65 thoughts on “Another view of the Russo-Ukraine war.”

  1. The truth of the initial massive failure followed by plan B retrenching is so obvious and clear that one must wonder what is going on in the heads of people who proclaim with certainty that regime change was NEVER the initial war aim.

    It is not a coincidence, IMHO, that those are the same people who believe the Big Lie, that we did not experience an attempted coup d’état on January 6th, that excessive guns are not the root cause of gun violence, or that schools are systematically “grooming” children. This is the effect of Trumpism where what you really, really want to believe becomes true enough for all practical purposes and where countervailing evidence only hardens their resolve to stick with the “alternative facts” they prefer.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  2. Vox is engaging in mind reading.

    Russia announced it goals before the invasion, and has repeatedly offered a cease fire if those terms were met. It is Ukraine which rejected those terms.

    I will go by deeds rather than speculation about what is in Putin’s head

    Like

    Reply

    1. Russia also offered safe passages for civilians that they rarely honored.

      Russia also broke its agreement not to invade if Ukraine gave up its nukes.

      Russia also said it was not an invasion…as troops invaded.

      Putin also said Ukraine was not a sovereign state.

      I wouldn’t put too much stock in what Russia says.

      Again, we have no idea what it is like to have another nation invade our homeland, bomb our homes, obliterate our buildings. The last time that happened here would be the Civil War, and some still fight that war 160 years later.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. “I will go by deeds”

      The Hell you will. The deeds that don’t fit the baloney you spread – you ignore. You can be as stupidly obtuse as you want, but you do not get to pretend that your beliefs are based on facts.

      Russia initially attacked on many fronts with the very clear mission of decapitating the Ukraine government. Your bullshit about that failed onslaught being a feint or to support the real objective in Donbas does not stand up to any serious analysis. A “feint” does not involve deploying the bulk of your forces or sending a 50-mile-long caravan on the road to Kyiv. Or having it decimated and forced to retreat. There is a reason that Putin has been firing top military and intelligence leaders left and right – that reason is disastrous failure of Plan A.

      You are right about one thing. The war would stop tomorrow if only Ukraine would yield to Russian demands and allow themselves to be incorporated in the fascist Russian state. That does NOT make the war their fault.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. The war would also stop if Russia gets out of Ukraine. If nothing else, they got what was left of the ultra-nationalists, the stated goal of “de-nazification”.

        At this point, I would hazard a guess that most people in Donbas would rather stay in Ukraine.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. RE: “At this point, I would hazard a guess that most people in Donbas would rather stay in Ukraine.”

          What would you base that guess on?

          The citizens of Mariupol held pro-Russia victory day celebrations after the Azov Battalion surrendered. Also, there’s no shortage of videos that show Donbas citizens thanking Russian soldiers for their liberation, such as the ones at the link:

          https://thedreizinreport.com/2022/05/28/what-the-hell-is-going-on-here/

          Like

          Reply

      2. Again, it is not about fault.

        When the outcome is certain, there is no good in continuing the war unless it is an existential threat. And it s not, all Ukraine had to do was allow the ethnic Russians in the Donbas and Crimea to go their own way.

        Remember that Russia offered an immediate cease fire repeatedly if those terms were met. Ukraine, thinking they could drag NATO into the conflict, rejected that solution.

        But once war is the choice, then yes, Russia attacked across the whole country. That’s how you do war. Vietnam should have taught us that lesson.

        Certainly, we have made the war more costly to the Russians, but that will not change the outcome.

        And in a year, Europe will be buying Russian oil and gas again. After all, Biden has made sure they will not be able to buy it from us.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “ Russia subsequently occupied them, in violation of the ceasefire.”

          This was in the aftermath of the Russo-Georgia war in 2008. This was about the two regions in dispute within Georgia.

          So you expect Ukraine to believe Putin?

          You are pontificating about Ukrainian people just surrendering. Fine for you, but it is their homeland, not some distant foreign policy war we specialize in.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

        2. “Once war was the choice”

          What the fuck are you talking about? Ukraine did not choose war. It was forced on them by the expansionist fascist dictator who was out to annex their country.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Ukraine chose to reject the terms offered.

            Again, that does not mean Russia’s demands were just, though there are supporting arguments for it, but Ukraine could have accepted the inevitable and spared a lot of lives.

            Like

          2. What part of defending your homeland do you find hard to understand. You are armed to the teeth in case Democrats come knocking.

            By your logic, fighting our army will just cause more casualties, so just turn in your guns and spare bloodshed.

            Accepting the inevitable good for you then?

            Liked by 2 people

          3. If the US Military were to take up arms against the people, that would mean that deterrence had failed and emigrating while it is still allowed would be the choice for those under 50.

            But I expect that would never happen. The oath of the military is to the Constitution, so I expect that most of them would be on my side of the barricade.

            Like

          6. You are amazing.

            Who is that? Do you start shooting at anyone from the government?

            The devil is in the details. If you want unfettered access to guns at the cost of our “enviable” gun death rates, you should at least have some idea in mind as to how it will help you overthrow whatever it is you want to overthrow.

            Red Dawn again?

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Why? An effective deterrent discourages enemies both known and unknown.

            So long as the American people remain clearly capable of throwing off a despot, one will not arise.

            That’s how deterrence works.

            Like

          8. And what is the deterrent? Just because you have a gun?

            Do you have any scenario in which you could stop an army?

            I don’t see the benefit that causes us to lose thousands of people every year to gunfire without a war. All in some anticipation of preventing one.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. Again, we don’t have to stop an army, if we stand up to the government, much of the army will be on our side.

            America is fundamentally different from other countries. In banana republics, where armies do suppress citizens, the military is separate from the public, better fed and better paid. They have an interest in preserving their paymaster. Here, the army is our neighbor.

            The fact that there are lines that the government cannot cross without the people rising up keeps government from crowding those lines.

            Like

          10. I brought that up years ago. That the military will probably side with civilians since they live in the same neighborhoods.

            So what is the threat we are deterring that we are losing 10’s of thousands to gun violence to “protect”?

            And what makes you the arbiter of what overreach is so bad that I have to defend my government against the likes of you and your buddies?

            Remember we have learned that Trump wanted to use the military for law enforcement. His closest advisors and confidants suggested martial law to confiscate voting machines. He extorted state election officials to rig the election is his favor. And he was part of the plot of overturn the election that ended with an attack on Congress and a threat to hand the VP.

            Does any of that qualify for you to shoot the mailman?

            Liked by 2 people

          16. I guess the entire “Stop the Steal” thing is gone from your memory already.

            His team worked tirelessly to get the results of the election overturned, but that isn’t defying the Consitution?

            Once again you show the hypocrisy the resides deeply embedded in a Chesapeake compound.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. …”though there are supporting arguments for it”…

            And there is the gist of it all. Russia says jump, Ukraine should just ask “How high?”, and give it all up.

            For a Libertarian you sure do have a lousy way of being supportive of Liberty. Unless it is your own.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. Historically, the Donbas was part of Russia. In the 1920s, the Soviets redrew boundaries to break up ethnic Russian cohesion. The majority of the people in the Donbas want to be either independent or part of Russia.

            Should not those people have the liberty to be part of the country they choose? How is holding them captive to Uklraine liberty?

            Like

          19. Hiatorical context be damned. THe DOnbas was part of a free and indpendent Ukraine.

            You don’t know dick about what the people in the Donbas want. And when polls are taken at the point of a rifle, it is kind of difficult to determine who is afraid for their lives and who wants to be part of Russia.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. “But once war is the choice, then yes, Russia attacked across the whole country.”

            Simply dishonest. You are trying to fudge the timeline to say that Ukraine chose not to surrender THEN Putin attacked the whole country. That is not what happened. And there is no legitimate excuse for honest confusion on that point.

            Liked by 1 person

          21. “Authoritarian despots unwilling to be restrained by the Constitution.”

            Uh, you mean like a President who tried to overturn the election of his opponent by organizing a violent coup d’état? That sort of authoritarian despot?

            Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.

            Liked by 1 person

          22. I have tried to get the folks who are arming themselves for the looming overreach of our government to explain just how that would work.

            Sometimes it appears that the arms are like Silas Marner gold coins. Something to fondle, coo over and admire.

            To feed that hobby, we lose 10’s of thousands to gun fire every year and terrorists who hardly shave shred children.

            Liked by 2 people

          23. “The fact that there are lines that the government cannot cross without the people rising up keeps government from crowding those lines.”

            Your insane babbling about you and the army rising up against the government, which side of the barricade you will be on, the army will be on “my side” of Constitutional issues, etc. marks you as someone who should be on a do-not-sell list. IMHO, of course. One of the first requirements of gun ownership should be that the owner is of sound mind. There is simply too much carnage from unrestricted guns for a civil society to continue pandering to the childish and/or pathological emotional needs like the ones you continually manifest over your guns.

            Besides, if the “army is our neighbor” and it will agree with you when the tyrant appears, what is your arsenal of assault weapons for again?

            Like

          24. Let’s just say that it was a good thing Army leadership in 2017-2021 KNEW what was right and what was wrong and kept the tyrant-wannabe sitting behind the Resolute Desk in check.

            Liked by 1 person

          25. “When did President Trump defy the Supreme Court?”

            Uh, when he tried to hold onto power with extra-legal and violent means after he had exhausted all possible legal remedies including unfavorable rulings by the Supreme Court on his frivolous lawsuits. You really don’t remember all that? Nothing but a blank?

            Liked by 1 person

          26. Ever wonder which side some folks big on guns to deter bad government overreach would have been on had the attack succeeded and martial law declared.

            Side with Trump or the country…hmmm, decisions, decisions.

            Liked by 2 people

          27. “Historically, the Donbas was part of Russia.”

            No, it was not. It has NEVER been an ethnic Russian area.

            Here is the actual history of this region which has changed hands multiple times.

            https://greekreporter.com/2022/02/22/history-donbas-donetsk-luhansk/

            In the 1897 census the region was 52% Ukraine, 29% Russian and the rest a mix of other ethnicities. Since the 1920s the Ukrainians in that region have endured Russian genocide – the Holomodor. In spite of Soviet efforts to eliminate Ukrainians and to introduce Russians, the 1989 census still had it as a minority Russian area.

            Russia had already been issuing Russian passports to those who wanted them after its 2014 invasion. Those people have been free to move to actual Russian territory any time they wanted. There is no legal or moral justification for the invasion to solve a problem that Russia created.

            Liked by 2 people

          28. “The Constitution was followed, at most delayed by a few hours.”

            Yes, we know the coup failed. Mike Pence refused to get in that car and be driven away to meet a fate unknown. He literally saved the day.

            But here is something you seem not to know. If you go into a bank and try to rob it but the guards wrestle you to the ground before you succeed, you are still a bank robber. That Trump’s extra-legal and violent attempt to hold power only resulted in a few hours delay does not exonerate him.

            Liked by 2 people

  3. RE: “The war is not going as planned and annexing Ukraine was the goal from early on.”

    I agree that Vox is mindreading. No one outside of Russia has seen the actual war plan as prepared by Russia’s general staff. Certainly, no one inside of Russia has admitted that regime change in Kiev or annexing the Donbas were primary Russian objectives. Consequently, Vox is just guessing.

    I am, too. Russia might have hoped Ukraine’s government would flee the country in the face of a military advance on Kiev. That would have been convenient in light of Russia’s stated objectives to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine. But the government didn’t flee. So what?

    That just meant Russia would have to fight the Ukrainian forces in the Donbas, anyway, because that’s where the bulk of them were (and are) located.

    To this day, Russia’s ultimate intentions in Ukraine are a mystery, other than its stated goals. Vox has no special insight.

    Vox also shouldn’t be trusted to get its facts right. In the article, for example, it suggests the value of the ruble has collapsed. The opposite is actually true.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Mindreading?

      That is always your response when you do not like what the words mean. In this case, you deny that Russia’s Plan A was to replace the government in Kyiv. But you also acknowledge that “Russia’s stated objectives to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine.” Since Putin has stated on many occasions that Zelensky heads a neo-Nazi regime, it does not take mindreading to know that regime change was the goal of that failed blitzkrieg.

      The value of the ruble HAS collapsed. That is why it is being propped up with artificial measures which prevent it from reaching its fair market value. Among those artificial measures are the 20% interest rate set by the central bank (compared to 2% on U.S. Bonds), requirement that Russian companies immediately purchase rubles with any hard currency they earn, blocking the sale of Russian securities held by foreigners, and limiting the sale of rubles by Russian citizens.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. RE: “In this case, you deny that Russia’s Plan A was to replace the government in Kyiv.”

        Don’t be ridiculous. I wrote: “Russia might have hoped Ukraine’s government would flee the country in the face of a military advance on Kiev.”

        RE: “The value of the ruble HAS collapsed.”

        Prove it. Show us the exchange rate.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “Russia might have hoped Ukraine’s. . .”

          You are beyond ridiculous.

          They “might have hoped?” So, why have a military advance on Kyiv? What possible purpose but to seize control? You know – regime change? That was very clearly Plan A and it failed. But Trump/Putin lover that you are, you are incapable of admitting the obvious truth.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. RE: “So, why have a military advance on Kyiv?”

            Because, as stated, it might have worked to scare Zelinsky and company into fleeing the country. Or, the the maneuver feint that Vox incompetently dismisses might have been the reason.

            Like

          2. Still ridiculous.

            You do not chew up the bulk of the military assigned to a mission with a “feint.” Besides, as Putin made clear – as quoted by you – the goal was to remove Nazis and he described the Zelensky government as just that.

            I understand you love fascist dictators and want this one to be successful but that is no justification for the pig-headed inability to admit obvious facts. Those facts are (1) Russia invaded on many fronts and against Kyiv in order to rapidly win a short decisive war and immediately replace the Zelensky government with a puppet, and (2) Russia failed to achieve those goals and it failed disastrously.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “You do not chew up the bulk of the military assigned to a mission with a ‘feint.'”

            Actually such feints are a classic tactic of maneuver warfare. You can find examples as far back as ancient Greece and Rome. Besides, the bulk of Russia’s invasion force was never concentrated around Kiev.

            Like

        2. The ruble exchange rate does not reflect its value for the reasons stated. It is being desperately propped up by extraordinary measures. Those measures are a sign of weakness, not of strength.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. RE: “The ruble exchange rate does not reflect its value for the reasons stated.”

            Bullshit. You just don’t want to admit that the market value of the ruble is higher today that it was at the start of the war.

            Like

          2. “Bullshit. You just don’t want to admit that the market value of the ruble is higher today that it was at the start of the war.”

            There is no need for me to “admit” what the official rate of exchange is, it is a matter of record. It is now higher than it was before the war.

            But you just do not want to admit that the rate of exchange is not based on market value. The government of Russia is messing with the markets to prevent a ruble collapse. Potential sellers of rubles are prohibited from doing so. And businesses with hard currency are being forced to buy. Further, with drastic reductions of imports due to sanctions, there are far fewer people needing to acquire dollars or Euros yo buy for the goods, parts and services they used to enjoy.

            But, if you are convinced that the ruble is sound, sell your dollar investments and buy Russian bonds. The interest on them is about 10x the rate on U.S. Bonds.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “Potential sellers of rubles are prohibited from doing so.”

            You literally don’t know what you are talking about.

            Like

          4. “Potential sellers of rubles are prohibited from doing so.”

            Actually, I do. Russian citizens can no longer freely buy foreign currency. They recently relaxed the rules so that now they can buy up to but no more than about $10,000. So, if you have the equivalent of $100K in rubles you are stuck not being able to sell $90K.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. RE: “Russian citizens can no longer freely buy foreign currency.”

            So what? That only means that Russian citizens are incentivized to invest in their own country. That should strengthen the Russian economy. Internationally, holders of any currency can easily do business with Russia.

            You may think that the collapse of dollar hegemony in the global economy will be harmful to Russia, but there is no good reason to believe such a thing, since Russia is self-sufficient with respect to food, energy and raw materials to support manufacturing.

            Like

  4. So the left engages in reading crystal balls too? No wonder the madam down the road is always wrong, I want my money back. Vox has no more idea of Russian military plans and objectives than my dog and she’s pretty smart. To quote Mr Robert’s, to make that claim is piffle..

    Like

    Reply

      1. Putin’s plans don’t have to be genius, because the U.S./Nato response has been unutterably stupid.

        Like

        Reply

          1. Something like that. But also, the U.S./Nato countries should not have imposed economic sanctions on Russia. They aren’t working, and will harm the sanctioners more than Russia.

            Like

          2. “Something like that. ”

            Well, I will give you credit to owning up to your desire for appeasement of the fascist dictator. Good for you.

            As for the sanctions you are welcome to the opinion that they are not working. I say that they are. I can defend my opinion with relevant facts. You cannot defend yours. In the past you have cited the effects of the sanctions as if they were signs of strength. For example, Russia’s imports are severely restricted, the effect of that is that their balance of payments is in, not out. Not a good thing when you cannot buy the goods you want or the manufacturing inputs that you need.

            As for the harm they are doing us, I suppose you are talking about fuel prices? What you think is harmful, I think is beneficial. It is focusing the attention on renewable energy where it needs to be and it is forcing European countries to rethink their past policy of depending on an unstable and unreliable fascist regime for energy.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “I can defend my opinion with relevant facts.”

            Then please do so. So far you have made assertions, but not substantiated any of them.

            RE: “Not a good thing when you cannot buy the goods you want or the manufacturing inputs that you need.”

            Russia doesn’t need to buy manufacturing inputs from the international market. It is a net exporter of such things; oil, natural gas, potash, for example.

            Like

      2. My take is I have no dog in this fight and don’t have a stake in the outcome either way except for massive inflation and high gas prices caused by knee jerk reactions to what should have been a simple land transfer requested by indigenous Russians living in the Donbas region. Ukraine is only a non-NATO political pawn.

        Like

        Reply

          1. Ask a stupid question and I can only provide a reasonable sane answer. Dont like me not playing your ignorant games? Tough…

            Like

        2. RE: “My take is I have no dog in this fight…”

          Well put. Mr. Murphy is on a Don Quixote quest again

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment