You might be able to argue that Russia's original decision to launch the SMO was a reckless gamble in that if Ukraine did not immediately fold [and it nearly did], then Russia would be stuck in a military, political and economic quagmire - and seriously outnumbered on the active front - and longer term on the economic and financial fronts as well. However I judge that the situation was deliberately engineered by "Biden" [his regime] to force Russia to act in the way they did, and all choices were bad at that stage from Russia's perspective.
The Russians are not stupid people and clearly prepared for the economic war [though quite why they left $300B in Europe is unknown]. They had however not fully prepared their military and its supporting MIC for what could be a longer conflict. They were therefore vulnerable and broke the rule that you don't start a war unless you can see a route to finishing it - should Ukraine elect to fight. This was possibly because at that stage the Russians retained some small vestige of hope that the West might be acting in good faith.
Well having said this, and rolling forward three years, how will this end?
I consider that the Russians now will not allow Ukraine to exist in any meaningful form. There might be a rump of it left in the extreme West, possibly to be annexed by its neighbours. There might be a Russian controlled vassal state for what is left, excepting the regions now which have joined Russia. Other referenda might take place in other regions.
The various freeze, peace-keeper etc plans put forward by the West are delusional in my opinion. None of them remotely address the root cause of the war and indeed embed the wherewithal for another one and almost guarantee a rematch.
I could be wrong but I think Russia is resolved to solve this problem - it is existential for them. So they will continue until either a sensible negotiated settlement occurs or a military victory is won. And given what I now think are their objectives, I struggle to see that negotiations can deliver them. A compromise position is hard to discern.
NATO is cleearly trying at present to goad Russia into some sort of reaction to its "James Bond" [terrorist] provocations at the moment, presumably to scupper Trump or even to try to save Ukraine by starting WW3. Maybe it is thought that this amounts to an SMO in reverse and will destabilise "the Putin" and engineer a pro-western regime in Russia? Clear thinking is not a notable feature of western leaders... However if Trump is properly briefed - and this is a very big IF - he really needs to cut and run on day one. NATO and the USA may think they have vital interests in Ukraine and that Russia will back down. I don't see it that way. It remains a nuclear power under existential threat from the West.
We will see. If Trump walks early then Ukraine will collapse and he can blame "Biden". If he prevaricates more blood and treasure will be expended and Ukraine will suffer a military collapse with a worse outcome for it and the West. Or WW3 and inevitably then MAD. All choices are bad for Mr Trump - in much the same way as those faced by Russia in early 2022.
Whatever Trump does he will be attacked by a rabidly hostile establishment. That narrative is already being spun and prepared. Nevertheless the objective reality here is that whereas the USA decided to start this [proxy] war, and to support it, it will be Russia that decides when and how it ends. And I don't think they are minded to end the war until their objectives - now expanded - have been achieved.
If it was a reckless gamble, what else should Russia have done to avoid ukraine going in into donbass, throwing out russia from crimea, trying to acquire nuclear weapons, entering nato? I think the war was coming to russia anyways and they had prepared since at least 2014. And I am convinced the russians made an assessment of the capability of the west to build waepons.
Maybe the 300billion could have been a honeyput? It showed the rest of the world that their money isn’t safe.
Over the four months prior to the SMO's start I followed Russian moves as closely as possible and reported them at my VK. Although I had no access to Security Council discussions, some of the content became clear during other conversations within the government. By the government meeting in November 2021 where undeniable evidence of genocide was presented and Putin agreed that genocide was indeed happening, it was clear to me that Russia would mount its own version of an R2P operation, but fully legal under international law as we saw. The December 2021 security proposals were accompanied by the promise if they went unheeded that a "military technical operation" would be launched. IMO, the 300 billion was bait that was swallowed whole. The biggest most important move Russia made was its import substitution program that began with gusto in 2014 with foodstuffs that began the process of gathering the Russian nation together as the foreign threat was now overt and could be equated with past threats. It wasn't fully known until April 2022 how fully invested NATO/Outlaw US Empire was in using Ukraine, and thus the "cheap" ploy needed to be revamped into what we see today. Why cheap? Russia's demographic problem and political uncertainty as to overall Russian societal response. The Liberal traitors unveiled themselves and many emigrated while capital controls were initiated that combined with the sanctions to keep wealth from also fleeing. The import substitution program and drive for technological sovereignty were both very successful, while the Russian public responded in amazing ways to support the troops. And all efforts to isolate Russia internationally failed grandly in many ways thanks to the 300 billion in bait.
Russia and Putin is mentally much weaker than we hope. I don't think Putin has let go of his secret dreams of being accepted by the West. If they dangle a juicy fruit before Putin in the coming negotiations, he will fall for the temptation again. Fool me once, etc...
The Cold War never ended if anyone noticed . It just became more intense as Russia has sought to defend itself with its SMO against the aggressions of the “ West” . Someone ought to define their mental make up within an evolutionary perspective this so long a protracted conflict .
All the words for peace over the last 100 years has meant nothing .
Nor have I noticed any learning talent to realize and grasp the benefits peace brings.
NATO and the EU will cease when the ponzi falls apart; its decomposition has been decades in the making. The pace has been accelerating, as has the decline of US capability. If I'm not mistaken RAND gave the US by this current year to deal finally with China or "it's all over and too late" So, probably not another decade then.
This is one of the most hopeful tracts about the Ukrainian future that I have ever read. I love the idea of a new Ukraine repudiating land sales and loans incurred by the Coup government in Kyiv. I also like the idea of a splash of Bandera ideologues confined to the west. A fence? A wall?
Indeed, how to seal-off the evil? Education, IMO, is the best tool. But IMO, the territories not retained must still be demilitarized and denazified. The fall of EU/NATO will also help.
Im 100% sure that 99% of NATO states citizens & military actually realise how militarily weak NATO is. The whole world has had it drummed into them since WW2 of American military might. What was this based upon? Korea?, Vietnam?, Iraq?, Yugoslavia? Libya? Syria? Afghanistan? These conflicts alone shouldn't inspire any rational thinking persons confidence in American military power. But even most NATO member states politicians believe the Hollywood version of the American military. So much so all of the countries under American lead NATO, have hardly paid for any military equipment & personnel. Ukraine alone could have defeated all EU & UK NATO forces easily. Only a reluctant Turkey could put up a fight against them. America being as financially corrupt as it is. Placed stupid amounts of money into very expensive & useless aircraft programme's. As well as massive Russian missile targets called aircraft carriers. This has went on for at least 4 decades probably 5. The results are an American lead NATO force against the Russians alone. Would be decimated in no time. Russia has very modern hi tech nukes. NATO has 40 year tech for their nukes. If they want to go down that path. Russia will dictate the final outcome for Ukraine at the end of this conflict. NATO can deal with it or end up destroyed.
The Geopolitical policy and behavior of the Outlaw US Empire is very similar to that of the British when their Empire spanned the globe. The British had a very small army and used proxies to control their colonies almost exclusively, and of course they controlled the seas with their very large navy. An American naval officer named Mahan wrote about the primacy of sea power in geopolitics in the 1890s, which was enhanced by Mackinder's own geopolitical thesis which is at the core of the Empire's strategy. Yes, the vast weaknesses of the Outlaw US Empire's military you noted are correct and will eventually lead to its undoing. But Empires take a long time to unwind and the global alternative to it also needs time to grow. You'll note on the Gym's main page that it promotes only one other substack, which I suggest you visit. His podcast with Nima today was excellent as usual.
Simply superb analysis. Of course, I am prejudiced because I have been saying the same thing over at News Forensics on Substack, over and over again for a long time. Of course, I often ask my subscribers to visit this site. I have been following Karl for years, having notice his astute analyses on MoA. This article is particularly good. This process -- liberating Ukraine from the clutches of NATO and their nazi proteges--will take time. Sorry, Donald -- maybe longer than your presidency. The longer it takes, the more complete the victory at the end, and the more stimulus for Russian in its ongoing reinvention. Existential challenge -- or crisis_- is either disaster or an opportunity for civilizational growth and development. Kudos Karl.
"Reform is usually possible only once a sense of crisis takes hold.... In fact, crises are such valuable opportunities that a wise leader often prolongs a sense of emergency on purpose." -Charles Duhigg, The Power of Habit
Thanks Julian, for your reply and support in the old year and the one we're entering. Orthodox Christmas will soon be upon us, fresh rotations concluded, and new impetus added to the SMO. Lavrov took many pains to elaborate Russia's position, and we'll soon discover how well the Trump team listened in three weeks.
I see this as a massive human resources development project. They are facing an existential situation and are investing massive funds. They are providing incredible training, unifying people from diverse parts of their empire and are the dominant army in the world.
Here in the US, we no longer have shop class experience working with wood and metal, nor homemaking to learn skills of how to run a house and cook. As I recall, something like 70% of Americans are not up to physical levels for the military.
Russians are fighting very aggressively but with massive fire power and minimizing causalities. Their breakthrough field medical treatment is in itself another development opportunity.
With the generous benefits and special ways to earn more allows many to rise above any level they thought possible. And they will be well prepared to enter jobs in Russia's growing economy.
But most important, they are fighting for a purpose: to save Russia.
Usually Ray’s chats are okay; he’s just matter-of-fact, which is why I immediately noted this mismatch between what he was saying and what I’d read. Trenin’s essay IMO was very adult and was aimed at Russian policy makers. Hope you had a good Solstice and are hoping to have a dry New Year’s Eve!
thanks karl.. i have always appreciated ray mcgoverns work, but aside from your comment of favour towards him down at the end, it is not enough for me to want to watch it!! the season is treating us well.. thanks! just back from victoria visiting with a friend who is visiting his kids for an extended period and who lives far away.. we had a very nice time... i have no ny gig this year which is actually nice and yes - it will be dry in terms of alcohol, but unlikely in terms of rain!! happy new year to you and all the best in the new year too - health and happiness my friend!
Curious that Doctorow writes the day after Ray mentions it. I’ll read what he says and comment again.
Having read Doctorow, there are a few points of clarification that must be raised. First and foremost is what Russia's security demands were as formally stated in December 2021 which are rather different from Ryabkov's alleged private remarks. I again reviewed the two security proposals and neither mentions rolling NATO back "to their pre-1994 borders." IMO, the NATO roll-back demand is a myth. In no way whatsoever was "That was precisely the objective stated by Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov in December 2021", for such demands don't exist anywhere. Here's the text of the NATO proposal, https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790803/?lang=en And here's what was sent to the Outlaw US Empire, https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en
Both are in English. Only Article 4 of the proposal for NATO mentions a time-related item:
"Article 4
"The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties."
Why Doctorow and so many others have this unmentioned NATO-rollback notion is beyond me. The genuine proposals are linked for all to read, just as I've provided Putin's and Lavrov's press conference statements for all to read.
As for Trenin's essay "raising more questions than answers", that's what it's supposed to do; it's supposed to get policy makers to think. IMO, it does that very well.
"rolling NATO back" is conversational shorthand for Article 4. I would think obviously so. Art 4 specifically and permanently restricts any and all NATO states armed forces and weapons or supplies deployment on the territory of- Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Albania and Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia.
Meaning only their own military forces are allowed on these states own territory. That is effectively is a --major "roll back of NATO" capability and territorial positioning--.
If adopted, it immediately prohibits the deployment of Aegis missile systems and other medium-range strike missile systems by the U.S. and NATO member states that are capable of targeting Russian territory. That is a "rollback of NATO" forces. This is what people mean when using that phrase.
Also, please note the following: Special Relationships with NATO
NATO -Russia Founding Act
The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation in Security Between NATO and the Russian Federation (The NATO-Russia Founding Act) provides the basis for an enduring and robust partnership between NATO and Russia, one that can make an important contribution to Europe's security in the 21st century. The Act was signed May 27, 1997 in Paris by NATO Secretary General Solana, President Clinton, Russian President Yeltsin and other Alliance Heads of State.
NATO-Ukraine Charter
The development of a strong, enduring relationship between NATO and Ukraine is an important aspect of the emerging European security architecture. The maintenance of Ukraine's independence, territorial integrity, sovereignty and integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions is a crucial factor for stability and security in Central Europe and the continent as a whole. At the Madrid summit, NATO and Ukraine will formally sign the Charter initialled in Sintra, Portugal in May , 1997, will provide a framework for an enhanced NATO-Ukraine relationship through consultation and cooperation on issues of common interest.
Leaving the above until 2022 to act, and entertaining joining of Nato even as cooperative partners were clearly strategic errors of Russia/Putin's later Government. Even at the time warning bells should have been ringing, but Yeltsin and cabal running Russia were clearly incompetent. Unfortunately, Putin couldn't perform miracles, and he's not Harry Potter.
Great work brother Karl. Trenin is on the right path there. I suspect bandera land will be much reduced after Romania and Hungary and Poland have taken up their respective tracts. Leaving the loony westies of Galicia and Volhynia to ferment in their bitter defeat and negotiate with BlackRock as to who is sharefarming with whom. That last piece would be fascinating to watch.
This is a long game of patience and the sooner Odessa is liberated, the better IMO.
Okay, thanks for that. Here’s the poor transcription:
“ll remember his name in a second uh he he had a big paper five days ago uh
8:15
saying look um there are things that we don't really want to occupy
8:20
adessa uh har nikol you know we have an and we're
8:29
not going to occupy all of them he says in this paper his name is trenin okay”
You’ll have read that Trenin wrote no such thing . Where Ray gets this idea is likely from his misreading of Russia’s SMO strategy—thinking an offensive to take Odessa would be easy.
what chance of taking Odessa do you think? militarily very difficult? impossible? I've been thinking they don't need to take it militarily. They just need to 'win' at the conference table and demand a referendum in Odessa that will be honoured. I'm thinking that would work. Right? Russia/Russians so much liked there, identified with?
This is Odessa the city we're talking here? Or is all discussion implicitly meaning the Oblast?
Either way it's not good having it 'orphaned' over there, I can see that. But I think there's never been any suggestions of taking Mykolaiv oblast too has there? How conducive would that population be to such an idea? I think not much.
It's a real puzzle to me. Russia has too much on its hands.
And I remember how reluctant it was to come to the aid of the Donbas and how Minsk gave so much to Kiev. Even Istanbul, I think.
I argued with Simplicius over a combined arms assault on Odessa going back to the Fall of 2022. I demurred to his objections as to why he deemed it unfeasible then. I saw a good opportunity after 2023’s failed “counter-offensive” but it wasn’t taken then or later. IMO, an air-mobile assault and very vigorous overland component is doable. An amphibious component could also be added. Now, I’m certain Russia’s General Staff have made such plans but are sitting on them. The Offensive is finally aiming at Dnipro, and territory is being gained rapidly. Perhaps 2025 will see Odessa besieged. Given Russia’s negotiation position, the SMO will likely go beyond 2025 as Trump is unlikely to completely capitulate.
As the totally unschooled armchair warrior that I am I can't see that Russia is gaining territory rapidly. I see it fighting for every inch. Against an enemy that we've been told for a year is going to collapse tomorrow. It simply does not ring true. To me.
Look at this: when forces are too thin to adequately man the line and garrison the interior your line is susceptible there in that place.
Witness Kharkiv and, later, Kursk, right?
Well that state is supposedly well and truly reached by Kiev now. Mouths like Ritter and McGregor and Berletic have been saying it for a year.
So okay. As a general, as a soldier, wouldn't you now test that reality?
A couple of mock probing attacks here and there at what should be the most tenuously guarded points? The 'kursks' and the 'kharkivs' of kiev today?
Just run a couple of dozen armoured vehicles in and round a ten or twenty kilometre lap, create a bit of havoc.. then go back and think about it?
What's wrong with that? Why not? It is almost mandatory wouldn't you think? Criminal not to do it.
Well. Is it done anywhere?
The front line of kiev is supposedly like a rotten lace curtain. Well Russia should be poking holes in it all over the place. Tearing it to shreds. 30 km hit and run incursions should be commonplace.
There is nothing like that. Nothing.
Look: open terrain, drones, axiom today: you can't run armour in daylight over flat open country. Right? Well somehow they keep the Kursk incursion supplied with men, arms, munitions and it all has to be driven across the same old roads all the way from Sumy, day after day. How is that possible?
They capture 'khokhols' and interview them and they claim only two or three men left in their unit. No esprit de corps. No training. No food,. No ammunition. No leadership. So why haven't the Russians ploughed right through that position?
No. I don't believe it. I don't understand it. But it sure doesn't look to me like what I would call 'territory being gained rapidly'. It looks to me like hard fighting.
It’s complicated. These hit and run incursions come at a price. The Russians are fighting the collected west, so how much havoc can you create? Also uk/usa/ukraine can do asymmetric warfare (as we already see today and I mention especially uk/usa cause they are known for paying and using terrorist do to their bit). It may also align the population behind the terrorist regime in Kiev, it may even alienate their allies. Apropos allies: they really don’t like self determination.
On the flip side you could argue that there is not much progress as hoped on the battlefield, but for sure the west is going further into decline, the EU is destroying itself. So why hasten if the enemy does stupid things (as long as it doesn’t escalate to nuclear war).
I am agreeing with your position as well as I follow the same ‘pundits’ (watching mercouris for instance every day, big fan of Brian) and I also hear thé discrepancy with reality.
Of course it is complicated. I try to zoom in on the simple amongst the complications. However I frequently end my posts with reference to the fact that the real way is away from the battlefield.
Incursions come at a price of course. How could we say otherwise. Depends what/where/when you're measuring. Everything come at a price. The point at isssue is the benefit.
Consider the benefit deep behind enemy lines as Kiev/usa did in Kursk - but without hurting any civilians.... but rather propagandising them all the time as the Russians so often do - saying what are you fighting for and do you realise the true death and injury numbers and do you note these soldiers are Donbas Ukrainians, free men and fighting for their own land, no way conquered, subjugated and no way wanting your land.
Etc, etc.
And deliberately and properly video the whole thing from start to finish, quietly and wait for the kiev/usa lies and then counter them with the videos?
Consider the pr benefit simply of the account of the extent and the ease of the penetration.
I don't suggest creating havoc in any real physical sense beyond destroying military targets. The havoc is amongst authority and bureaucrats and military as always behind the times and garbled panicked news about the incursion spreads.
And yet, the EU is destroying itself as best I understand. The UK is destroying itself as best I understand: the most expensive electricity in Europe I think? Germany is sinking like a rock.
So what's all that? Yet another paper thin defense line the allied forces of Russia and Donbas are not attempting to breach.
The western public in those places gets no voice from their governments attempting in any way to tell them any truths. And they have no voice of their own except the choked, broken, fragmented chaotic voice of social media platforms. Where is the voice of Russia and Donbas? Where is the central trustworthy platform devoted to this? 'Truth.com' perhaps? Where, texts, videos, interviews charts and graphs and whatever are all presented to tell the irrefutable truths to the westerners?
Irrefutable being the point. A place you can trust for honesty. As much as truth, honesty can ever be found in reality. A place quick to admit and adjust if found in error.
To help win the war and help western masses, too, both at the same time.
I agree 100% Macgregor, Ritter and Mercouris et al have been forecasting the collapse of the Ukrainian army within weeks or months since the failed counter offensive.
Yep, my memory is fairly clear. I remember Ritter forecasting total doom once the Kiev military met a 'real' army: the Russian regular army. I do. Very clearly. He was very graphic about it, very convincing. Well that's what they all are isn't it? Persuasive, convincing. But that's about all when you step back and take a look. :)
No, I am not. Read what I said again. Perhaps I don't make myself clear.
I respond to a contention that the Russians (the 'Allies' I prefer to think of them as, because Kiev and the 50 nato countries insist that donbas is still 'ukraine' and therefore the Donbas soldiers who've fought for ten years and are still fighting alongside the Russians comprise 'allies' ) are advancing rapidly.
That Ray misinterpreted or misremembered Trenin's words about what was merely a hypothetical add-on of oblasts to Russian territory hardly seems important or even a passing interest.
Trenin's ideas like many others seem reasonable and possible but hardly definitive or a reflection what the Russian govt might go with long term - which none of us know - and I suspect neither do Putin nor Lavrov yet. Trenin has not added anything that wasn't already on the chessboard back in Sept 2022 - which other oblasts might Russia be interested in annexing? We are no closer to knowing Russia's answer to that today than over 2 years ago. The endless guesswork continues, until one day we will eventually find out.
You might be able to argue that Russia's original decision to launch the SMO was a reckless gamble in that if Ukraine did not immediately fold [and it nearly did], then Russia would be stuck in a military, political and economic quagmire - and seriously outnumbered on the active front - and longer term on the economic and financial fronts as well. However I judge that the situation was deliberately engineered by "Biden" [his regime] to force Russia to act in the way they did, and all choices were bad at that stage from Russia's perspective.
The Russians are not stupid people and clearly prepared for the economic war [though quite why they left $300B in Europe is unknown]. They had however not fully prepared their military and its supporting MIC for what could be a longer conflict. They were therefore vulnerable and broke the rule that you don't start a war unless you can see a route to finishing it - should Ukraine elect to fight. This was possibly because at that stage the Russians retained some small vestige of hope that the West might be acting in good faith.
Well having said this, and rolling forward three years, how will this end?
I consider that the Russians now will not allow Ukraine to exist in any meaningful form. There might be a rump of it left in the extreme West, possibly to be annexed by its neighbours. There might be a Russian controlled vassal state for what is left, excepting the regions now which have joined Russia. Other referenda might take place in other regions.
The various freeze, peace-keeper etc plans put forward by the West are delusional in my opinion. None of them remotely address the root cause of the war and indeed embed the wherewithal for another one and almost guarantee a rematch.
I could be wrong but I think Russia is resolved to solve this problem - it is existential for them. So they will continue until either a sensible negotiated settlement occurs or a military victory is won. And given what I now think are their objectives, I struggle to see that negotiations can deliver them. A compromise position is hard to discern.
NATO is cleearly trying at present to goad Russia into some sort of reaction to its "James Bond" [terrorist] provocations at the moment, presumably to scupper Trump or even to try to save Ukraine by starting WW3. Maybe it is thought that this amounts to an SMO in reverse and will destabilise "the Putin" and engineer a pro-western regime in Russia? Clear thinking is not a notable feature of western leaders... However if Trump is properly briefed - and this is a very big IF - he really needs to cut and run on day one. NATO and the USA may think they have vital interests in Ukraine and that Russia will back down. I don't see it that way. It remains a nuclear power under existential threat from the West.
We will see. If Trump walks early then Ukraine will collapse and he can blame "Biden". If he prevaricates more blood and treasure will be expended and Ukraine will suffer a military collapse with a worse outcome for it and the West. Or WW3 and inevitably then MAD. All choices are bad for Mr Trump - in much the same way as those faced by Russia in early 2022.
Whatever Trump does he will be attacked by a rabidly hostile establishment. That narrative is already being spun and prepared. Nevertheless the objective reality here is that whereas the USA decided to start this [proxy] war, and to support it, it will be Russia that decides when and how it ends. And I don't think they are minded to end the war until their objectives - now expanded - have been achieved.
If it was a reckless gamble, what else should Russia have done to avoid ukraine going in into donbass, throwing out russia from crimea, trying to acquire nuclear weapons, entering nato? I think the war was coming to russia anyways and they had prepared since at least 2014. And I am convinced the russians made an assessment of the capability of the west to build waepons.
Maybe the 300billion could have been a honeyput? It showed the rest of the world that their money isn’t safe.
Over the four months prior to the SMO's start I followed Russian moves as closely as possible and reported them at my VK. Although I had no access to Security Council discussions, some of the content became clear during other conversations within the government. By the government meeting in November 2021 where undeniable evidence of genocide was presented and Putin agreed that genocide was indeed happening, it was clear to me that Russia would mount its own version of an R2P operation, but fully legal under international law as we saw. The December 2021 security proposals were accompanied by the promise if they went unheeded that a "military technical operation" would be launched. IMO, the 300 billion was bait that was swallowed whole. The biggest most important move Russia made was its import substitution program that began with gusto in 2014 with foodstuffs that began the process of gathering the Russian nation together as the foreign threat was now overt and could be equated with past threats. It wasn't fully known until April 2022 how fully invested NATO/Outlaw US Empire was in using Ukraine, and thus the "cheap" ploy needed to be revamped into what we see today. Why cheap? Russia's demographic problem and political uncertainty as to overall Russian societal response. The Liberal traitors unveiled themselves and many emigrated while capital controls were initiated that combined with the sanctions to keep wealth from also fleeing. The import substitution program and drive for technological sovereignty were both very successful, while the Russian public responded in amazing ways to support the troops. And all efforts to isolate Russia internationally failed grandly in many ways thanks to the 300 billion in bait.
Russia and Putin is mentally much weaker than we hope. I don't think Putin has let go of his secret dreams of being accepted by the West. If they dangle a juicy fruit before Putin in the coming negotiations, he will fall for the temptation again. Fool me once, etc...
You clearly have no proper assessment of Putin or of Russia.
The Cold War never ended if anyone noticed . It just became more intense as Russia has sought to defend itself with its SMO against the aggressions of the “ West” . Someone ought to define their mental make up within an evolutionary perspective this so long a protracted conflict .
All the words for peace over the last 100 years has meant nothing .
Nor have I noticed any learning talent to realize and grasp the benefits peace brings.
Must be too boring !
IMO, China knows well the benefits of peace and harmony; otherwise, its philosophy wouldn’t stress it so hard.
Thank you. Well written and well considered.
NATO and the EU will cease when the ponzi falls apart; its decomposition has been decades in the making. The pace has been accelerating, as has the decline of US capability. If I'm not mistaken RAND gave the US by this current year to deal finally with China or "it's all over and too late" So, probably not another decade then.
This is one of the most hopeful tracts about the Ukrainian future that I have ever read. I love the idea of a new Ukraine repudiating land sales and loans incurred by the Coup government in Kyiv. I also like the idea of a splash of Bandera ideologues confined to the west. A fence? A wall?
Indeed, how to seal-off the evil? Education, IMO, is the best tool. But IMO, the territories not retained must still be demilitarized and denazified. The fall of EU/NATO will also help.
Im 100% sure that 99% of NATO states citizens & military actually realise how militarily weak NATO is. The whole world has had it drummed into them since WW2 of American military might. What was this based upon? Korea?, Vietnam?, Iraq?, Yugoslavia? Libya? Syria? Afghanistan? These conflicts alone shouldn't inspire any rational thinking persons confidence in American military power. But even most NATO member states politicians believe the Hollywood version of the American military. So much so all of the countries under American lead NATO, have hardly paid for any military equipment & personnel. Ukraine alone could have defeated all EU & UK NATO forces easily. Only a reluctant Turkey could put up a fight against them. America being as financially corrupt as it is. Placed stupid amounts of money into very expensive & useless aircraft programme's. As well as massive Russian missile targets called aircraft carriers. This has went on for at least 4 decades probably 5. The results are an American lead NATO force against the Russians alone. Would be decimated in no time. Russia has very modern hi tech nukes. NATO has 40 year tech for their nukes. If they want to go down that path. Russia will dictate the final outcome for Ukraine at the end of this conflict. NATO can deal with it or end up destroyed.
One flaw in your argumentation: “rational thinking persons”… they are heavily in decline and so not many see it in a similar way
The Geopolitical policy and behavior of the Outlaw US Empire is very similar to that of the British when their Empire spanned the globe. The British had a very small army and used proxies to control their colonies almost exclusively, and of course they controlled the seas with their very large navy. An American naval officer named Mahan wrote about the primacy of sea power in geopolitics in the 1890s, which was enhanced by Mackinder's own geopolitical thesis which is at the core of the Empire's strategy. Yes, the vast weaknesses of the Outlaw US Empire's military you noted are correct and will eventually lead to its undoing. But Empires take a long time to unwind and the global alternative to it also needs time to grow. You'll note on the Gym's main page that it promotes only one other substack, which I suggest you visit. His podcast with Nima today was excellent as usual.
Simply superb analysis. Of course, I am prejudiced because I have been saying the same thing over at News Forensics on Substack, over and over again for a long time. Of course, I often ask my subscribers to visit this site. I have been following Karl for years, having notice his astute analyses on MoA. This article is particularly good. This process -- liberating Ukraine from the clutches of NATO and their nazi proteges--will take time. Sorry, Donald -- maybe longer than your presidency. The longer it takes, the more complete the victory at the end, and the more stimulus for Russian in its ongoing reinvention. Existential challenge -- or crisis_- is either disaster or an opportunity for civilizational growth and development. Kudos Karl.
"Reform is usually possible only once a sense of crisis takes hold.... In fact, crises are such valuable opportunities that a wise leader often prolongs a sense of emergency on purpose." -Charles Duhigg, The Power of Habit
Thanks Julian, for your reply and support in the old year and the one we're entering. Orthodox Christmas will soon be upon us, fresh rotations concluded, and new impetus added to the SMO. Lavrov took many pains to elaborate Russia's position, and we'll soon discover how well the Trump team listened in three weeks.
Off Topic. How Russia is recruiting troops. Fascinating video.
"How Did Russia Grow Such a MASSIVE Army"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq_Qq0tlGjQ
***
I see this as a massive human resources development project. They are facing an existential situation and are investing massive funds. They are providing incredible training, unifying people from diverse parts of their empire and are the dominant army in the world.
Here in the US, we no longer have shop class experience working with wood and metal, nor homemaking to learn skills of how to run a house and cook. As I recall, something like 70% of Americans are not up to physical levels for the military.
Russians are fighting very aggressively but with massive fire power and minimizing causalities. Their breakthrough field medical treatment is in itself another development opportunity.
With the generous benefits and special ways to earn more allows many to rise above any level they thought possible. And they will be well prepared to enter jobs in Russia's growing economy.
But most important, they are fighting for a purpose: to save Russia.
Yes, Russians have a very well-defined purpose and mostly act as a team.
So do the Chinese.
Individuality is nice to have but it tends to make individuals want to do their "own thing", which is usually counter to the interests of "the group".
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.
thanks karl... you are not making the talk with ray and nima very appealing, lol! i am not sure if i can watch it... thanks for all of this..
Usually Ray’s chats are okay; he’s just matter-of-fact, which is why I immediately noted this mismatch between what he was saying and what I’d read. Trenin’s essay IMO was very adult and was aimed at Russian policy makers. Hope you had a good Solstice and are hoping to have a dry New Year’s Eve!
thanks karl.. i have always appreciated ray mcgoverns work, but aside from your comment of favour towards him down at the end, it is not enough for me to want to watch it!! the season is treating us well.. thanks! just back from victoria visiting with a friend who is visiting his kids for an extended period and who lives far away.. we had a very nice time... i have no ny gig this year which is actually nice and yes - it will be dry in terms of alcohol, but unlikely in terms of rain!! happy new year to you and all the best in the new year too - health and happiness my friend!
Thanks james! Good that you’re having fun times!
Gilbert Doctorow also addresses Trenin essay: https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2024/12/28/dmitry-trenins-thoughts-on-how-the-ukraine-war-may-end/
Curious that Doctorow writes the day after Ray mentions it. I’ll read what he says and comment again.
Having read Doctorow, there are a few points of clarification that must be raised. First and foremost is what Russia's security demands were as formally stated in December 2021 which are rather different from Ryabkov's alleged private remarks. I again reviewed the two security proposals and neither mentions rolling NATO back "to their pre-1994 borders." IMO, the NATO roll-back demand is a myth. In no way whatsoever was "That was precisely the objective stated by Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov in December 2021", for such demands don't exist anywhere. Here's the text of the NATO proposal, https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790803/?lang=en And here's what was sent to the Outlaw US Empire, https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en
Both are in English. Only Article 4 of the proposal for NATO mentions a time-related item:
"Article 4
"The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties."
Why Doctorow and so many others have this unmentioned NATO-rollback notion is beyond me. The genuine proposals are linked for all to read, just as I've provided Putin's and Lavrov's press conference statements for all to read.
As for Trenin's essay "raising more questions than answers", that's what it's supposed to do; it's supposed to get policy makers to think. IMO, it does that very well.
I guess the Russians are realists as telling the west to rollback NATO would have been clearly unacceptable.
"rolling NATO back" is conversational shorthand for Article 4. I would think obviously so. Art 4 specifically and permanently restricts any and all NATO states armed forces and weapons or supplies deployment on the territory of- Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Albania and Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia.
Meaning only their own military forces are allowed on these states own territory. That is effectively is a --major "roll back of NATO" capability and territorial positioning--.
If adopted, it immediately prohibits the deployment of Aegis missile systems and other medium-range strike missile systems by the U.S. and NATO member states that are capable of targeting Russian territory. That is a "rollback of NATO" forces. This is what people mean when using that phrase.
Also, please note the following: Special Relationships with NATO
NATO -Russia Founding Act
The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation in Security Between NATO and the Russian Federation (The NATO-Russia Founding Act) provides the basis for an enduring and robust partnership between NATO and Russia, one that can make an important contribution to Europe's security in the 21st century. The Act was signed May 27, 1997 in Paris by NATO Secretary General Solana, President Clinton, Russian President Yeltsin and other Alliance Heads of State.
NATO-Ukraine Charter
The development of a strong, enduring relationship between NATO and Ukraine is an important aspect of the emerging European security architecture. The maintenance of Ukraine's independence, territorial integrity, sovereignty and integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions is a crucial factor for stability and security in Central Europe and the continent as a whole. At the Madrid summit, NATO and Ukraine will formally sign the Charter initialled in Sintra, Portugal in May , 1997, will provide a framework for an enhanced NATO-Ukraine relationship through consultation and cooperation on issues of common interest.
https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/fs_natoadapt.html
Leaving the above until 2022 to act, and entertaining joining of Nato even as cooperative partners were clearly strategic errors of Russia/Putin's later Government. Even at the time warning bells should have been ringing, but Yeltsin and cabal running Russia were clearly incompetent. Unfortunately, Putin couldn't perform miracles, and he's not Harry Potter.
Here is a further response: https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2024/12/29/further-thougts-on-trenin-and-how-the-war-ends/
Another 10-20 years anxiously waiting for NATO to dissolve? I hope it will be faster than that. Stress is not good for the body😀
And yes, hopefully the EU will cease to exist as well.
Great work brother Karl. Trenin is on the right path there. I suspect bandera land will be much reduced after Romania and Hungary and Poland have taken up their respective tracts. Leaving the loony westies of Galicia and Volhynia to ferment in their bitter defeat and negotiate with BlackRock as to who is sharefarming with whom. That last piece would be fascinating to watch.
This is a long game of patience and the sooner Odessa is liberated, the better IMO.
there is a transcript. just click 'more' in the description and find 'transcript'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCNIZAzNHfI
Okay, thanks for that. Here’s the poor transcription:
“ll remember his name in a second uh he he had a big paper five days ago uh
8:15
saying look um there are things that we don't really want to occupy
8:20
adessa uh har nikol you know we have an and we're
8:29
not going to occupy all of them he says in this paper his name is trenin okay”
You’ll have read that Trenin wrote no such thing . Where Ray gets this idea is likely from his misreading of Russia’s SMO strategy—thinking an offensive to take Odessa would be easy.
what chance of taking Odessa do you think? militarily very difficult? impossible? I've been thinking they don't need to take it militarily. They just need to 'win' at the conference table and demand a referendum in Odessa that will be honoured. I'm thinking that would work. Right? Russia/Russians so much liked there, identified with?
This is Odessa the city we're talking here? Or is all discussion implicitly meaning the Oblast?
Either way it's not good having it 'orphaned' over there, I can see that. But I think there's never been any suggestions of taking Mykolaiv oblast too has there? How conducive would that population be to such an idea? I think not much.
It's a real puzzle to me. Russia has too much on its hands.
And I remember how reluctant it was to come to the aid of the Donbas and how Minsk gave so much to Kiev. Even Istanbul, I think.
So I dunno. Do you? :)
I argued with Simplicius over a combined arms assault on Odessa going back to the Fall of 2022. I demurred to his objections as to why he deemed it unfeasible then. I saw a good opportunity after 2023’s failed “counter-offensive” but it wasn’t taken then or later. IMO, an air-mobile assault and very vigorous overland component is doable. An amphibious component could also be added. Now, I’m certain Russia’s General Staff have made such plans but are sitting on them. The Offensive is finally aiming at Dnipro, and territory is being gained rapidly. Perhaps 2025 will see Odessa besieged. Given Russia’s negotiation position, the SMO will likely go beyond 2025 as Trump is unlikely to completely capitulate.
As the totally unschooled armchair warrior that I am I can't see that Russia is gaining territory rapidly. I see it fighting for every inch. Against an enemy that we've been told for a year is going to collapse tomorrow. It simply does not ring true. To me.
Look at this: when forces are too thin to adequately man the line and garrison the interior your line is susceptible there in that place.
Witness Kharkiv and, later, Kursk, right?
Well that state is supposedly well and truly reached by Kiev now. Mouths like Ritter and McGregor and Berletic have been saying it for a year.
So okay. As a general, as a soldier, wouldn't you now test that reality?
A couple of mock probing attacks here and there at what should be the most tenuously guarded points? The 'kursks' and the 'kharkivs' of kiev today?
Just run a couple of dozen armoured vehicles in and round a ten or twenty kilometre lap, create a bit of havoc.. then go back and think about it?
What's wrong with that? Why not? It is almost mandatory wouldn't you think? Criminal not to do it.
Well. Is it done anywhere?
The front line of kiev is supposedly like a rotten lace curtain. Well Russia should be poking holes in it all over the place. Tearing it to shreds. 30 km hit and run incursions should be commonplace.
There is nothing like that. Nothing.
Look: open terrain, drones, axiom today: you can't run armour in daylight over flat open country. Right? Well somehow they keep the Kursk incursion supplied with men, arms, munitions and it all has to be driven across the same old roads all the way from Sumy, day after day. How is that possible?
They capture 'khokhols' and interview them and they claim only two or three men left in their unit. No esprit de corps. No training. No food,. No ammunition. No leadership. So why haven't the Russians ploughed right through that position?
No. I don't believe it. I don't understand it. But it sure doesn't look to me like what I would call 'territory being gained rapidly'. It looks to me like hard fighting.
It’s complicated. These hit and run incursions come at a price. The Russians are fighting the collected west, so how much havoc can you create? Also uk/usa/ukraine can do asymmetric warfare (as we already see today and I mention especially uk/usa cause they are known for paying and using terrorist do to their bit). It may also align the population behind the terrorist regime in Kiev, it may even alienate their allies. Apropos allies: they really don’t like self determination.
On the flip side you could argue that there is not much progress as hoped on the battlefield, but for sure the west is going further into decline, the EU is destroying itself. So why hasten if the enemy does stupid things (as long as it doesn’t escalate to nuclear war).
I am agreeing with your position as well as I follow the same ‘pundits’ (watching mercouris for instance every day, big fan of Brian) and I also hear thé discrepancy with reality.
Of course it is complicated. I try to zoom in on the simple amongst the complications. However I frequently end my posts with reference to the fact that the real way is away from the battlefield.
Incursions come at a price of course. How could we say otherwise. Depends what/where/when you're measuring. Everything come at a price. The point at isssue is the benefit.
Consider the benefit deep behind enemy lines as Kiev/usa did in Kursk - but without hurting any civilians.... but rather propagandising them all the time as the Russians so often do - saying what are you fighting for and do you realise the true death and injury numbers and do you note these soldiers are Donbas Ukrainians, free men and fighting for their own land, no way conquered, subjugated and no way wanting your land.
Etc, etc.
And deliberately and properly video the whole thing from start to finish, quietly and wait for the kiev/usa lies and then counter them with the videos?
Consider the pr benefit simply of the account of the extent and the ease of the penetration.
I don't suggest creating havoc in any real physical sense beyond destroying military targets. The havoc is amongst authority and bureaucrats and military as always behind the times and garbled panicked news about the incursion spreads.
And yet, the EU is destroying itself as best I understand. The UK is destroying itself as best I understand: the most expensive electricity in Europe I think? Germany is sinking like a rock.
So what's all that? Yet another paper thin defense line the allied forces of Russia and Donbas are not attempting to breach.
The western public in those places gets no voice from their governments attempting in any way to tell them any truths. And they have no voice of their own except the choked, broken, fragmented chaotic voice of social media platforms. Where is the voice of Russia and Donbas? Where is the central trustworthy platform devoted to this? 'Truth.com' perhaps? Where, texts, videos, interviews charts and graphs and whatever are all presented to tell the irrefutable truths to the westerners?
Irrefutable being the point. A place you can trust for honesty. As much as truth, honesty can ever be found in reality. A place quick to admit and adjust if found in error.
To help win the war and help western masses, too, both at the same time.
Where is this focal point?
There is not one.
I find that ludicrous.
I agree 100% Macgregor, Ritter and Mercouris et al have been forecasting the collapse of the Ukrainian army within weeks or months since the failed counter offensive.
See my reply below.
Yep, my memory is fairly clear. I remember Ritter forecasting total doom once the Kiev military met a 'real' army: the Russian regular army. I do. Very clearly. He was very graphic about it, very convincing. Well that's what they all are isn't it? Persuasive, convincing. But that's about all when you step back and take a look. :)
No, I am not. Read what I said again. Perhaps I don't make myself clear.
I respond to a contention that the Russians (the 'Allies' I prefer to think of them as, because Kiev and the 50 nato countries insist that donbas is still 'ukraine' and therefore the Donbas soldiers who've fought for ten years and are still fighting alongside the Russians comprise 'allies' ) are advancing rapidly.
My claim is I see no evidence of that.
That Ray misinterpreted or misremembered Trenin's words about what was merely a hypothetical add-on of oblasts to Russian territory hardly seems important or even a passing interest.
Trenin's ideas like many others seem reasonable and possible but hardly definitive or a reflection what the Russian govt might go with long term - which none of us know - and I suspect neither do Putin nor Lavrov yet. Trenin has not added anything that wasn't already on the chessboard back in Sept 2022 - which other oblasts might Russia be interested in annexing? We are no closer to knowing Russia's answer to that today than over 2 years ago. The endless guesswork continues, until one day we will eventually find out.
I like to add this: yes, nato must go and the easiest way to ensure that is to make a condition of peace that russia be part of nato.