On Ukraine today
Commenter “MBunge” thinks I haven’t paid enough attention to Ukraine lately. This was his snarky effort to bring it up:
Hey! Any body remember that war in Ukraine? You know, the one everybody was so excited about because it was all righteous and what not? Well…
Brahma Chellaney
@Chellaney
·
7h
Zelensky admits Russia now holds one-fifth of Ukraine, the largest country entirely within Europe. What he didn’t acknowledge is that Russia controls Ukraine’s industrial heartland, 90% of its energy resources (including all of offshore oil), and its critical ports and shipping.
I will give MBunge this: I haven’t written about Ukraine in a while.
The rest of MBunge’s comment is the needlessly snarky part: “all excited about because it was all righteous and what not.” What a way of trivializing and mocking what was actually deep deep concern and anguish about the suffering involved, as well as anger at Russia for provoking it (others disagreed and felt Ukraine provoked it, but all were upset by the war). And the “all-righteous” assertion is simply absurd; no one here said Ukraine was “all righteous” and in fact it has been acknowledged over and over that the country has a long history of corruption (as does Russia).
I’ve gone into the history of the two countries, both internal and their history with each other, many times. Suffice to say that neither is “all-righteous,” nor has anyone here said that Ukraine is. However, in this conflict and other recent ones, Ukraine is far more in the right than Russia – far more. MBunge and several others may disagree on that, but to characterize my position or the position of most of the commenters here as “Ukraine is all-rightous and what not” is a mocking mischaracterization.
But as I said, MBunge does have a point in that I wrote a lot about Ukraine and then stopped at least in the last few weeks. The reason is quite simple. At the beginning, there were three big surprises. The first was the enormous scope and ferocity/brutality of the Russian invasion, as well as Putin’s threats. The second was the defiance of the Ukrainians and their willingness to fight. The third was the fact that Europe supported them and to a certain extent has pulled back from its dependence on Russia. All these things were extremely newsworthy.
I had expected Ukraine to crumble from the start; that didn’t happen. But I never made predictions that Ukraine would win in the end – in fact, I steadfastly refused to make predictions and certainly would not have made that one. Most of the people here – and I’m included in that group – couldn’t see any good solution to this conflict. I still don’t.
At first there was some faint hope that internal forces in Russia might be able to dissuade Putin, but very early on it became clear that would not be happening. And I have never joined the chorus of “Putin is very sick and will die soon.” I just don’t see that as likely to be true at all.
It was quite a while ago that Russia stopped its offensive in so many regions of Ukraine and began concentrating on the ones it already had had a strong footing in (for example, ever since 2014, for the eastern regions). Once that happened, the war became less newsworthy in the sense of surprises, because it’s no surprise that when Russia concentrated its forces like that it would have the advantage. It doesn’t matter that the Russian military has such great flaws, it would still do well merely by attrition when it was in a much smaller area.
I still make no predictions, but I still see no good end here at all. I don’t know exactly how it will play out or when. I certainly plan to cover it when something extremely definitive and/or different happens. But till then I expect this slow chipping away at what’s left of Ukrainian sovereignty in the areas in which the fighting is occurring.
MBunge later wrote this (his first sentence is a quote from a comment I had written as a reply to him):
‘I think most people are well aware of it and have been aware for a long time that the next step for Russia would be concentrating on those eastern parts.”
Uh…I kind of think you’re gaslighting me here. There’s no “Ukraine” category on this blog but a search of “War and Peace” finds two posts on the subject in May after 15 in April. And if there’s one thing you CANNOT say about the majority of Ukraine talk here and in general it’s that there’s been much focus on long-term thinking or strategy.
Let’s not pretend that Ukraine has been the subject of a lot of sober consideration or debate. It’s been mostly “rah-rah” virtue signaling.
First of all, let me get one thing out of the way: there is a “Ukraine” tag on this blog, as well as a handy search function. When you do a search for “Ukraine” you get this. It’s a list of all my posts that mention the word. The first in line are those that have the word in the title, and then the next group contains all posts with the word in the body of the post but not in the title. They are listed in reverse chronological order for each group. They are 18 pages of posts (not all of them recent, of course). I believe that 12 posts are listed on each page (not sure and not interested in spending loads of time finding out). You do the math – that’s a lot of posts.
Take the first post in that list, and you’ll see that at the end of it there are tags and one says “Ukraine.” If you click on that tag, you’ll get relatively recent posts that I’ve tagged as being about Ukraine, four pages of them. I didn’t have the tag function until a few years ago, so the tagged posts for that topic only go back to 2019.
Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, I’ll respond to the rest of MBunge’s snarky comment number two. He wrote, “if there’s one thing you CANNOT say about the majority of Ukraine talk here and in general it’s that there’s been much focus on long-term thinking or strategy.” In fact, that’s one thing I can say, and I’ve said it before. I purposely didn’t focus – unlike a lot of writers – on troop movements and specific battles, or talk about specifics at all. With just a few exceptions, I purposely focused on the big picture: right and wrong, whether “winning” was possible and what that might look like, whether a war should be fought when things look dire, Europe’s and the world’s reaction, and what Putin might or might not be thinking and intending in the long run.
MBunge also wrote, “Let’s not pretend that Ukraine has been the subject of a lot of sober consideration or debate. It’s been mostly ‘rah-rah’ virtue signaling.” I can speak for myself, but I also think that for most commenters here, Ukraine has actually been the focus of an enormous amount of sober discussion and debate. No one here is “virtue-signaling” that I can see. That may indeed be occurring on the part of some people who as a kneejerk response post Ukrainian flags on their Twitter accounts, or something of the sort. But you won’t see that here and you haven’t seen that here, not from me or from the vast majority of commenters.
But yes, it was time to address Ukraine again. And so I have. I’ll add that I think this article published today on Ukraine is well worth reading. I haven’t finished it – it’s long – but I recommend it from what I’ve read of it so far.
https://alchetron.com/cdn/pugsley-addams-c3bce0b2-5a1d-4fc0-9965-651ccac23d3-resize-750.jpg
Two important points of interest about the unfortunate conflict in Ukraine are that both Kissinger and the editors at the NYT seem to have developed a new perspective on the need for caution and realism (i.e. not encouraging the prolonging of hostilities into a seemingly endless quagmire/stalemate, a terrible state of affairs seemingly desired by some) and that Pedro Gonzalez (a very bright and very thoughtful young conservative ) recently posted a fascinating essay (@im_1776) entitled “Servant of the Corrupt” on the unseemly relationship between Zelensky and the truly odious Kolomoisky, who brought him to power. Whatever one thinks of the geopolitical implications of the situation in Ukraine, the arguments of Gonzalez are well worth contemplating.
Not much interested in inside baseball as to which Big Shot is more corrupt in a corrupt country and culture.
Point, for me, is what the ultimate end will mean for Russia. Resurgent and ambitious. Chastened. New regime at the top with more practical ends in mind, such as continuing to enrich themselves. Aggressive but without enough maneuver forces to hold a parade and thus doing something (what?) else. Federalize in the sense that Moscow loses much control of the various outlying polities. Break up altogether and each “republic” fighting its neighbors. Not fighting its neighbor.
But for the present, attritting Russian forces massively is a Good Thing.
I’ve enjoyed the break from Ukraine discussion. I agree with the 1/2/3 issues that made it worth discussing initially. I still believe Putin wanted Ukraine’s energy, and I still expect others disagree. But it doesn’t really matter, whether I’m right or wrong about the motives doesn’t mean I support the action.
My primary concern about Ukraine is that the US not get sucked into it. While I don’t think my concern has been handled ideally, it is to my preference that Ukraine isn’t a daily discussion. Otherwise, I’m now only interested, as Richard Aubrey notes above with perhaps different reasons, is the future for Russia. Putin’s bad, the Russian people are not. I’d like to see Russia knocked down a bit and less a threat to everybody, but a lot of good and innocent Russians will be hurt. An analogy is cheering on higher inflation because it hurts Biden and Democrats political ambition, while forgetting it does so by first hurting everyday Americans. Therefore I don’t really want to be talking about higher inflation daily, but we will occasionally need to talk about it because it is a thing that is happening.
and the truly odious Kolomoisky, who brought him to power.
He was ‘brought to power’ by Ukraine’s voters.
“and the truly odious Kolomoisky, who brought him to power.”
“He was ‘brought to power’ by Ukraine’s voters.” Art Deco
Yes, in exactly the same way that Joe Biden was brought to power.
Given how corrupt the Ukraine is, given how dominant and powerful Kolomoisky clearly is, it is at best, the height of naivete to suggest that Zelensky was ‘brought to power’ by Ukraine’s ‘voters’.
“I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.” Stalin, said in 1923; Boris Bazhanov The Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary (1992)
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00010383
“The struggle for our democracy is no longer just about who gets to vote. It’s about who counts the votes—and whether they should count at all.” Joe Biden
https://twitter.com/i/status/1452007673067606018
I suspect that the emboldened below will have a profound effect.
“Zelensky admits Russia now holds one-fifth of Ukraine, the largest country entirely within Europe. What he didn’t acknowledge is that Russia controls Ukraine’s industrial heartland, 90% of its energy resources (including all of offshore oil), and its critical ports and shipping.” [my emphasis] Brahma Chellaney @ Chellaney
13 minutes Geoffrey.
Will you mourn if Vlad’s little gambit and sprightly capers in Ukraine go completely agley?
Fog of war.
Things haven’t gone according to the Roosian plan, or haven’t you noticed?
Useless.
I don’t know anything about M Bunge, so I cannot guess why he thinks it is your responsibility to inform him, and us, on continuing developments in Ukraine.
As for who was right and who was wrong. Phooey. I always thought of Ukraine as corrupt. I also thought of Russia as corrupt. Now, as an American, I don’t think we have any right to throw stones at corruption anywhere in the world. (We cannot even hold honest elections) .
None of that is relevant to me. Naked aggression is naked aggression. Naked aggression unopposed leads to more naked aggression, in my opinion.
I have no doubt that China and Taiwan are watching with opposing emotions.
Kissinger and the foreign policy elites are beginning to sound a familiar refrain; except that they seem to be tiring of this much earlier than our Elites tired of Vietnam, and some of our more recent adventures. Not to say that we are very adventurous as it pertains to Ukraine.
I hope the Ukrainians can hold forever. We do not know what the real situation is within the Kremlin; so do not know how long Putin can pursue his madness. Barring some surprise there, I suppose it is likely that at some point the Russians will wear them down. In that case, I hope that they can cut a reasonable deal.
I also hope–without much hope–that the world will not return to business as usual with Russia in the foreseeable future.
Oldflyer:
Well said.
I admit I still have a Ukrainian flag on my Facebook banner. It’s not meant to suggest I’m virtuous, it’s my small gesture of solidarity with a country that surprised me very much by fighting back bravely against what I thought would be insuperable odds. The country clearly has corruption and other faults, but none of that changes my admiration of its all-or-nothing effort to remain independent of the crazy bullies to its east.
Geoffrey Britain:
To save time and effort – since you insist on repeating the same old arguments – I’ll refer you to this comment re corruption and Ukraine and Kolomoisky.
But how very astounding that Zelensky, in a country with tons of corrupt oligarchs, got contributions for his campaign from a corrupt oligarch whom he knew from before because that oligarch had been the head of the TV station that broadcast Zelensky’s show starting in 2012, back when Zelensky was an entertainer. That makes the very popular very young Zelensky, who was popular way before he ran for office, exactly like Biden in how he come to power (I’m being sarcastic there, obviously).
It is not the height of naivete to say that voters were the main reason that Zelensky got elected. It’s not even especially naive at all.
Geoffrey:
Vlad and Xi working together for democracy, good thing they are fighting the WEF/Davos. Right? So are you rooting for Xi too?
https://warisboring.com/china-says-it-will-work-with-russia-to-promote-real-democracy-under-its-own-conditions-not-by-the-united-states-definition/
“What he didn’t acknowledge is that Russia controls Ukraine’s industrial heartland, 90% of its energy resources (including all of offshore oil), and its critical ports and shipping.”
It’s called “Odessa”. Google it.
And you might want to give military analysts “streiff” at RedState and Trent Talenko a read. A lot of it is nuts and bolts, especially about logistics, but almost all (not all, but almost) of the analysis trends upward for Ukraine.
And then there is this breaking story:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1532840519704928256.html
Russia doesn’t control 90% of Ukraine’s industrial heartland. It contains none of it, given that it has flattened everything within its reach.
Russia is clearly now just destroying Ukraine’s assets for the sake of it. Nations that intend to conquer a country don’t destroy the infrastructure, because that is precisely what they need when they own it.
Russian strategy at the moment would appear to suggest that it is playing for a lose-lose draw. Other than a massive effort to take Severodonetsk, which is not exactly going well, they are on the defensive in every other sector. And that is before the better US weapons arrive.
It is funny watching people who have never cared in the past about corruption in their allies suddenly get all pious about it. I’ve seen people on the internet who supported Pinochet go all weak-kneed about the Ukrainians being Nazis! People who have not the slightest issue with the US being close to Saudi Arabia, are now concerned that the Ukrainians aren’t as democratic as they might be.
The Ukrainians want to be on our side. That is good enough for me.
Bunge will have to check in with Geoffrey to coordinate their spin.
Whole lot of feinting to follow?
Imagine the narcissism required to make dinner demands at someone else’s table. The internet, while not as cool and diverse as it used to be, is still a big place. So it sounds like someone can put on his big boy pants and go look for the content he’s craving.
I’ve enjoyed the Ukraine pieces that you’ve written and hadn’t even noticed a lull, because your other content is also worthwhile. Keep up the good work.
Whose blog is this anyway?
Great post, Neo.
Musings: Since when did corruption in government become a disqualifier for receiving U.S. aid in a war/conflict with a geopolitical foe? Which has more government corruption, Ukraine or Russia? Is not the U.S.A. unacceptably corrupt? Did we not, in the Second World War, support (provide aid to) two extremely corrupt governments — the Republic of China and the Soviet Union — in order to defeat the greater evil (i.e. Nazi Germany and Japan)?
If you’re going to play the Great Game, expect to get your hands dirty.
The observation by Chester Draws about Russia razing territory it has invaded in Ukraine rather than “occupying” it strikes me as apt. And important. Russia claimed at the outset that it was supporting breakaway provinces in the eastern part of their neighbor, and then proceeded to level all infrastructure there. With that kind of support. . . You know the rest. This is noteworthy for illustrating the Russian lie, but then the world already knew the truth about Russian revanchism. If they cared.
I have been a little surprised, given Russia’s destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure, that India has increased their trade relationship with Russia. I guess its unimportant for a non-contiguous country, which India is, of course. The Baltic states might be worried, though.
As for Neo’s decision to cover other topics, JFM has it right.
It was quite a while ago that Russia stopped its offensive in so many regions of Ukraine and began concentrating on the ones it already had had a strong footing in (for example, ever since 2014, for the eastern regions).
Either that, or they secured their interests (e.g. Wuhan-style lab awareness, Black Sea port, pipelines), Ukrainian lives (e.g. denial of essential services in Crimea, assaults in Donbas), and caused Kiev and NATO to pause and reconsider.
Sadly colonels baud and macgregor were more right putin has incurred many casualties but then wouldnt we to hold on to texas (you see how the regime has treated texas) i knew it would be a savage affair because i know of zachista. I also know the cost to us with these ridiculous sanctions are ruinous in a hundred different ways i also know this didnt happen under supposed russian puppet trump, as the latter cared about real american interests.
This regime rewards cuba and venezuela pulls colombian guerillas off the terrorist list (one ex member may be president, like dilma roussef) so forgive me for being cynical about this endeauvour.
Oh very quietly a soros sponsored syndicate b0ught many of the opposition latin stations in places like miami cant have any of that desinformation like last time
I didn’t perceive MBunge’s comment as demanding that neo write about Ukraine.
}}} “Ukraine is all-rightous and what not” is a mocking mischaracterization.
Mockery and Straw Men are the PostModern Left’s primary weapons.
This manages to be both.
It’s efficient. Disingenuous, dishonest, and lacking in any semblance of reason, wit, or argumentative talent.
But it is efficient…
Mighuel cervantes:
MacGregor was not right. No one has ever said he is wrong in predicting that ultimately it’s highly possible Russia will gain some Ukrainian territory. If that’s all he was saying, he wouldn’t have stood out in any way and it’s highly possible he wouldn’t have been wrong. His distinction – and this is what he was wrong about over and over and over – was in predicting very early dates for Ukrainian capitulation and Russian victory. He’s been wrong every time and yet very sure of himself, and I don’t think he’s ever acknowledged how wrong he’s been – he just moves the date forward a little bit.
we assess reality vs desired outcomes, I still don’t understand why Putin chose to engage in this, but this gambit has so far been much more detrimental to us, than t and the solvency of the West in general, than to Putin, that becomes clearer every day, and the countersigns I illustrate above suggest it’s not about weakening Putin, but another agenda entirely, not unlike the circumstances that brought Putin to power, with the stripping and redistribution of much of the economy, in the Yeltsin era, and one can’t help this meshes perfectly with the Left’s greater plan to post industrial transformation, in the other threads,
but this gambit has so far been much more detrimental to us, than t and the solvency of the West in general, than to Putin
You could not be more wrong it you tried.
Russia has an economy the size of Italy’s. Less now, with sanctions.
The cost of the destroyed military hardware alone is astronomical. Unless they also want a military the size of Italy’s, it will take most of their government budget for decades to rebuild. Meanwhile the best and brightest of Russia will leave a country clearly heading down a dark path. The Russian economy, already not great because of Putin’s control, is in tatters.
Meanwhile the sanctions have caused the price of gas to go up a bit, some food to be more expensive and some tech firms to lose sales. The difference to us in the West is minor, if only because in a couple of years new supply will replace them. It does allow politicians to deflect blame for inflation from their policies, but we shouldn’t believe them.
I agree, Chester Draws. Any cost to us from applying sanctions is trivial and temporary in the scheme of things. Of course even that could have been mitigated through reasonable actions by our government. Instead, I perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the government is using the cover of Ukraine to squeeze our economy into submission.
That aside, what are a people who proclaim, or pretend, to be moral to do in the face of naked aggression? (Am I the only one willing to use that term?) There used to be a term called the “domino theory”. Ironically, critics decried that theory when the U.S. tried to draw a line in Vietnam; after watching it at work in Eastern Europe, and Korea in the aftermath of WWII. Without using the words, Putin has resurrected the theory. We best not ignore him.
tell me how this ends, seriously, not what you wish will happen, but what is likely to happen, walter cronkite lied about the tet offensive, but as sam adams noted, westmoreland’s intel chief general graham ignored evidence of vietcong massing,
how much is europe spending in it’s own backyards,
For Geoffrey and Bunge:
How the western Intelligence Community (and the Colonel MacWrongs) totally misjudged the Russian military capabilities (western politicians were no better judges, Brandon, et al).
Not that Geoffrey or Bunge would know any of this.
You think Ukraine is corrupt? Think about the Roosian military and the oligarchs under Vlad.
But, but, but, NATO!
Was Vlad to stupid to know how bad his armed froces really were?
Military History not Visualized
Why were we so wrong about Russia?
https://youtu.be/tlwNgFmNEI8
@ miguel > “tell me how this ends, seriously, not what you wish will happen, but what is likely to happen,”
This is one of the better analyses that I’ve read to date.
Whether he’s correct or not only time will tell, but he lays out the options fairly so far as I can tell. (h/t PowerlineBlog)
https://quillette.com/2022/06/04/zelenskys-terrible-choice-and-ours/
Zelensky’s Terrible Dilemma—and Ours
Capitulation or Bloody Resistance? by John Lloyd
It seems that Roosia as presently goverened is an existential threat to Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and the Baltics; not to be trusted to abide by agreements, borders, or treaties. After all Greater Russia must be restored.
But, but, but NATO.
Bunge and Geoffrey:
An hour of analysis on the Ukrainian resistance to Vlad’s aggression (aka war) and prognosis. Warning, he isn’t a Vlad apologist.
Perun
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sSPhOWDkcPk
.