How does the Russo-Ukrainian War End?

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Of course, no one has a crystal ball. No one knows for sure how the war will end, but Timothy Snyder has some interesting ideas. The article is a bit long, but worth a read.

https://snyder.substack.com/p/how-does-the-russo-ukrainian-war?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=auto_share

Published by loisradford

Published

82 thoughts on “How does the Russo-Ukrainian War End?”

    1. Your calling this objective analysis “cheerleading” tells us more about you than it does about anything else. It shows the sort of intellect that still cannot give up the Big Lie. The truth and evidence does not fit what you really want to believe so you try to wish it away or minimize its relevance.

      By every standard of decency there are “better guys” in this conflict – the Ukraine. They have been the victims of Russian aggression for about a decade and that is after they gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for solemn legal promises that Russia would NEVER use or threaten military force against them.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Intentionally murdering non-combatants is an act of terrorism and is a line, once crossed, that defines the regime.

        The murder of the Romanoff children forever made the Soviets the Evil Empire. It could never be redeemed, and this is the same thing.

        There are no good guys there.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “Intentionally murdering non-combatants is an act of terrorism and is a line, once crossed, that defines the regime.”

          Laughable. The regime you support in this war crossed that line decades ago. And has murdered Ukrainian non-combatants in the thousands as part of its failed terror campaign. As I indicated, if there are no “good guys,” there very definitely are “better guys.”

          You do not know enough about this car bomb to “define” the regime. What provoked it? Who was the target? If it was Ukraine, targetting the Russian leadership in this way would be a legitimate response to Russia sending assassination teams to murder Ukrainian leaders. Sends a message to the “deciders” to have a re-think on that policy.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Didn’t read the link again, I see. Didn’t read my post before replying either. I don’t support either side, and repeatedly said there was no good guy in this, and we should not involve ourselves. There is no national interest affected by the outcome.

            As the WSJ article tells us the CIA knows EXACTLY who set the bomb, and that the daughter was the target. That’s how terrorism works, If you kill the decision maker, you can’t influence him, so you target his family.

            I disagree that there is a better guy here. Both sides are monsters

            Like

          2. “I don’t support either side”

            That is obviously false. You fool nobody with that claim.

            You have constantly opined that the war is Ukraine’s fault for not giving in to Putin’s demands and agression. You call reports of Ukraine success “cheerleading.” You accept as gospel any and all Russian propaganda and reject any sort of contrary views or facts arising from the work of Western governments and journalists.

            Liked by 2 people

        2. Don, the entire Russian invasion has been an massive act of terrorism.

          They have slaughtered thousands of non-combatants and tortured or stole from the survivors. Just like Syria, Chechnya and other recalcitrant states, killing civilians by the hundreds or thousands is a weapon of war that the Russians have used before and continue to use today.

          So Ukraine goes after the Putin advisor who is fueling the conflict. Perhaps the trade of 1000 women and children killed by the Russians for the daughter of a war monger is eminently lopsided, but certainly not unexpected. Leaders declare war, but rarely suffer bloodshed. By bringing the war to Moscow’s leadership is a reality check. Just like going after Zelensky in the first month.

          Going after collaborators is pure self-defense. These folks chose to help slaughter Ukrainian soldiers and certainly a fair number of civilians by advising Russians where to bomb or shell. We have little room to talk. Look what we did to Japanese-American citizens because they MIGHT be a threat based on ethnicity. Many died in those camps.

          We have rules for war. In many ways that is the ultimate in optimism. The only ones who get charged are the losers. There has been an armed conflict ever that didn’t have atrocities by both sides, particularly in wars of assimilation and occupation.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. As I wrote, no good guys.

            Zelensky is no better than Putin. Maybe worse. We know Putin has nukes and hasn’t used them, We don’t know what Zelensky would do if he had them.

            But he sure is trying to frag us into his war.

            Like

          2. “Zelensky is no better than Putin. Maybe worse.”

            Really. Do you have solid evidence or just parroting Putin’s propaganda?

            If we were invaded can we expect you to hold that the invader is terrible, but we are worse?

            (We might see if the nutjobs in the right wing gangs do well in the civil war they are clamoring for for years. I am thinking that if some gang member shoots me or members of my family, I would encourage destroying him and his family without a bit of regret. You? Bloodying the nose of bullies is a great tactic.)

            Putin won’t use nukes. They are useless in a war except as extortion. As Lois’ link writes, the risk is great that nukes would backfire and render areas unlivable for a long time. Plus Ukraine troops are not massed, but rather scattered in small units.

            What is interesting is that nukes would be a deterrent against invasion, not a threat in case an invasion turns sour.

            Liked by 3 people

          3. “But he sure is trying to frag us into his war.”

            It is not HIS war. He did not start it, he did not provoke it. All he is doing is leading his country, as a TRULY democratically elected leader from the aggression of his belligerent neighbor.

            The unprovoked invader is MUCH worse than the invaded defending itself.

            It is apparent you believe in liberty for me, but not for thee.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. First, it is not our business to intervene on either side,

            Perhaps Zelensky did not technically start the war, but he sure gave the people in the Donbas the desire to be part of Russia. Why do you think that is?

            As far as Liberty for me but not thee, why are you so determined that the will of the people there be ignored? Crimea and the Donbas definitely want to be either independent or part of Russia, and were fighting to get out from under the Ukrainian thumb long before Russia invaded on their behalf.

            So, why the determination to make them accept Ukrainian rule?

            Like

          5. …” the will of the people there be ignored? ”

            You sure do claim to know a lot about people in those regions. They were invaded by Russian backed separatists and those who wanted to remain part of Ukraine were not given the opportunity. Invasion changes a LOT of thoughts. Like, “I can vote to be part of Russia or I can die or be “disappeared into a reeducation camp across the border.” What choice would YOU make.

            Your facts are murky, at best. Yet you continue to proclaim them as gospel.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “Who may, or may not, exist.”

            A truly ugly and ignorant piece of nonsense. That huge numbers of refugees have fled the Russian aggression and separatist violence in Donbas to other parts of Ukraine and beyond is beyond any doubt.

            From the U.S.I.P.

            “In a nation of 44 million people, about 2.6 million Ukrainians have fled the war in the east initiated by Russian-backed separatists, and more than 1.4 million of them are still in the country.”

            And that was in 2015.

            https://www.usip.org/publications/2015/11/ukraines-invisible-crisis-15-million-who-fled-war-russia

            I challenge you to find how many people actually voted in these sham referendums. It appears to be a state secret with only percentages being made public. The reason is obvious. Only a very small percent of the original population took part in the sham.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “And many ethnic Russians fled the Donbas to Russia to escape oppression by the Azov Brigade, so?”

            Yes, civil war is dangerous for everyone. But the number fleeing the Russia-incited civil war to Russia is far smaller than the millions seeking safety to the West. And the fact that there were refugees fleeing the other way does not justify your ugly stupidity that I responded to.

            Of course, the point which you are unwilling to deal with is that the illegal referendum is meaningless with so many of the actual inhabitants of the area driven from their homes. And, it is worth noting here that the displaced persons in Russia were able to cast ballots. Those in Ukraine were not.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. “The margins were so overwhelming that those things don’t matter. You’re just an election denier when they don’t go your way.”

            I consider your accusation insulting and uncivil. Maybe you think you are being funny or applying some sort of jujitsu but you are not. You are just making a Putinesque fool of yourself.

            The referendum was ILLEGAL under international law and a complete fraud. And anyone with any understanding or ANY critical thinking ability does not need to be told that. For example, the margins were ABSURDLY overwhelming. You would have to be a fool to not understand what a red flag such reported results are. The fact that the actual level of participation is apparently a secret is another red flag. When has there ever been a legitimate vote where the final tallies were hidden?

            Like

          15. “As I said, you don’t like the outcome.
            You sound a lot like Trump.”

            There is no “outcome.” It is a total fraud from beginning to end.

            It seems that you and another frequent “conservative” poster are in some sort of competition to see who is most loyal to Putin. You have both lost all reason. If you ever had any.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. And there is no technicality involved in this war. Russia invaded Ukraine. Period. Zelensky did not invite the invasion, except to stand up for his country to remain independent form the Russian despot.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. The Ukrainians were attempting to oust the outside invaders who took over the region.

            You see things very differently than I. I see a sovereign nation invaded by Kremlin-backed and supported troops working to oust the invaders. You see the invaders as some sort of “liberating force”.

            Liked by 1 person

          21. We are going to need Russia as an ally when the inevitable clash with Islamofascism comes to a head.

            What, other than your feeling of moral superiority, is the US national interest in this war?

            Like

          22. “What, other than your feeling of moral superiority, is the US national interest in this war?”

            Have you stopped beating your wife?

            The international rule of law is in our interest. We created it following WW2 and defending it is in our interest. Russia is out to tear it down.

            Defending democracy and defeating fascism is in our interest and that is true even when there are people in our country who think fascism is just dandy.

            Punishing fascist aggression is in our interest. We learned that in 1938 when we failed to act.

            We are NOT in an existential struggle with Islam. Not even close. That is some Christo-fascist racist bullshit you are spreading. The recent uprisings in Iran demonstrate how much we share in values with the ordinary people trapped in such countries.

            Liked by 1 person

          26. “Defending democracy and defeating fascism is in our interest ” pretty much the same thing Putin said before the advance into the Donbas.

            And you believe him when he claims he is defending democracy and opposing fascism!? I doubt it. Now you are just trolling. You cannot be that gullible and that unpatriotic. Can you?

            Like

          27. No, I didn’t believe Putin then, or now.

            But I also don’t believe Zelensky, Biden, the CIA or the MSM.

            This is 100% wag-the-dog both ways.

            And none of our business.

            Like

          30. “It means the narrative and PR drives the events instead of following them.”

            So, Ukraine’s PR says they are doing great on the battlefield so that is driving them to do great on the battlefield? Makes no sense of any kind.

            Liked by 1 person

          31. No, Ukraine’s PR portrays them as brave freedom fighters overcoming a modern army with sticks and rocks and only needing a few weapons to vanquish the foe.

            Ukraine is a thoroughly corrupt, totalitarian country that has banned opposing political parties and shelled civilians for a decade.

            There are no good guys and no US national interests. What is at stake is which despot rules the Donbas, so at least let it be the despot they choose.

            Like

          32. “No, Ukraine’s PR portrays them as brave freedom fighters blah, blah, blah . . .”

            Increasingly obvious that your accusations of “wag the dog” are based on you being tickled by that expression without any understanding of what it means.

            Liked by 1 person

          35. “Biden clearly needs this war to distract from his incompetence, and the media happily tunes the narrative to keep it going.”

            Finally, you have Googled what “Wag the Dog” means. So, you are getting closer. However, the true meaning applies to those who START “splendid little wars” to enhance their failing regime. In other words, it applies to Putin and not to Biden and not to Zelensky. You are welcome.

            Your “incompetence” gaslighting only works on the eager to be fooled. Their is nothing going on remotely close to the massive incompetence and corruption of the previous administration. And the media has zero power to keep this war going.

            I always wonder if you are stupid enough to believe the bullshit you spread or just don’t care about intellectual honesty. I used to think the later, but your recent suggestions about Putin, Biden and Zelensky – such as that Zelensky has dirt on Biden being the only rational explanation for our aid to them – makes me start to lean toward the former. FWIIW.

            Like

          36. “Ukraine is a thoroughly corrupt, totalitarian country that has banned opposing political parties “…

            That may have been true in the past, but the current government was going a long way to fix that issue. Then their neighbor decided that the corruption, which was beneficial to Russia, needed to continue and the current leadership needed to be tossed out the window.

            But as I have noted in the past, you ten to live in the past. Get caught up and be the defender of liberty for ALL that you claim to be.

            And a peaceful Europe, free of illegal and immoral invasions are in our national interest. Isolationism is not a good foreign policy in the current environment.

            Liked by 1 person

          38. “Zelensky banned 10 opposition parties this year, not in the distant past.”

            Ukraine has been invaded by Russia. The parties banned – by a decision of the legislature – are pro-Russian political parties that engage in anti-Ukrainian activities – organized traitors. The leader of the largest party banned, Viktor Medvedchuk, has Vladimir Putin as the godfather of his daughter. The leader of another of the parties, Yevhen Murayev, has been identified by UK security services as Putin’s chosen puppet when regime change occurs. In Russia these leaders would be dead, not just banned.

            In short, Ukraine’s actions against such parties are entirely legitimate in the face of the Russian invasion. If you had half a brain you would know that.

            Like

          40. “So, it’s OK with you to ban parties that oppose a war they disagree with?”

            When the enemy is on your soil, bombing your cities, killing your people, raping your women, and trying to steal your birthright AND the parties in question are known enemy sympathizers and agents then – Yes! Obviously and emphatically. Yes.

            Like

          43. “We are going to need Russia as an ally when the inevitable clash with Islamofascism comes to a head.”

            Too late for that. The Islomofacists have thrown in with Putin already.

            Like

          46. Russian backed separatists and the Russian military were also killing people for years. Including shooting down a KLM plane.

            But that doesn’t mean the oblasts were not Ukrainian land.

            Liked by 2 people

          47. “Zelensky is no better than Putin.”

            And what besides rallying his country to resist fascist aggression are you basing that on? Thrown hundreds in the Gulag? Destroyed cities? Murdered opponents and critics? Launched illegal wars? What?

            Wait! Wait! I know. He is working for Hunter Biden!

            Liked by 2 people

          48. “Perhaps Zelensky did not technically start the war, but he sure gave the people in the Donbas the desire to be part of Russia.”

            Laughable!
            Russia invaded Donbas to incite and support a rabid minority of violent separatists in 2014. Zelensky became President in 2019. DUH!

            Again and again you fail to deal with the historical fact – these four annexed provinces have NEVER had ethnic Russian majorities. And that was after decades of the USSR trying to Russify them. And yet there you are with your face hanging out claiming that these provinces want to join Russia. A parrot could not do a better job of repeating Putin propaganda.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “More cheerleading for the Ukrainian regime that sends assassins to murder the non-combatant family members of their opponents.”

      Ukrainian war crimes and atrocities don’t get the attention they deserve in Western media. A recent Daily Mail article appeared to celebrate the wanton killing of civilians accused of collaborating with Russian forces. The title tells the story:

      “‘We’re hunting them down and shooting them like pigs’: How the Ukrainians are taking brutal revenge on the collaborators who’ve betrayed their neighbours – and country – to the Russians”

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11284819/How-Ukrainian-intelligence-chiefs-tracking-collaborators-worked-Russians.html

      Bad things happen in war, but we should understand that Ukraine is not the paragon of Western values that we imagine it to be.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Civil wars get nasty. No doubt. Russia provoked a civil war in Donbas starting in 2014 in order to seize parts of Ukraine. ALL the blood is on their hands.

        As for Western values, I think treasonous collaborators who assisted a foreign invader kill families and neighbors in our country would not be headed for Club Fed. Our Constitution identifies one crime – treason – for which the criminal can “suffer death.”

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

      2. “…Ukraine is not the paragon of Western values…”

        Who is? Not us in all the wars we have fought. We try to prevent or punish atrocities perhaps, but the examples are many and not all have been publicized I am sure.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  3. Seriously, Don, you have got to stop watching so much Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingram. Take a break. Chill. Watch a little RT. They have less propaganda than FOX.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  4. I am always glad to see works of scholarship represented in the postings here, because scholars at least have the habit of making their assumptions explicit. This habit is a double-edged sword which in this case cuts against the substance of the essay.

    The writer’s two big assumptions are (a) Ukraine is winning the war on the battlefield, and (b) anti-war sentiment within Russia is gaining momentum such that regime change and geopolitical defeat are probable. Neither assumption is valid in my view.

    It is true that Ukraine has retaken a lot of territory in recent weeks, but the advance stopped abruptly and there are reasons to think some or all of the gains will be reversed. It is also true that anti-war, anti-Putin sentiments exist within Russia, but there are reasons to think they are marginal. Scott Ritter covers some of the reasoning in this video:

    Like

    Reply

  5. “Ukraine is winning the war on the battlefield” is not an assumption. The speculation that Russia might change that does not negate what is happening.

    As for sentiment in Russia, more than 1/2 million young people fleeing the country is not insignificant. By contrast, we had about 125,000 men leave for Canada over a period of years – not weeks – during the Vietnam War.

    Early on I predicted that Putin would be lucky to survive this heinous decision to wage war. We are getting to the point where he will need all the luck he can muster. Those that live by the sword, die by the sword.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. RE: “Those that live by the sword, die by the sword.”

      Those that live in delusion, die in delusion. The video addresses the points you make. Why not take the trouble to show where Ritter is wrong?

      Like

      Reply

  6. John, you have been saying the Russians aren’t losing the war ever since they got kicked out of Khiv and lost their flagship, Moskova. In the real world, that is not what winning looks like. The advance has not stopped and there is no reason to believe it will. The Ukrainians have now taken Lyman (https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-moscow-91c46d82268b3d5210b811ba67d66d33) cutting off the Russians from their supply lines. The Ukrainians have set up a hot line for Russian soldiers to surrender and it’s being swamped with calls. (https://www.newsweek.com/thousands-russian-soldiers-calling-i-want-live-hotline-surrender-1748939) The Russian soldiers are surrendering because they know the Ukrainians will feed them and give them shelter and not torture them like some of the Russians have done to captured soldiers and civilians. So no, Don, both sides are absolutely not the same. Even the Russians know it.

    And as for the “assumption” about the anti-war sentiment in Russia, two Russians just sailed to Alaska, seeking asylum. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63160469) In all their days of fighting in Afghanistan, I don’t recall any Russians ever seeking asylum in the US. This war feels very different. This war is not playing well at home.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. RE: “John, you have been saying the Russians aren’t losing the war ever since they got kicked out of Khiv and lost their flagship, Moskova.”

      Yes, I have, and I will continue to say it for as long as credible military analysts persist in supporting that view. Here, for example, is an analyst I respect because he documents his sources in the show notes:

      RE: “This war feels very different. This war is not playing well at home.”

      Scott Ritter discusses this point in the previous video I posted, and in this (longer) one he argues that Russia is not just mobilizing its military, the nation is mobilizing (psychologically) to win the war:

      Too many of us in the West believe our own propaganda.

      Like

      Reply

      1. …” as long as credible military analysts persist in supporting that view. ”

        If you actually used CREDIBLE analysts, you might be on to something. However, you ONLY use the analysts that support your view and poo-poo any one else, including Gen. Mark Hertling, who disagrees with you.

        If you opened your mind instead of living in your silo, maybe you could claim some sort of superiority. But your silo is what it is and you love it for it.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. RE: “I have no interest in anything he has to say.”

      I feel the same way about Joe Biden because of his sex abuse of his own daughter. But should Biden speak as a politician, I wouldn’t dismiss his statements because he is obviously a pervert; I would address them as political statements.

      Like

      Reply

  9. Traditionally, shot messengers come from an enemy bearing bad news. However, a messenger from an enemy bearing propaganda he personally created for profit because he can’t get an honest job is even more worthy of being shot. IMHO, of course.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Well, then reload, because Putin has recruited a boatload of “credible military analysts” tossing out YouTube observations for quite some time.

      The technique varies slightly, but the premise is simple. “Here is what is really happening, now prove me wrong”.

      Over and over.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

Leave a reply to loisradford Cancel reply