The West still chants of victory, but the frontlines say otherwise. Ukraine's fate, like Finland’s before it, may hinge not on courage—but on timing, truth, and who dares break the Noble Lie's spell.
Interesting analysis. In regard to Zaluzhny and the Finnish option, many commentators have alluded to the influence of the neo-nazi Azov element and the fact that he has quite strong links to this group. The same sources say that Azov would likely kill any leader who concluded a peace with Russia.
Do you have a view on this? Has the successful war of attrition weakened Azov influence and attitudes and have they become more “realistic” and perhaps reached the point of “better to live to fight another day”?
Good question. Drawing again from the Mannerheim analogy: fifteen months after Finland signed a peace treaty with Stalin, it invaded the USSR—alongside Nazi Germany—in what became known as the Continuation War. A similar path might be open to Zaluzhny, at least rhetorically.
If Ukraine loses the Donbass, he could plausibly argue for a tactical peace with Russia, framed not as surrender but as a necessary pause for regrouping and rearmament. To appease the nationalist and Azov-aligned factions, he might suggest that a NATO attack on Russia is only a few years away—that 2027 could bring a decisive second act.
Zaluzhny knows his audience: the (in)famous photo of Mannerheim hosting Hitler on his 75th birthday in 1942 brings street cred to the Azov element and makes them more likely to respect the Mannerheim precedent. The Finnish historical example might be enough to persuade the ultranationalist elements in Ukraine to stand down—for now—in service of a longer war.
Even though they may temporarily stand down to fight another day, the Russians are aware of this after all, “de-nazification” is one of the stated aims of the SMO, as is frequently stated by Putin, Lavrov, Medvedev and others. It will take a military collapse for this to be possible , a negotiated peace prior to such will not deliver this outcome. As such I think the Russians will grind on to the end. If successful, Putin will complete what Stalin didn’t quite and may well become a Russian legend and deservedly so.
Hello, interesting ideas, and smart to bring up the idea of esoteric hidden writing by Leo Strauss. The only problem is that I don't see much sign of that now. I mostly see Trump and his administration bumbling along, and making one blunder after another not only in terms of communication, but also in terms of action.
Suffice to mention his 180 comments about Epstein, about his MAGA base, on the tariffs, his studid attack on Iran, his failure with Gaza genocide, his hesitation on Russia... I wrote about this bumbling some time ago, and it seems in my opinion to be completely correct today:
Yes, I agree—Trump operates on a very different plane than the esoteric signaling found in Seymour Hersh’s reporting. His worldview is rooted in the kayfabe logic of professional wrestling, where competition is scripted and narrative control is paramount. As Roland Barthes observed, wrestling is not about winning but about the exposition of moral justice through performance. In this frame, outcomes matter less than appearances; catharsis, not strategy, is the goal.
This logic fits international relations poorly—yet Trump stumbles through with instinct and improvisation. He lacks a coherent strategic vision, evaluating outcomes purely through the narrative he can impose. Paradoxically, this may enable the U.S. to quietly withdraw from global hegemony, as Trump reframes each incremental loss of power as a resounding moral victory for America.
Fully agree, and you nailed it here: "outcomes matter less than appearances; catharsis, not strategy, is the goal."
One point though : I wish you were right about US "withdrawing quietly" , but I am afraid it won't be exactly like that... And it doesn't depend on Trump but on the deep state, including the Senate.
Yes, while Trump is primarily chasing personal victories and narrative control, the national security establishment still seeks to maintain long-term strategic competitiveness. But so far, their actions have been limited to releasing information warfare chaff—distraction without direction.
This is precisely where Straussian esoteric communication comes into play: outwardly, they maintain narrative discipline to preserve public confidence, but beneath the surface, they may be signalling to insiders that the trajectory is deteriorating fast—and that only a radical course correction can avert strategic failure.
Yes, agree, but they are limited also by real physical limitations to their power, and I think the rhetoric has been pretty botched imho, as mentioned above. But they are trying that's for sure.
One point though regarding Strauss's essay. I recall it was more focused on the esoteric writing of dissenters, on those politically threatened individuals, not the state. They are the ones who more than the state need to communicate to fellow travelers by means which are not overt and explicit in order to avoid state punishment in society that is not free. The state's rhetoric for me is more in the realm of propaganda.
Yes, certainly—state rhetoric, and Trump’s in particular, is direct and strives to abolish ambiguity. Every person or institution he invokes is sharply qualified as either good or bad, eliminating the possibility of double readings. In this sense, state propaganda—especially under Trump—is stridently exoteric: loud, simplistic, and meant to unify rather than to provoke thought.
By contrast, dissent operates through esotericism, relying on indirection and coded signals to evade repression. Leo Strauss’s focus on persecuted thinkers clarifies this asymmetry: the state, with its monopoly on force, has no need for subterfuge. Its lies are “noble” only in the sense that they are blunt and declarative—often to the point of being botched, particularly when reality diverges too far from the imposed script.
Zaluzhny and Hersh’s sources exemplify the older tradition of cryptic dissent. Their interventions are not simple corrections of the record, but acts of strategic ambiguity—signals meant for other elites, not for public consumption. When Trump flattens the world into cartoon binaries, or Zelensky performs Churchillian absolutism, they deploy the megaphone of propaganda. But when a general invokes an obscure figure like Mannerheim, or intelligence figures leak to Hersh impossible numbers in whispers, they are practicing the ancient art of speaking obliquely beneath the state’s roar.
Don't kid yourself. Trump has mousetrapped himself into war, thanks to his own fool mouth and The Sunk Cost Fallacy, aided by Russian dithering and indecision. The only question now is when.
American intervention was the only real plan all along, even if it could not be said out loud.
Trump is drawn to the theatrics of kayfabe—the staged drama of professional wrestling—not real warfare. He thrives on controlled spectacle, not uncontrollable conflict. The idea that he would initiate a genuine war with Russia misunderstands both his instincts and America’s current capacity.
At most, he might stage a symbolic, pre-negotiated maneuver with Moscow for narrative effect—but even that seems unlikely. Trump demands total control over the story, and a real war would expose him to chaos, risk, and blame—all things he avoids.
More importantly, neither the U.S. nor the EU has meaningfully rearmed. Western arsenals are depleted, and their industrial base isn’t ready for high-intensity warfare. If a direct conflict with Russia erupted tomorrow, the West likely couldn’t sustain it for even a month.
Trump is the one being stage-managed like a puppet on a string, for he is weak, stupid and easily manipulated. He won't have a choice, unless he has to back down and ge humiliated. Given a choice between sacrificing millions and looking weak, he'd push button without hesitation. Those seeking war know this and have Trump right where they want him..
If NATO truly were unprepared for war, it beggars the imagination that there is nobody in the Pentagon that can pull the politicians aside and tell them that their mouths need to quit writing checks that their asses cannot cash. And the generals are very good at getting the word out, if the politicians won't listen.
That nobody is doing this indicates that this line of thinking is wishful.
"the now-routine sanctification of untruth" usually precedes slow collapse
surrender to an enemy;
but tell the folks at home that it was a negotiated peace; risky;
not the best way to defend free speech and truth, and simultaneously lead
lead from behind, with lies? semantic delusions;
& once leaders start lying to themselves as well as to their plebes?
"Intelligence becomes indistinguishable from ideology, and decision-making - untethered from fact - drifts toward fantasy." Ya think?
Russian-speaking minority?
it's my understanding that everyone in Ukraine speaks Russian;
some may also speak Hungarian, Slovak, Polish, Romanian or the Ukrainian dialect ... but all speak Russian
de-Nazification?
equivalent to ending racism in Mississippi & arrogance in Whitehall; or instilling humility in Brahmins!
MI-6 & CIA spent 3 generations reviving Neo-Nazism in Ukraine; not easy to undue, but it's THEIR problem to undue, no one else's
If not accompanied by further, multi-generation continuation of many lies, it could also mean the end of MI-6, CIA, House of Lords and the US/UK DeepState.
Is any other outcome affordable for homo sapiens?
Who's more indispensable, parasite or host?
IS US democracy, and the American culture, big enough to survive removal of it's chief criminals? For Pete's sake, I hope so! Why is this even a question? Where's our imagination? What was the USA before our MICC and before the UK Lobby became resurgent? We're bigger than that. Or at least we sure can be again.
it's my understanding that everyone in Ukraine speaks Russian;
some may also speak Hungarian, Slovak, Polish, Romanian or the Ukrainian dialect ... but all speak Russian"
At least when I lived there (2004-2012), everyone did. Even in Lvov. A running joke around the office was "how does one say that in Ukrainian?" and nobody being quite sure.
For that matter, when I lived there, nationalists were almost universally seen as freaks and losers.
But none of that matters. The West has made it clear that adopting the nationalist agenda, declaring war on their brothers and their own grandparents, is the price for being allowed to become a junior member of The Club, a price that Ukrainians are desperate to pay.
Interesting analysis. In regard to Zaluzhny and the Finnish option, many commentators have alluded to the influence of the neo-nazi Azov element and the fact that he has quite strong links to this group. The same sources say that Azov would likely kill any leader who concluded a peace with Russia.
Do you have a view on this? Has the successful war of attrition weakened Azov influence and attitudes and have they become more “realistic” and perhaps reached the point of “better to live to fight another day”?
Good question. Drawing again from the Mannerheim analogy: fifteen months after Finland signed a peace treaty with Stalin, it invaded the USSR—alongside Nazi Germany—in what became known as the Continuation War. A similar path might be open to Zaluzhny, at least rhetorically.
If Ukraine loses the Donbass, he could plausibly argue for a tactical peace with Russia, framed not as surrender but as a necessary pause for regrouping and rearmament. To appease the nationalist and Azov-aligned factions, he might suggest that a NATO attack on Russia is only a few years away—that 2027 could bring a decisive second act.
Zaluzhny knows his audience: the (in)famous photo of Mannerheim hosting Hitler on his 75th birthday in 1942 brings street cred to the Azov element and makes them more likely to respect the Mannerheim precedent. The Finnish historical example might be enough to persuade the ultranationalist elements in Ukraine to stand down—for now—in service of a longer war.
Even though they may temporarily stand down to fight another day, the Russians are aware of this after all, “de-nazification” is one of the stated aims of the SMO, as is frequently stated by Putin, Lavrov, Medvedev and others. It will take a military collapse for this to be possible , a negotiated peace prior to such will not deliver this outcome. As such I think the Russians will grind on to the end. If successful, Putin will complete what Stalin didn’t quite and may well become a Russian legend and deservedly so.
Hello, interesting ideas, and smart to bring up the idea of esoteric hidden writing by Leo Strauss. The only problem is that I don't see much sign of that now. I mostly see Trump and his administration bumbling along, and making one blunder after another not only in terms of communication, but also in terms of action.
Suffice to mention his 180 comments about Epstein, about his MAGA base, on the tariffs, his studid attack on Iran, his failure with Gaza genocide, his hesitation on Russia... I wrote about this bumbling some time ago, and it seems in my opinion to be completely correct today:
https://finnandreen.substack.com/p/a-bumbling-trump-administration-has?r=ewq2s
Yes, I agree—Trump operates on a very different plane than the esoteric signaling found in Seymour Hersh’s reporting. His worldview is rooted in the kayfabe logic of professional wrestling, where competition is scripted and narrative control is paramount. As Roland Barthes observed, wrestling is not about winning but about the exposition of moral justice through performance. In this frame, outcomes matter less than appearances; catharsis, not strategy, is the goal.
This logic fits international relations poorly—yet Trump stumbles through with instinct and improvisation. He lacks a coherent strategic vision, evaluating outcomes purely through the narrative he can impose. Paradoxically, this may enable the U.S. to quietly withdraw from global hegemony, as Trump reframes each incremental loss of power as a resounding moral victory for America.
Fully agree, and you nailed it here: "outcomes matter less than appearances; catharsis, not strategy, is the goal."
One point though : I wish you were right about US "withdrawing quietly" , but I am afraid it won't be exactly like that... And it doesn't depend on Trump but on the deep state, including the Senate.
Yes, while Trump is primarily chasing personal victories and narrative control, the national security establishment still seeks to maintain long-term strategic competitiveness. But so far, their actions have been limited to releasing information warfare chaff—distraction without direction.
This is precisely where Straussian esoteric communication comes into play: outwardly, they maintain narrative discipline to preserve public confidence, but beneath the surface, they may be signalling to insiders that the trajectory is deteriorating fast—and that only a radical course correction can avert strategic failure.
Yes, agree, but they are limited also by real physical limitations to their power, and I think the rhetoric has been pretty botched imho, as mentioned above. But they are trying that's for sure.
One point though regarding Strauss's essay. I recall it was more focused on the esoteric writing of dissenters, on those politically threatened individuals, not the state. They are the ones who more than the state need to communicate to fellow travelers by means which are not overt and explicit in order to avoid state punishment in society that is not free. The state's rhetoric for me is more in the realm of propaganda.
Yes, certainly—state rhetoric, and Trump’s in particular, is direct and strives to abolish ambiguity. Every person or institution he invokes is sharply qualified as either good or bad, eliminating the possibility of double readings. In this sense, state propaganda—especially under Trump—is stridently exoteric: loud, simplistic, and meant to unify rather than to provoke thought.
By contrast, dissent operates through esotericism, relying on indirection and coded signals to evade repression. Leo Strauss’s focus on persecuted thinkers clarifies this asymmetry: the state, with its monopoly on force, has no need for subterfuge. Its lies are “noble” only in the sense that they are blunt and declarative—often to the point of being botched, particularly when reality diverges too far from the imposed script.
Zaluzhny and Hersh’s sources exemplify the older tradition of cryptic dissent. Their interventions are not simple corrections of the record, but acts of strategic ambiguity—signals meant for other elites, not for public consumption. When Trump flattens the world into cartoon binaries, or Zelensky performs Churchillian absolutism, they deploy the megaphone of propaganda. But when a general invokes an obscure figure like Mannerheim, or intelligence figures leak to Hersh impossible numbers in whispers, they are practicing the ancient art of speaking obliquely beneath the state’s roar.
Fully agree, very well put!
I love the last paragraph, which I will post on X, quoting you.
Thanks!!
Don't kid yourself. Trump has mousetrapped himself into war, thanks to his own fool mouth and The Sunk Cost Fallacy, aided by Russian dithering and indecision. The only question now is when.
American intervention was the only real plan all along, even if it could not be said out loud.
Trump is drawn to the theatrics of kayfabe—the staged drama of professional wrestling—not real warfare. He thrives on controlled spectacle, not uncontrollable conflict. The idea that he would initiate a genuine war with Russia misunderstands both his instincts and America’s current capacity.
At most, he might stage a symbolic, pre-negotiated maneuver with Moscow for narrative effect—but even that seems unlikely. Trump demands total control over the story, and a real war would expose him to chaos, risk, and blame—all things he avoids.
More importantly, neither the U.S. nor the EU has meaningfully rearmed. Western arsenals are depleted, and their industrial base isn’t ready for high-intensity warfare. If a direct conflict with Russia erupted tomorrow, the West likely couldn’t sustain it for even a month.
Trump is the one being stage-managed like a puppet on a string, for he is weak, stupid and easily manipulated. He won't have a choice, unless he has to back down and ge humiliated. Given a choice between sacrificing millions and looking weak, he'd push button without hesitation. Those seeking war know this and have Trump right where they want him..
If NATO truly were unprepared for war, it beggars the imagination that there is nobody in the Pentagon that can pull the politicians aside and tell them that their mouths need to quit writing checks that their asses cannot cash. And the generals are very good at getting the word out, if the politicians won't listen.
That nobody is doing this indicates that this line of thinking is wishful.
"the now-routine sanctification of untruth" usually precedes slow collapse
surrender to an enemy;
but tell the folks at home that it was a negotiated peace; risky;
not the best way to defend free speech and truth, and simultaneously lead
lead from behind, with lies? semantic delusions;
& once leaders start lying to themselves as well as to their plebes?
"Intelligence becomes indistinguishable from ideology, and decision-making - untethered from fact - drifts toward fantasy." Ya think?
Russian-speaking minority?
it's my understanding that everyone in Ukraine speaks Russian;
some may also speak Hungarian, Slovak, Polish, Romanian or the Ukrainian dialect ... but all speak Russian
de-Nazification?
equivalent to ending racism in Mississippi & arrogance in Whitehall; or instilling humility in Brahmins!
MI-6 & CIA spent 3 generations reviving Neo-Nazism in Ukraine; not easy to undue, but it's THEIR problem to undue, no one else's
If not accompanied by further, multi-generation continuation of many lies, it could also mean the end of MI-6, CIA, House of Lords and the US/UK DeepState.
Is any other outcome affordable for homo sapiens?
Who's more indispensable, parasite or host?
IS US democracy, and the American culture, big enough to survive removal of it's chief criminals? For Pete's sake, I hope so! Why is this even a question? Where's our imagination? What was the USA before our MICC and before the UK Lobby became resurgent? We're bigger than that. Or at least we sure can be again.
"Russian-speaking minority?
it's my understanding that everyone in Ukraine speaks Russian;
some may also speak Hungarian, Slovak, Polish, Romanian or the Ukrainian dialect ... but all speak Russian"
At least when I lived there (2004-2012), everyone did. Even in Lvov. A running joke around the office was "how does one say that in Ukrainian?" and nobody being quite sure.
For that matter, when I lived there, nationalists were almost universally seen as freaks and losers.
But none of that matters. The West has made it clear that adopting the nationalist agenda, declaring war on their brothers and their own grandparents, is the price for being allowed to become a junior member of The Club, a price that Ukrainians are desperate to pay.