Provocative Dmitri Trenin: The era of wars: World War III has already begun, but not everyone understands it

His Profile original, not the RT hack job

Again, the pen of Dmitri Trenin, Director of the Institute of World War Economics and Strategy, National Research University Higher School of Economics, has struck again and the result was published by Profile today. Do NOT rely on the RT hack job as much content is missing and rewritten—again. And again, Trenin presents a POV that’s clearly debatable. For example, I contend the Cold War never ended and thus the current set of conflicts are its extensions and are being escalated. I didn’t translate the second of his three essays for the Gym and now regret that choice, although I did cite four paragraphs in a MoA comment. Trump uttered some bluster again today:

We’re very, very unhappy–-I am-–with [Russia], and we’re going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don’t have a deal in about 50 days.

Today’s Crooke/Napolitano chat mostly discussed West Asia but did spend some time talking and musing about what Trump might utter. Crooke noted as I did last week that zero progress has occurred on the American side to reset relations with Russia. And the supposed “severe tariffs” have already been discussed here and shown to be more dangerous for America than anyone else. So, 50 days will put us at the 80th anniversary of V-J Day when Putin will be in China to celebrate with Xi. With Lavrov currently in China talking with Xi and Wang Yi, they’ll have an opportunity to formulate their response and then hone it with others. The only way Ukraine will be solved in 50 days is if Zelensky capitulates, and that’s extremely doubtful. The Trenin essay is interesting since it mentions ideology after the several days of discussing that topic. So, let’s all read what Trenin has written:

Many are now talking about the drift of humanity towards the "third world war", implying that something reminiscent of the events of the twentieth century awaits us ahead. However, war is constantly changing its face. It will not come to us either in June 1941 (a large-scale military invasion), or as feared in October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis (in the form of a massive nuclear strike). In fact, the world war is already here, even if not everyone has noticed and realized it. The pre-war period ended for Russia in 2014, for China in 2017, and for Iran in 2023. This is not a "second cold" at all. Starting in 2022, the West's war against Russia has become decisive, and the transition from a hot but proxy conflict in Ukraine to a head-on nuclear clash with NATO countries is becoming increasingly likely. Donald Trump's return to the White House opened up an opportunity to avoid such a clash, [?!?] but by the middle of the year, thanks to the efforts of European countries and American "hawks", the prospect of a major war was again dangerously closer. The current world war is a combination of several conflicts affecting the leading powers – the United States and its allies [versus] China, and Russia.

Despite the variability of forms, the cause of this world war is traditional: a change in the balance of power in the world. [Was that really the cause for the first two world wars?] Sensing that the rise of new centers of power (primarily China) and the restoration of Russia as a great power threatened its dominance, the West launched a counteroffensive. For America and Europe, this is not the last, but definitely a decisive battle. The West is unable to accept the loss of world hegemony. It's not just about geopolitics. Western ideology (political-economic globalism and socio-cultural posthumanism) organically rejects diversity, national or civilizational identity and tradition. The rejection of universalism for the modern West means a catastrophe – it is not ready for regional status. Therefore, the West, having gathered its considerable resources into a fist and counting on the shattered but still existing technological superiority, seeks to destroy those whom it has written down as rivals.

To destroy is not an exaggeration. When the previous American President Joe Biden used this word in a conversation with Brazilian President Lula da Silva, he was more frank than when his Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin spoke of "inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia." A war of annihilation has been demonstrated by Western-backed Israel, first in the Gaza Strip, then in Lebanon, and finally in Iran. The fact that the same scheme was used to destroy targets on the territory of the Islamic Republic as during the attack on Russian military airfields on June 1 is not a coincidence. It is also natural that, apparently, the United States and Great Britain are involved in both sabotage— Russia, like Iran, China and North Korea, are considered irreconcilable opponents of the West in Washington and London. [Why?] This means that compromise in the ongoing war is impossible; there can only be temporary lulls.

Two hotbeds of world war are already burning: Eastern Europe and the Middle East. A third one has long been identified: East Asia (Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, the South and East China Seas). Russia is directly involved in the war in Europe; its interests are affected in Iran; and it can be used in one way or another in the Far East. Three hearths are not all. New ones can be created—from the Arctic to Afghanistan, and not only along the perimeter of the country's borders, but also within it. Instead of the previous strategies of warfare, which provided for the control of the enemy's territory along with breaking the will and depriving him of the ability to resist, modern strategies are focused not on the occupation of the enemy state, but on provoking internal destabilization and chaos

The West's strategy towards Russia–-after an unsuccessful attempt to "inflict a strategic defeat"–-is to exhaust it economically and psychologically in the war, to undermine our society, to undermine faith in the country's leadership and its policies, causing new turmoil. The enemy proceeds from the fact that his efforts should culminate in the period of the transfer of supreme power.

As for the methods of achieving this goal, the West does not limit itself (and its proxies) to almost anything. Absolutely everything is acceptable. The war took on a voluminous character. Thanks to the widespread use of increasingly advanced drones, the entire territory of any country, any of its facilities and all its citizens have become vulnerable to pinpoint strikes. Such strikes are carried out against strategic infrastructure and strategic nuclear forces; nuclear complex facilities and nuclear power plants; Politicians, scientists, public figures, diplomats (including official negotiators), journalists and, it is important to add, members of their families are being assassinated. Mass terrorist attacks are organized; under the aiming—not accidental! Residential areas, schools and hospitals are being shelled. This is a total war in the full sense of the word.

Total methods of warfare are based on the dehumanization of the enemy. Other people's casualties (including among their own allies, not to mention proxies) are not taken into account. The enemy's manpower and population are biomass. Only one's own losses matter, since they can affect the level of electoral support for the authorities. The adversary is an absolute evil that must be crushed and destroyed. The attitude towards evil is not a matter of politics, but of morality. Hence, there is not even external respect for the enemy, as it was in the Cold War. Instead, it is the whipping up of hatred. Enemy leadership is criminal by definition, and enemy populations are collectively responsible for the leaders they tolerate. The international structures (organizations, agencies, tribunals) seized by the West have been turned into part of the repressive apparatus aimed at persecuting and punishing opponents.

Dehumanization is based on total control over information and methodical and high-tech brainwashing. Rewriting history, including World War II and the Cold War, outright lies about the current state of affairs, banning any information coming from the enemy, persecuting those of their citizens who doubt the correctness of a single narrative, and branding them as enemy agents turn Western societies into convenient targets for manipulation by the ruling elites. At the same time, the West and its proxies, often using a softer regime in the enemy camp, recruit agents there to provoke internal conflicts – social, political, ideological, ethnic, religious, etc.

The strength of the enemy lies in the cohesion of the global globalist (already post-national) elite and the successful ideological indoctrination of the population. The split between the US and the rest of the West under Trump should not be exaggerated. The "Trump group" itself has split, and Trump is getting closer to his recent critics. The experience of recent years shows that many of the most important steps are taken by the "deep state" bypassing the current president. This is a serious risk factor. The West still has a formidable military force and the means to project it globally. It retains technological leadership, financial hegemony, and dominates the information field. Its theater of war includes everything from sanctions to cyberspace, from biotechnology to the field of human thought. His strategy is to hit enemies one by one. The West trained on Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya, for which no one stood up. Now it is in a state of proxy war with Russia. Western-backed Israel attacked Iran. North Korea and China are on the waiting list.

***

The "hot" war in Ukraine is moving towards a direct war between Europe and Russia. In fact, Europeans have long been deeply involved in the conflict. British and French missiles hit Russian targets, reconnaissance by NATO countries are transferred to Kyiv, Europeans are engaged in combat training of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, joint planning of military, sabotage and terrorist operations. Many EU countries supply Kyiv with weapons and ammunition. Ukraine for Europe is a tool, a consumable; The war is not limited to Ukraine and will not end with it. As Ukraine's manpower decreases, NATO/EU will tap into the resources of other Eastern European countries, particularly the Balkans. This should give Europe time to prepare for war with Russia in the medium term.

A reasonable question: is this preparation for defense or attack? Perhaps some of the European elites have fallen victim to their own propaganda about the "Russian threat", but for the majority it is a question of the desire to retain power in the conditions of pre-war hysteria. Nevertheless, the dangers emanating from the western direction must be approached seriously. Of course, we should not expect a literal repetition of June 24, 1812 or June 22, 1941. There may be (and certainly will be) provocations from the Baltic to the Black Sea; attempts to open a "second front" in Transnistria, Transcaucasia or elsewhere are likely. Especially dangerous may be: the transfer of powerful weapons by the Europeans to Kiev, regarding which it will be claimed that Ukraine itself produced them; attempts to block the exit from the Gulf of Finland or Kaliningrad; new sabotage against Russia's strategic facilities. The main thing is that the European elites again have a goal–-to solve the "Russian question" in one way or another.

Under no circumstances should Europeans be treated lightly or condescendingly. Due to the fact that Europe has failed on many fronts, its leadership is nervous and mobilizing. Europe's loss of strategic thinking and its rulers' loss of prudence and even common sense makes it more dangerous. The hostility of the ruling circles of Europe to Russia is not a conjuncture that will soon be replaced by a "business mood". The point is not only that Russia, in the image of an enemy, helps the elites to unite the European Union and fight internal competitors. And not only in old phobias and resentments. More importantly, Russia is not just a "significant other"; it prevents the restoration of the hegemony of the West (including Europe), represents a civilizational alternative that confuses ordinary Europeans and limits the ability of European elites to exploit the rest of the world. Therefore, a united Europe is seriously aiming at crushing Russia.

Therefore, we have a long war ahead. There will be no such Victory in Ukraine as in 1945. The confrontation will continue in other forms, it is possible that it will also be in the military. There will be no stable confrontation (aka peaceful coexistence), as in the years of the Cold War. On the contrary, the next few decades bode well to be very dynamic. We will have to continue to fight for Russia's rightful place in the emerging new order.

***

What to do? There is no way back, and there is no peace ahead. The time has come for decisions and actions. This is not the time for half measures–-half-heartedness leads to disaster.

The main thing for us is not to weaken the front, but to strengthen the rear. We need a mobilization of forces, but not according to the instructions of 50 years ago, but "smart". Fighting half-heartedly, we will definitely lose. Our strategic advantage – confident political leadership – must remain so and, most importantly, be "seamlessly" reproduced. We must understand exactly where and which way we are going. Our economic, financial and technological policy must fully comply with the harsh realities of the long-term confrontation, and demographic policy (from fertility to migration) must stop and reverse the trends that are dangerous for us. Patriotic cohesion of the population, practical solidarity of all its social groups, strengthening the sense of justice should become the primary concern of the authorities and society.

We need to strengthen external alliances and partnerships. Military alliances in the west (Belarus) and in the east (North Korea) have shown themselves well. But we do not have a similar ally in the south. We need to work on strengthening the southern tier of our geopolitics. We must soberly and carefully analyze the results and consequences of the war between Israel, on the one hand, and Iran and its regional allies, on the other. The enemy, acting as a single bloc, relies on the destruction of enemies one by one. From this, we and our partners need to draw an obvious conclusion–-not by copying Western formats, but by achieving closer coordination and effective cooperation.

A tactical game can and should be played with the Trump administration, since it has already brought some tactical results (for example, it has contributed to a decrease in US involvement in the Ukrainian conflict). At the same time, it must be remembered that tactics are not strategy. Readiness for dialogue discourages many people, evokes dreams of a quick return to the "bright past". The American political elite, on the contrary, is still generally hostile towards Russia. No new détente with the United States will work, and the previous one ended badly. Yes, the process of reformatting the American foreign policy strategy from "imperial" to "great-power" is likely to continue after Trump's departure. We must keep this in mind and use it in practical politics.

The European leaders of the fight against Russia–-England, France, Germany–-need to be made to understand (not only in words) that they are vulnerable and in the event of a new escalation of the Ukrainian conflict they will not be able to remain unscathed. The same message should be addressed to the "activists of the first hour" of the anti-Russian war—Finns, Poles, Balts. Provocations on their part must be immediately and forcefully rebuffed. Our goal is to instill (saving) fear in the enemy, to knock off his arrogance, to make him think and stop.

In general, you should act according to your choice and according to your own logic. To act boldly, not necessarily in a mirror way. And not necessarily in response. If a clash is unavoidable, preemptive strikes will have to be launched. At first, by conventional means. If necessary, after carefully weighing everything, they are special, i.e. nuclear. Nuclear deterrence can be not only passive, but also active, including the limited use of nuclear weapons. The experience of the war in Ukraine shows that decision-making centers should not enjoy immunity. There we were heavily "indebted" with strikes, which gave the enemy a false impression of the level of our determination. In the struggle that has been forced upon us, we must aim at victory, i.e., the complete destruction of the enemy's plans.

We need not only to break through the enemy's air defenses in Ukraine (and, if necessary, in other places), but also to break through the information dome with which the West has taken refuge. Post-Soviet Russia refused to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. In wartime, this is an inadmissible luxury. We should not expect that traditional right-wing or "normal" left-wing forces will come to power somewhere and everything will work out by itself. It is necessary to undermine the united front of our adversaries from within, to play on the contradictions of interests and ambitions of different states, forces and persons. Europe is heterogeneous. Along with the ruling cell (England, France, Germany) and a group of activists-provocateurs (Finland, Poland, the Baltic states), there are dissidents (Hungary, Slovakia – while the current governments are in power there), the number of which may increase (for example, to the size of the former Austria-Hungary), as well as a fairly large "liability" from among the countries of Southern Europe (Italy, Spain, Greece, Cyprus). In general, there is a large field for information and political work. NATO and the EU are hostile organizations for us, the OSCE is mostly useless, but we need to actively offer dialogue to all sober-minded forces in Europe, to create coalitions for life, for peace, for humanity. Russia is not going to "kidnap" Europe, but we will have to pacify it. [Bolded Italics My Emphasis]

I really must protest as the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the policy goal of Full Spectrum Dominance were all proclaimed while Russia was on its knees and China hadn’t been made into the manufacturing powerhouse it now is by Western Neoliberal policies. The first two world wars were not about a change in the balance of power—that happened in those war’s aftermath. And Trump did nothing to try and regain the Russian trust required for any “deal” over Ukraine other than converse with Putin, open a dialog between foreign ministers, and force Zelensky to directly talk with the Russians. And the West has zero “technological superiority.” I would note that dehumanizing the enemy has long been a tactic. The difference today is the means by which its advocated. Trenin is also ill-informed about the West’s military abilities and how the new wave of warfare defeats those abilities. Trenin posits Europe is united, but is it really? Iberia and Italy aren’t on that train nor are Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, BIH, and likely some others. Russian military power could drastically reduce what little military NATO retains in just one day’s worth of missile attacks. Russia’s Navy is far more powerful than all NATO combined—even adding the Outlaw US Empire whose carriers are no more than nice big targets.

Russia has no need to “fight” to gain its place in the Multipolar World as it already is in the vanguard in its conception. Trenin has clearly escalated his hawkishness. He suggests Russia must “strengthen the rear,” which is what Putin’s been doing since he came to power. And we see Putin’s promoting and schooling of very capable military veterans for civil service was put into motion well before Trenin wrote this essay. In the Soth, Iran is the ally of choice, but to cement that Russian Zionist policy must change somehow, and that will be difficult politically because a constitutional change will be required. We see that Trenin falls into the trap of believing a nuclear war can be limited—that’s the same argument Karaganov tried to advance early in 2024. Putin, Lavrov and others have always offered good relations to those wanting them, and that was just reiterated at BRICS and the ASEAN meetings.

I’ve listed my objections to Trenin’s essay above and now ask what audience it was aimed at? Who in Russia reads Profile? The header picture at the article includes these words: родйна которую мы ващйщаем—the homeland that we create. It’s able to attract Russian intelligencia as writers. Otherwise, it’s impossible for me to say. I do know RT is targeted at English language readers located outside Russia. I felt Trenin’s two previous essays were aimed at Europe, but the rhetoric is all wrong for Europe and right for a Russian audience. Given the many true and false assumptions and spin, how many Russians will read it critically? Has the third world war already begun, and if so, when? Does Western hegemony, specifically Outlaw US Empire hegemony, since WW2 constitute a world war of sorts—financial and economic with some actual combat since all that has occurred globally? Or should we leave that determination to future historians?

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!