You have picked up on an important undertone. There really is a hidden framework here, and it is more interesting than simply being “for” or “against.”
Let’s examine it calmly and systematically.
1. What Exactly Is Being Asserted in the Text
Katz’s central line of reasoning is as follows:
- War in the twenty-first century is not economically viable.
- Captured territory is not an asset.
- Russia will not be able to retain the captured territories in the long term.
- After a change of government, everything will be returned.
- Consequently, the war has no tangible outcome and no strategic meaning.
This is not a moral argument. It is an argument based on a model of “economic rationality.”
He constructs a model:
The modern world = economics + global interdependence + sanctions + the high cost of war.
Therefore, war is unprofitable.
Therefore, the outcome is unstable.
Therefore, the final result is predetermined.
Now comes the most interesting part.
2. Where the Hidden Axiom Lies
The underlying axiom is:
Reality must obey economic rationality.
If reality behaves otherwise, then it is an “anomaly,” an “abnormality,” or “temporary madness.”
And you formulate this very precisely:
if reality does not match our model of physical value, then reality is wrong.
Yes, this is a classic error of modernist thinking.
It is the same as asserting that:
- the market is always rational,
- actors always maximize their benefit,
- a system tends toward equilibrium.
But history is full of cases in which people:
- fought wars at a loss,
- sacrificed their economies for ideology,
- destroyed their own states,
- acted not for profit but for identity, power, or symbolic control.
Economics is not the only axis of reality.
3. Error No. 1: Reducing War to Economics
Before the industrial era, wars were economic, yes.
But already in the twentieth century:
- World War I was not economically rational.
- World War II was not rational for Germany in the long term.
- The Cold War was purely ideological and systemic competition.
Modern wars are often:
- wars for security,
- wars for status,
- wars over historical narratives,
- wars for internal consolidation,
- wars for regime stability.
Economic profit may not be the goal at all.
4. Error No. 2: Linear Extrapolation of the Future
He says:
The front line is barely moving now → therefore it will always be this way → therefore the war will end with nothing achieved → therefore everything will return to the way it was.
That is a very strong assumption.
History rarely moves in a straight line.
Systems can:
- remain stagnant for a long time,
- then experience a sudden turning point,
- for reasons that could not have been calculated in advance.
There are plenty of examples:
- 1917,
- 1989,
- 1991,
- 2014.
Nonlinearity is a fundamental property of history.
5. Error No. 3: The Model of “Everything Will Be Returned After Putin”
This is an assumption, not a logical necessity.
After a change of leader, the following are possible:
- a rigid entrenchment of the status quo,
- a frozen conflict,
- international recognition of a partial change of borders,
- internal fragmentation,
- the strengthening of radicals.
There is no automatic function in politics of “change of leader → return of territories.”
It is simply a hypothesis.
6. Where He Is Right
We need to be fair.
There are strong points:
- Modern warfare really is extraordinarily expensive.
- Retaining devastated territories is a heavy burden.
- Society can quickly forget the sacrifices made.
- Political elites often abruptly reverse their positions.
- History contains examples of sudden reversals.
But none of this means that one scenario is predetermined.
7. The Main Philosophical Distinction
You have noticed a fundamental point.
He proceeds from the model:
reality is obliged to be rational.
But reality can be:
- tragic,
- irrational,
- inertial,
- driven by fear,
- driven by identity,
- driven by the internal logic of power.
Economics is one layer.
Politics is another.
Ideology is a third.
Mass psychology is a fourth.
Geopolitics is a fifth.
When a model takes one layer and declares it the only one, it begins judging reality as “wrong.”
That is the substitution.
8. The Most Interesting Point
He says:
everyone understands that this will end in nothing.
This assertion cannot be verified.
It is a projection.
It is a psychological intuition presented as objective knowledge.
And this is where rhetoric, rather than analysis, begins.
9. What the Deep Error in the Construction Is
His thesis can be rewritten as follows:
- Modern warfare produces no economic benefit.
- Therefore, it cannot produce any result.
- Therefore, the result will be nullified.
- Therefore, what is happening is meaningless.
But point 2 does not follow from point 1.
The result may be:
- political,
- strategic,
- ideological,
- demographic,
- institutional,
- related to the regime.
Even if the economic balance is negative.
10. The Strongest Counter-Framework
History is under no obligation to be economically rational.
History must be causal.
But causality ≠ economic efficiency.
That is the key.
