Peter Slezkine Tries ...

 ... to look beyond the fait accompli of West's defeat in his interesting piece in The American Conservative. 

According to the “global majority” (as the Russians call it), the sun is finally setting on the West. After 500 years of dominance, the West is showing signs of relative decline across almost every dimension. A protracted period of historical anomaly is passing, and the world is entering an age defined by a reassertion of sovereign interests and a resurgence of ancient civilizations. At a certain remove, this image seems a reasonable enough representation of new realities. But as a roadmap for navigating international politics, it is far too rough a sketch. First, “decline” does not mean “displacement.” The West may lose its power to rule by diktat. Its institutions, culture, and moral fashions may lose their charm. But we will continue to live in a profoundly modern and globalized world of Western origin. Our systems of education and science, our forms of government, our legal and financial mechanisms, and our built environment will continue to rest on a Western foundation. A weakening West is unlikely to find itself in a post-Western world. 

He is absolutely correct, an undeniable fact of all of us living in the world which was shaped by the West. And the defeat and its euphemism--the decline--does not mean that West as a civilization will disappear. 

Slezkine identifies three paths for the West: 

I see three paths forward. The first is a limited liberal restoration. ... Another possibility is a radical retrenchment, understood as an abandonment of empire in favor of the nation. Politically, such a move would be broadly popular. ... The third and final option, then, is a new transatlantic consolidation that replaces a liberal universalist logic with a self-consciously civilizational frame, with the United States as the acknowledged metropole and Europe as a privileged periphery.

I agree with Slezkine, the likely outcome will be some sort of combination of the three ... for now. A lot depends on the dynamics of Europe's decline and this one is difficult to predict in detail. But Slezkine, not without justification, states in conclusion:

In any event, the United States is poised to maintain a favorable position in a multipolar world. The legacy institutions of international liberalism have largely lost their purpose, but retain residual power (which, ironically, the U.S. can leverage most effectively against other members of the “liberal order”). Going forward, the Trump administration should continue to push for a reconfiguration of the transatlantic relationship as a self-consciously Western coalition united by a common approach to trade, technology, and resource management. And if Europe fails to accept its new role, or play it well, then Washington can cut bait and retrench to prepared positions in the Western Hemisphere.

Yes, this is the luxury the US has, again--for now only, which Europe does not. 

The American Conservative's ...

... senior editor needs to take a few serious courses in actual history, policy and strategy--I omit here courses on operational art and operations, he will not get it--and try to write with at least a pretense of objectivity, when trying to portray Trump's sheer failure as some kind of "strategy" instead of kindergarten level hustling around SMO, trying to gain whatever could be portrayed as America's "victory" and DJT's "diplomatic triumph". I, of course, do not expect the author of this drivel to grasp the critical issue of COFM. 

Andrew Day posits:

Simply put, Washington doesn’t have big enough sticks to force Russia to stop the war—the “unipolar moment” truly is over. Fortunately, Trump has managed to engineer a large carrot that could help entice Moscow to make peace. In the opening weeks of the administration, the White House not only reestablished diplomatic contacts with the Kremlin but put on the table a grand U.S.-Russia rapprochement, which Putin seems to desire. In last week’s track II talks, the Russians conveyed a strong interest in better bilateral relations. Trump should continue to promote closer ties between Washington and Moscow but signal that failure to resolve the war in Ukraine would jeopardize this broader diplomatic project. He should also make clear—not only to Putin but to Russia hawks in Washington—that Moscow would get sanctions relief if it ended the war. If Trump, through wise deployment of carrots and sticks, manages to coax Putin to the negotiating table, he should use the peace talks not only to try resolving the current conflict but to probe Moscow’s intentions. This would require differentiating between Russian demands that arise from legitimate security concerns and those that bespeak nefarious designs. 

LOL. I like Andrew Day's insouciance and conviction that Moscow seeks:

1. Sanctions relief. No, make no mistake--this item is in the list of demands but Andrew Day should refer himself to this (barely a month ago): 

Пресс-секретарь российского лидера Дмитрий Песков призвал внимательно слушать президента России Владимира Путина в вопросе снятия антироссийских санкций. Об этом представитель Кремля сообщил в интервью журналисту ВГТРК Павлу Зарубину. «Вы знаете, если у вас возникают подобные вопросы, у меня один совет: слушайте внимательно Путина. Что сказал Путин, выступая на съезде РСПП? Никакие санкции не снимут. Санкции - это надолго, это постоянные меры по сдерживанию России», - подчеркнул политик.

Translation: The Russian leader's press secretary Dmitry Peskov called for listening carefully to Russian President Vladimir Putin on the issue of lifting anti-Russian sanctions. The Kremlin representative said this in an interview with VGTRK journalist Pavel Zarubin. "You know, if you have such questions, I have one piece of advice: listen carefully to Putin. What did Putin say when he spoke at the RSPP congress? No sanctions will be lifted. Sanctions are for a long time, they are permanent measures to contain Russia," the politician emphasized.

Russians are not naïve and know about the United States orders of magnitude more than the US knows about Russia. If people at TAC think that Russians expect any lifting of sanctions, especially from Trump, I have a bridge to sell them.

2. Restoration of a diplomatic dialogue between Russia and the US is not some kind of a goodwill gesture or carrot--it has EVERYTHING to do with:

a) Necessity of the two nuclear superpowers to stay away from escalation;

b) Trump's understanding of a pitiful state of the US military and military-industrial base;

c) A dramatic loss of the arms race by the US.

These are the main factors, together with current administration's course on (futile) preserving Ukraine as a future place d'armes against Russia, which drove DJT into his "peace" rhetoric. In some sense, Trump is just the more entertaining and coherent version of Biden and in terms of any kind of rapprochement with Russia is driven by weakness, not sincere desire to stop the bloodshed. Russians are keenly aware of that. And when Day speaks about this:

As for demilitarization, the U.S. should be open to demands that Ukraine relinquish long-range missiles, but it should resist any calls for Kiev to give up air-defense systems, land mines, and other defensive munitions. Washington might also propose to have offensive weaponry positioned in southeastern Poland for release to Ukraine only in the event of future Russian aggression.

He should learn first that all of Ukraine's "long-range missiles" have been supplied by NATO, and he also should recall this:

«Что происходит сегодня в принципе тоже понятно. По всей линии боевого соприкосновения наши войска владеют стратегической инициативой. Есть все основания полагать... Я еще совсем недавно говорил, что мы их дожмем, но есть основания полагать, что мы их добьем», — сообщил российский лидер во время беседы с моряками подводной лодки «Архангельск».

Translation: "What is happening today is also clear in principle. Along the entire line of combat contact, our troops have the strategic initiative. There is every reason to believe... I said quite recently that we will put the squeeze on them, but there is reason to believe that we will finish them off," the Russian leader said during a conversation with the sailors of the Arkhangelsk submarine.

Unlike Trump, Putin doesn't do theatrics, doesn't make grandiose statements and doesn't sell BS packaged as "achievement" and TAC people are advised to learn what "strategic initiative" is and what it all means for the United States and the Trump's Administration. This may get them some dose of much needed reality of the US sustaining a historic humiliating defeat. Defeated do not get to dictate conditions.

In Related News...

 ... about 404. 

In a June 16 interview with the news channel of Ukraine’s army, Armiya TV, an Azov commander admitted to his unit being used to prevent other Ukrainian units from retreating.  Dmitry Kukharchuk, the commander of the Second Battalion of Ukraine’s Third Assault Brigade, the current iteration of the neo-Nazi-linked unit, recounts a moment in 2022 when his unit was positioned behind a unit of Ukraine’s territorial defense forces (TRO) to prevent its retreat:

We [Azov] were motivational troops then. We then helped the 110th brigade of the TRO. I can't say anything bad about them, because for a TRO they fought quite well, but, again, as a TRO they had to be motivated. And then my detachment—I was then the commander of a detachment of 500 men—was evenly distributed along a 25-kilometer line….

“Motivational troops” appears to be a euphemism for a “blocking detachment” (also known as “barrier troops”), a unit positioned behind the frontline to prevent retreat. It appears that Azov’s “motivation” existed as an implicit threat, preventing the TRO soldiers from falling back.

In related news--the water is wet, the fire is hot and concrete is painful when you fall on it from 20 feet height. They have been shooting VSU cannon fodder in the backs since day one. And, in fact, it was also part of the training provided by the NATO "instructors" who due to them sucking at real war are very good at shooting at the backs of retreating troops. Public executions in a front of the units have been also a normal affair in VSU since day one. But give The American Conservative a credit, after 30 months of SMO they finally noticed. Does Estonian own this publication, if you know what I mean? Since we are at TAC. 

Reaganism is the same type of mental illness as is exceptionalism, so Doug Bandow continues to live in the illusionary world that if you somehow define "victory" you may get some sort of favorable result: 

The allies should lay the groundwork for negotiations today, when Ukraine’s position is strongest. It is still possible to preserve that nation’s independence and sovereignty, while accepting military restrictions and territorial losses. How much would depend on talks. Washington and Brussels should discuss possible economic and security arrangements with Moscow. For example, Ukraine could be nonaligned militarily—with Russia assured that it would not face a hostile state allied with America on its border—but still free to form economic and political ties with Europe. If Russia makes peace, it could be free to reengage economically and politically with the West. The allies could offer the return of frozen funds and property to Moscow and individual Russians. 

What Bandow doesn't understand is that Putin's "offer" was peremptory and that the West far from having a strategy--it is an unknown thing in Washington--missed completely, as is ALWAYS the case in the US--in fact, I think they teach that in USMA at West Point and in War Colleges--the nature of the conflict. Few people who do grasp this nature, they usually do not go far in Washington. So, wishful thinking is not a strategy and for Bandow, if he still didn't understand the issue--Russia is at war with combined West and she will not stop now until Western hegemony is over.

Why Faking A Surprise?

I wrote couple of times about Max Boot. Now people in TAC recalled him and all for the wrong reason of Boot's party affiliation. Hint: Boot's party affiliation is Israel and, generally, with settling whatever accounts he has with his place of birth, Russia that is. But while paying attention to Boot's party affiliation's ambiguity, which, under present circumstances, is absolutely irrelevant (it was GOP which gave birth and brought up fanatics of neocon variety), the author of the piece makes a good observation:

Max Boot first came to public notice, or at least to mine, during the run-up to the Iraq war. He had persuaded a television producer somewhere to label him a “Defense Expert,” which, in the natural order of things, caused some people to mistake him for a defense expert. He had never been involved in even minor military operations himself, but he seemed uncontained in his enthusiasm for military operations involving other people. As the country debated the merits of an expedition to Iraq, Max Boot seemed to be everywhere. He was in every room. While he was rarely the most influential voice in any of those rooms, he was almost always the loudest. Among his several asseverations, all of them unburdened by either evidence or experience, were these: an American invasion would rid Iraq of nuclear weapons. (Iraq had no nuclear weapons.) An American invasion would cause the Iraqis to rise up and greet us as liberators. (They rose up and fought us as invaders.) An American invasion would bring democratic stability to a troubled region. (It brought chaos.) An American military victory would be quick and decisive. (After 16 years and incalculable losses in blood, treasure, prestige, and morale, the American military is still in Iraq.)

Ah, that's warmer. But it is distinction without a difference--I am talking about highlighted in yellow. I have a question to ask: and how is GOP different in respect to evidence or experience in anything real war related? Max Boot may be vomit inducing neocon, but the armies of "military experts" in GOP are the same breed of humanities "educated" ignoramuses from Ivy League degree mills and who wouldn't be allowed in any serious armed forces, despite their numerous Ph.Ds in God knows what useless for real war and foreign policy degrees, to be in charge of toilets in the company's barracks or on the frigate size ship. 

I don't understand what is so important about Boot's affiliation when decision, as an example, to attack Iraq (just for the sake of argument) was made inside Republican Administration and its courtier of "military experts" who can easily be called clones of Max Boot. Max Boot, the same as people who pushed through the invasion of Iraq both in the government and media are to warfare what I am to Chinese choreography or quantum mechanics. How about the author of the piece in TAC admits that for all Boot's despicable incompetence, things stated about him in the article equally apply to most of American "elites" their party affiliation notwithstanding. Incompetence and dual loyalties is what defines them and it, in this case, becomes merely an exercise in futility trying to sort out different sorts of shit.  

A Thought Of Note.

Some interesting piece from The American Conservative, albeit I have to disagree with opening phrase--OAC has very little to do with real politics let alone knows about what "socialism" other than the welfare state, which has nothing to do with socialism, is. But it is good and healthy that TAC brought up this issue. It couldn't be better framed than with Tucker's, and Pat's, brilliant quotes:

“Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster,” Carlson said. “Any economic system that weakens and destroys families isn’t worth having.” Does this observation make Tucker a socialist? Hardly. As is often the case, TAC founding editor Patrick J. Buchanan was more than a decade ahead of the curve. “To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people,” Buchanan said in a 1998 speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. “I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harnessed to work for man—and not the other way around.”

Good, very good, that such a message comes from, however debatable, important source of remaining American sanity. It is symptomatic that they used this:

There is more of a willingness to contest the idea that what’s good for General Motors is good for conservatives—or America.

Finally, the heart of the issue. If America remains a corporate state--she dies, possibly with catastrophic consequences for everyone. If she, in the end, finds own definition as a nation--she has a chance. For that to happen new elites must emerge. Is there a time for those to grow and enter politics? I don't know, but Trump, who betrayed his main pool of supporters--mostly white (there are few Black and Latino voters too) working and middle class people, without who there is no United States of America, is not representative anymore (he never was, Stephen Miller, however is) of those people. I would start with American universities and colleges--which are primarily hot seats of both radical "leftism" or religious exceptionalism, depending on particular school--and this could be done. There is no other, namely relatively peaceful way, than evolution, but it has to be stated that American so called "conservatism" as it was framed by late Buckely and headless war hawks is not about neo-liberal economics, war-mongering and jingoism--it is, in the end, about nation and what's good for it. And it is to the credit of TAC that they close off with this:

The periodic electoral successes conservatives have enjoyed since the 1980s have caused us to lose sight of an important question: what is it that we are trying to conserve? The search for answers is finally ready for primetime. 

In related news, Trump is slowly learning (is he?) that global economy and geopolitics require a better set of skills than that of NYC real estate hustler.  

WASHINGTON/BEIJING (Reuters) - U.S. negotiators have tempered demands that China curb industrial subsidies as a condition for a trade deal after strong resistance from Beijing, according to two sources briefed on discussions, marking a retreat on a core U.S. objective for the trade talks.   

Trump is really running US into the ground, but then again, having teenage (most likely Mossad asset) husband of his rather not too smart daughter as main advisers, or the cabal of aggressive neocon morons in national (in)security apparatus, is not conducive to required American transition to a normal country. Well...