42 Comments

Politicians and leaders who promote war should be the first to be sent to the front lines along with their families.

Expand full comment

That recommendation has been made many times before. Read "War is a Racket" by General Smedley Butler (1935).

Expand full comment

I would hope so. I don't know that it's ever been more obvious to so many as it is now. Thank you for the recommendation.

Expand full comment

I have read in many places that NATO lacks resources for a war against Russia. So why are Macron and others expressing such bravado, unless they know something we don't?

I suppose "stupidity" is an answer, but I find it hard to believe that there is not one person in the French Ministry of Defense or military that cannot take Macron aside and tell him that his mouth is writing checks that his ass cannot cash.

Expand full comment

Macron does not ask advice.

Expand full comment

And nobody tells him? Is everyone that afraid of the man? Come on!

Expand full comment

If you don't listen then it really doesn't matter, does it?

Expand full comment

And nobody in France knows how to leak or play the bureaucratic games that are second nature in the US?

I do not believe that. Not to mention that assumes that Macron really is that stupid, but at the same time, smart enough to get and keep his post.

Expand full comment

Early in his presidency Macron said he didn't do press interviews because his thinking was too complex for journalists to understand.

Not easy having Napoleon's height but not his stature.

Expand full comment

My impression is he wants France to take leadership of EU and resurrect its former "prestige". With Germany committing economic suicide at the behest of the FJB team,the power landscape in the EU is changing. He is a weak man trying to scare a porcupine with his bare a$$!

Expand full comment

Macron is insulated by Germany and Poland, so talk is cheap. Polish rhetoric, OTOH, now seems more sober than it was

Expand full comment

it depends on which day of the week.

Expand full comment

Just yesterday the head of the Law and Justice party declared that the crash of the Polish Tupolev in Smolensk was a "Putin assassination". Luckily, that party is out of power now and the current government is mostly focused on purging its domestic enemies. A recent survey put public support for sending troops to Ukraine at 75% against 10%. Among people who voted for the governing coalition it's even more lopsided, something like 90% to 4%. There's minimal appetite for intervention in the east.

Expand full comment

I am sure that nobody will ask the Polish public if an American snaps his fingers.

That said, Poles being some of the most hysterically russophobic people imaginable having cold feet is instructive.

Expand full comment

Poland is not Russia. This is the land of the liberum veto. Everyone is king! The government couldn't even get the farmers to stop blocking the border with Ukraine.

Expand full comment

Dude, I speak Polish every day. Not Polish, BTW.

Expand full comment
Apr 11Edited

Yes I saw one of those polls. That would be 75% opposed to sending troops. Seemingly from practical reasons (I.e. high risk not coming back & likelihood of being taken advantage of by NATO partners). The paranoia and desire to have *someone* fight Russia haven't changed at all AFAIK.

Expand full comment

Former French chief of staff, this april in Le Monde Diplo, a segment translated in this LI post:

'General Lecointre, former Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, said the following about irresponsible consultants who are careful not to go and kill their children:

"What strikes me is that for the past 2 years I've been hearing on all the TV sets, the radios, a lot of commentators with a very developed moral sense, saying: 'we are ready to be killed to the last Ukrainian''

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7184429301595828224-o5JP/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Expand full comment

The first units of the French Foreign Legion were transferred to Slavyansk.

According to the Military Chronicle, representatives of the 3rd Infantry Regiment of the French Foreign Legion arrived the day before at the location of the 54th Separate Mechanized Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Slavyansk.

According to preliminary information, the first group of 100 people are specialists in artillery reconnaissance, as well as an engineering group whose specialization is fortification and construction of field fortifications.

Apparently, the French, who move around the city only accompanied by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, will help the Ukrainian army defend Slavyansk when the front line shifts towards this city.

source: https://t.me/c/1595839251/3720

For what it's worth.

Expand full comment

NATO has given away most of its equipment and doesn't have the industrial basis to engage in a high intensity war against Russia either.

It can't produce enough tanks, artillery shells and AD missiles, so what are we even talking about?

Either Macron and Co are bluffing or delusional. But it's not the first time, leaders have sleepwalked into a world war...

Expand full comment

Failure sets in when you start with the wrong presumptions. Russia was weak, low morale, NATO weapons and tactis are superior. Many still believe Ukraine can win if we just give them the weapons. What weapons can we give that can make a change?

I've seen plenty of videos where Lancets take out NATO AD systems, aren't they supposed to shoot them down? What will more Patriots do? Ukraine doesn't have to trained soldiers to operate such complex systems, so NATO must operate and die with it when Russia strikes them again.

In a direct war NATO factories will be targeted by unstopable hypersonics. Will NATO be even to sustain a war knowing production is already low?

Russia doesn't even have to target main targets. The West has created an undefendable energy grid. It won't be difficult to inflict major damage on wind and solar farms.

I don't like hypocricy and the constant crying. Ukraine decided to target oil refineries and they could expect a strong response. We have seen how Russia answered. Maybe admit that you lost the war and there's nothing more we can do. I still expect NATO doing something really stupid, sending troops is one of them. But even when not participating they will sitting ducks. There's a chance Putin decide not to attack them because they don't need to. Freeing up more troops, sending women to the front, it just a delay, they will be systematical destroyed.

I read a piece how we in the West created a system that generates narcists as leaders. They will never accept defeat, narcists can never be to blamed, they are destructive and rather drag te world with them than facing reality that they screwed up.

And one small last detail, the West is bankrupt. There's no money, all governments need to make big cuts in spending, their net zero policies destroy the economy, inflation still rampant.

Oh, is there also a chance China or North-Korea would enter a war between Russia and NATO? I think it's in Chinas interest that Russia wins and be a strong regional player.

Expand full comment

I doubt either will enter the conflict. It is a special military operation which means the Russians are fighting with one hand; this provides them ample room for escalation dominance (should Moron...I mean Macron... and NATO get "froggy"... or the Russians redefine the participants in the conflict. The terrorist attack on Crocus concert is being traced to the architects; who knows how that could change the calculus.

With the Russian economy on a quasi war footing churning out astonishing amounts of materiel with its autarchic economy, China strategically withholding guncotton (needed to make artillery shells go whizzing) and likely providing other support, the NK's with a gazillion artillery shells etc, and the West trying to pull its collective pants up with at best meager military production output as a down the road result, I wouldn't think they would need to do anything but munch popcorn, observe, learn, and watch the birth of the multipolar world take shape! But, the monster makes the biggest waves as it drowns...

Expand full comment

Your article was excellent until it said "Attempts to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and partnerships with Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Moldova caused considerable angst in Russia where they were seen treading on the Russian sphere of influence." America has a "sphere of influence" throughout North and South America, but Russia doesn't have a "sphere of influence" in eastern Europe. It instead has the U.S. regime, via its NATO military alliance against Russia, spreading its effective control right up to Russia's border via NATO, and thereby threatening to plant and fire ultimately a blitz-nuclear missile from Ukraine into The Kremlin 317 miles (five minute of flying-time) away, which Russia had to prevent by invading Ukraine on 24 February 2022. The reason Russia will win this war is because it must in order to continue as a sovereign independent nation instead of to become the last European nation to become yet another colony ('ally') of the U.S. imperial regime. Russia needs that (to remain a sovereign independent nation). The U.S. regime doesn't need to conquer Russia. Russia will do what it must do, whereas America can, at best, only TRY to do what it wants to do -- which is to take control over the entire world.

Expand full comment

I don't get your point. I think I accurately portrayed the concern in Moscow over offering NATO membership. Also it is worth mentioning that the US is competing to extend its influence over Central Asia, and Ukraine is a key stepping stone.

Expand full comment

Thanks, Stephen, for replying. My point was (is): a "sphere of influence" has nothing to do with what was/is the CORE reason why Putin refused(es) to accept and was instead 100% committed to rejecting the possibility that Ukraine would become a member of America's anti-Russian military alliance NATO. Putin in the Ukraine matter was/is instead in the same position that in 1962 America's President JFK was in regard to the possibility that Soviet nukes would become positioned in Cuba 1,131 miles away from America's central command in Washington DC -- the possibility for a 30-minute flight-time blitz nuclear decapitation of the U.S. Government. Except that in Putin's case this would instead be a 5-minute-flight-time super-blitz American decapitation (from Ukraine) of Russia's Government. It's not about "sphere of influence." It is about blitz-decapitation of the opponent. He is as obligated (in fact, even MORE obligated) to protect Russians from the possibility of a five-minute nuclear decapitation of Russia's Government as JFK was in 1962 to protect Americans from the possibility of a 30-minute nuclear decapitation of America's Government. It's the same principle in both cases. And it isn't about "sphere of influence" but instead about physical danger of the most extreme kind.

Expand full comment

Err...wasn't Cuba the Russian responds to the US JUPITER's in Turkey?

Expand full comment

Of course it was, but my pint doesn't need reference to that, because regardless of whether a person knows about that, JFK still needed to get a commitment that there will be no Soviet missiles in Cuba. Cuba in that matter was like Ukraine in this matter (disregarding that the Cuban revolution was authentic while the 2014 Ukrainian 'revolution' was fake and actually America's coup in Ukraine -- which likewise aren't relevant).

Expand full comment

President Putin's demands for security agreement December 17, 2021:

A legally binding guarantee that NATO would not admit any new members, especially Ukraine and Georgia, and that it would not deploy any additional troops or weapons in the existing member states.

A revision of the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, which regulates the military activities and cooperation between NATO and Russia, and a withdrawal of NATO's infrastructure and capabilities from the territories that were not part of NATO as of 1997.

A moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe, and a dialogue on strategic stability and arms control.

A reform of the OSCE to make it more representative, inclusive, and effective in addressing the security challenges and conflicts in Europe.

President Putin's stated objectives for SMO February 24, 2022

De-nazify Ukraine

De-militarize Ukriane

Provide neutral (non-hostile to Russia) government in Ukraine

The declaration of war speech (following dramatic increase in Ukraine's bombardment of Donetsk from Feb 18 to 24th as monitored by OSCE which was the culmination of the massive Ukrainian troop buildup along the line of contact, ostensibly to prepare for retaking Crimea. The LPR and DPR requested formal integration with Russia during this period and the Russian Duma ratified the reunion request). A legally binding guarantee that NATO would not admit any new members, especially Ukraine and Georgia, and that it would not deploy any additional troops or weapons in the existing member states.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/24/putins-speech-declaring-war-on-ukraine-translated-excerpts

So sad one has to go to Al Jazeera to get the text of his speech...

Expand full comment

Wow! That is a lot to unpack and kudos to the monumental effort in succinctly distilling the historical overview! I would like to humbly offer additional input... not to detract from the excellent article but to augment the historical perspective. First, "For the purpose of reference, the Ukraine war has been raging for two years and two months." Well, the SMO has been raging that long but the ATO has been ongoing since Maidan days (Ukraine's War On Terror against the eastern oblast "separatists'). Therefore the conflict has been raging 10 years with the upcoming anniversary of the neo-nazi "BBQ" that methodically and cold-bloodedly slaughtered over 40 peaceful people in the Odessa Trade Union...most of whom were burned to death by pouring combustible liquid on their heads and lighting them on fire, extinguishing the corpses left in agonal positions with fire extinguishers (so the perpetrators wouldn't burn themselves. They bragged about it and even posted photos on Facebook and called the victims "matches") blackened heads from the fire) and Colorado beetles (St Georges ribbons). (A Ukrainian female journalist went in after and documented the horror including the iconic photo of the pregnant cleaning lady half-lying off a desk who was strangled with a phone cord. Her work is hard to find...memory-holed as it were, but vestiges of it are preserved :https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/30/curfew-for-anniversary-of-odessa-massacre-that-sparked-rebellion/ (Please take the embedded video "graphic warning": seriously...it presents a fraction of the photo documentation of what is truly demonic savagery and is very disturbing to view).

If the Russians were at war the first thing to go would be the US/NATO ISR.; all satellites and spy drones used by the west over the region would be blinded/destroyed and NATO would effectively be blind. Targeting of Crimean infrastructure, the Black Sea fleet, and Russian assets would be greatly complicated if not impossible (given the "eye-watering" Russian electronic warfare capacity.

Furthermore I suggest NATO has been active in Ukraine "unofficially" for years, helping design the fortifications along the line of contact that was established under Minks agreements; it is arguably the most fortified place on earth with millions of cubic yards of concrete bunkers, tunnels, and revetments integrated with the numerous mines and Soviet era (bomb-proof) infrastructure all built since 2014. Ukraine has been host to numerous "joint" military exercises with NATO; was all the equipment really removed when they ended? (Typically it is left behind).

Expand full comment

The CIA has been in Ukraine at least since 1999. The bigger picture is that the US regarded Ukraine as the key acquisition squeezing Russia and enabling the US/NATO to expand into the "stans" and beyond.

Expand full comment

No question...Ukraine has always been seen by (US) Cold War strategists as the key to threatening Russia's soft underbelly and the crown jewel to be taken in order to destroy Russia economically (due to the heavy Soviet investment in military industries located in eastern Ukraine (rocket and aircraft engines, etc ). The OSS (and Canada) gave clandestine support to the OUN (and veterans-in-hiding of the Galician SS Division were alllowed/encourgaed to immigrate to Canada in droves); ever since the end of WWII ... anyone who hated the Russians were our friends...here and abroad. We let many former Nazi officials stand up the post war German government, and set up the BND (HQ the IG Farben Building in Frankfurt where my day worked). The OUN and splinter groups' support was continued by the CIA, but didn't the actual "NATO" watershed presence occur after the 2014 coup and subsequent rebellion in the eastern oblasts?

Expand full comment

Will NATO fight? is, in my opinion, the wrong question. Will NATO elites be able to use Russia to frighten their populations sufficiently to avoid accountability for the failed policies of the last ten years? I fear so. I believe the rhetoric is for domestic consumption, not the Russians. My evidence is that every article I have read about possible war with Russia includes the promotion of a defense eurobond and subsequent increased taxing authority for the EC. Nearly no one speaks against it because to do so is to be called, falsely, a kremlin agent, or, more quietly, a US agent. Europe being able to stand up on its own against Russia also means that they can stand up to the US. But smaller countries in Europe also fear the larger countries in Europe, and let themselves be used by the US to keep Germany from consolidating power. I hope for peace.

Expand full comment
Apr 11Edited

One of the reasons for NATO was to prevent conflict among the Europeans, wasn't it? That would explain why it was acceptable for the US to have most of the forces and the control, while UK and the continental powers remained lightweight.

Implies that as long as Europeans are equally unprepared for land war, it's a not a first class problem. Conversely, any one country making real preparations would eventually cause concern.

US on the other hand, now has all conditions in place to go on a rearmament kick. So the question could be, does the US want to put some real chips down, presumably during the next presidential term? Either increase the 'trainers' by an order of magnitude, or declare victory and move on.

Someone on one of these substack comment threads linked an academic paper, which found that those US post-WWII conflicts which drag on, tend to a yo-yo cycle of extreme optimism and pessimism. With the doubling-down moves coming naturally at the low end, such as now, often to "kick the can down the road" for political reasons. As things go, Ukraine seems to be trending for a crisis by the end of the year, but they shouldn't be demographically exhausted for a few years more.

Expand full comment

The Europeans were using the surplus funds to pay off their elites so they invested very little in defense. On top of that, defense manufacturing in Europe is very fragmented and very, very expensive for what you get. It also is behind the US in many categories that require large R&D investments. This has nothing to do with the US. Anway the US sells arms to Europe in a ration of 7 to 1 or more in dollars (because things like the F-35 are frightfully expensive). Defense budgets in Europe have not kept up with the need, no matter how defined. How, for example can Britain get along with only 40 working tanks? More or less the same in Germany? And on and on and on.

Expand full comment

Right. Because in spite of the alarmism, there's negligible prospects of NATO countries being invaded, other than the Baltics which are a special case. And they aren't the potential big spenders. Being unable to contribute to NATO power projection is a different matter, can see how that drives Atlanticists up the wall.

Expand full comment

Prescient

Expand full comment

Ukraine losing would be humiliating, but people would move on.

If NATO intervenes directly and then its people give up after 50,000 casualties that would be truly paradigm shifting.

The threat of NATO intervention is way higher risk/reward then actual intervention.

Expand full comment

The NATO's credibility has suffered in the Ukrainian conflict, for sure. However it still has its most potent weapon left: The GAD (Generally Accepted Delusion) that any nation can call for article 5 and the rest comes running, weapons drawn.

This is why France should (will?) not be allowed to send soldiers under the french flag to the Ukraine. Because they will lose badly, and France will call for support. And they won't get it.

That would be the death knell for the article 5 GAD. And by extension also for the NATO.

So, no. The NATO will not fight in the Ukraine.

(The NATO will never fight against a peer opponent for that matter.)

Expand full comment

My biggest concern is American readiness that has suffered from the current thing the current administration wants to do. The specter of the Afghanistan withdrawal and politics driving military inaction.

Now, the US is building weapons and needed air defense assets as fast as possible to combat COTS suicide drones. The Air Force is using stealth and tech to offset numbers. The Marines are resizing into an expeditionary force that is supposed to be light, mobile, and lethal.

The question is can countries ramp up to high intensity conflict in time to offset the Bear.

Expand full comment

Too many bets on singular and unproven technologies and weak strategy.

Expand full comment

And a lot of current leadership has forgot that quantity is a quality of its own.

Expand full comment

Macron and the Mayor of NYC have the same goal. Destroy their municipality, while appearing to be incompetent. They are both Globalists who are tasked with destruction, in order to build back better.

Expand full comment