I'm reminded of a quote from The Great Crash 1929, by John Kenneth Galbraith "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
I have to wonder how long the west can maintain the global hegemony house of cards, what it looks like when it crumbles, and what happens in the aftermath. I'm not holding my breath though.
I told you this would happen. I wish I were wrong. If any further proof were needed that Russian dithering was foolish, that the West has already invested so much into Ukraine that the would rather blow us all up than lose, well, here you are.
Some actors were completely left out here, like the European population. Not that I have that high hopes, but nevertheless... Also, Ukrainian population will be harder and harder to be corralled to fight, and if they will be, likely desertions and surrenders will intensify.
In the west (Europe) political voices will start baying for blood, and there will be US political voices (i.e. Senator J D Vance) and public voices (Tucker Carlson) that will amplify all that. And politics in Europe is not an entrench duopoly. Likely CIA has little actionable material against Sarah Wagenknech. Who will start demanding louder and louder to know what happened with Nord Stream pipelines, what the German Federal Government knew, and criminal prosecutions to be started - treason, terrorism, sabotage, undermining the German economy, etc, etc, etc. The Americans have shat where they are eating, joined by their European catamites (to borrow from the resident cat). Which is only an example. Hungary will be louder, and it will have the Presidency for the second half of the year.
While Aurelien has spent a long part of the essay describing the travails and tribulations in the high bureaucracy and political class, I really don't think it will be this tame and lame, since economically there were immense losses and costs that Europe suffered and some big businesses incurred, and there will be a price to pay. The American spooks, their operatives (blackmailers and assassins) and their local enforcerers are too few for the size and the vehemence of the backlash.
Also, if there is an armistice, it will be with harsh conditions: Russia will control Odessa as well as all entry points in Ukraine from the west. All military materiel will be surrendered, western or sovietic, and certain people will need to be surendered as well (i.e. Kiril Budanov, etc.). Otherwise the tightening of the screw will continue, and Ukraine will be de-electrified. People like this woman in Zacharpathia will be fine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLiPJAVOIqM), but a city dweller in a 10-20 stories appartment building, not so much. The real s&%#t will start accumulating and hit the proverbial fan...
Great article! Just one squibble: you state that the West couldn´t quickly ramp up an armaments industry as it it to deindustrialised. Well, Germany isn´t. I had a long talk today with a leading engineer in a huge electrical equipment factory here in the South of Germany about it. He says everything is still in place if they really wanted to. Chemicals, machine tools, metallurgy. And German industry is not just German industry. By now it has branched out into all the neighbouring East European countries. It still is a huge machine that is - although suffering terribly from energy costs- capable of out producing most of the Western world. It´s strength is not necessarily in the products itself but in the process of production. And that is a function of its in many branches still world leading machine tool industry. We are talking about family owned companies like Trump. If you need the best tool machine for laser cutting you still need to buy from Trump. If now civilian production completely craters the Government could - in order to keep the know-how and the employment- redirect this huge machine towards armaments production.
Will it happen? I don´t think so. There is no appetite in Germany for this sort of thing. And the masters of the universe in Washington could probably effect it but won´t as they would like such factories themselves. But I am pretty sure that the interests of this huge machine are more and more influencing actual policy . As usual the Germans try to fly under the radar not to excite their US masters. I asked my friend how his factory is doing. He said very nicely indeed. They have work galore sending electric equipment to Russia. I asked how that is possible? I know that when the sanctions started the factory suddenly began sending huge amounts to Hungary. Why now to Russia directly and not anymore via Hungary? Well, he said it is all for hospitals and public housing and who is to prove otherwise?
From the outside looking in it seems to me that NATO simply does whatever the US wants it to do , and has always done so. The French used to cause some minor difficulty but Sarkozy ended that .
In the last few years the EU has become a support structure for NATO ( perhaps it always was ? ).
I would say that european governments serve as prison bitches to their American Master, but that would be an insult to decent and honest prison bitches.
This is also why the author's thesis, that diverging interests in the anti-Russian coalition will lead to a settlement, is false. There are no such divergences, as there is only one interest that counts, that of the United States. The interests of the United States' catamites in and out of europe count for nothing, any more than anyone takes the interests of a prison bitch into account.
The United States will lose its position if the war does not end on favorable terms. Therefore, the war will continue. Nobody will ask the catamites their opinions.
I don't think that US have a lot to lose in this conflict. Surely, a blow to their reputation of the world's policeman will be significant, but they took reputational hits in Vietnam and recently Afghanistan, yet the sky didn't fall to earth in both cases. If America is going to lose its world leadership, that will be due to the slow shifts in big numbers like GDP etc., not because of losing in another regional proxy war.
More than two years into war, I still can't make sense of US actions. Ukraine is definitely not a strategically important country for them. It can be valuable for Russia, but only when and if diplomatic relations with Europe thaw. Other than that, it has only nostalgic and romantic nationalist value for the Russians. But for America, it's mostly useless (though of course some people make some money out of it, but so is any regional conflict in any part of the world the US is involved in)
Other than the far-fetched theory that the Ukraine is a US vehicle for weakening Europe, only irrational factors come to mind. For example, inexplainable sheer neocon spite towards Russia which was well-observed even in 1990s. Or maybe some kind of WW2 cosplay, born out of a childish, black-and-white worldview, which became a norm for post-1960s hypermoralistic (in their own twisted way) generations which hold abstract "principles and values" over common sense and act like they live in a Star Wars or Harry Potter universe.
The USA has a lot to loose in Ukraine in the bond markets. The war is vital for the USA to raise collateral for it's bonds and debts as well as cutting of the trade flows of eurasia to maintain the maritime empire that sustains the dollar.
A loss here will further weaken the dollar, and may loosen huge chunks of Europe from it's grip. Not only eastern Ukraine but Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, former yugoslavia. All of it depend on control over odessa
As far as I know, US bond market hardly ever moved because of news from Ukraine. And honestly I don't see how Ukraine, which does not even access to the open seas (Black Sea is only semi-open) events can affect world maritime trade further.
I think Americans generally are too much obsessed with posturing, giving "examples", setting "role models" and doing other symbolic things while paying too little attention to material, tangible stuff. Consider this extremely idiotic idea that the Ukraine is somehow "key" to Taiwan and "if we let Putin succeed in Ukraine blah blah blah", this will embolden China to attack Taiwan. Yes that's military propaganda, but I'm totally sure there are a lot of high-powered Americans really believe in this BS. The simple idea that if they want to defend Taiwan it would be cheaper to arm it to the teeth, not to squander your weapon stocks in Ukraine just for buffing or nerfing someone's morale. We can dig a little deeper into the culture and see the same patterns, like the best way to promote success among black people is to make them main characters in half of nowadays' Hollywood movies and tv series, even in historical dramas where they absolutely don't make any sense.
Excellent essay. For me, since it's clear the West can't be trusted, I hope Russia insists on an unconditional surrender from Ukraine and Russia takes back the entirety of the country. It will be much, much better for average Ukrainian because Russia can take back all the wealth that was looted by the tiny minority of Ukrainian Jews and return it to the nation. Ukraine has never been a "poor" country, it's been a looted and exploited country. Great things could happen there. And the American Jewish looters like Blackrock will have to give up their dreams of owning vast swaths of Ukrainian land.
As a secondary delight, Russia could reveal all the corruption that's been going on in Ukraine, specifically with the Bidens but so, so many others. Russia can also shut down the human trafficking and organ trafficking, all run via Tel Aviv. Given the current anti-Israel ferment across the West, it would be interesting to add a whole new storyline of "oh did you know that Israel has been the global leader in sex slavery, including children, and organ harvesting, including children?" Good times ahead.
I hope Putin has the stomach for an all or nothing proposal. He owes the West and the Ukrainian globalist government nothing. Would be nice to see some of the Jewish leadership captured and disappeared forever into Siberian prisons, but I'm sure the ones that are left will scoot with all their stolen American tax dollars.
I totally agree. But that was then, this is now. The West has crossed so many red lines in the conflict that I think (hope) Putin has realized there's no negotiating with them. Of course, Russia wanted to stop it early on, but the West said no.
Western politicians and bureaucrats are itching for a fight but I’m not sure their men in uniform are so keen anymore. They’ve seen first hand what modern war with a peer adversary looks like and frankly, I don’t think they want a bar of it.
Sure they will, if the upper brass resist then no politician has the balls to unilaterally call the ball especially when said brass leak to the press the real score (something that has happened repeatedly during the past several years).
Expect recruitment numbers to whither and resignations to pile up. No Western army can take the field at present in any meaningful form.
What are they going to fight with? It has already been shown in the Ukraine that western weapons are no match for Russian ones. Western industrial war production capacity is minimal. In the end it might mean Russia from Alaska to Ireland.
Ukraine was looted by Jews just like Russia in the post-Soviet era. Only we came up with the terms "oligarchs" to avoid saying "Jewish looters." In Russia, Putin clawed back a lot of what they stole. Nobody has done that in Ukraine. Yet.
And Jews have been involved in human trafficking for hundreds of years, as they were deeply involved in the white slave trade (Europeans taken to the Middle East) and the African slave trade. But that's a story for another day.
A great essay and many thanks, but I repeat my comments from my earlier post on your last [ also great] essay;
1. Russia is not playing games and the terms of any likely peace will prove indigestable for NATO nations; and
2 There is an assumption that NATO leaders have accurate intelligence and are basically rational.
There are huge escalation risks present in the current situation. My view is that Russia sees this as an existential fight. If the west sees this the same then we have - interesting times....
Thanks for providing a month of reasoning and potential conclusions at one sitting. It is going to require much more consideration than just a read. OTOH, as a behavioral psychologist I find you have neglected to mention that there has been ongoing rewards for the Western participants and for their corrupt Proxy, at almost all levels. If for no other reason, continued funding *with the knowledge that it will probably not last lone, likely intensifies corruption, inside Ukraine and in the West.
A second quibble I have is with your Armistice hypothesis, especially in conjunction with the continued threats and sanctions on China. What incentive is there for the US to end their Proxy war against Ukraine? Does it gain anything? If it can posture to look macho in front of the Chinese *and impress the weak EU vassals), why would it stop doing that in its relations with Russia? Why not fund a Ukrainian Govt. (in exile if necessary), including freedom fighters (aka terrorists making it difficult in the lost territory... pet ISIS is available)? Certainly the UK, Poland and others would relish the opportunity to help, if Russia allowed them to get away with it without significant punishment.
I see lots of Western behavior that appears to have failed, yet the power elite doubles down. I do not see that as necessarily irrational or that they persist despite punishment, without considering that what normal people might consider a punishment, is not aversive enough to outweigh the motivation to achieve the goals the Deep State/MIC/Intel Establishment have.
We all know about the saying "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Those who consider themselves the 'Masters of the Universe' may believe they cannot lose: either they obviously win, or they have a new crisis to turn to their advantage.
The addict, deprived of the object of addiction, has increased motivation as a result of the deprivation.
Personally, I believe the potential ramifications for the West, and particularly the USA, if Ukraine loses could be even more severe than a Suez moment. First, the USA's extensive dependencies may be bigger than what Britain's were due to its central position in the Liberal World Order (LWO), which allows it to maintain large trade and budget deficits while benefiting from its status as the world's reserve currency. The LWO's informal empire makes developing countries major net capital exporters to the USA, multiplying its risks in a shifting global order. Second, unlike Britain post-Suez, the USA does not have an emerging world order with a 'big brother' (the USA) at its center that it can take a place within to greatly mitigate the impacts of such a significant geopolitical shift (there will belikely something new the West creates but I doubt it will be as beneficial to it as the post war's emerging LWO). This absence of a high quality fallback position could make the adjustment much worse for the USA than for Britain in the aftermath of the Suez Crisis.
Which is why the US will do whatever it takes not to lose. No, intervention will not be popular with the populaces of NATO members. Even Poles, the biggest kneejerk russophobes on the planet, are not enthusiastic about dying for Ukraine.
Doesn't matter. Nobody will ask them their opinion.
I keep wondering when the neocon foreign policy ideology will finally be rejected in the US. The repeated failures, all of the wasted money and carnage and reputational damage would seem to be discrediting yet very few current politicians dare call it out.
The US has been so domineering in international relations. That has to have caused much ill will. The longer that continues the worse the payback is going to be, I fear. It's going to be hard to come down off that high horse but staying up there is getting dangerous because it's more and more clear that the US can't back up its tough talk.
The US still has a lot going for it but has to give up dreams of world domination and learn to peacefully coexist with rival powers.
I don't think it would have to be as monumental as all that.
Western rulers retain almost full control of the media narrative. Both in depth and in breath. To an almost historic unprecedent degree. Especially inside the West, but also to a large extend across the globe. If the lockstep media/global institutional response to the Covid19 incident wasn't enough proof of that, then the uniform reaction to the Ukraine war ought to be.
The US defeat and chaotic retreat from Afghanistan ought to have been humiliating on par with the defeat in Vietnam, which led to a decade or more of American self-doubt and introspection. However, the defeat in Afghanistan was was memory holed in about 14 days. Same with the deeply irrational and destructive Covid19-response. There has been no introspection, no-one taking responsibility, no change of guard. The media has largely merged with the ruling institutions, and do not present an opposing view.
A defeat in Ukraine could easily be managed as a narrative forming exercise, and quickly forgotten. It wouldn't even take that much. Most Americans haven't the faintest idea where Ukraine is, or care to know. Most West Europeans leaders actively loathe Ukrainian people (too White, too culturally conservative). Besides, we all know China is the real adversary. The West could work on their long talked about pivot-to-Asia, and forget about the troublesome Ukrainians in about three weeks.
Of course, there will come a time where the truth cannot be managed by narrative massage by our ruling elite. But we're not there yet.
Which makes me a lot more critical of the Western actions in Ukraine. There is absolutely no reason to double and triple down on a losing proposition. Killing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians (& tens of thousands of Russians). If the stakes really were that high, then that would be somewhat understandable. But they're not. The West could walk away. The war is not just irrational and unwinnable. Its much worse. It is useless. A useless mass slaughter.
A defeat won't be extensional for Western Europe or the US either. As much as the West can't defeat Russia a stone throw from Moscow, Russia cannot defeat NATO in Western Europe, or even In Eastern Europe (Poland, Romania, etc.). Especially, not without Chinese support, which I'd find highly unlikely they'd give to war further west of Ukraine. And the US empire has taken a lot of Ls in its time (Korea,Vietnam,Cambodia,Laos,Iraq,Libya,Syria,Afghanistan), and kept on rolling. They'd roll right past a defeat in Ukraine, as if it hardly mattered. Probably spin it as a victory of some sort. The largest shock may be to the dollar hegemony, but that is still speculative and more than a decade away.
Excellent text! But I think (hope?) that Russia will be smarter than the West was when the USSR fell, and will try to keep some bridges open. It is in its own interest to reestablish economic and cultural ties with Europe and it is possible that this will be part of Putin's calculations for the end of the war.
"Last week, we looked at what might happen next in Ukraine. An armistice, which is an agreement on how and when to end the fighting, will have to be negotiated soon, although it will not be straightforward to do and could easily break down. Nonetheless, suppose we assume that by mid-2025 (or any later date you want to put forward if you think that’s too soon) there is an armistice in place and the fighting is over, what then? That’s the subject of today’s essay."
The West makes it more and more clear with every day that there will be no armistice. They will fight to the last Ukrainian, forcing refugees to return to Ukraine to be press-ganged into the army immediately upon arrival. Once the supply of warm live Ukrainian bodies runs dry, NATO will intervene directly.
The West sees Russian reasonableness and humanitarianism as contemptible weakness. The sociopaths who rule western countries themselves would suffer no such scruples, as seen by they way in which they have waged their various recent wars. Hell, Israel right now.
Even worse, Russian dithering and indecision have caused the West to have already given so much material and propaganda support to the regime in Kiev that the West really cannot be seen to back down now. Since, short of nuclear exchange, there is nothing that Russia can really do that will personally affect the sociopaths ruling the West, they have every incentive to keep escalating.
This abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy is entirely intentional. Doesn't matter. WWIII is coming.
I think for a long time now America's greatest threats have been, and remain, internal. The outside actors seem to me to be more concerned about wriggling out from under its "rules based order" as best they can.
I'm reminded of a quote from The Great Crash 1929, by John Kenneth Galbraith "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
I have to wonder how long the west can maintain the global hegemony house of cards, what it looks like when it crumbles, and what happens in the aftermath. I'm not holding my breath though.
I believe it was Keynes who first coined the irrational market meme.
France is openly and directly sending troops to Ukraine.
https://weapons.substack.com/p/france-sends-troops-to-ukraine?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1159397&post_id=144275810&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1cc3o&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I told you this would happen. I wish I were wrong. If any further proof were needed that Russian dithering was foolish, that the West has already invested so much into Ukraine that the would rather blow us all up than lose, well, here you are.
Some actors were completely left out here, like the European population. Not that I have that high hopes, but nevertheless... Also, Ukrainian population will be harder and harder to be corralled to fight, and if they will be, likely desertions and surrenders will intensify.
In the west (Europe) political voices will start baying for blood, and there will be US political voices (i.e. Senator J D Vance) and public voices (Tucker Carlson) that will amplify all that. And politics in Europe is not an entrench duopoly. Likely CIA has little actionable material against Sarah Wagenknech. Who will start demanding louder and louder to know what happened with Nord Stream pipelines, what the German Federal Government knew, and criminal prosecutions to be started - treason, terrorism, sabotage, undermining the German economy, etc, etc, etc. The Americans have shat where they are eating, joined by their European catamites (to borrow from the resident cat). Which is only an example. Hungary will be louder, and it will have the Presidency for the second half of the year.
While Aurelien has spent a long part of the essay describing the travails and tribulations in the high bureaucracy and political class, I really don't think it will be this tame and lame, since economically there were immense losses and costs that Europe suffered and some big businesses incurred, and there will be a price to pay. The American spooks, their operatives (blackmailers and assassins) and their local enforcerers are too few for the size and the vehemence of the backlash.
Also, if there is an armistice, it will be with harsh conditions: Russia will control Odessa as well as all entry points in Ukraine from the west. All military materiel will be surrendered, western or sovietic, and certain people will need to be surendered as well (i.e. Kiril Budanov, etc.). Otherwise the tightening of the screw will continue, and Ukraine will be de-electrified. People like this woman in Zacharpathia will be fine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLiPJAVOIqM), but a city dweller in a 10-20 stories appartment building, not so much. The real s&%#t will start accumulating and hit the proverbial fan...
Don't kid yourself. If the CIA lacks actionable material, they can always make some up.
True, but they don't have jurisdiction anywhere except in the US... So there minght not be that many takers...
Not sure what you are saying here.
We are talking about European countries and population here, no? CIA has only so much sway there, none of it above the board.
You honestly think the CIA has no influence outside the US? After coups all around the world?
"america's suez moment" is perfect, i expect i shall be quoting that
Great article! Just one squibble: you state that the West couldn´t quickly ramp up an armaments industry as it it to deindustrialised. Well, Germany isn´t. I had a long talk today with a leading engineer in a huge electrical equipment factory here in the South of Germany about it. He says everything is still in place if they really wanted to. Chemicals, machine tools, metallurgy. And German industry is not just German industry. By now it has branched out into all the neighbouring East European countries. It still is a huge machine that is - although suffering terribly from energy costs- capable of out producing most of the Western world. It´s strength is not necessarily in the products itself but in the process of production. And that is a function of its in many branches still world leading machine tool industry. We are talking about family owned companies like Trump. If you need the best tool machine for laser cutting you still need to buy from Trump. If now civilian production completely craters the Government could - in order to keep the know-how and the employment- redirect this huge machine towards armaments production.
Will it happen? I don´t think so. There is no appetite in Germany for this sort of thing. And the masters of the universe in Washington could probably effect it but won´t as they would like such factories themselves. But I am pretty sure that the interests of this huge machine are more and more influencing actual policy . As usual the Germans try to fly under the radar not to excite their US masters. I asked my friend how his factory is doing. He said very nicely indeed. They have work galore sending electric equipment to Russia. I asked how that is possible? I know that when the sanctions started the factory suddenly began sending huge amounts to Hungary. Why now to Russia directly and not anymore via Hungary? Well, he said it is all for hospitals and public housing and who is to prove otherwise?
As per Knauf
https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/monitor/ukraine-mariupol-wiederaufbau-russland-100.html
Trumpf.
Re.NATO .
From the outside looking in it seems to me that NATO simply does whatever the US wants it to do , and has always done so. The French used to cause some minor difficulty but Sarkozy ended that .
In the last few years the EU has become a support structure for NATO ( perhaps it always was ? ).
I would say that european governments serve as prison bitches to their American Master, but that would be an insult to decent and honest prison bitches.
This is also why the author's thesis, that diverging interests in the anti-Russian coalition will lead to a settlement, is false. There are no such divergences, as there is only one interest that counts, that of the United States. The interests of the United States' catamites in and out of europe count for nothing, any more than anyone takes the interests of a prison bitch into account.
The United States will lose its position if the war does not end on favorable terms. Therefore, the war will continue. Nobody will ask the catamites their opinions.
I don't think that US have a lot to lose in this conflict. Surely, a blow to their reputation of the world's policeman will be significant, but they took reputational hits in Vietnam and recently Afghanistan, yet the sky didn't fall to earth in both cases. If America is going to lose its world leadership, that will be due to the slow shifts in big numbers like GDP etc., not because of losing in another regional proxy war.
More than two years into war, I still can't make sense of US actions. Ukraine is definitely not a strategically important country for them. It can be valuable for Russia, but only when and if diplomatic relations with Europe thaw. Other than that, it has only nostalgic and romantic nationalist value for the Russians. But for America, it's mostly useless (though of course some people make some money out of it, but so is any regional conflict in any part of the world the US is involved in)
Other than the far-fetched theory that the Ukraine is a US vehicle for weakening Europe, only irrational factors come to mind. For example, inexplainable sheer neocon spite towards Russia which was well-observed even in 1990s. Or maybe some kind of WW2 cosplay, born out of a childish, black-and-white worldview, which became a norm for post-1960s hypermoralistic (in their own twisted way) generations which hold abstract "principles and values" over common sense and act like they live in a Star Wars or Harry Potter universe.
Ukraine is of interest to the United States solely to the extent it can serve as a threat to Russia.
It could be a threat even after possible Istanbul accords, yet Americans and British rejected them.
Because the United States smelled blood.
The USA has a lot to loose in Ukraine in the bond markets. The war is vital for the USA to raise collateral for it's bonds and debts as well as cutting of the trade flows of eurasia to maintain the maritime empire that sustains the dollar.
A loss here will further weaken the dollar, and may loosen huge chunks of Europe from it's grip. Not only eastern Ukraine but Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, former yugoslavia. All of it depend on control over odessa
As far as I know, US bond market hardly ever moved because of news from Ukraine. And honestly I don't see how Ukraine, which does not even access to the open seas (Black Sea is only semi-open) events can affect world maritime trade further.
I think Americans generally are too much obsessed with posturing, giving "examples", setting "role models" and doing other symbolic things while paying too little attention to material, tangible stuff. Consider this extremely idiotic idea that the Ukraine is somehow "key" to Taiwan and "if we let Putin succeed in Ukraine blah blah blah", this will embolden China to attack Taiwan. Yes that's military propaganda, but I'm totally sure there are a lot of high-powered Americans really believe in this BS. The simple idea that if they want to defend Taiwan it would be cheaper to arm it to the teeth, not to squander your weapon stocks in Ukraine just for buffing or nerfing someone's morale. We can dig a little deeper into the culture and see the same patterns, like the best way to promote success among black people is to make them main characters in half of nowadays' Hollywood movies and tv series, even in historical dramas where they absolutely don't make any sense.
Excellent essay. For me, since it's clear the West can't be trusted, I hope Russia insists on an unconditional surrender from Ukraine and Russia takes back the entirety of the country. It will be much, much better for average Ukrainian because Russia can take back all the wealth that was looted by the tiny minority of Ukrainian Jews and return it to the nation. Ukraine has never been a "poor" country, it's been a looted and exploited country. Great things could happen there. And the American Jewish looters like Blackrock will have to give up their dreams of owning vast swaths of Ukrainian land.
As a secondary delight, Russia could reveal all the corruption that's been going on in Ukraine, specifically with the Bidens but so, so many others. Russia can also shut down the human trafficking and organ trafficking, all run via Tel Aviv. Given the current anti-Israel ferment across the West, it would be interesting to add a whole new storyline of "oh did you know that Israel has been the global leader in sex slavery, including children, and organ harvesting, including children?" Good times ahead.
I hope Putin has the stomach for an all or nothing proposal. He owes the West and the Ukrainian globalist government nothing. Would be nice to see some of the Jewish leadership captured and disappeared forever into Siberian prisons, but I'm sure the ones that are left will scoot with all their stolen American tax dollars.
dude i'm as suspicious of israeli motives as the next man but there's no need to go full protocols like this
"I hope Putin has the stomach for an all or nothing proposal."
From the beginning of this war, Russia has shown itself to loathe to escalate and looking for a negotiated solution.
The West is absolutely itching for a fight.
I totally agree. But that was then, this is now. The West has crossed so many red lines in the conflict that I think (hope) Putin has realized there's no negotiating with them. Of course, Russia wanted to stop it early on, but the West said no.
I hope you prove correct but I see no concrete evidence of same.
Talk is cheap.
Western politicians and bureaucrats are itching for a fight but I’m not sure their men in uniform are so keen anymore. They’ve seen first hand what modern war with a peer adversary looks like and frankly, I don’t think they want a bar of it.
Nobody will ask them.
Sure they will, if the upper brass resist then no politician has the balls to unilaterally call the ball especially when said brass leak to the press the real score (something that has happened repeatedly during the past several years).
Expect recruitment numbers to whither and resignations to pile up. No Western army can take the field at present in any meaningful form.
Obviously, the politicians and brass see things differently. For that matter, when those leaks have happened, nothing has changed in response.
And there's always conscription.
No Western country has the economic resilience nor political capital to withstand the deleterious effect of conscription.
Leaks have definitely had an effect. MSM is being forced closer to the truth and far more people have woken up from propagandistic delusion.
*wither*
What are they going to fight with? It has already been shown in the Ukraine that western weapons are no match for Russian ones. Western industrial war production capacity is minimal. In the end it might mean Russia from Alaska to Ireland.
We've been hearing that for literally years now. The West continues to escalate.
Can you share any sources on these claims? Smacks of genuine anti-semitism.
It's not my job to do your research. But here's a report on human trafficking in Ukraine: https://www.usaid.gov/ukraine/fact-sheet/dec-16-2022-trafficking-persons
Of course, it doesn't call out Jews. But this does: https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/12-Israelis-arrested-in-Ukraine-for-organ-trafficking
And this does: https://www.haaretz.com/2010-08-06/ty-article/report-israeli-suspected-of-running-ukraine-organ-trafficking-ring/0000017f-dc17-db22-a17f-fcb77e530000
And this does: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-739460
And this does: https://atzum.org/projects/task-force-on-human-trafficking/project-119/fast-facts-about-prostitution-in-israel/
Keep looking, there's plenty more.
Ukraine was looted by Jews just like Russia in the post-Soviet era. Only we came up with the terms "oligarchs" to avoid saying "Jewish looters." In Russia, Putin clawed back a lot of what they stole. Nobody has done that in Ukraine. Yet.
And Jews have been involved in human trafficking for hundreds of years, as they were deeply involved in the white slave trade (Europeans taken to the Middle East) and the African slave trade. But that's a story for another day.
The "West" is an hallucination of credentialed urbanites who need "experts" to tell them what to eat.
So? Their rulers' orders count just the same.
A lifeform unable to feed itself is by definition extinct.
Another terrific and compelling article!
You have a very calm way to present a scenario that many self regarded important people are probably totally freaking out over.
A great essay and many thanks, but I repeat my comments from my earlier post on your last [ also great] essay;
1. Russia is not playing games and the terms of any likely peace will prove indigestable for NATO nations; and
2 There is an assumption that NATO leaders have accurate intelligence and are basically rational.
There are huge escalation risks present in the current situation. My view is that Russia sees this as an existential fight. If the west sees this the same then we have - interesting times....
Thanks for providing a month of reasoning and potential conclusions at one sitting. It is going to require much more consideration than just a read. OTOH, as a behavioral psychologist I find you have neglected to mention that there has been ongoing rewards for the Western participants and for their corrupt Proxy, at almost all levels. If for no other reason, continued funding *with the knowledge that it will probably not last lone, likely intensifies corruption, inside Ukraine and in the West.
A second quibble I have is with your Armistice hypothesis, especially in conjunction with the continued threats and sanctions on China. What incentive is there for the US to end their Proxy war against Ukraine? Does it gain anything? If it can posture to look macho in front of the Chinese *and impress the weak EU vassals), why would it stop doing that in its relations with Russia? Why not fund a Ukrainian Govt. (in exile if necessary), including freedom fighters (aka terrorists making it difficult in the lost territory... pet ISIS is available)? Certainly the UK, Poland and others would relish the opportunity to help, if Russia allowed them to get away with it without significant punishment.
I see lots of Western behavior that appears to have failed, yet the power elite doubles down. I do not see that as necessarily irrational or that they persist despite punishment, without considering that what normal people might consider a punishment, is not aversive enough to outweigh the motivation to achieve the goals the Deep State/MIC/Intel Establishment have.
We all know about the saying "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Those who consider themselves the 'Masters of the Universe' may believe they cannot lose: either they obviously win, or they have a new crisis to turn to their advantage.
The addict, deprived of the object of addiction, has increased motivation as a result of the deprivation.
Great piece! Well written as usual.
Personally, I believe the potential ramifications for the West, and particularly the USA, if Ukraine loses could be even more severe than a Suez moment. First, the USA's extensive dependencies may be bigger than what Britain's were due to its central position in the Liberal World Order (LWO), which allows it to maintain large trade and budget deficits while benefiting from its status as the world's reserve currency. The LWO's informal empire makes developing countries major net capital exporters to the USA, multiplying its risks in a shifting global order. Second, unlike Britain post-Suez, the USA does not have an emerging world order with a 'big brother' (the USA) at its center that it can take a place within to greatly mitigate the impacts of such a significant geopolitical shift (there will belikely something new the West creates but I doubt it will be as beneficial to it as the post war's emerging LWO). This absence of a high quality fallback position could make the adjustment much worse for the USA than for Britain in the aftermath of the Suez Crisis.
I hope all is well,
Mike
Which is why the US will do whatever it takes not to lose. No, intervention will not be popular with the populaces of NATO members. Even Poles, the biggest kneejerk russophobes on the planet, are not enthusiastic about dying for Ukraine.
Doesn't matter. Nobody will ask them their opinion.
I keep wondering when the neocon foreign policy ideology will finally be rejected in the US. The repeated failures, all of the wasted money and carnage and reputational damage would seem to be discrediting yet very few current politicians dare call it out.
The US has been so domineering in international relations. That has to have caused much ill will. The longer that continues the worse the payback is going to be, I fear. It's going to be hard to come down off that high horse but staying up there is getting dangerous because it's more and more clear that the US can't back up its tough talk.
The US still has a lot going for it but has to give up dreams of world domination and learn to peacefully coexist with rival powers.
I don't think it would have to be as monumental as all that.
Western rulers retain almost full control of the media narrative. Both in depth and in breath. To an almost historic unprecedent degree. Especially inside the West, but also to a large extend across the globe. If the lockstep media/global institutional response to the Covid19 incident wasn't enough proof of that, then the uniform reaction to the Ukraine war ought to be.
The US defeat and chaotic retreat from Afghanistan ought to have been humiliating on par with the defeat in Vietnam, which led to a decade or more of American self-doubt and introspection. However, the defeat in Afghanistan was was memory holed in about 14 days. Same with the deeply irrational and destructive Covid19-response. There has been no introspection, no-one taking responsibility, no change of guard. The media has largely merged with the ruling institutions, and do not present an opposing view.
A defeat in Ukraine could easily be managed as a narrative forming exercise, and quickly forgotten. It wouldn't even take that much. Most Americans haven't the faintest idea where Ukraine is, or care to know. Most West Europeans leaders actively loathe Ukrainian people (too White, too culturally conservative). Besides, we all know China is the real adversary. The West could work on their long talked about pivot-to-Asia, and forget about the troublesome Ukrainians in about three weeks.
Of course, there will come a time where the truth cannot be managed by narrative massage by our ruling elite. But we're not there yet.
Which makes me a lot more critical of the Western actions in Ukraine. There is absolutely no reason to double and triple down on a losing proposition. Killing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians (& tens of thousands of Russians). If the stakes really were that high, then that would be somewhat understandable. But they're not. The West could walk away. The war is not just irrational and unwinnable. Its much worse. It is useless. A useless mass slaughter.
A defeat won't be extensional for Western Europe or the US either. As much as the West can't defeat Russia a stone throw from Moscow, Russia cannot defeat NATO in Western Europe, or even In Eastern Europe (Poland, Romania, etc.). Especially, not without Chinese support, which I'd find highly unlikely they'd give to war further west of Ukraine. And the US empire has taken a lot of Ls in its time (Korea,Vietnam,Cambodia,Laos,Iraq,Libya,Syria,Afghanistan), and kept on rolling. They'd roll right past a defeat in Ukraine, as if it hardly mattered. Probably spin it as a victory of some sort. The largest shock may be to the dollar hegemony, but that is still speculative and more than a decade away.
Excellent text! But I think (hope?) that Russia will be smarter than the West was when the USSR fell, and will try to keep some bridges open. It is in its own interest to reestablish economic and cultural ties with Europe and it is possible that this will be part of Putin's calculations for the end of the war.
"Last week, we looked at what might happen next in Ukraine. An armistice, which is an agreement on how and when to end the fighting, will have to be negotiated soon, although it will not be straightforward to do and could easily break down. Nonetheless, suppose we assume that by mid-2025 (or any later date you want to put forward if you think that’s too soon) there is an armistice in place and the fighting is over, what then? That’s the subject of today’s essay."
The West makes it more and more clear with every day that there will be no armistice. They will fight to the last Ukrainian, forcing refugees to return to Ukraine to be press-ganged into the army immediately upon arrival. Once the supply of warm live Ukrainian bodies runs dry, NATO will intervene directly.
The West sees Russian reasonableness and humanitarianism as contemptible weakness. The sociopaths who rule western countries themselves would suffer no such scruples, as seen by they way in which they have waged their various recent wars. Hell, Israel right now.
Even worse, Russian dithering and indecision have caused the West to have already given so much material and propaganda support to the regime in Kiev that the West really cannot be seen to back down now. Since, short of nuclear exchange, there is nothing that Russia can really do that will personally affect the sociopaths ruling the West, they have every incentive to keep escalating.
This abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy is entirely intentional. Doesn't matter. WWIII is coming.
This could be true. There are other possibilities, including an internal collapse of the Kiev regime.
The Kiev regime has already gone full-on fascist with hardly a peep of complaint.
Nothing lasts forever, is all I am saying.
True, although we've been hearing about the imminent downfall of the US Empire for decades now.
Not only has this downfall yet to take place, I question whether its enemies are ruthless enough to get the job done.
I think for a long time now America's greatest threats have been, and remain, internal. The outside actors seem to me to be more concerned about wriggling out from under its "rules based order" as best they can.
Frankly, Americans should be more afraid of their own government than of any of the Scary Enemies paraded before them.
They start to get wise, but then, like the dog returneth to its vomit...