After the bipolar world that existed from the end of the Second World War until the implosion of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the current conflict on the territory of Ukraine is the point of gravity in the process of transition between two great eras of contemporary history: the old—unipolar—that has lasted for the last 30 years and the new—multipolar—post-hegemonic, that came into being at the end of February 2022.
Although I’m not much of a follower of communist theories, I can’t help noticing that today’s events are nothing more than a modern adaptation, a reflection in the mirror of the old principle of revolutions expressed by Vladimir Lenin as long ago as 1913 in his book “The First May of the Revolutionary Proletariat“: the lower classes no longer want to live in the old way, while the upper classes can no longer govern in the old way. In other words, the impossibility for the ruling class to maintain its domination in an unchanged form. Today, the ‘upper classes’ are the Western world revolving around the United States of America and the ‘lower classes’—the rest of humanity.
Once again, history teaches the “elites” nothing and eras are replaced in the same way as a century ago: with violence.
The rhetoric about the defence of freedom, democracy and the noble, and therefore Western, values that Ukraine represents and defends are nothing more than the “Atlanticist” narratives developed via the propaganda apparatus of the mainstream media, in order to justify to the pre-formatted electoral masses the controversial initiatives undertaken by the representatives of the current power of the Americano-centric collective Western bloc. Narratives far removed from the tragic Ukrainian reality of power.
Without going into detail about the profound interests of the United States of America in the war in Ukraine that has been going on there since 2014, interests directly based on the global strategy of defending the existential elements for the American state (see my analysis “the war in Ukraine: The Genesis”), it should be noted that the achievement of their pre-established objectives was reflected in the significant politico-economic weakening of Russia on the one hand, as one of the major players vis-à-vis the petrodollar system and, on the other, as a strategic partner of China both in the economic sphere, in which the two countries have a genuine complementarity, and in the politico-diplomatic and military-technological spheres.
The Anglo-Saxon trap
The United States of America has found itself faced with an existential dilemma: on the one hand, the positive scenario for Washington in the outcome of this war is becoming more and more unattainable by the day; on the other, the Americans cannot afford not to get involved in the ongoing confrontation.
Victory is vital to the global reputation of the United States and its European partners as the world’s leading political and military power—vital to the future of Western civilisation.
What was hardly an existential element at the start of the conflict—became one with the open and radical engagement of the entire Western bloc in hostilities. There is no turning back.
Given the specific nature of the internal political situation in the United States, conditioned by its recent military defeats in Syria and Afghanistan, it was not possible for the United States to enter the war alone or only in tandem with the Anglo-Saxon world. The Anglo-Saxon world, in which it was not necessary to convince the United Kingdom to take part in the conflict, given the process initiated by China and Russia in the collapse of neo-colonial networks, particularly British ones, on the dark continent, which will ultimately have very serious repercussions for the financial system of the City of London—the traditional centre for the gigantic revenues from the exploitation of Africa’s raw materials.
In-depth work has certainly been done in Brussels. The European Union and its member countries have fallen into the American-British trap, which has stimulated the egos of the elites of the old continent with the grandeur and domination of the past. A continent that is in constant decline with the emergence of new ideological centres of gravity in China and Russia. They were offered the chance to regain their grandeur and dominance by entering into a war, believed to have been won in advance, against the new challengers.
From “blitzkrieg” to war of attrition
Initially, when the new phase of the war began, it was expected that sanctions against the Russian Federation on a scale unprecedented in contemporary history, implemented by the collective West under the patronage of Washington and supported under political and economic pressure by part of the non-Western world from the very first days of the war, would have shattered the Russian economy in a matter of months and set it on the pre-calculated path to inevitable collapse, turning Russia into a pariah state. A pariah state not for a few months or years, but for an entire future era.
However, as soon as the sanctions were introduced, worrying signs emerged of the unexpected resilience of the Russian economy, in parallel with the refusal of the major non-Western players to condemn Moscow’s initiative on the territory of Ukraine, despite the extraordinary “Atlanticist” coercion.
The United States of America found itself unable to unite the non-Western world around it in its anti-Russian project. The primary plan that should have worked against Russia in the short term, in a matter of weeks or even months, failed completely.
The collapse of the Russian economy, which did not take place, was one of the key reasons for the war in Ukraine. In particular, in order to ensure that at the major phase of the United States’ future confrontation with China, Russia could not afford any significant support for its strategic Asian partner under the threat of new sanctions that the country with an economy that was supposed to be wiped out would not be able to withstand—it was necessary to change the strategy.
American action has therefore been fundamentally reviewed from the ground up and turned towards a strategy of long-term attrition. A strategy that could not work without the initially unforeseen element: the financing of Ukrainian power on an unprecedented scale. To this end, a line of credit unprecedented in modern history was opened in favour of Kiev.
Negotiations with Russia on its knees
Some experts in the “Atlanticist” camp, echoing the slogans put out by Kiev’s propaganda to their masses, advocate as an indispensable objective the return of Ukraine to its 1991 borders, presenting it as perfectly feasible. In other words, the return to Russia and the establishment of Kiev’s power over cities such as Donetsk and Lugansk in the Donbass and Simferopol with Sevastopol in Crimea. It should be remembered that the main reason for Russia’s recovery of Crimea was the imminent danger, following the 2014 coup in Kiev, of the loss of the Russian naval base in Sevastopol and its operational takeover by NATO naval forces.
Those who seriously envisage such a scenario are nothing more than a grotesque caricature and an insult to the title of expert. There is no need to detail their position and to point out that the probability of Ukraine taking over, for example, the Russian military port of Sevastopol is infinitely lower than the massive use of nuclear weapons in the current conflict. That said, the use of the nuclear component of Russia’s defence in the current conflict is currently close to zero.
Today, the objective of the armed wing of the collective West is to win a maximum number of elements on the ground and then to negotiate from a position of strength against Russia, which is supposed to be shaken.
A disconcerting form of amateurism and ignorance of the quasi-genetic reasoning of the Russian people does not allow the authors of this strategy to understand that the key negotiation from a position of weakness, even if it were to take place, on elements vital to the Russian Federation is totally inconceivable for the latter and will never take place.
If, as a result of a series of events, Russia were, hypothetically, to be placed in a position of weakness, it would not be a negotiation, so much hoped for, more than naively, by the collective West in the face of a weakened Russia, but a retreat followed by a reconsolidation and remobilisation of the means available to the Russian Federation to return to its positions of domination of the situation.
It should be emphasised that in the current economic and military circumstances, on the one hand, of the NATO countries and, on the other, of Russia, the probability of the Western scenario being realised in the years to come is mathematically close to zero.
It is interesting to note that there are a number of highly respected American analysts, including a former head of the State Department’s foreign policy planning department, who consider that not only would a major defeat in the current Ukrainian offensive, so much promoted among the Western masses in order to keep up the momentum needed to continue financing the conflict, be catastrophic, but also a hypothetical major victory by the Ukrainian army in this undertaking would be no less catastrophic than defeat.
This type of analysis is not the sign of schizophrenia or split personality, but of a deep and lucid understanding of the processes underway: Russia’s reaction will follow and will be proportional to the need to annihilate a new serious threat.
Nevertheless, I can only reassure the analysts in question: taking into account the strategic elements of the forces of the parties to the conflict to date, there is virtually no risk that the current initiative by Kiev, pushed by its creditors, will succeed. And the likelihood of it being so successful in the long term as to cause Moscow to reconsider its strategy towards Ukraine is, quite simply, non-existent.
Today, the understanding of the reality on the ground of the operations, which differs greatly from the war plan initially envisaged, is leading the Western bloc towards a form of operational panic which is reflected in the chaotic increase in additional military aid that is totally unforeseen for the executing agent in the confrontation on the ground—the Ukrainian army.
This chaotic increase is reflected in the crossing of taboos established by the Western leaders themselves, such as the delivery to Ukraine of depleted uranium shells, Western tanks and future deliveries of American (and then European?) fighter planes, proportionally reducing the room for manoeuvre before the outbreak of direct hostilities between the Russian and NATO armies.
In particular, the specific nature of the operation of the F-16 fighter jets that will shortly be supplied to Kiev is such that it is totally impossible to carry it out entirely, autonomously, on Ukrainian territory. And depending on the proportional role of the air bases located, in particular, in Poland and Romania, in the operation of the aircraft in question—the Russian general staff will decide whether or not to bomb them. If the F-16s are refuelled with ammunition outside Ukraine, Russian strikes on the locations in question will be practically inevitable, because, according to the laws of war, the countries targeted will be considered as belligerents, direct participants in the fighting.
The U.S. military drone shot down by the Russian warplane over the Black Sea is just a modest prelude to the large-scale military confrontation that may yet take place between Russia and the Atlantic alliance and, according to current Russian military doctrine, could lead to the use of tactical nuclear weapons against enemy targets.
Les réalités du potentiel russe
For its part, Moscow’s satisfaction with the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine is also an existential issue for the Russian Federation.
A hypothetical defeat is totally inconceivable for the Kremlin, as it is for the Russian people, as it would lead directly to the internal and external collapse of the country. As a result, the West is making a serious miscalculation in believing that even a hypothetical success for the Ukrainian offensive could change the course of the war and lead to victory for the powers that be in Kiev.
The only reality is that this will only accelerate the growth of Russia’s active military forces on the front and prolong the duration of the war. The fatal outcome for Kiev’s interests is an unshakeable constant.
The return of territories in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, including their capitals, to the control of the Kiev authorities can only appeal to minds wandering in the realms of fantasy. Similarly, talk of the return of the Crimean peninsula to the Ukrainian state is a sign of a simple lack of intelligence and a profound disconnect from reality.
Why is this?
If, hypothetically, the situation on the ground of military operations were to deteriorate to the point where there was a real danger of losing the territories of the Donbass and Crimea admitted to the Russian Federation—which has never been the case, not for a single day since 2015—Russia would commit the full extent of its military capabilities and achieve its objectives in any eventuality.
The reality, very carefully hidden by the Western powers from their public, is unequivocal: during the Second World War, Russia committed 60% of its GDP to defeat Nazi Germany. Today, without recalling the fact that the Russian economy is doing incomparably better than even the most pessimistic forecasts from the Atlantic camp had predicted, that Russia is anything but isolated from the rest of the world, that the Russian arms industry has increased its production by a factor of 2.7 in one year—I would like to recall another reality which is the answer to all the questions and doubts that may exist on the subject: to date, the Russian Federation has committed only 3% of its GDP to the war effort against NATO in Ukraine.
I leave it to you to imagine the scale and speed of the disaster for the Western camp if Russia decided to commit not 60%, but 6%, instead of 3% of its GDP to the conflict.
The reason for not further increasing the share of GDP involved in the conflict in Ukraine is very simple: the calculations show that there is no need to do so in order to achieve the pre-established objectives.
Similarly, if absolutely necessary, not hundreds of thousands, but millions of extra soldiers will be needed at the front—not an impossible task with a population of over 146 million. And it’s not the manufacture of hundreds, but thousands of new tanks and combat aircraft a year that can be industrially implemented in a relatively short space of time.
If Russia were to suffer hypothetical strategic losses on the battlefield—it would not be the long-awaited Russian retreat and capitulation that would take place—only deranged minds totally ignorant of the mentality of the Russian people could envisage such a scenario—but only the escalation of the confrontation and the significant increase in the war effort that would take place.
It is deplorable to note that the decision-makers currently in power in the West have not been able to learn the major element concerning them in the great lesson of history and greatly underestimate the unparalleled capacity of the Russian people to mobilise to defeat the enemy, as soon as the threshold of existential danger for the country is reached.
Russia is a long way from such a threshold, and I can only hope for the sake of Western countries that it will never be reached.
After centuries of influence and exposure of the non-Western world to the model of the exemplary success of Western society, we have now reached the point of exposure of an entirely different nature: that of the degeneration and destruction at increasing speed of the values and societal principles that have forged Western civilisation over the last two thousand years.
The politicians who have now seized power over most of the old continent are incapable of understanding that the rest of the world’s growing rejection of the Western model—and the war in Ukraine has only served to accentuate the process and make the masks come off, is based on the rejection of the new Western societal ideology centred on neo-liberalism and the domination of the interests of various minorities over those of the majority—which is, in itself, the project of “anti-society”.
What appealed yesterday—hardly appeals today.
Virtually all the European heads of state to date have been traitors to their nations, and one of the few great qualities they have in common is that they have exponentially increased the debts of the countries they represent, and imposed on the major interests of the nations those of the destructive minorities who are increasingly depriving the majority of their rights and freedoms, and who are at the same time showing themselves to be increasingly discontented and insatiable.
From February 2022, observing the flagrant double standards applied by the Western community, observing the totally illegal confiscation under international law, the theft of Russian financial reserves—the countries of the non-Western world are moving away from the latter at an accelerated pace, rightly realising that they may be the next victims.
The collapse of the West’s reputation as the land of law has taken place.
Following this initial collapse, the collapse of the West’s collective politico-military reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world is inevitable.
No Western commitment guaranteed by its military strength will be credible any more. The repeated prolongations of the massive investments in the war on the territory of Ukraine are only due to the attempt to nuance the major damage that the image of the “Atlanticist” power and military credibility will undergo. The unprecedented scale of investment is directly proportional to an understanding of the scale of the reputational disaster that will follow.
The motivation of the Western camp is all the stronger because behind the global reputation it is the reputation and the purely personal political future of the leaders involved that are at stake.
Nevertheless, if for the United States of America, taken separately, the interests at stake go far beyond the single element of its reputation—the war in Ukraine is merely a demonstration of an intermediate stage in the United States’ struggle for survival in its current state, which is inconceivable without the safeguarding and expansion of the monopolies and the safeguarding of unipolar political-military or, For the countries of the European Union, however, their continued involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is no more than a question of “saving face” that can still be nuanced.
So, for the EU Member States, there is an alternative path, a way out of the deep crisis of their engagement with the Russian Federation: a change of government followed by a significant rebound in national sovereignty, whose indicators today are at their lowest since 1944, and a return to the policy of protecting traditional societal values which have proved their worth and which are the only ones to be constructive and viable in the long term and the only ones not to be rejected by the rest of the world.
A change of government at the level of sovereign states, with the future political leaders stopping the military and financial assistance to the Kiev regime, coupled with a clear disengagement from the policies pursued by the predecessors now in power, who will thus largely absorb the reputational disaster.
This is the only way out of the crisis Europe is currently experiencing that is not disastrous, but which nevertheless seems highly unlikely to be achieved in the time span covering the conflict in Ukraine. This is because, at present, there is no political force in Europe that is prepared to go against the tide and run the guaranteed risk of losing the electorate, which has been over-educated and formatted by the tools of mass manipulation, such as the filtering and distortion of reality as part of the “Atlanticist” propaganda war waged by the mass media.
Choosing the future
Today, the countries of the world are faced with a strategic choice. A choice that will either leave them in the position they have been in for decades, or change their perception and role on the international stage: remain in the wake and under the direct or indirect domination of the American military-monetary power, backed by the old continent, or change the vector of their foreign policy and join the multipolar alliance which is, from now on, embodied by the members of the BRICS which, since its creation in 2006, has demonstrated itself to be a viable structure of sound economic cooperation, built on the fundamental principles of non-interference, equal rights and mutual benefit.
Contrary to the narratives propagated by the American-centric mass media, the new formula for relations initiated by the Russian Federation is winning over more and more countries that see the failure of the system of economic cooperation based on the Western model to serve their national interests.
The BRICS organisation, made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, represents more than 40% of the Earth’s population and more than a quarter of its GDP and surface area. In June and November 2022, three new countries officially applied for membership, two of which are energy giants: Algeria, Argentina and Iran.
Many other states have expressed interest in joining the BRICS: the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Indonesia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Mexico, Thailand, Nigeria, Cambodia, Malaysia, Senegal, Uzbekistan, Fiji, Ethiopia and even an EU member—Greece. Egypt and Bangladesh have been official candidates for membership since mid-June 2023.
That said, it should be noted that the BRICS are not a club whose doors are wide open to all. The new structure has no intention of repeating the serious mistakes made by other unions, notably the European Union, which brought into its ranks what can only be described as “anybody”, including direct agents of influence from the United States who destroyed the possibility of the Union’s political and economic development outside North American supervision. As an example, the application of South Korea—a country totally subservient to the West—was one of those rejected because it was incompatible with the interests and principles of the BRICS.
Despite the evidence, one of the fundamental elements of which is the unprecedented global interest in the BRICS structure vis-à-vis the G7 and even the G20, the “Atlanticist” powers continue to repeat their fanciful mantras about the isolation of the Russian Federation and its pariah status, instead of reflecting the evidence that they are frantically trying to hide from their electorate.
The choice of the French
Not only is it utopian to assert France’s strategic interests under the current 27-member Europe, in which the interests of several member states are practically the opposite of those of the French, but even a return to the Europe of Six of 1973 is hardly a salvific solution, as it is sometimes presented by certain analysts.
This is because, over the last 40 years, Germany has undergone profound changes in its long-term development doctrines and strategies which, in several key respects, run directly counter to France’s political, economic and military-industrial interests.
In this context, if France, for its part, does not take a clearly sovereignist path in the protection of its national interests vis-à-vis its participation in American-centric international blocs, in which the real role of Paris is no more than auxiliary ; if the current political elites do not learn to develop their capacity for long-term vision—there is absolutely no national project worthy of the name with a vision even for the next 15 years—the process of disintegration of France’s image as a power will only intensify and its capacity for international projection will continue to be restricted, which, in the long term, will inevitably lead to the marginalisation of the French people from the processes that are shaping the world of tomorrow.
Translation: Яннис В.Зброек for Donbass Insider
Chairman of the European Trade & Industry Centre, Former Director of the International Institute of Anthropological Reconstruction, Former Director of the MBA, lecturer in masters courses at the Grandes Ecoles de Commerce in Paris.