The Russian Defense Ministry announced the completion of its withdrawal from areas in the southern Ukrainian region of Kherson on the west bank of the Dnieper River, including the provincial capital, on Friday. This development, which reportedly saw tens of thousands of troops leave the area, is seen by some US and Western officials, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, as an opportunity to finally pursue negotiations. However, the Kremlin, while remaining open to talks, disputes that the withdrawal changes the region’s status as a part of Russia.
In September, after referendums were held, Moscow announced it had annexed Kherson along with the Zaporizhzhia oblast, as well as the Donbas Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. However, Russia had been evacuating civilians from Kherson and announced this week that it would withdraw its forces. Russia’s Defense Ministry said the decision was made to protect civilians and troops, there were concerns that Kiev could blow up the Kakhovka dam, flood the area, and isolate Russian forces.
On Friday, Serhiy Khlan, a deputy for Kherson Regional Council, said that a Ukrainian flag had been raised in the regional capital, while President Volodymyr Zelensky announced "our defenders are approaching the city. In quite a bit, we are going to enter. But special units are already in the city.”
While the withdrawal is being celebrated by Kiev and its Western supporters, the Kremlin says the status of the territory has not changed. According to the Associated Press, Russia maintains control of 70% of the Kherson region. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Kherson’s status was “fixed."
Peskov said “It is a subject of the Russian Federation – it is legally fixed and defined. There are no changes and there can be no changes," adding the decision to withdraw was made by the Defense Ministry and that he had "nothing to add."
The Kremlin spokesman reaffirmed Moscow’s openness to peace talks with Peskov saying Russia’s "special military operation" in Ukraine “can only be ended after its goals have been achieved – or by achieving those goals through peace negotiations.”
After Putin announced the annexations of the four regions, Zelensky signed a decree ruling out negotiations absent regime change in Moscow. Washington pressured Kiev to drop its intransigent position ostensibly for public relations reasons. The US was concerned Kiev could risk Western support with Ukraine refusing diplomacy, fighting an endless war in pursuit of regime change, while Russia was willing to negotiate. On the surface, Zelensky acquiesced and offered his readiness to talk, but only if certain non-starter conditions, including "compensation for all war damage, punishment for every war criminal" as well as a full Russian withdrawal, were met first.
Peskov seemed to reference these maximalist demands when he stated "due to the position taken by the Ukrainian side, peace talks are impossible."
Connor Freeman is the assistant editor and a writer at the Libertarian Institute, primarily covering foreign policy. He is a co-host on the Conflicts of Interest podcast. His writing has been featured in media outlets such as Antiwar.com, Counterpunch, and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He has also appeared on Liberty Weekly, Around the Empire, and Parallax Views. You can follow him on Twitter @FreemansMind96.
Putin started a war of aggression that Russia never had a chance of winning.
Putin is a Russia chauvinist who never understood what he was fighting. Russian chauvinists believe Ukrainians are backward “Little Russians” who are destined to be ruled by the Great Russians of Moscow. For over 500 years Russian chauvinists denied the existence of the Ukrainian nation. So Putin couldn’t comprehend the resistance that would inevitably rise up when Russian troops tried to conquer Ukraine.
I think it is unfortunate that the Ukrainian people want to align with Europe against Russia. But that is their right just as much as the Cubans had the right to align with the USSR against Yankee imperialists.
I was surprised by Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine in February. I thought he had learned about the futility of asymmetric regime changing wars of national resistance from the US and Soviet debacles in Vietnam and Afghanistan. But in the end he was blinded by the overwhleming superiority of the Russian military compared to the Ukrainian army. He didn’t understand that wars of national resistance are decided by hearts and minds, not force of arms. Putin is a double alpha male type who cannot accept defeat. He has built his success by never backing down, doubling down in the face of adversity and overcoming all obstacles and setbacks. In Ukraine he met his match. But he can’t face the truth. Putin doesn’t have the guts to face the Russian people to explain his defeat in Kherson because he can’t really believe it himself. So he parades his generals out to the public to bring the bad news while the little man sits alone at the end of the big table in the Kremlin pondering what went wrong and blaming his subordinates.
Putin would be comical if his war was not so tragic. The little man annexed Kherson only to evacuate the civilians and ultimately retreat from the city days later.
In order to make peace Russia needs a leadership capable of acknowledging, at least tacitly, the legitimacy of the Ukrainian nation’s right to self- determination. I doubt Putin is capable of that. So the war will continue until Russia gets leadership that has the courage to withdraw from Ukraine.
For the sake of Ukraine, Russia and the world, I hope Russia gets new leadership that can make a lasting peace with their neighbor to the south.
You seem to overlook the fact that Putin had for many years stated that he couldn’t allow Ukraine to join NATO and have missiles from the U.S. stationed on his border. If the U.S. and NATO were unwilling to negotiate this issue with Russia, what choice did Putin really have as it is a country’s prerogative to protect themselves. Also, it should be mentioned that besides the West’s MSMs media’s talking points, sources from other places state that the Russian people largely support Putin’s actions.
NATO has not put nuclear missiles in any of the new members that joined since 1991 – Putin has said that Finland joining NATO is not a problem (Finland and NATO member Latvia) are closer to Sankt Petersburg and Moscow – so just maybe Putin could have chilled out and respected the treaty that Russia also signed in Budapest in 1994 to respect not only the territorial integrity but also sovereignty of Ukraine?
The Memorandum. 2. – “USA, Russia and UK reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”. After signing this memorandum, USA organized two coup d’états in Ukraine: “Orange Revolution” in 2004 and “Revolution of Dignity” 2014. That’s how Americans respected the political independence of Ukraine? Besides, that memorandum also forbade Ukraine to have the nukes. A year ago, the president of Ukraine announced his plan to create the nuclear weapons. Earlier in 2004, Ukrainian president announced his plans to join NATO. Do you expect only one side to respect the memorandum?
Do you expect only one side to respect the memorandum?
He, and a few others.
Well only one side violated the treaty – and that was the Russian side.
Not taking the bait.
Now break down each and every word of that sentence.
Good that you acknowledge you have no defensible position – the law is pretty clear so maybe even you could see it.
No, I didn’t acknowledge any such thing. I flat a$$ don’t want to converse with you. I’m not alone.
By your inability to counter any of my statements and your inability to provide any evidence for the assertions made here and finally by your admission that you do not want to converse with me you are effectively ceding the battlefield and thus acknowledging that you have no defensible position – like the Russians in Kherson 🙂
No, I’m conceding nothing. You style of replying to comments is so fu*king irritating that you’re just not worth the time. But I will respond to these types of comments if you keep them coming.
Seeing as you bother to answer why not do your side a favor and provide actual links to support the assertions or arguments to support them? Is it perhaps because you do not have them?
Keep trying.
u2
If you don’t want to converse with him, no one’s forcing you to. That’s what the “block” button is for.
Yes, I realize that. But then I would lose the entertainment value of his comments.
The Ukrainians never claimed that the US organized a coup, the Russians have not provided any proof that they did so nor claimed that this was their reason for annexing Crimes – and none of you pro Putin lot here have provided any evidence that this was actually a US organized thing – the closest any have gotten so far is innuendo i.e. the expressions of what the US would like to see happening – a very far cry from proof.
So no the US did not do any of these things
That would be after Putin had effectively broken the agreement by annexing Crimea!
Which is their sovereign right to do – or did you miss out on the respecting sovereignty bit?
It was a treaty between Russia, the US, UK and Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine etc., the US and UK did not violate their part and no sitting Ukrainian administration has claimed that they did.
“Which is their sovereign right” – the independence of Ukraine and recognition it as such by Russia was not unconditional. Independent Ukraine was recognized only as friendly to Russia neutral state.
Don’t forget that USSR was abolished in breach of the referendum. Or, maybe, you never heard that Gorbachev organized the referendum in March 1991? Over 70% of USSR citizens voted for reformed USSR as one independent state.
“Only as friendly to Russia neutral state?”
You just completely pulled sh!t out of your ass.
Can you show where in this document was that stated?
This reads like your opinion.
Well if this treaty of limited recognition exists as you assert I’m sure you can link us to it, I can’t find it and the Budapest treaty contradicts any such notion of a limited recognition so you really better have that link to a limited recognition with some rather special clauses that could override later treaties.
Don’t confuse the memorandum with the treaty. What about the overriding, nothing can legally override the referendum. The results of USSR referendum March 1991 you can find in Wikipedia.
Any new treaty does if nothing else is specified override earlier treaties on the same issue -as per the Vienna convention on law of treaties – so no even if you were to be right and the referendum in the USSR was for a limited definition of Ukrainian sovereignty the later treaty in Budapest would override that earlier one.
Budapest memorandum was just a memorandum which obliged no one to anything. After Budapest memorandum, Russia and Ukraine signed a treaty about the recognition of the borders and the neutral status of Ukraine. The treaty was signed in 1997 (after Budapest memorandum).
No the Budapest memorandum was a treaty just the same as any other international agreement – i.e. the signature to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty was every way as binding as in any other treaty.
Do you refer to the Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty#Contents_of_the_treaty
This treaty has to be renewed every 10 years, following Putin’s annexation of Crimea (and thus breach of this treaty) Ukraine decided not to renew the treaty in 2018 – so the treaty has expired even if the Russian breach of it had somehow not made that point clear.
This is all in accordance with the Vienna convention on the law of treaties – i.e. Ukraine has not broken this treaty not even in spirit Putin did and subsequently Ukraine decided not to renew it when it at the 10 years expiry of the treaty.
1. Memorandum, unlike the treaty or the contract, is not legally binding document.
2. By denouncing the treaty about the neutrality, Ukraine also denounced the treaty about the recognition of the borders. It was just the same treaty.
3. Ukrainian president Yushchenko announced about his intention to join NATO in 2004 (7 years after the treaty about the neutral status of Ukraine was signed). Thus he violated the treaty.
1. yes it is:
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
I.e. that it is titled the Budapest memorandum does not change that it is a treaty.
2. by not renewing a treaty that has a renewal time point every 10 years, Ukraine does not void earlier treaties, quite the contrary so to the extend that the friendship treaty did deal with the borders not renewing it did not alter the obligations according to the Budapest memorandum – the Vienna convention on the Law of treaties is quite specific – more to the point Putin not Ukraine had breached the friendship treaty by annexing parts of Ukraine.
Finally:
No announcing an intent is not breach of treaty – had he joined NATO you could have argued that this was breaking if not the wording then the spirit of article 6:
But then announcing the intentions is a very far cry from achieving this goal – but the Russians would have had every right to tell the Ukrainians that they would be violating the treaty if they did so before the expiry date of the treaty (Which spoiler alert they did not).
Don’t try to drown in the demagogy the plain fact that Ukraine itself denounced the treaty about the neutrality and thus the recognition of Ukrainian borders by Russia are also denounced.
The problem is not Ukraine. The problem is American militarism. As American military infrastructure was progressively approaching Russian borders during the last 20 years, Russia has the right for self-defense. It doesn’t matter whether Americans or other NATO countries agree with this or not, Russia will defend herself anyway.
That is not how treaties work though – Putin broke the treaty and Ukraine decided not to renew it when it was time to do so – hence Ukraine did not breach the friendship treaty and according to the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties the older Budapest treaty applies.
Absolutely if Russia was attacked then it has every right to self defense – self defense however does not extend to breaking treaties and attacking nations that have not attacked Russia first.
Again very true – but in Ukraine Russia is not defending itself – it is just invading a neighbor.
The memorandum is not the treaty. The difference between those two documents I did explain already. Just read the comments above.
“Putin broke the treaty” – when? What treaty?
The Budapest memorandum and the friendship agreement.
The 1997 treaty was denounced by Ukraine, not by Russia (you yourself mentioned this fact above in your comments).
Memorandum is not a treaty. Learn first what memorandum does mean.
No the 1997 treaty was not renewed when it was up for extension in 2018 – and small wonder seeing as Russia had breached any notion of friendship by annexing Crimea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty#Termination
So no this treaty was never broken or denounced by Ukraine.
Treaties can have different titles at its core a treaty is just a formally concluded and ratified agreement between states.
The Budapest Memorandum thus is very much a treaty and is also deposited as such with the UN the key word is un the start of the link here (i.e.treaties.un.org…..)
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb
Perhaps you should first learn what a treaty is and then look up treaties registered with the UN?
Be honest. If you were in the Russian position, and observed country after country incorporated into an organization which could only be tasked to defend against Russia (what other “aggressor” would you substitute?), would you trust the verbal assurances of the people responsible for the advance of NATO to the Russian border?
Would I have to trust them? The Russians have already accepted Latvia in NATO – Latvia is closer to Moscow than any part of Ukraine – Putin has accepted that Finland joins NATO – Finland is closer to Sankt Petersburg and Murmansk than any part of Ukraine – Russia can float nukes closer to the NATO capitals than any part of NATO is to Moscow – so just how big is this problem you think that Russia needs to have solved that the NATO countries are living with every day?
Especially since McFaul admitted that “we lie all the time”.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndEXTREME/comments/yccufa/former_us_ambassador_to_russia_michael_mcfaul/
Former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul openly admits that US diplomats lie in general and lied to Ukraine in particular about allowing it to join NATO. Offers the excuse “That’s the real world!”

Yes, Putin for many years stated that he couldn’t allow Ukraine to join NATO.
And Putin for many years failed to put Lavrov on a plane to e.g. Budapest to negotiate a friendly state’s policy of vetoing any Ukrainian application to join NATO.
QED, Putin wanted the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO to remain a live “issue” that he could use as an excuse to do things he wanted to do, rather than solve that “issue.”
Nonsense. Your imagination re Putin’s thinking each year he addressed the Munich conference is extravagant to say the least.
Neither you nor I know what Putin wanted or wants, for that matter. I tend to take him at his word as long as it remains confluent with reality.
Unlike Biden, Putin acts as though he knows what he’s saying while he’s saying it. I take that as a good yardstick.
Before February there was no possibility of Ukraine getting unanimous consent to join NATO in the foreseeable future.
The war has made Ukraine a NATO protectorate, likely added Finland and Sweden to NATO and turned every neutral country in Europe against Russia to the point that even Switzerland is debating the desirability of NATO membership.
Likewise, Putin’s phony “deNazification” campaign elevated the controversial Azov Batalion to the status of national heroes.
Putin walked into the trap the US had set for him since Maidan. The invasion was stupid and the blowback achieved the exact reverse of Putin’s stated goals.
I still believe that at some point the Russian military my decisively defeat the Ukrainian army. But Russia can never defeat the Ukrainian resistance. The face of the resistance that will bleed the Russians to defeat was shown in the attack s on the Kerch bridge (by Russian citizens) and the Russian airfields and Black Sea Fleet and in the genuine joy Ukrainians are showing where their cities and towns are liberated from the Russian invaders.
For the first few weeks I tried to give Putin the benefit of the doubt. But I watched the pictures from both sides and it became apparent that the Ukrainian resistance is a legitimate national resistance movement against a traditional imperial overlord. In the end, Russia can’t win. They cannot pacify any part of Ukraine except perhaps Crimea. Unfortunately, Putin’s arrogance has overcome his intelligence and Russia probably needs new leadership to make peace. Putin is a double alpha male who can’t accept defeat, In Ukraine he met his match.
I agree with you on many of these points; but I think you under estimate the importance of two issues: the historic connections between Little Russia and Russia and the actuality of the ethnic Russian population living in significant areas of what is called Ukraine. The problem is mainly one of borders, which through this terrible war are getting rectified.
Ukraine and Russia are two separate countries that arose after the Mongols conquered Rus in the 13th century. Historic connections exist between the US and Canada, the US and Mexico, England and Ireland and Algeria and France. Historic connection does not justify unilateral intervention.
A prime principal of international law is that nations are determined by internationally recognized boundaries, not ethnicity. This principle arose out of recognition that war is worse than ethnic oppression short of a holocaust. World War II broke out in Europe because Nazi Germany claimed the right to intervene in Czechoslovakia and Poland on behalf of ethnic Germans who were allegedly persecuted in those countries. That notion is barbaric. Any persecution of Ukrainian citizens of Russian descent is an internal Ukrainian matter. If Ukraine does not respect the rights of its own citizens, then the matter should be brought to the United Nations. But war is not justified by a country’s persecution of its own citizens unless that persecution reaches the level of a holocaust. War is worse than persecution.
Ah but the borders of each nation as it developed in modern times is very different from the borders as developed under the soviet system, with premieres making changes as the whim took them. Actual Ukraine, as in lands occupied by Ukrainians, is much smaller than the “nation that was a descendent of the SU’s falling apart. This is the rectification that is occurring as we speak.
As for “international law”, in a world that respected such, you’d have a point. In the world we actually live in, what with for example, Vietnam War, the Central American wars of the 80’s, all the Yugoslavia wars (for example the Kosovo war which was very similar the ethnic issue I describe), the Iraq war, the Libya war, etc. we see that might makes right and big countries have leeway to arrange the world as they see fit (if they can handle it).
All borders are the result of some form of unfair conquest. In the course of those conquests ethnic groups were divided among several nations. 1,500 years ago European and Muslim warlords were initially constrained in their depredations by chivalry in Europe and Sharia law is the Muslim world. These constraints were imperfect and following Europe’s religious wars of the 16 and 17th that killed civilians on an unprecedented scale, the European Enlightenment promulgated the new norm that Europeans were supposed to stop killing their neighbors over religion. In the nineteenth century Europe and the United States outlawed the slave trade and eventually outlawed slavery itself. In the early 20th century civilized countries outlawed chemical and bacteriological weapons. The fact that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980’s does not justify any other country violating international law. In World War II 50 million people died largely because Hitler asserted the right to go to war to come to the defense of ethnic Germans persecuted in other countries. At the end of World War II the nations of the world reiterated the norm that the musical chairs of conquest and colonialism were over. Wars to reset national boundaries were outlawed and war itself was outlawed except in self defense or when autheorized by the UN Security Council. A very imperfect system, but much better than fighting wars over ethnicity.
Ethnic Russians in Ukraine are citizens of Ukraine just like Chicanos are citizens of the United States or Uighirs are citizens of China. If they are oppressed theri remedy is a civil rights movement or, in extreme cases, an appeal to the United Nations. The Russian war agaisnt Ukraine is a greater human catastrophe than even the worst case account ofthepersecution of ethnic Russians in the Ukraine.
Simply put, wars based on ethnicity are barbaric.
Finally, given the history of Russian persecution of Ukrainians, which of very much like English persecution of the Irish, Russia is certainly not fit to use force to interfere with the internal affairs of Ukraine. And the Donbas rebellion is an internal affair.
You’ve got your analogy ass-backwards.
The treatment of the Russian speakers/ethnics in Donbas is a far more accurate comparison to what the British did to the Irish.
Even if Russian ethnics have legitimate grievances, it does not justify Putin acting like Hitler. Countries, especially former imperial overlords, have no right to
unilaterally invade sovereign countries. Putin’s war is a reversion to barbarism like the barbarism that led to world war II.
Again, you are referring to an international system that is violated repeatedly by the west … Russia is showing that it can violate the UNSC system as well. It should not be a shocker.
The Donbas/Luhansk people tried to remedy their situation internally for eight years. It did not work. They, like all people on earth retain the natural right of self determination and have now decided to leave. Remember “when in the course of human events …”
The majority of the people of Donbas are ethnic Ukrainians. People of Donbas who are dissatisified with their government have the right to organize and to resist or leave if they can’t work things out with their fellow Ukrainian citizens. Alleged violations of the civil rights of some people in the Donbas does not justify an invasion by the former imperial overlords.
The international system is imperfect and the Western powers are responsible for most of the injustice in the world. But the major Western powers have not engaged in wars of territorial conquest and annexation since the nineteenth century, except for the German, Italian and Japanese revanchism that engendered World War II. Putin’s war is barbaric and a throwback to the revanchism of Nazi Germany.
There’s no such thing as ethnic Ukrainian … there’s Ukrainian culture and language. The great majority of Donbas and Luhansk are Russian speakers and apparently want to affiliate with Russia.
As for the rest, wars that kill millions but don’t change borders are less barbaric than wars that cost far fewer deaths but fix misaligned borders? Something’s wrong with the morality of that argument I think.
Remember Kosovo?
“There’s no such thing as ethnic Ukrainian … there’s Ukrainian culture and language.”
ethnic, adj. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a group of people sharing a common cultural or national heritage and often sharing a common language or religion.
77.8% of Ukrainians identify at Ukrainian ethnics in the last census (2001). They are the indigenous people of Ukraine.
In the 18th century Europe basically outlawed religious wars. But wars continued.In the 19th century Europe and the US outlawed the slave trade and slavery itself. In the early 20th century the League of Nations outlawed chemical and bacteriological warfare. After World War II the United Nations outlawed genocide and wars of territorial conquest and mandated independence of the colonies. It has been a slow and painstaking process. Putin is backsliding in the direction of barbarism.
Since the 18th century every imperial war has a fine idealistic slogan.It is hypocrisy, as is Putin’s claim to want to deNazify Ukraine while relying on the Wagner group as shock troops.
Forget the propaganda on both sides and look at the pictures. Ukrainians are rejoicing at the defeat of the Russians. The Ukrainian army is motivated. The
Russian army is not. The Russians are questioning their leaders and their mission. Just like Afghanistan. This is Putin’s war, it is not Russia’s war. And it is a bullshit imperialist war that is being beaten back by the indigenous resistance. Russia needs a leadership that can negotiate an end to Putin’s folly.
Ukrainian republic was created by Bolsheviks, the same as Belarus and Kazakhstan. They cut Russia in several parts and created new republics in order to keep the country under Bolshevik control (divide and rule). Bolsheviks relied mostly upon non-Russians and promoted the de-russification in all newly created republics. As the result of WW II, new regions, which never belonged to Romanov’s Russia, were incorporated in Ukraine. Later Khrushchev added Crimea. So, Ukraine was composed of ethnically different parts. Ukrainian ethnos itself is composed of two different sub-ethnoses. East Ukrainian sub-ethnos may be called Ukrainian sub-ethnos of Russian ethnos, while west Ukrainian sub-ethnos is different and politically always was orientated to The West. In 19th century, it was a part of Austrian Empire. This western Ukrainian sub-ethnos is dominating in Kiev after the coupe 2014.
New “ethnoses” spring up all the time.
It took about 15 years for a “Texan” “ethnos” to spring up from nothing and mature to a war for independence in northern Mexico in the 19th century.
Until well into the 20th century, an ethnic “Palestinian” was a Jew who was born in Palestine. Then the disparate Arab “ethnoses” in Palestine fused into an ethnic identity under that name.
Even setting aside all previous history, “Ukraine” has had three decades to develop a specifically nationalistic “ethnos” based on its current borders.
Oh, bullsh*t. Persecuted people are not allowed to fight back against their persecutors?
Tell that to the Palestinians.
Persecuted people have the right to fight back.
Imperial powers don’t have the right to invade using ethnicity as an excuse for aggression. Russia and Ukraine have a history a lot like England and Ireland or France and Algeria. The French and English both colonized their conquered countries. French settlers, some of whom had families that were settlers for generations, faced discrimination after Algeria was liberated. That did not justify a French invasion of its former colonial possession.
Russian citizens in Ukraine have the right to fight for their rights. But Russia does not have the right to invade a sovereign country.
I hope the same for the United States, which is the primary cause of the present conflict in Ukraine.
Ukraine has nothing to do with it. This conflict is between the US and Russia, and it will end when the US is willing to negotiate and ends its aggression.
The Ukrainians seem willing to fight. Unlike say our Iraqis or our Afghans.
We don’t own Iraqis or Afghans.
Oh I don’t blame them for not fighting Just making an observation, also come to think of it our Vietnamese kinda sucked while the NVA and the VIet Cong seemed quite motivated.
You really misunderstand the conflict. This is a war between Putin’s Russia and the Ukrainian nation. The US is supporting the Ukrainian national resistance movement led by Zelenskyy at the moment. But the US has no more control over the Ukrainian national resistance than the US had over the mujahideen the US supported who eventually became the Taliban. Putin’s enemies are reflected in the faces of the thousands of joyous Ukrainians celebrating the withdrawal of the Russians from their cities and towns. Forget the propaganda on both sides and look at the pictures. The Ukrainians hate the Russian invasion and are celebrating the defeat of the invaders. We haven’t seen anything like that kind of support for Russia except in Crimea.
The US could cut off all its aid to Ukraine and Zelenskyy could agree to a cease fire but the Ukrainian resistance would continue. The face of the Ukrainian resistance was shown most clearly in the Kerch bridge attack in the heart of Russian Crimea. Ironically, six of the eight suspects Russia arrested were Russian citizens. The cause of a free Ukraine is becoming the cause of free people everywhere and Putin’s war is not Russia’s war. Wars of national resistance are won by hearts and minds, not force of arms. Tragically, Putin’s war will continue until Russia gets a leadership that can recognize the war was a mistake and walk back from Putin’s folly. Putin is a case study of hubris where arrogance overcame intelligence. Before February 24th I thought that Putin was too smart to invade Ukraine. Instead in his arrogance he marched across the border into the trap the US and NATO had set for him. And in his arrogance, he cannot admit his mistake.
The pictures ARE the propaganda. How many pictures of dead Ukrainian fighters can you find, or even a clear estimate of a number? Russia is not defeated, and the invasion was no mistake. It may have been a mistake to not massively target infrastructure from the beginning like the US would have, and did in Iraq. The Ukrainians are totally dependent on US weapons, the Taliban never was. Let’s see how many terror attacks continue after the US stops fueling the conflict.
Right bank of Dnepr river in Kherson region was important as the bridgehead for the offensive to Nikolaev and Odessa. Obviously, last summer, Russia had not enough force for such an offensive because Donetsk oblast is still under Ukrainian (NATO) occupation, and the liberation of Donetsk oblast remains the priority. To keep the well defended and frozen frontline in Kherson region is much easier by using Dnepr as a natural defense, leave alone the danger of the flood which could be caused by the destruction of the dam and the difficulties of the supply across the river. Russian plan is clear: concentrate the forces in Donbass region and start an offense from there. By the way, yesterday, Russian army captured town Pavlovka in Donetsk region and at the moment is surrounding Ugledar.
Well that is all great and all, but why did they take it in the first place if they knew they couldn’t defend it? Was that a part of the plan?
Good question. It was clea what the next move was. Mykolaev, about forty miles from
Kherson.
It serms Ukraine changed tactics, and it was ecfective. It concentrated its forces at weak spots — and with overwhlmig force punch through. It basicslly stopped defending as before. Now, how can this be effective, as
Ukraine now has many weak spots. That wad deliberate. Ukraine knws that for each advance Russia had to pick up the entire support for those communities. Food, utilities, social serviced, medixal facilities, emergency services, security. What is not obvious to everyone is -/ the miment Rusdia enteres, banks close, nobody gets paid to run basic services, and prople have no access to money.
These services took away forces to help with transition. Because of the need to make sure no problems remain behind the front line — the front plans had to slow down. Ukraine also did a great deal of damage to utllities, removed hospital equioment, pharmaceuticals, left retiremeny hommes, nursing homes, hospitals wiyhouth support as many prople fled,
The more territory was tsken, the more crisis situations to deal with, Ukraine had changed tactics — taking a risk, collecting forces and livking areas, Russia got that right away — pulled quickly from Kharkiv region giving. Up 100 by 20 miles area where Russian forces were exposed. It was clear that the exposed right bank od Dnyeper was perfect for such an operation, Hence — withdraw.
Howevet, unlesd Russia goes on offensive taking advantage of many weak areas in Ukrainian friont. In fact, zUmrsine canibized its defenses once it figured out how to do hit and run,
Except they are hanging in Bskhmut in spite of losing good part of it to Wagner, It is underdtandable as Donetsk hub is there,
Ukrsine does not have enough forced sny more to control the enttire front. What Rusdia will do is anyone’s guess,
All we know is — suddenly we have Pentagon
arguing for negotiation. Russia is not placing much hope in this talk. The unfinished business rrmains -. Donbas, Zaporozhie, Kherson.
But more importantly – the Nazi rezime csnnot be left in Kiev, It smazes me how this issue gets no attention in the collective West. Amazing! Death squads do not serm to bother anyone — may be it is only Russian people victimized for the last eight years.
If NATO thinks that Russian people fo not care about the Nazi niightmare coming back like ghosts from the grave — they need to rethink. Because Russia will not be able to negotiate this away, Those people cannot stay.
Zelenski kerps on droning on and on about maming Ukraine like Israel -/ with security on every corner to deal with terrorism. It requites no imagination to guess who his Palestinisns will be,
In fact, the more he tsks about his role model, the more unsympathetic the globe gets. What is the point to his rebranding of his death squads? So we csnnot call them Nazi any more.
This is far from over, NATO is moving into Ukrsine as is -.imagine how woukd it look like without restraints of war.
Are you OK? I only ask because of the much higher number of typing errors than what has been seen in earlier comments!
Possibly the lack of attention this has received in the collective west is because it has not been proven to be true and because the vast majority of the deaths were caused in the first two years of the Russian backed insurrection – while there were victims on both sides so not at all the one sided affair you portray it to be.
This also perhaps is what is at the root of the issues ‘selling’ the Russian perspective on the issue – i.e. that the Zelenskyy government is so far from a Nazi return as could be, that the extreme right lost their last seat in parliament in 2019,… in short the line is simply not credible – you probably could do better if you could build up the case for the story line you are telling with more evidence or proof.
Zen………………………………………………………………………..
“Russia Announces Kherson Withdrawal Completed, Kremlin Says Region’s Status Is Unchanged There are some in the US and the West who see this withdrawal as an opportunity for diplomacy”
Ukraine is becoming exhausted while Russia builds armies and weapons on the borders. Ukraine is losing men and equipment while while Russia pulls back maintaining lives of it’s forces and prepares for advances in the future. Russia is winning a war of attrition with a small portion of it’s military.
The Kherson area is about to become a killing field degrading the Ukrainian military even further.
The response from the West is to send Ukraine obsolete 40 year old Hawk Surface to Air missiles that need to be re-manufactured first. Before these can be delivered Ukraine’s army will cease to exist and Eastern Ukraine will belong to Russia after the coming offensive.
Exhausted, broke, and demoralized.
Yes, Ukraine is on the verge of defeat with over 100,000 dead and 200,000 to 300,000 wounded.
$100 billion + 500K NATO mercenaries + the modern American weapons = guaranteed survival of Kiev regime until next summer.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Joey Biden, the DemoRats, and Kleptocracy seduced Republicans are my enemy so that makes me inclined to hope for a Russian victory.
Turn off the money machines and let Ukraine sink or swim on it’s own. Right now it’s a failed state propped up by Western criminal politicians.
Hear about ByeDone’s latest gaffe, CT?…confusing Colombia with Cambodia? 😂
Prime Minister of Cambodia is unimpressed with the adult diaper wearing Joey Biden.
Ever hear of Stalingrad?
The Russians need to get as many Ukrainian soldiers into Kherson as they can and then launch a double pincer encirclement this winter. Just like old times. And I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what they’re planning. They got all those civilians out for a reason.
Meanwhile, Ted, the MSM crows as to how Ukrainazia “had retaken” the city.
Not a word about Russian forces withdrawing by choice, nor the evacuation of civilians.
In all my born days I’ve yet to see any Amerikkkan-based conflict so shamelessly hyped and supported. It’s enough to make you wanna blow your groceries.
Whose flag is flying above city hall? Obviously the best victories are the ones you achieve without firing a shot.
Not so much a victory as a giveaway.
A giveaway is better than a victory, now they just have to giveaway the rest of the land they stole and this can be over
The MSM isn’t worth reading. Have to remember “blow your groceries”.
😁
The defense of the right bank of Volga at Stalingrad was important because at the time, the main oil supply to central Russia was transported from Azerbaijan through Volga. Capturing the right bank of Volga by the enemy, meant the cutting Red Army from Caucasus. At Kherson the situation is absolutely different.
Kherson itself may not be as strategically significant as Stalingrad but it presents the Russians with an opportunity to degrade Ukrainian resistance if they can get the Ukrainians to commit significant forces to Kherson which can then be encircled and destroyed, I think principally by weather and lack of supplies.
They say Ukrainian (NATO) troops concentration near Kherson is about 60K. Now, as Russians moved to the left bank, Ukrainians would either try to cross Dnepr and start an offensive to Crimea or move most of those troops to Donetsk oblast to resist Russian offensive over there. At the moment there are no Russian troops on the right bank of Dnepr if not counting those in Belarus.
Moving forces into a vacated city isn’t strategic initiative, it’s taking cheese. The Ukrainians are doomed. Winter is going to set in and the pincers will close and it will be time to surrender or die. I suppose the US will spin it as a Russian atrocity and double the weapon shipments, maybe just shove them across the border into a fire.
What pincers? Around Kherson? How it is possible? There are no Russian troops on the right bank of Dnepr. Russia tried already the pincers around Kramatorsk/Sloviansk but failed miserably because couldn’t concentrate enough forces. Everything depends now upon the efficiency of the military industry. It looks, at the moment, Russia can’t provide enough weapons and ammunitions for more than half million army. In the last months, Russian military industry increased the production quite substantially, but not enough. It looks, that was the reason why Russia employed only less than 200K army in Ukraine at the beginning. Russia wasn’t ready to have a big conventional war with NATO. And yet, Putin had no choice. He couldn’t allow the ethnic cleansing of 4 million Russians from Donbass.
The Russians will cross the right bank of the Dnepr on their way to encircling Kherson. Russia just mobilized 300k additional soldiers. They’re going to use them for encirclement warfare. They initially went in under strength but now they’re not. At some point Ukraine will either run out of soldiers or run out of soldiers willing to be sacrificed.
There are a lot of poles and mercenaries from other NATO countries in Ukraine. Particular many of them in Donbass. In many places there are more foreigners than Ukrainians. So far, they have enough of manpower. And weapons with the ammunition too.
No use fighting for a paycheck you can’t collect. Anybody delusional enough to fight on the Ukrainian side this winter is probably not bright enough to survive.
Whatever is the outcome, the main loser in this war is Ukraine. Next to Ukraine, the main loser is EU. US is fine. Russia also will get stronger after this war; economically, militarily and otherwise.
Agreed except if the thing goes nuclear everybody is going to lose. Ukraine is obviously the big loser but maybe they can set an example for Taiwan, Poland, S. Korea, Finland, etc. to not follow.
The political elite in Kiev is quite successful. They made a lot of money in the last couple of years. If they will manage to get away with it, it could inspire the other corrupted politicians to follow their example. American oligarchs take care of those who are serving them. Zelensky got much more money in two years than Blair in ten.
If Zelensky and company get strung up that will hurt recruiting. Trying to find a positive spin.
I can’t find anything positive about Ukraine.
I think the issue Russia faced is about to be changed, as force would be freed up from support work, Ukrsine if course knew the situation, and pulled its forces from many parts of friont to bring force to bear on weak spots. Now, hit and run is over. It is anyone’s guess what Russia will do. But Ukraine csn no longer defrnd ghe entire frint.
If that was/is the plan why blow up all the bridges moreover why vacate Kherson city entirely to get as many Ukrainian soldiers into Kherson city surely they would have needed to make them fight for Kherson – as it stands they can and likely will only leave a very small force in the city to avoid making it an artillery target.
I think that @disqus_6BvJ7DQHVo:disqus is right to point out the difference between the role the right bank played in Stalingrad to the role of the right bank in Kherson city. The right bank of the Dnieper is important to the degree that it allowed ease of access to new offensives towards Mykolaiv and possibly to the degree that it made it more difficult for the Ukrainians to shut down the waterflow to Crimea (the mouth of the canal is now within artillery range but on the left bank.
They withdrew their forces and the remaining civilian population following the first assault on the dam. I would have advised the same were I in their position.
What first assault on the dam?
They left behind very many civilians – clearly seen in the videos of them celebrating being liberated by the Ukrainian forces.
If you believe what you see on the MSM, I don’t know what to tell you …
The videos of the celebrations of the Ukrainian liberating right bank did not come to us via the MSM – the videos of the alleged celebration of the Russians liberating them in March are simply not there to be found. Just because you rely on the MSM to bring you the news does not mean that I do the same.
Pro-Ukrainian part of Kherson population (maybe about 25%), which refused to evacuate to the left bank, of course celebrated this event. Nothing strange about that.
So where are the celebration videos of the Kherson citizens being ‘liberated’ by the Russians? I can very likely still find the protest videos.
It depends where are you looking for those videos. By the way, Russian media is more balanced.
If they exist then you should be able to link them – and showing such videos is not evidence of being unbalanced.
Prior to coming here, I had not really thought to pay close attention to news coverage from Russia. Having added several sites to my daily list, I emphatically agree with your point.
Yes, state-sponsored media is definitely the best place to get accurate unbiased information!
The difference between the state-sponsored media and the oligarchs-sponsored corporate media is that the people who run the state are elected while the oligarchs got their right to own the media just because they have money. In other words, the state-sponsored media is more democratic than the corporate one. Of course, providing, the state itself is democratic enough.
Yes, Russia certainly has NO issues with election integrity 😂
The elections in Russia are more democratic and better organized than in USA. The president of Russia has more power than president of USA because he is not manipulated by the oligarchy like the president of USA. The mass media in Russia is also much more democratic and of much better quality than American corporate media. What is particular important – the political system of Russia is improving while the political system of USA is deteriorating.
I wouldn’t say they’re better organized. In the US, the ruling uniparty manages to pretend at least a little convincingly that it’s two parties, and does a great job of preventing competition with ballot access laws. It doesn’t have to throw its leaders’ opponents in prison, break up their campaign events, and have candidates change their names to the opposition candidate’s name to “win” elections.
You’re right that the Russian presidency is less “manipulated” by the oligarchy than the US presidency. The US presidency has to at least pretend that the president isn’t chief oligarch himself.
Your problem is – you have a very much distorted information about Russia.
More democratic? There is almost NO independent media in Russia.
Why ask a question you could answer for yourself?
Perhaps because I thought that you might object to m stating that there were no such videos?
Why would I object to statements that have no basis in reality?
Well because then you would have to prove that they were wrong as it is you who made a positive assertion i.e. that there were plenty of celebrations of the Russians entering Kherson – so where is the proof of that assertion?
No one has, AFAIK, pushed the narrative that eastern Ukraine is populated strictly by ethnic Russians.
Across a river against well supplied troops. I hope they try
Those troops aren’t going to be well supplied after their supply lines are cut. That’s the idea of encirclement. And encirclement weather is coming up.
Maybe once the Ukrainian forces are present and massing in the Kherson region, Russia will blow up the dam?
And lose water flow to Crimea? while flooding mostly the left bank with their defensive lines – all while committing a war crime!?
Destruction of property is hardly a war crime – during war.
A hospital can be property and it most certainly is a war crime to destruct a hospital – but given the other points I made – perhaps the more important point is that destroying the dam would be foolish that is at least if the Russians ever hoped to take back the territory.
Then you should travel to Ukraine and tell the Ukrainian irregulars to stop hiding in homes and public buildings like they did in the first weeks and months of the war.
When you attack an unprepared nation you have to expect this, the US has many times complained that resistance fighters would not com out in the open and be destroyed while exposed to their crushing dominance in airpower. This does not excuse US war crimes bombing civilian targets based on the mere suspicion that there may be fighters there – nor does it excuse Russia doing the same – if you invade then you have to have a better plan.
The World War of the Oligarchs.
Kherson region status is unchanged, so Putin just handed a historic Russian city to Nazi’s, do i understand this correctly? There is no way back from this, historically politically ethically and morally this shows Putin for who he really is.
So obviously the push to Odesa is now abandoned, ie another surrender, Putin also surrendered Kharkov region. And the Nazi’s now have Melitopol and Crimea in their sites.
NATO is attempting more than regime change, they are attempting the destruction of Russia. If Putin can hand Kherson to Nazi’s, then he can hand Moscow to Nazi’s. Putin must go he is a disgrace, he handed a historic Russian city to Nazi’s when he could of defended it.
So his decision making in reality is leading to Nazification of Russia. Its time for a Russian hard liner to take over. Someone who will actually fight for Russia.
We will learn who is defeated when the war is over. Not before.
“do i understand this correctly?”
Well, there’s a first time for everything …
Sometimes the truth is a bitter pill to swallow. It hasn’t changed my opinions on the war crimes of the Western Powers and the war of attrition Russia is fighting, but it has certainly changed my opinion of Putin.
It is time for Putin to step down and hand over to hardliners, someone who will actually fight and not hand over cities to Nazi’s.
Russia has significant forces, they have the ability to fight and win decisively. Putin wont though all he will do is retreat. As more and more retreats occur, which they will, the Russian people will understand this too. Will it be to late?
That’s true, but the problem is that the Russian public doesn’t realize the gravity of the situation and the effort they’ll have to put into the war. They support Putin and his “limited operation” in Ukraine.
Che, there exists a natural phenomenon that eerily resembles the Shock-and-Awe that you admire: colorful, showy and deadly. As you can easily observe, both are extremely predatory. That you cannot intuit a different and necessary MO response to the Hegemon is disheartening. BTW, do you happen to have a recipe for the perfect biological warfare cocktail in time for the upcoming Holiday Season?
The U.S. casualties during the initial shock-and-awe campaign in Iraq in 2003 were very small. Russian casualties in Ukraine have probably been several tens of thousands, at least. That’s the difference.
I admired Putin’s 2008 blitzkrieg campaign against Georgia because it was swift, relatively bloodless, and established clear Russian superiority. The Ukraine is the opposite of that. Putin and his generals are incompetent fools.
I doubt there will be more retreats but full-on with nato as a result of yet another provocation by Ukraine is a real possibility now.
Main reason for Russia to leave Kherson and surrounding area was because there was the possibility of Kiev forces blowing up the hydroelectric dam. This would have flooded a large area on the lower west side of the Dnjeppef river and many thousands of people and Russian soldiers would have drowned. The occupation of Kherson will only be temporarily until the ground freezes and the big push west wards begins.
Learn the difference between plural and possessive case and I’ll read past the first sentence. Get the simple stuff right first.
That is a very compelling argument.
The trouble is, the reality on the ground, based on strictly humanitarian considerations for the Ukrainian civilians and Russia’s military, has obviously pointed in the opposite direction.
With regards to wars, the early socialists/communists of the 19th century (Marxists) wanted to stop the insane practice of workers of one state killing workers of another state for the sake/enrichment of the entrenched political and economical powerful.
Here we are, almost 200 years later, and it still happens with the insane Russo-Ukrainian war. For me, the larger onus is on the Russian workers. They are potentially the more powerful group. They must rise up, throw Putin out and practice solidarity with the Ukrainian workers. Where is their Lenin? In jail.
” US expects Ukrainian conflict to stall during winter – NYT
The pause in the fighting could last for at least six months, senior Biden administration officials have told the paper ”
Joey Biden and his shadow government have proven themselves to be more incompetent then worst governments in American history. Hello Ivy League woke boys: Russia knows how to conduct winter warfare. Currently there is a Calm Before the Storm on the soon to be Frozen Ukrainian Plains.
General Surovikin’s decision to leave Kherson was part of his realignment to accommodate future operations. Standby when the ground freezes in Eastern Ukraine. General Winter and General Armageddon are coming!
If you say that someone has lost the battle, but won the war: You mean that although they have been defeated in a small conflict they have won a larger, more important one of which it was a part!
Forecast temperatures this week for Donetsk Sergei Prokofiev International Airport (UKCC) range from Plus 4C to minus 4C so no major operation for about 3 to 4 weeks. Top soil in many areas is 3 meters thick so it will take a few weeks of freezing temperatures to harden the ground for armor.