Russia is well aware of the Battle of Britain. Many books and articles have been published on this topic in Russia. Everything has been studied as much as it is possible to study the military experience of another country.
In fact, it's the British who don't know anything about the air battle for Moscow. Although the result was much worse for Hitler.
In October 1941 alone, German bombers carried out 31 raids on Moscow, including 13 during the day and 18 at night. 1998 aircraft participated in the raids, of which only 72 aircraft (3.6%) broke through to the city. The Soviet air defense forces destroyed 278 aircraft in air battles and with anti-aircraft artillery and machine gun fire during the month, which is 13.9% of the aircraft involved in the raids on the capital of the USSR.
“But in addition, and largely out of public sight, budgetary pressures forced western nations to cut back on logistics and on logistic support.”
This is also a reason why the government at all levels in the United States (and I believe in many corporations) is increasingly incompetent. Like when the back office staff was cut at a department store I worked at to save money, the ability of the store, and the district, and ultimately the entire corporation to function especially in emergencies or any situation out of the ordinary was also reduced, but while the company lost customers and ultimately business, for the next few years it made more profit; the support agencies for Congress and the personal staff for the members of Congress have been reduced and in some areas eliminated so that not only is Congress less capable, but also the entire government. The cuts are all hidden from the public although when it was done, it was said to be a cost cutting measure and getting rid of big government; that the bills Congress does vote on are often written by lobbyists and that members of Congress no longer have the staff to read the often very large and complex bills is apparently unimportant.
Having the ability to do research, write effective bills, and read and understand new legislation is not very sexy. Just like with logistics. Or regulatory agencies. On paper, it looks good, but all the support to do the job has been eliminated. The corporations make a lot of money by doing Congress’ work and blocking regulations, but the government’s ability to deal with emergencies is destroyed.
However, what areas are cut are often strangely targeted. In the military, the budget for fancy new equipment remains because corporations make bank developing and selling the equipment. The ships and staff for the logistics are not as profitable and the military having its own capacity, separate from the corporations, to do all the work for its own functioning allows it to push back against corporate lobbying and cuts into profits. A similar dynamic happens in the rest of the government such as the CDC, FDA, or Congress. The government is often bloated, but that just means that essential staff has been cut and sometimes given over to government contractors. The corporations have lobbied and manipulated the government to make it easier to extract money and prevent interference even in areas of safety, like medicine or food. And I think I se this in local government as well.
Really, all areas of government and business have been slimmed down for more immediate profit making despite whatever long term cuts in effects in ability or even survivability. Only the appearance of Doing Something is important and money must always flow to the wealthy and the connected.
One can make the claim that modern capitalism is either the fault or the enabler of classical liberalism. They both arose at roughly the same time and it was the newly liberal, capitalist class that pushed the slave trade and the industrial revolutions. They linked goodness and godliness with wealth.
However, classical liberalism comes directly from the Enlightenment, which was concerned about fighting dictatorial rule via democracy, rule by religion especially an established state church, justice, which includes trial by jury and the banning of torture, and resolving conflicts especially religious conflicts with debate instead of armed conflict; the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are all based on the Enlightenment and classical Liberalism, and even the most pro business, pro corporation Founders would have been seriously disturbed by the current worship of capitalism as well as the vast wealth inequality. This is why many American conservatives are not very conservative with their worshipping of both the market and capitalism as well as wanting to ignore much of the ideology of American political philosophy including civil rights.
Modern capitalism was created roughly in the late sixteenth century in the Dutch Republic and the Kingdom of England/United Kingdom partly for elites to get more wealthy and partly as counter to the growing power of the workers, farmers, and former serfs who were advocating for some form of socialism or at least some means of reducing the wealth inequality and therefore lack of power of the lower classes against that of the aristocracy and the merchant class. The elites could peel off the wealthiest of the lower classes by dangling the chance of more wealth by investing.
So, yes and no? It was not the intention of the original thinkers or philosophers who created classical liberalism, but the newly wealthy deliberately linked capitalism and wealth to it.
While liberalism clearly emerged, more or less, in the 17th century, the situation with capitalism is less clear. Either, as you say, it was the cause or the consequence of liberalism.
For me, that's not so interesting. What's important is that liberalism initially served progress (you've described the narrative well), but now it's transformed from an accelerator into a brake: initially, it was profitable for capital to invest in two industrial revolutions, but now the profit margin has disappeared, and it's profitable to shut everything down. A brutal dismissal. Suicide. "Nothing personal."
And this is what the global South (including Russia) is eagerly awaiting. We initially bet on the opposite of liberalism: statism. And when capitalism began to show suicidal tendencies (in the second half of the 20th century), we realized that by saving business, the capital market could be "emulated." Dirigisme. It's difficult, but at least we get the investments society needs. South Korea is a good example, but with the use of AI we can do much better.
“initially, it was profitable for capital to invest in two industrial revolutions, but now the profit margin has disappeared, and it's profitable to shut everything down. A brutal dismissal. Suicide. "Nothing personal."”
Thank you for the response and the reminder that modern neoliberal capitalism is essentially a death cult or a economic ideology transformed into a religion of nihilistic anti-humanism, which makes talking to supporters of capitalism, who relentlessly say that it is the greatest system of bringing people out of poverty without acknowledging the costs, much as the supporters of the early decades of the Soviet Union marvel at the vast economic development especially in heavy industries without acknowledging the Gulags or the Great Purge.
There were tens of millions of deaths, with the destruction of entire societies, countries, and empires, for mere profit from, the end of the sixteenth century to now, and with the development of modern disaster capitalism, I can say that it continues without a stop. Hell, just read War is a Racket by Smeadley Butler and understand that much of the Cold War was fought that way with communism just the excuse and profits for corporations the goal. It continues to to this day.
Truthfully, any economic or political system can be twisted and used to the advantage of the powerful and the elites, but too many people just look at the name and assume that it is true and good or bad without looking behind the façade. It is like accepting North Korea’s claim to being the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea instead of the dictatorship that it is.
Very accurate. We Russians found ourselves in this war largely because of our weak market. The Ukrainians took advantage of this and escalated the conflict. Meanwhile, the communists, and especially the DPRK, are further degrading the market.
But the root of the problem is that in the West, under the guise of the usefulness of the market, through banks (Deep State), real social parasites (the elite, the Devil) operate. They start wars and issue loans at exorbitant interest rates. Two sides of the same parasitic strategy.
Therefore, neoliberalism must remain a thing of the past: it only serves parasites. At the same time, market freedom (without free for banks) must remain.
The new alliance of collectivism (metaphorically, God) and machines (intelligence) is responsible for this future. Now we have AI in our arsenal. With some modification, it will ensure the desired social optimum.
It’s always an education when I read your columns. You have the ability to combine ‘common sense’ with world history, the history of warfare and military capabilities. That’s a rare blend of knowledge.
Thank you again Aurelien for your well-thought articles. When talking about lessons to be learnt I would think that a pre-requisite would be to be predisposed to learn anything in the first place. Given that the Western PMCs have been, during the last decades, lecturing everyone about every issue I suspect their current predisposition to learn must be close to zero. These applies to the political, military, economical and social elites of the so-called Collective West. More so if these elites belong to some particular countries which have for long considered themselves as models to be followed. Here we can include France, Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries, the UK and the US. So, après-Ukraine, one of the big lessons to be learnt would be that none of these countries are a model any more and their elites ought to be replaced ASAP in other to start learning any lesson. While this takes a while we go on with stupid ideas such as "drone shields" etc.
Beyond complicated military-related lessons, maybe there is a lesson to be learnt by the European people. That they cannot trust their current leadership. And this they might apply soon.
"Indeed, I remember one particularly mad scheme to hand out such weapons to every household in Germany, so that the Russians would never dare attack). As military experts pointed out immediately, in such a situation the Russians would just level the defences with artillery first."
Experts didn't have to look very hard: something like thst did happen, in early 1945, when Germans started handing out Panzerfauste (basically, a disposable stick with a potent but short ranged rocket propelled grenade at one end) to just about everyone...and the Red Army did respond with liberal use of heavy artillery.
The notion of NATO encroachment into Ukraine was a miscalculation. By the same token, the Russian SMO/invasion of Ukraine was a miscalculation, a gamble earning Russia renewed distrust and isolation for another eighty years to come. Western Europe would be irresponsible not to seriously rearm, especially considering imminent abandonment by the USA. Rearmament will naturally raise tensions and misunderstandings on both sides. Western Europeans need to decide what their civilization is about. Likewise, the Russian people need to decide how far down this road they want to go. Neither side appears to envision a long-term strategy.
Let the West first demonstrate its ability to rearm. I suspect these grandiose declarations are just a circus act. Capital doesn't benefit from this; it benefits from AI displacing humans. And the West has long been subservient to capital.
Someone DOES have a longer term strategy, it just involved a different target than all those "young world leaders" emplaced in EU and European nations management were lead to believe
Western Europe has had price competitiveness of their remaining productive industries destroyed (or forced to relocate, largely to North America) by loss of cheap energy, compounded by being forced to buy expensive energy from North American suppliers, a most excellent forced wealth transfer.
The world's finances once parked as investments in EU are now fleeing to elsewhere (North America being a popular destination), courtesy of the recent illegal appropriation of seized Russian Federation funds too.
The remaining social spending in EU will now be eliminated as those resources must go towards rearmament, largely with weapons systems purchased from USA.
EU is being strip mined by their NATO boss & former "ally". The RF don't have to do a darned thing about the remains of NATO/EU, "The West" has collapsed it for them, quite profitably.
If you believe the above chain of events wasn't at least a contingency plan well before February of 2022, you don't know how the only kind of people in USA who actually DO long term planning think.
There are two sides of the "resource curse" coin that must be considered whenever discussing geopolitics or US foreign policy. Obviously, the resources must secured for western consumption above all but the other side of it is "Demand Destruction". Resource rich countries must not be allowed to develop to the point where they start dipping into those resources for their own people's uses thereby speeding up depletion. This goes for other (non-resource rich) countries as well. European use of world resources is much curtailed, North America? Not so much.
If you really don't think that long term planning was involved, look at linked PDF, realize it discusses US planning that began by 1947 and was made policy by 1950.
I guess you are, unfortunately, right. Everything is in flux now and will depend on the ability of one or both sides to exercise caution and common sense. I do not have high hopes about the present bunch of macrons, merzes and stammers
Valery Gerasimov wrote, before 2022 btw, that each war is fundamentally unique, with its own set of parameters. As such, it is often not possible to draw applicable conclusions from former wars, nor apply conclusions from any one war to any other future wars.
What an absurd question-begging piece. Writing of:
"the consequent likelihood of having an angry and powerful Russia as a neighbour."
We have had an angry and dangerous Russia as a neighbour, in its current shambolic but still dangerous form, since 2000. The British were made aware of this (if no earlier because frankly Britain is permanently asleep) in 2005, with the Litvinenko assassination; and thought it smart to invite in the Oligarchs to takeover London. London never has enough money to make its gross failure work for it (at the expense of the future of everybody else in Britain).
The real problem was over-dependency on the US; which has its hands more than full in the East, in a post-hegemonic world where American exceptionalism is no longer enough for anyone, except the credulous British and Europeans - and has been making all of this clear to everyone for some years. The British have always been set against a united European defence force, more than anyone else; the old recycled obsession with Universal Monarchy never leaves the British psyche.
One question we should be asking that goes to the root of the matter is this: why, and when did Russia decide that a low grade war with Ukraine in the Donbas, from 2014, and going nowhere; could be turned into a decision to invade Kviv in 2022? One important factor in that invasion decision (completely overlooked by everyone, except Russia), had to be the conclusion of the four year disaster for Europe, 2016-2020 by the exceptionalist and foolish British, to undertake and finalise Brexit; making Britain look plain stupid, and the EU weak, divided, and falling apart. Combine that with MAGA and Trump in the US, and you can see where this was going to go. And here we are, in a 2025 rerun of the Sudetenland thesis, this time with Russia, and in the one place in Europe - Ukraine - nobody in Europe would choose as the ground for a dispute, given its intractable and uncomfortable history.
Brexit was a complete and utter disaster, and for Britain the injury is permanent. The 4% loss of GDP, which is £120Bn per year, every year and growing - cannot be replaced by any trade deals anywhere in any forecastable, planned future.
Beyond half-understood, half-baked conspiracies, everyone understood the history, and the only country in Western Europe with substantive experience of fighting in Ukraine, is Germany; and for very understandable reasons, they have no desire to return, at any price; nor does anyone else in Europe actually ever wish to go near putting boots on the ground there, and never did; and that is what my observation meant. I can't be bothered with ideological keyboard strategists; it is so lame.
Englishman, don't play dumb. Better think about what's going to happen to your Shire soon. An English writer in his fairy tale has already burned it once, along with the hairy legs of its inhabitants.
Close your mind to the possibility that USA's "evil butler" (Britain) will have their salary cut right along with the rest of the minions.
If you don't recall where Britain once stood in Crimea and all along Western Asia, continuing through the Himalayas? You might really BELIEVE that "no desire for boots on the ground" statement. But Sir Halford John Mackinder had different beliefs about the advisability of all that and he is still revered by your elites.
"Angry and dangerous Russia since 2000?" Hold your horses. It is Russia that felt threatened and repeatedly tried to draw attention to the Western aggression of NATO expansion and arming Ukraine, a de facto NATO member, to the teeth.
".. a decision to invade Kyiv in 2022"? Seriously? There was no decision to invade Kyiv. The Russian armed forces involved at the time would not be enough to do this.
The EU is weak and divided, not because of Brexit, but because it is a deeply flawed institution that usurped powers it was never meant to have.
"Why, and when did Russia decide that a low grade war with Ukraine in the Donbas, from 2014, and going nowhere; could be turned into a decision to invade Kyiv in 2022?"
Let me attempt to answer this question concisely, and with apologies for my tendency to speak an argue in analogies.
By late 2021 Moscow had decided that Eastern Ukraine was an open bleeding wound that had to be stitched closed one way or another
NATO began modernizing Ukraine's airfields to its own standards. Consequently, a couple more years and the Russian capital would have been unable to defend itself from a surprise invasion. In other words, the country simply had no choice.
Europe is struggling to cope with helping Ukraine, and the US exiting. The notion that Europe, in any form would invade Russia is, frankly bizarre. It doesn't have the capacity to do so; not even close. More keyboard strategy.
Of course, it is not NATO troops that are attacking, but the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They have a formal pretext: Crimea. Moreover, invading somewhere for the purpose of robbery has been a national pastime of the Dnieper Cossacks since about the 16th century. Didn't you know? They even managed to demonstrate this, especially for you, during the recent Kursk adventure.
And NATO, thanks to its airfields, would replace the invasion forces on Ukrainian territory and deliver weapons for the offensive. In other words, they would support it. You'd agree, an ideal task for this organization.
And most importantly... The road from Kharkiv to the southern entrance to the Russian capital is a billiard table with one obstacle – the Oka River. We can't rely on such protection.
It's all obvious. Who do Western strategists take us for? Oh, right, of course – barbarians, Genghis Khan's savage warriors, and so on. Business as usual.
The problem with that is, it doesn't depend on a source of any kind, but an open-ended metaphor, attached to nothing at all. We can argue about the quality of evidence in a case, but a metaphor attached to nothing?
I thought it was rather clear but I can elaborate.
The area is eastern Ukraine, the Donbass and Crimea.
The wound refers to a rupture, tear or break within the society, "the body politic' is not an unusual metaphor, so neither should be "a wound in the body politic".
The blood refers to vital resources, either tangible or intangible being lost from this wound, harmful alien pathogens can also enter.
Analogous to a wound on a body, the cut does not have to be near a vital organ for it to be fatal to the whole organism. Unchecked blood loss and a growing infection can kill it eventually.
No. That is a mere description of the metaphor, not an explanation why it goes on for eight years; and then, precisely in 2022 is escalated into a major invasion. The invasion was transformational point, the metaphor could apply at any time, and does not explain - why precisely, then?
This is a very one-eyed perspective you offer, to use a figure of speech....
You are not offering new thinking. Even Putin's guards of honour, look like extras from a Battle of Borodino film-set. At least Eisenstein and Bondarchuk could actually make compelling films. Since abandoning Communism (China still does it), he makes up his rambling ideology, on-the-hoof.
The real problem for Western Europeans in the 21st century? Nobody with any choice in the matter, outside Russia itself (and not even all Russians), wish to live under Russian rule. All Russia has ever offered the states that border it, from the Baltic to Balkans, is to live in eternal fear of invasion; or have memories of Russian rule that evoke only nightmares.
I have nothing more to say on this matter. Candidly? BTL on Aurelien is quite obviously a fly-blown wasteland.
I appreciate that you share your thought process. As someone who has turned his thoughts into action in Ukraine and spent the last two years trying to share the lessons of Ukraine with various governments and militaries, I agree with some of your points and would push back on others.
As a nit, the geometric advantage is empirically not true. It is based on the assumption of ceteris paribus. If it were true, the Russians would have been in Kyiv two years ago. Yes, quantity has a quality of its own, but there are many other factors at play that we should learn from Ukraine.
I agree that Western policy toward Ukraine is a failure. But I think it might be even worse than you have posited. I disagree with you that Russia will not attack NATO. Now that the US has proven under both D and R presidencies that it will not engage with an autocratic nuclear power, Trump has declared Europe as unworthy of defense in the National Security Strategy, and with no European leadership to fill the vacuum, there is no need for Russia to fear an engagement with more than national troops when it decides to invade the Baltic Nations. Those three countries cannot field more than 50,000 troops, none of them trained or equipped for state-of-the-art warfare. NATO's airpower is useless once Russian troops occupy the capitals and ports.
I was just over at your LinkedIn post, first skimming it, and then, as usual for me, skipping to the end to find your conclusion. There I discovered this,
"Thoughts, criticisms, and suggestions are welcome. I respect everyone who tangibly participates in defending the liberal worth [sic] order."
Here lies the problem. Although I am keen to participate in your discussion on this very important topic, I am in no way keen on defending the Liberal World Order. To be blunt, I believe that it, and its close synonym, “The Rules-Based International Order”, is a rabid dog, a mad construct that must die if human civilization is to survive.
So, if you agree to my participation, we could have this debate either here, hosted by Aurelian, or over on LinkedIn, hosted by yourself. Perhaps both, or even somewhere else.
Assuming we can agree on mutual respect, I suggest one answer to your question,
"WHAT AM I MISSING?"
What you are missing is the metaphysical element of the conflict. That is tricky ground, to be sure, but metaphysics is the basis of ideology, which then flows into and directs specific actions. It explains much of why this war is being fought, and why the West is losing it.
In 2022 Russian ground forces were approx 50% of those of Ukraine. It took 2 years of training to produce the present position of greater numbers. And the result is the increasing advance of Russian forces which supports the geometric advantage suggested.
The somewhat unhinged statements from Baltic politicians, who seem to have a totally extreme proportional representation at EU level , must drive Moscow nuts. But it totally depends on their treatment of their 'Russian' populations whether or not Moscow takes any reluctant steps to end their independence.
No, Russia is forced to view discrimination against Russians in the Baltics from the perspective that this is Western territory. There they can establish almost any order.
Ukraine is a completely different matter. Our ancestors are from there. My city, for example, is modeled on a Ukrainian one and was originally populated by Ukrainians. So, I myself am a former Ukrainian. Almost all Ukrainians are former Russians.
One people. One language. One territory for over a thousand years.
Both organized crime and individual criminals are using drones already. Several instances of smuggling contraband into prisons have been detected (likely, many more have NOT), there are plenty of narcotics trafficking cargo drone incursions on the Southern border as well, "the walk" is only so high-
One obvious recourse to Trump killing boat crews (while ostentatiously taking no prisoners in hopes of terrorizing & scaring off new employees?) in the Caribbean will be adoption of sea drones and air drones deployed towards other coasts from large commercial vessels also engaged in legitimate business.
We really don't want to find out how jungle warfare in South & central America would play out, jungle isn't satellite Intel friendly and many of the local insurgents wouldn't have pre identified themselves for AIs to target for assassination from their cellphone derived metadata and social media posts. If a guy with an old shotgun or a poisoned arrow and no personal electronics walks through a jungle, does any AI hear?
Russia is well aware of the Battle of Britain. Many books and articles have been published on this topic in Russia. Everything has been studied as much as it is possible to study the military experience of another country.
In fact, it's the British who don't know anything about the air battle for Moscow. Although the result was much worse for Hitler.
In October 1941 alone, German bombers carried out 31 raids on Moscow, including 13 during the day and 18 at night. 1998 aircraft participated in the raids, of which only 72 aircraft (3.6%) broke through to the city. The Soviet air defense forces destroyed 278 aircraft in air battles and with anti-aircraft artillery and machine gun fire during the month, which is 13.9% of the aircraft involved in the raids on the capital of the USSR.
“But in addition, and largely out of public sight, budgetary pressures forced western nations to cut back on logistics and on logistic support.”
This is also a reason why the government at all levels in the United States (and I believe in many corporations) is increasingly incompetent. Like when the back office staff was cut at a department store I worked at to save money, the ability of the store, and the district, and ultimately the entire corporation to function especially in emergencies or any situation out of the ordinary was also reduced, but while the company lost customers and ultimately business, for the next few years it made more profit; the support agencies for Congress and the personal staff for the members of Congress have been reduced and in some areas eliminated so that not only is Congress less capable, but also the entire government. The cuts are all hidden from the public although when it was done, it was said to be a cost cutting measure and getting rid of big government; that the bills Congress does vote on are often written by lobbyists and that members of Congress no longer have the staff to read the often very large and complex bills is apparently unimportant.
Having the ability to do research, write effective bills, and read and understand new legislation is not very sexy. Just like with logistics. Or regulatory agencies. On paper, it looks good, but all the support to do the job has been eliminated. The corporations make a lot of money by doing Congress’ work and blocking regulations, but the government’s ability to deal with emergencies is destroyed.
However, what areas are cut are often strangely targeted. In the military, the budget for fancy new equipment remains because corporations make bank developing and selling the equipment. The ships and staff for the logistics are not as profitable and the military having its own capacity, separate from the corporations, to do all the work for its own functioning allows it to push back against corporate lobbying and cuts into profits. A similar dynamic happens in the rest of the government such as the CDC, FDA, or Congress. The government is often bloated, but that just means that essential staff has been cut and sometimes given over to government contractors. The corporations have lobbied and manipulated the government to make it easier to extract money and prevent interference even in areas of safety, like medicine or food. And I think I se this in local government as well.
Really, all areas of government and business have been slimmed down for more immediate profit making despite whatever long term cuts in effects in ability or even survivability. Only the appearance of Doing Something is important and money must always flow to the wealthy and the connected.
In other words, liberalism, defending capital's direct access to the economy, ultimately kills everything, because this killing benefits capital.
One can make the claim that modern capitalism is either the fault or the enabler of classical liberalism. They both arose at roughly the same time and it was the newly liberal, capitalist class that pushed the slave trade and the industrial revolutions. They linked goodness and godliness with wealth.
However, classical liberalism comes directly from the Enlightenment, which was concerned about fighting dictatorial rule via democracy, rule by religion especially an established state church, justice, which includes trial by jury and the banning of torture, and resolving conflicts especially religious conflicts with debate instead of armed conflict; the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are all based on the Enlightenment and classical Liberalism, and even the most pro business, pro corporation Founders would have been seriously disturbed by the current worship of capitalism as well as the vast wealth inequality. This is why many American conservatives are not very conservative with their worshipping of both the market and capitalism as well as wanting to ignore much of the ideology of American political philosophy including civil rights.
Modern capitalism was created roughly in the late sixteenth century in the Dutch Republic and the Kingdom of England/United Kingdom partly for elites to get more wealthy and partly as counter to the growing power of the workers, farmers, and former serfs who were advocating for some form of socialism or at least some means of reducing the wealth inequality and therefore lack of power of the lower classes against that of the aristocracy and the merchant class. The elites could peel off the wealthiest of the lower classes by dangling the chance of more wealth by investing.
So, yes and no? It was not the intention of the original thinkers or philosophers who created classical liberalism, but the newly wealthy deliberately linked capitalism and wealth to it.
While liberalism clearly emerged, more or less, in the 17th century, the situation with capitalism is less clear. Either, as you say, it was the cause or the consequence of liberalism.
For me, that's not so interesting. What's important is that liberalism initially served progress (you've described the narrative well), but now it's transformed from an accelerator into a brake: initially, it was profitable for capital to invest in two industrial revolutions, but now the profit margin has disappeared, and it's profitable to shut everything down. A brutal dismissal. Suicide. "Nothing personal."
And this is what the global South (including Russia) is eagerly awaiting. We initially bet on the opposite of liberalism: statism. And when capitalism began to show suicidal tendencies (in the second half of the 20th century), we realized that by saving business, the capital market could be "emulated." Dirigisme. It's difficult, but at least we get the investments society needs. South Korea is a good example, but with the use of AI we can do much better.
“initially, it was profitable for capital to invest in two industrial revolutions, but now the profit margin has disappeared, and it's profitable to shut everything down. A brutal dismissal. Suicide. "Nothing personal."”
Thank you for the response and the reminder that modern neoliberal capitalism is essentially a death cult or a economic ideology transformed into a religion of nihilistic anti-humanism, which makes talking to supporters of capitalism, who relentlessly say that it is the greatest system of bringing people out of poverty without acknowledging the costs, much as the supporters of the early decades of the Soviet Union marvel at the vast economic development especially in heavy industries without acknowledging the Gulags or the Great Purge.
There were tens of millions of deaths, with the destruction of entire societies, countries, and empires, for mere profit from, the end of the sixteenth century to now, and with the development of modern disaster capitalism, I can say that it continues without a stop. Hell, just read War is a Racket by Smeadley Butler and understand that much of the Cold War was fought that way with communism just the excuse and profits for corporations the goal. It continues to to this day.
Truthfully, any economic or political system can be twisted and used to the advantage of the powerful and the elites, but too many people just look at the name and assume that it is true and good or bad without looking behind the façade. It is like accepting North Korea’s claim to being the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea instead of the dictatorship that it is.
Very accurate. We Russians found ourselves in this war largely because of our weak market. The Ukrainians took advantage of this and escalated the conflict. Meanwhile, the communists, and especially the DPRK, are further degrading the market.
But the root of the problem is that in the West, under the guise of the usefulness of the market, through banks (Deep State), real social parasites (the elite, the Devil) operate. They start wars and issue loans at exorbitant interest rates. Two sides of the same parasitic strategy.
Therefore, neoliberalism must remain a thing of the past: it only serves parasites. At the same time, market freedom (without free for banks) must remain.
The new alliance of collectivism (metaphorically, God) and machines (intelligence) is responsible for this future. Now we have AI in our arsenal. With some modification, it will ensure the desired social optimum.
An astute on-the-ground observation. It's all for more lucre but in the end, it will all be lost.
It’s always an education when I read your columns. You have the ability to combine ‘common sense’ with world history, the history of warfare and military capabilities. That’s a rare blend of knowledge.
Thank you again Aurelien for your well-thought articles. When talking about lessons to be learnt I would think that a pre-requisite would be to be predisposed to learn anything in the first place. Given that the Western PMCs have been, during the last decades, lecturing everyone about every issue I suspect their current predisposition to learn must be close to zero. These applies to the political, military, economical and social elites of the so-called Collective West. More so if these elites belong to some particular countries which have for long considered themselves as models to be followed. Here we can include France, Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries, the UK and the US. So, après-Ukraine, one of the big lessons to be learnt would be that none of these countries are a model any more and their elites ought to be replaced ASAP in other to start learning any lesson. While this takes a while we go on with stupid ideas such as "drone shields" etc.
Beyond complicated military-related lessons, maybe there is a lesson to be learnt by the European people. That they cannot trust their current leadership. And this they might apply soon.
"Indeed, I remember one particularly mad scheme to hand out such weapons to every household in Germany, so that the Russians would never dare attack). As military experts pointed out immediately, in such a situation the Russians would just level the defences with artillery first."
Experts didn't have to look very hard: something like thst did happen, in early 1945, when Germans started handing out Panzerfauste (basically, a disposable stick with a potent but short ranged rocket propelled grenade at one end) to just about everyone...and the Red Army did respond with liberal use of heavy artillery.
The notion of NATO encroachment into Ukraine was a miscalculation. By the same token, the Russian SMO/invasion of Ukraine was a miscalculation, a gamble earning Russia renewed distrust and isolation for another eighty years to come. Western Europe would be irresponsible not to seriously rearm, especially considering imminent abandonment by the USA. Rearmament will naturally raise tensions and misunderstandings on both sides. Western Europeans need to decide what their civilization is about. Likewise, the Russian people need to decide how far down this road they want to go. Neither side appears to envision a long-term strategy.
Let the West first demonstrate its ability to rearm. I suspect these grandiose declarations are just a circus act. Capital doesn't benefit from this; it benefits from AI displacing humans. And the West has long been subservient to capital.
@Stefan Saal
Someone DOES have a longer term strategy, it just involved a different target than all those "young world leaders" emplaced in EU and European nations management were lead to believe
Western Europe has had price competitiveness of their remaining productive industries destroyed (or forced to relocate, largely to North America) by loss of cheap energy, compounded by being forced to buy expensive energy from North American suppliers, a most excellent forced wealth transfer.
The world's finances once parked as investments in EU are now fleeing to elsewhere (North America being a popular destination), courtesy of the recent illegal appropriation of seized Russian Federation funds too.
The remaining social spending in EU will now be eliminated as those resources must go towards rearmament, largely with weapons systems purchased from USA.
EU is being strip mined by their NATO boss & former "ally". The RF don't have to do a darned thing about the remains of NATO/EU, "The West" has collapsed it for them, quite profitably.
If you believe the above chain of events wasn't at least a contingency plan well before February of 2022, you don't know how the only kind of people in USA who actually DO long term planning think.
There are two sides of the "resource curse" coin that must be considered whenever discussing geopolitics or US foreign policy. Obviously, the resources must secured for western consumption above all but the other side of it is "Demand Destruction". Resource rich countries must not be allowed to develop to the point where they start dipping into those resources for their own people's uses thereby speeding up depletion. This goes for other (non-resource rich) countries as well. European use of world resources is much curtailed, North America? Not so much.
If you really don't think that long term planning was involved, look at linked PDF, realize it discusses US planning that began by 1947 and was made policy by 1950.
https://www.nefp.online/_files/ugd/63d11a_136d0855070647ba803e05cea0bc4c83.pdf
I guess you are, unfortunately, right. Everything is in flux now and will depend on the ability of one or both sides to exercise caution and common sense. I do not have high hopes about the present bunch of macrons, merzes and stammers
As usual, my italian translation here:
"Dare un senso al Dopo-Ucraina.
Cosa potrebbe significare e cosa potrebbe non significare."
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2025/12/dare-un-senso-al-dopo-ucraina-cosa.html
Thank you for your translations. I use them to learn Italian while re-reading Aurelien.
Valery Gerasimov wrote, before 2022 btw, that each war is fundamentally unique, with its own set of parameters. As such, it is often not possible to draw applicable conclusions from former wars, nor apply conclusions from any one war to any other future wars.
What an absurd question-begging piece. Writing of:
"the consequent likelihood of having an angry and powerful Russia as a neighbour."
We have had an angry and dangerous Russia as a neighbour, in its current shambolic but still dangerous form, since 2000. The British were made aware of this (if no earlier because frankly Britain is permanently asleep) in 2005, with the Litvinenko assassination; and thought it smart to invite in the Oligarchs to takeover London. London never has enough money to make its gross failure work for it (at the expense of the future of everybody else in Britain).
The real problem was over-dependency on the US; which has its hands more than full in the East, in a post-hegemonic world where American exceptionalism is no longer enough for anyone, except the credulous British and Europeans - and has been making all of this clear to everyone for some years. The British have always been set against a united European defence force, more than anyone else; the old recycled obsession with Universal Monarchy never leaves the British psyche.
One question we should be asking that goes to the root of the matter is this: why, and when did Russia decide that a low grade war with Ukraine in the Donbas, from 2014, and going nowhere; could be turned into a decision to invade Kviv in 2022? One important factor in that invasion decision (completely overlooked by everyone, except Russia), had to be the conclusion of the four year disaster for Europe, 2016-2020 by the exceptionalist and foolish British, to undertake and finalise Brexit; making Britain look plain stupid, and the EU weak, divided, and falling apart. Combine that with MAGA and Trump in the US, and you can see where this was going to go. And here we are, in a 2025 rerun of the Sudetenland thesis, this time with Russia, and in the one place in Europe - Ukraine - nobody in Europe would choose as the ground for a dispute, given its intractable and uncomfortable history.
Brexit was a complete and utter disaster, and for Britain the injury is permanent. The 4% loss of GDP, which is £120Bn per year, every year and growing - cannot be replaced by any trade deals anywhere in any forecastable, planned future.
"in the one place in Europe - Ukraine - nobody in Europe would choose as the ground for a dispute"
But that is exactly what the US and NATO did. They chose it long ago, even before they initiated the Maidan coup.
Beyond half-understood, half-baked conspiracies, everyone understood the history, and the only country in Western Europe with substantive experience of fighting in Ukraine, is Germany; and for very understandable reasons, they have no desire to return, at any price; nor does anyone else in Europe actually ever wish to go near putting boots on the ground there, and never did; and that is what my observation meant. I can't be bothered with ideological keyboard strategists; it is so lame.
Englishman, don't play dumb. Better think about what's going to happen to your Shire soon. An English writer in his fairy tale has already burned it once, along with the hairy legs of its inhabitants.
@John S. Warren
Close your mind to the possibility that USA's "evil butler" (Britain) will have their salary cut right along with the rest of the minions.
If you don't recall where Britain once stood in Crimea and all along Western Asia, continuing through the Himalayas? You might really BELIEVE that "no desire for boots on the ground" statement. But Sir Halford John Mackinder had different beliefs about the advisability of all that and he is still revered by your elites.
"Angry and dangerous Russia since 2000?" Hold your horses. It is Russia that felt threatened and repeatedly tried to draw attention to the Western aggression of NATO expansion and arming Ukraine, a de facto NATO member, to the teeth.
".. a decision to invade Kyiv in 2022"? Seriously? There was no decision to invade Kyiv. The Russian armed forces involved at the time would not be enough to do this.
The EU is weak and divided, not because of Brexit, but because it is a deeply flawed institution that usurped powers it was never meant to have.
"Why, and when did Russia decide that a low grade war with Ukraine in the Donbas, from 2014, and going nowhere; could be turned into a decision to invade Kyiv in 2022?"
Let me attempt to answer this question concisely, and with apologies for my tendency to speak an argue in analogies.
By late 2021 Moscow had decided that Eastern Ukraine was an open bleeding wound that had to be stitched closed one way or another
There's also a logistical issue...
NATO began modernizing Ukraine's airfields to its own standards. Consequently, a couple more years and the Russian capital would have been unable to defend itself from a surprise invasion. In other words, the country simply had no choice.
Putting Russia in the middle of a dilemma with no good options was entirely intentional on the part of NATO.
That's exactly it
Europe is struggling to cope with helping Ukraine, and the US exiting. The notion that Europe, in any form would invade Russia is, frankly bizarre. It doesn't have the capacity to do so; not even close. More keyboard strategy.
Of course, it is not NATO troops that are attacking, but the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They have a formal pretext: Crimea. Moreover, invading somewhere for the purpose of robbery has been a national pastime of the Dnieper Cossacks since about the 16th century. Didn't you know? They even managed to demonstrate this, especially for you, during the recent Kursk adventure.
And NATO, thanks to its airfields, would replace the invasion forces on Ukrainian territory and deliver weapons for the offensive. In other words, they would support it. You'd agree, an ideal task for this organization.
And most importantly... The road from Kharkiv to the southern entrance to the Russian capital is a billiard table with one obstacle – the Oka River. We can't rely on such protection.
It's all obvious. Who do Western strategists take us for? Oh, right, of course – barbarians, Genghis Khan's savage warriors, and so on. Business as usual.
But they can certainly send missiles. And that was the problem
The european rulers are convinced that the United States will ride once more to their rescue, rather than leave its catamites in the lurch.
The problem with that is, it doesn't depend on a source of any kind, but an open-ended metaphor, attached to nothing at all. We can argue about the quality of evidence in a case, but a metaphor attached to nothing?
I thought it was rather clear but I can elaborate.
The area is eastern Ukraine, the Donbass and Crimea.
The wound refers to a rupture, tear or break within the society, "the body politic' is not an unusual metaphor, so neither should be "a wound in the body politic".
The blood refers to vital resources, either tangible or intangible being lost from this wound, harmful alien pathogens can also enter.
Analogous to a wound on a body, the cut does not have to be near a vital organ for it to be fatal to the whole organism. Unchecked blood loss and a growing infection can kill it eventually.
Is that clearer?
Bravo! Thank you. The eight years of shelling Donbas, markets, bus stops, blind carpet shelling. A wound is a perfect metaphor
No. That is a mere description of the metaphor, not an explanation why it goes on for eight years; and then, precisely in 2022 is escalated into a major invasion. The invasion was transformational point, the metaphor could apply at any time, and does not explain - why precisely, then?
This is a very one-eyed perspective you offer, to use a figure of speech....
You were given the answer above without metaphors.
You have no recourse to either abstractions or facts. Understand that liberalism has served its purpose. Leave it alone. New thinking lies ahead.
You are not offering new thinking. Even Putin's guards of honour, look like extras from a Battle of Borodino film-set. At least Eisenstein and Bondarchuk could actually make compelling films. Since abandoning Communism (China still does it), he makes up his rambling ideology, on-the-hoof.
The real problem for Western Europeans in the 21st century? Nobody with any choice in the matter, outside Russia itself (and not even all Russians), wish to live under Russian rule. All Russia has ever offered the states that border it, from the Baltic to Balkans, is to live in eternal fear of invasion; or have memories of Russian rule that evoke only nightmares.
I have nothing more to say on this matter. Candidly? BTL on Aurelien is quite obviously a fly-blown wasteland.
Without the United States, Britain is not capable of anything at all.
Britain isn't capable: period.
I appreciate that you share your thought process. As someone who has turned his thoughts into action in Ukraine and spent the last two years trying to share the lessons of Ukraine with various governments and militaries, I agree with some of your points and would push back on others.
As a nit, the geometric advantage is empirically not true. It is based on the assumption of ceteris paribus. If it were true, the Russians would have been in Kyiv two years ago. Yes, quantity has a quality of its own, but there are many other factors at play that we should learn from Ukraine.
I agree that Western policy toward Ukraine is a failure. But I think it might be even worse than you have posited. I disagree with you that Russia will not attack NATO. Now that the US has proven under both D and R presidencies that it will not engage with an autocratic nuclear power, Trump has declared Europe as unworthy of defense in the National Security Strategy, and with no European leadership to fill the vacuum, there is no need for Russia to fear an engagement with more than national troops when it decides to invade the Baltic Nations. Those three countries cannot field more than 50,000 troops, none of them trained or equipped for state-of-the-art warfare. NATO's airpower is useless once Russian troops occupy the capitals and ports.
I post regularly on Ukraine on LinkedIn and welcome pushback. I am the person who wishes he were wrong. One post that you might challenge is this one: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ukraine-can-defeat-russia-europe-must-stand-work-perry-boyle--y9rbc/
Thank you.
I was just over at your LinkedIn post, first skimming it, and then, as usual for me, skipping to the end to find your conclusion. There I discovered this,
"Thoughts, criticisms, and suggestions are welcome. I respect everyone who tangibly participates in defending the liberal worth [sic] order."
Here lies the problem. Although I am keen to participate in your discussion on this very important topic, I am in no way keen on defending the Liberal World Order. To be blunt, I believe that it, and its close synonym, “The Rules-Based International Order”, is a rabid dog, a mad construct that must die if human civilization is to survive.
So, if you agree to my participation, we could have this debate either here, hosted by Aurelian, or over on LinkedIn, hosted by yourself. Perhaps both, or even somewhere else.
Assuming we can agree on mutual respect, I suggest one answer to your question,
"WHAT AM I MISSING?"
What you are missing is the metaphysical element of the conflict. That is tricky ground, to be sure, but metaphysics is the basis of ideology, which then flows into and directs specific actions. It explains much of why this war is being fought, and why the West is losing it.
In 2022 Russian ground forces were approx 50% of those of Ukraine. It took 2 years of training to produce the present position of greater numbers. And the result is the increasing advance of Russian forces which supports the geometric advantage suggested.
The somewhat unhinged statements from Baltic politicians, who seem to have a totally extreme proportional representation at EU level , must drive Moscow nuts. But it totally depends on their treatment of their 'Russian' populations whether or not Moscow takes any reluctant steps to end their independence.
No, Russia is forced to view discrimination against Russians in the Baltics from the perspective that this is Western territory. There they can establish almost any order.
Ukraine is a completely different matter. Our ancestors are from there. My city, for example, is modeled on a Ukrainian one and was originally populated by Ukrainians. So, I myself am a former Ukrainian. Almost all Ukrainians are former Russians.
One people. One language. One territory for over a thousand years.
This is why you keep losing, you don't even know what's going on, let alone are able to draw any lessons from it.
Both organized crime and individual criminals are using drones already. Several instances of smuggling contraband into prisons have been detected (likely, many more have NOT), there are plenty of narcotics trafficking cargo drone incursions on the Southern border as well, "the walk" is only so high-
One obvious recourse to Trump killing boat crews (while ostentatiously taking no prisoners in hopes of terrorizing & scaring off new employees?) in the Caribbean will be adoption of sea drones and air drones deployed towards other coasts from large commercial vessels also engaged in legitimate business.
We really don't want to find out how jungle warfare in South & central America would play out, jungle isn't satellite Intel friendly and many of the local insurgents wouldn't have pre identified themselves for AIs to target for assassination from their cellphone derived metadata and social media posts. If a guy with an old shotgun or a poisoned arrow and no personal electronics walks through a jungle, does any AI hear?
Unclear what you meant by "25,000 combined arms armies". I'm aware of estimates of about 250,000 front line soldiers, but not 25,000 "corps"
I caught that too! Aurelien must mean an order of magnitude higher. Typos!