The targeted Western audience is made to believe that it might be a blessing in disguise that Russia is once again on the offensive after the spectacular failure of Kiev’s counteroffensive last summer since this supposedly imbues the West with a renewed sense of urgency to ensure that Ukraine won’t lose.

Russia’s victory in Avdeevka proved that Ukraine is back on the defensive and that the worst-case scenario from the West’s perspective of Kiev’s total defeat can no longer be ruled out. This provoked such panic among their leaders that they reportedly discussed conventionally intervening in their proxy’s support last week even though many have since denied their French counterpart’s revelation about this. In order to manage the public’s perceptions, however, they just released a new batch of “copium”.

This internet neologism refers to a false narrative concocted by one’s side in order to artificially inflate their supporters’ hopes in the face of inconvenient facts. It combines coping with opium to suggest that such information warfare products are highly addictive because they play to the target audience’s wishful thinking expectations. Most copium relies on some variation of the “5D chess master plan” conspiracy theory to imply that even undeniable setbacks are part of a master plan for victory.

CNBC’s article from Friday about how “Ukraine’s losses on the battlefield could make the war more dangerous for Russia” is a perfect example of this. Holly Ellyatt claims that “Russia’s advantage on the battlefield could prompt Ukraine’s backers to give it more of what it wants, and needs, to win the war” per what can be described as the “escalation paradox” that Macron’s remarks supposedly exemplify. While there’s some logic to that notion, it’s clearly being exploited for copium purposes in this case.

The targeted Western audience is made to believe that it might be a blessing in disguise that Russia is once again on the offensive after the spectacular failure of Kiev’s counteroffensive last summer since this supposedly imbues the West with a renewed sense of urgency to ensure that Ukraine won’t lose. What’s omitted from Ellyatt’s article is that any conventional intervention in their proxy’s support would spike the risk of World War III by miscalculation and that this is only being considered due to desperation.

Russia won the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with NATO by far, which is why the latter is now pondering whether to draw a red line in the sand to salvage their geopolitical project should the former break through the Line of Contact in the coming future, something they previously ruled out. This goes to show just how poorly the proxy war is going for the West since they used to talk about Russia using nuclear weapons out of desperation and not themselves intervening in Ukraine for the same reason.

The only way to keep morale high among Ukraine’s supporters in these circumstances is to imagine that more Russians will soon be killed since the West might now finally give Ukraine “more of what it wants, and needs, to win the war”. Once again, some countries like Germany might indeed step up their involvement in this conflict in light of the latest developments (irrespective of whether this is done unilaterally by their armed forces or approved by their government), but that won’t lead to Kiev winning.

Moreover, the prior standard applied by the Mainstream Media was that Russia’s reported purchase of Iranian and North Korean drones and shells respectively was done out of desperation to prevent its defeat, yet now the faint hope of the West doing something similar with Ukraine is spun as a victory. To be sure, those prior reports would have certainly signaled that Russia was experiencing serious difficulties if they’re found to be true, but the point is that double standards are cynically being applied.

Looking forward, more such copium of the sort that was just peddled by CNBC is expected to circulate across legacy and social media as Ukraine’s losses continue piling up and Russia gradually expands its gains on the ground. What’s so dishonest about this narrative though is that it doesn’t inform the public of just how dangerous this hoped-for NATO mission creep is, unlike speculation about Russia using nukes out of desperation, which irresponsibly downplays the risks of World War III by miscalculation.