Ukraine’s drone-enforced “blockade” of Crimea prompted Russia to impose its own type of “blockades” on Kharkov and Odessa, the resultant damage of which is incomparably greater than that which Ukraine inflicted on Russia, which amounts to Putin consistently “escalating to de-escalate” for the first time.
The fact that Russia has used stand-off strikes—rather than a naval blockade—to disable Odessa strongly implies that it could have done so years earlier, at or before the onset of the SMO; after all, Kiev was weaker then.
Yet Moscow waited to do so until circumstances had worsened and were more likely to invite retaliation by Kiev or its backers, who had time to hone their logistics. Its hesitancy clearly emboldened Kiev to try its forty-day campaign.
I regrettably agree and wish that everything was different. Had Russia done this from the get-go (perhaps it didn't have enough missiles???), then it might have achieved more of its stated goals by now, if not all of them in the best-case scenario.
Russia still managed to stop Kiev from conquering Donbas' as early as 2014 and has held Crimea quite handily (Ukrainian strikes notwithstanding) since then, so with or without missiles Russia could have still sealed Odessa, especially before Kiev used Istanbul to cripple the Black Sea Fleet. Russia's diplomatic and humanitarian concerns handicapped its built-in advantages over Kiev early on.
Could you advise what direct role Russia played in conquering the Donbass in 2014 beside a handful of tanks and soldiers too little too late always as the Kremlin did not want the Donbass to leave Ukraine but remain inside Ukraine as leverage for the Kremlin. The federalist forces were the troops that saved the Donbass in 2014/15 at great cost I might add. Leaders like Motorola, Girkin, Mozgovoy etc were considered the heroes of the day along with Russian volunteers and civilians willing to take up arms.
My point is the same as yours: that Russia enabled the transit of "ex"-military volunteers and some weaponry to the local Donbas' militias to prevent Kiev from retaking all of Donbas' in 2014. Had Russia not intervened at all the revolt would have been quashed by Kiev and a massacre ensued. The rest of your facts are correct, as far as I know.
I dispute the enabled, weapons were obtained from local armouries of the Donbass by the federalist forces and there is a lot of conjecture whether the Kremlin actually authorised or enabled anything but officers of units stationed on the border took independent action that played an important role in Illovaisk and saur mogila battles. Slavyansk was held without any assistance from Russia at all for an extended period but was evacuated to save civilian lives.
Where is any evidence that the ex military volunteers were enabled by the Kremlin to partake in assisting the federalist forces. Girkin was recalled by the Kremlin is that part of the enabled?
It is flippant to say the Kremlin enabled anything at all but was almost forced to act and whether they did so willingly is debatable also.
The Kremlin stood by for 8 years whilst large numbers of civilians were killed by artillery from the Ukrainian army isvthat enabled too?
I have heard different accounts re: Girkin's role at Slavyansk. Some sources—notably Kurginyan—say he had enough weaponry to hold out longer but chose to surrender as part of some murky anti-Putin conspiracy, though even if true that would not pardon Russia's pro-Ukraine passivity for almost eight years. My point is Moscow did not stop some of its border troops from voluntarily aiding the rebels, perhaps for domestic PR.
To be completely honest, we shouldn't speak of an operation decided by Zelensky and supported by the West—with the USA and France in the lead—but of an operation planned and ordered by the West and executed by Zelensky. In the meantime, Putin is ending up not tackling the problem at its root and is encouraging the Westerners to become ever more audacious. As long as it's the Ukrainians who pay, the Westerners couldn't care less.
Judging from various news items Ukraine’s long-term outlook to receive more missiles for defense is not exactly rosy. Full replacement for this stock will take several years for the US. On top of that the word is that President Xi decided to join the game and he is sending/selling MANPADS to Iran in case Trump acts on his own psychobabble and lands there.
‘US in a losing race to replenish depleted missile arsenals
The action addresses severe stockpile depletion caused by high operational tempo in conflicts across Ukraine and Iran, where estimates indicate the US military has expended up to two-thirds of its Patriot inventory and roughly half of its THAAD reserves.’
The only plausible way China could arm Iran is through Pakistan, yet Trump 2.0 and his officials have praised its current military regime for its diplomatic stance on Iran, so Islamabad is highly unlikely to jeopardize this (or its security deal with their shared Saudi ally) by helping China defend Iran as anonymous sources claim.
With the type of money and economy China has I have difficulty to see that they will not find a way to ship relative small items like MANPADS to Iran. Knowing Afghanistan’s notorious corruption they can even go that route.
If China were doing so, then Trump surely would have used its support as leverage in his trade and other talks, as he would the rumors of Russia aiding Iran through intelligence etc. That he has not done so suggests neither China nor Russia is aiding Iran.
There is no need for Russia and China to advertise what they are doing. Regardless, basic geopolitical interests were already stated by both nations: It would be against their best interests to allow Iran to go under.
You may think so, but neither Moscow nor Beijing seems to agree, given that each has declined to sign mutual-defense pacts with Tehran, while Russia has made just such a deal with North Korea.
If either of them saw Iran's defeat as existential, one or both would have concluded formal security treaties with Tehran and also (at least in China's case) contributed much more financially.
Doesn't this sort of resemble Ukraine's "Battle of the Bulge" moment? Wasn't that an attempt by Germany to cause doubt among the allies, as Germany knew it had lost.
The Odessa blockade has more to do with Ukrainian bombing s of ships on Azov see, than with Crimea. As Ukraine strocke on ships carrying grain, Russia had no longer any reason to restrain from blocking Odessa. This blokade Will have huge conséquences on Ukraine as it is no longer in a position to export its grain or sunflower, on top of blocking western weapons supply.
How long can Ukraine endure this is one of the key questions, no ?
I do not dispute either of these facts, but I thought the OP was claiming neither side wants to harm each other as part of a "Jewish" quid pro quo making Zelensky untouchable.
He claims Zelensky's Jewish status somehow shields him from Russia due to Putin's Jew-friendly attitude, yet does not provide any source to back up his claim. At any rate there are huge divides among Jews themselves (Soros and Netanyahu loathe each other), so his comment does not even make sense.
It seems the jews are lining up at Trump’s door crying for defensive tools from ballistic missiles and Trump thinks he is running short. I really don’t see an offense against China in my crystal ball for many years.
I thought you were a clever man . How can you put all the Jews in the same bag ? Would antisemitism make you suddenly dumb? Walter is 95 years old and doesn't seem too educate. But you... You pretend to be an academic and speak like the first redneck.
All of Zelensky's public relations counter-offensives have backfired badly, but like all sociopaths he seems to struggle with the concept of cause and effect.
His counteroffensivea all shiftrd the narrative from Ukrainian defeat to Russian weaknesses and kept the aid flowing. In this, they did what they were needed to do.
I do not think Zelensky is as irrational as is often supposed, given that Kiev's tenacity has allowed it to hold out—with Western aid—far longer than it had any right to expect. He merely sees Russian restraint and acts accordingly.
Even a weak Russia arguably could have seized Kiev in 2014 due to demographic and logistical disparities (Russia being a far larger state with a stronger military-industrial complex than Kiev at the time). Yet it did not fully exploit any of this.
Putin did not want to seize Kiev, and went to great lengths to avoid militarily intervention in Ukraine. Some examples from early 2014:-
● In March 2014, Igor Girkin (AKA Igor Strelkov) and ~100 armed mercenaries seized Sloviansk. He called on the Russian Army to defend him against the AFU, but Putin refused and said: "I really hope that... we are able to solve all today's pressing issues via political and diplomatic means";
● After the Maidan Coup, Odessa and Mariupol Massacres, Donbass Separatists organised referenda to find out the level of support for independence. To try to ease tensions and prevent the referenda going ahead, a high level Russian delegation travelled to Geneva for negotiations. An agreement was reached, however it was rejected by the separatists, who said that Sergei Lavrov did not speak for them; and
● Vladimir Putin then made a personal plea: "We believe that the most important thing is to create direct, full-fledged dialogue between the Kiev authorities and representatives of southeast Ukraine. Because of this, we ask that representatives of southeast Ukraine, supporters of federalization in the country, postpone the May 11 referendum in order to create the necessary conditions for such a dialogue." This too was ignored by the separatists.
However Ukraine's provocations kept escalating, with the final straws coming in February 2022:-
● On Saturday 19th February 2022, Vlodomir Zelensky told the Munich Security Conference that: “Ukraine will get and deploy nuclear missiles". Russia could no more tolerate this than America, which had been willing to start WWIII to to prevent the placement of nuclear weapons near its border in Cuba;
● On Sunday 20th February 2022, Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dmytro Kuleba, told CBS 60 Minutes that: "Ukraine will never honor the Minsk ceasefire". This made it quite clear that there could be no peaceful resolution of the conflict in the Donbass; and
● By Tuesday 22nd February 2022, a 100,000 strong AFU invasion force had driven over 148,000 people from their homes in the Donbass. The leaders of the DPR and LPR begged Putin for help to resist this invasion, and Article 51 of the UN Convention allowed him to provide that help.
The fact that Russia has used stand-off strikes—rather than a naval blockade—to disable Odessa strongly implies that it could have done so years earlier, at or before the onset of the SMO; after all, Kiev was weaker then.
Yet Moscow waited to do so until circumstances had worsened and were more likely to invite retaliation by Kiev or its backers, who had time to hone their logistics. Its hesitancy clearly emboldened Kiev to try its forty-day campaign.
This shows that Russian deterrence failed.
I regrettably agree and wish that everything was different. Had Russia done this from the get-go (perhaps it didn't have enough missiles???), then it might have achieved more of its stated goals by now, if not all of them in the best-case scenario.
Russia still managed to stop Kiev from conquering Donbas' as early as 2014 and has held Crimea quite handily (Ukrainian strikes notwithstanding) since then, so with or without missiles Russia could have still sealed Odessa, especially before Kiev used Istanbul to cripple the Black Sea Fleet. Russia's diplomatic and humanitarian concerns handicapped its built-in advantages over Kiev early on.
Could you advise what direct role Russia played in conquering the Donbass in 2014 beside a handful of tanks and soldiers too little too late always as the Kremlin did not want the Donbass to leave Ukraine but remain inside Ukraine as leverage for the Kremlin. The federalist forces were the troops that saved the Donbass in 2014/15 at great cost I might add. Leaders like Motorola, Girkin, Mozgovoy etc were considered the heroes of the day along with Russian volunteers and civilians willing to take up arms.
My point is the same as yours: that Russia enabled the transit of "ex"-military volunteers and some weaponry to the local Donbas' militias to prevent Kiev from retaking all of Donbas' in 2014. Had Russia not intervened at all the revolt would have been quashed by Kiev and a massacre ensued. The rest of your facts are correct, as far as I know.
I dispute the enabled, weapons were obtained from local armouries of the Donbass by the federalist forces and there is a lot of conjecture whether the Kremlin actually authorised or enabled anything but officers of units stationed on the border took independent action that played an important role in Illovaisk and saur mogila battles. Slavyansk was held without any assistance from Russia at all for an extended period but was evacuated to save civilian lives.
Where is any evidence that the ex military volunteers were enabled by the Kremlin to partake in assisting the federalist forces. Girkin was recalled by the Kremlin is that part of the enabled?
It is flippant to say the Kremlin enabled anything at all but was almost forced to act and whether they did so willingly is debatable also.
The Kremlin stood by for 8 years whilst large numbers of civilians were killed by artillery from the Ukrainian army isvthat enabled too?
I have heard different accounts re: Girkin's role at Slavyansk. Some sources—notably Kurginyan—say he had enough weaponry to hold out longer but chose to surrender as part of some murky anti-Putin conspiracy, though even if true that would not pardon Russia's pro-Ukraine passivity for almost eight years. My point is Moscow did not stop some of its border troops from voluntarily aiding the rebels, perhaps for domestic PR.
To be completely honest, we shouldn't speak of an operation decided by Zelensky and supported by the West—with the USA and France in the lead—but of an operation planned and ordered by the West and executed by Zelensky. In the meantime, Putin is ending up not tackling the problem at its root and is encouraging the Westerners to become ever more audacious. As long as it's the Ukrainians who pay, the Westerners couldn't care less.
Judging from various news items Ukraine’s long-term outlook to receive more missiles for defense is not exactly rosy. Full replacement for this stock will take several years for the US. On top of that the word is that President Xi decided to join the game and he is sending/selling MANPADS to Iran in case Trump acts on his own psychobabble and lands there.
https://asiatimes.com/2026/08/chinas-manpads-for-iran-could-cost-us-airpower-dearly/
‘US in a losing race to replenish depleted missile arsenals
The action addresses severe stockpile depletion caused by high operational tempo in conflicts across Ukraine and Iran, where estimates indicate the US military has expended up to two-thirds of its Patriot inventory and roughly half of its THAAD reserves.’
https://asiatimes.com/2026/08/us-in-a-losing-race-to-replenish-depleted-missile-arsenals/
The only plausible way China could arm Iran is through Pakistan, yet Trump 2.0 and his officials have praised its current military regime for its diplomatic stance on Iran, so Islamabad is highly unlikely to jeopardize this (or its security deal with their shared Saudi ally) by helping China defend Iran as anonymous sources claim.
With the type of money and economy China has I have difficulty to see that they will not find a way to ship relative small items like MANPADS to Iran. Knowing Afghanistan’s notorious corruption they can even go that route.
If China were doing so, then Trump surely would have used its support as leverage in his trade and other talks, as he would the rumors of Russia aiding Iran through intelligence etc. That he has not done so suggests neither China nor Russia is aiding Iran.
There is no need for Russia and China to advertise what they are doing. Regardless, basic geopolitical interests were already stated by both nations: It would be against their best interests to allow Iran to go under.
You may think so, but neither Moscow nor Beijing seems to agree, given that each has declined to sign mutual-defense pacts with Tehran, while Russia has made just such a deal with North Korea.
If either of them saw Iran's defeat as existential, one or both would have concluded formal security treaties with Tehran and also (at least in China's case) contributed much more financially.
Yet they have not done so.
500 manpads are not going to make a difference.
Doesn't this sort of resemble Ukraine's "Battle of the Bulge" moment? Wasn't that an attempt by Germany to cause doubt among the allies, as Germany knew it had lost.
This is what happens when a person comes up with an “idea” while higher than a kite on blow.
The Odessa blockade has more to do with Ukrainian bombing s of ships on Azov see, than with Crimea. As Ukraine strocke on ships carrying grain, Russia had no longer any reason to restrain from blocking Odessa. This blokade Will have huge conséquences on Ukraine as it is no longer in a position to export its grain or sunflower, on top of blocking western weapons supply.
How long can Ukraine endure this is one of the key questions, no ?
They failed because of who Zlensky is, neither Russian or Ukriann. He is a JEW. Who wants them?? No one.
Do you have any evidence other than an assertion?
Evidence that Zelensky is Jewish? Or that everyone hates him?
I do not dispute either of these facts, but I thought the OP was claiming neither side wants to harm each other as part of a "Jewish" quid pro quo making Zelensky untouchable.
Ah ok. I didn’t get that impression but I see your point.
I think you are asking for it.
He claims Zelensky's Jewish status somehow shields him from Russia due to Putin's Jew-friendly attitude, yet does not provide any source to back up his claim. At any rate there are huge divides among Jews themselves (Soros and Netanyahu loathe each other), so his comment does not even make sense.
It seems the jews are lining up at Trump’s door crying for defensive tools from ballistic missiles and Trump thinks he is running short. I really don’t see an offense against China in my crystal ball for many years.
THE Jews???
All the Jews??
Every Jew in USA?
Chomsky? Mershmeyer? Ritter? Greenwald?
Come on...
I thought you were a clever man . How can you put all the Jews in the same bag ? Would antisemitism make you suddenly dumb? Walter is 95 years old and doesn't seem too educate. But you... You pretend to be an academic and speak like the first redneck.
I really don't understand.
Nobody cares about Kharkov or Odessa, except and to the extent that warm live bodies can be extracted from them.
So for the Ukrainian leadership and its western sponsors, this was another win.
All of Zelensky's public relations counter-offensives have backfired badly, but like all sociopaths he seems to struggle with the concept of cause and effect.
His counteroffensivea all shiftrd the narrative from Ukrainian defeat to Russian weaknesses and kept the aid flowing. In this, they did what they were needed to do.
I do not think Zelensky is as irrational as is often supposed, given that Kiev's tenacity has allowed it to hold out—with Western aid—far longer than it had any right to expect. He merely sees Russian restraint and acts accordingly.
Even a weak Russia arguably could have seized Kiev in 2014 due to demographic and logistical disparities (Russia being a far larger state with a stronger military-industrial complex than Kiev at the time). Yet it did not fully exploit any of this.
Putin did not want to seize Kiev, and went to great lengths to avoid militarily intervention in Ukraine. Some examples from early 2014:-
● In March 2014, Igor Girkin (AKA Igor Strelkov) and ~100 armed mercenaries seized Sloviansk. He called on the Russian Army to defend him against the AFU, but Putin refused and said: "I really hope that... we are able to solve all today's pressing issues via political and diplomatic means";
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27065782
● After the Maidan Coup, Odessa and Mariupol Massacres, Donbass Separatists organised referenda to find out the level of support for independence. To try to ease tensions and prevent the referenda going ahead, a high level Russian delegation travelled to Geneva for negotiations. An agreement was reached, however it was rejected by the separatists, who said that Sergei Lavrov did not speak for them; and
https://web.archive.org/web/20141007073148/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/un-officials-meet-ukraine-government
● Vladimir Putin then made a personal plea: "We believe that the most important thing is to create direct, full-fledged dialogue between the Kiev authorities and representatives of southeast Ukraine. Because of this, we ask that representatives of southeast Ukraine, supporters of federalization in the country, postpone the May 11 referendum in order to create the necessary conditions for such a dialogue." This too was ignored by the separatists.
https://web.archive.org/web/20141007073148/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/un-officials-meet-ukraine-government
However Ukraine's provocations kept escalating, with the final straws coming in February 2022:-
● On Saturday 19th February 2022, Vlodomir Zelensky told the Munich Security Conference that: “Ukraine will get and deploy nuclear missiles". Russia could no more tolerate this than America, which had been willing to start WWIII to to prevent the placement of nuclear weapons near its border in Cuba;
● On Sunday 20th February 2022, Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dmytro Kuleba, told CBS 60 Minutes that: "Ukraine will never honor the Minsk ceasefire". This made it quite clear that there could be no peaceful resolution of the conflict in the Donbass; and
● By Tuesday 22nd February 2022, a 100,000 strong AFU invasion force had driven over 148,000 people from their homes in the Donbass. The leaders of the DPR and LPR begged Putin for help to resist this invasion, and Article 51 of the UN Convention allowed him to provide that help.
https://johnbartlett1.substack.com/p/kievs-2022-invasion-which-started by