The West lives in a simulation while Russia is shaping the real world
The conflict in Ukraine is not about Ukraine. It is the West's last delirious attempt to exert control over a world that no longer needs it. The West, lost in the labyrinth of its own technocratic nightmare, flails like a dying beast, mechanized and blind. The German historical philosopher Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), in 'Man and Technics' (1931), wrote of the Faustian civilization's ultimate downfall, where technology, once an extension of organic culture, becomes an iron cage, trapping its creators in a world they no longer understand. The Western response to Ukraine is precisely this: Drones, sanctions, media narratives manufactured in real-time, an illusion of omnipotence maintained by algorithms, and artificial intelligence. But reality is slipping through the cracks. The more the West mechanizes, the more it loses its ability to perceive the living, breathing cultures it seeks to control.
A ceasefire? A negotiation? The West proposes them like a bureaucrat offering a new tax code, as if war were a spreadsheet that could be adjusted to fit quarterly projections. US President Donald Trump's emissaries meet with Russian officials, not because they believe in peace but because the old America – his America – has sensed the shift. A world order of raw power is replacing the West's dream of digital hegemony, and Russia, China, and a thousand-year-old history stand against it. Spengler saw it coming: The machines would overtake the soul, and the West would become incapable of organic thought. This is why they cannot understand Russia – not because they lack intelligence, but because their intelligence has been reduced to an algorithmic process, stripped of cultural depth. The West is thinking in the way that a machine thinks, and Russia, still a creature of history, is thinking like an empire.
Russian President Vladimir Putin dismisses the ceasefire offer because he knows it is a mirage. He speaks of root causes, of history, of a world that is not reducible to transactions and diplomatic maneuvers. The West recoils in horror. This is the fundamental difference: Russia still understands what war means, while the West sees only an endless data stream of casualties, arms shipments, and strategic objectives. Spengler called this the tragic turn of Faustian civilization – when man, having created his machines, no longer controls them. The West does not wage war for power or territory but to maintain the facade that it is still in control. War as process. War as algorithm. The end goal is never victory, only perpetual management of crises.
Meanwhile, the financial technocrats of the G7 conjure $50 billion from thin air, leveraging interest from Russia's frozen assets, a sleight of hand that Spengler would recognize as the final stage of Western decay – economic manipulation replacing genuine production, artificial wealth replacing true cultural strength. The West no longer builds. It merely extracts, redistributes, and sanctions, hoping that the machinery of global finance can replace the natural momentum of a rising civilization. Russia, in contrast, returns to the old ways: Industry, military strength, self-reliance. The difference is stark. One civilization grows more entangled in its own mechanical hat tricks, the other returns to the fundamental logic of history.
Spengler saw technology as both the great achievement and the final undoing of the West. It began as a tool, an extension of man's will, but in the late stages, it turns against its creators, reducing them to mere components in a system that no longer serves them. The West's obsession with sanctions, surveillance, and narrative control is not an expression of power. It is a sign of weakness. True imperial civilizations do not need to micro-manage the world; they shape it through sheer will. This is why Trump, despite his flaws, represents the only real possibility for a Western resurgence. He rejects the managerial ethos. He understands power instinctively, like the rulers of old. The new Conservative Revolution in America is not about ideology. It is about reclaiming agency from the machine.
And yet, the media apparatus, a monstrous organism birthed by technics, continues its relentless march, shaping reality through distortion. Spengler wrote that the press, in the late stages of Western civilization, ceases to inform and instead dictates what must be believed. Ukraine is reduced to a symbolic battlefield in this grand narrative. Russia is the villain because the system requires a villain. The truth is irrelevant. The headlines are written before the events occur. The war exists less as a physical struggle and more as a media spectacle, a grotesque ritual in which Western leaders play-act as warriors while ensuring they remain far from the consequences of their own actions.
But while the West is trapped in its simulation, Russia operates in the real. The battlefield is not a metaphor. It is a place where men kill and die. Spengler warned that the civilizations of the late stage would become incapable of true war – they would engage in conflicts but only as technocratic exercises, devoid of the deep, existential struggle that defined the great wars of history. This is why the West cannot win in Ukraine. It fights as a bureaucratic entity, not as a people. And Russia, for all its flaws, fights as a people. The difference is everything.
So here we are, watching the end of an era. The West's technics cannot save it. The more it relies on technology, the weaker it becomes. The West's technocrats believe they are guiding history, but history is slipping from their grasp. Ukraine is just a chapter in a much larger story – the story of the old world returning, of empire reclaiming its place over the managerial state. And Trump? He is not the solution, but he is a symptom. A sign that somewhere, buried beneath the layers of bureaucracy and digital wallpaper, the West still remembers what power looks like.
This war is not about Ukraine. It never was. It is about the final struggle between technics and history, between the machine and the soul. And in the end, the machine will fail. Spengler saw it. We see it now. And Russia, whatever else it may be, understands it better than the West ever will.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Kiev sends the living to die, but won't accept its dead
It is sad, but peace remains elusive in the war between, on one side, Ukraine and – through Ukraine – the West and, on the other, Russia. Recently, the US has at least admitted that Moscow has plausible and important interests at stake and that the West has been using Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia. While very late and still incomplete, such truthfulness could help fashion the kind of realistic compromise needed to end this war. Yet Washington's European vassals have chosen this moment to discover their usually terminally atrophied capacity for talking back to the US: They clearly want the war to continue, even though that means Ukraine – about which they pretend to care – will lose even more people and territory. Against this backdrop, it was no wonder that the latest round of the renewed Istanbul talks between Russia and Ukraine produced no breakthrough, little progress, and only very modest concrete results. Also, on the eve of the talks, the Zelensky regime launched terror attacks on civilian trains in western Russia and a series of sneak drone strikes throughout the country that – in the most generous reading – involved the war crime of perfidy: That, obviously, did not help find a way forward either. Indeed, by now it is clear that Kiev's sneak drone attacks in particular have only further undermined the Zelensky regime's already fragile standing in Washington: US President Donald Trump has been explicit that he accepts Russia's right to massively retaliate, or, in the original Trumpese, 'bomb the hell' out of Ukraine. Luckily for Ukraine, Moscow is generally more restrained than America would be in a similar situation, and it should stay so. Yet the fact remains, Kiev's sneak drones have made no substantial military difference in its favor, but they have done significant political damage – to Kiev, that is. Regarding the Istanbul talks, it is likely that these assaults were meant to torpedo them. Yet Moscow did not fall for that rather transparent play. Its delegation turned up; so the Ukrainian one had to do the same. In addition, Russia ended this round of the negotiations with several good-will gestures, including an agreement to exchange POWs who are particularly young or in bad health and the offer to hand over the frozen (a common practice in war) bodies of 6,000 fallen Ukrainians. Both initiatives have run into trouble. To be precise, both are being impeded by the Ukrainian leadership. The POW swap has been delayed, and Ukrainian officials have failed to show up at the border to receive the first 1,212 of their deceased soldiers. Regarding both, Kiev has blamed Russia. Yet, remarkably, the Ukrainian statements, in reality, prove that it is indeed Kiev that is – at the very least – slowing these processes down. For what Ukrainian officials are really accusing Russia of is moving faster. The reasons for this obstructionism are unclear. The Ukrainian authorities have not shared them with the public. But there are some plausible guesses. One very likely reason why Kiev is reluctant to accept the 6,000 bodies of its own fallen soldiers is that the 'preponderant majority' of them, according to a Ukrainian member of parliament, were killed specifically during Ukraine's insane and predictably catastrophic incursion into Russia's Kursk region. Started on August 6 of last year, the operation was initially hyped by Ukrainian propagandists and their accomplices and useful idiots in the West. For the clear-eyed, it was obvious from the beginning that this was a mass kamikaze mission, wasting Ukrainian lives for no military or political advantage. Was the Zelensky regime trying to create a territorial 'bargaining chip'? Or once more 'shift the narrative,' as if wars are won by rewriting a movie script? Influence last year's US elections? Prepare for a possible victory by then presidential candidate Donald Trump? All of the above? We don't know. What we do know is that nothing Kiev may have fantasized about has worked. Indeed, by now the Kursk fiasco has only made Kiev's situation worse. Russia has retaken the territory in Kursk Region that Ukraine had seized and is advancing on the Ukrainian side of the border, taking settlements at an accelerating pace and getting close to the major regional city of Sumy. Clearly, those fallen during that particular suicide mission are evidence of Kiev's recklessness, hypocrisy, and incompetence. No wonder they seem to be less than welcome at home. A second reason for Kiev's reluctance may be even more sordid. There is speculation, for instance on social media, that it is financial. More importantly, a Russian diplomat, Sergei Ordzhonikidze, has made the same claim on the Telegram channel of the Izvestiia newspaper. For according to Ukrainian legislation, the families of the fallen soldiers are entitled to substantial compensation. Painful as it may be to acknowledge it, the Zelensky regime is not incapable of such a massive lack of piety. Whatever the precise reasons for Kiev's odd refusal to take back its prisoners and dead, they are certain to be base. This may jar with the West's well-organized and stubbornly delusional Zelensky fan club. But the best they could do for 'ordinary' Ukrainians is to put pressure on their worn-out idol to accept the prisoners and the fallen. And, of course to finally end the war.
Russia Today
3 days ago
- Russia Today
Secure the perimeter? Russia's strategy beyond the Ukraine front
The world – including Greater Eurasia – has become a more comfortable environment for Russia to pursue foreign policy objectives. Today, the balance of investment and return in Moscow's external strategy is more favorable than at any time in recent memory. What remains is to sharpen the effectiveness of this policy in Russia's immediate neighborhood, aligning it more clearly with national development goals. Russia has demonstrated its ability to withstand direct confrontation with the West, largely by mobilizing internal resources and adapting to emerging challenges. At the same time, the shift in the global balance of power – most notably the strategic irrelevance of Western Europe – has played into Russia's hands. In doing so, Moscow has reaffirmed a central aim of its foreign policy: defending its sovereign right to determine all matters concerning its national security. Yet even as Russia holds the line at its borders, it faces persistent uncertainty in the broader regional space. That is where the concept of Greater Eurasia, introduced in the mid-2010s, becomes relevant. This strategy aims to build a secure environment around Russia without resorting to coercion or domination. It is rooted in Moscow's core interests and offers a realistic path to stability in a world where direct control over neighboring states is no longer desirable – nor sustainable. There are three reasons why Russia has no interest in continued territorial expansion. First, history shows that extending beyond the natural boundaries of Russian settlement has repeatedly endangered statehood itself. Second, the cost of exerting control over neighboring states – even small ones – would quickly generate dissatisfaction among Russian citizens. Third, the Greater Eurasian space is no longer the geopolitical vacuum it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. Then, Russia could only ensure stability through force. Today, it is flanked by structured powers such as China and India, alongside assertive smaller states determined to chart their own paths. In this context, Russia has neither the need nor the justification to rely exclusively on military or diplomatic means to safeguard its national interests. The geopolitical environment in Greater Eurasia has grown more favorable, particularly in terms of the cost-benefit ratio for Russian engagement. Still, this does not eliminate the risks. Regional powers have tensions among themselves. The border clashes between India and Pakistan, for example, underscore how vulnerable Eurasian stability remains – even among nations that are formally cooperative partners of Russia. Many of these countries are involved in the same multilateral institutions as Moscow, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or BRICS. Yet cooperation does not negate the potential for conflict. Moreover, Western powers – though weakened – have not disappeared from the game. They continue to interfere in Eurasian affairs, either directly or by encouraging political diversification among Russia's neighbors. In some cases, the West may attempt outright destabilization of friendly Central Asian regimes. In others, the strategy is more subtle: nudging states toward broader foreign policy networks that include Europe or the US. While not inherently hostile, such maneuvers can sow distrust between Russia, China, and their smaller partners. The truth is, the West sees Eurasia less as a zone of strategic interest and more as a playing field for diplomatic gamesmanship. This unpredictability only adds to the region's fragility. At the same time, many smaller Eurasian nations are vulnerable to internal unrest, especially due to their dependency on a global economy dominated by parasitic financial centers. As recent years have shown, Western powers are struggling to reinvent that economic system beyond superficial trends such as the so-called 'green transition.' For countries lacking global leverage or domestic resilience – including much of Europe – this poses a serious threat. Russia, meanwhile, must consider how these dynamics affect its own stability. Despite successes in confronting the West over Ukraine – thanks in large part to support from the Global South – Moscow is being drawn deeper into regional crises. This increased engagement, though often necessary, places additional strain on national resources. It is in Greater Eurasia that Russia's involvement in managing shared development and security challenges will be most critical. Here, Moscow has the chance to create lasting mechanisms of regional stability and growth. It must do so in a way that integrates the goals of neighboring medium-sized and small states with its own strategic vision – while also considering the long-term trajectories of China and India. The journey toward a safer, more predictable Greater Eurasia is only beginning. But Russia is well-positioned to lead it – not through force, but through principled cooperation and a clear-eyed focus on development. To succeed, it must continue aligning foreign policy with domestic priorities and resist the temptation to be drawn into old imperial habits. Greater Eurasia offers an opportunity to build a new model of regional influence: one that is multipolar, pragmatic, and rooted in mutual article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.
Russia Today
29-05-2025
- Russia Today
Ukraine needed Western help to target Putin's helicopter
Ukraine must have relied on assistance from the West if it did in fact target a helicopter carrying Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has told RT. Russian air defense division commander Yury Dashkin told the Russia 1 channel last week that Putin's helicopter had been caught in the 'epicenter' of a massive Ukrainian drone attack during a visit to Kursk Region on May 20. The intensity of aerial incursions 'increased significantly' when the president was in the air, with 46 incoming fixed-wing UAVs being shot down in the area, he said. In an interview with RT on Wednesday, Ritter stressed that 'if the Ukrainians drones actually targeted the Russian president, they did not do so in a vacuum... there would have been assistance provided by the West, which means that the West is targeting the Russian president.' 'If you read the Russian nuclear doctrine, this is a trigger for Russian nuclear retaliation or preemptive strikes. So, who is playing with fire here? It is not Vladimir Putin who is playing with fire. It is Ukraine and the West that are playing with fire,' he added. The former US Marine Corps major was referring to a comment by US President Donald Trump, who claimed earlier this week that Putin was 'playing with fire.' The statement by Trump followed large-scale Russian strikes against Ukrainian military infrastructure, which Moscow said were retaliation for the intensification of drone attacks by Kiev on civilian targets inside Russia. According to the Defense Ministry in Moscow, more than 2,300 Ukrainian UAVs have been intercepted over the past week above Russian territory, mostly away from the front line. Ritter expressed concern that there is a split in the US administration between opponents of Russia and those who are in favor of improving ties with Moscow. But at the same time, representatives of both camps and Trump himself are no experts on Russia, he added. The US president 'is a victim of basically the last words whispered into his ear before he goes to bed at night or the first words whispered into his ear when he wakes up in the morning… Trump is not well briefed [on Russia]. Look, this is a very dangerous situation,' Ritter warned.
