I understand why Europeans are so deeply unhappy about the sudden reversal, but a Russo-American axis makes a lot of sense if Trump is serious about going after China. Literally like the Sino-Soviet split but in reverse.
I didn't expect him to actually go through with cutting the waste and corruption in the federal government, or to actually seriously attempt a deescalation with Russia. Did you?
He hasn't cut the waste and corruption. We have seen in public little detailed data on Musk's AI-inebriated elimination of waste and corruption and the percentage of such waste and corruption in the budgets/spending of individual Fed gov't agencies. Trump and Musk have thus far caused much uncertainty and disruption of activities in various Federal agencies with more to come.
I must note that I cannot be objective about this. My son, an accountant with bachelor's and master's degrees in accounting, has 15 years of federal gov't service under his belt and his (and his colleagues') job is/(are) potentially at risk. Musk is attempting to use his AI large language model to decide--based upon an email sent to them that requires individual employees to [send to him (or the AI model)] document 5 things they accomplished last week--whether or not to retain them in employment. Never mind Civil Service regulations established in federal law regarding reductions in force (RIFs). This is something like Musk did to fire a bunch of Twitter employees when he bought the social media app. This is crazy!
Trump undermine America’s relations with Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc, so they can join with Russia as a force against China? Sorry, Trump is not the masterful strategist, he’s a narcissistic attention-seeker with a knack for pressing people’s grievance buttons. Constant disruption = constant attention.
And they matter... why, exactly? The EU needed to be taken seriously when their shared economy was equal to the USA's and Russia was an impoverished gas station giving them ludicrously cheap energy. Now the EU is a joke, there's not a reason for the US to even pretend to respect them.
By breaking with Europe Trump has undermined the post-war international world order which was hugely beneficial to the US. He has shown China that they can take Taiwan anytime they want, because the US will quickly sell out its allies even without a good reason.
Russia has not offered any support against China and Trump has not asked for any. Besides, there's nothing there to give: Russia has a minuscule economy, no military equipment and a broken society. What help does the US need from them?
Why does Europe matter? The USA has spent tens of trillions of dollars occupying Europe for 80 years, and all of it in support of an anti-Russia stance. If the USA and Russia reach an understanding, then those troops can go home.
Before Russia was an impoverished gas station, now it is an impoverished broken gas station, with decimated military, economy in shambles and without its best clients. True, the GDP gap between Europe and the US has increased, but the EU economy is still ten times bigger than Russia's. So what exactly makes Russia such an attractive ally for the US, beside the location?
You can add for the European Union the 449.2 million inhabitants and the 37.860 million Ukrainians, which is the equivalent of the populations of the USA and Russia combined: (USA: 345,426, Russia 144,820, figures at the beginning of 2024). And if you want to have fun: at the last Olympic Games in Paris the USA had 126 medals, gold, silver and bronze combined, the European Union 309. The only thing I find sensible in the words of Trumpf and his cronies is that he wants Europe to take responsibility, to finally do so by forgetting its petty parochial quarrels and it will become the world's leading power.
*And don't get into dirty details of composition, are Austrian sky resorts, Belgian drug dealers and street whores for EU representatives, tattoo salons, dog beauty salons, etc. included?
Mutually, Putin would never trust the US in a million years either. The window of opportunity to bring Russia into an anti-PRC axis closed about 20 years ago. But there is a more passive version of this logic at play. A new Yalta in Europe is seen as worth it if it means the US can ramp up defense in the Pacific and keep China from regional hegemony.
Please excuse my pessimism (or cynicism?), but I don't see President Trump in any way as a strategic thinker in terms of geo-politics. I perceive that he will always act in transactional terms that benefits him principally (stroking his ego, reputation, $$$, etc.). There may be someone or some officials in his Administration capable of thinking in terms of geo-political terms, but I am not so sure that they will be able to influence Trump along those lines of thinking. Perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am wrong.
Europe should certainly spend more and more efficiently in its military (and even more in Ukraine’s) and should be prepared for a Russian attack. However an attack on Russia is an absurd idea. There is no backing of the population for that, it is morally very very questionable and would not help in the long term. [edit: Note, that I revoke the statement, that it is „morally very very questionable“ below]
Regarding the abandoning of nuclear power in Germany: This was completely substituted through renewables – its share in electricity generation rose from 23 percent in 2011 to 62 percent last year. Nuclear had not much more than 30 percent (around 2000).
It is not morally questionable, but for the West it is still unacceptable to send soldiers to die, unless they are very directly threatened. The thinking behind Munich, 'Why die for Danzig?' and the Phoney War is very much alive in much of the West. Even in the Eastern Europe, where the awareness of Russia's threat is much higher, the idea of direct offensive action is generally rejected.
My understanding of the article was that it was about a preemptive strike. If Russia attacks a NATO member with military force, I support reactive strikes. Whoever shoots the first shot did not everything to prevent war.
However, I understand the thinking, that Russia already attacked Ukraine, so the West has the moral right to attack Russia to protect the Ukraine. I feel uneasy about this idea, but I have to admit, that I must revoke my statement, that this would be morally questionable. Thank you for pointing this out.
The outcome in this case is western Europe getting turned into a skating rink while the USA shrugs. Or did you forget that the UK and France are the only two NATO members who have non-American nukes, and their capabilities are underwhelming?
I agree with your first point. Offensive against Russia is a completely absurd idea that not even one country would support, not to mention all of them.
But regarding German energy, your argument doesn't invalidate the fact German energy policy was just a big mistake. Not just nuclear power generation was stopped, they also closed many coal power plants, together this increased the reliance on gas. Renewables are great, but they cannot provide all energy, because the storage is still to expensive (both short term for the night and long term for winter).
And overall this German strategy led to big increase in electricity prices in all Europe.
I disagree very much here, but I am afraid, we cannot discuss this in all detail here.
In general, the Germany energy policy works pretty well – at the end of the day, it was Germany exporting electricity to France in 2022, when in mid of the European energy crisis multiple nuclear reactors there went offline. France still has no solution for their reactors getting older and older and the new ones getting more and more expensive.
There are problems in Germany, i.e. missing links in the grid to the south and not enough wind in the south, but this linked to the local Bavarian government.
In 2021 (before the energy crisis), Germany paid around 100 billion for energy imports, mostly to states which were not really democracies. I would very much like to keep this money in Germany or in one of our close neighbor countries.
And regarding nuclear: In the last 25 years, only eight new reactors were started to be build in all Europe (except Russia), USA and Canada combined. Two of them were not even finished, all of them were too late and much more expensive than anticipated. There are a lot of anouncements of nuclear plans, but only few are build.
Germany's energy policy was geopolitically destabilizing. To the point of encouraging a war. Russia invaded Ukraine, and Germany's response was to double down on Nord Stream 2.
This is correct, there I agree on it. But this has not much to do with the shutdown of nuclear power.
The vast amount of gas of northstream 1 went to BASF which became the world biggest chemical company through that. This was politically backed, but rather a corporate driven thing. It was not much related to the electricity generation.
I was refering to the built-up of renewables for electricity generation and the shut down of nuclear power only. Sorry for not making this clear.
The north stream projects were a very huge mistake of subsequent German governments (also I did not see it that way back then). Interestingly, the German Green party was the only vocal opponent of those pipelines.
There is no need to directly attack Russian territory, I agree that such idea is absurd at least right now in current situation.
But there are many options between current level of support (strictly material and still limited/restricted by escalation concerns) and outright declaration of war.
There are NK units fighting on Russian territory, so I would argue that even direct participation in hostilities by some European contingent fighting alongside UA units on internationally recognized UA territory would be only leveling-up instead of escalation and there are still a LOT of options to increase pressure on Russia before it comes to that.
That of course needs common understanding that Russian nuke threats in case of any battlefield setback are just bluffing, because if we think otherwise, there is basically no hope and we are screwed.
Russia can just as easily scare everybody into inaction some time later, when US force posture in Europe is significantly diminished and they rush through the Suwalki gap to link-up with Kaliningrad, effectively shattering NATO completely if the reaction will not be overwhelming use of force on part of NATO.
Indeed. Russia's alleged fragility is not the main point - a pretty much unanimous decision was made at the beginning of this war that no one is willing to turn this into WWIII by direct military intervention.
And how "fragile" would Russia have to be for - how many operational tanks does Germany have? Or Britain, which has more operational horses than tanks? - European forces to make a difference, even if the Russians somehow, contrary to their policy, decided to fight WWIII without using their nukes?
Absurd on its face. But the author lost me when he quoted Ben Hodges, this war's most fervid, most outlandish fantacist.
It's too late for that. The U.S. spent $2 or $3 trillion losing a war to the Taliban. No one ever expected to beat the Russians on a couple hundred billion. It was never the plan for Ukraine to win, and now it's too late.
Now the only thing is to get the war over with the best possible deal for Ukraine, with preserving sovereignty within whatever borders being the main thing, try to help them rebuild, and then have a good hard think how we prevent this from happening again.
Do we start a new arms race and build up the capability to fight a large attritional land war to deter Russia? Europe would have to radically Spartanize itself in order to do that, and it would be an expensive long term project requiring very large sacrifices to do, and even then it's not clear that this would prevent a new big European war.
So even that sacrifice does not eliminate the need for diplomacy and some kind of security architecture which works to stop all of this. Force is not enough.
The Russian Steamroller has run out of steam. To say their victory is inevitable is trump think. Who among us is sure they won’t move on the Baltics when they can? Ask any Russian, most will say эти наши (they’re ours). They already demand a neutered Poland like today’s Germany. Europeans must replace the US deterrence, or become Russia’s shopping center.
What makes you think the war will continue for years? It will not. It's in the final stages now. It will be over this year, one way or another. Which I think is what Budanov told the Rada recently.
What we see now is WWII in January 1945 or the American Civil War in November 1864. The Russians have had the strategic initiative for 15 months straight and have accumulated such an overmatch of combat power that they can afford to have 10 or 15 divisions -- at least 100k troops -- training in Belarus. According to Zelensky.
Put a fork in it.
What Putin will or won't accept we don't know until we do some actual negotiating. Earlier he would certainly have accepted Ukraine's continuing sovereignty, we even know the conditions. Now, since we've waited far too late, I don't know, but we have to try. Mark Milley said the time to negotiate was November, 2022, which as it turns out was indeed the high water mark of Ukrainian military successes. He was right. It's been all downhill since then, and the possible deal gets worse and worse.
Not WWIII, that's for sure. That would be the stupidest possible way to deal with the present situation. Literally any other possible result would be better than that.
Yes, I was really hoping that Ukraine would have time for a very strong "punch" before any bullshit deal is signed or comes to fruition. You can almost smell the opportunity for an effective counteroffensive in the air. Wouldn't defeat the whole enemy force but could take back significant assets if conducted properly.
They simply do not have the capability for a large counteroffensive. The best they could do was Kursk - and that was where the strike was rather unexpected and Russians were incapable of responding for a long time.
I’d agree but for different reasons. First, the issue of high interest rates is a non-issue. Inflation is higher and rates are not so prohibitive. Rising defaults can be because of various factors - loss of markets, loss of access to foreign currency, etc. The ruble is stable because of tight currency controls and the country still is net exporter (not because of high rates - “investors” are not buying the ruble to pocket the high yield. Yet, the situation seems to be worsening - with Russia more and more relying on imports - be it Iran, North Korea, China. They will all want something in exchange especially as trade/arms volumes increase. Then, not much of the disruption in the domestic fuel market yet but spring and summer is coming - lots of demand to come from the agri sector and what is worse the agri needs are concentrated in the same rear regions that bear the most of the Ukrainian attacks on fuel logistics- Krasnodar, Voronezh, etc.
Then probably Ukraine will have to reconsider its focus of the air raids on the fuel logistics. These UAVs can be used on more useful targets in such a case
'Stalled'? I would rather describe that as 'exhausted'.
_
Although Ukraine paid a price that 'land for dead' trade strategy paid off. I think the russian lines are just one or two months away from local collapses to start happening.
_
At this point this can be already won without Trump.
My point is, that their position is not sustainable in their worn-down state anymore and if they refuse to retreat and consolidate like in Kherson (or the other previous mentions) then they'll start experience local collapses in a month or two.
The Russians retreated from Kiev in April 2022, when they had around 150,000 men in Ukraine and were outnumbered 4 to 1 and then still managed to maintain the initiative and continued offensive operations for the next 4 months, until the end of August. It wasn't until 21 September 2022, after the Kharkiv Front collapsed, that the Kremlin mobilised the reservists and eliminated the Ukrainian manpower advantage by tripling their manpower complement in Ukraine, from 150,000 to 450,000.
Now, the two sides have a parity in manpower.
"Against an attack"
You do realise that the Russians are significantly more formidable on the defense than they are on the offense, right? Or did you forget the middle of 2023 when the Ukrainians launched two strategic offensive operations, one against the Melitopol-Berdyansk corridor and one against the Bakhmut salient, and both ended in a disastrous defeat for the Ukrainians?
At this point, since 1 October 2022, when they finally won in Lyman, the Ukrainians have only launched one semi-successful offensive operation: Kursk. It's been 2 years and 4 months, and that's the sole "success" in terms of offensive operations that they can point to, and it was only accomplished because they struck into a sector of the front the Russians de facto left undefended. Though they've already lost 2/3rds of their salient in Kursk and are likely to lose the rest in the coming months.
The problem with GDP is increased activity of EU bureaucrats is not the same as increased factory production of weapons and munitions. Germany is no longer a coal powerhouse. England no longer has colonial sources and the North Sea has pretty much dried up. France is struggling holding onto its African interests. Yes, Europe can increase defense spending by employing more bureaucrats but spending money (energy) on manufacturing is difficult because, again, the EU simple doesn't have the oil/gas to do so.
They don't need 3% GDP. They need tankers full of cheap oil and gas. China forces Russian into selling oil/gas cheap The U.S. forces the EU into buying oil/gas at a premium.
That has always been Russia's trump card. In a sense, Trump recognizes that in a weird way. The U.S. and Russia both have the oil/gas/food necessary to be independent. Why should they fight? Let everyone else line up with their begging cup. China still has plenty of coal and has bought future energy independence through solar and wind.
The logic tells me the Ukraine war is only part of WWIII. The EU doesn't want to face the cold hard facts. If it wants Russian resources it must die to get them. If Ukraine falls, the EU falls. From the beginning, EU politicians have not owned up to that.
Ukraine has been navigating these truths. They understand that every Russian drone was bought with funds Russia took in by selling oil to China to build a electronics for the EU, or to refine materials.
Everyone talks about Russia wanting to invade Europe. HA! Why would they want that? They just want EU with a begging cup in the same relationship the EU has to the U.S. and China ;) As for Ukraine, ultimately Russia will spit out that animal tearing it apart from the inside.
When the war ends for Ukraine it will truly begin for everyone else.
Military industry does not necessarily need oil and gas.
It needs metals, coal for steel production and cheap energy.
And in XXIth century the cheapest and quickest to deploy energy is solar and wind. Europe does not need to die or beg for russian gas. It has all the technical and scientifical capability to gain energy independence by it's own means.
Also, Europe is still an industrial powerhouse. Just, at this time, most of this industroal output is beeing exported.
- Steel production needs 2500°F (requires fossil fuels)
How will solar or wind power a navy, an air force, self propelled artillery, trucks, heat a bunker? I'm sorry Michal, the military has always needed copious amounts of oil and gas. If Russia didn't have it we wouldn't be here talking ;) Yes, Europe is an industrial powerhouse. Eventually I believe it will "pacify" Russia, but it can't do that with a solar panel!
I've read many who say that electric only works for recycling and some forms of aluminum. Theoretically, some argue it can be done. But I don't feel this is debated. Can you tell me where you get the idea we can get off coal/gas/oil for steel, concrete etc.?
"The blast furnace is the first step in producing steel from iron oxides. The first blast furnaces appeared in the 14th century and produced one ton per day. Even though equipment is improved and higher production rates can be achieved, the processes inside the blast furnace remain the same. The blast furnace uses coke, iron ore and limestone to produce pig iron."
They then go on to say gas is replacing some coal.
Again, electric furnaces are only used to recycle scrap. Only in a lab or small startup are they used to create new steel from ore.
China is far and away the biggest producer of new steel. Why? Cheap labor and coal (space and infrastructure too). The U.S. mostly recycles. And recycling looses some percent of final output from each cycle.
There are already existing technologies to produce steel based on hydrogen - without coke coal.
And yes, military needs fuel. But the sole and only reason for existence of european armies is Russia. So it does not matter, where european military can get it's fuel, certainly it will not get it from Russia.
And certainly Europe will not pacify Russia by beeing dependant on it's gas and oil.
Many have written on why hydrogen is a non-starter. I agree with them. So we'll just have to disagree that it will ever be a solution.
Lately I've been reading Keynes' "Economic Consequences of the Peace". He couldn't have predicted WWII better if he tried, though he never specifically said it. Any thinking reader could connect the dots.
He pointed out that though Germany had a lot of coal, there was really no way for France to force it to replay reparations with it. Who would mine it? Who would pay for the infrastructure? Tools? They couldn't force German men into the mines to do it.
The fundamental question for me is what should Europe pay for Russian oil and gas? The more they pay, the more Russia has money to expand (like into Georgia, Ukraine, etc). On the other hand, the less they pay the more they grow their economies at the expense of Russia.
Even if Putin said to Europe, you can have the oil and gas but you have to mine it. What would Europeans pay themselves to to that work? Would they do, send poor men immigrant? Of course, as you say, they would say no thanks, we have our green energy.
AS IF!
There is no Santa Klaus, there is no "renewal energy" replacement for oil and gas. Yes, solar and wind can supplement our energy use. It can power our laptops and charge our cars. But that's it. Everything else need HIGH ENERGY OUTPUTS per gram, so to speak. Hydro is tapped out. Without cheap batteries solar and wind won't grow much and nuclear, well ;)
Again, Europe must take Russian oil and gas. Or give in to Russia's prices and the power that goes with it. The math is all there. Today, like in 1919, few want to connect the dots.
Energy is energy, whether in a drop of gasoline, diesel, or the chemicals in batteries. All have tradeoffs in density, peak power, safety, etc. The Germans thought they'd win the war on "synthetic oil". They didn't. Europe won't win with "renewables" either.
Putin, bless his peace-loving soul ( may he rot in hell) understands energy better than any American President or European politician. Oil/gas started forming around 350 million years ago and ended 50 million years ago (super simplification). Anyway, if Russia can wait 50 million years for us to use them they can wait another few years ;)
Russians also understand, living in cold and unforgiving environment that solar and wind are BS--if staying alive means anything to you.
Yes, Norway, the Middle East and U.S. is supplying Europe with most of its energy but it won't last. U.S. Oil country is happy to sell as much gas to the EU as it can but when it runs out that's it. And there will be NO WARNING. It has sold somewhat cheap to get European business but you can bet prices will rise.
Why does the EU forget the U.S. are a bunch of hard-ass cunning bastards like the Russians. You want friendship, get a dog ;)
Here in Massachusetts where I live (home to Harvard and MIT) we get our gas from Trinidad. It's running out. But all I read in the local papers, social network, is it is the politicians faults, or those who keep up infrastructure. AT THE SAME TIME these same people go on and on about climate change and how their Tesla or EV will save the planet.
I'm getting into a rant Michal! I guess I better stop.
Europe can't survive without Russian resources. I don't know if that truth with take 1,2,3 or how many years.
Thanks Ben. If the background of your work is preparing Europe to strike Russia preemptively on land, then this is just wishful thinking. Europe currently has neither a corresponding doctrine, nor sufficient numbers of armed forces and weapons, nor the means to protect its own logistics, not to mention its non-existent "unity". The fact that the armed forces of the main European powers - Great Britain, France and Germany, have long abandoned conscription and switched to contract recruitment, suggests that they are not designed for any large-scale and prolonged military conflict. In 2022, Europe had two options - it had to seriously invest in increasing the combat readiness of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and at the same time urgently reform its armed forces. It ignored both. Now it can only hope for the end of hostilities under acceptable conditions.
Thanks for the article. Only a doubt: how "Europe's continued inaction exacerbates these vulnerabilities." (russian ones)? If Europe's inaction is making them worse, maybe should be an argument for Europe do nothing, and it doesn't seem the case to me....
So sad that the US voted against the UN resolution condemning the Russian invasion, but then Trump has always had the 'hots' for dictators (which actually proves that he doesn't really consider Zelensky a dictator).
No surprise that Israel did. Netanyahu has courted Putin for ages and is doing his best to emulate him...
EU and UK have many weapons that will 'expire' within 24 months of now. they are already paid for.
using them against Russia (within Ukraine or on ONLY military targets in russia) is a no brainer.
why? how could Russia respond in military terms? it has nothing much left to respond with... and the nuclear threat is in reality an empty threat, if they deployed 1 nuke they ( and everyone else) has lost, as, then the NATO countries (not counting trump forces) would set upon Russia en masse with full force.
One simply cannot rely on Germany to make the right choices, let alone actions. That is the experience of the past two decades. France is a talker, Netherlands also. Italy abdicates all responsibility. And these four would never accept leadership from an upstart like Poland or Spain.
The most righteous EU country has been shown to be Denmark. It is not on the front line, yet it supports Ukraine significantly (per capita). They might be uniquely positioned to offer leadership...
As Russia can keep appearing the winning side, they may be able to win also politically.
It's necessary to win against the disinformation bubble, but Trump is doubling down against anyone who dares contradict him (see the meet with Macron when the latter did dare to contradict him live on TV):
I understand why Europeans are so deeply unhappy about the sudden reversal, but a Russo-American axis makes a lot of sense if Trump is serious about going after China. Literally like the Sino-Soviet split but in reverse.
EU isn't the only loser, China is too.
he has surprised me so far.
says more about you than about him
I didn't expect him to actually go through with cutting the waste and corruption in the federal government, or to actually seriously attempt a deescalation with Russia. Did you?
He hasn't cut the waste and corruption. We have seen in public little detailed data on Musk's AI-inebriated elimination of waste and corruption and the percentage of such waste and corruption in the budgets/spending of individual Fed gov't agencies. Trump and Musk have thus far caused much uncertainty and disruption of activities in various Federal agencies with more to come.
I must note that I cannot be objective about this. My son, an accountant with bachelor's and master's degrees in accounting, has 15 years of federal gov't service under his belt and his (and his colleagues') job is/(are) potentially at risk. Musk is attempting to use his AI large language model to decide--based upon an email sent to them that requires individual employees to [send to him (or the AI model)] document 5 things they accomplished last week--whether or not to retain them in employment. Never mind Civil Service regulations established in federal law regarding reductions in force (RIFs). This is something like Musk did to fire a bunch of Twitter employees when he bought the social media app. This is crazy!
Trump undermine America’s relations with Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc, so they can join with Russia as a force against China? Sorry, Trump is not the masterful strategist, he’s a narcissistic attention-seeker with a knack for pressing people’s grievance buttons. Constant disruption = constant attention.
And they matter... why, exactly? The EU needed to be taken seriously when their shared economy was equal to the USA's and Russia was an impoverished gas station giving them ludicrously cheap energy. Now the EU is a joke, there's not a reason for the US to even pretend to respect them.
Gee, I don't know, why do alliances matter?
By breaking with Europe Trump has undermined the post-war international world order which was hugely beneficial to the US. He has shown China that they can take Taiwan anytime they want, because the US will quickly sell out its allies even without a good reason.
Russia has not offered any support against China and Trump has not asked for any. Besides, there's nothing there to give: Russia has a minuscule economy, no military equipment and a broken society. What help does the US need from them?
Why does Europe matter? The USA has spent tens of trillions of dollars occupying Europe for 80 years, and all of it in support of an anti-Russia stance. If the USA and Russia reach an understanding, then those troops can go home.
It is reported there are 35 thousand US troops in Europe and you claim the US would save trillions by sending them home?
No hypothetical war with Russia means military spending could instantly be cut by 40 or 50% at least. So yes, that would save trillions.
Before Russia was an impoverished gas station, now it is an impoverished broken gas station, with decimated military, economy in shambles and without its best clients. True, the GDP gap between Europe and the US has increased, but the EU economy is still ten times bigger than Russia's. So what exactly makes Russia such an attractive ally for the US, beside the location?
Well, the USA and Russia are in talks. So if your beliefs contradict reality, you need to consider the possibility that your beliefs are incorrect.
And what exactly does that prove? The current US leadership is not particularly known for their astute awareness of the geopolitical reality.
It proves that the USA and Russia have something to talk about, which means that Russia has influence.
The EU is a joke?
The European Union's GDP is estimated to be $20.29 trillion (nominal) in 2025 or $29.01 trillion (PPP), the second largest of the global economy.
Some joke:
You can add for the European Union the 449.2 million inhabitants and the 37.860 million Ukrainians, which is the equivalent of the populations of the USA and Russia combined: (USA: 345,426, Russia 144,820, figures at the beginning of 2024). And if you want to have fun: at the last Olympic Games in Paris the USA had 126 medals, gold, silver and bronze combined, the European Union 309. The only thing I find sensible in the words of Trumpf and his cronies is that he wants Europe to take responsibility, to finally do so by forgetting its petty parochial quarrels and it will become the world's leading power.
- the second largest of the global economy*
*And don't get into dirty details of composition, are Austrian sky resorts, Belgian drug dealers and street whores for EU representatives, tattoo salons, dog beauty salons, etc. included?
Does Russia not have drug dealers and whores?
Does USA not have ski resorts?
Is Russia a force against China?
Russia is deeply indebted to China for its help in the Ukraine war.
China is the largest buyer of Russian energy products taking over 40%, if China turns that off then Russia will collapse
A force against China, you make me laugh
And Moscow prays China won’t take back their territories ceded in the 19th century. Oops, there goes Vladivostok!
Well then, it would make more sense for Ukraine to ally with China than with USA.
It makes no sense. Putin would sell out the US. Why do people think he can be trusted? What evidence is there to support Putin as trustworthy?
Mutually, Putin would never trust the US in a million years either. The window of opportunity to bring Russia into an anti-PRC axis closed about 20 years ago. But there is a more passive version of this logic at play. A new Yalta in Europe is seen as worth it if it means the US can ramp up defense in the Pacific and keep China from regional hegemony.
Re: a New Yalta ...
Please excuse my pessimism (or cynicism?), but I don't see President Trump in any way as a strategic thinker in terms of geo-politics. I perceive that he will always act in transactional terms that benefits him principally (stroking his ego, reputation, $$$, etc.). There may be someone or some officials in his Administration capable of thinking in terms of geo-political terms, but I am not so sure that they will be able to influence Trump along those lines of thinking. Perhaps I am wrong. I hope I am wrong.
You’re not wrong. It can’t be said enough that for trump this is mostly show biz, but real people are being hurt.
For example, compare Putin's support to Assad to the US support to Zelensky
Well, aren't there rumors that during Trumps time as a constructor of buildings in NY, he was in cooperation with the mob?
So, basically he believes that he knows what he is dealing with. Worked out with them...
Europe should certainly spend more and more efficiently in its military (and even more in Ukraine’s) and should be prepared for a Russian attack. However an attack on Russia is an absurd idea. There is no backing of the population for that, it is morally very very questionable and would not help in the long term. [edit: Note, that I revoke the statement, that it is „morally very very questionable“ below]
Regarding the abandoning of nuclear power in Germany: This was completely substituted through renewables – its share in electricity generation rose from 23 percent in 2011 to 62 percent last year. Nuclear had not much more than 30 percent (around 2000).
It is not morally questionable, but for the West it is still unacceptable to send soldiers to die, unless they are very directly threatened. The thinking behind Munich, 'Why die for Danzig?' and the Phoney War is very much alive in much of the West. Even in the Eastern Europe, where the awareness of Russia's threat is much higher, the idea of direct offensive action is generally rejected.
My understanding of the article was that it was about a preemptive strike. If Russia attacks a NATO member with military force, I support reactive strikes. Whoever shoots the first shot did not everything to prevent war.
However, I understand the thinking, that Russia already attacked Ukraine, so the West has the moral right to attack Russia to protect the Ukraine. I feel uneasy about this idea, but I have to admit, that I must revoke my statement, that this would be morally questionable. Thank you for pointing this out.
Nothing to do with morals. It's just suicide.
Is there any other possible outcome to a eurocuck attack on Russia?
The outcome in this case is western Europe getting turned into a skating rink while the USA shrugs. Or did you forget that the UK and France are the only two NATO members who have non-American nukes, and their capabilities are underwhelming?
I agree with your first point. Offensive against Russia is a completely absurd idea that not even one country would support, not to mention all of them.
But regarding German energy, your argument doesn't invalidate the fact German energy policy was just a big mistake. Not just nuclear power generation was stopped, they also closed many coal power plants, together this increased the reliance on gas. Renewables are great, but they cannot provide all energy, because the storage is still to expensive (both short term for the night and long term for winter).
And overall this German strategy led to big increase in electricity prices in all Europe.
I disagree very much here, but I am afraid, we cannot discuss this in all detail here.
In general, the Germany energy policy works pretty well – at the end of the day, it was Germany exporting electricity to France in 2022, when in mid of the European energy crisis multiple nuclear reactors there went offline. France still has no solution for their reactors getting older and older and the new ones getting more and more expensive.
There are problems in Germany, i.e. missing links in the grid to the south and not enough wind in the south, but this linked to the local Bavarian government.
The electricity prices in Germany are higher than in France, but the difference is not that high anymore. In Germany, we have more than enough coal plants, but they are simply not utilized anymore at the moment, see here: https://energy-charts.info/charts/percentage_full_load/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&source=fossil_hard_coal_unit_eex&year=2024
The reliance on natural gas for electricity is today not very different than twenty years ago: https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Strerz-Abgabe-2025-02.pdf
In 2021 (before the energy crisis), Germany paid around 100 billion for energy imports, mostly to states which were not really democracies. I would very much like to keep this money in Germany or in one of our close neighbor countries.
And regarding nuclear: In the last 25 years, only eight new reactors were started to be build in all Europe (except Russia), USA and Canada combined. Two of them were not even finished, all of them were too late and much more expensive than anticipated. There are a lot of anouncements of nuclear plans, but only few are build.
Germany's energy policy was geopolitically destabilizing. To the point of encouraging a war. Russia invaded Ukraine, and Germany's response was to double down on Nord Stream 2.
This is correct, there I agree on it. But this has not much to do with the shutdown of nuclear power.
The vast amount of gas of northstream 1 went to BASF which became the world biggest chemical company through that. This was politically backed, but rather a corporate driven thing. It was not much related to the electricity generation.
I was refering to the built-up of renewables for electricity generation and the shut down of nuclear power only. Sorry for not making this clear.
The north stream projects were a very huge mistake of subsequent German governments (also I did not see it that way back then). Interestingly, the German Green party was the only vocal opponent of those pipelines.
There is no need to directly attack Russian territory, I agree that such idea is absurd at least right now in current situation.
But there are many options between current level of support (strictly material and still limited/restricted by escalation concerns) and outright declaration of war.
There are NK units fighting on Russian territory, so I would argue that even direct participation in hostilities by some European contingent fighting alongside UA units on internationally recognized UA territory would be only leveling-up instead of escalation and there are still a LOT of options to increase pressure on Russia before it comes to that.
That of course needs common understanding that Russian nuke threats in case of any battlefield setback are just bluffing, because if we think otherwise, there is basically no hope and we are screwed.
Russia can just as easily scare everybody into inaction some time later, when US force posture in Europe is significantly diminished and they rush through the Suwalki gap to link-up with Kaliningrad, effectively shattering NATO completely if the reaction will not be overwhelming use of force on part of NATO.
And how many tons of coal were burned to replace nuclear power? Because of an earthquake in Japan??
Indeed. Russia's alleged fragility is not the main point - a pretty much unanimous decision was made at the beginning of this war that no one is willing to turn this into WWIII by direct military intervention.
And how "fragile" would Russia have to be for - how many operational tanks does Germany have? Or Britain, which has more operational horses than tanks? - European forces to make a difference, even if the Russians somehow, contrary to their policy, decided to fight WWIII without using their nukes?
Absurd on its face. But the author lost me when he quoted Ben Hodges, this war's most fervid, most outlandish fantacist.
It's too late for that. The U.S. spent $2 or $3 trillion losing a war to the Taliban. No one ever expected to beat the Russians on a couple hundred billion. It was never the plan for Ukraine to win, and now it's too late.
Now the only thing is to get the war over with the best possible deal for Ukraine, with preserving sovereignty within whatever borders being the main thing, try to help them rebuild, and then have a good hard think how we prevent this from happening again.
Do we start a new arms race and build up the capability to fight a large attritional land war to deter Russia? Europe would have to radically Spartanize itself in order to do that, and it would be an expensive long term project requiring very large sacrifices to do, and even then it's not clear that this would prevent a new big European war.
So even that sacrifice does not eliminate the need for diplomacy and some kind of security architecture which works to stop all of this. Force is not enough.
No it's not. If the war goes on, Ukraine will be completely destroyed and will disappear. It needs to be stopped ASAP.
Attritional war is like bankruptcy -- it goes slowly, slowly, slowly, then all of a sudden. We are getting close to the all of a sudden stage.
The Russian Steamroller has run out of steam. To say their victory is inevitable is trump think. Who among us is sure they won’t move on the Baltics when they can? Ask any Russian, most will say эти наши (they’re ours). They already demand a neutered Poland like today’s Germany. Europeans must replace the US deterrence, or become Russia’s shopping center.
What makes you think the war will continue for years? It will not. It's in the final stages now. It will be over this year, one way or another. Which I think is what Budanov told the Rada recently.
What we see now is WWII in January 1945 or the American Civil War in November 1864. The Russians have had the strategic initiative for 15 months straight and have accumulated such an overmatch of combat power that they can afford to have 10 or 15 divisions -- at least 100k troops -- training in Belarus. According to Zelensky.
Put a fork in it.
What Putin will or won't accept we don't know until we do some actual negotiating. Earlier he would certainly have accepted Ukraine's continuing sovereignty, we even know the conditions. Now, since we've waited far too late, I don't know, but we have to try. Mark Milley said the time to negotiate was November, 2022, which as it turns out was indeed the high water mark of Ukrainian military successes. He was right. It's been all downhill since then, and the possible deal gets worse and worse.
Not WWIII, that's for sure. That would be the stupidest possible way to deal with the present situation. Literally any other possible result would be better than that.
Yes, I was really hoping that Ukraine would have time for a very strong "punch" before any bullshit deal is signed or comes to fruition. You can almost smell the opportunity for an effective counteroffensive in the air. Wouldn't defeat the whole enemy force but could take back significant assets if conducted properly.
They simply do not have the capability for a large counteroffensive. The best they could do was Kursk - and that was where the strike was rather unexpected and Russians were incapable of responding for a long time.
Unfortunately, WE have been underestimated since Day One. Or maybe that’s actually fortunate for obvious reasons.
Nothing would please me more than being proved wrong in that respect...
Mr Cook doesnt understand the realities on the ground.
There will be no European force that is going to "fight with the Russians"
I’d agree but for different reasons. First, the issue of high interest rates is a non-issue. Inflation is higher and rates are not so prohibitive. Rising defaults can be because of various factors - loss of markets, loss of access to foreign currency, etc. The ruble is stable because of tight currency controls and the country still is net exporter (not because of high rates - “investors” are not buying the ruble to pocket the high yield. Yet, the situation seems to be worsening - with Russia more and more relying on imports - be it Iran, North Korea, China. They will all want something in exchange especially as trade/arms volumes increase. Then, not much of the disruption in the domestic fuel market yet but spring and summer is coming - lots of demand to come from the agri sector and what is worse the agri needs are concentrated in the same rear regions that bear the most of the Ukrainian attacks on fuel logistics- Krasnodar, Voronezh, etc.
Then probably Ukraine will have to reconsider its focus of the air raids on the fuel logistics. These UAVs can be used on more useful targets in such a case
'Stalled'? I would rather describe that as 'exhausted'.
_
Although Ukraine paid a price that 'land for dead' trade strategy paid off. I think the russian lines are just one or two months away from local collapses to start happening.
_
At this point this can be already won without Trump.
Guess that's what makes him so hysterical.
Against an attack - yes.
Against their own stupidity, corruption, exhaustion and undersuppliedness - not so much.
They also didn't give up with the siege of Kiev and the occupation of the north-east parts.
Oh, wait...
My point is, that their position is not sustainable in their worn-down state anymore and if they refuse to retreat and consolidate like in Kherson (or the other previous mentions) then they'll start experience local collapses in a month or two.
The Russians retreated from Kiev in April 2022, when they had around 150,000 men in Ukraine and were outnumbered 4 to 1 and then still managed to maintain the initiative and continued offensive operations for the next 4 months, until the end of August. It wasn't until 21 September 2022, after the Kharkiv Front collapsed, that the Kremlin mobilised the reservists and eliminated the Ukrainian manpower advantage by tripling their manpower complement in Ukraine, from 150,000 to 450,000.
Now, the two sides have a parity in manpower.
"Against an attack"
You do realise that the Russians are significantly more formidable on the defense than they are on the offense, right? Or did you forget the middle of 2023 when the Ukrainians launched two strategic offensive operations, one against the Melitopol-Berdyansk corridor and one against the Bakhmut salient, and both ended in a disastrous defeat for the Ukrainians?
At this point, since 1 October 2022, when they finally won in Lyman, the Ukrainians have only launched one semi-successful offensive operation: Kursk. It's been 2 years and 4 months, and that's the sole "success" in terms of offensive operations that they can point to, and it was only accomplished because they struck into a sector of the front the Russians de facto left undefended. Though they've already lost 2/3rds of their salient in Kursk and are likely to lose the rest in the coming months.
The problem with GDP is increased activity of EU bureaucrats is not the same as increased factory production of weapons and munitions. Germany is no longer a coal powerhouse. England no longer has colonial sources and the North Sea has pretty much dried up. France is struggling holding onto its African interests. Yes, Europe can increase defense spending by employing more bureaucrats but spending money (energy) on manufacturing is difficult because, again, the EU simple doesn't have the oil/gas to do so.
They don't need 3% GDP. They need tankers full of cheap oil and gas. China forces Russian into selling oil/gas cheap The U.S. forces the EU into buying oil/gas at a premium.
That has always been Russia's trump card. In a sense, Trump recognizes that in a weird way. The U.S. and Russia both have the oil/gas/food necessary to be independent. Why should they fight? Let everyone else line up with their begging cup. China still has plenty of coal and has bought future energy independence through solar and wind.
The logic tells me the Ukraine war is only part of WWIII. The EU doesn't want to face the cold hard facts. If it wants Russian resources it must die to get them. If Ukraine falls, the EU falls. From the beginning, EU politicians have not owned up to that.
Ukraine has been navigating these truths. They understand that every Russian drone was bought with funds Russia took in by selling oil to China to build a electronics for the EU, or to refine materials.
Everyone talks about Russia wanting to invade Europe. HA! Why would they want that? They just want EU with a begging cup in the same relationship the EU has to the U.S. and China ;) As for Ukraine, ultimately Russia will spit out that animal tearing it apart from the inside.
When the war ends for Ukraine it will truly begin for everyone else.
Military industry does not necessarily need oil and gas.
It needs metals, coal for steel production and cheap energy.
And in XXIth century the cheapest and quickest to deploy energy is solar and wind. Europe does not need to die or beg for russian gas. It has all the technical and scientifical capability to gain energy independence by it's own means.
Also, Europe is still an industrial powerhouse. Just, at this time, most of this industroal output is beeing exported.
Current industrial electric furnaces max out around 1800°F
- Silicon purification needs 2200°F (requires fossil fuels)
- Glass manufacturing needs 3100°F (requires fossil fuels)
- Steel production needs 2500°F (requires fossil fuels)
How will solar or wind power a navy, an air force, self propelled artillery, trucks, heat a bunker? I'm sorry Michal, the military has always needed copious amounts of oil and gas. If Russia didn't have it we wouldn't be here talking ;) Yes, Europe is an industrial powerhouse. Eventually I believe it will "pacify" Russia, but it can't do that with a solar panel!
I've read many who say that electric only works for recycling and some forms of aluminum. Theoretically, some argue it can be done. But I don't feel this is debated. Can you tell me where you get the idea we can get off coal/gas/oil for steel, concrete etc.?
Sorry Grahor, I don't know what to tell YOU ;) The "green" industry can brainwash us all.
From that wiki link: "Since EAF steelmaking mainly use recycled materials like scrap iron and scrap steel"
From steel.org
"The blast furnace is the first step in producing steel from iron oxides. The first blast furnaces appeared in the 14th century and produced one ton per day. Even though equipment is improved and higher production rates can be achieved, the processes inside the blast furnace remain the same. The blast furnace uses coke, iron ore and limestone to produce pig iron."
They then go on to say gas is replacing some coal.
Again, electric furnaces are only used to recycle scrap. Only in a lab or small startup are they used to create new steel from ore.
China is far and away the biggest producer of new steel. Why? Cheap labor and coal (space and infrastructure too). The U.S. mostly recycles. And recycling looses some percent of final output from each cycle.
There are already existing technologies to produce steel based on hydrogen - without coke coal.
And yes, military needs fuel. But the sole and only reason for existence of european armies is Russia. So it does not matter, where european military can get it's fuel, certainly it will not get it from Russia.
And certainly Europe will not pacify Russia by beeing dependant on it's gas and oil.
Many have written on why hydrogen is a non-starter. I agree with them. So we'll just have to disagree that it will ever be a solution.
Lately I've been reading Keynes' "Economic Consequences of the Peace". He couldn't have predicted WWII better if he tried, though he never specifically said it. Any thinking reader could connect the dots.
He pointed out that though Germany had a lot of coal, there was really no way for France to force it to replay reparations with it. Who would mine it? Who would pay for the infrastructure? Tools? They couldn't force German men into the mines to do it.
The fundamental question for me is what should Europe pay for Russian oil and gas? The more they pay, the more Russia has money to expand (like into Georgia, Ukraine, etc). On the other hand, the less they pay the more they grow their economies at the expense of Russia.
Even if Putin said to Europe, you can have the oil and gas but you have to mine it. What would Europeans pay themselves to to that work? Would they do, send poor men immigrant? Of course, as you say, they would say no thanks, we have our green energy.
AS IF!
There is no Santa Klaus, there is no "renewal energy" replacement for oil and gas. Yes, solar and wind can supplement our energy use. It can power our laptops and charge our cars. But that's it. Everything else need HIGH ENERGY OUTPUTS per gram, so to speak. Hydro is tapped out. Without cheap batteries solar and wind won't grow much and nuclear, well ;)
Again, Europe must take Russian oil and gas. Or give in to Russia's prices and the power that goes with it. The math is all there. Today, like in 1919, few want to connect the dots.
Solar and wind already did grow much. And we do already have cheap and still going cheaper baterries.
Of course, we wont completely get rid of fossil fuels in the nearest future.
But for that, constantly dwindling, amount of fossils, that we still need, we don't need Russia.
Russia is not the only source of fossil fuels on planet Earth. Actually, for Europe, it is the worst possible of them all.
Energy is energy, whether in a drop of gasoline, diesel, or the chemicals in batteries. All have tradeoffs in density, peak power, safety, etc. The Germans thought they'd win the war on "synthetic oil". They didn't. Europe won't win with "renewables" either.
Putin, bless his peace-loving soul ( may he rot in hell) understands energy better than any American President or European politician. Oil/gas started forming around 350 million years ago and ended 50 million years ago (super simplification). Anyway, if Russia can wait 50 million years for us to use them they can wait another few years ;)
Russians also understand, living in cold and unforgiving environment that solar and wind are BS--if staying alive means anything to you.
Yes, Norway, the Middle East and U.S. is supplying Europe with most of its energy but it won't last. U.S. Oil country is happy to sell as much gas to the EU as it can but when it runs out that's it. And there will be NO WARNING. It has sold somewhat cheap to get European business but you can bet prices will rise.
Why does the EU forget the U.S. are a bunch of hard-ass cunning bastards like the Russians. You want friendship, get a dog ;)
Here in Massachusetts where I live (home to Harvard and MIT) we get our gas from Trinidad. It's running out. But all I read in the local papers, social network, is it is the politicians faults, or those who keep up infrastructure. AT THE SAME TIME these same people go on and on about climate change and how their Tesla or EV will save the planet.
I'm getting into a rant Michal! I guess I better stop.
Europe can't survive without Russian resources. I don't know if that truth with take 1,2,3 or how many years.
Thanks Ben. If the background of your work is preparing Europe to strike Russia preemptively on land, then this is just wishful thinking. Europe currently has neither a corresponding doctrine, nor sufficient numbers of armed forces and weapons, nor the means to protect its own logistics, not to mention its non-existent "unity". The fact that the armed forces of the main European powers - Great Britain, France and Germany, have long abandoned conscription and switched to contract recruitment, suggests that they are not designed for any large-scale and prolonged military conflict. In 2022, Europe had two options - it had to seriously invest in increasing the combat readiness of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and at the same time urgently reform its armed forces. It ignored both. Now it can only hope for the end of hostilities under acceptable conditions.
Any West European force which enters Russia will be cut to pieces by FPV drones.
NATO has experts în drone and EM warfare but has not trained its soldiers în these field.
So any Russian vulnerability can not be exploited by military means.
Thanks for the article. Only a doubt: how "Europe's continued inaction exacerbates these vulnerabilities." (russian ones)? If Europe's inaction is making them worse, maybe should be an argument for Europe do nothing, and it doesn't seem the case to me....
Thanks in advance
So sad that the US voted against the UN resolution condemning the Russian invasion, but then Trump has always had the 'hots' for dictators (which actually proves that he doesn't really consider Zelensky a dictator).
No surprise that Israel did. Netanyahu has courted Putin for ages and is doing his best to emulate him...
EU and UK have many weapons that will 'expire' within 24 months of now. they are already paid for.
using them against Russia (within Ukraine or on ONLY military targets in russia) is a no brainer.
why? how could Russia respond in military terms? it has nothing much left to respond with... and the nuclear threat is in reality an empty threat, if they deployed 1 nuke they ( and everyone else) has lost, as, then the NATO countries (not counting trump forces) would set upon Russia en masse with full force.
act now NATO v2
One simply cannot rely on Germany to make the right choices, let alone actions. That is the experience of the past two decades. France is a talker, Netherlands also. Italy abdicates all responsibility. And these four would never accept leadership from an upstart like Poland or Spain.
The most righteous EU country has been shown to be Denmark. It is not on the front line, yet it supports Ukraine significantly (per capita). They might be uniquely positioned to offer leadership...
Fragile or not, it's also about appearances.
As Russia can keep appearing the winning side, they may be able to win also politically.
It's necessary to win against the disinformation bubble, but Trump is doubling down against anyone who dares contradict him (see the meet with Macron when the latter did dare to contradict him live on TV):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EZ7gayXMSI