Ochakiv, Ukraine
The sun rises on 2023. Its rays light up the trench, an unwelcoming black void into which we gratefully disappear to take cover from the artillery, rockets and Iranian Shahid drones that are launched daily from the Russian positions just kilometres across the water. All around, the landscape is ragged and torn. This is the emergent topography of southern Ukraine, a land sundered by violence. Nearby, a cat wanders across an expanse of concrete — unperturbed by it all.
To enter a trench on the frontlines of a war is to go both deep into the earth and back in time. I arrive as the war enters its ninth year, just before New Year’s Eve; the mood seems strangely familiar. Inside the sleeping quarters, at the end of a narrow corridor strewn with coats, shoes, helmets, and automatic weapons, a line comes to me from Isaac Rosenberg’s great First World War poem, Break of Day in the Trenches. We are, I realise, now “sprawled in the bowels of the earth”.
A thick, gnarled tree branch has been converted into a pillar that juts into the ceiling; three bunks surround it. A wood-powered boiler heats the place. It is suffused with the particular combination of body odour, stale cigarette smoke and cheap deodorant common to all small spaces in which soldiers sleep for sustained periods of time. I know that after five minutes I will no longer be able to smell it.
I keep moving through the trench — a maze of narrow alleys with wooden walls dug almost two metres into the ground — to the front and arrive at a lookout post right on the front where a young soldier is manning a DShK heavy machine gun. He greets me and points straight ahead. I follow the line of his finger out into the distance.
“Russian pigs,” he says with a grin.
***
The 26th Border Guards Division has been in Ochakiv since April 2022. The town is a strategically important point and home to Ukraine’s marine base, built by the US in 2019. When Putin gave his maundering speech declaring the start of the 24 February offensive, he claimed Ochakiv was central to American and Nato plans to launch attacks against Russia. It is also the entrance to Kherson and Mykolaiv by sea. Moscow wants it — badly.
As we arrive from Odesa in the late morning, we are immediately told to take cover. Shahids have been spotted. Inside the Division’s office, a small room adorned with the flags of Ukraine and the Border Guards, I meet Oleg, a 32-year-old senior lieutenant from Mykolaiv, and the second-in-command here. He is a contract (volunteer) officer, and he has been here since April. The job of the soldiers here, he explains, is twofold: first, to detect incoming Russian attacks and to give their coordinates to the air defence forces; and second, to fight what he describes as the “artillery duel” with the Russians a few kilometres away in the occupied Kherson region. Their base here is shot at constantly, he explains. They are dug into trenches because they are attacked by a varying array of drones: Shahids, Russian Lancets and Orlans, and small Mavics. This the most noticeable evolution of the war since I was last here: drones are now at its heart.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeEvery day we see this war evolving. Every day Ukrainians eventually get all the weapons that the West had previously denied them.
The AMX-10s, Bradleys and Marders will soon be followed by M-1s and Leopards. Ukraine also gets ever more sophisticated anti-air defences, making Surovikin’s Syrian-style assault on infrastructure and hospitals increasingly less effective.
Most important, every Russian client state in Central Asia and the Caucasus had either abandoned Russia, or actively opposing the expansion of the “Russian World.”
Perhaps Iran and North Korea can even the balance. Perhaps mobilized Russians totally unprepared for 21st Century war will still somehow hold the line.
But the trajectory of this war is very clear.
Putin’s Russia is losing.
As I said the day Russia invaded, they’ve already lost. We’re just totting up the score of how much they lose now.
The reputation of the Russian armed forces has been trashed. They’ve basically destroyed their own defence industry – their kit has performed very badly and they’ve lost access to the Western technology (like advanced chips) needed for guided weapons. Western companies have pretty much pulled out of Russia – and a lot of skilled younger people with them. Young men are either being killed or leaving the country to avoid the war. They’ll run into difficulties very soon maintaining their oil and gas fields without Western oilfield services companies to help them.
And all they can do now is try to destroy Ukraine – because if they can’t have it, no one else should. What an absolutely wretched mentality. Nothing positive to offer – only corruption, brute force, inefficiency and incompetence.
Rather like Rogozhin in Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot.”
If he can’t have Nastasya Fillipovna, no one can.
So Russian…
Rather like Rogozhin in Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot.”
If he can’t have Nastasya Fillipovna, no one can.
So Russian…
Putin’s Russia is not losing.
Russia is in this for the long game.
Zelenskyy wil flee to the US if the Asov battalion don’t get him first.
Ukraine will be destroyed and that will be the result of the west’s meddling.
The Beast with the four dirty paws will win
And thats how the story goes
>Putin’s Russia is not losing.
Strategic retreats and 3d chess akshually
You’ll see.
I’ll see Russia taking more L’s, yes
Exactly.
So why not have a cease fire and negotiate?
Why would Ukraine negotiate with the side thats is still engaged a war of conquest and occupying her territory?
Why would Ukraine negotiate with the side thats is still engaged a war of conquest and occupying her territory?
Exactly.
So why not have a cease fire and negotiate?
I’ll see Russia taking more L’s, yes
You’ll see.
When strategy, stealth and brute force don’t prevail, well, I guess inspired prophecy is all that’s left.
Any thoughts on the lottery, or the next race at Cheltenham?
No.
Have you ?
Do share.
No.
Have you ?
Do share.
The Beast with the four dirty paws will win
And thats how the story goes
>Putin’s Russia is not losing.
Strategic retreats and 3d chess akshually
When strategy, stealth and brute force don’t prevail, well, I guess inspired prophecy is all that’s left.
Any thoughts on the lottery, or the next race at Cheltenham?
Unfortunately, I believe the news on the front is quite the opposite. Why is Vitoria Nuland of the US state department, the creator and director of this whole tragic opera not passing out cookies to the Ukrainian soldiers in the trenches? As I see it, this is a proxy war between Israel and Russia. Putin had to go, it was planned long ago, ever since he sent troops to Syria, ending Israel’s plan to drive the entire middle east Arab nations back to the stone age, so that Israel would be the dominant power and left to continue its border expansion with ease. And presently, it has been admitted, by many in the US government, this is all about regime change and all in charge of this regime change project on both sides, Ukraine and US, by coincidence, happen to be zionists. They are using US treasure and Ukrainian blood to achieve this goal. For the sake of this idiotic plan devised by this cabal, thousands of young Ukrainian and Russian boys are dying and Ukraine may never be whole again. Hope Poland has no ambitions. As we have seen, when nations are asked to join in, throw their young men in other’s wars, they are promised a prize and it usually is in the form of more territory. Does Poland have its eye on Lviv? Pilsudski’s motto was “z morza do morza” (from sea to sea), meaning from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. And will the US, one day pack up an leave as it had done in Afghanistan and Vietnam, or will we be heading towards world war 3. There is one thing zionist hate to admit, it is to being incompetent and having made a mistake. They will persist on their foolish path until the last Ukrainian soldier falls and will still not admit to being responsible for this totally unnecessary and avoidable tragedy.
As I said the day Russia invaded, they’ve already lost. We’re just totting up the score of how much they lose now.
The reputation of the Russian armed forces has been trashed. They’ve basically destroyed their own defence industry – their kit has performed very badly and they’ve lost access to the Western technology (like advanced chips) needed for guided weapons. Western companies have pretty much pulled out of Russia – and a lot of skilled younger people with them. Young men are either being killed or leaving the country to avoid the war. They’ll run into difficulties very soon maintaining their oil and gas fields without Western oilfield services companies to help them.
And all they can do now is try to destroy Ukraine – because if they can’t have it, no one else should. What an absolutely wretched mentality. Nothing positive to offer – only corruption, brute force, inefficiency and incompetence.
Putin’s Russia is not losing.
Russia is in this for the long game.
Zelenskyy wil flee to the US if the Asov battalion don’t get him first.
Ukraine will be destroyed and that will be the result of the west’s meddling.
Unfortunately, I believe the news on the front is quite the opposite. Why is Vitoria Nuland of the US state department, the creator and director of this whole tragic opera not passing out cookies to the Ukrainian soldiers in the trenches? As I see it, this is a proxy war between Israel and Russia. Putin had to go, it was planned long ago, ever since he sent troops to Syria, ending Israel’s plan to drive the entire middle east Arab nations back to the stone age, so that Israel would be the dominant power and left to continue its border expansion with ease. And presently, it has been admitted, by many in the US government, this is all about regime change and all in charge of this regime change project on both sides, Ukraine and US, by coincidence, happen to be zionists. They are using US treasure and Ukrainian blood to achieve this goal. For the sake of this idiotic plan devised by this cabal, thousands of young Ukrainian and Russian boys are dying and Ukraine may never be whole again. Hope Poland has no ambitions. As we have seen, when nations are asked to join in, throw their young men in other’s wars, they are promised a prize and it usually is in the form of more territory. Does Poland have its eye on Lviv? Pilsudski’s motto was “z morza do morza” (from sea to sea), meaning from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. And will the US, one day pack up an leave as it had done in Afghanistan and Vietnam, or will we be heading towards world war 3. There is one thing zionist hate to admit, it is to being incompetent and having made a mistake. They will persist on their foolish path until the last Ukrainian soldier falls and will still not admit to being responsible for this totally unnecessary and avoidable tragedy.
Every day we see this war evolving. Every day Ukrainians eventually get all the weapons that the West had previously denied them.
The AMX-10s, Bradleys and Marders will soon be followed by M-1s and Leopards. Ukraine also gets ever more sophisticated anti-air defences, making Surovikin’s Syrian-style assault on infrastructure and hospitals increasingly less effective.
Most important, every Russian client state in Central Asia and the Caucasus had either abandoned Russia, or actively opposing the expansion of the “Russian World.”
Perhaps Iran and North Korea can even the balance. Perhaps mobilized Russians totally unprepared for 21st Century war will still somehow hold the line.
But the trajectory of this war is very clear.
Putin’s Russia is losing.
Russia’s current leaders are in this simply for Love of the Game. Nothing more.
Nobody considers who’s in charge now: spies and generals. “Siloviki” like Putin, Shoigu and Patrushev have zero expertise in creating a world class economy. All they know is how to play spy games and launch surprise military operations. They have nothing but contempt for educated technocrats like Mishustin, Naibulina and Kudrin.
Putin will never make Russia into a first class economy, because then he would be redundant. There would be literally thousands of business people, each demanding some say in governance. Putin would never be able to control them. That’s why he has a single oligarch for each separate industry–who answers directly to him.
Even more important, Russians would demand that a firm Russian border be negotiated, to end Russia’s countless “frozen conflicts.”
But Putin’s whole regime is based on the assertion that “Russia has no borders,” and will never be constrained by them. Indeed, that’s the message repeated over and over on Russian TV since 24 Feb. It also makes generals and spies indispensable to Russia.
For all his failures, Putin is still wise enough to know, that, without the distraction of constant war on his borders, people like him would be VERY dispensable within a few months.
So why did the west under Obama start this war in in 2014 by overthrowing
President Yanukovych ?
Why did the west renege on the ABM treaties ?
Why did the west allow NATO to encroach on Russia’s borders ?
Why is the western MSM fanatically cheer leading this conflict ?
It is because the west lead by Biden want this war and they don’t want a resolution.
As for the UK, the war is a convenient distacrion
from domestic problems such as the energy crisis and the handing over of the UK to WEF and UN control
Implying that Ukrainians have no agency. Yanukovych was elected on the promise of euro integration but he did a 180 and was about to enter an alliance with Putin. Russia has a long tradition of meddling with its neighbours and invading them, before Ukraine there was Transnistria, Chechnya and Georgia. The whole encroaching narrative the Kremlin is pushing is absurd, NATO was never planning on war with a nuclear Russia and it’s the Kremlins fault they suck and nobody wants to be their allies.
Russia is paying the price for exterminating its elites in the 20th century, and this is only the beginning. 19th-20th century egalitarian ideals really degraded the quality of human capital worldwide
You haven’t address the points I raised.
You have been duped by the MSM.
But yours is exactly the type of response
I expected from people who have swallowed years of anti Russia propaganda.
You are wrong on NATO’s encroachment.
It is absurb to deny that.
It is also absurd to deny that the west DIDN’T engineer this conflict.
Russia has a long tradition of meddling with it’s neighbours ?
What about the US tradition ?
The US meddle on a GLOBAL level.
>But yours is exactly the type of response
>I expected from people who have swallowed years of anti Russia propaganda.
MSM ? I’m from eastern europe and I know russian, nice try. Whats up with that comment structure btw ?
>What about the US tradition ?
What about your whataboutism ? The US didnt annex Crimea and set up bs proxy republics and then invade its neighbour under this type of pretences :
https://ccl.org.ua/en/news/ria-novosti-has-clarified-russias-plans-vis-a-vis-ukraine-and-the-rest-of-the-free-world-in-a-program-like-article-what-russia-should-do-with-ukraine-2/
You are from from eastern Europe ?
So what ?
I know Czech people who regard Zelenskyy
as the crook that he is.
Again the US State Department under
Saint Obama started this whole thing
back in 2014.
This is the US’s proxy war and Biden has picked up the baton from Obama.
Why deny that ?
So what? He just called out your ignorance and bigotry Stoater!
>You are from from eastern Europe ?
>So what ?
>I know Czech people who regard Zelenskyy
>as the crook that he is.
Why do your replies look like copy/paste ?
So what ? It’s clear that you’re arguing in bad faith. In your last reply you tried to discredit me by calling me a victim of MSM, which i’m not because I’m from Eastern Europe and I speak Russian. In fact, I probably consume more Russian media than MSM.
Now, you’re make some completely irrelevant and unprovable claim about some “Czech people who regard Zelenskyy”. Zelensky is widely known as a comedic actor in the post soviet world, Putin on the other hand is a dictator with a long trail of blood, crime and corruption behind him. Here is a video of Zelensky and Russian state propagandist Vladimir Solovyov celebrating new year 2013 on one of Russias most popular tv channels https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1581392122863030272?lang=en
So what? He just called out your ignorance and bigotry Stoater!
>You are from from eastern Europe ?
>So what ?
>I know Czech people who regard Zelenskyy
>as the crook that he is.
Why do your replies look like copy/paste ?
So what ? It’s clear that you’re arguing in bad faith. In your last reply you tried to discredit me by calling me a victim of MSM, which i’m not because I’m from Eastern Europe and I speak Russian. In fact, I probably consume more Russian media than MSM.
Now, you’re make some completely irrelevant and unprovable claim about some “Czech people who regard Zelenskyy”. Zelensky is widely known as a comedic actor in the post soviet world, Putin on the other hand is a dictator with a long trail of blood, crime and corruption behind him. Here is a video of Zelensky and Russian state propagandist Vladimir Solovyov celebrating new year 2013 on one of Russias most popular tv channels https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1581392122863030272?lang=en
You are from from eastern Europe ?
So what ?
I know Czech people who regard Zelenskyy
as the crook that he is.
Again the US State Department under
Saint Obama started this whole thing
back in 2014.
This is the US’s proxy war and Biden has picked up the baton from Obama.
Why deny that ?
So Obama and Biden cleverly laid a trap for Putin–and he fell into it?
That’s pretty smart!
That alone merits Biden another 4 years.
>But yours is exactly the type of response
>I expected from people who have swallowed years of anti Russia propaganda.
MSM ? I’m from eastern europe and I know russian, nice try. Whats up with that comment structure btw ?
>What about the US tradition ?
What about your whataboutism ? The US didnt annex Crimea and set up bs proxy republics and then invade its neighbour under this type of pretences :
https://ccl.org.ua/en/news/ria-novosti-has-clarified-russias-plans-vis-a-vis-ukraine-and-the-rest-of-the-free-world-in-a-program-like-article-what-russia-should-do-with-ukraine-2/
So Obama and Biden cleverly laid a trap for Putin–and he fell into it?
That’s pretty smart!
That alone merits Biden another 4 years.
You haven’t address the points I raised.
You have been duped by the MSM.
But yours is exactly the type of response
I expected from people who have swallowed years of anti Russia propaganda.
You are wrong on NATO’s encroachment.
It is absurb to deny that.
It is also absurd to deny that the west DIDN’T engineer this conflict.
Russia has a long tradition of meddling with it’s neighbours ?
What about the US tradition ?
The US meddle on a GLOBAL level.
Isn’t it obvious?
It was one vast, bipartisan US plot to lure Russia into attacking Ukraine on 24 Feb 2022, and then wipe it off the face of the earth.
Obama.
The 21st Century Hitler…
Of course.
Are you serious???
Of course.
Are you serious???
Even if the US did overthrow Yanukovych, which I don’t believe they did, why is that any different from Russia trying to poison Yushchenko in 2004? Why is seemingly ok for Russia to meddle in other nations affairs and not the Americans?
So the Americans don’t meddle in other nations affairs ?
Is that what you are saying ?
They’ve been known to, nobody has ever suggested anything to the contrary. However I don’t believe they orchestrated the overthrow Yanukovych and I’ve never seen any evidence presented that says they did. Russia however did poison Yushchenko so why are you not condemning the Kremlin for that?
It appears to me your dislike of America has led to a bias of blindly following the narrative of any country in opposition to it
Because he is a Russian, living in Russia
No other explanation for his stupidity
Because he is a Russian, living in Russia
No other explanation for his stupidity
They’ve been known to, nobody has ever suggested anything to the contrary. However I don’t believe they orchestrated the overthrow Yanukovych and I’ve never seen any evidence presented that says they did. Russia however did poison Yushchenko so why are you not condemning the Kremlin for that?
It appears to me your dislike of America has led to a bias of blindly following the narrative of any country in opposition to it
So the Americans don’t meddle in other nations affairs ?
Is that what you are saying ?
No war no energy crisis
Muppet
Buying into the propaganda has confused you. The agreement of 1991 has been violated by Russia. That must be repaired. Russia must be forced out if not by Ukraine itself than those who made the agreement – the US and UK.
I know of nobody happy with this conflict. Nobody is cheering. I hope everybody would have hopes for Russia’s future once it’s leaders stop using the nation as a source of revenue.
Implying that Ukrainians have no agency. Yanukovych was elected on the promise of euro integration but he did a 180 and was about to enter an alliance with Putin. Russia has a long tradition of meddling with its neighbours and invading them, before Ukraine there was Transnistria, Chechnya and Georgia. The whole encroaching narrative the Kremlin is pushing is absurd, NATO was never planning on war with a nuclear Russia and it’s the Kremlins fault they suck and nobody wants to be their allies.
Russia is paying the price for exterminating its elites in the 20th century, and this is only the beginning. 19th-20th century egalitarian ideals really degraded the quality of human capital worldwide
Isn’t it obvious?
It was one vast, bipartisan US plot to lure Russia into attacking Ukraine on 24 Feb 2022, and then wipe it off the face of the earth.
Obama.
The 21st Century Hitler…
Even if the US did overthrow Yanukovych, which I don’t believe they did, why is that any different from Russia trying to poison Yushchenko in 2004? Why is seemingly ok for Russia to meddle in other nations affairs and not the Americans?
No war no energy crisis
Muppet
Buying into the propaganda has confused you. The agreement of 1991 has been violated by Russia. That must be repaired. Russia must be forced out if not by Ukraine itself than those who made the agreement – the US and UK.
I know of nobody happy with this conflict. Nobody is cheering. I hope everybody would have hopes for Russia’s future once it’s leaders stop using the nation as a source of revenue.
>They have nothing but contempt for educated technocrats like Mishustin, Naibulina and Kudrin
Lol Naibulina. It’s true that bydlo like Putin is typically contemptuous of intellectuals and white collar types but he has no contempt for the names you mentioned, otherwise they wouldn’t be there. Putin is an underclass degenerate crook and it is absurd to have any great expectations about his governance and the people he surrounds himself with
You like that word “absurd” don’t you ?
If you were a native English speaker rather than a Russian troll you would realise that calling yourself a stoat is a tad unfortunate.
One should NOT mock the afflicted, but in this particular case you are correct in chastising this juvenile commentator.
One should NOT mock the afflicted, but in this particular case you are correct in chastising this juvenile commentator.
Implying that i’ve overused it ? LOL
If you were a native English speaker rather than a Russian troll you would realise that calling yourself a stoat is a tad unfortunate.
Implying that i’ve overused it ? LOL
You like that word “absurd” don’t you ?
So why did the west under Obama start this war in in 2014 by overthrowing
President Yanukovych ?
Why did the west renege on the ABM treaties ?
Why did the west allow NATO to encroach on Russia’s borders ?
Why is the western MSM fanatically cheer leading this conflict ?
It is because the west lead by Biden want this war and they don’t want a resolution.
As for the UK, the war is a convenient distacrion
from domestic problems such as the energy crisis and the handing over of the UK to WEF and UN control
>They have nothing but contempt for educated technocrats like Mishustin, Naibulina and Kudrin
Lol Naibulina. It’s true that bydlo like Putin is typically contemptuous of intellectuals and white collar types but he has no contempt for the names you mentioned, otherwise they wouldn’t be there. Putin is an underclass degenerate crook and it is absurd to have any great expectations about his governance and the people he surrounds himself with
Russia’s current leaders are in this simply for Love of the Game. Nothing more.
Nobody considers who’s in charge now: spies and generals. “Siloviki” like Putin, Shoigu and Patrushev have zero expertise in creating a world class economy. All they know is how to play spy games and launch surprise military operations. They have nothing but contempt for educated technocrats like Mishustin, Naibulina and Kudrin.
Putin will never make Russia into a first class economy, because then he would be redundant. There would be literally thousands of business people, each demanding some say in governance. Putin would never be able to control them. That’s why he has a single oligarch for each separate industry–who answers directly to him.
Even more important, Russians would demand that a firm Russian border be negotiated, to end Russia’s countless “frozen conflicts.”
But Putin’s whole regime is based on the assertion that “Russia has no borders,” and will never be constrained by them. Indeed, that’s the message repeated over and over on Russian TV since 24 Feb. It also makes generals and spies indispensable to Russia.
For all his failures, Putin is still wise enough to know, that, without the distraction of constant war on his borders, people like him would be VERY dispensable within a few months.
The problem with a ‘negotiated’ settlement/peace deal is that it requires a signed treaty. The entire history of mankind shows that treaties between nations, which have usually been made to end wars, last as long as one side wants them to before they break it. Boris was of course particularly quick of the mark repudiating his Brexit deal, but in the Bloodlands (to understand the region you must read the book by Timothy Snyder) the two relevant ones are the German/Russian non-aggression pact of 1939, which lasted just under 2 years, and the 1992 (?) treaty by which the USA, UK and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence.
International treaties ain’t worth diddly-squat unless they have an enforceable penalty clause, which is highly unlikely and why Russia hates NATO because that is reasonably solid against Russian aggression.
Any piece of paper Putin puts his moniker on is worth absolutely nothing, which is why a peace settlement is something of a chimera. Post-Putin (fingers’ crossed not too long away) the only hope of peace would be Ukraine (and Georgia?) joining NATO.
The problem with a ‘negotiated’ settlement/peace deal is that it requires a signed treaty. The entire history of mankind shows that treaties between nations, which have usually been made to end wars, last as long as one side wants them to before they break it. Boris was of course particularly quick of the mark repudiating his Brexit deal, but in the Bloodlands (to understand the region you must read the book by Timothy Snyder) the two relevant ones are the German/Russian non-aggression pact of 1939, which lasted just under 2 years, and the 1992 (?) treaty by which the USA, UK and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence.
International treaties ain’t worth diddly-squat unless they have an enforceable penalty clause, which is highly unlikely and why Russia hates NATO because that is reasonably solid against Russian aggression.
Any piece of paper Putin puts his moniker on is worth absolutely nothing, which is why a peace settlement is something of a chimera. Post-Putin (fingers’ crossed not too long away) the only hope of peace would be Ukraine (and Georgia?) joining NATO.
The war obscures the most important outcome of this war–Russia ceases to be a significant economic and military power.
1) Europe will no longer be dependent on Russian gas, or much of anything else. Gas is already at half its price in 2022, and it will be years before the gas fields in western Siberia can go to China. Until then, Putin will have essentially zero revenue. Russian oil is already at a huge discount.
2) The “brain drain” from mobilization has also pretty much destroyed Russia’ tech industry. And once the second mobilization happens in the next few months, at least a million more Russians will flee.
3) That means Russia will be unable to fund both its civilian economy and its military economy. Since Putin will have to choose the latter, it really means the end of Russia as a great power.
4) That in turn means a peace dividend for both Europe and the US, since it will halve the defence budgets of both.
5) Finally, Eastern Europe can freely develop economically. Ukraine may well be the powerhouse of Europe in future.
Looks like Obama’s coup in Kyiv succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and Zelensky’s attack on Russia in 24 Feb 2022 was an even greater master stroke.
Those are the positives Martin, but the negatives you’ve not mentioned can be extremely disturbing to put it mildly, the consequences in terms of implosion of the federation, break up of the regions/states, power grabs and resulting conflicts, what’s left of the military/nuclear arsenal, population movements westwards. It could resemble a giant roulette table giving a new meaning to the Russian version. Another worrying aspect is the general mentality of the Russian population if I’m to believe the interview with Lev Gudkov in Der Spiegel’s weekend newsletter. It will not leave us unaffected.
Indeed.
Again, why, oh why, did Zelensky attack Russia?
He condemned us to years of privation.
Indeed.
Again, why, oh why, did Zelensky attack Russia?
He condemned us to years of privation.
1) Europe will instead be dependant on much more expensive US LNG (and solar and wind which don’t work except as marginal additions to a more resilient fossil fuel or nuclear electricity grid)
2) Putin is popular in Russia and people understand why there is a war Why Putin is still so popular in Russia – Asia Times
3) Russia sells less gas and oil and makes more money now than last year. Europe bought huge amounts of gas to fill its reserves prior to the sanctions coming in – what will they do next year? India buys Russian oil and sells it to…Europe at a profit as “non-Russian” oil lol. Russia sells enormous quantities of gas to China. Japan has given up trying to make do without Russian fuel and pulled out of sanctions. South America, Malaysia, Indonesia, most of Africa, the Middle East are not involved in sanctions.
4) Europe is bankrupt and its industry is being pillaged by the US – our “allies” lol
5) Hungary might be ok as they got an EU exemption to keep buying cheap Russian fuel, the rest of Eastern Europe is as fukt as Western Europe.
I guess you can’t persuade people who are emotionally attached to certain positions to change their minds with facts.
Has Russia run out of missiles yet – I thought that was scheduled for May ’22, then July, then August, then Sept etc. Has Putin died of his serious illness yet? Has Shiogu had another heart attack? How may times can you be told lies and keep believing new ones?
Those are the positives Martin, but the negatives you’ve not mentioned can be extremely disturbing to put it mildly, the consequences in terms of implosion of the federation, break up of the regions/states, power grabs and resulting conflicts, what’s left of the military/nuclear arsenal, population movements westwards. It could resemble a giant roulette table giving a new meaning to the Russian version. Another worrying aspect is the general mentality of the Russian population if I’m to believe the interview with Lev Gudkov in Der Spiegel’s weekend newsletter. It will not leave us unaffected.
1) Europe will instead be dependant on much more expensive US LNG (and solar and wind which don’t work except as marginal additions to a more resilient fossil fuel or nuclear electricity grid)
2) Putin is popular in Russia and people understand why there is a war Why Putin is still so popular in Russia – Asia Times
3) Russia sells less gas and oil and makes more money now than last year. Europe bought huge amounts of gas to fill its reserves prior to the sanctions coming in – what will they do next year? India buys Russian oil and sells it to…Europe at a profit as “non-Russian” oil lol. Russia sells enormous quantities of gas to China. Japan has given up trying to make do without Russian fuel and pulled out of sanctions. South America, Malaysia, Indonesia, most of Africa, the Middle East are not involved in sanctions.
4) Europe is bankrupt and its industry is being pillaged by the US – our “allies” lol
5) Hungary might be ok as they got an EU exemption to keep buying cheap Russian fuel, the rest of Eastern Europe is as fukt as Western Europe.
I guess you can’t persuade people who are emotionally attached to certain positions to change their minds with facts.
Has Russia run out of missiles yet – I thought that was scheduled for May ’22, then July, then August, then Sept etc. Has Putin died of his serious illness yet? Has Shiogu had another heart attack? How may times can you be told lies and keep believing new ones?
The war obscures the most important outcome of this war–Russia ceases to be a significant economic and military power.
1) Europe will no longer be dependent on Russian gas, or much of anything else. Gas is already at half its price in 2022, and it will be years before the gas fields in western Siberia can go to China. Until then, Putin will have essentially zero revenue. Russian oil is already at a huge discount.
2) The “brain drain” from mobilization has also pretty much destroyed Russia’ tech industry. And once the second mobilization happens in the next few months, at least a million more Russians will flee.
3) That means Russia will be unable to fund both its civilian economy and its military economy. Since Putin will have to choose the latter, it really means the end of Russia as a great power.
4) That in turn means a peace dividend for both Europe and the US, since it will halve the defence budgets of both.
5) Finally, Eastern Europe can freely develop economically. Ukraine may well be the powerhouse of Europe in future.
Looks like Obama’s coup in Kyiv succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and Zelensky’s attack on Russia in 24 Feb 2022 was an even greater master stroke.
To those who bang on endlessly about negotiating with Putin – “I arrive as the war enters its ninth year”. It’s been going on for nine years, not one year. It has been attritional for nine years, not just recently. Putin has been trying to conquer Ukraine for nine years. You can’t negotiate with an obsessive psycho.
But I am so impressed by the resolve and the character of the Ukrainians. So many commenters on Unherd rightly lament the woke and weakness of our country and the West generally, but we should acknowledge that we are, right now, seeing a great country being forged before our eyes. Like Spain after the Reconquista. After the war is over, probably with a Ukrainian victory that excludes the recovery of Crimea, I anticipate Ukrainians will create a hugely successful country.
To those who bang on endlessly about negotiating with Putin – “I arrive as the war enters its ninth year”. It’s been going on for nine years, not one year. It has been attritional for nine years, not just recently. Putin has been trying to conquer Ukraine for nine years. You can’t negotiate with an obsessive psycho.
But I am so impressed by the resolve and the character of the Ukrainians. So many commenters on Unherd rightly lament the woke and weakness of our country and the West generally, but we should acknowledge that we are, right now, seeing a great country being forged before our eyes. Like Spain after the Reconquista. After the war is over, probably with a Ukrainian victory that excludes the recovery of Crimea, I anticipate Ukrainians will create a hugely successful country.
Oh yes indeed NATO, via their proxy Ukraine, are going to have a glorious victory in 2023 – just like the fabulous victory they achieved over insuperable odds (a few AK47s and IEDs) in …………..
Afghanistan in 2021.
Just believe!
Oh yes indeed NATO, via their proxy Ukraine, are going to have a glorious victory in 2023 – just like the fabulous victory they achieved over insuperable odds (a few AK47s and IEDs) in …………..
Afghanistan in 2021.
Just believe!
Again, communication theory requires the sender to clearly explain what his message is, not whoever receives it.
But when the message consistently remains unclear WRT Ukraine, it’s likely the poster is either a fool or a troll.
No intelligent person manages to keep their message unclear after a dozen posts.
Again, communication theory requires the sender to clearly explain what his message is, not whoever receives it.
But when the message consistently remains unclear WRT Ukraine, it’s likely the poster is either a fool or a troll.
No intelligent person manages to keep their message unclear after a dozen posts.
David – there is a question I have which is very important to me to understand this war, and one I have not heard anyone explain who one can relied on – (so have had to just supply my own answer from what I think) – a question that without an answer, and an answer one can believe in – none of this war makes any sense at face value.
What is it the average person now fighting in the Ukraine Army, and also the typical Ukrainian person on the street —-
—- What did they think would have happened if Ukraine has just capitulated at the start? If Biden had not funded this all, and the diplomatic answer was taken up instead of this war? If Appeasement was used rather than fighting on this scale.
Points I would like covered: Financial results of Russia political occupation to the regular civilian. Freedoms lost by Political Occupation. Jobs and education differences from Russian Political Occupation. Car, house, business, farm, investment – how would they change due to a Russian Political Occupation. What Political Oppression, what Ethnic oppression would a Political occupation have resulted in. What change to Borders and National Sovereignty would have resulted? And Then – How long would this Political Occupation be expected to have lasted before things Normalized.
From what I hear it would appear to be the most Pyrrhic of all victories if they win.
In other words, the death, maiming, destruction of industry, infrastructure, education, housing, jobs, savings, pensions, and everything – is this better than what would have been from a Negotiated deal with Russia.
In other words – what did the average Ukrainian think Russia would have done to them if they had set a truce and treaty of appeasement at the onset. I do know the Oligarchs and leaders would be out – but what of the citizens?
Is this fighting all just for a principal? Or were the fears which exceeded the costs of this fighting? Obviously when the Germans came in they killed a couple million – then when Stalin took it back he killed a couple million more – I did not see this happening. I see it having been more like a very light Vichy sort of thing – and would have resolved similarly…and the place be whole, and schools open and people going to work and so on.
But to know I need to understand – What did the population think Russia was going to do to them that this is a preferred outcome?
Or was the fighting all a mistake in their eyes now? Do they feel they were Used – used as proxy pawns on some global chess board, and this was not the best action for them and the country?
I never hear it as a average man’s ‘Cost/Benefit equation. Just what the global Leaders think, and we know they like war.
100% agree with you. Of course it’s shocking to see their homes and towns destroyed. Just how many Ukrainian soldiers have actually died? Like you I have very little information on what the Ukrainian people wanted, where they may have drawn the line. What if, in fact, Russia only wanted those eastern regions under its control? Russia’s never going to give up Crimea. Yes, the fighting is all about principle from our point of view: the fight for democracy. It excuses so much bad behaviour internationally. But the Ukrainians, who are so close to Russia in so many ways, would they have chosen this destruction over a political solution? The cost to rebuild will be huge and felt for many years. And now I read about Blackrock making a deal to rebuilt the country. It’s almost like a corporation could end up owning a country.
>Russia’s never going to give up Crimea
never say never. Thats what they said about Kherson
It is obvious that Russia did not ‘only want those eastern regions under its control’. Rusia already had ‘those eastern regions under its control’ when they went to war.
>Russia’s never going to give up Crimea
never say never. Thats what they said about Kherson
It is obvious that Russia did not ‘only want those eastern regions under its control’. Rusia already had ‘those eastern regions under its control’ when they went to war.
It is a good question worth knowing the answer to, and I upvoted you – though I do not like where your argument is going. I’d ask a counter-question though. If Russia had been invading your country, would you have decided that surrender was better than war? Or would you have fought? Also, a lot of people faced this kind of question back in the 1940’s. What would your answer have been then?
“What did they think would have happened if Ukraine has just capitulated at the start?”
Your counter question is of no use at all because it gives not the slightest hint of what Ukrainians thought would have happened if they had capitulated to Russia. And even now we can’t be sure that meant all of Ukraine or the eastern region.
Ironically you’re speaking on behalf of Ukrainians when you pose your counter question.
Sorry, when Putin promised not to invade, and then did it anyway, it’s difficult to see that any Russophone would want to be under Russian hegemony, or even make a peace that gave up much of Ukraine.
When even Russophones in a city like Odesa (including many Russian professors) want to tear down statues of Pushkin, one sees the mood throughout the East.
If you have ANY counter evidence, please present it.
Counter evidence for what? The question is about what the Ukrainians might have felt about the situation before and after.
Sorry, there is a mountain of evidence for Ukrainians supporting their govt–and from every part of Ukraine. That may or may not be biased.
And we also see robust partisan activity in the occupied parts, and zero evidence of pro-Putin Ukrainians doing the same in Ukraine’s area.
So your contention that there is some “peace party” in Ukraine remains purely theoretical.
“So your contention that there is some “peace party” in Ukraine remains purely theoretical.”
No one is talking about a peace party. Nor is that my contention. So it’s less than theoretical, it’s a straw-man.
You’re creating a moving target, so that all counter arguments somehow don’t address what you “really” said.
First figure out what you are trying to say in clear English.
Brett won’t engage with you because his argument has clearly been so poorly considered.
Brett won’t engage with you because his argument has clearly been so poorly considered.
You’re creating a moving target, so that all counter arguments somehow don’t address what you “really” said.
First figure out what you are trying to say in clear English.
“So your contention that there is some “peace party” in Ukraine remains purely theoretical.”
No one is talking about a peace party. Nor is that my contention. So it’s less than theoretical, it’s a straw-man.
Jeez Brett try engaging with the commenter instead of dodging it!
Sorry, there is a mountain of evidence for Ukrainians supporting their govt–and from every part of Ukraine. That may or may not be biased.
And we also see robust partisan activity in the occupied parts, and zero evidence of pro-Putin Ukrainians doing the same in Ukraine’s area.
So your contention that there is some “peace party” in Ukraine remains purely theoretical.
Jeez Brett try engaging with the commenter instead of dodging it!
I’m very good at remembering what I’ve read luckily, Peter Hitchins has covered it fairly well:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9482475/PETER-HITCHENS-Dont-blame-Russia-ones-pushing-war.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9728423/PETER-HITCHENS-wont-popular-Navys-Black-Sea-antics-stupid.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10530885/PETER-HITCHENS-Granny-gets-gun-bunch-shameless-neo-Nazis.html
https://unherd.com/?p=374995?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups%5B0%5D=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=03efafa652&mc_eid=705bd79106
Also from unherd, Martin logan demonstrating exactly the attitude described quote:
In the past fortnight, the realists have been described as “intellectually bankrupt”, “pro-fascist” and “Putin apologists” — and that’s just in one article. It is a continuation of a trend that became prominent during the Covid era, in which it was no longer enough to question the argument, but to question the morality and the motives of the person making them too.
Such enthusiastic support for Ukraine is a natural symptom of the moral absolutism he displayed during the pandemic. It forgoes rational debate in favour of a moral impulse to be seen to be doing something, even if the costs of those actions are not fully considered. However noble the intention may be, the results are often tragic, as Afghanistan (cost: $2.313 trillion), Iraq ($2.4 trillion), Syria ($1.2 trillion) and Libya ($567 billion) attest
https://unherd.com/2022/10/russia-realists-are-the-new-lockdown-sceptics/
Nationalist As0v contingents being very unreasonable, they caused much of the trouble in the East of Ukraine. Bbc newsnight describes them as a far right militia. They have more power than the police.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hE6b4ao8gAQ
Would you like another list?
Counter evidence for what? The question is about what the Ukrainians might have felt about the situation before and after.
I’m very good at remembering what I’ve read luckily, Peter Hitchins has covered it fairly well:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9482475/PETER-HITCHENS-Dont-blame-Russia-ones-pushing-war.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9728423/PETER-HITCHENS-wont-popular-Navys-Black-Sea-antics-stupid.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10530885/PETER-HITCHENS-Granny-gets-gun-bunch-shameless-neo-Nazis.html
https://unherd.com/?p=374995?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups%5B0%5D=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=03efafa652&mc_eid=705bd79106
Also from unherd, Martin logan demonstrating exactly the attitude described quote:
In the past fortnight, the realists have been described as “intellectually bankrupt”, “pro-fascist” and “Putin apologists” — and that’s just in one article. It is a continuation of a trend that became prominent during the Covid era, in which it was no longer enough to question the argument, but to question the morality and the motives of the person making them too.
Such enthusiastic support for Ukraine is a natural symptom of the moral absolutism he displayed during the pandemic. It forgoes rational debate in favour of a moral impulse to be seen to be doing something, even if the costs of those actions are not fully considered. However noble the intention may be, the results are often tragic, as Afghanistan (cost: $2.313 trillion), Iraq ($2.4 trillion), Syria ($1.2 trillion) and Libya ($567 billion) attest
https://unherd.com/2022/10/russia-realists-are-the-new-lockdown-sceptics/
Nationalist As0v contingents being very unreasonable, they caused much of the trouble in the East of Ukraine. Bbc newsnight describes them as a far right militia. They have more power than the police.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hE6b4ao8gAQ
Would you like another list?
A weak argument with an attempt at clever dressing. It’s a theoretical question that one could ask about all invasions, but one can’t stop everything and quickly run a survey.
The evidence is that Ukrainian’s overwhelmingly rallied to the cause of defence and repel immediately. Furthermore despite considerable suffering they continue to resist, and that should be sufficient to indicate what they think now. And it’s now that counts.
There is though an historical question one’s always prompted to ponder when considering these sort of questions – how many Brits would have been fine with a settlement in May 40? How many would even have welcomed it and the opportunities for a job in a Milice equivalent? I suspect more than we’d like to admit. But fortunately we were well led at a crucial time.
Quite frankly that’s just a tired and cliched response. What’s a weak argument? There isn’t one, only a question to be considered.
”Overwhelmingly rallied”. That requires some source and proof.
Isn’t the proof self evident? No indications the Ukrainian people are, in significant numbers, saying it was wrong to resist? Does behold you to prove your point too or at least present some evidence?
As it is I actually have family out there. It can only be anecdotal of course but absolutely no indications relayed that the locals they liaise with have anything but hatred for and a desire to repel Russians.
“Isn’t the proof self evident?”
What proof? You want me to present some evidence for what, this is about a question raised by Phillip.
Here’s what he asked:
”But to know I need to understand – What did the population think Russia was going to do to them that this is a preferred outcome?”
You 100% agreed with a comment that was clearly implying, albeit in a non-direct fashion, the Ukrainian people didn’t agree with resistance. Let’s be straight here – the comment, and your response was implying the Ukrainians have been led down this path of resistance and had they been asked they may have wished something else.
I’m responding saying their reaction, also before NATO could get them more weapons, was one of overwhelming resistance and self determination.
The sense is you have a view for which you are seeking a theoretical justification. It’s a legit view to say NATO/US have pressurised Ukraine into resistance for it’s own geopolitical reasons. I happen, as do many, to v much disagree with that and I think the Ukrainians do overwhelmingly too. But better you say what you think rather than concoct a clever way of trying to imply it.
You obviously are incapable of addressing a question objectively. It doesn’t make one a Putin apologist by considering a question about the war.
Just to repeat, here’s one question that Phillip asked: “What did the population think Russia was going to do to them that this is a preferred outcome?”
”You 100% agreed with a comment that was clearly implying, albeit in a non-direct fashion, the Ukrainian people didn’t agree with resistance.”
Show me.
You seem oblivious to your own tendency to ignore any point directly put to you. For discussion to have any purpose, I think you have to contribute a little more than only asking questions. The comment section is more aimed at letting people express their opinions about article – and not primarily to comment on other people.
As it is, the tone of nagging insinuation in your questions leaves most people in little practical doubt that you probably are a Putin apologist. If you only criticise one side in a dispute, that is the impression created.
Of course, if you are not, you simply have to say so and tell us what your actual views and objectives are and I’m sure any necessary apoligies will be forthcoming,
“the tone of nagging insinuation in your questions leaves most people in little practical doubt that you probably are a Putin apologist. If you only criticise one side in a dispute, that is the impression created.”
Well of course it would eventually be suggested that I was a Putin apologist. Interesting angle. As you say all I have to do is deny it and then explain myself and all will be well. So I’ll be forgiven if my explanation is “correct”, that is I agree wholeheartedly with the opinion of others.
You mention how this comments section is largely for opinions about an article. But the articles are about a subject, sometimes with an opinion, so comments range over the subject.
Most of my comments have been about addressing a few questions put forward by Phillip. I’m not ignoring any point put to me but trying to keep the comments focused on Phillips questions, which are interesting but go unanswered and instead I’m accused of implying things. I have not criticised one side of the dispute, and what exactly is the dispute anyway?
This is from another poster:
”Your thinking is totally warped and delusional and you continue to demonstrate it with your past, current and probably future comments.”
”Probable future comments”. So I’m guilty before I even open my mouth. I guess I am, then. I hope it’s clear enough for you to see what the tone in these sort of comments including your own, reflect.
Im not really interested in defending myself for what I think, which is to really look at an issue beyond headlines. I think I’m in the wrong place,
No. I think you’re in the right place.
But perhaps you would be making a more positive contribution if you actually did bring your own thoughts forward.
Whenever we post something, we create an impression and you’ve certainly created the impression I noted for some of us. Perhaps it is unintended.
I’m quite sure that Philip is capable of following up on responses to his own points if he doesn’t feel satisified. “One riot, one ranger” as they say in Texas.
As I said, the choice is either a fool or a troll.
And I certainly don’t think you are a troll.
Happy?
You are not in the wrong place, neither is Philip Arundel, I appreciate his questions and your arguments and I doubt whether I am the only one.
With regard to what the Ukrainians would have chosen had they been given the choice in the full knowledge of the consequences it is impossible for me to say.
However, two facts I do know are, Zelensky brought in conscription on 24th February 2022, the day the invasion began, and all healthy able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 60 were forbidden to leave Ukraine. That does not indicate to me unmitigated enthusiasm for war amongst the population.
As someone somewhere else pointed out politicians make war, not ‘the people’.
We will not be able to get to the truth until after this war is over, meanwhile the killing and destruction continues.
The question is hypothetical of course, even if a survey is run after the war it won’t tell us what people felt at the time. (Not quite the same but working up a counter-factual can be applied all over the place – what would happen if we in the UK knew in 2010 what a shambles the Tories would make over 13yrs? Or maybe the same question re: Brexit? In some regards the answers are now irrelevant. What happened happened. The public will get a chance to give an opinion at future Ballot boxes – which of course ironically they wouldn’t if the invasion succeeds)
On the point about conscription – I think we’d be hard pushed to find a country that didn’t immediately introduce conscription when invaded. What seems clear is Ukraine did not have the male exodus that happened, and is still happening in Russia with men fleeing conscription. And again it’s only an anecdote, the family I have working out there indicate there is an immense pride that ripples through Ukrainian’s serving, whether conscripted or not. Putin’s invasion gave that country a sense of itself it never had before. Not a unique psychological outcome to an existential shared threat.
“Ukraine did not have the male exodus that happened, and is still happening in Russia with men fleeing conscription”,
because they are not allowed to leave under the martial law that has existed in Ukraine since 24th February 2022. They would be imprisoned and physical punishment is allowed to be used.
This is according to ‘Country policy and information note: military service, Ukraine, June 2022.’ Gov.uk website.
+ Zelensky said on 28th February 2022, “Ukrainians with real combat experience will be released from custody (prison) and will be able to compensate for their guilt in the hottest spots.”
+ In the years prior to the war from 2014 – 2018 the Armed Forces of Ukraine lost more than 33,000 people to desertion. By early 2019 another 9,300 troops had deserted.
However, on 4th March 2022 Ukrinform reported a high level of willingness to serve in the West and Central areas of Ukraine at nearly 80%. Less so in the East at nearly 60%.
That is almost a year ago, we do not know what the percentages are now.
The source for all the above points is, ‘Country policy and information note: military service, Ukraine, June 2022.’ Gov.uk website.
Whatever the truth is I sympathise with the Ukrainians, the last thing I want to see is a decade long war of attrition. Let us hope it ends sooner rather than later.
“Ukraine did not have the male exodus that happened, and is still happening in Russia with men fleeing conscription”,
because they are not allowed to leave under the martial law that has existed in Ukraine since 24th February 2022. They would be imprisoned and physical punishment is allowed to be used.
This is according to ‘Country policy and information note: military service, Ukraine, June 2022.’ Gov.uk website.
+ Zelensky said on 28th February 2022, “Ukrainians with real combat experience will be released from custody (prison) and will be able to compensate for their guilt in the hottest spots.”
+ In the years prior to the war from 2014 – 2018 the Armed Forces of Ukraine lost more than 33,000 people to desertion. By early 2019 another 9,300 troops had deserted.
However, on 4th March 2022 Ukrinform reported a high level of willingness to serve in the West and Central areas of Ukraine at nearly 80%. Less so in the East at nearly 60%.
That is almost a year ago, we do not know what the percentages are now.
The source for all the above points is, ‘Country policy and information note: military service, Ukraine, June 2022.’ Gov.uk website.
Whatever the truth is I sympathise with the Ukrainians, the last thing I want to see is a decade long war of attrition. Let us hope it ends sooner rather than later.
The question is hypothetical of course, even if a survey is run after the war it won’t tell us what people felt at the time. (Not quite the same but working up a counter-factual can be applied all over the place – what would happen if we in the UK knew in 2010 what a shambles the Tories would make over 13yrs? Or maybe the same question re: Brexit? In some regards the answers are now irrelevant. What happened happened. The public will get a chance to give an opinion at future Ballot boxes – which of course ironically they wouldn’t if the invasion succeeds)
On the point about conscription – I think we’d be hard pushed to find a country that didn’t immediately introduce conscription when invaded. What seems clear is Ukraine did not have the male exodus that happened, and is still happening in Russia with men fleeing conscription. And again it’s only an anecdote, the family I have working out there indicate there is an immense pride that ripples through Ukrainian’s serving, whether conscripted or not. Putin’s invasion gave that country a sense of itself it never had before. Not a unique psychological outcome to an existential shared threat.
No. I think you’re in the right place.
But perhaps you would be making a more positive contribution if you actually did bring your own thoughts forward.
Whenever we post something, we create an impression and you’ve certainly created the impression I noted for some of us. Perhaps it is unintended.
I’m quite sure that Philip is capable of following up on responses to his own points if he doesn’t feel satisified. “One riot, one ranger” as they say in Texas.
As I said, the choice is either a fool or a troll.
And I certainly don’t think you are a troll.
Happy?
You are not in the wrong place, neither is Philip Arundel, I appreciate his questions and your arguments and I doubt whether I am the only one.
With regard to what the Ukrainians would have chosen had they been given the choice in the full knowledge of the consequences it is impossible for me to say.
However, two facts I do know are, Zelensky brought in conscription on 24th February 2022, the day the invasion began, and all healthy able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 60 were forbidden to leave Ukraine. That does not indicate to me unmitigated enthusiasm for war amongst the population.
As someone somewhere else pointed out politicians make war, not ‘the people’.
We will not be able to get to the truth until after this war is over, meanwhile the killing and destruction continues.
You’ve nailed it Peter. Reading through all the comments it’s obvious Brett’s just trying to come across as cleverly challenging. Pity as I think a good debate could be had with someone constructive.
“the tone of nagging insinuation in your questions leaves most people in little practical doubt that you probably are a Putin apologist. If you only criticise one side in a dispute, that is the impression created.”
Well of course it would eventually be suggested that I was a Putin apologist. Interesting angle. As you say all I have to do is deny it and then explain myself and all will be well. So I’ll be forgiven if my explanation is “correct”, that is I agree wholeheartedly with the opinion of others.
You mention how this comments section is largely for opinions about an article. But the articles are about a subject, sometimes with an opinion, so comments range over the subject.
Most of my comments have been about addressing a few questions put forward by Phillip. I’m not ignoring any point put to me but trying to keep the comments focused on Phillips questions, which are interesting but go unanswered and instead I’m accused of implying things. I have not criticised one side of the dispute, and what exactly is the dispute anyway?
This is from another poster:
”Your thinking is totally warped and delusional and you continue to demonstrate it with your past, current and probably future comments.”
”Probable future comments”. So I’m guilty before I even open my mouth. I guess I am, then. I hope it’s clear enough for you to see what the tone in these sort of comments including your own, reflect.
Im not really interested in defending myself for what I think, which is to really look at an issue beyond headlines. I think I’m in the wrong place,
You’ve nailed it Peter. Reading through all the comments it’s obvious Brett’s just trying to come across as cleverly challenging. Pity as I think a good debate could be had with someone constructive.
You seem oblivious to your own tendency to ignore any point directly put to you. For discussion to have any purpose, I think you have to contribute a little more than only asking questions. The comment section is more aimed at letting people express their opinions about article – and not primarily to comment on other people.
As it is, the tone of nagging insinuation in your questions leaves most people in little practical doubt that you probably are a Putin apologist. If you only criticise one side in a dispute, that is the impression created.
Of course, if you are not, you simply have to say so and tell us what your actual views and objectives are and I’m sure any necessary apoligies will be forthcoming,
You obviously are incapable of addressing a question objectively. It doesn’t make one a Putin apologist by considering a question about the war.
Just to repeat, here’s one question that Phillip asked: “What did the population think Russia was going to do to them that this is a preferred outcome?”
”You 100% agreed with a comment that was clearly implying, albeit in a non-direct fashion, the Ukrainian people didn’t agree with resistance.”
Show me.
You seem to be enveloped in a post-modernist “Cloud of Unknowning.”
Shouldn’t you visit Bucha–and many other places–to see what the Russians planned for anyone who even passively resisted?
“You seem to be enveloped in a post-modernist “Cloud of Unknowning.”
Because I was prepared to consider a question put by a subscriber?
Sadly, you were not prepared to present evidence for any fixed view.
Again, constantly moving targets that allow you to claim you are being “victimized” by a dense and uncaring public, sedated by the AWFUL MSM.
Sadly, you were not prepared to present evidence for any fixed view.
Again, constantly moving targets that allow you to claim you are being “victimized” by a dense and uncaring public, sedated by the AWFUL MSM.
“You seem to be enveloped in a post-modernist “Cloud of Unknowning.”
Because I was prepared to consider a question put by a subscriber?
People fled in mass from the russian occupied areas after 2014. DPR/LPR were mafia states even worse than Russia itself. Nobody (apart from a small minority of sovoks and their brainwashed grandchildren) wants Kremlin rule
You 100% agreed with a comment that was clearly implying, albeit in a non-direct fashion, the Ukrainian people didn’t agree with resistance. Let’s be straight here – the comment, and your response was implying the Ukrainians have been led down this path of resistance and had they been asked they may have wished something else.
I’m responding saying their reaction, also before NATO could get them more weapons, was one of overwhelming resistance and self determination.
The sense is you have a view for which you are seeking a theoretical justification. It’s a legit view to say NATO/US have pressurised Ukraine into resistance for it’s own geopolitical reasons. I happen, as do many, to v much disagree with that and I think the Ukrainians do overwhelmingly too. But better you say what you think rather than concoct a clever way of trying to imply it.
You seem to be enveloped in a post-modernist “Cloud of Unknowning.”
Shouldn’t you visit Bucha–and many other places–to see what the Russians planned for anyone who even passively resisted?
People fled in mass from the russian occupied areas after 2014. DPR/LPR were mafia states even worse than Russia itself. Nobody (apart from a small minority of sovoks and their brainwashed grandchildren) wants Kremlin rule
“Isn’t the proof self evident?”
What proof? You want me to present some evidence for what, this is about a question raised by Phillip.
Here’s what he asked:
”But to know I need to understand – What did the population think Russia was going to do to them that this is a preferred outcome?”
Isn’t the proof self evident? No indications the Ukrainian people are, in significant numbers, saying it was wrong to resist? Does behold you to prove your point too or at least present some evidence?
As it is I actually have family out there. It can only be anecdotal of course but absolutely no indications relayed that the locals they liaise with have anything but hatred for and a desire to repel Russians.
Quite frankly that’s just a tired and cliched response. What’s a weak argument? There isn’t one, only a question to be considered.
”Overwhelmingly rallied”. That requires some source and proof.
Sorry, when Putin promised not to invade, and then did it anyway, it’s difficult to see that any Russophone would want to be under Russian hegemony, or even make a peace that gave up much of Ukraine.
When even Russophones in a city like Odesa (including many Russian professors) want to tear down statues of Pushkin, one sees the mood throughout the East.
If you have ANY counter evidence, please present it.
A weak argument with an attempt at clever dressing. It’s a theoretical question that one could ask about all invasions, but one can’t stop everything and quickly run a survey.
The evidence is that Ukrainian’s overwhelmingly rallied to the cause of defence and repel immediately. Furthermore despite considerable suffering they continue to resist, and that should be sufficient to indicate what they think now. And it’s now that counts.
There is though an historical question one’s always prompted to ponder when considering these sort of questions – how many Brits would have been fine with a settlement in May 40? How many would even have welcomed it and the opportunities for a job in a Milice equivalent? I suspect more than we’d like to admit. But fortunately we were well led at a crucial time.
”If Russia had been invading your country, would you have decided that surrender was better than war? Or would you have fought?”
I would have surrendered immediately. Not to Hitler if I was in UK – because that would mean actually becoming a slave to a psychopath – but in this situation I would have taken the Petain-Gamlin (although they were horrible leaders and basically engineered this defeat – but once lost they quit fighting and saved France) route like France did as soon as their army fell apart. To save France from being destroyed like Poland was France agreed to Vichy.
The schools stayed open, people went to work, farms farmed, buses ran, churches stayed open, houses and cities left intact.
This is what I would have chosen. I believe in ‘Live Free or Die’, but my people – the innocents – they should not die for my pride and vanity. There is no insurance in a war – those who lost their house – business – car – pension – unless USA buys them a new one they have had their life’s work destroyed. I also know given some years the occupation would have ended. Putin, I suspect, would have replaced the Oligarchs with his puppets and then let things return to the normal state of almost 100% corruption which is Ukraine.
I feel the only reason the nation fought was to keep the corrupt Oligarchs, like the monster Zalensli, in power and in the conduit to steal dozens of $Billions – and with that money they could pay for the warlords fighting although it destroys the nation – they grow super wealthy and powerful.
I suspect if Putin and Zalenski were put on a balance scale that measured goodness the scale would be in perfect balance.
Perhaps you aren’t aware that the collaboration of the Vichy regime did not save them from total Nazi occupation in the end – Germany took control of all of France in November 1942.
Fortunately, not all French people were as deluded as you are and bravely fought on in the Free French and the resistance. Many were tortured and murdered by the Gestapo. How hard did the Vichy regime protect its citizens there ? Or its Jewish citizens ?
Were the French republic in 1940 and Nazi Germany also morally equivalent (as you appear to believe is the case for Ukraine/Zelensky and Russia/Putin) ?
You clearly do not believe in “live free or die” if you would be a collaborator. Stop writing such blatant nonsense.
As Benjaim Franklin famously said “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Aha! The real agenda!
And Pure Putin:
“Zelensky is a crook like all the rest”
(although the vast majority of Ukrainians in the south and east voted for him)
“So why not just surrender and let me be your crook.”
The bargain most Russians have made with Putin.
Which is why they are the most contemptible cowards on earth.
The choice between submission and the carnage of war is real. But the question is not whether you would have fought in Ukraine. If Russia mounts a credible invasion in Britain, or Alaska, or Maryland, or wherever you live, will you risk the horrors of war, or will you opt for peace and surrender to Putin? Whether your answer is the same or different for your home country as it is for Ukraine, it will illuminate your position.
Your point seems to be that for ordinary Ukrainians there is not much to choose between living under Zelensky and living under Putin, so it can only be those horrible corrupt oligarchs who tricked them into opting for war and destruction instead of Russification. That is Putin’s point, basically, but all available evidence suggests that Ukrainians do see a significant difference.
Putin has already forcibly repatriated tens of thousands of Ukrainians to camps in Russia, probably for life. You think that’s freedom?
Perhaps you aren’t aware that the collaboration of the Vichy regime did not save them from total Nazi occupation in the end – Germany took control of all of France in November 1942.
Fortunately, not all French people were as deluded as you are and bravely fought on in the Free French and the resistance. Many were tortured and murdered by the Gestapo. How hard did the Vichy regime protect its citizens there ? Or its Jewish citizens ?
Were the French republic in 1940 and Nazi Germany also morally equivalent (as you appear to believe is the case for Ukraine/Zelensky and Russia/Putin) ?
You clearly do not believe in “live free or die” if you would be a collaborator. Stop writing such blatant nonsense.
As Benjaim Franklin famously said “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Aha! The real agenda!
And Pure Putin:
“Zelensky is a crook like all the rest”
(although the vast majority of Ukrainians in the south and east voted for him)
“So why not just surrender and let me be your crook.”
The bargain most Russians have made with Putin.
Which is why they are the most contemptible cowards on earth.
The choice between submission and the carnage of war is real. But the question is not whether you would have fought in Ukraine. If Russia mounts a credible invasion in Britain, or Alaska, or Maryland, or wherever you live, will you risk the horrors of war, or will you opt for peace and surrender to Putin? Whether your answer is the same or different for your home country as it is for Ukraine, it will illuminate your position.
Your point seems to be that for ordinary Ukrainians there is not much to choose between living under Zelensky and living under Putin, so it can only be those horrible corrupt oligarchs who tricked them into opting for war and destruction instead of Russification. That is Putin’s point, basically, but all available evidence suggests that Ukrainians do see a significant difference.
Putin has already forcibly repatriated tens of thousands of Ukrainians to camps in Russia, probably for life. You think that’s freedom?
It would have been completely rational for the UK to do a peace deal with Germany in 1940.
And contemptible.
And contemptible.
“What did they think would have happened if Ukraine has just capitulated at the start?”
Your counter question is of no use at all because it gives not the slightest hint of what Ukrainians thought would have happened if they had capitulated to Russia. And even now we can’t be sure that meant all of Ukraine or the eastern region.
Ironically you’re speaking on behalf of Ukrainians when you pose your counter question.
”If Russia had been invading your country, would you have decided that surrender was better than war? Or would you have fought?”
I would have surrendered immediately. Not to Hitler if I was in UK – because that would mean actually becoming a slave to a psychopath – but in this situation I would have taken the Petain-Gamlin (although they were horrible leaders and basically engineered this defeat – but once lost they quit fighting and saved France) route like France did as soon as their army fell apart. To save France from being destroyed like Poland was France agreed to Vichy.
The schools stayed open, people went to work, farms farmed, buses ran, churches stayed open, houses and cities left intact.
This is what I would have chosen. I believe in ‘Live Free or Die’, but my people – the innocents – they should not die for my pride and vanity. There is no insurance in a war – those who lost their house – business – car – pension – unless USA buys them a new one they have had their life’s work destroyed. I also know given some years the occupation would have ended. Putin, I suspect, would have replaced the Oligarchs with his puppets and then let things return to the normal state of almost 100% corruption which is Ukraine.
I feel the only reason the nation fought was to keep the corrupt Oligarchs, like the monster Zalensli, in power and in the conduit to steal dozens of $Billions – and with that money they could pay for the warlords fighting although it destroys the nation – they grow super wealthy and powerful.
I suspect if Putin and Zalenski were put on a balance scale that measured goodness the scale would be in perfect balance.
It would have been completely rational for the UK to do a peace deal with Germany in 1940.
I suspect the fact that most Russophones supported the peacenik candidate Zelensky shows what happened on 24 Feb 2022:
Putin had scoffed at any idea of a Russian invasion–and then used it as cover for his plan to take Kyiv and as much of the rest of the country as possible. Every Russophone felt as betrayed as every Ukrainian speaker.
We know that the invaders had lists of people to incarcerate and torture. We also know that hundreds if not thousands have been killed, either as part of policy, or by casual executions by Russian soldiers.
We know that more than a million people have been forcibly exiled to Russia.
Most important, we know the normal reaction by of society to people who explicitly want to obliterate them as a nation:
Kill as many of the invaders as possible.
Once Putin invaded, there was zero chance of the “irenic” solution proposed above.
As history shows, that’s just how human beings operate.
Sadly, an invasion by 120,000 Russian troops is not a “political solution.”
”Most important, we know the normal reaction by of society to people who explicitly want to obliterate them as a nation:
Kill as many of the invaders as possible.
Once Putin invaded, there was zero chance of the “irenic” solution proposed above.
As history shows, that’s just how human beings operate.”
If you know any Military history the German invasion (Malta Agreement, ‘Peace in our time’) of Cz basically was where they were allowed to conquer that nation who had a huge military – no shot fired. Also the taking of Austria has some correlations in a distant way as it did not trigger the ‘Allies’ response. Then Quisling – then Vichy – I mean – you seemingly know nothing of history and just parrot the MSM fed agenda.
And if I may – the entirity of history before modern times nations capitulated when their military was lost rather than now days where the concept of ”Total War’ came about – and the entire nation destroyed.
No this fighting was not people rising I do not believe – it was $$$$ in the hands of Oligarchs fighting to maintain their positions of power and wealth and being able to pay people to fight.
But that is why I ask – what did the people think Putin was going to do to them if they capitulated what makes destroying (thus far 150,000 dead by estimate I hear) Ukraine worth it?
We agree on something:
“before modern times nations capitulated when their military was lost.”
So why doesn’t Russia capitulate, as it did in 1855, 1905 and 1917?
It’s not rocket science…
For someone who claims to know military history you seem to be overlooking the fact this war has been going on for nine years. It didn’t just start last year.
We agree on something:
“before modern times nations capitulated when their military was lost.”
So why doesn’t Russia capitulate, as it did in 1855, 1905 and 1917?
It’s not rocket science…
For someone who claims to know military history you seem to be overlooking the fact this war has been going on for nine years. It didn’t just start last year.
Sadly, an invasion by 120,000 Russian troops is not a “political solution.”
”Most important, we know the normal reaction by of society to people who explicitly want to obliterate them as a nation:
Kill as many of the invaders as possible.
Once Putin invaded, there was zero chance of the “irenic” solution proposed above.
As history shows, that’s just how human beings operate.”
If you know any Military history the German invasion (Malta Agreement, ‘Peace in our time’) of Cz basically was where they were allowed to conquer that nation who had a huge military – no shot fired. Also the taking of Austria has some correlations in a distant way as it did not trigger the ‘Allies’ response. Then Quisling – then Vichy – I mean – you seemingly know nothing of history and just parrot the MSM fed agenda.
And if I may – the entirity of history before modern times nations capitulated when their military was lost rather than now days where the concept of ”Total War’ came about – and the entire nation destroyed.
No this fighting was not people rising I do not believe – it was $$$$ in the hands of Oligarchs fighting to maintain their positions of power and wealth and being able to pay people to fight.
But that is why I ask – what did the people think Putin was going to do to them if they capitulated what makes destroying (thus far 150,000 dead by estimate I hear) Ukraine worth it?
Maybe you could yourself do a little exercise in conjecture of the two alternatives based on Poland over the last 30 years. I can believe what a lot of the Ukrainians would want is to be in Poland’s position now in maybe 10-15 years time. The alternative is remaining in a totally corrupt society with repression, absence of democracy, poverty for all but the oligarchs and party members, and a country going nowhere whose only intention is threatening and manipulating other countries. I’ve witnessed what’s happened in Poland every year since the 90’s and the reformation is astounding compared to how it looked at the end of the 80’s. I believe that’s what the majority of the Ukrainians have been wishing for since 2013.
Well I guess everything’s okay, because you know what’s best for the Ukrainians. Like I said, they really don’t have a voice, do they?
Except that Russophones voted overwhelming for the present leader of Ukraine.
But I guess evidence is soooo un-Post-Modern…
Yes they did. But part of the “non-discussion” is did they realise and are they perhaps shocked at the consequent destruction of their country. This is not about who’s right and wrong. It’s a question about just how much people can endure.
Are Russians shocked at the losses they’ve suffered, to include almost all of its front line units, and hundreds of aircraft?
And the total decoupling of Europe from Russian gas? (selling at HALF its value now)
To say nothing of $300 billion frozen in western banks, which Russian taxpayers will never see again?
But how else can we destroy Russia?
They voted for him after many years of the very destructive war in the east – you seem to think the destruction only started last year.
Are Russians shocked at the losses they’ve suffered, to include almost all of its front line units, and hundreds of aircraft?
And the total decoupling of Europe from Russian gas? (selling at HALF its value now)
To say nothing of $300 billion frozen in western banks, which Russian taxpayers will never see again?
But how else can we destroy Russia?
They voted for him after many years of the very destructive war in the east – you seem to think the destruction only started last year.
un-Post -Modern: what is that?
Sanity…
Sanity…
Yes they did. But part of the “non-discussion” is did they realise and are they perhaps shocked at the consequent destruction of their country. This is not about who’s right and wrong. It’s a question about just how much people can endure.
un-Post -Modern: what is that?
I’m not saying I do know, I’m just assuming what the elected representatives in Kiev decided on as the course to follow to rid itself of 100+ years of Russian oppression including the genocide of 1929. Your thinking is totally warped and delusional and you continue to demonstrate it with your past, current and probably future comments.
Except that Russophones voted overwhelming for the present leader of Ukraine.
But I guess evidence is soooo un-Post-Modern…
I’m not saying I do know, I’m just assuming what the elected representatives in Kiev decided on as the course to follow to rid itself of 100+ years of Russian oppression including the genocide of 1929. Your thinking is totally warped and delusional and you continue to demonstrate it with your past, current and probably future comments.
But Poland is Not Ukraine. I am sure the Chechens and Georgians and Belarus also would love to be modern Poland – but that is just not the Geo-political and historical reality. They would love to be Finland – but that is just now where the reality is, or has been.
No difference between Poland and Ukraine geo-politically.
Both are bordered by Russia and Belarus.
So once Russia/Belarus become non-viable, they can be prosperous states within the EU.
By then their borders will stretch to the Urals.
Given what I’ve read on Belarus over the last 2-3 years it will be interesting to see what happens if and hopefully when Russia is further weakened by this war. Belarus might just try again to seize its chance to break free. “Poland is not Ukraine”? Well, areas in west Ukraine were part of what once was Poland for a time and the Polish culture is latently intact there. There were up to 1m Ukrainians working in Poland before last year’s war. There have been differences, conflicts and genocide (Wolyn) over the last 100 years between these countries, but today’s reality is more a case of their aspirations and common goals.
You’ve just demonstrated you know little of Poland and Ukraine. They have very significant cultural and ethnic overlaps.
No difference between Poland and Ukraine geo-politically.
Both are bordered by Russia and Belarus.
So once Russia/Belarus become non-viable, they can be prosperous states within the EU.
By then their borders will stretch to the Urals.
Given what I’ve read on Belarus over the last 2-3 years it will be interesting to see what happens if and hopefully when Russia is further weakened by this war. Belarus might just try again to seize its chance to break free. “Poland is not Ukraine”? Well, areas in west Ukraine were part of what once was Poland for a time and the Polish culture is latently intact there. There were up to 1m Ukrainians working in Poland before last year’s war. There have been differences, conflicts and genocide (Wolyn) over the last 100 years between these countries, but today’s reality is more a case of their aspirations and common goals.
You’ve just demonstrated you know little of Poland and Ukraine. They have very significant cultural and ethnic overlaps.
Great point Stephen!
Well I guess everything’s okay, because you know what’s best for the Ukrainians. Like I said, they really don’t have a voice, do they?
But Poland is Not Ukraine. I am sure the Chechens and Georgians and Belarus also would love to be modern Poland – but that is just not the Geo-political and historical reality. They would love to be Finland – but that is just now where the reality is, or has been.
Great point Stephen!
Please, just stop this nonsense. There is plenty of reporting of what ordinary Ukrainian people think – you are simply choosing to ignore it because it doesn’t fit the agenda you’re so desperately still trying to push in denial of all the facts.
It is quite clear that the average Ukrainian soldier is highly motivated and would not be so if there was not some principal they were fighting for. I suggest their motivations include:
* people just don’t like their country being invaded
* historic mistrust of Russia in Ukraine (there’s plenty of history there)
* strong sense of Ukrainian national identity (reinforced by Putin’s stupid invasion)
* distrust and dislike of Putin and his corrupt regime
* aspiration to be a normal, developed, free and relatively law-obiding and non-corrupt Western country like Poland
How you can believe after everything that’s happened that anyone can trust Putin and his regime is beyond me. That is why there was never a “diplomatic answer”. That and the absurd demands Putin was making a year ago (NATO pulling back from Poland etc).
Incredible. What nonsense? Phillip poses a perfectly reasonable question which you don’t address. I’m sure the soldiers are highly motivated. But the question was about the people. Just what agenda is his post pushing?
“That is why there was never a “diplomatic answer”. Not yet anyway.
Here’s a clue as to his agenda “From what I hear it would appear to be the most Pyrrhic of all victories if they win.” Also, the anti-American tone of his comments in general.
Essentially, he seems to be pushing the view (and I have formed this from reading many of his comments now) – without we note having the courage to come out and explicitly say so – that Ukraine should not be defending itself against an unjustified Russian invasion. He is also – as you are – attempting to throw up a cloud of uncertainty and doubt about things happening in Ukraine where in practice there is no doubt.
And it is this – this laughable attempt to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) – which is the nonsense of your arguments and his.
That and the pretence that you are both fair and impartial observers merely asking “reasonable questions”. Your outright denial of the fact that the Ukrainians are pretty united and determined to defend their country – and are indeed succeeding in this – gives the lie to this pretence.
“Your outright denial of the fact that the Ukrainians are pretty united and determined to defend their country – and are indeed succeeding in this – gives the lie to this pretence.”
I never made any such statement.
You’ve never made ANY coherent statement.
You’ve never made ANY coherent statement.
“Your outright denial of the fact that the Ukrainians are pretty united and determined to defend their country – and are indeed succeeding in this – gives the lie to this pretence.”
I never made any such statement.
Here’s a clue as to his agenda “From what I hear it would appear to be the most Pyrrhic of all victories if they win.” Also, the anti-American tone of his comments in general.
Essentially, he seems to be pushing the view (and I have formed this from reading many of his comments now) – without we note having the courage to come out and explicitly say so – that Ukraine should not be defending itself against an unjustified Russian invasion. He is also – as you are – attempting to throw up a cloud of uncertainty and doubt about things happening in Ukraine where in practice there is no doubt.
And it is this – this laughable attempt to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) – which is the nonsense of your arguments and his.
That and the pretence that you are both fair and impartial observers merely asking “reasonable questions”. Your outright denial of the fact that the Ukrainians are pretty united and determined to defend their country – and are indeed succeeding in this – gives the lie to this pretence.
I know they Ukrainians a bit – I was married to one – the thing is the Nation is destroyed. Mass death, the economy destroyed, 8,000,000 refugees –
And here is the very biggest thing of all – historically half war refugees never return – and these young woman and children are VITAL to the future of Ukraine in its demographic nightmare. Europe would like to keep them very much – young people in a EU with a demographic mess its self. If they do not return their loss will be worse for Ukraine than the physical damage to the infrastructure by far. (these are not unskilled, single men, like seen a decade ago in EU, who are a different thing)
The funny thing is nations recover after even the most catastrophic wars. Germany and Japan in 1945 were in a far worse state than Ukraine is now. How did they recover so well ?
I don’t buy into this doom-mongering.
According to the UNHCR, refugees only stop going home after 5 years.
If you think the war will last till 2028, Russia won’t exist by then.
The funny thing is nations recover after even the most catastrophic wars. Germany and Japan in 1945 were in a far worse state than Ukraine is now. How did they recover so well ?
I don’t buy into this doom-mongering.
According to the UNHCR, refugees only stop going home after 5 years.
If you think the war will last till 2028, Russia