GUEST BLOG: Ben Morgan – Russia is exhausted and scared


This week Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister stated that Russia is expanding its war aims to include the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.  He said that this expansion was required to protect Russian territory from Ukrainian long-range missiles.  Further, in recent days the United States National Security Council stated that Russia was aiming to annex more territory confirming suspicions that collaborating local governments were being formed in these regions.  On the ground though Russian attacks in the east are not making any ground and Russia is under intense pressure in the south near Kherson.

Lavrov’s statement points to a change in tactical conditions.  The tide is turning, modern NATO weapons are impacting disproportionately on the battle and more are coming.  An already exhausted Russian army is unable to maintain forward momentum in the east and is on the defensive in the south. The situation is grim, everyday Ukraine gets stronger and Russia gets weaker. Yesterday, MI6 Chief Richard Moore speaking at the Aspen Security Forum stated that “the Russians will increasingly find it difficult to find manpower and materiel over the next few weeks,” and that “They will have to pause in some way and that will give the Ukrainians the opportunity to strike back.” An assessment that this blog’s readers shouldn’t be surprised by.   

In the east, Russia is attacking the Ukrainian defence around Sloviansk and tactically this is a big challenge.  The Ukrainians dominate the heights around the city and recent attacks from Izyum towards Sloviansk bogged down in difficult terrain. Likewise, attacks from the east towards Siversk and Bakhmut were unsuccessful.  Tough Ukrainian defenders are dug in on ground of their choosing and Russia’s key combat advantage; their artillery is currently being systematically depleted by clever Ukrainian tactics.  

Omar Bradley, World War Two United States general said that when discussing war ‘amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics’.   Currently, the ‘centre of gravity’ of the tactical battle is artillery, whichever side dominates the artillery duel will win ‘on the ground’.   In modern war, about 30-50% of all truck movements are moving artillery ammunition forward so winning an artillery battle means knowing about logistics.   One round of ammunition for a medium artillery gun weighs about 55-60 kgs, the projectile being about 40kgs and the propellent charge and fuses making up the remainder.  Rockets weigh more and take up more space. 

Russia’s standard tactical trucks can carry a load of about 40-60 rounds of medium artillery ammunition travelling across country.  On 17 June 2022, the Royal United Services Institute published an article titled ‘The Return of Industrial Warfare’ by author Andrew Vershinin, who estimated Russia’s average ammunition expenditure at approximately 7,000 rounds per day. At 50 rounds per truck, that is 140 trucks of ammunition being moved forwards to replenish gun lines every single day.  A line of trucks about 10-14km long travelling on the highway. 

However, this movement is more complex than it seems because artillery ammunition needs to get to gun lines that are widely dispersed, move often and are not generally on roads. The process starts with large quantities of ammunition arriving from Russia by train or on large trucks. It is unloaded then stored in large dumps well outside of artillery range.  Formation (brigade, regiment or division) logistics elements move ammunition from these dumps to rendezvous with the artillery’s own trucks a much shorter distance behind the frontline.  Sometimes at these levels large forward ammunition dumps will be established, to shorten travel times especially if an intense period of battle is expected.

Artillery units have their own cross-country trucks shuttling between their gun line and its parent formation to replenish their gun line as it runs out of ammunition.  Essentially, bringing 50 rounds of ammunition forward to a Russian artillery gun line, involves a complicated web of logistics that starts with unloading at a rail hub and involves transfer between trucks; two to three times before arriving at their destination. Finally, all of this logistics chain needs to be secured (i.e. convoys need to be guarded) and coordinated with other military movements. 

Ukraine’s tactic of using HIMARs to target formation and rear area ammunition dumps, is effective because Russia’s logistics system is not fit for purpose.  Early in the war it failed to evacuate casualties, maintain supplies of food, fuel and ammunition. Later as the war became relatively static it has still been shown to be weak.  The Russians are unlikely to have resolved the systemic issues associated with decades of corruption in four months.  Targeting formation and rear area ammunition dumps forces the Russians to locate their supply hubs further behind the frontline straining their artillery logistics. 

TDB Recommends

HIMARs has a range of about 80km. Weapons like this fire from well behind the frontline, normally about a third of their range so Ukraine’s tactics probably force Russian artillery logistics hubs to be sited approximately 50-60 km behind the front line if they are to reduce their risk of being hit by HIMARS.  This is probably double or triple the distance they were form the front before HIMAR’s entered the theatre.  Doubling or tripling the distance increases logistics issues exponentially because of the extra ‘friction’ it creates; including increased travel time, more truck re-fuelling stops, move convoys getting lost, wrong information being passed, gun lines moving to new positions without warning, road space conflicts and a range of other issues that arise in any logistics chain. 

This tactic uses Russia’s logistic weaknesses to undermine their only combat advantage, artillery.  Regardless of Shoigu and Putin’s bluster Russian activity in the east has not increased in recent days and even the small attacks that they are making in this area are failing.  This trend will continue, last week the Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) that the United Kingdom donated to Ukraine started to be deployed.  MLRS is HIMARs older and bigger brother, being tracked it can’t move as quickly but fires the same rockets.  Further, Ukraine’s deployment of longer ranged NATO artillery guns continues and when matched with new artillery locating radars will make targeting Russia’s front-line artillery easier.  Russia’s only tactical advantage is being crippled and it is simply a matter of time before Ukraine starts taking ground back.

If Putin cannot declare war and mobilise fully, then he has limited options and this week’s activity hints that he may know it.  So the Russians reverted to their playbook and brought out two of their favourite tactics, bluster and hybrid war.  

Hybrid war is the use of a range of historically non-military activities to wage war.  In this case the key tactic is annexation. Russia is working hard to create sufficient stability in its recently occupied territories to achieve some sort plebiscite providing a legitimate claim that these territories have been rightfully returned to Mother Russia. Russia is bribing collaborators, shipping in workers and removing dissidents as quickly as it can to create stability and security in these areas.  John Kirby a spokesperson for the United States National Security Council said last week that Russia is planning to annex more Ukrainian territory, stating that “Russia is beginning to roll out a version of what you could call an annexation playbook, very similar to the one we saw in 2014” referencing the Russian occupation of Crimea.  Annexation achieves an important goal; it makes these areas ‘Russian’ territory.  This provides a legitimate reason for them to fall under Russia’s nuclear umbrella.  This distinction could become increasingly important as Russia’s army is defeated in conventional battle.  

Annexation links to Russia’s second tactic – bluster. Lavrov’s statements about the need to push further into Ukraine to ‘protect’ Russia are not at this stage backed by any realistic threat, instead they appear to be an information operation designed to establish conditions for negotiation.  The game being played is simple. By threatening big now, when they do sit down to negotiate, they can claim reasonableness – “Well we wanted Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, but we are reasonable people and we won’t attack them if you let us keep Donbas and Crimea”.  It plays to those in NATO who lack resolve and are scared by Russian threats, the people that believe Russia’s hype and think that their military has the capability to advance further into Ukraine. By most estimates about a third of Russia’s total combat power has been lost, so even if Russia declared war and mobilised fully it would struggle to conquer much more of Ukraine.  

Annexation and bluster meet at the point when Ukrainians start to push the Russians out of their newly acquired territory. Unable to defeat the Ukrainians conventionally the Russians may threaten to use nuclear weapons and the conditions are set for escalation followed by negotiation based on the following reasoning “We wanted Kherson and Zaporizhzhia to protect Russia from attacks by rockets supplied by the NATO aggressors, who are now supporting the Ukrainian invasion of Donbas and Crimea both legally annexed Russian republics. This invasion is an existential threat to Mother Russia and we will use nuclear weapons to defend our people.”  

This is all predictable and in the following months it is likely that the war will develop as follows:

  • Russia will continue to make small attacks in the east.  The attacks will not make significant progress and will slowly peter out as Russia runs out of resources and Ukraine defeats their artillery.
  • After defeating the Russian’s artillery the Ukrainians will start to advance.  Probably, near Kharkov but most likely in the south pushing east along the coast.  It is possible that the attack will include an advance south towards Mariupol perhaps along the H40 from near Vulhedar. Getting to Mariupol would be a significant political victory and tactically would split the Russian land bridge.  Even a feint in this area would force the Russians to redeploy forces from defending in the west near Kherson or from the Donbas diminishing Russian combat power in these areas. 
  •  If the Russians have annexed areas at this stage, unable to defend them with conventional forces it seems likely that they will threaten to use nuclear weapons to defend them.  This will be NATO and the world’s decision-point.  Do we believe the corrupt Russian kleptocrats will risk nuclear war?  Or will we take the risk and support the Ukrainians to liberate their country?  It seems likely that Russia’s nuclear threats would be a bluff, the problem with a kleptocracy is that it is perpetuated by self-interest and greed, factors that contribute to the men that control the nuclear deterrent being unlikely to risk global nuclear war.  

The unknown factor is whether Russia will negotiate sooner, yesterday’s agreement to allow grain out of Ukraine is an indication that this could be close.  Negotiation may achieve more than continuing a losing fight. If the Russians call for a ceasefire, it puts Ukraine under enormous pressure to negotiate and provides time to dig in and consolidate the captured territories.  An operational pause to negotiate could be used to secure the occupied regions and undertake annexation.  

The next few weeks could be pivotal to this war.  Russia is close to failure; and as tactical defeat cascades into strategic defeat it is important that Ukraine’s allies maintain their resolve and not allow Russian tactics like bluster and false negotiation stop their military defeat and eviction from Ukraine. 


Ben Morgan is a tired Gen X interested in international politics. He is TDB’s Military analyst.


  1. Nope — Ukraine is in a panic due to the weapon flow from other nations is being stopped? Why? Because those weapons are falling into both Russian hands, and the black market of Poland…how? corruption…Also, the EU has given Ukraine 30 days to draft articles of settlement (peace treaty) to put towards Russia.

  2. I seriously doubt that Ukraine will make any significant progress in the south any time soon and wondered if it is not a feint to split the Russian forces.
    Whilst carrying the disadvantage of the attacker has contributed to bring Russia to the point of culmination, it will be Ukraine carrying that disadvantage as it tries to counter.
    I suspect it will take Ukraine another couple of months of force building before they can sustain the losses of the counter attack.

    • Expect the unexpected, the Uke counter attack will probaly come in Kharkov as the Ukrainians pretend they will attack first in the South.

      • Ukraine is all pretend. Million man army? HaHaHa! They are down to women and old men now. The longer this goes on and escalates, the more of Ukraine is lost for good and another thousand casualties per day.
        Ben Morgan is a joke with his lies. Russia exhausted? Ha! Must be exhausting doing the regular troop rotations with fresh trained troops is Russia. Unlike Ukraine who are constantly moving troops from place to place to replace cannon folder.
        Sort of looks like artillery practice for the Russians.

  3. Interesting reading, thank you.

    One other point (I’m not an expert obviously) is that Ukraine must be utilising some great US surveillance from satellites and planes. Pinpoint exactly where the targets are for the precision-guided munition. Russia will have this too (no doubt supported by China) but I imagine the on the US side it’s a lot better.

    • The US surveillance is light years ahead of the Russians. The most obvious evidence of this is that when targeting strategic infrastructure, the Russians have launched missiles and then have waited for up to a week before launching a second volley because they lack real time surveillance capabilities to tell them when a strike has failed.

    • I have never seen such pinpoint accuracy with artillery before, even their old 152mm shells are landing on target after only 2 sighters.

  4. Ukrainian Nazis Kill Children With Cluster Munitions
    Over the past two days, 5 children have been killed by Ukrainian shelling in the Donbass. The Armed Forces of Ukraine are intentionally shelling residential areas. As a result, number of civilian casualties is growing every day. Residents of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics have been suffering from the terrorist war of the Kiev regime for eight years.

    On July 6, 7 civilians were killed in the Donetsk People’s Republic, including three children. 28 civilians were injured, including 8 children.

    On July 6, the AFU shelled the residential quarter in the town of Makeevka with the Hurricane MLRS. As a result of the attack, three children and a man were killed. The victims are an 8-years-old girl, a 7-years old boy and a 17-years-old boy. 10 others civilians were injured, including 7 children.

    • Inconvenient truths.
      Ukrainian forces acting like typical Nato proxies, like the “moderate rebels” of Syria. Hiding entrenched behind hostage russian-speaking civilians and razing the earth as they “finish their mission and withdraw.”

      AFU are entrenched among Civilians they don’t care about – for 8 years. That is the only reason the SMO’s inevitable progress is so slow.

  5. Nope – the weapon flow from the West has stopped due to those weapons ending up in either Russian, or the black market hands…how? Ukraine corruption!

  6. Russia’s supply logistics issues have been high-lighted by Russia’s use of ground to air missiles against ground targets because of a shortage ground to ground missiles.

    Russia resorts to air defence missiles for ground attacks as it runs out of bombs
    ‘Critical shortage’ means Vladimir Putin’s forces are having to use S-300s, which have limitations on the ground and are less accurate

  7. “Lavrov’s statement about the need to push further into Ukraine to ‘protect’ Russia are not at this stage backed by any realistic threat, instead they appear to be an information operation designed to establish conditions for negotiation.” Ben Morgan

    I was surprised at Lavrov’s planned advance announcement, I agree with Ben that Russia are in no position to carry this advance out, it is an empty threat that will never go ahead. That this statement is a bluff to gain advantage at the negotiating table, is probably a very good assessment. It is also very good news. Jaw, Jaw is always better than War, War. In the last negotiations, the Russian negotiators refused to agree to a ceasefire during the talks. During the talks, Russia kept pressing their military advance, while demanding Ukraine’s surrender at the negotiating table.

    Things are different now. Ukraine are in a position to demand a ceasefire as a pre-condition for any peace talks. (Yes I know Russia will try and use any ceasefire to regroup). On the more subjective side, Russian soldiers, getting some relief from months of constant warfare and high losses, once stopped, would be reluctant to restart military operations.

    Like any big machine Russia’s war machine has a momentum that once stopped will be harder to get going again .

    In the last negotiations, Ukraine offered Russia to hold a referendum of all citizens for full neutrality, between East and West.
    In return for peace, Ukraine also offered to let Russian forces retreat back to the areas of Ukraine that Russian forces had occupied before February 24, 2022.

    Russia rejected Ukraine’s peace terms last time. Will Russia still reject Ukraine’s peace terms this time? Will Ukraine still be offering them?

  8. Whats left of Kadyrovs dogs are about to get ripped apart in Chechnya. The brewing rebel uprising will topple Kadyrov and cause more civil strife for the poundshop Hitler. His days are numbered.

  9. Quick question Ben?
    It’s day 148 of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine.
    According to you and your sources, in that time Ukraine & NATO have humiliated their Russian opponents.
    So I’m sure you’ll have no problem telling us just how much territory they’ve taken off the Empire of Evil.
    It’s a dare Ben, a dare.

    • 20% land taken including over 3000 towns and villages. Oops my bad, that’s Russia. Number of Ukrainian successful counter attacks? Nada, Zero, Zilch. Remind me again who’s winning, I’m confused.

  10. As an amateur I rely on the application of logic and reason to any argument .
    Therefore let’s examine your basic premise ( as I understand it ) – that ” New longer range weapons will adversely affect Russian logistics leading to their inevitable defeat .”
    Remembering there’s two sides to every war , then , whats true in principle must be true for both sides.
    Therefore given the range of HIMARS – 80km – and the range of 1!! type of Russian missile commonly used in Ukraine Kalibr ~ 1500km – 2000km then , moving out of range is certainly an inconvenience for Russia and does impose constraints but not for Ukraine ? C’mon .
    Moreover consider the length and capacity of the respective weapons /ammo supply chains .
    LENGTH : Russian Depot / factory – railroad – next door . ( anywhere 80km shy of frontlines )
    CAPACITY : More than 14 days worth in bulk on railroads to air base in Russia or subs /ships in Crimea )
    LENGTH : US depot – plane to Europe – truck /train Ukraine – truck to frontlines . ( remember Kalibr range ~1500km to 2000km frontlines start at the border and how much HIMARS ammo per plane? )
    CAPACITY : Applying commonsense much much less than Russia .
    So remembering that the logistical constraints imposed on Russia , if true in principle , will also apply to Ukraine who , having no arms manufacturing capacity (destroyed) are forced to beg for western weapons from rapidly depleting western stocks , yet you believe that Russia will lose this logistical war and that Ukraine is gonna win ?
    You embarrass yourself with such illogical arguments .

    • It’s actually rather sad given events reported today by Twitter. One was Ukrainian cops searching an apartment block for males 18 to 60 to conscript. They resist obviously.
      Second was Twitter feed of the so called Kherson counter offensive, where the Ukraine media retracted its claim of 2000 Russians encircled. The reality is Russian artillery stopped the attack with heavy casualties.
      Twitter can be of dubious veracity but the pictures said it all.

  11. Back in the 1980’s, with the USSR’s failures even more exposed than after the first great Western Left split following Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in 1956, and with only a few bitter clingers like Keith Locke still believing in communism, it was obvious that the primary reason so many Western Leftists sided with the USSR was the simple, sheer hatred of the West in general and the USA in particular.

    When I put this to some of the Lefty activists at varsity at the time I was greeted with a weird mix of outrage at the suggestion, plus the usual denunciations of the USA and (occasionally) defences of the USSR, although admittedly the latter were less positive than apologetics that the poor old USSR had to react this way.

    But looking at the commentary from Leftists here at TDB, plus the posts of many of them (aside from Bradbury and, to a lessor extent, Trotter) it’s quite obvious now that it always was about sheer hatred of the US-led West. There is almost nothing about Putin that any Leftist here would side with were they in Russia or he a politician here in NZ; gay rights, abortion, Christianity, militarism, crushing domestic political opposition, AGW and fossil fuels.

    On every issue but one, Putin is on the other side from the Left, and yet that one issue – sticking it to the West and the USA – is good enough for many Western Leftists to support him in this attack on Ukraine.

    Still, it’s nice to know what the Left’s “principles” really are, along with further confirmation of their double standards.

    • Wrong, Tom Hunter: many of us object to being fed propaganda fit for 9-yr-olds at the most, by hypocrites. You make the usual simplistic error of thinking that this automatically means we admire Putin, and are his ‘apologists’.
      Please think harder.

      • In Vino you are an apologist for Putin even if you are not aware of it. I wonder if any of you Stalinists support human rights? Viva Navalny!

        • You debate at the level of a nine-year-old, and I suspect that you have far less self-awareness than I.

          • In Vino you never answered my question and you resorted to ad hominem tactics instead. You have no answers. I’d lay off the booze if I were you.

            • No question there. You said you wonder something about Stalinists, which is a statement that has nothing to do with me. Get some English skills.

    • I agree that a lot of Leftists have a self loathing of the West. Not surprising given that the left of the Left aka Marxists hate capitalism.

      Logically why would a Marxist support the USAs proxy war on Russia? They are both capitalists. And why support a corrupt little neo Nazi state against either?

      The mainstream Left is also confused, they in their greeny woke manner have a loathing of the culture of the West. Post modern internationalism rejects any national or local customs or beliefs and demands adherence to a baseless uniformity that is divorced from historic or cultural precedent.

      Myself as a Left leaning Conservative find the manner that our Liberal elites have co-opted the Left deeply disturbing. Neither are friends but both are prepared to put a wrecking ball to a Western culture that I love.

      The Ukraine fiasco merely underlines the bankruptcy of our democracy, and its failure to lead us in the morals and ideals of the West.

      • “Logically why would a Marxist support the USAs proxy war on Russia?” Nick J.

        What a stupid question. Displaying a complete ignorance of Marxism and Marxists.

        Nick, you might as well ask;
        Why would a Marxist support Britain’s proxy war on Germany?

        Whatever the maneuvering and posturing of NATO.
        After the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine, only a conscious liar or an idiot, would try to deny that Russia is the aggressor in a war of choice

        After Germany invaded Poland, Britain declared war on Germany.
        Despite that, despite the fact that it was the British imperialists that declared war on Germany.
        Only a conscious liar or an idiot, would try to deny that Germany was the aggressor in a war of choice.

        The United Kingdom declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939, two days after Germany invaded Poland. France also declared war on Germany later the same day. The state of war was announced to the British public in an 11 AM radio broadcast by the prime minister Neville Chamberlain….
        .[unless] ….they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.[2],the%20prime%20minister%20Neville%20Chamberlain.

        And who is the aggressor imperialist nation counts. You can make up all the stupid lies and excuses for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine you like. But the fact remans: For all the maneuvering and posturing of these rival imperialist blocs, NATO did not invade Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine.

        Russia began this war
        Even if it is NATO that ends it. Russia began this war. It is up to Russia to stop it. The Russian Federation need to return to their internationally recognised international borders and learn to live within them.

        Logically what Marxist would support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
        The answer is, None!

        Logically why do Marxists not Support Russia’s war of choice in Ukraine? Because Marxists oppose all imperialist wars of conquest and invasion, no matter which imperialist power is doing the invading.
        And don’t you dare tell me Nick, that Russia is not an imperialist power.

        • Not much point arguing with someone who can not even get a basic fact right.
          Russia is conducting a Special Military operation (SMO) which is perfectly legal under international law. To be a “War” requires mobilization of the full regular armed forces which is not the case.
          Sanctions against Russia and all other Country’s are in fact a breach of international law and can only be implemented by the UNSC.
          So tell me bright spark why do you persist in ignoring the mountain of evidence of Ukraini war crimes documented by the West before the SMO?. The simple answerer is you are a Russophobe who can not align your political beliefs with facts.
          Right or wrong the Wests actions of enabling War crimes in the Donbass is a direct consequence of the situation. Russia spent 8 years holding out her hand to resolve the situation only for it to be slapped away by the West. Learn History

        • Pat O’Dea I couldn’t agree more. These so called Marxists are at war with themselves. They can’t quite grasp the fact that Russia has turned into a fascist state where human rights have been disappearing faster than they can blink. Ukraine has not been perfect either but it is improving its human rights and transparency.

        • Don’t you dare… Yeah right, very authoritarian Pat.

          I’d suggest you borrow my copies of Das Capital in which many years ago I was instructed by Wolf Rosenburg. I may not have agreed but he taught us well.

    • Quite right Tom Hunter. The pro-Putin left is ideologically driven with no pragmatism whatsoever. They are also profoundly ignorant about Russia and Ukraine. They would be heading straight for the Lubyanka if they visited Russia.

      • Funny you should mention the Lubyanka Cantab. You might have noticed that you can still get away with some dissent in Russia, not a lot being an authoritarian place. In Ukraine by contrast dissent is definitely not allowed, opposition parties and papers banned. The state security system is 35000 strong, same as the USA with only 10% of the population. I’m sure you can see the irony of supporting that little neoNazi paradise.

        • Might want to throw in the fact Ukraine is rated the most corrupt country in Europe and the NBC documentary about the AZOV Neo Nazi training camps in 2017 as well.

          • Finngrin you are using outdated statistics and currently Russia is many places lower than Ukraine in the corruption stats. The corruption was caused by being an ex Soviet country and the only exceptions to that are the Baltic states.

            • c’mon cantab the ussr carked it 30yrs ago, the ukraine has had the time to develop it’s own corruption…and has shown it’s self very adept at it

        • Nick J try telling my Russian friends that there are still freedoms there. When they can get locked up for calling the ‘special operation’ a war. You have no idea what conditions are really like in Russia because you swallow all the propaganda.

          • “ Russian friends”
            Why would I believe you have any?
            It sounds like you are making stuff up.

            • In Vino Yet again another ad hominem attack. I have friends and colleagues in Moscow, Petersburg and Smolensk. Get a life.

              • OK, I now accept that you have some Russian friends. My attacks on your poor powers of expression are not ad hominem. They are a result of the poor content of your ‘points’.
                Make a clear question, and you may well get an answer.

                • In Vino you are trolling most of the time, accusing other people of puerile arguments yet you do not put up any points of your own. Let’s see some!
                  I asked you about your regard for human rights and how could that equate to Putin’s disregard for them.

          • Try reading what I said again, I make no claim that Russia is not authoritarian. They by comparison to Ukraine actually allow opposition parties. And labeling me pro Russian, I don’t like anybody involved, neo Con Yanks, Russkies or Ukrainian Nazis.

            • Nick J you mean virtual opposition parties? There are no actual opposition parties in the Duma and any claim to the contrary is just sophistry. Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party is hardly opposition. Neither is the Communist Party. Ukraine has opposition parties but being in a state of war – and martial law – has banned The Opposition Platform the pro-Russian party of Medvedchuk. There are at least six genuine opposition parties in the Rada so I would advise you to revise your comments Nick J.

    • most of the western so-called ‘tankies’ quit in disgust after hungary, the remainder (certain french philosophers included) followed after the prague spring

  12. Try reading what I said again, I make no claim that Russia is not authoritarian. They by comparison to Ukraine actually allow opposition parties. And labeling me pro Russian, I don’t like anybody involved, neo Con Yanks, Russkies or Ukrainian Nazis.

    • Cantab, your logic is failing you. Who really knows if the still existing Communist party opposition in the Duma is “virtual”. I’d suggest unlikely.
      What is not “virtual” is Zhelenskys ban on political opposition. Try again.

      • Nick J I can’t debate with anyone who ignores facts. Look at the composition of the Rada and do some research instead of relying on Russian propaganda. Tymoshchenko’s Batkivshchyna Party is definitely in opposition. Poroshenko’s party European Solidarity is also in opposition. Zyganov leader of the Russian Communist Party supported the invasion of Ukraine. Is that opposition? Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. Nick J do your homework!

Comments are closed.