Europe is defenseless. Who is to blame?

This morning’s edition of the Financial Times carried a fairly dramatic article entitled “A year of war in Ukraine has left Europe’s armouries dry.”

The content of this article is, like the very heavily publicized meetings of Europe’s defense ministers in Brussels these past two days, and the statements before journalists of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg regarding the inability of European defense manufacturers to meet the current daily needs of the Ukrainian army for artillery shells – all of this is in a way preparing the European public for the likely collapse of the Ukrainian army in the coming weeks of Russia’s spring offensive. The logic is that we just weren’t ready for such a war.

To get a feel for this argumentation, let me quote from the aforementioned article:

Europe responded to Russian president Vladimir Putin’s invasion with initial disbelief. Capitals that had previously declared he had no plans to do so then duly predicted Kyiv would fall in days. But that rapidly gave way to a level of unity and support that defied both expectations and past form.

Armies starved of funding by governments that had long dismissed the notion of war in Europe dug deep, and within weeks arms were flowing east across the Polish-Ukrainian border (as refugees flowed the other way).

But almost 12 months of gruelling war, in which Putin’s troops have targeted both civilian infrastructure and military targets, has placed immense pressure on Europe’s ill-prepared defence sector. Europe’s factories are barely able to make enough shells to supply a week’s worth of Ukraine’s needs.
Waiting times for some munitions have more than doubled.

“It’s not going well for the Ukrainians. They are short of everything,” said Judy Dempsey, non-resident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe. “Ukraine really needs the means [to fight back], but they aren’t getting it.”


This brings to my mind many questions which I do not see being asked in public space in Europe let alone being answered.

Those who follow the Washington narrative, meaning the entire mainstream media in Europe, are formally in denial that Ukraine is losing its war even if articles like the one I have cited above allow one to believe the opposite is true. Meanwhile, antiwar activists who publish online blame the European leadership for their abandonment of all pretence at sovereignty following the start of Russia’s Special Military Operation and slavishly submitting to orders from Washington including the insistence on shipping all imaginable offensive weapons systems to Ukraine however much that prolongs a war that is killing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers. If only the Old Continent stood up to the Americans, everything would be fine. No one in the antiwar camp really cares to deal with the question of armories going bare. The mood is ‘so much the better.’

I believe that European leaders’ slavish subordination to diktats from Washington especially since the start of the war in Ukraine resulted not from character defects but from their horror upon realizing that the Continent was totally dependent on the USA for its defense in the face of an enraged and militarily superior Russia that was no longer talking but acting.

How could Europe be defenseless?  After all, putting aside the issue of meeting or not meeting the 2% of GDP spending on defense, which the United States has been hammering away at ever since the Obama Administration, the European member countries of NATO have for a long time had military budgets which taken together exceed by many times the Russian defense budget. 

In Western media, Russia is seen as the vastly overpowering side, pitted against an enemy, Ukraine, which has one-third its population. However, the war very quickly turned out to be a proxy war between Russia and the whole Collective West. As seen from Moscow, the European military forces altogether comprised men at arms on the order of 3 million men, exceeding by five times Russia’s 600,000 man army?   Given the relative numbers of men at arms and of military budgets in this broader context, one has to reconsider who is the David and who, the Goliath. And this is so even without taking into account the discrepancy in gross GDP between Russia and the EU, remembering that, rightly or wrongly, our analysts routinely take GDP as an indicator of hard power.

The question that necessarily follows is where did all the European defense money go these last ten years or more?  Into whose pockets or to enrich which domestic arms manufacturers while getting nothing useful in return? 

I highlight the possibility of massive corruption across Europe in the defense domain in light of the allegations that Putin runs a deeply corrupt and “kleptocratic” regime. That story has been incessantly promoted in our newspapers and electronic media ever since the start of the Information War in 2007. Somehow, somewhere those hundreds of billions supposedly pilfered from the Russian state by Putin & Co. and salted away in foreign bank accounts seem to have gone to build Russian defenses. Judging by what we see on the battlefield of Ukraine today, those assets were in fact invested in building the world’s largest store of munitions and industrial capacity relevant to the biggest ground war in European history since 1945. What we do not yet see, thank heavens, is the Russian investment in strategic nuclear weapons systems, including their hypersonic missiles on land, sea and air. The nuclear dimension places Russia as much as a decade in the lead in the arms race with the USA.

Quite separately from the fashionable topic of the strategic autonomy of Europe, there was a lot of talk in the past decade about aligning defense priorities, about better coordinating military production and procurement among EU member states. Judging by the present situation, we might conclude that nothing worthwhile occurred. Did U.S. meddling have something to do with these failures of Europe to stand on its own two feet, or was it the incompetence of European leaders who came to the fore in deeply flawed electoral processes and dependence on formation of coalition governments that lack policy principles and exist only for the sake of seizing and holding power?

Until these questions are asked and answered satisfactorily, the idea of any fix to the European security architecture is pointless.

 It would be nice, though I imagine it is asking too much of them, if the attendees at the Munich Security Conference that opens this weekend spent a few minutes pondering the questions I have posed. Given their refusal to receive a Russian delegation, they will have plenty of idle time on their hands.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023

Translations below into French (Youri), German (Andreas Mylaeus) and Brazilian Portuguese (Evandro Menezes)

L’Europe est sans défense. Qui est à blâmer ?

L’édition de ce matin du Financial Times contenait un article assez dramatique intitulé « Un an de guerre en Ukraine a laissé les arsenaux de l’Europe à sec ».

Le contenu de cet article est que, comme les réunions très médiatisées des ministres européens de la défense à Bruxelles ces deux derniers jours, et les déclarations devant les journalistes du secrétaire général de l’OTAN Jens Stoltenberg concernant l’incapacité des fabricants européens de défense à répondre aux besoins quotidiens actuels de l’armée ukrainienne en obus d’artillerie – tout cela prépare en quelque sorte le public européen à l’effondrement prévisible de l’armée ukrainienne dans les prochaines semaines de l’offensive de printemps de la Russie. La logique est que nous n’étions tout simplement pas prêts pour une telle guerre.

Pour se faire une idée de cette argumentation, permettez-moi de citer un extrait de l’article susmentionné :

L’Europe a réagi à l’invasion du président russe Vladimir Poutine avec une incrédulité initiale. Les capitales qui avaient auparavant déclaré qu’il n’avait pas l’intention de le faire ont ensuite dûment prédit que Kiev tomberait en quelques jours. Mais cette réaction a rapidement fait place à un niveau d’unité et de soutien qui a défié les attentes et les habitudes.

Les armées privées de financement par des gouvernements qui avaient depuis longtemps rejeté l’idée d’une guerre en Europe ont creusé profondément et, en quelques semaines, les armes ont afflué vers l’est à travers la frontière polono-ukrainienne (tandis que les réfugiés affluaient dans l’autre sens).

Mais près de 12 mois de guerre exténuante, au cours de laquelle les troupes de Poutine ont pris pour cible des infrastructures civiles et des objectifs militaires, ont exercé une pression immense sur le secteur européen de la défense mal préparé. Les usines européennes sont à peine capables de fabriquer suffisamment d’obus pour répondre aux besoins de l’Ukraine pendant une semaine. Les délais d’attente pour certaines munitions ont plus que doublé.

« Les choses ne vont pas bien pour les Ukrainiens. Ils manquent de tout », a déclaré Judy Dempsey, chargée de mission non résidente à Carnegie Europe. « L’Ukraine a vraiment besoin de moyens [pour se défendre], mais elle ne les obtient pas ».

Fin de citation

Cela me fait penser à de nombreuses questions qui ne sont pas posées dans l’espace public en Europe, et encore moins à des réponses.

Ceux qui suivent le récit de Washington, c’est-à-dire l’ensemble des médias dominants en Europe, nient formellement que l’Ukraine est en train de perdre sa guerre, même si des articles comme celui que j’ai cité plus haut permettent de penser le contraire. Pendant ce temps, les militants anti-guerre qui publient en ligne reprochent aux dirigeants européens d’avoir abandonné toute prétention à la souveraineté après le début de l’opération militaire spéciale de la Russie et de s’être servilement soumis aux ordres de Washington, notamment en insistant pour expédier à l’Ukraine tous les systèmes d’armes offensives imaginables, même si cela prolonge une guerre qui tue des centaines de milliers de soldats ukrainiens. Si seulement le Vieux Continent tenait tête aux Américains, tout irait bien. Personne dans le camp anti-guerre ne se soucie vraiment de la question des arsenaux vides. L’humeur est à « c’est tant mieux ».

Je pense que la soumission servile des dirigeants européens aux diktats de Washington, en particulier depuis le début de la guerre en Ukraine, ne résulte pas d’un défaut de caractère mais de l’horreur qu’ils ont ressentie en réalisant que le continent était totalement dépendant des États-Unis pour sa défense face à une Russie enragée et militairement supérieure qui ne parlait plus mais agissait.

Comment l’Europe peut-elle être sans défense ?  Après tout, si l’on met de côté la question du respect ou non des 2% du PIB consacrés à la défense, que les États-Unis ne cessent de réclamer depuis l’administration Obama, les pays européens membres de l’OTAN disposent depuis longtemps de budgets militaires qui, pris ensemble, dépassent de plusieurs fois le budget de la défense russe.

Dans les médias occidentaux, la Russie est considérée comme la partie la plus puissante, face à un ennemi, l’Ukraine, qui compte un tiers de sa population. Cependant, la guerre s’est très vite révélée être une guerre par procuration entre la Russie et l’ensemble de l’Occident collectif. Vu de Moscou, l’ensemble des forces militaires européennes comprenait des hommes en armes comptant environ 3 millions d’hommes, dépassant de cinq fois l’armée russe de 600 000 hommes. Compte tenu du nombre relatif d’hommes en armes et des budgets militaires dans ce contexte plus large, il faut se demander qui est le David et qui est le Goliath. Et ce, même sans tenir compte de l’écart entre le PIB brut de la Russie et celui de l’UE, en se rappelant que, à tort ou à raison, nos analystes prennent systématiquement le PIB comme indicateur de la force dure.

La question qui s’ensuit nécessairement est de savoir où est allé tout l’argent de la défense européenne ces dix dernières années ou plus ? Dans les poches de qui ou pour enrichir quels fabricants d’armes nationaux sans rien obtenir d’utile en retour ?

Je souligne la possibilité d’une corruption massive en Europe dans le domaine de la défense à la lumière des allégations selon lesquelles Poutine dirige un régime profondément corrompu et « kleptocratique ». Depuis le début de la guerre de l’information en 2007, nos journaux et nos médias électroniques n’ont cessé de promouvoir cette histoire. D’une manière ou d’une autre, les centaines de milliards de dollars prétendument dérobés à l’État russe par Poutine et Cie et placés sur des comptes bancaires étrangers semblent avoir servi à construire les défenses russes. À en juger par ce que nous voyons aujourd’hui sur le champ de bataille de l’Ukraine, ces actifs ont en fait été investis dans la construction du plus grand stock de munitions et de la plus grande capacité industrielle du monde, en vue de la plus grande guerre terrestre de l’histoire européenne depuis 1945. Ce que nous ne voyons pas encore, Dieu merci, c’est l’investissement russe dans les systèmes d’armes nucléaires stratégiques, y compris leurs missiles hypersoniques sur terre, en mer et dans les airs. La dimension nucléaire place la Russie en tête de la course aux armements avec les États-Unis avec une dizaine d’années d’avance.

Indépendamment du sujet en vogue concernant l’autonomie stratégique de l’Europe, on a beaucoup parlé au cours de la dernière décennie de l’alignement des priorités en matière de défense, d’une meilleure coordination de la production et des achats militaires entre les États membres de l’UE. À en juger par la situation actuelle, nous pourrions conclure que rien de valable ne s’est produit. L’ingérence des États-Unis a-t-elle quelque chose à voir avec ces échecs de l’Europe à se tenir sur ses deux pieds, ou est-ce l’incompétence des dirigeants européens qui s’est manifestée par des processus électoraux profondément défectueux et la dépendance à l’égard de la formation de gouvernements de coalition dépourvus de principes politiques et n’existant que dans le but de s’emparer du pouvoir et de le conserver ?

Tant que ces questions ne sont pas posées et qu’il n’y est pas répondu de manière satisfaisante, l’idée d’une quelconque correction de l’architecture de sécurité européenne est inutile.

Il serait bon, même si j’imagine que c’est trop leur demander, que les participants à la conférence de Munich sur la sécurité qui s’ouvre ce week-end consacrent quelques minutes à réfléchir aux questions que j’ai posées. Étant donné leur refus de recevoir une délégation russe, ils auront beaucoup de temps libre à leur disposition.

A Europa está indefesa. Quem é o culpado?

A edição desta manhã do Financial Times trouxe um artigo bastante drástico, intitulado: “Um ano de guerra na Ucrânia deixou os arsenais da Europa vazios”.

O conteúdo deste artigo, como as amplamente divulgadas reuniões dos ministros de defesa da Europa em Bruxelas nos últimos dois dias e as declarações perante os jornalistas do Secretário-Geral da OTAN, Jens Stoltenberg, sobre a incapacidade dos fabricantes europeus de armamentos para atender as atuais necessidades diárias do Exército ucraniano de projéteis de artilharia, tudo isto, está de certa forma preparando o público europeu para o provável colapso do exército ucraniano nas próximas semanas da ofensiva de primavera da Rússia. A lógica é que simplesmente não estávamos prontos para tal guerra.

Para se ter uma idéia sobre esta discussão, cito o artigo acima mencionado:

A Europa respondeu inicialmente com descrença à invasão do presidente russo, Vladimir Putin. As capitais que haviam declarado anteriormente que não tinham planos de fazê-lo, previram… que Kiev cairia em dias. Mas isto rapidamente foi substituído por um nível de unidade e apoio que desafiou tanto as expectativas como os antecedentes.

Exércitos carentes de financiamento, por governos que há muito rejeitaram a noção duma guerra na Europa, rasparam o tacho e, em semanas, as armas estavam fluindo para o leste através da fronteira entre a Polônia e a Ucrânia, enquanto os refugiados fluíam para o outro lado.

Mas quase 12 meses duma guerra extenuante, na qual as tropas de Putin visaram tanto a infraestrutura civil como alvos militares, colocaram uma pressão imensa no despreparado setor de defesa da Europa. As fábricas da Europa mal conseguem produzir o suficiente para suprir as necessidades da Ucrânia por uma semana. O tempo de espera para algumas munições mais que dobrou.

“As coisas não estão indo bem para os ucranianos. Eles estão com falta de tudo”, disse Judy Dempsey, membro sênior não residente da Carnegie Europa. “A Ucrânia realmente precisa de meios [para se defender], mas eles não estão os recebendo.”

Isto me lembra muitas perguntas que não me parece estarem sendo feitas em público na Europa, muito menos respondidas.

Aqueles que acompanham a narrativa de Washington, ou seja, toda a grande mídia na Europa, negam formalmente que a Ucrânia esteja perdendo sua guerra, mesmo que artigos, como o que citei acima, permitam acreditar que o oposto é a verdade. Enquanto isto, ativistas contra a guerra que publicam na internet culpam a liderança européia por seu abandono de toda pretensão de soberania, após o início da Operação Militar Especial da Rússia, e por se submeterem servilmente às ordens de Washington, incluindo a insistência em enviar todos os sistemas de armas ofensivas imagináveis para a Ucrânia, por mais que isto prolongue uma guerra que está matando centenas de milhares de soldados ucranianos. Se ao menos o Velho Continente enfrentasse os estadunidenses, tudo ficaria bem. Ninguém do lado contra a guerra realmente se preocupa em lidar com a questão dos arsenais ficarem vazios. O clima é “quanto mais, melhor”.

Creio que a subordinação servil dos líderes europeus aos ditames de Washington, especialmente desde o início da guerra na Ucrânia, resultou não de defeitos de caráter, mas de seu horror ao perceberem que o continente era totalmente dependente dos EUA para sua defesa diante de um país antagonista e militarmente superior como a Rússia, que não apenas falava, mas agia.

Como a Europa poderia estar indefesa? Afinal, deixando de lado a questão de se cumprirem ou não os 2% do PIB em gastos com defesa, que os Estados Unidos vêm martelando desde o governo Obama, os países europeus membros da OTAN há muito têm orçamentos militares que juntos excedem em muitas vezes o orçamento de defesa russo.

Na mídia ocidental, a Rússia é vista como um lado extremamente poderoso, enfrentando um inimigo, a Ucrânia, que tem um terço de sua população. No entanto, a guerra rapidamente se tornou uma guerra por procuração entre a Rússia e todo o Ocidente coletivamente. Como visto de Moscou, as forças militares européias no total compreendiam homens armados na ordem de 3 milhões de homens, excedendo em cinco vezes o exército de 600.000 homens da Rússia. Dados os números relativos de homens armados e de orçamentos militares neste contexto mais amplo, é preciso se reconsiderar quem é o Davi e quem é o Golias. E isto mesmo sem levar em conta a discrepância do PIB bruto entre a Rússia e a UE, lembrando que, com ou sem razão, nossos analistas rotineiramente tomam o PIB como um indicador de poder coercitivo.

A pergunta que necessariamente se segue é para onde foi todo o dinheiro da defesa européia nos últimos dez anos ou mais. Para os bolsos de quem ou para enriquecer quais fabricantes de armas locais, sem se receber nada de útil em troca?

Destaco a possibilidade de corrupção maciça no domínio da defesa em toda a Europa à luz das alegações de que Putin dirige um regime profundamente corrupto e “cleptocrático”. Essa história tem sido promovida incessantemente em nossos jornais e mídia eletrônica desde o início da Guerra da Informação em 2007. De alguma forma, em algum lugar, essas centenas de bilhões, supostamente roubadas do estado russo por Putin e companhia e escondidos em contas bancárias estrangeiras, parecem que foram usadas para construir as defesas russas. A julgar pelo que hoje vemos no campo de batalha da Ucrânia, esses ativos foram de fato investidos na construção do maior estoque de munições e capacidade industrial do mundo, relevante para a maior guerra terrestre da história européia desde 1945. O que ainda não vemos, graças a Deus , é o investimento russo em sistemas estratégicos de armas nucleares, incluindo seus mísseis hipersônicos em terra, mar e ar. A dimensão nuclear coloca a Rússia há mais de uma década na liderança da corrida armamentista com os EUA.

Independentemente do tema em voga, a autonomia estratégica da Europa, falou-se muito na última década sobre o alinhamento das prioridades de defesa, sobre uma melhor coordenação da produção e aquisição militares entre os estados membros da UE. A se julgar pela situação atual, pode-se concluir que nada efetivamente aconteceu. A intromissão dos EUA teve algo a ver com estas falhas da Europa em se manter independente, ou foi a incompetência dos líderes europeus que se destacaram em processos eleitorais profundamente falhos e na dependência da formação de governos de coalizão, que carecem de princípios políticos e existem apenas para tomar e manter o poder?

Até que estas perguntas sejam feitas e respondidas satisfatoriamente, a idéia de qualquer correção da arquitetura de segurança européia é inútil.

Seria bom, embora imagine que seja pedir muito deles, se os participantes da Conferência de Segurança de Munique, que começa neste fim de semana, passassem alguns minutos refletindo sobre estas perguntas. Dada a sua recusa em receber uma delegação russa, eles terão demasiado tempo ocioso em suas mãos.

14 thoughts on “Europe is defenseless. Who is to blame?

  1. I think the answers to your questions are prosaic. After spending decades behind the American defence umbrella, European armies became bloated with overhead costs and basically incapable of fighting. All the talk of European defence went nowhere for the same reason. It was simply too easy and comfortable to leave things as they were. Corruption is not the story, it is just one of sloth and laziness. Nato was never a threat to Russia, as the Russian command surely knew only too well. Nato just serves as a very convenient tool for rallying the troops.


    1. NATO was never a threat to Russia? You misunderstand the meaning of threat in international relations. A threat is the capability of other states to inflict damage on you, and has nothing whatsoever to do with their intentions, which are unknowable and, in any case, are always changeable.


      1. Dear Gilbert,

        I am very naive and ignorant about geopolitics and international relations, but I am trying to educate myself. And I am in desperate need of good sources/literature on this. For example, when somebody says that “NATO was not a threat to Russia because it is not crazy enough to attack Russia full on” a response could be that “There are other ways to project military power, not necessarily a full on war”. I generally agree with the latter statement, but I lack specific examples and basic background to argue intelligibly about things like that. Anyways, statements like your “A threat is the capability of other states …” does have that proper “ring” to it, for me at least, like it could have been following from that basic background I am missing at present. Would you suggest any books/papers where things like “A threat is the capability of other states …” are discussed logically and “mechanistically” (i.e., without invoking, to the extent possible, emotional terminology like “brutal” etc).
        As a side note, I wanted to add, that I am scientist (a physicist), and I gave up hoping at some point that anything can be understood in international relations the way things can be understood in physics. Rigor is missing. However, statements like “a threat is the capability ..” do give me hope that if one breaks through the typical emotional/propagandistic screen, things could be understood much more rigorously. Thanks a lot for this hope! Заранее огромное спасибо!!!


  2. You say NATO was never a threat to Russia, but then against whom were these troops being rallied constantly? NATO is first and foremost an anti-Russian alliance, and even with the paucity of troops and equipment, it has managed to create a sufficient amount of damage and Russophobic hysteria for which, in conformity with Western tradition, it will hardly ever be held accountable.


  3. “Nato was never a threat to Russia”

    Considering the mayhem NATO unleashed from Libya to Iraq, Afghanistan to Serbia, one might want to differ.
    Maybe not in a direct confrontation, but in its capacity to select proxies, as the current situation with Ukraine demonstrates, to fight Russia or even China to the last of the proxies’ soldiers.


  4. It was clear in Feb 2022, and clearer now.
    Nobody expected a Russian invasion because EVERYONE expected a Ukrainian attack on Donbas.
    After all Zelensky had promised one already, shelling of the Donbas was up, defence positons were being built in front of Donbas over 8 years. The US prediction was clearly a prediction of the False Flag required to trigger Ukraine’s actual invasion (US wars always start with a false flag).

    So I’m quite bored with the idea of the unprovoked invasion, it was a reaction to the clearly planned Ukrainian attack and pre-empted it.
    Anyone with any lingering doubts should look at precisely where the Ukrainian armed forces were stationed while the US was loudly predicting a Russian invasion. They were all lined up outside Donbas. None, actually none of the Ukraine forces, were defending their northern or southern borders with Russia.


  5. Please, give the Ukrainians more. Much more. Everything. Lots of target practice for the Russians.

    More importantly, the less military crap the EU has the more vulnerable these rat states will be when their own citizenry decide to take matters into their collective hands. Best that the Bad Guys know and feel they are disarmed. And lose confidence. And that regular folks see that very well. And are more confident.


  6. The basic fact is that Europe does not have sufficient commitment to arming itself. Recent European armaments products such as the French ‘Rafael’ and the Anglo-German ‘Eurofighter’ are not nearly as potent as comparable US, Russian and Chinese planes. The same is true for warships and tanks. South Korea and probably even North Korea and Japan are similarly ahead of Europe. The problem is not money or technological knowledge, but the application of those to defence. Europe has been content to sit under the US umbrella, and until it musters the will to stand up for itself, will continue to be merely a US pawn. Current US trade measures may provide that impetus, but the existing ruling parties, or at least their supine leaderships, will have to be replaced before change can occur.


    1. The European armaments industry has been dominated by NATO procurement practices for seventy five years. Both French and British airplane development has been hobbled by the fact that NATO’s largest military will almost never buy anything not made in one Congressional district or another.
      Europe “arming itself” means Europe buying US products.
      But the truth is that Europe-and I am referring to the pre 1990 NATO members-only armed itself to fight its colonial wars. It understood that the only threat in Europe was to military jobs, if the public came to act on the realisation that there was no prospect of conventional warfare on the continent. And that, they might spend vast amounts and arm themselves to the teeth but the Americans were not going to leave-they were an occupying force, saying, as occupiers generally will “We are here to protect you” (if need by from your-Bolshie-selves).


  7. The only reason Zelenskiy and Biden’s Bandera Nazis are still in this game is due to Russia’s gentle forbearance.

    GFW Hegel, The Philosophy of History, “What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.”

    Ukraine is a failed state that hasn’t been able to offer its citizens work, hope and human rights since it was formed. The idea the most corrupt nation in Europe could wage a successful war is laughable. Russia won this war because they attack, defend, and move their units when and where they please. US-NAYOYO and their AFU quislings can only fight this war from press conferences. These facts point to an inevitable Russian victory using insignificant fractions of their barely mobilized army and nation.

    There should be no contest between Russia and NAYOYO given the vast differences in military budgets. The US has always had the most expensive military, health care and education, but they don’t have the best in any of these sectors. This will cripple Golden Billion confidence as it becomes clear NAYOYO defence budgets were never about defence. The lost money was always about US domestic politics, corporate greed, and political corruption.

    William Casey (CIA Director 1981-1987): “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    Ukraine’s Defence Minister, Oleksii Reznikov (Davos World Economic Forum): “We [Ukraine] are carrying out NATO’s mission today. They aren’t shedding their blood. We’re shedding ours. That’s why they’re required to supply us with weapons.”

    The first AFU army deserted in 2014 & 2015 with entire units including armour, artillery, weapons, and supplies going over to Donetsk and Lugansk. The second AFU army deserted to Europe and Russia after April 2014. Four recalled reservist classes refused enlistment at rates of 70%, 80%, 90% and 95% rates. As late as 2017, 70% refused recall, and the other 30% went to the republics. Russian’s recent reservist recall easily brought in the projected 200,000 plus 80,000+ volunteers.

    Ukraine maintains its army in the field solely by shooting any objectors or deserters. AFU ‘recruiters’ are reduced to zip tying chubby, greying guys and 16 year olds, press ganging them into the AFU Volkssturm. It’s the peacenik 73% that are pushed up against Wagner, Chechen, and Russian Oblasts hardened warriors to die, not Ukraine’s Defence Minister or cowardly Bandera criminals. Russia now hopes for a third AFU army so they can complete the destruction of NAYOYO’s military credibility.

    Vladimir Putin, July 7, 2022: “We hear today that they want us to be defeated on the battlefield. Well, what can I say? Let them try. We haven’t even really started anything yet.”

    This war was started to support Biden’s mid-term political hopes by crippling Russia. Russia has comprehensively ground AFU units to dust using roughly 15% of Russian forces, much less than the soldiers Ukraine deployed behind long developed defences. Russia faced a Nato trained and equipped army larger than most Nato armies, fighting from prepared defensive positions, outnumbering Russians by a 3 to 1 ratio. The idea of facing Russia’s completely mobilized army must scare the crap out of NATO’s General Staff and political leadership.

    Winston Churchill (1944): ”I have left the obvious, essential fact to this point, namely, that it is the Russian Armies who have done the main work in tearing the guts out of the [Nazi] army.”

    Russia’s economy has never looked stronger while the EU looks set to collapse into a long depression under punishing energy, food, and raw material shortages. It’s ironic the White West appears ridiculously weak politically, economically, and militarily. And Russia has never been more united, stronger economically and militarily, with impressive foreign reputation gains.

    Eduardo Galeano: “My great fear is that we are all suffering from amnesia. It’s not a person. It’s a system of power that is always deciding in the name of humanity who deserves to be remembered and who deserves to be forgotten.”


  8. You are right that W European militaries and even the American military were not configured in 2021 to fight the sort of war that happened in Ukraine in 2022: artillery heavy and hardly any airpower on either side. Russia has very large shell stockpiles as well as shell production capacity greater than that of the entire West.

    However it is also true that Russia can find no hamlet in Ukraine small enough not to be held up for weeks and even months trying to dislodge the Ukrainians. That insignificant spot on the map with a prewar population of 1000 people, that’s a new Verdun for Russia (every single time!), with hurrahs when a new street of dilapidated dachas is reached. Europe faces zero prospect of a Russian army advancing into it. At the current rate of advance, it will take hundreds of years to reach Dnepr, let alone Kiev.

    And I say this as a pro-Russian! I actually want Russia to make faster progress!

    My best guess for how this war ends is when either Ukraine literally runs out of men it can press gang into sending to the front, or Russian forces attrition from banging their heads against little villages that feature the unbeatable (for Russia) technology of concrete buildings, and lead to a sparse Russian defensive line that the Ukrainians break through (because Putin doesn’t want to do another mobilization)


Comments are closed.