Astute observation. Negotiation became a lot more difficult for Russia. It will become even more difficult as Ukraine develops a homegrown interceptor.
Didn’t think I’d see you quoting Shakespeare on this Substack, (intentionally or not!) but Sonnet 94 “They that have power to hurt…” actually does have something to offer in this context. Something about coolness in judgement, self-control and morality, as set against hypocrisy and corruption.
Great post. One of the effects of this campaign appears to be that Trump has come to a glimmer of an understanding that "Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine" recognizes a geopolitical reality.
I’m happy for Ukraine. But sad for the world. The only reason a nation has power is reduced to the quality and quantity of its drone & missile arsenal.
“Moral justice” has become a topic reserved for academics.
It’s very sad how long this war has gone on, and with no end in sight. But from a silver lining viewpoint, it and the Iran war have finally convinced the U.S. and Europe to increase production capacity.
The idea of a "deep strike state" as a category of its own akin to a nuclear weapons state, an OECD state, or global power projection state--this is a fascinating idea. Against a weaker adversary, this is is especially compelling--but Russia is, of course, not "weak." At the risk of knowing the answer to my own question, where is the vulnerable point in Russia's air/missile defenses? Is it simply too much territory to cover with modern (expensive) systems? Its largest cities are now adequately defended--but is the reality that there's just too much real estate to protect beyond those?
Would this also be the case for most large modern industrialized countries, even those significantly smaller than Russia? Germany could defend Berlin, Bonn, etc.,--but not *everywhere*, essentially?
And as the Persian Gulf shows us, you don't really need to destroy *that* much let alone kill a great number of people to create a significant economic effect--like force merchant shipping to pull out. Russia seems to have achieved something like this vis-à-vis Odessa, has it not? However, I don't claim to know how impactful that has been on the entire Ukrainian economy--or psyche, for that matter...
Thank you; this is a very interesting and original perspective.
I would add though, that I doubt that Ukraine’s ability to strike Russia is very ‘sovereign’.
With American permission, Ukraine is launching missiles of a partly indigenous design which it either manufactures itself or has manufactured for it (or perhaps a bit of both), which likely use Chinese components, and with all the targeting data presumably supplied by the United States.
From everything I’ve read, the Russian people are about as alarmed and dismayed by the attacks on the Wildberry facilities as I would be if I heard about an Amazon warehouse burning down a couple hundred miles away.
In the meantime intensive Russian missile attacks on the Odessa port complex have shut it down completely and prevented Ukrainian from exporting this year’s 70 million ton grain and oilseed harvest, or importing anything at all.
“Sovereign deep strike has granted Ukraine a level of recognition and agency it did not have before”.
“Russia will be negotiating with the missile on the table and state the missile made”.
Fantastic post Fabian. Powerful words. No question Ukraine’s self-esteem has been bolstered by its deep-strike campaign.
Thanks! You know things are real when my constructivist self comes out.
Yes. I believe you. Very true.
DATELINE KYIV - DAY 1614 : 4540
Brilliant analysis. Original, timely, insightful and far-reaching in its implications. Thank you.
V/r - IB
An American in Ukraine
(2019 - Present)
thanks, much appreciated!
Astute observation. Negotiation became a lot more difficult for Russia. It will become even more difficult as Ukraine develops a homegrown interceptor.
Interesting paradigm! It also holds true prior to 1994, when Ukrain gave up its nuclear arsenal voluntarily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Indeed, it implies that without this treaty the current war would never have started.
And thus, a sovereign country will never again give up its nuclear capability for free.
And, with that in mind, let's consider Saudi Arabia...
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/22/saudi-nuclear-pact-fears-regional-enrichment-01009142
And South Korea. And Taiwan. And...
I don't follow- how did they lose or gain nuclear capability?
They have to be seriously considering developing their own art this point.
Not to lessen the value of your previous posts,Dr Hoffman, but this post made me say, “whoa” more than ever. Huge implications here.
Many thanks! I try to mix it up once in a while when the opportunity arises.
Didn’t think I’d see you quoting Shakespeare on this Substack, (intentionally or not!) but Sonnet 94 “They that have power to hurt…” actually does have something to offer in this context. Something about coolness in judgement, self-control and morality, as set against hypocrisy and corruption.
Geweldige analyse. Gelukkig beschikte Oekraïne al over veel kennis uit de Sovjet-periode.
Excellent analysis as always Fabian, thank you
Many thanks!!
Great post. One of the effects of this campaign appears to be that Trump has come to a glimmer of an understanding that "Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine" recognizes a geopolitical reality.
I’m happy for Ukraine. But sad for the world. The only reason a nation has power is reduced to the quality and quantity of its drone & missile arsenal.
“Moral justice” has become a topic reserved for academics.
It’s very sad how long this war has gone on, and with no end in sight. But from a silver lining viewpoint, it and the Iran war have finally convinced the U.S. and Europe to increase production capacity.
The idea of a "deep strike state" as a category of its own akin to a nuclear weapons state, an OECD state, or global power projection state--this is a fascinating idea. Against a weaker adversary, this is is especially compelling--but Russia is, of course, not "weak." At the risk of knowing the answer to my own question, where is the vulnerable point in Russia's air/missile defenses? Is it simply too much territory to cover with modern (expensive) systems? Its largest cities are now adequately defended--but is the reality that there's just too much real estate to protect beyond those?
Would this also be the case for most large modern industrialized countries, even those significantly smaller than Russia? Germany could defend Berlin, Bonn, etc.,--but not *everywhere*, essentially?
And as the Persian Gulf shows us, you don't really need to destroy *that* much let alone kill a great number of people to create a significant economic effect--like force merchant shipping to pull out. Russia seems to have achieved something like this vis-à-vis Odessa, has it not? However, I don't claim to know how impactful that has been on the entire Ukrainian economy--or psyche, for that matter...
Thank you; this is a very interesting and original perspective.
I would add though, that I doubt that Ukraine’s ability to strike Russia is very ‘sovereign’.
With American permission, Ukraine is launching missiles of a partly indigenous design which it either manufactures itself or has manufactured for it (or perhaps a bit of both), which likely use Chinese components, and with all the targeting data presumably supplied by the United States.
From everything I’ve read, the Russian people are about as alarmed and dismayed by the attacks on the Wildberry facilities as I would be if I heard about an Amazon warehouse burning down a couple hundred miles away.
In the meantime intensive Russian missile attacks on the Odessa port complex have shut it down completely and prevented Ukrainian from exporting this year’s 70 million ton grain and oilseed harvest, or importing anything at all.
Very interesting. Where does that leave Eye ran today given the missile exchanges are ramping up (towards nihilism) again?
Thank you for this excellent writing.