My most recent article about the Russia-Ukraine war was the second-most popular I’ve ever written, but by far the one which provoked the most attacks, both against the argument and against me personally.
Thanks for your excellent analysis. I can offer an explanation for the madness of people's lust for WWIII. Tony Judt, the historian, said (and this is key, very important, and also remember, this wasn't intended to be heard and understood by the masses): "In order for a democracy to wage war, it must first build a war psychosis in its population." What we are surrounded y is a psychosis. This is now a psychotic society. It is very very scary indeed. I don't watch, read or listen to MSM, so have been spared the psychosis.
I know you use authorization codes to secure comment access, but is it possible that some measure of negative comments on the prior article were bots? They are rampant in much of online media, averaging fifty percent from what I've read.
As to Putin's apparent failure to recognize the obvious. I don't think he did, or does, I think he was always playing for time once the conflict began. How come?
Because, way back when the US called for a flight ban over Libya at the UN, and got it. Putin and probably others genuinely believed it was done with honorable intentions. There is a video of his face when, as he sat in the UN, he realized the US was bombing Libya into oblivion. His shock is of a visceral level, he realizes he is staring into the abyss.
I doubt anything since then has changed his mind, now he may hope for ethics to emerge within the US and EU, but he doesn't anticipate it any time soon. Medvedev's views are certainly Putin's as well.
From the moment "Cookies" Neuland showed up in Ukraine I knew they were an expendable attack dog. And anyone familiar with Z's rise to power is well aware he is a pawn and corrupt cash, drugs and possibly children bagman for US politicians. Do you seriously believe all of those congressional junkets are to have first hand insight into the war, nonsense; they are to take advantage of no search diplomatic flights.
Putin’s expression mirrored that of JFK when he was informed of Patrice Lumumba’s assassination at the hands of the CIA/Belgium mercenaries in the Congo.
Thank you, I wasn't aware of either event, did a quick Brave search for Kennedy being informed, nothing came up. Not overly surprised.
Most empires fall because of outside influences, see Rome for details. A lesser number are pushed from within, France is a good example.
Both result in lots of bloodshed, general unhappiness and multiple messy attempts to put things right. I'd like to think we could be the painless exception, but I suffer from optimism, it's my curse :(
Yet Putin keeps falling for the bait and switch, over and over again.
Minsk, Minsk-2, Ankara, the Azov Prisoner Farce, the Odessa Grain Sham, now they're bleating about Anchorage, when it was obvious that Anchorage was just another successful attempt to string Russia along.
Contrast with Georgia in 2008. Russia was proactive and decisive. The West harrumphed loudly but didn't do jack.
Ukraine had a valid fear of Russian invasion driving them to try to join NATO. We can see this was a valid fear by the fact that Russia did invade.
We call Russia the imperial power in this case because it invaded to conquer territory and add it to Russia.
Not sure why you have a hard time seeing that empires can be malevolent and benevolent at the same time to different people in different places. They always have been.
I wish more people were forced to watch the video of the Ukrainian Army thugs tearing that young man away from his screaming girlfriend and throwing him into the meat grinder of a stupid war. The Due Dissidents guys had another video from inside the car that made my blood boil. There’s rarely a day that goes by, especially since 10/7, that I’m not in agreement with Jeremiah Wright; God Damn America.
Thanks for this important article, Nate. It never ceases to amaze me that so many who support Gaza also support Ukraine. There's so much propaganda that convinces people that this isn't a NATO proxy war.
"While it’s true that American missiles (ATACMS, HIMARS, Javelin and others) are now being routed via Europe through a NATO slush fund to give Trump plausible deniability to satisfy a campaign promise, it’s a charade. Everyone knows what’s going on."
What amazes me is that the Russian leadership refuses to admit the obvious - they may wish to join the West, but the West wants them destroyed and see Russian reticence to fight as contemptible weakness.
Instead, the Russian leadership keep falling for the okey-doke, over and over again.
I sure hope Iran can hold out against the okey-doke. I fear China is going to pressure them to cave if we come close to economic depression, much like the Dem establishment undercutting third-party/independent/insurgent candidates from gaining influence. Always about, as you note, power protecting power.
Over the decade preceding Feb 2022 British and western publics were primed by media for suspicion and antipathy to Russia. Sports doping accusations, little green man,football hooligans Russiagate, Skripal poisoning. HMS Defender....
Great analysis, it really does capture the disconnect of the pro-Ukraine war cohort. Most of those I encounter ignore the evidence they're presented with and just double down on talking points. It's hard not to see them as NPCs because they can't be bothered to actually study the history, not just since the 2014 Maidan coup but for the decades before that. The cable leaks are just one example, there's loads more because the history of Western interference in that region is well-documented, as former Maltese foreign minister Evarist Bartolo laid out in "50 years of deceiving Russia" using declassified docs that can be found in the US National Archives.
What appealed to me most here is the underlying logic rather than the question of which side one happens to favour. If every possible route to compromise is progressively ruled out as immoral, hostile, naïve or illegitimate, diplomacy eventually ceases to be an available instrument. At that point conflict is no longer one option among several; it becomes the only mechanism remaining.
That is why I think examining how a war came about is so important. Understanding the causes is not the same thing as excusing an action. Quite the opposite: if we refuse to examine the conditions that produced a conflict because doing so feels politically uncomfortable and unpopular, we make ourselves considerably less capable of preventing the next one.
Your closing line articulates it particularly well: "...those who make peace impossible eventually make war inevitable".
I explored a closely related question recently in When Restraint Is Mistaken for Weakness: what happens when trying to understand an opponent’s reasoning is treated as endorsement, and diplomacy itself becomes politically suspect. The underlying logic feels very close to the discussion here.
"My most recent article about the Russia-Ukraine war was the second-most popular I’ve ever written, but by far the one which provoked the most attacks, both against the argument and against me personally.
Thanks for your excellent analysis. I can offer an explanation for the madness of people's lust for WWIII. Tony Judt, the historian, said (and this is key, very important, and also remember, this wasn't intended to be heard and understood by the masses): "In order for a democracy to wage war, it must first build a war psychosis in its population." What we are surrounded y is a psychosis. This is now a psychotic society. It is very very scary indeed. I don't watch, read or listen to MSM, so have been spared the psychosis.
Thank you, a worthy and worthwhile article :)
I know you use authorization codes to secure comment access, but is it possible that some measure of negative comments on the prior article were bots? They are rampant in much of online media, averaging fifty percent from what I've read.
As to Putin's apparent failure to recognize the obvious. I don't think he did, or does, I think he was always playing for time once the conflict began. How come?
Because, way back when the US called for a flight ban over Libya at the UN, and got it. Putin and probably others genuinely believed it was done with honorable intentions. There is a video of his face when, as he sat in the UN, he realized the US was bombing Libya into oblivion. His shock is of a visceral level, he realizes he is staring into the abyss.
I doubt anything since then has changed his mind, now he may hope for ethics to emerge within the US and EU, but he doesn't anticipate it any time soon. Medvedev's views are certainly Putin's as well.
From the moment "Cookies" Neuland showed up in Ukraine I knew they were an expendable attack dog. And anyone familiar with Z's rise to power is well aware he is a pawn and corrupt cash, drugs and possibly children bagman for US politicians. Do you seriously believe all of those congressional junkets are to have first hand insight into the war, nonsense; they are to take advantage of no search diplomatic flights.
Thank you again!
Putin’s expression mirrored that of JFK when he was informed of Patrice Lumumba’s assassination at the hands of the CIA/Belgium mercenaries in the Congo.
The empire must fall; as quickly as possible.
Thank you, I wasn't aware of either event, did a quick Brave search for Kennedy being informed, nothing came up. Not overly surprised.
Most empires fall because of outside influences, see Rome for details. A lesser number are pushed from within, France is a good example.
Both result in lots of bloodshed, general unhappiness and multiple messy attempts to put things right. I'd like to think we could be the painless exception, but I suffer from optimism, it's my curse :(
Here’s the JFK photo - https://share.google/feN2kD0WAG9iN634c
Thank you! What a genuine man; what a loss to the world. Talk about your fall of empires.....I believe they murdered his son as well.
Yet Putin keeps falling for the bait and switch, over and over again.
Minsk, Minsk-2, Ankara, the Azov Prisoner Farce, the Odessa Grain Sham, now they're bleating about Anchorage, when it was obvious that Anchorage was just another successful attempt to string Russia along.
Contrast with Georgia in 2008. Russia was proactive and decisive. The West harrumphed loudly but didn't do jack.
Ukraine had a valid fear of Russian invasion driving them to try to join NATO. We can see this was a valid fear by the fact that Russia did invade.
We call Russia the imperial power in this case because it invaded to conquer territory and add it to Russia.
Not sure why you have a hard time seeing that empires can be malevolent and benevolent at the same time to different people in different places. They always have been.
Since Russia and Ukraine got on well until the West weaponized that country....
I wish more people were forced to watch the video of the Ukrainian Army thugs tearing that young man away from his screaming girlfriend and throwing him into the meat grinder of a stupid war. The Due Dissidents guys had another video from inside the car that made my blood boil. There’s rarely a day that goes by, especially since 10/7, that I’m not in agreement with Jeremiah Wright; God Damn America.
The leaders of the West know full well.
They do not care.
Thanks for this important article, Nate. It never ceases to amaze me that so many who support Gaza also support Ukraine. There's so much propaganda that convinces people that this isn't a NATO proxy war.
"While it’s true that American missiles (ATACMS, HIMARS, Javelin and others) are now being routed via Europe through a NATO slush fund to give Trump plausible deniability to satisfy a campaign promise, it’s a charade. Everyone knows what’s going on."
What amazes me is that the Russian leadership refuses to admit the obvious - they may wish to join the West, but the West wants them destroyed and see Russian reticence to fight as contemptible weakness.
Instead, the Russian leadership keep falling for the okey-doke, over and over again.
I sure hope Iran can hold out against the okey-doke. I fear China is going to pressure them to cave if we come close to economic depression, much like the Dem establishment undercutting third-party/independent/insurgent candidates from gaining influence. Always about, as you note, power protecting power.
China simply wants to be able to get back to selling things and making money in hopes that the Americans will turn on them last.
Dumb scrotes.
I've already given my explanation of the dumb scrotishness(?) scroticity(?) of the Russian leadership.
Don't forget the 2019 Extending Russia Rand corp policy document https://manueljoaoramos.substack.com/p/looking-back-in-hubris
Over the decade preceding Feb 2022 British and western publics were primed by media for suspicion and antipathy to Russia. Sports doping accusations, little green man,football hooligans Russiagate, Skripal poisoning. HMS Defender....
Great analysis, it really does capture the disconnect of the pro-Ukraine war cohort. Most of those I encounter ignore the evidence they're presented with and just double down on talking points. It's hard not to see them as NPCs because they can't be bothered to actually study the history, not just since the 2014 Maidan coup but for the decades before that. The cable leaks are just one example, there's loads more because the history of Western interference in that region is well-documented, as former Maltese foreign minister Evarist Bartolo laid out in "50 years of deceiving Russia" using declassified docs that can be found in the US National Archives.
What appealed to me most here is the underlying logic rather than the question of which side one happens to favour. If every possible route to compromise is progressively ruled out as immoral, hostile, naïve or illegitimate, diplomacy eventually ceases to be an available instrument. At that point conflict is no longer one option among several; it becomes the only mechanism remaining.
That is why I think examining how a war came about is so important. Understanding the causes is not the same thing as excusing an action. Quite the opposite: if we refuse to examine the conditions that produced a conflict because doing so feels politically uncomfortable and unpopular, we make ourselves considerably less capable of preventing the next one.
Your closing line articulates it particularly well: "...those who make peace impossible eventually make war inevitable".
I explored a closely related question recently in When Restraint Is Mistaken for Weakness: what happens when trying to understand an opponent’s reasoning is treated as endorsement, and diplomacy itself becomes politically suspect. The underlying logic feels very close to the discussion here.
https://nickvozianov.substack.com/p/when-restraint-is-mistaken-for-weakness?r=6md0rg&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
I am surprised not to see a single mentioning of the other reasons for conflict:
"My most recent article about the Russia-Ukraine war was the second-most popular I’ve ever written, but by far the one which provoked the most attacks, both against the argument and against me personally.
I find this frightening."
Brigading - how does it work?