It's a good article, and I read it with great interest. I would like to make two comments.
1. Wagner has performed well in the fight against jihadists in Africa. Wagner behaved badly in Russia itself, after which this organization began to have problems. Whoever created this company shut it down.
2. The French are their own enemies, Russia has nothing to do with it. Ten years ago, I almost shit my pants in Marseille when I walked into the Arab quarter near the old port. This is the very center of the city. Right in front of my eyes, bearded jihadists there almost lynched three French policemen. It didn't come to bloodshed, but I've never seen such aggression towards the police in my life. And it wasn't about Africa at all.
What a boring little troll you are. The same exact comment in every blog and every thread. Same insipid variation of this "nobody cares" shtick. At least you made it up to two sentences this time, impressive for you.
Nobody cares enough about what you say to 'prove you wrong' - time will do that. Please try for some original thoughts instead of the usual moaning negativity.
Of course, there are some material and financial issues as the country is almost bankrupted. This is definitely a source of weakness.
But it's even worse than that. Neither legal means nor the political will to take care of the situation even exist. And this is a source of weakness that any adversary, Russian or otherwise, can exploit at little cost by encouraging debilitating political instability. And they already do.
Nice piece and you would be absolutely right if the war in Ukraine and Russia were actually the issue. There is no goal to be achieved by European defense, because that is not their goal. What they aim to achieve instead, is a complete tyranny over the European population. War with Russia is just a means to an end: the waiting is for a false flag "Franz Ferdinand" moment (as Polish Tusk called it) and we have an Europe-wide state of martial law on out hands. Everything we've seen in the Covid period (and more) will then be implemented: stay at home orders, digital ID, a confiscation of private funds, houses etc. And an absolute witch hunt for "Putin friends". A European CBDC will be introduced to smooth over the markets, because that is what the actual reason behind this all is: a near collapse of the financial markets. Within Martial Law they can get away with everything, including murder.
No, I don't think the European states will disagree about anything: all the democracies are so hollowed out there is no one there to do any arguing or falling out with each other. In The Netherlands, for example, it is not the parliament which rules, or even the cabinet: it is the NCTV (the Dutch CIA, more or less). The current prime-minister Schoof was not elected, but appointed and he was the former head of the NCTV. Please read this piece, it is in Dutch, but I'm sure Google translate will help you out. https://open.substack.com/pub/bomenenbos/p/nederland-in-staat-van-beleg-light?r=1mxda8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Also, I see signs here that the Dutch economy is being converted to a war economy quite rapidly. Where formerly subsidies and startups were mainly in the Climatism area; now every company aims to get defense contracts. And the Ministery of Defense is hammering out deals with all sorts of civilian companies: logistics, road building, building new army barracks and dedicating whole parks to practice terrain for the army etc etc. You'd think this wouldn't be possible since building houses is almost impossible due to all sorts of green restrictions. But the army gets green light everywhere. It is very disconcerting.
Damn. What a neatly laid out, clean and healthy looking Dutch shadow police state you've got there.
The obvious care in structuring and precision timing with with which all the parts were assembled show this was not designed by beginners or amateurs, it is a minimalist haiku of tyranny, limned with no unnecessary brush strokes- Did the master sign their work?
So! Cui bono? Who ultimately controls the very carefully designed (and totally non democratic) police state "lite" mechanisms now in control of the Netherlands and NATO?
The "operational art" smells like the present day management of semi hereditary (yet not overtly royal) multi generational banking and investment clans? With roots among certain Mediterranean city states when THOSE were key nodes in European commerce with "the East" via the Silk Road network & Mediterranean shipping?
Which clans established new centers of operation among some commercially ascendant low country cities at their Northwestern perimeter? And who have maintained a quiet (but dominant) presence ever after in the low countries, even as they built new centers of financial control first in the City of London and then in the new world, starting in New York City?
I am not sure the De Medici ended up in Amsterdam. But I do know that Soros controls both just about every NGO AND all the newspapers in Holland. The Dutch people are funding the NGO's by a very insidious lottery: the Postcode lottery, (owned again by Soros). It uses postal codes for lottery numbers and if your postal code gets drawn, you only get prize money if you bought the tickets. Since it is everybody's nightmare that the neighbours would all get rich but not you, most people do feel obliged to participate.
Meanwhile all the newspapers are owned by a Begian press group (DPG) which is in turn part of Soros's capital. Funny how in Holland everything is so easy to see. Simple. Transparant even.
The Medicis relocated to Bruges, originally. Then opened shop in the major ports as time went on-
The del Banco family (who are now called "Warburg") relocated to the North Sea/Baltic area from Venice, first to Bologna, then Warburg near Hamburg, also branching our to the major ports of the low countries, then establishing themselves in the City of London and shortly after, has agents and subsidiaries in North America.
Cheers thanks. I agree with you that this is probably where one ought to start looking if culprits need to be found. Although I am not sure what is what one could do if we could say with certainty who is behind all the current turmoil.
Also. Just as an aside to your 'hereditary' comment. I get the feeling that the clue is in the nose. Lots of people in high places happen to have the same shape of nose. Straight, narrow, with upturned nostrils. Check out photos of the new MI6 boss Blaise Metreweli and her Nazi grandfather https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/new-mi6-chiefs-dark-history-revealed and compare it to Klaus Schwab's nose, and to Queen Maxima's nose... once you've seen it, you start finding it everywhere....
This statement by Aurelian summarizes (for me) much of what is wrong with Western mindset on international security issues:
"...[T]hese proposals begin from the solution, without asking what the problem is."
Einstein once said something like this: "If I had one hour to find a way to save the world, I would spend 55 minutes defining the problem."
As someone who has done risk assessments for the Federal Government, I know that gaining consensus on the problem and objectives is often a politically fraught exercise as it puts leaders in the uncomfortable position of putting all of their cards on the table. But it can be done. Note that the U.S. National Security Council does NOT have a formal risk management function, as required by OMB for all other Federal Agencies. The U.S. gets into wars and covert actions without rigorously clarifying problems, objectives, risks and exit strategies in advance (e.g. per the Powell Doctrine, now a forgotten relic of Vietnam-era wisdom).
The West's immediate "solution" after the invasion became "Defeat and Weaken Russia." A different solution would have been reached if the root problem had been defined first, e.g. as "What is the most straightforward way to assure long term peace and security in Central Europe?"
As Anatol Lieven (of Responsible Statecraft) said shortly after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a stable peace would have been fairly easy to achieve by guaranteeing neutrality for Ukraine via multinational agreement (EU/NATO/Russia/Ukraine). A precedent exists for this, namely the agreement on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Austria in 1956. Such an agreement would have also guaranteed Ukraine's independence and security, the way it did Austria's. Of course, we had statesmen and good negotiators in those days.
In the years leading up to the invasion, the West thought they could roll Russia. Post-invasion, the root problem has only gotten much worse, and no one in the West seems ready to focus on that. It may be too late for any well-informed and effective diplomacy to solve this problem (which requires political courage, good faith, patience and very hard work), and hence the war must continue. War is always the final arbiter when effective diplomacy isn't possible. Sadly, for Ukraine, the end game is pretty clear, but it will take more time and many more lives.
Problem is that's exactly what was done in 1994. Russia, UK and US guaranteed Ukraine's security in return for it giving up nuclear weapons. Russia broke the agreement (whether or not that was all down to Russia isn't the issue) and as a result, Russia's word isn't trusted in Ukraine. Or in most of E Europe.
The European elites are US vassals, and that will remain so. National "democracy" has been so hollowed out, the European bureaucrats can manage things pretty freely. This will continue, just look at the fixing of the Moldovan and Romanian elections, more to come. The article needs to start with those assumptions.
"the present crew of political shysters and psychotic managerialists to be washed out of the system" and "more realistic leaders will emerge, because they always do".
This is certainly necessary, but I'm not clear how either of these steps is to occur. When the war ends with a clear defeat for Europe, it will of course be difficult to justify the current stance, but that's never stopped a bunch of highly placed liars before, and there are quite a large company of them, with dedicated support from the press.
As for 'more realistic leaders', well it seems possible that eventually the present incumbents will go, if only through retirement or death, but given the vast failure of the UK educational system (and presuming that this is also the case in the rest of Europe), and the dumbing down of society generally through the effects of widespread social media, where will they actually come from?
One obvious thing, which you largely agree with I see, is that the Russians could and probably will march into the Baltics to (1) access the Baltic Sea directly with ports from Kalinigrad to Sankt Peterburg including the jewel of the Baltic, Riga, which is on a direct railway line to Moscow, and thus (2) protect Kalinigrad from Poland. It was always a Russian City, Riga. The population of the entire Baltics could be fit into a few British cities and a good proportion of them are Russian speakers anyway, being currently nationalised out of existence, like in the Donbass and this clearly pisses off Putin. But what you never write about is the real reason for this business. It is the security of the Dollar, and all the European countries with investments in the Dollar, and all the Dollar banks. That is why they are all freaking out. It is why they invaded and killed Saddam, killed Ghadaffi and so on.
"At some point though, in different ways in different countries, more realistic leaders will emerge, because they always do. "
======================
My response:
It is hard for "realistic leaders" to emerge when the democratic process is deliberately rigged in Romania, Germany and Moldova by banning certain opposition parties or individual politicians from contesting in elections over spurious allegations of being "under the control of Russia." It would take revolutionary upheaval in European states for such "realistic leaders" to come anywhere near political power
This article is based on the tragic history and sclerosis of the geopolitics of western Eurasia. In 1990, there was an opportunity to establish something new and much more promising. But (like this article) we fell back into the old ways of thought and action instead.
Rather than the contingent facts of European history, the article should start from the fundamental issues which are:
1. the security dilemma, and
2. the possibility of establishing international relations and institutions based on "indivisible security". After all, that is all that the Russians say that they want. Why not engage them on this, and elaborate a shared vision of "indivisible security" and the future of the (UN) Charter international system?
See Richard Sakwa. 2023. The Lost Peace: How the West Failed to Prevent a Second Cold War. Yale University Press.
"I’ve written several times now about the uncomfortable situation resulting from the coming defeat in Ukraine, and the unpleasant consequences for Europe that may result. "
We keep hearing about this imminent defeat, and it never actually comes.
Anyway, european strategy since 1917 has remained constant - get Americans to do their fighting for them.
This strategy is proceeding apace, for while europeans are the Wimps Supreme, they are also master courtiers, skills honed after centuries of whispering campaigns, fruity pageantry, intrigue and bending the ears of senile monarchs.
What europe should do in the face of defeat is irrelevant, since the europeans haven't been defeated and they are working hard, united as never before to get the Americans stuck in. It worked in 1917, in 1941, in 1949, in 1999, in 2012 (remember the comedy of britain and france's failed attempt to subdue Libya? What did they do? Call the Americans!)
It didn't work in 1956. Europeans skulked back to their lairs, tails tucked between their legs like whipped dogs, back to their usual scheming, plotting and conspiring.
You haven't been paying attention. The 'Americans' as you put it - i.e. the USA, haven't won a war since they invaded Grenada, and they also didn't win any before that, since 1945, when the Russians did most of the fighting. They sort of prevailed over Iraq because Iraq was a fifth rate power with a badly funded, undertrained morale-deficient army. and they funded a bunch of head choppers to bring down Syria, - both wars aided by the only power they have left - economic sanctions (which have failed against Russia). Most recently the rag-tag Afghani Islamists drove them out of Afghanistan with their tails between their legs. The USA does not do 'fighting' - it does proxy wars and subversion. Currently they can't even supply themselves with enough second rate missiles for their second-rate planes, let alone sell them to others. 'Fighting' is completely out of the question.
We hear that all the time as well, so what do you know that NATO and Stavka do not?
BTW, to give a few recent examples, the US goal in Iraq, Syria and Libya was to turn those countries into failed states. The US succeeded. The goal in Serbia was to dislodge it from.Kosovo. The US succeeded.
If you hear it all the time, why don't you pay attention? Do you really think NATO has a clue about anything? Have you been believing that useless Yank general who keeps making dream- stuff presentations to NATO? If so, you really need to get some better information.
Or to, sort of ,quote you, prove any of the above wrong.
Feral, I realise that English is not your first language, although you handle it very well, especially compared to my Ukrainian which is limited to saying 'Keev' instead of 'Keeyev', but I have to tell you that saying "We hear that all the time" is not a refutation of an argument or position. Your examples are not examples of the USA 'fighting' - they are examples of what I said - "proxy wars and subversion". That is not actually 'fighting', as the USA is no longer able to actually 'fight' any country larger than Easter Island. Proxy wars and subversion are the tools of the weak, because they have no other option.
"Decisions are never really made-at best they manage to emerge, from a chaos of peeves, whims, assholery. This is less a fighting team than nest full of snits, blues, crotchets and grudges, not a rare or fabled bird in the lot. Its survival seems, after all, only a mutter of blind fortune groping through the heavy marbling of skies one Titanic-Night at a time."
Thermodynamics and Limits to Growth take no prisoners. Russia has almost certainly hit the thermodynamic wall. Insufficient surplus energy from it's ageing oil fields, far away from the conflict.
"Russia: Never as energy rich as she appears, or energy starved as she seems"?
The accelerating de icing of the Northwest passage, expanding fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers, newly discovered Siberian/Arctic oil fields plus the world's largest (and possibly most competent) nuclear fuels processing/reprocessing infrastructure suggest that the Russian Federation aren't out of the energy game.
Also, I would bet on the systema of RF physical sciences & mathematics theorists + Chinese engineering infrastructures to get commercially viable fusion power on line before "The West(™)" can.
Yeah. Russian physics is by now at least 20 years ahead of the US. They produce proportionally more STEM graduates, and they haven't bought into US 'profit before practicality' and share buy-back and similar greed-induced nonsense.
> "The kind of ignorant, superior, dismissive approach that has characterised the last generation will no longer do. Genuine experts on the country will be needed, and overall policy should be geared to “living with Russia”, not mindlessly opposing every Russian action."
The prognostication and advice in the article is built on the premise that this will happen because no other option is available. I don't feel confident this will happen soon enough. In the mean time people like Merz (or worse) will recognize that if USA and hence NATO is unreliable and history (e.g. Israel, Lybia, DPRK, Iraq) is a guide then Germany has to get an independent nuclear deterrent.
And still we seems to be going through very dangerous times when the major governments (Germany, France, UK…) are actually very weak and strongly contested from within. So far, they only manage to stay in power by using legal shenanigans and blatant intimidations every time the electoral calendar or political situation lead them to hold elections.
They definitely need to appear to do something against the 'bad guys', don't they ?
So what do you do of all the fuzz around these drones over Danemark and other countries airport ? Do you think it might really the Russians testing European reactions ? Or (more likely in my opinion) a false flag operation to justify some of the actions you discussed here ?
"So far, they only manage to stay in power by using legal shenanigans and blatant intimidations every time the electoral calendar or political situation lead them to hold elections."
It works. The europopulations surrender with barely a peep of protest.
Thank you, Aurélien, for this excellent article. I am surprised that you do not address the federalist temptation of the Commission and certain European leaders.
In fact, I see this game of ‘scare tactics’ as an opportunity that some of these pro-federal Europe advocates seem to be trying to seize. The illegal creation of a Commissioner for Defence, Ursula's shameful speeches about so-called Russian attacks or intrusions, the desperate efforts at every election in Europe to keep sovereignist leaders out of the pro-EU circle, etc. All this leads me to believe that they are trying to control the discourse through fear so that the populace will call for protection, which will then be presented to them as a step towards federalism. Am I wrong?
Europe is finished. Is wrapped in tyranny to keep multicultualism from killing one another for cultural supremacy. A house divided can not stand but Euro Elites are determined to make sure multiculturalism "works" even if they have to put everyone in a cage. Europe has no resources and colonies are being taken away by USA, Russia and China. I'd be using the shared values visa and headed to Russia if I lived in Europe. Or USA who's future is slightly less bleak.
Russia will more likely take in it's Slavic brothers and write off Western and Central Europe entirely. No visa, No resources, no nothing as payback for the wars they put on Russia for centuries. China/Asia is Futurama now and Russia has no need for crashing West who will lead in nothing going forward. Europe had it's 500 years in sun, back to dark ages.
It's a good article, and I read it with great interest. I would like to make two comments.
1. Wagner has performed well in the fight against jihadists in Africa. Wagner behaved badly in Russia itself, after which this organization began to have problems. Whoever created this company shut it down.
2. The French are their own enemies, Russia has nothing to do with it. Ten years ago, I almost shit my pants in Marseille when I walked into the Arab quarter near the old port. This is the very center of the city. Right in front of my eyes, bearded jihadists there almost lynched three French policemen. It didn't come to bloodshed, but I've never seen such aggression towards the police in my life. And it wasn't about Africa at all.
Nobody of influence and authority in france cares. The situation of Brazil suits the Brazilian elites just fine.
What a boring little troll you are. The same exact comment in every blog and every thread. Same insipid variation of this "nobody cares" shtick. At least you made it up to two sentences this time, impressive for you.
So prove me wrong.
Nobody cares enough about what you say to 'prove you wrong' - time will do that. Please try for some original thoughts instead of the usual moaning negativity.
Try addressing substance, since.you obviously care enough to follow me around and respond.
Yes, the French situation is dire.
Of course, there are some material and financial issues as the country is almost bankrupted. This is definitely a source of weakness.
But it's even worse than that. Neither legal means nor the political will to take care of the situation even exist. And this is a source of weakness that any adversary, Russian or otherwise, can exploit at little cost by encouraging debilitating political instability. And they already do.
Nice piece and you would be absolutely right if the war in Ukraine and Russia were actually the issue. There is no goal to be achieved by European defense, because that is not their goal. What they aim to achieve instead, is a complete tyranny over the European population. War with Russia is just a means to an end: the waiting is for a false flag "Franz Ferdinand" moment (as Polish Tusk called it) and we have an Europe-wide state of martial law on out hands. Everything we've seen in the Covid period (and more) will then be implemented: stay at home orders, digital ID, a confiscation of private funds, houses etc. And an absolute witch hunt for "Putin friends". A European CBDC will be introduced to smooth over the markets, because that is what the actual reason behind this all is: a near collapse of the financial markets. Within Martial Law they can get away with everything, including murder.
No, I don't think the European states will disagree about anything: all the democracies are so hollowed out there is no one there to do any arguing or falling out with each other. In The Netherlands, for example, it is not the parliament which rules, or even the cabinet: it is the NCTV (the Dutch CIA, more or less). The current prime-minister Schoof was not elected, but appointed and he was the former head of the NCTV. Please read this piece, it is in Dutch, but I'm sure Google translate will help you out. https://open.substack.com/pub/bomenenbos/p/nederland-in-staat-van-beleg-light?r=1mxda8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Also, I see signs here that the Dutch economy is being converted to a war economy quite rapidly. Where formerly subsidies and startups were mainly in the Climatism area; now every company aims to get defense contracts. And the Ministery of Defense is hammering out deals with all sorts of civilian companies: logistics, road building, building new army barracks and dedicating whole parks to practice terrain for the army etc etc. You'd think this wouldn't be possible since building houses is almost impossible due to all sorts of green restrictions. But the army gets green light everywhere. It is very disconcerting.
@Soulminkey
https://open.substack.com/pub/bomenenbos/p/nederland-in-staat-van-beleg-light?r=1mxda8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Damn. What a neatly laid out, clean and healthy looking Dutch shadow police state you've got there.
The obvious care in structuring and precision timing with with which all the parts were assembled show this was not designed by beginners or amateurs, it is a minimalist haiku of tyranny, limned with no unnecessary brush strokes- Did the master sign their work?
So! Cui bono? Who ultimately controls the very carefully designed (and totally non democratic) police state "lite" mechanisms now in control of the Netherlands and NATO?
The "operational art" smells like the present day management of semi hereditary (yet not overtly royal) multi generational banking and investment clans? With roots among certain Mediterranean city states when THOSE were key nodes in European commerce with "the East" via the Silk Road network & Mediterranean shipping?
Which clans established new centers of operation among some commercially ascendant low country cities at their Northwestern perimeter? And who have maintained a quiet (but dominant) presence ever after in the low countries, even as they built new centers of financial control first in the City of London and then in the new world, starting in New York City?
I am not sure the De Medici ended up in Amsterdam. But I do know that Soros controls both just about every NGO AND all the newspapers in Holland. The Dutch people are funding the NGO's by a very insidious lottery: the Postcode lottery, (owned again by Soros). It uses postal codes for lottery numbers and if your postal code gets drawn, you only get prize money if you bought the tickets. Since it is everybody's nightmare that the neighbours would all get rich but not you, most people do feel obliged to participate.
Meanwhile all the newspapers are owned by a Begian press group (DPG) which is in turn part of Soros's capital. Funny how in Holland everything is so easy to see. Simple. Transparant even.
@Soulminkey
The Medicis relocated to Bruges, originally. Then opened shop in the major ports as time went on-
The del Banco family (who are now called "Warburg") relocated to the North Sea/Baltic area from Venice, first to Bologna, then Warburg near Hamburg, also branching our to the major ports of the low countries, then establishing themselves in the City of London and shortly after, has agents and subsidiaries in North America.
Cheers thanks. I agree with you that this is probably where one ought to start looking if culprits need to be found. Although I am not sure what is what one could do if we could say with certainty who is behind all the current turmoil.
Also. Just as an aside to your 'hereditary' comment. I get the feeling that the clue is in the nose. Lots of people in high places happen to have the same shape of nose. Straight, narrow, with upturned nostrils. Check out photos of the new MI6 boss Blaise Metreweli and her Nazi grandfather https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/new-mi6-chiefs-dark-history-revealed and compare it to Klaus Schwab's nose, and to Queen Maxima's nose... once you've seen it, you start finding it everywhere....
@Soulminkey
The "Hapsburg lip" eclipsed by a nose? Cyrano would approve...
Here is Stephen Miller, more or less Trump's brains (or nose?!)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2025_visit_to_National_Guard_soldiers_by_White_House_Deputy_Chief_of_Staff_Stephen_Miller_at_Union_Station_in_Washington,D.C.(cropped).jpg
And see Peter Thiel's nose?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/what-is-peter-thiels-endgame-for-palantir
Well, as I said, once you see it, you see more and more of it... :-))
Well, at least HALF witty?
As I said, democracy in the West is dead. Just a puppet show, a glamour to disguise the tyranny underneath.
This statement by Aurelian summarizes (for me) much of what is wrong with Western mindset on international security issues:
"...[T]hese proposals begin from the solution, without asking what the problem is."
Einstein once said something like this: "If I had one hour to find a way to save the world, I would spend 55 minutes defining the problem."
As someone who has done risk assessments for the Federal Government, I know that gaining consensus on the problem and objectives is often a politically fraught exercise as it puts leaders in the uncomfortable position of putting all of their cards on the table. But it can be done. Note that the U.S. National Security Council does NOT have a formal risk management function, as required by OMB for all other Federal Agencies. The U.S. gets into wars and covert actions without rigorously clarifying problems, objectives, risks and exit strategies in advance (e.g. per the Powell Doctrine, now a forgotten relic of Vietnam-era wisdom).
The West's immediate "solution" after the invasion became "Defeat and Weaken Russia." A different solution would have been reached if the root problem had been defined first, e.g. as "What is the most straightforward way to assure long term peace and security in Central Europe?"
As Anatol Lieven (of Responsible Statecraft) said shortly after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a stable peace would have been fairly easy to achieve by guaranteeing neutrality for Ukraine via multinational agreement (EU/NATO/Russia/Ukraine). A precedent exists for this, namely the agreement on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Austria in 1956. Such an agreement would have also guaranteed Ukraine's independence and security, the way it did Austria's. Of course, we had statesmen and good negotiators in those days.
In the years leading up to the invasion, the West thought they could roll Russia. Post-invasion, the root problem has only gotten much worse, and no one in the West seems ready to focus on that. It may be too late for any well-informed and effective diplomacy to solve this problem (which requires political courage, good faith, patience and very hard work), and hence the war must continue. War is always the final arbiter when effective diplomacy isn't possible. Sadly, for Ukraine, the end game is pretty clear, but it will take more time and many more lives.
Problem is that's exactly what was done in 1994. Russia, UK and US guaranteed Ukraine's security in return for it giving up nuclear weapons. Russia broke the agreement (whether or not that was all down to Russia isn't the issue) and as a result, Russia's word isn't trusted in Ukraine. Or in most of E Europe.
The European elites are US vassals, and that will remain so. National "democracy" has been so hollowed out, the European bureaucrats can manage things pretty freely. This will continue, just look at the fixing of the Moldovan and Romanian elections, more to come. The article needs to start with those assumptions.
"the present crew of political shysters and psychotic managerialists to be washed out of the system" and "more realistic leaders will emerge, because they always do".
This is certainly necessary, but I'm not clear how either of these steps is to occur. When the war ends with a clear defeat for Europe, it will of course be difficult to justify the current stance, but that's never stopped a bunch of highly placed liars before, and there are quite a large company of them, with dedicated support from the press.
As for 'more realistic leaders', well it seems possible that eventually the present incumbents will go, if only through retirement or death, but given the vast failure of the UK educational system (and presuming that this is also the case in the rest of Europe), and the dumbing down of society generally through the effects of widespread social media, where will they actually come from?
One obvious thing, which you largely agree with I see, is that the Russians could and probably will march into the Baltics to (1) access the Baltic Sea directly with ports from Kalinigrad to Sankt Peterburg including the jewel of the Baltic, Riga, which is on a direct railway line to Moscow, and thus (2) protect Kalinigrad from Poland. It was always a Russian City, Riga. The population of the entire Baltics could be fit into a few British cities and a good proportion of them are Russian speakers anyway, being currently nationalised out of existence, like in the Donbass and this clearly pisses off Putin. But what you never write about is the real reason for this business. It is the security of the Dollar, and all the European countries with investments in the Dollar, and all the Dollar banks. That is why they are all freaking out. It is why they invaded and killed Saddam, killed Ghadaffi and so on.
"But what you never write about is the real reason for this business... it is the security of the dollar". Yes, it most certainly is.
And it is here that China has an even bigger interest than Russia in shaping future events.
Aurelien says:
"At some point though, in different ways in different countries, more realistic leaders will emerge, because they always do. "
======================
My response:
It is hard for "realistic leaders" to emerge when the democratic process is deliberately rigged in Romania, Germany and Moldova by banning certain opposition parties or individual politicians from contesting in elections over spurious allegations of being "under the control of Russia." It would take revolutionary upheaval in European states for such "realistic leaders" to come anywhere near political power
This article is based on the tragic history and sclerosis of the geopolitics of western Eurasia. In 1990, there was an opportunity to establish something new and much more promising. But (like this article) we fell back into the old ways of thought and action instead.
Rather than the contingent facts of European history, the article should start from the fundamental issues which are:
1. the security dilemma, and
2. the possibility of establishing international relations and institutions based on "indivisible security". After all, that is all that the Russians say that they want. Why not engage them on this, and elaborate a shared vision of "indivisible security" and the future of the (UN) Charter international system?
See Richard Sakwa. 2023. The Lost Peace: How the West Failed to Prevent a Second Cold War. Yale University Press.
"I’ve written several times now about the uncomfortable situation resulting from the coming defeat in Ukraine, and the unpleasant consequences for Europe that may result. "
We keep hearing about this imminent defeat, and it never actually comes.
Anyway, european strategy since 1917 has remained constant - get Americans to do their fighting for them.
This strategy is proceeding apace, for while europeans are the Wimps Supreme, they are also master courtiers, skills honed after centuries of whispering campaigns, fruity pageantry, intrigue and bending the ears of senile monarchs.
What europe should do in the face of defeat is irrelevant, since the europeans haven't been defeated and they are working hard, united as never before to get the Americans stuck in. It worked in 1917, in 1941, in 1949, in 1999, in 2012 (remember the comedy of britain and france's failed attempt to subdue Libya? What did they do? Call the Americans!)
It didn't work in 1956. Europeans skulked back to their lairs, tails tucked between their legs like whipped dogs, back to their usual scheming, plotting and conspiring.
"get Americans to do their fighting for them."
You haven't been paying attention. The 'Americans' as you put it - i.e. the USA, haven't won a war since they invaded Grenada, and they also didn't win any before that, since 1945, when the Russians did most of the fighting. They sort of prevailed over Iraq because Iraq was a fifth rate power with a badly funded, undertrained morale-deficient army. and they funded a bunch of head choppers to bring down Syria, - both wars aided by the only power they have left - economic sanctions (which have failed against Russia). Most recently the rag-tag Afghani Islamists drove them out of Afghanistan with their tails between their legs. The USA does not do 'fighting' - it does proxy wars and subversion. Currently they can't even supply themselves with enough second rate missiles for their second-rate planes, let alone sell them to others. 'Fighting' is completely out of the question.
We hear that all the time as well, so what do you know that NATO and Stavka do not?
BTW, to give a few recent examples, the US goal in Iraq, Syria and Libya was to turn those countries into failed states. The US succeeded. The goal in Serbia was to dislodge it from.Kosovo. The US succeeded.
If you hear it all the time, why don't you pay attention? Do you really think NATO has a clue about anything? Have you been believing that useless Yank general who keeps making dream- stuff presentations to NATO? If so, you really need to get some better information.
Or to, sort of ,quote you, prove any of the above wrong.
I lots of wishful thinking and I provided examples to underscore my point.
Feral, I realise that English is not your first language, although you handle it very well, especially compared to my Ukrainian which is limited to saying 'Keev' instead of 'Keeyev', but I have to tell you that saying "We hear that all the time" is not a refutation of an argument or position. Your examples are not examples of the USA 'fighting' - they are examples of what I said - "proxy wars and subversion". That is not actually 'fighting', as the USA is no longer able to actually 'fight' any country larger than Easter Island. Proxy wars and subversion are the tools of the weak, because they have no other option.
I provided examples; you failed to address them, instead trying to patronize.
"Decisions are never really made-at best they manage to emerge, from a chaos of peeves, whims, assholery. This is less a fighting team than nest full of snits, blues, crotchets and grudges, not a rare or fabled bird in the lot. Its survival seems, after all, only a mutter of blind fortune groping through the heavy marbling of skies one Titanic-Night at a time."
-Thomas Pynchon
Thermodynamics and Limits to Growth take no prisoners. Russia has almost certainly hit the thermodynamic wall. Insufficient surplus energy from it's ageing oil fields, far away from the conflict.
https://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2025/09/15/total-misunderstanding/
@Michel Stasse
"Russia: Never as energy rich as she appears, or energy starved as she seems"?
The accelerating de icing of the Northwest passage, expanding fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers, newly discovered Siberian/Arctic oil fields plus the world's largest (and possibly most competent) nuclear fuels processing/reprocessing infrastructure suggest that the Russian Federation aren't out of the energy game.
Also, I would bet on the systema of RF physical sciences & mathematics theorists + Chinese engineering infrastructures to get commercially viable fusion power on line before "The West(™)" can.
Yeah. Russian physics is by now at least 20 years ahead of the US. They produce proportionally more STEM graduates, and they haven't bought into US 'profit before practicality' and share buy-back and similar greed-induced nonsense.
> "The kind of ignorant, superior, dismissive approach that has characterised the last generation will no longer do. Genuine experts on the country will be needed, and overall policy should be geared to “living with Russia”, not mindlessly opposing every Russian action."
The prognostication and advice in the article is built on the premise that this will happen because no other option is available. I don't feel confident this will happen soon enough. In the mean time people like Merz (or worse) will recognize that if USA and hence NATO is unreliable and history (e.g. Israel, Lybia, DPRK, Iraq) is a guide then Germany has to get an independent nuclear deterrent.
Another excellent essay - it is always a joy to read them.
Unfortunately we are not dealing with rational actors - at least not in the Collective West and irrational people tend to do irrational things.
I do hope that Real Politik will make a return soon but we are nowhere near that point yet in Europe.
Things are likely to become a lot worse before there is any change of things getting better.
And still we seems to be going through very dangerous times when the major governments (Germany, France, UK…) are actually very weak and strongly contested from within. So far, they only manage to stay in power by using legal shenanigans and blatant intimidations every time the electoral calendar or political situation lead them to hold elections.
They definitely need to appear to do something against the 'bad guys', don't they ?
So what do you do of all the fuzz around these drones over Danemark and other countries airport ? Do you think it might really the Russians testing European reactions ? Or (more likely in my opinion) a false flag operation to justify some of the actions you discussed here ?
"So far, they only manage to stay in power by using legal shenanigans and blatant intimidations every time the electoral calendar or political situation lead them to hold elections."
It works. The europopulations surrender with barely a peep of protest.
Not much indeed....
Thank you, Aurélien, for this excellent article. I am surprised that you do not address the federalist temptation of the Commission and certain European leaders.
In fact, I see this game of ‘scare tactics’ as an opportunity that some of these pro-federal Europe advocates seem to be trying to seize. The illegal creation of a Commissioner for Defence, Ursula's shameful speeches about so-called Russian attacks or intrusions, the desperate efforts at every election in Europe to keep sovereignist leaders out of the pro-EU circle, etc. All this leads me to believe that they are trying to control the discourse through fear so that the populace will call for protection, which will then be presented to them as a step towards federalism. Am I wrong?
Europe is finished. Is wrapped in tyranny to keep multicultualism from killing one another for cultural supremacy. A house divided can not stand but Euro Elites are determined to make sure multiculturalism "works" even if they have to put everyone in a cage. Europe has no resources and colonies are being taken away by USA, Russia and China. I'd be using the shared values visa and headed to Russia if I lived in Europe. Or USA who's future is slightly less bleak.
Russia will more likely take in it's Slavic brothers and write off Western and Central Europe entirely. No visa, No resources, no nothing as payback for the wars they put on Russia for centuries. China/Asia is Futurama now and Russia has no need for crashing West who will lead in nothing going forward. Europe had it's 500 years in sun, back to dark ages.