Very good article . However , I believe that the prospect of long term arms sales was part of the attraction in expanding NATO . All of the new members are required to replace their Eastern Block weaponry with nice new Western stuff . That is a lot of guaranteed money over several decades ; with most of it going to the USA .
Indeed. NATO membership actually recruited countries to buy American. Take Romania as an example, in the cusp of their joining the alliance , they were in a very rough economic patch. Romanias finance minister had reservations of a signed for order of attack helicopters but they were informed that “this was the easiest way into NATO”. It reminds me of John Deere tractors having electrical locks that don’t allow farmers to fix it themselves, but to go shell out at a John Deere garage, to pay whatever John Deere pe they John deer damn want.
Strobe Talbot and Mrs Nuland-Kagan are Bill Clinton appointees and hard core PNAC/neocon, that was 1993. But yes forcing the Warsaw Pact to NATO standards is business development for the MIC.
Agreed that NATO expansion is a pretty obvious MIC sales strategy, but the Ukraine Deception takes it a step farther: a method for NATO members to trade in obsolete NATO gear for new gear, by 'donating it', all at taxpayers expense. Many don't realize that these 'donations' to Ukraine are done with the understanding that the donor arsenal will be replenished with updated equipment.
The 'donation' of dozens of end-of-life F16's are a prime example, with the added bonus that they are being replaced with F35, further enslaving NATO members to US equipment.
"This is the story that describes Ukraine as a forward bulwark and barrier state for NATO. Russia must be stopped in Ukraine, it is argued, because if Russia succeeds in conquering much (or all) of Ukraine, it will surely attack NATO next. "
Nobody actually believes this, any more than anyone actually believed that Slobo Milosevic or Saddam Hussein was about to overrun Europe or the Middle East, respectively.
However, each does provide a convenient pretext for war.
"It’s not clear how to reconcile these positions. America has essentially pledged that it is willing to link nuclear escalation calculus to Kiev and commit to a hypothetical future war with Russia by bringing Ukraine under the umbrella of Article 5, while simultaneously insisting that it is not willing to fight such a war now, while there is an immediate kinetic threat to Ukraine. It’s not obvious why Ukraine might be worth fighting a catastrophic war tomorrow, but not today. If defeating Russia in Ukraine and holding the line at Ukraine’s 1991 borders are indeed an existential American interest, then why is America holding back now?"
Of course the American position (which is by default the NATO position) is preposterous, just as we are expected to believe that Russia is simultaneously on the brink of collapse and at the same time about to invade Europe ZOMG.
The internal contradictions do not matter, as long as the war can continue.
For a while now, the motives have been very cynical and predatory. Check out this Rand report from 2019, “over extending and unbalancing Russia”. They just lay it all out right there for everyone to see: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
So if nobody actually believes it, why is it still being used by TPTB? Aren’t you overestimating the intelligence and common sense of a large portion of the population especially inthe west that has been and still is heavily propagandized?
People so easily propagandised are easily persuaded of the opposite when it suits. It is pure Orwell. Western popular mindless support for Ukraine is just that, easily undone. Of course it would collapse overnight if the people waving the flags had to go and fight on the Russian front, or their loved ones had to.
No, people are easily herded, like lemmings or sheep.
Hermann Goering had a certain practical experience in the matter.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
It is different now with a cradle to grave welfare state, different across the whole of europe. If you think you can raise a fighting army to order, I have as Mercouris says 'a bridge to sell you'.
it really is time people got their heads out of the 1930s and that includes all these silly appeasement accusations being bandied about in the west.
"Featured mass conscription" ! Not to go to war it didn't. More a Sunak community welfare program, or that is what the idea has dwindled into as a mature welfare state concept.
As for the social welfare model being long past, tell that to the taxpayers.
The short answer is: because social facts. Group identity is more important for humans than logical consistency or even facts.
The russiagate conspiracy theory is also patently absurd and flies in the face of all available evidence and logic, but it remains a Team D Article Of Faith. Because tribal loyalty.
Yes. Very good article and very sound remark. I would personally go all the way to the conclusion that anglo-americans just can't live in peace. And this is why, among many dishonest justifications for wars against many fabricated enemies, beginning with France in the middle-ages and the red-skinned Indians in modern times, Russia has always been described as a steam-roller with clay feet.
Russia was supposed to allow Ukraine to join EU/ NATO in 2014.if that failed ,russia being weaker than USSR would be subjected to sanctions etc. and a proxy war who should it to knees and again would become meek like in 1990's.
There is no paradox in NATO expansion if wolfowitz doctrine is taken seriously. Also u can see USA managing other things while conducting this war like instructing Ukraine not to blow up russian refineries, grain drama etc.,
US is envisaging a west German/ east German scenario where west Germany finally wins.tjat must be the thinking behind Ukraine issue. West won cold war keeping a military stalemate but using other things like intelligence ops, propaganda.
Also US had global ambitions since woodro Wilson and esp. since fall of France ( see book by Stephen werthiem)
USA was in second position economically before. Nothing would happen because of that. It is just overaction.
The Roman Empire knew it was wisest to accept boundaries to its empire and not try to defeat every opponent regardless of cost. And their Empire lasted for centuries.
NATO expansion while disarming is because the West wants Russia's resources. They wish to break Russia up into more easily controlled pieces.
How better to do this than by getting Russia to sign disarmament agreements along with the US, while the US sets up CIA bases and NGOs to covertly take over the political systems of new NATO members?
NATO is nefarious, a huge loss of money to American tax payers, but great for grifters tied to the MIC.
NATO isn't defending democracy, it's protecting huge corporate interests.
CIA bases and NGO’s have been set up since WW2 imho to control the elites and propagandize the population through mass media. The NGO’s also had a filtering function for the political class. How else can you explain the abysmal quality and strong russophobia of our so called leaders? People like Bearbock, Habeck, Scholz, von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, Macron, Johnson, Cameron, ….
I agree with all of this, except for the explanation of the logic of American 'grand strategy'.
Britain needed to restrain a potential Continental hegemon from challenging its naval might and thus its sea-empire, i.e. its export markets. It was also driven by pleonexia (in Thucydides' sense), but this was intermingled with a plausible strategic anxiety.
The US situation is different, because (1) the client States constituting its 'imperial periphery' have relatively little value to the US as export markets, at least compared to what its opponents offer; and (2) the entire globe is one big market for its two main products, namely the dollar and IT tech. Ironically, its strategy of containment is doing nothing other than undermining US predominance in both these global markets. De-dollarisation, and increased chip production on the Chinese mainland.
What does Israel give the US that makes it worthwhile fighting Iran? What does South Korea give the US that makes it worthwhile fighting China? Britain's fear of Germany as a naval rival may have been misplaced, but at least it wasn't manifestly irrational. What core strategic imperatives is the US now responding to in pursuing a strategy of containment that is manifestly backfiring?
None, is the answer. It is now driven purely by pleonexia.
US is a global power, and has a global reserve currency. Fought in two world wars to achieve this. US fights many battles, trying to contain or defeat its opponents, Fights until US wins, or loses. When US loses a minor war, US withdraws.
The problem in Ukraine is, there can be no withdrawal, there can be no victory, there would have to be negotiations. But several factors make diplomatic approach difficult
- Russians have been fooled, lied to so many times, that accepting a ceasefire that is not a final agreement, would be suicidal.
- Kissinger is dead, there is no one on the horizon except for Mearsheimer, who understands the principles of realist foreign policy.
And this would be an extremely difficult diplomatic task. One has to recreate something that Gorbachev failed to ask for, an agreement like Shanghai agreement between Nixon and Kissinger and MaoCe Tung and Chou en Lai, an agreement on European security that would guarantee neutral Ukraine, and cessation of regime change operations in Georgia, Armenia, Belarus...
Unrealistic, yes. Difficult to sell to US pundits, politicians, yes.
Yes.... sooner than many realize. In the last 2 weeks the Russians have made some aggressive advances. From what I read Russia still has a least a 100k troops in reserve behind the front.
A bigger problem is that there is currently no way to guarantee any agreement made with the West. Western politicians continue to talk about guarantees for Ukraine, but they should be thinking about guarantees for Russia, given that they've openly admitted that they had no intention to keep the previous agreements they made (Minsk) and used it to give them time to prepare Ukraine for a military resolution instead.
Ukraine will suck it up, guarantees or no guarantees, whereas if they cannot find ironclad guarantees for Russia, Russia will just guarantee it's own security by achieving the desired outcomes via military means.
Iran isn't a threat in the same sense that a Napoleonic continental Europe was a threat to the British. That's a peculiarity of the US Israel relationship.
A united German-led EU, partnered with Russia (as the Russian elite and gov both once dreamed of), that would have been comparable. Even more, a China centric Eurasian landmass, as we now have, *definitely* is comparable.
The US imperial position described in this article - absurd as it is - requires being ready to answer challenges everywhere all at once, as long as there exists a significant rival, which there does.
Iran's threat exist solely as a terror state in service to the creed of the Satanic Verses. In that regard, it's profoundly ironic that NATO members (many, and among them the most powerful) commit national suicide by allowing the immigration of a fifth column of Islamists.
The waves of migrants were largely a *consequence* of destruction caused by wars that the US and close partners stirred up. But there was and is no scenario in which a rising Iran is going to take over Europe or force it into decline by indirect means. The only ones that can do that are US and China, and the US seems to have done it now.
US military recruitment is in such a crisis that they do not even give publicize their recruitment targets anymore. US military has the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Germany and 173rd Airbourne Brigade in Italy. Then there are three Brigade Combat Teams that were cobbled together from various sources. These forces could not hope to overpower the Romanians. So the idea that US is somehow protecting Europe is not a serious argument to make. Have you seen the budget trajectory for the US? In a decade or so, the interest payments on the debt will consume all federal tax revenue. We will not have to worry about NATO for too much longer, as the US empire has a very similar end to the Soviet one.
The "supposed" promises not to expand eastward was enshrined in NATO documents, and since NATO has become a political alliance, more than a military one, politicians made the decision to ignore those promises and intentionally antagonize Russia..The Kagan cult was largely responsible for that action and for stirring up the war in the Ukraine..
.But if NATO wanted bigger military budgets in Europe, then maybe it shouldn't have cut off the flow of cheap Russian energy, and the economic recession that has caused...They are not deep thinkers
The American position was always to be willing to fight _in_ europe, and not _for_ europe. Europe was always strategically expendable as long as the goal of damaging the adversary was fullfilled. NATO in this sense was always a suicide club for central europeans, especially the germans, whose role was first to fight their kin and against the soviets and then die as collateral during the nuclear exchange.
The only unresolved aspect is how the Ukraine leadership could be so indifferent to the real prospects of national disaster.
The Russians certainly were very explicit that a Ukraine shift towards NATO would be intolerable.
Yet post Maidan, Ukraine's revolutionary government ignored those warnings completely, presumably reassured by the support of senior US officials such as Victoria Nuland.
Two months after Russia invaded in 2022, there was a chance for a settlement, which Kiev ignored, probably because the terms were rejected by its allies, particularly the US. Yet given the scale of killing already evident, it must have been clear that any longer war would be horrendous.
I cannot understand how a responsible national leader can accept such a course, prolonging a bloody war with no obvious end other than the ruination of the country.
"I cannot understand how a responsible national leader can accept such a course, prolonging a bloody war with no obvious end other than the ruination of the country."
In hindsight it is obvious that the leadership of Ukraine is not a responsible one that cares for the people of its country. The regime that was installed by the Maidan coup in 2014 is a totally corrupted puppet regime of the West, with no feeling for the Russian heritage of that part of the world.
Prior to WWII, Odessa, Kiev, Sevastopol in Crimea, etc., were all Russian cities that participated in Russian culture and commerce. After WWII, attempts by the West to pull Ukraine away from Russia were prevented by the Soviet Union. The collapse of the USSR removed that impediment to the West's efforts, and with the Maidan coup we saw the culmination of U.S. efforts to pry Ukraine away from the Russian sphere, shepherded by U.S. diplomats (Nuland et al) and politicians (McCain, Biden, etc.). Their efforts started a civil war between those Ukrainians loyal to their Russian roots and those who embraced the facism represented by Bandera and his followers. We all know the rest.
That's cause Zelenskiy isn't competent by any stretch. He's a clown (a literal one) who's played a ukrainian president in some sitcom, and thought (or was convinced) that becoming a real president will be the same. That's why all you see from him is theatrics, rather than the real governance. In his presidential debates with Poroshenko, he was promising ukrainian citizens to end the war. He even said that he is prepared to come crawling and beg Putin on his knees in order to stop the war in Donbass, if that's what it takes. Once elected, he's chosen to send ukrainians into the meatgrinder instead.
Post-Maiden, the only candidates on a Ukrainian Presidential ballot have come from a tiny (~0.5%) minority in the country. All of the people in the U.S. below Obama and Biden that have been responsible for this have also came from that same tiny minority (Blinken, Nuland, et al).
I think that answers your question as to "how the Ukraine leadership could be so indifferent to the real prospects of national disaster". I understand the author can't ask the question; it's nonetheless a glaring omission. Why does anyone think the goal has anything to do with the national interests of European countries or the U.S., when it so obviously does not? BlackRock and its founder Larry Fink now own a quarter of all agricultural land in Ukraine, and U.S. interests own more than half. Zelensky himself has spoken publicly about creating an "ersatz Israel" on the black soils of Ukraine.
Create an alternative zionist state… have heard different people talking about such possibility in the last couple of years. Hence the great interest in Crimea.
Given the financial and military power behind such a vision, I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that this whole conflict is being driven to reach that goal. We may have been wrong from the beginning that it is about freedom & democracy, containing Russia, preventing total war, …
Because the topic is so verboten, I don't think people generally understand how much conflict and animosity there is between European Jews (Ashkenazi) and the conservative/orthodox factions (who are mostly Sephardic and Mithrazi) in Israel. The divide is deeper and more hostile than that between the shrillest establishment / leftist voices and Trump's biggest "MAGA" fanbois.
Netanyahu straddles the line - he has a parent from each side (though his sympathies lie clearly with the conservatives). The recent decision to suspend enlistment deferments for the orthodox is putting a match to a powder keg.
More than anything else, the single act that led to the "final solution to the Jewish question" in Nazi Germany was Hitler getting the law passed that banned some Jewish people from working in the German government and sensitive positions like the central bank. It applied to Jews who were hired after the first world war, and who were not combat veterans of that war. The Weimar government was dominated by Jews and what happened in Berlin was absolutely intolerable to average Germans - on par with how the Roman nobility felt when Caligula whored their wives out and promoted his horse to the Senate.
In response, the Jewish elite in the western diaspora enacted a boycott of Germany that starved hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans to death. From that point on it was an endless cycle of tit-for-tat escalations until the German defeat in 1945.
Putin has done the same thing. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the country was absolutely raped and stolen by the "oligarchs" - mostly by a small group commonly called the "Seven Bankers" (six of who were Jewish). Putin's party passed a reform to their Constitution before the war (2020) that banned people with dual citizenship from holding security clearances, from working for the Russian federal government, or from holding senior jobs in sensitive industries.
Western media reported quite a bit about it at the time, calling Putin a fascist and dictator, but I never saw any mention as to what exactly what the issue really was. It was exactly that every Russian Jew had dual citizenship - and all of a sudden, they were fired from their posts at the top of the government and their control of media. It is almost impossible to give up Israeli citizenship once it's obtained.
Most Russian Jews had dual citizenship because it makes a lot of things much easier. It was difficult before the war for Russian citizens to get Schengen visas, for example, but Israeli passport holders have the same rights as U.S. passport holders (six months out of each calendar year visa-free). Dual citizenship also allows Russian nationals to hide their assets completely out of the reach of the Russian government.
At the same time, Putin promoted a Jewish politician to Prime Minister (Mikhail Mishustin) - a job he still holds and appears effective in. That was done to blunt criticisms that the dual citizenship prohibition was directed against Jews. It really wasn't; it had some small effect on Russian citizens who also had citizenship in the Central Asian states, or Belorussia, or Georgia, etc.
That's what this war is all about. It's the exact same thing that led to WWII. This is entirely a Jewish war with some other less important interests at play. You can discern that they're less important by looking at who's behind it, and asking yourself what their motivation is. Does Anthony Blinken and Victoria Nuland care most about the reasons Big Serge mentioned (U.S. hegemony and power projection), or do they care about what Jewish elites have been preoccupied with for over a century (no restraint on their behavior)?
Even back in the day, would any sane American trade Paris for Boston? I certainly wouldn't, let alone Riga. Which is why our first president warned against entangled alliances.
Bush (43) should have been put in a rubber room for allowing the Baltic Republics into NATO. They do absolutely nothing to enhance our security while dramatically increasing our chances for war.
Remember that Bush and his minions incited the Republic of Georgia to poke the Bear and then did nothing when the predictable reaction occurred. Another fool who saddled us with a senseless war and doubled our national debt.
It was a way for European nations to avoid having to fight each other, which they'd been doing for centuries. That part actually worked. Despite that, there is a tradeoff made to gain that benefit, and the part about having Europe destroyed was still kind of a possibility. If US and USSR were ever to directly fight, they'd need a battleground that was expendable... See comment by ' knalldi ' below, it's stated perfectly by him/her.
Today Ukraine is fulfilling that role, but without ever receiving the kind of benefits that Western Europeans at least got for many years. Astonishingly bad deal signing up for this
This is a good article especially the first part. The part I disagree with is the end. IMO America has zero interest into ever making Ukraine a NATO member, and the war is being funded largely to degrade Russian forces and to acquire intelligence. They are speaking that way to Zelensky & Co because if they told them this explicitly, it would further hamper morale.
Ukraine is the biggest country in Europe, after Russia, and had about 50 million people, below, Germany, France, Italy and UK, with heavy industry and likely the biggest, strongest army in Europe (not considering Turkyie and the US). If the West cannot have Ukraine, the next best thing is to have it all wreked and placed it as an albatross to Russia's neck. A victorious Russia will be a very strong Russia and thus, from a perception perspective, a very dangerous Russia (soo much projection here); thus, a big, rotting albatross of the size of Ukraine hanging in perpetuity to Russia's neck is ultimately a very desirable thing.
What Russia will take from the war is the Southern and Eastern parts of Ukraine. This where all the industry resides and the rest in the West can stay with Ukraine. After all the Madian coup was supposedly to have Kiev and the West to get closer to Europe. So, if they have any land left because Blackrock is buying it up then they probably will be OK.
50 millions ukies? On wich planet are you living? Maybe 18 millions, maximum, mainly non productive one as old people, kids, women etc..the rest left forever they will never come back except for 'vacation' as they make far more money or in the West or even in Russia, in the West even when doing nothing (not working you can make 3 or 4.000 eur for a family of 4 in some countries + free or cheap housing, free health, free transport etc...)they will not come back in Ukr to make 250 eur/usd a month with no security as the country can even after the war return suddenly into a full gestapo/sbu/azov concentration camp as now, nobody can escape.
The areas of Donbas/Lugansk recovered from Ukraine through battle are pulverized and depopulated. It might take an entire generation (25+ years) after the war ends to fix all the destruction (either reconstruct and level it to make farmland), demining, and removal of unexploded ordnance. Lots of long term investments before any benefits might start accruing.
it might take 25 years to completely get rid of the effects of the war (or maybe even longer, considering that they are still finding unexploded munitions from WWI and WWII. It will take far less to make it all habitable again though. Have a look at Mariupol.
The biggest effort won't be recovery from the war, it will be recovery from 30 years of ukrainian govts neglecting infrastructure. The whole country pretty much needs to be rebuilt from the ground up to get anywhere near the standards of current Russia
True, true. The question is whether the people that lived in all these areas that Russia is taking over in Donbas, etc. will come back? Some left for Russia and might come back, but some left for Ukraine and beyond. If there are no people, who will rebuild, and what will be the point of rebuilding. They might end up making huge farms of 1500 hectares per homestead, fully mechanized.
hard to say, some will once the situation stabilises, some won't. there will probably be huge incentives from the govt for people to move back.
i doubt that they will be rebuilding every village, as most of those villages were virtually dead even before the war, but the towns will get rebuilt once again.
I finally got to read Serge's analysis and am more furious than ever about how the best interests of the American people have been ignored and trashed by the entrenched powers in Washington DC. Big Serge offers a very well-reasoned and sober analysis of how we are led by complete idiots and fools. While the American people were working, paying taxes and enjoying their families, our "geniuses" in government were spreading chaos and stupidity in the world. This is another example of the malignity of the deep state and why Trump has been right all along about our foolish foreign policies and wars. And why they hate him and want to take him out by any means possible..
Don’t be so quick to laud Trump. He assassinated Soleimeini, armed the Ukrainians to the teeth, recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and withdrew the US from nuclear treaties.
One look at his cabinet picks (Rubio etc.) shows that it’s more of the same neo-con agenda.
Dem and Rep are just charades to give the people the illusion of choice, US foreign policy is consistent through all administrations.
"NATO has put itself in this bind through its overly eager and careless expansionary mindset - having prematurely promised Ukraine NATO membership as early as 2008, the west cannot formally withdraw its pledges without undermining its own credibility, to say nothing of the backlash from a betrayed and ruined Ukraine, which would likely exit western orbit altogether."
So, we are worried about the credibility of NATO and of course the USA that is the key player. If one reads the history of Ukraine and the promises made by the US it becomes funny. Why is this? Well, the US made promises to the Russian Federation that NATO would not move one inch to the East. Then the Minsk agreements were a sham because the purpose of the EU and US was to delay the establishment of the agreements but to delay and build up the military in Ukraine.
Finally, but not least the US has a problem with a neo-con religion that was picked up from Woodrow Wilson that says the US needs to SAVE THE WORLD FOR DEMOCRACY.
I always hear how people believe that Russia wants to roll over Europe. Keep on hearing that but I am waiting for the evil Putin to do this.
The only aggressive nation that I have seen since Eisenhower cranked up the CIA and the coups the US has initiated over the course of the years all around the world. The Victoria Nuland coup is Ukraine is just a long line of interventions in countries around the world.
I was part of a coup in Vietnam when LBJ believed the lies about the Gulf of Tonkin.
We will see how long NATO will last after Russia wins in the Ukraine.
Quick comment: I don’t agree with your premise that a global area denial strategy by the US is necessary for providing a prosperous life for Americans.
You are assuming that access to markets in nations in the vicinity of would be regional hegemons would be denied to America. That’s not true.
What does America export now? Dollars. In other words, due to economic and trade policies since the 80s accelerating after the fall of the USSR, America doesn’t produce enough that the world wants, except for dollars that it sends for the real products. The trade imbalance which grows wider every year shows that.
However, there are plenty of states that, if not self sufficient, are able to keep their trade in balance. Continental Europe, without consolidation, is a case. China would not demand that Australia denies access to its markets to American or European products - that’s absurd.
In other words, it is precisely the state of the US vs the rest of the world that demands that kind of global area denial, which in turn is caused by policies the US itself has implemented over the last 30 years in the quest for that global hegemony.
It’s a very typical case in business. You have an idea where you want a complete monopoly in a competitive environment, so you take on enormous amounts of debt to solidify your market share and acquire others. If it doesn’t work and your competitors are resilient, because you took on all this debt, you cannot accept your current market share because you will go bankrupt (because of all the debt). So you have to keep going on your quest of monopoly by either raising equity (which dilutes your control and might eventually lose you the company) or take on more debt - and try again. This keeps going until you go bankrupt and disappear, or downsize with great losses to your lenders and shareholders. Either way, no monopoly, and you would have been better off focusing on what you do best while growing organically.
So No, I don’t agree you on that. Even though on the face of it US global grand strategy might seem rational, it arises from paranoia and shows a lack of imagination, while containing within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
agree with you that current US grand strategy, global area denial strategy is counterproductive, and is not necessary for providing prosperous life for Americans, now.
But it is a current US grand strategy, and voices that oppose it, from Big Serge to Mearsheimer are a clear minority.
There is a reason. A reason why majority supports American Grand Strategy.
History. Experience. Britain did well for several hundred years using same area denial strategy.
US succeeded in causing a collapse of Soviet Union.
Key is the concept of forced error. Britain, or US won most of the conflicts, by forcing the opponent into error. It is nothing personal, US and Britain would like to see global opponents China and Russia, defeated, and would spare no effort to have a victory. But would not endanger themselves in a nuclear war.
A good basis for realist foreign policy.
There is always a chance that someone in China or Russia might make a mistake, remember some of the extravagant Mao CeTung's ideas, Tiananmen Square rebellion, Prigozhin rebellion...
But, currently both China, and Russia have extremely competent leaders, able to adapt to pressure, understand and correct their own errors.
Key error of main British and US opponents in the last several centuries, from Napoleon, Russia, Germany in First and Second World War, postStalinist Soviet leaders;
copying US and Britain, attempting to become the unipolar master of the world, replacing the former British/US master. This was wrong.
Correct answer was building a multipolar world, refusing to obey the US rules. Germany never really understood what Bismarck meant, when he said Germany should never fight both France and Russia.
Russia and China cannot lose if they stay united against US aggression, India can lose only if it accepts to become an US proxy in a war against China.
Imagine for a moment how would the 20th century look like if Germany had refused to enter war against France and Russia.
Yes, by not making errors, and by correcting quickly, as Russia did in Ukraine, deep and truthful reading of US strategy enables Russia and China to respond strategically.
On forced errors: Hitler was an idiot. He shouldn’t have attacked the Soviet Union.
Attacking them was mana from heaven for the British. If he had focused on consolidating his gains while poking and isolating Britain things would have taken a much different path (although I’m not sure he would’ve been able to pacify France for long).
We will never know the secret of Hess. But even without knowing it is obvious that Hitler was mesmerized by Britain, in his imaginary racial pecking order. A madman, and a dangerous madman.
But he was not alone. After Bismarck, three generations of Germans foolishly insisted on fighting Russia, against German national interest.
And Angela Merkel, who was half independent, couldn't stop US from destroying Germany's OstPolitik.
that would not be based on global area denial, two observations:
- US cultural and political system is based on common sense, no one in economy, business is idealist, everyone respects basic logic, so US being led by a Gorbachev like figure is simply not possible. Mistaken strategy, possible, idealistic self destructive approach , impossible. Global area denial is still the only valid strategy for US, but war in Ukraine is a mistake, and better be stopped.
- When will US stop using sanctions as a tool in international politics? Answer is simple, logical, and true; when it becomes impossible, preferably never. As long as US can, US will sanction. Sanctions require global system of dominance and obedience. US will fight on to keep current system of global dominance, to contain China and Russia, but will try to exit Ukrainian war.
There are two fronts; Ukrainian war, and sanctions war. Suggesting a quick ceasefire is the best any intelligent US leader can do. It is not a real change in strategy. War will continue, on a different battlefield.
any negotiation will have to include the subject of sanctions though. and here lies another problem: the western countries have a habit of just swapping one set of sanctions for another. they negotiate to stop one lot, and then reintroduce the same sanctions under different pretext. not sure how they will be able to convince Russia to give up real gains for the promises that can be broken at any point in time. And even if the current western leaders might negotiate in good faith, how can they guarantee that after the next election the new leaders will uphold the agreements? That's the fundamental problem with the western democracies, they can only be trusted up until the next election.
From a more moderate realist point of view (defensive realism vs offensive) the Monroe Doctrine is sufficient. You don’t need to be a global hegemon to provide security and prosperity for you people.
With that doctrine, along with sensible trade and economic policies, the US can remain a Great Power for centuries while providing prosperity for its citizens. There is a lot to be admired about America and it has great natural and human resources.
Mearsheimer’s position although more sensible than what they’re doing now still is based on imperial thinking - and that is its Achilles heel. If we follow his logic the US would always be at war - because there will always be a threat of a rising power - causing, from a game theory perspective, a global suboptimal outcome for populations including Americans.
It’s not rational (unless you are one of the elites).
Again, an grand essay, but a mention of the several approaches by the USSR/Russia to align themselves with/join NATO would further clarify the argument.
Very good article . However , I believe that the prospect of long term arms sales was part of the attraction in expanding NATO . All of the new members are required to replace their Eastern Block weaponry with nice new Western stuff . That is a lot of guaranteed money over several decades ; with most of it going to the USA .
That and the graft potential expansion offered.
Indeed. NATO membership actually recruited countries to buy American. Take Romania as an example, in the cusp of their joining the alliance , they were in a very rough economic patch. Romanias finance minister had reservations of a signed for order of attack helicopters but they were informed that “this was the easiest way into NATO”. It reminds me of John Deere tractors having electrical locks that don’t allow farmers to fix it themselves, but to go shell out at a John Deere garage, to pay whatever John Deere pe they John deer damn want.
Strobe Talbot and Mrs Nuland-Kagan are Bill Clinton appointees and hard core PNAC/neocon, that was 1993. But yes forcing the Warsaw Pact to NATO standards is business development for the MIC.
Just name the Jew
And by “the USA” it means a select few arms dealers and politicians in their pocket
Fits in nicely with the fact that war is a racket.
Agreed that NATO expansion is a pretty obvious MIC sales strategy, but the Ukraine Deception takes it a step farther: a method for NATO members to trade in obsolete NATO gear for new gear, by 'donating it', all at taxpayers expense. Many don't realize that these 'donations' to Ukraine are done with the understanding that the donor arsenal will be replenished with updated equipment.
The 'donation' of dozens of end-of-life F16's are a prime example, with the added bonus that they are being replaced with F35, further enslaving NATO members to US equipment.
"This is the story that describes Ukraine as a forward bulwark and barrier state for NATO. Russia must be stopped in Ukraine, it is argued, because if Russia succeeds in conquering much (or all) of Ukraine, it will surely attack NATO next. "
Nobody actually believes this, any more than anyone actually believed that Slobo Milosevic or Saddam Hussein was about to overrun Europe or the Middle East, respectively.
However, each does provide a convenient pretext for war.
"It’s not clear how to reconcile these positions. America has essentially pledged that it is willing to link nuclear escalation calculus to Kiev and commit to a hypothetical future war with Russia by bringing Ukraine under the umbrella of Article 5, while simultaneously insisting that it is not willing to fight such a war now, while there is an immediate kinetic threat to Ukraine. It’s not obvious why Ukraine might be worth fighting a catastrophic war tomorrow, but not today. If defeating Russia in Ukraine and holding the line at Ukraine’s 1991 borders are indeed an existential American interest, then why is America holding back now?"
Of course the American position (which is by default the NATO position) is preposterous, just as we are expected to believe that Russia is simultaneously on the brink of collapse and at the same time about to invade Europe ZOMG.
The internal contradictions do not matter, as long as the war can continue.
For a while now, the motives have been very cynical and predatory. Check out this Rand report from 2019, “over extending and unbalancing Russia”. They just lay it all out right there for everyone to see: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
Yep and often mentioned by Brian Berletic. Another one is the which path to Persia (Pollack and others)
So if nobody actually believes it, why is it still being used by TPTB? Aren’t you overestimating the intelligence and common sense of a large portion of the population especially inthe west that has been and still is heavily propagandized?
People so easily propagandised are easily persuaded of the opposite when it suits. It is pure Orwell. Western popular mindless support for Ukraine is just that, easily undone. Of course it would collapse overnight if the people waving the flags had to go and fight on the Russian front, or their loved ones had to.
No, people are easily herded, like lemmings or sheep.
Hermann Goering had a certain practical experience in the matter.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
It is different now with a cradle to grave welfare state, different across the whole of europe. If you think you can raise a fighting army to order, I have as Mercouris says 'a bridge to sell you'.
it really is time people got their heads out of the 1930s and that includes all these silly appeasement accusations being bandied about in the west.
The cradle to grave welfare state in europe is long past. For that matter, that same welfare state featured mass conscription.
Funny how nobody seems to be telling a scholz or macron that he needs to stop letting his mouth write checks that his ass cannot cash.
"Featured mass conscription" ! Not to go to war it didn't. More a Sunak community welfare program, or that is what the idea has dwindled into as a mature welfare state concept.
As for the social welfare model being long past, tell that to the taxpayers.
A good question.
The short answer is: because social facts. Group identity is more important for humans than logical consistency or even facts.
The russiagate conspiracy theory is also patently absurd and flies in the face of all available evidence and logic, but it remains a Team D Article Of Faith. Because tribal loyalty.
Yes. Very good article and very sound remark. I would personally go all the way to the conclusion that anglo-americans just can't live in peace. And this is why, among many dishonest justifications for wars against many fabricated enemies, beginning with France in the middle-ages and the red-skinned Indians in modern times, Russia has always been described as a steam-roller with clay feet.
Russia was supposed to allow Ukraine to join EU/ NATO in 2014.if that failed ,russia being weaker than USSR would be subjected to sanctions etc. and a proxy war who should it to knees and again would become meek like in 1990's.
There is no paradox in NATO expansion if wolfowitz doctrine is taken seriously. Also u can see USA managing other things while conducting this war like instructing Ukraine not to blow up russian refineries, grain drama etc.,
US is envisaging a west German/ east German scenario where west Germany finally wins.tjat must be the thinking behind Ukraine issue. West won cold war keeping a military stalemate but using other things like intelligence ops, propaganda.
Also US had global ambitions since woodro Wilson and esp. since fall of France ( see book by Stephen werthiem)
USA was in second position economically before. Nothing would happen because of that. It is just overaction.
The Roman Empire knew it was wisest to accept boundaries to its empire and not try to defeat every opponent regardless of cost. And their Empire lasted for centuries.
The United States hasn't learned that lesson.
NATO expansion while disarming is because the West wants Russia's resources. They wish to break Russia up into more easily controlled pieces.
How better to do this than by getting Russia to sign disarmament agreements along with the US, while the US sets up CIA bases and NGOs to covertly take over the political systems of new NATO members?
NATO is nefarious, a huge loss of money to American tax payers, but great for grifters tied to the MIC.
NATO isn't defending democracy, it's protecting huge corporate interests.
CIA bases and NGO’s have been set up since WW2 imho to control the elites and propagandize the population through mass media. The NGO’s also had a filtering function for the political class. How else can you explain the abysmal quality and strong russophobia of our so called leaders? People like Bearbock, Habeck, Scholz, von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, Macron, Johnson, Cameron, ….
NGO - non goy organizations
The Jew runs these shills. Same as Churchill and frank Rosevelt were.
I agree with all of this, except for the explanation of the logic of American 'grand strategy'.
Britain needed to restrain a potential Continental hegemon from challenging its naval might and thus its sea-empire, i.e. its export markets. It was also driven by pleonexia (in Thucydides' sense), but this was intermingled with a plausible strategic anxiety.
The US situation is different, because (1) the client States constituting its 'imperial periphery' have relatively little value to the US as export markets, at least compared to what its opponents offer; and (2) the entire globe is one big market for its two main products, namely the dollar and IT tech. Ironically, its strategy of containment is doing nothing other than undermining US predominance in both these global markets. De-dollarisation, and increased chip production on the Chinese mainland.
What does Israel give the US that makes it worthwhile fighting Iran? What does South Korea give the US that makes it worthwhile fighting China? Britain's fear of Germany as a naval rival may have been misplaced, but at least it wasn't manifestly irrational. What core strategic imperatives is the US now responding to in pursuing a strategy of containment that is manifestly backfiring?
None, is the answer. It is now driven purely by pleonexia.
I would say that sociopaths always want more, more, more.
Even worse.... large % of these leaders are probably psychopathic to boot.
But frivolously. Smash and grab.
Even that’s too generous.
More like shoplifters.
US is a global power, and has a global reserve currency. Fought in two world wars to achieve this. US fights many battles, trying to contain or defeat its opponents, Fights until US wins, or loses. When US loses a minor war, US withdraws.
The problem in Ukraine is, there can be no withdrawal, there can be no victory, there would have to be negotiations. But several factors make diplomatic approach difficult
- Russians have been fooled, lied to so many times, that accepting a ceasefire that is not a final agreement, would be suicidal.
- Kissinger is dead, there is no one on the horizon except for Mearsheimer, who understands the principles of realist foreign policy.
And this would be an extremely difficult diplomatic task. One has to recreate something that Gorbachev failed to ask for, an agreement like Shanghai agreement between Nixon and Kissinger and MaoCe Tung and Chou en Lai, an agreement on European security that would guarantee neutral Ukraine, and cessation of regime change operations in Georgia, Armenia, Belarus...
Unrealistic, yes. Difficult to sell to US pundits, politicians, yes.
Impossible, unfortunately yes.
Nobody will ask Ukrainians their opinion. Or the US public.
Correct.
The shortest way to their acceptance is collapse of the front.
And that is coming.
Yes.... sooner than many realize. In the last 2 weeks the Russians have made some aggressive advances. From what I read Russia still has a least a 100k troops in reserve behind the front.
A bigger problem is that there is currently no way to guarantee any agreement made with the West. Western politicians continue to talk about guarantees for Ukraine, but they should be thinking about guarantees for Russia, given that they've openly admitted that they had no intention to keep the previous agreements they made (Minsk) and used it to give them time to prepare Ukraine for a military resolution instead.
Ukraine will suck it up, guarantees or no guarantees, whereas if they cannot find ironclad guarantees for Russia, Russia will just guarantee it's own security by achieving the desired outcomes via military means.
Iran isn't a threat in the same sense that a Napoleonic continental Europe was a threat to the British. That's a peculiarity of the US Israel relationship.
A united German-led EU, partnered with Russia (as the Russian elite and gov both once dreamed of), that would have been comparable. Even more, a China centric Eurasian landmass, as we now have, *definitely* is comparable.
The US imperial position described in this article - absurd as it is - requires being ready to answer challenges everywhere all at once, as long as there exists a significant rival, which there does.
Iran's threat exist solely as a terror state in service to the creed of the Satanic Verses. In that regard, it's profoundly ironic that NATO members (many, and among them the most powerful) commit national suicide by allowing the immigration of a fifth column of Islamists.
The waves of migrants were largely a *consequence* of destruction caused by wars that the US and close partners stirred up. But there was and is no scenario in which a rising Iran is going to take over Europe or force it into decline by indirect means. The only ones that can do that are US and China, and the US seems to have done it now.
The jew wants Iran destroyed.
The Jew’s book is entirely about genicide
Ortho,
are you becoming a believer in American exceptionalism.
There is no rules based order,
there can be an order based on law, but then everyone has to be equal in front of the law. One can do it using the UN, or create some other body.
None.
There is no benign hegemony
unless one is voted for in honest elections, regularly. Like Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore.
None.
What one can have is a realist foreign policy. Respecting the strength and interest of other major powers.
I said the same thing but is simpler terms (and not as eloquently) 👏
US military recruitment is in such a crisis that they do not even give publicize their recruitment targets anymore. US military has the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Germany and 173rd Airbourne Brigade in Italy. Then there are three Brigade Combat Teams that were cobbled together from various sources. These forces could not hope to overpower the Romanians. So the idea that US is somehow protecting Europe is not a serious argument to make. Have you seen the budget trajectory for the US? In a decade or so, the interest payments on the debt will consume all federal tax revenue. We will not have to worry about NATO for too much longer, as the US empire has a very similar end to the Soviet one.
Good. White men should not give their blood for the chicken swinger tribe.
And yet they talk and scheme about how to defeat China... The coming decade really will be very unpleasant and farcial at once
The "supposed" promises not to expand eastward was enshrined in NATO documents, and since NATO has become a political alliance, more than a military one, politicians made the decision to ignore those promises and intentionally antagonize Russia..The Kagan cult was largely responsible for that action and for stirring up the war in the Ukraine..
.But if NATO wanted bigger military budgets in Europe, then maybe it shouldn't have cut off the flow of cheap Russian energy, and the economic recession that has caused...They are not deep thinkers
Mike Benz has some interesting thoughts on that:
https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1708595015507665378
https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1791292702203449757
The American position was always to be willing to fight _in_ europe, and not _for_ europe. Europe was always strategically expendable as long as the goal of damaging the adversary was fullfilled. NATO in this sense was always a suicide club for central europeans, especially the germans, whose role was first to fight their kin and against the soviets and then die as collateral during the nuclear exchange.
Correct. East/West Ukraine is the new East/West Germany.
Great article. Maybe the best thing you have written in a while. Thought provoking and uncomfortable reading.
An excellent piece.
The only unresolved aspect is how the Ukraine leadership could be so indifferent to the real prospects of national disaster.
The Russians certainly were very explicit that a Ukraine shift towards NATO would be intolerable.
Yet post Maidan, Ukraine's revolutionary government ignored those warnings completely, presumably reassured by the support of senior US officials such as Victoria Nuland.
Two months after Russia invaded in 2022, there was a chance for a settlement, which Kiev ignored, probably because the terms were rejected by its allies, particularly the US. Yet given the scale of killing already evident, it must have been clear that any longer war would be horrendous.
I cannot understand how a responsible national leader can accept such a course, prolonging a bloody war with no obvious end other than the ruination of the country.
"I cannot understand how a responsible national leader can accept such a course, prolonging a bloody war with no obvious end other than the ruination of the country."
In hindsight it is obvious that the leadership of Ukraine is not a responsible one that cares for the people of its country. The regime that was installed by the Maidan coup in 2014 is a totally corrupted puppet regime of the West, with no feeling for the Russian heritage of that part of the world.
Prior to WWII, Odessa, Kiev, Sevastopol in Crimea, etc., were all Russian cities that participated in Russian culture and commerce. After WWII, attempts by the West to pull Ukraine away from Russia were prevented by the Soviet Union. The collapse of the USSR removed that impediment to the West's efforts, and with the Maidan coup we saw the culmination of U.S. efforts to pry Ukraine away from the Russian sphere, shepherded by U.S. diplomats (Nuland et al) and politicians (McCain, Biden, etc.). Their efforts started a civil war between those Ukrainians loyal to their Russian roots and those who embraced the facism represented by Bandera and his followers. We all know the rest.
That's cause Zelenskiy isn't competent by any stretch. He's a clown (a literal one) who's played a ukrainian president in some sitcom, and thought (or was convinced) that becoming a real president will be the same. That's why all you see from him is theatrics, rather than the real governance. In his presidential debates with Poroshenko, he was promising ukrainian citizens to end the war. He even said that he is prepared to come crawling and beg Putin on his knees in order to stop the war in Donbass, if that's what it takes. Once elected, he's chosen to send ukrainians into the meatgrinder instead.
Post-Maiden, the only candidates on a Ukrainian Presidential ballot have come from a tiny (~0.5%) minority in the country. All of the people in the U.S. below Obama and Biden that have been responsible for this have also came from that same tiny minority (Blinken, Nuland, et al).
I think that answers your question as to "how the Ukraine leadership could be so indifferent to the real prospects of national disaster". I understand the author can't ask the question; it's nonetheless a glaring omission. Why does anyone think the goal has anything to do with the national interests of European countries or the U.S., when it so obviously does not? BlackRock and its founder Larry Fink now own a quarter of all agricultural land in Ukraine, and U.S. interests own more than half. Zelensky himself has spoken publicly about creating an "ersatz Israel" on the black soils of Ukraine.
Create an alternative zionist state… have heard different people talking about such possibility in the last couple of years. Hence the great interest in Crimea.
Given the financial and military power behind such a vision, I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that this whole conflict is being driven to reach that goal. We may have been wrong from the beginning that it is about freedom & democracy, containing Russia, preventing total war, …
Because the topic is so verboten, I don't think people generally understand how much conflict and animosity there is between European Jews (Ashkenazi) and the conservative/orthodox factions (who are mostly Sephardic and Mithrazi) in Israel. The divide is deeper and more hostile than that between the shrillest establishment / leftist voices and Trump's biggest "MAGA" fanbois.
Netanyahu straddles the line - he has a parent from each side (though his sympathies lie clearly with the conservatives). The recent decision to suspend enlistment deferments for the orthodox is putting a match to a powder keg.
More than anything else, the single act that led to the "final solution to the Jewish question" in Nazi Germany was Hitler getting the law passed that banned some Jewish people from working in the German government and sensitive positions like the central bank. It applied to Jews who were hired after the first world war, and who were not combat veterans of that war. The Weimar government was dominated by Jews and what happened in Berlin was absolutely intolerable to average Germans - on par with how the Roman nobility felt when Caligula whored their wives out and promoted his horse to the Senate.
In response, the Jewish elite in the western diaspora enacted a boycott of Germany that starved hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans to death. From that point on it was an endless cycle of tit-for-tat escalations until the German defeat in 1945.
Putin has done the same thing. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the country was absolutely raped and stolen by the "oligarchs" - mostly by a small group commonly called the "Seven Bankers" (six of who were Jewish). Putin's party passed a reform to their Constitution before the war (2020) that banned people with dual citizenship from holding security clearances, from working for the Russian federal government, or from holding senior jobs in sensitive industries.
Western media reported quite a bit about it at the time, calling Putin a fascist and dictator, but I never saw any mention as to what exactly what the issue really was. It was exactly that every Russian Jew had dual citizenship - and all of a sudden, they were fired from their posts at the top of the government and their control of media. It is almost impossible to give up Israeli citizenship once it's obtained.
Most Russian Jews had dual citizenship because it makes a lot of things much easier. It was difficult before the war for Russian citizens to get Schengen visas, for example, but Israeli passport holders have the same rights as U.S. passport holders (six months out of each calendar year visa-free). Dual citizenship also allows Russian nationals to hide their assets completely out of the reach of the Russian government.
At the same time, Putin promoted a Jewish politician to Prime Minister (Mikhail Mishustin) - a job he still holds and appears effective in. That was done to blunt criticisms that the dual citizenship prohibition was directed against Jews. It really wasn't; it had some small effect on Russian citizens who also had citizenship in the Central Asian states, or Belorussia, or Georgia, etc.
That's what this war is all about. It's the exact same thing that led to WWII. This is entirely a Jewish war with some other less important interests at play. You can discern that they're less important by looking at who's behind it, and asking yourself what their motivation is. Does Anthony Blinken and Victoria Nuland care most about the reasons Big Serge mentioned (U.S. hegemony and power projection), or do they care about what Jewish elites have been preoccupied with for over a century (no restraint on their behavior)?
$$$$$$
Even back in the day, would any sane American trade Paris for Boston? I certainly wouldn't, let alone Riga. Which is why our first president warned against entangled alliances.
Bush (43) should have been put in a rubber room for allowing the Baltic Republics into NATO. They do absolutely nothing to enhance our security while dramatically increasing our chances for war.
Remember that Bush and his minions incited the Republic of Georgia to poke the Bear and then did nothing when the predictable reaction occurred. Another fool who saddled us with a senseless war and doubled our national debt.
And it didn't take long for Georgia to realize Russia was very close and the US far away. Too bad Ukraine didn't learn from Georgia's mistake.
Here Serge shows how much he is a victim of the US-mind-conditioning himself.
NATO was never even meant to be a defence organization.
The nuclear destruction of middle-Europe was always the target.
It was a way for European nations to avoid having to fight each other, which they'd been doing for centuries. That part actually worked. Despite that, there is a tradeoff made to gain that benefit, and the part about having Europe destroyed was still kind of a possibility. If US and USSR were ever to directly fight, they'd need a battleground that was expendable... See comment by ' knalldi ' below, it's stated perfectly by him/her.
Today Ukraine is fulfilling that role, but without ever receiving the kind of benefits that Western Europeans at least got for many years. Astonishingly bad deal signing up for this
I think professor Mearsheimer is right, USA (NATO) is a warden of Europe, they keep them at bay to prevent any new wars in europe.
So yes, it's not a "defensive alliance", it's a containment mechanism, although it is containing what is inside of it, not what is outside.
It's weird, huh?
This is a good article especially the first part. The part I disagree with is the end. IMO America has zero interest into ever making Ukraine a NATO member, and the war is being funded largely to degrade Russian forces and to acquire intelligence. They are speaking that way to Zelensky & Co because if they told them this explicitly, it would further hamper morale.
But instead of degrading their forces they are getting stronger, battle hardened. Yet another failure of their ‘grand’ strategy.
Battle hardened, but lost a lot of equipment and men.
And so did ukraine and so would have happened to any army in this type of attrition warfare…
The numbers are worse for Ukraine and the combined west btw wrt to men and material
Europe lost badly on material. The US has kept most of its important stuff reserved for the pacific theater (so far)
Ukraine is the biggest country in Europe, after Russia, and had about 50 million people, below, Germany, France, Italy and UK, with heavy industry and likely the biggest, strongest army in Europe (not considering Turkyie and the US). If the West cannot have Ukraine, the next best thing is to have it all wreked and placed it as an albatross to Russia's neck. A victorious Russia will be a very strong Russia and thus, from a perception perspective, a very dangerous Russia (soo much projection here); thus, a big, rotting albatross of the size of Ukraine hanging in perpetuity to Russia's neck is ultimately a very desirable thing.
What Russia will take from the war is the Southern and Eastern parts of Ukraine. This where all the industry resides and the rest in the West can stay with Ukraine. After all the Madian coup was supposedly to have Kiev and the West to get closer to Europe. So, if they have any land left because Blackrock is buying it up then they probably will be OK.
50 millions ukies? On wich planet are you living? Maybe 18 millions, maximum, mainly non productive one as old people, kids, women etc..the rest left forever they will never come back except for 'vacation' as they make far more money or in the West or even in Russia, in the West even when doing nothing (not working you can make 3 or 4.000 eur for a family of 4 in some countries + free or cheap housing, free health, free transport etc...)they will not come back in Ukr to make 250 eur/usd a month with no security as the country can even after the war return suddenly into a full gestapo/sbu/azov concentration camp as now, nobody can escape.
I said had. When the USSR split, Ukraine had 51,706,742 million. In 2001 it had 48,457,100.
Apparently east Ukraine has a lot of resources, so financially it’s probably going to be a win for Russia allowing them to stop the rotting 🤔
The areas of Donbas/Lugansk recovered from Ukraine through battle are pulverized and depopulated. It might take an entire generation (25+ years) after the war ends to fix all the destruction (either reconstruct and level it to make farmland), demining, and removal of unexploded ordnance. Lots of long term investments before any benefits might start accruing.
it might take 25 years to completely get rid of the effects of the war (or maybe even longer, considering that they are still finding unexploded munitions from WWI and WWII. It will take far less to make it all habitable again though. Have a look at Mariupol.
The biggest effort won't be recovery from the war, it will be recovery from 30 years of ukrainian govts neglecting infrastructure. The whole country pretty much needs to be rebuilt from the ground up to get anywhere near the standards of current Russia
True, true. The question is whether the people that lived in all these areas that Russia is taking over in Donbas, etc. will come back? Some left for Russia and might come back, but some left for Ukraine and beyond. If there are no people, who will rebuild, and what will be the point of rebuilding. They might end up making huge farms of 1500 hectares per homestead, fully mechanized.
hard to say, some will once the situation stabilises, some won't. there will probably be huge incentives from the govt for people to move back.
i doubt that they will be rebuilding every village, as most of those villages were virtually dead even before the war, but the towns will get rebuilt once again.
I finally got to read Serge's analysis and am more furious than ever about how the best interests of the American people have been ignored and trashed by the entrenched powers in Washington DC. Big Serge offers a very well-reasoned and sober analysis of how we are led by complete idiots and fools. While the American people were working, paying taxes and enjoying their families, our "geniuses" in government were spreading chaos and stupidity in the world. This is another example of the malignity of the deep state and why Trump has been right all along about our foolish foreign policies and wars. And why they hate him and want to take him out by any means possible..
Don’t be so quick to laud Trump. He assassinated Soleimeini, armed the Ukrainians to the teeth, recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and withdrew the US from nuclear treaties.
One look at his cabinet picks (Rubio etc.) shows that it’s more of the same neo-con agenda.
Dem and Rep are just charades to give the people the illusion of choice, US foreign policy is consistent through all administrations.
"NATO has put itself in this bind through its overly eager and careless expansionary mindset - having prematurely promised Ukraine NATO membership as early as 2008, the west cannot formally withdraw its pledges without undermining its own credibility, to say nothing of the backlash from a betrayed and ruined Ukraine, which would likely exit western orbit altogether."
So, we are worried about the credibility of NATO and of course the USA that is the key player. If one reads the history of Ukraine and the promises made by the US it becomes funny. Why is this? Well, the US made promises to the Russian Federation that NATO would not move one inch to the East. Then the Minsk agreements were a sham because the purpose of the EU and US was to delay the establishment of the agreements but to delay and build up the military in Ukraine.
Finally, but not least the US has a problem with a neo-con religion that was picked up from Woodrow Wilson that says the US needs to SAVE THE WORLD FOR DEMOCRACY.
I always hear how people believe that Russia wants to roll over Europe. Keep on hearing that but I am waiting for the evil Putin to do this.
The only aggressive nation that I have seen since Eisenhower cranked up the CIA and the coups the US has initiated over the course of the years all around the world. The Victoria Nuland coup is Ukraine is just a long line of interventions in countries around the world.
I was part of a coup in Vietnam when LBJ believed the lies about the Gulf of Tonkin.
We will see how long NATO will last after Russia wins in the Ukraine.
Quick comment: I don’t agree with your premise that a global area denial strategy by the US is necessary for providing a prosperous life for Americans.
You are assuming that access to markets in nations in the vicinity of would be regional hegemons would be denied to America. That’s not true.
What does America export now? Dollars. In other words, due to economic and trade policies since the 80s accelerating after the fall of the USSR, America doesn’t produce enough that the world wants, except for dollars that it sends for the real products. The trade imbalance which grows wider every year shows that.
However, there are plenty of states that, if not self sufficient, are able to keep their trade in balance. Continental Europe, without consolidation, is a case. China would not demand that Australia denies access to its markets to American or European products - that’s absurd.
In other words, it is precisely the state of the US vs the rest of the world that demands that kind of global area denial, which in turn is caused by policies the US itself has implemented over the last 30 years in the quest for that global hegemony.
It’s a very typical case in business. You have an idea where you want a complete monopoly in a competitive environment, so you take on enormous amounts of debt to solidify your market share and acquire others. If it doesn’t work and your competitors are resilient, because you took on all this debt, you cannot accept your current market share because you will go bankrupt (because of all the debt). So you have to keep going on your quest of monopoly by either raising equity (which dilutes your control and might eventually lose you the company) or take on more debt - and try again. This keeps going until you go bankrupt and disappear, or downsize with great losses to your lenders and shareholders. Either way, no monopoly, and you would have been better off focusing on what you do best while growing organically.
So No, I don’t agree you on that. Even though on the face of it US global grand strategy might seem rational, it arises from paranoia and shows a lack of imagination, while containing within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
Phoenix,
agree with you that current US grand strategy, global area denial strategy is counterproductive, and is not necessary for providing prosperous life for Americans, now.
But it is a current US grand strategy, and voices that oppose it, from Big Serge to Mearsheimer are a clear minority.
There is a reason. A reason why majority supports American Grand Strategy.
History. Experience. Britain did well for several hundred years using same area denial strategy.
US succeeded in causing a collapse of Soviet Union.
Key is the concept of forced error. Britain, or US won most of the conflicts, by forcing the opponent into error. It is nothing personal, US and Britain would like to see global opponents China and Russia, defeated, and would spare no effort to have a victory. But would not endanger themselves in a nuclear war.
A good basis for realist foreign policy.
There is always a chance that someone in China or Russia might make a mistake, remember some of the extravagant Mao CeTung's ideas, Tiananmen Square rebellion, Prigozhin rebellion...
But, currently both China, and Russia have extremely competent leaders, able to adapt to pressure, understand and correct their own errors.
Key error of main British and US opponents in the last several centuries, from Napoleon, Russia, Germany in First and Second World War, postStalinist Soviet leaders;
copying US and Britain, attempting to become the unipolar master of the world, replacing the former British/US master. This was wrong.
Correct answer was building a multipolar world, refusing to obey the US rules. Germany never really understood what Bismarck meant, when he said Germany should never fight both France and Russia.
Russia and China cannot lose if they stay united against US aggression, India can lose only if it accepts to become an US proxy in a war against China.
Imagine for a moment how would the 20th century look like if Germany had refused to enter war against France and Russia.
Yes, by not making errors, and by correcting quickly, as Russia did in Ukraine, deep and truthful reading of US strategy enables Russia and China to respond strategically.
It is a long game.
On forced errors: Hitler was an idiot. He shouldn’t have attacked the Soviet Union.
Attacking them was mana from heaven for the British. If he had focused on consolidating his gains while poking and isolating Britain things would have taken a much different path (although I’m not sure he would’ve been able to pacify France for long).
We will never know the secret of Hess. But even without knowing it is obvious that Hitler was mesmerized by Britain, in his imaginary racial pecking order. A madman, and a dangerous madman.
But he was not alone. After Bismarck, three generations of Germans foolishly insisted on fighting Russia, against German national interest.
And Angela Merkel, who was half independent, couldn't stop US from destroying Germany's OstPolitik.
Regarding an alternative US strategy,
that would not be based on global area denial, two observations:
- US cultural and political system is based on common sense, no one in economy, business is idealist, everyone respects basic logic, so US being led by a Gorbachev like figure is simply not possible. Mistaken strategy, possible, idealistic self destructive approach , impossible. Global area denial is still the only valid strategy for US, but war in Ukraine is a mistake, and better be stopped.
- When will US stop using sanctions as a tool in international politics? Answer is simple, logical, and true; when it becomes impossible, preferably never. As long as US can, US will sanction. Sanctions require global system of dominance and obedience. US will fight on to keep current system of global dominance, to contain China and Russia, but will try to exit Ukrainian war.
There are two fronts; Ukrainian war, and sanctions war. Suggesting a quick ceasefire is the best any intelligent US leader can do. It is not a real change in strategy. War will continue, on a different battlefield.
any negotiation will have to include the subject of sanctions though. and here lies another problem: the western countries have a habit of just swapping one set of sanctions for another. they negotiate to stop one lot, and then reintroduce the same sanctions under different pretext. not sure how they will be able to convince Russia to give up real gains for the promises that can be broken at any point in time. And even if the current western leaders might negotiate in good faith, how can they guarantee that after the next election the new leaders will uphold the agreements? That's the fundamental problem with the western democracies, they can only be trusted up until the next election.
From a more moderate realist point of view (defensive realism vs offensive) the Monroe Doctrine is sufficient. You don’t need to be a global hegemon to provide security and prosperity for you people.
With that doctrine, along with sensible trade and economic policies, the US can remain a Great Power for centuries while providing prosperity for its citizens. There is a lot to be admired about America and it has great natural and human resources.
Mearsheimer’s position although more sensible than what they’re doing now still is based on imperial thinking - and that is its Achilles heel. If we follow his logic the US would always be at war - because there will always be a threat of a rising power - causing, from a game theory perspective, a global suboptimal outcome for populations including Americans.
It’s not rational (unless you are one of the elites).
Exactly,
it is not rational unless you are one of the elites.
But it is elites who decide on strategy. And as long as there are elites and populations, always will elites decide.
So to clarify our differences. It is not that US will become more moderate because of logic, arguments, etc. This never works.
It will be the hard way, information coming from lost war, that will change the US approach.
Trump could change this calculus, but it will not be easy.
I agree with they will not stop until they’re defeated. We’ll see what Trump does.
Again, an grand essay, but a mention of the several approaches by the USSR/Russia to align themselves with/join NATO would further clarify the argument.