Out of curiousity - do you have any facts to justify the second point? Like hard facts for (a) US meddling in Ukraine and (b) that the US is a threat to increased global unrest based on greed?
I agree the US are no angels - and I understan that the actions of nations are self-motivated - but it’s very strange to me when that you’re actually talking about what Russia has actually been doing and trying to somehow blame the situation in Ukraine on the US.
Make them walk further. All the way to Moscow.
Walking so much further from the front lines to the relative safety in the rear areas would also lead to higher casualty figures, as some of the wounded would succumb to their wounds.
The Economist
Photograph: Getty Images
Jan 27th 2025|KYIV
THE FINAL battle for the small Donbas town of Velyka Novosilka dragged on for six days, though the outcome was obvious long before that. Things became critical early in the new year, when Russian troops took over villages immediately to its north-east and west, pinching the Ukrainian defenders on three sides. By January 23rd the narrow corridor to what had become a nearly-isolated pocket had become impassable. The order to retreat came as soon as a mist descended. It was a nightmarish task that had to be completed on foot, under drone-filled skies, and across a river. The evidence of triumphant Russian propaganda channels suggests that many failed to make it.
Russia’s small victory in Velyka Novosilka (population just 5,000 before the war) followed a familiar pattern: relentless infantry assaults, devastating casualties, collapsing Ukrainian defences, and their eventual retreat. The immediate focus for the units that had been fighting there will now probably shift back to Pokrovsk to the north, a much-bigger logistical hub that Russia has been attacking at various intensities for the past six months. The fighting there has already prompted the Ukrainians to abandon a crucial coking-coal mine—one that previously provided half the needs of the domestic metallurgy industry. Russian forces are also advancing nearby towards the site of useful lithium-ore deposits.
Read more of our recent coverage of the Ukraine war
The Kremlin’s plan probably depends on where it can make quick progress. The minimum requirement of its “special military operation” appears still to be occupying the entirety of the Donbas region (comprising the provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk), regaining control of Russia’s own Kursk region, which Ukraine has partly occupied, and holding on to the “land bridge” it seized in the early stages of the war connecting Crimea to Russia. In Kursk, Russia has yet to regain the initiative, despite having deployed a force that is supplemented by North Korean fighters and, at 62,000, is perhaps three times larger than the Ukrainian grouping. In the Donbas, meanwhile, driving Ukraine out of the remaining cities, which are well-defended, will not be easy. The open fields immediately west of Pokrovsk, and a psychologically damaging push into Dnipropetrovsk province, may prove more enticing. “They probe for our weak points,” says Andriy Cherniak, a military-intelligence officer. “And then they mass force wherever they have tactical success.”
The modern battlefield—dominated by drones that spy, stalk and strike—is rapidly changing the nature of the fighting. In Velyka Novosilka, for example, armoured vehicles played a minimal role. “One of our tanks crept out near the front lines,” says Captain Ivan Sekach, an officer with Ukraine’s 110th brigade defending the town. “Ten drones attacked, setting it alight almost immediately.” The fighting instead was done by infantry—small Russian groups of three, four, five, sent forward in waves. Most met a swift and bloody end. But some managed to establish new positions and move the fight closer, forcing the Ukrainians to retreat.
Map: The Economist
The Russian tactics are not dynamic, but are causing Ukraine no end of bother. Put simply, Russia has the infantry and Ukraine does not. Issues with mobilisation and desertion have hit Ukraine’s reserves hard. “We struggle to replace our battlefield losses,” says Colonel Pavlo Fedosenko, the commander of a Ukrainian tactical grouping in the Donbas. “They might throw a battalion’s worth of soldiers at a position we’ve manned with four or five soldiers.” The brigades that make up the Donbas front line are consistently understaffed, under pressure, and cracking. The front line keeps creeping back. “We no longer have tactics beyond plugging holes,” says “Kupol,” the nom de guerre of a now-retired commander who until September led a brigade fighting in eastern Donbas. “We throw battalions into the chaotic mess and hope we can somehow stop the grind.”
The world’s focus has shifted to negotiations that have yet to happen; on the contradictory signals from the Trump administration that one day look positive for Ukraine, and the next less so. For those doing the fighting, the agenda is less abstract. As long as the front line keeps moving, Mr Putin appears to have little reason to compromise. The Russians will not run out of weapons any time soon, says Mr Cherniak, the intelligence officer. “They have at least a year, possibly two, to continue fighting as they have been.” The military-industrial complex remains a “sacred cow” for the Kremlin, he continues, and will be protected from possible economic headwinds, inflation, or sanctions. North Korea is meanwhile stepping in to supply items that are in short supply, such as gun barrels and artillery systems. “Russia has shown it can function in a completely closed cycle.”
Three years into its grinding attritional fight, it is still unclear if Russia can turn its many tactical gains into something bigger—enough to press deeper behind Ukraine’s weakening lines and to cause real worry. Mr Cherniak says the evidence so far suggests that this is unlikely. “We see their reserves, their missiles, their armour—and it’s not enough. Not yet.” Captain Sekach thinks luck may also have played a role. In Velyka Novosilka, he says, Russian armoured columns on more than one occasion broke through and got behind Ukrainian defences, but without realising it. Lost and disoriented, they turned back. “The Russian army doesn’t reward smart people, that’s my only explanation,” he says. “But we can’t count on it staying that way.” ■
Please give me your youtube lex friedman educated view on the elections in Belarus, Moldova, Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia, Georgia… should i go on? Are these all manipulated by NATO? Please man, get off lex and rogan on this topic
So is the Ricky Dyson trade officially over? Ben Hobbs the replacement for the next 20 years.
I won’t pile on, but I’d highly recommend watching the Netflix documentary Winter on Fire which covers the months of protests that led to Yanukovich fleeing the country. It will give you a more balanced picture of what led to the fall of that regime.
I’ll give you my take. The Ukraine war has never been about NATO, that’s the propaganda facade that Putin pushes out. He wants the former USSR states to be puppets, deferring to Moscow for political control. Yanukovich is the godfather of Putin’s daughter, so gave Putin that control. Look at what has happened to Belarus and Georgia for examples of what Putin’s goals for Ukraine are.
Ukraine had been moving towards EU membership, not NATO membership. The anti-corruption policies that required would cripple Russian influence, so it couldn’t be allowed to proceed. Despite an election promise, Yanukovich backed out of the EU pathway under instructions from Putin. The populace understandably were furious as they wanted the economic progress and improvement to quality of living that couldn’t happen under the blanket of Russian corruption.
Russia would still have had Ukraine as a close ally if EU membership had progressed, but they would have lost control. Every act that Putin has taken since that revolution has been about forcing a pro-Russia subservient government on Kyiv and the Ukrainian people against their democratic desire. As he’s locked in for Belarus and is almost complete in Georgia.
One last thing, don’t fall for the “Russian insurgence” narrative, that was a comedic attempt at cover by literally cutting the unit badges off Russian troops and sending them into Ukraine. There has never been a real separatist movement in Ukraine, the only political movement that existed before Putin invaded in 2014 was a pathetically organised party looking for local autonomy for the Donbas.
With commentary.
Im not solely blaming it on the US, and I am certainly not a Russian bot as someone has put it. I’ve always been progressive in my world view and take conspiracy with a grain of salt. I definitely empathise with the plight of the Ukraine.
Now that I’ve got that out of the way, there is no way that we can seriously ignore the US presence, influence, and occupation around areas of resource and power interests. By dismissing the idea that they might be implicit in the way things have panned out over there is putting yourself ideologically into one camp and conveniently ignoring the atrocities committed by US ‘intelligence’. When people sarcastically say ‘oh you’re blaming Big Bad US’ it’s being dismissive of their role.
What atrocities? Do you have any evidence, apart from Glenn Beck’s whiteboard, to back up these assertations?
Regardless, overall it is a moot point: russia’s overwhelming culpability in all this is magnitudes beyond any other actor and no amount of whataboutism will change that basic fact.
“My neighbour was getting too friendly with another neighbour, who I despise, so I was forced to break into his house, rape his wife and kill his kids. They made me do it…”
Just one point of clarification. The country is “Ukraine”, not “The Ukraine”. It’s a sovereign nation, not a region.
I will have look at Winter on Fire.
My main issue has been with the US backing of far right nationalist groups that link themselves to German fascist ideals in the growing ‘revolution’ at the time. This, and the fact that NATO would inevitably be on Russia’s doorstep (even if the EU link was the more motivating factor), are a big provocation in the region.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna66061
Does it not unsettle you that anti- Semitic groups were tolerated (if not encouraged) to drive the movement?
Now, I’m not going to claim to be all over this topic as I am not as engrossed in the minutiae as some are. So these concerns of mine may well have been evidentially dismissed over the last ten years. But surely my concerns of US interference are justified (at least somewhat). I’m happy to be further educated on the issue.
Again, the assertion that NATO presence is provocative begins with the assumption that Russia has the implicit right to invade their neighbours
I don’t follow social media personalities for my information. I’ve been an avid reader of alternative news platforms for decades, not to be swayed by them but to get a different angle on the hegemonic press perspective of mainstream media. To me this the best way to digest information. Social media has muddied those waters so that any alternative perspectives are lumped in with conspiracy nutters and YouTubers or podcaster opinion-soaked platforms.
I remember this article from a few years back pricked my interest;
A snippet quoted here from an interview with political scientist John Mearsheimer;
“I think all the trouble in this case really started in April, 2008, at the nato Summit in Bucharest, where afterward nato issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of nato . The Russians made it unequivocally clear at the time that they viewed this as an existential threat, and they drew a line in the sand. Nevertheless, what has happened with the passage of time is that we have moved forward to include Ukraine in the West to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. Of course, this includes more than just nato expansion. nato expansion is the heart of the strategy, but it includes E.U. expansion as well, and it includes turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy, and, from a Russian perspective, this is an existential threat.”
Now, I get that there is some progressive political bias coming from The New Yorker but it is providing an alternate perspective to its own nation’s global dealings which is an important angle to promote when even the so-called ‘left’ are complicit in global manipulation. I say so-called because the US version of left and right are really right and far right.
Yes read on an alternative, by all means educate yourself. But know here you are way in the wrong.
I do agree with you on one thjng you have written in all of this. The left and right of US politics have never been so far apart.
It didn’t take me that long
I’m in the wrong? Or are the alternate perspectives of others that I’ve brought into this discussion in the wrong? There is a big difference.
If you read the article I linked you will notice that it is the perspective of a political scientist that I have drawn from. I’m just giving that perspective air.
That whole premise ignores probably the single most important issue in this whole situation, which is Ukraine’s right to self-determination. Regardless of what Russia believes consists as an existential threat, Ukraine has the absolute right to determine that it’s best interests lay in pursuing integration into the Western world through the EU and ultimately NATO, and to shift itself economically, socially and militarily away from Russia. The same Russia that has systemically tried to eradicate Ukrainian culture, language, independence and identity for several centuries, broken every security pact and agreement it had with Ukraine, and since the collapse of the Soviet Union has been run as a corrupt, mafia state with open ambitions to bring all it’s former satellite vassal states (such as Ukraine) back under it’s absolute control.
The argument that Ukraine joining NATO would place NATO on Russia’s doorstep totally ignores that NATO members are already on Russia’s border, the bulk of which has come from former Soviet Union states wanting to get the hell away from Russia as they have somewhat of a reputation for despotic rule and invading their neighbours. I’ve said it in here before, but at some point Russia should have a think about why all their former vassals are so keen to get away from Russia and to join a defensive alliance that exists solely to protect it’s members against Russia. If everybody in the room is calling you a ■■■■, it could just be that you are actually a ■■■■ rather than everybody being wrong about you. And if you then respond by acting like a total ■■■■, it kind of confirms that fact that you are indeed, a ■■■■. Also, Russia hasn’t really kicked up too much of a stink about NATO’s newest members that were prompted to put aside decades of neutrality and join as a result of Russia’s invasion of a neighbour they had signed peace agreements with. Sort of undermines Putin’s stated reasons for invading Ukraine.
I get the idea of believing the possibility that the US Intelligence services had a hand in fomenting Ukrainian resistance to Yanukovich’s backflip on his election promise to move towards EU membership in favour of Russia under Putin. However, given the choice between “US Intelligence stirred this up” and “Ukrainian population that elected a president that promised for them to have a better life through joining the EU, joined widespread protests against said president when he back-flipped and chose to go with sticking with the corrupt neighbour they all wanted to get away from”, I know which version is probably more likely. And it wasn’t a coup like Putin says, the president fled and the elected government took control and instituted free elections, which to no-ones surprise at all, voted to move closer to the EU, just like they had previously.
The blame for this war lays solely at the feet of Putin.