This time, Sandbrook has nailed it. I’d always had great regard for his writing but he’s now able to see clearly how his equivocation at the outset of the conflict in Ukraine set him on an initial path he wasn’t quite sure he wanted to take. That led to some doubts about him in articles he’s written for Unherd, as his voice became clouded. The clouds have now been parted.
His use of the phrase “the cheap and tawdry attractions of contrarianism” sums up a good deal of what we’ve been reading, not just in articles by other writers but also in the Comments section. Of course, those who disagree will label this as unfair labelling, but one thing that stands out amongst the contrarians is the vehemence with which they often try to convince others; the type of vehemence which i always think suggests they’re not really that sure themselves but just enjoy taking the contrarian approach.
This, in contrast to the usually quiet but steady refusal to see the conflict for anything but what it actually is: and Sandbrook’s epiphany has it right. Good v Evil. Not evil in the nefarious sense of a hidden force in operation, but the outright evil of actions in plain sight which we’ve witnessed from the Russian forces since the outset, instigated by a mindset removed from human values in search of authoritarian conquest.
Welcome back, Mr Sandbrook, we’ve missed you.
Addendum: by the ‘late’ Jeremy Corbyn, i assume he’s referring to his political career!
The contrarian narrative always relies on the idea that the US provoked Russia who was forced to respond. Is it seriously suggested that even if the Ukraine did in fact eventually join NATO that Ukraine and its new allies intended to sweep into Russia to seize Stalingrad and move on to seize the oilfields of Russia as Germany sought to do in WW2. The idea is patently absurd to any but the most conspiracy minded anti-US loon.
Putin’s move was analogous to the pre-WW2 invasion of Czechoslovakia to “protect” the Sudetenland Germans, Germany’s final demand. Our appeasement cost us dear in that case. Why would Putin not wish to make other revanchist recoveries of former Soviet territory given his views had Ukraine not been aided.
Peace can always be bought temporarily at the expense of concessions and servitude and that is Ukraine’s call not ours although I suspect the West will not be inclined to aid the fight for the recovery of the Crimea.
The US had coveted China since the Boxer Rebellion if not before.
They had forced the ‘pesky’ British to abrogate the 1904 Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty, whilst simultaneously negotiating the Washington Disarmament Treaty of 1922, which further emasculated the bankrupt Brits.
Then the wretched Japanese had the temerity to strike first and invade China. From there on war between Japan and the US was inevitable.
Sadly the Japanese master mind behind the attack on Pearl Harbour, Isoroku Yamamoto new full well that Japan could never defeat the US, but his “was not to reason why”. But surely you know all this stuff?
The US had coveted China since the Boxer Rebellion if not before.
They had forced the ‘pesky’ British to abrogate the 1904 Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty, whilst simultaneously negotiating the Washington Disarmament Treaty of 1922, which further emasculated the bankrupt Brits.
Then the wretched Japanese had the temerity to strike first and invade China. From there on war between Japan and the US was inevitable.
Sadly the Japanese master mind behind the attack on Pearl Harbour, Isoroku Yamamoto new full well that Japan could never defeat the US, but his “was not to reason why”. But surely you know all this stuff?
I can accept the theory that the US might have allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor in order to join the war as a responder rather than an initiator, even though I would say it is less than a 50/50 shot given the damage the fleet sustained, but fabricated? Really?
Fabricated? well lets say engineered. The American populace were not minded to go to war so something had to be done to change their mindset. Roosevelt knew several days before the attack on Pearl Harbour that it was going to happen, Japanese signals traffic had been intercepted and codes broken. He was prepared to accept the damage as being the only way of getting the American people on the side of WAR.
In terms of the hardware of all the ships based in Pearl at that time the only ones which were strategically important and irreplaceable in a short timescale were the carriers and by coincidence they were not in the harbour during the attack.
Well in order that we don’t get bogged down with semantics I’ll agree with “engineered”.
Given the fact that US was rather annoyed that the Japanese had invaded China,
it had used the League of Nations to deploy a plethora sanctions, culminating with oil to coerce the Japs (sic). Additionally it arranged that the US Fleet be kept at Pearl Harbour much to the annoyance of its Commander!
As you rightly say the “Day of Infamy “ attack was hardly a surprise, at least to FDR & Co.
It was also remarkably convenient that none of Carriers were in port, as Taranto a year earlier had proved their worth whilst also underlining the obsolescence of Battleships.
Coincidentally the ‘butchers bill’ for all this was just over 2,400 uncannily similar to 9/11 sixty years later.
As early as April 1940 Royal Navy Skua dive bombers sank the German cruiser Königsberg, the first major warship sunk in war by air attack and by dive-bombers.
As early as April 1940 Royal Navy Skua dive bombers sank the German cruiser Königsberg, the first major warship sunk in war by air attack and by dive-bombers.
Well in order that we don’t get bogged down with semantics I’ll agree with “engineered”.
Given the fact that US was rather annoyed that the Japanese had invaded China,
it had used the League of Nations to deploy a plethora sanctions, culminating with oil to coerce the Japs (sic). Additionally it arranged that the US Fleet be kept at Pearl Harbour much to the annoyance of its Commander!
As you rightly say the “Day of Infamy “ attack was hardly a surprise, at least to FDR & Co.
It was also remarkably convenient that none of Carriers were in port, as Taranto a year earlier had proved their worth whilst also underlining the obsolescence of Battleships.
Coincidentally the ‘butchers bill’ for all this was just over 2,400 uncannily similar to 9/11 sixty years later.
Fabricated? well lets say engineered. The American populace were not minded to go to war so something had to be done to change their mindset. Roosevelt knew several days before the attack on Pearl Harbour that it was going to happen, Japanese signals traffic had been intercepted and codes broken. He was prepared to accept the damage as being the only way of getting the American people on the side of WAR.
In terms of the hardware of all the ships based in Pearl at that time the only ones which were strategically important and irreplaceable in a short timescale were the carriers and by coincidence they were not in the harbour during the attack.
He might be asserting that the US knew about the attack and let it happen anyway. There is little actual evidence for this theory other than the British had broken the Japanese code and might have told the Americans, and that America’s carriers, which proved decisive in the war, were out on maneuvers at the time, a suspicious coincidence but not really evidence. The importance of the carriers is hindsight anyway. They weren’t viewed as the centerpieces of the American Navy until after they had proved themselves in the war. The British might have known and looked the other way, though the evidence even for that is pretty thin. He could also be referring to the fact that the US oil embargo prompted the Japanese response, which is true, but to respond to economic warfare with violence is hardly justified. The US was aware that they could and likely would be attacked by Japan somewhere in the Pacific at some point in time, but they did not know the time and place, nor expect a surprise attack. Either way, Pearl Harbor does not belong in the same universe with the Iraq fiasco or even the Maine.
I am sorry but your attempt to portray the USA as SNOW WHITE just won’t do.
Firstly to say that: “to respond to economic warfare with violence is hardly justified” is just naive. It happens all the time as you people say. Economic warfare is just another weapon and the US used it assiduously against the Japanese to further their own national interest. Nothing odd in that, just don’t deny it!
Secondly one of FDR’s closest aides (whose name escapes me) was heavily implicated in provoking the war with Japan and even later forced to account for his actions, but as I recall rather conveniently died before the matter was resolved.
Then this odd remark: “The importance of the carriers is hindsight anyway. They weren’t viewed as the centerpieces of the American Navy until after they had proved themselves in the war.” So the US Navy was blissfully unaware that the year previously Carrier aircraft from the Royal Navy had sunk three Italian Battleships, including their latest the Littorio, in Taranto Harbour! Frankly I find that impossible to believe as I am certain any member of the US Navy would. Off course the Japanese took very careful note of it, as one might expect.
Off course besides, the Maine, Pear Harbour, and Saddam there is also the War of 1812 and perhaps even 9/11 but that is for another day.
Not saying the US is snow white. I’m just saying you should use better examples. The Iraq War is a great example of bad behavior by the US government. There are others, but the two you named are two of the more justified conflicts in America’s history. The Mexican War, on the other hand, was pretty much a straightforward war of conquest with far less justification than the Spanish American war or WWII. There’s also the annexation of Florida, which was largely a result of an unauthorized invasion by then general and later president Andrew Jackson. And then there’s the treatment of Native Americans which includes so many misdeeds that volumes could be and have been written on it. Or that time the US sent an army into Mexico to catch one criminal. For that matter, the US entered WWI over the sinking of a boat that it has been conclusively determined was, in fact, secretly carrying munitions to the allies to avoid German u-boat attacks. Instead you picked WWII, defending a country that sided with the Nazis, and the Spanish American war, which was one of the few historical examples of any country aiding a rebellion against a colonial European power. If you’re going to fire criticisms at America, at least pick some decent ammunition. There’s plenty of it.
Not saying the US is snow white. I’m just saying you should use better examples. The Iraq War is a great example of bad behavior by the US government. There are others, but the two you named are two of the more justified conflicts in America’s history. The Mexican War, on the other hand, was pretty much a straightforward war of conquest with far less justification than the Spanish American war or WWII. There’s also the annexation of Florida, which was largely a result of an unauthorized invasion by then general and later president Andrew Jackson. And then there’s the treatment of Native Americans which includes so many misdeeds that volumes could be and have been written on it. Or that time the US sent an army into Mexico to catch one criminal. For that matter, the US entered WWI over the sinking of a boat that it has been conclusively determined was, in fact, secretly carrying munitions to the allies to avoid German u-boat attacks. Instead you picked WWII, defending a country that sided with the Nazis, and the Spanish American war, which was one of the few historical examples of any country aiding a rebellion against a colonial European power. If you’re going to fire criticisms at America, at least pick some decent ammunition. There’s plenty of it.
I am sorry but your attempt to portray the USA as SNOW WHITE just won’t do.
Firstly to say that: “to respond to economic warfare with violence is hardly justified” is just naive. It happens all the time as you people say. Economic warfare is just another weapon and the US used it assiduously against the Japanese to further their own national interest. Nothing odd in that, just don’t deny it!
Secondly one of FDR’s closest aides (whose name escapes me) was heavily implicated in provoking the war with Japan and even later forced to account for his actions, but as I recall rather conveniently died before the matter was resolved.
Then this odd remark: “The importance of the carriers is hindsight anyway. They weren’t viewed as the centerpieces of the American Navy until after they had proved themselves in the war.” So the US Navy was blissfully unaware that the year previously Carrier aircraft from the Royal Navy had sunk three Italian Battleships, including their latest the Littorio, in Taranto Harbour! Frankly I find that impossible to believe as I am certain any member of the US Navy would. Off course the Japanese took very careful note of it, as one might expect.
Off course besides, the Maine, Pear Harbour, and Saddam there is also the War of 1812 and perhaps even 9/11 but that is for another day.
He might be asserting that the US knew about the attack and let it happen anyway. There is little actual evidence for this theory other than the British had broken the Japanese code and might have told the Americans, and that America’s carriers, which proved decisive in the war, were out on maneuvers at the time, a suspicious coincidence but not really evidence. The importance of the carriers is hindsight anyway. They weren’t viewed as the centerpieces of the American Navy until after they had proved themselves in the war. The British might have known and looked the other way, though the evidence even for that is pretty thin. He could also be referring to the fact that the US oil embargo prompted the Japanese response, which is true, but to respond to economic warfare with violence is hardly justified. The US was aware that they could and likely would be attacked by Japan somewhere in the Pacific at some point in time, but they did not know the time and place, nor expect a surprise attack. Either way, Pearl Harbor does not belong in the same universe with the Iraq fiasco or even the Maine.
The cause of the sinking of the Maine has never been conclusively proven one way or the other, accident or mine. Whether that was the real cause for the Spanish American War is a question as well. There was already a faction in the US government that wanted to intervene on behalf of Cuba against Spain. That’s long enough ago to qualify as ancient history anyway. I’m not sure why you include Pearl Harbor. It was a surprise attack not preceded by a declaration of war. I grant the US’s economic warfare was an important instigating factor, but there was going to be a struggle of some type for control of the Pacific regardless. Let the record show that the Japanese were the first to resort to outright warfare. Iraq, of course, was a blunder pretty much everybody agrees on. I consider Bush the second worst President in America’s history, Woodrow Wilson being the worst.
I like the memorial to the Maine in Grand Central Park and am delighted to find an American who still thinks the Spanish could seriously be MAD enough to sink her. Bravo!
Incidentally I presume your third worst President would be James Madison?
A ‘slaver’ who led you to defeat in the War of 1812, and allowed ‘us’ to burn or torch as you say) the White House and all the Public Buildings in Washington DC to the ground?
I don’t think the Spanish intentionally sunk the Maine. They weren’t stupid enough to think they could win a war with the US. They were, however, doing some pretty nasty things in an attempt to hold onto their remaining colonial possessions. The Maine either struck a mine or it was an accidental munitions explosion. Nobody knows which. It has still not been proven one way or the other, Besides, it was the news media, particularly the papers owned by William Randolph Hearst, not the US government, that used the Maine as their excuse to push a pro-war agenda, though there was already a pro-war faction in the government anyway. The War of 1812 was a mess precipitated by bad behavior on the part of both sides. Both sides contributed to instigating that conflict.
Well whatever happened to the Maine it was a jolly convenient excuse for the start of the Pax Americana* rampage! An Empire in all but name!
As for your contention that : “They (the Spanish)were, however, doing some pretty nasty things in an attempt to hold onto their remaining colonial possessions”
.
Really, that sounds like Snow White again!
Whatever the Spanish were or were not doing they pale into insignificance compared to the myriad of genocidal ‘smash & grab’ raids against the indigenous population that the US perpetrated between the 1783 and circa 1900, do they not?
As for 1812 you know as well as I that it was a blatant attempt to grab Canada. Even that hypocritical old slaver Thomas Jefferson** said as much, “it’s only a matter of marching “.
This off course is NOT to say that the US is the Great Satan, far from it . As world Hegemonies go it has been remarkably generous, but it is disingenuous to try an exculpate it from the odd outrage.
(* Some might say this started with the ‘acquisition’ of Hawaii, somewhat earlier.)
(** Founding Father indeed, more like Founding Pervert from what I heard at Monticello years ago.)
Well whatever happened to the Maine it was a jolly convenient excuse for the start of the Pax Americana* rampage! An Empire in all but name!
As for your contention that : “They (the Spanish)were, however, doing some pretty nasty things in an attempt to hold onto their remaining colonial possessions”
.
Really, that sounds like Snow White again!
Whatever the Spanish were or were not doing they pale into insignificance compared to the myriad of genocidal ‘smash & grab’ raids against the indigenous population that the US perpetrated between the 1783 and circa 1900, do they not?
As for 1812 you know as well as I that it was a blatant attempt to grab Canada. Even that hypocritical old slaver Thomas Jefferson** said as much, “it’s only a matter of marching “.
This off course is NOT to say that the US is the Great Satan, far from it . As world Hegemonies go it has been remarkably generous, but it is disingenuous to try an exculpate it from the odd outrage.
(* Some might say this started with the ‘acquisition’ of Hawaii, somewhat earlier.)
(** Founding Father indeed, more like Founding Pervert from what I heard at Monticello years ago.)
I don’t think the Spanish intentionally sunk the Maine. They weren’t stupid enough to think they could win a war with the US. They were, however, doing some pretty nasty things in an attempt to hold onto their remaining colonial possessions. The Maine either struck a mine or it was an accidental munitions explosion. Nobody knows which. It has still not been proven one way or the other, Besides, it was the news media, particularly the papers owned by William Randolph Hearst, not the US government, that used the Maine as their excuse to push a pro-war agenda, though there was already a pro-war faction in the government anyway. The War of 1812 was a mess precipitated by bad behavior on the part of both sides. Both sides contributed to instigating that conflict.
I like the memorial to the Maine in Grand Central Park and am delighted to find an American who still thinks the Spanish could seriously be MAD enough to sink her. Bravo!
Incidentally I presume your third worst President would be James Madison?
A ‘slaver’ who led you to defeat in the War of 1812, and allowed ‘us’ to burn or torch as you say) the White House and all the Public Buildings in Washington DC to the ground?
I can accept the theory that the US might have allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor in order to join the war as a responder rather than an initiator, even though I would say it is less than a 50/50 shot given the damage the fleet sustained, but fabricated? Really?
The cause of the sinking of the Maine has never been conclusively proven one way or the other, accident or mine. Whether that was the real cause for the Spanish American War is a question as well. There was already a faction in the US government that wanted to intervene on behalf of Cuba against Spain. That’s long enough ago to qualify as ancient history anyway. I’m not sure why you include Pearl Harbor. It was a surprise attack not preceded by a declaration of war. I grant the US’s economic warfare was an important instigating factor, but there was going to be a struggle of some type for control of the Pacific regardless. Let the record show that the Japanese were the first to resort to outright warfare. Iraq, of course, was a blunder pretty much everybody agrees on. I consider Bush the second worst President in America’s history, Woodrow Wilson being the worst.
Thank you! You’re not gonna get much support for that position in this comment thread, but some of us appreciate it. Here’s another podcast that summarizes the situation succinctly and accurately: https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/the-cost-of-ukraine
And if you REALLY want a deep dive, this guy put out a fantastic historical analysis on 3/13/22: https://martyrmade.com/
Some of that Ron Paul stuff in your link made me rethink even the venerable George Kennan just now, but I’m already jaundiced from reading about the diabolical machinations of the Dulles brothers…
Thank you but someone has to tell it like it is however unpopular the truth is. Russia under Putin has been vilified without stop and unjustifiably and this is simply because he put a stop to the carpet bagging of Russian resources post 2000.
Thank you but someone has to tell it like it is however unpopular the truth is. Russia under Putin has been vilified without stop and unjustifiably and this is simply because he put a stop to the carpet bagging of Russian resources post 2000.
Bamboozling? No, buying with a touch of blackmail much more probable.
Go do a bit of research on the BIS, its structures and the banking Mafia behind it.
Bamboozling? No, buying with a touch of blackmail much more probable.
Go do a bit of research on the BIS, its structures and the banking Mafia behind it.
Much of those references deny history of the Donbas region. While quite true that money spurs conflict and recovery it’s Putin’s choices that dominate. He alone can end the war. Meanwhile lives will be lost. In the end the Ukrainians are not going to stop in their efforts to refuse Russia. The glory days of the USSR and subjugation of populations can’t be repeated.
There are two sides or in this case three to this conflict, NATO needs to buttout it is not an issue that they and the US / Britain had any business involving themselves in.
That leaves two sides, back in April Zelensky showed that he was prepared to negotiate a settlement with Russia, then Johnson arrives in KIEV and talks him out of it. Even now Zelensky could do the right thing by his people and surrender. I see absolutely no desire by Russia to subjugate anybody.
In the end those Ukrainians left will have to watch as the eastern part of the Ukraine, Donbass as far south as Odessa go of and live as part of a country / Regime that they want to live in, while the rest of the Ukraine will have to live in penury as their country is being reconstructed under the western banking mafia.
There are two sides or in this case three to this conflict, NATO needs to buttout it is not an issue that they and the US / Britain had any business involving themselves in.
That leaves two sides, back in April Zelensky showed that he was prepared to negotiate a settlement with Russia, then Johnson arrives in KIEV and talks him out of it. Even now Zelensky could do the right thing by his people and surrender. I see absolutely no desire by Russia to subjugate anybody.
In the end those Ukrainians left will have to watch as the eastern part of the Ukraine, Donbass as far south as Odessa go of and live as part of a country / Regime that they want to live in, while the rest of the Ukraine will have to live in penury as their country is being reconstructed under the western banking mafia.
Thank you! You’re not gonna get much support for that position in this comment thread, but some of us appreciate it. Here’s another podcast that summarizes the situation succinctly and accurately: https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/the-cost-of-ukraine
And if you REALLY want a deep dive, this guy put out a fantastic historical analysis on 3/13/22: https://martyrmade.com/
Some of that Ron Paul stuff in your link made me rethink even the venerable George Kennan just now, but I’m already jaundiced from reading about the diabolical machinations of the Dulles brothers…
Much of those references deny history of the Donbas region. While quite true that money spurs conflict and recovery it’s Putin’s choices that dominate. He alone can end the war. Meanwhile lives will be lost. In the end the Ukrainians are not going to stop in their efforts to refuse Russia. The glory days of the USSR and subjugation of populations can’t be repeated.
“His use of the phrase “the cheap and tawdry attractions of contrarianism” sums up a good deal of what we’ve been reading, not just in articles by other writers but also in the Comments section.”
100%.
“A year ago, as Vladimir Putin launched his so-called “special military operation” to seize the Ukrainian capital, kill Volodymyr Zelenskyy and wipe much of the latter’s country from the map of Europe”
The author is suggesting that Putin invaded Ukraine with less than 200,000 troops despite obviously being aware that Ukraine had an army of 780,000 well trained and supplied by the USA?
That would suggest as well as being evil and mad, Putin was also an idiot. No one who can survive at the top of the Russian hierarchy for 20 plus years is an idiot.
I recommend reading the Ukrainian cease fire monitor reports for the last few years.
The contrarian narrative always relies on the idea that the US provoked Russia who was forced to respond. Is it seriously suggested that even if the Ukraine did in fact eventually join NATO that Ukraine and its new allies intended to sweep into Russia to seize Stalingrad and move on to seize the oilfields of Russia as Germany sought to do in WW2. The idea is patently absurd to any but the most conspiracy minded anti-US loon.
Putin’s move was analogous to the pre-WW2 invasion of Czechoslovakia to “protect” the Sudetenland Germans, Germany’s final demand. Our appeasement cost us dear in that case. Why would Putin not wish to make other revanchist recoveries of former Soviet territory given his views had Ukraine not been aided.
Peace can always be bought temporarily at the expense of concessions and servitude and that is Ukraine’s call not ours although I suspect the West will not be inclined to aid the fight for the recovery of the Crimea.
“His use of the phrase “the cheap and tawdry attractions of contrarianism” sums up a good deal of what we’ve been reading, not just in articles by other writers but also in the Comments section.”
100%.
“A year ago, as Vladimir Putin launched his so-called “special military operation” to seize the Ukrainian capital, kill Volodymyr Zelenskyy and wipe much of the latter’s country from the map of Europe”
The author is suggesting that Putin invaded Ukraine with less than 200,000 troops despite obviously being aware that Ukraine had an army of 780,000 well trained and supplied by the USA?
That would suggest as well as being evil and mad, Putin was also an idiot. No one who can survive at the top of the Russian hierarchy for 20 plus years is an idiot.
I recommend reading the Ukrainian cease fire monitor reports for the last few years.
Last edited 1 year ago by M VC14
Steve Murray
1 year ago
This time, Sandbrook has nailed it. I’d always had great regard for his writing but he’s now able to see clearly how his equivocation at the outset of the conflict in Ukraine set him on an initial path he wasn’t quite sure he wanted to take. That led to some doubts about him in articles he’s written for Unherd, as his voice became clouded. The clouds have now been parted.
His use of the phrase “the cheap and tawdry attractions of contrarianism” sums up a good deal of what we’ve been reading, not just in articles by other writers but also in the Comments section. Of course, those who disagree will label this as unfair labelling, but one thing that stands out amongst the contrarians is the vehemence with which they often try to convince others; the type of vehemence which i always think suggests they’re not really that sure themselves but just enjoy taking the contrarian approach.
This, in contrast to the usually quiet but steady refusal to see the conflict for anything but what it actually is: and Sandbrook’s epiphany has it right. Good v Evil. Not evil in the nefarious sense of a hidden force in operation, but the outright evil of actions in plain sight which we’ve witnessed from the Russian forces since the outset, instigated by a mindset removed from human values in search of authoritarian conquest.
Welcome back, Mr Sandbrook, we’ve missed you.
Addendum: by the ‘late’ Jeremy Corbyn, i assume he’s referring to his political career!
Alexander Dryburgh
1 year ago
I’ve become quite a fan of Dominic Sandbrook along with his partner Tom Holland on their Rest is History Club and podcast. Really just a terrific project that has me addicted to the point of annoying my wife as I roam the house with ear pods in oblivious to any conversation she might attempt to offer. The great downside is that I’m not reading books nearly as much and that’s not a good thing.
With regard to this piece however I have some significant reservations. As a Canadian I’m fully aware of our neighbour’s tendency to exceptionalism to the point of bullying at times. We also live under the umbrella of the Monroe Doctrine that is still in full effect in this hemisphere so I have some hesitation about American interference around the globe and how that can be perceived at times. Americans would never tolerate even ‘defensive alliances’ with major foreign powers near its borders and have demonstrated that from time to time.
Another reservation has to do with run up to the war where it struck me that the Americans were intent on provoking the Russians. In Aug. of 21 Zelensky was in the Oval Office…heady stuff for a comedic actor. In Nov. 21 the U.S./Ukraine Strategic Partnership that many observers saw as a final green light for NATO membership was signed in Washington. (Robert Service at Oxford University called it the biggest blunder in post Soviet relations with Russia.) In Dec. 21 Russia wrote the Biden administration asking that NATO membership for Ukraine be ruled out. In December 22 Blinken replied “absolutely not”. We all know what followed in February.
I think more could have been done in those critical months to head off this war but none of the parties seemed interested.
And now we have a conflict where there will be no real winners but just a great deal of human suffering that will scar this region for a generation.
oh please. the only “provocations” come from Putin. NATO “expansionism” is a ridiculous way to describe the justifiable desires of the peoples of the countries formerly dominated and controlled by the SU for protection from revived Russian expansionism.
They never did. The Baltic states are the only countries which had been part of the Soviet Union to join NATO. Had Ukraine been a member of NATO, Putin would not have dared to attack, as Article 5 would have meant in doing so, he would need to fight all of NATO, not just NATO’s war production and Ukrainian soliders as is happening, but the armed might of all members of NATO.
Obviously they never did. You might be aware that for many years there were discussions between NATO and Ukraine regarding membership. Thus my semi-rhetorical question.
Obviously they never did. You might be aware that for many years there were discussions between NATO and Ukraine regarding membership. Thus my semi-rhetorical question.
So one might assert that the Ukraine -> NATO strategy didn’t work out so well if the goal was to actually, you know, prevent war, given what we’ve long known about Putin. I’m sure he was happy to be handed that pretext on a nice shiny silver platter.
So one might assert that the Ukraine -> NATO strategy didn’t work out so well if the goal was to actually, you know, prevent war, given what we’ve long known about Putin. I’m sure he was happy to be handed that pretext on a nice shiny silver platter.
They never did. The Baltic states are the only countries which had been part of the Soviet Union to join NATO. Had Ukraine been a member of NATO, Putin would not have dared to attack, as Article 5 would have meant in doing so, he would need to fight all of NATO, not just NATO’s war production and Ukrainian soliders as is happening, but the armed might of all members of NATO.
Not really, NATO trampled on Russian interests in the Balkans in the 1990s by deciding that the Serbs, Russia’s coreligionists and traditional allies, were the only villains in a fratricidal war in which all sides committed atrocities and war crimes. Wesley Clark nearly started WW III by ordering an attack on Russians flown in to join the peace-keeping effort, and it was only a British officer refusing to carry out the order that prevented it. There were also all the CIA-sponsored “color revolutions” to overthrow pro-Russian governments in Russia’s “near abroad”.
The trouble is, to hold NATO responsible for what is going on, one has to take the position that the Treaty of Versailles justified Hitler’s seizure of Czechoslovakia and invasion of Poland, since the circumstances are entirely analogous.
Depends on how farback in history you want to go.
If the treaty had been different then likely Hitler would have had far less excuse, Who benefitted from the Treaty as written?
Depends on how farback in history you want to go.
If the treaty had been different then likely Hitler would have had far less excuse, Who benefitted from the Treaty as written?
Not really, NATO trampled on Russian interests in the Balkans in the 1990s by deciding that the Serbs, Russia’s coreligionists and traditional allies, were the only villains in a fratricidal war in which all sides committed atrocities and war crimes. Wesley Clark nearly started WW III by ordering an attack on Russians flown in to join the peace-keeping effort, and it was only a British officer refusing to carry out the order that prevented it. There were also all the CIA-sponsored “color revolutions” to overthrow pro-Russian governments in Russia’s “near abroad”.
The trouble is, to hold NATO responsible for what is going on, one has to take the position that the Treaty of Versailles justified Hitler’s seizure of Czechoslovakia and invasion of Poland, since the circumstances are entirely analogous.
History is full no doubt of errors and missteps. However Russia – from a strong position actually, already occupying large parts of Ukraine mounted a full scale invasion against its neighbour. I consider the idea that the Biden administration – the one that chaotically left Afghanistan – intentionally provoked Russia to be obviously absurd.
I have to disagree with your last sentence. The Biden administration has repeatedly demonstrated its ineptness when it comes to foreign policy. Robert Gates noted in his book that “…Biden has been on the wrong side of American foreign policy every time”. Even President Obama commented that “Joe f**ks up everything”. Biden is being controlled by the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us of back in the last century. This same complex needs a new war to earn billions replacing arms etc thrown away in Afghanistan.
I have been against this “war” since the beginning as I fail to see what the US interests are in essentially a European conflict. Nobody has answered this satisfactorily for me. The only answer I get is “because Russia is our enemy”. China and the WEF are far greater enemies.
The way I read that, he implied that the Biden administration’s amply proven ineptness made it unlikely that it had the guile to deliberately goad Russia into attacking. Sounds reasonable to me.
War is for power. Sometimes that power takes the form of money. But sometimes it doesn’t. Just outright, thuggish, control. Ego. Dreams of grandeur, recreating some idealized past. Wanting to go down in the history books as some ultimate praiseworthy leader of his nation or even the world.
No, war is for freedom and self determination, for having the right to choose your own government and to protect the lives of your people. Big pharma didn’t cause the pandemic, Chinese wet markets enabled viruses to jump from one species to the next. Conspiracy theories might make you feel better because it makes it seem that chaotic events are all part of an evil plan.
Paul, Remember that great scene in the movie “The Godfather between Al Pacino and Diane Keaton?
”Michael: My father’s no different than any other powerful man, [Kay laughs] any man who’s responsible for other people. Like a senator or a president.
Kay: You know how naive you sound?
Michael: Why?
Kay: Senators and presidents don’t have men killed.
Michael: Oh, who’s being naive, Kay?
Paul, Remember that great scene in the movie “The Godfather between Al Pacino and Diane Keaton?
”Michael: My father’s no different than any other powerful man, [Kay laughs] any man who’s responsible for other people. Like a senator or a president.
Kay: You know how naive you sound?
Michael: Why?
Kay: Senators and presidents don’t have men killed.
Michael: Oh, who’s being naive, Kay?
War is for power. Sometimes that power takes the form of money. But sometimes it doesn’t. Just outright, thuggish, control. Ego. Dreams of grandeur, recreating some idealized past. Wanting to go down in the history books as some ultimate praiseworthy leader of his nation or even the world.
No, war is for freedom and self determination, for having the right to choose your own government and to protect the lives of your people. Big pharma didn’t cause the pandemic, Chinese wet markets enabled viruses to jump from one species to the next. Conspiracy theories might make you feel better because it makes it seem that chaotic events are all part of an evil plan.
The US interest is in keeping a democratic country free from an Authoritarian neighbour’s unjustified invasion, Putin’s Russia. It really is the democracies against the autocratic states. Plus you get to wear down Russia’s military machine at no cost in US soldiers. Oh and there is the ‘small matter’ of protecting innocent civilians from rockets and drones (!)
Oh come on. There are plenty of satisfactory answers, but the easiest one is that Putin has put the security of all of eastern Europe at risk, and should he be victorious, which now thankfully seems unlikely in part because of U.S. help, could potentially destabilize international relations between states. The idea that in this ever shrinking world of ours people like you can be Chamberlain-esque and think we can sit back and avoid “a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing” is really quite absurd.
The way I read that, he implied that the Biden administration’s amply proven ineptness made it unlikely that it had the guile to deliberately goad Russia into attacking. Sounds reasonable to me.
The US interest is in keeping a democratic country free from an Authoritarian neighbour’s unjustified invasion, Putin’s Russia. It really is the democracies against the autocratic states. Plus you get to wear down Russia’s military machine at no cost in US soldiers. Oh and there is the ‘small matter’ of protecting innocent civilians from rockets and drones (!)
Oh come on. There are plenty of satisfactory answers, but the easiest one is that Putin has put the security of all of eastern Europe at risk, and should he be victorious, which now thankfully seems unlikely in part because of U.S. help, could potentially destabilize international relations between states. The idea that in this ever shrinking world of ours people like you can be Chamberlain-esque and think we can sit back and avoid “a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing” is really quite absurd.
The provocations have not come solely from Biden, but from every US administration since the neocons took control of US foreign policy under Clinton.
Pointing out that fact, by the way, does not justify the invasion, nor does it make me a ‘Putin apologist’. It simply sets the record straight as regards how we got here, as Sandbrook himself does in a grudging sort of way in this article.
Clinton, Biden, Blinken, Neuland are not neocons. Certainly, there many on the political right who vigorously support current U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine. The political left is in charge of foreign policy. And they are the ones who chose not to seek a diplomatic resolution in 2021. I don’t know how this war will end; but a convincing win by either side seems unlikely. If Robert Gates is right, this war will end in tears by both sides.
except that there really was no “provocation,” as NATO has never threatened Russia and frankly never would, even when it invaded another sovereign country and behaved barbarously. The only power doing any threatening is Putin’s Russia. Just ask any country formerly controlled or dominated by Russia/SU. Or just ask the Finnish or Swedish prime ministers. They used to be neutral for decades, until now.
Clinton, Biden, Blinken, Neuland are not neocons. Certainly, there many on the political right who vigorously support current U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine. The political left is in charge of foreign policy. And they are the ones who chose not to seek a diplomatic resolution in 2021. I don’t know how this war will end; but a convincing win by either side seems unlikely. If Robert Gates is right, this war will end in tears by both sides.
except that there really was no “provocation,” as NATO has never threatened Russia and frankly never would, even when it invaded another sovereign country and behaved barbarously. The only power doing any threatening is Putin’s Russia. Just ask any country formerly controlled or dominated by Russia/SU. Or just ask the Finnish or Swedish prime ministers. They used to be neutral for decades, until now.
Biden is but a Puppet ask yourself who whispers in his ear? who prepares the position papers?.
Came across this a while back “Pyle would be the third former BlackRock official to join the administration. Brian Deese, who was global head of sustainable investing at the firm, has been named as Biden’s national economic director. And Wally Adeyemo, former chief of staff to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, is the nominee for deputy Treasury secretary. Neither Deese nor Pyle would require confirmation by the Senate.
If anything, Pyle has a deeper relationship to BlackRock than his colleagues. He’s been there longer, since at least 2014. And his role as chief investment strategist is more central to BlackRock’s operations; he frequently comments on behalf of the firm in the media.”
So three people who are closely linked to a company with major financial exposure to the Ukrain situation are close enought to affect the thinking of a weak brained President. Just saying.
I have to disagree with your last sentence. The Biden administration has repeatedly demonstrated its ineptness when it comes to foreign policy. Robert Gates noted in his book that “…Biden has been on the wrong side of American foreign policy every time”. Even President Obama commented that “Joe f**ks up everything”. Biden is being controlled by the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us of back in the last century. This same complex needs a new war to earn billions replacing arms etc thrown away in Afghanistan.
I have been against this “war” since the beginning as I fail to see what the US interests are in essentially a European conflict. Nobody has answered this satisfactorily for me. The only answer I get is “because Russia is our enemy”. China and the WEF are far greater enemies.
The provocations have not come solely from Biden, but from every US administration since the neocons took control of US foreign policy under Clinton.
Pointing out that fact, by the way, does not justify the invasion, nor does it make me a ‘Putin apologist’. It simply sets the record straight as regards how we got here, as Sandbrook himself does in a grudging sort of way in this article.
Biden is but a Puppet ask yourself who whispers in his ear? who prepares the position papers?.
Came across this a while back “Pyle would be the third former BlackRock official to join the administration. Brian Deese, who was global head of sustainable investing at the firm, has been named as Biden’s national economic director. And Wally Adeyemo, former chief of staff to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, is the nominee for deputy Treasury secretary. Neither Deese nor Pyle would require confirmation by the Senate.
If anything, Pyle has a deeper relationship to BlackRock than his colleagues. He’s been there longer, since at least 2014. And his role as chief investment strategist is more central to BlackRock’s operations; he frequently comments on behalf of the firm in the media.”
So three people who are closely linked to a company with major financial exposure to the Ukrain situation are close enought to affect the thinking of a weak brained President. Just saying.
You do make a good point. The US-led West has made a series of strategic mistakes since the fall of Communism where Russia is concerned. However these mistakes do need to be placed in the wider context of what sort of world we actually want to live in. When it comes down to the choice of being a NATO country or a part of the Russian Federation, the former eastern bloc nations are unanimous in wanting the former, and for reasons that are pretty obvious and inarguable even to the majority of us who aren’t acquianted first-hand with the difference.
That’s not to say that the West is faultless or that we can all sit back and rest upon the untested assumption that we’re the good guys and it’ll all turn out alright in the end – far from it. It’s just that had the West taken a more circumspect view in the 1990s and restrained NATO expansion, we would by now have had a series of geostrategic scandals on our doorstep as parts of Eastern Europe became gradually forced into the Russian orbit, with all this entails.
I guess what I’m saying here is that we’re stuck into this Ukraine War now whether we like it or not, and it may come with considerable new costs as well as what’s already been spent. However, the West is on the right side for the simple reason that the West cares what Ukranians themselves want while the invading Russian force does not, and we haven’t been able to be this confident in such a moral assertion for some time.
Don’t forget, zelensky announced his intent to make Ukraine a nuclear power, which Putin has for years said would be a red line. I feel for the Ukrainians but also fear that the slow but steady escalation could lead to true disaster
When the USSR broke up Ukraine was already the third largest nuclear power. They agreed to disarm in return for guarantees of border security from three guarantors; USA, UK and Russia.
Nobody thought that the threat could come from one of the guarantor nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
NATO wouldn’t let Ukraine join NATO. Understandable since one of the criterion is to have no ongoing border disputes. This is how Russia has kept Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova out of eligibility for NATO.
The US, the UK, and Russia all promised to respect and defend Ukraine’s borders in exchange for Ukraine giving Russia the 1,000 or so nuclear weapons that had been left in Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR.
Pretty obvious that those agreements and promises were not held. Is it surprising then that they should wish they had never given up those weapons and would like to have them again? Russia would never have invaded Ukraine if they had.
When the USSR broke up Ukraine was already the third largest nuclear power. They agreed to disarm in return for guarantees of border security from three guarantors; USA, UK and Russia.
Nobody thought that the threat could come from one of the guarantor nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
NATO wouldn’t let Ukraine join NATO. Understandable since one of the criterion is to have no ongoing border disputes. This is how Russia has kept Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova out of eligibility for NATO.
The US, the UK, and Russia all promised to respect and defend Ukraine’s borders in exchange for Ukraine giving Russia the 1,000 or so nuclear weapons that had been left in Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR.
Pretty obvious that those agreements and promises were not held. Is it surprising then that they should wish they had never given up those weapons and would like to have them again? Russia would never have invaded Ukraine if they had.
Putin never could accept an independent Ukraine anywhere near its present size.
Whether or not it was in NATO, it would eventually join the EU. And given Russia’s decade long stagnation, would be an unacceptable contrast with Russia.
That Putin has also alienated the other 13 Ex Soviet republics means he also knows his two a decades in power have resulted in less than nothing.
We just finally have to reluctantly agree with Putin:
In my experience, many Americans, regardless of their positions on Ukraine or anything else, have trouble accepting the idea that it’s not all about the U.S.
In my experience, many Americans, regardless of their positions on Ukraine or anything else, have trouble accepting the idea that it’s not all about the U.S.
oh please. the only “provocations” come from Putin. NATO “expansionism” is a ridiculous way to describe the justifiable desires of the peoples of the countries formerly dominated and controlled by the SU for protection from revived Russian expansionism.
History is full no doubt of errors and missteps. However Russia – from a strong position actually, already occupying large parts of Ukraine mounted a full scale invasion against its neighbour. I consider the idea that the Biden administration – the one that chaotically left Afghanistan – intentionally provoked Russia to be obviously absurd.
You do make a good point. The US-led West has made a series of strategic mistakes since the fall of Communism where Russia is concerned. However these mistakes do need to be placed in the wider context of what sort of world we actually want to live in. When it comes down to the choice of being a NATO country or a part of the Russian Federation, the former eastern bloc nations are unanimous in wanting the former, and for reasons that are pretty obvious and inarguable even to the majority of us who aren’t acquianted first-hand with the difference.
That’s not to say that the West is faultless or that we can all sit back and rest upon the untested assumption that we’re the good guys and it’ll all turn out alright in the end – far from it. It’s just that had the West taken a more circumspect view in the 1990s and restrained NATO expansion, we would by now have had a series of geostrategic scandals on our doorstep as parts of Eastern Europe became gradually forced into the Russian orbit, with all this entails.
I guess what I’m saying here is that we’re stuck into this Ukraine War now whether we like it or not, and it may come with considerable new costs as well as what’s already been spent. However, the West is on the right side for the simple reason that the West cares what Ukranians themselves want while the invading Russian force does not, and we haven’t been able to be this confident in such a moral assertion for some time.
Don’t forget, zelensky announced his intent to make Ukraine a nuclear power, which Putin has for years said would be a red line. I feel for the Ukrainians but also fear that the slow but steady escalation could lead to true disaster
Putin never could accept an independent Ukraine anywhere near its present size.
Whether or not it was in NATO, it would eventually join the EU. And given Russia’s decade long stagnation, would be an unacceptable contrast with Russia.
That Putin has also alienated the other 13 Ex Soviet republics means he also knows his two a decades in power have resulted in less than nothing.
We just finally have to reluctantly agree with Putin:
The final decisions were, and will be, made in Moscow and Kyiv, not Washington D.C.
Alexander Dryburgh
1 year ago
I’ve become quite a fan of Dominic Sandbrook along with his partner Tom Holland on their Rest is History Club and podcast. Really just a terrific project that has me addicted to the point of annoying my wife as I roam the house with ear pods in oblivious to any conversation she might attempt to offer. The great downside is that I’m not reading books nearly as much and that’s not a good thing.
With regard to this piece however I have some significant reservations. As a Canadian I’m fully aware of our neighbour’s tendency to exceptionalism to the point of bullying at times. We also live under the umbrella of the Monroe Doctrine that is still in full effect in this hemisphere so I have some hesitation about American interference around the globe and how that can be perceived at times. Americans would never tolerate even ‘defensive alliances’ with major foreign powers near its borders and have demonstrated that from time to time.
Another reservation has to do with run up to the war where it struck me that the Americans were intent on provoking the Russians. In Aug. of 21 Zelensky was in the Oval Office…heady stuff for a comedic actor. In Nov. 21 the U.S./Ukraine Strategic Partnership that many observers saw as a final green light for NATO membership was signed in Washington. (Robert Service at Oxford University called it the biggest blunder in post Soviet relations with Russia.) In Dec. 21 Russia wrote the Biden administration asking that NATO membership for Ukraine be ruled out. In December 22 Blinken replied “absolutely not”. We all know what followed in February.
I think more could have been done in those critical months to head off this war but none of the parties seemed interested.
And now we have a conflict where there will be no real winners but just a great deal of human suffering that will scar this region for a generation.
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
I have mixed emotions about the war in Ukraine. I support the people and their right to defend themselves. I agree with the author – we should do whatever it takes to support them.
But the author alludes to my concerns himself. “It is simply to keep giving the Ukrainians the aid, weapons and emotional and political support they need, until they have driven every last occupier from their land — or until they’ve had enough and are prepared to cut a deal. But that should be their decision, not ours.”
We have two different credible reports that the US and Britain quashed a potential peace agreement in June. Are we fighting a proxy war, or are we genuinely following the lead of the Ukraine?
The Ukrainians and Russian soldiers are pawns and Ukraine is the chess board – and this is merely a Proxy War spawned in evil, fought in Evil, and has Evil Fruits.
BS: And any “peace now” deal that allows Putin to keep his gains simply means a delay until he tries again,either with more of Ukraine or the Baltics or Kazakhstan. But you’re right. The war was spawned and fought in evil — by Putin. Any peace deal that leaves parts of Ukraine in his hands is just a Munich deal by another name.
Crimea will never go back to the Ukraine. Even if Putin‘s regime falls, no successor will ever agree to that. This always was Russia‘s big sore after the end of the Cold War. The main population of Crimea is Russian and its Black Sea navy has its harbour there for centuries. Could you imagine an important US harbour in the Pacific falling into the political sphere of China? I also guess that a chunk of the Donbas region with its mainly Russian population would want to belong to Russia.
Territory could be compromised. Much as people hate it, this kind of situation is not uncommon after empires break up, and an unjust solution is better than eternal war. What cannot be compromised is Russia’s claim to own and control Ukraine. How do you see Russia giving up that claim – and convincing the otehr side that it will keep its promise?
Territory could be compromised. Much as people hate it, this kind of situation is not uncommon after empires break up, and an unjust solution is better than eternal war. What cannot be compromised is Russia’s claim to own and control Ukraine. How do you see Russia giving up that claim – and convincing the otehr side that it will keep its promise?
Crimea will never go back to the Ukraine. Even if Putin‘s regime falls, no successor will ever agree to that. This always was Russia‘s big sore after the end of the Cold War. The main population of Crimea is Russian and its Black Sea navy has its harbour there for centuries. Could you imagine an important US harbour in the Pacific falling into the political sphere of China? I also guess that a chunk of the Donbas region with its mainly Russian population would want to belong to Russia.
Surrender is not peace. Putin has penetrated to the very heart of the British establishment and sanctions have not fully rooted him out. Our own PM was at best, his useful idiot. His agents have murdered on British soil. His planes invade our airspace and submarines enter our waters. He is the godfather heading up a gangster state. He’s a threat to us and to peace in Europe and he must be utterly defeated. No mercy.
Agree with all of this but, at the same time, seriously wonder how a nuclear-armed power could be “utterly defeated”. What exactly would that defeat look like?
Then obviously not utter defeat — merely a return to the status quo, a period of “licking wounds”, then another military build-up to start another war.
Then obviously not utter defeat — merely a return to the status quo, a period of “licking wounds”, then another military build-up to start another war.
A massive first strike against the UK … and France and the US and probably the rest of Europe with Canada thrown in for good measure. It would result in Russia being turned into a parking lot as well, but for some people that doesn’t really matter if they can’t get what they want.
How much of the Russian nuclear arsenal will Putin use? His advisors would surely be looking over their shoulders considering the size of the Chinese arsenal (Nuke and Conventional.)
How much of the Russian nuclear arsenal will Putin use? His advisors would surely be looking over their shoulders considering the size of the Chinese arsenal (Nuke and Conventional.)
A massive first strike against the UK … and France and the US and probably the rest of Europe with Canada thrown in for good measure. It would result in Russia being turned into a parking lot as well, but for some people that doesn’t really matter if they can’t get what they want.
Agree with all of this but, at the same time, seriously wonder how a nuclear-armed power could be “utterly defeated”. What exactly would that defeat look like?
BS: And any “peace now” deal that allows Putin to keep his gains simply means a delay until he tries again,either with more of Ukraine or the Baltics or Kazakhstan. But you’re right. The war was spawned and fought in evil — by Putin. Any peace deal that leaves parts of Ukraine in his hands is just a Munich deal by another name.
Surrender is not peace. Putin has penetrated to the very heart of the British establishment and sanctions have not fully rooted him out. Our own PM was at best, his useful idiot. His agents have murdered on British soil. His planes invade our airspace and submarines enter our waters. He is the godfather heading up a gangster state. He’s a threat to us and to peace in Europe and he must be utterly defeated. No mercy.
Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end
The apparent revelation raises some key questions: Why did Western leaders want to stop Kyiv from signing a seemingly good deal with Moscow? Do they consider the conflict a proxy war with Russia? And, most importantly, what would it take to get back to a deal?
Thanks. That link gave another to the Hill and Stent article. And your quote is indeed correct. But did you read the actual article? It is very convincing, and it describes Russian policy as wholly oriented to rebuilding the old Tsarist empire – as indeed Putin says in his speeches – starting with reabsorbing the ‘non-existing and really Russian’ Ukraine. It seems inconceivable that Putin should have offered a permanent arrangement that would guarantee the actual independence of Ukraine – when all his other policies show that he refuses to tolerate that independence. And it seems even more inconceivable that Ukraine should have refused such an arrangement – particularly since Zhelensky is on record as offering neutrality in return for peace. So, assuming that some kind of deal was indeed being negotiated, it begs the question what Russia was actually offering and what it was demanding in return. And, indeed, what leverage either the US or the UK could have had to force Ukraine to refuse a beneficial deal and opt instead for a long war with Russia. On what we have so far this story does not make sense.
Fiona Hill now has an article in Unherd that doesn’t support your claim at all. In fact she says it’s Russian disinformation. Here’s her answer to Freddie Sayers: FS: There was a moment earlier in the war when Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, was talking about some kind of peace settlement. It felt like there was some interest in the Ukrainian administration about engaging with him — and that it was actually Western powers, like the UK, who suggested Ukraine shouldn’t go down that road and that we need to have victory first.
FH: Freddie, that’s actually not true. That’s all Russian trolling and basically a disinformation campaign.
Ooops.
References please, I find FH a little disingenuous.
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in
References please, I find FH a little disingenuous.
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in
Thanks. That link gave another to the Hill and Stent article. And your quote is indeed correct. But did you read the actual article? It is very convincing, and it describes Russian policy as wholly oriented to rebuilding the old Tsarist empire – as indeed Putin says in his speeches – starting with reabsorbing the ‘non-existing and really Russian’ Ukraine. It seems inconceivable that Putin should have offered a permanent arrangement that would guarantee the actual independence of Ukraine – when all his other policies show that he refuses to tolerate that independence. And it seems even more inconceivable that Ukraine should have refused such an arrangement – particularly since Zhelensky is on record as offering neutrality in return for peace. So, assuming that some kind of deal was indeed being negotiated, it begs the question what Russia was actually offering and what it was demanding in return. And, indeed, what leverage either the US or the UK could have had to force Ukraine to refuse a beneficial deal and opt instead for a long war with Russia. On what we have so far this story does not make sense.
Fiona Hill now has an article in Unherd that doesn’t support your claim at all. In fact she says it’s Russian disinformation. Here’s her answer to Freddie Sayers: FS: There was a moment earlier in the war when Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, was talking about some kind of peace settlement. It felt like there was some interest in the Ukrainian administration about engaging with him — and that it was actually Western powers, like the UK, who suggested Ukraine shouldn’t go down that road and that we need to have victory first.
FH: Freddie, that’s actually not true. That’s all Russian trolling and basically a disinformation campaign.
Ooops.
Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end
The apparent revelation raises some key questions: Why did Western leaders want to stop Kyiv from signing a seemingly good deal with Moscow? Do they consider the conflict a proxy war with Russia? And, most importantly, what would it take to get back to a deal?
Maybe you need to read a little bit beyond UK and US Government propaganda. As for pointing to them, why don’t you just use Google and do a search yourself, instead of always hiding behind claims that appropriate links have not been provided.
Maybe you need to read a little bit beyond UK and US Government propaganda. As for pointing to them, why don’t you just use Google and do a search yourself, instead of always hiding behind claims that appropriate links have not been provided.
As several others have asked, please can you provide more details of this “potential peace agreement” from June last year. What were the terms ? Would it have ensured a lasting, stable peace ?
You must have this information. So please do share it.
Can you explain what reason the West’s strategists would have for fighting a proxy war with Russia if there was a viable peace option on the table? It is not clear to me why such a choice would make sense. The idea that the West is simply trying to prevent the destruction of Ukraine as an independent nation and the inevitable brutalisation of Ukranians should Russia prevail, is, on the other hand, plausible.
Regime change, feeding the military-industrial complex, selling LNG to Europe at three times the price they were buying it from Russia………. Do you need any more?
Yes, I do need more. The costs of war plus the colossal costs of rebuilding Ukraine will be borne by the West and mostly the USA. The financial upsides you mention don;t come even close to covering it. We heard the same claptrap about the 2003 invasion of Iraq being about getting the oil: The USA spent a billion dollars a week for several years which was an order of magnitude higher than any economic benefits resulting from oil price control.
So the West now only consists of the United States and of only a very small number of people in the US? Are they the Rothschilds by any chance? Oh wait .. that’s not the US’s conspiracy theory. That’s a European one. Umm … The Koch’s? No. They’re anti-war. I know. It’s got to be Blackrock, right? Don’t they really control the world? But I read (ok – didn’t bother reading, just saw the headline) something the other day saying that The Netherlands controlled China, so maybe they’re behind it all.
Yes, I do need more. The costs of war plus the colossal costs of rebuilding Ukraine will be borne by the West and mostly the USA. The financial upsides you mention don;t come even close to covering it. We heard the same claptrap about the 2003 invasion of Iraq being about getting the oil: The USA spent a billion dollars a week for several years which was an order of magnitude higher than any economic benefits resulting from oil price control.
So the West now only consists of the United States and of only a very small number of people in the US? Are they the Rothschilds by any chance? Oh wait .. that’s not the US’s conspiracy theory. That’s a European one. Umm … The Koch’s? No. They’re anti-war. I know. It’s got to be Blackrock, right? Don’t they really control the world? But I read (ok – didn’t bother reading, just saw the headline) something the other day saying that The Netherlands controlled China, so maybe they’re behind it all.
Adding to Rocky’s list, it is a sort of practice for the US generals preparing for action against China. A real possibility of seeing those fabulous weapons in action.
Regime change, feeding the military-industrial complex, selling LNG to Europe at three times the price they were buying it from Russia………. Do you need any more?
Adding to Rocky’s list, it is a sort of practice for the US generals preparing for action against China. A real possibility of seeing those fabulous weapons in action.
I can find nothing corroborating this claim of quashing a potential peace deal other than what Sergey Lavrov has said and he is most emphatically **not** a credible source.
The Ukrainians and Russian soldiers are pawns and Ukraine is the chess board – and this is merely a Proxy War spawned in evil, fought in Evil, and has Evil Fruits.
As several others have asked, please can you provide more details of this “potential peace agreement” from June last year. What were the terms ? Would it have ensured a lasting, stable peace ?
You must have this information. So please do share it.
Can you explain what reason the West’s strategists would have for fighting a proxy war with Russia if there was a viable peace option on the table? It is not clear to me why such a choice would make sense. The idea that the West is simply trying to prevent the destruction of Ukraine as an independent nation and the inevitable brutalisation of Ukranians should Russia prevail, is, on the other hand, plausible.
I can find nothing corroborating this claim of quashing a potential peace deal other than what Sergey Lavrov has said and he is most emphatically **not** a credible source.
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
I have mixed emotions about the war in Ukraine. I support the people and their right to defend themselves. I agree with the author – we should do whatever it takes to support them.
But the author alludes to my concerns himself. “It is simply to keep giving the Ukrainians the aid, weapons and emotional and political support they need, until they have driven every last occupier from their land — or until they’ve had enough and are prepared to cut a deal. But that should be their decision, not ours.”
We have two different credible reports that the US and Britain quashed a potential peace agreement in June. Are we fighting a proxy war, or are we genuinely following the lead of the Ukraine?
Nik Jewell
1 year ago
This won’t be a popular view, but we are in a process of transitioning to a multipolar world. In the future, the US will no longer dominate; the BRICS countries will. This is a proxy war and, like it or not, one that the BRICS countries will ultimately win. US hegemony will be broken. The dollar will not be the world’s reserve currency, and there is a race to get CBDCs in place because the fiat money system is on the verge of a sudden catastrophic collapse.
Western Europe’s days are over. We are passengers in this. Globalism and Netzero insanity have led to our deindustrialisation. We are dependent on either the US or Russia for energy and the most valuable commodity in the world, chips. China has them, and the US has ramped up production to compete. Western Europe will not recover from this because it has few natural resources.
Sorry if that sounds ‘defeatist’, but that’s the way I (depressingly) see it. I wish this war were not going on, but the best thing we can do now is to negotiate a solution, which will involve ceding the east of Ukraine to Russia. It is entirely possible that Russia will embark on other military adventures in the future, and there will be little we can do to stop it. The world is going to change, almost beyond imagination, over the next few years. There is no going back to the way things were now.
So, sorry, but I don’t buy the ‘good vs evil’ narrative. The UK has been involved in planning or executing 42 coups in 27 countries since 1945. The US has been throwing its weight around far more. There is no moral high ground here for the UK or the US to occupy, I’m afraid, just the dirty, messy business of modern geopolitics.
Watching to see the downvotes 😉
“a kleptocratic, undemocratic, and unlighted, future”
A sadly accurate description of the UK. If you think this winter’s energy crisis was bad, wait until you see what happens next winter.
Are you actually serious ???
In what way is the current UK government “undemocratic” ? Where is the systematic kleptocracy you allege ?
There’s a world of difference between the fantasy you imagine and the real world.
THEY now just appoint each other and will continue to do so. We never hear of new legislation being discussed in parliament,just told it’s going to be passed tomorrow afternoon,and it is. If you think we’re getting another General Election think again. There’s a war on
It was a bit of a throwaway comment, but here goes…
Our democracy is a sham.
I have never understood why journalists have not been all over the coup that happened in this country. We have an unelected bland WEF puppet leader who was installed after a crisis was deliberately triggered by market forces attacking a pension fund (USS, I think). Cummings is right, Liz Truss is a fruitcake, but a neo-liberal agenda is a policy for which rational arguments can be made. The replacement of Friedmanite Kwarteng with extreme technocrat Hunt, as far apart as you could possibly get two chancellors was bizarre. How the hell did that happen? Who appointed him? After that happened, Truss was in a daze.
At the next election, Sunak will be replaced by another technocrat, whose sycophantic panel performance at Davos was nauseating; nothing will change much, bar some loudly proclaimed tinkering around the edges.
Since 2008 we have seen the most massive transfer of wealth from ordinary people to billionaires in history, which vastly accelerated under the pandemic; we’ve had Boris’s Russian oligarchs, Hunt flogging off bits of the NHS and other state assets to the Davos men, Hancock and his PPE chums etc. Then in the past few days, we’ve had Shapps with Bill Gates, Barclay with Bill Gates, and then Lammy with him at the Munich Security Conference (what is Bill up to there? I digress…). I think it’s arguable that you can class this as kleptocracy (at a stretch?). TBF, Starmer might clean the most immediate corruption up, but the wealth transfer will continue.
Whoever is in power will be a technocrat, and we will lose more and more of our freedoms (and as Thomas Fazi said on Twitter the other day, whoever you vote for, Bill Gates will be in government).
THEY now just appoint each other and will continue to do so. We never hear of new legislation being discussed in parliament,just told it’s going to be passed tomorrow afternoon,and it is. If you think we’re getting another General Election think again. There’s a war on
It was a bit of a throwaway comment, but here goes…
Our democracy is a sham.
I have never understood why journalists have not been all over the coup that happened in this country. We have an unelected bland WEF puppet leader who was installed after a crisis was deliberately triggered by market forces attacking a pension fund (USS, I think). Cummings is right, Liz Truss is a fruitcake, but a neo-liberal agenda is a policy for which rational arguments can be made. The replacement of Friedmanite Kwarteng with extreme technocrat Hunt, as far apart as you could possibly get two chancellors was bizarre. How the hell did that happen? Who appointed him? After that happened, Truss was in a daze.
At the next election, Sunak will be replaced by another technocrat, whose sycophantic panel performance at Davos was nauseating; nothing will change much, bar some loudly proclaimed tinkering around the edges.
Since 2008 we have seen the most massive transfer of wealth from ordinary people to billionaires in history, which vastly accelerated under the pandemic; we’ve had Boris’s Russian oligarchs, Hunt flogging off bits of the NHS and other state assets to the Davos men, Hancock and his PPE chums etc. Then in the past few days, we’ve had Shapps with Bill Gates, Barclay with Bill Gates, and then Lammy with him at the Munich Security Conference (what is Bill up to there? I digress…). I think it’s arguable that you can class this as kleptocracy (at a stretch?). TBF, Starmer might clean the most immediate corruption up, but the wealth transfer will continue.
Whoever is in power will be a technocrat, and we will lose more and more of our freedoms (and as Thomas Fazi said on Twitter the other day, whoever you vote for, Bill Gates will be in government).
Are you actually serious ???
In what way is the current UK government “undemocratic” ? Where is the systematic kleptocracy you allege ?
There’s a world of difference between the fantasy you imagine and the real world.
“a kleptocratic, undemocratic, and unlighted, future”
A sadly accurate description of the UK. If you think this winter’s energy crisis was bad, wait until you see what happens next winter.
Absurd fantasy that the “BRICS countries will win”. Russia’s well into long term decline. China has peaked. Just look at the demographics. The US population is still growing and will continue to grow. Not least because people actually want to move there. Show me the millions queueing up to go and live in Russia and China.
Brazil is going nowhere.
India is not an ally of China. Quite the opposite.
China is not an ally of Russia. They are actually long term rivals.
This multipolar world and end of the dollar stuff is pure fantasy.
‘Rewiring global commerce for a multipolar world: With the shift from unbridled globalization to a world with more than one meaningful power base and commercial standard, companies and countries can no longer seek efficiencies through global supply chains and market access without factoring in geopolitical risks. While we first flagged this secular trend in 2018, we believe it became the consensus following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the West’s policy response, which created fresh trade barriers and incentives to realign supply chains’
The “multipolar world” will just mean less accountability and freedom on either side as much more will be put into fighting each other and then there’s an easy way to crack down on anything in the name of national security or just blame the enemy. All of which has been happening right now as well, albeit to a much lesser extent. This is definitely NOT progress.
Oh! dear what planet are you on? Your comments about China V Russia are correct as is your take on India v China, given that India and Russia have been close for a long while now those differences are likely to balance out given favourable economic ties and growth between these three countries. Brasil ? a country of much potential continually stuffed by being a football in the backyard of the USA, that may becoming to an end. There is a growing alliance between Brasil and Argentina unthinkable thirty years ago and Argentina has applied to join Brics +
The multipolar world is already here if you had but eyes to see it, unfortunately from a UK perspective we are not aligned with any of the stronger poles.
The western economy as we know it is in its death throws and is in the process of crashing, the burn part will likely hit any day now.
Any reading of history will demonstrate that all modern wars have been wars for the benefit of “Bankers” the Ukraine war is no different it distracts the population from looking too closely at their own situation while the spending of money which we do not have on furnishing arms to Ukraine (amongst other things) will accelerate the collapse of the economy and the surrupticous attempts to introduce laws which will enable the population to be further controlled, think Online safety Laws, Digital currency, universal ID numbers, road pricing to name but four largely go unoticed.
‘Rewiring global commerce for a multipolar world: With the shift from unbridled globalization to a world with more than one meaningful power base and commercial standard, companies and countries can no longer seek efficiencies through global supply chains and market access without factoring in geopolitical risks. While we first flagged this secular trend in 2018, we believe it became the consensus following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the West’s policy response, which created fresh trade barriers and incentives to realign supply chains’
The “multipolar world” will just mean less accountability and freedom on either side as much more will be put into fighting each other and then there’s an easy way to crack down on anything in the name of national security or just blame the enemy. All of which has been happening right now as well, albeit to a much lesser extent. This is definitely NOT progress.
Oh! dear what planet are you on? Your comments about China V Russia are correct as is your take on India v China, given that India and Russia have been close for a long while now those differences are likely to balance out given favourable economic ties and growth between these three countries. Brasil ? a country of much potential continually stuffed by being a football in the backyard of the USA, that may becoming to an end. There is a growing alliance between Brasil and Argentina unthinkable thirty years ago and Argentina has applied to join Brics +
The multipolar world is already here if you had but eyes to see it, unfortunately from a UK perspective we are not aligned with any of the stronger poles.
The western economy as we know it is in its death throws and is in the process of crashing, the burn part will likely hit any day now.
Any reading of history will demonstrate that all modern wars have been wars for the benefit of “Bankers” the Ukraine war is no different it distracts the population from looking too closely at their own situation while the spending of money which we do not have on furnishing arms to Ukraine (amongst other things) will accelerate the collapse of the economy and the surrupticous attempts to introduce laws which will enable the population to be further controlled, think Online safety Laws, Digital currency, universal ID numbers, road pricing to name but four largely go unoticed.
“dependent on either the US or Russia for energy”. Quite a lot of oil, gas and coal come from elsewhere, don’t you know. Last year Europe generated one quarter of its electricity from solar/wind, and a similar amount from nuclear; the technology of renewable energy supply moves on faster and faster, with tidal and geothermal sources next up, and fusion on the, admittedly distant but nonetheless visible, horizon.
Who is going to sell us solar panels if we are at war with China? The US production of them is not in surplus. China’s Belt and Road initiative and its neo-colonialism in Africa have given it vast global influence and control over mineral resources.
We’re getting to the ’emperor’s new clothes moment’. The amount of fiat money we’ve created is crazy and unsustainable. When that collapses, all the liabilities and debts go with it. In the aftermath, what will matter is who holds the natural resources. World economics will be completely different (I don’t know what it will look like).
We’re getting to the ’emperor’s new clothes moment’. The amount of fiat money we’ve created is crazy and unsustainable. When that collapses, all the liabilities and debts go with it. In the aftermath, what will matter is who holds the natural resources. World economics will be completely different (I don’t know what it will look like).
I haven’t down-voted you because I agreed with what you were saying but then you mentioned FUSION. I first read about it in the New Scientist in 1959/60? and it was being “promised” “within 20 years even then.”
Who is going to sell us solar panels if we are at war with China? The US production of them is not in surplus. China’s Belt and Road initiative and its neo-colonialism in Africa have given it vast global influence and control over mineral resources.
I haven’t down-voted you because I agreed with what you were saying but then you mentioned FUSION. I first read about it in the New Scientist in 1959/60? and it was being “promised” “within 20 years even then.”
I am one of the contrarians. I hate the down voting app, so I principally upvote even if I disagree. It is too easy to downvote and not give a proper counter argument
I am one of the contrarians. I hate the down voting app, so I principally upvote even if I disagree. It is too easy to downvote and not give a proper counter argument
This is just your own interpretation and conjecture. You’re throwing in the towel but there are countless different ways and turns in which future scenarios can develop or be influenced. I don’t have a lot of confidence in western politicians but I believe with their backs to the wall in the coming months and years of this continuing crisis they will at least make moves to avoid the worst case, and leaving Russia to continue it’s imperialist push is part of this worst case.
As soon as there will be a new President in the US, which I believe will be in 2024, foreign politics will profoundly change. Trump as well as DeSantis have no intentions to continue giving away billions to continue a war in Europe. There will be pressure on European leaders and Ukraine to make a peace deal.
As soon as there will be a new President in the US, which I believe will be in 2024, foreign politics will profoundly change. Trump as well as DeSantis have no intentions to continue giving away billions to continue a war in Europe. There will be pressure on European leaders and Ukraine to make a peace deal.
That’s an awful lot of hyper-confident predictions, all in one breath. And while secular prophets do have credulous audiences, their prophecies’ record of coming true is dismal.
I agree.
Most people will never have that, “Hans, are we the baddies?” moment.
All we can do is set our sails accordingly; to better negotiate the continued assault on us by our governments and their globalist paymasters.
The last three years have taken a toll on my faith in those around me. I have watched with sadness, as they eagerly gulped down the narrative and went with the herd. The irony is palpable.
China doesn’t have the chips 😀
That’s why it’s going mad over Taiwan, which is by far the #1 chipmaker. But the US and EU also have some foundries as well as most of the know-how.
Absurd fantasy that the “BRICS countries will win”. Russia’s well into long term decline. China has peaked. Just look at the demographics. The US population is still growing and will continue to grow. Not least because people actually want to move there. Show me the millions queueing up to go and live in Russia and China.
Brazil is going nowhere.
India is not an ally of China. Quite the opposite.
China is not an ally of Russia. They are actually long term rivals.
This multipolar world and end of the dollar stuff is pure fantasy.
“dependent on either the US or Russia for energy”. Quite a lot of oil, gas and coal come from elsewhere, don’t you know. Last year Europe generated one quarter of its electricity from solar/wind, and a similar amount from nuclear; the technology of renewable energy supply moves on faster and faster, with tidal and geothermal sources next up, and fusion on the, admittedly distant but nonetheless visible, horizon.
This is just your own interpretation and conjecture. You’re throwing in the towel but there are countless different ways and turns in which future scenarios can develop or be influenced. I don’t have a lot of confidence in western politicians but I believe with their backs to the wall in the coming months and years of this continuing crisis they will at least make moves to avoid the worst case, and leaving Russia to continue it’s imperialist push is part of this worst case.
That’s an awful lot of hyper-confident predictions, all in one breath. And while secular prophets do have credulous audiences, their prophecies’ record of coming true is dismal.
I agree.
Most people will never have that, “Hans, are we the baddies?” moment.
All we can do is set our sails accordingly; to better negotiate the continued assault on us by our governments and their globalist paymasters.
The last three years have taken a toll on my faith in those around me. I have watched with sadness, as they eagerly gulped down the narrative and went with the herd. The irony is palpable.
China doesn’t have the chips 😀
That’s why it’s going mad over Taiwan, which is by far the #1 chipmaker. But the US and EU also have some foundries as well as most of the know-how.
Thank god that there is someone with true vision commenting here.
Nik Jewell
1 year ago
This won’t be a popular view, but we are in a process of transitioning to a multipolar world. In the future, the US will no longer dominate; the BRICS countries will. This is a proxy war and, like it or not, one that the BRICS countries will ultimately win. US hegemony will be broken. The dollar will not be the world’s reserve currency, and there is a race to get CBDCs in place because the fiat money system is on the verge of a sudden catastrophic collapse.
Western Europe’s days are over. We are passengers in this. Globalism and Netzero insanity have led to our deindustrialisation. We are dependent on either the US or Russia for energy and the most valuable commodity in the world, chips. China has them, and the US has ramped up production to compete. Western Europe will not recover from this because it has few natural resources.
Sorry if that sounds ‘defeatist’, but that’s the way I (depressingly) see it. I wish this war were not going on, but the best thing we can do now is to negotiate a solution, which will involve ceding the east of Ukraine to Russia. It is entirely possible that Russia will embark on other military adventures in the future, and there will be little we can do to stop it. The world is going to change, almost beyond imagination, over the next few years. There is no going back to the way things were now.
So, sorry, but I don’t buy the ‘good vs evil’ narrative. The UK has been involved in planning or executing 42 coups in 27 countries since 1945. The US has been throwing its weight around far more. There is no moral high ground here for the UK or the US to occupy, I’m afraid, just the dirty, messy business of modern geopolitics.
Watching to see the downvotes 😉
Adam Bacon
1 year ago
“If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it was necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy piece of his own heart?”
Solzhenitsyn
I wish I knew what motivated so much negative reaction to my sarcastic comment.
I thought it was needles to point out how much I agree with Solzhenitsyn and I decided to make a joke. Have I touched some sensitive “patriotic” feelings of the Englishmen perhaps..? We’ll probably never know.
I wish I knew what motivated so much negative reaction to my sarcastic comment.
I thought it was needles to point out how much I agree with Solzhenitsyn and I decided to make a joke. Have I touched some sensitive “patriotic” feelings of the Englishmen perhaps..? We’ll probably never know.
I think that Solzhenitsyn’s point is that everybody tries to do this. It’s very rare to get a clear-cut differentiation; usually there is some murkiness.
I think that Solzhenitsyn’s point is that everybody tries to do this. It’s very rare to get a clear-cut differentiation; usually there is some murkiness.
And the sad fact is Putin is trying to do exactly what Solzhenitsyn warned against.
Adam Bacon
1 year ago
“If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it was necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy piece of his own heart?”
Solzhenitsyn
Steve White
1 year ago
Well the German and French PMs made it clear that the Minsk aggrements were just a stall tactic, and the NATO chief said that the war began in 2014. So, unless you come at it admitting that the Western narrative about that has been dishonest on those issues, then you are starting from a false propiganda standpoint. That’s like saying the sanctions worked, or that Ukraine could win at this point. Both of those things are also untrue, and we got to that point because of lies on our own side. Saying that it’s just evil on one side does sound simple though. What about US economic hegemony, or the blowing up of the German pipelines… That again doesn’t seem like cut and dried simple white hat / black hat…
Sanctions are slow, but they are really starting to make themselves known Look at the Russian government’s own accounting for January 2023 after the oil price cap kicked in on Dec 5th and see how much worse it will get when the February and March figures are out after the refined product’s caps started on February 5th.
Deficits for January alone were half the total planned for the entire year. And the revenue plans were based on a $70/bbl oil price. For all of Russia saying they would not bend to any cap, they have been selling at discounts such that they’re winding up with a price in the mid $50s/bbl. Plus much higher transportation costs when they can even get the ships and the insurance to sail them.
Russian manufacturing is simply leaving parts that they can’t get out of their final products. And spare parts for repairs? Next to impossible to source. They’re using parts off of one plane to put in another, meaning that those planes were never be allowed to fly outside of Russia. The owners of the leased planes that Russia confiscated don’t even want them back at this point.
If Russia has to shut in much of its oil production, those wells and pipelines from the Siberian fields (which is where most of Russia’s oil and gas are) will be down for good since the water that is always in the oil freezes if it stops moving and water expands as it freezes. That really wrecks the pipelines and wellhead. They have to be re-drilled and piped from scratch. And the oil majors that got those going again and have built out the newest Russian finds that are in very challenging locations are gone and they’re not coming back.
Sure, Russia can shrug off McDonalds leaving with a new owner taking over or not getting Krispy Kreme donuts anymore, but what happens when the car breaks down? What Russian company is going to replace Maersk or BP or IBM or Siemens? One thing after another goes down and can’t be repaired or replaced. It takes time, but it will all happen. The death of a thousand cuts.
It’s not about the US — Ukraine is on the right side here and Russia certainly isn’t. During wartime certainly an enemy of my enemy is a friend. Even though I may have hated the US before, right now I am glad it’s there. Which just shows another aspect of Russia’s invasion — it empowered the US, returned it to the world’s spotlight, increased the EU dependence on it, and made it billions of dollars in LNG gas and arms.
Sanctions are slow, but they are really starting to make themselves known Look at the Russian government’s own accounting for January 2023 after the oil price cap kicked in on Dec 5th and see how much worse it will get when the February and March figures are out after the refined product’s caps started on February 5th.
Deficits for January alone were half the total planned for the entire year. And the revenue plans were based on a $70/bbl oil price. For all of Russia saying they would not bend to any cap, they have been selling at discounts such that they’re winding up with a price in the mid $50s/bbl. Plus much higher transportation costs when they can even get the ships and the insurance to sail them.
Russian manufacturing is simply leaving parts that they can’t get out of their final products. And spare parts for repairs? Next to impossible to source. They’re using parts off of one plane to put in another, meaning that those planes were never be allowed to fly outside of Russia. The owners of the leased planes that Russia confiscated don’t even want them back at this point.
If Russia has to shut in much of its oil production, those wells and pipelines from the Siberian fields (which is where most of Russia’s oil and gas are) will be down for good since the water that is always in the oil freezes if it stops moving and water expands as it freezes. That really wrecks the pipelines and wellhead. They have to be re-drilled and piped from scratch. And the oil majors that got those going again and have built out the newest Russian finds that are in very challenging locations are gone and they’re not coming back.
Sure, Russia can shrug off McDonalds leaving with a new owner taking over or not getting Krispy Kreme donuts anymore, but what happens when the car breaks down? What Russian company is going to replace Maersk or BP or IBM or Siemens? One thing after another goes down and can’t be repaired or replaced. It takes time, but it will all happen. The death of a thousand cuts.
It’s not about the US — Ukraine is on the right side here and Russia certainly isn’t. During wartime certainly an enemy of my enemy is a friend. Even though I may have hated the US before, right now I am glad it’s there. Which just shows another aspect of Russia’s invasion — it empowered the US, returned it to the world’s spotlight, increased the EU dependence on it, and made it billions of dollars in LNG gas and arms.
Steve White
1 year ago
Well the German and French PMs made it clear that the Minsk aggrements were just a stall tactic, and the NATO chief said that the war began in 2014. So, unless you come at it admitting that the Western narrative about that has been dishonest on those issues, then you are starting from a false propiganda standpoint. That’s like saying the sanctions worked, or that Ukraine could win at this point. Both of those things are also untrue, and we got to that point because of lies on our own side. Saying that it’s just evil on one side does sound simple though. What about US economic hegemony, or the blowing up of the German pipelines… That again doesn’t seem like cut and dried simple white hat / black hat…
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve White
Alex Carnegie
1 year ago
As Sandbrook says, it is complicated world but it is NOT “that simple”. Unless Putin is overthrown or dies then, being realistic, the following applies:
1/ Russia is a nuclear state. Cold War logic applies. The war will probably end in a deal or a cease fire which will involve some compromise of strict principles. The precedents include the partition of Korea in 1953 and of Indo-China in 1954.
2/ In the grand scheme of things, Ukraine matters to the West as an opportunity to demonstrate resolve against aggression / expansion by the “authoritarian bloc” (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and friends). Return to the precise pre 2014 boundaries is not obligatory from this perspective.
3/ In the long run, this new Cold War is focussed on China not Russia. The Ukrainian war is strategically important but it should not become a distraction.
4/ Western public enthusiasm will probably last for this year but probably not for much longer.
5/ China may start matching US supplies to Ukraine by shipping arms to Russia. Two can play proxy war. This would probably end Ukrainian hopes of complete victory.
6/ The three most plausible outcomes (as of today) are
a) A “Long War” with Russia on the defensive but confident it can outlast the West / Ukraine
b) A ceasefire implying acceptance of the then status quo, which would be acceptable to Russia today but not, at present, to the Ukrainians. Depending on military progress this may change.
c) A successful Ukrainian campaign southwards which cuts the “land bridge” to Crimea and, by threatening the actual bridge, isolates the latter. At this point Putin would have an incentive to do a deal accepting his control of Crimea (and, probably, Donetsk etc) but also genuine Ukrainian independence and alignment with the West. The alternative would be a “siege” of Crimea (and a major risk of escalation).
7/ If the Ukrainians are willing to accept the damage and casualties involved in pursuing scenario c) then they will enjoy Western support (for this year anyway). It is their decision.
8/ For the subsequent period, the Ukrainians need to study the historical precedents. When the Americans decide they have had enough of a conflict, they can become rather single minded in their pursuit of an exit strategy. Afghanistan is a recent example. Their ability to impose a cease fire in Korea in 1953 required them to threaten a military coup against the South Korean leader.
9/ There is no point in the Ukrainians “negotiating against themselves” by announcing unilateral concessions but, quietly, they may recognise that outcome c) probably represents the maximum likely to be achievable and that only if it is delivered this year.
Incidentally, on pragmatism vs principle, I strongly recommend “The Road less travelled” by Zelikow. A peace deal was tantalising close in Dec 1916 but the pragmatists in both London and Berlin lost out to principled men determined “to fight to the finish”. Most interesting book I have read so far this year.
I was under the impression that that deal was scuppered by the Rothschilds offer to Balfour to get the Americans in the war in return for a chunk of worthless land in Palestine should the Brits win, which would be the end of the Turkish empire.
I was under the impression that that deal was scuppered by the Rothschilds offer to Balfour to get the Americans in the war in return for a chunk of worthless land in Palestine should the Brits win, which would be the end of the Turkish empire.
Incidentally, on pragmatism vs principle, I strongly recommend “The Road less travelled” by Zelikow. A peace deal was tantalising close in Dec 1916 but the pragmatists in both London and Berlin lost out to principled men determined “to fight to the finish”. Most interesting book I have read so far this year.
Good analysis. Your point about “the Americans decid[ing] they have had enough of a conflict” is particularly on point.
One question I have about the ‘Chinese arms to Russia’ point. Ukraine used to be a major endpoint of the Chinese Belt+Road Initiative. If the Ukrainians find the Chinese have been arming the Russians, I imagine they’d look poorly on that. I dunno, maybe the Chinese would get enough out of Russia to make that downside worth it.
Good analysis. Your point about “the Americans decid[ing] they have had enough of a conflict” is particularly on point.
One question I have about the ‘Chinese arms to Russia’ point. Ukraine used to be a major endpoint of the Chinese Belt+Road Initiative. If the Ukrainians find the Chinese have been arming the Russians, I imagine they’d look poorly on that. I dunno, maybe the Chinese would get enough out of Russia to make that downside worth it.
Absolutely the best comment here, that’s what the situation is here and while we push for the maximum, we gotta be realistic as well.
Alex Carnegie
1 year ago
As Sandbrook says, it is complicated world but it is NOT “that simple”. Unless Putin is overthrown or dies then, being realistic, the following applies:
1/ Russia is a nuclear state. Cold War logic applies. The war will probably end in a deal or a cease fire which will involve some compromise of strict principles. The precedents include the partition of Korea in 1953 and of Indo-China in 1954.
2/ In the grand scheme of things, Ukraine matters to the West as an opportunity to demonstrate resolve against aggression / expansion by the “authoritarian bloc” (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and friends). Return to the precise pre 2014 boundaries is not obligatory from this perspective.
3/ In the long run, this new Cold War is focussed on China not Russia. The Ukrainian war is strategically important but it should not become a distraction.
4/ Western public enthusiasm will probably last for this year but probably not for much longer.
5/ China may start matching US supplies to Ukraine by shipping arms to Russia. Two can play proxy war. This would probably end Ukrainian hopes of complete victory.
6/ The three most plausible outcomes (as of today) are
a) A “Long War” with Russia on the defensive but confident it can outlast the West / Ukraine
b) A ceasefire implying acceptance of the then status quo, which would be acceptable to Russia today but not, at present, to the Ukrainians. Depending on military progress this may change.
c) A successful Ukrainian campaign southwards which cuts the “land bridge” to Crimea and, by threatening the actual bridge, isolates the latter. At this point Putin would have an incentive to do a deal accepting his control of Crimea (and, probably, Donetsk etc) but also genuine Ukrainian independence and alignment with the West. The alternative would be a “siege” of Crimea (and a major risk of escalation).
7/ If the Ukrainians are willing to accept the damage and casualties involved in pursuing scenario c) then they will enjoy Western support (for this year anyway). It is their decision.
8/ For the subsequent period, the Ukrainians need to study the historical precedents. When the Americans decide they have had enough of a conflict, they can become rather single minded in their pursuit of an exit strategy. Afghanistan is a recent example. Their ability to impose a cease fire in Korea in 1953 required them to threaten a military coup against the South Korean leader.
9/ There is no point in the Ukrainians “negotiating against themselves” by announcing unilateral concessions but, quietly, they may recognise that outcome c) probably represents the maximum likely to be achievable and that only if it is delivered this year.
John Riordan
1 year ago
Brilliant. I’ve been arguing something along these lines myself for a while now, though never expressed half as well as it is in this excellent article.
John Riordan
1 year ago
Brilliant. I’ve been arguing something along these lines myself for a while now, though never expressed half as well as it is in this excellent article.
M Lux
1 year ago
Oh look, an article invoking reductio ad Hitlerum AND comparing Zelenskyy to Churchill, how original! I wonder why it gets so much praise…
The author makes loads of assumptions that are commonly made by commenters on this very page – first and foremost that the Ukrainians are the ones calling the shots.
I have said elsewhere that this is, at best, an over exaggeration and that the Ukrainians bargaining power will be determined by their military successes (which would have to be massive for them to actually get to decide anything).
The Americans and British are not the selfless “defenders of liberty and democracy” they (and the author) are making themselves out to be and are not supporting Ukraine for the stated reasons.
That a “professional historian” has published MSM propaganda on a webpage for the sceptically minded really only shows you that the consensus-making machine is working overtime.
One thing I am beginning to wonder after regularly seeing this opinion being aired time and again, is whether this war is so popular because it is part Drama/Thriller (Zelenskyy has even already got an Oscar for his performance!), part therapy for western guilt over all the atrocities they have committed (and I’m just talking about the last 30 years here). This kind of makes it the perfect war for (neo)liberals (neocons are always onboard) – no soldiers of their own have to die, plus it’s a way to feel good about themselves and virtue signal!
I just hope the series finale doesn’t end on a massive downer…
Yeah I subscribe to UnHerd to get the same BS propaganda being peddled everywhere… Simple minded easy answers to justify one’s moral high ground. War is never easy. And the ones adept at believing it is are apt at propagating it.
Indeed, and not to mention the silly propagandish irrelevancy of calling it “good vs. evil” so we can cheer ourselves on from a good, safe distance. What matters is the results of all this, which, other than the war profiteers having a field day, are anything but clear at this point.
Speaking as someone who is “on the fence” so to speak on this war, I think that your comment contains a rather important point. Support for this war is high because we have not shed our own blood (other than volunteer soldiers for the Ukraine army) or committed our own resources full-time. I wonder how different things would be should the herses start driving through the streets of Wilitishre again.
Ironically, in invoking the second world war and its associated imagery and analogies, the author – a specialist in post-war Britain – forgets that the Second World War on the home front created a demoralised and fed-up country, bored of utility clothes and rationing – both of which continued unti after the war (even until1956 in the case of food rationing). The British may not have paid a heavy price in lives (relatively speaking), but they paid the price with their empire, culture, and way of life. That is the price of defeating the closest thing to true evil the planet has ever seen. This is somewhat different.
reductio ad Hitlerum – LOL. Rest assured, when the ratings for the series start to drop, ‘The Fonze’ will have to ‘jump the shark’. Not sure exactly what that will look like, but I expect you can substitute Zelinsky for the Fonze, and a nuke for the shark.
Yeah I subscribe to UnHerd to get the same BS propaganda being peddled everywhere… Simple minded easy answers to justify one’s moral high ground. War is never easy. And the ones adept at believing it is are apt at propagating it.
Indeed, and not to mention the silly propagandish irrelevancy of calling it “good vs. evil” so we can cheer ourselves on from a good, safe distance. What matters is the results of all this, which, other than the war profiteers having a field day, are anything but clear at this point.
Speaking as someone who is “on the fence” so to speak on this war, I think that your comment contains a rather important point. Support for this war is high because we have not shed our own blood (other than volunteer soldiers for the Ukraine army) or committed our own resources full-time. I wonder how different things would be should the herses start driving through the streets of Wilitishre again.
Ironically, in invoking the second world war and its associated imagery and analogies, the author – a specialist in post-war Britain – forgets that the Second World War on the home front created a demoralised and fed-up country, bored of utility clothes and rationing – both of which continued unti after the war (even until1956 in the case of food rationing). The British may not have paid a heavy price in lives (relatively speaking), but they paid the price with their empire, culture, and way of life. That is the price of defeating the closest thing to true evil the planet has ever seen. This is somewhat different.
reductio ad Hitlerum – LOL. Rest assured, when the ratings for the series start to drop, ‘The Fonze’ will have to ‘jump the shark’. Not sure exactly what that will look like, but I expect you can substitute Zelinsky for the Fonze, and a nuke for the shark.
I’d say, it’s nice to have such articles now and then, so the dumb conspirologists don’t make their home at UnHerd 😀
M Lux
1 year ago
Oh look, an article invoking reductio ad Hitlerum AND comparing Zelenskyy to Churchill, how original! I wonder why it gets so much praise…
The author makes loads of assumptions that are commonly made by commenters on this very page – first and foremost that the Ukrainians are the ones calling the shots.
I have said elsewhere that this is, at best, an over exaggeration and that the Ukrainians bargaining power will be determined by their military successes (which would have to be massive for them to actually get to decide anything).
The Americans and British are not the selfless “defenders of liberty and democracy” they (and the author) are making themselves out to be and are not supporting Ukraine for the stated reasons.
That a “professional historian” has published MSM propaganda on a webpage for the sceptically minded really only shows you that the consensus-making machine is working overtime.
One thing I am beginning to wonder after regularly seeing this opinion being aired time and again, is whether this war is so popular because it is part Drama/Thriller (Zelenskyy has even already got an Oscar for his performance!), part therapy for western guilt over all the atrocities they have committed (and I’m just talking about the last 30 years here). This kind of makes it the perfect war for (neo)liberals (neocons are always onboard) – no soldiers of their own have to die, plus it’s a way to feel good about themselves and virtue signal!
I just hope the series finale doesn’t end on a massive downer…
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Yes, it really is simple, but it’s not about Good vs Evil. Whoever is running Biden gave Zelensky $113 billion and has pledged another $86 billion (I’d say tax dollars, but really, they’re just printing this sh*t now) and everyone seems to be in on the scheme to collapse real currency. Remember, according to the supreme overlords at Davos, a “shock” is needed to reset the world on the planned new order: insects and total control for the proles.
No, silly! It’s just a simple good vs. evil battle, which as every good person knows, always works out great for the good guys, so hooray for us good guys!! We “care” about Ukranians as of 30 seconds ago, as opposed to other populations that may or may not be getting butchered in other wars.
And what kind of sick person would ever think that one or two hundred billion unaccounted-for dollars would possibly enter into any of the decision making in this glorious war against evil (which will surely work out swimmingly as always)?
Well, a lot of these dollars are actually not dollars but military materiel. Some of it is about to be decomissioned and so it is actually saving taxpayer’s dollars if it’s shipped abroad — other, such as ammunition, may be close to expiration date and wouldn’t have been kept around much longer. Even the good stuff is usually assessed at the value when it was NEW or at the value that its export cost would be instead of production value.Furthermore, there are costs in logistics and maintenance added to it as well as training etc. That, plus the production costs, actually feeds back into the US economy. Therefore seeing it as this big cost to the taxpayer isn’t always right.
No, silly! It’s just a simple good vs. evil battle, which as every good person knows, always works out great for the good guys, so hooray for us good guys!! We “care” about Ukranians as of 30 seconds ago, as opposed to other populations that may or may not be getting butchered in other wars.
And what kind of sick person would ever think that one or two hundred billion unaccounted-for dollars would possibly enter into any of the decision making in this glorious war against evil (which will surely work out swimmingly as always)?
Well, a lot of these dollars are actually not dollars but military materiel. Some of it is about to be decomissioned and so it is actually saving taxpayer’s dollars if it’s shipped abroad — other, such as ammunition, may be close to expiration date and wouldn’t have been kept around much longer. Even the good stuff is usually assessed at the value when it was NEW or at the value that its export cost would be instead of production value.Furthermore, there are costs in logistics and maintenance added to it as well as training etc. That, plus the production costs, actually feeds back into the US economy. Therefore seeing it as this big cost to the taxpayer isn’t always right.
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Yes, it really is simple, but it’s not about Good vs Evil. Whoever is running Biden gave Zelensky $113 billion and has pledged another $86 billion (I’d say tax dollars, but really, they’re just printing this sh*t now) and everyone seems to be in on the scheme to collapse real currency. Remember, according to the supreme overlords at Davos, a “shock” is needed to reset the world on the planned new order: insects and total control for the proles.
Frank Freeman
1 year ago
Back in April there could have been a cease fire with Russia pulling back to the lines of Feb 24th. Instead, we have been supplying weapons to prolong the war making huge profits for the Arms companies and fuel companies; but wrecking our economy and killing hundreds of thousands of people. We need a cease fire followed by negotiations. Otherwise there won’t be many Ukrainian men left to rebuild Ukraine.
If the Author truly believes that it is right to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, then he should go to Ukraine and join the Ukrainian army and put his own life on the line, otherwise he is just another chicken hawk.
How could I prove that Russia and Ukraine did not have secret talks in Turkey? And how can I disprove your arguments, if you will not tell me what they are? But you did. elsewhere on the page. And I answserd you there.
How could I prove that Russia and Ukraine did not have secret talks in Turkey? And how can I disprove your arguments, if you will not tell me what they are? But you did. elsewhere on the page. And I answserd you there.
Back in April there could have been a cease fire with Russia pulling back to the lines of Feb 24th.
I do not believe you. Links, please?
Frank Freeman
1 year ago
Back in April there could have been a cease fire with Russia pulling back to the lines of Feb 24th. Instead, we have been supplying weapons to prolong the war making huge profits for the Arms companies and fuel companies; but wrecking our economy and killing hundreds of thousands of people. We need a cease fire followed by negotiations. Otherwise there won’t be many Ukrainian men left to rebuild Ukraine.
If the Author truly believes that it is right to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, then he should go to Ukraine and join the Ukrainian army and put his own life on the line, otherwise he is just another chicken hawk.
Antony Hirst
1 year ago
“Ukraine didn’t attack Russia; Russia attacked Ukraine.”
Yes, it did. It attacked Russia in exactly the same way that Cuba attacked the USA. Russia’s big mistake was being the world’s pivot for essential raw resources and trying to deal honourably with the West accordingly.
The US wants regime change. Just as the Soviet Union tried to threaten the USA with missiles in Cuba, so the USA intends to threaten Russia with a Western puppet regime in Kiev. A western aligned Ukraine can cut off food supply to Russia and inhibit and interrupt all Russia’s activities in the region…not to mention getting conventional weaponry within easy range of Russi’s economic centres.
The US leadership has shown itself to be utterly rotten an evil with untold acts of aggression for nothing more than maintaining global power and a constant supply of contracts for the congressional shareholders.
Arming Ukraine and the destruction of Nordstream is nothing less than the continuation of its progression of international terrorism.
If Russia did not invade we would have been guaranteed a Global war in the future. If Russia prevails, which it can do by taking Donbas and holding out for the new President and instilling further uncertainty and panic in Europe. This should regionalise the war despite how much the USA is trying to goad China and is talking up nuclear war.
Yeah, Ukraine’s going to threaten Russia – all 10 time zones of it.
Antony Hirst
1 year ago
“Ukraine didn’t attack Russia; Russia attacked Ukraine.”
Yes, it did. It attacked Russia in exactly the same way that Cuba attacked the USA. Russia’s big mistake was being the world’s pivot for essential raw resources and trying to deal honourably with the West accordingly.
The US wants regime change. Just as the Soviet Union tried to threaten the USA with missiles in Cuba, so the USA intends to threaten Russia with a Western puppet regime in Kiev. A western aligned Ukraine can cut off food supply to Russia and inhibit and interrupt all Russia’s activities in the region…not to mention getting conventional weaponry within easy range of Russi’s economic centres.
The US leadership has shown itself to be utterly rotten an evil with untold acts of aggression for nothing more than maintaining global power and a constant supply of contracts for the congressional shareholders.
Arming Ukraine and the destruction of Nordstream is nothing less than the continuation of its progression of international terrorism.
If Russia did not invade we would have been guaranteed a Global war in the future. If Russia prevails, which it can do by taking Donbas and holding out for the new President and instilling further uncertainty and panic in Europe. This should regionalise the war despite how much the USA is trying to goad China and is talking up nuclear war.
Andy E
1 year ago
I enjoyed the intelligent, nice and polite discussion below this article, but I admit I could not read much of the article itself. It happens when I see absolute BS in the very first paragraph. I just can’t force myself to invest any more time. Here:
“to seize the Ukrainian capital, kill Volodymyr Zelenskyy and wipe much of the latter’s country from the map of Europe”
Where the author gets this crap? Produces himself? The Russia’s goals were quite clearly stated (totally not those three). You got to be a “journalist” to be able closing your eyes at the very precise moments to not observe what must be not observed.
Things changed since then of course.
I don’t know how nice and polite the comments are, but I agree with your assessment of the first paragraph. Unlike you, I read the entire piece, and found all of it on a par with the beginning. I.e., all “BS”. It’s embarrassing to see such ahistorical drivel being leaked from the pen of a person who claims to be a historian. No mention of US and UK undermining negotiations.No mention of the Minsk accords, or how they were used for purposes of deception. (So far, only one mention of Minsk, in a comment critical of the article.) No mention of Russian offers in late 2021, early 2022, to negotiate a security architecture for Europe. No mention of how the war has (no surprise here) profited the U.S. at Europe’s expense. No reference to the bombing of Nordstream.
And the author claims he’s a historian? He shows no sign of it here. What he shows instead is an effort at “narrative management.”
1. The Russians thought the Kiev government would collapse without serious armed conflict, and
2. As several Americans who have served in the military suggest, the Russians were shaping the battlefield by forcing Ukraine to keep a substantial number of troops near Kiev.
1. The Russians thought the Kiev government would collapse without serious armed conflict, and
2. As several Americans who have served in the military suggest, the Russians were shaping the battlefield by forcing Ukraine to keep a substantial number of troops near Kiev.
The Russia’s goals were quite clearly stated, such as that they kept insisting they won’t invade and then in his invasion speech Putin said they won’t be occupying any of Ukraine’s territory? Where is the “denazification” now, when he clearly celebrated their success as in having the Azov sea now being an internal one?
What can be clearly seen thru all of this and is supported by reality on ground, is that Russia denies Ukraine its statehood, in a truly imperialist fashion it sees Ukraine as theirs and would have never let it exist in another shape than Belarus is now — and everyone in Ukraine have always known that (even babushka’s been telling this to me years and years ago).
Nothing but full submission into a status of vassal state or joining NATO would have averted the war.
I don’t know how nice and polite the comments are, but I agree with your assessment of the first paragraph. Unlike you, I read the entire piece, and found all of it on a par with the beginning. I.e., all “BS”. It’s embarrassing to see such ahistorical drivel being leaked from the pen of a person who claims to be a historian. No mention of US and UK undermining negotiations.No mention of the Minsk accords, or how they were used for purposes of deception. (So far, only one mention of Minsk, in a comment critical of the article.) No mention of Russian offers in late 2021, early 2022, to negotiate a security architecture for Europe. No mention of how the war has (no surprise here) profited the U.S. at Europe’s expense. No reference to the bombing of Nordstream.
And the author claims he’s a historian? He shows no sign of it here. What he shows instead is an effort at “narrative management.”
The Russia’s goals were quite clearly stated, such as that they kept insisting they won’t invade and then in his invasion speech Putin said they won’t be occupying any of Ukraine’s territory? Where is the “denazification” now, when he clearly celebrated their success as in having the Azov sea now being an internal one?
What can be clearly seen thru all of this and is supported by reality on ground, is that Russia denies Ukraine its statehood, in a truly imperialist fashion it sees Ukraine as theirs and would have never let it exist in another shape than Belarus is now — and everyone in Ukraine have always known that (even babushka’s been telling this to me years and years ago).
Nothing but full submission into a status of vassal state or joining NATO would have averted the war.
Andy E
1 year ago
I enjoyed the intelligent, nice and polite discussion below this article, but I admit I could not read much of the article itself. It happens when I see absolute BS in the very first paragraph. I just can’t force myself to invest any more time. Here:
“to seize the Ukrainian capital, kill Volodymyr Zelenskyy and wipe much of the latter’s country from the map of Europe”
Where the author gets this crap? Produces himself? The Russia’s goals were quite clearly stated (totally not those three). You got to be a “journalist” to be able closing your eyes at the very precise moments to not observe what must be not observed.
Things changed since then of course.
Last edited 1 year ago by Andy E
Adam Bacon
1 year ago
Disappointing to see someone with the obvious intellect of Sandbrook becoming a cheerleader for the ongoing destruction and suffering in Ukraine. Warmongers always feel the need to make things black and white, with moral certainties, to feel justified supporting bloodshed.
I agree that there’s a kind of attempted moral self-exoneration at work. Sanbrook feels the need to document his internal struggle to suggest he’s been forced to come to this conclusion due to it’s incontrovertible rectitude. I’m on his side of the issue, but we should keep resisting such self-certainty, particularly in matters of war. One can support or take a course of action without imagining their side holds all the truth, and nothing but the truth.
I agree that there’s a kind of attempted moral self-exoneration at work. Sanbrook feels the need to document his internal struggle to suggest he’s been forced to come to this conclusion due to it’s incontrovertible rectitude. I’m on his side of the issue, but we should keep resisting such self-certainty, particularly in matters of war. One can support or take a course of action without imagining their side holds all the truth, and nothing but the truth.
Adam Bacon
1 year ago
Disappointing to see someone with the obvious intellect of Sandbrook becoming a cheerleader for the ongoing destruction and suffering in Ukraine. Warmongers always feel the need to make things black and white, with moral certainties, to feel justified supporting bloodshed.
Nell Clover
1 year ago
“[It] involves lots of people dying, because that’s the nature of war. It is simply to keep giving the Ukrainians the aid, weapons and emotional and political support they need, until they have driven every last occupier from their land.”
We aren’t giving the Ukrainian people weapons and political support, we are giving its government those things. The people are under marshal law with all civil protections suspended (something the UK did not do in the oft made comparison with its existential threat of WW2) so it is impossible to determine whether the war’s direction is supported by the Ukrainian people or indeed anyone but the inner sanctum of Zelensky’s advisors.
Ukraine was, is, a weak state with pronounced divisions and conflicted politics.That so many Ukrainians have fled both West *and East* and many only remain due to marshal law does not suggest there is widespread popular support for a blood and soil defence requiring “lots of people dying”.
This is not to say the war isn’t the right thing to do to contain Russia. NATO in Ukraine has successfully bogged down Russia in a quagmire of its own making. Thanks to this, Russia’s ability to repeat its involvement in Syria elsewhere is now severely constrained and NATO has gained new members. NATO command is again gaining valuable battle experience. Western military supply chains are being refreshed after years of neglect. These are the reasons why the US and UK are pouring money into Ukraine, not some high minded notion of democracy or the defence of the sacred connection between blood and soil.
I understand why Western governments must filter the optics of the war in terms of good and evil to maintain popular support and avoid the public disillusionment that set in with Iraq etc., But too much soap opera analysis will leave the historical record diminished and ironically risk a repeat of the failings in Iraq etc. That risk is our leaders believing their own rhetoric, losing sight of the strategic opportunities that compelled us to enter a (proxy) war, and thereby eventually throwing away the strategic gains made.
What on earth is the point of going on about how Ukrainians are being forced to keep fighting, and then in the next breath maintain support for Ukraine in the war? Also, many of us here and elsewhere aren’t “part of the government,” yet we too see this as a war against evil, because anyone with a brain ought to know full well that Putin is a menace, a ruthless political operator with delusions of expansionist grandeur. Stopping him is critical not only for Ukraine but for the surrounding states and to maintain order internationally.
Forcing people to fight and supporting a war are near mutually dependant. It is only the degree of forcing that varies, from contracted professional armies to conscription to full marshall law.
There are many menacing political operators that are expansionist. Anyone with a brain *and* open eyes can see good and evil has nothing to do with how we deal with them. Sometimes we are allied against them (Russia, an autocratic country that has competed against us for influence in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe) and sometimes we are allied with them (Pakistan, a theocracy that funded, armed and sheltered the array of tribal forces literally fighting against the Coalition in Afghanistan, and Saudi, a theocracy that sponsors radical Islam across the globe counter to Western interests).
Even the most pro-Putin hardliners cannot claim the Russian army has been a powerful foe in Ukraine. The complete failure of Russian combined forces in Ukraine long before any substantive aid from the West belies the claim that Russia threatens other Eastern European countries, let alone NATO members. Russia couldn’t even provide air cover over its forward positions during the first days of the war against a far smaller Ukrainian airforce and land based missile systems.
There are dozens of other good vs evil fights we could be getting involved in right now. We don’t simply because strategic benefit is the missing ingredient. Ukraine has a sack full of strategic benefit for an array of powerful stakeholders across the West.
At the very least, can we all agree that it is martial law, not marshal law or marshall law – unless of course one is referring to Matt Dillon, formerly of Dodge City.
Tell that theory of yours to European governments and watch them fall over laughing at how stupid it is. Yes, there are a lot of evil regimes, but only one threatens the international order at the moment because it invaded a sovereign country.
At the very least, can we all agree that it is martial law, not marshal law or marshall law – unless of course one is referring to Matt Dillon, formerly of Dodge City.
Tell that theory of yours to European governments and watch them fall over laughing at how stupid it is. Yes, there are a lot of evil regimes, but only one threatens the international order at the moment because it invaded a sovereign country.
Forcing people to fight and supporting a war are near mutually dependant. It is only the degree of forcing that varies, from contracted professional armies to conscription to full marshall law.
There are many menacing political operators that are expansionist. Anyone with a brain *and* open eyes can see good and evil has nothing to do with how we deal with them. Sometimes we are allied against them (Russia, an autocratic country that has competed against us for influence in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe) and sometimes we are allied with them (Pakistan, a theocracy that funded, armed and sheltered the array of tribal forces literally fighting against the Coalition in Afghanistan, and Saudi, a theocracy that sponsors radical Islam across the globe counter to Western interests).
Even the most pro-Putin hardliners cannot claim the Russian army has been a powerful foe in Ukraine. The complete failure of Russian combined forces in Ukraine long before any substantive aid from the West belies the claim that Russia threatens other Eastern European countries, let alone NATO members. Russia couldn’t even provide air cover over its forward positions during the first days of the war against a far smaller Ukrainian airforce and land based missile systems.
There are dozens of other good vs evil fights we could be getting involved in right now. We don’t simply because strategic benefit is the missing ingredient. Ukraine has a sack full of strategic benefit for an array of powerful stakeholders across the West.
The casuistry of it! “We aren’t given weapons to ‘the Ukrainians but its government” Are you consistent and use this circumlocutory formulation in any other context?
How dare those Ukrainians flee?! This is a pretty common enough result of war. But most are not fleeing and most men are fighting. You write a number of assertions “proxy war” etc. It is just completely absurd that any member of NATO including the United States wanted this war. Poor old Great Britain in 1940 if the US had taken the same line as you advocate for Ukraine today.
I’ve read much about Ukrainian history. It is complex, but a true nation is being formed. (And if it wasn’t, it doesn’t justify the invasion). The Ukrainian language is more different from Russian than Spanish and Portuguese; the majority of the Russian speakers don’t want to join Russia; and Ukraine, unlike tragically Russia, is on a slow painful path towards better government, less corruption, and democracy. The vast majority of Ukrainians, whatever language they speak, believe in throwing out the invader from all the territories seized, which of course didn’t begin in 2022.
“Most are not fleeing and m,ost men are fighting”.
Could just have something to do with universal conscription and the border being closed to men aged 16-60?
Huge publicity was given to men who ran away from the prospect of conscription (which hasn’t happened) in Russia – and Russia is only callling up reservists and hasn’t closed its borders to men of fighting age or anyone else- very little is given, by the death-or-glory commentators, to the helpless old men and young boys who Ukraine, now it has run out of fit young men, is pressganging to be killed in Bakhmut..
War is not glorious, and it is fought by soldiers, not the men who give the orders. How anyone, safe in the pampered West, can presume to know what the vast majority of Ukranians think, baffles me.
The videos of babushkas pleading with the Ukrainian MPs dragging their aging husbands off the streets to be sent to the hellhole that is Bakhmut is heartrending.
The videos of babushkas pleading with the Ukrainian MPs dragging their aging husbands off the streets to be sent to the hellhole that is Bakhmut is heartrending.
“Most are not fleeing and m,ost men are fighting”.
Could just have something to do with universal conscription and the border being closed to men aged 16-60?
Huge publicity was given to men who ran away from the prospect of conscription (which hasn’t happened) in Russia – and Russia is only callling up reservists and hasn’t closed its borders to men of fighting age or anyone else- very little is given, by the death-or-glory commentators, to the helpless old men and young boys who Ukraine, now it has run out of fit young men, is pressganging to be killed in Bakhmut..
War is not glorious, and it is fought by soldiers, not the men who give the orders. How anyone, safe in the pampered West, can presume to know what the vast majority of Ukranians think, baffles me.
The Ukrainian people have always had a choice with their govt. If they were dissatisfied enough, they would simply stop fighting and Putin would win.
But since the latter gleefully rains rockets down on their heads every week, to starve and freeze them, they know their foe is as bad as any totalitarian power in WW2.
What on earth is the point of going on about how Ukrainians are being forced to keep fighting, and then in the next breath maintain support for Ukraine in the war? Also, many of us here and elsewhere aren’t “part of the government,” yet we too see this as a war against evil, because anyone with a brain ought to know full well that Putin is a menace, a ruthless political operator with delusions of expansionist grandeur. Stopping him is critical not only for Ukraine but for the surrounding states and to maintain order internationally.
The casuistry of it! “We aren’t given weapons to ‘the Ukrainians but its government” Are you consistent and use this circumlocutory formulation in any other context?
How dare those Ukrainians flee?! This is a pretty common enough result of war. But most are not fleeing and most men are fighting. You write a number of assertions “proxy war” etc. It is just completely absurd that any member of NATO including the United States wanted this war. Poor old Great Britain in 1940 if the US had taken the same line as you advocate for Ukraine today.
I’ve read much about Ukrainian history. It is complex, but a true nation is being formed. (And if it wasn’t, it doesn’t justify the invasion). The Ukrainian language is more different from Russian than Spanish and Portuguese; the majority of the Russian speakers don’t want to join Russia; and Ukraine, unlike tragically Russia, is on a slow painful path towards better government, less corruption, and democracy. The vast majority of Ukrainians, whatever language they speak, believe in throwing out the invader from all the territories seized, which of course didn’t begin in 2022.
The Ukrainian people have always had a choice with their govt. If they were dissatisfied enough, they would simply stop fighting and Putin would win.
But since the latter gleefully rains rockets down on their heads every week, to starve and freeze them, they know their foe is as bad as any totalitarian power in WW2.
Why do you think Bakhmut still holds?
Nell Clover
1 year ago
“[It] involves lots of people dying, because that’s the nature of war. It is simply to keep giving the Ukrainians the aid, weapons and emotional and political support they need, until they have driven every last occupier from their land.”
We aren’t giving the Ukrainian people weapons and political support, we are giving its government those things. The people are under marshal law with all civil protections suspended (something the UK did not do in the oft made comparison with its existential threat of WW2) so it is impossible to determine whether the war’s direction is supported by the Ukrainian people or indeed anyone but the inner sanctum of Zelensky’s advisors.
Ukraine was, is, a weak state with pronounced divisions and conflicted politics.That so many Ukrainians have fled both West *and East* and many only remain due to marshal law does not suggest there is widespread popular support for a blood and soil defence requiring “lots of people dying”.
This is not to say the war isn’t the right thing to do to contain Russia. NATO in Ukraine has successfully bogged down Russia in a quagmire of its own making. Thanks to this, Russia’s ability to repeat its involvement in Syria elsewhere is now severely constrained and NATO has gained new members. NATO command is again gaining valuable battle experience. Western military supply chains are being refreshed after years of neglect. These are the reasons why the US and UK are pouring money into Ukraine, not some high minded notion of democracy or the defence of the sacred connection between blood and soil.
I understand why Western governments must filter the optics of the war in terms of good and evil to maintain popular support and avoid the public disillusionment that set in with Iraq etc., But too much soap opera analysis will leave the historical record diminished and ironically risk a repeat of the failings in Iraq etc. That risk is our leaders believing their own rhetoric, losing sight of the strategic opportunities that compelled us to enter a (proxy) war, and thereby eventually throwing away the strategic gains made.
As already posted, he was referring to his political career.
Colette Sciberras
1 year ago
The late Jeremy Corbyn?
P Branagan
1 year ago
“How much evidence is required before it is clear that Western Civilization is empty of integrity, judgment, reason, morality, empathy, compassion, self-awareness, truth, empty of everything that Western Civilization once respected?
All that is left of the West is insouciance and unrestrained evil.”
~Paul Craig Roberts, former Undersecretary Of Treasury, Reagan Administration
But the evidence of these articles and comments, in themselves, put that conclusion where it belongs – in the quotes dustbin.
It might apply to some politicians, and to some groups in society, but Western Civilisation? WE – here and now, reading and responding – are equally Western Civilisation.
But the evidence of these articles and comments, in themselves, put that conclusion where it belongs – in the quotes dustbin.
It might apply to some politicians, and to some groups in society, but Western Civilisation? WE – here and now, reading and responding – are equally Western Civilisation.
P Branagan
1 year ago
“How much evidence is required before it is clear that Western Civilization is empty of integrity, judgment, reason, morality, empathy, compassion, self-awareness, truth, empty of everything that Western Civilization once respected?
All that is left of the West is insouciance and unrestrained evil.”
~Paul Craig Roberts, former Undersecretary Of Treasury, Reagan Administration
Jonathan Nash
1 year ago
Well I agree that when the tanks start rolling the main question is: whose side are you on? But to suggest that this war has been caused by an evil expansionist Russia seeking to oppress the good Ukrainians, and that NATO and the EU have no responsibility for what is now happening, is just silly. The current war is the result of multiple poor policy decisions on both sides really since 1991 and the end of the Soviet Union. Understanding this might be a good first step to seeing an end to this other than by an attritional frozen conflict, which is the current direction of travel.
Jonathan Nash
1 year ago
Well I agree that when the tanks start rolling the main question is: whose side are you on? But to suggest that this war has been caused by an evil expansionist Russia seeking to oppress the good Ukrainians, and that NATO and the EU have no responsibility for what is now happening, is just silly. The current war is the result of multiple poor policy decisions on both sides really since 1991 and the end of the Soviet Union. Understanding this might be a good first step to seeing an end to this other than by an attritional frozen conflict, which is the current direction of travel.
Dermot O'Sullivan
1 year ago
For those of you living in the UK (or with BBC iPlayer access) I recommend two of their recent program: one is on Putin and the West (high level) and the other on the post Soviet period up until Putin was annointed as the replacement for Yeltsin. The latter in particular is a street-level account of the chaotic fallout post Gorbachev and includes horrific narrative of the Chechyn war (before Putin’s second war there, which was even worse).
The second documentary series you refer to is Adam Curtis’s 7 part Traumazone, right ?
If it is, it’s also available on youtube. And is grimly magnificent.
Dermot O'Sullivan
1 year ago
For those of you living in the UK (or with BBC iPlayer access) I recommend two of their recent program: one is on Putin and the West (high level) and the other on the post Soviet period up until Putin was annointed as the replacement for Yeltsin. The latter in particular is a street-level account of the chaotic fallout post Gorbachev and includes horrific narrative of the Chechyn war (before Putin’s second war there, which was even worse).
Albert Michaels
1 year ago
This is Globalist. BULLSHIT
Albert Michaels
1 year ago
This is Globalist. BULLSHIT
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
No matter how many people may argue about the causes of the First World War, said Clemenceau, “they will not say Belgium invaded Germany.” And yet.
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
No matter how many people may argue about the causes of the First World War, said Clemenceau, “they will not say Belgium invaded Germany.” And yet.
Steven Campbell
1 year ago
The basing of Nuclear Missiles in Cuba was an act accepted and approved by the people of Cuba, or so it is said by our left. We were not willing to accept such an arrangement and pushed to the edge of a nuclear confrontation. Much forgotten in this by many is the promise by the US to remove offensive missiles from Turkey and perhaps S. Italy, demonstrating at least some compromise, enough to give Khrushchev some face-saving cover. This gets to be quite muddled when the free country you like stands up to a big bully but the one you don’t like does the same. And no, I have no love for Communist Cuba but then again, Putin and the Russians may have no love for a NATO member Ukraine, housing US troops and air power. We have to know what our red line is and also Putin’s red line. Perhaps if our “intelligence community” had spent a little time analyzing these questions instead of interfering in our elections we would have a clearer view of the situation.
Nuclear tipped Jupiter Missiles as you well know. There could hardly have been a more blatant provocation and they were almost immediately found out! Brilliant!
However their removal was covert which Khrushchev should not have agreed to, and it did NOT provide “face saving cover” as he was soon replaced.
Nuclear tipped Jupiter Missiles as you well know. There could hardly have been a more blatant provocation and they were almost immediately found out! Brilliant!
However their removal was covert which Khrushchev should not have agreed to, and it did NOT provide “face saving cover” as he was soon replaced.
Steven Campbell
1 year ago
The basing of Nuclear Missiles in Cuba was an act accepted and approved by the people of Cuba, or so it is said by our left. We were not willing to accept such an arrangement and pushed to the edge of a nuclear confrontation. Much forgotten in this by many is the promise by the US to remove offensive missiles from Turkey and perhaps S. Italy, demonstrating at least some compromise, enough to give Khrushchev some face-saving cover. This gets to be quite muddled when the free country you like stands up to a big bully but the one you don’t like does the same. And no, I have no love for Communist Cuba but then again, Putin and the Russians may have no love for a NATO member Ukraine, housing US troops and air power. We have to know what our red line is and also Putin’s red line. Perhaps if our “intelligence community” had spent a little time analyzing these questions instead of interfering in our elections we would have a clearer view of the situation.
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Having instigated the Great War the Tsar only lasted 31 months, and had Adolph not tampered with Barbarossa I very much doubt Stalin would not have lasted much longer, is not Putin facing the same fate?
I’m not sure Barbarossa could have ever been a success. The Russians were moving munitions production out to the Urals and beyond well before it started; and Russia is just so darned big! The Germans did a much better ‘job’ of it than Napoleon, but even that wasn’t good enough. I think Hitler’s interference only sped up the inevitable – a lot, maybe; but didn’t fundamentally change the outcome.
I have no idea if Putin will fall. I don’t know enough about the internal details of how the political power networks work inside Russia, and how good he is about balancing power blocs, and taking out people who could become threats. It’s all quite murky.
I’m not sure Barbarossa could have ever been a success. The Russians were moving munitions production out to the Urals and beyond well before it started; and Russia is just so darned big! The Germans did a much better ‘job’ of it than Napoleon, but even that wasn’t good enough. I think Hitler’s interference only sped up the inevitable – a lot, maybe; but didn’t fundamentally change the outcome.
I have no idea if Putin will fall. I don’t know enough about the internal details of how the political power networks work inside Russia, and how good he is about balancing power blocs, and taking out people who could become threats. It’s all quite murky.
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Having instigated the Great War the Tsar only lasted 31 months, and had Adolph not tampered with Barbarossa I very much doubt Stalin would not have lasted much longer, is not Putin facing the same fate?
Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
M. Gatt
1 year ago
I cannot wait untill March 11, when my Unherd subscription expires and I no longer am faced with endless, mindless war propaganda. Unherd has become such a disappointment.
M. Gatt
1 year ago
I cannot wait untill March 11, when my Unherd subscription expires and I no longer am faced with endless, mindless war propaganda. Unherd has become such a disappointment.
Daniel P
1 year ago
I am as guilty of underestimating the Ukrainians ans overestimating the Russians as Mr. Sandbrook and for similar reasons.
I honestly did not think that the Europeans, Germany in particular, had the stomach for the fight and without the Europeans, what the US could offer was limited.
And so, I thought any fight was going to result in nothing more than dead children and destroyed infrastructure. It may yet, but there is hope.
My other fear was an inability to prevent an escalation that engulfed Europe and potentially lead to the use of nuclear arms. That too could still happen.
Lastly, it appeared to me to be a potential drain in resources and attention for the US, leaving China free to take Taiwan or otherwise expand in the Pacific. This appears to be a very real possabiltity still and if it happens then the Europeans are going to have to be able to step up and shoulder more of the burden in Ukraine. I’m not sure the Europeans have the ability even if they have the will. Too many decades of demilitarization and failure to invest in the ability to produce weapons at scale. Could they find the resources to rapidly mobilize the ability to mass produce weapons? I dunno.
All that aside, I sincerely hope that the Ukrainians can hold out and win and they are in the right.
I am as guilty of underestimating the Ukrainians ans overestimating the Russians as Mr. Sandbrook and for similar reasons.
I honestly did not think that the Europeans, Germany in particular, had the stomach for the fight and without the Europeans, what the US could offer was limited.
And so, I thought any fight was going to result in nothing more than dead children and destroyed infrastructure. It may yet, but there is hope.
My other fear was an inability to prevent an escalation that engulfed Europe and potentially lead to the use of nuclear arms. That too could still happen.
Lastly, it appeared to me to be a potential drain in resources and attention for the US, leaving China free to take Taiwan or otherwise expand in the Pacific. This appears to be a very real possabiltity still and if it happens then the Europeans are going to have to be able to step up and shoulder more of the burden in Ukraine. I’m not sure the Europeans have the ability even if they have the will. Too many decades of demilitarization and failure to invest in the ability to produce weapons at scale. Could they find the resources to rapidly mobilize the ability to mass produce weapons? I dunno.
All that aside, I sincerely hope that the Ukrainians can hold out and win and they are in the right.
AJ Mac
1 year ago
While I don’t agree with the binary simplicity of Sanbrook’s concluding two sentences, I do think this is the closest thing to a just war the US has waded into since before my parents were born in the late-1940s. We may not have all the right nor might on our collective side (with Ukraine and the West, not the contingent of pro-Russian or anti-US spectator saboteurs here) but we have more of both. Even my favorite Canadian uncle, a self described “left-wing sheep farmer”, who tends to take a dim view of anything the US does, has made an exception to his opposition on this one.
But I think those who warn against jingoistic excess have a point too. Ukraine’s resistance is stirring and just, but it is not a fictional underdog tale like the movie 300 while many Ukrainian men of all ages and mostly poor Russian young men are being handed a real-life death sentence due to politics they have zero personal control over or culpability for–like most wars, but glaringly so.
Those of us well to the west of the fighting might perceive little threat to the comparative calmness and safety of our vantage points, but that is not an absolute safety. We should have our hearts and minds bent toward peace, with a view toward a just resolution that isn’t self-glorifying, bloodthirsty, or too stubborn and steep.
The binary simplicity has come about following a protracted period of reflection, self-doubt, analysis and therefore all due consideration. It’s justified, in my opinion, as a conclusion.
Ok. I acknowledge that there are true splits of that sort. There are many more that seem that way. I still think it’s a more fair-minded and less bellicose stance to contend: “As I’ve said/will show, our side is in the right” than “After an internal struggle I have removed all doubt and must conclude that the side I’m on is 100 percent right and it’s just that simple”, as if the internal war and analysis occurred on an even, objective “battlefield”.
Ok. I acknowledge that there are true splits of that sort. There are many more that seem that way. I still think it’s a more fair-minded and less bellicose stance to contend: “As I’ve said/will show, our side is in the right” than “After an internal struggle I have removed all doubt and must conclude that the side I’m on is 100 percent right and it’s just that simple”, as if the internal war and analysis occurred on an even, objective “battlefield”.
The binary simplicity has come about following a protracted period of reflection, self-doubt, analysis and therefore all due consideration. It’s justified, in my opinion, as a conclusion.
AJ Mac
1 year ago
While I don’t agree with the binary simplicity of Sanbrook’s concluding two sentences, I do think this is the closest thing to a just war the US has waded into since before my parents were born in the late-1940s. We may not have all the right nor might on our collective side (with Ukraine and the West, not the contingent of pro-Russian or anti-US spectator saboteurs here) but we have more of both. Even my favorite Canadian uncle, a self described “left-wing sheep farmer”, who tends to take a dim view of anything the US does, has made an exception to his opposition on this one.
But I think those who warn against jingoistic excess have a point too. Ukraine’s resistance is stirring and just, but it is not a fictional underdog tale like the movie 300 while many Ukrainian men of all ages and mostly poor Russian young men are being handed a real-life death sentence due to politics they have zero personal control over or culpability for–like most wars, but glaringly so.
Those of us well to the west of the fighting might perceive little threat to the comparative calmness and safety of our vantage points, but that is not an absolute safety. We should have our hearts and minds bent toward peace, with a view toward a just resolution that isn’t self-glorifying, bloodthirsty, or too stubborn and steep.
Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Chauncey Gardiner
1 year ago
Are Left and Right coming together over the War in Ukraine?Does commitment to the Wolfowitz Doctrine explain the US commitment to war in the Ukraine? And have we been operating under such a doctrine since 1947? https://dvwilliamson.substack.com/p/are-left-and-right-coming-together
Chauncey Gardiner
1 year ago
Are Left and Right coming together over the War in Ukraine?Does commitment to the Wolfowitz Doctrine explain the US commitment to war in the Ukraine? And have we been operating under such a doctrine since 1947? https://dvwilliamson.substack.com/p/are-left-and-right-coming-together
Mo Brown
1 year ago
I could be wrong, but I believe an article just like this one was written in the early stages of every war throughout human history.
Mo Brown
1 year ago
I could be wrong, but I believe an article just like this one was written in the early stages of every war throughout human history.
L BOER
1 year ago
The article shows a simplistic manichean vision that emanates from Cold War nostalgia.
And, to be honest, during the Cold War the West deserved much more the “Good” description than today.
L BOER
1 year ago
The article shows a simplistic manichean vision that emanates from Cold War nostalgia.
And, to be honest, during the Cold War the West deserved much more the “Good” description than today.
Rosy Martin
1 year ago
Good piece. I agree with you that the silence on Syria has been deafening. I have never heard anyone in my circle mention it. I don’t think it is hard to understand tho. Everyone knows what happened when we intervened in Iraq . People have never stopped blaming the West for that. So to complain when we don’t intervene, in Syria, would be the height of hypocrisy , and most folk instinctively know that. Thus the only response is silence- which we’ve had.
Also, the opposition in Syria were a mixed bag- some have behaved appallingly. If we’d been involved we would have had some pretty unpleasant bedfellows, and no doubt there would have been isolated examples of bad behaviour by our troops, as there were in Iraq and Afghanistan, which we’d never have heard the end of. I do feel very sorry, tho, for the moderates among them. They no doubt thought we would come to their aid. Assad, correctly, guessed that we had had enough and would leave well alone.
Rosy Martin
1 year ago
Good piece. I agree with you that the silence on Syria has been deafening. I have never heard anyone in my circle mention it. I don’t think it is hard to understand tho. Everyone knows what happened when we intervened in Iraq . People have never stopped blaming the West for that. So to complain when we don’t intervene, in Syria, would be the height of hypocrisy , and most folk instinctively know that. Thus the only response is silence- which we’ve had.
Also, the opposition in Syria were a mixed bag- some have behaved appallingly. If we’d been involved we would have had some pretty unpleasant bedfellows, and no doubt there would have been isolated examples of bad behaviour by our troops, as there were in Iraq and Afghanistan, which we’d never have heard the end of. I do feel very sorry, tho, for the moderates among them. They no doubt thought we would come to their aid. Assad, correctly, guessed that we had had enough and would leave well alone.
Mikis Hasson
1 year ago
This article represents the herd in all it’s glory. Putin was warning about NATO expansionism and nationalistic neo Nazi militias attacking Donbas for 10 years and the west ignored him. Now everyone is a hawk wanting Ukraine to win and no compromise is accepted because like all Holly wars we need to defeat EVIL. The consequences will be on the heads of the herd. What happened to make love, not war? Now another war is being provoked and sold to the herd with balloon stories and EVIL China. The herd really wants to self destruct because any country that does not accept to be inundated by Woke ideology needs to be destroyed and needs to be EVIL. What a blatant religious fanatismo!!
Mikis Hasson
1 year ago
This article represents the herd in all it’s glory. Putin was warning about NATO expansionism and nationalistic neo Nazi militias attacking Donbas for 10 years and the west ignored him. Now everyone is a hawk wanting Ukraine to win and no compromise is accepted because like all Holly wars we need to defeat EVIL. The consequences will be on the heads of the herd. What happened to make love, not war? Now another war is being provoked and sold to the herd with balloon stories and EVIL China. The herd really wants to self destruct because any country that does not accept to be inundated by Woke ideology needs to be destroyed and needs to be EVIL. What a blatant religious fanatismo!!
michael harris
1 year ago
Yesterday I saw on the news channels that the Biden administration will give $100 million towards relief of the tragedy in Turkey and Syria. And, in the same breath, will make available a further $500 million towards arms and ammunition for Ukraine.
Who else on these threads finds such priorities disturbing if not downright disgusting?
michael harris
1 year ago
Yesterday I saw on the news channels that the Biden administration will give $100 million towards relief of the tragedy in Turkey and Syria. And, in the same breath, will make available a further $500 million towards arms and ammunition for Ukraine.
Who else on these threads finds such priorities disturbing if not downright disgusting?
B Emery
1 year ago
This is also about broken supply chains, about developing countries suffering, about industry suffering, about food and fertiliser shortages, energy crisis. This war is having global consequences:
Madame President,
Excellencies,
Russia’s war in Ukraine shows no sign of letting up.
The past seven months have seen unspeakable suffering and devastation.
The latest developments are dangerous and disturbing.
They are further steps away from any prospect of peace – and towards an endless cycle of horror and bloodshed.
As I have said from the start, this senseless war has unlimited potential to do terrible harm – in Ukraine, and around the world……
…… At the global level, the conflict has supercharged a triple crisis of food, energy and finance. This is driving millions more people into extreme poverty and hunger, and reversing years of progress on development, and follows the COVID crisis and the growing impact of climate change.
The collateral damage of this war is being felt in dozens of developing countries already grappling with recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and battered by the climate crisis.
The most vulnerable are suffering most……..
….. The International Atomic Energy Agency is consulting with all parties involved on measures to ensure the safety of the plant and surrounding areas. I thank the IAEA for its work. Its continued presence at the plant is an important deterrent.
All attacks on nuclear facilities must end, and the purely civilian nature of such plants must be re-established.
Any damage to nuclear infrastructure, whether deliberate or not, could have terrible consequences for people around the plant and far beyond.
The world cannot afford a nuclear catastrophe………
……. We are doing everything possible to facilitate this, and to ease the serious fertilizer market crunch that is already affecting farming in West Africa and elsewhere.
If the fertilizer market is not stabilized, next year could bring a food supply crisis. Simply put, the world may run out of food.
It is essential that all States remove every remaining obstacle to the export of Russian fertilizers immediately. We need to get them to farmers at a reasonable cost, and on to fields as soon as possible…….
……. There is only one way to end the suffering in Ukraine – and that is by ending the war.
I will continue to spare no effort for peace – peace in line with international law and the Charter of the United Nations.
And I appeal to all Member States, and especially those here today, to redouble all efforts to prevent further escalation, and to do all they can to end the war and to ensure lasting peace
‘It will be almost impossible for the Russians to achieve their political objectives by military means. It is unlikely that Russia is going to overrun Ukraine. It’s just not going to happen,” said Milley, adding that it will be “very, very difficult” for Ukraine to expel all Russian forces from occupied territory.
“It’s not to say that it can’t happen…” he said. “But it’s extraordinarily difficult. And it would require essentially the collapse of the Russian military.’
This is only going to end in a stalemate. We must make sure this does not escalate, the damage to the global order is happening already.
‘When FT asked him whether talks between Moscow and Kiev are at all possible, Milley responded: “We’re weeks away from the beginning of spring, but it’s a rolling window. There’s opportunities at any moment in time.” But he still acknowledged both sides are dug into their positions now more than ever, making near-term serious dialogue unlikely.’
Are you suggesting that the Ukrainians should surrender and give up their nation to Russia simply to make fertilisers cheaper for developing nations? Why don’t you instead suggest Russia pulls all its forces back from the Ukrainian territory it agreed to honour in the treaty 30 years ago? Why is it up to those defending their homes from a hostile invasion to have to give everything up in order to end the war?
Actually lifting sanctions would not affect the war really, russia is selling its oil to India, who are then selling it on to us, the sanctions aren’t working and they having enormous impacts, fertiliser is made using natural gas. These plants have had to scale back because of the gas prices. European industry is suffering because of the energy prices. Pakistan is a nuclear power, close to collapse, lng shortage is making their situation worse. All this is ridiculous. Its not simply about ‘making fertiliser cheaper for developing countries’, (it is very expensive here now too), some of these countries are suffering enormously, with enormous consequences if we cannot stabilise the global situation:
THE LAST YEAR has brought Pakistan to the brink. A series of rolling disasters — including catastrophic flooding, political paralysis, exploding inflation, and a resurgent terror threat — now risk sending a key, if troubled, global player into full-blown crisis. If the worst comes to pass, as some experts warn, the catastrophe unfolding in Pakistan will have consequences far beyond its borders.
“This is a country of 220 million people, with nuclear weapons and serious internal conflicts and divisions,” said Uzair Younus, the director of the Pakistan Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center. “The world didn’t like the outflows of refugees and weapons that came from countries like Syria and Libya. In comparison, Pakistan is magnitudes larger and more consequential
I have not objected to the Ukrainians defending themselves, I am objecting to a wider NATO war that could end in nuclear confrontation and sanctions which are causing carnage.
DIPLOMACY NOW. NO NATO WAR. NO DECOUPLING. FREE TRADE.
So Ukraine should surrender and it’s citizens be subjugated by Russia to avoid the economic collapse of a nation on a different continent to which it has no ties? Again, if it’s that important why don’t you demand Russia simply withdraw its forces rather than the Ukrainians give up their homeland?
So Ukraine should surrender and it’s citizens be subjugated by Russia to avoid the economic collapse of a nation on a different continent to which it has no ties? Again, if it’s that important why don’t you demand Russia simply withdraw its forces rather than the Ukrainians give up their homeland?
Actually lifting sanctions would not affect the war really, russia is selling its oil to India, who are then selling it on to us, the sanctions aren’t working and they having enormous impacts, fertiliser is made using natural gas. These plants have had to scale back because of the gas prices. European industry is suffering because of the energy prices. Pakistan is a nuclear power, close to collapse, lng shortage is making their situation worse. All this is ridiculous. Its not simply about ‘making fertiliser cheaper for developing countries’, (it is very expensive here now too), some of these countries are suffering enormously, with enormous consequences if we cannot stabilise the global situation:
THE LAST YEAR has brought Pakistan to the brink. A series of rolling disasters — including catastrophic flooding, political paralysis, exploding inflation, and a resurgent terror threat — now risk sending a key, if troubled, global player into full-blown crisis. If the worst comes to pass, as some experts warn, the catastrophe unfolding in Pakistan will have consequences far beyond its borders.
“This is a country of 220 million people, with nuclear weapons and serious internal conflicts and divisions,” said Uzair Younus, the director of the Pakistan Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center. “The world didn’t like the outflows of refugees and weapons that came from countries like Syria and Libya. In comparison, Pakistan is magnitudes larger and more consequential
I have not objected to the Ukrainians defending themselves, I am objecting to a wider NATO war that could end in nuclear confrontation and sanctions which are causing carnage.
DIPLOMACY NOW. NO NATO WAR. NO DECOUPLING. FREE TRADE.
I know, millions of lives are arguably depending on this not kicking off though. Can’t we find them something else to make? They can go mine the moon and fight with China and Russia up there, have a kind of moon robot drone war instead? Nasa happy, arms industry happy, earth safe only robots get hurt and only moon minerals are at stake?
‘They’ must be absolutely certain that Putin & Co won’t go NUCLEAR whatever the provocation.
Odd to think Mr Putin may indeed have more self control that the late Mr Truman. Let’s hope they are correct, as my Bunker is far from finished. How about yours?
Yes I expect they know a lot more than I do, or I hope they do, I have no idea how trigger happy on the nukes Mr putin would be tbh, I am hopeful not very. But still.
Do you know we are very lucky, actually have an old ww2 bunker on the farm…. A small radio outpost type one, toilet still in it and everything but not usable, pretty bad state as the cover has been off for some time, but, still, a bunker!
The danger here is that the Americans love fighting wars on someone else’s territory. Any war will be in Europe. I can imagine all the US generals getting excited about their toys beating the Russkys’ toys.
If the Chinese are ‘up to speed’ they will have already prepositioned their nuclear weapons in various strategic US cities.
Not a particularly difficult task if you have the patience, which they certainly have ‘in spades’.
Perhaps I will be sure to remind the Americans of that next time it comes to arguing about Taiwan. They do have some snazzy hypersonic missiles the Chinese from what I have read.
I think the hypersonic Missiles may have been over-hyped.
But when a 4KT ground zero burst goes off in Fu-Machu’s Massage Parlour in downtown Seattle it will be time to think again.
Not quite the same bang at the end one would hope for when visiting such a place I should think.
Jolly good. I hope they are over hyped, I feel like the Chinese at least will be more interested in missile attacking America, unlike Russia who has Europe nice and close.
Not quite the same bang at the end one would hope for when visiting such a place I should think.
Jolly good. I hope they are over hyped, I feel like the Chinese at least will be more interested in missile attacking America, unlike Russia who has Europe nice and close.
I think the hypersonic Missiles may have been over-hyped.
But when a 4KT ground zero burst goes off in Fu-Machu’s Massage Parlour in downtown Seattle it will be time to think again.
Actually, I think they’ve been quite worried about this for some time now.
The fissile materials do produce very limited amounts of radiation, since the have non-infinite half-lives; but it is possible to shield them quite well – but no shielding is perfect (gammas and neutrons are quite difficult to stop 100%). I get the impression they’ve set up a sensor network to detect this.
Perhaps I will be sure to remind the Americans of that next time it comes to arguing about Taiwan. They do have some snazzy hypersonic missiles the Chinese from what I have read.
Actually, I think they’ve been quite worried about this for some time now.
The fissile materials do produce very limited amounts of radiation, since the have non-infinite half-lives; but it is possible to shield them quite well – but no shielding is perfect (gammas and neutrons are quite difficult to stop 100%). I get the impression they’ve set up a sensor network to detect this.
If the Chinese are ‘up to speed’ they will have already prepositioned their nuclear weapons in various strategic US cities.
Not a particularly difficult task if you have the patience, which they certainly have ‘in spades’.
The danger here is that the Americans love fighting wars on someone else’s territory. Any war will be in Europe. I can imagine all the US generals getting excited about their toys beating the Russkys’ toys.
Yes I expect they know a lot more than I do, or I hope they do, I have no idea how trigger happy on the nukes Mr putin would be tbh, I am hopeful not very. But still.
Do you know we are very lucky, actually have an old ww2 bunker on the farm…. A small radio outpost type one, toilet still in it and everything but not usable, pretty bad state as the cover has been off for some time, but, still, a bunker!
‘They’ must be absolutely certain that Putin & Co won’t go NUCLEAR whatever the provocation.
Odd to think Mr Putin may indeed have more self control that the late Mr Truman. Let’s hope they are correct, as my Bunker is far from finished. How about yours?
I know, millions of lives are arguably depending on this not kicking off though. Can’t we find them something else to make? They can go mine the moon and fight with China and Russia up there, have a kind of moon robot drone war instead? Nasa happy, arms industry happy, earth safe only robots get hurt and only moon minerals are at stake?
You are wasting your breath, trying to convince us that war is bad and this war is bad for large parts of the world. We know that. We agree. The question that actually matters is who you think should stop this war, how they should stop it, and what the world woudl look like afterwards. WHat is your view onj that? And are you willing to tell us what it is, and stand by it?
OK. I’ll do my best to give it go. That’s a pretty big thing to lay out. Feel free to blow massive holes in my ramblings as you please. In my hypothetical world….
The west puts its grown up diplomatic head on and reaches out to the east, china are still open to talking to us. Isn’t that part of the reason for the un? So people can do diplomacy? We decide that actually kicking the crap out of each has historically only resulted in lots of dead people and destruction. We recognise that nuclear escalation is stupid. We remember that sensible free trade between nations is beneficial.
We lift all sanctions on every nation. They do not work, people just find ways around them and they hurt ordinary people. It may also help bring inflation under control.
We stop trying to decouple from the east. If countries want to reshore this needs to be done over a protracted period with both costs for resources and energy under control, on a country by country basis as they choose, not all at once in a mad rush to cut off the east, in the current climate, it is very difficult for Europe to reshore, we have shortages of some things already.
The dollar is in a bit of trouble perhaps, perhaps talking with China and Russia that could also go over to some kind of gold standard? If we continue to trade with them they have no need to be isolationist too? We are going to have to accept that they will want more say on the whole power balance, perhaps it would be a good idea to at least try and talk with them and try and see this as a completely new start for world relations, with a more even balance of power? I understand both china and Russia have plenty of bad stuff in their history, but so do we, maybe it is time to move on from the old cold war mentality and at least give it one go. Perhaps we could at least get rid of the nukes, everywhere. At least try one more time, to solve ukraine and Taiwan without turning this into ww3 multi polar dystopia. Perhaps we could try just once to stop this all falling down. If we fail, well then we will have to fight anyway.
Forget about the UN – as toothless as the old League of Nations and seen as completely controlled by the Americans.
As you rightly say (sort of), the US is more worried about the dollar and the internal effects than anything else. Commercially, China will wipe the floor with the Americans except in one field – armaments. The US needs to prove that its arms are better in order to frighten China away. The war in the Ukraine is ideal for this.
The danger for the US is when Russia appears to be winning and that causes China to side with the Russians. Russia has to be defeated. Hence the propaganda. The US will continue to ‘support’ the Europeans (‘We’re behind you. We’re on your side’). But they won’t actually do anything.
The solution is hard to find. One way is for the Ukranians to lose quickly but that won’t happen. Another is for Russian internal pressure to cause enough problems for Putin to have an accident. Maybe the most likely.
I was working (it does have to be done sometimes), and you did deserve a considered reply. I may have done you an injustice, earlier. I am now willing to believe you are sincere idealist, whereas I had thought that you were in favour of surrendering Ukraine to Russia and simply chose not to admit to the consequences of you own actions.
Your plan sounds lovely, the problem is that it could only work in your hypothetical world – and we live in the real one. It would require that all actors had a sincere desire to reach a happy peaceful world and make the necessary sacrifices. But they do not. Putin’s Russia – by their own words – want a world where Russia is a strong empire and commands over its neighbours, and are happy to wage a devastating war with tens of thousands of deaths to achieve their goal. Xi’s China also wants to be a strong empire where they can rule the neighbouring areas, and furthermore where no country dares harbour their dissidents or say anything they find offensive. Modi’s India is moving towards a Hindu nation state with other religions squeezed to the margins, and we in the West are not angels either. It is not impossible to at least avoid the worst outcomes and work to get better ones, but you do need to base you plans on the state of the world you are actually living in.
If you want to get to your goal in Ukraine, you first of all have to convince Putin to share it – which he will not. In practice you are speaking to the West, and the West only. And the choice we have is simply to help Ukraine fight its war – or not. If we help, the war drags on. If we stop helping, Ukraine surrenders shortly afterwards, leaving Russia to grab a lot of territories, keep Ukraine as a dependent vassal forever, and look around with interest for other places to fight successful wars. We need to identify the best outcome we can realistically hope for, and to figure out how we can motivate Russia to allow us to get there, be it with carrot or stick. I am actually open to the argument that it might be better to give up – for the only way to end a war quickly is to surrender. As Vietnam and Afghanistan showed, you need to adapt to reality; if you are going to lose in the end anyway, there is no moral case for fighting a long war with lots of dead just to reach the same result. But before choosing that option, I insist that we must take a clear-eyed look at what the consequences of our various actions will be in the real world – for Ukrainians and others.
In the real world, you need to look at what choices you actually have, and what would be the expected result. If you need cooperation from other parties to get where you want to go, you need to consider their actions and interests, and look at how you can motivate them to do what you think they should. Hint: a country is a lot more likely to avoid doing the wrong thing, if it thinks doing the wrong thing will be costly. Simply acting as if we were already living in Paradise, where the lion shall lie down with the lamb, is unlikely to work the way you would like. And if you have responsibility for the life and fortunes of other people it is frankly irresponsible.
I greatly sympathize with these remarks and share your passionate frustration with war and large-scale global division. But I’m afraid the current, context-applied answer to your legitimate implied question: Can’t we all just get along?–is no. That doesn’t mean we should abandon diplomacy or cooperation, nor peace, love, and understanding and drum circles (I’m not even kidding except in my tone).
The folly and horrific cost of war is quite universally known. But that knowledge doesn’t stop us or provide workable pathways to peace. I think you are characterizing both Russia and China as far more amenable to diplomacy and cooperation than they really are. I’m not saying the track record and collective motives of the West are pure, but c’mon…it takes two or more to tango!
Honest answer.
I personally, think this is probably way too far gone now, the war machine is already underway and to be honest, has been for some time, so has decoupling, the dollar is potentially already in trouble. To be honest.
I think what is coming regarding war and a change of global power structures is inevitable really, but hey ho, I can still try and make an argument for peace. I realise most if not all of what I have written is very difficult if not impossible to achieve. That it relies on differences being resolved on a ridiculous scale that is also, possibly impossible. However, in Britain the phrase ‘There is no such word as can’t’ is well known, I was challenged to give a solution, so I thought I’d give it a try. It’s not a small problem and so would require radical solutions. Mine is in the realm of radically impossible, I do appreciate that.
Cheers. Thanks for making your contribution and for staying civil (usually) even when you’re emphatic or outraged–I could take a page or two from your posts on that front. I’d say the world you envision–a close-to-ideal version where both the US and the Other Guys behave themselves far better and more cooperatively–is possible, just a very tall order and something that will/would have to be renewed and re-worked without end.
I try never to mock or dismiss someone for advocating peace and cooperation. Sometimes a more practical contribution to World Peace is being kind to the next person you meet–even, or maybe especially when they look dodgy (tougher prospect for a woman). But I believe that calls for universal ceasefires and the kind of peacemaking and nonviolent energy that women have in greater measure (on average, in my opinion) are valuable and indispensable to keeping the world from being even worse. I hope more of your pacific waves ripple across the Atlantic!
As Elvis Costello challenges: “What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding?”
I’m always emphatic and outraged, not always civil, cheap and tawdry, contrary, circle drum peace idiot whatever you like.
I try never to mock or dismiss someone for advocating peace and cooperation. – well that might be wise since all we are trying to do is avert a nuclear apocalypse.
maybe especially when they look dodgy – I am more likely to be the one that looks dodgy.
As Elvis Costello challenges: “What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding – I don’t know but apparently America thinks its a hilarious prospect it just can’t deal with.
Easy now. America is a big place with 330 million people who don’t conform to any patterns you may want to dress them in: good, bad, or ugly.
I guess I shouldn’t have generalized about whether you’re civil or not. It seems I might have irritated you with that remark but it’s pretty hard to read tone on a screen.
No offense meant (quite the opposite) but I also don’t want only big-smile remote-glad-handing or “loud-agreement” exchanges, which can be pointless or quite phony. I respect your passion and complexity. I’d rather not field too much outrage or be made to answer for all of America’s misdeeds but I can handle that too, if need be, and digital engagement is voluntary. I’m no stranger to emphatic-ness and outrage myself. Rock on with your millennial self.
I don’t really get offended like that, so none taken, thanks. Sorry it was a late that comment it was a bit bitey. Somebody here joked I write on emery paper, abrasive, I have threatened to change my user name accordingly 🙂
I honestly have no problems with Americans, when I say America I mean your enormous crazy government and all that that entails. As far as I can tell, most people have had enough of their governments at the moment, ours is hardly doing a better job, so I don’t hold you all accountable at all, I just think your government has got a bit a big and crazy.
Oh our government is a mess and our overall society has gone (more) bonkers, no doubt. I just don’t want to be associated with the craziest parts. I get defensive and personally upset over things I shouldn’t, often not even directed at me. Maybe it comes, in part, from being a (pretty much) fully Americanized half-Canadian with northern relatives who harass me about the US government as if I represent it in the flesh (or that’s how it seems when I get defensive).
Emery board! Cheers.
Oh our government is a mess and our overall society has gone (more) bonkers, no doubt. I just don’t want to be associated with the craziest parts. I get defensive and personally upset over things I shouldn’t, often not even directed at me. Maybe it comes, in part, from being a (pretty much) fully Americanized half-Canadian with northern relatives who harass me about the US government as if I represent it in the flesh (or that’s how it seems when I get defensive).
Emery board! Cheers.
I don’t really get offended like that, so none taken, thanks. Sorry it was a late that comment it was a bit bitey. Somebody here joked I write on emery paper, abrasive, I have threatened to change my user name accordingly 🙂
I honestly have no problems with Americans, when I say America I mean your enormous crazy government and all that that entails. As far as I can tell, most people have had enough of their governments at the moment, ours is hardly doing a better job, so I don’t hold you all accountable at all, I just think your government has got a bit a big and crazy.
Easy now. America is a big place with 330 million people who don’t conform to any patterns you may want to dress them in: good, bad, or ugly.
I guess I shouldn’t have generalized about whether you’re civil or not. It seems I might have irritated you with that remark but it’s pretty hard to read tone on a screen.
No offense meant (quite the opposite) but I also don’t want only big-smile remote-glad-handing or “loud-agreement” exchanges, which can be pointless or quite phony. I respect your passion and complexity. I’d rather not field too much outrage or be made to answer for all of America’s misdeeds but I can handle that too, if need be, and digital engagement is voluntary. I’m no stranger to emphatic-ness and outrage myself. Rock on with your millennial self.
I’m always emphatic and outraged, not always civil, cheap and tawdry, contrary, circle drum peace idiot whatever you like.
I try never to mock or dismiss someone for advocating peace and cooperation. – well that might be wise since all we are trying to do is avert a nuclear apocalypse.
maybe especially when they look dodgy – I am more likely to be the one that looks dodgy.
As Elvis Costello challenges: “What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding – I don’t know but apparently America thinks its a hilarious prospect it just can’t deal with.
Cheers. Thanks for making your contribution and for staying civil (usually) even when you’re emphatic or outraged–I could take a page or two from your posts on that front. I’d say the world you envision–a close-to-ideal version where both the US and the Other Guys behave themselves far better and more cooperatively–is possible, just a very tall order and something that will/would have to be renewed and re-worked without end.
I try never to mock or dismiss someone for advocating peace and cooperation. Sometimes a more practical contribution to World Peace is being kind to the next person you meet–even, or maybe especially when they look dodgy (tougher prospect for a woman). But I believe that calls for universal ceasefires and the kind of peacemaking and nonviolent energy that women have in greater measure (on average, in my opinion) are valuable and indispensable to keeping the world from being even worse. I hope more of your pacific waves ripple across the Atlantic!
As Elvis Costello challenges: “What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding?”
Honest answer.
I personally, think this is probably way too far gone now, the war machine is already underway and to be honest, has been for some time, so has decoupling, the dollar is potentially already in trouble. To be honest.
I think what is coming regarding war and a change of global power structures is inevitable really, but hey ho, I can still try and make an argument for peace. I realise most if not all of what I have written is very difficult if not impossible to achieve. That it relies on differences being resolved on a ridiculous scale that is also, possibly impossible. However, in Britain the phrase ‘There is no such word as can’t’ is well known, I was challenged to give a solution, so I thought I’d give it a try. It’s not a small problem and so would require radical solutions. Mine is in the realm of radically impossible, I do appreciate that.
“Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
That. Sounds reasonable. Considering the global consequences this war is having and that it could end in nuclear conflict sounds a reasonable compromise that had already been agreed.
Right, so why would Ukraine agree to that? It loses vast swathes of territory and without NATO membership it has no protection from the same thing happening again in the future. What you’re essentially advocating is the Ukrainian surrender, giving the Russians control over its foreign policy
To avert nuclear apocalypse, to prevent a famine, to prevent economic implosion, so we can just stop killing people, so refugees can go home, so various developing countries don’t implode, so we don’t escalate this to nato confrontation………
That is not vast swathes, nor is it giving russia control of their foreign policy, they remain out of NATO but receive security guarantees from other countries for protection.
Giving up Crimea and the Donbas in return for full freedom to run its own foreign (and domestic, and ethnicity) policy would be a decent deal. It is just extremely unlikely that Russia would offer it, or accept it – except maybe as a temporary stepping stone to bigger things. As I see it, what killed the Minsk agreement is that Russia, through control of the ‘separatist’ oblasts, would have an effective veto over Ukraine’s political decisions. Which Russia insisted on, and Ukraine refused to accept. Remember, it was Ukraine moving too close to the *EU* (not NATO) that triggered the invasion of Crimea. So why on earth would Russia go to war, and then settle for less than they had demanded last time around?
Giving up Crimea and the Donbas in return for full freedom to run its own foreign (and domestic, and ethnicity) policy would be a decent deal. It is just extremely unlikely that Russia would offer it, or accept it – except maybe as a temporary stepping stone to bigger things. As I see it, what killed the Minsk agreement is that Russia, through control of the ‘separatist’ oblasts, would have an effective veto over Ukraine’s political decisions. Which Russia insisted on, and Ukraine refused to accept. Remember, it was Ukraine moving too close to the *EU* (not NATO) that triggered the invasion of Crimea. So why on earth would Russia go to war, and then settle for less than they had demanded last time around?
To avert nuclear apocalypse, to prevent a famine, to prevent economic implosion, so we can just stop killing people, so refugees can go home, so various developing countries don’t implode, so we don’t escalate this to nato confrontation………
That is not vast swathes, nor is it giving russia control of their foreign policy, they remain out of NATO but receive security guarantees from other countries for protection.
Right, so why would Ukraine agree to that? It loses vast swathes of territory and without NATO membership it has no protection from the same thing happening again in the future. What you’re essentially advocating is the Ukrainian surrender, giving the Russians control over its foreign policy
“Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
That. Sounds reasonable. Considering the global consequences this war is having and that it could end in nuclear conflict sounds a reasonable compromise that had already been agreed.
Sorry, but I think being down on war is like being down on gravity. War’s just an outgrowth of competition, and the latter is just how nature works. Yes, maybe we’ll blow ourselves up – maybe that’s the answer to the Fermi Paradox?
‘Sorry, but I think being down on war is like being down on gravity.’
Well I don’t. Do you have any enlightening comments or solutions to any of this to make yourself? Or you just think let’s give up and blow it all up because of a paradox you found on the Internet?
‘Sorry, but I think being down on war is like being down on gravity.’
Well I don’t. Do you have any enlightening comments or solutions to any of this to make yourself? Or you just think let’s give up and blow it all up because of a paradox you found on the Internet?
Forget about the UN – as toothless as the old League of Nations and seen as completely controlled by the Americans.
As you rightly say (sort of), the US is more worried about the dollar and the internal effects than anything else. Commercially, China will wipe the floor with the Americans except in one field – armaments. The US needs to prove that its arms are better in order to frighten China away. The war in the Ukraine is ideal for this.
The danger for the US is when Russia appears to be winning and that causes China to side with the Russians. Russia has to be defeated. Hence the propaganda. The US will continue to ‘support’ the Europeans (‘We’re behind you. We’re on your side’). But they won’t actually do anything.
The solution is hard to find. One way is for the Ukranians to lose quickly but that won’t happen. Another is for Russian internal pressure to cause enough problems for Putin to have an accident. Maybe the most likely.
I was working (it does have to be done sometimes), and you did deserve a considered reply. I may have done you an injustice, earlier. I am now willing to believe you are sincere idealist, whereas I had thought that you were in favour of surrendering Ukraine to Russia and simply chose not to admit to the consequences of you own actions.
Your plan sounds lovely, the problem is that it could only work in your hypothetical world – and we live in the real one. It would require that all actors had a sincere desire to reach a happy peaceful world and make the necessary sacrifices. But they do not. Putin’s Russia – by their own words – want a world where Russia is a strong empire and commands over its neighbours, and are happy to wage a devastating war with tens of thousands of deaths to achieve their goal. Xi’s China also wants to be a strong empire where they can rule the neighbouring areas, and furthermore where no country dares harbour their dissidents or say anything they find offensive. Modi’s India is moving towards a Hindu nation state with other religions squeezed to the margins, and we in the West are not angels either. It is not impossible to at least avoid the worst outcomes and work to get better ones, but you do need to base you plans on the state of the world you are actually living in.
If you want to get to your goal in Ukraine, you first of all have to convince Putin to share it – which he will not. In practice you are speaking to the West, and the West only. And the choice we have is simply to help Ukraine fight its war – or not. If we help, the war drags on. If we stop helping, Ukraine surrenders shortly afterwards, leaving Russia to grab a lot of territories, keep Ukraine as a dependent vassal forever, and look around with interest for other places to fight successful wars. We need to identify the best outcome we can realistically hope for, and to figure out how we can motivate Russia to allow us to get there, be it with carrot or stick. I am actually open to the argument that it might be better to give up – for the only way to end a war quickly is to surrender. As Vietnam and Afghanistan showed, you need to adapt to reality; if you are going to lose in the end anyway, there is no moral case for fighting a long war with lots of dead just to reach the same result. But before choosing that option, I insist that we must take a clear-eyed look at what the consequences of our various actions will be in the real world – for Ukrainians and others.
In the real world, you need to look at what choices you actually have, and what would be the expected result. If you need cooperation from other parties to get where you want to go, you need to consider their actions and interests, and look at how you can motivate them to do what you think they should. Hint: a country is a lot more likely to avoid doing the wrong thing, if it thinks doing the wrong thing will be costly. Simply acting as if we were already living in Paradise, where the lion shall lie down with the lamb, is unlikely to work the way you would like. And if you have responsibility for the life and fortunes of other people it is frankly irresponsible.
I greatly sympathize with these remarks and share your passionate frustration with war and large-scale global division. But I’m afraid the current, context-applied answer to your legitimate implied question: Can’t we all just get along?–is no. That doesn’t mean we should abandon diplomacy or cooperation, nor peace, love, and understanding and drum circles (I’m not even kidding except in my tone).
The folly and horrific cost of war is quite universally known. But that knowledge doesn’t stop us or provide workable pathways to peace. I think you are characterizing both Russia and China as far more amenable to diplomacy and cooperation than they really are. I’m not saying the track record and collective motives of the West are pure, but c’mon…it takes two or more to tango!
Sorry, but I think being down on war is like being down on gravity. War’s just an outgrowth of competition, and the latter is just how nature works. Yes, maybe we’ll blow ourselves up – maybe that’s the answer to the Fermi Paradox?
It is difficult to be put on the spot like that. It would be a lot better if the joint intellect of all UnHerd members worked on the problem instead of acting like a group of John Waynes.
I read these columns and I don’t see anybody making positive suggestions. If Russia turns to the UK and says, ‘Boo.’ just don’t expect the Americans to come running in to help.
Thanks, I’ve written hundreds of words now on how peace with ukraine might be achieved etc I thought I’d give the whole raging crazy global issues a try today. I strongly suspect it was not the reply Mr fogh was expecting. He has gone very quiet.
I agree the solution will be hard to find, I feel that the longer this goes on, the more radical the solutions might have to be.
Thanks, I’ve written hundreds of words now on how peace with ukraine might be achieved etc I thought I’d give the whole raging crazy global issues a try today. I strongly suspect it was not the reply Mr fogh was expecting. He has gone very quiet.
I agree the solution will be hard to find, I feel that the longer this goes on, the more radical the solutions might have to be.
OK. I’ll do my best to give it go. That’s a pretty big thing to lay out. Feel free to blow massive holes in my ramblings as you please. In my hypothetical world….
The west puts its grown up diplomatic head on and reaches out to the east, china are still open to talking to us. Isn’t that part of the reason for the un? So people can do diplomacy? We decide that actually kicking the crap out of each has historically only resulted in lots of dead people and destruction. We recognise that nuclear escalation is stupid. We remember that sensible free trade between nations is beneficial.
We lift all sanctions on every nation. They do not work, people just find ways around them and they hurt ordinary people. It may also help bring inflation under control.
We stop trying to decouple from the east. If countries want to reshore this needs to be done over a protracted period with both costs for resources and energy under control, on a country by country basis as they choose, not all at once in a mad rush to cut off the east, in the current climate, it is very difficult for Europe to reshore, we have shortages of some things already.
The dollar is in a bit of trouble perhaps, perhaps talking with China and Russia that could also go over to some kind of gold standard? If we continue to trade with them they have no need to be isolationist too? We are going to have to accept that they will want more say on the whole power balance, perhaps it would be a good idea to at least try and talk with them and try and see this as a completely new start for world relations, with a more even balance of power? I understand both china and Russia have plenty of bad stuff in their history, but so do we, maybe it is time to move on from the old cold war mentality and at least give it one go. Perhaps we could at least get rid of the nukes, everywhere. At least try one more time, to solve ukraine and Taiwan without turning this into ww3 multi polar dystopia. Perhaps we could try just once to stop this all falling down. If we fail, well then we will have to fight anyway.
It is difficult to be put on the spot like that. It would be a lot better if the joint intellect of all UnHerd members worked on the problem instead of acting like a group of John Waynes.
I read these columns and I don’t see anybody making positive suggestions. If Russia turns to the UK and says, ‘Boo.’ just don’t expect the Americans to come running in to help.
Are you suggesting that the Ukrainians should surrender and give up their nation to Russia simply to make fertilisers cheaper for developing nations? Why don’t you instead suggest Russia pulls all its forces back from the Ukrainian territory it agreed to honour in the treaty 30 years ago? Why is it up to those defending their homes from a hostile invasion to have to give everything up in order to end the war?
You are wasting your breath, trying to convince us that war is bad and this war is bad for large parts of the world. We know that. We agree. The question that actually matters is who you think should stop this war, how they should stop it, and what the world woudl look like afterwards. WHat is your view onj that? And are you willing to tell us what it is, and stand by it?
B Emery
1 year ago
This is also about broken supply chains, about developing countries suffering, about industry suffering, about food and fertiliser shortages, energy crisis. This war is having global consequences:
Madame President,
Excellencies,
Russia’s war in Ukraine shows no sign of letting up.
The past seven months have seen unspeakable suffering and devastation.
The latest developments are dangerous and disturbing.
They are further steps away from any prospect of peace – and towards an endless cycle of horror and bloodshed.
As I have said from the start, this senseless war has unlimited potential to do terrible harm – in Ukraine, and around the world……
…… At the global level, the conflict has supercharged a triple crisis of food, energy and finance. This is driving millions more people into extreme poverty and hunger, and reversing years of progress on development, and follows the COVID crisis and the growing impact of climate change.
The collateral damage of this war is being felt in dozens of developing countries already grappling with recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and battered by the climate crisis.
The most vulnerable are suffering most……..
….. The International Atomic Energy Agency is consulting with all parties involved on measures to ensure the safety of the plant and surrounding areas. I thank the IAEA for its work. Its continued presence at the plant is an important deterrent.
All attacks on nuclear facilities must end, and the purely civilian nature of such plants must be re-established.
Any damage to nuclear infrastructure, whether deliberate or not, could have terrible consequences for people around the plant and far beyond.
The world cannot afford a nuclear catastrophe………
……. We are doing everything possible to facilitate this, and to ease the serious fertilizer market crunch that is already affecting farming in West Africa and elsewhere.
If the fertilizer market is not stabilized, next year could bring a food supply crisis. Simply put, the world may run out of food.
It is essential that all States remove every remaining obstacle to the export of Russian fertilizers immediately. We need to get them to farmers at a reasonable cost, and on to fields as soon as possible…….
……. There is only one way to end the suffering in Ukraine – and that is by ending the war.
I will continue to spare no effort for peace – peace in line with international law and the Charter of the United Nations.
And I appeal to all Member States, and especially those here today, to redouble all efforts to prevent further escalation, and to do all they can to end the war and to ensure lasting peace
‘It will be almost impossible for the Russians to achieve their political objectives by military means. It is unlikely that Russia is going to overrun Ukraine. It’s just not going to happen,” said Milley, adding that it will be “very, very difficult” for Ukraine to expel all Russian forces from occupied territory.
“It’s not to say that it can’t happen…” he said. “But it’s extraordinarily difficult. And it would require essentially the collapse of the Russian military.’
This is only going to end in a stalemate. We must make sure this does not escalate, the damage to the global order is happening already.
‘When FT asked him whether talks between Moscow and Kiev are at all possible, Milley responded: “We’re weeks away from the beginning of spring, but it’s a rolling window. There’s opportunities at any moment in time.” But he still acknowledged both sides are dug into their positions now more than ever, making near-term serious dialogue unlikely.’
That’s Alexander Pope, sir.
My mistake. I always thought it was a six-foot line from one of “Essay on Criticism” couplets. But Lord Google tells me otherwise.
You know some of your Moderns too, Mr. Stanhope.
That’s Alexander Pope, sir.
My mistake. I always thought it was a six-foot line from one of “Essay on Criticism” couplets. But Lord Google tells me otherwise.
You know some of your Moderns too, Mr. Stanhope.
“the late Jeremy Corbyn”? Have I missed something?
Brad Mountz
1 year ago
History on this topic seems clear. You must cut off the head of a snake or it returns to bite you another day. One can blame others and create different narratives to suit one’s fancy, but it comes down to who struck whom. Many options existed to Putin before “another” invasion. Miscalculations occur and he has been disrobed, he has embarrassed his country and put a historically great nation back 100 years because of his arrogance and dictatorship mentality. Cold War tactics are how he keeps us at bay and the weak leadership of West is his trump card. I agree there are multiple end games, but truly there is only one.
“You must cut off the head of a snake or it returns to bite you another day.” Has it occurred to you that the Russians were thinking along similar lines?
That’s not what Putin himself wrote in his lengthy essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”. Not that I necessarily believe that 100% either. (Politicians not being totally forthright? How unthinkable!)
That’s not what Putin himself wrote in his lengthy essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”. Not that I necessarily believe that 100% either. (Politicians not being totally forthright? How unthinkable!)
“You must cut off the head of a snake or it returns to bite you another day.” Has it occurred to you that the Russians were thinking along similar lines?
Brad Mountz
1 year ago
History on this topic seems clear. You must cut off the head of a snake or it returns to bite you another day. One can blame others and create different narratives to suit one’s fancy, but it comes down to who struck whom. Many options existed to Putin before “another” invasion. Miscalculations occur and he has been disrobed, he has embarrassed his country and put a historically great nation back 100 years because of his arrogance and dictatorship mentality. Cold War tactics are how he keeps us at bay and the weak leadership of West is his trump card. I agree there are multiple end games, but truly there is only one.
Last edited 1 year ago by Brad Mountz
R S Foster
1 year ago
…much to agree with. But rather disappointing that he couldn’t bring himself to mention the fact that Boris Johnson was practically the first Western Leader to make the right calls, do the right things…and indeed visit Kyiv under fire…why the silence, Mr Sandbrook?
Last edited 1 year ago by R S Foster
R S Foster
1 year ago
…much to agree with. But rather disappointing that he couldn’t bring himself to mention the fact that Boris Johnson was practically the first Western Leader to make the right calls, do the right things…and indeed visit Kyiv under fire…why the silence, Mr Sandbrook?
Last edited 1 year ago by R S Foster
Mo Brown
1 year ago
I could be wrong, but I believe an article just like this one was written in the early stages of every war throughout human history.
I could be wrong, but I believe an article just like this one was written in the early stages of every war throughout human history.
Michael Nott
1 year ago
I was beginning to think I wouldn’t read a sensible article on the situation in Ukraine again on UnHerd. After countless articles extolling what comes very close to being appeasement, at last a bit of balance. Faith has been restored.
Michael Nott
1 year ago
I was beginning to think I wouldn’t read a sensible article on the situation in Ukraine again on UnHerd. After countless articles extolling what comes very close to being appeasement, at last a bit of balance. Faith has been restored.
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
What a breath of fresh air. But, having cleared the board and started with the fundamentals of the thing — yes Putin is evil and yes Mr. Z is a hero — unfortunately we must eventually deal with a few messy complications. Like, for example, the fact that Crimea is overwhelmingly Russian and should never have been ‘given’ to Ukraine in the first place and actually wasn’t ‘given’ to Ukraine, it was simply an internal administrative decision on the part of Krushchev, not a ceding of sovereignty. And the Nazis, yes, the Azov Battalion can’t be called anything else.
I think you are oversimplifying it slightly. Crimea actually voted in favour of Ukrainian independence – though not by much. When empires break up, you get this situation where the administrative boundaries, the distribution of people, and the infrastructure no longer fits with anything. Granted, there is a good case for having Crimea Russian – but there is also a case for having it Ukrainian. As you say, it is a mess.
Yes, but the current borders were agreed upon the USSR dissolution, which was a peaceful act in the end. If Russia had any objections to Crimea staying with Ukraine, they should have been stated and solved right then, not 30 years down the line. Not to mention Russia itself AGAIN guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in 1994 by signing Budapest Memorandum where Ukraine gave up its nukes.
I think you are oversimplifying it slightly. Crimea actually voted in favour of Ukrainian independence – though not by much. When empires break up, you get this situation where the administrative boundaries, the distribution of people, and the infrastructure no longer fits with anything. Granted, there is a good case for having Crimea Russian – but there is also a case for having it Ukrainian. As you say, it is a mess.
Yes, but the current borders were agreed upon the USSR dissolution, which was a peaceful act in the end. If Russia had any objections to Crimea staying with Ukraine, they should have been stated and solved right then, not 30 years down the line. Not to mention Russia itself AGAIN guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in 1994 by signing Budapest Memorandum where Ukraine gave up its nukes.
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
What a breath of fresh air. But, having cleared the board and started with the fundamentals of the thing — yes Putin is evil and yes Mr. Z is a hero — unfortunately we must eventually deal with a few messy complications. Like, for example, the fact that Crimea is overwhelmingly Russian and should never have been ‘given’ to Ukraine in the first place and actually wasn’t ‘given’ to Ukraine, it was simply an internal administrative decision on the part of Krushchev, not a ceding of sovereignty. And the Nazis, yes, the Azov Battalion can’t be called anything else.
Peter Sawyer
1 year ago
“ the late Jeremy Corbyn”
Peter Sawyer
1 year ago
“ the late Jeremy Corbyn”
0 0
1 year ago
Fairly disappointing essay from an individual I respect and whose books are well researched and written.
I didn’t expect the ‘goodies vs baddies’ narrative we got here. Putin was completely wrong to invade Ukraine and it’s a disgrace that he did. He is a nasty piece of work, a tyrant in the original sense and he has lost touch with reality if he thought an invasion would be an easy matter and that it would mirror what happened in Georgia in 2008.
Next comes the ‘however.’ The expansion of NATO starting in the late 1990s fed Russian paranoia, and with good reason (has anyone in NATO HQ read any Russian history?) Putin has warned about the expansion since the mid 2000s and wondered openly what the point of it was except to threaten Russia. Did we expect the Russians to chill while the Baltics joined, despite the soothing words we spoke?
Capabilities matter, not intentions. Despite NATO assurances Putin and Russia were faced with a multinational military power on their doorstep, that if it turned hostile or predatory would form an existential threat.
And then came talk of Ukraine joining? A country whose eastern half is Russophile, to the point that they put Yanukovich over the top in the prior election? We gave Russian ultranationalists more material than they could work with.
Didn’t help that in the critical months of early 2014 the West aided a coup that favored pro EU and NATO western Ukrainian interests. Add to this stew a dash of Azov and Banderite flavoring and fighting in the Donbas was the natural next step. One way out, the Minsk accords, were sidelined and (according the Angela Merkel) a stalling tactic.
The invasion was completely wrong and abhorrent, but it didn’t spring out of the blue by a desire for conquest and pillage. Even if you think of Putin as Stalin part deux (and I’d suggest reading up before drawing that conclusion) the bigger issue is Ukraine is a fundamental Russian security issue and they’re not going to allow it to join a hostile military alliance.
Our goal has to be to stop the killing, getting a cease fire in place and restarting diplomacy. Any western military aid should be given with the eye toward providing strong defensive lines, to help in a negotiation.
I mostly agree with this, but what do you make of Putin’s “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” (in terms of being a factor in the causation – to me, nothing this big ever happens because of a single reason). There’s also “How Putin made himself Maidan-proof by waging war on Ukraine“, which also seems plausible to me as another causational factor.
I don’t doubt Putin is taking advantage of this to shore up his domestic support, jail and suppress opponents, wave the flag and distract from any homefront issues that may have been bubbling up.
He’s an unsavory character and doesn’t mind doing all of the above. Ukraine has been doing some of that too, though not at Putin’s level or ruthlessness. But go to Ukraine and tell someone you oppose what Zelensky is doing and you won’t have a comfortable time.
With that said, ok, and…? Putin has popularity in Russia and ‘regime change’ is a fool’s game, not least because are we sure whoever follows him would be any better? I don’t like Putin but I don’t like civilians dying even more and the longer this war goes on the worse it gets.
I want a ceasefire and lowering of the temperature. For anti-Putin folks this could also remove the issue from his arsenal and allow domestic opposition to revive.
I don’t doubt Putin is taking advantage of this to shore up his domestic support, jail and suppress opponents, wave the flag and distract from any homefront issues that may have been bubbling up.
He’s an unsavory character and doesn’t mind doing all of the above. Ukraine has been doing some of that too, though not at Putin’s level or ruthlessness. But go to Ukraine and tell someone you oppose what Zelensky is doing and you won’t have a comfortable time.
With that said, ok, and…? Putin has popularity in Russia and ‘regime change’ is a fool’s game, not least because are we sure whoever follows him would be any better? I don’t like Putin but I don’t like civilians dying even more and the longer this war goes on the worse it gets.
I want a ceasefire and lowering of the temperature. For anti-Putin folks this could also remove the issue from his arsenal and allow domestic opposition to revive.
The issue is that Russia demands control over Ukraine – not just neutrality – and that the Ukrainians quite understandably refuse to accept that. That was also the point of expanding NATO – not to attack Russia, but to prevent Russia from totally dominating its neighbours. If Russia feels that trying to limit its bullying power is an existential threat, are we suppose to acquiesce?
I mostly agree with this, but what do you make of Putin’s “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” (in terms of being a factor in the causation – to me, nothing this big ever happens because of a single reason). There’s also “How Putin made himself Maidan-proof by waging war on Ukraine“, which also seems plausible to me as another causational factor.
The issue is that Russia demands control over Ukraine – not just neutrality – and that the Ukrainians quite understandably refuse to accept that. That was also the point of expanding NATO – not to attack Russia, but to prevent Russia from totally dominating its neighbours. If Russia feels that trying to limit its bullying power is an existential threat, are we suppose to acquiesce?
0 0
1 year ago
Fairly disappointing essay from an individual I respect and whose books are well researched and written.
I didn’t expect the ‘goodies vs baddies’ narrative we got here. Putin was completely wrong to invade Ukraine and it’s a disgrace that he did. He is a nasty piece of work, a tyrant in the original sense and he has lost touch with reality if he thought an invasion would be an easy matter and that it would mirror what happened in Georgia in 2008.
Next comes the ‘however.’ The expansion of NATO starting in the late 1990s fed Russian paranoia, and with good reason (has anyone in NATO HQ read any Russian history?) Putin has warned about the expansion since the mid 2000s and wondered openly what the point of it was except to threaten Russia. Did we expect the Russians to chill while the Baltics joined, despite the soothing words we spoke?
Capabilities matter, not intentions. Despite NATO assurances Putin and Russia were faced with a multinational military power on their doorstep, that if it turned hostile or predatory would form an existential threat.
And then came talk of Ukraine joining? A country whose eastern half is Russophile, to the point that they put Yanukovich over the top in the prior election? We gave Russian ultranationalists more material than they could work with.
Didn’t help that in the critical months of early 2014 the West aided a coup that favored pro EU and NATO western Ukrainian interests. Add to this stew a dash of Azov and Banderite flavoring and fighting in the Donbas was the natural next step. One way out, the Minsk accords, were sidelined and (according the Angela Merkel) a stalling tactic.
The invasion was completely wrong and abhorrent, but it didn’t spring out of the blue by a desire for conquest and pillage. Even if you think of Putin as Stalin part deux (and I’d suggest reading up before drawing that conclusion) the bigger issue is Ukraine is a fundamental Russian security issue and they’re not going to allow it to join a hostile military alliance.
Our goal has to be to stop the killing, getting a cease fire in place and restarting diplomacy. Any western military aid should be given with the eye toward providing strong defensive lines, to help in a negotiation.
David D'Andrea
1 year ago
This is remarkably one-dimensional British jingoism, unworthy of UnHerd. Sandbrook actually invokes “the struggle against Hitler’s Germany”. Nothing at all to say on geopolitics or America. Hitchens in Compact shows a far deeper understanding.
Last edited 1 year ago by David D'Andrea
David D'Andrea
1 year ago
This is remarkably one-dimensional British jingoism, unworthy of UnHerd. Sandbrook actually invokes “the struggle against Hitler’s Germany”. Nothing at all to say on geopolitics or America. Hitchens in Compact shows a far deeper understanding.
Last edited 1 year ago by David D'Andrea
Daniel Lee
1 year ago
Great piece. It’s unfortunate that in America it has become entangled in the ever-more-rancorous right/left fight, because many of those on the right who now claim to oppose supporting Ukraine are really just reflexively opposing Joe Biden. Their natural point of view without that context would always be to oppose Russian aggression.
I tell such people that they may think they are conservatives, but they aren’t any kind of conservative that Reagan or Thatcher would recognize. I also ask them that if Biden and the progressives said that 2+2=4, would they insist it was 5?
Let the down-votes begin!
Reagan and Thatcher both put opposing Russian aggression at the very top of their list of priorities. We should still be doing so by supporting Ukraine, even as we fight to put Biden and the Left’s henchmen out of office.
Reagan and Thatcher both put opposing Russian aggression at the very top of their list of priorities. We should still be doing so by supporting Ukraine, even as we fight to put Biden and the Left’s henchmen out of office.
I tell such people that they may think they are conservatives, but they aren’t any kind of conservative that Reagan or Thatcher would recognize. I also ask them that if Biden and the progressives said that 2+2=4, would they insist it was 5?
Let the down-votes begin!
Daniel Lee
1 year ago
Great piece. It’s unfortunate that in America it has become entangled in the ever-more-rancorous right/left fight, because many of those on the right who now claim to oppose supporting Ukraine are really just reflexively opposing Joe Biden. Their natural point of view without that context would always be to oppose Russian aggression.
Thanks for the gulf-insider link. Unlike some others you are at least willing to offer your evidence. I have to say that I find it implausible and insufficient. You would need something a lot stronger.
Now it is plausible enough that Ukraine was in negotiations with the Russians back in April-May 2021. It is also plausible that they became less willing to accept terms once Boris Johnson had promised assistance – if you are fighting a stronger enemy without assistance from anybody you are pretty much forced to accept what terms you can get. And it is of course an established fact that Boris Johnson is an opportunistic egoist.
It is, however, unrealistic that the US/UK should be able to command Ukraine to fight against its will. Ukraine was not a western vassal, and the only hold of the west – continued military assistance – would be worthless if Ukraine decided to stop fighting. And it extremely implausible that Russia should offer such good terms as a retreat to pre-war positions in return for nothing more than a commitment to stay out of NATO. It is equally implausible that Ukraine should refuse such an offer. Back in April-May Russia had given up taking Kyiv but was still advancing in the south. And both the words and deeds of Russia suggest that a key demand is that Ukraine should become part of the ‘Russian world’, a Russian vassal state. To believe this story we would need to know a lot more about what kind of deal was being offered.
I’m glad to see at least one commenter here has their head screwed on.
Stand by for the down-votes! I will take each one as a sign of honour, and a recognition that I’m correct!
I’m glad to see at least one commenter here has their head screwed on.
Stand by for the down-votes! I will take each one as a sign of honour, and a recognition that I’m correct!
Thanks for the gulf-insider link. Unlike some others you are at least willing to offer your evidence. I have to say that I find it implausible and insufficient. You would need something a lot stronger.
Now it is plausible enough that Ukraine was in negotiations with the Russians back in April-May 2021. It is also plausible that they became less willing to accept terms once Boris Johnson had promised assistance – if you are fighting a stronger enemy without assistance from anybody you are pretty much forced to accept what terms you can get. And it is of course an established fact that Boris Johnson is an opportunistic egoist.
It is, however, unrealistic that the US/UK should be able to command Ukraine to fight against its will. Ukraine was not a western vassal, and the only hold of the west – continued military assistance – would be worthless if Ukraine decided to stop fighting. And it extremely implausible that Russia should offer such good terms as a retreat to pre-war positions in return for nothing more than a commitment to stay out of NATO. It is equally implausible that Ukraine should refuse such an offer. Back in April-May Russia had given up taking Kyiv but was still advancing in the south. And both the words and deeds of Russia suggest that a key demand is that Ukraine should become part of the ‘Russian world’, a Russian vassal state. To believe this story we would need to know a lot more about what kind of deal was being offered.
The “late” Jeremy Corbyn?? I am no fan of Corbyn (even if I do believe he was unfairly maligned) but this is a nasty-minded sneer. In some countries it would even be sinister.
Simon S
1 year ago
The “late” Jeremy Corbyn?? I am no fan of Corbyn (even if I do believe he was unfairly maligned) but this is a nasty-minded sneer. In some countries it would even be sinister.
David Kingsworthy
1 year ago
Mark Bartalmai?
Tom Kennedy
1 year ago
Whilst I may agree with Dominic Sandbrook’s simple analysis of the instigator of the war being bad Putin, and the victim being poor Ukraine, nevertheless, I cannot agree with his simple solution:- fight to the bitter end to protect democracy, and national sovereignty, etc. , and in the process destroy a country for a generation or more, cause the deaths of thousands, including very possibly one’s family and children, and create a generation whose way of life is war. Surely, democracy and national sovereignty are not worth this price. And if anybody believes that they are worth this price, then they must not place much value on the really important things in life:- family and relationships, making a good living, opportunities for their kids, leisure, sport, culture, etc. I didn’t note National Sovereignty or Democracy anywhere on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. I don’t believe that national sovereignty makes very much difference to any of the really valuable aspects of life. I’d choose a good day out with my family or friends a million times before I’d choose national sovereignty. And unfortunately, in a war like this one is turning out to be, these two choices are mutually exclusive for most Ukranians. Would they really choose war instead of a life with their family and friends? Even living under Russian control, surely the quality of life would be infinitely better than this bleak alternative that Dominic and others are advocating.
Which brings me onto the other difficulties I have with Dominic’s analysis: he says that Ukranians want to fight. Where is the evidence for this? This is just another naive romanticised myth in the simplistic Disneyland good-v-evil narrative, which we hear and read all the time in simplistic, uncritical media analysis. Is that why the Ukranians were flooding into Europe all of last year? Is that why the Ukranian border was closed to all men of fighting age? Clearly an awful lot of Ukranians do NOT want to fight – they want to flee, but are prevented from doing so, by their own government. So, maybe its the Ukranian government and other governments who want to fight on, ’til the last man standing. As always in history, armchair warriors and armchair idealists are not too discommoded by the death of their cannon fodder. Making concessions to Russia may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the alternative is infinitely worse.
Whilst I may agree with Dominic Sandbrook’s simple analysis of the instigator of the war being bad Putin, and the victim being poor Ukraine, nevertheless, I cannot agree with his simple solution:- fight to the bitter end to protect democracy, and national sovereignty, etc. , and in the process destroy a country for a generation or more, cause the deaths of thousands, including very possibly one’s family and children, and create a generation whose way of life is war. Surely, democracy and national sovereignty are not worth this price. And if anybody believes that they are worth this price, then they must not place much value on the really important things in life:- family and relationships, making a good living, opportunities for their kids, leisure, sport, culture, etc. I didn’t note National Sovereignty or Democracy anywhere on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. I don’t believe that national sovereignty makes very much difference to any of the really valuable aspects of life. I’d choose a good day out with my family or friends a million times before I’d choose national sovereignty. And unfortunately, in a war like this one is turning out to be, these two choices are mutually exclusive for most Ukranians. Would they really choose war instead of a life with their family and friends? Even living under Russian control, surely the quality of life would be infinitely better than this bleak alternative that Dominic and others are advocating.
Which brings me onto the other difficulties I have with Dominic’s analysis: he says that Ukranians want to fight. Where is the evidence for this? This is just another naive romanticised myth in the simplistic Disneyland good-v-evil narrative, which we hear and read all the time in simplistic, uncritical media analysis. Is that why the Ukranians were flooding into Europe all of last year? Is that why the Ukranian border was closed to all men of fighting age? Clearly an awful lot of Ukranians do NOT want to fight – they want to flee, but are prevented from doing so, by their own government. So, maybe its the Ukranian government and other governments who want to fight on, ’til the last man standing. As always in history, armchair warriors and armchair idealists are not too discommoded by the death of their cannon fodder. Making concessions to Russia may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the alternative is infinitely worse.
Paul Bazely
1 year ago
I’ve come to the conclusion that proponents for war who say things like “sadly it involves lots of people dying”, have never actually put themselves in the shoes of the people who have to live through the carnage. Imagine being told “We’re very sad and all that, but unfortunately its “boringly straightforward”: Your wife and children will be dismembered by shells and bombs and the town you love will be reduced to rubble, but I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear that “good” will triumph over “evil” and you will be “free”. the only other alternative is a messy compromise of a peace deal and I’m sure you dont want that!”
And I find it puzzling that 100 years after Gandhi nonviolently removed an occupying army that had been digging itself in for 150 years, that intelligent journalists and politicians claim there is no alternative between war and appeasement. Here is an example of how peace could have been a policy in this conflict, there are many more. In 1968 the Red Army marched into Czechoslovakia in an unprovoked invasion. This was the same Red Army that had decimated Hitler’s Nazi forces 20 years earlier. No one can argue that their generals and leaders were not as brutal and determined as Putin. But unlike Zelensky, their leader, Alexander Dubcek, locked his army in their barracks as he rightly feared a bloodbath in which his citizens would be the losers. He awaited arrest. But in the meantime the Czech and Slovak people entered the streets unarmed and faced down the Russian tanks and soldiers. They blocked bridges, moved signposts, occupied squares, mothers and grandmothers harangued the soldiers saying that their families would be ashamed of them. The generals who had defeated Hitler had no answer to this. They had to start rotating their soldiers out of the front-line as they became “infected”. The people showed the Kremlin that they could occupy their land but that they could not govern the country. Within weeks the Kremlin came to the negotiating table, the freedom struggle was postponed but the people were allowed to keep their Govt and the Red Army withdrew with few deaths and no ruined infrastructure. Both sides compromised. And 20 years later when the Wall came down because of ANOTHER nonviolent people’s campaign, the Czech and Slovak people were in a good position to move peacefully to freedom and the breakup of the old country into two new states. Of course Dubcek did not have posturing Western politicians and greedy arms companies offering him billions of pounds worth of weapons for free. Maybe he would have made a more catastrophic choice if that had been the case. Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Ukraine today – I know which one I’d choose.
I already replied to this, in detail, on another thread re Ukraine.
You have no understanding of either geographical or political or military context of events in 1968 in Czechoslovakia.
If you did you would understand why case of Ukraine is completely different.
I could rebut many of the assertions you made in your reply on the other thread and we could debate back and forth on our relative knowledge of how exactly Czechoslovakia and Ukraine are alike or different. But that would be completely missing the point. It was but one of many examples of how nonviolent protest can resist and bring down invaders and autocrats. Whats interesting about proponents of war is that they always try to assert that THIS latest war is different and unique from all the failed horrors of the past. This one really is worth fighting. Unlike all the others that ended in death and disaster. Chris Hedges, amongst others, has clearly explained how this war is unwinnable. Therefore it is clear that the West is fuelling it in order to sell weapons and bleed Putin – all with the bodies of Ukrainians. The most cynical proxy war in living memory.
I could rebut many of the assertions you made in your reply on the other thread and we could debate back and forth on our relative knowledge of how exactly Czechoslovakia and Ukraine are alike or different. But that would be completely missing the point. It was but one of many examples of how nonviolent protest can resist and bring down invaders and autocrats. Whats interesting about proponents of war is that they always try to assert that THIS latest war is different and unique from all the failed horrors of the past. This one really is worth fighting. Unlike all the others that ended in death and disaster. Chris Hedges, amongst others, has clearly explained how this war is unwinnable. Therefore it is clear that the West is fuelling it in order to sell weapons and bleed Putin – all with the bodies of Ukrainians. The most cynical proxy war in living memory.
I already replied to this, in detail, on another thread re Ukraine.
You have no understanding of either geographical or political or military context of events in 1968 in Czechoslovakia.
If you did you would understand why case of Ukraine is completely different.
Paul Bazely
1 year ago
I’ve come to the conclusion that proponents for war who say things like “sadly it involves lots of people dying”, have never actually put themselves in the shoes of the people who have to live through the carnage. Imagine being told “We’re very sad and all that, but unfortunately its “boringly straightforward”: Your wife and children will be dismembered by shells and bombs and the town you love will be reduced to rubble, but I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear that “good” will triumph over “evil” and you will be “free”. the only other alternative is a messy compromise of a peace deal and I’m sure you dont want that!”
And I find it puzzling that 100 years after Gandhi nonviolently removed an occupying army that had been digging itself in for 150 years, that intelligent journalists and politicians claim there is no alternative between war and appeasement. Here is an example of how peace could have been a policy in this conflict, there are many more. In 1968 the Red Army marched into Czechoslovakia in an unprovoked invasion. This was the same Red Army that had decimated Hitler’s Nazi forces 20 years earlier. No one can argue that their generals and leaders were not as brutal and determined as Putin. But unlike Zelensky, their leader, Alexander Dubcek, locked his army in their barracks as he rightly feared a bloodbath in which his citizens would be the losers. He awaited arrest. But in the meantime the Czech and Slovak people entered the streets unarmed and faced down the Russian tanks and soldiers. They blocked bridges, moved signposts, occupied squares, mothers and grandmothers harangued the soldiers saying that their families would be ashamed of them. The generals who had defeated Hitler had no answer to this. They had to start rotating their soldiers out of the front-line as they became “infected”. The people showed the Kremlin that they could occupy their land but that they could not govern the country. Within weeks the Kremlin came to the negotiating table, the freedom struggle was postponed but the people were allowed to keep their Govt and the Red Army withdrew with few deaths and no ruined infrastructure. Both sides compromised. And 20 years later when the Wall came down because of ANOTHER nonviolent people’s campaign, the Czech and Slovak people were in a good position to move peacefully to freedom and the breakup of the old country into two new states. Of course Dubcek did not have posturing Western politicians and greedy arms companies offering him billions of pounds worth of weapons for free. Maybe he would have made a more catastrophic choice if that had been the case. Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Ukraine today – I know which one I’d choose.
B Timothy
1 year ago
These peoples were fighting over the same dirt in the 19th Century, 1920s, and 1940s. These Slavs have killed each other by the millions over it even before this latest round. Stepping in with “good vs evil” centuries into this wider conflict is as small minded as reducing, say, Belfast into obvious zones of “good and evil” based on observing the last decade and not the previous millennia or so.
The policy of the USA extending its borders around the globe to referee these ancient blood feuds is asinine, and the idea this conflict threatens the USA is utterly laughable. What threatens us is the Global Empire, as put by BHL, that has seen us station soldiers from Eastern Europe to Okinawa in defense of the Empire.
Andrew E Walker
1 year ago
Western leaders gave no such undertaking to Mr Gorbachov.
If you referring to the allegation that the US promised that NATO would not move to the east, then you are wrong. See, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between .
James Baker, speaking with Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow:
Baker: “. . . not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction. ”
Baker: “but with the guarantee that NATO’s jurisprudence or troops will not spread east of the present boundary”
Baker: “. . . Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.”
But Gorbachev also gave an interview (here) in which he said: “The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. .. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context.
…
The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. ..
The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.”
So I’m not sure what was really agreed to.
Thank you for posting the link. It does provide a different perspective. I think there are other statements, by Europeans, on the subject. I will have to track them down.
Thank you for posting the link. It does provide a different perspective. I think there are other statements, by Europeans, on the subject. I will have to track them down.
But Gorbachev also gave an interview (here) in which he said: “The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. .. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context.
…
The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. ..
The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.”
So I’m not sure what was really agreed to.
If you referring to the allegation that the US promised that NATO would not move to the east, then you are wrong. See, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between .
James Baker, speaking with Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow:
Baker: “. . . not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction. ”
Baker: “but with the guarantee that NATO’s jurisprudence or troops will not spread east of the present boundary”
Baker: “. . . Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.”
Andrew E Walker
1 year ago
Western leaders gave no such undertaking to Mr Gorbachov.
Perry de Havilland
1 year ago
If you agree with, say, the late Jeremy Corbyn,
Although the world would be a better place if it was indeed “the late Jeremy Corbyn”, sadly the vilest politician since Oswald Mosley is still very much with us.
Otherwise, excellent article.
Last edited 1 year ago by Perry de Havilland
Perry de Havilland
1 year ago
If you agree with, say, the late Jeremy Corbyn,
Although the world would be a better place if it was indeed “the late Jeremy Corbyn”, sadly the vilest politician since Oswald Mosley is still very much with us.
Otherwise, excellent article.
Last edited 1 year ago by Perry de Havilland
martin logan
1 year ago
Strange to think that the war will validate the Western Model for the rest of this century.
Every BRICS nation is now under pressure, with many like India and Russia attempting to stay in power by the old nationalism chestnut.
Russia has already received its fatal dose of radiation. It can’t win the war, and is already too far down the line to avert economic disaster.
The lesson of this war is that only a Rule of Law nation, with an electorate convinced it has some stake in society can win. Russia’s model of a totally inert society mobilized only at the whim of a single leader is guaranteed to fail.
So farewell Multi-polar World.
We hardly knew ye!
martin logan
1 year ago
Strange to think that the war will validate the Western Model for the rest of this century.
Every BRICS nation is now under pressure, with many like India and Russia attempting to stay in power by the old nationalism chestnut.
Russia has already received its fatal dose of radiation. It can’t win the war, and is already too far down the line to avert economic disaster.
The lesson of this war is that only a Rule of Law nation, with an electorate convinced it has some stake in society can win. Russia’s model of a totally inert society mobilized only at the whim of a single leader is guaranteed to fail.
So farewell Multi-polar World.
We hardly knew ye!
J. Hale
1 year ago
Most people acknowledge that Russia was evil to invade Ukraine. Unfortunately evil exists in the world. The issue here is not how to destroy evil. The issue here is how to negotiate a peace treaty, even if it means tolerating some evil. The alternative is things could get even more out of hand, to include the use of tactical nuclear weapons to break the current stalemate.
Last edited 1 year ago by J. Hale
J. Hale
1 year ago
Most people acknowledge that Russia was evil to invade Ukraine. Unfortunately evil exists in the world. The issue here is not how to destroy evil. The issue here is how to negotiate a peace treaty, even if it means tolerating some evil. The alternative is things could get even more out of hand, to include the use of tactical nuclear weapons to break the current stalemate.
Last edited 1 year ago by J. Hale
Rod McLaughlin
1 year ago
No, it’s not complicated. On August 6th, 1945, the USA made clear it was planning the genocide of the Russian people. It made it clear again several times after that, when it asked France if it wanted a nuclear bomb on North Vietnam, and when it offered West Pakistan a nuclear attack on India. Any support for Ukraine is an act of submission to the greatest criminal organisation in history.
Rod McLaughlin
1 year ago
No, it’s not complicated. On August 6th, 1945, the USA made clear it was planning the genocide of the Russian people. It made it clear again several times after that, when it asked France if it wanted a nuclear bomb on North Vietnam, and when it offered West Pakistan a nuclear attack on India. Any support for Ukraine is an act of submission to the greatest criminal organisation in history.
martin logan
1 year ago
The real value of the talk today was to demonstrate that Putin has essentially lost the war.
Even pro-war Russians were demanding a new call-up of one to five million. That Putin said nothing about a new draft shows he has lost touch with reality.
Nations far smaller than either Russia or Ukraine could draft 300 to 500,000 from their population.
Either Putin is grossly misinformed, or he no longer lives in the real world.
But by now, it really doesn’t matter.
Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
The real value of the talk today was to demonstrate that Putin has essentially lost the war.
Even pro-war Russians were demanding a new call-up of one to five million. That Putin said nothing about a new draft shows he has lost touch with reality.
Nations far smaller than either Russia or Ukraine could draft 300 to 500,000 from their population.
Either Putin is grossly misinformed, or he no longer lives in the real world.
But by now, it really doesn’t matter.
Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Bruce Edgar
1 year ago
The imperialist threats and dying empire motifs invoked by the author apply more to America than to Russia. The war has been caused by Western Cold War thinking, and its refusal to respect long, publicly expressed Russian concerns about its borders. NATO, after all, has become an offensive–not defensive–scheme. Its un-elected leaders have united to compel their citizens to cross the red line and support undeniable provocation.
The real empire that has overstepped its bounds is the American one, not the Russian. America’s track record reveals decades of coercion, invasion, pernicious CIA regime changes, and a general brutalization of innocents around the globe. Throughout, it has used sanctions and economic threats as a weapon to coerce obedience among leaders across the globe. We know the history, we know the record. It’s a fact.
The major success of this exercise have been the collapse of European self determination, and its subsequent, sevile surrender to the godfather: USA. As an official a high in the Germany hierasrch has declared: We will continue to support Ukraine no matter what our voters want. And interestingly, thanks to western media cancellation of contrary points of view, no one has the information they need to become outraged.
Truly, we in the West now live under a new Iron Curtain.
This is understandable. Most of the significant NATO creators/members have been rapacious empires themselves. We don’t have to rehears their historical crimes.
I like this article and author. He’s so transparent. Like a gaping crevasse one can see and step around.
More garbage from another bootlicker. Imagine saying that it’s the Americans who have overreached, not the Russians, when a one-week war has lasted a year and counting. Or calling NATO offensive when Putin’s war of aggression is a year old and there are no NATO troops invading anywhere. You have to be either brainwashed or brain-dead to think such things under these circumstances.
Haha, yeah, because NATOs history of interventionism started last year. Don’t you worry, the Americans will get antsy and start another war soon, gotta keep the weapons trade humming after all.
Also, Bush and Blair killed more people just in Iraq (well over a million) than Putin has in all his military misadventures combined, so maybe have a think about throwing stones from glass houses?
Lets consider that neither the US nor UK has been banned from sports, sanctioned economically nor had their rogues gallery worth of war criminals tried for any of the many, many wars and crimes they have committed.
I could understand if people were making the argument that this is just an opportunity for the Americans to weaken the Russians (which I think is wrong, but at least honest), but no, it always includes moral grandstanding about the evil Russians, even though no great power could ever live up to the rhetoric spouted (because to be “great” you have to also do terrible things) and comes across as hypocritical trolling for anyone who remembers what prior western interventionism got us.
How many people have been killed in Syrias civil war? If you’re going to blame Blair and Bush for all those killed as a result of sectarian violence in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than just those killed by the British and Americans, surely you have to attribute all those killed in the same manner in Syria to Putin? If so I’d say that levels the scores up somewhat wouldn’t you agree?
I’m sorry but that’s hardly an apples to apples comparison. Putin didn’t invade Syria and he only entered the fray after 4 years of US machinations and support for (among others) Al Qaeda and ISIS (who were perfect gentlemen under American supervision I’m sure). Furthermore, if we start counting the deaths caused by regimes the Americans supported (the way Putin supports Assad), the numbers would skyrocket (Indonesia in the 60s is just one of many, many examples – feel free to educate yourself on the rest, though it’ll take a while).
I have no particular desire to defend Assad or Putin however, my point is more that Americans and Brits making moral arguments erodes their credibility, because you have no leg to stand on there (even if it makes you feel bad, it’s true). If you’d admit that it’s about power (and money), I wouldn’t have to point out the shameless hypocrisy of it all.
So no, I don’t really agree.
I completely agree with you. The virtue signaling, unctuousness of self-righteousness emanating from the US and the UK is absolutely nauseating. Perhaps a bit like the Crusades.
Blaming the U.S. for the Syrian civil war and absolving the Soviets for their role is laughable. Again, who had armed forces there? Russia, not the U.S. And as if “machinations” were required for a population to revolt against a dictator like Assad. What a joke.
I completely agree with you. The virtue signaling, unctuousness of self-righteousness emanating from the US and the UK is absolutely nauseating. Perhaps a bit like the Crusades.
Blaming the U.S. for the Syrian civil war and absolving the Soviets for their role is laughable. Again, who had armed forces there? Russia, not the U.S. And as if “machinations” were required for a population to revolt against a dictator like Assad. What a joke.
What exactly are you talking about given that the US is involved in Syria as well and has supported the rebel forces who are far from good or virtuous. While Assad is a thug, he is probably the best thing Syria could have to hold the place together. And I hate to say that but the same was true, in retrospect, of Saddam Hussain in Iraq. Quite frankly it’s high time the US and its UK puppy dog butted out of conflicts that are none of their business, and that includes Ukraine.
It’s worth recalling that the Monroe doctrine in the US is alive and well, and the US would not tolerate Chinese or Russian encroachment close to its borders (e.g. Mexico and Canada). Why would any sane person believe that Russia would operate and think any differently in this regard from the US.
All war is tragic but generally there are 2 sides to every story and the origins of any given war generally extend beyond the immediate proximal period. As an example, nobody would question that Hitler and Nazism was absolutely evil incarnate. But Hitler didn’t come to power in a vacuum; he came to power because of the undue burdens imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. Had a sensible treaty been enacted, Hitler would never have come to power.
The current situation in Ukraine is complex. Ukraine is not and has never been a democracy. It has always been an autocracy and a highly corrupt one at that. Frankly Ukraine is no better than Russia, other than that they have been manipulated by the US butting in to affairs that were none of their concern (e.g. the US inspired 2014 overthrow of the existing eastward looking government that was replaced by an equally corrupt western looking one, and one that has enriched the Biden family at that).
Well said! It’s nice to see someone give a clear eyed assessment of the wider picture, it comes up so rarely here. Past wars and their consequences (except WW2 and Hitler of course) just go unmentioned and forgotten, which seems myopic to me.
Funny I thought it was the Russians who sent their forces to Syria (and obviously to Ukraine), not the Americans. And so much whataboutery, so little time.
Well said! It’s nice to see someone give a clear eyed assessment of the wider picture, it comes up so rarely here. Past wars and their consequences (except WW2 and Hitler of course) just go unmentioned and forgotten, which seems myopic to me.
Funny I thought it was the Russians who sent their forces to Syria (and obviously to Ukraine), not the Americans. And so much whataboutery, so little time.
I’m sorry but that’s hardly an apples to apples comparison. Putin didn’t invade Syria and he only entered the fray after 4 years of US machinations and support for (among others) Al Qaeda and ISIS (who were perfect gentlemen under American supervision I’m sure). Furthermore, if we start counting the deaths caused by regimes the Americans supported (the way Putin supports Assad), the numbers would skyrocket (Indonesia in the 60s is just one of many, many examples – feel free to educate yourself on the rest, though it’ll take a while).
I have no particular desire to defend Assad or Putin however, my point is more that Americans and Brits making moral arguments erodes their credibility, because you have no leg to stand on there (even if it makes you feel bad, it’s true). If you’d admit that it’s about power (and money), I wouldn’t have to point out the shameless hypocrisy of it all.
So no, I don’t really agree.
What exactly are you talking about given that the US is involved in Syria as well and has supported the rebel forces who are far from good or virtuous. While Assad is a thug, he is probably the best thing Syria could have to hold the place together. And I hate to say that but the same was true, in retrospect, of Saddam Hussain in Iraq. Quite frankly it’s high time the US and its UK puppy dog butted out of conflicts that are none of their business, and that includes Ukraine.
It’s worth recalling that the Monroe doctrine in the US is alive and well, and the US would not tolerate Chinese or Russian encroachment close to its borders (e.g. Mexico and Canada). Why would any sane person believe that Russia would operate and think any differently in this regard from the US.
All war is tragic but generally there are 2 sides to every story and the origins of any given war generally extend beyond the immediate proximal period. As an example, nobody would question that Hitler and Nazism was absolutely evil incarnate. But Hitler didn’t come to power in a vacuum; he came to power because of the undue burdens imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. Had a sensible treaty been enacted, Hitler would never have come to power.
The current situation in Ukraine is complex. Ukraine is not and has never been a democracy. It has always been an autocracy and a highly corrupt one at that. Frankly Ukraine is no better than Russia, other than that they have been manipulated by the US butting in to affairs that were none of their concern (e.g. the US inspired 2014 overthrow of the existing eastward looking government that was replaced by an equally corrupt western looking one, and one that has enriched the Biden family at that).
Are we talking about “history” or about Ukraine? Which, yes, evil Putin invaded for no good reason other than Russian aggrandizement at the expense of its neighbour.
and I still have no idea what any of that has to do with the U.S. and Ukraine at this time. U.S. overreach re: :UKraine? come on. And how exactly has NATO, rather than Russia, been “offensive” in this war given they have no troops there, whereas Russia has been ineptly invading for a year now.
How many people have been killed in Syrias civil war? If you’re going to blame Blair and Bush for all those killed as a result of sectarian violence in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than just those killed by the British and Americans, surely you have to attribute all those killed in the same manner in Syria to Putin? If so I’d say that levels the scores up somewhat wouldn’t you agree?
Are we talking about “history” or about Ukraine? Which, yes, evil Putin invaded for no good reason other than Russian aggrandizement at the expense of its neighbour.
and I still have no idea what any of that has to do with the U.S. and Ukraine at this time. U.S. overreach re: :UKraine? come on. And how exactly has NATO, rather than Russia, been “offensive” in this war given they have no troops there, whereas Russia has been ineptly invading for a year now.
Haha, yeah, because NATOs history of interventionism started last year. Don’t you worry, the Americans will get antsy and start another war soon, gotta keep the weapons trade humming after all.
Also, Bush and Blair killed more people just in Iraq (well over a million) than Putin has in all his military misadventures combined, so maybe have a think about throwing stones from glass houses?
Lets consider that neither the US nor UK has been banned from sports, sanctioned economically nor had their rogues gallery worth of war criminals tried for any of the many, many wars and crimes they have committed.
I could understand if people were making the argument that this is just an opportunity for the Americans to weaken the Russians (which I think is wrong, but at least honest), but no, it always includes moral grandstanding about the evil Russians, even though no great power could ever live up to the rhetoric spouted (because to be “great” you have to also do terrible things) and comes across as hypocritical trolling for anyone who remembers what prior western interventionism got us.
More garbage from another bootlicker. Imagine saying that it’s the Americans who have overreached, not the Russians, when a one-week war has lasted a year and counting. Or calling NATO offensive when Putin’s war of aggression is a year old and there are no NATO troops invading anywhere. You have to be either brainwashed or brain-dead to think such things under these circumstances.
Well said, those downvotes tell you how right you are (even if I’m spoiling them with an upvote)!
Bruce Edgar
1 year ago
The imperialist threats and dying empire motifs invoked by the author apply more to America than to Russia. The war has been caused by Western Cold War thinking, and its refusal to respect long, publicly expressed Russian concerns about its borders. NATO, after all, has become an offensive–not defensive–scheme. Its un-elected leaders have united to compel their citizens to cross the red line and support undeniable provocation.
The real empire that has overstepped its bounds is the American one, not the Russian. America’s track record reveals decades of coercion, invasion, pernicious CIA regime changes, and a general brutalization of innocents around the globe. Throughout, it has used sanctions and economic threats as a weapon to coerce obedience among leaders across the globe. We know the history, we know the record. It’s a fact.
The major success of this exercise have been the collapse of European self determination, and its subsequent, sevile surrender to the godfather: USA. As an official a high in the Germany hierasrch has declared: We will continue to support Ukraine no matter what our voters want. And interestingly, thanks to western media cancellation of contrary points of view, no one has the information they need to become outraged.
Truly, we in the West now live under a new Iron Curtain.
This is understandable. Most of the significant NATO creators/members have been rapacious empires themselves. We don’t have to rehears their historical crimes.
I like this article and author. He’s so transparent. Like a gaping crevasse one can see and step around.
Last edited 1 year ago by Bruce Edgar
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
So now the Left are the ‘Neo-Con Warmongers’….
”Good versus evil; right versus wrong. In a complicated world, sometimes it really is that simple.”
Obviously not that simple – obvious because this Dominic has good and evil totally confused.
SEE.. Peace – you know, where the children go to school and play with their friends, and the adults go to work, and in the evening they gather at home for a family meal – and granny is not dead under the rubble, and 10 Million are not refugees, and hundreds of thousands have not been maimed, and had limbs blown off and have PTSD, and the electricity comes on, and water flows down the drain to the sewer plant, and the dogs are fed and cared for, and the people have not lost everything they worked for and their pensions and houses gone…
See Dominic – that is good.
Your warmongering is Evil
It is not that simple.
And why is granny under that rubble? Because the Oligarchs were to be replaced with Putin’s equally corrupt Oligarchs, and that Ukraine is the Biden and Clinton family’s Piggy Bank, and the Military Industrial Complex stand to make Billions and billions and everyone involved get their 10% and the MSM and Social Media want this horror show, this WWIII, for some sick reason. Because Corruption rules – and the people die but no one cares…. That is why the war is on. To save the $ and Skins of the corrupt Oligarchs, and Boris and Biden need their 10% and Trillions for Blackwater and Fink and all the WEF corporate leaders…..
Dominic – like most lefties – you think evil is good, and good is evil.
Peace Now! Hundreds of Millions will starve in the Global famine this is spawning, Billions reduced from Poverty to Abject Poverty in the global Gepression this is spawning….This is an EVIL WAR! PEACE NOW!
Peace Now, on what terms Sandford? How do you guarantee the safety and territorial integrity of Ukraine in the future to prevent Russia having another go once it’s rearmed? And what do they have to give up to the Russians in exchange?
Johnston (family ties in Crimea and openly pro-Russian) gave a realistic description of conditions for peace in the debate under the last Ukraine article. Russia, he says, would need the four Oblasts (maybe minus a few bits), Crimea, AND a guarantee that Ukraine would remain ‘fraternal and NEUTRAL’ forever. Which of course means disarmed, defenceless, and with a government that takes orders from Moscow. After that the safety and territorial integrity of Ukraine would be moot -Russia would own them. That is where the knot is in this rope.
Johnston also said that after Ukraine, which was so especially close to Russia’s heart, Putin would not bother with more conquests. Well, maybe …
This is my problem with many of the supposed pro peace comments on these articles. They all essentially blame Ukraine for fighting to repel the Russians rather than the Russians for invading in the first place. They implore that Ukraine should give up territory and control of its defence and foreign policy in order to achieve peace (effectively surrender) rather than saying the Russians should simply withdraw their forces to where they were this time last year
This is my problem with many of the supposed pro peace comments on these articles. They all essentially blame Ukraine for fighting to repel the Russians rather than the Russians for invading in the first place. They implore that Ukraine should give up territory and control of its defence and foreign policy in order to achieve peace (effectively surrender) rather than saying the Russians should simply withdraw their forces to where they were this time last year
Johnston (family ties in Crimea and openly pro-Russian) gave a realistic description of conditions for peace in the debate under the last Ukraine article. Russia, he says, would need the four Oblasts (maybe minus a few bits), Crimea, AND a guarantee that Ukraine would remain ‘fraternal and NEUTRAL’ forever. Which of course means disarmed, defenceless, and with a government that takes orders from Moscow. After that the safety and territorial integrity of Ukraine would be moot -Russia would own them. That is where the knot is in this rope.
Johnston also said that after Ukraine, which was so especially close to Russia’s heart, Putin would not bother with more conquests. Well, maybe …
All your arguments apply to any war. Since kings stopped riding in front of their troops, the foot soldiers and civilians die, and the generals, politicians and businessmen dine well. Even in WW2 it was as so.
Are you an out and out pacifist? Would you fight the evil left to bring about MAGA world, or would the cost in blood be too much?
There are many geopolitical/moral aspects of this specific war that are thoroughly debated here. Simply repeating “people are dying and the fat cats are thriving” is an admirable sentiment but CND leftist in its naivety.
I think what you do not understand is that all the above was made impossible when the Russians attacked Ukraine.
There is war because the Russians started one and it will be over when one side is defeated. It is as simple as that, the majority of Ukrainians want to fight and will fight because they know that if they don’t they will end up under the dirty boot of the barbarians.
I do not know where you are from but countries that have experienced occupation – and more so at the hand of the Russians – understand very well that sometimes the price of freedom paid in blood is worth it because the alternative is much, much worse.
“dirty boot of the barbarians”
Yeah.. reminds me a quote form a book I recently listened to..
(about the West’s perception of Russians/Slavs) —
“In fact they keep measuring our skull parameters century after century, they just invent new ways how to do it”.
Do you know for certain that the majority of Ukrainians want to fight especially since Martial Law has been instituted and any opposition to Zelensky has been silenced or crushed. For sure the people in Crimea want to be with Russia – of that there is no doubt. I’m pretty sure the same is true of eastern Ukraine. This may well extend to Odessa which is overwhelmingly Russian. My suspicion is that the majority of Ukrainians would like peace, and they frankly couldn’t care whether they were associated with Russia or not, especially the further east one goes.
You keep repeating Russian lies as ever.
Just check results of Ukraine independence referendum 1991.
No part of Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia by huge margins.
Even Crimea voted 54% for independence from Russia.
You keep repeating Russian lies as ever.
Just check results of Ukraine independence referendum 1991.
No part of Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia by huge margins.
Even Crimea voted 54% for independence from Russia.
“dirty boot of the barbarians”
Yeah.. reminds me a quote form a book I recently listened to..
(about the West’s perception of Russians/Slavs) —
“In fact they keep measuring our skull parameters century after century, they just invent new ways how to do it”.
Do you know for certain that the majority of Ukrainians want to fight especially since Martial Law has been instituted and any opposition to Zelensky has been silenced or crushed. For sure the people in Crimea want to be with Russia – of that there is no doubt. I’m pretty sure the same is true of eastern Ukraine. This may well extend to Odessa which is overwhelmingly Russian. My suspicion is that the majority of Ukrainians would like peace, and they frankly couldn’t care whether they were associated with Russia or not, especially the further east one goes.
Peace Now, on what terms Sandford? How do you guarantee the safety and territorial integrity of Ukraine in the future to prevent Russia having another go once it’s rearmed? And what do they have to give up to the Russians in exchange?
All your arguments apply to any war. Since kings stopped riding in front of their troops, the foot soldiers and civilians die, and the generals, politicians and businessmen dine well. Even in WW2 it was as so.
Are you an out and out pacifist? Would you fight the evil left to bring about MAGA world, or would the cost in blood be too much?
There are many geopolitical/moral aspects of this specific war that are thoroughly debated here. Simply repeating “people are dying and the fat cats are thriving” is an admirable sentiment but CND leftist in its naivety.
I think what you do not understand is that all the above was made impossible when the Russians attacked Ukraine.
There is war because the Russians started one and it will be over when one side is defeated. It is as simple as that, the majority of Ukrainians want to fight and will fight because they know that if they don’t they will end up under the dirty boot of the barbarians.
I do not know where you are from but countries that have experienced occupation – and more so at the hand of the Russians – understand very well that sometimes the price of freedom paid in blood is worth it because the alternative is much, much worse.
Last edited 1 year ago by David Fülöp
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
So now the Left are the ‘Neo-Con Warmongers’….
”Good versus evil; right versus wrong. In a complicated world, sometimes it really is that simple.”
Obviously not that simple – obvious because this Dominic has good and evil totally confused.
SEE.. Peace – you know, where the children go to school and play with their friends, and the adults go to work, and in the evening they gather at home for a family meal – and granny is not dead under the rubble, and 10 Million are not refugees, and hundreds of thousands have not been maimed, and had limbs blown off and have PTSD, and the electricity comes on, and water flows down the drain to the sewer plant, and the dogs are fed and cared for, and the people have not lost everything they worked for and their pensions and houses gone…
See Dominic – that is good.
Your warmongering is Evil
It is not that simple.
And why is granny under that rubble? Because the Oligarchs were to be replaced with Putin’s equally corrupt Oligarchs, and that Ukraine is the Biden and Clinton family’s Piggy Bank, and the Military Industrial Complex stand to make Billions and billions and everyone involved get their 10% and the MSM and Social Media want this horror show, this WWIII, for some sick reason. Because Corruption rules – and the people die but no one cares…. That is why the war is on. To save the $ and Skins of the corrupt Oligarchs, and Boris and Biden need their 10% and Trillions for Blackwater and Fink and all the WEF corporate leaders…..
Dominic – like most lefties – you think evil is good, and good is evil.
Peace Now! Hundreds of Millions will starve in the Global famine this is spawning, Billions reduced from Poverty to Abject Poverty in the global Gepression this is spawning….This is an EVIL WAR! PEACE NOW!
This time, Sandbrook has nailed it. I’d always had great regard for his writing but he’s now able to see clearly how his equivocation at the outset of the conflict in Ukraine set him on an initial path he wasn’t quite sure he wanted to take. That led to some doubts about him in articles he’s written for Unherd, as his voice became clouded. The clouds have now been parted.
His use of the phrase “the cheap and tawdry attractions of contrarianism” sums up a good deal of what we’ve been reading, not just in articles by other writers but also in the Comments section. Of course, those who disagree will label this as unfair labelling, but one thing that stands out amongst the contrarians is the vehemence with which they often try to convince others; the type of vehemence which i always think suggests they’re not really that sure themselves but just enjoy taking the contrarian approach.
This, in contrast to the usually quiet but steady refusal to see the conflict for anything but what it actually is: and Sandbrook’s epiphany has it right. Good v Evil. Not evil in the nefarious sense of a hidden force in operation, but the outright evil of actions in plain sight which we’ve witnessed from the Russian forces since the outset, instigated by a mindset removed from human values in search of authoritarian conquest.
Welcome back, Mr Sandbrook, we’ve missed you.
Addendum: by the ‘late’ Jeremy Corbyn, i assume he’s referring to his political career!
The contrarian narrative always relies on the idea that the US provoked Russia who was forced to respond. Is it seriously suggested that even if the Ukraine did in fact eventually join NATO that Ukraine and its new allies intended to sweep into Russia to seize Stalingrad and move on to seize the oilfields of Russia as Germany sought to do in WW2. The idea is patently absurd to any but the most conspiracy minded anti-US loon.
Putin’s move was analogous to the pre-WW2 invasion of Czechoslovakia to “protect” the Sudetenland Germans, Germany’s final demand. Our appeasement cost us dear in that case. Why would Putin not wish to make other revanchist recoveries of former Soviet territory given his views had Ukraine not been aided.
Peace can always be bought temporarily at the expense of concessions and servitude and that is Ukraine’s call not ours although I suspect the West will not be inclined to aid the fight for the recovery of the Crimea.
Your are perfectly correct, Russia is “guilty as charged “.
However the US does have a rather murky record of fabricated provocation, eg: The USS Maine, Pearl Harbour and Saddam ‘Insane’’ to name just three.
Don’t think trying to halt a Japanese take over of SE Asia was. a “fabrication.”
Unwise, perhaps, but not fabricated.
Where do you get this stuff?
The US had coveted China since the Boxer Rebellion if not before.
They had forced the ‘pesky’ British to abrogate the 1904 Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty, whilst simultaneously negotiating the Washington Disarmament Treaty of 1922, which further emasculated the bankrupt Brits.
Then the wretched Japanese had the temerity to strike first and invade China. From there on war between Japan and the US was inevitable.
Sadly the Japanese master mind behind the attack on Pearl Harbour, Isoroku Yamamoto new full well that Japan could never defeat the US, but his “was not to reason why”. But surely you know all this stuff?
Mr logan only knows how to speak propaganda.
I’m sure he means well!
Yes or something. He loves his cause I’ll give him that.
He’s given me a lot of stick. I thought I’d return the favour.
Yes or something. He loves his cause I’ll give him that.
He’s given me a lot of stick. I thought I’d return the favour.
I’m sure he means well!
Mr logan only knows how to speak propaganda.
The US had coveted China since the Boxer Rebellion if not before.
They had forced the ‘pesky’ British to abrogate the 1904 Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty, whilst simultaneously negotiating the Washington Disarmament Treaty of 1922, which further emasculated the bankrupt Brits.
Then the wretched Japanese had the temerity to strike first and invade China. From there on war between Japan and the US was inevitable.
Sadly the Japanese master mind behind the attack on Pearl Harbour, Isoroku Yamamoto new full well that Japan could never defeat the US, but his “was not to reason why”. But surely you know all this stuff?
I can accept the theory that the US might have allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor in order to join the war as a responder rather than an initiator, even though I would say it is less than a 50/50 shot given the damage the fleet sustained, but fabricated? Really?
Fabricated? well lets say engineered. The American populace were not minded to go to war so something had to be done to change their mindset. Roosevelt knew several days before the attack on Pearl Harbour that it was going to happen, Japanese signals traffic had been intercepted and codes broken. He was prepared to accept the damage as being the only way of getting the American people on the side of WAR.
In terms of the hardware of all the ships based in Pearl at that time the only ones which were strategically important and irreplaceable in a short timescale were the carriers and by coincidence they were not in the harbour during the attack.
Well in order that we don’t get bogged down with semantics I’ll agree with “engineered”.
Given the fact that US was rather annoyed that the Japanese had invaded China,
it had used the League of Nations to deploy a plethora sanctions, culminating with oil to coerce the Japs (sic). Additionally it arranged that the US Fleet be kept at Pearl Harbour much to the annoyance of its Commander!
As you rightly say the “Day of Infamy “ attack was hardly a surprise, at least to FDR & Co.
It was also remarkably convenient that none of Carriers were in port, as Taranto a year earlier had proved their worth whilst also underlining the obsolescence of Battleships.
Coincidentally the ‘butchers bill’ for all this was just over 2,400 uncannily similar to 9/11 sixty years later.
As early as April 1940 Royal Navy Skua dive bombers sank the German cruiser Königsberg, the first major warship sunk in war by air attack and by dive-bombers.
Thank you, I had sadly forgotten that.
Thank you, I had sadly forgotten that.
As early as April 1940 Royal Navy Skua dive bombers sank the German cruiser Königsberg, the first major warship sunk in war by air attack and by dive-bombers.
Well in order that we don’t get bogged down with semantics I’ll agree with “engineered”.
Given the fact that US was rather annoyed that the Japanese had invaded China,
it had used the League of Nations to deploy a plethora sanctions, culminating with oil to coerce the Japs (sic). Additionally it arranged that the US Fleet be kept at Pearl Harbour much to the annoyance of its Commander!
As you rightly say the “Day of Infamy “ attack was hardly a surprise, at least to FDR & Co.
It was also remarkably convenient that none of Carriers were in port, as Taranto a year earlier had proved their worth whilst also underlining the obsolescence of Battleships.
Coincidentally the ‘butchers bill’ for all this was just over 2,400 uncannily similar to 9/11 sixty years later.
Fabricated? well lets say engineered. The American populace were not minded to go to war so something had to be done to change their mindset. Roosevelt knew several days before the attack on Pearl Harbour that it was going to happen, Japanese signals traffic had been intercepted and codes broken. He was prepared to accept the damage as being the only way of getting the American people on the side of WAR.
In terms of the hardware of all the ships based in Pearl at that time the only ones which were strategically important and irreplaceable in a short timescale were the carriers and by coincidence they were not in the harbour during the attack.
You really think Pearl Habour was fabricated? We’re those not Japanese fighters?
He might be asserting that the US knew about the attack and let it happen anyway. There is little actual evidence for this theory other than the British had broken the Japanese code and might have told the Americans, and that America’s carriers, which proved decisive in the war, were out on maneuvers at the time, a suspicious coincidence but not really evidence. The importance of the carriers is hindsight anyway. They weren’t viewed as the centerpieces of the American Navy until after they had proved themselves in the war. The British might have known and looked the other way, though the evidence even for that is pretty thin. He could also be referring to the fact that the US oil embargo prompted the Japanese response, which is true, but to respond to economic warfare with violence is hardly justified. The US was aware that they could and likely would be attacked by Japan somewhere in the Pacific at some point in time, but they did not know the time and place, nor expect a surprise attack. Either way, Pearl Harbor does not belong in the same universe with the Iraq fiasco or even the Maine.
I am sorry but your attempt to portray the USA as SNOW WHITE just won’t do.
Firstly to say that: “to respond to economic warfare with violence is hardly justified” is just naive. It happens all the time as you people say. Economic warfare is just another weapon and the US used it assiduously against the Japanese to further their own national interest. Nothing odd in that, just don’t deny it!
Secondly one of FDR’s closest aides (whose name escapes me) was heavily implicated in provoking the war with Japan and even later forced to account for his actions, but as I recall rather conveniently died before the matter was resolved.
Then this odd remark: “The importance of the carriers is hindsight anyway. They weren’t viewed as the centerpieces of the American Navy until after they had proved themselves in the war.” So the US Navy was blissfully unaware that the year previously Carrier aircraft from the Royal Navy had sunk three Italian Battleships, including their latest the Littorio, in Taranto Harbour! Frankly I find that impossible to believe as I am certain any member of the US Navy would. Off course the Japanese took very careful note of it, as one might expect.
Off course besides, the Maine, Pear Harbour, and Saddam there is also the War of 1812 and perhaps even 9/11 but that is for another day.
Not saying the US is snow white. I’m just saying you should use better examples. The Iraq War is a great example of bad behavior by the US government. There are others, but the two you named are two of the more justified conflicts in America’s history. The Mexican War, on the other hand, was pretty much a straightforward war of conquest with far less justification than the Spanish American war or WWII. There’s also the annexation of Florida, which was largely a result of an unauthorized invasion by then general and later president Andrew Jackson. And then there’s the treatment of Native Americans which includes so many misdeeds that volumes could be and have been written on it. Or that time the US sent an army into Mexico to catch one criminal. For that matter, the US entered WWI over the sinking of a boat that it has been conclusively determined was, in fact, secretly carrying munitions to the allies to avoid German u-boat attacks. Instead you picked WWII, defending a country that sided with the Nazis, and the Spanish American war, which was one of the few historical examples of any country aiding a rebellion against a colonial European power. If you’re going to fire criticisms at America, at least pick some decent ammunition. There’s plenty of it.
Not saying the US is snow white. I’m just saying you should use better examples. The Iraq War is a great example of bad behavior by the US government. There are others, but the two you named are two of the more justified conflicts in America’s history. The Mexican War, on the other hand, was pretty much a straightforward war of conquest with far less justification than the Spanish American war or WWII. There’s also the annexation of Florida, which was largely a result of an unauthorized invasion by then general and later president Andrew Jackson. And then there’s the treatment of Native Americans which includes so many misdeeds that volumes could be and have been written on it. Or that time the US sent an army into Mexico to catch one criminal. For that matter, the US entered WWI over the sinking of a boat that it has been conclusively determined was, in fact, secretly carrying munitions to the allies to avoid German u-boat attacks. Instead you picked WWII, defending a country that sided with the Nazis, and the Spanish American war, which was one of the few historical examples of any country aiding a rebellion against a colonial European power. If you’re going to fire criticisms at America, at least pick some decent ammunition. There’s plenty of it.
I am sorry but your attempt to portray the USA as SNOW WHITE just won’t do.
Firstly to say that: “to respond to economic warfare with violence is hardly justified” is just naive. It happens all the time as you people say. Economic warfare is just another weapon and the US used it assiduously against the Japanese to further their own national interest. Nothing odd in that, just don’t deny it!
Secondly one of FDR’s closest aides (whose name escapes me) was heavily implicated in provoking the war with Japan and even later forced to account for his actions, but as I recall rather conveniently died before the matter was resolved.
Then this odd remark: “The importance of the carriers is hindsight anyway. They weren’t viewed as the centerpieces of the American Navy until after they had proved themselves in the war.” So the US Navy was blissfully unaware that the year previously Carrier aircraft from the Royal Navy had sunk three Italian Battleships, including their latest the Littorio, in Taranto Harbour! Frankly I find that impossible to believe as I am certain any member of the US Navy would. Off course the Japanese took very careful note of it, as one might expect.
Off course besides, the Maine, Pear Harbour, and Saddam there is also the War of 1812 and perhaps even 9/11 but that is for another day.
Torpedo bombers technically.
He might be asserting that the US knew about the attack and let it happen anyway. There is little actual evidence for this theory other than the British had broken the Japanese code and might have told the Americans, and that America’s carriers, which proved decisive in the war, were out on maneuvers at the time, a suspicious coincidence but not really evidence. The importance of the carriers is hindsight anyway. They weren’t viewed as the centerpieces of the American Navy until after they had proved themselves in the war. The British might have known and looked the other way, though the evidence even for that is pretty thin. He could also be referring to the fact that the US oil embargo prompted the Japanese response, which is true, but to respond to economic warfare with violence is hardly justified. The US was aware that they could and likely would be attacked by Japan somewhere in the Pacific at some point in time, but they did not know the time and place, nor expect a surprise attack. Either way, Pearl Harbor does not belong in the same universe with the Iraq fiasco or even the Maine.
Torpedo bombers technically.
Serbia and Libya to name another two.
The cause of the sinking of the Maine has never been conclusively proven one way or the other, accident or mine. Whether that was the real cause for the Spanish American War is a question as well. There was already a faction in the US government that wanted to intervene on behalf of Cuba against Spain. That’s long enough ago to qualify as ancient history anyway. I’m not sure why you include Pearl Harbor. It was a surprise attack not preceded by a declaration of war. I grant the US’s economic warfare was an important instigating factor, but there was going to be a struggle of some type for control of the Pacific regardless. Let the record show that the Japanese were the first to resort to outright warfare. Iraq, of course, was a blunder pretty much everybody agrees on. I consider Bush the second worst President in America’s history, Woodrow Wilson being the worst.
I like the memorial to the Maine in Grand Central Park and am delighted to find an American who still thinks the Spanish could seriously be MAD enough to sink her. Bravo!
Incidentally I presume your third worst President would be James Madison?
A ‘slaver’ who led you to defeat in the War of 1812, and allowed ‘us’ to burn or torch as you say) the White House and all the Public Buildings in Washington DC to the ground?
I don’t think the Spanish intentionally sunk the Maine. They weren’t stupid enough to think they could win a war with the US. They were, however, doing some pretty nasty things in an attempt to hold onto their remaining colonial possessions. The Maine either struck a mine or it was an accidental munitions explosion. Nobody knows which. It has still not been proven one way or the other, Besides, it was the news media, particularly the papers owned by William Randolph Hearst, not the US government, that used the Maine as their excuse to push a pro-war agenda, though there was already a pro-war faction in the government anyway. The War of 1812 was a mess precipitated by bad behavior on the part of both sides. Both sides contributed to instigating that conflict.
Well whatever happened to the Maine it was a jolly convenient excuse for the start of the Pax Americana* rampage! An Empire in all but name!
As for your contention that : “They (the Spanish)were, however, doing some pretty nasty things in an attempt to hold onto their remaining colonial possessions”
.
Really, that sounds like Snow White again!
Whatever the Spanish were or were not doing they pale into insignificance compared to the myriad of genocidal ‘smash & grab’ raids against the indigenous population that the US perpetrated between the 1783 and circa 1900, do they not?
As for 1812 you know as well as I that it was a blatant attempt to grab Canada. Even that hypocritical old slaver Thomas Jefferson** said as much, “it’s only a matter of marching “.
This off course is NOT to say that the US is the Great Satan, far from it . As world Hegemonies go it has been remarkably generous, but it is disingenuous to try an exculpate it from the odd outrage.
(* Some might say this started with the ‘acquisition’ of Hawaii, somewhat earlier.)
(** Founding Father indeed, more like Founding Pervert from what I heard at Monticello years ago.)
Well whatever happened to the Maine it was a jolly convenient excuse for the start of the Pax Americana* rampage! An Empire in all but name!
As for your contention that : “They (the Spanish)were, however, doing some pretty nasty things in an attempt to hold onto their remaining colonial possessions”
.
Really, that sounds like Snow White again!
Whatever the Spanish were or were not doing they pale into insignificance compared to the myriad of genocidal ‘smash & grab’ raids against the indigenous population that the US perpetrated between the 1783 and circa 1900, do they not?
As for 1812 you know as well as I that it was a blatant attempt to grab Canada. Even that hypocritical old slaver Thomas Jefferson** said as much, “it’s only a matter of marching “.
This off course is NOT to say that the US is the Great Satan, far from it . As world Hegemonies go it has been remarkably generous, but it is disingenuous to try an exculpate it from the odd outrage.
(* Some might say this started with the ‘acquisition’ of Hawaii, somewhat earlier.)
(** Founding Father indeed, more like Founding Pervert from what I heard at Monticello years ago.)
I don’t think the Spanish intentionally sunk the Maine. They weren’t stupid enough to think they could win a war with the US. They were, however, doing some pretty nasty things in an attempt to hold onto their remaining colonial possessions. The Maine either struck a mine or it was an accidental munitions explosion. Nobody knows which. It has still not been proven one way or the other, Besides, it was the news media, particularly the papers owned by William Randolph Hearst, not the US government, that used the Maine as their excuse to push a pro-war agenda, though there was already a pro-war faction in the government anyway. The War of 1812 was a mess precipitated by bad behavior on the part of both sides. Both sides contributed to instigating that conflict.
I like the memorial to the Maine in Grand Central Park and am delighted to find an American who still thinks the Spanish could seriously be MAD enough to sink her. Bravo!
Incidentally I presume your third worst President would be James Madison?
A ‘slaver’ who led you to defeat in the War of 1812, and allowed ‘us’ to burn or torch as you say) the White House and all the Public Buildings in Washington DC to the ground?
Don’t think trying to halt a Japanese take over of SE Asia was. a “fabrication.”
Unwise, perhaps, but not fabricated.
Where do you get this stuff?
I can accept the theory that the US might have allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor in order to join the war as a responder rather than an initiator, even though I would say it is less than a 50/50 shot given the damage the fleet sustained, but fabricated? Really?
You really think Pearl Habour was fabricated? We’re those not Japanese fighters?
Serbia and Libya to name another two.
The cause of the sinking of the Maine has never been conclusively proven one way or the other, accident or mine. Whether that was the real cause for the Spanish American War is a question as well. There was already a faction in the US government that wanted to intervene on behalf of Cuba against Spain. That’s long enough ago to qualify as ancient history anyway. I’m not sure why you include Pearl Harbor. It was a surprise attack not preceded by a declaration of war. I grant the US’s economic warfare was an important instigating factor, but there was going to be a struggle of some type for control of the Pacific regardless. Let the record show that the Japanese were the first to resort to outright warfare. Iraq, of course, was a blunder pretty much everybody agrees on. I consider Bush the second worst President in America’s history, Woodrow Wilson being the worst.
Your are perfectly correct, Russia is “guilty as charged “.
However the US does have a rather murky record of fabricated provocation, eg: The USS Maine, Pearl Harbour and Saddam ‘Insane’’ to name just three.
“Be careful what you wish for…………..”*
(*Aesop.)
Fabulous!
Fabulous!
Frankly another article supporting the group think Russia bad Putin Evil etc. These are things that UnHerd claims to challenge.
However I do not propose to go on at length about this I would just ask you to read or watch the following links :-
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2023/february/08/setting-the-record-straight-stuff-you-should-know-about-ukraine/.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-chief-belatedly-admits-war-didnt-start-february-last-year-war-started-2014/
Actually it started before 2014, see the first five minutes of this :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnut-E_eEM0
Think on the fact that Blackrock and others of the tribe has a win win bet on this war going on, they make a fortune with their investments in the MIC, If Ukrain should win then they will make a fortune out of the rebuilding of Ukraine, if Russia wins then Blackrock (and others) have a very serious problem. That is the real driver for this war.
Thank you! You’re not gonna get much support for that position in this comment thread, but some of us appreciate it. Here’s another podcast that summarizes the situation succinctly and accurately:
https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/the-cost-of-ukraine
And if you REALLY want a deep dive, this guy put out a fantastic historical analysis on 3/13/22:
https://martyrmade.com/
Some of that Ron Paul stuff in your link made me rethink even the venerable George Kennan just now, but I’m already jaundiced from reading about the diabolical machinations of the Dulles brothers…
The Devil’s Chessboard is a great book about Dulles.
Thank you but someone has to tell it like it is however unpopular the truth is. Russia under Putin has been vilified without stop and unjustifiably and this is simply because he put a stop to the carpet bagging of Russian resources post 2000.
The Devil’s Chessboard is a great book about Dulles.
Thank you but someone has to tell it like it is however unpopular the truth is. Russia under Putin has been vilified without stop and unjustifiably and this is simply because he put a stop to the carpet bagging of Russian resources post 2000.
The Hidden Hand of Blackrock!!
Obviously, US foreign policy isn’t governed by a complex process of decision making, which sometimes goes wrong.
It’s just a few corrupt Players constantly bamboozling 100s of thousands in the Defense and State Depts.
Even a child can see it.
Bamboozling? No, buying with a touch of blackmail much more probable.
Go do a bit of research on the BIS, its structures and the banking Mafia behind it.
Bamboozling? No, buying with a touch of blackmail much more probable.
Go do a bit of research on the BIS, its structures and the banking Mafia behind it.
It’s all the fault of some shadowy private security firm is it? Save that script for the next Bourne movie
Who said that? I didn’t. Listen carefully to what Macgregor says about money in the first five minutes of the referenced clip.
Who said that? I didn’t. Listen carefully to what Macgregor says about money in the first five minutes of the referenced clip.
Much of those references deny history of the Donbas region. While quite true that money spurs conflict and recovery it’s Putin’s choices that dominate. He alone can end the war. Meanwhile lives will be lost. In the end the Ukrainians are not going to stop in their efforts to refuse Russia. The glory days of the USSR and subjugation of populations can’t be repeated.
There are two sides or in this case three to this conflict, NATO needs to buttout it is not an issue that they and the US / Britain had any business involving themselves in.
That leaves two sides, back in April Zelensky showed that he was prepared to negotiate a settlement with Russia, then Johnson arrives in KIEV and talks him out of it. Even now Zelensky could do the right thing by his people and surrender. I see absolutely no desire by Russia to subjugate anybody.
In the end those Ukrainians left will have to watch as the eastern part of the Ukraine, Donbass as far south as Odessa go of and live as part of a country / Regime that they want to live in, while the rest of the Ukraine will have to live in penury as their country is being reconstructed under the western banking mafia.
There are two sides or in this case three to this conflict, NATO needs to buttout it is not an issue that they and the US / Britain had any business involving themselves in.
That leaves two sides, back in April Zelensky showed that he was prepared to negotiate a settlement with Russia, then Johnson arrives in KIEV and talks him out of it. Even now Zelensky could do the right thing by his people and surrender. I see absolutely no desire by Russia to subjugate anybody.
In the end those Ukrainians left will have to watch as the eastern part of the Ukraine, Donbass as far south as Odessa go of and live as part of a country / Regime that they want to live in, while the rest of the Ukraine will have to live in penury as their country is being reconstructed under the western banking mafia.
Thank you! You’re not gonna get much support for that position in this comment thread, but some of us appreciate it. Here’s another podcast that summarizes the situation succinctly and accurately:
https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/the-cost-of-ukraine
And if you REALLY want a deep dive, this guy put out a fantastic historical analysis on 3/13/22:
https://martyrmade.com/
Some of that Ron Paul stuff in your link made me rethink even the venerable George Kennan just now, but I’m already jaundiced from reading about the diabolical machinations of the Dulles brothers…
The Hidden Hand of Blackrock!!
Obviously, US foreign policy isn’t governed by a complex process of decision making, which sometimes goes wrong.
It’s just a few corrupt Players constantly bamboozling 100s of thousands in the Defense and State Depts.
Even a child can see it.
It’s all the fault of some shadowy private security firm is it? Save that script for the next Bourne movie
Much of those references deny history of the Donbas region. While quite true that money spurs conflict and recovery it’s Putin’s choices that dominate. He alone can end the war. Meanwhile lives will be lost. In the end the Ukrainians are not going to stop in their efforts to refuse Russia. The glory days of the USSR and subjugation of populations can’t be repeated.
Nice words shallow thoughts..!
“His use of the phrase “the cheap and tawdry attractions of contrarianism” sums up a good deal of what we’ve been reading, not just in articles by other writers but also in the Comments section.”
100%.
“A year ago, as Vladimir Putin launched his so-called “special military operation” to seize the Ukrainian capital, kill Volodymyr Zelenskyy and wipe much of the latter’s country from the map of Europe”
The author is suggesting that Putin invaded Ukraine with less than 200,000 troops despite obviously being aware that Ukraine had an army of 780,000 well trained and supplied by the USA?
That would suggest as well as being evil and mad, Putin was also an idiot. No one who can survive at the top of the Russian hierarchy for 20 plus years is an idiot.
I recommend reading the Ukrainian cease fire monitor reports for the last few years.
The contrarian narrative always relies on the idea that the US provoked Russia who was forced to respond. Is it seriously suggested that even if the Ukraine did in fact eventually join NATO that Ukraine and its new allies intended to sweep into Russia to seize Stalingrad and move on to seize the oilfields of Russia as Germany sought to do in WW2. The idea is patently absurd to any but the most conspiracy minded anti-US loon.
Putin’s move was analogous to the pre-WW2 invasion of Czechoslovakia to “protect” the Sudetenland Germans, Germany’s final demand. Our appeasement cost us dear in that case. Why would Putin not wish to make other revanchist recoveries of former Soviet territory given his views had Ukraine not been aided.
Peace can always be bought temporarily at the expense of concessions and servitude and that is Ukraine’s call not ours although I suspect the West will not be inclined to aid the fight for the recovery of the Crimea.
“Be careful what you wish for…………..”*
(*Aesop.)
Frankly another article supporting the group think Russia bad Putin Evil etc. These are things that UnHerd claims to challenge.
However I do not propose to go on at length about this I would just ask you to read or watch the following links :-
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2023/february/08/setting-the-record-straight-stuff-you-should-know-about-ukraine/.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-chief-belatedly-admits-war-didnt-start-february-last-year-war-started-2014/
Actually it started before 2014, see the first five minutes of this :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnut-E_eEM0
Think on the fact that Blackrock and others of the tribe has a win win bet on this war going on, they make a fortune with their investments in the MIC, If Ukrain should win then they will make a fortune out of the rebuilding of Ukraine, if Russia wins then Blackrock (and others) have a very serious problem. That is the real driver for this war.
Nice words shallow thoughts..!
“His use of the phrase “the cheap and tawdry attractions of contrarianism” sums up a good deal of what we’ve been reading, not just in articles by other writers but also in the Comments section.”
100%.
“A year ago, as Vladimir Putin launched his so-called “special military operation” to seize the Ukrainian capital, kill Volodymyr Zelenskyy and wipe much of the latter’s country from the map of Europe”
The author is suggesting that Putin invaded Ukraine with less than 200,000 troops despite obviously being aware that Ukraine had an army of 780,000 well trained and supplied by the USA?
That would suggest as well as being evil and mad, Putin was also an idiot. No one who can survive at the top of the Russian hierarchy for 20 plus years is an idiot.
I recommend reading the Ukrainian cease fire monitor reports for the last few years.
This time, Sandbrook has nailed it. I’d always had great regard for his writing but he’s now able to see clearly how his equivocation at the outset of the conflict in Ukraine set him on an initial path he wasn’t quite sure he wanted to take. That led to some doubts about him in articles he’s written for Unherd, as his voice became clouded. The clouds have now been parted.
His use of the phrase “the cheap and tawdry attractions of contrarianism” sums up a good deal of what we’ve been reading, not just in articles by other writers but also in the Comments section. Of course, those who disagree will label this as unfair labelling, but one thing that stands out amongst the contrarians is the vehemence with which they often try to convince others; the type of vehemence which i always think suggests they’re not really that sure themselves but just enjoy taking the contrarian approach.
This, in contrast to the usually quiet but steady refusal to see the conflict for anything but what it actually is: and Sandbrook’s epiphany has it right. Good v Evil. Not evil in the nefarious sense of a hidden force in operation, but the outright evil of actions in plain sight which we’ve witnessed from the Russian forces since the outset, instigated by a mindset removed from human values in search of authoritarian conquest.
Welcome back, Mr Sandbrook, we’ve missed you.
Addendum: by the ‘late’ Jeremy Corbyn, i assume he’s referring to his political career!
I’ve become quite a fan of Dominic Sandbrook along with his partner Tom Holland on their Rest is History Club and podcast. Really just a terrific project that has me addicted to the point of annoying my wife as I roam the house with ear pods in oblivious to any conversation she might attempt to offer. The great downside is that I’m not reading books nearly as much and that’s not a good thing.
With regard to this piece however I have some significant reservations. As a Canadian I’m fully aware of our neighbour’s tendency to exceptionalism to the point of bullying at times. We also live under the umbrella of the Monroe Doctrine that is still in full effect in this hemisphere so I have some hesitation about American interference around the globe and how that can be perceived at times. Americans would never tolerate even ‘defensive alliances’ with major foreign powers near its borders and have demonstrated that from time to time.
Another reservation has to do with run up to the war where it struck me that the Americans were intent on provoking the Russians. In Aug. of 21 Zelensky was in the Oval Office…heady stuff for a comedic actor. In Nov. 21 the U.S./Ukraine Strategic Partnership that many observers saw as a final green light for NATO membership was signed in Washington. (Robert Service at Oxford University called it the biggest blunder in post Soviet relations with Russia.) In Dec. 21 Russia wrote the Biden administration asking that NATO membership for Ukraine be ruled out. In December 22 Blinken replied “absolutely not”. We all know what followed in February.
I think more could have been done in those critical months to head off this war but none of the parties seemed interested.
And now we have a conflict where there will be no real winners but just a great deal of human suffering that will scar this region for a generation.
oh please. the only “provocations” come from Putin. NATO “expansionism” is a ridiculous way to describe the justifiable desires of the peoples of the countries formerly dominated and controlled by the SU for protection from revived Russian expansionism.
And what exactly was the point of Ukraine joining NATO in the first place? Avoiding war or something?
They never did. The Baltic states are the only countries which had been part of the Soviet Union to join NATO. Had Ukraine been a member of NATO, Putin would not have dared to attack, as Article 5 would have meant in doing so, he would need to fight all of NATO, not just NATO’s war production and Ukrainian soliders as is happening, but the armed might of all members of NATO.
Obviously they never did. You might be aware that for many years there were discussions between NATO and Ukraine regarding membership. Thus my semi-rhetorical question.
Obviously they never did. You might be aware that for many years there were discussions between NATO and Ukraine regarding membership. Thus my semi-rhetorical question.
The events of the last year would give a good indication of why Ukraine (along with almost every other nation in Eastern Europe) wanted to join NATO
Yes of course, but why would we/NATO want them to join exactly?
Of course Ukraine wanted to join. What was the purpose from NATO’s point of view?
Yes of course, but why would we/NATO want them to join exactly?
Of course Ukraine wanted to join. What was the purpose from NATO’s point of view?
Yes. And had it actually joined, there wouldn’t have been a war. But it didn’t. So Putin invaded, using NATO expansion as a pretext.
So one might assert that the Ukraine -> NATO strategy didn’t work out so well if the goal was to actually, you know, prevent war, given what we’ve long known about Putin. I’m sure he was happy to be handed that pretext on a nice shiny silver platter.
So one might assert that the Ukraine -> NATO strategy didn’t work out so well if the goal was to actually, you know, prevent war, given what we’ve long known about Putin. I’m sure he was happy to be handed that pretext on a nice shiny silver platter.
They never did. The Baltic states are the only countries which had been part of the Soviet Union to join NATO. Had Ukraine been a member of NATO, Putin would not have dared to attack, as Article 5 would have meant in doing so, he would need to fight all of NATO, not just NATO’s war production and Ukrainian soliders as is happening, but the armed might of all members of NATO.
The events of the last year would give a good indication of why Ukraine (along with almost every other nation in Eastern Europe) wanted to join NATO
Yes. And had it actually joined, there wouldn’t have been a war. But it didn’t. So Putin invaded, using NATO expansion as a pretext.
Not really, NATO trampled on Russian interests in the Balkans in the 1990s by deciding that the Serbs, Russia’s coreligionists and traditional allies, were the only villains in a fratricidal war in which all sides committed atrocities and war crimes. Wesley Clark nearly started WW III by ordering an attack on Russians flown in to join the peace-keeping effort, and it was only a British officer refusing to carry out the order that prevented it. There were also all the CIA-sponsored “color revolutions” to overthrow pro-Russian governments in Russia’s “near abroad”.
The trouble is, to hold NATO responsible for what is going on, one has to take the position that the Treaty of Versailles justified Hitler’s seizure of Czechoslovakia and invasion of Poland, since the circumstances are entirely analogous.
You can’t have it both ways.
Depends on how farback in history you want to go.
If the treaty had been different then likely Hitler would have had far less excuse, Who benefitted from the Treaty as written?
Depends on how farback in history you want to go.
If the treaty had been different then likely Hitler would have had far less excuse, Who benefitted from the Treaty as written?
You can’t have it both ways.
And what exactly was the point of Ukraine joining NATO in the first place? Avoiding war or something?
Not really, NATO trampled on Russian interests in the Balkans in the 1990s by deciding that the Serbs, Russia’s coreligionists and traditional allies, were the only villains in a fratricidal war in which all sides committed atrocities and war crimes. Wesley Clark nearly started WW III by ordering an attack on Russians flown in to join the peace-keeping effort, and it was only a British officer refusing to carry out the order that prevented it. There were also all the CIA-sponsored “color revolutions” to overthrow pro-Russian governments in Russia’s “near abroad”.
The trouble is, to hold NATO responsible for what is going on, one has to take the position that the Treaty of Versailles justified Hitler’s seizure of Czechoslovakia and invasion of Poland, since the circumstances are entirely analogous.
History is full no doubt of errors and missteps. However Russia – from a strong position actually, already occupying large parts of Ukraine mounted a full scale invasion against its neighbour. I consider the idea that the Biden administration – the one that chaotically left Afghanistan – intentionally provoked Russia to be obviously absurd.
I have to disagree with your last sentence. The Biden administration has repeatedly demonstrated its ineptness when it comes to foreign policy. Robert Gates noted in his book that “…Biden has been on the wrong side of American foreign policy every time”. Even President Obama commented that “Joe f**ks up everything”. Biden is being controlled by the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us of back in the last century. This same complex needs a new war to earn billions replacing arms etc thrown away in Afghanistan.
I have been against this “war” since the beginning as I fail to see what the US interests are in essentially a European conflict. Nobody has answered this satisfactorily for me. The only answer I get is “because Russia is our enemy”. China and the WEF are far greater enemies.
The way I read that, he implied that the Biden administration’s amply proven ineptness made it unlikely that it had the guile to deliberately goad Russia into attacking. Sounds reasonable to me.
War is for money. Period. Big Pharma wanted in on the cash cow, so now we have pandemics.
War is for power. Sometimes that power takes the form of money. But sometimes it doesn’t. Just outright, thuggish, control. Ego. Dreams of grandeur, recreating some idealized past. Wanting to go down in the history books as some ultimate praiseworthy leader of his nation or even the world.
Wow, what a simplistic understanding of geopolitics.
Diane M sounds as if she has read Putin’s ‘works’. Others here might not have.
Diane M sounds as if she has read Putin’s ‘works’. Others here might not have.
Wow, what a simplistic understanding of geopolitics.
No, war is for freedom and self determination, for having the right to choose your own government and to protect the lives of your people. Big pharma didn’t cause the pandemic, Chinese wet markets enabled viruses to jump from one species to the next. Conspiracy theories might make you feel better because it makes it seem that chaotic events are all part of an evil plan.
Paul, Remember that great scene in the movie “The Godfather between Al Pacino and Diane Keaton?
”Michael: My father’s no different than any other powerful man, [Kay laughs] any man who’s responsible for other people. Like a senator or a president.
Kay: You know how naive you sound?
Michael: Why?
Kay: Senators and presidents don’t have men killed.
Michael: Oh, who’s being naive, Kay?
Paul, Remember that great scene in the movie “The Godfather between Al Pacino and Diane Keaton?
”Michael: My father’s no different than any other powerful man, [Kay laughs] any man who’s responsible for other people. Like a senator or a president.
Kay: You know how naive you sound?
Michael: Why?
Kay: Senators and presidents don’t have men killed.
Michael: Oh, who’s being naive, Kay?
War is for power. Sometimes that power takes the form of money. But sometimes it doesn’t. Just outright, thuggish, control. Ego. Dreams of grandeur, recreating some idealized past. Wanting to go down in the history books as some ultimate praiseworthy leader of his nation or even the world.
No, war is for freedom and self determination, for having the right to choose your own government and to protect the lives of your people. Big pharma didn’t cause the pandemic, Chinese wet markets enabled viruses to jump from one species to the next. Conspiracy theories might make you feel better because it makes it seem that chaotic events are all part of an evil plan.
The US interest is in keeping a democratic country free from an Authoritarian neighbour’s unjustified invasion, Putin’s Russia. It really is the democracies against the autocratic states. Plus you get to wear down Russia’s military machine at no cost in US soldiers. Oh and there is the ‘small matter’ of protecting innocent civilians from rockets and drones (!)
Oh come on. There are plenty of satisfactory answers, but the easiest one is that Putin has put the security of all of eastern Europe at risk, and should he be victorious, which now thankfully seems unlikely in part because of U.S. help, could potentially destabilize international relations between states. The idea that in this ever shrinking world of ours people like you can be Chamberlain-esque and think we can sit back and avoid “a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing” is really quite absurd.
The way I read that, he implied that the Biden administration’s amply proven ineptness made it unlikely that it had the guile to deliberately goad Russia into attacking. Sounds reasonable to me.
War is for money. Period. Big Pharma wanted in on the cash cow, so now we have pandemics.
The US interest is in keeping a democratic country free from an Authoritarian neighbour’s unjustified invasion, Putin’s Russia. It really is the democracies against the autocratic states. Plus you get to wear down Russia’s military machine at no cost in US soldiers. Oh and there is the ‘small matter’ of protecting innocent civilians from rockets and drones (!)
Oh come on. There are plenty of satisfactory answers, but the easiest one is that Putin has put the security of all of eastern Europe at risk, and should he be victorious, which now thankfully seems unlikely in part because of U.S. help, could potentially destabilize international relations between states. The idea that in this ever shrinking world of ours people like you can be Chamberlain-esque and think we can sit back and avoid “a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing” is really quite absurd.
The provocations have not come solely from Biden, but from every US administration since the neocons took control of US foreign policy under Clinton.
Pointing out that fact, by the way, does not justify the invasion, nor does it make me a ‘Putin apologist’. It simply sets the record straight as regards how we got here, as Sandbrook himself does in a grudging sort of way in this article.
Clinton, Biden, Blinken, Neuland are not neocons. Certainly, there many on the political right who vigorously support current U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine. The political left is in charge of foreign policy. And they are the ones who chose not to seek a diplomatic resolution in 2021. I don’t know how this war will end; but a convincing win by either side seems unlikely. If Robert Gates is right, this war will end in tears by both sides.
except that there really was no “provocation,” as NATO has never threatened Russia and frankly never would, even when it invaded another sovereign country and behaved barbarously. The only power doing any threatening is Putin’s Russia. Just ask any country formerly controlled or dominated by Russia/SU. Or just ask the Finnish or Swedish prime ministers. They used to be neutral for decades, until now.
Clinton, Biden, Blinken, Neuland are not neocons. Certainly, there many on the political right who vigorously support current U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine. The political left is in charge of foreign policy. And they are the ones who chose not to seek a diplomatic resolution in 2021. I don’t know how this war will end; but a convincing win by either side seems unlikely. If Robert Gates is right, this war will end in tears by both sides.
except that there really was no “provocation,” as NATO has never threatened Russia and frankly never would, even when it invaded another sovereign country and behaved barbarously. The only power doing any threatening is Putin’s Russia. Just ask any country formerly controlled or dominated by Russia/SU. Or just ask the Finnish or Swedish prime ministers. They used to be neutral for decades, until now.
Biden is but a Puppet ask yourself who whispers in his ear? who prepares the position papers?.
Came across this a while back “Pyle would be the third former BlackRock official to join the administration. Brian Deese, who was global head of sustainable investing at the firm, has been named as Biden’s national economic director. And Wally Adeyemo, former chief of staff to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, is the nominee for deputy Treasury secretary. Neither Deese nor Pyle would require confirmation by the Senate.
If anything, Pyle has a deeper relationship to BlackRock than his colleagues. He’s been there longer, since at least 2014. And his role as chief investment strategist is more central to BlackRock’s operations; he frequently comments on behalf of the firm in the media.”
So three people who are closely linked to a company with major financial exposure to the Ukrain situation are close enought to affect the thinking of a weak brained President. Just saying.
I have to disagree with your last sentence. The Biden administration has repeatedly demonstrated its ineptness when it comes to foreign policy. Robert Gates noted in his book that “…Biden has been on the wrong side of American foreign policy every time”. Even President Obama commented that “Joe f**ks up everything”. Biden is being controlled by the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us of back in the last century. This same complex needs a new war to earn billions replacing arms etc thrown away in Afghanistan.
I have been against this “war” since the beginning as I fail to see what the US interests are in essentially a European conflict. Nobody has answered this satisfactorily for me. The only answer I get is “because Russia is our enemy”. China and the WEF are far greater enemies.
The provocations have not come solely from Biden, but from every US administration since the neocons took control of US foreign policy under Clinton.
Pointing out that fact, by the way, does not justify the invasion, nor does it make me a ‘Putin apologist’. It simply sets the record straight as regards how we got here, as Sandbrook himself does in a grudging sort of way in this article.
Biden is but a Puppet ask yourself who whispers in his ear? who prepares the position papers?.
Came across this a while back “Pyle would be the third former BlackRock official to join the administration. Brian Deese, who was global head of sustainable investing at the firm, has been named as Biden’s national economic director. And Wally Adeyemo, former chief of staff to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, is the nominee for deputy Treasury secretary. Neither Deese nor Pyle would require confirmation by the Senate.
If anything, Pyle has a deeper relationship to BlackRock than his colleagues. He’s been there longer, since at least 2014. And his role as chief investment strategist is more central to BlackRock’s operations; he frequently comments on behalf of the firm in the media.”
So three people who are closely linked to a company with major financial exposure to the Ukrain situation are close enought to affect the thinking of a weak brained President. Just saying.
You do make a good point. The US-led West has made a series of strategic mistakes since the fall of Communism where Russia is concerned. However these mistakes do need to be placed in the wider context of what sort of world we actually want to live in. When it comes down to the choice of being a NATO country or a part of the Russian Federation, the former eastern bloc nations are unanimous in wanting the former, and for reasons that are pretty obvious and inarguable even to the majority of us who aren’t acquianted first-hand with the difference.
That’s not to say that the West is faultless or that we can all sit back and rest upon the untested assumption that we’re the good guys and it’ll all turn out alright in the end – far from it. It’s just that had the West taken a more circumspect view in the 1990s and restrained NATO expansion, we would by now have had a series of geostrategic scandals on our doorstep as parts of Eastern Europe became gradually forced into the Russian orbit, with all this entails.
I guess what I’m saying here is that we’re stuck into this Ukraine War now whether we like it or not, and it may come with considerable new costs as well as what’s already been spent. However, the West is on the right side for the simple reason that the West cares what Ukranians themselves want while the invading Russian force does not, and we haven’t been able to be this confident in such a moral assertion for some time.
Yes!
Very nicely put.
Yes!
Very nicely put.
I agree
You’re reading of the situation is 100% correct. And I say that as an American.
Don’t forget, zelensky announced his intent to make Ukraine a nuclear power, which Putin has for years said would be a red line. I feel for the Ukrainians but also fear that the slow but steady escalation could lead to true disaster
When the USSR broke up Ukraine was already the third largest nuclear power. They agreed to disarm in return for guarantees of border security from three guarantors; USA, UK and Russia.
Nobody thought that the threat could come from one of the guarantor nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Russia announced this, not Volodymyr Zelenskyy!
I was a bit confused by Russian propaganda. There has been a lot of that.
I was a bit confused by Russian propaganda. There has been a lot of that.
NATO wouldn’t let Ukraine join NATO. Understandable since one of the criterion is to have no ongoing border disputes. This is how Russia has kept Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova out of eligibility for NATO.
The US, the UK, and Russia all promised to respect and defend Ukraine’s borders in exchange for Ukraine giving Russia the 1,000 or so nuclear weapons that had been left in Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR.
Pretty obvious that those agreements and promises were not held. Is it surprising then that they should wish they had never given up those weapons and would like to have them again? Russia would never have invaded Ukraine if they had.
When the USSR broke up Ukraine was already the third largest nuclear power. They agreed to disarm in return for guarantees of border security from three guarantors; USA, UK and Russia.
Nobody thought that the threat could come from one of the guarantor nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Russia announced this, not Volodymyr Zelenskyy!
NATO wouldn’t let Ukraine join NATO. Understandable since one of the criterion is to have no ongoing border disputes. This is how Russia has kept Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova out of eligibility for NATO.
The US, the UK, and Russia all promised to respect and defend Ukraine’s borders in exchange for Ukraine giving Russia the 1,000 or so nuclear weapons that had been left in Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR.
Pretty obvious that those agreements and promises were not held. Is it surprising then that they should wish they had never given up those weapons and would like to have them again? Russia would never have invaded Ukraine if they had.
The timeline and conclusion is spot on: “more could have been done in those critical months”
Fine words.
But Putin expressed the Russian position best:
“Without Ukraine, there is no Russia.”
Putin never could accept an independent Ukraine anywhere near its present size.
Whether or not it was in NATO, it would eventually join the EU. And given Russia’s decade long stagnation, would be an unacceptable contrast with Russia.
That Putin has also alienated the other 13 Ex Soviet republics means he also knows his two a decades in power have resulted in less than nothing.
We just finally have to reluctantly agree with Putin:
Russia IS a corpse.
Without Ukraine.
The final decisions were, and will be, made in Moscow and Kyiv, not Washington D.C.
In my experience, many Americans, regardless of their positions on Ukraine or anything else, have trouble accepting the idea that it’s not all about the U.S.
In my experience, many Americans, regardless of their positions on Ukraine or anything else, have trouble accepting the idea that it’s not all about the U.S.
oh please. the only “provocations” come from Putin. NATO “expansionism” is a ridiculous way to describe the justifiable desires of the peoples of the countries formerly dominated and controlled by the SU for protection from revived Russian expansionism.
History is full no doubt of errors and missteps. However Russia – from a strong position actually, already occupying large parts of Ukraine mounted a full scale invasion against its neighbour. I consider the idea that the Biden administration – the one that chaotically left Afghanistan – intentionally provoked Russia to be obviously absurd.
You do make a good point. The US-led West has made a series of strategic mistakes since the fall of Communism where Russia is concerned. However these mistakes do need to be placed in the wider context of what sort of world we actually want to live in. When it comes down to the choice of being a NATO country or a part of the Russian Federation, the former eastern bloc nations are unanimous in wanting the former, and for reasons that are pretty obvious and inarguable even to the majority of us who aren’t acquianted first-hand with the difference.
That’s not to say that the West is faultless or that we can all sit back and rest upon the untested assumption that we’re the good guys and it’ll all turn out alright in the end – far from it. It’s just that had the West taken a more circumspect view in the 1990s and restrained NATO expansion, we would by now have had a series of geostrategic scandals on our doorstep as parts of Eastern Europe became gradually forced into the Russian orbit, with all this entails.
I guess what I’m saying here is that we’re stuck into this Ukraine War now whether we like it or not, and it may come with considerable new costs as well as what’s already been spent. However, the West is on the right side for the simple reason that the West cares what Ukranians themselves want while the invading Russian force does not, and we haven’t been able to be this confident in such a moral assertion for some time.
I agree
You’re reading of the situation is 100% correct. And I say that as an American.
Don’t forget, zelensky announced his intent to make Ukraine a nuclear power, which Putin has for years said would be a red line. I feel for the Ukrainians but also fear that the slow but steady escalation could lead to true disaster
The timeline and conclusion is spot on: “more could have been done in those critical months”
Fine words.
But Putin expressed the Russian position best:
“Without Ukraine, there is no Russia.”
Putin never could accept an independent Ukraine anywhere near its present size.
Whether or not it was in NATO, it would eventually join the EU. And given Russia’s decade long stagnation, would be an unacceptable contrast with Russia.
That Putin has also alienated the other 13 Ex Soviet republics means he also knows his two a decades in power have resulted in less than nothing.
We just finally have to reluctantly agree with Putin:
Russia IS a corpse.
Without Ukraine.
The final decisions were, and will be, made in Moscow and Kyiv, not Washington D.C.
I’ve become quite a fan of Dominic Sandbrook along with his partner Tom Holland on their Rest is History Club and podcast. Really just a terrific project that has me addicted to the point of annoying my wife as I roam the house with ear pods in oblivious to any conversation she might attempt to offer. The great downside is that I’m not reading books nearly as much and that’s not a good thing.
With regard to this piece however I have some significant reservations. As a Canadian I’m fully aware of our neighbour’s tendency to exceptionalism to the point of bullying at times. We also live under the umbrella of the Monroe Doctrine that is still in full effect in this hemisphere so I have some hesitation about American interference around the globe and how that can be perceived at times. Americans would never tolerate even ‘defensive alliances’ with major foreign powers near its borders and have demonstrated that from time to time.
Another reservation has to do with run up to the war where it struck me that the Americans were intent on provoking the Russians. In Aug. of 21 Zelensky was in the Oval Office…heady stuff for a comedic actor. In Nov. 21 the U.S./Ukraine Strategic Partnership that many observers saw as a final green light for NATO membership was signed in Washington. (Robert Service at Oxford University called it the biggest blunder in post Soviet relations with Russia.) In Dec. 21 Russia wrote the Biden administration asking that NATO membership for Ukraine be ruled out. In December 22 Blinken replied “absolutely not”. We all know what followed in February.
I think more could have been done in those critical months to head off this war but none of the parties seemed interested.
And now we have a conflict where there will be no real winners but just a great deal of human suffering that will scar this region for a generation.
I have mixed emotions about the war in Ukraine. I support the people and their right to defend themselves. I agree with the author – we should do whatever it takes to support them.
But the author alludes to my concerns himself. “It is simply to keep giving the Ukrainians the aid, weapons and emotional and political support they need, until they have driven every last occupier from their land — or until they’ve had enough and are prepared to cut a deal. But that should be their decision, not ours.”
We have two different credible reports that the US and Britain quashed a potential peace agreement in June. Are we fighting a proxy war, or are we genuinely following the lead of the Ukraine?
The Ukrainians and Russian soldiers are pawns and Ukraine is the chess board – and this is merely a Proxy War spawned in evil, fought in Evil, and has Evil Fruits.
PEACE NOW!
BS: And any “peace now” deal that allows Putin to keep his gains simply means a delay until he tries again,either with more of Ukraine or the Baltics or Kazakhstan. But you’re right. The war was spawned and fought in evil — by Putin. Any peace deal that leaves parts of Ukraine in his hands is just a Munich deal by another name.
precisely the counter-argument to a peace settlement. he will simply rearm and reinvade, once taking over other neighbours
Crimea will never go back to the Ukraine. Even if Putin‘s regime falls, no successor will ever agree to that. This always was Russia‘s big sore after the end of the Cold War. The main population of Crimea is Russian and its Black Sea navy has its harbour there for centuries. Could you imagine an important US harbour in the Pacific falling into the political sphere of China? I also guess that a chunk of the Donbas region with its mainly Russian population would want to belong to Russia.
Territory could be compromised. Much as people hate it, this kind of situation is not uncommon after empires break up, and an unjust solution is better than eternal war. What cannot be compromised is Russia’s claim to own and control Ukraine. How do you see Russia giving up that claim – and convincing the otehr side that it will keep its promise?
Territory could be compromised. Much as people hate it, this kind of situation is not uncommon after empires break up, and an unjust solution is better than eternal war. What cannot be compromised is Russia’s claim to own and control Ukraine. How do you see Russia giving up that claim – and convincing the otehr side that it will keep its promise?
precisely the counter-argument to a peace settlement. he will simply rearm and reinvade, once taking over other neighbours
Crimea will never go back to the Ukraine. Even if Putin‘s regime falls, no successor will ever agree to that. This always was Russia‘s big sore after the end of the Cold War. The main population of Crimea is Russian and its Black Sea navy has its harbour there for centuries. Could you imagine an important US harbour in the Pacific falling into the political sphere of China? I also guess that a chunk of the Donbas region with its mainly Russian population would want to belong to Russia.
Surrender is not peace. Putin has penetrated to the very heart of the British establishment and sanctions have not fully rooted him out. Our own PM was at best, his useful idiot. His agents have murdered on British soil. His planes invade our airspace and submarines enter our waters. He is the godfather heading up a gangster state. He’s a threat to us and to peace in Europe and he must be utterly defeated. No mercy.
Agree with all of this but, at the same time, seriously wonder how a nuclear-armed power could be “utterly defeated”. What exactly would that defeat look like?
Retreat to the borders of 1991.
Pretty simple, really.
Then obviously not utter defeat — merely a return to the status quo, a period of “licking wounds”, then another military build-up to start another war.
Then obviously not utter defeat — merely a return to the status quo, a period of “licking wounds”, then another military build-up to start another war.
A massive first strike against the UK … and France and the US and probably the rest of Europe with Canada thrown in for good measure. It would result in Russia being turned into a parking lot as well, but for some people that doesn’t really matter if they can’t get what they want.
How much of the Russian nuclear arsenal will Putin use? His advisors would surely be looking over their shoulders considering the size of the Chinese arsenal (Nuke and Conventional.)
How much of the Russian nuclear arsenal will Putin use? His advisors would surely be looking over their shoulders considering the size of the Chinese arsenal (Nuke and Conventional.)
Retreat to the borders of 1991.
Pretty simple, really.
A massive first strike against the UK … and France and the US and probably the rest of Europe with Canada thrown in for good measure. It would result in Russia being turned into a parking lot as well, but for some people that doesn’t really matter if they can’t get what they want.
Agree with all of this but, at the same time, seriously wonder how a nuclear-armed power could be “utterly defeated”. What exactly would that defeat look like?
All of the lessons of history have not taught people the meaning of ‘propaganda’.
BS: And any “peace now” deal that allows Putin to keep his gains simply means a delay until he tries again,either with more of Ukraine or the Baltics or Kazakhstan. But you’re right. The war was spawned and fought in evil — by Putin. Any peace deal that leaves parts of Ukraine in his hands is just a Munich deal by another name.
Surrender is not peace. Putin has penetrated to the very heart of the British establishment and sanctions have not fully rooted him out. Our own PM was at best, his useful idiot. His agents have murdered on British soil. His planes invade our airspace and submarines enter our waters. He is the godfather heading up a gangster state. He’s a threat to us and to peace in Europe and he must be utterly defeated. No mercy.
All of the lessons of history have not taught people the meaning of ‘propaganda’.
I have never seen any such credible reports. Could you point to them?
Of course he can’t!
Here you go.
Quote:
Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end
The apparent revelation raises some key questions: Why did Western leaders want to stop Kyiv from signing a seemingly good deal with Moscow? Do they consider the conflict a proxy war with Russia? And, most importantly, what would it take to get back to a deal?
Source:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
Thanks. That link gave another to the Hill and Stent article. And your quote is indeed correct. But did you read the actual article? It is very convincing, and it describes Russian policy as wholly oriented to rebuilding the old Tsarist empire – as indeed Putin says in his speeches – starting with reabsorbing the ‘non-existing and really Russian’ Ukraine. It seems inconceivable that Putin should have offered a permanent arrangement that would guarantee the actual independence of Ukraine – when all his other policies show that he refuses to tolerate that independence. And it seems even more inconceivable that Ukraine should have refused such an arrangement – particularly since Zhelensky is on record as offering neutrality in return for peace. So, assuming that some kind of deal was indeed being negotiated, it begs the question what Russia was actually offering and what it was demanding in return. And, indeed, what leverage either the US or the UK could have had to force Ukraine to refuse a beneficial deal and opt instead for a long war with Russia. On what we have so far this story does not make sense.
Fiona Hill now has an article in Unherd that doesn’t support your claim at all. In fact she says it’s Russian disinformation. Here’s her answer to Freddie Sayers:
FS: There was a moment earlier in the war when Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, was talking about some kind of peace settlement. It felt like there was some interest in the Ukrainian administration about engaging with him — and that it was actually Western powers, like the UK, who suggested Ukraine shouldn’t go down that road and that we need to have victory first.
FH: Freddie, that’s actually not true. That’s all Russian trolling and basically a disinformation campaign.
Ooops.
References please, I find FH a little disingenuous.
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in
References please, I find FH a little disingenuous.
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in
Thanks. That link gave another to the Hill and Stent article. And your quote is indeed correct. But did you read the actual article? It is very convincing, and it describes Russian policy as wholly oriented to rebuilding the old Tsarist empire – as indeed Putin says in his speeches – starting with reabsorbing the ‘non-existing and really Russian’ Ukraine. It seems inconceivable that Putin should have offered a permanent arrangement that would guarantee the actual independence of Ukraine – when all his other policies show that he refuses to tolerate that independence. And it seems even more inconceivable that Ukraine should have refused such an arrangement – particularly since Zhelensky is on record as offering neutrality in return for peace. So, assuming that some kind of deal was indeed being negotiated, it begs the question what Russia was actually offering and what it was demanding in return. And, indeed, what leverage either the US or the UK could have had to force Ukraine to refuse a beneficial deal and opt instead for a long war with Russia. On what we have so far this story does not make sense.
Fiona Hill now has an article in Unherd that doesn’t support your claim at all. In fact she says it’s Russian disinformation. Here’s her answer to Freddie Sayers:
FS: There was a moment earlier in the war when Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, was talking about some kind of peace settlement. It felt like there was some interest in the Ukrainian administration about engaging with him — and that it was actually Western powers, like the UK, who suggested Ukraine shouldn’t go down that road and that we need to have victory first.
FH: Freddie, that’s actually not true. That’s all Russian trolling and basically a disinformation campaign.
Ooops.
Here you go.
Quote:
Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end
The apparent revelation raises some key questions: Why did Western leaders want to stop Kyiv from signing a seemingly good deal with Moscow? Do they consider the conflict a proxy war with Russia? And, most importantly, what would it take to get back to a deal?
Source:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
Maybe you need to read a little bit beyond UK and US Government propaganda. As for pointing to them, why don’t you just use Google and do a search yourself, instead of always hiding behind claims that appropriate links have not been provided.
Any source that hasn’t reported the catalogue of Russian military failures in the last year is essentially worthless.
Even the “”Voenkors” (pro war bloggers in Russia) give the same picture of Russian military incompetence. Read strelkov.
There isn’t some “secret knowledge out there that is superior to the MSM Fog of War reporting in every conflict.
Get used to it.
I did use Google and can find nothing other than things Sergey Lavrov has said happened and I do not consider him to be a credible source.
Perhaps check out what Bennet, the ex premier of Israel recently said about it. and he was in the thick of things.
Or perhaps you could read the Fiona Hill interview posted yesterday in Unherd and then cut the crap.
Or perhaps you could read the Fiona Hill interview posted yesterday in Unherd and then cut the crap.
Perhaps check out what Bennet, the ex premier of Israel recently said about it. and he was in the thick of things.
And maybe you should read current Unherd articles to find out that everything in that article you posted has been gainsaid by Fiona Hill (see above).
Any source that hasn’t reported the catalogue of Russian military failures in the last year is essentially worthless.
Even the “”Voenkors” (pro war bloggers in Russia) give the same picture of Russian military incompetence. Read strelkov.
There isn’t some “secret knowledge out there that is superior to the MSM Fog of War reporting in every conflict.
Get used to it.
I did use Google and can find nothing other than things Sergey Lavrov has said happened and I do not consider him to be a credible source.
And maybe you should read current Unherd articles to find out that everything in that article you posted has been gainsaid by Fiona Hill (see above).
Of course he can’t!
Maybe you need to read a little bit beyond UK and US Government propaganda. As for pointing to them, why don’t you just use Google and do a search yourself, instead of always hiding behind claims that appropriate links have not been provided.
As several others have asked, please can you provide more details of this “potential peace agreement” from June last year. What were the terms ? Would it have ensured a lasting, stable peace ?
You must have this information. So please do share it.
It doesn’t exist. Russian disinfo.
It doesn’t exist. Russian disinfo.
Can you explain what reason the West’s strategists would have for fighting a proxy war with Russia if there was a viable peace option on the table? It is not clear to me why such a choice would make sense. The idea that the West is simply trying to prevent the destruction of Ukraine as an independent nation and the inevitable brutalisation of Ukranians should Russia prevail, is, on the other hand, plausible.
Regime change, feeding the military-industrial complex, selling LNG to Europe at three times the price they were buying it from Russia………. Do you need any more?
Nice to see that the vast majority of US entrepreneurs are so easily bamboozled by The Merchants of Death.
Then you don’t have open things like books about history and foreign policy.
Yes, I do need more. The costs of war plus the colossal costs of rebuilding Ukraine will be borne by the West and mostly the USA. The financial upsides you mention don;t come even close to covering it. We heard the same claptrap about the 2003 invasion of Iraq being about getting the oil: The USA spent a billion dollars a week for several years which was an order of magnitude higher than any economic benefits resulting from oil price control.
So the West now only consists of the United States and of only a very small number of people in the US? Are they the Rothschilds by any chance? Oh wait .. that’s not the US’s conspiracy theory. That’s a European one. Umm … The Koch’s? No. They’re anti-war. I know. It’s got to be Blackrock, right? Don’t they really control the world? But I read (ok – didn’t bother reading, just saw the headline) something the other day saying that The Netherlands controlled China, so maybe they’re behind it all.
It is a fact the us military industrial complex is under going massive growth and making big money:
Quote:
According to State Department numbers, sales rose to $205.6 billion in the 2022 fiscal year
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/01/25/us-arms-sales-soared-in-2022-due-to-ukraine-war/
Biggest growth and revamp in forty years:
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/01/24/pentagon-to-increase-artillery-ammunition-production-by-500-for-ukraine/
It is also a fact LNG is much more expensive than pipeline gas. Its just a fact. It was actually FOUR times the price. Macron complained:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.republicworld.com/amp/world-news/europe/emmanuel-macron-slams-us-for-selling-gas-at-higher-prices-calls-it-double-standard-articleshow.html
It is a fact the us military industrial complex is under going massive growth and making big money:
Quote:
According to State Department numbers, sales rose to $205.6 billion in the 2022 fiscal year
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/01/25/us-arms-sales-soared-in-2022-due-to-ukraine-war/
Biggest growth and revamp in forty years:
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/01/24/pentagon-to-increase-artillery-ammunition-production-by-500-for-ukraine/
It is also a fact LNG is much more expensive than pipeline gas. Its just a fact. It was actually FOUR times the price. Macron complained:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.republicworld.com/amp/world-news/europe/emmanuel-macron-slams-us-for-selling-gas-at-higher-prices-calls-it-double-standard-articleshow.html
Nice to see that the vast majority of US entrepreneurs are so easily bamboozled by The Merchants of Death.
Then you don’t have open things like books about history and foreign policy.
Yes, I do need more. The costs of war plus the colossal costs of rebuilding Ukraine will be borne by the West and mostly the USA. The financial upsides you mention don;t come even close to covering it. We heard the same claptrap about the 2003 invasion of Iraq being about getting the oil: The USA spent a billion dollars a week for several years which was an order of magnitude higher than any economic benefits resulting from oil price control.
So the West now only consists of the United States and of only a very small number of people in the US? Are they the Rothschilds by any chance? Oh wait .. that’s not the US’s conspiracy theory. That’s a European one. Umm … The Koch’s? No. They’re anti-war. I know. It’s got to be Blackrock, right? Don’t they really control the world? But I read (ok – didn’t bother reading, just saw the headline) something the other day saying that The Netherlands controlled China, so maybe they’re behind it all.
Adding to Rocky’s list, it is a sort of practice for the US generals preparing for action against China. A real possibility of seeing those fabulous weapons in action.
Regime change, feeding the military-industrial complex, selling LNG to Europe at three times the price they were buying it from Russia………. Do you need any more?
Adding to Rocky’s list, it is a sort of practice for the US generals preparing for action against China. A real possibility of seeing those fabulous weapons in action.
Can you provide links to these credible reports?
I can find nothing corroborating this claim of quashing a potential peace deal other than what Sergey Lavrov has said and he is most emphatically **not** a credible source.
Why is Lavrov not a credible source? I find him considerably more credible than say Blinken Biden or Johnson.
Why is Lavrov not a credible source? I find him considerably more credible than say Blinken Biden or Johnson.
The Ukrainians and Russian soldiers are pawns and Ukraine is the chess board – and this is merely a Proxy War spawned in evil, fought in Evil, and has Evil Fruits.
PEACE NOW!
I have never seen any such credible reports. Could you point to them?
As several others have asked, please can you provide more details of this “potential peace agreement” from June last year. What were the terms ? Would it have ensured a lasting, stable peace ?
You must have this information. So please do share it.
Can you explain what reason the West’s strategists would have for fighting a proxy war with Russia if there was a viable peace option on the table? It is not clear to me why such a choice would make sense. The idea that the West is simply trying to prevent the destruction of Ukraine as an independent nation and the inevitable brutalisation of Ukranians should Russia prevail, is, on the other hand, plausible.
Can you provide links to these credible reports?
I can find nothing corroborating this claim of quashing a potential peace deal other than what Sergey Lavrov has said and he is most emphatically **not** a credible source.
I have mixed emotions about the war in Ukraine. I support the people and their right to defend themselves. I agree with the author – we should do whatever it takes to support them.
But the author alludes to my concerns himself. “It is simply to keep giving the Ukrainians the aid, weapons and emotional and political support they need, until they have driven every last occupier from their land — or until they’ve had enough and are prepared to cut a deal. But that should be their decision, not ours.”
We have two different credible reports that the US and Britain quashed a potential peace agreement in June. Are we fighting a proxy war, or are we genuinely following the lead of the Ukraine?
This won’t be a popular view, but we are in a process of transitioning to a multipolar world. In the future, the US will no longer dominate; the BRICS countries will. This is a proxy war and, like it or not, one that the BRICS countries will ultimately win. US hegemony will be broken. The dollar will not be the world’s reserve currency, and there is a race to get CBDCs in place because the fiat money system is on the verge of a sudden catastrophic collapse.
Western Europe’s days are over. We are passengers in this. Globalism and Netzero insanity have led to our deindustrialisation. We are dependent on either the US or Russia for energy and the most valuable commodity in the world, chips. China has them, and the US has ramped up production to compete. Western Europe will not recover from this because it has few natural resources.
Sorry if that sounds ‘defeatist’, but that’s the way I (depressingly) see it. I wish this war were not going on, but the best thing we can do now is to negotiate a solution, which will involve ceding the east of Ukraine to Russia. It is entirely possible that Russia will embark on other military adventures in the future, and there will be little we can do to stop it. The world is going to change, almost beyond imagination, over the next few years. There is no going back to the way things were now.
So, sorry, but I don’t buy the ‘good vs evil’ narrative. The UK has been involved in planning or executing 42 coups in 27 countries since 1945. The US has been throwing its weight around far more. There is no moral high ground here for the UK or the US to occupy, I’m afraid, just the dirty, messy business of modern geopolitics.
Watching to see the downvotes 😉
Indeed, the fact that a democratic Ukraine has a more reliable grid than a dysfunctional South Africa shows that the BRICS point the way
To a kleptocratic, undemocratic, and unlighted, future.
“a kleptocratic, undemocratic, and unlighted, future”
A sadly accurate description of the UK. If you think this winter’s energy crisis was bad, wait until you see what happens next winter.
Are you actually serious ???
In what way is the current UK government “undemocratic” ? Where is the systematic kleptocracy you allege ?
There’s a world of difference between the fantasy you imagine and the real world.
THEY now just appoint each other and will continue to do so. We never hear of new legislation being discussed in parliament,just told it’s going to be passed tomorrow afternoon,and it is. If you think we’re getting another General Election think again. There’s a war on
It was a bit of a throwaway comment, but here goes…
Our democracy is a sham.
I have never understood why journalists have not been all over the coup that happened in this country. We have an unelected bland WEF puppet leader who was installed after a crisis was deliberately triggered by market forces attacking a pension fund (USS, I think). Cummings is right, Liz Truss is a fruitcake, but a neo-liberal agenda is a policy for which rational arguments can be made. The replacement of Friedmanite Kwarteng with extreme technocrat Hunt, as far apart as you could possibly get two chancellors was bizarre. How the hell did that happen? Who appointed him? After that happened, Truss was in a daze.
At the next election, Sunak will be replaced by another technocrat, whose sycophantic panel performance at Davos was nauseating; nothing will change much, bar some loudly proclaimed tinkering around the edges.
Since 2008 we have seen the most massive transfer of wealth from ordinary people to billionaires in history, which vastly accelerated under the pandemic; we’ve had Boris’s Russian oligarchs, Hunt flogging off bits of the NHS and other state assets to the Davos men, Hancock and his PPE chums etc. Then in the past few days, we’ve had Shapps with Bill Gates, Barclay with Bill Gates, and then Lammy with him at the Munich Security Conference (what is Bill up to there? I digress…). I think it’s arguable that you can class this as kleptocracy (at a stretch?). TBF, Starmer might clean the most immediate corruption up, but the wealth transfer will continue.
Whoever is in power will be a technocrat, and we will lose more and more of our freedoms (and as Thomas Fazi said on Twitter the other day, whoever you vote for, Bill Gates will be in government).
THEY now just appoint each other and will continue to do so. We never hear of new legislation being discussed in parliament,just told it’s going to be passed tomorrow afternoon,and it is. If you think we’re getting another General Election think again. There’s a war on
It was a bit of a throwaway comment, but here goes…
Our democracy is a sham.
I have never understood why journalists have not been all over the coup that happened in this country. We have an unelected bland WEF puppet leader who was installed after a crisis was deliberately triggered by market forces attacking a pension fund (USS, I think). Cummings is right, Liz Truss is a fruitcake, but a neo-liberal agenda is a policy for which rational arguments can be made. The replacement of Friedmanite Kwarteng with extreme technocrat Hunt, as far apart as you could possibly get two chancellors was bizarre. How the hell did that happen? Who appointed him? After that happened, Truss was in a daze.
At the next election, Sunak will be replaced by another technocrat, whose sycophantic panel performance at Davos was nauseating; nothing will change much, bar some loudly proclaimed tinkering around the edges.
Since 2008 we have seen the most massive transfer of wealth from ordinary people to billionaires in history, which vastly accelerated under the pandemic; we’ve had Boris’s Russian oligarchs, Hunt flogging off bits of the NHS and other state assets to the Davos men, Hancock and his PPE chums etc. Then in the past few days, we’ve had Shapps with Bill Gates, Barclay with Bill Gates, and then Lammy with him at the Munich Security Conference (what is Bill up to there? I digress…). I think it’s arguable that you can class this as kleptocracy (at a stretch?). TBF, Starmer might clean the most immediate corruption up, but the wealth transfer will continue.
Whoever is in power will be a technocrat, and we will lose more and more of our freedoms (and as Thomas Fazi said on Twitter the other day, whoever you vote for, Bill Gates will be in government).
Are you actually serious ???
In what way is the current UK government “undemocratic” ? Where is the systematic kleptocracy you allege ?
There’s a world of difference between the fantasy you imagine and the real world.
“a kleptocratic, undemocratic, and unlighted, future”
A sadly accurate description of the UK. If you think this winter’s energy crisis was bad, wait until you see what happens next winter.
Absurd fantasy that the “BRICS countries will win”. Russia’s well into long term decline. China has peaked. Just look at the demographics. The US population is still growing and will continue to grow. Not least because people actually want to move there. Show me the millions queueing up to go and live in Russia and China.
Brazil is going nowhere.
India is not an ally of China. Quite the opposite.
China is not an ally of Russia. They are actually long term rivals.
This multipolar world and end of the dollar stuff is pure fantasy.
Let’s see where we are in 5 years’ time.
Multi polar world. Discussed by Morgan Stanley:
‘Rewiring global commerce for a multipolar world: With the shift from unbridled globalization to a world with more than one meaningful power base and commercial standard, companies and countries can no longer seek efficiencies through global supply chains and market access without factoring in geopolitical risks. While we first flagged this secular trend in 2018, we believe it became the consensus following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the West’s policy response, which created fresh trade barriers and incentives to realign supply chains’
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/morgan-stanley-we-are-focusing-these-three-key-global-transitions
On dedollarisation, also discusses multi polarity:
https://internationalbanker.com/finance/we-are-witnessing-a-global-de-dollarisation-spree/
The “multipolar world” will just mean less accountability and freedom on either side as much more will be put into fighting each other and then there’s an easy way to crack down on anything in the name of national security or just blame the enemy. All of which has been happening right now as well, albeit to a much lesser extent. This is definitely NOT progress.
Oh! dear what planet are you on? Your comments about China V Russia are correct as is your take on India v China, given that India and Russia have been close for a long while now those differences are likely to balance out given favourable economic ties and growth between these three countries. Brasil ? a country of much potential continually stuffed by being a football in the backyard of the USA, that may becoming to an end. There is a growing alliance between Brasil and Argentina unthinkable thirty years ago and Argentina has applied to join Brics +
The multipolar world is already here if you had but eyes to see it, unfortunately from a UK perspective we are not aligned with any of the stronger poles.
The western economy as we know it is in its death throws and is in the process of crashing, the burn part will likely hit any day now.
Any reading of history will demonstrate that all modern wars have been wars for the benefit of “Bankers” the Ukraine war is no different it distracts the population from looking too closely at their own situation while the spending of money which we do not have on furnishing arms to Ukraine (amongst other things) will accelerate the collapse of the economy and the surrupticous attempts to introduce laws which will enable the population to be further controlled, think Online safety Laws, Digital currency, universal ID numbers, road pricing to name but four largely go unoticed.
Let’s see where we are in 5 years’ time.
Multi polar world. Discussed by Morgan Stanley:
‘Rewiring global commerce for a multipolar world: With the shift from unbridled globalization to a world with more than one meaningful power base and commercial standard, companies and countries can no longer seek efficiencies through global supply chains and market access without factoring in geopolitical risks. While we first flagged this secular trend in 2018, we believe it became the consensus following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the West’s policy response, which created fresh trade barriers and incentives to realign supply chains’
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/morgan-stanley-we-are-focusing-these-three-key-global-transitions
On dedollarisation, also discusses multi polarity:
https://internationalbanker.com/finance/we-are-witnessing-a-global-de-dollarisation-spree/
The “multipolar world” will just mean less accountability and freedom on either side as much more will be put into fighting each other and then there’s an easy way to crack down on anything in the name of national security or just blame the enemy. All of which has been happening right now as well, albeit to a much lesser extent. This is definitely NOT progress.
Oh! dear what planet are you on? Your comments about China V Russia are correct as is your take on India v China, given that India and Russia have been close for a long while now those differences are likely to balance out given favourable economic ties and growth between these three countries. Brasil ? a country of much potential continually stuffed by being a football in the backyard of the USA, that may becoming to an end. There is a growing alliance between Brasil and Argentina unthinkable thirty years ago and Argentina has applied to join Brics +
The multipolar world is already here if you had but eyes to see it, unfortunately from a UK perspective we are not aligned with any of the stronger poles.
The western economy as we know it is in its death throws and is in the process of crashing, the burn part will likely hit any day now.
Any reading of history will demonstrate that all modern wars have been wars for the benefit of “Bankers” the Ukraine war is no different it distracts the population from looking too closely at their own situation while the spending of money which we do not have on furnishing arms to Ukraine (amongst other things) will accelerate the collapse of the economy and the surrupticous attempts to introduce laws which will enable the population to be further controlled, think Online safety Laws, Digital currency, universal ID numbers, road pricing to name but four largely go unoticed.
“dependent on either the US or Russia for energy”. Quite a lot of oil, gas and coal come from elsewhere, don’t you know. Last year Europe generated one quarter of its electricity from solar/wind, and a similar amount from nuclear; the technology of renewable energy supply moves on faster and faster, with tidal and geothermal sources next up, and fusion on the, admittedly distant but nonetheless visible, horizon.
Who is going to sell us solar panels if we are at war with China? The US production of them is not in surplus. China’s Belt and Road initiative and its neo-colonialism in Africa have given it vast global influence and control over mineral resources.
Which seems to be waning, as Xi destroys China’s private enterprise.
The BRICS will always put control above prosperity.
We’re getting to the ’emperor’s new clothes moment’. The amount of fiat money we’ve created is crazy and unsustainable. When that collapses, all the liabilities and debts go with it. In the aftermath, what will matter is who holds the natural resources. World economics will be completely different (I don’t know what it will look like).
We’re getting to the ’emperor’s new clothes moment’. The amount of fiat money we’ve created is crazy and unsustainable. When that collapses, all the liabilities and debts go with it. In the aftermath, what will matter is who holds the natural resources. World economics will be completely different (I don’t know what it will look like).
Which seems to be waning, as Xi destroys China’s private enterprise.
The BRICS will always put control above prosperity.
I haven’t down-voted you because I agreed with what you were saying but then you mentioned FUSION. I first read about it in the New Scientist in 1959/60? and it was being “promised” “within 20 years even then.”
Who is going to sell us solar panels if we are at war with China? The US production of them is not in surplus. China’s Belt and Road initiative and its neo-colonialism in Africa have given it vast global influence and control over mineral resources.
I haven’t down-voted you because I agreed with what you were saying but then you mentioned FUSION. I first read about it in the New Scientist in 1959/60? and it was being “promised” “within 20 years even then.”
Watching to see the downvotes
My upvote power of one is not enough to overwhelm them. They are busy today.
I thought your post was very good.
Thanks. I realise it is a bitter pill to swallow.
Well I try to take it is a challenge. You are now in positive territory! Worthy effort.
I think it’s just contrarians upvoting after being challenged to downvote.
I am one of the contrarians. I hate the down voting app, so I principally upvote even if I disagree. It is too easy to downvote and not give a proper counter argument
I do not think so. I think actually it’s just a very good post.
I am one of the contrarians. I hate the down voting app, so I principally upvote even if I disagree. It is too easy to downvote and not give a proper counter argument
I do not think so. I think actually it’s just a very good post.
I think it’s just contrarians upvoting after being challenged to downvote.
Well I try to take it is a challenge. You are now in positive territory! Worthy effort.
Thanks. I realise it is a bitter pill to swallow.
This is just your own interpretation and conjecture. You’re throwing in the towel but there are countless different ways and turns in which future scenarios can develop or be influenced. I don’t have a lot of confidence in western politicians but I believe with their backs to the wall in the coming months and years of this continuing crisis they will at least make moves to avoid the worst case, and leaving Russia to continue it’s imperialist push is part of this worst case.
As soon as there will be a new President in the US, which I believe will be in 2024, foreign politics will profoundly change. Trump as well as DeSantis have no intentions to continue giving away billions to continue a war in Europe. There will be pressure on European leaders and Ukraine to make a peace deal.
As soon as there will be a new President in the US, which I believe will be in 2024, foreign politics will profoundly change. Trump as well as DeSantis have no intentions to continue giving away billions to continue a war in Europe. There will be pressure on European leaders and Ukraine to make a peace deal.
That’s an awful lot of hyper-confident predictions, all in one breath. And while secular prophets do have credulous audiences, their prophecies’ record of coming true is dismal.
Every word accurate.
I agree.
Most people will never have that, “Hans, are we the baddies?” moment.
All we can do is set our sails accordingly; to better negotiate the continued assault on us by our governments and their globalist paymasters.
The last three years have taken a toll on my faith in those around me. I have watched with sadness, as they eagerly gulped down the narrative and went with the herd. The irony is palpable.
China doesn’t have the chips 😀
That’s why it’s going mad over Taiwan, which is by far the #1 chipmaker. But the US and EU also have some foundries as well as most of the know-how.
Thank god that there is someone with true vision commenting here.
Indeed, the fact that a democratic Ukraine has a more reliable grid than a dysfunctional South Africa shows that the BRICS point the way
To a kleptocratic, undemocratic, and unlighted, future.
Absurd fantasy that the “BRICS countries will win”. Russia’s well into long term decline. China has peaked. Just look at the demographics. The US population is still growing and will continue to grow. Not least because people actually want to move there. Show me the millions queueing up to go and live in Russia and China.
Brazil is going nowhere.
India is not an ally of China. Quite the opposite.
China is not an ally of Russia. They are actually long term rivals.
This multipolar world and end of the dollar stuff is pure fantasy.
“dependent on either the US or Russia for energy”. Quite a lot of oil, gas and coal come from elsewhere, don’t you know. Last year Europe generated one quarter of its electricity from solar/wind, and a similar amount from nuclear; the technology of renewable energy supply moves on faster and faster, with tidal and geothermal sources next up, and fusion on the, admittedly distant but nonetheless visible, horizon.
Watching to see the downvotes
My upvote power of one is not enough to overwhelm them. They are busy today.
I thought your post was very good.
This is just your own interpretation and conjecture. You’re throwing in the towel but there are countless different ways and turns in which future scenarios can develop or be influenced. I don’t have a lot of confidence in western politicians but I believe with their backs to the wall in the coming months and years of this continuing crisis they will at least make moves to avoid the worst case, and leaving Russia to continue it’s imperialist push is part of this worst case.
That’s an awful lot of hyper-confident predictions, all in one breath. And while secular prophets do have credulous audiences, their prophecies’ record of coming true is dismal.
Every word accurate.
I agree.
Most people will never have that, “Hans, are we the baddies?” moment.
All we can do is set our sails accordingly; to better negotiate the continued assault on us by our governments and their globalist paymasters.
The last three years have taken a toll on my faith in those around me. I have watched with sadness, as they eagerly gulped down the narrative and went with the herd. The irony is palpable.
China doesn’t have the chips 😀
That’s why it’s going mad over Taiwan, which is by far the #1 chipmaker. But the US and EU also have some foundries as well as most of the know-how.
Thank god that there is someone with true vision commenting here.
This won’t be a popular view, but we are in a process of transitioning to a multipolar world. In the future, the US will no longer dominate; the BRICS countries will. This is a proxy war and, like it or not, one that the BRICS countries will ultimately win. US hegemony will be broken. The dollar will not be the world’s reserve currency, and there is a race to get CBDCs in place because the fiat money system is on the verge of a sudden catastrophic collapse.
Western Europe’s days are over. We are passengers in this. Globalism and Netzero insanity have led to our deindustrialisation. We are dependent on either the US or Russia for energy and the most valuable commodity in the world, chips. China has them, and the US has ramped up production to compete. Western Europe will not recover from this because it has few natural resources.
Sorry if that sounds ‘defeatist’, but that’s the way I (depressingly) see it. I wish this war were not going on, but the best thing we can do now is to negotiate a solution, which will involve ceding the east of Ukraine to Russia. It is entirely possible that Russia will embark on other military adventures in the future, and there will be little we can do to stop it. The world is going to change, almost beyond imagination, over the next few years. There is no going back to the way things were now.
So, sorry, but I don’t buy the ‘good vs evil’ narrative. The UK has been involved in planning or executing 42 coups in 27 countries since 1945. The US has been throwing its weight around far more. There is no moral high ground here for the UK or the US to occupy, I’m afraid, just the dirty, messy business of modern geopolitics.
Watching to see the downvotes 😉
“If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it was necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy piece of his own heart?”
Solzhenitsyn
He doesn’t count.
He is Russian..
I wish I knew what motivated so much negative reaction to my sarcastic comment.
I thought it was needles to point out how much I agree with Solzhenitsyn and I decided to make a joke. Have I touched some sensitive “patriotic” feelings of the Englishmen perhaps..? We’ll probably never know.
I wish I knew what motivated so much negative reaction to my sarcastic comment.
I thought it was needles to point out how much I agree with Solzhenitsyn and I decided to make a joke. Have I touched some sensitive “patriotic” feelings of the Englishmen perhaps..? We’ll probably never know.
A phrase I recall again and again.
And the sad fact is Putin is trying to do exactly what Solzhenitsyn warned against.
I think that Solzhenitsyn’s point is that everybody tries to do this. It’s very rare to get a clear-cut differentiation; usually there is some murkiness.
I think that Solzhenitsyn’s point is that everybody tries to do this. It’s very rare to get a clear-cut differentiation; usually there is some murkiness.
He doesn’t count.
He is Russian..
A phrase I recall again and again.
And the sad fact is Putin is trying to do exactly what Solzhenitsyn warned against.
“If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it was necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy piece of his own heart?”
Solzhenitsyn
Well the German and French PMs made it clear that the Minsk aggrements were just a stall tactic, and the NATO chief said that the war began in 2014. So, unless you come at it admitting that the Western narrative about that has been dishonest on those issues, then you are starting from a false propiganda standpoint. That’s like saying the sanctions worked, or that Ukraine could win at this point. Both of those things are also untrue, and we got to that point because of lies on our own side. Saying that it’s just evil on one side does sound simple though. What about US economic hegemony, or the blowing up of the German pipelines… That again doesn’t seem like cut and dried simple white hat / black hat…
Sanctions are slow, but they are really starting to make themselves known Look at the Russian government’s own accounting for January 2023 after the oil price cap kicked in on Dec 5th and see how much worse it will get when the February and March figures are out after the refined product’s caps started on February 5th.
Deficits for January alone were half the total planned for the entire year. And the revenue plans were based on a $70/bbl oil price. For all of Russia saying they would not bend to any cap, they have been selling at discounts such that they’re winding up with a price in the mid $50s/bbl. Plus much higher transportation costs when they can even get the ships and the insurance to sail them.
Russian manufacturing is simply leaving parts that they can’t get out of their final products. And spare parts for repairs? Next to impossible to source. They’re using parts off of one plane to put in another, meaning that those planes were never be allowed to fly outside of Russia. The owners of the leased planes that Russia confiscated don’t even want them back at this point.
If Russia has to shut in much of its oil production, those wells and pipelines from the Siberian fields (which is where most of Russia’s oil and gas are) will be down for good since the water that is always in the oil freezes if it stops moving and water expands as it freezes. That really wrecks the pipelines and wellhead. They have to be re-drilled and piped from scratch. And the oil majors that got those going again and have built out the newest Russian finds that are in very challenging locations are gone and they’re not coming back.
Sure, Russia can shrug off McDonalds leaving with a new owner taking over or not getting Krispy Kreme donuts anymore, but what happens when the car breaks down? What Russian company is going to replace Maersk or BP or IBM or Siemens? One thing after another goes down and can’t be repaired or replaced. It takes time, but it will all happen. The death of a thousand cuts.
It’s not about the US — Ukraine is on the right side here and Russia certainly isn’t. During wartime certainly an enemy of my enemy is a friend. Even though I may have hated the US before, right now I am glad it’s there. Which just shows another aspect of Russia’s invasion — it empowered the US, returned it to the world’s spotlight, increased the EU dependence on it, and made it billions of dollars in LNG gas and arms.
Sanctions are slow, but they are really starting to make themselves known Look at the Russian government’s own accounting for January 2023 after the oil price cap kicked in on Dec 5th and see how much worse it will get when the February and March figures are out after the refined product’s caps started on February 5th.
Deficits for January alone were half the total planned for the entire year. And the revenue plans were based on a $70/bbl oil price. For all of Russia saying they would not bend to any cap, they have been selling at discounts such that they’re winding up with a price in the mid $50s/bbl. Plus much higher transportation costs when they can even get the ships and the insurance to sail them.
Russian manufacturing is simply leaving parts that they can’t get out of their final products. And spare parts for repairs? Next to impossible to source. They’re using parts off of one plane to put in another, meaning that those planes were never be allowed to fly outside of Russia. The owners of the leased planes that Russia confiscated don’t even want them back at this point.
If Russia has to shut in much of its oil production, those wells and pipelines from the Siberian fields (which is where most of Russia’s oil and gas are) will be down for good since the water that is always in the oil freezes if it stops moving and water expands as it freezes. That really wrecks the pipelines and wellhead. They have to be re-drilled and piped from scratch. And the oil majors that got those going again and have built out the newest Russian finds that are in very challenging locations are gone and they’re not coming back.
Sure, Russia can shrug off McDonalds leaving with a new owner taking over or not getting Krispy Kreme donuts anymore, but what happens when the car breaks down? What Russian company is going to replace Maersk or BP or IBM or Siemens? One thing after another goes down and can’t be repaired or replaced. It takes time, but it will all happen. The death of a thousand cuts.
It’s not about the US — Ukraine is on the right side here and Russia certainly isn’t. During wartime certainly an enemy of my enemy is a friend. Even though I may have hated the US before, right now I am glad it’s there. Which just shows another aspect of Russia’s invasion — it empowered the US, returned it to the world’s spotlight, increased the EU dependence on it, and made it billions of dollars in LNG gas and arms.
Well the German and French PMs made it clear that the Minsk aggrements were just a stall tactic, and the NATO chief said that the war began in 2014. So, unless you come at it admitting that the Western narrative about that has been dishonest on those issues, then you are starting from a false propiganda standpoint. That’s like saying the sanctions worked, or that Ukraine could win at this point. Both of those things are also untrue, and we got to that point because of lies on our own side. Saying that it’s just evil on one side does sound simple though. What about US economic hegemony, or the blowing up of the German pipelines… That again doesn’t seem like cut and dried simple white hat / black hat…
As Sandbrook says, it is complicated world but it is NOT “that simple”. Unless Putin is overthrown or dies then, being realistic, the following applies:
1/ Russia is a nuclear state. Cold War logic applies. The war will probably end in a deal or a cease fire which will involve some compromise of strict principles. The precedents include the partition of Korea in 1953 and of Indo-China in 1954.
2/ In the grand scheme of things, Ukraine matters to the West as an opportunity to demonstrate resolve against aggression / expansion by the “authoritarian bloc” (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and friends). Return to the precise pre 2014 boundaries is not obligatory from this perspective.
3/ In the long run, this new Cold War is focussed on China not Russia. The Ukrainian war is strategically important but it should not become a distraction.
4/ Western public enthusiasm will probably last for this year but probably not for much longer.
5/ China may start matching US supplies to Ukraine by shipping arms to Russia. Two can play proxy war. This would probably end Ukrainian hopes of complete victory.
6/ The three most plausible outcomes (as of today) are
a) A “Long War” with Russia on the defensive but confident it can outlast the West / Ukraine
b) A ceasefire implying acceptance of the then status quo, which would be acceptable to Russia today but not, at present, to the Ukrainians. Depending on military progress this may change.
c) A successful Ukrainian campaign southwards which cuts the “land bridge” to Crimea and, by threatening the actual bridge, isolates the latter. At this point Putin would have an incentive to do a deal accepting his control of Crimea (and, probably, Donetsk etc) but also genuine Ukrainian independence and alignment with the West. The alternative would be a “siege” of Crimea (and a major risk of escalation).
7/ If the Ukrainians are willing to accept the damage and casualties involved in pursuing scenario c) then they will enjoy Western support (for this year anyway). It is their decision.
8/ For the subsequent period, the Ukrainians need to study the historical precedents. When the Americans decide they have had enough of a conflict, they can become rather single minded in their pursuit of an exit strategy. Afghanistan is a recent example. Their ability to impose a cease fire in Korea in 1953 required them to threaten a military coup against the South Korean leader.
9/ There is no point in the Ukrainians “negotiating against themselves” by announcing unilateral concessions but, quietly, they may recognise that outcome c) probably represents the maximum likely to be achievable and that only if it is delivered this year.
Well said
Incidentally, on pragmatism vs principle, I strongly recommend “The Road less travelled” by Zelikow. A peace deal was tantalising close in Dec 1916 but the pragmatists in both London and Berlin lost out to principled men determined “to fight to the finish”. Most interesting book I have read so far this year.
I was under the impression that that deal was scuppered by the Rothschilds offer to Balfour to get the Americans in the war in return for a chunk of worthless land in Palestine should the Brits win, which would be the end of the Turkish empire.
I was under the impression that that deal was scuppered by the Rothschilds offer to Balfour to get the Americans in the war in return for a chunk of worthless land in Palestine should the Brits win, which would be the end of the Turkish empire.
Incidentally, on pragmatism vs principle, I strongly recommend “The Road less travelled” by Zelikow. A peace deal was tantalising close in Dec 1916 but the pragmatists in both London and Berlin lost out to principled men determined “to fight to the finish”. Most interesting book I have read so far this year.
Good analysis. Your point about “the Americans decid[ing] they have had enough of a conflict” is particularly on point.
One question I have about the ‘Chinese arms to Russia’ point. Ukraine used to be a major endpoint of the Chinese Belt+Road Initiative. If the Ukrainians find the Chinese have been arming the Russians, I imagine they’d look poorly on that. I dunno, maybe the Chinese would get enough out of Russia to make that downside worth it.
Absolutely the best comment here, that’s what the situation is here and while we push for the maximum, we gotta be realistic as well.
Well said
Good analysis. Your point about “the Americans decid[ing] they have had enough of a conflict” is particularly on point.
One question I have about the ‘Chinese arms to Russia’ point. Ukraine used to be a major endpoint of the Chinese Belt+Road Initiative. If the Ukrainians find the Chinese have been arming the Russians, I imagine they’d look poorly on that. I dunno, maybe the Chinese would get enough out of Russia to make that downside worth it.
Absolutely the best comment here, that’s what the situation is here and while we push for the maximum, we gotta be realistic as well.
As Sandbrook says, it is complicated world but it is NOT “that simple”. Unless Putin is overthrown or dies then, being realistic, the following applies:
1/ Russia is a nuclear state. Cold War logic applies. The war will probably end in a deal or a cease fire which will involve some compromise of strict principles. The precedents include the partition of Korea in 1953 and of Indo-China in 1954.
2/ In the grand scheme of things, Ukraine matters to the West as an opportunity to demonstrate resolve against aggression / expansion by the “authoritarian bloc” (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and friends). Return to the precise pre 2014 boundaries is not obligatory from this perspective.
3/ In the long run, this new Cold War is focussed on China not Russia. The Ukrainian war is strategically important but it should not become a distraction.
4/ Western public enthusiasm will probably last for this year but probably not for much longer.
5/ China may start matching US supplies to Ukraine by shipping arms to Russia. Two can play proxy war. This would probably end Ukrainian hopes of complete victory.
6/ The three most plausible outcomes (as of today) are
a) A “Long War” with Russia on the defensive but confident it can outlast the West / Ukraine
b) A ceasefire implying acceptance of the then status quo, which would be acceptable to Russia today but not, at present, to the Ukrainians. Depending on military progress this may change.
c) A successful Ukrainian campaign southwards which cuts the “land bridge” to Crimea and, by threatening the actual bridge, isolates the latter. At this point Putin would have an incentive to do a deal accepting his control of Crimea (and, probably, Donetsk etc) but also genuine Ukrainian independence and alignment with the West. The alternative would be a “siege” of Crimea (and a major risk of escalation).
7/ If the Ukrainians are willing to accept the damage and casualties involved in pursuing scenario c) then they will enjoy Western support (for this year anyway). It is their decision.
8/ For the subsequent period, the Ukrainians need to study the historical precedents. When the Americans decide they have had enough of a conflict, they can become rather single minded in their pursuit of an exit strategy. Afghanistan is a recent example. Their ability to impose a cease fire in Korea in 1953 required them to threaten a military coup against the South Korean leader.
9/ There is no point in the Ukrainians “negotiating against themselves” by announcing unilateral concessions but, quietly, they may recognise that outcome c) probably represents the maximum likely to be achievable and that only if it is delivered this year.
Brilliant. I’ve been arguing something along these lines myself for a while now, though never expressed half as well as it is in this excellent article.
Brilliant. I’ve been arguing something along these lines myself for a while now, though never expressed half as well as it is in this excellent article.
Oh look, an article invoking reductio ad Hitlerum AND comparing Zelenskyy to Churchill, how original! I wonder why it gets so much praise…
The author makes loads of assumptions that are commonly made by commenters on this very page – first and foremost that the Ukrainians are the ones calling the shots.
I have said elsewhere that this is, at best, an over exaggeration and that the Ukrainians bargaining power will be determined by their military successes (which would have to be massive for them to actually get to decide anything).
The Americans and British are not the selfless “defenders of liberty and democracy” they (and the author) are making themselves out to be and are not supporting Ukraine for the stated reasons.
That a “professional historian” has published MSM propaganda on a webpage for the sceptically minded really only shows you that the consensus-making machine is working overtime.
One thing I am beginning to wonder after regularly seeing this opinion being aired time and again, is whether this war is so popular because it is part Drama/Thriller (Zelenskyy has even already got an Oscar for his performance!), part therapy for western guilt over all the atrocities they have committed (and I’m just talking about the last 30 years here). This kind of makes it the perfect war for (neo)liberals (neocons are always onboard) – no soldiers of their own have to die, plus it’s a way to feel good about themselves and virtue signal!
I just hope the series finale doesn’t end on a massive downer…
Yeah I subscribe to UnHerd to get the same BS propaganda being peddled everywhere… Simple minded easy answers to justify one’s moral high ground. War is never easy. And the ones adept at believing it is are apt at propagating it.
Indeed, and not to mention the silly propagandish irrelevancy of calling it “good vs. evil” so we can cheer ourselves on from a good, safe distance. What matters is the results of all this, which, other than the war profiteers having a field day, are anything but clear at this point.
Speaking as someone who is “on the fence” so to speak on this war, I think that your comment contains a rather important point. Support for this war is high because we have not shed our own blood (other than volunteer soldiers for the Ukraine army) or committed our own resources full-time. I wonder how different things would be should the herses start driving through the streets of Wilitishre again.
Ironically, in invoking the second world war and its associated imagery and analogies, the author – a specialist in post-war Britain – forgets that the Second World War on the home front created a demoralised and fed-up country, bored of utility clothes and rationing – both of which continued unti after the war (even until1956 in the case of food rationing). The British may not have paid a heavy price in lives (relatively speaking), but they paid the price with their empire, culture, and way of life. That is the price of defeating the closest thing to true evil the planet has ever seen. This is somewhat different.
reductio ad Hitlerum – LOL. Rest assured, when the ratings for the series start to drop, ‘The Fonze’ will have to ‘jump the shark’. Not sure exactly what that will look like, but I expect you can substitute Zelinsky for the Fonze, and a nuke for the shark.
I’d say, it’s nice to have such articles now and then, so the dumb conspirologists don’t make their home at UnHerd 😀
Yeah I subscribe to UnHerd to get the same BS propaganda being peddled everywhere… Simple minded easy answers to justify one’s moral high ground. War is never easy. And the ones adept at believing it is are apt at propagating it.
Indeed, and not to mention the silly propagandish irrelevancy of calling it “good vs. evil” so we can cheer ourselves on from a good, safe distance. What matters is the results of all this, which, other than the war profiteers having a field day, are anything but clear at this point.
Speaking as someone who is “on the fence” so to speak on this war, I think that your comment contains a rather important point. Support for this war is high because we have not shed our own blood (other than volunteer soldiers for the Ukraine army) or committed our own resources full-time. I wonder how different things would be should the herses start driving through the streets of Wilitishre again.
Ironically, in invoking the second world war and its associated imagery and analogies, the author – a specialist in post-war Britain – forgets that the Second World War on the home front created a demoralised and fed-up country, bored of utility clothes and rationing – both of which continued unti after the war (even until1956 in the case of food rationing). The British may not have paid a heavy price in lives (relatively speaking), but they paid the price with their empire, culture, and way of life. That is the price of defeating the closest thing to true evil the planet has ever seen. This is somewhat different.
reductio ad Hitlerum – LOL. Rest assured, when the ratings for the series start to drop, ‘The Fonze’ will have to ‘jump the shark’. Not sure exactly what that will look like, but I expect you can substitute Zelinsky for the Fonze, and a nuke for the shark.
I’d say, it’s nice to have such articles now and then, so the dumb conspirologists don’t make their home at UnHerd 😀
Oh look, an article invoking reductio ad Hitlerum AND comparing Zelenskyy to Churchill, how original! I wonder why it gets so much praise…
The author makes loads of assumptions that are commonly made by commenters on this very page – first and foremost that the Ukrainians are the ones calling the shots.
I have said elsewhere that this is, at best, an over exaggeration and that the Ukrainians bargaining power will be determined by their military successes (which would have to be massive for them to actually get to decide anything).
The Americans and British are not the selfless “defenders of liberty and democracy” they (and the author) are making themselves out to be and are not supporting Ukraine for the stated reasons.
That a “professional historian” has published MSM propaganda on a webpage for the sceptically minded really only shows you that the consensus-making machine is working overtime.
One thing I am beginning to wonder after regularly seeing this opinion being aired time and again, is whether this war is so popular because it is part Drama/Thriller (Zelenskyy has even already got an Oscar for his performance!), part therapy for western guilt over all the atrocities they have committed (and I’m just talking about the last 30 years here). This kind of makes it the perfect war for (neo)liberals (neocons are always onboard) – no soldiers of their own have to die, plus it’s a way to feel good about themselves and virtue signal!
I just hope the series finale doesn’t end on a massive downer…
Yes, it really is simple, but it’s not about Good vs Evil. Whoever is running Biden gave Zelensky $113 billion and has pledged another $86 billion (I’d say tax dollars, but really, they’re just printing this sh*t now) and everyone seems to be in on the scheme to collapse real currency. Remember, according to the supreme overlords at Davos, a “shock” is needed to reset the world on the planned new order: insects and total control for the proles.
No, silly! It’s just a simple good vs. evil battle, which as every good person knows, always works out great for the good guys, so hooray for us good guys!! We “care” about Ukranians as of 30 seconds ago, as opposed to other populations that may or may not be getting butchered in other wars.
And what kind of sick person would ever think that one or two hundred billion unaccounted-for dollars would possibly enter into any of the decision making in this glorious war against evil (which will surely work out swimmingly as always)?
Well, a lot of these dollars are actually not dollars but military materiel. Some of it is about to be decomissioned and so it is actually saving taxpayer’s dollars if it’s shipped abroad — other, such as ammunition, may be close to expiration date and wouldn’t have been kept around much longer. Even the good stuff is usually assessed at the value when it was NEW or at the value that its export cost would be instead of production value.Furthermore, there are costs in logistics and maintenance added to it as well as training etc. That, plus the production costs, actually feeds back into the US economy. Therefore seeing it as this big cost to the taxpayer isn’t always right.
No, silly! It’s just a simple good vs. evil battle, which as every good person knows, always works out great for the good guys, so hooray for us good guys!! We “care” about Ukranians as of 30 seconds ago, as opposed to other populations that may or may not be getting butchered in other wars.
And what kind of sick person would ever think that one or two hundred billion unaccounted-for dollars would possibly enter into any of the decision making in this glorious war against evil (which will surely work out swimmingly as always)?
Well, a lot of these dollars are actually not dollars but military materiel. Some of it is about to be decomissioned and so it is actually saving taxpayer’s dollars if it’s shipped abroad — other, such as ammunition, may be close to expiration date and wouldn’t have been kept around much longer. Even the good stuff is usually assessed at the value when it was NEW or at the value that its export cost would be instead of production value.Furthermore, there are costs in logistics and maintenance added to it as well as training etc. That, plus the production costs, actually feeds back into the US economy. Therefore seeing it as this big cost to the taxpayer isn’t always right.
Yes, it really is simple, but it’s not about Good vs Evil. Whoever is running Biden gave Zelensky $113 billion and has pledged another $86 billion (I’d say tax dollars, but really, they’re just printing this sh*t now) and everyone seems to be in on the scheme to collapse real currency. Remember, according to the supreme overlords at Davos, a “shock” is needed to reset the world on the planned new order: insects and total control for the proles.
Back in April there could have been a cease fire with Russia pulling back to the lines of Feb 24th. Instead, we have been supplying weapons to prolong the war making huge profits for the Arms companies and fuel companies; but wrecking our economy and killing hundreds of thousands of people. We need a cease fire followed by negotiations. Otherwise there won’t be many Ukrainian men left to rebuild Ukraine.
If the Author truly believes that it is right to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, then he should go to Ukraine and join the Ukrainian army and put his own life on the line, otherwise he is just another chicken hawk.
I do not believe you. Links, please?
DYOR
So basically, you’re now copying the woke by shouting “educate yourself” rather than provide evidence to justify your position?
So basically, you’re now copying the woke by shouting “educate yourself” rather than provide evidence to justify your position?
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
Why don’t you prove otherwise by providing your own links?
How could I prove that Russia and Ukraine did not have secret talks in Turkey? And how can I disprove your arguments, if you will not tell me what they are? But you did. elsewhere on the page. And I answserd you there.
How could I prove that Russia and Ukraine did not have secret talks in Turkey? And how can I disprove your arguments, if you will not tell me what they are? But you did. elsewhere on the page. And I answserd you there.
I love it. All you do is ask for links, and in come the down-votes!
DYOR
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
Why don’t you prove otherwise by providing your own links?
I love it. All you do is ask for links, and in come the down-votes!
I do not believe you. Links, please?
Back in April there could have been a cease fire with Russia pulling back to the lines of Feb 24th. Instead, we have been supplying weapons to prolong the war making huge profits for the Arms companies and fuel companies; but wrecking our economy and killing hundreds of thousands of people. We need a cease fire followed by negotiations. Otherwise there won’t be many Ukrainian men left to rebuild Ukraine.
If the Author truly believes that it is right to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, then he should go to Ukraine and join the Ukrainian army and put his own life on the line, otherwise he is just another chicken hawk.
“Ukraine didn’t attack Russia; Russia attacked Ukraine.”
Yes, it did. It attacked Russia in exactly the same way that Cuba attacked the USA. Russia’s big mistake was being the world’s pivot for essential raw resources and trying to deal honourably with the West accordingly.
The US wants regime change. Just as the Soviet Union tried to threaten the USA with missiles in Cuba, so the USA intends to threaten Russia with a Western puppet regime in Kiev. A western aligned Ukraine can cut off food supply to Russia and inhibit and interrupt all Russia’s activities in the region…not to mention getting conventional weaponry within easy range of Russi’s economic centres.
The US leadership has shown itself to be utterly rotten an evil with untold acts of aggression for nothing more than maintaining global power and a constant supply of contracts for the congressional shareholders.
Arming Ukraine and the destruction of Nordstream is nothing less than the continuation of its progression of international terrorism.
If Russia did not invade we would have been guaranteed a Global war in the future. If Russia prevails, which it can do by taking Donbas and holding out for the new President and instilling further uncertainty and panic in Europe. This should regionalise the war despite how much the USA is trying to goad China and is talking up nuclear war.
Yeah, Ukraine’s going to threaten Russia – all 10 time zones of it.
Yeah, Ukraine’s going to threaten Russia – all 10 time zones of it.
“Ukraine didn’t attack Russia; Russia attacked Ukraine.”
Yes, it did. It attacked Russia in exactly the same way that Cuba attacked the USA. Russia’s big mistake was being the world’s pivot for essential raw resources and trying to deal honourably with the West accordingly.
The US wants regime change. Just as the Soviet Union tried to threaten the USA with missiles in Cuba, so the USA intends to threaten Russia with a Western puppet regime in Kiev. A western aligned Ukraine can cut off food supply to Russia and inhibit and interrupt all Russia’s activities in the region…not to mention getting conventional weaponry within easy range of Russi’s economic centres.
The US leadership has shown itself to be utterly rotten an evil with untold acts of aggression for nothing more than maintaining global power and a constant supply of contracts for the congressional shareholders.
Arming Ukraine and the destruction of Nordstream is nothing less than the continuation of its progression of international terrorism.
If Russia did not invade we would have been guaranteed a Global war in the future. If Russia prevails, which it can do by taking Donbas and holding out for the new President and instilling further uncertainty and panic in Europe. This should regionalise the war despite how much the USA is trying to goad China and is talking up nuclear war.
I enjoyed the intelligent, nice and polite discussion below this article, but I admit I could not read much of the article itself. It happens when I see absolute BS in the very first paragraph. I just can’t force myself to invest any more time. Here:
“to seize the Ukrainian capital, kill Volodymyr Zelenskyy and wipe much of the latter’s country from the map of Europe”
Where the author gets this crap? Produces himself? The Russia’s goals were quite clearly stated (totally not those three). You got to be a “journalist” to be able closing your eyes at the very precise moments to not observe what must be not observed.
Things changed since then of course.
I don’t know how nice and polite the comments are, but I agree with your assessment of the first paragraph. Unlike you, I read the entire piece, and found all of it on a par with the beginning. I.e., all “BS”. It’s embarrassing to see such ahistorical drivel being leaked from the pen of a person who claims to be a historian. No mention of US and UK undermining negotiations.No mention of the Minsk accords, or how they were used for purposes of deception. (So far, only one mention of Minsk, in a comment critical of the article.) No mention of Russian offers in late 2021, early 2022, to negotiate a security architecture for Europe. No mention of how the war has (no surprise here) profited the U.S. at Europe’s expense. No reference to the bombing of Nordstream.
And the author claims he’s a historian? He shows no sign of it here. What he shows instead is an effort at “narrative management.”
If that wasn’t the objective, why were Russian forces advancing on Kyiv at the start of the conflict?
There are at least two alternative explanations:
1. The Russians thought the Kiev government would collapse without serious armed conflict, and
2. As several Americans who have served in the military suggest, the Russians were shaping the battlefield by forcing Ukraine to keep a substantial number of troops near Kiev.
There are at least two alternative explanations:
1. The Russians thought the Kiev government would collapse without serious armed conflict, and
2. As several Americans who have served in the military suggest, the Russians were shaping the battlefield by forcing Ukraine to keep a substantial number of troops near Kiev.
The Russia’s goals were quite clearly stated, such as that they kept insisting they won’t invade and then in his invasion speech Putin said they won’t be occupying any of Ukraine’s territory? Where is the “denazification” now, when he clearly celebrated their success as in having the Azov sea now being an internal one?
What can be clearly seen thru all of this and is supported by reality on ground, is that Russia denies Ukraine its statehood, in a truly imperialist fashion it sees Ukraine as theirs and would have never let it exist in another shape than Belarus is now — and everyone in Ukraine have always known that (even babushka’s been telling this to me years and years ago).
Nothing but full submission into a status of vassal state or joining NATO would have averted the war.
I don’t know how nice and polite the comments are, but I agree with your assessment of the first paragraph. Unlike you, I read the entire piece, and found all of it on a par with the beginning. I.e., all “BS”. It’s embarrassing to see such ahistorical drivel being leaked from the pen of a person who claims to be a historian. No mention of US and UK undermining negotiations.No mention of the Minsk accords, or how they were used for purposes of deception. (So far, only one mention of Minsk, in a comment critical of the article.) No mention of Russian offers in late 2021, early 2022, to negotiate a security architecture for Europe. No mention of how the war has (no surprise here) profited the U.S. at Europe’s expense. No reference to the bombing of Nordstream.
And the author claims he’s a historian? He shows no sign of it here. What he shows instead is an effort at “narrative management.”
If that wasn’t the objective, why were Russian forces advancing on Kyiv at the start of the conflict?
The Russia’s goals were quite clearly stated, such as that they kept insisting they won’t invade and then in his invasion speech Putin said they won’t be occupying any of Ukraine’s territory? Where is the “denazification” now, when he clearly celebrated their success as in having the Azov sea now being an internal one?
What can be clearly seen thru all of this and is supported by reality on ground, is that Russia denies Ukraine its statehood, in a truly imperialist fashion it sees Ukraine as theirs and would have never let it exist in another shape than Belarus is now — and everyone in Ukraine have always known that (even babushka’s been telling this to me years and years ago).
Nothing but full submission into a status of vassal state or joining NATO would have averted the war.
I enjoyed the intelligent, nice and polite discussion below this article, but I admit I could not read much of the article itself. It happens when I see absolute BS in the very first paragraph. I just can’t force myself to invest any more time. Here:
“to seize the Ukrainian capital, kill Volodymyr Zelenskyy and wipe much of the latter’s country from the map of Europe”
Where the author gets this crap? Produces himself? The Russia’s goals were quite clearly stated (totally not those three). You got to be a “journalist” to be able closing your eyes at the very precise moments to not observe what must be not observed.
Things changed since then of course.
Disappointing to see someone with the obvious intellect of Sandbrook becoming a cheerleader for the ongoing destruction and suffering in Ukraine. Warmongers always feel the need to make things black and white, with moral certainties, to feel justified supporting bloodshed.
I agree that there’s a kind of attempted moral self-exoneration at work. Sanbrook feels the need to document his internal struggle to suggest he’s been forced to come to this conclusion due to it’s incontrovertible rectitude. I’m on his side of the issue, but we should keep resisting such self-certainty, particularly in matters of war. One can support or take a course of action without imagining their side holds all the truth, and nothing but the truth.
I agree that there’s a kind of attempted moral self-exoneration at work. Sanbrook feels the need to document his internal struggle to suggest he’s been forced to come to this conclusion due to it’s incontrovertible rectitude. I’m on his side of the issue, but we should keep resisting such self-certainty, particularly in matters of war. One can support or take a course of action without imagining their side holds all the truth, and nothing but the truth.
Disappointing to see someone with the obvious intellect of Sandbrook becoming a cheerleader for the ongoing destruction and suffering in Ukraine. Warmongers always feel the need to make things black and white, with moral certainties, to feel justified supporting bloodshed.
“[It] involves lots of people dying, because that’s the nature of war. It is simply to keep giving the Ukrainians the aid, weapons and emotional and political support they need, until they have driven every last occupier from their land.”
We aren’t giving the Ukrainian people weapons and political support, we are giving its government those things. The people are under marshal law with all civil protections suspended (something the UK did not do in the oft made comparison with its existential threat of WW2) so it is impossible to determine whether the war’s direction is supported by the Ukrainian people or indeed anyone but the inner sanctum of Zelensky’s advisors.
Ukraine was, is, a weak state with pronounced divisions and conflicted politics.That so many Ukrainians have fled both West *and East* and many only remain due to marshal law does not suggest there is widespread popular support for a blood and soil defence requiring “lots of people dying”.
This is not to say the war isn’t the right thing to do to contain Russia. NATO in Ukraine has successfully bogged down Russia in a quagmire of its own making. Thanks to this, Russia’s ability to repeat its involvement in Syria elsewhere is now severely constrained and NATO has gained new members. NATO command is again gaining valuable battle experience. Western military supply chains are being refreshed after years of neglect. These are the reasons why the US and UK are pouring money into Ukraine, not some high minded notion of democracy or the defence of the sacred connection between blood and soil.
I understand why Western governments must filter the optics of the war in terms of good and evil to maintain popular support and avoid the public disillusionment that set in with Iraq etc., But too much soap opera analysis will leave the historical record diminished and ironically risk a repeat of the failings in Iraq etc. That risk is our leaders believing their own rhetoric, losing sight of the strategic opportunities that compelled us to enter a (proxy) war, and thereby eventually throwing away the strategic gains made.
What on earth is the point of going on about how Ukrainians are being forced to keep fighting, and then in the next breath maintain support for Ukraine in the war? Also, many of us here and elsewhere aren’t “part of the government,” yet we too see this as a war against evil, because anyone with a brain ought to know full well that Putin is a menace, a ruthless political operator with delusions of expansionist grandeur. Stopping him is critical not only for Ukraine but for the surrounding states and to maintain order internationally.
Forcing people to fight and supporting a war are near mutually dependant. It is only the degree of forcing that varies, from contracted professional armies to conscription to full marshall law.
There are many menacing political operators that are expansionist. Anyone with a brain *and* open eyes can see good and evil has nothing to do with how we deal with them. Sometimes we are allied against them (Russia, an autocratic country that has competed against us for influence in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe) and sometimes we are allied with them (Pakistan, a theocracy that funded, armed and sheltered the array of tribal forces literally fighting against the Coalition in Afghanistan, and Saudi, a theocracy that sponsors radical Islam across the globe counter to Western interests).
Even the most pro-Putin hardliners cannot claim the Russian army has been a powerful foe in Ukraine. The complete failure of Russian combined forces in Ukraine long before any substantive aid from the West belies the claim that Russia threatens other Eastern European countries, let alone NATO members. Russia couldn’t even provide air cover over its forward positions during the first days of the war against a far smaller Ukrainian airforce and land based missile systems.
There are dozens of other good vs evil fights we could be getting involved in right now. We don’t simply because strategic benefit is the missing ingredient. Ukraine has a sack full of strategic benefit for an array of powerful stakeholders across the West.
The problem with your argument is that nobody claimed that Russia wasn’t an enormous military threat before the invasion, to include MI6 and the CIA.
And, following Putin’s inevitable fall after this, there is no guarantee that a competent dictator won’t take his place.
It’s the colonialist mindset of Russians which is the threat, not just Putin.
Is a sack full of strategic benefits good or bad? One becomes muddled; No?
Well said! It is so refreshing to see someone be honest about western support to Ukraine.
At the very least, can we all agree that it is martial law, not marshal law or marshall law – unless of course one is referring to Matt Dillon, formerly of Dodge City.
Or Wyatt Earp.
Or Wyatt Earp.
Why do do few people on this site know how to spell ‘Martial Law’?
Have watched far too many ‘Westerns’?
Have watched far too many ‘Westerns’?
Tell that theory of yours to European governments and watch them fall over laughing at how stupid it is. Yes, there are a lot of evil regimes, but only one threatens the international order at the moment because it invaded a sovereign country.
The problem with your argument is that nobody claimed that Russia wasn’t an enormous military threat before the invasion, to include MI6 and the CIA.
And, following Putin’s inevitable fall after this, there is no guarantee that a competent dictator won’t take his place.
It’s the colonialist mindset of Russians which is the threat, not just Putin.
Is a sack full of strategic benefits good or bad? One becomes muddled; No?
Well said! It is so refreshing to see someone be honest about western support to Ukraine.
At the very least, can we all agree that it is martial law, not marshal law or marshall law – unless of course one is referring to Matt Dillon, formerly of Dodge City.
Why do do few people on this site know how to spell ‘Martial Law’?
Tell that theory of yours to European governments and watch them fall over laughing at how stupid it is. Yes, there are a lot of evil regimes, but only one threatens the international order at the moment because it invaded a sovereign country.
Forcing people to fight and supporting a war are near mutually dependant. It is only the degree of forcing that varies, from contracted professional armies to conscription to full marshall law.
There are many menacing political operators that are expansionist. Anyone with a brain *and* open eyes can see good and evil has nothing to do with how we deal with them. Sometimes we are allied against them (Russia, an autocratic country that has competed against us for influence in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe) and sometimes we are allied with them (Pakistan, a theocracy that funded, armed and sheltered the array of tribal forces literally fighting against the Coalition in Afghanistan, and Saudi, a theocracy that sponsors radical Islam across the globe counter to Western interests).
Even the most pro-Putin hardliners cannot claim the Russian army has been a powerful foe in Ukraine. The complete failure of Russian combined forces in Ukraine long before any substantive aid from the West belies the claim that Russia threatens other Eastern European countries, let alone NATO members. Russia couldn’t even provide air cover over its forward positions during the first days of the war against a far smaller Ukrainian airforce and land based missile systems.
There are dozens of other good vs evil fights we could be getting involved in right now. We don’t simply because strategic benefit is the missing ingredient. Ukraine has a sack full of strategic benefit for an array of powerful stakeholders across the West.
The casuistry of it! “We aren’t given weapons to ‘the Ukrainians but its government” Are you consistent and use this circumlocutory formulation in any other context?
How dare those Ukrainians flee?! This is a pretty common enough result of war. But most are not fleeing and most men are fighting. You write a number of assertions “proxy war” etc. It is just completely absurd that any member of NATO including the United States wanted this war. Poor old Great Britain in 1940 if the US had taken the same line as you advocate for Ukraine today.
I’ve read much about Ukrainian history. It is complex, but a true nation is being formed. (And if it wasn’t, it doesn’t justify the invasion). The Ukrainian language is more different from Russian than Spanish and Portuguese; the majority of the Russian speakers don’t want to join Russia; and Ukraine, unlike tragically Russia, is on a slow painful path towards better government, less corruption, and democracy. The vast majority of Ukrainians, whatever language they speak, believe in throwing out the invader from all the territories seized, which of course didn’t begin in 2022.
“Most are not fleeing and m,ost men are fighting”.
Could just have something to do with universal conscription and the border being closed to men aged 16-60?
Huge publicity was given to men who ran away from the prospect of conscription (which hasn’t happened) in Russia – and Russia is only callling up reservists and hasn’t closed its borders to men of fighting age or anyone else- very little is given, by the death-or-glory commentators, to the helpless old men and young boys who Ukraine, now it has run out of fit young men, is pressganging to be killed in Bakhmut..
War is not glorious, and it is fought by soldiers, not the men who give the orders. How anyone, safe in the pampered West, can presume to know what the vast majority of Ukranians think, baffles me.
Bravo, sir.
The videos of babushkas pleading with the Ukrainian MPs dragging their aging husbands off the streets to be sent to the hellhole that is Bakhmut is heartrending.
They know by asking them. Pretty simple idea. Easy to implement.
Bravo, sir.
The videos of babushkas pleading with the Ukrainian MPs dragging their aging husbands off the streets to be sent to the hellhole that is Bakhmut is heartrending.
They know by asking them. Pretty simple idea. Easy to implement.
“Most are not fleeing and m,ost men are fighting”.
Could just have something to do with universal conscription and the border being closed to men aged 16-60?
Huge publicity was given to men who ran away from the prospect of conscription (which hasn’t happened) in Russia – and Russia is only callling up reservists and hasn’t closed its borders to men of fighting age or anyone else- very little is given, by the death-or-glory commentators, to the helpless old men and young boys who Ukraine, now it has run out of fit young men, is pressganging to be killed in Bakhmut..
War is not glorious, and it is fought by soldiers, not the men who give the orders. How anyone, safe in the pampered West, can presume to know what the vast majority of Ukranians think, baffles me.
The Ukrainian people have always had a choice with their govt. If they were dissatisfied enough, they would simply stop fighting and Putin would win.
But since the latter gleefully rains rockets down on their heads every week, to starve and freeze them, they know their foe is as bad as any totalitarian power in WW2.
Why do you think Bakhmut still holds?
What on earth is the point of going on about how Ukrainians are being forced to keep fighting, and then in the next breath maintain support for Ukraine in the war? Also, many of us here and elsewhere aren’t “part of the government,” yet we too see this as a war against evil, because anyone with a brain ought to know full well that Putin is a menace, a ruthless political operator with delusions of expansionist grandeur. Stopping him is critical not only for Ukraine but for the surrounding states and to maintain order internationally.
The casuistry of it! “We aren’t given weapons to ‘the Ukrainians but its government” Are you consistent and use this circumlocutory formulation in any other context?
How dare those Ukrainians flee?! This is a pretty common enough result of war. But most are not fleeing and most men are fighting. You write a number of assertions “proxy war” etc. It is just completely absurd that any member of NATO including the United States wanted this war. Poor old Great Britain in 1940 if the US had taken the same line as you advocate for Ukraine today.
I’ve read much about Ukrainian history. It is complex, but a true nation is being formed. (And if it wasn’t, it doesn’t justify the invasion). The Ukrainian language is more different from Russian than Spanish and Portuguese; the majority of the Russian speakers don’t want to join Russia; and Ukraine, unlike tragically Russia, is on a slow painful path towards better government, less corruption, and democracy. The vast majority of Ukrainians, whatever language they speak, believe in throwing out the invader from all the territories seized, which of course didn’t begin in 2022.
The Ukrainian people have always had a choice with their govt. If they were dissatisfied enough, they would simply stop fighting and Putin would win.
But since the latter gleefully rains rockets down on their heads every week, to starve and freeze them, they know their foe is as bad as any totalitarian power in WW2.
Why do you think Bakhmut still holds?
“[It] involves lots of people dying, because that’s the nature of war. It is simply to keep giving the Ukrainians the aid, weapons and emotional and political support they need, until they have driven every last occupier from their land.”
We aren’t giving the Ukrainian people weapons and political support, we are giving its government those things. The people are under marshal law with all civil protections suspended (something the UK did not do in the oft made comparison with its existential threat of WW2) so it is impossible to determine whether the war’s direction is supported by the Ukrainian people or indeed anyone but the inner sanctum of Zelensky’s advisors.
Ukraine was, is, a weak state with pronounced divisions and conflicted politics.That so many Ukrainians have fled both West *and East* and many only remain due to marshal law does not suggest there is widespread popular support for a blood and soil defence requiring “lots of people dying”.
This is not to say the war isn’t the right thing to do to contain Russia. NATO in Ukraine has successfully bogged down Russia in a quagmire of its own making. Thanks to this, Russia’s ability to repeat its involvement in Syria elsewhere is now severely constrained and NATO has gained new members. NATO command is again gaining valuable battle experience. Western military supply chains are being refreshed after years of neglect. These are the reasons why the US and UK are pouring money into Ukraine, not some high minded notion of democracy or the defence of the sacred connection between blood and soil.
I understand why Western governments must filter the optics of the war in terms of good and evil to maintain popular support and avoid the public disillusionment that set in with Iraq etc., But too much soap opera analysis will leave the historical record diminished and ironically risk a repeat of the failings in Iraq etc. That risk is our leaders believing their own rhetoric, losing sight of the strategic opportunities that compelled us to enter a (proxy) war, and thereby eventually throwing away the strategic gains made.
The late Jeremy Corbyn?
As already posted, he was referring to his political career.
As already posted, he was referring to his political career.
The late Jeremy Corbyn?
“How much evidence is required before it is clear that Western Civilization is empty of integrity, judgment, reason, morality, empathy, compassion, self-awareness, truth, empty of everything that Western Civilization once respected?
All that is left of the West is insouciance and unrestrained evil.”
~Paul Craig Roberts, former Undersecretary Of Treasury, Reagan Administration
But the evidence of these articles and comments, in themselves, put that conclusion where it belongs – in the quotes dustbin.
It might apply to some politicians, and to some groups in society, but Western Civilisation? WE – here and now, reading and responding – are equally Western Civilisation.
But the evidence of these articles and comments, in themselves, put that conclusion where it belongs – in the quotes dustbin.
It might apply to some politicians, and to some groups in society, but Western Civilisation? WE – here and now, reading and responding – are equally Western Civilisation.
“How much evidence is required before it is clear that Western Civilization is empty of integrity, judgment, reason, morality, empathy, compassion, self-awareness, truth, empty of everything that Western Civilization once respected?
All that is left of the West is insouciance and unrestrained evil.”
~Paul Craig Roberts, former Undersecretary Of Treasury, Reagan Administration
Well I agree that when the tanks start rolling the main question is: whose side are you on? But to suggest that this war has been caused by an evil expansionist Russia seeking to oppress the good Ukrainians, and that NATO and the EU have no responsibility for what is now happening, is just silly. The current war is the result of multiple poor policy decisions on both sides really since 1991 and the end of the Soviet Union. Understanding this might be a good first step to seeing an end to this other than by an attritional frozen conflict, which is the current direction of travel.
Well I agree that when the tanks start rolling the main question is: whose side are you on? But to suggest that this war has been caused by an evil expansionist Russia seeking to oppress the good Ukrainians, and that NATO and the EU have no responsibility for what is now happening, is just silly. The current war is the result of multiple poor policy decisions on both sides really since 1991 and the end of the Soviet Union. Understanding this might be a good first step to seeing an end to this other than by an attritional frozen conflict, which is the current direction of travel.
For those of you living in the UK (or with BBC iPlayer access) I recommend two of their recent program: one is on Putin and the West (high level) and the other on the post Soviet period up until Putin was annointed as the replacement for Yeltsin. The latter in particular is a street-level account of the chaotic fallout post Gorbachev and includes horrific narrative of the Chechyn war (before Putin’s second war there, which was even worse).
The second documentary series you refer to is Adam Curtis’s 7 part Traumazone, right ?
If it is, it’s also available on youtube. And is grimly magnificent.
Yes. Agree, one of tge best documentaries I’ve seen.
Yes. Agree, one of tge best documentaries I’ve seen.
The second documentary series you refer to is Adam Curtis’s 7 part Traumazone, right ?
If it is, it’s also available on youtube. And is grimly magnificent.
For those of you living in the UK (or with BBC iPlayer access) I recommend two of their recent program: one is on Putin and the West (high level) and the other on the post Soviet period up until Putin was annointed as the replacement for Yeltsin. The latter in particular is a street-level account of the chaotic fallout post Gorbachev and includes horrific narrative of the Chechyn war (before Putin’s second war there, which was even worse).
This is Globalist. BULLSHIT
This is Globalist. BULLSHIT
No matter how many people may argue about the causes of the First World War, said Clemenceau, “they will not say Belgium invaded Germany.” And yet.
No matter how many people may argue about the causes of the First World War, said Clemenceau, “they will not say Belgium invaded Germany.” And yet.
The basing of Nuclear Missiles in Cuba was an act accepted and approved by the people of Cuba, or so it is said by our left. We were not willing to accept such an arrangement and pushed to the edge of a nuclear confrontation. Much forgotten in this by many is the promise by the US to remove offensive missiles from Turkey and perhaps S. Italy, demonstrating at least some compromise, enough to give Khrushchev some face-saving cover. This gets to be quite muddled when the free country you like stands up to a big bully but the one you don’t like does the same. And no, I have no love for Communist Cuba but then again, Putin and the Russians may have no love for a NATO member Ukraine, housing US troops and air power. We have to know what our red line is and also Putin’s red line. Perhaps if our “intelligence community” had spent a little time analyzing these questions instead of interfering in our elections we would have a clearer view of the situation.
“promise by the US to remove offensive missiles”.
Nuclear tipped Jupiter Missiles as you well know. There could hardly have been a more blatant provocation and they were almost immediately found out! Brilliant!
However their removal was covert which Khrushchev should not have agreed to, and it did NOT provide “face saving cover” as he was soon replaced.
Khrushchev’s replacement was complicated; read his memoirs.
Khrushchev’s replacement was complicated; read his memoirs.
“promise by the US to remove offensive missiles”.
Nuclear tipped Jupiter Missiles as you well know. There could hardly have been a more blatant provocation and they were almost immediately found out! Brilliant!
However their removal was covert which Khrushchev should not have agreed to, and it did NOT provide “face saving cover” as he was soon replaced.
The basing of Nuclear Missiles in Cuba was an act accepted and approved by the people of Cuba, or so it is said by our left. We were not willing to accept such an arrangement and pushed to the edge of a nuclear confrontation. Much forgotten in this by many is the promise by the US to remove offensive missiles from Turkey and perhaps S. Italy, demonstrating at least some compromise, enough to give Khrushchev some face-saving cover. This gets to be quite muddled when the free country you like stands up to a big bully but the one you don’t like does the same. And no, I have no love for Communist Cuba but then again, Putin and the Russians may have no love for a NATO member Ukraine, housing US troops and air power. We have to know what our red line is and also Putin’s red line. Perhaps if our “intelligence community” had spent a little time analyzing these questions instead of interfering in our elections we would have a clearer view of the situation.
Having instigated the Great War the Tsar only lasted 31 months, and had Adolph not tampered with Barbarossa I very much doubt Stalin would not have lasted much longer, is not Putin facing the same fate?
I’m not sure Barbarossa could have ever been a success. The Russians were moving munitions production out to the Urals and beyond well before it started; and Russia is just so darned big! The Germans did a much better ‘job’ of it than Napoleon, but even that wasn’t good enough. I think Hitler’s interference only sped up the inevitable – a lot, maybe; but didn’t fundamentally change the outcome.
I have no idea if Putin will fall. I don’t know enough about the internal details of how the political power networks work inside Russia, and how good he is about balancing power blocs, and taking out people who could become threats. It’s all quite murky.
Had Moscow fallen by late August 1941, would that have been enough?
Had Moscow fallen by late August 1941, would that have been enough?
I’m not sure Barbarossa could have ever been a success. The Russians were moving munitions production out to the Urals and beyond well before it started; and Russia is just so darned big! The Germans did a much better ‘job’ of it than Napoleon, but even that wasn’t good enough. I think Hitler’s interference only sped up the inevitable – a lot, maybe; but didn’t fundamentally change the outcome.
I have no idea if Putin will fall. I don’t know enough about the internal details of how the political power networks work inside Russia, and how good he is about balancing power blocs, and taking out people who could become threats. It’s all quite murky.
Having instigated the Great War the Tsar only lasted 31 months, and had Adolph not tampered with Barbarossa I very much doubt Stalin would not have lasted much longer, is not Putin facing the same fate?
I cannot wait untill March 11, when my Unherd subscription expires and I no longer am faced with endless, mindless war propaganda. Unherd has become such a disappointment.
I cannot wait untill March 11, when my Unherd subscription expires and I no longer am faced with endless, mindless war propaganda. Unherd has become such a disappointment.
I am as guilty of underestimating the Ukrainians ans overestimating the Russians as Mr. Sandbrook and for similar reasons.
I honestly did not think that the Europeans, Germany in particular, had the stomach for the fight and without the Europeans, what the US could offer was limited.
And so, I thought any fight was going to result in nothing more than dead children and destroyed infrastructure. It may yet, but there is hope.
My other fear was an inability to prevent an escalation that engulfed Europe and potentially lead to the use of nuclear arms. That too could still happen.
Lastly, it appeared to me to be a potential drain in resources and attention for the US, leaving China free to take Taiwan or otherwise expand in the Pacific. This appears to be a very real possabiltity still and if it happens then the Europeans are going to have to be able to step up and shoulder more of the burden in Ukraine. I’m not sure the Europeans have the ability even if they have the will. Too many decades of demilitarization and failure to invest in the ability to produce weapons at scale. Could they find the resources to rapidly mobilize the ability to mass produce weapons? I dunno.
All that aside, I sincerely hope that the Ukrainians can hold out and win and they are in the right.
Nicely thought-through. ++
Nicely thought-through. ++
I am as guilty of underestimating the Ukrainians ans overestimating the Russians as Mr. Sandbrook and for similar reasons.
I honestly did not think that the Europeans, Germany in particular, had the stomach for the fight and without the Europeans, what the US could offer was limited.
And so, I thought any fight was going to result in nothing more than dead children and destroyed infrastructure. It may yet, but there is hope.
My other fear was an inability to prevent an escalation that engulfed Europe and potentially lead to the use of nuclear arms. That too could still happen.
Lastly, it appeared to me to be a potential drain in resources and attention for the US, leaving China free to take Taiwan or otherwise expand in the Pacific. This appears to be a very real possabiltity still and if it happens then the Europeans are going to have to be able to step up and shoulder more of the burden in Ukraine. I’m not sure the Europeans have the ability even if they have the will. Too many decades of demilitarization and failure to invest in the ability to produce weapons at scale. Could they find the resources to rapidly mobilize the ability to mass produce weapons? I dunno.
All that aside, I sincerely hope that the Ukrainians can hold out and win and they are in the right.
While I don’t agree with the binary simplicity of Sanbrook’s concluding two sentences, I do think this is the closest thing to a just war the US has waded into since before my parents were born in the late-1940s. We may not have all the right nor might on our collective side (with Ukraine and the West, not the contingent of pro-Russian or anti-US spectator saboteurs here) but we have more of both. Even my favorite Canadian uncle, a self described “left-wing sheep farmer”, who tends to take a dim view of anything the US does, has made an exception to his opposition on this one.
But I think those who warn against jingoistic excess have a point too. Ukraine’s resistance is stirring and just, but it is not a fictional underdog tale like the movie 300 while many Ukrainian men of all ages and mostly poor Russian young men are being handed a real-life death sentence due to politics they have zero personal control over or culpability for–like most wars, but glaringly so.
Those of us well to the west of the fighting might perceive little threat to the comparative calmness and safety of our vantage points, but that is not an absolute safety. We should have our hearts and minds bent toward peace, with a view toward a just resolution that isn’t self-glorifying, bloodthirsty, or too stubborn and steep.
The binary simplicity has come about following a protracted period of reflection, self-doubt, analysis and therefore all due consideration. It’s justified, in my opinion, as a conclusion.
Ok. I acknowledge that there are true splits of that sort. There are many more that seem that way. I still think it’s a more fair-minded and less bellicose stance to contend: “As I’ve said/will show, our side is in the right” than “After an internal struggle I have removed all doubt and must conclude that the side I’m on is 100 percent right and it’s just that simple”, as if the internal war and analysis occurred on an even, objective “battlefield”.
Ok. I acknowledge that there are true splits of that sort. There are many more that seem that way. I still think it’s a more fair-minded and less bellicose stance to contend: “As I’ve said/will show, our side is in the right” than “After an internal struggle I have removed all doubt and must conclude that the side I’m on is 100 percent right and it’s just that simple”, as if the internal war and analysis occurred on an even, objective “battlefield”.
The binary simplicity has come about following a protracted period of reflection, self-doubt, analysis and therefore all due consideration. It’s justified, in my opinion, as a conclusion.
While I don’t agree with the binary simplicity of Sanbrook’s concluding two sentences, I do think this is the closest thing to a just war the US has waded into since before my parents were born in the late-1940s. We may not have all the right nor might on our collective side (with Ukraine and the West, not the contingent of pro-Russian or anti-US spectator saboteurs here) but we have more of both. Even my favorite Canadian uncle, a self described “left-wing sheep farmer”, who tends to take a dim view of anything the US does, has made an exception to his opposition on this one.
But I think those who warn against jingoistic excess have a point too. Ukraine’s resistance is stirring and just, but it is not a fictional underdog tale like the movie 300 while many Ukrainian men of all ages and mostly poor Russian young men are being handed a real-life death sentence due to politics they have zero personal control over or culpability for–like most wars, but glaringly so.
Those of us well to the west of the fighting might perceive little threat to the comparative calmness and safety of our vantage points, but that is not an absolute safety. We should have our hearts and minds bent toward peace, with a view toward a just resolution that isn’t self-glorifying, bloodthirsty, or too stubborn and steep.
Are Left and Right coming together over the War in Ukraine?Does commitment to the Wolfowitz Doctrine explain the US commitment to war in the Ukraine? And have we been operating under such a doctrine since 1947?
https://dvwilliamson.substack.com/p/are-left-and-right-coming-together
Are Left and Right coming together over the War in Ukraine?Does commitment to the Wolfowitz Doctrine explain the US commitment to war in the Ukraine? And have we been operating under such a doctrine since 1947?
https://dvwilliamson.substack.com/p/are-left-and-right-coming-together
I could be wrong, but I believe an article just like this one was written in the early stages of every war throughout human history.
I could be wrong, but I believe an article just like this one was written in the early stages of every war throughout human history.
The article shows a simplistic manichean vision that emanates from Cold War nostalgia.
And, to be honest, during the Cold War the West deserved much more the “Good” description than today.
The article shows a simplistic manichean vision that emanates from Cold War nostalgia.
And, to be honest, during the Cold War the West deserved much more the “Good” description than today.
Good piece. I agree with you that the silence on Syria has been deafening. I have never heard anyone in my circle mention it. I don’t think it is hard to understand tho. Everyone knows what happened when we intervened in Iraq . People have never stopped blaming the West for that. So to complain when we don’t intervene, in Syria, would be the height of hypocrisy , and most folk instinctively know that. Thus the only response is silence- which we’ve had.
Also, the opposition in Syria were a mixed bag- some have behaved appallingly. If we’d been involved we would have had some pretty unpleasant bedfellows, and no doubt there would have been isolated examples of bad behaviour by our troops, as there were in Iraq and Afghanistan, which we’d never have heard the end of. I do feel very sorry, tho, for the moderates among them. They no doubt thought we would come to their aid. Assad, correctly, guessed that we had had enough and would leave well alone.
Good piece. I agree with you that the silence on Syria has been deafening. I have never heard anyone in my circle mention it. I don’t think it is hard to understand tho. Everyone knows what happened when we intervened in Iraq . People have never stopped blaming the West for that. So to complain when we don’t intervene, in Syria, would be the height of hypocrisy , and most folk instinctively know that. Thus the only response is silence- which we’ve had.
Also, the opposition in Syria were a mixed bag- some have behaved appallingly. If we’d been involved we would have had some pretty unpleasant bedfellows, and no doubt there would have been isolated examples of bad behaviour by our troops, as there were in Iraq and Afghanistan, which we’d never have heard the end of. I do feel very sorry, tho, for the moderates among them. They no doubt thought we would come to their aid. Assad, correctly, guessed that we had had enough and would leave well alone.
This article represents the herd in all it’s glory. Putin was warning about NATO expansionism and nationalistic neo Nazi militias attacking Donbas for 10 years and the west ignored him. Now everyone is a hawk wanting Ukraine to win and no compromise is accepted because like all Holly wars we need to defeat EVIL. The consequences will be on the heads of the herd. What happened to make love, not war? Now another war is being provoked and sold to the herd with balloon stories and EVIL China. The herd really wants to self destruct because any country that does not accept to be inundated by Woke ideology needs to be destroyed and needs to be EVIL. What a blatant religious fanatismo!!
This article represents the herd in all it’s glory. Putin was warning about NATO expansionism and nationalistic neo Nazi militias attacking Donbas for 10 years and the west ignored him. Now everyone is a hawk wanting Ukraine to win and no compromise is accepted because like all Holly wars we need to defeat EVIL. The consequences will be on the heads of the herd. What happened to make love, not war? Now another war is being provoked and sold to the herd with balloon stories and EVIL China. The herd really wants to self destruct because any country that does not accept to be inundated by Woke ideology needs to be destroyed and needs to be EVIL. What a blatant religious fanatismo!!
Yesterday I saw on the news channels that the Biden administration will give $100 million towards relief of the tragedy in Turkey and Syria. And, in the same breath, will make available a further $500 million towards arms and ammunition for Ukraine.
Who else on these threads finds such priorities disturbing if not downright disgusting?
Yesterday I saw on the news channels that the Biden administration will give $100 million towards relief of the tragedy in Turkey and Syria. And, in the same breath, will make available a further $500 million towards arms and ammunition for Ukraine.
Who else on these threads finds such priorities disturbing if not downright disgusting?
This is also about broken supply chains, about developing countries suffering, about industry suffering, about food and fertiliser shortages, energy crisis. This war is having global consequences:
Madame President,
Excellencies,
Russia’s war in Ukraine shows no sign of letting up.
The past seven months have seen unspeakable suffering and devastation.
The latest developments are dangerous and disturbing.
They are further steps away from any prospect of peace – and towards an endless cycle of horror and bloodshed.
As I have said from the start, this senseless war has unlimited potential to do terrible harm – in Ukraine, and around the world……
…… At the global level, the conflict has supercharged a triple crisis of food, energy and finance. This is driving millions more people into extreme poverty and hunger, and reversing years of progress on development, and follows the COVID crisis and the growing impact of climate change.
The collateral damage of this war is being felt in dozens of developing countries already grappling with recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and battered by the climate crisis.
The most vulnerable are suffering most……..
….. The International Atomic Energy Agency is consulting with all parties involved on measures to ensure the safety of the plant and surrounding areas. I thank the IAEA for its work. Its continued presence at the plant is an important deterrent.
All attacks on nuclear facilities must end, and the purely civilian nature of such plants must be re-established.
Any damage to nuclear infrastructure, whether deliberate or not, could have terrible consequences for people around the plant and far beyond.
The world cannot afford a nuclear catastrophe………
……. We are doing everything possible to facilitate this, and to ease the serious fertilizer market crunch that is already affecting farming in West Africa and elsewhere.
If the fertilizer market is not stabilized, next year could bring a food supply crisis. Simply put, the world may run out of food.
It is essential that all States remove every remaining obstacle to the export of Russian fertilizers immediately. We need to get them to farmers at a reasonable cost, and on to fields as soon as possible…….
……. There is only one way to end the suffering in Ukraine – and that is by ending the war.
I will continue to spare no effort for peace – peace in line with international law and the Charter of the United Nations.
And I appeal to all Member States, and especially those here today, to redouble all efforts to prevent further escalation, and to do all they can to end the war and to ensure lasting peace
UN secretary General speaking.
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2022-09-22/secretary-generals-remarks-the-security-council-ukraine#:~:text=There%20is%20only%20one%20way,Charter%20of%20the%20United%20 Nations.
‘It will be almost impossible for the Russians to achieve their political objectives by military means. It is unlikely that Russia is going to overrun Ukraine. It’s just not going to happen,” said Milley, adding that it will be “very, very difficult” for Ukraine to expel all Russian forces from occupied territory.
“It’s not to say that it can’t happen…” he said. “But it’s extraordinarily difficult. And it would require essentially the collapse of the Russian military.’
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/general-milley-russia-ukraine-war-183038867.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuemVyb2hlZGdlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFBvCSK55uMXpHWz_YPmzwpdx3MNtYXwTIBa0teg6CkDCAZ_P0V2emkEZ1tl9z3Q2x1hh9bCewjFyk-GkseD4pt8mcK2mt3EKzVz3dirFw8eh1MpK9W9AZRt5adgMFwgq_f483W_vgOBHOj-2OFUrJokg2gEl_2uFwK7EZDGlsDL
This is only going to end in a stalemate. We must make sure this does not escalate, the damage to the global order is happening already.
‘When FT asked him whether talks between Moscow and Kiev are at all possible, Milley responded: “We’re weeks away from the beginning of spring, but it’s a rolling window. There’s opportunities at any moment in time.” But he still acknowledged both sides are dug into their positions now more than ever, making near-term serious dialogue unlikely.’
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-military-winner-likely-ukraine-conflict-will-end-future-negotiations-gen-milley
We need to start finding an opportunity for negotiation.
DIPLOMACY NOW. NO NATO WAR. NO DECOUPLING. FREE TRADE.
Are you suggesting that the Ukrainians should surrender and give up their nation to Russia simply to make fertilisers cheaper for developing nations? Why don’t you instead suggest Russia pulls all its forces back from the Ukrainian territory it agreed to honour in the treaty 30 years ago? Why is it up to those defending their homes from a hostile invasion to have to give everything up in order to end the war?
Actually lifting sanctions would not affect the war really, russia is selling its oil to India, who are then selling it on to us, the sanctions aren’t working and they having enormous impacts, fertiliser is made using natural gas. These plants have had to scale back because of the gas prices. European industry is suffering because of the energy prices. Pakistan is a nuclear power, close to collapse, lng shortage is making their situation worse. All this is ridiculous. Its not simply about ‘making fertiliser cheaper for developing countries’, (it is very expensive here now too), some of these countries are suffering enormously, with enormous consequences if we cannot stabilise the global situation:
THE LAST YEAR has brought Pakistan to the brink. A series of rolling disasters — including catastrophic flooding, political paralysis, exploding inflation, and a resurgent terror threat — now risk sending a key, if troubled, global player into full-blown crisis. If the worst comes to pass, as some experts warn, the catastrophe unfolding in Pakistan will have consequences far beyond its borders.
“This is a country of 220 million people, with nuclear weapons and serious internal conflicts and divisions,” said Uzair Younus, the director of the Pakistan Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center. “The world didn’t like the outflows of refugees and weapons that came from countries like Syria and Libya. In comparison, Pakistan is magnitudes larger and more consequential
https://theintercept.com/2023/02/12/pakistan-economy-crisis-imf/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20 Newsletter
I have not objected to the Ukrainians defending themselves, I am objecting to a wider NATO war that could end in nuclear confrontation and sanctions which are causing carnage.
DIPLOMACY NOW. NO NATO WAR. NO DECOUPLING. FREE TRADE.
Even the subscribers to UnHerd don’t realise they’ve been propagandered. What chance does anyone else have?
You can but try I suppose.
You can but try I suppose.
So Ukraine should surrender and it’s citizens be subjugated by Russia to avoid the economic collapse of a nation on a different continent to which it has no ties? Again, if it’s that important why don’t you demand Russia simply withdraw its forces rather than the Ukrainians give up their homeland?
Even the subscribers to UnHerd don’t realise they’ve been propagandered. What chance does anyone else have?
So Ukraine should surrender and it’s citizens be subjugated by Russia to avoid the economic collapse of a nation on a different continent to which it has no ties? Again, if it’s that important why don’t you demand Russia simply withdraw its forces rather than the Ukrainians give up their homeland?
Actually lifting sanctions would not affect the war really, russia is selling its oil to India, who are then selling it on to us, the sanctions aren’t working and they having enormous impacts, fertiliser is made using natural gas. These plants have had to scale back because of the gas prices. European industry is suffering because of the energy prices. Pakistan is a nuclear power, close to collapse, lng shortage is making their situation worse. All this is ridiculous. Its not simply about ‘making fertiliser cheaper for developing countries’, (it is very expensive here now too), some of these countries are suffering enormously, with enormous consequences if we cannot stabilise the global situation:
THE LAST YEAR has brought Pakistan to the brink. A series of rolling disasters — including catastrophic flooding, political paralysis, exploding inflation, and a resurgent terror threat — now risk sending a key, if troubled, global player into full-blown crisis. If the worst comes to pass, as some experts warn, the catastrophe unfolding in Pakistan will have consequences far beyond its borders.
“This is a country of 220 million people, with nuclear weapons and serious internal conflicts and divisions,” said Uzair Younus, the director of the Pakistan Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center. “The world didn’t like the outflows of refugees and weapons that came from countries like Syria and Libya. In comparison, Pakistan is magnitudes larger and more consequential
https://theintercept.com/2023/02/12/pakistan-economy-crisis-imf/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20 Newsletter
I have not objected to the Ukrainians defending themselves, I am objecting to a wider NATO war that could end in nuclear confrontation and sanctions which are causing carnage.
DIPLOMACY NOW. NO NATO WAR. NO DECOUPLING. FREE TRADE.
Unfortunately Ms Emery negotiation is NOT good for business.
I expect that some are banking on this going on and on. I feel like it will only be good for a select few businesses though.
Millions of US jobs are dependent on the Arms business and its satellites such as NASA.
I know, millions of lives are arguably depending on this not kicking off though. Can’t we find them something else to make? They can go mine the moon and fight with China and Russia up there, have a kind of moon robot drone war instead? Nasa happy, arms industry happy, earth safe only robots get hurt and only moon minerals are at stake?
‘They’ must be absolutely certain that Putin & Co won’t go NUCLEAR whatever the provocation.
Odd to think Mr Putin may indeed have more self control that the late Mr Truman. Let’s hope they are correct, as my Bunker is far from finished. How about yours?
Yes I expect they know a lot more than I do, or I hope they do, I have no idea how trigger happy on the nukes Mr putin would be tbh, I am hopeful not very. But still.
Do you know we are very lucky, actually have an old ww2 bunker on the farm…. A small radio outpost type one, toilet still in it and everything but not usable, pretty bad state as the cover has been off for some time, but, still, a bunker!
The danger here is that the Americans love fighting wars on someone else’s territory. Any war will be in Europe. I can imagine all the US generals getting excited about their toys beating the Russkys’ toys.
Yes I fear it is very easy to call for escalation from the opposite side of the Atlantic.
If the Chinese are ‘up to speed’ they will have already prepositioned their nuclear weapons in various strategic US cities.
Not a particularly difficult task if you have the patience, which they certainly have ‘in spades’.
Perhaps I will be sure to remind the Americans of that next time it comes to arguing about Taiwan. They do have some snazzy hypersonic missiles the Chinese from what I have read.
I think the hypersonic Missiles may have been over-hyped.
But when a 4KT ground zero burst goes off in Fu-Machu’s Massage Parlour in downtown Seattle it will be time to think again.
Not quite the same bang at the end one would hope for when visiting such a place I should think.
Jolly good. I hope they are over hyped, I feel like the Chinese at least will be more interested in missile attacking America, unlike Russia who has Europe nice and close.
For someone who cares about peace, you sound remarkably happy at the idea of your own side being attacjked.
It’s the British disposition of remaining cheerful and sarcastic in all situations. It is probably lost on you.
It’s the British disposition of remaining cheerful and sarcastic in all situations. It is probably lost on you.
For someone who cares about peace, you sound remarkably happy at the idea of your own side being attacjked.
Not quite the same bang at the end one would hope for when visiting such a place I should think.
Jolly good. I hope they are over hyped, I feel like the Chinese at least will be more interested in missile attacking America, unlike Russia who has Europe nice and close.
I think the hypersonic Missiles may have been over-hyped.
But when a 4KT ground zero burst goes off in Fu-Machu’s Massage Parlour in downtown Seattle it will be time to think again.
Actually, I think they’ve been quite worried about this for some time now.
The fissile materials do produce very limited amounts of radiation, since the have non-infinite half-lives; but it is possible to shield them quite well – but no shielding is perfect (gammas and neutrons are quite difficult to stop 100%). I get the impression they’ve set up a sensor network to detect this.
Let’s hope so!
Let’s hope so!
Perhaps I will be sure to remind the Americans of that next time it comes to arguing about Taiwan. They do have some snazzy hypersonic missiles the Chinese from what I have read.
Actually, I think they’ve been quite worried about this for some time now.
The fissile materials do produce very limited amounts of radiation, since the have non-infinite half-lives; but it is possible to shield them quite well – but no shielding is perfect (gammas and neutrons are quite difficult to stop 100%). I get the impression they’ve set up a sensor network to detect this.
If the Chinese are ‘up to speed’ they will have already prepositioned their nuclear weapons in various strategic US cities.
Not a particularly difficult task if you have the patience, which they certainly have ‘in spades’.
Yes I fear it is very easy to call for escalation from the opposite side of the Atlantic.
The danger here is that the Americans love fighting wars on someone else’s territory. Any war will be in Europe. I can imagine all the US generals getting excited about their toys beating the Russkys’ toys.
Yes I expect they know a lot more than I do, or I hope they do, I have no idea how trigger happy on the nukes Mr putin would be tbh, I am hopeful not very. But still.
Do you know we are very lucky, actually have an old ww2 bunker on the farm…. A small radio outpost type one, toilet still in it and everything but not usable, pretty bad state as the cover has been off for some time, but, still, a bunker!
‘They’ must be absolutely certain that Putin & Co won’t go NUCLEAR whatever the provocation.
Odd to think Mr Putin may indeed have more self control that the late Mr Truman. Let’s hope they are correct, as my Bunker is far from finished. How about yours?
I know, millions of lives are arguably depending on this not kicking off though. Can’t we find them something else to make? They can go mine the moon and fight with China and Russia up there, have a kind of moon robot drone war instead? Nasa happy, arms industry happy, earth safe only robots get hurt and only moon minerals are at stake?
Millions of US jobs are dependent on the Arms business and its satellites such as NASA.
I expect that some are banking on this going on and on. I feel like it will only be good for a select few businesses though.
You are wasting your breath, trying to convince us that war is bad and this war is bad for large parts of the world. We know that. We agree. The question that actually matters is who you think should stop this war, how they should stop it, and what the world woudl look like afterwards. WHat is your view onj that? And are you willing to tell us what it is, and stand by it?
OK. I’ll do my best to give it go. That’s a pretty big thing to lay out. Feel free to blow massive holes in my ramblings as you please. In my hypothetical world….
The west puts its grown up diplomatic head on and reaches out to the east, china are still open to talking to us. Isn’t that part of the reason for the un? So people can do diplomacy? We decide that actually kicking the crap out of each has historically only resulted in lots of dead people and destruction. We recognise that nuclear escalation is stupid. We remember that sensible free trade between nations is beneficial.
We lift all sanctions on every nation. They do not work, people just find ways around them and they hurt ordinary people. It may also help bring inflation under control.
We stop trying to decouple from the east. If countries want to reshore this needs to be done over a protracted period with both costs for resources and energy under control, on a country by country basis as they choose, not all at once in a mad rush to cut off the east, in the current climate, it is very difficult for Europe to reshore, we have shortages of some things already.
The dollar is in a bit of trouble perhaps, perhaps talking with China and Russia that could also go over to some kind of gold standard? If we continue to trade with them they have no need to be isolationist too? We are going to have to accept that they will want more say on the whole power balance, perhaps it would be a good idea to at least try and talk with them and try and see this as a completely new start for world relations, with a more even balance of power? I understand both china and Russia have plenty of bad stuff in their history, but so do we, maybe it is time to move on from the old cold war mentality and at least give it one go. Perhaps we could at least get rid of the nukes, everywhere. At least try one more time, to solve ukraine and Taiwan without turning this into ww3 multi polar dystopia. Perhaps we could try just once to stop this all falling down. If we fail, well then we will have to fight anyway.
Forget about the UN – as toothless as the old League of Nations and seen as completely controlled by the Americans.
As you rightly say (sort of), the US is more worried about the dollar and the internal effects than anything else. Commercially, China will wipe the floor with the Americans except in one field – armaments. The US needs to prove that its arms are better in order to frighten China away. The war in the Ukraine is ideal for this.
The danger for the US is when Russia appears to be winning and that causes China to side with the Russians. Russia has to be defeated. Hence the propaganda. The US will continue to ‘support’ the Europeans (‘We’re behind you. We’re on your side’). But they won’t actually do anything.
The solution is hard to find. One way is for the Ukranians to lose quickly but that won’t happen. Another is for Russian internal pressure to cause enough problems for Putin to have an accident. Maybe the most likely.
I was working (it does have to be done sometimes), and you did deserve a considered reply. I may have done you an injustice, earlier. I am now willing to believe you are sincere idealist, whereas I had thought that you were in favour of surrendering Ukraine to Russia and simply chose not to admit to the consequences of you own actions.
Your plan sounds lovely, the problem is that it could only work in your hypothetical world – and we live in the real one. It would require that all actors had a sincere desire to reach a happy peaceful world and make the necessary sacrifices. But they do not. Putin’s Russia – by their own words – want a world where Russia is a strong empire and commands over its neighbours, and are happy to wage a devastating war with tens of thousands of deaths to achieve their goal. Xi’s China also wants to be a strong empire where they can rule the neighbouring areas, and furthermore where no country dares harbour their dissidents or say anything they find offensive. Modi’s India is moving towards a Hindu nation state with other religions squeezed to the margins, and we in the West are not angels either. It is not impossible to at least avoid the worst outcomes and work to get better ones, but you do need to base you plans on the state of the world you are actually living in.
If you want to get to your goal in Ukraine, you first of all have to convince Putin to share it – which he will not. In practice you are speaking to the West, and the West only. And the choice we have is simply to help Ukraine fight its war – or not. If we help, the war drags on. If we stop helping, Ukraine surrenders shortly afterwards, leaving Russia to grab a lot of territories, keep Ukraine as a dependent vassal forever, and look around with interest for other places to fight successful wars. We need to identify the best outcome we can realistically hope for, and to figure out how we can motivate Russia to allow us to get there, be it with carrot or stick. I am actually open to the argument that it might be better to give up – for the only way to end a war quickly is to surrender. As Vietnam and Afghanistan showed, you need to adapt to reality; if you are going to lose in the end anyway, there is no moral case for fighting a long war with lots of dead just to reach the same result. But before choosing that option, I insist that we must take a clear-eyed look at what the consequences of our various actions will be in the real world – for Ukrainians and others.
In the real world, you need to look at what choices you actually have, and what would be the expected result. If you need cooperation from other parties to get where you want to go, you need to consider their actions and interests, and look at how you can motivate them to do what you think they should. Hint: a country is a lot more likely to avoid doing the wrong thing, if it thinks doing the wrong thing will be costly. Simply acting as if we were already living in Paradise, where the lion shall lie down with the lamb, is unlikely to work the way you would like. And if you have responsibility for the life and fortunes of other people it is frankly irresponsible.
I greatly sympathize with these remarks and share your passionate frustration with war and large-scale global division. But I’m afraid the current, context-applied answer to your legitimate implied question: Can’t we all just get along?–is no. That doesn’t mean we should abandon diplomacy or cooperation, nor peace, love, and understanding and drum circles (I’m not even kidding except in my tone).
The folly and horrific cost of war is quite universally known. But that knowledge doesn’t stop us or provide workable pathways to peace. I think you are characterizing both Russia and China as far more amenable to diplomacy and cooperation than they really are. I’m not saying the track record and collective motives of the West are pure, but c’mon…it takes two or more to tango!
Honest answer.
I personally, think this is probably way too far gone now, the war machine is already underway and to be honest, has been for some time, so has decoupling, the dollar is potentially already in trouble. To be honest.
I think what is coming regarding war and a change of global power structures is inevitable really, but hey ho, I can still try and make an argument for peace. I realise most if not all of what I have written is very difficult if not impossible to achieve. That it relies on differences being resolved on a ridiculous scale that is also, possibly impossible. However, in Britain the phrase ‘There is no such word as can’t’ is well known, I was challenged to give a solution, so I thought I’d give it a try. It’s not a small problem and so would require radical solutions. Mine is in the realm of radically impossible, I do appreciate that.
.
Cheers. Thanks for making your contribution and for staying civil (usually) even when you’re emphatic or outraged–I could take a page or two from your posts on that front. I’d say the world you envision–a close-to-ideal version where both the US and the Other Guys behave themselves far better and more cooperatively–is possible, just a very tall order and something that will/would have to be renewed and re-worked without end.
I try never to mock or dismiss someone for advocating peace and cooperation. Sometimes a more practical contribution to World Peace is being kind to the next person you meet–even, or maybe especially when they look dodgy (tougher prospect for a woman). But I believe that calls for universal ceasefires and the kind of peacemaking and nonviolent energy that women have in greater measure (on average, in my opinion) are valuable and indispensable to keeping the world from being even worse. I hope more of your pacific waves ripple across the Atlantic!
As Elvis Costello challenges: “What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding?”
I’m always emphatic and outraged, not always civil, cheap and tawdry, contrary, circle drum peace idiot whatever you like.
I try never to mock or dismiss someone for advocating peace and cooperation. – well that might be wise since all we are trying to do is avert a nuclear apocalypse.
maybe especially when they look dodgy – I am more likely to be the one that looks dodgy.
As Elvis Costello challenges: “What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding – I don’t know but apparently America thinks its a hilarious prospect it just can’t deal with.
Easy now. America is a big place with 330 million people who don’t conform to any patterns you may want to dress them in: good, bad, or ugly.
I guess I shouldn’t have generalized about whether you’re civil or not. It seems I might have irritated you with that remark but it’s pretty hard to read tone on a screen.
No offense meant (quite the opposite) but I also don’t want only big-smile remote-glad-handing or “loud-agreement” exchanges, which can be pointless or quite phony. I respect your passion and complexity. I’d rather not field too much outrage or be made to answer for all of America’s misdeeds but I can handle that too, if need be, and digital engagement is voluntary. I’m no stranger to emphatic-ness and outrage myself. Rock on with your millennial self.
I don’t really get offended like that, so none taken, thanks. Sorry it was a late that comment it was a bit bitey. Somebody here joked I write on emery paper, abrasive, I have threatened to change my user name accordingly 🙂
I honestly have no problems with Americans, when I say America I mean your enormous crazy government and all that that entails. As far as I can tell, most people have had enough of their governments at the moment, ours is hardly doing a better job, so I don’t hold you all accountable at all, I just think your government has got a bit a big and crazy.
Oh our government is a mess and our overall society has gone (more) bonkers, no doubt. I just don’t want to be associated with the craziest parts. I get defensive and personally upset over things I shouldn’t, often not even directed at me. Maybe it comes, in part, from being a (pretty much) fully Americanized half-Canadian with northern relatives who harass me about the US government as if I represent it in the flesh (or that’s how it seems when I get defensive).
Emery board! Cheers.
Oh our government is a mess and our overall society has gone (more) bonkers, no doubt. I just don’t want to be associated with the craziest parts. I get defensive and personally upset over things I shouldn’t, often not even directed at me. Maybe it comes, in part, from being a (pretty much) fully Americanized half-Canadian with northern relatives who harass me about the US government as if I represent it in the flesh (or that’s how it seems when I get defensive).
Emery board! Cheers.
I don’t really get offended like that, so none taken, thanks. Sorry it was a late that comment it was a bit bitey. Somebody here joked I write on emery paper, abrasive, I have threatened to change my user name accordingly 🙂
I honestly have no problems with Americans, when I say America I mean your enormous crazy government and all that that entails. As far as I can tell, most people have had enough of their governments at the moment, ours is hardly doing a better job, so I don’t hold you all accountable at all, I just think your government has got a bit a big and crazy.
Easy now. America is a big place with 330 million people who don’t conform to any patterns you may want to dress them in: good, bad, or ugly.
I guess I shouldn’t have generalized about whether you’re civil or not. It seems I might have irritated you with that remark but it’s pretty hard to read tone on a screen.
No offense meant (quite the opposite) but I also don’t want only big-smile remote-glad-handing or “loud-agreement” exchanges, which can be pointless or quite phony. I respect your passion and complexity. I’d rather not field too much outrage or be made to answer for all of America’s misdeeds but I can handle that too, if need be, and digital engagement is voluntary. I’m no stranger to emphatic-ness and outrage myself. Rock on with your millennial self.
I’m always emphatic and outraged, not always civil, cheap and tawdry, contrary, circle drum peace idiot whatever you like.
I try never to mock or dismiss someone for advocating peace and cooperation. – well that might be wise since all we are trying to do is avert a nuclear apocalypse.
maybe especially when they look dodgy – I am more likely to be the one that looks dodgy.
As Elvis Costello challenges: “What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding – I don’t know but apparently America thinks its a hilarious prospect it just can’t deal with.
Cheers. Thanks for making your contribution and for staying civil (usually) even when you’re emphatic or outraged–I could take a page or two from your posts on that front. I’d say the world you envision–a close-to-ideal version where both the US and the Other Guys behave themselves far better and more cooperatively–is possible, just a very tall order and something that will/would have to be renewed and re-worked without end.
I try never to mock or dismiss someone for advocating peace and cooperation. Sometimes a more practical contribution to World Peace is being kind to the next person you meet–even, or maybe especially when they look dodgy (tougher prospect for a woman). But I believe that calls for universal ceasefires and the kind of peacemaking and nonviolent energy that women have in greater measure (on average, in my opinion) are valuable and indispensable to keeping the world from being even worse. I hope more of your pacific waves ripple across the Atlantic!
As Elvis Costello challenges: “What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding?”
Honest answer.
I personally, think this is probably way too far gone now, the war machine is already underway and to be honest, has been for some time, so has decoupling, the dollar is potentially already in trouble. To be honest.
I think what is coming regarding war and a change of global power structures is inevitable really, but hey ho, I can still try and make an argument for peace. I realise most if not all of what I have written is very difficult if not impossible to achieve. That it relies on differences being resolved on a ridiculous scale that is also, possibly impossible. However, in Britain the phrase ‘There is no such word as can’t’ is well known, I was challenged to give a solution, so I thought I’d give it a try. It’s not a small problem and so would require radical solutions. Mine is in the realm of radically impossible, I do appreciate that.
.
None of points explain how you would end the conflict in Ukraine. What do both sides have to give up in order to achieve peace?
Jesus you again? I have repeatedly gone over this with you.
Right. Crimea stays as russias, acknowledged here that that might happen now anyway.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/blinken-warns-ukraine-against-seizing-crimea-about-face
Quote:
“Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
That. Sounds reasonable. Considering the global consequences this war is having and that it could end in nuclear conflict sounds a reasonable compromise that had already been agreed.
Source.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
Right, so why would Ukraine agree to that? It loses vast swathes of territory and without NATO membership it has no protection from the same thing happening again in the future. What you’re essentially advocating is the Ukrainian surrender, giving the Russians control over its foreign policy
Right, so why would Ukraine agree to that?
To avert nuclear apocalypse, to prevent a famine, to prevent economic implosion, so we can just stop killing people, so refugees can go home, so various developing countries don’t implode, so we don’t escalate this to nato confrontation………
That is not vast swathes, nor is it giving russia control of their foreign policy, they remain out of NATO but receive security guarantees from other countries for protection.
Giving up Crimea and the Donbas in return for full freedom to run its own foreign (and domestic, and ethnicity) policy would be a decent deal. It is just extremely unlikely that Russia would offer it, or accept it – except maybe as a temporary stepping stone to bigger things. As I see it, what killed the Minsk agreement is that Russia, through control of the ‘separatist’ oblasts, would have an effective veto over Ukraine’s political decisions. Which Russia insisted on, and Ukraine refused to accept. Remember, it was Ukraine moving too close to the *EU* (not NATO) that triggered the invasion of Crimea. So why on earth would Russia go to war, and then settle for less than they had demanded last time around?
Giving up Crimea and the Donbas in return for full freedom to run its own foreign (and domestic, and ethnicity) policy would be a decent deal. It is just extremely unlikely that Russia would offer it, or accept it – except maybe as a temporary stepping stone to bigger things. As I see it, what killed the Minsk agreement is that Russia, through control of the ‘separatist’ oblasts, would have an effective veto over Ukraine’s political decisions. Which Russia insisted on, and Ukraine refused to accept. Remember, it was Ukraine moving too close to the *EU* (not NATO) that triggered the invasion of Crimea. So why on earth would Russia go to war, and then settle for less than they had demanded last time around?
Right, so why would Ukraine agree to that?
To avert nuclear apocalypse, to prevent a famine, to prevent economic implosion, so we can just stop killing people, so refugees can go home, so various developing countries don’t implode, so we don’t escalate this to nato confrontation………
That is not vast swathes, nor is it giving russia control of their foreign policy, they remain out of NATO but receive security guarantees from other countries for protection.
Right, so why would Ukraine agree to that? It loses vast swathes of territory and without NATO membership it has no protection from the same thing happening again in the future. What you’re essentially advocating is the Ukrainian surrender, giving the Russians control over its foreign policy
Jesus you again? I have repeatedly gone over this with you.
Right. Crimea stays as russias, acknowledged here that that might happen now anyway.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/blinken-warns-ukraine-against-seizing-crimea-about-face
Quote:
“Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
That. Sounds reasonable. Considering the global consequences this war is having and that it could end in nuclear conflict sounds a reasonable compromise that had already been agreed.
Source.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
Sorry, but I think being down on war is like being down on gravity. War’s just an outgrowth of competition, and the latter is just how nature works. Yes, maybe we’ll blow ourselves up – maybe that’s the answer to the Fermi Paradox?
‘Sorry, but I think being down on war is like being down on gravity.’
Well I don’t. Do you have any enlightening comments or solutions to any of this to make yourself? Or you just think let’s give up and blow it all up because of a paradox you found on the Internet?
‘Sorry, but I think being down on war is like being down on gravity.’
Well I don’t. Do you have any enlightening comments or solutions to any of this to make yourself? Or you just think let’s give up and blow it all up because of a paradox you found on the Internet?
Forget about the UN – as toothless as the old League of Nations and seen as completely controlled by the Americans.
As you rightly say (sort of), the US is more worried about the dollar and the internal effects than anything else. Commercially, China will wipe the floor with the Americans except in one field – armaments. The US needs to prove that its arms are better in order to frighten China away. The war in the Ukraine is ideal for this.
The danger for the US is when Russia appears to be winning and that causes China to side with the Russians. Russia has to be defeated. Hence the propaganda. The US will continue to ‘support’ the Europeans (‘We’re behind you. We’re on your side’). But they won’t actually do anything.
The solution is hard to find. One way is for the Ukranians to lose quickly but that won’t happen. Another is for Russian internal pressure to cause enough problems for Putin to have an accident. Maybe the most likely.
I was working (it does have to be done sometimes), and you did deserve a considered reply. I may have done you an injustice, earlier. I am now willing to believe you are sincere idealist, whereas I had thought that you were in favour of surrendering Ukraine to Russia and simply chose not to admit to the consequences of you own actions.
Your plan sounds lovely, the problem is that it could only work in your hypothetical world – and we live in the real one. It would require that all actors had a sincere desire to reach a happy peaceful world and make the necessary sacrifices. But they do not. Putin’s Russia – by their own words – want a world where Russia is a strong empire and commands over its neighbours, and are happy to wage a devastating war with tens of thousands of deaths to achieve their goal. Xi’s China also wants to be a strong empire where they can rule the neighbouring areas, and furthermore where no country dares harbour their dissidents or say anything they find offensive. Modi’s India is moving towards a Hindu nation state with other religions squeezed to the margins, and we in the West are not angels either. It is not impossible to at least avoid the worst outcomes and work to get better ones, but you do need to base you plans on the state of the world you are actually living in.
If you want to get to your goal in Ukraine, you first of all have to convince Putin to share it – which he will not. In practice you are speaking to the West, and the West only. And the choice we have is simply to help Ukraine fight its war – or not. If we help, the war drags on. If we stop helping, Ukraine surrenders shortly afterwards, leaving Russia to grab a lot of territories, keep Ukraine as a dependent vassal forever, and look around with interest for other places to fight successful wars. We need to identify the best outcome we can realistically hope for, and to figure out how we can motivate Russia to allow us to get there, be it with carrot or stick. I am actually open to the argument that it might be better to give up – for the only way to end a war quickly is to surrender. As Vietnam and Afghanistan showed, you need to adapt to reality; if you are going to lose in the end anyway, there is no moral case for fighting a long war with lots of dead just to reach the same result. But before choosing that option, I insist that we must take a clear-eyed look at what the consequences of our various actions will be in the real world – for Ukrainians and others.
In the real world, you need to look at what choices you actually have, and what would be the expected result. If you need cooperation from other parties to get where you want to go, you need to consider their actions and interests, and look at how you can motivate them to do what you think they should. Hint: a country is a lot more likely to avoid doing the wrong thing, if it thinks doing the wrong thing will be costly. Simply acting as if we were already living in Paradise, where the lion shall lie down with the lamb, is unlikely to work the way you would like. And if you have responsibility for the life and fortunes of other people it is frankly irresponsible.
I greatly sympathize with these remarks and share your passionate frustration with war and large-scale global division. But I’m afraid the current, context-applied answer to your legitimate implied question: Can’t we all just get along?–is no. That doesn’t mean we should abandon diplomacy or cooperation, nor peace, love, and understanding and drum circles (I’m not even kidding except in my tone).
The folly and horrific cost of war is quite universally known. But that knowledge doesn’t stop us or provide workable pathways to peace. I think you are characterizing both Russia and China as far more amenable to diplomacy and cooperation than they really are. I’m not saying the track record and collective motives of the West are pure, but c’mon…it takes two or more to tango!
None of points explain how you would end the conflict in Ukraine. What do both sides have to give up in order to achieve peace?
Sorry, but I think being down on war is like being down on gravity. War’s just an outgrowth of competition, and the latter is just how nature works. Yes, maybe we’ll blow ourselves up – maybe that’s the answer to the Fermi Paradox?
It is difficult to be put on the spot like that. It would be a lot better if the joint intellect of all UnHerd members worked on the problem instead of acting like a group of John Waynes.
I read these columns and I don’t see anybody making positive suggestions. If Russia turns to the UK and says, ‘Boo.’ just don’t expect the Americans to come running in to help.
Thanks, I’ve written hundreds of words now on how peace with ukraine might be achieved etc I thought I’d give the whole raging crazy global issues a try today. I strongly suspect it was not the reply Mr fogh was expecting. He has gone very quiet.
I agree the solution will be hard to find, I feel that the longer this goes on, the more radical the solutions might have to be.
Post swallowed up, as usual. Hopefully it will come back.
I replied to you somewhere above actually and that has gone to approval. Maybe they are checking we are playing nicely 🙂
I replied to you somewhere above actually and that has gone to approval. Maybe they are checking we are playing nicely 🙂
Post swallowed up, as usual. Hopefully it will come back.
Thanks, I’ve written hundreds of words now on how peace with ukraine might be achieved etc I thought I’d give the whole raging crazy global issues a try today. I strongly suspect it was not the reply Mr fogh was expecting. He has gone very quiet.
I agree the solution will be hard to find, I feel that the longer this goes on, the more radical the solutions might have to be.
OK. I’ll do my best to give it go. That’s a pretty big thing to lay out. Feel free to blow massive holes in my ramblings as you please. In my hypothetical world….
The west puts its grown up diplomatic head on and reaches out to the east, china are still open to talking to us. Isn’t that part of the reason for the un? So people can do diplomacy? We decide that actually kicking the crap out of each has historically only resulted in lots of dead people and destruction. We recognise that nuclear escalation is stupid. We remember that sensible free trade between nations is beneficial.
We lift all sanctions on every nation. They do not work, people just find ways around them and they hurt ordinary people. It may also help bring inflation under control.
We stop trying to decouple from the east. If countries want to reshore this needs to be done over a protracted period with both costs for resources and energy under control, on a country by country basis as they choose, not all at once in a mad rush to cut off the east, in the current climate, it is very difficult for Europe to reshore, we have shortages of some things already.
The dollar is in a bit of trouble perhaps, perhaps talking with China and Russia that could also go over to some kind of gold standard? If we continue to trade with them they have no need to be isolationist too? We are going to have to accept that they will want more say on the whole power balance, perhaps it would be a good idea to at least try and talk with them and try and see this as a completely new start for world relations, with a more even balance of power? I understand both china and Russia have plenty of bad stuff in their history, but so do we, maybe it is time to move on from the old cold war mentality and at least give it one go. Perhaps we could at least get rid of the nukes, everywhere. At least try one more time, to solve ukraine and Taiwan without turning this into ww3 multi polar dystopia. Perhaps we could try just once to stop this all falling down. If we fail, well then we will have to fight anyway.
It is difficult to be put on the spot like that. It would be a lot better if the joint intellect of all UnHerd members worked on the problem instead of acting like a group of John Waynes.
I read these columns and I don’t see anybody making positive suggestions. If Russia turns to the UK and says, ‘Boo.’ just don’t expect the Americans to come running in to help.
Are you suggesting that the Ukrainians should surrender and give up their nation to Russia simply to make fertilisers cheaper for developing nations? Why don’t you instead suggest Russia pulls all its forces back from the Ukrainian territory it agreed to honour in the treaty 30 years ago? Why is it up to those defending their homes from a hostile invasion to have to give everything up in order to end the war?
Unfortunately Ms Emery negotiation is NOT good for business.
You are wasting your breath, trying to convince us that war is bad and this war is bad for large parts of the world. We know that. We agree. The question that actually matters is who you think should stop this war, how they should stop it, and what the world woudl look like afterwards. WHat is your view onj that? And are you willing to tell us what it is, and stand by it?
This is also about broken supply chains, about developing countries suffering, about industry suffering, about food and fertiliser shortages, energy crisis. This war is having global consequences:
Madame President,
Excellencies,
Russia’s war in Ukraine shows no sign of letting up.
The past seven months have seen unspeakable suffering and devastation.
The latest developments are dangerous and disturbing.
They are further steps away from any prospect of peace – and towards an endless cycle of horror and bloodshed.
As I have said from the start, this senseless war has unlimited potential to do terrible harm – in Ukraine, and around the world……
…… At the global level, the conflict has supercharged a triple crisis of food, energy and finance. This is driving millions more people into extreme poverty and hunger, and reversing years of progress on development, and follows the COVID crisis and the growing impact of climate change.
The collateral damage of this war is being felt in dozens of developing countries already grappling with recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and battered by the climate crisis.
The most vulnerable are suffering most……..
….. The International Atomic Energy Agency is consulting with all parties involved on measures to ensure the safety of the plant and surrounding areas. I thank the IAEA for its work. Its continued presence at the plant is an important deterrent.
All attacks on nuclear facilities must end, and the purely civilian nature of such plants must be re-established.
Any damage to nuclear infrastructure, whether deliberate or not, could have terrible consequences for people around the plant and far beyond.
The world cannot afford a nuclear catastrophe………
……. We are doing everything possible to facilitate this, and to ease the serious fertilizer market crunch that is already affecting farming in West Africa and elsewhere.
If the fertilizer market is not stabilized, next year could bring a food supply crisis. Simply put, the world may run out of food.
It is essential that all States remove every remaining obstacle to the export of Russian fertilizers immediately. We need to get them to farmers at a reasonable cost, and on to fields as soon as possible…….
……. There is only one way to end the suffering in Ukraine – and that is by ending the war.
I will continue to spare no effort for peace – peace in line with international law and the Charter of the United Nations.
And I appeal to all Member States, and especially those here today, to redouble all efforts to prevent further escalation, and to do all they can to end the war and to ensure lasting peace
UN secretary General speaking.
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2022-09-22/secretary-generals-remarks-the-security-council-ukraine#:~:text=There%20is%20only%20one%20way,Charter%20of%20the%20United%20 Nations.
‘It will be almost impossible for the Russians to achieve their political objectives by military means. It is unlikely that Russia is going to overrun Ukraine. It’s just not going to happen,” said Milley, adding that it will be “very, very difficult” for Ukraine to expel all Russian forces from occupied territory.
“It’s not to say that it can’t happen…” he said. “But it’s extraordinarily difficult. And it would require essentially the collapse of the Russian military.’
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/general-milley-russia-ukraine-war-183038867.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuemVyb2hlZGdlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFBvCSK55uMXpHWz_YPmzwpdx3MNtYXwTIBa0teg6CkDCAZ_P0V2emkEZ1tl9z3Q2x1hh9bCewjFyk-GkseD4pt8mcK2mt3EKzVz3dirFw8eh1MpK9W9AZRt5adgMFwgq_f483W_vgOBHOj-2OFUrJokg2gEl_2uFwK7EZDGlsDL
This is only going to end in a stalemate. We must make sure this does not escalate, the damage to the global order is happening already.
‘When FT asked him whether talks between Moscow and Kiev are at all possible, Milley responded: “We’re weeks away from the beginning of spring, but it’s a rolling window. There’s opportunities at any moment in time.” But he still acknowledged both sides are dug into their positions now more than ever, making near-term serious dialogue unlikely.’
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-military-winner-likely-ukraine-conflict-will-end-future-negotiations-gen-milley
We need to start finding an opportunity for negotiation.
DIPLOMACY NOW. NO NATO WAR. NO DECOUPLING. FREE TRADE.
Heureux sont les simples d’esprit, car le royaume des cieux leur appartient!
Or as Thomas Gray put it : “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be WISE!”
That’s Alexander Pope, sir.My mistake. I always thought it was a six-foot line from one of “Essay on Criticism” couplets. But Lord Google tells me otherwise.
You know some of your Moderns too, Mr. Stanhope.
That’s Alexander Pope, sir.My mistake. I always thought it was a six-foot line from one of “Essay on Criticism” couplets. But Lord Google tells me otherwise.
You know some of your Moderns too, Mr. Stanhope.
Or as Thomas Gray put it : “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be WISE!”
Heureux sont les simples d’esprit, car le royaume des cieux leur appartient!
“the late Jeremy Corbyn”? Have I missed something?
Sadly, no.
Sadly, no.
“the late Jeremy Corbyn”? Have I missed something?
History on this topic seems clear. You must cut off the head of a snake or it returns to bite you another day. One can blame others and create different narratives to suit one’s fancy, but it comes down to who struck whom. Many options existed to Putin before “another” invasion. Miscalculations occur and he has been disrobed, he has embarrassed his country and put a historically great nation back 100 years because of his arrogance and dictatorship mentality. Cold War tactics are how he keeps us at bay and the weak leadership of West is his trump card. I agree there are multiple end games, but truly there is only one.
“You must cut off the head of a snake or it returns to bite you another day.” Has it occurred to you that the Russians were thinking along similar lines?
That’s not what Putin himself wrote in his lengthy essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”. Not that I necessarily believe that 100% either. (Politicians not being totally forthright? How unthinkable!)
Well, from the Putin perspective, the snake could mean the neo-Nazis or it could mean the U.S.-led “west.”
Well, from the Putin perspective, the snake could mean the neo-Nazis or it could mean the U.S.-led “west.”
That’s not what Putin himself wrote in his lengthy essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”. Not that I necessarily believe that 100% either. (Politicians not being totally forthright? How unthinkable!)
“You must cut off the head of a snake or it returns to bite you another day.” Has it occurred to you that the Russians were thinking along similar lines?
History on this topic seems clear. You must cut off the head of a snake or it returns to bite you another day. One can blame others and create different narratives to suit one’s fancy, but it comes down to who struck whom. Many options existed to Putin before “another” invasion. Miscalculations occur and he has been disrobed, he has embarrassed his country and put a historically great nation back 100 years because of his arrogance and dictatorship mentality. Cold War tactics are how he keeps us at bay and the weak leadership of West is his trump card. I agree there are multiple end games, but truly there is only one.
…much to agree with. But rather disappointing that he couldn’t bring himself to mention the fact that Boris Johnson was practically the first Western Leader to make the right calls, do the right things…and indeed visit Kyiv under fire…why the silence, Mr Sandbrook?
…much to agree with. But rather disappointing that he couldn’t bring himself to mention the fact that Boris Johnson was practically the first Western Leader to make the right calls, do the right things…and indeed visit Kyiv under fire…why the silence, Mr Sandbrook?
I could be wrong, but I believe an article just like this one was written in the early stages of every war throughout human history.
Saddam Hussein and WOMD come to mind.
Saddam Hussein and WOMD come to mind.
I could be wrong, but I believe an article just like this one was written in the early stages of every war throughout human history.
I was beginning to think I wouldn’t read a sensible article on the situation in Ukraine again on UnHerd. After countless articles extolling what comes very close to being appeasement, at last a bit of balance. Faith has been restored.
I was beginning to think I wouldn’t read a sensible article on the situation in Ukraine again on UnHerd. After countless articles extolling what comes very close to being appeasement, at last a bit of balance. Faith has been restored.
What a breath of fresh air. But, having cleared the board and started with the fundamentals of the thing — yes Putin is evil and yes Mr. Z is a hero — unfortunately we must eventually deal with a few messy complications. Like, for example, the fact that Crimea is overwhelmingly Russian and should never have been ‘given’ to Ukraine in the first place and actually wasn’t ‘given’ to Ukraine, it was simply an internal administrative decision on the part of Krushchev, not a ceding of sovereignty. And the Nazis, yes, the Azov Battalion can’t be called anything else.
I think you are oversimplifying it slightly. Crimea actually voted in favour of Ukrainian independence – though not by much. When empires break up, you get this situation where the administrative boundaries, the distribution of people, and the infrastructure no longer fits with anything. Granted, there is a good case for having Crimea Russian – but there is also a case for having it Ukrainian. As you say, it is a mess.
Yes, but the current borders were agreed upon the USSR dissolution, which was a peaceful act in the end. If Russia had any objections to Crimea staying with Ukraine, they should have been stated and solved right then, not 30 years down the line. Not to mention Russia itself AGAIN guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in 1994 by signing Budapest Memorandum where Ukraine gave up its nukes.
I think you are oversimplifying it slightly. Crimea actually voted in favour of Ukrainian independence – though not by much. When empires break up, you get this situation where the administrative boundaries, the distribution of people, and the infrastructure no longer fits with anything. Granted, there is a good case for having Crimea Russian – but there is also a case for having it Ukrainian. As you say, it is a mess.
Yes, but the current borders were agreed upon the USSR dissolution, which was a peaceful act in the end. If Russia had any objections to Crimea staying with Ukraine, they should have been stated and solved right then, not 30 years down the line. Not to mention Russia itself AGAIN guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in 1994 by signing Budapest Memorandum where Ukraine gave up its nukes.
What a breath of fresh air. But, having cleared the board and started with the fundamentals of the thing — yes Putin is evil and yes Mr. Z is a hero — unfortunately we must eventually deal with a few messy complications. Like, for example, the fact that Crimea is overwhelmingly Russian and should never have been ‘given’ to Ukraine in the first place and actually wasn’t ‘given’ to Ukraine, it was simply an internal administrative decision on the part of Krushchev, not a ceding of sovereignty. And the Nazis, yes, the Azov Battalion can’t be called anything else.
“ the late Jeremy Corbyn”
“ the late Jeremy Corbyn”
Fairly disappointing essay from an individual I respect and whose books are well researched and written.
I didn’t expect the ‘goodies vs baddies’ narrative we got here. Putin was completely wrong to invade Ukraine and it’s a disgrace that he did. He is a nasty piece of work, a tyrant in the original sense and he has lost touch with reality if he thought an invasion would be an easy matter and that it would mirror what happened in Georgia in 2008.
Next comes the ‘however.’ The expansion of NATO starting in the late 1990s fed Russian paranoia, and with good reason (has anyone in NATO HQ read any Russian history?) Putin has warned about the expansion since the mid 2000s and wondered openly what the point of it was except to threaten Russia. Did we expect the Russians to chill while the Baltics joined, despite the soothing words we spoke?
Capabilities matter, not intentions. Despite NATO assurances Putin and Russia were faced with a multinational military power on their doorstep, that if it turned hostile or predatory would form an existential threat.
And then came talk of Ukraine joining? A country whose eastern half is Russophile, to the point that they put Yanukovich over the top in the prior election? We gave Russian ultranationalists more material than they could work with.
Didn’t help that in the critical months of early 2014 the West aided a coup that favored pro EU and NATO western Ukrainian interests. Add to this stew a dash of Azov and Banderite flavoring and fighting in the Donbas was the natural next step. One way out, the Minsk accords, were sidelined and (according the Angela Merkel) a stalling tactic.
The invasion was completely wrong and abhorrent, but it didn’t spring out of the blue by a desire for conquest and pillage. Even if you think of Putin as Stalin part deux (and I’d suggest reading up before drawing that conclusion) the bigger issue is Ukraine is a fundamental Russian security issue and they’re not going to allow it to join a hostile military alliance.
Our goal has to be to stop the killing, getting a cease fire in place and restarting diplomacy. Any western military aid should be given with the eye toward providing strong defensive lines, to help in a negotiation.
I mostly agree with this, but what do you make of Putin’s “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” (in terms of being a factor in the causation – to me, nothing this big ever happens because of a single reason). There’s also “How Putin made himself Maidan-proof by waging war on Ukraine“, which also seems plausible to me as another causational factor.
I don’t doubt Putin is taking advantage of this to shore up his domestic support, jail and suppress opponents, wave the flag and distract from any homefront issues that may have been bubbling up.
He’s an unsavory character and doesn’t mind doing all of the above. Ukraine has been doing some of that too, though not at Putin’s level or ruthlessness. But go to Ukraine and tell someone you oppose what Zelensky is doing and you won’t have a comfortable time.
With that said, ok, and…? Putin has popularity in Russia and ‘regime change’ is a fool’s game, not least because are we sure whoever follows him would be any better? I don’t like Putin but I don’t like civilians dying even more and the longer this war goes on the worse it gets.
I want a ceasefire and lowering of the temperature. For anti-Putin folks this could also remove the issue from his arsenal and allow domestic opposition to revive.
I don’t doubt Putin is taking advantage of this to shore up his domestic support, jail and suppress opponents, wave the flag and distract from any homefront issues that may have been bubbling up.
He’s an unsavory character and doesn’t mind doing all of the above. Ukraine has been doing some of that too, though not at Putin’s level or ruthlessness. But go to Ukraine and tell someone you oppose what Zelensky is doing and you won’t have a comfortable time.
With that said, ok, and…? Putin has popularity in Russia and ‘regime change’ is a fool’s game, not least because are we sure whoever follows him would be any better? I don’t like Putin but I don’t like civilians dying even more and the longer this war goes on the worse it gets.
I want a ceasefire and lowering of the temperature. For anti-Putin folks this could also remove the issue from his arsenal and allow domestic opposition to revive.
The issue is that Russia demands control over Ukraine – not just neutrality – and that the Ukrainians quite understandably refuse to accept that. That was also the point of expanding NATO – not to attack Russia, but to prevent Russia from totally dominating its neighbours. If Russia feels that trying to limit its bullying power is an existential threat, are we suppose to acquiesce?
I mostly agree with this, but what do you make of Putin’s “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” (in terms of being a factor in the causation – to me, nothing this big ever happens because of a single reason). There’s also “How Putin made himself Maidan-proof by waging war on Ukraine“, which also seems plausible to me as another causational factor.
The issue is that Russia demands control over Ukraine – not just neutrality – and that the Ukrainians quite understandably refuse to accept that. That was also the point of expanding NATO – not to attack Russia, but to prevent Russia from totally dominating its neighbours. If Russia feels that trying to limit its bullying power is an existential threat, are we suppose to acquiesce?
Fairly disappointing essay from an individual I respect and whose books are well researched and written.
I didn’t expect the ‘goodies vs baddies’ narrative we got here. Putin was completely wrong to invade Ukraine and it’s a disgrace that he did. He is a nasty piece of work, a tyrant in the original sense and he has lost touch with reality if he thought an invasion would be an easy matter and that it would mirror what happened in Georgia in 2008.
Next comes the ‘however.’ The expansion of NATO starting in the late 1990s fed Russian paranoia, and with good reason (has anyone in NATO HQ read any Russian history?) Putin has warned about the expansion since the mid 2000s and wondered openly what the point of it was except to threaten Russia. Did we expect the Russians to chill while the Baltics joined, despite the soothing words we spoke?
Capabilities matter, not intentions. Despite NATO assurances Putin and Russia were faced with a multinational military power on their doorstep, that if it turned hostile or predatory would form an existential threat.
And then came talk of Ukraine joining? A country whose eastern half is Russophile, to the point that they put Yanukovich over the top in the prior election? We gave Russian ultranationalists more material than they could work with.
Didn’t help that in the critical months of early 2014 the West aided a coup that favored pro EU and NATO western Ukrainian interests. Add to this stew a dash of Azov and Banderite flavoring and fighting in the Donbas was the natural next step. One way out, the Minsk accords, were sidelined and (according the Angela Merkel) a stalling tactic.
The invasion was completely wrong and abhorrent, but it didn’t spring out of the blue by a desire for conquest and pillage. Even if you think of Putin as Stalin part deux (and I’d suggest reading up before drawing that conclusion) the bigger issue is Ukraine is a fundamental Russian security issue and they’re not going to allow it to join a hostile military alliance.
Our goal has to be to stop the killing, getting a cease fire in place and restarting diplomacy. Any western military aid should be given with the eye toward providing strong defensive lines, to help in a negotiation.
This is remarkably one-dimensional British jingoism, unworthy of UnHerd. Sandbrook actually invokes “the struggle against Hitler’s Germany”. Nothing at all to say on geopolitics or America. Hitchens in Compact shows a far deeper understanding.
This is remarkably one-dimensional British jingoism, unworthy of UnHerd. Sandbrook actually invokes “the struggle against Hitler’s Germany”. Nothing at all to say on geopolitics or America. Hitchens in Compact shows a far deeper understanding.
Great piece. It’s unfortunate that in America it has become entangled in the ever-more-rancorous right/left fight, because many of those on the right who now claim to oppose supporting Ukraine are really just reflexively opposing Joe Biden. Their natural point of view without that context would always be to oppose Russian aggression.
Really? How do you know so much about all these people?
I have eyes with which to see, ears with which to hear. I know conservatism and conservatives rather well, having been one for decades now.
I have eyes with which to see, ears with which to hear. I know conservatism and conservatives rather well, having been one for decades now.
I tell such people that they may think they are conservatives, but they aren’t any kind of conservative that Reagan or Thatcher would recognize. I also ask them that if Biden and the progressives said that 2+2=4, would they insist it was 5?
Let the down-votes begin!
Reagan and Thatcher both put opposing Russian aggression at the very top of their list of priorities. We should still be doing so by supporting Ukraine, even as we fight to put Biden and the Left’s henchmen out of office.
Reagan and Thatcher both put opposing Russian aggression at the very top of their list of priorities. We should still be doing so by supporting Ukraine, even as we fight to put Biden and the Left’s henchmen out of office.
Really? How do you know so much about all these people?
I tell such people that they may think they are conservatives, but they aren’t any kind of conservative that Reagan or Thatcher would recognize. I also ask them that if Biden and the progressives said that 2+2=4, would they insist it was 5?
Let the down-votes begin!
Great piece. It’s unfortunate that in America it has become entangled in the ever-more-rancorous right/left fight, because many of those on the right who now claim to oppose supporting Ukraine are really just reflexively opposing Joe Biden. Their natural point of view without that context would always be to oppose Russian aggression.
Go Dom!
Go Dom!
Worth watching these with an open mind (hard to find anywhere these days):
How Ukraine War EXPOSES Western Racism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9DtoNm0QJA
Ukraine and the ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ victims of war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFdVgxZddso
Western allies led by UK’s Johnson sabotaged tentative Ukraine-Russia peace deal: https://www.gulf-insider.com/western-allies-led-by-uks-johnson-sabotaged-tentative-ukraine-russia-peace-deal/
Thanks for the gulf-insider link. Unlike some others you are at least willing to offer your evidence. I have to say that I find it implausible and insufficient. You would need something a lot stronger.
Now it is plausible enough that Ukraine was in negotiations with the Russians back in April-May 2021. It is also plausible that they became less willing to accept terms once Boris Johnson had promised assistance – if you are fighting a stronger enemy without assistance from anybody you are pretty much forced to accept what terms you can get. And it is of course an established fact that Boris Johnson is an opportunistic egoist.
It is, however, unrealistic that the US/UK should be able to command Ukraine to fight against its will. Ukraine was not a western vassal, and the only hold of the west – continued military assistance – would be worthless if Ukraine decided to stop fighting. And it extremely implausible that Russia should offer such good terms as a retreat to pre-war positions in return for nothing more than a commitment to stay out of NATO. It is equally implausible that Ukraine should refuse such an offer. Back in April-May Russia had given up taking Kyiv but was still advancing in the south. And both the words and deeds of Russia suggest that a key demand is that Ukraine should become part of the ‘Russian world’, a Russian vassal state. To believe this story we would need to know a lot more about what kind of deal was being offered.
I’m glad to see at least one commenter here has their head screwed on.
Stand by for the down-votes! I will take each one as a sign of honour, and a recognition that I’m correct!
I’m glad to see at least one commenter here has their head screwed on.
Stand by for the down-votes! I will take each one as a sign of honour, and a recognition that I’m correct!
Thanks for the gulf-insider link. Unlike some others you are at least willing to offer your evidence. I have to say that I find it implausible and insufficient. You would need something a lot stronger.
Now it is plausible enough that Ukraine was in negotiations with the Russians back in April-May 2021. It is also plausible that they became less willing to accept terms once Boris Johnson had promised assistance – if you are fighting a stronger enemy without assistance from anybody you are pretty much forced to accept what terms you can get. And it is of course an established fact that Boris Johnson is an opportunistic egoist.
It is, however, unrealistic that the US/UK should be able to command Ukraine to fight against its will. Ukraine was not a western vassal, and the only hold of the west – continued military assistance – would be worthless if Ukraine decided to stop fighting. And it extremely implausible that Russia should offer such good terms as a retreat to pre-war positions in return for nothing more than a commitment to stay out of NATO. It is equally implausible that Ukraine should refuse such an offer. Back in April-May Russia had given up taking Kyiv but was still advancing in the south. And both the words and deeds of Russia suggest that a key demand is that Ukraine should become part of the ‘Russian world’, a Russian vassal state. To believe this story we would need to know a lot more about what kind of deal was being offered.
Worth watching these with an open mind (hard to find anywhere these days):
How Ukraine War EXPOSES Western Racism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9DtoNm0QJA
Ukraine and the ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ victims of war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFdVgxZddso
Western allies led by UK’s Johnson sabotaged tentative Ukraine-Russia peace deal: https://www.gulf-insider.com/western-allies-led-by-uks-johnson-sabotaged-tentative-ukraine-russia-peace-deal/
The “late” Jeremy Corbyn?? I am no fan of Corbyn (even if I do believe he was unfairly maligned) but this is a nasty-minded sneer. In some countries it would even be sinister.
The “late” Jeremy Corbyn?? I am no fan of Corbyn (even if I do believe he was unfairly maligned) but this is a nasty-minded sneer. In some countries it would even be sinister.
Mark Bartalmai?
Whilst I may agree with Dominic Sandbrook’s simple analysis of the instigator of the war being bad Putin, and the victim being poor Ukraine, nevertheless, I cannot agree with his simple solution:- fight to the bitter end to protect democracy, and national sovereignty, etc. , and in the process destroy a country for a generation or more, cause the deaths of thousands, including very possibly one’s family and children, and create a generation whose way of life is war. Surely, democracy and national sovereignty are not worth this price. And if anybody believes that they are worth this price, then they must not place much value on the really important things in life:- family and relationships, making a good living, opportunities for their kids, leisure, sport, culture, etc. I didn’t note National Sovereignty or Democracy anywhere on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. I don’t believe that national sovereignty makes very much difference to any of the really valuable aspects of life. I’d choose a good day out with my family or friends a million times before I’d choose national sovereignty. And unfortunately, in a war like this one is turning out to be, these two choices are mutually exclusive for most Ukranians. Would they really choose war instead of a life with their family and friends? Even living under Russian control, surely the quality of life would be infinitely better than this bleak alternative that Dominic and others are advocating.
Which brings me onto the other difficulties I have with Dominic’s analysis: he says that Ukranians want to fight. Where is the evidence for this? This is just another naive romanticised myth in the simplistic Disneyland good-v-evil narrative, which we hear and read all the time in simplistic, uncritical media analysis. Is that why the Ukranians were flooding into Europe all of last year? Is that why the Ukranian border was closed to all men of fighting age? Clearly an awful lot of Ukranians do NOT want to fight – they want to flee, but are prevented from doing so, by their own government. So, maybe its the Ukranian government and other governments who want to fight on, ’til the last man standing. As always in history, armchair warriors and armchair idealists are not too discommoded by the death of their cannon fodder. Making concessions to Russia may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the alternative is infinitely worse.
Incredibly well put
Incredibly well put
Whilst I may agree with Dominic Sandbrook’s simple analysis of the instigator of the war being bad Putin, and the victim being poor Ukraine, nevertheless, I cannot agree with his simple solution:- fight to the bitter end to protect democracy, and national sovereignty, etc. , and in the process destroy a country for a generation or more, cause the deaths of thousands, including very possibly one’s family and children, and create a generation whose way of life is war. Surely, democracy and national sovereignty are not worth this price. And if anybody believes that they are worth this price, then they must not place much value on the really important things in life:- family and relationships, making a good living, opportunities for their kids, leisure, sport, culture, etc. I didn’t note National Sovereignty or Democracy anywhere on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. I don’t believe that national sovereignty makes very much difference to any of the really valuable aspects of life. I’d choose a good day out with my family or friends a million times before I’d choose national sovereignty. And unfortunately, in a war like this one is turning out to be, these two choices are mutually exclusive for most Ukranians. Would they really choose war instead of a life with their family and friends? Even living under Russian control, surely the quality of life would be infinitely better than this bleak alternative that Dominic and others are advocating.
Which brings me onto the other difficulties I have with Dominic’s analysis: he says that Ukranians want to fight. Where is the evidence for this? This is just another naive romanticised myth in the simplistic Disneyland good-v-evil narrative, which we hear and read all the time in simplistic, uncritical media analysis. Is that why the Ukranians were flooding into Europe all of last year? Is that why the Ukranian border was closed to all men of fighting age? Clearly an awful lot of Ukranians do NOT want to fight – they want to flee, but are prevented from doing so, by their own government. So, maybe its the Ukranian government and other governments who want to fight on, ’til the last man standing. As always in history, armchair warriors and armchair idealists are not too discommoded by the death of their cannon fodder. Making concessions to Russia may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the alternative is infinitely worse.
I’ve come to the conclusion that proponents for war who say things like “sadly it involves lots of people dying”, have never actually put themselves in the shoes of the people who have to live through the carnage. Imagine being told “We’re very sad and all that, but unfortunately its “boringly straightforward”: Your wife and children will be dismembered by shells and bombs and the town you love will be reduced to rubble, but I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear that “good” will triumph over “evil” and you will be “free”. the only other alternative is a messy compromise of a peace deal and I’m sure you dont want that!”
And I find it puzzling that 100 years after Gandhi nonviolently removed an occupying army that had been digging itself in for 150 years, that intelligent journalists and politicians claim there is no alternative between war and appeasement. Here is an example of how peace could have been a policy in this conflict, there are many more. In 1968 the Red Army marched into Czechoslovakia in an unprovoked invasion. This was the same Red Army that had decimated Hitler’s Nazi forces 20 years earlier. No one can argue that their generals and leaders were not as brutal and determined as Putin. But unlike Zelensky, their leader, Alexander Dubcek, locked his army in their barracks as he rightly feared a bloodbath in which his citizens would be the losers. He awaited arrest. But in the meantime the Czech and Slovak people entered the streets unarmed and faced down the Russian tanks and soldiers. They blocked bridges, moved signposts, occupied squares, mothers and grandmothers harangued the soldiers saying that their families would be ashamed of them. The generals who had defeated Hitler had no answer to this. They had to start rotating their soldiers out of the front-line as they became “infected”. The people showed the Kremlin that they could occupy their land but that they could not govern the country. Within weeks the Kremlin came to the negotiating table, the freedom struggle was postponed but the people were allowed to keep their Govt and the Red Army withdrew with few deaths and no ruined infrastructure. Both sides compromised. And 20 years later when the Wall came down because of ANOTHER nonviolent people’s campaign, the Czech and Slovak people were in a good position to move peacefully to freedom and the breakup of the old country into two new states. Of course Dubcek did not have posturing Western politicians and greedy arms companies offering him billions of pounds worth of weapons for free. Maybe he would have made a more catastrophic choice if that had been the case. Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Ukraine today – I know which one I’d choose.
I already replied to this, in detail, on another thread re Ukraine.
You have no understanding of either geographical or political or military context of events in 1968 in Czechoslovakia.
If you did you would understand why case of Ukraine is completely different.
I could rebut many of the assertions you made in your reply on the other thread and we could debate back and forth on our relative knowledge of how exactly Czechoslovakia and Ukraine are alike or different. But that would be completely missing the point. It was but one of many examples of how nonviolent protest can resist and bring down invaders and autocrats. Whats interesting about proponents of war is that they always try to assert that THIS latest war is different and unique from all the failed horrors of the past. This one really is worth fighting. Unlike all the others that ended in death and disaster. Chris Hedges, amongst others, has clearly explained how this war is unwinnable. Therefore it is clear that the West is fuelling it in order to sell weapons and bleed Putin – all with the bodies of Ukrainians. The most cynical proxy war in living memory.
I could rebut many of the assertions you made in your reply on the other thread and we could debate back and forth on our relative knowledge of how exactly Czechoslovakia and Ukraine are alike or different. But that would be completely missing the point. It was but one of many examples of how nonviolent protest can resist and bring down invaders and autocrats. Whats interesting about proponents of war is that they always try to assert that THIS latest war is different and unique from all the failed horrors of the past. This one really is worth fighting. Unlike all the others that ended in death and disaster. Chris Hedges, amongst others, has clearly explained how this war is unwinnable. Therefore it is clear that the West is fuelling it in order to sell weapons and bleed Putin – all with the bodies of Ukrainians. The most cynical proxy war in living memory.
I already replied to this, in detail, on another thread re Ukraine.
You have no understanding of either geographical or political or military context of events in 1968 in Czechoslovakia.
If you did you would understand why case of Ukraine is completely different.
I’ve come to the conclusion that proponents for war who say things like “sadly it involves lots of people dying”, have never actually put themselves in the shoes of the people who have to live through the carnage. Imagine being told “We’re very sad and all that, but unfortunately its “boringly straightforward”: Your wife and children will be dismembered by shells and bombs and the town you love will be reduced to rubble, but I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear that “good” will triumph over “evil” and you will be “free”. the only other alternative is a messy compromise of a peace deal and I’m sure you dont want that!”
And I find it puzzling that 100 years after Gandhi nonviolently removed an occupying army that had been digging itself in for 150 years, that intelligent journalists and politicians claim there is no alternative between war and appeasement. Here is an example of how peace could have been a policy in this conflict, there are many more. In 1968 the Red Army marched into Czechoslovakia in an unprovoked invasion. This was the same Red Army that had decimated Hitler’s Nazi forces 20 years earlier. No one can argue that their generals and leaders were not as brutal and determined as Putin. But unlike Zelensky, their leader, Alexander Dubcek, locked his army in their barracks as he rightly feared a bloodbath in which his citizens would be the losers. He awaited arrest. But in the meantime the Czech and Slovak people entered the streets unarmed and faced down the Russian tanks and soldiers. They blocked bridges, moved signposts, occupied squares, mothers and grandmothers harangued the soldiers saying that their families would be ashamed of them. The generals who had defeated Hitler had no answer to this. They had to start rotating their soldiers out of the front-line as they became “infected”. The people showed the Kremlin that they could occupy their land but that they could not govern the country. Within weeks the Kremlin came to the negotiating table, the freedom struggle was postponed but the people were allowed to keep their Govt and the Red Army withdrew with few deaths and no ruined infrastructure. Both sides compromised. And 20 years later when the Wall came down because of ANOTHER nonviolent people’s campaign, the Czech and Slovak people were in a good position to move peacefully to freedom and the breakup of the old country into two new states. Of course Dubcek did not have posturing Western politicians and greedy arms companies offering him billions of pounds worth of weapons for free. Maybe he would have made a more catastrophic choice if that had been the case. Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Ukraine today – I know which one I’d choose.
These peoples were fighting over the same dirt in the 19th Century, 1920s, and 1940s. These Slavs have killed each other by the millions over it even before this latest round. Stepping in with “good vs evil” centuries into this wider conflict is as small minded as reducing, say, Belfast into obvious zones of “good and evil” based on observing the last decade and not the previous millennia or so.
The policy of the USA extending its borders around the globe to referee these ancient blood feuds is asinine, and the idea this conflict threatens the USA is utterly laughable. What threatens us is the Global Empire, as put by BHL, that has seen us station soldiers from Eastern Europe to Okinawa in defense of the Empire.
Western leaders gave no such undertaking to Mr Gorbachov.
If you referring to the allegation that the US promised that NATO would not move to the east, then you are wrong. See, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between .
James Baker, speaking with Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow:
Baker: “. . . not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction. ”
Baker: “but with the guarantee that NATO’s jurisprudence or troops will not spread east of the present boundary”
Baker: “. . . Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.”
But Gorbachev also gave an interview (here) in which he said: “The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. .. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context.
…
The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. ..
The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.”
So I’m not sure what was really agreed to.
Thank you for posting the link. It does provide a different perspective. I think there are other statements, by Europeans, on the subject. I will have to track them down.
Again, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Okay, so to supplement the facts, there were many European leaders at the time who gave variously phrased assurances. See here for sources:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Thank you for posting the link. It does provide a different perspective. I think there are other statements, by Europeans, on the subject. I will have to track them down.
Again, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Okay, so to supplement the facts, there were many European leaders at the time who gave variously phrased assurances. See here for sources:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
But Gorbachev also gave an interview (here) in which he said: “The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. .. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context.
…
The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. ..
The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.”
So I’m not sure what was really agreed to.
If you referring to the allegation that the US promised that NATO would not move to the east, then you are wrong. See, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between .
James Baker, speaking with Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow:
Baker: “. . . not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction. ”
Baker: “but with the guarantee that NATO’s jurisprudence or troops will not spread east of the present boundary”
Baker: “. . . Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.”
Western leaders gave no such undertaking to Mr Gorbachov.
Although the world would be a better place if it was indeed “the late Jeremy Corbyn”, sadly the vilest politician since Oswald Mosley is still very much with us.
Otherwise, excellent article.
Although the world would be a better place if it was indeed “the late Jeremy Corbyn”, sadly the vilest politician since Oswald Mosley is still very much with us.
Otherwise, excellent article.
Strange to think that the war will validate the Western Model for the rest of this century.
Every BRICS nation is now under pressure, with many like India and Russia attempting to stay in power by the old nationalism chestnut.
Russia has already received its fatal dose of radiation. It can’t win the war, and is already too far down the line to avert economic disaster.
The lesson of this war is that only a Rule of Law nation, with an electorate convinced it has some stake in society can win. Russia’s model of a totally inert society mobilized only at the whim of a single leader is guaranteed to fail.
So farewell Multi-polar World.
We hardly knew ye!
Strange to think that the war will validate the Western Model for the rest of this century.
Every BRICS nation is now under pressure, with many like India and Russia attempting to stay in power by the old nationalism chestnut.
Russia has already received its fatal dose of radiation. It can’t win the war, and is already too far down the line to avert economic disaster.
The lesson of this war is that only a Rule of Law nation, with an electorate convinced it has some stake in society can win. Russia’s model of a totally inert society mobilized only at the whim of a single leader is guaranteed to fail.
So farewell Multi-polar World.
We hardly knew ye!
Most people acknowledge that Russia was evil to invade Ukraine. Unfortunately evil exists in the world. The issue here is not how to destroy evil. The issue here is how to negotiate a peace treaty, even if it means tolerating some evil. The alternative is things could get even more out of hand, to include the use of tactical nuclear weapons to break the current stalemate.
Most people acknowledge that Russia was evil to invade Ukraine. Unfortunately evil exists in the world. The issue here is not how to destroy evil. The issue here is how to negotiate a peace treaty, even if it means tolerating some evil. The alternative is things could get even more out of hand, to include the use of tactical nuclear weapons to break the current stalemate.
No, it’s not complicated. On August 6th, 1945, the USA made clear it was planning the genocide of the Russian people. It made it clear again several times after that, when it asked France if it wanted a nuclear bomb on North Vietnam, and when it offered West Pakistan a nuclear attack on India. Any support for Ukraine is an act of submission to the greatest criminal organisation in history.
No, it’s not complicated. On August 6th, 1945, the USA made clear it was planning the genocide of the Russian people. It made it clear again several times after that, when it asked France if it wanted a nuclear bomb on North Vietnam, and when it offered West Pakistan a nuclear attack on India. Any support for Ukraine is an act of submission to the greatest criminal organisation in history.
The real value of the talk today was to demonstrate that Putin has essentially lost the war.
Even pro-war Russians were demanding a new call-up of one to five million. That Putin said nothing about a new draft shows he has lost touch with reality.
Nations far smaller than either Russia or Ukraine could draft 300 to 500,000 from their population.
Either Putin is grossly misinformed, or he no longer lives in the real world.
But by now, it really doesn’t matter.
The real value of the talk today was to demonstrate that Putin has essentially lost the war.
Even pro-war Russians were demanding a new call-up of one to five million. That Putin said nothing about a new draft shows he has lost touch with reality.
Nations far smaller than either Russia or Ukraine could draft 300 to 500,000 from their population.
Either Putin is grossly misinformed, or he no longer lives in the real world.
But by now, it really doesn’t matter.
The imperialist threats and dying empire motifs invoked by the author apply more to America than to Russia. The war has been caused by Western Cold War thinking, and its refusal to respect long, publicly expressed Russian concerns about its borders. NATO, after all, has become an offensive–not defensive–scheme. Its un-elected leaders have united to compel their citizens to cross the red line and support undeniable provocation.
The real empire that has overstepped its bounds is the American one, not the Russian. America’s track record reveals decades of coercion, invasion, pernicious CIA regime changes, and a general brutalization of innocents around the globe. Throughout, it has used sanctions and economic threats as a weapon to coerce obedience among leaders across the globe. We know the history, we know the record. It’s a fact.
The major success of this exercise have been the collapse of European self determination, and its subsequent, sevile surrender to the godfather: USA. As an official a high in the Germany hierasrch has declared: We will continue to support Ukraine no matter what our voters want. And interestingly, thanks to western media cancellation of contrary points of view, no one has the information they need to become outraged.
Truly, we in the West now live under a new Iron Curtain.
This is understandable. Most of the significant NATO creators/members have been rapacious empires themselves. We don’t have to rehears their historical crimes.
I like this article and author. He’s so transparent. Like a gaping crevasse one can see and step around.
More garbage from another bootlicker. Imagine saying that it’s the Americans who have overreached, not the Russians, when a one-week war has lasted a year and counting. Or calling NATO offensive when Putin’s war of aggression is a year old and there are no NATO troops invading anywhere. You have to be either brainwashed or brain-dead to think such things under these circumstances.
Haha, yeah, because NATOs history of interventionism started last year. Don’t you worry, the Americans will get antsy and start another war soon, gotta keep the weapons trade humming after all.
Also, Bush and Blair killed more people just in Iraq (well over a million) than Putin has in all his military misadventures combined, so maybe have a think about throwing stones from glass houses?
Lets consider that neither the US nor UK has been banned from sports, sanctioned economically nor had their rogues gallery worth of war criminals tried for any of the many, many wars and crimes they have committed.
I could understand if people were making the argument that this is just an opportunity for the Americans to weaken the Russians (which I think is wrong, but at least honest), but no, it always includes moral grandstanding about the evil Russians, even though no great power could ever live up to the rhetoric spouted (because to be “great” you have to also do terrible things) and comes across as hypocritical trolling for anyone who remembers what prior western interventionism got us.
How many people have been killed in Syrias civil war? If you’re going to blame Blair and Bush for all those killed as a result of sectarian violence in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than just those killed by the British and Americans, surely you have to attribute all those killed in the same manner in Syria to Putin? If so I’d say that levels the scores up somewhat wouldn’t you agree?
I’m sorry but that’s hardly an apples to apples comparison. Putin didn’t invade Syria and he only entered the fray after 4 years of US machinations and support for (among others) Al Qaeda and ISIS (who were perfect gentlemen under American supervision I’m sure). Furthermore, if we start counting the deaths caused by regimes the Americans supported (the way Putin supports Assad), the numbers would skyrocket (Indonesia in the 60s is just one of many, many examples – feel free to educate yourself on the rest, though it’ll take a while).
I have no particular desire to defend Assad or Putin however, my point is more that Americans and Brits making moral arguments erodes their credibility, because you have no leg to stand on there (even if it makes you feel bad, it’s true). If you’d admit that it’s about power (and money), I wouldn’t have to point out the shameless hypocrisy of it all.
So no, I don’t really agree.
Thank you for some sanity.
You have to be insane or of little brain to call that bit of whataboutery “sanity.”
You have to be insane or of little brain to call that bit of whataboutery “sanity.”
I completely agree with you. The virtue signaling, unctuousness of self-righteousness emanating from the US and the UK is absolutely nauseating. Perhaps a bit like the Crusades.
And NATO hasn’t invaded Ukraine or Russia.
Blaming the U.S. for the Syrian civil war and absolving the Soviets for their role is laughable. Again, who had armed forces there? Russia, not the U.S. And as if “machinations” were required for a population to revolt against a dictator like Assad. What a joke.
Thank you for some sanity.
I completely agree with you. The virtue signaling, unctuousness of self-righteousness emanating from the US and the UK is absolutely nauseating. Perhaps a bit like the Crusades.
And NATO hasn’t invaded Ukraine or Russia.
Blaming the U.S. for the Syrian civil war and absolving the Soviets for their role is laughable. Again, who had armed forces there? Russia, not the U.S. And as if “machinations” were required for a population to revolt against a dictator like Assad. What a joke.
What exactly are you talking about given that the US is involved in Syria as well and has supported the rebel forces who are far from good or virtuous. While Assad is a thug, he is probably the best thing Syria could have to hold the place together. And I hate to say that but the same was true, in retrospect, of Saddam Hussain in Iraq. Quite frankly it’s high time the US and its UK puppy dog butted out of conflicts that are none of their business, and that includes Ukraine.
It’s worth recalling that the Monroe doctrine in the US is alive and well, and the US would not tolerate Chinese or Russian encroachment close to its borders (e.g. Mexico and Canada). Why would any sane person believe that Russia would operate and think any differently in this regard from the US.
All war is tragic but generally there are 2 sides to every story and the origins of any given war generally extend beyond the immediate proximal period. As an example, nobody would question that Hitler and Nazism was absolutely evil incarnate. But Hitler didn’t come to power in a vacuum; he came to power because of the undue burdens imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. Had a sensible treaty been enacted, Hitler would never have come to power.
The current situation in Ukraine is complex. Ukraine is not and has never been a democracy. It has always been an autocracy and a highly corrupt one at that. Frankly Ukraine is no better than Russia, other than that they have been manipulated by the US butting in to affairs that were none of their concern (e.g. the US inspired 2014 overthrow of the existing eastward looking government that was replaced by an equally corrupt western looking one, and one that has enriched the Biden family at that).
Well said! It’s nice to see someone give a clear eyed assessment of the wider picture, it comes up so rarely here. Past wars and their consequences (except WW2 and Hitler of course) just go unmentioned and forgotten, which seems myopic to me.
When one is willfully blind, one shouldn’t call others myopic.
When one is willfully blind, one shouldn’t call others myopic.
Funny I thought it was the Russians who sent their forces to Syria (and obviously to Ukraine), not the Americans. And so much whataboutery, so little time.
Well said! It’s nice to see someone give a clear eyed assessment of the wider picture, it comes up so rarely here. Past wars and their consequences (except WW2 and Hitler of course) just go unmentioned and forgotten, which seems myopic to me.
Funny I thought it was the Russians who sent their forces to Syria (and obviously to Ukraine), not the Americans. And so much whataboutery, so little time.
I’m sorry but that’s hardly an apples to apples comparison. Putin didn’t invade Syria and he only entered the fray after 4 years of US machinations and support for (among others) Al Qaeda and ISIS (who were perfect gentlemen under American supervision I’m sure). Furthermore, if we start counting the deaths caused by regimes the Americans supported (the way Putin supports Assad), the numbers would skyrocket (Indonesia in the 60s is just one of many, many examples – feel free to educate yourself on the rest, though it’ll take a while).
I have no particular desire to defend Assad or Putin however, my point is more that Americans and Brits making moral arguments erodes their credibility, because you have no leg to stand on there (even if it makes you feel bad, it’s true). If you’d admit that it’s about power (and money), I wouldn’t have to point out the shameless hypocrisy of it all.
So no, I don’t really agree.
What exactly are you talking about given that the US is involved in Syria as well and has supported the rebel forces who are far from good or virtuous. While Assad is a thug, he is probably the best thing Syria could have to hold the place together. And I hate to say that but the same was true, in retrospect, of Saddam Hussain in Iraq. Quite frankly it’s high time the US and its UK puppy dog butted out of conflicts that are none of their business, and that includes Ukraine.
It’s worth recalling that the Monroe doctrine in the US is alive and well, and the US would not tolerate Chinese or Russian encroachment close to its borders (e.g. Mexico and Canada). Why would any sane person believe that Russia would operate and think any differently in this regard from the US.
All war is tragic but generally there are 2 sides to every story and the origins of any given war generally extend beyond the immediate proximal period. As an example, nobody would question that Hitler and Nazism was absolutely evil incarnate. But Hitler didn’t come to power in a vacuum; he came to power because of the undue burdens imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. Had a sensible treaty been enacted, Hitler would never have come to power.
The current situation in Ukraine is complex. Ukraine is not and has never been a democracy. It has always been an autocracy and a highly corrupt one at that. Frankly Ukraine is no better than Russia, other than that they have been manipulated by the US butting in to affairs that were none of their concern (e.g. the US inspired 2014 overthrow of the existing eastward looking government that was replaced by an equally corrupt western looking one, and one that has enriched the Biden family at that).
So true.
Are we talking about “history” or about Ukraine? Which, yes, evil Putin invaded for no good reason other than Russian aggrandizement at the expense of its neighbour.
and I still have no idea what any of that has to do with the U.S. and Ukraine at this time. U.S. overreach re: :UKraine? come on. And how exactly has NATO, rather than Russia, been “offensive” in this war given they have no troops there, whereas Russia has been ineptly invading for a year now.
How many people have been killed in Syrias civil war? If you’re going to blame Blair and Bush for all those killed as a result of sectarian violence in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than just those killed by the British and Americans, surely you have to attribute all those killed in the same manner in Syria to Putin? If so I’d say that levels the scores up somewhat wouldn’t you agree?
So true.
Are we talking about “history” or about Ukraine? Which, yes, evil Putin invaded for no good reason other than Russian aggrandizement at the expense of its neighbour.
and I still have no idea what any of that has to do with the U.S. and Ukraine at this time. U.S. overreach re: :UKraine? come on. And how exactly has NATO, rather than Russia, been “offensive” in this war given they have no troops there, whereas Russia has been ineptly invading for a year now.
Mearsheimer has suggested that the most important fact to be noted is not the de jur, but the de facto, admission of Ukraine to NATO.
Haha, yeah, because NATOs history of interventionism started last year. Don’t you worry, the Americans will get antsy and start another war soon, gotta keep the weapons trade humming after all.
Also, Bush and Blair killed more people just in Iraq (well over a million) than Putin has in all his military misadventures combined, so maybe have a think about throwing stones from glass houses?
Lets consider that neither the US nor UK has been banned from sports, sanctioned economically nor had their rogues gallery worth of war criminals tried for any of the many, many wars and crimes they have committed.
I could understand if people were making the argument that this is just an opportunity for the Americans to weaken the Russians (which I think is wrong, but at least honest), but no, it always includes moral grandstanding about the evil Russians, even though no great power could ever live up to the rhetoric spouted (because to be “great” you have to also do terrible things) and comes across as hypocritical trolling for anyone who remembers what prior western interventionism got us.
Mearsheimer has suggested that the most important fact to be noted is not the de jur, but the de facto, admission of Ukraine to NATO.
Well said, those downvotes tell you how right you are (even if I’m spoiling them with an upvote)!
Ha! What a convenient metric.
Well I think they should show both down and upvotes, but it is what it is I guess.
What naive nonsense!
You’re being too kind.
You’re being too kind.
As noted on another board: With you on that, sir. Maybe our votes will help that along. I respect your contempt for “green-thumb attaboys”.
What naive nonsense!
As noted on another board: With you on that, sir. Maybe our votes will help that along. I respect your contempt for “green-thumb attaboys”.
Well I think they should show both down and upvotes, but it is what it is I guess.
Ha! What a convenient metric.
More garbage from another bootlicker. Imagine saying that it’s the Americans who have overreached, not the Russians, when a one-week war has lasted a year and counting. Or calling NATO offensive when Putin’s war of aggression is a year old and there are no NATO troops invading anywhere. You have to be either brainwashed or brain-dead to think such things under these circumstances.
Well said, those downvotes tell you how right you are (even if I’m spoiling them with an upvote)!
The imperialist threats and dying empire motifs invoked by the author apply more to America than to Russia. The war has been caused by Western Cold War thinking, and its refusal to respect long, publicly expressed Russian concerns about its borders. NATO, after all, has become an offensive–not defensive–scheme. Its un-elected leaders have united to compel their citizens to cross the red line and support undeniable provocation.
The real empire that has overstepped its bounds is the American one, not the Russian. America’s track record reveals decades of coercion, invasion, pernicious CIA regime changes, and a general brutalization of innocents around the globe. Throughout, it has used sanctions and economic threats as a weapon to coerce obedience among leaders across the globe. We know the history, we know the record. It’s a fact.
The major success of this exercise have been the collapse of European self determination, and its subsequent, sevile surrender to the godfather: USA. As an official a high in the Germany hierasrch has declared: We will continue to support Ukraine no matter what our voters want. And interestingly, thanks to western media cancellation of contrary points of view, no one has the information they need to become outraged.
Truly, we in the West now live under a new Iron Curtain.
This is understandable. Most of the significant NATO creators/members have been rapacious empires themselves. We don’t have to rehears their historical crimes.
I like this article and author. He’s so transparent. Like a gaping crevasse one can see and step around.
So now the Left are the ‘Neo-Con Warmongers’….
”Good versus evil; right versus wrong. In a complicated world, sometimes it really is that simple.”
Obviously not that simple – obvious because this Dominic has good and evil totally confused.
SEE.. Peace – you know, where the children go to school and play with their friends, and the adults go to work, and in the evening they gather at home for a family meal – and granny is not dead under the rubble, and 10 Million are not refugees, and hundreds of thousands have not been maimed, and had limbs blown off and have PTSD, and the electricity comes on, and water flows down the drain to the sewer plant, and the dogs are fed and cared for, and the people have not lost everything they worked for and their pensions and houses gone…
See Dominic – that is good.
Your warmongering is Evil
It is not that simple.
And why is granny under that rubble? Because the Oligarchs were to be replaced with Putin’s equally corrupt Oligarchs, and that Ukraine is the Biden and Clinton family’s Piggy Bank, and the Military Industrial Complex stand to make Billions and billions and everyone involved get their 10% and the MSM and Social Media want this horror show, this WWIII, for some sick reason. Because Corruption rules – and the people die but no one cares…. That is why the war is on. To save the $ and Skins of the corrupt Oligarchs, and Boris and Biden need their 10% and Trillions for Blackwater and Fink and all the WEF corporate leaders…..
Dominic – like most lefties – you think evil is good, and good is evil.
Peace Now! Hundreds of Millions will starve in the Global famine this is spawning, Billions reduced from Poverty to Abject Poverty in the global Gepression this is spawning….This is an EVIL WAR! PEACE NOW!
Peace Now, on what terms Sandford? How do you guarantee the safety and territorial integrity of Ukraine in the future to prevent Russia having another go once it’s rearmed? And what do they have to give up to the Russians in exchange?
Johnston (family ties in Crimea and openly pro-Russian) gave a realistic description of conditions for peace in the debate under the last Ukraine article. Russia, he says, would need the four Oblasts (maybe minus a few bits), Crimea, AND a guarantee that Ukraine would remain ‘fraternal and NEUTRAL’ forever. Which of course means disarmed, defenceless, and with a government that takes orders from Moscow. After that the safety and territorial integrity of Ukraine would be moot -Russia would own them. That is where the knot is in this rope.
Johnston also said that after Ukraine, which was so especially close to Russia’s heart, Putin would not bother with more conquests. Well, maybe …
This is my problem with many of the supposed pro peace comments on these articles. They all essentially blame Ukraine for fighting to repel the Russians rather than the Russians for invading in the first place. They implore that Ukraine should give up territory and control of its defence and foreign policy in order to achieve peace (effectively surrender) rather than saying the Russians should simply withdraw their forces to where they were this time last year
This is my problem with many of the supposed pro peace comments on these articles. They all essentially blame Ukraine for fighting to repel the Russians rather than the Russians for invading in the first place. They implore that Ukraine should give up territory and control of its defence and foreign policy in order to achieve peace (effectively surrender) rather than saying the Russians should simply withdraw their forces to where they were this time last year
Johnston (family ties in Crimea and openly pro-Russian) gave a realistic description of conditions for peace in the debate under the last Ukraine article. Russia, he says, would need the four Oblasts (maybe minus a few bits), Crimea, AND a guarantee that Ukraine would remain ‘fraternal and NEUTRAL’ forever. Which of course means disarmed, defenceless, and with a government that takes orders from Moscow. After that the safety and territorial integrity of Ukraine would be moot -Russia would own them. That is where the knot is in this rope.
Johnston also said that after Ukraine, which was so especially close to Russia’s heart, Putin would not bother with more conquests. Well, maybe …
What a load of garbage from start to finish. Putin bootlicking, nothing more.
All your arguments apply to any war. Since kings stopped riding in front of their troops, the foot soldiers and civilians die, and the generals, politicians and businessmen dine well. Even in WW2 it was as so.
Are you an out and out pacifist? Would you fight the evil left to bring about MAGA world, or would the cost in blood be too much?
There are many geopolitical/moral aspects of this specific war that are thoroughly debated here. Simply repeating “people are dying and the fat cats are thriving” is an admirable sentiment but CND leftist in its naivety.
And, like the CND, the only “disarmament” they’re interested in is Western, or in this case, anti-Russian i.e. Ukrainian.
And, like the CND, the only “disarmament” they’re interested in is Western, or in this case, anti-Russian i.e. Ukrainian.
I think what you do not understand is that all the above was made impossible when the Russians attacked Ukraine.
There is war because the Russians started one and it will be over when one side is defeated. It is as simple as that, the majority of Ukrainians want to fight and will fight because they know that if they don’t they will end up under the dirty boot of the barbarians.
I do not know where you are from but countries that have experienced occupation – and more so at the hand of the Russians – understand very well that sometimes the price of freedom paid in blood is worth it because the alternative is much, much worse.
“dirty boot of the barbarians”
Yeah.. reminds me a quote form a book I recently listened to..
(about the West’s perception of Russians/Slavs) —
“In fact they keep measuring our skull parameters century after century, they just invent new ways how to do it”.
Did you book say warmongers like Putin are nice guys, and those nasty Westerners should just shut up and let the nice guy roll over Ukraine?
Did you book say warmongers like Putin are nice guys, and those nasty Westerners should just shut up and let the nice guy roll over Ukraine?
Do you know for certain that the majority of Ukrainians want to fight especially since Martial Law has been instituted and any opposition to Zelensky has been silenced or crushed. For sure the people in Crimea want to be with Russia – of that there is no doubt. I’m pretty sure the same is true of eastern Ukraine. This may well extend to Odessa which is overwhelmingly Russian. My suspicion is that the majority of Ukrainians would like peace, and they frankly couldn’t care whether they were associated with Russia or not, especially the further east one goes.
The Putin bootlicking continues unabated.
You keep repeating Russian lies as ever.
Just check results of Ukraine independence referendum 1991.
No part of Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia by huge margins.
Even Crimea voted 54% for independence from Russia.
The Putin bootlicking continues unabated.
You keep repeating Russian lies as ever.
Just check results of Ukraine independence referendum 1991.
No part of Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia by huge margins.
Even Crimea voted 54% for independence from Russia.
“dirty boot of the barbarians”
Yeah.. reminds me a quote form a book I recently listened to..
(about the West’s perception of Russians/Slavs) —
“In fact they keep measuring our skull parameters century after century, they just invent new ways how to do it”.
Do you know for certain that the majority of Ukrainians want to fight especially since Martial Law has been instituted and any opposition to Zelensky has been silenced or crushed. For sure the people in Crimea want to be with Russia – of that there is no doubt. I’m pretty sure the same is true of eastern Ukraine. This may well extend to Odessa which is overwhelmingly Russian. My suspicion is that the majority of Ukrainians would like peace, and they frankly couldn’t care whether they were associated with Russia or not, especially the further east one goes.
Peace Now, on what terms Sandford? How do you guarantee the safety and territorial integrity of Ukraine in the future to prevent Russia having another go once it’s rearmed? And what do they have to give up to the Russians in exchange?
What a load of garbage from start to finish. Putin bootlicking, nothing more.
All your arguments apply to any war. Since kings stopped riding in front of their troops, the foot soldiers and civilians die, and the generals, politicians and businessmen dine well. Even in WW2 it was as so.
Are you an out and out pacifist? Would you fight the evil left to bring about MAGA world, or would the cost in blood be too much?
There are many geopolitical/moral aspects of this specific war that are thoroughly debated here. Simply repeating “people are dying and the fat cats are thriving” is an admirable sentiment but CND leftist in its naivety.
I think what you do not understand is that all the above was made impossible when the Russians attacked Ukraine.
There is war because the Russians started one and it will be over when one side is defeated. It is as simple as that, the majority of Ukrainians want to fight and will fight because they know that if they don’t they will end up under the dirty boot of the barbarians.
I do not know where you are from but countries that have experienced occupation – and more so at the hand of the Russians – understand very well that sometimes the price of freedom paid in blood is worth it because the alternative is much, much worse.
So now the Left are the ‘Neo-Con Warmongers’….
”Good versus evil; right versus wrong. In a complicated world, sometimes it really is that simple.”
Obviously not that simple – obvious because this Dominic has good and evil totally confused.
SEE.. Peace – you know, where the children go to school and play with their friends, and the adults go to work, and in the evening they gather at home for a family meal – and granny is not dead under the rubble, and 10 Million are not refugees, and hundreds of thousands have not been maimed, and had limbs blown off and have PTSD, and the electricity comes on, and water flows down the drain to the sewer plant, and the dogs are fed and cared for, and the people have not lost everything they worked for and their pensions and houses gone…
See Dominic – that is good.
Your warmongering is Evil
It is not that simple.
And why is granny under that rubble? Because the Oligarchs were to be replaced with Putin’s equally corrupt Oligarchs, and that Ukraine is the Biden and Clinton family’s Piggy Bank, and the Military Industrial Complex stand to make Billions and billions and everyone involved get their 10% and the MSM and Social Media want this horror show, this WWIII, for some sick reason. Because Corruption rules – and the people die but no one cares…. That is why the war is on. To save the $ and Skins of the corrupt Oligarchs, and Boris and Biden need their 10% and Trillions for Blackwater and Fink and all the WEF corporate leaders…..
Dominic – like most lefties – you think evil is good, and good is evil.
Peace Now! Hundreds of Millions will starve in the Global famine this is spawning, Billions reduced from Poverty to Abject Poverty in the global Gepression this is spawning….This is an EVIL WAR! PEACE NOW!