Let’s put an end to Russia’s destructive influence: How the Napoleonic War of 1812 began.
So, here’s the scoop: On June 24, 1812, Napoleon rolled into Russia with his army, kicking off what he called the Second Polish War. He claimed this whole thing was about stopping Russia from messing with Europe too much. But, as usual, there was way more going on behind the scenes.
Back in 1807, France and Russia had signed the Treaty of Tilsit. It wasn’t perfect, both sides broke some rules here and there, but they mostly tried to stick to it. The big thing Napoleon wanted was for Russia to enforce the Continental Blockade, his plan to cut off Britain’s trade and crush their economy. But, surprise, surprise, Russia wasn’t super into it.
Now, here’s where it gets juicy. Back then, foreign policy wasn’t always about logic or strategy, it was often about ego and personal drama. Napoleon, trying to cozy up to Russia, decided the best way to seal the deal was to marry into the Russian royal family. He first proposed to Grand Duchess Ekaterina in 1808, and when that didn’t work, he tried again in 1810 with 14-year-old Anna. Both times? Big fat no. For Napoleon, this was a massive slap in the face. The Russian court didn’t want anything to do with what they saw as a social climber, and this rejection just made things worse between the two countries.
Tag Archives: russia
Zakaj Zahod nima apetita po moralnem cilju glede miru v Ukrajini?
Robert Skidelsky
Trump’s second coming promises to to replace passive war policy with active peace diplomacy. It is likely to bring about a ceasefire, possibly by the spring. That the peace terms remain vague is less important than that it will stop the killing. Once the killing engine is stopped, it will be very hard to restart it.
I have been one of a handful of advocates in the UK for a negotiated peace. On March 3, 2022, I co-signed a letter to the Financial Times with former British Foreign Secretary David Owen which urged NATO to put forward detailed proposals for a new security pact with Russia. In the House of Lords on May 19, 2022 I called for the resumption of the “Ankara peace process”, the abortive bilateral tasks between Russia and Ukraine which took place soon after the start of the war. On July 10, 2024 seven signatories joined me in a letter to the Financial Times arguing that “if peace based on roughly the present division of forces in Ukraine is inevitable it is immoral not to try now”. Such views were not attacked or censored, they were simply “cancelled” — excluded from public discussion. The only frontline political advocate of peace negotiations in Britain has been Nigel Farage, the leader of the British Reform Party.
The tormenting question remains: did it take hundreds of thousands of killed, wounded and maimed to bring a compromise peace within reach? Why didn’t diplomacy kick in sooner? All nations have their own stories to tell about themselves. The clash of their stories can cause or inflame wars. It is the traditional task of diplomacy to adjust conflicting interests so that nations can live in peace. Diplomacy failed signally to do this in the run up to the war and was virtually silent in the war itself.
Trump je najboljše upanje Ukrajine za mir
Morda zveni kot cinizem, morda celo je cinizem, vendar je res. Kajti Biden Ukrajini ni prinesel miru in ji ga tudi ne bi, tudi če bi dobil še en mandat. Biden je Ukrajino pahnil v vojno in jo držal v njej, dokler ji ne zmanjka moških in ozemlja.
While Putin’s caution during previous crises suggests he’s not about to reach for the nuclear button just yet, his dramatic response has complicated any path to a peace deal. Meanwhile, some liberal voices have predicted that Trump’s looming presidency, far from hastening an end to the conflict as Trump has promised to do, will prolong it. If Trump were to cut off arms to Ukraine, he’d remove an important incentive for Putin to call it quits, according to Ben Rhodes, a former White House official under Barack Obama. Among conservatives who advocate foreign policy restraint, there is worry that Trump’s hawkish cabinet nominees portend a departure from the peace agenda he campaigned on. Meanwhile, many hawks on both left and right believe that Trump may end the war by just giving away the farm to Putin.
These concerns are valid. But Trump has good reasons to try proving the doubters wrong. He understands that foreign policy debacles can crater a president’s approval ratings, and he has staked his reputation on being able to end a conflict that started and continues to escalate on President Joe Biden’s watch. “I’m the only one who can get the war stopped,” he told Newsweek this September. Brokering a respectable peace would be a boon to his legacy and an embarrassment for his political opponents—and Trump loves splattering egg on the faces of his detractors. So there is room for optimism alongside the worry. Trump may well manage not only to stop the war but also to get Ukraine the best deal it could realistically hope for.
Bidnova zadnja bitka proti Rusiji in Putinu, preden Trump konča vojno
Seymour Hersh:
The scene came to mind this week as I considered the bitterness of President Joe Biden, who seems to be full of resentment because a group of Democratic Party bigwigs, aware that he was failing, forced him to give up his planned re-election campaign and turn over the fight against Donald Trump to Vice President Kamala Harris, and all the more resentment because she failed to beat Trump as Biden did in 2020.
The president is no longer talking about his failed policy in the Middle East, though American bombs and other weaponry are still flowing to Israel and being put to deadly use. Biden is now trying to stem the losses in Ukraine’s war with Russia. A week ago he gave the Ukraine government, headed by President Volodymyr Zelensky, permission to fire a long withheld advanced American ballistic missile capable of hitting targets 190 miles inside Russia. Days later, he decided to provide Ukraine with landmines capable of maiming and killing all whose paths cross them, young and old, friendly and not.
I have been told that the strategic implications of the president’s escalation—both Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin have nuclear bombs at their fingertips—had not been fully analyzed inside the Pentagon, and that some important offices, sure to have different views about escalation, were never asked for their input. Putin responded by escalating in turn by firing a nuclear-capable ballistic missile at Ukraine and said in a speech that what had been a regional conflict “had now acquired elements of a global character.” The New York Times noted that the response “was meant to instill fear in Kyiv and the West.”
Putin’s explicit warning came a day after Biden’s decision to permit the use of American anti-personnel landmines in an effort to slow Russian advances in the Donbas region. Neither Washington nor Moscow are signatories to the international mine ban treaty that has been signed by 164 parties, but Biden’s decision to deploy the weapon was widely criticized by international human rights groups.
Did The Latest BRICS Summit Achieve Anything Of Tangible Significance At All?
Andrew Korybko
Over a week has passed since the latest BRICS Summit in Kazan so it’s possible to assess what exactly it achieved now that the dust has settled. The primary takeaway is the Kazan Declaration, which Director General of the prestigious Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) Andrey Kortunov described as “a manifesto for the new world order”. His praise shouldn’t be taken lightly since he’s an archetypical realist who also earlier tempered expectations about what BRICS was capable of agreeing to.
Titled “What BRICS Cannot and What It Can Deliver”, Kortunov explained that: “BRICS cannot become a global economic integration project”; BRICS will not turn into a multilateral political or security alliance of an anti-Western nature”; BRICS is not likely to contribute a lot to resolving disputes between its members or disputes between its members and third parties”; and “BRICS will never become an analogue to G7.”
He then juxtaposed these assessments with his expectations that “BRICS can promote trade and investments among its members, as well as contribute to economic and social development of these members”; “BRICS could help to shape common non-Western approaches to global problems”; “BRICS is capable of contributing to the dialogue of civilizations”; and “BRICS can become an important source of ideas and proposals for UN, G20 and other universal bodies.”
Strategi, politiki in diplomati, ki so svarili pred širitvijo Nata v Ukrajino. In imeli prav
Da ne bo kdo rekel, da nismo vedeli, da bo ameriško forsiranje širitve nata v Ukrajino imelo tragične posledice. Predvsem za Ukrajino – tragično v vseh pogledih. Za Evropo – izjemno škodljivo gospodarsko, politično in varnostno. Za globalno varnost – dramatično škodljivo lansiranje nove hladne vojne. To ameriško forsiranje je bilo povsem nepotrebno in izjemno škodljivo.
Vedeli smo, da se bo to zgodilo. Vodilni intelektualci, strategi, politiki in diplomati so na to opozarjali. Spodaj je nabor njihovih svaril. Pa vendar smo Američanom pustili, da svojo igrico uresničijo in jim v Evropi služili in še vedno služimo kot koristni idioti.
I get asked this all the time, so I am reposting my famous thread of all the top strategic thinkers – from Kissinger to Chomsky – who warned for years that war was coming if we pursued NATO expansion, yet had their advice ignored (which begs the question: why?).
The first one is George Kennan, arguably America’s greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. As soon as 1998 he warned that NATO expansion was a “tragic mistake” that ought to ultimately provoke a “bad reaction from Russia”.
Kaj prinaša nov BRICS plačilni sistem?
Spodaj je odlična ocena sklepov zadnjega srečanja skupine BRICS+, ki se je končalo ta teden v ruskem Kazanu. Francoski ekonomist Jacques Sapir ocenjuje, da bi nov plačilni (klirinški) sistem (imenovan BRICS Clear), ki bi zajemal bilateralno trgovino med 22 BRICS partnerskimi državami, in nova družba za zavarovanje trgovinskih tokov vodili k večji medsebojni trgovini med BRICS državami in diverziji trgovinskih tokov stran od zahodnih držav (podobno se je zgodilo z evropsko trgovino: v začetku 1950-let je bilateralna trgovina med šesterico EGS držav znašala eno tretjino skupne zunanje trgovine, nato pa je v 50 letih narasla na dve tretjini). Če danes trgovina med BRICS državami pomeni okrog 30 % svetovne trgovine in če bi v nekaj letih 80 % te trgovine šlo prek sistema BRICS Clear, bi se dobra petina svetovne trgovine de-dolarizirala. Hkrati to pomeni, da BRICS države več ne bi potrebovale toliko dolarskih rezerv, kar bi močno zmanjšalo povpraševanje po ameriških obveznicah in dolarskih imetjih. To pa lahko zamaje globalni trg z ameriškimi obveznicami in povzroči težave za ameriško finančno ministrstvo pri refinanciranju dolga Združenih držav. Temu ustrezno je treba razumeti grožnje Donalda Trumpa, da bo sankcioniral vse države, ki bi svoje mednarodne transakcije prenesle v ne-dolarske valute.
The conclusion of the 16th BRICS summit held in Kazan from October 22-24 resulted in important decisions.
It should be noted that BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), joined by 4 new countries (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, United Arab Emirates), now represent more than 33% of global GDP compared to the G7’s 29%.
Among these decisions, three stand out: the institutionalization of a “partner countries” category within BRICS, the creation of the BRICS-Clear system to facilitate exchanges between members and partner countries, and the establishment of the BRICS (Re)Insurance Company.
The consequences of these decisions will be very significant, not only for BRICS and their associates but also for the Western world. The movement toward global “de-Westernization” is accelerating.
One of the most emblematic decisions taken at the Kazan summit was the institutionalization of the “partner countries” category within BRICS. This creates a “BRICS zone” around the core members.
The presence of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam in this “partner” category implies that BRICS, already dominant in Asia due to China and India’s membership, could become hegemonic in this region.
The second essential decision of the 16th BRICS summit is the creation of BRICS Clear, a settlement and clearing system for both intra-BRICS trade and trade between BRICS and “partner” countries.
One of BRICS Clear’s key objectives is to create an alternative to the SWIFT system. Within the BRICS Clear system, the use of national currencies as instruments for settling international transactions will be prioritized.
Transaction clearing will be handled through a “stablecoin” managed by the New Development Bank. The clearing issue is important since trade will be multilateral (22 countries: 9 BRICS members and 13 partner countries).
Vojna v Ukrajini: Odboj mrtve mačke?
Kdaj bo konec vojne v Ukrajini? Putin, kolikor se spomnim, je sicer leta 2022 napovedal, da vojne ne bo konec pred letom 2025. Napoved spodaj na podlagi zgodovinskih analogij, ko je neka država v izgubljenem položaju izvedla obupni poskus diverzije (kot Ukrajina v primeru operacije Kursk), kaže na konec vojne sredi leta 2025 – če bo Ukrajina začela z mirovnimi pogajanji. Sicer pa leto kasneje, ko bo morala brezpogojno kapitulirati.
(Moj dodatek: seveda pod predpostavko, da se v vojno neposredno ne vključijo Nato države in pošljejo denimo armado z milijonom vojakov v Ukrajino. Kar pa bi pomenilo neposredno vojno z Rusijo in s tem jedrsko eskalacijo. Takrat pa je že vseeno, ker ne bo nihče zmagal).
Let’s talk about dead cats bouncing. Strategically.
Last time I made a big prediction it was that Ukraine would begin to collapse after Spring 2024, and the Donbass front cracked and Ukraine launched a desperation push in Kursk in Summer ’24.
We can see the end from here.
So first, what is a dead cat bounce offensive? It’s a last-ditch attack undertaken by a power that is already in military collapse, seeking to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat after the strategic balance has turned decisively against them. Absent some level of divine intervention – see the French Orleans Campaign of 1429-30 – these operations are generally very counterproductive and significantly hasten the defeat of the power launching them.
There have been a lot of dead cats bouncing over the course of miliary history, enough that we can actually make predictions using them. So let’s do exactly that and examine three such operations from the conflict closest in character to the Ukrainian War: World War One.
DAMIJAN blog 