"what is going to happen if pooh, lil Russia ends up defeated in Ukraine? …tsk, tsk, tsk… everybody in NATO knows the answer; only you, esteemed reader, not."
For us not as fluent in sarcasm and in realms of the situation, what would happen then?
NATO excuses than if that happens, Russia will fall in chaos and something worst than Putin Will take power, and the only thing to get most of Russia by it's joints is a full nuclear war with the west or invading Europe.
Apparently, all the guys in charge of NATO and EU thinks this like a mantra, so they need yo contain but not to destroy the Russian Armed Forces.
Hey, I live in Argentina, we have the most angel goverment at all, but Even US see that this is pure nonsense. Have a Big defeat in a war, people Will kick you out of government or try too, and new stringman appears who have to negociate. Reallity is always as it, history proven.
Nobody is speaking of attack directly a superpower, I write about the EU logic that if Russia fails, it Will colapse and then automatically a new madman Will start a nuclear war.
So, the gave the minimum from cold war stocks to get the Russian Army in check but not defeating them. But not engage in new thinking or in negotiations. Justo wait to implode because "we think this going to happen in that way".
There is no way for nation state to implode, except into chaos, thorn apart in a civil war,
In case of Russia, it has been tried, and it didn't work out.
Currently opinion is divided:
Realists suggest treating Russia with respect with a hope of using natural inclination of Russian people to be a part of the West, and getting Russia to be at least neutral in US-China struggle
Globalists, led by British elites, British foreign policy and military, but comprising neocons in US, globalists in EU, Canada are treating Russo-Ukraine war as a civil war, that will hopefully destroy both nations, and their states.
Second approach promises more in case of victory, and the higher risk is mainly carried by nonBritish.
Your comment is a mix of oversimplification, imperial nostalgia, and dehumanizing cynicism.
Calling the Russia-Ukraine war a "civil war" is not only factually wrong — it echoes Kremlin propaganda. Ukraine is a sovereign country defending itself against a full-scale invasion. This is not some internal family feud; it's a war of aggression.
Framing Western policy as a British-led conspiracy to destroy "both nations" is pure geopolitical fantasy. The people of Ukraine are not pawns — they chose their independence, and they are paying for it with blood.
The so-called “natural inclination of Russians to be part of the West” ignores over two decades of authoritarian consolidation, anti-Western propaganda, and wars of imperial ambition initiated by the Russian regime.
Russia is not some misunderstood empire. It’s a country with leadership responsible for crimes against civilians — women, children, entire cities. If there’s any hope for the future, it lies in acknowledging the truth, not dressing colonial aggression in pseudo-realist jargon.
when Ukrainian delegation sent to negotiate with Russians in Istanbul has a translator, from Ukrainian to Russian, but translator is of no use, not because everybody speaks Russian but because nobody really can speak Ukrainian ... when soldiers from both sides speak Russian ... it is a civil war.
it did took British more than 150 years to reappear on the Black Sea, but now they are in Odessa, and when British drones and special forces under the command of admiral Radakin are engaging the enemy fleet as in the old days of Crimean war, it is British imperialism.
Russia is West, and Russians would like to be a part of the West. But British with the little help of Americans will never really accept independent countries into the West. First you lose a war, preferably a world war, and then you can join a s a vassal.
Anybody with a little bit of common sense can see for himself which country, nation is expertly committing crimes against civilians, women, children, entire city and who is helping with military, political aid.
The price of treating Russia with respect is to let it control Ukraine's future. The fact that Russia doesn't understand why this is not acceptable to the West means it is not West. You don't need to have Darth Radakin say that, any person on the street will agree with this. Or perhaps Ukraine and Russia can come up with some deal whereby Russia leaves and guarantees respect for sovereignty, and Ukraine guarantees neutrality, and respect and some level of autonomy for regions that vote for it. Seems to me that option has been getting further and further away since 2014 and is now impossible. And you will say it was because of the foreign-incited revolution, which beings me to my next point.
I have to be blunt. When Ukraine supporters like me fact-check claims about CIA-backed Maidan revolution, British octopus-like control of world affairs, and so on (yes we do investigate and fact check these claims), the result is often pity, because the realization is that such fringe theories when used by intelligent individuals probably mean they can't handle a truth (s) that are staring them in the face. I have personal experience with this as my friend is one of them. There was one post by you which I thought was very valid and I was nodding my head and then it suddenly switched into conspiracy theory nonsense IMO. Do you have the courage to take another look at these topics?
Now my opinion on the "west's" strategy as mentioned before. They should support Ukraine more seriously but the issue is not that the leadership is half-hearted about it but the population and the whole civilizational construct is half-hearted about the ideas of self-determination, sovereignty, freedom and so on. And this leads to abuse ... of UKRAINE
Reality stares you in the face and you refuse to accept it.
Let's start from CIA regime change operations.
Hundreds of them from 1945 onwards. If you do investigate, fact-check, what do you find?
Is CIA real? Yes.
Is it doing regime change operations? Yes.
Do US officials admit the fact of CIA killing foreign leaders, and doing regime change operations? Yes
Is Victoria Nuland on YouTube, Wesley Clarke on You Tube as a witness corroborating US interventions into other nations internal affairs? Yes
Why do you think that recognising that Maidan was, at least partly, a regime change operation is a a fringe theory ?
To connect the dots on Maidan, and look at it as in the same time, a popular revolt against an unpopular and corrupt politician, and also a regime change operation is not a conspiracy theory.
It is just honest common sense.
If you have the courage to look at these topics you will notice yourself.
You write: Or perhaps Ukraine and Russia can come up with some deal whereby Russia leaves and guarantees respect for sovereignty, and Ukraine guarantees neutrality, and respect and some level of autonomy for regions that vote for it. Seems to me that option has been getting further and further away since 2014 and is now impossible.
My take is that Russia has enemies (Mr Radakin's readiness to appear on the Black Sea coast is just one subtle detail, among many others) and Ukraine has no real friends (Radakin is not there as a friend, but as an enemy of Russia)
Russia, if you do some fact checking has been suggesting this option whereby Russia accepts and guarantees respect for Ukrainian sovereignty, and Ukraine guarantees neutrality, and respect and some level of autonomy for regions hat vote for it. Before 2014, in Minsk One, Minsk Two, in Istambul agreement.
The options offered have been refused by Ukraine, because they have not been accepted by US and Britain, as the main Ukrainian advisors on strategy. Ukraine has been pushed and pulled into the position that provoked Russian aggression.
A friend would have done something completely different.
A friend would have advised Ukraine to accept the offer, choose neutrality, respect Russian language as one of the constituent parts of Ukrainian nation, and continue to slowly build a new Ukrainian identity, not through conflict with Russia, as a proxy of the "West" i.e. MI6 and CIA, but through but as a bridge, bringing Ukrainian
and Russian language as official languages into the EU.
Imagine the EU where Russian is an official language, imagine Ukraine in EU, and tens of millions of citizens who have close relations, friends in Russia having EU passports.
But as I say Ukraine has no real friends. Western public, individual honest people do understand that current western strategy means : to the last Ukrainian, or till the nuclear war and are half hearted.
Abusers of Ukraine claim to be supporting peace through war, freedom through forced conscription, sovereignty though CIA interventions, and although the issue is a bit murky, they feel something is wrong.
US and the West chose strategy that led to the current situation where war is to be fought until the last Ukrainian.
Russia repeatedly suggested strategy that would have kept Ukraine neutral. And intact if it had been accepted before 2014, or in Minsk 1, or Minsk 2, or Istambul.
Such disregard towards human life, accepting that in order to find soldiers to fill the ranks unwilling civilians are being chased like animals, requests that 18-24 year old be conscripted, obviously by force if necessary, show the true level of friendship Brits and the West are offering to Ukraine.
For 2 years now, Ukraine has consistently proven, that giving them anything more than bare minimum, is a complete waste of resources. Making awful decisions, all the time, has consequences. Ukrainians don't know how to fight and nothing suggests they will ever learn. What Kyiv did to the "French" brigade was the final nail to the coffin of any increase in support.
This is a worthy clarification, thank you. I never talk about the lower ranks, the people who actually do the fighting. I only ever refer to the political and military leadership.
you are excellent writer. Has it ever occurred to you that West is helping just enough to keep Russia in fight, just enough to keep the war going as long as possible...
It has been called Divide et impera! in times of Roman Empire (that incidentally also did start as a Republic of free citizens), and has been perfected by British into Divide and Rule. And accepted with some reluctance by US, who basically prefer nation building, and turning opponents into vassals. Still, as divide and rule works as a tool, especially if you are not completely dominant, CIA, US uses it sometimes.
A relatively simple strategy, but repeated hundreds of times, which obviously proves it is a good, excellent way of disposing of enemies.
Chose a conflict in which your opponent is a part of, an old quarrel, an unsolved territorial dispute, an older brother/younger brother dispute, and start
A. throwing oil onto the fire
B. supporting the weaker side, just enough to embolden them to start violence
Three plus years of war show all characteristics of typical divide and rule. Bad news for Ukraine. And Russia.
Of course. 'But', 'they' think they are much more sophisticated. Therefore, and just like in the case of 'saving private Bashar' in Syria, they're 'picking the devil they know'.
No, it did not. However, the discussion was very different in 2022 when the West could be blamed for everything, versus since 2023 when Kyiv has done every single thing wrong. It completely overshadows the stupidity, gullibility and outright corruption in the West and gives them a free pass. For as long as Zelenskyy, Syrskyi and buddies are in charge, sending resources to Ukraine is like pouring water into a toilet. Anything above minimum serves no purpose.
Yes sorry I didn't take in "last 2 years" properly; now I understand your point.
Nonetheless, sending resources to Ukraine is not like pouring water into a toilet. They may not be able to take back territory for a whole raft of reasons, but more or less holding the line is much different to the alternative they'd face with no support.
Maybe is time to think about a strategic retreat for the UAF to the Vorskla-Dnieper line, behind a mejor river, to extract their Forces from the front line and rebuit a defense.
They've only began to realise they need to rotate units out of the line, for R&R.
...and a re-organisation at operational/tactical level (see: Corps commands).
Considering they are still refusing to adapt the training, and/or fire incompetent generals, thinking in terms of a 'strategic withdrawal to shorten the lines'... sorry, that's certainly never going to happen.
If they standardized the training and methods of fighting used by their best units, and established the corps organizations they've been talking about for months now, while simultaneously stop the fragmentation of units by detaching battalions from brigades to rush as reinforcements, then the need to withdraw will be drastically reduced across the front.
There are todo many "If". With the classic soviet think of Sirsky, a strategic withdrawal is not more logical?
The VSRF is practically de-mechanized, so the chances of get a orderly withdrawal to better positions is high, russians can't Chase ever of they want to.
Maybe pollitically is a disasater, but not seeing any better option with this allies.
In simple terms, if holding ground causes more enemy casualties than friendly casualties then you continue to hold it. If, in the big picture, it causes more friendly casualties than enemy casualties then you withdraw.
I didn’t read this before late in the evening. Need a beer really now. Why oh why can’t the Ukrainian army try to learn? Oh well. Let’s hope for Drapny, but is unfair to pin all on him.
"what is going to happen if pooh, lil Russia ends up defeated in Ukraine? …tsk, tsk, tsk… everybody in NATO knows the answer; only you, esteemed reader, not."
For us not as fluent in sarcasm and in realms of the situation, what would happen then?
NATO excuses than if that happens, Russia will fall in chaos and something worst than Putin Will take power, and the only thing to get most of Russia by it's joints is a full nuclear war with the west or invading Europe.
Apparently, all the guys in charge of NATO and EU thinks this like a mantra, so they need yo contain but not to destroy the Russian Armed Forces.
Hey, I live in Argentina, we have the most angel goverment at all, but Even US see that this is pure nonsense. Have a Big defeat in a war, people Will kick you out of government or try too, and new stringman appears who have to negociate. Reallity is always as it, history proven.
Where you read "angel' I want to write awful
Damon auto correct! I mean damn auto correct!
A new mantra definitely deserves a try.
Let's attack a nuclear superpower in the hope their missiles aren't functioning. Or if they are in the hope they will never use them.
One could read and present his opinion based on
A. a sufficient amount of literature on nuclear weapons use strategy
B. an extensive analysis of well known, or less known confrontations between nucler powers
What is the risk? What is the next step on current escalation ladder?
Because it seems like a game.
The very fact that your opponent demonstrates control, does not mean he will never use deadly weapon.
Nobody is speaking of attack directly a superpower, I write about the EU logic that if Russia fails, it Will colapse and then automatically a new madman Will start a nuclear war.
So, the gave the minimum from cold war stocks to get the Russian Army in check but not defeating them. But not engage in new thinking or in negotiations. Justo wait to implode because "we think this going to happen in that way".
Thank you for clarifying.
There is no way for nation state to implode, except into chaos, thorn apart in a civil war,
In case of Russia, it has been tried, and it didn't work out.
Currently opinion is divided:
Realists suggest treating Russia with respect with a hope of using natural inclination of Russian people to be a part of the West, and getting Russia to be at least neutral in US-China struggle
Globalists, led by British elites, British foreign policy and military, but comprising neocons in US, globalists in EU, Canada are treating Russo-Ukraine war as a civil war, that will hopefully destroy both nations, and their states.
Second approach promises more in case of victory, and the higher risk is mainly carried by nonBritish.
Your comment is a mix of oversimplification, imperial nostalgia, and dehumanizing cynicism.
Calling the Russia-Ukraine war a "civil war" is not only factually wrong — it echoes Kremlin propaganda. Ukraine is a sovereign country defending itself against a full-scale invasion. This is not some internal family feud; it's a war of aggression.
Framing Western policy as a British-led conspiracy to destroy "both nations" is pure geopolitical fantasy. The people of Ukraine are not pawns — they chose their independence, and they are paying for it with blood.
The so-called “natural inclination of Russians to be part of the West” ignores over two decades of authoritarian consolidation, anti-Western propaganda, and wars of imperial ambition initiated by the Russian regime.
Russia is not some misunderstood empire. It’s a country with leadership responsible for crimes against civilians — women, children, entire cities. If there’s any hope for the future, it lies in acknowledging the truth, not dressing colonial aggression in pseudo-realist jargon.
Well, well, young imperial cynic
no reason for such nervousness,
when Ukrainian delegation sent to negotiate with Russians in Istanbul has a translator, from Ukrainian to Russian, but translator is of no use, not because everybody speaks Russian but because nobody really can speak Ukrainian ... when soldiers from both sides speak Russian ... it is a civil war.
it did took British more than 150 years to reappear on the Black Sea, but now they are in Odessa, and when British drones and special forces under the command of admiral Radakin are engaging the enemy fleet as in the old days of Crimean war, it is British imperialism.
Russia is West, and Russians would like to be a part of the West. But British with the little help of Americans will never really accept independent countries into the West. First you lose a war, preferably a world war, and then you can join a s a vassal.
Anybody with a little bit of common sense can see for himself which country, nation is expertly committing crimes against civilians, women, children, entire city and who is helping with military, political aid.
It is not Russia.
The price of treating Russia with respect is to let it control Ukraine's future. The fact that Russia doesn't understand why this is not acceptable to the West means it is not West. You don't need to have Darth Radakin say that, any person on the street will agree with this. Or perhaps Ukraine and Russia can come up with some deal whereby Russia leaves and guarantees respect for sovereignty, and Ukraine guarantees neutrality, and respect and some level of autonomy for regions that vote for it. Seems to me that option has been getting further and further away since 2014 and is now impossible. And you will say it was because of the foreign-incited revolution, which beings me to my next point.
I have to be blunt. When Ukraine supporters like me fact-check claims about CIA-backed Maidan revolution, British octopus-like control of world affairs, and so on (yes we do investigate and fact check these claims), the result is often pity, because the realization is that such fringe theories when used by intelligent individuals probably mean they can't handle a truth (s) that are staring them in the face. I have personal experience with this as my friend is one of them. There was one post by you which I thought was very valid and I was nodding my head and then it suddenly switched into conspiracy theory nonsense IMO. Do you have the courage to take another look at these topics?
Now my opinion on the "west's" strategy as mentioned before. They should support Ukraine more seriously but the issue is not that the leadership is half-hearted about it but the population and the whole civilizational construct is half-hearted about the ideas of self-determination, sovereignty, freedom and so on. And this leads to abuse ... of UKRAINE
Cliff,
you seem to be a reasonable man.
Reality stares you in the face and you refuse to accept it.
Let's start from CIA regime change operations.
Hundreds of them from 1945 onwards. If you do investigate, fact-check, what do you find?
Is CIA real? Yes.
Is it doing regime change operations? Yes.
Do US officials admit the fact of CIA killing foreign leaders, and doing regime change operations? Yes
Is Victoria Nuland on YouTube, Wesley Clarke on You Tube as a witness corroborating US interventions into other nations internal affairs? Yes
Why do you think that recognising that Maidan was, at least partly, a regime change operation is a a fringe theory ?
To connect the dots on Maidan, and look at it as in the same time, a popular revolt against an unpopular and corrupt politician, and also a regime change operation is not a conspiracy theory.
It is just honest common sense.
If you have the courage to look at these topics you will notice yourself.
Regarding solutions:
You write: Or perhaps Ukraine and Russia can come up with some deal whereby Russia leaves and guarantees respect for sovereignty, and Ukraine guarantees neutrality, and respect and some level of autonomy for regions that vote for it. Seems to me that option has been getting further and further away since 2014 and is now impossible.
My take is that Russia has enemies (Mr Radakin's readiness to appear on the Black Sea coast is just one subtle detail, among many others) and Ukraine has no real friends (Radakin is not there as a friend, but as an enemy of Russia)
Russia, if you do some fact checking has been suggesting this option whereby Russia accepts and guarantees respect for Ukrainian sovereignty, and Ukraine guarantees neutrality, and respect and some level of autonomy for regions hat vote for it. Before 2014, in Minsk One, Minsk Two, in Istambul agreement.
The options offered have been refused by Ukraine, because they have not been accepted by US and Britain, as the main Ukrainian advisors on strategy. Ukraine has been pushed and pulled into the position that provoked Russian aggression.
A friend would have done something completely different.
A friend would have advised Ukraine to accept the offer, choose neutrality, respect Russian language as one of the constituent parts of Ukrainian nation, and continue to slowly build a new Ukrainian identity, not through conflict with Russia, as a proxy of the "West" i.e. MI6 and CIA, but through but as a bridge, bringing Ukrainian
and Russian language as official languages into the EU.
Imagine the EU where Russian is an official language, imagine Ukraine in EU, and tens of millions of citizens who have close relations, friends in Russia having EU passports.
But as I say Ukraine has no real friends. Western public, individual honest people do understand that current western strategy means : to the last Ukrainian, or till the nuclear war and are half hearted.
Abusers of Ukraine claim to be supporting peace through war, freedom through forced conscription, sovereignty though CIA interventions, and although the issue is a bit murky, they feel something is wrong.
Russia has enemies, Ukraine has no friends.
Regarding control of the Ukrainian future,
US and the West chose strategy that led to the current situation where war is to be fought until the last Ukrainian.
Russia repeatedly suggested strategy that would have kept Ukraine neutral. And intact if it had been accepted before 2014, or in Minsk 1, or Minsk 2, or Istambul.
Such disregard towards human life, accepting that in order to find soldiers to fill the ranks unwilling civilians are being chased like animals, requests that 18-24 year old be conscripted, obviously by force if necessary, show the true level of friendship Brits and the West are offering to Ukraine.
For 2 years now, Ukraine has consistently proven, that giving them anything more than bare minimum, is a complete waste of resources. Making awful decisions, all the time, has consequences. Ukrainians don't know how to fight and nothing suggests they will ever learn. What Kyiv did to the "French" brigade was the final nail to the coffin of any increase in support.
I do have to correct a part of your statement.
It's the Ukrainian government, and the top of the ZSU - Syrsky & Buddies - that have no strategy, no plan, and no idea how to fight this war.
Enough of those 'below' them know how to fight. So much so, otherwise there would be no Ukraine left after three years.
This is a worthy clarification, thank you. I never talk about the lower ranks, the people who actually do the fighting. I only ever refer to the political and military leadership.
Well, according to the New York Times, it was not Syrsky and Buddies,
More like general Donahue and buddies
Donahue & Buddies are nothing better: just better-protected by the NYT and the likes.
Sarcastosaurus,
you are excellent writer. Has it ever occurred to you that West is helping just enough to keep Russia in fight, just enough to keep the war going as long as possible...
It has been called Divide et impera! in times of Roman Empire (that incidentally also did start as a Republic of free citizens), and has been perfected by British into Divide and Rule. And accepted with some reluctance by US, who basically prefer nation building, and turning opponents into vassals. Still, as divide and rule works as a tool, especially if you are not completely dominant, CIA, US uses it sometimes.
A relatively simple strategy, but repeated hundreds of times, which obviously proves it is a good, excellent way of disposing of enemies.
Chose a conflict in which your opponent is a part of, an old quarrel, an unsolved territorial dispute, an older brother/younger brother dispute, and start
A. throwing oil onto the fire
B. supporting the weaker side, just enough to embolden them to start violence
Three plus years of war show all characteristics of typical divide and rule. Bad news for Ukraine. And Russia.
Of course. 'But', 'they' think they are much more sophisticated. Therefore, and just like in the case of 'saving private Bashar' in Syria, they're 'picking the devil they know'.
Yes..
But an obvious strategy to prevent Ukraine from doing too much damage to Russia did not help.
No, it did not. However, the discussion was very different in 2022 when the West could be blamed for everything, versus since 2023 when Kyiv has done every single thing wrong. It completely overshadows the stupidity, gullibility and outright corruption in the West and gives them a free pass. For as long as Zelenskyy, Syrskyi and buddies are in charge, sending resources to Ukraine is like pouring water into a toilet. Anything above minimum serves no purpose.
Yes sorry I didn't take in "last 2 years" properly; now I understand your point.
Nonetheless, sending resources to Ukraine is not like pouring water into a toilet. They may not be able to take back territory for a whole raft of reasons, but more or less holding the line is much different to the alternative they'd face with no support.
Thanks Tom, Indeed I need a coffe
Останній тиждень чи близько того Сирський був зайнятий створенням чергового казана у Старій Миколаївці на півдні...:
Коли я читаю такі речі, мене осяює думка, не перший раз, що це робиться навмисно, щоб просто перебити українських чоловіків.
Можливо я помиляюся, а можливо....
I do _hope_ you're wrong. But, yes: that impression is unavoidable.
Maybe is time to think about a strategic retreat for the UAF to the Vorskla-Dnieper line, behind a mejor river, to extract their Forces from the front line and rebuit a defense.
They've only began to realise they need to rotate units out of the line, for R&R.
...and a re-organisation at operational/tactical level (see: Corps commands).
Considering they are still refusing to adapt the training, and/or fire incompetent generals, thinking in terms of a 'strategic withdrawal to shorten the lines'... sorry, that's certainly never going to happen.
If they standardized the training and methods of fighting used by their best units, and established the corps organizations they've been talking about for months now, while simultaneously stop the fragmentation of units by detaching battalions from brigades to rush as reinforcements, then the need to withdraw will be drastically reduced across the front.
One can only hope...
There are todo many "If". With the classic soviet think of Sirsky, a strategic withdrawal is not more logical?
The VSRF is practically de-mechanized, so the chances of get a orderly withdrawal to better positions is high, russians can't Chase ever of they want to.
Maybe pollitically is a disasater, but not seeing any better option with this allies.
In simple terms, if holding ground causes more enemy casualties than friendly casualties then you continue to hold it. If, in the big picture, it causes more friendly casualties than enemy casualties then you withdraw.
I didn’t read this before late in the evening. Need a beer really now. Why oh why can’t the Ukrainian army try to learn? Oh well. Let’s hope for Drapny, but is unfair to pin all on him.