The difference re: Vietnam for the US is that the US - like the French and the British and Indians before them - could ultimately pack up and go home, "Peace with Honor" or no. The Ukrainians can't. So their fate is closer to that of the South Vietnamese and anti-Communist Cambodians, Laotians, and other locals. That's one of the key things I think people overlook. Saakashvilli is crashing in Ukraine after being driven out of Georgia after losing his war and probably-politicized persecution by the new government, and he's not an enviable fate.
Ukraine's support for Zelenskyy has cracked here and there and it suffers other issues, but overall support for fighting on remains strong in part because the Kremlin refuses to give much in the way of a concrete proposal for a compromise peace and there's even less trust that the Kremlin would keep to it after its violations of Budapest, Minsk I and II, and so on. So people fight on in lieu of seeing any better options. For all the talk of "Banderaists" I think a lot of people overlook how Bandera's OUN-B fought a 15 year guerilla war against the Soviets and Poles (with interlude from his former German allies) in spite of being a guerilla movement wracked by its own civil war, confined to a part of Galicia, and surrounded by hostile regimes with minimal foreign support.
If the Kremlin were offering some kind of resolution to the conflict or an actual compromise peace, yeah fighting on would probably be much less popular than it is. But it hasn't and you have Medvedev and others talking about the need to destroy the very concept of a Ukrainian nation.
"Politically, the Donbas region and Crimea were already viewed by western and central Ukrainians as the pro-Russian area."
That's definitely true, but that was more true before the war started in 2014, when it largely came down to peacetime voting and competitive theft. But now Kharkhiv - previously a "Blue", pro-Russian electoral Stronghold and heavily culturally and linguistically Russian - is the Eastern bulwark of Ukrainian defenses and bombardment has done nothing to enhance support for the Kremlin. Ditto seeing Kremlin-sponsored warlords misruling in Crimea and especially the Donbas, which was the context for Poroshenko's much-misquoted statements on why Ukraine would win the war.
"The desire to potentially die to retake that area rather than simply let it go may be quite low among Ukrainians who have other prospects"
Hahaha no.
Ukrainian troops have been fighting and killing and dying over that for more than a decade now, since 2014, and hold on to about a third to half of it. And that was after initial Russian victories grinding down defenses like the bloody cities of inner city Luhansk and Donetsk that helped make things like the "Cyborgs" legends. Nonwithstanding the substantial number of loyalist guerillas and underground activists in Crimea and the Donbas, it's viewed as being a symbol.
Meanwhile abandoning Crimea would essentially mean surrendering any hopes of maritime sovereignty to Russia and leaving a permanent, gaping hole in its defenses for future invasion as was shown by centuries of Tatar invasions in the "Wild Fields', in addition to being a powerful symbol given Crimean Tatar unionism an a bunch of others.
"When you experience a color revolution based on the promises of EU membership and economic opportunities in Paris, Berlin, etc.,"
.... as well as brutal misrule and corruption by Yanukovych leading to "probable" violations of the constitution in order to quell protests about him breaking his election promises...
"dodging Russian drones in the part of Ukraine that doesn't want to be part of Ukraine any more is not so attractive."
The "part of Ukraine that doesn't want to be part of Ukraine any more" has been dwindling. The most fervent separatists in the Donbas have generally already fallen into line and many have already died or been crippled, whether by the Loyalists or by "parties unknown" (hence the open discussion of whether or not the Kremlin assassinated a bunch of its local vassals that got out of hand from being so bad, or being too had to control). Even in the cold peace after 2015 and before 2022 the Donbaschukuos failed to hold ground, failed to form any kind of legitimate or popularly supported government, and failed to keep the lights on even with very generous sponsorship from the Kremlin.
Moreover, even if what you said was true, there's the very basic issue of What Would Be Enough?
Zelenskyy came to office promising to end the conflict, and even proposing a vote on the Donbas so that regions there could decide whether to remain with Ukraine or be annexed to Russia. This was not even responded to by the Kremlin. Meaning there is essentially no mechanism to determine "what parts of Ukraine don't want to be part of Ukraine any more', meaning even less incentive to hammer out a peace.
Agree 100%. Lots more to be killed. And with TFRs in both Ukraine and Russia being what they are, both countries will be living (or slowly dying) with the result for many (but not unlimited) generations to come.
Prediction: the comments section is going to quickly devolve into a contest between chest-thumping interventionists who are convinced that the only way this war ends is a triumphal parade through Moscow and clueless anti-globalists who don't get that the Ukrainians are, in fact, free agents and not tools of some conspiracy against Based and Trad Vlad to see who can ignore reality the most.
Yeah, we've already got the zhitposters in here with the claim that being a Soviet colony didn't bother Ukrainians any, and people dreaming of a sea of Bradleys driving Eastward.
Personally, I think we ought to make it up to Patton--Moscow delenda est--but I mostly hope the next American administration will be somewhat rational about things and that nobody else around the world gets funny ideas about what is and isn't permissible under a restored Pax Americana.
Well, I doubt very many people have learned the lesson of "you can't have too much ammo". Hard to explain to people "we have to cut back on a lot of military aid because we don't have any to spare". We've given away just about all the due for an expensive refurbishment hi-tech gear. So Ukraine gets stuff that's cheap and relatively easy to produce. Small arms ammo and artillery shells, the latter slowly increasing as more production comes on line.
Good Afternoon CDR Salamander, Mother Russia stands strong!
And she will!
Bucharest Accords, not kept;
2014 accords, not kept!
Russia will agree to Peace if its security is guaranteed by:
1. Not permitting Ukraine to join NATO
2. The rest is highly secret per Russia’s request.
Thank you for your long and informative read. I love reading history!
What’s better is that I am a part of history from the very first time, my first day of life….Russian was taught to me by my Grandpa.
My Grandma stressed that I needed to speak seven (7) languages. That linguistically training began immediately! The Plaza Hotel in NYC and the Top of the 666’s on Fifth Avenue, Tappan Hill in Westchester and at our Cabin in Mahopac/Carmel New York.
I must excuse myself now to pick up TsarPeter the Great! Have a blessed day! God Bless America…Nurse Jane
CDR Sal, you are like the popular George Orwell meme: "Did I call it or what?". You certainly did, and sadly, suspect your predictions for the future will come to pass as well. It still seems the best way to not fight is to be very prepared TO fight. Was it the Romans who said "If thou would have peace, be prepared for war"?
Henry Kissinger finally gets his wish—both sides are losing—only with different combatants than the ones he had in mind. Also, the foundations of a blood feud are under construction...and they're being built to last.
I thought any Jewish presence in that region was dealt with long ago by the combination of German actions in WWII followed by Soviet expulsions and voluntary relocations to Israel in the 1970s and after. Do I misunderstand my history?
The only way things can be resolved in favor of Ukraine (i.e., not giving up any land or concessions, at the least) is for there to be outside intervention. This can only take place, speculatively/fantasy, in two ways that avoids, perhaps, WWIII:
1) Let a coalition of the EU willing, (UK, France, Poland, Germany, et al) - without involving NATO - send troops and material to directly intervene and tip the scales to Ukraine and recover the lost lands. They could probably get it done, though not easily without our logistics backing them up. Hey, Russia is using Iran, NK, Chechnya, and China on the ground and for materials.
2) This is a reach and just a hypothetical as one of the only ways the scales can be tipped. We coordinate a Ukrainian ground offensive with a clandestine strike using already mobilized US stealth assets traveling to/from, say, Iran. If the Russians can't detect our stealth aircraft (Ukraine would have to put up anything they have in the air at the same time as a cover - maybe fly some of our growlers with their package in their colors), we could open up a pretty large hole for the Ukrainian ground forces to pour through - then it is up to the Ukrainians to finish up. A one time strike to facilitate a grand counteroffensive to cut off all GLOCs and unhinge the Russian position, causing them to withdraw. Though Putin might well decide to go with tactical nukes in these conditions. Russians might suspect we were involved, but if we leave no evidence (the Ukrainians do have access to our ordnance), what can they say? The price for that is a BUNCH of concessions from the EU and NATO like, say, Greenland and increasing their defense spending and troop levels to guard against the response from Russia.
The only other way is for NATO (which means US) to say, "Hey, we're moving our troops into Ukraine as peacekeepers - up to the Dnieper - and everything to the West of that, in our area, is off limits and protected." After all, that is Ukraine and they can let in anyone they want...they could even give it all to Poland (with a promise to give it back later) to make it go down easier. This would allow Ukraine to move all their efforts East of the river and might give enough of a local numbers advantage to have some offensive success. After all, how much more can the Russians put in the fight?
Otherwise, the Russians will keep going and play out the string. Eventually Ukraine will break under the stress...or if Russia comes close to breaking, they will use so-called "tactical" nukes. Because Putin is not just going to go home without some deux ex machina forcing it.
1) You're probably right - but that is a put up or shut up proposal, isn't it?? Put your ass where you are putting your money to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian? They'd love it if we did it, if WE took the casualties, and even if we did it WITH them, we'd take the brunt of it, as usual.
2) Well, they might be aware or they might not. Lots of aircraft moving around, some you can't track, or lose track of...and there is what you KNOW and what you can PROVE to take action, which are two different things. They sure aren't starting a war with NATO on what would, without proof, be on THEIR initiation. Then WE would be in it and it would be over relatively quickly, though not painlessly, and perhaps requiring additional measures.
As I said, if they get meaningfully dislodged or defeated, they may well use nukes.
Well, I tend to think the use of nuclear weapons anywhere would precipitate an intervention. Just as it would if it occurred between Pakistan and India. Can't let the genie get out of the bottle without a response to end it.
As to targeting data and weapons, there is a parity there with the Russians using the Chinese, Iranians, NKs, et al...so, not really any lines crossed that Russian hadn't already blown away. Just like in Vietnam.
Why do you see post-nuke intervention as essential? As long as the nukes are between the combatants, I see no particular reason to intervene. We know how to build fences...
Just stating the likely response...a nuclear country using weapons on a non-nuclear country would elicit a response. It just would...EU would go crazy and they have their own nukes.
Fantasy dream. NATO troops in Ukraine but not called NATO, whether as combat or peacekeeping will start WWIII. Putin said no Nato in Ukraine and the west ignored him. He also said no peacekeeping troops and the west will ignore him at their peril. NATO is a paper tiger without the US and Trump won't take the bait. A NATO Expeditionary force wouldn't last a month in a drone intensive environment which they are ill-equipped to deal with. The war will stop when Putin has control of the Donbas and an agreement with Trump to have a demilitarized NATO-less Ukraine...Hard unpleasant reality.
Well, Dick, NATO weapons are sure in Ukraine now...but I don't see any NATO troops. I do see NK, Chechnya, and other troops on the Russian side...and Iranian and Chinese weapons/support. So, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Putin doesn't call those shots. While I'm not in favor of Ukraine in NATO, I'm also not giving Putin the idea he as a veto on anybody who chooses to join NATO...otherwise he would have said NO WAY to Finland, too.
In this case, as unlikely as it is because they like to yap and have the US do the work, the EU wants to take over and run things in Europe. Let them settle it since they are so concerned.
And I've got news for you. The "environment" would not be the same even with EU troops in the mix vs US. We would be willing to supply them with the newer 30MM proximity fused ammo for their helicopters and APKWS laser-guided hydra rockets (very cheap) to sanitize the front lines of drones.
So, no doubt, there will be a lot of killing until Ukraine succumbs or a deal is made or something happens with Putin. Hard unpleasant reality.
Exactly what leverage do you think the US has with Ukraine?
US is no longer supplying munitions, cash or intel...
Trump can do as much or as little as he likes...but the Ukrainians, and the Europeans backing them, are in the driving seat.
The only reason why anyone is tolerating Trump is because when the Russian's play him for the umpteenth time, with the Ukrainian's wisely agreeing to talk (knowing full well the Russian's will balk at a deal), he might (but its unlikely) actually understand that they're making a fool of him...
Too many experts have disparaged the Russian economy by calling it a gas tank with nuclear weapons or having a GDP less than that of Upper Volta. Yet this same country is able to build nuclear powered icebreakers and conduct ship transfers of LNG.
Likewise, the same experts have disparaged Russia’s slow advance not considering that it takes time to consolidate and secure gains or even if time is an important factor.
I think the real enemy is China. As far as I know we never lost a single job or factory to Russia. It is time to end this war by telling the Europeans to accede to Russia's reasonable demands or they are on their own.
I think they are. Four predominantly Russian provinces. No Ukraine in NATO. I am sure the Europeans are willing to lose another one million Ukrainians rather than yield.
It wasn't originally Ukrainian either. It was Cossack country with refugees from serfdom in all the surrounding regions. Before that it was Ottoman and before that Mongol.
Much of France wasn't originally France, much of Italy ........ And in parts of Spain the locals "want it back", too. How far do you want to satisfy the claims of various ethnic groups? We should maybe follow the lead of Canada and give everything back to the multitude of "first nations"?
The Russification happened in the late 1800s because a British industrialist developed the resources of the Donbas and imported Russian workers to staff it. The famine in the Ukraine didn't happen in the Donbas but further West in the agricultural regions. There was also famine in Russia-in the N. Caucasus and along the Volga. Famine in Kazakhstan too that was worse per capita than the one in the Ukraine. These were a product of the Soviet drive to collectivize agriculture, not of a desire to Russify the Ukraine.
Your citations sort of make my point. Focusing on the Holodomor, however, ignores the famines in the other parts of the Soviet Union which were as bad or worse. The problem was communism. Russification definitely did occur as is common when an area gets incorporated into a larger entity. It is why Angela Merkel is fluent in Russian after all as well as why New Mexicans and Irish speak English. But the ancestors of the Russian speakers in the Donbas were imported by the British. Here is an animated map of European borders. Pay particular attention to the area north of the Black Sea currently known as Ukraine. You will see that Russia's gains in that area come at the expense of Poland, Lithuania and the Ottoman Empire. Other than a brief blip around WW1, Ukraine did not exist until 1991. Bottom line is that it is all stolen land-multiple times.
"The Russification happened in the late 1800s because a British industrialist developed the resources of the Donbas and imported Russian workers to staff it."
It may have intensified in the late 1800s but it was ongoing since at least the 1500s, with Moscow overseeing extensive colonization and fortification there, as well as the breaking of several independent sichs, as well as linguistic repression.
"The famine in the Ukraine didn't happen in the Donbas but further West in the agricultural regions."
It happened throughout the USSR, including in areas of the Donbas. It was most INTENSIVE in Western/Central Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the North Caucasus but it also happened in the Donbas, and while most of that was probably accidental or due to Soviet mismanagement we know a lot of it was intentional with endemic blacklisting of communities and effectively marking them for death in the Donbas.
"There was also famine in Russia-in the N. Caucasus and along the Volga. Famine in Kazakhstan too that was worse per capita than the one in the Ukraine. These were a product of the Soviet drive to collectivize agriculture, not of a desire to Russify the Ukraine."
Half true. they were definitely mostly due to Soviet follies, but Russification and cultural genocide were intertwined, which is one reason why you see it happen alongside things such as forced sedentarism in Kazakhstan and massacres of cultural figures in places like Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
Russia didn't even control the area until the 1700s. The bulk was Polish and Lithuanian with some Cossack and Tatars in the South. To this day, Ukrainians aren't even the biggest minority in Crimea. The Tatars are.
So what? Much of Europe, and the world in general, is as it is because of such actions. A good part of Poland is Polish because of "ethnic cleansing", and the same can be said about much of the rest of Europe. And I doubt the Communists treated Ukraine much worse than they treated the rest of the USSR.
I don't, but the above all is that if the Kremlin were willing to come to the table with consistent terms, STICK To them, declare in public that these are the last territorial demands I will have in Western Eurasia, and actually follow through it would at least be worth talking about.
But they're not. Which is one reason why the Kremlin moved on from its staunch declaration of "Denazifying Ukraine" indicating fundamental regime change and forced neutrality if not annexation of the country to the milder but still unacceptable terms afterwards, and when Trump came calling shifted goalposts again.
And above all, there's a lack of any kind of confidence in the Kremlin to stick to them any more than they stuck to Budapest, Astana, or Minsk I and II.
"Four predominantly Russian provinces."
Which Russia has never entirely controlled ever since the Soviet period, if not the fall of the Empire. They controlled around half the claimed territory in the Donbas as well as Crimea in 2014 before they started to get pushed back - helping to trigger the invasion in 2022 - and have failed to hammer out any kind of legitimate or stable government or control in the area. Even Crimea which at least in terms of demographics and popularity has the easiest case to make for that has significant opposition, especially when the Ukrainians took pains to turn off the water and start interdicting traffic in and out of the peninsula.
And being ethnically or linguistically Russian does not mean wanting to be one with Mother Rossiya. Zelenskyy's a native Russian Speaker. So is Andri Biletsky. And Kharkhiv went from being one of the most pro-Rusisan of the major cities in Ukraine to being the loyalist bulwark heavily bombarded by it. Odessa went from being a "swing oblast" and subject to many of the worst riots and protests in 2014 (including an infamous and lethal arson) to being rather stalwartly opposed to the Kremlin in part due to Russian naval bombardment.
In short, the Kremlin has no legitimate claim or title to the four provinces. And on some level it knows this, which is one reason why it refused to even table Zelenskyy's (unpopular even at the time) proposal to hold a plebiscite to divide the area based on vote. It has not even been able to illegitimately take and occupy all of them by force.
"No Ukraine in NATO."
That was not what the war was over. The initial crisis was over an Association Agreement with the EU, while Ukraine was not a member of NATO or even seeking to become one. But leaving that aside...
'So Russia, you want to nullify the Helsinki Final Act and the Astana Declaration that are the foundational documents of post-Cold War peace? Are you sure you want that?'
"I am sure the Europeans are willing to lose another one million Ukrainians rather than yield."
And so are the Ukrainians, in large part because with the likes of Medvedev running his mouth and memories of other atrocities they have little reason to believe such "peace" would be useful. And it's not like they didn't see Mutti Merkel and Obama engage in a shotgun marriage of an attempted peace at Minsk I and II.
"Too many experts have disparaged the Russian economy by calling it a gas tank with nuclear weapons or having a GDP less than that of Upper Volta. "
That's a mashup of two separate things, the whole "Upper Volta with Nuclear Weapons" thing. Though to be honest in some ways I'd argue the USSR had some disadvantages relative to Upper Volta/Burkina Faso in a few surprising ways (such as better internal accounting), but ultimately was a much more robust system in MOST ways (though not all) than the Russian Federation today.
"Yet this same country is able to build nuclear powered icebreakers and conduct ship transfers of LNG."
Burkina Faso can and did conduct ship transfers of LNG back in the bad old days, albeit mostly by paying foreigners (esp Soviet and Warsaw Pact staff) to do it. But agreed. However, the issue is that it struggles to build a lot else, in large part due to aging population, brain drain, and other issues. Which is why many of the roads just outside Moscow and St. Petersburg were worse than some in my native California.
"Likewise, the same experts have disparaged Russia’s slow advance not considering that it takes time to consolidate and secure gains or even if time is an important factor."
That's not the main reason why it's disparaged the Kremlin's "slow advance." The main reasons are threefold.
1. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Russian and Soviet doctrine tends to love a rapid decapitation strike at the onset of hostilities, quickly amassing forces and striking at the enemy's center of gravity to force a fait accompli. This was what was attempted in the infamous drive on Kyiv, it was what was successfully pulled off in Crimea on a much smaller scale and successfully to a lesser degree in the Donbas (mostly in the Center and East of it, esp after loyalist resistance in the inner cities of the regional capitals was put down in lengthy sieges), close-enough-to-successful in Georgia in 2008 (with the drive on Tblisi being stopped by US tripwire forces being deployed but still enough to limit Georgian reactions and to help underline the wider Russian victory) successfully so in Kabul 1979, Prague 1968, Budapest 1956, and so on.
This was not supposed to be a grinding war of attrition or slow advance, which is one reason why this has been so baffling.
2. Russia's "slow advance" has not been consistently advancing. This becomes most evident studying the kind of cold peace from 2015-2022, when the Kremlin and its proxy troops rather consistently lost ground in the Donbas to Ukrainian Loyalists (more on the later), but you also see it in things like the brief if ultimately ill fated Kursk operation and more significantly with the latest Ukrainian counterattacks that has led to the Kremlin outright lying about frontline results to the frustration of even pro-Kremlin war effort supporters like Rybar.
3. The argument only works if the gains are actually secured or consolidated, but what evidence we have there is that the Kremlin has kind of sucked at that. There are still Ukrainian guerilla cells operating in Crimea, even if mostly in a non-kinetic fashion (largely as intelligence gatherers), and in the Donbas you still see bridges and rails blown, ambushes, and so forth in a level that's kind of shocking to me given the mostly positional nature of the fighting. The DNR and LNR have supposedly existed for more than a decade but they have proven unable to keep the lights on or to legitimize themselves as something more than warlord states, which is one reason why Poroshenko's speech on why Ukraine would win the war (misquoted as it often is) still hurts. Attempts by the Kremlin to conflate ethnic Russianness or linguistic or literary use of Russian with identification with a "Russian World" have fallen flat and if anything have done moreso as the war has gone on. Good luck annexing Kharkhiv into Russia or "Novorossiya" outside of outright taking it in what would likely be urban fighting even more intense than that which plagued inner city Luhansk and Donetsk in 2014.
"I think the real enemy is China."
The PRC's definitely one of our main enemies, along with the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and the like. But the "organs" in charge of the Russian government- the secret police, military and intelligence apparatchiks, and so on - have solidly distinguished themselves as secondary enemies by inclination and choice, and have refused significant attempts to get them on side, and will serve as allies of our main enemies for the foreseeable future, even at the direct opposition of much of Russian public opinion such as against Chinese penetration in Siberia and at the time over the obfuscation and America Baiting about the Kursk Submarine disaster.
As such I view there as being no great purpose in expending effort trying to get people who will never like us and barely tolerate our existence to be friends or allies with us against their chief chosen ally and patron.
"As far as I know we never lost a single job or factory to Russia. "
Yeah, I'd advise talking to some Texas or Alaskan Oilmen- especially those of a previous generation but still now- about that, or to the military production people, but then I'd have to attend your funeral. And that's just some of the areas we're direct competitors in high visibility areas as opposed to direct ones in low visibility areas (including optics ironically enough, where Russia is and remains the world leader in high quality optics) or indirectly (such as the Kremlin sponsoring Venezuelan oil and our own Green Energy idjiots).
"It is time to end this war by telling the Europeans to accede to Russia's reasonable demands or they are on their own."
Ok, what are the "reasonable demands"? Can you list them?
I can list several. The issue is that they are inconsistent and keep changing. Which is why this doesn't work and would not end the war. And also why in spite of being in an almost laboratory condition for a more favorable outcome the Kremlin has still refused to come to a final settlement for the Moldovan conflict regarding Transnistria. In a lot of ways the powers that be in the Kremlin do not want to put an end to the conflict, and even if that doesn't want an outright war going on into the future that's something they are prepared to suffer.
Your analysis is flawed because you point the finger at historical Russian as the cause of this war when in fact it was the west and the neo-cons pushing a coup in Ukraine to install a government amicable to NATO membership. The US reacted to nuclear missiles being stationed in Cuba, but Russia is supposed to accept them in Ukraine? Putin said Nato in Ukraine was a red line and the west did it anyway. I'm not a Putin fan nor am I a NATO/EU fan. The Minsk 1&2 accords had the Russian speaking Donbas remaining in Ukraine as a demilitarized buffer and no NATO.
Russia knows how to fight a brutal grinding war as they did in WW2, and this conflict will end when Putin controls the Donbas which isn't that far off. Yes, the Ukrainians have fought bravely but the industrial capacity and population vis a vis Ukraine is similar to that of the North vis a vis the South in our Civil War with the same predictable result.
Nato is a corrupt paper tiger as you pointed out, and Trump wants no part of a land war in Europe. Yes, you are correct in saying there will be a lot more killing but it won't change the results, and it was all so avoidable.
Funny thing is Luzhkov and other former CCCP movers and shakers were calling for Ukraine to brought back into the CIS fold thirty years ago while calling Gorbachev and Yeltsin traitors for ceding independence to Ukraine. Both sides were agitating.
Get real. Ukraine rose against Yanukovych because he betrayed his country with the EU adn was getting ready to betray it to Russia. The Ukrainians have been under Russia before and they had no desire to do it again. That is why they fight.
Ukrainian industry has risen to the point that about 50% of their material and weapons needs are being supplied from Ukrainian sources. Ukraine has destroyed a lot of Russian industrial capacity adn Russian oil processing capacity is down a lot. Some estimates place it at being down 40-50% down. Russian rail is having serious problems getting oil products needed to fight to the people that need it. How much longer the rail system is going to be able to keep going is a serious question. From the losses of rolling stock and prime movers, it could collapse at any time.
Financially, Russia is on a razor's edge. Even Russian economists are predicting collapse this summer. Putin has stupid forced banks to make loans that can not be repaid, and many of those loans come due this year adn the companies can not repay them, as expected. With that, the banks are expected to collapse.
The neo-con business of them urging the coup has been shown to be simple minded BS. Yanukovych would have been allowed to finish his term, but he ran for asylum to Russia, abandoning his office. He ousted himself. There was no coup.
Eventually Ukraine will lose. Even if they give up territory to gain time, Russia will rebuild and come back for more ground. The best they can hope for in the immediate future is a prolonged drone war as they trade bits of territory back and forth. It's like trench warfare with new tech like drones added for flavor. While maybe not today, my bet is Ukraine is subsumed within the next 30 years.
It may have been Putin but they put out a statement last week during a press conference that countries that discriminate against their Russian speaking population would be on their radar.
The eastern most parts of the US were parts of the UK as colonies for a couple hundred years. Should it not bother us if the UK demanded we become their subjects again?
For better or worse, the mismanagement of the Soviet communists caused their empire to fall apart and many entities were granted the real sovereignty they had pretended existed for 70 years. Doesn't mean they can then unilaterally claim "do overs." One does not get a mulligan on such things.
Not going to happen. Russia has an appointment on the mountains of Israel, along with a number of other peoples and only one sixth of the coalition army is going to go home.
Even if that were not the case, Russia is not going to be rebuilding. It won't have the people to do so.
This afternoon I heeded by own CCP warning saying “No” to the Asian Dog Groomer wearing headphones.
American Kennel Club (AKC) rules teach us dog trainers how to introduce your dog to a stranger.
“No” means “No”, hear that my shipmates!
Girl or Boy, Man or Woman in English, “No” is a “Sacred Word” in America!
Not so in other countries!
Thank you to my two (2) shipmates sending me a “Like”,
Now, please read below! Afghanistan and Pakistan … think Iran… and sit back clutching your stomach!
I have personal experience with men from
Pakistan, anbout 2002-2004; and my Turkish Warrant Officer, Dursun Iribas, 1993 - 2013, everlasting be his memory!
My boots were on the ground twice in the Kingdom of Jordan, March and December 2005!
I do not trust the Iraqis! I don’t trust the Turks! I don’t trust the Jordanians! I don’t trust the Sub-Continent Indians nor the Pakistanis!
So who do I trust? I trust my faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Be safe tonight, Tuesday 23 February because the Democrats are going to be raging while POTUS tries to speak. God Bless America! Nurse Jane
—-…—-TASS—-…—-
“The border dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan is among the world’s longest. The delimitation agreement between British and Afghan possessions was signed by Emir Abdur Rahman Khan and Henry Mortimer Durand in Kabul in 1893. Afghanistan has been refusing to recognize the Durand Line as the official border since 1947, after establishment of independent Pakistan. The dispute was often the cause of armed conflicts and uprisings in border areas.“
I can't write enough in your small post. But the German question is based upon the eventual breakout from the US/British strangle hold. Once that happens (and it will be soon) then the German juggernaut will return (like in the early 1930s). The Germans will restablish their control over the western European continent. The Russian stand off will become the next WWIII. The US will be in standby again as they were in the last major wars. But the nuclear potential will be a major factor.
The tepid support for Ukraine shown by the last 2 administrations has helped to continue this war: The Biden administration by placing constraints on the employment of US supplied weapons, and the Trump administration’s insistence that Putin could be persuaded to negotiate in good faith. We should be providing Ukraine with overwhelming superiority to bring this war to a conclusion on the battlefield. Instead, we have leadership who wants to rattle the saber with Iran to get back to the same deal it canceled during his first term. Just shaking my head.
Preventing a radical group of fanatics bent on world conquest from obtaining nuclear weapons is a bit more important than another in a long line of European border squabbles
Hadn’t you heard? Trump “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability. He’s an idiot.
Your comment is so laughable. If Trump were serious about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, he wouldn’t have withdrawn from the JCPOA for no other reason than it was negotiated under the Obama administration. Instead, we are threatening military force, with no support from the Arab nations or our allies, in another endless war that ignores the Powell Doctrine, just to get back to the JCPOA
I guess you would have been ok with Germany taking the Sudetenland and then all of Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, etc., as just another European border squabble. The lesson of history is appeasement doesn’t work with dictators and ultimately has consequences for the US and our national interests. You’ve got the wrong regime associated with world conquest. Putin is the existential danger.
I’m resigned to more killing. It’s sad and maddening.
I honestly don’t care about the historical references because when it’s all said and done it’s just hate.
Civilians die because Putin is a pig and Zelenskyy is corrupt.
My cartoon bubble (because I’m not really a military guy and I just loathe Putin) is simply draw lines, bring in 1,000 M1’s from our team and just push the Russians out of Ukraine and be done with it.
Sigh - ultimately it’s just more evil leadership that results in the innocent dying.
Putin is a pig, but Putin started a war adn the Ukrainians either fight or die. Putin has said he means to destroy Ukraine as a political entity adn Ukrainians as an ethnicity. Putin made the serious mistake of putting Ukrainians on a death ground. It was an act of massive idiocy adn the same mistake the Germans made with the USSR.
This war is reminiscent of World War 1 after 1916…the combatants have so much blood invested that a peace reflecting the actual battlefield results would produce a coup. And I suspect that is how this will end, with a coup that enables the blame to be buried with the deposed leader.
As for NATO, we have to face facts. Western Europe is headed for a very rough time. The importation of Moslems from the Middle East and North Africa has created nothing but trouble, and the existing regimes refuse to take responsibility for what they have done. With the exception of Italy, I think the Old NATO will be too busy with civil unrest to provide more than a token force.
The New NATO is a different story. They are all too familiar with the Russian jackboot. And are determined to never feel it on their faces again. Were I in their shoes, I’d be working on nuclear weapons. MAD keeps the peace.
Ukraine should be building nukes as well. The Budapest Agreement was violated so they have the right to obtain them again. The former eastern block should also be after them.
The difference re: Vietnam for the US is that the US - like the French and the British and Indians before them - could ultimately pack up and go home, "Peace with Honor" or no. The Ukrainians can't. So their fate is closer to that of the South Vietnamese and anti-Communist Cambodians, Laotians, and other locals. That's one of the key things I think people overlook. Saakashvilli is crashing in Ukraine after being driven out of Georgia after losing his war and probably-politicized persecution by the new government, and he's not an enviable fate.
Ukraine's support for Zelenskyy has cracked here and there and it suffers other issues, but overall support for fighting on remains strong in part because the Kremlin refuses to give much in the way of a concrete proposal for a compromise peace and there's even less trust that the Kremlin would keep to it after its violations of Budapest, Minsk I and II, and so on. So people fight on in lieu of seeing any better options. For all the talk of "Banderaists" I think a lot of people overlook how Bandera's OUN-B fought a 15 year guerilla war against the Soviets and Poles (with interlude from his former German allies) in spite of being a guerilla movement wracked by its own civil war, confined to a part of Galicia, and surrounded by hostile regimes with minimal foreign support.
If the Kremlin were offering some kind of resolution to the conflict or an actual compromise peace, yeah fighting on would probably be much less popular than it is. But it hasn't and you have Medvedev and others talking about the need to destroy the very concept of a Ukrainian nation.
"Politically, the Donbas region and Crimea were already viewed by western and central Ukrainians as the pro-Russian area."
That's definitely true, but that was more true before the war started in 2014, when it largely came down to peacetime voting and competitive theft. But now Kharkhiv - previously a "Blue", pro-Russian electoral Stronghold and heavily culturally and linguistically Russian - is the Eastern bulwark of Ukrainian defenses and bombardment has done nothing to enhance support for the Kremlin. Ditto seeing Kremlin-sponsored warlords misruling in Crimea and especially the Donbas, which was the context for Poroshenko's much-misquoted statements on why Ukraine would win the war.
"The desire to potentially die to retake that area rather than simply let it go may be quite low among Ukrainians who have other prospects"
Hahaha no.
Ukrainian troops have been fighting and killing and dying over that for more than a decade now, since 2014, and hold on to about a third to half of it. And that was after initial Russian victories grinding down defenses like the bloody cities of inner city Luhansk and Donetsk that helped make things like the "Cyborgs" legends. Nonwithstanding the substantial number of loyalist guerillas and underground activists in Crimea and the Donbas, it's viewed as being a symbol.
Meanwhile abandoning Crimea would essentially mean surrendering any hopes of maritime sovereignty to Russia and leaving a permanent, gaping hole in its defenses for future invasion as was shown by centuries of Tatar invasions in the "Wild Fields', in addition to being a powerful symbol given Crimean Tatar unionism an a bunch of others.
"When you experience a color revolution based on the promises of EU membership and economic opportunities in Paris, Berlin, etc.,"
.... as well as brutal misrule and corruption by Yanukovych leading to "probable" violations of the constitution in order to quell protests about him breaking his election promises...
"dodging Russian drones in the part of Ukraine that doesn't want to be part of Ukraine any more is not so attractive."
The "part of Ukraine that doesn't want to be part of Ukraine any more" has been dwindling. The most fervent separatists in the Donbas have generally already fallen into line and many have already died or been crippled, whether by the Loyalists or by "parties unknown" (hence the open discussion of whether or not the Kremlin assassinated a bunch of its local vassals that got out of hand from being so bad, or being too had to control). Even in the cold peace after 2015 and before 2022 the Donbaschukuos failed to hold ground, failed to form any kind of legitimate or popularly supported government, and failed to keep the lights on even with very generous sponsorship from the Kremlin.
Moreover, even if what you said was true, there's the very basic issue of What Would Be Enough?
Zelenskyy came to office promising to end the conflict, and even proposing a vote on the Donbas so that regions there could decide whether to remain with Ukraine or be annexed to Russia. This was not even responded to by the Kremlin. Meaning there is essentially no mechanism to determine "what parts of Ukraine don't want to be part of Ukraine any more', meaning even less incentive to hammer out a peace.
"Remains to be seen how the EU will treat those Ukrainians after the war."
Thats rather simple. All EU, and other European states like the UK, only accepted Ukrainian refugees on a time limited basis...
They're all going back to Ukraine.
Agree 100%. Lots more to be killed. And with TFRs in both Ukraine and Russia being what they are, both countries will be living (or slowly dying) with the result for many (but not unlimited) generations to come.
Prediction: the comments section is going to quickly devolve into a contest between chest-thumping interventionists who are convinced that the only way this war ends is a triumphal parade through Moscow and clueless anti-globalists who don't get that the Ukrainians are, in fact, free agents and not tools of some conspiracy against Based and Trad Vlad to see who can ignore reality the most.
Yeah, we've already got the zhitposters in here with the claim that being a Soviet colony didn't bother Ukrainians any, and people dreaming of a sea of Bradleys driving Eastward.
Personally, I think we ought to make it up to Patton--Moscow delenda est--but I mostly hope the next American administration will be somewhat rational about things and that nobody else around the world gets funny ideas about what is and isn't permissible under a restored Pax Americana.
Well, I doubt very many people have learned the lesson of "you can't have too much ammo". Hard to explain to people "we have to cut back on a lot of military aid because we don't have any to spare". We've given away just about all the due for an expensive refurbishment hi-tech gear. So Ukraine gets stuff that's cheap and relatively easy to produce. Small arms ammo and artillery shells, the latter slowly increasing as more production comes on line.
Good Afternoon CDR Salamander, Mother Russia stands strong!
And she will!
Bucharest Accords, not kept;
2014 accords, not kept!
Russia will agree to Peace if its security is guaranteed by:
1. Not permitting Ukraine to join NATO
2. The rest is highly secret per Russia’s request.
Thank you for your long and informative read. I love reading history!
What’s better is that I am a part of history from the very first time, my first day of life….Russian was taught to me by my Grandpa.
My Grandma stressed that I needed to speak seven (7) languages. That linguistically training began immediately! The Plaza Hotel in NYC and the Top of the 666’s on Fifth Avenue, Tappan Hill in Westchester and at our Cabin in Mahopac/Carmel New York.
I must excuse myself now to pick up TsarPeter the Great! Have a blessed day! God Bless America…Nurse Jane
CDR Sal, you are like the popular George Orwell meme: "Did I call it or what?". You certainly did, and sadly, suspect your predictions for the future will come to pass as well. It still seems the best way to not fight is to be very prepared TO fight. Was it the Romans who said "If thou would have peace, be prepared for war"?
Very well written, Sir! I fear you are right, and the killing will continue. Maybe until they run out of people to kill.
Henry Kissinger finally gets his wish—both sides are losing—only with different combatants than the ones he had in mind. Also, the foundations of a blood feud are under construction...and they're being built to last.
Unfortunately, you are correct .
Blood feud? Maybe. But this won't work out well for the Jews involved.
I thought any Jewish presence in that region was dealt with long ago by the combination of German actions in WWII followed by Soviet expulsions and voluntary relocations to Israel in the 1970s and after. Do I misunderstand my history?
Zelensky is a Jew, and so are many of the people that instigated this (Neuland, etc...)
The only way things can be resolved in favor of Ukraine (i.e., not giving up any land or concessions, at the least) is for there to be outside intervention. This can only take place, speculatively/fantasy, in two ways that avoids, perhaps, WWIII:
1) Let a coalition of the EU willing, (UK, France, Poland, Germany, et al) - without involving NATO - send troops and material to directly intervene and tip the scales to Ukraine and recover the lost lands. They could probably get it done, though not easily without our logistics backing them up. Hey, Russia is using Iran, NK, Chechnya, and China on the ground and for materials.
2) This is a reach and just a hypothetical as one of the only ways the scales can be tipped. We coordinate a Ukrainian ground offensive with a clandestine strike using already mobilized US stealth assets traveling to/from, say, Iran. If the Russians can't detect our stealth aircraft (Ukraine would have to put up anything they have in the air at the same time as a cover - maybe fly some of our growlers with their package in their colors), we could open up a pretty large hole for the Ukrainian ground forces to pour through - then it is up to the Ukrainians to finish up. A one time strike to facilitate a grand counteroffensive to cut off all GLOCs and unhinge the Russian position, causing them to withdraw. Though Putin might well decide to go with tactical nukes in these conditions. Russians might suspect we were involved, but if we leave no evidence (the Ukrainians do have access to our ordnance), what can they say? The price for that is a BUNCH of concessions from the EU and NATO like, say, Greenland and increasing their defense spending and troop levels to guard against the response from Russia.
The only other way is for NATO (which means US) to say, "Hey, we're moving our troops into Ukraine as peacekeepers - up to the Dnieper - and everything to the West of that, in our area, is off limits and protected." After all, that is Ukraine and they can let in anyone they want...they could even give it all to Poland (with a promise to give it back later) to make it go down easier. This would allow Ukraine to move all their efforts East of the river and might give enough of a local numbers advantage to have some offensive success. After all, how much more can the Russians put in the fight?
Otherwise, the Russians will keep going and play out the string. Eventually Ukraine will break under the stress...or if Russia comes close to breaking, they will use so-called "tactical" nukes. Because Putin is not just going to go home without some deux ex machina forcing it.
1) You're probably right - but that is a put up or shut up proposal, isn't it?? Put your ass where you are putting your money to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian? They'd love it if we did it, if WE took the casualties, and even if we did it WITH them, we'd take the brunt of it, as usual.
2) Well, they might be aware or they might not. Lots of aircraft moving around, some you can't track, or lose track of...and there is what you KNOW and what you can PROVE to take action, which are two different things. They sure aren't starting a war with NATO on what would, without proof, be on THEIR initiation. Then WE would be in it and it would be over relatively quickly, though not painlessly, and perhaps requiring additional measures.
As I said, if they get meaningfully dislodged or defeated, they may well use nukes.
Well, I tend to think the use of nuclear weapons anywhere would precipitate an intervention. Just as it would if it occurred between Pakistan and India. Can't let the genie get out of the bottle without a response to end it.
As to targeting data and weapons, there is a parity there with the Russians using the Chinese, Iranians, NKs, et al...so, not really any lines crossed that Russian hadn't already blown away. Just like in Vietnam.
Why do you see post-nuke intervention as essential? As long as the nukes are between the combatants, I see no particular reason to intervene. We know how to build fences...
Just stating the likely response...a nuclear country using weapons on a non-nuclear country would elicit a response. It just would...EU would go crazy and they have their own nukes.
They will launch nukes on us.
Why would they do that? You're supposed to hurt your enemy, not help them.
What you are advocating would mean nuclear war.
I didn't say I was advocating it...I was saying these actions were the only type that could result in a change in the status quo in favor of Ukraine.
Not that anybody should. Just what would be necessary. And NOT likely to happen for a whole host of reasons!
Fantasy dream. NATO troops in Ukraine but not called NATO, whether as combat or peacekeeping will start WWIII. Putin said no Nato in Ukraine and the west ignored him. He also said no peacekeeping troops and the west will ignore him at their peril. NATO is a paper tiger without the US and Trump won't take the bait. A NATO Expeditionary force wouldn't last a month in a drone intensive environment which they are ill-equipped to deal with. The war will stop when Putin has control of the Donbas and an agreement with Trump to have a demilitarized NATO-less Ukraine...Hard unpleasant reality.
Dick Minnis
removingthecataract.substack.com
Well, Dick, NATO weapons are sure in Ukraine now...but I don't see any NATO troops. I do see NK, Chechnya, and other troops on the Russian side...and Iranian and Chinese weapons/support. So, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Putin doesn't call those shots. While I'm not in favor of Ukraine in NATO, I'm also not giving Putin the idea he as a veto on anybody who chooses to join NATO...otherwise he would have said NO WAY to Finland, too.
In this case, as unlikely as it is because they like to yap and have the US do the work, the EU wants to take over and run things in Europe. Let them settle it since they are so concerned.
And I've got news for you. The "environment" would not be the same even with EU troops in the mix vs US. We would be willing to supply them with the newer 30MM proximity fused ammo for their helicopters and APKWS laser-guided hydra rockets (very cheap) to sanitize the front lines of drones.
So, no doubt, there will be a lot of killing until Ukraine succumbs or a deal is made or something happens with Putin. Hard unpleasant reality.
Exactly what leverage do you think the US has with Ukraine?
US is no longer supplying munitions, cash or intel...
Trump can do as much or as little as he likes...but the Ukrainians, and the Europeans backing them, are in the driving seat.
The only reason why anyone is tolerating Trump is because when the Russian's play him for the umpteenth time, with the Ukrainian's wisely agreeing to talk (knowing full well the Russian's will balk at a deal), he might (but its unlikely) actually understand that they're making a fool of him...
Too many experts have disparaged the Russian economy by calling it a gas tank with nuclear weapons or having a GDP less than that of Upper Volta. Yet this same country is able to build nuclear powered icebreakers and conduct ship transfers of LNG.
Likewise, the same experts have disparaged Russia’s slow advance not considering that it takes time to consolidate and secure gains or even if time is an important factor.
I think the real enemy is China. As far as I know we never lost a single job or factory to Russia. It is time to end this war by telling the Europeans to accede to Russia's reasonable demands or they are on their own.
Russian demands are not reasonable.
Your gas station however still has some national will and some latent manufacturing capacity.
I think they are. Four predominantly Russian provinces. No Ukraine in NATO. I am sure the Europeans are willing to lose another one million Ukrainians rather than yield.
Predominantly Russian via delibrate famine and Russification.
Maybe so but so what?
By your logic all of Hitler's demands were reasonable.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Also there is a danger in seeing every adversary as Hitler and every agreement as Munich.
It wasn't originally Russian, and the locals still want it back.
It wasn't originally Ukrainian either. It was Cossack country with refugees from serfdom in all the surrounding regions. Before that it was Ottoman and before that Mongol.
Much of France wasn't originally France, much of Italy ........ And in parts of Spain the locals "want it back", too. How far do you want to satisfy the claims of various ethnic groups? We should maybe follow the lead of Canada and give everything back to the multitude of "first nations"?
Does the word "Balkanization" sound familiar?
The Russification happened in the late 1800s because a British industrialist developed the resources of the Donbas and imported Russian workers to staff it. The famine in the Ukraine didn't happen in the Donbas but further West in the agricultural regions. There was also famine in Russia-in the N. Caucasus and along the Volga. Famine in Kazakhstan too that was worse per capita than the one in the Ukraine. These were a product of the Soviet drive to collectivize agriculture, not of a desire to Russify the Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Ukraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Your citations sort of make my point. Focusing on the Holodomor, however, ignores the famines in the other parts of the Soviet Union which were as bad or worse. The problem was communism. Russification definitely did occur as is common when an area gets incorporated into a larger entity. It is why Angela Merkel is fluent in Russian after all as well as why New Mexicans and Irish speak English. But the ancestors of the Russian speakers in the Donbas were imported by the British. Here is an animated map of European borders. Pay particular attention to the area north of the Black Sea currently known as Ukraine. You will see that Russia's gains in that area come at the expense of Poland, Lithuania and the Ottoman Empire. Other than a brief blip around WW1, Ukraine did not exist until 1991. Bottom line is that it is all stolen land-multiple times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9X0_Vb-4zc
"The Russification happened in the late 1800s because a British industrialist developed the resources of the Donbas and imported Russian workers to staff it."
It may have intensified in the late 1800s but it was ongoing since at least the 1500s, with Moscow overseeing extensive colonization and fortification there, as well as the breaking of several independent sichs, as well as linguistic repression.
"The famine in the Ukraine didn't happen in the Donbas but further West in the agricultural regions."
It happened throughout the USSR, including in areas of the Donbas. It was most INTENSIVE in Western/Central Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the North Caucasus but it also happened in the Donbas, and while most of that was probably accidental or due to Soviet mismanagement we know a lot of it was intentional with endemic blacklisting of communities and effectively marking them for death in the Donbas.
"There was also famine in Russia-in the N. Caucasus and along the Volga. Famine in Kazakhstan too that was worse per capita than the one in the Ukraine. These were a product of the Soviet drive to collectivize agriculture, not of a desire to Russify the Ukraine."
Half true. they were definitely mostly due to Soviet follies, but Russification and cultural genocide were intertwined, which is one reason why you see it happen alongside things such as forced sedentarism in Kazakhstan and massacres of cultural figures in places like Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
Russia didn't even control the area until the 1700s. The bulk was Polish and Lithuanian with some Cossack and Tatars in the South. To this day, Ukrainians aren't even the biggest minority in Crimea. The Tatars are.
So what? Much of Europe, and the world in general, is as it is because of such actions. A good part of Poland is Polish because of "ethnic cleansing", and the same can be said about much of the rest of Europe. And I doubt the Communists treated Ukraine much worse than they treated the rest of the USSR.
"I think they are."
I don't, but the above all is that if the Kremlin were willing to come to the table with consistent terms, STICK To them, declare in public that these are the last territorial demands I will have in Western Eurasia, and actually follow through it would at least be worth talking about.
But they're not. Which is one reason why the Kremlin moved on from its staunch declaration of "Denazifying Ukraine" indicating fundamental regime change and forced neutrality if not annexation of the country to the milder but still unacceptable terms afterwards, and when Trump came calling shifted goalposts again.
And above all, there's a lack of any kind of confidence in the Kremlin to stick to them any more than they stuck to Budapest, Astana, or Minsk I and II.
"Four predominantly Russian provinces."
Which Russia has never entirely controlled ever since the Soviet period, if not the fall of the Empire. They controlled around half the claimed territory in the Donbas as well as Crimea in 2014 before they started to get pushed back - helping to trigger the invasion in 2022 - and have failed to hammer out any kind of legitimate or stable government or control in the area. Even Crimea which at least in terms of demographics and popularity has the easiest case to make for that has significant opposition, especially when the Ukrainians took pains to turn off the water and start interdicting traffic in and out of the peninsula.
And being ethnically or linguistically Russian does not mean wanting to be one with Mother Rossiya. Zelenskyy's a native Russian Speaker. So is Andri Biletsky. And Kharkhiv went from being one of the most pro-Rusisan of the major cities in Ukraine to being the loyalist bulwark heavily bombarded by it. Odessa went from being a "swing oblast" and subject to many of the worst riots and protests in 2014 (including an infamous and lethal arson) to being rather stalwartly opposed to the Kremlin in part due to Russian naval bombardment.
In short, the Kremlin has no legitimate claim or title to the four provinces. And on some level it knows this, which is one reason why it refused to even table Zelenskyy's (unpopular even at the time) proposal to hold a plebiscite to divide the area based on vote. It has not even been able to illegitimately take and occupy all of them by force.
"No Ukraine in NATO."
That was not what the war was over. The initial crisis was over an Association Agreement with the EU, while Ukraine was not a member of NATO or even seeking to become one. But leaving that aside...
'So Russia, you want to nullify the Helsinki Final Act and the Astana Declaration that are the foundational documents of post-Cold War peace? Are you sure you want that?'
"I am sure the Europeans are willing to lose another one million Ukrainians rather than yield."
And so are the Ukrainians, in large part because with the likes of Medvedev running his mouth and memories of other atrocities they have little reason to believe such "peace" would be useful. And it's not like they didn't see Mutti Merkel and Obama engage in a shotgun marriage of an attempted peace at Minsk I and II.
Has nothing to do with reason, but what can be impossed.
The Russian goal is not to take land (that comes later) but to decimate Ukraine's ability to fight as cheaply as possible. No rush.
In the process, Putin is wasting Russia. Russia is not getting off cheap.
But still strong enough to threaten Europe?
Das is der frage. Russia has nukes and Putin is stupid enough to use them. That he would be committing suicide thereby does not seem to bother him.
Putting a cute quote in a foreign language before a stupid statement doesn't remove the stupidity of the statement.
That you think it's stupid is your problem. I could not care less about your personal problems.
"Too many experts have disparaged the Russian economy by calling it a gas tank with nuclear weapons or having a GDP less than that of Upper Volta. "
That's a mashup of two separate things, the whole "Upper Volta with Nuclear Weapons" thing. Though to be honest in some ways I'd argue the USSR had some disadvantages relative to Upper Volta/Burkina Faso in a few surprising ways (such as better internal accounting), but ultimately was a much more robust system in MOST ways (though not all) than the Russian Federation today.
"Yet this same country is able to build nuclear powered icebreakers and conduct ship transfers of LNG."
Burkina Faso can and did conduct ship transfers of LNG back in the bad old days, albeit mostly by paying foreigners (esp Soviet and Warsaw Pact staff) to do it. But agreed. However, the issue is that it struggles to build a lot else, in large part due to aging population, brain drain, and other issues. Which is why many of the roads just outside Moscow and St. Petersburg were worse than some in my native California.
"Likewise, the same experts have disparaged Russia’s slow advance not considering that it takes time to consolidate and secure gains or even if time is an important factor."
That's not the main reason why it's disparaged the Kremlin's "slow advance." The main reasons are threefold.
1. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Russian and Soviet doctrine tends to love a rapid decapitation strike at the onset of hostilities, quickly amassing forces and striking at the enemy's center of gravity to force a fait accompli. This was what was attempted in the infamous drive on Kyiv, it was what was successfully pulled off in Crimea on a much smaller scale and successfully to a lesser degree in the Donbas (mostly in the Center and East of it, esp after loyalist resistance in the inner cities of the regional capitals was put down in lengthy sieges), close-enough-to-successful in Georgia in 2008 (with the drive on Tblisi being stopped by US tripwire forces being deployed but still enough to limit Georgian reactions and to help underline the wider Russian victory) successfully so in Kabul 1979, Prague 1968, Budapest 1956, and so on.
This was not supposed to be a grinding war of attrition or slow advance, which is one reason why this has been so baffling.
2. Russia's "slow advance" has not been consistently advancing. This becomes most evident studying the kind of cold peace from 2015-2022, when the Kremlin and its proxy troops rather consistently lost ground in the Donbas to Ukrainian Loyalists (more on the later), but you also see it in things like the brief if ultimately ill fated Kursk operation and more significantly with the latest Ukrainian counterattacks that has led to the Kremlin outright lying about frontline results to the frustration of even pro-Kremlin war effort supporters like Rybar.
3. The argument only works if the gains are actually secured or consolidated, but what evidence we have there is that the Kremlin has kind of sucked at that. There are still Ukrainian guerilla cells operating in Crimea, even if mostly in a non-kinetic fashion (largely as intelligence gatherers), and in the Donbas you still see bridges and rails blown, ambushes, and so forth in a level that's kind of shocking to me given the mostly positional nature of the fighting. The DNR and LNR have supposedly existed for more than a decade but they have proven unable to keep the lights on or to legitimize themselves as something more than warlord states, which is one reason why Poroshenko's speech on why Ukraine would win the war (misquoted as it often is) still hurts. Attempts by the Kremlin to conflate ethnic Russianness or linguistic or literary use of Russian with identification with a "Russian World" have fallen flat and if anything have done moreso as the war has gone on. Good luck annexing Kharkhiv into Russia or "Novorossiya" outside of outright taking it in what would likely be urban fighting even more intense than that which plagued inner city Luhansk and Donetsk in 2014.
"I think the real enemy is China."
The PRC's definitely one of our main enemies, along with the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and the like. But the "organs" in charge of the Russian government- the secret police, military and intelligence apparatchiks, and so on - have solidly distinguished themselves as secondary enemies by inclination and choice, and have refused significant attempts to get them on side, and will serve as allies of our main enemies for the foreseeable future, even at the direct opposition of much of Russian public opinion such as against Chinese penetration in Siberia and at the time over the obfuscation and America Baiting about the Kursk Submarine disaster.
As such I view there as being no great purpose in expending effort trying to get people who will never like us and barely tolerate our existence to be friends or allies with us against their chief chosen ally and patron.
"As far as I know we never lost a single job or factory to Russia. "
Yeah, I'd advise talking to some Texas or Alaskan Oilmen- especially those of a previous generation but still now- about that, or to the military production people, but then I'd have to attend your funeral. And that's just some of the areas we're direct competitors in high visibility areas as opposed to direct ones in low visibility areas (including optics ironically enough, where Russia is and remains the world leader in high quality optics) or indirectly (such as the Kremlin sponsoring Venezuelan oil and our own Green Energy idjiots).
"It is time to end this war by telling the Europeans to accede to Russia's reasonable demands or they are on their own."
Ok, what are the "reasonable demands"? Can you list them?
I can list several. The issue is that they are inconsistent and keep changing. Which is why this doesn't work and would not end the war. And also why in spite of being in an almost laboratory condition for a more favorable outcome the Kremlin has still refused to come to a final settlement for the Moldovan conflict regarding Transnistria. In a lot of ways the powers that be in the Kremlin do not want to put an end to the conflict, and even if that doesn't want an outright war going on into the future that's something they are prepared to suffer.
"It is time to end this war by telling the Europeans to accede to Russia's reasonable demands or they are on their own."
What the US is going to cut off weapons, money and intel to Ukraine??
Errr....they already have....
Europeans have figured out they're on their own already....
The result so far is a desperate US Ambassador begging Europe not to stop buying US weapons....
Your analysis is flawed because you point the finger at historical Russian as the cause of this war when in fact it was the west and the neo-cons pushing a coup in Ukraine to install a government amicable to NATO membership. The US reacted to nuclear missiles being stationed in Cuba, but Russia is supposed to accept them in Ukraine? Putin said Nato in Ukraine was a red line and the west did it anyway. I'm not a Putin fan nor am I a NATO/EU fan. The Minsk 1&2 accords had the Russian speaking Donbas remaining in Ukraine as a demilitarized buffer and no NATO.
Russia knows how to fight a brutal grinding war as they did in WW2, and this conflict will end when Putin controls the Donbas which isn't that far off. Yes, the Ukrainians have fought bravely but the industrial capacity and population vis a vis Ukraine is similar to that of the North vis a vis the South in our Civil War with the same predictable result.
Nato is a corrupt paper tiger as you pointed out, and Trump wants no part of a land war in Europe. Yes, you are correct in saying there will be a lot more killing but it won't change the results, and it was all so avoidable.
Dick Minnis
removingthecataract.substack.com
Funny thing is Luzhkov and other former CCCP movers and shakers were calling for Ukraine to brought back into the CIS fold thirty years ago while calling Gorbachev and Yeltsin traitors for ceding independence to Ukraine. Both sides were agitating.
Get real. Ukraine rose against Yanukovych because he betrayed his country with the EU adn was getting ready to betray it to Russia. The Ukrainians have been under Russia before and they had no desire to do it again. That is why they fight.
Ukrainian industry has risen to the point that about 50% of their material and weapons needs are being supplied from Ukrainian sources. Ukraine has destroyed a lot of Russian industrial capacity adn Russian oil processing capacity is down a lot. Some estimates place it at being down 40-50% down. Russian rail is having serious problems getting oil products needed to fight to the people that need it. How much longer the rail system is going to be able to keep going is a serious question. From the losses of rolling stock and prime movers, it could collapse at any time.
Financially, Russia is on a razor's edge. Even Russian economists are predicting collapse this summer. Putin has stupid forced banks to make loans that can not be repaid, and many of those loans come due this year adn the companies can not repay them, as expected. With that, the banks are expected to collapse.
The neo-con business of them urging the coup has been shown to be simple minded BS. Yanukovych would have been allowed to finish his term, but he ran for asylum to Russia, abandoning his office. He ousted himself. There was no coup.
Eventually Ukraine will lose. Even if they give up territory to gain time, Russia will rebuild and come back for more ground. The best they can hope for in the immediate future is a prolonged drone war as they trade bits of territory back and forth. It's like trench warfare with new tech like drones added for flavor. While maybe not today, my bet is Ukraine is subsumed within the next 30 years.
Couldya make that 20 years? I like to find out how it ends...
Perhaps we'll see the slow attack on the baltics then too.
It may have been Putin but they put out a statement last week during a press conference that countries that discriminate against their Russian speaking population would be on their radar.
It won't be that long. I'll be surprised if it is a year but Russia can maintain the current pace indefinitely.
Russian economists are saying it will this summer.
So what? Ukraine was part of Russia for hundreds of years and it didn’t bother us then.
The eastern most parts of the US were parts of the UK as colonies for a couple hundred years. Should it not bother us if the UK demanded we become their subjects again?
For better or worse, the mismanagement of the Soviet communists caused their empire to fall apart and many entities were granted the real sovereignty they had pretended existed for 70 years. Doesn't mean they can then unilaterally claim "do overs." One does not get a mulligan on such things.
It bothered at least a few million Ukrainians in the 30s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Makes the American Dust Bowl look like a temporary shortage of Szechuan sauce at McDonald's.
Not going to happen. Russia has an appointment on the mountains of Israel, along with a number of other peoples and only one sixth of the coalition army is going to go home.
Even if that were not the case, Russia is not going to be rebuilding. It won't have the people to do so.
Good Afternoon CDR Salamander,
Thank you for permitting me to write…
This afternoon I heeded by own CCP warning saying “No” to the Asian Dog Groomer wearing headphones.
American Kennel Club (AKC) rules teach us dog trainers how to introduce your dog to a stranger.
“No” means “No”, hear that my shipmates!
Girl or Boy, Man or Woman in English, “No” is a “Sacred Word” in America!
Not so in other countries!
Thank you to my two (2) shipmates sending me a “Like”,
Now, please read below! Afghanistan and Pakistan … think Iran… and sit back clutching your stomach!
I have personal experience with men from
Pakistan, anbout 2002-2004; and my Turkish Warrant Officer, Dursun Iribas, 1993 - 2013, everlasting be his memory!
My boots were on the ground twice in the Kingdom of Jordan, March and December 2005!
I do not trust the Iraqis! I don’t trust the Turks! I don’t trust the Jordanians! I don’t trust the Sub-Continent Indians nor the Pakistanis!
So who do I trust? I trust my faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Be safe tonight, Tuesday 23 February because the Democrats are going to be raging while POTUS tries to speak. God Bless America! Nurse Jane
—-…—-TASS—-…—-
“The border dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan is among the world’s longest. The delimitation agreement between British and Afghan possessions was signed by Emir Abdur Rahman Khan and Henry Mortimer Durand in Kabul in 1893. Afghanistan has been refusing to recognize the Durand Line as the official border since 1947, after establishment of independent Pakistan. The dispute was often the cause of armed conflicts and uprisings in border areas.“
I can't write enough in your small post. But the German question is based upon the eventual breakout from the US/British strangle hold. Once that happens (and it will be soon) then the German juggernaut will return (like in the early 1930s). The Germans will restablish their control over the western European continent. The Russian stand off will become the next WWIII. The US will be in standby again as they were in the last major wars. But the nuclear potential will be a major factor.
Encouraging the Germans to rearm seems like a bad idea. Fortunately, I don't think they can pull it off given the demographics and the Green cult.
Exactly. The west (Europe, Canada and the US) have passed the point of no return for easy long term fixes.
And given their welfare state. "Guns and butter" is not a good idea.
The tepid support for Ukraine shown by the last 2 administrations has helped to continue this war: The Biden administration by placing constraints on the employment of US supplied weapons, and the Trump administration’s insistence that Putin could be persuaded to negotiate in good faith. We should be providing Ukraine with overwhelming superiority to bring this war to a conclusion on the battlefield. Instead, we have leadership who wants to rattle the saber with Iran to get back to the same deal it canceled during his first term. Just shaking my head.
Preventing a radical group of fanatics bent on world conquest from obtaining nuclear weapons is a bit more important than another in a long line of European border squabbles
Putin's war is not a border squabble. It is a war for empire.
Hadn’t you heard? Trump “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability. He’s an idiot.
Your comment is so laughable. If Trump were serious about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, he wouldn’t have withdrawn from the JCPOA for no other reason than it was negotiated under the Obama administration. Instead, we are threatening military force, with no support from the Arab nations or our allies, in another endless war that ignores the Powell Doctrine, just to get back to the JCPOA
I guess you would have been ok with Germany taking the Sudetenland and then all of Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, etc., as just another European border squabble. The lesson of history is appeasement doesn’t work with dictators and ultimately has consequences for the US and our national interests. You’ve got the wrong regime associated with world conquest. Putin is the existential danger.
I’m resigned to more killing. It’s sad and maddening.
I honestly don’t care about the historical references because when it’s all said and done it’s just hate.
Civilians die because Putin is a pig and Zelenskyy is corrupt.
My cartoon bubble (because I’m not really a military guy and I just loathe Putin) is simply draw lines, bring in 1,000 M1’s from our team and just push the Russians out of Ukraine and be done with it.
Sigh - ultimately it’s just more evil leadership that results in the innocent dying.
Putin is a pig, but Putin started a war adn the Ukrainians either fight or die. Putin has said he means to destroy Ukraine as a political entity adn Ukrainians as an ethnicity. Putin made the serious mistake of putting Ukrainians on a death ground. It was an act of massive idiocy adn the same mistake the Germans made with the USSR.
This war is reminiscent of World War 1 after 1916…the combatants have so much blood invested that a peace reflecting the actual battlefield results would produce a coup. And I suspect that is how this will end, with a coup that enables the blame to be buried with the deposed leader.
As for NATO, we have to face facts. Western Europe is headed for a very rough time. The importation of Moslems from the Middle East and North Africa has created nothing but trouble, and the existing regimes refuse to take responsibility for what they have done. With the exception of Italy, I think the Old NATO will be too busy with civil unrest to provide more than a token force.
The New NATO is a different story. They are all too familiar with the Russian jackboot. And are determined to never feel it on their faces again. Were I in their shoes, I’d be working on nuclear weapons. MAD keeps the peace.
I don't think those imported Muslims will be willing to fight on their host countries' behalf against Russia.
Neither will ours.
Ukraine should be building nukes as well. The Budapest Agreement was violated so they have the right to obtain them again. The former eastern block should also be after them.