russia will doubtless try to accelerate and exacerbate this, both directly and through BRICS. In terms of internal conflict, I don't think it will take long to blow up with fingers pointed at Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia. Goodness knows where that will take us - probably to the fragmenting of the EU as predicted here, within a decade or less. Interesting times ahead!
The point of this rhetoric is to convince the public that one push is all that is needed, just one expeditionary force and victory is assured.
Of course, once the balloon goes up and the rosy predictions of easy victory prove false, it will be too late to do anything about it.
The politicians know this full well, just as the admissions that maybe Iraq wasn't exactly chock-a-block with WMDs came only after the neocons had already gotten the war that they hungered for and it was too late to stop now, oopsies!
The territorial ambitions of, and US fealty to, the state of Israel puts another twist into an already overextended American commitment around the world. It now has naval vessels in the western Pacific to counteract China as well as presences in the Mediterranean and Caribbean waters, not to mention Arctic patrols.
Military presence is also found in much of Northern Africa, Europe and the Middle East.
Reading this essay all my own views have been confirmed and unless we are all missing something the UK and US must be aware of the state of things too and so it surprises me that they continue with the provocations they do. There are a couple of points that I'd like to add.
The first is the national unity and support for the Russian military WITHIN Russia. The army believes in the fight, hard as it is. I see no equivalent morale in the west and declining morale within Ukraine itself. All we get is insults and copium about Russia 'about to collapse' and Putin terminally ill with cancer. It really is infantile.
The second thing is the recent EU/US negotiations over tarrifs in which the main strategic aim of the EU was about maintaining a US commitment to Europe with huge amounts of (largely ficitious) EU money going to the USA. Criticism of Ursula Von Der Leyen seems to be that she just 'rolled over' - but a deeper look at the figures (by the Australian economist Warrick Powell) shows that it was a lot of smoke and mirrors. Trump announced a victory, Von Der Leyen looked suitably embarrassed BUT achieved what she set out to achieve - tieing Trump to Europe BECAUSE THERE IS NO TIMELY MILITARY ALTERNATIVE. This illustrates the level of panic in Europe. The emphasis is on buying expensive American weapons. The so-called Keynsian military growth plan announced by Mertz to reinvigorate German industry must be a casualty given the costs of this. Trump wants the EU to pay for the American defence of Europe - it really is a Protection Racket.
The third point is the relationship of Russia to Europe - Putin has made it clear that Russia now faces East. Prior to the intervention in Ukraine it seemed to me that the intelligent thing to do would be to fortify Russia's eastern border and re-orientate to China. Since then we have learned about Blinken's plan to locate missiles in Ukraine and about the bio-labs and the CIA stations (12 according to the New York Times). Along with the attacks carried out by the Ukrainian army on the Russian speaking Donbas, Putin decided after years of provocations and the betrayal of the Minsk treaty on a pre-emptive strike - and I can see the justification later amplified by betrayal of the emerging Istanbul accords. The provocation from the west (outlined in the Rand Corporation document 'Extending Russia') was to use Ukrainian blood and 'western weapons and intelligence' to defeat Russia and while that has failed it has still cost Russia a lot and will cost more in the future because 'western strategy will be to encourage and finance unrest in its well-worn Galician stomping ground. I note yesterday that according to Dr Brovkin citing the Russian press, 2 UK special services and one MI6 officer were captured by Speznatz on a raid on Odessa. I suspect such elements are running rampant in Ukraine.
The final point is this: Russia has no strategic interest in invading west but could be provoked if people like Kajja Kallas keep talking about the need for 'the west' to invade and dismember Russia. They need to dismiss such provocations. All Russia has to do is to defend itself in order to defeat 'the west' while at the same time growing its economy to the east. China and Russia are bound NOT (these days) by ideology but by geo-political self interest. This is effectively what a very angry Wang Ye told Kallas at the recent EU/China summit and he is right. They need each other.
I don't understand what you say about the interpretation of EU-USA tariffs (well, what the australian say). ¿You mean that for the EU this deal has forced a military compromise of the USA? I see this in a more simple way: sell a bit more of american industries and make that European countries pay more of the NATO. Will see if the compromise of the USA with the NATO is really tested some day and what happen then (for example: issues between Spain and Morocco, allied of the USA), but the military problems of the USA are huge and they probably want good relations in the near future with Russia.
With this I mean that "trick" of the EU to force the USA to compromise it seems to me will not work. Imagine that in a future some serious provocations are made on the Baltics against russian population and Russia act in some way. ¿Will the US engage with this when they would need a minimum of good relations with Russia because of China (and Russia had, has and will have issues with China)?
I don't know what you think, but let me know.
Von der Leyen's main strategic aim was to keep the USA 'in'Europe - and so she just rolled over. In doing so she sacrificed the economic interests of much of Europe. will the USA intervene? It depends on who, where and what.
Thanks, I see your point (very good seen, by the way).
However, I see it mainly as an attempt to scape and keep in power of the EU elits. If conflicts arise in any place in Europe, I have strong doubts that the EEUU will make something.
For make richer the talk:
1:- Trump has pressure of "isolationist" groups, tired of EEUU foreign adventures. With Israel we have the lobby, but there is not such lobby of european interestrs (however, maybe the Democrat Party could use this as a tool).
2.- Not building a common army in Europe (is impossible in my view, but talking of a possible attempt) will make even harder a cohesive EU.
I know it’s an oversimplification of the whole article and specifically the last paragraph but I think the way forward for the west is to start following the advice my mum gave me on my first day of school, “be good, listen to your teachers and don’t be naughty to the other children”. And here I am, fifty years later, safe and with a friend or two (but stuck in a country run by bullies).
Another remarkable essay Aurelian, I have almost nothing to add except on this point,
"The armed forces of those two countries, including headquarters, assembly areas, military ports, airfields and supply and repair depots, could be dismantled by long-range missiles in a matter of hours, and no response would be possible."
I think I remember Signor Gus, the aeronautical engineer and military technology enthusiast from the YouTube channel Millenium7*
(https://www.youtube.com/@Millennium7HistoryTech)
saying in one of his videos that he was confident that the Russians are always holding enough missiles in reserve to launch a strike on every military airbase in Europe. Probably true.
I also think that the Special Forces, Dirty Tricks Brigades and Ninja Stealth Assassins that NATO have relied on so heavily for so long have reached about the maximum limit of their effectiveness. Of course there will continue to be espionage and sabotage, and a few senior officers and politicians will continue meet sudden and sticky ends, but there's a limit to such things, can you send over 10,000 assassins to bump off 10,00 top leaders?
This is a great essay, certainly one of your best.
What is the likelihood that a Western country - say Italy for instance - realises that trade and cooperation with Russia and China is the winning formula and recognises that the EU-NATO is a busted flush and starts to profit from that realisation? Would they be threatened with sanctions, tariffs, etc? Is there any possibility of this happening?
A thorough, well thought out analysis as usual. I am missing two elements though.
You haven't mentioned the rising role of AI in changing the face of modern warfare. China, arguably, is leading the field in AI-enabled drone swarms, micro and nano drones for surveillance, and all-terrain combat robots. Russia and US are not sitting on their backsides either. The shortage of military personnel could be addressed by armies of autonomous robots. Such a transformation will depend on the multiple issues you have covered very well with regard to the availability of raw material, supply chains, industrial infrastructure, manufacturing capabilities and technological prowess. One way or another, the major powers are likely to get to that moment of singularity within the next two decades.
Second, while your scenario of a Russia-dominated Europe is more than plausible in the same time horizon, the role of US needs to be thought through. Besides being an island fortress, US dominates and has easy access to a vast hinterland comprising the resource rich North and South Americas. It can draw from this to recast itself as a 'defensive' military power in the coming post-unipolar world. A tectonic shift from its entrenched role of projecting offensive power all over the world to manning the ramparts of an impregnable defensive citadel. This implies a complete restructuring of its economy aligned to a much restricted global trade outreach, and the end of its economic dictatorship via dollar hegemony.
Your vision of the US as a future defensive power seems right, but permanent and unproblematic access to the resource base of South America does not seem realistic. The south has a long tradition of resisting the gringos, and with ever improving trade opportunities with China and the world, currently dormant anti-imperial tendencies will re-awaken. The US is a declining economic power, though still huge, and it will decline further when it can no longer leverage geopolitical hegemony to forcing its way economic advantage. The internal rot of its quarterly earnings-focused corporate culture and finance-driven economy and of the American social base characterized by soaring inequality is already well advanced, and will only grow worse. I envision the fortress state you evoke developing a parallel function of internal repression justified by an exaggerated external threat. Propaganda and information control will reach 1984-levels and we will “have always been at war with Eastasia.” The wealthy will, of course, continue to live splendid lives and will continue to support the system that makes that possible. The only course correction that could avert this scenario would be a revival of genuine popular democratic control over the state apparatus, but I fear the window for that closed permanently in 2016. Though as Aurelien reminds us, prediction is difficult “when it concerns the future.”
Your scenario is just as possible. The central cause of America's decline has been the plowshares beaten into swords for the two world wars have not reverted to their original state. Until then, in spite of the Monroe Doctrine, it was a great power short of superpower status.
Almost every excess of the country can be traced to these back to back wars. The decline of its democracy, rise of a fascist oligarchy, extreme income and wealth inequality, financial oppression, out of control debt, dollar hegemony, breakdown in societal order, and reconfiguration of the economy to sustain a permanent state of war against the whole world. Future historians may call America's emergence from WWII as the dominant superpower a pyrrhic victory for its people.
You might find John Birmingham's 'After America' an interesting read.
I believe you are wrong about marine power. The important issue is the Baltic. And you have missed the way in which the Russians think about other Russians being marginalized and treated generally. I live in Latvia and the direction the Baltic States have moved against Russians in those countries has seriously pissed off Putin. Add to this the issue of Kaliningrad and the antics of those declaring the Baltic a nato Sea, and you can make a good case for an swift invasion of Latvia and Lithuania to make the Baltic safe for Russian export sea lanes. There are lots of Russian speakers in Latvia and control of the society would be easy. And Riga has always been the best port in the Baltic. I used to think Russia did not need to invade. It already controlled Latvia sufficiently for it's purposes. But the anti Russian behaviour that has developed here and in Estonia in the last 10 years will have been registered. And all the Russians need to take over is shoes.
Note that, while it doesn't solve the equipment issue, for one who still got the money, there is one age-old solution to the recruitment one : mercenaries. With hundreds of millions of people south of the Mediterranean and a deteriorating climate and economic situation, there is almost infinite potential.
In desperate times, more than one empire resorted on it. And if things have always ended the same way when the money runs out, sooner or later the temptation may be too strong...
Mercenaries can plug gaps, but not constitute an army. Armies are complex structures whose many positions people must be slowly trained up to fill, as Aurelien has described briefly above and in more detail in previous essays. Above the ground level, this level of organization requires staff who are longterm loyal and who trust one another’s loyalty.
A partial exception is the private military contractor, a profit-driven corporate entity staffed by aleady trained former soldiers and officers, some portion of whom are bound to one another by previous personal or organizational ties. Wagner PMC was a successful example that also show the limits of this model.
Yes, you're right on the individual or small unit level. The way we can see it right now with Polish, maybe Colombians or others serving on both side of the front.
But, as you said, it's a different matter when talking about larger units with generals and all. Indeed, the Russians tried it with Wagner and the Chechen militias. And quickly see the downsides.
In the mean time, from the Thirty Years War, the Italian Renaissance and all the way to antiquity, there are plenty of exemple of large mercenaries companies fighting wars for cities or kings who had to rely on them because they see no other way to defend themself. Or sometime just to keep them busy. As long as they could pay, that is.
So, granted, we are still far from it. But I would not discard the idea so easily...
As per my reply to FF below,
“In many periods it was the only (or preferred) option. But do you see it as a viable option for NATO today? I should think that the disadvantage Aurelien mentions of NATO’s nationally subdivided military vs Russia’s single force would apply all the more so wrt mercenary forces.”
That's my point. Of course it's not viable. But when the situation will be ripe for it, it could very well looks like it. It might be the only option available to keep going a bit longer.
And anyway, since when have Eurocrats chosen viable options in this whole matter ?
Lots of armies throughout history had relied largely on mercenaries.
Yes, the Thirty Years War comes to mind.
I weas thinking of Carthage, and they were not the first.
Right. In many periods it was the only (or preferred) option. But do you see it as a viable option for NATO today? I should think that the disadvantage Aurelien mentions of NATO’s nationally subdivided military vs Russia’s single force would apply all the more so wrt mercenary forces.
Not really, as long as it works.
The USA has already resorted to this offering South American refugees citizenship in return for military service - just like the Romans did.
This has been done. I have seen reports of many Colombian mercenaries in Ukraine
My usual translation into Italian (with a slight delay due to the summer holidays...)
"Convivere con la Russia.
Qual è esattamente l'alternativa?"
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2025/08/convivere-con-la-russia-qual-e.html
Congratulations Aurelian,An excellent and analytical article. Great fantastic of your writing. This is one of your great works.