With Ukraine peace efforts dead, the U.S. now confronts five active fronts—against Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and Yemen—with allies hesitant to share the burden.
Thanks! That’s a great idea for a sequel—and I’m already working on it. My approach will be to present five historical archetypes of military defeat as analogies for possible outcomes in the Ukraine war. These will include: the WWI Western Front, the Finnish Winter War, the U.S. Civil War, the WWI Eastern Front, and the Soviet-Afghan War. The first four scenarios offer models through which Russia ultimately prevails despite prolonged struggle or early setbacks. The fifth stands apart as the unlikely case in which Russia suffers a strategic defeat. By grounding contemporary analysis in these historic analogies, I hope to outline a range of plausible trajectories for the current war—though of course, any prediction will be outpaced by events.
Greatly appreciated. You have shown honesty, intelligence, depth of knowledge needed for this endeavour.
Anyone serious observing events understands that this level of analysis was absent from US and western foreign policy thinking about future relations with Russia.
Is it laziness, lack of intellectual curiosity, self absorption ?
Thank you for the generous words. I think one advantage I have is that I’m not trying to sell a particular conclusion. That independence gives me the space to focus on understanding rather than persuasion. Much of what passes for analysis in the media today is really just narrative management—driven less by curiosity than by institutional incentives to confirm what their audiences or employers want to hear. When you’re not tethered to that kind of agenda, it becomes easier to think clearly, ask better questions, and allow the complexity of events to speak for itself.
Exactly, yes, independence is the key word here. One does not know at the beginning where the intellectual journey is going to lead him. I called it honesty, in a sense of honestly following the truth.
Independent honest observer.
Is it real, when one feels we live in the post truth world, a different era, when lying is allowed, in media, in journalism, in academia. People always had arguments, always were promoting different positions, and, yes, always preferred positions that brought them or their tribe, party, family, something, money, power, fame...still one feels like there is no more an unwritten agreement that truth does exist and can still be found.
At the risk of sounding completely the isolationists in a world that has progressed so that isolation is as a practical matter impossible (Okay North Korea does a pretty good job of it) but the specter of continuing as is where is as foreign policy seems an impossible task. Tactically we should wait and see how the spring offensives play out on the east west axis of attack by Russian Federation forces. We will know a lot more by end of July. Just looking at the line of advance Putin won’t have to demand much, they will have occupied a good deal of what they want. Iran? Good luck with that Kleptocracy, perhaps time to let the Middle East come to terms with Sykes Picot? Sort the mess made over 100 years of unhappy arbitrary borders? We have great neighbors to the south of us in Central and South America, why do we insist on treating them as bastard children? One could go on. A foreign policy of disengagement and as Bismarck opined, Germany has no allies, Germany has no enemies, only its own interests. We need to concentrate on getting our own house in order. Spheres of influence worked fine for centuries. Managing the Dukes, that impact our nation has appeal. Otherwise, stay away from foreign entanglements. Some wise man said something to that effect some 200 plus years ago.
Thanks! Ideally the US would turn inward and get its own house in order. To do so they would have to adopt a less confrontational stance and/or deputize other nations to share the global policing load. This would include China and Russia but for the time being that is a step too far for US policy makers.
Very good read. Well structured. Liked the second paragraph a lot - the wording reminded me of some of your previous articles.
Somewhat related: how do you see India these days? Clearly it is not one of those flashpoints, but they seem to be playing a very carefully balanced dance between the USA and BRICS.
Thanks! Yes I reused the ADHD-Autism contrast since it is so powerful between Trump and Putin.
I tend to take a somewhat cynical view of the India–Pakistan dynamic, seeing it largely as a matter of political and military theater. Ideally, BRICS-aligned diplomats are working quietly behind the scenes to choreograph each side’s response—much like the role the U.S. played in managing the Iran–Israel confrontation last year—to prevent things from spiraling out of control. For India, the challenge is to demonstrate a sufficiently forceful response to Pakistan while carefully avoiding the kind of escalation that could ultimately veer toward a nuclear exchange.
Kevin,
an excellent piece. But I would like to see the sequel, and an attempt to answer the big question:
How will the war end?
With details and various scenarios.
Thanks! That’s a great idea for a sequel—and I’m already working on it. My approach will be to present five historical archetypes of military defeat as analogies for possible outcomes in the Ukraine war. These will include: the WWI Western Front, the Finnish Winter War, the U.S. Civil War, the WWI Eastern Front, and the Soviet-Afghan War. The first four scenarios offer models through which Russia ultimately prevails despite prolonged struggle or early setbacks. The fifth stands apart as the unlikely case in which Russia suffers a strategic defeat. By grounding contemporary analysis in these historic analogies, I hope to outline a range of plausible trajectories for the current war—though of course, any prediction will be outpaced by events.
Greatly appreciated. You have shown honesty, intelligence, depth of knowledge needed for this endeavour.
Anyone serious observing events understands that this level of analysis was absent from US and western foreign policy thinking about future relations with Russia.
Is it laziness, lack of intellectual curiosity, self absorption ?
Thank you for the generous words. I think one advantage I have is that I’m not trying to sell a particular conclusion. That independence gives me the space to focus on understanding rather than persuasion. Much of what passes for analysis in the media today is really just narrative management—driven less by curiosity than by institutional incentives to confirm what their audiences or employers want to hear. When you’re not tethered to that kind of agenda, it becomes easier to think clearly, ask better questions, and allow the complexity of events to speak for itself.
Exactly, yes, independence is the key word here. One does not know at the beginning where the intellectual journey is going to lead him. I called it honesty, in a sense of honestly following the truth.
Independent honest observer.
Is it real, when one feels we live in the post truth world, a different era, when lying is allowed, in media, in journalism, in academia. People always had arguments, always were promoting different positions, and, yes, always preferred positions that brought them or their tribe, party, family, something, money, power, fame...still one feels like there is no more an unwritten agreement that truth does exist and can still be found.
Thank you for your truthful effort.
Great analysis, love it.
Thanks so much—really appreciate that!
At the risk of sounding completely the isolationists in a world that has progressed so that isolation is as a practical matter impossible (Okay North Korea does a pretty good job of it) but the specter of continuing as is where is as foreign policy seems an impossible task. Tactically we should wait and see how the spring offensives play out on the east west axis of attack by Russian Federation forces. We will know a lot more by end of July. Just looking at the line of advance Putin won’t have to demand much, they will have occupied a good deal of what they want. Iran? Good luck with that Kleptocracy, perhaps time to let the Middle East come to terms with Sykes Picot? Sort the mess made over 100 years of unhappy arbitrary borders? We have great neighbors to the south of us in Central and South America, why do we insist on treating them as bastard children? One could go on. A foreign policy of disengagement and as Bismarck opined, Germany has no allies, Germany has no enemies, only its own interests. We need to concentrate on getting our own house in order. Spheres of influence worked fine for centuries. Managing the Dukes, that impact our nation has appeal. Otherwise, stay away from foreign entanglements. Some wise man said something to that effect some 200 plus years ago.
Very thought provoking post.
Thanks! Ideally the US would turn inward and get its own house in order. To do so they would have to adopt a less confrontational stance and/or deputize other nations to share the global policing load. This would include China and Russia but for the time being that is a step too far for US policy makers.
Very good read. Well structured. Liked the second paragraph a lot - the wording reminded me of some of your previous articles.
Somewhat related: how do you see India these days? Clearly it is not one of those flashpoints, but they seem to be playing a very carefully balanced dance between the USA and BRICS.
I wonder how that will impact BRICS as a whole.
Thanks! Yes I reused the ADHD-Autism contrast since it is so powerful between Trump and Putin.
I tend to take a somewhat cynical view of the India–Pakistan dynamic, seeing it largely as a matter of political and military theater. Ideally, BRICS-aligned diplomats are working quietly behind the scenes to choreograph each side’s response—much like the role the U.S. played in managing the Iran–Israel confrontation last year—to prevent things from spiraling out of control. For India, the challenge is to demonstrate a sufficiently forceful response to Pakistan while carefully avoiding the kind of escalation that could ultimately veer toward a nuclear exchange.