Subscribe
Notify of
guest
98 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul O
Paul O
5 months ago

Maybe people are finally waking up to the fact that a diplomatic solution should have always been on the table. Instead the rampant propaganda in the west has created a gung-ho warmongering attitude that doesn’t seem to care how many lives are cut short.

The writer talks about Ukrainians wanting to keep the country whole, and indeed many of course will (clearly not all) , but the same could have been said of some in Yugoslavia.

It is odd that we are now living in a world where the west shuns diplomacy at every turn, has no qualms about invading other countries they decide they don’t agree with (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc), but then gets all self-righteous when someone else does the same.

Where are the diplomats and the peace seekers.

Johnson, Truss, Biden et al (and much of the British public) may want to fight to the last Ukrainian, but that doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do.

Jonathan Keats
Jonathan Keats
5 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

We need to be careful not to make this a WWWIII stand – and be sucked in by default
We like Ukraine need to consolidate rebuild and rethink..Kissinger was always right re diplomacy.
We should support Ukraine but Boris was in his “Billy Liar” Churchill dreamscape with his bellicose utterings

Amos Sullivan
Amos Sullivan
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan Keats

The idiots advising Biden may very well push Putin into a position where he has to utilize tactical nukes. Let us hope he does, Europe needs a wake up call as to why they should have embraced Trump.

First Name
First Name
4 months ago
Reply to  Amos Sullivan

Let’s hope Putin embraces tactical nukes? Who do you think would come out the winner if that were to happen? Answer: probably nobody. Also, Putin didn’t “have” to invade Ukraine in the first place, so it’s silly to speak of Russia as some kind of victim in all this. And we should have embraced Trump? Why?Because he would probably have cheered Putin on and maybe even offered assistance? Next thing you know people like you will be cheering on North Korea to invade the South again.

Kevin Dee
Kevin Dee
5 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

The only question I have about the western strategy is whether it is pure incompetence or orchestrated in some way. The FBI and Mi5 warned us about China this week, we’ve managed to reverse the divide and conquer strategy and push Russia into their arms, all the while our own economies are in dire straights.

Amos Sullivan
Amos Sullivan
4 months ago
Reply to  Kevin Dee

The Military Industrial Congressional Complex will push more war to give themselves more opportunities to raid the American taxpayer coffers.

Andrew F
Andrew F
5 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

All sounds so reasonable till you scratch the surface.
It is Russia which doesn’t not care how many die.
If Ukraine wants to fight why people like you are against helping the country?
Your appeasement of Russia is no different to appeasement of Hitler with bits of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
You and other Russian stooges on various forums keep repeating the claims about Russia limited war goals.
Hitler said the same and then what happened? ww2
If Russia war aims are so limited and their case so noble why Finland and Sweden joined NATO?

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
5 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Spot on Andrew, but you won’t be too popular for saying that.

Perry de Havilland
Perry de Havilland
5 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Entirely correct, Andrew, Russian apologists who claim to be ‘realists’ are no more realistic than Chamberlain was. Moreover, the technical means by which Ukraine can and must defeat Russia in Ukraine is also also quite well understood. Russia has an economy comparable to Italy. The Russian army is a 20th century army with 19th century logistic fighting a 21st century enemy.

P Branagan
P Branagan
5 months ago

Comparing the current situation in Ukraine to appeasement in the 1930s is simply infantile thinking. If Hitler had nukes he would have used them from Day1 and we’d all be speaking German.

In case you don’t know Monsieur de Havilland Russia has over 5,500 nuclear weapons, ~1,250 of which are primed ready to launch.

I, for one, have a very high level of confidence that in the event of the Russians beginning to lose the war they will use those weapons and will escalate all the way to nuclear annihilation.

But hey! there are so many dumb people in the world maybe that would be no bad thing. And it’ll even give them beetles a chance of running things!

Ian Gribbin
Ian Gribbin
5 months ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Exactly…these muppets have no idea about Realpolitik…they demonstrate their utter ignorance by making comparisons with 1938.

They are a huge problem for Britain. Our education system needs massive change to enlighten them.

Amos Sullivan
Amos Sullivan
4 months ago
Reply to  P Branagan

I got kicked off from Disqus for saying Putin was no Hitler and that if anyone channeled Hitler it was Biden and the fools who are globalists.

Sascha Lombard
Sascha Lombard
4 months ago

Either you are dumb or you don’t have Idee what modern weapons the Russians are using ,iskander, kalibr, hypersonic missile t57 are for you 20th Center weapons

Paul O
Paul O
5 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

“It is Russia which doesn’t not care how many die”

Please tell me what is so different about what we did in Iraq and what Russia is doing in Ukraine, other than we killed LOTS more civilians.

Is it okay when we invade other countries to impose regime change, but nobody else is allowed to do it?

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
5 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

I think this is one of the worst cases of whataboutery I’ve seen. The topic is Ukraine, today, now. Delving into history and ethics lessons isn’t realism, it’s deflection.

Paul O
Paul O
5 months ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

Try telling that the MILLIONS of Iraqis, Afghans, Lybians, and Syrians who lost family, that their loss is just ‘whataboutery’.

It might be whataboutery or deflection to you Judy, but their loss and hatred of what the west did is as real now as ever.

Our invasions of their countries may mean nothing to you, but to them their grief is every bit as real as the grief felt by Ukrainians today.

It shouldn’t matter where in the world these tragedies have happened or who invaded who and why, the door should always be wide open for a non-violent diplomatic solution.

Lisa I
Lisa I
4 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

Yep, one thing that’s stood out to me is how so many of us feel more empathy for fellow Europeans over middle easterners. I know we are geographically and culturally closer and all that. It still is a bit disconcerting though.

Kerry Davie
Kerry Davie
4 months ago
Reply to  Lisa I

“disconcerting”? More ‘reassuring’, even comfortably ‘predictable’, I would have thought.

P Branagan
P Branagan
5 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Unfortunately, BECAUSE RUSSIA SEES THIS WAR AS EXISTENTIAL there are only 2 possible outcomes: 1) Russia achieves all its objectives or 2) All out thermonuclear war and the effective end of humankind.
Discussion of any other possible outcomes is just waffle.

But hey! beetles WILL survive so not all will be lost.
BTW there’s emerging evidence that beetles have potentially more intelligence than the bone headed dimwit politicians from the so-called West, who through their ill thought out sanctions have just set up a gigantic economic circular firing squad.
READY, AIM F…

Tom SteChatte
Tom SteChatte
5 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

You know nothing about WWII except that your high school history teacher told you Hitler was “appeased.” Hitler would never have risen to power in the 1930s if it hadn’t been for the warmongering corruption of the UK, US, and France, who perverted a tiny border dispute with Germany in 1914 into a massive bloodbath, all a giant sacrifice to usher in what is now the Satanic New World Order. Then those same Jew-hating Satanists propped Hitler up for 5 years–fully aware of his atrocities–until he got out of control and attacked Satanic France. Then after sacrificing millions more people to Satan in WWII, those same Satanist oligarchs (aka known as US, UK, and French Bankers) replaced Nazi Germany with the even more genocidal USSR. But the USSR is gone now. The only formal vestiges of that era left ironically are the Neo-Nazis running around murdering Russians in eastern Ukraine, an area that was, in fact, Russia, until it was arbitrarily designated as “Ukraine” by the SOVIETS! But all you care about is some 80-year-old mantra taught us by warmongers to gin up hatred for one of their own who went only slightly off script, whom they previously created, promoted, funded, and covered up for in the New York Times! You are a minion. Your masters gleefully count on your blood for their next mass sacrifice.

Ian Gribbin
Ian Gribbin
5 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Western ignorance is built on false comparisons with the 1930s. You see it everywhere. Such a crass society.

Richard Healy
Richard Healy
5 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

As long as the United States is involved Ukraine will have the means to fight. The American goal is not so much to save Ukraine as it is to put an end to the world’s perception that Russia is the big bad bear of geopolitics. It takes time to gear up to fight a war with limited supplies of weapons and appropriate training of personnel to operate them. But as each month goes by the ability of Ukraine to fight is getting and will get stronger. Let us remember, in World War II it took the allies a full year to produce the armaments and train sufficient personnel to successfully fight the Nazi hyena. By late fall, in 2022 the same will be said of the Ukraine and its allies. Watch out Moscow. Your timely end is coming.

Dominique Bastien
Dominique Bastien
4 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

There is a huge difference in the situations. In 1938, Hitler presented an imminent and massive threat to England. Hence, the betrayal of Czechoslovakia was a mistake. In 2022, Russia presents no such threat to the West. In fact, we have daily confirmation that they are no threat at all.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
5 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

There’s no money in diplomacy.

Paul O
Paul O
5 months ago

You’re very right Allison.

martin logan
martin logan
5 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

Putin & Co ae simple psychotics.
They know that Russia will never be a significant economic power again. So their only plausible national objective is to eradicate any Ukrainian who doesn’t totally change their identity to Russian, and comply with every decree the Kremlin puts out.
They will continue with that goal even after a “peace deal.” They can still get very much support for it among a Russian populace now about as well-informed as in Stalin’s time.
The “negotiation lobby” actually gives good reasons why the Warsaw Ghetto should have negotiated with its besiegers in 1943.

Richard Healy
Richard Healy
5 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

And, most importantly… where the hell is Putin, the guy who started this war?

Su Mac
Su Mac
4 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

In our information age in is both wise and possible to be sceptical about the origins of wars, especially as this one actually started in 2014 with what the head of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor called “the most blatant coup in history.”
An extract from a compelling list of underreported facts from a substacker…see article below for live links to sources.
“Jacques Baud, a former NATO intelligence analyst wrote about the OSCE reports, “On 17 February, President Joe Biden announced that Russia would attack Ukraine in the next few days. How did he know this? It is a mystery. But since the 16th, the artillery shelling of the population of Donbas had increased dramatically, as the daily reports of the OSCE observers show.”
While the western media spent the last year reporting on Russia’s troop buildup at the Ukrainian border, they failed to inform the public about Ukraine amassing “half of it’s army or 125,000 troops” along the Donbas conflict zone during this same time period.
Ukraine began to reposition its forces along the Donbas as early as March 24, 2021, when Volodymyr Zelensky issued a decree for the recapture of the Crimea, and began to deploy his forces to the south of the country.
It is unlikely Zelensky would make such an aggressive decree without first receiving the approval of the United States and NATO.
In April 2021, the Ukrainian government publicly announced that they would seek nuclear weapons if they were not issued membership in NATO.
This further signified that Ukraine intended to cross Vladimir Putin’s line in the sand by either joining NATO or placing nuclear weapons on Russia’s doorstep.”
https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/osce-reports-reveal-ukraine-started

Amos Sullivan
Amos Sullivan
4 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

The idiot Biden was informed in June 2021 Russia planned to invade, he did nothing for 9 mos until Putin invaded and then idiot Joey tried to spin he was a diplomat.
UKRINE DIES as BIDEN LIES!

John McKee
John McKee
4 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

You are so right. This is needless slaughter. See Alfred de Zayas’s web site: Human rights Corner.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
5 months ago

The Russians made major screw ups at the start of the war and they paid for it. Overconfidence, poor logistics, and an underestimation of American supplied small arms hurt them. It was not enough to knock them out of the fight. There were three problems so many obnoxious cheerleaders and pundits who were predicting an easy Russian defeat made. The Russians can always switch tactics, they have a lot of reserve resources, and the Ukrainians have little reserve resources. Seriously, why were people so steadfast in their belief that both sides were going to just keep using the same tactics and overall strategy for an entire war, even when you would have to be insane to do so? Incidents like trying to stage troops at an airbase that keeps getting annihilated notwithstanding. The way the Russians are fighting the war now is boring, cold blooded, measured, and brutally effective. It now seems to be a war of attrition and logistics. Guerilla warfare might turn out to be a Russian nightmare at some point in the future, but with Ukrainian forces desperately trying to hold the line or push them back, that is not feasible at the moment.
Edit: I would also like to thank Roussinos for his excellent, on the ground reporting during this war.

Last edited 5 months ago by Matt Hindman
rk syrus
rk syrus
5 months ago

Besides Prof Mearsheimer is anyone else considering realistic ways from this point onwards to avoid additional mounds of corpses and the further wrecking (dissolution?) of Ukraine?
Askin’ for a friend in Moscow 😀

Peter B
Peter B
5 months ago
Reply to  rk syrus

Nothing Professor Mearsheimer says is remotely realistic. He goes on repeating the same tired script for year after year. Events have taught him nothing.
The responsibility for the deaths and destruction lies in one place and one place only – Moscow.

Jonathan Keats
Jonathan Keats
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Its un-empathetic one eyed views like that, that cause wars.
I agree Russia should never have pulled the trigger but the US knew it was goading an irrational bully, both with Maidan and then the Sept 21 unilateral with Ukraine re getting them into NATO, and must take some responsibility along with Ukraine for its unusual language laws and nazi icon support

martin logan
martin logan
5 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan Keats

Indeed, aren’t we responsible for Putin’s psychosis, rather than him?
If we had only let him take Ukraine in 2014…

Richard Healy
Richard Healy
5 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan Keats

NATO (including the USA) made an offer to Ukraine to join in 2014. Ukraine declined. However, as a Ukrainian identity has grown, and as Russian belligerence has become more pronounced, it chooses now to become an EU and NATO partner. This is independent Ukraine’s choice, not America’s. Nor should Russia have any say.

Last edited 5 months ago by Richard Healy
Andrew F
Andrew F
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Exactly.
In one of his videos he presents diagram showing support for either European or Russian option within Ukrainian society.
Out of about 50 Districts of the country only two show preference for Russian option and even then it was not majority of the population.
All regions of Ukraine voted for independence in 1991 referendum.
Donbass and Luhansk at over 80% and even in Crimea it was 54%.
So both prof Mearsheimer and people who rely on him are peddling lies.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
5 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

I agree that the separstists in Ukraine do not want to jo8n Russia. They did not support an illegitimate and US backed coup

martin logan
martin logan
5 months ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

By that logic, every govt in history is illegitimate.
Every nation has had regime changes as in Ukraine. If any govt elected afterward is then deemed illegitimate, then the entire UN is made up of illegitimate govts.
QED

michael harris
michael harris
5 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

That is the make up of a fair proportion of the UN, though not all of it.

Neven Curlin
Neven Curlin
5 months ago
Reply to  rk syrus

Perhaps Jeffrey Sachs? I can’t think of any other intellectual or academic with any weight that has a rational view on the whole situation.

Tom SteChatte
Tom SteChatte
5 months ago

These journalistic assessments always make me laugh. “Russia was forced to change tactics and use artillery…” Um, Russia invented the battlefield doctrine of saturation artillery. It defeated Hitler. It instilled fear in NATO for 40 years. Russia doesn’t begrudgingly relegate itself to artillery; it literally loves to bomb its enemies into oblivion. Beyond that, Russia never intended a paltry SMO force of 300,000 to conquer the entire country, or even occupy Kiev. If it did intend that, then yes, Russia is dumber than a box of rocks. From the beginning, troop movements have been orchestrated to liberate the 100% ethnically Russian eastern fifth of Ukraine and not obliterate infrastructure; and that is occurring relatively successfully. It isn’t war. War obliterates everything. No, it’s as Putin announced, an SMO. Further confirmation of this is the extremely limited use of manned combat aircraft. These are expensive deep strike assets, and therefore not needed if you have your targets within range of cheap, 500 KIA-per-day artillery. If Russia were interested in “conquering” Ukraine, then we would hear about hundreds of sorties per day, flying in every direction for hundreds of miles. Then again, if Burisma Joe keeps sending guided missiles to the Ukie-nazis, then we may see a Russian escalation into manned bombing runs, even into border states. But as of now, with 6 months of hindsight, would I have prosecuted this SMO like Putin has? Probably not. I would have made Kiev go dark on Day 1, destroyed all of Ukraine’s power grid, and THEN gone to work dismantling the regional Nazi oppression in Eastern Ukraine. I also would have invaded Odessa in the first week, too. But I’m a student of the William Tecumseh Sherman School of War is Hell. Russia, on the other hand, looks incapable of modern combined arms warfighting. Maybe it is. Or maybe it’s just trying to prove that this SMO really isn’t 1939 Poland. That would be a naive and foolish hope. Because if this silly Ukie-fawning article is any bellwether, the NWO Media Machine is 100% running with the ironic narrative that Putin is the reanimation of Hitler!

Last edited 5 months ago by Tom SteChatte
John McKee
John McKee
4 months ago
Reply to  Tom SteChatte

A thoughtful comment which deserves calm consideration.

David Bruce
David Bruce
4 months ago
Reply to  Tom SteChatte

Some good points. The media just seem to gobble up this notion unquestioned that Putin wants to take the whole of Ukraine, even the whole of Europe! That would be as likely as it would be possible: it wouldn’t be. And Putin knows that – he remembers Afghanistan and how that invasion and occupation basically brought down the USSR.

Ian Gribbin
Ian Gribbin
5 months ago

Lesson 1 for liberal do-gooders: sovereignty is meaningless unless you have your own military might to defend your borders. Without that, you’re not a sovereign state, no matter how many bits of internationally signed paper you have.

Ian Gribbin
Ian Gribbin
5 months ago

Give it up pal. The only thing we are going to learn from the Ukraine war is the level of stupidity of western leaders: their lack of Realpolitik, their incompetence and total lack of guile.

In Britain specifically we need to exorcise the cult of Churchill and recognize that in both policy and military strategy, he was abysmal. The author demonstrates this continued ignorance.

British people have this weird thing about putting other nations above their own citizens too. I guess this is buried in our Puritan roots – made worse today by the collapse of the church. Everyone – especially our middle class are so desperate to demonstrate their morality via virtue signaling, instead of having their good opinions of themselves confirmed in church.

No more yellow and blue flags, no more green cult, no more spoon banging for the NHS, let’s stop looking for the latest fashionable cause to jump on to please

Last edited 5 months ago by Ian Gribbin
Richard Healy
Richard Healy
5 months ago
Reply to  Ian Gribbin

Spoken like a true Brit..

Konstantinos Stavropoulos
Konstantinos Stavropoulos
5 months ago

I would warm-heartedly suggest to the very worthy and capable Aris Russinos a summer holiday in Greece. I am not being ironic. It could indeed offer him a fresh look on this war. Even more so if he took the opportunity to grasp the views of the massive majority of Greeks who stand against the western heavy involvement in this war. Why on earth should “a pan-Western effort” take place..? The Hitler paradigm is totally unjustified. Russia wants to be a great power. Probably this is not the healthiest dream and goal for a country. On the other hand, it is more probable that the existence of a few competing great powers leads to a better balance if compared to the one and only western or other kind empire. Regrettably, what we get at the moment is the sacrifice of so many young and older people for goals so vague or even scary.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
5 months ago

No one should depend on shaky Joe Biden to come through on anything. His mental enfeeblement is accelerating and he had no core beliefs when he had a mind.

John McKee
John McKee
4 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Amen!

David Bruce
David Bruce
4 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

I think the Democrats have always had an unpragmatic policy towards Russia and partiality to the former Eastern Bloc. I would imagine there are close relations at personal levels. It started with Albright and NATO expansion. As with the Israel-Palestine conflict, especially under Bush I/Baker, we saw much more realpolitik, but I also think more fairness.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
5 months ago

The problem is that the US and its allies have to be careful. Russia is not fully mobilized for war. They’re trying to fight this war with Ukraine the same way the US fought Afghanistan and Iraq, on the cheap with minimal levels of civilian disruption. Our strategists know this, and they don’t really want to push Putin hard enough to change the status quo. Our strategists want to support Ukraine enough to appear to be on the side of democracy, but they don’t want to risk a war with a possibly mentally unstable dictator who has more nuclear weapons than anyone. There’s also the reality that the US won’t commit militarily to anyone so long as the current stare-down over Taiwan continues. Biden has admitted multiple times now what most strategic minds already suspected, that the US would go to war with China over Taiwan. As much as he has tried to backtrack, the strategic realities suggest that he was speaking truthfully. If we push Putin into all-out war, there’s no way to be sure China wouldn’t take his side, and with Russia’s resources married to China’s manufacturing might, they make a formidable opponent. As much as we all want Ukraine to win, there’s a non-zero probability we could start WWIII if we push Putin too hard. There’s no knowing who would win such a war and how many millions might die. It’s that fear, more than anything else, that prevents more robust support for Ukraine, and it’s a justified fear. It’s impossible to know what’s going on in Putin’s head, or Xi’s.

Last edited 5 months ago by Steve Jolly
Keith Mcmaugh
Keith Mcmaugh
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

We absolutely know Putin and Xi’s thinking, it’s the same as Biden and Zelensky. None of them will accept defeat.
My best guess is when Germany, maybe France, suffers too much economic pain, unemployment and high costs of everything and discomforts from lack of electricity, then diplomacy will ensue.
This winter’s cold will determine the course of the war, when Europe will suffer greatly and then have to fight mass refugees from Africa and Middle East. Poland takes in huge amounts of Ukraine refugees but not Brown/Black refugees.
Russia, if sharp, might expedite the migration.
The united Nato membership may not be solid when costs are too much to bear. UKRAINE is not vital to Nato.

Neven Curlin
Neven Curlin
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

But everyone knows what’s going on in Biden’s head, eh?

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
5 months ago
Reply to  Neven Curlin

I’m not sure whether you’re being serious or setting up an obvious joke here, but I’ll bite. He’s said three times we would defend Taiwan. My guess is this didn’t come from his own head as I doubt much of anything does or ever has. He’s an establishment politician through and through and always has been, and he bends whichever way the wind is currently blowing. I think there’s not much he says or thinks that doesn’t come from one or another of his aides, advisors, and other handlers. One of them probably told him in private what we would do in the event of an attack on Taiwan and how we would do it, and then when a reporter asked a question, he opened his mouth and repeated what he’d been told before his better judgement kicked in. He’s always been gaffe prone when speaking off the cuff, and now he’s almost 80, so yeah, I think he accidentally said the exact truth as he’s heard it from some top brass at the Pentagon. If you have a different interpretation of these facts, I respect that.

Richard Healy
Richard Healy
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I wouldn’t worry about China. For a starter, the Chinese have never trusted the Russians. When someone threatens to nuke your country over a border dispute you lose faith in his friendship very fast. Likewise, Russia no longer is able to supply China with oil from its Siberian pumping stations. Western techs who maintained their far eastern facilities’ operational capacity have gone home. It wouldn’t be totally surprising to see the Chinese join with NATO to open an eastern front should the trench style war in the Ukraine continue on, for say, a year or more. Regaining control of Manchuria would give the Chinese direct access to the Arctic so they could dig wells and pump their own oil. And, lastly, China is a country heavily dependent upon imports and exports with America being their biggest customer. The Chinese, like every other country, enjoys the ongoing protection that the American Navy provides to businesses worldwide, on the high seas. Should America withdraw that support, China’s economy would collapse within a matter of months. So what would China have to gain by allying with Russia against the West? At most, a few cases of cheap Russian vodka and a tin of sturgeon eggs. Hello.

Last edited 5 months ago by Richard Healy
D Walsh
D Walsh
5 months ago

Of course the Russians are winning, they still have an Air Force and have the ability to strike any target in the Ukraine, the Neo cons are going to lose another war, God bless Vladimir Putin
Once Odessa falls the Ukraine could collapse into civil war, I’d expect Poland and other counties to move in a reclaim lost territory. a total disaster, they should have took the deal they were offered

Last edited 5 months ago by D Walsh
martin logan
martin logan
5 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

Funny thing.
The Russian air force now can only strike on the front lines, or from deep in Belarus or Russia. It has not, and now can never attain air superiority.
There are just too many anti-air and anti-missiles systems in Ukraine right now.
Now Russia can never win. The only question is how bad it loses.

D Walsh
D Walsh
5 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

They don’t need air superiority over 100% of the Ukraine, they are still flying something like 200 sorties a day over the Donbas, that starts to add up, the SU 25 and Hind-d are perfect for this war and Russia has plenty of them
The US military couldn’t win a war in these conditions with no Air Force, so they can’t expect the Ukraine to pull it off. its delusional

Saying Russia can never win is foolish talk, they are winning now and can only continue to win, if the war lasts on into Winter, the economic situation in Europe and the Ukraine will continue to get worse. last winter in the Ukraine most people struggled to pay their heating bills, this year with no economy we can expect millions more to leave as refugees

interested party
interested party
5 months ago
Reply to  D Walsh

Well said but anyone who can read between the lines knows, that Ukraine not only have lost but they will cease to exist solely due to the behaviour of Zelenski, president of Ukraine; he has the blood of everyone on his hands he should have taken the deal or at least negotiated. He allowed nazis and fundamentalists in his country and now his country will expire and be liquidated. He also has a 40-million-dollar house in Miami and claims to be this poor beggar, republicans are not wrong to call Ukrainians crooks and criminals that’s Ukraine and the disdain for Ukrainians will start in Europe in the winter as they become public enemy number 1.

Last edited 5 months ago by interested party
Peter B
Peter B
5 months ago

Deluded. You’re not fooling anyone.
Only one country is reponsible for this war. And it’s not Ukraine.

Neven Curlin
Neven Curlin
5 months ago

I agree with interested party. (Western) Ukraine has itself to blame entirely by puffing its chest up a bit too much vis-à-vis neighbouring countries (not just Russia), thinking that the US and EU would have their backs. In the meantime, they let radical nationalism spread and become the core of propaganda efforts to hypnotize the population, which now serves as cannon fodder in the other half of Ukraine that doesn’t want anything to do with Kiev any longer.

In coming years I expect terrorist attacks by disillusioned radical nationalist Ukrainians, just like was seen with the Mujahedeen and Chechens.

A mess that could have been prevented if the EU had had enough backbone to tell the US neocons to b****r off, and to threaten Ukraine with sanctions if they didn’t tone the rhetoric down and solved the Donbass situation in a peaceful manner.

martin logan
martin logan
5 months ago
Reply to  Neven Curlin

IOW, you don’t believe in democracy.
Zelensky was the most peace-seeking leader every to hold office.
If he couldn’t make a deal. there was no deal to be made.

martin logan
martin logan
5 months ago

It is fascinating to read someone who sees all of a nation’s actions as the result of a single leader.
That happens in Russia and China, but not in Ukraine.

Keith Mcmaugh
Keith Mcmaugh
5 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

WHen Poroshenko was President, all was stable and peaceful but Zelensky was installed to be pro American and anti Russia, then war broke out – – – of course.
Same with Taiwan, when Lee was in charge, all was good, and peaceful but Tsai chose a dangerous course and a deadly war will result to the joy of M I complex. Their prayers for a nice naval battle will come true after useless chasing camels in a desert and then losing those wars due to boredom .
After all, 100s of $ 90 million F 35 and $13 billion war ships must not be left to rust out from lack of war. We have a War economy and culture, we love non stop war.

Richard Healy
Richard Healy
5 months ago

Interested Party….. You, sir, are smoking too much of that “wacky” weed.

Jeff Andrews
Jeff Andrews
5 months ago

I don’t know how you can still think the AFU are better soldiers or better led than the Russians. They’ve been abysmal since 2014 along with the deranged mercs who’ve joined them and decided they don’t like real war. Do you even know since 2014 they’ve never even mounted a single brigade sized manoeuvre? They were beat in 2015 by a militia and only the Minsk accords, which Poroshenko and the Euros conveniently ignored,saved there skin enough to do what they do best, terrorise civilians with artillery which they continue to this day, only with longer range French artillery. I dare say they’ll continue with MLRS even when they’re pushed east over the Dnieper. Maybe then from Poland?
This conflict will go on until so called Ukraine is demilitarised and denazified, whether NATO joins in or not. And even if NATO was dumb enough to try it would make the rest of Europe indefensible.

martin logan
martin logan
5 months ago
Reply to  Jeff Andrews

So it was actually Pink Pixie Regiment that drove the Russian army from Kyiv, Kharkiv, Chernihiv, etc?
So why doesn’t that unit get the credit it deserves?

Jonathan Keats
Jonathan Keats
5 months ago

A sobering but not unexpected analysis
There was a chance for peace in April, I read, that BJ and others had persuaded Zelensky not to move forward with it even though there was agreement on 10 key points.
I have always believe Boris was rushing bellicose like into his Churchillian role instead of focusing on detail at home

We are where we are and continued conflict will only mean more death and destruction and most of it for Ukraine
I have always admired Kissinger yet an almost “woke’ repose cancelled him and any thoughts of diplomacy with at labelled as appeasement
Either we find a ceasefire or we step up significantly and I am afraid many in the west don’t have mandate to do that, or are not willing and perhaps more importantly haven’t got the reserves or supply chains to moving to sustain protracted war.
Would it not be better to push for a proper neutrality agreement now, with the uS/NAto and Russia all on paper?
We, the UK and Europe, need to start re-arming, investing in defence and certainly in the UK bring back National Service ( to include Police Fire NHS, Border Guard etc) and unite our “multi-cultural youth”. Our fighting army is too small and Ukraine has used many of our weapons. Peace First and a long hopefully Cold War until Putin dies
Whilst I sympathise with Ukraine they also have a bit of the zealot/fanatic in them and don’t seem to feel they have any responsibility to world peace – they are apart of a bigger cog and now isn’t the time for the west to go all in.patience, build strength , rebuild and fortify what is left of Ukraine

Andrew F
Andrew F
5 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan Keats

I agree with you on re arming in the West but the rest of your post is pure Russian propaganda.
Ukraine had neutrality agreement in 1994 with Budapest Memorandum.
Then Putin invaded Crimea.
West effectively ignored it, so Putin decided to carry on first with grabbing chunks of Donbass and Luhansk and now with open war.
Why Finland and Sweden gave up on neutrality and joined NATO.
Because no one with any brain will believe any agreement signed by Russia.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
5 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan Keats

Yep, fanatics – for wanting to resist an invader. By that yardstick, so were the British in 1940

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
5 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan Keats

If one day you were enjoying the peace and tranquility of your home, and the next a neighbouring country’s shells brought it down on top of you, injuring or killing your nearest and dearest, I think you would have ‘a bit of the zealot/fanatic’ about you.

0 0
0 0
5 months ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

Ukrainian politics does have its share of right wing nationalists, and other distasteful types, but then, who doesn’t?
The issue is, do we support a rules based world wherein one nation cannot take territory from another by force? (Russia, Israel take note) and where rules govern business behavior (China take note) and sovereign nations are recognized for their rights to self govern (again Russia and China and to a large extent the USA take note)?
The West must defend Ukrainian independence. Completely. Totally. Until Russia returns to it’s pre 2014 borders. This is not a defense fo Ukraine as much as a defense of our post WWII world order.
My only question is, can there be peace with the current Russian government or must we commit to defeating Putin and his machine. A terrible question.
I think the grind down war is the attempt to cause Putin to fall while avoiding nuclear catastrophe. Unfortunately there may be no Ukrainians left to celebrate the victory.

Zoran Sretic
Zoran Sretic
4 months ago

It appears to me that article fails to recognize that Ukraine is not a monoethnic state. This is important, because it may underestimate willingness of eastern parts of the country to remain in Ukraine that fits only one ethnicity. Of course the article is one-sided and this is to be expected if you are directly exposed to the population concerned. That said to say that “Ukrainian remain better soldiers” not only echoes the journalist exposure to local self-understanding of ethnic, cultural and racial superiority it also underestimates the fact that they are fighting Ukrainians on the other side. Thus, it is unlikely that superior Ukrainian soldiers will ever be in the position to retake the territories lost in east, and it is unwise to risk the global security for that end either, since it is unlikely that population over there would accept the Bandera superiority story about Ukrainian monolithic nation at any point in the future.

John Weingarten
John Weingarten
5 months ago

Interesting read. More directed at the comment section: Professor Mearsheimer was the one voice who advised Ukraine to not give up it’s nuclear weapons in 1994. People scoffed at this suggestion. If realists had influence over American or Ukrainian foreign policy this war would likely never have begun. That man’s son would be alive today, and Ukraine would be an independent, nuclear-armed power.
I also think the whole “Republicans are supportive of Putin” is largely untrue. Both sides of the aisle are hugely supportive of Ukraine. Rarely do you see both sides of the aisle give standing ovations like this, for example. As a moderate American I think Ukraine can continue to rely on U.S. support for the future, if for no other reason than to grind down our 2nd greatest rival Russia using Ukrainian blood. Harsh but true.
If there is a bad global economic downturn I think it will force a compromised peace from all sides in the next year or two. If Putin dies from health-related causes or assassination, I think his successor would likely draw down the war as well.

Richard Healy
Richard Healy
5 months ago

Why buy the cow if you can get your milk for free? I am sure that was the core thought among the Ukrainians who chose not to keep nukes in 1994. For more than 60 years NATO has had the nuclear capacity to blow Russia into non-existence. So why duplicate the job the west assigned to itself when, in so doing, would piss off, the big bad bear next door? Who would have thought that Russia would try to play deja vous all over again?

Lisa I
Lisa I
4 months ago

They must be kicking themselves daily for giving up nukes

Amos Sullivan
Amos Sullivan
4 months ago

Zelensky negotiated in good faith with Putin and signed on to the Minsk Accords, he then chose to follow Biden’s advice and renege on them. Russia was forced into the threat they showed Zelensky since June 2021.
Biden and the globalists of the EU chose to lead Zelensky and Ukraine into a war of attrition with Russia, this will end badly for Ukraine and Zelensky.
Ukraine is a corrupt country led by oligarchs as crooked as those in Russia.
America should stop funding this war and let Europe sort out their own problems,

martin logan
martin logan
5 months ago

In the Kremlin, the “real Nazis” aren’t in Ukraine.
They are in Europe and the US.
When Putin & Co say “Nazis.”
They mean you.

jane baker
jane baker
5 months ago

Its not 1918 they can’t make all the gels go an work in munitions factories so they won’t have to go into service at Downton Abbey and for me at least the Ukraine is a far off country of which I know nothing. And don’t want to know anything. A good friend of mines partner drove to a business meeting at Ledbury,chanced to meet a fruit picker from the Ukraine called Louba and got home that same evening with the information he wanted to marry Louba but his partner could stay on as the housekeeper. After a quickie divorce from her Ukrainian husband,they got married and she made sure every penny he had got transfered in one way or another to her. So I’m not a fan of opportunistic Ukrainians.

David Bruce
David Bruce
4 months ago

Ratcheting up this war, both for moral reasons and strategic reasons does not make sense. Surely the right thing to do was to put pressure on both sides to comply with the Minsk Accords.
The eastern provinces and Crimea and the Donbass were always, and without a carefully thought out Northern Ireland type of settlement, will always be a problem. There are separatists in these areas for a reason: many people do not like being under Ukrainian, especially Ukrainian Nationalist control. In many of these areas Russians are in the majority. In the Crimea it is 70 per cent. Marioupol has historically always been pro-Russian (although i agree it might think differently now). The only way to settle that is through an internationally supervised referendum and a Minsk Accord type of settlement, this time with internationally monitored protocol compliance.
Strategically the Ukrainian War is also a strategic disaster for the West, even if Ukraine wins. The West’s bigger long term threat is surely China. Russia is now in a lopsided relationship with China, China has achieved a major goal: cheap access to energy which was always its achilles heal.
All of this is of course a fall-out from rapid NATO expansion. Basic textbook Realism and Neo-realism would tell you straight away this was going to invite tensions and conflict at some point – irrespective of which countries were involved and who was leading them. (There is too much attention on Putin, an odious figure sure, but by focussing on him one does not see the underlining structural problem.) A large number of these countries along Russia’s border have long standing grievances. A nationalist government in any one of them would love to provoke a conflict with Russia and get NATO involved. We even have a situation now where Russia has to cross a NATO country to get to its naval base in Kaliningrad. The Lithuanian incident was a very scary warning. It only takes a small event like that and we are in WWIII – this time between nuclear powers.

Last edited 4 months ago by David Bruce
Neven Curlin
Neven Curlin
5 months ago

My first reaction: What Roussinos is doing with this piece, is continuing to push for the total annihilation of the Ukrainian state. And for WW3, if he’s lucky.

Last edited 5 months ago by Neven Curlin
Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
5 months ago

Wow Aris you really got it wrong in that previous article, didn’t you? And quite a few Unherd commenters with far less information, including me, told you so.

And you’ve got it wrong here too:
“But as always with Johnson, fine words were not matched by the necessary deeds. There is no point involving Britain in a proxy conflict with Russia unless we are prepared to win it.”

Johnson’s words were well matched by his deeds – providing arms to survive and hassling the west into unifying over Ukraine. That’s as much as this little country could do.

And, you’re wrong again on another point above – we don’t need to win the war. Proxy conflicts are the best means of defeating Russia: just let the Russians bleed themselves dry militarily and economically, at the expense of the Ukrainian Spartans which is tragic, but their sacrifice will benefit the west geopolitically, with China losing their best mate. The poor Ukrainians will become an interesting footnote in history.

Last edited 5 months ago by Ian Stewart
David Bruce
David Bruce
4 months ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

A weakened Russia plays straight into China’s hands. An isolated Russia really means that it is now in China’s pocket. A guaranteed energy supply is also a big issue for China. They can now get it zipped across their borders at a price of their choosing.

Last edited 4 months ago by David Bruce
William Jones
William Jones
4 months ago

One of the outcomes inevitably generated by the Ukrainian conflict and its Western support (which seems not to be considered) is to push a protective alliance between States that are antagonistic towards the Western conglomeration. This alliance would inevitably be composed, firstly, of Russia, China and Iran, then followed by the addition of North Korea. This will then attract other Asian States who have a wariness of American impulsive and aggressive policies. This massive military block will then constitute an enormously restrictive opponent to the erstwhile Western assumed “do as it likes” dominance.

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
5 months ago

Does a bear shit in the woods?

Karen Fleming
Karen Fleming
4 months ago

To Paul O so if Russia invaded the US and wanted to take the state you live in and several more, you would be ok with “diplomacy” and letting them have a few?

John Urwin
John Urwin
5 months ago

In my opinion RUSI are the people to listen to. One piece of equipment that will really help the Ukrainians to deal with Russian artillery is MLRS or the wheeled version HIMARS. UK, Germany, France and Italy have them and my guess is that many are in store. The rockets are made in the US. So far Ukraine has only been given a handful…

martin logan
martin logan
5 months ago

The problem is that Putin has embraced the psychotic element in Russian nationalism. The latter argues that Ukraine –and thus Ukrainians–must be eradicated, full stop.
The ultra-nationalist Girkin always said Putin was trying to sit on two stools: Ultra-nationalism and normal state relations. Now he’s chosen the former. It’s a zero sum game: either Russia survives or Ukraine survives.
It will certainly take much western help for Ukraine to win. But the war will continue–and would have continued–regardless of what we do.
This has always been a war of survival, and Ukrainians have known that since 2014.

Peter B
Peter B
5 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Indeed, I believe it is now (and might always have been) an unstated aim of Putin to reduce the population of Ukraine – whether through refugees, killing or forcible deportation to Russia (all of which are happening). The only way he can hold on to conquered regions in Ukraine without insurgent resistance is to terrorise or reduce the native Ukrainian population and resettle the area with Russians.
This is of course appalling. But par for the course in Russian history for the past 100 years or more.
We should not sit back and let this happen.

martin logan
martin logan
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

The “filtration camps” are simply an update of the Stalinist removal of whole peoples to Siberia and Central Asia in the 1930s and 40s.
Putin will exile any Ukrainian who isn’t wholly loyal, then bring in reliable Russians to repopulate whatever he occupies.
The mindset of the people in charge of the Kremlin is now the same as Stalin’s NKVD of the 1930s–as then, they think they are in a world-wide battle against “Nazis,” and behave accordingly.
And they know that you are one of the Nazis.

Last edited 5 months ago by Martin Logan
Peter B
Peter B
5 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Sadly I suspect that is the plan.
These Russian leaders are like a man with only a hammer. They only ever have one tool and one method. They never learn. And that’s why the West always wins in the end against the authoritarian dictators.

michael harris
michael harris
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

There are signs, Peter, that the West is not destined to win ‘always’.
In essence Putin threatens us that, if we do anything that might effectively save Ukraine, he will go nuclear.
Western politicians have their fingers crossed. Perhaps he will stop with the Donbas. Perhaps he’ll be satisfied with Kharkiv and Odessa. He won’t attack any other (Nato) country. Will he…?
A few weeks ago I said that the US, being the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war, was respected as much out of fear as for its principles.
But now it is Russia that is feared because it seems far likelier to use nukes than the West.
Later on it might even become respected.

Richard Healy
Richard Healy
5 months ago
Reply to  michael harris

Russia will not use nukes. It is a bluff. Should he opt to try, Putin’s Russia will be blown to kingdom come in a matter of minutes. He knows this. What is driving Putin is the realization that the age distribution of his country’s population is working against him. Like many countries around the world, in another ten years Russia will not have the population to create an army capable of defending itself from outside invaders. It is a matter of life and death, to Putin, that he restore as much of the Soviet Union as possible, now, before his last chance disappears. So watch out Poland. Watch out Baltic countries. Watch out Bulgaria and Romania. The big bad bear is coming to get you.

Andrew F
Andrew F
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Great but with one correction.
It is 500 years of genocidal Russian Imperialism.

jane baker
jane baker
5 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

If only our generation had been about in the 19th century to oppose the attempted elimination of,and removal of the actual.inhabitants of the North American continental.

Andrew F
Andrew F
5 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Like in so many posts you are spot on.
All the delusional (or dishonest) people who still defend Russia either don’t know or pretend not to know real Russian history.
It was genocidal Imperialism for 500 years.
Regardless whether it was Tsarism, Communism or Putinism.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
5 months ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Exactly