Interesting read which I enjoy partially just because it confirms my bias. At least I'm honest about this.
As an American living in neutral Austria for 30 years, I'd be very interested to hear Prof. Mearsheimer's opinion on what will happen to NATO after this war ends.
One of the best examples of Blitzkrieg was the Japanese attack on Malaya and the eventual conquest of Singapore. Much of the early success of the Japanese offensive in the first 6 months of the Pacific conflict have been forgotten. It should perhaps be reconsidered.
Naturally, there is a very inconvenient question: why did the west push Ukraine into this? I tend to think that this must have been war gamed. They must have seen the results. They are either (1) amateurs who don’t know what they were doing or (2) lied about it to satisfy their ideological Russophobia to weaken Russia at any cost, regardless of the price (paid by Ukrainians).
I think option 2.
Which is to say that the west has serious blood on its hands with the death of several hundred thousand Ukrainian soldiers.
Indeed, all one has to do is listen to Mitt Romney or Linda Graham saying that “it’s the best money we spent to weaken Russia, and only a small fraction of the defense budget”.
The truth is there. Just have to listen to it.
They should have pushed Ukraine to negotiate.
When this war is over (and I have no doubt that it will Ben on Russia’s terms only) and the dust is settled and information like John’s piece comes to light, nobody will hate Americans and Europeans more than Ukrainians.
It has always been obvious that the United States neocon class wants to "fight to the last Ukrainian". it is like a candy store to them: they get all the fighting they like, all the necessary munitions spending to enrich them and their friends, and none of the nasty political baggage that comes from a country's own soldiers dying.
Soviet attacks on the Eastern Front featured the use of artillery bombardments that shattered defenders and protected the armoured advance. The Soviets arranged their artillery to shell a long line through the defences on either side of the armoured advance axis. This allowed them to shelter their armoured units, pin down the defences, and penetrate deep into the strategic depths of Nazi defences.
Of course, the answer to thin defences quickly penetrated by armour are deep, echeloned defences with air and artillery cover, and, rapid response armoured counter attacks.
The author has commented in the past re USA leading Ukraine down the primrose path and that this war is a colossal mistake by the west. But perhaps the west planned on provoking Russia into the war and then use Ukrainian lives to bleed Russia and weaken it and keep it occupied. As long as there is no nuclear war perhaps 1.5billion investment to knock Russia out of the ranks of great powers is worth it.
I would say that the case of France suggests that the "fair fight" variant of blitzkrieg is only likely to succeed if surprise is achieved: either operational surprise as in the one historical case, or theoretically, strategic surprise.
Agree which is why I have never liked any references to blitkrieg. I never thought of the Ukrainian offensive as blitzkrieg. The questions are whether they are more committed than Russia and will have the resources. If they do, it could ultimately be successful. Perhaps not for several years but I have little idea of how committed they are. They seem more committed than Russia to me but I may be wrong.
They would no doubt be more committed but the 5:1 ratio is simply one that cannot be overcome in the long run. As for resources, no one in the United States or elsewhere is going to support unending aid for a futile effort.
I have more questions than answers. I don't know how much the balance of power will be altered by ATACMS along with F-16s. My guess is there will not be enough sent to shut down access to Crimea but it will become very uncomfortable and I do not know how Russia would respond. Right now, my understanding is that Russia is buying off the average person in Russia so they support the war but I tend to think it would be very difficult to transfer enough wealth from the well-off/rich to those serving in the ranks to keep things going long-term but I don't know that. Lots of other things I don't know too but resource-wise, I think it is a piece-of-cake for the West as long as China "kind of" stays on the sidelines if Ukraine is willing to pay the price in men. The average soldier's age is over 40 from what I understand and I sure do not see any "kids" on tv as I saw on tv during the Vietnam war so I tend to think Ukraine has not fully mobilized either but they might not be willing to pay the price either.
I would suggest that an average age of 40 suggests that they have run out of young, warm bodies. Conscription/recruitment starts at the bottom and goes up; it does not start at the top and work its way down. Many young men have probably fled the country, too.
I could not tell you how many have fled the country to avoid conscription but I can tell you that I have seen and read enough to say with a high degree of confidence that they are not sending the young kids to fight. Your guess is as good as mine as to why this is the case. I think of Jefferson Davis's comment on lowering the draft age in civil war about not wanting to eat the seed corn (he did it anyway) but another possibility is that they will rebel or that their mothers will do so.
"there was an abundance of evidence, which indicated that Russians were becoming better fighters..."
A chief tragedy of this Russo-Ukraine war, for me, is that at this point the Ukrainians are not fighting Putin. They are fighting Russia itself. Russia itself is now mobilized and will not allow itself to be humiliated.
One question would be wrt a frozen conflict scenario. Since Russia clearly has the upper hand, with nothing on the immediate horizon menacing that advantage, why would Moscow accept a frozen conflict? In other words, what could Kiev do to impose such a case?
Similar to Israel occupying West Bank and Golan. No one recognizes it as Israel's territory aside from USA, but defacto it is Israel. Same with Russian occupied Ukraine.
Interesting that the exhausted and hopeless Ukrainians have broken through the Surovikin line and made solid progress in the last few days.
Why is the ‘realist’ position ONLY ever that the bad guys get to win? Putin is a dictator who wants to recreate the Russian empire. The Russian army is merrily engaging mostly in war crimes against civilians. Why do we have to accept that as ‘realistic?’
You've got a lot of Trump supporting wackos attacking you, I'm not here to do that. I am here to tell you that you don't understand military strategy or tactics, and that's causing you to draw incorrect conclusions from statements in clickbait/propaganda media.
You're succumbing to the exact sort of wishful thinking that is described in the substack regarding the westerns expectations of a counteroffensive, that a small amount of territory changing hands results in a breakthrough which results in a complete rout of occupying forces.
This maybe works in 300BC or 1851 with a row of soldiers neatly lined up shoulder to shoulder in a long line. However what we are dealing with in UA is defence in depth, breaking through a line just means you're facing another line, except now there's entrenched enemies on either side of you. Break through the next line and there's another line, and now there's enemies behind you. Complex alternating layers of defensive fortifications, killing zones, trenches, minefield, tank traps. All within striking range of artillery and CAS.
For the record UA forces have not broken through any lines yet. They've successfully reached a small section of the first line of defence, penetrating the 'grey zone'.
The realist position isn't in favour of the bad guys, the realist position is in favour of the numbers. The problem is that generally the numbers are in favour of the instigator (because why would you start a fight you can't win?), and that the instigator is generally a 'bad guy' (because how can someone who starts a fight against someone weaker than them be the good guy?).
You can be as idealistic as you like and support the 'good guy' as much as you want, but you should know that the idealistic position gets people killed. What ethical person could care about who owns which patch of dirt when the price of control is blood.
I appreciate the civil tone you used here, but I think, as I say in my other comment, you’re not considering all the facts. The Ukrainians don’t want to be Russian.
The ‘Realist’ position is going to give Russia control over people that don’t want to be Russian and that Russia wants to force to be Russian. That gets people killed too. The territory isn’t important; the people who live on it are. Also, Russia will attack again and again and again until Putin is dead, and then the next, likely much worse, guy takes over and starts killing again. Russia needs to be taught a very painful lesson, one that Germany learned in the last century; don’t kill your neighbors. They don’t want you in their land.
He doesn't have a Ukrainian accent, as near as I can tell it's Sweedish, and fighter pilots don't have beards, they need to be clean shaven for the oxygen mask.
They lie all the time. Remember the Ghost of Kiev? How about the "heroes of Snake Island"?
There's more to it than that. Remember how the virus was going to kill us all? Remember when the vaccines would stop the virus dead in it's tracks, and give immunity to all those that took it, how it was safe and effective? Remember when "Russia hacked our elections"? That January 6th was an "armed insurrection"? "Assad is gassing his own people", "Qaddafi is about to cause a humanitarian crisis", "Hussein has a weapons of mass destruction program"?
It's not just left / right propaganda, it's just establishment propaganda.
Ukraine has made it all the way to Russian forward observation positions and the front line of tank traps. In one fairly narrow sector. With 3 lines of well entrenched defense in depth plus mine fields & etc. to go before reaching "the rear". With insufficient ready & mobile reserves and/or armor to exploit such a breakthrough even if they could manage it & without air superiority.
As far as "good guys" and "bad guys", the return of The Russian Empire™ under Darth Putin and the Russian Federation military spending the majority of their efforts in gleefully committing war crimes vs. civilians? You might want to read more than The New York Times.
Karen, the United States overthrew Ukraine in 2014, it was a CIA coup. This led to a civil war in Ukraine between the West that accepted the coup, and the East that did not.
Do you want to understand the situation? I've had to explain it so many times, I just made an article, IF you want to read it.
If you think I've made any errors, either factual errors or logic errors, you are free to point them out and if I have made an error, I'd like to know. I've been following this war since it began, in 2014.
There was no civil war. Russia invaded. Besides. Why was Russia intervening at all? Ukraine had a stable government since 2014. They had functioning elections which the Russian-aligned side LOST. If interference in the affairs of other countries is bad when we do it, it is also bad when Russia or China do it. You and Mearsheimer just love autocracy and hate self-determination.
And no, Ukraine didn't have an election in 2014. IN 2015, Viktor Yanukovych was up for re-election, that was just 1 year away, the US was afraid he was going to win, so they ousted him.
The US didn't merely "interfere with elections", the US overthrew the government. I agree, nobody should interfere. If that happens, the US should protest. We USED to have poll observers in contentious areas around the world, but we stopped doing that after "the hanging chads" BS in the US, because George W. Bush stole that election - and the US has had desperately crooked elections ever since.
I gave you a link to my article, if you think ANYTHING in there is wrong, let me know. It's already well researched I believe, if you think I've made a mistake, point it out, and maybe I have. I'll readily admit error, if I've made an error. I don't have an ego with this.
BUT I know our "news" media lies, and blatantly lies. It tells the truth, when it doesn't matter. CNN today will claim there was no civil war in Ukraine, despite doing a story on the civil war in 2014. They're just propaganda at this point.
Don't you realize how EASY it is to talk to a Russian, a Ukrainian? I do it all the time. THEY know. You have NO IDEA how much our media just blatantly lies. I do. Find that weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq yet? They are shameless liars, and you are wrong to trust them as an information resource.
Zelenskyy is just a puppet of the United States. He will continue the war until the military turns against him, or all of them are dead. Zelenskyy ran on the promise of ending the civil war. That's what the Minsk Accords were about.
It's not your fault you don't know what is going on, you still trust US propaganda. I don't know why. Did the US "stop the humanitarian crisis the Qaddafi was about to cause"? Libya is in civil war with operating slavery markets now. We have a monstrous government, criminal, evil. Obama was just George W. Bush in blackface.
Assad wasn't "gassing his own people" either. The Douma chemical attack was faked, staged, nobody died in that, and the Ghouta chemical attack was carried about by the "moderate" rebels.
For information on Russia, Ukraine and the Donbas, it is best to listen to a Russia opposition leader instead of to the US media or Putin fanboys or even Mearsheimer. Here are some Youtube videos by a Russian (in Russian with subtitles) that you can watch:
I have watched the bystander videos of the newly installed Kiev regime sending APCs crewed by neonazis into the areas where the USA State Dept./CIA instigated, Vicky Nuland mediated coup was being protested.
I have seen videos and read accounts of whole units from the pre 2014 Ukrainian military deserting WITH THEIR EQUIPMENT to the Eastern, mainly Russian areas that seceded.
When the Kiev regime stopped being able to massacre/ethnically cleanse their way to victory since the opposition had become organized, armed and entrenched, they lost power over those several areas.
When USA/NATO financed & armed the post 2014 coup regime, trained shock troops and planned out the attack and ethnic cleansing operations against those break away provinces, Russia did indeed invade. Just as the USA had intended, planned and quite cold bloodedly set up their puppet regime to instigate.
Do you remember recently when USA state department and intelligence management publicly took credit for provoking and causing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Same play book. Just didn't work so well for USA this time around.
If you are not in fact a troll or a spammer sock puppet?
You have a problem with first, reality not matching your USA MIC authorized world views- and with lashing out at people who speak openly about observable facts contrary to the MIC authorized version of reality you find so unacceptable.
I looked briefly at your substack. It reads like articles generated by an AI primed with a database of establishment news/propaganda allowable opinions and endorsed talking points where the output wasn't edited to remove the "counterfactual".
If you are made of meat, you need to get out more.
If you are an AI, perhaps your algorithm and input parameters were skewed to create the simulacrum of an idealized NYT reader? Do you also post comments on NYT articles...
Russia was truly worried about NATO and the US, who have had an intractable and hostile position against Russia. So, the Russians really were worried. Otherwise, they would not be doing all of this. The U. S. has not been able to order Russia around, but why should the U. S. have such a right? This is unfortunately a question we must ask. For the U. S. to make the same mistake over and over again, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Ukraine is a testament to astonishing stupidity.
If the Russians feared NATO, why attack a country that isn’t in the alliance? Also, why does Russia get to order people around? Russia isn’t entitled to an empire any more than England is. Russia is no longer a great power and they need to adjust to that fact.
Why does the United States get to order people around? Why does Russia have to accept Nato on its doorstep while the United States would not tolerate a Soviet Union military presence in Cuba in 1962?
Two wrongs don't make it a right, but let's look at NATO's "record":
- Bombed Serbia/Montenegro including civilian infrastructure. Remember "graphite bombs"? Or targeting civilian train over the bridge? Or maybe bombing Chinese embassy? Created a basket-case statelet "Kosovo" which fully depends on EU and US funds injection to survive, and it a key drug trade and smuggling hotspot.
- Destroyed Libya - the country effectively ceased to exist, became a failed state ruled by various warlords. NATO also facilitated bringing back slave markets where black Africans are sold.
- Illegally occupied Afghanistan and brutalized their population, while the poppy crop increased exponentially. Among other crimes, destroyed a well marked hospital, and thrown people from flying helicopters.
Let's not forget to mention that currently NATO member Turkey illegally occupies part of 3 neighboring countries (Cyprus, Syria, Iraq) and US occupies almost one third of Syria without UN or US congress authorization.
So please spare me the outrage about "Russian occupation". At least Russia occupies territories which have forever been part of Russia (before Bolsheviks gave them away) and are inhabited by Russians.
It would be nice if US adjusted that unipolar world is over and it cannot just tell everyone to fall in line respect a rules based order, where US makes the rules and everyone is supposed to follow. RAND " EXTENDING RUSSIA" 2019 summary is perfect example of that attitude. Russia decided to call US bluff and entire world is now shifting.
John J. Mearsheimer's comprehensive analysis of the Ukraine-Russia conflict offers a remarkably clear and dispassionate view of the ongoing crisis.
With a focus on the strategic dynamics and military realities, Mearsheimer dissects the Ukrainian counteroffensive, shedding light on its abysmal failure and the challenges faced by Ukraine. His objective assessment underscores the grim prospects of a protracted war and the limited potential for a diplomatic solution, given the irreconcilable differences between the parties.
Mearsheimer's analysis is an essential resource for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the conflict's complexities and its implications for the region.
Prof. Mearsheimer's analysis is spot on, except for his conclusion that "The most likely result is that that the war will go on and eventually end in a frozen conflict with Russia in possession of a significant portion of Ukrainian territory."
I think a much more likely scenario will be for the Russians to go on the offensive, forcing a collapse of the Ukrainian military and the regime in Kiev.
When that collapse becomes inevitable, the US/NATO will be left with two very regrettable options: 1) to surrender and sue for peace on Russian terms; or, 2) to commit US/NATO troops to into direct combat with the Russians.
Americans need to start thinking about whether they are going to support US/NATO "boots on the ground" in Ukraine . . . because that decision-point is coming sooner than most Americans think.
I think this ends more like the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. They roll into a millitraily weaker country thinking this will be easy to take over but the locals hate them and never stop fighting back and eventually the Russians get fed up with being killed and go home. All the stuff about Ukraine being nazi and a security threat are complete bs - Ukraine was a peaceful agricultural country with no intention of attacking a nuclear superpower and if Russia is so worried about having NATO close then how come having them on the border in Estonia and Latvia was never an issue? Most Russians didn't want this - it's only really Putin with delusions of being Vladimir the Great who was into it and he's not going to be around forever.
I always opposed expansion of NATO, aside from Poland, but I now think it was right and I can think of no reason why Russia would not have invaded the Baltic states had they remained outside of NATO. One never knows alternative history and I can't say it would have happened or that admitting Ukraine to NATO would have prevented the current war but I now see the argument. It might very well have been the right/smart thing to do.
Interesting read which I enjoy partially just because it confirms my bias. At least I'm honest about this.
As an American living in neutral Austria for 30 years, I'd be very interested to hear Prof. Mearsheimer's opinion on what will happen to NATO after this war ends.
One of the best examples of Blitzkrieg was the Japanese attack on Malaya and the eventual conquest of Singapore. Much of the early success of the Japanese offensive in the first 6 months of the Pacific conflict have been forgotten. It should perhaps be reconsidered.
Well Played.
Excellent read. Thank you.
Naturally, there is a very inconvenient question: why did the west push Ukraine into this? I tend to think that this must have been war gamed. They must have seen the results. They are either (1) amateurs who don’t know what they were doing or (2) lied about it to satisfy their ideological Russophobia to weaken Russia at any cost, regardless of the price (paid by Ukrainians).
I think option 2.
Which is to say that the west has serious blood on its hands with the death of several hundred thousand Ukrainian soldiers.
Indeed, all one has to do is listen to Mitt Romney or Linda Graham saying that “it’s the best money we spent to weaken Russia, and only a small fraction of the defense budget”.
The truth is there. Just have to listen to it.
They should have pushed Ukraine to negotiate.
When this war is over (and I have no doubt that it will Ben on Russia’s terms only) and the dust is settled and information like John’s piece comes to light, nobody will hate Americans and Europeans more than Ukrainians.
It has always been obvious that the United States neocon class wants to "fight to the last Ukrainian". it is like a candy store to them: they get all the fighting they like, all the necessary munitions spending to enrich them and their friends, and none of the nasty political baggage that comes from a country's own soldiers dying.
Soviet attacks on the Eastern Front featured the use of artillery bombardments that shattered defenders and protected the armoured advance. The Soviets arranged their artillery to shell a long line through the defences on either side of the armoured advance axis. This allowed them to shelter their armoured units, pin down the defences, and penetrate deep into the strategic depths of Nazi defences.
Of course, the answer to thin defences quickly penetrated by armour are deep, echeloned defences with air and artillery cover, and, rapid response armoured counter attacks.
The author has commented in the past re USA leading Ukraine down the primrose path and that this war is a colossal mistake by the west. But perhaps the west planned on provoking Russia into the war and then use Ukrainian lives to bleed Russia and weaken it and keep it occupied. As long as there is no nuclear war perhaps 1.5billion investment to knock Russia out of the ranks of great powers is worth it.
I would say that the case of France suggests that the "fair fight" variant of blitzkrieg is only likely to succeed if surprise is achieved: either operational surprise as in the one historical case, or theoretically, strategic surprise.
Agree which is why I have never liked any references to blitkrieg. I never thought of the Ukrainian offensive as blitzkrieg. The questions are whether they are more committed than Russia and will have the resources. If they do, it could ultimately be successful. Perhaps not for several years but I have little idea of how committed they are. They seem more committed than Russia to me but I may be wrong.
They would no doubt be more committed but the 5:1 ratio is simply one that cannot be overcome in the long run. As for resources, no one in the United States or elsewhere is going to support unending aid for a futile effort.
I have more questions than answers. I don't know how much the balance of power will be altered by ATACMS along with F-16s. My guess is there will not be enough sent to shut down access to Crimea but it will become very uncomfortable and I do not know how Russia would respond. Right now, my understanding is that Russia is buying off the average person in Russia so they support the war but I tend to think it would be very difficult to transfer enough wealth from the well-off/rich to those serving in the ranks to keep things going long-term but I don't know that. Lots of other things I don't know too but resource-wise, I think it is a piece-of-cake for the West as long as China "kind of" stays on the sidelines if Ukraine is willing to pay the price in men. The average soldier's age is over 40 from what I understand and I sure do not see any "kids" on tv as I saw on tv during the Vietnam war so I tend to think Ukraine has not fully mobilized either but they might not be willing to pay the price either.
I would suggest that an average age of 40 suggests that they have run out of young, warm bodies. Conscription/recruitment starts at the bottom and goes up; it does not start at the top and work its way down. Many young men have probably fled the country, too.
I could not tell you how many have fled the country to avoid conscription but I can tell you that I have seen and read enough to say with a high degree of confidence that they are not sending the young kids to fight. Your guess is as good as mine as to why this is the case. I think of Jefferson Davis's comment on lowering the draft age in civil war about not wanting to eat the seed corn (he did it anyway) but another possibility is that they will rebel or that their mothers will do so.
"there was an abundance of evidence, which indicated that Russians were becoming better fighters..."
A chief tragedy of this Russo-Ukraine war, for me, is that at this point the Ukrainians are not fighting Putin. They are fighting Russia itself. Russia itself is now mobilized and will not allow itself to be humiliated.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1699508632952475913
So it appears The EU is now rounding up Ukranian immigrants and turning
them over to the Ukraine Government to put on the front
line and ---- in many if not most of the cases certainty of death or
dismemberment.
I predicted that months ago -
what a disgusting shame.
Is it fair to consider the holocaust ? Obviously there are vast differences
but are there similarities of EU participation ( and US payment for )
rounding up and sending Ukrainian immigrants to
( what many have deemed ) a corrupt government
and ultimately sending to the front line and death ?
"Is it fair to consider the holocaust ? Obviously there are vast differences"
People like Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan, Ihor Kolomoyskyi, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are responsible for this war.
They are all Jewish. It's anti-Semitic to point out the truth, much less point out that it's essentially another holocaust.
Don't read 200 Years Together by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
its the behavior not the actors
many Jewish persons participated in the rounding up
of Jewish citizens - but again obviously vast differences
but are there similarities -
the behavior - sending Ukrainian citizens that legally
entered the EU - back to Ukraine - in order to be placed
on the front line and near certainty of death or dismemberment
.. sounds pretty horrific to me.
From the point of view of Neocons like Victoria Nuland, this is a blood feud that's 100's of years old.
From the point of view of the Offense Industry, this is $$$,$$$,$$$.
From the point of view of our "elected" (?) officials this is a way to launder money.
Ukraine is run by Zionists. Zelenskyy is a triple citizen. If he was only a DUAL citizen, he wouldn't be eligible for office.
I don't care any more. People are stupid. All the ADL has to do is whine "antisemitism" and everybody is cowed into silence.
US foreign policy has been EXCLUSIVELY run by these nutjobs for over 20 years now. The US has bombed 7 nations in that time. Can you even NAME them?
Well, why not, we have a "free press" don't we? Nope. We have propaganda.
Magnificent, sir.
One question would be wrt a frozen conflict scenario. Since Russia clearly has the upper hand, with nothing on the immediate horizon menacing that advantage, why would Moscow accept a frozen conflict? In other words, what could Kiev do to impose such a case?
Similar to Israel occupying West Bank and Golan. No one recognizes it as Israel's territory aside from USA, but defacto it is Israel. Same with Russian occupied Ukraine.
Interesting that the exhausted and hopeless Ukrainians have broken through the Surovikin line and made solid progress in the last few days.
Why is the ‘realist’ position ONLY ever that the bad guys get to win? Putin is a dictator who wants to recreate the Russian empire. The Russian army is merrily engaging mostly in war crimes against civilians. Why do we have to accept that as ‘realistic?’
You've got a lot of Trump supporting wackos attacking you, I'm not here to do that. I am here to tell you that you don't understand military strategy or tactics, and that's causing you to draw incorrect conclusions from statements in clickbait/propaganda media.
You're succumbing to the exact sort of wishful thinking that is described in the substack regarding the westerns expectations of a counteroffensive, that a small amount of territory changing hands results in a breakthrough which results in a complete rout of occupying forces.
This maybe works in 300BC or 1851 with a row of soldiers neatly lined up shoulder to shoulder in a long line. However what we are dealing with in UA is defence in depth, breaking through a line just means you're facing another line, except now there's entrenched enemies on either side of you. Break through the next line and there's another line, and now there's enemies behind you. Complex alternating layers of defensive fortifications, killing zones, trenches, minefield, tank traps. All within striking range of artillery and CAS.
For the record UA forces have not broken through any lines yet. They've successfully reached a small section of the first line of defence, penetrating the 'grey zone'.
The realist position isn't in favour of the bad guys, the realist position is in favour of the numbers. The problem is that generally the numbers are in favour of the instigator (because why would you start a fight you can't win?), and that the instigator is generally a 'bad guy' (because how can someone who starts a fight against someone weaker than them be the good guy?).
You can be as idealistic as you like and support the 'good guy' as much as you want, but you should know that the idealistic position gets people killed. What ethical person could care about who owns which patch of dirt when the price of control is blood.
I appreciate the civil tone you used here, but I think, as I say in my other comment, you’re not considering all the facts. The Ukrainians don’t want to be Russian.
The ‘Realist’ position is going to give Russia control over people that don’t want to be Russian and that Russia wants to force to be Russian. That gets people killed too. The territory isn’t important; the people who live on it are. Also, Russia will attack again and again and again until Putin is dead, and then the next, likely much worse, guy takes over and starts killing again. Russia needs to be taught a very painful lesson, one that Germany learned in the last century; don’t kill your neighbors. They don’t want you in their land.
You have NO IDEA what is actually going on. I want to show you what our media claimed to be a Ukrainian fighter pilot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x0l6rSAtrM
He doesn't have a Ukrainian accent, as near as I can tell it's Sweedish, and fighter pilots don't have beards, they need to be clean shaven for the oxygen mask.
They lie all the time. Remember the Ghost of Kiev? How about the "heroes of Snake Island"?
There's more to it than that. Remember how the virus was going to kill us all? Remember when the vaccines would stop the virus dead in it's tracks, and give immunity to all those that took it, how it was safe and effective? Remember when "Russia hacked our elections"? That January 6th was an "armed insurrection"? "Assad is gassing his own people", "Qaddafi is about to cause a humanitarian crisis", "Hussein has a weapons of mass destruction program"?
It's not just left / right propaganda, it's just establishment propaganda.
@ Karen
Ukraine has made it all the way to Russian forward observation positions and the front line of tank traps. In one fairly narrow sector. With 3 lines of well entrenched defense in depth plus mine fields & etc. to go before reaching "the rear". With insufficient ready & mobile reserves and/or armor to exploit such a breakthrough even if they could manage it & without air superiority.
As far as "good guys" and "bad guys", the return of The Russian Empire™ under Darth Putin and the Russian Federation military spending the majority of their efforts in gleefully committing war crimes vs. civilians? You might want to read more than The New York Times.
Do you think Russia should be able to invade a neighboring country because it wants to? Do ypu deny Russia’s war crimes?
Karen, the United States overthrew Ukraine in 2014, it was a CIA coup. This led to a civil war in Ukraine between the West that accepted the coup, and the East that did not.
Do you want to understand the situation? I've had to explain it so many times, I just made an article, IF you want to read it.
https://americandissident.substack.com/p/why-i-think-the-united-states-overthrew
If you think I've made any errors, either factual errors or logic errors, you are free to point them out and if I have made an error, I'd like to know. I've been following this war since it began, in 2014.
There was no civil war. Russia invaded. Besides. Why was Russia intervening at all? Ukraine had a stable government since 2014. They had functioning elections which the Russian-aligned side LOST. If interference in the affairs of other countries is bad when we do it, it is also bad when Russia or China do it. You and Mearsheimer just love autocracy and hate self-determination.
Karen, you're exactly why women were kept well away from politics and not allowed to serve on a jury because you are a SIMPLETON
And you’re a jerk.
Yes there IS and has been a Ukrainian civil war for over 9 years now, even our own press reported on it:
https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/02/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html
Notice the date. September 2, 2014. The civil war actually began shortly after the US coup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022)
Even wikipedia still reports on it.
And no, Ukraine didn't have an election in 2014. IN 2015, Viktor Yanukovych was up for re-election, that was just 1 year away, the US was afraid he was going to win, so they ousted him.
The US didn't merely "interfere with elections", the US overthrew the government. I agree, nobody should interfere. If that happens, the US should protest. We USED to have poll observers in contentious areas around the world, but we stopped doing that after "the hanging chads" BS in the US, because George W. Bush stole that election - and the US has had desperately crooked elections ever since.
I gave you a link to my article, if you think ANYTHING in there is wrong, let me know. It's already well researched I believe, if you think I've made a mistake, point it out, and maybe I have. I'll readily admit error, if I've made an error. I don't have an ego with this.
BUT I know our "news" media lies, and blatantly lies. It tells the truth, when it doesn't matter. CNN today will claim there was no civil war in Ukraine, despite doing a story on the civil war in 2014. They're just propaganda at this point.
Don't you realize how EASY it is to talk to a Russian, a Ukrainian? I do it all the time. THEY know. You have NO IDEA how much our media just blatantly lies. I do. Find that weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq yet? They are shameless liars, and you are wrong to trust them as an information resource.
Zelenskyy is just a puppet of the United States. He will continue the war until the military turns against him, or all of them are dead. Zelenskyy ran on the promise of ending the civil war. That's what the Minsk Accords were about.
It's not your fault you don't know what is going on, you still trust US propaganda. I don't know why. Did the US "stop the humanitarian crisis the Qaddafi was about to cause"? Libya is in civil war with operating slavery markets now. We have a monstrous government, criminal, evil. Obama was just George W. Bush in blackface.
Assad wasn't "gassing his own people" either. The Douma chemical attack was faked, staged, nobody died in that, and the Ghouta chemical attack was carried about by the "moderate" rebels.
For information on Russia, Ukraine and the Donbas, it is best to listen to a Russia opposition leader instead of to the US media or Putin fanboys or even Mearsheimer. Here are some Youtube videos by a Russian (in Russian with subtitles) that you can watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdJV3S8gDWI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyIUbvhVh7Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C3gW1DG22o
"There was no civil war"
That is a ridiculous, bald faced untruth.
I have watched the bystander videos of the newly installed Kiev regime sending APCs crewed by neonazis into the areas where the USA State Dept./CIA instigated, Vicky Nuland mediated coup was being protested.
I have seen videos and read accounts of whole units from the pre 2014 Ukrainian military deserting WITH THEIR EQUIPMENT to the Eastern, mainly Russian areas that seceded.
When the Kiev regime stopped being able to massacre/ethnically cleanse their way to victory since the opposition had become organized, armed and entrenched, they lost power over those several areas.
When USA/NATO financed & armed the post 2014 coup regime, trained shock troops and planned out the attack and ethnic cleansing operations against those break away provinces, Russia did indeed invade. Just as the USA had intended, planned and quite cold bloodedly set up their puppet regime to instigate.
Do you remember recently when USA state department and intelligence management publicly took credit for provoking and causing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Same play book. Just didn't work so well for USA this time around.
@Karen
If you are not in fact a troll or a spammer sock puppet?
You have a problem with first, reality not matching your USA MIC authorized world views- and with lashing out at people who speak openly about observable facts contrary to the MIC authorized version of reality you find so unacceptable.
I looked briefly at your substack. It reads like articles generated by an AI primed with a database of establishment news/propaganda allowable opinions and endorsed talking points where the output wasn't edited to remove the "counterfactual".
If you are made of meat, you need to get out more.
If you are an AI, perhaps your algorithm and input parameters were skewed to create the simulacrum of an idealized NYT reader? Do you also post comments on NYT articles...
Please provide examples supporting your assertions instead of mere conclusions.
Russia was truly worried about NATO and the US, who have had an intractable and hostile position against Russia. So, the Russians really were worried. Otherwise, they would not be doing all of this. The U. S. has not been able to order Russia around, but why should the U. S. have such a right? This is unfortunately a question we must ask. For the U. S. to make the same mistake over and over again, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Ukraine is a testament to astonishing stupidity.
If the Russians feared NATO, why attack a country that isn’t in the alliance? Also, why does Russia get to order people around? Russia isn’t entitled to an empire any more than England is. Russia is no longer a great power and they need to adjust to that fact.
Why does the United States get to order people around? Why does Russia have to accept Nato on its doorstep while the United States would not tolerate a Soviet Union military presence in Cuba in 1962?
Two wrongs don't make it a right, but let's look at NATO's "record":
- Bombed Serbia/Montenegro including civilian infrastructure. Remember "graphite bombs"? Or targeting civilian train over the bridge? Or maybe bombing Chinese embassy? Created a basket-case statelet "Kosovo" which fully depends on EU and US funds injection to survive, and it a key drug trade and smuggling hotspot.
- Destroyed Libya - the country effectively ceased to exist, became a failed state ruled by various warlords. NATO also facilitated bringing back slave markets where black Africans are sold.
- Illegally occupied Afghanistan and brutalized their population, while the poppy crop increased exponentially. Among other crimes, destroyed a well marked hospital, and thrown people from flying helicopters.
Let's not forget to mention that currently NATO member Turkey illegally occupies part of 3 neighboring countries (Cyprus, Syria, Iraq) and US occupies almost one third of Syria without UN or US congress authorization.
So please spare me the outrage about "Russian occupation". At least Russia occupies territories which have forever been part of Russia (before Bolsheviks gave them away) and are inhabited by Russians.
Syria belonged to Russia? Does Russia get the Baltic states, Poland and Finland back because the Bolsheviks gave that away?
It would be nice if US adjusted that unipolar world is over and it cannot just tell everyone to fall in line respect a rules based order, where US makes the rules and everyone is supposed to follow. RAND " EXTENDING RUSSIA" 2019 summary is perfect example of that attitude. Russia decided to call US bluff and entire world is now shifting.
What would you have instead of rules?
Do you think the USA should be able to invade any country because it wants to?
Do you deny the USA's war crimes?
No and no. Now answer my question
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/7/6/2179504/-Ukraine-Update-Russia-doesn-t-have-a-backup-plan-when-it-runs-out-of-artillery
Wishful thinking ....
John J. Mearsheimer's comprehensive analysis of the Ukraine-Russia conflict offers a remarkably clear and dispassionate view of the ongoing crisis.
With a focus on the strategic dynamics and military realities, Mearsheimer dissects the Ukrainian counteroffensive, shedding light on its abysmal failure and the challenges faced by Ukraine. His objective assessment underscores the grim prospects of a protracted war and the limited potential for a diplomatic solution, given the irreconcilable differences between the parties.
Mearsheimer's analysis is an essential resource for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the conflict's complexities and its implications for the region.
Prof. Mearsheimer's analysis is spot on, except for his conclusion that "The most likely result is that that the war will go on and eventually end in a frozen conflict with Russia in possession of a significant portion of Ukrainian territory."
I think a much more likely scenario will be for the Russians to go on the offensive, forcing a collapse of the Ukrainian military and the regime in Kiev.
When that collapse becomes inevitable, the US/NATO will be left with two very regrettable options: 1) to surrender and sue for peace on Russian terms; or, 2) to commit US/NATO troops to into direct combat with the Russians.
Americans need to start thinking about whether they are going to support US/NATO "boots on the ground" in Ukraine . . . because that decision-point is coming sooner than most Americans think.
Typo:
“The Ukrainians were not only ?___? involved in a fair fight,”
I think there is a missing “not” where I inserted a blank.
I think this ends more like the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. They roll into a millitraily weaker country thinking this will be easy to take over but the locals hate them and never stop fighting back and eventually the Russians get fed up with being killed and go home. All the stuff about Ukraine being nazi and a security threat are complete bs - Ukraine was a peaceful agricultural country with no intention of attacking a nuclear superpower and if Russia is so worried about having NATO close then how come having them on the border in Estonia and Latvia was never an issue? Most Russians didn't want this - it's only really Putin with delusions of being Vladimir the Great who was into it and he's not going to be around forever.
I always opposed expansion of NATO, aside from Poland, but I now think it was right and I can think of no reason why Russia would not have invaded the Baltic states had they remained outside of NATO. One never knows alternative history and I can't say it would have happened or that admitting Ukraine to NATO would have prevented the current war but I now see the argument. It might very well have been the right/smart thing to do.