All war is of course brutal. Some wars are unavoidable. The alternative in this war
was to try diplomacy with Russia either before the war or once the war started. But the Biden administration decided it was in American interests for the war to continue. Also, their political interests since they had bungled, very badly, the final withdrawal form Afghanistan in 2021. They wanted to look tough.
Biden did not bungle the withdrawal from Afghanistan; rather, it was the three previous administrations that bungled our operation in Afghanistan. Biden put paid to a wasteful and fruitless operation. It had a very bad first day or two but after that, the withdrawal proceeded in an orderly manner. Did the Afghan government collapse and the Army go over to the Taliban? Yes, but that's on them and the previous administrations: it's the price of 20 years of feckless action and defeat.
David, the die was cast for this war in 2014. That was when it began. Not in 2022. Ukraine lost 4,400 troops from 2014-22 in the Donbas. That would be the equivalent of roughly 44,000 US troops, prorated for population size.
The US Afghan pullout was largely completed by the end of Trump1, by which time 85% of our combat troops had already been withdrawn, and the 90,000 strong Afghan Army had been nearly annihilated by the Taliban, as a result of their secret-ish agreement with DJT. Regarding which you seem unaware. But Trump left the withdrawl of our remaining combat troops as a political poison pill to Biden.
A protection racket. Exactly. Except it's the good old US oF A who are running the protection racket and despite the mask being pulled off and the villain and real motives exposed most people don't see it. Now the good ol US of A has total freedom to RAPE the Ukraine land of all its rich resources,to rob them blind,and all they get in return is a load of old metal scrap. That is to say,weaponry as now this war has to rumble on permanently in order to justify the situation plus it should kill a lot more Ukrainians thus making LAND available for USA developers. As one of our Tory MPs said "social unrest creates investment opportunities". I felt uneasy every time I heard on my radio yet another statement that "we" were GIVING a fortune in money to Ukraine. Seeing as that Chosen Person Zelensky is such an old tart you'd have thought he'd a known the mob boss would expect Pay Back. Make nice old darlin for Daddy.
You wrote "The gist of this logic disease is to put all the finger pointing blame and shame focus on the West, primarily America, and give the psychopaths a free moral pass."
From my post: "As I wrote in my post three years ago, it was Russia/Putin that pulled the trigger to start the war. But one doesn’t have to absolve Russia/Putin of any blame to still think that America blundered with horrible consequences."
So I think you mischaracterized my post.
I'm holding two unharmonious thoughts in my head at the same time.
Regarding thinking back to three years ago today regarding my hypothetical headline for my life and then comparing it to my headline today, I'm pretty sure they would be the same one:
This is the most sensible realistic statement on here. This 'war' now has to rumble on to justify the sending of all that old scrap iron,I mean weapons that Ukraine need to pay for by letting USA harvest their natural resources.
Agree there was never a path to victory. But the goal of our involvement in Ukraine always seemed pretty clear to me: discourage or forestall Putin’s pledge to reconstitute the Russian Empire. The trouble with the “provocation” argument is that it deprives threatened countries of their own agency, and overstates America’s centrality. We did not set out to expand NATO. Countries begged to join out of legitimate fear, no?
I think it would always have been and still would be folly to set up Ukraine as a NATO tripwire. Ukraine has gone back and forth as being under Russian influence. If NATO is to survive it has to be careful of expanding beyond its will to exercise its defense protocols. One failure to respond and it's all over.
There’s no evidence the war has a finite point. I’m always zeroed in on your posts. Your opinions are relevant and researched. Can USA continue to fund Ukraine ? Is their struggle for democracy our responsibility? Survey says ……
This is the Meerscheimer rationalization of the "former great-power". Which is wrong on so many levels.
EVERY former Warsaw Pact nation put themselves on a fast track for EU and NATO membership after the dissolution of the USSR in '91. Precisely because they did not want to be militarily conquered by an eventually resurgent Russia. They literally begged for NATO membership. Ukraine and Finland--the latter not officially a member of the WP was in many ways a USSR satellite--were special cases, that did not seek NATO/EU membership, for differing reasons. Ukraine initially had nukes. Yes, nukes. That it surrendered as part of the Budapest Memorandum in '94 in exchange for Russia, US, & UK guaranteeing its territorial sovereignty and independence.
Which Russia violated in 2014 by militarily seizing the Crimea, and sending Russian special forces into the Donbas to foment a rebellion. Up until that point Ukraine was quite favorably disposed to Russia, economically, culturally and militarily. This territorial grab and the continuing Donbas war gradually hardened Ukrainian public opinion against Putin's Russia.
No. The CIA promised Ukranians free Coca-Cola for life if they'd put on a job lot Primark reject orange sweater. The ukies are the pikeys of Europe . We don't have to LOVE everybody. Even Jesus DID NOT love EVERYBODY.
Ukraine is and always has been a Province of Russia. Holy Mother Russia where they still got RESPECT for God and Truth. The long flat area has been a nightmare to Russian rulers FOR EVER. It got Ivan The Terrible upset a lot. There are no natural features to make good defence points. Go Russia,whup them obnoxious Yanks
More than 915,000 Russians dead, is that your concern, the hapless Russian fodder?
46,000 military, and 12,000 Ukrainians dead.
Financial and military support from the rest of the world is more than contributed by the US. But don't worry, your president wants to sell out Ukraine to Russia, and to steal their rare minerals, and take control of the world's largest nuclear power station, in Ukraine, so he can gift Putin cheap energy.
Oddly, Ukraine isn't America's play thing. Perhaps that comes as a surprise to most Americans.
I just spent 15 minutes googling how many ukranians and Russians have died in the Russia Ukraine war since Feb 2022. What I found interesting is that every headline that mentions both Russian and Ukrainian losses goes on to NOT report Ukrainian losses. I kept reading link after link. And if we use game theory of war, would either side legitimately report their losses? If you are trying to win, you don't share vital statistics. Do I believe that the number of Russians lost (which when I googled and found the 900k number you quoted was reported by Ukraine), no. Do I believe there was markedly less loss of Ukrainian life (which I struggled to find a report of those numbers in the more than dozen searches I did), no. Is there truth somewhere in this, that I can't answer with confidence. For me, I am going to say that loss of life isn't good on either side. The day of reckoning will come for Russia, Ukraine and any other country involved on either side. And it will come with substantial loss of life, ruin of land/homes/way of living. And at this point to try to say Russia has lost a lot and Ukraine hasn't so keep going, that seems a hard pill to swallow. And if I had to bet, most people who would say carry on probably lean blue and those that say we have done enough financial harm to our coffers and there has been harm to Russian and Ukraine, let's please stop, probably lean red. In the end, I hope we find the middle and use some logic. There needs to be an end and hopefully not a nuclear end.
I can't believe Google would throttle down Ukraine reporting of their deaths. It seemed a search showed lots of Ukraine reporting Russian deaths, not so much Ukrainian. And as I said, neither side wants to report for good strategic reasons. I am sure we would do the same.
---However, we have to be honest, we do not know how many Ukrainians have been killed in occupied territories of Ukraine," Zelensky added.
But calculating the total number of deaths — both civilian and military — is complicated as Russia seldom comments on its battlefield losses, Ukraine has only recently begun releasing official information on its figures, and civilian deaths in occupied areas of Ukraine are largely unknown.
According to figures released by Kyiv, U.N. statistics, and open-source data published by BBC Russia, the total death toll of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, as well as Ukrainian civilians stands at 158,341 as of March 31, 2025. (My comment: it reads Ukraine and Russia out together here as one total?!)
The true number of Ukrainians and Russians who have been killed, however, is almost certainly far higher.
According to President Volodymyr Zelensky on Feb. 16., over 46,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed on the battlefield since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Speaking in an interview with British journalist Piers Morgan published on Feb. 4, Zelensky said that there have also been a total of 390,000 cases of injuries on the battlefield.
At the time, he refrained from detailing how many soldiers had been wounded, "because Russia will then know how many people have left the battlefield."
I put this here as a snippet of the challenge in believing what either side says. Zelensky tells us he is withholding information.
So again to believe either side is just holding onto wanting to be righteous. In my view, maybe not yours, I think enough people and families and generations have been harmed. I say I think we have filled that quota. Let's stop.
And others say keep killing because we are on the side of righteousness. If more people die, you are righteous in your beliefs? Hard argument to make as more and more death and destruction is tallied up on both aides. And we won't know the true extent until it's too late and more than it is now. Believe their words, they aren't telling us the real numbers for strategic reasons (I would say also to dup us on some level to keep funding).
Thank KTon. I consider myself at this moment to be leaning very much away from Red, but I think if any American administration can stop the war that is a good development.
I would rather this be a human caring and sensibility idea, but war is not that. Too much money to be made, no matter your party affiliation. And we know both countries aren't exactly the models of "democracy". So truth telling wouldn't be something to rely on. But what we could rely on are the vast amounts of money and gear we have provided. We might not be on the ground fighting but our money certainly is. And even the concerns about how many billions now and ongoing this is taking from us doesn't seem to cause people to question. That mystifies me. Your post surprised me honestly. It's not often you hear blue leaning people sayay e we should think this through and work to end this now. You have lots of people in power who said "for as long as it takes". I wish someone would write me a blank check and an ongoing annuity payment until I feel complete.
Trump is not seriously trying to stop this war, only doing Putin's bidding. The offer Vance made Ukraine last week was a Putinesque wet dream, that required the surrender of more territory to Russia, the blocking of NATO membership, and with no security guarantees. It's simply an armistice that Putin will break in a few years if he sees profit in renewing the war.
I agree that Ukraine is not America's "plaything." But I fear we treated them as such. And regardless of whether the numbers are accurate, calling Russians who died "hapless fodder" does not disguise the fact they were fellow human beings. I recoil at dehumanization.
So why do you let Evil People run your political administration and I dont mean the people you see and vote for. I'm thinking many Senators and Congressmen are good people who desire to serve humanity. Even if that's harder than it sounds and a thankless task. I mean the people you dont see and whose names we don't know. So I can't name anyone. What I will say is - the CiA developed from Mob bosses in the Prohibtion era needing to get closer to the law makers so as to influence. So the CIA is essentially a branch of the Mafia,not in fiction,in fact and the persons who founded NASA all had an interest in varying degrees in THE OCCULT. And that is significant.
I also think of all the ecocide and environmental damage that’s being done. Especially the nuclear safety crisis with the ruptured containment zone at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant being another casualty of the war.
We knew the Ukranians couldnt win but we were ok with feeding half a million Ukrainians into a meat grinder because we knew it would weaken Russia. I am not a fan of Putin's - he is an evil, brutal thug - but we aren't perfect either. We have deliberately provoked this war, funding the Maidan Revolution with USAID and flirting with NATO membership for Ukraine, something Putin called out as a red line. This war couldnt have been averted had we had chosen one of the many off ramps over the past decade.
A great example of solipsism. The war happened because Putin didn't want to see an independent Ukraine and especially not a prosperous and democratic one integrated into the EU. It continues because the Ukrainians are passionate about defending their liberty and nation at all costs.
Of course; and I would feel the same way as a Ukrainian. But let's explore the implications of this. Since the failure of the 2023 Ukrainian offensive, it has been clear to all, and especially the Ukrainians, that they would not be able to drive Russia out of their country. Thus, they strengthened their defenses and pursued obtaining bargaining trips like the areas they occupied in Kursk (and currently in Belgorod). For a couple years now, they've understood that the war will only end with negotiations. But even if you can't "win the war" you can "win the negotiations." And you do that by being in the strongest position you possibly can during the course of those negotiations; you make it clear to Putin that he has no hope of further military gains while at the same time his economy is cratering. On the one hand, you can have the kind of negotiated outcome Trump is pursuing, with Ukraine a sacrificial offering to Putin. On the other, you can have Ukraine basically acknowledging that Russia will stay on the occupied lands, but Ukraine gets security guarantees, a path to EU membership and backdoor Russian reparations via their frozen funds.
Until Russia is ready (or forced to accept) an outcome like this, the Ukrainians will keep fighting; they won't accept the Trumpian surrender. One only hopes the Europeans will step up to replace America when it abandons its moral and physical leadership in this fight.
Ukraine's position isn't going to improve. Their best opportunity to negotiate was three years ago at the start of the conflict before Boris Johnson talked them out of it. Ukraine is never going to get better conditions than they did back then. And the longer the war goes on, the worse those conditions are going to get.
It wasn’t the US or Ukraine that rejected peace in mid-2022, but Russia, because it insisted on a deal that allowed it to indirectly control Ukraine, much like the Minsk treaties of last decade. That is still Russia’s goal today and the only way they’ll stop is if they feel they’re losing the war. The good news is Ukraine is with Western help and their own ingenuity becoming a “porcupine,” like Israel: unconquerable. That said, like you I wish they’d kicked the can down the road in 2021 by deferring NATO consideration for ten years at least.
It is not „America“ that is telling Ukraine it must allow Russia to keep Crimea and all the other occupied Ukrainian territory: it is Donald Trump,
a „president“ who doesn´t know anything about everything, not only nothing about Russia and the Ukraine. He´s simply dumb and „proud Americans“ electing such a trash are guilty of anything that follows.
Ukraine COULD have long won the war if not USA (under Biden) and the European countries would have always given them too little too late, but ALL they´d have needed from February 2022 on.
But the real mistakes were made long before 2014/2022.
As everyone else, you are not mentioning all of this.
Apart from the fact that the former European "Eastern Bloc" states obviously didn't fight for their liberation from the "Iron Curtain" only to then be dictated to which military alliances they should/want to join or not, there is, for example, the "Budapest Memorandum"(1993) in connection with which Ukraine, formerly the world's third-largest nuclear weapon power, destroyed or surrendered its nuclear weapons in return for the assurance, GUARANTEE from all contracting parties that they recognize the existing borders of Ukraine/the former Ukrainian SSR - due to International Law - as binding, and committed to intervene militarily in the event of any violation of Ukraine's borders.
This treaty was also signed by Russia.
I repeat: this treaty was also signed by Russia.
Which is thus obligated to intervene militarily against its own violation of Ukraine's borders, just like Great Britain, France, and the USA ARE: not „voluntarily“ but by valid, existing treaties.
In other words: Russia should have (and should have been allowed to) massacre Putin, Medvedev, Dugin, and the entire oligarchy and criminality long ago in accordance with the "Budapest Accords."
Neither Trump nor – of course – Putin nor any of the other parties involved nor NATO are even mentioning this anywhere.
They are ALL lying.
Why ?
No one is asking.
„The West“ was drunk with his alleged „victory“ in 1989, they looked away when from latest 2005 it was obvious what Putin was planning. If „The West“ and the NATO would have REALLY DONE everything Putin merely accuses them of having allegedly done: massively and rightfully stationing troops within Russia's reach to protect the former Eastern Bloc countries, and decisively pushing for Ukraine's membership in NATO and the EU, then Putin would never have been able to achieve anything.
Instead, Western LIARS like German Chancellor Schröder called him a "flawless democrat,“ everyone rolled out the red carpet for him, and the pathetic, ridiculously infamous Merkel still stammered "Putin is not crazy“, jjust a few weeks before the Russian invasion, when everyone in NATO already knew what was going on.
All these mistakes, all this turning a blind eye, are the causes of the catastrophe.
And "the West" didn't choose better politicians, but even worse ones.
THAT is the REAL DUMBNESS of the glorious „We The People“ that was and is on top of Putins reckoning.
The „Free West" chooses its own oppressors and dictators.
This "freely chosen" excessive stupidity was the cause of the catastrophe, and there is no insight into it.
That insight, if it would take place somewhere anywhere, would be the only real honour to the Dead !
But the "Free West“ sure is capable of clearly labeling every „too clear“ word as „Hate Speech," as "too emotional," or "too controversial.“
It is not „America“ that is telling Ukraine it must allow Russia to keep Crimea and all the other occupied Ukrainian territory: it is Donald Trump,
a „president“ who doesn´t know anything about everything, not only nothing about Russia and the Ukraine. He´s simply dumb and „proud Americans“ electing such a trash
are guilty of anything that follows.
Ukraine COULD have long won the war if not USA (under Biden) and the European countries would have always given them too little too late, but ALL they´d have needed from February 2022 on.
But the real mistakes were made long before 2014/2022.
As everyone else, you are not mentioning all of this.
Apart from the fact that the former European "Eastern Bloc" states obviously didn't fight for their liberation from the "Iron Curtain" only to then be dictated to which military alliances they should/want to join or not, there is, for example, the "Budapest Memorandum"(1993) in connection with which Ukraine, formerly the world's third-largest nuclear weapon power, destroyed or surrendered its nuclear weapons in return for the assurance, GUARANTEE from all contracting parties that they recognize the existing borders of Ukraine/the former Ukrainian SSR - due to International Law - as binding, and committed to intervene militarily in the event of any violation of Ukraine's borders.
This treaty was also signed by Russia.
I repeat: this treaty was also signed by Russia.
Which is thus obligated to intervene militarily against its own violation of Ukraine's borders, just like Great Britain, France, and the USA ARE: not „voluntarily“ but by valid, existing treaties.
In other words: Russia should have (and should have been allowed to) massacre Putin, Medvedev, Dugin, and the entire oligarchy and criminality long ago in accordance with the "Budapest Accords."
Neither Trump nor – of course – Putin nor any of the other parties involved nor NATO are even mentioning this anywhere.
They are ALL lying.
Why ?
No one is asking.
„The West“ was drunk with his alleged „victory“ in 1989, they looked away when from latest 2005 it was obvious what Putin was planning. If „The West“ and the NATO would have REALLY DONE everything Putin merely accuses them of having allegedly done: massively and rightfully stationing troops within Russia's reach to protect the former Eastern Bloc countries, and decisively pushing for Ukraine's membership in NATO and the EU, then Putin would never have been able to achieve anything.
Instead, Western LIARS like German Chancellor Schröder called him a "flawless democrat,“ everyone rolled out the red carpet for him, and the pathetic, ridiculously infamous Merkel still stammered "Putin is not crazy“, jjust a few weeks before the Russian invasion, when everyone in NATO already knew what was going on.
All these mistakes, all this turning a blind eye, are the causes of the catastrophe.
And "the West" didn't choose better politicians, but even worse ones.
THAT is the REAL DUMBNESS of the glorious „We The People“ that was and is on top of Putins reckoning.
The „Free West" chooses its own oppressors and dictators.
This "freely chosen" excessive stupidity was the cause of the catastrophe, and there is no insight into it.
That insight, if it would take place somewhere anywhere, would be the only real honour to the Dead !
But the "Free West“ sure is capable of clearly labeling every „too clear“ word as „Hate Speech," as "too emotional," or "too controversial.“
The West made a huge blunder after 1989 by not trying harder to incorporate Russia into a security system. Somehow we forgot that we had defeated the USSR and we acted like the Cold War was still going on.
First of all, I have nothing against Russians at all – at my wedding, both witnesses were Russian, one "even" from the Russian Orthodox Church.
But Russia, unfortunately, has no democratic tradition whatsoever; it slipped from the "Middle Ages," the Tsarist Empire, directly into totalitarian communism.
You can't pretend that it can be compared in dealing with partners like France or England with centuries-old republican traditions.
It's all well known, and there are several books about how perfidiously and unscrupulously Putin acted as a KGB agent in East Germany before the fall of „The Wall“.
The mistrust towards Russia was justified – however, "the West" DID enter into agreements with Russia : for example, exactly with the Budapest Accords – which Russia broke and disregarded.
Yeltsin had only just managed to repel a counter-"revolution" and was just as unsuitable as a ruler as Gorbachev, who was a „liberator“, not a statesman.
As a result, Russia slid into oligarchic rule, into a crude capitalism without democratic underpinnings: THAT was the real or fundamental mistake of "the West," that it—against its better judgment—wanted to assume that all it needed to do was enable a fundamentally free economy, and then democracies would emerge.
This may be true for nations that have always been more "Western-oriented," such as Poland, the Czech Republic, or the Baltic states.
But "capitalism" originally developed in Western and Southwestern Europe ("Brabant") precisely as a CONSEQUENCE of a stable, fundamentally liberal, mercantile society; it developed FROM society and was NOT—contrary to what "leftists" claim—grafted onto the society by "a few rich people."
In Russia and some other parts of Eastern Europe, however, this is precisely what happened: a free economy emerged in traditionally unfree societies where many people couldn't handle it and could easily be exploited.
All of this was given too little consideration by the West, as was the fact that Eastern European countries often have very different histories and are divided up in themselves.
Hungary, for example, always wanted to become a "Great Empire" and had the prerequisites for it, but was repeatedly devastated and occupied by the Huns, Ottomans, Serbs, Austria, and finally the Soviet Union. Hungary is constantly searching for its "special role", which has so far been denied to it. It´s no wonder that the „Iron Curtain“ began to crumble in Hungary - and that Hungary now is a „flesh thorn“ to „The West“.
Poland formed a "Great Empire" with Lithuania for centuries and was then temporarily virtually wiped off the map by Russia, Austria and Prussia.
In Romania, Bulgaria and others, there were thin Western-oriented aristocratic and bourgeois strata, while most remained peasant, etc.
Ukraine is, so to speak, a cross-section and focal point of all the divisions that run throughout Eastern Europe.
Ukrainians are the most polite, friendly, open-minded, and courteous people I know—historically, they have always been "servants": for Poles, Austrians, Russians, etc., and often seem a bit naive.
It took a long time for them to finally become aware of their remarkable identity and develop a "national consciousness" and the desire for a united state, something that isn't really "typical" to them, since they are actually "open," actually really kind of exemplary of „Core“ "European" and "Western" virtues.
It was precisely their naivety and innocence that were often exploited; In 1917/18, after the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy - from a.o. that, their belonging to Austria, comes the „Western Orientation“ of Ukraine : it is NO WAY „artificially implanted“ by „the West“ ! - , they finally had their own state after centuries of "national movement" – only to be immediately recaptured and incorporated into the Russian-dominated Soviet Union, with horrific consequences.
There begins their „tragedy“.
In 1932/33, the "anti-capitalist" Stalin, after expropriating all Ukrainian peasants, sold Ukrainian grain en masse on the capitalist world market, causing approximately seven million Ukrainians to starve to death in the "Holodomor," an incomprehensible tragedy that remains largely unknown to the "world public.“
While the Jews were finally granted their own state after the Shoah, this was not the case for the Ukrainians after the "Holodomor." Instead, they are even still blamed for their resistance—organized by anarchist and, unfortunately, partly anti-Semitic figures like Bandera, who however played a rather minor role.
Even this unbridled hatred of many Russians toward "the Ukrainians" and, in fact, all other Eastern European peoples, the alleged "fascists"—while the Russians were able to use it to cover up their own inferiority and subservience—has been considered by the West at most to the extent that one should "not provoke" Russia.
Here lies the reason why Ukraine was left alone—so as not to "provoke" Russia.
When it became clear during the Maidan uprising that Ukraine, of its own accord, without any „provocation“or „influence from the West“, was orientating itself toward the West, toward the EU and NATO, Putin felt he owed it to himself and Russia to „intervene", since he wanted to see this as "his sphere of influence.“
The Ukraine, in the latter years before Putins War, did make remarkable progress economic-wise, it had unfolded a vast variety of economic branches, and was very attractive for both „the West“ and for Russians …
Putin stood by, in jealousy.
The idea that he only had to open up Russia mentally to gain such progress also for „his“ land, never entered his mind.
This is in no way „guilt of the West“.
But Putin's distorting history to fake this. Crimea, for example, is NOT "traditionally Russian"—as stupid little Donny is now also parroting—but has had an "oriental" influence for centuries, including Ottoman influence.
There are still mosques there today.
The inhabitants of Crimea have always had a close relationship with Ukraine for geographical reasons alone. There is no mainland connection between Russia and Crimea, only newly a bridge near Kertsh.
The "Crimean Tatars," the main inhabitants, are of multi-ethnic descent and have always kept their distance to Russia.
Their language is Turkic and closely resembles Ottoman.
Due to its civilizational backwardness, Russia has little more to offer mentally and politically than superpower posturing. Russia is the LARGEST COLONIAL STATE IN THE WORLD!
The actual "Russia" ("Muscovia") is a small territory surrounding Moscow. Everything else is "conquest"...!
If you question Russia's status, it has nothing left but/from his megalomania.
Putin and his medieval sycophants can't possibly come up with the idea of simply developing something better.
He infiltrated Ukranian areas with Russians long before invading Crimea and eastern Ukraine. There were hardly any significant numbers of Russians there, even though Russian is widely spoken in the border region and Ukraine itself has recognized Russian as a second official language.
However, addressing the country's civilizational and economic backwardness is not the task of "the West"; it would be the task of Russia itself.
The fact that there is so little resistance to Putin is a sign that Russia does not belong to the "West" and does not belong to NATO until Russians themselves make it clear that they want something better.
In his early years as president - when he had already excessively begun to suppress and gulag-incarcerate „Critics", Putin expressed or pretended that he wanted a Western orientation, even to the point of NATO membership, but it was always completely obvious that Putin was never concerned with "rapprochement with the West," but rather with HIS great power aspirations, and that he wanted "Western ties" only on his terms.
It is clearly understandable why "the West" was unwilling/ unable to accept this.
Read what George Kennan had to say in 1997. Kennan was the architect of the containment policy from the 1940s. I’d say he had as good or better perspective on the best way to deal with Russia as anyone.
Thank you; this is what I remember from that time, too - mistrust, more or less, from both sides. But that was around ten years before Putin made his first "proposals".
I think it's like the "horror" referred to in "Apocalypse New" that keeps dragging on with no solution. I think peace and survival are a faint glimpse in the minds of those who tilt more towards optimism and somehow needs to be worked towards.
Like so many wars in our history since WWII entered under false pretenses, where our own involvement was covered up, we fucked it up along the way, and we can’t find a graceful way out of it. People suffered and we will walk away with mud on our faces. 😢
Wow, David, are you wrong. Have you forgotten the atrocities that Russia perpetrated on the areas they occupied, even briefly? The rapes, the murders, the kidnapping of children? Are you wishing that on the rest of the country? Should we have allowed Hitler to keep Poland, Czechoslovakia...and France...because continuing the war would have resulted in horrific bloodshed? It is not and was not our decision whether Ukraine keeps fighting. It is theirs. Always was. Our decision is simply whether or not we choose to help the weak fight the strong, the victim defend itself against the aggressor. We made the decision to help rather than turn our backs. Ukraine is fighting not only for its life, but also for its national honor. I'm glad we did soil ours and lament that we may do so now.
There were no good options. Not even almost good. Our choice was between the terrible and the unthinkable. You are right that our choice was terrible...except when matched against the unthinkable, which, alas, is no longer unthinkable to our leaders. In addition, history is against your argument. There's a great line in Tinker, Tailor that applies spot on to Putin..."Like anyone who's ever had enough, he wants more." I defy you to show me one single example in history where that is not true. No, there was an awful price to be paid and if the Ukrainians were, and are, willing to pay it, they deserve all the help we and others can give them.
Ukrainians are not being given a choice to fight. They are being conscripted. Ukraine is under military rule as it has to be during wartime. But the propaganda we hear from Ukraine is also censored as it should be in a war. The war seems righteous from our safe distance.
So it is your position that given the choice, they would choose to surrender? Also, if I remember correctly, we also had conscription in WWII. Is it your position that given the choice, the United States would have withdrawn from the war against Japan and Germany? David, you're cherry-picking. Answer this. What happens if Ukraine surrenders? And please, let's not have the specious argument that a truce in place will satisfy Putin. He wasn't satisfied with Crimea and and won't be satisfied now. He has said so. And again, you're conveniently avoiding the atrocities...past, present, and surely future.
If Putin could cause the defeat and absorption of Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses would be next. But if he can be stopped in Ukraine, millions of possible new fatalities can be prevented.
David does not apparently see that as a laudable goal.
Honestly? Yes. I think they probably would. I can think of no other logical reason why Ukraine has ceased having any elections except that current leadership is afraid that if given the option, their people would vote for candidates who promise to deescalate the conflict and end the war. They already expressed as much when they elected Zelensky to power in the first place on a rapprochement platform, and that was long before they were years deep into a war they could not possibly win where every day they avoid making a peace agreement is just more people dead in the name of a worse peace agreement whenever the war finally ends.
Doesn't anybody ever take up my suggestion to watch Pavlo from Ukraine on you tube. You'll see a very different story to what our media tells us. But maybe we don't want to hear the inconvenient truth.
I don't think the analogy to Hitler holds, not even remotely. Ukraine fights on based on expectations of continued Western aid. Ukraine is not a NATO ally. But we made them an ambiguous ally. We didn't want them to join NATO but we said we wanted to keep the door open. It's far more complicated than you make it out to be.
See above. No, it's no complicated at all. At its core, it is the most simple decision of all, one that had to be made when hunter-gatherers were running around in loincloths. (My first job out of grad school, btw, was at a place that did war studies). You need to stop looking at Ukraine's flaws...which clearly exist...or the NATO issue, which is not really relevant...and change which end of the telescope you're looking through.
Aid. I laugh cynically. Gee Baby Ain't I Good To You. ....But why did you think I was that sort of a girl? The old now unPC phrase 'Indian Giver' applies well here. We gev em ALL THAT MONEY,don't worry loves, we'll take it in kind. We'll install our mining operations,get those oil well drilled,you need a whole lot of steel and glass towers and we have big scale industrial farming to get THE MOST VALUE outa all your rich farmland....did I say Your,well we own it now. We signed a deal with that dear old tart Zelensky. Didnt he tell you? It's PAYBACK TIME.
Russia SAVED those children. You are referring to children taken to the safety of Russia AT THE REQUEST OF THEIR PARENTS,these are Russian speaking families in the Donbass,the industrial area that the original dispute was blown up about. Since 2014 on the orders of Rabbi Zelensky Ukranian turnip heads (ie soldiers,big joke) had been raping and murdering children in the Donbass,and so,at the request of their parents Putin rescued them. You USA people wouldn't understand any of that because your whole culture is so evil.
The goal of the Russian invasion was to completely subjugate Ukraine, to make it into a puppet state like Georgia, or to annex it. That initial plan failed, mainly due to the unexpectedly stiff resistance from the Ukrainian military.
America has often made the mistake of funding militaries that won't fight (South Vietnamese, Afghan National Army, various Arab groups in Syria). This is a bad investment. But sometimes we fund and arm militaries that are willing to fight, like the Syrian Kurds and the Ukrainians. This has the possibility of being a good investment.
So you are getting this backwards, and exaggerating America's influence. You are acting like it is our funding alone that makes Ukrainians fight, when actually it is their willingness to fight that makes them worth funding.
The most likely outcome for some time has been an armistice where Russia keeps substantial portions of Ukrainian territory. That will not be the end of the war. Russia's goal is to subjugate Ukraine, and the minute the armistice goes into effect they will start thinking about how to accomplish that.
There are wider geopolitical implications of Russian imperialism. We have Finland and Sweden joining NATO, which is an enormous vote against Russian imperialism. The Baltic states are preparing for war, Lithuania reintroduced conscription. None of these countries have any illusions about what's going on here. Ukraine is a buffer state between them and Russia. The worse the outcome of the war is for Ukraine, the more likely they will be fighting a war in the near future.
The buffer is NATO. An attack on NATO is an attack on us. Ukraine was and is always going to be under Russia's sphere of influence based on the geography and history.
NATO is one buffer, but it's nice to have multiple buffers. I don't think NATO is meaningless, but it is not entirely clear that the current administration would honor the mutual defense principle in the case of a regional conflict. Maybe the Baltic states are confident NATO will prevail in a regional conflict, but that conflict would still be devastating. Better to have Ukraine as a physical buffer.
As far as Ukraine being under Russia's sphere of influence, that is what is being decided right now in the war. I don't know what the outcome will look like. If Russia keeps large parts of Ukraine, will the rest of Ukraine continue to move away from Russian influence? I don't know.
David writes, "Ukraine was and is always going to be under Russia's sphere of influence based on the geography and history."
This logic of spheres of influence means that the law of the jungle prevails throughout the world. It justifies the Mexican American War of 1847-49. Then, we have the Spanish American War of 1898-99, followed by the United States crushing the insurgency in the Philippines from 1901 to 1906. The Monroe Doctrine allowed U.S. troops to enter Haiti in 1919 and Nicaragua in 1932. During 1936-38, Hitler followed similar reasoning when Nazi troops annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia. On September 1, 1939, Hitler's Germany invaded Poland from the West. Two weeks later, Stalin ordered the Red Army to enter Poland from the East. In 1956, Soviet forces slaughtered 40,000 Hungarians based on the Soviet sphere of influence. In 2014, Putin followed the examples of Hitler and Stalin by attacking Ukraine. Using a similar rationale, Xi has targeted his missiles toward Taiwan. Bottom line, people in power can justify anything, because they surround themselves with pliant sycophants.
Every military that we say today wasn't willing to fight, our leaders and theirs assured was totally willing to fight right up until the moment it turned out they weren't. I fully expect that sooner or later, the same thing is going to happen to Ukraine simply because they're going to run out of people to throw into the meat grinder long before Russia does.
The Afghan National Army and South Vietnamese never demonstrated the ability to fight like the Ukrainians and Syrian Kurds. Ukraine may lose a lot of territory, it may lose the war, but it's not remotely similar to Vietnam or Afghanistan. If you ignore the propaganda and just look at the facts on the ground, you can see how different it is.
What facts on the ground? Russia already holds huge chunks of Ukraine. Far more than the North Vietnamese or the Taliban held at this point of those wars. Your main argument seems to be that Ukrainians hold valor and courage. This is the real propaganda. Victory will hinge on troop numbers and supplies, and Russia is superior in both. I think the outcome is painfully obvious.
Afghanistan and South Vietnam collapsed almost immediately when American troops left. There have never been American troops in Ukraine. Those are facts on the ground.
The situations are just totally different. Furthermore I never said Ukraine would prevail, I just said the situation was totally different from Afghanistan and Vietnam. You don't seem capable of carrying on this discussion, so I'll leave you with your smug cynicism.
I agree that the situations are quite different. But you were the one who was comparing them in the first place, as if Vietnam and Afghanistan lost because their US aligned governments lacked sufficient willpower. If you don't think Ukraine will prevail, what purpose do you think is served by continuing to help them fight?
I wrote a bit about this in my first comment. I think the most likely outcome is an armistice in which Russian annexes parts of Eastern Ukraine. That armistice will not mark the end of the conflict: Russia will still be looking to dominate Ukraine and Ukraine will be looking to win back the land it lost.
So winning and losing is not a binary state here. The more aid Ukraine gets, the more favorable the armistice will be for Ukraine, the more likely Western Ukraine will remain as a buffer state against Russia.
Of course it is possible that Ukraine will collapse entirely (like Vietnam and Afghanistan), but I think that's unlikely given how long they've lasted without the help of foreign troops.
Yeah and look at the support and aid the West hand rewarded the valiant Kurds with after. Zilch. Nada. Go away and rot in a Turkish prison. We've moved on
The Syrian Kurds were pretty smart, they allied themselves with the US, but they worked hard not to alienate the various sides of the war (except ISIS). I don't know what will happen to them.
And then there will be lots of vacant property for British Tory MPs to buy cheap like I found out they did after the massacres in Rwanda. As one of them explained on the radio." Social unrest creates investment opportunities". Callous or what? But true I guess.
What couldn't you com-pre-hend (long word). But of course wear a blindfold. Keep your illusions intact. Look at the trouble that ensued once Ploughboys could read The Bible and find out for themselves it was mostly nonsense on stilts.
All war is of course brutal. Some wars are unavoidable. The alternative in this war
was to try diplomacy with Russia either before the war or once the war started. But the Biden administration decided it was in American interests for the war to continue. Also, their political interests since they had bungled, very badly, the final withdrawal form Afghanistan in 2021. They wanted to look tough.
I appreciate your service as a teacher.
Biden did not bungle the withdrawal from Afghanistan; rather, it was the three previous administrations that bungled our operation in Afghanistan. Biden put paid to a wasteful and fruitless operation. It had a very bad first day or two but after that, the withdrawal proceeded in an orderly manner. Did the Afghan government collapse and the Army go over to the Taliban? Yes, but that's on them and the previous administrations: it's the price of 20 years of feckless action and defeat.
David, the die was cast for this war in 2014. That was when it began. Not in 2022. Ukraine lost 4,400 troops from 2014-22 in the Donbas. That would be the equivalent of roughly 44,000 US troops, prorated for population size.
The US Afghan pullout was largely completed by the end of Trump1, by which time 85% of our combat troops had already been withdrawn, and the 90,000 strong Afghan Army had been nearly annihilated by the Taliban, as a result of their secret-ish agreement with DJT. Regarding which you seem unaware. But Trump left the withdrawl of our remaining combat troops as a political poison pill to Biden.
It was and now is about getting the riches. Job done. The "war" has got to rumble on to keep the situation justified
A protection racket. Exactly. Except it's the good old US oF A who are running the protection racket and despite the mask being pulled off and the villain and real motives exposed most people don't see it. Now the good ol US of A has total freedom to RAPE the Ukraine land of all its rich resources,to rob them blind,and all they get in return is a load of old metal scrap. That is to say,weaponry as now this war has to rumble on permanently in order to justify the situation plus it should kill a lot more Ukrainians thus making LAND available for USA developers. As one of our Tory MPs said "social unrest creates investment opportunities". I felt uneasy every time I heard on my radio yet another statement that "we" were GIVING a fortune in money to Ukraine. Seeing as that Chosen Person Zelensky is such an old tart you'd have thought he'd a known the mob boss would expect Pay Back. Make nice old darlin for Daddy.
I've seen the Sopranos twice.
You wrote "The gist of this logic disease is to put all the finger pointing blame and shame focus on the West, primarily America, and give the psychopaths a free moral pass."
From my post: "As I wrote in my post three years ago, it was Russia/Putin that pulled the trigger to start the war. But one doesn’t have to absolve Russia/Putin of any blame to still think that America blundered with horrible consequences."
So I think you mischaracterized my post.
I'm holding two unharmonious thoughts in my head at the same time.
Regarding thinking back to three years ago today regarding my hypothetical headline for my life and then comparing it to my headline today, I'm pretty sure they would be the same one:
1: April 2022: This Shit Will Never End
2: April 2025: This Shit Will Never End
Apologies for it not being more optimistic
This is the most sensible realistic statement on here. This 'war' now has to rumble on to justify the sending of all that old scrap iron,I mean weapons that Ukraine need to pay for by letting USA harvest their natural resources.
Agree there was never a path to victory. But the goal of our involvement in Ukraine always seemed pretty clear to me: discourage or forestall Putin’s pledge to reconstitute the Russian Empire. The trouble with the “provocation” argument is that it deprives threatened countries of their own agency, and overstates America’s centrality. We did not set out to expand NATO. Countries begged to join out of legitimate fear, no?
I think it would always have been and still would be folly to set up Ukraine as a NATO tripwire. Ukraine has gone back and forth as being under Russian influence. If NATO is to survive it has to be careful of expanding beyond its will to exercise its defense protocols. One failure to respond and it's all over.
Agreed. And I’m not sure anyone trusts article 2 as it is.
There’s no evidence the war has a finite point. I’m always zeroed in on your posts. Your opinions are relevant and researched. Can USA continue to fund Ukraine ? Is their struggle for democracy our responsibility? Survey says ……
This is the Meerscheimer rationalization of the "former great-power". Which is wrong on so many levels.
EVERY former Warsaw Pact nation put themselves on a fast track for EU and NATO membership after the dissolution of the USSR in '91. Precisely because they did not want to be militarily conquered by an eventually resurgent Russia. They literally begged for NATO membership. Ukraine and Finland--the latter not officially a member of the WP was in many ways a USSR satellite--were special cases, that did not seek NATO/EU membership, for differing reasons. Ukraine initially had nukes. Yes, nukes. That it surrendered as part of the Budapest Memorandum in '94 in exchange for Russia, US, & UK guaranteeing its territorial sovereignty and independence.
Which Russia violated in 2014 by militarily seizing the Crimea, and sending Russian special forces into the Donbas to foment a rebellion. Up until that point Ukraine was quite favorably disposed to Russia, economically, culturally and militarily. This territorial grab and the continuing Donbas war gradually hardened Ukrainian public opinion against Putin's Russia.
No. The CIA promised Ukranians free Coca-Cola for life if they'd put on a job lot Primark reject orange sweater. The ukies are the pikeys of Europe . We don't have to LOVE everybody. Even Jesus DID NOT love EVERYBODY.
Ukraine is and always has been a Province of Russia. Holy Mother Russia where they still got RESPECT for God and Truth. The long flat area has been a nightmare to Russian rulers FOR EVER. It got Ivan The Terrible upset a lot. There are no natural features to make good defence points. Go Russia,whup them obnoxious Yanks
All reasonable points, shared by many. Shocking to think back how hard it was to hear that point of view anywhere
More than 915,000 Russians dead, is that your concern, the hapless Russian fodder?
46,000 military, and 12,000 Ukrainians dead.
Financial and military support from the rest of the world is more than contributed by the US. But don't worry, your president wants to sell out Ukraine to Russia, and to steal their rare minerals, and take control of the world's largest nuclear power station, in Ukraine, so he can gift Putin cheap energy.
Oddly, Ukraine isn't America's play thing. Perhaps that comes as a surprise to most Americans.
I just spent 15 minutes googling how many ukranians and Russians have died in the Russia Ukraine war since Feb 2022. What I found interesting is that every headline that mentions both Russian and Ukrainian losses goes on to NOT report Ukrainian losses. I kept reading link after link. And if we use game theory of war, would either side legitimately report their losses? If you are trying to win, you don't share vital statistics. Do I believe that the number of Russians lost (which when I googled and found the 900k number you quoted was reported by Ukraine), no. Do I believe there was markedly less loss of Ukrainian life (which I struggled to find a report of those numbers in the more than dozen searches I did), no. Is there truth somewhere in this, that I can't answer with confidence. For me, I am going to say that loss of life isn't good on either side. The day of reckoning will come for Russia, Ukraine and any other country involved on either side. And it will come with substantial loss of life, ruin of land/homes/way of living. And at this point to try to say Russia has lost a lot and Ukraine hasn't so keep going, that seems a hard pill to swallow. And if I had to bet, most people who would say carry on probably lean blue and those that say we have done enough financial harm to our coffers and there has been harm to Russian and Ukraine, let's please stop, probably lean red. In the end, I hope we find the middle and use some logic. There needs to be an end and hopefully not a nuclear end.
I'm not American.
Independent sources have figures.
Ukraine has confirmed their figures.
Putin says nothing about Russian deaths.
I can't believe Google would throttle down Ukraine reporting of their deaths. It seemed a search showed lots of Ukraine reporting Russian deaths, not so much Ukrainian. And as I said, neither side wants to report for good strategic reasons. I am sure we would do the same.
---However, we have to be honest, we do not know how many Ukrainians have been killed in occupied territories of Ukraine," Zelensky added.
But calculating the total number of deaths — both civilian and military — is complicated as Russia seldom comments on its battlefield losses, Ukraine has only recently begun releasing official information on its figures, and civilian deaths in occupied areas of Ukraine are largely unknown.
According to figures released by Kyiv, U.N. statistics, and open-source data published by BBC Russia, the total death toll of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, as well as Ukrainian civilians stands at 158,341 as of March 31, 2025. (My comment: it reads Ukraine and Russia out together here as one total?!)
The true number of Ukrainians and Russians who have been killed, however, is almost certainly far higher.
According to President Volodymyr Zelensky on Feb. 16., over 46,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed on the battlefield since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Speaking in an interview with British journalist Piers Morgan published on Feb. 4, Zelensky said that there have also been a total of 390,000 cases of injuries on the battlefield.
At the time, he refrained from detailing how many soldiers had been wounded, "because Russia will then know how many people have left the battlefield."
I put this here as a snippet of the challenge in believing what either side says. Zelensky tells us he is withholding information.
So again to believe either side is just holding onto wanting to be righteous. In my view, maybe not yours, I think enough people and families and generations have been harmed. I say I think we have filled that quota. Let's stop.
And others say keep killing because we are on the side of righteousness. If more people die, you are righteous in your beliefs? Hard argument to make as more and more death and destruction is tallied up on both aides. And we won't know the true extent until it's too late and more than it is now. Believe their words, they aren't telling us the real numbers for strategic reasons (I would say also to dup us on some level to keep funding).
Thank KTon. I consider myself at this moment to be leaning very much away from Red, but I think if any American administration can stop the war that is a good development.
I would rather this be a human caring and sensibility idea, but war is not that. Too much money to be made, no matter your party affiliation. And we know both countries aren't exactly the models of "democracy". So truth telling wouldn't be something to rely on. But what we could rely on are the vast amounts of money and gear we have provided. We might not be on the ground fighting but our money certainly is. And even the concerns about how many billions now and ongoing this is taking from us doesn't seem to cause people to question. That mystifies me. Your post surprised me honestly. It's not often you hear blue leaning people sayay e we should think this through and work to end this now. You have lots of people in power who said "for as long as it takes". I wish someone would write me a blank check and an ongoing annuity payment until I feel complete.
Trump is not seriously trying to stop this war, only doing Putin's bidding. The offer Vance made Ukraine last week was a Putinesque wet dream, that required the surrender of more territory to Russia, the blocking of NATO membership, and with no security guarantees. It's simply an armistice that Putin will break in a few years if he sees profit in renewing the war.
I agree that Ukraine is not America's "plaything." But I fear we treated them as such. And regardless of whether the numbers are accurate, calling Russians who died "hapless fodder" does not disguise the fact they were fellow human beings. I recoil at dehumanization.
So why do you let Evil People run your political administration and I dont mean the people you see and vote for. I'm thinking many Senators and Congressmen are good people who desire to serve humanity. Even if that's harder than it sounds and a thankless task. I mean the people you dont see and whose names we don't know. So I can't name anyone. What I will say is - the CiA developed from Mob bosses in the Prohibtion era needing to get closer to the law makers so as to influence. So the CIA is essentially a branch of the Mafia,not in fiction,in fact and the persons who founded NASA all had an interest in varying degrees in THE OCCULT. And that is significant.
Your casualty figures are an insane figment of Ukrainian propaganda 🙄
David, I fear this war is far from over…
I also think of all the ecocide and environmental damage that’s being done. Especially the nuclear safety crisis with the ruptured containment zone at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant being another casualty of the war.
We knew the Ukranians couldnt win but we were ok with feeding half a million Ukrainians into a meat grinder because we knew it would weaken Russia. I am not a fan of Putin's - he is an evil, brutal thug - but we aren't perfect either. We have deliberately provoked this war, funding the Maidan Revolution with USAID and flirting with NATO membership for Ukraine, something Putin called out as a red line. This war couldnt have been averted had we had chosen one of the many off ramps over the past decade.
A great example of solipsism. The war happened because Putin didn't want to see an independent Ukraine and especially not a prosperous and democratic one integrated into the EU. It continues because the Ukrainians are passionate about defending their liberty and nation at all costs.
It's. Not. About. Us.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/653495/half-ukrainians-quick-negotiated-end-war.aspx
Of course; and I would feel the same way as a Ukrainian. But let's explore the implications of this. Since the failure of the 2023 Ukrainian offensive, it has been clear to all, and especially the Ukrainians, that they would not be able to drive Russia out of their country. Thus, they strengthened their defenses and pursued obtaining bargaining trips like the areas they occupied in Kursk (and currently in Belgorod). For a couple years now, they've understood that the war will only end with negotiations. But even if you can't "win the war" you can "win the negotiations." And you do that by being in the strongest position you possibly can during the course of those negotiations; you make it clear to Putin that he has no hope of further military gains while at the same time his economy is cratering. On the one hand, you can have the kind of negotiated outcome Trump is pursuing, with Ukraine a sacrificial offering to Putin. On the other, you can have Ukraine basically acknowledging that Russia will stay on the occupied lands, but Ukraine gets security guarantees, a path to EU membership and backdoor Russian reparations via their frozen funds.
Until Russia is ready (or forced to accept) an outcome like this, the Ukrainians will keep fighting; they won't accept the Trumpian surrender. One only hopes the Europeans will step up to replace America when it abandons its moral and physical leadership in this fight.
We've already sold out Ukraine. Trump is a KGB intelligence thrall who does the bidding of his master in all things Russia related.
Ukraine's position isn't going to improve. Their best opportunity to negotiate was three years ago at the start of the conflict before Boris Johnson talked them out of it. Ukraine is never going to get better conditions than they did back then. And the longer the war goes on, the worse those conditions are going to get.
It wasn’t the US or Ukraine that rejected peace in mid-2022, but Russia, because it insisted on a deal that allowed it to indirectly control Ukraine, much like the Minsk treaties of last decade. That is still Russia’s goal today and the only way they’ll stop is if they feel they’re losing the war. The good news is Ukraine is with Western help and their own ingenuity becoming a “porcupine,” like Israel: unconquerable. That said, like you I wish they’d kicked the can down the road in 2021 by deferring NATO consideration for ten years at least.
It is not „America“ that is telling Ukraine it must allow Russia to keep Crimea and all the other occupied Ukrainian territory: it is Donald Trump,
a „president“ who doesn´t know anything about everything, not only nothing about Russia and the Ukraine. He´s simply dumb and „proud Americans“ electing such a trash are guilty of anything that follows.
Ukraine COULD have long won the war if not USA (under Biden) and the European countries would have always given them too little too late, but ALL they´d have needed from February 2022 on.
But the real mistakes were made long before 2014/2022.
As everyone else, you are not mentioning all of this.
Apart from the fact that the former European "Eastern Bloc" states obviously didn't fight for their liberation from the "Iron Curtain" only to then be dictated to which military alliances they should/want to join or not, there is, for example, the "Budapest Memorandum"(1993) in connection with which Ukraine, formerly the world's third-largest nuclear weapon power, destroyed or surrendered its nuclear weapons in return for the assurance, GUARANTEE from all contracting parties that they recognize the existing borders of Ukraine/the former Ukrainian SSR - due to International Law - as binding, and committed to intervene militarily in the event of any violation of Ukraine's borders.
This treaty was also signed by Russia.
I repeat: this treaty was also signed by Russia.
Which is thus obligated to intervene militarily against its own violation of Ukraine's borders, just like Great Britain, France, and the USA ARE: not „voluntarily“ but by valid, existing treaties.
In other words: Russia should have (and should have been allowed to) massacre Putin, Medvedev, Dugin, and the entire oligarchy and criminality long ago in accordance with the "Budapest Accords."
Neither Trump nor – of course – Putin nor any of the other parties involved nor NATO are even mentioning this anywhere.
They are ALL lying.
Why ?
No one is asking.
„The West“ was drunk with his alleged „victory“ in 1989, they looked away when from latest 2005 it was obvious what Putin was planning. If „The West“ and the NATO would have REALLY DONE everything Putin merely accuses them of having allegedly done: massively and rightfully stationing troops within Russia's reach to protect the former Eastern Bloc countries, and decisively pushing for Ukraine's membership in NATO and the EU, then Putin would never have been able to achieve anything.
Instead, Western LIARS like German Chancellor Schröder called him a "flawless democrat,“ everyone rolled out the red carpet for him, and the pathetic, ridiculously infamous Merkel still stammered "Putin is not crazy“, jjust a few weeks before the Russian invasion, when everyone in NATO already knew what was going on.
All these mistakes, all this turning a blind eye, are the causes of the catastrophe.
And "the West" didn't choose better politicians, but even worse ones.
THAT is the REAL DUMBNESS of the glorious „We The People“ that was and is on top of Putins reckoning.
The „Free West" chooses its own oppressors and dictators.
This "freely chosen" excessive stupidity was the cause of the catastrophe, and there is no insight into it.
That insight, if it would take place somewhere anywhere, would be the only real honour to the Dead !
But the "Free West“ sure is capable of clearly labeling every „too clear“ word as „Hate Speech," as "too emotional," or "too controversial.“
SLEEP ON, „Free West“.
Thank you for mentioning the Budapest Memorandum!
It is not „America“ that is telling Ukraine it must allow Russia to keep Crimea and all the other occupied Ukrainian territory: it is Donald Trump,
a „president“ who doesn´t know anything about everything, not only nothing about Russia and the Ukraine. He´s simply dumb and „proud Americans“ electing such a trash
are guilty of anything that follows.
Ukraine COULD have long won the war if not USA (under Biden) and the European countries would have always given them too little too late, but ALL they´d have needed from February 2022 on.
But the real mistakes were made long before 2014/2022.
As everyone else, you are not mentioning all of this.
Apart from the fact that the former European "Eastern Bloc" states obviously didn't fight for their liberation from the "Iron Curtain" only to then be dictated to which military alliances they should/want to join or not, there is, for example, the "Budapest Memorandum"(1993) in connection with which Ukraine, formerly the world's third-largest nuclear weapon power, destroyed or surrendered its nuclear weapons in return for the assurance, GUARANTEE from all contracting parties that they recognize the existing borders of Ukraine/the former Ukrainian SSR - due to International Law - as binding, and committed to intervene militarily in the event of any violation of Ukraine's borders.
This treaty was also signed by Russia.
I repeat: this treaty was also signed by Russia.
Which is thus obligated to intervene militarily against its own violation of Ukraine's borders, just like Great Britain, France, and the USA ARE: not „voluntarily“ but by valid, existing treaties.
In other words: Russia should have (and should have been allowed to) massacre Putin, Medvedev, Dugin, and the entire oligarchy and criminality long ago in accordance with the "Budapest Accords."
Neither Trump nor – of course – Putin nor any of the other parties involved nor NATO are even mentioning this anywhere.
They are ALL lying.
Why ?
No one is asking.
„The West“ was drunk with his alleged „victory“ in 1989, they looked away when from latest 2005 it was obvious what Putin was planning. If „The West“ and the NATO would have REALLY DONE everything Putin merely accuses them of having allegedly done: massively and rightfully stationing troops within Russia's reach to protect the former Eastern Bloc countries, and decisively pushing for Ukraine's membership in NATO and the EU, then Putin would never have been able to achieve anything.
Instead, Western LIARS like German Chancellor Schröder called him a "flawless democrat,“ everyone rolled out the red carpet for him, and the pathetic, ridiculously infamous Merkel still stammered "Putin is not crazy“, jjust a few weeks before the Russian invasion, when everyone in NATO already knew what was going on.
All these mistakes, all this turning a blind eye, are the causes of the catastrophe.
And "the West" didn't choose better politicians, but even worse ones.
THAT is the REAL DUMBNESS of the glorious „We The People“ that was and is on top of Putins reckoning.
The „Free West" chooses its own oppressors and dictators.
This "freely chosen" excessive stupidity was the cause of the catastrophe, and there is no insight into it.
That insight, if it would take place somewhere anywhere, would be the only real honour to the Dead !
But the "Free West“ sure is capable of clearly labeling every „too clear“ word as „Hate Speech," as "too emotional," or "too controversial.“
SLEEP ON, „Free West“.
The West made a huge blunder after 1989 by not trying harder to incorporate Russia into a security system. Somehow we forgot that we had defeated the USSR and we acted like the Cold War was still going on.
First of all, I have nothing against Russians at all – at my wedding, both witnesses were Russian, one "even" from the Russian Orthodox Church.
But Russia, unfortunately, has no democratic tradition whatsoever; it slipped from the "Middle Ages," the Tsarist Empire, directly into totalitarian communism.
You can't pretend that it can be compared in dealing with partners like France or England with centuries-old republican traditions.
It's all well known, and there are several books about how perfidiously and unscrupulously Putin acted as a KGB agent in East Germany before the fall of „The Wall“.
The mistrust towards Russia was justified – however, "the West" DID enter into agreements with Russia : for example, exactly with the Budapest Accords – which Russia broke and disregarded.
Yeltsin had only just managed to repel a counter-"revolution" and was just as unsuitable as a ruler as Gorbachev, who was a „liberator“, not a statesman.
As a result, Russia slid into oligarchic rule, into a crude capitalism without democratic underpinnings: THAT was the real or fundamental mistake of "the West," that it—against its better judgment—wanted to assume that all it needed to do was enable a fundamentally free economy, and then democracies would emerge.
This may be true for nations that have always been more "Western-oriented," such as Poland, the Czech Republic, or the Baltic states.
But "capitalism" originally developed in Western and Southwestern Europe ("Brabant") precisely as a CONSEQUENCE of a stable, fundamentally liberal, mercantile society; it developed FROM society and was NOT—contrary to what "leftists" claim—grafted onto the society by "a few rich people."
In Russia and some other parts of Eastern Europe, however, this is precisely what happened: a free economy emerged in traditionally unfree societies where many people couldn't handle it and could easily be exploited.
All of this was given too little consideration by the West, as was the fact that Eastern European countries often have very different histories and are divided up in themselves.
Hungary, for example, always wanted to become a "Great Empire" and had the prerequisites for it, but was repeatedly devastated and occupied by the Huns, Ottomans, Serbs, Austria, and finally the Soviet Union. Hungary is constantly searching for its "special role", which has so far been denied to it. It´s no wonder that the „Iron Curtain“ began to crumble in Hungary - and that Hungary now is a „flesh thorn“ to „The West“.
Poland formed a "Great Empire" with Lithuania for centuries and was then temporarily virtually wiped off the map by Russia, Austria and Prussia.
In Romania, Bulgaria and others, there were thin Western-oriented aristocratic and bourgeois strata, while most remained peasant, etc.
Ukraine is, so to speak, a cross-section and focal point of all the divisions that run throughout Eastern Europe.
Ukrainians are the most polite, friendly, open-minded, and courteous people I know—historically, they have always been "servants": for Poles, Austrians, Russians, etc., and often seem a bit naive.
It took a long time for them to finally become aware of their remarkable identity and develop a "national consciousness" and the desire for a united state, something that isn't really "typical" to them, since they are actually "open," actually really kind of exemplary of „Core“ "European" and "Western" virtues.
It was precisely their naivety and innocence that were often exploited; In 1917/18, after the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy - from a.o. that, their belonging to Austria, comes the „Western Orientation“ of Ukraine : it is NO WAY „artificially implanted“ by „the West“ ! - , they finally had their own state after centuries of "national movement" – only to be immediately recaptured and incorporated into the Russian-dominated Soviet Union, with horrific consequences.
There begins their „tragedy“.
In 1932/33, the "anti-capitalist" Stalin, after expropriating all Ukrainian peasants, sold Ukrainian grain en masse on the capitalist world market, causing approximately seven million Ukrainians to starve to death in the "Holodomor," an incomprehensible tragedy that remains largely unknown to the "world public.“
While the Jews were finally granted their own state after the Shoah, this was not the case for the Ukrainians after the "Holodomor." Instead, they are even still blamed for their resistance—organized by anarchist and, unfortunately, partly anti-Semitic figures like Bandera, who however played a rather minor role.
Even this unbridled hatred of many Russians toward "the Ukrainians" and, in fact, all other Eastern European peoples, the alleged "fascists"—while the Russians were able to use it to cover up their own inferiority and subservience—has been considered by the West at most to the extent that one should "not provoke" Russia.
Here lies the reason why Ukraine was left alone—so as not to "provoke" Russia.
When it became clear during the Maidan uprising that Ukraine, of its own accord, without any „provocation“or „influence from the West“, was orientating itself toward the West, toward the EU and NATO, Putin felt he owed it to himself and Russia to „intervene", since he wanted to see this as "his sphere of influence.“
The Ukraine, in the latter years before Putins War, did make remarkable progress economic-wise, it had unfolded a vast variety of economic branches, and was very attractive for both „the West“ and for Russians …
Putin stood by, in jealousy.
The idea that he only had to open up Russia mentally to gain such progress also for „his“ land, never entered his mind.
This is in no way „guilt of the West“.
But Putin's distorting history to fake this. Crimea, for example, is NOT "traditionally Russian"—as stupid little Donny is now also parroting—but has had an "oriental" influence for centuries, including Ottoman influence.
There are still mosques there today.
The inhabitants of Crimea have always had a close relationship with Ukraine for geographical reasons alone. There is no mainland connection between Russia and Crimea, only newly a bridge near Kertsh.
The "Crimean Tatars," the main inhabitants, are of multi-ethnic descent and have always kept their distance to Russia.
Their language is Turkic and closely resembles Ottoman.
Due to its civilizational backwardness, Russia has little more to offer mentally and politically than superpower posturing. Russia is the LARGEST COLONIAL STATE IN THE WORLD!
The actual "Russia" ("Muscovia") is a small territory surrounding Moscow. Everything else is "conquest"...!
If you question Russia's status, it has nothing left but/from his megalomania.
Putin and his medieval sycophants can't possibly come up with the idea of simply developing something better.
He infiltrated Ukranian areas with Russians long before invading Crimea and eastern Ukraine. There were hardly any significant numbers of Russians there, even though Russian is widely spoken in the border region and Ukraine itself has recognized Russian as a second official language.
However, addressing the country's civilizational and economic backwardness is not the task of "the West"; it would be the task of Russia itself.
The fact that there is so little resistance to Putin is a sign that Russia does not belong to the "West" and does not belong to NATO until Russians themselves make it clear that they want something better.
In his early years as president - when he had already excessively begun to suppress and gulag-incarcerate „Critics", Putin expressed or pretended that he wanted a Western orientation, even to the point of NATO membership, but it was always completely obvious that Putin was never concerned with "rapprochement with the West," but rather with HIS great power aspirations, and that he wanted "Western ties" only on his terms.
It is clearly understandable why "the West" was unwilling/ unable to accept this.
Read what George Kennan had to say in 1997. Kennan was the architect of the containment policy from the 1940s. I’d say he had as good or better perspective on the best way to deal with Russia as anyone.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html
Thank you; this is what I remember from that time, too - mistrust, more or less, from both sides. But that was around ten years before Putin made his first "proposals".
I think it's like the "horror" referred to in "Apocalypse New" that keeps dragging on with no solution. I think peace and survival are a faint glimpse in the minds of those who tilt more towards optimism and somehow needs to be worked towards.
The storyline was irresistible. 🙄
Like so many wars in our history since WWII entered under false pretenses, where our own involvement was covered up, we fucked it up along the way, and we can’t find a graceful way out of it. People suffered and we will walk away with mud on our faces. 😢
Wow, David, are you wrong. Have you forgotten the atrocities that Russia perpetrated on the areas they occupied, even briefly? The rapes, the murders, the kidnapping of children? Are you wishing that on the rest of the country? Should we have allowed Hitler to keep Poland, Czechoslovakia...and France...because continuing the war would have resulted in horrific bloodshed? It is not and was not our decision whether Ukraine keeps fighting. It is theirs. Always was. Our decision is simply whether or not we choose to help the weak fight the strong, the victim defend itself against the aggressor. We made the decision to help rather than turn our backs. Ukraine is fighting not only for its life, but also for its national honor. I'm glad we did soil ours and lament that we may do so now.
There were no good options. Not even almost good. Our choice was between the terrible and the unthinkable. You are right that our choice was terrible...except when matched against the unthinkable, which, alas, is no longer unthinkable to our leaders. In addition, history is against your argument. There's a great line in Tinker, Tailor that applies spot on to Putin..."Like anyone who's ever had enough, he wants more." I defy you to show me one single example in history where that is not true. No, there was an awful price to be paid and if the Ukrainians were, and are, willing to pay it, they deserve all the help we and others can give them.
China in the 1400s decided to curtail their imperial ambitions. Unilaterally.
Haha. I'll give you that one. Had go back a bit though.
Ukrainians are not being given a choice to fight. They are being conscripted. Ukraine is under military rule as it has to be during wartime. But the propaganda we hear from Ukraine is also censored as it should be in a war. The war seems righteous from our safe distance.
So it is your position that given the choice, they would choose to surrender? Also, if I remember correctly, we also had conscription in WWII. Is it your position that given the choice, the United States would have withdrawn from the war against Japan and Germany? David, you're cherry-picking. Answer this. What happens if Ukraine surrenders? And please, let's not have the specious argument that a truce in place will satisfy Putin. He wasn't satisfied with Crimea and and won't be satisfied now. He has said so. And again, you're conveniently avoiding the atrocities...past, present, and surely future.
Well put.
If Putin could cause the defeat and absorption of Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses would be next. But if he can be stopped in Ukraine, millions of possible new fatalities can be prevented.
David does not apparently see that as a laudable goal.
Honestly? Yes. I think they probably would. I can think of no other logical reason why Ukraine has ceased having any elections except that current leadership is afraid that if given the option, their people would vote for candidates who promise to deescalate the conflict and end the war. They already expressed as much when they elected Zelensky to power in the first place on a rapprochement platform, and that was long before they were years deep into a war they could not possibly win where every day they avoid making a peace agreement is just more people dead in the name of a worse peace agreement whenever the war finally ends.
Doesn't anybody ever take up my suggestion to watch Pavlo from Ukraine on you tube. You'll see a very different story to what our media tells us. But maybe we don't want to hear the inconvenient truth.
I don't think the analogy to Hitler holds, not even remotely. Ukraine fights on based on expectations of continued Western aid. Ukraine is not a NATO ally. But we made them an ambiguous ally. We didn't want them to join NATO but we said we wanted to keep the door open. It's far more complicated than you make it out to be.
See above. No, it's no complicated at all. At its core, it is the most simple decision of all, one that had to be made when hunter-gatherers were running around in loincloths. (My first job out of grad school, btw, was at a place that did war studies). You need to stop looking at Ukraine's flaws...which clearly exist...or the NATO issue, which is not really relevant...and change which end of the telescope you're looking through.
Sorry. You know I respect your opinion, but on this one it seems too much like a conclusion in search of an argument.
Aid. I laugh cynically. Gee Baby Ain't I Good To You. ....But why did you think I was that sort of a girl? The old now unPC phrase 'Indian Giver' applies well here. We gev em ALL THAT MONEY,don't worry loves, we'll take it in kind. We'll install our mining operations,get those oil well drilled,you need a whole lot of steel and glass towers and we have big scale industrial farming to get THE MOST VALUE outa all your rich farmland....did I say Your,well we own it now. We signed a deal with that dear old tart Zelensky. Didnt he tell you? It's PAYBACK TIME.
Russia SAVED those children. You are referring to children taken to the safety of Russia AT THE REQUEST OF THEIR PARENTS,these are Russian speaking families in the Donbass,the industrial area that the original dispute was blown up about. Since 2014 on the orders of Rabbi Zelensky Ukranian turnip heads (ie soldiers,big joke) had been raping and murdering children in the Donbass,and so,at the request of their parents Putin rescued them. You USA people wouldn't understand any of that because your whole culture is so evil.
Oh, I'm so sorry. How could I have forgotten.
I expect you let Fox news and CNN direct your thought.
The goal of the Russian invasion was to completely subjugate Ukraine, to make it into a puppet state like Georgia, or to annex it. That initial plan failed, mainly due to the unexpectedly stiff resistance from the Ukrainian military.
America has often made the mistake of funding militaries that won't fight (South Vietnamese, Afghan National Army, various Arab groups in Syria). This is a bad investment. But sometimes we fund and arm militaries that are willing to fight, like the Syrian Kurds and the Ukrainians. This has the possibility of being a good investment.
So you are getting this backwards, and exaggerating America's influence. You are acting like it is our funding alone that makes Ukrainians fight, when actually it is their willingness to fight that makes them worth funding.
The most likely outcome for some time has been an armistice where Russia keeps substantial portions of Ukrainian territory. That will not be the end of the war. Russia's goal is to subjugate Ukraine, and the minute the armistice goes into effect they will start thinking about how to accomplish that.
There are wider geopolitical implications of Russian imperialism. We have Finland and Sweden joining NATO, which is an enormous vote against Russian imperialism. The Baltic states are preparing for war, Lithuania reintroduced conscription. None of these countries have any illusions about what's going on here. Ukraine is a buffer state between them and Russia. The worse the outcome of the war is for Ukraine, the more likely they will be fighting a war in the near future.
The buffer is NATO. An attack on NATO is an attack on us. Ukraine was and is always going to be under Russia's sphere of influence based on the geography and history.
NATO is one buffer, but it's nice to have multiple buffers. I don't think NATO is meaningless, but it is not entirely clear that the current administration would honor the mutual defense principle in the case of a regional conflict. Maybe the Baltic states are confident NATO will prevail in a regional conflict, but that conflict would still be devastating. Better to have Ukraine as a physical buffer.
As far as Ukraine being under Russia's sphere of influence, that is what is being decided right now in the war. I don't know what the outcome will look like. If Russia keeps large parts of Ukraine, will the rest of Ukraine continue to move away from Russian influence? I don't know.
perhaps being a buffer is the worst of all worlds.
everybody is somebody's buffer :/
David writes, "Ukraine was and is always going to be under Russia's sphere of influence based on the geography and history."
This logic of spheres of influence means that the law of the jungle prevails throughout the world. It justifies the Mexican American War of 1847-49. Then, we have the Spanish American War of 1898-99, followed by the United States crushing the insurgency in the Philippines from 1901 to 1906. The Monroe Doctrine allowed U.S. troops to enter Haiti in 1919 and Nicaragua in 1932. During 1936-38, Hitler followed similar reasoning when Nazi troops annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia. On September 1, 1939, Hitler's Germany invaded Poland from the West. Two weeks later, Stalin ordered the Red Army to enter Poland from the East. In 1956, Soviet forces slaughtered 40,000 Hungarians based on the Soviet sphere of influence. In 2014, Putin followed the examples of Hitler and Stalin by attacking Ukraine. Using a similar rationale, Xi has targeted his missiles toward Taiwan. Bottom line, people in power can justify anything, because they surround themselves with pliant sycophants.
Not everything is an echo of Hitler and WW2.
Please elaborate on your sentence.
Whoo hoo. Go Russia.
Every military that we say today wasn't willing to fight, our leaders and theirs assured was totally willing to fight right up until the moment it turned out they weren't. I fully expect that sooner or later, the same thing is going to happen to Ukraine simply because they're going to run out of people to throw into the meat grinder long before Russia does.
The Afghan National Army and South Vietnamese never demonstrated the ability to fight like the Ukrainians and Syrian Kurds. Ukraine may lose a lot of territory, it may lose the war, but it's not remotely similar to Vietnam or Afghanistan. If you ignore the propaganda and just look at the facts on the ground, you can see how different it is.
What facts on the ground? Russia already holds huge chunks of Ukraine. Far more than the North Vietnamese or the Taliban held at this point of those wars. Your main argument seems to be that Ukrainians hold valor and courage. This is the real propaganda. Victory will hinge on troop numbers and supplies, and Russia is superior in both. I think the outcome is painfully obvious.
Afghanistan and South Vietnam collapsed almost immediately when American troops left. There have never been American troops in Ukraine. Those are facts on the ground.
The situations are just totally different. Furthermore I never said Ukraine would prevail, I just said the situation was totally different from Afghanistan and Vietnam. You don't seem capable of carrying on this discussion, so I'll leave you with your smug cynicism.
I agree that the situations are quite different. But you were the one who was comparing them in the first place, as if Vietnam and Afghanistan lost because their US aligned governments lacked sufficient willpower. If you don't think Ukraine will prevail, what purpose do you think is served by continuing to help them fight?
I wrote a bit about this in my first comment. I think the most likely outcome is an armistice in which Russian annexes parts of Eastern Ukraine. That armistice will not mark the end of the conflict: Russia will still be looking to dominate Ukraine and Ukraine will be looking to win back the land it lost.
So winning and losing is not a binary state here. The more aid Ukraine gets, the more favorable the armistice will be for Ukraine, the more likely Western Ukraine will remain as a buffer state against Russia.
Of course it is possible that Ukraine will collapse entirely (like Vietnam and Afghanistan), but I think that's unlikely given how long they've lasted without the help of foreign troops.
Yeah and look at the support and aid the West hand rewarded the valiant Kurds with after. Zilch. Nada. Go away and rot in a Turkish prison. We've moved on
The Syrian Kurds were pretty smart, they allied themselves with the US, but they worked hard not to alienate the various sides of the war (except ISIS). I don't know what will happen to them.
Imprisonment,torture,the usual.
And then there will be lots of vacant property for British Tory MPs to buy cheap like I found out they did after the massacres in Rwanda. As one of them explained on the radio." Social unrest creates investment opportunities". Callous or what? But true I guess.
Perhaps, Putin will become impatient and drop a tactical nuclear weapon on Ukraine.
Willingness to fight. Please watch Pavlo from Ukraine on you tube. You might revise your opinion.
No I'm not going to watch some YouTube video. If you can't articulate what you want to say, why even comment?
What couldn't you com-pre-hend (long word). But of course wear a blindfold. Keep your illusions intact. Look at the trouble that ensued once Ploughboys could read The Bible and find out for themselves it was mostly nonsense on stilts.