Three-Dimensional Geopolitical Chess

for the tin-foil hat crowd

Okay, reach for your tin foil hats and let’s stroll down the Conspiratorial Rabbit Trail. Ready, Everyone? Here goes:

When the Special Military Operation began in early 2022, during the 8th year of fighting in Ukraine, the new aspect of the conflict was cast strictly in terms of Democracy vs. Autocracy; valiant Ukraine holding back the onslaught of Russian tyranny; or the defense of Western democratic values against dark barbarism from the East; or the Rules-Based International Order against the forces of Chaos, etc. etc. No one talks that way today, unless it is Kalla Kallas, or the Lithuanian prime minister, Keith Kellogg, or cringingly recently by King Charles III. I suppose Anthony Blinken would, if he had access to a microphone. But he doesn’t.

The problem is, of course, that liberal democracy did not turn out to be the Fukuyamaian End of History that it was purported to be. (In February 2022, before my current views had quite solidified, I distinctly remember thinking, however, “Oh, History is back.”) The decline of democracy, so-stated, is most pronounced where its horn is tooted the most: Europe. Orwell predicted rightly, all political animals are equal, but some political animals are more equal than others. Don’t ask questions in Romania. Or Moldova. Running as an AfD candidate in Germany can get you fitted for a coffin in no time flat. And don’t even get me started on the U.K., where the governing elites are certifiably insane, and whose Prime Minister I’ve recently heard characterized as Tony Blair’s sock-puppet.

Real political expression can often seem more vibrant in the vilified countries–Russia, Hungary, Slovakia–though it may not translate to real political options. But no matter, dissent is decidedly not welcome in the European Parliament. Just ask Georgia what happens when you try to chart an independent course, based on your own country’s national interest. And of course, there is that bastion of freedom itself, Ukraine, where, if you are a man under 60 years of age, you don’t dare emerge from your flat, even if wheelchair-bound.

A friend characterized it thusly: “Ukraine is being not so much governed, as torn up at her beleaguered roots, by a bloodthirsty power-drunk drug-addicted neoliberal narcissist clown.”¹ A clown, I might add, who is still allowed to address the United Nations. Anyone, (Simon Tisdall in today’s Guardian, for example) still repeating the Democracy vs. Tyranny narrative is simply not a serious person; to be avoided at cocktail parties and whose blatherings are to be dismissed out of hand.

As any reader here knows, I prefer Realist interpretations, best stated by John Mearsheimer, to-wit: Projection of Western hegemony vs. Russia’s “Red Line” (Eastward expansion of NATO vs. Russia’s defense of their Western border.) Realism rejects the view of NATO as a benign defensive alliance, which collapses in the face of even a cursory view of actual history. Russians had good reasons for viewing it as an existential threat directed at them, which of course it was.

The eastward march of NATO, the coup d’etat of 2014, the creeping NATOization of Ukraine in late 2021—all in the face of repeated, consistent, and increasingly urgent warnings from Moscow–do not need to be recounted again here. The real agenda was not, of course, the incorporation of what was demonstrably the most corrupt nation in Europe into NATO, but rather the destablization of Russia itself. For the Empire of the West, regime change is always on the agenda. Always. And so it will be until the Empire falls.

The idea, it seems, was always to overthrow the Russian government and/or oversee the establishment of a compliant one (a la Ukraine), and perhaps break the country up into more manageable bits. Once this was accomplished, we could turn our full attention to China. If this was indeed the plan, it has been a failure of yet unimagined and colossal magnitude that it indeed heralds the death of the Empire itself. Or so I thought.

Tin-foil hats secured? Consider this: What if the ultimate plan was never to defeat Russia at all? For it has rarely been done; the Golden Horde almost pulled it off some 800 years ago, and Sweden scored some victories for a season over 400 years ago. We expect such fantastical thinking from the EU elites (and Fredreich Merz, who raises no alarms by speaking of rearming Germany again.) But I would expect there to be at least a few objective students of History within the bowels of our Permanent State. Rather, what if the immediate plan is the the defeat of Europe, not Russia; reducing it to permanent vassal state status? There are three main ways² in which this is being accomplished:

1. Ditch the inexpensive Russian oil that had been the foundation of Europe’s prosperity in recent decades. Beginning with their destruction of NordStream, this lengthy cutting-off-of-the-nose-to-spite-the-face is now nearly complete. The governing elites (save Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey) have convinced themselves that they will get cooties if they use “cheap Russian oil.” Instead they have opted for much more expensive fuel from us, and from…the Russians, after it has been first filtered through India. This is decimating economies and leaving many people struggling to survive. But no matter, their moral purity and “European values” are intact.

2. Deplete all European weapons stockpiles, throwing them heedlessly into the Black Hole of Ukraine. Of course the European elites cannot shake their Ukraine addiction because a) Zelensky wants more and they cannot refuse their creation, who might get angry with them; and b) they believe if Russia defeats Ukraine, they will come after Europe next. On the second point, one should ask for some empirical evidence. Unfortunately, there is none. Russia seems single-mindedly intent on securing its western border, and displays no apparent interest in what lies beyond. Indeed, what does Russia want with the meager crumbs of Europe, when a sumptious feast is being laid in the East? No matter, this story continues to be repeated to justify the ongoing bankrupting of Europe. They cannot manufacture the weapons Zelensky demands, so they must buy overpriced weaponry from the United States. And so, the engines of Empire are stoked. (One side point: NATO buying weapons from the U.S. is largely the U.S./NATO buing weapons from the U.S. Look for this twist to change, if it ever comes to it.)

3. As the President has made clear in recent pronouncements, Europe will bear ALL the cost for prolonging the war. Nothing prevents any one of the European governing elites from picking up the phone and calling the Kremlin, and beginning a dialogue. But that will never happen. The war must go on in the vain hope of eventually, somehow, tricking the U.S. into a long-lasting commitment to Europe (through Ukraine.) So what looms ahead for Europe? Certainly not prosperity. Civil unrest and bankruptcy seem on order, as Europe settles-in to being part American vassal-state, part “open-air museum.”

So, if this is the plan, I must say that it is succeeding beyond anyone’s wildest imagination. And the Russians have been exceedingly helpful. Russian tanks rolling across the steppes in traditional fashion would have alarmed Europeans and galvanized a true, unified response. Instead, Moscow pursues a slow and steady war of attrition, one that a) churns up the Ukrainian army, b) protects its own soldiers, and c) doesn’t unduly alarm the Europeans (despite their paranoid rhetoric.) For those of us who review the battle lines every day, there is no great sweep of territory underway (leading neocon dead-enders Lindsay Graham and Keith Kellogg to assert that the line is stalemated and/or Ukraine is actually winning.)

The Russians move forward, one field at a time. They protect their troops, the casualty figures whispered from Zelensky to Kellogg to DJT are works of upside-down fantasy fiction. The Russian army resists directly assaulting a town, preferring to encircle it with giant pincher movements. I’ve watched it again and again, and is now being played out in Povrovsk, Kostyantynivka, Siversk, and Kupyansk. Of course, Zelensky allows no retreat, ever. And so, they more or less fight to the last Ukrainian, in the killing fields of these caudrons. By some estimates, Ukraine has lost 1.7 million men. Another 250,000 have deserted.

DJT’s recent Truth Social post is a curious piece in this scenario. If he meant what he said, then that does not speak well for him; showing him to be either be a fool or, as has been judged by some, as simply believing the last person he talked to; in this case, a 7-minute conversation with Zelensky. But, as is almost universally understood now (even by European leaders, in private), this was a work of deep sarcasm. But that is troubling as well. There is no diplomacy here. And there is no courage, only manipulation and evasion. I give DJT credit for often being shrewd, but he is never courageous, too given to trying to please everyone.

He deduces that since some claim Ukriane is winning, then the U.S. is not needed anymore; that Europe can supply whatever arms they do need, and that the U.S. will be happy to sell those weapons to them. In short, the U.S. has no strategic interest in this conflict, and leaves it to the European continent to sort out. This could have been stated straight-forwardly, repeatedly, beginning on 20 January 2025. DJT thinks Ukraine’s coming defeat will thus be blamed on Europe (I’m not too sure of that). The United States has its own problems, but in this scenario, will emerge in much better shape than the Europeans, responsible for the hollowed-out husk of Ukraine.

1. Matt Cooper, on Facebook.

2. h/t to InfoDefenseEnglish on Telegram