 |
 |
The earth is obviously round, but the world has become flat. That is to say, no matter where you are, and despite the time difference, you can see everything that is happening elsewhere in real time.
Currently traveling in Vietnam, it was from there that I heard about the “4th anniversary” of the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine. It describes this operation with the bizarre term “Special Military Operation” (SMO), which must be used with caution because otherwise you can quickly find yourself in the same situation as poor Jacques Baud for simply trying to explain and illustrate reality. If you want to be allowed to go and buy food at the local supermarket, it’s better to use the established Western expression “unprovoked large-scale invasion”; it’s safer. The fact is that in the European Union, and particularly in the coalition of Chihuahuas, reality is no laughing matter. They are the ones who create it, and woe betide anyone who claims that Russian soldiers are fighting with anything other than shovels, and that their hypersonic missiles are nothing more than flying washing machines.
The way in which the European authorities “commemorated” this fourth anniversary was yet another demonstration of the double mental block they face. Faced with this theater of operations, which is part of a wider confrontation between a sick and rapidly declining West and a “global South” determined to rid itself of the Hegemon’s centuries-old, brutal, and often deadly grip.
Normally, when analyzing the situation with a minimum of rationality, it is clear that the war in Ukraine, which pits the entire West against Russia, is lost. There is no denying that the conflict on Ukrainian territory began in 2014 with the coup d’état organized by the United States to continue its efforts to dismantle Russia. But the military part itself, pitting the armed forces of two separate countries against each other, did indeed begin on February 24, 2022. The first phase was a simple, limited operation, which was successful in that Russia and Ukraine had worked out a compromise (the Istanbul Treaty) that should have ended the conflict. But it was all for naught, as the West, through the highly corrupt Boris Johnson, intervened to force the Ukrainians to continue the war. And now, even though the military operations were launched by the Russians, the war is, in this form, the result of a Western decision. The objectives are the same as before: to defeat a militarily weak Russia on the ground, bring it to its knees economically, install a puppet government in Moscow by ousting Vladimir Putin, and resume the plundering of this Aladdin’s cave of raw materials.
An intellectual block?
With the re-information work that we carried out (on our own behalf) from the summer of 2022 onwards, the aim was to counter propaganda that was not only false, but above all completely inept. And which pushed us down the path of an absurd confrontation with Russia, clearly contrary to the interests of our country. Seeing what was happening, we very quickly concluded that the war had changed in nature and turned into a “war of attrition.” On several occasions, I myself used a phrase that was all too familiar in view of the deaths of men on the ground to characterize it: “the Russians are prolonging the pleasure.” This was to express our conviction that we would not see a “conventional” war of movement. Gone were the “grand offensive” tactics, even though many on both sides were expecting them. A new word, more chic than “war of attrition,” flourished in the debates: “attrition.”
There are many examples of this type of confrontation in history, starting with the end of the First World War. And yet, what nonsense, what ranting and raving, what drivel we heard on the occasion of this “4th anniversary”! Let’s not go into details; there are far too many politicians, experts, journalists, military personnel, and authors of all this nonsense. It is with sadness that we note the lamentable spectacle offered by this section of the French army, with these idiots from the second section spending their time on television shows, irrefutably displaying their utter incompetence. And those whom Macron has installed at the head of the active army are not likely to raise the bar. But ultimately, this sequence has revealed the double blockage of the Western elites in the face of their defeat. The first is psychological, preventing them from acknowledging that they were wrong, that they were bad, and that now they will have to find a way not to lose too much face. Locked into a sense of superiority due to their worldview, this effort is insurmountable for them. But ultimately, given human nature, this is relatively common. And history shows that leaders and peoples are sometimes capable of eating their hats.
The second obstacle, however, is much more serious. Because this one is intellectual. The Western elites clearly understood nothing about the war in Ukraine. The Russians’ choice of a war of attrition would have required listening to them, trying to understand what they wanted, analyzing their methods, in short, facing the facts. By trying to understand, in light of Russia’s political stakes and objectives, what this war of attrition was all about. The appalling stupidity that the current and grotesque foreign minister of a country like France is capable of uttering is the extreme expression of what resembles an infirmity. But unfortunately, he is not alone.
Vietnam, 30 years of war of attrition.
Among many examples, the Vietnam War is very illustrative of what a war of attrition was like. In 1945, the Vietnamese, led by the communists, who had taken up the national liberation struggle to restore the country’s independence, attempted to establish their republic. The French refused, and the Vietnamese then embarked on a 10-year war, the objective of which was, from the outset, to make it politically unsustainable for France. It was not a conventional war, contrary to what the defeat at Dien Bien Phu might suggest. Clausewitz taught us that all wars pursue a political objective. France’s objective in Indochina, to maintain its empire, could no longer be achieved by military means. The political problem had to be solved, which is what Pierre Mendès-France set out to do. The same question arose for the Americans, who thought they could defeat North Vietnam and the Viet Cong in a conventional war. They deployed considerable force to this end. The famous Tet Offensive of 1968, which we are constantly told was a military defeat for the North, was in fact a clear strategic victory and ensured its ultimate victory. It was a decisive factor in making the American conventional war politically untenable in the United States. And, let us not forget, in the rest of the world. So they had to leave, ending a war that was militarily sustainable but politically unsustainable. The signing of the Paris Peace Accords in 1972 and the American withdrawal ensured victory for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong in their war of attrition against the American ogre. This gave them the opportunity to launch a conventional war against the South, which they easily won in 1975. It is true that it is easier to tell the story when you know the ending, but having witnessed this conflict, as I have said in these columns, this analysis was widely shared at the time. But visiting Vietnam today provides further proof of this. So there will always be people in the United States, as there were in France with Algeria, or in Germany after the First World War, who will say: “But we won militarily, and it was the cowardice of the civilians, the stab in the back, or de Gaulle’s lies that led us to defeat. We know the song, it’s silly. Because, as Clausewitz explained so well, winning a war means achieving the political objectives that were set, period.
Full speed ahead toward the wall
Regarding the war in Ukraine, at this stage, what is striking is the refusal of Western elites to simply try to understand what Russia’s objectives were, what they are today, and what kind of war it is waging. The ignorant, and the less ignorant along with them, continue to apply modes of reasoning that apply to conventional warfare to the military aspect of the conflict. This is Jean-Noël Barrot, whose mental health is increasingly being questioned, not to mention, of course, his self-esteem as Netanyahu’s parrot, as pointed out by Caroline Yadan. He takes out his ruler to calculate the areas “conquered” by the Russians, and, getting confused in his calculations, arrives at absurd results without a single mainstream journalist having the courage to ask him if he is not making a fool of himself. Appearing on all the news channels, General Desportes, former director of the École de Guerre (War College!), comments on the fighting on the ground as if it were a soccer match. Every “gain” (?) of ground by Ukrainian troops, however tiny, is hailed as if it were a goal by Kylian Mbappé in the World Cup final! We will stick to these two examples alone, as citing them all would require access to a large amount of data. The Russians’ methodical destruction of their adversary’s energy infrastructure, the equally methodical destruction of their equipment, including and especially that supplied by the West in general and NATO in particular, is of no interest to commentators. When there is a massive strike operation, the collateral damage (and there is some) is highlighted, but that’s about it. Why they do it is irrelevant. As long as they don’t launch massive attacks, it means they are bleeding dry. “Russia is losing, they tell you. And we’ve been telling you this for four years, and if you haven’t understood it yet, it’s because you’re really thick.” It is on its knees economically, bled dry militarily, and by continuing to shower Zelinsky with money, it would be a miracle if he didn’t enter Moscow next month.
In the meantime, while we no longer have the necessary energy resources, raw materials, or trained personnel, while our industrial heritage has been sold off, and our army has been reduced to a rump force, we are engaging in saber rattling about a so-called rearmament that we cannot afford, and will not be able to afford for a long time to come. And this attitude, which we are caricaturing here, is, let us repeat, the result of a radical misunderstanding of what the Russians are doing. Here is a great industrial nation with a relationship to its existential security that, with the help of historical experience, borders on paranoia. It has a specific relationship with military combat, to say the least, and has now been hardened by a new experience of four years of high-intensity warfare. Facing them are Westerners marked by a military culture stemming from World War II, which, it should be remembered, was taught at the request of the Anglo-Saxons by the defeated in 1945. Meanwhile, the latter had been outclassed by Soviet doctrine derived from theories of operational art. Reference should be made here to the work of the American David Glanz and the French Jean Lopez and Benoît Bihan.
Anyone who expresses a conviction based on a reasoned analysis of reality, according to which the defeat of the West in Ukraine (and later far beyond) is complete, is immediately denounced, or even punished, as a mouthpiece for Putin’s propaganda. And if this defeat is complete but not acknowledged, it is because, in addition to the psychological blockage linked to the narcissistic wound of acceptance, there is also a real intellectual blockage. This is linked to understanding the war that Russia is waging in Ukraine. A war of attrition against a system that has dominated the world for nearly three centuries. And which, whatever poor Marco Rubio may say, no longer has the means to do so. It is also doing so in partnership with other leaders of the Global South, which explains the choice of a war of attrition in Ukraine and the caution in bringing about change in the world. Which, naturally, the excitable take for weakness.
“Dear friend Vladimir Vladimirovich, we are witnessing a change that the world has not seen in 100 years. And we will lead this change together. Take care, dear friend .” Xi Jinping to Vladimir Putin on the steps of the Kremlin on March 22, 2023. This sentence, which has enormous historical significance and whose consequences we can measure on a daily basis today, was not picked up by many Western leaders.
Yet the later we realize what is happening, the heavier the price we will have to pay for having missed such a historically significant turning point.
Intellectual blockage ?
As things stand, without brakes or airbags, our “elites” are driving us full speed toward the wall.
Avant de partir, merci de m’offrir un café.
 |
Regis’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Vous êtes actuellement un abonné gratuit à Regis’s Substack. Pour profiter pleinement de l'expérience, améliorez votre abonnement.
| ||||||||||
© 2026 Regis de Castelnau
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire