The Longer it Takes the West to Accept that Ukraine is Losing, the Worse Things Will Get for Ukraine

Well, we do seem to have got ourselves into a bit of a pickle in Ukraine. How we get out of it is not immediately obvious.

Like many wars, this one seems to have started due to catastrophic blunders by the ruling elites on both sides. To simplify a rather complex situation, I believe that there were two massive blunders.

The West’s blunder – for several years Putin has warned NATO “not one inch further” – that he would not accept further NATO expansion eastwards and would not allow countries like Ukraine and Georgia, both with long borders with Russia, to join NATO. In 2008, Putin even attended a NATO summit during which he gave a speech warning NATO that Russia would not accept Ukraine’s and Georgia’s admission to NATO. To me that seems reasonable. After all, the U.S. would hardly accept Russia doing a deal with, say, Mexico which would allow Russia to establish bases close to the U.S.-Mexico border (although it’s also understandable that Ukraine and Georgia wanted to join NATO, given Putin’s sabre-rattling). And, of course, there was the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when the USA was not too pleased about Russian missiles being situated close to the American mainland. Probably due to stupidity, hubris or a belief that Putin was bluffing, NATO delivered a diplomatic note to the Kremlin reiterating NATO’s view that countries like Ukraine and Georgia could join the Alliance if they wished. The result – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Putin’s blunder – Putin seems to have believed that it would only take a couple of weeks for the Russian army to get to Kiev, overthrow and murder the Zelensky Government and install a Russian-friendly regime. He got that one wrong and several hundred thousand Russians have been wounded or killed as a result. Moreover, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted Sweden and Finland to join NATO – another consequence Putin seems to have failed to foresee.

The war seemed to have started well for Ukraine. The Ukrainian army surprised the Russians and the world by fighting off the initial Russian invasion. Then the success of the summer 2022 Ukrainian offensive appeared to suggest that Ukraine might even be able to push the Russians out of Eastern Ukraine, retake Crimea and, by humiliating Putin, maybe even cause a coup in Russia which could overthrow Putin and his mafia cronies.

But after the 2022 Ukraine summer offensive, the Russians built formidable defensive lines protected by miles of minefields, dragon’s teeth and trench systems. So, when the 2023 Ukrainian combined operations offensive was launched, the Ukrainians were caught in a death trap and suffered huge losses of personnel and equipment while making little progress

We are now in a third phase of the war – the war of attrition – in which Russia is gaining the upper hand. Russia can massively out-produce Ukraine (and the quivering West) in terms of munitions, tanks, planes, missiles, artillery systems, drones and numbers of soldiers. Moreover, Russia has also received military material from North Korea, Iran, Syria and probably China. Meanwhile, Ukraine is running out of ammunition and troops. Some sources have suggested that the average age of Ukrainian forces is a worrying 43. And Ukraine doesn’t have time to mobilise, equip and train the numbers necessary to stem the Russian advance. In a war of attrition, the side with the greatest resources usually wins by grinding down its opponent. And that’s what we’re seeing now with small but continual Russian advances and Ukrainian retreats.

Our leaders keep warning us that Putin will roll his tanks into the Baltic States and maybe even Poland should the Russians be successful in beating the Ukrainians. France’s President Macron is even telling us that we may have to send NATO troops to fight in Ukraine. Everyone seems to automatically assume that Putin’s ambition is still to conquer all of Ukraine and incorporate it in the Russian Federation. This is despite the fact that he said that it was to keep Ukraine out of NATO and to safeguard the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine from Ukrainian nationalist militias.

By the end of the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, Putin’s forces could have walked into the Georgian capital Tbilisi. Instead, they withdrew and merely stayed on to guard the Russian-speaking enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia – the equivalent of the similar enclaves in Ukraine.

Putin has the habit of doing exactly what he says he’s going to do. This is a concept which contemporary Western politicians find so alien to their natures, of course, that they’re totally unable to grasp it (although their distrust of Putin is understandable).

Moreover, if we look at military budgets, you might wonder who is actually threatening whom. The USA’s military budget is around $877 billion. The total NATO military budget in 2023 (including the USA) a cool $1.3 trillion. The Russian Federation military budget prior to the Ukraine invasion? Just $86 billion a year.

Our rulers have repeatedly told us that we must “do whatever it takes” to stop Putin and that the West will support Ukraine for “however long is necessary”. But it seems to be becoming clear to everyone except our rulers that Ukraine is losing and can now never win if winning means expelling all Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. The best Ukraine can now hope for is an untidy truce which involves a loss of the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine – at least 20% of Ukrainian territory. Though the longer this war goes on, the more territory Ukraine will lose.

So, what will our rulers choose – humiliation or annihilation?

Will our rulers accept total humiliation by pushing Ukraine to do a deal with Russia in which Ukraine will have to hand over at least 20% of its land area to the Russian Federation and agree that what little is left of Ukraine will be a neutral country and never join NATO? And how will our rulers explain this defeat to us, their electorates? Moreover, what will the West’s defeat do to the global balance of power? It will, of course, embolden those in the anti-Western bloc – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – who wish to do us harm. Moreover, it will convince many non-aligned countries that their future lies in alliances with the resurgent and increasingly powerful autocratic anti-Western bloc rather than with the declining, defeated, war-weary, supposedly democratic West

Or will our rulers decide to try and save face and their own careers by ‘upping the ante’ – getting us more involved in helping Ukraine? Thanks to the incompetence of the head of the German air force, whose unsecured phone conference was recorded by Russian spies, we now know that British troops are apparently in Ukraine already, possibly helping with the loading and targeting of Storm Shadow missiles. It’s a pity our politicians ‘forgot’ to tell us that British troops are actually operating in Ukraine. Moreover, the New York Times recently revealed that the CIA has between 12 and 14 bases in Ukraine where it trains Ukrainian soldiers. If our rulers do get Western troops directly involved in killing Russians, as France’s President Macron has repeatedly proposed, we would risk the possibility of a nuclear war between Russia and the West.

I’m no military strategist. But it seems obvious to me that our rulers have blundered into a situation without any plan for how to extricate us in the event of things not turning out as they planned, thus forgetting the most basic rule of war – that no plan survives contact with the enemy. Or, as boxer Mike Tyson explained, “Everybody has a plan till they get punched in the face.”

It will be interesting to see whether our rulers choose humiliation by accepting Ukraine’s and, by extension, NATO’s defeat, or instead go for escalation which could lead to nuclear annihilation.

David Craig is the author of There is No Climate Crisis, available as an e-book or paperback from Amazon.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

57 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
FerdIII
2 years ago

Another arm chair general telling me that Russia wanted to take Keeev and overthrow Zelensky. Maybe, but unlikely. The SFO army was only 200.000 men – not nearly enough to control a country the size of the Ukraine. More likely the Russians did what reality and the world of the 5 senses make clear – they took the Russian areas of the East and South, built defensive layers and waited. The original SFO was to claim, protect Crimea and Donetsk. That was the strategic goal. 15.000 Russians were murdered after the 2014 CIA coup in Donetsk and the East. Putin did not expect that the US 51rst state would fight on when it was clear it had lost the conflict. Now the Russians will simply wait until the inevitable cutting off of money (laundering) and weapons to the Uketopia. Then if so inclined, they probably will march to Keeev. Or maybe demand a settlement based on the reality on the ground. Also there is no chance, pace this author, that the Russians have lost hundreds of thousands. Pure propaganda. Reality (defensive war) would indicate a 10:1 advantage for the Russians, ie 700 K dead Uke’s and around 70-100 K dead… Read more »

JohnK
2 years ago

They will be economical with the truth over the next few months, with major elections on both sides of the pond. After that, who knows?

thelightcavalry
thelightcavalry
2 years ago

Ian Rons, where are you? What’s your take now?

My take is that Putin is a bastard, but intelligent, worldlywise, patriotic and conservative, whereas the Western leaders (bar Trump) are credentialled opportunists with no visceral understanding of risk who don’t give a shit about the lives of Ukrainians or Russians. Honest, compassionate folk like you get caught up in the tactics, but miss the strategic realpolitik that Ukraine is Russia’s business not ours and that Russia can’t be beaten there short of risking World War 3.

MTF
MTF
2 years ago

Putin has the habit of doing exactly what he says he’s going to do.

Feb 18th 2022:

Putin says Russian military drills are “purely defensive” and “not a threat to any other country”



Marcus Aurelius knew
2 years ago
Reply to  MTF

Puin would argue they were and are purely defensive.

I would not entirely disagree.

Not saying I think he’s a lovely chap, though.

JXB
JXB
2 years ago
Reply to  MTF

In other words not stupid enough to signal his intentions to his opponents and give away strategic advantage?

MTF
MTF
2 years ago

I guess it will end a bit like Korea. A truce but no official end of the conflict as neither side will be prepared to officially accept the position.

It is easy to think that there will just be more and more Russian progress but remember that progress on land is desperately slow and costly while their Black Sea fleet is gradually sinking. Europe is gradually increasing its support and if Biden gets in then US support will return. I suspect both sides will want to stop some time next year.

Sforzesca
Sforzesca
2 years ago
Reply to  MTF

I think the US will stop when it’s satisfied that there is zero chance of any good relations between Russia and Europe.
Germany is the key.
The US is more than happy to see Germany destroy its industry from within – and European leaders are so stupid they seem to believe Russia blew up its own pipeline.

One US nightmare is of a Euro/Russia alliance. Ukraine has sunk that, for now.

Sforzesca
Sforzesca
2 years ago

I agree with most of this excellent summary save I think it’s more than likely that Russia threw a feint by advancing on Kiev in order to force Ukraine to withdraw substantial forces from Donbass area in order to make Russian advances there much easier. But who really knows. I’m not the first to say it but I wonder what the main The RPTB’s USA bag carrier – Obama not Biden, was doing in Downing Street a few days ago? Bets are it was how to get NATO boots on the ground whilst avoiding a nuclear response. Ukraine must NOT be allowed to lose you see. I recall that our very own cowardly warmonger Johnson was and no doubt still is that “we” should call Putin’s bluff and send in NATO troops. It seems, or rather I hope, that Russia has quite a few people of gravitas and wisdom in charge – because we have none. Who were the idiots who wargamed this and concluded that Ukraine could ever “win”. The USSR lost 25-30 milion souls in largely winning WW2. Understandably they see the US democratisation process as a threat to their very existence. There is no way on earth… Read more »

Free Lemming
2 years ago

I do not believe there were any “blunders”. I believe the conflict has been engineered and both sides are complicit in an operation designed to accelerate economic collapse. It is part of a wider agenda to restructure the economy and society as a whole. We are experiencing a multipronged attack on civilisation as we know it.

Jon Mors
Jon Mors
2 years ago

Excellent article, all of which I agree with.

Not very long ago I would have said that ‘the West’ should support Ukraine sufficiently to put them in a strong bargaining position, but then also be clear that they were willing to bargain, which at a minimum would mean ceding Donetsk, Luhansk and the Crimea to Russia. First of all, Biden won’t do that; Trump would.

Secondly, I’m no longer sure this strategy would work. The West’s military capabilities are seriously degraded. The 1.3 trillion USD military budget sounds a lot until you realise how much of it is spent on military pensions and the like.

Thirdly, it’s unclear to what extent a defensive strategy can work. Cheap drones can get through Ukraine’s defences. Defence being too expensive and difficult, deterrence would require tit for tat, which means droning Russian cities. This is the frightening new reality of war.

GlassHalfFull
2 years ago

Russia were totally justified in their actions against Ukraine.
The attack around Kiev was a military feint to free the Donbass.
Also, Putin recently stated that they withdrew their forces around Kiev when Ukraine were told by Nato not to negotiate.
Russian losses are at least 10 times less than Ukraine’s.
Mevdev has shown us what will remain of the Kiev regime once Russia has achieved it’s objectives.
comment image

Marcus Aurelius knew
2 years ago
Reply to  GlassHalfFull

Russia and Ukraine aside, that is a very strange map.

GlassHalfFull
2 years ago

Russia are expecting other countries to Balkanize what remains of Ukraine.

For a fist full of roubles
Reply to  GlassHalfFull

I agree with your sentiments but it is Medvedev.

Monro
2 years ago

Oh for heaven’s sake!

The U.S. (and German) strategy, so, by extension, the U.K. strategy, as set out by the U.S. Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin, is ‘to weaken Russia so that it can no longer do the kind of things that it has done in Ukraine.’

Russia’s National Wealth Fund has dropped from $143bn in July 2022 to $56bn by December 2023, still burning away at a rate of $4.4bn monthly. Russian Ministry of Finance forecasts consequently assume that the war ends next year……

Sounds to me like the U.S. strategy is a resounding success.

Marcus Aurelius knew
2 years ago
Reply to  Monro

So US/Western strategy has bugger all to do with saving Ukraine, then.

Monro
2 years ago

Once that is understood, the delay in the U.S. funding package makes perfect sense (because Russia damages itself more on the offensive than it does on the defensive). Trump is behind that delay, of course. Clearly it fits with his contempt for European backsliding on defence spending as likely to force them all to do more.

The U.S. has major (and lucrative) strategic interests in the Black Sea region so, in my uninformed view, a Trump election victory might not be entirely a bad thing for Ukraine despite what he is saying on the campaign trail.

For a fist full of roubles
Reply to  Monro

What damage is Russia doing to itself. Militarily it has reshaped land warfare and financially it is in the process of re-orienting the entire financial world to reduce the power of the dollar.
In the longer term it has destroyed a large market for Western products and services, and allowed Russia to create its own manufacturing resources to compete with and probably undercut western manufacturers in weapons and technology.

Monro
2 years ago

Russian defence equipment has always been cheap. It is now clear, if it wasn’t before, that you get what you pay for.

Putin will have blown the entire Russian national wealth fund by next year. He is trapped in a ferocious and ferociously expensive war with no way out.

This does not end……

For a fist full of roubles
Reply to  Monro

The one thing that is abundantly clear is that Russian equipment, strategy and countermeasures outclass Western offerings, otherwise how do you explain the disastrous performance of Ukraine on the battlefield since the start of their famous Winter Spring Summer offensive.

Monro
2 years ago

2023: Russia was able to reactivate at least 1,180 to 1,280 MBTs and around 2,470 IFVs and APCs from storage.

The Russians (and Ukrainians) are using ancient Soviet equipment to slug it out Soviet style.

Anyone who believes Russian achievements since 2022 in Ukraine are a great advert for Russian defence equipment is, quite simply, batsh*t crazy.

For a fist full of roubles
Reply to  Monro

You are sounding increasingly unhinged. You have zero credibility and need to order more supplies of copium.

Monro
2 years ago

No need for emotion.

The Russians are using T 62 tanks and BMP 2 APCs taken out of storage, both equipments obsolete for years now. The BMP 2 can be taken out by one .50 cal special effects round fired into the fuel tanks handily located on the rear doors (!). The resulting conflagration makes evacuation of the vehicle hazardous in the extreme. Maybe you really do think that is a great design feature but I doubt many will share that view……

For a fist full of roubles
Reply to  Monro

Whose figures are these because they are at complete variance with the figures published by the Russian Ministry of Finance? You surely don’t actually believe what Western sources claim as fact?
Perhaps you will confirm that this is a liquid asset to be used to fund shortfalls, rather than a debt which seems to be the case with Western finances.

Monro
2 years ago

If you are taking published Russian financials at face value, then you have moved off to some place where I cannot follow…..

For a fist full of roubles
Reply to  Monro

Can you explain how the West knows what the figures are, when their predictions about Russia in recent times have been disatrously wrong.

Monro
2 years ago

Errrr……because the Russians tell them……

For a fist full of roubles
Reply to  Monro

Do you realise how juvenile that sounds.

Monro
2 years ago

Or not really……

‘Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said that the state would borrow $42 billion this year (2023), and that only $69 billion would be left in the National Welfare Fund’

Moscow Times

Monro
2 years ago

Or not really…..

‘The National Wealth Fund, a rainy-day fund of accumulated energy revenues, held $55 billion, or 2.7% of gross domestic product (GDP), as of Feb. 1, 2024, down from $112.7 billion, or 6.6% of GDP, as of Feb. 1, 2022, according to Russian finance ministry data’

Jon Garvey
2 years ago

It seems to me that Putin’s motive (and error) was not to think he could annihilate the Zelensky regime, but to think that he could force him to the negotiating table. In that he succeeded, but didn’t bank on NATO sending Boris Johnson to force Zelensky back from the negotiating table.

The error is being slow to comprehend fully the suicidal duplicity of the West. The outcome is the same – it leaves the West choosing between climbdown and annihilation. Sadly, we now know their (our) suicidal duplicity knows no bounds, being linked with an entire multi-generational campaign to change the nature of global society to a New World Order

Screenshot-from-2024-03-22-09-19-48
For a fist full of roubles
Reply to  Jon Garvey

I had to read that twice but agree with you, although I would say that the duplicity is entirely from the US. The Europeans are simply naive and the leaders are in thrall to Biden and chums.
Their error has been their belief that Putin was a power crazed thug, that the Russian armed forces were poorly equipped and outclassed and their troops all unmotivated conscripts.

RTSC
RTSC
2 years ago

America cut and ran in Vietnam. It cut and ran in Iraq. It threatened Syria but never followed through because the UK voted not to join in. It cut and ran in Afghanistan.

Cut and run ….. it’s what they do. And they’ll do it in Ukraine …… it’s just a matter of time.

Monro
2 years ago
Reply to  RTSC

No-one knows which way Trump will jump re Ukraine if he wins the Presidency once more. This is, on balance, a good thing in terms of deterrence. There are significant U.S. strategic interests involved in the Black Sea so there are good reasons to expect U.S. interest in Black Sea security to remain strong. Ukraine: A free and independent Ukraine will likely remain an important U.S. interest, as a block on Russia’s efforts to expand its sphere of control in Europe. This will hold regardless of the outcome of the November national elections. Access to the Black Sea is vital for the maintenance of an independent, secure and prosperous Ukraine and its postwar reconstruction. NATO: The capability of NATO to provide collective defense for the transatlantic community is a vital U.S. interest. But in a war scenario, a free and open Black Sea, per se, is not vital to NATO’s southern flank; NATO forces have the capacity to dominate the Black Sea from the Mediterranean. Likely near-term threats impacting NATO security, however, do not come from a general war scenario. The concern instead is “gray zone” activities at the hands of Russia – such as mines, sabotage, corruption and political meddling –… Read more »

Grim Ace
Grim Ace
2 years ago
Reply to  RTSC

Vietnam was an unpopular war. Voters would not stick it out. The west is weak when it comes to winning wars. We do not fight brutally enough to make our enemies cave in. We put so many rules in place that our troops fight with one eye closed and one hand tied to their ankle.
Afghanistan was a major mistake. To imagine we could impose a very western style of governing (democracy) on Muslims (given Islam’s history) was geopolitically deranged.
I do not know what to believe given that the facts seem very hard to come by

Monro
2 years ago

What is really going on?

Ukraine has been losing since 2014.

The U.S.A. simply drip feeds supplies to Ukraine to keep it in the fight and bleed Russia dry without ever giving it enough to outflank Russian defensive lines and drive for Moscow.

2023: Russia had to reactivate at least 1,180 to 1,280 MBTs and around 2,470 IFVs and APCs from storage.

Russia would not be doing that if it could produce anything like enough new equipment to replace its battlefield losses.

Adjusting the Russian economy to a war footing is burning through the Russian National Wealth Fund.

Ukraine wins in the long run because intense nationalism never gives up. That could take fifty years……This doesn’t end.

Some of us, years ago, predicted a situation where republicans ended up running Northern Ireland….but nobody wanted to hear it.

For a fist full of roubles
Reply to  Monro

A source reference would be helpful, but then you do rather naively take everything you see from the West at face value.
There is no point in quoting actual Russian figures for weapons production, because you will dismiss it because the Russians said it.
I suppose you don’t believe what is being said about Russian glide bombs, including the 3000 that is now in production.
The 500s and 1500s really were game changers, the 3000 is likely to finalise things quite quickly now that Ukraine has to choose between defending its front line or its capital city from aerial attack. It hasn’t got the resources to do both simultaneously

Monro
2 years ago

No need for the emotion.

I simply reckon with what I see.

A half competent Russian military should have walked all over Ukraine in 2022 as in 2014. It quite clearly has not.

Trump has held up the major U.S. military aid package for Ukraine. That causes resupply problems for the Ukrainian military.

Both sides are using Soviet tactics in a slugfest similar to WW1. There are straightforward ways of negating the effects of an inferiority in fire support/air support that date from that period.

We cannot say what the U.S. will do. They (and Germany) really don’t have any real interest in Ukraine winning but they do not want Ukraine to lose, so my uninformed view is that this continues for years.

But then….I am often wrong, as everyone is……

Grim Ace
Grim Ace
2 years ago
Reply to  Monro

What way of negating superiority in fire support dates from the first world war? Both sides had large amounts of artillery and used it extensively. Britain had a major arms manufacturing capability then, and nothing like that now

For a fist full of roubles
Reply to  Monro

You are clearly only looking at what you want to see. To suggest that there is any parallel with WW1 is at best total denial. If you followed the movement of the front line over the last several months you will see constant progress towards the west. Even the disposition of trenches bears no resemblace with the opposing lines of the Somme.
Your despate attempts to put a positive pro-Ukrainian spin on this is quite laughable, even the Western press is predicting the imminent downfall of Kiev.
To blame Trump for holding up the aid package is further evidence of your lack of understanding.

Monro
2 years ago

If you think ‘Ukraine has been losing since 2014’ is ‘positive spin’ then your English may need brushing up a bit. The point is that Russia is not winning…..and that fits with the U.S. and German agreed strategy.

That, for some reason, upsets you so you get emotional.

No need.

JXB
JXB
2 years ago

The NATO elites don’t give a pig’s burb about Ukraine, it’s all about the obsession with degrading Russia.

These scumbags don’t care a monkey’s for their own citizens, so certainly care aught about Ukies.

CGW
CGW
2 years ago

A very pro-western view of affairs, in my opinion. The author rightly points out how understandable it should be that Russia does not want US ICBMs placed on its border, while at the same time not able to differentiate between Russia and USSR. Putin has taken what remained of the core of USSR, which was in a very poor economical state, and transformed it into a successful, coherent country with inhabitants proud to be called Russian. Despite the war and successive sanctions, Russia is apparently the only European country with a flourishing economy. It is no accident and no fraud that the electorate turned out in such numbers to vote for him in the recent election. Putin never wanted war and has continually sought to resolve the issue with the ‘fellow Slav’ Ukrainians. As recently made public during Tucker Carlson’s interview, peace negotiations in Istanbul were initialled and close to completion in March/April 2022, before Boris Johnson appeared on the scene and convinced Zelensky to tear them up, whereby the main Russian condition for peace was only that Ukraine not join NATO. Indeed, Zelensky was voted President by the Ukrainian population because he promised them at the time peace. What… Read more »

Monro
2 years ago
Reply to  CGW

Weird…. because Putin didn’t want war in 1999…..2008…..2014……either…….

Monro
2 years ago
Reply to  CGW

Ukraine cannot, never could, join NATO until it met certain conditions. It cannot, never could, meet those conditions.

Of course Putin does not want war…..if he can get what he wants without it, but he cannot.

We know what he wants because we have documentary evidence from inside the Kremlin that shows he intends a Russian ‘Union State’ incorporating Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltic States. For heaven’s sake, Lukashenko already admits Belarus is part of it.

Why?

‘…he’s projecting a vision of Russia that he was brought up with that many people in Russia still adhere to – a vision of the Russian state as an empire that has to expand, and expansion is how you judge leaders.’

Montefiore

CGW
CGW
2 years ago
Reply to  Monro

Pardon my ignorance but I do not know what you mean by 1999, 2008 and 2014. As I pointed out above, the one country in the world – and the only country in the world – that is assured it can and must act as a sort of international policeman, wielding a strong baton against anyone its current leader thinks deserves a beating, is USA. You have “documentary evidence from inside the Kremlin that shows he intends a Russian ‘Union State’ incorporating Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltic States”, which rather sounds like a sensible idea if you compare that with the original idea of a commercially unified Europe which, unfortunately has taken on the grotesk form of the current EU. But why do you think Russia wants to conquer the world, unless you are influenced by the prevalent western propaganda? Putin has been in power for 24 years now and has reached the ripe old age of 71. Do you really believe he has suddenly decided to swallow up all neighbouring countries by force, after waiting all that time? Putin has said himself that is all nonsense and what benefit is there from forcing an unwilling population to succumb… Read more »

Monro
2 years ago
Reply to  CGW

Russia invaded Chechnya in 1999, Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, again in 2022.

Russia has form, invading Poland in 1939, Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1967.

Sebag Montefiore knows what he is talking about, few better.

Refreshingly open in that internal Kremlin documents are regularly handed over.

That is how we know of Putin’s intentions in Moldova, from the FSB’s own strategy document.

That is how we know of the Russian intention to incorporate Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltic States, probably bits of Poland as well, into a Russian ‘Union State’ with a new ‘iron curtain’ from Kaliningrad in the north to Odessa in the south. Belarus and Eastern Ukraine have already been subsumed into the ‘Union State’. Moldova and the rest of Ukraine are next.

That is not an ‘alternative to U.S. dominance.’ It is brutal and barbaric expansionism which will, unchecked, destroy your way of life, has already started to destroy your way of life through the mass immigration always caused by war.

CGW
CGW
2 years ago
Reply to  Monro

I apologize for having little knowledge of the Chechnya and Georgia conflicts but a quick search on the internet only leads to ‘official’ sources (Wikipedia, CNN, …) to whom I give little credence.

Russia certainly did not invade Poland and eastern Europe, that was USSR.

By Ukraine in 2014, you presumably mean Crimea. I can only judge by the well-documented referendums held in September 2022 in the Ukrainian areas under Russian control (Donetsk, Luhansk, etc.) that the Crimean referendum was also fair. That the eastern Ukrainian provinces preferred Russian protection and leadership is hardly surprising considering that the Ukrainian military has been shelling their cities since 2014 – the Nazi elements wanting to clear Ukraine of ethnic Russians.

For clear evidence of the Ukrainian military’s atrocities, I recommend Eva Bartlett’s videos on Odysee (e.g. https://odysee.com/@EvaKareneBartlett:9/ukraine-bombed-the-hotel-i-was-in,:f – careful, explicit images) or Patrick Lancaster’s videos on YouTube.

I am afraid I do not believe in a Russian threat to Europe, assuming our politicians are not so utterly stupid as to put ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine. One should indeed praise the unbelievable restraint of the Russians in the face of the financial and military aid provided to Ukraine by the west.

Monro
2 years ago
Reply to  CGW

Semantics. You will believe what you will and you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. It is not one that I share. 93% voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in the referendum of 1991, majorities in all regions including Crimea. Russia signed the Budapest memorandum in 1994 as follows: ‘The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.’ Russia is a party to the 1990 CSCE Charter of Paris for a New Europe in which the signatories “fully recognize the freedom of States to choose their own security arrangements”. There is evidence of atrocities on both sides of this conflict, a conflict started by Russia in 2014: no conflict, no atrocities….. Russia is not just a threat to Europe but has been at war in Europe since 2014. We have documentary evidence from within the Kremlin as to what Russia’s intentions are; crystal… Read more »

Bella Donna
2 years ago

It was never Pres Putin’s intention to murder Zelensky but it does give your article some drama.

Monro
2 years ago
Reply to  Bella Donna

It never is a murderer’s intention. They all apparently say that, somehow ‘…..the knife went in.’

Covid-1984
Covid-1984
2 years ago

It doesn’t help having Mr Magoo as Commander- in Chief in the White House. Putin must think its Christmas

Mark T
Mark T
2 years ago

“After all, the U.S. would hardly accept Russia doing a deal with, say, Mexico which would allow Russia to establish bases close to the U.S.-Mexico border (although it’s also understandable that Ukraine and Georgia wanted to join NATO, given Putin’s sabre-rattling).”

There is a fundamental difference between NATO expansion and what Russia would (hypothetically) be doing in this Mexico example and what it was certainly doing in Cuba – and that is, one (NATO) is an entirely defensive organisation but Russia in these examples would be entirely offensive. NATO is defensive, for containment and a commitment to come to mutual aid in the event of a non-NATO country aggressing against one of the members. NATO does NOT invade and forcibly expand its borders (and has never done so in its history). Only countries that follow a policy of aggression and forced expansion have reason to fear NATO on their borders.

It is therefore unjust to conclude that the two are of moral equivalence. Russia has NO moral right to dictate who can and cannot be in NATO. And any country that can demonstrate its willingness to meet NATO standards, regardless of it proximity to Russia (see: Finland) should be considered.

Monro
2 years ago
Reply to  Mark T

Indeed. The author appears to be unaware that Russia and the U.S.A. already share a border in the Bering sea, accomplished by the simple act of the U.S.A. actively purchasing its side of that border from Russia in the nineteenth century.

Old Brit
Old Brit
2 years ago

There seem to be two main theories for the start of the war. 1.NATO pushing too far.
2. Russia wanting to secure its borders as described by Peter Zeihan.
While Ukraine is losing the conventional fight, it is doing well in the unconventional one, hitting Russian refineries and making Crimea untenable. I suspect the Russians would quite like a settlement before the Kersch bridge is put out of action.