Russia could pull a reverse Cold War containment – ex-British commodore
Speaking in a recent interview with retired US Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, Jermy argued that Moscow likely sees no diplomatic path to resolving its standoff with the West and is instead seeking to secure the territorial gains it believes are necessary to ensure national security.
Russia's stated goals include countering NATO's eastward expansion and reversing policies in Kiev that it views as discriminatory against ethnic Russians.
Jermy suggested that Russia may aim to cut off Ukraine's access to the Black Sea, ultimately leaving behind a diminished 'rump Ukraine' ruled by pro-European Union forces and hardline nationalists.
'I can imagine the Russians saying, 'Okay, we're going to cut off. We're not going to try and get involved in that mess. But what we will do is contain it,'' Jermy said. 'It's almost a reverse containment to [what] George Kennan worked out for the West.'
He added that Western sanctions on Russia have caused self-inflicted economic damage, while Moscow has reoriented its trade ties toward Asia and the Global South. With Western Europe's industrial base weakened, Russia may simply opt to ignore the EU altogether, Jermy argued.
'That's a satisfactory solution for the Russians. Not a good one, but disastrous for NATO,' he concluded.
European leaders are currently advocating for a broad defense rearmament campaign. Officials have framed the initiative as a necessary response to the threat of Russian aggression. The Kremlin has dismissed the justification as a manufactured narrative aimed at deflecting blame for economic challenges within the EU.
Jermy's assessment echoes geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan and others, who have argued that a 'search for defensible borders' is a key driver of Russian foreign policy, with a historical precedent that can be traced back centuries.
University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer, like Jermy, contends that Moscow's primary goal is not conquest but containment, contrary to claims made by many Western officials.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
30 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Cutting Russia ties has cost EU €1 trillion
The EU's decision to reduce energy and trade cooperation with Moscow over the Ukraine conflict has cost the bloc more than €1 trillion ($1.15 trillion), Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko has said. In an interview with Izvestia on Monday, Grushko said the figure is based on various expert estimates of the economic consequences of the EU's decision to impose unprecedented sanctions on Russia, adding that it accounts for lost profits from energy and trade cooperation. According to Grushko, trade between the EU and Russia dropped from €417 billion ($482 billion) in 2013 to €60 billion ($69 billion) in 2023 and is now 'approaching zero.' He added that Europe's economy has subsequently taken a hit and is losing competitiveness. 'Natural gas in Europe is four to five times more expensive than in the US, and electricity is two to three times higher,' he said. 'That is the price Europe has to pay for ending all economic contacts with Russia.' In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that refusing Russian gas supplies had cost EU countries around €200 billion ($231 billion). In late 2024, Russian officials also estimated that total EU losses tied to sanctions against Russia had reached $1.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Moscow has said it has acquired a 'certain immunity' to Western sanctions. Grushko's comments come after the EU agreed a trade deal with the US, which commits the bloc to purchasing large volumes of American energy – which Moscow says will come at a much steeper cost than that provided by Russia – and imposes 15% tariffs on key EU exports. Numerous EU politicians have described the agreement as lopsided and damaging to the bloc's interests. Commenting on the US-EU deal, Putin claimed that the EU had essentially lost its political sovereignty, and that this directly leads to losing economic independence. The EU began imposing sanctions on Russia in 2014, following the start of the Ukraine crisis, and expanded them drastically in 2022. Measures have targeted banking, energy exports, and other industries. Moscow considers the sanctions illegal, saying they violate international trade rules and harm global economic stability.
Russia Today
31 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Europe's last security project is quietly collapsing
This week marks the 50th anniversary of a landmark event in European diplomacy. In 1975, the leaders of 35 countries, including the United States, Canada, and almost all of Europe, gathered in the Finnish capital Helsinki to sign the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). The agreement capped years of negotiation over peaceful coexistence between two rival systems that had dominated world affairs since the end of the Second World War. At the time, many believed the Final Act would solidify the postwar status quo. It formally recognized existing borders – including those of Poland, the two Germanys, and the Soviet Union – and acknowledged the spheres of influence that had shaped Europe since 1945. More than just a diplomatic document, it was seen as a framework for managing ideological confrontation. Fifty years later, the legacy of Helsinki is deeply paradoxical. On the one hand, the Final Act laid out a set of high-minded principles: mutual respect, non-intervention, peaceful dispute resolution, inviolable borders, and cooperation for mutual benefit. In many ways, it offered a vision of ideal interstate relations. Who could object to such goals? Yet these principles were not born in a vacuum. They were underpinned by a stable balance of power between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The Cold War, for all its dangers, provided a kind of structure. It was a continuation of the Second World War by other means – and its rules, however harsh, were understood and largely respected. That system no longer exists. The global order that emerged after 1945 has disintegrated, with no clear replacement. The post-Cold War attempts to graft a Western-led system onto the rest of Europe succeeded only briefly. The OSCE, which evolved from the CSCE, became a vehicle for imposing Western norms on others – a role it can no longer credibly perform. Despite the growing need for cooperation in an unstable world, the OSCE today exists mostly in theory. The notion of 'pan-European security' that underpinned the Helsinki Process has become obsolete. Processes are now fragmented and asymmetric; rivals are unequal and numerous. There is no longer a shared framework to manage disagreements. That hasn't stopped calls to revive the OSCE as a political mediator, particularly amid recent European crises. But can an institution forged in a bipolar world adapt to the multipolar disorder of today? History suggests otherwise. Most institutions created in the mid-20th century have lost relevance in periods of upheaval. Even NATO and the EU, long considered pillars of the West, face mounting internal and external pressures. Whether they endure or give way to new, more flexible groupings remains to be seen. The fundamental problem is that the idea of European security itself has changed – or perhaps disappeared. Europe is no longer the center of the world it once was. It has become a theater, not a director, of global affairs. For Washington, Europe is increasingly a secondary concern, viewed through the lens of its rivalry with China. American strategic planning now sees Europe mainly as a market and an auxiliary partner, not a driver of global policy. The Trump administration's economic policies highlight this shift. Measures targeting Russia, for example, are often less about Moscow and more about Beijing or other major powers. Even the conflict in Ukraine, while grave, is treated by many in Washington as a pawn in broader geopolitical chess. Consider, too, the OSCE's diminished role in managing real-world conflicts. One recent case illustrates the point: proposals to establish an extraterritorial corridor through Armenia, protected by an American private military company. This idea may never materialize, but it reflects the mindset now prevalent in the West – one in which legitimacy can be manufactured as needed, with or without traditional institutions like the OSCE. The Final Act of 1975 was, in retrospect, the zenith of Europe's geopolitical stature. Much of Europe were no longer the main actors, but it remained the primary arena. Even that is no longer true. The continent's fate is increasingly shaped by external powers and shifting alliances. New agreements are needed, ones that reflect today's realities and involve new players. But whether such agreements can be reached is far from certain. The 'spirit of Helsinki' has not disappeared – but it no longer animates the institutions it once created. The principles remain appealing, but the context that made them meaningful is gone. If collective Europe wants a new era of security and cooperation, it will have to begin not by reviving the past, but by accepting its article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Trump announces new date for Witkoff Moscow visit
US President Donald Trump has confirmed that his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, will visit Moscow 'next week,' just days before his 10-day ultimatum for Russia to reach a peace agreement with Ukraine expires. Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Trump said the trip would 'likely' take place on Wednesday or Thursday, after a previously announced visit over the weekend did not occur. He did not elaborate on Witkoff's full schedule but indicated that the envoy's mission was focused on bringing about a ceasefire. 'Yeah, get a deal where people stop getting killed,' Trump said, when asked what message Witkoff would deliver to Russian officials and whether Moscow could do anything at this point to avoid new sanctions. 'Well, there'll be sanctions, but they seem to be pretty good at avoiding sanctions. You know, they are wily characters, and they're pretty good at avoiding sanctions,' he added. The US president claimed that Moscow had 'asked' for Witkoff's visit, but the Kremlin has yet to comment on the reports. Trump's remarks come amid his growing frustration with Russia over the ongoing Ukraine conflict, which he had pledged to resolve within 24 hours upon returning to office. Last week, he shortened his original 50-day window for peace talks to just ten days, warning that failure to reach a settlement by August 8 would trigger harsh penalties, including potential 100% tariffs and so-called 'secondary sanctions' targeting Russia's remaining trade partners, such as China and India. The White House has not disclosed whether Witkoff is expected to meet directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two men have previously held multiple meetings in Moscow, though diplomatic progress has remained elusive. Russia has repeatedly expressed willingness to engage in talks but maintains that any peace agreement must reflect 'new territorial realities.' Speaking on Friday, Putin reiterated that Moscow's conditions – including Ukrainian neutrality and renouncing NATO aspirations – remain unchanged. Moscow views the Ukraine conflict as a Western-orchestrated proxy war and has accused Washington of trying to dictate peace terms while continuing to arm Kiev. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has downplayed Trump's threat of new sanctions, noting that Russia has developed an 'immunity' after years of economic restrictions.
