Very well crafted article! Yes. The Mongolian option absolutely exists but is systematically ignored by European countries who seem to believe they are the only countries on earth bordering Russia. The Myopia is striking.
The comparison you draw is interesting, but it rests on a false equivalence.
Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Russia’s Asian neighbours are not secure because they spend little on defence. They spend little on defence because Russia does not contest their sovereignty in the same way it contests that of its European neighbours.
Mongolia is secure not due to a clever multilateral strategy, but because it is strategically non-essential. It has no coastline, no alliance value, no contested identity, no history of Moscow questioning its statehood, and no role as a forward platform for a rival power. Russia and China both prefer it neutral, which makes it a buffer by mutual consent.
Eastern Europe is different. Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland and Finland are not buffers — they are interfaces between rival security systems. Russia has explicitly denied the legitimacy of Ukraine’s borders, nationhood and alliances, and has used force repeatedly to revise them. That alone makes low military spending and strategic ambiguity non-viable, regardless of regime type or multilateral participation.
The fact that Russia’s Asian neighbours can coexist with Moscow at low cost does not demonstrate that military deterrence is unnecessary. It demonstrates that Russia calibrates coercion based on strategic value and opportunity, not on whether a neighbour is democratic, neutral, or multilateral.
If the “Mongolian option” truly guaranteed security, Ukraine would not have been invaded after:
– declaring neutrality,
– giving up nuclear weapons,
– maintaining extensive economic ties with Russia,
– and remaining outside NATO.
The core difference is not ideology or spending levels, but geography, leverage, and Russia’s own revisionist choices in Europe.
It’s ironic that facts are not really a currency that western and European countries deal in. Their only interest is ‘narrative’, which is a fancy word for mythology. For them, it’s either religion or secular mythologies. Facts and reality are lost on them.. these are the heirs of the enlightenment..
The comparison you draw is interesting, but it rests on a false equivalence.
Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Russia’s Asian neighbours are not secure because they spend little on defence. They spend little on defence because Russia does not contest their sovereignty in the same way it contests that of its European neighbours.
Mongolia is secure not due to a clever multilateral strategy, but because it is strategically non-essential. It has no coastline, no alliance value, no contested identity, no history of Moscow questioning its statehood, and no role as a forward platform for a rival power. Russia and China both prefer it neutral, which makes it a buffer by mutual consent.
Eastern Europe is different. Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland and Finland are not buffers — they are interfaces between rival security systems. Russia has explicitly denied the legitimacy of Ukraine’s borders, nationhood and alliances, and has used force repeatedly to revise them. That alone makes low military spending and strategic ambiguity non-viable, regardless of regime type or multilateral participation.
The fact that Russia’s Asian neighbours can coexist with Moscow at low cost does not demonstrate that military deterrence is unnecessary. It demonstrates that Russia calibrates coercion based on strategic value and opportunity, not on whether a neighbour is democratic, neutral, or multilateral.
If the “Mongolian option” truly guaranteed security, Ukraine would not have been invaded after:
– declaring neutrality,
– giving up nuclear weapons,
– maintaining extensive economic ties with Russia,
– and remaining outside NATO.
The core difference is not ideology or spending levels, but geography, leverage, and Russia’s own revisionist choices in Europe.
That is. I've been thinking that there is a real problem in knowledge in political elits, and also in the mainstream part of cultural elits. Time ago, I used to see the world based on material interests (money and power), but every day I tend to weight a big valor other interests (status, parity with the group, comfort between actions and ideas, even a pat on the back).
This factors and even more explain, all together, what we can call ideology: adapt and force the reality to our thought. The alternative is to try to adapt our thought to reality, even if that make us feel discomfort.
In the case of EU States, there is one important factor: the traditional bureaucrats of the different administrations of State (infrastructure, education, sanity, militar, exterior policy, economical, technological...), that never were subject to elections and were career profesionals, have lost all their influence. In part, because nepotism has increased and this State position has been occupied by friends of the Parties. Also, because the payment and the social status of this jobs has lost encharming, and they have moved to private sector. And the governments, worried for the next elections and without any kind of national concern for the long term, don't want to hear this people. Political don't need any knowledge of the world, just the knowledge for climb inside the structure of the Parties. One more factor is that the cultural elits (medias, academies, think-thanks) that have influence on political are all part of a enormous echo camera; or, in other words: an endogamic environment.
The comparison you draw is interesting, but it rests on a false equivalence.
Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Russia’s Asian neighbours are not secure because they spend little on defence. They spend little on defence because Russia does not contest their sovereignty in the same way it contests that of its European neighbours.
Mongolia is secure not due to a clever multilateral strategy, but because it is strategically non-essential. It has no coastline, no alliance value, no contested identity, no history of Moscow questioning its statehood, and no role as a forward platform for a rival power. Russia and China both prefer it neutral, which makes it a buffer by mutual consent.
Eastern Europe is different. Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland and Finland are not buffers — they are interfaces between rival security systems. Russia has explicitly denied the legitimacy of Ukraine’s borders, nationhood and alliances, and has used force repeatedly to revise them. That alone makes low military spending and strategic ambiguity non-viable, regardless of regime type or multilateral participation.
The fact that Russia’s Asian neighbours can coexist with Moscow at low cost does not demonstrate that military deterrence is unnecessary. It demonstrates that Russia calibrates coercion based on strategic value and opportunity, not on whether a neighbour is democratic, neutral, or multilateral.
If the “Mongolian option” truly guaranteed security, Ukraine would not have been invaded after:
– declaring neutrality,
– giving up nuclear weapons,
– maintaining extensive economic ties with Russia,
– and remaining outside NATO.
The core difference is not ideology or spending levels, but geography, leverage, and Russia’s own revisionist choices in Europe.
The only thing worth 'seizing' in Eastern Europe were the low hanging fruit of national utilities and communications. The vulture capitalists did this quickly after the fall of the USSR. What's left? Promoting war to flog armaments.
Yes Poland has long been marked as the poster boy for EU 'prosperity'. Successive governments have been sure to follow all the dictates of the IMF, Mckinseys and all the other agents by which 'free economies' are boosted to provide the necessary good optics for neo-liberal capitalism..
Of course the fact that these same governments have been entirely complicit in the systematic and relentless development of Russophobia and warmongering is entirely coincidental. Still, one would expect nothing else from the Polish leadership. This has been true for centuries.
Just how long this economic miracle will last as Europe copes with the loss of cheap Russian energy and the collapse of the other European economies remains to be seen. If the NATO hawks have their way they will be supporting the country to the last Pole...
But I wouldn't expect a Ukraine-fan boy like you to do anything else but parrot EU neo-liberal orthodoxy..
Russophobia is created by the Russian themselves. If they had behaved like humans and stopped invading other countries it would be possible to live in peace with them.
NATO seems like a very effective sales team for American arms. I'm beginning to think this is one of the motives of the war in Ukraine. It's not about freedom, it's about sales.
First, the US made sure euroslaves have no energy to power their industry by destroying the Nordstream pipeline, and now.. they will sell them their LNG and weapons x6 the price..
Under Clinton, when the Cold war was over, Lockheed Martin's guy named Bruce P. Jackson (son of William Jackson, National Security Adviser under Eisenhower) spent millions of dollars on the committee for NATO expansion in order to push a bunch of Eastern European countries into NATO.
BTW, the same guy bankrolled the committee for the war in Iraq.
By confronting Europe and Russia, USA achieves two main goals: the weakening of both economies and the prevention of a large, potencially threatening Eurasia block. That's how the American leadership works out.
NATO's only raison d'être was to contain the rival communist project, that was disbanded together with the USSR, so can you explain why NATO was not disbanded as well? And even expanded further east afterwards?
Did you know that in 1954 the USSR proposed that it join NATO as part of a mechanism to preserve peace in Europe? NATO turned down its request. And only AFTER that In 1955, the Warsaw Pact was formed in response.
Did you know that the idea of Russia’s joining NATO is actually decades old? Gorbachev proposed it in 1990, and Putin reportedly proposed it to President Clinton. Thus, the obstacle to Russia’s membership in NATO appears to be NATO:
Let me quote Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Ex-Director of Policy Planning in the Bush/Powell State Department:
"it would impair the continuing military effectiveness of NATO, that Russia, essentially as an insider, would become obstructive and would work against NATO’s continuing viability."
Certainly, with Russia inside, it would be better as an instrument of peace in Europe. But it would be useless as an instrument for the US to dominate Europe. Refusal of membership to Russia is simply another way of saying that NATO is not a means to ensure peace in Europe.
So you probably don't need to be a geopolitical genius to understand that if there is a MILITARY alliance closing in to your borders and surrounding you, joining all other countries EXCEPT yours, this alliance is obviously built against YOU..
Thank you, Chatter! you're perfectly write, indeed I wasn't aware of this facts until a few years ago, and it's astounding the gaslight the Europeans have been under for so many years. What do you think about the future of NATO? Will it perish from a crackdown or will it vanish as a nightmare with the USA?
First, the US made sure euroslaves have no energy to power their industry by destroying the Nordstream pipeline, and now.. they will sell them their LNG and weapons x6 the price..
'Eastern European leaders should ask themselves if it is possible for them to have better ties with their giant neighbour in the same way that the former Soviet republics in Central Asia have managed'
Well of course they should. But they won't, now will they? If they ever do they are quickly demonized like Orban of Hungary and/or they are subjected to instability and attempted colour revolutions..
Such are the tactics of the mafioso style protection racket called NATO...
While you make some nice points and present a stark contrast among Russia's neighbors, I tend to think European leaders know full and well they could live with less military spending.
They know that Russia isn't a bona fide threat to them, that the narrative of threat is fictional and that the current war/crisis was the long term result of instigation. And they signed onto the program (in which they're now vested).
This implies, at the least, that the vast spending increase planned ($800 bil.) is the point and the threat narrative is the justification, how ever unfortunate.
This article is absolutely correct…..if said country subordinates its interest to that of Russia. Becomes a de facto extension of the Russian Empire. The very definition of “spheres of influence” and 19th century Great Power politics. If however, a country chooses to follow an independent path, then well you get Ukraine 1 and 2, Georgia, Chechnya 1 and 2, Kazakhstan, Syria, Africa (too numerous to count). All of in an attempt to create a “multipolar world order”. Ask the Poles, Latvians, Estonians or Lithuanians about living next to Russia in a world where Russia controls the narrative.
'....Ask the Poles, Latvians, Estonians or Lithuanians about living next to Russia in a world where Russia controls the narrative...'
It very much depends on whom within those countries you actually ask, now doesn't it?
And generally speaking the class of people who benefited for decades by enabling the Soviet Russian 'oppression' are exactly the same people now stridently warning of Russia's 'aggression' and calling for rearmament and war...
Ask yourself whether the Russian Federation under Putin is remotely like the USSR that held the Soviet Bloc so firmly in its grip... And please refrain from citing the numerous incidents of instability and covert warfare constantly promoted by The West in countries along Russia's border as evidence of Russian expansionism...Because this is simply the narrative trick of the Cognitive Warfare which has continued on relentlessly since the fall of the USSR..
Interesting. Not sure I would use the quaint term “cognitive warfare “, and why would you use capitalize the term. Narrative notwithstanding, no I don’t think that a comparison to Soviet Russia is the appropriate comparison., though I could see how many could. No, a more appropriate comparison would be imperial Russia, with a foundation in traditional geopolitical pre-20th century “power politics” dynamics. Great power spheres of influence. An objective review of the FACTS is all that is required to obtain a reasonable understanding of Russia, Putin and what is actually going on. Putin himself has stated that the greatest geopolitical “catastrophe “ of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union, (quite the telling statement considering that century) his entire 25 years in office has been a series of territorial expansions, his justifications of of action is ludicrous. Ukraine is a “Nazi” run state and a threat to Russia. Really? Ukraine is a corrupt criminal state and a threat to Russia. Quite the assertion considering the state of oligarchic Russia. Oh wait, Ukraine in NATO is a threat to Russia. The best for last. I guess Ukraine in NATO is a threat but Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania et al is not. Just curious what does a nuclear armed (the most in the world) nation which possesses a military it comically touts have to be afraid of. Especially considering Russia signed a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine independence to get Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons. No, quaint phrases and biased historical narratives really don’t count. Ockham’s Razor, Sir, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. Putin, that wannabe Tsar, is simply trying to correct that historical “catastrophe”, reconstitute the Russian Empire for demographic,economic and political reasons( standard imperial game plan) by invading and absorbing weaker nations. As such if Europe would ignore those facts and not look to their interests, well…………….that would be criminal negligence.
Glad you find the term ‘quaint’.. Cognitive Warfare is part of both the UK’s individual and NATO’s collective explicitly published doctrines and it is their leadership and their think tanks that use capitals (‘capitalize’ is an entirely different expression btw..)
The rest of what us say is all part of the same carefully constructed laughably distorted Western narrative - especially this Tsarist Russia trope and most of it frankly doesn’t warrant being taken seriously..
Ah, the pig.. Just what Churchill said.. ‘of course, we killed the wrong pig’… There lies the FACTS, Operation Unthinkable…that’s the real truth behind all this current warmongering..which is the real continuity of doctrine..the real objective.
Very interesting. But the question remains, what has been stated that is not objectively factual? What is Europe to do? Would it be reasonable for Europe to do accept Russian expansion? A weak nation with delusional aspiration? Is the only narrative the Russian narrative? Considering what Russia has done to Ukraine, how could Europe do anything else? Oh wait, you mean the obvious answer is to capitulate!
Ah..ok. The oh so reliable and predictable rants and deliberation of pseudo intellectuals who when confronted with actual facts that can’t be refuted tend toward insult and minimization. Pretend Marxists who craft a reality that denies the obvious. Wish you the best Simon, have a good life.
Additionally, the most appropriate comparison would be the pathetic struggles of a dying empire with delusions of grandeur. Think the various attempts of European powers to hold on to their empires post WWII. Think Suez, Algeria, Vietnam, Congo, Kenya, etc etc. No, their time was past just like Russia’s time is past. If it would accept that reality it would be be far far better for the Russian people.
Ah, I am misunderstood. America is not virtuous nor without sin. It is, as all nations, a product of geopolitical calculation and self interest. Our history is full of events and actions we shouldn’t celebrate. They were calculations. Again, referencing another American patriot who at our founding warned our people and political elite to avoid “foreign entanglements” (specifically in reference to Europe) just to avoid becoming what they were. We failed to listen. After World War I, we deliberately declined to join the League of Nations for
Throughout their colonial history Europeans (esp. Brits and French) used the same "Divide and Conquer" strategy to have other nations fight each other for the benefit of the Imperialist Oligarchy.
And the best way to analyze how the U.S. operates is to remember how it was created in the first place.
As the European powers were realizing that direct conflict with each other was becoming counterproductive, they conspired to create a pirate colony of which they would all benefit. There were some bitter fights over the arrangement, but it is still part of the European style of Empire.
That's why the U.S. is more like a Corporation than a Country.. That's why the orange clown presents himself as a CEO, bragging about "good deals".
Well, this is interesting. Did we drop into some bizarro alternate reality where Das Kapital has intellectual credibility? Do we have Marx’s pictures over the mantel? Do we celebrate Lenin’s birthday? How America was “created” in the first place? Was that “counterproductive realization” before or after World War I? World War II perhaps. Was it then that the European “powers” decided to found a pirate colony? Whoever that Pirate Colony might be. America had a politician who at the beginning of this century described Russia as a gas station masquerading as a country. Let’s be realistic….. without oil and gas, Russia would be a third world country with nuclear weapons. Kind of like Pakistan. So, I guess in that light, having America described as a corporation is not all that bad!
That was fun, however, let’s get back to reality. The only point I was making is that it is perfectly legitimate and smart for Europe to look after its own interests. In the absence of wanting to live on the end of Russia’s chain, anything else would be irresponsible. Finally, America’s current political embarrassment notwithstanding, there are few countries whose history is as brutal and expansionist as Russia’s and who can blame anyone to not want to be part of that. It isn’t by accident that America’s borders are not defended against it. Just saying
Interesting observation. A neutrality (and territorial loss) ultimately forced on Finland by an unwarranted and murderous invasion and war (reminiscent and prescient of Ukraine) by Russia. Americans have a tradition from its Revolution from England in the 18th century. At that time, there was a patriot named Patrick Henry. In the debate on whether America should declare itself free from England. There were those who thought that revolution would be detrimental to business and detrimental to the colonies. In response, Henry is remembered to having said “Is life so dear or peace so sweet to be purchased at the cost of chains and slavery. Forbid it Almighty God. I know not what course other men may take but as for me…..Give me liberty or give me death”. I think perhaps the Finns, Ukrainians, Poles, et. al have come to share that sentiment.
Finland was asked to move the border away from Leningrad for a very generous land swap. Given that this was not some sacred historic border, it was a very reasonable ask.
Finland chose to refuse, and paid the price. The Russians were quite magnanimous in their victory. In no way Finland was an extension of the Soviet Union, all the Russians cared was neutrality.
“Was asked to move the border”? Reasonable ask? Fascinating..An interesting way to characterize the prelude to the Winter War. So when Finland declined that generous offer, it was perfectly reasonable for the Russians to just take it and in the process kill a few thousand Finns. The subsequent “neutrality” was just a rational response to extortion at the point of a Russian bayonet. Perfectly understandable, Holy Russia needs its “buffer states” , as everyone knows those Swedes, Poles, Estonians and Lithuanians are absolutely ruthless and need to be protected against.
Of course. America has always been the power of pure good in the world filled with murderous tyrants and brutal savages. It brought nothing but peace and prosperity to every nation it ever interacted with!
Better ties with Russia are possible, however both Russia and Eastern Europe see each other in less than stellar terms - for Russia, Mongolia is a safe backwater that is already economcially tied to it, while Europeans are half-foes and half-cousins (the Slavs at least), who define the frontier through constant struggle with them, given how close it is to the Russian heartland.
Russia would have to officially surrender any desire to influence and control neighbouring states as its own buffer, while Europeans would have to relent on hostility and agree to let Russia into the "club", on condition that Russia would not seek to throw its weight around, or attempt to infiltrate and fight a shadow war in the background, as it does now.
Whether both sides would be actually ready to stand down is another matter altogether, but it would have to involve stepping down from imperial ambitions for Russia on one hand, and dropping the arrogance and acknowledging Russia as an equal for Europeans.
However, it's been tried, and it failed. Russia, in its late Soviet incarnation under Gorbachev, willingly shed control over its whole buffer zone (Warsaw pact), then pretty much all of its empire (Ussr), as a gesture of goodwill, in order to be accepted into the club. From its birth in 1990 to 1999, modern Russia did nothing - not one thing - that went against the West in general or Europe in particular in any way. Btw 1999 and 2007, things went a little sour bc of Yugoslavia, but Russia was still firmly on a pro-Western path, going out of its way to collaborate with Bush during his War on Terror, etc. It didn't help. Almost 20 years of groveling repentance and goodwill demonstrations amounted to a neat negative outcome.
The main reason for it, as far as I can tell, is that the Western perception of these events was completely different. What they saw was not goodwill but weakness. The securocrats thought, if we had made USSR fall apart, we can do it again with RF! This has been, and remains, the paradigm. As Henry Kissinger reportedly once opined on Nato expansion, "If we won't push against Russia when it is weak, how are we going to do it when it is strong?"
Psychologically, there is this matter of size, pure and simple. Apparently, just looking at the map and seeing this huge landmass in their neighborhood, a lot of people get a visceral reaction they can't rationalize, let alone control. When you point out it's mostly arctic tundra, and the population is 1/4 of the EU, all they feel, on this visceral level, is "oh, this dangerous colossus is weak right now, so we better deal with it quickly, or it may be too late".
Why is Central Asia different? Bc there is no "We". There isn't "the East" in any sense reminiscent of the notion of "the West". Knowing anything at all about the region, it is impossible to imagine the Mongols, the Kazakhs, the Uzbeks and the Tajiks ever thinking of themselves as any kind of a coherent "we", or wanting to "join" any coherent security structure with China or India or anyone else.
But you can quite easily conceive of the idea of Ukraine "joining" "the West". It makes sense, bc on the map, Ukraine looks like a digestible bite, in the way Russia does not.
I concur on the Western perspective, hence my caveat that Europeans would have to let go of this approach and give Russia what its due as a neighbour and a civilizational cousin. It is hard to erase history of previous centuries, especially across Eastern Europe, however I would like to believe that a mutually beneficial path is possible, again if old assumptions are let go of.
I would love to agree with you, but these assumptions simply can't be let go within foreseeable future; not unless European economic and security situations change drastically. Psychological barriers are just too high.
You are right, it is Europe's situation that makes the process of reconciliation difficult, if not possible - all the more ironic, given that Russia has all of the energy and mineral resources that Europe so desperately needs right now.
Great writeup. Thanks. One niggle: if you rest your argument on Freedom House's scores you lose half your audience, who consider FH a propaganda outlett with dodgy/irrelevant methodology..
Better to ask the Mongpolians themselves, as Edelman does each year. Neutral questions, asked consistently for years. A great resource. We should use it in our own fight for equitability.
Very nice read! A counterpoint might be that the difference between e.g. Ukraine and Mongolia is that Russia do not need buffer territory there, hence there is no tension. But Finland is only 170 km away from st. Petersburg and Ukraine is also relatively close to Russian "core". Russia has always wanted to expand westwards, the classic theory says that they were content with having the border in Ukraine in the Carpatian mountains as a good defensive barrier.
Europe’s problem is not “too much NATO”as it’s geography.
European neighbours of Russia face short invasion distances with flat terrain. Dense populations and Strategic infrastructure and Russian historical revisionism.
It's funny that Nazi Germany invaded the USSR for "Lebensraum" (Living space, i.e. Land grab), and nowadays, the great European "Übermensch" don't wanna have children sufficient to fill in their own "European Garden", so they're forced to import immigrants from ex-European colonies they once destroyed..
Very well crafted article! Yes. The Mongolian option absolutely exists but is systematically ignored by European countries who seem to believe they are the only countries on earth bordering Russia. The Myopia is striking.
The comparison you draw is interesting, but it rests on a false equivalence.
Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Russia’s Asian neighbours are not secure because they spend little on defence. They spend little on defence because Russia does not contest their sovereignty in the same way it contests that of its European neighbours.
Mongolia is secure not due to a clever multilateral strategy, but because it is strategically non-essential. It has no coastline, no alliance value, no contested identity, no history of Moscow questioning its statehood, and no role as a forward platform for a rival power. Russia and China both prefer it neutral, which makes it a buffer by mutual consent.
Eastern Europe is different. Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland and Finland are not buffers — they are interfaces between rival security systems. Russia has explicitly denied the legitimacy of Ukraine’s borders, nationhood and alliances, and has used force repeatedly to revise them. That alone makes low military spending and strategic ambiguity non-viable, regardless of regime type or multilateral participation.
The fact that Russia’s Asian neighbours can coexist with Moscow at low cost does not demonstrate that military deterrence is unnecessary. It demonstrates that Russia calibrates coercion based on strategic value and opportunity, not on whether a neighbour is democratic, neutral, or multilateral.
If the “Mongolian option” truly guaranteed security, Ukraine would not have been invaded after:
– declaring neutrality,
– giving up nuclear weapons,
– maintaining extensive economic ties with Russia,
– and remaining outside NATO.
The core difference is not ideology or spending levels, but geography, leverage, and Russia’s own revisionist choices in Europe.
“Ukraine would not have been invaded after:
– declaring neutrality,
– giving up nuclear weapons,
– maintaining extensive economic ties with Russia,
– and remaining outside NATO.”
You mean Ukraine got invaded after:
- giving up neutrality and starting a civil war (2014-2022)
- never had nuclear weapons but intended to develop/acquire nuclear weapons
Also after having become a proxy army for NATO
It’s ironic that facts are not really a currency that western and European countries deal in. Their only interest is ‘narrative’, which is a fancy word for mythology. For them, it’s either religion or secular mythologies. Facts and reality are lost on them.. these are the heirs of the enlightenment..
The comparison you draw is interesting, but it rests on a false equivalence.
Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Russia’s Asian neighbours are not secure because they spend little on defence. They spend little on defence because Russia does not contest their sovereignty in the same way it contests that of its European neighbours.
Mongolia is secure not due to a clever multilateral strategy, but because it is strategically non-essential. It has no coastline, no alliance value, no contested identity, no history of Moscow questioning its statehood, and no role as a forward platform for a rival power. Russia and China both prefer it neutral, which makes it a buffer by mutual consent.
Eastern Europe is different. Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland and Finland are not buffers — they are interfaces between rival security systems. Russia has explicitly denied the legitimacy of Ukraine’s borders, nationhood and alliances, and has used force repeatedly to revise them. That alone makes low military spending and strategic ambiguity non-viable, regardless of regime type or multilateral participation.
The fact that Russia’s Asian neighbours can coexist with Moscow at low cost does not demonstrate that military deterrence is unnecessary. It demonstrates that Russia calibrates coercion based on strategic value and opportunity, not on whether a neighbour is democratic, neutral, or multilateral.
If the “Mongolian option” truly guaranteed security, Ukraine would not have been invaded after:
– declaring neutrality,
– giving up nuclear weapons,
– maintaining extensive economic ties with Russia,
– and remaining outside NATO.
The core difference is not ideology or spending levels, but geography, leverage, and Russia’s own revisionist choices in Europe.
A country can "declare" anything it wants. In reality, Ukraine was not neutral.
That is. I've been thinking that there is a real problem in knowledge in political elits, and also in the mainstream part of cultural elits. Time ago, I used to see the world based on material interests (money and power), but every day I tend to weight a big valor other interests (status, parity with the group, comfort between actions and ideas, even a pat on the back).
This factors and even more explain, all together, what we can call ideology: adapt and force the reality to our thought. The alternative is to try to adapt our thought to reality, even if that make us feel discomfort.
In the case of EU States, there is one important factor: the traditional bureaucrats of the different administrations of State (infrastructure, education, sanity, militar, exterior policy, economical, technological...), that never were subject to elections and were career profesionals, have lost all their influence. In part, because nepotism has increased and this State position has been occupied by friends of the Parties. Also, because the payment and the social status of this jobs has lost encharming, and they have moved to private sector. And the governments, worried for the next elections and without any kind of national concern for the long term, don't want to hear this people. Political don't need any knowledge of the world, just the knowledge for climb inside the structure of the Parties. One more factor is that the cultural elits (medias, academies, think-thanks) that have influence on political are all part of a enormous echo camera; or, in other words: an endogamic environment.
The comparison you draw is interesting, but it rests on a false equivalence.
Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Russia’s Asian neighbours are not secure because they spend little on defence. They spend little on defence because Russia does not contest their sovereignty in the same way it contests that of its European neighbours.
Mongolia is secure not due to a clever multilateral strategy, but because it is strategically non-essential. It has no coastline, no alliance value, no contested identity, no history of Moscow questioning its statehood, and no role as a forward platform for a rival power. Russia and China both prefer it neutral, which makes it a buffer by mutual consent.
Eastern Europe is different. Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland and Finland are not buffers — they are interfaces between rival security systems. Russia has explicitly denied the legitimacy of Ukraine’s borders, nationhood and alliances, and has used force repeatedly to revise them. That alone makes low military spending and strategic ambiguity non-viable, regardless of regime type or multilateral participation.
The fact that Russia’s Asian neighbours can coexist with Moscow at low cost does not demonstrate that military deterrence is unnecessary. It demonstrates that Russia calibrates coercion based on strategic value and opportunity, not on whether a neighbour is democratic, neutral, or multilateral.
If the “Mongolian option” truly guaranteed security, Ukraine would not have been invaded after:
– declaring neutrality,
– giving up nuclear weapons,
– maintaining extensive economic ties with Russia,
– and remaining outside NATO.
The core difference is not ideology or spending levels, but geography, leverage, and Russia’s own revisionist choices in Europe.
Mongolia’s security is derivative, not autonomous
Mongolia’s security comes from structural irrelevance:
• No strategic coastline
• No contested ethnic populations
• No alliance value as a forward military platform
• No industrial or military infrastructure worth seizing
In short: there is little to gain by coercing Mongolia.
Eastern Europe does not enjoy this luxury.
The only thing worth 'seizing' in Eastern Europe were the low hanging fruit of national utilities and communications. The vulture capitalists did this quickly after the fall of the USSR. What's left? Promoting war to flog armaments.
Eastern Europe isn't ALLOWED luxury...
Poland is on top 20 economies in the world. Mostly all of Eastern Europe have profitted greatly under EU.
Yes Poland has long been marked as the poster boy for EU 'prosperity'. Successive governments have been sure to follow all the dictates of the IMF, Mckinseys and all the other agents by which 'free economies' are boosted to provide the necessary good optics for neo-liberal capitalism..
Of course the fact that these same governments have been entirely complicit in the systematic and relentless development of Russophobia and warmongering is entirely coincidental. Still, one would expect nothing else from the Polish leadership. This has been true for centuries.
Just how long this economic miracle will last as Europe copes with the loss of cheap Russian energy and the collapse of the other European economies remains to be seen. If the NATO hawks have their way they will be supporting the country to the last Pole...
But I wouldn't expect a Ukraine-fan boy like you to do anything else but parrot EU neo-liberal orthodoxy..
Russophobia is created by the Russian themselves. If they had behaved like humans and stopped invading other countries it would be possible to live in peace with them.
Yes, this attitude of yours comes as no surprise. But as a NATO supporter you know full well that what you say is disingenuous nonsense.
Nobody with open eyes buys the ‘unprovoked’ rubbish.. Basically you’re just a liar.
NATO seems like a very effective sales team for American arms. I'm beginning to think this is one of the motives of the war in Ukraine. It's not about freedom, it's about sales.
Prof. Stephen F. Cohen (RIP): What NATO expansion actually means, 2010:
youtu.be/mciLyG9iexE?t=107
***
First, the US made sure euroslaves have no energy to power their industry by destroying the Nordstream pipeline, and now.. they will sell them their LNG and weapons x6 the price..
youtube.com/watch?v=lpf6ZeABP1I&t=1334s
***
5% of GDP for daddy NATO aka Uncle Scam! "Protection Racket" at its finest..
Under Clinton, when the Cold war was over, Lockheed Martin's guy named Bruce P. Jackson (son of William Jackson, National Security Adviser under Eisenhower) spent millions of dollars on the committee for NATO expansion in order to push a bunch of Eastern European countries into NATO.
BTW, the same guy bankrolled the committee for the war in Iraq.
youtube.com/watch?v=t0DLNDAgAwU
By confronting Europe and Russia, USA achieves two main goals: the weakening of both economies and the prevention of a large, potencially threatening Eurasia block. That's how the American leadership works out.
George Friedman: Why Germany/Russia Alliance would be a threat to US hegemony, 2015:
youtube.com/watch?v=Wijd10BZS1w
NATO's only raison d'être was to contain the rival communist project, that was disbanded together with the USSR, so can you explain why NATO was not disbanded as well? And even expanded further east afterwards?
youtu.be/9mKbu66tgpY?t=516
Did you know that in 1954 the USSR proposed that it join NATO as part of a mechanism to preserve peace in Europe? NATO turned down its request. And only AFTER that In 1955, the Warsaw Pact was formed in response.
Did you know that the idea of Russia’s joining NATO is actually decades old? Gorbachev proposed it in 1990, and Putin reportedly proposed it to President Clinton. Thus, the obstacle to Russia’s membership in NATO appears to be NATO:
thehill.com/opinion/national-security/591036-invite-russia-to-join-nato/
Here's a good article for you: "Why NATO Has Not Permitted Russia to Join"
www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/19/why-nato-has-not-permitted-russia-to-join/
Let me quote Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Ex-Director of Policy Planning in the Bush/Powell State Department:
"it would impair the continuing military effectiveness of NATO, that Russia, essentially as an insider, would become obstructive and would work against NATO’s continuing viability."
Certainly, with Russia inside, it would be better as an instrument of peace in Europe. But it would be useless as an instrument for the US to dominate Europe. Refusal of membership to Russia is simply another way of saying that NATO is not a means to ensure peace in Europe.
So you probably don't need to be a geopolitical genius to understand that if there is a MILITARY alliance closing in to your borders and surrounding you, joining all other countries EXCEPT yours, this alliance is obviously built against YOU..
Thank you, Chatter! you're perfectly write, indeed I wasn't aware of this facts until a few years ago, and it's astounding the gaslight the Europeans have been under for so many years. What do you think about the future of NATO? Will it perish from a crackdown or will it vanish as a nightmare with the USA?
NATO's primary objective is to secure the weapons market for the US Military Industrial Complex
youtube.com/watch?v=lDB3L23UMCQ
***
First, the US made sure euroslaves have no energy to power their industry by destroying the Nordstream pipeline, and now.. they will sell them their LNG and weapons x6 the price..
youtube.com/watch?v=lpf6ZeABP1I&t=1334s
***
5% of GDP for daddy NATO aka Uncle Scam! "Protection Racket" at its finest..
***
Just like the Nuland (Nudelman) promised in 2014, quote: "Fuck the EU":
youtube.com/watch?v=OPi6Pv5VrPQ
rumble.com/vwjn3v-2014-ukraine-coup-victoria-nuland-geoffrey-pyatt-leaked-phone.html
Are you a booth?
Certainly not an Oracle..
'Eastern European leaders should ask themselves if it is possible for them to have better ties with their giant neighbour in the same way that the former Soviet republics in Central Asia have managed'
Well of course they should. But they won't, now will they? If they ever do they are quickly demonized like Orban of Hungary and/or they are subjected to instability and attempted colour revolutions..
Such are the tactics of the mafioso style protection racket called NATO...
While you make some nice points and present a stark contrast among Russia's neighbors, I tend to think European leaders know full and well they could live with less military spending.
They know that Russia isn't a bona fide threat to them, that the narrative of threat is fictional and that the current war/crisis was the long term result of instigation. And they signed onto the program (in which they're now vested).
This implies, at the least, that the vast spending increase planned ($800 bil.) is the point and the threat narrative is the justification, how ever unfortunate.
False Equivalency is putting it politely....
This article is absolutely correct…..if said country subordinates its interest to that of Russia. Becomes a de facto extension of the Russian Empire. The very definition of “spheres of influence” and 19th century Great Power politics. If however, a country chooses to follow an independent path, then well you get Ukraine 1 and 2, Georgia, Chechnya 1 and 2, Kazakhstan, Syria, Africa (too numerous to count). All of in an attempt to create a “multipolar world order”. Ask the Poles, Latvians, Estonians or Lithuanians about living next to Russia in a world where Russia controls the narrative.
'....Ask the Poles, Latvians, Estonians or Lithuanians about living next to Russia in a world where Russia controls the narrative...'
It very much depends on whom within those countries you actually ask, now doesn't it?
And generally speaking the class of people who benefited for decades by enabling the Soviet Russian 'oppression' are exactly the same people now stridently warning of Russia's 'aggression' and calling for rearmament and war...
Ask yourself whether the Russian Federation under Putin is remotely like the USSR that held the Soviet Bloc so firmly in its grip... And please refrain from citing the numerous incidents of instability and covert warfare constantly promoted by The West in countries along Russia's border as evidence of Russian expansionism...Because this is simply the narrative trick of the Cognitive Warfare which has continued on relentlessly since the fall of the USSR..
Interesting. Not sure I would use the quaint term “cognitive warfare “, and why would you use capitalize the term. Narrative notwithstanding, no I don’t think that a comparison to Soviet Russia is the appropriate comparison., though I could see how many could. No, a more appropriate comparison would be imperial Russia, with a foundation in traditional geopolitical pre-20th century “power politics” dynamics. Great power spheres of influence. An objective review of the FACTS is all that is required to obtain a reasonable understanding of Russia, Putin and what is actually going on. Putin himself has stated that the greatest geopolitical “catastrophe “ of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union, (quite the telling statement considering that century) his entire 25 years in office has been a series of territorial expansions, his justifications of of action is ludicrous. Ukraine is a “Nazi” run state and a threat to Russia. Really? Ukraine is a corrupt criminal state and a threat to Russia. Quite the assertion considering the state of oligarchic Russia. Oh wait, Ukraine in NATO is a threat to Russia. The best for last. I guess Ukraine in NATO is a threat but Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania et al is not. Just curious what does a nuclear armed (the most in the world) nation which possesses a military it comically touts have to be afraid of. Especially considering Russia signed a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine independence to get Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons. No, quaint phrases and biased historical narratives really don’t count. Ockham’s Razor, Sir, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. Putin, that wannabe Tsar, is simply trying to correct that historical “catastrophe”, reconstitute the Russian Empire for demographic,economic and political reasons( standard imperial game plan) by invading and absorbing weaker nations. As such if Europe would ignore those facts and not look to their interests, well…………….that would be criminal negligence.
Glad you find the term ‘quaint’.. Cognitive Warfare is part of both the UK’s individual and NATO’s collective explicitly published doctrines and it is their leadership and their think tanks that use capitals (‘capitalize’ is an entirely different expression btw..)
The rest of what us say is all part of the same carefully constructed laughably distorted Western narrative - especially this Tsarist Russia trope and most of it frankly doesn’t warrant being taken seriously..
Ah, the pig.. Just what Churchill said.. ‘of course, we killed the wrong pig’… There lies the FACTS, Operation Unthinkable…that’s the real truth behind all this current warmongering..which is the real continuity of doctrine..the real objective.
Very interesting. But the question remains, what has been stated that is not objectively factual? What is Europe to do? Would it be reasonable for Europe to do accept Russian expansion? A weak nation with delusional aspiration? Is the only narrative the Russian narrative? Considering what Russia has done to Ukraine, how could Europe do anything else? Oh wait, you mean the obvious answer is to capitulate!
Yet again founding all your arguments on false premises which you repeat ad infinitum and upon which seem to ask 'legitimate' questions..
Spurious stuff..
'Interesting'... shove it, Ted...
Ah..ok. The oh so reliable and predictable rants and deliberation of pseudo intellectuals who when confronted with actual facts that can’t be refuted tend toward insult and minimization. Pretend Marxists who craft a reality that denies the obvious. Wish you the best Simon, have a good life.
Additionally, the most appropriate comparison would be the pathetic struggles of a dying empire with delusions of grandeur. Think the various attempts of European powers to hold on to their empires post WWII. Think Suez, Algeria, Vietnam, Congo, Kenya, etc etc. No, their time was past just like Russia’s time is past. If it would accept that reality it would be be far far better for the Russian people.
Finland used to understand this. It's neutrality since WW2 brought it nothing but prosperity
But is wasn't neutral DURING WWII was it? Ask the people of St Petersburg/Leningrad..
And it isn't neutral now due to the same factions and power groups within its borders...
That's why I said "since WWII" and "used to understand".
Point taken.Well said
"Neutrality is a dirty word in the U.S. political lexicon"
-Jeffrey Sachs
Ah, I am misunderstood. America is not virtuous nor without sin. It is, as all nations, a product of geopolitical calculation and self interest. Our history is full of events and actions we shouldn’t celebrate. They were calculations. Again, referencing another American patriot who at our founding warned our people and political elite to avoid “foreign entanglements” (specifically in reference to Europe) just to avoid becoming what they were. We failed to listen. After World War I, we deliberately declined to join the League of Nations for
same reason
Throughout their colonial history Europeans (esp. Brits and French) used the same "Divide and Conquer" strategy to have other nations fight each other for the benefit of the Imperialist Oligarchy.
youtube.com/watch?v=rbsfynApnVg
***
And the best way to analyze how the U.S. operates is to remember how it was created in the first place.
As the European powers were realizing that direct conflict with each other was becoming counterproductive, they conspired to create a pirate colony of which they would all benefit. There were some bitter fights over the arrangement, but it is still part of the European style of Empire.
That's why the U.S. is more like a Corporation than a Country.. That's why the orange clown presents himself as a CEO, bragging about "good deals".
USrael Inc.
Well, this is interesting. Did we drop into some bizarro alternate reality where Das Kapital has intellectual credibility? Do we have Marx’s pictures over the mantel? Do we celebrate Lenin’s birthday? How America was “created” in the first place? Was that “counterproductive realization” before or after World War I? World War II perhaps. Was it then that the European “powers” decided to found a pirate colony? Whoever that Pirate Colony might be. America had a politician who at the beginning of this century described Russia as a gas station masquerading as a country. Let’s be realistic….. without oil and gas, Russia would be a third world country with nuclear weapons. Kind of like Pakistan. So, I guess in that light, having America described as a corporation is not all that bad!
That was fun, however, let’s get back to reality. The only point I was making is that it is perfectly legitimate and smart for Europe to look after its own interests. In the absence of wanting to live on the end of Russia’s chain, anything else would be irresponsible. Finally, America’s current political embarrassment notwithstanding, there are few countries whose history is as brutal and expansionist as Russia’s and who can blame anyone to not want to be part of that. It isn’t by accident that America’s borders are not defended against it. Just saying
Interesting observation. A neutrality (and territorial loss) ultimately forced on Finland by an unwarranted and murderous invasion and war (reminiscent and prescient of Ukraine) by Russia. Americans have a tradition from its Revolution from England in the 18th century. At that time, there was a patriot named Patrick Henry. In the debate on whether America should declare itself free from England. There were those who thought that revolution would be detrimental to business and detrimental to the colonies. In response, Henry is remembered to having said “Is life so dear or peace so sweet to be purchased at the cost of chains and slavery. Forbid it Almighty God. I know not what course other men may take but as for me…..Give me liberty or give me death”. I think perhaps the Finns, Ukrainians, Poles, et. al have come to share that sentiment.
Finland was asked to move the border away from Leningrad for a very generous land swap. Given that this was not some sacred historic border, it was a very reasonable ask.
Finland chose to refuse, and paid the price. The Russians were quite magnanimous in their victory. In no way Finland was an extension of the Soviet Union, all the Russians cared was neutrality.
“Was asked to move the border”? Reasonable ask? Fascinating..An interesting way to characterize the prelude to the Winter War. So when Finland declined that generous offer, it was perfectly reasonable for the Russians to just take it and in the process kill a few thousand Finns. The subsequent “neutrality” was just a rational response to extortion at the point of a Russian bayonet. Perfectly understandable, Holy Russia needs its “buffer states” , as everyone knows those Swedes, Poles, Estonians and Lithuanians are absolutely ruthless and need to be protected against.
This is such a distortion. Shame on you.. You are showing your real colours now..
Of course. America has always been the power of pure good in the world filled with murderous tyrants and brutal savages. It brought nothing but peace and prosperity to every nation it ever interacted with!
And freedom, ofc, sorry, forgot the most important thing. Nothing but freedom, inevitably followed by peace and prosperity.
G. Carlin: A country founded by slave owners who wanted to be "free":
youtube.com/shorts/bhIfU2QIwig
Better ties with Russia are possible, however both Russia and Eastern Europe see each other in less than stellar terms - for Russia, Mongolia is a safe backwater that is already economcially tied to it, while Europeans are half-foes and half-cousins (the Slavs at least), who define the frontier through constant struggle with them, given how close it is to the Russian heartland.
Russia would have to officially surrender any desire to influence and control neighbouring states as its own buffer, while Europeans would have to relent on hostility and agree to let Russia into the "club", on condition that Russia would not seek to throw its weight around, or attempt to infiltrate and fight a shadow war in the background, as it does now.
Whether both sides would be actually ready to stand down is another matter altogether, but it would have to involve stepping down from imperial ambitions for Russia on one hand, and dropping the arrogance and acknowledging Russia as an equal for Europeans.
This all sounds very reasonable.
However, it's been tried, and it failed. Russia, in its late Soviet incarnation under Gorbachev, willingly shed control over its whole buffer zone (Warsaw pact), then pretty much all of its empire (Ussr), as a gesture of goodwill, in order to be accepted into the club. From its birth in 1990 to 1999, modern Russia did nothing - not one thing - that went against the West in general or Europe in particular in any way. Btw 1999 and 2007, things went a little sour bc of Yugoslavia, but Russia was still firmly on a pro-Western path, going out of its way to collaborate with Bush during his War on Terror, etc. It didn't help. Almost 20 years of groveling repentance and goodwill demonstrations amounted to a neat negative outcome.
The main reason for it, as far as I can tell, is that the Western perception of these events was completely different. What they saw was not goodwill but weakness. The securocrats thought, if we had made USSR fall apart, we can do it again with RF! This has been, and remains, the paradigm. As Henry Kissinger reportedly once opined on Nato expansion, "If we won't push against Russia when it is weak, how are we going to do it when it is strong?"
Psychologically, there is this matter of size, pure and simple. Apparently, just looking at the map and seeing this huge landmass in their neighborhood, a lot of people get a visceral reaction they can't rationalize, let alone control. When you point out it's mostly arctic tundra, and the population is 1/4 of the EU, all they feel, on this visceral level, is "oh, this dangerous colossus is weak right now, so we better deal with it quickly, or it may be too late".
Why is Central Asia different? Bc there is no "We". There isn't "the East" in any sense reminiscent of the notion of "the West". Knowing anything at all about the region, it is impossible to imagine the Mongols, the Kazakhs, the Uzbeks and the Tajiks ever thinking of themselves as any kind of a coherent "we", or wanting to "join" any coherent security structure with China or India or anyone else.
But you can quite easily conceive of the idea of Ukraine "joining" "the West". It makes sense, bc on the map, Ukraine looks like a digestible bite, in the way Russia does not.
I concur on the Western perspective, hence my caveat that Europeans would have to let go of this approach and give Russia what its due as a neighbour and a civilizational cousin. It is hard to erase history of previous centuries, especially across Eastern Europe, however I would like to believe that a mutually beneficial path is possible, again if old assumptions are let go of.
I would love to agree with you, but these assumptions simply can't be let go within foreseeable future; not unless European economic and security situations change drastically. Psychological barriers are just too high.
You are right, it is Europe's situation that makes the process of reconciliation difficult, if not possible - all the more ironic, given that Russia has all of the energy and mineral resources that Europe so desperately needs right now.
Great writeup. Thanks. One niggle: if you rest your argument on Freedom House's scores you lose half your audience, who consider FH a propaganda outlett with dodgy/irrelevant methodology..
Better to ask the Mongpolians themselves, as Edelman does each year. Neutral questions, asked consistently for years. A great resource. We should use it in our own fight for equitability.
Very nice read! A counterpoint might be that the difference between e.g. Ukraine and Mongolia is that Russia do not need buffer territory there, hence there is no tension. But Finland is only 170 km away from st. Petersburg and Ukraine is also relatively close to Russian "core". Russia has always wanted to expand westwards, the classic theory says that they were content with having the border in Ukraine in the Carpatian mountains as a good defensive barrier.
Security strategies are geography-dependent, not ideology-dependent.
Exactly. And nothing really changed since Palmerston, Milner and Halford Mackinder (The Imperialist "Heartland Theory")..
youtu.be/lpf6ZeABP1I?t=2694
Europe’s problem is not “too much NATO”as it’s geography.
European neighbours of Russia face short invasion distances with flat terrain. Dense populations and Strategic infrastructure and Russian historical revisionism.
None of this applies to Mongolia.
It's funny that Nazi Germany invaded the USSR for "Lebensraum" (Living space, i.e. Land grab), and nowadays, the great European "Übermensch" don't wanna have children sufficient to fill in their own "European Garden", so they're forced to import immigrants from ex-European colonies they once destroyed..
The irony is Thick..
Do you see some mountains on the Russian-Kazakh border?
No, the Northern part of Kazakhstan has big ethnic Russian population
"The problem with NATO is that Americans don't live in Europe, and Great Britain is an island"
-Charles de Gaulle