X Close

Why China’s peace plan for Ukraine will fail A weakened Xi is desperate for a win

Xi was taken by surprise (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

Xi was taken by surprise (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)


March 21, 2023   5 mins

After Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine last year, Beijing’s faithful lieges in Europe were quick to declare that China, perhaps even Xi Jinping himself, was “the key” to ending the war. The truth could not be more different: in the 13 months that followed, China’s role has been scarcely greater than Montenegro’s, where a number of wealthy Russians are sitting out the war, or Serbia’s, which remains Russia’s only true European ally.

Xi’s current trip to Moscow, then, is as much about saving face in Beijing as it is about bringing peace to Kyiv. If he can turn his visit into a successful mediation that stops the fighting — even if it is just a ceasefire — Xi would not only win a class-A diplomatic victory on the global stage, but also remedy China’s own war misfortunes.

The primary reason for Beijing’s initial claim to neutrality was that Xi was caught by surprise, despite the “no-limits” strategic partnership he had proclaimed with Putin just three weeks before the war started. Putin was not to blame for this; he certainly had no intention of deceiving Xi. Rather, it was Putin himself who was deceived — by his own FSB intelligence chiefs, who predicted that Kyiv would fall swiftly, leading to Ukraine’s total surrender. If this all seems foolish in retrospect, it was a foolishness Washington shared, where similar CIA intelligence prompted Biden’s offer to immediately evacuate Zelenskyy.

Yet for China, Russia’s failure to rapidly conquer Ukraine was only the start of a series of very unpleasant surprises. First came the overnight transformation of Nato: from an obsolete Cold War pact into a forcefully expanding alliance. Finland and Sweden dispatched weapons even before applying for membership, while Japan sent financial aid as though it were a member state. Beijing was suddenly forced to recalculate the overall US-China balance of global power, a transformation made even more urgent after the British, French, German and Italian governments promised to send warships to the South China Sea. Chinese propagandists who ridiculed such old-fashioned gunboat diplomacy could overlook the accompanying British and French nuclear attack submarines, but the Chinese navy could not.

The next unpleasant surprise came from the G7 grouping of the US and its major allies: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK. Instead of hesitating while each country tried to safeguard its own export interests, they all immediately agreed to impose sweeping economic sanctions on Russia. It was instantly obvious in Beijing that while Russia would not be seriously harmed by the sanctions, because it is self-sufficient in both energy and food, China’s position was altogether more perilous: it is the world’s largest importer of animal feed and food, as well as of coal, oil and gas.

True, demand for the latter would collapse in the event of a war over Taiwan and the sanctions that would inevitably follow; seaborne exports would end, as would the energy demands of China’s vast export industries. But China’s 1.4 billion people must still eat, and to feed them the country imports some 130 million metric tons of animal feed and food, including 95 million metric tons of soya beans alone. Under G7 sanctions, this vast traffic of thousands of bulk carriers would grind to a halt. Ships bound for China would no longer be loaded in the Pacific ports of the US and Canada, both major sources of soya beans, maize and wheat, while the Atlantic ports of Argentina and Brazil, the other major sources of China’s food imports, are an ocean too far for the China trade. With any form of war underway, it would be all too easy to dissuade the passage of China-bound ships across the Atlantic, around Africa and through the Indian ocean to the Strait of Malacca.

This may all seem improbable, but Xi has recognised China’s disadvantage. Just two days before his departure for Moscow, he issued a most urgent “Directive No. 1” focused exclusively on food security. It started with an old slogan —“We must ensure that the Chinese rice bowl [is] firmly in our own hands at all times, with that rice bowl being filled mainly with Chinese grain” — before recognising that China’s population needs much more than cereals: they require meat and milk, which can only be produced if the entire agricultural economy is drastically improved to achieve self-sufficiency in animal feed as well, an aim that he promised would be achieved in the “middle of the century”.

Not only does this suggest that any Taiwanese adventure will have to wait, but it confirmed that Xi finally understands his citizens are physiologically different from Mao’s, who survived on very little when I lived in Beijing in 1976: rice, wheat, sorghum, odd greens, bits of dried cabbage in winter, rare eggs, and, once a week, slivers of chicken or pork. No doubt this was brought to Xi’s attention during last year’s Shanghai lockdown protests, during which there were bitter complaints of starvation even though all had plenty of rice. More than a year after the G7 sanctions were imposed, Russians continue to eat as they did before; had those same sanctions been imposed on China, they would have gravely endangered the survival of the regime.

Faced with such unhappy prospects, Xi now has an opportunity to leap on to the very centre of the global stage, if only he can persuade Zelenskyy and his government to negotiate an exit from the war by finally accepting that Crimea is lost, and that internationally supervised plebiscites (with refugees anywhere in the world all assured a vote) will be required in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Whatever their outcome, an end to fighting on these terms would take away nothing from Ukraine’s very successful war of independence, which has gifted its people that priceless possession: a national myth in good working order.

After Beijing’s successful diplomatic entry into the Persian Gulf, entirely the result of the Biden Administration’s wrecking of the Saudi alliance, any agreement that Xi can pull off over Ukraine, even a brief ceasefire, would be a great diplomatic victory. It is fortunate, then, that Zelenskyy will not give Xi the opportunity. He does recognise that, after an end to the fighting, it is only with the help of the US and its allies that Ukraine can be reconstructed. What he still needs to recognise is that this point cannot be reached unless the war does end, in the only way that was possible all along — unless Vladimir Putin is ousted. We cannot wait until then to end the fighting.

And neither, it seems, can Xi. It is very likely that his Moscow visit will result in nothing more than an under-the-table deal to quietly transfer 152mm howitzer ammunition and such, leaving Xi’s problem unsolved. At a time when the Chinese economy is slowing down, with unprecedented levels of youth unemployment, the US and Japan are sharply increasing their military spending, and consolidating an alliance that now fully includes India, as well as re-arming Australia. It was, of course, Xi’s own bellicosity that encircled China with enemies. It is too much to hope that visiting a beleaguered Putin in the Kremlin will induce him to change course.


Professor Edward Luttwak is a strategist and historian known for his works on grand strategy, geoeconomics, military history, and international relations.

ELuttwak

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

194 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Josef O
Josef O
1 year ago

Edward Luttwak is one of the brightest analysts who exists and is always looking at events from various angles most people miss.
The G7=roughly a GDP of 40 Trillion Dollars but there are other dormant members like Netherlands, Sweden, Taiwan, S.Korea or Australia to mention a few which share the same type of economic/political system. I would like to draw the attention of Mr Fazi who yesterday was in a rather depressed mood. He can read Luttwak’s article today and feel better.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Josef O

No, he is an arch bluffer of the first degree and ever since his “The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire” published in 1976.

Josef O
Josef O
1 year ago

Can you elaborate a bit further please ?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Josef O

Luttwak has been writing, intermittently for UnHerd for the past three years, and it is mainly, but not exclusively, on this work that I base my judgement.

Josef O
Josef O
1 year ago

Sorry, I do not share your point of view, I read his articles for many years now. I found them very convincing based on countries I visited extensively for business or pleasure.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Josef O

Then I am sorry but we shall have to differ.

I have a rather deep aversion to so called ‘Defence Analysts’, based on years of disappointment.

Perhaps I may give you an example and not to be vindictive, it is not about Luttwak.

For years the Soviets used to claim and their cousins still do, that the Battle of Prokhorovka fought on the 12th July,1943 was the greatest tank battle in history and a resounding Soviet success. Stories of gallant Soviet T-34 tanks ramming evil German ‘Tigers and Panthers’* abounded.
Sadly eminent British military historians abetted them by regurgitating Soviet propaganda almost undiluted. The late John Keegan and the late John Erickson agreeing that the Germans lost ‘more that 300 tanks, among them 70 Tigers’. Richard Overy went on to describe how Soviet T-34’s we’re ‘blasting Tigers and PANTHERS at the side and rear’

Modern research including contemporary aerial photography has now made the startling revelation that the Soviets lost 255 tanks to the German’s 5, one Tiger and four Panzer IV’s. Incidentally there were NO Panthers involved. Thus a stunning German victory and not an heroic Soviet defence..

When our best can be so easily fooled it does make
one wonder.

(* German Tanks.)

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

Rather strange then that the Russians subsequently went on the offensive.
Numbers of tanks destroyed don’t tell the story. It’s the RESULTS of the battle that are key.
And the main result of Zitadel was that the Germans failed to break the Soviet defences, and so inflict much greater losses on Stalin’s army via an envelopment.
As with the Russian offensives today in Donbas, if you can’t break the defensive line, it’s pretty much of a failure.
Indeed, as with both Zitadel and Bakhmut, the losses in the attacks just mandate failure farther down the road.

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

True but that wasn’t my point was it?

It was the unreliability of renowned military historians/experts that is the problem.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

It isn’t a “stunning victory” if an offensive fails in its objectives, and Germany ultimately loses because of it.
Every military analyst I know of saw/sees Kursk as a strategic failure, just like Putin’s offensives so far.
So maybe we ought to listen to them.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I was only talking about Day One, the 12th July, as you well know.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Rather like saying Putin won on 24 Feb.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Nonsense.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Mr. Logan is exactly right.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

They can both be right – about two different events.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

They can both be right – about two different events.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Mr. Logan is exactly right.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Nonsense.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago

In military terms, Logan is employing diversionary tactics.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Rather like saying Putin won on 24 Feb.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago

In military terms, Logan is employing diversionary tactics.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I was only talking about Day One, the 12th July, as you well know.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

It isn’t a “stunning victory” if an offensive fails in its objectives, and Germany ultimately loses because of it.
Every military analyst I know of saw/sees Kursk as a strategic failure, just like Putin’s offensives so far.
So maybe we ought to listen to them.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

True but that wasn’t my point was it?

It was the unreliability of renowned military historians/experts that is the problem.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago

Do you have any links to corroborate this?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

It was an essay written about a year ago that mentioned the “release’ of new Luftwaffe photos by the US.

I shall see if I can dig it out and get back to you.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago

It’s easy. See: “Prokhorovka: the greatest tank battle in history? — Bill Purdue takes a look at recent critical reappraisal of this famous clash of Soviet and Nazi armour in the summer of 1943.” – Military History, 12/11/2020. Purdue mentions that after the battle Stalin, who trusted almost nobody, dispatched Molotov to verify the reports. 

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago

It’s easy. See: “Prokhorovka: the greatest tank battle in history? — Bill Purdue takes a look at recent critical reappraisal of this famous clash of Soviet and Nazi armour in the summer of 1943.” – Military History, 12/11/2020. Purdue mentions that after the battle Stalin, who trusted almost nobody, dispatched Molotov to verify the reports. 

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

It was an essay written about a year ago that mentioned the “release’ of new Luftwaffe photos by the US.

I shall see if I can dig it out and get back to you.

Josef O
Josef O
1 year ago

I shall ponder about it. I have to agree with you that the Soviets (maybe Russian tradition) lie to an unimaginable extent. Lie is an epxdient to gain time when you have no truth to show.

Bruce Edgar
Bruce Edgar
1 year ago
Reply to  Josef O

I would count the USA among the more proficient liars on the planet. I am sure you would agree. Our warmongers still express fume about the Russian placement of missiles–at Cuba’s request–as if it were the height of infamy. They deliberately do not mention that it was multiple attempts to assasinate Castro as well the hapless Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 that drove Cuba to the missile request for Cuba’s defense the very next year: 1962.

Terry M
Terry M
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

We hear plenty of the Bay of PIgs debacle and the tension with Cuba. Get the wax out of your ears.

Terry M
Terry M
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

We hear plenty of the Bay of PIgs debacle and the tension with Cuba. Get the wax out of your ears.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Josef O

How on earth do you get to a pre the USSR Russian tradition being lying to an unbelievable extent? Tsarist Russia had plenty of FDI , open borders, journalists, excellent universities, schools and local government , all free to see by anybody, Russian or foreign. I think your comment was meant to be entirely casual. But words have meaning.

Josef O
Josef O
1 year ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

While I agree with you that during the Zar’s regime the control on the population did not reach the levels of CEKA, NKVD or KGB, I would suggest you study more deeply about the Ochrana and their methods. And also have a look of how minorities were treated.
I also agree with you that words have meaning, and I meant it.

Josef O
Josef O
1 year ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

While I agree with you that during the Zar’s regime the control on the population did not reach the levels of CEKA, NKVD or KGB, I would suggest you study more deeply about the Ochrana and their methods. And also have a look of how minorities were treated.
I also agree with you that words have meaning, and I meant it.

Bruce Edgar
Bruce Edgar
1 year ago
Reply to  Josef O

I would count the USA among the more proficient liars on the planet. I am sure you would agree. Our warmongers still express fume about the Russian placement of missiles–at Cuba’s request–as if it were the height of infamy. They deliberately do not mention that it was multiple attempts to assasinate Castro as well the hapless Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 that drove Cuba to the missile request for Cuba’s defense the very next year: 1962.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Josef O

How on earth do you get to a pre the USSR Russian tradition being lying to an unbelievable extent? Tsarist Russia had plenty of FDI , open borders, journalists, excellent universities, schools and local government , all free to see by anybody, Russian or foreign. I think your comment was meant to be entirely casual. But words have meaning.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

The Germans were stopped from taking the town of Prokhorovka despite their “great victory,” causing Hitler to cancel Operation Citadel, which was the last German offensive of the war. From that point on the Russians were on the offensive, and in less than a year were at the gates of Warsaw. Yes siree, a great German victory.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Rather strange then that the Russians subsequently went on the offensive.
Numbers of tanks destroyed don’t tell the story. It’s the RESULTS of the battle that are key.
And the main result of Zitadel was that the Germans failed to break the Soviet defences, and so inflict much greater losses on Stalin’s army via an envelopment.
As with the Russian offensives today in Donbas, if you can’t break the defensive line, it’s pretty much of a failure.
Indeed, as with both Zitadel and Bakhmut, the losses in the attacks just mandate failure farther down the road.

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago

Do you have any links to corroborate this?

Josef O
Josef O
1 year ago

I shall ponder about it. I have to agree with you that the Soviets (maybe Russian tradition) lie to an unimaginable extent. Lie is an epxdient to gain time when you have no truth to show.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

The Germans were stopped from taking the town of Prokhorovka despite their “great victory,” causing Hitler to cancel Operation Citadel, which was the last German offensive of the war. From that point on the Russians were on the offensive, and in less than a year were at the gates of Warsaw. Yes siree, a great German victory.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Josef O

Then I am sorry but we shall have to differ.

I have a rather deep aversion to so called ‘Defence Analysts’, based on years of disappointment.

Perhaps I may give you an example and not to be vindictive, it is not about Luttwak.

For years the Soviets used to claim and their cousins still do, that the Battle of Prokhorovka fought on the 12th July,1943 was the greatest tank battle in history and a resounding Soviet success. Stories of gallant Soviet T-34 tanks ramming evil German ‘Tigers and Panthers’* abounded.
Sadly eminent British military historians abetted them by regurgitating Soviet propaganda almost undiluted. The late John Keegan and the late John Erickson agreeing that the Germans lost ‘more that 300 tanks, among them 70 Tigers’. Richard Overy went on to describe how Soviet T-34’s we’re ‘blasting Tigers and PANTHERS at the side and rear’

Modern research including contemporary aerial photography has now made the startling revelation that the Soviets lost 255 tanks to the German’s 5, one Tiger and four Panzer IV’s. Incidentally there were NO Panthers involved. Thus a stunning German victory and not an heroic Soviet defence..

When our best can be so easily fooled it does make
one wonder.

(* German Tanks.)

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

Actually his theory is rather cogent, and I’m surprised that an anti-imperialist such as yourself doesn’t like it.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Yes it is cogent, but it also a statement of “the bleeding obvious “ as Sir Michael Caine might put it.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Except that Luttwak finds that imperialism isn’t about some evil will to power.
At each stage the instability beyond the empire’s borders impels it to try and quell that instability.
Pretty important insight. Indeed, it presents a dilemma that every state has to deal with.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

As I said above there is nothing new in that!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

As I said above there is nothing new in that!

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Except that Luttwak finds that imperialism isn’t about some evil will to power.
At each stage the instability beyond the empire’s borders impels it to try and quell that instability.
Pretty important insight. Indeed, it presents a dilemma that every state has to deal with.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Yes it is cogent, but it also a statement of “the bleeding obvious “ as Sir Michael Caine might put it.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Luttwak always seems to make sense — and very entertaining reading — but events do not necessarily unfold the way he predicts. Still, some of his missives are surely correct, e.g. this one from several years back:
“There is the perverse, noxious disastrous language of “rights.” Let me tell you, Hungary has a right to Arad, the city I was born in. China has the right to Vladivostok, Poland has the right to Lvov. The Slovaks have a right to Ushgarad. The Sudeten Germans have a right to their homes, which are now lived in by Czechs. There are more rights than there is space; more rights than square miles. If you want to have a war, talk the language of rights, talk the language of Justice. If you want peace, make a deal.”

Josef O
Josef O
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Articles regarding geopolitics are some kind of brain storming and if the journalist gets two or three points right then this is enough to give him some credit. To get all things right and in every article is seeking for perfection and the perfection is not of this world.

Josef O
Josef O
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Articles regarding geopolitics are some kind of brain storming and if the journalist gets two or three points right then this is enough to give him some credit. To get all things right and in every article is seeking for perfection and the perfection is not of this world.

Josef O
Josef O
1 year ago

Sorry, I do not share your point of view, I read his articles for many years now. I found them very convincing based on countries I visited extensively for business or pleasure.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Actually his theory is rather cogent, and I’m surprised that an anti-imperialist such as yourself doesn’t like it.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Luttwak always seems to make sense — and very entertaining reading — but events do not necessarily unfold the way he predicts. Still, some of his missives are surely correct, e.g. this one from several years back:
“There is the perverse, noxious disastrous language of “rights.” Let me tell you, Hungary has a right to Arad, the city I was born in. China has the right to Vladivostok, Poland has the right to Lvov. The Slovaks have a right to Ushgarad. The Sudeten Germans have a right to their homes, which are now lived in by Czechs. There are more rights than there is space; more rights than square miles. If you want to have a war, talk the language of rights, talk the language of Justice. If you want peace, make a deal.”

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Josef O

Luttwak has been writing, intermittently for UnHerd for the past three years, and it is mainly, but not exclusively, on this work that I base my judgement.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Oh fhs I’m agreeing with you again Charlie! This will have to stop!

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Down with this sort of ‘ting! Father Ted was right!!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Don’t let Mrs Doyle hear you saying that!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Don’t let Mrs Doyle hear you saying that!

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Lol, yes I have found myself also supporting Charles recently!
(Or at least the alien who has abducted him)….

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Down with this sort of ‘ting! Father Ted was right!!

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Lol, yes I have found myself also supporting Charles recently!
(Or at least the alien who has abducted him)….

Josef O
Josef O
1 year ago

Can you elaborate a bit further please ?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Oh fhs I’m agreeing with you again Charlie! This will have to stop!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Josef O

No, he is an arch bluffer of the first degree and ever since his “The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire” published in 1976.

Josef O
Josef O
1 year ago

Edward Luttwak is one of the brightest analysts who exists and is always looking at events from various angles most people miss.
The G7=roughly a GDP of 40 Trillion Dollars but there are other dormant members like Netherlands, Sweden, Taiwan, S.Korea or Australia to mention a few which share the same type of economic/political system. I would like to draw the attention of Mr Fazi who yesterday was in a rather depressed mood. He can read Luttwak’s article today and feel better.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

V informative esp on the Chinese food/animal feed strategic weakness.

The whole Ukraine war presents Xi with conflicting opportunities and threats. A weakened Russia and a distracted West with depleted munition stock on the ‘positive’ side of the calculus. The fact the West has shown an ability to rally and now also better recognise the CCP threat must be countered earlier with deterrence on the ‘negative’. One wonders therefore if Xi even knows himself what’s in his interest.

Slightly separately re: Crimea – Ukraine gets one shot this late Spring/Summer to take back a position from which it can negotiate the future of the peninsula. Much will depend on whether the morale of Russian forces can hold up. No real negotiations will proceed in all likelihood until both these questions have been battlefield tested.

Pierre Mauboussin
Pierre Mauboussin
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

My guess is that the Ukrainians will drive south through Zaporizhia and roll up the Russians in southern Kherson in the West and push them back towards Mariupol in the East. Further advances in Donetsk and Luhansk will depend on whether the Ukrainians have the forces and speed to render the Russians incapable of defense as in Kharkov oblast last year. This is unlikely. So with the Russians pushed back approximately to their Feb 22 lines, real negotiations can begin. As an outcome, Ukraine will need -real- security guarantees or Russia will just attack again in a couple of years.

Pierre Mauboussin
Pierre Mauboussin
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

My guess is that the Ukrainians will drive south through Zaporizhia and roll up the Russians in southern Kherson in the West and push them back towards Mariupol in the East. Further advances in Donetsk and Luhansk will depend on whether the Ukrainians have the forces and speed to render the Russians incapable of defense as in Kharkov oblast last year. This is unlikely. So with the Russians pushed back approximately to their Feb 22 lines, real negotiations can begin. As an outcome, Ukraine will need -real- security guarantees or Russia will just attack again in a couple of years.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

V informative esp on the Chinese food/animal feed strategic weakness.

The whole Ukraine war presents Xi with conflicting opportunities and threats. A weakened Russia and a distracted West with depleted munition stock on the ‘positive’ side of the calculus. The fact the West has shown an ability to rally and now also better recognise the CCP threat must be countered earlier with deterrence on the ‘negative’. One wonders therefore if Xi even knows himself what’s in his interest.

Slightly separately re: Crimea – Ukraine gets one shot this late Spring/Summer to take back a position from which it can negotiate the future of the peninsula. Much will depend on whether the morale of Russian forces can hold up. No real negotiations will proceed in all likelihood until both these questions have been battlefield tested.

Mark Goodhand
Mark Goodhand
1 year ago

“the G7 grouping of the US and its major allies: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK.”

This is the best description of the G7 I’ve read.

Growing up, I naively accepted the idea that it was a group of economically powerful nations.

In reality, it’s the US and the countries the US has dominated since World War II.

Britain and France were defeated in WW2, as surely as Italy, Germany and Japan. The only winners were the US and the Soviet Union.

With the fall of British and French Empires came the end of any pretence that Canada might be defended against American aggression. Since Suez, if not before, Canada has existed as an independent nation because it suits the Americans for it to remain (notionally) independent.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

Germany and Japan came out of the war better than the others – with hindsight. Germany suffers badly from guilt but Japan didn’t even apologise. As you say, those countries above are just states of the USA. My only hope is France which seems to have more pride than the others.
When I go to France I still feel like I’m in France. In fact, most of the tourists there are Chinese. Even the waiters have been forced to speak English because of the Chinese visitors.
Here, we copy every word and movement of the US. Our children try to speak with American accents, our TV programmes are the same American cops & robbers as always. We are woking up following every US trend. Time for MI5 to raid No.10 Downing Street.
The US is a disaster. Do not follow. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Japan has made numerous statements apologising, to various countries. The most legendary was HIrohito’s attempt to apologise to Macarthur, which was rebuffed . . . this was a disaster.

james goater
james goater
1 year ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Successive Japanese governments, as well as the emperor himself, have repeatedly expressed their “deep remorse” and “profound regret” that the war happened, and have been quite forthright in extending sympathy to (Japanese) victims but as for a direct and unconditional apology, to the nations across which its Imperial Army rampaged for more than a decade, next to nothing has been heard. This is because a full and frank apology would imply taking full responsibility for the 1931-45 carnage. The line most often taken is “We were all victims of the war”.

james goater
james goater
1 year ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Successive Japanese governments, as well as the emperor himself, have repeatedly expressed their “deep remorse” and “profound regret” that the war happened, and have been quite forthright in extending sympathy to (Japanese) victims but as for a direct and unconditional apology, to the nations across which its Imperial Army rampaged for more than a decade, next to nothing has been heard. This is because a full and frank apology would imply taking full responsibility for the 1931-45 carnage. The line most often taken is “We were all victims of the war”.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

By your own reckoning, it’s tough to be a colony.
Which the US found out some 250 years ago.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Sad but true, USA is a bully and not at all clever.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

based on the above, one might think the U.S. had oppressed and colonized the rest of the G7, which is beyond laughable. And cultural “domination” if you can even call it that is nowhere near the same thing as direct military occupation, as all the countries of the former Eastern bloc can tell you from experience.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Japan has made numerous statements apologising, to various countries. The most legendary was HIrohito’s attempt to apologise to Macarthur, which was rebuffed . . . this was a disaster.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

By your own reckoning, it’s tough to be a colony.
Which the US found out some 250 years ago.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Sad but true, USA is a bully and not at all clever.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

based on the above, one might think the U.S. had oppressed and colonized the rest of the G7, which is beyond laughable. And cultural “domination” if you can even call it that is nowhere near the same thing as direct military occupation, as all the countries of the former Eastern bloc can tell you from experience.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

Perhaps you would care to provide some real examples of how US “dominance” has degraded peoples’ lives and freedoms in “Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK”. And under what alternative system and in what ways things would be better.
It is one thing to have an instinctive dislike of large, powerful countries (or football teams, or companies). And quite another to actually demonstrate a better alternative.

Charlie Dibsdale
Charlie Dibsdale
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I think the USA has kept sea lanes open, and allowed much more open trade in the world. The payback is other countries buying into the US system for security. As long as the US espouse democracy it seems a good deal. However, the US seems to be tearing itself apart with awful identity politics.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

US trade war causing inflation.
US nopec bill will cause inflation.
US (probably) blowing up the nord stream.
US dragging us into the middle east.
US home of Clinton’s, bushes, faucis.
US home of progressive American crazy politics.
US home of crazy neo con politics.
US federal reserve, qe ruining everyones currencies. Its just a mess.
US tariffs affect millions of dollars in global trade.
US sanctions also causing inflation and messing up global trade.

Solution:
UK stops being the US b*tch.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

More tea Ms Emery?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

And a cream slice!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

And a cream slice!

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

yawn. we’ve heard similar garbage about the U.S. for the last 50 years. Still way way way better to be aligned with the U.S. than any of the alternatives currently available, which is why individuals continue to flock to the U.S., and freed countries willingly ally with it.

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

More tea Ms Emery?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

yawn. we’ve heard similar garbage about the U.S. for the last 50 years. Still way way way better to be aligned with the U.S. than any of the alternatives currently available, which is why individuals continue to flock to the U.S., and freed countries willingly ally with it.

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I think he meant Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica etc!

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

touche.

Charlie Dibsdale
Charlie Dibsdale
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I think the USA has kept sea lanes open, and allowed much more open trade in the world. The payback is other countries buying into the US system for security. As long as the US espouse democracy it seems a good deal. However, the US seems to be tearing itself apart with awful identity politics.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

US trade war causing inflation.
US nopec bill will cause inflation.
US (probably) blowing up the nord stream.
US dragging us into the middle east.
US home of Clinton’s, bushes, faucis.
US home of progressive American crazy politics.
US home of crazy neo con politics.
US federal reserve, qe ruining everyones currencies. Its just a mess.
US tariffs affect millions of dollars in global trade.
US sanctions also causing inflation and messing up global trade.

Solution:
UK stops being the US b*tch.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I think he meant Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica etc!

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

touche.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

As far back as 1922 the US used the Canadian Premier to put pressure on London to end the 1904 Anglo-Japanese Naval Alliance, and thus give the US a fee hand for adventures in China and the Pacific.
Thus did the ‘Pearl Harbour clock start ticking.

Incidentally those “allies” are really ‘Client States’ after the Roman fashion. A fact they cannot ignore.

Eventually Rome tired of them.

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

So, Britain should have fought with Japan in 1941?
Given its mounting ambitions throughout this period, that seems to be the only alternative.
Sorry, you seem to just assume that, as long as “some other road” were taken, human conflict would be avoided. You ignore the fact that each state has agency, and we can never “solve” human conflict by some clever dodge and weave.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

No, with any luck the British and Japanese Empires would have united to conquer China. After all we already had a good foothold on the place.

Off course from the US point of view this was disastrous for their Chinese ambitions and hence they just HAD to break the Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty. QED.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

You old imperialist, you!

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

You old imperialist, you!

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Why did Britain declare war at all? Protecting Poland wasnt very successful. Why not declare war on the USSR for invading Finland? Not to think of taking half of Poland and the Baltic States in 1939.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

No, with any luck the British and Japanese Empires would have united to conquer China. After all we already had a good foothold on the place.

Off course from the US point of view this was disastrous for their Chinese ambitions and hence they just HAD to break the Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty. QED.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Why did Britain declare war at all? Protecting Poland wasnt very successful. Why not declare war on the USSR for invading Finland? Not to think of taking half of Poland and the Baltic States in 1939.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Client states my ass. If they were truly client states, they all would have joined the war in Iraq.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

So, Britain should have fought with Japan in 1941?
Given its mounting ambitions throughout this period, that seems to be the only alternative.
Sorry, you seem to just assume that, as long as “some other road” were taken, human conflict would be avoided. You ignore the fact that each state has agency, and we can never “solve” human conflict by some clever dodge and weave.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Client states my ass. If they were truly client states, they all would have joined the war in Iraq.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

The “pretence that Canada might be defended against American aggression”????? Are you kidding. Long before WWII began, there was no chance of that happening, and no defence by the UK would have been required. As for France, that’s just simply bizarre, as they gave up on Quebec and their other colonies in 1763 and 1805.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

Germany and Japan came out of the war better than the others – with hindsight. Germany suffers badly from guilt but Japan didn’t even apologise. As you say, those countries above are just states of the USA. My only hope is France which seems to have more pride than the others.
When I go to France I still feel like I’m in France. In fact, most of the tourists there are Chinese. Even the waiters have been forced to speak English because of the Chinese visitors.
Here, we copy every word and movement of the US. Our children try to speak with American accents, our TV programmes are the same American cops & robbers as always. We are woking up following every US trend. Time for MI5 to raid No.10 Downing Street.
The US is a disaster. Do not follow. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

Perhaps you would care to provide some real examples of how US “dominance” has degraded peoples’ lives and freedoms in “Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK”. And under what alternative system and in what ways things would be better.
It is one thing to have an instinctive dislike of large, powerful countries (or football teams, or companies). And quite another to actually demonstrate a better alternative.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

As far back as 1922 the US used the Canadian Premier to put pressure on London to end the 1904 Anglo-Japanese Naval Alliance, and thus give the US a fee hand for adventures in China and the Pacific.
Thus did the ‘Pearl Harbour clock start ticking.

Incidentally those “allies” are really ‘Client States’ after the Roman fashion. A fact they cannot ignore.

Eventually Rome tired of them.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

The “pretence that Canada might be defended against American aggression”????? Are you kidding. Long before WWII began, there was no chance of that happening, and no defence by the UK would have been required. As for France, that’s just simply bizarre, as they gave up on Quebec and their other colonies in 1763 and 1805.

Mark Goodhand
Mark Goodhand
1 year ago

“the G7 grouping of the US and its major allies: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK.”

This is the best description of the G7 I’ve read.

Growing up, I naively accepted the idea that it was a group of economically powerful nations.

In reality, it’s the US and the countries the US has dominated since World War II.

Britain and France were defeated in WW2, as surely as Italy, Germany and Japan. The only winners were the US and the Soviet Union.

With the fall of British and French Empires came the end of any pretence that Canada might be defended against American aggression. Since Suez, if not before, Canada has existed as an independent nation because it suits the Americans for it to remain (notionally) independent.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

He’s right about one thing: the war won’t end until the Ukrainians accept that Crimea is Russian.

Tom Graham
Tom Graham
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

The war will end when every drunken orc serf in Ukraine has had a grenade dropped on them by a drone.

Simon Simple
Simon Simple
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Graham

Problem is that as the BBC actually reported, Russians are now doing the same to Ukrainian troops. Russians are learning according to a BBC report from a Ukrainian soldier in Bahkmut AND according to him “We need to learn faster.” He claimed Russians were increasingly effective at combined air/ground operations and had learnt dispersal and were also increasingly threatening Ukrainian supply lines. IF this is what slips through the BBC net, then the myths of an inevitable Ukrainian victory appear to be just that.
Next was the report that Ukraine is facing regulars, well trained. “We fly a drone with a grenade, and these Russians step behind a tree, then when the grenade has gone off, they come back out fighting.”
Someone is lying, and given the myths about the state of the Russian economy, I fear it is likely the West. Ukraine cannot trade man for man, Russia has far more of them.
The other interesting facts that slip through the BBC now and then is the casualty figures. Pre Xmas the Russian figures were given in men per month in the Luhansk, the BBC quoted Zelenesky in men per day his forces suffered. Simple maths and Ukraine was actually losing a few hundred more per month than the Russians. The numbers the BBC provided matched the numbers a US General suggested was the Ukraine’s actual losses, both well above the ‘propaganda’ figures.
One might also ask where are the 300,000 Russian conscripts that reputedly were called up last year? They don’t appear to be in Bahkmut. Reports suggest they are ‘training’. But for What?
The original ‘invasion’ was more an occupation, The Russian troops in the convoys appeared to have no idea they were supposed to be fighting. One classic video of a group of soldiers sitting on a stationary tank included a translation of the conversation between the ‘passing’ Ukrainian Citizens’ and the Russian invaders – very civilised, even to the polite suggestion from the Ukrainians that the Russians should go home. The tank wasn’t ‘destroyed’ BTW, it had run out of fuel.
The elite troops attempts to capture airports etc turned quickly into a shooting war, but IF the elite units had the same attitude as the soldiers I saw in the videos, they were rather surprised to discover that the Ukrainians were actually shooting at them.
That blase approach to the occupation of Ukraine is now long gone, and any belief that Ukraine is going to motor all the way across Crimea is as much fantasy as thinking the US/NATO are going to put boots on the ground. It is Ukrainians who will have to fight and die. The really relevant question is, ‘How many of them are left to continue dying?’ I don’t know, but I understand the Russians have a hell of a lot more yet to be committed.
Also, the casualties suffered by Ukraine in the Luhansk etc are, IF the claims are true that their best troops were there, of elite/veteran units. I doubt Wagner groups fighters are elite or veteran, AND they are certainly NOT Russian Military.
Peace and seceding the Russian ethnic areas is the sensible thing Like the former Yugoslavia, this war is now about Soviet Drawn borders in a post Soviet World, and Russia is more than likely the one who will redraw those borders. How many lives could have been saved had that been recognised earlier?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Simple

“ceding” not “seceding.”
Quite ingenious!
–But Putin wouldn’t be calling for 400,000 more “volunteers” if he were winning in Donbas. That they want everyone to come in and confirm their draft status shows Moscow is desperate for more recruits, and will use any means to trick people into the miltiary.
–Russia wouldn’t be held up in one small town in Donbas for 8 months if they were “learning more and more.”
–That’s particularly true WRT the disastrous battle at Vuhledar.
–The Russian army has pretty much taken over the Bakhnmut offensive, and Avdiivka as well. But the naval infantry and airborne troops there are no longer “elite”–just the best Putin can now scratch together.
–You give in to the Russian fantasy that any nation smaller than Russia is somehow Luxembourg. That a nation of 40 million will somehow “run out of men” is delusional. Vietnam was half that size and they fought for decades. Similar-sized nations like France and Germany fought world wars for years.
So, sorry, no Siberian Ski Troops about to launch their Winter offensive against the Nazis. Putin has wasted a good a part of his army on offensives that have yielded zero gain.
A far better strategy would have been to wait until spring, repel the Ukrainian offensive, and then launch a Russian reposte.
But Vova is impatient, and needs “wins” now, not in the spring.
But still, nice effort!

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Simple

“ceding” not “seceding.”
Quite ingenious!
–But Putin wouldn’t be calling for 400,000 more “volunteers” if he were winning in Donbas. That they want everyone to come in and confirm their draft status shows Moscow is desperate for more recruits, and will use any means to trick people into the miltiary.
–Russia wouldn’t be held up in one small town in Donbas for 8 months if they were “learning more and more.”
–That’s particularly true WRT the disastrous battle at Vuhledar.
–The Russian army has pretty much taken over the Bakhnmut offensive, and Avdiivka as well. But the naval infantry and airborne troops there are no longer “elite”–just the best Putin can now scratch together.
–You give in to the Russian fantasy that any nation smaller than Russia is somehow Luxembourg. That a nation of 40 million will somehow “run out of men” is delusional. Vietnam was half that size and they fought for decades. Similar-sized nations like France and Germany fought world wars for years.
So, sorry, no Siberian Ski Troops about to launch their Winter offensive against the Nazis. Putin has wasted a good a part of his army on offensives that have yielded zero gain.
A far better strategy would have been to wait until spring, repel the Ukrainian offensive, and then launch a Russian reposte.
But Vova is impatient, and needs “wins” now, not in the spring.
But still, nice effort!

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
P Branagan
P Branagan
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Graham

Tom Graham, you’re an odious, post human gobsh*te utterly devoid of any moral agency.

Simon Simple
Simon Simple
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Graham

Problem is that as the BBC actually reported, Russians are now doing the same to Ukrainian troops. Russians are learning according to a BBC report from a Ukrainian soldier in Bahkmut AND according to him “We need to learn faster.” He claimed Russians were increasingly effective at combined air/ground operations and had learnt dispersal and were also increasingly threatening Ukrainian supply lines. IF this is what slips through the BBC net, then the myths of an inevitable Ukrainian victory appear to be just that.
Next was the report that Ukraine is facing regulars, well trained. “We fly a drone with a grenade, and these Russians step behind a tree, then when the grenade has gone off, they come back out fighting.”
Someone is lying, and given the myths about the state of the Russian economy, I fear it is likely the West. Ukraine cannot trade man for man, Russia has far more of them.
The other interesting facts that slip through the BBC now and then is the casualty figures. Pre Xmas the Russian figures were given in men per month in the Luhansk, the BBC quoted Zelenesky in men per day his forces suffered. Simple maths and Ukraine was actually losing a few hundred more per month than the Russians. The numbers the BBC provided matched the numbers a US General suggested was the Ukraine’s actual losses, both well above the ‘propaganda’ figures.
One might also ask where are the 300,000 Russian conscripts that reputedly were called up last year? They don’t appear to be in Bahkmut. Reports suggest they are ‘training’. But for What?
The original ‘invasion’ was more an occupation, The Russian troops in the convoys appeared to have no idea they were supposed to be fighting. One classic video of a group of soldiers sitting on a stationary tank included a translation of the conversation between the ‘passing’ Ukrainian Citizens’ and the Russian invaders – very civilised, even to the polite suggestion from the Ukrainians that the Russians should go home. The tank wasn’t ‘destroyed’ BTW, it had run out of fuel.
The elite troops attempts to capture airports etc turned quickly into a shooting war, but IF the elite units had the same attitude as the soldiers I saw in the videos, they were rather surprised to discover that the Ukrainians were actually shooting at them.
That blase approach to the occupation of Ukraine is now long gone, and any belief that Ukraine is going to motor all the way across Crimea is as much fantasy as thinking the US/NATO are going to put boots on the ground. It is Ukrainians who will have to fight and die. The really relevant question is, ‘How many of them are left to continue dying?’ I don’t know, but I understand the Russians have a hell of a lot more yet to be committed.
Also, the casualties suffered by Ukraine in the Luhansk etc are, IF the claims are true that their best troops were there, of elite/veteran units. I doubt Wagner groups fighters are elite or veteran, AND they are certainly NOT Russian Military.
Peace and seceding the Russian ethnic areas is the sensible thing Like the former Yugoslavia, this war is now about Soviet Drawn borders in a post Soviet World, and Russia is more than likely the one who will redraw those borders. How many lives could have been saved had that been recognised earlier?

P Branagan
P Branagan
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Graham

Tom Graham, you’re an odious, post human gobsh*te utterly devoid of any moral agency.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Except it wouldn’t and the Crimea isn’t.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

Crimea has been Russian since the time of Catherine the Great: it’s been ‘misalocated’ to Ukraine for like 5 minutes! it’s population is 88% Russian. Russia’s Black Sea navy is stationed in Svevastipol.. Get a grip will you!

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Crimea became Russian shortly before Ireland became British, so….

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Who taught you that?

Ireland didn’t become completely subjugated until say ‘The Flight of the Earls’ in 1607, whist Katherine formerly seized the Crimea from the Ottoman Tartars in 1783.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago

Oh Charlie – I was referring to the 1801 Act of Union: ut bene scis. Thank you for your intervention though, it furthers my challenge of Mr Mahoney….and think I am getting the gist of the Plastic Paddy concept.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Your point is irrelevant Domlick..

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Don’t be racist Dominic…

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Explain. NB: Ireland is not a race, Plastic Paddy is not a racist idea, and you do not know my race, ethnicity or nationality.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dominic A
Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Explain. NB: Ireland is not a race, Plastic Paddy is not a racist idea, and you do not know my race, ethnicity or nationality.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dominic A
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Your point is irrelevant Domlick..

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Don’t be racist Dominic…

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago

Oh Charlie – I was referring to the 1801 Act of Union: ut bene scis. Thank you for your intervention though, it furthers my challenge of Mr Mahoney….and think I am getting the gist of the Plastic Paddy concept.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Who taught you that?

Ireland didn’t become completely subjugated until say ‘The Flight of the Earls’ in 1607, whist Katherine formerly seized the Crimea from the Ottoman Tartars in 1783.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Of course shipping out and killing off the native population firstly by the Tsar and then by Stalin rather assisted that Russification!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Indeed it did, but no Ukrainians filled the vacuum did they?
Granted that might have been rather hard as ‘they’ didn’t actually exist.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Been around since Rurik.
Whereas Moscow only came into being in the 12th C.
But as Renan says: “A nation is a nation, when it thinks it’s a nation.
And that thought has been around for over a century.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Courtesy of Max Hoffmann and the German Army no less.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Sorry, there were Ukrainian nationalists long before that.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Who achieved nothing of consequence until the German Army triumphed and dictated Brest-Litovsk.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Which is why weaker empires quite often implode, when they try to recover past glory.
24 Feb 2022 is a classic example.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

What has that to do with the supposed Ukrainian nationalists whom you talk of?

And incidentally what part did ‘they’ play in 1918 other than being Helots for the German Army?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Laid the groundwork for a Ukrainian nation, I guess.
And going pretty strong just now.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

What has THAT got to do with any of your points, if only one could determine what they actually are.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago

And joined with other puppet states to work with Germany , till 1943. Stefan Bandera, the great nationalist, seized the chance to turn of the Soviet oppressors, rather like Chandra Bose.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Laid the groundwork for a Ukrainian nation, I guess.
And going pretty strong just now.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

What has THAT got to do with any of your points, if only one could determine what they actually are.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago

And joined with other puppet states to work with Germany , till 1943. Stefan Bandera, the great nationalist, seized the chance to turn of the Soviet oppressors, rather like Chandra Bose.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

What has that to do with the supposed Ukrainian nationalists whom you talk of?

And incidentally what part did ‘they’ play in 1918 other than being Helots for the German Army?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Which is why weaker empires quite often implode, when they try to recover past glory.
24 Feb 2022 is a classic example.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Who achieved nothing of consequence until the German Army triumphed and dictated Brest-Litovsk.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Sorry, there were Ukrainian nationalists long before that.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Courtesy of Max Hoffmann and the German Army no less.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago

Well, yes and no, the Tartars (who were ethnically cleansed) started returning in the 1990s and would certainly consider themselves more Ukrainian than Russian.

Last edited 1 year ago by Isabel Ward
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

How is that possible?
Tartar is a polite term for a Mongoloid people speaking a Ural-Altaic tongue, and practising Islam, who were the detritus of the Mongolian ‘Golden Horde’, some of whom got ‘left behind’ in the Crimea.

Those that didn’t somewhat reluctantly became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At no stage was there an independent Ukrainian state after its destruction in the 13th century by the aforementioned Mongolian thugs.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago

No the Tartars are of Turkic origin they are not Mongoloid and were in the Crimea before being conquered. So yes they were conquered by Ghengis khan and are Islamic but they weren’t “left behind”.
Yes Ukraine it was divided up many times between various countries bur at no time was it totally controlled by one country (until the time of the Bosheviks) and the idea of a Ukrainian nation persisted. It could be argued is was independent after the 1stWW if only very briefly.
.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

They oscillated between the Lithuanian Tartars and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They were a frontier state, hence the name. When you see where Poltava was fought, a battle which destroyed the Swedish Empire’s attempt to conquer Russia, you can see how the borders shifted.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

They oscillated between the Lithuanian Tartars and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They were a frontier state, hence the name. When you see where Poltava was fought, a battle which destroyed the Swedish Empire’s attempt to conquer Russia, you can see how the borders shifted.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

and your point is…..

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago

No the Tartars are of Turkic origin they are not Mongoloid and were in the Crimea before being conquered. So yes they were conquered by Ghengis khan and are Islamic but they weren’t “left behind”.
Yes Ukraine it was divided up many times between various countries bur at no time was it totally controlled by one country (until the time of the Bosheviks) and the idea of a Ukrainian nation persisted. It could be argued is was independent after the 1stWW if only very briefly.
.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

and your point is…..

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

How is that possible?
Tartar is a polite term for a Mongoloid people speaking a Ural-Altaic tongue, and practising Islam, who were the detritus of the Mongolian ‘Golden Horde’, some of whom got ‘left behind’ in the Crimea.

Those that didn’t somewhat reluctantly became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At no stage was there an independent Ukrainian state after its destruction in the 13th century by the aforementioned Mongolian thugs.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Been around since Rurik.
Whereas Moscow only came into being in the 12th C.
But as Renan says: “A nation is a nation, when it thinks it’s a nation.
And that thought has been around for over a century.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago

Well, yes and no, the Tartars (who were ethnically cleansed) started returning in the 1990s and would certainly consider themselves more Ukrainian than Russian.

Last edited 1 year ago by Isabel Ward
B Timothy
B Timothy
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Since Stalin had Sevastopol rebuilt brick by brick after the Ukrai— I mean, Germans and other current NATO members— destroyed it, would the Ukrainians now destroy it because it’s a Soviet monument?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  B Timothy

Really up to them.
Rather shameful place for Russia anyway, since its only real claim to fame involves Russian defeats.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  B Timothy

Really up to them.
Rather shameful place for Russia anyway, since its only real claim to fame involves Russian defeats.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Be that as it may.. Crimea will remain Russian as long as Russia exists.. it will.never again be entrusted to corrupt Ukrainians.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

And the Russians are paragons of virtue and are not corrupt


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

Because corrupt, dictatorial Russians are just so much better.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

And the Russians are paragons of virtue and are not corrupt


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

Because corrupt, dictatorial Russians are just so much better.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

The Tartar populations were shipped out to Kazakhstan by Stalin, also the Volga Germans, Poles, and others considered a danger during the war. Ukraine had already been gifted Eastern Poland and other bits of Central and Eastern Europe in 1939. In 1945 the Ukraine’s borders were enlarged to the west by hundreds of kilometres, while Soviet occupied Poland was compensated with large chunks of territory. The USSR sent ethnic Russians into the Baltic States after the war. The idea that the USSR decided to repopulate Ukraine with ethnic Russians is unfounded.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Indeed it did, but no Ukrainians filled the vacuum did they?
Granted that might have been rather hard as ‘they’ didn’t actually exist.

B Timothy
B Timothy
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Since Stalin had Sevastopol rebuilt brick by brick after the Ukrai— I mean, Germans and other current NATO members— destroyed it, would the Ukrainians now destroy it because it’s a Soviet monument?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Be that as it may.. Crimea will remain Russian as long as Russia exists.. it will.never again be entrusted to corrupt Ukrainians.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

The Tartar populations were shipped out to Kazakhstan by Stalin, also the Volga Germans, Poles, and others considered a danger during the war. Ukraine had already been gifted Eastern Poland and other bits of Central and Eastern Europe in 1939. In 1945 the Ukraine’s borders were enlarged to the west by hundreds of kilometres, while Soviet occupied Poland was compensated with large chunks of territory. The USSR sent ethnic Russians into the Baltic States after the war. The idea that the USSR decided to repopulate Ukraine with ethnic Russians is unfounded.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Well said Lliam old chap.
All this mutual agreement is getting rather embarrassing!

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I suspect Ukraine will surely “get a grip”–on Crimea.
After the shameful surprise attack by Putin, and the subsequent overt ethnic cleansing, nothing less than Crimea will satisfy them.
You better pray Putin somehow stops them. Or as I hope, Blue Helmets come in.
If neither of those things happens, well…they’ll remember Bucha.
Actions have consequences–especially when most Russians support Putin’s policies.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Ok lets see what a grip I have. The Crimea was originally occupied by the Greeks and remained Greek in culture for around 2000 years (should we give it back to the Greeks then?). But of course it was annexed by the Romans in the mean time (give it to the Italians then? ) and later became part of the Byzantine empire and then, perhaps of more relevance conquered by the Kievan Rus. Yes it was conquered by Catherine the Great (born German – what a surprise then) and formally annexed in 1783. No clue what “misallocated” means but Kruschev (a Russian) transferred it (legally and in a recognised way) to Ukraine in 1954. So it was part of Ukraine for 60 years. It was part of Russia for 171 years. Thus since that time 35% of it was part of Ukraine (if we don’t include it being in Russian hands since 2014) hardly “5 minutes” even metaphorically. Thus I think its quite legitimate for Ukraine to thinks its part of their country. Yes, the majority in the Crimea would probably would want Crimea to be part of Russia but the more recent inhabitants (the Tartars) were ethnically cleansed – over 200,000 removed – less than 100 years ago so still relevant in my opinion. Also the majority population in Odessa is Russian – even the mayor is a Russian speaker – but they don’t want to part of Russia, so maybe, even now, it would be significantly less of a majority in the Crimea who would want to be part of Russia than the demographics’ might suggest.  Now, as an Irishman I wouldn’t have thought you would approve of ethnic cleansing ..
Anyway I think I would suggest (politely of course) its you who need who needs to get a grip – at least of your manners if not your maths I got a B in my leaving cert you?. Mine is quite a reasoned argument even if you don’t like it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Isabel Ward
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

Khrushchev, possibly a Ukrainian himself, transferred the Crimea from The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as part of an ambitious ‘accountancy exercise’’.

Thus the Ukrainian exchequer would now pay for the Crimea rather than the Russian exchequer.
A Helots life can be hard!

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago

No, Khrushchev was Russian born in Kursk. It doesn’t matter why he did it, he did it. Sure the Brits were often screwing up peoples’ countries drawing lines on map to tell people where their country were. See ME, Africa etc. are they not countries?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

‘K’ was born in Kalinovka, Khomutovsky District, Kursk Oblast. That is about 70 miles west of the City of Kursk, and a mere 6 miles from the Ukrainian border.

‘His’ actions are axiomatic to understanding the legality of this issue, and thus they DO very much matter.

As to the “Brits screwing up peoples” that is completely irrelevant to this issue.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago

Well he was still Russian (70 miles is still 70 miles) and its not irrelevant as it goes to show how this sot of thing often happens. Further I expect its only “irrelevant because you are a Brit.
Well he was still Russian (70 miles is still 70 miles) and its not irrelevant as it goes to show how this sot of thing often happens. Further I expect its only “irrelevant” because you are a Brit.

Last edited 1 year ago by Isabel Ward
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

It is the 6 miles that is relevant here!
I’m surprised and rather disappointed you ‘missed’ it.

Do you always repeat yourself in such a brief utterance?

Incidentally why “as a Brit” would I find it irrelevant. Attention to detail, as always, is what counts

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

This superior attitude of yours is entirely without grounds.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

This superior attitude of yours is entirely without grounds.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

It is the 6 miles that is relevant here!
I’m surprised and rather disappointed you ‘missed’ it.

Do you always repeat yourself in such a brief utterance?

Incidentally why “as a Brit” would I find it irrelevant. Attention to detail, as always, is what counts

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

I see…
Treaties and agreements matter–except when they don’t.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Precisely.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Precisely.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

As an analogy it’s entirely relevant. You know an argument is a loser when one side constantly refers to the other side’s argument as irrelevant.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

“you know an argument is a loser when one
..”

That should read: You know an argument is lost when one

”

What’s your excuse, besides the obvious one?

As to IW, she doesn’t know her facts, not that you are any better, sadly.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

“you know an argument is a loser when one
..”

That should read: You know an argument is lost when one

”

What’s your excuse, besides the obvious one?

As to IW, she doesn’t know her facts, not that you are any better, sadly.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago

Didnt K move to Ukraine to work when he was 15? I always assumed he was of U stock, but seems not. His 1956 speech dwelt on the horrors suffered by Ukraine during collectivisation, and then the years of fighting on its territory during WW2. I remember reading he that when the war was over Ukrainians were living in holes in the ground.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

Frankly when K was born the difference between being Russian and Ukrainian didn’t exist, except in the mind of a tiny minority of nationalistic nutters.

How different is an Englishman born in say Suffolk, to one born 6 miles away in Norfolk?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

Frankly when K was born the difference between being Russian and Ukrainian didn’t exist, except in the mind of a tiny minority of nationalistic nutters.

How different is an Englishman born in say Suffolk, to one born 6 miles away in Norfolk?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

However, Russia signed up treaties confirming that Crimea was part of Ukraine after collapse of Soviet Union.
I would have some sympathy with Russian view if they argued at that juncture that Crimea being given to Ukraine by Kruschev was an anomaly to be corrected by referendum.
Russia did not argue that and signed relevant treaties confirming status of Crimea as Ukrainian.
Referendum happened anyway in 1991 and Crimea voted 54% to be part of Ukraine.
So there is no legal justification to Russian claims to any part of Ukraine.
Unless you subscribe to argument that might is right?

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago

Well he was still Russian (70 miles is still 70 miles) and its not irrelevant as it goes to show how this sot of thing often happens. Further I expect its only “irrelevant because you are a Brit.
Well he was still Russian (70 miles is still 70 miles) and its not irrelevant as it goes to show how this sot of thing often happens. Further I expect its only “irrelevant” because you are a Brit.

Last edited 1 year ago by Isabel Ward
martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

I see…
Treaties and agreements matter–except when they don’t.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

As an analogy it’s entirely relevant. You know an argument is a loser when one side constantly refers to the other side’s argument as irrelevant.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago

Didnt K move to Ukraine to work when he was 15? I always assumed he was of U stock, but seems not. His 1956 speech dwelt on the horrors suffered by Ukraine during collectivisation, and then the years of fighting on its territory during WW2. I remember reading he that when the war was over Ukrainians were living in holes in the ground.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

However, Russia signed up treaties confirming that Crimea was part of Ukraine after collapse of Soviet Union.
I would have some sympathy with Russian view if they argued at that juncture that Crimea being given to Ukraine by Kruschev was an anomaly to be corrected by referendum.
Russia did not argue that and signed relevant treaties confirming status of Crimea as Ukrainian.
Referendum happened anyway in 1991 and Crimea voted 54% to be part of Ukraine.
So there is no legal justification to Russian claims to any part of Ukraine.
Unless you subscribe to argument that might is right?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

‘K’ was born in Kalinovka, Khomutovsky District, Kursk Oblast. That is about 70 miles west of the City of Kursk, and a mere 6 miles from the Ukrainian border.

‘His’ actions are axiomatic to understanding the legality of this issue, and thus they DO very much matter.

As to the “Brits screwing up peoples” that is completely irrelevant to this issue.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

Problem is that all the claims about part of Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia are not supported by evidence.
There was Ukrainian independence referendum of 1991 when both Luhansk and Donbass voted over 80% to be part of Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for that.
All this talk of ethnically Russian parts of Ukraine being given to Russia is based either on ignorance or part of Russian propaganda campaign.
Why should Ireland exist?
Great majority speak English. They are nothing more than “little English”.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago

No, Khrushchev was Russian born in Kursk. It doesn’t matter why he did it, he did it. Sure the Brits were often screwing up peoples’ countries drawing lines on map to tell people where their country were. See ME, Africa etc. are they not countries?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

Problem is that all the claims about part of Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia are not supported by evidence.
There was Ukrainian independence referendum of 1991 when both Luhansk and Donbass voted over 80% to be part of Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for that.
All this talk of ethnically Russian parts of Ukraine being given to Russia is based either on ignorance or part of Russian propaganda campaign.
Why should Ireland exist?
Great majority speak English. They are nothing more than “little English”.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

Self praise is NO recommendation!
Presumably you achieved an ‘F’ grade for English?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

Khrushchev, possibly a Ukrainian himself, transferred the Crimea from The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as part of an ambitious ‘accountancy exercise’’.

Thus the Ukrainian exchequer would now pay for the Crimea rather than the Russian exchequer.
A Helots life can be hard!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

Self praise is NO recommendation!
Presumably you achieved an ‘F’ grade for English?

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Crimea became Russian shortly before Ireland became British, so….

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Of course shipping out and killing off the native population firstly by the Tsar and then by Stalin rather assisted that Russification!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Well said Lliam old chap.
All this mutual agreement is getting rather embarrassing!

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I suspect Ukraine will surely “get a grip”–on Crimea.
After the shameful surprise attack by Putin, and the subsequent overt ethnic cleansing, nothing less than Crimea will satisfy them.
You better pray Putin somehow stops them. Or as I hope, Blue Helmets come in.
If neither of those things happens, well…they’ll remember Bucha.
Actions have consequences–especially when most Russians support Putin’s policies.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Ok lets see what a grip I have. The Crimea was originally occupied by the Greeks and remained Greek in culture for around 2000 years (should we give it back to the Greeks then?). But of course it was annexed by the Romans in the mean time (give it to the Italians then? ) and later became part of the Byzantine empire and then, perhaps of more relevance conquered by the Kievan Rus. Yes it was conquered by Catherine the Great (born German – what a surprise then) and formally annexed in 1783. No clue what “misallocated” means but Kruschev (a Russian) transferred it (legally and in a recognised way) to Ukraine in 1954. So it was part of Ukraine for 60 years. It was part of Russia for 171 years. Thus since that time 35% of it was part of Ukraine (if we don’t include it being in Russian hands since 2014) hardly “5 minutes” even metaphorically. Thus I think its quite legitimate for Ukraine to thinks its part of their country. Yes, the majority in the Crimea would probably would want Crimea to be part of Russia but the more recent inhabitants (the Tartars) were ethnically cleansed – over 200,000 removed – less than 100 years ago so still relevant in my opinion. Also the majority population in Odessa is Russian – even the mayor is a Russian speaker – but they don’t want to part of Russia, so maybe, even now, it would be significantly less of a majority in the Crimea who would want to be part of Russia than the demographics’ might suggest.  Now, as an Irishman I wouldn’t have thought you would approve of ethnic cleansing ..
Anyway I think I would suggest (politely of course) its you who need who needs to get a grip – at least of your manners if not your maths I got a B in my leaving cert you?. Mine is quite a reasoned argument even if you don’t like it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Isabel Ward
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Isabel Ward

Crimea has been Russian since the time of Catherine the Great: it’s been ‘misalocated’ to Ukraine for like 5 minutes! it’s population is 88% Russian. Russia’s Black Sea navy is stationed in Svevastipol.. Get a grip will you!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

That is an absolute fact.. the only way for that to be otherwise would involve the total defeat of Russia including the fall of Moscow! That ain’t going to happen this side of an all out nuclear holocaust!

B Timothy
B Timothy
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Well the Ukrainians have been trying to remove any remembrance of the Soviet Union. As such, Crimea would be a painful reminder of the Khrushchev-era if it remained Ukrainian.

Honestly they should thank the Kremlin for undoing this Soviet error.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  B Timothy

A little late for that.
They are mad as hell, and if they can take it, well, better hope the Crimean bridge is still open. Sadly, after Bucha, et al, they won’t be nice to any collaborators.
Any sane Russian ruler would call in blue helmets, to keep order.
But Putin will fight to the last Crimean.

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

What rot. My wife is Crimean. I’ve been there a number of times.
It’s entirely at peace and the people there are overwhelmingly Russian.
There was no fighting over Crimea in 2014 and there will be none moving forwards.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Johnston

Sure, presumably she is Russian (and not a Tartar) . When did you go?

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 year ago