More War Now, or Would Sir Rather Wait?

I have referred recently to a growing conflict of perspective between Mercouris and many who think who like him, on the one hand, and that of Gilbert Doctorow and Doctorow’s growing band of like-thinkers (including, he tells us, many in Russia and China who have demonstrated enthusiastic interest in his recent article entitled “Is Russia Losing the War?”), who are vexed by Russia’s almost superhuman refusal to be provoked by more and more direct, escalatory and Western supported attacks from Ukraine and Western-direction of Ukraine’s war effort.

Mercouris, unlike Doctorow, is a faithful supporter of the doctrine of war by attrition that Putin and his government have self-evidently pursued over the past - I won’t say the full four years, but for much or most of this four-and-a-half-year-old conflict.

The Doctorow camp believes that Putin has the capability of putting an end to this war in any one or all of a variety of ways, and these include (1) the use of Russia’s most advanced weapons of which at least one, the Oreshnik, need not be nuclear to have nuclear-comparable impact, or (2) the application of these or other weapons as demonstrations of Russian force but used against targets, not in Ukraine but in the West - targets that Russia, under international law, would be entitled to strike, including missile-production factories or, again, (3) striking so hard on Kiev as to obliterate the major decision-making centers once and for all, so that the West would not even know who to support given the absence of those whom they could otherwise support.

These views also align with the Karaganov solution that I have also addressed in several recent posts. Putin has an added obligation to consider these alternatives, perhaps less elegant solutions namely, in honor of the families of fallen soldiers, families that over-represent the poorer, more backward parts of the Russian Federation, and whose support Putin must cherish if he would not perish.

I have long ago become very skeptical of claims about dead and wounded but, on the basis of the empirical evidence that I have seen, I do think Ukraine has suffered far more damage of this kind than has Russia. Yet, in saying that, the price paid by Russia in lives and wounded is still appalling. And I can see enough evidence every day of the week that despite constant claims or insinuations from Mercouris and many other Russia-favoring sources that the Ukrainian army is about to collapse, that it doesn’t actually collapse. This is not just because Ukraine has had a huge dollop of help in the form of Western aid in drone production and drone sophistication and is less dependent on its army, but because the Ukraine army is in no way as ineffective as these sources would have us believe.

I, myself, find some merit in the Doctorow position. I also am vexed by what Doctorow, I think fairly, describes as “indecision” on the part of the Putin government (a criticism he extends, with equal fairness, in my view, to Xi Jinping and China). Do these people think that they can stand by patiently and let the West destroy itself on their behalf? If so, I think that is a pretty conceited and unrealistic position and I would fire any general who would have me believe such fairy tales.

I picked up on this conflict in my post yesterday, arguing that if Russia (that is to say, Putin) is really committed to preserving a future for the Russian Federation, then Putin or his successor(s) will need to act now, militarily, using any of the approaches I have so far identified or others that I don’t have time to pursue now, that will stun the West and bring about an end to the war with sufficient conviction that we, the human race as a whole, can concentrate on the things that really matter: safety from climate change, the end to a world controlled by the selfish interests of billionaires and trillionaires, and their corporate manifestations, and exertion to achieve the maximum possible positive social development, self-realization and happiness.

Why do I think the West is, or perhaps I should more cautiously say, may be stunnable? Mainly because I believe this generation of Western leaders is stupid to the point of reckless idiocy. If one wants an example of astonishing, innovative courage in leadership I might turn to George Washington (in this summer of the 250th anniversary of American independence), and then weep before the memory of all of the civil, political and social accomplishments (though not forgetting the discordant scream of slavery) that the US’ corporate, plutocratric, monopoly capitalist class has thrown to the trash bin in its lust for easy and illegal wealth. First of all.

Then, secondly, I don’t see that the interests of the US and of Europe are meaningfully aligned in this particular moment of their respective histories. I see a mountain of rhetorical froth and bubble from Europe that I do not believe Europe is capable of delivering on in the short term and probably never will and that, even if joined with the much more powerful resources of the US, leaves me more impressed by what NATO now lacks than what it actually has.

One thing it lacks is ideological substance or conviction. The West is a mordant cluster of former or not-so-former imperial cliques whose self-confidence today sucks on the advantages of centuries’ worth of kleptomaniac imperialism to which these elites think they are perfectly entitled because their “civilization” is - just, you know - just so wonderful and inspiring (the Louvre, Shakespeare, John Locke, Adam Smith, Catholicism, Protestantism, and so on and so monotonously forth). Well, I dealt with that nonsense in yesterday’s post.

The important thing is this. If we could reasonably expect that no matter how evil is the current, fabricated, zenophobic Russophobia that has generated the conflict from whole cloth (Great Britain its greatest culprit, after some several hundred years of bear-baiting) will come to an end, that illusions and lies will be dispelled, that reason and hope will prevail, that the West will not further push its madness to World War Three, then yes, Putin’s incremental war of attrition is wise.

But if, in reality, there is going to be war, regardless of what Putin or Russia does or says - and this is where I believe we currently are and to which the evidence best points - then of course to defend itself, Russia must prepare and because the longer that Russia takes to prepare the greater will be the ultimate struggle, then it is best if Russia acts sooner rather than later. Do we expect that Russia will sacrifice itself to accommodate the greed, vanity and illusions of the West?

Dream on.

Here in the West we would be engaging with appropriate humility were we to refrain from making any such judgements with confidence, since our own interests are intimately bound up with the conclusions that we draw. We are looking at a world, to be franks, that is no longer impressed by us, or thinks it owes us anything at all, that finds us somewhat risible and disgusting, is no longer intimidated by anything about us, and from a position in which we ourselves grow - every day more - depressed by the rate at which the positive claims on behalf of our civilization are sinking into the dung heap of self-glorious affirmations.

Putin’s war of attrition reassures us, perhaps, as it gives us a lot of time to adjust, to accommodate, to interfere, to spin and tells us that we are not having to deal with a force so relentless that we need to re-examine anything we are doing with particular urgency. And I do suspect that this is exactly what Putin’s strategy has given us to date and, if so, then he is yielding to us the strength that should, by right, be his. Is he so captivated by the dream of a tunnel beneath the Bering Strait and of raising a chummy glass to Trump that he would do damage to the Russian soul, to Slavic civilization?

Zelenskiy’s Threats to Belarus, and Possibly Back

Readers will recall that the latest escalatory movement from Ukraine, with the backing of its Western sponsors, is to threaten that it will invade Belarus on the pretext that along its border with Ukraine Belarus allows a string of electronic boosters of some kind that enable Russia to send drones down the full length of the Belarussian-Ukrainian border with a view to then turning south and hitting targets in northeastern Ukraine. This is a threat of some substance because Belarus has only a small army of around 65,000, is a large territory, and probably hosts far fewer Russian soldiers than is often assumed even if it does host launching facilities for Russian missiles including Oreshniks and nukes.

Zelenskiy appears to be pulling back from this threat by claimed, or lying, that the electronic boosters have been switched off.

Lukashenko stated today, June 25, 2026, that he had warned representatives of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky against attempting to “drag Belarus into the war,” asserting that any such actions would instantly change the nature and quality of the conflict. He urged the envoys to convey to the Ukrainian President that they need to “reach a substantial agreement” rather than escalate tensions. If Ukraine “thinks it can speak to us like that,” Lukashenko said, the nature of the conflict would shift drastically, hinting at a severe military escalation if Belarus is provoked.

Zelensky announced on June 24 that the border signal-boosting repeaters—which Ukraine threatened to strike if not removed—had officially ceased operating as of June 22. Lukashenko’s compliance in disabling the equipment highlights his effort to prevent direct Ukrainian strikes on Belarusian soil. Lukashenko emphasized that Belarus’s position remains “peace-loving” and that he has no desire to fight the Ukrainian people. However, he explicitly stated that in any critical situation, Belarus will stand firmly with Russia. The latest warnings follow an unexpected shift earlier in June, when Lukashenko publicly apologized to Zelensky for past harsh remarks, noting that Belarus is “very vulnerable militarily” and that a direct war would be disastrous. Now we know: Lukashenko, in the final analysis, must side with Russia. Ukraine will have extended the war, spread his forces more thinly and further exhausted the West.