How did we end up in this mess? Whenever things are starting to move sideways, we tend to skip asking how that unforeseen development came about. We focus on solving the problem, saving ourselves. We want solutions, and we want them *now*! That sense of urgency is understandable, especially if the mess we find ourselves in is 'life threatening'. Analysing what we did wrong will have to wait. No time to lose!
Yet, in most situations the quality of our decision towards a solution would benefit greatly from searching for mistakes made in the past. Those who 'followed' me in the past, reading what I had to say about the war with Russia on Ukrainian soil know that I am convinced that Russia wasn't losing to Ukraine towards the end of 2022, but that Russia retreated in preparation for the War of Attrition which became inevitable once Zelensky took Boris 'Brexit' Johnson's hand, shredding the 'Istanbul Agreement' and entering into law that negotiations with Russia were forbidden, as long as Putin would still be in power, never to look back. Clearly I cannot *prove* that I am correct, nor do I maintain that every Russian commander active in the SMO understood that this had been the plan from well before February 2022. Yet events since support my thesis, while most other insights and fantasies need to skip certain events to make the narrative stick.
Does it matter? Yes, it *does* matter, even today. Both 'sides' were planning for war. Or, rather, three 'interested' parties were planning for war. Any and all attempts by Russia to prevent war through diplomacy failed. But whereas NATO was planning for a quick knockout through economic warfare and 'information warfare' to destabilise Russia, Ukraine was planning for a rematch after the defeat in 2015, merely seeking to regain control over territory lost. Whereas the Russians wanted what they have been saying since 2007, a neutral neighbour which poses no threat to Russia, and a lasting peace in Europe, allowing BRICS to grow as a trading partner of the EU. True, in 2007 BRICS didn't exist yet, not even as a concept. Back then Putin was not seeking any kind of alliance with China. Instead he wanted to grow the Russian economy through working together with the EU. It was the rejection of the 'Collective West' in 2008, the extended invitation to Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, and the EU, which made it crystal clear that Russia was seen as the enemy. Or rather, as the 'object' to be defeated and torn apart, because of the vast riches, oil, gas, minerals and in the service of 'containing China', which *created* BRICS. Which effectively destroyed the 'unipolar moment', because it clearly illustrated that the 'Collective West' could not be trusted in a million years.
Once you come to see how that was the plan in 'Washington' and 'Brussels', how that was the plan of the 'Warparty', and why they needed that coup in Ukraine in 2014 to pave the way to using Ukraine to get to Russia, the path out of this mess we created doesn't require a genius to find the best way forward. Nor does it allow you to overlook that Russia 'came prepared' in 2022, and that Putin and his government did not act on impulse, nor did they miscalculate. The only question remaining, is how far did they look ahead? Much farther than NATO, and let's forget about Ukraine, because they never even understood how they were used by NATO and the EU in the first place. Save for Arestovych, Zelensky's former friend and 'wingman', and more than a few Ukrainians who are powerless to act on it, since Zelensky cancelled elections.
In other words, that 'Shock and Awe' invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was not an impulsive action, but an attempt to bring Zelensky back to the table, and his senses, and offer him a way out, saving his country (minus Crimea) and his people. Even offering him a grandiose view of the future as a neutral country between the two largest trading blocks in the world, without anything to worry about, but making money for his piss-poor and corrupt country, and spreading the wealth. And yes, if others in 'Kiev' would have understood what was at stake in early 2022, changing the regime back to something resembling the troubled democratic country which it used to be before the 2014 coup, with or without Zelensky, that would have pleased the Russians too, obviously. And the other BRICS countries. But that didn't happen. Boris 'Brexit' Johnson told Zelensky to stick around, because the end of Russia as a country, and Putin as its leader, was just around the corner. And no doubt the 'Azov-types' wouldn't have wanted that outcome anyway. But Putin considered it worthwhile to give it a try.
So 'Plan B', withdrawal behind the Surovikin line, preparing for a war of attrition, which required attriting NATO in its entirety, outproducing NATO, and using the 'frozen' conflict to expand the military, and reshape it to fight that particular type of war, was *not* the result of improvisation after a disappointing outcome. It had been planned carefully, and in detail. In no time at all Russia recreated a *very* capable military industrial complex to serve the army, navy and air force, and they recruited and trained scores of soldiers needed for a war which would take years, without relying on the draft. And they won. Hands down. They defeated Ukraine, which would have been blown away a long time ago if NATO hadn't propped it up financially and militarily, *and* they outproduced NATO 'Four to One', as Rutte admitted.
But what did come as a shocking surprise for the Russians, that is the betrayal of the European elite. Willing 'leaders', one after the other, pushing their own country, their own people under the bus as well. They pay a hefty price since their popularity drops like a ton of bricks as they reveal their *real* agenda after elections, but there are more of them where they came from, and even a dramatic shift on paper after elections doesn't translate into any modification of the drive to more war. Christian Democrat, Socialist, Green Goblin, Air Head Animal Protectionist, Born Again Fascist, they *all* carry the expansionist agenda of the EU and NATO, and this desire to tear Russia apart, before taking on China.
I'm not going to speculate why this is so. No two paths towards this desire to sacrifice themselves on the altar of NATO expansion are identical, and on other topics they rip the others apart, but NATO expansion is sacred, somehow. It is my assumption that there never was a 'Plan C' from the start, covering the follow-up after the war of attrition would have been won conclusively, and some kind of settlement would have been reached. But after Merkel, Hollande, Porochenko and Zelensky revealed that the 'Minsk Accord' was a ruse, only meant to rebuild Ukraine militarily, and prepare it for the next military conflict with Russia, work on a 'Plan C' would have taken shape.
How to defeat the 'Coalition of the Willing', after they switched to a terror campaign, using what would be left of Ukraine as a launching pad to fire missiles and drones towards oil refineries and other nodes in the Russian economy, neglecting what would happen to Ukraine? Ukraine itself is exhausted and broke, and short of men, betting on the fact that Russia won't take all of Ukraine anyway, thus leaving a failed state effectively run by Azov-militia firing at will at targets in Russia, everything paid for by the Europeans, on command of the elite 'leaders' still in control, despite elections which tell them to take a hike.
'Plan C' will no doubt focus on upgrading air defense to protect those refineries and other important economic nodes, and relocating them 'behind the Urals' if feasible, like they did in advance of 'Operation Barbarossa', while following the delivery of weapons going to Ukraine and blowing them up the moment they cross the border, making Europe pay for their intransigence, overextending and unbalancing Europe, as one European economy after the other goes under. This no longer is somewhere in the distant future, and it is likely to result in more war. Not with Russia, but between European countries. Poland already made it clear that it won't provide troops to a force which would be dispatched to Ukraine after a settlement is reached, though it *will* offer all kinds of logistics support, and earn 'Top Euro' on the back of that 'service', to be paid by the EU. Italy likewise, no troops, but they are prepared to build a bridge between mainland Italy and Sicily, paid for by the EU, listing it as a project serving NATO. And Hungary and Slovakia calling all of them names, because they actively try to topple the elected governments in those countries. Who will lash out first, because the others don't play ball, and only profit from talking tough? How will they explain their military action? Where does it end?
The irony here is, that when I was serving my country as an officer, it was explained to me how cultural, religious, ethnic and economic tensions in the Soviet Union were actively being exploited to unbalance that megalithic entity, and I watched how that went down 'in real time', so to say. It was explained to me as a brilliant strategy, since we in NATO wouldn't have to go to war, still defeating the Soviet Union. Eventually it did take same help from Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, a pretty cynical move, but it worked. I never, ever, thought we would be as dumb as opening ourselves up to a replay and payback, allowing the EU to become a political project, and die from overreach, but here we are.