Although it was my endeavor to summarize as succinctly as possible, because of the length of the original piece, this post is somewhat lengthy. Hopefully, the length will not overwhelm the reader, nor the information, underwhelm! In my opinion, this article offers an opportunity to peer “behind the veil” and view, virtually, the thought processes behind the machinations of Russia’s siloviki.

A think tank closely aligned with the Kremlin has issued an assessment of, and prognosis for, Russia’s “military operation” in Ukraine. As of 27 March 2022, the Institute for International Political and Economic Strategies (RUSSTRAT) had proclaimed the first phase of the operation completed and proceeded to outline Russia’s future plan of action, which harked back to the aftermath of the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II. In fact, the lengthy article’s quasi-intellectual language conjures up images of in-your-face, Communist-era boilerplate expressing derision for and hatred of the West, and in particular, the United States. A main underlying contention of the article is, that while ostensibly Russia’s fight is against Ukraine, it is really against the West. To defeat the West, i.e., the U.S. and its allies, in Ukraine, where, according to the article, the U.S. has dominated for 30 years, is to be the first step in the eventual complete destruction of the West as the world’s ruling ‘hegemon’ and to introduce a new world order.

On the one hand, according to the author’s analysis, with the “blitzkrieg” first phase of the military action completed and the “active military phase” estimated to be completed “during March and maximally, the first 10 days of April,” militarily what remained was to perform mop-up operations to destroy the “cauldrons,” in which remnants of Ukrainian soldiers were holed up. At the same time, a new governmental power structure would be established as the “denazification” of Ukraine continues.

On the other hand, the author identifies two problems that will hinder Russia’s ability to bring Ukraine into the former’s orbit in the near term. First the phenomenon of “’Banderazation’ of the population,” a reference to an underground movement in Ukraine against the Soviet Union at the end of WWII. [Analyst note: for an interesting historical profile of Bandera, cf. Stephen Bandera]. Based on the historical precedent that it took 10 years to rid the country of that underground resistance, “there are grounds to suppose that in Russia’s current war with the West for Ukraine (italics mine), the stages and timelines of denazification will not be significantly different.”

The second problem is “the absence of an ideological [plan] for the future integration of Ukraine into a common space with Russia and Belarus.” Whereas, in the author’s opinion, Ukraine has a “clear and powerful nationalist construct,” on the other hand, “Russia juxtaposes an inarticulate ideology,” including the fact that it has yet to develop an ideological justification for the military operation! The author draws this conclusion based, again, on the perception that in the aftermath of WWII, a “Soviet ideology, [which] possessed a powerful energy and an understandable, valuable matrix,” had enabled the USSR to “integrate nations such as the German Democratic Republic and Ukraine.” One has to wonder if the ideology the author is referring to is Marxist dialectical materialism.

The author further recognizes that Russia has failed to adequately articulate a policy for conducting war that includes the element of what has been called in the recent past “winning the hearts and minds” of the population of the targeted country. In this particular case, the author concedes two points: 1) “[T]he blurred concept of antifascism is not the right idea with which it is possible to conduct successful counter-propaganda in Ukraine, and ideas of Slavic unity and economic integration in Ukraine are valued less than ideas of euro-association and national exclusivity;” and, 2) At home, “[T]here was the unfinished ideological argument of conventional “Westerners” and “Slavophiles,” and advocates of sovereignty and globalism [Analyst note: The author is not drawing a parallel between these two groups; it is interesting that the author informs us that within Russia the age-old debate still rages between proponents of adopting the culture and values of the West vice those who insist on the superiority of Slavism and its corollary, Pan-Slavism.]. The military operation summoned a powerful burst of patriotism, but the ideological formulation of the future is literally coming off the wheels, and the progress of Russian forces in Ukraine [Analyst note: this seems to be an admission that the Russian military has become bogged down in a war of attrition] is being accompanied by pressure in Russia of a fifth column and by the defeat of its institutions in the mass media, economics and in the institutions of authority.” The author acknowledges that “anti-Westernism is not an ideology, only a reason for creating [an ideology].

The author argues that the geopolitical tables are turning; the West is showing that it is no longer the worthy heir of the “prizes” it gained as a result of its victory in the Cold War, while Russia has overcome its collapse and is returning to be the world power that the USSR was on its way to becoming, as demonstrated by “the victory of the USSR in the Second World War.” [Analyst note: This last contention is evidence that the author is constructing a strawman by building an unwarranted image of a communist empire, which, in fact, was only able to continue fighting in WWII thanks to the Lend-Lease Program, and to the largesse of the Allies in allowing it to take Berlin, Germany. Also, the USSR collapsed because it was a failed Marxist-Leninist state. In actuality, rather than as the author claims regarding Russia’s resurgence in the face of a weakening West, the only “existential challenge” the West is facing from Russia is the pretentious madman in the Kremlin.]

The author concludes by discussing a series of eight “factors,” i.e., a pie, if you will, that the author has sliced up into eight geopolitical entities that will be influenced by the impending defeat of the West in Ukraine by Russia, which “is the key challenger to the destruction of the postwar America-centric system.”

 The eight factors are:

Turkey, concerning which a Russian victory in Ukraine means loss of influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Turkey had already lost its foothold in Crimea. In the Caucasus, Azerbaijan is playing its usual game of playing off one geopolitical contender for influence against the other, in this case, Turkey vs Russia. But despite the tallies in its win-loss columns, the author predicts that “under no scenarios of any kind is the U.S. getting reliable control over Turkey in light of the loss of influence in Ukraine in favor of Russia.”

In a continuing display of anti-U.S. rhetoric, the author claims that “[t]he U.S. is pushing China toward a military conflict with Taiwan just as it pushed Russia to the same kind of conflict with Ukraine.” The author’s conclusion regarding China given a Russian victory in Ukraine is the influence to be gained in the region by an alliance with Russia.

As for Europe, it is time to shrug off its dependence on the U.S. for its security and create its own security architecture. The EU should cease following the U.S. lead regarding sanctions, with the carrot being that those countries that do so will gain a significant advantage in trade potential with the new “Union of the East” – a Russia and China alliance. In the end, this redesignation of spheres of influence as well as the overall geopolitical restructuring of the world will be settled at a “New Yalta” conference.

As a fifth factor, the author foresees a “Union State,” essentially a restructuring of the former USSR, of which “Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is a link in the chain.” The ultimate goal would be to form a confederation of the remaining former Soviet republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus around the core Union State of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Such a Union, while bringing the errant back into the fold, would protect those current sovereign states, which do not have “the means of preserving their sovereignty in the face of the West, [from] capitulation, with global transnational corporations (TNK) acquiring the republics.” According to the author, Russia itself is in need of such a Union so that it too is not among the republics of the former Soviet Union that are “turning into colonies of the West.”

Next, in the author’s view, “the conflict between Russia and the West in Ukraine has split the world even more than before. One can only hold the positions of the U.S. in the Middle East with pressure and by demonstrating the threat of force. Russia and China are splitting up the Middle East and picking away at the zones of influence of the U.S. and Great Britain, while forming a pool of states that are neutral in relation to the U.S. Considering that these states, earlier, were pro-American to a varying degree [Analyst note: enumerated as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq, Iran, and Syria], their neutrality now signifies movement to the side of anti-Americanism. They will have an alternative in China and Russia.” The exception, of course, is Israel, which, the author contends, is “interested in preserving the current Russia-phobic Ukraine.”

The author sets the following scenario for the sixth factor, Africa. “Even before the beginning of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, Africa had been demonstrating a tendency of a growing pro-Russian sympathy. China is already deeply entrenched in Africa, and these tendencies, which involve events in Ukraine, are leading to a further strengthening of these positions. The West will respond to this by all means of confrontation, short of nuclear.”

Penultimately, in the author’s opinion, “Overall, in Latin America, the anticolonial instincts that were actively directed against the U.S. during the time of the USSR are awakening. Such an impulse will arise on the continent only as a result of the beginning of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine. What will happen after its successful conclusion is, for the U.S., the nightmare of the return of the USSR. That is exactly how they see the situation in the long term.”

The author concludes with the eighth factor, the transfer factor, i.e., the transfer of global power from the West and the U.S. to the “Union of the East,” Russia and China. Accordingly, “On the whole, the changes that have been put into play with Russia’s military operation in Ukraine are not only of a long-term character but also have universal-historical significance. The world is divided into trade/technology blocs, which will protect their markets and their sovereignty by all means, including nuclear forces. The collapse of the USSR created a vacuum of power in the place of its existence. The U.S. attempted to fill it, and it seemed that it had succeeded. The actions of Russia after 30 years have shown that this is an illusion.

Processes have been put in motion where Russia, the U.S., India, and China will play the main roles. The EU is losing its essence as an entity. No matter how the elections in China end (there all chances are with Xi Jinping), it is necessary for Russia to preserve the contour of authority under the control of V. Putin. The prerequisites are being created for a transfer to a new technological way of life. Replacing the leaders of key states in this period is inexpedient since it could threaten all unfinished processes.”

A complete translation of the article can be found here: