Main Edition
US
FR
September 8, 2024 - 5:00pm
When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, it did so as a far larger, richer and more powerful nation than its victim, with greater resources of manpower, industrial capacity and raw materials than the Kyiv government could ever hope to wield. For all the shifting tides of the war so far, this essential imbalance has not changed. Now it’s finally bearing fruit for Moscow.
Ukraine’s Kursk incursion has been characterised as a strategic misstep, denuding the defensive lines of the vital manpower necessary to blunt Russia’s advance along the eastern front. But it has not altered the essential dynamics of the war, only accelerated existing trends.
The Kursk operation, of which the United States was not informed in advance, has been framed as an attempt to enter the direct peace talks with Russia mooted for this autumn with a strong hand to play. As the analysts Rob Lee and Michael Kofman note, “The timing and organization of the offensive suggests that Ukraine’s leaders judged they needed to act. One possible reason is the looming US election, which threatens to push Kyiv into negotiations with Moscow while in a position of weakness.” Yet as they observe, “the offensive puts into sharp relief the apparent lack of an agreed strategy between Ukraine and its Western partners […] This turn of events should lead to a revision of the current strategy in this war, assuming one exists.” As it stands, “Kyiv’s present theory of success remains unclear.”
Yet the same is true for the country’s Western backers. Following the failure of the 2023 counteroffensive — which had been planned to break through the Russian lines in southern Ukraine, enabling Kyiv to enter peace negotiations from a position of strength — there has been no credible plan for a Ukrainian victory. Instead there has been only a series of stopgap and increasingly contested arms deliveries geared towards staving off defeat. The Biden administration, legally obliged to present Congress with a detailed, realistic strategic pathway towards the war’s victorious conclusion by June this year, still has not done so. Simply put, this is because such a plan does not exist.
The strategic vision for 2024 was to blunt Russia’s offensive power, forcing Moscow into peace talks through a realisation that Kyiv’s ability to defend its territory imposed higher costs in manpower and materiel than Russia could long sustain. Bold plans for another major counteroffensive in 2025, once Russia’s offensive power had been exhausted, had been mooted by analysts but never seemed particularly convincing. Yet the fresh units on which this strategy relied are instead being sent piecemeal into the meat-grinder of the eastern front.
While running out of motivated recruits, Ukraine has been forced to use its needed reserves and most hardened and effective brigades to plug gaps in the defensive line, wearing away their combat effectiveness. The Russian army is making daily gains along the eastern front, bringing its greater material advantages to bear. With great effort, and at great cost, the Ukrainian army is defending its positions, yet remains outgunned and outnumbered by Russia’s superior resources. Rather than building up the necessary strength for a new offensive push next year, Ukraine is struggling, at its very limit, to prevent a Russian operational breakthrough beyond its decade-old fortified defensive line.
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.
SubscribeSome good points made here. Not mentioned but pertinent is that this war has been fought for more than 10 years now, not just 2. In some respects it’s a civil war. The kind of war that can smolder and flame for generations. And a war that defies planning.
We don’t need a plan to end this war. We need a US president who steps in as an honest broker to negotiate a settlement. Joe Biden has been missing in action, and Kamala Harris would be even worse, but Donald Trump has the right idea. He would get right to work. Not with a plan, but with a process.
My knowledge of what is happening in Ukraine is all second- or third-hand. People with more knowledge than me seem to have opinions on plans that range all over the map. Politics seems to influence what they say as much as fact.
I will say this — Donald Trump’s approach seems the most sensible to me. Talk to Volodymyr Zelensky. Talk to Vladimir Putin. Try to work out some sort of deal. End the killing and set the stage for the two countries to live together, as neighbors, in peace.
Finding a solution will not be easy. At this point it’s impossible to say what solution can be found. But that’s usually the way it is in negotiation. You find solutions by talking.
To quote the fictional ambassador Hal Wyler in the fine Netflix show The Diplomat, “one of the boneheaded truisms of foreign policy is that talking to your enemies legitimizes them. Talk to everyone! Talk to the dictator and the war criminal. Talk to terrorists. Talk to everyone!” Or Moshe Dayan: “If you want peace you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”
War is not a good way to settle disputes. Talking is.
Quite a convincing article, unfortunately.
But do try to mobilise some basic honesty, here. You already know what Putin wants. He wants Ukraine to be militarily defenseless and run by a government that takes orders from Moscow. Maybe like East Germany back then, or Bielorussia or Chechnya now. And once he gets that it will make no difference whatsoever what else he has promised, since his puppet government in Kyiv will give him whatever he wants anyway.
‘Talking’ in this case means pressuring Ukraine to surrender and join the new Russian Empire. There is no other ‘solution’. All Trump can do is to gain some short-term advantage to US business or (more likely) a nice warm ego boost.
Vladimir Putin may want what you say (though how you would know what Vladimir Putin wants escapes me). In negotiations what one party wants doesn’t matter much. What matters is what they will accept. And that’s what you need negotiations to find out.
I’ve been involved in many negotiations over the decades. That’s basically what I did as a lawyer, and I can tell you that there is indeed an art of the deal. Donald Trump is good at it — one of the best I’ve seen. Joe Biden is terrible at it — one of the worst I’ve seen.
Look at what Donald Trump did when he was in office. In 2018 he criticized Germany for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and said they needed to stop putting their neck in Vladimir Putin’s noose. He got laughed at, literally, for his prescience.
Donald Trump tried to keep talks with Vladimir Putin going, meeting with him in Helsinki and trying to get Russia back in the G8. Others torpedoed those efforts. Too bad. Vladimir Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if we had been smarter. That I’m pretty sure of.
Donald Trump showed with his negotiations with Kim Jong Un that he is a shrewd bargainer and no fool. This war is going to end by negotiation at some point. Best to get started now.
(Though if Kamala Harris wins the election, God help us all. Can you imagine her negotiating with Vladimir Putin? That boggles the mind.)
“(though how you would know what Vladimir Putin wants escapes me)”
That’s easy, you idiot. Listen to what he says, watch what he does, and don’t be an idiot.
A comment that only reveals how much out of your depth you are – as per usual. Don’t bother replying with your usual snivels.
UHuh, sure. You’ll prove that like you do all your warm blanket of lies — not at all.
So you believe that Putin only started his special military operation because he had, as he said, no other choices to what had happened and was happening in Ukraine. So a just war then and we should ensure he wins?
No, he said he would retake the Russian Empire — and that is why he invaded.
Your faith in the Donald is touching, but some evidence would help. Did the US get anything – anything at all – from Kim Young-un’ in return for the massive propaganda boost of holding a one-to-one summit in the first place? What would have prevented Putin from invading Ukraine anyway – giving him the country without a fight?
As for what Putin wants, it is like Talia Perkins has said. He has told us. He wants Ukraine ‘demilitarised and denazified’, which mean unable to defend itself and with a governing class purged of anyone who is not pro-Russian. He believes that there is no such things as Ukrainian nation, since they are a kind of Russians anyway, so he wants them Russified. Again, he has told us. His justifications for the war may be baloney, but his stated goals are not.
For the rest, what can Russia get that makes this very expensive war worth while? If it was just getting Russian-speakers back to Russia they could have stopped with Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk – which they already had and were going to keep before this latest invasion. If they wanted safety and a stable peace, they could surely have got one – if they had been willing to give some reliable safety guarantees in return. Full control of Ukraine gives them money, power, (those food exports) strategic depth, … Note they still hold TransDniestr – on the other side of Ukraine. What is that for, if not to project power? And how much more would it be worth if they had all the intermediate land in the Ukraine as well?
As for what Russia will accept – well, they will only reduce their demands if they can see they cannot get more at an acceptable cost. Forcing down their demands would require the US to convince them that they cannot win – and being willing to pay the cost. Promising a quick negotiation and immediate peace means promising Russia they can get what they want.
Sure, sometimes the best you can do is to fold if you cannot or will not pay the cost of fighting. The US did that in South Vietnam and in Afghanistan, betraying its friends in the process. In those cases it was probably unavoidable. Now? If you think the best you can do is to hand a huge victory to Russia and show the world that the US is not going to stand against aggressive empires grabbing their neighours (Taiwan?), then you are free to argue for it. Only, please, have the honesty to call things by their right name, instead of hiding behind your faith that the great deal-makes Donald can make it any other than a victory for your enemies.
We know what the Russians would have accepted in March 2022 as they’d outlined it in the Turkey talks (scuppered eventually by Bozo Johnson flying to Kiev). Once the war continued, those demands changed.
This is really a bit of a myth. I am pretty sure Boris Johnson, the weak leader of a state with a not especially powerful military could not have done this. It is true the Americans might have, though of course they have a track record of letting down their friends and allies they first lead up the garden path (eg the Kurds). This is probably inevitable given the extremely contested politics of the US and focus on their huge domestic population, market and society, but there it still is.
Johnson may have been just a paid messenger…who has recently bought a very expensive house…
Go figure…
Why shouldn’t he buy an expensive house? Ex-PMs have good earning power (just ask Tony Blair).
Certainly nowadays PMs who have done well for the uber wealthy class…
Well, at the very least, they get good jobs as consultants, or make money on the “rubber chicken circuit”, and (love him or hate him), Boris is an entertaining speaker.
You really think that Boris Johnson is so powerful that he can swan in, wave his hand, and scupper a peace deal that both sides want?
The Russians had Crimea before the current invasion but not Luhansk and Donetsk. Further, worth recalling that Russia gifted Crimea to Ukraine in 1955 under Khrushchev, and Khrushchev, the premier of the Soviet Union at the time, was himself Ukrainian!. Which just goes to show that the current Ukrainian war is indeed a civil was involving the Rus. The analogous situation pertaining to the UK is if Scotland would declare independence and then enter into a military agreement with either Russia or China with Russian or Chinese Nukes stationed in Scotland. Put things in that perspective and I think one can see where the Russians are coming from with respect to Ukraine and US interference there.
The analogous situation would be a war between the UK and Ireland, Pakistan and Bangla Desh, or Austria and Hungary. Neither case is a civil war (these are not the same nation or the same people). In neither case is there an actual military threat – there was no mention of nukes, and the only reason for Ukraine to join NATO was that they clearly, urgently, needed protection against Russian aggression.
If you want to understand this, you should see it as a fight between the successor states of a defunct (Russian) empire. That explains why both Ukraine and Russia can have reasonable claims on Crimea, and why it is not completely obvious what would be the ‘just’ collocation of Luhansk and Donetsk with all their Russian-speakers. Which would still not justify a war of conquest, of course.
Russia had actual control of Luhansk and Donetsk (via proxy militias) before the most recent invasion, and there was little prospect of them ever being pushed out. If that was all they had wanted there would have been no reason for additional wars.
I don’t think the Scottish would consider that they were either the same nation or same people as the English!! And other than that you are completely off-base historically. Ukraine and Russia are intertwined and Kiev is the birth place of the Russian people (Kiev Rus). So what excatly are you talking about other than displaying your complete, boneheaded ignorance, on the subject, just as you have done with so many other matters where you have been proven wrong time and time again.
I am always glad when you fall back on insults – it is an admission that you do not have any arguments 😉
The Scottish only stand out because they are still in the same nation as the English so here (and only here) you could still talk about ‘civil war’. Ukrainians are not Russians any more than the Irish are English. As for being ‘intertwined’, that is nothing special. The heart of Finnish nationalism is in Karelia (now in Russia). The heart of Serbian nationalism in in Kosovo (inhabited by Albanians). Having your national myth and nationalistic propaganda bound up with someone else’s territory does not give you any special rights of conquest. Spain was Muslim, once, Turkey was Christian, and Constatinople and Smyrna were great, Greek cities. The losers have come to terms with their loss by now. The Russians can do likewise.
Khrushchev was not exactly Ukrainian. He was Russian from the opposite bank of the Don to Ukraine proper. It was all USSR when he grew up and he was an enthusiastic supporter of Stalin (himself a Georgian, but ‘identified’ as a Soviet). Khrushchev became Stalin’s right hand and was sent to Stalingrad as a super political commissar to command the military resistance.
That generation who fought against Hitler remade themselves into Soviets whatever their ethnic background. In the world of music Emil Gilels (nee Samuel Hillels in Odessa) played concerts across the front for the Red Army and was pictured with his piano seated on the turret of a tank.
Yes negotiations eventually, though there were none with the Hitler regime, but it has to be at the right time; if all we needed to do was ‘negotiate’ (on what basis?) then wars would all finish as soon as they started. In addition, Donald Trump has the attention span of a goldfish, and is mostly completely uninterested in either the culture war or geopolitical views of his supporters, China possibly excepted. Donald Trump cares mostly about himself – what more evidence of this do we need? But is he actually such a great negotiator? His business record doesn’t entirely bear that out.
A position of strength for Ukraine means a long term commitment by the US to support the settlement, the Europeans being too pacific, wishful thinking and militarily ill prepared to do so. Whether Trump, Harris or someone else, you can grand stand as much as you like in the negotiations, but if you have jo long term plan Vladimir Putin or his successors can wait and just have another go in a few years – after all there has been two not one invasion of Ukraine already.
By the way North Korea remains completely uncowed and is now a major arms supplier of Russia. Trump has probably forgotten where Korea actually is.
Now comes the time, Rasmus, where you admit how your ‘Stand with Ukraine’ stance achieved nothing, except death and the empoverishment of Europe.
Just the way you admitted, after looking at excess death stats in Sweden / Florida and comparing to heavy lockdown states, that the lockdowns achieved nothing.
Oh, no wait, you’re Rasmus. You will admit nothing.
However you look at it, the “Stand with Ukraine” stance has achieved the death of many Russian soldiers, many of them vaporised inside what the Russian military laughably refers to as its “tanks”. From my perspective, that is an entirely good thing. Long may it continue.
That is the trouble with your ideas actually being folllowed. What happens happens, and when it is not all perfect, people can point to the bad sides and shout see, see! Meanwhile those who did not win the argument love to pretend that if only they had got their way everything would have been just heavenly.
In the present case I still think trying to stop Russia was worth while. But of course we can never know, since we have no idea what Putin would have done – to Ukraine and Ukrainians, to other neighbouring countries, or to us – if everybody had just rolled over to his demands.
I don’t think it is hard to work out what Putin would have done at all.
Putin already laid out his starting negotiating position. You don’t need to invent unlikely and implausible ones
He has laid it out, and he will resile from it the instant it suits him to do so.
Indeed, where do you think I got it from? Putin wants Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk and two more oblasts (not even conquered yet) to be part of Russia. He wants Ukraine demilitarised (so it will be defenseless against future Russian aggerssions), and ‘denazified’, which means it will be governed by a pro-Russian clique selected by Putin.
If you think this is incorrect, could you point to where Putin is saying something that denies it?
Finland did OK as a neutral, capitalist state living cheek-by-jowl with the USSR for the entire Cold War and 30 years beyond, so I am not so persuaded that a Ukraine that does not threaten Russia is unworkable for Ukrainians.
But even if you are right, what is your alternative? Just keep the bleeding going for no apparent reason?
Did I miss something? I have a vague recollection that Finland joined NATO.
Can you read and comprehend?
Yes, I can read perfectly well. Finland recently realised that being “neutral” and “being next to Russia” is unsustainable. It has accordingly joined NATO.
Well we all know that a “warm ego boost” is Trump’s staple diet.
Why mention Chechnya? It’s already a part of Russia, and not a sovereign state like Belarus or Ukraine. The analogy doesn’t hold.
“In some respects it’s a civil war.”
Not even slightly. If you did not know who Strelkov was and what he did, then you might say something as stupid as that which I am replying to. The only thing this war is about is Putin trying to thrash his way into an eventual rematch in the Cold War, with Russia recovering it’s empire of enslaved nations.
There was no native insurgency in Ukraine, only Putin’s Little Green Men.
Ukrainian separatists had been fighting in the Donbas for 8 years before the Russian invasion in 2022. The east of Ukraine leans toward Russia while the west leans toward Europe. Public opinion even in the east shifted strongly against Russia after the 2022 invasion, but it’s still much like a civil war.
Russia’s “little green men” did not invade and take over Crimea. That was a political takeover, supported by most Crimeans, as shown not only by election results, but by polling both before and after the takeover.
Even Ukraine concedes that Crimeans wanted to join Russia after the 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine, but claims that Crimea cannot leave Ukraine unless a majority of the whole country of Ukraine voted its approval.
Of course the Russians took over Crimea in 2014 as well as the other regions. You you must be either very naive or being deliberately disingenuous to suggest the opposite. The population of every Ukrainian oblast voted for independence in 1991, inclduing Crimea, if by a narrow margin (Brexit?!). A constant series of referenda, especially under duress, until you get the right answer, is not democratic assent.
When next you see a comment thread on transgender topics, please try to recall how the lies Carlos loves are upvoted compared to reality — overcome the Gell-Mann amnesia — and know The UnHerd’s herd loves lies.
“Ukrainian separatists had been fighting in the Donbas for 8 years before the Russian invasion in 2022.” <– No, those were Russians. Strelkov is a Russian.
“Russia’s “little green men” did not invade and take over Crimea.” <– Yes, literally they did. No part of Ukraine ever voted for rule by Moscow when out from under Russian guns.
Every word you have said there is literally nonfactual.
I wonder how Ryan MacBeth would find you?
“recovering it’s empire of enslaved nations.”
What nations do you have in mind?
Putin has said nothing to the contrary of reacquiring all nations once members of the Warsaw Pact as rightfully belonging in Moscow’s orbit. It’s what he has in mind which matters.
You must be great at poker, knowing what the other players are thinking…
Imbecile, what Putin does is consistent with some of what he says, that part of what he says shows his intentions. Denial of this by anyone, pretending it is mind reading, is simply stupid of them.
“Putin has said nothing to the contrary of reacquiring all nations”
So because he’s never actually said anything contrary to what you think, then that is proof that he intends it?
Imbecile, “what Putin does is consistent with some of what he says”.
You faking the notion you can’t tell the difference between actions and spoken words is more evidence you are only a stupid troll.
So very good of you to introduce yourself with your first word. You really are a rancid little boy/girl/it.
I am accurately referring to Michael as an imbecile. Most people who try to get by on lies think of truth tellers as being rancid.
So what?
Perhaps you should stick to posting gobbledegook about trannies.
I never have. I have pointed out factually how you and your ilk are monstrous child abusers.
You are too proud of the lies you love and the hurt you do and seek to do further to transgender people to care.
It may be that he has realised that his military is currently incapable of “restoring the Warsaw Pact” by force, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t like to do it.
‘Jaw jaw is better than war war.’
Negotiation depends on goodwill on both sides. I doubt the Russians as a people are capable of that.
Your attitude towards the Russian people is bizarre. So Russians, as a people, just like you, are incapable of goodwill. Where does this extreme view of yours spring from?
Russians are not capable of goodwill as a nation, because they tolerate themselves to be ruled over by the likes of Putin — and they think they can do no better.
The muzhik craving the knought. They have been a broken, unhealthy culture since the Mongols took them.
Equally bizarre. But interesting in its extreme racism.
And you faking the notion you can’t tell the difference between culture and genetics is more evidence you are only a stupid troll.
Are you saying they’re genetic morons?
The opposite — they are culturally morons with regard to competent, non-corrupt governance.
Okay. In the sense you’re using culture, you’re saying they’re responsible for their situation, that they’re a submissive, weak group of people, much like the German people under Hitler.
I don’t understand the comment to have an issue with the “race” of Russians, but rather their “culture”.
We’ll both you and Talia said “Russians” and “people”. I take that to mean race. What else could it mean? And anyway, if it was culture you were both referring to, which clearly it was not, then you’re both claiming their culture is “broken and unhealthy”. The culture of a country is not seperate from the people.
“I take that to mean race. What else could it mean?”
Because they are not a race but a culture, I believe you have said your quiet part out loud.
My understanding is that Russia consists of two races: Caucasian and Mongoloid. However, i’m happy to concede to culture, which is essentially the people. So you regard the people as “broken and unhealthy”. A big call on over 140 million people.
“A big call on over 140 million people.”
Really? It’s no stretch after they managed to do worse than the French, and by very far, in their progressive revolution.
Stupidity can’t be ruled out.
It comes from everything they have said and everything they’ve done for (at least) the last 100 years (with the exception of the actions of Gorbachev, for whom I had respect).
I think you’re confusing the people with the dictatorship.
Mearsheimer was entirely correct from the beginning of this total catastrophe, which was instigated by the West. Ukraine has, indeed, been led down the primrose path and been wrecked.
The Neocons gameplan to degrade Russia by sanctions and then replace Putin, has failed because that success required the co-operation, in fact the consent of the “non Western” nations. That was witheld and the USA was and is no longer in a position to enforce compliance.
Those countries which rely on the USA/NATO for their security should, if sensible, re-think their current policy urgently.
The USA should re-structure its liabilities to be in line both with its realistic capabilities, and what is in the long term best interests of the American people, rather than its ruling class. That is unlikely to be the USA pretending to be world policeman whilst actually doing the opposite.
John Mearsheimer set out clearly in The Great Delusion; Liberal Dreams and International Realities why liberals (and their delusions) always fail when confronted with the harsh realism of the essential anarchy that rules in the supra-national realm. Undoubtedly, he did not, and does not, support the USA’s involvement in supporting Ukraine’s attempt to drag itself out of Russia’s embrace.
However, in the sense of Great Power machinations it can be argued I think that the USA has an interest in degrading Russia’s pretensions to GP status. However, the demonstration by Russia of its unexpected, and ongoing, military incompetence means that, on its own original terms (rapid victory, puppet government in Kyiv, and a suppliant and cowed population) it has already lost. America hasn’t had to do much in fact to achieve that outcome. No Americans are dying.
No one now should see Russia as a serious conventional military threat, sans the unlikely employment of nuclear weapons (if they actually work!). The Chinese are probably learning some valuable lessons too with regard to Russia’s capabilities; that is where Russia should be looking if it wants to sniff out long term real threats.
You are right in as much as you appear to wish the USA cease trying to be a ‘world policeman’; but in the arena of national rivalries, it helps to be the biggest thug, with the biggest fists. Taking down Russia is a natural outcome.
Does Russia have pretensions to Great Power status? It is a major regional power, but surely not a Great Power in the sense the USA is. In fact, it is unlikely that it wishes to be a GP like that, as it has shown no steps towards it. It has no far flung military bases, nor the economic power to do so. The only military action is to neutralise the threat of Ukraine in NATO and nuclear missiles on its doorstep. The USSR did the same in Cuba to remove missiles from Turkey.
In fact, the USSR was not militarily expansionist. It created a cordon sanitaire in East Europe but never tried to expand it…either because it didn’t want to, or simply couldn’t…probably the former mainly.
It was the W. Allies which essentially broke agreements by creating West Germany, no doubt proving to the USSR that there was still a need to protect itself.
It was the West which created a pupet government in Ukraine…not Russia. Zelensky was elected on a platform of friendship with Russia…then reneged. It was the West whichnreneged onnthe Minsk agreement, not Russia.
Ukraine had the chance to be a larger Austria, neutral and prosperous but that wasn’t allowed.
And no, no Americans are dying…that’s left to the Ukrainians.
The USA did rather well as an isolationist power, able to defend itself but leaving others alone. It should do so now.
A pair of excellent posts Michael. Very well said.
Ok, let’s say Russia is a “major regional power”. Surely now is the time to degrade it further.
Absolutely agree. Maybe China can be encouraged to take back Vladivostok rather than invading Taiwan.
It would be a far, far better thing for the Eastern provinces of Russia to seek unorganized territorial status with the US as the protectorate power, and the current borders maintained by the US military.
So, US military forces on Russia’s border. Is that your plan?
On West Taiwan’s in this case.
Russia is making itself a nullity at a rate it may by then be dismissible.
It is already true NATO and American troops have been on Russia’s border from the beginning.
As someone said “ the west will fight till the last Ukrainian standing”
I can’t help feeling that the Ukrainians are prepared to fight. The alternative is too terrible.
Surely any plan by anybody to “degrade Russia” should be applauded. As to whether Putin gets replaced is a moot point, but anything that weakens Russia is surely good.
“Since 2023, Washington has been out of ideas for how to successfully end the war on terms favorable to Ukraine.”
There are ideas aplenty; what is lacking is the will to implement them.
What exactly are those ideas. As far as I can tell the US has never had any from the Vietnam war onwards.
I don’t know. They got Saddam Hussain out of Kuwait.
Which was wise and successful. Later they got him out of Iraq. Which was successful, unwise, and led to endless slaughter. Even the success over Kuwait had unintended blowback, animating Bin Laden’s campaign against the infidel world.
I would be the first to agree that Gulf War 2 was really unnecessary, because Saddam Hussain should have been killed (or at least terminally weakened) during Gulf War 1.
Had he been killed in Gulf War 1 the results would have been unpredictable (ie bad). Don’t start something on Monday if you haven’t thought out what will have happened by Friday.
From the war to end war a century ago to the war no one can end. The Kaiser’s revenge on all the houses.
It would be informative if AR compared his rather laconic observations of the war with the Daily Express online articles whose clickbait headlines announce virtually daily that ‘fears explode’ of WW3 as a result of some latest development in the combat.
Though considering that these ‘fears’ have been ‘exploding’ for over a year, it must by now be a fear of WW6. And the amount of times that the DE online has been reporting Putin humiliated over everything from losing a Cold War museum-piece aircraft to being subject to male-pattern baldness, the great dictator must be a gibbering wreck sucking his thumb somewhere in a broom cupboard in the Kremlin. Hardly a threat to the Galactic Order.
What does AR, as a war reporter, think of that sort of war reporting? Something out of the 1960s Commando illustrated comics for boys?
Ukraine’s strategy is to resist an unprovoked invasion of its territory. What is the alternative strategy? Surrender, and let Russia rape, torture and murder its people?
That’s not a strategy, that’s an objective.
In truth both sides await the US elections. A settlement, similar to the Korean 38th parallel armistice, has been on the cards for some time and probably likely early next summer. Zelensky knows that. Much as in 52 and 53 the opposing sides are positioning for where that line may be drawn. That’s what Kursk is about – an eventual land swop to give Ukraine a more defendable armistice line elsewhere with security guarantees whilst also exposing the vulnerability of Putin’s strength. And for those who think the Russians are creeping forward – every time it stalls after minor gains. They can’t do mobile warfare without being picked off and they know that.
In 53 few thought S Korean would emerge as it subsequently did. Ukraine can do similar. Putin has helped forge the Ukrainian nation. Author working too hard to have his consistent pessimism proven correct.
If a “38th parallel” thing has to happen, it needs to be with the remnants of Ukraine in NATO, and under the NATO nuclear umbrella. After all, why would anyone ever trust the Russians?
And why would Putin trust NATO? This is the reality, the mutual distrust,
Putin is welcome to distrust NATO as much as he likes. Even he can’t actually think NATO wants to invade and occupy Russia.
Well you yourself have said you want to see Russia destroyed. There are many like you in positions of influence who feel the same. That’s enough to make anyone act as if it’s a possibility.
The West seems to be developing a strategy for building a manpower pipeline from the many various countries outside the BRICS nations. This will largely negate the importance of Ukrainian losses. They also seem to have given up on outproducing Russia with regards to artillery, tanks, and aircraft because of the long lead time needed to build the heavy industry required for these along with the intensive training of personnel required. Instead they seem to be focusing all their efforts on developing and building drones. Drones only require light industry and their are many light industrial facilities already in existence that can quickly be repurposed to drone production. I’ve also just read that Poland is planning to send a couple of brigades of their troops into the war, directly.
Can you link to this strategy for building a manpower pipeline?
As for the drones, Russia has mostly shot them down. They’ve had very limited success.
Poland isn’t planning to send troops. They’ve made pronouncements. Rattled sabers.
The IMF has just delivered what may well be the coup de grace to Ukraine.
No link, just paying attention to South Americans being captured in Kursk and Russia saying that there are many mercenaries fighting there. I’ve read that Ukraine is using a new type of drone that somehow goes far and fast before becoming a slow-moving drone. This allows them to penetrate deeply into Russia.
“and Russia saying”
What Russia says and a cup of coffee, leaves anyone with nothing but a nasty cup of coffee.
However the West cannot supply sufficient manpower to replace the Ukrainian losses. Indeed those experts that Western countries supply are targeted by Russia, hence the recent deaths of Swedish experts…and presumably resignation of the Foreign Minister.
Poland sending troops directly into combat with Russia will make Poland a co- belligerent with Ukraine, and subject to retaliation by Russia…which will be certain. It is doubtful that any NATO country will underwrite such provocation by Poland. I certainly hope that Britain won’t.
Though possible that Poland’s new globalist Government aren’t as keen to look after their country as the previous Govt.
Nonsense. It could easily if it chose to do so (see the Korean War). It’s just not going to do so. But that’s “won’t” and not “cannot”.
Ukraine is not a “belligerent” here. It’s simply defending itself. The word you were looking for there was Russia.
That said, I don’t think we can rule out this escalating into a conflict involving the Baltic States, Poland and/or Moldova at some point. All predictions from 2022 were way off, so I’m not sure those today will be any more reliable – the range and scope of possible outcomes remains quite large.
Not so evident who is the belligerent and who isn’t. A plague on both their houses. Recall that Kiev was shelling Eastern Ukraine continuously since the 2014, US instigated, Maidan coup.
Garbage. If you can’t tell who invaded in 2014 and 2022, I think a visit to Specsavers is in order.
I will grant you that Ukraine managed a little belligerence in Kursk in the past month.
OK. Your emotions are leading you to support Ukraine without any critical thinking. That is the sort of gung-ho thinking that led to WWI. You have to look at this in a historical context going back over a 1000 years. Maybe then you’ll understand the situation a bit better.
More garbage.
Look in the mirror if you want to see someone who’s getting carried away by their emotions.
Plus a load of assumptions about me that you’re making up.
I’ve read your posts for some time and I can tell you’re no historian.
Try engaging with the actual comments and facts for a change.
We shouldn’t count Ukraine out just yet. Miracles do happen. But it would take a miracle for Ukraine to not only stiffen up its defenses but to regain even a small amount of territory from Russia, let alone drive Russia completely from Ukraine, including Crimea, as Volodymyr Zelensky wants to do.
As far as I can tell no foreign country has sent any military to fight in Ukraine on either side, nor has any country announced plans to do so. Not even Belarus has sent soldiers into combat. Some individual foreign soldiers have joined both sides, but they amount to only a few thousand.
Some countries are assisting with training Ukrainian troops, and Poland is one of those. Perhaps that’s what you are thinking of. A brigade of Ukrainians, some of whom were living in Poland, is training now in Poland and will be ready to fight sometime next year.
Poland has said nothing about sending Polish troops. No NATO nations are likely to send any troops to fight in combat. That would cause all sorts of problems, and is just not going to happen. It is possible that some NATO nations will send trainers or support personnel to operate in Ukraine, but I doubt that. The political blowback would be fierce.
I understand that trainers and support personnel are already in Ukraine eg the dead Swedish experts.
Apparently the Vietnam War has been forgotten…
Certainly by the Russians. Who ignored its lessons first in Afghanistan and here again in Ukraine. How many more such military disasters can they afford ?
And how many military disasters can the US afford?
Many, many more than Russia.
Clearly you don’t live in the US. Every foreign entanglement by the US from the Vietnam war onwards has led to disaster. The result will be the demise of the US. As it is the US has been a joke under the Biden administration and will collapse if Harris gets elected. Do you really think that Putin et al. will pay any heed to cackles. She is weak and feckless.
Um, no. Gulf War 1 was unarguably a success. However, I agree that the US has been far more successful in toppling “unpleasant” regimes by covert rather than direct military means.
But the USA isn’t doing the fighting…Ukraine is….
So what ? I simply answered a question honestly. Something you might do better to do once in a while.
It’s simply a fact that the US has the capacity to endure more military setbacks than Russia. Getting on for 3x the population, a far larger and stronger economy and a group of powerful, wealthy allies. Blindly hating the US doesn’t change the facts !
I simply set out my views and support them with facts or rational conclusions from situations.
My point is that the USA is not doing the fighting…and indeed will not, so whether it can endure military setbacks is irrelevant.
But in fact, I doubt that the USA actually could endure many military disasters in “overseas wars”. The American people don’t like “their sons” coming back in body bags, for no benefit whatsoever..eg Korea, Vietnam, various adventures in Africa ( Black Hawk Down…), Afghanistan…
And I don’t blame them, they’re absolutely right.
And I most certainly don’t hate the USA. However it has gone down the same path as Britain did during its Imperial pomp. If it continues it will end the same way…to the disbenefit of its people and the West generally.
And how many other peoples and of what countries will die during the ‘many, many more’ disasters that the US can, as you suggest, afford?
I for my part can’t say for sure, but if a lot more Russians die, I won’t lose any sleep.
I appreciate the difficulty of the West sending troops, but surely they can give Ukraine missiles with sufficient range to destroy all Russia’s oil production facilities.
“Kursk shows Ukraine has no plan for victory”
Actually imbecile, it shows they will notice and take advantage of what opportunities the limitations the West has stupidly placed on them, leave open to them.
Given the recent revelations, how much is Russia paying you?
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/09/tenet-media-russia/
What limitations do you mean?
The requirement they not use certain Western systems on Russian soil, or in some cases, not more than X miles inside Russia.
By the way Talia, we still live in a system where you’re innocent until proven guilty. I know it suits you for them to be guilty (and they may be) but as yet it’s an allegation and does not support your profound understanding of this war.
Sadly, “innocent until proven guilty” is not the way the legal system in Russia operates. And hasn’t been for over 100 years now.
And I’m becoming more pessimistic that it’s going to reliably work that way in this country the way things are going.
Your other question: I think you know quite well that Western countries have limited what Ukraine can do with the weapons they provided to them.
Do accept that you genuinely believe what you say and are not the Russian stooge Talia presumes.
First of all your comment on the Russian legal system has nothing to do with my comment about allegations in our justice system. I don’t know what you were hoping to achieve there.
Secondly asking Talia to define exactly what she means is because facts and figures mean nothing to her. I don’t think that makes me a “Russian stooge”, nor do I see where Talia has presumed that.
“Secondly asking Talia to define exactly what she means is because facts and figures mean nothing to her.”
Liar, they mean everything to me — you simply have none supporting your contentions which you have bothered to share, and, you refuse to answer any questions. You are deceitful, child abusing troll to be opposed, no better.
Don’t you find it at least a little bit interesting that virtually everybody disagrees with you. Would that not suggest that at least some reflection on your part may be called for. Just wondering.
No, I presume a den of iniquity supported on selling lies is not a place I will have many friends — and that den is what The Unherd is.
Where is your self reflection on the fact you love obvious lies?
Quite right. Enough whataboutery.
So let’s get back to your question about the “limitations”. Is this making sense to you now ?
I assumed the “how much is Russia paying you ?” was directed to you, since you accepted and replied to it. May have been a reply to someone else though.
I think she was addressing the writer.
“I assumed the “how much is Russia paying you ?” was directed to you, since you accepted and replied to it.”
Brett H is only a s–t stirring troll. They are here to be dishonest for the lulz.
“They are here to be dishonest for the lulz.”
Are you afraid of using my pronoun?
Them who? The fact of the transfers of money are not in question.