Ukrainians could win war?? Ukrainians WILL win this war.

Pretty much everything I've been saying:

Why the War in Ukraine is "Different".

Well, other than a madman with a shitload of nukes is threatening to start World War III.

It's happening in Europe. Not that there hasn't been armed struggle in Europe. After all, the Balkans (Serbia, Kosovo,etc.) have been combat zones. It's that this is a huge struggle with 2 million refugees pushing west, which would be a shitload more if Ukraine were part of the European Union. That would mean the border would have been open releasing a flood of refugees.

Also, there is the unspoken guarantee by the West given when Ukraine received its independence that the West (and Russia) would guarantee that independence.

Quite frankly, Putin is showing that NATO, especially the United States, is weak.

On the other hand, the Russian forces are also pretty ineffective. The Ukrainians are capturing Russian equipment and killing generals. And that's not adding in that the troops are surrendering whenever they can.

I mentioned the leaked report by the FSB member that said:

A report thought to be by an analyst in the FSB, the successor agency to the KGB, said that the Russian dead could already number 10,000. The Russian defence ministry has acknowledged the deaths of only 498 of its soldiers in Ukraine.

The problem is that the enemy (yes, Putain is our enemy whoever you are) believes that defeat is a sign of weakness. That means he isn't giving up until all his troops are dead. Unless someone can come up with a way for him to surrender while saving face.

Unfortunately, he had lost the war before it began.

You don't need to be an expert on Ukraine to know that. You just need to have a passing knowledge of the history and the country to have seen that.

I said that Ukraine would be Biden's downfall. It also appears that it is Putain's. 

I just want it to end soon because it's like the US's "peaceful protests" except it's affecting the entire world.

A brief on some points of Ukrainian History: Ukrainian Patriotic Army, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, etc.

By this point, people may have seen material from Russian Bots, or at least Soviet Era material about Stepan Bandera, Ukrainian Patriotic Army, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and the Kievan Rus. So, let's get started.

The Kievan Rus: Putin is correct in that Kyiv, or Kiev, is the birthplace of the Rus. But he needs to realise that would mean Moscow takes second place to Kyiv if he wants to be that way. He has to realise that he's been beaten by a dude who can play the piano with his penis (Volodymyr Zelensky). That should be really painful for Putain, who likes to boast about his black belt in Judo.  Hey, that shit only works in the dojo anyway.

I should add that Volodymyr Zelensky happens to be Jewish: especially since one of the reasons Russian bots give to not support Ukraine is that there are Nazis and Anti-Semites. But as the tweet shows, there are Jews in the modern Ukrainian resistance. There also were Jewish members in the OUN of Stepan Bandera's day.

Anyway...

I mention the Holodomor a lot: It means "death by hunger".  Stalin and his followers were determined to teach the Ukrainian people “a lesson they would not forget.”  Tens of thousands of Ukraine’s intellectual, spiritual, and cultural leaders were arrested, some subjected to show trials and executed, most sent to prison labor camps, often resulting in death. In June of 1933, at the height of the Holodomor, 28,000 men, women and children in Ukraine were dying of starvation each day.  The land that was known worldwide as the breadbasket of Europe was being ravaged by a man-made famine of unprecedented scale.

Next we get to the Ukrainian resistance during the pre-WWII period and beyond. The unfortunate thing is that there is the reputation for being genocidal, which is one of the reasons for Putain's invasion. The Ukrainian Army has various regiments which strongly idolise Stepan Bandera. I mentioned that Stepan Bandera is the devil incarnate for some people due to his "genocidal" urges. 

But people need to understand that Bandera was an ardent nationalist during a period of ardent nationalism. The rise of nationalism in Europe initiated with the Spring of Nations in 1848. Nationalism calls on people to identify with the interests of their national group and to support the creation of a state to support those interests. Countries like Poland and Ukraine wanted their independence. The 14-18 war started with the assassination of Prince Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian Nationalist. Extreme and violent nationalism was pretty much epidemic as the rise of the National Socialist German Workers Party demonstrated. 

After the war people who collaborated with the enemy were subjected to trials with collaborators being killed. France had its Épuration légale:

The three Épuration periods were: épuration sauvage, épuration légale, and a third phase in which suspected and guilty collaborators were treated with lenience. The first phase, épuration sauvage, produced the most brutal retribution of the three periods. The first phase took place during and immediately after the liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944. The wrath of the partisan French citizens was directed at suspected and well-known collaborators. Many people waited inside their apartments expecting to hear the dreaded knock—similar to the Gestapo and French police tactics during the Occupation. After the arrest, punishments included beatings, interrogation with torture, as well as summary executions (with or without the benefit of a “kangaroo” court). This period of time was essentially one of lawlessness and mob rule. Women suspected of having a German lover were rounded up and most had their heads shaved while some had swastikas carved into their foreheads. A second but shorter phase occurred in May and June of 1945 when the surviving deportees returned home. Newsreels of the concentration camps and the gruesome scenes contributed to another round of épuration sauvage. It was reminiscent of the week-long “September Massacre” (1792) during the French Revolution when the mobs emptied the prisons and killed many of the prisoners.

The wrath of people in occupied nations after WWII is pretty well known and went on for a while. I would also add that there were Nazi collaborators and sympathisers pretty much all over world: even in the US. As one Belgian friend said after we went to an exhibition on Belgian Resistance during WWII: "that's amusing since most Belgians were pro-Nazi..." So, Nazi sympathisers were also pretty common, but how many people get guilt tripped for driving a VW or Ford? Or remember that the US Nazi party had a rally in NYC's Madison Square Garden?

Stepan Bandera was indeed a guest of the Germans: he spent most of the war in Sachsenhausen Kz (or concentration camp). Peter Bandera provided the picture from the Auschwitz Memorial since three members of Stepan Bandera's family were in Concentration Camps. This is from the Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre:

The myth presenting the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) and the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) as main actors in these acts of violence, was actively exploited by the Soviet and later Russian propaganda to justify the fight that the USSR’s repressive agencies were waging against these organizations. As the myth goes, during World War II the supporters of the nationalist movement were massively killing Jews, Poles, and Russian speakers. It thus gave grounds to the Soviet intelligence and members of the security service to fight against them till the late 1950s under the pretext to not let them “massively kill”. Not only OUN members but also members of the group that had formally nothing to do with the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists were presented as “Ukrainian nationalists” by the Soviet and Russian propaganda

It is not rare to see the statements in today’s Russian media suggesting “mass killings of Jews by followers of Bandera” and that “Bandera was responsible for killings of Jews in western Ukraine”. They also claim that “Nachtigall” and “Roland” (German battalions formed of Ukrainian soldiers, which did not take part in combat actions) were among the main organizers of Holocaust in Ukraine. By mixing up these notions attempts are made to create a logical sequence in the heads of the viewers and readers suggesting that Ukrainians standing for the independent state are nationalists, while Ukrainian nationalists were killing Jews during World War II, which makes all standing for the independent Ukrainian state open or secret anti-Semites and criminals.

Mass and systematic killings of Jews during World War II in Ukraine were conducted not by Ukrainian nationalists but by Nazi troops and militarized units. These were mainly staff of security service, SS and police as well as assistant personnel.

According to an UNIAN correspondent, SBU archive representative, candidate of historical sciences Oleksander Ishchuk showed declassified documents, which provide an objective basis to state that OUN was not connected with violent actions against the civil population of Lviv in July 1941. According to Mr. Ishchuk, the declassified documents of SBU indicate that on July 4-7 of 1941, representatives of Gestapo, who arrived in Lviv, turned to Ukrainian circles with demand to carry out a three-day massacre of Jews. “The OUN leadership, having got to know about that, informed its members that it was a German provocation in order to compromise Ukrainians with massacres”, the document reads. Mr. Ishchuk highlighted that “The SBU documents confirm that OUN members were trying to avoid taking part in actions against the Jewish population in Lviv, there were no official instructions on this issue”

Cases are known when Bandera supporters in Central and Eastern Ukraine were giving false passports to the Jews or were even hiding them from the Germans. Among those who saved the Jews during World War II there were OUN members including the wife of Roman Shukhevych, UPA chief commander, Natalia as well as the priest Omelyan Kovch (OUN member since 1930s). 

Samuel Drix in Witness to Annihilation: Surviving the Holocaust a Memoir (ISBN 978-0028810874) said this about Stepan's cousin, Osip: "Engineer Bandera was not anti-Semitic as far as I could tell. He seemed to me a very decent person, and he had respect for doctors." I would add that technically Stepan was Polish since he was born in the Lviv (Lwow) Oblast. Not to mention he was sitting in Sachsenhausen as a guest of the Nazis for a good portion of the war. 

Note that the Swastika is underfoot

Thus, despite the military cooperation with Germany OUN(b) was pursuing their own political line that the Nazi were not aware of. A good example of such behavior was Declaration of Ukrainian State Act of June 30, 1941 in Lviv. It came as a surprise for Hitler’s supporters as independent Ukraine was never part of the Third Reich’s plans. On July 5, 1941 the Nazis arrested Bandera. And then on July 9,  the head of the newly established government, Yaroslav Stetsko.

The OUN intended to take advantage of the retreat of Soviet forces from Ukraine with the Declaration of State Act. Some members thought that they had found a new powerful ally in Nazi Germany to aid them in their struggle against the Soviet Union. Days after the Nazi invasion of Lviv, however, the leadership of the newly formed government was arrested and sent to concentration camps in Germany. Within two years of the declaration, the Nazis had imprisoned or killed 80% of OUN-B leadership.

It may not be correct to try and justify killing: On the other hand, this was a very violent period where collaborators often met violent ends, as did people in the resistance. There were Jewish Revenge Squads that sought out Nazis and killed them without a trial.

Anyway, the Ukrainians have been working for an independent nation for a while now, but the Russians want to make sure they remain puppets the same way that Belarus is. The reality is that Ukraine is an independent nation, which is guaranteed by the 1994 Budapest Agreement. And that is the goal of Ukrainian nationalists: an independent Ukraine.

See also:

• The Holdomor Resource Library
• The hacked swastika info-op that reinforced antisemitic stereotypes about Ukraine
  
• Declaration of State Act 30 Jun 1940 
•  SBU declassifies documents proving OUN-UPA not connected with anti-Jewish actions
• Smear and Loathing: A Close Look at Accusations of Ukrainian Anti-Semitism 
• History of OUN-UPA: the Bandera controversy that eclipsed 200,000 people who fought for the independence of Ukraine
•  Historian Andrey Zubov: Banderites are an example of the great lie of the Soviet system
•  A few words for Christopher Miller about “Banderites” and Ukrainian history
  
• 10 Myths about the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) 
• 10 myths about the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). Myth #3: Bandera and Ukrainian nationalists were agents of the Nazi special services
  
• 10 myths about the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). Myth #5: Ukrainian nationalists were massively killing Jews during World War II, especially in Lviv and in Babyn Yar
• The Ukrainian Insurgent Army — Inside One of WW2’s Strangest Resistance Movements
  
• CIA‘s Use of Nazi Strategy on Ukrainian Right-Wing Nationalists Unabated since Cold War  
• Yizkor.org Sepher Stryj- Chapters 2 & 3 
• Jewish Revenge Squads 
•  Ukraine got a signed commitment in 1994 to ensure its security – but can the US and allies stop Putin’s aggression now?
• American Nazism and Madison Square Garden
  

Russia WILL lose: the question is how long it will take to admit defeat? Will he?

Adam Casey made this comment about the FSB and FSB troops which pretty much cements for me that its only a matter of time, and lives, before the Russians are defeated by the Ukrainians. The FSB is corrupt, which means it isn't really loyal. A corrupt service can be bought off: especially if it means they get to live.

People try to fit this into the framework of past wars: usually people with no military experience. Yes, there is a war which this fits into: the Winter War between Russia and Finland of 39-40. It didn't go well for Russia.

Let's toss in that the Russians started their war in Ukraine's mud season. Rasputitsa is a Russian term for two seasons of the year, spring and autumn, when travel on unpaved roads or across country becomes difficult. Rasputitsa are well known as a great defensive advantage in wartime. Common nicknames include General Mud and Marshal Mud. A spring thaw probably saved Novgorod from conquest and sacking during the 13th-century Mongol invasion. During the French invasion of Russia in 1812, Napoleon found the mud a great hindrance. The months-long muddy period slowed the German advance on the Eastern Front during the Second World War. It was particularly important during the Battle of Moscow (October 1941 to January 1942) and may have helped save the Soviet capital from German occupation.

Ukraine is the poorest nation in Europe with the infrastructure to go with that. There are rumours that mud and poor maintenance are reasons for Russian tanks stalling.

Of course, you would think a Russian officer would know that, but...

Getting back to the starting proposition, the Times (UK) has published an article by an FSB whistleblower who is hinting that Russian dead could already be over 10,000. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-war-will-be-a-total-failure-fsb-whistleblower-says-wl2gtdl9m and https://truepublica.org.uk/global/fsb-whistleblower-this-war-will-be-a-total-failure/

The FSB whistleblower went on to say that – “By and large, though, Russia has no way out. There are no options for a possible victory, only defeat.”

https://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report

In looking at Putin’s strategy, experienced commentators such as retired senior military officers mostly agree that the war is unwinnable. Right now approximately 70 per cent of Russia’s mobile military units are in full operation. Indeed, even if Putin was able to declare victory by taking Kyiv, other major cities and ports, it’s an unmistakable fact that Ukraine is the largest country in continental Europe with the exception of Russia itself. Attempting to control well over 40 million hostile citizens in a landmass that’s a fifth larger than France would take unbelievable resources that Russia simply does not have.

It is estimated that not including supply and logistics, well over 500,000 troops would be needed to control Ukraine.

The Soviets invaded under the miconception that they would be greeted as "liberators". Once the Russians realised that there would be resistance, the Russian army is trying to pound cities into submission with rockets, bombs, and artillery. All that is counterproductive to their strategy since they are destroying the people and places they claim to be saving, which is something that is lost in the Western media.

The problem is that Putin sees admitting defeat as weakness. He has also hinted at a willingness to use nuclear weapons without any real provocation. No matter what the scenario, the Russians continue to face stiff resistance they could even decide to go nuclear. In their armory are short-range tactical nuclear weapons that would devastate infrastructure and buildings.

This isn't Hitler. Or Saddam Hussein. It is the real madman sitting on enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the planet several times over. That is a verifiable fact.

Americans shit their pants when a few buildings get wiped out: what are they going to do when a couple of cities are vapourised?

There are ways to support Ukraine without actually "getting invovled", especially since Ukrainians are known to fight hard: even without outside support. The Vietnamese had the Ho Chi Minh Trail. And The Ukrainians have a reputation for a porous border between them and the EU. 

Any modern war will be asymetric, meaning a guerilla war where the larger foe is worn down. Not that it's that modern a strategy: it's how the US gained its independence. The modern twist is having weapons which can destroy a resisting citizenry. Of course, as I keep pointing out, Russia is killing and destroying the people it is claiming to save. They are destroying the village to save it.

That's what makes this war very scary since to old paradigms no longer apply. It's the horror film.

ADDITION: I am seeing tweets saying that the Pentagon is reporting that 100% of the Russian troops mobilised for this operation have been deployed. That says to me that the Russians have over-extended their resources.

Sources:

• The Lesson of Sarajevo — Putin Can’t Win 
• Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Was a Dumb Move
  
• Plougshares Fund: Nuclear Stockpiles.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that US opinion about Ukraine is now "fraying"

 I should be surprised any interest has lasted as many news cycles as this has. I have too many reasons to care.

And Trump wasn't the start. The US has a history of being isolationist. I am of the opinion that it would have been neutral in both World Wars had US interests not been attacked (Lusitania and Pearl Harbour). The video is in French, but it gives a good rundown on US isolationism and other reasons for inactivity now.

I support Ukraine, but it is foolish for any direct action unless Putain is mad enough to attack a NATO nation. But there are a lot of things one can do that are not "direct military intervention". Supplying arms is one of them. Part joke: I tweeted to Shannon Watt that the US could encourage donating "assault weapons" to the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians have always been good at using captured weapons against conquerors: German and Russian. 

(sorry I took a twitter break to see how the war is going. Ukrainians are kicking ass, but taking a lot of civilian casualties)

OK, Ukraine can do well without too much help from outside, but they need outside help. On the other hand, the Russians do intend on ending US's role as a "Superpower" (see this: https://fak.medium.com/the-russian-offensive-and-the-new-world-1220461b3bfb). Divisions in US aid to Ukraine only hasten the fall of the US in terms of its prestige in the world.

"The New American Century" may end up meaning a return to what it was before the 20th Century: a Western Hemisphere backwater.

Героям слава. Слава Україні. Ходімо, Брендон!

I know the big thing for people is to knock Trump for somehow causing all this, but I have a hard time doing that when I look at the time line.

And, yes, I can do this without having to mention the impeachment after this opening.

Ukraine was the most populous and industrialised republic after the Russian Soviet Republic, until regaining its independence in 1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Following its independence, Ukraine formed a unitary republic under a semi-presidential system, with separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It declared itself a neutral state in 1994.

Which takes us to the First International Agreement relating to Ukraine's Independence: The Budapest Memorandum of 1994. The memorandum was struck in 1994, following lengthy and complicated negotiations involving the then Russian president Boris Yeltsin, Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma, US president Bill Clinton and the then British prime minister John Major.

The Budapest Memorandum consists of a series of political assurances whereby the signatory states commit to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. But the meaning of the security assurances was deliberately left ambiguous. According to a former US diplomat who participated in the talks, Steven Pifer, it was understood that if there was a violation, there would be a response incumbent on the US and the UK. And while that response was not explicitly defined, Pifer notes that: “there is an obligation on the United States that flows from the Budapest Memorandum to provide assistance to Ukraine, and […] that would include lethal military assistance”.

For the most part, this memorandum has been neglected in the "Anglo-Saxon" press. On the other hand, it might explain why the US and UK were expecting a Russian Invasion of Ukraine, while the Europe was expecting that Putain wouldn't go much further than threaten.

There is a bit more history here, but we next get to 2014 since that was an important year with Euromaidan, The Russian Annexation of Crimea, and the beginning of the conflict in the Donbass. I'm not going to get into the allegations of Western (in particular US) interference by instigating the Maidan Revolt. But, the US failed to invoke its guarantee for Ukraine's independence under the Budapest Memorandum.

Who was President and Vice President in 2014??? Fortunately, Hillary Clinton was no longer Secretary of State.

I've already mentions MH17 and the fighting in the Donbass, which provided one of the reasons for the Russian invasion, but there were the Minsk Accords signed at this time. This was firmly during the period 2014-2015. There was no attempt to put in place an international peacekeeping force. 

There are a few problems with addressing a certain president since, like mention of these international agreements, is not accurate or verifiable, in the media. One of which is NATO involvement in Ukraine. There was an assurance to Russia that NATO "would not move one inch eastward" during negotiations for German Unification. Of course, that assurance was broken ironically by George W. Bush. I did find this interesting line from David Palumbo-Liu in the Stanford Daily:

In the fall of 2021, the idea of Ukraine joining NATO was gone, but it had become a de facto NATO state.  While Obama had refused to arm the Ukrainians, Trump began selling them arms, which has only intensified under the Biden administration. Turkey has also sold the Ukrainians drones. This all forms part of the bigger picture. It is unclear whether Putin’s actions are in reaction to these specific measures, or if he is simply seizing upon them as a pretext for doing what he has always wanted to do.

Although, the Budapest Memorandum and other agreements made it clear that NATO would give aid should Ukraine's independence be violated. That's not happening much. OK, NATO is giving supplies.

In fact, if we are going to get into it, these agreements have not been mentioned in the media during the build up of the current situation. That's a shame.

Likewise, the use of an international peacekeeping force in the disputed regions of Ukraine would have been helpful. On the other hand, the Ukrainian Resistance didn't need help from outside sources to fight. But it would be nice if the west, especially the US, kept its word.

There were ways that the west could have prevented this situation. It was in no way inevitable, but there has been a silence on the issue of Ukraine, its independence, and the guarantees for that independence. It is unsurprising that  Ukrainian leaders and Ukrainians both in Ukraine and abroad feel betrayed since the security assurances they received in the Budapest Memorandum are not worth the paper they were written on. 

As Putain's forces destroy the land and people they claim to be saving.

As I said, we're like the Kurds: only mentioned when it is politically helpful.

And we can still fight on our own.

Sources:

•  A letter to the Western Left from Kyiv
  
• Text of the Budapest Agreement
• Factbox: What are the Minsk agreements on the Ukraine conflict?
  
• Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, 
• The Ukrainian Insurgent Army — Inside One of WW2’s Strangest Resistance Movements
  

Sting: Russians

The ordinary Russians I know are against this war, but their protests are suppressed by the FSB.

 

Remember Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 !?!?!?

 

I do. It was a scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that was shot down by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in Ukraine on 17 July 2014.

That means this incident happened during the Obama-Biden administration.

Of course, this was lost and most of the coverage of the low level fighting in the Donbass was not mentioned. Not even during Donald Trump’s impeachment, but Biden’s taking bribes has never been mentioned.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said Thursday there was no blackmail involved during a telephone call with President Donald Trump that has since set in motion an impeachment inquiry.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-says-there-was-no-blackmail-in-trump-call.html

Yeah, of course, I am pissed. The US didn’t give a shit about Ukraine, and probably wouldn’t if Putin
hadn’t threatened to use nukes.

But, my real problem are people in the US who want to bring up partisan US politics instead of serious issues: US election reform, Energy Independence, Why Putin was able to be in the position he was to start this.

I do not believe Putin would have dreamed of this incursion if he knew there would be a unified response from the west, but he knew that wouldn’t be the case. And he didn’t need to fix the US election: they are rigged enough as is.

Part of me wants to do a post on “Could Russiagate have led to the Ukraine invasion?”, but I don’t want to be partisan. Especially since both US parties are pretty much the same to me. And both were culpable in creating this situation.

But the bottom line is that most people couldn’t find Ukraine on a map and have no fucking idea what has been going on there. I have a much better knowlege than the average American. Europeans are a little more informed since they lived through the wars.

The US is its own planet. And it needs to leave its politics at home to deal with this situation.

A Letter to the Western Left from Kyiv: Why did so many leftists turn a blind eye to Russian aggression?

This was published in a couple of places: Dissent and Open Democracy. I want to repost it since it is important to the debate, and really doesn't just apply to the left.

I know why I was sort of silent on this topic. I didn't have the information on the Donbass. I stopped hearing from the people I knew in that area after the takeover. And, he's correct, as someone whose connection to Ukraine is the West (Lviv oblast) and the nationalists from that area, I could buy the fear of the Ukrainian nationalist segment by ethnic Russians in the east as a reason to be close to Russia.[1] Toss in that a lot of people couldn't imagine that Putain would be insane enough to attack Ukraine. I was correct that there would be resistance, but I was surprised that the resistance would be as wide-spread as it has been. That said:

A Letter to the Western Left from Kyiv
Why did so many leftists turn a blind eye to Russian aggression?
Taras Bilous ▪ February 26, 2022

I am writing these lines in Kyiv while it is under artillery attack.
Until the last minute, I had hoped that Russian troops wouldn’t launch a full-scale invasion. Now, I can only thank those who leaked the information to the U.S. intelligence services.
Yesterday, I spent half the day considering whether I ought to join a territorial defense unit. During the night that followed, the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky signed a full mobilization order and Russian troops moved in and prepared to encircle Kyiv, which made the decision for me.
But before taking up my post, I would like to communicate to the Western left what I think about its reaction to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
First of all, I am thankful to those leftists who are now picketing Russian embassies—even those who took their time to realize Russia was the aggressor in this conflict.
I am thankful to politicians who support putting pressure on Russia to stop the invasion and withdraw its troops.
And I am thankful to the delegation of British and Welsh MPs, unionists, and activists who came to support us and hear us in the days before the Russian invasion.
I am also thankful to the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign in the United Kingdom for its help over many years.
This article is about the other part of the Western left. Those who imagined “NATO aggression in Ukraine,” and who could not see Russian aggression—like the New Orleans chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Or the DSA International Committee, which published a shameful statement failing to say a single critical word against Russia (I am very thankful to U.S. professor and activist Dan La Botz and the others for their critique of this statement).
Or those who criticized Ukraine for not implementing the Minsk Agreements and kept silent about their violations by Russia and the so-called “People’s Republics.”
Or those who exaggerated the influence of the far right in Ukraine but did not notice the far right in the “People’s Republics” and avoided criticizing Putin’s conservative, nationalist, and authoritarian policy. Part of the responsibility for what is happening rests with you.
This is part of the wider phenomenon in the Western “anti-war” movement, usually called “campism” by critics on the left. British-Syrian author and activist Leila Al-Shami gave it a stronger name: the “anti-imperialism of idiots.” Read her wonderful 2018 essay if you haven’t done so yet. I will repeat only the main thesis here: the activity of a large part of the Western “anti-war” left over the war in Syria had nothing to do with stopping the war. It only opposed Western interference, while ignoring, or even supporting, the engagement of Russia and Iran, to say nothing of their attitude to the “legitimately elected” Assad regime in Syria.
“A number of anti-war organisations have justified their silence on Russian and Iranian interventions by arguing that ‘the main enemy is at home,’” Al-Shami wrote. “This excuses them from undertaking any serious power analysis to determine who the main actors driving the war actually are.”
Unfortunately, we have seen the same ideological cliché repeated over Ukraine. Even after Russia recognized the independence of the “People’s Republics” earlier this week, Branko Marcetic, a writer for American left magazine Jacobin, penned an article almost fully devoted to criticizing the United States. When it came to Putin’s actions, he went only as far as remarking that the Russian leader had “signal[ed] less-than-benign ambitions.” Seriously?
I am not a fan of NATO. I know that after the end of the Cold War, the bloc lost its defensive function and led aggressive policies. I know that NATO’s eastward expansion undermined efforts directed at nuclear disarmament and forming a system of joint security. NATO tried to marginalize the role of the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and to discredit them as “inefficient organizations.” But we cannot bring back the past, and we have to orient ourselves on the current circumstances when seeking a way out of this situation.
How many times did the Western left bring up the United States’ informal promises to the former Russian president, Mikhail Gorbachev, about NATO (“not one inch eastward”), and how many times did it mention the 1994 Budapest Memorandum that guarantees Ukraine’s sovereignty? How often did the Western left support the “legitimate security concerns” of Russia, a state that owns the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal? And how often did it recall the security concerns of Ukraine, a state that had to trade its nuclear weapons, under the pressure of the United States and Russia, for a piece of paper (the Budapest Memorandum) that Putin trampled conclusively in 2014? Did it ever occur to leftist critics of NATO that Ukraine is the main victim of the changes brought about by the NATO expansion?
Time and again, the Western left responded to the critique of Russia by mentioning U.S. aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, and other states. Of course, these states need to be brought into the discussion—but how, exactly?
The argument of the left should be that in 2003, other governments did not put enough pressure on the United States over Iraq. Not that it is necessary to exert less pressure on Russia over Ukraine now.



An Obvious Mistake 

Imagine for a moment that, in 2003, when the United States was preparing for the invasion of Iraq, Russia had behaved like the United States has in recent weeks: with threats of escalation.
Now imagine what the Russian left might have done in that situation, according to the dogma of “our main enemy is at home.” Would it have criticized the Russian government for this “escalation,” saying that it “should not jeopardize inter-imperialist contradictions”? It is obvious to everyone that such behavior would have been a mistake in that case. Why was this not obvious in the case of the aggression against Ukraine?
In another Jacobin article from earlier this month, Marcetic went as far as saying that Fox News’s Tucker Carlson was “completely right” about the “Ukraine crisis.” What Carlson had done was question “Ukraine’s strategic value to the United States.” Even Tariq Ali in the New Left Review approvingly quoted the calculation of German admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, who said that giving Putin “respect” over Ukraine was “low cost, even no cost,” given that Russia could be a useful ally against China. Are you serious? If the United States and Russia could reach an agreement and start a new Cold War against China as allies, would that really be what we wanted?



Reforming the UN

I am not a fan of liberal internationalism. Socialists should criticize it. But this does not mean that we have to support the division of “spheres of interest” between imperialist states. Instead of looking for a new balance between the two imperialisms, the left has to struggle for a democratization of the international security order. We need a global policy and a global system of international security. We have the latter: it is the UN. Yes, it has plenty of flaws, and it is often the object of fair criticisms. But one can criticize either to refute something or to improve it. In the case of the UN, we need the latter. We need a leftist vision of reform and democratization of the UN.
Of course, this does not mean that the left should support all of the UN’s decisions. But an overall reinforcement of the UN’s role in the resolution of armed conflicts would allow the left to minimize the importance of military-political alliances and reduce the number of victims. (In a previous article, I wrote about how UN peacekeepers could have helped to resolve the Donbas conflict. Unfortunately, this has now lost its relevance.) After all, we also need the UN to solve the climate crisis and other global problems. The reluctance of many international leftists to appeal to it is a terrible mistake.
After Russian troops invaded Ukraine, Jacobin’s Europe editor David Broder wrote that the left “should make no apologies for opposing a US military response”. This was not Biden’s intention anyway, as he said multiple times. But a large part of the Western left should honestly admit that it completely fucked up in formulating its response to the “Ukrainian crisis.”



My Perspective

I will finish by briefly writing about myself and my perspective.
Over the past eight years, the Donbas war has been the main issue that has divided the Ukrainian left. Each of us formed our position under the influence of personal experience and other factors. Thus, another Ukrainian leftist would have written this article differently.
I was born in the Donbas, but in a Ukrainian-speaking and nationalist family. My father became involved in the far right in the 1990s, observing Ukraine’s economic decay and the enrichment of the former Communist Party leadership, which he had been fighting since the mid-1980s. Of course, he has very anti-Russian, but also anti-American, views. I still remember his words on September 11, 2001. As he watched the Twin Towers falling on TV, he said that those responsible were “heroes” (he does not think so anymore—now he believes that the Americans blew them up on purpose).
Then the war began in Donbas in 2014, my father joined the far-right Aidar battalion as a volunteer, my mother fled Luhansk, and my grandfather and grandmother stayed in their village, which fell under the control of the “Luhansk People’s Republic.” My grandfather condemned Ukraine’s Euromaidan revolution. He supports Putin, who, he says, has “restored order in Russia.” Nevertheless, we all try to keep talking to each other (though not about politics) and to help each other. I try to be sympathetic toward them. After all, my grandfather and grandmother spent their whole life working on a collective farm. My father was a construction worker. Life has not been kind to them.
The events of 2014—revolution followed by war—pushed me in the opposite direction of most people in Ukraine. The war killed nationalism in me and pushed me to the left. I want to fight for a better future for humanity, and not for the nation. My parents, with their post-Soviet trauma, do not understand my socialist views. My father is condescending about my “pacifism,” and we had a nasty conversation after I showed up at an anti-fascist protest with a picket sign calling for the disbanding of the far-right Azov regiment.
When Volodymyr Zelensky became president of Ukraine in the spring of 2019, I hoped this could prevent the catastrophe that is unfolding now. After all, it is difficult to demonize a Russian-speaking president who won with a program of peace for Donbas and whose jokes were popular among Ukrainians as well as Russians. Unfortunately, I was mistaken. While Zelensky’s victory changed the attitude of many Russians toward Ukraine, this did not prevent the war.
In recent years, I have written about the peace process and about civilian victims on both sides of the Donbas war. I tried to promote dialogue. But this has all gone up in smoke now. There will be no compromise. Putin can plan whatever he wants, but even if Russia seizes Kyiv and installs its occupational government, we will resist it. The struggle will last until Russia gets out of Ukraine and pays for all the victims and all the destruction.
Hence, my last words are addressed to the Russian people: hurry up and overthrow the Putin regime. It is in your interests as well as ours.

Taras Bilous is a Ukrainian historian and an activist of the Social Movement organization. As an editor for Commons: Journal of Social Critique, he covers the topics of war and nationalism.
This article was originally published in openDemocracy.

Footnote: 

[1] I have a nationalist Ukrainian flag (trizub in upper canton). I told my Polish neighbours that I wouldn't kill them in their sleep. They laughed. My Ukrainian nationalist connections preclude me from getting Polish nationality.

Illia Ponomarenko on why this war is different.

 Stop trying to compare this to previous wars. There is new technology which is allowing real time distribution of information.

A Russian helicopter is being downed in Ukraine.
Stunning footage. pic.twitter.com/MKN1VxNNzg

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) March 5, 2022

 

People can thwart news blackouts:

How to access the BBC in Russia

To access the BBC, circumvention tools can be used, such as the Psiphon app (Android, iOS, Windows, Mac).

The Tor Browser also has a dedicated BBC site, on this URL: https://www.bbcnewsd73hkzno2ini43t4gblxvycyac5aw4gnv7t2rccijh7745uqd.onion/

Please note the BBC site for Tor works only on the Tor Browser or a similar browser, such as the Onion Browser (for iPhones).

If you find it difficult to get the two applications above from AppStore or Google Play Store, please send a blank email to get@psiphon3.com or gettor@torproject.org, respectively. You will then be sent an email with a direct and safe download link.

Как получить доступ к новостям Би-би-си

Для доступа к Би-би-си можно использовать инструменты обхода цензуры, такие как приложение Psiphon (Android, iOS, Windows, Mac).

Браузер Tor также имеет специальный сайт Би-би-си по этому URL-адресу: https://www.bbcnewsd73hkzno2ini43t4gblxvycyac5aw4gnv7t2rccijh7745uqd.onion/russian

Обратите внимание, что сайт Би-би-си для Tor работает только в браузере Tor или аналогичном браузере, таком как Onion Browser (для iPhone).

Если вам трудно получить эти два приложения из AppStore или Google Play Store, отправьте пустое электронное письмо по адресу get@psiphon3.com или gettor@torproject.org соответственно. Вам будет отправлено электронное письмо с прямой и безопасной ссылкой для скачивания.

Порада, як отримувати новини ВВС

Щоб отримати доступ до BBC, можна використовувати інструменти обходу, такі як додаток Psiphon (Android, iOS, Windows, Mac).

Браузер Tor також має спеціальний сайт BBC за цією URL-адресою: https://www.bbcnewsd73hkzno2ini43t4gblxvycyac5aw4gnv7t2rccijh7745uqd.onion/ukrainian

Зверніть увагу, що сайт BBC для Tor працює лише у браузері Tor або подібному браузері, наприклад у браузері Onion (на iPhone).

Якщо вам складно завантажити дві вищезазначені програми з AppStore або Google Play Store, надішліть порожній лист на адресу get@psiphon3.com або gettor@torproject.org відповідно. Потім вам буде надіслано електронний лист із прямим і безпечним посиланням для завантаження.

Useful videos on the Ukraine situation.

 

Former MI6 Chief On the Ukraine & Russia Conflict

 Russell Brand on Protests

 

Russian opposition figure Mikhail Khodorkovsky says "the invasion of Ukraine is suicide for Putin."

 Pretty much what I've been saying (English translation).

He would have laughed at the proposition that Putin would use nuclear weapons a week ago, but not anymore.

The only way to stop this is to get the Russian Oligarchs to depose Putin.

Gary Kasperov on Putin's Corruption & Troops in Ukraine

A bit old, from Michael Smerconish's show. I'm not sure how much I agree with what Kasparov says, but it is an interesting show.

 

Intelligence failure on Ukraine?

 Le Monde has an interesting article on how Western Intelligence Agencies had differing views on what Putain's intent was toward Ukraine (https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/03/04/l-invasion-russe-en-ukraine-un-scenario-qui-a-divise-les-services-de-renseignement-occidentaux_6116170_3210.html). The US and UK agencies had the scenario that Putain would invade Ukraine, while the European Agencies were under the impression that he would "negotiate" in some way.  The "Anglo-Saxon" agencies were pretty much certain that Putain would invade. On the other hand, the European Agencies knew what the level of Ukrainian resistance would be. Also, the "Anglo-Saxon" agencies didn't factor in that this would increase European Unity.

In my opinion, the "Anglo-Saxon" agencies were influenced by Russia and did not know that Europe would become more united. I think I may have said in another post that if Putain's intent was to keep Ukraine (and other former Soviet Satellites) out of the EU and NATO, that this would have the opposite effect. Of course, this neglects that Ukrainians have been independent since 1991, which is guaranteed by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and want to defend that independence. I have mixed opinions about the Donbass region and Crimea, but the fact that there has only been a "low-level" conflict in the Donbass since March 2014 makes me think that may be more Russian interference than a real movement to join Russia.

 

The Security agencies still are divided as to the best way to handle this situation. France and Germany, as of when the article was published, want to negotiate. Italy is on the sidelines. And the other agencies are pushing for a stronger military presence. Although, Putain has said he will use nuclear weapons if there is any military intervention. That means, the better way to act militarily is through deniable forces ("contractors" and "retired military") and supplies. Ukraine has the resistance already, and the resistance during World War II stole weapons from the Germans. The modern resistance is purported to have captured a Russian Thermobaric missile launcher.

I would add that Russian conscript soldiers are mutinying, which is what happens in that army. The Ukrainians are welcoming them as prisoners of war.

Sadly, the Ukrainians are once again being treated like the Kurds, who get hero status when it is politically expedient for the West. There were measures which could have been taken long ago to have ensured that Russia would not have had the resources to wage this war: one of which is energy independence. Sadly, neither of the two US parties was willing to work on changing its addiction to Oil. I think that will also change in the EU.

Putain has already lost this since the attack on Ukraine will ensure that Ukraine and other countries will want to be allied with NATO and the European Union. The real fear is that Putain has shown he is a madman who is willing to start World War III. How do we prevent this from becoming a nuclear nightmare? 

 

Garry Kasparov, a former world chess champion and prominent opponent to the Russian president's regime, said in an interview with Israel Hayom that "the war in Ukraine could put an end to Putin's 'Napoleonic plans.'"

"If Putin does not succeed in the coming days in achieving his military goals - a scorching loss awaits him, and a significant geopolitical loss is always a necessary element in the fall of tyrants," Kasparov said. "Once the regime looks weak in the eyes of its subjects, its end appears on the horizon. If the Ukrainians hold on for a few more days, and the sanctions ring tightens, and if the West does not shy away, it could be the beginning of the end for the Putin regime. On the other hand, in order to prevent a loss, Putin is liable to throw all his strength into the campaign against Ukraine, without restraint." https://www.israelnationalnews.com/flashes/569241

See also:

• Boss of Ukraine's largest energy firm tells world to stop buying gas and oil from Russia 
• Ros Atkins on...Russian gas and oil 
• Gary Kasparov Blasts Biden on Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Putin Senses ‘American Weakness’
• EXCLUSIVE: Voice message reveals Russian military unit’s catastrophic losses in Ukraine 
• https://kyivindependent.com/author/illia-ponomarenko/ 
• https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko
  

What now about Ukraine?

 I am surprised that this has lasted as long as it has, but then again, maybe not.

Putain has staked his reputation on this invasion and he is not the type of person to admit he made a major fuck up of judgement. Likewise, the stooges around him aren't willing to get rid of one person to save their country.

Foreign Affairs has an article by Alexander Vindman and Dominic Cruz Bustillos where he mentions an "unprecedented response" to this, but the west has been pretty tepid in how it has handled this. Also, this is War in the 21st Century where a madman can destroy the world, or at least make things very bad for anyone who survives, through nuclear war.

The Ukrainians are pretty good at handling the situation since they have been practising asymetrical warefare for a while. As I pointed out, Ukraine was the only Soviet State which had an active resistance. They could use some augmentation since they have pretty much activated any males into the "army". But the US has been sending in "contractors" for a while. Private contractors are better than active service military because of the deniability factor.

Likewise, Putain's support comes from the Oligarchs. Many of them have places in the west. I've heard Putain's daughter is in the west. Hit them in the pocketbook where it will hurt the most.

Sadly, Russia is the Soviet Union with a change to become more transparent in that it was an Oligarchy the whole time. Not much has changed. An officer from the KGB is in charge, but he's scared and knows he's wrong. But any admission of his making a mistake will hasten his being deposed.

As Kasperov said, significant actions are what matter now. There are many things the west can do short of actual "boots on the ground" and they need to be taken.

Let's also stop comparing this to previous wars

First off, this is the first war where a madman has nuclear weapons and made it clear he will use them if anyone tries to stop his illegal invasion of a neutral country. I'll break that down for you:

1. Ukraine is not a member of either NATO or the European Union
2. Ukraine is a neutral country, which could be the best solution to this problem
3. The aggressor has threatened to use nuclear weapons if there is any foreign military action to help the invaded nation. 
4. This situation is allegedly about Ukraine joining international alliances (EU and NATO), but is really about economics and energy dependence (Or Banderists, Nazis, and drug dealers).
   

Nuclear weapons takes this out of the "let's look at the past" category.  Putin intends to freeze Europe by blocking natural gas, or frying it with nuclear weapons.

No matter how Putin cuts it, his actions may backfire if he doesn't back down. He's already pushed Ukraine to ask for EU membership. It's also hard to ask them to not join an organisation which would guarantee their independence (NATO).

 

Europe is dependent upon Russian natural gas, which is something that needs to change prestament. And Lukoil is the second largest company in Russia after Gazprom, and the country's largest non-state enterprise in terms of revenue ( ₽ 4,744 billion). In the 2020 Forbes Global 2000, LukOil was ranked as the 99th -largest public company in the world. Internationally, it is one of the largest global producers of crude oil. A boycot of Lukoil will harm its station owners outside Russia, but it is something which people need to be aware when they spend their money there.

The truth is that the West has no intention whatsoever of fighting against Russia to defend Ukraine. With the possible exception of Poland, NATO’s European members wholly lack the will to fight Russia unless NATO itself is directly attacked. President Biden and other leaders have made it clear that they will not do so, any more than the Obama administration fought for Ukraine in 2014 or the Bush administration for Georgia in 2008 — despite all the previous talk of partnership. The idea that Germany, France or Italy would do so is simply ludicrous. In these circumstances, to insist on holding the door open to future NATO membership for Ukraine is absurd, deeply unethical, and extremely dangerous both for Ukraine and NATO’s existing members.

The problem is that there needs to be a diplomatic solution to this instead of a military one, unless the military option is to use special forces to assassinate Putin. But that also has its drawbacks.

Short of a mutiny by Russia's military, we will see Ukraine fighting a much more powerful foe until the international community puts its foot down.

See also:

• Ukrainian neutrality: a ‘golden bridge’ out of the current geopolitical trap 
• Sur fond de crise ukrainienne, les Européens cherchent à réduire leur dépendance au gaz russe
  

Stop Knocking the Green New Deal: Ukrainian situation shows need for energy independence

Very Amusing this:

Despite what the one right wing Pennsylvania Representative says: The Green New Deal is not an off switch for the economy. If anything, energy independence is a necessity.

And clean energy is the path to independence. That's GREEN energy for the Fox News Pundits and other right wingers who need to do a twelve step on their energy reliance.

In fact, the United States should have learned its lesson about this back in 1973, but the myth that fossil fuels are somehow inexhaustible manages to hold on. 

The article that relates to the picture to the left points this out: https://investorplace.com/hypergrowthinvesting/2022/03/clean-energy-is-the-way-to-independence-and-huge-gains/

As someone who should have looked toward a career relating to the environment, I can tell you that the fossil fuel industry is already working to transition to clean energy. Note the amount of ethanol in your petrol the next time you are at the pump.

I've put my money where my mouth is and invested in solar panels.

Hillary Clinton should have said that failure to make the transition to clean energy will put a lot of coal miners out of work. People need to start looking to jobs in the clean energy sector.

But the above article points out something that the fossil fuel junkies miss:

Why the huge outperformance in clean energy stocks? The Russian invasion of Ukraine underscores the world’s need for energy independence. And clean energy offers the only viable pathway to TRUE energy independence.

It’s inarguable that energy independence is the ultimate goal for every country. No government wants their energy supply to be reliant upon another country – especially if said country is Russia, which provides about 40% of Europe’s natural gas supply.

At the end of the day, every country wants to produce its own energy. It’s cheaper. It’s more reliable and creates more jobs. And, perhaps most importantly, it’s safer.

I can go in depth about how Russia's best weapon against the west is its reliance on fossil fuels since

wars are becoming more and more about energy resources.

Maybe if the likes of Greg Gutfeld would shut the fuck up with their ignorance and learn something we might have a decent discussion here. But knocking something without any real knowledge of the topic is dangerous.

It's also the American way.

It's long past time for change.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has totally lost it

Wouldn't you try to avoid harming the people you are claiming to defend if that is your purported reason for illegally invading another country?

Not Vladmir Vladimirovich Putain!

Bombing Kharkiv demonstrates he doesn't give a fuck about anyone other than Vladimir Vladimirovich. Or that he has totally lost it.

While this city is not in the Donetsk or Luhansk territories, it is east enough that there is a significant Russian population (25.6%). The number goes up to 44.3% if you go on language (that percentage speaks Russian as a first language). There was minor pro-Russian activity post Maidan.

But, even though there are ethnic Russians in this area, they are Ukrainian enough to fight the invading Russian Army.

Sadly, no one really paid much attention to this area before Putain threatened his invasion.

But, given the resistance the Russian Military is facing, this will not be a blitzkrieg by any standard.

It will be another Stalingrad. Putain has forgotten his history as there were several battles in this city during the "Great Patriotic War".

This may be yet another "Great Patriotic War" where an imperialist nation, Russia, is overrun by a smaller defending nation, Ukraine.

See also:

• 10 Facts About the War in Donbass
•  It’s Probably Too Late for the Oligarchs to Stop Putin
• Putin is so angry about Ukraine's resistance to his invasion that he might launch a more aggressive attack, Western officials warn 
  

I would like to think that you heard this here first!

 Le Figaro asked if the invasion of Ukraine will be Putin's Afghanistan?

Yes, very much so. It will probably have a much worse effect on him than he expects. He has already shown he is crazy enough to start a nuclear war to protect his illegal war of aggression on a neutral country.

The most important contemporary rule on conflict is found in the U.N. Charter, which states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

This wording is significant. The term “use of force” means what it says. Countries cannot avoid their international obligations by pretending their actions are peacekeeping missions, as Putin has said.

Putin only cares about his reputation. His willingness to start a nuclear war to protect his illegal act only shows he is unfit to be a leader of any form of nation state, let alone one which purports to be a "Super-Power".

I would add that the Russian forces have a long history of mutiny, especially when the leaders are crazy.

Putin's days are numbered.

Is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin insane enough to use Nuclear Weapons?

 YES!

Very Much so. He opened up this without too much of a threat from the west.

The invasion is harming the people he claims to want to protect: the ethnic Russian Ukrainians. So, he doesn't care about people or even his country.

Additionally, he is trying to distract from the fact that his troops are getting hit by Ukrainian resistance (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60542877). Western militaries have been training the Ukrainians on how to resist a Soviet/Russian attack for ages. The OUN resistance never went away.

But this desperate gamble will backfire on Putin. He is forgetting that war led to the collapse of the Tsar, Soviet Union, and will be his downfall as well. The mutiny may already be happening, but the rest of the world should not put their bets in a successful coup against Putin right now (https://londonlovesbusiness.com/belarus-military-officer-declares-mutiny-against-putin-and-lukashenko-saying-its-not-our-war-and-tells-troops-to-stop/)

See also:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60539113