/ world today news/ “It’s time to stop the magical thinking about Russia’s defeat,” they say now in America. Moreover, they speak (and write) not ordinary citizens, but very serious experts who worked on Russia both in the White House and in intelligence. The authors of the article in the “Wall Street Journal” Andrew Weiss (who headed the Russian section of the National Security Council in the 1990s) and Eugene Rumer (who worked on the Russian section of the National Intelligence Council) know our country well and at the same time in no way they refer neither to Russophiles nor to opponents of the confrontation with Moscow. They are just trying to be realistic and advise their compatriots to give up hopes of a quick victory over Russia in Ukraine. Not from the victory itself – they believe in it – but from the hope that our country will succumb to the pressure of the West in the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal article splits into two conflicting parts: the first describes how things are going well for Russia and woefully for the West, and the second says that while the state of affairs “presents an unprecedented challenge for Western leaders,” there is a ready and effective response to it.
That is, on the one hand, public support for Putin is unchanged, bipartisan support for Ukraine in the United States is fading, there are no signs that Russia is losing a war of attrition on the front lines, sanctions have done much less harm than expected, Putin is still supported in different parts of the global south. At the same time, promises by Western services to revive the defense industry have been sabotaged by red tape and supply chain bottlenecks, and Putin knows he can fight on indefinitely, counting on Western support for Ukraine to dry up, Ukrainians tire and Trump will return to the White House (with “openly pro-Putin views”). Moreover, Putin is ready to use everything at his disposal: nuclear arms control, the war in the Gaza Strip, food security, and so on. “For him, all this is just a means to win the conflict against Ukraine and the West.
Indeed, Weiss and Rumer acknowledge that Russia’s stakes are as high as possible and that it plays its cards well. That’s why they complain that “Western leaders have failed to convey to the public the continuing nature of the threat posed by an insolent and revisionist Russia”: “Too often they engage in wishful thinking, betting on sanctions, a successful Ukrainian counter-offensive or new weapons with the hope “to bring the Kremlin to the negotiating table”. Not to mention the unrealistic hope that Putin will be ousted in a palace coup.
Is such recognition the obvious bad news for Ukraine, from which they will demand even more victims on the altar of the battle with Russia? No, Weiss and Rumer are concerned, of course, not with Ukraine, but with the United States. They suggest moving to a strategy of long-term Russian containment, similar to the one the US pursued against the USSR. Back to the Cold War? No, experts say, this is unnecessary, Russia does not have the hard power and ideological appeal of the USSR, and in general, such a confrontation would not be the best use of American forces.
Here begins the contradiction between the diagnosis and the recommendations of Weiss and Rumer, that is, according to their diagnosis, it is impossible to quickly win the battle for Ukraine, because Russia will not fall, but at the same time, in order to win, you need to be prepared for a long siege of Russia, its strategic containment. But not on the scale of the Cold War, but rather locally: “Continuing Western sanctions, diplomatically isolating Russia, preventing Kremlin interference in our domestic politics, and strengthening NATO’s deterrence and defense potential.”
And is this enough to “help Kiev take its rightful place in Europe”? That is, to Atlanticize Ukraine? Yes, this is enough, because “the notorious balance of power in the world has decisively tilted against Russia.” What does this mean? From the fact that NATO accepted Sweden and Finland among its members, and “Putin was left to break down doors in places like Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang.” But before that, didn’t the authors themselves admit Russia’s support in the countries of the Global South? Isn’t that a bit consistent?
If only it were that. Because the main argument sounds like this: “Contrary to all predictions, Ukraine resisted Russian pressure. In less than two years, the Ukrainian army has turned to dust an entire decade of Russian military modernization. Support Ukraine in its struggle, the supply of weapons and ammunition. This is not charity, but the sharpest (and also most profitable) element of Western strategy.”
That is, the US is being asked to switch to a strategy of protracted war with Russia in Ukraine – with Western weapons and Ukrainian hands – and to explain the inevitability as well as the benefits of this to the Western public. This will require the consolidation of Europe and the United States, increased investment in the military-industrial complex and, of course, preventing a Trump victory. Weiss and Rumer do not write about the latter, but it goes without saying. If all this is done and patience is shown, then everything will work out, because “Putin’s possible successor will have to end hostilities and start serious, real negotiations with Kiev.”
It turns out that the calculation is still being made for a change in power and course, although previously the authors themselves suggested focusing on the fact that “during the Cold War, American experts did not expect that the Kremlin would suddenly revise its views and the Soviet system would to collapse overnight.” . Why do they now expect that Russia will ever suddenly abandon its fundamental national interests (and the future of Ukraine falls precisely in this category) and agree to ensure that the neighboring country is “fully integrated into the political and economic life” of the West ??
The authors of the article in the “Wall Street Journal” do not have an answer to this question, because, revealing some unrealistic hopes of the West, they propose to replace them with others, but not more realistic. The right diagnosis does not always help to write the right prescription, because the aforementioned “magical thinking” – the belief in the infinite and eternal superiority and dominance of the West – gets in the way.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#ready #trade #flawed #strategy
