Among commentators reporting on the ongoing wars, and wars being planned, my position is somewhat odd, I guess. I define 'winning' as a successful attempt to *prevent* war. Readers of what I have to say on this blog will recognise that, where I keep saying that NATO studiously ignored Russian propositions to find a way to *avoid* war in Europe through negotiating a lasting peace architecture. The Russians clearly invited the NATO countries to discuss NATO-expansion from *at least* 2007, the NATO 'Security Conference' in Munich. NATO ignored them.
Or, rather, *sought* to confront the Russians. I do not care whether you feel NATO was justified in acting this way, or not. That is not the issue. If someone tells you not to advance further, or he will hit you over the head with the club he is holding, and you ignore his warnings, two things may happen. Effectively nothing, because it was an empty threat. Or you get your head smashed in. Now, in this case, NATO kept seeking ways to expand, despite the threat of war, but it wanted Russia to hit Ukraine, and not NATO, so NATO arranged for a patsy in Ukraine to be hit, clearing the way for a non-kinetic, but considered lethal response from NATO: 'Economic Warfare'.
That strategy was openly meant to 'Overextend and Unbalance Russia from Advantageous Ground'. Russia would be defeated, and that would be the end of it. 'Winning' was taking Russia out of the equation, leaving only China to deal with. 'Winning' for Russia was preventing a NATO victory, and expansion. Not 'taking all of Ukraine'. And by extension, that would be the desired outcome for *all* the 'BRICS'-countries. In a similar vein, if NATO's choice would have been to alternatively confront China by throwing Taiwan under the bus, Russia would have wanted China to win. 'Winning' again clearly defined as 'not losing'.
In a confrontation with China the option of hitting that country with 'Economic Warfare' to push the Chinese over the edge, and declare victory, would have been pretty outlandish. While a kinetic war far from home with a (near) 'peer' adversary over a comparatively small island within firing range for the Chinese always was a question mark, even for the staunched fans of NATO's military might. Which is why 'planners' eventually picked this strategy of going after Russia, to isolate China. Badly misjudging the reach of their 'Economic Warfare'-suit, developed in the run-up to the start of the 'Special Military Operation'. And, subsequently, failing to understand that Russia and China together are no match for NATO militarily either way. As they burned through the entire male Ukrainian population worth anything in combat, and seeing all their 'stuff' suitable for a war of this kind being destroyed, how can they still win that war?
First, to understand *why* they misjudged, we need to focus on two crucial, intertwined components. To begin with, the 'Collective West' thought that 'weaponising' their currency would cause sufficient damage to Russia's energy exports, while they *assumed* that Russia needed those revenues to stay in the race militarily, because of certain 'components', like computer chips, and to avoid growing discontent among the people. Whatever 'Intelligence' informed that assumption, was provided by grossly incompetent 'assets'. It is entirely likely that nobody within NATO even *bothered* to think about a conventional war lasting years, because Russia was guaranteed to collapse in weeks, months at most, as a result of that 'Economic Warfare'. And, as stated before, NATO obviously *assumed* that Russia would be tempted to take Kiev, and declare victory. Not to merely launch a 'Shock and Awe' operation to pressure Zelensky into saving his country and his people by returning to the 'Minsk-Format', with a 'War of Attrition' against all of NATO as 'Plan B', but never a war of conquest.
Secondly, our 'Liberal Democracy', no longer a 'Classic Democracy' with a constitution 'cast in stone', but a 'Conditional Democracy', where you are left with a choice between various 'Woke' political parties subservient to 'Brussels' in Europe, and the weird 'Warparty' establishment in the US, is hugely unpopular outside the 'Collective West', and rapidly losing track inside the 'Collective West' as well. Various reasons why this is so. First of all, the whole range of 'LifeStyle-Choices' taking center stage in the 'Collective West' collide with local culture in many countries. From 'somewhat alien' to diametrically opposed. But what is more, that way of life is not suited for a productive society focussing on wealth-creation through mining, farming, producing goods and setting up the logistic support. Only a society which has abolished productive work, relying on the 'printing press' to provide the money needed to buy 'stuff', can be afforded that luxury. At least until the producing countries are done accepting their 'Mickey Mouse'-money.
Understand that these countries resisting 'Liberal Democracy' were *not* seeking war with us in the 'Collective West'. They were not after teaching us a lesson. In fact they studied our development, and copied it. Including the development of a 'Customs Union', like what the 'European Economic Community' *used* to be. That is what 'BRICS' is. Sovereign countries looking for an opportunity to trade. Adapting to 'stuff' our market demands, with useless goodies associated with ever changing 'LifeStyle'-choices and hype, accepting our 'Mickey Mouse'-money, which they use to buy 'bonds' in our part of the world, driving us into debt. 'Bonds' we needed to 'play' without consequences.
People living in a 'Liberal Democracy' are either skeptical about this set-up, because they feel that this way of life will come back to haunt us by the time we're all too demented to understand that we produce little or nothing of value, *or* they want to spread their ideology to every corner of the world, not stopping until they've 'won'. Won what? Their entire worldview is based on spreading the notion of 'entitlement'. They are usually not bad people, although some 'LifeStyle'-choices do not deserve any encouragement if you care about the well-being of your children, for instance. But they will tell me that workers in Bangladesh need to demand the same 'rights' we have, and they will support them. If you point out that if they did that, they would lose their job, because even if their employer went along, the products would no longer be competitive, they offer the 'solution' that we, as 'entitled' consumers, pay more. Yes dear, but *you* already do not produce anything anyone needs, as a 'LifeStyle'-consultant, propped up by government contracts and subsidies, so how is that going to work out then?
Pardon my French, but we *need* to be able to buy from these countries, or we need to return to the farm, the factory and the mining-pit without subsidies and 'greased' contracts ourselves. Competing with people in piss-poor countries. While short of natural resources and a skilled workforce. Do you call that 'winning'? Wouldn't it be better to allow these people in those countries to grow their own wealth in ways that made us wealthy as a nation in the past, ignoring cultural differences, instead of smashing their heads in because they refuse to introduce laws which regulate the use of 'pronouns', and all the rest of that 'woke' stuff? Any idea how much these 'Think-Tankers' at 'Rand' earn for 'producing' that plan to 'Overextend and Unbalance Russia'? Do you want to bet that it is a *lot* more than a useful worker in one of 'BRICS' countries? While all they ever did was destroy our wealth, and shatter the peace.