For someone who doesnt want to spout propaganda, you sure do. Lets count the ways:
1. Ukrainians are rabid nationalists. And Russians arent? This descriptor itself disqualifies you.
2. Taking Crimea and supporting treasonous rebellion in Donbass. Funny how you gloss over these actions by Russia. If someone supported a rebellion in a Russian province, what would Russia do? Wait, we know. Look at what happened to Grozny.
3. “Nazis”. Was Azov fascist then (less so now with so many original members dead or in prison camps in Russia)? Sure. But no mention of Nazi biker gangs securing Putin’s rallies, or how many Nazis fought for Russia? Just among Wagner, there is so much evidence… seems to me Russia needs some denazifying of its own.
4. Maidan. West supported the protesters for sure but taking away their agency completely to claim without evidence (your only link is busted) that it was a “foreign coup” just repeats worst of Putin’s propagandist points.
5. Kit Klarenberg. You dont like propaganda, but somehow quote one of leading anti-West “journos” whose articles are consistently wrong or written with context speciously presented to show a one sides picture.
6. Motivations for war. Nothing here except accepting Putin’s premise. No mention of his essay on uniting Russian lands. Nothing on ridiculousness of his claim that Russia was under threat (if US wasnt willing to engage directly for Ukraine even due to threat of nuclear war, then how can Russia itself ever be under threat?).
7. Zelensky as Hitler of this war? Really? Are you high? This doesnt even merit intellectual response, just shows how bad your article is. But even on its “merits”, Hitler forced thousands of stupid attacks against entrenched enemy knowing it will lead to tons of losses for barely any gains. Seems like Bakhmut to me. Stalin did that too, so Putin can be Hitler or Stalin of this war, but claiming that a side DEFENDING itself is crazy to defend its territory to its upmost is Hitlerite is a delusional assertion. Would you claim the same of Soviets vs Nazis? I mean they could have foregoed Leningrad instead of eating rats no?
8. I wont even go into Yugoslavia thing, ill wait for ur article on that one to point out all the mistakes you will surely make then.
9. Nothing, and i mean nothing, on the actual philosophical substance of this war. The whole point of the past decades has been to move away from the imperialism of “spheres of influence”. Ukraine joining even NATO isnt and wasnt a threat to Russia because again, THEY HAVE NUKES. This defeats the whole argumentation of Putin, which he defeated as well himself with his essay. No, this is Putin going back to pre-WW2 style foreign policy, and useful idiots like you deciding to turn off their intellectual faculties because you are too scared of ever saying no to a bully. Small countries have a right to exist, to have their borders unchanged by big powers and to run their country how they want to. West has been at wrong here as well for sure, but in Ukraine, Russia has done majority of meddling. And it is the one who invaded a sovereign country, which you also decided not to make a deal out of.
10. 2024 summer offensive. Nothing, again nothing, on the fact West was late with weapons deliveries and was pushing Ukraine to attack in NATO style vs entrenched defenses which had more time to prep because again, support was late. No, make it seem as if building trenches by convicts is on the genius level of Zhukov. Of course, where Ukraine showed adaptation against 2nd biggest army in the world (first drone warfare power in the world making millions drones per year, forcing Russia to go so deep into its storages its fielding 1950s tanks and IFVs, adapting Western AA to fire older Soviet missiles, forcing Russian Black Sea fleet into hiding), thats irrelevant because “West did it all”. You sound like Chomsky.
Now ill give u some props too.
1. 2022 peace opportunity. Yea, that one is a doozy. Too many Western politicians get a war hard on (see Sarkozy and Cameron in Libya) too easily. But you are writing in definite terms about confidential peace negotiations while the war is happening. At least qualify it that we still dont have all the details instead of presenting it as historical fact based on the fact an article was published in Foreign Policy (this is Ron Unz style comprehension of how historical facts are gathered).
2. Overall Western policy on the war. It has been all over the place due to a stupid fear of nuclear war (which will never happen as long as sons and daughters of Russian politicians, oligarchs and generals study in Cambridge and Harvard, which majority of them do). So we had this push and shove shit where ukraine was never given enough to actually come even close to winning.
Basically, a “non-propaganda” author who seems to have swallowed Putin’s propaganda hook, line and sinker. Id love to see you actually respond to the critique above, but i doubt you will. Would require actually examining your motivation.
I love your passion. You clearly want to learn stuff, that's commendable. You just raised too many issues, some pretty nonsensical (if the violent removal of a democratic government is not a coup, what is it? What's the name for that?) and some downright crazy (you're not scared of nuclear war? Good for you! Everyone else is, so I guess you're lucky that we outnumber the likes of you).
Just a couple of points: I didn't write that all Ukrainian nationalists are "rabid"; what I mean is that the rabid core of Ukrainian nationalism in the west of the country has been a well-known problem for a long time (don't ask the Russians, ask the Poles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia).
On the issue of the 2022 peace negotiations: You must understand the concept of argument against interest. If I, an atheist, tell you "hey, God doesn't exist", I don't think that will make a dent on your priors regarding the existence of divinity; if the Pope, whose interest is very strongly aligned with the public defense of the existence of God, comes to you and tells you "hey, God doesn't exist," that's a much, much stronger argument even if it is, strictly speaking, the very same words.
The fact that Foreign Policy published the details about the negotiation, even if that act was strongly against the interest of the US government of the time (Biden's, who wanted to continue with the war) makes the fact extremely significant, and worthy of everybody's attention. Besides, NOBODY, and I mean, NOBODY, has ever challenged the narrative or any of the main points of the piece. The objections that some have raised have focused on the phrasing of the security guarantees for Russia. If you don't trust Foreign Policy, can I interest you in “Ukraine-Russia Peace Is as Elusive as Ever. But in 2022 They Were Talking,” (NYT, 15.6.2024)? You don't believe the NYT either?
To answer points you raised (mind you, i would still appreciate answer to all of the points raised):
- sure we can call it a coup, even “foreign backed”, but the way you wrote it removes all agency from Ukrainians who would have protested against Janukovic dragging country east with or without the west (and yes i have friends who took part in the protests and know a bit of what happened)
- on nationalism, do we have to even go into all the massacres rabid Russian nationalists have committed just in last 20-30 years? Grozny, Aleppo, Bucha… again issue i have is your one sided approach
- on peace negotiations - “they were talking” doesnt mean it was close to done deal. We dont know completely which elements were still stumbling blocks for both sides. Ill admit though that listening to Boris Johnson is rarely a smart thing.
Finally, while i appreciate a conciliatory tone, no need to be condescending. Of course i can always learn more but so can you. Im not some 17 year old student, im 36 with 10 years of experience in policymaking and 2 master degrees including one in history. And have closer access to thinking of high level people in brussels than you for sure, considering who i and my close friends work for. That doesnt mean those people are always (or even often) right, but try sometimes also to understand that you own positions might be biased/skewed.
I don't think any other point is worth responding too. They are pretty basic things that are either addressed in the text or anybody with any time and interest can independently learn about. Also, stop repeating the bullshit propaganda talking point about Russia seeking to recreate the Soviet Union or, as you put it, that Putin wrote an "essay on uniting Russian lands." Show me that essay, come on, find it for me, please, and link it here. Will make very interesting reading, and should be very easy to find given that there are substantial Russian minorities not just in, for example, Moldavia, but also Estonia and Kazakhstan. It should be all over the Internet! So show me that essay where Putin explains he wants to invade all those countries. Make sure it says that, because otherwise you're going to look (like millions others) very stupid. I'll wait.
Clearly thinks there is no Ukraine or Belarus, these are provinces taken from Russia. If a Westerner in power (lets say German) wrote the same about Wroclaw (once Breslau), then invaded Poland, what would you call that?
Also, if Putin didnt want to annex at least everything up to Dniepr, why was Kiev one of his main axis of original attack? Hell even if it was about installing a friendly satellite regime, its still a war crime. Which u dont mention even once. Wonder if you would write the same about American invasion of Iraq. Coming back to my original point. Your whole article regurgitates Putin’s talking points without any thought.
Most importantly, and you dont grapple with this at all, Putin’s other line is that russia has to “protect” its minorities in other countries. And Russia decides if they are “under attack”. Thats an opening for any country which has sufficient diaspora to so the same and was the same argument Milosevic used. Falling for this makes you a dupe at best. Cant wait for you to accept the same premise in case of Mexicans in US, Arabs in France or Chinese in Malaysia.
And on my points, its all known or obvious and you addressed it already in your article? Man, thats just a lie.
Like I said, the essay says nothing of the sort, it doesn't call for any reunification of Russian lands, it doesn't even call for the incorporation of the Ukrainian lands that Russia will now take. On the Ukraine (it doesn't even mention any of the other countries) it specifically says:
"We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians' desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.
I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people."
Can you? You are supposed to have studied history and you arent able to read between the lines? Especially in context of what has happened since? Lets do the work for you because you clearly cant:
- lets start by what others have said about it (this is wikipedia, takes 10 seconds, includes your lovely foreign policy):
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace called the essay a "historical, political, and security predicate for invading [Ukraine]".[38] The Stockholm Free World Forum senior fellow Anders Åslund branded the essay as "one step short of a declaration of war."[9] According to Foreign Policy, the essay is a "key guide to the historical stories that shape Putin's and many Russian's attitudes".[39] Historian Timothy Snyder has described Putin's ideas as imperialism.[40] British journalist Edward Lucas described it as historical revisionism.[41] Other observers have noted that the Russian leadership has a distorted view of modern Ukraine and its history. A report by 35 legal and genocide experts cited Putin's essay as part of "laying the groundwork for incitement to genocide: denying the existence of the Ukrainian group".[45]
- Putin has for years claimed Russia is under threat from NATO expansion (clearly a lie considering the nuke arsenal and the fear associated with it)
- Putin had lost his man in Kiev due to democratic protests (funny how u dont call his existence “foreign backed influence”)
- his support for treasonous rebellion (which Russia would squash with thousands of missiles if it happened in Russia as we know from Checnya) didnt really work out and they were losing
- he believed his army was ready to go (lol)
- so he invades to end the story once and for all
I mean, at what point do you stop sucking Putin’s toes and admit to yourself he committed a war crime by invading a sovereign country? There is no provocation here (again, they have nukes), there is no argument, because there cant be one. Inviolability of borders is the basics of the international system today, even China says it adheres to it, even India agrees it was a crime, but David Roman somehow still thinks Putin wanted to denazify Ukraine, although some of his most ardent supporters are fucking Nazis.
By now i dont expect honest engagement from you but im answering mostly just to underline to your other readers how biased you are and how unable you are to argue in good faith. So they are aware. Until u ban me of course which i expect will happen soon.
Thanks for the work you did here. I was following David for some time thinking that he had really good points about the Ukraine war, and now... It is obvious how biased he is. Hugs from a unknown user. You did a good research 😊
And ill say it again, i might be a nobody in terms of online following (thank god) but id debate you any day of the week. So you cant just wave off any critique you cant answer.
your main tools are repeating untruths, and twisting logic by attempting mind reading.
your goal is to present Putin as a villain, and Russia as a dangerous enemy, who started unprovoked aggression.
The key to ending this tragic war is understanding what was the provocation that led to war.
Truth will not come from well paid MI6 and CIA psy op operatives, neither from useful idiots in media, in diplomacy, and think thanks that never really think, but regurgitate propaganda
the problem is the result of their work, that is neverending war with Russia
a realistic, objective approach to current war
could clarify the reasons for the war
and also help identify necessary decisions needed to stop the war, end the conflict, and build peace.
however I do support your right to voice your own opinion,
to defend it in public discussion
but I completely understand David
it drains one‘s energy to have to repeatedly argue that white paper is white
he wrote his article to understand and show what really happened
you write your list of truths we should all believe in, the list full of lies
carefully arranged into an intellectual construction
that argues for neverending war against Russia
For anyone respecting truth, it is difficult to argue with someone not interested in truth,
still there is a reason to do it
War
War is the final discussion, polemic being fought with blood and lives.
Putin as a leader of Russia demonstrated he is serious about not accepting NATO (i.e. US nuclear missiles) on Russian border
Ukrainians demonstrated they are serious about willing to be independent
Trump has shown that he understands there is no victory in sight, attrition war will end either in complete depletion of fighting age Ukrainian men or escalate to nuclear war.
The problem of this war is lack of trust, Russian have no trust in US, Ukrainians have no trust in Russians,
and absolute lack of diplomacy
The job of our leaders, in US, Russia, Ukraine, Croatia, Romania, Germany... is to protect interests of their citizens
Recent elections in Croatia ended with 75% of the votes, victory for the candidate who was against the war with Russia,
Romanian elections would have been won by a candidate who was against the war with Russia, if he was not blocked by EU elites, pushing for war.
The job of our leaders is not to continue neverending war, but to seek peace.
Of course, you will focus on 2 ad-hominems now and not on the substance. Because substance would make you actually think about this. Again man, you can do better, as shown when you write about non-contemporary stuff.
I liked this post. I would quible over some of the details, but that's to be expected. The fog of war and the polarizing narratives make a number of things difficult to really nail down, like casualty numbers.
The big one though, is the northern offensive toward Kiev. You describe it as a failed offensive, but I think that it was more likely a campaign to force Zelensky to the negotiating table. And after negotiations commenced, Putin withdrew as a good faith gesture. Then Boris Johnson came in to urge Zelensky to fight rather than take a deal.
The support for this argument is pretty straightforward. The Russians didn't have anywhere near enough men to take Kiev. The total invasion force was around 130,000 men (numbers vary from 100k to 150k) and roughly 30,000 of those were in the northern offensive. Both Northern and Southern offensives made rapid progress, but the Kiev offensive stalled just outside of Kiev. In my view this was deliberate, to allow for negotiations.
The reasoning is simple. Kiev is a city of 3 million and it had 10,000 or more troops defending it. Typically the attacking force needs to have a 3 to 1 advantage to overcome a defending force, all things being equal. But, in the concrete jungle of a major city, the ratio goes up to at least 5 to 1. Russia simply didn't have the numbers to take Kiev.
Further, when assaulting dense urban areas, there are two strategies. Either flatten the place with artillery first or storm it with overwhelming number and be prepared to take heavy casualties. Russia didn't have the numbers for the latter and Kiev suffered almost no damage from bombs or artillery.
Also, the Russians withdrew from the field in good order. Michael Kofman, War on the Rocks, even commented that retreating under fire is one of the most difficult things for an army to do and the Russians did it well.
Finally, the Russians did very well in the south. It's hard to square their rapid advances in both theaters, and their orderly withdrawl in the north, with what was arguably a more veteran defending force in the south.
So, that's my main quibble. But otherwise, very nice work.
Nuances. Nuances are important. Main Ukrainian force was in Donbas, they waited for an attack behind fortified line. Most dangerous part of Russian aggression was Hostomel airport attack, if seized and turned into receiving airport for airborne forces, it could have led to storming of key positions inside Kiev, in the first day of operation, it didn’t work out, Russians couldn’t even imagine the level of penetration of their communications - NSA knew almost everything, CIA and Budanov knew the rest, from human sources intelligence.
Ser Roman; are you aware Ukraine was per OSCE firing 1500~2000 shells daily into DPR/LNR areas Feb15-21, 2022? Or in short thousands of shells from Ukraine started the war, not Putin?
If one believes in international law at all, then one needs to admit that Russia violated it when it took over Ukraine and portions of the Donbas in 2014 as well as its invasion in 2022.
International law is very clear: when Ukraine became independent in 1991, its sovereignty extended to the borders of the Ukraine SSR. The controlling doctrine is “uti possidetis juris”, developed in the 19th century in response, among other things, to the disintegration of Spain’s imperial possessions in the Americas. The doctrine supersedes any competing claims of self-determination of peoples inside those territories.
So, as relevant to Ukraine, it matters not that Crimea was added to Ukraine only in 1954 or that a majority in the Donbas are Russian.
Of course, beyond all that was the 1994 Budapest agreement in which Russia acknowledged Ukraine’s sovereignty and its borders in exchange for its abandoning its Soviet nuclear missiles.
As a sovereign and independent nation, Ukraine had every right to seek admission to NATO and the EU if it so chose. Neither was a legitimate casus bellum for Russia.
But if you don’t believe in international law, then might makes right and, as Thucydides observed, the weak suffer what they must.
100%. Same applies to the US attacking Iraq and occupying a large chunk of Syria to this day, and so many other invasions (from Dominican Republic to Panama). There's an old saying in Spanish: "either we all play or we burn the cards."
All true, even if I don’t play cards, I understand the sentiment.
And yet, the reality is the fiction that all countries, weak or strong, should be treated equally - an idea developed by Metternich whose homeland was by then on the skids power-wise - remains just that.
If there were some agreed international regime with enforcement power that could maintain the peace on a fair and equitable basis, perhaps today’s reality could be bypassed. But that would probably require a wholesale change in human nature. Both the League of Nations and the U.N. were created to achieve that ideal and both have, let’s just say, failed to live up to those expectations.
International law is made up bullshit. Heads I win, tails you lose.
You can’t go around overthrowing governments like in 2014 and then cite international law. The second we got involved in Ukrainian politics cutting the country in half became inevitable.
I can think of nothing less critical to human flourishing than whether a made up country that’s been a complete failure since its birth retains its made up lines on a map.
International law is a great idea, particularly in the era of nuclear powers. But it can't work if democracies decide that it only applies to the other countries, that is something they can ignore whenever they feel it's convenient. Either it applies to all or it applies to nobody.
Only an idiot would allow an enemy's nuclear weapons to be placed in a bordering country. Russia was concerned that Ukraine would become a NATO member and nuclear weapons would be placed there. Consider if Russia placed nuclear weapons in Mexico, Canada or perhaps Cuba again.
First of all, no one placed nuclear weapons in Ukraine. They were Soviet leftovers and, from what I read, the Ukrainians didn’t have the launch codes as these never left Moscow.
If you mean that NATO membership might mean placing nuclear weapons in Ukraine, you don’t know how things work. Under your scenario, the Baltic States would all have such weapons but they don’t. And of what possible advantage would it have been to put them in Ukraine?
Your comment seems quite the stretch to justify Russian aggression. At least the U.S. waited to confirm that the Soviet Union was in fact sending nuclear missiles to Cuba before responding. It didn’t act to prevent a purely hypothetical situation.
If Mexico entered into an alliance with Russia and agreed to host Russian troops to deter American aggression, the US would quickly invade and annex northern Mexico. Ukraine is the road to Moscow for invading western armies back to the time of the Knights Templar. Thinking the Russians are going to sit back and let Ukraine hop in bed with NATO is naive.
First of all, we don’t know what the US would do in your “alliance” scenario. For what it’s worth, the U.S. didn’t invade Cuba as a result of the Cuban missile crisis. Whether it might have had there been no resolution, we can’t know.
Second, you would need to flesh out the state of affairs that would exist to lead to such a deterioration in relations between the U.S. and Mexico that would cause the latter to get in bed with such an anti-democratic regime. The relationship has always been a difficult one. As no less a figure than Porfirio Diaz once said, “Poor Mexico, so far from God, so near the United States.”
As to Ukraine being the historic road to Moscow, as you put it - which actually isn’t the case, what is the evidence that either NATO, the U.S. or any European power has any interest in such an invasion? I see absolutely none.
On the other hand, it is a well known political strategy to distract your own population from its misery to identify an outside enemy. It seems to me that’s all Putin is really doing. He seems to be too much hard boiled realist to believe his mystical fantasy of Ukraine somehow being the soul of Russia. The simpler interpretation is that Putin couldn’t risk the emergence of a democratic and prosperous Slavic neighbor to his South whose very existence would serve as a rebuke to his economically fragile kleptocracy. That would try risk internal unrest and his possible toppling.
you are running away from the truth. Russia wanted for aggression, regime change operations to stop, ideally in a ring of states that are situated between NATO and Russia. That means Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia.
Not to occupy these countries, just to have an opportunity to compete economically, politically with the West for influence. Until these countries mature enough not to fall for USAID, NED machinations.
Look at the whole Maydan thing, a legally elected president was removed from power by force.
Why? He was going to lose the next election. And someone proWestern would probably have won. A dynamic that is normal in postcommunist countries. But he was removed by CIA intervention, snipers that killed hundred people, both protesters as well as policemen.
Why.
Yanukovich was negotiating with EU, on possible Ukraine accesion. But Putin offered more. And promised, whatever these EU guys promise to Ukraine, Russia will always offer more.
And Americans decided to stop bargaining. And used force.
"First of all, no one placed nuclear weapons in Ukraine."
Where did I say they did?
"And of what possible advantage would it have been to put them in Ukraine?"
Is that supposed to be a serious question? The Ukraine-Russian border is very close to Moscow.
"At least the U.S. waited to confirm that the Soviet Union was in fact sending nuclear missiles to Cuba before responding. It didn’t act to prevent a purely hypothetical situation."
And that was a very serious situation. The United States was remiss in not avoiding the very dangerous possibility.
Your first sentence was ambiguous. But it’s not self-evident who the “enemy” you refer to might be. There’s a difference between being independent and being an enemy. Are you suggesting that Ukraine has irredentist fantasies regarding Russia? Or do you think NATO or the U.S. want to destroy Russia. And if the latter, why didn’t they act when Russia was a financial basket case under Yeltsin? It sounds more like a fever dream or a cover to rationalize Russian aggression.
I could quibble with what might be overly categorical, such as calling Maidan a coup, and exaggerated, such as the role of overt neo Nazis, but this pretty much captures what all of this looks like from the Russian perspective.
The pushback is understandable given the black and white narrative that has come to the fore, and given that, after all, anything that undermines it is inevitably seen as sympathy rather than earnest attempts to understand.
The question is, how would peace be possible if there is so little political space to even try to understand? Especially here in Europe, where the risks for escalation are palpable. And especially, if we insist on making Putin personally the villain, rather than recognising the domestic pressures he has to react to and the real risk that he might well be toppled by someone far worse?
Either way, the longer we remain stuck in this rut, the more Ukrainians will suffer worse than any conceivable peace deal that I can imagine. And the higher the risk will be that the suffering might extend well beyond the borders of Ukraine.
From the beginning, Putin seemed not to understand what was at stake in Ukraine. He did not recognize that this was to be a proxy war of the United States against Russia. His strategy of a limited war was a big mistake. He should have fought to win the war quickly and decisively. Many lives on both sides could have been saved.
Ukraine is just one piece of a global puzzle. It has allowed the pivot of the global south to the RU/China side, de-industrialized Europe, and strengthens BRICs, while U.S. during in the Multi-Polar world that the USA now accepts as reality. The slow path in Ukraine created victories for the rest of the world.
Everyone on earth remains appalled at how willing the Ukrainians are to be slaughtered for the profit of their evil and elected government.
It’s all being banked, including the pay for KIA who are carried as MIA, which is why the Ukrainians don’t recover most of their dead.
Of course Zelensky could have signed in Istanbul. He would probably have been assassinated but he could have signed and it probably would’ve stuck.
I think I have found the most vicious people on earth now. Even the Palestinians-who are a profession not a people-aren’t this callous or greedy to their own. “NATO” 🇺🇸 like Russia was expecting this to be over in days.
> The RU air assault into Kiev only missed its chance by a matter of hours. The ground columns were late, the air resupply couldn’t make it. Had they synchronized Kiev would have been taken.
An excellent attempt at a balanced view of the situation! We need more people like you trying to bridge this gap. Subscribed!
If I had to criticise anything, then I would say, less focus on the Nazi thing (which I hope everybody is aware of now) and more focus on the real root causes, which are basically that the globalist European backers of the conflict were driven by rabid hatred of Russia (still butthurt from Putin kicking them and their puppets out) and their plan was to set up the Ukraine as the hub for the counter offensive (plus there was a more recent but secondary desire to access the newly discovered resources there) vs the Russian red lines of no military presence in Ukraine and certainly nothing that would jeopardise their base in Crimea or that might ultimately allow long range missiles and nukes so close to Moscow. I think focusing on these sets the groundwork better for an otherwise excellent writeup!
It is incomprehensible to me just how screwed up our leaders in the West are. I’ve always said that there’s no Russian president that would ever allow Ukraine to fall into Western hands. The strategic implications are just too dramatic for Russia, a country that survived Napoleon and Hitler by leveraging strategic depth. Russian army’s have always been massive, cumbersome, and initially horrible. Ukraine and Belarus (and Georgia) are to Russia what the Atlantic and the Pacific are to America. Without it, they’re doomed.
I can’t understand why we did this. I can only attach the most petty political grievances to this - Putin is seen as the boogeyman that caused Brexit and Trumps ascension in 2016 (Hillary’s loss). He must be punished because he toppled the status quo. This entire thing was pure evil.
And who on earth would ever take the British army’s advice on conventional war-fighting? Unbelievable.
Surely, surely, there is something I don't understand as to why powerful people in the United States wanted to renew and invigorate Russia as an enemy by killing however many Ukrainians it took.
I understand Ukraine' reason for fighting and I understand Russia not wanting their borders dictated by the US and Ukraine.
Foreign Policy in the U.S. is dominated by thinktanks paid for by defense contractors directly, and also indirectly via foundations who get their funding from….defense contractors, USAID, and various NGOs.
The academics in those thinktanks are old cold warriors who never gave up their dream of crushing Russia. They mentored the younger generation of PMCs who view every country from a lens of control.
Russia had a huge say in Ukraine policy via having a pro-Russian government in Kiev. The US foreign policy people didn’t like that.
The big event though was the discovery of natural gas, oil, and valuable mineral deposits under the Donbas and off the coast of Crimea in the early 2010s.
The opportunity to exploit this wealth for western countries meant they needed Russia out of Ukraine. So they worked on the 2014 coup.
The insistence that Ukraine must take back western Donbas and Crimea is all based on the desire to control the oil, gas, and minerals.
The Nazi thing is overplayed. The Ukrainians were subjected to the worst of Stalinism. Along came another European power who kicked the Stalinists out. Of course they're going to come down on the side of that power...who else was there?
The war record of Galacia doesn't lend itself to the same record of the Allgemiene SS or the Latvians they extensively utilized. Their time on "counter guerilla" operations in east Poland was minimal. Their fighting was done against the red army, and they paid dearly for it before being withdrawn to the west for a brief stint in N. Italy, a fraction of their original strength.
So is it fair to assign their reverence to their ancestors who spent their time fighting Stalin with being "Nazis." No.
That said, is Ukraine thoroughly infested with corruption, whose practitioners will steal anything and everything not nailed down? Sure is. Welcome to Eastern Europe....
I have a stylistic question. I used to refer to "The Ukraine", but then was informed that this is incorrect and the correct usage is simply "Ukraine". But then throughout this article you use the construct "The Ukraine". What's the right term for this country?
Both are acceptable. I don't get mad if people say "Lebanon" instead of "Lebanon"! What I don't like it is when countries tell others how to refer to themselves in foreign languages: "Turkiyye" instead of "Turkey." Sorry, but no. The world was a better place when we had Burma and Zaire.
It is sad that we are 3 years into this and people's understanding seems to have not developed in the slightest. No new learning, no question asking, just rote repetition of conventional history.
For someone who doesnt want to spout propaganda, you sure do. Lets count the ways:
1. Ukrainians are rabid nationalists. And Russians arent? This descriptor itself disqualifies you.
2. Taking Crimea and supporting treasonous rebellion in Donbass. Funny how you gloss over these actions by Russia. If someone supported a rebellion in a Russian province, what would Russia do? Wait, we know. Look at what happened to Grozny.
3. “Nazis”. Was Azov fascist then (less so now with so many original members dead or in prison camps in Russia)? Sure. But no mention of Nazi biker gangs securing Putin’s rallies, or how many Nazis fought for Russia? Just among Wagner, there is so much evidence… seems to me Russia needs some denazifying of its own.
4. Maidan. West supported the protesters for sure but taking away their agency completely to claim without evidence (your only link is busted) that it was a “foreign coup” just repeats worst of Putin’s propagandist points.
5. Kit Klarenberg. You dont like propaganda, but somehow quote one of leading anti-West “journos” whose articles are consistently wrong or written with context speciously presented to show a one sides picture.
6. Motivations for war. Nothing here except accepting Putin’s premise. No mention of his essay on uniting Russian lands. Nothing on ridiculousness of his claim that Russia was under threat (if US wasnt willing to engage directly for Ukraine even due to threat of nuclear war, then how can Russia itself ever be under threat?).
7. Zelensky as Hitler of this war? Really? Are you high? This doesnt even merit intellectual response, just shows how bad your article is. But even on its “merits”, Hitler forced thousands of stupid attacks against entrenched enemy knowing it will lead to tons of losses for barely any gains. Seems like Bakhmut to me. Stalin did that too, so Putin can be Hitler or Stalin of this war, but claiming that a side DEFENDING itself is crazy to defend its territory to its upmost is Hitlerite is a delusional assertion. Would you claim the same of Soviets vs Nazis? I mean they could have foregoed Leningrad instead of eating rats no?
8. I wont even go into Yugoslavia thing, ill wait for ur article on that one to point out all the mistakes you will surely make then.
9. Nothing, and i mean nothing, on the actual philosophical substance of this war. The whole point of the past decades has been to move away from the imperialism of “spheres of influence”. Ukraine joining even NATO isnt and wasnt a threat to Russia because again, THEY HAVE NUKES. This defeats the whole argumentation of Putin, which he defeated as well himself with his essay. No, this is Putin going back to pre-WW2 style foreign policy, and useful idiots like you deciding to turn off their intellectual faculties because you are too scared of ever saying no to a bully. Small countries have a right to exist, to have their borders unchanged by big powers and to run their country how they want to. West has been at wrong here as well for sure, but in Ukraine, Russia has done majority of meddling. And it is the one who invaded a sovereign country, which you also decided not to make a deal out of.
10. 2024 summer offensive. Nothing, again nothing, on the fact West was late with weapons deliveries and was pushing Ukraine to attack in NATO style vs entrenched defenses which had more time to prep because again, support was late. No, make it seem as if building trenches by convicts is on the genius level of Zhukov. Of course, where Ukraine showed adaptation against 2nd biggest army in the world (first drone warfare power in the world making millions drones per year, forcing Russia to go so deep into its storages its fielding 1950s tanks and IFVs, adapting Western AA to fire older Soviet missiles, forcing Russian Black Sea fleet into hiding), thats irrelevant because “West did it all”. You sound like Chomsky.
Now ill give u some props too.
1. 2022 peace opportunity. Yea, that one is a doozy. Too many Western politicians get a war hard on (see Sarkozy and Cameron in Libya) too easily. But you are writing in definite terms about confidential peace negotiations while the war is happening. At least qualify it that we still dont have all the details instead of presenting it as historical fact based on the fact an article was published in Foreign Policy (this is Ron Unz style comprehension of how historical facts are gathered).
2. Overall Western policy on the war. It has been all over the place due to a stupid fear of nuclear war (which will never happen as long as sons and daughters of Russian politicians, oligarchs and generals study in Cambridge and Harvard, which majority of them do). So we had this push and shove shit where ukraine was never given enough to actually come even close to winning.
Basically, a “non-propaganda” author who seems to have swallowed Putin’s propaganda hook, line and sinker. Id love to see you actually respond to the critique above, but i doubt you will. Would require actually examining your motivation.
I love your passion. You clearly want to learn stuff, that's commendable. You just raised too many issues, some pretty nonsensical (if the violent removal of a democratic government is not a coup, what is it? What's the name for that?) and some downright crazy (you're not scared of nuclear war? Good for you! Everyone else is, so I guess you're lucky that we outnumber the likes of you).
Just a couple of points: I didn't write that all Ukrainian nationalists are "rabid"; what I mean is that the rabid core of Ukrainian nationalism in the west of the country has been a well-known problem for a long time (don't ask the Russians, ask the Poles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia).
On the issue of the 2022 peace negotiations: You must understand the concept of argument against interest. If I, an atheist, tell you "hey, God doesn't exist", I don't think that will make a dent on your priors regarding the existence of divinity; if the Pope, whose interest is very strongly aligned with the public defense of the existence of God, comes to you and tells you "hey, God doesn't exist," that's a much, much stronger argument even if it is, strictly speaking, the very same words.
The fact that Foreign Policy published the details about the negotiation, even if that act was strongly against the interest of the US government of the time (Biden's, who wanted to continue with the war) makes the fact extremely significant, and worthy of everybody's attention. Besides, NOBODY, and I mean, NOBODY, has ever challenged the narrative or any of the main points of the piece. The objections that some have raised have focused on the phrasing of the security guarantees for Russia. If you don't trust Foreign Policy, can I interest you in “Ukraine-Russia Peace Is as Elusive as Ever. But in 2022 They Were Talking,” (NYT, 15.6.2024)? You don't believe the NYT either?
To answer points you raised (mind you, i would still appreciate answer to all of the points raised):
- sure we can call it a coup, even “foreign backed”, but the way you wrote it removes all agency from Ukrainians who would have protested against Janukovic dragging country east with or without the west (and yes i have friends who took part in the protests and know a bit of what happened)
- on nationalism, do we have to even go into all the massacres rabid Russian nationalists have committed just in last 20-30 years? Grozny, Aleppo, Bucha… again issue i have is your one sided approach
- on peace negotiations - “they were talking” doesnt mean it was close to done deal. We dont know completely which elements were still stumbling blocks for both sides. Ill admit though that listening to Boris Johnson is rarely a smart thing.
Finally, while i appreciate a conciliatory tone, no need to be condescending. Of course i can always learn more but so can you. Im not some 17 year old student, im 36 with 10 years of experience in policymaking and 2 master degrees including one in history. And have closer access to thinking of high level people in brussels than you for sure, considering who i and my close friends work for. That doesnt mean those people are always (or even often) right, but try sometimes also to understand that you own positions might be biased/skewed.
I don't think any other point is worth responding too. They are pretty basic things that are either addressed in the text or anybody with any time and interest can independently learn about. Also, stop repeating the bullshit propaganda talking point about Russia seeking to recreate the Soviet Union or, as you put it, that Putin wrote an "essay on uniting Russian lands." Show me that essay, come on, find it for me, please, and link it here. Will make very interesting reading, and should be very easy to find given that there are substantial Russian minorities not just in, for example, Moldavia, but also Estonia and Kazakhstan. It should be all over the Internet! So show me that essay where Putin explains he wants to invade all those countries. Make sure it says that, because otherwise you're going to look (like millions others) very stupid. I'll wait.
Here it is http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
Clearly thinks there is no Ukraine or Belarus, these are provinces taken from Russia. If a Westerner in power (lets say German) wrote the same about Wroclaw (once Breslau), then invaded Poland, what would you call that?
Also, if Putin didnt want to annex at least everything up to Dniepr, why was Kiev one of his main axis of original attack? Hell even if it was about installing a friendly satellite regime, its still a war crime. Which u dont mention even once. Wonder if you would write the same about American invasion of Iraq. Coming back to my original point. Your whole article regurgitates Putin’s talking points without any thought.
Most importantly, and you dont grapple with this at all, Putin’s other line is that russia has to “protect” its minorities in other countries. And Russia decides if they are “under attack”. Thats an opening for any country which has sufficient diaspora to so the same and was the same argument Milosevic used. Falling for this makes you a dupe at best. Cant wait for you to accept the same premise in case of Mexicans in US, Arabs in France or Chinese in Malaysia.
And on my points, its all known or obvious and you addressed it already in your article? Man, thats just a lie.
Like I said, the essay says nothing of the sort, it doesn't call for any reunification of Russian lands, it doesn't even call for the incorporation of the Ukrainian lands that Russia will now take. On the Ukraine (it doesn't even mention any of the other countries) it specifically says:
"We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians' desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.
I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people."
Can you even read?
Can you? You are supposed to have studied history and you arent able to read between the lines? Especially in context of what has happened since? Lets do the work for you because you clearly cant:
- lets start by what others have said about it (this is wikipedia, takes 10 seconds, includes your lovely foreign policy):
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace called the essay a "historical, political, and security predicate for invading [Ukraine]".[38] The Stockholm Free World Forum senior fellow Anders Åslund branded the essay as "one step short of a declaration of war."[9] According to Foreign Policy, the essay is a "key guide to the historical stories that shape Putin's and many Russian's attitudes".[39] Historian Timothy Snyder has described Putin's ideas as imperialism.[40] British journalist Edward Lucas described it as historical revisionism.[41] Other observers have noted that the Russian leadership has a distorted view of modern Ukraine and its history. A report by 35 legal and genocide experts cited Putin's essay as part of "laying the groundwork for incitement to genocide: denying the existence of the Ukrainian group".[45]
- Putin has for years claimed Russia is under threat from NATO expansion (clearly a lie considering the nuke arsenal and the fear associated with it)
- Putin had lost his man in Kiev due to democratic protests (funny how u dont call his existence “foreign backed influence”)
- his support for treasonous rebellion (which Russia would squash with thousands of missiles if it happened in Russia as we know from Checnya) didnt really work out and they were losing
- he believed his army was ready to go (lol)
- so he invades to end the story once and for all
I mean, at what point do you stop sucking Putin’s toes and admit to yourself he committed a war crime by invading a sovereign country? There is no provocation here (again, they have nukes), there is no argument, because there cant be one. Inviolability of borders is the basics of the international system today, even China says it adheres to it, even India agrees it was a crime, but David Roman somehow still thinks Putin wanted to denazify Ukraine, although some of his most ardent supporters are fucking Nazis.
By now i dont expect honest engagement from you but im answering mostly just to underline to your other readers how biased you are and how unable you are to argue in good faith. So they are aware. Until u ban me of course which i expect will happen soon.
Thanks for the work you did here. I was following David for some time thinking that he had really good points about the Ukraine war, and now... It is obvious how biased he is. Hugs from a unknown user. You did a good research 😊
And ill say it again, i might be a nobody in terms of online following (thank god) but id debate you any day of the week. So you cant just wave off any critique you cant answer.
Ivan Pozgaj
you are repeating standard western propaganda,
your main tools are repeating untruths, and twisting logic by attempting mind reading.
your goal is to present Putin as a villain, and Russia as a dangerous enemy, who started unprovoked aggression.
The key to ending this tragic war is understanding what was the provocation that led to war.
Truth will not come from well paid MI6 and CIA psy op operatives, neither from useful idiots in media, in diplomacy, and think thanks that never really think, but regurgitate propaganda
the problem is the result of their work, that is neverending war with Russia
a realistic, objective approach to current war
could clarify the reasons for the war
and also help identify necessary decisions needed to stop the war, end the conflict, and build peace.
however I do support your right to voice your own opinion,
to defend it in public discussion
but I completely understand David
it drains one‘s energy to have to repeatedly argue that white paper is white
he wrote his article to understand and show what really happened
you write your list of truths we should all believe in, the list full of lies
carefully arranged into an intellectual construction
that argues for neverending war against Russia
For anyone respecting truth, it is difficult to argue with someone not interested in truth,
still there is a reason to do it
War
War is the final discussion, polemic being fought with blood and lives.
Putin as a leader of Russia demonstrated he is serious about not accepting NATO (i.e. US nuclear missiles) on Russian border
Ukrainians demonstrated they are serious about willing to be independent
Trump has shown that he understands there is no victory in sight, attrition war will end either in complete depletion of fighting age Ukrainian men or escalate to nuclear war.
The problem of this war is lack of trust, Russian have no trust in US, Ukrainians have no trust in Russians,
and absolute lack of diplomacy
The job of our leaders, in US, Russia, Ukraine, Croatia, Romania, Germany... is to protect interests of their citizens
Recent elections in Croatia ended with 75% of the votes, victory for the candidate who was against the war with Russia,
Romanian elections would have been won by a candidate who was against the war with Russia, if he was not blocked by EU elites, pushing for war.
The job of our leaders is not to continue neverending war, but to seek peace.
Of course, you will focus on 2 ad-hominems now and not on the substance. Because substance would make you actually think about this. Again man, you can do better, as shown when you write about non-contemporary stuff.
Ukraine is getting it's shit pushed in and no amount of whining in the comments will change it
I cannot believe you just wrote the most retarded list of all time.
Do you realize you're gonna wake up one day and realize that EVERYTHING you believe is totally wrong in your life?
I read the first two or three points, then realized you're a mindless, easily-manipulated douche. Quite possibly the dumbest comment of 2025
I liked this post. I would quible over some of the details, but that's to be expected. The fog of war and the polarizing narratives make a number of things difficult to really nail down, like casualty numbers.
The big one though, is the northern offensive toward Kiev. You describe it as a failed offensive, but I think that it was more likely a campaign to force Zelensky to the negotiating table. And after negotiations commenced, Putin withdrew as a good faith gesture. Then Boris Johnson came in to urge Zelensky to fight rather than take a deal.
The support for this argument is pretty straightforward. The Russians didn't have anywhere near enough men to take Kiev. The total invasion force was around 130,000 men (numbers vary from 100k to 150k) and roughly 30,000 of those were in the northern offensive. Both Northern and Southern offensives made rapid progress, but the Kiev offensive stalled just outside of Kiev. In my view this was deliberate, to allow for negotiations.
The reasoning is simple. Kiev is a city of 3 million and it had 10,000 or more troops defending it. Typically the attacking force needs to have a 3 to 1 advantage to overcome a defending force, all things being equal. But, in the concrete jungle of a major city, the ratio goes up to at least 5 to 1. Russia simply didn't have the numbers to take Kiev.
Further, when assaulting dense urban areas, there are two strategies. Either flatten the place with artillery first or storm it with overwhelming number and be prepared to take heavy casualties. Russia didn't have the numbers for the latter and Kiev suffered almost no damage from bombs or artillery.
Also, the Russians withdrew from the field in good order. Michael Kofman, War on the Rocks, even commented that retreating under fire is one of the most difficult things for an army to do and the Russians did it well.
Finally, the Russians did very well in the south. It's hard to square their rapid advances in both theaters, and their orderly withdrawl in the north, with what was arguably a more veteran defending force in the south.
So, that's my main quibble. But otherwise, very nice work.
Nuances. Nuances are important. Main Ukrainian force was in Donbas, they waited for an attack behind fortified line. Most dangerous part of Russian aggression was Hostomel airport attack, if seized and turned into receiving airport for airborne forces, it could have led to storming of key positions inside Kiev, in the first day of operation, it didn’t work out, Russians couldn’t even imagine the level of penetration of their communications - NSA knew almost everything, CIA and Budanov knew the rest, from human sources intelligence.
Wow! Amazing read.
One thing continues to leap out at me: the Ukraine trident is eerily reminiscent of the same pentagram overlay you have in the last photo
Goddammit, I never even noticed!
Ser Roman; are you aware Ukraine was per OSCE firing 1500~2000 shells daily into DPR/LNR areas Feb15-21, 2022? Or in short thousands of shells from Ukraine started the war, not Putin?
https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512683
If one believes in international law at all, then one needs to admit that Russia violated it when it took over Ukraine and portions of the Donbas in 2014 as well as its invasion in 2022.
International law is very clear: when Ukraine became independent in 1991, its sovereignty extended to the borders of the Ukraine SSR. The controlling doctrine is “uti possidetis juris”, developed in the 19th century in response, among other things, to the disintegration of Spain’s imperial possessions in the Americas. The doctrine supersedes any competing claims of self-determination of peoples inside those territories.
So, as relevant to Ukraine, it matters not that Crimea was added to Ukraine only in 1954 or that a majority in the Donbas are Russian.
Of course, beyond all that was the 1994 Budapest agreement in which Russia acknowledged Ukraine’s sovereignty and its borders in exchange for its abandoning its Soviet nuclear missiles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
As a sovereign and independent nation, Ukraine had every right to seek admission to NATO and the EU if it so chose. Neither was a legitimate casus bellum for Russia.
But if you don’t believe in international law, then might makes right and, as Thucydides observed, the weak suffer what they must.
100%. Same applies to the US attacking Iraq and occupying a large chunk of Syria to this day, and so many other invasions (from Dominican Republic to Panama). There's an old saying in Spanish: "either we all play or we burn the cards."
All true, even if I don’t play cards, I understand the sentiment.
And yet, the reality is the fiction that all countries, weak or strong, should be treated equally - an idea developed by Metternich whose homeland was by then on the skids power-wise - remains just that.
If there were some agreed international regime with enforcement power that could maintain the peace on a fair and equitable basis, perhaps today’s reality could be bypassed. But that would probably require a wholesale change in human nature. Both the League of Nations and the U.N. were created to achieve that ideal and both have, let’s just say, failed to live up to those expectations.
You're absolutely right
That’s a dangerous delusion , International Law.
As a facade it’s droll.
As belief or goal - insane.
Ask the Bosnians for instance.
International law is made up bullshit. Heads I win, tails you lose.
You can’t go around overthrowing governments like in 2014 and then cite international law. The second we got involved in Ukrainian politics cutting the country in half became inevitable.
I can think of nothing less critical to human flourishing than whether a made up country that’s been a complete failure since its birth retains its made up lines on a map.
International law is a great idea, particularly in the era of nuclear powers. But it can't work if democracies decide that it only applies to the other countries, that is something they can ignore whenever they feel it's convenient. Either it applies to all or it applies to nobody.
Nobody Alex for the Survival points
Only an idiot would allow an enemy's nuclear weapons to be placed in a bordering country. Russia was concerned that Ukraine would become a NATO member and nuclear weapons would be placed there. Consider if Russia placed nuclear weapons in Mexico, Canada or perhaps Cuba again.
First of all, no one placed nuclear weapons in Ukraine. They were Soviet leftovers and, from what I read, the Ukrainians didn’t have the launch codes as these never left Moscow.
If you mean that NATO membership might mean placing nuclear weapons in Ukraine, you don’t know how things work. Under your scenario, the Baltic States would all have such weapons but they don’t. And of what possible advantage would it have been to put them in Ukraine?
Your comment seems quite the stretch to justify Russian aggression. At least the U.S. waited to confirm that the Soviet Union was in fact sending nuclear missiles to Cuba before responding. It didn’t act to prevent a purely hypothetical situation.
If Mexico entered into an alliance with Russia and agreed to host Russian troops to deter American aggression, the US would quickly invade and annex northern Mexico. Ukraine is the road to Moscow for invading western armies back to the time of the Knights Templar. Thinking the Russians are going to sit back and let Ukraine hop in bed with NATO is naive.
First of all, we don’t know what the US would do in your “alliance” scenario. For what it’s worth, the U.S. didn’t invade Cuba as a result of the Cuban missile crisis. Whether it might have had there been no resolution, we can’t know.
Second, you would need to flesh out the state of affairs that would exist to lead to such a deterioration in relations between the U.S. and Mexico that would cause the latter to get in bed with such an anti-democratic regime. The relationship has always been a difficult one. As no less a figure than Porfirio Diaz once said, “Poor Mexico, so far from God, so near the United States.”
As to Ukraine being the historic road to Moscow, as you put it - which actually isn’t the case, what is the evidence that either NATO, the U.S. or any European power has any interest in such an invasion? I see absolutely none.
On the other hand, it is a well known political strategy to distract your own population from its misery to identify an outside enemy. It seems to me that’s all Putin is really doing. He seems to be too much hard boiled realist to believe his mystical fantasy of Ukraine somehow being the soul of Russia. The simpler interpretation is that Putin couldn’t risk the emergence of a democratic and prosperous Slavic neighbor to his South whose very existence would serve as a rebuke to his economically fragile kleptocracy. That would try risk internal unrest and his possible toppling.
Charles
you are running away from the truth. Russia wanted for aggression, regime change operations to stop, ideally in a ring of states that are situated between NATO and Russia. That means Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia.
Not to occupy these countries, just to have an opportunity to compete economically, politically with the West for influence. Until these countries mature enough not to fall for USAID, NED machinations.
Look at the whole Maydan thing, a legally elected president was removed from power by force.
Why? He was going to lose the next election. And someone proWestern would probably have won. A dynamic that is normal in postcommunist countries. But he was removed by CIA intervention, snipers that killed hundred people, both protesters as well as policemen.
Why.
Yanukovich was negotiating with EU, on possible Ukraine accesion. But Putin offered more. And promised, whatever these EU guys promise to Ukraine, Russia will always offer more.
And Americans decided to stop bargaining. And used force.
"First of all, no one placed nuclear weapons in Ukraine."
Where did I say they did?
"And of what possible advantage would it have been to put them in Ukraine?"
Is that supposed to be a serious question? The Ukraine-Russian border is very close to Moscow.
"At least the U.S. waited to confirm that the Soviet Union was in fact sending nuclear missiles to Cuba before responding. It didn’t act to prevent a purely hypothetical situation."
And that was a very serious situation. The United States was remiss in not avoiding the very dangerous possibility.
Your first sentence was ambiguous. But it’s not self-evident who the “enemy” you refer to might be. There’s a difference between being independent and being an enemy. Are you suggesting that Ukraine has irredentist fantasies regarding Russia? Or do you think NATO or the U.S. want to destroy Russia. And if the latter, why didn’t they act when Russia was a financial basket case under Yeltsin? It sounds more like a fever dream or a cover to rationalize Russian aggression.
"Are you suggesting that Ukraine has irredentist fantasies regarding Russia?"
Some in Ukraine hate Russia. And in the eastern oblasts, which are mainly Russian speaking, the populace is oppressed and discriminated against.
"Or do you think NATO or the U.S. want to destroy Russia."
I absolutely do.
"And if the latter, why didn’t they act when Russia was a financial basket case under Yeltsin?"
They sure as hell did. They did all they could to further destroy the Russian economy.
I could quibble with what might be overly categorical, such as calling Maidan a coup, and exaggerated, such as the role of overt neo Nazis, but this pretty much captures what all of this looks like from the Russian perspective.
The pushback is understandable given the black and white narrative that has come to the fore, and given that, after all, anything that undermines it is inevitably seen as sympathy rather than earnest attempts to understand.
The question is, how would peace be possible if there is so little political space to even try to understand? Especially here in Europe, where the risks for escalation are palpable. And especially, if we insist on making Putin personally the villain, rather than recognising the domestic pressures he has to react to and the real risk that he might well be toppled by someone far worse?
Either way, the longer we remain stuck in this rut, the more Ukrainians will suffer worse than any conceivable peace deal that I can imagine. And the higher the risk will be that the suffering might extend well beyond the borders of Ukraine.
From the beginning, Putin seemed not to understand what was at stake in Ukraine. He did not recognize that this was to be a proxy war of the United States against Russia. His strategy of a limited war was a big mistake. He should have fought to win the war quickly and decisively. Many lives on both sides could have been saved.
Ukraine is just one piece of a global puzzle. It has allowed the pivot of the global south to the RU/China side, de-industrialized Europe, and strengthens BRICs, while U.S. during in the Multi-Polar world that the USA now accepts as reality. The slow path in Ukraine created victories for the rest of the world.
"The slow path in Ukraine created victories for the rest of the world."
Perhaps, but that was not Putin's plan. Those 'victories' cost hundreds of thousands of lives from Russia and Ukraine.
Of course he did.
He did get surprised by the Ukrainian ability to fight.
"He did get surprised by the Ukrainian ability to fight."
Putin was surprised by the willingness of NATO to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in an attempt to destroy Russia.
Everyone on earth remains appalled at how willing the Ukrainians are to be slaughtered for the profit of their evil and elected government.
It’s all being banked, including the pay for KIA who are carried as MIA, which is why the Ukrainians don’t recover most of their dead.
Of course Zelensky could have signed in Istanbul. He would probably have been assassinated but he could have signed and it probably would’ve stuck.
I think I have found the most vicious people on earth now. Even the Palestinians-who are a profession not a people-aren’t this callous or greedy to their own. “NATO” 🇺🇸 like Russia was expecting this to be over in days.
> The RU air assault into Kiev only missed its chance by a matter of hours. The ground columns were late, the air resupply couldn’t make it. Had they synchronized Kiev would have been taken.
An excellent attempt at a balanced view of the situation! We need more people like you trying to bridge this gap. Subscribed!
If I had to criticise anything, then I would say, less focus on the Nazi thing (which I hope everybody is aware of now) and more focus on the real root causes, which are basically that the globalist European backers of the conflict were driven by rabid hatred of Russia (still butthurt from Putin kicking them and their puppets out) and their plan was to set up the Ukraine as the hub for the counter offensive (plus there was a more recent but secondary desire to access the newly discovered resources there) vs the Russian red lines of no military presence in Ukraine and certainly nothing that would jeopardise their base in Crimea or that might ultimately allow long range missiles and nukes so close to Moscow. I think focusing on these sets the groundwork better for an otherwise excellent writeup!
Good stuff.
It is incomprehensible to me just how screwed up our leaders in the West are. I’ve always said that there’s no Russian president that would ever allow Ukraine to fall into Western hands. The strategic implications are just too dramatic for Russia, a country that survived Napoleon and Hitler by leveraging strategic depth. Russian army’s have always been massive, cumbersome, and initially horrible. Ukraine and Belarus (and Georgia) are to Russia what the Atlantic and the Pacific are to America. Without it, they’re doomed.
I can’t understand why we did this. I can only attach the most petty political grievances to this - Putin is seen as the boogeyman that caused Brexit and Trumps ascension in 2016 (Hillary’s loss). He must be punished because he toppled the status quo. This entire thing was pure evil.
And who on earth would ever take the British army’s advice on conventional war-fighting? Unbelievable.
Surely, surely, there is something I don't understand as to why powerful people in the United States wanted to renew and invigorate Russia as an enemy by killing however many Ukrainians it took.
I understand Ukraine' reason for fighting and I understand Russia not wanting their borders dictated by the US and Ukraine.
But I don't understand our, the US's reasoning.
I tried to explain it here https://mankind.substack.com/p/quick-take-everything-you-think-you?utm_source=publication-search
Foreign Policy in the U.S. is dominated by thinktanks paid for by defense contractors directly, and also indirectly via foundations who get their funding from….defense contractors, USAID, and various NGOs.
The academics in those thinktanks are old cold warriors who never gave up their dream of crushing Russia. They mentored the younger generation of PMCs who view every country from a lens of control.
Russia had a huge say in Ukraine policy via having a pro-Russian government in Kiev. The US foreign policy people didn’t like that.
The big event though was the discovery of natural gas, oil, and valuable mineral deposits under the Donbas and off the coast of Crimea in the early 2010s.
The opportunity to exploit this wealth for western countries meant they needed Russia out of Ukraine. So they worked on the 2014 coup.
The insistence that Ukraine must take back western Donbas and Crimea is all based on the desire to control the oil, gas, and minerals.
What a shit article lmao, I’ll just go read it straight from RT next time. Still time to go fight for the Russians against le ebil Nadzis btw.
Such a shame. Comparing Zelensky to Hitler, what a moral compass
The dancers were probably from Ukraine—which was part of the Russian Empire at the time.
The Nazi thing is overplayed. The Ukrainians were subjected to the worst of Stalinism. Along came another European power who kicked the Stalinists out. Of course they're going to come down on the side of that power...who else was there?
The war record of Galacia doesn't lend itself to the same record of the Allgemiene SS or the Latvians they extensively utilized. Their time on "counter guerilla" operations in east Poland was minimal. Their fighting was done against the red army, and they paid dearly for it before being withdrawn to the west for a brief stint in N. Italy, a fraction of their original strength.
So is it fair to assign their reverence to their ancestors who spent their time fighting Stalin with being "Nazis." No.
That said, is Ukraine thoroughly infested with corruption, whose practitioners will steal anything and everything not nailed down? Sure is. Welcome to Eastern Europe....
Thanks for a great article. It's very helpful.
I have a stylistic question. I used to refer to "The Ukraine", but then was informed that this is incorrect and the correct usage is simply "Ukraine". But then throughout this article you use the construct "The Ukraine". What's the right term for this country?
It’s a similar case to “the” Lebanon or “the” Netherlands, more so with the Ukraine because the name Ukraine means “Borderland.”
So are you suggesting that it SHOULD be "The Ukraine"? Or that both usages are acceptable?
I'm not trying to troll you or catch you out. I'm genuinely interested, and I want to learn from you.
Both are acceptable. I don't get mad if people say "Lebanon" instead of "Lebanon"! What I don't like it is when countries tell others how to refer to themselves in foreign languages: "Turkiyye" instead of "Turkey." Sorry, but no. The world was a better place when we had Burma and Zaire.
It is sad that we are 3 years into this and people's understanding seems to have not developed in the slightest. No new learning, no question asking, just rote repetition of conventional history.
Yeah, stick it to the ziggers!