Red Flags in Ukraine
Posted By Morris van de Camp On In North American New Right | Comments Disabled
[1]This graphic, from The Institute for the Study of War, shows the American security establishment’s view of Russian expansionist efforts over time.
2,823 words
There is nothing that I write or say that will alter events in Ukraine. Additionally, I have no real inside knowledge of events on the ground. This entire article is based on what I’ve read in the press [2], at The Institute for the Study of War [3], and in unclassified Rand Corporation reports [4]. Nonetheless, I still think I’ve got a solid understanding of the situation. In short, events in Ukraine are not going well and could end in a disaster, despite the hype, and there are several red flags that need to be pointed out.
Red Flag #1: The Great Replacement and wokeness are national security threats
The central player in NATO, the United States, is in deep trouble due to the Great Replacement and “civil rights” laws which have outlasted their welcome. The Trump administration was elected to deal with this problem, and the political establishment went nuts in response. Instead of examining why they lost in 2016, they supported a sub-Saharan/antifa insurgency in 2020, carried out massive election fraud, searched for “extremists” in the military, and put Pride Banners on US embassies overseas [5].
These actions have alienated more than half the country — especially the part that bothers to join the military and does dangerous and necessary work. Why make any sacrifice for Ukraine when the United States cannot or will not secure the border? Why should white Americans join the military when they know they are second-class citizens? Military recruitment is at an all-time low.
The “civil rights” poison has also spread to Europe. The German government opened its borders to “refugees” starting in 2015. The resulting disaster altered German politics. To put it simply, the party Alternative für Deutschland [6] (AfD) is a Right-leaning party that was on the fringes prior to the refugee crisis. The AfD then grew exponentially due to its opposition to the Great Replacement in Germany. While the party is pro-NATO, it doesn’t seek a wider confrontation with Russia. One could even call the AfD soft on Russia. This brings up the next Red Flag.
[7]AfD voters are regionally aligned and favor moderate policies towards Russia.
Red Flag #2: Eastern Europe is neutral and divided
While Sweden, Finland, Poland, and the Baltics [8] are overwhelmingly supporting Ukraine, some other countries in Eastern Europe are divided or favor more neutral policies on the war. Bulgaria’s government has become a chaotic [9] mess [10], in part because of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Bulgaria, like Russia, is part of the Orthodox Civilization. Traditionally, they’ve had positive ties with Russia. Regardless, while Bulgaria is not strictly neutral, it is effectively neutralized.
Hungary, too, remains a problem. The Hungarian government has taken a neutral position in the war. They are not entirely neutral, but they aren’t focused on repelling the Russians, either. The first reason is sheer economics. Hungary is purchasing gas from Russia at a greatly reduced price [11]. No other petroleum-producing nation that could supply Hungary can match this.
There are also some old grievances that have returned to the fore. In her book Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World, Margret MacMillan [12] wrote words to the effect that the Treaty of Trianon [13] that was signed between the Allies and the Kingdom of Hungary following the First World War was the only treaty that hasn’t fallen apart — yet.
[14]After the Treaty of Trianon, many Hungarians were marooned outside of Hungary.
This treaty deprived Hungary of approximately 70% of its pre-war territory, with the land being distributed among the neighboring countries or used to create new nations, such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. It also suddenly left millions of ethnic Hungarians outside Hungary itself, a situation that continues to the present day. One such region is Subcarpathia. It was initially given to Czechoslovakia in the Treaty of Trianon, but after briefly being retaken by Hungary with Germany’s support in the 1930s, Stalin transferred it to Ukraine in 1946, which was then part of the USSR, for unclear reasons.
Roughly 150,000 ethnic Hungarians still live in the region today. Some are being drafted into the Ukrainian army, and this has become an issue [15]. There were already tensions between the two countries because of Ukraine’s 2017 “education law,” which mandated that all ethnic minorities in the country conduct all classroom education in Ukrainian. Hungarians also feel that they have been harassed by the Ukrainian nationalists since the Maidan in 2014, as explained in this video [16].
For all these reasons, Hungary has taken a strongly neutral position in the conflict. Austria has as well, and both Austria and Hungary have agreed to not send weapons to Ukraine [17].
[18]Ethnic Hungarians are a small part of the broader ethnic makeup of Ukraine, but they are concentrated in a region that is contiguous to Hungary proper.
Scandinavia is a problem, too, and it has everything to do with the Great Replacement. Sweden has applied to join NATO, but their application is being held up by the Turks. The reason is that Sweden has imported Kurds who were fleeing War & OppressionTM. The Kurds then began using the light of Western liberty to agitate against the Turks through their influence on the Swedish government and the European Union. Sweden’s inability to join NATO could have real consequences. Intelligence-sharing between NATO and Sweden will be stymied, and interoperability in communications and hardware will be more difficult to achieve. In the event of a broader war, this could spell disaster.
Red Flag #3: Russia is not doing poorly despite casualties
No weapon provided to Ukraine has turned the situation decisively in their favor. The Russians seem to have absorbed the Ukrainian drones, and the boasting over the HIMARS rockets is no longer heard in the American mainstream media. It is not clear that additional weapons will fare better.
The Russian retreat from Kiev was a setback, but not an unprecedented military defeat. There are parallels between the first weeks of the Russo-Ukrainian War and the Gallipoli Campaign in the First World War. In 1915, the Allies tried to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war with a bold attack on its capital, Istanbul. The attack failed and the Allies retreated by sea back to Egypt. The French and British then shifted strategy, instead defeating the Ottomans via a long slog up from Egypt through Palestine, Iraq, and Syria.
[19]You can buy The World in Flames: The Shorter Writings of Francis Parker Yockey here. [20]
Something similar is happening in Ukraine now. Instead of a full-on assault with armored columns, the Russians have shifted to chewing off territory a piece at a time and holding on to what they’ve gained. The Russians have lost some ground, but they’ve held more than they’ve lost.
Russia’s recent callup of draftees has also been successful. The draft-dodging and drunken mutinies at induction centers hyped in the mainstream media have clearly not been the norm. The Russians have successfully armed, organized, and equipped 300,000 additional men [21]. There are rumors that they may soon call up 500,000 more [22]. Additionally, reports of equipment shortages might be overblown. The Russians had vast reserves of rifles and tanks in storage from the Cold War, and these are now being put into action. Predicted Russian missile shortages have not materialized, either. Russian precision missiles have in fact heavily damaged Ukrainian infrastructure. Less electricity means no defense industry — as well as considerable hardships for civilians.
It is difficult to get accurate reports on the true scope of casualties, but they are no doubt high on both sides. They seem to have had little impact on the Russian public’s support for the war. Russians are blaming the military establishment for any failures, not Putin. This means that Putin can promote or replace generals based on their performance in the same way Lincoln did. Russia also has nearly four times the population of Ukraine; they can draw manpower from Central Asia and the Far East as they did during the Second World War. The Ukrainians cannot win in a strict war of attrition.
As in all lengthy wars, the number of casualties will likewise harden Russian resolve. An example of this can be seen in the response to the murder of Daria Dugin [23]a, the daughter of the Eurasianist philosopher Alexander Dugin, by suspected Ukrainian agents. At Daria’s funeral, Dugin said, [24] “The price that we have to pay can be justified by one thing: the highest achievement, victory — our Russian victory.” With these words one sees how difficult it is to stop a war once it begins. To make good on earlier sacrifices, the only acceptable outcome becomes total victory. Compromise is more difficult when they are large numbers of bereaved parents, angry comrades, and war widows who want their terrible personal losses to mean something.
[25]Alexander Dugin meets with mourners at the funeral of his daughter, Daria.
Red Flag #4: American deindustrialization
Recently, there was a great furor over [26] supplying [27] tanks to Ukraine [28]. The Germans have hesitated to supply theirs, but so too have the Americans. A look at the American role in this situation reveals deindustrialization’s consequences and its effect on a nation’s ability to project military power.
The M1 Abrams tanks which will go to Ukraine are not the same as those that make up American armored battalions. They will get the export model, the main difference being the nature of the armor. Moreover, these tanks won’t arrive for a year [29]. Given the circumstances, one would think the Department of Defense would have begun to make arrangements to deliver tanks from the moment the war started, especially given the anti-Russian bent of the Biden regime. That this didn’t occur shows a lack of planning and foresight.
It is remarkable that new tanks can be produced at all, however. The Abrams tank factory in Lima, Ohio was nearly shut down by the Obama regime [30]. The Trump administration saved American tank production, but many problems remain.
America’s enormous industrial capabilities are what won the Second World War, but the US is a very different country today. The US’ M1 tank production capability is roughly 11 tanks per month [31]. I am uncertain what the marginal costs [32] would be to increase that rate from 11 to 12; they could be considerable. Thus, to carry out a large increase in production, the manufacturers would need to hire tool and die makers, skilled auto workers, factory managers, and so on — and few people in America today have these skills. Many of the industries necessary for tank production are likewise missing, such as steel, and many of America’s steel mills have been closed.
[33]An abandoned factory in East Saint Louis, Illinois. Deindustrialization has damaged America’s war-making capabilities.
Operating a tank is easy to do. Ukraine’s existing T-72 crewmen can easily apply what they know to the M1. They’ll just need one additional crewman to serve as a loader. I don’t know if the Ukrainians can carry out combined arms maneuvers — the integration of infantry, air support, and artillery into a synchronized operation — but it is likely they can. The problem is logistics. Tanks break down or are damaged all the time, making well-trained maintenance and recovery crews essential. The Ukrainians will need to be supplied with fuelers and large quantities of JP-8 to run the tanks. M1s need to fuel up twice a day while conducting operations.
Additionally, using different types of tanks that they are receiving — the German Leopard, the British Challenger, the French LeClerc, and the American M1 — will strain their logistics. More troops will be required to get the right kind of spare parts to the right unit, and logistical snafus are certain. This same problem has defeated armies in the past, such as the Austro-Hungarian army.
Red Flag #5: The war is spreading
The war in Ukraine has already spread in the sense that the United States and others are supplying weapons to Ukraine. This is not unusual, however, as both the Soviets and Americans armed proxies throughout the Cold War.
But two other things have happened that should give us pause. The first is the destruction of the Nordstream 2 pipeline in the Baltic. The culprit remains uncertain, but it was certainly a military operation related to the war that occurred outside the theater of operations. Then there was the recent Israeli attack on the Iranian drone factory [34]. The attack occurred following joint US-Israeli military exercises. There was undoubtedly a deal cut between the two nations to allow the attack to proceed. This was a rare example of America using Israel to help the American elite’s aims rather than the other way round, as Iran is supplying Russia with drones.
There is likewise an element of the Great Replacement involved in the Iranian-made kamikaze drones that Russia has deployed against Ukraine [35]. Prior to these mass kamikaze attacks, there was a rash of thefts of Rotax light aircraft engine [36]s. The thefts were global, but most occurred in Europe. These engines are used in the Iranian drones. Who do you think is doing the stealing? Chances are it is not indigenous Europeans.
Iran might not have the capability for large-scale retaliation against Israel, but they certainly will do something — and there are still many American troops in the region.
Red Flag #6: The US President is senile and the Deep State is, too
The reason this war happened is a failure to deter [37]. President Biden does not have the charisma, support, or mental acuity of a Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Half the country doesn’t even believe he was legitimately elected. Plus, Biden’s obvious cognitive decline no doubt was a factor in Putin’s decision to attack. If Trump were still President, there would be no war in Ukraine today.
Deep State has made a move, too. Biden is now embroiled in a classified documents scandal whose origins are unknown. Who tipped off the FBI and the Department of Justice that Biden had a cache of secret documents in his garage? The Deep State could be engineering yet another coup.
Will a Russian victory be a gain for American white advocates?
A Russian victory in Ukraine makes it possible that, a generation or two down the road, they might attack Poland and the Baltics. The Russians are wounded by their history; they’ve been invaded from the West many times. Securing Poland and the Baltics gives them a sense of security. Thus, to keep the peace in Europe, it is better for this war to end with an independent Ukraine.
For Ukraine, this war is hell, but losing will be worse. Russia will be in a vindictive mood should they capture Kiev. As far as the US goes, there is no reason to expect that the American military bureaucracy, the mainstream media, or the Democratic Party will take the blame for a loss in Ukraine. They are good at finding scapegoats. After all, following the disaster in Afghanistan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley immediately pivoted to the warning against the threat of “white rage [38].”
No senior Pentagon official was fired or forced to resign after the calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Neither was any senior Pentagon official questioned about the two decades of lies they endlessly told during the War in Afghanistan. The only senior officer who dared to say that the war was going poorly was Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, and he was later arrested by the FBI for “lying” to them. Thus, the American military bureaucracy is untouchable at its senior levels despite a string of American military disasters going back to the Fall of Saigon in 1975.
The situation in Ukraine is dangerous. It is complex, ever-changing, and carries with it a significant chance of escalation and a dramatic end – possibly in a loss for Ukraine. White advocates need to seek an end to the conflict in whatever way that they can. But since both the Russians and Ukrainians still think they can win, neither is thinking about peace talks.
The Rand Corporation suggests [4] the following:
- Scheduled weapons deliveries to Ukraine with clear capability implications to make the Russians pessimistic about victory.
- Make weapons deliveries conditional on peace negotiations by the Ukrainians. (The Russians must agree to them, however.)
- Long-term security guarantees from NATO to the Ukrainians to make them more willing to negotiate.
- A NATO guarantee of Ukraine’s neutrality. (Strangely, this was not done before the war, although it had clearly been an option.)
- The US and Western Europe set terms for easing sanctions on Russia should they cease fighting.
Rand says nothing about ceding Crimea or the Russian-speaking areas of the east to Russia, which would potentially be an inducement to end the war. Since Crimea was transferred from Russia to Ukraine for purely administrative reasons in the Soviet Union during the1950s, Ukrainian claims to Crimea aren’t entirely just.
The Rand Corporation’s report [4] on the matter summarizes it best: “In short, the consequences of a long war — ranging from persistent elevated escalation risks to economic damage — far outweigh the possible benefits.” American white advocates should not join the fighting to seek romance and glory. Focus on the cause at home.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here [39].