Running after Pack, Part 1

It’s been 100 days since the onset of Putin’s (re-)invasion of Ukraine, on 24 February this year. Therefore, almost everybody is publishing reviews, summaries, or discussing ‘lessons learned’ about this war. Usually, I am opposing the ‘run after pack’-behaviour and going my own way. However, the last two days so much nonsense has been published around the world, and I’ve been asked so many related questions that this time I’m going to make an exception and offer my commentary, too — and that solely for one reason: to me it appears that too many people out there simply do not understand each other. Therefore, here’s the way I see things — in a much compressed way.

Mind: from my point of view, principal problem in this war is that — no matter what happens — everybody remains insistent on his/her own point of view, to the level where standpoints are turning into little else but sarcastically absurd dogmas. Furthermore, please mind my usual sarcasm, and feel ‘warned, up front’, that — as much as critical of it — I’m an outspoken ‘EU-fan’, and thus the following is likely to appear ‘EU-centric’ to many. Related recommendation: if you don’t like that, stop reading, right here. Thanks a lot.

From West to the East, the situation appears to look like this:

• 1.) USA: in the process of being ripped apart by a giant showdown between own oligarchy and whatever is left of republic, pluralism and democracy — masqueraded as ‘Democrat Marxists vs. Republican Freedom-fighters’ (while, actually, both parties are entirely incompetent but supported by the very same oligarchy) — the USA are treating itself, Europe, NATO and Ukraine in a similar fashion, too. The US oligarchy, which created the ‘problem China’ in interest of extracting (giant) profits, is nowadays insistent on the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as ‘Public Enemy №1’, and ‘letting Europeans solve their own problems on their own’. Therefore, the USA ‘must concentrate on the PRC/Pacific: there’s going to be a war there’, while the war in Ukraine is ‘another proxy conflict’, and thus ‘entirely uninteresting’. Now, considering the sad state of the ruined infrastructure and massive social problems and similar, at least a part of this is understandable. Less understandable is the approach of those US-Americans outright horny about ‘defeating Russia’ (few of whom were recommending nuclear-strikes on Russian troops as these were converging upon Ukraine, already before 24 February). Problem: both points of view are driven by the usual, short-sighted, approach, something like ‘traditional for the last 70 or so years’. As a result, the US ‘elites’ — whether oligarchy or intelligentsia — remain split: one part is insistent on ‘not our problem’, the other on ‘oh, this is another brilliant opportunity to pocket billions of taxpayer’s money’, and the third on, ‘we must do something’…Cold fact is that the USA need expansion to remain successful. Instead of expanding (into the space, just for example), the country is ‘fighting for market shares’ — at the cost of its own taxpayers, and that for decades already. What a surprise then that everybody (who matters) is preoccupied solely with extracting profits — so much so, the country is just out of fighting two 20-years-long wars in interest of corporate profits —and there’s no place for thinking beyond the tip of own nose (or depth of own pockets; your choice)? What a surprise that nobody is coming to the idea that the outcome of the war in Ukraine is going to be decisive not only for the status of Ukraine and Russia, or ‘Europe’, but that of the PRC and that of the entire ‘West’ — and that for decades in advance? Nah, all of that is unimportant, and thus the ‘war in distant Ukraine, which is not of higher-national-, only of limited corporate interest’, is ‘something not really relevant’…
• 2.) Europe: if there’s no unity in the USA, why should there be any in Europe? There was never anything like ‘united Europe’, so why start making exceptions from the rule, right now? Therefore, there can be no unified opinion regarding what to do with Putin’s Russia, and even less so about what to do with Ukraine: Europe must be discussed at least through the prisms ‘European Union’ (EU) and ‘NATO’.
• 2.A) EU is a disparate conglomerate of 27 different nations with 27 nationalisms (in many cases: chauvinism), 27 different governments, 27 different ‘higher national interests’, 27 different standards of living, traditions etc.

Where much of the EU is ‘at least similar’ is that because Ukraine is endemically corrupt, and was considered for something like ‘some strange country, out there in the East’ — principally because before 24 February hardly one of decision-makers anywhere between Lisbon, Helsinki and Nicosia knew anything more about Ukraine but ‘corruption’ — hardly anybody is ready to trust Ukrainian politicians. Make no mistakes: Zelensky might enjoy lots of popular support, whether at home or in the public of the EU, but he’s not enjoying it within circles of European decision-makers. ….and then there’s an element of shame, too — for decades of similarly-shortsighted, yet deeply corrupt foreign policy of appeasing dictators… Unsurprisingly, the only thing influential politicians of dominant EU-powers seem to agree about is that there is ‘a massive difference between Ukrainian oligarchy and its people’, and that ‘something needs to be done’.

On its own, this wouldn’t be as bad if it wouldn’t be so that, worst of all, most of decisions in the EU are brought on basis of intelligence reports — and, especially military-intelligence assessments — which, already since years, and so also through the last few days and weeks, are all stressing that Ukraine (i.e. Ukrainian Armed Forces) are ‘short of collapse’ . Yes, short of collapse — and that, ‘sometimes between now and the next three weeks’.

Seems, nobody cares about the fact that such intelligence assessments are based on ‘EU-standards’: on prejudice based on the fact that our own armed forces would fall apart if facing similar pressure like Ukrainians are facing. Nah, instead, multiple, glorious intelligence services of EU members are all doing little else but estimating the situation on basis of videos collected in the social media. What a surprise then about the ‘quality’ of conclusions they are drawing….or that nobody is paying attention about the (meanwhile: well-proven) fact that ‘Ukrainians are different’.

Unsurprising result: most of EU-governments are reluctant to provide heavy weapons: what if these end on the black market (see: ‘corruption’), or in Russian hands (see: ‘Ukraine is going to collapse’)….?

• 2.B) NATO: the mass of members cannot even think about Europe defending itself on its own, without the US supervision. This is including such ‘vocally anti-Putin’ NATO-members like the UK, Poland, and Baltic states, all of whom are sure, they’re better off between themselves and in cooperation with the USA, than with the EU — except when it comes to financial aid, of course. The few exceptions are either run by incompetents (see France and Poland), have entire gangs of incompetent generals within top ranks of their armed forces (see Germany and Italy), have a predominantly pro-Russia-population (Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria), are ruled by Putin-friends (see Hungary), or at least have strong oppositional blocks consisting of Putin-sponsored jerks (several East-European NATO-members). What a surprise then, NATO-members cannot think without US supervision either, and the entire conglomerate is just adding to the utmost disunity within the EU…
• 3.) Ukraine: the reform resulting in de-centralisation of not only the command system of armed forces, but also that of political power did ‘work’ in so far that it made much of corrupt oligarchy keen to defend the country from Putin’s aggression (to prevent getting overrun by the Russian oligarchy, of course). If I’m to ask, together with nationalism (in some cases: little else but pure chauvinism), this is what saved the country in the first days of war; perhaps what’s keeping it afloat ever since, too. However: that reform was unsuccessful in so far that it failed to sort out corruption and incompetence. With other words: yes, there is still endemic corruption within political and military top, and, worst of all, there is still widespread incompetence (just check the fall of Kherson and Melitopol, and a near-fall of Kharkiv, to know what I mean). The result is a big gap between ‘elites’ and ‘other people’: the top is insistent on unconditional Western help, pronto, but not ready to reform, introduce transparency and combat corruption. Problem is: because of this, opinions of 99% of Ukrainians — who sincerely want their country to join the EU and NATO (and thus introduce something like ‘Western standards of governance’) — simply do not matter.

….where the situation is really a ‘twin-edged sword’, because it seems the same Ukrainians simply have no idea just what kind of oligarchy and corruption are dominating all the ‘proud and superior Western democracies’. Perhaps somebody should remind Ukrainians that the very same circles that are rulling the EU of our days, have played the role of ‘Putin-enablers’, the last 20 or so years…?

• 4.) Russia: this one is easy, because all that matters is one character, and what he — and the clique supporting him in order to keep him and itself in power — think/s is in his/their own interests. Irony is that these interests can be summarised as strongly resembling those of the mass of people recently meeting in Davos: pocketing billions and remaining unaccountable. Correspondingly, any kind of pluralism = ‘Nazism’, ‘treachery’, ‘defeatism’, etc… And no critique is tolerated, of course. For this, Putin and his St Petersburger-Club are ready to ‘de-nazify’ Ukraine, indeed, the entire NATO — and to fight, literally, to the last Russian-, Separatist-, Chechen-, Armenian-, South Ossetian-, and Hezbollah-combatant, ‘period’.
• 5.) PR China: this one is as easy, too. The policy is that of ‘wait and see’: should the West get its stuff together and help Ukraine defeat Russia, Beijing will be ‘just’ curious to maintain status quo and get back to the business as usual’ (especially in regards of its — often ‘cordial’ — economic relations), free along the motto, ‘it’s the economy, stupid’….and versa vice: should the West fail, and Ukraine get defeated, then it’s going to be, ‘we told you so: our system always wins’.
• 6.) India: if Western ‘democracies’ can be as short-sighted and opportunistic to the level of immaturity as they are — why couldn’t India outmatch them in this discipline? Besides, Putin = Russia, and Russia = USSR, and USSR was such a great friend of India, while the bad, bad West was so unfriendly and keen to de-escalate the latest PR Chinese aggression, and then that with 400+ years of Western Imperialism and….well, it’s simply time for revenge, and thus it’s ‘good’ if Ukraine gets defeated by the Russians.

The fact Ukraine never invaded India, or used to be a part of that ‘friendly USSR’, is entirely irrelevant, of course: it’s as ignored by the Indians as the Hungarians, Greeks, Cypriots and Serbs are ignoring the fact that their ‘brotherly Russian Christians’ are deploying gangs of ‘Islamic barbarians’ — see Chechens and Hezbollah — to assault….hm… ‘brotherly Ukrainian Christians’…

• 7.) Sorry if I bunch all the others together on the same pile, but it’s like that: ‘the others’ are anywhere between ‘curious onlookers’ and ‘none of our business’. Some keenly supporting Putin because they think ‘Russia = USSR, our friend from the 1960s-1980s’; others, because they think Putin is serious in combating Western Imperialism that was massacring them for 500+ years — and not another corrupt thug (just like most of their own governments). Yet others for pure revanchism (see: time for ‘Putin to defeat the West, at least teach them a lesson’)….and all together are missing the actual point: ladies and gentlemen, if Putin’s dictatorship prevails in Ukraine, your own backside is going to be — or to remain — subjected to the very same kind of dictatorship, probably for the rest of your lives.

That much about ‘diplomacy’ and ‘politics’. Part 2 is going to cover military-related affairs.