Never before has anyone of Vasily Kashin’s caliber openly spoken about Russia’s “existing (military) limitations”, let alone in a way that’s meant to promote a compromise solution to the Ukrainian Conflict as opposed to further escalation like the hawks have long called for.
If this "expert" is right, then it is a disaster for Russia. That would mean the gamble of February 22, 2022, was just a gamble, not a plan — and a completely failed gamble. It would give substance to all the 'propaganda' of NAFO, which has been saying for four years that Russia is failing. So would NATO have been right? Far from following a defined plan, the Russians would only have been frantically reacting to successive setbacks?
Right or wrong, this man must have the honesty and courage to acknowledge that his point of view implies that Russia is in a disastrous defeat and must beg for peace against a notoriously lying, manipulative, predatory adversary — the USA. He should also have the honesty and courage to acknowledge that for Russia to retreat this far into the war would give wings to the most virulent European and American Russophobes, who will not rest until she is on her knees and the Yeltsin years return. Even worse, because this time, they will not leave a single stone standing after the second sack of Carthage.
In short, either this man is a naive idiot like the morons who surrounded Gorbachev in the 1980s (and who all live in the West today, rich and honored), or he is a simple traitor to his country, representing the desire of a certain intelligentsia to reconnect with the West in order to become its new comprador class. And this, at the price of the Russian people's descent into hell. In 2021, Putin said that Russia's back was against the wall and it could no longer retreat. So, Mr. 'Expert' Kashin, can Russia retreat today? Buffoon.
So I think honesty and courage would consist of honestly and clearly proposing the alternative:
· Either we fight, perhaps alone, probably at the cost of great suffering, with no guarantee of success, but until defeat or until victory (the fearful respect of our enemies, the respectful loyalty of our friends).
· Or we give it all up, knowing that the West hates us, despises us, has no word, and dreams only of looting our resources and sending, as in the 1990s, our most beautiful girls to sidewalks and brothels all over the planet.
In any case, Putin must now hand over the reins. He has done a magnificent job, but he seems incapable of managing the dead end into which his pusillanimity has led Russia. The people must now choose either a Vožd (a warlord) or a Godunov (a liquidator)."
If Russia can get formal recognition of its sovereignty over the Donbas and Crimea, and get assurances that Ukraine will not become part of a foreign military alliance or host foreign troops are facilities--and get U.S. sanctions dropped--that would be an excellent result for Russia at this point.
The face-saving way to make the territorial exchanges would be to formally purchase them. Russia would purchase Crimea and the Donbas from Ukraine for some agreed-upon fee, and Ukraine would purchase Kherson and Zaporizhzhia from Russia (which Russia doesn't fully control anyway).
If compromises work, compromise is almost always better. But what if compromises don't work?
What are the red lines in the eyes of Mr. Vasily Kashin? Since he is a forward-thinker, he has likely identified a position he is willing to accept, and we need to discuss the specifics. Otherwise, discussing a compromise as an attitude without specifics isn't very useful at this stage.
The specifics dont really matter when one side will foreseeably not stick to any contract anyway. This compromises any strategy involving negotiations. A truly sober analysis would take account of this. It takes two to tango. I dont think, the attrition strategy was chosen for the fun of it, but because it is the only viable one.
I just read an analysis of the incapability of the US to stick to treaties. It's baked into their government system of executive orders and bipartisan houses. Unless this changes, nothing will change.
The ROW will have to ride this out.
The only other way to handle the situation might be to split the West up into smaller units that have interests of their own and are structurally mor reliable. Most of them sucking up to the US however, this is no quick solution either.
Even before 1776, the British nourished a violent contempt for 'Americans,' calling them greedy scoundrels, incapable of keeping their word, with insatiable greed. This mixture of Calvinist hypocrisy coupled with the unscrupulous profit‑seeking of the Dutch contributed to this mentality. Then there is the grabbing. Unlike in Europe, where for centuries, even millennia, the property has been, 90% of the time, transactional and consensual (invasions and revolutions — outside Russia — have affected this only at the margins since the end of the great invasions 1,500 years ago), the USA consisted of releasing onto a territory all those who had the strength (or the network) to seize the land, then to keep it. Not transaction, just brutal grabbing based solely on force. In such a society, honor has no value. Especially in a country where massive immigration brings the most courageous, the most individualistic, and above all where they are massively among the young. The average age of the pioneer is under 35. So a young society, with no elders to moderate excesses.
We have here a typical case with our friend Ferial Finster who constantly repeats: 'So what? It works.' That's it, that's typical USA. The only consideration is 'it works.' Obviously, breaking one's word works, lying works, robbing the weak works. So why deprive oneself? Honesty, wisdom, the common good — that's bullshit for losers. So from their creation, the USA have always seen the most greedy, the most villainous, the most ruthless win with the politicians. Every US politician, from the beginning, has a businessman ready to kick his ass if he gets finicky. The USA are led by arm‑twisters who are acclaimed by crowds who find that perfectly normal. Trump is the true face of the USA.
Tschakka. This tallies with my theory that there are differences in attitude in human populations deriving from their history and geographical locations which are passed on from generation to generation, genetic and behavioural. Those that early on got settled, farming arable land and thus having to develop a way to get along with their neighbours as opposed to those continuing nomadic lives at the fringes of civilization, parttime robbers and pirates with little to gain by treating anyone civilly.
So those who emigrate tend to have a surplus of energy, discontent and recklessness, while those remaining tend to be more easily satisfied, agreeable and less energetic. We can observe this right now in exemplary fashion.
It just astonishes me that Brits would observe this, descending from ruthless invaders themselves.
All of those pioneers are long dead. The indigenous societies they either destroyed or subjugated are either long dead or permanently changed. Now, the descendants of those European settlers are in the same boat as those of the Africans and natives their ancestors once dominated.
Moreover, most of us KNOW it now, in spite of all of the ID politics bullshit. The enemy isn't our neighbors; it's our ruling criminal class. A Second American Revolution to make a real republic for the first time is brewing.
Stupid diversionary tactic. What difference does it make what the British say about the French?
And this isn’t a news report, just a historical interpretation. I can't invent an US history full of kindness , equity and honour just because you're sad about the truth
I wonder if this was written before Ukraine’s murder of Russian students while they were sleeping in their dorm rooms. There is no comprising with the West and treaties with the U.S. are better written on toilet paper, which is actually more useful than the treaties. Onward to Odessa for the Russian military.
Yes, it was written before the latest terrorist attack, but that attack doesn't change the military-political dynamics of the conflict since it's not unprecedented and even worse attacks have happened throughout the course of the last 4.5 years.
As much as I'd like to see Russia regain control over Odessa, I don't see any viable pathway for bringing that about, nor has Russia even remotely signaled any such plans at any time during the SMO.
Well, I keep reading that some Russians feel like Putin is neglecting them.
Aside from all the dead Russians, we must also acknowledge that Ukraine is terrorizing the Russian population and creating ecological destasters. Why is Moscow so soft?
To understand the "predicament" Russia is in, one must figure out why this unusual trip , by the Israeli prime minister , happened. Israel never gets involved unless it somehow benefits it.
" Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett secretly flew to Moscow on March 5, 2022. The unscheduled, three-hour diplomatic trip occurred on the Jewish Sabbath, which is permitted to preserve human life. He met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to mediate a cease-fire regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. "
Russia and Israel have become very close under Putin throughout his quarter-century in office in one capacity or another. It therefore wasn't a surprise to me at all that Israel would serve as the Global West's emissary in talks with Russia. To this day, it also doesn't formally abide by Western sanctions, and it's even reportedly lobbied the US (and I believe the reports are indeed true) not to pressure post-Assad Syria into closing Russia's bases.
However, in seems Israel set Putin up and got him to retreat from Kiev , after which, they were never again involved in any Ukraine negations. Feels highly suspect.
Yeah, the Americans that are big Israel supporters like Bari Weiss don’t understand “back channels”. Whenever two countries go to war both countries need an open line of communication with each other to keep the talks going because most wars end in a “negotiated settlement”…and so both countries will have to talk at some point so might as well have talks going on the entire time because it’s cheaper than war!
I think Israel isn’t really helping Russia they just have a role to play for America. Qatar and Pakistan serve the same purpose with America’s war with Iran. Although with respect to Iran Weiss obviously doesn’t want a negotiated settlement as she wants Iran wiped off the face of the earth and so in that instance a back channel is counterproductive to one’s goals. 😉
You are truly the specialist of tautology. Even if your point of view can be interesting, you postulate completely false things. You say that most wars end with a negotiated agreement. Can you make a list of wars that have ended that way in the last 150 years?
Let me give you a quick list of wars that ended with the total defeat of one side:
· Iraq – USA: Hussein hanged.
· Georgia – Russia: total defeat of Georgia.
· USA – Afghanistan: total, shameful departure of the USA.
· West – Libya: Gaddafi impaled.
· UN – Iraq 1991: disastrous departure of Iraq from Kuwait.
· Vietnam – USA: shameful departure of the USA.
· Yom Kippur War: total defeat of Egypt.
· Six‑Day War: total victory of Israel.
· Algerian War: shameful departure of France.
· Indochina War: shameful departure of France.
· World War II: unconditional surrender of the Axis and Japan.
· World War I: surrender at mercy of the German‑Austrian forces.
· Russo‑Japanese War: total defeat of Russia.
· Franco‑Prussian War: total surrender of France.
· Austro‑Prussian War: total surrender of Austria.
· US Civil War: total destruction of the Confederacy.
Apart from the Korean War, do you know at least as many as I have just listed before throwing out such an enormous bullshit as an obvious fact?"
Afghanistan was ended with the Doha Agreement which was a negotiated settlement between Trump and the Taliban. That said, my “negotiated settlement” remark was just a regurgitation of what American “experts” have been saying since Putin invaded Ukraine. But Trump forced Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire with Hamas and you are ignorant of how Trump ended our Afghanistan operation so right now I’m going with lazy conventional wisdom over you. 😉
I understand your skepticism about how well he's informed, but RIGA's Editorial Board is comprised of a lot of influential folks and even includes none other than Karaganov himself as Chairman, yet they approved the publication of his article:
I don't believe that they impact Kashin's views at all since they're just the rare use of a powerful weapon that isn't unprecedented in any case and only hit very specific targets whose value isn't relevant to shaping the course of the conflict.
Please remember that his opinion is in the context of a Special Military Operation, not a declared war. Once that happens, Ukraine will be invaded from Belarus and the Siege of Kiev will begin. The Spirit of Anchorage can only work if Kiev agrees and Europe withdraws support for Ukraine. I've seen no sign of any of that happening. The SMO continues.
I think that's true. However, the next guy may not be as sanguine about the prospect of a full declaration of war. So Putin had better figure out what it's going to take to defeat Ukraine in the Donbass and the parts of Novorossiya that are currently occupied, quick. Because United Russia may not be in the driver's seat forever.
I don't see any viable pathway at present for how Russia is going to expel Ukrainian forces from the parts of the new regions on the other side of the Dnieper, for example, nor has any been presented to the public.
War is not fought in the trenches, but in the rear. What counts is endurance, duration, and replenishment of men and materials. Ukraine is gradually losing in these.
Kashin compellingly argues that Ukraine can continue replenishing its troops through martial law and forcible conscription while its resources, including financial, are now being entirely supplied by the West and will likely continue to be for the indefinite future.
Obviously everyone has their own opinion. However, Ukraine is clearly having difficulty making up for its losses and, moreover, the amounts it receives are barely enough for the state to function at all. They are not enough for weapons. Furthermore, the relationships in the EU are changing and no one guarantees anything.
How can the west continue the ressuply for the indefinite future? Energy being expensive, industrial capacity shrinking, social security provisions erroding, and shifting political forces? It is not only Ukraine getting erroded, but the west as well. In this respect it seems that Russia has a bigger strategic depth than Ukraine...
Under the SMO, I agree. I think the final lines will be drawn with all of Luhansk and Donetsk, plus the parts of Zaporizhia and Kherson up to the Dnieper. Odessa is a pipe dream. If war is declared, who knows. But I think this is achievable under the SMO.
This would require a resolution and decisiveness that Russia has entirely lacked so far.
Not to mention, the NATO sunk cost means that NATO is more likely to intervene, not less. This files in the face of the myth that Russia had to exercise caution, lest NATO step in directly. In 2022, NATO feared to send old Soviet stockpiles of small arms. Now, Russian dithering has resulted in NATO munitions hitting Russia on a daily basis.
If Louis XIV had let the power in 1685, or Napoleon in 1808, history would have been very different for France.
Until know, Poutine have been the best head of state of the history of his country. But like the two french king, going further could lead to become the worst.
Some expect that the protest vote for the communist and nationalist opposition during September's Duma elections might force United Russia into forming a governing coalition, but a lot can still happen before then.
Even in the scenario that the ruling party suffers an Orban-like landslide defeat, Putin will still remain president and would only likely approve certain domestic reforms, not change up his guidelines for waging the SMO.
My sense is that the social contract under Putin has always been that he'll maintain economic growth, ensure security, and preserve social freedoms, so the economic downturn, increasing insecurity through Ukrainian terrorist attacks, and newfound internet restrictions might indeed push a non-insignificant number of supporters into voting for the communists or nationalists as an acceptable means of signaling their dissent with the way everything has been going.
Remember, United Russia only won 49% of the popular vote during the last elections in 2021, and so much has changed since then. It's very difficult to imagine them maintaining that result after all that's happened. Conventional wisdom would suggest that they'll score less as a result, though it's anyone's guess how much less as well as what they might do before September to cushion their potential decline.
One scenario is ending the SMO, declaring victory, and selling partial sanctions relief and new US investments as signals that the economy will soon improve. That would also be the pretext for rescinding most internet restrictions too for appealing to the youth vote.
Personally, I believe that this scenario is credible and sense that it's being seriously considered, with Kashin's piece serving to precondition the expert community for getting as many of them on board with a potentially forthcoming media campaign directed first towards Russians and then "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" (NRPR).
I also expect that most top NRPR influencers who've aggressively insisted that "everything is going according to plan" and angrily dismissed any talk of Russia ending the SMO without first obtaining all of its goals in full will flip-flop to cheering on this outcome due to them wanting to remain in their paymasters' good graces.
They'll completely discredit themselves more than they already have, but I'm not hopeful that Russia's "soft power supervisors" -- who've enabled and even, I suspect, encouraged their ridiculous takes all these years -- will realize that keeping them on board discredits Russia as well.
At most, those that refuse to play along will get blacklisted, and it's possible that the aforesaid supervisors might even encourage those who flip-flop on demand to indirectly or even directly attack those that didn't. I'm half-expecting 1984-like narrative reversals where mentioning the prior narrative becomes taboo.
If there's a path between further losses of military and civilian lives and the lies, broken commitments, and assassination attempts, it is very difficult to see. If it were me, I think I'd remove the gloves, find the men who drive this insanity, and bring them to justice quickly. War crimes trials and hangings do not appear to be in the cards, so course correct.
It is actually interesting that this interview comes up while Trump is not sure what to do with Iran. I think it is a trial balloon to see if Trump would go for a Russia compromise. Rather than a reflection on the disposition of forces.
This article and comments give an important perspective on the SMO. The question remains: Can largescale escalation be avoided and would it preserve Russian security?
Russia bet on a split or collapse of NATO. For now, it missed. At the contrary, Westerners are now sure that Poutine is a pussy and they are pushing forward.
It's not just him, but RIGA's Editorial Board that approved publishing his piece, which suggests that they either share his views or at minimum believe that they're worthy of consideration by fellow Russian experts.
Well. It's another view on the - as I see it - main problem: Russia (Putin) seems to play for time by conducting a slowmo SMO waiting for the West to devour itself.
So the pertinent question is: How fast will the decline of the West progress? When your strategy is based on this single premise, one should have a look at the status from time to time. Right now, the West seems to be tougher than convenient.
If the Russian administration decides to continue this project however long it takes, they urgently need to get their citizens on board. The duration implied by naming it SMO is long over.
Fully agreed on all counts. I've previously written, I forgot whether in an analysis or the comments section here, that the decision to extend the SMO for as long as it's been was based on three premises: the frontlines will inevitably collapse; the US will pull out of the conflict; and the EU will follow suit (likely, as was wrongly assumed, through a series of populist-nationalist electoral revolutions).
It was for these reasons that Putin declined Trump's initial proposal in spring 2025 to essentially freeze the conflict in exchange for partial sanctions relief, including vast US investments in Russia's resource sector (both energy and minerals), as well as what I heard from someone in the know about how they also wrongly assumed that he's basically a corrupt oligarch who they could easily manipulate.
In retrospect, given all that's unfolded since (especially last August's TRIPP!!!) and Putin's continued insistence on only waging a SMO and not escalating to a full-fledged "war", the argument has been made by some that it might have been better to take that deal since little of tangible significance has been achieved in the year since despite ever-growing multidimensional costs.
As the recent and still evolving conflict with Iran shows, Trump is being played by powers with aims not even coinciding with American welfare.
The Russian governments refusal makes sense to me, who would trust a man that isnt independent in his actions and with this history of breaking promises? That they were wary at letting US money into Russia, particularly after the sell-out in the '90s, seems also natural.
The thing is, Putin already agreed with Trump in Anchorage that -- according to credible reports, including the RT journalist who I cited -- Putin would declare a ceasefire if Trump got Zelensky to withdraw from Donbass, so Russia does indeed believe that it's possible to reach a deal with the US in principle even though it hasn't even tried implementing the "Spirit of Anchorage" in practice.
Have my sincere doubts about a Trump-Putin agreement, I think before last time Trump got Putin on the phone he was a drone target, the evidence that it was an American attack, the evidence and remaining of the drone were offered to the American Embassy as a proof. In the end the CIA is the winner, everything they made us believe in was a lie.
It's hard for me to see what value a temporary ceasefire before the wider war with NATO commences brings to Russia. Make sure the other side has time to improve its technology, manufacturing base, and to fully learn the lessons of the SMO from Ukraine's perspective?
Because the war itself is inevitable. Europe is starved for energy. The North Sea has little in reserve in terms of oil and gas; Libya is still in a civil war and an unstable supplier to France, who is also cut off from uranium feedstocks in the Sahel; imports from the Gulf are disrupted or stopped; Germany's coal in the Ruhr doesn't go very far towards powering the entire continent.
I think the explanation that the reason Trump has tried to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine - that it's cover to give him reason to withdraw the U.S. from the conflict completely, and let Russia and Europe destroy each other, with the U.S. coming in at the end as the victor to dictate terms to everyone - is highly likely. It explains well why the U.S. has intensified its efforts to soften up Russia's under belly.
The most powerful forces known to man are plotting world war, and they are going to have their way. Putin is making a mistake imho.
Russia can take its time in takng all the trritoories that are ukrains,Russia has a 1200 mile border withUkraine, At one time Ukraine was part of Russia. It was American efforts that hadUkraine to break away from Russia.This resulted in the war which America financed. Aamerica Russia wwill not tolerates your getting into Ruddiaan matters.
As far as I concerned these are absolutely realistic observations of the Ukraine situation. The question simply remains how to get truly disengaged if the USA/UK refuse & press on.
If this "expert" is right, then it is a disaster for Russia. That would mean the gamble of February 22, 2022, was just a gamble, not a plan — and a completely failed gamble. It would give substance to all the 'propaganda' of NAFO, which has been saying for four years that Russia is failing. So would NATO have been right? Far from following a defined plan, the Russians would only have been frantically reacting to successive setbacks?
Right or wrong, this man must have the honesty and courage to acknowledge that his point of view implies that Russia is in a disastrous defeat and must beg for peace against a notoriously lying, manipulative, predatory adversary — the USA. He should also have the honesty and courage to acknowledge that for Russia to retreat this far into the war would give wings to the most virulent European and American Russophobes, who will not rest until she is on her knees and the Yeltsin years return. Even worse, because this time, they will not leave a single stone standing after the second sack of Carthage.
In short, either this man is a naive idiot like the morons who surrounded Gorbachev in the 1980s (and who all live in the West today, rich and honored), or he is a simple traitor to his country, representing the desire of a certain intelligentsia to reconnect with the West in order to become its new comprador class. And this, at the price of the Russian people's descent into hell. In 2021, Putin said that Russia's back was against the wall and it could no longer retreat. So, Mr. 'Expert' Kashin, can Russia retreat today? Buffoon.
So I think honesty and courage would consist of honestly and clearly proposing the alternative:
· Either we fight, perhaps alone, probably at the cost of great suffering, with no guarantee of success, but until defeat or until victory (the fearful respect of our enemies, the respectful loyalty of our friends).
· Or we give it all up, knowing that the West hates us, despises us, has no word, and dreams only of looting our resources and sending, as in the 1990s, our most beautiful girls to sidewalks and brothels all over the planet.
In any case, Putin must now hand over the reins. He has done a magnificent job, but he seems incapable of managing the dead end into which his pusillanimity has led Russia. The people must now choose either a Vožd (a warlord) or a Godunov (a liquidator)."
If Russia can get formal recognition of its sovereignty over the Donbas and Crimea, and get assurances that Ukraine will not become part of a foreign military alliance or host foreign troops are facilities--and get U.S. sanctions dropped--that would be an excellent result for Russia at this point.
The face-saving way to make the territorial exchanges would be to formally purchase them. Russia would purchase Crimea and the Donbas from Ukraine for some agreed-upon fee, and Ukraine would purchase Kherson and Zaporizhzhia from Russia (which Russia doesn't fully control anyway).
If compromises work, compromise is almost always better. But what if compromises don't work?
What are the red lines in the eyes of Mr. Vasily Kashin? Since he is a forward-thinker, he has likely identified a position he is willing to accept, and we need to discuss the specifics. Otherwise, discussing a compromise as an attitude without specifics isn't very useful at this stage.
You're perfectly right. This man is an hypocrite. He better should be honest and clearly call Russians to surrender.
Because european and american russophobes will not let Russia alone. Especially if it beg négociations on its knees.
The specifics dont really matter when one side will foreseeably not stick to any contract anyway. This compromises any strategy involving negotiations. A truly sober analysis would take account of this. It takes two to tango. I dont think, the attrition strategy was chosen for the fun of it, but because it is the only viable one.
I just read an analysis of the incapability of the US to stick to treaties. It's baked into their government system of executive orders and bipartisan houses. Unless this changes, nothing will change.
The ROW will have to ride this out.
The only other way to handle the situation might be to split the West up into smaller units that have interests of their own and are structurally mor reliable. Most of them sucking up to the US however, this is no quick solution either.
Even before 1776, the British nourished a violent contempt for 'Americans,' calling them greedy scoundrels, incapable of keeping their word, with insatiable greed. This mixture of Calvinist hypocrisy coupled with the unscrupulous profit‑seeking of the Dutch contributed to this mentality. Then there is the grabbing. Unlike in Europe, where for centuries, even millennia, the property has been, 90% of the time, transactional and consensual (invasions and revolutions — outside Russia — have affected this only at the margins since the end of the great invasions 1,500 years ago), the USA consisted of releasing onto a territory all those who had the strength (or the network) to seize the land, then to keep it. Not transaction, just brutal grabbing based solely on force. In such a society, honor has no value. Especially in a country where massive immigration brings the most courageous, the most individualistic, and above all where they are massively among the young. The average age of the pioneer is under 35. So a young society, with no elders to moderate excesses.
We have here a typical case with our friend Ferial Finster who constantly repeats: 'So what? It works.' That's it, that's typical USA. The only consideration is 'it works.' Obviously, breaking one's word works, lying works, robbing the weak works. So why deprive oneself? Honesty, wisdom, the common good — that's bullshit for losers. So from their creation, the USA have always seen the most greedy, the most villainous, the most ruthless win with the politicians. Every US politician, from the beginning, has a businessman ready to kick his ass if he gets finicky. The USA are led by arm‑twisters who are acclaimed by crowds who find that perfectly normal. Trump is the true face of the USA.
Tschakka. This tallies with my theory that there are differences in attitude in human populations deriving from their history and geographical locations which are passed on from generation to generation, genetic and behavioural. Those that early on got settled, farming arable land and thus having to develop a way to get along with their neighbours as opposed to those continuing nomadic lives at the fringes of civilization, parttime robbers and pirates with little to gain by treating anyone civilly.
So those who emigrate tend to have a surplus of energy, discontent and recklessness, while those remaining tend to be more easily satisfied, agreeable and less energetic. We can observe this right now in exemplary fashion.
It just astonishes me that Brits would observe this, descending from ruthless invaders themselves.
All of those pioneers are long dead. The indigenous societies they either destroyed or subjugated are either long dead or permanently changed. Now, the descendants of those European settlers are in the same boat as those of the Africans and natives their ancestors once dominated.
Moreover, most of us KNOW it now, in spite of all of the ID politics bullshit. The enemy isn't our neighbors; it's our ruling criminal class. A Second American Revolution to make a real republic for the first time is brewing.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/nikhil-pal-singh-pervasive-power-settler-mindset/
Darras, what have the British said about the French? I'm just asking for a little fair and balanced reporting is all...
Stupid diversionary tactic. What difference does it make what the British say about the French?
And this isn’t a news report, just a historical interpretation. I can't invent an US history full of kindness , equity and honour just because you're sad about the truth
Had Russia taken this war seriously from the outset, this would have been moot.
Anytime you want to apologize to me for calling me a troll I’m right here. And let me just say that I forgive you in advance.
I wonder if this was written before Ukraine’s murder of Russian students while they were sleeping in their dorm rooms. There is no comprising with the West and treaties with the U.S. are better written on toilet paper, which is actually more useful than the treaties. Onward to Odessa for the Russian military.
Yes, it was written before the latest terrorist attack, but that attack doesn't change the military-political dynamics of the conflict since it's not unprecedented and even worse attacks have happened throughout the course of the last 4.5 years.
As much as I'd like to see Russia regain control over Odessa, I don't see any viable pathway for bringing that about, nor has Russia even remotely signaled any such plans at any time during the SMO.
Well, I keep reading that some Russians feel like Putin is neglecting them.
Aside from all the dead Russians, we must also acknowledge that Ukraine is terrorizing the Russian population and creating ecological destasters. Why is Moscow so soft?
To understand the "predicament" Russia is in, one must figure out why this unusual trip , by the Israeli prime minister , happened. Israel never gets involved unless it somehow benefits it.
" Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett secretly flew to Moscow on March 5, 2022. The unscheduled, three-hour diplomatic trip occurred on the Jewish Sabbath, which is permitted to preserve human life. He met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to mediate a cease-fire regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. "
Russia and Israel have become very close under Putin throughout his quarter-century in office in one capacity or another. It therefore wasn't a surprise to me at all that Israel would serve as the Global West's emissary in talks with Russia. To this day, it also doesn't formally abide by Western sanctions, and it's even reportedly lobbied the US (and I believe the reports are indeed true) not to pressure post-Assad Syria into closing Russia's bases.
However, in seems Israel set Putin up and got him to retreat from Kiev , after which, they were never again involved in any Ukraine negations. Feels highly suspect.
Yeah, the Americans that are big Israel supporters like Bari Weiss don’t understand “back channels”. Whenever two countries go to war both countries need an open line of communication with each other to keep the talks going because most wars end in a “negotiated settlement”…and so both countries will have to talk at some point so might as well have talks going on the entire time because it’s cheaper than war!
I think Israel isn’t really helping Russia they just have a role to play for America. Qatar and Pakistan serve the same purpose with America’s war with Iran. Although with respect to Iran Weiss obviously doesn’t want a negotiated settlement as she wants Iran wiped off the face of the earth and so in that instance a back channel is counterproductive to one’s goals. 😉
Dear friend
You are truly the specialist of tautology. Even if your point of view can be interesting, you postulate completely false things. You say that most wars end with a negotiated agreement. Can you make a list of wars that have ended that way in the last 150 years?
Let me give you a quick list of wars that ended with the total defeat of one side:
· Iraq – USA: Hussein hanged.
· Georgia – Russia: total defeat of Georgia.
· USA – Afghanistan: total, shameful departure of the USA.
· West – Libya: Gaddafi impaled.
· UN – Iraq 1991: disastrous departure of Iraq from Kuwait.
· Vietnam – USA: shameful departure of the USA.
· Yom Kippur War: total defeat of Egypt.
· Six‑Day War: total victory of Israel.
· Algerian War: shameful departure of France.
· Indochina War: shameful departure of France.
· World War II: unconditional surrender of the Axis and Japan.
· World War I: surrender at mercy of the German‑Austrian forces.
· Russo‑Japanese War: total defeat of Russia.
· Franco‑Prussian War: total surrender of France.
· Austro‑Prussian War: total surrender of Austria.
· US Civil War: total destruction of the Confederacy.
Apart from the Korean War, do you know at least as many as I have just listed before throwing out such an enormous bullshit as an obvious fact?"
Afghanistan was ended with the Doha Agreement which was a negotiated settlement between Trump and the Taliban. That said, my “negotiated settlement” remark was just a regurgitation of what American “experts” have been saying since Putin invaded Ukraine. But Trump forced Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire with Hamas and you are ignorant of how Trump ended our Afghanistan operation so right now I’m going with lazy conventional wisdom over you. 😉
Well, that one is easy. Bibi needs the US to annihilate Iran. Any diversion is detrimental. q.e.d.
One lie more.
Afghanistan war didn't finish under Trump's watch but during Biden presidency. And the Whole world have seen USA fleeing pitifully. No négociation.
The gentleman Kashin is probably not well informed. The blows in Kiev were heavy and there are no signs of compromise.
I understand your skepticism about how well he's informed, but RIGA's Editorial Board is comprised of a lot of influential folks and even includes none other than Karaganov himself as Chairman, yet they approved the publication of his article:
https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/about/editorial-board/
Everyone's opinions are respected.
I am assuming this was penned prior to the Kieve strikes. How do they impact analysis of the editorial?
You really think that two or three strikes on empty warehouses in Kiev will change anything?
I don't believe that they impact Kashin's views at all since they're just the rare use of a powerful weapon that isn't unprecedented in any case and only hit very specific targets whose value isn't relevant to shaping the course of the conflict.
Please remember that his opinion is in the context of a Special Military Operation, not a declared war. Once that happens, Ukraine will be invaded from Belarus and the Siege of Kiev will begin. The Spirit of Anchorage can only work if Kiev agrees and Europe withdraws support for Ukraine. I've seen no sign of any of that happening. The SMO continues.
I don't believe that Putin is planning to evolve the SMO into a declared war. There's no indication that he's even remotely considering it.
I think that's true. However, the next guy may not be as sanguine about the prospect of a full declaration of war. So Putin had better figure out what it's going to take to defeat Ukraine in the Donbass and the parts of Novorossiya that are currently occupied, quick. Because United Russia may not be in the driver's seat forever.
I don't see any viable pathway at present for how Russia is going to expel Ukrainian forces from the parts of the new regions on the other side of the Dnieper, for example, nor has any been presented to the public.
War is not fought in the trenches, but in the rear. What counts is endurance, duration, and replenishment of men and materials. Ukraine is gradually losing in these.
Kashin compellingly argues that Ukraine can continue replenishing its troops through martial law and forcible conscription while its resources, including financial, are now being entirely supplied by the West and will likely continue to be for the indefinite future.
Obviously everyone has their own opinion. However, Ukraine is clearly having difficulty making up for its losses and, moreover, the amounts it receives are barely enough for the state to function at all. They are not enough for weapons. Furthermore, the relationships in the EU are changing and no one guarantees anything.
How can the west continue the ressuply for the indefinite future? Energy being expensive, industrial capacity shrinking, social security provisions erroding, and shifting political forces? It is not only Ukraine getting erroded, but the west as well. In this respect it seems that Russia has a bigger strategic depth than Ukraine...
Under the SMO, I agree. I think the final lines will be drawn with all of Luhansk and Donetsk, plus the parts of Zaporizhia and Kherson up to the Dnieper. Odessa is a pipe dream. If war is declared, who knows. But I think this is achievable under the SMO.
This would require a resolution and decisiveness that Russia has entirely lacked so far.
Not to mention, the NATO sunk cost means that NATO is more likely to intervene, not less. This files in the face of the myth that Russia had to exercise caution, lest NATO step in directly. In 2022, NATO feared to send old Soviet stockpiles of small arms. Now, Russian dithering has resulted in NATO munitions hitting Russia on a daily basis.
Poutine must go. Now!
If Louis XIV had let the power in 1685, or Napoleon in 1808, history would have been very different for France.
Until know, Poutine have been the best head of state of the history of his country. But like the two french king, going further could lead to become the worst.
Some expect that the protest vote for the communist and nationalist opposition during September's Duma elections might force United Russia into forming a governing coalition, but a lot can still happen before then.
Even in the scenario that the ruling party suffers an Orban-like landslide defeat, Putin will still remain president and would only likely approve certain domestic reforms, not change up his guidelines for waging the SMO.
My sense is that the social contract under Putin has always been that he'll maintain economic growth, ensure security, and preserve social freedoms, so the economic downturn, increasing insecurity through Ukrainian terrorist attacks, and newfound internet restrictions might indeed push a non-insignificant number of supporters into voting for the communists or nationalists as an acceptable means of signaling their dissent with the way everything has been going.
Remember, United Russia only won 49% of the popular vote during the last elections in 2021, and so much has changed since then. It's very difficult to imagine them maintaining that result after all that's happened. Conventional wisdom would suggest that they'll score less as a result, though it's anyone's guess how much less as well as what they might do before September to cushion their potential decline.
One scenario is ending the SMO, declaring victory, and selling partial sanctions relief and new US investments as signals that the economy will soon improve. That would also be the pretext for rescinding most internet restrictions too for appealing to the youth vote.
Personally, I believe that this scenario is credible and sense that it's being seriously considered, with Kashin's piece serving to precondition the expert community for getting as many of them on board with a potentially forthcoming media campaign directed first towards Russians and then "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" (NRPR).
I also expect that most top NRPR influencers who've aggressively insisted that "everything is going according to plan" and angrily dismissed any talk of Russia ending the SMO without first obtaining all of its goals in full will flip-flop to cheering on this outcome due to them wanting to remain in their paymasters' good graces.
They'll completely discredit themselves more than they already have, but I'm not hopeful that Russia's "soft power supervisors" -- who've enabled and even, I suspect, encouraged their ridiculous takes all these years -- will realize that keeping them on board discredits Russia as well.
At most, those that refuse to play along will get blacklisted, and it's possible that the aforesaid supervisors might even encourage those who flip-flop on demand to indirectly or even directly attack those that didn't. I'm half-expecting 1984-like narrative reversals where mentioning the prior narrative becomes taboo.
Even if the SMO ended today, NATO and Ukraine would push harder.
Hell, Russia could abandon all of former Ukraine and NATO would push on.
NATO smells blood and will be satisfied with nothing but Russian blood.
So what jas Russia been waiting for all this time?
That the petrodollar and thereby the West collapses unto itself?
None of which is happening any time soon.
You're right.
If there's a path between further losses of military and civilian lives and the lies, broken commitments, and assassination attempts, it is very difficult to see. If it were me, I think I'd remove the gloves, find the men who drive this insanity, and bring them to justice quickly. War crimes trials and hangings do not appear to be in the cards, so course correct.
It is actually interesting that this interview comes up while Trump is not sure what to do with Iran. I think it is a trial balloon to see if Trump would go for a Russia compromise. Rather than a reflection on the disposition of forces.
My dear friend it could be possible that you're right.
This article and comments give an important perspective on the SMO. The question remains: Can largescale escalation be avoided and would it preserve Russian security?
Russia bet on a split or collapse of NATO. For now, it missed. At the contrary, Westerners are now sure that Poutine is a pussy and they are pushing forward.
I wonder where this economics expert got his views on the military situation. Perhaps reading too much Western media?
It's not just him, but RIGA's Editorial Board that approved publishing his piece, which suggests that they either share his views or at minimum believe that they're worthy of consideration by fellow Russian experts.
Well. It's another view on the - as I see it - main problem: Russia (Putin) seems to play for time by conducting a slowmo SMO waiting for the West to devour itself.
So the pertinent question is: How fast will the decline of the West progress? When your strategy is based on this single premise, one should have a look at the status from time to time. Right now, the West seems to be tougher than convenient.
If the Russian administration decides to continue this project however long it takes, they urgently need to get their citizens on board. The duration implied by naming it SMO is long over.
Fully agreed on all counts. I've previously written, I forgot whether in an analysis or the comments section here, that the decision to extend the SMO for as long as it's been was based on three premises: the frontlines will inevitably collapse; the US will pull out of the conflict; and the EU will follow suit (likely, as was wrongly assumed, through a series of populist-nationalist electoral revolutions).
It was for these reasons that Putin declined Trump's initial proposal in spring 2025 to essentially freeze the conflict in exchange for partial sanctions relief, including vast US investments in Russia's resource sector (both energy and minerals), as well as what I heard from someone in the know about how they also wrongly assumed that he's basically a corrupt oligarch who they could easily manipulate.
In retrospect, given all that's unfolded since (especially last August's TRIPP!!!) and Putin's continued insistence on only waging a SMO and not escalating to a full-fledged "war", the argument has been made by some that it might have been better to take that deal since little of tangible significance has been achieved in the year since despite ever-growing multidimensional costs.
As the recent and still evolving conflict with Iran shows, Trump is being played by powers with aims not even coinciding with American welfare.
The Russian governments refusal makes sense to me, who would trust a man that isnt independent in his actions and with this history of breaking promises? That they were wary at letting US money into Russia, particularly after the sell-out in the '90s, seems also natural.
The thing is, Putin already agreed with Trump in Anchorage that -- according to credible reports, including the RT journalist who I cited -- Putin would declare a ceasefire if Trump got Zelensky to withdraw from Donbass, so Russia does indeed believe that it's possible to reach a deal with the US in principle even though it hasn't even tried implementing the "Spirit of Anchorage" in practice.
Have my sincere doubts about a Trump-Putin agreement, I think before last time Trump got Putin on the phone he was a drone target, the evidence that it was an American attack, the evidence and remaining of the drone were offered to the American Embassy as a proof. In the end the CIA is the winner, everything they made us believe in was a lie.
It's hard for me to see what value a temporary ceasefire before the wider war with NATO commences brings to Russia. Make sure the other side has time to improve its technology, manufacturing base, and to fully learn the lessons of the SMO from Ukraine's perspective?
Because the war itself is inevitable. Europe is starved for energy. The North Sea has little in reserve in terms of oil and gas; Libya is still in a civil war and an unstable supplier to France, who is also cut off from uranium feedstocks in the Sahel; imports from the Gulf are disrupted or stopped; Germany's coal in the Ruhr doesn't go very far towards powering the entire continent.
I think the explanation that the reason Trump has tried to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine - that it's cover to give him reason to withdraw the U.S. from the conflict completely, and let Russia and Europe destroy each other, with the U.S. coming in at the end as the victor to dictate terms to everyone - is highly likely. It explains well why the U.S. has intensified its efforts to soften up Russia's under belly.
The most powerful forces known to man are plotting world war, and they are going to have their way. Putin is making a mistake imho.
Russia can take its time in takng all the trritoories that are ukrains,Russia has a 1200 mile border withUkraine, At one time Ukraine was part of Russia. It was American efforts that hadUkraine to break away from Russia.This resulted in the war which America financed. Aamerica Russia wwill not tolerates your getting into Ruddiaan matters.
As far as I concerned these are absolutely realistic observations of the Ukraine situation. The question simply remains how to get truly disengaged if the USA/UK refuse & press on.
What is meant by "modernization", what it does encompass? It is such a buzzword that it conceals more than it illuminates...