What's at stake?

Unprecedented war spoils for unprecedented investment

I think it was time I introduced to my audience Lev Vershinin. Born in 1957 in Soviet Ukraine, in the city of Odessa, in a Jewish family as Lev Himmelfarb (he later took his stepfather's family name), he is a historian (holding a PhD in history studies of ancient Greece and Rome), publicist, writer, political consultant and formerly a Ukrainian politician. Lev, an Israeli citizen, now lives in Spain since 2007 and earns his living writing books and providing political consultations.

His political views can be described as critical of the current system pro-Russian. While participating in political life in Ukraine in the 1990s he was known to support the federalization of Ukraine and for predicting the type of conflict we see today and for the past nine years if Ukraine won't turn off its nationalist political course.

From time to time Lev is producing excellent political analysis articles, like the one I present below, that is a translation of his recent post on Livejournal. This platform predates Substack by over a decade and was always very liberal (in a good way :) in supporting the freedom of speech.

Lev (Leon) Vershinin (Himmelfarb)

Texts, such as one below, are often written in an emotional way, using cultural references not easily understood by English language readers. I had to spend a bit more time translating it to English, sometimes avoiding close to the text translations, in order to make sure that main ideas are coming across as author intended for the Russian speakers.

I believe here Lev does a very good analysis at what's at stake for the West in the current conflict and why it makes such and unprecedented investment in Ukraine's victory and Russia's defeat.

As usual, I appreciate the comments even more than likes! So please share with me and the rest of the readers your thoughts!

Text below the divider line is a translated post by Lev Vershinin. He can be found on Telegram https://t.me/putnik1lv and Livejournal https://putnik1.livejournal.com

---

CALCULATED, WEIGHTED AND…

Ukrainian poster listing arms they were promised by NATO before the recent Ramstein meeting

First of all. Everything described below are not monstrous creatures inside of my imagination, but the result of consultations with people who are on top of this subject (individuals representing different sides) and whose opinion I highly appreciate. And before we begin, I ask you to pay attention to an interesting nuance related to the supply of Western weapons to the territory, playing the role of their tool in the fight against Russia: London gives Kiev 14 tanks (which is not much), but at the same time sends spare parts for 100 tanks, which means that further deliveries have already been planned and paid for. Moreover, it is exactly the same in the United States, where the military budget, pushed through by the Democrats, implies an increase in supplies.

So, this is about money. Very big money. And the money is invested to make a profit, and if we are talking about very big money, then the profit is supposed to be very large too. And the more is invested, the tougher is the game to win, and all sorts of ideologies, political slogans, etc. are just a camouflage.

This is clear to everyone, except Mr. Solovyov's (Russia's chief propagandist on state TV with a nightly talk show) core audience, and hence the question naturally arises: "What are the real reasons for the amazing generosity of the US and the EU?". Usually they don't give answers to such questions, and you can't base your case on just a guesswork, but here is a rare example of a cynical honesty:

"It is necessary to understand," says Ms. Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, likely to be appointed as the next Secretary General of NATO, "that we are not doing Ukraine a favor at all, as it is customary to say. By supplying Ukraine with weapons and, as Zelensky rightly noted, providing Ukraine with money to win the war, we are acting in our own interests. The only thing that gives us leverage is our help in achieving a clear and final victory for Ukraine. And if we achieve this and it happens this year, it will give a strong boost to the global economy."

That is: The West invests in the partition of Russia. In order to get their share in case of victory, each EU state needs to invest in the war. To get out of the systemic economic crisis and to leap forward in the context of the upcoming clash with China. And the formula of the "strongest push of the world economy" is extremely simple: industry and science of the West + resources of the Russian Federation. Ironically, we are coming back to the arrangement suggested by Putin: "Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok", only in this scheme the West receives the resources of the Russian Federation at cost, without having to share it with 146 million Russians and others in that space. Nothing to the "oligarchs" and nothing to the "plebs". All to themselves.

In the West, this is agreed to such an extent that some are already putting stakes in the ground for "after the war". For example: "If one day we have the opportunity to see the opening of Russian airspace, one thing should disappear — Trans-Siberian royalties" says Henrik Hololei, the director general for mobility and transport at the European Commission. And in general, the list of wishes has been announced:

(a) oil and gas at cost

(b) unhindered use of the Northern Sea Route;

(c) Russian food (in combination with Ukrainian - control of world food markets);

(d) food markets. It will be possible to decide who on the planet is going to starve and who is not;

(e) the Russian consumer market, which is completely open to Western goods (as now in Ukraine);

(e) transfer of peaceful and military nuclear technologies;

(g) dollarization of the Russian economy, etc.

Thus, the prudent US and the EU are investing in the war in the hope that the investment will pay off handsomely. Moreover, the possible profits from the victory of "investors", as financiers say, "since you are already in the market - you have no option of losing”. Defeat will deprive their economy of confidence, and hence the prospects.

From here we have the build-up of arms supplies. And (here I'll just stupidly quote "Ze-Rada" https://t.me/ZeRada1): there is no doubt that with such volumes (especially "armor") by April-May, the AFU will form a "fist" capable of conducting a deep offensive, and new missiles for HIMARS (range 150 km) will inevitably push tactical aviation, Air Forces of the Russian Federation farther away, which will increase the time of approach and reduce the time of combat duty. And most importantly: loud pomposity, deafening information noise. The full impression is that the West is pushing the Russian Federation to attack now, like saying, "If you don't strike now, the AFU will have completely different opportunities in March."

Agree, it is very similar to the alignment before 02/24/22, when exactly the deliveries of Javelins, NLAWs, etc. gave the leadership of the Russian Federation arguments to conduct the well-known Security Council meeting and to declare the start of the SMO. And at the same time, it is no secret that Kiev, generously sacrificing the "second grade" cannon fodder has prepared high-quality reserves, and the Ukrainian Military Intelligence is preparing "asymmetric answers", - in this connection, air defense systems are being actively deployed in the center of Moscow. And, - it's hard not to pay attention, - last week Zaluzhny met with Milley in Poland, and the CIA director came to Kiev to meet with Zelensky, and having noted that, to come to conclusion that time had shrunk to hours, as in February last year.

And now a question of questions. Yes, many soap bubbles have burst over the past year. Yes, it became clear that the "second strongest army of the world" is a sham. Yes, Mr. Shoigu's department (Russian MoD) is what it is, and Mr. Putin's "old guard" is what it is, and this fact is already accepted even by those who did not want to accept it until the end. But...

But, damn it, the "nuclear triad" is not a bluff. The "Sarmats", the "Poseidons", and other "pulverize the whole world" weapons do exist and the West recognizes this. And that a rat, if cornered, can jump, is known not only to Mr. Putin. That is, some degree of caution must be exercised, and, to be frank, it's not worth it to go so brutally against the logic of safety. Meanwhile they do go against it, they do it totally fearlessly. Moreover, if only a few days ago this fearlessness was voiced only by the NYT, with reference to "anonymous sources", today all the curtains have been pushed aside, and Mr. McCaul, chairman of the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs (by the way, a Republican) himself, sharply criticizing Mr. Biden and Herr Scholz for fearful half-heartedness in the supply of the latest hardware (ATACMS, Leopard 2, HIMARS, "Bradley"). He brazenly says: "They have been proven completely and utterly wrong. Instead, these cowardly decisions based on misguided fears of escalation are prolonging this war", - in other words, "The decision not to provide tactical missiles and tanks to Ukraine for fear of Russian escalation is completely wrong. At the moment, it has been proven that these fears are completely and absolutely unfounded," and it is the term "proven" that is important here, meaning complete confidence that NO "Poseidons" etc. will be used by the Kremlin under any circumstances. For during the year of the war, the psychological profiles of Moscow's elites have been finalized, and there is a sense of confidence that the Kremlin can be squeezed enough to give in by promising them not to criminally prosecute and by allowing certain people from todays ruling class to remain at the helm under the "new order".

To summarize:

- The West has invested (and is investing) a lot of money in the project.

- The success of the project means huge dividends and a way out of the systemic crisis.

- The failure of the project means huge losses and aggravation of the global crisis.

- And there are no options for withdrawal, because the profit was already budgeted for.

Consequently, the investors of the project will do everything except for what may pose a personal danger to them, but they no longer take that option into account, since according to their analysis this is beyond the realm of possibilities. And what, indeed, can a group of political losers, who have been fooled for eight years, oppose to the West? I don't know. But what I know for sure, - because I see that the top leadership of the Russian Federation is already throwing into the information field a hint of the possibility of "losing in a conventional war" (which it was impossible to even mention until recently), and the most patriotic "birds" from the "strategic reserve", picking up on a signal, argue that "the loss of new territories" is not so bad after all...