One thing undergirding all of these, I suspect (and I'm talking about more than just Russia, but "everything") is the state of fundamental epistemic dissonance, not unique historically to the West, but certainly prevalent now.
If people have at least basic agreement on what "Russia" is, they may disagree about what to do about it, but at least there's some basis for coming to an understanding--the shared understanding on what Russia is. But all these factions in the West couldn't even agree on what Russia is and rather than risk a confrontation (among themselves) over figuring out what Russia really is, they covered themselves up on obfuscation masquerading as grand (and vague) moralization. The catch, of course, is that, having done so much moralizing, they'd need to do something if they get pushed, but since these actions are really for covering their own collective a**es, they are always inappropriate for the situation (this, incidentally, makes things even more dangerous--I've been saying that F-16s will be a game changer not because they'll do any good, for example, but they will have to be operated by NATO pilots from bases in NATO countries, and they'll force (and Putin has warned as much) Russia to attack NATO bases that they are operating from.)
But is this really different from anything (really) else? A curious development that has come out of the strange strain of modern "LIberalism," I think, is the notion that the individual has the right to his/her/its own version of the Truth: not only do I have the right to believe whatever I want to believe (about the reality), I'm also entitled to have others treat my beliefs as if it is the Truth. Implicitly, if others dispute my beliefs, not only are they liars (because they are denying "self-evident" Truth), but they are intruding on my individual rights. "Political correctness" increasingly runs on this theme: it's not just that it's impolite to bring up too publicly things that are important to other people for various reasons, but it is that certain things (often of questionable veracity) need to be enshrined as the Truth and that criticizing them should be condemned as sacrilege and heresy--because those who hold these beliefs have the right to have these as the Truth.
The paradox this introduces is too obvious and, besides, the original proponents of Liberalism would be spinning as fast as anything possibly could at this interpretation. But it is also true that socio-political philosophy (Liberalism included) has never been too strong on rigorous epistemology (that's the realm of real science--and even there, what exactly the Truth is is far from obvious: there is, after all, a whole field of philosophy of science for this reason and, ultimately, even they seem to have conceded in the end that science is what scientists do--and scientists are still human, with all the human social and epistemic conventions that may not always be compatible with the Truth. So even the 18th century Liberals punted, as we say in America: the Truth is self-evident, so to speak (and literally stated in American declaration of independence.) Any and every "reasonable" people should be able to see it and agree on what it is. And if they don't, well, those who do not agree with the "reasonable" people must be "unreasonable" and must be reeducated by force or else. (This, incidentally, was actually a fairly common attitude in the middlebrow version of 18th century Liberalism--Robert Darnton's wonderful book, "The Forbidden Best Sellers of the Prerevolutionary France," gets into these--and apparently is still just as common among the modern middlebrow Liberals (of both liberal and conservative stripes, "ideologically" speaking.) The trouble is that LIberalism assumes "rational" individuals--but what is rational is never clearly defined. (Back in the days when I taught game theory, I'd joke to students that "rational" in this context literally means that we assume human thinking follows laws of math because, otherwise, what we are doing would not make sense. I'm not sure if they got what I was saying although that is in fact mostly true.)
Perhaps this is not atypical of bad "bureaucracies": But bureaucracies, in turn, are a product of "Liberal" thinking, that the problem to be addressed can be "measured" and a rational "solution" can be developed and implemented more or less "scientifically." If "rational" is the product of a particular epistemology, it should follow that murky epistemology should lead to confused "rationality" and Frankensteinian "solutions" that muddy the waters rather than converge on something workable.
I think the epistemic problem, the lack of realistic thinking, not taking problems or strategic relations and commitments seriously, not having values or direction simply comes from the ruling class's disconnection from what they rule. Careers are opportunistic and sponsored by a trans-national cartel that has loyalty to nothing. So we have this political class of fake-it-til-you-make-it tryhard yes-men and women. It's been like this for a lot longer (since at least Clinton and Blair) than the new radical liberalism and "my truth" nonsense. And it's been like this periodically through history as democracies' political class succumbs to the oligarchs.
I think it goes to the core of Western civilization. Aka, monotheism.
Logically a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell.
Ideals are not absolutes. Truth, beauty, platonic forms are ideals. Every village totem is an ideal. The clinical term for those who assume ideals as absolute, is obsessive/compulsive.
Having an entire civilization based on the concept means every ideology has to claim universality or be dismissed as murky.
Remember democracy and republicanism originated in pantheistic cultures. The family as godhead. To the Ancients, monotheism meant monoculture. One people, one rule, one god.
The Romans adopted a monotheistic sect as state religion around the time the Empire was rising from the ashes of the Republic. To enshrine The Big Guy Rules.
We have reached the end point. Reductio ad absurdum.
While to the culture, good and bad are some cosmic conflict between righteousness and evil, in nature, it's the basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental. The 1/0 of sentience.
Life is always going to be that conflict between the anarchies of desire and the tyrannies of judgement. The heart and head, youth and age, the future and the past. Tradition and renewal.
Now, replace every occurrence of the word "Truth" with the less hysterical term, "property," and all that is just the rational management of social capital.
Just yesterday, the US announced yet another "accounting error" that allows for the transfer of an additional $6.2 billion to Ukraine. How incredibly convenient, and just as Ukrainian forces were getting slaughtered yet again!
This is a clear signal, that the United States is going to keep doubling down, and that it isn't going to bother to ask Congress. Doubtless additional mysterious and unspecified accounting errors and suchlike will be discovered whenever these might prove helpful in the future. For its part, Congress is happy to not have to exercise any oversight, as this would involve having to take a stand.
Russia has made a lot of miscalculations in this war, most of them stemming from a failure to appreciate how lawless, arbitrary and sociopathic the West is, how quickly and effortlessly it jettisons Muh Rule Of Law! the moment it becomes inconvenient.
And I have zero doubt that NATO is looking to intervene openly.
What does the nominal dollar amount even mean once you begin to run out of whatever is for sale? Isn't the West already rummaging around rather deep into its bag of leftover bits and bobs of war materiel?
Unless the entire west is carefully lying about its stocks of weaponry and industrial capacity, the trope is based on fact. The timeline is debatable. There is a way out of that situation for the west, but as Aurelian has been describing all along, the Liberal structure of the west is unlikely to address it and certainly not in a timely fashion.
So at some point (again, predicting when is difficult) western nations will have to decide between their own military stockpiles and feeding munitions to Ukraine. There are not infinite artillery systems, shells for them, or even built facilities for rapidly increasing production. The US is hopeful it can manufacture a weeks’s worth of shells for Ukraine every month. That’s just math.
We've been hearing that one for months now, and yet it never seems to happen, similar to Russia is collapsing because it's running out of men/missiles/burrito coverings/ cat treats/etc..
If Ukraine really were out of any mission critical arms or munitions, Russia would be advised to pounce now and knock Ukraine out of the war, rather than give their enemies plenty of time to rearm, recruit, regroup and resupply.
Their first accounting gimmick of $3 billion came immediately following the destruction of the first $3 billion patriot system that was sent to Ukraine. I am guessing you are right and they are doubling down for a pair of systems to protect the counter offensive operation that's failing under intensive effective air power.
Maybe they will "double down" in hopes that a few missiles more might end the threat of another total loss when under attack, & it seems idiotic enough for them to give it a try.
According to Murphy, whatever they have planned will also fail. At some point they will claim their failure worked according to their plan A and they will all get a trophy. Then they will move on to another highly planned project to fail at and earn more trophies. It sounds confusing and Biblical because it seems like that is what the Bible's ending chapter is all about. It has always been thought that one of the four mystery horseman represented America, but it's looking shockingly like that might not be the case. It seems like insane demonic swine have taken control and the horses are growing anxious.
well, NATO has essentially been intervening openly since before the start of this present conflict, but yes - i tend to agree with you - it will continue on in greater degrees.. the best analogy i can think of is the person at a casino who keeps doubling down.. this is the usa-nato approach here as i see it.. they don't have a reverse gear, even when they are losing..
there is some truth in what you say and yet, there is some wisdom in letting others continue to act in ways which are ultimately self defeating... glass half full or half empty - one can look at this a few ways..
this is saying much the same thing at the author of this article, which i quoted below - again -" As I’ve pointed out, you should never underestimate the importance of inertia in international politics, particularly when large numbers of states are involved. Continuing to do the same thing, no matter how dumb, is always easier than trying to find a consensus for change."
This is something a bit different from inertia, from "this is the way we've always done it".
This is more like "we can't turn back now, because Muh American Credibility ZOMG and Putler is Hitler has left us no choice but to push The Button ZOMG!"
This is one of the best articles you've written. Very well laid out arguments. However may I suggest another angle that you haven't touched upon.
From a very high level perspective the world is running headlong into an energy and resource deficit. The US and Europe need the massive pool of resources within Russia, especially their energy. There is no other alternative for either of them (yes the US is a very resource rich country but it's consumption is beyond what they have). Ukraine is their attempt at balkanizing Russia so as to plunder their resources.
Without these both the US and Europe will implode. They have no viable fallback position. Regardless of logic or common sense they will continue escalating right up to the end point as they have no other options. Both Russia and China have a clear eyed view of what's coming and have been taking very obvious steps to prepare for it.
Your argument that it'll essentially all fizzle out into Western impotence and squabbling factions is a good one but the energy and resource game of musical chairs that we are fast approaching on a civilisational level will, I fear, trump everything else.
There is one, and for some reason it is even being advertised by some political parties:
reduce consumption (along with energy) by a very substantial amount.
The Green Party where i live asks for about halving the living standards, more determined German groups are nearer to want to reduce to one third of current.
Those plans all assume there will be an impregnable iron curtain to the east with no exchange of goods ever again.
Reducing consumption is a good idea but given the complicated, advanced societies that we live in it's a lot more difficult than it looks.
Everything is interconnected. If you draw back on one area it'll affect many others with unpredictable outcomes.
The other curly aspect of reducing consumption/energy use is that industrial food production is pretty much directly in proportion to energy utilisation. We have a Green's party where I live and while their views are admirable (and similar to what you mentioned above), implementing them would result in a lot of people starving.
> Indeed, one feature of the Washington bureaucracy is that no-one is ever really completely in control of anything, and “US policy” is in practice only an unstable compromise that different groups are more or less willing to support for the time being.
A few years ago I wrote here on Substack: "...the American system of power has the advantage of not being a centralized hierarchy of authoritarian power. It’s more like mafia families (i.e. corporations and the most wealthy actual families) who both cooperate and compete with each other to protect and enhance their own influence. So there is no single-point of failure and no class of subordinate bureaucrats that you might infiltrate. Nobody is in charge. Its a dynamic network constantly rearranging itself around who are the most successful psychotically greedy and domineering mafia bosses."
What I mean by "advantage" here is that the American institutions are more resilient to efforts at reform or revolution coming from the people they govern.
Whitney Webb has written about how big chunks of the federal government evolved and grew hand-in-hand with the mafia and other criminal organizations.
Excellent analysis. I agree that NATO will be paralyzed, unable to reach a consensus. But the west losing is an inherently dangerous situation. An event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 could crystallize a new consensus like a seed crystal in a super saturated solution.
I worry that the people who brought us the Nord Stream attack will manufacture such an event.
Possibly it is current Ukrainian leadership, in desperate mode, the one that could more likely resort to such kinds of events. They have already tried some, so far, small scale incidents. Many speculate with the Zhaporizhie nuclear plant as an objective for such a stunt.
Thanks. This is a really great analysis. You recognise the messiness and plurality involved in decision making (or perhaps lack of decision making....), as well as the difficulty of making predictions.
I recall a speech by AJP Taylor where he said that the historian cannot predict the future. This is because the historian is aware of all of the possible outcomes and understands that nothing is predetermined. Your analyses are very consistent with that reality. There is no cabal of elites dreaming up a master plan: just various people / groups coalescing around agendas that seemingly further their own interests.
As you seem to say too, those western elites of today are particularly low in ability and particularly disconnected from the concerns of non PMC members.
Think of them as spoiled children, used to getting their way.
Except these are more like absolute monarchs, who can order your head cut off if you tell them that they did their sums wrong or didn't kowtow quickly enough to suit His Little Highness.
This is an excellent analysis, though it overlooks the driving financial aspects.
We tend to concentrate on the political, because it is the decision making function, but that is entirely within the financial and economic parameters laid out for it.
Government, as executive and regulatory function, is the central nervous system of the state. While money and banking amount to blood and the circulation system. With public government and private banking, the banks rule, as there is less oversight, they don't have to plan around election cycles and control the finances of anyone actually running for office.
Consequently the one real job the flunkies and moral prostitutes willing to sell their souls for political office have, is running up the debt the banks need to function. The secret sauce of capitalism is public debt backing private wealth. "The real money is in bonds."
We are linear, goal oriented creatures in a cyclical, circular, reciprocal, feedback generated reality, so while people see money as signal to save and store, markets need it to circulate. Consequently Econ 101 refers to it as bothe medium of exchange and store of value. Though a medium is inherently dynamic, while a store is static. Blood is a medium, fat is a store. Roads are a medium, parking lots are a store. The hallway is a medium, the hall closet is a store. Would doctors, highway engineers, or your more intelligent five year old confuse them?
The Federal debt has been growing since the New Deal, so not only was Roosevelt putting unemployed labor back to work, but unemployed capital, as well. Then World War 2 came along, as the largest public works project in history and the die was cast.
The fact is and should be apparent to any sentient citizen, that there isn't the investment potential for everyone to save individually, hence the derivatives market and all the other forms of gambling masquerading as investments, yet we do save for many of the same reasons, so the logical solution would be various forms of public commons and public works. Unfortunately the only one American culture can wrap its adolescent brain around, is the military.
Consequently the only tool in the tool box is the military and so our stage actors have devolved into psychopaths. Basically delinquent children with matches and gasoline.
That is why our politics is so totally incoherent and the only thing they can all agree to, is playing cowboys and Indians on the other side of the planet.
What will bring it all down, is when the dollar does implode, which it eventually will, given the drug dealer called the Federal Reserve is its only lobbyist.
Then states and regions will have to start issuing local currencies. Like when the big tree falls, saplings spring up in the light. At which point, foreign policy will be between Texas and California, etc.
Keep in mind, Russia and China have effectively returned to private government, with Putin and Xi as respective CEO's of Russia Inc. and China Inc. Specifically to control the oligarchs and would be oligarchs.
What we should be considering is whether it is time to make banking a public utility, as well.
As a medium, we own money like we own the section of road we are using, or the air and water flowing through our bodies. It's not our picture on it, we don't hold the copyrights and are not responsible for its value, like a personal check. It functions as a public utility, a contract between society and the individual and needs to be treated as such. The banks are certainly having their, "Let them eat cake." moment.
“There’s no indication that Merkel and Hollande themselves perceived their support for Ukraine, and the Minsk II agreement as hostile acts, nor, critically, that they believed the Russians would perceive them as hostile either.” This anodyne view of Merkel and Hollande’s intentions is comprehensively disproved by their recent admissions that they clearly saw the Minsk agreements as a cover to allow the Ukraine to be re-armed to a point where it could openly confront Russia.
“It is unlikely . . . “ etc.There is evidence that the situation in the Ukraine was being planned at least 20 years ago in documents from the ‘Rand’ organisation and similar right-wing US think tanks. Numerous warnings were given to the US government since the breakup of the USSR that extending NATO - especially to the Ukraine would inevitably provoke Russia to action, but these warnings were ignored by Presidents from Clinton on. It is also a matter of record that Victoria Nuland (for one), was not some lonely individual, lost in a “much wider community”, but a very powerful person with a high ranking within the Biden administration (and possibly about to get an even higher position soon). This poisonous character played a leading role in the US coup on the Ukranian government. She (and I believe, Blinken) are of Ukranian ancestry, and have a deep seated loathing of Russia which has driven their lawless actions.
Your thesis (“Thus, the sense of panic . . . “ etc.) that Russia’s action came as a surprise to these people is not supported by the evidence - i.e as noted above, that this was a plan long in preparation. Further, your idea that there was no plan because NATO/the US/the MIC were not prepared for a long conflict is false because a) they all thought that sanctions would cause an almost immediate collapse of the Russian economy, and b) being people who “make their own reality” they also believed that the US is still a superpower with super weapons which were much superior to Russian equivalents. As you say,” Drunk on self-generated delusions of superiority and omnipotence“ and “they can come to believe (and even convince others) that they have the power to make it happen”. Well, news for you maybe, but Biden, Nuland, Blinken and their associates actually did make it happen, with the previous help of Clinton et al.
It beats me why someone with your breadth of knowlege would try to obscure this very clear scenario.
"There’s no indication that Merkel and Hollande themselves perceived their support for Ukraine, and the Minsk II agreement as hostile acts, nor, critically, that they believed the Russians would perceive them as hostile either."
What? Both Merkel and Hollande are on record saying Minsk agreements were a blind for them to train up now-404 country to conquer Russia. Maybe Russians did not perceive Minsk agreements as hostile acts at the time of signing, but after Merkel and Hollande essentially gloated that they were deceiving Russia at Minsk I & II, Russia said, in effect, "OK you want to do business with me. I will do business with you."
If you begin from the postulate that there was a deep international conspiracy to arm Ukraine and bring about a war (a very incompetent conspiracy in truth) then the remarks of Merkel and Hollande can be made to fit that interpretation. But in fact, if you look at the words they used, they actually say that the Ukrainians were losing against the Russian-backed separatists, and that it wasn't enough just to stop the conflict, Ukraine's independence had to be preserved. There's nothing about conquering or even fighting Russia. And, as others have done, you can wrap statements by others in different countries into a facsimile of a plot. But as I said plots like this don't happen in real life.
Western policy from about 2005 was to support Ukraine to keep the Russians away. It wasn't a well-thought-out policy, and it was one that understandably alarmed the Russians, and ultimately brought about the current war. Some expressions of it were dangerous and even stupid, and it's not surprising the Russians felt threatened. It was a shambles, not a conspiracy.
It's not just my opinion - no less a person than Mr Lavrov says:
Lavrov told a press conference. “Well, let them fight, we are ready for this, we have long understood the goals of NATO in the situation around Ukraine, which have been formed for many years.”
Thanks for your reply. I think I follow it and, point taken. If I may line out my own thoughts in response . . . .
A deep international conspiracy to arm Ukraine against Russia (aka "to bring about a war," as in, against whom else than Russia?), incompetent or not, is not what I had in mind.
A general, nursed, ignorant, obdurate, self-promoting enmity against Russia and Russians, on both sides of the Atlantic, but less so in The USA than in West Eurasia (Europe), and most of that just propaganda-induced, is how I would describe the background sinews and phenomenology. West Eurasians (Europeans) have been roughly handled by Russians many times over -- principally because they essayed to conquer Russia and piece her out for private delectation -- whereas, Americans have been kindly handled by Russians overall -- even overall by Soviet Russians, who never did pour through the Fulda Gap, and now by Federal Russians, who have not (yet) sent Mr. Zircon to visit the US Capitol Building, wherein the prime culprits in this perishing mess spout and moan -- since our Civil War Between The States and subsequently.
Then there is this: "Ukraine's independence had to be preserved." Clearly, that is the attitude amongst the holders of mechanisms of national powers -- as distinct from the substrate of national authorities -- the *officials* wielding powers of government in West Eurasia and North America.
Which begs the question, *Why* does Ukraine's independence have to be preserved? My assessment -- certainly nothing even close to omniscient or final -- is that to those holders, one could say usurpers, of mechanisms of national powers -- our blessed US-UK-EU-NATO *officials* -- Ukraine is a cudgel, useful at least awhile, with which to beat Russia and hope for a pulverization or at least a debilitation sufficient to permit US-UK financial speculators to buy up Russia at bargain prices (cf. Clinton Oval Office era) and conduct there, and steadily elsewhere, a Highland Clearances at scale, so to speak, with a view to charging anyone there subsequently -- and everywhere else -- rent for everything they need to survive in such vassalage as they are permitted to endure.
In sum, I believe we observe and remark regarding North American and West Eurasian *officials* fanatical fetishes of 21st Century Sicarii.
You are probably right in your assessment. At least as far as the intention of the Europeans is concerned. However, it seems to me that the U.S. plans went beyond that. Biden spoke out in favor of regime change in Moscow shortly after the invasion began. And from a strategic point of view, this makes perfect sense for the US. Install a pro-Western leader in the Kremlin and position him against China. In my view, that would have been the end of the BRICS & BRI.
Actually I'm not even sure these two were really planning to deceive Russia when they were negotiating Minsk agreements.
It's quite possible they said that years later just because after February 2022, it looked definitely too bad to have negotiated anything anytime with the evil Russians.
Especially with Ukraine winning the war and Russia on the verge of military and economic collapse. Or so they thought ...
Our host has discussed the effects of a (possible) Russian victory in the West. However, there might also be nonlinear repercussions in MENA after such an event, initiating sequentially or simultaneously in Syria, Iran, Israel and Libya, and then progressing through the entire region. This could lead to further disruption of energy supplies to Europe, and might mean the demise of both NATO and the EU despite “desperate efforts”. It would be poetic justice if La Baerbock were reduced to giving trampoline exhibitions wearing an Ukrainian flag to support the Green German Economy…
I like to bin analysis into categories of probability, such as likely, probable, possible, etc. These days I see a great many possibles but far fewer probables. It is probable, even likely, that Russia defeats Ukraine. Exactly how and what that means though is just a mess of possibilities. Like you the only thing I’m quite confident in is the incompetence of western elites and politicians. They are not capable of rising to the historical moment they’ve prompted. These are not serious people.
I worry about brittleness and cascading failure in official and unofficial institutions of the west because the people in charge of them don’t have the competence to hold things together. Are the people who’ve only ever written consensus memos capable of stepping up when someone needs to? I suppose we’ll find out.
I still remain amazed the Western media is so controlled by the "establishment" and their narrative, that they are not really reporting the Ukrainian defeats and losses with any real degree of honesty. I am not naive about the nature of politics & major media, but I would have thought there were enough true journalists left to push the boundaries. (I read the BBC every day and note their heavy pro Ukraine bias and laugh at the so called public, no doubt with a heavy Ukrainian propaganda presence, comments on the HYS that sometimes accompanies the Russian/Ukraine war).
I agree with Aurelien's comments about predicting the future (and as Yogi Berra said "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future"). I follow quite a few commentators that believe a Russian victory will be disastrous and likely the end of the EU and NATO. So it was good to read a more nuanced perspective.
great overview of the possible scenarios forthcoming over this conflict.. thanks..
i especially liked this quote from you - "The problem arises, of course, when a fragile compromise policy like this runs into the buffers, and has to be re-thought. As I’ve pointed out, you should never underestimate the importance of inertia in international politics, particularly when large numbers of states are involved. Continuing to do the same thing, no matter how dumb, is always easier than trying to find a consensus for change."
I like this essay and am going to read earlier ones. Aurelien, I miss mention of the small but powerful class of big money, the actual imperial rulers dominating the PMC. These are men who want to rule the world, and when that proves impossible, they will cling to at least the rump of the empire. These ultra rich finance capitalists are going to inflict a lot of pain to their millions of subjects when defeat in Project Weaken Russia becomes a fact for everyone to behold. They will of course do that in any case, but I suppose it will be more virulent from now on.
One thing undergirding all of these, I suspect (and I'm talking about more than just Russia, but "everything") is the state of fundamental epistemic dissonance, not unique historically to the West, but certainly prevalent now.
If people have at least basic agreement on what "Russia" is, they may disagree about what to do about it, but at least there's some basis for coming to an understanding--the shared understanding on what Russia is. But all these factions in the West couldn't even agree on what Russia is and rather than risk a confrontation (among themselves) over figuring out what Russia really is, they covered themselves up on obfuscation masquerading as grand (and vague) moralization. The catch, of course, is that, having done so much moralizing, they'd need to do something if they get pushed, but since these actions are really for covering their own collective a**es, they are always inappropriate for the situation (this, incidentally, makes things even more dangerous--I've been saying that F-16s will be a game changer not because they'll do any good, for example, but they will have to be operated by NATO pilots from bases in NATO countries, and they'll force (and Putin has warned as much) Russia to attack NATO bases that they are operating from.)
But is this really different from anything (really) else? A curious development that has come out of the strange strain of modern "LIberalism," I think, is the notion that the individual has the right to his/her/its own version of the Truth: not only do I have the right to believe whatever I want to believe (about the reality), I'm also entitled to have others treat my beliefs as if it is the Truth. Implicitly, if others dispute my beliefs, not only are they liars (because they are denying "self-evident" Truth), but they are intruding on my individual rights. "Political correctness" increasingly runs on this theme: it's not just that it's impolite to bring up too publicly things that are important to other people for various reasons, but it is that certain things (often of questionable veracity) need to be enshrined as the Truth and that criticizing them should be condemned as sacrilege and heresy--because those who hold these beliefs have the right to have these as the Truth.
The paradox this introduces is too obvious and, besides, the original proponents of Liberalism would be spinning as fast as anything possibly could at this interpretation. But it is also true that socio-political philosophy (Liberalism included) has never been too strong on rigorous epistemology (that's the realm of real science--and even there, what exactly the Truth is is far from obvious: there is, after all, a whole field of philosophy of science for this reason and, ultimately, even they seem to have conceded in the end that science is what scientists do--and scientists are still human, with all the human social and epistemic conventions that may not always be compatible with the Truth. So even the 18th century Liberals punted, as we say in America: the Truth is self-evident, so to speak (and literally stated in American declaration of independence.) Any and every "reasonable" people should be able to see it and agree on what it is. And if they don't, well, those who do not agree with the "reasonable" people must be "unreasonable" and must be reeducated by force or else. (This, incidentally, was actually a fairly common attitude in the middlebrow version of 18th century Liberalism--Robert Darnton's wonderful book, "The Forbidden Best Sellers of the Prerevolutionary France," gets into these--and apparently is still just as common among the modern middlebrow Liberals (of both liberal and conservative stripes, "ideologically" speaking.) The trouble is that LIberalism assumes "rational" individuals--but what is rational is never clearly defined. (Back in the days when I taught game theory, I'd joke to students that "rational" in this context literally means that we assume human thinking follows laws of math because, otherwise, what we are doing would not make sense. I'm not sure if they got what I was saying although that is in fact mostly true.)
Perhaps this is not atypical of bad "bureaucracies": But bureaucracies, in turn, are a product of "Liberal" thinking, that the problem to be addressed can be "measured" and a rational "solution" can be developed and implemented more or less "scientifically." If "rational" is the product of a particular epistemology, it should follow that murky epistemology should lead to confused "rationality" and Frankensteinian "solutions" that muddy the waters rather than converge on something workable.
I think the epistemic problem, the lack of realistic thinking, not taking problems or strategic relations and commitments seriously, not having values or direction simply comes from the ruling class's disconnection from what they rule. Careers are opportunistic and sponsored by a trans-national cartel that has loyalty to nothing. So we have this political class of fake-it-til-you-make-it tryhard yes-men and women. It's been like this for a lot longer (since at least Clinton and Blair) than the new radical liberalism and "my truth" nonsense. And it's been like this periodically through history as democracies' political class succumbs to the oligarchs.
I think it goes to the core of Western civilization. Aka, monotheism.
Logically a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell.
Ideals are not absolutes. Truth, beauty, platonic forms are ideals. Every village totem is an ideal. The clinical term for those who assume ideals as absolute, is obsessive/compulsive.
Having an entire civilization based on the concept means every ideology has to claim universality or be dismissed as murky.
Remember democracy and republicanism originated in pantheistic cultures. The family as godhead. To the Ancients, monotheism meant monoculture. One people, one rule, one god.
The Romans adopted a monotheistic sect as state religion around the time the Empire was rising from the ashes of the Republic. To enshrine The Big Guy Rules.
We have reached the end point. Reductio ad absurdum.
While to the culture, good and bad are some cosmic conflict between righteousness and evil, in nature, it's the basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental. The 1/0 of sentience.
Life is always going to be that conflict between the anarchies of desire and the tyrannies of judgement. The heart and head, youth and age, the future and the past. Tradition and renewal.
More yin and yang, than God Almighty.
Vibes, not boxes.
Now, replace every occurrence of the word "Truth" with the less hysterical term, "property," and all that is just the rational management of social capital.
Just yesterday, the US announced yet another "accounting error" that allows for the transfer of an additional $6.2 billion to Ukraine. How incredibly convenient, and just as Ukrainian forces were getting slaughtered yet again!
This is a clear signal, that the United States is going to keep doubling down, and that it isn't going to bother to ask Congress. Doubtless additional mysterious and unspecified accounting errors and suchlike will be discovered whenever these might prove helpful in the future. For its part, Congress is happy to not have to exercise any oversight, as this would involve having to take a stand.
Russia has made a lot of miscalculations in this war, most of them stemming from a failure to appreciate how lawless, arbitrary and sociopathic the West is, how quickly and effortlessly it jettisons Muh Rule Of Law! the moment it becomes inconvenient.
And I have zero doubt that NATO is looking to intervene openly.
What does the nominal dollar amount even mean once you begin to run out of whatever is for sale? Isn't the West already rummaging around rather deep into its bag of leftover bits and bobs of war materiel?
That's the trope that Russia supporters tell themselves, but there'd be no need for such games if the trope had more basis in fact.
Unless the entire west is carefully lying about its stocks of weaponry and industrial capacity, the trope is based on fact. The timeline is debatable. There is a way out of that situation for the west, but as Aurelian has been describing all along, the Liberal structure of the west is unlikely to address it and certainly not in a timely fashion.
So at some point (again, predicting when is difficult) western nations will have to decide between their own military stockpiles and feeding munitions to Ukraine. There are not infinite artillery systems, shells for them, or even built facilities for rapidly increasing production. The US is hopeful it can manufacture a weeks’s worth of shells for Ukraine every month. That’s just math.
We've been hearing that one for months now, and yet it never seems to happen, similar to Russia is collapsing because it's running out of men/missiles/burrito coverings/ cat treats/etc..
If Ukraine really were out of any mission critical arms or munitions, Russia would be advised to pounce now and knock Ukraine out of the war, rather than give their enemies plenty of time to rearm, recruit, regroup and resupply.
Their first accounting gimmick of $3 billion came immediately following the destruction of the first $3 billion patriot system that was sent to Ukraine. I am guessing you are right and they are doubling down for a pair of systems to protect the counter offensive operation that's failing under intensive effective air power.
*If* the Patriot batteries protecting Kiev were in fact destroyed or damaged, what makes anyone think that they'll do any better in Zaporozhe?
Maybe they will "double down" in hopes that a few missiles more might end the threat of another total loss when under attack, & it seems idiotic enough for them to give it a try.
And when that doesn't get the desired results, and Russia doesn't respond in kind?
According to Murphy, whatever they have planned will also fail. At some point they will claim their failure worked according to their plan A and they will all get a trophy. Then they will move on to another highly planned project to fail at and earn more trophies. It sounds confusing and Biblical because it seems like that is what the Bible's ending chapter is all about. It has always been thought that one of the four mystery horseman represented America, but it's looking shockingly like that might not be the case. It seems like insane demonic swine have taken control and the horses are growing anxious.
I have no idea who "Murphy" might be, but "don't worry, the Bible's got this!" sounds rather vague for my taste.
well, NATO has essentially been intervening openly since before the start of this present conflict, but yes - i tend to agree with you - it will continue on in greater degrees.. the best analogy i can think of is the person at a casino who keeps doubling down.. this is the usa-nato approach here as i see it.. they don't have a reverse gear, even when they are losing..
This is in large part because Russia has failed to respond red line after red line being ignored.
Hence the West has lost all fear of Russia.
there is some truth in what you say and yet, there is some wisdom in letting others continue to act in ways which are ultimately self defeating... glass half full or half empty - one can look at this a few ways..
The West's hysterical rhetoric combined with the resources already poured into means that they cannot be seen to back down.
This abuse of the Sunk Cost Fallacy is entirely intentional.
this is saying much the same thing at the author of this article, which i quoted below - again -" As I’ve pointed out, you should never underestimate the importance of inertia in international politics, particularly when large numbers of states are involved. Continuing to do the same thing, no matter how dumb, is always easier than trying to find a consensus for change."
This is something a bit different from inertia, from "this is the way we've always done it".
This is more like "we can't turn back now, because Muh American Credibility ZOMG and Putler is Hitler has left us no choice but to push The Button ZOMG!"
This is one of the best articles you've written. Very well laid out arguments. However may I suggest another angle that you haven't touched upon.
From a very high level perspective the world is running headlong into an energy and resource deficit. The US and Europe need the massive pool of resources within Russia, especially their energy. There is no other alternative for either of them (yes the US is a very resource rich country but it's consumption is beyond what they have). Ukraine is their attempt at balkanizing Russia so as to plunder their resources.
Without these both the US and Europe will implode. They have no viable fallback position. Regardless of logic or common sense they will continue escalating right up to the end point as they have no other options. Both Russia and China have a clear eyed view of what's coming and have been taking very obvious steps to prepare for it.
Your argument that it'll essentially all fizzle out into Western impotence and squabbling factions is a good one but the energy and resource game of musical chairs that we are fast approaching on a civilisational level will, I fear, trump everything else.
"They have no viable fallback position"
There is one, and for some reason it is even being advertised by some political parties:
reduce consumption (along with energy) by a very substantial amount.
The Green Party where i live asks for about halving the living standards, more determined German groups are nearer to want to reduce to one third of current.
Those plans all assume there will be an impregnable iron curtain to the east with no exchange of goods ever again.
Reducing consumption is a good idea but given the complicated, advanced societies that we live in it's a lot more difficult than it looks.
Everything is interconnected. If you draw back on one area it'll affect many others with unpredictable outcomes.
The other curly aspect of reducing consumption/energy use is that industrial food production is pretty much directly in proportion to energy utilisation. We have a Green's party where I live and while their views are admirable (and similar to what you mentioned above), implementing them would result in a lot of people starving.
> Indeed, one feature of the Washington bureaucracy is that no-one is ever really completely in control of anything, and “US policy” is in practice only an unstable compromise that different groups are more or less willing to support for the time being.
A few years ago I wrote here on Substack: "...the American system of power has the advantage of not being a centralized hierarchy of authoritarian power. It’s more like mafia families (i.e. corporations and the most wealthy actual families) who both cooperate and compete with each other to protect and enhance their own influence. So there is no single-point of failure and no class of subordinate bureaucrats that you might infiltrate. Nobody is in charge. Its a dynamic network constantly rearranging itself around who are the most successful psychotically greedy and domineering mafia bosses."
What I mean by "advantage" here is that the American institutions are more resilient to efforts at reform or revolution coming from the people they govern.
Whitney Webb has written about how big chunks of the federal government evolved and grew hand-in-hand with the mafia and other criminal organizations.
Excellent analysis. I agree that NATO will be paralyzed, unable to reach a consensus. But the west losing is an inherently dangerous situation. An event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 could crystallize a new consensus like a seed crystal in a super saturated solution.
I worry that the people who brought us the Nord Stream attack will manufacture such an event.
Possibly it is current Ukrainian leadership, in desperate mode, the one that could more likely resort to such kinds of events. They have already tried some, so far, small scale incidents. Many speculate with the Zhaporizhie nuclear plant as an objective for such a stunt.
Thanks. This is a really great analysis. You recognise the messiness and plurality involved in decision making (or perhaps lack of decision making....), as well as the difficulty of making predictions.
I recall a speech by AJP Taylor where he said that the historian cannot predict the future. This is because the historian is aware of all of the possible outcomes and understands that nothing is predetermined. Your analyses are very consistent with that reality. There is no cabal of elites dreaming up a master plan: just various people / groups coalescing around agendas that seemingly further their own interests.
As you seem to say too, those western elites of today are particularly low in ability and particularly disconnected from the concerns of non PMC members.
Think of them as spoiled children, used to getting their way.
Except these are more like absolute monarchs, who can order your head cut off if you tell them that they did their sums wrong or didn't kowtow quickly enough to suit His Little Highness.
This is an excellent analysis, though it overlooks the driving financial aspects.
We tend to concentrate on the political, because it is the decision making function, but that is entirely within the financial and economic parameters laid out for it.
Government, as executive and regulatory function, is the central nervous system of the state. While money and banking amount to blood and the circulation system. With public government and private banking, the banks rule, as there is less oversight, they don't have to plan around election cycles and control the finances of anyone actually running for office.
Consequently the one real job the flunkies and moral prostitutes willing to sell their souls for political office have, is running up the debt the banks need to function. The secret sauce of capitalism is public debt backing private wealth. "The real money is in bonds."
We are linear, goal oriented creatures in a cyclical, circular, reciprocal, feedback generated reality, so while people see money as signal to save and store, markets need it to circulate. Consequently Econ 101 refers to it as bothe medium of exchange and store of value. Though a medium is inherently dynamic, while a store is static. Blood is a medium, fat is a store. Roads are a medium, parking lots are a store. The hallway is a medium, the hall closet is a store. Would doctors, highway engineers, or your more intelligent five year old confuse them?
The Federal debt has been growing since the New Deal, so not only was Roosevelt putting unemployed labor back to work, but unemployed capital, as well. Then World War 2 came along, as the largest public works project in history and the die was cast.
The fact is and should be apparent to any sentient citizen, that there isn't the investment potential for everyone to save individually, hence the derivatives market and all the other forms of gambling masquerading as investments, yet we do save for many of the same reasons, so the logical solution would be various forms of public commons and public works. Unfortunately the only one American culture can wrap its adolescent brain around, is the military.
Consequently the only tool in the tool box is the military and so our stage actors have devolved into psychopaths. Basically delinquent children with matches and gasoline.
That is why our politics is so totally incoherent and the only thing they can all agree to, is playing cowboys and Indians on the other side of the planet.
What will bring it all down, is when the dollar does implode, which it eventually will, given the drug dealer called the Federal Reserve is its only lobbyist.
Then states and regions will have to start issuing local currencies. Like when the big tree falls, saplings spring up in the light. At which point, foreign policy will be between Texas and California, etc.
Keep in mind, Russia and China have effectively returned to private government, with Putin and Xi as respective CEO's of Russia Inc. and China Inc. Specifically to control the oligarchs and would be oligarchs.
What we should be considering is whether it is time to make banking a public utility, as well.
As a medium, we own money like we own the section of road we are using, or the air and water flowing through our bodies. It's not our picture on it, we don't hold the copyrights and are not responsible for its value, like a personal check. It functions as a public utility, a contract between society and the individual and needs to be treated as such. The banks are certainly having their, "Let them eat cake." moment.
http://www.publicbankinginstitute.org
As for Ukraine, maybe one day, we extradite various of our neocons to Ukraine, to be tried by a tribunal of mothers and widows.
“There’s no indication that Merkel and Hollande themselves perceived their support for Ukraine, and the Minsk II agreement as hostile acts, nor, critically, that they believed the Russians would perceive them as hostile either.” This anodyne view of Merkel and Hollande’s intentions is comprehensively disproved by their recent admissions that they clearly saw the Minsk agreements as a cover to allow the Ukraine to be re-armed to a point where it could openly confront Russia.
“It is unlikely . . . “ etc.There is evidence that the situation in the Ukraine was being planned at least 20 years ago in documents from the ‘Rand’ organisation and similar right-wing US think tanks. Numerous warnings were given to the US government since the breakup of the USSR that extending NATO - especially to the Ukraine would inevitably provoke Russia to action, but these warnings were ignored by Presidents from Clinton on. It is also a matter of record that Victoria Nuland (for one), was not some lonely individual, lost in a “much wider community”, but a very powerful person with a high ranking within the Biden administration (and possibly about to get an even higher position soon). This poisonous character played a leading role in the US coup on the Ukranian government. She (and I believe, Blinken) are of Ukranian ancestry, and have a deep seated loathing of Russia which has driven their lawless actions.
Your thesis (“Thus, the sense of panic . . . “ etc.) that Russia’s action came as a surprise to these people is not supported by the evidence - i.e as noted above, that this was a plan long in preparation. Further, your idea that there was no plan because NATO/the US/the MIC were not prepared for a long conflict is false because a) they all thought that sanctions would cause an almost immediate collapse of the Russian economy, and b) being people who “make their own reality” they also believed that the US is still a superpower with super weapons which were much superior to Russian equivalents. As you say,” Drunk on self-generated delusions of superiority and omnipotence“ and “they can come to believe (and even convince others) that they have the power to make it happen”. Well, news for you maybe, but Biden, Nuland, Blinken and their associates actually did make it happen, with the previous help of Clinton et al.
It beats me why someone with your breadth of knowlege would try to obscure this very clear scenario.
"There’s no indication that Merkel and Hollande themselves perceived their support for Ukraine, and the Minsk II agreement as hostile acts, nor, critically, that they believed the Russians would perceive them as hostile either."
What? Both Merkel and Hollande are on record saying Minsk agreements were a blind for them to train up now-404 country to conquer Russia. Maybe Russians did not perceive Minsk agreements as hostile acts at the time of signing, but after Merkel and Hollande essentially gloated that they were deceiving Russia at Minsk I & II, Russia said, in effect, "OK you want to do business with me. I will do business with you."
Am I misunderstanding your point, Aurelien?
If you begin from the postulate that there was a deep international conspiracy to arm Ukraine and bring about a war (a very incompetent conspiracy in truth) then the remarks of Merkel and Hollande can be made to fit that interpretation. But in fact, if you look at the words they used, they actually say that the Ukrainians were losing against the Russian-backed separatists, and that it wasn't enough just to stop the conflict, Ukraine's independence had to be preserved. There's nothing about conquering or even fighting Russia. And, as others have done, you can wrap statements by others in different countries into a facsimile of a plot. But as I said plots like this don't happen in real life.
Western policy from about 2005 was to support Ukraine to keep the Russians away. It wasn't a well-thought-out policy, and it was one that understandably alarmed the Russians, and ultimately brought about the current war. Some expressions of it were dangerous and even stupid, and it's not surprising the Russians felt threatened. It was a shambles, not a conspiracy.
It's not just my opinion - no less a person than Mr Lavrov says:
Lavrov told a press conference. “Well, let them fight, we are ready for this, we have long understood the goals of NATO in the situation around Ukraine, which have been formed for many years.”
Thanks for your reply. I think I follow it and, point taken. If I may line out my own thoughts in response . . . .
A deep international conspiracy to arm Ukraine against Russia (aka "to bring about a war," as in, against whom else than Russia?), incompetent or not, is not what I had in mind.
A general, nursed, ignorant, obdurate, self-promoting enmity against Russia and Russians, on both sides of the Atlantic, but less so in The USA than in West Eurasia (Europe), and most of that just propaganda-induced, is how I would describe the background sinews and phenomenology. West Eurasians (Europeans) have been roughly handled by Russians many times over -- principally because they essayed to conquer Russia and piece her out for private delectation -- whereas, Americans have been kindly handled by Russians overall -- even overall by Soviet Russians, who never did pour through the Fulda Gap, and now by Federal Russians, who have not (yet) sent Mr. Zircon to visit the US Capitol Building, wherein the prime culprits in this perishing mess spout and moan -- since our Civil War Between The States and subsequently.
Then there is this: "Ukraine's independence had to be preserved." Clearly, that is the attitude amongst the holders of mechanisms of national powers -- as distinct from the substrate of national authorities -- the *officials* wielding powers of government in West Eurasia and North America.
Which begs the question, *Why* does Ukraine's independence have to be preserved? My assessment -- certainly nothing even close to omniscient or final -- is that to those holders, one could say usurpers, of mechanisms of national powers -- our blessed US-UK-EU-NATO *officials* -- Ukraine is a cudgel, useful at least awhile, with which to beat Russia and hope for a pulverization or at least a debilitation sufficient to permit US-UK financial speculators to buy up Russia at bargain prices (cf. Clinton Oval Office era) and conduct there, and steadily elsewhere, a Highland Clearances at scale, so to speak, with a view to charging anyone there subsequently -- and everywhere else -- rent for everything they need to survive in such vassalage as they are permitted to endure.
In sum, I believe we observe and remark regarding North American and West Eurasian *officials* fanatical fetishes of 21st Century Sicarii.
You are probably right in your assessment. At least as far as the intention of the Europeans is concerned. However, it seems to me that the U.S. plans went beyond that. Biden spoke out in favor of regime change in Moscow shortly after the invasion began. And from a strategic point of view, this makes perfect sense for the US. Install a pro-Western leader in the Kremlin and position him against China. In my view, that would have been the end of the BRICS & BRI.
Actually I'm not even sure these two were really planning to deceive Russia when they were negotiating Minsk agreements.
It's quite possible they said that years later just because after February 2022, it looked definitely too bad to have negotiated anything anytime with the evil Russians.
Especially with Ukraine winning the war and Russia on the verge of military and economic collapse. Or so they thought ...
Possible, IMO not probable. Cf. above my response to our host's well-considered response to my comment on his original.
Our host has discussed the effects of a (possible) Russian victory in the West. However, there might also be nonlinear repercussions in MENA after such an event, initiating sequentially or simultaneously in Syria, Iran, Israel and Libya, and then progressing through the entire region. This could lead to further disruption of energy supplies to Europe, and might mean the demise of both NATO and the EU despite “desperate efforts”. It would be poetic justice if La Baerbock were reduced to giving trampoline exhibitions wearing an Ukrainian flag to support the Green German Economy…
Interesting times.
Ishmael Zechariah
I like to bin analysis into categories of probability, such as likely, probable, possible, etc. These days I see a great many possibles but far fewer probables. It is probable, even likely, that Russia defeats Ukraine. Exactly how and what that means though is just a mess of possibilities. Like you the only thing I’m quite confident in is the incompetence of western elites and politicians. They are not capable of rising to the historical moment they’ve prompted. These are not serious people.
I worry about brittleness and cascading failure in official and unofficial institutions of the west because the people in charge of them don’t have the competence to hold things together. Are the people who’ve only ever written consensus memos capable of stepping up when someone needs to? I suppose we’ll find out.
Thank you for your work! And that comes from German born in USSR and educated in Ukraine.
A German born in the USSR, educated in Ukraine and with a nickname in Spanish!
Fight of Spain against fascism was highly regarded in USSR. Call " No pasaran" was known by every child !
Had a good laugh at the "Communique parody" !
I still remain amazed the Western media is so controlled by the "establishment" and their narrative, that they are not really reporting the Ukrainian defeats and losses with any real degree of honesty. I am not naive about the nature of politics & major media, but I would have thought there were enough true journalists left to push the boundaries. (I read the BBC every day and note their heavy pro Ukraine bias and laugh at the so called public, no doubt with a heavy Ukrainian propaganda presence, comments on the HYS that sometimes accompanies the Russian/Ukraine war).
I agree with Aurelien's comments about predicting the future (and as Yogi Berra said "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future"). I follow quite a few commentators that believe a Russian victory will be disastrous and likely the end of the EU and NATO. So it was good to read a more nuanced perspective.
great overview of the possible scenarios forthcoming over this conflict.. thanks..
i especially liked this quote from you - "The problem arises, of course, when a fragile compromise policy like this runs into the buffers, and has to be re-thought. As I’ve pointed out, you should never underestimate the importance of inertia in international politics, particularly when large numbers of states are involved. Continuing to do the same thing, no matter how dumb, is always easier than trying to find a consensus for change."
I like this essay and am going to read earlier ones. Aurelien, I miss mention of the small but powerful class of big money, the actual imperial rulers dominating the PMC. These are men who want to rule the world, and when that proves impossible, they will cling to at least the rump of the empire. These ultra rich finance capitalists are going to inflict a lot of pain to their millions of subjects when defeat in Project Weaken Russia becomes a fact for everyone to behold. They will of course do that in any case, but I suppose it will be more virulent from now on.
Russia wins this - as discussed . . . https://les7eb.substack.com/p/washingtons-ukraina-grandioznaya
Same subject matter - different approach.