“The Russian preparedness to take significant casualties in support of major, long-term political objectives has caused variously fear, disbelief and incomprehension in the West.”
I have to ask why this is? I understand that the goal of the EU and the United States was to cause another collapse of Russia, break it apart, and then loot it wholesale. I can’t think of any country that would not be willing and able to take heavy casualties to defend itself from actual destruction. People are often willing to let the ruling government fall, but their country not so much.
I imagine Aurelian has been reading western accounts of Russian casualties, which are mostly derived from Ukranian government output. Russia has of course taken casualties, many more than they would have wanted, but the ratio of Russian to Ukrainian is somewhere between 1 to 6 and 1 to 12, depending on when and where the action was.
Regardless of the sourcing of Russian casualty numbers, they are very significant. Easily on par or over that of US losses in Vietnam.
But this is irrelevant. Aurelien completely misses the boat on this subject, as he does on military industry, because he is projecting Western (in) capabilities onto Russia. Western governments have zero tolerance for military casualties because Western populations have zero tolerance for military casualties in service of the stupid and pointless conflicts that Western leaders repeatedly embark on.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is very clearly agreed upon by almost all Russians as an existential issue. The Russian people are willing to fight and if necessary, to die to protect this specific national interest. And they have the military industry to back it up.
Fair enough, although the lack of understanding of military industry/logistics and corresponding lack of capability in comparison to peer opponents - specifically Russia and China - is not a failure of imagination.
Perhaps because not many people in the West believe that this is the goal. I don't think many people in Russia do, and frankly I doubt it myself. Sure, European and American elites have made some signals in this direction, but it is not something they can realistically achieve and if they have done anything significant that may help them accomplish this outcome (as opposed to simply keeping a non-threatening local war going), I have not noticed it. I think there may be some ambitious/delusional individuals in the Western elites who may really think this is achievable and worth pursuing, but I don't think it's the subject of consensus as anything other than wishful thinking. That being the case, I'd be surprised if a lot of people in the West took the idea that we have been cornered into this conflict seriously.
It shoudl be obvious that the destruction and dismemberment of Russia was the goal. Witness, for example, Syria, Iraq and Libya. Or, for that matte,r Yugoslavia.
Hell, take away Russia and Ukraine would go from The Lighthouse of Muh Democracy, the country so democratic, it need not bother with pesky elections or bothersome terms of office, to a corrupt, nazi-infested shithole.
There is a consensus in the West regarding Russia. I hardly find anything neutral about Russia in the Western media. All articles and reports are sharply negative.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) conflict is often called "Africa's World War" and has been one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II, with estimates of 5-6 million deaths since the late 1990s through direct violence, disease, and starvation.
The essay touches on this disparity when mentioning that "conflict around the world in the thirty years that followed 1990, was essentially low-technology, generally involving militias or poorly-trained forces" and briefly references the DRC in 2013, but doesn't acknowledge the enormous human toll.
This highlights a significant media and public attention bias. Conflicts that don't involve Western powers directly often receive dramatically less coverage, analysis, and international response, despite their devastating humanitarian impact. The DRC conflict involves multiple countries, rebel groups, and resource exploitation, yet receives a fraction of the attention given to conflicts where Western interests or personnel are directly involved.
This speaks to a deeper issue about how we collectively define what "matters" in global conflicts. The essay discusses legal and technical definitions of war, but doesn't address this moral inconsistency in how different conflicts are prioritised in international discourse.
It raises important questions about whose lives are implicitly valued in our global conversation about war and peace, and how this selective attention affects international response to humanitarian crises.
Trie, but there's a limit to what I can cover in one essay. And you will probably be aware of the furious controversy about how to measure deaths in the DRC conflict or how even to conceptualise the problem. It all depends, in essence on the reliability of mortality statistics in distant parts of the DRC before 1996/98.
Your point is well taken. There are imbalance in the priorities when it comes to define “what” is important or “who” is dying. Moreover, we westerners trigger wars but do not accept “our own” casualties. This is the basis for the bias you mention.
I see another possible reason for a the existence of bias. Allow me this silly example:
I live in a country in which a big amount of tax money collected by the central state is re-distributed to regions with less ressources. Regions also collect their own taxes. Say I live in a “wealthy” region and I know, from reading the annual tax report, that “my” region subsidies other “poorer” regions. I could be against, and shout. It turns out that the vast majority of citizens accept this system. It is a complex discussion every legislature, but it holds. Somehow we all “see” the benefit of this re-distribution scheme.
When I discussed this with a friend in another country - a much larger one - in which some similar financing mechanism exists, he explains to me that in his country people are against. Strictly speaking; “why should we pay something to theses lazy people down there”. It follows that tax solidarity is weaker.
History of these two countries differ, local details and governance as well, but they share a common christian background and are neighbors. There has to be something else than greed.
My hint: DISTANCE and SIZE.
In a two to three hours long train ride I can “see” the effect of the re-distributed taxes in my country. When I travel further the country of my friend after four to five hours I distinguish where regions get less attention. There are, however, no lazy people !
How much you care about others and “how far” you accept to do something against potential differences depends on your ability to project yourself (travel by plane is notoriously not sufficient !) to more distant places.
Having said that, I don’t know the true impact of media coverage. Do you have the impression that the uniform, undifferentiated and biased reports available about problems in Somalia, Yemen, Gaza, or Ukraine for example have an impact ?
Thank you for engaging with my critique. While I appreciate your thoughtfulness about distance and size as factors, I find your theory inadequate when faced with real-world examples.
The UK, despite being geographically distant (and small in size) from the USA, receives significant global attention. Both countries command worldwide notice regardless of proximity, suggesting physical distance isn't the determining factor in whose suffering matters.
More tellingly, consider how "Everyone Stands with Ukraine" became an immediate global rallying cry, while the Palestinians, Congolese, Sudanese, and Somalis, experiencing comparable or greater suffering, generate fraction of the solidarity despite being equally distant from Western observers.
My time in the USA revealed how domestically focused their news environment is. The world effectively begins at the Canadian border and ends at the Mexican one, creating a profound knowledge gap about global affairs unless they directly impact American interests.
What emerges is a troubling reality: Westerners operate with a blind spot born of racial hierarchy where some lives inherently matter more than others. The DRC conflict, with its devastating toll of 5-6 million deaths, receives minimal coverage compared to conflicts involving Western interests or predominantly white populations.
This selective attention isn't merely about information gaps or physical distance, it reflects deeper structural biases about whose suffering merits urgent action. These hierarchies manifest in coverage patterns, policy priorities, humanitarian funding, and public empathy.
The question isn't simply about distance or size, it's about whose lives we've been conditioned to value, whose deaths we've been taught to mourn, and whose suffering we've learned to overlook.
Rubio stated that the US was in a proxy war with Russia. Does that statement given his role in the US administration mean there is a declared state of war between US and Russia?
Putin always refers to the armed conflict as a Special Military Operation, not a war. However the attritional aspect of the armed conflict which affects all of the territory of Ukraine through missile and drone attacks, and increasing parts of Russia through drone attacks may consititute a state of war even if not declared?
Direct NATO involvement in planning, directing and firing missiles into Russia , does this constitute an undeclared state of war?
Is it not an issue of the perception of the viewer? If I was Russian seeing US, UK and French missiles landing in my nation I would find it difficult to believe my enemies were not conducting war. Does it require Russia to send a missile onto a German or Polish base rather than a Ukrainian one to have a similar impression on a NATO country citizen? As long as it's just Slavs killing each other is it just a localised armed conflict?
Forgive my naivity if I consider this a war between NATO and Russia with Ukrainians used by one side as disposable human resources willingly donated by their fascist leaders.
They are sociopathic all right, but stupid too. It is obvious that they are going to be humiliated by losing the SMO, but they are doing nothing to avoid the humiliation. It's almost as if they are all masochistic Eton educated 'thrash-me-harder-mistress, please' types
"But the US is a paradoxical example of a state which has a presence everywhere, without being much affected by the consequences of this presence. The Washington system is so big and so clumsy that I sometimes feel that taking account of the rest of the world is just too much additional trouble."
This, I think, puts the nail on the head as far as the US foreign policy goes. Members of the US elite often do very foolish things in other countries because they can afford to, and others pay the price. This carelessness is worse than any malevolence they can muster.
“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy. They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
No need to Make America Gatsby Again. It never stopped being Gatsby.
It's astonishing to me the extent to which the American public uncritically accepts the premise that the country faces serious security challenges more than 6000 miles away from its mainland. What kind of ignorance does this require?
Whatever one calls it, warring, armed conflict, intrusions, police actions, and most opaquely peace keeping, some US citizen has been loosing ammunition on denizens of some locale outside our borders for my entire 72 years of existence.
It's well written. But even this excellent essay shows that Westerners are quite confident that they have the right to start wars, while other countries do not have this right. It's so naive. This will eventually lead the West to disaster.
Russians will not ignore the actions of the West, as you think. There is no such option. It's pretty simple. The time has not yet come for a direct response to the attacks of American and British missiles on Russia. The Russians are now consolidating all their resources and allies. It takes time.
“violations" of International Law are violations by states, not their governments”.
I’m sure the defendants at the Nurnberg trials would have been interested to know that. They could have cited the ’Tony Blair’ defence, if only they had had a time machine to inform them.
“there was actually no need for a massive conventional air/land war in Ukraine in the first place: to arrange it required considerable time, effort and stupidity.”
I imagine you are referring to the NATO side when you say that, because otherwise it would be an incorrect statement. And while we are on that subject, the Russians refer to it as a ‘Special Military Operation’
“Casualties in both Gulf Wars were massively lower than expected,”
Western-centric observation - many thousands of Iraqis died - of course the ‘west’ might have expected more, which would make your observation correct but even more devoid of morality. I imagine you would say that ‘morality’ has no place in matters of politics or war, but I can’t agree.
“Campaigns were complex, international politico-military affairs, with a strong humanitarian dimension . . .
Surely you jest. The ‘strong humanitarian dimension’ in most (all?) cases where NATO or the west is involved is no more than a smoke-screen, a sop to the ‘bleeding hearts’ at home. States do not spend large sums of money for mere humanitarian motives. If they make this claim another more self-interested motive can always be found
The humanitarian dimension to Afghanistan dominated everything else, in terms of funding and political interest, even if the US was only minimally involved. At least this was true when I was there. When were you there?
"even if the US was only minimally involved" As the US was far and away the prime mover in this action, that is quite a large omission, and suggests that any humanitarian actions on the part of the 'allies' was as I said, a smoke screen or a sop to guilty consciences. You are correct in that you were there and I was not, but if one could only have an opinion if one were present in any particular location, then there would be a sad lack of diverse comments about practically everything.
"Moreover armed conflicts preemptively require certain laws to be respected." I wasn't clear on this, in an otherwise well set out and informative essay. It makes quite clear that the leaders of these western nations calling for "war," regardless of how defined, are blinded by the believe in their own cleverness. That idea is certainly one not intended to induce sweet dreams.
Perhaps you could clarify what those preemptively required laws are that are to be respected?
The plan in Ukraine ever always only was to get NATO to intervene and for the Americans to eventually have to ride to the rescue. Needless to say, that could not be said out loud.
The only question now is whether the War On Russia will be put on pause so that the Empire can focus on the War on Iran or not. Obviously, the europeans wopuld very much like to focus first on Russia, while Israel prefers that Iran be first on the chopping block.
Terence, I’m not going to argue against your « list of dots » that you connect to explain what is being happening.
However, I believe that it is not appropriate to use claims of that nature: « a leader of the EU whos ancestors were in the nazi war elite », for three reasons.
1) as « leader of the EU» Mrs van der Leyen has not the potential impact/power you suggest she has
2) the link of her ancestor to the Nazi regime remains under debate; fact checking required.
3) the German population, as well as modern Germany does not deserve to be « remembered » at every occasion that some of their ancestors triggered a disaster.
Having said that, I deplore the warmongering tones taken by Mrs van der Leyen
A reasonably well put together summary, but it fails to take into account military industry.
Iraq was never a self sufficient military industrial nation - its tools were 2nd and 3rd rate export versions. Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, Syria.
Failure to understand the difference between a peer, military industrial adversary i.e. Russia and China vs. the above examples is nothing less than a demonstration of fundamental military strategic, logistic and intelligence/analysis incompetence.
And note furthermore that Europe, these days, falls far closer to the "lack of military industrial capability" as compared to its apparent belief that it is still the industrial heartland of the world a la pre-1914.
Perhaps it's the empire version of " Do not go gently into that dark night " I suppose that due to the hubris of exceptionalism & the incredibly malleable rules based order that much of your excellent analysis is totally lost on those who need it the most.
Is it a formal war or simply out breaking violence ? This (perhaps valid) intellectual framework can only be produced and discussed by people sitting comfortably far away from the battlefield and is of no use to all those dying precisely on a battlefield.
The Ukrainian casualties are the consequence of the fact that Russia still has a powerful military system capable to sustain long operations. Likewise, the Russian casualties follow the determination of the members of the UAF, backed by heavy logistic, intelligence, organizational (list far from comprehensive) help provided by the West. Thus, every high-school student should conclude that the West is heavily implicated - at war - with Russia. The semantic nuances you provide in your frame work does not change that reality, nor does it affect the situation of all those dying or be wounded on the battle field.
The only rational behavior that could stop the « war » in Ukraine are long lasting mass protests in western capitals against further help and/or equivalent mass protests in Russia against the « special operation ». This does not happen; Humans do not behave rationally, a well known fact.
Thus, one has - rationally - to take into account irrationality. Theoretical frameworks are indeed useful and using appropriate words to describe a situation helps to avoid misunderstanding.
My point is that the amount of « irrationality » that impacts the decision making process of actual political leaders increases for many reasons (***). In turn, the impact of intellectual (logical) frameworks weighs less in their analysis.
(***) Ego. Dopamine levels impact ego. This is not - strictly speaking - something new. What is new is « how » and in particular « how fast » the egos can be triggered, sustained and/or manipulated. Permanent inflow of micro-doses of dopamine in our brain (for example constant exposure to hectic life or social media etc) may increase aggressive behavior (or favor an aggressive decision). I’m afraid there is more than just « uneducated selfish short term oriented elites, Aurélien would say PMC ». We have a severe and widespread « attention span » problem that may preclude in-depth analysis. Conclude yourself.
I notice you only give agency to people in "western"/NATO countries and/or in Russia to affect an end to the Ukraine war. Why do you leave out the Ukrainian people? Ukraine has had several junctures at which concerted pressure by the populace on the government and/or military could have lead to peace terms with Russia. Even now, the citizens of Ukraine could rise up and demand an end to the conflict.
My big problem is the ignorant fools in the West haven't a clue as to how deep their ignorance is and so full of false assumptions and off the scale hubris, they will push on regardless. You can see it in the rhetoric where any hint of restraint is seen as a sign of weakness that should be exploited.
In past times in my life we had meetings about new projects and procedures that were, to a practitioner, totally ridiculous and had failed years ago when previously attempted. However if you pointed this out, you were seen as a negative drag on the team spirit and definitely not with the programme and totally ignored , never to be invited to such a meeting again. These all failed as expected but it was only after the failure that proper assessments were made and reality accepted.
I don't think humanity can afford too many more of these failures as we need to get it right straight away, not as Churchill stated, after we have tried everything else.
Well FF, true, but power is slipping away from them. In the west only the US is a serious arms producer, and the litany of their failed and wasteful projects is long. Whereas Russia is producing cheaper weapons of much higher quality, and China is producing equal quality for very much less and in far larger quantity.
I keep hearing this, but the war continues and the West continues to escalate. China, BTW, is kind of useless as an ally, as China complies with American secondary sanctions.
"All this, I hopes, puts into context some of the wilder statements recently about the “risk of war” with Russia, or whether the West is effectively “at war” with that country, or whether for example direct western involvement with Ukrainian attacks could be considered “an act of war.” These questions are essentially meaningless ...". Your argument, as illustrated here, and by your own declaration, is based on linguistic philosophy (illocutionary speech acts), and the Linguistic Turn. That is very unsteady ground on which to build a thesis: not wholly irrelevant, but of limited application in human activity, and riddled with unstated philosophical presumptions.
I might find your comment plausible, if it suggested you had actually read what Aurelian's wrote about speech-acts, the quotation, the context, or the comment.
For a man who has all the answers, you clearly had not understood the key importance of the Linguistic Turn to Aurelian's argument, nor I surmise know much at all about the Linguistic Turn (the informed would have understood my drift). I am happy to provide you with an extensive reading list.
But hey, I confess the real guilty appeal of coming here is the vanity of the surfeit of trolls. All you have to do is throw a provocative hook in the water (no fly required), and they wrap their mouth round the hook, and bite. And up you popped. Time, after time......
Fascinating and informative. The shared insights gleaned from working within governmental bureaucratic structures are much appreciated. The kaleidoscope of motives for any state violence and the limitations created upon their chosen actions by their capitalist concerns begs the question as to how much importance is placed upon full comprehension of our cultural histories.
Cultural histories as lived by all of us.
When I returned to college as a mature student to study anthropology I was very taken by a statement regarding the discipline by the founding father of the subject Franz Boas. He said that if it was successfully implemented that it would cease to exist as it would have changed how we think. For him it was an attempt to answer the cultural faults of human nature that had led to the hideous suffering of his parent’s 1848 revolutions generation. He was horrified when, at the end of his life, a star pupil of his, Ruth Benedict, chose to deploy his academic template to inform and aid similar political abuses of power to the ones his parents had previously suffered under. Famously writing that he would have been better off writing a single good poem that creating canonic academic anthropology.
“The Russian preparedness to take significant casualties in support of major, long-term political objectives has caused variously fear, disbelief and incomprehension in the West.”
I have to ask why this is? I understand that the goal of the EU and the United States was to cause another collapse of Russia, break it apart, and then loot it wholesale. I can’t think of any country that would not be willing and able to take heavy casualties to defend itself from actual destruction. People are often willing to let the ruling government fall, but their country not so much.
I imagine Aurelian has been reading western accounts of Russian casualties, which are mostly derived from Ukranian government output. Russia has of course taken casualties, many more than they would have wanted, but the ratio of Russian to Ukrainian is somewhere between 1 to 6 and 1 to 12, depending on when and where the action was.
Regardless of the sourcing of Russian casualty numbers, they are very significant. Easily on par or over that of US losses in Vietnam.
But this is irrelevant. Aurelien completely misses the boat on this subject, as he does on military industry, because he is projecting Western (in) capabilities onto Russia. Western governments have zero tolerance for military casualties because Western populations have zero tolerance for military casualties in service of the stupid and pointless conflicts that Western leaders repeatedly embark on.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is very clearly agreed upon by almost all Russians as an existential issue. The Russian people are willing to fight and if necessary, to die to protect this specific national interest. And they have the military industry to back it up.
Well, it's not me talking here. I'm trying to explain what western governments feel, and why they get things wrong.
Fair enough, although the lack of understanding of military industry/logistics and corresponding lack of capability in comparison to peer opponents - specifically Russia and China - is not a failure of imagination.
It is a lack of competence.
Perhaps because not many people in the West believe that this is the goal. I don't think many people in Russia do, and frankly I doubt it myself. Sure, European and American elites have made some signals in this direction, but it is not something they can realistically achieve and if they have done anything significant that may help them accomplish this outcome (as opposed to simply keeping a non-threatening local war going), I have not noticed it. I think there may be some ambitious/delusional individuals in the Western elites who may really think this is achievable and worth pursuing, but I don't think it's the subject of consensus as anything other than wishful thinking. That being the case, I'd be surprised if a lot of people in the West took the idea that we have been cornered into this conflict seriously.
It shoudl be obvious that the destruction and dismemberment of Russia was the goal. Witness, for example, Syria, Iraq and Libya. Or, for that matte,r Yugoslavia.
Hell, take away Russia and Ukraine would go from The Lighthouse of Muh Democracy, the country so democratic, it need not bother with pesky elections or bothersome terms of office, to a corrupt, nazi-infested shithole.
There is a consensus in the West regarding Russia. I hardly find anything neutral about Russia in the Western media. All articles and reports are sharply negative.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) conflict is often called "Africa's World War" and has been one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II, with estimates of 5-6 million deaths since the late 1990s through direct violence, disease, and starvation.
The essay touches on this disparity when mentioning that "conflict around the world in the thirty years that followed 1990, was essentially low-technology, generally involving militias or poorly-trained forces" and briefly references the DRC in 2013, but doesn't acknowledge the enormous human toll.
This highlights a significant media and public attention bias. Conflicts that don't involve Western powers directly often receive dramatically less coverage, analysis, and international response, despite their devastating humanitarian impact. The DRC conflict involves multiple countries, rebel groups, and resource exploitation, yet receives a fraction of the attention given to conflicts where Western interests or personnel are directly involved.
This speaks to a deeper issue about how we collectively define what "matters" in global conflicts. The essay discusses legal and technical definitions of war, but doesn't address this moral inconsistency in how different conflicts are prioritised in international discourse.
It raises important questions about whose lives are implicitly valued in our global conversation about war and peace, and how this selective attention affects international response to humanitarian crises.
Trie, but there's a limit to what I can cover in one essay. And you will probably be aware of the furious controversy about how to measure deaths in the DRC conflict or how even to conceptualise the problem. It all depends, in essence on the reliability of mortality statistics in distant parts of the DRC before 1996/98.
Your point is well taken. There are imbalance in the priorities when it comes to define “what” is important or “who” is dying. Moreover, we westerners trigger wars but do not accept “our own” casualties. This is the basis for the bias you mention.
I see another possible reason for a the existence of bias. Allow me this silly example:
I live in a country in which a big amount of tax money collected by the central state is re-distributed to regions with less ressources. Regions also collect their own taxes. Say I live in a “wealthy” region and I know, from reading the annual tax report, that “my” region subsidies other “poorer” regions. I could be against, and shout. It turns out that the vast majority of citizens accept this system. It is a complex discussion every legislature, but it holds. Somehow we all “see” the benefit of this re-distribution scheme.
When I discussed this with a friend in another country - a much larger one - in which some similar financing mechanism exists, he explains to me that in his country people are against. Strictly speaking; “why should we pay something to theses lazy people down there”. It follows that tax solidarity is weaker.
History of these two countries differ, local details and governance as well, but they share a common christian background and are neighbors. There has to be something else than greed.
My hint: DISTANCE and SIZE.
In a two to three hours long train ride I can “see” the effect of the re-distributed taxes in my country. When I travel further the country of my friend after four to five hours I distinguish where regions get less attention. There are, however, no lazy people !
How much you care about others and “how far” you accept to do something against potential differences depends on your ability to project yourself (travel by plane is notoriously not sufficient !) to more distant places.
Having said that, I don’t know the true impact of media coverage. Do you have the impression that the uniform, undifferentiated and biased reports available about problems in Somalia, Yemen, Gaza, or Ukraine for example have an impact ?
Philippe,
Thank you for engaging with my critique. While I appreciate your thoughtfulness about distance and size as factors, I find your theory inadequate when faced with real-world examples.
The UK, despite being geographically distant (and small in size) from the USA, receives significant global attention. Both countries command worldwide notice regardless of proximity, suggesting physical distance isn't the determining factor in whose suffering matters.
More tellingly, consider how "Everyone Stands with Ukraine" became an immediate global rallying cry, while the Palestinians, Congolese, Sudanese, and Somalis, experiencing comparable or greater suffering, generate fraction of the solidarity despite being equally distant from Western observers.
My time in the USA revealed how domestically focused their news environment is. The world effectively begins at the Canadian border and ends at the Mexican one, creating a profound knowledge gap about global affairs unless they directly impact American interests.
What emerges is a troubling reality: Westerners operate with a blind spot born of racial hierarchy where some lives inherently matter more than others. The DRC conflict, with its devastating toll of 5-6 million deaths, receives minimal coverage compared to conflicts involving Western interests or predominantly white populations.
This selective attention isn't merely about information gaps or physical distance, it reflects deeper structural biases about whose suffering merits urgent action. These hierarchies manifest in coverage patterns, policy priorities, humanitarian funding, and public empathy.
The question isn't simply about distance or size, it's about whose lives we've been conditioned to value, whose deaths we've been taught to mourn, and whose suffering we've learned to overlook.
Rubio stated that the US was in a proxy war with Russia. Does that statement given his role in the US administration mean there is a declared state of war between US and Russia?
Putin always refers to the armed conflict as a Special Military Operation, not a war. However the attritional aspect of the armed conflict which affects all of the territory of Ukraine through missile and drone attacks, and increasing parts of Russia through drone attacks may consititute a state of war even if not declared?
Direct NATO involvement in planning, directing and firing missiles into Russia , does this constitute an undeclared state of war?
Is it not an issue of the perception of the viewer? If I was Russian seeing US, UK and French missiles landing in my nation I would find it difficult to believe my enemies were not conducting war. Does it require Russia to send a missile onto a German or Polish base rather than a Ukrainian one to have a similar impression on a NATO country citizen? As long as it's just Slavs killing each other is it just a localised armed conflict?
Forgive my naivity if I consider this a war between NATO and Russia with Ukrainians used by one side as disposable human resources willingly donated by their fascist leaders.
Russia desperate;ly tried to avoid this war, and it is ever always only the West that escalates, as it smells blood.
Unfortunately the West is stupid.
They are sociopathic, but not necessarily stupid.
They are sociopathic all right, but stupid too. It is obvious that they are going to be humiliated by losing the SMO, but they are doing nothing to avoid the humiliation. It's almost as if they are all masochistic Eton educated 'thrash-me-harder-mistress, please' types
They still have a lot of escalating to do.
I’m afraid I’m as naive as you are.
"But the US is a paradoxical example of a state which has a presence everywhere, without being much affected by the consequences of this presence. The Washington system is so big and so clumsy that I sometimes feel that taking account of the rest of the world is just too much additional trouble."
This, I think, puts the nail on the head as far as the US foreign policy goes. Members of the US elite often do very foolish things in other countries because they can afford to, and others pay the price. This carelessness is worse than any malevolence they can muster.
“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy. They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
No need to Make America Gatsby Again. It never stopped being Gatsby.
It's astonishing to me the extent to which the American public uncritically accepts the premise that the country faces serious security challenges more than 6000 miles away from its mainland. What kind of ignorance does this require?
Whatever one calls it, warring, armed conflict, intrusions, police actions, and most opaquely peace keeping, some US citizen has been loosing ammunition on denizens of some locale outside our borders for my entire 72 years of existence.
It's well written. But even this excellent essay shows that Westerners are quite confident that they have the right to start wars, while other countries do not have this right. It's so naive. This will eventually lead the West to disaster.
Morality has nothing to do with it. Only power.
Russians will not ignore the actions of the West, as you think. There is no such option. It's pretty simple. The time has not yet come for a direct response to the attacks of American and British missiles on Russia. The Russians are now consolidating all their resources and allies. It takes time.
“violations" of International Law are violations by states, not their governments”.
I’m sure the defendants at the Nurnberg trials would have been interested to know that. They could have cited the ’Tony Blair’ defence, if only they had had a time machine to inform them.
“there was actually no need for a massive conventional air/land war in Ukraine in the first place: to arrange it required considerable time, effort and stupidity.”
I imagine you are referring to the NATO side when you say that, because otherwise it would be an incorrect statement. And while we are on that subject, the Russians refer to it as a ‘Special Military Operation’
“Casualties in both Gulf Wars were massively lower than expected,”
Western-centric observation - many thousands of Iraqis died - of course the ‘west’ might have expected more, which would make your observation correct but even more devoid of morality. I imagine you would say that ‘morality’ has no place in matters of politics or war, but I can’t agree.
“Campaigns were complex, international politico-military affairs, with a strong humanitarian dimension . . .
Surely you jest. The ‘strong humanitarian dimension’ in most (all?) cases where NATO or the west is involved is no more than a smoke-screen, a sop to the ‘bleeding hearts’ at home. States do not spend large sums of money for mere humanitarian motives. If they make this claim another more self-interested motive can always be found
The humanitarian dimension to Afghanistan dominated everything else, in terms of funding and political interest, even if the US was only minimally involved. At least this was true when I was there. When were you there?
"even if the US was only minimally involved" As the US was far and away the prime mover in this action, that is quite a large omission, and suggests that any humanitarian actions on the part of the 'allies' was as I said, a smoke screen or a sop to guilty consciences. You are correct in that you were there and I was not, but if one could only have an opinion if one were present in any particular location, then there would be a sad lack of diverse comments about practically everything.
"Moreover armed conflicts preemptively require certain laws to be respected." I wasn't clear on this, in an otherwise well set out and informative essay. It makes quite clear that the leaders of these western nations calling for "war," regardless of how defined, are blinded by the believe in their own cleverness. That idea is certainly one not intended to induce sweet dreams.
Perhaps you could clarify what those preemptively required laws are that are to be respected?
The plan in Ukraine ever always only was to get NATO to intervene and for the Americans to eventually have to ride to the rescue. Needless to say, that could not be said out loud.
The only question now is whether the War On Russia will be put on pause so that the Empire can focus on the War on Iran or not. Obviously, the europeans wopuld very much like to focus first on Russia, while Israel prefers that Iran be first on the chopping block.
Terence, I’m not going to argue against your « list of dots » that you connect to explain what is being happening.
However, I believe that it is not appropriate to use claims of that nature: « a leader of the EU whos ancestors were in the nazi war elite », for three reasons.
1) as « leader of the EU» Mrs van der Leyen has not the potential impact/power you suggest she has
2) the link of her ancestor to the Nazi regime remains under debate; fact checking required.
3) the German population, as well as modern Germany does not deserve to be « remembered » at every occasion that some of their ancestors triggered a disaster.
Having said that, I deplore the warmongering tones taken by Mrs van der Leyen
regards, Philippe
A reasonably well put together summary, but it fails to take into account military industry.
Iraq was never a self sufficient military industrial nation - its tools were 2nd and 3rd rate export versions. Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, Syria.
Failure to understand the difference between a peer, military industrial adversary i.e. Russia and China vs. the above examples is nothing less than a demonstration of fundamental military strategic, logistic and intelligence/analysis incompetence.
And note furthermore that Europe, these days, falls far closer to the "lack of military industrial capability" as compared to its apparent belief that it is still the industrial heartland of the world a la pre-1914.
Perhaps it's the empire version of " Do not go gently into that dark night " I suppose that due to the hubris of exceptionalism & the incredibly malleable rules based order that much of your excellent analysis is totally lost on those who need it the most.
Interesting as usual, thank you Aurélien.
Allow me a few (emotional !) comments.
Is it a formal war or simply out breaking violence ? This (perhaps valid) intellectual framework can only be produced and discussed by people sitting comfortably far away from the battlefield and is of no use to all those dying precisely on a battlefield.
The Ukrainian casualties are the consequence of the fact that Russia still has a powerful military system capable to sustain long operations. Likewise, the Russian casualties follow the determination of the members of the UAF, backed by heavy logistic, intelligence, organizational (list far from comprehensive) help provided by the West. Thus, every high-school student should conclude that the West is heavily implicated - at war - with Russia. The semantic nuances you provide in your frame work does not change that reality, nor does it affect the situation of all those dying or be wounded on the battle field.
The only rational behavior that could stop the « war » in Ukraine are long lasting mass protests in western capitals against further help and/or equivalent mass protests in Russia against the « special operation ». This does not happen; Humans do not behave rationally, a well known fact.
Thus, one has - rationally - to take into account irrationality. Theoretical frameworks are indeed useful and using appropriate words to describe a situation helps to avoid misunderstanding.
My point is that the amount of « irrationality » that impacts the decision making process of actual political leaders increases for many reasons (***). In turn, the impact of intellectual (logical) frameworks weighs less in their analysis.
(***) Ego. Dopamine levels impact ego. This is not - strictly speaking - something new. What is new is « how » and in particular « how fast » the egos can be triggered, sustained and/or manipulated. Permanent inflow of micro-doses of dopamine in our brain (for example constant exposure to hectic life or social media etc) may increase aggressive behavior (or favor an aggressive decision). I’m afraid there is more than just « uneducated selfish short term oriented elites, Aurélien would say PMC ». We have a severe and widespread « attention span » problem that may preclude in-depth analysis. Conclude yourself.
regards, Philippe
I notice you only give agency to people in "western"/NATO countries and/or in Russia to affect an end to the Ukraine war. Why do you leave out the Ukrainian people? Ukraine has had several junctures at which concerted pressure by the populace on the government and/or military could have lead to peace terms with Russia. Even now, the citizens of Ukraine could rise up and demand an end to the conflict.
There was no intention to leave out Ukraniens; omission without bad intention. Thank you for pointing out this weakness in the argumentation.
regards, Philippe
Very Good Aurelien.
My big problem is the ignorant fools in the West haven't a clue as to how deep their ignorance is and so full of false assumptions and off the scale hubris, they will push on regardless. You can see it in the rhetoric where any hint of restraint is seen as a sign of weakness that should be exploited.
In past times in my life we had meetings about new projects and procedures that were, to a practitioner, totally ridiculous and had failed years ago when previously attempted. However if you pointed this out, you were seen as a negative drag on the team spirit and definitely not with the programme and totally ignored , never to be invited to such a meeting again. These all failed as expected but it was only after the failure that proper assessments were made and reality accepted.
I don't think humanity can afford too many more of these failures as we need to get it right straight away, not as Churchill stated, after we have tried everything else.
The WEst sees no need for any kind of restaint, as it has power.
Well FF, true, but power is slipping away from them. In the west only the US is a serious arms producer, and the litany of their failed and wasteful projects is long. Whereas Russia is producing cheaper weapons of much higher quality, and China is producing equal quality for very much less and in far larger quantity.
I keep hearing this, but the war continues and the West continues to escalate. China, BTW, is kind of useless as an ally, as China complies with American secondary sanctions.
There are no 'wonderweapons' which can instantly stop a war, and winning one still takes time.
Oh, Lord, this one is going in longer than Soviet involvement in WWII.
For that matter, had Russia used adequate force from the outset, this war would long have been over.
You mean by starting WWIII?
"All this, I hopes, puts into context some of the wilder statements recently about the “risk of war” with Russia, or whether the West is effectively “at war” with that country, or whether for example direct western involvement with Ukrainian attacks could be considered “an act of war.” These questions are essentially meaningless ...". Your argument, as illustrated here, and by your own declaration, is based on linguistic philosophy (illocutionary speech acts), and the Linguistic Turn. That is very unsteady ground on which to build a thesis: not wholly irrelevant, but of limited application in human activity, and riddled with unstated philosophical presumptions.
"and riddled with unstated philosophical presumptions."
Amazing how language has the capacity to bite the biter.
I might find your comment plausible, if it suggested you had actually read what Aurelian's wrote about speech-acts, the quotation, the context, or the comment.
😉 Keep on truckin' John Boy
Ah, Mr O'Donnell, if only you knew .......
Oh, I do, John, I do . . .
For a man who has all the answers, you clearly had not understood the key importance of the Linguistic Turn to Aurelian's argument, nor I surmise know much at all about the Linguistic Turn (the informed would have understood my drift). I am happy to provide you with an extensive reading list.
But hey, I confess the real guilty appeal of coming here is the vanity of the surfeit of trolls. All you have to do is throw a provocative hook in the water (no fly required), and they wrap their mouth round the hook, and bite. And up you popped. Time, after time......
Fascinating and informative. The shared insights gleaned from working within governmental bureaucratic structures are much appreciated. The kaleidoscope of motives for any state violence and the limitations created upon their chosen actions by their capitalist concerns begs the question as to how much importance is placed upon full comprehension of our cultural histories.
Cultural histories as lived by all of us.
When I returned to college as a mature student to study anthropology I was very taken by a statement regarding the discipline by the founding father of the subject Franz Boas. He said that if it was successfully implemented that it would cease to exist as it would have changed how we think. For him it was an attempt to answer the cultural faults of human nature that had led to the hideous suffering of his parent’s 1848 revolutions generation. He was horrified when, at the end of his life, a star pupil of his, Ruth Benedict, chose to deploy his academic template to inform and aid similar political abuses of power to the ones his parents had previously suffered under. Famously writing that he would have been better off writing a single good poem that creating canonic academic anthropology.