Yves here. By the standards of world leaders, Putin is forthcoming, goes to great lengths to explain his position, and only infrequently makes reality-challenged statements. So it is generally best to start by taking him at his word and wondering about lies of omission as opposed to affirmative misrepresentations.
And as we have seen with Putin’s very measured approach to the Special Military Operation, which is now annoying even members of his Security Council as well as ordinary Russians who are in the mood to administer a big drubbing to Ukraine, he is cautious about conflict. Early on, Putin’s posture reminded me of a scene in the movie Elizabeth, where the Queen’s advisers are egging her on to attack Spain.
The actress Cate Blanchette intoned, “I do not like wars. They have uncertain outcomes.”
Mind you, that is not to say that deranged European states will not manage to take a measure that will force Putin to act, like attacking Kaliningrad. But in his fresh report from Moscow, Alexander Mercouris not only said the city was not only peaceful and prosperous-looking but also that he was literally the only person in the many he had interacted with so far bringing up the drone attacks.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
In his words, talk about Russia attacking NATO “is not simply nonsense; it is a provocation.”
Several top “Non-Russian Pro-Russians” (NRPR) influencers rang the alarm last month about Russia’s alleged plans to attack NATO, which were inspired by top hawk Sergey Karaganov and then Russian Ambassador to the OSCE Dmitry Polyanskiy ominously channeling his rhetoric. Readers can review examples of their warnings here, here, here, here, and here. Casual NRPRs therefore braced themselves for what would have in that scenario almost certainly been the start of World War III had it come to pass.
It obviously hasn’t and it likely won’t ever, however, judging by Putin’s response when he was recently asked about these alleged plans during a meeting with foreign journalists. In his words, “Why would Russia attack Europe or go to war with NATO? What would be the purpose? As I have said before, these claims are not merely nonsense. In my view, they are a deliberate provocation designed to create the impression of a threat that does not actually exist.”
Putin then elaborated that “The objective is to persuade their populations to increase defence spending and, as a first step, to pay for the regime that seized power in Kiev. That, I believe, is the real explanation. It is not simply nonsense; it is a provocation. What surprises me, however, is that some people in European countries appear to believe it. I find that astonishing. The whole notion is simply absurd. It would be amusing if it were not so sad.”
It’s not just “some people in European countries” who “appear to believe it”, but his own top hawk is championing this policy and it was recently amplified to the max by top NRPR influencers, many of whom can be described as “state-adjacent” due to being platformed by publicly financed media, attending government-organized conferences, and/or taking state-secured tours of Donbass. Casual NRPRs are therefore left to wonder whether Putin is telling the truth or is “psyching out the West”.
It’s always best to defer to what Putin himself says in such cases whenever confusion arises, which is due to top NRPR influencers practicing what’s been called “Potemkinism”, or the creation of “alternative realities” about Russian interests and policy for “strategic purposes” (whatever they might be). The most infamous example is that Putin is an anti-Zionist secretly allied with Iran against Israel despite him being a proud lifelong philo-Semite as proven by his many quotes to this end from the official Kremlin website.
Accordingly, while it would be inaccurate describe the fiercely loyal Karaganov as a “provocateur” in the spirit of how Putin condemned such folks who advocate for Russia to attack NATO, he nevertheless powerfully rebuffed hawks such as him as well as the top NRPR influencers who hyped up his rhetoric. That said, Russia’s foreign spy service did indeed warn last month that their country might carry out retaliatory strikes against Latvia if Ukraine launches drones from there, which should be taken seriously.
That’s altogether different than what Karaganov has been pushing for, namely a first strike against NATO that could easily spiral into World War III, and it’s important for casual NRPRs to understand this. As Putin himself phrased it, such talk “is not simply nonsense; it is a provocation.” When those on Russia’s side do it, no matter what their intentions might be, they inadvertently “persuade [Westerners] to increase defence spending and, as a first step, to pay for the regime that seized power in Kiev.”
Yesterday, I was talking to a colleague of mine who was repeating the usual nonesense about Putin’s ”secret” plan to invade Europe and, in our case, France. He then went on saying that we better start learning some Russian before they arrive.
To that I answered: ”c’est booming, comme data ; je vais te forwarder un e-mail de briefing pour qu’on se fasse une conference-call sur ce topic, ok?”*
I don’t know if he got the irony.
*yes, this is supposed to be ”French”.
Europe has nothing to offer the Russian Federation, at a rapid rate it even has less to offer its own population. So why would Russia set its sights on Europe? Europe is a vain aged tart that can’t resist flirting with young men, even boys, who ignore them. You can see this daily ont the streets of the Netherlands where I live.
‘and it was recently amplified to the max by top NRPR influencers, many of whom can be described as “state-adjacent” due to being platformed by publicly financed media, attending government-organized conferences, and/or taking state-secured tours of Donbass.’
Well, it would be helpful to name these NRPR influencers, just so people can take their pronouncements with more scepticism in the future. I suppose that I don’t follow this sphere attentively enough to have noticed this; the closest thing I remember was Korybko’s post that was presented here on 28 May (‘There are really only three scenarios left: NATO finally agrees to some form of Russia’s proposals; Russia launches a preventive war against European NATO betting that the US won’t directly intervene; or Russia peacefully subordinates itself to the West.’). So it turns out that JB did have some reason for his vehemence a week ago or so.
‘The most infamous example is that Putin is an anti-Zionist secretly allied with Iran against Israel despite him being a proud lifelong philo-Semite as proven by his many quotes to this end from the official Kremlin website.’
Strictly speaking, this sounds as if anti-Zionism and philo-Semitism were mutually exclusive, which is very close to the Zionist talking point that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same. I’d say that it’s perfectly possible to be a philo-Semite and an anti-Zionist at the same time, just as you can be a Jew and an anti-Zionist.
Apart from that, Putin’s history of Israel-friendly positions and policies is doubtless, although it seems to me that the logic of the crystallising geopolitical alliances has been leaving and is bound to continue leaving less and less space for this ‘nuanced’ approach, regardless of his personal sympathies. In a similar way, I believe that he and the people around him personally love the West, it’s just that the love is unrequited. The USSR’s old role as some kind of beacon of global anti-imperialism is something that they are forced into. I doubt that the attitudes of China’s ruling elite are very different in this regard either.
the problem with categorizing Putin as pro- or anti-Zionist is that people change their views when new realities emerge or become too clear to ignore. In Israel’s case, it’s clear that it is inseparable from the US, so it is no good pointing to past statements when the US is now openly hostile to Russia.
Good point, my personal decades long sympathy for Israel despite it’s terrible treatment of the Palestinians had completely evaporated in the face of the naked barbarity of its post 2023 genocide. It’s also forced me to re examine my understanding of Israel’s founding.
I doubt that such a reversal is common. There had been outrage after outrage for decades before 2023, and it had only been getting worse. Nothing in Israel’s behaviour after 7 October was a surprise to most who had been paying attention. The fundamentally immoral nature of the way Israel was founded has always been obvious. (Personally, I have always sympathised with the Jewish people as a historically oppressed and persecuted minority, but never with the Zionist project of ethnic cleansing and settler colonialism.) In any case, I don’t think Putin cares about the moral side of any of that.
Putin maybe don’t like war but it’s coming. He should have put enough troops to take east Ukraine. So not only he don’t have enough troops to take east Ukraine, he don’t have enough to take NATO troops. The more austerity in Europe the more Ukraine get volunteers. I still don’t understand how you guy’s underestimate Europe and USA. There is a Reason why they have controlled the world to this day and I believe they will get Russia to sellout. 90s austerity is coming to Russia when that happens
What a crazed reply IMO. War [with NATO] is coming? Seriously? The US has so far shown willingness to play wars against people in sandals or nude feet. European NATO countries sound very much like poodles barking too loudly and frankly it has so far been too easy and comfortable to leave the bloody part of the confrontation with Russia to poor Ukrainians which suggests that this Slavic country is despised by NATO as much as Russia. The peon that can be sacrificed in the geostrategic altars. Because there is a Reason? Neoliberal Eurotards and USpests lost their senses some time ago and Reason is no longer on their side. The higher you climb in the power ladder of these countries the less reason left to find.
It’s no so crazed if one considers the reason for the US/EU place in the pecking order can happen when leadership is compromised or failed elsewhere.
Great comment!
St. Putin would keep saying “everything’s fine” and “we’re winning” even when Moscow burns. 🔥
If the Oreshnik really works the way pro-Russian web commentators believe (or want), then I will again say that the place in Europe to attack is the UK. Already failing economy, defenses in poor repair, out beyond the rest of the EU (which they’ve withdrawn from), instigator of much of the terrorism on Russian soil (which the Russians have stated plainly several times), not likely to garner a lot of sympathy from EU members, etc. Seven or eight Oreshniks hitting the major military and intelligence centers in the middle of a workday could effectively defang the UK for a generation. But, again, that’s only if those missiles work as advertised.
1. Russia doesn’t need Oreshnik to strike the UK–it has plenty of other missiles that we already know of which can do the job, and likely even many more missiles that we know nothing about
2. Again, other than out of some cathartic maneuver, what benefit is there to striking UK right now? Russia has plenty of other, less headline-grabbing levers to really punish the UK if it wishes. And anyway, the UK is already hell-bent on destroying itself anyway
All that aside, I suspect that Putin will not need to directly attack NATO countries at all, since NATO will soon disappear of its own accord. However, even if Russia does so, it will attack neighboring countries first. The three little chihuahuas are likely near the top of the list, I think
The answer to 2. is “make an example of them”, basically. Russia would need to concoct a justification, like blaming them for some notable atrocity that killed Russian civilians, but erasing the military-intelligence capability of the UK in one blow would be a demonstration to the other NATO powers to cool their jets or the same could happen to them. And it would be picking the victim that the rest of Europe would probably have the least sympathy for.
Maybe it’s not necessary at this stage, but it’s an option Russia should keep in their pocket. I get it that the hope of Russia and China is to manage the West’s self-induced collapse in such a way that nukes don’t start flying, but occasional stern measures may be required to give the West a reality check.
OK, I understand your perspective, but I guess that if Russia is deliberately refraining from going all out in Ukraine in order to save its troop levels (an approach that is unfortunately subjecting Putin to criticism and impatience), then escalating in the UK via long range bombing is likely a bit of a stretch.
I think it’s pretty clear that Russia is preparing for a longer term war with (what’s left of) NATO, but I think this is out of an abundance of caution, not because it wants to instigate anything.
this is Gemini flash 3 generated content include with the prompts, i found the memory of Putin is long as he was introduced to Clinton by Boris Yeltsin September 8 1999
https://g.co/gemini/share/ea144a38a2f6
Phase I: The Structural Design (1991–2002)
1991: Paul Wolfowitz tells Gen. Wesley Clark the US must “clean up” old Soviet client states.
Sept 1999: Boris Yeltsin explicitly warns Bill Clinton that proxy extremist groups are being utilized to fracture the Russian Caucasus.
Autumn 2001: The Pentagon circulates the target list of 7 countries, heavily featuring Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
Phase II: The Imperial Overreach & Internal Dissent (2003–2010)
September 2003: Michael Meacher publishes in The Guardian, blowing open the alternative thesis that the war on terror is a manufactured cover for raw resource acquisition and regional hegemony.
July 8, 2005: Following the 7/7 London atrocities, Robin Cook dismantles the mainstream terror paradigm in The Guardian, reminding the public that “Al-Qaeda” was structurally birthed as a CIA-backed proxy network to fight the Soviets.
December 2006: Saddam Hussein is executed following the destruction of Iraq.
April 2010: The Smolensk crash eliminates Polish President Lech Kaczyński and the state’s military high command.
Phase III: The Fragmentation of the State System (2011–2021)
October 2011: Muammar Gaddafi is killed following NATO’s regime-change intervention in Libya.
2012: Operation Timber Sycamore initiates the systematic arming of Syrian rebels, which alternative analysts claim proves Cook’s thesis about the West weaponizing the “database” of proxy fighters to dismantle Bashar al-Assad.
February 2014: Viktor Yanukovych is ousted in Ukraine, establishing a hard geopolitical red line for Moscow.
September 2015: Putin enters the Syrian War, effectively breaking the uninterrupted march of the 2001 target list.
Phase IV: The Attrition and Pivot (2022–June 2026)
February 2022: The conventional proxy war erupts in Ukraine, forcing Russia into a long-term war of attrition against NATO material and financial backing.
May 2024: Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi dies in a highly scrutinized helicopter crash.
Late 2024: The Assad administration in Syria collapses under a rapid offensive by opposition forces.
Early 2026: The long-predicted Iran War breaks out into open conflict, draining Western stockpiles and pulling US-Israeli naval and air power directly into the Persian Gulf.
June 4, 2026: Volodmyr Zelensky issues an open letter to Vladimir Putin, recognizing that Western focus has permanently shifted to the Persian Gulf theater, and demands a ceasefire.
June 11, 2026 (Present Day): The comment sections of alternative journals cite the 2003/2005 warnings of Meacher and Cook as predictive proof: arguing that the global architecture of proxy wars designed in 1991 has finally exhausted its economic and military utility, leaving Russia holding its ground while the West deals with the fallout of the final leg in Iran.