Perhaps you have succumbed to the Beltway propaganda-induced hubris. Your analysis of the military action thus far is facile and one-sided. If you weren't largely basing your analysis on Russia's performance that wouldn't matter, but if you are trying to get into Xi's head you might want a more thorough understanding of what you are talking about, as I sincerely doubt Xi relies solely on western intelligence, as you appear to. The western strategy is claimed to be to weaken Russia through extended conflict, while at the same time admitting that NATO is not in a position to win a war against Russia currently. I wonder what Xi makes of that? I wonder what we Americans ought to make of that? Washington's exuberance might be a tad irrational after all.
May I remind you that the "special military operation" is conducted as such because under Russian law a declaration of war would be necessary to fully deploy the Russian military. This is why the troop numbers in Ukraine are so low. The activity around Kiev was not an attempt at taking that city, rather it was a feint to keep Ukrainian forces engaged there while positions in the east were solidified. All the gleeful western chatter about Russia's dashed expectations are just nonsense. Yes, Russia made mistakes, but they've been rectified and their performance has vastly improved. Without direct intervention from the west Russia will win this war. May I also remind you of all the weapons Russia has lately displayed which were previously unseen by the west, and against which the west obviously has no defensive capabilities as yet.
The truth matters here because while the number you provide for Russian casualties seems highly inflated, you don't mention Ukrainian losses at all, which are coming close to 10% of their entire armed forces. What will the west do when they have run out of Ukrainians with which to fight Russia? At some point NATO will have to enter the battle, the same NATO that recently admitted they can't win. The latest scuttlebutt is that the west is supportive of Poland moving troops into western Ukraine while the Romanians are planning to invade Transnistria to help Ukraine maintain access to the Black Sea at Odessa. These operations have already started and troops and equipment are being put in place currently. Sounds like a world war to me. It seems that the most likely outcome is your last choice: global chaos.
Perhaps the saddest thing about this tragedy is that it was entirely avoidable. If the US had not spent billions to turn Ukraine into a nationalist extremist anti-Russian entity that country would be at peace and many thousands of people would still be alive today. The current political situation in Ukraine has a very complex and interesting history. You should learn about it to fully understand exactly what you are lauding when you praise their troops. You should probably learn a bit more about Russian history while you are at it, so you better understand the peril we face here. After reading this analysis I must admit I have lost a great deal of respect for your analytic capabilities; this is quite a disappointing effort.
Look, I am rather skeptical that Russia is somehow so capable that it could beat all of NATO at once, but has failed to secure its objectives against just Ukraine after two months. If it is so capable, why bother with a 'feint' around Kiev at all? Wouldn't it be more straightforward to assume that NATO isn't intervening because it knows Russia would escalate to tactical nuclear weapons, just like it says it would? And if NATO is willing to bleed the Ukrainians, why would it intervene anyway? None of this makes any sense. As you could probably tell from the essay, I am sympathetic to the view that America and Western Europe are too meddlesome for their own good. But I just don't see Russia doing well at all right now.
Nonetheless, I welcome your feedback. Since the war is still ongoing, we will all find out the truth, eventually.
If you had done any research whatsoever you would have known that Ukraine has a very large army, the second largest in Europe, after Russia, and that it has been the beneficiary of many millions of dollars of western weapons and training for at least 8 years. Not to mention the fact that the Ukrainian army has been fighting in eastern Ukraine all that time and is entrenched in a massive series of trenches and other formations, some of which date back to WWII. Then there is the fact that Kiev ordered a massive buildup of troops in the east shortly before Russia invaded. Since this is commonly available information, you can bet that Russia knew this, and a lot more, when they went in. Perhaps they initially underestimated the Ukrainians' ability to wage war, and may have been surprised by their ferocious tactics, but they have certainly now adapted.
It is really ridiculous to believe that Russia ever seriously expected to take Kiev, which is extremely well fortified and which would have required an attack ratio much, much larger than the forces Russia put there. One of the reasons the caravan was "stuck" there for so long, besides serving as a distraction, was to clearly demonstrate that Russia had air superiority, something no one in the west seemed to notice at the time, despite endless hours of breathless reporting. It was much more likely the Ukrainians who blew up the dam, by the way, along with many bridges and even road signs, for some reason.
When you say Russia has not secured its "objectives" you are really claiming it has not secured what you think its objectives are. Russia's objectives, however, have been clearly stated from the beginning and have never included occupying Kiev. Anything apart from Russia's own stated objectives is just pure conjecture so to speculate about whether or not they have succeeded is pointless. Russia, as far as I can tell, fully intends to fulfill its own objectives and will not stop until it does.
I think it behooves us to clearly understand those objectives and to take Russia seriously. The military operation is overwhelmingly popular among the Russian people, as is Putin. The Russians know a heck of a lot more about what goes on in Ukraine than we do, and they care much more about the outcome. To dismiss the Russian army based on western intelligence reporting, which the US has admitted is intentionally inaccurate if not entirely false, and which is often based on little more than Ukrainian propaganda seems like a serious mistake to make at such a crucial time. There is a whole world of information out there outside the western media bubble, best to avail ourselves of it now, while we still can.
As far as NATO is concerned, I would suggest you investigate what forces they actually have available to mobilize in Europe and then compare that to forces available to Russia in the event of an actual war, as opposed to the current "special military operation". It is not a foregone conclusion that NATO would win, especially given that the bulk of its troops in the region are Turkish. Do you really see Turkey going to war against Russia? What about all the countries who depend on Russia currently for their energy needs? Most of NATO's soldiers are American, but how could those troops get to Ukraine quickly enough to make a meaningful difference and what would prevent Russia from attacking the vessels carrying them if we were at war?
Has it occurred to you that the impression of an ineffectual Russian army might actually serve the interests of the Kremlin? It's better to be underestimated by your enemy in war, I would imagine. The narrative we are being fed about this war in the west is utterly divorced from reality. We are being lied to. Look at the people in charge of this debacle and ask yourself if they inspire confidence. Would you entrust your life to Antony Blinken or Lloyd Austin? Joe Biden? Kamala? Macron? Boris? Zelensky? These are not serious people. They are underwhelming in the extreme, yet we are trusting them with our lives and the lives of our children. Lord have mercy on us all.
Look, I'm sorry to be so bombastic, and I agree with you most of the time and find your writing very clever and insightful. I just think you have swallowed the propaganda being relentlessly pushed by the warmongering globalists, who appear to have been driven insane by Putin, much like our American elite was driven insane by Trump seven years ago. I'm not a Russophile, nor am I a Trumpist but I am open minded and a fan of objective reality and critical thinking (the old fashioned kind). I could be completely wrong and Russia could be just as hopeless as you say it is, but I'd have to have more evidence than just the say-so of the jokers running this particular charade. Looking at the admittedly few actual facts on the ground available to me, however, my impression is that the clowns are clowning while Russia is busy winning.
With due respect, can you explain what sort of access you have to the truth of the situation on the ground that the author does not? If it is merely wrought from accounts outside of US media, what makes those any more reliable?
And if not - if it is just from your near-omniscient understanding of the situation given your broad understanding of geopolitics - then why do you repeatedly hammer N.S. Lyons over the head with how stupid and disappointing and un-researched the piece is?
I started this comment "with all due respect" to ward off your temper in advance because, in your own words, you have really written some "bombastic" comments here that hold a bizarre level of vitriol for someone who clearly put a lot of effort into constructing a overview of the situation at hand and its possible future implications.
I'm quite certain that N.S. Lyons' understanding of geopolitics is far superior to mine, which is why I read him in the first place, and yes, he would absolutely have access to the same information I do, should he wish to consider an alternative to the western reporting. As far as credibility goes, I just assume that all sides lie, or at least have a bias, and then consider who is most likely to most closely represent what has actually occurred using logic, critical reasoning and a somewhat cynical but hopefully comprehensive understanding of human nature.
Just now subscribed so I could recommend Riley Waggaman's substack as a sort of Russian back-channel. Ex-RT reporter, mostly covering Russian COVID policy, actually lives in Moscow and can read the language. Plus plenty dark humor. For starters:
If you're interested in what they other side looks like, you can do pretty well yourself, as a non-Russian-speaker, with Yandex translate and a VPN. And some patience.
I don't think this Special Military Operation is proceeding as smoothly as Putin would have liked, but I don't think it's close to over yet, either. I'd say our present author has gotten a little carried away gazing at the Western hegemon's upside, and neglecting how measured and strategic the Russian aggression has been so far, and the implications of that... but hey, the speculative flights of fancy are part of the charm. Caveat emptor.
Anyway, this piece was worth six inflata-bucks all on it's own. Hoping we'll have something equally thought-provoking next month. Quality over quantity!
Now I don't understand. You think Russia has declared war on all of NATO? Oh, and a feint around Kiev is the type of maneuver we used in Iraq I. Go read the Rand reports: We've been hoping for and planning this provocation since 2013. This is what we've done since the boomer Presidents took over the game. The Russians will give up their Naval base in Crimea about the same time we'll give up ours in Cuba.
Of course Russia hasn't declared war on any part of NATO and of course that isn't the implication. I don't know enough about Gulf 1 to say whether or not a feint around Kiev is the sort of thing we did then, but if it was I suspect we had a good deal more success with our op than the Russians are having with theirs.
Obviously the point is that if Russia has this much difficulty against Ukraine (for whatever reason - Russian law, NATO being ungentlemanly by supplying weapons/training/intelligence over the last 8 years, a surprisingly large number of people willing to die in defence of the idea that they're Ukrainians rather than Malorussians - I have no horse in that race), it isn't the *conventional* threat to NATO it had always been thought to be. And if not a conventional threat on NATO's borders, then (whether it holds the whole of Crimea or just the Sevastopol base it had prior to 2014) in any scenario that doesn't involve a nuclear exchange Russia stops being a great power and becomes Nigeria with snow.
Ergo, from NATO's point of view the much-vaunted multipolar world order suddenly became unipolar again, 'murica, fuck yeah, QED.
I'm sure you've watched John Mearsheimer's lecture about Ukraine. It contains much geopolitical mind-reading, of which the following might be an example, but I recall it for his distinct language. He said Putin is going to "wreck" Ukraine. Not annex, not occupy... "wreck." Which Russia can assuredly accomplish with missiles and mobile artillery units.
So why the ground invasion? Before the Rasputitsa ended, no less? With poorly trained conscripts? Shit... why not? Wager a policing force on the prospect of Ukraine folding like a chair? I'd take that bet, as Putin did. But it didn't pay off. And indeed, Russia is not "doing well at all right now."
But... they're Russia. They haven't lost a direct military conflict in over a century. And the closest historical analogue to this current mess---America's support of Afghanistan's Mujahideen in the 80s---isn't nearly as analogous as the current power-mad lunatics in State Department and DoD imagine it to be.
To be clear, I have no idea how the war's progressing. All I can say is, talk of Russia ultimately losing and Putin getting deposed---ie the Current Mainstream Narrative---sets bullshit alarms faintly wringing in the back of my mind.
“They haven't lost a direct military conflict in over a century.” Do you know about the Soviet-Finland war and how the war in Afghanistan went for the USSR?
It’s not mainstream to say Putin will be deposed. No one is predicting that. But this is undeniably a strategic failure for Russia, even if they take the whole of the Donbas it’s a Pyrrhic victory. Their economy is dying a slow death and they’re going back to Soviet living standards.
Well look at that. It's a year later and Russia's economy is doing fine. Moreover, their military is poised to bring Kiev to the negotiating table based on Moscow's terms. And there's not a goddamn thing the West can do about it.
Turns out calculating GDP based on shuffling debt around doesn't have anything to do with the actual production of stuff, eg artillery shells. NATO has been exposed as the corrupt GAE paper tiger it is.
"The activity around Kiev was not an attempt at taking that city, rather it was a feint to keep Ukrainian forces engaged there while positions in the east were solidified."
How would we tell the difference? It certainly looked, to me, like a failed attempt at taking Kiev.
"If the US had not spent billions to turn Ukraine into a nationalist extremist anti-Russian entity that country would be at peace and many thousands of people would still be alive today."
One must point out that this same happy outcome could also have been realized if the Russians had stayed home.
A Chance Encounter told you what the difference is. The force Russia directed there is too small to take the city but sufficient to pin down forces that would have headed East.
You misread the at peace point because you ignore all the activity since 2014 where the U. government has been harassing, jailing, beating up and killing its own population. (UN report) and bombarding the Donbas to the cost of 14000 lives. There was no peace but an extended conflict with increasing nationalistic forces fostered by the West heading for even greater conflict with Russia.
I concur with A Chance Encounter that the piece is written from inside a Western media bubble and is seriously flawed factually and through wilful misinterpretation of the facts, e.g. stated war aims, loss rates. Essentially, the piece is holed below the water line because its premises don't hold up. I admire NS's work but he has this one badly wrong. It is possible to read and watch outside the propagandised Western media bubble quite easily and he didn't. It's a pity, given all the work.
"A Chance Encounter told you what the difference is. The force Russia directed there is too small to take the city but sufficient to pin down forces that would have headed East."
We agree that the force was too small but we disagree on the reason. "the force was too small, ergo, the intent was not to take Kiev". Why not conclude instead: "the force was too small because the Russians miscalculated?" Is it impossible for Russia to make a mistake?
Short of averting the risk of Ukraine invading Russia or NATO using Ukraine as a springboard for invading Russia, (both of which were, and are, highly improbable to the point of being fantastical), there is no possible justification for Russia's actions.
There seems to be a lot of anti-West contrarianism animating these defenses of Russia. "The US foreign policy Blob is for it, so I'm against it."
Well said. Some commenters are genuinely upset by the prospect that obvious appearances are correct and Russia just blew it. You don’t trust Western govts/media? Fine. But in that case, how can you be gullible enough to buy what the Kremlin organs are putting out?
Indeed. Some of the posters here display a combination of unrelenting hostility and skepticism towards the Western establishment (which that established may or may not deserve), with a fierce, blind trust and defence of Russia's motives and judgements. I'm far from being an expert in these matters, but if all the Russians are like this, I despair for diplomacy, as there doesn't seem to be any shared reality here that can be used as a springboard for discussion or common understanding.
Thank you. I've come to the same conclusion on this piece, while praying potential support coming from the Poles and Romanians never materializes. Like TR, Joe could have won the Nobel Prize had he stepped in for peace. But being useful has never been Biden's style.
You lost me at “taking Kiev was a feint.” I’m sure Putin intended to sacrifice thousands of soldiers and more tanks than the UK has in total, it was all just a big distraction. Get out of here. He lives in an echo chamber and was misinformed about the chances of success. Why don’t you change your alias to “A Russian Plant”?
Wow, what an amazing overview. What alot of work you have invested in this. thank you very much for sharing. I loved some of the humour - "Suddenly China finds itself alone at the bar. Russia has stumbled off to drunkenly instigate a street fight and lose most of its teeth, and Europa has gone home with the obnoxious middle-aged Yankee in the muscle shirt and overbearing cologne" had me on the floor!
After reading this, I don't want to miss any of your future posts and decided to subscribe. It's weighty (no pun intended, haha!) and important, and I like how you weave all the parts of the analysis together... And, in the end, arrive at a point of inescapable uncertainty at what are truly conclusion-defying times indeed. Many valuable insights along the way, anyhow, and a provocative and daring approach that certainly deserves praise.
Thanks, there are a number of people here who tend to often disagree with me (and say so) but still choose to subscribe. I really appreciate that! It keeps things more interesting.
Wow. That was the most honest assessment of the proxy war in Ukraine I have read. Impressive.
My first thought is, mix Ukrainian Nazi's flush with victory and increased hatred of Russians, with these guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3pnFR7DeZA&feature=emb_title (From TKNews, Matt Orfalea's take on warmongers), and we might expect far greater atrocities against Russians than what we have seen so far. Overshoot of triumphal viciousness will not reflect well.
The Trans-Atlantis regime will depend too on keeping a total lockdown on any discussion whatever of Covid Policy and the aftermath. That could become increasingly difficult, when it is the PMC protectors of our elite who are most likely to be harmed by over-vaccination.
Also if we are going to have to accept a Trans takeover of women's sports, and sexualizing of pre-schoolers, and minority social climbers weaponizing race and gender to cancel all their enemies including fellow "progressives", I doubt most people are going to be sanguine about that.
Also, once people figure out that a digital currency would mean technocratic-defined limits on meat, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, TV time, media choices etc....
Also when we will be expected to line up for our bi-monthly multi-boosters....
And once they start sanctioning American States, or even counties or cities and individuals for wrongthink, that American spirit to be left alone might find it's footing again.
Wow! Quite a piece. This is why I subscribe. It will be interesting to revisit it in 10 years and see how you did. I have only one question:
"A wise leadership elite would go out of its way to avoid antagonizing internal cultural conflicts. But of course we know (because they’ve already started) that they are instead intent on pushing the accelerator all the way to the floor on every possible issue"
How do you mean they are "pushing the accelerator to the floor" in stoking cultural conflicts? It seems to me they are doing the exact opposite (what you prescribe they rationally "should" do), attempting to force conformity across all cultural dimensions.
Those are the same things. By trying to enforce conformity to their party line, they are stoking cultural conflict. They don't accept cultural pluralism as a possibility, only full-spectrum ideological conquest.
I get it. Since cultural pluralism is the reality of the modern world, forcing conformity is going to stoke "antagonize internal cultural conflicts" by definition.
Thank you - I read to the end over the course of the day and am sending it to my husband. I think the summarization is - it's a big freaking mess. And we are led by the worst possible combination of ideologues and total incompetents at the moment, so I suspect "worse case scenario" is where we land. I don't know that the US can stay united in the face of these scenarios, though - here in the South, and I suspect other red states, frustration and anger is already VERY high. I work in Uganda, where the people are getting absolutely clobbered by prices and supply issues, while China has basically taken ownership of huge swathes of the country including the airport in Entebbe thanks to handing over big loans with patently untenable payment plans resulting in default. (And corruption by the government, which goes without saying.) It's a scary time.
I would like to raise an issue for all of the commenters who have disagreed with Lyons' interpretation of how the war is evolving in Ukraine. He states "For weeks now I have noticed a strange reluctance among some in the West (as least among my fellow let's just say "deeply disillusioned with the establishment observers to accept the reality of this."
Largely because of my own long disillusionment with the establishment (on all levels) I noticed a powerful emotional impulse within me as this war began to want to root for a Russian victory in Ukraine in order to give the U.S. national security apparatus, what I felt, was a well-deserved black eye.
Does anyone else feel that such an impulse has played a significant role in how they tend to view this war?
I wouldn't say "rooting for a Russian victory" as much as wishing the Western, liberal, globalist, secular consensus could lose too. Because I know how they will react / are reacting: triumphalist certainty of their own superiority and denigration of any competing viewpoints.
To be clear, I hope Russia loses because what they're doing is evil and the world is a safer place when 800 lb authoritarian gorillas know they can't get their way with force. But I wish they could lose without our elites coming to the wrong conclusions about our "victory".
I like your wish about the Western, liberal, globalist, secular consensus also loosing.
Your articulation/ hope for such a double loss begins to get into the kind of issues Paul Kingsnorth has been raising--what he calls the possibility of a reactionary radicalism built around people, places and prayer and his argument that the left and corporate capitalism
are, at their foundation, after the same thing--the destruction of our customary ways of living.
He seems quite sure that such a project is not political but I'm not, as yet, convinced.
Maybe I enjoy the power game to much (it is so familiar) and simply confused about how to transcend it-- but one thing I know for sure is that my own aggressive impulses are often off the charts!
I absolutely love Paul. He and I come from completely different worlds politically (25 years ago he was a militant socialist environmentalist and I was a materialist libertarian). But his writing about the gradual takeover of The Machine has really altered my thinking, which is what good writers should do. I gave up my libertarian streak pre-Paul and adopted a "common good" style conservatism, but he's made me consider the importance of spiritual enchantment with the world (we Protestants are terrible at that.) If you hear echoes of Paul in my comments it's 1) not surprising, and 2) a great compliment. Thanks.
There is I'm sure some good stuff on China which I might get back to but you so completely misread or you accept the Western media narrative of the current conflict that I can't get past it at the moment and it clouds the rest of the piece. What a pity. Your work has been well thought through and interesting. It is hardly my role to put you right although some researching online would soon show you different perspectives and some hard and often unpleasant facts but I will highlight your second hand personalisation of all that takes place to Putin, your liberal reinterpretation of the clearly expressed aims of Russia, your buying the story of some Battle of Kyiv/Kiev that never took place and your failure to go earlier than the March date in understanding anything of why this happened. It is not some grand Peter the Great plan in Putin's head unless you have evidence of that (beyond US State Dept projection). If anything Putin is criticised internally for not being sufficiently hawkish.
Were you aware of the Donbas conflict since 2014 that has taken 14k lives? - Russian Ukrainian lives taken by Ukrainians through bedded down artillery (which escalated in late Feb). Bandera and the several n a z i groupings meshed into govt and army? Euromaidan? Biolabs? Buruma? Minsk accords? The massing of Ukraine forces on the line of contact signalling imminent invasion of Donbas? Russian military strategy as distinct from the American kind? 'Gas for roubles' and its implications? I could tell you. Or you could research it. I know you are a China focused but since your article rests on questionable foundations it makes all your evident hard work a bit moot. If nothing else, please be more alert to how we are under constant propaganda bombardment and demonstrate some effort to rise above it. Sorry to say this.
This is a truly exciting intellectual synthesis! It’s a breathtaking meld of pretty much everything—geopolitical, economic, cultural, psycho-social—that’s happening in the world right now. In the grandness of its scope, it’s like Marx. How you tie everything together—the possibly rosy aspects of Trans-Atlantis in the first part of the essay, to the absolutely chilling possibility of a universal woke totalitarian hegemony in the second is an awesome intellectual achievement, like being a grandmaster of three-dimensional chess. But, Niall Ferguson pointed out this week in The Good Fellows podcast, that the real reason the Soviet Union lost the Cold War is because it couldn’t make computers. Similarly, China, despite its superior emphasis on STEM education, cannot make its own advanced microchips, nor a COVID-19 vaccine equal to ours. Innovation cannot flourish in totalitarian cultures, which is why I think that a totalitarian hegemonic Trans-Atlantis, if it unfolds as you suggest, would quickly stagnate. And, an hegemony that doesn’t successfully marry Virtual AND Physical, is inherently anti-fragile. Being a pessimist, I tend to think your description of chaos is apt. Even if Trans-Atlantis flourished for awhile, I tend to think that chaos would happen sooner rather than later. Also, if the general mood of the foreign policy establishment in Washington, aka The Blob, is “giddy”, THAT is pretty scary, given their past disastrous failures.
Thanks for a fascinating, entertaining, and frightening read! Much to chew on. Wish you had a definite answer as to what is going to happen. I need certainty!
I am going to take a couple days to read over the whole essay (book?). So far it's splendidly written and provides many good thinking points. But a few days is necessary to digest all of it carefully.
May I advise that for future similarly lengthy essays you break it into several shorter essays and release them across a week?
Thanks. I definitely plan to avoid putting out anything this lengthy again. I released it all at once because I was hoping it would help get people to read past the Ukraine part without getting all mad. It didn't work.
I read quickly (you can say I read for work so I'm skilled at reading quickly). While the essay will still be reread several times this weekend I now have a good overview of all your key arguments. I'll never forget the images of the Biden Administration's embassies flying rainbow and BLM flags in culturally conservative countries. Regarding the future - there is an inherent tension at the core of the new "neoliberal progressive" worldview. A key element of wokery is rectifying the oppressions of others, which is why colonialism and anti-colonialism are such prominent themes in wokery. But how can a new progressive woke elite enforce a renewed global progressive-liberalism without defacto colonialism at the same time? You touched on this theme. And it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the next few decades.
That was an amazing overview of our current international situation. I have no qualms or caveats, simply praise. Thank you.
Echoing this comment. I subscribed because of this essay. It is phenomenal and writing like this needs to be supported.
Perhaps you have succumbed to the Beltway propaganda-induced hubris. Your analysis of the military action thus far is facile and one-sided. If you weren't largely basing your analysis on Russia's performance that wouldn't matter, but if you are trying to get into Xi's head you might want a more thorough understanding of what you are talking about, as I sincerely doubt Xi relies solely on western intelligence, as you appear to. The western strategy is claimed to be to weaken Russia through extended conflict, while at the same time admitting that NATO is not in a position to win a war against Russia currently. I wonder what Xi makes of that? I wonder what we Americans ought to make of that? Washington's exuberance might be a tad irrational after all.
May I remind you that the "special military operation" is conducted as such because under Russian law a declaration of war would be necessary to fully deploy the Russian military. This is why the troop numbers in Ukraine are so low. The activity around Kiev was not an attempt at taking that city, rather it was a feint to keep Ukrainian forces engaged there while positions in the east were solidified. All the gleeful western chatter about Russia's dashed expectations are just nonsense. Yes, Russia made mistakes, but they've been rectified and their performance has vastly improved. Without direct intervention from the west Russia will win this war. May I also remind you of all the weapons Russia has lately displayed which were previously unseen by the west, and against which the west obviously has no defensive capabilities as yet.
The truth matters here because while the number you provide for Russian casualties seems highly inflated, you don't mention Ukrainian losses at all, which are coming close to 10% of their entire armed forces. What will the west do when they have run out of Ukrainians with which to fight Russia? At some point NATO will have to enter the battle, the same NATO that recently admitted they can't win. The latest scuttlebutt is that the west is supportive of Poland moving troops into western Ukraine while the Romanians are planning to invade Transnistria to help Ukraine maintain access to the Black Sea at Odessa. These operations have already started and troops and equipment are being put in place currently. Sounds like a world war to me. It seems that the most likely outcome is your last choice: global chaos.
Perhaps the saddest thing about this tragedy is that it was entirely avoidable. If the US had not spent billions to turn Ukraine into a nationalist extremist anti-Russian entity that country would be at peace and many thousands of people would still be alive today. The current political situation in Ukraine has a very complex and interesting history. You should learn about it to fully understand exactly what you are lauding when you praise their troops. You should probably learn a bit more about Russian history while you are at it, so you better understand the peril we face here. After reading this analysis I must admit I have lost a great deal of respect for your analytic capabilities; this is quite a disappointing effort.
Look, I am rather skeptical that Russia is somehow so capable that it could beat all of NATO at once, but has failed to secure its objectives against just Ukraine after two months. If it is so capable, why bother with a 'feint' around Kiev at all? Wouldn't it be more straightforward to assume that NATO isn't intervening because it knows Russia would escalate to tactical nuclear weapons, just like it says it would? And if NATO is willing to bleed the Ukrainians, why would it intervene anyway? None of this makes any sense. As you could probably tell from the essay, I am sympathetic to the view that America and Western Europe are too meddlesome for their own good. But I just don't see Russia doing well at all right now.
Nonetheless, I welcome your feedback. Since the war is still ongoing, we will all find out the truth, eventually.
If you had done any research whatsoever you would have known that Ukraine has a very large army, the second largest in Europe, after Russia, and that it has been the beneficiary of many millions of dollars of western weapons and training for at least 8 years. Not to mention the fact that the Ukrainian army has been fighting in eastern Ukraine all that time and is entrenched in a massive series of trenches and other formations, some of which date back to WWII. Then there is the fact that Kiev ordered a massive buildup of troops in the east shortly before Russia invaded. Since this is commonly available information, you can bet that Russia knew this, and a lot more, when they went in. Perhaps they initially underestimated the Ukrainians' ability to wage war, and may have been surprised by their ferocious tactics, but they have certainly now adapted.
It is really ridiculous to believe that Russia ever seriously expected to take Kiev, which is extremely well fortified and which would have required an attack ratio much, much larger than the forces Russia put there. One of the reasons the caravan was "stuck" there for so long, besides serving as a distraction, was to clearly demonstrate that Russia had air superiority, something no one in the west seemed to notice at the time, despite endless hours of breathless reporting. It was much more likely the Ukrainians who blew up the dam, by the way, along with many bridges and even road signs, for some reason.
When you say Russia has not secured its "objectives" you are really claiming it has not secured what you think its objectives are. Russia's objectives, however, have been clearly stated from the beginning and have never included occupying Kiev. Anything apart from Russia's own stated objectives is just pure conjecture so to speculate about whether or not they have succeeded is pointless. Russia, as far as I can tell, fully intends to fulfill its own objectives and will not stop until it does.
I think it behooves us to clearly understand those objectives and to take Russia seriously. The military operation is overwhelmingly popular among the Russian people, as is Putin. The Russians know a heck of a lot more about what goes on in Ukraine than we do, and they care much more about the outcome. To dismiss the Russian army based on western intelligence reporting, which the US has admitted is intentionally inaccurate if not entirely false, and which is often based on little more than Ukrainian propaganda seems like a serious mistake to make at such a crucial time. There is a whole world of information out there outside the western media bubble, best to avail ourselves of it now, while we still can.
As far as NATO is concerned, I would suggest you investigate what forces they actually have available to mobilize in Europe and then compare that to forces available to Russia in the event of an actual war, as opposed to the current "special military operation". It is not a foregone conclusion that NATO would win, especially given that the bulk of its troops in the region are Turkish. Do you really see Turkey going to war against Russia? What about all the countries who depend on Russia currently for their energy needs? Most of NATO's soldiers are American, but how could those troops get to Ukraine quickly enough to make a meaningful difference and what would prevent Russia from attacking the vessels carrying them if we were at war?
Has it occurred to you that the impression of an ineffectual Russian army might actually serve the interests of the Kremlin? It's better to be underestimated by your enemy in war, I would imagine. The narrative we are being fed about this war in the west is utterly divorced from reality. We are being lied to. Look at the people in charge of this debacle and ask yourself if they inspire confidence. Would you entrust your life to Antony Blinken or Lloyd Austin? Joe Biden? Kamala? Macron? Boris? Zelensky? These are not serious people. They are underwhelming in the extreme, yet we are trusting them with our lives and the lives of our children. Lord have mercy on us all.
Look, I'm sorry to be so bombastic, and I agree with you most of the time and find your writing very clever and insightful. I just think you have swallowed the propaganda being relentlessly pushed by the warmongering globalists, who appear to have been driven insane by Putin, much like our American elite was driven insane by Trump seven years ago. I'm not a Russophile, nor am I a Trumpist but I am open minded and a fan of objective reality and critical thinking (the old fashioned kind). I could be completely wrong and Russia could be just as hopeless as you say it is, but I'd have to have more evidence than just the say-so of the jokers running this particular charade. Looking at the admittedly few actual facts on the ground available to me, however, my impression is that the clowns are clowning while Russia is busy winning.
With due respect, can you explain what sort of access you have to the truth of the situation on the ground that the author does not? If it is merely wrought from accounts outside of US media, what makes those any more reliable?
And if not - if it is just from your near-omniscient understanding of the situation given your broad understanding of geopolitics - then why do you repeatedly hammer N.S. Lyons over the head with how stupid and disappointing and un-researched the piece is?
I started this comment "with all due respect" to ward off your temper in advance because, in your own words, you have really written some "bombastic" comments here that hold a bizarre level of vitriol for someone who clearly put a lot of effort into constructing a overview of the situation at hand and its possible future implications.
I'm quite certain that N.S. Lyons' understanding of geopolitics is far superior to mine, which is why I read him in the first place, and yes, he would absolutely have access to the same information I do, should he wish to consider an alternative to the western reporting. As far as credibility goes, I just assume that all sides lie, or at least have a bias, and then consider who is most likely to most closely represent what has actually occurred using logic, critical reasoning and a somewhat cynical but hopefully comprehensive understanding of human nature.
Just now subscribed so I could recommend Riley Waggaman's substack as a sort of Russian back-channel. Ex-RT reporter, mostly covering Russian COVID policy, actually lives in Moscow and can read the language. Plus plenty dark humor. For starters:
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/russias-pro-war-pundits-have-no-illusions
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/i-am-in-awe-of-the-sheer-ruthlessness
And then, there are plenty of other knowledgeable accounts available. Here's one calling into question who's bleeding who:
https://thesaker.is/sitrep-operation-z-11/
If you're interested in what they other side looks like, you can do pretty well yourself, as a non-Russian-speaker, with Yandex translate and a VPN. And some patience.
I don't think this Special Military Operation is proceeding as smoothly as Putin would have liked, but I don't think it's close to over yet, either. I'd say our present author has gotten a little carried away gazing at the Western hegemon's upside, and neglecting how measured and strategic the Russian aggression has been so far, and the implications of that... but hey, the speculative flights of fancy are part of the charm. Caveat emptor.
Anyway, this piece was worth six inflata-bucks all on it's own. Hoping we'll have something equally thought-provoking next month. Quality over quantity!
Now I don't understand. You think Russia has declared war on all of NATO? Oh, and a feint around Kiev is the type of maneuver we used in Iraq I. Go read the Rand reports: We've been hoping for and planning this provocation since 2013. This is what we've done since the boomer Presidents took over the game. The Russians will give up their Naval base in Crimea about the same time we'll give up ours in Cuba.
Of course Russia hasn't declared war on any part of NATO and of course that isn't the implication. I don't know enough about Gulf 1 to say whether or not a feint around Kiev is the sort of thing we did then, but if it was I suspect we had a good deal more success with our op than the Russians are having with theirs.
Obviously the point is that if Russia has this much difficulty against Ukraine (for whatever reason - Russian law, NATO being ungentlemanly by supplying weapons/training/intelligence over the last 8 years, a surprisingly large number of people willing to die in defence of the idea that they're Ukrainians rather than Malorussians - I have no horse in that race), it isn't the *conventional* threat to NATO it had always been thought to be. And if not a conventional threat on NATO's borders, then (whether it holds the whole of Crimea or just the Sevastopol base it had prior to 2014) in any scenario that doesn't involve a nuclear exchange Russia stops being a great power and becomes Nigeria with snow.
Ergo, from NATO's point of view the much-vaunted multipolar world order suddenly became unipolar again, 'murica, fuck yeah, QED.
"None of this makes any sense."
I'm sure you've watched John Mearsheimer's lecture about Ukraine. It contains much geopolitical mind-reading, of which the following might be an example, but I recall it for his distinct language. He said Putin is going to "wreck" Ukraine. Not annex, not occupy... "wreck." Which Russia can assuredly accomplish with missiles and mobile artillery units.
So why the ground invasion? Before the Rasputitsa ended, no less? With poorly trained conscripts? Shit... why not? Wager a policing force on the prospect of Ukraine folding like a chair? I'd take that bet, as Putin did. But it didn't pay off. And indeed, Russia is not "doing well at all right now."
But... they're Russia. They haven't lost a direct military conflict in over a century. And the closest historical analogue to this current mess---America's support of Afghanistan's Mujahideen in the 80s---isn't nearly as analogous as the current power-mad lunatics in State Department and DoD imagine it to be.
To be clear, I have no idea how the war's progressing. All I can say is, talk of Russia ultimately losing and Putin getting deposed---ie the Current Mainstream Narrative---sets bullshit alarms faintly wringing in the back of my mind.
“They haven't lost a direct military conflict in over a century.” Do you know about the Soviet-Finland war and how the war in Afghanistan went for the USSR?
It’s not mainstream to say Putin will be deposed. No one is predicting that. But this is undeniably a strategic failure for Russia, even if they take the whole of the Donbas it’s a Pyrrhic victory. Their economy is dying a slow death and they’re going back to Soviet living standards.
Well look at that. It's a year later and Russia's economy is doing fine. Moreover, their military is poised to bring Kiev to the negotiating table based on Moscow's terms. And there's not a goddamn thing the West can do about it.
Turns out calculating GDP based on shuffling debt around doesn't have anything to do with the actual production of stuff, eg artillery shells. NATO has been exposed as the corrupt GAE paper tiger it is.
"The activity around Kiev was not an attempt at taking that city, rather it was a feint to keep Ukrainian forces engaged there while positions in the east were solidified."
How would we tell the difference? It certainly looked, to me, like a failed attempt at taking Kiev.
"If the US had not spent billions to turn Ukraine into a nationalist extremist anti-Russian entity that country would be at peace and many thousands of people would still be alive today."
One must point out that this same happy outcome could also have been realized if the Russians had stayed home.
A Chance Encounter told you what the difference is. The force Russia directed there is too small to take the city but sufficient to pin down forces that would have headed East.
You misread the at peace point because you ignore all the activity since 2014 where the U. government has been harassing, jailing, beating up and killing its own population. (UN report) and bombarding the Donbas to the cost of 14000 lives. There was no peace but an extended conflict with increasing nationalistic forces fostered by the West heading for even greater conflict with Russia.
I concur with A Chance Encounter that the piece is written from inside a Western media bubble and is seriously flawed factually and through wilful misinterpretation of the facts, e.g. stated war aims, loss rates. Essentially, the piece is holed below the water line because its premises don't hold up. I admire NS's work but he has this one badly wrong. It is possible to read and watch outside the propagandised Western media bubble quite easily and he didn't. It's a pity, given all the work.
"A Chance Encounter told you what the difference is. The force Russia directed there is too small to take the city but sufficient to pin down forces that would have headed East."
We agree that the force was too small but we disagree on the reason. "the force was too small, ergo, the intent was not to take Kiev". Why not conclude instead: "the force was too small because the Russians miscalculated?" Is it impossible for Russia to make a mistake?
Short of averting the risk of Ukraine invading Russia or NATO using Ukraine as a springboard for invading Russia, (both of which were, and are, highly improbable to the point of being fantastical), there is no possible justification for Russia's actions.
There seems to be a lot of anti-West contrarianism animating these defenses of Russia. "The US foreign policy Blob is for it, so I'm against it."
Well said. Some commenters are genuinely upset by the prospect that obvious appearances are correct and Russia just blew it. You don’t trust Western govts/media? Fine. But in that case, how can you be gullible enough to buy what the Kremlin organs are putting out?
Indeed. Some of the posters here display a combination of unrelenting hostility and skepticism towards the Western establishment (which that established may or may not deserve), with a fierce, blind trust and defence of Russia's motives and judgements. I'm far from being an expert in these matters, but if all the Russians are like this, I despair for diplomacy, as there doesn't seem to be any shared reality here that can be used as a springboard for discussion or common understanding.
Thank you. I've come to the same conclusion on this piece, while praying potential support coming from the Poles and Romanians never materializes. Like TR, Joe could have won the Nobel Prize had he stepped in for peace. But being useful has never been Biden's style.
You lost me at “taking Kiev was a feint.” I’m sure Putin intended to sacrifice thousands of soldiers and more tanks than the UK has in total, it was all just a big distraction. Get out of here. He lives in an echo chamber and was misinformed about the chances of success. Why don’t you change your alias to “A Russian Plant”?
Bravo! Geopolitical analysis, mythological referents and wry humour in one wonderfully extended package. And it's not even my birthday!
Please do carry on, this is tremendous.
Thank you for this incredibly thoughtful and thorough synthesis.
Wow, what an amazing overview. What alot of work you have invested in this. thank you very much for sharing. I loved some of the humour - "Suddenly China finds itself alone at the bar. Russia has stumbled off to drunkenly instigate a street fight and lose most of its teeth, and Europa has gone home with the obnoxious middle-aged Yankee in the muscle shirt and overbearing cologne" had me on the floor!
After reading this, I don't want to miss any of your future posts and decided to subscribe. It's weighty (no pun intended, haha!) and important, and I like how you weave all the parts of the analysis together... And, in the end, arrive at a point of inescapable uncertainty at what are truly conclusion-defying times indeed. Many valuable insights along the way, anyhow, and a provocative and daring approach that certainly deserves praise.
Although I often disagree with you, this was the post that intrigued me enough to subscribe.
Thanks, there are a number of people here who tend to often disagree with me (and say so) but still choose to subscribe. I really appreciate that! It keeps things more interesting.
Wow. That was the most honest assessment of the proxy war in Ukraine I have read. Impressive.
My first thought is, mix Ukrainian Nazi's flush with victory and increased hatred of Russians, with these guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3pnFR7DeZA&feature=emb_title (From TKNews, Matt Orfalea's take on warmongers), and we might expect far greater atrocities against Russians than what we have seen so far. Overshoot of triumphal viciousness will not reflect well.
The Trans-Atlantis regime will depend too on keeping a total lockdown on any discussion whatever of Covid Policy and the aftermath. That could become increasingly difficult, when it is the PMC protectors of our elite who are most likely to be harmed by over-vaccination.
Also if we are going to have to accept a Trans takeover of women's sports, and sexualizing of pre-schoolers, and minority social climbers weaponizing race and gender to cancel all their enemies including fellow "progressives", I doubt most people are going to be sanguine about that.
Also, once people figure out that a digital currency would mean technocratic-defined limits on meat, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, TV time, media choices etc....
Also when we will be expected to line up for our bi-monthly multi-boosters....
And once they start sanctioning American States, or even counties or cities and individuals for wrongthink, that American spirit to be left alone might find it's footing again.
Wow! Quite a piece. This is why I subscribe. It will be interesting to revisit it in 10 years and see how you did. I have only one question:
"A wise leadership elite would go out of its way to avoid antagonizing internal cultural conflicts. But of course we know (because they’ve already started) that they are instead intent on pushing the accelerator all the way to the floor on every possible issue"
How do you mean they are "pushing the accelerator to the floor" in stoking cultural conflicts? It seems to me they are doing the exact opposite (what you prescribe they rationally "should" do), attempting to force conformity across all cultural dimensions.
Those are the same things. By trying to enforce conformity to their party line, they are stoking cultural conflict. They don't accept cultural pluralism as a possibility, only full-spectrum ideological conquest.
I get it. Since cultural pluralism is the reality of the modern world, forcing conformity is going to stoke "antagonize internal cultural conflicts" by definition.
Thank you - I read to the end over the course of the day and am sending it to my husband. I think the summarization is - it's a big freaking mess. And we are led by the worst possible combination of ideologues and total incompetents at the moment, so I suspect "worse case scenario" is where we land. I don't know that the US can stay united in the face of these scenarios, though - here in the South, and I suspect other red states, frustration and anger is already VERY high. I work in Uganda, where the people are getting absolutely clobbered by prices and supply issues, while China has basically taken ownership of huge swathes of the country including the airport in Entebbe thanks to handing over big loans with patently untenable payment plans resulting in default. (And corruption by the government, which goes without saying.) It's a scary time.
I would like to raise an issue for all of the commenters who have disagreed with Lyons' interpretation of how the war is evolving in Ukraine. He states "For weeks now I have noticed a strange reluctance among some in the West (as least among my fellow let's just say "deeply disillusioned with the establishment observers to accept the reality of this."
Largely because of my own long disillusionment with the establishment (on all levels) I noticed a powerful emotional impulse within me as this war began to want to root for a Russian victory in Ukraine in order to give the U.S. national security apparatus, what I felt, was a well-deserved black eye.
Does anyone else feel that such an impulse has played a significant role in how they tend to view this war?
I wouldn't say "rooting for a Russian victory" as much as wishing the Western, liberal, globalist, secular consensus could lose too. Because I know how they will react / are reacting: triumphalist certainty of their own superiority and denigration of any competing viewpoints.
To be clear, I hope Russia loses because what they're doing is evil and the world is a safer place when 800 lb authoritarian gorillas know they can't get their way with force. But I wish they could lose without our elites coming to the wrong conclusions about our "victory".
I like your wish about the Western, liberal, globalist, secular consensus also loosing.
Your articulation/ hope for such a double loss begins to get into the kind of issues Paul Kingsnorth has been raising--what he calls the possibility of a reactionary radicalism built around people, places and prayer and his argument that the left and corporate capitalism
are, at their foundation, after the same thing--the destruction of our customary ways of living.
He seems quite sure that such a project is not political but I'm not, as yet, convinced.
Maybe I enjoy the power game to much (it is so familiar) and simply confused about how to transcend it-- but one thing I know for sure is that my own aggressive impulses are often off the charts!
I absolutely love Paul. He and I come from completely different worlds politically (25 years ago he was a militant socialist environmentalist and I was a materialist libertarian). But his writing about the gradual takeover of The Machine has really altered my thinking, which is what good writers should do. I gave up my libertarian streak pre-Paul and adopted a "common good" style conservatism, but he's made me consider the importance of spiritual enchantment with the world (we Protestants are terrible at that.) If you hear echoes of Paul in my comments it's 1) not surprising, and 2) a great compliment. Thanks.
9.8 out of 10 - even the East German judge gives you an 8.5...the only sad part about this is more people won't read it - thanks man.
There is I'm sure some good stuff on China which I might get back to but you so completely misread or you accept the Western media narrative of the current conflict that I can't get past it at the moment and it clouds the rest of the piece. What a pity. Your work has been well thought through and interesting. It is hardly my role to put you right although some researching online would soon show you different perspectives and some hard and often unpleasant facts but I will highlight your second hand personalisation of all that takes place to Putin, your liberal reinterpretation of the clearly expressed aims of Russia, your buying the story of some Battle of Kyiv/Kiev that never took place and your failure to go earlier than the March date in understanding anything of why this happened. It is not some grand Peter the Great plan in Putin's head unless you have evidence of that (beyond US State Dept projection). If anything Putin is criticised internally for not being sufficiently hawkish.
Were you aware of the Donbas conflict since 2014 that has taken 14k lives? - Russian Ukrainian lives taken by Ukrainians through bedded down artillery (which escalated in late Feb). Bandera and the several n a z i groupings meshed into govt and army? Euromaidan? Biolabs? Buruma? Minsk accords? The massing of Ukraine forces on the line of contact signalling imminent invasion of Donbas? Russian military strategy as distinct from the American kind? 'Gas for roubles' and its implications? I could tell you. Or you could research it. I know you are a China focused but since your article rests on questionable foundations it makes all your evident hard work a bit moot. If nothing else, please be more alert to how we are under constant propaganda bombardment and demonstrate some effort to rise above it. Sorry to say this.
This is a truly exciting intellectual synthesis! It’s a breathtaking meld of pretty much everything—geopolitical, economic, cultural, psycho-social—that’s happening in the world right now. In the grandness of its scope, it’s like Marx. How you tie everything together—the possibly rosy aspects of Trans-Atlantis in the first part of the essay, to the absolutely chilling possibility of a universal woke totalitarian hegemony in the second is an awesome intellectual achievement, like being a grandmaster of three-dimensional chess. But, Niall Ferguson pointed out this week in The Good Fellows podcast, that the real reason the Soviet Union lost the Cold War is because it couldn’t make computers. Similarly, China, despite its superior emphasis on STEM education, cannot make its own advanced microchips, nor a COVID-19 vaccine equal to ours. Innovation cannot flourish in totalitarian cultures, which is why I think that a totalitarian hegemonic Trans-Atlantis, if it unfolds as you suggest, would quickly stagnate. And, an hegemony that doesn’t successfully marry Virtual AND Physical, is inherently anti-fragile. Being a pessimist, I tend to think your description of chaos is apt. Even if Trans-Atlantis flourished for awhile, I tend to think that chaos would happen sooner rather than later. Also, if the general mood of the foreign policy establishment in Washington, aka The Blob, is “giddy”, THAT is pretty scary, given their past disastrous failures.
Thanks for a fascinating, entertaining, and frightening read! Much to chew on. Wish you had a definite answer as to what is going to happen. I need certainty!
I am going to take a couple days to read over the whole essay (book?). So far it's splendidly written and provides many good thinking points. But a few days is necessary to digest all of it carefully.
May I advise that for future similarly lengthy essays you break it into several shorter essays and release them across a week?
Thanks. I definitely plan to avoid putting out anything this lengthy again. I released it all at once because I was hoping it would help get people to read past the Ukraine part without getting all mad. It didn't work.
I read quickly (you can say I read for work so I'm skilled at reading quickly). While the essay will still be reread several times this weekend I now have a good overview of all your key arguments. I'll never forget the images of the Biden Administration's embassies flying rainbow and BLM flags in culturally conservative countries. Regarding the future - there is an inherent tension at the core of the new "neoliberal progressive" worldview. A key element of wokery is rectifying the oppressions of others, which is why colonialism and anti-colonialism are such prominent themes in wokery. But how can a new progressive woke elite enforce a renewed global progressive-liberalism without defacto colonialism at the same time? You touched on this theme. And it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the next few decades.