Tell Me How This War Ends

The question of how the NATO-Russia mother of all proxy wars in Ukraine ends and how far west the Russian Army will have to advance to end it are hotly debated topics, even among mutual friends.

Here at ESW we've noticed the migration by investment industry, anxious not to alienate potential clients from both Russia and the Ukraine, tends to downplay or ignore the Ukraine War. With a few exceptions at the other extreme point, the alt media tends to see direct shooting war between the US/NATO and Russia with her Chinese, North Korean and Iranian allies aka WW3 as imminent to the point that their audience gets nuclear war dread fatigue (think of the exhausted and institutionalized Sarah Connor we meet at the start of Terminator 2: Judgment Day). Some Russia-sympathetic alt sites obsess over bits of villages changing hands frontline minutiae in much the same way pro-Ukrainian bloggers and NAFOids on Twitter have convinced themselves some game-changing wunderwaffen will soon turn a losing war of attrition to Kiev's favor.

Our buddy Tim Kirby, ever the Midwestern optimist even after nearly two decades living in Russia, says Washington's Project Ukraine is being wound down, and peace negotiations are likely imminent in 2025. We think Tim and the optimists have many valid points: American and European public opinion especially the counter-establishment around Elon Musk have come out against continuing the war or have simply started tuning out the pro-Kiev cheerleaders. Western journalists and even a few think tankists and natsec/miltwitter ers have started reporting some of the shocking losses (with entire battalions wiped out leaving increasingly rehashed and skeletal UAF brigades) amid severe manpower shortages of Ukrainian front line troops. Over the last two years, European NATO has basically shipped its entire modern artillery park to Ukraine and many of NATO's frontline battle tanks, which have proven extremely vulnerable to Russian drones and missiles.

And yet, the war--despite appearing hopeless for the wartime Zelensky dictatorship's stated goals of returning to Ukraine's 1991 borders--grinds on and on. Self-proclaimed 'friends of Ukraine' say this proves Ukrainians will never submit to Russian domination again, presuming against all available evidence that conquering the whole Ukraine was Moscow's objective to begin with as opposed to securing the more ethnically Russian southeastern oblasts. Cynics say the continued grind has more to do with the spigots of Western money and the Zelensky regime's ability to keep press-ganging men off Ukrainian streets. Many Ukrainian small towns and city streets have become nearly deserted by males between the ages of 16 and 60. It also has to do with NATO testing new weapons and concepts as it acknowledges many of its AirLandBattle legacy concepts leftover from the WWIII envisioned in 1980s Europe are obsolete in the age of drone-saturated battlefronts.

The worst part for those of us opposed to continued escalation is, that thus far Atlanticist elites who hate Russia (many of them bearing ancestral grudges of Eastern European origins) truly believe they've successfully called Moscow's bluffs at retaliation again and again. Even while the Pentagon takes the risk of Russian tactical nuclear warheads use quite seriously indeed, if Bob Woodward's latest book War is to be believed. We could add to this point the cost-free Ukraine escalation neolibcon Blob dismissing Russia's very real and increasingly feared in the US DoD/UK MoD capabilities for retaliation via arming Mideast proxies led by the Houthis to strike American and especially British bases and warships. The fact that since August 2024 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or permanently removed from the battlefield with grievous wounds for their and Zelensky's folly is immaterial to such game theorizing sociopaths from Washington and London. But the late summer Ukrainian Army invasion of Kursk Oblast, as doomed and immediately bottled-up as it has turned out to be, was according to journalist Kit Klarenberg dreamed up by the British general staff. The same pompous jackass British generals who commanded the best NATO armor Ukraine received drive directly into the thickest Russian minefield laid down since the Kursk salient in 1943.

Lest we forget: That time a retired British Army officer pronounced prior to the vaunted Ukrainian Summer 2023 offensive a beach party for UAF Challenger tankers in Crimea

Nonetheless, the Kursk invasion was dreamt up as a proof of concept for NATO read Polish troops with Anglo-American-Canadian special forces advisors 'leading from behind' seizing internationally recognized Russian territory in Kaliningrad oblast--without provoking mushroom clouds blooming across Russian-nuked European NATO bases in retaliation. A very dangerous proof-of-concept indeed.

For his part, ESW's Eurasia Editor Stanislav Krapivnik says Russia will likely have to keep advancing and destroying combined NATO/Ukrainian forces until her army reaches the Polish border. But especially in that scenario, the Collective West could well turn revanchist with a near-hot war strategy of tension useful for suppressing dissent at home. The Democrats and their Atlanticist allies in the Russia-obsessed British deep state are already warming up a stab-in-the-back myth about MAGA Trump voters having 'betrayed Ukraine'. We foresee NATO threats to exploit Finland or Poland as bases for nuclear-tipped hypersonic missiles persisting. These weapons--when the US finally gets hypersonic missiles figured out after falling embarrassingly behind the Russians and Chinese--would be just a few minutes if not seconds flight time from Russia's chief 'boomer bastion' naval base at Murmansk. Such missiles like the Pershing 2s of the early 1980s would also threaten a possible Dead Hand-activating decapitation strike on Moscow, pressing the Kremlin to respond in kind with hypersonic nuke-tipped Zircons on ultra-quiet subs patrolling off the eastern seaboard (or even in Cuba again), placing the world on hair trigger of megadeath.

For our part, we'd tend to agree with Stas that only a major socioeconomic event in the heart of the Empire itself, above all the loss of the dollar's world reserve currency status (something far more significant than the re-election of Donald Trump) can ease the trans-Atlantic globalist string pullers centuries-old hostility toward Russia. Or at least keep the globalists preoccupied with maintaining control over their core Western states. Here we must remind Z maximalists that NATO suffering military humiliation with undeniable losses of its latest equipment and thousands of sheep-dipped 'volunteer' combatants from its member countries is a looming, but hardly sufficient, condition for a massive shift in the world order. The pen and blockchain truly is mightier than the sword, even as Russia resurges from this war with the world's most battle-hardened army. This week's BRICS Summit in Kazan will likely prove more important to historians of the 21st century than the grinding urban battles fought for the Donbass. But the battles are what Russian boys will remember in their school lessons in 2045, not the rising powers instituting a new, dedollarizing BRICS+ version of Bretton Woods.

With that all said, while we rarely present third party content from people we don't know here at the ESW Patreon, we are reposting the debate hosted by The Duran this past week. John Helmer, an old leftist and the longest serving foreign correspondent in Moscow since it was still the USSR in 1991, vs Gilbert Doctorow, an American gentleman scholar who splits his time between Brussels and the St Petersburg suburbs.

Helmer presents his viewpoint that a pro-City of London oligarch-serving Fifth Column is wildly eager to bargain away what Russia has earned with blood on the battlefield. Doctorow after some initial irritation responds to Helmer with what I regard as a more coolly realistic position, that there's no indication of any imminent Minsk 3.0/Istanbul 2.0 deal, even in the unlikely event Donald Trump enters the White House on January 20, 2025. And that Russia will continue the war through a decisive victory over NATO that will largely destroy the capacity of Ukraine to serve as an instrument of proxy warfare on the Russian Federation. Even if this comes at a horrendous cost to Ukrainians and Russians alike.

For Putin as well as millions of Russians, this war has long passed the point of becoming existential, whereas for the Collective West it's primarily a question of elite and pseudo-elites loss of face and the aura of military supremacy they've cultivated largely through Hollywood as well as think tank propaganda. Ask the Germans how being on the losing end of the last existential war the Russians fought turned out for their fathers and grandfathers. Most American and British military UAF volunteers active on X have not contemplated what standing in the role of the Volkssturm commandant rounding up teenage boys, old men and some girls to fight in the rubble of a downtown Kharkov that resembles the Battle of Berlin scenes from Der Untergang will be like for them. Nor have they considered if they got their way and NATO sharply escalated by overtly sending Vietnam War in the early 1960s-style advisors, once American-flag draped caskets are coming back in non-disavowable numbers how many fellow Americans may start Googling the history of Lviv and western Ukrainian Nationalists in WW2 and decide that they've chosen...poorly.

UPDATE: We highly recommend this Substack post by Kevin Batcho, No Fury Like a Proxy Scorned:

In a gesture that feels more like being put in the friendzone than a meaningful extension of support, the Biden Administration did release a chump change arms package of just under $500 million. While this offering may seem like a lifeline, it pales in comparison to the billions previously poured into Ukraine’s war effort. It’s as if the U.S. is offering Ukraine a "consolation prize," a reminder that while they are not completely abandoning the relationship, the passionate, high-stakes alliance is clearly over. The message is unmistakable: Ukraine may still get occasional handouts, but the days of unwavering, no-limits support are behind them.

The breakup, however, is not just about rejection; it’s about setting new boundaries. By cancelling the summit and limiting future arms deliveries, the U.S. is signaling that Ukraine is no longer the centerpiece of its foreign policy agenda. For Ukraine, the sting of this rejection is more than just emotional—it’s a hard political and military reality.

The danger for the West after its raw and public rejection of Ukraine following years of exploiting its Western dreams is indeed palpable. The phrase "Hell hath no fury like a proxy scorned" captures the gravity of the risk. Ukraine has poured hundreds of thousands of lives into this war, sacrificed its future, and placed its faith in the West's promises of military, political, and economic support. For years, Ukraine has acted as a loyal partner, accepting every demand in the hopes of eventual victory, NATO membership, and the aid needed to rebuild its shattered nation. Now, with Western attention shifting to more immediate concerns like Israel, Ukraine may feel not only neglected but utterly betrayed.

Now that the promised victory over Russia and the prospect of NATO membership has been yanked away, Ukraine might lash out in unpredictable ways. The emotional toll of being sidelined after so much has been given may fuel erratic decisions. Already hardened by war, Ukraine's leadership could respond with bold and potentially destabilizing moves, aiming to remind the West of the costs of neglecting its ally. For Ukraine the prospect of being left out in the cold may stir violent and destructive impulses.

After Zelensky’s humiliation at Ramstein, he toured major European capitals and was treated little better than a leper. Even in London, where Zelensky had once been hailed as the second coming of Churchill, his requests for deep missile strikes into Russia were met with condescension. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer mocked his plea, dismissively stating, “no war is won by a single weapon.” Even hard-nosed pro-Russian observers, who had been irritated by Zelensky’s antics and signature green t-shirts over the past two years, felt a pang of sympathy. His dramatic fall from grace had the air of a Greek tragedy, evoking an almost reluctant compassion for the diminished Ukrainian leader.

On Wednesday, October 16th, a disgraced Zelensky addressed Ukraine’s parliament, well aware that none of his demands would be met. Yet, for the sake of pride, he had to make them before his people, who had sacrificed so much for the elusive promises of the West. It’s uncertain how many Ukrainians still cling to the Western dream, but to most outside observers, the futility of the speech was painfully obvious. Beneath the surface, though, the address was more than just a formality—it was, in essence, a spurned lover’s ultimatum to the West.

In the first point of Zelensky's "Victory Plan," he pleads for an immediate invitation to join NATO with full membership to follow. Zelensky is demanding a clear shift in Ukraine's relationship with the West. He is no longer satisfied with Ukraine’s "side chick," role, fulfilling the West's desires for a proxy in its competition with Russia without ever receiving the full commitment that comes with membership in the alliance. Zelensky’s call for an invitation to NATO is akin to a long-term partner who has grown tired of being kept on the sidelines, demanding that the West finally "pop the question" and make a formal commitment. It’s not enough to keep stringing Ukraine along with promises of support and aid—Ukraine wants the symbolic and material security of being fully "engaged" to NATO, solidifying its position in the West’s strategic plans. In short, they want NATO and the EU to “put a ring on it.”

The problem for Ukraine is that the West has already extracted nearly everything it wanted from Kiev and sees little reason to commit further. Any leverage Ukraine once had now lies decomposing in dismal burial grounds. From the West’s cold, pragmatic perspective, why buy the proxy when its blood and sacrifice are given freely?

-- James Smith

Editor-in-Chief and Publisher, ExitStrategy.World

October 20, 2024