Photo by Andrew Appolonov

---

Russia’s goal is a new security architecture, not a mere victory over Ukraine

by Richard Steinhardt

In a war of attrition, Ukraine is Russia’s cauldron designed to destroy NATO. The war has taken over four years so far. Logically this long war makes no immediate sense if the objective was merely a victory and the control of Ukraine. This is not the issue for the Russian Federation. The issue is this:

“We asked in kind, I would like to emphasise we are ready to negotiate, on the condition that all matters be considered in a package without going away from the main proposals made by Russia. Those have three main items… Firstly, non-expansion of NATO to the east, non-deployment of offensive weapons next to the Russian borders. Finally, bringing back military infrastructure back to the consideration of 1997. These proposals were ignored.”

“I want to be frank. In the current situation, when our proposals that no response from the U.S. and NATO, when the level of threat for our country is becoming greater and greater, Russia has a right to take countermeasures to enhance our own security. That is how we plan to act.”

Vladimir Putin on 18 February 2022 in a Joint press conference with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko

Let us look at the evidence and an example. As a guestimate, if the Russian Federation has been producing up to around 30 Oreshnik missiles a month for, say, the last six months, that means they have at least 150 Oreshniks. So they tested the missile three times and it works devastatingly well. Now, each Oreshnik has six missiles and each of those has six MIRVs, so that’s 36 independently guided hypersonic missiles per Oreshnik, which amounts to 5,400 warheads. This is a conservative estimate. In fact, it was announced that Oreshniks went into full production on 1st August 2025, so that is 11 months of Oreshnik production, not 6.

Now, one would imagine that that alone would be sufficient to take out every NATO installation in Ukraine, all the ratlines to Poland and Romania and so on, and take out all government and industrial and military key targets in around 20 minutes. That, in combination with a massive drone and artillery, missiles and tank attack would win the Russian Federation the war in short order.

Putin said that the war with Europe would be different from the current war in Ukraine. If Europe invades Kaliningrad, he said that war with Europe would be very short, and I believe him. But they could also make the war short in Ukraine if the Russian Federation wanted to do so. Not by using nuclear weapons, but by using the conventional armoury at their disposal, and, in particular, hypersonic missiles like the Oreshnik.

Why don’t they finish the war?

The answer can only be that the Russian Federation is conducting a huge cauldron operation the size of a country and enticing and luring NATO into that cauldron in order to destroy NATO. The cauldron of cauldrons is called Ukraine. They want to kill every Banderite and Nazi sympathiser enlisting from Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and elsewhere, and undermine the European economy and disarm Europe through a war of attrition because their objective is not the defeat of Ukraine but a new security architecture and the dismantling of NATO.

In this they are succeeding. The Europeans are being drawn into a vast cauldron called Ukraine. Because remember this: what the Russians really want is US missiles off their borders and back in the Western hemisphere, and they want a toothless Europe that doesn’t threaten or interfere with them as it has been doing for more than a century, ever since the Russian Revolution.

Then, when all the deadly enemies (mostly nationalists descended from Nazi collaborators) of Russia have been killed or disarmed or disabled, and Europe has frittered away its weapons and is incapable of rearming, then the Russians will demand and get the comprehensive security agreement they want.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has explicitly stated that achieving the goals of the Special Military Operation will help shape a Eurasian security architecture.

Now, as Europe threatens Russia, it knowingly threatens the largest nuclear power with the most advanced and effective weaponry on the planet. One single SARMAT missile could wipe out all the major cities of the UK easily and in under half an hour. The European threats are a busted flush. Russian submarines parked off the US coast ensure the USA will do nothing. Trump and Florida would go up in flames before anyone and anything else. They must have told him this.

So this explains the length of the war. The war in the Ukraine is a cauldron designed not for Ukrainians but for the whole of Europe and NATO/US proxy forces, and it has the objective of removing the threat permanently from the Russian Federation’s borders. The Russians want Europe to escalate for this reason. This is their strategy to get the new security architecture they want, and China, the largest economy on earth, has Russia’s back. The border between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, including Mongolia as borderland is almost as long as the border between Canada and the USA

Let’s break this down

Again. First, Russia has the capability to defeat Ukraine quickly: enough to flatten every NATO installation in Ukraine, every ratline to Poland and Romania, and every key government, industrial, and military target in Ukraine in 20 minutes.

Second, Russia has signalled this: Putin said war with Europe over Kaliningrad or whatever would be “different” and “very short.” The same logic could apply to Ukraine, but the Russians are welcoming everything NATO can bring in in a rope-a-dope manoeuvre.

Third, why doesn’t Russia finish the war? Because the goal is not a quick victory over Ukraine. The goal is to destroy NATO as a threat through a prolonged war of attrition in order to obtain a new security architecture with the West.

Fourth point. The mechanism: Ukraine is the cauldron. Europe is being lured into it, sending weapons, money, and eventually manpower. Every Banderite and Nazi sympathiser from Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and elsewhere who enlists is killed. European economies are undermined. European arsenals are drained through attrition. Europe becomes incapable of rearming.

Fifth. The strategic goal: US missiles off Russia’s borders, sent back into the Western hemisphere. A toothless Europe that cannot threaten or interfere with Russia as it has for a century, since the Russian Revolution.

Sixth. The endgame: Once Europe is disarmed and incapable of rearming, Russia gets the comprehensive security agreement it wants. Europe will have no other alternative.

Seventh. Why Europe’s threats are hollow: Europe is threatening the largest nuclear power with the most advanced weaponry on the planet. One SARMAT could wipe out every major UK city in under half an hour. Russian submarines off the US coast guarantee American non-intervention; Trump and Florida would burn first.

Eighth. The wider alignment: China (largest and most advanced economy on earth) backs Russia to the hilt. India needs to play its cards right. Brazil, Latin America, Canada, and Greenland have already been subordinated to US regional hegemony in the Western hemisphere. The US is slowly being relegated to a regional hegemon, not a global one. Its real problem is, and has always been, Mexico.

And finally, tenth. And end note. Eschatological Israeli colonists will probably get the Armageddon they seem to long for.

Russia is not stalled. Russia is cooking Europe. Ukraine is the pot. Europe is the stew. The longer Europe stays in, the weaker it becomes. Russia wins either way; either Europe escalates and gets destroyed, or Europe exhausts itself and Russia gets its security architecture. The only question is how much Europe is willing to lose before it figures this out and tries to escape the encirclement.

The Logical Implications of this Russian Cauldron

Europe is in a trap with no obvious exit. If Ukraine is a cauldron designed to drain Europe, then every European escalation (more money, more weapons, more trainers, eventually troops) feeds the cauldron rather than defeating it. The logic implies that Europe cannot win by escalating, and cannot win by disengaging either, because disengagement means accepting Russian terms. The only winning move is not to play, but the political architecture of the EU and NATO makes not playing almost impossible. That is the trap. The alternative is a SARMAT on the nose.

NATO’s Article 5 is a liability, not a shield. If Russian submarines off the US coast guarantee American non-intervention, because the US homeland would burn first, then Article 5 is exposed as just a paper guarantee. The entire deterrent architecture of NATO rests on the credibility of US retaliation. If that credibility is gone, then NATO is not a defensive alliance; the entry of European troops into Ukraine is a tripwire foisted onto Europe by the imperial metropolis. Zombie, comprador elites rattle sabres. To honour their commitments to war alone against the preeminent nuclear superpower shields no one. It is a death sentence.

And our country, the UK, is uniquely exposed. One SARMAT could wipe out every major city in under half an hour. The UK has an aggressive hawkish posture towards the Russian Federation. It is one of the most aggressive supporters of Ukraine. This is not brave, but suicidal. The UK has no strategic depth, no missile defence capable of stopping hypersonics, and no ability to retaliate meaningfully against a nuclear superpower with submarines parked off the American coast. The UK is gambling its existence on a bluff it cannot afford to call.

Europe’s economic model is incompatible with prolonged attrition. After the US destroyed the Nordstream and ended the flow of cheap Russian energy to Germany, it has become clear that Europe’s prosperity is threatened. A prolonged war of attrition in Ukraine undermines European prosperity. Energy costs rise. Supply chains fragment. Defence spending crowds out social spending. Political instability follows. Witness it! Witness the abysmal polling and the rise of nationalist oppositions. Note the fragility of UK government and the regular disposal and flushing away of Prime Ministers like so many sheets of toilet paper.

The implication is that even if Europe “wins” the attrition war in military terms, it loses in economic and political terms. The cauldron does not need to destroy Europe militarily. It only needs to cook it to a reduction.

The US will not intervene directly in Ukraine because its own cities are hostage, and it cannot hold its own against the Russian Federation. It is overmatched. The real transatlantic alliance is a hierarchy in which the junior partner, Europe, is expected to fight and die in order to reduce the firepower of Russia, while the senior partner shelters behind its oceans.

Remember how the USSR was left alone to fight the Nazis, with Churchill hoping they would destroy each other. The USA wants Europe to crash onto the rocks of the Russian Federation in the hope that this will weaken Russia. Europe is a formidable proxy.

Many Europeans realise this, but the comprador political class in Europe depends on US support for their own personal prosperity and survival. Tony Blair is an excellent example of the European comprador class.

(witness the vile alignment of the comprador class with the genocide in Gaza completely against the wishes of Europe’s peoples)

With the arrival of any politician concerned with national sovereignty and freedom of action the political basis for NATO collapses immediately.

We will not die for US imperialism!

China’s position is the decisive variable. If China backs Russia to the hilt, then the war in Ukraine is not a regional conflict. It is a proxy in a larger confrontation between the Eurasian landmass and the global corporate capitalist imperialist West. With global capitalist threatening to use Taiwan as another Ukraine, but this time against China, China has decided that Russia’s victory fully serves its interests. Moreover China and Russia have got each other’s backs. Literally, they share a long border.

India is in an impossible position because although it has deep defence ties with Russia, it also has growing economic ties with the West and a hostile nuclear neighbour in Pakistan supported militarily by China. If China backs Russia and the West collapses into a Western Hemispheric regional hegemony, India must choose between non alignment and alignment with the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, or alignment with the USA and Europe and enmity with China and Russia. Obviously it will have to choose non alignment again.

The US will gradually be relegated to regional hegemony. Latin America, Canada, and Greenland are not its partners. US foreign policy has shifted to more coercive control. The Monroe Doctrine returns with a vengeance. The rest of the world becomes irrelevant to American strategy except as a source of threats.

Israel’s strategic position is becoming untenable. If the US is no longer the global hegemon, then Israel’s regional aggressions, which depend on US backing, are no longer feasible unless the USA is willing to allow Israel to use nuclear weapons. In using them, Israel risks Armageddon and annihilation. The status quo cannot hold. Israel must accommodate to the new multipolar world order and find a South African solution immediately, or perish horribly in the short to medium term.

To conclude. The war in Ukraine is not a war. It is a trap for NATO. And the trap is not designed to catch Ukraine. It is designed to catch Europe and NATO and to cause the USA to pull in its horns. Europe is walking into it willingly, because its political class are a compromised comprador class who benefit personally and financially from Atlanticism. The only question is whether the people of Europe figure this out before it is too late, and if they do, will governments prioritising sovereignty have the courage to escape the Russo/Chinese encirclement.

---

Richard Steinhardt is a committed socialist and a radical humanist and has published in the Morning Star and a variety of other communist and socialist publications. He believes that human conscience and understanding should always precede dogma and deterministic formulas posturing as ‘social science’.