It has been fashionable to talk of the World War of 1914 as resulting from sleep-walking by the European Powers.
This, of course, is complete nonsense.
Any reading of British accounts, including the insider memoirs of the illustrious Cabinet Secretary, Sir Maurice Hankey, shows that there was a well-worked out and purposeful plan for a Great War on Germany—and also indeed for attacking and carving up of the territories of Ottoman Turkey. And it was all part of something much greater in the British mind than a mere Balkan or European War.
End Of History!
Sleep-walking is a much more apt description for what Europe is currently doing in the Ukraine and against Russia.
Europe’s ‘sleep-walking’ problem began at the Bucharest Summit of April 2008, when Ukraine was ear-marked to be a staging post in NATO’s eastward expansion. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel accurately described this policy as amounting to a “declaration of war against Russia” that Putin would never stand for!
But Europe carried on regardless and proceeded to undermine the peaceful stability and development it had hitherto enjoyed by meddling in Ukraine in 2013: setting off the course of events that has set it sleep-walking toward general European war today.
The EU did this by attempting to take the whole of the Ukraine away from Russian influence into its own orbit. It failed to heed Samuel Huntington’s observation that two civilisations met in Ukraine: and that a balancing act had to be carefully maintained to keep them together within a single state.
Instead, Europe accepted Fukuyama’s assertion that an end of history was dawning, the completion of which only needed the absorbing of all the backward residues of the old world into the inevitable progress of liberal democracy towards Utopia. Europe—feeling that it was its mission to mop up its eastern hinterland—threw its weight, along with that of North America, on one side of the Ukrainian scales and the rest is history.
I take it that Europe has no plan for a general, direct, War between it and the Russians— even though its sleep-walking takes it in that direction! The intention so far has been to remain in fighting posture behind the Ukrainian skirts and letting them do the dying: and suffering all the destruction!
But Europe and the UK—already provocateurs in the conflict against Russia since 2013—seem to have become emboldened by Washington ceding its direction of the War to them, after Trump’s return to power.
In a recent public speech, Ursula Von der Leyen announced that the European Union was explicitly allied with Ukraine as a participant in the war:
“In Europe, we already have huge technological and industrial capacity that can be deployed. And we have safe and secure production sites that can help to scale up. But we do not have that battle-tested knowledge and expertise that Ukraine has forged. So the point I am making is that we need to combine our strengths. Together, we can work on joint production.”
Kaja Kallas has called for the dismembering and Balkanisation of Russia.
The constant and escalating provoking of the Russians by the UK and Europe—involving, among other things, the direct targeting of Russian cities and energy infrastructure—seems to be based on the premise that Putin will not respond in kind.
Russian Response
President Putin, of course, has always been a conservative and cautionary realist. He has made only one bold move in recent history, and that was to launch the Special Military Operation into Ukraine in February 2022. Most of the West, and indeed Kyiv, did not expect him to do so. It was evidently felt that they could threaten Russia to their heart’s content by marching NATO up to its borders with impunity. Putin would bluster but do nothing!
It did not seem to occur to them that they were breaking assurances about NATO expansion and by altering the existing security order in Europe to Russia’s great disadvantage—actions that were seen as existential threats by Russia and which could not be accepted by Putin: or by any Russian leader.
When Putin warned them of the threat their behaviour was posing and offered to settle the matter through negotiations, they ignored him. In October 2021 Putin attempted to bring about negotiations with those mustering force at Russia’s borders by sending letters to President Biden and to the NATO chief at the time, setting out Russian terms. These were: no NATO in Ukraine, and no heavy offensive weaponry on Russia’s perimeter. That was a reasonable position, which should have been taken seriously.
When the Intelligence Services told Western leaders that Putin was deadly serious, and was making contingencies for a military operation, the same people who believed they could carry on regardless could not bring themselves to believe it.
Western Policy
After the Russian Special Military Operation was launched, the narrative in the West was changed. The US congratulated its Intelligence services for “calling it correctly” and said they had wiped out the Iraq Weapons Of Mass Destruction stain against them.
At the Istanbul Conference with Russia, once Kyiv was bolstered to fight—effectively checkmating Putin’s gambit of ending the war quickly through a limited show of force and diplomacy—the West congratulated itself on a job well done. Russia had been lured into the quagmire of Ukraine with no possibility of retreat without the fall of Putin himself—the main objective of the West for more than a decade. Russia could now be bled by the most extensive Sanctions ever imposed and by supplying vast amounts of weaponry and Intelligence assistance to Kyiv.
Little seems to have been learnt from the failure of that strategy. The change of narrative, for the purposes of war propaganda, into one in which Putin made a terrible mistake in February 2022, left Europe forgetting that it was the Russian leader who surprised them by a robust response to their challenge—though only after Russia was put in an impossible position.
The present writer was of the view at the time that Putin, when he made his bold move in February 2022, had been mistaken in his criticisms of Stalin and of his conservative policy. The Russians had always fought most effectively in defensive mode within their own borders. Their armies had ended up in Paris and in Berlin as a result of effective defensive warfare in World War Two. Correspondingly, in the one partial failure of the Soviet State, Lenin’s army was only stopped short of Warsaw after the European/North American invasions of Bolshevik Russia in 1918/19.
Some people, including a Professor in University College Cork, have revealed that President Putin was concerned at the existential threat posed by the large build-up of Western Ukrainian forces on its borders in the east, along with a potential genocide of the Russian population in the Donbas. They have described Putin’s intervention as essentially a preventative war, aimed at heading off a greater potential catastrophe for the Russian world, as described by Huntington. For this reason, they noted, Putin had decided upon the Special Military Operation—a radical intervention which went entirely against his instinct as a cautionary statesman.
That, of course, is ancient history now. The wisdom of Putin’s decision will depend upon the outcome of the War and on nothing else. We will never know what would have happened if he had stood idly by, or adopted an alternative approach.
‘Special Military Operation’
Since the launching of the Special Military Operation, Putin has confirmed that he is a moderate cautionary realist by the way he has conducted Russian operations in Ukraine—a military intervention that he still hesitates to term a war.
The West has always ridiculed the idea of the Special Military Operation, and the BBC has termed it “the full-scale Russian invasion” of Ukraine. This is despite the fact that, according to General Syrskyi, the present Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, “the full-scale Russian invasion” of the Ukraine was composed of only around 100,000 soldiers.
That is the same size as Haldane’s British Expeditionary Force in Belgium in August 1914!
It never seems to have dawned on them that Putin’s reluctance to use the term “war” may have indicated that the Special Military Operation was meant to be a limited intervention: and indicating that there might be higher gears if called for by the stage of “war”!
Putin had no desire to conquer the Ukraine; he has never indicated that he believed such a project was feasible; and he has certainly not attempted to do so in the four years of hard fighting.
In his July 2021 article—describing the Russians and Ukrainians as one people—Putin made it very clear that he supported post-Soviet Ukrainian self-determination, and only demanded respect from Kyiv for the diversity of its internal character—i.e., to accept that it had a substantial Russian minority population—along with adopting a non-threatening stance towards its main neighbour.
Four days into what the West calls “the full-scale Russian invasion”, in February 2022, negotiations began in Belarus to end the Russian military intervention. This led to talks in Istanbul and a generous offer made by Putin of terms to end the war.
Fiona Hill later revealed in Foreign Affairs that Zelensky was ready to accept Putin’s offer, which included a state of permanent neutrality for Ukraine.
In the event, President Zelensky was to walk away from the talks after British Prime Minister Boris Johnson made his intervention—telling Zelensky, on behalf of President Biden, that he could be a great war leader, fully supported by the immense moral, economic and military power of the West. Or he could take his chances, alone, by making a shabby deal with Putin: and face the wrath of the hard Ukrainian nationalists—who had already threatened him and his family with death if he thought of compromise.
Denys Kieryev, a prominent Ukrainian negotiator at the Belarus talks, had been assassinated by ultra-nationalists in March 2022, reportedly for not being robust enough at the conference table. That was food for thought for Zelensky: who then donned his military uniform!
When the West showed its hand at Istanbul, and Kyiv proved its willing instrument, Putin’s objectives changed, through necessity. His minimalist objective of intimidating Kyiv into good behaviour failed, and Russia was drawn into a sustained conflict with the object of relieving Kyiv of the territory which contained the Russian-speaking population it aimed to subjugate or clear. The aim then became to provide for the future security of this population, and of Russia by digging in for a defensive war.
Putin has always aimed to confine to Ukraine the War he had been bounced into, largely ignoring the Western provocations. And he has attempted to win it—unsuccessfully so far—by applying minimal force against a people that he still sees as brother Russians, despite everything.
Putin’s policy towards Ukrainians has certainly not replicated that of the state of Israel toward the Palestinian people! The Palestinians are not seen as brothers, or one people with the Jews—by the Zionists!!
Escalation!
Due to stubborn Ukrainian resistance and the West’s continued support—even after Trump’s attempted retreat—Russia has been forced to build up a much bigger army than it has had since 1990. If Russia is now militarised, it was from necessity not choice.
Although it has undoubtedly suffered considerable losses, it now has a much better and battle-hardened army than anything that might have existed without the War in Ukraine.
Thus there is in fact a self-fulfilling prophecy in Europe’s “Russian threat” narrative, a story that runs in parallel with that of “Russian collapse”!
Putin’s attempt to preserve the Russian economy, despite the War, is becoming problematic, due to the long-range Ukrainian strikes on the oil installations and infrastructure, which is facilitated by Western Intelligence, weaponry and satellite technology. It is reported that the situation in Crimea is becoming critical for Russia. Certainly, it has become difficult to supply the Russian population there across land—and across the Sea of Azov, where Kyiv has shown it can destroy tankers with Western assistance.
And retired Western Generals and analysts have recycled the “Russian collapse” story again: to keep Kyiv on the job!
Is it intended that this rhetoric, plus the attacks on Russian territory, should produce escalation from Russia?
Of course, the Western message these days is that its war objective, and its provocation of Russia, is “to bring Putin to the conference table”. That is also the argument it makes to Trump: continuing US support for Kyiv is necessary “to bring Putin to the conference table”. Apparently it is now a war for peace!
Nobody suggests that this is a rather miserable objective—hardly worth the destruction the War has brought! Nobody says that this objective, if achieved, that would probably engulf Ukraine in civil war, since the driving force of Ukrainian Nationalism would be very unlikely to accept such an outcome.
When Azerbaijan lost 20 per cent of its sovereign territory in the early 1990s, it was seen universally as a humbling and humiliating defeat by Armenia that had to be reversed. But this seems to be the current war aim of Europe in relation to Ukraine!
Even if this is all hogwash, it suggests European weakness to the Kremlin. And, coupled with the increasing provocations, this is the most likely way of producing an escalating situation.
Dismantling The Russian Federation!
Russia is organised around an understandable idea of an existential threat from Europe, derived from historical experience. Over the decades, Europe, in all its different political forms, does not seem to be able to help itself: it has to keep attempting to dismantle the big state of Russia to the east!
While Britain historically exerts a Balance of Power policy to prevent a concentration of power on the European continent, Europe aims to reduce Russia into a ‘Europe’: turning its eastern hinterland into a morass of small, divided, and conflicting states that would be weaker in relation to Europe and in which rivalries could be promoted and manipulated: in much the same way as Britain has operated in Europe down the decades.
However, when Europe found itself on the verge of achieving this objective in 1918-20, it came to realise what a bad idea that was, and it suddenly had no idea what to do with Russia after any break-up. This is clear from the Lloyd George/Churchill dispute of the period, which is on the public record. General Thomson was sent to Baku, the great oil town of the world, with instructions to return it to Russia once it had recovered from the Bolshevik virus!
Russian Resilience
The fact is that the Soviet industrial heritage has meant that Russia is no pushover. Europe has found that Russia can do war economy at scale, if necessary, and it can absorb cost in a way Europe never can.
On top of that, any necessary European mobilisation for war is likely to produce mass protest, and lead to the destruction of the fair-weather European economies! President Trump has demanded increased European military expenditure. However, spending 3.5 per cent of GDP on war production is already producing political crisis in a number of European states; and further “increases” aimed to meet Trump’s magic number of 5% are being made up of ancillary economic measures (roads, railways, services and pensions) that could hardly have any effect on war-making if that were to transpire.
NATO CONFERENCE
The announcement in Ankara of proposed spending by NATO countries are a very different thing to actual military capability. Trump knows that Europe and the UK are engaged in theatre and are attempting to cheat him!
The Ankara NATO Conference was a shambles of disunity! Erdogan’s gift to the visiting heads of state of personally-inscribed and loaded pistols was its most memorable and insightful act!
The situation Europe is sleepwalking into is this: if it succeeds in provoking Russia into a dramatic escalation of the Ukraine War, it will either have to put up—by mobilising for a general European war—or shut up: ignominiously backing down to the Russians, with very harmful consequences.
Double Standards!
The West seems to have a very different calculation towards Russia than it does toward Israel. There is little doubt Europe would not provoke Israel in the same way it is provoking Russia. It knows that Israel would soon respond with murderous force if it was subjected to the same provocations the Europeans have made on Russia!
Europe, for all its demonisation of him, sees Putin as a soft touch and relies on that calculation being correct indefinitely.
Ukraine End Game!
The pertinent question now is whether Russia can win the War in Ukraine without ordering a general mobilisation, or launching ballistic missiles at selected targets in Europe, or using tactical nuclear devices in Ukraine to create a permanent buffer zone for its own protection—after giving the population time to leave.
It has always been Putin’s intention to minimise the war and its general consequences. But others may not see it that way after 4 years of failure to finish the war in one way or another and of coping with the Europeans acting with impunity in organising attacks on Russia.
Putin is undoubtedly the most pro-European leader in the Russian political class. Europe is banking on the calculation that, while he is in Office, it is probably safe from this kind of Russian response.
Outcomes
The War goes on: Kyiv has evidently learnt its lessons over costly counter-offensives and, under General Syrskyi, it has settled down to a more limited battlefield strategy: organised around defence and the use of drones to prevent large Russian attacks, while striking at energy infrastructure deep inside Russia.
It has had to adopt this approach because Ukrainians are increasingly reluctant to sacrifice themselves just to win a seat at a conference table that would surrender the Donbas to the Russians, at least for a generation.
Russia has increasingly targeted Ukraine’s military industrial infrastructure, its fuel stations, energy reservoirs, and supply lines: to choke off its military capacity at source— rather than just attacking at the Front. A large NATO arms dump sited in Kyiv was recently destroyed with massive explosions that shook Zelensky into making a public statement.
That represents a strategically different approach by Putin, and it is of recent origin. It is why the Ukrainians are so worried about their interceptor shortage, because its war production is being vitally threatened.
Civilian casualties in Kyiv are still minimal, with the worst being comparable to a very good day in Gaza or Lebanon during a “ceasefire”!
Walking Into World War!
The “Russian collapse” narrative being presented in the Western press is false and serves as a diversion to the Western public. The real situation in fact indicates that the War in Ukraine is intensifying to secure a decision of one kind or another.
In early May, Minister of Social Policy Denis Uliutin revealed that only 22-25 million people still live in Ukraine. Of them, at least 10 million are pensioners per the Pension Fund of Ukraine’s estimate in April.
To make matters even more concerning, UNICEF estimated last year that there are 6.6 million children under the age of 18 so, taken together, that leaves just 6-9 million working-age adults left in the country. The World Bank’s latest data from 2024 estimates that males comprise 46% of the population, so that would roughly mean that Ukraine has only some 2.76 to 4.14 million working-age males. Two years on a not insignificant, but unclear, percentage of these have been either killed or permanently handicapped by the ongoing conflict.
If one accepts the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ early 2026 figure of 500,000-600,000 Ukrainian casualties, then this means that Ukraine only has between 2 million and 3.5 million working-age males at most.
On the other side: by any metric, Russia has suffered nowhere near the population losses and destruction Ukraine has—either on the battlefield or behind the lines.
Ukraine will take generations to recover from taking the road it took on Western prompting back in 2014.
On any metric, Russia has suffered nowhere near the population losses and destruction Ukraine has—on the battlefield or behind the lines. Ukraine will take generations to recover from taking the road it took on Western prompting back in 2014.
Ukrainian Defence Minister Mikhail Fedorov revealed in January that over 200,000 men had deserted the Front Line and ten times more (2 million) were actively dodging the draft. For, as active as the press-gangs of nationalists have been, Ukraine is struggling to replenish its extensive losses. This is why Kiev requested that the European Commission no longer provide refugee rights to military-aged men who flee to the bloc.
No matter. For the West the War is not about the suffering of the Ukrainian people, the loss of its territory, and the destruction of its population—it is entirely about the unprovoked bleeding of Russia.
Europe walked like zombies into Ukraine and they now sleepwalk towards European War. But this time they are bit players within something much bigger.
It should be remembered that in August 1914 European War was merely a transitional step between regional war and World War.
If anyone has a plan today it is the predominant Power in the world, the United States: like its predecessor in 1914, Great Britain. It has a plan to hold onto its world predominance and is determined to do so.
A ‘Great Game’ is being played by the US, which takes in both the conflict in Ukraine—which it has now franchised out to Europe—and the War on Iran, which is actually the start of its pivot east, under Trump—a leader free of disabling moralism. It is all part of the same movement in the world.
Trump has seen that the US wasting its resources against Russia in Ukraine is a ridiculous thing for a Great Power with bigger fish to fry. He understands that Europe/Kyiv tying up Russia in Ukraine is not detrimental to the US pivot east and can complement it. He cannot stop the thing started and given momentum by his predecessors and has more than enough on his plate to make it a pointless task.
Real War Aims!
The Iran War, presented as being about other things entirely, has now been shown to be a war for the architecture of global trade, upon which US predominance is built. The control of the Strait of Hormuz is its real issue.
The Great Game, of which it forms part, is about US power over global energy supplies and the maintenance of the economic system (the Petrodollar system) that facilitates continued US predominance in the world.
It is, therefore, a war for the frustration of the China/Russia Eurasian project, of which Iran has begun to assume an important geopolitical part, due to its location and substance within an area characterised by lack of substance.
It is a very similar gambit to Britain’s War on the Berlin-Baghdad railway a century ago. In that period the Royal Navy controlled the maritime choke points of the global economy and Britain was determined to prevent Germany and the Turanian/Muslim world possess an alternative Eurasian economic development that would undercut the British economic and military predominance.
If we were to look for a particular parallel it would be in the Balkan Wars that preceded the World War of 1914—something Roger Casement accurately described as a British Imperial attempt to cut off German/Ottoman Eurasian development at its Balkan chokepoint. The Serbians were described as the Guardians of the Gates, as I recall.
That is what the United States is attempting to repeat today.
The British counter to Eurasian development sparked off a World War a century ago and there is no reason to suggest why this shouldn’t be the case again.
It seems that we are in the preliminary stages of World War and all that needs to happen is for the touchpaper to be lit by someone or something.
As in 1914, there are multiple options!
A Vital Neutrality!
Irish neutrality now becomes an existential factor: to prevent the state following the sleep-walkers to the abyss. Unfortunately, there is little clear thought about Ukraine, Iran, or the world, in the Ireland of today. It gives all the appearance of replicating the Redmondite delusions of a century ago!
In such a situation, Casement and Dev become very relevant as a guide to action to those who wish to think about the situation. It was people who did look before the surface, and prepared for the challenges ahead, that determined our history, while all else was swept away like tumbleweed!
Pat Walsh
Editorial Note: Britain’s 1914 War of dismemberment on Turkey, conducted in alliance with Tsarist Russia, has left us with the continuing catastrophe in Palestine—a then peaceful province of the Turkish Empire.
