This current situation never needed to come to pass. The hubristic West wanted to break up Russia and steal their resources, and this still seems to be the case if you listen to the witterings of idiots like Emmanuel Macron and David Cameron.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union agreements were made that were never adhered to, quite the reverse in fact. If these agreements had been honoured we would not be in this situation.
The Russians have reacted to a situation forced on them by the arrogant West who had no intention of negotiating ANYTHING with the 'gas station masquerading as a country' and casually lied as part of this process. The Russians had imagined that they were dealing with statesmen with a sense of integrity and trusted their words. Their actions have however convicted them as rank opportunists and Russia has noted this fact and has decided to set out their own facts and let the West deal with them in their own manner.
The reason the West fear Russia is because they have tried to swindle them and failed miserably and the consequences for this deception are now impending.
They could have tried to treat Russia as a normal country but couldn't resist putting in the boot. So here we are. It will be ugly for the 'not agreement capable' West as they are no longer in charge of their own destiny and have mightily annoyed those who are.
If one subscribes to the view that the US spent the 20th century assaulting and dismantling the European empires, thus robbing them of their overseas resources (Europe is a relatively resource poor peninsula of the Eurasian continent after all) and making them totally reliant on the resource rich US, it’s easy to understand why they and their current European puppets hate Russia.
In the 90s we saw the wholesale pillaging of Russia and its resources by the oligarchs, facilitated by western financiers. The idea of further dismemberment of Russia was floated by these same kind of people early on in the war in Ukraine, because any European country that has a form of self sufficiency is unacceptable to the Empire. This is pure fantasy, and completely illogical if you consider nuclear proliferation, but the PMC are not exactly intelligent folks either. On top of that, they hate Russia (and Putin) because they are an example of a real alternative to our own decline and degeneracy.
You think their scaremongering is just to raly support for the next arms race while they actually dont think / believe that Russia has any intention on stepping outside Ukraine's and own's borders and thus have no reason to fear Russia, or they don't fear Russia because Russia in their mind laks any military capability that could harm them, ever... while they have the upperhand??
This U.S. resident strongly supports the cut and run option. Not just from Europe, but too, Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
It is glaringly obvious that our Military Industrial Complex has designed weapons systems for the showroom floor, not battle. It is past time to break with the gravitational pull of sunk costs and severely reduce defense spending. It is time to focus on territorial defense only.
The U.S. has far too many domestic problems that our foreign policy has exacerbated by directing resources offshore. In fact, one of our chief unsolved problems is shared globally: the continued evolution and spread of COVID. When you add on climate change, aquifer depletion and the whims of the billionaires that misrule us, something has to give.
My sincere wish is that the billionaires get shuttled to an island paradise and we start making goods for ourselves again. Imagine, the U.S. producing vitamin C!
Thank you. Ultimately, the US always runs. We British often do too. Islands (which the US is too really) can do that.
Your comments on “Fear” remind me of a conversation yesterday. Someone I know professionally in the UK has been particularly anti Russian with respect to recent events. I knew he was half German but yesterday I got to understand the drivers. His grandparents came from Silesia and lost pretty much everything they had at the end of WW2 when the Soviets (always called Russians in this discussion) came. My sense was that the family had estates there. They also had to flee and people they knew who made the wrong choices died. His comments on the Red Army were deeply insulting and emotional. Various relatives also were killed fighting on the Eastern Front. We can debate who did what to whom first but it is irrelevant: he has a lot of inbuilt fear and hatred of Russia. It’s even understandable on his terms, which is not the same thing as “right” or “appropriate” of course. We discussed the fact too (which few English people know) that Germany lost 10% of her population in WW2 and that in the Anglosphere we got off very lightly really. These emotions are very hard to deal with though and they are very much part of the equation driving current policy. One only has to look at the family backgrounds of various current US and European decision makers to see that this is plausible.
It would be good if we could all be rational and get over these emotions that stoke conflict. But I fear we will never get to that!
I'll do you one better: Want to tork off a Pole? Want to send a Tomek or Gosia into a spitting mad Donald Duck meltdown?
Simply remind them that, whatever other bad things the Soviets may have done, the only reason that there are still Polish people left alive in Poland today is because of the Red Army.
Both Blinken and Nuland are the grandchildren of Ukrainian exiles. This is not coincidental. This war is in no small part an ethnic blood feud in which US policymakers are leveraging national security bureaucracy to advance personal grudges.
I'd like to propose that one problem that is peculiar to today's Europe, or with modern day Liberals in general, is that their fear of "the other" is not accompanied by a sense of "self."
Tribal fears are, more typically, accompanied by a sense of tribe on both sides. We are tribe X. "The other guys" are tribe Y. Those Y guys are up to no good. We X people must do something. But as you have long noted, universalizing ideologies are built on suppressing the sense of tribes, at least as far as "we" are concerned. So the fear that the Y are up to no good does not lead to we X ought to do something collectively--except in a highly abstract and "bureaucratic" sense, because there is no X that people feel emotionally attached to and constitute a natural group capable of collective action. And, as Mancur Olson noted, collective action is a difficult and even an irrational thing, unless aided by an irrational ingredient--like a sense of tribal identity: you can't get much of a (successful) collective action on abstract and bureaucratic basis.
So the Western elites are falling into a paradox: there might be much fear, but it's not forcing them to get their act together because they lack a focal point to gather around. So they are thrashing about confusedly as singletons.
Western elites have a paradox alright. Tribalism/nationalism is the most powerful force in the universe to get men to fight an die yet they wish to erase all forms of tribalism/nationalism so no one wants to fight for globalhomo neoliberalism. Maybe as native whites continue extinction level fertility rates and Muslims take over Europe they will be able to build real armies again but until then no one wants to fight.
Outstanding essay. One of the reasons I like to follow and read your work is because I am not a native english speaker. Naturally, I look for many good writers as possible to improve my english by reading rather than studying grammar, since I don't have the time. Here in substack I've found a few good ones. I must say I enjoy your clear, simple and yet sharp style of writing, with a twist of wit here and there among the paragraphs. This one essay though is your best I've read so far.
It felt as I was reading something wrote by Adam Curtis (another english 'essayist' that I admired) for one of his documentaries in both style and substance, but also because the ideas explored here are very sound, yet they seem to pass under the radar of all sorts of analysts in both mainstream and independent media when they try to dissect a larger political event and its players in all its many decisions and repercussions.
Irrationality in politics play a profound role that is often overlooked by people that tend to rationalize it and thus reduce Politics into an equation of opportunities and interests. Fear and Inertia must be the strongest components in several foreign offices across the world I guess, much more than even short-term profits or long-term objectives. Even for politicians themselves politics as a practical activity has a much larger degree of contingency than they want (or are prepared) to acknowledge since the illusion of their control over things and peoples is a factor of total importance for their perceived success.
I am nobody, just an everyday dude found of following geopolitics, but most people I assume, no matter who they are, or where they live, if nonetheless they're paying attention with open eyes to what is taking place around the world right now, they must share this feeling that inexplicable forces and complex systems are colliding and pushing Humanity into a decisive crossroads unlike anything that happened in the past. And they also must have realized by now that the ideas of control their politicians are selling to them is a fiction.
For a while now I've been thinking politics in a modern liberal democracy has become a theater in the exact moment in which real power pass from the politicians to those of the donor class, the bankers, criminal kingpins and talking suits from the FIRE sector. Politicians are now actors, puppets and celebrities doing a role for their audiences, us their voters, in which their role is to look as if they have control of events, or at least act as they understand and influence the world, but they know as much about it as an actual actor playing a doctor in a TV series knows how to conduct a surgery.
The point is there is still a reality beyond the stage of Parliaments and the lights of Corporate Media out there, and I only can wonder how the children running the show will react when that same reality reveals its grim face.
Europes in low level civil wars already. With migrants committing most crimes. With farmers that cant grow, with workers unable to retire on crap pension, and with libertarians tired of tyranny. I don't see how it doesnt go full blown dystopia and blood in the streets after Russia and Africa cut them off which is happening as the Global 85% play amongst themselves. The tracks and pipes are being redirected as we speak because Russia is done with Europe. Russia is rich and proud and doesnt need anything from Europe if they have China. Many upper middle class Germans and others have moved to Russia seeing writing on the wall.
Good essay and many thanks for writing it. It highlights the human factor in international relations, at a visceral level. As someone who considers themself a realist it is an [unwelcome] reminder that emotional responses still have priority over critical thinking. I have been perplexed as to why "The West" has consistently underestimated Russia and failed to understand its concerns - still worse its capabilities. This emotional view helps in that process. Some would call the West's approach racism. Whatever. It does strike me though that if you "feel" you have an implacable foe, then it would be best to deal with that in rational rather than emotional terms. I guess our "sound bite and focus group" orientated leaders [of rather limited intellectual sttretch] find that a little too challenging. Why let facts get in the way of prejudice?
Three key words that need to be delved upon: intentions, capabilities, and US.
USSR/Russia/China/Iran had actual reasons to be afraid and to develop capabilities to defend itself, because the west always wanted to make it change/submit (see all the US military bases surrounding Russia/China/Iran, which mostly speak of intentions rather than of capabilities). After the death of Trotsky, that was obviously not the case for USSR/Russia.
EU Liberal Universalism and US "containment" and hegemonic doctrines, spelled out in countles strategic doctrine papers spek plenty of clear intention. (In War on the Rocks, in an article there concerning freedom of navigation, a US Admiral spelled it out the US Navy's role is not to protect freedom of navigation and secure shipping lanes, but to cut access to enemy states; as such, the reading of "containment" becomes clear, being the first step in "take over").
The Oligarchic systems of the west want to take over or at minimum extract in their parasitic way part of the wealth of Russia and China. The hit on Russia between 1990 and 2000 was like the first heroin injection, with Wall Street riding the dragon. They are looking for that ever since.
The capabilities are totally different now. China is overproducing the west in everything. Even Russia does that by itself on many areas. Thus only "asymetric" attempts (lies, vacuous ideology, and terrorism) are left for US/West combine.
Their ultimate fear is not that they will be taken over necessarily, especially from a security perspective: Russia/China have never, ever expressed such intentions. But that the hope to take over Russia/China is becoming an ever distant dream.
I do not take the ululations of the broader population and punditry and mass media of the west as the actual representation of the big decision-makers there.
The west is a filthy spectacle of unpunished crime over the centuries. It gets its power from a neverending stock of working slaves, greed, corruption, hypocrisy, violence, lies and treachery. The west leaders are criminals because nobody can climb the social hyerarchy ladder in the west if not a criminal. The west has covered itself with shinning clothes of splendor to hide its unbearable pestilence. The west is an abomination.
I guess if Russia end's up in such a powerful, uncontested position towards the Europe, it's goal could well be to radically change it's inner structure so it stops being an enemy for a long while.
Instead of a Europe with it's heart at France, Germany and England, why not place the Slavic countries in a position of leadership?
They do block some of them. Like it or not. If they catch a quarter of the virus particles either going in or going out, I can't really tell anyone to not wear them. It is a personal decision that a person has to make about risk-reduction.
One mistake that was made is the "mandatory" requirement (although I feel strongly that they should be mandatory in hospitals). The other mistake was the idea that because they weren't 100% efficient, that they were useless.
I really think that folks ought to get over this red herring.
A well adjusted respirator N95 does a great job with that. Not 100% but it significantly reduces the dose. And we all know now, since the times of Paracelsus, that the dose makes the poison.
Nice, I like that one, is there a reference to go with it? I never heard that and it's meaning is clear as a bell. That Paracelsus guy ... he sure talks pretty.
I absolutely agree that the failure of redefining the US/European relationship with Russia in the 90’s was an historic mistake. I also agree that the US in particular lacked the ability to even reimagine it much less actualize something different. Perhaps a second H.W. Bush admin could have been a bit better. As bad as was in many ways, he was at least a realist.
From an historical perspective Clinton has to be considered an abject failure. His handling of Russia, NAFTA and MFN status for China really set the stage the US’s current position. And he did it all for the venal reasons: the potential for all of those things to make him money. (Note he was the first modern president to use the office to get really rich after his term.) another president might not have done enough differently to make a difference, but the fact remains that Clinton did it, not a different president.
I don't think it was an innability from the part of the West/US to imagine/agree on something.
But defining something clearly ends up being a limiting factor. One can catch more fish in turbulent waters. Israel never agreed on a certain border, no matter what they say now (about the past). Now Israel doesnt want to ever recognize Palestine. US now doesn't want to recognize the legitimate security concerns of Russia.
The temporization usually helps the temporizer. Right now, the ones that are actually temporizing, are the Russians. They are in no rush to finish the war, especially if that will cost them too many lives. A more depleated Ukraine and the West will be more inclined to agree to Russia's security demands.
Am I naive to think that there is light at the end of the tunnel? I already fear that the policies of the PMC could lead to a continent wide replay of the Yugoslav Wars. But if the PMC is humiliated and their total incompetence is exposed, would this allow a new political class to arise from the proverbial ashes?
Before February, 2022, the West did have a genuine fear of resurgent Russian military power.
However, Russian indecision and dithering in prosecuting the war in Ukraine (they can't even bring themselves to call it a "war") has led the West to lose all such fear of Russia.
I think Russian "indecision" in the war--perhaps better considered as a reluctance to escalate--has led to the West crowing about the weakness of the Russian military. A bigger problem is that the West, especially the U.S., has a view of themselves as "exceptional". It is a viewpoint that distorts everything they(we) do, warping it with a sense of narcissistic unreality.
The West is not afraid of Russia, I agree. But they are so invested in their own sense of self-worth that they don't realize the danger they are in. I think their fear is focused on the loss of power and prestige they are facing (their focus is always on themselves). Our hope for a peaceful solution lies in the West linking their own loss and a Russian victory together and seeking instead a peaceful solution. Just my thoughts.
Except that Russia doesn't 'call it' a war because it isn't. War has legal ramifications and it suits Russian objectives for this conflict to be _a_ 'Special Military Operation'. There's no indecision and dithering except as perceived by a West hooked on instant gratification. Russia is conveniently making the West bring its armaments to Russia and destroying them in 'the borderlands'. Look at the German trampoline champion / international lawyer / foreign minister's recent statement that Germany has run out of Patriot missiles... and the US needing Japan to send it more of same. There is no factory to make Bradleys so each one of them destroyed is one fewer to deal with later. And so on.
Declaring war means being kicked out of the UN. That’s why nobody has declared war since the UN started. Nobody in the US called either Korea or Vietnam a war officially either. Or Iraq (x2) or Afghanistan.
Not a strategy? In what way is it not a strategy? Or is this more Western type assertion along the lines of 'if I don't like it as a strategy then it isn't a strategy'. You may think it poor strategy - fair enough - but Ukraine and the West is losing badly. Presumably you wish the SMO to be a 'war' with less 'dithering'? So, Zircons to London, Paris, Berlin? Poseidons to New York City and DC? Escalation to nukes? Now there is poor strategy (IMHO of course)...
The West continues to double down, taking steps that would have unthinkable not so long ago. Russian dithering has caused them to lose all fear of Russia.
You are falling for Western gas lighting trick of defining Russia's goals and calling them losses.
Russia executed this war perfect.
1. Got Zelensky to table with minimal force. West intervened.
2. Sat on defense for 2 years while Ukraine impaled itself taking minimal loses.
3.. Demilitarized not only Ukraine but NATO's amories as well.
4. NATO can talk all the bravado they want they have no men or materials to execute a war vs Russia for more than a couple weeks of high intensity conflict, if they would even be allowed to stage.
5. Settlement will be on Russias terms and nothing West can do about it short of nukes and they know it whatever they say in public.
They fear that's why EU leaders are hysterical. Fear their own people. Fear joining two superpowers at the hip. And certainly fear adding over 1 million highly trained Russians in uniform, advanced systems they do not have like Zircon, Sarmat and WW2 style arms production they have no money to match.
Edit: if Russia would have charged head long into 8 years concrete and steel Ukrainian defenses Russia would have lost a million. That's what US was counting on rather than additional artillery/missile warfare. Russia wared on it's time not USAs planners and this campaign will be studied in war colleges fpr generations. 20:1 casualty rate and almost no civilians dead and winning a war.
They are not effective escalations if they don’t change anything. And it’s pretty clear that the west is not fully in charge, see public calls for Ukraine not to strike oil infrastructure. You consistently ascribe too much deep thought to the reactive decision loop in western capitols. They’re all poorly planned “escalations” that don’t work because they’re poorly planned and Russia doesn’t take the bait. Non-response is a form of strategic denial, assuming that the west wants an over reaction and counter escalation from Russia to rally the masses towards a big war the west is in no position to fight.
The problem is that the West has already sunk so many material and political costs into Ukraine that they cannot back down now. So WWIII is the end result.
Never heard that the west is bluffing -- maybe bluffing that it won't help Ukraine as much as they can and that they have certain red lines to not be crossed.
This is why Russia is building a military force in order to be able to fight NATO. I read somewhere that only about 15% of the Russian forces are used on he front against Ukraine.
At each stage of scalation, we hear that the West can't or won't escalate. They do anyway.
Russia's problem is that it has very large borders, and NATO circling them, looking for any weakness. That Russia is unable to subjugate Ukraine (regardless of what percentage of force is used) of course encourages the West to further aggression.
Great article! Much food for thought! Some counterpoints though:
1. Russia might seem strong but it is much weaker, than we propose. Russia has its own Muslim problem in the Caucasus and beyond. The situation is fundamentally unstable as it is based on a personal relationship between Kadyrow and Putin as well as tons of Russian money being funneled south.
2. China is demanding a price and is already getting it. Mongolia is being turned into a Chinese dependency as we speak.
3. The young Russsians in the big cities are just as consume oriented and media addicted as their Western co-generationalists. None of them are going to the war and they will not be forced to.
4. Russia wins the war but can it win the peace? How is Russia going to rule over Millions of resentful Ukrainians? They can´t and the Kremlin knows it. Time the West considers that as well.
1. Russian Muslims are most loyal and fearless battalions. EU could learn a thing or two how to endear such loyalty
2. Russia is literally richest it's ever been and China needs Russia know how. They are are still buying missiles, jet engines and sub tech from Russia. Russia is not the jr partner here.
3. Russia's biggest problem it it doesnt have enough gear for the 100,000 recruits this month due to retarded Ukraine terror attack, and 50K each prior month. Slav men are not effete Westerners who can't even recruit an let invaders overrun thier cities. We love to fight.
4, Ukrainians left will become most loyal battalions like Chechens became after Russia leveled it. Rebuild, pay pensions, treat fairly. Putin already has a plan to give working class several hectares of prime real estate. I bet the house new SBU will scour the earth looking for Zelensky and crew who got them into this mess not Putin.
I generally agree, but not so long ago, when I lived in Ukraine, nationalism was strictly for freaks and losers.
For that matter, Ukraine is not ripe for an insurgency. The one thing that all successful insurgencies have in common is a young population. The median age in Yemen is 19 years old. The median age in Ukraine was over 40, and that before the war.
1. Keep living in denial. That same denial led to this disaster. This Anglo-Saxon arrogance is beyond detrimental - it is insanity and cowardly. It just shows your weakness
2. China cannot risk making Russia an enemy or neutral state. They need the support
3. Young Russians are nothing like the West. Russia is already forming them to fight and defend. Plus, if they are social media savvy, they have seen the West's opinion of Russia.
4.it can win peace after the USA's betrayal. Ukraine already has a growing number of saboteurs
#1 You provide no evidence for this. As far as I have seen, Russia just surpassed Japan in PPP GDP...
#2 Evryone is demanding a price, but ultimately the intentions do matter. China doesn't look like it wants to reincorporate Mongolia, a very big empty country within China, ust wants access to its resources. Mongolia has to rely either on Russia or on China to get its goods out, by land or by air.
#3 lots and lots of Russian volunteers nowadays, including Muslim ones. The Chechens are more than happy to support RFA.
#4 Can Europe sustain a new cold war? that is the question. Russia/China combine can, EU/US cannot.
This current situation never needed to come to pass. The hubristic West wanted to break up Russia and steal their resources, and this still seems to be the case if you listen to the witterings of idiots like Emmanuel Macron and David Cameron.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union agreements were made that were never adhered to, quite the reverse in fact. If these agreements had been honoured we would not be in this situation.
The Russians have reacted to a situation forced on them by the arrogant West who had no intention of negotiating ANYTHING with the 'gas station masquerading as a country' and casually lied as part of this process. The Russians had imagined that they were dealing with statesmen with a sense of integrity and trusted their words. Their actions have however convicted them as rank opportunists and Russia has noted this fact and has decided to set out their own facts and let the West deal with them in their own manner.
The reason the West fear Russia is because they have tried to swindle them and failed miserably and the consequences for this deception are now impending.
They could have tried to treat Russia as a normal country but couldn't resist putting in the boot. So here we are. It will be ugly for the 'not agreement capable' West as they are no longer in charge of their own destiny and have mightily annoyed those who are.
If one subscribes to the view that the US spent the 20th century assaulting and dismantling the European empires, thus robbing them of their overseas resources (Europe is a relatively resource poor peninsula of the Eurasian continent after all) and making them totally reliant on the resource rich US, it’s easy to understand why they and their current European puppets hate Russia.
In the 90s we saw the wholesale pillaging of Russia and its resources by the oligarchs, facilitated by western financiers. The idea of further dismemberment of Russia was floated by these same kind of people early on in the war in Ukraine, because any European country that has a form of self sufficiency is unacceptable to the Empire. This is pure fantasy, and completely illogical if you consider nuclear proliferation, but the PMC are not exactly intelligent folks either. On top of that, they hate Russia (and Putin) because they are an example of a real alternative to our own decline and degeneracy.
The problem is that the West doesn't fear Russia.
You think their scaremongering is just to raly support for the next arms race while they actually dont think / believe that Russia has any intention on stepping outside Ukraine's and own's borders and thus have no reason to fear Russia, or they don't fear Russia because Russia in their mind laks any military capability that could harm them, ever... while they have the upperhand??
It is obvious that Russia has no intent of expanding the war.
The West has every intention of escalating.
This U.S. resident strongly supports the cut and run option. Not just from Europe, but too, Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
It is glaringly obvious that our Military Industrial Complex has designed weapons systems for the showroom floor, not battle. It is past time to break with the gravitational pull of sunk costs and severely reduce defense spending. It is time to focus on territorial defense only.
The U.S. has far too many domestic problems that our foreign policy has exacerbated by directing resources offshore. In fact, one of our chief unsolved problems is shared globally: the continued evolution and spread of COVID. When you add on climate change, aquifer depletion and the whims of the billionaires that misrule us, something has to give.
My sincere wish is that the billionaires get shuttled to an island paradise and we start making goods for ourselves again. Imagine, the U.S. producing vitamin C!
Thank you. Ultimately, the US always runs. We British often do too. Islands (which the US is too really) can do that.
Your comments on “Fear” remind me of a conversation yesterday. Someone I know professionally in the UK has been particularly anti Russian with respect to recent events. I knew he was half German but yesterday I got to understand the drivers. His grandparents came from Silesia and lost pretty much everything they had at the end of WW2 when the Soviets (always called Russians in this discussion) came. My sense was that the family had estates there. They also had to flee and people they knew who made the wrong choices died. His comments on the Red Army were deeply insulting and emotional. Various relatives also were killed fighting on the Eastern Front. We can debate who did what to whom first but it is irrelevant: he has a lot of inbuilt fear and hatred of Russia. It’s even understandable on his terms, which is not the same thing as “right” or “appropriate” of course. We discussed the fact too (which few English people know) that Germany lost 10% of her population in WW2 and that in the Anglosphere we got off very lightly really. These emotions are very hard to deal with though and they are very much part of the equation driving current policy. One only has to look at the family backgrounds of various current US and European decision makers to see that this is plausible.
It would be good if we could all be rational and get over these emotions that stoke conflict. But I fear we will never get to that!
I'll do you one better: Want to tork off a Pole? Want to send a Tomek or Gosia into a spitting mad Donald Duck meltdown?
Simply remind them that, whatever other bad things the Soviets may have done, the only reason that there are still Polish people left alive in Poland today is because of the Red Army.
Both Blinken and Nuland are the grandchildren of Ukrainian exiles. This is not coincidental. This war is in no small part an ethnic blood feud in which US policymakers are leveraging national security bureaucracy to advance personal grudges.
I'd like to propose that one problem that is peculiar to today's Europe, or with modern day Liberals in general, is that their fear of "the other" is not accompanied by a sense of "self."
Tribal fears are, more typically, accompanied by a sense of tribe on both sides. We are tribe X. "The other guys" are tribe Y. Those Y guys are up to no good. We X people must do something. But as you have long noted, universalizing ideologies are built on suppressing the sense of tribes, at least as far as "we" are concerned. So the fear that the Y are up to no good does not lead to we X ought to do something collectively--except in a highly abstract and "bureaucratic" sense, because there is no X that people feel emotionally attached to and constitute a natural group capable of collective action. And, as Mancur Olson noted, collective action is a difficult and even an irrational thing, unless aided by an irrational ingredient--like a sense of tribal identity: you can't get much of a (successful) collective action on abstract and bureaucratic basis.
So the Western elites are falling into a paradox: there might be much fear, but it's not forcing them to get their act together because they lack a focal point to gather around. So they are thrashing about confusedly as singletons.
Western elites have a paradox alright. Tribalism/nationalism is the most powerful force in the universe to get men to fight an die yet they wish to erase all forms of tribalism/nationalism so no one wants to fight for globalhomo neoliberalism. Maybe as native whites continue extinction level fertility rates and Muslims take over Europe they will be able to build real armies again but until then no one wants to fight.
I think that's a very good point. Interestingly enough, I am in the early stages of working up an essay on that then
me.
Outstanding essay. One of the reasons I like to follow and read your work is because I am not a native english speaker. Naturally, I look for many good writers as possible to improve my english by reading rather than studying grammar, since I don't have the time. Here in substack I've found a few good ones. I must say I enjoy your clear, simple and yet sharp style of writing, with a twist of wit here and there among the paragraphs. This one essay though is your best I've read so far.
It felt as I was reading something wrote by Adam Curtis (another english 'essayist' that I admired) for one of his documentaries in both style and substance, but also because the ideas explored here are very sound, yet they seem to pass under the radar of all sorts of analysts in both mainstream and independent media when they try to dissect a larger political event and its players in all its many decisions and repercussions.
Irrationality in politics play a profound role that is often overlooked by people that tend to rationalize it and thus reduce Politics into an equation of opportunities and interests. Fear and Inertia must be the strongest components in several foreign offices across the world I guess, much more than even short-term profits or long-term objectives. Even for politicians themselves politics as a practical activity has a much larger degree of contingency than they want (or are prepared) to acknowledge since the illusion of their control over things and peoples is a factor of total importance for their perceived success.
I am nobody, just an everyday dude found of following geopolitics, but most people I assume, no matter who they are, or where they live, if nonetheless they're paying attention with open eyes to what is taking place around the world right now, they must share this feeling that inexplicable forces and complex systems are colliding and pushing Humanity into a decisive crossroads unlike anything that happened in the past. And they also must have realized by now that the ideas of control their politicians are selling to them is a fiction.
For a while now I've been thinking politics in a modern liberal democracy has become a theater in the exact moment in which real power pass from the politicians to those of the donor class, the bankers, criminal kingpins and talking suits from the FIRE sector. Politicians are now actors, puppets and celebrities doing a role for their audiences, us their voters, in which their role is to look as if they have control of events, or at least act as they understand and influence the world, but they know as much about it as an actual actor playing a doctor in a TV series knows how to conduct a surgery.
The point is there is still a reality beyond the stage of Parliaments and the lights of Corporate Media out there, and I only can wonder how the children running the show will react when that same reality reveals its grim face.
Thank you for your kind words, and don't feel you need to apologise for your English!
Your English is better than many native speakers.
Europes in low level civil wars already. With migrants committing most crimes. With farmers that cant grow, with workers unable to retire on crap pension, and with libertarians tired of tyranny. I don't see how it doesnt go full blown dystopia and blood in the streets after Russia and Africa cut them off which is happening as the Global 85% play amongst themselves. The tracks and pipes are being redirected as we speak because Russia is done with Europe. Russia is rich and proud and doesnt need anything from Europe if they have China. Many upper middle class Germans and others have moved to Russia seeing writing on the wall.
Good essay and many thanks for writing it. It highlights the human factor in international relations, at a visceral level. As someone who considers themself a realist it is an [unwelcome] reminder that emotional responses still have priority over critical thinking. I have been perplexed as to why "The West" has consistently underestimated Russia and failed to understand its concerns - still worse its capabilities. This emotional view helps in that process. Some would call the West's approach racism. Whatever. It does strike me though that if you "feel" you have an implacable foe, then it would be best to deal with that in rational rather than emotional terms. I guess our "sound bite and focus group" orientated leaders [of rather limited intellectual sttretch] find that a little too challenging. Why let facts get in the way of prejudice?
Three key words that need to be delved upon: intentions, capabilities, and US.
USSR/Russia/China/Iran had actual reasons to be afraid and to develop capabilities to defend itself, because the west always wanted to make it change/submit (see all the US military bases surrounding Russia/China/Iran, which mostly speak of intentions rather than of capabilities). After the death of Trotsky, that was obviously not the case for USSR/Russia.
EU Liberal Universalism and US "containment" and hegemonic doctrines, spelled out in countles strategic doctrine papers spek plenty of clear intention. (In War on the Rocks, in an article there concerning freedom of navigation, a US Admiral spelled it out the US Navy's role is not to protect freedom of navigation and secure shipping lanes, but to cut access to enemy states; as such, the reading of "containment" becomes clear, being the first step in "take over").
The Oligarchic systems of the west want to take over or at minimum extract in their parasitic way part of the wealth of Russia and China. The hit on Russia between 1990 and 2000 was like the first heroin injection, with Wall Street riding the dragon. They are looking for that ever since.
The capabilities are totally different now. China is overproducing the west in everything. Even Russia does that by itself on many areas. Thus only "asymetric" attempts (lies, vacuous ideology, and terrorism) are left for US/West combine.
Their ultimate fear is not that they will be taken over necessarily, especially from a security perspective: Russia/China have never, ever expressed such intentions. But that the hope to take over Russia/China is becoming an ever distant dream.
I do not take the ululations of the broader population and punditry and mass media of the west as the actual representation of the big decision-makers there.
The west is a filthy spectacle of unpunished crime over the centuries. It gets its power from a neverending stock of working slaves, greed, corruption, hypocrisy, violence, lies and treachery. The west leaders are criminals because nobody can climb the social hyerarchy ladder in the west if not a criminal. The west has covered itself with shinning clothes of splendor to hide its unbearable pestilence. The west is an abomination.
I guess if Russia end's up in such a powerful, uncontested position towards the Europe, it's goal could well be to radically change it's inner structure so it stops being an enemy for a long while.
Instead of a Europe with it's heart at France, Germany and England, why not place the Slavic countries in a position of leadership?
Masks don’t block transmission of viruses. Otherwise A+
They do block some of them. Like it or not. If they catch a quarter of the virus particles either going in or going out, I can't really tell anyone to not wear them. It is a personal decision that a person has to make about risk-reduction.
One mistake that was made is the "mandatory" requirement (although I feel strongly that they should be mandatory in hospitals). The other mistake was the idea that because they weren't 100% efficient, that they were useless.
I really think that folks ought to get over this red herring.
A well adjusted respirator N95 does a great job with that. Not 100% but it significantly reduces the dose. And we all know now, since the times of Paracelsus, that the dose makes the poison.
" the dose makes the poison."
Nice, I like that one, is there a reference to go with it? I never heard that and it's meaning is clear as a bell. That Paracelsus guy ... he sure talks pretty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison
I absolutely agree that the failure of redefining the US/European relationship with Russia in the 90’s was an historic mistake. I also agree that the US in particular lacked the ability to even reimagine it much less actualize something different. Perhaps a second H.W. Bush admin could have been a bit better. As bad as was in many ways, he was at least a realist.
From an historical perspective Clinton has to be considered an abject failure. His handling of Russia, NAFTA and MFN status for China really set the stage the US’s current position. And he did it all for the venal reasons: the potential for all of those things to make him money. (Note he was the first modern president to use the office to get really rich after his term.) another president might not have done enough differently to make a difference, but the fact remains that Clinton did it, not a different president.
I don't think it was an innability from the part of the West/US to imagine/agree on something.
But defining something clearly ends up being a limiting factor. One can catch more fish in turbulent waters. Israel never agreed on a certain border, no matter what they say now (about the past). Now Israel doesnt want to ever recognize Palestine. US now doesn't want to recognize the legitimate security concerns of Russia.
The temporization usually helps the temporizer. Right now, the ones that are actually temporizing, are the Russians. They are in no rush to finish the war, especially if that will cost them too many lives. A more depleated Ukraine and the West will be more inclined to agree to Russia's security demands.
Am I naive to think that there is light at the end of the tunnel? I already fear that the policies of the PMC could lead to a continent wide replay of the Yugoslav Wars. But if the PMC is humiliated and their total incompetence is exposed, would this allow a new political class to arise from the proverbial ashes?
Excellent - " All we have to fear is fear itself " - FDR.
A very different and much simpler explanation:
Before February, 2022, the West did have a genuine fear of resurgent Russian military power.
However, Russian indecision and dithering in prosecuting the war in Ukraine (they can't even bring themselves to call it a "war") has led the West to lose all such fear of Russia.
I think Russian "indecision" in the war--perhaps better considered as a reluctance to escalate--has led to the West crowing about the weakness of the Russian military. A bigger problem is that the West, especially the U.S., has a view of themselves as "exceptional". It is a viewpoint that distorts everything they(we) do, warping it with a sense of narcissistic unreality.
The West is not afraid of Russia, I agree. But they are so invested in their own sense of self-worth that they don't realize the danger they are in. I think their fear is focused on the loss of power and prestige they are facing (their focus is always on themselves). Our hope for a peaceful solution lies in the West linking their own loss and a Russian victory together and seeking instead a peaceful solution. Just my thoughts.
Except that Russia doesn't 'call it' a war because it isn't. War has legal ramifications and it suits Russian objectives for this conflict to be _a_ 'Special Military Operation'. There's no indecision and dithering except as perceived by a West hooked on instant gratification. Russia is conveniently making the West bring its armaments to Russia and destroying them in 'the borderlands'. Look at the German trampoline champion / international lawyer / foreign minister's recent statement that Germany has run out of Patriot missiles... and the US needing Japan to send it more of same. There is no factory to make Bradleys so each one of them destroyed is one fewer to deal with later. And so on.
QK
Declaring war means being kicked out of the UN. That’s why nobody has declared war since the UN started. Nobody in the US called either Korea or Vietnam a war officially either. Or Iraq (x2) or Afghanistan.
Using Russian soldiers to soak up western munitions is hardly a strategy.
Otherwise, a lot of retconning.
Not a strategy? In what way is it not a strategy? Or is this more Western type assertion along the lines of 'if I don't like it as a strategy then it isn't a strategy'. You may think it poor strategy - fair enough - but Ukraine and the West is losing badly. Presumably you wish the SMO to be a 'war' with less 'dithering'? So, Zircons to London, Paris, Berlin? Poseidons to New York City and DC? Escalation to nukes? Now there is poor strategy (IMHO of course)...
QK
The West continues to double down, taking steps that would have unthinkable not so long ago. Russian dithering has caused them to lose all fear of Russia.
Otherwise, don't argue with strawmen.
Ah, asserting that people you disagree with are strawmen, another Western 'strategy'. Are you 'retconning'?
And if the West has indeed lost all fear of Russia then the future is bleak for them.
QK
No, I was referring to your arguments concerning what you think I want to see in the war, none of which I ever said.
That is the definition of a strawman, arguing with statements that the other party didn't make.
One might add that the West sees Russian patience, not as reasonableness or humanitarianism, but as contemptible weakness.
You are falling for Western gas lighting trick of defining Russia's goals and calling them losses.
Russia executed this war perfect.
1. Got Zelensky to table with minimal force. West intervened.
2. Sat on defense for 2 years while Ukraine impaled itself taking minimal loses.
3.. Demilitarized not only Ukraine but NATO's amories as well.
4. NATO can talk all the bravado they want they have no men or materials to execute a war vs Russia for more than a couple weeks of high intensity conflict, if they would even be allowed to stage.
5. Settlement will be on Russias terms and nothing West can do about it short of nukes and they know it whatever they say in public.
They fear that's why EU leaders are hysterical. Fear their own people. Fear joining two superpowers at the hip. And certainly fear adding over 1 million highly trained Russians in uniform, advanced systems they do not have like Zircon, Sarmat and WW2 style arms production they have no money to match.
Edit: if Russia would have charged head long into 8 years concrete and steel Ukrainian defenses Russia would have lost a million. That's what US was counting on rather than additional artillery/missile warfare. Russia wared on it's time not USAs planners and this campaign will be studied in war colleges fpr generations. 20:1 casualty rate and almost no civilians dead and winning a war.
Keep telling yourself that. Obviously, NATO disagrees, which is why they are doubling down while Russia is loathe to escalate.
How are they doubling down? They aint about to enter.
We hear with every escalation that the West is bluffing. Then it turns out that they weren't bluffing.
They are not effective escalations if they don’t change anything. And it’s pretty clear that the west is not fully in charge, see public calls for Ukraine not to strike oil infrastructure. You consistently ascribe too much deep thought to the reactive decision loop in western capitols. They’re all poorly planned “escalations” that don’t work because they’re poorly planned and Russia doesn’t take the bait. Non-response is a form of strategic denial, assuming that the west wants an over reaction and counter escalation from Russia to rally the masses towards a big war the west is in no position to fight.
The problem is that the West has already sunk so many material and political costs into Ukraine that they cannot back down now. So WWIII is the end result.
Never heard that the west is bluffing -- maybe bluffing that it won't help Ukraine as much as they can and that they have certain red lines to not be crossed.
This is why Russia is building a military force in order to be able to fight NATO. I read somewhere that only about 15% of the Russian forces are used on he front against Ukraine.
At each stage of scalation, we hear that the West can't or won't escalate. They do anyway.
Russia's problem is that it has very large borders, and NATO circling them, looking for any weakness. That Russia is unable to subjugate Ukraine (regardless of what percentage of force is used) of course encourages the West to further aggression.
Great article! Much food for thought! Some counterpoints though:
1. Russia might seem strong but it is much weaker, than we propose. Russia has its own Muslim problem in the Caucasus and beyond. The situation is fundamentally unstable as it is based on a personal relationship between Kadyrow and Putin as well as tons of Russian money being funneled south.
2. China is demanding a price and is already getting it. Mongolia is being turned into a Chinese dependency as we speak.
3. The young Russsians in the big cities are just as consume oriented and media addicted as their Western co-generationalists. None of them are going to the war and they will not be forced to.
4. Russia wins the war but can it win the peace? How is Russia going to rule over Millions of resentful Ukrainians? They can´t and the Kremlin knows it. Time the West considers that as well.
Wrong on all points.
1. Russian Muslims are most loyal and fearless battalions. EU could learn a thing or two how to endear such loyalty
2. Russia is literally richest it's ever been and China needs Russia know how. They are are still buying missiles, jet engines and sub tech from Russia. Russia is not the jr partner here.
3. Russia's biggest problem it it doesnt have enough gear for the 100,000 recruits this month due to retarded Ukraine terror attack, and 50K each prior month. Slav men are not effete Westerners who can't even recruit an let invaders overrun thier cities. We love to fight.
4, Ukrainians left will become most loyal battalions like Chechens became after Russia leveled it. Rebuild, pay pensions, treat fairly. Putin already has a plan to give working class several hectares of prime real estate. I bet the house new SBU will scour the earth looking for Zelensky and crew who got them into this mess not Putin.
I generally agree, but not so long ago, when I lived in Ukraine, nationalism was strictly for freaks and losers.
For that matter, Ukraine is not ripe for an insurgency. The one thing that all successful insurgencies have in common is a young population. The median age in Yemen is 19 years old. The median age in Ukraine was over 40, and that before the war.
1. Keep living in denial. That same denial led to this disaster. This Anglo-Saxon arrogance is beyond detrimental - it is insanity and cowardly. It just shows your weakness
2. China cannot risk making Russia an enemy or neutral state. They need the support
3. Young Russians are nothing like the West. Russia is already forming them to fight and defend. Plus, if they are social media savvy, they have seen the West's opinion of Russia.
4.it can win peace after the USA's betrayal. Ukraine already has a growing number of saboteurs
#1 You provide no evidence for this. As far as I have seen, Russia just surpassed Japan in PPP GDP...
#2 Evryone is demanding a price, but ultimately the intentions do matter. China doesn't look like it wants to reincorporate Mongolia, a very big empty country within China, ust wants access to its resources. Mongolia has to rely either on Russia or on China to get its goods out, by land or by air.
#3 lots and lots of Russian volunteers nowadays, including Muslim ones. The Chechens are more than happy to support RFA.
#4 Can Europe sustain a new cold war? that is the question. Russia/China combine can, EU/US cannot.