GUEST BLOG: Ben Morgan – Annexation, escalation and the fall of Lyman – What next?

By
The Daily Blog
-
121
1922

Next week could be a decisive week in the Ukraine war.  Russia’s bogus referendum finished last week, and on 29 September Putin signed the documents annexing Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Luhansk escalating the war by conferring the status of Russian territory on these areas.   In Moscow, grim faced sycophants watched as Putin lectured them on the annexation. Russia’s elite quiet and lost in thought as their leader blamed the West for Russia’s war in the Ukraine; grim because they know the real story and understand the potential consequences of his actions. Putin’s rhetoric included more nuclear threats and justifications for his war.  He even offered to negotiate a ceasefire based on Russia’s new boundaries. Afterwards there was a concert in Red Square, political theatre designed to scare NATO and to bolster support at home.  

Meanwhile, Russia’s military age men fled the country in huge numbers to escape conscription and Putin’s ‘doubling down’ was met with steely resolve by NATO and largely ignored by Ukraine.  Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg issued a stolid and powerful statement confirming NATO’s continued support for Ukraine.  President Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken reiterated the United States rejection of the annexation and that there was another $ 1.1 billion of support coming for Ukraine including another eighteen HIMARS rocket systems, 150 light-armoured vehicles and 200 trucks.  

Then on 1 October, the Ukrainian’s captured Lyman. A key town essential for Russia’s campaign in the north-east.  Lyman is important because it is a rail hub that has become an important supply base for Russian operations targeting Sloviansk and Kramatorsk the two remaining large cities of Donetsk. After the capture of Lysyschansk and Severodonetsk, the Russians pushed south and west from Lyman towards Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. 

The loss of Lyman is a bitter blow for Russia and created a stir within Russia’s influential community of military commentators. The most prominent of which Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, launched into a social media discourse blaming the Russian general in charge of the defence for the defeat, calling for Russia to use ‘low yield nuclear weapons’ and stating that Russia’s Chief of General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov was complicit in the defeat.  Wagner Group CEO, Evgeniy Prigozhin also joined the conversation publicly agreeing with Kadyrov.  The discussion is important because it highlights the rift between Putin and his military.  Open criticism of senior military officials is unusual in dictatorships, unless sanctioned by the dictator. Behaviour that probably indicates that the failures of the conventional military are elevating the unconventional militaries leaders into a more trusted position in Putin’s inner circle.  

Lyman is a lynchpin of Ukraine’s campaign in the Donbas because it is north and east of the Siverts-Donetsk River meaning that it provides a firm base for Ukrainian forces to advance east to the next major Russian supply base at Kreminna, then either:

- Sponsor Promotion -

 

  • Turn north and advance towards Svatove on the P66 motorway, parallel with the Oskil River disrupting the development of a defensive line on that river and high ground east of it, thereby opening up the opportunity of an advance east across the north of Luhansk Oblast (region); or 
  • Turn south and free Lysyschansk and Severodonetsk, threatening an advance into Donetsk.  

 

Both options are dangerous for Russia. If Ukraine turns north, it is likely to make large territorial gains because the north of Luhansk is relatively open; and between the Oskil River and the Aidar River roughly 60km east of it there is not an easily defensible line that the Russians could use to stop a Ukrainian advance.  Further, we know that Russian forces in this area are weaker and more dispersed so are less likely to be able to defend the area. However, this option is not without risk because it creates a Ukrainian salient that is hard to defend.  This option is a propaganda victory, Ukraine would re-take lots of land but its military value would be relatively limited and the risks of holding it are high. 

If Ukraine turns south, it faces stiffer opposition. Russian forces in the area around Severodonetsk are stronger, the area being the site of considerable campaigning in recent months. However, a drive south towards Poposna and the concentration of Russian forces advancing on Bhakmut could produce another significant defeat that would relieve the pressure on Sloviansk.  

The key point is that within a very short period of time Ukraine has won another important victory.  A victory that creates a dilemma for Russian commanders who must try to predict whether the Ukrainians will push north or south. Russian commanders now need to decide where across their front they put their resources; Do they reinforce Kherson? Or fight for the north of Luhansk? Or prepare to defend near Kreminna? What about the roughly 150 kilometres of frontline that runs parallel with the Black Sea coast between the Dnipro River and Vuhledar? A very important section of front because a successful offensive in this area that reaches the coast will cut the ‘Crimean land bridge’ defeating a key Russian objective.  Meanwhile, Russia’s professional military is hamstrung by political interference and increasing criticism from people like military bloggers, Kadyrov and Prigozhin.  A very difficult situation for any general.  

How can Russia respond?   

Even with an effective and efficient military, mobilisation takes time and getting quality soldiers onto the frontline would take weeks or months. In this case though it is also clear that the Russian army is neither effective nor efficient and mobilisation is failing. Newly mobilised soldiers are being fed straight into the battle in an attempt to slow down the Ukrainian advance, military age men are leaving the country and Russia simply does not have the equipment that it needs for its soldiers.  The key point is that 300,000 or a million barely trained, poorly equipped soldiers are not going to make a difference even if they arrive in Ukraine in time.  

What about nuclear escalation?  

This is likely to become an increasingly used threat because Putin is running out of options.  The mobilisation is not working, Ukraine continues to maintain its offensive operations and NATO support continues.  Putin, will continue to escalate rhetoric but we need to look carefully at whether this is a credible threat.  

Tactical nuclear weapons are small; delivered by bomber aircraft, rockets or even fired from artillery. From a strictly military viewpoint their battlefield usefulness is limited because the Ukrainians are fighting in a dispersed and mobile way that makes targeting troop concentrations difficult. Further, if you use tactical nuclear weapons your soldiers need to be able to fight in a radioactive environment donning protective suits and following detailed procedures to avoid contamination.  The Russians in Ukraine are not functioning effectively in normal conditions, it would be a huge risk to use these weapons and irradiate poorly trained conscripts.  Scores of young men dying in Russian hospitals of radiation sickness will generate more protests.  In summary if used it is more likely that tactical nuclear weapons would be used either as a terror weapon against civilians or against Ukrainian infrastructure. Both options that will cause a massive international response and harden resolve against Russia. In simple terms, the benefits of using tactical nuclear weapons are far outweighed by the likely response so it seems unlikely that they would be deployed.   

Another concern that would weigh on my mind, if I was Putin is the capacity of the Russian military to deliver a nuclear strike.  Tactical nuclear weapons are complicated and require regular technical maintenance. These weapons are not tested regularly, so provide a good opportunity for ‘graft’. Commanders claiming that maintenance is being done then stealing the money or resources allocated for maintenance knowing that their theft is unlikely to be found out.  This war has taught us that the Russian military is beset with endemic corruption and it is highly likely that their nuclear arsenal has the same issues.  What happens if a nuclear strike is ordered and the device fails?  


Strategic nuclear weapons are large weapons that nuclear powers use in a doctrine of deterrence called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).  This doctrine is simple, if one side launches a strike then the other side responds immediately and both sides are devastated.  This is a highly unlikely option especially if Putin’s relationship with the military is deteriorating.  Would the senior military commanders ordered to launch a catastrophic nuclear war follow this command in these circumstances?  It seems unlikely, and from Putin’s perspective even discussing this option with his senior military leadership is risky because the military is an agency of Russian government with the potential to remove a dictator.   Putting a crazy option like this ‘on the table’ with senior military commanders could cause an already strained relationship to fail.  

The fall of Lyman is a clear demonstration that Putin’s plan is collapsing and pushes the campaign closer to a point of decision.  If Putin can escalate, losing Lyman is a potential ‘trigger’ for action so watch carefully this week.  What will Putin do?  Although using nuclear weapons is a possibility, it is unlikely.  So, other more realistic options for escalation will be used.  Putting more soldiers on the frontline is the first priority so expect more forced mobilisation, particularly in the occupied areas and closing borders to stop men leaving Russia.  Another option is more ‘punishment’ attacks on Ukrainian civilians and on the country’s infrastructure using conventional weapons.  Both to terrorise the Ukrainian people and to disrupt the flow of logistics support to the frontline.  And, expect more threats and outlandish activity like the attack on the Nordstream pipeline, the motivation for which is difficult to explain but may become clearer this week.  

It is also likely that we will see an increase in information warfare, not just threats but possibly a campaign justifying the war to Russian audiences or diverting blame for the war from Putin towards the generals.  A public transfer of blame could be significant, indicating that Putin knows his ability to escalate further is exhausted and that he is setting the conditions for negotiation within Russia. So that he can stop the war and divert the blame away from himself.  

In conclusion, the fall of Lyman and the continuing advance of Ukraine’s forces are the start of the end game. Putin’s bluff is being called and he needs to respond.  However, it is increasingly unlikely that he can.  So expect to see a quickly evolving situation and be ready for surprises in coming weeks. 

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

121 COMMENTS

  2. I’ve been watching the map. Yes it looks good for Ukraine around Liman, looks pretty shoddy elsewhere.
    The map is of course much larger. Big win for the US in the Baltic, they have demolished German industry as a competitor for decades and captured a gas market. Bit Pyrrhic maybe, if the industry collapses they won’t be buying. Winter is coming.

  3. Here we go. Putin is becoming unhinged but let’s make it about the US. According to a lot of posters here Russia are going to win regardless so there was no need for Putin to cut off the gas at all. But now let’s all start saying it was all part of a US strategy to sell more gas. I have no idea who has damaged the pipeline but the US were going to sell gas to Europe with the pipeline intact (because Putin decided to cut off supply).

    I thought Putins big stage production the other day looked desperate. It was as stupid as GWB standing on an aircraft carrier claiming “mission accomplished”. But hey he is righteous, he’s saving the world from all those gay people. Yes that makes perfect sense. Tosser.

    • But then again, Wheel, Putin did not go on record last February as saying this:

      “ABC News @ABC – 9:59pm · 7 Feb 2022
      Pres. Biden: “If Russia invades…then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”
      Reporter: “But how will you do that, exactly, since…the project is in Germany’s control?”
      Biden: “I promise you, we will be able to do that.”
      abcn.ws/3B5SScx
      End of quote. If this war works out the way I suspect the USA has calculated, it will be win-win all round for the USA, won’t it?
      Remember that Germany and the European Union are far greater commercial rivals for Uncle Sam’s country than Russia.

    • Putin did NOT cut off the gas.
      You hopefully know that is uttertly misleading and not representative of the facts.
      Nordstream two was stopped from being used PURELY by the Germans. NOT the Russians.
      The Canadians and Germans held onto a supposedly important turbine which meant about 50% of the flow of gas in Nordstream one was not safe/doable.
      You seem to ignore (conveniently) EVERYTHING the west does in this MESS.
      Putin is BAD. BUT the collective west is EVEN WORSE.
      The USA and collective west will fight the Russian to the last Ukrainian and then the economic strength of Europe.
      Putin is BAD !!!! I agree. But that is all you’re saying IMHO that is correct.

      • I am not ignoring anything

        Who halted supplies to Germany through Nordstream 1? I believe it was Gazprom was it not?

        • Many reasons why gas supplies were at first limited, then cut back, then cut back again and then finally stopped.
          EU refusing to pay in Rubles, when they would only pay in dollars which would be immediately confiscated by sanctions agreed and started by the EU.
          Then the trubine (UTTERLY a German and Canadian doing, with pressumably America FORCING them to do so ?). Then Germany and most of Eurpope suggesting NATO/USA use atomic weapons, demanding regime change and NOT allowing Nordstream 2 to open, for PURELY political reasons.
          GasProm were just doing as their Govt told them.
          I’m sure you KNOW all this, but you find it conveninet to act dumb, for some reason?????? Payment?

          • So in your first reply the Germans were to blame ( for NS 2) in conjunction with Canada. Now you are saying the US forced the Germans to do what they did. As Gasprom is majority owned by the state I don’t think I was incorrect in saying Putin shut off the gas. You said it yourself.

            Then you suggest I am being paid?

            By the way none of this would be happening ( including the sanctions) if Putin didn’t decide to invade Ukraine. Yes the west are far from blameless but the bulk of posts on this topic seem to imply the meddling is all from the west and the west alone.

    • What do you mean you don’t know who blew up the pipelines? The answer is staring you right in the face in the comments section of TDB. Comical I know but who are we to question them.

  4. What next? The end of Putin.

    The stoney, unsmiling faces of the audience when he announced to annexation spoke volumes for the popularity of Putin in the elite politburo.

    The forced smiles and the awkward body language of the four representatives from the annexed regions when called up the centre stage with Putin (end Jeez Putin really is a very small man).

    Than the close up of Putin before he goes into the “Russia, Russia” chant. Beady cold eyes looking a the audience with just a hint of anger at the audience cold demeanor and the sly little smile to challenge the said audience to “come and get me” if you are brave enough.

    Russia now has only one option and that is the removal of Putin.

  5. “Ukraine has won another important victory”
    Interesting, Ben’s criteria for Ukrainian victory seems to be similar to the dictator zelensky- getting a bunch of Ukrainians killed.

  6. Russia will consolidate and defend the annexed territories.
    The ball lies in Ukraines(U.S) court as to whether to intensify the conflict now.
    The Ukrainians are dying to preserve U.S hegemony and domination of the European economies.

      • Blazer has a good grasp of reality Cantab. If you disagree give a well reasoned answer, PhD style perhaps.

        • Good grasp of reality? And you have an MA? I am beginning to doubt that. It must have been a long time ago!

          • “I’m better than you, I’ve got a PhD”, said Noddy. “Well whoopy do”, said Nick who went to Uni when they preferred brains to fee paying students.

          • Well your brain has atrophied since you did your degree. What’s more you have no expertise on Russia and Ukraine and it shows. All you can do is regurgitate alt-right sites that have hidden agendas. Colonel McGregor, give me a break! How much money is Putin paying him?

    • well if a US hegemony means living relatively freely as apposed to dictatorial goon squads – bring it on.

  7. Thanks Ben – all good. The only way out for Russia now is to take Putin for a one-way walk in the woods.

    Winston Churchill:
    “Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry.”

  9. Russian lines are collapsing as we speak in the north of Kherson west of the Dnipro River. It is not only Lyman where where the Russians have retreated tens of km’s in the matter of hours. The Russian army are falling apart?

  10. Actually today I signed a paper annexing the Donbas and associated regions and have returned them to the Ukraine. I’m also annexing Siberia but honouring the gas contracts that still exist. Can’t wait for those royalties to come flooding in ( Warning: Roubles will not be accepted)

  11. This all really appears to be spiraling out of control for Russia and particularly Putin which is a big concern especially given that Russia are sitting on the worlds largest stockpile of nuclear weapons – we could really do with the army stepping in to remove him and bring this madness to a close.

    • A bit like how America, who’ve caused more wars and invaded more countries (and killed more innocent people) than the rest of the world put together in the last 60-70 years, would happily just give up THEIR nukes.
      Come on….write something that is at least a debating point during ‘the fog of war’ information control.

  12. “Russia’s bogus referendum” – try telling the 90 or so percent of inhabitants of these regions who voted to join Russia that they are bogus

    • All the pro Zhelensky types here will scream blue murder but you have put your finger on it. This conflict locally was always about ethnicity and the vote reflects it. As did the civil war. The people of the east of the artificial state that was Ukraine have expressed their desire to not be part of that state. The UN Charter allows for that.

      • Nonsense Nick J. You can be a Russian speaker and still support Ukraine. Zelensky himself is a prime example. Why do you Putinists automatically assume that a Russian speaker will support being part of Russia?

        • You can’t be a Russian speaker in the Ukraine without being a second class citizen you neo Nazi tosspot.

          • Nick J as you are alt-right you are the Nazi. I am centre-left and always have been. You have been captured by all the dodgy fake news sites you inhabit. Keep deluding yourself fantasist.

          • I think you are much more likely to be a Nazi, Nick , stands for jerk. I’ll bet you are anti-Semitic for a start and a holocaust denier. Did you write a thesis a la Joel Hayward on holocaust denial then? . I support the Jewish State – Israel. Ukraine elected a Jewish president – how the hell can they be Nazis? Your brain is completely addled Nick J and cut out the abuse eh? Call yourself an educated man/woman?

          • All Russian speakers in Ukraine can speak Ukrainian as well idiot. You really are a moron. I used to have arguments with my Ukrainian supervisor that Russian should be recognised as an official language in Ukraine. Her father was a history professor in Cherkassy. Now I realise why Russian is not recognised – it is the language of the oppressor.

      • You really are so gullible Nick J. McGregor may give the impression that he knows what he is talking about. But he doesn’t. After all he was an advisor to Trump. Says it all really. Ethnicity is not the major driver of this war. It is just an excuse. Minerals, and control of criminal networks are a major factor. Donetsk is a haven for criminals.

    • Plus this recent vote agrees with the vote in about 2014 that the west AGREED was fair and reflective of the peoples choice.

  14. lol Ben you are such a hack you had posted earlier that Russia should shorten their lines to these same positions over a month ago.

    • He was suggesting it as a deliberate tactic, not as a result of losing battles. In which Russia Armed forces abandoned valuable equipment such as modern T 80 tanks.

      There has been an item on YouTube about how many tanks Russia has. Apparently about 8,000, but many of these are 40 year old T72’s and need lots of refurbishment. And will still be 40 years old. Russia has lost about 1,500 tanks so far. So they have lots more tanks, though admittedly older. I also imagine they are building new tanks, though not many and they will have problems sourcing modern computer chips to drive the targeting systems. In short Russia has lost 20% of all their tanks, which is probably 30% of all their newer tanks. Which is a lot in six months.

      It probably indicates that war has a maximum duration of two years or so. Which forecasts serious and realistic peace talks in about a years time.

      Major industrial nations are able to continue major wars for years, unless they are defeated in a blitzkrieg as happened with France in 1940 . A blitzkrieg won’t happen in the Ukrainian war. If it was going to happen, it would have occurred in the first month. So now we have a grinding industrial scale war likely to last another 18 months.

      I still think Russia will be able to hold most of the Donbass and Crimea, and possibly the land bridge. They will lose Kherson. However, the price Russia will pay is that Ukraine is now likely to be permitted to join NATO, in part, as punishment for starting the war.

      So a small amount of new territory. But at a cost of over 300,000 dead (my estimate of total deaths on both sides by end of 2023), Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the likelihood of Ukraine joining NATO, the loss of all frozen money ($600 billion) as reparations, and being frozen out of the West for at least a decade.

      Putin will lose office since his compatriots in the leadership will think that the war was an ill-starred venture, with little to show when taking into account all the losses. He will probably have to retire in internal exile to his place on the Black Sea.

  16. Ben, thanks for another clear summary and assessment.

    I’m commenting also by way of fascination at the Russian troll/bot attack on your site. I’m reminded of, I think Bannon’s, statement that the point of trolling is to “flood the zone with shit” so as to prevent facts from being able to be identified. The goal is to produce uncertainty and lack of trust in anything.

    Consequently, I’ve only scanned the comments this time and won’t be reading them in future, as doing so is unproductive, a waste of time. Your articles are valuable and reliable.

  17. When all is said and done, it’s clear that these blog exchanges fit into one of two camps; – those convinced by our media’s reporting of the conflict, and those not convinced by that reporting.
    Freely acknowledging that I fit into the second category, here’s a list of questions, the answers to which reinforce my conviction. And if you can identify any that might persuade me otherwise, add them to the list.
    1. What were the circumstances that first gave rise to this conflict?
    2. What happened?
    3. Who provoked who?
    4. What efforts were made to reconcile their respective differences?
    5. And if any agreement was reached, who first breeched it?
    6. Who fired the first shot?
    7. When did the war start?
    8. What efforts have been made to broker a cease fire?
    9. What evidence is there that your sources of information are reliable?
    10. Are you being presented with all the facts?

    • Good questions Malcolm but most are unanswerable until an official history is written probably fifty years hence. Many answers will be nuanced rather than black or white.
      My answer to number 1 though, would be the formation of the Soviet Union. Eventually the Bolsheviks imposed their rule on an unwilling population particularly in Ukraine where Kyiv changed hands as much as 20 times. The boundaries of the USSR were established assuming that the union would last into perpetuity. When the split occurred many border conflicts broke out. Armenia v. Azerbaijan, Moldova v.Transdniestria, Kazakhstan v. Russia, Kyrgyzstan v. Tajikistan, Georgia v. Abkhazia, Georgia v. South Ossetia and now Russia v. Ukraine. The USSR was a cauldron of ethnic conflicts controlled by repression not consensus. Conflict resolution is not in Russia’s DNA.

    • “…..these blog exchanges fit into one of two camps; – those convinced by our media’s reporting of the conflict, and those not convinced by that reporting.” Malcolm Evans

      There is a third category, Malcolm. Those who have actual personal experience of the evil nature of Russian imperialism.
      I am just as sceptical of mainstream reporting as you.
      If I hadn’t been to Syria and in Gaza in 2010 with the Kia Ora mission, and witnessed the first stirrings of the Arab Spring. I might be sitting where you are, and be just as hopelessly lost.

      I witnessed the brutality and disgusting nature of the Assad regime. I stood behind the people of Syria, many of them Palestinian refugees, when they stood up against that regime at first peacefully only to be mowed down with brutal repression, and then through their own efforts liberated more than 70% of Syria from the Assad dictatorship. Liberating Syria’s largest city Aleppo from the dictators control. Even some of the suburbs of Damascus including the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp were liberated, from right under the nose of the Assad regime.
      Only the intervention of Russia saved the dictator. The genocidal bombing of Aleppo by the Russian air force, which smashed the city to rubble, a repeat of the tactic used against the city of Grozny in the second Chechen war to smash Chechens’ independence from Russia.

      Despite the genocide conducted by the Assad regime and Russia against the Syrian people, the Syrian people have still not been totally crushed, and the enclave of Idlib still remains out of the grip of the dictator and his Russian ally.
      It was this fact that convinced me that the Russian imperialists would never conquer Ukraine either.

      Anyone who supports the Assad regime cannot be a friend of the Palestinian people

      https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/04/10/guest-blog-pat-odea-anyone-who-supports-the-assad-regime-in-syria-cannot-be-a-friend-of-the-palestinian-people/

      Justice for the Palestinians of Tadamon

      • Pat, I’m a life long supporter of the Palestinian cause, simply because I believe in national self determination. This has resulted in me being labelled anti semitic over the years, simply because I call out the hypocrisy of Zionists using one holocaust to justify another. Consequently I’m not going to attempt to justify Russian presence. The only thing I can say is that Russia has been at war with Europe and the West aka US Empire since Soviet days. And as usual it plays out in other nations homes.

        Being pro any big power in the Middle East or Donbass is not useful. The reality is that Syria is engaged in their own ethnic / tribal / religious / economic conflict. Great powers make it worse. Ukraine ditto, it is no different to the former Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. An artificial state that needs to allow national self determination.

        • Your reading of history of Russia/Ukraine is way off. You are just parroting McGregor’s lines. Can’t you think for yourself? That MA was a long time ago – in the dark ages it seems. You need to read Orlando Figes: A History of Russia, Antony Beevor’s book on the Revolution and Civil War and John Sweeney’s ‘Killer in the Kremlin’ all hot off the press. Start thinking for yourself and get away from those alt-right sites.

          • You forgot the apostrophe. So you are actually much closer to being a Nazi than I ever was! I am not anti-Semitic in the slightest.
            You are so myopic and glued to your alt-right sources that you can’t accept alternative points of view.

        • An artificial state is a ridiculous concept of yours. I can argue that every state that has no natural borders is an artificial state. Russia is an artificial state. There are many ethnicities, particularly in the Caucasus, who do not want to be part of Russia. By your rationale the Russian minorities in the Baltic states could call in Putin to take over their countries. Like Hitler’s Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia.Ukrainians have many differences but the vast majority want to stay in Ukraine.

  18. Interestingly official Russian commentators are now saying that Ukraine has broken defence lines and caused a rout in Kherson because the Ukranians have superior tanks. A lot of those tanks are Russian tanks both old stock and recently captured! Another interesting fact is that in a UN vote not one country besides Russia itself has voiced approval of the illegal annexation of the four Ukranian oblasts. Yes some countries including China, India and Brazil abstained. Belarus and Turkey, sometime allies of Putin have not recognised the annexation as legal. This annexation is delusional as parts of all four oblasts were not held at the time of the declared annexation and huge swaths of the claimed territory are being lost daily. Russia is now a pariah state rapidly descending in to becoming a failed state like Iran and North Korea. Nukes won’t save them. Will Putin swallow his pride and withdraw from Ukranian territory to save Russia or will he keep going until deposed or Russia collapses? [Perhaps Putin will try and reek as much destruction as possible before he is taken out but would the military obey a nuke order from him knowing the likely consequences?]

    • Oops a slight correction to my above comment. Russia now has one supported; it is the failed state North Korea. What great company! You know them by the company they keep and the deeds that they do!

  19. Interesting response to the little questionnaire which an authoritative timeline of events, minus the now historic references to Bolshevism, would certainly better resolve. Suffice it to say, for anyone to believe the Ukraine Russia conflict hasn’t been engineered by the United States, in the interests of forestalling the collapse of its global hegemony, is naive. Acknowledging Pat’s feet on-the-ground commitment the plight of the Palestinians, I clicked the link and read the earlier 2017 article but, and as so often is the case, found the comments that followed to be at least as instructive. What a better world we might all live in if the economic sanctions and military might being waged against Russia were brought to bear on Apartheid Israel.

    • You are the one who is naive Malcolm. You refuse to accept alternative points of view save your own.

    • You are just closing your eyes to the evil of Putin as you seem to be closing your eyes to the evils of Bolshevism. But it isn’t real to you – you have no personal involvement. My family was dispossessed by the Bolsheviks and fought against them but you will never have any idea what this means.We can see the evil of Putin and you can’t. That is naivety!

Comments are closed.