> The truth was that they [the U.S] almost certainly knew how effective Ukraine would be with ranged capacity—but they didn’t want Ukraine to have the ability for the second reason. They were overly afraid of the Russian reaction because they had bought into a flawed escalation model.
I think the answer is behind box #3. The people arguing against ranged weapons and the Russian reaction (nukes) are ultimately afraid Russia will lose the war and fracture.
Given either of our theories, the evidence that Prof obrien cites is unlikely to move minds much. But his point needs to be made even if it is insufficient.
Blinken (reportedly) has championed the faction in the White House who want more effective war policy the past two years.
The ppl who need persuading probably have different reasons for resisting stronger action. No doubt your debunking two arguments will work with some. But I'll throw out a 4th category of obstinance that will be toughest of all to crack: people who have simply decided from day 1 of the war that a settlement (partition) along the lines of control is the safe and realistic way forward. Doesn't matter where the lines of control lie. It's a matter of honor now to standby their position. The 2022, 2023, and 2024 lines were equally fine. I have never seen a single person who thinks this way budge on their position. They will remain impervious to developments and arguments. Don't know the percentage of leadership/punditry stuck in this position, but it's a lot.
One thing that Putin has concentrated on during his entire reign is eliminating anyone who has the guts/brains to overthrow him. It's really hard to see who could succeed Putin or which two figures could split the country. At this point, Russia is populated by Yes men and followers.
This is why I think Russia is in an unprecedented pickle. There's simply no succession mechanism. When it was a monarchy, it was very clear who the legitimate heir was (at least since the rule of Catherine the Great). In Soviet times everybody knew that Politburo would pick somebody from among themselves to be the next Secretary General (sometimes - e.g. with Gorbachev - it was even known in advance who that would be), and there was a well organized very hierarchical ruling party with distinct ideology and program. But now there's nothing like that. The United Russia is not a real party but merely Putin's personal tool (kind of like what the GOP is now becoming for Trump). And there's no formal body like Politburo, there's just Putin's informal inner circle, which, as you pointed out, does not (by design) include anyone capable of succeeding him. Chairman of the Russian "parliament" said (a decade ago) that there's no Russia without Putin, and he may well be right. I.e. Russia may fall apart after Putin (with Chechnya being the most obvious part to split away).
Would we have considered the same possibilities when the USSR fell apart? It must have been inconceivable at the time that the USSR superpower would fail so miserably.
It was conceivable, and in fact Reagan asked the CIA what would be the signs of things not going well in the USSR and whether any were actually observed. They thought about it and then OMG! There were in fact visible signs.
According to Col. larry Wilkerson, ex-Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, who one might assume has reasonable contacts, it was the Pentagon who intervened directly to rain in Blinken and Sullivan and thereby infuriate Joe Biden who was all set to give the green light in his meeting with Kier Starmer last week. You can hear it in his interview with Judge Napolitano last week - those not doing so already should be checking them out anyway (especially those with Alastair Crooke).
I am not sure anyone important is worried about escalation, but they are really worried about Russia losing and the country collapsing (mainly in the US). In Europe, politicians are for whatever reason worried about losing Russia as a future trading partner if it breaks up and dissolves into chaos. I say good riddance…
Was it Russia that recently faced an insurrection and repeated attempts on the life of one of their most significant politicians? I think the fear of collapse might be shared more equitably nowadays.
I think you are onto something about fear of a Russian collapse Joachim and it's a reasonably scary prospect. The thing is that Russia looks to be on the road to a collapse post Putin (ie when he dies) anyway. The long term outlook of the economy is bleak and when the strong man is no more God only knows how the chips will fall. The prospects of a Russian collapse need to be factored in to all long term planning. PS I think Europe is discovering that it can cope without trading with Russia very nicely.
It's important to keep in mind too, that the longer the war goes on, the higher the likelyhood of a national collapse when it ends. If Europe/the US really want Russia to survive, they should have armed Ukraine as well as they could from the beginning, to end the war quickly. Ukraine will never give up, and Russia will at the very most get a very tenuous and pyrrhic victory considering how completely they have destroyed their non military economy and production capabilities in service of the war.
Absolutely right Kjartan. I can't see a prospect for anything other then grim results in the long term for the Russian economy. The demographic situtation is a slow moving train crash and I can't see international investors wanting to return to a place with a track record of nationalizing foreign companies assets.
There's a high chance of Russian collapse, for the demographic and economic reasons you cite and for some others. Russian might has so far been an unquestioned part of Russian mentality and national identity. Even now people on the street are absolutely certain that in the end Russia will win because that's just what it always does, being very strong. A very humiliating loss will be a terrible psychological blow. And it will also make numerous ethnic minorities question whether the empire can still keep them in like it did with Chechnya a couple decades ago (plus now declaring independence will be an obvious instant way to escape crippling sanctions).
Another part of national identity is that not only all Russian speaking people are Russians, but so are Little Russians (i.e. Ukrainians) and White Russians (that's the literal meaning of the word Belorussian). Being forcefully rejected even by native Russian speakers of Eastern Ukraine will hurt and may even raise questions like, if the ethnic Russians in Ukraine can have a national identity separate from Russia (to the point where they want nothing to do with Russia), why not the ethnic Russians in Siberia? Moscow has been neglecting them (to the point of even ignoring forest wildfires making air in big cities barely breathable) for decades, while extracting their natural resources and then spending at least several time more per capita in Moscow than in Siberian cities with population over a million. Sure, the Siberians want protection from China. But if Russia is defeated by Ukraine, can it really defend anyone from China?
My feeling is that is why Russia will never allow a withdrawal from Ukraine under Putin. The political consequences would be too catastrophic. He'd settle for steadily shoving men through the meat grinder - albeit at a reduced pace, even if it's not sustainable. Or more accurately if it means putting off a political collapse seemingly unsustainable monthly losses suddenly become sustatainable. After Putin goes...who knows?
If they run out of equipment, they may not be able to hold the front line. But we should not underestimate how much this war means to Russia because of its potential implications. That's why I don't believe any final outcome other than a total victory by one side is possible. Both sides see the war as existential. With very important difference that on the Russian side only the ruling class sees it as such, but people don't, since the former cannot admit to the latter how fragile Russia actually is (not only because of how bad such admission would be politically but also because it could create a self-fulfilling prophecy). And that severely limits their options. It is also possible that Biden actually knows all that and believes that a slow Ukrainian victory is less likely to precipitate a crisis than a quick one (and if most of Russian AFVs and artillery are destroyed in a long war, the chances of serious internal violence in Russia also decline).
Slightly overdramatic. Germany has some structural issues, but this is complaining at a very high level. They are missing a lot of opportunities though. They could have turned Germany into an arsenal of democracy with some infrastructure spending and investments. Now most of that money will be invested elsewhere. That would also help them transition some of their skilled workers from automotive (in some trouble) to armaments. The dogma of austerity is likely too strong at the moment.
It's only in ludicrous echo-chambers like this one that people can seriously suggest that converting the German economy from making cars to guns, missiles, mines and bombs would be a good thing and then to get people to who like the comment.
I thought we already had an arsenal of democracy anyway.
So you're lucky enough to live in a resource and energy rich country on the other side of the planet, but feel free to inform what energy poor areas should do to nuclear powered states on their borders. Europe's industry isn't doing fine - that's what happens when you sanction yourself from you most significant cheap energy provider.
The two main brakes on Ukrainian victory are America amd Germany, both who stand to lose in the event of one. A Russian collapse would be followed by the collapse of American hegemony in Europe, and the (at least temporary) loss of a large market for German industry, coupled with the accession of a low-cost industrial powerhouse to the EU.
Much the same concerns sparked American and German policy in the Balkans in the early 1990s which led to devastating wars that left 100,000 dead and hundreds of thousands more displaced.
Russia isn’t that large a market. An economy the size of Italy, shrinking into demographic catastrophe. There were some large industrial deals with Germany, but beyond natural gas relatively niche. I grew up in Austria, so my hypothesis is that it is largely a historical, cultural and political issue paired with a lack of imagination. Similar, any American hegemony doesn’t really exist anymore beyond some military means—and both the US and the EU know this. Anyhow, Bush couldn’t stop the dissolution of the USSR, so we won’t be able to stop a collapse of Russia. Hubris to think otherwise.
Sometimes concepts of normal die very hard. For a long time, normal was the Yankees win the American League. I remember this remained normal for years after the Yankees were no longer winning the American League.
Similarly, normal has been that Russia dominates all the little countries around it. This was true for a long time and even through 2008 (Georgia) and 2014 (Crimea). It's a hard normal to let go of.
To reach way back in history, there was a time when it was normal for there to be a Roman Empire. Even though the Goths ruled Italy and Gaul, they continued to proclaim they were ruling in the name of Rome for 100 years after the empire's fall. The first barbarians who made no pretense of any continuation of the Roman Empire were the Vandals and the Lombards.
It seems like a version of a "sunk cost fallacy"; i.e. I've invested so much in something that I don't want to lose it. In this case it seems like intellectual investment in a theory of world politics which says:
- Russia is still a great power
- Great powers (especially nuclear powers) should be given leeway even when they terrorize other countries
- If a great power disintegrates, there will be a lot of instability which will be bad for us
I won't bother making the counterarguments because y'all know them!
The mindset behind this is rigid and intellectually lazy, yet it persists. Too much groupthink?
I fear the administration still has its hands clamped firmly over its ears. Though if it read this (thanks for the usual lucidity) and thought about it a bit, it might start to appreciate its mind boggling stupidity on this matter.
It also used to be normal that the US could make military threats and impose sanctions and whomever it was on the receiving end would crumble. It used to be normal that the G7 were the block with the largest share of world GDP. It used to be normal that the West dominated in science and technology. It used to be normal that the West maintained the moral high-ground when it came to genocides. Times are changing - and it's the Neocons who want to die hard on this.
"to understand how modern wars are won and lost, people need to look at the destruction of equipment before it reaches the battlefield"
I am full of admiration and gratitude for you work and your will to keep speaking truth when it seems to fall on mostly deaf ears. It makes a lot of difference to me in keeping my head on straight about a horrible situation.
Back to the quote from your article, I sometimes think people don't even attempt the first half--understanding how wars are won. Wars are so emotionally and morally charged that we focus on the horrors and the bravery. But in a war like this, the moral thing to do is win. Wars have been won against fascism and aggression before and we should understand how and set about doing it again.
By we, sadly, I mean the administration of the US government. At this point in history everything boils down to what the arsenal of democracy chooses to do with it. I hope your arguments for creating more democratic hard power in Europe eventually bear fruit. But for the near term I just hope more US weapons get sent, whoever and however it happens.
Dont disagree with this. Europe must gain control of a harder defense policy, but in the immediate term getting aid to Ukraine is the key thing. Ukraine in victory can help Europe regain a stronger defense posture.
Phil/everybody, you're gonna love these Michael de Adder cartoons about Ukraine, Trump, and Pootie. Michael De Adder just won political cartoonist of the year here in the States.
Agreed, and you can add Putin to the list - see the Carson interview for a perfect example of long delusional ranting. Thought about him quite often while reading that (excellent) book.
We used to have a joke studying Russian history and all the movements against the Tsar: the longer the name the less relevant they were. The corollary here is the longer the rant, the weaker they really are.
The most relevant was the group called Liberation of Labor, originally made up of just five people at its first congress: Plekhanov, Ignatov, Zasulich, Deutsch, Axelrod. There were a lot more people at its second congress, where two factions emerged - Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. And the rest is history. Also, you can put the first letters of the founders' names (in the same order as above) into Google Translate and see what that five letter word means in Russian. Then you can imagine the giggles of teenage college freshmen learning that stuff in mandatory History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union classes (that mnemonics was actually very helpful in memorizing their names for the exam - I still remember them 40 years and 3 months later, even though my memory was not good for names even back then).
As usual, the best analysis AND reporting. I see more and more people agreeing with you. Today The Economist, tomorrow...?
Why can't our side have red lines? Like, "If you keep violating the laws of war by attacking civilian targets, we'll lift restrictions on stopping your weapons before they're launched."
The persistent story of inevitability and the nuclear red line won't die off. Why is it so pervasive in the media is such an important question. Why is Russian propaganda as recently publicized not more prominently reported? Why is the non-Newsmax/Fox media scared to accurately report and editorialize?
Harris's lack of clarity on Ukraine is fine during the election so as to not alienate the (how on earth) uncommitted. But what is the sentiment about her willingness to assert leadership on Ukraine, the Western alliance and Taiwan?
Many thanks for the analysis. I'm still trying to figure out the exact reasons and rationale behind the U.S. strategy. I can't think of anything logical. Perhaps there's still an echo of the Red Scare in it. Even more concerning is the lack of flexibility to adapt to this new situation. What's the proverb again, when you're in a hole, stop digging?
Biden doesn’t come out of this well, if you’re correct, which I think you are. My slightly off-topic question is; how can Harris turn this to her favour? Difficult perhaps while Biden remains President, but essential (I think) if she is to win, especially given that Trump would probably withdraw US support, and the EU/UK are in no position to take up the slack.
The fear is that she repeats the Biden policy--however it will be a fresh start and her foreign policy team has said some interesting things in the past about helping Ukraine. I wrote a piece about it a few weeks ago
Although a majority of Americans favor aid to Ukraine, few rate it as an important issue. Americans generally want their government to take care of world affairs without them having to give thought to it. So, the best policy for both Biden and Harris is simply to do what is right on the quiet. Americans much more want to know what Harris plans to do for THEM.
Though Americans also like to back winners--so if Harris backed Ukraine to win, it could be popular. Right now the US doesnt seem to want Ukraine to win (that much).
While I think increased aid to Ukraine is of paramount importance, there is a giant downside to investing too much national honor in the project. The minute something goes wrong, the other side will pounce on it as they did on the Afghanistan withdrawal and before that Ben Gazi. Foregrounding Ukraine will make it more of a bone of contention in our heated political environment. It will make it harder for Republicans to support aid for Ukraine.
When Ukraine wins, give all the credit to Ukraine, and shout to the rooftops how it makes such good sense to support people who want to fight for themselves.
The US should also be trying to identify Russian generals who could make good post Putin political leaders—maybe Surovikin? We used to have a guy inside the Kremlin, but Trump may have ratted him out. I can't imagine any country that could successfully “occupy” a collapsed Russia without it being a total disaster. Nothing will unify Russians quicker than foreigners on their soil, and that includes the Chinese.
It might have been a valid concern during the first few months of the war to be concerned about how and what escalation by the Russians would look like. That is, would they fire off a nuke. Think about all the threats and proclamations made by Putin and his propagandists each and every time a new capability was supplied to the Ukrainians. Each time, the threats were hollow and simple bluster. What Sullivan and his group must realize is that nuclear weapons are powerful when they are THREATEN to be used. Their actual use has way too many negatives to be practical on the battlefield to use. The Russians have been using chemical weapons. Mainly to drive the Ukrainians out of their trenches. Chemical weapons are not supposed to be used; but they are a far cry from nukes and their corresponding radiation and side effects. Sullivan and Biden have got to let Ukraine use American and NATO long range weapons. Besides increasing their bombing of infrastructure and killing more civilians. The Russians can't do much more than that as their "escalation". To use nukes and to cross that Rubicon is a whole different scenario and concerns much more than just the battlefield in Ukraine.
And yet without the RF 'escalating' the Ukrainian's energy grid is smashed, they've got rolling black-outs across the country, massive (and growing) cemeteries everywhere and a population half the size it was when the conflict started. NATOs stockpiles are dwindling and strange fires break out in their factories. Meanwhile in the Red Sea the US are being driven off by the Yemenis and cannot be assured of dominating Iran because they're got access to Russian munitions. We should all be delighted that they've not gone nuclear, but don't pretend they've not escalated.
I apologize for not being more clear. I was speaking of escalation strictly in the sense of Putin using nuclear weapons. It's absolutely appalling what Ukraine has had to endure since Russia invaded their country. I'm in favor of Ukraine using long range weapons to strike Russia because perhaps that will slow down the carnage Russia has been inflicting upon them. Their attacks on oil refineries and ammo depots is a good start. The idea that the war should exclusively take part on Ukraine soil is absurd.
The Chinese forbade it. They need food imports and don’t enjoy their dinner if it glows in the dark. ;) The Russian leadership including Putin, are like the mafia and not a death cult. Their families live in the west, and much of their stolen wealth lives there too.
> The truth was that they [the U.S] almost certainly knew how effective Ukraine would be with ranged capacity—but they didn’t want Ukraine to have the ability for the second reason. They were overly afraid of the Russian reaction because they had bought into a flawed escalation model.
I completely agree.
sad but probably true
Obvious and damning all at once, Paul. How many more days must we put up with Jake Sullivan and the pearl clutching escalation lobby?
I have no idea
I think the answer is behind box #3. The people arguing against ranged weapons and the Russian reaction (nukes) are ultimately afraid Russia will lose the war and fracture.
Given either of our theories, the evidence that Prof obrien cites is unlikely to move minds much. But his point needs to be made even if it is insufficient.
you never know--the rumors are that Blinken is pushing for a harder policy
Blinken (reportedly) has championed the faction in the White House who want more effective war policy the past two years.
The ppl who need persuading probably have different reasons for resisting stronger action. No doubt your debunking two arguments will work with some. But I'll throw out a 4th category of obstinance that will be toughest of all to crack: people who have simply decided from day 1 of the war that a settlement (partition) along the lines of control is the safe and realistic way forward. Doesn't matter where the lines of control lie. It's a matter of honor now to standby their position. The 2022, 2023, and 2024 lines were equally fine. I have never seen a single person who thinks this way budge on their position. They will remain impervious to developments and arguments. Don't know the percentage of leadership/punditry stuck in this position, but it's a lot.
One thing that Putin has concentrated on during his entire reign is eliminating anyone who has the guts/brains to overthrow him. It's really hard to see who could succeed Putin or which two figures could split the country. At this point, Russia is populated by Yes men and followers.
A common situation with dictators
This is why I think Russia is in an unprecedented pickle. There's simply no succession mechanism. When it was a monarchy, it was very clear who the legitimate heir was (at least since the rule of Catherine the Great). In Soviet times everybody knew that Politburo would pick somebody from among themselves to be the next Secretary General (sometimes - e.g. with Gorbachev - it was even known in advance who that would be), and there was a well organized very hierarchical ruling party with distinct ideology and program. But now there's nothing like that. The United Russia is not a real party but merely Putin's personal tool (kind of like what the GOP is now becoming for Trump). And there's no formal body like Politburo, there's just Putin's informal inner circle, which, as you pointed out, does not (by design) include anyone capable of succeeding him. Chairman of the Russian "parliament" said (a decade ago) that there's no Russia without Putin, and he may well be right. I.e. Russia may fall apart after Putin (with Chechnya being the most obvious part to split away).
Would we have considered the same possibilities when the USSR fell apart? It must have been inconceivable at the time that the USSR superpower would fail so miserably.
It was conceivable, and in fact Reagan asked the CIA what would be the signs of things not going well in the USSR and whether any were actually observed. They thought about it and then OMG! There were in fact visible signs.
Would it be the same as now?
According to Col. larry Wilkerson, ex-Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, who one might assume has reasonable contacts, it was the Pentagon who intervened directly to rain in Blinken and Sullivan and thereby infuriate Joe Biden who was all set to give the green light in his meeting with Kier Starmer last week. You can hear it in his interview with Judge Napolitano last week - those not doing so already should be checking them out anyway (especially those with Alastair Crooke).
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/09/an-american-coup.html
I am not sure anyone important is worried about escalation, but they are really worried about Russia losing and the country collapsing (mainly in the US). In Europe, politicians are for whatever reason worried about losing Russia as a future trading partner if it breaks up and dissolves into chaos. I say good riddance…
Agree, you need to add the fear of Russian collapse into the mix
It is a very realistic fear. Russia probably will collapse if it completely loses the war.
Was it Russia that recently faced an insurrection and repeated attempts on the life of one of their most significant politicians? I think the fear of collapse might be shared more equitably nowadays.
Never underestimate the difficulty of convincing a man to see the truth when his covert foreign stipend depends on his not seeing it.
Me,too
I think you are onto something about fear of a Russian collapse Joachim and it's a reasonably scary prospect. The thing is that Russia looks to be on the road to a collapse post Putin (ie when he dies) anyway. The long term outlook of the economy is bleak and when the strong man is no more God only knows how the chips will fall. The prospects of a Russian collapse need to be factored in to all long term planning. PS I think Europe is discovering that it can cope without trading with Russia very nicely.
It's important to keep in mind too, that the longer the war goes on, the higher the likelyhood of a national collapse when it ends. If Europe/the US really want Russia to survive, they should have armed Ukraine as well as they could from the beginning, to end the war quickly. Ukraine will never give up, and Russia will at the very most get a very tenuous and pyrrhic victory considering how completely they have destroyed their non military economy and production capabilities in service of the war.
Absolutely right Kjartan. I can't see a prospect for anything other then grim results in the long term for the Russian economy. The demographic situtation is a slow moving train crash and I can't see international investors wanting to return to a place with a track record of nationalizing foreign companies assets.
There's a high chance of Russian collapse, for the demographic and economic reasons you cite and for some others. Russian might has so far been an unquestioned part of Russian mentality and national identity. Even now people on the street are absolutely certain that in the end Russia will win because that's just what it always does, being very strong. A very humiliating loss will be a terrible psychological blow. And it will also make numerous ethnic minorities question whether the empire can still keep them in like it did with Chechnya a couple decades ago (plus now declaring independence will be an obvious instant way to escape crippling sanctions).
Another part of national identity is that not only all Russian speaking people are Russians, but so are Little Russians (i.e. Ukrainians) and White Russians (that's the literal meaning of the word Belorussian). Being forcefully rejected even by native Russian speakers of Eastern Ukraine will hurt and may even raise questions like, if the ethnic Russians in Ukraine can have a national identity separate from Russia (to the point where they want nothing to do with Russia), why not the ethnic Russians in Siberia? Moscow has been neglecting them (to the point of even ignoring forest wildfires making air in big cities barely breathable) for decades, while extracting their natural resources and then spending at least several time more per capita in Moscow than in Siberian cities with population over a million. Sure, the Siberians want protection from China. But if Russia is defeated by Ukraine, can it really defend anyone from China?
My feeling is that is why Russia will never allow a withdrawal from Ukraine under Putin. The political consequences would be too catastrophic. He'd settle for steadily shoving men through the meat grinder - albeit at a reduced pace, even if it's not sustainable. Or more accurately if it means putting off a political collapse seemingly unsustainable monthly losses suddenly become sustatainable. After Putin goes...who knows?
If they run out of equipment, they may not be able to hold the front line. But we should not underestimate how much this war means to Russia because of its potential implications. That's why I don't believe any final outcome other than a total victory by one side is possible. Both sides see the war as existential. With very important difference that on the Russian side only the ruling class sees it as such, but people don't, since the former cannot admit to the latter how fragile Russia actually is (not only because of how bad such admission would be politically but also because it could create a self-fulfilling prophecy). And that severely limits their options. It is also possible that Biden actually knows all that and believes that a slow Ukrainian victory is less likely to precipitate a crisis than a quick one (and if most of Russian AFVs and artillery are destroyed in a long war, the chances of serious internal violence in Russia also decline).
Yeah, very nicely. Where do you live?
https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/08/27/german-economy-shrinks-as-consumers-shy-away-from-spending#:~:text=Germany%27s%20economy%20took%20a%20step,by%20the%20Federal%20Statistical%20Office.
Slightly overdramatic. Germany has some structural issues, but this is complaining at a very high level. They are missing a lot of opportunities though. They could have turned Germany into an arsenal of democracy with some infrastructure spending and investments. Now most of that money will be invested elsewhere. That would also help them transition some of their skilled workers from automotive (in some trouble) to armaments. The dogma of austerity is likely too strong at the moment.
It's only in ludicrous echo-chambers like this one that people can seriously suggest that converting the German economy from making cars to guns, missiles, mines and bombs would be a good thing and then to get people to who like the comment.
I thought we already had an arsenal of democracy anyway.
As luck would have it I live on the West Coast of Australia.
So you're lucky enough to live in a resource and energy rich country on the other side of the planet, but feel free to inform what energy poor areas should do to nuclear powered states on their borders. Europe's industry isn't doing fine - that's what happens when you sanction yourself from you most significant cheap energy provider.
The two main brakes on Ukrainian victory are America amd Germany, both who stand to lose in the event of one. A Russian collapse would be followed by the collapse of American hegemony in Europe, and the (at least temporary) loss of a large market for German industry, coupled with the accession of a low-cost industrial powerhouse to the EU.
Much the same concerns sparked American and German policy in the Balkans in the early 1990s which led to devastating wars that left 100,000 dead and hundreds of thousands more displaced.
Russia isn’t that large a market. An economy the size of Italy, shrinking into demographic catastrophe. There were some large industrial deals with Germany, but beyond natural gas relatively niche. I grew up in Austria, so my hypothesis is that it is largely a historical, cultural and political issue paired with a lack of imagination. Similar, any American hegemony doesn’t really exist anymore beyond some military means—and both the US and the EU know this. Anyhow, Bush couldn’t stop the dissolution of the USSR, so we won’t be able to stop a collapse of Russia. Hubris to think otherwise.
Why Western thought is mesmerized by Russia.
Sometimes concepts of normal die very hard. For a long time, normal was the Yankees win the American League. I remember this remained normal for years after the Yankees were no longer winning the American League.
Similarly, normal has been that Russia dominates all the little countries around it. This was true for a long time and even through 2008 (Georgia) and 2014 (Crimea). It's a hard normal to let go of.
To reach way back in history, there was a time when it was normal for there to be a Roman Empire. Even though the Goths ruled Italy and Gaul, they continued to proclaim they were ruling in the name of Rome for 100 years after the empire's fall. The first barbarians who made no pretense of any continuation of the Roman Empire were the Vandals and the Lombards.
The Lombards get a raw deal from history--no one seems to study them
Russia actually makes a great effort to keep that concept alive.
It seems like a version of a "sunk cost fallacy"; i.e. I've invested so much in something that I don't want to lose it. In this case it seems like intellectual investment in a theory of world politics which says:
- Russia is still a great power
- Great powers (especially nuclear powers) should be given leeway even when they terrorize other countries
- If a great power disintegrates, there will be a lot of instability which will be bad for us
I won't bother making the counterarguments because y'all know them!
The mindset behind this is rigid and intellectually lazy, yet it persists. Too much groupthink?
No, you absolutely, positively do need to make the counter arguments. Perhaps when you type them you might realise what reckless cobblers they are.
This phenomenon, right here, explains a lot. Those who break free of the obsolete mindset ALWAYS have an advantage.
good point!
I fear the administration still has its hands clamped firmly over its ears. Though if it read this (thanks for the usual lucidity) and thought about it a bit, it might start to appreciate its mind boggling stupidity on this matter.
It also used to be normal that the US could make military threats and impose sanctions and whomever it was on the receiving end would crumble. It used to be normal that the G7 were the block with the largest share of world GDP. It used to be normal that the West dominated in science and technology. It used to be normal that the West maintained the moral high-ground when it came to genocides. Times are changing - and it's the Neocons who want to die hard on this.
"to understand how modern wars are won and lost, people need to look at the destruction of equipment before it reaches the battlefield"
I am full of admiration and gratitude for you work and your will to keep speaking truth when it seems to fall on mostly deaf ears. It makes a lot of difference to me in keeping my head on straight about a horrible situation.
Back to the quote from your article, I sometimes think people don't even attempt the first half--understanding how wars are won. Wars are so emotionally and morally charged that we focus on the horrors and the bravery. But in a war like this, the moral thing to do is win. Wars have been won against fascism and aggression before and we should understand how and set about doing it again.
By we, sadly, I mean the administration of the US government. At this point in history everything boils down to what the arsenal of democracy chooses to do with it. I hope your arguments for creating more democratic hard power in Europe eventually bear fruit. But for the near term I just hope more US weapons get sent, whoever and however it happens.
Dont disagree with this. Europe must gain control of a harder defense policy, but in the immediate term getting aid to Ukraine is the key thing. Ukraine in victory can help Europe regain a stronger defense posture.
Phil/everybody, you're gonna love these Michael de Adder cartoons about Ukraine, Trump, and Pootie. Michael De Adder just won political cartoonist of the year here in the States.
https://deadder.substack.com/p/another-12-things-trump-did-as-president
The leaf representing Ukraine was hard hitting
Thanks, Kathleen. I loved the Putin ventriloquistTrump dummy one
I gagged on the one where they're making out with each other.
Yeah Kathleen, some of them were absolutely great!
Wow, he's hilarious! I kept on scrolling back to when Biden was still the nominee...darn you, infinite scroll!
I'm on page 358 of The Strategists and I realize it presents a great argument for one of those purported intellectual Trump enablers. (Fluffers)
Trump admires dictators.
Both Hitler and Mussolini went on long delusional rants,.
ergo: it's a sign of being a strongman that he does also.
Agreed, and you can add Putin to the list - see the Carson interview for a perfect example of long delusional ranting. Thought about him quite often while reading that (excellent) book.
Putin came into my mind alot as I was finishing that book
Obviously, but I didn't want to disparage Vladimir Vladimirovich for fear of escalation.
You mean the St Petersburg pissant? That VVP?
And they both failed miserably
We used to have a joke studying Russian history and all the movements against the Tsar: the longer the name the less relevant they were. The corollary here is the longer the rant, the weaker they really are.
yep
The most relevant was the group called Liberation of Labor, originally made up of just five people at its first congress: Plekhanov, Ignatov, Zasulich, Deutsch, Axelrod. There were a lot more people at its second congress, where two factions emerged - Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. And the rest is history. Also, you can put the first letters of the founders' names (in the same order as above) into Google Translate and see what that five letter word means in Russian. Then you can imagine the giggles of teenage college freshmen learning that stuff in mandatory History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union classes (that mnemonics was actually very helpful in memorizing their names for the exam - I still remember them 40 years and 3 months later, even though my memory was not good for names even back then).
As usual, the best analysis AND reporting. I see more and more people agreeing with you. Today The Economist, tomorrow...?
Why can't our side have red lines? Like, "If you keep violating the laws of war by attacking civilian targets, we'll lift restrictions on stopping your weapons before they're launched."
Appreciate that Spencer--sadly we dont like to give Red Lines and follow them--but for some reason let Russia set them.
The persistent story of inevitability and the nuclear red line won't die off. Why is it so pervasive in the media is such an important question. Why is Russian propaganda as recently publicized not more prominently reported? Why is the non-Newsmax/Fox media scared to accurately report and editorialize?
Some in the administration are clinging to it--and they get that narrative out in the press.
Harris's lack of clarity on Ukraine is fine during the election so as to not alienate the (how on earth) uncommitted. But what is the sentiment about her willingness to assert leadership on Ukraine, the Western alliance and Taiwan?
Many thanks for the analysis. I'm still trying to figure out the exact reasons and rationale behind the U.S. strategy. I can't think of anything logical. Perhaps there's still an echo of the Red Scare in it. Even more concerning is the lack of flexibility to adapt to this new situation. What's the proverb again, when you're in a hole, stop digging?
Fear of escalation, fear of Russsian collapse--its the killer combination
The rationale behind American strategy is "No more Russia = dranatically curtailed American influence over Europe."
Biden doesn’t come out of this well, if you’re correct, which I think you are. My slightly off-topic question is; how can Harris turn this to her favour? Difficult perhaps while Biden remains President, but essential (I think) if she is to win, especially given that Trump would probably withdraw US support, and the EU/UK are in no position to take up the slack.
The fear is that she repeats the Biden policy--however it will be a fresh start and her foreign policy team has said some interesting things in the past about helping Ukraine. I wrote a piece about it a few weeks ago
I think she will want Ukraine to win and move past it, although moving past it more easily said than done.
Although a majority of Americans favor aid to Ukraine, few rate it as an important issue. Americans generally want their government to take care of world affairs without them having to give thought to it. So, the best policy for both Biden and Harris is simply to do what is right on the quiet. Americans much more want to know what Harris plans to do for THEM.
Though Americans also like to back winners--so if Harris backed Ukraine to win, it could be popular. Right now the US doesnt seem to want Ukraine to win (that much).
While I think increased aid to Ukraine is of paramount importance, there is a giant downside to investing too much national honor in the project. The minute something goes wrong, the other side will pounce on it as they did on the Afghanistan withdrawal and before that Ben Gazi. Foregrounding Ukraine will make it more of a bone of contention in our heated political environment. It will make it harder for Republicans to support aid for Ukraine.
When Ukraine wins, give all the credit to Ukraine, and shout to the rooftops how it makes such good sense to support people who want to fight for themselves.
The US should also be trying to identify Russian generals who could make good post Putin political leaders—maybe Surovikin? We used to have a guy inside the Kremlin, but Trump may have ratted him out. I can't imagine any country that could successfully “occupy” a collapsed Russia without it being a total disaster. Nothing will unify Russians quicker than foreigners on their soil, and that includes the Chinese.
It might have been a valid concern during the first few months of the war to be concerned about how and what escalation by the Russians would look like. That is, would they fire off a nuke. Think about all the threats and proclamations made by Putin and his propagandists each and every time a new capability was supplied to the Ukrainians. Each time, the threats were hollow and simple bluster. What Sullivan and his group must realize is that nuclear weapons are powerful when they are THREATEN to be used. Their actual use has way too many negatives to be practical on the battlefield to use. The Russians have been using chemical weapons. Mainly to drive the Ukrainians out of their trenches. Chemical weapons are not supposed to be used; but they are a far cry from nukes and their corresponding radiation and side effects. Sullivan and Biden have got to let Ukraine use American and NATO long range weapons. Besides increasing their bombing of infrastructure and killing more civilians. The Russians can't do much more than that as their "escalation". To use nukes and to cross that Rubicon is a whole different scenario and concerns much more than just the battlefield in Ukraine.
Agree--I can see some worry at start, though now we have a really good idea of the heavy restrictions on the use of nuclear weapons.
And yet without the RF 'escalating' the Ukrainian's energy grid is smashed, they've got rolling black-outs across the country, massive (and growing) cemeteries everywhere and a population half the size it was when the conflict started. NATOs stockpiles are dwindling and strange fires break out in their factories. Meanwhile in the Red Sea the US are being driven off by the Yemenis and cannot be assured of dominating Iran because they're got access to Russian munitions. We should all be delighted that they've not gone nuclear, but don't pretend they've not escalated.
I apologize for not being more clear. I was speaking of escalation strictly in the sense of Putin using nuclear weapons. It's absolutely appalling what Ukraine has had to endure since Russia invaded their country. I'm in favor of Ukraine using long range weapons to strike Russia because perhaps that will slow down the carnage Russia has been inflicting upon them. Their attacks on oil refineries and ammo depots is a good start. The idea that the war should exclusively take part on Ukraine soil is absurd.
Surely 240 tons of HE doesn't sound like much as the equivalent in 2,000lb bombs. But 240 kilotons is 16 Hiroshimas which sounds like too much.
Yes--thats why those first reports were too small
Seems like the Ukrainian general staff has been reading your book, Prof. Phillips!
They know what they are doing!
Thanks, Phillips, great piece. I was unaware of the scope of the attacks'. So good that they're now producing some of their own weapons.
However I fear that it won,'t change minds as you aver
destroyed most of the intellectual arguments used against giving them more ranged capability.
Appreciate that Judity--agree it will probably not change mind, however its important to make the arguments
This was the first I had read that on the order of 100 UAVs was used in one of the strikes. I’m floored by this.
Your excellent piece Philip does not fully explain why a nuclear escalation will not happen , can elaborate ?
I actually linked to an article I wrote about that in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists--its in the piece if you want to read more on this.
I missed that link as well. Here it is:
https://thebulletin.org/2024/09/the-new-red-line-why-a-prolonged-conflict-in-ukraine-makes-a-nuclear-attack-more-likely/
The Chinese forbade it. They need food imports and don’t enjoy their dinner if it glows in the dark. ;) The Russian leadership including Putin, are like the mafia and not a death cult. Their families live in the west, and much of their stolen wealth lives there too.
The Chinese really have been very clear on this.
US told Russia explicitly: any nuke usage, and the US will use convential weapons to wipe out Russians military assets in Ukraine.
Phillips talks about it more here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/phillipspobrien/p/we-need-to-rethink-our-assumptions
thanks for bringing that up Paul