Putin's determination is undimmed (Credit: Diego Herrera Carcedo/Anadolu via Getty)
The collapse of Assad’s regime in Syria has not changed the balance of power in the war between Russia and Ukraine. There is no doubt that the Ukraine war, after the deaths of hundreds of thousands, will end through negotiations, much as it could have ended two years ago. The difference is that Ukraine will probably now lose not only Crimea, but also much of the Donbas region. Only increased, direct Western military intervention is likely to prevent that outcome, and doing so would pose significant risks.
By now it is obvious that Ukraine is not winning the war. Nato has provided many billions of dollars worth of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine including Patriot missiles, HIMARS and ATACMS missiles, Abrams tanks, F-16 aircraft, and now Storm Shadow missiles. None of this has produced a successful Ukrainian offensive. Instead, the conflict has become a war of attrition that relentlessly drains Ukrainian manpower and Nato arsenals. A nation of around 35 million people with a GDP of around $180 billion cannot hope to defeat a nation with a population of 150 million and a GDP of $2 trillion. The harsh reality is that Ukraine has as much of a chance of defeating Russia as Belgium would of defeating Germany, no matter how many Western weapons they receive.
The fall of Assad is not necessarily a sign of Russian weakness. In 2016, Russian air power, not ground forces, helped the Syrian army maintain control of the country. In 2024, a demoralised Syrian army dissolved without a fight. With Assad’s own army disbanding, there was little Russian air power could do to rescue him. At the moment, Russia’s two bases in Syria remain in Russian hands and their future is unclear. What is clear, however, is that Putin has kept his eyes on Ukraine, where Russian forces continue to take as much territory as possible before any potential negotiations begin.
Nor will economic sanctions change the war’s outcome. Beginning in 2022, Western nations imposed on Russia the most extensive sanctions regime seen since the Second World War. All in all, several thousand sanctions were placed on Russian individuals, businesses, and government institutions. This caused only a mild recession in 2022 which was quickly turned around. Instead of collapsing, the Russian economy has grown rapidly. Russia’s GDP grew by 3.6% in 2023, and is estimated to grow at the same rate this year. Ironically, the Russians have done better than those imposing the sanctions. In 2023, the US economy grew only by 2.5% while the German economy actually shrank, and the EU as a whole grew by less than 1%.
We should also remember that not losing the war is far more important to the Russian people and leadership than it is to Britain. Russians believe they are fighting a war for survival against a corrupt, godless, and implacable West. When Leopard tanks arrived in Ukraine, the headlines in Moscow read “German tanks again on Russian soil”. Every Russian parent who has lost a son to a German tank or a British missile is now demanding victory and revenge. What’s more, if Russia is defeated, President Vladimir Putin will not survive politically — the more Putin fears losing, the more he will escalate. If he falls from power, he will not be replaced by liberal democrats, but by even more hard-line Russian nationalists.
The justifications for Britain supporting Ukraine have always been questionable, but very seldom questioned. Instead, a jingoist media has consistently understated the risks involved while encouraging support for the war based upon three assumptions: Russia’s invasion was unprovoked; Ukraine is a democratic, long-unified nation worth defending; and Ukraine can win the war. Each of these assumptions is badly flawed.
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.
SubscribeTact: the art of telling a man to go take a hike, and making him feel good about it.
What we need more of in this world is less fightin’, my friends. I suggest that a dealmaker (i.e. Donald J. Trump) may do very well in this, as shown by his first term. He knows how to “speak softly and carry a big stick”, indeed …..
I have yet to hear Donald Trump speak softly, or employ tact. Can you come up with any examples?
The Abraham Accords would be sufficient for any single individual to demonstrate their ability in that direction.
I don’t think Trump is up to that. If the brief is “Talk loudly about yourself, and hog the limelight at all times”, he is a fair chance though.
“Russia is far stronger than we think”.
And Britain is far weaker than we realise.
It still has nukes though. Not as many as Russia, but enough to destroy Moscow and St Petersburg.
No doubt that will be greatly comforting to what’s left of the UK population…if the USA allows them to be used…
Someone has to deal with the Russians. If we don’t do it now, we’ll have to do it next year, or the year after.
“we” clearly doesn’t include you though, does it?
And presumably by “deal with” you mean military action against Russia by the UK.
Forgive me for pointing out the reality that the UK is utterly incapable of successful military action against Russia. The UK would simply cease to exist.
Possibly you believe the USA will “ride to the rescue” in such an event. However the first duty of the US President is to the people of the USA…nobody else. No US President will ever risk the welfare of the USA for a foreign country. It has never been done and never will.
Even the Cuban Missile Crisis would have led to war mainly in Europe…not the USA. A war with Russia over Ukraine would be fought in Europe which would be devastated.
Russia is paranoid and seeks security, not expansion, of which it is not capable anyway. So leave it alone and unthreatened.
The first duty of the current President of the USA is to the people of the USA. The duty of the man who will be President of the USA in a month’s time is to himself, and only to himself. It matters not. Russia cannot ever be trusted. They will need to be dealt with at some point. It may not be easy, but it will have to be done.
The person you’re describing is leaving office in disgrace. Trump is his antithesis and won election for that reason. And he doesn’t like forever wars…for the simple reason they’re wasteful of lives and money. He’s also weary of providing military cover for the world…including Europe.
There are always nations you can’t turn your back on…but as Reagan put it “trust but verify”. And that includes allies as well as adversaries. Lod knows, we’ve been surprised and horrified by positions taken by some of our so-called pals.
We won’t.
Yes, that sums it up accurately.
A fine article, imo.
One aspect of the Ukraine war (and, indeed, this article) that surprises me is Britain’s view of its role in the conflict and the world.
I don’t mean to disrespect the many British readers of Unherd, but I often feel the UK government, and “elite” class in general, overestimates its role and capability in world affairs. I suspect it’s testament to the UK’s effective diplomatic corps that Brits can maintain this conceit.
Was the provision of Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine really so important, and was it done as a display of UK’s military prowess or simply at the behest of the USA? Let’s be honest, the UK is often the US’s proxy, providing some “multilateral” cover for what is, in reality, unilateral action by the US. Reports from the long middle east conflict(s) since 2000 make clear that the UK military couldn’t sustain itself without extensive US support.
There might, indeed, be a nuclear exchange between Russia and the West, but I have a suspicion it would be restricted to Europe which relies on the US for nuclear protection. Would the US come to Europe’s aid if, through back channels, Putin made it clear to Washington that nuclear conflict would not spread beyond Europe provided the US didn’t enter the fray?
Let’s hope Trump really is Master of the Deal, and can defuse this situation next year.
Don’t worry, we’re not disrespected by that, you’re absolutely right. Could be that Unherd readers are more robust in that respect than average though!
Our leaders in recent decades have made embarrassing fools of themselves on the world stage, really thinking they are important, but our current duo of PM & Foreign Sec, The Robot and The Clown, really are scraping the barrel.
“… the UK government, and “elite” class in general, overestimates its role and capability in world affairs.”
Absolutely spot on!
Unherd has some unnerving tendencies in its desire to be ‘heterogenous’. This article is not one of them. In fact, it is what makes the magazine valuable. Simple truths, simply stated, you might call it lucidity, will always have an audience. Those truths are of the kind readers think they could have written themselves. Many of them could have. I would take issue, though, with some of the author’s criticism of the anti-democratic nature of present day Ukraine. It is a country at war, after all. You don’t want your able-bodied fleeing the country or those that remain undermining morale. Civil liberties are for people not under duress from an external foe.
You might think the author is being prophetic about Ukraine. He is not. He is simply describing what is inevitable.
I’m always surprised at how certain my friends are on the question of Ukraine.
The lack of knowledge on what got us here is genuinely shocking. And again these are not stupid people. It makes me think that this lack of knowledge extends into all areas, even governments.
This lack of knowledge among our ‘governing global elites’ was made shockingly obvious by the Canadian parliament applauding a WW2 Ukrainian soldier who fought the Russians! Anyone with basic knowledge should’ve had their alarm bells ringing over that. But apparently not.
Eastward expansion of NATO was always going to hit a wall eventually. And unfortunately for the Ukrainians it appears that they are that wall.
The only people to have benefited from this war are the military contractors. Not only have they got to refill the NATO stock pile of goodies. But they also get two new markets to sell to with the addition of Sweden and Finland in the NATO family.
The Russians have been “the Enemy” for at least 100 years (a couple of uneasy periods of alliance aside). They still are. Reagan called them “the Evil Empire”. He was a wise man.
No…he was referring to the USSR…
Same bunch, and they behave in exactly the same way.
Your quote was wrong…
The Russians are an uncivilized people. They always have been. It doesn’t matter what sort of flag they fly. Will they ever become a civilized people? I don’t know, but I have seen no signs of it.
I’m not sure that this essentially racist demonization of the Russians per se provides a very coherent argument against the argument expressed in the article! The idea that the Russians are uncivilized is completely ludicrous – they have produced some of the world’s finest writers and musicians for staff. However it is true that they have always had autocratic, often very brutal rulers. Whether this is inevitable given the size and ethnic diversity of the country is an interesting discussion.
Yet we did nt hesitate to give Ukraine , then part of the USSR, vast amounts of non Ukrainian territory in 1944-5, which enabled the Ukrainians to get on with their favourite sport, massacring the Poles.
Haha. You respond to a ridiculous post by putting up one of your own! Ukraine has a complex history which I think I probably know more about than you do given your ridiculous comment. Who is this “we”? The Western allies? The British and American had absolutely no presence or influence whatsoever in these regions which were completely dominated by the Red Army in 1944-5!
There was no “massacre of the Poles” after the Ukrainian SSR was set up in the first place by Lenin, or in 1954 when Khrushchev allocated chunks of Russian territory to Ukraine. Ukraine historically formed part of the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth for more years than it was part of Russia (which it was conquered by in stages).
It’s a perfect example of how this sort of thing just feeds on itself. We don’t really have any problem with the Russians; no major points of competition (except for “influence”), no reason for bad blood. Yet we are supposed to hate and fear them, and they us.
I suspect it’s just a game the Eternal Overclass play ’cause they like it. They earn the big bucks while our sons and nephews pay the price. They get the monuments while our neighbors get a little patch of some Flanders Field, somewhere.
Ronnie’s evil empire was a third world country that ruled an empire that couldn’t provide even a morning cup of coffee for the people. Those people were the only real victims here. But we were supposed to want to kill them.
WTF?!
No reason to hate the Russians? They were Communists for most of the 20th Century! What more reason do you need?
I hope that isn’t a reason for you to advocate the murder of strangers. Those people weren’t given a choice and most of them have passed on already.
I don’t advocate the “killing of strangers”, I advocate the killing of soldiers during wartime, and I advocate that only while they remain on land that is not theirs. It is the Russians who rape, torture and murder civilians, not anyone on my side.
What’s the problem with being a communist? It is an ideology of equality that emerged as a resistance to exploitative capitalism. Thanks to communism, many countries began to deal with social guarantees for workers. It was the pressure of this alternative that led to a better life, under the threat of revolution, capital was forced to take into account the interests of ordinary people.
Economically, communism was simply not viable, but the idea itself was not bad.
It is the most disgusting political philosophy that ever existed. All of its fundamental tenets are an abomination. That is why it fails utterly every time it is tried.
It is quite extraordinary that you could possibly write that absurd statement after the publication of the Gulag Archipelago etc. Marxist Leninist doctrine is so much at variance with human nature that it always relies on extreme force and threats of social sanctions to make it work on even a basic level. There is no Communist state that has not been much more repressive than any non communist authoritarian one, with the single exception perhaps of the National Socialists.
People get very excited about a few thousand people killed or tortured or imprisoned or example in Chile under Pinochet. That was dreadful. But millions of people were so treated in Communist societies. The Chinese of course have got rid of the part of communism that clearly didn’t work the economic system while retaining the brutal political one. The only thing that ultimately matters is keeping the party, and now again in China’s case, one man in power.
They aren’t Communists now! The Americans were a bunch of people who didn’t want to pay their legitimate taxes and also wanted the right to enslave other human beings while screaming about freedom….. Is there any less fair a characterisation?
FACT CHECK: The abolition of slavery began in N America long before it began in Britain: Rhode Island abolished slavery in 1652, Vermont in 1777, Pennsylvania 1780, Massachusetts 1783 the three last were during the War of Independence.
Erm… If you’re talking about the Soviet period I entirely disagree. Marxist Leninism was one of the worst political systems and in terms of its attractiveness to idiotic dupes in the West the very worst ever conceived by human beings. It killed tens of millions of people, imprisoned vast numbers more, and denied human rights on a truly terrifying scale, much more so than just ordinary authoritarian countries. Tsarist Russia was extremely mild by comparison with this appalling totalitarian charnel house. Communism was also an expansionist system that was suborning many countries in Africa and Latin America and indeed attempted to do so in Europe. If the Americans hadn’t instigated their containment policy, there’s absolutely no reason why most the world would not have ended up under Communist domination as indeed much of Asia actually did.
The tragedy was of course the 1917 Bolshevik coup which was not a true Revolution, unlike the earlier February one. As many have pointed out the first world war enabled this to happen and was the Ur-catastrophe of the modern world, leading both to fanatical Leninism, and in reaction, fascism
In 1984 the three world empires are permanently at war with one party and at piece with the other, it doesn’t matter which and it changes periodically.
a permanent state of war binds the population in nationalistic fervour and affords the rulers powers unavailable in piece time.
So, as you said yourself, Sweden and Finland joined NATO.
Pro Russian clowns like you would obviously claim that Sweden and Finland are mistaken.
But historical reality is of centuries of Russian genocidal imperialism.
That is why anyone who could joined NATO.
Pro Russian stooges, can try to wish away reality, but it didn’t work out well in Munich 1938 and it is not going to work now.
As Regan proved in 80s, the only language Russia understands is force.
There is no country or organization in the world that can talk to Russia from a position of strength.
Right now, only Russia and the United States can destroy the world alone.
How are the people with disabilities being cared for now in Ukraine? Just after the war started there were reports that they were being housed like animals and written off as to any possibility that they could achieve anything in life.
At least this is one area of life that progressivism in the UK has changed for the better.
On the issue of US and UK missiles used in support of the Kursk invasion, imagine how the UK government and public would react if Russia supplied missiles to Argentina to fire into the Falkland Islands in support of an Argentinian invasion.
In the face of the level of Western involvement in the Ukraine war, Russian restraint is remarkable. And remarkable for not being remarked on in the UK media with its stories of Russian aircraft approaching Britain as if it were 1940. The media goes full-on Paddington 2 mode. Mr Curry raising the panic level from occasional Zeppelin to Battle of Britain part deux and in full colour.
Examples from history always have to be treated with care. The duty that Britain had in 1914 according to the foreign secretary at the time was to France. Asquith added that Britain had no duty to Belgium. Today, the UK’s obligation is to Washington, not Ukraine.
It was observed at the time of the July crisis of 1914 that if the 1839 treaty with Belgium (originally to ensure Belgian independence from the Netherlands) had laid a military obligation on Britain, Gladstone would have not needed to temporarily replace this treaty with one that did.
Britain did not sleepwalk into the war in 1914. As in every capital, the decision was deliberate, and in London involved considerable dissimulation to negative the objections of the peace faction.
The efforts of President Woodrow Wilson to end the Great War on the grounds that no side had won came to nothing as neither side saw it in their advantage. Today, why would the Russians trust any Western participation in a peace treaty?
When were people with disabilities treated like animals in Britain?
A good summation, but the author doesn’t refer to the dangerous dabbling of the EU in these debateable territories. Von der Leyen was in Kyiv in October 2021, promising that the EU would guarantee Ukraine’s energy security if it turned away from Russia towards Europe. The same game is being played in Georgia and Rumania right now.
correction – for Rumania read Moldova.
The future of Ukraine is in Europe. The Russians are not a European people.
Then it follows that many Ukrainians are not a European people.
The “ethnically Russian” ones, maybe.
This is the best assessment of the war in Ukraine, its causes, and its unnecessary escalations I’ve read in a long time. A common sense, realistic, and pragmatic take.
Indeed. But all of this has been blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain since April 2022. Only now, once elite hubris has finally slammed into the brick wall of reality, are media commentators coming out with this kind of realist assessment. Where were you for the last two and a half years?
And as a former US diplomat I hope the author has been making these points in the strongest possible terms to his own government. Admittedly they would have fallen on deaf ears up to now, but there is a real opportunity for the new administration to disrupt the status quo and bring this miserable and totally unnecessary conflict to an end.
The point has been made many times previously by wise and experienced former diplomats eg Jack Matlock…all ignored as this will be…
They were on youtube, rumble, substack, etc. I have not followed legacy media for years – independent, critical thinking is now a “superpower”, having historically been a foundational skill. Teaching in HEd I recently researched teaching of critical thinking in British universities. Not a single Russell Group university has a mandatory module – they are all electives.
Very interesting. The elites are clearly happy to churn out propaganda fodder from our top universities. This explains a lot of what has happened to our society on the last two decades.
Yet more of this “Russia was provoked” nonsense.
Utter garbage.
Countries want to join NATO to avoid the threat of invasion by Russia. The Ukraine situation has demonstrated that there are good reasons for fearing that.
NATO that is North Atlantic Treaty Alliance
Now tell me why such a North Atlantic alliance is beavering away fastidiously expanding into The Indian and Pacific Ocean along with the South China seas
China shows tremendous restraint when warships of USA , Germany, Canada, UK , Denmark and other NATO members sail through the Tawain Straights
Waters that without doubt the Sovereign territories of China
Make no mistake about it
China has clearly stated that in the event of NATO ever establish offices or military facilities in South Asia and Japan that immediately China will destroy those facilities immediately and any who resist
Shall immediately have Total War declared upon them and on the basis of Unconditional Surrender
China is merely keeping the peace by way of it’s ancient wisdom of
Tis the Most Cleverest of Warriors who wins by merely placing his hand upon his Sword
That’s exactly what China has done and should NATO or the West ever think otherwise
Then they shall soon find that China withdraws it’s sword and
Slices the head off your Shoulders
The point of NATO was always to keep Russia down. The need for that hasn’t gone away.
It was to protect others including Turkey against the USSR. It lost its function once the USSR collapsed. I remember with glee hearing NATO find reasons to continue, in1992. There will be resource wars, pronounced the German faction, water wars will happen, we will be needed. However, NATO found its mission again in bombing Serbia, and helping to create Kosovo, a criminal conspiracy rather than a country.
The vast bulk of the people who populated the USSR still populate Russia. They are still as barbaric and untrustworthy as they always were. Nothing has changed.
And what’s the result
It’s China and Russia now brothers in Arms
Buffoons run the West
They know not of how they have shot themselves in the foot
I’d be exceptionally surprised if the Chinese actually trust the Russians. The Chinese are not idiots, and they know their history.
The aphorism was to “keep Russia out, Germany down and the Americans in.”
This is an idiotic comment. China shows ‘restraint’ when foreign ships pass through the Strait of Taiwan? You mean when they exercise their right to innocent navigation, as clearly laid down in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which China is a signatory to? Or when they travel to Taiwan’s territorial waters at the invite of the Taiwanese government – as is Taiwan’s right?
Both China and Russia are aggressive states developing pretexts for war, and their only ‘provocation’ is freedom from their control which both Ukrainians and Taiwanese wish to enjoy.
Tawain has no International rights
It has no Dept of Defence because that Ministry is in Being
China has openly stated that any who meddle in the Province
Of Taiwan in war like manners
Then China shall apply full force to defend it’s Sovereign territory of Taiwan
Tawain is forbidden by the UN to become a member along with membership of any International organisation within any links to the UN
CHINA always respects International maritime laws
Foreign ships? No foreign warships….not the same thing at all
UNCLOS makes clear that both civilian and military vessels have the right to innocent navigation.
China’s territorial waters extend 12nm from its coast, the Strait of Taiwan is around 90nm wide. If china is showing ‘restraint’ by not attacking foreign vessels outside its territory, the bar for ‘restraint’ is on the floor.
Quite hilarious, Doyle.
You you just another Chinkie troll.
Go back to troll school.
You fail basic international law test.
National waters of any nation don’t go past 12 miles.
That is why USA navy sails past Taiwan and Russian do the same in English Channel.
You moronic claims about what NATO should or should not do in Asia are just laughable.
None of your business.
Pretty obvious to anyone with half, or quoter of a brain.
What pro Russian stooges can not explain (I spoke to hundreds in London, unfortunately) is why Finland and Sweden joined NATO?
I asked this question many times on here and elsewhere and never got any answer.
So come on pro Russian clowns, could you tell us why Finland and Sweden joined NATO?
Because pro-American local elites took advantage of the shock of the war to force the population to make bad decisions.
This is – regrettably – a very convincing analysis, but it is missing the main point of this war.
It has always seemed tempting to propose a deal where Russia got Ukrainian demilitarisasion, Crimea, the Donbass, and some protection for linguistic minorites, and Ukraine in turn got freedom from future Russian interference and invasions. The problem is that Russia has no intention of accepting such a deal. Their red line is not Ukrainian neutrality, but Ukrainian subservience, and that makes any Russian concessions moot. Once it is clear that Russia is free to invade any time it feels like, Ukraine will have no more independence than East Germany had. Would a free and indepent Ukraine be able to decide to join up with the EU? Favour its national language and culture? Prosecute oligarchs with good connections in Moscow? Freely choose its own government? Once Russia was free to invade, Russia would have a veto over any of these decisions, either directly or though Russian-speaking oblasts controlled from Moscow. Western military involvement in Ukraine may feel provocative to Russia, but it is the only way to guarantee Ukrainian independence – since Russia is clearly not willing to allow it unless forced. It is Russia – not the west – that has chosen to close down all the alternatives.
As for Europe being safe from Russian expansion, that is highly dubious. Next step might be the Baltic states. You complain about persecution and Nazi regimes, send in the little green men to start fighting, and kindly offer Russian military protection. At the same time you ready the nukes, and challenge NATO to cross Russia’s ‘red lines’. People like Rundell will surely advise us that it is much safer to give Russia what it wants. And after that, Russia can go on to the next country, maybe Finland. Sooner or later Russia has to be convinced that continuing to expand will be too dangerous and costly. The Munich treaty gave Germany Chechoslovakia, plus resources and arms that they needed for the next war. It did not give us ‘peace in our time’, and in the end the war came under even worse conditions. Unless we want to give Putin a blank cheque we do have to think about when we plan on convincing him to stop.
The Munich Treaty gave Germany the Sudetenland which was majority ethnic German, not Czechoslovakia.
And shortly thereafter Czechoslovakia was conquered by Germany. They did not put up a fight because by now it was hopeless – all their border fortifications had been in the mountains in Sudetenland, and the other Euriopean powers were clearly not going to help. After which Czech tanks were a crucial ingredient in the German attacks on Poland and France.
Actually this is a pretty good parallel to the situation in Ukraine: Once Russia has the four border oblasts and has Ukraine demilitarised, they can, and will, swallow the rest at leisure.
So as I said, the Munich Agreement did not give Germany Czechoslovakia.
The Versailles Treaty allowed self determination for all peoples…except the German people. Land which was majority populated for centuries by German people was given to others…a recipe for the disaster which followed. The Sudetenland
problem was solved after WW2 by the expulsion or murder of the German population.
Incidentally France had rejected going to war for Czechoslovakia. No doubt it had suffered enough on the Great War.
Russia has made heavy going of things so far it is therefore extremely unlikely it can “swallow the rest” let alone hold territory with a majority Ukrainian population, unlike the Donbas with a majority Russian population.
You keep posting your pathetic Russian propaganda.
There is no Russian majority population in Donbas or Luhansk.
In 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum over 83% of population of Donbass and Luhansk voted to be part of Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for the same.
As for Germans?
They got away lightly after starting genocidal ww2.
Expulsion was the least they deserved.
Ever heard about plan East and Morgentau plan?
Russia held down East Germany and Poland – and they were not at all loved there. Currently they hold down Bielorussia and Chechnya – through intermediaries. The Assads held down Syria for a very long time, and they did not have a solid hinterland to fall back on. China is holding down its Muslim minorities. You would have to be a starry-eyed idealist to think that Russia could not keep control of Ukraine, the Baltic states etc. etc. And Putin is not.
As for the Versailles treaty, there are no neat solutions when empires break up or nationalism comes to areas with mixed populations. The problem was not that the poor Germans could not get self-determination, and giving them all the land with German-speakers would not have kept them from lusting for more. The problem was that Germany was big enough, widespread enough, ambitious enough, that they felt they could and should dominate Europe. Rather like Russia, actually.
I disagree with you on covid, always.
But this post is well argued.
Appeasing genocidal dictators never works in long term.
In terms of policy, Britain simply sleepwalks behind the United States. It shouldn’t be forgotten that back in October the US State Department blocked the supply of UK long-range department.
There is a feeling that the UK government of whatever colour is naive, potential reckless and puffed-up with a sense of old imperial importance. But nothing they say goes in terms of an overseas war in which they are no difectly involved. – and I doubt it did much more in Libya where France and the UK perenially waited on a green light (meaning US air support) from Mrs Clinton.
There is a worrying corollary to this sound analysis. As Rundell says, it is not Russia or Putin that are being faced with the choice between humiliation and nuclear war. Rather, it is NATO/the US. How will the US react?
Idiotic article.
“Why, Russian leaders ask, does a purely defensive alliance need to expand its membership?”
It’s not a case of the alliance wanting to expand its membership, it is countries outside the alliance and near to Russia wanting to join. They weren’t forced. So a better question would be to ask why those countries wanted to join NATO. Fear of Russia perhaps?
And why throw doubt on it being a defensive alliance wrt Russia? Until recently most countries, notably Germany, weren’t spending anything like the minimum amount on defence they were supposed to. The ones that were (eg Finland, Poland, the Baltics) are all near Russia. Perhaps Putin was worried that Lithuanua was going to march on Moscow? Did he think the populations of Western states would have supported an invasion of Russia whilst waving their rainbow flags?
“What is wrong with formal Ukrainian neutrality similar to that provided by the Austrian State Treaty of 1955?”
Austria didn’t have a border with Russia (USSR). Ukraine is not in such a privileged position and neutrality would not have been respected. It would’ve ended up like Belarus.
“Why was Nato giving Ukraine a wide range of weapons, training, and intelligence long before the Russian invasion?”
Gosh that’s a tough one. Perhaps because they wanted to support Ukraine because if taking Ukraine was successful, where would be next? A NATO country? Perhaps because there were Russian-backed separatists in the east of Ukraine already? That Crimea had been annexed already? That Russia considers Ukraine as Russian, as you even acknowledge with your reference to headlines in Moscow regarding Leopard tanks. That Putin has made it clear he wants to resurrect the geopolitical influence of the USSR? Basically because they saw the invasion coming.
“The idea that Putin plans to invade Europe is simply silly.”
What is silly is to say that something that has actually happened is silly. Do you not even realise that Ukraine is in Europe?
Putin has made clear that he views the events of 1990 as a disaster. It’s worth remembering that until then half of Europe, including much of Germany – including half of Berlin – was under direct or indirect Russian control. That’s the situation he wants to restore.
Yep, greatest geopolitical disaster of the century apparently. Not WW2 (which includes the holocaust), even though 20M or more Soviets died.
No he didn’t. He said the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy…an entirely different thing.
Well, of course the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy! I mean, it was working so well!
What he said was: “Anyone who does not grieve the demise of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it back has no brain.”
Now figure this out.
The Soviet Union was an entity of pure evil. To the extent that Russia is less evil, it is simply a question of scale. The best analogy is that Russia is Sauron, and the Soviet Union was Morgoth.
Yes, we Russians cut and kill. For the sake of the Empire’s power.
But you are masters of exploitation. Strangle with soft power. Your victims around the world are alive, but they are no better off for it. Your power is like Hell – terrible in its infinity.
Better to be part of the Empire than to let the corrupt officials of the deep state take your soul out.
Oh dear, where to start with this nonsense..
“Perhaps Putin was worried that Lithuanua (sic) was going to march on Moscow?” I’d suggest he was more worried that NATO would start deploying nukes in Ukraine within striking distance of Moscow (Cuban missile crisis ring any bells?). Or because “NATO was giving Ukraine a wide range of weapons, training, and intelligence long before the Russian invasion”.
“Do you not even realise that Ukraine is in Europe??”. It rather depends how you define Europe, but to argue that the Russian-speaking lands in Eastern Ukraine are “in Europe” or even in some way more European than Russian makes this a total non-starter.
“Putin has made it clear he wants to resurrect the geopolitical influence of the USSR?”. Indeed he has, and is doing exactly that thanks to the BRICS initiative and the ineptitude of Western governments in dealing with this crisis. There is zero evidence that he intends to invade a European country, and indeed the performance of his military in this particular conflict makes that idea even more ludicrous.
Are there US nukes in the Baltics? They’re as near to Moscow and nearer St Petersburg than Ukraine. They’ve been NATO members for 25 years – plenty of time to station nukes there if they wanted to.
Take a look at a map – Ukraine is in Europe. The only other options are Asia, Oceania, North and South America, Africa and Antartica. Let me know which one you think it’s in if it isn’t Europe. Even the heartlands of Russia are in Europe and Russia historically is very much a European country.
Again, this weird statement from the pro-Russia crowd that Russia has no intention to invade a European country when it already has.
The maps that I look at show the eastern border of Ukraine is further to the east than Moscow. That should tell you all you need to know about why Putin has consistently spelled out since 2004 that Ukraine in NATO is a red line for Russia.
That NATO chose to ignore this and plough ahead anyway is the underlying cause of this crisis, a fact that all those who are blind to history and think that it all started in 2022 or even 2014 also choose to ignore.
Culturally, Ukraine is in Europe, and Russia is….well…in Mordor,
To Sauron! For the glory of Melkor!
You have to admit that Putin has orcs in his service.
I support you in this debate, but I disagree that Russia is European country politically and culturally apart from 15% or 20% of population in big cities.
The rest are basically Mongol barbarians with no connections to Europe whatsoever.
Clearly explained in any true Russian history books.
It doesn’t matter who the people are by nationality, if they are ruled by Russians from the Kremlin.
The Mongols taught Russia to love freedom more than life. Thanks to them, we know what military weakness for the sake of commerce is fraught with. That’s why we don’t have a deep state, and Europe is controlled by it.
As a result, the Russian Federation is freer and, therefore, in a certain sense, more civilized than the West.
Since Ukraine is in Europe, you fail basic test of geography.
Whereas Russia was never part of Europe politically or culturally.
Just read Putin apologists like Dugin.
What is those other countries’ fear based on? In 20+ years, Putin has not attacked any European state, least of all Finland or Sweden. If the West was so intent on supporting Ukraine, perhaps it could stop meddling in the nation’s affairs and toppling govts not to its liking. Or perhaps not insisting that it join NATO, knowing full well how the West would react to a Russian or Chinese equivalent on its borders.
We’re literally commenting on an article largely dealing with the consequences of Putin attacking a European state in the last 20 years.
Aside from that, the fear is based on recent experience of dismal Russian control and events like the Holodomor. That’s why Ukrainians supported their own coup, because they could see themselves being pulled back into the Russian sphere and didn’t want it.
NATO doesn’t insist anyone joins it, except perhaps Iceland. Ireland, Switzerland and Austria are neutral, so were Finland and Sweden until recently. The countries that join want to join. If you thought about it, that would answer your own questions.
Ukraine is not a European state in the sense that it is too close to Moscow.
It is not clear why you refuse us, Russians, our rather modest red lines? After all, if we are defeated, your deep state will devour you. Competition from us is beneficial to you. We are the guarantee of your relative freedom.
Oh, of course! That’s right! NATO forced Sweden and Finland to join!
Great post.
Somehow there are 36 (at the time of writing) pro Russian clowns on here downvoting you for stating basic facts about centuries of Russian genocidal imperialism.
Yes, we Russians cut and kill. But for the sake of the Empire’s power. But you are masters of exploitation. Strangle with soft power. Your victims around the world are alive, but they are no better off for it. Your power is like Hell – terrible in its infinity.
Better to be part of the Empire than to let the corrupt officials of the deep state take your soul out.
At long last and from a Western Commentator the blunt and raw truth packed with facts and not a hint of propaganda
No axe being ground here
Almost equal to a Scientific Academic Research Paper
Now here’s a Universal truth that once more Western War Mongers and their wealthy elite sponsors
In Defence Industries overlook
In their lust to add to their wealth pile
A golden rule in War that no matter how many battles you win
It’s the last battle of any war that must be won
Who wins that Last battle
Tis the one who not only but actually increases their losses in personell and equipment better than the losers
Now go apply that to
Ukraine
Vietnam
Korea
Afghanistan
Iraq
You got it
Well then who won and who lost
Not the West
But yet still.Our Government’s and Thier little MSM lapdogs keep banging the drums of War
And us the Citezens keep paying.dearly as we enrich the wealthy and powerful elite who’s
Sole purpose is to increase their wealth
Without a care for humanity and always in the end forced to runaway leaving one helluva mess behind
Now we currently being primed to deal with this so called China Threat
Well carry on listening but before you let out your War Cries
Go back and consider this
Who can not only replenish but actually increases their losses in personell and equipment
Only one possible answer
China China China
Drop the drumsticks and burn your war drums NOW
Du you have a defective keyboard? It seems to be permanently set on double spacing and limited words to a line. It’s extremely difficult to read so I, for one, will be giving your posts a miss henceforth.
Maybe it’s a haiku.
Stop pretending to be Brian on the Dole.
You are just pathetic Chinkie troll.
You have no sex (since Chinese kill so many girls) and you resent the West.
Because you sell to us what you manufacture from stolen Western technology.
Without the West buying your stuff you would be bankrupt.
Now with Trump in charge you will be soon.
So slurp your noodles and bug*er off.
Now that one IS a haiku! I love it!
The most realistic article I have read about Ukraine in a long time
For once, we see some sensible jounalism about the Ukraine war.
I would say I hope the author spends the money he got from Putin for writing it wisely.
The FBS couldn’t have written a better bit of Putin propaganda.
Total tosh. Ukraine has a right to self determination. It just wants help in weaponry. If providing that makes UK at war with Russia then China, Iran and N Korea are at war with Ukraine. Which side is this surrender monkey of a commentator on? Did he not also see what Russia did in Bucha? It never tried to just take a couple of eastern regions, it went straight for Kyiv.
Yanokovych was expelled by a popular uprising of Ukrainian people who did not want a mafia stooge of Putin.
Putin been attacking UK for some time via Cyber warfare, and even left Plutonium in places with no regard to potential consequences. Let’s wake up.
Whilst on it – there was never any agreement made by the West re: NATO membership. It’s a fiction without substance. Sometimes a discussion James Baker had with Gorbachev referred to. Bush, (POTUS) rejected the proposition. And who can blame Ukraine for wanting to be a member – look what happens to those that are not.
There will be an armistice at some point, much like in Korea. Weakening Ukraine is not the way to get that. Deterrence has to be meaningful. Weakness is provocation.
As regards the Nuclear sabre rattling – designed to intimidate nothing more. Clearly works with this Author.
So, you and the Maverick character refuse to believe reality. If the West is so interested in Ukraine’s self-determination, NOT staging coups of its govt would be a good step forward. NOT insisting that it become a NATO member would likewise be beneficial. For some reason, I doubt the US would take kindly to foreign bases marshaled in Canada or Mexico, nor would England like to see them in Ireland, Northern or the Republic of.
V confused post that AL, showing you have little grasp of the reality. NATO has never insisted Ukraine become a member. Ukraine is entirely within it’s right to decide if it needs to ally with others because of Russia’s history of oppressing adjacent states, which is extensive.
Yanukovych had to be got rid of, because he was a Russian stooge (something which should be retrospectively obvious given that he fled to Russia).
Yes Ukraine had a right of self determination…but an elected President was overthrown in a coup…not so much self determination.
….a Russian stooge was overthrown. Just like in Syria. Guess what – they both ended up in the same place.
Do the people of Donbass and Crimea have the right to self-determination?
Yes, although there is a difficulty in conducting a fair and open plebiscite. Medium term that could happen and might be part of any negotiation.
Crimea held its first referendum on secession from Ukraine back in 1991. And the second in 2014. In the presence of international observers. So did Donetsk and Luhansk. No one will hold new referendums just to convince someone in Britain.
But there was already Ukrainian independence referendum in 1991.
Both Donbass and Luhansk voted over 83% for being part of Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for it.
So it was overwhelming on side of Ukraine.
Referendum now, after Russia ethically clense the regions and kidnap tens of thousands of children, would be a farce.
Anyway, what about Russia allowing referendums in Chechnia and rest of Kaukazus?
Turkey and Iran and Iraq in Kurdish regions?
China in Tebet and Uighurs region?
I agree, but I suspect realpolitik means a re-run might be part of negotiations, although how a free and fair plebiscite could take place I don’t know.
What about reading up on recent history before posting.
There was Ukrainian independence referendum in 1991.
Over 83% of Donbass and Luhansk voted to be part of Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for it.
So yes people of this regions of Ukraine had a choice and voted against joining Russia.
Since you are so keen on self-determination can you tell us whether China should stop occupying Tebet and Uighurs region?
What about Turkey, Iran and Iraq giving independence to Kurds?
What about Russia allowing independence referendums in Chechnia and the rest of Kaukazus?
You are manipulating. In 1991, the referendum did not propose joining the Russian Federation. It only established the state of Ukraine. A formal question. People were presented with a fait accompli.
But a year earlier, there was a more fateful referendum on preserving the USSR (i.e. the Moscow government) and there 70% voted “Yes”. Alas, the opinion of the people was ignored. The usual corruption of global secret “trading” forces. The other day, something similar happened in Romania.
I rarely agree with you but this is great post.
Making Putin feel existentionally threatened is dumber than dumb. We should have listened to Corbyn, about this and maybe even more presciently about Palestine. Looks like we’re now Orwell’s Oceania, or near as dammit, and we can’t think or talk straight anymore.
Yes, we must give in to Putin in 2024, because giving in to Hitler in 1938 worked so well.
So…not yet gone to fight? Plenty of time left to get there…
It gave the UK time to rearm, something the Labour Party refused to countenance. The Communist party opposed the war up to Germany’s invasion of Russia.
It gave Germany time to rearm too. The Communist Party opposed the war because it had an agreement with Hitler (which Hitler admittedly breached, but what did they expect?)
I for one am not prepared to fight for this country and neither are my sons
I doubt you will be drafted, but surely we can at least give Ukraine some missiles that can be used to strike Moscow and St Petersburg.
You can of course have that view, but you do realise that by the laws of war, your country is making itself a belligerent, and Russia has every right to strike back at you.
Really? Then the West should surely be blasting Russia following years of terror attacks using AK47s and other Russian supplied matériels. So I ask again: really?
Yes, really.
The international law assessment is one thing. The real life war assessment is another completely.
We in the West can thank our lucky stars that the Russian political and military leadership is calm, rational, and thinks strategically, completely unlike the coterie of clowns, amateurs, obscurantists, panjandrums, propagandists and warmongers that makes up our “leaders”. If it weren’t for the Pentagon, we’d all be dead.
Hey, my view is that the US should have nuked Russia in ’48. That would have saved the world a lot of trouble.
“Why, Russian leaders ask, does a purely defensive alliance need to expand its membership?” The answer, obviously enough, is that Russia is a nation of barbarians led by a warmongering tyrant who invades its neighbors on a whim. I might be paraphrasing, but I think that would broadly be what the Swedes and the Finns would say if they were asked why they recently joined.
Perhaps you can remind the commentariat when during his 20+ years in power, the ‘warmongering tyrant’ invaded a single neighbor on a whim. And while you’re fantasizing about giving Ukraine missiles to strike Moscow, keep in mind that striking back might mean a Russian strike into London, since “we” decided to become a belligerent.
How telling that the downvoters cannot provide an example of Russian neighbors being invaded on a whim.
What’s your issue? That the invasions of Georgia and Ukraine weren’t on a whim but were in fact planned?
The EU investigated the 2008 war in Georgia and determined that Georgia had attacked, not Russia.
The EU commission noted, “Georgia did not use force against Russian troops on Russian territory, but only on Georgian territory.”
Now, what might it mean that the Russian troops were only attacked in Georgia?
Georgia attacked Russian peacekeepers in separatist South Ossetia. 30 years ago, after the collapse of the USSR, Georgia began ethnic cleansing in the area. Because the people of Ossetia are a separate people who speak their own language. Georgia wanted to force Ossetians to become Georgians. Russian peacekeepers have been stationed there ever since.
None of which answers the question of why the Georgians attacked the Russians at that time. Which resulted in a war and partial Russian occupation. How nice and convenient for the Russians.
All these situations around the world are the same. The poor, hard done by Russians feel threatened and they just have to invade someone else’s country as a consequence.
Ask the Georgians and Saakashvili, to whom the US has promised full support.
There was no occupation of Georgia. In 5 days Russia restored order and returned to the same positions that the peacekeepers occupied at the beginning of the conflict.
Do you feel threatened when your peacekeepers are hit by tank shells? Do you need to do something in this case or should you wait until everyone is killed?
‘Russian peacekeepers’ – that’s an oxymoron if I ever saw one.
I have to commend you for your mastery of disinformation tactics – I am old enough to have been trained in identifying agitprop, and you have just delivered an example. A ham-fisted one, but still.
Russian troops were in South Ossetia as peacekeepers. You may not like that or refuse to acknowledge that, but it’s still a fact.
It is these peacekeepers that Saakashvili, then President of Georgia, had his troops attack. The Georgian army did remarkably well, but Russia soon gathered forces and smashed through the Georgian troops. Having taught Georgia a stinging lesson, Russia withdrew its troops to where they had started.
Saakashvili actually believed Dubbya when he said the US would stand behind Georgia. But when the US says “Let’s you and he fight”, that’s precisely what they mean. Georgians paid the price for it, and did not thank Saakashvili.
And they seem to have learnt their lesson, and are not keen to repeat it, never mind Samantha Powers’ earnest and Ursula’s strident encouragements.
So the bottom line of the EU’s investigation remains: The hostilities were precipitated by Georgia. Not Russia.
I wonder why the Georgians wanted to attack ‘peacekeepers’? Do you think they were provoked and fell into Putin’s trap?
I’ll play – let us assume it was a Russian trap. What did Russia gain? Militarily and territorially, Russia withdrew to the status quo ante.
Georgia still has no diplomatic relations with Russia, and is still on an EU accession trajectory. The reason accession has stalled is because the EU won’t take “yes” for an answer and is pulling new conditions out of its hat faster than Georgia can say “yes”.
What Russia did achieve was to show up the “iron-clad US support” (not the US’ words, they were far more circumspect, but it’s what Saakashvili heard) as hollow.
It’s the lesson the South Vietnamese learnt, and the Laotians and the Cambodians, and the Iraqi Shias and Kurds, and the anti-Taliban Afghanis, etc. It’s the lesson that is dawning on the Ukrainians, and which the Syrian Kurds are dreading. And which Ursula, in her mania, cannot even conceive.
In 1991, Moscow forcibly deprived Georgia of part of its territory. And we are accused of this. But what options do we have? We need to keep our neighboring countries as a buffer, because otherwise the “trade alliance” of the West will swallow us up like everyone else.
Incidentally, now the Georgians are almost officially thanking us for keeping them from joining NATO back then.
The endless manipulations of our opponents no longer work for the elites of the global south. But why are the Europeans so trusting? Because they get part of the benefits?
Really?
Finland 1939.
Baltic States 1940.
Romania 1940.
Poland 1939 as ally of Germany.
Hungary 1956.
Czechoslovakia 1968.
Threats against Poland in 1956 and 1980.
Just because pro Russian clowns like you choose arbitrary timeliness it does change the nature of genocidal Russian imperialism.
Where’s the genocide?
If we can arbitrarily go back in history, can I counterpropose some eternal imperial ambitions of some Western actors?
It’s not that I don’t like playing this game, it’s the myopia I can’t deal with.
Yes, it is true that you can prove anything in history by using particular point in time.
However, in the last 100 years, it was Germany and its allies like Russia, Japan and Italy which invaded other countries to conquer their lands.
OK, China did as well with Tibet.
Other Western powers gave up their imperial ambitions from 60s onwards.
They gave them up only because they were exhausted by World War II and could no longer maintain power in the colonies.
However, many retained overseas territories, as well as strong influence on governments. France, for example, does not allow African countries to use their money, which is stored in France under strange agreements.
Colonialism now looks different. Not direct control over territories, but socially acceptable. For example, supporting political leadership in the countries you need, including dictators. In return, these countries sell you resources for next to nothing. For example, Niger sold uranium to France for 8% of the market value. What is this if not robbery?
The same colonialism, only disguised by a couple of layers of complexity.
Somehow you got 22 downvotes from pro Russian clowns.
I asked hundreds of times on here and elsewhere:
Why Sweden and Finland joined NATO?
I never received an answer.
Obviously, because whether you are Russian stooge or a moron, answer is clear.
Russia is genocidal, terrorist dictatorship.
“Russians believe they are fighting a war for survival against a corrupt, godless, and implacable West.”
And they are not wrong
Bollocks!
Was that an anagram?
Best article on Ukraine I have seen in the mainstream media. Excellent analysis.
I always thought it was daft for the US to provoke Russia by meddling in the Ukraine years ago, because it would alienate them from the West and drive them into the arms of China, which is what we are now seeing.
With US foreign policy, the cardinal principle is to preserve dollar reserve supremacy: When Saddam rashly started dealing oil in Euros, it was only a matter of time before he would be clobbered. Whan Ghaddafi started planning an African bank, to sidestep the dollar, one knew it wouldn’t be long before he came a cropper.
Likewise, ever since Iran and Russia also started planning an exchange rate system independent of the dollar, it was obvious they were due for a spanking, although it was less clear in their case how the US would or could achieve that. But I guess we are now seeing the result, in both the Middle East and Ukraine.
I am delighted to finally read an article which sensibly encapsulates my day 1 view of the Ukrainian conflict and look forward to a sustainable peace agreement in 2025.
So how this sustainable peace agreement would work?
I guess like Munich one in 1938?
Ukraine was given guarantees in Budapest memorandum of 1994 of territorial integrity in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons.
Please tell us how it worked out?
I an not great fan of North Korea or Iran but it is obvious why these countries want or have nukes.
He’s wrong. Putin will go after the Baltics if he gets Ukraine.
Piwer walking, not sleepwalking.
Ukraine is not Europe, neither is Armenia or Moldova. They’re all Russian satellites, so leave them to Russia. 2tier can’t fire a Storm Shadow or Trident (who knows if they even work ?) without USA consent, owning the guidance and warheads as they do. The West lost all credibility when it was supine over the Crimean invasion in 2014. Take care of our interests and build coal power stations using the 200 yrs of reserves and take ownership of our national energy in a similar way to Sth. Korea and Japan. Stop all the distractions with transfags/DEI , grow up and defend our country as statesmen and quit prancing around dressed as clowns. These wars are not ours, keep out of them, get over the failure of Aden and take care our own.
A very garbled post, where I probably agree with the motivation, but disagree with the argumentation.
Armenia and Moldova are absolutely European. Armenia – along with Georgia – is among the earliest Christian kingdoms, and very much integral to European culture. Russia as well is inextricably European, which does not mean its Asian links and elements must be rejected or denied.
Many of our European nations have been profoundly influenced by their non-European involvements – for the “targets”, the issue is colonialism, but you cannot today go to Spain, Portugal, Britain, France, or the Netherlands (etc.) and not be struck how their architecture, their language, and not least their cuisine have been influenced by these “extraneous” encounters.
One of the “cultural contributions” Europe made to world history is ideologically motivated and determined internecine warfare. I’d like to argue that is not an institution worth nurturing.
I’m not sure that Russia is stronger than we think but Britain, through inadequate leadership and a pretty awful media, seems unable to get itself out of this mess. Part of the reason is the influence of the mass media or perhaps I should say twenty-four hour media. In the past, PMs, Ministers and other “important” people did not give hostages to fortune on a daily basis.
Pathetic and delusional attempt at appeasing Russia.
For a start, how come ignoring Germany attack on Belgium in ww1 and Poland (with Russia) in ww2 would bring peace?
It was too late for that.
Secondly, supposed diplomat, should know some basic facts.
1) USA guaranteed territorial integrity of Ukraine in 1994 Budapest memorandum.
2) in 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum both Donbas and Luhansk voted over 83% for being part of Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for the same.
So claiming that there was any legal majority for any part of Ukraine to be part of Russia is blatant lie.
The bigger problem is delusion that Russian invasion of Ukraine is about some bits of territory.
It is about destruction of Ukraine as a country and genocide of Ukrainian people (as happened before in 1930s under Stalin).
Then is the issue of what next?
Believing that Putin would stop at Ukraine if successful is delusional.
The same delusions were driving appeasers in Munich in 1938.
Appeasers in USA ignored danger till Pearl Harbour happened.
I agree with much of this article, but I have to draw the line at the assertion that Russia was provoked into invading Ukraine. While there is an element of truth to this, the article ignores entirely the nuance and complexity involved in understanding the issue.
Actually it’s not that complex, it’s simply this: if you poke the bear, it will eventually attack you. The fact that you meant the bear no real harm isn’t relevant, what’s relevant is that it’s a bear, of immense strength and aggression, but lacking the intelligence to understand your own motives.
So it is with Russia and NATO. The post-Soviet world in which the newly formed Russia was shunned by Western policymakers was a mistake on the part of the West. Communism had collapsed without the need for a world war, but the ensuing western triumphalism mostly ignored the fact that it would never have happened if not for the actions of thousands of Russians who brought about the internal changes in the USSR that made its peaceful dissolution possible.
It’s almost hard to believe now, but there was a time when even Russia wanted to join NATO and could probably have done so. The reason the reverse happened is that amateurish western strategists continued to categorise Russia and communism the same way, instead of realising that while Russia still existed, soviet communism was dead.
So, we’ve had 30 years of expanding NATO while treating Russia as a pariah state, and now we’re surprised that Russia behaves like a pariah state? This is very silly. And I can say this while maintaining that although Russia was provoked into invading Ukraine, it was still nevertheless wrong to be provoked. NATO could have expanded all the way up to every Russian border in Europe and still Russia would not have had to fear NATO aggression, but the point is that only we in the West believe this. Expecting Russia to take our word for it when it persistently signalled that it would not and could not take our word for it, was a colossal mistake.
And even without the West’s defence that our Russian-perceived “aggression” wasn’t really aggression, none of that entitles Russia to decide that it will invade Ukraine, because irrespective of Putin’s claims about Greater Russia and the Kievan Rus etc, Ukrainians themselves do not accept they are Russian and do not want to be governed and controlled by Russia. That, above all else, settles the matter of who’s right and wrong here.
The whole point of NATO is to keep Russia down. How would that work if Russia was in NATO? Maybe it could promise to keep itself down!
It is not that hard to believe that Russia would have liked to join NATO. Once they were inside, NATO would have been unable to do anything to them, no matter what they did. If the mafia wants to have representatives in the police it is not because they want to help uphold the law.
As a sensible and balanced person, can you imagine a potential history where Russia would *not* have insisted on being treated like a superpower with its own sphere of influence – and thus on getting back control of its neighbours? And how would that have looked? What would the west have had to do to get there?
I had no idea that there were so many Russian trolls here.
Seriously? How long have been on here? Five minutes?
There’s probably only a few Russian trolls, the rest are just fools. They should do themselves a favour, take a sedative and go back to the mainstream media.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What amazes me is those posting negative comments. I cannot believe that there are people so determined to ignore the truth. It is frankly terrifying.
It’s not so much “sleepwalking” as “wokewalking”
What on earth has “woke” got to do with fighting the Russians?
I think this article is well argued on the whole. But the suspicion remains that, as with Meersheimer, many critics of Western policy go well beyond this to parrot Kremlin propagandistic talking points. Firstly the first aggression against Ukraine was in 2014 not in 2022. The West responded weakly then.
Secondly the case that Ukraine isn’t worth defending because it’s not a perfect country, it’s undemocratic, that it’s corrupt etc. For goodness sake, it is fighting an existential war, yet remains much more democratic and freer than its giant neighbour. Ukraine has moved in a far more liberal direction elections etc since the fall of Communism than Russia has. Of course on these grounds it was not justified for Britain to declare war on Germany in 1939 because Poland was then a military dictatorship.
Putin has already invaded Europe? In 2014, and in 2022.
This article is not convincing. NATO is a defensive alliance. Ukraine was not about to join NATO. Whether Russia felt threatened, or not, it does not excuse in any way the invasion, or the widespread war crimes. I also don’t see why the size of an economy is directly relevant to who would win a war. Surely industrial capacity and the system of government is much more relevant?