Vladimir Putin’s main strategy at this point in the war is to stall for time.
Everyone seems to realize that — and the rationale behind this approach. Ukraine is highly dependent on its Western allies.
If it stops successfully liberating its soil, the allies will have to push Kyiv to negotiate
on Putin’s terms instead of providing more aid.
Makes sense, doesn’t it? At least that’s what a lot of public figures think, even pro-Ukrainian ones.
That’s what propaganda steers us toward: you just have to ride it out and everything will be fine.
Actually, this is wrong. So wrong that it’s ridiculous how people deny the reality that’s staring them in the eye.
It’s this clash of fact and fiction that we’ll talk about today.
Before we start, I’d like to invite major sponsors to our livestream.
Anastasia Bryukhanova and I will be streaming from our Paris studio, to which we’ll invite five biggest donors.
The top three sponsors will also get a signed copy of my book.
Find the details in the description, along with a link to contact our manager if you have any questions. Okay, let’s roll.
BETS AND EXPECTATIONS
By fall, it was already clear that Putin couldn’t win this war on his own. That he would need a black swan.
Or hope for external forces that he has no control over.
Remember how confidently propagandists and Putin himself relished their threat that Europe would freeze in winter?
That Europe would come begging us for cheap gas, and we would exchange it for Ukraine’s surrender.
They were so sure of their ominous weather forecast that Putin himself cut off a significant portion of Europe’s gas supply.
A curious fact for you: Europe has yet to impose sanctions on Russian gas.
Whittling down gas supplies to Germany was Putin’s unilateral decision.
Just think about how insane that is: to bet everything — gas export revenue,
Russia’s share in the European energy market, and war prospects — on something as random as the weather.
Moreover, it was a double bet. First, it would have to get abnormally cold in Europe.
Second, this would have to encourage European politicians to shut down military aid to Ukraine instead of,
for example, subsidizing utility bills. In this perfect scenario, Europe was supposed to freeze and succumb to blackmail, too.
Honestly, gambling your future away in a casino would’ve been smarter.
A casino game at least has mathematical odds, whereas here you’re just relying on blind luck.
But why would you get lucky? Who said the winter would be cold? And what would that cold give you, anyway?
These aren’t the questions that really matter, are they?
Rotten luck with the weather isn’t the only such example.
The government’s rhetoric today inevitably emphasizes reliance on uncontrollable external circumstances.
Official Russian speakers followed the 2022 U.S. election much more closely than any Russian election,
saying that as soon as the Republicans won Congress, they’d pull the plug on the Ukraine aid.
This begs the question: who told you this? Who told you that the Republicans would win Congress?
And even if they did, what makes you think that the G.O.P. is your friend, the Washington branch of United Russia?
What led you to that conclusion? Trump’s interviews? Tweets from a couple of rogue politicians? Tucker Carlson’s show?
What in the world makes you think that the people who hug the Statue of Liberty,
hold the star-spangled banner in the highest regard conceivable,
venerate national security, and always vote for increased army and intelligence budgets;
those receiving dough from the military-industrial complex and depending on industrial workers’ votes —
what makes you think that they’ll suddenly cut military aid to Ukraine? Deprive the defense industry of contracts?
Lay off those producing the HIMARS systems and the Abrams tanks for Ukraine?
Side with the ones who openly call America their enemy?
Why would the party uniting conservative warmongers suddenly be your ally?
Because you share a suspicious attitude toward LGBTQ+?
Yeah, they might have their reservations — but they sure like getting re-elected.
And the people who want more cash spent on the army and intelligence needs, more security,
and more jobs in the defense industry are the ones who vote Republican.
The Russian authorities and propagandists were so sure that Republicans were their great friends that
a reporter from Russian state news agency RIA even posed a question to the Republican speaker of the House.
Let's have a look at his answer.
We’ll now pause for a short non-commercial announcement from an independent media outlet.
After that, we’ll continue discussing Russian officials’ unrealistic bets and expectations. Thanks for watching.
AD
Let’s keep rolling. Speaking of unrealistic bets and expectations.
While the hope for cold weather was a probabilistic bet, the Republican win narrative is an improbably long shot.
Why on earth would the people making money and careers off national defense,
basing their policies on the Reagan administration’s doctrine, and constantly banging
on about America’s greatness suddenly become Putin’s punks?
We now see this narrative being replicated on a different level: expecting the unknown.
For an abstruse reason, the allies will “grow weary” of supporting Ukraine.
Propagandists make support for Ukraine seem like working in a coalmine —
something that politicians and societies physically tire of.
Sooner or later, they’ll grow sick of it and realize it’s “unprofitable.”
What do we actually have? First, it really is unprofitable.
It’s unprofitable to exclude Russia from world trade through sanctions and to supply Ukraine with weapons
on account of loans that’ll be written off.
Only a handful benefit from war: it’s detrimental to the vast majority of people.
Profit isn’t the reason for sanctions and aid to Kyiv.
These decisions are made to withstand the main economic challenge,
which is causing incalculably more damage, a war in the heart of Europe.
Second, if anythng, the U.S. and E.U. aid to Ukraine has grown over the course of the war.
In less than a year, Western allies have gone from helmets and bulletproof vests to rocket launchers,
battle tanks, and medium-range missiles.
There’s serious discussion of creating a fleet of fighter jets. We’ve never once seen a step back.
On the contrary, each new step has always been bigger than the previous one, both in terms of money and weapons.
PROFIT AND FATIGUE
When discussing what’s profitable and what’s not, it’s important to understand whose profit we’re talking about.
For the economies of the U.S. and E.U. in general, it’s likely unprofitable to lose a fraction of a percent of their GDP
to the Ukraine aid. The math is straightforward: retaining percentage points is better than losing some.
But let’s look at it from a different angle.
Western defense and national security budgets that were dormant for 30 years after the Cold War
have now been jolted wide awake.
Rearmament programs that had been shelved long ago are being rekindled.
Countries suddenly need millions of soldiers and are ready to pay them a ton of money.
And taxpayers don’t mind paying them to contain a direct and clear threat.
Looking at it this way, what’s the downside for the allies? They’re in for a renaissance.
What problem surfaced immediately after Leopard deliveries to Ukraine were greenlighted?
European NATO countries actually had no idea how many tanks they had. It’s all fine on paper.
One country has 200, another has 70, and yet another one has a staggering 400.
But off-paper calculations showed that nobody knows how many of these tanks can budge —
even after long and expensive maintenance.
It turned out that the mighty NATO was so oblivious to the idea of war and put its army so far down the list of issues
in need of attention and funding that even the question “How many of your weapons can actually shoot?”
warranted a serious inspection.
What was the topic of the last NATO summit before the war?
Climate change. It’s not that it’s a non-existent or insignificant problem.
But just imagine how a general or a head engineer of an arms factory must’ve felt.
This is what your career now looks like. Instead of commanding armies or designing innovative missiles,
you’re stopping the melting of glaciers.
Your enemy isn’t the notorious Axis of Evil led by the mighty USSR — your enemy is CO2.
For the West’s military-industrial complex, the last 30 years have been a history of shutdowns,
lay-offs, and project cancellations, when armies were turned into strictly perfunctory entities receiving
whatever money was left. Remember how Donald Trump blasted European countries once he assumed office?
“You bastards, we agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defense, but you don’t even spend 1%.
The U.S. bears all NATO expenses, are you out of your minds, folks?”
All weapons manufacturers and servicemen on both sides of the pond must’ve been with Trump on that.
What sort of mess is it, indeed?
We’re ready to make and use all these innovative gadgets for killing people,
and you’re concerned with inclusive education and accessible urban planning?
The problem for these people was that voters support spending on the military and intelligence in one case only:
when they’re scared. It’s marketing 101.
If you want to sell beefed-up security to a democratic society, it first needs to feel scared.
Putin did a better job than any lobbyist for the military-industrial complex or intelligence agencies could’ve ever done.
Putin managed to shut up the politicians talking about cutting security funding.
What’s that, you want less money for the army and more for education and healthcare?
Well how about a missile hitting a residential block?
The situation is pretty straightforward. Those responsible for allocating military aid to Ukraine — the generals,
the defense agencies, the intelligence folks — are the ones interested in giving Ukraine as much of this aid as possible.
Because it’s their offices that are responsible for the aid to Ukraine, be it in terms of equipment, weapons,
or intelligence.
The war in Ukraine has led to a radical revision of spending and government takes on defense and security.
Russo-Ukrainian war serves as a huge showcase for new types of weapons.
Putin has single-handedly created a large and extremely powerful interest group that’ll not only not get tired of Ukraine,
but is interested in giving it as much aid as possible, leading to Ukraine’s decisive win.
For the economies of the U.S. and the E.U., direct aid to Ukraine is a mere penny that can easily be ignored —
unlike the increase in the governments’ defense spending. If you bother to look at NATO’s current programs,
you’ll notice that, for each dollar that goes to Ukraine, at least $10 go to the military of NATO member states.
How does direct aid to Ukraine work?
When Germany provides one Leopard tank to Ukraine, it doesn’t mean that it has lost a tank.
It means that Germany buys a new tank instead.
Moreover, it gives away relatively old tanks and replaces them with brand-new ones.
Having sent 18 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, Germany is stocking up on at least 18 Leopard 2A8 tanks,
with a call option for a further several hundred.
Who’s in the red? Rheinmetall AG, one of Germany’s biggest industrial companies?
The German army getting brand-new tanks? All the people manufacturing and operating those tanks?
Will all of them grow weary of Ukraine?
Come on, they’ll like Ukraine and do their best to ensure that it gets as many new tanks as possible.
Because each tank that’s given away ushers in a contract for a new tank.
But what matters isn’t how much weaponry gets purchased.
Crucially, the whole philosophy is being restructured: not a single parliament in the world will now dare
scoff at the demands of the military.
They now have a pass into the all-you-can-eat money buffet for years, if not decades, to come.
The memories of the terrible damage inflicted on the European security system will remain long after Putin is gone.
Although even the thought that European security might potentially have suffered will be enough.
For many years, Europe will bear in mind that you have to keep your armies at ready
and shouldn’t reduce them to a FEMA squad.
Take Sweden, for example: it hasn't yet joined NATO, but is already set to increase its defense spending by 50%,
from 1.3% to 2% of their GDP, by 2026.
Just a few days ago, Sweden held its largest military exercise in 25 years.
Do you see how strange it is to have "military exercise" and "Sweden" in the same sentence?
But it's not strange for the Swedish army and weapons producers —
it just sounds like someone really needs them for the first time in decades.
A Swedish general is no longer a contradiction, it’s a real job again.
What’ll all these powerful interest groups grow weary of? Of receiving cash? Of being in the thick of politics?
Of their own clout? Of controlling governments and parliaments in the name of external threat prevention?
Yeah, right, that’s what interest groups are all about — growing weary of clout, money, and power.
Remember how intelligence agencies flourished in the wake 9/11?
More than 20 years later, anyone waiting in line for TSA security screening while their insoles
are checked for explosives still bears witness to this trend.
And that’s a terrorist attack, a one-off event that killed less than 3,000 people. It’s nothing like a drawn-out war in Europe.
All the talk of the Western allies’ “fatigue” is obviously just wishful thinking of the Kremlin’s senior statesmen
and their propagandists. Since Santa Claus didn’t give us a frozen Madrid for Christmas,
maybe God will make at least make them tired.
Make Western politicians claim that Ukraine isn’t advancing as it should.
Claim that since Ukraine still hasn’t taken back Crimea, it’s time to hand Kyiv over to Putin.
Meanwhile, we’ll stall for time, waiting for one election or another to bail us out.
The problem for the Kremlin statesmen is that the stakeholders that they created aren’t voted into power at any election.
Moreover, Putin has given them something that no amount of money can buy: a real threat that must be defeated.
The fight against Putin is ethically impeccable, and it helps very important individuals reap enormous economic
and political benefits. These very important people will fight hard for these benefits, and they certainly won’t grow weary.
So it's out of the question that the West will stop supporting Ukraine.
See you tomorrow!