There are two competing narratives related to the war in Ukraine related to the most likely outcome. One narrative says that Russia will win on the battlefield. The other says that NATO will win since Russia will collapse economically. Oddly they may both be correct. Although my money is on Russia winning militarily, *and* emerging victorious from the economic war. Not my *real* money though, since that money is tied to Europe. Therefore NATO losing ‘Big Time’, dragging the member-states down with it, is most certainly not in my own best interest.
My inability to contribute to stopping this war before it went out of control is disappointing, but such is life. I’m not anywhere near the centers of power where decisions are made. And if we take a good hard look at NATO, we are looking at an ‘organism’ with a life of its own, without any readily identifiable individual bearing responsibility. Not even a clearly marked collective. Even a group like the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ within NATO is not well defined and long-lasting. Members move in and out of it. Catastrophic mishaps resulting from wars NATO engaged in are never anyone’s fault. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine. It just happened the way it did. And everybody involved had ‘Good Intentions’ as they sent people on their way to die.
As explained on these pages, Ukraine losing the military war was never a ‘Big Deal’ for those who did the planning. The Rand Corp plan approached war between Russia and Ukraine as a unique pre-condition to ‘Overextend and Unbalance Russia from Advantageous Ground’. The economic war would do the heavy lifting. Not the kinetic war. Thus, Russia winning on the battlefield, but NATO succeeding in ‘Overextending and Unbalancing Russia’ was still listed as a ‘Victory’. To hell with those Ukrainians who would die to make that happen. Russia was the trophy NATO was going to take home. And if that happened, Ukraine would profit handsomely through the compensation it would receive as a reward.
Ukraine/NATO winning on the battlefield as well became a fantasy after Russia withdrew behind the Surovikin-Line to prepare for a War of Attrition, sold in the West as Ukraine defeating the Russians and driving them out. I maintained that this was a misconception, based on the fantasy that Russia was after conquering all of Ukraine, while the SMO was ‘designed’ to warn Zelensky that he was playing with fire, and that he needed to return to the ‘Minsk-Format’ to avoid a devastating war. It is impossible to know how many Western ‘experts’ understood the intentions of the Russians at that stage, and how many actually believed that Ukraine was winning. The Russian strategy made sense, unless a long, protracted War of Attrition would bleed Russia white economically, in which case the military side of things wouldn’t make any difference. As explained NATO actually preferred a bold, aggressive Russia conquering all of Ukraine, with Zelensky in exile posing as a Lily-white ‘defender of democracy’, but the Russian strategy, and his refusal to sign the ‘Istanbul Accord’, turned him into a ‘War-Time President’, a ‘Churchill Number II’, until the military effort collapsed with both Ukraine and NATO attrited, unable to produce enough weapons and ammo to stay in the race. Russian opposition to this approach did not come from the ‘Doves’ inside Russia, but from the likes of Prigozhin, who wanted to play into the hands of the NATO-plan, conquering Kiev, and replace Zelensky, declaring victory.
As long as Russia is able to survive economically, the present strategy is far more rewarding than something akin to NATO’s war against Iraq, or in Afghanistan. Taking only those parts of Ukraine, after winning the War of Attrition, which can be reliably controlled, while leaving a Ukrainian ‘Rump State’ drowning in debt, and without any resources left, is a headache for NATO, more in particular Europe. Macron calling Putin to demand a ceasefire met with stone-cold refusal, since the Russians feel strongly that Europe is on the brink of a devastating recession, while Russia will be able to stay afloat. I concur. It is not easy to predict economical developments in the world we live in today, since anything resembling a ‘Free Market’ ceased to exist because of all the sanctions, part of the ‘Master Plan’ to ‘Overextend and Unbalance Russia’. Yet the remaining ‘Market’ is not fully ‘regulated’ either, less so since Trump introduced the ’Tariff Wars’. Unpredictability is bad for business, especially in the NATO-countries, while Russia switched to reliable customers in China, India and elsewhere. The only burden for Russia is the war itself, but it is nowhere near the burden this war is creating for Europe, faced with the limitations of its own ability to produce weapons and ammo, and no affordable, stable energy, while the US has other priorities, and doesn’t shy away from draining the European economy with ’Tariffs’.
The ‘Five Percent of GDP’ the European NATO-countries promised by 2035, in ten years from now, so as to buy Trump, was a spectacular dud. The very idea that Trump can be ‘charmed’ into a continuation of the war with Russia exposes a cringe-worthy lack of understanding the fickle US president. I do not subscribe to the narrative that he is ‘Putin’s Puppet’, or that Trump is under Putin’s spell as a result of Putin’s flattery when he is talking about Trump’s contributions. Nor do I underestimate Trump or Putin as adversaries. But the Russians and Trump had it with these European leaders which are never straight, never aligned, and unable to strike a deal and stick to it. East of the ’New Iron Curtain’ dividing Europe, the conditions to do business are much better, and that is astonishing. The European Union, as a Trade Community, once was the bright shining light in a world of darkness. BRICS copied the model. Sovereign nations, focussed on trade, benefitting beyond your wildest imagination, exactly because they didn’t interfere with the policies of the member states related to internal organization, but setting firm benchmarks for banks, financial institutions, and laws related to trade among the member states. What on Earth happened?
NATO’s ambitions interfered.
It is not impossible for Europe to escape from this self-inflicted pain, but the trend is not promising. In fact, with Trump focussing on the US, making enemies of former allies, and openly antagonizing his NATO-partners, Europe appears to be considering taking over NATO, and its ambitions. That would destroy the Europe I grew up in, and cement its future as a proto-fascist entity led by a self-proclaimed elite which would have difficulty selling ice cream on a hot summer’s day. Ideologues struggling to understand the world around them, drifting off on rainbow-colored balloons to a dreamscape that has no bearing with reality.
Macron took the lead when the US became a liability, likely because he figured that France being the only serious weapons manufacturer within NATO not enslaved to the US, offered potential benefits for the country. In addition, France was an early convert to nuclear-power, not as dependent on carbon-fuel as many other European nations, especially Germany. But the French as a people do not share his enthusiasm for fighting Russia. Nor do they embrace Zelensky as their Savior. In fact, the people of Europe, as a whole, are nowhere near as enamored with the prospect of war as their leaders. With austerity arriving in force right after elections in various European countries so as to win an arms race with Russia, China, and the rest of BRICS, even Macron has to understand that that bird is not going to fly. Yet, his desperate attempt to arrange a ceasefire is yet another ‘cheat’ to buy time, as with the ‘Minsk Accord’, and if he really spent two hours chatting with Putin about that particular concept, hoping to convince Putin to give in, he has been wasting his breath. Something has got to give, and at this stage it is not going to be Russia.
The Europeans committing their own military is a losing proposition, and this Europe-led NATO replacing the US-led NATO as a geostrategical force is laughable. Europe’s massive self-promotion as the standard-bearer of ‘Western Values’ is sounding ever more hollow, as politicians and civil servants responsible for implementing and safe-guarding said ‘Values’ descended on Budapest in a regime-change effort targeted at Orbán, while hatred and violence against homosexuals, Jews and Muslims is on the rise in a city like Amsterdam, pretending to be the poster-child of tolerance. So what was the mayor of that city doing in Budapest, getting her picture taken standing next to the mayor of that city, challenging Orbán, doing a ‘Musk-gesture’? While I was prepared to accept that the man had been caught in a ‘Musk-moment’, he later explained that he was merely ‘pointing’. Don’t know about Hungarians, but I point with my finger, or if I use my arm the hand is not held flat. Didn’t we learn anything from ‘Maidan’, with John McCain, Lindsey Graham’s buddy, and others embracing the leader of Svoboda, not having a ‘Musk-moment’, but openly bringing the Nazi salute?