Through the Labyrinth of Deception
In the fog of modern conflict, the true nature of warfare often lies buried beneath a pile of Western political rhetoric and propaganda. This is never more apparent than in the ongoing war in Ukraine, which has inevitably revealed itself to be more than just a territorial dispute between neighbours. While the conflict was initially presented as Russia's attempt to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine, the full extent of Russia's commitment to the fight wasn't immediately evident. Now, however, the smoke is clearing to reveal a grand endgame. What we are witnessing is not a simple conflict, but a complex, high-stakes dance of geopolitics involving a broader set of players, notably NATO, and an unsettling resurgence of historical antagonisms.
Indeed, the Western depiction of the conflict has often acted as a smoke screen, masking the more intricate dynamics at play. Narratives from both sides can be likened to opposing mirrors, each reflecting a different reality, with the West not just twisting, but manipulating the truth to serve its strategic ambitions. Consequently, the central challenge becomes piercing through the dense fog of this informational warfare, cutting through the tangled web of contrived narratives to arrive at an understanding of the conflict that is authentically grounded in reality.
Bernhard at Moon of Alabama (MOA) provides valuable insights into this intricate dynamic, specifically around a significant concern for Ukraine since its independence: its security guarantees. Bernhard discusses how, after the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Ukraine initially believed it could secure itself using inherited Soviet nuclear weapons. However, technical hurdles and international pressure, particularly from the U.S., hindered these efforts.
Ukraine, along with Belarus and Kazakhstan, eventually entered the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which resulted in the Budapest Memorandum. This agreement, signed by Russia, the UK, and the U.S., prevented them from using or threatening military force against Ukraine. However, as Bernhard indicates, this commitment has proven unreliable, contributing to the ongoing conflict.
In today's context, according to Bernhard, the prospect of NATO membership as a security guarantee for Ukraine has faded. Even the U.S.'s willingness to provide a security arrangement similar to that offered to Israel fails to secure Ukraine's safety due to the significant military imbalance with Russia. As Bernhard concludes, the only feasible guarantor of Ukraine's peace and security is Russia, although such guarantees would likely come with strings attached - a harsh reality Ukraine must grapple with.
The central challenge, then, as illuminated by Bernhard's analysis at MOA, is to cut through the web of propaganda and arrive at an understanding of the conflict grounded in reality
The newfound awareness of the war’s true nature has left casual observers stunned. It isn’t so much a battle between Russia and Ukraine as it is a proxy war between Russia and NATO, a conflict that was set in motion in 2014 when various Western agencies—including those from Germany, the UK, France, Sweden, and notably, the CIA—installed a puppet government in Kiev. Since then, Ukraine's sovereignty has become a question of mere semantics.
Piercing the Veil: Illuminating the Battle Lines
As the veil of misinformation begins to lift, so too does the delineation of the conflict's true battle lines. Authoritative dialogues about the endgame are emerging, facilitated by significant diplomatic engagements, including the recent videoconference between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Security Council’s permanent members. A meeting between Putin and Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko in St. Petersburg soon followed this interaction.

This sequence of events, each with its own diplomatic choreography, signals a turning point in the conflict. Alongside these developments, Russia is exhibiting a burgeoning confidence in their dominance over Ukraine's military forces. Nevertheless, Moscow remains cautious of potential escalations, fueled by worries that the Biden administration could harbour an even more extensive war plan.
These developments aren't just noteworthy for their substance, but also for their timing and orchestration. The Kremlin ensured that these two pivotal interactions—the Security Council meeting and the Lukashenko-Putin dialogue—occurred in quick succession, conveying an array of carefully crafted messages to attentive observers.
A Ghost from the Past: Reviving Polish Revanchism
In the Security Council meeting last Friday (July 21st), Putin unveiled intelligence reports hinting at a rather disturbing development: the insertion of a well-equipped Polish expeditionary force in Western Ukraine. He described it as an operation intended for the subsequent occupation of these territories. This disclosure brought to light the haunting specter of Polish revanchism—a contentious issue deeply rooted in European history.
Throughout the conversation, Putin alluded to historical episodes of Polish revanchism, evidencing his grasp of its long-standing significance. His tone betrayed a stoic resignation to the possibility of the Kiev authorities—whom he dubbed as potential traitors—acquiescing to the Polish-American plan.
However, Putin quickly shifted the narrative from historical grievances to imminent geopolitical repercussions. He emphatically stated that Belarus, as a part of the Union State, couldn’t be attacked without provoking a full-scale Russian response. Such an aggression would instigate an extremely dangerous game, the consequences of which should be duly considered by the authors of these disastrous plans.
A Call to Arms: Redeployments and Responses
Lukashenko, in his meeting with Putin, picked up this narrative thread. He provided Putin with a detailed briefing on the concerning Polish military activities in proximity to the Belarus border and various preparations, including the establishment of a tank repair facility in Poland and the activation of an airfield near the Ukrainian border for potential American use.
Lukashenko’s stance was unambiguous: he staunchly rejected any attempts to dismember Ukraine or cede its lands to Poland. He declared such actions as unacceptable. To counter these threatening prospects, Lukashenko even suggested the deployment of Wagner forces, hinting at a substantial escalation in force readiness.
Yet, Lukashenko’s vehement opposition to the dismemberment of Ukraine went beyond mere strategic posturing. It also manifested a commitment to regional stability, encapsulated in his assertion that, should Western Ukraine request support, Belarus would willingly provide it. This approach underscores a new dimension of regional diplomacy, one that could significantly influence the Ukraine war's trajectory.
Reading the Tea Leaves: Foreseeing a Geopolitical Shift
The significance of these discussions cannot be overstated. Their public nature highlights the anticipatory approach of Putin and Lukashenko. They foresee a looming geopolitical inflection point—a dramatic escalation involving Poland, a critical NATO ally that the US views as its most important continental European partner.
While the Russian public has been aware that their country is effectively combating NATO in Ukraine, the potential escalation to a war with Poland—an undeniable departure from the status quo—indicates a stark escalation. The consequences of such a move, both domestically and internationally, are bound to be profound, marking a tectonic shift in the geostrategic landscape.
This anticipatory approach exemplifies a form of political realism, a recognition of the stark realities of power and influence in international relations. Putin and Lukashenko, equipped with intelligence insights, are essentially bracing for a tumultuous phase in the conflict.
The Polish Predicament: Balancing Power and Influence
Poland finds itself in an increasingly challenging geopolitical position. Despite a substantial military force, its political sway within Europe is hampered by the actions of its ruling nationalist Law and Justice Party, which has routinely exhibited a disregard for democratic norms and the rule of law. This has led to a deterioration in Poland’s reputation within the EU, thereby reducing its leverage in the bloc.
Yet, amid these domestic constraints, Poland is also grappling with broader regional dynamics. As a critical NATO ally, it has a strategic role to play in the unfolding conflict. However, this role comes with risks, especially given the potential for escalation, as highlighted by Putin and Lukashenko’s recent dialogues. This delicate balancing act underscores the complexity of Poland’s predicament, one that is set to shape the conflict’s trajectory in significant ways.
Poland’s situation encapsulates the challenges of navigating the current geopolitical climate. It is caught between a resurgent Russia, an assertive NATO, and a fragmented EU. Navigating this maze will require astute diplomacy and political maneuvering, the success of which remains uncertain.
A Symphony of Threats: Shaping the Ukraine Endgame
At the security council meeting last Friday, Putin reminded Poland of its historical appropriation of territories, whether it was the gift of Western territories after the Second World War or during the First World War when it took advantage of the Russian Revolution. "This, by the way, is nothing new," Putin added, pointing to Polish actions after the First World War. Poland “took advantage” of the Russian civil war to “annex some historical Russian provinces” and also took control of Lvov and parts of Lithuania, said Putin. Against this backdrop, the veiled threats from Lukashenko, coupled with Putin's historical references, serve as a warning to the West. Their objective appears to be to guide the Ukraine endgame towards an outcome that aligns with Russian interests. Meanwhile, they are bracing for a possible, even desperate, US attempt to salvage its pride following a potential defeat in the proxy war.
The stakes of the conflict are rising. Lukashenko and Putin have masterfully played the game of geopolitical chess thus far, capitalizing on Western mistakes and countering their strategies effectively. However, they are now dealing with a volatile and unpredictable situation, one that could potentially escalate into a larger conflict involving major NATO powers.
This crisis management strategy is built on an intricate balancing act, one that involves containing the conflict while simultaneously preparing for a worst-case scenario. Both Putin and Lukashenko understand the significance of their actions and decisions in shaping the conflict’s endgame, a responsibility they are taking seriously.
Mapping the Endgame: Unraveling Russia's Strategy
Putin's back-to-back meetings in Moscow and St. Petersburg have shed some light on Russia's strategy for the Ukraine endgame. It seems clear that Russia has no territorial ambitions in Western Ukraine. However, it will influence and out of necessity shape the future borders and political leadership in Ukraine, with the aim of preventing the emergence of an anti-Russian state on its western flank. In this respect, Russia's strategy mirrors traditional geopolitical calculations. It is primarily concerned with ensuring security on its borders and maintaining a favourable balance of power in its immediate neighbourhood. This approach is underpinned by a recognition of Russia's core interests and the imperative to protect them against all threats.
Russia is unwilling to acquiesce or rather ceded one inch to the Biden administration’s designs. It will resist any attempts to use Ukraine as a launchpad for a larger-scale conflict or another proxy war. This represents a significant escalation in Russia’s defensive posture and underscores its determination to safeguard its vital interests.
Indeed, Putin has made it clear that Russia will not hesitate to confront NATO members on Ukraine's borders if they infringe upon Russia's core interests. Russia's resurgent economy, bolstered by seemingly impenetrable firewalls, in conjunction with a military industrial output that dwarfs the collective capacity of NATO, equips the nation to withstand and triumph over any escalation of the current conflict. For instance, Russian Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov recently stated, "Since the beginning of this year, many types of weapons and special military equipment are being produced in quantities far exceeding those of the entire past year. Regarding munitions, we are now reaching a level at which deliveries in just one month surpass the total orders of last year." This production pace contrasts starkly with the U.S.'s ambitious plan to produce a monthly rate of 85,000 155mm shells by 2028, a figure that only approximates half of what Ukraine currently requires. Such developments signal a significant departure from past strategies, suggesting that Russia will not be held hostage by NATO Charter's Article 5. It heralds a new era in Russia's foreign policy, characterized by assertiveness and a readiness to vigorously defend its interests.
Some final thoughts and musings...
The chessboard of geopolitics upon which the Ukraine war unfolds is fraught with risk, a battleground where moves and countermoves echo with global significance. This grand endgame has revealed itself to be far more than a territorial struggle between Russia and Ukraine. It is a litmus test of a changing world order, a reflection of Russia's new assertive foreign policy stance, and a symbol of the challenges of navigating an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, as exemplified by Poland's predicament. As both Russia and Belarus brace for a potential escalation involving NATO, the spectre of broader conflict looms ominously. Yet, even amidst these stormy seas, the objective remains the preservation of regional stability and the management of a volatile and unpredictable situation. The Ukraine conflict, thus, serves as a stark reminder of the delicate and intricate balance of power at the heart of contemporary geopolitics. It underscores the primacy of national interests, the changing dynamics of international alliances, and the lingering echoes of historical disputes in shaping the world's future. As we stand at this precipice, navigating the path towards peace demands more than strategic maneuvering; it requires a genuine commitment to truth, diplomacy, and adherence to international law. This presents a stark contrast to the 'rules-based order' espoused by a declining U.S. power, an order that often asserts exceptionalist dictates upon the global majority, bending international norms to its will.
As always, I appreciate you taking this journey with me, venturing beyond the shadows of the cave to grapple with the complexities of the world's grand chessboard. It's a fascinating game, isn't it? Filled with moves and countermoves, with strategies hidden and revealed, always leaving us with more to ponder. So, grab your cup of coffee, keep your thinking cap on, and I'll meet you back here in a couple of days for another intriguing journey. Until then, stay curious and keep questioning, my friends. After all, beyond the cave, there's always more to discover....
-Gerry