It hardly need be said that Aurelian is an intelligent and experienced reporter on obscure institutional recesses within Europe. Yet I feel a certain cognitive dissonance reading this piece. He often refers to a professional managerial class (PMC) that spans multiple professions and discourses (business, political, military, bureaucratic, academic), with shared assumptions, interests, and motives. These elites hear little and care less about the world at large and dismiss observations and arguments that do not originate from their own selective precincts. They don’t believe things when they see them; they see things when they believe them. They are credentialed apparatchiks, incurious, willful, hostile to heterodoxy, protective of insider status and privilege, contemptuous of deplorable outsiders, clueless about consequences and common good, lacking solid subject matter expertise but savvy enough about power and profit, and none too shy to tell a fib or two to have their way. In sum, the PMC as a group are greedy, arrogant, oblivious, self-regarding, hubristic, blinkered, shallow, inexperienced, narrowly careerist amateurs who are unanswerable to the public, which they look upon as children or savages to be fed on bedtime stories and lies.
Apologies if that misses the mark by veering into caricature. Although I see the PMC used often, I rarely see it defined. That may be because as a term it is too general, with exceptions nearly as common as the rule. It might even be said, wryly, that “professional managerial class” itself sounds a bit like a collocation of—a professional managerial class. Arguably it’s simpler to refer to “our betters.” Whatever the nomenclature, by this reading it’s a ship of fools.
So, when Aurelian then proceeds, with rhetorical sophistication and depth of knowledge, to explain what escalation is and isn’t, what the West can and can’t do, it’s all very rational and informed, grounded in long experience, and so on. I want to believe him when he hand-waves away talk of nuclear war. But then I remember that the PMC is pretty much immune to his arguments and considerations, as he himself has repeatedly said. Moreover it is group that possess the motives and means to drag the world over the abyss. Is the military and economic might what it once was? No, but it will suffice, and arguably its decline exacerbates rather than ameliorates. Also consider that the question isn’t whether the West can win WWIII so much as whether we can rely upon a group noted for relentlessness, pride, deceit, and big-picture stupidity to avoid it. And that’s before taking into account what the Russians will do, given the state of the Western PMC, which they surely understand well. They’ve been patient. They’ve been measured. But we’re not exactly in a place that encourages confidence, stability, and trust.
I have no greater wish than for Aurelian to be right about the impossibility of nuclear. But I fear that his own writing about today’s leadership class contradicts that certainty. When people say “they’ll think of something” or “they’re crazy,” they’re not avoiding reality. They’re observing another aspect of current reality that is consistent with what Aurelian has gone to some lengths to describe. Nor is it only a matter of Ukraine. We see multiple crises with potential to cascade apocalyptically in the Near East, in the Far East. What next, a Cuba 2.0? To say that the means simply don’t exist as they did in the Cold War is to fall back upon an exquisite rationality. But is “rationality” the first word that springs to mind when discussing the PMC, especially in the present iteration of Western leaders? Not for me either. Therefore I can’t quite join Aurelian in waving off foreboding about WWIII. The best I can do is cross my fingers.
There is this story about the Columbia disaster. In the morning of the launch, the chief engineer there reported that the O-ring insulation gasket was affected by frost and it will cause problems and the launch should be postponed. This was badly received upseting management up to the president. So the professional chief engineer was named manager of the launch and given the marching orders including the responsibility of the job. With the new hat on the head, the launch was cleared and several minutes later 9 astronauts were blew to smitherines.
My point is that there is a difference between the P and M in the PMC as well as between the various shades of P there... One cannot use a too broad stroke to characterize this group. Or take the P out of it.
Well you just brought my spirits down to earth after Aurelian lifted them a mite.
I love the definition of the PMC though I can't agree with using 'our betters' as a synonym.
If I understand correctly your whole contention hinges really on the wilful blindness and capacity for self deception and position of decision making authority of these people.
So I am hoping the blindness and self deception will not be total, that they'll be 'adulterated' by the presence within their ranks of 'less than pure' PMC's and that they will have fewer opportunities for influencing grave decisions.
Sorry for the bummer. It's my hope Aurelian will prove the wiser. Heck, there's been no nuclear war yet, so the odds are on his side. But you know what the "investment professionals" put in the fine print: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. There are events. Accidents happen. I remember a basement tour of sand bags and water barrels at my grade school. Good times. Why do they come back to me now? I wonder.
"Our betters" was meant humorously, with a sidelong suggestion that the very notion of a PMC is a mite unwieldy, though serviceable enough for high-level abstraction. Folly isn't a market its members have cornered, but the repercussions they're capable of setting in motion from their commanding heights can, in a competition among 21st-century powers, turn epochal, and not in a good way. So amen to what you say, brother brogard, in your prayer for "adult-eration," if you'll permit me a hyphen.
It's amusing to malign the PMC, calling them out for their foibles and failures as leaders and stewards, but what's needed is less a matter of naming a class than of the proper analysis of the dynamics of power elites. Yet beyond whatever can be learned from understanding systems, we ultimately depend upon individuals with the moral and intellectual courage to become inconvenient, to say no, to find another way. Exceptional people. Unfortunately, by definition they're not the norm. However they do exist in statistical distributions, and if humanity is lucky they will step up, like Vasily Arkhipov, at the right moments. Call me greedy, but I'd prefer a thicker reed. So here's to class traitors—or, if you prefer, class higher loyalists, PMC or otherwise—willing if necessary to sacrifice position and place for sanity and reform. To the crazies they are crazy. Fools. But sometimes, beyond elite folies à deux, they’re heroes.
The degree of accuracy with which Aurelien (it's the French version he chose for his pseudo) reports on the 'PMC' in general, or that particular section in NATO countries' government and administrations can be clarified and improved by using the term government class
Government in a broad sense of the term, to include Press, law, police, military commands, engineers etc - all those who maintain the submission of the poor
This class is hired by the dominant capitalist class, the guys with the serious money, who's definition and achievements of their interests are clearly the most successful
This issue of class is something, as far as I have read Aurelien, he is willing not to address, and instead adopts the, for a brit, the alien and US particular evasion of the PMC, indeed a vague on purpose term thought up to designate a church or rather chapel of ideological devotion rather than to define a class with it's own powerbase and independent strategy
The primary role and consideration of both dominanat and gvmt class is to maintain in silent passivity the poor: full stop.
Hence all notions of armed forces, of NATO, of defence of the realm, and so on, is incidental, misunderstood, and largely abandoned
The gvmt class is indeed not as independent as they might wish, other than it has a somewhat free hand to execute the orders given, for who else would want to do such 'dirty' work
Where Aurelien is right is to say that to treat people whose aims and acts you disagree with or fail to understand as 'crazy' is irrational and of no use nor consequence - western capitalism has been conducted with great success to their satisfaction for several hundred years by this class
Such success is not achieved by 'crazies' but by people who sense of achievement and who's aims and intents are, in this sense, considerably more rational than those of the other classes in their societies
Thank you for your contribution, Gerrard, pointing out my spelling faux pas not excluded [blushes]. Poor proofreader, I. I’ve come to think of an acronym like PMC as akin to “the bourgeoisie,” which is to say as much a term of abuse as a functional tool for analysis. From my glancing acquaintance with sociological literature I prefer the notion of power elites as set forth by C. Wright Mills, but that may say more about my taste and inexperience than its suitability for unwinding the tangled relations among interwoven congeries of influence and dominance. Among the groupings Mills defined in the Fifties, by the way, are the variously facing experts and specialists that complex societies can’t get along without (until the robots take over), and which you allude to. He doesn’t forget to mention that influential industry that Biden skipped the recent so-called peace conference in Switzerland to mingle among, namely, Hollywood.
Whatever the preferred language or lens, I agree that within a given frame of reference, say, the acquisition of power and dominance, certain behaviors can be seen as rational even as, from another reference frame, it looks quite mad. That, by the way, is my quibble with notions like “national interest,” often used by the estimable John Mearsheimer, as if nations act on that idealized basis (paradoxical for a realist) rather than from a sometimes cooperating, sometimes competing local and highly parochial interests. Thus the habits and mental outlooks behind “success” in one domain may be ill-suited, indeed, catastrophic, when we move from Social Darwinism to actual Darwinism, or adaptability to changing environmental conditions and stresses. To put it another way, ideologies and actions that are rational in one domain can be crazy in another, and that’s what’s worrying many of us, not to mention the all but nugatory power of that recessive gene of Western social structures, democracy, to steer or apply braking. So here we are.
In the 18th century, or among those who lean toward a cyclical view of history, we might call this state of affairs corruption—the old order dying, the new unable to be born. Same as often. The novelty is that we’re also toys in the hands of willful, senescent child-adults with matches that burn hotter than the sun, the godlike technology E.O. Wilson set next to Paleolithic emotions and medieval institutions in his gloomily aphoristic précis of humanity and its prospects. All I can hope for is a measure of sanity and a larger rationality beyond dominance striving behind the Sherwin Williams coat of lies covering the globe.
Enough from me, only to add, following from that last sentence, an appreciation for Aurelien-with-an-e’s review of POVs from both sides of the Ukrainian mess. Making war or peace, the opponent has a say. I consider much of the Western position disingenuous, selectively ahistorical, and in bad faith, but it is possible I’m missing nuances or guilty of a reflecting disregard. It’s useful to be reminded of that.
The US and the west in general practices a form of economic activity described as industrial capitalism
This regulates the day to day life of one and all as well as the resulting political and social structures
This day to day is the primary concern and occupation – what is left over is spare time and, in comparison, incidental and dependant
The social and political structures are formed by the economics, and serve to maintain this – business is controlled by the ‘capitalists’, system maintenance is sub contracted to/operated by a subservient class of hired hands, performing standard and rote duties in unison without variance: Property Protection, Law, Security, Roads etc
– this is the government class (or for those who wish to avoid realism, the PMC)
This class is subservient to and dependant on the capitalists, who make and control the money
If one lives within this system one might find it repressive and violent and unconcerned with the well being, the ‘interests’ and so on, of the vast majority of the population – but one may not for these very reasons complain that the system is un successful, the system exists to no other purpose
It is possible that this capitalist system has weaknesses and inefficiencies which can lead to it’s overthrow or defeat – it is possible to find these out
It is useless to call these systems and those who control it ‘crazy’ or ‘irrational’, when it is evident that they benefit from the system and those who object do not
It is irrational to hold a point of view which does not allow you to understand the nature of the system you live in, nor how to alter it -
This is clearly parallel to the argument presented by Aurelien, in this criticism of the maintenance class the middle managerial class, who once could organise, in this precise case, a system of armed defence, and who now can not
His remarks are not to the ‘justice’ of the western peoples, their ‘morals’, even less the system called ‘democracy’, but to the inability to create and control a structure which adequately can govern and operate essential services
His remarks are to the failures of the class whose job this is, but he does not address the success or failure of the dominant capitalist class
This class prefers chaos, just enough maintenance for the very least tolerable order
The explanation of the term "PMC" that I (a lowest-rung American PMC) use is: the people who run things, but do not own them.Some are technocrats, some are managerial. The strongest signal is a large salary and a large mortgage. They send their children to private schools, to evade the civic responsibility of showing up at school board meetings to agitate for better public schools.
frankly, everyone(not only russians, but more or less everyone outside of the "civilized world") seems pretty aware of the situation.
ok, russians have a problem being front line; which, say, India doesn't have due to geography. Even Iran is pretty shielded. But otherwise, the attitude of the rest of the world seems to be "quarantine".
Smile politely at the barbarians; while trying to keep them as far away as possible. Which ultimately is the only possible way to deal with declining empires. Decline of empires being by far the most dangerous phase for everyone; outsiders included.
sure, you can say that up to ~'10 Russia tried to engage much more the "civilized world" than the rest . But that's normal. Again, due to geography; and due to being in decline themselves. Though being weaker, they're seem much more realist. Plus f ups accumulated with time.
I mean, ultimately, what's everyone's problem? Everyone was somewhat happy with US as a sorta hegemon circa '90. After 35 years of non stop disasters (name me one crisis/problem which was even vaguely competently solved)... everyone is fed up. It's that easy. It's not some mistery.
I doubt we're "envied for our democracy". Like... let's get real. And contrary to the local population(that'd be us), which doesn't seem to able to do anything against their elite, the RoW will just try to isolate the nuthouse. They have an option; we're the one's without one :P
An underrated thing; since there's still emigration from RoW.
in 2+ years of war, the attitude of Russia was... absurdly restrained. Ok, Putin isn't exactly the outgoing type either. He's an introvert; and a bureaucrat at heart. Not exactly the brave type.
is there an issue with nukes? Sure. Up until now when your elite was decadent, simply the neighbour knocked them down a peg. After the slapping, you had your turn to try again in a generation or two. When your elite woke back to reality after the slapping. Now... can get very messy.
But imho, that's not the main issue; it's acute. But not very important. Some will survive anyway.
1. there's no alternative. Like... for real this time.
It's not that the RoW is catching up with the "civilized world". It's simply the opposite. Putin and Xi simply say "we're twice bigger, sooner or later we'll have your lunch". They don't propose an alternative.
"We replace you, but otherwise it'll be the same shitshow. Only with us at the top.".
2. "Quarantine" is something that, at least the EU, can't afford. RoW will, one way or another, do an alternative system to bypass the current one. And EU doesn't have anywhere near enough resources for the population and the std. of living it desires.
US, sure, maybe; plus it's far. EU - nope. I don't see many chances of not slipping back to where EU was(ok, outside Mediterranean sea) for most of the history. A backwater noone cared about.
And... we're there =))
ok, not very fun. Even less fun then some nukes(as long as there aren't too many :P). And I say that being in the "first line of defence"(not that I know what I'm defending).
"We replace you, but otherwise it'll be the same shitshow. Only with us at the top.".
This is neither what BRICS claim to want, or what they actually seem to be doing (at present, anyway). Putin and Xi say that they want to build a world where there is no overbearing hegemony. Of course China is by far the largest economy in the world right now, but they will have problems maintaining this position - other countries such as Indonesia and India have the potential to replace China eventually. China also has the advantage of the example of the USA, which has miserably failed in its 'hegemony project', and a possibly helpful tradition of being sufficient unto itself.
My nephews, who have spent their working lives in developing computer programming, say that the development process is invariably hijacked by the sales people, who tell customers what they want to hear about the product, leaving the developers in the back room scrambling to try to make the claims at least marginally accurate. They frequently fail, since what non-technical people imagine can be done, often can't, at least not at a price, ease of operation and time scale that is affordable. The next stage in the process is often that the sales force will feature the "bug" as an advantage, leading ever further into the tangled verbal gymnastics of inefficiency billed as progress. Something of the same process seems to be happening in the "sales" versus the actual capacity for war (armed conflict, special military operation, etc), which may or may not be present. Thank you again, Aurelien, for your eloquent voice of experience. I hope the west doesn't have to go through another conflagration (whatever it is called) to regain the grip on reality and practical competence that we used to have, and which the Russians and Chinese appear to have retained. It's not looking likely at the moment, but there still are saner heads in the background. Just fewer, and older...
Thank you for this well-argued essay. Presumably the Ukraine conflict will now continue until the Ukrainian forces collapse and accept peace on Russia's terms, or Trump is elected and blows the whistle, whichever is first.
It was notable that when Sunak announced his National Service plan early in the election campaign - presumably to attract those who might vote Reform - most of the young people I know were firstly shocked, then considered the whole thing ridiculous as they knew there was no chance of him winning the election and enacting this policy. Maybe that's why polls show that only 5-7% of people under 25 plan to vote Tory. My sense is that the vast majority of the British public simply have no appetite for militarization of any kind in response to Ukraine, or for that matter Chinese threats to Taiwan either.
Aurelian, here and elsewhere, has made a very convincing case that the West is incapable of "war." I follow a few other Substack authors who have made that case, as well. It's tempting to think that the entire political leadership of the West is hopelessly incompetent, since they definitely look incompetent, but we have to remember that all we really know about what our leaders are thinking is what they tell us. In other words, all we have to base our judgments on is the propaganda they have produced for us to consume. Right now, they certainly know that Ukraine is a lost cause. They know that Russia will achieve all of its war aims. They just need Ukraine to hold on until after all the elections this year have been decided, especially the US election in November. Then, it will be just like Afghanistan. Once the 2020 election was officially decided in January of 2021, Afghanistan no longer mattered to anybody, and the Biden administration just pulled out our troops and let it collapse. Something similar will happen with Ukraine. It doesn't matter anymore. The political class just doesn't want egg on its face until AFTER the election.
I remember when women were not allowed to be fighter pilots because they did not want someone who is occasionally irrational to be flying them. Now there are women in the highest echelons of geopolitical decision making. The consequences of that irrationality are now far greater.
Patience. Russia has it, the West ( US predominantly) has lost it. The Western media doesn't even recognise what it is. Russia will grind on until Ukraine military is so depleted it will fold, no big arrow moves, just slow attrition to conserve manpower.
There will be more 'beach' events in Russian territory. The payback will come via iskander missiles used by 3rd parties supplied by the likes of Iran and N Korea, more US military and their allies lives will be lost.
Eventually after Ukraine collapses, a mildly warm state of aggression will exist between one security block and the other, until time allows clearer minds ( especially in the US and EU) to reassess the reasons for their reduced economic position in the world.
"Up until the 1990s, governments had emergency legislation and practiced emergency procedures.. Civil defence in the old sense scarcely exists, just like strategic stocks of food and fuel, and Europe is much more dependent on imports for everything than it was forty or fifty years ago”.
My epidemiologist friend in Beijing told me that Beijing used Covid as an excuse to rehearse its civil defense nuclear war preparations, and that everyone was taking notes the whole time. She added that China has 3 years supply of cereal grains and 18 months supply of animal protein reserves.
Russia also has strategic reserves of food and other resources. And there are civil defense training sessions. Everything is going on as planned. Even my wife, a simple teacher, is trained in first aid. It got to the point that she managed to start the stopped heart of our dying dog on her own. The skills are good
I see one over riding 'good' of this Ukraine thing that is beyond dispute: the unambiguous revealing of the terrible ineptitude even evil of our elected leaders.
It has been like lifting a rock in a dark damp place and seeing all the light shunning creatures that exist beneath it.
These are our Western leaders.
The 'other' or 'RoW' leaders are apparently something else.
I wonder: do they see things as Aurelian lays them out here? Do they share this understanding?
And closely related: what about the PMC as Dingusansich describes them here below - are they thus all around the globe? East as well as West?
*Former German Chancellor Merkel admits the Minsk agreement was merely to buy time for Ukraine’s arms build-up*
"According to former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Minsk agreement served to buy time to rearm Ukraine. “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time,” Merkel told the weekly Die Zeit. “It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today.”
{below} They are so dumb that they brag about it, yet on a bad day, perhaps combined with one or more bad decisions and/or errors, this is the type of stupid-shit that could lead to a nuke war.
.
*Map Shows Ukraine's Record-Breaking Hits on Russian Nuclear Warning Sites*
.
"Russia's nuclear ballistic missile early warning radar network has emerged as a key target of long-range Ukrainian strikes, with three facilities having now been attacked by Kyiv's drones in the past two months.
Two such strikes occurred in the past week. First, a drone hit a "Voronezh-DM" radar at the Armavir Radar Station in the southern Krasnodar region on May 22. The site is home to two Voronezh-DM radars with a range of around 6,000 kilometers (3,730 miles)."
Put yourself in the Russian's shoes and the first thing you will think is, 'why are they trying to destroy my early warning radar?' Why don't they want us to have early warning radar?
Putin is a master of patience, but he will not always be there. The west is constantly claiming Russians are angry at Putin which is true but not always for the reasons they think. Many are pissed at Putin because he won't escalate, including prominent Russians and military higher ups. Even more so after the Black Sea beach cluster bombing.
It seems reality has become scarce for the west, especially America. Fake money is the root but it has spread to everything. The US military is a joke with all the transgender surgeries and worship, being fully vaxxed, supported by a corrupt and incompetent military manufacturing complex. We are at the point where the White House is claiming videos they released are fakes. 99% of citizens (non combatants?) are completely ignorant since so many are apathetic and spoiled. NATO has been marching towards Russia for more than 30 years and the west’s intention of plundering Russian natural resources are obvious.
When the war actually starts expect the definition of war to be updated in the west
You write well and understand the situation well. But this is a Western view. In Russia everything is a little different. Russia is simply larger in territory than the UK or any country in Europe. Almost all Russians have country houses with a plot of land or houses in the village. They are far from cities. We will simply scatter throughout our country. Some people, of course, won't survive.
To be honest, after the American missile fell on the beach in Sevastopol, I already wanted to leave the city for a week or two. But I quickly realized that right now the missiles would not fly in response. Therefore, I would not be so sure that there will be no third world war.
Nice to define how the antagonists of the West are delusional.
So into abstraction it’s a distraction from reality speaking to its vaunted vanity as well.
The coming political rejection coming by the educated populace of their political elite who are destroying their own countries economically , ethically with lies.
Imagine waging war against the people who voted for you?
" It’s easy to imagine AI-facilitated fake broadcasts by national leaders, or massive SMS hoaxes telling people to report to their local Police station for conscription."
I hardly need to imagine, since I've seen very similar things in Russia in a far less dire situation (not broadcasts, maybe, but fake videos of leader speeches, certainly; and conscription hoaxes aplenty). It did not have much visible effect on society. I wonder if it'd really be different in the West; I suppose some of it would depend on the extent of physical damage and disruption.
I also wonder about this: "Finally, recent events have shown that governments these days are physically incapable of controlling widespread social unrest."
Physically incapable or just utterly uninterested? Social unrest doesn't seem to threaten Western elites that much, so they can afford to ignore it. Up to a point, anyhow. In the longer run, letting important capabilities atrophy out of complacency is maybe the most dangerous thing an elite can do to itself. They could coast by without it until it does become dangerous. I'd be willing to accept that this has happened/is happening in the West.
I think Stoltenberg recently said NATO is not at war with Russia. Your ending comments made me reflect: it is not for him to say. If Russia sees NATO countries as belligerents then that is enough. We are then just in the realm of what action Russia sees as sensible to take. Luckily, they seem rational.
My SWAG is WWIII has been put on hold until after the French elections, especially as the French public is not exactly as jingoistic as Macron and others would like.
Once the election is over and the voters no longer will have any say for the near to medium term, Macron and others will return their attention to the War On Russia.
I'm quite sure he will try. Depending on how much he is weakened by the internal political situation.
Beside I'm not sure it's so much about war itself than pursuing his own agenda in Europe. It more like he could pretend he didn't send the French army to save the day only because other coward European leaders refused to follow him. Therefore he is the one who should lead Europe after Russia prevailed in Ukraine.
The article's analysis of escalation (and how unlikely it is) assumes fairly rational behavior and an approximately realistic assessment of reality.
Let me sketch a different path:
NATO countries have been (unofficially) sending troops to Ukraine for many years. However, Ukraine is losing.
NATO country politicians have roughly three choices: 1) To accept defeat, 2) continue as is and hope nobody notices defeat, or 3) to double down.
Years of one-sided reporting on the armed conflict in Ukraine have succeeded to convince sizable parts of the populations to support actions against evil Russia. The people who oppose actions against Russia are likely to vote for non-establishment parties anyway. So, a politician involved in an establishment-internal 'tug-of-vote' contest could conceivably decide to double down and send a designated military unit to Ukraine officially. With a goodbye parade, media coverage, etc.
After all, we've also had Sunak and Macron call elections - not very clever either.
Now, this military unit at some point is likely to suffer losses - probably due to a drone or missile attack. Due to the previous publicity, this cannot be covered up.
Now what?
Again, there is the choice: Accept defeat or double down.
I expect a sizable part of the electorate, even among those who were initially opposed to sending the unit, to support additional units to be sent to protect this specific unit - for example, some air defense. Maybe air force. Potentially ask neighboring NATO countries to contribute. And perhaps retaliate against Russian bases.
NATO is too weak for this to effectively impact the armed conflict in Ukraine itself, but this type of gradual escalation can expand the conflict beyond Ukraine.
Before WWI, the British asked the French how many British soldiers were needed the help defend France. The French answered: "One. And we'll make sure he dies."
Yes, this 'air defense' escalation scenario seems possible.
But on the other hand, every time a French soldier has been killed in Mali, the question of French involvement over there has been publicly raised in France. To the point where local terrorists must have realized that all they needed to do was kill a few soldiers to get rid of the whole expeditionary force...
Difference is, 'local terrorists' are kind of an amorphous entity - arguably an environmental hazard.
Russia is a nation-state, a much more tangible object.
It would be an interesting experiment to see if there's a difference in public response between deaths caused by terrorists and deaths caused by hostile nation-states.
It hardly need be said that Aurelian is an intelligent and experienced reporter on obscure institutional recesses within Europe. Yet I feel a certain cognitive dissonance reading this piece. He often refers to a professional managerial class (PMC) that spans multiple professions and discourses (business, political, military, bureaucratic, academic), with shared assumptions, interests, and motives. These elites hear little and care less about the world at large and dismiss observations and arguments that do not originate from their own selective precincts. They don’t believe things when they see them; they see things when they believe them. They are credentialed apparatchiks, incurious, willful, hostile to heterodoxy, protective of insider status and privilege, contemptuous of deplorable outsiders, clueless about consequences and common good, lacking solid subject matter expertise but savvy enough about power and profit, and none too shy to tell a fib or two to have their way. In sum, the PMC as a group are greedy, arrogant, oblivious, self-regarding, hubristic, blinkered, shallow, inexperienced, narrowly careerist amateurs who are unanswerable to the public, which they look upon as children or savages to be fed on bedtime stories and lies.
Apologies if that misses the mark by veering into caricature. Although I see the PMC used often, I rarely see it defined. That may be because as a term it is too general, with exceptions nearly as common as the rule. It might even be said, wryly, that “professional managerial class” itself sounds a bit like a collocation of—a professional managerial class. Arguably it’s simpler to refer to “our betters.” Whatever the nomenclature, by this reading it’s a ship of fools.
So, when Aurelian then proceeds, with rhetorical sophistication and depth of knowledge, to explain what escalation is and isn’t, what the West can and can’t do, it’s all very rational and informed, grounded in long experience, and so on. I want to believe him when he hand-waves away talk of nuclear war. But then I remember that the PMC is pretty much immune to his arguments and considerations, as he himself has repeatedly said. Moreover it is group that possess the motives and means to drag the world over the abyss. Is the military and economic might what it once was? No, but it will suffice, and arguably its decline exacerbates rather than ameliorates. Also consider that the question isn’t whether the West can win WWIII so much as whether we can rely upon a group noted for relentlessness, pride, deceit, and big-picture stupidity to avoid it. And that’s before taking into account what the Russians will do, given the state of the Western PMC, which they surely understand well. They’ve been patient. They’ve been measured. But we’re not exactly in a place that encourages confidence, stability, and trust.
I have no greater wish than for Aurelian to be right about the impossibility of nuclear. But I fear that his own writing about today’s leadership class contradicts that certainty. When people say “they’ll think of something” or “they’re crazy,” they’re not avoiding reality. They’re observing another aspect of current reality that is consistent with what Aurelian has gone to some lengths to describe. Nor is it only a matter of Ukraine. We see multiple crises with potential to cascade apocalyptically in the Near East, in the Far East. What next, a Cuba 2.0? To say that the means simply don’t exist as they did in the Cold War is to fall back upon an exquisite rationality. But is “rationality” the first word that springs to mind when discussing the PMC, especially in the present iteration of Western leaders? Not for me either. Therefore I can’t quite join Aurelian in waving off foreboding about WWIII. The best I can do is cross my fingers.
There is this story about the Columbia disaster. In the morning of the launch, the chief engineer there reported that the O-ring insulation gasket was affected by frost and it will cause problems and the launch should be postponed. This was badly received upseting management up to the president. So the professional chief engineer was named manager of the launch and given the marching orders including the responsibility of the job. With the new hat on the head, the launch was cleared and several minutes later 9 astronauts were blew to smitherines.
My point is that there is a difference between the P and M in the PMC as well as between the various shades of P there... One cannot use a too broad stroke to characterize this group. Or take the P out of it.
Well you just brought my spirits down to earth after Aurelian lifted them a mite.
I love the definition of the PMC though I can't agree with using 'our betters' as a synonym.
If I understand correctly your whole contention hinges really on the wilful blindness and capacity for self deception and position of decision making authority of these people.
So I am hoping the blindness and self deception will not be total, that they'll be 'adulterated' by the presence within their ranks of 'less than pure' PMC's and that they will have fewer opportunities for influencing grave decisions.
Sorry for the bummer. It's my hope Aurelian will prove the wiser. Heck, there's been no nuclear war yet, so the odds are on his side. But you know what the "investment professionals" put in the fine print: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. There are events. Accidents happen. I remember a basement tour of sand bags and water barrels at my grade school. Good times. Why do they come back to me now? I wonder.
"Our betters" was meant humorously, with a sidelong suggestion that the very notion of a PMC is a mite unwieldy, though serviceable enough for high-level abstraction. Folly isn't a market its members have cornered, but the repercussions they're capable of setting in motion from their commanding heights can, in a competition among 21st-century powers, turn epochal, and not in a good way. So amen to what you say, brother brogard, in your prayer for "adult-eration," if you'll permit me a hyphen.
It's amusing to malign the PMC, calling them out for their foibles and failures as leaders and stewards, but what's needed is less a matter of naming a class than of the proper analysis of the dynamics of power elites. Yet beyond whatever can be learned from understanding systems, we ultimately depend upon individuals with the moral and intellectual courage to become inconvenient, to say no, to find another way. Exceptional people. Unfortunately, by definition they're not the norm. However they do exist in statistical distributions, and if humanity is lucky they will step up, like Vasily Arkhipov, at the right moments. Call me greedy, but I'd prefer a thicker reed. So here's to class traitors—or, if you prefer, class higher loyalists, PMC or otherwise—willing if necessary to sacrifice position and place for sanity and reform. To the crazies they are crazy. Fools. But sometimes, beyond elite folies à deux, they’re heroes.
I think that closing part is after the nature of a heartfelt prayer; to which I can only say: 'Amen'. A heartfelt 'Amen'. :)
The degree of accuracy with which Aurelien (it's the French version he chose for his pseudo) reports on the 'PMC' in general, or that particular section in NATO countries' government and administrations can be clarified and improved by using the term government class
Government in a broad sense of the term, to include Press, law, police, military commands, engineers etc - all those who maintain the submission of the poor
This class is hired by the dominant capitalist class, the guys with the serious money, who's definition and achievements of their interests are clearly the most successful
This issue of class is something, as far as I have read Aurelien, he is willing not to address, and instead adopts the, for a brit, the alien and US particular evasion of the PMC, indeed a vague on purpose term thought up to designate a church or rather chapel of ideological devotion rather than to define a class with it's own powerbase and independent strategy
The primary role and consideration of both dominanat and gvmt class is to maintain in silent passivity the poor: full stop.
Hence all notions of armed forces, of NATO, of defence of the realm, and so on, is incidental, misunderstood, and largely abandoned
The gvmt class is indeed not as independent as they might wish, other than it has a somewhat free hand to execute the orders given, for who else would want to do such 'dirty' work
Where Aurelien is right is to say that to treat people whose aims and acts you disagree with or fail to understand as 'crazy' is irrational and of no use nor consequence - western capitalism has been conducted with great success to their satisfaction for several hundred years by this class
Such success is not achieved by 'crazies' but by people who sense of achievement and who's aims and intents are, in this sense, considerably more rational than those of the other classes in their societies
Thank you for your contribution, Gerrard, pointing out my spelling faux pas not excluded [blushes]. Poor proofreader, I. I’ve come to think of an acronym like PMC as akin to “the bourgeoisie,” which is to say as much a term of abuse as a functional tool for analysis. From my glancing acquaintance with sociological literature I prefer the notion of power elites as set forth by C. Wright Mills, but that may say more about my taste and inexperience than its suitability for unwinding the tangled relations among interwoven congeries of influence and dominance. Among the groupings Mills defined in the Fifties, by the way, are the variously facing experts and specialists that complex societies can’t get along without (until the robots take over), and which you allude to. He doesn’t forget to mention that influential industry that Biden skipped the recent so-called peace conference in Switzerland to mingle among, namely, Hollywood.
Whatever the preferred language or lens, I agree that within a given frame of reference, say, the acquisition of power and dominance, certain behaviors can be seen as rational even as, from another reference frame, it looks quite mad. That, by the way, is my quibble with notions like “national interest,” often used by the estimable John Mearsheimer, as if nations act on that idealized basis (paradoxical for a realist) rather than from a sometimes cooperating, sometimes competing local and highly parochial interests. Thus the habits and mental outlooks behind “success” in one domain may be ill-suited, indeed, catastrophic, when we move from Social Darwinism to actual Darwinism, or adaptability to changing environmental conditions and stresses. To put it another way, ideologies and actions that are rational in one domain can be crazy in another, and that’s what’s worrying many of us, not to mention the all but nugatory power of that recessive gene of Western social structures, democracy, to steer or apply braking. So here we are.
In the 18th century, or among those who lean toward a cyclical view of history, we might call this state of affairs corruption—the old order dying, the new unable to be born. Same as often. The novelty is that we’re also toys in the hands of willful, senescent child-adults with matches that burn hotter than the sun, the godlike technology E.O. Wilson set next to Paleolithic emotions and medieval institutions in his gloomily aphoristic précis of humanity and its prospects. All I can hope for is a measure of sanity and a larger rationality beyond dominance striving behind the Sherwin Williams coat of lies covering the globe.
Enough from me, only to add, following from that last sentence, an appreciation for Aurelien-with-an-e’s review of POVs from both sides of the Ukrainian mess. Making war or peace, the opponent has a say. I consider much of the Western position disingenuous, selectively ahistorical, and in bad faith, but it is possible I’m missing nuances or guilty of a reflecting disregard. It’s useful to be reminded of that.
The US and the west in general practices a form of economic activity described as industrial capitalism
This regulates the day to day life of one and all as well as the resulting political and social structures
This day to day is the primary concern and occupation – what is left over is spare time and, in comparison, incidental and dependant
The social and political structures are formed by the economics, and serve to maintain this – business is controlled by the ‘capitalists’, system maintenance is sub contracted to/operated by a subservient class of hired hands, performing standard and rote duties in unison without variance: Property Protection, Law, Security, Roads etc
– this is the government class (or for those who wish to avoid realism, the PMC)
This class is subservient to and dependant on the capitalists, who make and control the money
If one lives within this system one might find it repressive and violent and unconcerned with the well being, the ‘interests’ and so on, of the vast majority of the population – but one may not for these very reasons complain that the system is un successful, the system exists to no other purpose
It is possible that this capitalist system has weaknesses and inefficiencies which can lead to it’s overthrow or defeat – it is possible to find these out
It is useless to call these systems and those who control it ‘crazy’ or ‘irrational’, when it is evident that they benefit from the system and those who object do not
It is irrational to hold a point of view which does not allow you to understand the nature of the system you live in, nor how to alter it -
This is clearly parallel to the argument presented by Aurelien, in this criticism of the maintenance class the middle managerial class, who once could organise, in this precise case, a system of armed defence, and who now can not
His remarks are not to the ‘justice’ of the western peoples, their ‘morals’, even less the system called ‘democracy’, but to the inability to create and control a structure which adequately can govern and operate essential services
His remarks are to the failures of the class whose job this is, but he does not address the success or failure of the dominant capitalist class
This class prefers chaos, just enough maintenance for the very least tolerable order
The explanation of the term "PMC" that I (a lowest-rung American PMC) use is: the people who run things, but do not own them.Some are technocrats, some are managerial. The strongest signal is a large salary and a large mortgage. They send their children to private schools, to evade the civic responsibility of showing up at school board meetings to agitate for better public schools.
frankly, everyone(not only russians, but more or less everyone outside of the "civilized world") seems pretty aware of the situation.
ok, russians have a problem being front line; which, say, India doesn't have due to geography. Even Iran is pretty shielded. But otherwise, the attitude of the rest of the world seems to be "quarantine".
Smile politely at the barbarians; while trying to keep them as far away as possible. Which ultimately is the only possible way to deal with declining empires. Decline of empires being by far the most dangerous phase for everyone; outsiders included.
sure, you can say that up to ~'10 Russia tried to engage much more the "civilized world" than the rest . But that's normal. Again, due to geography; and due to being in decline themselves. Though being weaker, they're seem much more realist. Plus f ups accumulated with time.
I mean, ultimately, what's everyone's problem? Everyone was somewhat happy with US as a sorta hegemon circa '90. After 35 years of non stop disasters (name me one crisis/problem which was even vaguely competently solved)... everyone is fed up. It's that easy. It's not some mistery.
I doubt we're "envied for our democracy". Like... let's get real. And contrary to the local population(that'd be us), which doesn't seem to able to do anything against their elite, the RoW will just try to isolate the nuthouse. They have an option; we're the one's without one :P
An underrated thing; since there's still emigration from RoW.
in 2+ years of war, the attitude of Russia was... absurdly restrained. Ok, Putin isn't exactly the outgoing type either. He's an introvert; and a bureaucrat at heart. Not exactly the brave type.
is there an issue with nukes? Sure. Up until now when your elite was decadent, simply the neighbour knocked them down a peg. After the slapping, you had your turn to try again in a generation or two. When your elite woke back to reality after the slapping. Now... can get very messy.
But imho, that's not the main issue; it's acute. But not very important. Some will survive anyway.
1. there's no alternative. Like... for real this time.
It's not that the RoW is catching up with the "civilized world". It's simply the opposite. Putin and Xi simply say "we're twice bigger, sooner or later we'll have your lunch". They don't propose an alternative.
"We replace you, but otherwise it'll be the same shitshow. Only with us at the top.".
2. "Quarantine" is something that, at least the EU, can't afford. RoW will, one way or another, do an alternative system to bypass the current one. And EU doesn't have anywhere near enough resources for the population and the std. of living it desires.
US, sure, maybe; plus it's far. EU - nope. I don't see many chances of not slipping back to where EU was(ok, outside Mediterranean sea) for most of the history. A backwater noone cared about.
And... we're there =))
ok, not very fun. Even less fun then some nukes(as long as there aren't too many :P). And I say that being in the "first line of defence"(not that I know what I'm defending).
"We replace you, but otherwise it'll be the same shitshow. Only with us at the top.".
This is neither what BRICS claim to want, or what they actually seem to be doing (at present, anyway). Putin and Xi say that they want to build a world where there is no overbearing hegemony. Of course China is by far the largest economy in the world right now, but they will have problems maintaining this position - other countries such as Indonesia and India have the potential to replace China eventually. China also has the advantage of the example of the USA, which has miserably failed in its 'hegemony project', and a possibly helpful tradition of being sufficient unto itself.
That is, of course, if industrial society continues to survive in some form. This is not guaranteed.
It sounds like extreme, unnecessary pessimism
My nephews, who have spent their working lives in developing computer programming, say that the development process is invariably hijacked by the sales people, who tell customers what they want to hear about the product, leaving the developers in the back room scrambling to try to make the claims at least marginally accurate. They frequently fail, since what non-technical people imagine can be done, often can't, at least not at a price, ease of operation and time scale that is affordable. The next stage in the process is often that the sales force will feature the "bug" as an advantage, leading ever further into the tangled verbal gymnastics of inefficiency billed as progress. Something of the same process seems to be happening in the "sales" versus the actual capacity for war (armed conflict, special military operation, etc), which may or may not be present. Thank you again, Aurelien, for your eloquent voice of experience. I hope the west doesn't have to go through another conflagration (whatever it is called) to regain the grip on reality and practical competence that we used to have, and which the Russians and Chinese appear to have retained. It's not looking likely at the moment, but there still are saner heads in the background. Just fewer, and older...
The fateful four words uttered by salesbots: 'Yeah, it'll do that'.....
Thank you for this well-argued essay. Presumably the Ukraine conflict will now continue until the Ukrainian forces collapse and accept peace on Russia's terms, or Trump is elected and blows the whistle, whichever is first.
It was notable that when Sunak announced his National Service plan early in the election campaign - presumably to attract those who might vote Reform - most of the young people I know were firstly shocked, then considered the whole thing ridiculous as they knew there was no chance of him winning the election and enacting this policy. Maybe that's why polls show that only 5-7% of people under 25 plan to vote Tory. My sense is that the vast majority of the British public simply have no appetite for militarization of any kind in response to Ukraine, or for that matter Chinese threats to Taiwan either.
And why would they? What is it about their lives in the West that would be worth fighting and dying for in lands far away?
Aurelian, here and elsewhere, has made a very convincing case that the West is incapable of "war." I follow a few other Substack authors who have made that case, as well. It's tempting to think that the entire political leadership of the West is hopelessly incompetent, since they definitely look incompetent, but we have to remember that all we really know about what our leaders are thinking is what they tell us. In other words, all we have to base our judgments on is the propaganda they have produced for us to consume. Right now, they certainly know that Ukraine is a lost cause. They know that Russia will achieve all of its war aims. They just need Ukraine to hold on until after all the elections this year have been decided, especially the US election in November. Then, it will be just like Afghanistan. Once the 2020 election was officially decided in January of 2021, Afghanistan no longer mattered to anybody, and the Biden administration just pulled out our troops and let it collapse. Something similar will happen with Ukraine. It doesn't matter anymore. The political class just doesn't want egg on its face until AFTER the election.
I remember when women were not allowed to be fighter pilots because they did not want someone who is occasionally irrational to be flying them. Now there are women in the highest echelons of geopolitical decision making. The consequences of that irrationality are now far greater.
Patience. Russia has it, the West ( US predominantly) has lost it. The Western media doesn't even recognise what it is. Russia will grind on until Ukraine military is so depleted it will fold, no big arrow moves, just slow attrition to conserve manpower.
There will be more 'beach' events in Russian territory. The payback will come via iskander missiles used by 3rd parties supplied by the likes of Iran and N Korea, more US military and their allies lives will be lost.
Eventually after Ukraine collapses, a mildly warm state of aggression will exist between one security block and the other, until time allows clearer minds ( especially in the US and EU) to reassess the reasons for their reduced economic position in the world.
Excellent piece as usual Aurelien!
"Up until the 1990s, governments had emergency legislation and practiced emergency procedures.. Civil defence in the old sense scarcely exists, just like strategic stocks of food and fuel, and Europe is much more dependent on imports for everything than it was forty or fifty years ago”.
My epidemiologist friend in Beijing told me that Beijing used Covid as an excuse to rehearse its civil defense nuclear war preparations, and that everyone was taking notes the whole time. She added that China has 3 years supply of cereal grains and 18 months supply of animal protein reserves.
Russia also has strategic reserves of food and other resources. And there are civil defense training sessions. Everything is going on as planned. Even my wife, a simple teacher, is trained in first aid. It got to the point that she managed to start the stopped heart of our dying dog on her own. The skills are good
I see one over riding 'good' of this Ukraine thing that is beyond dispute: the unambiguous revealing of the terrible ineptitude even evil of our elected leaders.
It has been like lifting a rock in a dark damp place and seeing all the light shunning creatures that exist beneath it.
These are our Western leaders.
The 'other' or 'RoW' leaders are apparently something else.
I wonder: do they see things as Aurelian lays them out here? Do they share this understanding?
And closely related: what about the PMC as Dingusansich describes them here below - are they thus all around the globe? East as well as West?
*Former German Chancellor Merkel admits the Minsk agreement was merely to buy time for Ukraine’s arms build-up*
"According to former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Minsk agreement served to buy time to rearm Ukraine. “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time,” Merkel told the weekly Die Zeit. “It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today.”
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/22/ffci-d22.html
....................
{below} They are so dumb that they brag about it, yet on a bad day, perhaps combined with one or more bad decisions and/or errors, this is the type of stupid-shit that could lead to a nuke war.
.
*Map Shows Ukraine's Record-Breaking Hits on Russian Nuclear Warning Sites*
.
"Russia's nuclear ballistic missile early warning radar network has emerged as a key target of long-range Ukrainian strikes, with three facilities having now been attacked by Kyiv's drones in the past two months.
Two such strikes occurred in the past week. First, a drone hit a "Voronezh-DM" radar at the Armavir Radar Station in the southern Krasnodar region on May 22. The site is home to two Voronezh-DM radars with a range of around 6,000 kilometers (3,730 miles)."
.
https://www.newsweek.com/map-ukraine-record-breaking-hits-russian-nuclear-warning-radar-1905221
.
Put yourself in the Russian's shoes and the first thing you will think is, 'why are they trying to destroy my early warning radar?' Why don't they want us to have early warning radar?
Putin is a master of patience, but he will not always be there. The west is constantly claiming Russians are angry at Putin which is true but not always for the reasons they think. Many are pissed at Putin because he won't escalate, including prominent Russians and military higher ups. Even more so after the Black Sea beach cluster bombing.
Well informed and presented post.
It seems reality has become scarce for the west, especially America. Fake money is the root but it has spread to everything. The US military is a joke with all the transgender surgeries and worship, being fully vaxxed, supported by a corrupt and incompetent military manufacturing complex. We are at the point where the White House is claiming videos they released are fakes. 99% of citizens (non combatants?) are completely ignorant since so many are apathetic and spoiled. NATO has been marching towards Russia for more than 30 years and the west’s intention of plundering Russian natural resources are obvious.
When the war actually starts expect the definition of war to be updated in the west
You write well and understand the situation well. But this is a Western view. In Russia everything is a little different. Russia is simply larger in territory than the UK or any country in Europe. Almost all Russians have country houses with a plot of land or houses in the village. They are far from cities. We will simply scatter throughout our country. Some people, of course, won't survive.
To be honest, after the American missile fell on the beach in Sevastopol, I already wanted to leave the city for a week or two. But I quickly realized that right now the missiles would not fly in response. Therefore, I would not be so sure that there will be no third world war.
Nice to define how the antagonists of the West are delusional.
So into abstraction it’s a distraction from reality speaking to its vaunted vanity as well.
The coming political rejection coming by the educated populace of their political elite who are destroying their own countries economically , ethically with lies.
Imagine waging war against the people who voted for you?
Looking interesting!
The Russians are innocent in this is clear.
" It’s easy to imagine AI-facilitated fake broadcasts by national leaders, or massive SMS hoaxes telling people to report to their local Police station for conscription."
I hardly need to imagine, since I've seen very similar things in Russia in a far less dire situation (not broadcasts, maybe, but fake videos of leader speeches, certainly; and conscription hoaxes aplenty). It did not have much visible effect on society. I wonder if it'd really be different in the West; I suppose some of it would depend on the extent of physical damage and disruption.
I also wonder about this: "Finally, recent events have shown that governments these days are physically incapable of controlling widespread social unrest."
Physically incapable or just utterly uninterested? Social unrest doesn't seem to threaten Western elites that much, so they can afford to ignore it. Up to a point, anyhow. In the longer run, letting important capabilities atrophy out of complacency is maybe the most dangerous thing an elite can do to itself. They could coast by without it until it does become dangerous. I'd be willing to accept that this has happened/is happening in the West.
Thanks. Interesting as ever.
I think Stoltenberg recently said NATO is not at war with Russia. Your ending comments made me reflect: it is not for him to say. If Russia sees NATO countries as belligerents then that is enough. We are then just in the realm of what action Russia sees as sensible to take. Luckily, they seem rational.
My SWAG is WWIII has been put on hold until after the French elections, especially as the French public is not exactly as jingoistic as Macron and others would like.
Yes. I can confirm (almost) nobody is talking about Ukraine anymore around here.
Once the election is over and the voters no longer will have any say for the near to medium term, Macron and others will return their attention to the War On Russia.
I am sort of surprised that this is not obvious.
Maybe.
I'm quite sure he will try. Depending on how much he is weakened by the internal political situation.
Beside I'm not sure it's so much about war itself than pursuing his own agenda in Europe. It more like he could pretend he didn't send the French army to save the day only because other coward European leaders refused to follow him. Therefore he is the one who should lead Europe after Russia prevailed in Ukraine.
Whatever the Americans decide.
The article's analysis of escalation (and how unlikely it is) assumes fairly rational behavior and an approximately realistic assessment of reality.
Let me sketch a different path:
NATO countries have been (unofficially) sending troops to Ukraine for many years. However, Ukraine is losing.
NATO country politicians have roughly three choices: 1) To accept defeat, 2) continue as is and hope nobody notices defeat, or 3) to double down.
Years of one-sided reporting on the armed conflict in Ukraine have succeeded to convince sizable parts of the populations to support actions against evil Russia. The people who oppose actions against Russia are likely to vote for non-establishment parties anyway. So, a politician involved in an establishment-internal 'tug-of-vote' contest could conceivably decide to double down and send a designated military unit to Ukraine officially. With a goodbye parade, media coverage, etc.
After all, we've also had Sunak and Macron call elections - not very clever either.
Now, this military unit at some point is likely to suffer losses - probably due to a drone or missile attack. Due to the previous publicity, this cannot be covered up.
Now what?
Again, there is the choice: Accept defeat or double down.
I expect a sizable part of the electorate, even among those who were initially opposed to sending the unit, to support additional units to be sent to protect this specific unit - for example, some air defense. Maybe air force. Potentially ask neighboring NATO countries to contribute. And perhaps retaliate against Russian bases.
NATO is too weak for this to effectively impact the armed conflict in Ukraine itself, but this type of gradual escalation can expand the conflict beyond Ukraine.
Before WWI, the British asked the French how many British soldiers were needed the help defend France. The French answered: "One. And we'll make sure he dies."
Not here in US. No one is going to support troops in Ukraine and if DC sends them as a cynical ploy you suggest it will have opposite effect.
Yes, this 'air defense' escalation scenario seems possible.
But on the other hand, every time a French soldier has been killed in Mali, the question of French involvement over there has been publicly raised in France. To the point where local terrorists must have realized that all they needed to do was kill a few soldiers to get rid of the whole expeditionary force...
Yes.
Difference is, 'local terrorists' are kind of an amorphous entity - arguably an environmental hazard.
Russia is a nation-state, a much more tangible object.
It would be an interesting experiment to see if there's a difference in public response between deaths caused by terrorists and deaths caused by hostile nation-states.