"... it is clear that the Russians have neither the capacity nor the desire to try to occupy the entire country."
A writer should be very reluctant to use that phrase 'it is clear that...' and Aurelien steps into mightily w this unforced error.
First, it is not at all clear that Russia lacks the capacity to absorb all of present day Ukraine. Russia has more than enough manpower and military resources to draw upon if needed and Ukraine is literally a nation disappearing before our eyes as its population continues to plummet through emigration, death, lack of reproduction. It's likely the Ukro military will capitulate sooner or later and then an occupation of the entire former Ukraine will follow. It's not difficult to envision a scenario in which Russia might well be forced into such a measure. Forced, mind you.
Which leads to point two: the desire to take all of Ukraine. Granted, Russia seemingly has no interest in the relatively poor area west of the Dneiper, populated by Banderistas and Russophobes. Nonetheless, it's quite possible that the criminal West might leave Russia no option by insisting that a rump Ukraine would be immediately inducted into NATO once the shooting stops. Russia might well conclude that an occupied west Ukraine, as distasteful as that might be, is far better than a NATO Ukraine.
Once this error is corrected, the "end" state may well be a crumbling NATO, a faltering US, and a resurgent Russia reestablishing trade and friendly relations w Eastern Europe on an ad hoc basis.
...with new gas pipelines through Ukraine (fully under Russian control) to replace Nordstream I & II. Security for Russia's natural gas exports will be part of the endgame. Europe will insist on it!
"Whilst Soviet troops were low-grade and not really suited for offence". I am not sure that was the case just a couple of years after the end of WWII. After all, the Red Army did destroy at least 70% of Werhmacht...
But I love the ending of this essay very much... How to Finlandise Europe? Bring Finland into NATO! Brilliant.
I wonder how fast after the end of the war will the west restore and unblock Russian assets freezed in the west and make them whole. Also, how fast will NS1 & 2 be restored. Will the Russians even be willing to do that. My guess is that because there will be no one dying, the economic blood letting of Europe will continue unabated. Even if politicians will be changed by elections, the ones replacing them will still be beholden to the same overlords.
In a very recent podcast from Alex Mercouris with Prof Glenn Diesen and Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, the good colonel (I do appreciate him and his style the most among the suite of rebel Americans) confirmed what I have suspected for a long time, that after the political/diplomatic disaster of US going along in Iraq, the US has put tremendous resources and conducted overt and covert activities to make sure Europe will be aligned in the future with the US (failed with Hungary apparently). But I guess because the investment payed off so handsomly, the US continues the practice, and the dragging of feet will continue for quite some time. The US is faced with a dilema in Europe: a militarized Europe will be less amenable to US guiding hand, so it would rather have a bled out region, that will not help neither against Russia nor against China, rather than a more autonomous Europe, that could engage in some intercourse beneficial to Russia or China.
I guess this is why the Russians, maybe more than the Chinese, will focus on building paralel structures in the Asian part of the world and be ultimately reluctant to allow West's fiat money as partner in developmental investments... That will sting a lot.
It looks like Ukraine has launched a mini-march on Russia in the Kharkiv region. The odds of this maneuver encircling Moscow are nonexistent, but still this will result in endorsements of poring more money into the inflicting pain on Russia enterprise. Do any Ukrainian leaders exist that would have the capacity to quit this futile war?
From my American perch it sadly appears that war is the policy of choice. It engorges the revenue streams of our billionaires more ably than concrete material benefits for us citizens.
When healthcare is not a right, when a still raging pandemic is declared over, when the rent is universally too damn high, and where predatory capitalism is stripping our resources bare; we cannot possibly trust our own leaders any further than the Russians may.
"Do any Ukrainian leaders exist that would have the capacity to quit this futile war?"
Why would they? From the point of view of of the Ukrainian leadership, the war has brought them nothing but benefits, not only have Vogue covers and untold billions of sweet western cash flooded the country, ripe for the taking, Ukraine has gone from a backward kleptocracy with a disturbing number of unreconstructed Nazis to The Lighthouse Of Freedom And Democracy, with total media censorship and without bothering to hold pesky elections.
What strikes me as bizarre about this particular Ukrainian adventure in the Kharkiv region is, how does LENGTHENING the lines of conflict help an army already struggling with insufficient manpower and artillery in what has clearly become an attritional contest?
A very welcome article! And deep-thought with all the variables no one in western media will speak off. The distrust that has emerged, mostly from the Russian side, due to Western leaders outrageous behaviour and treason IS the biggest obstacle to an agreement that could have a chance of success. This War has also revealed the hidden agenda that US/NATO have used against Russia ever since Putin became President and they lost control of Kreml. The strategy of containment goes through all sectors. Not are only business sanctioned. Russian culture and sport are subject to plain racism. It is a War in the open until one dies. Unless smart people in the West take the bite and start to talk with the Russians. Future look grim.
You are propably right. There is although a high price paid in Europe. Not yet in US. But propaganda is strong in the Western hemisphere and as long there are no missiles in London City or Brussel - no one cares about the War in Ukraine. Inflation and high interest rates, unemployment and so on was common even before feb 2022.
LOL, and how many democratic leaders were murdered? How many tyrants throughout history died in their beds and were mourned?
That you seem to think there is anything like justice in the world amazes me. The Hindus had to invent reincarnation because there is no justice, not in this life.
Well written, and well thought through. Obviously reflecting some margin of experience and bureaucratic how to; a pleasurable read. Thank you for not presuming to know what can’t be known, and for not predicting specifics based upon it.
Do you consider credible that the lack of politically authority sufficient to negotiate a true peace deal is, from the perspective of the GAE, a feature, not a bug? If the purpose of the whole endeavor included the aim of creating a perpetual thorn in the side of Russia, then the inability to transform a military victory into a political would contribute nicely to this goal. Of course, it would be terrible for Ukraine, but that is clearly not an issue for the architects of this conflict.
Indeed. But we can go further. If the US was in the slightest interested in peace they wouldn't have stirred up this witch's cauldron with the the coup they brought to pass in 2014. Peace was never the point, nor has been since they took on the imperial mantle from GB. Quite the contrary.
I think you’re onto something here. Creating perpetual chaos and instability on the borders of your adversary is a good thing, from the POV of the neocon PMC. Another writer (FBF) I follow, couched the conflict in these terms from day 1:
Big winner - GAE
Little winner - Russia
Big loser - Ukraine
Little loser - EU
Having US proxies fighting east of Kharkov is an incredible achievement by Cold War standards for the US, and an absolute nightmare for Russia. But solidifying alliances and a cooperative system outside the GAE and rejuvenating their MIC and military is a relative boon for Russia, albeit at the cost of 100k+ dead Russian men, or whatever it’s at now. Losers being Europeans and Ukrainians unfortunately.
Indeed, constantly fomenting unrest and chaos in potential rivals is something Washington is incredibly good at. The latest of countless cases is Bangladesh, to keep India AND China (via Myanmar) under threat of contagion. Masterful. Evil, yes, and worthy of nuclear fire, but masterful.
But as regards Niccolo, I never could get onboard with the idea of Turbo-America, you know? Quite possibly because I am not familiar enough with the details, wherein resides the devil, but I do not see him adequately addressing the two elephantine issues of the regime-fostered ongoing invasion of America and the irreversible collapse of the USD. While it is clear that power is ever more centralized in Washington (primarily via the monopoly of printing money and the patronage networks that enables) at the expense of the individual states, nevertheless, unless something massive happens (like secession, very unlikely), socialism a-la Venezuela/Cuba is where the USA is heading. While that will indeed make the power-brokers in Washington stronger than ever (witness Chaves/Maduro/Castro/etc. dynasties), it will increasingly be internal power, not global power. As such, Turbo-America, from my perspective, doesn't hold water. With all respect for Niccolo, and acknowledging his obvious mental superiority, I suspect him of being overly-enamoured with his thesis.
That said, I would only invert the first two on Niccolo's list. The GAE is still a winner, because while their empire is visibly crumbling, their losses are not due to this war, but other factors (see above, plus others), and crippling Europe in a scorched-earth campaign can only be net gain for them as their empire retreats, because otherwise Europe would end up strengthening China in deepening commercial and industrial interactions.
Me too Ian, I’ve struggled to get my head around Turbo America too, but this is my current understanding:
Niccolo’s idea of Turbo America is not that the GAE is an omnipotent force, but that the powers that be in DC are intent on going full court press on any and all adversaries simultaneously to maintain their global dominance. Confronting Russia, China and Iran etc is not rational, and is probably beyond the capability of the US, but the attempt to do so is my interpretation of Turbo America. Again, I’ve struggled with it and I could be wrong but this is where my head is at now.
Ok, but then I must disagree even more forcefully with Niccolo, Kevin. There is no rational way on earth the US can take on even one of those three entities, let alone all three together! Iran is by far the smallest, and even there the only hope of a successful military victory would necessarily be via nuclear weapons.
Even using utterly discardable cannon fodder like the Ukrainians, they have not been able to even seriously threaten Russia alone, and have expended huge materiel reserves doing so. This is, indeed, as you point out above.
So if extending or even holding onto hegemony is what Niccolo means by Turbo America, then I can only conclude he is deeply mistaken.
Now, if what he means is that America will transition to a totalitarian state, like the UK is apparently doing, then yes, that does look highly likely. But surely that cannot be called Turbo America? Turbo Washington DC, yes, because the goal would be to brush aside all semblance of democratic limit and irksome representational checks and balances, and go full Venezuela. I give that better than even odds, unless American RW grow some serious balls and stop effing around with the tattered kabuki theater of 'democratic elections'.
Niccolo has been holding that position since before the canard of the Russian Federation's military being merely an empty shell was revealed to be utterly false. I think he needs to seriously review it by now.
I firmly believe the GAE is dying by the day. I see no real probability of the political entity of the USA falling, though, although we might yet see them add "The People's Republic Of" before the USA bit.
While this essay is quite logical, there is the fog of war, and Russia is not entirely in control of events. For example, the U.S. election in November may be a tipping point no matter who wins the election. If Trump wins, he'll just call Zelensky to tell him to pack his bags. If Harris wins, the Republicans in Congress will do a simple cost-benefit calculation and deny further funding. Then there are the vagaries of Russian public opinion and the Russian leadership.
In this war of attrition, Putin's goal is to plod along steadily so as to exhaust the West and Ukraine. This has worked reliably in the past (as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam). Taking --and eventually taming -- all of Ukraine should well within Russia's capability if it is patient enough and exhaustion is thorough enough. Consolidating Western Ukraine may take violence on the scale of the Chechen war. NATO will look on helplessly, unable to interfere. But now the Chechens are staunchly pro-Russian. Russia's methods are different from ours. For Russia, it comes down to political will to gain the objectives of the SMO, and I think Russia has this, given the many sacrifices made thus far.
After exhaustion fully sets in, Russia may, in the fog of war, have no choice but to go all the way to the Polish border, e.g. if the front just crumbles, if only to establish order and to keep the border secure. Russian public opinion may demand as much. Russia may well have the desire to do this in order to thoroughly neutralize, de-nazify and de-militarize Ukraine, the key goals of the SMO.
Thinking in Bayesian terms, I'd say the prior probability of Russia taking all of Ukraine increases as the duration of this war increases. That depends on the stubbornness of the West, not on Russia, it seems to me. With Biden out in three months no matter what, things are not looking good for Ukraine.
Aurelien, despite your claim in the article of not speaking Russian, as a Russian myself I was really impressed by the depth of your analysis and understanding of the situation, it had really summed up some things for me and tied up some loose ends. Thank you!
Few notes (including on the discussion in the comments):
I think Russia will probably have to go to the Polish border. By keeping Zelensky alive Putin allows UA to self destruct, as for ZE and his clique war is lifeblood, is the best "biznis" in their entire lives. They will continue to push the button, sending hordes of people kidnapped off the streets to their deaths. I am doubtful that UArmy will mutiny, they will fight and they will die in their droves. So ZE will keep the war rolling and all of the new "elites" - his government, big time "volunteers", black marketeers, human traffikers, big time international drug dealers that hooked huge swathes of UA field troops will support him in that. By the time UA is totally exhausted, social fabric of UA will be in such a state, that it will probably only be able to continue existence as a Russian protectorate.
I do not think that there will be large insurgency in the West UA. The population is urbanised now and Bandera/ Shuhevich style insurgency will simply be too difficult for people used to relative comfort of XXI century...
As for Russia - Europe relationships - you are correct - there is a lot of mistrust and sheer disdain even among Russian educated class, who was very pro-European and anti-war but suddenly had seen the abyss of visceral, rabid frothing eye-rolling hatred that had yawned in front of their faces in 2022.
Also, as someone involved in oil&gas industry, I can see how fast the supply chain is restructuring itself based on non-European foundations. Relationships between nations are always based on economical mutual interest and by the time Europe may decide to turn around Russia may have nothing to offer - most of its EXIM flows by that time may be consumed by other countries and markets.
I agree, that Arestovich may be a dark horse, someone who can surprise all of us.
"The first thing is to take the phrase backwards, and ask what we mean by “end?” There are at least three separate but linked questions here. They are:
at what point will the Russians decide that further offensive military operations are unnecessary?
at what point will the Russians (successfully) insist on a cessation of hostilities, surrender and evacuation of Ukrainian forces and a ceasefire on their terms?
at what point will there be a clear understanding, backed up by agreements but also by force, on the future of Ukraine and western involvement in the country?"
Russia can demand surrender all it wants, but since Western and Ukrainian leaders themselves pay no price for further conflict, the demands will fall on deaf ears. The conflict will go on and the West will continue to escalate.
We've been hearing this song and dance for over two years now. Stop kidding yourselves.
"Western and Ukrainian leaders themselves pay no price for further conflict"
They are paying a price all right, in terms of billions of dollars/euros being poured down the toilet that is the Ukraine. All this while Europe is itself going down the toilet, with de-industrialisation in Germany and poor economic performance in the rest of Europe, the rise of right-wing parties, right-wing rioting in England, Türkiye becoming semi-detached from NATO, European armies in a state of disrepair and unpopularity, western 'weapon systems' being exposed as expensive trash, the US having other fish to fry in Palestine and Taiwan plus cash for the Ukraine becoming scarcer than honest politicians, how will the west "continue to escalate"?
You are deluding yourself - wish-fulfilment is not a real thing.
It's not as if they are writing checks from their personal accounts, they don't care if they are popular or not, and they have proven successful in keeping insurgents out of power.
Put it another way: let me know when we see a a lynch mob lead Macron through the streets with a noose around his neck to the nearest lamppost.
As a Ukrainian, you may be committed to this anti-Russian viewpoint, but it is clear from history that the mass of people cannot be led against their will, and austerity, poverty and general European decline will show them where they will will themselves not to be led to. This is already evident with the rise of the nationalist and right wing elements in England, Germany, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary and France - most of them are anti the Ukraine war.
1. I am not a Ukrainian. Nor am I "anti-Russian" in the least. I love Russia and I detest nazi Ukraine.
I am, however, a realist, even when the facts are something other than what I might wish them to be. Moreover, the nationalist elements have zero influence on europe, and are quickly finding out how little power they really have.
2. Perhaps Hermann Goering had some practical insight into this matter:
"We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
This only works if people are nationalistic to begin with and they have a farm to go back to. No is gonna fight for a country that hates them, trying to replace them, and can't afford rent as is the case today in many Europeans countries.
In this case, Ukrainians have blocking units and the secret police at their backs, and the promise that they finally will get The Goodies if they succeed.
Yes, well we are all (or should be) aware of Goerings analysis, but German citizens in the 3rd Reich supported the Nazis because they shout it would be advantageous for them - i.e. they wanted to. And while there were a small hard core of fanatics still of this opinion at the end of 1945, most Germans had changed their allegiance.
People will support a government until there are adverse consequences, but not after, and these consequences are becoming apparent now.
(As for your origin, I apologise - I misread this previous post from you
Feral Finster
Jul 10
I lived much of my adult life in Ukraine.
I've bribed everyone from the fire department up through members of the Council Of Ministers. I know whereof I speak.
but it seems that you are immersed in the Ukrainian way of doing business).
Western pols need active support only if they are serious about total war, otherwise apathy will suffice. But they can live with low level opposition, such as riots, protests and attempts at voting them out.
Wonderful, as usual. As to what might the Russians want?, let Bismarck guide our thoughts: “Don't expect that once you exploit Russia's weakness, you'll reap dividends forever. Russians always come for their money. And when they come, don't rely on the Jesuitical agreements you made them sign. They are not worth the paper they are written on. Therefore, either play fair with the Russians or don't play at all.''
Another great article Aurelien, thank you. My initial big fear in February/March of 2022 was that after the inevitable defeat of Ukraine, that the West (whether it be Brussels, DC, NYC or some other symbolic feature) would become the target of Ukrainian revanchist forces. As you so eloquently put it, ‘the stab in the back myth’ reincarnate. Time will tell.
This is where I draw some parallels between Ukraine and the Irish Free State in 1922/23. I believe both sides of the Irish pro- and anti-Anglo-Irish Treaty had merit. Yes, the resistance was on its last legs and couldn’t keep up the fight much longer so signing on the dotted line was the ‘right’ choice, but the terms of the agreement were also intolerable due to the sacrifices already made (6 counties, path of allegiance to the crown etc).
We know what happened in the end, the 2 sides couldn’t be reconciled and the situation descended into a bloody civil war that the Irish republic has still not come to terms with (it’s preferable to sweep these awkward things under the rug in true Irish fashion), and the pro-treaty side lead by Collins eventually won out, without their leader due to his assassination, with material backing and support of the former enemy, the British Empire. However, a new iteration of the IRA remained a thorn in the side of the UK (and Irish republic governments) for generations.
In this vein, I foresee Ukraine sharing a similar faith. A Michael Collins like leader, maybe Arestovich who seems to be positioning himself for some sort of post-war settlement, emerges to replace Zelensky in order to come to terms with Russia. But the agreement, whatever it looks like, is so unfavourable to hardcore Ukrainian nationalists that the rump state descends into chaos and civil war. NATO and the West wash their hands of the mess as they didn’t care for Ukraine in the first place, but keeping up a BS narrative for their gullible publics, while Russia backs the pro-treaty Ukrainian side in the ensuing civil war. In the end, predictably, Ukraine is in ruins and accepts its place as supplicant of its larger and more powerful neighbour. But there remains a terrorist ultra-nationalist Ukrainian element that carries out attacks against Kiev, Russia and the west. All at the cost of how many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives. Maybe I’m wrong, but what has happened so far already looked oh so predictable 2 and a half years ago.
Ukrainian nationalists might be bought off by bringing them in the West and enlisting them in a lavish remunerated praetorian guard that could be unleashed against any threat to the establishment, should any materialize. Hand them bags of money, call the opposition pro russian traitors and tell them to have fun chopping them to pieces. Probably they will take such deal in a heartbet.
I don't believe that "hoping that the pause will be permanent" and "not exclude[ing] a resumption of hostilities later" are or will be part of Russias plan for the future of the Ukraine.
Russia will not be depending on 'hope', and the 'resumption of hostilities later' would constitute a defeat for them. Russia seems to be in a position to continue this SMO until it achieves all its goals - de-nazification, disarmament and deNATOing of the Ukraine, and it will surely do so, in order not to nullify and waste the expenditure of lives and money already unavoidably committed to this western folly.
The West does not have to back down from its current position or offer any political closure to Russia, it can simply turn any non occupied Ukraine into a trashcanstan from which a neverending stream of drones and SOF/terrorists can be hurled against Russia on a daily basis.
There has never been a good solution to the ukrainian problem for Russia since 2014.
Europe may suffer somewhat but its élite has every personal incentive to remain loyal to the US and short of the internal situation turning catastrophic can take on pretty much any challenge to itself and come out top.
Re your first paragraph, that is exactly why Russia will never allow this to happen. As for Europe, the 'elites' may persist, but there is more and more evidence that they are not able to continue dragging the masses behind them, as their economies decline.
Russia has limited options, at most it could occupy all all of Ukraine but it would be a costly affair.
If by "dragging" you mean demand mobilization/conscription/etc. , yes that is pretty much already gone. Within those constraints however their position is pretty much unassailable: they can coopt or otherwise neutralize any populist leader, outwait any riot , ignore any protest, play good cop bad cop at elections endlessy etc.
And nothing short of a general european/american collapse, which is still remote and would come with its own set of problems, can get Russia anywhere near its stated objectives such as rolling back NATO and the likes.
I like your logical thinking here. However, there are a few points that you have skipped over and that may come to play an important role: first of all, Poland. The Polish army is now the largest force in Europe and Putin himself seems to acknowledge the military threat it will exhaust on Ukrain in the nearby future. Poland will probably see any form of ceasefire or "peace" as an opportunity to try and retake lands in Ukrain that historically were under Polish control. No idea how the rest of the West or NATO would look on that move. The second is that European governments as such are no more than token governments. The real power lies in Brussels (or, to be fair, in Berlin). And Brussels/Berlin is very belligerent indeed. It is putting out all kinds of legislation and subsidies in order to build an army; munitions and weapons productions will be upped; conscription will be reintroduced, and they do seem to realise that it won't be done overnight. They are looking at a timeline of about five years. Maybe it is not realistic, but "peace" and stability will not be their aim. All out war with Russia will be.
The idea that Poland would want lands inhabited by millions of fractious and well-armed Ukrainians who are not only by no stretch Polish, but who also have a history of genocide against Poles within living memory, is goofy.
I like that: 'goofy'. And I agree with your logic. The trouble is the Poles are goofy, often illogical if not downright stupid in such matters and quite capable of doing something really dumb, like occupying territory that once saw the extinction of the Polish people who lived there.
I think we can also factor in that with most of Europe inceasingly pre-occupied with migrants we will see Poland (free of all migrants but Ukrainians) take a larger role. Its not Ursula or Germany who decide Europe's fate but America's NeoCons. They will be happy to rearm Poland and the Polish politicians (but not necessarily the people) can be expected to let their hatred of Russia lead them to wreck their country (again).
The leadership may not have the support of the people. But, unfortunately, it has the authority. I was under the impression the leadership was eager to take a pro-war line and has already contracted for huge purchases of US munitions. (This seems to have been motivated by bribery as the purchases are not ideal for the sort of warfare one might expect if it were to break out.)
I believe the Ukrainian migrants are creating strong emotions among the Poles. That might change the aspirations of the people, for instance create a desire to send the Ukrainians into Ukraine rather than Polish troops. Do you have any thoughts on this?
The only question is which war the Empire wants to prioritize right now. The Polish leadership is eager to join in Ukraine, however, because they lets them show Master who is the most loyalest little bitch, I am I am Iam!
The irony is that, take away Russia, and Poland would go from America's Special Little Buddy to a rather yappy mid-tier backwater satrapy of no special importance. Sort of like Colombia, if that country had delusions of grandeur but did not have cocaine or anything else the West wanted and couldn't get elsewhere.
Anyway, getting Poles or Ukrainian refugees into the army is easy enough - freeze their bank accounts. Try living for any length of time in an EU country with no money and no access to money. (This is the same way that the Canadian government dispersed the trucker protests. Illegal, but who cares?"
Then why the big army? They may well enter Ukrain under the guise of "self-defense" against Russia. The NATO partners may even buy into that. Don't forget that Blackrock et al have large economic interests in the west of Ukrain. They may feel these interests are better protected by the Poles than by a bunch of neo-nazi's.
The Poles do not have a military industrial complex to support their armies. It is mostly bought from oversees. The logistical chains here are as long as for Ukraine. And I am not sure for how long would the Poles want to trade butter for margerine....
"... it is clear that the Russians have neither the capacity nor the desire to try to occupy the entire country."
A writer should be very reluctant to use that phrase 'it is clear that...' and Aurelien steps into mightily w this unforced error.
First, it is not at all clear that Russia lacks the capacity to absorb all of present day Ukraine. Russia has more than enough manpower and military resources to draw upon if needed and Ukraine is literally a nation disappearing before our eyes as its population continues to plummet through emigration, death, lack of reproduction. It's likely the Ukro military will capitulate sooner or later and then an occupation of the entire former Ukraine will follow. It's not difficult to envision a scenario in which Russia might well be forced into such a measure. Forced, mind you.
Which leads to point two: the desire to take all of Ukraine. Granted, Russia seemingly has no interest in the relatively poor area west of the Dneiper, populated by Banderistas and Russophobes. Nonetheless, it's quite possible that the criminal West might leave Russia no option by insisting that a rump Ukraine would be immediately inducted into NATO once the shooting stops. Russia might well conclude that an occupied west Ukraine, as distasteful as that might be, is far better than a NATO Ukraine.
Once this error is corrected, the "end" state may well be a crumbling NATO, a faltering US, and a resurgent Russia reestablishing trade and friendly relations w Eastern Europe on an ad hoc basis.
...with new gas pipelines through Ukraine (fully under Russian control) to replace Nordstream I & II. Security for Russia's natural gas exports will be part of the endgame. Europe will insist on it!
"Whilst Soviet troops were low-grade and not really suited for offence". I am not sure that was the case just a couple of years after the end of WWII. After all, the Red Army did destroy at least 70% of Werhmacht...
But I love the ending of this essay very much... How to Finlandise Europe? Bring Finland into NATO! Brilliant.
I wonder how fast after the end of the war will the west restore and unblock Russian assets freezed in the west and make them whole. Also, how fast will NS1 & 2 be restored. Will the Russians even be willing to do that. My guess is that because there will be no one dying, the economic blood letting of Europe will continue unabated. Even if politicians will be changed by elections, the ones replacing them will still be beholden to the same overlords.
In a very recent podcast from Alex Mercouris with Prof Glenn Diesen and Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, the good colonel (I do appreciate him and his style the most among the suite of rebel Americans) confirmed what I have suspected for a long time, that after the political/diplomatic disaster of US going along in Iraq, the US has put tremendous resources and conducted overt and covert activities to make sure Europe will be aligned in the future with the US (failed with Hungary apparently). But I guess because the investment payed off so handsomly, the US continues the practice, and the dragging of feet will continue for quite some time. The US is faced with a dilema in Europe: a militarized Europe will be less amenable to US guiding hand, so it would rather have a bled out region, that will not help neither against Russia nor against China, rather than a more autonomous Europe, that could engage in some intercourse beneficial to Russia or China.
I guess this is why the Russians, maybe more than the Chinese, will focus on building paralel structures in the Asian part of the world and be ultimately reluctant to allow West's fiat money as partner in developmental investments... That will sting a lot.
It looks like Ukraine has launched a mini-march on Russia in the Kharkiv region. The odds of this maneuver encircling Moscow are nonexistent, but still this will result in endorsements of poring more money into the inflicting pain on Russia enterprise. Do any Ukrainian leaders exist that would have the capacity to quit this futile war?
From my American perch it sadly appears that war is the policy of choice. It engorges the revenue streams of our billionaires more ably than concrete material benefits for us citizens.
When healthcare is not a right, when a still raging pandemic is declared over, when the rent is universally too damn high, and where predatory capitalism is stripping our resources bare; we cannot possibly trust our own leaders any further than the Russians may.
"Do any Ukrainian leaders exist that would have the capacity to quit this futile war?"
Why would they? From the point of view of of the Ukrainian leadership, the war has brought them nothing but benefits, not only have Vogue covers and untold billions of sweet western cash flooded the country, ripe for the taking, Ukraine has gone from a backward kleptocracy with a disturbing number of unreconstructed Nazis to The Lighthouse Of Freedom And Democracy, with total media censorship and without bothering to hold pesky elections.
What strikes me as bizarre about this particular Ukrainian adventure in the Kharkiv region is, how does LENGTHENING the lines of conflict help an army already struggling with insufficient manpower and artillery in what has clearly become an attritional contest?
A very welcome article! And deep-thought with all the variables no one in western media will speak off. The distrust that has emerged, mostly from the Russian side, due to Western leaders outrageous behaviour and treason IS the biggest obstacle to an agreement that could have a chance of success. This War has also revealed the hidden agenda that US/NATO have used against Russia ever since Putin became President and they lost control of Kreml. The strategy of containment goes through all sectors. Not are only business sanctioned. Russian culture and sport are subject to plain racism. It is a War in the open until one dies. Unless smart people in the West take the bite and start to talk with the Russians. Future look grim.
The leaders of the West and their Ukrainian puppets pay no price for further conflict. So the war will go on.
They continue to ignore Russian red lines with impunity. So they will continue to escalate.
You are propably right. There is although a high price paid in Europe. Not yet in US. But propaganda is strong in the Western hemisphere and as long there are no missiles in London City or Brussel - no one cares about the War in Ukraine. Inflation and high interest rates, unemployment and so on was common even before feb 2022.
The leadership class in europe pay no price.
Nobody cares about the masses, not in Washington, not in Brussels, not in Kiev.
That's how Luis XVI and Marie Antoinette and the last Czar used to think too.
LOL, and how many democratic leaders were murdered? How many tyrants throughout history died in their beds and were mourned?
That you seem to think there is anything like justice in the world amazes me. The Hindus had to invent reincarnation because there is no justice, not in this life.
Where did I mention 'justice'? That's just another of your many inventions.
Well written, and well thought through. Obviously reflecting some margin of experience and bureaucratic how to; a pleasurable read. Thank you for not presuming to know what can’t be known, and for not predicting specifics based upon it.
Aurelien,
Do you consider credible that the lack of politically authority sufficient to negotiate a true peace deal is, from the perspective of the GAE, a feature, not a bug? If the purpose of the whole endeavor included the aim of creating a perpetual thorn in the side of Russia, then the inability to transform a military victory into a political would contribute nicely to this goal. Of course, it would be terrible for Ukraine, but that is clearly not an issue for the architects of this conflict.
If the US wanted a peace deal, there would be a peace deal, and the authority would be found or invented, as necessary.
Indeed. But we can go further. If the US was in the slightest interested in peace they wouldn't have stirred up this witch's cauldron with the the coup they brought to pass in 2014. Peace was never the point, nor has been since they took on the imperial mantle from GB. Quite the contrary.
Of course. What does Russia propose to do about it?
I think you’re onto something here. Creating perpetual chaos and instability on the borders of your adversary is a good thing, from the POV of the neocon PMC. Another writer (FBF) I follow, couched the conflict in these terms from day 1:
Big winner - GAE
Little winner - Russia
Big loser - Ukraine
Little loser - EU
Having US proxies fighting east of Kharkov is an incredible achievement by Cold War standards for the US, and an absolute nightmare for Russia. But solidifying alliances and a cooperative system outside the GAE and rejuvenating their MIC and military is a relative boon for Russia, albeit at the cost of 100k+ dead Russian men, or whatever it’s at now. Losers being Europeans and Ukrainians unfortunately.
Indeed, constantly fomenting unrest and chaos in potential rivals is something Washington is incredibly good at. The latest of countless cases is Bangladesh, to keep India AND China (via Myanmar) under threat of contagion. Masterful. Evil, yes, and worthy of nuclear fire, but masterful.
But as regards Niccolo, I never could get onboard with the idea of Turbo-America, you know? Quite possibly because I am not familiar enough with the details, wherein resides the devil, but I do not see him adequately addressing the two elephantine issues of the regime-fostered ongoing invasion of America and the irreversible collapse of the USD. While it is clear that power is ever more centralized in Washington (primarily via the monopoly of printing money and the patronage networks that enables) at the expense of the individual states, nevertheless, unless something massive happens (like secession, very unlikely), socialism a-la Venezuela/Cuba is where the USA is heading. While that will indeed make the power-brokers in Washington stronger than ever (witness Chaves/Maduro/Castro/etc. dynasties), it will increasingly be internal power, not global power. As such, Turbo-America, from my perspective, doesn't hold water. With all respect for Niccolo, and acknowledging his obvious mental superiority, I suspect him of being overly-enamoured with his thesis.
That said, I would only invert the first two on Niccolo's list. The GAE is still a winner, because while their empire is visibly crumbling, their losses are not due to this war, but other factors (see above, plus others), and crippling Europe in a scorched-earth campaign can only be net gain for them as their empire retreats, because otherwise Europe would end up strengthening China in deepening commercial and industrial interactions.
Me too Ian, I’ve struggled to get my head around Turbo America too, but this is my current understanding:
Niccolo’s idea of Turbo America is not that the GAE is an omnipotent force, but that the powers that be in DC are intent on going full court press on any and all adversaries simultaneously to maintain their global dominance. Confronting Russia, China and Iran etc is not rational, and is probably beyond the capability of the US, but the attempt to do so is my interpretation of Turbo America. Again, I’ve struggled with it and I could be wrong but this is where my head is at now.
Ok, but then I must disagree even more forcefully with Niccolo, Kevin. There is no rational way on earth the US can take on even one of those three entities, let alone all three together! Iran is by far the smallest, and even there the only hope of a successful military victory would necessarily be via nuclear weapons.
Even using utterly discardable cannon fodder like the Ukrainians, they have not been able to even seriously threaten Russia alone, and have expended huge materiel reserves doing so. This is, indeed, as you point out above.
So if extending or even holding onto hegemony is what Niccolo means by Turbo America, then I can only conclude he is deeply mistaken.
Now, if what he means is that America will transition to a totalitarian state, like the UK is apparently doing, then yes, that does look highly likely. But surely that cannot be called Turbo America? Turbo Washington DC, yes, because the goal would be to brush aside all semblance of democratic limit and irksome representational checks and balances, and go full Venezuela. I give that better than even odds, unless American RW grow some serious balls and stop effing around with the tattered kabuki theater of 'democratic elections'.
Niccolo has been holding that position since before the canard of the Russian Federation's military being merely an empty shell was revealed to be utterly false. I think he needs to seriously review it by now.
I firmly believe the GAE is dying by the day. I see no real probability of the political entity of the USA falling, though, although we might yet see them add "The People's Republic Of" before the USA bit.
While this essay is quite logical, there is the fog of war, and Russia is not entirely in control of events. For example, the U.S. election in November may be a tipping point no matter who wins the election. If Trump wins, he'll just call Zelensky to tell him to pack his bags. If Harris wins, the Republicans in Congress will do a simple cost-benefit calculation and deny further funding. Then there are the vagaries of Russian public opinion and the Russian leadership.
In this war of attrition, Putin's goal is to plod along steadily so as to exhaust the West and Ukraine. This has worked reliably in the past (as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam). Taking --and eventually taming -- all of Ukraine should well within Russia's capability if it is patient enough and exhaustion is thorough enough. Consolidating Western Ukraine may take violence on the scale of the Chechen war. NATO will look on helplessly, unable to interfere. But now the Chechens are staunchly pro-Russian. Russia's methods are different from ours. For Russia, it comes down to political will to gain the objectives of the SMO, and I think Russia has this, given the many sacrifices made thus far.
After exhaustion fully sets in, Russia may, in the fog of war, have no choice but to go all the way to the Polish border, e.g. if the front just crumbles, if only to establish order and to keep the border secure. Russian public opinion may demand as much. Russia may well have the desire to do this in order to thoroughly neutralize, de-nazify and de-militarize Ukraine, the key goals of the SMO.
Thinking in Bayesian terms, I'd say the prior probability of Russia taking all of Ukraine increases as the duration of this war increases. That depends on the stubbornness of the West, not on Russia, it seems to me. With Biden out in three months no matter what, things are not looking good for Ukraine.
Aurelien, despite your claim in the article of not speaking Russian, as a Russian myself I was really impressed by the depth of your analysis and understanding of the situation, it had really summed up some things for me and tied up some loose ends. Thank you!
Few notes (including on the discussion in the comments):
I think Russia will probably have to go to the Polish border. By keeping Zelensky alive Putin allows UA to self destruct, as for ZE and his clique war is lifeblood, is the best "biznis" in their entire lives. They will continue to push the button, sending hordes of people kidnapped off the streets to their deaths. I am doubtful that UArmy will mutiny, they will fight and they will die in their droves. So ZE will keep the war rolling and all of the new "elites" - his government, big time "volunteers", black marketeers, human traffikers, big time international drug dealers that hooked huge swathes of UA field troops will support him in that. By the time UA is totally exhausted, social fabric of UA will be in such a state, that it will probably only be able to continue existence as a Russian protectorate.
I do not think that there will be large insurgency in the West UA. The population is urbanised now and Bandera/ Shuhevich style insurgency will simply be too difficult for people used to relative comfort of XXI century...
As for Russia - Europe relationships - you are correct - there is a lot of mistrust and sheer disdain even among Russian educated class, who was very pro-European and anti-war but suddenly had seen the abyss of visceral, rabid frothing eye-rolling hatred that had yawned in front of their faces in 2022.
Also, as someone involved in oil&gas industry, I can see how fast the supply chain is restructuring itself based on non-European foundations. Relationships between nations are always based on economical mutual interest and by the time Europe may decide to turn around Russia may have nothing to offer - most of its EXIM flows by that time may be consumed by other countries and markets.
I agree, that Arestovich may be a dark horse, someone who can surprise all of us.
"The first thing is to take the phrase backwards, and ask what we mean by “end?” There are at least three separate but linked questions here. They are:
at what point will the Russians decide that further offensive military operations are unnecessary?
at what point will the Russians (successfully) insist on a cessation of hostilities, surrender and evacuation of Ukrainian forces and a ceasefire on their terms?
at what point will there be a clear understanding, backed up by agreements but also by force, on the future of Ukraine and western involvement in the country?"
Russia can demand surrender all it wants, but since Western and Ukrainian leaders themselves pay no price for further conflict, the demands will fall on deaf ears. The conflict will go on and the West will continue to escalate.
We've been hearing this song and dance for over two years now. Stop kidding yourselves.
"Western and Ukrainian leaders themselves pay no price for further conflict"
They are paying a price all right, in terms of billions of dollars/euros being poured down the toilet that is the Ukraine. All this while Europe is itself going down the toilet, with de-industrialisation in Germany and poor economic performance in the rest of Europe, the rise of right-wing parties, right-wing rioting in England, Türkiye becoming semi-detached from NATO, European armies in a state of disrepair and unpopularity, western 'weapon systems' being exposed as expensive trash, the US having other fish to fry in Palestine and Taiwan plus cash for the Ukraine becoming scarcer than honest politicians, how will the west "continue to escalate"?
You are deluding yourself - wish-fulfilment is not a real thing.
None of this affects the leaders in any way.
It's not as if they are writing checks from their personal accounts, they don't care if they are popular or not, and they have proven successful in keeping insurgents out of power.
Put it another way: let me know when we see a a lynch mob lead Macron through the streets with a noose around his neck to the nearest lamppost.
As a Ukrainian, you may be committed to this anti-Russian viewpoint, but it is clear from history that the mass of people cannot be led against their will, and austerity, poverty and general European decline will show them where they will will themselves not to be led to. This is already evident with the rise of the nationalist and right wing elements in England, Germany, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary and France - most of them are anti the Ukraine war.
1. I am not a Ukrainian. Nor am I "anti-Russian" in the least. I love Russia and I detest nazi Ukraine.
I am, however, a realist, even when the facts are something other than what I might wish them to be. Moreover, the nationalist elements have zero influence on europe, and are quickly finding out how little power they really have.
2. Perhaps Hermann Goering had some practical insight into this matter:
"We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
https://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html
This only works if people are nationalistic to begin with and they have a farm to go back to. No is gonna fight for a country that hates them, trying to replace them, and can't afford rent as is the case today in many Europeans countries.
In this case, Ukrainians have blocking units and the secret police at their backs, and the promise that they finally will get The Goodies if they succeed.
So far, it has worked.
Yes, well we are all (or should be) aware of Goerings analysis, but German citizens in the 3rd Reich supported the Nazis because they shout it would be advantageous for them - i.e. they wanted to. And while there were a small hard core of fanatics still of this opinion at the end of 1945, most Germans had changed their allegiance.
People will support a government until there are adverse consequences, but not after, and these consequences are becoming apparent now.
(As for your origin, I apologise - I misread this previous post from you
Feral Finster
Jul 10
I lived much of my adult life in Ukraine.
I've bribed everyone from the fire department up through members of the Council Of Ministers. I know whereof I speak.
but it seems that you are immersed in the Ukrainian way of doing business).
I lived in Ukraine. I am not Ukrainian. The difference in ways of doing business is that in the West, corruption is normalized into legal channels.
Western pols need active support only if they are serious about total war, otherwise apathy will suffice. But they can live with low level opposition, such as riots, protests and attempts at voting them out.
Germans supported the Third Reich until literally the very end.
Any anti Ukraine war right wing type will be coopted or neutralized as soon as he/she gets near power in the West, there are endless options.
You speak as if the Ukraine has known the right of self determination in this war.
Its fate decided by the powers of yesterday with lies fostered upon the poor thinking.
The Ukraine is simply a figment of imagination whose lives mean nothing.
Did Clausewitz delve into the reasons for
war?
It always seems left out while the mundane aspects of killing one another is focused upon intently.
Wonderful, as usual. As to what might the Russians want?, let Bismarck guide our thoughts: “Don't expect that once you exploit Russia's weakness, you'll reap dividends forever. Russians always come for their money. And when they come, don't rely on the Jesuitical agreements you made them sign. They are not worth the paper they are written on. Therefore, either play fair with the Russians or don't play at all.''
Readers may enjoy revisiting Lord Curzon's disquisition on Frontiers: https://open.substack.com/pub/herecomeschina/p/frontiers-1907?r=16k&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Another great article Aurelien, thank you. My initial big fear in February/March of 2022 was that after the inevitable defeat of Ukraine, that the West (whether it be Brussels, DC, NYC or some other symbolic feature) would become the target of Ukrainian revanchist forces. As you so eloquently put it, ‘the stab in the back myth’ reincarnate. Time will tell.
This is where I draw some parallels between Ukraine and the Irish Free State in 1922/23. I believe both sides of the Irish pro- and anti-Anglo-Irish Treaty had merit. Yes, the resistance was on its last legs and couldn’t keep up the fight much longer so signing on the dotted line was the ‘right’ choice, but the terms of the agreement were also intolerable due to the sacrifices already made (6 counties, path of allegiance to the crown etc).
We know what happened in the end, the 2 sides couldn’t be reconciled and the situation descended into a bloody civil war that the Irish republic has still not come to terms with (it’s preferable to sweep these awkward things under the rug in true Irish fashion), and the pro-treaty side lead by Collins eventually won out, without their leader due to his assassination, with material backing and support of the former enemy, the British Empire. However, a new iteration of the IRA remained a thorn in the side of the UK (and Irish republic governments) for generations.
In this vein, I foresee Ukraine sharing a similar faith. A Michael Collins like leader, maybe Arestovich who seems to be positioning himself for some sort of post-war settlement, emerges to replace Zelensky in order to come to terms with Russia. But the agreement, whatever it looks like, is so unfavourable to hardcore Ukrainian nationalists that the rump state descends into chaos and civil war. NATO and the West wash their hands of the mess as they didn’t care for Ukraine in the first place, but keeping up a BS narrative for their gullible publics, while Russia backs the pro-treaty Ukrainian side in the ensuing civil war. In the end, predictably, Ukraine is in ruins and accepts its place as supplicant of its larger and more powerful neighbour. But there remains a terrorist ultra-nationalist Ukrainian element that carries out attacks against Kiev, Russia and the west. All at the cost of how many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives. Maybe I’m wrong, but what has happened so far already looked oh so predictable 2 and a half years ago.
Ukrainian nationalists might be bought off by bringing them in the West and enlisting them in a lavish remunerated praetorian guard that could be unleashed against any threat to the establishment, should any materialize. Hand them bags of money, call the opposition pro russian traitors and tell them to have fun chopping them to pieces. Probably they will take such deal in a heartbet.
Not sure western elites like the aesthetic of these guys though
I don't believe that "hoping that the pause will be permanent" and "not exclude[ing] a resumption of hostilities later" are or will be part of Russias plan for the future of the Ukraine.
Russia will not be depending on 'hope', and the 'resumption of hostilities later' would constitute a defeat for them. Russia seems to be in a position to continue this SMO until it achieves all its goals - de-nazification, disarmament and deNATOing of the Ukraine, and it will surely do so, in order not to nullify and waste the expenditure of lives and money already unavoidably committed to this western folly.
The West does not have to back down from its current position or offer any political closure to Russia, it can simply turn any non occupied Ukraine into a trashcanstan from which a neverending stream of drones and SOF/terrorists can be hurled against Russia on a daily basis.
There has never been a good solution to the ukrainian problem for Russia since 2014.
Europe may suffer somewhat but its élite has every personal incentive to remain loyal to the US and short of the internal situation turning catastrophic can take on pretty much any challenge to itself and come out top.
Re your first paragraph, that is exactly why Russia will never allow this to happen. As for Europe, the 'elites' may persist, but there is more and more evidence that they are not able to continue dragging the masses behind them, as their economies decline.
Russia has limited options, at most it could occupy all all of Ukraine but it would be a costly affair.
If by "dragging" you mean demand mobilization/conscription/etc. , yes that is pretty much already gone. Within those constraints however their position is pretty much unassailable: they can coopt or otherwise neutralize any populist leader, outwait any riot , ignore any protest, play good cop bad cop at elections endlessy etc.
And nothing short of a general european/american collapse, which is still remote and would come with its own set of problems, can get Russia anywhere near its stated objectives such as rolling back NATO and the likes.
I like your logical thinking here. However, there are a few points that you have skipped over and that may come to play an important role: first of all, Poland. The Polish army is now the largest force in Europe and Putin himself seems to acknowledge the military threat it will exhaust on Ukrain in the nearby future. Poland will probably see any form of ceasefire or "peace" as an opportunity to try and retake lands in Ukrain that historically were under Polish control. No idea how the rest of the West or NATO would look on that move. The second is that European governments as such are no more than token governments. The real power lies in Brussels (or, to be fair, in Berlin). And Brussels/Berlin is very belligerent indeed. It is putting out all kinds of legislation and subsidies in order to build an army; munitions and weapons productions will be upped; conscription will be reintroduced, and they do seem to realise that it won't be done overnight. They are looking at a timeline of about five years. Maybe it is not realistic, but "peace" and stability will not be their aim. All out war with Russia will be.
The idea that Poland would want lands inhabited by millions of fractious and well-armed Ukrainians who are not only by no stretch Polish, but who also have a history of genocide against Poles within living memory, is goofy.
I like that: 'goofy'. And I agree with your logic. The trouble is the Poles are goofy, often illogical if not downright stupid in such matters and quite capable of doing something really dumb, like occupying territory that once saw the extinction of the Polish people who lived there.
I think we can also factor in that with most of Europe inceasingly pre-occupied with migrants we will see Poland (free of all migrants but Ukrainians) take a larger role. Its not Ursula or Germany who decide Europe's fate but America's NeoCons. They will be happy to rearm Poland and the Polish politicians (but not necessarily the people) can be expected to let their hatred of Russia lead them to wreck their country (again).
This assumes, among other things, that the Polish leadership has any authority in its own house.
I know the Polish mentality well, although I am not Polish, but I do speak Polish and have some Polish education.
The leadership may not have the support of the people. But, unfortunately, it has the authority. I was under the impression the leadership was eager to take a pro-war line and has already contracted for huge purchases of US munitions. (This seems to have been motivated by bribery as the purchases are not ideal for the sort of warfare one might expect if it were to break out.)
I believe the Ukrainian migrants are creating strong emotions among the Poles. That might change the aspirations of the people, for instance create a desire to send the Ukrainians into Ukraine rather than Polish troops. Do you have any thoughts on this?
The only question is which war the Empire wants to prioritize right now. The Polish leadership is eager to join in Ukraine, however, because they lets them show Master who is the most loyalest little bitch, I am I am Iam!
The irony is that, take away Russia, and Poland would go from America's Special Little Buddy to a rather yappy mid-tier backwater satrapy of no special importance. Sort of like Colombia, if that country had delusions of grandeur but did not have cocaine or anything else the West wanted and couldn't get elsewhere.
Anyway, getting Poles or Ukrainian refugees into the army is easy enough - freeze their bank accounts. Try living for any length of time in an EU country with no money and no access to money. (This is the same way that the Canadian government dispersed the trucker protests. Illegal, but who cares?"
They'll fold soon enough.
Then why the big army? They may well enter Ukrain under the guise of "self-defense" against Russia. The NATO partners may even buy into that. Don't forget that Blackrock et al have large economic interests in the west of Ukrain. They may feel these interests are better protected by the Poles than by a bunch of neo-nazi's.
Because the big army makes poland's American Master happy.
The neonazis are perfectly suited to serve Blackrock et al, certainly better than being the scene of an insurgency.
The Poles do not have a military industrial complex to support their armies. It is mostly bought from oversees. The logistical chains here are as long as for Ukraine. And I am not sure for how long would the Poles want to trade butter for margerine....
Hello. Aurelien. I made a translation into Swedish of this article and published it at https://aktivisterforfred.wordpress.com/2024/09/29/kanslan-av-ett-slut/. I hope you don't object.
The website is connected in a loose way to a Swedish anti-Nato initiative; I don't know of anything about it in English but here is a Swedish news article: https://tidningensyre.se/2024/07-augusti-2024/freds-och-klimatrorelser-krokar-arm-under-aktionsvecka/