It seems that the time has come in Putin’s war on Ukraine that both sides indicate a willingness to negotiate. But negotiate what? This episode moves on from what is necessary for a sustainable peace, what Putin’s real goals are in his war on Ukraine, and propose a possible path forward. I introduced this possible path in In Episode 104. This episode sets that idea in the context of the previous two episodes and the recent political and military developments.

Music:

Reference Book: Walsh, M. (2025). A rage to conquer: Twelve battles that changed the course of Western history (First edition). St. Martin’s Press.

Although diplomacy should not end when fighting begins, there are two conditions in war where one or more parties will seek to negotiate peace. One is when victory looks improbable, the other is when it looks certain. Which of these conditions is emerging in Ukraine? More importantly, which of these two conditions does Putin perceive as operative? In either condition, is negotiation leading to a sustainable peace realistic? Answering that question requires understanding what Putin really wants from his war, and what he will accept to get out of it.

Reference: Samuel Charap, Khrystyna Holynska, Russia’s War Aims in Ukraine, http://www.rand.org/t/RRA2061-6

Music: Holst, “The Planets: Mars Bringer of War,” downloaded from the Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/lp_holst-the-planets_gustav-holst-leopold-stokowski-los-angeles

Recently, Pope Leo XIV used the anniversary of the atomic bombing that ended WW2 to call for the rejection of war as a means to resolve conflicts. In ending war, or keeping war from breaking out, we must remember that war is a tool for resolving pre-existing conflicts. Ending war requires identifying and resolving those conflicts so that they do not become the seeds for future wars.

Music: Liszt, Les Preludes, US Marine Corp Band (Public Domain)

Putin’s Sledgehammer: The Wagner Group and Russia’s Collapse into Mercenary Chaos, by Professor Candace Rondeaux is a must read for anyone interested learning how Russia came to rely on mercenary-like organizations in its global strategy and how it has used them. This book is not just about Yevgeny Prigozhin and Wagner, not even about Russia's other quasi-mercenary actors. It is an excellent summary of how Russia has come to be what it is since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The opening section alone is worth the cover price of the book. This is an extensive who is who of Russian oligarchs, generals, and mercenaries. Putin’s Sledgehammer is not what one might consider a dry academic thesis. Professor Rondeaux tells this story better than any spy-thriller, better because it is true. Like most true stories, it seems more fantastical than any political fantasy. It tells why Russia intervened in Syria, Africa, Ukraine, and elsewhere, who are the players in developing that strategy, and how they implemented it. In shining the spotlight on Russia, the United States and the West in general is not let off the hook. The West did not simply stand aside while Russia pursued a global strategy through mercenary means. Western political leaders, however, made the mistake of thinking that Russia would turn away from its disruptive approach and accept the Western rules-based order if only given the proper incentives and sanctions. The West failed and continues to fail to understand Russia just as Russian leaders continue to misinterpret and misapply ways and means employed by the U.S. and its allies. In summary, Putin’s Sledgehammer is an outstanding single source for anyone interested in Russian imperial aspirations and the unconventional means it uses in pursuit of those goals.

References:

Rondeaux, C. (2025). Putin’s sledgehammer: The Wagner Group and Russia’s collapse into mercenary chaos (First edition). PublicAffairs.

The Ancient Art of Modern Warfare:

I am picking up my podcast series where I left off, addressing the challenges of peace. War is an act of violence among nations or states, affecting entire countries. These terms, nations, states, and countries are not synonymous. Confusing these terms leads to misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or can be used to create misperceptions. In this episode I try to clarify the difference among nations, states, and countries. Understanding the differences and relationships among these terms is important to analyzing the actual and claimed objectives of warring parties and to identify emotion driven propaganda that obstructs the path to peace.

The information in these podcasts represents only my own thoughts, and not those of any organization I am, or have ever been associated with. (Some of what I say may be completely opposed to official position of some of the organizations.)

Music:

Now that I have laid the groundwork for what I think everyone needs to know about war, I can digress and address current topics of interest, placing them in the framework of the Ancient Art of Modern Warfare. In this podcast I build on the topic of peace in the last episode to address current developments regarding Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor. Putin cannot be rewarded for his violations of international law, the laws and customs of war, both jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and threatening the peace and security of all of Europe. However, without a Western commitment to apply overwhelming force against Russian aggression, a cease fire is in order. The death and destruction of war without any serious prospects for victory violates Just War principles of proportionality and reasonable probability of success. Even Clausewitz would agree.

As usual, the opinions in these podcasts are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of Defense, anyone else in the U.S. Government, or any other organization I am or ever have been associated with.

Music: Wagner, R. and US Marine Corps Band, Siegfried’s Funeral March and Finale (Götterdammerung) from “Music of Richard Wagner” (1981) (Public Domain)

In my closing podcast summarizing the Ancient Art of Modern Warfare I review key points from Episodes 91-96 about peace, with an application to current events. When we are trying to figure out conflict termination the take-away should be that peace after war depends on:

Sadly, these are largely ideals, rarely practiced throughout history. They are derived from the numerous examples in the history of warfare which disregarded these concepts and the far fewer examples in which they were practiced, leading to a more sustainable peace.

Although this is the last episode covering the fundamentals that I think every citizen should know about war, the podcast will continue, but more on that next week.

Music: Copeland, A., and the US Marine Corps Band, Fanfare for the Common Man (2000), Library of Congress recording

After taking a Christmas break, I am picking up on my summaries of the Ancient Art of Modern Warfare. In the previous episode, I described the nature of war as violence intended to compel an opponent to submit to your will. Although this idea is described by Carl von Clausewitz in his magnum opus, On War, the Prussian philosopher of war is best known for the aphorism that war is a continuation of politics by other means. It is a catchy phrase, but that translation leaves a lot to be desired and misses key points Clausewitz wanted to make. As I see it, the key take-aways from this idea are:

War must be viewed as an instrument of national policy – one among many. War is not the policy; war is inserted to the ongoing political engagement to achieve the policy objective. 

Reference: v. Clausewitz, C., On War, (Michael Howard and Peter Paret Ed. And Tansl.) © 1976 Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA

Music:

Holst, G. The Planets: Mars, Bringer of War, Internet Archives, https://archive.org/details/GustavHolstThePlanetsMarsTheBringerOfWar_201709

Traditional, The Army Strings, Garryowen (Public Domain(

In this second episode of my summary series, I address the Nature of War. That nature is violence directed at an opponent to coerce him to submit to your will. This violence has always been the nature of war and it will always be so. Further, this violence must be so painful to your opponent that he will prefer submitting to your will rather than continuing to resist. How you apply that violence and where the pain must be applied changes with time, technology, and culture. Further, the tools to apply this pain are not just kinetic, or direct military action. Economic pain can be just as important as military force. So too is information directed towards increasing fear of pain in the opponents’ population, its leaders, and your opponents’ friends. What makes war different from other forms of violence is its political nature. This violence is directed towards achieving a political end state. Without directing military force to a clearly defined political objective military success is still possible but will, more than likely, end in strategic failure.

For more information refer to Episode 7 of this series, “What is War;” Episode 8: “The Natural Laws of War;” Episode 42: “All Successful Wars Are Alike;” and Episode 43: “Ways to Lose a War.”

Reference:

Music:

For a little more than five years and 105 episodes, I have been podcasting on what I believe everyone can and should know about war and sometimes more specifically the characteristics of the persistent conflict we see in the world around us. Almost every week, something develops that want to explain by placing it within the context of the enduring nature of war – and the pursuit of peace. That said, I think that I have just about said everything that needs to be said explaining what war is, how it is unchanging in nature, and how even the changing characteristics of war demonstrate war’s unchanging nature. In trying to respond to emerging events, this description was not laid out in any sort of logical framework. So, in the next few episodes I will try to summarize the key points, or takeaways, of the past hundred plus episodes, in a way that does provide that logical framework.  

The opinions in these podcasts are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of Defense, anyone else in the U.S. Government, or any other organization I am or ever have been associated with.

Music: