"You always take your mockery to the extreme. The anger you have provoked may strike you down" Duke of Mantua, "Rigoletto"
The experience of the past century has provided ample examples of how dangerous a state of militaristic neurosis is for a society waging war. The sweetness of victory has an intoxicating effect on the personality seized by it, driving them toward new conquests, while the bitterness of defeats becomes for them not so much a subject of deep reflection as a psychological wound that forces the defeated to test the laws of probability with unhealthy zeal.
Thus, war transforms from a matter of strict calculation into a gamble driven by the militarist's sense of inadequacy: the fevered brain of the army, intoxicated by fantasies of future victories, gets involved in various dubious adventures, failing to notice how the strength of its army and people withers as the futile struggle continues. Such a mind is incapable of withdrawing from it – it must necessarily believe in the success of the next round, since only such faith allows it to overcome the obvious fact of the destructiveness of its actions. In other words, illusions of victory serve as opium for the militarist, fatally causing him to deny the necessity of concluding peace for the sake of saving the state. And such a condition lasts until the order of things itself begins to restrain the gambler, turning him into an object of strategic combinations of the powers that be.
The described pathology has defined the path of Ukraine's military-political leadership and, in particular, President Zelensky. Thus, after the failure of the operation in Northern Tavria, the Ukrainian supreme command preferred to escape into the bad infinity of war rather than reconcile itself with the realities of a positional deadlock that excluded the possibility of a quick military resolution to the conflict.
As a result, the thirst for new victories and the ignoring of the negativities of a prolonged war led Ukraine to a compromise strategy of attrition against resource-superior Russia – a strategy which, as Schlieffen aptly noted, is unthinkable in times when the entire existence of a nation depends on the continuous development of trade and industry, and the maintenance of millions requires billions in expenditures. Nevertheless, following such a strategic line entailed the establishment of a specific military system that had as its ultimate goal the unattainable restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Over the past two years, the natural absence of progress in this matter has been used by the Ukrainian supreme command as a pretext for continuing the war and receiving military assistance from allies. Moreover, such an arrangement satisfied the interests of the corrupt bureaucratic apparatus, which continued to profit from the war.
In parallel, the poorly replenished army held the eastern front and with its sacrifices guaranteed the stability of rear life, while the limited mobilization allowed the Ukrainian government to distance a significant portion of the civilian population from the hardships of war and prevent risks associated with the totalization of the conflict. An important element of such a system was propaganda, which ensured the creation of an attractive picture of the enemy's exhaustion and marginalized any discussions about the need to revise Ukrainian strategy.
As can be seen, driven by base motives, the régime corrompu skillfully used the conditions of positionality and formal constitutional grounds to involve Ukrainians in a Sisyphean war. It is unsurprising, therefore, that when Trump's peace initiatives began to create a threat to such a system, Ukraine's supreme command deemed it necessary to obstruct the White House's efforts in every way. Ultimately, the US desire to normalize relations with Russia obliged the Ukrainian side not just to conclude peace, but also to make a number of concessions to its adversary – and precisely this required Zelensky and his entourage to make a choice between personal motives feeding the prolonged war and Ukraine's long-term interests, which obviously required withdrawal from the conflict, even at the price of satisfying some Russian claims.
By mid-September, according to statements by US Vice President Vance, the American side nevertheless managed to narrow the circle of discussable issues to two main problems – Russia's desire to occupy Donbas without a fight and Ukraine's desire to receive security guarantees. Naturally, true to his militaristic logic, Zelensky rejected the possibility of territorial compromises in exchange for stopping the war.
In fact, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief was presented with a real strategic dilemma, the negative resolution of which determined the White House's position on the Ukrainian question. The following questions are logical: what military objective does Zelensky pursue by expressing readiness to reject territorial compromise, and on what basis does he believe that the potential benefits of achieving such an objective can balance the destructive processes represented by the exhaustion of the Ukrainian army, the destruction of Ukraine's economy, and the strengthening of social divisions within the country? Why is the pursuit of such an objective more justified than concluding peace, a state which obviously allows, without human losses and billion-dollar losses from combat operations, to establish the economic life of the country, and at the same time reorganize the Ukrainian army?
Characteristically, the militarist proves unable to give intelligible answers to such questions, since demonstrating clarity here is fraught with exposing the readiness of the leader of a fighting country to sacrifice its positive prospects for the sake of preserving his own prestige. This is unsurprising, since what is normal for a militarist is unthinkable for a strategist inclined to view war as a strict financial-calculation enterprise.
In this regard, it is sufficient to recall Zelensky's quote from a year ago: "People are important, but that doesn't mean we can gift the Russians thirty percent of our land." The choice was not made and the confrontation continued, intensifying decomposition within Ukraine and weakening its negotiating position. Not long ago, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief expressed another equally revealing thesis: "Putin's goal is to occupy Ukraine. And as long as he cannot do this, victory is on our side. That's why for us, survival is victory." The superficiality of such an understanding of victory is evidenced by the fact alone that Zelensky did not consider the long-term socio-economic consequences of his country's "victorious survival." Meanwhile, as early as the mid-18th century, Frederick the Great warned that prolonged war imperceptibly undermines public discipline, decreases the state's population, and exhausts its resources.
One way or another, the sabotage of the negotiation process carried out by the Ukrainian supreme command indeed met with success – in the communiqué of September 24, Trump acknowledged that Ukraine, with the support of European allies, is capable of restoring its territorial integrity by military means. However, the absurdity of the resulting situation is obvious: previously Zelensky and his closest advisers acknowledged the impossibility of achieving such a goal, when suddenly Trump, "well informed" by them, stated exactly the opposite.
It must be acknowledged that the US President made the most optimal decision in the conditions of the resulting diplomatic deadlock: under the plausible pretext of faith in the combat capability of Ukraine and Europe, he abstracted himself from Zelensky, who is seized by militaristic neurosis. This seemingly simple maneuver, however, delivers an indirect blow to the entire military system of the Ukrainian supreme command.
First of all, Trump placed Zelensky in a delicate position that obliges Ukraine to demonstrate successes at the front. At the same time, the US formally has nothing to do with the potential failures of such plans, since they, firstly, trusted the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine, and secondly, are no longer an ally of the fighting republic – this role is now assigned to Europe. For this reason, the focus of Ukrainians' attention can be shifted from the unsuccessful peacemaking of the White House to Zelensky's military talents, the Jesuitical policy of Europe, and the prospects of a long war with Russia. Thus, conditions are created for Ukrainian society to realize its presence in a new triangle of death, where it is doomed to wither "with time, patience, and the financial support of Europe."
And indeed, Ukrainians are dominated by their Supreme Commander-in-Chief who, like typical militarists of the 20th century, lacks the moral strength to open peace negotiations – there are no obvious victories at the front, and any unpopular compromises create a threat to authority and cast doubt on the success of the future electoral process. Zelensky's example only confirms the validity of Liddell Hart's conclusions: force represents a vicious spiral if the use of force is not controlled by sound calculation.
On the other hand, European politicians have turned such a position of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief into an instrument for satisfying their own raison d'état: while the Ukrainian army with its sacrifices reduces the offensive potential of the Russian side, Europeans, following the precepts of the ancients, use the state of peace to prepare for future war. This approach was succinctly summarized at the end of February by Danish Prime Minister Mette: according to her, establishing peace in Ukraine represents a far greater danger than continuing the war.
As for Russia, it, in accordance with Falkenhayn's 1916 strategy, through direct actions at the front and indirect air strikes on rear areas of Ukraine, is bringing the fighting republic to such a state that will shake its defensive capability in the long term – for the moral, physical, and economic forces of the people will be seriously undermined as the war continues. The possibility of such a scenario developing only confirms the thought of the aforementioned Liddell Hart, according to which a peace treaty concluded in conditions of deadlock is preferable to an agreement concluded as a result of general exhaustion, since it creates a more solid foundation for lasting peace.
In addition, Trump threw the "Tocqueville noose" around Zelensky's neck: with his previous diplomatic efforts, the US President gave Ukrainian society hope for peace, and then single-handedly undermined this prospect by formally taking Zelensky's side. As a result, the tacit but natural desire of Ukrainians for peace was crushed by an illusory belief in their ability to bring the confrontation jusqu'à la victoire finale. And now, the frustrated society must rethink its own ideas about war – and this process is fraught with a painful loss of illusions capable of causing the revolutionization of Ukraine's population.
All this creates conditions for the collapse of the Zinnober strategy, which was an important support for Zelensky's soft despotism. According to this strategy, domestic propaganda turned Ukrainians into philistines who were supposed to admire the imaginary beauty of the image of their Supreme Commander-in-Chief, while his failures were either hushed up or presented as the result of interference by external forces, including Trump. However, during his demarche, the US President created conditions for the destruction of the golden comb with which the spells of the notorious "unbreakability" were cast – and it is precisely this that will allow politicizing the discontent of philistines, focusing their attention on the ugliness of that military system created by Ukraine's supreme command.
Zelensky did not notice how the illusion of victory constantly reproduced by him must collide with Ukraine's real capabilities. In fact, the military-political leadership of the republic must stop its adversary when the Ukrainian army suffers from an epidemic of desertion, the impoverishing population of the country resists forced mobilization, and Russia is increasing the pace of offensives and has begun another air campaign.
Thus, by providing Zelensky with carte blanche to continue the war, Trump has drawn him into the final game, the outcome of which will decide the fate of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. If the Russian side nevertheless manages to break through the Ukrainian front, and revolutionary sentiments intensify in the rear, Ukraine's military-political leadership will be forced either to request peace negotiations or resort to such reckless militaristic measures that will further destabilize the internal situation of the fighting country. Under any circumstances, Washington and Moscow will gain the opportunity to resolve the Ukrainian question in the way they need.
Moreover, by linking the Brussels bureaucracy to a war that has no military solution, Trump allows right-wing forces in Europe to develop a narrative strengthening their positions about the transformation of "Biden's war" into "von der Leyen's war" – its new round will cost European taxpayers too dearly. Thus, Zelensky's final game will affect not only the financial support of Ukraine but will also be reflected in the authority of European Union institutions.
So, with his cruel joke, Trump struck the first blow at the center of contradictions in Zelensky's war aims policy – by recognizing the legitimacy of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine's ambitions, he publicly obliged him to turn the illusion of victory into reality. Given the grave condition of the republic and the readiness of Russians to continue their offensive operations, such a move should bring Zelensky, sick with militaristic neurosis, to the same state in which Ludendorff found himself on September 29, 1918: his angry lamentations about the hopelessness of Germany's military position ended with an epileptic seizure. Just 4 days after the defeat of the brain of the army, the German government turned to President Wilson with a request to restore peace based on his fourteen points.
What has been stated allows us to suppose that the White House strategy for overcoming the positional system of the Russo-Ukrainian war implies creating conditions for the psychological crushing of carriers of militaristic neurosis – it is about bringing Ukraine to organized defeat. Trying to extricate itself from the intricacies of such a combination, the Ukrainian supreme command will continue to fall into hyperbulia, the destructive consequences of which will be increasingly felt by Ukrainian society. As a result, the connection between the decomposing military-political leadership and citizens will continue to deteriorate – the sick brain of the army will begin to lose authority, which will strengthen demands in the country for the speedy conclusion of peace.
In other words, Ukrainians must be convinced of the validity of Bluntschli's thought, according to which the right of war is not unconditional, and it loses legal force as soon as it ceases to serve state purposes. Playing on this, external forces will gain the opportunity to impose their will on the broken republic. The task of Ukrainians is to use this dictate to reorganize their own lives.