According to the Wall Street Journal Henry Kissinger should have uttered "it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
As you point out in this analysis we can see that our young European, inexperienced leaders are addicted and obsessed with the idea of becoming the maybe next NATO Secretary General or even the next President of the European Commission. They are blinded by the same intoxication that young, rootless gang members have when they have to earn their way into a biker gang or worse. The most striking thing about these criminal activities is that our criminal governments are not prosecuted while criminal gang members to some extent are. Who can blame them with our governments as role models?
Former Danish Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is clear proof of this. To be a "success" in politics, Washington's only requirement is blind obedience to their military-industrial complex. Our current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen exhibits the same hallmarks of hubris and intellectual deficits that could qualify her for a higher position in the West's totalitarian regime.
In these times, government members always value their own careers more than the people they rightfully should be fighting for. Their own safety comes before ours.
I attribute this, to quote (from memory) Jan Øberg, with whom I very much agree, to a general intellectual disarmament in the West, largely thanks to docile state-sponsored propaganda media and the decline of the independent academia. The result is extremely scaring; a totally ignorant population. Democracy, if we ever had it, is relatively quickly transformed into totalitarianism and fascism. A West that only focuses on alienating humanity, which now only has its military left, is a society in decay. Very sad, but it's obviously a process we have to go through as long as there are foolish people who think they have influence on politics by voting every 4 years...
Great analysis as always. Thank you very much Ola.
Well, everything indicates that the mainstream population in the US and Europe doesn´t understand the seriousness you describe - that they have to feel it themselves before it dawns on them.
They are ignorant people easy to manipulate by the US/EU media, about Syria for example they unconditionally trust the media that the secular Assad regime was a "tyrannical dictatorship" imprisoning innocent people.
It is disgusting to watch all the pro-islamic terrorist anti-Assad propaganda in tv and all the other unidirectional media which is being repeated and indoctrinated into people over and over again.
So the deceived American and European mainstream masses uncritically and fully trust their political establishment and their opinion forming agents. In other words, they support the US, EU and their false stories about Syria and Russia/Ukraine meaning that they support the terrorists in Syria and nazis in Ukraine.
So do they deserve one of the scenario Tunander describe?
The analysis ignores the most important fact. The European leaders lack the moral fibre to take on Russian in Ukraine with troops or in a missile war. They are to a man, woman and dog, cowards.
In addition the US, who holds the europoodle leash , would simply tighten it. They have no capacity to act independently, just yap ineffectually.
Russia will achieve it’s goals in Ukraine, the US will turn a blind eye, European impotence will increase.
Will the US really stay out of scenario "C"? An American top-level nuclear admiral of some sort, named Buchanan, recently spoke at a seminar about maintaining a degree of deterrence while actually fighting the nuclear war. Not sure what he meant, but as I imagined it they would use the American nukes stationed in Europe and perhaps also the ones at sea, but refrain from firing the US-based ICBM:s in order to keep Russia from hitting the US. He was also asked what "victory" means in a nuclear war, and answered that it means the US continues to lead the world.
Putin also spoke, I can't remember when, about a limited exchange of short- and medium-range nuclear weapons - but not intercontinental strategic ones - that would primarily cause suffering in our part of Europe. He urged the Europeans to consider what role the US is assigning them in this scenario.
Thanks. Of course, the US has strong reasons to avoid the destruction of a nuclear war, but nobody knows, and Buchanan's comments would indicate the opposite. If they enter the nuclear exchange, we will reach Scenario D. Thanks.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
– Mark Twain
Many are provoked when someone compares Putin to Hitler. But that’s not the point. This isn’t about evil equivalence — it’s about language, narratives, and how power gains support for war and repression.
See for yourself:
🔻 Hitler (1923):
“We were stabbed in the back by traitors.”
🔻 Putin (2022):
“They wanted to make us a colony and erase our identity.”
➡️ Both use national humiliation to mobilize.
🔻 Hitler (1938):
Germans abroad must be protected.
🔻 Putin (2021):
Ukraine is an artificial state; Russians and Ukrainians are one people.
➡️ History is distorted to justify aggression.
🔻 Hitler (1939):
“We must defend our people – wherever they live.”
🔻 Putin (2022):
“We had to act militarily to protect Donbas.”
➡️ Aggression is framed as defense.
🔻 Hitler:
“The Jews are destroying Germany.”
🔻 Putin:
“The West wants to impose its decadent worldview.”
➡️ The enemy is always morally degenerate.
🔻 Hitler:
“One people, one leader, one Reich.”
🔻 Putin (2019):
“We have no future without unity and loyalty.”
➡️ The leader becomes the nation. Dissent = treason.
Putin is not Hitler.
But the rhetoric rhymes — and that’s dangerous enough.
We shouldn’t just ask whether Putin resembles Hitler.
We should ask: Are we starting to resemble the audience Hitler once manipulated?
Tired. Afraid. Ready for easy answers — at any cost.
The USA has lost all the wars it had initiated since 1945. This ukranian war is no exception. Russia has already won and the only open questions are which shape shall this defeat of NATO will take. As for Europe, they have managed into irrelevance due to the subservient disregard of Europe's interests. they belong in the category of servants of american interests.
A direct quote from Putin in response to the question of what Russia will do if its territory is struck by long-range missiles:
“If such weapons are used to strike Russian territory, the response will be very strong — if not overwhelming. Let them think about that.”
Dmitry Medvedev — Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation
Cancellation of Trump’s summit in Budapest.
New sanctions against our country from the United States.
What’s next? Will there be new weapons beyond the notorious Tomahawks?
If any of the numerous commentators still had illusions — here you go. The United States is our adversary, and their talkative “peacemaker” has now fully set foot on the path of war with Russia. Yes, he is not always actively fighting on the side of Banderist Kiev yet, but this is now his conflict, not Biden the senile one’s! They will, of course, claim that he had no choice, that Congress pressured him, and so on. This does not change the main point: the decisions taken are an act of war against Russia. And now Trump has fully aligned himself with the deranged Europe.
But there is also a clear upside to yet another swing of Trump’s pendulum: we can strike with all kinds of weapons at all Banderist hideouts without looking back at unnecessary negotiations. And achieve victory precisely where it is actually possible — on the ground, not at an office desk. By destroying enemies, not by signing meaningless “deals.”
Brief Summary of the Documents and Russia’s Core Demands (December 2021)
In December 2021, Russia published two draft international agreements:
A Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States on security guarantees
An Agreement between the Russian Federation and NATO on security measures
Both drafts were presented as a proposal to establish a new legally binding security framework in Europe.
Their content can be summarized through three main points:
1. Ending NATO’s eastward expansion
Russia demanded:
Legally binding guarantees that NATO would not expand further east, including explicit prohibition of:
Ukraine joining NATO
Georgia, Moldova, and other post-Soviet states joining NATO
The United States must refuse NATO membership to any former Soviet republic.
The United States and NATO must not establish military bases or military cooperation with post-Soviet countries that are not NATO members.
This was the central political requirement.
2. Withdrawal and restriction of military forces and weapons
Russia proposed:
For the United States and NATO:
No deployment of troops or strike weapons in countries that joined NATO after 1997 (essentially Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, etc.).
No large-scale military exercises near Russia’s borders.
No deployment of intermediate- and shorter-range land-based missiles in Europe.
For both sides:
No deployment of nuclear weapons outside national territories, and removal of existing infrastructure for such deployment.
No training of non-nuclear states’ personnel in the use of nuclear weapons.
No deployment of missiles on national territory that can reach the other side’s territory.
3. Mutual obligations to reduce military risks
Russia proposed to establish:
A declaration that Russia and NATO do not regard each other as adversaries.
A ban on using third countries’ territories to prepare or conduct actions affecting the other side’s security.
Enhanced communication channels, emergency hotlines, and mechanisms for preventing incidents at sea and in the air.
Regular information exchange on exercises, doctrines, and security assessments.
Summary: What Russia sought
Russia sought to create a legal framework that would:
Prevent further NATO expansion, limit US and NATO military presence in Europe (especially near Russian borders), and reduce the risk of military confrontation through mutual restrictions and transparency measures.
In essence, Russia aimed to legally formalize a “return” of NATO’s military posture to roughly the pre-1997 situation and secure a long-term ban on Ukraine and other post-Soviet states joining the alliance.
Sound analysis! It captures with precision how the West’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate security concerns, particularly the demand for a neutral Ukraine, has turned a preventable regional conflict into a potentially global catastrophe. The reality is that Moscow’s objective has always been strategic security, not conquest, and every escalation by NATO only deepens the spiral of mutual existential fear.
A few additional insights build on your argument. First, Western leaders have fundamentally misread Russia’s strategic culture. For Moscow, survival and sovereignty take precedence over ideology or image, which means deterrence will always escalate to defense if pushed too far.
Second, the West’s own industrial and demographic limits make long-term confrontation unsustainable. Russia’s wartime economy and de facto alliance with China have already shifted the global balance.
Finally, the refusal to return to the principle of common security, which anchored détente in the 1970s, ensures that escalation remains the default path. Until Washington and Brussels accept that multipolarity is irreversible, they will keep walking Europe toward strategic and moral ruin.
Excellent artiicle.. I said much the same thing 3 years ago, in my “Will There Be A Nuclear War?”
This scenario is made more possible by the fact that the West—especially the US—has no idea what kind of danger they face in getting into it. Americans think they can bluff, intimidate, and escalation-dominate any adversary. They do not think it’s possible that they will suffer a nuclear attack, because they think their nuclear weapons are the thing that has protected and always will protect them from that, when it’s actually been the admirable caution of been the admirable caution of been the admirable caution of Soviet submarine and early warning officers who prevented their annihilation. This time, there will be no bluff.
What will not happen, Scenario Null, is some Solomonic negotiation that stops the fighting before it gets out of hand. There will be no Minsk 3. …
The only negotiation will be over terms of surrender once things are settled on the battlefield. The result will be that one side or the other suffers a decisive, unallowable defeat. …
Both sides know this. The principals on both sides have eliminated any possibility of mutually acceptable compromise and are fully invested in fighting to win a definitive victory. There's no outside force—no international organization or group of domestic anti-war politicians (who do not exist in the US., anyway)—that is going to impose a peace. All the powers that could do so are the principal protagonists in this conflict, too heavily invested in it to accept anything less than decisive victory, and too rightfully afraid to accept the unacceptable defeat that is the only alternative.
According to the Wall Street Journal Henry Kissinger should have uttered "it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
As you point out in this analysis we can see that our young European, inexperienced leaders are addicted and obsessed with the idea of becoming the maybe next NATO Secretary General or even the next President of the European Commission. They are blinded by the same intoxication that young, rootless gang members have when they have to earn their way into a biker gang or worse. The most striking thing about these criminal activities is that our criminal governments are not prosecuted while criminal gang members to some extent are. Who can blame them with our governments as role models?
Former Danish Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is clear proof of this. To be a "success" in politics, Washington's only requirement is blind obedience to their military-industrial complex. Our current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen exhibits the same hallmarks of hubris and intellectual deficits that could qualify her for a higher position in the West's totalitarian regime.
In these times, government members always value their own careers more than the people they rightfully should be fighting for. Their own safety comes before ours.
I attribute this, to quote (from memory) Jan Øberg, with whom I very much agree, to a general intellectual disarmament in the West, largely thanks to docile state-sponsored propaganda media and the decline of the independent academia. The result is extremely scaring; a totally ignorant population. Democracy, if we ever had it, is relatively quickly transformed into totalitarianism and fascism. A West that only focuses on alienating humanity, which now only has its military left, is a society in decay. Very sad, but it's obviously a process we have to go through as long as there are foolish people who think they have influence on politics by voting every 4 years...
Great analysis as always. Thank you very much Ola.
Well, everything indicates that the mainstream population in the US and Europe doesn´t understand the seriousness you describe - that they have to feel it themselves before it dawns on them.
They are ignorant people easy to manipulate by the US/EU media, about Syria for example they unconditionally trust the media that the secular Assad regime was a "tyrannical dictatorship" imprisoning innocent people.
It is disgusting to watch all the pro-islamic terrorist anti-Assad propaganda in tv and all the other unidirectional media which is being repeated and indoctrinated into people over and over again.
So the deceived American and European mainstream masses uncritically and fully trust their political establishment and their opinion forming agents. In other words, they support the US, EU and their false stories about Syria and Russia/Ukraine meaning that they support the terrorists in Syria and nazis in Ukraine.
So do they deserve one of the scenario Tunander describe?
Brilliant, Ola, and scary like hell. When will the Norwegians and others start listening to you and come to their senses?
With Russia dictating the terms. Russia didn't start it that was USA and NATO
The analysis ignores the most important fact. The European leaders lack the moral fibre to take on Russian in Ukraine with troops or in a missile war. They are to a man, woman and dog, cowards.
In addition the US, who holds the europoodle leash , would simply tighten it. They have no capacity to act independently, just yap ineffectually.
Russia will achieve it’s goals in Ukraine, the US will turn a blind eye, European impotence will increase.
Will the US really stay out of scenario "C"? An American top-level nuclear admiral of some sort, named Buchanan, recently spoke at a seminar about maintaining a degree of deterrence while actually fighting the nuclear war. Not sure what he meant, but as I imagined it they would use the American nukes stationed in Europe and perhaps also the ones at sea, but refrain from firing the US-based ICBM:s in order to keep Russia from hitting the US. He was also asked what "victory" means in a nuclear war, and answered that it means the US continues to lead the world.
Putin also spoke, I can't remember when, about a limited exchange of short- and medium-range nuclear weapons - but not intercontinental strategic ones - that would primarily cause suffering in our part of Europe. He urged the Europeans to consider what role the US is assigning them in this scenario.
Thanks. Of course, the US has strong reasons to avoid the destruction of a nuclear war, but nobody knows, and Buchanan's comments would indicate the opposite. If they enter the nuclear exchange, we will reach Scenario D. Thanks.
Putin has zero interest in a nuclear war. He has stolen too much money to waste it away.
(Putin) "urged the Europeans to consider what role the US is assigning them".
Funny: vassals. - Why on earth are the Europeans accepting this? Destroying their own industry etc. ....
- We need some "national psychologist" of sort, to entangle this idiocy and deep lack of self-respect.
Good analysis. Thank you.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
– Mark Twain
Many are provoked when someone compares Putin to Hitler. But that’s not the point. This isn’t about evil equivalence — it’s about language, narratives, and how power gains support for war and repression.
See for yourself:
🔻 Hitler (1923):
“We were stabbed in the back by traitors.”
🔻 Putin (2022):
“They wanted to make us a colony and erase our identity.”
➡️ Both use national humiliation to mobilize.
🔻 Hitler (1938):
Germans abroad must be protected.
🔻 Putin (2021):
Ukraine is an artificial state; Russians and Ukrainians are one people.
➡️ History is distorted to justify aggression.
🔻 Hitler (1939):
“We must defend our people – wherever they live.”
🔻 Putin (2022):
“We had to act militarily to protect Donbas.”
➡️ Aggression is framed as defense.
🔻 Hitler:
“The Jews are destroying Germany.”
🔻 Putin:
“The West wants to impose its decadent worldview.”
➡️ The enemy is always morally degenerate.
🔻 Hitler:
“One people, one leader, one Reich.”
🔻 Putin (2019):
“We have no future without unity and loyalty.”
➡️ The leader becomes the nation. Dissent = treason.
Putin is not Hitler.
But the rhetoric rhymes — and that’s dangerous enough.
We shouldn’t just ask whether Putin resembles Hitler.
We should ask: Are we starting to resemble the audience Hitler once manipulated?
Tired. Afraid. Ready for easy answers — at any cost.
The USA has lost all the wars it had initiated since 1945. This ukranian war is no exception. Russia has already won and the only open questions are which shape shall this defeat of NATO will take. As for Europe, they have managed into irrelevance due to the subservient disregard of Europe's interests. they belong in the category of servants of american interests.
I can add some additional information:
A direct quote from Putin in response to the question of what Russia will do if its territory is struck by long-range missiles:
“If such weapons are used to strike Russian territory, the response will be very strong — if not overwhelming. Let them think about that.”
Dmitry Medvedev — Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation
Cancellation of Trump’s summit in Budapest.
New sanctions against our country from the United States.
What’s next? Will there be new weapons beyond the notorious Tomahawks?
If any of the numerous commentators still had illusions — here you go. The United States is our adversary, and their talkative “peacemaker” has now fully set foot on the path of war with Russia. Yes, he is not always actively fighting on the side of Banderist Kiev yet, but this is now his conflict, not Biden the senile one’s! They will, of course, claim that he had no choice, that Congress pressured him, and so on. This does not change the main point: the decisions taken are an act of war against Russia. And now Trump has fully aligned himself with the deranged Europe.
But there is also a clear upside to yet another swing of Trump’s pendulum: we can strike with all kinds of weapons at all Banderist hideouts without looking back at unnecessary negotiations. And achieve victory precisely where it is actually possible — on the ground, not at an office desk. By destroying enemies, not by signing meaningless “deals.”
Brief Summary of the Documents and Russia’s Core Demands (December 2021)
In December 2021, Russia published two draft international agreements:
A Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States on security guarantees
An Agreement between the Russian Federation and NATO on security measures
Both drafts were presented as a proposal to establish a new legally binding security framework in Europe.
Their content can be summarized through three main points:
1. Ending NATO’s eastward expansion
Russia demanded:
Legally binding guarantees that NATO would not expand further east, including explicit prohibition of:
Ukraine joining NATO
Georgia, Moldova, and other post-Soviet states joining NATO
The United States must refuse NATO membership to any former Soviet republic.
The United States and NATO must not establish military bases or military cooperation with post-Soviet countries that are not NATO members.
This was the central political requirement.
2. Withdrawal and restriction of military forces and weapons
Russia proposed:
For the United States and NATO:
No deployment of troops or strike weapons in countries that joined NATO after 1997 (essentially Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, etc.).
No large-scale military exercises near Russia’s borders.
No deployment of intermediate- and shorter-range land-based missiles in Europe.
For both sides:
No deployment of nuclear weapons outside national territories, and removal of existing infrastructure for such deployment.
No training of non-nuclear states’ personnel in the use of nuclear weapons.
No deployment of missiles on national territory that can reach the other side’s territory.
3. Mutual obligations to reduce military risks
Russia proposed to establish:
A declaration that Russia and NATO do not regard each other as adversaries.
A ban on using third countries’ territories to prepare or conduct actions affecting the other side’s security.
Enhanced communication channels, emergency hotlines, and mechanisms for preventing incidents at sea and in the air.
Regular information exchange on exercises, doctrines, and security assessments.
Summary: What Russia sought
Russia sought to create a legal framework that would:
Prevent further NATO expansion, limit US and NATO military presence in Europe (especially near Russian borders), and reduce the risk of military confrontation through mutual restrictions and transparency measures.
In essence, Russia aimed to legally formalize a “return” of NATO’s military posture to roughly the pre-1997 situation and secure a long-term ban on Ukraine and other post-Soviet states joining the alliance.
It won't end. Haven't you read 1984?
Sound analysis! It captures with precision how the West’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate security concerns, particularly the demand for a neutral Ukraine, has turned a preventable regional conflict into a potentially global catastrophe. The reality is that Moscow’s objective has always been strategic security, not conquest, and every escalation by NATO only deepens the spiral of mutual existential fear.
A few additional insights build on your argument. First, Western leaders have fundamentally misread Russia’s strategic culture. For Moscow, survival and sovereignty take precedence over ideology or image, which means deterrence will always escalate to defense if pushed too far.
Second, the West’s own industrial and demographic limits make long-term confrontation unsustainable. Russia’s wartime economy and de facto alliance with China have already shifted the global balance.
Finally, the refusal to return to the principle of common security, which anchored détente in the 1970s, ensures that escalation remains the default path. Until Washington and Brussels accept that multipolarity is irreversible, they will keep walking Europe toward strategic and moral ruin.
So many have died, for nothing. It must stop.
How it’ll end? In tears for the neocons.
Russia and the USA have a common goal: insure no nuclear weapons are used in their territory, but they may not feel the same about Europe.
Excellent artiicle.. I said much the same thing 3 years ago, in my “Will There Be A Nuclear War?”
This scenario is made more possible by the fact that the West—especially the US—has no idea what kind of danger they face in getting into it. Americans think they can bluff, intimidate, and escalation-dominate any adversary. They do not think it’s possible that they will suffer a nuclear attack, because they think their nuclear weapons are the thing that has protected and always will protect them from that, when it’s actually been the admirable caution of been the admirable caution of been the admirable caution of Soviet submarine and early warning officers who prevented their annihilation. This time, there will be no bluff.
What will not happen, Scenario Null, is some Solomonic negotiation that stops the fighting before it gets out of hand. There will be no Minsk 3. …
The only negotiation will be over terms of surrender once things are settled on the battlefield. The result will be that one side or the other suffers a decisive, unallowable defeat. …
Both sides know this. The principals on both sides have eliminated any possibility of mutually acceptable compromise and are fully invested in fighting to win a definitive victory. There's no outside force—no international organization or group of domestic anti-war politicians (who do not exist in the US., anyway)—that is going to impose a peace. All the powers that could do so are the principal protagonists in this conflict, too heavily invested in it to accept anything less than decisive victory, and too rightfully afraid to accept the unacceptable defeat that is the only alternative.
https://thepolemicist.substack.com/p/will-there-be-a-nuclear-war