Epsilon Theory Logo

Getting to War

Ben Hunt

January 28, 2022·46 comments·In Brief

Diplomatic negotiations are happening. Statements flow from all sides. But the gap between what Russia demands and what the West can politically offer is mathematically impossible to bridge. Russia knows this. Yet the negotiations continue anyway, following a script that serves a different audience entirely.

  • The negotiations aren't real. Russia's public demands have zero overlap with what American domestic politics will allow. Both sides understand this. The talks continue not because resolution is possible, but because war requires it.
  • What looks like diplomacy is domestic theater. The grammar of Russian statements reveals the real audience: Russian citizens who need to hear that their government tried, that the West refused peace, that backs are against walls. This is mobilization, not bargaining.
  • The decision is already made. The invasion isn't coming tomorrow. It's already been decided. What's happening now is the staging of forces and the preparation of narratives to make that invasion land the way Moscow wants it to land at home.
  • The West doesn't see the shift yet. Biden's accidental openness to a "mild invasion" and the quick backtracking reveal that American leadership hasn't fully grasped that this script is already written. The negotiations will fail exactly as planned.
  • Getting to war requires both mobilization and narrative. Troops matter. But so do the stories citizens tell themselves about why their government had no choice. Understanding how those stories are constructed reveals that the outcome is no longer in doubt.

Subscribe Today to Read More

Unlock instant access to this and hundreds of other evergreen essays that explore the world of narrative through hard science and human wisdom.

  • Make more informed decisions as an investor and citizen.
  • See through the nudges of Big Politics and Big Media.
  • Become a better consumer of news.
  • Maintain your autonomy of mind in a swarm of narratives.
  • Join a community of more than 100,000 truth-seekers.

Looking for Deeper Insights?

Unlock exclusive market intelligence, trade ideas, and member-only events tailored for investment professionals and active investors with Perscient Pro.

VISIT PRO
Spiral
called it
Most Popular
In Brief

Comments

psherman's avatar
pshermanabout 4 years ago

Insightful as always Ben, this helps me understand that geopolitical puzzle
thanks


BScaletta's avatar
BScalettaabout 4 years ago

“Biden suggested that the US might not respond as forcefully to a mild invasion of Ukraine,” Wasn’t that the trail balloon? Easier to walk back the comment and make the correction that we support our allies after the temperature in the room is taken.


JohnE1's avatar
JohnE1about 4 years ago

Thank you for the insight. I agree with your Kissinger reference but, that opens up a whole other can of what ifs. Would Russia have not invaded Crimea if we adhered to a limited NATO position? Would Putin be satisfied as the premier example of a self important dictator with Russia staying within it’s borders? Would the EU be stable? There are a host of potential domestic narrative possibilities on all fronts with this.

Alas, we are where we are. So, the question is how do we limit the damage for the future?
As somewhat of a Trekie, I’m fond of Captain Kirk’s management of the Kobayashi Maru test. He changed the program (or if you will, the narrative). I wonder if Europe and the US have the long term stomach to impose real financial solutions to Russia’s aggression and, if so, do we/they have the ability/foresight to create a different narrative outcome? That leaves one other question. What should the outcome be?

Ah, if life could just be black and white… wait, is that racist…:slight_smile:


tcurwin's avatar
tcurwinabout 4 years ago

Thanks Ben, great as always! I think Putin has fallen into a trap here. This is not good news for the average Russian soldier or the average Ukrainian solider/civilian, alas.

Biden’s press conference moment of saying “well, maybe a wee bit off the Eastern part would be ok” was a bit of a “hot mic” moment. Not in the sense of calling a Fox News reporter a nasty name not realizing he’d been heard but in the sense of man used to discussing matters well above everyone else’s pay grade. You forget a bit what you sound like when you talk “inside baseball” all the time.

NATO wants an old-school, Soviet-era proxy war as a solution for Putin. And that’s perfect, as Putin wishes to be the Sectretary General the Soviets never had, but while keeping the billion$, thanks. It will be a slow grinder affair that after a month rarely makes the front page of anything or the first block of Fareed Zakaria GPS, but that features a lot of smouldering Russian equipment and weeping mothers in Moscow. And it doesn’t want NATO soldiers involved unless they’re riding white tanks and handing out candy to kids who will run out to greet them.

Ukraine is bordered by 4 Nato members, connected seamlessly to the rest of mainland European NATO by the frictionless-ish highways of the EU. In short, I don’t need to Berlin-Airlift anything in, or wait for container ships. I can send things across the border 24/7. As an ex-army logistics guy, I wish it were always that easy.

As you point out, the invasion die is cast. Perhaps Putin was looking for an off-ramp that Biden would help build, he’s always been a high risk gambler who almost always wins. And given the leeway he had with messaging with Trump, I can’t blame him for testing it.

But the narrative has gone in 2 new directions since these “high level meetings.”

  1. I see a lot of “embassy waiting room” press (NYT, FT, etc) doing stories on how shiny the Russian army is now, not like a decade ago. The release of this “revelation” was so targeted and concentrated, well, here’s my golf clap for the team at Edelman or whoever does Putin’s PR work here. Message received, thanks for the big foam “Da!! #1 Army!!” finger, too. In truth, most serious analysis shows just the European component of NATO could overwhelm Russia in a full scale European war, so long as nukes are kept out, of course. It’s mainly just will and math.

  2. Diplomatic slapstick. The “reaction” of NATO members is predictable given their easily seen domestic issues. Germans worried about energy? “Here, Ukraine, you’re cool an’ all but we don’t really wanna get involved. Have 5,000 helmets.” Really? I feel like that was German Chancellor Dom Deluise faking a fainting spell for the jewelry store clerks while smiling, gum chewing NATO Secretary General Burt Reynolds is cleaning out the safe in back. It needed a laugh track. And “NATO in disarray!” always plays well on RT. (Right behind “Is Israel behind NATO’s disarray?” on the top links)

But Russia’s shiny new army will meet NATO’s 10+ years of Afghanistan-driven assymetric warfare “innovation.” The only goal is that it looks ugly in Russia, because the home front is Putin’s achilles heel. Yes, there will be pearls clutched in Prague. Bosoms will heave with sadness in Brussels. Many sweet and sour communiques from the world’s capitals will be issued into the Reuters/Bloomberg void at odd hours. “God, is that IT? Have we heard from EVERYone in NATO now? What’s Trudeau saying? Wait, Canada has 200 special forces in Ukraine? Sorry, 200 “trainers” in Ukraine? When did THAT happen? …6 years ago??..really???”

But aside from those Canadian boots on the ground, NATO soldiers will be safe and mainly not even forward deployed. If I wanted to create a “Putin-killer” scenario, this is what I’d do. Hell, even China has weighed in with “support” for Russia, which looks more like “If this Ukraine concept of vassal state holds, can we talk Taiwan now? We are with you in spirit. Vlad, do you need helmets? I’ll match Germany one for one…”

Like I said, sadly, it will fall heaviest on the average Ukrainian civilian and average Russian front line soldier.

I think it’s important to keep in mind, at this tender juncture in human history, that in 20 years, all these players - Trump, Biden, Putin, Xi, etc etc – will likely be dead, in their beds or otherwise. What will fill the vacuum?


underyourhat's avatar
underyourhatabout 4 years ago

Hello Miss Confirmation Bias, Meet Mister Realism:

I married into a Russian family from Kazakhstan and have spent hundreds of hours reading and studying the history of that fascinating part of the world. My wife’s family joined millions of Russians who were — so to speak — left behind. When the Soviet Union collapsed, and several countries within its former orbit became independent nations, millions of Russian peoples found themselves living in lands no longer run by fellow Russians, or by those ideologically or culturally aligned with them. My wife’s mother remains living in northern Kazakhstan to this day — and, truth be told — she adores the current President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. The reason is simple to grasp: Putin has told those Russians left behind that he will not allow poor treatment of them anywhere within his reach. With media attention now focused on Ukraine, I’ll merely share this bit of realism: In 2014, Russian military forces suddenly occupied the entire peninsula of Crimea, which had been under Ukrainian control. At the time, the demographic makeup of the entire peninsula was 68% Russian and 16% Ukrainian. What Russian leader would ever allow Crimea to remain in a country intentionally attempting to join a powerful military alliance (NATO) that targets Russia as its sole enemy? —Clearly, that is a rhetorical question. Until proven otherwise, I believe if NATO never extends an invitation to Ukraine to join its alliance, Putin will find little motivation to attack; and eastern border areas can come to a negotiated settlement. The Biden Administration is intentionally playing with fire by not confirming that reality. Not long after the collapse of the USSR, Mr. X, George Kennon, told us not to pursue the extension of NATO further toward the Russian border. We were unwise not to listen. We’ll be further unwise to test Putin’s resolve to put an end to NATO expansion at the Polish, Slovakian, and Hungarian borders.


jrs's avatar
jrsabout 4 years ago

@bhunt, thanks for this. The cartoon at the top, like Gaiman’s Corinthian, will vaguely disturb me for years to come.

Is it possible to use a similar analysis, ie apply your Rules 1 and 2 +/- the Narrative Machine, to discern motives on the American side?

Eg, can we infer by American Powers That Be efforts to mobilize public opinion things like how badly our military industrial complex actually wants a war with Russia or what the Biden administration is actually planning to do?

Or are American motives at this point too diverse to discern much with these methods?


bhunt's avatar
bhuntabout 4 years ago

Phenomenal note, Trevor. Thank you!


bhunt's avatar
bhuntabout 4 years ago

Oh, for sure!

(and the Corinthian is my fave-in-a-totally-disturbing-way metaverse character, too)


010101's avatar
010101about 4 years ago

That is what is being forged here. The ideology, the political form of a future set of nations. Whosoever will have the ears of their nation will be talking to people who lived this time. Our feelings about this episode will matter. Our future memories are
a strategic object. Great men have few victories to win in the present, it is legacy that titillates their minds.
Your children will not know how to process todays complex facts without interpretation. A simplistic visual language will be imprinted upon them as they grow.
An mpeg file will hold greater dominion than a trillion in capital.
Everyone on this forum already knows this.


tcurwin's avatar
tcurwinabout 4 years ago

Good point, James. I’m looking to two different eras for guidance on that.

Is it 1938…or 1989?

Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum...

jrs's avatartcurwin's avatarSwindled's avatarbhunt's avatarboilerlinde's avatar
+5
46 replies

DISCLOSURES

This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor's individual circumstances and objectives.