X Close

Is the West escalating the Ukraine war? One year on, there is no sign of an endgame

We are heading towards the precipice (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

We are heading towards the precipice (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


February 18, 2023   8 mins

Barely a day had gone by from Ukraine’s successful request for German Leopard-2 tanks when the government in Kyiv called on Nato countries to yet again prove their solidarity by supplying it with US-made F-16 fighter jets. While military experts doubt these vehicles will significantly alter the situation on the battlefield, Kyiv touts them as important symbols of Western political resolve.

“War is a continuation of policy with other means,” wrote Clausewitz in 1832. A year into the Russo-Ukrainian War, what is that policy where Ukraine is concerned? Or America, Germany, and other Nato allies? Are Ukraine’s repeated calls for more support and the West’s accommodating response a case of leveraging “strategic publicity”, performative diplomacy, alliance solidarity, or something else entirely? After all, as much as the Ukrainians are fighting Russian forces and suffering massive casualties to protect the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state, today Nato is openly engaged in a proxy war that risks spiralling into a catastrophic conflict between the West and Russia.

Although foreign policy realism can help sketch, even predict, the general contours of the war and explain policy in Moscow and Kyiv, this mainstream realist position, as represented by the likes of John Mearsheimer, provides an incomplete account of the behaviour of most Western allies, especially the United States. To understand Western decision-making and the peculiar inter-alliance dynamics of Nato, we need a more radical realism that takes seriously the non-physical, psychological, and “ontological dimensions” of security — encompassing a state or an organisation’s need for overcoming uncertainty by establishing orderly narratives and identities about its sense of “self”.

Still, “structural” realist accounts — centred on systemic anarchy, physical security, the balance of power, and political dimensions of strategy — can help explain aspects of Ukraine’s strategic decision-making. In a recent study for the Institute for Peace & Diplomacy, which I co-authored, we investigated the structural reasons that drive Ukraine’s strategic calculus. We suggested that, as a “regional balancer”, Ukraine took a massive risk in defying the Russian redlines about Kyiv explicitly rejecting Nato overtures and stopping any military integration with the West. This was a maximalist gambit that presupposed Western military support and risked actively provoking Moscow to its own strategic disadvantage.

In choosing the riskier, zero-sum strategy aimed at thwarting the historical and geopolitical sphere of influence of a neighbouring regional and civilisational power, Ukraine was perhaps imprudent — but by no means irrational. As we wrote:

“Practically all of America’s security alliances today are asymmetrical arrangements between the United States and regional balancers — a class of smaller, more peripheral regional states seeking to balance against the dominant middle powers in their respective regions. As a great power, America possesses an inherent capacity to encroach on other regional security complexes (RSCs). In this context, it is reasonable for regional balancers to attempt to coax and exploit American power in the service of their particular regional security interests.”

Setting such a lofty objective, however, effectively meant that Kyiv could never succeed without active Nato intervention shifting the balance of power in its favour. By virtue of its decision, Ukraine, along with its closest partners in Poland and the Baltic nations, became the classic “trojan ally” — smaller countries whose desire for regional clout against the extant middle power (Russia) is predicated on their ability to persuade an external great power and its global military network (here, the US and, by extension, Nato) to step in militarily on their behalf. As we noted in our study, “this comes at great risk to the regional balancer and at great cost to the external great power”. For ultimately, the arrangement depends on “the threat of the use of force and military intervention” by that external great power, without which the regional balancer would fail.

Ukraine’s strategic ambition is to overcome Russia once and for all and break away from Moscow’s historical control. Putting aside the specious and facile Russian justifications for the invasion that seek to lampoon Nato’s military intervention in Yugoslavia, it is crushing this larger Ukrainian ambition that motivates the Kremlin. This explains Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, its aspirations for the Minsk agreements, and this final resort to military action.

Once the Russian invasion began, Kyiv’s goal of thwarting Moscow and keeping intact its territories became impossible without Western military intervention. Ukraine’s future as a sovereign state would now hinge on its ability to successfully engineer an escalation. From Ukraine’s perspective, therefore, the desire for supplies of ever more sophisticated weaponry from the more powerful Western nations is not primarily motivated by their immediate practical and tactical impact — after all, the delivery of and training for these systems will still be months away. No, Ukrainian demands largely stem from what the introduction of these weapons would represent politically, as well as their long-term geostrategic consequences for the next phase of the war.

For it is in Kyiv’s interests to steer Nato into becoming more closely entangled in the war. Ukraine has resorted to a combination of tactics — including information warfare and exploiting historic Western guilt — to instigate an informational and reputational cascade among Nato members that would assure accedence to Ukrainian demands. Given its clear long-term weaknesses in quality manpower, artillery, and ammunition, the Zelenskyy government has shrewdly fought a hybrid war from the start, knowing that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia without Nato fighting on its side. The question now is whether the West should allow itself to be entrapped into that war and jeopardise the fate of the entire world in doing so.

In the materialist framing of security offered by most realists, there is little upside for America and western Europe, and certainly no genuine national or strategic interest, in getting dragged into what is essentially a regional war in Eastern Europe involving two different nationalistic states. From an ontological standpoint, however, an Anglo-American foreign policy establishment that strongly “identifies” itself with US unipolarity has been heavily invested in maintaining the status quo, and preventing the formation of a new collective security architecture in Europe, which would be centred on Russia and Germany rather than the United States. As geopolitical analyst George Friedman observed in 2015: “For the United States, the primordial fear is
 [the coupling of] German technology and German capital, [with] Russian natural resources [and] Russian manpower.”

Perhaps following a similar logic, the US establishment has worked to destroy any possibility of a Berlin-Moscow axis forming by aligning itself with the Intermarium bloc of countries from the Baltic to the Black Sea, repeatedly opposing (and openly threatening) Nord Stream gas pipelines, and deliberately rebuffing Russian insistence on a neutral Ukraine. In relation to Ukraine, the initial objective for an ideological Western alliance that is skewed toward “shared values”, as Nato has become with the dissolution of the USSR, was to turn that country into a Western albatross for Russia, to bog down Moscow in an extended quagmire to weaken its regional power and influence, and even to encourage regime change in the Kremlin.

If one were to accept the logic of this strategy, then a limited Western military support of the Ukrainian war aims — directed towards creating an attritional, frozen conflict — seems plausible. Yet, even in such a scenario, any expansion in scope and degree of that support to include advanced weapon systems, such as F-16s or long-range missiles, is not only unwise but increasingly suicidal in any cost-benefit calculation. Such explicitly hostile support could escalate the proxy war into a direct, conventional war — a World War III scenario, which President Biden insists he wants to avoid. Moreover, in the unlikely event that such expansive military assistance is successful in driving Russian forces out of the Donbas, let alone Crimea (where Russia holds a large naval base), it would dramatically increase the likelihood of a nuclear event, given how Moscow regards protecting its strategic stronghold in the Black Sea as an existential imperative.

Why, then, does the West continue to oblige Ukraine and give in to reputational pressure and arm-twisting from Nato’s newest members in the Intermarium corridor? There are a number of causes, ranging from the private and institutional interests of the liberal internationalist establishment to the spread of a Manichaean worldview in the alliance. Most important, however, is the phenomenon of group compulsion toward escalation aggravated by ontological insecurity — which happens when abrupt and tragic world-historical events such as the Russian invasion disrupt one’s unified sense of order and continuity in the world.

Exacerbated by Nato’s enlargement and transformation into an institutional behemoth of some 30-odd nations with differing perceptions of threat and security, this compulsion has shaped and reinforced a unified “identity” among Western nations — a narrative of us against them. Under the condition of ontological insecurity, socio-psychological and emotional undercurrents enable reputational cascades, enforce conformity in the name of Western unity, and empower “group polarisation” around the riskier choice, which ensures the more extreme and escalatory policies are ultimately adopted. And, crucially, trojan allies understandably use these dynamics to advance their very real national and security interests from within the alliance, giving them a far more prominent role in decision-making than their relative power might suggest.

A closer inspection of the inter-alliance discourse within Nato also reveals an activist psychology lurking beneath the political and ideological signalling. Given that ideology — namely liberal humanitarianism and democratism — plays a key role in the maintenance of the alliance, its decision-making process is predisposed to the action bias fallacy: the idea that doing something is always better than doing nothing. This sort of reciprocal, mutually reinforcing mentality among alliance peers who profess an activist “ethic of care” reflexively interprets responsibility as taking action, while rebuking hesitance and restraint as inhumane. The dynamic recalls Nietzsche’s observation in The Birth of Tragedy that “action requires one to be shrouded in a veil of illusion” — here, that “veil of illusion” is provided by the ontological process of identity-formation and the shared narratives of “collective responsibility” and “Western unity”.

Within the context of inter-alliance decision-making, such an ethic cannot help but indulge any demands put upon it, especially since the loudest peers can dress up this compulsion under the allegedly moral imperative of advancing Western unity, defending “our values”, and fighting reactionary evil. The ontological security-seeking of a global and hegemonic great power such as the US foregrounds the need for an ideology that can offer it a sense of coherence, make its actions appear to itself meaningful and justified. The same phenomenon applies to Nato, which — despite not being a state but an institution — is today practically an alter-ego of the US.

Now, this may seem to indicate an inherent tension between the desire for an anchoring tale about “who we are” and the more traditional material security that is based around physical self-preservation. But while this is true in some cases, especially in relation to ideological great powers such as the US, whose idealistic self-narrative of American exceptionalism often collides with its real interests, ontological and physical security-seeking are more congruent in smaller and middle-tier states for whom both interests and identities are more rooted, localised, and real.

In the Anglosphere, perhaps owing to the legacy of imperialism and the historical reality of unipolarity, there is currently a disconnect between authentic national interests, narrowly and concretely defined, and the behaviour of its liberal internationalist foreign policy establishment that prioritises ontological security-seeking with global ramifications. This fact needs rectifying. Thankfully, there are early signs that President Biden and at least some of his advisors, including the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, have sensed this dreadful reality and its potentially dangerous fallout, and are now beginning to speak of the need for negotiations and diplomatic settlement in Ukraine.

As we begin the second year of the war, it has finally dawned on many in Washington that the likely outcome of this tragedy is stalemate: “We will continue to try to impress upon [the Ukrainian leadership] that we can’t do anything and everything forever,” one senior Biden administration official said this week. For all the talk of Ukrainian agency, that agency depends entirely on Nato’s commitment to continue to support Kyiv’s war effort indefinitely. Such a maximalist desire for “complete victory” is not only highly attritional and suggestive of yet another endless war, but it is also reckless; its very success could trigger a nuclear holocaust.

Moscow has already paid a high price for its transgressions in Ukraine. To prolong the war at this point in an ideological quest for total victory is both strategically and morally questionable. For many liberal internationalists in the West, the clamour for a “just peace” that is sufficiently punishing to Russia suggests little more than a thinly-veiled desire to impose a Carthaginian peace on Moscow. The West has indeed wounded Russia; now it must decide if it wants to let this wound fester and conflagrate the entire world. For unless Moscow is provided with a reasonable off-ramp that recognises Russia’s status as a regional power with its own existential imperatives of strategic and ontological security, that is the precipice towards which we are heading.


Arta Moeini is the Director of Research at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy and founding editor of AGON.

artamoeini

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.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

347 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago

There seems to be some interesting analysis mixed in with the mountains of psychobabble in this article, but it is hard to pin down exactly what it is saying. One thing obviously missing is any analysis of the psychology and motivations of Russia, that (unlike any country in the West) is accorded the respect of being treated merely as rational actor with legitimate interests. There are some hints, in quotes like:
“Ukraine, along with its closest partners in Poland and the Baltic nations,”
“Ukraine’s strategic ambition is to overcome Russia once and for all and break away from Moscow’s historical control.[…] it is crushing this larger Ukrainian ambition that motivates the Kremlin”
“Ukraine’s future as a sovereign state would now hinge on its ability to successfully engineer an escalation.”
“recognise[s] Russia’s status as a regional power with its own existential imperatives of strategic and ontological security,”
If Mr Moeni believes that the West should recognise Russias legitimate right to have full control over a no longer sovereign Ukraine (and the Baltic states? and Poland?) that is certainly a legitimate viewpoint. Only he owes us the courtesy of saying so explicitly, and discussing in some detail how the solution that he is recommending would actually look. Including why it is in the interest of Western Europe yet again to be confronted with an economically weak and militarily aggressive Russian neighbour with a recent history of getting what it wants by successful invasions. Moreover he should explain why now is the time when the West should publicly abandon their support for Ukraines aim of restoring the territories that Russia has grabbed. Why give a huge concession to Russia without getting anything in return, at a time when Russia has shown no intention of stopping with less than her maximum demands? A result that saw Ukraine independent, sovereign, viable, and safe from further Russian invasions would seem to be worth some territorial concessions and a guarantee of neutrality. It would certainly be better than a forever war in the probably forlorn hope of regaining Crimea. But the time to make that concession would be during the peace negotiations, in return for a matching Russian quid-pro-quo. Not now, when Russia would simply pocket the concession and continue fighting for more.

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I agree, and one could argue the duty of the western alliance is to make sure this war comes to a conclusion as soon as possible
. And to avoid a long protracted stalemate we need to provide sufficient resources to Ukraine to overcome the invaders.

andy fairley
andy fairley
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

‘ (War) comes to a conclusion.’ Wise words, not really, what does it mean? Ukraine wants Russia out of its land. That includes Crimea. Russia ( Putin ) cannot accept that. So that’s why there’s a war. It will end when Ukraine runs out of fighters, people not F16’s or Migs. Russia won’t run out of people. All the West are doing is reducing the attrition on the Ukrainian people wrt the horrific Russian casualties. At some point the war will stop due to public opinion in Russia. Therefore the west/NATO/EU/US have to seriously up their military & Humanitarian supplies to the Ukraine. If they do the deaths on both sides will come to an end. Because Mums in Russia will protest. If NATO don’t there won’t be any Ukraine people left alive, so if that happens, you may as well let Russia take the land.

Last edited 1 year ago by andy fairley
Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
1 year ago
Reply to  andy fairley

‘Russia cannot accept that’?
Is that the line you’d be taking if Russia invaded and took Alaska, and then came back for a few States along the western edge of the USA? That Russia had some ‘legitimate interest’ and ‘couldn’t accept’ being pushed out of lands it voluntarily handed over (the Alaska Purchase) nearly 150 years ago? What of the other countries bordering Russia that Russia once conquered but has, over more recent decades, left?
Of course there’s an ‘escalation’ in the military assistance needed to repel the Russian aggressor, when Russia pours massive quantities of basic arms and cannon-fodder into the land it’s trying to steal. But by increasing the extent of the territory, and by bombing civilian areas in other parts of Ukraine, it’s Russia that is constantly escalating the conflict.

taek kenn
taek kenn
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate Heusser

You are not aware that:
Russia has 3x the populationRussia is a nuclear powerRussia knows China is using it as a prelude to their own ambitions.

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate Heusser

Skipping all the rubbish about Alaska I would say that yes, Russia in fact is escalating, in a bit different way than you imply. I think hasty incorporation of the Ukrainian territories even before they were fully occupied was in fact an act of escalation. At that stage It prevented any possibility for Mr Zelenski to get to peace talks even if he wanted to. Obviously — what is in the Russian constitution stays there (or boom! – please expect a nuclear thingie if you try forcibly change that).

Last edited 1 year ago by Andy E
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate Heusser

Simplistic, facile and frankly an idiotic response to an intelligent, well researched, knowledgeable and thoughtful piece.. What in heaven’s name made you think your contribution was worthwhile?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Probably the same thinking that made you think YOUR comment to her had any merit. It doesn’t. It’s just an insult.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Probably the same thinking that made you think YOUR comment to her had any merit. It doesn’t. It’s just an insult.

taek kenn
taek kenn
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate Heusser

You are not aware that:
Russia has 3x the populationRussia is a nuclear powerRussia knows China is using it as a prelude to their own ambitions.

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate Heusser

Skipping all the rubbish about Alaska I would say that yes, Russia in fact is escalating, in a bit different way than you imply. I think hasty incorporation of the Ukrainian territories even before they were fully occupied was in fact an act of escalation. At that stage It prevented any possibility for Mr Zelenski to get to peace talks even if he wanted to. Obviously — what is in the Russian constitution stays there (or boom! – please expect a nuclear thingie if you try forcibly change that).

Last edited 1 year ago by Andy E
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate Heusser

Simplistic, facile and frankly an idiotic response to an intelligent, well researched, knowledgeable and thoughtful piece.. What in heaven’s name made you think your contribution was worthwhile?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  andy fairley

If Nato does, there won’t be any Ukrainian fighters left, nor will Ukraine survive as a country. The West will walk away from the ruins just as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan and leave the “natives” to die quietly, or kill each other off in a civil war; out of MSM news. Incidentally, Crimea has been part of Russia since forever: hence it’s population is 88% Russian and its entire Southern fleet is there in Sevastapol.. Get real, please.

Justin Clark
Justin Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  andy fairley

If there is a pause, Russia will rebuild and attack again at a time of their choosing… I don’t see what more Ukraine can do but attempt to deplete as much of the Russian invasion as it can

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
1 year ago
Reply to  andy fairley

‘Russia cannot accept that’?
Is that the line you’d be taking if Russia invaded and took Alaska, and then came back for a few States along the western edge of the USA? That Russia had some ‘legitimate interest’ and ‘couldn’t accept’ being pushed out of lands it voluntarily handed over (the Alaska Purchase) nearly 150 years ago? What of the other countries bordering Russia that Russia once conquered but has, over more recent decades, left?
Of course there’s an ‘escalation’ in the military assistance needed to repel the Russian aggressor, when Russia pours massive quantities of basic arms and cannon-fodder into the land it’s trying to steal. But by increasing the extent of the territory, and by bombing civilian areas in other parts of Ukraine, it’s Russia that is constantly escalating the conflict.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  andy fairley

If Nato does, there won’t be any Ukrainian fighters left, nor will Ukraine survive as a country. The West will walk away from the ruins just as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan and leave the “natives” to die quietly, or kill each other off in a civil war; out of MSM news. Incidentally, Crimea has been part of Russia since forever: hence it’s population is 88% Russian and its entire Southern fleet is there in Sevastapol.. Get real, please.

Justin Clark
Justin Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  andy fairley

If there is a pause, Russia will rebuild and attack again at a time of their choosing… I don’t see what more Ukraine can do but attempt to deplete as much of the Russian invasion as it can

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

Your “solution” will have the opposite effect of your desired outcome!

andy fairley
andy fairley
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

‘ (War) comes to a conclusion.’ Wise words, not really, what does it mean? Ukraine wants Russia out of its land. That includes Crimea. Russia ( Putin ) cannot accept that. So that’s why there’s a war. It will end when Ukraine runs out of fighters, people not F16’s or Migs. Russia won’t run out of people. All the West are doing is reducing the attrition on the Ukrainian people wrt the horrific Russian casualties. At some point the war will stop due to public opinion in Russia. Therefore the west/NATO/EU/US have to seriously up their military & Humanitarian supplies to the Ukraine. If they do the deaths on both sides will come to an end. Because Mums in Russia will protest. If NATO don’t there won’t be any Ukraine people left alive, so if that happens, you may as well let Russia take the land.

Last edited 1 year ago by andy fairley
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

Your “solution” will have the opposite effect of your desired outcome!

Peter Kidson
Peter Kidson
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Yes such a silly question.
Oh, and did the allies escalate the similar war against the Nazis? Or did they appease the aggressor, as the writer wants?

Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Kidson
Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

They certainly appeased the Soviet Union, Finland, the Baltic States and Eastern Poland
not to think of the 1920s conquests of Ukraine, the South Caucasus and the five countries of Central Asia.

taek kenn
taek kenn
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

USA very wisely, appeased the Nazis and its allies, UNTIL, and that is a very big UNTIL, one of Nazis’ allies attacked USA.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

The answer is no, the Allies did not escalate the war against Germany when the latter annexed what they regarded as theirs! The West stood idly by for the annexing of the Sedatenland and Austria. It was only when Hitler invaded Poland that the Allies “escalated” the war.. I guess the same applies here? ie when Russia invades a real Nato country it’ll be time to “escalate” things to WW3? In the meantime, if Nato stops escalating this war:
1. Fewer Ukrainians will die, needlessly.
2. Fewer Russians will die, needlessly.
3. Less Ukrainian infrastructure will be destroyed and so…
4. Ukraine might still survive as a nation.
5. Europe might recover economically?
6. Nato defence capabilities might remain intact – at the current rate Nato countries will run out of weapons and be sitting ducks.
7. China might not be the “last man standing” and take over the world.
It seems to me all 7 of the above are highly desirabe but what do I know.. maybe a nuclear holocaust is the best outcome after all.. It will probably be best for nature in any event and the blot on the landscape that humans are will be curtailed very nicely?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Last time the Allies stood by and hoped (desperately) for peace until it became clear that peace on acceptable terms was not to be had. Much the same as this time. If anything they have learned from last time and moved a bit faster.

4) Ukraine would be wholly owned by Russia, with major de-Ukrainisation campaigns to be expected. I would not call that ‘surviving as a nation’.

6) NATO defence capabilities would be stronger, but so would Russian offensive capabilities and starting position. Not to mention that both Russia and potential third countries would know from experience that wars of conquest pay, and that NATO would fold if threatened. Russia might even conclude that NATO would not really start WWIII if Russia got a good jump on an invasion of Lithuania. That might prove a mistake, of course, but they have already shown they are willing to gamble.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The Ukrainians get to decide if and when they’ve had enough, not the West, and certainly not appeasement minded simpletons who care little for history.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

War is great Harry for those, like you who have no experience of it!

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

War is great Harry for those, like you who have no experience of it!

zee upītis
zee upītis
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

It’s silly to suggest “less Ukrainians will die” when they will keep fighting for survival with what they have against a well armed foe even if the West gives up. Your analysis is worthless because you fail to accept that what is going on is essentially a genocide, albeit more of a cultural one than elimination of all the people (although that too since Russians are keeping lists and there are guidelines based on the national identity and allegiance of who must die, be exiled or “converted”, such as the children). And culture is what makes people, what defines their values and governance. Ukrainians are not Russians and they don’t owe shit to Russia — if anything, Russia owes their existence to Kyiv if we are so into history as Putin seems to be.

Last edited 1 year ago by zee upītis
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Last time the Allies stood by and hoped (desperately) for peace until it became clear that peace on acceptable terms was not to be had. Much the same as this time. If anything they have learned from last time and moved a bit faster.

4) Ukraine would be wholly owned by Russia, with major de-Ukrainisation campaigns to be expected. I would not call that ‘surviving as a nation’.

6) NATO defence capabilities would be stronger, but so would Russian offensive capabilities and starting position. Not to mention that both Russia and potential third countries would know from experience that wars of conquest pay, and that NATO would fold if threatened. Russia might even conclude that NATO would not really start WWIII if Russia got a good jump on an invasion of Lithuania. That might prove a mistake, of course, but they have already shown they are willing to gamble.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The Ukrainians get to decide if and when they’ve had enough, not the West, and certainly not appeasement minded simpletons who care little for history.

zee upītis
zee upītis
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

It’s silly to suggest “less Ukrainians will die” when they will keep fighting for survival with what they have against a well armed foe even if the West gives up. Your analysis is worthless because you fail to accept that what is going on is essentially a genocide, albeit more of a cultural one than elimination of all the people (although that too since Russians are keeping lists and there are guidelines based on the national identity and allegiance of who must die, be exiled or “converted”, such as the children). And culture is what makes people, what defines their values and governance. Ukrainians are not Russians and they don’t owe shit to Russia — if anything, Russia owes their existence to Kyiv if we are so into history as Putin seems to be.

Last edited 1 year ago by zee upītis
Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

They certainly appeased the Soviet Union, Finland, the Baltic States and Eastern Poland
not to think of the 1920s conquests of Ukraine, the South Caucasus and the five countries of Central Asia.

taek kenn
taek kenn
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

USA very wisely, appeased the Nazis and its allies, UNTIL, and that is a very big UNTIL, one of Nazis’ allies attacked USA.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

The answer is no, the Allies did not escalate the war against Germany when the latter annexed what they regarded as theirs! The West stood idly by for the annexing of the Sedatenland and Austria. It was only when Hitler invaded Poland that the Allies “escalated” the war.. I guess the same applies here? ie when Russia invades a real Nato country it’ll be time to “escalate” things to WW3? In the meantime, if Nato stops escalating this war:
1. Fewer Ukrainians will die, needlessly.
2. Fewer Russians will die, needlessly.
3. Less Ukrainian infrastructure will be destroyed and so…
4. Ukraine might still survive as a nation.
5. Europe might recover economically?
6. Nato defence capabilities might remain intact – at the current rate Nato countries will run out of weapons and be sitting ducks.
7. China might not be the “last man standing” and take over the world.
It seems to me all 7 of the above are highly desirabe but what do I know.. maybe a nuclear holocaust is the best outcome after all.. It will probably be best for nature in any event and the blot on the landscape that humans are will be curtailed very nicely?

Vincent R
Vincent R
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I think it’s very clear what it is saying.:

Fantasising about imposing a Carthaginian peace on a nuclear armed regime is recklessly suicidal.

I do wish it wasn’t so, but like it or not, it is.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Vincent R

You are doing the same thing. Instead of pontificating about what we should not do, say what you think we should do. And what consequences you expect from it. In some detail. If you think that we should give Russia what they started this war for and hand over Ukraine to be a Russian-controlled puppet state, you can at the very least admit openly to what you are proposing.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I’ll tell you what the US and NATO should do. Butt out of a local regional war that is none of their business and has no impact on their security. And while we’re at it reduce NATO to the countries that belonged to it prior to the fall of the Soviet Union. Nobody is going to go to war directly for the Baltic States. I doubt whether many people in the UK could even point where the baltic states are on the map, and for sure virtually nobody in the US could.
The fact of the matter is, that while Putin launched an offensive in Feb 2022, this proxy war has been going on since 2014 when the US engineered the Maidan coup. Further, Western Ukraine had been constantly bombing the Donbas region since 2014. The truth is that Russia regards the situation as a red line, as would the UK if Scotland seceded and allied itself with say China who installed military bases on Scottish soil. Same goes for how the US reacted to the Cuban missile crisis in 1963 – as an existential threat. Sometimes it pays to actually listen to what countries are saying rather than demonizing them. And the demonization of Russia in the US and specifically by the Democrats is beyond the pale with :”Russia, Russia, Russia”, Russian Collusion…” etc…… that basically destroyed the previous US presidency. And for what – a bold faced lie by a sore looser.

Last edited 1 year ago by Johann Strauss
andy fairley
andy fairley
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

This must be written by an American. The British do know where the Baltic states are. Many Americans even don’t Know where Europe is. And what’s that got to do with anything defeats me. Russia is a danger to Europe right now. History shows making peace with a dictatorship is not the way to go.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  andy fairley

You should not equate Russia/Putin with Hitler/Nazi Germany. It’s not helpful. The Russians have not threatened to do anything in Europe. Their concern is Ukraine and they have clearly stated it for many years. Poke the bear once too often as the US has done, and the current situation is the result.
As for the Brits being able to point to the Baltic state on a map, perhaps a few might be able to, but the majority not. Not everybody is as highly educated and credentialed as you are. Just remember, what happens in the US is transferred in short order to the UK, and that includes a complete lack of basic geographical knowledge.

Last edited 1 year ago by Johann Strauss
Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Better stick to writing waltzes.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

What on earth are you on about? For starters Ukraine is in Europe. Secondly Russia west of the Urals is in Europe so, therefore, obviously the Russians have already done something in Europe. Actually, showing that Putin’s Russia is acting in a similar way to Hitler’s Germany is helpful.
Depends what you mean exactly by “threatening to do anything to Europe”. He’s on record in threatening Europe in many ways. Do keep up.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

Has Putin threatened to invade any other European country – the answer would be absolutely not. QED. The only country that is truly threatening and has acted like a self-righteous bully consistently for the last 60 years, with disastrous results, the latest being in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, is the US.

zee upītis
zee upītis
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Putin and his mouthpieces have also said that they are not about to invade Ukraine. Then after the invasion they said they are not going to occupy any land. So yeah, what they say truly has any significance 😀

zee upītis
zee upītis
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Putin and his mouthpieces have also said that they are not about to invade Ukraine. Then after the invasion they said they are not going to occupy any land. So yeah, what they say truly has any significance 😀

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

Has Putin threatened to invade any other European country – the answer would be absolutely not. QED. The only country that is truly threatening and has acted like a self-righteous bully consistently for the last 60 years, with disastrous results, the latest being in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, is the US.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

You must speak for yourself about ignorance.
The fact that you can assert that UK people have “a complete lack of basic geographical knowledge” merely shows that you’d be better off keeping quiet when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Unless you have some actual facts to back up such a sweeping generalisation.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Well I suggest you go to your local comprehensive and find out how many children can place the baltic states on a map (without any help). i suspect you will be surprised at what you find.

zee upītis
zee upītis
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

There is a lot of cooperation between Baltic states and the UK as well as shared membership of many organisations. Not to mention the large diaspora of Baltic people in the UK — important enough for some of the government material to be released in Lithuanian alongside English and a few other select languages. Chances are, many Brits know someone from the Baltics and being one of them I can say with confidence I never encountered anyone who wasn’t aware where Latvia is and can usually name the capital and quite probably been there themselves.

zee upītis
zee upītis
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

There is a lot of cooperation between Baltic states and the UK as well as shared membership of many organisations. Not to mention the large diaspora of Baltic people in the UK — important enough for some of the government material to be released in Lithuanian alongside English and a few other select languages. Chances are, many Brits know someone from the Baltics and being one of them I can say with confidence I never encountered anyone who wasn’t aware where Latvia is and can usually name the capital and quite probably been there themselves.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Well I suggest you go to your local comprehensive and find out how many children can place the baltic states on a map (without any help). i suspect you will be surprised at what you find.

Peter Kidson
Peter Kidson
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

It is not helplful to deny the obvious similar imperialism of Putin/Russia and Hitler/Nazi Germany.
Hoping to start rebuilding its recently lost empire, Russia’s only ‘concern’ with Ukraine is that it is slipping further from a Moscow’s orbit and, worse, becoming uninvadeable.
This invasion has nothing whatever to do with Russia’s alleged security concerns : Ukraine offered to remain neutral if Russia would call off the invasion, but Russia declined. It is everything to do with rampaging imperialism.
The bear is poking the world, not vice-versa.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Better stick to writing waltzes.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

What on earth are you on about? For starters Ukraine is in Europe. Secondly Russia west of the Urals is in Europe so, therefore, obviously the Russians have already done something in Europe. Actually, showing that Putin’s Russia is acting in a similar way to Hitler’s Germany is helpful.
Depends what you mean exactly by “threatening to do anything to Europe”. He’s on record in threatening Europe in many ways. Do keep up.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

You must speak for yourself about ignorance.
The fact that you can assert that UK people have “a complete lack of basic geographical knowledge” merely shows that you’d be better off keeping quiet when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Unless you have some actual facts to back up such a sweeping generalisation.

Peter Kidson
Peter Kidson
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

It is not helplful to deny the obvious similar imperialism of Putin/Russia and Hitler/Nazi Germany.
Hoping to start rebuilding its recently lost empire, Russia’s only ‘concern’ with Ukraine is that it is slipping further from a Moscow’s orbit and, worse, becoming uninvadeable.
This invasion has nothing whatever to do with Russia’s alleged security concerns : Ukraine offered to remain neutral if Russia would call off the invasion, but Russia declined. It is everything to do with rampaging imperialism.
The bear is poking the world, not vice-versa.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  andy fairley

You should not equate Russia/Putin with Hitler/Nazi Germany. It’s not helpful. The Russians have not threatened to do anything in Europe. Their concern is Ukraine and they have clearly stated it for many years. Poke the bear once too often as the US has done, and the current situation is the result.
As for the Brits being able to point to the Baltic state on a map, perhaps a few might be able to, but the majority not. Not everybody is as highly educated and credentialed as you are. Just remember, what happens in the US is transferred in short order to the UK, and that includes a complete lack of basic geographical knowledge.

Last edited 1 year ago by Johann Strauss
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

OK, you, at least, are clear about what you are proposing. That deserves respect even though I disagree.

Basically what you are proposing would restore the Russian empire to what it was in the 1980’s, minus East Germany. The countries expelled from NATO would have been explicitly delivered to the mercies of Russia, and would make some kind of accommodation with their new master out of necessity. Russian invasions would not even be necessary, though they would be pretty painless for Russia if desired. There would again be Russian-controlled tanks on the border of Germany and Greece. This would break the EU, since by my count nine member states would be under Russian dominance, each with a formal EU veto that Russia could have them invoke. And American allies, from Western Europe and across the world would start making backup alliances with local powers since their alliance with the US was clearly not reliable. It remains to be seen how Germany and the rest of Europe would organise their security if that happened, but it is clearly ridiculous to say that this would have no impact on West European security. Whatever you might think I do not consider this an attractive scenario.

For the rest, the stuff about the Maidan ‘coup’ and the Cuban missile crisis echoes too many Russian propaganda points. One of the foreign policy realists linked in this article compared it much more reasonably to Nicaragua, admitting at least that both were popular uprisings (even if both saw a covert military response by the superpower). If you want to compare to Cuba, the relevant comparison is the Cuban revolution, not the missile crisis. No NATO weapons, let alone troops, were appearing in Ukraine prior to the recent invasion.

As for the Russian collusion, it is established fact that the FSB hacked Democratic email accounts and leaked the proceeds in order to favour Trump. It was never proved that Trump collaborated or colluded beforehand (as opposed to just enjoying the result), and quite likely he is actually innocent on that particular point. Still, at least an accusation of colluding with a foreign power to win the presidential election is worth making a scandal over – unlike, say, having consensual oral s-x with a willing young woman.

Who is the ‘sore loser’, BTW? I am unsure whether you mean Trump or Biden.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

You seem to be interested in actually engaging those of us who think that the war is about more than just Ukraine, so I’ll make an effort to lay out a scenario that I’d consider realistic – i.e. one in which no one gets everything they say they want.
I’ll try and forestall any nonsensical accusations of “Russian talking/propaganda points” by saying the Russians are certainly the aggressors here and I don’t really think there are any great justifications for this wat from a “international norms/laws” standpoint.
Having said that, I think it’s disingenuous of anyone to talk about wars as if they can be good or bad, since wars are primarily about national interests and laws & norms tend to be disregarded when it comes to that.
Iraq is the best example of this to my mind, since it basically set a precedent of “we can invade a sovereign country with basically no justification”, but honestly every other US war since the 90s has had justifications that are no better than the one offered by the Russians here (terrorists and ethnic/autocratic repression vs Nazis and ethnic repression) and so I’d like you to understand that my scepticism towards American support (as opposed to Ukrainian defence) is not a result of some love towards the Russians (I have a very low opinion of Putin and have, overall, had mostly negative experiences with Russian people), but rather that this war will not benefit the Ukrainians in the short or long term.
So now to answer your question: assuming the war wouldn’t bring any major breakthroughs in the next year or two (which both sides are still banking on at the moment), I figure The Russians might keep the Russophone regions (the Donbas) and Crimea (I think referenda wouldn’t be accepted by anyone at this point), while returning Kherson and Zaporozhye – as this would be at least consistent with the stated interests of the Russian state in Ukraine. However, I unfortunately don’t think the Russians will settle for that (the Ukrainians neither of course, but they have less of a choice if their benefactors change their minds), especially not after “annexing” the stated Oblasts and due to the fact that the latter 2 are vital to Crimea (due to the power plant & water sources). Therefore I agree with you that there is still a ways to go before anyone considers settling things.
With regards to Ukraine, I think Zelenskyy already said what will probably happen (regardless of the amount of territory taken by the Russians) – Israel 2.0 – a quasi vassal status which will bring in American funding and guarantee their security.
The question I’d like to ask of you and anyone who thinks the support should be maintained or increased however is: at what point is the fighting not worth it anymore?
I personally think the Ukrainian people (not the state) would’ve been better off in a Russian-aligned state than having to endure mass destruction, a war with no end in sight, a fifth of the country annexed and who knows how many dead and fled.
So is this war worth becoming an American protectorate? Because let’s be honest here, it isn’t about Ukrainian freedom either way.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

That sounds like a fairly reasonable evaluation. The main thing I am missing is some estimate of what Russia would settle for, and what that would mean for Ukraine. My guess is that Russia will accept nothing less than de facto control of Ukraine (unless forced). Which at this point (not necessarily a few years ago) will likely also mean systematic cultural de-Ukrainisation and Russification, to forestall uppity behaviour in the future. Israel 2.0 will require that Ukraine is large, independent and viable enough to maintain its own army and make its own alliances – which I think is way more than Russia will accept. If Russia conquers Odessa, for instance, rump Ukraine will be either a Russian vassal state, or an expensive basket case with little viable economy relying on western charity. Without sufficient Ukrainian strength an American security guarantee would require NATO membership and NATO troops in Ukraine – which is yet another Russian red line.

Is this war worth it for the Ukrainians? Maybe debatable, but it seems that they have made their own choice. It is not for us to decide what they should want. We should not trick them into fighting under false pretences (as we may or may not have done in Syria?) but as long as we are being honest about what we are offering we should be free to follow our inclinations – and interests – in the matter.

As for freedom, I think you have a strange idea of it. Most European countries are to various degrees under American protection (as is Israel) which does, of course, have a cost. Yet the inhabitants (myself included) would consider themselves free, and would very much prefer the status quo to trying to stand up to Putin, Xi, or Erdogan alone and without allies. Freedom means being free to make your own choices. It does not mean being so strong that you can ignore everybody else.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

“Freedom means being free to make your own choices. It does not mean being so strong that you can ignore everybody else.”
It’s a shame Ukraine post-Maidan, didn’t listen to your wise advice.
Mearsheimer and others have been warning Ukraine about how it’s been using it’s “freedom” for a long time now.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Mearsheimer is consistent only in that he gets everything wrong all the time.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Did he get Ukraine getting wrecked wrong ?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

He got one thing right: He said at the time that it was risky for Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons, and wrong of other countreis to encourage it to do so. To remain safe from Russian attackes Ukraine would need to keep its nukes. Good call, that.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

But in the same quote, he also said that “Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia.” Seems to me he got that quite wrong, along with so much else.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

But in the same quote, he also said that “Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia.” Seems to me he got that quite wrong, along with so much else.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Wow what a genius. what a prophet. He — and possibly only he — understood that when a country is invaded by a superpower, it might get “wrecked.” Funny though, The SU got “wrecked” after the German invasion in 1941 and yet continued to fight back until it seized the initiative.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

He got one thing right: He said at the time that it was risky for Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons, and wrong of other countreis to encourage it to do so. To remain safe from Russian attackes Ukraine would need to keep its nukes. Good call, that.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Wow what a genius. what a prophet. He — and possibly only he — understood that when a country is invaded by a superpower, it might get “wrecked.” Funny though, The SU got “wrecked” after the German invasion in 1941 and yet continued to fight back until it seized the initiative.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Did he get Ukraine getting wrecked wrong ?

zee upītis
zee upītis
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

He said that? Ukrainians have known this from 1991 on, which is why NATO was their hope to avoid war while maintaining their sovereignty. Even many years ago going there, at some point I would hear that there is going to be war with Russia, I have heard it from people ranging from youngsters to old babushkas — and I have been mostly spending time and working in the Eastern part of the country. It’s not that Russia is invading because of Ukraine wanting to join NATO; it is Ukraine wanting to join NATO because they knew there’d be a war otherwise. Well, they didn’t get there in time.. Baltic states did, thankfully.

Last edited 1 year ago by zee upītis
harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Mearsheimer is consistent only in that he gets everything wrong all the time.

zee upītis
zee upītis
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

He said that? Ukrainians have known this from 1991 on, which is why NATO was their hope to avoid war while maintaining their sovereignty. Even many years ago going there, at some point I would hear that there is going to be war with Russia, I have heard it from people ranging from youngsters to old babushkas — and I have been mostly spending time and working in the Eastern part of the country. It’s not that Russia is invading because of Ukraine wanting to join NATO; it is Ukraine wanting to join NATO because they knew there’d be a war otherwise. Well, they didn’t get there in time.. Baltic states did, thankfully.

Last edited 1 year ago by zee upītis
M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

These are fair points you make with regards to Ukraine, but we seem to fundamentally disagree about the amount of agency Ukraine actually has (had). While I do not necessarily believe that Zelenskyy is just a puppet (he didn’t flee when the Americans told him to, which is to his credit), I honestly don’t think he’ll be the one deciding when the war stops (unless he surrenders, which I don’t expect anytime soon) and I think the amount of influence he has on any negotiations are strongly dependent on how well the Ukrainians do (and this is assuming that Zelenskyy actually makes the decisions within his government, but that’s another matter).
However, once the Americans are satisfied (or think they’ve gotten all there is to be had) they can basically force any concessions on Ukraine (or just bail) and I suspect they will, unless in the case of total Ukrainian victory.
With regards to freedom – I don’t see a reason why Europe has to be subservient to the Americans at all. We don’t HAVE to be a part of their empire (hell maybe that’d make the EU more palatable to sceptics like me). I realize someone will complain about Brussel Eurocrats at this point, but honestly, there’s at least some miniscule chance of changing the EU as a European (as opposed to the US) and I find that preferable to having the old continents foreign policy being decided in Washington. Additionally, I think the scope for change could increase significantly if our choices weren’t conditional on being acceptable to America and it’s corporations.
Unfortunately, I think we (all of Europe) have already been culturally colonized by the US (especially the ruling class) and I do think it’s kind of funny that you worry about de-Ukrainification, when we are all being americanized into oblivion.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

“Freedom means being free to make your own choices. It does not mean being so strong that you can ignore everybody else.”
It’s a shame Ukraine post-Maidan, didn’t listen to your wise advice.
Mearsheimer and others have been warning Ukraine about how it’s been using it’s “freedom” for a long time now.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

These are fair points you make with regards to Ukraine, but we seem to fundamentally disagree about the amount of agency Ukraine actually has (had). While I do not necessarily believe that Zelenskyy is just a puppet (he didn’t flee when the Americans told him to, which is to his credit), I honestly don’t think he’ll be the one deciding when the war stops (unless he surrenders, which I don’t expect anytime soon) and I think the amount of influence he has on any negotiations are strongly dependent on how well the Ukrainians do (and this is assuming that Zelenskyy actually makes the decisions within his government, but that’s another matter).
However, once the Americans are satisfied (or think they’ve gotten all there is to be had) they can basically force any concessions on Ukraine (or just bail) and I suspect they will, unless in the case of total Ukrainian victory.
With regards to freedom – I don’t see a reason why Europe has to be subservient to the Americans at all. We don’t HAVE to be a part of their empire (hell maybe that’d make the EU more palatable to sceptics like me). I realize someone will complain about Brussel Eurocrats at this point, but honestly, there’s at least some miniscule chance of changing the EU as a European (as opposed to the US) and I find that preferable to having the old continents foreign policy being decided in Washington. Additionally, I think the scope for change could increase significantly if our choices weren’t conditional on being acceptable to America and it’s corporations.
Unfortunately, I think we (all of Europe) have already been culturally colonized by the US (especially the ruling class) and I do think it’s kind of funny that you worry about de-Ukrainification, when we are all being americanized into oblivion.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

You simply are unaware of history.

Dutch resistance to Felipe II cost them far more in the short term than Ukraine will ever pay, yet they prevailed after many years.

The Russophones voted overwhelmingly for Zelensky, and are the main supports of the war right now.

This is a war very much like Vietnamese resistance to the USA, or Afghan resistance to the Soviets.

Leaving Ukraine in the lurch is now politically impossible for any Western leader. Heard what Scholz and Macron said recently?

This is just how nationalism works.

That a dying Russian empire stumbled into it isn’t our fault.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Ahh Mr Logan, again with the propaganda. The Russophones voted overwhelmingly for Zelenskyy because he is Russophone himself and because he ran on a platform of peace with Russia and anti-corruption.
What Ukraine got was a (unsurprising) corruption scandal when it was revealed that Zelenskyy was hiding his wealth offshore, after discreetly transferring it to a friend (pandora papers – widely reported then but now forgotten) and now a war with Russia where he is putting all his chips on continued American support – which recent history (as you like to say) tells us is more than a bit fickle (and never selfless).
I didn’t dislike Zelenskyy initially (though I do more so by the day, especially since that open invitation to Goldman Sachs and Blackrock to plunder Ukraine, as well as the WW3 cheerleading obviously), but he is not what you make him out to be. Which is fitting I suppose, with his previous career in mind and the fact that he primarily has to perform for people who have so much Hollywood garbage stuffed into their brains (and are so far removed from the realities of war), that the solution to every problem seems to be “just kill the bad guy and it’ll all work out” – to which I point you to the open air slave markets of Libya, the sectarianism of Iraq and the utter Ruins of Syria.
American support is a poisoned chalice 9/10 times and even bucking the trend doesn’t guarantee anything close to what you’d would consider a good outcome.
Anyone who actually cares about Ukrainians (and the rest of the world outside america) should want the war to end as soon as possible, but I’m unconvinced that western “Ukraine supporters” are actually interested in that or understand the consequences of their warmongering. In any case, I’d just like to be left out of your “glorious and righteous war for democracy and freedom”, but alas, everyone is dragged along because the Rand Corporation had a plan to mess up the Russians Vietnam-style.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

Russian hegemony can muster a few skeletons, too. Chechnya, maybe, or the ruins of Grozny? Is your obvious distaste for the US making you just a little bit unbalanced?

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Have you seen Grozny these days ?

Or Mariupol, for that matter ?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

oh you mean places Putin has destroyed? And that’s supposed to be a good reason to surrender to him? Quite the logic fail.

zee upītis
zee upītis
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Have you seen Mariupol or do you base your assumptions on Potemkin village inspired propaganda videos?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

oh you mean places Putin has destroyed? And that’s supposed to be a good reason to surrender to him? Quite the logic fail.

zee upītis
zee upītis
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Have you seen Mariupol or do you base your assumptions on Potemkin village inspired propaganda videos?

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Of course it can muster skeletons. I’ve never said the Russians are standing on any kind of moral high ground. But if the “choice” (not as if we have one) were between a regional conflict on the edge of Europe and a global one with a vastly increased range of (negative) outcomes (nuclear war seeming like the worst), I don’t find it hard to choose.
I know this is a unpopular fact, but this is much more of an existential conflict for the Russians than the Americans (for whom it is a powerplay).
And yes, it’s even more existential for the Ukrainians, but I don’t think it needed to be – Minsk & the previous Israeli prime minister might have provided off-ramps, but “someone” got in the way (Nordstream 2 mystery Vol 2 to my mind).
You mention promises and false pretences in another comment – we don’t know what the US/UK offered them, but it seems likely to me it made them more willing to fight. Now this strikes me as fair enough from the Ukrainians standpoint, but I see no reason to think the Americans will continue to stand behind them from recent examples (elections aren’t too far off either and republicans aren’t as united in this as democrats).
Ukraine isn’t Israel yet, and that’s basically the best case scenario, but even so, the price to become northern Israel is insanely high when the war might have been averted in the first place with not dissimilar results.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Have you seen Grozny these days ?

Or Mariupol, for that matter ?

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Of course it can muster skeletons. I’ve never said the Russians are standing on any kind of moral high ground. But if the “choice” (not as if we have one) were between a regional conflict on the edge of Europe and a global one with a vastly increased range of (negative) outcomes (nuclear war seeming like the worst), I don’t find it hard to choose.
I know this is a unpopular fact, but this is much more of an existential conflict for the Russians than the Americans (for whom it is a powerplay).
And yes, it’s even more existential for the Ukrainians, but I don’t think it needed to be – Minsk & the previous Israeli prime minister might have provided off-ramps, but “someone” got in the way (Nordstream 2 mystery Vol 2 to my mind).
You mention promises and false pretences in another comment – we don’t know what the US/UK offered them, but it seems likely to me it made them more willing to fight. Now this strikes me as fair enough from the Ukrainians standpoint, but I see no reason to think the Americans will continue to stand behind them from recent examples (elections aren’t too far off either and republicans aren’t as united in this as democrats).
Ukraine isn’t Israel yet, and that’s basically the best case scenario, but even so, the price to become northern Israel is insanely high when the war might have been averted in the first place with not dissimilar results.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

If you have a blog, please sign me up!

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Haha I don’t but thank you!

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Haha I don’t but thank you!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

The use of the term “Russophobe” is quite meaningless and misapplied when it comes to Zelenskyy and Ukraine. Of course there is fear and hatred toward the Russian state and Putin in particular, not without cause. Nor is the hatred and fear unidirectional.
Would it be fitting to call Jim Crow era American blacks white-supremacist-phobic or KKK-averse?

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I said RussophoNe – it means Russian-speaker (or in this case, first language).

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I said RussophoNe – it means Russian-speaker (or in this case, first language).

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

unlike you, I’ll leave it to the Ukrainians to decide when is the right time to stop fighting Russian aggression. And it’s quite rich for you to talk about Western “warmongering” without even mentioning the warmonger-in-chief, i.e. the person responsible for the war in the first place, Putin. Now that’s a REAL warmonger.

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm
zee upītis
zee upītis
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

You need to go to Ukraine and speak to real people of all ages and walks of life. I assure you your cynical conformist mind will be overcome and maybe you will recognise freedom and independence you take for granted is worth fighting for.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  zee upÄ«tis

My wife is Crimean, and a huge Putin fan.

Does she count ?

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  zee upÄ«tis

My wife is Crimean, and a huge Putin fan.

Does she count ?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

Russian hegemony can muster a few skeletons, too. Chechnya, maybe, or the ruins of Grozny? Is your obvious distaste for the US making you just a little bit unbalanced?

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

If you have a blog, please sign me up!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

The use of the term “Russophobe” is quite meaningless and misapplied when it comes to Zelenskyy and Ukraine. Of course there is fear and hatred toward the Russian state and Putin in particular, not without cause. Nor is the hatred and fear unidirectional.
Would it be fitting to call Jim Crow era American blacks white-supremacist-phobic or KKK-averse?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

unlike you, I’ll leave it to the Ukrainians to decide when is the right time to stop fighting Russian aggression. And it’s quite rich for you to talk about Western “warmongering” without even mentioning the warmonger-in-chief, i.e. the person responsible for the war in the first place, Putin. Now that’s a REAL warmonger.

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm
zee upītis
zee upītis
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

You need to go to Ukraine and speak to real people of all ages and walks of life. I assure you your cynical conformist mind will be overcome and maybe you will recognise freedom and independence you take for granted is worth fighting for.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Though not without bloody cost and atrocities on all sides, some wars are good compared to any workable alternative.
Was it not good to thwart you-know-who in WWII, defeating an attempted globo-fascist takeover by the Axis powers? An amoral calculation based on national self interest alone?
I don’t think so, and the righteous aspect of the cause shouldn’t be cynically dismissed (either in the 1939-45 period or now), even if the cynical or jaundiced view detects some portion of the truth that is missed by those whose lenses are tinted in a different way.
I understand that it is better not to play the “H card” in these discussions, but it is a universal point of reference that has significant connection to Putin in the areas of tyranny and megalomania.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Ahh Mr Logan, again with the propaganda. The Russophones voted overwhelmingly for Zelenskyy because he is Russophone himself and because he ran on a platform of peace with Russia and anti-corruption.
What Ukraine got was a (unsurprising) corruption scandal when it was revealed that Zelenskyy was hiding his wealth offshore, after discreetly transferring it to a friend (pandora papers – widely reported then but now forgotten) and now a war with Russia where he is putting all his chips on continued American support – which recent history (as you like to say) tells us is more than a bit fickle (and never selfless).
I didn’t dislike Zelenskyy initially (though I do more so by the day, especially since that open invitation to Goldman Sachs and Blackrock to plunder Ukraine, as well as the WW3 cheerleading obviously), but he is not what you make him out to be. Which is fitting I suppose, with his previous career in mind and the fact that he primarily has to perform for people who have so much Hollywood garbage stuffed into their brains (and are so far removed from the realities of war), that the solution to every problem seems to be “just kill the bad guy and it’ll all work out” – to which I point you to the open air slave markets of Libya, the sectarianism of Iraq and the utter Ruins of Syria.
American support is a poisoned chalice 9/10 times and even bucking the trend doesn’t guarantee anything close to what you’d would consider a good outcome.
Anyone who actually cares about Ukrainians (and the rest of the world outside america) should want the war to end as soon as possible, but I’m unconvinced that western “Ukraine supporters” are actually interested in that or understand the consequences of their warmongering. In any case, I’d just like to be left out of your “glorious and righteous war for democracy and freedom”, but alas, everyone is dragged along because the Rand Corporation had a plan to mess up the Russians Vietnam-style.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Though not without bloody cost and atrocities on all sides, some wars are good compared to any workable alternative.
Was it not good to thwart you-know-who in WWII, defeating an attempted globo-fascist takeover by the Axis powers? An amoral calculation based on national self interest alone?
I don’t think so, and the righteous aspect of the cause shouldn’t be cynically dismissed (either in the 1939-45 period or now), even if the cynical or jaundiced view detects some portion of the truth that is missed by those whose lenses are tinted in a different way.
I understand that it is better not to play the “H card” in these discussions, but it is a universal point of reference that has significant connection to Putin in the areas of tyranny and megalomania.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

My answer disappeared. Hopefully it will come back.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

Bravo. A fantastic comment.
Everyone wittering on about “Ukrainian independence” is just showing they already chose a side.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Perhaps you’ll choose one after a winner is declared. Or would that still be too soon or simplistic?
Are you an impartial spectator who just wants to see a “good game”?

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Not at all, friend.

I’m enthusiastically cheerleading for Vlad to give the neocons a bloody nose so the rest of the world can finally live in peace.

And not just because I happen to be married to a Crimean.

John Solomon
John Solomon
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

A genuine question – no sub text. Is your other half a Russian Crimean, or a Ukranian Crimean?

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  John Solomon

Rabidly Russian. Like pretty much all Crimeans.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  John Solomon

Rabidly Russian. Like pretty much all Crimeans.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Vlad the Terrible. I appreciate your directness and openness about which side you’ve chosen.
From my perspective (as a Canada-born American who once had a long-term Russian-Jewish girlfriend and has many neighbors from both Ukraine and Russia) your enthusiasm doesn’t seem open-eyed. You expect a post-war world in which a chastened US and victorious Russia, with a newly emboldened Putin the First, leave the rest of the world in peace. I guess we’ll see if your “team” wins.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

“You expect a post-war world in which a chastened US and victorious Russia, with a newly emboldened Putin the First, leave the rest of the world in peace.”
This is exactly what I expect, friend. Let’s see.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

“You expect a post-war world in which a chastened US and victorious Russia, with a newly emboldened Putin the First, leave the rest of the world in peace.”
This is exactly what I expect, friend. Let’s see.

John Solomon
John Solomon
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

A genuine question – no sub text. Is your other half a Russian Crimean, or a Ukranian Crimean?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Vlad the Terrible. I appreciate your directness and openness about which side you’ve chosen.
From my perspective (as a Canada-born American who once had a long-term Russian-Jewish girlfriend and has many neighbors from both Ukraine and Russia) your enthusiasm doesn’t seem open-eyed. You expect a post-war world in which a chastened US and victorious Russia, with a newly emboldened Putin the First, leave the rest of the world in peace. I guess we’ll see if your “team” wins.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Not at all, friend.

I’m enthusiastically cheerleading for Vlad to give the neocons a bloody nose so the rest of the world can finally live in peace.

And not just because I happen to be married to a Crimean.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Just like you, except that you have clearly chosen the wrong side.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

“Clearly” ?

The only people supporting this war are the Professional Managerial Classes of the Anglosphere plus the usual CEE antisemitic white power dregs.

Oh, and the stockholders of the military industrial complex.

What a holy alliance.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

“Clearly” ?

The only people supporting this war are the Professional Managerial Classes of the Anglosphere plus the usual CEE antisemitic white power dregs.

Oh, and the stockholders of the military industrial complex.

What a holy alliance.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Perhaps you’ll choose one after a winner is declared. Or would that still be too soon or simplistic?
Are you an impartial spectator who just wants to see a “good game”?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Just like you, except that you have clearly chosen the wrong side.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

And the Poles would surely have been better off surrendering the corridor. But that was for the Poles to decide, just as it’s now up to the Ukrainians as to whether to continue to fight or surrender. I think they’ve made their choice abundantly clear.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

That sounds like a fairly reasonable evaluation. The main thing I am missing is some estimate of what Russia would settle for, and what that would mean for Ukraine. My guess is that Russia will accept nothing less than de facto control of Ukraine (unless forced). Which at this point (not necessarily a few years ago) will likely also mean systematic cultural de-Ukrainisation and Russification, to forestall uppity behaviour in the future. Israel 2.0 will require that Ukraine is large, independent and viable enough to maintain its own army and make its own alliances – which I think is way more than Russia will accept. If Russia conquers Odessa, for instance, rump Ukraine will be either a Russian vassal state, or an expensive basket case with little viable economy relying on western charity. Without sufficient Ukrainian strength an American security guarantee would require NATO membership and NATO troops in Ukraine – which is yet another Russian red line.

Is this war worth it for the Ukrainians? Maybe debatable, but it seems that they have made their own choice. It is not for us to decide what they should want. We should not trick them into fighting under false pretences (as we may or may not have done in Syria?) but as long as we are being honest about what we are offering we should be free to follow our inclinations – and interests – in the matter.

As for freedom, I think you have a strange idea of it. Most European countries are to various degrees under American protection (as is Israel) which does, of course, have a cost. Yet the inhabitants (myself included) would consider themselves free, and would very much prefer the status quo to trying to stand up to Putin, Xi, or Erdogan alone and without allies. Freedom means being free to make your own choices. It does not mean being so strong that you can ignore everybody else.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

You simply are unaware of history.

Dutch resistance to Felipe II cost them far more in the short term than Ukraine will ever pay, yet they prevailed after many years.

The Russophones voted overwhelmingly for Zelensky, and are the main supports of the war right now.

This is a war very much like Vietnamese resistance to the USA, or Afghan resistance to the Soviets.

Leaving Ukraine in the lurch is now politically impossible for any Western leader. Heard what Scholz and Macron said recently?

This is just how nationalism works.

That a dying Russian empire stumbled into it isn’t our fault.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

My answer disappeared. Hopefully it will come back.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

Bravo. A fantastic comment.
Everyone wittering on about “Ukrainian independence” is just showing they already chose a side.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

And the Poles would surely have been better off surrendering the corridor. But that was for the Poles to decide, just as it’s now up to the Ukrainians as to whether to continue to fight or surrender. I think they’ve made their choice abundantly clear.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Russia Gate and the Russia Collusion Hoax was started by Hilary Clinton’s campaign, just for the record.
And no it is absolutely not established that the FSB hacked the Democratic email accounts. The FBI were not allowed to examine the DNC computers so all we have is the say so of CrowStrike who were employed by the DNC. That’s not evidence, that’s total BS.
As for the Maidan revolution it is not clear that this was a popular uprising. And the US in the form of Victoria Nuland have freely admitted that this was engineered by the US, and like all US interference has led to unintended consequences. Incidentally, the same goes for the blowing up of the Nordstream pipeline where both Biden and Nuland have basically admitted in public that they were responsible, although the mainstream press have tried to hide this.
And you have absolutely no evidence for any bad Russian intensions with regard to places like Hungary, Slovenia etc etc…. Russia is not the Soviet Union intent on world revolution. I’m afraid you’re still living in the Cold War era, and opinions/views such as yours and those of the US/UK Government are not helpful to the current situation.
And by the way you should learn to think critically rather than just reiterate the accepted narrative handed down from on high whether with regard to this topic or Covid (where your views have proven wrong every single time).

Last edited 1 year ago by Johann Strauss
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Fine, so what is your estimate of what would happen once NATO withdrew protection from the ex-Warsaw-Pact countries? It is not the case that I have to prove all my claims whereas you are right by default until proved otherwise.

Or, for that matter, if not the FSB, who made those emails public?

Peter Kidson
Peter Kidson
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

The demonstrations were very obviously popular uprisings, not engineered, and hence no such ‘admissions’ from Nuland was made. And futhermore Ukraine’s affairs are none of Russia’s business, just as Russia’s affairs are none of Uktaine’s.
Russia plainly is intent on rebuilding its recently lost empire, which is what this war is all ĂĄbout.
And by the way you should learn to think critically rather than just reiterate the accepted narrative handed down from the Kremlin.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Putin has publicly stated his desire to recreate the Russian empire.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Fine, so what is your estimate of what would happen once NATO withdrew protection from the ex-Warsaw-Pact countries? It is not the case that I have to prove all my claims whereas you are right by default until proved otherwise.

Or, for that matter, if not the FSB, who made those emails public?

Peter Kidson
Peter Kidson
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

The demonstrations were very obviously popular uprisings, not engineered, and hence no such ‘admissions’ from Nuland was made. And futhermore Ukraine’s affairs are none of Russia’s business, just as Russia’s affairs are none of Uktaine’s.
Russia plainly is intent on rebuilding its recently lost empire, which is what this war is all ĂĄbout.
And by the way you should learn to think critically rather than just reiterate the accepted narrative handed down from the Kremlin.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Putin has publicly stated his desire to recreate the Russian empire.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

He meant Hillary.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

You seem to be interested in actually engaging those of us who think that the war is about more than just Ukraine, so I’ll make an effort to lay out a scenario that I’d consider realistic – i.e. one in which no one gets everything they say they want.
I’ll try and forestall any nonsensical accusations of “Russian talking/propaganda points” by saying the Russians are certainly the aggressors here and I don’t really think there are any great justifications for this wat from a “international norms/laws” standpoint.
Having said that, I think it’s disingenuous of anyone to talk about wars as if they can be good or bad, since wars are primarily about national interests and laws & norms tend to be disregarded when it comes to that.
Iraq is the best example of this to my mind, since it basically set a precedent of “we can invade a sovereign country with basically no justification”, but honestly every other US war since the 90s has had justifications that are no better than the one offered by the Russians here (terrorists and ethnic/autocratic repression vs Nazis and ethnic repression) and so I’d like you to understand that my scepticism towards American support (as opposed to Ukrainian defence) is not a result of some love towards the Russians (I have a very low opinion of Putin and have, overall, had mostly negative experiences with Russian people), but rather that this war will not benefit the Ukrainians in the short or long term.
So now to answer your question: assuming the war wouldn’t bring any major breakthroughs in the next year or two (which both sides are still banking on at the moment), I figure The Russians might keep the Russophone regions (the Donbas) and Crimea (I think referenda wouldn’t be accepted by anyone at this point), while returning Kherson and Zaporozhye – as this would be at least consistent with the stated interests of the Russian state in Ukraine. However, I unfortunately don’t think the Russians will settle for that (the Ukrainians neither of course, but they have less of a choice if their benefactors change their minds), especially not after “annexing” the stated Oblasts and due to the fact that the latter 2 are vital to Crimea (due to the power plant & water sources). Therefore I agree with you that there is still a ways to go before anyone considers settling things.
With regards to Ukraine, I think Zelenskyy already said what will probably happen (regardless of the amount of territory taken by the Russians) – Israel 2.0 – a quasi vassal status which will bring in American funding and guarantee their security.
The question I’d like to ask of you and anyone who thinks the support should be maintained or increased however is: at what point is the fighting not worth it anymore?
I personally think the Ukrainian people (not the state) would’ve been better off in a Russian-aligned state than having to endure mass destruction, a war with no end in sight, a fifth of the country annexed and who knows how many dead and fled.
So is this war worth becoming an American protectorate? Because let’s be honest here, it isn’t about Ukrainian freedom either way.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Russia Gate and the Russia Collusion Hoax was started by Hilary Clinton’s campaign, just for the record.
And no it is absolutely not established that the FSB hacked the Democratic email accounts. The FBI were not allowed to examine the DNC computers so all we have is the say so of CrowStrike who were employed by the DNC. That’s not evidence, that’s total BS.
As for the Maidan revolution it is not clear that this was a popular uprising. And the US in the form of Victoria Nuland have freely admitted that this was engineered by the US, and like all US interference has led to unintended consequences. Incidentally, the same goes for the blowing up of the Nordstream pipeline where both Biden and Nuland have basically admitted in public that they were responsible, although the mainstream press have tried to hide this.
And you have absolutely no evidence for any bad Russian intensions with regard to places like Hungary, Slovenia etc etc…. Russia is not the Soviet Union intent on world revolution. I’m afraid you’re still living in the Cold War era, and opinions/views such as yours and those of the US/UK Government are not helpful to the current situation.
And by the way you should learn to think critically rather than just reiterate the accepted narrative handed down from on high whether with regard to this topic or Covid (where your views have proven wrong every single time).

Last edited 1 year ago by Johann Strauss
harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

He meant Hillary.

Peter Kidson
Peter Kidson
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

No, the fact of the matter is that Russia lauched a covert imperialist invasion in 2014, shortly after seizing Crimea. That is what caused the casualties in Donbas. It steadily escalated it up to an overt one in 2022. T
There was no coup. The Russian puppet having sent in Russian assasins in to tame the demonstations against his policy U-turn to suck up to Russia, he then fled and was impeached for it.
Russia nor anyone else has any right to impose red lines against sovereign states, So not at all like Scotland and the UK.
And this war has absolutely nothing to do with an existential threat to Russia, as evidenced by Russia’s refusal to call off the invasion in return for Ukranian neutrality. And everything to do with classic Russian imperialism, attempting to rebuild the recently lost Soviet empire. Barbaric 18/19th century imperialism on a 21st century stage.

Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Kidson
M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

So voting for a pro Russian candidate is always illegitimate? Seems to me you mistake legitimacy for western partisanship, but I guess someone’s got a taste for MSM Kool Aid.
Also, how is surrounding a country with offensive weaponry not considered an existential threat? The hypocrisy on display is mind blowing.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

Russia could have avoided it all by simply abiding by the will of the Rada, when Yanukovich fled to avoid prosecution for his crimes. Putin would have had far more leverage over Ukraine.

At every stage he has hastened Russia’s destruction.

Now it’s far too late.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I don’t disagree that the war was a mistake, but it disturbs me that people like you are all about some kind of righteous fury towards and destruction of Russia (this strikes me as something of a theme in your posts).
If you applied this standard equally for all countries that have done illegal invasions I’d have expected you to be telling us of the necessity/inevitability of sinking Britain and/or nuking America (among many, many others).
This is not (yet) a total war between NATO and the East (Russia, Iran, China, etc) but honestly, where do you think the ramping up of weapons manufacturing, war hysteria/propaganda and testing (“donating”) of said weapons in Ukraine are leading?
The chinese “spy balloons” (as they’re STILL being called) were just weather balloons, yet it’s still in the news cycle as I write. Partly to distract from Nordstream 2, partly to gin up some more war fervor for the coming conflict with the Chinese.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that people here are more skeptical than most towards governments (of any kind) and the stories (lies) they tell, so why is it that so many of you are just willing to accept that this is some kind of virtuous display of solidarity? The Russians certainly won’t be coming for any NATO members any time soon, so don’t tell me it’s for security, the Americans will try to bleed them dry for a while yet I expect.
The US has spent 100$+ Billion on this war (with needlessly printed money and other peoples taxes), yet cant spare 1% of that for health care or homelessness (Britains got plenty of problems too) and you want even more of this? Do you not wish your politicians took care of domestic politics for a change? Or are you grabbing onto this offered distraction because you despair that they never will?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

How do you know that is a weather balloon? Do you think official Chinese statements are that much more reliable than official US ones? Or do you have your own sources?

And how do you know that the Russians ‘certainly’ won’t be coming for any NATO members any time soon? My guess is that they would absolutely be coming for the Baltic states to start with, and for further countries next – if they were sufficiently convinced that between a quick military intervention and their nuclear deterrent they could get away with it. Part of the point of helping out in this war is to keep them from that point.

Granted, I never thought the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine or Georgia was sensible or realistic. But then between Crimea and the Donbas ‘insurgency’ Russia had pretty much put paid to that already.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

How do you know that is a weather balloon? Do you think official Chinese statements are that much more reliable than official US ones?

On the weather balloon:
The intelligence community’s current assessment is that these three objects were most likely balloons tied to private companies, recreation, or research institutions studying weather or conducting other scientific research,”

https://www.zerohedge.com/military/illinois-hobby-club-believes-pentagon-shot-down-their-12-pico-balloon

Most hilarious story ever. $400 000!!! Sidewinder missiles, four of them, for some weather balloons. (One missed. No reports on where the stray heat seeking missile went) That might for a few hours have been actual aliens. All to try and hush up Seymour hersh and his nord stream story. Ufos laughed off the front pages in a matter of hours….. Brilliant work America.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Sorry and all, but that was for balloons 2-4. Balloon 1 is described as at least an order of magnitude bigger than known weather balloons, with ‘jetliner-sized payolad’ of several thousand pounds weight. If that is ‘just a weather balloon’, how do you know?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Well, maybe it was, but three were not, neither were they ‘hexagonal shape’ UFOs with crazy abilities.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Can’t edit, balloon one – this one that came down in the sea?? The recovery operation for that one is even more hilarious than the sidewinder for the weather balloons, a whole assault craft unit but it wasn’t enough, they needed a special crane. Not sure whether they actually recovered that one yet:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/chinese-balloons-large-reconnaissance-section-located-still-hasnt-been-retrieved

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Can’t edit, balloon one – this one that came down in the sea?? The recovery operation for that one is even more hilarious than the sidewinder for the weather balloons, a whole assault craft unit but it wasn’t enough, they needed a special crane. Not sure whether they actually recovered that one yet:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/chinese-balloons-large-reconnaissance-section-located-still-hasnt-been-retrieved

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

And what exactly do you think the Chinese could have gleaned from these balloons that they couldn’t find using Goggle Earth which has an accuracy of better than 1 ft.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Well, maybe it was, but three were not, neither were they ‘hexagonal shape’ UFOs with crazy abilities.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

And what exactly do you think the Chinese could have gleaned from these balloons that they couldn’t find using Goggle Earth which has an accuracy of better than 1 ft.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Interesting that you mention UFOs. They too are typically explained away as “weather balloons.” But hey, the “Illinois Hobby Club” says so, so it’s gotta be true.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Sorry and all, but that was for balloons 2-4. Balloon 1 is described as at least an order of magnitude bigger than known weather balloons, with ‘jetliner-sized payolad’ of several thousand pounds weight. If that is ‘just a weather balloon’, how do you know?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Interesting that you mention UFOs. They too are typically explained away as “weather balloons.” But hey, the “Illinois Hobby Club” says so, so it’s gotta be true.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

As Mr. Emery said, your intelligence services admitted that they are and the MSM was allowed to broadcast this – but still under the deliberately misleading label of “spy balloon”.
CNN & CBS reported this days ago.
With regards to NATO; first, the Russians have expended plenty of money, manpower and equipment on Ukraine, in addition to significant sanctions on materials/semiconductors and the frankly illegal seizure of their foreign reserves (among other things) – they are currently not in a situation where they can just overrun eastern Europe and the Baltics tomorrow (maybe in a decade, but Ukraine has certainly shown that such time can be put to good use) with some imagined hordes of soldiers, so please don’t be facetious when I’m trying to engage you in a respectful manner. Secondly, this would ACTUALLY constitute an attack on NATO (which you’d think has already happened from how some people comment about Ukraine) and a full show of force from the West would actually be justified for once. NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance and not an arms-leaser/testing ground for American war machines.
And yes, I’m aware what NATO is doing (I wrote as much), but then let’s not pretend you’re doing the Ukrainians any favors, because that’s not actually going to help them long term, even if they “won” (whatever that means, I’m sceptical of Mr. Logans apocalyptic fantasies). You could just as well have sent 100$ Billion to the Baltics and Poland to send a message, but that’s not what happened is it? Instead the US is raking it in the energy sector and Europe is weakened, frightened and even more dependant on the US, while Africa starves.
It’s disappointing that you ignored all the direct questions I asked of you, since I was genuinely interested to hear what you had to say on those issues, but I must conclude that you are primarily interested in warmongering & propagandizing, as opposed to a discussion on the merits of future courses of action.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

A couple of my answers disappeared – hopefully they will reappear, but meanwhile better avoid long posts. Not sure which direct questions you mean, exactly. Just quickly:

At what point is the fighting not worth it anymore? When it is clear to to someonethat the cost outweighs what you could hope to gain, I guess. Ukraine seems to think that it is still worth trying to fight to avoid surrendering to Russia and the deN–ification/deUkrainisation that would follow. And Russia must think it is worth it too, or they would have proposed a peace deal instead of annexing those four oblasts.

Is it worth it for Ukraine just to become an American protectorate? Absolutely yes – much better than becoming a Russian one (though not at *any* cost, I guess).

I am not trying to be facetious, and will answer further questions, moderators permitting.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Fair enough, cheers.
We’ll see if your replies show up by tomorrow.
As I’ve said earlier, I agree that the war will likely drag on since morale is still relatively high on both sides and the next offensive/counteroffensive cycle is about to start, but I genuinely believe this will most likely end up like Syria, just with the roles reversed (i.e. America supporting the regime instead of Russia) and I think no one really wants that.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

If you mean that the end will be a viable Ukrainian state relying on the US for support, I hope you are right. Unlike Syria, that would be a pretty good result for the Ukrainians – being governed by Zelensky should be a lot better than being under Assad. But unfortunately I am afraid Russia could still win, or at least succeed in destroying Ukraine pretty thoroughly.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I mean, that’s the best outcome for the Ukrainians now I suppose (though unlike you I’m sceptical of how great that would be, but maybe we’ll see) and I don’t have any particular desire to see the Russians overrun them, because it would likely be pretty dire for them after all the bloodshed (up to now).
Most of the points I made were in relation to my belief that there didn’t have to be a war in the first place and that it is being sold to people (by the anglophone MSM) as something completely different from what it really is (like Iraq, but in a way that’s palatable to democrats). Additionally, I think the war is basically just another pre-baked crisis (planned/proposed quite meticulously by the Rand Corporation in 2019), which will be used to make everybody who isn’t part of the elite worse off.
Besides my droning about the possibility of WW3, theres also the (likely) possibility of weapon spillover (remember when it was reported last spring that just a third of the weapons sent to Ukraine were accounted for?) and unforseen knock-on effects elsewhere (hunger in Africa certainly won’t bring about democracy, etc.).
So in a nutshell, I believe the Ukrainians and Russians fighting this war (regardless of the reasons behind it) makes basically everyone worse off, except the US and China.

Last edited 1 year ago by M Lux
M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I mean, that’s the best outcome for the Ukrainians now I suppose (though unlike you I’m sceptical of how great that would be, but maybe we’ll see) and I don’t have any particular desire to see the Russians overrun them, because it would likely be pretty dire for them after all the bloodshed (up to now).
Most of the points I made were in relation to my belief that there didn’t have to be a war in the first place and that it is being sold to people (by the anglophone MSM) as something completely different from what it really is (like Iraq, but in a way that’s palatable to democrats). Additionally, I think the war is basically just another pre-baked crisis (planned/proposed quite meticulously by the Rand Corporation in 2019), which will be used to make everybody who isn’t part of the elite worse off.
Besides my droning about the possibility of WW3, theres also the (likely) possibility of weapon spillover (remember when it was reported last spring that just a third of the weapons sent to Ukraine were accounted for?) and unforseen knock-on effects elsewhere (hunger in Africa certainly won’t bring about democracy, etc.).
So in a nutshell, I believe the Ukrainians and Russians fighting this war (regardless of the reasons behind it) makes basically everyone worse off, except the US and China.

Last edited 1 year ago by M Lux
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

If you mean that the end will be a viable Ukrainian state relying on the US for support, I hope you are right. Unlike Syria, that would be a pretty good result for the Ukrainians – being governed by Zelensky should be a lot better than being under Assad. But unfortunately I am afraid Russia could still win, or at least succeed in destroying Ukraine pretty thoroughly.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Rasmus, I think posts sometimes get removed not because they are a problem but rather because the subsequent responses are and the entire thread gets deleted. You and I would imagine this could be handled better in 2023 … after all it’s hardly technical rocket science.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Yes, replies to a removed or delayed comment will “get disappeared” or slowed down too.
But I think some of the moderation rules are inconsistent or still being formed, perhaps because this website has recently expanded its membership and geographical reach, thus changing the editorial game, so to speak.
I like that we are at least allowed to speculate or share complaints about practices and policies that remain, for now, somewhat inscrutable.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Yes, replies to a removed or delayed comment will “get disappeared” or slowed down too.
But I think some of the moderation rules are inconsistent or still being formed, perhaps because this website has recently expanded its membership and geographical reach, thus changing the editorial game, so to speak.
I like that we are at least allowed to speculate or share complaints about practices and policies that remain, for now, somewhat inscrutable.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Fair enough, cheers.
We’ll see if your replies show up by tomorrow.
As I’ve said earlier, I agree that the war will likely drag on since morale is still relatively high on both sides and the next offensive/counteroffensive cycle is about to start, but I genuinely believe this will most likely end up like Syria, just with the roles reversed (i.e. America supporting the regime instead of Russia) and I think no one really wants that.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Rasmus, I think posts sometimes get removed not because they are a problem but rather because the subsequent responses are and the entire thread gets deleted. You and I would imagine this could be handled better in 2023 … after all it’s hardly technical rocket science.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

Couldn’t agree with you more.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

A couple of my answers disappeared – hopefully they will reappear, but meanwhile better avoid long posts. Not sure which direct questions you mean, exactly. Just quickly:

At what point is the fighting not worth it anymore? When it is clear to to someonethat the cost outweighs what you could hope to gain, I guess. Ukraine seems to think that it is still worth trying to fight to avoid surrendering to Russia and the deN–ification/deUkrainisation that would follow. And Russia must think it is worth it too, or they would have proposed a peace deal instead of annexing those four oblasts.

Is it worth it for Ukraine just to become an American protectorate? Absolutely yes – much better than becoming a Russian one (though not at *any* cost, I guess).

I am not trying to be facetious, and will answer further questions, moderators permitting.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

Couldn’t agree with you more.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

How do you know that is a weather balloon? Do you think official Chinese statements are that much more reliable than official US ones?

On the weather balloon:
The intelligence community’s current assessment is that these three objects were most likely balloons tied to private companies, recreation, or research institutions studying weather or conducting other scientific research,”

https://www.zerohedge.com/military/illinois-hobby-club-believes-pentagon-shot-down-their-12-pico-balloon

Most hilarious story ever. $400 000!!! Sidewinder missiles, four of them, for some weather balloons. (One missed. No reports on where the stray heat seeking missile went) That might for a few hours have been actual aliens. All to try and hush up Seymour hersh and his nord stream story. Ufos laughed off the front pages in a matter of hours….. Brilliant work America.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

As Mr. Emery said, your intelligence services admitted that they are and the MSM was allowed to broadcast this – but still under the deliberately misleading label of “spy balloon”.
CNN & CBS reported this days ago.
With regards to NATO; first, the Russians have expended plenty of money, manpower and equipment on Ukraine, in addition to significant sanctions on materials/semiconductors and the frankly illegal seizure of their foreign reserves (among other things) – they are currently not in a situation where they can just overrun eastern Europe and the Baltics tomorrow (maybe in a decade, but Ukraine has certainly shown that such time can be put to good use) with some imagined hordes of soldiers, so please don’t be facetious when I’m trying to engage you in a respectful manner. Secondly, this would ACTUALLY constitute an attack on NATO (which you’d think has already happened from how some people comment about Ukraine) and a full show of force from the West would actually be justified for once. NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance and not an arms-leaser/testing ground for American war machines.
And yes, I’m aware what NATO is doing (I wrote as much), but then let’s not pretend you’re doing the Ukrainians any favors, because that’s not actually going to help them long term, even if they “won” (whatever that means, I’m sceptical of Mr. Logans apocalyptic fantasies). You could just as well have sent 100$ Billion to the Baltics and Poland to send a message, but that’s not what happened is it? Instead the US is raking it in the energy sector and Europe is weakened, frightened and even more dependant on the US, while Africa starves.
It’s disappointing that you ignored all the direct questions I asked of you, since I was genuinely interested to hear what you had to say on those issues, but I must conclude that you are primarily interested in warmongering & propagandizing, as opposed to a discussion on the merits of future courses of action.

Peter Kidson
Peter Kidson
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

Noone is trying to destroy Russia. The boot is very much on the other foot.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

You’re the man! (sorry person) Great posts btw.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Thank you Carl!

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Thank you Carl!

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

How do you know that is a weather balloon? Do you think official Chinese statements are that much more reliable than official US ones? Or do you have your own sources?

And how do you know that the Russians ‘certainly’ won’t be coming for any NATO members any time soon? My guess is that they would absolutely be coming for the Baltic states to start with, and for further countries next – if they were sufficiently convinced that between a quick military intervention and their nuclear deterrent they could get away with it. Part of the point of helping out in this war is to keep them from that point.

Granted, I never thought the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine or Georgia was sensible or realistic. But then between Crimea and the Donbas ‘insurgency’ Russia had pretty much put paid to that already.

Peter Kidson
Peter Kidson
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

Noone is trying to destroy Russia. The boot is very much on the other foot.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

You’re the man! (sorry person) Great posts btw.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I don’t disagree that the war was a mistake, but it disturbs me that people like you are all about some kind of righteous fury towards and destruction of Russia (this strikes me as something of a theme in your posts).
If you applied this standard equally for all countries that have done illegal invasions I’d have expected you to be telling us of the necessity/inevitability of sinking Britain and/or nuking America (among many, many others).
This is not (yet) a total war between NATO and the East (Russia, Iran, China, etc) but honestly, where do you think the ramping up of weapons manufacturing, war hysteria/propaganda and testing (“donating”) of said weapons in Ukraine are leading?
The chinese “spy balloons” (as they’re STILL being called) were just weather balloons, yet it’s still in the news cycle as I write. Partly to distract from Nordstream 2, partly to gin up some more war fervor for the coming conflict with the Chinese.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that people here are more skeptical than most towards governments (of any kind) and the stories (lies) they tell, so why is it that so many of you are just willing to accept that this is some kind of virtuous display of solidarity? The Russians certainly won’t be coming for any NATO members any time soon, so don’t tell me it’s for security, the Americans will try to bleed them dry for a while yet I expect.
The US has spent 100$+ Billion on this war (with needlessly printed money and other peoples taxes), yet cant spare 1% of that for health care or homelessness (Britains got plenty of problems too) and you want even more of this? Do you not wish your politicians took care of domestic politics for a change? Or are you grabbing onto this offered distraction because you despair that they never will?

Peter Kidson
Peter Kidson
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

In wartime, colluding the with the invader is proscribed. No big surprise.
Russia is not ‘surrounded’ by any means. Your ignorant claim of hypocricy is what is mind blowing.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

It would be pretty hard to “surround” Russia. But as for who threatens who, it ought to be pretty clear it’s the other way around.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

Russia could have avoided it all by simply abiding by the will of the Rada, when Yanukovich fled to avoid prosecution for his crimes. Putin would have had far more leverage over Ukraine.

At every stage he has hastened Russia’s destruction.

Now it’s far too late.

Peter Kidson
Peter Kidson
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

In wartime, colluding the with the invader is proscribed. No big surprise.
Russia is not ‘surrounded’ by any means. Your ignorant claim of hypocricy is what is mind blowing.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  M Lux

It would be pretty hard to “surround” Russia. But as for who threatens who, it ought to be pretty clear it’s the other way around.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

Actually very much like Scotland and the UK. The Ukraine was part of Russia ever since Catherine The Great. Crimea was Russian until gifted to Ukraine in 1955 by the then Ukrainian President of the Soviet Union. Odessa is a Russian City founded by Catherine the Great. The majority there don’t even speak Ukrainian. And Kiev is the birth place of Russia – Kiev Rus.

So perhaps a little bit less righteousness and a little bit more pragmatism is in order.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Sorry, again, very poor knowledge of history and nationalism.

Kyivan Rus has nothing to do with Muscovite Rossiya. Indeed , during its 1200 year history, Ukraine was only been under Muscovite control for little over two centuries.

Now the most ardent Russisn-haters, (and Zelensky Supporters)are the Russophones.

Putin destroyed any Russian support with the 2014 war. He lost the chance of brute conquest in the first few weeks of Feb 2022.

And idiotic losers just don’t get any prizes, sadly

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

My wife is Crimean. She doesn’t know a soul in Crimea who wants the peninsula to return to Ukraine.

Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

My wife is Crimean. She doesn’t know a soul in Crimea who wants the peninsula to return to Ukraine.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

You are really not very good at this are you? Khrushchev was Russian and born in Russia – what on earth is the “Ukrainian President of the Soviet Union” anyway? . Ukraine was independent (if only for a short time) after WW1. So very much NOT like Scotland/UK!
Yes Odessa was founded by Catherine the Great ( a German by birth ironically). However, they recently tore down her statue (the mayor is Russian speaking ) but they hate Russia now. Zelensky is a native Russian speaker indeed his grandfather fought for the Soviet army.
The fact is Ukraine was extensively Russified during the 1960s.
As for the Donbas, yes many are Russophiles but many (who have survived) maybe less since they have been used as “cannon fodder” by Putin.

Last edited 1 year ago by Isabel Ward
Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

Maybe check out Wikipedia as to Khruschchev’s ethnic origins (https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/khrushchev-becomes-soviet-premier)

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

Maybe check out Wikipedia as to Khruschchev’s ethnic origins (https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/khrushchev-becomes-soviet-premier)

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Sorry, again, very poor knowledge of history and nationalism.

Kyivan Rus has nothing to do with Muscovite Rossiya. Indeed , during its 1200 year history, Ukraine was only been under Muscovite control for little over two centuries.

Now the most ardent Russisn-haters, (and Zelensky Supporters)are the Russophones.

Putin destroyed any Russian support with the 2014 war. He lost the chance of brute conquest in the first few weeks of Feb 2022.

And idiotic losers just don’t get any prizes, sadly

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

You are really not very good at this are you? Khrushchev was Russian and born in Russia – what on earth is the “Ukrainian President of the Soviet Union” anyway? . Ukraine was independent (if only for a short time) after WW1. So very much NOT like Scotland/UK!
Yes Odessa was founded by Catherine the Great ( a German by birth ironically). However, they recently tore down her statue (the mayor is Russian speaking ) but they hate Russia now. Zelensky is a native Russian speaker indeed his grandfather fought for the Soviet army.
The fact is Ukraine was extensively Russified during the 1960s.
As for the Donbas, yes many are Russophiles but many (who have survived) maybe less since they have been used as “cannon fodder” by Putin.

Last edited 1 year ago by Isabel Ward
Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

Luckily Poroshenko saw off the covert imperialist invasion by withholding old age pensions and medical supplies from the remnant anti coup provinces. That really hit the vast Russian soldiery who promptly turned tail and ran back across the border. Oh and he sent shells and tanks. Zelensky was boasting about the shelling practice his army had between 2014 and Putin’s invasion.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

I think the Russian’s have good reason to fear the seemingly insatiable appetite that America has for interfering in other countries.
We see it happen in relation to Northern Ireland and God knows what would happen if it started to look that the UK was about to go off the reservation.
There was a story about Gadhafi complaining to the US that having them to open an embassy in Libya it had become a focal point and organizer of resistance to his regime

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

American interference in other countries is miniscule compared to Russia’s intimidation, domination and/or direct control of its neighbours for 2 centuries before the 1990s. So rather than Russia having good reason to fear America (which is rather silly), all the countries adjacent to or close to Russia have very good and historical reasons to fear the Bear.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

You call invading them, staging air strikes, organizing coups and assassinations and subverting elections is miniscule

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

You call invading them, staging air strikes, organizing coups and assassinations and subverting elections is miniscule

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

American interference in other countries is miniscule compared to Russia’s intimidation, domination and/or direct control of its neighbours for 2 centuries before the 1990s. So rather than Russia having good reason to fear America (which is rather silly), all the countries adjacent to or close to Russia have very good and historical reasons to fear the Bear.

M Lux
M Lux
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

So voting for a pro Russian candidate is always illegitimate? Seems to me you mistake legitimacy for western partisanship, but I guess someone’s got a taste for MSM Kool Aid.
Also, how is surrounding a country with offensive weaponry not considered an existential threat? The hypocrisy on display is mind blowing.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

Actually very much like Scotland and the UK. The Ukraine was part of Russia ever since Catherine The Great. Crimea was Russian until gifted to Ukraine in 1955 by the then Ukrainian President of the Soviet Union. Odessa is a Russian City founded by Catherine the Great. The majority there don’t even speak Ukrainian. And Kiev is the birth place of Russia – Kiev Rus.

So perhaps a little bit less righteousness and a little bit more pragmatism is in order.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

Luckily Poroshenko saw off the covert imperialist invasion by withholding old age pensions and medical supplies from the remnant anti coup provinces. That really hit the vast Russian soldiery who promptly turned tail and ran back across the border. Oh and he sent shells and tanks. Zelensky was boasting about the shelling practice his army had between 2014 and Putin’s invasion.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Kidson

I think the Russian’s have good reason to fear the seemingly insatiable appetite that America has for interfering in other countries.
We see it happen in relation to Northern Ireland and God knows what would happen if it started to look that the UK was about to go off the reservation.
There was a story about Gadhafi complaining to the US that having them to open an embassy in Libya it had become a focal point and organizer of resistance to his regime

Bruce Edgar
Bruce Edgar
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Eminently sensible comment. Sadly, the author’s piece is a thicket of jiggery pokey and mumbo jumbo. What’s worse is that the comments here again confirms (for me) the futility of so much discussion — an endless arguing over opinions, interpretations, biases, half truths, media disinformation, what if’s and so on.
Let’s cut to the chase, shall we? American perfidy and misbehavior are the greatest threat in the world today. The revival of the Cold War is not enough it seems; now we must pivot to the East and create two arenas of conflict.
Cut to the chase again: Our heartless invasions and wars have severley brutalized our culture. Our Congress has been hijacked by big money. The gap between what we say our values are and how we behave is cringe worthy.
Right now, the best we Americans can hope for is that NATO and America both get a stiff bang to the nose for their perfidy. It’s time to stand down.

Last edited 1 year ago by Bruce Edgar
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

So you would prefer a world governed by the faithfulness, upright behaviour and gentle dealing with others of Xi and Putin?

Bruce Edgar
Bruce Edgar
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I didn’t say that. If you read what I said, you would know better what I intend.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

When you say that “American perfidy and misbehavior are the greatest threat in the world today” the conclusion sort of follows.

Bruce Edgar
Bruce Edgar
1 year ago