A few days ago, the most widely read journal of international politics in the United States, Foreign Affairs published an article by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer entitled “Playing with Fire in Ukraine: the Underappreciated Risks of Catastrophic Escalation.”

More Ukrainian Soldiers Continue to Defect as Eastern Ukrainians See Better Future with Russian Federation

“The weapons are stolen, the humanitarian aid is stolen, and we have no idea where the billions sent to this country have gone,” a Ukrainian complained to The Grayzone.

Paradoxically, the rising costs of war appear less sustainable for wealthy, democratic EU countries than they do for poor, isolated Russia.

U.S. and allied policymakers must resist Ukraine’s attempts to replace unpleasant facts with comfortable fantasies.

Allowing only one side to be criticized for its crimes – reinforcing the loaded western political narrative of good guys versus bad guys – is likely to fuel the war rather than resolve it

The Underappreciated Risks of Catastrophic Escalation

A philosophical and historical argument against collective responsibility.

The Russian military has been dramatically impacted by the war. Not only has it had to confront the logistical and manpower challenges of the battlefield, but it has also been compelled to reassess its ideological relationship to the regime. In the Russian tradition, the military is loyal to the political elites and does not position itself as an alternative pole of legitimacy. This does not mean, however, that relations between civilian and military elites have always been harmonious.

The use of PFM-1 explosives against civilians is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions—but this evidently isn’t stopping Ukraine.