Phillips, I am looking forward to the release of your new book and it will be curious to see the reaction to it but all who have failed to see Russia for what it is (hint: they will double down and see “power” far too narrowly).
The Trump interview transcript reads like a minds filled with hamsters in speed creating word salad that is totally incoherent and in most cases factually fabricated (meaning lies and wrong). But what is interesting is what was NOT SAID. While Trump echoed the reflexive control talking points and lamented “death and losses on both sides” what he did not say is that Russia should not be launching long range attacks on Ukraine with the implicit message that this is perfectly fine, but not fine for Ukraine to return in kind. That double standard communicates loudly he will abandon Ukraine de facto.
The whole oil price issue to just flat out wrong. If anything, it is a page out of Putin’s playbook of saying “nothing to see here” as the sanctions have really hurt Russia’s ability to earn hard currency the the same way they could have absent the war plus hitting oil infrastructure is making a difference.
As you write earlier this week, time for Europe to wake up to the new reality and get its act together.
Thanks Paul--its a very strange interview--incoherent in many places. Which is why people thinking he made a commitment not to abandon Ukraine need to be very careful
Paul, you are the first person that I've read to bring out the hypocrisy of Trump's statement re long range missles. While I also agree that the probability is that Trump is going to abandon Ukraine de facto, I think it is right to say that what he is actually going to accomplish is always in question because of his general incompetence, short attention span and narcissism.
I think that the sanctions should be the line that Ukraine supporters fight for by triggering Trump's fear of being labeled weak and a Putin stooge. His refusal to admit talking to Putin has already revealed his sensitivity. If the sactions remain in place Russia is going to have a difficult time recovering in the four years the world is saddled with Trump.
I keep reading about all the capability that NATO will lose if the US withdraws or does abandon Ukraine in fact, but I still believe that Europe has the means to face a weakened Russia if it has the will. I'm skeptical they do, but hoping I'm proven wrong.
Thank you, August. I too hope Trump’s incompetence, incoherence, and short attention span will be an impediment to carrying out what he says. But at the same time I have to believe people when they tell who they are. There are European states with the guts to do what is needed in the Nordics, Baltics, Poland, Czechia. But the rest of Europe does not have the will as they have no concept of what it is like to be under the Russian thumb.
“what he did not say is that Russia should not be launching long range attacks on Ukraine with the implicit message that this is perfectly fine, but not fine for Ukraine to return in kind.” Yes, I got the same impression as you about everything he said. I don’t read mainstream media and can’t imagine how anyone could possibly get a sense from his blathering that he won’t abandon Ukraine.
In the mainstream media, they are buying into the Russian narrative, and are also in denial about how bad Trump will be for Ukraine and overall US national security.
You would think their journalistic education and experience would have prepared them to spot propaganda and insinuative commentary before any of us. What a stupid world.
A missile's whose use Putin expressly stated was retaliation for attacks into Russia that people around here have been calling for for months isn't relevant? Hmmmm.
The potency and shoot-down-ability of this missile has to be relevant to any discussion. I tend to think it was rather effective given the rather blurry commercial images available - something that tends to occur when attacks have been significant. May be wrong, but either way I'd have thought the possibility needs to be factored in to any analysis.
I think the question is does Oreshnik exist beyond prototypes or can Russia produce these at scale? I suspect the answer to both is no. So far as I can tell, one was used to scare the West because it is "nuclear capable", but the West's response has basically been to ignore Putin's rhetoric. We've not heard much about Oreshnik since.
It's just a prototype and, most importantly, it adds absolutely nothing new. This is just a scaled down version of ICBM of which Russia has plenty. There's literally nothing it can do that other (already deployed in large quantities) Russian weapons can't do. This had two primary objectives: 1) trying to scare the West (the first combat use of MIRV!) and 2) domestic propaganda. The latter actually shows how desperate Putin is - he's basically at the same stage where Hitler was when talk of Wunderwaffe became incessant (since nobody believed the country was on a winning trajectory) and well past the stage of building flak towers (that happened last year).
All good points, but if this missile can achieve a level of damage sufficient t deostroy a bunker with massive kinetic, rather than nuclear, energy would that not be a significant consideration? The Professor's rationalisation plan for Europe's defence isn't a short-term measure - that this weapon is in test phase should be seen in that context.
Can it? Yes, I've seen Russian morons claiming that the kinetic energy was equivalent to 600,000 tons of TNT or whatever. And I always had the same two replies. 1) Actually, at the stated terminal speed the missiles kinetic energy is almost exactly the same as the explosive energy of the same mass of TNT. And the missile most certainly did not weigh anywhere near 600 kT. 2) The missile's kinetic energy is just a fraction of the energy released from burning fuel. So how much fuel would be needed to provide such kinetic energy? So no, as a PhD in Physics I don't believe in some special capabilities of this Wunderwaffe. I don't think it's substantially more destructive than (much cheaper) Russian glide bombs.
As I keep asking basic game theory questions which you’re repeatedly not able to answer, I naturally conclude you are simply here to once again fear monger and push Russian talking points, as you have so shamelessly done month after month.
If a nuclear power threatens aggression, should all other countries cow in fear as a response? Will that make nuclear proliferation and nuclear-assisted aggression more or less likely? If we do as you imply, will nuclear use be more or less likely?
That depends on the balance of conventional forces available for each side which determine the escalatory steps available to each before they have to resort to the nuclear option. Within those constraints powers have to make decisions that don't require MAD - decisions like whether the control of a few oblasts is worth the risk - to make these decisions is not to 'cower' - it is to be rational.
Your scenario is playing out right now in West Asia too - with the Israeli's nuclear arsenal allowing them to be the aggressor in every direction. There are a couple of states who have decided not to cower there and, for at least Iran nuclear weapons would be a game changer, even though the conventional destruction they could inflict now would be significant.
The FT is clearly an adjunct of RT and as with many other publications lost its credibility. Sadly, it still has a significant footprint and as such will influence many public opinions which is why articles and posts like yours are vitally important in educating those in the population truly interested in knowing what is actually going on.
As for Trump, this is a man whose sole purpose in life is self-promotion. The deaths he keeps talking about mean nothing to him. This was clearly evidenced during the US response to the pandemic when he was utterly indifferent to the escalating death toll in his own country so why would he even care about Ukraine. Don't forget this is the country that he had a "perfect phone call" with which resulted in his first impeachment. He hates that country.
As I've mentioned self-promotion is his goal and he must always be the centre of attention but the courageous Ukrainians and their President are very much centre stage and Trump does not like that and came up with a stupid narrative that he could end the war in 24hrs. Utter BS. This is nothing more than a futile attempt to capture the world limelight and if peace talks succeed then he will demand a Nobel Prize but, as you have suggested, what is more likely to happen is when he proposes a settlement, which will be in Putins favour, President Z will say no. In that scenario he will behave like a petulant child and withdraw all support and blame everyone else but himself.
Looking at this from a wider perspective. Trump WILL stop aid to Ukraine and why the Europeans cannot see this and instead "clutch their pearls" and hope that he will change what has been a lifetime of indifference to everyone else but himself. However, if the Europeans, and I include the UK, can grow a pair, Trump only has two arrows. If he stops aid to Ukraine then he has absolutely no say in what the outcome will be and as most of us here hope for a positive outcome in 2025 then he will not be able to baske in the glory of that outcome. Now I'm sure many believe that Trump wants nothing more than to punish Ukraine and support Putin but those of us who do read "quality" posts based in reality know that Russia is in decline. Its just a matter of time.
However, should Trump pressure Europe to stop its support of Ukraine the second shot is the US withdrawel from NATO. Again, he behaves like a petulant child and has already threatened not to come to the aid of any country not spending 2%. This is where Europe needs to grow a pair because any member of the Alliance that threatens this is no longer an ally. Stop clutching your pearls and deal with the reality because once Trump fires that shot the ramifications in the US will be far reaching. Particularly if they are looking to pivot to the Pacific. How many of their allies in the Pacific would continue to trust the US? Perhaps they may even start making overtures that span the globe, encompassing Europe.
This has been a bit of a flight of fancy but one thing is certain, Trump is arrogant enough to think that any narrative he creates in his mind he can by force of will impose it on anyone he chooses. Not the case as I'm sure will be proven.
Finally, looking forward to your next literary publication.
“Trump is arrogant enough to think that any narrative he creates in his mind he can by force of will impose it on anyone he chooses.”
I saw the movie The Apprentice, and here are the rules Roy Cohn supposedly taught young trump: 1) Attack, attack, attack. 2) the Truth is what I say it is. 3) Always say you’ve won, even when you lose.
Thanks for the thoughts Alan. I think its likely he goes for a steep cut in aid, though might not abandon entirely. However, his instinct is not to help Ukraine.
An excellent point Andrew. However, who in the Congress has the "stones" to say no? Maybe some, but the point of this disruption is to maintain the focus on him and create confusion which only helps Putin. We already know that Putin's objective is to divide the NATO Alliance down the middle of the Atlantic.
That amendment was past just exactly a year ago. With the GOP controlling the House. In fact the amendment was introduced by none other than the next Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Clearly, numerous Republicans supporting that amendment did not vote for it just so that they would have to go on record supporting withdrawal from NATO a year or two later. Even now in the Senate you can bet Collins, Murkowski and Mitch will be against the withdrawal, and you need just one more Republican. Graham? Cotton? Tillis? Young? Cramer? Wicker? I don't know if you can find even a third of the Senate against NATO. Rand Paul and what army?
I'm not worried about actual withdrawal at all. But Trump can just sabotage NATO by withdrawing from military command or even just transferring the Supreme Commander (always an American flag officer) to another position in the US military (the president obviously has the authority to issue such orders as commander-in-chief, and the general/admiral in question will be bound to obey such legal order) and not appointing a replacement.
Of course, the president can also announce that since Article 5 does not specify the measures each ally is required to take, he will technically fulfill his obligations by sending thoughts and prayers. Trump can even specify some particular member(s) to whose defense he won't come, or perhaps conditions. In fact he already did exactly that when he said he won't protect those who don't pay. He may now add those who aid Ukraine.
Sabotaging NATO is no problem at all for Trump. Biden has already sabotaged the UK and France over what should have been sovereign decisions on using their own weapons and that did not even come close to NATO.
You make a compelling argument and you clearly have a greater knowledge of the inner workings of the House and Senate. Let us see what smoke and mirror tactics he uses to distract and confuse.
WSJ editorial page "lies without consequence", they just make shit up. This is documented. They fabricate quotes, make up fake "government data", etc. Have been doing it since the 1980s. They are the prototype for Trump.
FT editorial page sticks to the facts when expressing opinions. So they're like... the honest WSJ
As I read these lines, I got perhaps a glimpse at what the Trump-voting US citizens see when they see Ukraine: another Vietnam, another Afghanistan, another Irak. Another failure in the making. They think: Trump dares to say what the Nixon, Johnson, and Ford did not: stop a madness instead of doubling down on a mistake.
Only problem: it's a false narrative as the US is not the one fighting, they are just weapon and intelligence providers. If anything, they are making huge monetary and geopolitical profits from this war.
But I can understand that in some part, there is a trauma in the US population that brings wind to Trump's sails...
Here's another idea: finish War and Peace. That book is just a prologue for the book Tolstoy intended to write about an old Decembrist returning from Siberia to St. Petersburg after the death of Nicholas I in 1856 and finding a very different society than before 1825. War and Peace barely got to character development and explaining the main character's history and evolution. It's a shame Tolstoy never got around to finishing the story. Of course, for consistency, the sequel must be written in the original languages of War and Peace, i.e. Russian and French (people reading it in English translation may not realize that there are whole pages written in French).
I have my nytimes subscription on hold largely because of their endless stream of 'russia is winning' nonsense articles. Will probably cancel in full now that Paul Krugman has retired.
The excerpts from the Time article seem to portray a hopelessly incoherent trump wandering into issues he knows nothing about. musk and junior seem to be in thrall to putin so I imagine the stable genius will cut off aid to Ukraine in a few months. I wonder if Europe is ready and can provide the needed ammunition and shells. Hoping the elections in Germany will bring in née and better leadership.
Looking forward to the new book. I think the title needs more sex appeal though.
War and Power and War—That sums up things. Interim periods of peace end, sometimes abruptly and sometimes because we are sleepwalking, but war never ends.
Why the obsession with the Steele Dossier? Does it matter if I start an investigation based on a bogus lead but then find evidence of murder…should I ignore that I found a murder because some partisan a-holes yell Steele Dossier?
It was not even based on it - it started much earlier based on a quite accurate report from the Australian government about a Trump campaign staffer talking about Russian hack of DNC way before it became public knowledge. Steele Dossier is misunderstood. There are two distinct jobs in intelligence: intelligence collection and analysis. Steele did the former (which had been his specialty in MI6) but not the latter. Collecting raw intelligence means collecting EVERYTHING, even if the collector knows it's disinformation (because for analysts even that is useful as it provides insight into what the other party wants them to believe). The problem is that his intelligence needed to be analyzed by professionals, and instead it was published by irresponsible journalists.
You showed great patience there, teasing out possible intentions behind Trump's patter! I would have walked off the lot half way through and bought my used car somewhere else.
The oil price issue is interesting given that we are apparently facing an oil glut in 2025, and an oil glut driving prices down even further could be the final nail in the coffin for the Russian economy. A normal Republican President in Trump’s situation might see that he is in a fantastic situation to force Russia to the table and declare a major victory. Trump unfortunately seems to far gone mentally to realize this, and even worse is mostly surrounded by craven or simply stupid advisors.
My modelling puts the "big permanent" oil glut at 2027 but there's a lot of uncertainty in the dates. Could start in 2025. The important point is that it never recovers after 2027
Trump’s almost obsession with the war deaths in this interview points to something basic about what we should expect. Wars take place when people in general, but leaders in particular, are willing, if not eager, to kill. Biden put his finger on an essential fact in 2021 when he said frankly that Putin "is a killer.” Putin won power and retains it by killing people, starting with his own people. Successful with this method at home, he naturally approaches Ukraine in the same spirit (and earlier Syria, Georgia, etc.). Trump, for all his early Mafia connections, is not a killer. He succeeded by cheating and humiliating people, including his own people. His occasional talk of violence is just performative bluster (and as we saw on Jan. 6, the overwhelming majority of even his most fanatic followers are the same). I’m not sure what this means for the Ukraine negotiations, but we can be sure Putin recognizes it and it’s important.
Interesting Spencer--though Trump does seem vengeful. When it comes to casualties, its interesting that he regularly understates Russian and overstates Ukrainian--wrote about that last week.
I wonder whether “Power and War” might not be a more appropriate title for your new book than the other way round. In line with Clausewitz’s idea that war is the pursuit of politics by other means, i.e that war is just a means to an end …which is power.
You seem to go some way towards this by writing “ ….the way power and war are re-examined and analyzed” Just a thought!
The fact that Trump refuses to say whether he has talked to Putin since the election probably indicates that he has… which, in the light of his further refusal to say outright that he will not abandon Ukraine and Putin’s renewed onslaught on the Ukrainian power grid, is ominous.
As you and Mykola say in the latest podcast, there is, for very understandable reasons, nothing like the scrutiny of Russian weaknesses than there is of Ukrainian ones, so it is gratifying to see the narrative gradually changing. This coming week may be decisive in pursuing this narrative, with an EU summit on December 18 & 19 and above all, a policy meeting of the Russian central bank a day later. Will the conflict between Nabiulna and the spending hawks finally come out into the open ? Will Nabiulina succeed in raising interest rates to 25% or will she be dismissed ?
Thanks Phil. I would like to think that Europe will get its act together this week, but I fear that working with Trump is still their number 1 priority
The problem with scrutiny of Russian weakness is that people may not react in the manner you expect. Most of us here think that Russian weakness means opportunity to crush the abiding Russian threat for a generation. I smell most of Europe sees an opportunity to avoid making sacrifices - the Russia problem will solve itself.
Put another way: everybody seems driven by confirmation bias. Any change in facts/dynamics can be spun to support any preferred course.
I'd add that the US government response to Russian weakness has consistently been "Oh no, we must prop up the Russian empire so that it doesn't collapse, we don't want those Tatars and Kazakhs running their own countries!"
This has been true since before the USSR collapsed. It's basically due to US racism.
In 1991, the US government was far more afraid of Kazakhstan having nuclear weapons than of Russia having them. Racism, I think; I can't think of any other explanation.
Thanks for highlighting the importance of reading Trump's "Time" interview and giving the link. If reading it is really possible, given its incoherence and rambling non sequiturs. Who is briefing him? Are they simply lying to him to suck up to his ego or does he just not grasp facts about comparative combat troop and equipment loss levels? You are quite right that it is naive for MSM to focus on the "abandoning" verbiage and give it credence. His comments don't commit him to anything, leaving aside that they are internally inconsistent word salad (hardly surprising). Of course we should listen to Trump's words, but the trouble is they don't make much sense.
Entirely right. In this interview I thought the interesting thing was his attempts at first to not answer the abandon question, and then go incoherent when pressed.
Trump's comments on oil prices driving the war are as stupid as they are sincere, IMO. Trump may be a brilliant demagogue, but he operates at level of a 6th grader. Apologies to 6th graders.
Nick Cohen has a fascinating piece in his "Writing from London" substack. You can read most of it for free. He claims Europe remains in deep denial about the Trump-Putin threat. He compares to similar head-in-sand behavior before the world wars. My summary doesn't do it justice, take a peek.
A thought exercise: As we approach the end of another year of war with both combatants suffering military and psychological exhaustion, it may be time to seriously start thinking about a post Putin Russia. Regardless of how he leaves the stage, the incoming regime will have to be dealt with...and who are they (he?) going to be? The FSB is deeply entrenched in the hierarchy and it's not unreasonable to expect whoever takes over is going to be...or closely connected to...the intelligence services. Will it be another "strong man" or some kind of "collective" ruling council as per the old Soviet Union? Who is the front runner today? How big a part will the oligarchs or the siloviki play in the choice? It's a fascinating problem to analyze and one of over-riding importance to the West. One thing we can be sure of is that Russia is full of surprises for as Churchill once said: Russia was "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma,". What does the commentariat here think?
I would love there to be a post-Putin Russia. but I dont consider myself expert enough on Russian internal politics to try and judge the likelihood. Overthrowing dictators is not that easy.
I don't think there will be a post-Putin Russia; the country will break up. There's nothing holding it together. What post-Putin Muscovy will look like, I don't know.
I am looking forward to the new book. I like the full spectrum power concept and I feel it should be in the title.
I think that events in Syria and generally Israel's battlefield success (not addressing ethical issues here) have revealed the awesome power of modern western technology, and how far ahead it is compared with the rest of the world. I grew under a cummunist inefficient system and the economic situation in Russia today has the feeling of impending doom, circa 1987 in the Eastern Block. I think Ukraine should above all fight a careful retreating action and just wait it out. I totally agree with Zelensky in protecting young teenagers from the horror of the battlefield. Their young lives and future potential are infinitely more important than some depopulated small cities in the Donbass. When Ukraine wins the war it will be by replicating the innovation of its naval drones on land and not in some ground offensive across minefields.
I work deploying AI systems for practical applications. What I see everyday is a transformation that appears to me world changing at a level overshadowing the printing press or the steam engine. I see US pulling ahead further and further compared to the rest of the world. Europe seems only dimly aware of it. China seems aware and trying hard but not really part of the ecosystem that generated novel tech development. Russia is hopelessly falling behind in spite of residual intellectual and academic individual brilliance. I think in 10 years the US will be in a dominant position similar to 1945.
How is this happening given the well documented decline of the American education system? In a word: immigration. Two days ago I was in a work meeting and it dawned on me that I was the only one among about a dozen attendees not of South Asian descent. For the last few decades there has been a steady stream of highly intelligent and educated people arriving and integrating into the educational and corporate systems. Just look at the people at the top of the current political/tech ecosystem: Niki Haley, Usha Vance, Vivek, Musk, Andrew Young, the CEOs of several of the magnificent seven, and the list goes on. At the lower levels the situation is even more striking. Even if Trump does something weird or disruptive with the H1b visas, it will get corrected after he is out of the picture.
There is another complementary stream of immigrants from Mexico and South America. Just ask yourselves: what kind of people brave the jungles of the Darien Gap and the scorching deserts to walk across the border? What are they going to do in a system that gives them a chance to integrate economically?
Europe is failing in integrating even 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, one of the reasons it is falling behind.
I do think the US has a technological advantage over China--particularly with the ability to translate that to weaponry. The Chinese advantage will be in mass. OF course if the AI leap is that dramatic, the US will be relatively stronger.
China is catching up in the semiconductor industry. Right now the foundries with critical capabilities (ie nanometre processes necessary to make high end processing devices) are based in the US (GlobalFoundries, Intel) and Taiwan (TSMC). It would take decades (and the political will) for Europe to create it's own foundries. Until then Europe has no independent source of high end devices that the defence industry needs. Latest I hear is China is producing processors about 5 years behind the state of the art. I assume these are made by TSMC but could be using Chinese foundries. If I were China and had the critical foundries on home soil ready to manufacture at scale, I would launch an attack to destroy the TSMC factory thus making the world critically dependent on China; the US alone cannot match current demand. I think this is a problem for Europe (and the world in general) - it cannot sever ties with an unreliable US and without TSMC we will take decades to restore the status quo. I'd recommend Chris Miller's book Chip War which discusses the semiconductor industry and why it is how it is (though to be fair it has a very good counter argument to my scenario).
Whatever China is making, it is done with machines and tools imported from the West. China has a large and well educated workforce and brilliant scientists but in my opinion it is simply impossible to become self sufficient in the semiconductor field, as Chip Wars explains in detail.
It would be suicidal for China to attack or even blockade Taiwan. When fighting for its life Taiwan would simply declare that any ship heading for Chinese harbors is fair game. Military analysts I read generally agree that Taiwan has the capacity to counter-blockade China even on its own. China would run out of fuel and food before Taiwan.
Any analysis of a US-Chinese war (god forbid) should include the likely breakup of BOTH the US and China, both of which are oversized empires with massive internal disputes.
Remember how World War I ended. Of the countries and governments which entered the war, almost none existed at the end. Germany had a revolution, Russia had a revolution, Austria-Hungary broke up, the Ottoman Empire broke up and had a revolution.
NAFO has had his number for a while. He has blocked multiple Fellas and Ukrainians who called him out on his willing and able pushing of this particular absurd Kremlin narrative. Do not buy his book. Buy Ilia Ponomorenko’s.
Just to put things in perspective, the Russians have been taking Pokrovsk longer than the Germans were taking Stalingrad.
Also, did not Napoleon say "If you set out to take Pokrovsk, take Pokrovsk"?
Well put
Sounds hopeful Andrew! The Germans never took Stalingrad and Napoleon beat an ignominious and disastrous retreat from Moscow!
🤣🤣🤣
Phillips, I am looking forward to the release of your new book and it will be curious to see the reaction to it but all who have failed to see Russia for what it is (hint: they will double down and see “power” far too narrowly).
The Trump interview transcript reads like a minds filled with hamsters in speed creating word salad that is totally incoherent and in most cases factually fabricated (meaning lies and wrong). But what is interesting is what was NOT SAID. While Trump echoed the reflexive control talking points and lamented “death and losses on both sides” what he did not say is that Russia should not be launching long range attacks on Ukraine with the implicit message that this is perfectly fine, but not fine for Ukraine to return in kind. That double standard communicates loudly he will abandon Ukraine de facto.
The whole oil price issue to just flat out wrong. If anything, it is a page out of Putin’s playbook of saying “nothing to see here” as the sanctions have really hurt Russia’s ability to earn hard currency the the same way they could have absent the war plus hitting oil infrastructure is making a difference.
As you write earlier this week, time for Europe to wake up to the new reality and get its act together.
Thanks Paul--its a very strange interview--incoherent in many places. Which is why people thinking he made a commitment not to abandon Ukraine need to be very careful
Paul, you are the first person that I've read to bring out the hypocrisy of Trump's statement re long range missles. While I also agree that the probability is that Trump is going to abandon Ukraine de facto, I think it is right to say that what he is actually going to accomplish is always in question because of his general incompetence, short attention span and narcissism.
I think that the sanctions should be the line that Ukraine supporters fight for by triggering Trump's fear of being labeled weak and a Putin stooge. His refusal to admit talking to Putin has already revealed his sensitivity. If the sactions remain in place Russia is going to have a difficult time recovering in the four years the world is saddled with Trump.
I keep reading about all the capability that NATO will lose if the US withdraws or does abandon Ukraine in fact, but I still believe that Europe has the means to face a weakened Russia if it has the will. I'm skeptical they do, but hoping I'm proven wrong.
Thank you, August. I too hope Trump’s incompetence, incoherence, and short attention span will be an impediment to carrying out what he says. But at the same time I have to believe people when they tell who they are. There are European states with the guts to do what is needed in the Nordics, Baltics, Poland, Czechia. But the rest of Europe does not have the will as they have no concept of what it is like to be under the Russian thumb.
“what he did not say is that Russia should not be launching long range attacks on Ukraine with the implicit message that this is perfectly fine, but not fine for Ukraine to return in kind.” Yes, I got the same impression as you about everything he said. I don’t read mainstream media and can’t imagine how anyone could possibly get a sense from his blathering that he won’t abandon Ukraine.
In the mainstream media, they are buying into the Russian narrative, and are also in denial about how bad Trump will be for Ukraine and overall US national security.
You would think their journalistic education and experience would have prepared them to spot propaganda and insinuative commentary before any of us. What a stupid world.
Not when their paychecks depend on them ignoring it knowing the bosses have an agenda.
Will Europe's new reality include the Oreshnik missile deployment?
Actually-from what Ive heard they are less of a problem then the general mass of ranged weapons Russia can use
It's not deployed (and won't be for a long time), and it's completely irrelevant anyway.
A missile's whose use Putin expressly stated was retaliation for attacks into Russia that people around here have been calling for for months isn't relevant? Hmmmm.
The potency and shoot-down-ability of this missile has to be relevant to any discussion. I tend to think it was rather effective given the rather blurry commercial images available - something that tends to occur when attacks have been significant. May be wrong, but either way I'd have thought the possibility needs to be factored in to any analysis.
I think the question is does Oreshnik exist beyond prototypes or can Russia produce these at scale? I suspect the answer to both is no. So far as I can tell, one was used to scare the West because it is "nuclear capable", but the West's response has basically been to ignore Putin's rhetoric. We've not heard much about Oreshnik since.
It's just a prototype and, most importantly, it adds absolutely nothing new. This is just a scaled down version of ICBM of which Russia has plenty. There's literally nothing it can do that other (already deployed in large quantities) Russian weapons can't do. This had two primary objectives: 1) trying to scare the West (the first combat use of MIRV!) and 2) domestic propaganda. The latter actually shows how desperate Putin is - he's basically at the same stage where Hitler was when talk of Wunderwaffe became incessant (since nobody believed the country was on a winning trajectory) and well past the stage of building flak towers (that happened last year).
All good points, but if this missile can achieve a level of damage sufficient t deostroy a bunker with massive kinetic, rather than nuclear, energy would that not be a significant consideration? The Professor's rationalisation plan for Europe's defence isn't a short-term measure - that this weapon is in test phase should be seen in that context.
Can it? Yes, I've seen Russian morons claiming that the kinetic energy was equivalent to 600,000 tons of TNT or whatever. And I always had the same two replies. 1) Actually, at the stated terminal speed the missiles kinetic energy is almost exactly the same as the explosive energy of the same mass of TNT. And the missile most certainly did not weigh anywhere near 600 kT. 2) The missile's kinetic energy is just a fraction of the energy released from burning fuel. So how much fuel would be needed to provide such kinetic energy? So no, as a PhD in Physics I don't believe in some special capabilities of this Wunderwaffe. I don't think it's substantially more destructive than (much cheaper) Russian glide bombs.
As I keep asking basic game theory questions which you’re repeatedly not able to answer, I naturally conclude you are simply here to once again fear monger and push Russian talking points, as you have so shamelessly done month after month.
If a nuclear power threatens aggression, should all other countries cow in fear as a response? Will that make nuclear proliferation and nuclear-assisted aggression more or less likely? If we do as you imply, will nuclear use be more or less likely?
That depends on the balance of conventional forces available for each side which determine the escalatory steps available to each before they have to resort to the nuclear option. Within those constraints powers have to make decisions that don't require MAD - decisions like whether the control of a few oblasts is worth the risk - to make these decisions is not to 'cower' - it is to be rational.
Your scenario is playing out right now in West Asia too - with the Israeli's nuclear arsenal allowing them to be the aggressor in every direction. There are a couple of states who have decided not to cower there and, for at least Iran nuclear weapons would be a game changer, even though the conventional destruction they could inflict now would be significant.
Another interesting article Phillips. Thank you.
The FT is clearly an adjunct of RT and as with many other publications lost its credibility. Sadly, it still has a significant footprint and as such will influence many public opinions which is why articles and posts like yours are vitally important in educating those in the population truly interested in knowing what is actually going on.
As for Trump, this is a man whose sole purpose in life is self-promotion. The deaths he keeps talking about mean nothing to him. This was clearly evidenced during the US response to the pandemic when he was utterly indifferent to the escalating death toll in his own country so why would he even care about Ukraine. Don't forget this is the country that he had a "perfect phone call" with which resulted in his first impeachment. He hates that country.
As I've mentioned self-promotion is his goal and he must always be the centre of attention but the courageous Ukrainians and their President are very much centre stage and Trump does not like that and came up with a stupid narrative that he could end the war in 24hrs. Utter BS. This is nothing more than a futile attempt to capture the world limelight and if peace talks succeed then he will demand a Nobel Prize but, as you have suggested, what is more likely to happen is when he proposes a settlement, which will be in Putins favour, President Z will say no. In that scenario he will behave like a petulant child and withdraw all support and blame everyone else but himself.
Looking at this from a wider perspective. Trump WILL stop aid to Ukraine and why the Europeans cannot see this and instead "clutch their pearls" and hope that he will change what has been a lifetime of indifference to everyone else but himself. However, if the Europeans, and I include the UK, can grow a pair, Trump only has two arrows. If he stops aid to Ukraine then he has absolutely no say in what the outcome will be and as most of us here hope for a positive outcome in 2025 then he will not be able to baske in the glory of that outcome. Now I'm sure many believe that Trump wants nothing more than to punish Ukraine and support Putin but those of us who do read "quality" posts based in reality know that Russia is in decline. Its just a matter of time.
However, should Trump pressure Europe to stop its support of Ukraine the second shot is the US withdrawel from NATO. Again, he behaves like a petulant child and has already threatened not to come to the aid of any country not spending 2%. This is where Europe needs to grow a pair because any member of the Alliance that threatens this is no longer an ally. Stop clutching your pearls and deal with the reality because once Trump fires that shot the ramifications in the US will be far reaching. Particularly if they are looking to pivot to the Pacific. How many of their allies in the Pacific would continue to trust the US? Perhaps they may even start making overtures that span the globe, encompassing Europe.
This has been a bit of a flight of fancy but one thing is certain, Trump is arrogant enough to think that any narrative he creates in his mind he can by force of will impose it on anyone he chooses. Not the case as I'm sure will be proven.
Finally, looking forward to your next literary publication.
“Trump is arrogant enough to think that any narrative he creates in his mind he can by force of will impose it on anyone he chooses.”
I saw the movie The Apprentice, and here are the rules Roy Cohn supposedly taught young trump: 1) Attack, attack, attack. 2) the Truth is what I say it is. 3) Always say you’ve won, even when you lose.
I feel I can almost read his mind now.
Thanks for the thoughts Alan. I think its likely he goes for a steep cut in aid, though might not abandon entirely. However, his instinct is not to help Ukraine.
He can't formally withdraw from NATO without permission from Congress. But he can withdraw from NATO command structure (like France once did).
Yep.
An excellent point Andrew. However, who in the Congress has the "stones" to say no? Maybe some, but the point of this disruption is to maintain the focus on him and create confusion which only helps Putin. We already know that Putin's objective is to divide the NATO Alliance down the middle of the Atlantic.
That amendment was past just exactly a year ago. With the GOP controlling the House. In fact the amendment was introduced by none other than the next Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Clearly, numerous Republicans supporting that amendment did not vote for it just so that they would have to go on record supporting withdrawal from NATO a year or two later. Even now in the Senate you can bet Collins, Murkowski and Mitch will be against the withdrawal, and you need just one more Republican. Graham? Cotton? Tillis? Young? Cramer? Wicker? I don't know if you can find even a third of the Senate against NATO. Rand Paul and what army?
I'm not worried about actual withdrawal at all. But Trump can just sabotage NATO by withdrawing from military command or even just transferring the Supreme Commander (always an American flag officer) to another position in the US military (the president obviously has the authority to issue such orders as commander-in-chief, and the general/admiral in question will be bound to obey such legal order) and not appointing a replacement.
Of course, the president can also announce that since Article 5 does not specify the measures each ally is required to take, he will technically fulfill his obligations by sending thoughts and prayers. Trump can even specify some particular member(s) to whose defense he won't come, or perhaps conditions. In fact he already did exactly that when he said he won't protect those who don't pay. He may now add those who aid Ukraine.
Sabotaging NATO is no problem at all for Trump. Biden has already sabotaged the UK and France over what should have been sovereign decisions on using their own weapons and that did not even come close to NATO.
You make a compelling argument and you clearly have a greater knowledge of the inner workings of the House and Senate. Let us see what smoke and mirror tactics he uses to distract and confuse.
Hi, I don't have access to the Financial Times.
Is it the anglo Wall Street Journal? WSJ is anti-anti-Trump, increasingly anti-anti Putin
TIA
Actually, editorially the FT is not as clearly right-wing as the WSJ. However, its reporting on Ukraine has been rather pessimistic
WSJ editorial page "lies without consequence", they just make shit up. This is documented. They fabricate quotes, make up fake "government data", etc. Have been doing it since the 1980s. They are the prototype for Trump.
FT editorial page sticks to the facts when expressing opinions. So they're like... the honest WSJ
FT=WSJ
As I read these lines, I got perhaps a glimpse at what the Trump-voting US citizens see when they see Ukraine: another Vietnam, another Afghanistan, another Irak. Another failure in the making. They think: Trump dares to say what the Nixon, Johnson, and Ford did not: stop a madness instead of doubling down on a mistake.
Only problem: it's a false narrative as the US is not the one fighting, they are just weapon and intelligence providers. If anything, they are making huge monetary and geopolitical profits from this war.
But I can understand that in some part, there is a trauma in the US population that brings wind to Trump's sails...
Well put
War and Power needs a companion book Power and Peace.
More like Security and Power. Security comes through the projection of power that sends the message “Don’t mess with us…it will only hurt you”
But Tolstoy never wrote Security and War.
Hmm--need war in their somewhere I think ;)
War (and Power) and Peace ?
Yes!
God help me--I need a break after this one!
Here's another idea: finish War and Peace. That book is just a prologue for the book Tolstoy intended to write about an old Decembrist returning from Siberia to St. Petersburg after the death of Nicholas I in 1856 and finding a very different society than before 1825. War and Peace barely got to character development and explaining the main character's history and evolution. It's a shame Tolstoy never got around to finishing the story. Of course, for consistency, the sequel must be written in the original languages of War and Peace, i.e. Russian and French (people reading it in English translation may not realize that there are whole pages written in French).
I have my nytimes subscription on hold largely because of their endless stream of 'russia is winning' nonsense articles. Will probably cancel in full now that Paul Krugman has retired.
The excerpts from the Time article seem to portray a hopelessly incoherent trump wandering into issues he knows nothing about. musk and junior seem to be in thrall to putin so I imagine the stable genius will cut off aid to Ukraine in a few months. I wonder if Europe is ready and can provide the needed ammunition and shells. Hoping the elections in Germany will bring in née and better leadership.
Looking forward to the new book. I think the title needs more sex appeal though.
Thanks Thomas--any ideas on what would jazz it up?
War and Power and War—That sums up things. Interim periods of peace end, sometimes abruptly and sometimes because we are sleepwalking, but war never ends.
You didn't cancel it after all the debunkings of their Russiagate guff then? I suppose they did get a Pulitzer for it though.
It was never debunked.
The Steele Dossier, upon which everything was built, was.
No, everything was NOT built upon it.
Why the obsession with the Steele Dossier? Does it matter if I start an investigation based on a bogus lead but then find evidence of murder…should I ignore that I found a murder because some partisan a-holes yell Steele Dossier?
It was not even based on it - it started much earlier based on a quite accurate report from the Australian government about a Trump campaign staffer talking about Russian hack of DNC way before it became public knowledge. Steele Dossier is misunderstood. There are two distinct jobs in intelligence: intelligence collection and analysis. Steele did the former (which had been his specialty in MI6) but not the latter. Collecting raw intelligence means collecting EVERYTHING, even if the collector knows it's disinformation (because for analysts even that is useful as it provides insight into what the other party wants them to believe). The problem is that his intelligence needed to be analyzed by professionals, and instead it was published by irresponsible journalists.
What evidence was uncovered subsequently then
You showed great patience there, teasing out possible intentions behind Trump's patter! I would have walked off the lot half way through and bought my used car somewhere else.
SOmeone has to read it!
Absolutely right, ‘the war is not in Trump’s control’. I see his answers in Time as a typically incoherent way of saying exactly that.
Imho 2025 is going to be ‘the year’.
My eyes are on Georgia.
“Georgia on my mind” has meaning in ways Ray Charles never envisioned.
Which Georgia?
The oil price issue is interesting given that we are apparently facing an oil glut in 2025, and an oil glut driving prices down even further could be the final nail in the coffin for the Russian economy. A normal Republican President in Trump’s situation might see that he is in a fantastic situation to force Russia to the table and declare a major victory. Trump unfortunately seems to far gone mentally to realize this, and even worse is mostly surrounded by craven or simply stupid advisors.
Agree--an oil price drop would be terrible for Putin, though Trump seems keen on helping him.
My modelling puts the "big permanent" oil glut at 2027 but there's a lot of uncertainty in the dates. Could start in 2025. The important point is that it never recovers after 2027
Trump’s almost obsession with the war deaths in this interview points to something basic about what we should expect. Wars take place when people in general, but leaders in particular, are willing, if not eager, to kill. Biden put his finger on an essential fact in 2021 when he said frankly that Putin "is a killer.” Putin won power and retains it by killing people, starting with his own people. Successful with this method at home, he naturally approaches Ukraine in the same spirit (and earlier Syria, Georgia, etc.). Trump, for all his early Mafia connections, is not a killer. He succeeded by cheating and humiliating people, including his own people. His occasional talk of violence is just performative bluster (and as we saw on Jan. 6, the overwhelming majority of even his most fanatic followers are the same). I’m not sure what this means for the Ukraine negotiations, but we can be sure Putin recognizes it and it’s important.
Interesting Spencer--though Trump does seem vengeful. When it comes to casualties, its interesting that he regularly understates Russian and overstates Ukrainian--wrote about that last week.
No matter what Trump does, Putin is a killer and will continue to kill.
Thanks for another thought-provoking update.
I wonder whether “Power and War” might not be a more appropriate title for your new book than the other way round. In line with Clausewitz’s idea that war is the pursuit of politics by other means, i.e that war is just a means to an end …which is power.
You seem to go some way towards this by writing “ ….the way power and war are re-examined and analyzed” Just a thought!
The fact that Trump refuses to say whether he has talked to Putin since the election probably indicates that he has… which, in the light of his further refusal to say outright that he will not abandon Ukraine and Putin’s renewed onslaught on the Ukrainian power grid, is ominous.
As you and Mykola say in the latest podcast, there is, for very understandable reasons, nothing like the scrutiny of Russian weaknesses than there is of Ukrainian ones, so it is gratifying to see the narrative gradually changing. This coming week may be decisive in pursuing this narrative, with an EU summit on December 18 & 19 and above all, a policy meeting of the Russian central bank a day later. Will the conflict between Nabiulna and the spending hawks finally come out into the open ? Will Nabiulina succeed in raising interest rates to 25% or will she be dismissed ?
Watch the FT ! 😀
Thanks Phil. I would like to think that Europe will get its act together this week, but I fear that working with Trump is still their number 1 priority
The problem with scrutiny of Russian weakness is that people may not react in the manner you expect. Most of us here think that Russian weakness means opportunity to crush the abiding Russian threat for a generation. I smell most of Europe sees an opportunity to avoid making sacrifices - the Russia problem will solve itself.
Put another way: everybody seems driven by confirmation bias. Any change in facts/dynamics can be spun to support any preferred course.
I'd add that the US government response to Russian weakness has consistently been "Oh no, we must prop up the Russian empire so that it doesn't collapse, we don't want those Tatars and Kazakhs running their own countries!"
This has been true since before the USSR collapsed. It's basically due to US racism.
In 1991, the US government was far more afraid of Kazakhstan having nuclear weapons than of Russia having them. Racism, I think; I can't think of any other explanation.
Thanks for highlighting the importance of reading Trump's "Time" interview and giving the link. If reading it is really possible, given its incoherence and rambling non sequiturs. Who is briefing him? Are they simply lying to him to suck up to his ego or does he just not grasp facts about comparative combat troop and equipment loss levels? You are quite right that it is naive for MSM to focus on the "abandoning" verbiage and give it credence. His comments don't commit him to anything, leaving aside that they are internally inconsistent word salad (hardly surprising). Of course we should listen to Trump's words, but the trouble is they don't make much sense.
Entirely right. In this interview I thought the interesting thing was his attempts at first to not answer the abandon question, and then go incoherent when pressed.
Trump's comments on oil prices driving the war are as stupid as they are sincere, IMO. Trump may be a brilliant demagogue, but he operates at level of a 6th grader. Apologies to 6th graders.
Nick Cohen has a fascinating piece in his "Writing from London" substack. You can read most of it for free. He claims Europe remains in deep denial about the Trump-Putin threat. He compares to similar head-in-sand behavior before the world wars. My summary doesn't do it justice, take a peek.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-153070917
Sadly, think Nick is right on this.
A thought exercise: As we approach the end of another year of war with both combatants suffering military and psychological exhaustion, it may be time to seriously start thinking about a post Putin Russia. Regardless of how he leaves the stage, the incoming regime will have to be dealt with...and who are they (he?) going to be? The FSB is deeply entrenched in the hierarchy and it's not unreasonable to expect whoever takes over is going to be...or closely connected to...the intelligence services. Will it be another "strong man" or some kind of "collective" ruling council as per the old Soviet Union? Who is the front runner today? How big a part will the oligarchs or the siloviki play in the choice? It's a fascinating problem to analyze and one of over-riding importance to the West. One thing we can be sure of is that Russia is full of surprises for as Churchill once said: Russia was "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma,". What does the commentariat here think?
I would love there to be a post-Putin Russia. but I dont consider myself expert enough on Russian internal politics to try and judge the likelihood. Overthrowing dictators is not that easy.
I don't think there will be a post-Putin Russia; the country will break up. There's nothing holding it together. What post-Putin Muscovy will look like, I don't know.
Mark Galeotti's podcast "In Moscow's Shadows" is quite interesting re all things Russian IMO
I am looking forward to the new book. I like the full spectrum power concept and I feel it should be in the title.
I think that events in Syria and generally Israel's battlefield success (not addressing ethical issues here) have revealed the awesome power of modern western technology, and how far ahead it is compared with the rest of the world. I grew under a cummunist inefficient system and the economic situation in Russia today has the feeling of impending doom, circa 1987 in the Eastern Block. I think Ukraine should above all fight a careful retreating action and just wait it out. I totally agree with Zelensky in protecting young teenagers from the horror of the battlefield. Their young lives and future potential are infinitely more important than some depopulated small cities in the Donbass. When Ukraine wins the war it will be by replicating the innovation of its naval drones on land and not in some ground offensive across minefields.
I work deploying AI systems for practical applications. What I see everyday is a transformation that appears to me world changing at a level overshadowing the printing press or the steam engine. I see US pulling ahead further and further compared to the rest of the world. Europe seems only dimly aware of it. China seems aware and trying hard but not really part of the ecosystem that generated novel tech development. Russia is hopelessly falling behind in spite of residual intellectual and academic individual brilliance. I think in 10 years the US will be in a dominant position similar to 1945.
How is this happening given the well documented decline of the American education system? In a word: immigration. Two days ago I was in a work meeting and it dawned on me that I was the only one among about a dozen attendees not of South Asian descent. For the last few decades there has been a steady stream of highly intelligent and educated people arriving and integrating into the educational and corporate systems. Just look at the people at the top of the current political/tech ecosystem: Niki Haley, Usha Vance, Vivek, Musk, Andrew Young, the CEOs of several of the magnificent seven, and the list goes on. At the lower levels the situation is even more striking. Even if Trump does something weird or disruptive with the H1b visas, it will get corrected after he is out of the picture.
There is another complementary stream of immigrants from Mexico and South America. Just ask yourselves: what kind of people brave the jungles of the Darien Gap and the scorching deserts to walk across the border? What are they going to do in a system that gives them a chance to integrate economically?
Europe is failing in integrating even 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, one of the reasons it is falling behind.
I do think the US has a technological advantage over China--particularly with the ability to translate that to weaponry. The Chinese advantage will be in mass. OF course if the AI leap is that dramatic, the US will be relatively stronger.
China is catching up in the semiconductor industry. Right now the foundries with critical capabilities (ie nanometre processes necessary to make high end processing devices) are based in the US (GlobalFoundries, Intel) and Taiwan (TSMC). It would take decades (and the political will) for Europe to create it's own foundries. Until then Europe has no independent source of high end devices that the defence industry needs. Latest I hear is China is producing processors about 5 years behind the state of the art. I assume these are made by TSMC but could be using Chinese foundries. If I were China and had the critical foundries on home soil ready to manufacture at scale, I would launch an attack to destroy the TSMC factory thus making the world critically dependent on China; the US alone cannot match current demand. I think this is a problem for Europe (and the world in general) - it cannot sever ties with an unreliable US and without TSMC we will take decades to restore the status quo. I'd recommend Chris Miller's book Chip War which discusses the semiconductor industry and why it is how it is (though to be fair it has a very good counter argument to my scenario).
Whatever China is making, it is done with machines and tools imported from the West. China has a large and well educated workforce and brilliant scientists but in my opinion it is simply impossible to become self sufficient in the semiconductor field, as Chip Wars explains in detail.
It would be suicidal for China to attack or even blockade Taiwan. When fighting for its life Taiwan would simply declare that any ship heading for Chinese harbors is fair game. Military analysts I read generally agree that Taiwan has the capacity to counter-blockade China even on its own. China would run out of fuel and food before Taiwan.
Any analysis of a US-Chinese war (god forbid) should include the likely breakup of BOTH the US and China, both of which are oversized empires with massive internal disputes.
Remember how World War I ended. Of the countries and governments which entered the war, almost none existed at the end. Germany had a revolution, Russia had a revolution, Austria-Hungary broke up, the Ottoman Empire broke up and had a revolution.
Remember: Christopher Miller of the FT was a big pusher of the Ukrainian neo Nazi story. Anything that dude writes is sus.
I didnt really know that until recently.
NAFO has had his number for a while. He has blocked multiple Fellas and Ukrainians who called him out on his willing and able pushing of this particular absurd Kremlin narrative. Do not buy his book. Buy Ilia Ponomorenko’s.
ฅ^•ﻌ•^ ฅ