December 18, 2022

"[Putin] spiraled into self-aggrandizement and anti-Western zeal, leading him to make the fateful decision to invade Ukraine in near total isolation..."

"... without consulting experts who saw the war as pure folly. Aides and hangers-on fueled his many grudges and suspicions, a feedback loop that one former confidant likened to the radicalizing effect of a social-media algorithm.... The Russian military, despite Western assumptions about its prowess, was severely compromised, gutted by years of theft.... Once the invasion began, Russia squandered its dominance over Ukraine.... It relied on old maps and bad intelligence to fire its missiles, leaving Ukrainian air defenses surprisingly intact.... Russian soldiers, many shocked they were going to war, used their cellphones to call home, allowing the Ukrainians to track them and pick them off in large numbers."

From an excellent NYT article, "Putin's War: The Inside Story of a Catastrophe."

"And Russia’s armed forces were so stodgy and sclerotic that they did not adapt, even after enduring huge losses on the battlefield.... [It] seized more territory than it could defend, leaving thousands of square miles in the hands of skeleton crews of underfed, undertrained and poorly equipped fighters. Many were conscripts or ragtag separatists from Ukraine’s divided east, with gear from the 1940s or little more than printouts from the internet describing how to use a sniper rifle, suggesting soldiers learned how to fight on the fly.... Now, Mr. Putin’s fractured armies often function like rivals, competing for weapons and, at times, viciously turning on one another. One soldier recounted how the clashes became violent, with a Russian tank commander deliberately charging at his supposed allies and blowing up their checkpoint."

127 comments:

Howard said...

Another Stable Genius

Michael said...

.
I'm having a tough time believing any reporting coming from this war. It's all spin and propaganda. I've come to consider the NYT and other corporate media as scribes for the US global empire. When is the last time you read a piece critical of our hegemony?

Enigma said...

NYT December 2022 = Task and Purpose 9 months ago.

https://www.youtube.com/@Taskandpurpose/videos

Dave Begley said...

Groupthink.

Jaq said...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-tells-vladimir-putin-where-to-shove-his-red-lines

Don't worry, you can believe everything you read in the NYT, especially about Russia! Putin is paranoid! Keep sending the billions! Keep arming the nazis! Whatever you do, don't lose faith that our path is correct! Remember when Joe Biden said that the only way this war could end is with Putin gone, one way or another, just like he said about that pipeline?

Russia can't possibly view NATO as a threat except through paranoia. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan were all just unfortunate aberrations from NATO's defensive mission! Why would Russia worry that Europe's second largest army, right on its border, went from non-aligned, to pro-US in a coup that we recognized the coup leaders instantly, in 2014. The recognition of that government in Kiev kicked off an eight year civil war, and led directly to this intervention.

Stephan Banderas contribution to the Ukraine, which made him a national hero to this day there, was the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Poles, why should Russia worry that a huge offensive planned and beginning in Feb, against the ethnic Russians in Donbas, would lead to more ethnic cleansing? Wasn't NATO's justification for overthrowing Khaddafy based on, what turned out to be unfounded in later investigations, fears of genocide?

Putin is obs paranoid. Why would he worry that Europe's 2nd largest army, armed with NATO weapons, in position for a decapitation strike on Moscow should set up camp a couple hundred miles from Moscow? I smell a Pulitzer Prize in the offing for this first rate piece of propaganda puffery for Biden's foreign policy.

It's nice to see Althouse lined up behind these provocations towards WW3. It'll be fun! I am sure that the article is grammatically correct and stylistically flawless, and that's all that really matters, isn't it?

Russian soldiers, many shocked they were going to war, used their cellphones to call home, allowing the Ukrainians to track them and pick them off in large numbers."

LOL, this is pure projection. There were many stories early in the war of Ukrainian barracks being identified via cell phone traffic, and reddit posts, and hundreds of causualties resulting. Oh yeah, and "intercepted phone conversations" provided by Kiev, of course, when almost every Ukrainian also speaks Russian. I am sure that we can trust Kiev that they would not lie.

I am assuming that the rest of it is the same level of Ukrainian propaganda. Basically anything coming out of a war zone by either side can be presumed to be a lie, but here is a video of a Ukrainian barracks being hit by missiles from NBC News. There were other videos of American volunteers there who claimed that they had lost hundreds of comrades in a single strike, but the numbers were never officially released. Confession by projection.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/u76shj/russian_missiles_strike_lviv_as_nbc_news_ali/

BUMBLE BEE said...

NYT's inside stories are very popular. They get Pulitzers for them.

Critter said...

Who is the author of this article and what is his position in the CIA?

I guess the war mongers in Washington needed more fodder for the next escalation of the war in Ukraine. Look! Putin is really weak. We can neat him. All we need is a little more $billions and our best weapons.

Does anyone in the uniparty care about the people who dying every day? Are there no leaders who would negotiate a peace deal? Outrage over Elon Musk mocking pronoun fascism but not about killing innocent people and forcing people to fight to the death in a human cock fight.

Achilles said...

The fast part will come for Putin soon.

I wonder who is going to get to all those nuclear weapons first.

I hope it isn't the Chechnyans. They seem like the most organized and effective military in Russia.

West TX Intermediate Crude said...

I don't have access to the article, so I can't judge if it was truly excellent.
Excellent as in interesting, well-reasoned, well-sourced, or excellent as in "it supports my preferences and desires?"
The Times is so far in the tank for Biden that I believe nothing they write about the Ukraine situation. I'm not all in with VT Tim, but I do believe that Zelensky has Biden by the short hairs due to his and Hunter's corrupt pre-war dealings, and any anti-Ukraine thoughts are wrongthink and are viciously suppressed in the minds of Times people.
At this point almost a year into the war, Russia still has occupied a good chunk of what Ukraine considers its territory, and a lot of Ukrainian stuff has been destroyed and a lot of Ukrainian people have been killed, injured, or made refugees. I'm totally against all of this, and Russia has paid a huge price for its accomplishments, but not like the Ukrainians have pulled off a David v. Goliath maneuver. I hope they can, but won't believe it if it's in the Times.

Temujin said...

I will add in that once Joe Biden became President and he named his Cabinet, Putin looked at it and said to himself, "If not now...when?"

n.n said...

From the Biden/Maidan/Slavic Spring, sustained disenfranchisement of Ukrainians, assault on Crimea, eight years later Zelensky's war, fueled by Western arms running to celebrate opening mass abortion fields in Ukraine. That said, Russia was already legally present in Ukraine in force in Crimea, which mitigated the early progress of destruction, viability, and collateral damage. For better or worse, they waited eight years to answer the calls for humanitarian aid in Donbas etc. as Kiev waged a war on Ukrainians who would not take a knee, beg, after the 2014 coup and paramilitary assaults.

Sean said...

Why do we continue to analyze the behavior of the Russians through a western lens? Putin is acting like Russian strong men have always acted going back 100's of years. His gambit may be doomed to fail from a military perspective but internal political results matter as well.

Big Mike said...

From an excellent NYT article, "Putin's War: The Inside Story of a Catastrophe."

And how do you know it’s an “excellent” article? For all you know it could be entirely made up with only a small handful of touchpoints with reality.

Sebastian said...

"many shocked they were going to war, used their cellphones to call home"

If true, it shows, even by Russian standards, an amazing lack of discipline.

Leland said...

Amazing how much inside intelligence the NYT has on the inner workings of the Russian government. They even know Putin's grudges and suspicions. Isn't this the same paper that for 3 years told us the Russian Dossier was legitimate and also told us that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian propaganda?

typingtalker said...

Yet the war goes on ...

Jaq said...

Remember when the New York Times 'won' a Pulitzer Prize for acting as a stenographer for liars in the CIA and FBI, and despite two years of a Special Counsel, and investigations by Congress, none of it could be substantiated? That's why I used the word "liars."

Imagine today's American 'left' in 1967: "Hey! Hey! LBJ! Round up more kids to kill today!"

rhhardin said...

Spiral comes from death spiral, which is misunderstanding a problem in such a way that every correction makes it worse. Not quite Putin's problem.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Who was it who said Ukraine only has to hold out for 10 days and the war will be over?

Michael K said...

What would we do without "experts?" The Biden regime is full of "experts" like Pete Buttplug who negotiated the railroad deal from Portugal.

Jaq said...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-push-for-peace/

How generous of Henry Kissinger to allow that it is probably not a good idea to push for the dissolution of the Russian Federation. Is there anything in what Kissinger says here that Democrats today would disagree with? Maybe only this cautionary note:

The nations of Europe, insufficiently familiar with how technology had enhanced their respective military forces, proceeded to inflict unprecedented devastation on one another. In August 1916, after two years of war and millions in casualties, the principal combatants in the West (Britain, France and Germany) began to explore prospects for ending the carnage. In the East, rivals Austria and Russia had extended comparable feelers. Because no conceivable compromise could justify the sacrifices already incurred and because no one wanted to convey an impression of weakness, the various leaders hesitated to initiate a formal peace process. - Henry Kissinger

Still his "peace plan" is almost total capitulation by Russia. It's not gonna happen. Russia sees this as an existential war, and the US sees this as a war to eliminated Russia as any kind of global power. It's certainly true that Russia did not expect NATO to go balls to the wall for the nazis in Ukraine, but it's not true that even had they known the costs of this war up front, they would not have fought it, most likely, had Putin allowed NATO to just slide into the Ukraine, Putin would have been deposed.

Here is a thread of points from John Mearsheimer which disagrees with Kissinger's view that this war is good for the US

he John Mearsheimer paradox.

1) He believes the US caused the Ukraine war, that it was a huge mistake that can escalate to nuclear war
2) He believes the US is trying to do the same thing wrt China and Taiwan
3) Yet he supports the latter while strongly condemning the former

His explanation: "China is a peer competitor for the US" so it needs not only be contained but be "rolled back".

Whilst Russia is not powerful enough to threaten the US so it makes no sense to get into a proxy war against it. In fact, the US should ally with Russia against China


https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1599446922661490688

In other words, even given the aims of the neocons, this war was a blunder by the US.

But you guys should definitely restrict your reading on the subject to the censored US press and MIC mouthpieces like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

rehajm said...

The Statue of Liberty is kaput!

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Good thing our corrupt and useless FBI-CIA(D)are spending their time acting like mini-Putins on behalf of their corrupt king-pin Biden, here at home in the US. FBI-CIA(D) - too inept and useless to do anything about Putin.

Jimmy said...

nice to see the NYT is only 7-8 months late on their 'breaking' news.

Mike Sylwester said...

It has happened countless times in history that countries have been compelled to surrender and that their borders have been reduced or even eliminated.

Alas, Ukraine will be compelled to surrender, and its borders will be reduced.

Russia is destroying Ukraine's electrical systems and other infrastructure. Russia is decimating a generation of young Ukrainian men.

Therefore, Ukraine will be compelled to surrender, and Russia will take over Ukraine's eastern regions that are populated mostly by Russians.

=======

This is a situation where the United Nations -- not NATO -- should play the leading role for the international community.

Instead of trying to prevent any borders from being changed, the UN should try to resolve border disputes fairly -- which means that the UN should guide and bless some border changes.

=======

Ukraine has been treated very unfairly by Russia, but to some extent Ukrainians brought this disaster onto themselves.

Viktor Yanukovych won Ukraine's 2010 election fairly, according to the European Union's official observers. He won because Ukraine's Russians voted overwhelmingly for him.

However, Ukrainian zealots in Kiev did not allow him to govern normally. They eventually compelled him to quit his elected position and to flee from Ukraine.

Those Ukrainian zealots were encouraged -- and were supported secretly -- by the Obama Administration. The "point man" for our policy about Ukraine was Vice President Joe Biden.

The Obama Administration should have advised Ukrainians to allow elected President Yanukovych to govern normally and to try to vote him out of office in the next election.

=======

The Russians in Ukraine who had voted for Yanukovych did not have to put up with this Ukrainian "democracy". They could try to change the borders so that their homes would be in Russia. And that is what is happening.

Jaq said...

Reddit getting soldiers killed

Rusty said...

Let's be fair here. Russia hasn't fought a real war since WW2. The tactics of father Stalin was to simply throw untrained men at the Germans until the Germans ran out of bullets. Hitler was piker when it came to murdering people. "Stalin won the war!" Bullshit. Shitty German logistics won the war for Stalin. Putin and his friends are using the same tactics but without the manufacturing or a strong ally to provide the war material. When enough Russian families bury enough Russian sons somebody will remove Putin and stop this nonsense.

Heartless Aztec said...

The only thing missing are NKVD officers patrolling behind the lines with pistols.

Heartless Aztec said...

And "mine dogs". Gotta have mine dogs.

Zavier Onasses said...

Putin's War may or may not be a Catastrophe. If it is such, doubtless in large part because of weapons and cash from the USA. I still question why we are involved there at all. Strongly suspect this is more for the benefit of Biden Joint Ventures LLC than for the common good of the United States.

rcocean said...

Oh, did Putin and his Generals talk to the NYT's? I don't think so. Is this the real inside story, or a fantasy? I'll take door number 2, Monty.

I'm assuming this is the typical NYT's nonsense filled with anonymous sources and biased wording. Putin definitly underestimated the fighting spirit of the UFA, and the willingness of the USA to spend a $100 billion (and counting) to keep a no-win war going. Not to mention Zelensky's refusal to negotiate and his cold-blooded desire to destroy Ukraine rather than make peace. Oh, and the willingess of the EU leaders to let their citizens freeze in the winter to "hurt Russia".

The Donbas is now part of Russia. Offically. Its never going back, unless Russia is defeated and the UFA can't do that. Is NATO going to join the war, and march on Moscow? Perhaps Nancy Pelosi and MItt Romney can lead the charge.

Mike Sylwester said...

I have been reading histories about the Plantagenet Dynasty, which ruled the so-called Angevin Empire from 1154 to 1485. This Empire included most of the British Isles and much (sometimes most) of France.

The Plantagenets were originally French, but gradually became more and more English. Much of the population was bi-lingual and mixed-ethnic. (In this regard, they were similar to the population of Ukraine now.)

During that time, the English and French were warring against each other constantly. Gradually, the borders between the English and the French were changed, and ultimately the French kicked the English off the European continent.

There were countless situations when French armies had to surrender or when English armies had to surrender. They day came when the last English soldiers still alive in France had to flee across the English Channel to England.

Now, a millennium later, do we think that that resolution -- that those surrenders and border changes -- were a bad development?

No, it was a good development that the border between England and France is the English Channel. Likewise, it will be a good development -- in the long run -- if the Russia-Ukraine border will be changed so that the Russian-majority regions will be in Russia and the Ukrainian-majority regions will be in Ukraine.

Maynard said...

The first casualty in War is the truth.

Laurel said...

Russia isn’t fighting “Ukraine”: it’s fighting NATO, and more directly, the U.S. (Whose munitions are backing the Ukrainians? More and more it’s OUR money AND OUR munitions)
A British General has already admitted NATO involvement going back at least to April. A “retired” American Colonel is actively directing efforts there now. Multiple countries in Europe are training and supplying varying quantity and qualities of munitions.

Angela Merkel, in two separate media interviews, admitted (!!) that Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 were never honest, legitimate accords; they were only intended to allow Ukraine to build up defenses against Russia.

And all while ignoring the intense bombing and attacks against the Donbass by the Ukrainian government. For pity’s sake, a French (!) documentarian produced video evidence of the daily, year on year, assault against Donbass ALL WHILE RUSSIA was hog-tied by a French/German “promise” to secure the peace there.

Honest to God, people! LOOK at the steps that we, our government, with the foolish assistance of Europe, have taken in the last 8 years to pull Russia into war in Ukraine. It’s public, it’s known if not actually bragged about, and it’s evil. Our government is evil.

Yancey Ward said...

Althouse, exactly how do you know you aren't being fed propaganda from this article? Is it a sense of trust in the writer and the paper?

I used to believe what our media told us, but I learned the hard way that they are more likely to be liars the more important the story is to the federal government itself. Right now, it is to the benefit of the US government and NATO that stories like this be written. How can we trust what we read?

Drago said...

The only thing missing from this Vietnamesque-era "report" is the Ghost of Bob McNamara telling us to focus on the Body Counts, continue to win "hearts and minds" and above all else, continue to worship at the altar of the "Best and the Brightest".

And remember, the US had to blow up the Nordstream pipeline in order to "save the Europeans"...(wink wink).

Btw, has anyone calculated the DC Grifter Class ROI for cash sent to Ukraine which is then funneled back to western entities?

25%? 50%?

Achilles said...

From an excellent NYT article, "Putin's War: The Inside Story of a Catastrophe."


That is hopefully intentionally hilarious on Ann's part.

Hopefully she is making fun of people that read the NYT's and think it is a source of information.

Drago said...

Rusty: '"Stalin won the war!" Bullshit. Shitty German logistics won the war for Stalin."

Hitler's decision to divert Army Group Center unnecessarily to the South, when they were in sight of Moscow, instead of pressing ahead immediately to take the city and possibly depise Stalin directly, gave the russkis time to regroup and hold off the Germans in the fall and forced the Germans to winter in the open.

Further, Hitler should have lightly armed the Ukrainians and others and sicced them on their russki masters as an initial shock troop ploy.

Rusty: "When enough Russian families bury enough Russian sons somebody will remove Putin and stop this nonsense."

I think the dudes who would replace Putin will be even more aggressive than Putin.

gilbar said...

there you go! according to the NYT...
The Ukraine are The Heroes!
The Ukraine are WINNING!!!!
The Ukraine are WONDERFUL!!
The Ukraine deserve Our Support!
The Ukraine NEED Our Support!!!!
The Ukraine will be DESTROYED without Our Support!!
It was WORTH IT, getting into this World War, to help The Ukraine!
It was WORTH IT, getting into this Thermonuclear World War, to help the Ukraine!
SURE! MOST of the People, on Earth; are Dead now, but there were TOO MANY PEOPLE, Anyway!
Don't Forget; to renew you NYT subscription!!

Achilles said...

Mike Sylwester said...
It has happened countless times in history that countries have been compelled to surrender and that their borders have been reduced or even eliminated.

Alas, Ukraine will be compelled to surrender, and its borders will be reduced.

Russia is destroying Ukraine's electrical systems and other infrastructure. Russia is decimating a generation of young Ukrainian men.

Therefore, Ukraine will be compelled to surrender, and Russia will take over Ukraine's eastern regions that are populated mostly by Russians.



Normally a country/warring group will quit when around 30% of the military aged male population is killed.

At that point if more men die the society would have trouble continuing in a functional way. The leaders of the losing side are usually attached to their people in a way that makes them somewhat responsible for them.

What makes the Ukraine/Russian war different is that the people "leading" Ukraine are not really attached to the Ukrainian people. They send their wives to France with a US taxpayer credit card.

The end result of this will be a vacuum of power in ukraine and russia with a giant pile of nuclear missiles.

The best case scenario is China taking over the whole area.

The worst case will be the US taking over the whole area.

Where do you put the Chechnyans grabbing those nukes in this spectrum?

Narr said...

Everything in the NYT article, as well as everything said by commenters pro and con, is subject to debate, and in truth we have very little knowledge of the decisive factors in this case, and how they will play out.

A decisive victory by one side seems as remote as ever; echoes of the "No War, No Peace" gambit of 1918 . . . Which is the same as "No Recovery, No Prosperity" for the foreseeable.

Or, maybe something decisive has happened while I type here.

Lurker21 said...

Historians still argue about Vietnam, the two World Wars, the Civil War and the Revolution. The only sure thing is that they'll be arguing about this war in the future.

If I'm skeptical about the article, it's because I can imagine some obscure foreign newspaper describing one of our own wars the way the Times describes the current war.

Lem Vibe Bandit said...

Putting comments thru an artificial time machine.

"[Biden] spiraled into self-aggrandizement and anti-Trump zeal, leading him to make the fateful decision to leave Iraq in near total isolation..."

Readering said...

Russian bots bothering with AA comments?

JAORE said...

The phrase cornered rat comes to mind.

Michael K said...

Poor Putin. He saw the incredible ineptitude of the Biden junta and the temptation was too much.

Jaq said...

"Russian bots bothering with AA comments?"

Wow that's dense, even for Readering. Just tending to America's "cognitive infrastructure," I guess. Google it, BTW. Next to chime in will be Mutaman with some comment that could have been written by a three letter agency.

Michael K said...


Blogger Zavier Onasses said...

Putin's War may or may not be a Catastrophe. If it is such, doubtless in large part because of weapons and cash from the USA. I still question why we are involved there at all. Strongly suspect this is more for the benefit of Biden Joint Ventures LLC than for the common good of the United States.


Exactly!

wendybar said...

What Laurel said @ 10:23am

effinayright said...

What Leland said.

I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Miss Ann challenging the NYT's coverage of the Russia Collusion hoax.

If so much of what the Times reported then were monstrous lies, why should they be trusted now?

Myself, I agree with the thrust of the article, but that's because so many others have made the same points all over the 'net for the past year, with facts and events offered in support of their argument.

But my alarms sound when some NYT dweeb regurgitates those same points and pretends it's hard-hitting analysis.

narciso said...

Means ends putin was so entranced with gerasimovs hybrid warfare that he undercounted how many troops they would need prague in 68 require 500 k and three months

Robert Cook said...

"And how do you know it’s an 'excellent' article? For all you know it could be entirely made up with only a small handful of touchpoints with reality."

Why don't you read the story and come to your own appraisal of it?

Rusty said...

I don't think so Drago. I think the traditional Russian political calculus of corruption and greed will take over and Putin's successor will come up with a way to end the war and squeeze billions out the west.

Krumhorn said...

One comforting comment Putin made to a mother who had lost her son in the war by making the argument that in Ukraine, they were confronting the decay of the West: “They have a different cultural code…they count the genders by the dozens.”

Hard to argue with that.

- Krumhorn

Robert Cook said...

"I still question why we are involved there at all."

Why have we been involved in any of the wars we've started or joined or sponsored post-WWII? To gain greater (total) US global political and military dominance and/or for access to/control over precious resources.

Drago said...

Readering: "Russian bots bothering with AA comments?"

Everyone that disagrees with me is a russian bot AND a LITERAL NAZI!!
--Every dumb lefty and 3/4's of the GOPe-ers.

Big Mike said...

It was WORTH IT, getting into this Thermonuclear World War, to help the Ukraine!

@gilbar, in the event of a thermonuclear war there will be no New York City nor Washington, DC, which perhaps the writers and editors for the Times and the Post are overlooking. Unfortunately, Madison, WI, will probably survive.

wildswan said...

Ask how our tax dollars were spent in the Ukraine War by all means. But listen to the answer.
The US has sent $18 billion in military aid to the Ukraine. Using that aid, Ukraine fighting for its independence, has shredded the Russian military, meaning that if we have to fight a two-front war in the future our task will be immeasurably easier. In fact, without the ability and courage of the Armed Forces of the Ukraine and of the Ukrainian people we might have lost a two-front war in the near future. Now we will not. There are 60 to 97 thousand dead in the Russian Forces and three times that number wounded. 300,000 young men fled Russia when partial mobilization started. 2700 tanks are gone. The chips to make new tanks are sanctioned. Through unknown causes in the same time period the flagship of the Black sea fleet was sunk and the Kerch bridge was damaged. Ukrainian drones pierced the anti-aircraft defenses of the Russian fleet of strategic bombers. This ain't the Red Army Henry Kissinger once faced. Moreover, NATO is rebuilding itself, building weapons stocks. Sweden and Finland have joined NATO. Europe is separating itself from dependence on Russian gas and oil.
This what we got for our $18 billion. Over the two-year time period of the Russian build-up against Ukraine and then the attack (2021-2022) Russia spent $145 billion on its military. Next year it will spend $88 billion. The Russian military ($233 billion) is not expected to prevail against the Ukraine with our $18 Billion.
Our money was well spent, as I see it. Let's finish the job.

Douglas B. Levene said...

The NYT article is quite impressive. Unlike the Russia hoax stories, this one has named sources, and lots of documentation. The truth of the matter seems to be that the Russian military was hollowed out by decades of corruption, and today it relies in three private or semi-private armies outside of the central command but under Putin’s direct control. The result is there is no coordination, no unifying tactics, no combined arms, inadequate supplies, and poorly trained and unmotivated soldiers. How it will all end I can’t predict but it seems unlikely to me that Russia can defeat Ukraine unless the West withdraws its support.

Comanche Voter said...

I'll go with "Why do we care?" That goes for this "excellent" piece in the NYT--a bunch of dodgy partisan "journolists". It goes double for a dispute between the Ukrainians and the Russkis.

You can go back and read Gogol's "Taras Bulba". While it did not feature Tony Curtis saying "Yonda is da castle of my fadduh", it did tell of a time in the late 14th or 15th Century when the Ukrainians, Poles and Lithuanians dominated Eastern Europe and the Muscovites were sort of a primitive barbarian group with no power. Things change.

And yes the Ukrainians bought and paid for the Biden Gang a few years ago, and like a good poltical whore, the Bidens stay bought.

Mind your own business said...

War porn propaganda. I wouldn't take anything the NYT prints about Ukraine as gospel, any more than I would believe anything RT puts out.

What is obvious is that we are involved in a very expensive, very dangerous foreign war that we really have no strategic interest in.

Mind your own business said...

War porn propaganda. I wouldn't take anything the NYT prints about Ukraine as gospel, any more than I would believe anything RT puts out.

What is obvious is that we are involved in a very expensive, very dangerous foreign war that we really have no strategic interest in.

Mind your own business said...

War porn propaganda. I wouldn't take anything the NYT prints about Ukraine as gospel, any more than I would believe anything RT puts out.

What is obvious is that we are involved in a very expensive, very dangerous foreign war that we really have no strategic interest in.

Mind your own business said...

War porn propaganda. I wouldn't take anything the NYT prints about Ukraine as gospel, any more than I would believe anything RT puts out.

What is obvious is that we are involved in a very expensive, very dangerous foreign war that we really have no strategic interest in.

William said...

If the Russians could triumph over Germans with Stalin at the helm, they can perhaps win over the Ukrainians with Putin in charge....During the campaign against Napoleon, serfs were drafted into militia units, fought bravely, and then returned to serfdom....I don't know how this will play out, but Russian soldiers have a history of triumphing over inept leadership and their own mistreatment.....I wish the Ukrainians success, but if the Russians persevere, they will probably win. Or maybe not. Just look at Hillary.

William said...

The majority of the people of Ireland want Ireland to be an independent, unified country. The majority of the people of Northern Ireland want Ulster to be part of the United Kingdom....I guess my sympathies are with Ireland, but, if either side chose to make their point by using brute force, my sympathies would be with the victims of such brute force. Murder is not a way to settle border disputes.

Lance said...

I don't have access to NYT, so can't speak to the full article, but that snippet raises red flags. Old equipment yes, but from the 1940s? And internet printouts fine, but those "ragtag" conscripts and separatists have been fighting for years.

If the Russians are so poorly equipped, and so divided, how did they capture Kharkov, Kherson and Mariupol to begin with? Or Crimea and Luhansk before that? Why have the Ukrainians had to fight inch by inch in Kherson Oblast, and now Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts?

Again I haven't read the full article, but it sounds like BS to me.

Mikey NTH said...

Lance: an example of old equipment are Mosin-Nagant rifles, which predate the 1940's.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

n.n said...
From the Biden/Maidan/Slavic Spring, sustained disenfranchisement of Ukrainians, assault on Crimea, eight years later Zelensky's war, fueled by Western arms running to celebrate opening mass abortion fields in Ukraine

Dude, shrooms are bad for you

That said, Russia was already legally present in Ukraine in force in Crimea
No, it wasn't.

The legal definition of "where is Ukraine, and therefore where is Russia NOT 'legally allowed to be'" is the Budapest Accords, signed by Russia so as to get all of Ukraine's nukes

Crimea etc et al are all part of Ukraine, and Russia has no business in any of them.

Nothing will ever change that

For better or worse, they waited eight years to answer the calls for humanitarian aid in Donbas etc. as Kiev waged a war on Ukrainians who would not take a knee, beg, after the 2014 coup and paramilitary assaults.

The Russians invaded Donbas etc in 2014, and Kiev waged a defensive war to try to get their country back.

You are psychotic

mesquito said...

This article IS excellent and it wasn’t paywalled early this morning. Read the whole thing before I went to work.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Since the liars are coming out of the woodwork again, let's review what they never manage to respond to

A refresher on the history Achilles is lying about:

Achilles said...
So what about Ukraine honoring legal elections?

You mean like the Parliamentary elections that created a Parliament where 70% of the members voted to link up with the West?

Oh, let me guess, THOSE elections don't count

You are both pathetic and dishonest. Let's get some actual history, shall we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

In Feb 2013, "[Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian] Parliament passes statement on Ukraine's aspirations for European integration". Kyiv Post. 22 February 2013. "A total of 315 of the 349 MPs registered in the sitting hall supported the document on Friday. The draft document reads that the Verkhovna Rada "within its powers, will ensure that the recommendations concerning the signing of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU, which are stipulated in the resolutions of the European Parliament and the conclusions of the Council of the EU approved on December 10, 2012, at a meeting of the EU foreign ministers, will be fulfilled."

Apparently the voters who elected these 315 MPs just don't matter

In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests (known as Euromaidan) erupted in response to President Yanukovych's sudden decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union.

Wow, that CIA is so powerful! They got to 70%+ of the Ukrainian Parliament, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, all to get them to conspire against poor old Vlad Putin.

In January and February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special riot police resulted in the deaths of 108 protesters and 13 police officers,[20] [***Note: those Berkut special riot police were working for the Putin toady / thug] and the wounding of many others. The first protesters were killed in fierce clashes with police on Hrushevskoho Street on 19–22 January. Following this, protesters occupied government buildings throughout the country. The deadliest clashes were on 18–20 February, which saw the most severe violence in Ukraine since it regained independence.[31] Thousands of protesters advanced towards parliament, led by activists with shields and helmets, and were fired on by police snipers.[20] On 21 February, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition was signed that called for the formation of an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections.[32] The following day, police withdrew from central Kyiv, which came under effective control of the protesters. Yanukovych fled the city.[33] That day, the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Yanukovych from office by 328 to 0 (72.8% of the parliament's 450 members).

So, they sign a deal, Yanukovych decides he wants a different deal and bugs out, and it's all an "illegal coup" by people who have the bad taste to not want to be one of Vlad's slaves.


Note: 72.8% of the members of parliament (not just the ones there, but of the total elected number of members) voted to impeach Yanukovych.

The US only requires 2/3 of those voting to do the same.

But it's an "illegal coup", because it was against the desires of Putin, and to some people that's all that matters

effinayright said...

Douglas B. Levene said...
The NYT article is quite impressive. Unlike the Russia hoax stories, this one has named sources, and lots of documentation. The truth of the matter seems to be that the Russian military was hollowed out by decades of corruption, and today it relies in three private or semi-private armies outside of the central command but under Putin’s direct control. The result is there is no coordination, no unifying tactics, no combined arms, inadequate supplies, and poorly trained and unmotivated soldiers. How it will all end I can’t predict but it seems unlikely to me that Russia can defeat Ukraine unless the West withdraws its support.
*************

You could go on YouTube every day of the week over the past year and read several articles a day by western analysts---not the Ukrainian propaganda sites---saying the same things.

You could also find on-line articles explaining Putin's thinking about the West's ignoring Russia's historical hot-buttons, citing George F. Kennan's admonition in the 1990's that depriving the Russia of European buffer states was a "bright red line" NATO should not cross. NATO and the US nevertheless persisted in trying to do just that.

Now, with Finland and Sweden seeking to join NATO, Russia's only year-round sea access to the North Atlantic will be by running through a gauntlet of NATO countries every inch of the way from St. Petersburg. Sebastopol remains the only other warm-water European port Russia has---but NATO Turkey controls the narrow Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits all ships must traverse to exit the Black Sea into the Mediterranean.

Putin's paranoia is thus understandable.

Recall US reaction when we felt the political situation in Panama had deteriorated during the rule of drug lord Manuel Noriega, so much so we feared losing passage rights through the Canal? We invaded Panama, removed Noriega from power and jailed him.

Ukraine "defeating" Russia is a fantasy; the latter would simply bide its time and destabilize Ukraine until it was ready to try again---with bitter experience to help it make fewer mistakes.

The best outcome we can hope for in Ukraine is some sort of a deal where Sweden and Finland stay out of NATO, and Turkey, Ukraine and Russia reach a modus vivendi to allow Russia to a long-term lease of Sebastopol with free passage rights in and out of the Black Sea.

Kaliningrad might offer an example of how to proceed.

Yes, Russia could later renege on such an agreement---but it would also know how the West could cripple it economically if it did.

Still, would be utterly stupid to push Putin into a corner over an issue he and many Russian nationalists to be a true existential threat.

effinayright said...

Lance said...
I don't have access to NYT, so can't speak to the full article, but that snippet raises red flags. Old equipment yes, but from the 1940s? And internet printouts fine, but those "ragtag" conscripts and separatists have been fighting for years.

If the Russians are so poorly equipped, and so divided, how did they capture Kharkov, Kherson and Mariupol to begin with? Or Crimea and Luhansk before that? Why have the Ukrainians had to fight inch by inch in Kherson Oblast, and now Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts?

Again I haven't read the full article, but it sounds like BS to me.
*****************

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of "running out of ammo".

Perhaps you can explain why, at the start of the war, Russia didn't even conquer Kiev.

Perhaps you can explain why, after almost ten months of war, Russia hasn't won.

Perhaps you can tell us why you think recent "conscripts" have been fighting for years?

Howard said...

It'll be interesting to see if Rhonda Santas caters to the Pro-Putin wing of the Republic Party.

gilbar said...

wildswan said...
Our money was well spent, as I see it. Let's finish the job.

I'll bit! In YOUR mind, what does the "finished job" look like? Where (HOW?) Does this end?

Indigo Red said...

Putin lost the war the moment he decided to invade.

Tom Hunter said...

I support the Ukrainian fightback against Russia and am as firmly opposed to Putin's invasion as I have been to Putin over the years. Thus, this story - some of which chimes with other non-MSM reporting re equipment and machinery (check out the excellent analysis by former infantry officer Streiff at RedState, plus his track record of analysis) - should leave me feeling good.

But it's a mark of how low the MSM, and especially the NYT, has sunk that I can't believe them even when I want to.

Indigo Red said...

Haven't read the article? Don't have access to the NYT?

Do this:
1. Click on the link
2. When the page begins to load
3. Click the "X" (Reload this page) button near the address box.

This interrupts the access permissions part of the software. You can then read the entire article without interruption.

Achilles said...

Greg The Class Traitor said...


Note: 72.8% of the members of parliament (not just the ones there, but of the total elected number of members) voted to impeach Yanukovych.

The US only requires 2/3 of those voting to do the same.

But it's an "illegal coup", because it was against the desires of Putin, and to some people that's all that matters



I am pointing out that the new government in 1914 and the majority of Ukrainians proceeded to send the Azov battalion and other paramilitary forces into eastern Ukraine to kill Yanukovich supporters.

I am not arguing a majority of Ukranians voted to remove Yanukovich or even a majority of the obviously corrupt parliament.

I am arguing that you are supporting ethnic cleansing.

And that you are a dishonest piece of shit.

n.n said...

Budapest Accords

Not limited to nuclear weapons, the signatories did not respect the terms agreed. Read it again.

Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Crimea etc et al are all part of Ukraine, and Russia has no business in any of them.

It is, Russia had legal title and was there in force, and, after the 2014 coup, and aftermath that followed the precedents set in Serbia, was able to work with Ukrainians to mitigate progress by regime forces to deny services and paramilitary axis to assault people on the ground.

The Russians invaded Donbas etc in 2014, and Kiev waged a defensive war to try to get their country back.

No, they did not. Russian-Ukrainians, Jews, gypsies et al perhaps. Kiev has waged an offensive war since the violent overthrow of the government in Kiev, eight years in progress.

BrianE said...

The justification for the illegal coup on Yanukovych was his decision to seek closer ties to Russia and reject the EU Association agreement, according to Greg the Class Traitor.

An inconvenient truth is this:

Like Turkey, which has also had a rocky road with pursuing closer integration with the EU, the Ukrainian government has sought to secure as many economic benefits as possible while preserving as much sovereignty as it can so as not to have to make significant changes to its domestic institutions. Impelled by the desire for greater access to the European market, Ukraine did take a number of steps to bring its institutions into closer conformity with EU standards, but the Rada (parliament) balked this week at passing the last set of bills that would be needed to bring Ukraine into compliance with the EU—including the one concerning Tymoshenko's ability to go abroad for medical care.

The second was the announced Russian response. Russia remains Ukraine's largest foreign investor and Ukraine still remains highly dependent on the Russian market. Ukraine's push to secure greater energy independence for itself by developing indigenous oil and natural gas projects will not bear fruit for a number of years, and the country remains dependent on Russia for low-cost supplies of energy. On Friday, Ukraine's prime minister Mykola Azarov bluntly told lawmakers in the Rada that Ukraine could not, at this point, afford an economic rupture with Moscow. "What will be our compensation for the huge losses from losing the Customs Union market, what, I am asking you? Unfortunately, we did not receive a realistic answer to this question."

Ukraine's decision does represent a major setback for Western policy.


So they got rid of Yanukovych and still refused to make the changes necessary to bring them into compliance with EU obligations.

https://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ukraine-why-yanukovych-said-no-europe-9453

n.n said...

confronting the decay of the West: “They have a different cultural code…they count the genders by the dozens.

Even the trans/homosexuals have noticed the collateral damage from relying on political congruence ("=") under the Pro-Choice ethical religion to force selective normalization. Play with a double-edged scalpel, and get scalped. That said, unions for all consenting adults, why discriminate arbitrarily? Oh, and the Mengele mandates for children, were scientifically and clinically proven at Johns Hopkins some 40 years earlier to either sustain or normalize dysfunction and self-abortive intent. Leave the girls alone. Leave the boys alone. At least until they reach the age of majority and can, with reasonable belief, chart their own lives. Forward!

BrianE said...

As to the $18 billion cost of the war, we are approaching $100 billion in total aid (if the latest request by Biden is agreed to).

After the war, I've seen several estimates of $500-$600 billion to put Ukraine together again.

It's estimated that the cost of the Hurrican Katrina was $170 billion, so those figures don't seem unreasonable.

Sheridan said...

I'd love to see NYT, the entire "hard news" media and people who comment on news (commentators? bloggers?) write stories/responses using NO ADJECTIVES. Adjectives are used to affect peoples thoughts and behaviors (e.g. "excellent"). Just give me data (not "facts") and let me sort out the underlying issues. The NYT can yell "squirrel" using adjectives and every Tom/Dick/Harry be they credentialed with JD's, MBA's, MD's, PHD's, Ed.D.'s, PE's, M.A.'s or whatever people use for class and social identification and suddenly people are back in caveman times clubbing each other (both figuratively and/or literally). Want an example? Read about W.R. Hearst and yellow journalism. That mode of reporting "news" never disappeared. It has only grown stronger.

Richard Aubrey said...

As a general rule, the nation which invades another nation is considered a generic Bad Guy--see the US--circumstances notwithstanding. The invaded, of course, were innocent lambs clean as a hound's tooth--excuse the mixed metaphors and why is a hound's tooth clean anyway?
In this case, however, we seem to be weighing the metaphorical weight of paper explaining Russia's conundra, fears, histories, and so forth, to see whether Putin had the necessity--DAMN RIGHT HE DID!, the need--DAMN RIGHT HE DID! to invade and whether Ukraine had the right to object--SPOILED BRATS DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM!
All in all, an entertaining spectacle.
To what other geopolitical circumstances would such reasoning apply? I suspect Taiwan, at least. And the US, too, should look to its own sins before resisting an invasion.

What about the possibility that Putin is all on his own here, on top in Russia because he was a cagey, amoral, slick-operating KGB slug. Keep in mind that the KGB, its predecessors and descendants, uniforms notwithstanding, are not soldiers. They're like our intelligence community but not as clever. Putin is not a soldier. And that's how he got to the top. Now it's all about what he thinks. What he thinks about Greater/Mother Russia of his imperialist dreams--see Peter the Great. What he thinks is good strategy. What he thinks he could...now what he sees as possible--get away with. Outside reaction. Domestic reaction.
We don't know how his thinking comes together except to see a botched invasion by ill-prepared forces--and why didn't he know about that? Mr. Super Sleuth? What else does he not know that he thinks he does?
But if he should trip, fall down, and hurt himself, who's next?
Somebody like him? Or somebody whose looting has been interrupted by this stupid war?
Fear of, due to the real thing, invasion is in the Russian DNA, with good reason. Saw some footage of a Russian performance of, iirc, Nutcracker. The magic spirit bad guy figure had exaggerated Asian features. You think Hitler was bad?
But does that put the population behind a meat grinder against a nation which had no possibility of posing a threat? Not sure we're getting straight dope about how that's going.
This looks like a Putin thing with opportunists going along for the opportunities, whatever they may be. When those no longer seem likely....

rcocean said...

Facts:

1) Russia in not our enemy.
2) It doesn't affect the USA economy or security if Russia controls the Donbas
3) "Rewarding Aggression" is a nonsense phrase. staying out of war isn't "rewarding" anyone
4) Russia has speecific limited goals that it wishes to achieve. Putin isn't trying to CONQUER THE WORLD!!
5) Russian has 10,000 nuclear warheads. We aren't invading Russia And can't defeat them.
6) Every month this war continues costs thousands of Russians and Ukrainians their lives.

Richard Aubrey said...

Facts.
Had a single French platoon [likely an exaggeration, might have needed a battalion] resisted the militarization of the Rhineland in 36, the German officers were going to return to Berlin and dump Hitler. No WW II in Europe.
See Sowell on the subject (any subject) in his essay, Intellectuals and War.

Prof. M. Drout said...

If you were China, wouldn't you think it was a great thing for the U.S. to be blowing through our entire stockpile of precision weapons in a battle against Russian conscripts who are using mostly WWII-quality artillery? China can buy pretty much unlimited cheap energy from Russia and as a bonus gets to massively degrade U.S. preparedness, and they can keep this going on for YEARS. And although we keep hearing the familiar "the walls are closing in" on Putin, it's not obvious how most of this hurts him: he gets to kill off "enemies" of his regime by conscripting them and turning them into cannon fodder, and by allowing opponents to "escape" across the border he has increased the percentage of those loyal to him in his population. He is probably personally MORE secure as everything that goes wrong can be blamed on the perfidious West. And China gets to bleed both Russia and the West at no cost to itself and in exchange gets cheap energy and, I presume, all kinds of useful military intelligence on U.S. / Nato capabilities.

Howard said...

90% of weapons given Ukraine were gathering dust in mothballs slated for expensive USEPA approved environmental friend disposal. We actually saving money giving it Ukraine.

Howard said...

90% of weapons given Ukraine were gathering dust in mothballs slated for expensive USEPA approved environmental friend disposal. We actually saving money giving it Ukraine.

Prof. M. Drout said...

If you were China, wouldn't you think it was a great thing for the U.S. to be blowing through our entire stockpile of precision weapons in a battle against Russian conscripts who are using mostly WWII-quality artillery? China can buy pretty much unlimited cheap energy from Russia and as a bonus gets to massively degrade U.S. preparedness, and they can keep this going on for YEARS. And although we keep hearing the familiar "the walls are closing in" on Putin, it's not obvious how most of this hurts him: he gets to kill off "enemies" of his regime by conscripting them and turning them into cannon fodder, and by allowing opponents to "escape" across the border he has increased the percentage of those loyal to him in his population. He is probably personally MORE secure as everything that goes wrong can be blamed on the perfidious West. And China gets to bleed both Russia and the West at no cost to itself and in exchange gets cheap energy and, I presume, all kinds of useful military intelligence on U.S. / Nato capabilities.

Candide said...

Of course I understand that “excellent” was tossed in as a bait, intended to rile up…

Anyway, for an article to be considered any good at all, let alone “excellent” it needs to be fair and impartial, as a minimum.

This article goes on and on about Russian losses and setbacks, but makes no mention of losses sustained by Kievan regime. That was a constant feature of most articles about war in Ukraine. Any quantity of Russian losses is indication of disaster, but Kievan forces are presumed to sustain any losses and remain victorious. What if Kievan losses are about the same as Russian losses? Would not that put things in a different perspective? But who cares how many Ukrainians die to defend Kievan junta and stick it to Putin…

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Achilles said...
I am pointing out that the new government in 1914 and the majority of Ukrainians proceeded to send the Azov battalion and other paramilitary forces into eastern Ukraine to kill Yanukovich supporters.

2014

They sent soldiers in to fight the Russian invaders, and to fight any locals who supported the Russian invaders.

Just like we would consider it right and proper for the US Gov't to send in troops to fight Mexican invaders, and and locks who supported a Mexican invasion.

Ukraine's borders were established with the Budapest Accords.

Anyone who doesn't like them, or doesn't want to live in a country that associates with the West, rather than with Putin's Russia, was more than welcome to sell their property in Ukraine and move to Russia.

What was completely, utterly, totally unacceptable was to try to take any part of Ukraine and put it under Putin's control.

I don't care if 99.999% of the people there wanted that, and said so in an election. The border was decided with the Budapest Accords, which were passed to cut down on the number of nuclear weapons floating around for terrorists to buy.

The way you stop nuclear proliferation is by making sure that nuclear proliferation deals are honored.

So anyone in Ukraine who wants to be enslaved to Putin can move to Russia. Or they can just FOAD.

What they can't do is expect any support for a demand that the Budapest Accords be overturned now that Ukraine no longer has the nukes

Dr Weevil said...

Amazing how much complete crap so many commenters here will believe. The New York Times is completely wrong about Ukraine, even when quoting numerous named sources, but a single French newspaper no one even knows the name of can quote an unknown person claiming that Mrs. Zelenskyy spent 40,000 Euros on clothes, and we're all supposed to take that as Gospel truth, and also to assume that all that money was stolen from U.S. aid to Ukraine.

How %*&$ gullible are you guys? Any employee of a Paris boutique catering to the rich and famous who blabbed to the press about who bought what for how much would lose her job, and never find another in the field, and I'm sure these jobs are much sought after. Any newspaper editor who found the alleged amount of spending insufficiently shocking would not hesitate to add a zero. And anyone who thinks Zelenskyy couldn't supply his wife with plenty of money out of his own pocket is an idiot. He was a big star on Ukrainian television for years, and is still no doubt collecting royalties. He's also collecting the salary of a head of state, and has very few opportunities to spend it. Before the war, he could take a week or two off to lie on the beach with his wife in Greece or (like the Buttigiegs) Portugal. They could spend their evenings in Kyiv at concerts, in fine restaurants, or relaxing at home. Not any more. I'm pretty sure he hasn't had a day off since February 24th and spends his days and evenings meeting with generals about the war, civilian advisers about the economy and damaged infrastructure, and begging foreign leaders for military and civil aid. At least he keeps busy. It must be utterly miserable to be Mrs. Zelenskyy, constantly heading for the bomb shelters or sitting in candlelight waiting for the power to come on, worrying about assassination squads, seeing (in person or on film) the latest Russian brutalities, or meeting the public to keep their spirits up when it's difficult to keep up her own. Getting out of the country for a few days without bombardment, and buying a few nice things to wear after the war, seems like a good way to avoid a nervous breakdown.

Lance (1:00pm):
You ask how the Russians captured Kharkiv if they're so incompetent. That's easy: they didn't. As with Kyiv, they got into the suburbs and half-way surrounded the city in the first few days, but they never entered the city, much less captured it. Again, as with Kyiv, though a few months later, they withdraw from the suburbs and the whole area. They held roughly half of Kharkiv oblast for a few months, but withdraw during and after the first big Ukrainian offensive (to Kupyansk and Izyum), and now hold ~2% of the oblast, probably not for long.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

rcocean said...
Facts:

1) Russia in not our enemy.

That's lie #1. Putin is an enemy of the US, and always has been. So long as Putin controls Russia, Russia is our enemy

2) It doesn't affect the USA economy or security if Russia controls the Donbas
In the Budapest Accords Ukraine traded nuclear weapons for secure borders
If vastly and negatively affects US security for country leaders to believe that it's unsafe to trade away nuclear weapons, and much safer to have them.
That belief is what leads to nuclear proliferation, and will one day lead to US cities getting nuked

So even if Russia weren't our enemy, letting them dismember Ukraine is absolutely contrary to vital US security interests

3) "Rewarding Aggression" is a nonsense phrase. staying out of war isn't "rewarding" anyone
We're not in the war. We're supporting the aggressed against party in the war, to punish aggression, and establish that invading your neighbors is a bad idea

4) Russia has speecific limited goals that it wishes to achieve. Putin isn't trying to CONQUER THE WORLD!!
Yeah, Putin has the "speecific limited goals" of reinstitution the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet empire. He'll leave it to the next in line to conquer the rest of the world once he's restored the Russian Empire.

5) Russian has 10,000 nuclear warheads. We aren't invading Russia And can't defeat them.
We aren't invading Russia. We're supporting Ukraine in their fight against Russian invasion.
If "Russian has 10,000 nuclear warheads" means "we should never stop Russia from invading their neighbors" then it eventually turns in to "better Red than dead" and giving the entire world to Russia or the CCP.
Which is to say that's about the most fuckingly pathetic and moronic argument there is

6) Every month this war continues costs thousands of Russians and Ukrainians their lives
And letting Putin win would create far more dead bodies, plus more enslaved ones, and a ton more refugees

Are you really as much of a pathetically chickshit loser as you are portraying yourself?

Greg The Class Traitor said...

BrianE said...
The justification for the illegal coup on Yanukovych was his decision to seek closer ties to Russia and reject the EU Association agreement, according to Greg the Class Traitor.

It's always good to start off with a lie. It lets us know where you're coming from.

It wasn't an "illegal coup". It was public protests that the government of Yanukovych tried to violently suppress, followed by over 70% of the total members of Parliament voting to remove Yanukovych from office after he fled the country at went to his master's home in Moscow.
That's no more an "illegal coup" than it would be if the US Senate voted to impeach a US President with 68% of the Senators present, after that President had the FBI murder 100+ actually non-violent protesters.

You quote this article:
https://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ukraine-why-yanukovych-said-no-europe-9453

Note, when it writes "the government", it means "the government of Putin toady Yanukovych". Which is to say, it means the people who desperately wanted to enslave Ukraine to Putin.

"So they got rid of Yanukovych and still refused to make the changes necessary to bring them into compliance with EU obligations."

No, numb-nuts, that was BEFORE they got rid of Yanukovych

Critter said...

Wildswan said “our money was well spent.’

But not as well as China’s money to the Biden’s and other sellouts. We may not be able to win a 2-front war, but we also cannot win a one-front war with China because the likes of Biden will continue to appease China until they are on our shore and in charge. But that’s OK because America stands in the way of globalist hegemony. It’s like a playoff system. First knock off America and then the very weak west has to try to stand up to China. No match.

chuck said...

Nobody on the borders of Russia likes them, and for good reason. Empires don't last forever and many are looking for a reckoning. As you sow, so shall you reap.

Narr said...

Fact 7) Nobody in a position of power and influence, anywhere, cares a whit about the opinions and moral posturings to be found here.

Embrace your irrelevance. As a historian I did that long ago, and have enjoyed life more ever since.

As for the NYT article, as someone already said, none of the statements presented are that new or implausible; equally, the article doesn't and can't present the entire picture even if that was the goal.





Drago said...

chuck: "Empires don't last forever and many are looking for a reckoning. As you sow, so shall you reap."

As the US is finding out and will continue to find out.

Howard said...

You fucking Trump Cucks are traitors. The Navy and Marine Corps are retooling for China along with Japan Taiwan South Korea and Australia. Biden cut off Chinas balls with the chip ban and our partners fell in line. Xi's a clown in the mold of stable genius Putin and is helping the inevitable China implosion and fragmentation.

Foreign investment is flooding in the dollar is stronger than ever, the US is #1 in petroleum and manufacturing is increasing and consolidating to North America as China and Germany struggle.

Drago said...

Poor Howard. He is so desperate to be seen as a tough guy he can't help but overcompensate.

Narayanan said...

Russian soldiers, many shocked they were going to war, used their cellphones to call home, allowing the Ukrainians to track them and pick them off in large numbers."
==============
is this suicide by self-doxxing?
can anyone provide technical explanation of how this tracking was done?
was Elon StarLink accessory to assassinations?
who provided the gizmos for Ukraine to do this?
why not simply ask the tracked soldiers to surrender instead of cancelling permanently?

Lawcruiter said...

I lived in St. Petersburg, in the 1990's, when Putin was (to the nascent western business community) a popular, pragmatic, organized, and progressive city administrator charged with managing relationships with the foreign investment community. On weekends, my partner and I would have brunch at one of the big hotels, while reading the Sunday New York Times for it's Russia coverage. And we were struck at how little of what they wrote resembled anything we saw or experienced. Using today's lens - we would say that they had a narrative, and were pursuing it at all costs, regardless of the reality. It was mind-blowing to us that this drivel was shaping perceptions in the US. Plus ca change....

BrianE said...

Greg the Class Trader,
Two Points.

1. Yanukovych feared for his life. He was not impeached. The only legal way to remove the President was to follow the rules of impeachment. Therefore, it was illegal and fits the definition of a coup.
The 1996 and the 2004 constitutions are uniform when it comes to the reasons for removing a president, with Article 111 stating the parliament has the right to initiate a procedure of impeachment "if he commits treason or other crime." The hasty February 22 vote violated constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada -- 338 lawmakers (as you noted, there were only 328 votes to remove him.)

2. Yes, the Rada, the same body that voted to illegally remove Yanukovych from office, was the same body that balked "at passing the last set of bills that would be needed to bring Ukraine into compliance with the EU." They didn't because they couldn't afford an economic rupture with Moscow- losing billions of dollars in subsidies and trade, resulting the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
It is my understanding that Yanukovych was trying to achieve better economic ties with both the EU and Russia, but the EU made it clear that Ukraine could not enter the Customs Union and integrate into the EU. At the time Ukraine had more trade with Russia than Europe.

By the way, there is this:
In 2021 "US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made clear during his May 6 visit to Kyiv that Washington expects to see greater progress in Ukraine’s fight to counter corruption and establish the rule of law. Blinken’s comments reflected mounting disquiet among Kyiv’s international partners over a perceived lack of reforms in the country, while also underlining the broader geopolitical significance of Ukraine’s transformation."

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-eu-association-agreement-obliges-kyiv-to-pursue-rule-of-law-reforms/

Balfegor said...

Re: Zavier Onasses:

Putin's War may or may not be a Catastrophe. If it is such, doubtless in large part because of weapons and cash from the USA. I still question why we are involved there at all. Strongly suspect this is more for the benefit of Biden Joint Ventures LLC than for the common good of the United States.

I think this is nonsense. If you look at how the Western (US/UK/EU) response evolved back in February/March, it seems clear to me there was no plan at all, or at least, that whatever plans had been made were quickly thrown out in response to unexpected popular voter support for the Ukraine, due in no small part, to Zelenskiy's charisma. First, Biden signalled we wouldn't do anything if it was a smakk invasion. Russia launched a large invasion instead. Then, we wanted small sanctions that wouldn't actually affect Russian energy businesses. Under increasing pressure from popular opinion, that gradually escalated to excluding Russian financial institutions from SWIFT (something that had never been clearly threatened before the war) and comprehensive sanctions. On military aid, we've gradually escalated the quantity and quality of arms we're supplying to the Ukraine to prop up their army as they've quickly blown through their (considerable) reserves of Soviet weaponry.

It's clear to me that Western politicians wanted to hang back, and found themselves scrambling to come up with a response that would walk the fine line of avoiding provoking Russian escalation while satisfying public opinion that was strongly in favour of intervening on behalf of the Ukraine. And now, with this half-baked energy price cap business, Western leaders are again scrambling, this time to find some way of avoiding the predictable consequences of the policies they pursued vs. Russia. Meanwhile, the Ukraine is doing its best to bait NATO into direct conflict with Russia, probably because that gives them the best chance of an outright win, even if it's potentially catastrophic for everyone else (see, e.g., insistent Ukrainian falsehoods about those missiles that killed civilians in Poland). There's no secret conspiracy behind the story, at this point -- everyone (including Russia) seems to be flailing around pretty much in the open. If Hunter Biden's business deals play any role in this, it is a very, very minor role indeed.

It's not that we have no interest in propping up the Ukraine vs Russia. This isn't an Iran-Iraq hope they both lose situation. The Ukraine hasn't been working at cross-purposes to the US across the Middle East. Russia has. So if we can use the Ukraine to bleed Russia, and cripple Russia's ability to intervene outsude its borders, that's not a bad trade. But we don't really have any other interest in helping the Ukraine. And reading stories about US and NATO stockpiles getting depleted makes me worry we are over-invested in the Ukraine. But again, I think that's a function of overwhelming popular sympathy for the Ukraine, not because our senile President was shooting for a triple bankshot where the economic base of the Ukraine would be completely destroyed by prolonged fighting and daily Russian missile strikes but then his son would somehow get a kickback on the billions of dollars of aid sent by the US and EU to support the war.

BrianE said...

Greg the Class Traitor said, "...Putin toady Yanukovych"

Can we agree that Yanukovych was legally elected President by Ukraine's voters?

He was elected by the overwhelming vote in Eastern Ukraine-- parts of which are majority ethnic Russian. It's not surprising they would favor close ties with Russia.

Drago said...

Howard: "The Navy and Marine Corps are retooling for China along with Japan Taiwan South Korea and Australia."

Riiiiiight. Our "Woke" military might be able to field a nice fashion show for the transgenders and the wokies, but they are in no shape to take on anything serious.

"The Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, Admiral Charles Richard, warned during a conference this week that America’s military has fallen behind that of China and may not be ready or able to deliver if “the big one” comes. And according to the Admiral, that could happen much sooner than most people think....

...How bad is it? Well, the admiral said, “As I assess our level of deterrence against China, the ship is slowly sinking. It is sinking slowly, but it is sinking, as fundamentally they are putting capability in the field faster than we are.”

Thanks for the latest junior varsity gaslighting Howard.

Now get back to stocking tampons in the men's heads on the bases. Thats all you skittle-haired groomers care about anyway.

Achilles said...

Greg The Class Traitor said...
Achilles said...
"I am pointing out that the new government in 1914 and the majority of Ukrainians proceeded to send the Azov battalion and other paramilitary forces into eastern Ukraine to kill Yanukovich supporters."

2014

Thanks.

They sent soldiers in to fight the Russian invaders, and to fight any locals who supported the Russian invaders.

Well. At least you are being honest about supporting ethnic cleansing.

Just like we would consider it right and proper for the US Gov't to send in troops to fight Mexican invaders, and and locks who supported a Mexican invasion.

Ukraine's borders were established with the Budapest Accords.


So that is the rationale for supporting ethnic cleansing.

Anyone who doesn't like them, or doesn't want to live in a country that associates with the West, rather than with Putin's Russia, was more than welcome to sell their property in Ukraine and move to Russia.

What was completely, utterly, totally unacceptable was to try to take any part of Ukraine and put it under Putin's control.


Or allow 90% of them to vote for people like Yanukovich.

I don't care if 99.999% of the people there wanted that, and said so in an election. The border was decided with the Budapest Accords, which were passed to cut down on the number of nuclear weapons floating around for terrorists to buy.

That is as good a rationale to send a bunch of Nazi's over to kill Yanukovich supporters as any.

Dr Weevil said...

More ignorant misstatements:

Heartless Aztec (9:56am):
"The only thing missing are NKVD officers patrolling behind the lines with pistols."
Really? Now they have Chechens, instead. Russian regulars bitterly complain that the Chechen units never fight in the front lines, grab all the best loot, and shoot any of the regulars who try to retreat.

effinayright (2:12pm):
"Sebastopol remains the only other [than St. Petersburg] warm-water European port Russia has". What? Rostov-on-the-Don is a major port that is actually in Russia, not "borrowed" (=stolen) from Ukraine, and there are other smaller ports on the east (=Russian) side of the Sea of Azov. These could, of course, be easily blockaded with artillery or missiles at the western end of the Kerch bridge, once Ukraine recaptures Crimea.

However, there are more ports outside the Kerch strait on the NE coast of the Black Sea: Novorossiisk, Anapa, Sochi. Much of the Black Sea Fleet has already been moved to Novorossiisk since Ukrainian drones started attacking Sebastopol. If it's too small or too run down to handle all Russia's naval and commerce needs, it would still be much cheaper to expand and upgrade it than to try to hang on to Sebastopol.

rcocean (3:55pm):
"Facts:
. . . .
4) Russia has speecific limited goals that it wishes to achieve. Putin isn't trying to CONQUER THE WORLD!!"

Limited goals? He claimed at first that he only wanted the rest of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts (=all of Donbas) to be independednt republics, and Crimea to be firmly Russia. Since then he's annexed all of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, neither of which he ever had any ethnic claim to: he just figures he's occupying more than half of each, so all of both are his. He did have fake referenda in which he "got" ~97% of the vote, but the number of people dancing in Kherson city after the Russians pulled out demonstrates what a lie that was. He also annexed Luhansk and Donetsk as integral parts of Russia, which really pissed off the militias he had fooled into thinking he was going to make them independent. And he allows his propagandists on the evening news to talk about capturing Odesa, and all of Ukraine, and Poland, and Finland, and the Baltic states, and maybe Berlin and Brussels, and bombing Ukraine into the Stone Age, so the people are dying in the streets of hunger, thirst, cold, and filth-spread diseases, so they will all (all!) have to flee to Western Europe and crush the economies there by their enormous burden. That may not be quite "CONQUER[ING] THE WORLD", but it's not 'speecific' or limited goals, either. And it's all a huge mass of war crimes, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.

Butkus51 said...

lol, howard, cut the dose in half, youre wasted

Achilles said...

Greg The Class Traitor said...
BrianE said...
The justification for the illegal coup on Yanukovych was his decision to seek closer ties to Russia and reject the EU Association agreement, according to Greg the Class Traitor.

It's always good to start off with a lie. It lets us know where you're coming from.

Greg, you are lying again.

It wasn't an "illegal coup". It was public protests that the government of Yanukovych tried to violently suppress, followed by over 70% of the total members of Parliament voting to remove Yanukovych from office after he fled the country at went to his master's home in Moscow.

Yanukovich won a legal election. The people of Western Ukraine where the capital is at did not like the results and chased the opposition party out of Kyiv violently.

All political parties in Ukraine have been arrested by the current regime there.

But yeah you are sticking up for democracy. Shockingly the regime in Ukraine won the next election after sending the Azov battalion to eastern Ukraine to fortify the elections.

That's no more an "illegal coup" than it would be if the US Senate voted to impeach a US President with 68% of the Senators present, after that President had the FBI murder 100+ actually non-violent protesters.

The protestors were not non-violent. Nuland was the person in charge of the US intervention there.

You can take Nuland's word for it. You are an idiot if you do.

Achilles said...

Howard said...
You fucking Trump Cucks are traitors. The Navy and Marine Corps are retooling for China along with Japan Taiwan South Korea and Australia. Biden cut off Chinas balls with the chip ban and our partners fell in line. Xi's a clown in the mold of stable genius Putin and is helping the inevitable China implosion and fragmentation.

Foreign investment is flooding in the dollar is stronger than ever, the US is #1 in petroleum and manufacturing is increasing and consolidating to North America as China and Germany struggle.


You are a fascist Howard.

Howard is proud that the government and the largest corporations in the country are colluding to censor and persecute his political opponents.

Just substitute Jews for Trump Cucks in that diatribe above and his little drunken rant makes more sense.

11Bravo1P said...

I thought it was an excellent article. To Howard, insulting people doesn’t make your poor arguments any stronger. I’ve been reading the comments for years and I doubt that you have ever changed anyone’s mind about anything. Although you have provided some common ground for commentators, everyone despises you.

rwnutjob said...

Well thought out & lets no one off the hook.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/complications-of-the-ukraine-war/


Not said is that Putin would never attacked Ukraine were that crazy sumbitch still in office.

Mica said...

The article is excellent for what it wants and needs to achieve, and no more: The situation is developing very badly for our (USA) side, and there is no hope of Russians going back to 02/24 borders and of accepting simple, Minsk-type autonomy for Russian-speaking population, or anything like Swiss-like confederation. The new Russian minimum seems to be (picked up from various tidbits of information that leaked) a full Ukrainian disarmament, four new provinces accepted by the rump Ukraine as gone, and the autonomy or even separation for the rest of pro-Russian provinces (at least five more of them, from what I gather). Thus, the only hope is to blame Putin and wishfully think that his death (natural or unnatural) would resolve everything, allowing whomever comes later to go for the slightly less than this (just Donbas), if bribed.

Thank you Neocons! The face of true evil (very similar to Albright's "400K dead children in Iraq were worth it") is shown through the argument "for only $18B we got...weakened Russia, so we can then kill Chinese". Aside from the fact that the reality will be exactly the opposite, Russia will be stronger, and in the official alliance with China, Persians, and everyone who remembers colonialism (imagine - French were still fleecing their former colonies all these years! Not to mention Bidens "poor relatives" story that went really well). Brilliant. Thank you for achieving that through "only" pushing Ukrainians (of all colors, the country is ~1:1:1 split between fractions) to their deaths, and into their new maimed lives. At the end 1M (at least) of them! It was worth it!

Rusty said...

Indigo Red said...
"Putin lost the war the moment he decided to invade."
He was prepared to fight a war he was not prepared to win one. At this point he cannot command the type of troops or materiel to win. We are finding out that his allies don't have the materiel to lend him either. For Putin. His best option is to die in office. Soon. For the Russian people it is to withdraw their troops, such as they are, and pretend it never happened while begging for aid from the west. They'll get it too.

Lars Porsena said...

If those pesky Ukrainians would just give up.

Lars Porsena said...

I'm just here for all the Putin rootin'.

BrianE said...

What we've failed to recognize is Ukraine is really two countries. Had the issues of federalization been addressed, raised by ethnic Russians in the Donbass, in 1994 all this could have been avoided. Donbass separatism began long before 2014. From a Wikipedia article:

“The initiator of the local referendum (in 1994) in Donbass on the status of the Russian language and the federalization of Ukraine was the organization International Movement of Donbass, founded in 1989 by brothers Dmitry and Vladimir Kornilov. As Vladimir Kornilov recalled, “representatives of Donetsk political forces and organizations, and, most importantly, the strike committees of the Donetsk region, which at that time had great power, have long demanded the holding of this referendum. The idea of giving the Russian language a state status, along with the Ukrainian language, the idea of federalization of Ukraine was then on everyone’s lips and was raised not only in the Donbass, but also in Ukraine as a whole. Miners went on strike with these slogans.” In March 1994, the regional councils of Donetsk and Luhansk regions decided to hold a regional referendum.[2]”

“For a long time, the issue of linguistic and socio-economic rights of Russians in Ukraine was postponed. However, experts call the survey the forerunner of the events of the protests of 2014, which led to the creation of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. In particular, the speaker of the DPR Council of Ministers, Andrei Purgin, called 1994 “… the year of the birth of Donetsk separatism”.”

https://www.donbass-insider.com/2020/05/14/the-donbass-referendum-of-1994-on-which-the-whole-world-turned-a-blind-eye/

The overthrow of Yanukovych, who was elected mostly by those in eastern Ukraine, and the almost immediate slight by the Rada voting to repeal minority language laws no doubt precipitated the separatists to act, with the DPR and LPR independence declared on April 7 and 27, 2014– shortly after Crimea declared its independence.

Fighting began about April 12 between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian militias. According to Reuters correspondent, August 23 could be considered the day for Russian special forces to enter the fight.

Other eastern European countries separated. Yugoslavia separated into eight federated entities. Czechoslovakia split into the nations of Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

Candide said...

rwnutjob said...
Well thought out & lets no one off the hook.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/complications-of-the-ukraine-war/
_________________________________________________________________

Now, that can be considered an "excellent" article indeed.

Candide said...

I am sure during US Civil War the Confederate papers were full of "excellent" articles about Union failures and setbacks (of which there were many). They didn't even have to lie, just repeat the well known facts. What was missing from such "excellent" articles, was any mention of Confederate situation. That made the reporting one-sided and converted into propaganda.

Dr Weevil said...

BrianE (11:45am) tries to blame Ukraine for the Donbass insurrection:

"Fighting began about April 12 between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian militias. According to Reuters correspondent, August 23 could be considered the day for Russian special forces to enter the fight."

This is false. The violence began on April 12, 2014 when Igor Girkin, an allegedly retired KGB colonel (same rank as Putin when he went into politics) and Spetsnaz GRU (=special forces) veteran led a bunch of armed men from Russian-controlled Crimea to the town of Sloviansk and seized the government buildings by force, along with 400 pistols and 20 automatic weapons at the police station. Girkin was born in Moscow and had no legitimate grudge against the Ukrainian government. He claimed that two-thirds of his men were Russian-Ukrainians, which means at least a third of them (more if he was exaggerating) had no legitimate grudge against Kyiv. The whole thing was done for Putin, and did nothing to help the ethnic Russians of the Donbas.

(The Wikipedia articles on 'Igor Girkin' and the 'Seige of Sloviansk' have huge quantities of useful data. Read them before replying.)

While in control of Sloviansk, Girkin's men murdered a local politician, a 19-year-old college student, four Protestants whose cars they wanted to steal, and a bunch of other people. They also went around town looking for Romani (=Gypsies) so they could beat them up and steal their stuff. (Girkin said it was OK because all Gypsies are drug dealers.) Later in the year Girkin ordered the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner, killing 298 civilians (none of them Ukrainian), with equipment provided by Putin. He denied it for years, but has since admitted responsibility, and been convicted by a court in The Hague and sentenced to life in prison. Of course, Putin is protecting him in Russia.

Two more Wiki bits on Flight MH17:

"Girkin was the author of an alternative version of the incident, wherein 'no living people were aboard the plane as it flew on autopilot from Amsterdam, where it had been loaded with "rotting corpses".' This lie was then 'not only aired on all state-controlled media outlets, but was the subject of serious discussion.'" (Reminds me of 'tim in vermont' and his claim that the mass grave in Izyum was just the town cemetery and the corpses found were skeletons from 100 year ago, though they all had rotting flesh on the bones.)

"At his press-conference on 28 July 2014, Girkin denied his connection to the downed plane and announced that his militants were killing 'black-skinned' mercenaries."

That's the guy who actually started the Donbass insurrection, on Putin's orders.

BrianE said...

What I said was: "The overthrow of Yanukovych, who was elected mostly by those in eastern Ukraine, and the almost immediate slight by the Rada voting to repeal minority language laws no doubt precipitated the separatists to act, with the DPR and LPR independence declared in April 7 and 27, 2014– shortly after Crimea declared its independence."

The "Donbass insurrection", as you call it began on April 7. The roots of the separatist movement can be traced back to 1994, as I showed.

"On 7 April 2014, between 1,000 and 2,000[22] pro-Russian rebels attended a rally in Donetsk pushing for a Crimea-style referendum on independence from Ukraine. Ukrainian media claimed that the proposed referendum had no status-quo option.[23] Afterwards, 200–1000 separatists[24][22] stormed and took control of the first two floors of the government headquarters of the Regional State Administration (RSA), breaking down doors and smashing windows. The separatists demanded a referendum to join Russia, and said they would otherwise take unilateral control and dismiss the elected government.[25][26][27] When the session was not held, the unelected separatists held a vote within the RSA building and overwhelmingly backed the declaration of a Donetsk People's Republic."

They held the building until at least April 24.

Yes Girkin was part of the April 12 raid, but nothing indicates other Russian natives were part of it. The first recorded instance of Russian forces by reporters was in August. There are claims of Russian forces crossing the border under guise of peacekeeping, and shelling Ukrainian positions from Russian territory earlier in July.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People's_Republic

11Bravo1P said...

One interesting thing about the article was that it mentions that Russia’s 1 major cyber war success, compromising Ukrainian communications didn’t matter because Ukraine had an unnamed alternative. I’m guessing that the unnamed alternative was Starlink and that the Times chose not to mention it because they didn’t want to give Musk credit. Otherwise, it seems strange that an article so heavy on details became so vague about an important component of Ukraine’s early success

11Bravo1P said...

One interesting thing about the article was that it mentions that Russia’s 1 major cyber war success, compromising Ukrainian communications didn’t matter because Ukraine had an unnamed alternative. I’m guessing that the unnamed alternative was Starlink and that the Times chose not to mention it because they didn’t want to give Musk credit. Otherwise, it seems strange that an article so heavy on details became so vague about an important component of Ukraine’s early success

Dr Weevil said...

More bullshit:
Girkin was not "part of" the April 12 raid, he was the leader and instigator, and ordered most of the murders of civilians. Saying that "nothing indicates other Russian natives were part of it" is a lie: Girkin himself admits (against interest) that a third of the troops who followed him from Crimea to seize Sloviansk were not Ukrainian citizens. See Wikipedia under 'Igor Girkin', which also quotes him as saying "After all, I pressed the launching trigger of war." Can't get much clearer than that. Is it true that "The first recorded instance of Russian forces by reporters was in August"? Only if you mean that was the first time they wore their Russian uniforms across the border and stopped pretending (like Girkin) to be retired, or Ukrainian, or both.

The fact is that Girkin and others with no connection to Ukraine, except a desire to grab chunks of up for Putin, started the insurrection: the people of Donbas and the rest of Ukraine would have been far more likely to work out without violence if Putin hadn't wanted violence. And there is no indication whatsoever that anything close to a majority ever wanted to secede. One of the others who helped is listed under "Notable Figures" in the Wikepedia article on The Seige of Slovianks: Alexander "Bogeyman" Mozhaev, prominent in photographs and battles. Like Girkin, a Russian from Russia, with no legitimate grudge against Ukraine.

Anyone who tries to blame the Ukraine-Russia war entirely, or even mostly, on Ukraine, exonerating Putin, is a fool or a liar. And the fact that Yanukovych chooses to live in Russia, shows that he is a traitor to Ukraine, owned by Putin, and that he most likely always was one even before he started slaughtering unarmed demonstrators, lost all his support, and fled to his puppet-master.