I shared this note with a reader. Each side says the other is suffering high and debilitating casualties. It's probably correct to say that both sides are suffering, but Ukraine more so because the war is almost entirely being fought there. Anyhow, here's the note:
I see a lot of casualty estimates. Pro-Russia people suggest Ukraine is dying in large numbers; the opposite for pro-Ukraine people (lots of Russians dying). My guess is that both sides are suffering heavily, but since Russia is superior in artillery, Ukraine is probably suffering more KIA/WIA, which, over time in an attritional war, will ultimately disable Ukraine's ability to hold the line. I'm not sure the U.S. and NATO really cares. In the U.S., the Biden/Harris admin. seems content as long as Ukraine can hold on until after the election in November. Meanwhile, Ukraine faces a very tough winter ahead.
Zbigniew Brzezinksi laid out the plans for using Ukraine as the vehicle for the US proxy war against Russia in "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperative," published way back in 1997. The Godfather of neoconservatism was hell-bent on destroying Russia and breaking it into pieces. The book is the Bible of the neocons, and Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken are fanatical adherents. These neocon nut jobs are playing a game of nuclear chicken that might lead to cataclysmic annihilation. Total madness.
"What sounded like a great idea to Neo-cons in the United States. To use Ukraine as a bear trap. Imagine Mr. Zelensky’s predicament. Mighty America and redoubtable Europe conned the former comedian into thinking that if he went along with a genius scheme to ruin Russia and knock off Putin, his sad-sack country would be transformed into something like Ukro-Disneyworld. While he would be lionized and made rich beyond his wildest dreams.
His backup was the greatest hegemonic power the world has ever seen. What could go wrong?
The poor schlemiel fell for it. He let NATO (that is, the USA) set-up, equip, and train the largest army in Europe, including battalions of bad-ass, hard-core Ukro-Nazis who had previously been so useful in the American-sponsored 2014 Maidan “Colour Uprising.” Mr. Z followed the US State Department’s orders to rain down artillery on Russian-speakers who lived in his own eastern provinces. Killing 14,000 civilians. He formally applied for membership in the NATO club. His country received billions of US dollars without audit oversight, just screaming to be creamed off by Ukraine’s corrupt leadership. " - James Howard Kunstler
As Shelby Foote said of the Civil War - the South never really had a chance; the North fought the war with one hand tied behind its back. I think the same is true in Ukraine. In terms of industrial capacity and manpower, the situation is the same.
Russia's error, it seemed to me was in the early days of the war, and its misunderstanding of, or disbelief in, the goals of its opponent - NATO and the US - over the previous eight years; the poor Ukrainians, except for its Nazis, were just the cannon fodder.
Subsequent to that, it appeared Russia was less concerned about land (that could always be recovered later) than the preservation of its soldiers' lives - given the Ukrainians almost ceaseless assaults into carefully prepared kill zones (sorry to be blunt).
As to why there was never the "big arrow" assault by the Russians - often cited by Western 'analysts' as indicating failure? Persistent ISR has changed warfare and it's something most of the big brains in the Pentagon never anticipated or understood, particularly after destruction of the Ukrainian air forces.
The casualties are horrendous. There are almost no numbers on Russian dead and wounded - but with the increasingly offensive nature of their operations, they could be as high as 100,000 - 200,000. The Ukrainians have likely over 1 million - perhaps 1.5x that. This is what continental warfare is like, and the Biden administration (as well as Obama and Trump) that supported this war should all be treated as what they are: war criminals.
And as to the calls to get rid of Putin - people should think about that. If he goes, you might get Medvedev or Patrushev - who both would be more inclined to an even bigger and more violent conflict that would include NATO targets.
Putin offered peace again and again, but it was refused. Consequently, attrition, as horrible as it is, makes sense. It kills enemy soldiers and supplies. The longer it lasts, the weaker the USA and Europe become. And, if global recession arrives, Russia is in a better position that NATO countries because it has almost no debt, and the war has made it more self-sufficient.
Yep. I cannot understand why simple truths are never expressed in this war. Not by anyone, high or low, informed or uninformed. These two simple truths:
1. The war is a Civil War with Ukraine v Ukraine. It is NOT 'Russia v Ukraine'. ( 'Russia helping sane Ukraine fight demented Ukraine if you like, okay ).
2. The war could end tomorrow if Kiev would say 'We mean Russia no harm, we wish to be friends and we recognise the right of our Donbas compatriots to self determination'.
For decades, Ukraine joining NATO has been recognized by Western diplomats as an existential threat to Russia. Violent ultranationalist Russophobic extremists having got rid of Yanukovych in 2014 were more than willing to kill ethic-Russian Ukrainians who objected to their goal.
Russia tried from 2014 to 2022 to negotiate a geopolitically neutral Ukraine and an end to warfare on its border in Ukraine and was met with nothing but contempt and hostility.
In September 2014, and February 2015, negotiations by France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia took place in Minsk, Belarus. Yielding the Minsk accords ~ an agreement that preserved the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and granting Russian speakers in the Donbas a measure of autonomy - like that of French speakers in Quebec.
In 2023, Francois Hollande, Angela Merkel, and Ukraine's Minsk negotiator, all of whom signed the Minsk accords, stated publicly that none of them had any intention of abiding by the agreement and that their intention was to buy time for Kyiv to prepare to intensify its military assault on its own people living in the Donbas.
Other diplomatic initiatives, including negotiations mediated by Turkey in March 2022, were similarly undertaken with no intention by Ukraine or the West to abide by the terms agreed. Numerous overtures by Russia to negotiate an end to fighting in the Donbas were ridiculed, disparaged, ignored, or rejected by the US. In Dec 2021 the UK’s Boris Johnson even flew to the Ukraine and talked Zelenskyy out of working with the Russians on a peace agreement.
Finally, on Feb. 24, 2022, Putin initiated his MSO to rid Russia of the US/NATO threat on its border, not unlike JFK's threat to go to war with the USSR over nuclear missiles installed in Cuba in October 1962.
Also, please remember that at the time of the Cuban missile crisis that the US had nuclear missiles in Turkey on the border with the Soviet Union. The crisis was averted when JFK made a secret deal with Khrushchev to remove the missiles in Turkey for removal of the missiles in Cuba. The US public wasn't to know for political reasons. Also please remember that no one wins a nuclear war. Nuclear winter, which was once considered unlikely, is now considered valid.
I did a lot of thinking on these issues, and became more confident (against NATO and the Ukrainian 'government') with education. I felt compelled to fight the propaganda.
I am currently rereading Wendell Berry's book, "The Need to Be Whole: Patriotism and the History of Prejudice." As you note, the North always held the advantage. Berry includes this from the surrender at Appomattox.
Lee eventually spoke of his wish to hand over to Grant the several hundred Union soldiers who were his prisoners, and who, like his own men, were starving. Grant, understanding, said, “I will take steps at once to have your army supplied with rations.” And then, Lee being unable to say how many rations would be required, Grant said, “Suppose I send over twenty-five thousand rations, do you think that will be a sufficient supply?” At this revelation of the material wealth of Grant’s army, Lee said, “Plenty, plenty. An abundance. And it will be a great relief, I can assure you.” From that day, Lee did not permit anybody in his hearing to speak unkindly of Grant.
I respect that the author of that piece is a friend of yours, but when I read it in Reason, I found it quite unserious. I’ll set aside my irritation at why a once important libertarian publication is publishing neocon talking points, to focus on the core of the problem. The war is indeed lost, and Russia has won. There was never any doubt about this, and I argued as much at the start. There was no way, given the array of resources between Russia and Ukraine that Ukraine could win absent direct US involvement and the onset of WWIII.
It is a brutal war of attrition, and what matters in these conflicts is the casualty exchange ratio, particularly as it relates to the resources at hand. This ratio massively favors Russia, and it is finally showing in the steady progress they are making in the Donbas. All this being foreseen by non-imperialists, it is a war that should never have been fought and would not have been except for the backing of the US. The only rational thing to do is to cut the best deal you can immediately, as that deal gets worse every day.
We can set aside the neocon argument that Putin will run the table to the English Channel. There is nothing in his actions that suggests more than viewing NATO expansion into Ukraine as an existential threat to Russia. Suffice it to say, even if it was his intention, an economy the size of Italy’s does not have the capacity. The danger in all this is that the US doubles down and gets directly involved to “save face”. This could be catastrophic for the planet. Pray, and agitate.
Yep. It's not a war any more, I think. It is a sick joke. They know what the end will be, they're putting together the details as we speak, who gets what. Meanwhile they use it to continue profits for the MIC, for domestic politics, for testing ground for weaponry. Theatre.
All standing on the abysmal stupidity and docility of the masses. How can half a million Ukrainans die 'defending their country' whilst in the midst of an aggressive conquering of their own compatriot's land based on ethnic hatred?
As a United States citizen, retired and getting by on Social Security, I wouldn't mind having a cool million or two (tax free, natch) slipped into my checking account. I'd also like a helicopter, a jet fighter (no ordnance, though), and the opportunity to address the Congress, all members of which would wear lapel pins sporting my smiling mug. A half-dozen standing ovations would be nice. Is this too much to ask? I have been supporting the U.S. military with my tax dollars since I was 14, a claim which neither Israel nor Ukraine can make. As the drunk in the subway says to Damian Karras, "Can you help an old altar boy, fadduh?"
In the spirit of The Godfather's many sage principles of negotiation, Russian President Vladimir Putin keeps making NATO/Ukraine an offer it can't refuse. Yet NATO/Ukraine keeps refusing and then wonders why each successive offer keeps looking even worse than the previous ones.
Your are right. The true danger of this war is its escalation. First it is defensive weapons only. Then it is offensive weapons restricted to Ukrainian territory. Then it is OK to deploy them on Russian soil, Then it is OK to use drones to attack Moscow.
How soon will we see NATO troops on the front lines, then on Russian soil, then advancing toward Moscow? What will trigger the first nuke? When the first one goes off, it will immediately be followed by others in both directions. Then, it's all over for all of us.
Sadly, escalation is almost a natural phenomenon of war. Wars rarely end peacefully. They tend to end only after one side has completely destroyed the other. I suspect that the escalatory nature of war is related to the one-upsmanship nature of humans that requires something always bigger, bolder, better, fancier, tougher than that of the other fellow. You push me, I will push you harder, my weapons are better than your weapons, my dick is bigger than yours, etc.
Humans seem to be the only living species that truly wants to destroy itself.
It's more than the Russia-Ukraine War, Bill. It's the US WAR with Russia over NATO in Ukraine, an existential threat to Russia. The US saw Soviet missiles in Cuba as an existential threat to the US. The US initiated the 1st Act of War with the Blockade of Cuba in violation of International Law in the whole 1962 Cuban missile crisis.
Russia has an advantage in every respect; military, logistics, production capacity and manpower. It also has air dominance, ISW dominance and has lots of partisan support even inside Ukraine where there are many Russian speaking sympathizers. The only advantage that Ukraine has is the support and money-flood from the west. When Ukraine decided to attack Kursk, it was fairly obvious that the well trained ultra-nationalist troops who had not been fighting very much on the front lines had a choice, go to the Donbass front and get decimated, or go to the undefended border with Russia where they could take a drive through the country farmland unopposed. They chose the latter. Russia did not defend that front because neither side had put up anything in the way of defense lines along the old Russia-Ukraine border. There really isn't anything there but farmland. So Ukraine took the farmland and shot up some small towns, and took some border guards as prisoners. That is all that happened. Now, most of the better troops have been pulled back to the Donbass, and the remaining ones in Kursk will be hunted down and killed or captured. For Ukraine it was a great PR victory, but as far as the war is concerned it was a strategic mistake of gargantuan proportions. Russia could finish this war in two months, but their loses would be very high. So they are sticking with their slow approach to keep loses to a minimum. But the war will end in early to mid 2025 unless the west escalates further.
generally I agree but I do sadly note they're not acting as though they're being hunted. They've pressed forward beyond Malaya Loknya despite stubborn resistance and they're pressing the attack in Korenevo and the western front there.
It never gets mentioned - I don't know why but it doesn't - that Kiev is an invader. They have invaded Donbas and after two years we still haven't got them out.
And that's the thing I find remarkable. They are like a mad dog. They still press forward wanting more and more invasion.
To them the whole world is ripe for invasion it would seem.
It is not just Ukraine fighting Russia. Putin and others have said in public many times that Russia is at war with NATO, not because Russia wants war, but because NATO does. Russia wanted to do lots of trading with the west, but the west did not want Russia to grow any stronger, so the west instigated a proxy war. A substantial number of soldiers killed in Ukraine, especially in the last year or so, are from other countries including Poland, Canada, Britain, Columbia, Australia, Germany, Sweden, the US and many others. Ukraine would not have lasted so long without all that NATO input. As the war turns even more sour for Ukraine, that external help will fade.
A step towards bringing it to an end is to withdraw popular support for the USA, NATO, etc. And I suggest a step towards that is to change the narrative from 'Russia v Ukraine' to something more truthful.
Now 'Russia v USA' is more truthful but not helpful. 'Russia v NATO' is truthful but not helpful. I don't know why but you can see it is so. Perhaps because people instinctively feel well Russia can look after itself. It is all too 'big boy' stuff. Not for us to worry about.
But 'Ukraine Civil War', 'Donbas Ukrainians being attacked by Kiev Ukrainians' simply because of their Russian heritage, well that gets closer to people, penetrates more and obviously informs more.
It would be a pro active step to promulgate.
However there is not much taste for pro active steps. Overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly the taste is for dribbling on and on at great length, preaching to the converted, bolstering one's own ego.
I think your friend, Schwennesen, suffers from WDS--Western Delusional Syndrome. NATO escalation is Zelensky's only hope--and I note it is Zelensky and the worst of the worst in Ukraine that keep the war going at this point. The Pope was right months ago when he said it was time to raise the white flag. This intransigence to any dialogue from the Western bosses at this point is equal to war crimes as far as I'm concerned.
I think my friend is looking through a soda straw at a tiny section of the front. There, what he's seeing is feeding his optimism and his pro-Ukraine bent.
Russia is conquering villages and towns north-east and south-east of Pokrovst ; ensuring it won't be attacked at its flanks, and that it'll have a broader front to attack the city with. Such exclusion [by Western commentators] of territorial loss is diversive.
Komyshivka, Ptyche, Mezhove and others have vanished. Kalynove, Karlivka and others southwards will be next. The Russians head westwards along the M-30 road and the railway for a bigger fight in Selydove. The block will be secured, bringing them directly below Novohrodivka where the Russians have occupied the tallest buildings for a view of Pokrovst.
The fall of Krasnohorivka is a big loss for Ukraine. If the Russians draw a line from Novohrodivka to Krasnohorivka, and conquer everything East, they will need significantly less troops to defend the frontline, rotating the excess to the battle for Pokrovsk.
Although slower, it’s similar north-east of Novohrodivka. Niu York has been crushed, and Toretsk is next.
Undoubtedly, the Kursk operation was conducted well by the Ukrainians, but if that rural region is so important, why has Russia taking time to build a new army for its border whilst increasing its attack on the Pokrovst region? Russia must feel that it's in control. Time will prove that true or not.
Just like they made a killing off the Global War on Terror and every other war. If Eisenhower thought the MIC was a problem back in 1960, I wonder what he would say about the 21st century permutation?
Whatever your friend’s credentials are he is utterly ignorant of the reality of this war. He sounds like someone who has indulged too much in the “gleichgeschaltete” media narrative that has dominated western reporting about Russia for more than two decades. How many times have they reported about the health problems of Putin? How many times have the told us that Russia’s economy is in the process of collapsing? How many times have they reported that the Russian military is incompetent and its military equipment is far inferior to that supplied to Ukraine by the West? Why are they systematically disregarding the simple truth that Ukraine is running out of eligible men to serve in its military? I could go on ad infinitum. I won’t go into the ad hominem attacks on the Russian leadership or the Russian people. The dehumanizing rhetoric towards Russians reminds me of the language used against the Palestinians and in a milder but similar form against the German people by FDR’s assistant in his State Department Sumner Wells in his 1944 book A TIME FOR DECISION. Quote from memory and paraphrased “the Germans (Prussians) haven’t made any worthwhile contribution to the world in the last two hundred years.” Evidently ignorance or outright stupidity is a prerequisite for governmental and journalistic work. How are these mavens of information explaining Russia’s thriving economy and approval rating among ca. 80% of the world’s population? How are they explaining that the incompetent Russians are destroying systematically all the “superior” western supplied military equipment? Shouldn’t have this advanced materiel destroyed the primitive Russian supersonic missiles (which the West has nothing in its arsenal to counter). Maybe your colleague and friend will wake up to reality when Washington D.C. will look like Berlin in 1945 after some Kinzal or Sarmat Russian rockets are launched. Does anyone know what the Russians recently did in Poltava and then in Lviv? German general von Manstein in his memoirs stated that the biggest mistake Hitler made (he tried to cover up his own complicity) was that, again from memory and somewhat paraphrased, “he underestimated the immense resources of Russia and the fighting ability of the Russian soldiers.” Anyone with any common sense should understand that Zelensky’s constant asking for more and more western weaponry reveals that the Russians have been and are destroying everything that the West has so far offered. But that you won’t get from the west’s reporting. The western powers ability to supply more is at the point of exhaustion. Demonizing, demeaning and just plain propaganda will only result in Russian determination to destroy the Ukrainian state as it was in 1991! I only hope that some sane people will not reach for the only weapon left to the West because it would mean the annihilation of civilization as we know it. In 1812 the Russian government ordered the burning of Moscow and we know what happened after that.
What I make of this is very little. As a long-service, long-retired Canadian Army/CF officer and perpetual student of history, war and foreign relations, I smell 'the wish as father to the thought' here. Which war has the US won recently against a nearly-equivalent enemy? Even WW II was won only with the assistance of those evil Russians disposing of about two-thirds of Wehrmacht personnel, equipment and supplies in four years of bitter war on Germany's East Front before the Western Allies were able to land on the Continent in force and finish the job.
The US military should complete a good, hard-nosed assessment of its own and its allies military, operational and logistic capabilities on the ground - against an enemy 5,000 miles away, with little chance of a protected approach and every chance of facing stand-off weapons along the way. Then it should do the same for Russia and its potential allies, 'correlate' this comparison of forces, and - most important of all - tell the military and political leadership what they have to know, not what they think their superiors would like to hear.
Only Russia has tactical nukes. Should things go very wrong for Russia, which I doubt will happen, it could play this card that cannot be answered. Any supply of tactical nukes to Ukraine for use on Russia would be on the razor's edge of WW3, whereas Russia could defend their own use of nukes as existential. It would be one more step toward midnight on that clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
BTW, Israel's Haaretz yesterday published a very interesting quite detailed article on the use of FPV's, first person drones. With this weapon the user dons goggles that allow him to see the view from the drone and direct it right down onto the target, often troops that believe they are protected behind barriers or in trenches. It mentioned that these are in use by Ukraine and now they are being employed by Hezbollah. Because they have no need of GPS, GPS jamming cannot stop them. The liability for the user is he must be fairly close to the target. Israeli missile defense installations have been hit.
The comment section is making good points. What's left out is how Ukrainians must feel, past the propaganda we're fed.
Zelensky was elected on the promise of peace, but went to war.
He made children live underground for months. He banned opposition political parties, critical media houses, and books. He chased millions of his countrymen out of his country.
He installs fear in millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. He arrests journalists and peace activists. He allows human beings to be stripped, beaten, painted and tied to street poles.
His blaming others is useless. The relatives of the dead, and the living still fighting in the hell he's created, will not forgive him.
I'll think some more, and flesh that out into a full post.
Don’t forget to mention that he canceled elections, and now holds his office with no legal or democratic legitimacy.
Zelensky said yesterday he wanted new Western aid to end the war this fall, but I think he’s looking more at his own expiration date than the military situation. The fighting, I believe, will continue into next year; Ukrainian collapse in the first part of 2026 seems likely to me.
The West could keep Ukraine ticking over until then, but I can’t see where they will get the bodies. This will be a bad Winter for the Public, and that will add further strain on the country’s moral, and tolerance.
I’m more in the fog regarding the elections. It’s one thing to say there should be elections, but it’s impractical, and could never be run efficiently. Besides, everyone wants Zelensky to take the blame, so contenders happy to wait. In the bigger picture, what is an election. Surely not a democratic process in Ukraine… nor the USA.
Leaving aside what presidential elections would have looked like in these circumstances, the fact they weren’t held diminishes Zelensky’s standing now, and this can be instrumentalized by both domestic political opponents when the time is ripe (maybe soon) and the Russian government in saying they need a legitimate negotiating partner if they’re going to talk peace.
As for the situation in Ukraine as a whole, you are quite right in what you point out: they will eventually be unable to man the trenches, and the ruthless Russian campaign against the power grid will likely make this a brutal winter in Ukraine.
But, as Adam Smith is purported to have said, there is a great deal of ruin in a nation. When I said collapse, I meant real collapse, allowing Russia to decisively move from the positional war of attrition to taking and holding huge amounts of territory rapidly. I think it will take a while to get there, barring complete abandonment by NATO.
A new, worthwhile propaganda documentary to watch is 'Klitschko - More Than A Fight'. He's one of the contenders to the throne, and he doesn't like Zelensky.
One good list deserves another. Here is the list of limits to war from Seymour Melman's "The Permanent War Economy". Also this about Lloyd Austin from Wikipedia: "After retiring from the armed services Austin joined the board of Raytheon Technologies..."
- There is no defense, no shield, against nuclear weapons
- Deterrence is a threat system, not a shield
- People cannot be killed more than once
- A city or country cannot be destroyed more than once
- Once nuclear arms are available in quantity, more weapons or firepower do not necessarily add to military power
- Among nuclear powers it is probably impossible to carry out a surprise attack that so overwhelms the victims as to preclude a return nuclear strike
- In a nuclear war if you apparently win you very likely stand to lose
- Among nuclear powers military superiority is no longer definable or achievable
- The spread of nuclear weapons cannot be readily halted
- Military dominance is not assured even by overwhelming military spending
- Conventional military forces wielding superior firepower cannot necessarily subdue a military opponent organized along guerrilla lines
- Possession of very large air forces does not necessarily ensure victory in the use of air power against a determined opponent
- Human and machine errors, mis-judgements, miscalculations or misinterpretations in the use of modern weapons can have catastrophic effects.
- Military command and control procedures are not error-proof
- Higher price does not necessarily produce higher quality in military hardware
- Military power cannot necessarily ensure economic or political stability
- Economic health does not depend on having superior military power
I shared this with a friend, and thought perhaps it might be worth sharing here with the group.
Fifty years of reading military history has taught me a few things:
1. War is inherently chaotic and unpredictable.
2. The side with the bigger battalions often--but not always--wins.
3. "Truth" is always the first casualty of war.
4. The side that boasts the most ("mission accomplished") is probably the one that's losing.
5. Throwing raw conscripts into battle is the desperate act of fools.
6. Those at the front suffer as the REMFs often grow fat and rich.
7. Those with the best weapons and highest kill ratio don't always win (U.S. in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places).
8. Fighting for a cause (as in fighting to defend one's home turf) is a powerful motivator.
9. Long wars enrich the few at the expense of the many.
10. War is bad, very bad; being subjugated is badder still.
11. Those who scream loudest for war are often those who are least likely to serve.
12. Wars aren't valuable in making heroes, but wars are effective at producing killers.
With the always valuable coda that jaw-jaw (as in negotiating) is usually far preferable to war-war.
I would add that wars are won by those fighting in their own backyards. Proxy wars are almost always losers.
I shared this note with a reader. Each side says the other is suffering high and debilitating casualties. It's probably correct to say that both sides are suffering, but Ukraine more so because the war is almost entirely being fought there. Anyhow, here's the note:
I see a lot of casualty estimates. Pro-Russia people suggest Ukraine is dying in large numbers; the opposite for pro-Ukraine people (lots of Russians dying). My guess is that both sides are suffering heavily, but since Russia is superior in artillery, Ukraine is probably suffering more KIA/WIA, which, over time in an attritional war, will ultimately disable Ukraine's ability to hold the line. I'm not sure the U.S. and NATO really cares. In the U.S., the Biden/Harris admin. seems content as long as Ukraine can hold on until after the election in November. Meanwhile, Ukraine faces a very tough winter ahead.
Zbigniew Brzezinksi laid out the plans for using Ukraine as the vehicle for the US proxy war against Russia in "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperative," published way back in 1997. The Godfather of neoconservatism was hell-bent on destroying Russia and breaking it into pieces. The book is the Bible of the neocons, and Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken are fanatical adherents. These neocon nut jobs are playing a game of nuclear chicken that might lead to cataclysmic annihilation. Total madness.
"What sounded like a great idea to Neo-cons in the United States. To use Ukraine as a bear trap. Imagine Mr. Zelensky’s predicament. Mighty America and redoubtable Europe conned the former comedian into thinking that if he went along with a genius scheme to ruin Russia and knock off Putin, his sad-sack country would be transformed into something like Ukro-Disneyworld. While he would be lionized and made rich beyond his wildest dreams.
His backup was the greatest hegemonic power the world has ever seen. What could go wrong?
The poor schlemiel fell for it. He let NATO (that is, the USA) set-up, equip, and train the largest army in Europe, including battalions of bad-ass, hard-core Ukro-Nazis who had previously been so useful in the American-sponsored 2014 Maidan “Colour Uprising.” Mr. Z followed the US State Department’s orders to rain down artillery on Russian-speakers who lived in his own eastern provinces. Killing 14,000 civilians. He formally applied for membership in the NATO club. His country received billions of US dollars without audit oversight, just screaming to be creamed off by Ukraine’s corrupt leadership. " - James Howard Kunstler
I think Boris Johnson told Zelenksy that if he didn't cooperate they would let the Azovs assassinate him.
As Shelby Foote said of the Civil War - the South never really had a chance; the North fought the war with one hand tied behind its back. I think the same is true in Ukraine. In terms of industrial capacity and manpower, the situation is the same.
Russia's error, it seemed to me was in the early days of the war, and its misunderstanding of, or disbelief in, the goals of its opponent - NATO and the US - over the previous eight years; the poor Ukrainians, except for its Nazis, were just the cannon fodder.
Subsequent to that, it appeared Russia was less concerned about land (that could always be recovered later) than the preservation of its soldiers' lives - given the Ukrainians almost ceaseless assaults into carefully prepared kill zones (sorry to be blunt).
As to why there was never the "big arrow" assault by the Russians - often cited by Western 'analysts' as indicating failure? Persistent ISR has changed warfare and it's something most of the big brains in the Pentagon never anticipated or understood, particularly after destruction of the Ukrainian air forces.
The casualties are horrendous. There are almost no numbers on Russian dead and wounded - but with the increasingly offensive nature of their operations, they could be as high as 100,000 - 200,000. The Ukrainians have likely over 1 million - perhaps 1.5x that. This is what continental warfare is like, and the Biden administration (as well as Obama and Trump) that supported this war should all be treated as what they are: war criminals.
And as to the calls to get rid of Putin - people should think about that. If he goes, you might get Medvedev or Patrushev - who both would be more inclined to an even bigger and more violent conflict that would include NATO targets.
Putin offered peace again and again, but it was refused. Consequently, attrition, as horrible as it is, makes sense. It kills enemy soldiers and supplies. The longer it lasts, the weaker the USA and Europe become. And, if global recession arrives, Russia is in a better position that NATO countries because it has almost no debt, and the war has made it more self-sufficient.
Yep. I cannot understand why simple truths are never expressed in this war. Not by anyone, high or low, informed or uninformed. These two simple truths:
1. The war is a Civil War with Ukraine v Ukraine. It is NOT 'Russia v Ukraine'. ( 'Russia helping sane Ukraine fight demented Ukraine if you like, okay ).
2. The war could end tomorrow if Kiev would say 'We mean Russia no harm, we wish to be friends and we recognise the right of our Donbas compatriots to self determination'.
Simple enough, eh? Never get a mention. Never.
For decades, Ukraine joining NATO has been recognized by Western diplomats as an existential threat to Russia. Violent ultranationalist Russophobic extremists having got rid of Yanukovych in 2014 were more than willing to kill ethic-Russian Ukrainians who objected to their goal.
Russia tried from 2014 to 2022 to negotiate a geopolitically neutral Ukraine and an end to warfare on its border in Ukraine and was met with nothing but contempt and hostility.
In September 2014, and February 2015, negotiations by France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia took place in Minsk, Belarus. Yielding the Minsk accords ~ an agreement that preserved the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and granting Russian speakers in the Donbas a measure of autonomy - like that of French speakers in Quebec.
In 2023, Francois Hollande, Angela Merkel, and Ukraine's Minsk negotiator, all of whom signed the Minsk accords, stated publicly that none of them had any intention of abiding by the agreement and that their intention was to buy time for Kyiv to prepare to intensify its military assault on its own people living in the Donbas.
Other diplomatic initiatives, including negotiations mediated by Turkey in March 2022, were similarly undertaken with no intention by Ukraine or the West to abide by the terms agreed. Numerous overtures by Russia to negotiate an end to fighting in the Donbas were ridiculed, disparaged, ignored, or rejected by the US. In Dec 2021 the UK’s Boris Johnson even flew to the Ukraine and talked Zelenskyy out of working with the Russians on a peace agreement.
Finally, on Feb. 24, 2022, Putin initiated his MSO to rid Russia of the US/NATO threat on its border, not unlike JFK's threat to go to war with the USSR over nuclear missiles installed in Cuba in October 1962.
Also, please remember that at the time of the Cuban missile crisis that the US had nuclear missiles in Turkey on the border with the Soviet Union. The crisis was averted when JFK made a secret deal with Khrushchev to remove the missiles in Turkey for removal of the missiles in Cuba. The US public wasn't to know for political reasons. Also please remember that no one wins a nuclear war. Nuclear winter, which was once considered unlikely, is now considered valid.
https://scheerpost.com/2022/10/29/the-cuban-missile-crisis-cover-up/
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/cuban-missile-crisis
Good historical summary.
I did a lot of thinking on these issues, and became more confident (against NATO and the Ukrainian 'government') with education. I felt compelled to fight the propaganda.
'Is it NATO's Fault' - https://www.mikehampton.co.uk/p/03-putin-isnt-the-only-monster-in
and 'From Nazi History to Civil War: How can we fight Nazism without saying 'Nazi'?' - https://www.mikehampton.co.uk/p/putin-ukraine-nazi-history-civil-war
All very interesting. Thanks.
I am currently rereading Wendell Berry's book, "The Need to Be Whole: Patriotism and the History of Prejudice." As you note, the North always held the advantage. Berry includes this from the surrender at Appomattox.
Lee eventually spoke of his wish to hand over to Grant the several hundred Union soldiers who were his prisoners, and who, like his own men, were starving. Grant, understanding, said, “I will take steps at once to have your army supplied with rations.” And then, Lee being unable to say how many rations would be required, Grant said, “Suppose I send over twenty-five thousand rations, do you think that will be a sufficient supply?” At this revelation of the material wealth of Grant’s army, Lee said, “Plenty, plenty. An abundance. And it will be a great relief, I can assure you.” From that day, Lee did not permit anybody in his hearing to speak unkindly of Grant.
I respect that the author of that piece is a friend of yours, but when I read it in Reason, I found it quite unserious. I’ll set aside my irritation at why a once important libertarian publication is publishing neocon talking points, to focus on the core of the problem. The war is indeed lost, and Russia has won. There was never any doubt about this, and I argued as much at the start. There was no way, given the array of resources between Russia and Ukraine that Ukraine could win absent direct US involvement and the onset of WWIII.
It is a brutal war of attrition, and what matters in these conflicts is the casualty exchange ratio, particularly as it relates to the resources at hand. This ratio massively favors Russia, and it is finally showing in the steady progress they are making in the Donbas. All this being foreseen by non-imperialists, it is a war that should never have been fought and would not have been except for the backing of the US. The only rational thing to do is to cut the best deal you can immediately, as that deal gets worse every day.
We can set aside the neocon argument that Putin will run the table to the English Channel. There is nothing in his actions that suggests more than viewing NATO expansion into Ukraine as an existential threat to Russia. Suffice it to say, even if it was his intention, an economy the size of Italy’s does not have the capacity. The danger in all this is that the US doubles down and gets directly involved to “save face”. This could be catastrophic for the planet. Pray, and agitate.
Yep. It's not a war any more, I think. It is a sick joke. They know what the end will be, they're putting together the details as we speak, who gets what. Meanwhile they use it to continue profits for the MIC, for domestic politics, for testing ground for weaponry. Theatre.
All standing on the abysmal stupidity and docility of the masses. How can half a million Ukrainans die 'defending their country' whilst in the midst of an aggressive conquering of their own compatriot's land based on ethnic hatred?
As a United States citizen, retired and getting by on Social Security, I wouldn't mind having a cool million or two (tax free, natch) slipped into my checking account. I'd also like a helicopter, a jet fighter (no ordnance, though), and the opportunity to address the Congress, all members of which would wear lapel pins sporting my smiling mug. A half-dozen standing ovations would be nice. Is this too much to ask? I have been supporting the U.S. military with my tax dollars since I was 14, a claim which neither Israel nor Ukraine can make. As the drunk in the subway says to Damian Karras, "Can you help an old altar boy, fadduh?"
If you declare war on Russia, you might see some money ...
As Don Corleone said, reasonable men can always come to an understanding.
In the spirit of The Godfather's many sage principles of negotiation, Russian President Vladimir Putin keeps making NATO/Ukraine an offer it can't refuse. Yet NATO/Ukraine keeps refusing and then wonders why each successive offer keeps looking even worse than the previous ones.
Your are right. The true danger of this war is its escalation. First it is defensive weapons only. Then it is offensive weapons restricted to Ukrainian territory. Then it is OK to deploy them on Russian soil, Then it is OK to use drones to attack Moscow.
How soon will we see NATO troops on the front lines, then on Russian soil, then advancing toward Moscow? What will trigger the first nuke? When the first one goes off, it will immediately be followed by others in both directions. Then, it's all over for all of us.
Sadly, escalation is almost a natural phenomenon of war. Wars rarely end peacefully. They tend to end only after one side has completely destroyed the other. I suspect that the escalatory nature of war is related to the one-upsmanship nature of humans that requires something always bigger, bolder, better, fancier, tougher than that of the other fellow. You push me, I will push you harder, my weapons are better than your weapons, my dick is bigger than yours, etc.
Humans seem to be the only living species that truly wants to destroy itself.
It's more than the Russia-Ukraine War, Bill. It's the US WAR with Russia over NATO in Ukraine, an existential threat to Russia. The US saw Soviet missiles in Cuba as an existential threat to the US. The US initiated the 1st Act of War with the Blockade of Cuba in violation of International Law in the whole 1962 Cuban missile crisis.
Americans are not that exceptional!
It's far more than the US war with Russia, it's the US war to dominate the world. The US must eliminate all potential competitors.
Russia has an advantage in every respect; military, logistics, production capacity and manpower. It also has air dominance, ISW dominance and has lots of partisan support even inside Ukraine where there are many Russian speaking sympathizers. The only advantage that Ukraine has is the support and money-flood from the west. When Ukraine decided to attack Kursk, it was fairly obvious that the well trained ultra-nationalist troops who had not been fighting very much on the front lines had a choice, go to the Donbass front and get decimated, or go to the undefended border with Russia where they could take a drive through the country farmland unopposed. They chose the latter. Russia did not defend that front because neither side had put up anything in the way of defense lines along the old Russia-Ukraine border. There really isn't anything there but farmland. So Ukraine took the farmland and shot up some small towns, and took some border guards as prisoners. That is all that happened. Now, most of the better troops have been pulled back to the Donbass, and the remaining ones in Kursk will be hunted down and killed or captured. For Ukraine it was a great PR victory, but as far as the war is concerned it was a strategic mistake of gargantuan proportions. Russia could finish this war in two months, but their loses would be very high. So they are sticking with their slow approach to keep loses to a minimum. But the war will end in early to mid 2025 unless the west escalates further.
generally I agree but I do sadly note they're not acting as though they're being hunted. They've pressed forward beyond Malaya Loknya despite stubborn resistance and they're pressing the attack in Korenevo and the western front there.
It never gets mentioned - I don't know why but it doesn't - that Kiev is an invader. They have invaded Donbas and after two years we still haven't got them out.
And that's the thing I find remarkable. They are like a mad dog. They still press forward wanting more and more invasion.
To them the whole world is ripe for invasion it would seem.
It is not just Ukraine fighting Russia. Putin and others have said in public many times that Russia is at war with NATO, not because Russia wants war, but because NATO does. Russia wanted to do lots of trading with the west, but the west did not want Russia to grow any stronger, so the west instigated a proxy war. A substantial number of soldiers killed in Ukraine, especially in the last year or so, are from other countries including Poland, Canada, Britain, Columbia, Australia, Germany, Sweden, the US and many others. Ukraine would not have lasted so long without all that NATO input. As the war turns even more sour for Ukraine, that external help will fade.
Well yes, we know this.
A step towards bringing it to an end is to withdraw popular support for the USA, NATO, etc. And I suggest a step towards that is to change the narrative from 'Russia v Ukraine' to something more truthful.
Now 'Russia v USA' is more truthful but not helpful. 'Russia v NATO' is truthful but not helpful. I don't know why but you can see it is so. Perhaps because people instinctively feel well Russia can look after itself. It is all too 'big boy' stuff. Not for us to worry about.
But 'Ukraine Civil War', 'Donbas Ukrainians being attacked by Kiev Ukrainians' simply because of their Russian heritage, well that gets closer to people, penetrates more and obviously informs more.
It would be a pro active step to promulgate.
However there is not much taste for pro active steps. Overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly the taste is for dribbling on and on at great length, preaching to the converted, bolstering one's own ego.
I think your friend, Schwennesen, suffers from WDS--Western Delusional Syndrome. NATO escalation is Zelensky's only hope--and I note it is Zelensky and the worst of the worst in Ukraine that keep the war going at this point. The Pope was right months ago when he said it was time to raise the white flag. This intransigence to any dialogue from the Western bosses at this point is equal to war crimes as far as I'm concerned.
I think my friend is looking through a soda straw at a tiny section of the front. There, what he's seeing is feeding his optimism and his pro-Ukraine bent.
It's difficult to not take the same side as Western leaders. For one thing, that's where all the money is.
Optimism is the perfect word for it--buying into a program that asks nothing of us yet somehow all will come about just as we imagine it.
Russia is conquering villages and towns north-east and south-east of Pokrovst ; ensuring it won't be attacked at its flanks, and that it'll have a broader front to attack the city with. Such exclusion [by Western commentators] of territorial loss is diversive.
Komyshivka, Ptyche, Mezhove and others have vanished. Kalynove, Karlivka and others southwards will be next. The Russians head westwards along the M-30 road and the railway for a bigger fight in Selydove. The block will be secured, bringing them directly below Novohrodivka where the Russians have occupied the tallest buildings for a view of Pokrovst.
The fall of Krasnohorivka is a big loss for Ukraine. If the Russians draw a line from Novohrodivka to Krasnohorivka, and conquer everything East, they will need significantly less troops to defend the frontline, rotating the excess to the battle for Pokrovsk.
Although slower, it’s similar north-east of Novohrodivka. Niu York has been crushed, and Toretsk is next.
Undoubtedly, the Kursk operation was conducted well by the Ukrainians, but if that rural region is so important, why has Russia taking time to build a new army for its border whilst increasing its attack on the Pokrovst region? Russia must feel that it's in control. Time will prove that true or not.
$185 billion from the US almost as much from EU!
As Yogi Berra said: "Predictions are hard; especially about the future".
Your friend has not seen the quality of the Ukraine "draftees" pressed into service with a few days' training!
The western tell is different than the tell from open sources such as Moon of Alabama.
Putin has been about to be "dethroned" for years!
The US Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex is making a KILLING off the Ukraine War and the Gaza Genocide.
Just like they made a killing off the Global War on Terror and every other war. If Eisenhower thought the MIC was a problem back in 1960, I wonder what he would say about the 21st century permutation?
interesting to note they're all down just now https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/industrials/defense-stocks/#toc_effect-of-conflict
Whatever your friend’s credentials are he is utterly ignorant of the reality of this war. He sounds like someone who has indulged too much in the “gleichgeschaltete” media narrative that has dominated western reporting about Russia for more than two decades. How many times have they reported about the health problems of Putin? How many times have the told us that Russia’s economy is in the process of collapsing? How many times have they reported that the Russian military is incompetent and its military equipment is far inferior to that supplied to Ukraine by the West? Why are they systematically disregarding the simple truth that Ukraine is running out of eligible men to serve in its military? I could go on ad infinitum. I won’t go into the ad hominem attacks on the Russian leadership or the Russian people. The dehumanizing rhetoric towards Russians reminds me of the language used against the Palestinians and in a milder but similar form against the German people by FDR’s assistant in his State Department Sumner Wells in his 1944 book A TIME FOR DECISION. Quote from memory and paraphrased “the Germans (Prussians) haven’t made any worthwhile contribution to the world in the last two hundred years.” Evidently ignorance or outright stupidity is a prerequisite for governmental and journalistic work. How are these mavens of information explaining Russia’s thriving economy and approval rating among ca. 80% of the world’s population? How are they explaining that the incompetent Russians are destroying systematically all the “superior” western supplied military equipment? Shouldn’t have this advanced materiel destroyed the primitive Russian supersonic missiles (which the West has nothing in its arsenal to counter). Maybe your colleague and friend will wake up to reality when Washington D.C. will look like Berlin in 1945 after some Kinzal or Sarmat Russian rockets are launched. Does anyone know what the Russians recently did in Poltava and then in Lviv? German general von Manstein in his memoirs stated that the biggest mistake Hitler made (he tried to cover up his own complicity) was that, again from memory and somewhat paraphrased, “he underestimated the immense resources of Russia and the fighting ability of the Russian soldiers.” Anyone with any common sense should understand that Zelensky’s constant asking for more and more western weaponry reveals that the Russians have been and are destroying everything that the West has so far offered. But that you won’t get from the west’s reporting. The western powers ability to supply more is at the point of exhaustion. Demonizing, demeaning and just plain propaganda will only result in Russian determination to destroy the Ukrainian state as it was in 1991! I only hope that some sane people will not reach for the only weapon left to the West because it would mean the annihilation of civilization as we know it. In 1812 the Russian government ordered the burning of Moscow and we know what happened after that.
I would like recommend to anyone to read Gilbert Doctorow’s ARMAGEDDON NEWSLETTER of today which I read after I wrote my above posted short essay.
Thank you for pointing out the very useful Doctorow Newsletter..
What I make of this is very little. As a long-service, long-retired Canadian Army/CF officer and perpetual student of history, war and foreign relations, I smell 'the wish as father to the thought' here. Which war has the US won recently against a nearly-equivalent enemy? Even WW II was won only with the assistance of those evil Russians disposing of about two-thirds of Wehrmacht personnel, equipment and supplies in four years of bitter war on Germany's East Front before the Western Allies were able to land on the Continent in force and finish the job.
The US military should complete a good, hard-nosed assessment of its own and its allies military, operational and logistic capabilities on the ground - against an enemy 5,000 miles away, with little chance of a protected approach and every chance of facing stand-off weapons along the way. Then it should do the same for Russia and its potential allies, 'correlate' this comparison of forces, and - most important of all - tell the military and political leadership what they have to know, not what they think their superiors would like to hear.
Only Russia has tactical nukes. Should things go very wrong for Russia, which I doubt will happen, it could play this card that cannot be answered. Any supply of tactical nukes to Ukraine for use on Russia would be on the razor's edge of WW3, whereas Russia could defend their own use of nukes as existential. It would be one more step toward midnight on that clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
BTW, Israel's Haaretz yesterday published a very interesting quite detailed article on the use of FPV's, first person drones. With this weapon the user dons goggles that allow him to see the view from the drone and direct it right down onto the target, often troops that believe they are protected behind barriers or in trenches. It mentioned that these are in use by Ukraine and now they are being employed by Hezbollah. Because they have no need of GPS, GPS jamming cannot stop them. The liability for the user is he must be fairly close to the target. Israeli missile defense installations have been hit.
Here's the link to that FPV article: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2024-09-05/ty-article/.premium/like-ukraine-hezbollah-begins-attacking-israeli-forces-with-fpv-racing-drones/00000191-c338-d870-a59d-e77bec490000
The comment section is making good points. What's left out is how Ukrainians must feel, past the propaganda we're fed.
Zelensky was elected on the promise of peace, but went to war.
He made children live underground for months. He banned opposition political parties, critical media houses, and books. He chased millions of his countrymen out of his country.
He installs fear in millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. He arrests journalists and peace activists. He allows human beings to be stripped, beaten, painted and tied to street poles.
His blaming others is useless. The relatives of the dead, and the living still fighting in the hell he's created, will not forgive him.
I'll think some more, and flesh that out into a full post.
Don’t forget to mention that he canceled elections, and now holds his office with no legal or democratic legitimacy.
Zelensky said yesterday he wanted new Western aid to end the war this fall, but I think he’s looking more at his own expiration date than the military situation. The fighting, I believe, will continue into next year; Ukrainian collapse in the first part of 2026 seems likely to me.
The West could keep Ukraine ticking over until then, but I can’t see where they will get the bodies. This will be a bad Winter for the Public, and that will add further strain on the country’s moral, and tolerance.
I’m more in the fog regarding the elections. It’s one thing to say there should be elections, but it’s impractical, and could never be run efficiently. Besides, everyone wants Zelensky to take the blame, so contenders happy to wait. In the bigger picture, what is an election. Surely not a democratic process in Ukraine… nor the USA.
Leaving aside what presidential elections would have looked like in these circumstances, the fact they weren’t held diminishes Zelensky’s standing now, and this can be instrumentalized by both domestic political opponents when the time is ripe (maybe soon) and the Russian government in saying they need a legitimate negotiating partner if they’re going to talk peace.
As for the situation in Ukraine as a whole, you are quite right in what you point out: they will eventually be unable to man the trenches, and the ruthless Russian campaign against the power grid will likely make this a brutal winter in Ukraine.
But, as Adam Smith is purported to have said, there is a great deal of ruin in a nation. When I said collapse, I meant real collapse, allowing Russia to decisively move from the positional war of attrition to taking and holding huge amounts of territory rapidly. I think it will take a while to get there, barring complete abandonment by NATO.
A new, worthwhile propaganda documentary to watch is 'Klitschko - More Than A Fight'. He's one of the contenders to the throne, and he doesn't like Zelensky.
One good list deserves another. Here is the list of limits to war from Seymour Melman's "The Permanent War Economy". Also this about Lloyd Austin from Wikipedia: "After retiring from the armed services Austin joined the board of Raytheon Technologies..."
- There is no defense, no shield, against nuclear weapons
- Deterrence is a threat system, not a shield
- People cannot be killed more than once
- A city or country cannot be destroyed more than once
- Once nuclear arms are available in quantity, more weapons or firepower do not necessarily add to military power
- Among nuclear powers it is probably impossible to carry out a surprise attack that so overwhelms the victims as to preclude a return nuclear strike
- In a nuclear war if you apparently win you very likely stand to lose
- Among nuclear powers military superiority is no longer definable or achievable
- The spread of nuclear weapons cannot be readily halted
- Military dominance is not assured even by overwhelming military spending
- Conventional military forces wielding superior firepower cannot necessarily subdue a military opponent organized along guerrilla lines
- Possession of very large air forces does not necessarily ensure victory in the use of air power against a determined opponent
- Human and machine errors, mis-judgements, miscalculations or misinterpretations in the use of modern weapons can have catastrophic effects.
- Military command and control procedures are not error-proof
- Higher price does not necessarily produce higher quality in military hardware
- Military power cannot necessarily ensure economic or political stability
- Economic health does not depend on having superior military power