About a week or so ago I predicted a narrative shift in mainstream media with respect to the war in Ukraine. The old narrative held that Ukraine is winning the war. The new narrative — to the extent that The Hill is representative — holds that Ukraine has lost the war.
The way I see it, the Biden administration has big egg on its face. The collapse of Ukraine as a viable nation state is as bad as America’s ignominious surrender in Afghanistan.
Everything (Biden) is broken.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Well, it was just as obvious 100 days ago when tens of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians were still alive.
LikeLike
Yes. Makes you wonder whether idealism keeps one’s hands clean (of blood).
LikeLike
I wonder how those losses compare to our own deaths and injuries via gun obsession here at home. Just to put your concern for Ukrainian health in perspective.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Why does my “concern for Ukrainian health” need to be put in perspective?
LikeLike
What would that prove?
Does it in any way make fighting an unwinnable war a good idea?
LikeLike
45,000 gun deaths last year…the price of freedom.
Thousands of Ukrainian deaths trying to protect their homeland from a murderous dictator…a real price of freedom.
But you might not see it that way, I suppose.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It jumped from 30K to 45K? Cite?
Of course 60% of those would be suicides and not invasion by a foreign power.
LikeLike
You keep claiming that this was an unwinnable war that should never have been fought. That is NOT how it has played out. Russia’s attempt to seize the entire country at the price of a few sanctions (“genius” according to your hero, Trump) has been defeated. Whatever the final decision, Russia has already paid too high a price. Pyrrhic victories lead to regime change. The United States dominated the battlefield in Vietnam. Who ended up losing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russia was clear about its goals from the start.
The Crimea will be part of Russia.
The Donbas will be independent and free to join Russia if it chooses
Ukraine will not be part of NATO.
NeoNazi paramilitaries will not be on Russia’s border.
Those are being accomplished. though at high cost.
Russia never intended to seize the entirety of Ukraine on a permanent basis.
All we have succeeded in doing by helping Ukraine delay the inevitable is get a lot of people killed and lose any chance of having Russia as an ally.
LikeLike
“Russia never intended to seize the entirety of Ukraine on a permanent basis.”
So why the drive to Kyiv with thousands of troops and tanks even after a totally disastrous attempt by elite special forces to take its airport in the first days?
Why did Putin emphasize the Ukraine was never a sovereign state?
Neo-Nazis were never the real problem, especially in the last years of fighting the Russian invasion in Donbas. Just a pretext.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Russians were already there in the Donbas. It was part of Russia pre Soviet
As far as the spread of the into other part of Ukraine. consider how badly we did in Vietnam when we allowed the Communists to stage in Laos, Cambodia and North Vietnam.
When you are at war with a country, you are at war with all of it, even if you have no intent to occupy it all.
LikeLike
Not since the Civil War have Americans had to fight for their homeland on their homeland. I am not sure we understand the patriotic fervor. We are used to going in elsewhere, blowing things and people to bits, and then going home to nice suburbs, farms and cities unscathed by shelling and bombs.
Ukraine has been under two brutal regimes since 1917. Germany in the 40’s and Soviets under Stalin before WW2 and after. Then a parade of communist leaders until 1991 or so.
We have little idea of what that is like. For us to sit here and pontificate about futility and unnecessary deaths and that they should just roll over and let Putin rule is kind of ignorant.
We just have no idea what it is like to defend our home against invasion. None. We are fretting over attacking ourselves because we are so spoiled and our delicate sensibilities have been disturbed.
Think about that after next weeks mass shooting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Russia never intended to seize the entirety of Ukraine on a permanent basis.”
No, they ONLY wanted to install a puppet government they would make Ukraine a de facto province of Russia with Russia dictating their economic and defense policy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why do you trust The Hill? It feels to me like a typical liberal site.
LikeLike
I don’t trust The Hill. But when I quote pro-Russian sources on the course of the war no one believes me. It is newsworthy that an MSM outlet like The Hill has begun to tell the same story that pro-Russian sources have been telling for weeks.
Cognitive dissonance to follow.
LikeLike
I don’t think pro-Russian sources were saying for weeks is that the most Russia can “win” is a Pyrrhic victory?
“Any conceivable Russian victory now will entail such a loss of blood and treasure that it will have to be judged Pyrrhic at best.”
Pyrrhic victories bring down regimes. Even in fascist dictatorships. Whatever happens on the battlefield, the United States and NATO should not return to normal diplomatic and economic relations with Russia until that happens.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “I don’t think pro-Russian sources were saying for weeks is that the most Russia can ‘win’ is a Pyrrhic victory?”
That’s right, at least in my experience. Nevertheless, The Hill agrees with pro-Russian sources in the following ways:
If pro-Russian sources aren’t predicting a Pyrrhic victory, it is probably because there is little evidence that Russia’s military is being degraded in any significant way or that U.S./Nato sanctions are degrading Russia’s economy. Quite the contrary.
LikeLike
“The Hill” is one opinion writer who lays out all the possible endings. His judgment that Russia failed in its initial war aims is sound. His judgments about scenarios going forward are entirely defensible. His declaration that whatever victory Russia achieves will be a Pyrrhic victory is spot on. That fact is already set in stone.
So what?
None of this is new. Or a change of course for the responsible media which has not shied away from these same points since the beginning. The Ukrainian people know they are in a very tough fight and yet they persist. War is about whose public breaks first. That is why truthful reporting is not allowed in Russia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “None of this is new.”
The Hill story looks new to me. As I wrote:
“The old narrative held that Ukraine is winning the war. The new narrative — to the extent that The Hill is representative — holds that Ukraine has lost the war.”
Do you really mean to say that “responsible media” have predicted Ukrainian defeat all along?
LikeLike
The piece is not a story, it is an opinion.
Ukraine’s losses, as well as gains, have been reported in MSM regularly.
As noted, Russia tactics, such as they are, is to render territorial gains totally unlivable and destroyed. If they do prevail temporarily in Donbas the area might as well be a moonscape.
Still, Ukraine is not going to be absorbed into the most corrupt, brutal and xenophobic dictatorship that is heir to Stalin without exacting a cost. And that cost will be high for Russia.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “And that cost will be high for Russia.”
How so?
LikeLike
“How so?”
Really stupid questions do not deserve an answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr. Rothman needn’t reply, but it is fair to ask what he means.
LikeLike
“Mr. Rothman needn’t reply, but it is fair to ask what he means”
It is still a stupid question and you do not deserve an answer because the answer requires facts and we all know that you people are just about immune to facts.
For example, one of the costs that is not in blood is the damage to Russia’s economy from this unjust war. That is a FACT which you simply deny. Oh no, Russia’s economy is great. Even better than before the war. Laughable nonsense over and over again.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/01/western-sanctions-push-russias-economy-brink-recession/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, your source is behind a paywall to me, but I doubt the Telegraph makes a strong case that Russia’s economy is deteriorating badly. The country has a large trade surplus and a strengthening currency. Moreover, it has unsanctioned access to 80% of the global economy, which is more than enough to offset the consequences of a divorce from the western alliance.
LikeLike
“I doubt the Telegraph makes a strong case that Russia’s economy is deteriorating badly.”
Uh, actually it does. Here is the headline. . .
“Russian economy crashes 15pc as sanctions choke oil and arms trade
Punitive measures appear to take toll on Moscow as it is braced for deepest downturn since fall of the Soviet Union”
But thanks for confirming the point – you people are immune to facts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Russian economy crashes 15pc as sanctions choke oil and arms trade”
15pc of what, and how is it calculated?
LikeLike
You ay want to take a closer look at The Hill. If a cite posts something you disagree with you and your ilk automatically call it a “liberal site”. Too bad it is very cnenrist in its NEWS coverage,
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Everything (Biden) is broken.”
It has been obvious from the beginning, but thanks for making explicit what all this cheerleading for the Russian aggression has been about. President Biden did not choose war in Ukraine. That was your bareback hero Putin. And if NATO had refused to help Ukraine, you people would be pointing your fingers at Biden for giving up American leadership or something.
As for Afghanistan, maybe you have chosen to forget that Trump bypassed the Afghan government in his wheeling and dealing with the Taliban. THAT was the moment when things fell apart. That was the moment of “ignominious surrender.” Similar to the time that Trump betrayed the Kurds in Syria at Putin’s behest.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Projection much? I don’t need the war in Ukraine to criticize Stumble Joe.
LikeLike
“I don’t need the war in Ukraine to criticize Stumble Joe.”
That is an absolutely true statement. No matter what he does or doesn’t do, you are there with your childish name-calling.
However, that is not a rebuttal for the point being made – that all of you people are hoping for Russian success so you can blame President Biden. Deny that until you turn blue. I don’t care. But it is obviously true, and you proved it in your comment above.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When Russia succeeds, Biden will deserve blame for his foreign policy failure.
LikeLike
“When Russia succeeds, Biden will deserve blame for his foreign policy failure.”
Yeah, that is logically consistent with the claim that Russian success was inevitable from the beginning.
Biden’s policy (and of the Congress and of NATO) has been to help the people asking for help and to make Russia pay for its illegal and unjust war. They are paying bigly.
As surely as the sun rises in the East, had President Biden declined to help Ukraine and not sought to punish Putin, you would be shouting from the rooftops how weak and feckless he had been.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Biden’s policy (and of the Congress and of NATO) has been to help the people asking for help and to make Russia pay for its illegal and unjust war.”
Yes, that’s the failure. Biden (and Congress and Nato) could have prevented the war by pressuring Ukraine to abide by the Minsk agreements. Another part of the failure is that Biden (and Congress and Nato) have been providing tens of billions of dollars in military and payroll aid to support an army whose defeat has been a certainty since the beginning.
LikeLike
We’ve gone through the treaty stuff over and over. Russia broke treaties when they agreed not to attack Ukraine if nukes were surrendered.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“ When Russia succeeds, Biden will deserve blame for his foreign policy failure.”
So you can’t wait for Putin to succeed, or appear to succeed, so you can blame our government?
Nice.
The spin that Putin sent 1000’s to die on the roads to Kyiv, with hundreds, maybe even more than 1000, of tanks lost (a couple of ships to boot) just to divert attention from the Donbas. Putin never wanted Ukraine in the Russia family?
Really?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“So you can’t wait for Putin to succeed, or appear to succeed, so you can blame our government?”
Actually. it appears Mr. Roberts wants it ALL ways. No matter the outcome he will claim that he was right and any and all “failures” are Biden’s fault.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russia violated the Donbas accords from day one. This war actually started in 2014 when Russian “volunteers” and mercenaries invaded Ukraine.
Sure, by appeasing the aggressor and kowtowing to his demands, war could have been avoided. And today, Ukraine would be a de facto part of the fascist homeland. That is the same logic that created “Peace for our time” in 1938.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Russia broke treaties when they agreed not to attack Ukraine if nukes were surrendered.”
Ukraine broke treaties when, as widely reported, it started shelling civilians in the Donbas.
LikeLike
..”it started shelling civilians in the Donbas.”
Those so-called “civilians” were Russian separatists, not peaceful citizens.
LikeLike
RE: “So you can’t wait for Putin to succeed, or appear to succeed, so you can blame our government?”
I can already blame our government, and have. Maybe when Putin succeeds you will learn a lesson about U.S. propaganda.
LikeLike
RE: “Putin never wanted Ukraine in the Russia family?”
I have no idea want Putin wanted. It is simply a fact that having Ukraine “in the Russia family” was not a stated objective of the invasion.
LikeLike
RE: “Russia violated the Donbas accords from day one.”
So did Ukraine, apparently with U.S. approval (specifically, Joe Biden’s).
LikeLike
“So did Ukraine, apparently with U.S. approval (specifically, Joe Biden’s).”
More nonsense. Joe Biden was not the President in 2014. Duh!
The Ukraine did not need or seek American approval to fight back against Russians trying to capture their sovereign territory.
And try to keep this straight – starting in 2014 there were Russians in the Ukraine attacking Ukraine. There were no Ukrainians in Russia attacking Russia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
After reading some of the story, I find it amusing that the Hill seems to think it knows what Putin’s military objectives were in the beginning. I always thought the real objective was the Donbas region due to the heavy Russian population and even heavier Russian speaking presence. It looks that will be the outcome and any extra land is just icing but objective achieved.
LikeLike
One, as stated numerous times, the Hill piece was an OPINION, not a news story.
Two, this is not the first opinion piece that has stated what Putin’s objectives appeared to be. They have been all over most news sites that have opinion sections.
Three, you don’t know enough about Ukraine to say one way or another about population and ethnicity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “conservative” idea that mindreading is necessary to know what the military objective was is a good example of just how silly they are. Anybody who is not a Putin stooge can see that the intent of paratroopers trying to grab the Kyiv airport and a columns of tanks rolling towards major cities was rapid regime change. And such non-stooges need only listen to Putin – I paraphrase what he has repeatedly said: “Zelensky heads a fascist regime.” and “Our goal is to remove fascists.” No mindreading required.
It is symptomatic of Trumpism that even the most uncontroversial facts cannot be accepted if they do not support the desired narrative. In this case, the narrative is that Putin is a “genius” who is getting a whole country almost free of charge. The fact that does not fit is that the initial Blitzkrieg to pull off that “genius” move failed disastrously. So, just pretend the disaster was part of a different plan.
LikeLiked by 1 person