Calmly acknowledging setbacks and sharing constructive critiques afterwards aligns with the spirit of what President Putin suggested earlier in the summer when he advised against indulging in wishful thinking. Nobody who sincerely supports this newly restored world power and its de facto leadership of the Global Revolutionary Movement in the New Cold War could in good conscience eschew their moral responsibility to encourage Russia’s self-improvement through these well-intended means.
Some very good points, Andrew. But, Russia cannot and will not settle for a stalemate and be happy with some kind of truce. Were that to happen, Putin and the Russian military command would lose all credibility. 1) Demilitarize Ukraine. 2) Denazify Ukraine, and 3) ensure a NATO free, neutral state. Admittedly, the Ukrainian national army has been destroyed. This is a US NATO force that is carrying the fight. If Russia does not now understand that this is an existential fight for its survival, then it loses no matter the spin. Any kind of stalemate or "deal" does not solve Russia's security demands. the US and NATO will not stop until they are defeated on the ground. If Russia loses this fight, no one can talk about Russia's "leadership" in the global transition to a multipolar world. This is a fight not only for Russia's survival, but for humanity.
A fairly balanced analysis. when many commentators are gravitating to extremes and simply making excuses for either side. I think an issue which has remained undiscussed is Russia 'contractor' model of recruitment to the regular professional army. Back in August many of these contractors failed to renew contracts and that is probably the reason that Russia lost Kharkiv as regular troops were leaving in droves. Its one thing to sign up to the military in peace time and a completely different thing in war time especially when leaders are making poor decisions. Has this situation been resolved? Is the mobilization of 300,000 troops merely making up for the contractors leaving? I have not seen any analysis of this phenomenon so its hard to say.
Excellent analysis. Although, I disagree on many points, I think that many of the caveats apply to Russia's understanding of Western intentions prior to 2014. But Putin appears to march to a different drumbeat than most politicians. That is his hallmark. He would have been ill-equipped to fight a war in 2014 and he recognized the moral dimension of war. He took the high road - until 2022, when the RF was prepared. He is not just fighting a fraternal war, he is fighting a system of world control --AND restoring a nation and its culture. So -- expect a Lonnnnnnnnnnngggg War. Kherson, for example was not a defeat. Nor was Kharkov. https://julianmacfarlane.substack.com/p/kherson-the-defeat-that-wasnt
Unlike you, I have been around since the actual Cold War. I have heard plenty of Russian propaganda in my time and those fanciful pronouncements are no more true now than they were then. However, it did teach me how to spot a propagandist. Propagandists are not permitted independent thought or to stray from the party line. Let us see if this describes you.
Here are the facts.
0. Ukraine was never a threat to Russia in any sense.
1. Ukraine's government is ideologically benign, democratically elected and supported by the vast majority of Ukrainian citizens, including the majority of Russian speakers.
2. NATO has perfectly legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with animus against Russia for supporting said government militarily.
3. Ukraine wants to be an independent country, not a Russian vassal like Belarus.
4. Ukraine will accept neutrality or demilitarization but not both. It will be protected by either NATO's article 5 or by a military capable of defeating Russian aggression but not both.
5. Ukraine will give up Crimea and Donbas but no more.
6. Russia has suffered significant casualties, reputational damage and other real harm due to this war and can ill afford it being prolonged much further.
You should be able to consider these facts and use them to come up with policy proposals that could actually get Russia out of this mess that they have created. It truthfully is not hard at all. Yet, not a single pro-Russian site has been willing or capable of doing so. The reason for this is that that they are mere propagandists. Let us see if you are any more or better.
To that I would add that communications inside Ukraine remain robust. So much so that Ukraine continues to have an oversight of operations that doesn't have to rely on reports from the front, although they still get those in spades by monitoring Russian internet sites and phone communications. Russia was castigated, very briefly, for jeopardizing the safety of satellites in orbit over Ukraine, by destroying one of its own. It might be prudent continue to add to that 'threat' by destroying somebody else's. There are a number of 3rd and 4th party operators , over Ukraine, actively assisting their military. That, like other communications and public utilities, needs to stop.
Some very good points, Andrew. But, Russia cannot and will not settle for a stalemate and be happy with some kind of truce. Were that to happen, Putin and the Russian military command would lose all credibility. 1) Demilitarize Ukraine. 2) Denazify Ukraine, and 3) ensure a NATO free, neutral state. Admittedly, the Ukrainian national army has been destroyed. This is a US NATO force that is carrying the fight. If Russia does not now understand that this is an existential fight for its survival, then it loses no matter the spin. Any kind of stalemate or "deal" does not solve Russia's security demands. the US and NATO will not stop until they are defeated on the ground. If Russia loses this fight, no one can talk about Russia's "leadership" in the global transition to a multipolar world. This is a fight not only for Russia's survival, but for humanity.
A fairly balanced analysis. when many commentators are gravitating to extremes and simply making excuses for either side. I think an issue which has remained undiscussed is Russia 'contractor' model of recruitment to the regular professional army. Back in August many of these contractors failed to renew contracts and that is probably the reason that Russia lost Kharkiv as regular troops were leaving in droves. Its one thing to sign up to the military in peace time and a completely different thing in war time especially when leaders are making poor decisions. Has this situation been resolved? Is the mobilization of 300,000 troops merely making up for the contractors leaving? I have not seen any analysis of this phenomenon so its hard to say.
Excellent analysis. Although, I disagree on many points, I think that many of the caveats apply to Russia's understanding of Western intentions prior to 2014. But Putin appears to march to a different drumbeat than most politicians. That is his hallmark. He would have been ill-equipped to fight a war in 2014 and he recognized the moral dimension of war. He took the high road - until 2022, when the RF was prepared. He is not just fighting a fraternal war, he is fighting a system of world control --AND restoring a nation and its culture. So -- expect a Lonnnnnnnnnnngggg War. Kherson, for example was not a defeat. Nor was Kharkov. https://julianmacfarlane.substack.com/p/kherson-the-defeat-that-wasnt
Nice to see people acknowledging the colossal intelligence failure that led us to the situation that we're in today.
The next question is whether or not heads will roll for this incompetence in the "intelligence" community in Russia.
Unlike you, I have been around since the actual Cold War. I have heard plenty of Russian propaganda in my time and those fanciful pronouncements are no more true now than they were then. However, it did teach me how to spot a propagandist. Propagandists are not permitted independent thought or to stray from the party line. Let us see if this describes you.
Here are the facts.
0. Ukraine was never a threat to Russia in any sense.
1. Ukraine's government is ideologically benign, democratically elected and supported by the vast majority of Ukrainian citizens, including the majority of Russian speakers.
2. NATO has perfectly legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with animus against Russia for supporting said government militarily.
3. Ukraine wants to be an independent country, not a Russian vassal like Belarus.
4. Ukraine will accept neutrality or demilitarization but not both. It will be protected by either NATO's article 5 or by a military capable of defeating Russian aggression but not both.
5. Ukraine will give up Crimea and Donbas but no more.
6. Russia has suffered significant casualties, reputational damage and other real harm due to this war and can ill afford it being prolonged much further.
You should be able to consider these facts and use them to come up with policy proposals that could actually get Russia out of this mess that they have created. It truthfully is not hard at all. Yet, not a single pro-Russian site has been willing or capable of doing so. The reason for this is that that they are mere propagandists. Let us see if you are any more or better.
To that I would add that communications inside Ukraine remain robust. So much so that Ukraine continues to have an oversight of operations that doesn't have to rely on reports from the front, although they still get those in spades by monitoring Russian internet sites and phone communications. Russia was castigated, very briefly, for jeopardizing the safety of satellites in orbit over Ukraine, by destroying one of its own. It might be prudent continue to add to that 'threat' by destroying somebody else's. There are a number of 3rd and 4th party operators , over Ukraine, actively assisting their military. That, like other communications and public utilities, needs to stop.