To Build a Fire:Inside Russia's Campaign of Sabotage in Europe(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
To Build a Fire:Inside Russia's Campaign of Sabotage in Europe
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/02/09/to-build-a-fire
12 comments
While I _theoretically_ agree with you, what you are saying is not realistic given the current constraints.
> What should be done about it is to provide full, unconditional support for Ukraine; even better, close the skies and send an expeditionary force to help them push the russians out.
Sure, it sounds easy. And if it were easy, I'm sure it'd be done already. But - do we even have an efficient way of defending against drone warfare? Are we ready for eventual Russian response? Civilian victims in Tallinn or Warsaw? Retaliatory strikes that flatten what is left of Ukrainian energy infrastructure? How far would you be willing to take it?
> Ultimately, the best guarantee of European security is to ensure that Ukraine utterly defeats russia
One doesn't defeat Russia militarily, even if it weren't a nuclear power. The only way to defeat them is to sow instability from within, which is what they so successfully have been doing to us in the last 25 years.
> That our European leaders refuse to do anything decisive is the absolute nadir of incompetence and cowardice
What are they supposed to do? The far-right, supported by both Russia and the US, is already polling at 35% all over Europe. Any decisive action carries an enormous cost that will have to paid by the European population that is already feeling the effects of inflation.
As an example, the new Dutch government is introducing a special income tax, raising the pension age and taking billions away from the healthcare system in order to finance increased defence spending. That's the sort of compromises that pushes people even further to far-right populists, and that's without actually doing anything.
The alternative, to tax wealth instead of income, seems to be unspeakable.
> What should be done about it is to provide full, unconditional support for Ukraine; even better, close the skies and send an expeditionary force to help them push the russians out.
Sure, it sounds easy. And if it were easy, I'm sure it'd be done already. But - do we even have an efficient way of defending against drone warfare? Are we ready for eventual Russian response? Civilian victims in Tallinn or Warsaw? Retaliatory strikes that flatten what is left of Ukrainian energy infrastructure? How far would you be willing to take it?
> Ultimately, the best guarantee of European security is to ensure that Ukraine utterly defeats russia
One doesn't defeat Russia militarily, even if it weren't a nuclear power. The only way to defeat them is to sow instability from within, which is what they so successfully have been doing to us in the last 25 years.
> That our European leaders refuse to do anything decisive is the absolute nadir of incompetence and cowardice
What are they supposed to do? The far-right, supported by both Russia and the US, is already polling at 35% all over Europe. Any decisive action carries an enormous cost that will have to paid by the European population that is already feeling the effects of inflation.
As an example, the new Dutch government is introducing a special income tax, raising the pension age and taking billions away from the healthcare system in order to finance increased defence spending. That's the sort of compromises that pushes people even further to far-right populists, and that's without actually doing anything.
The alternative, to tax wealth instead of income, seems to be unspeakable.
> But - do we even have an efficient way of defending against drone warfare? Are we ready for eventual Russian response? Civilian victims in Tallinn or Warsaw? Retaliatory strikes that flatten what is left of Ukrainian energy infrastructure?
If Russia would benefit from droning random civilians in Europe they'd already be doing it, same as with 'flattening what's left of Ukrainian energy infrastructure'. Just about the only card they haven't yet played is nuclear weapons, which they won't use despite all the blustering.
> How far would you be willing to take it?
Give Ukraine what it needs to kill off the invaders effectively rather than provide this silly dripfeed of support. Russia is welcome to try and fight modern materiel with donkeys.
Ideally just straight up bomb Russian troops inside Ukraine's territory as well, but I don't expect the spineless Eurocrats to do anything like that even if their own houses would be firebombed by Russian patsies.
Russia is clearly acting according to Lenin’s "probe with bayonets, if you encounter mush, push, if you encounter steel, withdraw". If EU just found their own balls the war would be wrapped in no more than a year, and with practically zero EU casualties. All this pussyfooting around just means that it'll drag on and on because well, why would Russia stop? It's not like they care about the well-being of their own people.
If Russia would benefit from droning random civilians in Europe they'd already be doing it, same as with 'flattening what's left of Ukrainian energy infrastructure'. Just about the only card they haven't yet played is nuclear weapons, which they won't use despite all the blustering.
> How far would you be willing to take it?
Give Ukraine what it needs to kill off the invaders effectively rather than provide this silly dripfeed of support. Russia is welcome to try and fight modern materiel with donkeys.
Ideally just straight up bomb Russian troops inside Ukraine's territory as well, but I don't expect the spineless Eurocrats to do anything like that even if their own houses would be firebombed by Russian patsies.
Russia is clearly acting according to Lenin’s "probe with bayonets, if you encounter mush, push, if you encounter steel, withdraw". If EU just found their own balls the war would be wrapped in no more than a year, and with practically zero EU casualties. All this pussyfooting around just means that it'll drag on and on because well, why would Russia stop? It's not like they care about the well-being of their own people.
It's realistic if just one prominent government takes a no-nonsense stance: send in troops, police the skies (shooting down drones as required), and ignore russian threats.
As for protests in their home country: deal with them firmly. People need to be told who the enemy is, how russia is destabilizing security across Europe, and that this is unacceptable. Weak governments lead to the rise of the far right, because people want to see decisiveness and action, not empty words.
Ukraine is able to defeat russia militarily - if it's given more than the "drip feed" necessary for basic survival. NATO need not be involved, and this is the utter shame of European "leadership".
As for protests in their home country: deal with them firmly. People need to be told who the enemy is, how russia is destabilizing security across Europe, and that this is unacceptable. Weak governments lead to the rise of the far right, because people want to see decisiveness and action, not empty words.
Ukraine is able to defeat russia militarily - if it's given more than the "drip feed" necessary for basic survival. NATO need not be involved, and this is the utter shame of European "leadership".
Nah. I think russia and putin needs a proper, serious case of getting their nose bloodied. Ie missiles into Russia, missiles for ukraine, and far better air support.
Clearly Ukranians have the muscle and want-to to put it to good use for their own.
You plead recognition of realistic constraints, but Europe hasn't even seriously tried moving the bar beyond check writing (We, the US, haven't either. Under Biden we were concerned about giving plausible excuses to russia by direct involvement so we gave money too. Ok, we gave some hardware but not the serious stuff.)
I have during trump's administration and Ukraine/Russia war reluctantly come to face the truth others have worked out long before: Europe can't make a damn decision then do it. Who's in charge there?
Nato will be better when Europe is more coequal and we Americans get our own house in order. We put a clown show into office twice. Our own democrats sucked so bad, voters actually bought trump's BS (listen to Marshal tucker's "heard it on a love song" to see what I mean.)
Without for one moment saying trump's whining about nato and Europe is right --- it's counter productive for all; it's rank stupidity; nato helps the US a lot --- there remains a kernel of truth Europe needs to change their tune and be more offensive/defensive.
Here in the US I've heard too many morons tell me the west brought this on ourselves leaving russia no alternative but try to create buffer room in ukraine. Some by plain Americans, several times by one generation ago immigrants from Russia.
I don't buy that for a nyc minute. Eastern Europe dealt with russia through two world wars and being part of the USSR.
Forget the US: they had they're own experiences and wanted something better for them: closer relations to western Europe maybe the US and better security guarantees. No amount of russian BS will gain say that. If they want better, they should try. Russia isn't entitled to stop them, and they are not obligated to play along with this russian hussle. You know damn well kissing the Russian ring won't work.
In short Ukraine needs better hardware.
Clearly Ukranians have the muscle and want-to to put it to good use for their own.
You plead recognition of realistic constraints, but Europe hasn't even seriously tried moving the bar beyond check writing (We, the US, haven't either. Under Biden we were concerned about giving plausible excuses to russia by direct involvement so we gave money too. Ok, we gave some hardware but not the serious stuff.)
I have during trump's administration and Ukraine/Russia war reluctantly come to face the truth others have worked out long before: Europe can't make a damn decision then do it. Who's in charge there?
Nato will be better when Europe is more coequal and we Americans get our own house in order. We put a clown show into office twice. Our own democrats sucked so bad, voters actually bought trump's BS (listen to Marshal tucker's "heard it on a love song" to see what I mean.)
Without for one moment saying trump's whining about nato and Europe is right --- it's counter productive for all; it's rank stupidity; nato helps the US a lot --- there remains a kernel of truth Europe needs to change their tune and be more offensive/defensive.
Here in the US I've heard too many morons tell me the west brought this on ourselves leaving russia no alternative but try to create buffer room in ukraine. Some by plain Americans, several times by one generation ago immigrants from Russia.
I don't buy that for a nyc minute. Eastern Europe dealt with russia through two world wars and being part of the USSR.
Forget the US: they had they're own experiences and wanted something better for them: closer relations to western Europe maybe the US and better security guarantees. No amount of russian BS will gain say that. If they want better, they should try. Russia isn't entitled to stop them, and they are not obligated to play along with this russian hussle. You know damn well kissing the Russian ring won't work.
In short Ukraine needs better hardware.
> What should be done
nobody stops you
nobody stops you
Fascinating, if not surprising. I sometimes wonder whether China's firewall is a huge tactical advantage in distributed warfare like this. Open societies are vulnerable to this kind is manipulation, and I'm not sure what defenses there are short of also becoming closed societies. Russian corruption is infectious
Relatedly, I recently heard Dan Carlin (of hardcore history) on Sam Harris's podcast wonder how much of the current discord in the US is the product of Russian influence campaigns (and whether we'll ever find out)
Relatedly, I recently heard Dan Carlin (of hardcore history) on Sam Harris's podcast wonder how much of the current discord in the US is the product of Russian influence campaigns (and whether we'll ever find out)
I've been saying this for a while. WW3 is already over and we lost, we just haven't noticed yet. It was fought against the West (primarily the US) using their own tools and ideologies.
It's not really a world war in the WW1 and WW2 sense though. More a low level conflict, plus some fighting in Ukraine.
I guess you could argue Russia got a Russian backed president into power in the US but he doesn't do everything they want and Russia is having a bad time at the moment.
I guess you could argue Russia got a Russian backed president into power in the US but he doesn't do everything they want and Russia is having a bad time at the moment.
Your post getting downvoted is classic “they hated him because he spoke the truth”. WW3 is an information war, a war for narrative control.
> “It’s a show of force, a way of taking off the mask and saying, ‘So, Germany, what are you going to do about it?’ ”
What should be done about it is to provide full, unconditional support for Ukraine; even better, close the skies and send an expeditionary force to help them push the russians out.
> Even if the war in Ukraine comes to a close, Russia will still regard Europe as a strategic adversary.
Ultimately, the best guarantee of European security is to ensure that Ukraine utterly defeats russia, and afterwards impose the equivalent of denazification on the population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification).
That our European leaders refuse to do anything decisive is the absolute nadir of incompetence and cowardice. A political career should require real qualifications for leadership. What we currently have is a clownshow that leads to world wars.