X Close

Will Ukraine survive Russia’s spring offensive? In Kherson, battle-hardened troops are prepared for the worst

The battle is at a stalemate (Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

The battle is at a stalemate (Chris McGrath/Getty Images)


February 14, 2023   5 mins

The entrance to Kherson is littered with ruined market stalls that the Russians burned when they occupied the city. Inside, the centre is deserted. Cafes are shut; restaurants are boarded up. On a municipal building in Freedom Square hangs a huge McDonald’s poster, sodden with rain.

The Ukrainians retook Kherson on 11 November. But in truth, it wasn’t a victory. The Russians withdrew from the city, and they withdrew in good order. This wasn’t the perfervid flight from Kharkiv, when they left their equipment strewn across fields for the grateful, and trolling, Ukrainians to delightedly hoover up. Now, Russian forces sit on the other side of the Dnieper River, shelling the city continuously.

Southern Ukraine is vital for Moscow: it is the land bridge from the Russian Federation to its Crimea, its Crown Jewel in occupied Ukraine. But as well as needing to cut off Kyiv from Crimea, the Russians need to keep control of the atomic station in Enegodar on their side of the river. It’s the largest in Europe — and it powers much of the South.

Everywhere I’ve been in Ukraine, soldiers and civilians have spent the past weeks discussing the coming spring offensive. After so many battlefield defeats, Putin, the logic goes, cannot simply roll things up and bring his troops home. He must double down. He needs some unequivocal wins. So far, he hasn’t had much success, but what he does have are a lot of soldiers, and a political system that can send them to their deaths with little if any blowback.

In a cramped apartment, just out of central Kherson, I meet with “Sergei”, a soldier who has been fighting here since the start of last year’s invasion. Back then, he was a Platoon Commander; now he is second-in-command of the Company. “Kherson did not fall; we did not conquer it. The Russians left in an organised way,” he tells me. “My educated guess is that the Russians could not maintain supplies. During that period of intense shelling in the autumn, I felt they were using all the artillery they had left before retreating. We destroyed Kherson bridge, so it was harder for them to keep supplying the army in the city, especially with artillery. But it was still a pretty brutal period.”

September through to mid-November was particularly gruelling. Sergei’s unit was stationed a few kilometres from Kherson in a small village, responsible for several lookout points along the left bank. The Russians constantly tried to advance toward them; they had an enormous artillery advantage — and they used it. From dusk to dawn, the shelling never stopped. There would be an occasional break for an hour or so, but it was impossible to tell when it would start and when it would end.

“This war here largely centres on artillery and Special Forces activity,” he tells me. “But as infantry, our role is digging and watching and reporting, and then more digging. It’s not easy to dig new positions under constant shelling. You can’t get out and dig. You do it little by little. We found some bushes and were using viaducts left over from Soviet times. They had concrete plates inside that afforded us some cover.” He continues. “The most difficult part for my guys was that they could not really understand our role: that we had to sit there like sitting ducks and facing all that shelling. The Russians know where we are and what we are doing.”

The unit continues to keep lookout, but no one really believes the Russians will cross the river this week. They just don’t have enough strength here. Russia’s best forces are concentrated mostly in the East. The battle-hardened soldiers they have here, the airborne divisions, are now regularly being used as infantry. Sergei often fights against them. It’s clear when the better soldiers are involved: they maintain good-quality communications and move after dark with night vision. Unlike many of Putin’s troops, he explains, they know their stuff.

While they await the offensive, the Russians keep shelling Ukrainian positions from across the river, knowing full well that the Ukrainians cannot adequately respond. They are short on artillery, multiple rocket launchers (MLRS), and tanks, and can employ only small 60mm mortars by way of response, which are almost useless at that distance. “They’re just trying to terrorise us,” says Sergei. “But the locals are suffering more than us at this point. The Russians don’t seem to be targeting anything in particular — just shelling villages.”

Right now, the battle is at a stalemate. “I get the sense we are accumulating forces and the Russians are doing the same,” says Sergei. “Whether that’s for us to advance or to wait until their advance for a counterattack, I don’t know. But at this point we are lacking the armaments and the machines for this kind of fight. It will take some time.”

Terrain is everything here. The Donbas is an industrial region with a large network of roads and rails. The South, though, is mainly agricultural land. With most of the roads destroyed, and with rail networks less developed, it is harder to move troops and supplies. Much will also depend on the weather. If it is wet, the muddy Rasputitsa season will descend, clogging the fields and making them almost impossible to negotiate with heavy armour.

Now that Sergei is second-in-command, his biggest job is to keep up morale. “This is the most important job there is — I can’t go home and let someone else do it. So many of the people who were willing to participate are dead now. Our guys are tired. They want to fight until March and then bring in new guys to replace the ranks. And I have to explain to them about how we brought half a million to the Territorial Defence, and trained them up. How could we do the same with another half a million new recruits, and give them weapons, and train them? I must help them be realistic and prepare for the long run.”

There are further causes for unease. The army relies on crowdfunding for much of its non-lethal equipment, including the drones that are changing the face of the war. At the start, it was easy for Sergei and his comrades to raise money, especially for drones. The message was simple: they are saving our lives. Today, however, civilians have less money. It’s harder to find a job, many Ukrainians have gone to Europe, and a lot of families are divided, with wives and children scattered across Europe while the remaining men try to find ways to feed them. For many, sparing cash for the army is no longer an option.

All of which makes the imminent Russian offensive a greater concern. Across the East, Russian forces have stepped up attacks. Over the weekend, General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that Moscow was carrying out approximately 50 attacks per day in the Donetsk region. Moscow also recently struck Kherson with a wave of missile strikes, damaging the railway here. Many in Ukraine think the southern offensive has now officially begun; last week, they point out, resulted in the highest Russian soldier death count since the first week of the war. This suggests Ukraine is holding its ground — but for how long?

“If we keep getting weaponry,” Sergei tells me, “if we get what our commanders are asking for, then we have a chance. Unless the Russians use nuclear weapons — in which case all bets are off.”


David Patrikarakos is UnHerd‘s foreign correspondent. His latest book is War in 140 characters: how social media is reshaping conflict in the 21st century. (Hachette)

dpatrikarakos

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

120 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Montague
John Montague
1 year ago

I’ve been reading, slowly as it is a depressing read, a book called “Bloodlands” by Timothy Snyder. Written in 2010. Read it … And then there might be a smidgen of historical perspective from some of you about why the people in Ukraine are spending every ounce of energy to not be ruled by Russia again. The actions of the so called deplorable west (and yes, we did some pretty bad things over a few hundred years of now fading dominance) absolutely pale into insignificance when the astonishing litany of killing and murder between 1930 and 1940 is detailed. If I was Ukrainian I’d be on the front lines with a blunt spoon to keep the Russians out of my country again. The geopolitics go back further than the last 40 years folks, especially outside our first world complacency.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Montague

Few people actually understand the history of the Donbas area thus can be influenced by propaganda (Russia or US). Once you understand the history with some in living history (post WW2), Ukraine’s positions become clearer.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  John Montague

If you read ‘Blood Lands you would see the weirdness of tanks with the iron cross coming from Germany to the fields of Ukraine once more.

But the thing is – this was not a genocidal mission. In WWII the Germans killed millions of Ukrainians intentionally – then Russia sweeping back killed more millions intentionally – THAT WAS NOT WHAT THIS WAS TO BE. This was to be the removal of the entirely corrupt Oligarchs and their tools, like Zelenski – and replacing them with different corrupt Oligarchs and government who were anti NATO, EU. This was not to be genocide – till Biden/Boris decided to turn it into that by pouring thousands of gallons of gasoline on a small bonfire……

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Are you for real? It wasn’t a planned genocide, UKR created the genocide by defending itself?

John Montague
John Montague
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

I think you will find that Bloodlands deals quite extensively with the actions of Russia in the 20s and 30s. Many years before Germany invaded and carried out their pogroms and murders. Secondly I am pretty sure no German tanks have yet made out of their hibernation state and travelled anywhere. Beyond any of the geopolitics of Putin did this, Biden did that, BAE sold this, Gazprom made that, the Ukrainians have a undeniable right to defend themselves against a potential repetition of what happened the them previously, within living remembered history. And to do that anyway they can.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Indeed.
And many Nazis claimed that what Hitler did was “not what he intended.”
It’s just that Britain and the USSR fought back.
People (like you) who support Ethnic Conflicts like this will always say “that wasn’t what I intended.”
I opposed Bush’s invasion in 2003 because I knew what would happen was “not what George intended.”
That there are people on God’s green earth who justify their support of Putin’s war because “that’s not what he intended” is…
Rather disappointing.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

True. He “intended” to win his wittle war in a few days, but instead made the biggest miscalculation since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

He’s not supporting the war. Realists are just claiming that Ukraine could have surrendered before the fighting, or it can surrender after the fighting..
The only alternative is for Russia to be defeated, and achieving that seems to involve risks of WW3 that we have previously tried to avoid.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

True. He “intended” to win his wittle war in a few days, but instead made the biggest miscalculation since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

He’s not supporting the war. Realists are just claiming that Ukraine could have surrendered before the fighting, or it can surrender after the fighting..
The only alternative is for Russia to be defeated, and achieving that seems to involve risks of WW3 that we have previously tried to avoid.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Oh shut up. What you call a “small bonfire” was supposed to be the extinction of a sovereign nation by the same expansionist power (Russia) that bullied all of its neighbours for centuries.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Are you for real? It wasn’t a planned genocide, UKR created the genocide by defending itself?

John Montague
John Montague
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

I think you will find that Bloodlands deals quite extensively with the actions of Russia in the 20s and 30s. Many years before Germany invaded and carried out their pogroms and murders. Secondly I am pretty sure no German tanks have yet made out of their hibernation state and travelled anywhere. Beyond any of the geopolitics of Putin did this, Biden did that, BAE sold this, Gazprom made that, the Ukrainians have a undeniable right to defend themselves against a potential repetition of what happened the them previously, within living remembered history. And to do that anyway they can.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Indeed.
And many Nazis claimed that what Hitler did was “not what he intended.”
It’s just that Britain and the USSR fought back.
People (like you) who support Ethnic Conflicts like this will always say “that wasn’t what I intended.”
I opposed Bush’s invasion in 2003 because I knew what would happen was “not what George intended.”
That there are people on God’s green earth who justify their support of Putin’s war because “that’s not what he intended” is…
Rather disappointing.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Oh shut up. What you call a “small bonfire” was supposed to be the extinction of a sovereign nation by the same expansionist power (Russia) that bullied all of its neighbours for centuries.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Montague

Few people actually understand the history of the Donbas area thus can be influenced by propaganda (Russia or US). Once you understand the history with some in living history (post WW2), Ukraine’s positions become clearer.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  John Montague

If you read ‘Blood Lands you would see the weirdness of tanks with the iron cross coming from Germany to the fields of Ukraine once more.

But the thing is – this was not a genocidal mission. In WWII the Germans killed millions of Ukrainians intentionally – then Russia sweeping back killed more millions intentionally – THAT WAS NOT WHAT THIS WAS TO BE. This was to be the removal of the entirely corrupt Oligarchs and their tools, like Zelenski – and replacing them with different corrupt Oligarchs and government who were anti NATO, EU. This was not to be genocide – till Biden/Boris decided to turn it into that by pouring thousands of gallons of gasoline on a small bonfire……

John Montague
John Montague
1 year ago

I’ve been reading, slowly as it is a depressing read, a book called “Bloodlands” by Timothy Snyder. Written in 2010. Read it … And then there might be a smidgen of historical perspective from some of you about why the people in Ukraine are spending every ounce of energy to not be ruled by Russia again. The actions of the so called deplorable west (and yes, we did some pretty bad things over a few hundred years of now fading dominance) absolutely pale into insignificance when the astonishing litany of killing and murder between 1930 and 1940 is detailed. If I was Ukrainian I’d be on the front lines with a blunt spoon to keep the Russians out of my country again. The geopolitics go back further than the last 40 years folks, especially outside our first world complacency.

Paul Hemphill
Paul Hemphill
1 year ago

I’m on the Snyder side in this argument and not invest d of reflexive prejudice towards the US and UK, Russia and Ukraine. I know enough of the history of Eastern Europe to know better. Regardless of corruption and skulduggery and political machinations , the long arm of history and an indelible historical memory tell us why Ukraine is fighting against insurmountable odds.

Paul Hemphill
Paul Hemphill
1 year ago

I’m on the Snyder side in this argument and not invest d of reflexive prejudice towards the US and UK, Russia and Ukraine. I know enough of the history of Eastern Europe to know better. Regardless of corruption and skulduggery and political machinations , the long arm of history and an indelible historical memory tell us why Ukraine is fighting against insurmountable odds.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

BTW, the main reason Russia’s latest assault on Vuhledar failed so badly was because the “elite” 155 Marine Brigade had been previously decimated.
So they took sailors (!) from the various fleets, gave them a little training, and then sent them into action.
Eventually there will be no one of draft age on most Russian streets.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

OK – so some rough maths:

Ukraine had 44 million say, I just use numbers from memory (4 million were working overseas already). Then 10 Milion refugees in Europe – 8, and in Russia, 2. 10 Million in Donbas. Half a million dead or injured..

Population left in Ukraine = 19,500,000!

Population of Russia 146,000,000

OK then – who is running out of draft age men?

And you sheep of war, you MSM tools, useful idiots – you would have those 20 million poured into the meat grinder – safe on your sofa – your children will pay off the the VAST sums of Debt Biden/Boris are printing to fund this Proxy war..

Your children will have to suffer financially so the Ukrainian children can be harmed – and you think it worth every penny?

sheep of war, a remarkable silly, and deadly, creature…

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

So the country with the largest population gets to do as it pleases? Has it occurred to you that the Ukrainians would be fighting anyway because they don’t want to be ruled by Russia?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

A perfect reason for the US to go into Vietnam!
Americans outnumbered North Vietnamese by far larger numbers.
You’re even smarter than McNamera!

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Ever really looked at Russian demographics?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Putin toady.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

So the country with the largest population gets to do as it pleases? Has it occurred to you that the Ukrainians would be fighting anyway because they don’t want to be ruled by Russia?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

A perfect reason for the US to go into Vietnam!
Americans outnumbered North Vietnamese by far larger numbers.
You’re even smarter than McNamera!

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Ever really looked at Russian demographics?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Putin toady.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

OK – so some rough maths:

Ukraine had 44 million say, I just use numbers from memory (4 million were working overseas already). Then 10 Milion refugees in Europe – 8, and in Russia, 2. 10 Million in Donbas. Half a million dead or injured..

Population left in Ukraine = 19,500,000!

Population of Russia 146,000,000

OK then – who is running out of draft age men?

And you sheep of war, you MSM tools, useful idiots – you would have those 20 million poured into the meat grinder – safe on your sofa – your children will pay off the the VAST sums of Debt Biden/Boris are printing to fund this Proxy war..

Your children will have to suffer financially so the Ukrainian children can be harmed – and you think it worth every penny?

sheep of war, a remarkable silly, and deadly, creature…

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

BTW, the main reason Russia’s latest assault on Vuhledar failed so badly was because the “elite” 155 Marine Brigade had been previously decimated.
So they took sailors (!) from the various fleets, gave them a little training, and then sent them into action.
Eventually there will be no one of draft age on most Russian streets.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago

“Russia’s best forces are concentrated mostly in the East. The battle-hardened soldiers they have here [in Kherson] … Sergei often fights against them. It’s clear when the better soldiers are involved: they maintain good-quality communications and move after dark with night vision. Unlike many of Putin’s troops … they know their stuff.”
I’ve read and re-read this muddle several times, finally coming to the conclusion that wherever they are, the Russians are superior to the Ukrainian forces. I find that hard to believe, but I suppose we’ll see.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Wim de Vriend

Russians fight with this ‘Rope A Dope’ tactic which defeated the superior German army….

They make a great line and send a strong force forward till they are spent – then they dig in and hold, and meanwhile further down the line another is doing the same, and the other way another begins doing the same…..The ones being attacked cannot effectively deploy their reserves – and it becomes a mess for the defenders. The Russians throw some reserves at yet another point and do it again – All the wile vast masses of artillery are grinding away at the defenders – and eventually a breakthrough happens. If it does not they can fall back or just hold…. Brutal, buy you would not want to try to defend against it….

Not the faint, and double faint and spearhead thrust of a Romell – but a heavyweight slug fest……

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

“feint”
(not your first language, apparently)
You sound almost as dumb as a Russian.
The Soviets outnumbered the Germans by far larger numbers. And the Soviets had huge amounts of govno to use in their attacks.
The Russian army now is only marginally larger than the Ukrainian. Unless it calls up more troops it will soon again be outnumbered due to losses.
Anyone using WW2 Soviet tactics in the 21st Century is beyond bonkers.
The Chinese failed with it in Korea.

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

The Soviets army only defeated the Germans with substantial help from the USA – plus Britain and France.
https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/

Muiris de Bhulbh
Muiris de Bhulbh
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

How many languages could you post in, with the only error be ing the use of the wrong homophone?

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

The Soviets army only defeated the Germans with substantial help from the USA – plus Britain and France.
https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/

Muiris de Bhulbh
Muiris de Bhulbh
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

How many languages could you post in, with the only error be ing the use of the wrong homophone?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

“feint”
(not your first language, apparently)
You sound almost as dumb as a Russian.
The Soviets outnumbered the Germans by far larger numbers. And the Soviets had huge amounts of govno to use in their attacks.
The Russian army now is only marginally larger than the Ukrainian. Unless it calls up more troops it will soon again be outnumbered due to losses.
Anyone using WW2 Soviet tactics in the 21st Century is beyond bonkers.
The Chinese failed with it in Korea.

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Wim de Vriend

Er, Prigozhin says the same thing about Ukrainians–that they “know their stuff.”
Both sides have good troops, and both sides have less good troops.
Russia’s problem is that nearly all of its newest troops are ill-trained and unmotivated.
We’ll see what happens with them.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Wim de Vriend

There are undoubtedly some Russian troops that are better than some Ukrainian troops, but that’s not what he is saying.
There are Russian troops who have long been in the military, have had experience, whether in Ukraine or, more commonly, Syria. Those who were dumb were killed. Those who learned some lessons survived. They are better “quality” troops than your average Russian troops.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Diane Merriam

. Those who were dumb were killed.

Just no. It may have more to do with how close to the missile or bullets you are when they come flying. Luck of the draw not dumb. Insult to dead soldiers everywhere.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Diane Merriam

. Those who were dumb were killed.

Just no. It may have more to do with how close to the missile or bullets you are when they come flying. Luck of the draw not dumb. Insult to dead soldiers everywhere.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Wim de Vriend

Russians fight with this ‘Rope A Dope’ tactic which defeated the superior German army….

They make a great line and send a strong force forward till they are spent – then they dig in and hold, and meanwhile further down the line another is doing the same, and the other way another begins doing the same…..The ones being attacked cannot effectively deploy their reserves – and it becomes a mess for the defenders. The Russians throw some reserves at yet another point and do it again – All the wile vast masses of artillery are grinding away at the defenders – and eventually a breakthrough happens. If it does not they can fall back or just hold…. Brutal, buy you would not want to try to defend against it….

Not the faint, and double faint and spearhead thrust of a Romell – but a heavyweight slug fest……

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Wim de Vriend

Er, Prigozhin says the same thing about Ukrainians–that they “know their stuff.”
Both sides have good troops, and both sides have less good troops.
Russia’s problem is that nearly all of its newest troops are ill-trained and unmotivated.
We’ll see what happens with them.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Wim de Vriend

There are undoubtedly some Russian troops that are better than some Ukrainian troops, but that’s not what he is saying.
There are Russian troops who have long been in the military, have had experience, whether in Ukraine or, more commonly, Syria. Those who were dumb were killed. Those who learned some lessons survived. They are better “quality” troops than your average Russian troops.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago

“Russia’s best forces are concentrated mostly in the East. The battle-hardened soldiers they have here [in Kherson] … Sergei often fights against them. It’s clear when the better soldiers are involved: they maintain good-quality communications and move after dark with night vision. Unlike many of Putin’s troops … they know their stuff.”
I’ve read and re-read this muddle several times, finally coming to the conclusion that wherever they are, the Russians are superior to the Ukrainian forces. I find that hard to believe, but I suppose we’ll see.

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
1 year ago

This sounds like a more balanced account than the propaganda we get in most of the media. This war should never have happened. It could have been averted by acknowledging Russia’s concerns and negotiating.

Rupert Steel
Rupert Steel
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

Correct. The war should never have happened. In 1994, Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons and their delivery systems to Russia, in exchange for guarantees of its borders from US, UK and Russia. If Ukraine had retained its nukes, Putin would never have invaded, in flagrant breach of Russia’s treaty obligations. How do you negotiate with a party for whom an international treaty is just a scrap of paper? What are the chances of Russia/Putin honouring a subsequent agreement? The answer is, zero. The only thing Putin understands is brute force.

Jay Bee
Jay Bee
1 year ago
Reply to  Rupert Steel

‘What are the chances of Russia/Putin honouring a subsequent agreement’?
For some reason the deliberate trashing of The Minsk Agreements by Merkel, Holland and Zelensky comes to mind

’How do you negotiate with a party for whom an international treaty is just a scrap of paper?’
Good question.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Jay Bee

The Minsk Agreement was designed to fail.
No one can even say what it was.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Jay Bee

Neither Russia, nor the rebel and Russian held parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts kept up their part of the bargain either. There was this one region in Donetsk they were bound and determined to take away from Ukraine even though the fighting was supposed to have stopped. Russia was supposed to withdraw its troops. It never did. Is only Ukraine supposed to be held to agreements no matter what the other side did?
And that’s not including the Budapest Memorandum the person you were responding to was talking about. Russia explicitly promised to never cross Ukrainian borders. And that includes Crimea as well as the small part of the Donbas that Russian troops backed.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Jay Bee

The Minsk Agreement was designed to fail.
No one can even say what it was.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Jay Bee

Neither Russia, nor the rebel and Russian held parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts kept up their part of the bargain either. There was this one region in Donetsk they were bound and determined to take away from Ukraine even though the fighting was supposed to have stopped. Russia was supposed to withdraw its troops. It never did. Is only Ukraine supposed to be held to agreements no matter what the other side did?
And that’s not including the Budapest Memorandum the person you were responding to was talking about. Russia explicitly promised to never cross Ukrainian borders. And that includes Crimea as well as the small part of the Donbas that Russian troops backed.

Jay Bee
Jay Bee
1 year ago
Reply to  Rupert Steel

‘What are the chances of Russia/Putin honouring a subsequent agreement’?
For some reason the deliberate trashing of The Minsk Agreements by Merkel, Holland and Zelensky comes to mind

’How do you negotiate with a party for whom an international treaty is just a scrap of paper?’
Good question.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

Russia’s “concerns” were Putin’s concerns.
And for 20 years his main concern has been that Russia can never be more than a minor world player–unless he recreates the Russian/Soviet empire.
Russia’s population is half what it was in Soviet times, with birth rates falling. Russia can only be “great again” if it takes back all the wayward republics.
Why do you think Kazakstan is helping Ukraine?

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Russia, without any colonies could be a greatly respected, cultured and wealthy nation – just by implementing a lawful democratic political system.

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Russia, without any colonies could be a greatly respected, cultured and wealthy nation – just by implementing a lawful democratic political system.

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

Same as with Adolf Hitler? (the ‘Munich agreement’)

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

A ridiculous assertion entirely not based on facts.

Rupert Steel
Rupert Steel
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

Correct. The war should never have happened. In 1994, Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons and their delivery systems to Russia, in exchange for guarantees of its borders from US, UK and Russia. If Ukraine had retained its nukes, Putin would never have invaded, in flagrant breach of Russia’s treaty obligations. How do you negotiate with a party for whom an international treaty is just a scrap of paper? What are the chances of Russia/Putin honouring a subsequent agreement? The answer is, zero. The only thing Putin understands is brute force.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

Russia’s “concerns” were Putin’s concerns.
And for 20 years his main concern has been that Russia can never be more than a minor world player–unless he recreates the Russian/Soviet empire.
Russia’s population is half what it was in Soviet times, with birth rates falling. Russia can only be “great again” if it takes back all the wayward republics.
Why do you think Kazakstan is helping Ukraine?

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

Same as with Adolf Hitler? (the ‘Munich agreement’)

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

A ridiculous assertion entirely not based on facts.

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
1 year ago

This sounds like a more balanced account than the propaganda we get in most of the media. This war should never have happened. It could have been averted by acknowledging Russia’s concerns and negotiating.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

It really looks like Russia has gone from the delusional to the psychotic.
Putin’s jocular reaction to the news of his naval infantry’s obliteration at Vuhledar suggests one of two things:
1) He’s totally oblivious to what’s really going on at the front. That indicates he is not being told the real situation by his minions. So he will continue to order his troops to mass slaughter.
Or, more likely:
2) Putin has reached a state where reality no longer matters. Like the FSB officers who now daily worship in the Lubyanka Orthodox chapel, he sees the war (and the world) as governed by forces far beyond any mortal’s control. Providence will decide the outcome, not the decisions of mortal man.
So, whatever the situation in Kherson, Putin will keep the Donbas meatgrinder going–until he runs out of meat…

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

haha….I got 18 down votes for saying Peace Now….haha

‘The Sheep Of War’

are all here with their down votes from their comfy sofa, with good jobs, house half paid for, pension coming, family safe and sound, netflix and a bag of snacks when they finish their post crying for more legs to be blown off, more young men to be incinerated in armored vehicles, houses destroyed, children, men, woman getting loaded up with PTSD….

Well the meat grinder grinds the innocent much more than the guilty… and this is what you bloody sheep, you acolytes of the Warmongering Lib/Lefty MSM Propaganda machine tell you to think – that death of innocents is OK, just ‘Collateral Damage’, if it is someone else’s innocents…..

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

You support Putin’s invasion, justifying it by the fact that Zelensky is corrupt.
(Saddam was too. So are the Ayatollahs).
And WE are the “sheep”???

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Russia invaded Ukraine. Putin, as the head of the Russin state, *chose* to invade Ukraine. He was the actor. He started the wars. He invaded a sovereign nation because, well, because … whatever the reason of the week is.
Ukraine has been under the Russian heel before and the majority would rather fight and possibly die than to let it happen again. To themselves, to their families, to their children or their grandchildren or their great-grandchildren. It is by *their* choice that they fight, not ours. We support them in their choice.
No death is good, unless it is the only way to stop even more death. And there are some things worse than death. You may or may not think so, but it’s not you making the choice. They are.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Oh shut the f*ck up. Nobody believes that this war is down to Western support for Ukraine. Everybody knows this is Putin’s war, and he can end it by ending it. By the way, I think the Finnish president’s remarks early on in the conflict are far more resonant than your silly Putin-serving remarks. He said, quite clearly, that Putin brought all of this — including getting neutral Sweden and Finland to want to join NATO — on himself by his actions. Now go back and climb under whatever rock you emerged from to make your stupid comments.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

You support Putin’s invasion, justifying it by the fact that Zelensky is corrupt.
(Saddam was too. So are the Ayatollahs).
And WE are the “sheep”???

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Russia invaded Ukraine. Putin, as the head of the Russin state, *chose* to invade Ukraine. He was the actor. He started the wars. He invaded a sovereign nation because, well, because … whatever the reason of the week is.
Ukraine has been under the Russian heel before and the majority would rather fight and possibly die than to let it happen again. To themselves, to their families, to their children or their grandchildren or their great-grandchildren. It is by *their* choice that they fight, not ours. We support them in their choice.
No death is good, unless it is the only way to stop even more death. And there are some things worse than death. You may or may not think so, but it’s not you making the choice. They are.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Oh shut the f*ck up. Nobody believes that this war is down to Western support for Ukraine. Everybody knows this is Putin’s war, and he can end it by ending it. By the way, I think the Finnish president’s remarks early on in the conflict are far more resonant than your silly Putin-serving remarks. He said, quite clearly, that Putin brought all of this — including getting neutral Sweden and Finland to want to join NATO — on himself by his actions. Now go back and climb under whatever rock you emerged from to make your stupid comments.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

haha….I got 18 down votes for saying Peace Now….haha

‘The Sheep Of War’

are all here with their down votes from their comfy sofa, with good jobs, house half paid for, pension coming, family safe and sound, netflix and a bag of snacks when they finish their post crying for more legs to be blown off, more young men to be incinerated in armored vehicles, houses destroyed, children, men, woman getting loaded up with PTSD….

Well the meat grinder grinds the innocent much more than the guilty… and this is what you bloody sheep, you acolytes of the Warmongering Lib/Lefty MSM Propaganda machine tell you to think – that death of innocents is OK, just ‘Collateral Damage’, if it is someone else’s innocents…..

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

It really looks like Russia has gone from the delusional to the psychotic.
Putin’s jocular reaction to the news of his naval infantry’s obliteration at Vuhledar suggests one of two things:
1) He’s totally oblivious to what’s really going on at the front. That indicates he is not being told the real situation by his minions. So he will continue to order his troops to mass slaughter.
Or, more likely:
2) Putin has reached a state where reality no longer matters. Like the FSB officers who now daily worship in the Lubyanka Orthodox chapel, he sees the war (and the world) as governed by forces far beyond any mortal’s control. Providence will decide the outcome, not the decisions of mortal man.
So, whatever the situation in Kherson, Putin will keep the Donbas meatgrinder going–until he runs out of meat…

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago

Is there going to be a spring offensive or is that just propaganda that is being used by Ukraine and America (not wanting to lose face yet again) in order to drum up more deadly and destructive military arms from EU countries.
Russia has retreated to the area which is largely Russian speaking (East and South) and I would suggest that they are now in a defensive position and not offensive.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Iris C

Russia has not voluntarily retreated anywhere. Nor do they yet hold the land that was its primary goal eight years ago. Luhansk is the only oblast that they really hold almost all of. Barely half of Donetsk. But those two are the oblasts they were supposedly protecting. Blasting villages to the ground is a great way of protecting those people, isn’t it?
They control only part of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Yet they claim to have annexed every square foot of all four of them.
Zaporizhzhia connects Crimea with Donetsk and then Russia itself. Kherson was the path to Odesa and cutting Ukraine totally off from the Black Sea (plus linking up with the “rebels” in Transnistria so they can run through Moldova and part of Romania as well to control the Bessarabian Gap).
Ukraine has one certain fighting season – in the summer, when the ground has dried. Late winter into spring and in the mid to late fall it rains and the land turns to mud that heavy vehicles can’t move through, restricting them to roads where they are much easier to pick off. That’s what happened to the Kyiv advance last February. It usually freezes hard enough for part of winter to be able to maneuver then, but it’s been an unusually warm winter this year, which has held both sides back. This brief freeze has seen Russia trying to get as much as it can before the mud season returns and, once again, prevent any heavy vehicle movement. Ukraine is trying not to lose too much before they can get a fresh infusion of gear and ammunition to go back on the offensive. They won’t get it before mud season, but by the time it dries out, they may have much of it.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Iris C

Many countries are English speaking.
Should Britain reconquer Ireland, because they are just little Brits?
You are either ignorant of even recent history of this region or tell blatant lies.
In Ukraine independence referendum in 1991 both Donbas and Luhansk voted over 80% for independence.
Even Crinea voted 54% for it.
So there was not a single region of Ukraine which wanted to be part of Russia.
Some people on this forum find it hard to accept because it would undermine their pro Russian narrative.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Iris C

Russia has not voluntarily retreated anywhere. Nor do they yet hold the land that was its primary goal eight years ago. Luhansk is the only oblast that they really hold almost all of. Barely half of Donetsk. But those two are the oblasts they were supposedly protecting. Blasting villages to the ground is a great way of protecting those people, isn’t it?
They control only part of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Yet they claim to have annexed every square foot of all four of them.
Zaporizhzhia connects Crimea with Donetsk and then Russia itself. Kherson was the path to Odesa and cutting Ukraine totally off from the Black Sea (plus linking up with the “rebels” in Transnistria so they can run through Moldova and part of Romania as well to control the Bessarabian Gap).
Ukraine has one certain fighting season – in the summer, when the ground has dried. Late winter into spring and in the mid to late fall it rains and the land turns to mud that heavy vehicles can’t move through, restricting them to roads where they are much easier to pick off. That’s what happened to the Kyiv advance last February. It usually freezes hard enough for part of winter to be able to maneuver then, but it’s been an unusually warm winter this year, which has held both sides back. This brief freeze has seen Russia trying to get as much as it can before the mud season returns and, once again, prevent any heavy vehicle movement. Ukraine is trying not to lose too much before they can get a fresh infusion of gear and ammunition to go back on the offensive. They won’t get it before mud season, but by the time it dries out, they may have much of it.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Iris C

Many countries are English speaking.
Should Britain reconquer Ireland, because they are just little Brits?
You are either ignorant of even recent history of this region or tell blatant lies.
In Ukraine independence referendum in 1991 both Donbas and Luhansk voted over 80% for independence.
Even Crinea voted 54% for it.
So there was not a single region of Ukraine which wanted to be part of Russia.
Some people on this forum find it hard to accept because it would undermine their pro Russian narrative.

Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago

Is there going to be a spring offensive or is that just propaganda that is being used by Ukraine and America (not wanting to lose face yet again) in order to drum up more deadly and destructive military arms from EU countries.
Russia has retreated to the area which is largely Russian speaking (East and South) and I would suggest that they are now in a defensive position and not offensive.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago

WHY NOT MAKE PEACE? WHY the F NOT???

How can this go on? Is it doing anyone any good to any who are part of the struggle? I believe the only ones this is useful for is Biden’s side and what ever horrible globalist thing they are trying to achieve, and the corrupt Ukrainian Oligarchs skimming off $ Billions. I do not think it is doing Russia any good, Nor Ukraine. I think this is a proxy war and these guys are just flesh and blood, real living, feeling, with dependent family – Puppets.

Here is a very nice and sincere young American who fought with the Ukrainians – and war is hell, as you can hear – 3 hours, he is pretty much used up……he is what the meat grinder is spitting out – tragic. Very compelling – he tells his story so you feel it…

”back home you realize people just don’t realize what war is…we were killing civilians in the process, and for what? For what?”

”’I Lost Everyone’ – AZOV Ukraine Regiment Soldier, TELL ALL Exclusive Interview | Savagery of War”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ-iVzR_Yyc

Remember Siegfried Sassoon? WWI poet?

”He stirred, shifting his body; then the pain
Leaped like a prowling beast, and gripped and tore
His groping dreams with grinding claws and fangs.
But someone was beside him; soon he lay
Shuddering because that evil thing had passed.
And death, who’d stepped toward him, paused and stared. 
 
Light many lamps and gather round his bed.
Lend him your eyes, warm blood, and will to live.
Speak to him; rouse him; you may save him yet.
He’s young; he hated war; how should he die
When cruel old campaigners win safe through?
 
But death replied: “I choose him.” So he went,
And there was silence in the summer night;
Silence and safety; and the veils of sleep.
Then, far away, the thudding of the guns.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Ask Putin, it’s his forces that are in Ukraine and trying to push further still. The chance of peace lies solely with him. The Ukrainians can’t make peace while Russian forces are still trying to steal their homeland can they.
If the Chinese invaded the States would you tell the American government not to resist them, just let the CCP take what they please simply to keep the peace?

Last edited 1 year ago by Billy Bob
Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Why don’t you start getting real and looking at the situation from a historical and political perspective, rather than being guided by your emotions and jingoism (which is all too easy when you are not putting your life on the line). This is not an issue of condoning Putin, but realizing that there’s a lot more to it that Putin evil, and Ukraine heroic, courageous and righteous. The factors that led up to the war were largely instigated by the West – the pushing of NATO ever eastward, the engineering of the Maidan 2014 coup, encouraging the shelling of Eastern, Russian speaking, Ukraine by Western Ukraine since 2014. Never mind that Ukraine and Kiev represent the birthplace of the Russian nation over 1000 years ago. Never mind that Ukraine was part of Russia ever since Catherine the Great (18th century). i.e. the situation would be analogous to one where Scotland declared independence from the UK and then allowed the Chinese or Russians to build up military bases and capabilities in Scotland, targeted at England. Or to put it in terms of something that really happened, it’s equivalent to the Cuban situation in 1962/1963 where the world came this close to nuclear annihilation because the Russians were installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, and the US quite rightly objected to nuclear missiles on their doorstep (never mind the Monroe doctrine).
The truth is that this is a senseless war being directed by the US as a proxy war where they are sending Ukrainians to their deaths. It won’t stop until support for the proxy war in the US and Europe collapses. And sooner or later it will when it starts really hurting the pockets of citizens in Europe and the US.
What one has to understand is that the current war between Ukraine and Russia is essential a local border dispute that has no security impact on NATO, the US or the West generally. It is a war that we in the West should not be involved in. Never mind that most people in the US couldn’t even place Ukraine on a map.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Firstly NATO didn’t “push” eastward, those countries that joined did so because they were terrified of Russia. The events of the last year have shown they were entirely correct to do so.
Secondly the maiden revolution was a populist revolt against a leader who was elected on a promise of aligning Ukraine to the west then tried to pivot instead to Moscow against the wishes of the majority of the population. It was Russian backed separatists that started the violence in the east. Even if the west was involved (and I’ve not seen any evidence that convinces me they were) then why is that any worse than the Kremlin attempting to poison the pro EU presidential candidate in the elections before? It’s a bit rich of Putin to criticise others for allegedly doing what he has done himself.
Thirdly justifying an invasion because of the way borders were drawn a thousand years ago is absolute nonsense.
Next up it’s nothing like Scotland preparing to attack England or the Cuban missile crisis for the simple reason there isn’t a single NATO soldier in Ukraine, and there wasn’t any NATO offensive battalions in the Eastern European nations near Russia (at Russias behest) until Putin illegally annexed Crimea.
Finally you may see this as a proxy war, but the Ukrainians certainly do not. They’re fighting for the existence of their homeland and to be able to live their lives as a free country rather than simply a colony of the Kremlin. There are legitimate arguments to be had about whether it’s in NATOs interest to fund the war to the level they have been, but to deny the agency of the Ukrainians doing the fighting and label them as brainless puppets of a foreign regime is plain wrong.

Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

No NATO soldiers in Ukraine? There are soldiers from NATO countries in Ukraine training their soldiers.

This is undoubtedly a proxy war, created by the WEST and predicted by many experts in the West for just the reasons Putin gives. Partly that may be sensible geopolitics by US etc but, I fear, a large part Is just corruption and part of the NWO.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

So the west forced Russia to invade? I didn’t know they had that much influence over the Kremlin

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

they do. Ukraine is 100% a proxy war. That means it is driven by powers from outside. This war is not about Ukraine – it is about USA taking Europe and other Globalist agenda.
ï»ż
Notice the Nordstream?

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine did not invade Russia. There is no self defense justification for its invasion.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Ukraine is 100% NOT a proxy war. The Ukranians are defending their country from an aggressor they know all too well, and if they wanted to stop fighting and surrender, there would be nothing the West could do about it. This is Ukraine’s war for survival as an independent country, period. There is NO proxy war going on, and in fact, those aren’t proxy troops Putin sent in, they’re Russians. Which is precisely why the Ukrainians are fighting back. Being a Putin apologist is NOT a good look.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine did not invade Russia. There is no self defense justification for its invasion.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Ukraine is 100% NOT a proxy war. The Ukranians are defending their country from an aggressor they know all too well, and if they wanted to stop fighting and surrender, there would be nothing the West could do about it. This is Ukraine’s war for survival as an independent country, period. There is NO proxy war going on, and in fact, those aren’t proxy troops Putin sent in, they’re Russians. Which is precisely why the Ukrainians are fighting back. Being a Putin apologist is NOT a good look.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

they do. Ukraine is 100% a proxy war. That means it is driven by powers from outside. This war is not about Ukraine – it is about USA taking Europe and other Globalist agenda.
ï»ż
Notice the Nordstream?

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

No. The Ukrainian soldiers are leaving to be trained in other countries. There are no instructors from NATO or any other countries in Ukraine training Ukrainians. Not since Russia invaded.
Russia invaded Ukraine. No country invaded Russia. The war was created and instigated by Russia. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, fully justified in deciding what organizations it wants to align itself with.
If Russia decides to put sanctions on Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary for leaving the USSR and then joining or wanting to join the EU and/or NATO, then it can do so. What it may not do is to militarily invade any one of them. When the Russian Federation was allowed to take the US seat of the USSR, it bound itself to the UN Charter and that requires acknowledging that military conquests for enlarging their territory are forbidden.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

So the west forced Russia to invade? I didn’t know they had that much influence over the Kremlin

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

No. The Ukrainian soldiers are leaving to be trained in other countries. There are no instructors from NATO or any other countries in Ukraine training Ukrainians. Not since Russia invaded.
Russia invaded Ukraine. No country invaded Russia. The war was created and instigated by Russia. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, fully justified in deciding what organizations it wants to align itself with.
If Russia decides to put sanctions on Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary for leaving the USSR and then joining or wanting to join the EU and/or NATO, then it can do so. What it may not do is to militarily invade any one of them. When the Russian Federation was allowed to take the US seat of the USSR, it bound itself to the UN Charter and that requires acknowledging that military conquests for enlarging their territory are forbidden.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Wow Mr Billy Bob you’ve cracked out full paragraphs today. So here are mine.
Quote:
To the contrary, the first principal initiative of the Clinton administration toward Europe was the Partnership for Peace, an attempt to develop relationships with and strengthen the states of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. States were offered a menu of potential political and military arrangements, including regular consultations, educational opportunities, and extensive training and exercising. The intention was to professionalize and Westernize their military establishments while offering these countries a degree of reassurance—and doing all this in a manner designed to reduce the chance of a hostile Russian reaction.

Yet less than one year after launching the Partnership for Peace, the Clinton administration, with little debate or public preparation, introduced the goal of NATO expansion.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/enlarging-nato-a-questionable-idea-whose-time-has-come/%3famp

Us RAND think tank on ukraine:

The report says that the major risk of a long war in Ukraine is that there would be “a prolonged elevated risk of Russian nuclear use and a NATO-Russia war.” It says that “avoiding these two forms of escalation is the paramount US priority.”

When it comes to Ukraine retaking more of the territory that Russia captured, the report says this is only a “less significant benefit” and that “avoiding a long war is also a higher priority for the United States than facilitating significantly more Ukrainian territorial control.” It places “weakening Russia” as a greater benefit to the US than Ukrainian gains, but still not worth the risk of a long war

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/01/30/new-rand-report-says-a-long-war-in-ukraine-is-against-us-interests/

We speak to former Bernie Sanders foreign policy adviser Matt Duss, now a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who specialized in the Soviet Union. “Everyone understands that at some point there will need to be a negotiation to bring this war to a close, but I think the tension within the progressive community comes to when and how that diplomacy actually takes place,” says Duss. McGovern stressest that U.S. policymakers must understand Russia’s motivations, saying Russia sees the eastward expansion of NATO as threatening its core interests akin to how the United States viewed the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s.

https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2022/11/02/matt-duss-and-ray-mcgovern-debate-u-s-policy-on-russia-nato-and-more/

DIPLOMACY NOW. NO WAR. NO DECOUPLING. FREE TRADE.

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/02/21/uncovered-document-reveals-soviet-union-was-promised-no-nato-expansion-at-end-of-cold-war/

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine is inflicting untold suffering on the Ukrainian people, with profound global implications. The prospects for peace keep diminishing,” Guterres told the UN General Assembly.

“I fear the world is not sleepwalking into a wider war. I fear it is doing so with its eyes wide open,” he added

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/02/06/un-chief-fears-russia-ukraine-conflict-could-turn-into-wider-war/

Its not our job to police the world. We must stop escalating this.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

So far the wise advisors haven’t moved Putin much. Maybe he hopes “within the progressive community”, that the Ukrainian less progressive politicians will settle?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

It’s talking about the American progressives. I think you need to read again.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

It’s talking about the American progressives. I think you need to read again.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

The Ukrainians have been receiving training and modernised it’s equipment since Russia annexed Crimea and the eastern regions, it wasn’t enough to prevent Russia invading again. The Baltic states are simply too small to deter any Russian aggression on their own, hence the reason the were desperate to join NATO.
As for the rest of your points, they all come from a single anti war website so can hardly be considered neutral.
Nobody has yet answered the question of what peace should look like. How much control of its politics do you want Ukraine to relinquish? How can you guarantee its security in the future now it’s clear that Russia won’t abide by any treaty it has signed? What is Russia conceding in order to achieve this peace?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

OK bear with me while I source dump your head from OTHER sources:

First:

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%20Nations.

Pakistan has no lng because of this war, it is nuclear power and close to collapse:

https://theintercept.com/2023/02/12/pakistan-economy-crisis-imf/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter

Diplomacy now. Before it’s too late.
No war. No famine. No broken supply chains. More coming your way bb. I think they are good reasons to try diplomacy though, don’t you? Shall we suck the world into a famine? Let Pakistan collapse? What cost is too high?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

More on NATO:

But few have been asking why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would want to move east in the first place. What was once a Cold War security pact has become a 21st-century organization with global military commitments and ever more member countries from Eastern Europe. Members of the alliance didn’t always foresee its expansion and, three decades ago, some of America’s most renowned foreign policy thinkers argued that NATO should be nowhere near Ukraine.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/22900113/nato-ukraine-russia-crisis-clinton-expansion

Us talking of negotiation:

Discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war in Washington is increasingly dominated by the question of how it might end. To inform this discussion, this Perspective identifies ways in which the war could evolve and how alternative trajectories would affect U.S. interests. The authors argue that, in addition to minimizing the risks of major escalation, U.S. interests would be best served by avoiding a protracted conflict

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I keep reading rand papers.
Yes, this one says it might not be in USA interest to prolong this war.
Many other experts think otherwise.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

It will be almost impossible for the Russians to achieve their political objectives by military means,” Milley asserted. “It is unlikely that Russia is going to overrun Ukraine. It’s just not going to happen.” But he also conceded that it will be “very, very difficult for Ukraine this year to kick the Russians out of every inch” of territory now captured and controlled by Kremlin forces.

“It’s not to say that it can’t happen… But it’s extraordinarily difficult. And it would require essentially the collapse of the Russian military,” the top general explained.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-military-winner-likely-ukraine-conflict-will-end-future-negotiations-gen-milley

“The war in Ukraine is consuming an enormous amount of munitions, and depleting allied stockpiles,” Stoltenberg told reporters ahead of a NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels.

“The current rate of Ukraine’s ammunition expenditure is many times higher than our current rate of production, and this puts our defense industries under strain,” he added.

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/02/13/stoltenberg-says-ukraine-using-way-more-munitions-than-nato-can-produce/

You got any sources for your ‘experts’???

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

“antiwar” generally means only “against wars the West is involved in”; in other words, not antiwar at all, and in this case, probably supportive of Putin. Some great expert “source.”

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

“antiwar” generally means only “against wars the West is involved in”; in other words, not antiwar at all, and in this case, probably supportive of Putin. Some great expert “source.”

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

It will be almost impossible for the Russians to achieve their political objectives by military means,” Milley asserted. “It is unlikely that Russia is going to overrun Ukraine. It’s just not going to happen.” But he also conceded that it will be “very, very difficult for Ukraine this year to kick the Russians out of every inch” of territory now captured and controlled by Kremlin forces.

“It’s not to say that it can’t happen… But it’s extraordinarily difficult. And it would require essentially the collapse of the Russian military,” the top general explained.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-military-winner-likely-ukraine-conflict-will-end-future-negotiations-gen-milley

“The war in Ukraine is consuming an enormous amount of munitions, and depleting allied stockpiles,” Stoltenberg told reporters ahead of a NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels.

“The current rate of Ukraine’s ammunition expenditure is many times higher than our current rate of production, and this puts our defense industries under strain,” he added.

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/02/13/stoltenberg-says-ukraine-using-way-more-munitions-than-nato-can-produce/

You got any sources for your ‘experts’???

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

The reason “few would ask why NATO would want to move East” is because we know the answer: because Russia under Putin threatened all of its neighbouring states, so those states — so well acquainted with the Russian/Soviet bear historically — demanded, cajoled and begged NATO for help, with good reason. Why should those states be under the Russian boot forever? And what is the point of “negotiating” with someone who has already made clear they have no intention of respecting signed agreements.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I keep reading rand papers.
Yes, this one says it might not be in USA interest to prolong this war.
Many other experts think otherwise.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

The reason “few would ask why NATO would want to move East” is because we know the answer: because Russia under Putin threatened all of its neighbouring states, so those states — so well acquainted with the Russian/Soviet bear historically — demanded, cajoled and begged NATO for help, with good reason. Why should those states be under the Russian boot forever? And what is the point of “negotiating” with someone who has already made clear they have no intention of respecting signed agreements.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Again, that’s not answering the question. Seeing as Putin is showing no signs of slowing down his offensive, the only current path to peace is a Ukrainian surrender so is that what you believe they should do?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

You complained my sources were all from one place. I have diversified.
Considering the damage this war is causing to the global order and economy, I think it’s about time people started talking negotiation not escalation. I think it’s time to try a diplomatic solution as soon as a negotiation window appears.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Negotiation. What is Russia willing to give up?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Again, you didn’t answer the questions.
Please tell us what sacrifices Ukraine should make to award Russian aggression?
Why if Russia succeeded in Ukraine would it stop there?
Why do you think Russia success in Ukraine would strengthen global order?
Surely, if America were to abandon Ukraine to its fate, many countries would draw obvious conclusion and produce their nukes.
Japan, South Korea, Australia, Sweden and Poland etc…

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Your arguments are completely irrational. You ignore the fact that the US has said it is likely there will have to be a negotiation, that a long war is not in its interests, as I have provided now many sources for. If you bring them up, a few discuss what that might look like. Even the un secretary General has said we must try diplomacy for many very good reasons.
You completely ignore the fact that russia sees NATO expansion and the aggressive anti Russia battalions in the East of ukraine as a threat to its vital interests. Both sides have things to answer for, both the US and Russia, we need understanding that everyone has had a part to play, that escalating this will have enormous costs globally.
Are the costs worth it?? Is it not worth at least trying for Peace?? They will shoot back eventually.
Are you ready for that????

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Your arguments are completely irrational. You ignore the fact that the US has said it is likely there will have to be a negotiation, that a long war is not in its interests, as I have provided now many sources for. If you bring them up, a few discuss what that might look like. Even the un secretary General has said we must try diplomacy for many very good reasons.
You completely ignore the fact that russia sees NATO expansion and the aggressive anti Russia battalions in the East of ukraine as a threat to its vital interests. Both sides have things to answer for, both the US and Russia, we need understanding that everyone has had a part to play, that escalating this will have enormous costs globally.
Are the costs worth it?? Is it not worth at least trying for Peace?? They will shoot back eventually.
Are you ready for that????

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

And what provides the guarantee Putin will keep his word and stick to an agreement? He hasn’t before.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Neither have we though really I have read plenty that say NATO was never always intended to expand eastward, we aren’t exactly perfect when it comes to interfering in other countries either, we need to stop making this about good vs bad, be grown up about it and at least try I suppose to negotiate, if he does not stick to the agreement well then its back to pistols at dawn I suppose but it is surely better to at least try…..

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Neither have we though really I have read plenty that say NATO was never always intended to expand eastward, we aren’t exactly perfect when it comes to interfering in other countries either, we need to stop making this about good vs bad, be grown up about it and at least try I suppose to negotiate, if he does not stick to the agreement well then its back to pistols at dawn I suppose but it is surely better to at least try…..

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Negotiation. What is Russia willing to give up?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Again, you didn’t answer the questions.
Please tell us what sacrifices Ukraine should make to award Russian aggression?
Why if Russia succeeded in Ukraine would it stop there?
Why do you think Russia success in Ukraine would strengthen global order?
Surely, if America were to abandon Ukraine to its fate, many countries would draw obvious conclusion and produce their nukes.
Japan, South Korea, Australia, Sweden and Poland etc…

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

And what provides the guarantee Putin will keep his word and stick to an agreement? He hasn’t before.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

You complained my sources were all from one place. I have diversified.
Considering the damage this war is causing to the global order and economy, I think it’s about time people started talking negotiation not escalation. I think it’s time to try a diplomatic solution as soon as a negotiation window appears.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

All this famine and other problems are caused by Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Russia can solve them by withdrawing their troops from Ukraine.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

More on NATO:

But few have been asking why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would want to move east in the first place. What was once a Cold War security pact has become a 21st-century organization with global military commitments and ever more member countries from Eastern Europe. Members of the alliance didn’t always foresee its expansion and, three decades ago, some of America’s most renowned foreign policy thinkers argued that NATO should be nowhere near Ukraine.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/22900113/nato-ukraine-russia-crisis-clinton-expansion

Us talking of negotiation:

Discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war in Washington is increasingly dominated by the question of how it might end. To inform this discussion, this Perspective identifies ways in which the war could evolve and how alternative trajectories would affect U.S. interests. The authors argue that, in addition to minimizing the risks of major escalation, U.S. interests would be best served by avoiding a protracted conflict

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Again, that’s not answering the question. Seeing as Putin is showing no signs of slowing down his offensive, the only current path to peace is a Ukrainian surrender so is that what you believe they should do?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

All this famine and other problems are caused by Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Russia can solve them by withdrawing their troops from Ukraine.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Russia is the largest country in the world. Almost every country is much smaller than Russia. 🙂

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

OK bear with me while I source dump your head from OTHER sources:

First:

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%20Nations.

Pakistan has no lng because of this war, it is nuclear power and close to collapse:

https://theintercept.com/2023/02/12/pakistan-economy-crisis-imf/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter

Diplomacy now. Before it’s too late.
No war. No famine. No broken supply chains. More coming your way bb. I think they are good reasons to try diplomacy though, don’t you? Shall we suck the world into a famine? Let Pakistan collapse? What cost is too high?

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Russia is the largest country in the world. Almost every country is much smaller than Russia. 🙂

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Reality is that former Soviet block countries wanted to join NATO as a protection against Russia threat.
Now Sweden and Finland decided to do the same.
What happened to Georgia and Ukraine is clear prove that they were right.

Only Russian stooges or idiots can not see it.
Take your pick.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

exactly.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

exactly.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

“We” didn’t start this war, and “we” aren’t escalating it. This is Putin’s war, period. This business about NATO encroachment ignores the security desires of all the countries formerly controlled and/or dominated by Russia (or the SU), and provides cover to Putin’s desire to recreate the Russian Empire, which is precisely why the neighbouring countries begged for NATO membership. It’s also why longtime neutrals Finland and Sweden also want in to NATO.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

So far the wise advisors haven’t moved Putin much. Maybe he hopes “within the progressive community”, that the Ukrainian less progressive politicians will settle?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

The Ukrainians have been receiving training and modernised it’s equipment since Russia annexed Crimea and the eastern regions, it wasn’t enough to prevent Russia invading again. The Baltic states are simply too small to deter any Russian aggression on their own, hence the reason the were desperate to join NATO.
As for the rest of your points, they all come from a single anti war website so can hardly be considered neutral.
Nobody has yet answered the question of what peace should look like. How much control of its politics do you want Ukraine to relinquish? How can you guarantee its security in the future now it’s clear that Russia won’t abide by any treaty it has signed? What is Russia conceding in order to achieve this peace?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Reality is that former Soviet block countries wanted to join NATO as a protection against Russia threat.
Now Sweden and Finland decided to do the same.
What happened to Georgia and Ukraine is clear prove that they were right.

Only Russian stooges or idiots can not see it.
Take your pick.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

“We” didn’t start this war, and “we” aren’t escalating it. This is Putin’s war, period. This business about NATO encroachment ignores the security desires of all the countries formerly controlled and/or dominated by Russia (or the SU), and provides cover to Putin’s desire to recreate the Russian Empire, which is precisely why the neighbouring countries begged for NATO membership. It’s also why longtime neutrals Finland and Sweden also want in to NATO.

Greg La Cock
Greg La Cock
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I would encourage you to watch “Ukraine On Fire”, Oliver Stone, 2016. Might broaden your view.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Well said. Get past the propaganda as you note and things line-up.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Billy, does it strike you as odd that all on the Right want Peace in Ukraine and NO more money are arms sent to continue this war? Yet the left want it escalated and more weapons and money sent to expand the war?

This was is all political. The fact the MSM and Social Media are Left is why this war is going on – it is the bed of lies and with holding truth which is enabling this slaughter.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

I think the Left must truly be owned by Satan, every single value they promote and fight for is one of degeneracy, cruelty, harm, and hate.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Not really, because those that pass for the online right are as idiotic as their noisy progressive counterparts.
Where the left look down on their countries for supposed historical bigotry, the right sees nothing but modern day weakness and wokism and looks longingly at so called strongmen such as Putin and Xi for their ideals of masculinity, even though not one would ever want to live under either of those authoritarian regimes. The west in their eyes is simultaneously weak and in constant decline, yet also powerful enough to force Putins hand in starting a war that has likely killed near 250k people. Much like the left blame the wests past for many modern day grievances, the right also blames all the worlds current ills on the wests more recent behaviour, completely excusing the autocrats in the process

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

So what are you then? Perfect? Whats your agenda, apart from pushing war propaganda obviously. And flagging off anything that contradicts you.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I don’t have to be perfect to think that others behaviour is idiotic. I’m also not pro war, if a solution could be found it would be better that the war ended as quickly as possible, however that shouldn’t come at the subjugation of the Ukrainians. They’re justified in their fighting to protect their homeland, the Russians aren’t

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Well fair enough I suppose but maybe perhaps consider that we are all guilty of being idiotic occasionally, you did a bit of a sweeping brush type assessment there.
I understand, I am not saying they aren’t justified, I think their situation is terrible. But as I said last time, we have real world limits, nato is now short on certain ammo they said yesterday, fertiliser is a massive problem, energy bills are a massive problem, developing countries are already suffering huge costs, Pakistan is a good example. If we are not careful we are going to set in motion events that will be very difficult to reverse once started. If nato gets involved in Ukraine, that is serious. We are talking actual war in Europe. Where does that end? What if Pakistan collapses, what happens with their nuclear weapons?
That is my concern. I’m not posting because I don’t think the Ukrainians are doing the right thing, I’m posting because I am very concerned about escalating this into a war with nato. I am concerned about the collateral damage that will do and is doing, to economies and supply chains. The us have said that it’s likely there will have to be a negotiation, in my posts above. I have never opposed funding the weapons shipments we have already sent, it seems we are getting short of some stuff to send though.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Well fair enough I suppose but maybe perhaps consider that we are all guilty of being idiotic occasionally, you did a bit of a sweeping brush type assessment there.
I understand, I am not saying they aren’t justified, I think their situation is terrible. But as I said last time, we have real world limits, nato is now short on certain ammo they said yesterday, fertiliser is a massive problem, energy bills are a massive problem, developing countries are already suffering huge costs, Pakistan is a good example. If we are not careful we are going to set in motion events that will be very difficult to reverse once started. If nato gets involved in Ukraine, that is serious. We are talking actual war in Europe. Where does that end? What if Pakistan collapses, what happens with their nuclear weapons?
That is my concern. I’m not posting because I don’t think the Ukrainians are doing the right thing, I’m posting because I am very concerned about escalating this into a war with nato. I am concerned about the collateral damage that will do and is doing, to economies and supply chains. The us have said that it’s likely there will have to be a negotiation, in my posts above. I have never opposed funding the weapons shipments we have already sent, it seems we are getting short of some stuff to send though.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

wow, that’s quite a persuasive argument.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

I’m only here because I really don’t think it’s a good idea to escalate this into a NATO war, I really can’t see how that is going to help anyone. Even if we pushed russia back, we then have a potential for nuclear confrontation, that’s just the reality, which I think should be avoided if at all possible.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

I’m only here because I really don’t think it’s a good idea to escalate this into a NATO war, I really can’t see how that is going to help anyone. Even if we pushed russia back, we then have a potential for nuclear confrontation, that’s just the reality, which I think should be avoided if at all possible.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I don’t have to be perfect to think that others behaviour is idiotic. I’m also not pro war, if a solution could be found it would be better that the war ended as quickly as possible, however that shouldn’t come at the subjugation of the Ukrainians. They’re justified in their fighting to protect their homeland, the Russians aren’t

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

wow, that’s quite a persuasive argument.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

So what are you then? Perfect? Whats your agenda, apart from pushing war propaganda obviously. And flagging off anything that contradicts you.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

utter nonsense from start to finish.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

I think the Left must truly be owned by Satan, every single value they promote and fight for is one of degeneracy, cruelty, harm, and hate.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Not really, because those that pass for the online right are as idiotic as their noisy progressive counterparts.
Where the left look down on their countries for supposed historical bigotry, the right sees nothing but modern day weakness and wokism and looks longingly at so called strongmen such as Putin and Xi for their ideals of masculinity, even though not one would ever want to live under either of those authoritarian regimes. The west in their eyes is simultaneously weak and in constant decline, yet also powerful enough to force Putins hand in starting a war that has likely killed near 250k people. Much like the left blame the wests past for many modern day grievances, the right also blames all the worlds current ills on the wests more recent behaviour, completely excusing the autocrats in the process

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

utter nonsense from start to finish.

Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

No NATO soldiers in Ukraine? There are soldiers from NATO countries in Ukraine training their soldiers.

This is undoubtedly a proxy war, created by the WEST and predicted by many experts in the West for just the reasons Putin gives. Partly that may be sensible geopolitics by US etc but, I fear, a large part Is just corruption and part of the NWO.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Wow Mr Billy Bob you’ve cracked out full paragraphs today. So here are mine.
Quote:
To the contrary, the first principal initiative of the Clinton administration toward Europe was the Partnership for Peace, an attempt to develop relationships with and strengthen the states of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. States were offered a menu of potential political and military arrangements, including regular consultations, educational opportunities, and extensive training and exercising. The intention was to professionalize and Westernize their military establishments while offering these countries a degree of reassurance—and doing all this in a manner designed to reduce the chance of a hostile Russian reaction.

Yet less than one year after launching the Partnership for Peace, the Clinton administration, with little debate or public preparation, introduced the goal of NATO expansion.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/enlarging-nato-a-questionable-idea-whose-time-has-come/%3famp

Us RAND think tank on ukraine:

The report says that the major risk of a long war in Ukraine is that there would be “a prolonged elevated risk of Russian nuclear use and a NATO-Russia war.” It says that “avoiding these two forms of escalation is the paramount US priority.”

When it comes to Ukraine retaking more of the territory that Russia captured, the report says this is only a “less significant benefit” and that “avoiding a long war is also a higher priority for the United States than facilitating significantly more Ukrainian territorial control.” It places “weakening Russia” as a greater benefit to the US than Ukrainian gains, but still not worth the risk of a long war

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/01/30/new-rand-report-says-a-long-war-in-ukraine-is-against-us-interests/

We speak to former Bernie Sanders foreign policy adviser Matt Duss, now a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who specialized in the Soviet Union. “Everyone understands that at some point there will need to be a negotiation to bring this war to a close, but I think the tension within the progressive community comes to when and how that diplomacy actually takes place,” says Duss. McGovern stressest that U.S. policymakers must understand Russia’s motivations, saying Russia sees the eastward expansion of NATO as threatening its core interests akin to how the United States viewed the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s.

https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2022/11/02/matt-duss-and-ray-mcgovern-debate-u-s-policy-on-russia-nato-and-more/

DIPLOMACY NOW. NO WAR. NO DECOUPLING. FREE TRADE.

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/02/21/uncovered-document-reveals-soviet-union-was-promised-no-nato-expansion-at-end-of-cold-war/

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine is inflicting untold suffering on the Ukrainian people, with profound global implications. The prospects for peace keep diminishing,” Guterres told the UN General Assembly.

“I fear the world is not sleepwalking into a wider war. I fear it is doing so with its eyes wide open,” he added

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/02/06/un-chief-fears-russia-ukraine-conflict-could-turn-into-wider-war/

Its not our job to police the world. We must stop escalating this.

Greg La Cock
Greg La Cock
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I would encourage you to watch “Ukraine On Fire”, Oliver Stone, 2016. Might broaden your view.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Well said. Get past the propaganda as you note and things line-up.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Billy, does it strike you as odd that all on the Right want Peace in Ukraine and NO more money are arms sent to continue this war? Yet the left want it escalated and more weapons and money sent to expand the war?

This was is all political. The fact the MSM and Social Media are Left is why this war is going on – it is the bed of lies and with holding truth which is enabling this slaughter.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Indeed.
A “local border dispute” over a nation that abuts on half a dozen NATO members?
A “local border dispute” in which, if Russia gains control of more territory, will involve executions and/or ethnic cleansings of millions, and a subsequent refugee crisis far worse than the Syrian one?
A “local border dispute” that will place a nation willing to kill or expel millions in Chechnya and Syria in charge of much of the world’s food supply?
A “local border dispute” that makes Russia part of a de facto alliance with Iran and North Korea?
A “local border dispute” that will give Putin fresh opportunities to push westward and destabilize currently democratic nations?
Is that the “local border dispute” you mean?
BTW, how’s your prediction going:
“15,000 war deaths in Ukraine–TOPS”?

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

An excellent synopsis Mr Strauss but I’m afraid you are wasting your time. Europe has a ‘death wish’ and has had one since at least 1914, and unfortunately evolution is rather too slow.

‘I’m not sure why the US is getting so agitated, and I can only assume that as on previous occasions, it is extremely good for the enormous ‘arms industry’ it has to support.
War, hot or cold it doesn’t really matter, as long as ‘demand’ is high.*

I was rather surprised you did not mention that it was the US that initiated the ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’ by deploying ‘nuclear’ tipped Jupiter missiles to Turkey, close to the Soviet border in the first place!
A clear case of : “What’s good for the goose etc

”

(* Odd how Afghanistan packs up in August and its ‘business as usual’ by the following February.)

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Agreed.
It’s always the “Merchants of Death” who start wars.
But I’m still confused.
Does that mean that Putin’s arms manufacturers ordered him to invade Ukraine?
Or did US arms manufacturers order Sleepy Joe to say that Ukraine was about to be invaded by Russia, and thus force Putin to invade?
I’m sure you’ll find some sort of “hidden hand” in there somewhere. You always do.
Just show it to us..

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to that, however these chaps are doing rather nicely thank you:-

COMPANY DEFENSE FOCUS
Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) Aviation, space, and missiles
Boeing (NYSE:BA) Aircraft, space, and helicopters
Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) Nuclear efforts, bombers, space
General Dynamics (NYSE:GD) Shipbuilding, defense IT, tanks
Raytheon Technologies (NYSE:RTX) Electronics, missiles
Leidos Holdings (NYSE:LDOS) Defense IT, space
COMPANY DEFENSE FOCUS
Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) Aviation, space, and missiles
Boeing (NYSE:BA) Aircraft, space, and helicopters
Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) Nuclear efforts, bombers, space
General Dynamics (NYSE:GD) Shipbuilding, defense IT, tanks
Raytheon Technologies (NYSE:RTX) Electronics, missiles
Leidos Holdings (NYSE:LDOS) Defense IT, space.
And no doubt many others that I have failed to mention.

“More tea Vicar.”

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

Yup. It’s a business.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Yes ‘they’ have learnt the lesson of 1919-29 rather well it must be said.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Yes ‘they’ have learnt the lesson of 1919-29 rather well it must be said.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

You need to show how they have actually convinced Congress to support Ukraine.
Indeed, since most manufacture weapons that will never go to Ukraine, and only the US is capable of using, supporting Ukraine is not in their best interests.
Own goal…

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

Yup. It’s a business.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

You need to show how they have actually convinced Congress to support Ukraine.
Indeed, since most manufacture weapons that will never go to Ukraine, and only the US is capable of using, supporting Ukraine is not in their best interests.
Own goal…

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to that, however these chaps are doing rather nicely thank you:-

COMPANY DEFENSE FOCUS
Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) Aviation, space, and missiles
Boeing (NYSE:BA) Aircraft, space, and helicopters
Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) Nuclear efforts, bombers, space
General Dynamics (NYSE:GD) Shipbuilding, defense IT, tanks
Raytheon Technologies (NYSE:RTX) Electronics, missiles
Leidos Holdings (NYSE:LDOS) Defense IT, space
COMPANY DEFENSE FOCUS
Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) Aviation, space, and missiles
Boeing (NYSE:BA) Aircraft, space, and helicopters
Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) Nuclear efforts, bombers, space
General Dynamics (NYSE:GD) Shipbuilding, defense IT, tanks
Raytheon Technologies (NYSE:RTX) Electronics, missiles
Leidos Holdings (NYSE:LDOS) Defense IT, space.
And no doubt many others that I have failed to mention.

“More tea Vicar.”

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

On the subject of Afghanistan, Russia is apparently buying all the weapons the US left behind. You couldn’t make this sh*t up.

https://eurasiantimes.com/us-breaks-silence-on-russia-acquiring-afghan-weapons-says-talibans-actions/?amp

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Well Ms Emery we would want (the Ruskies) them to give up would we?

The Iran v Iraq War of the 80’s dragged on for seven years, and much profit and plunder was the result for some ‘lucky’ people.

In fact it was almost the perfect war, two Islamic heavyweights, one led by Saddam ‘Insane’ and the other by the loony Ayatollahs, beating the cr*p out of each other, what more could one ask for?

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

Mostly using Soviet weapons, eventually.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

But earlier 875 British Chieftains and a similar number of US M-60’s.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Logan

But earlier 875 British Chieftains and a similar number of US M-60’s.

Martin Logan
Martin Logan
1 year ago

Mostly using Soviet weapons, eventually.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Well Ms Emery we would want (the Ruskies) them to give up would we?

The Iran v Iraq War of the 80’s dragged on for seven years, and much profit and plunder was the result for some ‘lucky’ people.

In fact it was almost the perfect war, two Islamic heavyweights, one led by Saddam ‘Insane’ and the other by the loony Ayatollahs, beating the cr*p out of each other, what more could one ask for?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Agreed.
It’s always the “Merchants of Death” who start wars.
But I’m still confused.
Does that mean that Putin’s arms manufacturers ordered him to invade Ukraine?
Or did US arms manufacturers order Sleepy Joe to say that Ukraine was about to be invaded by Russia, and thus force Putin to invade?
I’m sure you’ll find some sort of “hidden hand” in there somewhere. You always do.
Just show it to us..

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

On the subject of Afghanistan, Russia is apparently buying all the weapons the US left behind. You couldn’t make this sh*t up.

https://eurasiantimes.com/us-breaks-silence-on-russia-acquiring-afghan-weapons-says-talibans-actions/?amp

Darwin K Godwin
Darwin K Godwin
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

A fair summation.

Last edited 1 year ago by Darwin K Godwin
Jeff Watkins
Jeff Watkins
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Yes fully agree with the above analysis. Its a civil war between two very corrupt countries and we should stay out of it.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

It won’t stop and can’t stop until Russia leaves Ukraine. Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation, fully able to make its own choices as to who and where it wants to forge alliances, no matter what another country might want it to do. That is the definition of sovereignty.
Russia wants all of Ukraine and more. It wants to plug the Bessarabian Gap on the other side of Moldova. It wants to close the Northern European Plains where they are at their narrowest in Poland. And it wants to take the Balkans and, at this point, likely Finland. That has been official Russian policy for hundreds of years. Russia has been invaded in the past through each one of those corridors. Russia cannot feel safe until it controls all of those gaps, along with the ones in the south and west that it’s more or less already taken control of again (although Kazakhstan is making nice noises toward both China and Europe).
Russia is too big and has too few people, even at its peak, to guard all those borders. So it has to rely on geographical obstacles and plugging the gaps between them, even if that means taking over or controlling the land of dozens of other countries and populations even larger than its own.

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Wasn’t it always a rather outdated idea and irrational fear that NATO posed a threat to Russia?
But then, Putin and his kleptocracy supporters certainly had billions of good reasons to fear justice and democracy.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

That is not the truth, this is entirely Putin’s war. He initiated it, he continues it, and only he can stop it. Nor is it just a “border war,” given that Putin’s troops were headed for Kiev in the first couple of weeks. Finally, what all of Russia’s neighbouring countries believe is far more important than the propaganda you spout, and they are all terrified of being under Moscow’s boot again. Why do you think neutral Sweden and Finland are now dying to get into NATO?

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm
Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Firstly NATO didn’t “push” eastward, those countries that joined did so because they were terrified of Russia. The events of the last year have shown they were entirely correct to do so.
Secondly the maiden revolution was a populist revolt against a leader who was elected on a promise of aligning Ukraine to the west then tried to pivot instead to Moscow against the wishes of the majority of the population. It was Russian backed separatists that started the violence in the east. Even if the west was involved (and I’ve not seen any evidence that convinces me they were) then why is that any worse than the Kremlin attempting to poison the pro EU presidential candidate in the elections before? It’s a bit rich of Putin to criticise others for allegedly doing what he has done himself.
Thirdly justifying an invasion because of the way borders were drawn a thousand years ago is absolute nonsense.
Next up it’s nothing like Scotland preparing to attack England or the Cuban missile crisis for the simple reason there isn’t a single NATO soldier in Ukraine, and there wasn’t any NATO offensive battalions in the Eastern European nations near Russia (at Russias behest) until Putin illegally annexed Crimea.
Finally you may see this as a proxy war, but the Ukrainians certainly do not. They’re fighting for the existence of their homeland and to be able to live their lives as a free country rather than simply a colony of the Kremlin. There are legitimate arguments to be had about whether it’s in NATOs interest to fund the war to the level they have been, but to deny the agency of the Ukrainians doing the fighting and label them as brainless puppets of a foreign regime is plain wrong.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Indeed.
A “local border dispute” over a nation that abuts on half a dozen NATO members?
A “local border dispute” in which, if Russia gains control of more territory, will involve executions and/or ethnic cleansings of millions, and a subsequent refugee crisis far worse than the Syrian one?
A “local border dispute” that will place a nation willing to kill or expel millions in Chechnya and Syria in charge of much of the world’s food supply?
A “local border dispute” that makes Russia part of a de facto alliance with Iran and North Korea?
A “local border dispute” that will give Putin fresh opportunities to push westward and destabilize currently democratic nations?
Is that the “local border dispute” you mean?
BTW, how’s your prediction going:
“15,000 war deaths in Ukraine–TOPS”?

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

An excellent synopsis Mr Strauss but I’m afraid you are wasting your time. Europe has a ‘death wish’ and has had one since at least 1914, and unfortunately evolution is rather too slow.

‘I’m not sure why the US is getting so agitated, and I can only assume that as on previous occasions, it is extremely good for the enormous ‘arms industry’ it has to support.
War, hot or cold it doesn’t really matter, as long as ‘demand’ is high.*

I was rather surprised you did not mention that it was the US that initiated the ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’ by deploying ‘nuclear’ tipped Jupiter missiles to Turkey, close to the Soviet border in the first place!
A clear case of : “What’s good for the goose etc

”

(* Odd how Afghanistan packs up in August and its ‘business as usual’ by the following February.)

Darwin K Godwin
Darwin K Godwin
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

A fair summation.

Last edited 1 year ago by Darwin K Godwin
Jeff Watkins
Jeff Watkins
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Yes fully agree with the above analysis. Its a civil war between two very corrupt countries and we should stay out of it.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

It won’t stop and can’t stop until Russia leaves Ukraine. Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation, fully able to make its own choices as to who and where it wants to forge alliances, no matter what another country might want it to do. That is the definition of sovereignty.
Russia wants all of Ukraine and more. It wants to plug the Bessarabian Gap on the other side of Moldova. It wants to close the Northern European Plains where they are at their narrowest in Poland. And it wants to take the Balkans and, at this point, likely Finland. That has been official Russian policy for hundreds of years. Russia has been invaded in the past through each one of those corridors. Russia cannot feel safe until it controls all of those gaps, along with the ones in the south and west that it’s more or less already taken control of again (although Kazakhstan is making nice noises toward both China and Europe).
Russia is too big and has too few people, even at its peak, to guard all those borders. So it has to rely on geographical obstacles and plugging the gaps between them, even if that means taking over or controlling the land of dozens of other countries and populations even larger than its own.

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Wasn’t it always a rather outdated idea and irrational fear that NATO posed a threat to Russia?
But then, Putin and his kleptocracy supporters certainly had billions of good reasons to fear justice and democracy.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

That is not the truth, this is entirely Putin’s war. He initiated it, he continues it, and only he can stop it. Nor is it just a “border war,” given that Putin’s troops were headed for Kiev in the first couple of weeks. Finally, what all of Russia’s neighbouring countries believe is far more important than the propaganda you spout, and they are all terrified of being under Moscow’s boot again. Why do you think neutral Sweden and Finland are now dying to get into NATO?

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm
Tom Watson
Tom Watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Yes, if there was no realistic way the Americans could win (even with ‘win’ defined as narrowly as ‘securing a better outcome by their continued sacrifice than the terms the Chinese would dictate.’) In such a situation, that would be good advice to give. Unpleasant advice to receive, but less unpleasant than the cost of ignoring the advice.

Unfortunately, I think the bottom line is that that’s the sort of situation the Ukrainians seem to be in now – Patrikarakos is putting a brave spin on things, but even he’s making it sound like the Ukrainians don’t have much left.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

But who’s to say the Ukrainians can’t win, or at least claim back some more territory than they currently control? If the Russians were strolling through to Kyiv largely unopposed then maybe surrender would be the best option but that isn’t currently the case. The lines seem fairly static currently, so why would the Ukrainians surrender?

Tom Watson
Tom Watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Who’s to say the Ukrainians can’t win or retake some territory? Well anything’s possible and neither of us know what the generals know, but it does seem like that would be a pretty stunning reversal in both sides’ fortunes given Ukraine’s lack of both manpower and equipment relative to the Russians. Which is part of my answer to your other question. Why surrender when the frontlines are static? If the alternative is to surrender when the frontlines are moving backwards. I may be wrong but that’s my assessment of Ukraine’s situation. Maybe there’s a brilliant plan in UAF high command for a spring offensive of their own that no-one expects. If so (and it works), then along with the rest of the world I’ll take my hat off to whichever Napoleon-level genius is behind it, because it seems to me that’s what it’ll take.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

The front lines have been static the last few months because that’s the time of year it is. It never froze enough this year to have much happen during the winter. Russia may have a hard time learning military lessons, but at least some of them realized that you can’t advance heavy equipment off road over mud and staying on roads leaves you wide open to interdiction.

Last edited 1 year ago by Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

The front lines have been static the last few months because that’s the time of year it is. It never froze enough this year to have much happen during the winter. Russia may have a hard time learning military lessons, but at least some of them realized that you can’t advance heavy equipment off road over mud and staying on roads leaves you wide open to interdiction.

Last edited 1 year ago by Diane Merriam
Tom Watson
Tom Watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Who’s to say the Ukrainians can’t win or retake some territory? Well anything’s possible and neither of us know what the generals know, but it does seem like that would be a pretty stunning reversal in both sides’ fortunes given Ukraine’s lack of both manpower and equipment relative to the Russians. Which is part of my answer to your other question. Why surrender when the frontlines are static? If the alternative is to surrender when the frontlines are moving backwards. I may be wrong but that’s my assessment of Ukraine’s situation. Maybe there’s a brilliant plan in UAF high command for a spring offensive of their own that no-one expects. If so (and it works), then along with the rest of the world I’ll take my hat off to whichever Napoleon-level genius is behind it, because it seems to me that’s what it’ll take.

Snapper AG
Snapper AG
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

If our only choice was to live under CCP domination, I would say fight to the death, or let the ICBMs fly. Death is better than life under an Orwellian, techno-surveillance state that squashes all independent thought, and if they don’t like you, puts you in camps to harvest your organs for sale. I’d rather die on my feet than live as a slave.

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Snapper AG

But we may be inching towards an Orwellian techno-surveillance state of our own with no CCP domination involved.

Snapper AG
Snapper AG
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

And if that should happen I’d favor armed rebellion.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

Yeah the Americans have the biggest bloody surveillance state going. Can’t even post on twitter without the FBI snooping and banning you for non compliance.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

“no CCP domination”? The case for Marx has infected all of US education, much of the press over too long a time as citizens ignored the trend. The freedom push back has just begun.

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

On the whole it has not been the CCP that has infected US (and other countries), their universities and media with (sort of) Marxist Kool-Aid. That’s been done by the academics themselves. Too little real work to be done and too much time and funding to build and demolish castles in the air.

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

On the whole it has not been the CCP that has infected US (and other countries), their universities and media with (sort of) Marxist Kool-Aid. That’s been done by the academics themselves. Too little real work to be done and too much time and funding to build and demolish castles in the air.

Snapper AG
Snapper AG
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

And if that should happen I’d favor armed rebellion.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

Yeah the Americans have the biggest bloody surveillance state going. Can’t even post on twitter without the FBI snooping and banning you for non compliance.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

“no CCP domination”? The case for Marx has infected all of US education, much of the press over too long a time as citizens ignored the trend. The freedom push back has just begun.

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Snapper AG

But we may be inching towards an Orwellian techno-surveillance state of our own with no CCP domination involved.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

But who’s to say the Ukrainians can’t win, or at least claim back some more territory than they currently control? If the Russians were strolling through to Kyiv largely unopposed then maybe surrender would be the best option but