Ukraine

[DougMacG]

US Col. Douglas McGregor on Ukr

https://youtu.be/D4WIdDStqeE

I find Col McGregor to be very one-sided in his analysis. Russia is all powerful and Ukraine has no chance.    It doesn't seem like that has been playing out.  It looks to me more like a war neither side can win.

In the past week it looks like Russia has upped its attack and Ukraine has also.  We will see how the latest developments shake out. 

Russia has (almost) every advantage over Ukraine - reminiscent of USA versus North Vietnam.

[Crafty_Dog]

"I find Col McGregor to be very one-sided in his analysis."

Agree. 

Regular guest on Tucker btw. 

Love Tucker, but there is some sort of glitch in him with regard to Russia (this includes Russia in Syria btw).

[Crafty_Dog]

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/athena-thorne/2023/01/03/the-other-invasion-of-ukraine-may-be-far-worse-than-russias-n1658236?fbclid=IwAR0LeM-y7MSoMGmbs5pnpBJ_laDOuYjQP9hdCkv3PvM0B7u-KAugrVZtyug

[DougMacG]

It is one of the wonders of the world—or, more accurately, off the world. The Starlink constellation currently consists of 3,335 active satellites; roughly half of all working satellites are Starlinks. In the past six months new satellites have been added at a rate of more than 20 a week, on average. SpaceX, the company which created Starlink, is offering it as a way of providing off-grid high-bandwidth internet access to consumers in 45 countries. A million or so have become subscribers. And a huge part of the traffic flowing through the system currently comes from Ukraine. Starlink has become an integral part of the country’s military and civil response to Russia’s invasion. Envisaged as a celestial side-hustle that might help pay for the Mars missions dear to the founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk, it is not just allowing Ukraine to fight back; it is shaping how it does so, revealing the military potential of near-ubiquitous communications. (Source: economist.com

[ccp]

"By the time the fighting finally stops, Ukraine will be fully owned and operated by the likes of Fink, Schwab, and the rest of the globalists. It will be rebuilt from the ground up as the first-ever post-national region, nothing more than a location on the map of the People’s Global Republic, with nominal local governance that can say “no” to none of its masters."

 I wish Putin would invade Davos and teach them a real world lesson
 celebrities et al.....

[DougMacG]

"Ukraine will be fully owned and operated by the likes of..."

  - Very much like what the China belt and road initiative is attempting to do in 149 countries.

Everybody, it seems, wants one world government that they control.

Those of us who don't want to rule or be ruled and controlled don't seem to be the silent majority anymore.  Just silent.  Or silenced.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63160354?fbclid=IwAR0B5VefMOoKE6sagI8oYiCwFpQu-2Iq6zg7jENxBVewmgV_H99b068FoeI

[Crafty_Dog]

What a fg unnecessary mess these people have gotten us into!!! 

As for what to do now , , ,

==========================
Time is not on Ukraine’s side
By Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates
January 7, 2023 at 7:00 a.m. EST

Condoleezza Rice was secretary of state from 2005 to 2009. Robert M. Gates was secretary of defense from 2006 to 2011.

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.

Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.


Zelensky, Biden outline their hopes for peace
1:47
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Biden shared their hopes for peace between Russia and Ukraine in a news conference on Dec. 21. (Video: The Washington Post)
Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.


For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
Opinion writers on the war in Ukraine


The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.


Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

[DougMacG]

Escalation from our side doesn't seem like the best strategy right now.  There is no defeating Russia once and for all in a relatively contained Ukraine war.

From the article, I would quibble with this:
"Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny".

Putin was 62 and healthy then.  In 8 years, if alive, he will be Joe Biden's age.  We don't know what Russia looks like in 8 years. We don't even know what the US will look like then.

The goal for Ukraine, it seems to me, is to win the necessary battles and survive.   A total defeat of Russia by Ukraine isn't in the cards.

[Crafty_Dog]

January 13, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
The Wagner Group and Russia’s New General
Thoughts in and around geopolitics.
By: George Friedman
Moscow has relieved its current general in Ukraine, placing him under the staff of his successor, Gen. Valery Gerasimov. In a way, this makes sense – he can help the new commander find his place – but if he works toward Gerasimov’s failure, it could create problems in morale. The arrangement is odd, but if it works, it works, and Russia is in dire need of something that works.

It’s been nearly a year since Russia invaded Ukraine, and it has yet to claim any semblance of victory. The army has fought battles and has even appeared to have won some, but nothing has been decisive. A potentially decisive battle is being fought now, but the relief of the theater commander does not indicate that it is going well.

The Russian army clearly was not prepared for Ukrainian resistance, nor for the extent to which the United States was prepared to arm Ukrainian troops. Russian intelligence should have known as much, and thus should have baked this into Moscow’s wartime strategy. Russia has yet to lose the war, of course, but conflicts such as this one tend to be affairs of attrition, and the war must be costing Russia far more than it expected.

Which at least partly explains the participation of the Wagner Group, the Russian private military contractor that has served Moscow in many other regions – often to brutal effect – but never served in a theater-level operation that is essentially a multidimensional line. It is not only facing resistance it has not experienced before, but its force has been dramatically increased so that the problems of command are extremely different from lesser wars, the troops less disciplined because of the need to bring in new recruits.

One of the persistent reports about how Wagner swells its ranks is that it conscripts prisoners. Whether or not this is true, it doesn’t change the fact that Wagner fighters need to be extensively trained to wage a war of advanced weaponry. The battles inherent to Ukraine require seasoned and motivated manpower, and whether that comes from prisoners or seminary students, it will have trouble facing a sophisticated enemy. And however the Ukrainian army began the war, it is indisputably now a trained and motivated fighting force.

Wagner already had questions surrounding its effectiveness, and now it reportedly sports a larger force than the Russian army does. That force, moreover, answers to its own command structure outside the purview of the Russian military. It’s easy to see, then, that whatever initial success Wagner may bring could succumb to attrition and in time fail to penetrate deep into Ukrainian territory – even if it is able to break through Ukrainian lines.

The logical outcome of the war in Ukraine is a negotiated peace. But Wagner is neither owned nor operated by President Vladimir Putin, so it’s not clear how the political process of negotiations plays out. I think that if Putin negotiates for trivial gains, he will be politically finished. He must have substantial successes to justify the cost of war.

As for Gerasimov, he may be a superb general, but given the reality, he is going to fight a battle for command over Wagner before he fights the battles for Ukraine. His job is to crash through and surround the enemy and force mass surrender or death. He faces tough resistance from multiple directions, but if he is successful, he may be able to end the stalemate and force the negotiations I thought would come much sooner.

[Crafty_Dog]

Interesting idea:

In return for Ukes accepting some Russian land gains, they get to join NATO.

========================================================

How the U.S. Should — and Should Not — Continue to Support Ukraine

President Joe Biden and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky walk down the Colonnade to the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., December 21, 2022.
By JIM TALENT
January 12, 2023 6:30 AM

It may well turn out that the United States cannot, consistent with its own interests, give Zelensky the means to get his entire country back.
Back in May of last year, I outlined the reasons why the United States should support Ukraine in resisting the Russian invasion. Briefly, Russia under Vladimir Putin has for the last 20 years made itself a global adversary of the United States by launching cyberattacks and sponsoring cyber-syndicate crime, threatening NATO allies in Europe, wreaking havoc in Syria, supporting Iran in its regional ambitions, and expressing in word and deed its “unlimited friendship” for China, which is a peer competitor of the United States with designs on global hegemony.

It was therefore very much in America’s interest to frustrate Russia’s ambitions in Europe and weaken the will and power of the Russian state to threaten the United States elsewhere. Supporting Ukraine had the additional advantage of putting us on the side of the good guys in resisting an unprovoked invasion that has been conducted with the savagery that characterizes Vladimir Putin’s approach to the world.

So far, the war has turned out better than anyone could have hoped. But Ukraine’s surprising success on the battlefield, coupled with Russian war crimes, has understandably led the Ukrainian government to pursue ambitious war aims that are, or at least could be, in tension with the interests of the United States.

From the American perspective, Russia has already suffered a stunning defeat. It is isolated diplomatically and damaged economically. Its leadership is challenged at home and has lost credibility abroad; its industrial base is in distress; its army has been exposed, and it has suffered losses in men and matériel that will take years to replace, if they are replaceable at all.

Putin’s strategic goal was to divide NATO and increase the danger to the Baltic allies; instead NATO has emerged more united, and now will be enlarged with the inclusion of Sweden and Finland, two countries with substantial military capabilities. Moreover, the war has pushed our European allies to spend at least somewhat more on defense, and to step away from the climate policies that had compromised the alliance by making some of its most important members dependent on Russian oil and natural gas.

All in all, Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine was, for Russia, an error of such magnitude that it deserves a place on the Mount Rushmore of strategic blunders.

But the fact that Russia has lost does not mean that Ukraine has won.

Ukraine wants to recover all the territory Russia has sliced away from it since 2014, including Donetsk and Luhansk provinces; it also seeks reparations and the establishment of a war-crimes tribunal to prosecute Russian commanders for their brutality against Ukraine. Obviously, Putin will never agree to anything like those terms, unless forced to by losses on the battlefield that Ukraine is unlikely to be able to inflict.

Russia seems, finally, to be learning from its mistakes. It is still conducting a largely pointless offensive against Bakhmut but is otherwise going on the defensive. It conducted an orderly retreat from Kherson and has prepared defenses in depth east of the Dnipro. Its mobilization last fall, though poorly executed, has enabled it to increase manning levels along its lines. To be sure, many of the new troops are badly trained and equipped, but it is easier in war to defend than to attack, and Ukraine cannot count on the advantage of surprise in any future offensives. (For a thorough review of the current state of the war, and the possibilities going forward, see this excellent article by Michael Kofman of the Center for New American Security.)

So what should be U.S. policy now?

First, the Ukrainians deserve a fair chance to achieve their goals. We should continue to provide them the arms they need, including systems we have previously withheld, such as tanks, aircraft, air-defense systems, and longer-range missiles that will extend the reach of their attacks against Russian forces and logistics nodes, and even military targets in Russia itself. Perhaps the Ukrainian army can indeed regain the Donbas; at this point, I would not put anything past them. But even smaller successes will pressure Putin to end the war and also assist in establishing ceasefire lines that are militarily defensible in the future.


I should add that if the Russians manage to reconstitute their forces and launch a major offensive — a small but cognizable risk — we should do everything reasonably possible to ensure that Ukraine doesn’t lose on Putin’s terms. The last thing we need after the Afghanistan disaster is to abandon another ally.

Yet we should also continue signaling that our support for Ukraine’s goals is not open-ended. Solidarity does not mean a blank check to continue fighting indefinitely over a largely static battlefield. That would consume stocks of ammunition that are needed elsewhere, divert funds that ought to be used for building up our own armed forces, and increase the devastation to Ukraine and therefore the cost of rebuilding after the war is over — all without getting Ukraine much more territory than they now control.


Why Ukraine Matters

In other words, it may well turn out that the United States cannot, consistent with its own interests, give Zelensky the means to get his entire country back. But we should commit ourselves to establishing real security for Ukraine once the war is over, including the possibility of admitting Ukraine to NATO in return for yielding some territory to Russia.

Yes, that would mean enlarging the responsibilities of NATO. But Ukraine has reduced the burden of those responsibilities by degrading Russian combat power, probably for years to come. Besides, the Ukrainian army is obviously highly capable and now has more experience fighting in something like maneuver warfare — the most likely kind of war if NATO ever actually engaged Russia — than most NATO members do. Adding those soldiers to the NATO mix would be a significant net gain for the alliance, and it would show that the United States is willing to act firmly to deter aggression, whether the aggressors like it or not.

That is a message we need to send. War is always tragic, but the greatest tragedy of this one is that it might well have been avoided if NATO had long ago done what it is planning to do now: establish a permanent military base in Eastern Europe as a bulwark against Russian aggression.

Instead, NATO countries cut their defense budgets and drew down their forces, even as Putin was stepping up his aggressions. Consider this: In 2013, five years after Russia had detached two provinces from Georgia, the United States did not have a working tank in Europe, and as recently as four years ago, long after Putin had begun his attempt to dismember Ukraine, the German army was so short on rifles that its soldiers were forced to train with broomsticks.

Is it any wonder that Putin believed the West would fold if Russia invaded Ukraine?

As I wrote in May, the war in Ukraine is about a lot more than a heroic people determined to defend their way of life. It is also about the ability of the West, and in particular the United States, to protect its vital national interests by sustaining the tools of our own power and acting in concert with other countries that have similar objectives and interests.

In other words, peace through robust strength and collective security. It’s not an easy or inexpensive strategy, but it’s a lot better than the alternatives.

We pursued that strategy during the Cold War, and as a result defeated the Soviets without ever having to fight them face to face. We haven’t done it since; we’ve allowed our power to atrophy while blundering from one disaster to another. If we can’t do it now, the next war — and everyone knows where that is likely to occur — will make Ukraine look like a skirmish, and will require a lot more from us than sending money and missiles and cheering on the good guys from the sidelines.

[DougMacG]

quote author=Crafty_Dog

'Interesting idea:

In return for Ukes accepting some Russian land gains, they get to join NATO.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.  Makes sense.  If Ukraine gives up land for peace there should be some security in it.  It
(at least partly) makes sense for NATO too.  It would push Russia's line of influence back most of 800 miles from eastern Europe, Germany etc.  It's Russia who should turn down the deal and retreat to the pre-2021 borders.

[Crafty_Dog]

Very much worth noting is that under this formula, Russia would be getting some of the most valuable parts of Ukraine.  Also note implications for rights in the Black Sea.

[DougMacG]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/01/13/peace-ukraine-crimea-putin-00077746

Crimea is not Russian.

Khrushchev agreed.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-sheds-resistance-to-ukraine-joining-nato/ar-AA16rCwc?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a0b4f0f7368048e394d4913717c72b59

[ccp]

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/01/19/no-tanks-zelensky-uses-davos-pulpit-to-scold-western-allies-for-lack-of-heavy-battlefield-weaponry/

[Crafty_Dog]

Can't say that I blame him.  His people are in a genuinely heavy war-- why wouldn't he want as much as possible?

[DougMacG]

Can't say that I blame him.  His people are in a genuinely heavy war-- why wouldn't he want as much as possible?

Yes.

IF one is to agree with:
 - Ukraine deserves our help,
 - this is not a blank check,
 - the amount needs to be limited for both strategic and financial reasons
 - the support needs to come from all of the allies, with the US providing the largest share.

Not everyone agrees with the above, cf. G M, but if you do, the next step is to measure What proportion should be us compared to the total from all the allies and the us.

Next, there is a timeliness to this. How much more than our share will we give while we wait for and lobby our Allies to kick in their share?

I was wondering, is President Biden over in Europe lobbying our allies for greater military and humanitarian support in ukraine, or is he holed up in Delaware hiding from a document scandal of his making?

[Crafty_Dog]

I was reacting to this:

"Zelensky - more more more"

OF COURSE just as he looks out for Ukraine, we should look out for America first.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDVH_JJIRWI

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.facebook.com/slavwars/posts/pfbid0rcELurqSDGgHZVuHifpwoyyCDqtiHf9CjK4sT2GopLV9c4YJvbwuHyPNh7A1HfPBl

[G M]

About as realistic as me writing “The case for
Me banging Cindy Crawford”.

The Case for Taking Crimea
Why Ukraine Can—and Should—Liberate the Province
By Andriy Zagorodnyuk
January 2, 2023
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/case-taking-crimea

For Ukrainians, 2022 was a year of both tragedy and historic achievements. Russia invaded Ukraine in February with nearly 190,000 troops, inflicting untold destruction and killing tens of thousands of people. But within a few weeks, the Ukrainian military managed to stall the offensive. Then, it began forcing the Russians back. Since August, Ukrainian troops have recaptured more than half the territory Russia had seized, upending Moscow’s hopes of success. To try to demonstrate some gains, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that he had annexed four Ukrainian provinces—Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia—at the end of September. But it was for naught. Russia had full control over none of the provinces when Putin made his announcement, and his forces have lost even more ground since then.

Yet Russia still controls one Ukrainian province: Crimea. In 2014, Russia seized the peninsula in a remarkable breach of international law. Putin actively exploits a narrative that claims Crimea’s transfer to Ukraine, carried out by the Soviet Union in 1954, was “erroneous.” In taking the peninsula, Putin believes he has both corrected what he called a “mistake” and improved Russia’s international position, restoring his country to great-power status.

But those premises are false. Crimea has a rich and unique history; it has not been a part of Russia since time immemorial. It became a rightful part of independent Ukraine after a 1991 nationwide referendum in which Ukrainians—including a majority of Crimean residents—voted for independence from the Soviet Union. It is easy to understand why Crimeans wanted out. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state, whereas Ukraine was en route to becoming a pluralistic democracy. Moscow’s current rule has revitalized many of the Soviet Union’s dictatorial practices in Crimea, including oppressing minorities and subjecting citizens to a state media that peddles propaganda. Moscow turned the area into a giant, menacing garrison, which it then used to invade Ukraine. As long as the peninsula remains in the Kremlin’s hands, Ukraine—and Ukrainians—cannot be free of Russian aggression.

Western states are united in their belief that the 2014 annexation of Crimea was, and is, unacceptable. But the United States and its partners have been squeamish about endorsing any plans that would return Crimea to Ukraine. Many Western policymakers have suggested that Kyiv could not succeed in a military campaign for the province. In November, for instance, Mark Milley, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Ukraine’s odds of kicking the Russians out of Crimea were “not high.” Other analysts believe that reintegrating Crimeans into Ukraine might prove too tricky or that an attack on Crimea would prompt nuclear retaliation. Better, they suggest, that Ukraine not fight for the peninsula. Some even say that Kyiv should offer it up in exchange for peace.

The West’s fears are not entirely unfounded. Russia has had eight years to absorb Crimea and has built up a significant military presence in the peninsula. Crimea also has at least 700,000 Russian residents who moved in after 2014 (out of a population of 2.4 million): a fact that will complicate any reintegration effort. The world can never rule out the chance that Russia will use nuclear weapons, especially when it is governed by Putin. These are all good reasons why Ukraine should be careful in how it goes about freeing Crimea.

But they are not reasons for Ukraine to abandon the peninsula altogether. And there are plenty of reasons why Crimea must be returned. Russia’s military footprint, for example, is actually a reason to fight for Crimea, since a battle over the territory would seriously degrade Russia’s ability to wage war and terrorize Ukraine and other states. The other concerns about Ukraine’s ability to retake the peninsula and nuclear attacks are all at least somewhat overblown. After consecutive months of battlefield success, it is clear that Ukraine has the capacity to liberate Crimea. Although some Crimeans may want to remain part of Russia, many more of them would be happy to escape the Kremlin’s grasp. And Putin’s nuclear threats are likely just bluster. He did, after all, promise to use nuclear weapons earlier in the conflict, only to back down. Ukraine should therefore plan to liberate Crimea—and the West should plan to help.

CRIMEA IS UKRAINE
One of Russia’s key narratives, pushed by Moscow for decades and repeated by many international observers, is that Crimea has a special historical connection with Russia. It is true that the Sevastopol has long been a Russian naval base and that its southern coast is home to many nineteenth-century Russian aristocratic palaces. Most of the peninsula’s people speak Russian. As a result, Putin has reasoned that in taking back Crimea, he corrected a historical error.

But Crimean history is much richer and more diverse than this narrative suggests. The peninsula became a part of Russia only after the country invaded it, in 1783; it has been ruled by multiple empires over the course of the last millennium. Crimea has thousands of unique landmarks with no connection to Russia, and it is home to many ethnic groups. Russia’s version of Crimea’s past is cherrypicked, and its justification for the occupation rests on the ridiculous assumption that past possession and linguistics give one state the right to a neighbor’s land. The United Kingdom ruled Ireland for centuries, and under London’s governance, English became the island’s most widely spoken language. But that does not mean the United Kingdom would be justified in seizing it.

An honest evaluation of history makes clear that Crimea should be part of Ukraine, not Russia. It is legally recognized and accepted as Ukrainian territory by the entire world—including, until 2014, by Russia. Crimea has been governed by Kyiv for 60 of the past 70 years, and so most of its residents know it first and foremost as a Ukrainian peninsula. During the course of that time, the region went from being economically depressed to solidly middle class, thanks to Ukrainian water supplies, energy supplies, and—after Ukrainian independence—a boom in tourist activity. Putin may be right that millions of Russians have an affinity for the territory, but so do millions of Ukrainians—because they have either visited it or lived there. There is a reason that an overwhelming majority of U.N. General Assembly members strongly condemned Crimea’s annexation and deemed it invalid.


Crimea has not been a part of Russia since time immemorial.
Russia will never permit a real referendum on the peninsula’s future, and so it is impossible to know exactly how Crimeans themselves feel today. One poll, conducted in 2019 by the Levada Center, showed that a majority of the peninsula’s residents wanted Crimea to be part of Russia. But it is difficult to trust any polls done in a totalitarian state, and Russia has criminalized opposition to Crimea’s annexation. Polled Crimeans could have been afraid of admitting that they would rather be part of Ukraine. And there are many reasons to think that a free and fair vote on Crimea’s status today would yield the same results as the one held in 1991. Such a referendum would, for starters, have to include the over 100,000 Crimean residents that Russia intimidated, harassed, and even physically assaulted until they left the peninsula. A lot of these people were made to sell their property at a loss and abandon their businesses. (Most of the territory’s large Ukrainian companies and utilities also lost their assets.) These Crimean émigrés would almost certainly opt for Ukrainian governance, giving the pro-Kyiv faction a solid starting base. Many of the peninsula’s remaining residents would also vote for Ukraine, as might some new arrivals who would prefer to live in a liberal state. Crimean residents have been known to complain about how Russia treats the peninsula’s environment, as well as the economic disruptions created by sanctions.

Ukrainian liberation would prove particularly popular among—and meaningful to—hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tatars, a group that has been especially persecuted by Moscow. Unlike the Russians, they have inhabited the peninsula since the early medieval era. For centuries, Crimean Tatars even had their own state on the landmass. Crimea is their only homeland. But under Soviet and Russian rule, they have been violently persecuted. In 1944, for example, they were forcibly deported, allowed to return only in the late 1980s as the Soviet Union was about to collapse. Under Putin’s rule, they have been pressed to leave again. Those who have stayed are frequently forbidden from working, arrested without cause, and detained without being accused of wrongdoing. Some have been kidnapped. Some of their cultural monuments are being dismantled. They deserve an end to Russia’s totalitarian rule.

SAFE, NOT SORRY
Ukraine must retake Crimea for reasons that go beyond justice. Russia has turned Crimea into a large military base, which it used to launch its sweeping invasion. This use of the peninsula is why Russia has had much more success fighting in Ukraine’s south than in its north. Russia continues to use the Crimea-stationed Black Sea Fleet and the peninsula’s air bases to launch drone and missile attacks. This belligerence makes it clear that Ukraine cannot be safe or rebuild its economy until Crimea is out of Russian hands, and so Kyiv will not stop fighting until it regains the province.

Russian control of Crimea is not just a security risk for Ukraine. Moscow’s hold on the peninsula endangers the whole world. From Crimea, Russia projects power across both Europe and the Middle East, threatening the safety of many other states. By occupying the peninsula, Russia has gained authority in both the Black Sea and the Azov Sea, the latter of which Russian troops now completely surround. Controlling both bodies of water has been Putin’s goal for years: the two seas are a massive shipping route for all kinds of products on the Eurasian continent. By occupying Crimea, Russia can control access to many of the seas’ ports and passages, giving it power over vast supplies of many commodities, including coal, iron ore, various industrial products, and grain from Ukraine. (The Ukrainian ports of Berdyansk and Mariupol lost most of their traffic after Russia started restricting access to the Azov Sea in 2018.)

To see why Russia’s power over the peninsula is so dangerous to the rest of the world, consider the ongoing food security crisis—which was prompted by Russia’s invasion. Without Crimea, Russia would not have been able to threaten shipping in the Black and Azov Seas since the vast majority of these sea-lanes fall outside Russia’s exclusive economic zone. Moscow would certainly not be able to use Ukrainian territorial waters and ports to project power. But by occupying Crimea, Russia came to dominate these seas and their ports.

Occupying Crimea has also given Russia more control over the world’s energy supplies. The Black Sea is home to many resources, including significant natural gas deposits that Ukraine was once prepared to tap. In fact, just before Russia began occupying Crimea, Exxon Mobil signed a memo with Kyiv to drill for $6 billion worth of the sea’s natural gas deposits—one of many companies working with Ukraine to access these assets. Had the projects gone through, Europe’s energy map would have been forever transformed, and the continent could more easily have weaned itself from Russian energy. But when Moscow sent troops into Crimea in 2014, the companies all canceled their projects. As long as the province and other areas of the Black Sea remain in Russia’s hands, business will not come back.

WORDS AND DEEDS
So how would Ukraine liberate Crimea? Ideally, it would be done through diplomacy. Putin will never consider peacefully parting with the peninsula, but if he is booted from office, his successors may have a different calculus. They will inherit a severely sanctioned country with a dramatically weakened military. They will still be fighting Ukraine’s more talented armed forces—and therefore staring down more defeats. Finally, they will be facing international litigation, initiated by Ukraine, that demands hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. Moscow will likely lose in court, and Western states will make the government pay by simply transferring Russia’s frozen assets to Kyiv. Faced with such a situation, the Kremlin might offer to return Crimea as part of a deal that prevents Russia from going into bankruptcy and prevents the domestic unrest that would arise with any economic chaos.

But Ukraine cannot count on a change in leadership in Russia. It also cannot bank on Russia’s next leaders being ready for peace. Kyiv, then, needs to retain a military option, and it must start preparing to win such a fight.

Although retaking Crimea would not be easy, Ukraine has the capability to do so—a fact the West is starting to acknowledge. According to NBC News, in December, a Biden administration official told Congress that Kyiv would be able to liberate the peninsula. Ben Hodges, the former commanding general of the U.S. Army Europe, said that Ukraine has a chance to free Crimea by the end of this coming summer.


The most challenging part of a campaign for Crimea may not be outfoxing Russia.
There is a military justification for these projections. By the time Ukrainian forces are ready to move on the peninsula, most Russian capabilities will have been severely damaged. Russia’s surviving soldiers will be exhausted, and the country’s stockpile of precision missiles will have been depleted. Its naval bases, air bases, and resupply routes to Crimea will have been damaged by Ukrainian attacks. Because Crimea is connected to the Eurasian continent only by a narrow, vulnerable isthmus and a bridge, once Ukrainian troops enter the region, the remaining Russian forces will be trapped, making Russian military sites even more vulnerable to Ukrainian strikes. And for all its significance, the Crimean Peninsula is ultimately just land: something the Ukrainian military has been very successful at reclaiming.

Of course, Ukraine will have to consider the capabilities of the Black Sea Fleet, a keystone of Crimea’s Russian military presence. It is a force for which Ukraine has no real equivalent. But although Ukraine’s small navy does not measure up against Russia’s, the Black Sea Fleet is not the obstacle it might seem. The fleet has an assault capacity of roughly 20 old ships, all of which are so vulnerable to strikes that Russia has hidden them away from the Ukrainian coastline. But Ukraine can still acquire and produce enough unmanned vehicles and missile systems to destroy them. And the fleet is smaller than it was at the start of the war thanks to Ukrainian attacks. Ukraine succeeded, for instance, in sinking the fleet’s flagship. The Ukrainians will not have trouble further chipping away at the Russian navy in forthcoming months, at least to a point where the navy cannot effectively stop them. Ukraine, after all, has a good track record of getting around the Black Sea Fleet. If the Russian navy could not defend the Black Sea’s Snake Island, which is less than 0.1 square miles, it is hard to imagine how it would stop Ukraine from crossing the isthmus.

Ultimately, the most challenging part of a campaign for Crimea may not be outfoxing Russia. It could be winning over locals who back Moscow. Despite all of the Kremlin’s abuses, Crimea is home to far more Putin supporters than are other parts of Ukraine, especially given that the population has had an influx of Russian residents and has experienced years of nonstop Russian propaganda. It would be dangerous for Kyiv to assume that Ukraine’s military will be welcomed there as it was in Kherson. Ukraine will need to substantially research what policies it should adopt, including with regard to finance, banking, and law enforcement. It must also figure out how to provide restitution to the many Crimeans who were stripped of their jobs and property by the Russian government. It will need to rework the peninsula’s state services—particularly for education, which has been conducted for years using a Russian curriculum based in propaganda. Critically, it must ensure that residents who support Russia’s dictatorship will not want to destabilize the peninsula, and it must guarantee that law-abiding citizens have a balanced, fair, and democratic government.

STAND YOUR GROUND
Although the West uniformly, and rightly, condemned Russia’s annexation of Crimea, it effectively accepted Moscow’s act. The only tangible response that the United States and Europe could muster was a sanctions regime with countless loopholes, allowing the Russian economy to keep growing. Indeed, even the sanctioning states continued to expand their business ties to Moscow, including by increasing their dependence on Russian energy exports.

It is therefore little wonder that the Kremlin felt emboldened to invade the rest of Ukraine. Russia is bent on taking land and increasing its sphere of influence so it can restore its empire. When Moscow senses weakness, it jumps. This is why Kyiv cannot bargain away Crimea for peace, as some Western analysts have suggested. Doing so would further reward and incentivize Putin’s aggression. Additionally, such a deal would not be effective. As long as Putin runs Russia’s government, the Kremlin will never settle for a peace agreement in which Ukraine “just” gives up Crimea. It wants and will keep fighting for more. Indeed, should the West display indecision or hesitation in supporting Ukraine’s goals in Crimea, Russia will try to capitalize on the dithering by working to fracture the states supporting Kyiv.

As a result, Kyiv and its allies must press on, battling until it can make Moscow hand over Crimea via negotiations or until Ukraine has forcibly pried the peninsula from Moscow’s grasp. Doing so is the only way to inflict the kind of major defeat Russia must experience if it is to abandon its imperial ambitions and start abiding by international norms and laws. The United States and Europe should understand that they, too, will benefit from a total Ukrainian victory. It could mark the permanent end of Russian aggression, breathing new life into the liberal world order.

Liberating Crimea would also set an important historical precedent for the wider world. If Ukraine does not retake Crimea—if Russia gets away with annexation—other states will become more likely to wage wars of conquest. They will move to occupy their neighbor’s territory, reasoning that they can get away with certain kinds of land grabs. Winning in Crimea, then, is essential to preventing future conflicts and thwarting a return to conquest.

[G M]

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/this-time-its-different/

[G M]

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/pretend-o-rama/


Pretend-O-Rama
“Not only is there no threat from Russia that is independent of American policy, but it is also the expansion of NATO to ‘meet the threat from Russia’ that creates the very threat that expansion was supposed to meet.” — Alistair Crooke
Clusterfuck Nation

For your reading pleasure Mondays and Fridays

Support this blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page

And thanks to all my Patrons for your support

     I doubt that many Americans — even the masses sunk in vaccine smuggery and obsessive Trump-o-phobia — believe that America’s Ukraine project is working out for us. Of course, to even begin thinking about this debacle, you must at least suspect that our government is lying about virtually everything it has its hand in. Name something it is not lying about, I dare you.

    So, what was the Ukraine project? To use that sad-ass country as a vector to disable and destroy Russia. You can’t over-state the stupidity of that objective. And why did we want to do that? Because… reasons. Oh? And what were they? Well, Russia was… there. Oh? And what was it doing? Trying to take over the world? Uh, no. It was actually just trying to be a normal European nation again after its traumatic 75-year-long experiment with communism, which ended in 1991.

     And then, after that, coming along pretty well under Mr. Putin. Did I say that? Yes, I did, because it is a fact. Russia wrote new private property laws, made commerce legal again, and allowed its citizens to do business. Russia wasn’t threatening any other nations, most particularly its former province, Ukraine. It had even invited Ukraine to be a sovereign member of its trade association, the customs union, with a bunch of other regional states who had rational interests in good regional relations. That’s what set off the maniacs at the US State Department — under Secretary John Kerry, a.k.a. the haircut-in-search-of a-brain — who, in 2014, decided to overthrow Ukraine’s government.

     The project since then was to use the US-controlled Ukraine government to antagonize Russia and, finally, to draw Russia into a military operation intended, SecDef Lloyd Austin said more than once, “to weaken Russia.” Well, everything we’ve done there, from eight years of shelling the Donbas, to kicking Russia out of the West’s banking system, to pouring billions of US dollars into Ukraine’s corrupt government, has only strengthened Russia internally, earned the approbation of many other nations who object to US interference in their regions, and steered poor Ukraine into the graveyard of failed states.

     We are losing this unnecessary proxy war about as steadily as possible, and actually making Russia look good in the process. Russia could have ended the war in five minutes by turning Kiev into an ashtray, but it spent the first eight months of the operation trying to avoid busting up Ukraine’s infrastructure, so as not to turn it into a failed state (that would present new and worse problems). Mr. Putin made many overtures to negotiate an end to the conflict, all rejected by Ukraine, the US, and its NATO “partners.”

     So, now Russia is grinding on-the-ground to reduce Ukraine’s ability to continue making war by systematically killing the troops Ukraine foolishly throws into the battle line, and destroying Ukraine’s heavy weapons. Ukraine is about out of its own soldiers and weapons. Russia is maneuvering to roll over what’s left there and put an end to these pointless and needless hostilities. Contrary to US propaganda, Russia has no ambition to conquer NATO territory. Rather its aim is to restore order to a corner of the world that has been its legitimate sphere of influence for centuries — and more than once been used as a doormat for European armies to invade Russia.

     Apparently, we can’t allow Russia to clean up this mess we made — or we pretend that we can’t, even though it’s happening anyway, whether we like it or not. So now, the US promises to send thirty-one M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. A bold move, you think? Not exactly. By the time these tanks get anywhere in the vicinity of Ukraine, this war is likely to be over. Never mind the difficult business of training the few remaining eligible Ukrainian men between sixteen and sixty how to operate the tanks, and train maintenance crews, and deliver inventories of spare parts — you see where this is going — not to mention the certainty that the Russians will simply blow them up as fast as they appear on the premises. Anyway, a measly thirty-one tanks that can barely be operated is meaningless compared to hundreds of T-72s backed by newer T-14 tanks the Russians can muster from just over their border with Ukraine.

     The tank proffer is, sad to say (for the dignity of our country), a joke, kind of a last feeble pretense before the whole thing ends in ignominy for the “Joe Biden” team — whoever that actually is. The repercussions are liable to be ugly for our country, not necessarily more military trouble in other lands (which we probably lack the capacity to engage in now), but something more personal: the collapse of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and a vicious loss of purchasing power here at home. That would provoke a situation worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s, and that’s probably where things are going.

     The Ukraine misadventure will disappear from America’s collective consciousness in a New York minute and a Fourth Turning jamboree of serious domestic political disorder will commence in short order. If you think “Joe Biden’s” term in office has been a disaster so far, just wait. You ain’t seen nuttin yet

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/george-kennan-warning-on-ukraine?utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=fatoday&utm_campaign=Kennan%E2%80%99s%20Warning%20on%20Ukraine&utm_content=20230127&utm_term=FA%20Today%20-%20112017

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeWHviwLMy8

[Crafty_Dog]

My posting this in no way means I agree, but the list in articles from BEFORE the war, is well worth noting:

https://amgreatness.com/2023/01/26/inside-the-nazi-whitewash-of-ukraine/?fbclid=IwAR2rfeXYypKHiLlehS2QYTwbIL_ff9q_p-iFhWCa7mw1GmKt-B-AhV097dg

[ccp]

wow
I never heard of this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera

Ukraine seems to be in the middle
Nazis in the West
Stalin in the EAst

not sure what Jews have to do with it
weird Zelensky ignores this - must be for political reasons I can only guess if all this is true

of course no mention of this in Western media - if true

I had a Ukranian patient would tell me she fled Soviet Ukraine in the 1950s to the US where he was born
Blamed a Russian Jew for the Russian murder of millions of Ukranians in the early '30s
made a comment about the "damn Jew'
I tried looking up what he was talking about
and while there were a few Jews at the time working with Stalin
I could not find out any particular one that stood out as being behind starvation
I presume it was just an example of "blame the Jews"

I never told him I was a Jew .
I wonder what he would have thought.

He must have liked me since he was  patient for yrs.

[G M]

My posting this in no way means I agree, but the list in articles from BEFORE the war, is well worth noting:

https://amgreatness.com/2023/01/26/inside-the-nazi-whitewash-of-ukraine/?fbclid=IwAR2rfeXYypKHiLlehS2QYTwbIL_ff9q_p-iFhWCa7mw1GmKt-B-AhV097dg

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/11/cia_kgb_mossad__they_all_hired_nazi_war_criminals_as_spies.html

The US IC and the Mossad used Epstein to gather blackmail material by way of child victims. What wouldn’t they do?

[Crafty_Dog]

They no longer use the term special operation.  It's war and not with Ukraine.

And Zelensky made a big mistake with his political purge to root our corruption. He installed people who are known radical nationalists. And when all is said and done, they will get rid of him and blame the "Jew".
Thu 9:37 AM

https://youtu.be/JeWHviwLMy8

Lindsey Graham & John McCain in Ukraine - Preparing for a proxy war with Russia (2016)
=============================
You sent
I'm in a small group that discusses things and this https://amgreatness.com/2023/01/26/inside-the-nazi-whitewash-of-ukraine/?fbclid=IwAR2rfeXYypKHiLlehS2QYTwbIL_ff9q_p-iFhWCa7mw1GmKt-B-AhV097dg was put forward for discussion and is generating some heat.

May I ask for a paragraph or two from you with your take on it that I can take to the group?
=========================


Inside the Nazi Whitewash of Ukraine › American Greatness
And Zelensky is guilty of it too.
But when Lavrov brought it up, he gets called an anti semite.

He gave one of his cronies the highest honor in Ukraine which is the award of horder of Bogdan Khmelnitsky

=======================

You sent
May I ask for you to write a paragraph or two for the group with your bottom line assessment?
=======================
He and his cossacks killed tens of thousands of Jews.

About the Ukranian anti semitism or the denial of it?

Your assessment of the article.  The guy who posted it got kicked out of the group.
Why?

I totally agree with this article. It is basically what I was saying and my Jewish friends from Ukraine agree.

I guess I wonder what is the current definition of a Nazi. If it is someone who hates Jews and minorities and is willing to kill and torture? Is it a political view of a dictatorship or fascism with a level of racism?

Bc the Azov batallian definitely identifies with Nazis in the sense of racial purity and violence.

Many of Zelensky's cronies are ardent nationalists who believe in extreme violence in order to have their own Ukraine.  But to what end do the want it? It's not to be liberal and accepting of all people. Once they get their freedom, they will start ethnic cleansing.

Zelensky is a traitor to Jews. Not because he played Hava Nagila with his penis, that was actually hilarious. But bc he downplays Ukranians antisemitism.  Bc he allowed the Azov batallian to continue committing atrocities against Russian speakers in the East (which BTW you can go to the Amnesty International website and click on their reports from Ukraine from the years 2014 on)
And look at him now..he grew a beard, built up muscle and wears green t-shirts to look like a big Ukranian Slav. And his manner of speaking changed. He used to sound like an intelligent and educated Russian speaker and now he sounds like a dumb musclehead when he speaks.

This quote from the article really struck a cord with me. "The Germans didn’t build gas chambers to murder Jews in Ukraine—they didn’t need them. The extent of Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis was colossal."

They have a monument to Khmelnysky is Kiev. 3 miles from the monument of Babi Yar.
And the Ukranians didn't even build the Babi Yar monument. Bc they know they helped the Germans kill all the Jews in Kiev. It was one of Putins Russian Jewish Oligarchs who used his own money to have it built not long ago.

But then when it was damaged in a Russian bombing, Zelensky was acting all indignant how the Russians desecrated a Jewish monument.

This makes me so angry. I can go on for pages! Lol

https://www.jns.org/opinion/ukraine-backs-antisemitism-at-the-un-while-pressuring-israel-for-arms/

Ukraine backs antisemitism at the UN while pressuring Israel for arms

I've been fuming about how Zelensky is making Israel look bad bc they won't send him billions and give him their weapons.

Meanwhile Putin actually apologized (when does he ever apologize???) When Lavrov made a statement that "some of the worst Anti-semites are Jews."
Lavrov also mentioned Hitler having Jewish heritage and boy did the US go bonkers about that.

Meanwhile that is not an antisemitic claim and almost every historian agrees to a very strong possibility that his grandfather was Jewish bc Hitlers father was illegitimate.  And they even did a DNA test on members of the Hitler family which remain and it seems like they do have Ashkenazi DNA.

I hate this rewriting of history and denying facts to fit the narrative that the government wants us to have. Dont feed us this lie that Ukraine is liberal and modern and democratic. It's not. Doesn't mean they deserve to get invaded and killed.  But this isn't a good guy vs bad guy. Ukraine is just as bad as Russia. And when it comes to Jews, much much worse.

I dont know the history of the person who got kicked out of your group, but if this article is the only reason why then it is completely unjustified, and kind of repressive. Bc I would totally post that too with a caveat of being a modern Nazi is not the same as being a Hitler Nazi. I think what is missing is the desire for world domination.

You remember me saying all the time how in the beginning in Eastern Ukraine my feeling was let them kill each other bc the one thing all Ukranians had in common whether Ukranian or Russian speaking is that they were all guilty of killing Jews.

Attachment Unavailable
This attachment may have been removed or the person who shared it may not have permission to share it with you.

Not sure if I sent you the above thing before but this is what no one seems to talk about that. If you Google it, it's all articles praising the artists visions.

And this is the kind of stuff Putin banned a few years ago and got called homophobic.

[G M]

https://orthodoxreflections.com/is-russia-really-fighting-a-holy-war-in-ukraine/

[Crafty_Dog]

I have only read most of the article and have not watched the video.

The article makes several interesting points but also engages in some spectacular horseshit:

"So, it was not a question of taking over Ukraine, nor even, presumably, of occupying it; and certainly not of destroying it."

Seriously?  What of the attempt to capture Kiev in three days?

Then there is the propaganda horseshit that we have killed 20-30 million since WW2.

Blah blah blah.

Thus, it is tough to take seriously the assertions about Uke attacks on civilians in Donbass.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/01/29/ukraine-should-and-properly-supported-can-seize-crimea-argues-ben-hodges

[ccp]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/31/joe-biden-sends-tanks-to-ukraine-after-warning-doing-so-would-be-world-war-iii/

well opinions are allowed to change

what seemed like bad idea last yr might seem not so bad now

I read recently he did refuse to send the  F 16s to Ukraine
perhaps he was thinking they might be used to fly over Russian land and that would be too far  .......

some say he acted too little and too late
others say he should stay away altogether

no easy answer

I still like the give the Ruskis Donbas
for peace but perhaps they would not approve anyway

we can also wait it out to Putin dies a natural or unnatural death
and hope for better then

[ya]

I have believed from the start, that Russia will achieve its aims. It is not backing down. It is the US which will back down. Things seem to be turning in that direction. The only question is will they also take Odessa, I believe it is important for them to do so. The ability of Russians to bear pain (for Ukr) is higher than that of Europeans or Americans and so they will win,

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/escobar-panicked-empire-tries-make-russia-offer-it-cant-refuse

[Crafty_Dog]

If Russians take Odesa, Ukraine will lose access to the Black Sea and will be finished as a country.

Transnitia next?

[ccp]

I like this a lot better then just beating his chest exclaiming this war would have never happened had HE been Prez:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/02/02/trump-calls-for-peace-negotiations-to-end-ukraine-war/

thumbs up

[G M]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/pentagon-lawmakers-ukraine-retaking-crimea-unlikely

[Crafty_Dog]

https://open.spotify.com/album/2fq68DRyxZ7xdWS5ihEtp7?si=0cWkLyHaRAmLW8dPPMBJ5w&nd=1#login

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/joe-biden-offered-vladimir-putin-20-percent-of-ukraine-to-end-war-report/ar-AA1727Wd?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0355dfaf459944f19961a2fcc5e20c68

[G M]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/joe-biden-offered-vladimir-putin-20-percent-of-ukraine-to-end-war-report/ar-AA1727Wd?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0355dfaf459944f19961a2fcc5e20c68

I thought Vodka Man Bad was going to be surrendering to the brave Ukrainien Forces by now.

No?

[G M]

https://twitter.com/AZgeopolitics/status/1621146661258166274

In the most corrupt country in eastern europe? No way!

[ccp]

hard to imagine
that everywhere in the world we send "aid"

skimming and stealing does not occur

the Swiss love us .  Bahamas too.

 

[G M]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/joe-biden-offered-vladimir-putin-20-percent-of-ukraine-to-end-war-report/ar-AA1727Wd?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0355dfaf459944f19961a2fcc5e20c68

I thought Vodka Man Bad was going to be surrendering to the brave Ukrainien Forces by now.

No?

https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/eaa1f5ded022fae2.jpg

[ccp]

Putin refused to end war for Donbas as per rumors

well that is a problem

 

[ya]

As long as India/China do not support the west, Russia cannot be defeated.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/zelenskyy-signs-documents-people-found-181545388.html

https://news.yahoo.com/zelenskyy-strips-ex-yanukovych-era-101300355.html

[Crafty_Dog]

This would seem to be closely related:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11712979/Ukraine-hacks-call-Russia-supporting-Ukrainians-charge-treason-blast-anthem.html

[ya]

This is a good read on the war

https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/destroying-mother-of-all-proxy-armieshtml

[G M]

This is a good read on the war

https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/destroying-mother-of-all-proxy-armieshtml

But we put Ukrainian flags on our social media! They can't lose!