On Future of War in Ukraine

 

Too many people recently claimed that Ukraine is losing the war and has no chance of winning. Some even said they had to make peace while they still have a country left.

All that could not be further from truth. Back in 2022 everyone expected the war will be over in 3 days or so. 3 years on and we are still fighting.

This reminds me of a similar war a while back, 7 Years War. Back then each member of the quadruple alliance significantly outnumbered Prussia and expected the war will be over in half year time maximum. War lasted much longer than that, Prussia and Frederic the Great persevered and managed to survive despite losing even losing its capital to occupation once. In the end Prussia retained all its land and invaders lost most of their armies and significantly damaged their economies. In France it even resulted in revolution. Later Prussia went on to unite Germany and became great power in its own right.

Ukraine is much better position that Frederic the Great was back then. Russia cannot significantly threated Ukraine in any way. The only thing Russia can do is to make snail-pace advances on the fringes of Donbas, losing tens of thousands of troops per each small town in its war. If that continues Russia will simply run out of troops long before it reaches Kyiv. Even if Russia can send the entire North Korean military to fight this war for them, that will still not be enough to win. What else Russia can tap into, Chinese? 

I personally doubt that even entire Chinese army could move the front line all the way to Kyiv. As I outlined in my other article, the further north one advances in Ukraine, the stiffer resistance gets. If Russia struggles to advance through indifferent to Russia friendly parts of Ukraine, then what is going to happen when they reach patriotic areas where civilians will oppose them like they did in Chernihiv.

Some might that Russia has nukes and can use them. Even if these nukes are not dysfunctional due to corruption but actually operational, there is no way Russia will use them. Russia does not want to suffer international consequences, and it will look weak if they cannot win without use of nukes. Aside from that, the plant that produced Soviet ICBMs is located in Ukraine and Ukraine can use it to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

Finally, after the end of WWII, Ukraine's Insurgent Army fought for decade without any support from anyone. Now that they have a country and decent defense industry that produces many weapons, they simply cannot be destroyed.

This war will not destroy Ukraine, it will destroy Russia and its motley crew of allies they still have across the corners of the world. Assad in Syria is already finished. North Korea and Iranian Revolutionary Guards are next. Ukrainian meatgrinder can process them all into corpses without many issues.

Finally on America. Fundamentally what Trump says or does matters surprisingly little. Ukraine can continue its fight without many problems even if he cuts the assistance completely. Europe sent majority of weapons to Ukraine, and they fully intend to continue this assistance. Turkey will continue to supply Bayraktars. Ukraine's own weapons manufacturing can supply the ZSU with most weapons with exception of smart missiles and drones.

Ukraine is much stronger that people willing give it credit for. In future we will see greater Ukraine stretching from Carpathians all the way to Ural Mountains. 

On the other hand, Russia refuses to heed wakeup call that it is no longer a superpower, but a sick old man of Europe. Back in 18th century Russia taught that to Ottomans, who back then still saw themselves a superpower who could dictate the world its will via ultimatums. I guess now Ukraine has to explain to Russia what it means to not be a superpower anymore.

Lifecycle of Nations and Countries (Expanded and Improved)

In one of my previous articles, I mentioned how Russia 200 years ago was like the US nowadays and how modern Russia is like Ottoman Empire was 200 years ago. I think this concept can be broadly applied to any country or a nation. Countries are born, grow, become mature, reach apex, the gradually age and eventually die, just like people and other creatures are. 

Country's lifecycle is of course much larger than that of a human, but it can still be measured in years, country years. There is a concept of dog age where each year of dog's life is equated with 5 years of human life. Dogs live 13 to 18 years, about right compared to humans' 60 to 90. For a country a 10 to 8 years of country life is equivalent of one year of human life. Countries last between 700 and 900 years. Some die earlier, but that is akin to human premature death from accident or a disease. However, no nation could continuously exist longer than that without major transformation.

Some might disagree and say that many nations count many thousand years as their history. To that I can argue that during such a long period of time these nations always experienced several major events that dramatically reshaped them. Such events are akin to a death of a previous nation and birth of its successor. Thus, in human term new iteration of a nation can be seen as a son of the previous one or another type of successor.

For example, modern Republic of Turkey in a young nation that just about to reach its teens. Yes, it is a successor and descendant of Ottoman State, but it is very different country. Mustafa Kemal founded a different nation in Ankara when Ottoman State and its Sultan and Caliph still existed and then fought a war against it until he won and expel the Sultan, ending the Ottoman State, like a child, whose birth kills its mother. Mustafa Kemal envisioned his Turkey as a different kind of country compared to the Ottoman State. United by Turkish nationalism and westernization instead of Islam and tradition, it had different government, army, culture, even language. Pretty much everything was new and different.

Similarly say England can be seen as having 3 different iterations. I would not call formation of UK to be such events as a lot of government was carried from the England. Instead, I would call End of War of the Roses as birth of modern English nation. War of the Roses killed off the entire original Royal family, leaving succession in the hands of relatively distant Henry Tudor who would not be even considered eligible at all under Plantagenet era rules. Norman-Plantagenet England can be considered father of modern England, but it was a very different kind of country compared to Tudor England. In contrast certain Tudor practices and tradition can still be seen in England nowadays. For example, Parliament became institutionalized as a deliberate assembly only during Tudor times. One can trace its history further back to Magna Carta and beyond, but back then it was only occasional irregular gathering of various people King wishes to consult on issues. Idea that such meeting has to be formalized, held regularly and used to govern came later, it emerged from Tudor reign. Similarly, a Saxon England can be seen as grandfather of modern England as it too was vastly different from Norman England that replaced it.

How country's life unfolds over the ages

Life of a country can be compared to that of a human. Country goes through the same stages of life. First 100 years can be considered formative years that are akin to childhood. Country mostly builds itself internally, creates and shapes key institutions, stabilizes borders, creates a sense of national identity as well as understanding of itself and its place in the world, national myth. 

I would be inclined to count chaotic times as part of country's early lifespan. People are born naked and screaming after all. So, in couple of decades or so time when it all stabilizes country is about 2 years old baby in human age.

That is followed by a teen year, where country tries to assert itself and claim its place in the world. That is often chaotic phase of change and going back and forth on different issues.

That in turn followed by young adulthood where country knows what it is doing and moves ahead to claim its place in the world.

Country reaches its peak power around 250 years in, 25 years old in human age. Country it is at max power and full of youthful energy. For sportsmen 25 to 35 years is peak of their ability. After that they are not as good as they used to be, it is the same for countries.

Next 100 years can be seen as a golden age of sorts where country enjoys fruits of its labors and revel in their glory.

That followed by a mid-life crisis where a coup or revolution changes the country from within. 350 in country age and 35 in human age.

Eventually a more sober and wise but also often aging and wary country emerges afterwards. They likely lost some land and power but are not completely helpless yet.

That period of gradual decline lasts for another 100 or 150 years, before country gets truly old and frail. Afterwards their continued existence is often dependent on some other nation's interest to preserve them for their own interests. While some countries can live longer, most live about as long as medieval Kings, 50 to 60 years old.

Sure, many humans live longer, some countries too, but geopolitics is dangerous world, and few nations could live in defenseless retirement solely on good will of its neighbors.

For example, Russia, that emerged out of Time of Troubles and Ivan the Terrible reign, had relatively calm and peaceful most of 17th century. The newborn country tried to understand itself and its place in the world. Few stable Tsars who ruled long time and stayed out of trouble.

That followed by a rule of energetic and maximalist eternal teen Peter I who energetically tried to shape the country into global empire with upsets mixed with victories. He was followed by a series of coups and incompetent rulers who nearly run country into the ground due to their lack of any idea of what they are doing. Despite that they did what they did with vigor and energy of youth.

Finally at around Catherine II time Russia emerged from turbulent teens and finally got to build that empire that Peter I envisioned. Just in 50 years' time Russia was defeater of Napoleon and pre-eminent power.

Times between 1814 and 1914 can be seen as Russian 19th century golden age.

That was followed by midlife crisis of October Revolution and subsequent communist phase.

Finally modern Russia is more than 100 years past revolution and is close 50 years old in human terms.

Since Russia is yet to live its terminal ages, I will switch to Ottomans instead. After their defeat in second Battle of Vienna and the Great Turkish war. Ottomans managed to live whole 219 years of declining ages. 

In 18th century their defeats were 50/50 mixed with victories. They were no longer invincible but were not defenseless either. They fought their wars themselves, won some of them, lost others, but could not be destroyed completely. They could not advance as far as they wished but Danube proved a good enough defensive barrier to stop their enemies, but Ottomans could not advance north of the river either.

In 19th century they however could not hold out on their own and only survived another 100 years because UK had vested interest in keeping them alive.

Ottoman state in turn begun its existence in 1300s. Once again for the first 100 years it did not do much as these were its formative years where it features took shape and developed. In 1400s Ottomans begun its expansion, by mid 1400s it made splashes by taking Constantinople and ending Byzantine Empire. A series of wars with Christians during this century were as turbulent as teen ages. These times however saw Ottomans grow into a superpower. By the time of first siege of Vienna in mid 1500s Ottomans reached its peak power. Again 25 years old in human terms.

That was followed by 100 to 150 years of Ottoman supremacy that ended with second siege of Vienna and subsequent loss in Great Turkish war. The following 18th century, as I outlined before, was time of mixed results and overall decline.

These are just examples. I can write similar stories for other countries out there as well. In general, I think this metaphorical way of looking at countries by comparing their lifespan to that of humans can give one a good insight into nature of nations and patterns of history. That will allow one to predict future and better understand reality and history. I hope more will see wisdom of my approach to countries and history. 

War between US and China is Battle of Elephant and a Whale

Among all the talk about War in Ukraine there are occasional talk that Trump and US want to focus on China and leave Europe to its own defenses. However, a prolong war between US and China is rather unlikely due to geographic reasons.

Back in 19th century UK used to describe potential war between themselves and Russia as impossible as Battle between Elephant and a Whale. UK was a preeminent Naval power; all parts of its global empire were connected to each other by sea. In contrast all Russian possessions were directly adjusted to it by land. British Navy vastly outnumbered Russian one, making any Naval war on sea a foregone conclusion for UK. On the other hand, a prolonged battle deep inland would likely go in Russian favor due to lack of Naval support for UK.

Due to these facts' direct confrontation between UK and Russia. In Crimean war UK with the help of France and Italy narrowly prevailed over Russia. However, these areas were close to sea and allowed Navy to help. Russia once came close to British India, but UK checked it by pushing Afghan borders further north and creating a buffer between British India and Russian Central Asia. Afghan panhandle exist precisely to prevent direct border between two.

A war between US and China can similarly be described as battle between Elephant and Whale. US Navy and Air Force vastly outnumber the Chinese one. It has better equipment and tech as well. There is no way China can defeat the US on sea or close to it. 

On the other hand, Chinese land army is much larger than American one. Thus, a lengthy pivot inland would near equally be impossible for the US.

These facts leave buy few areas where a confrontation between US and China will not swiftly settle in ones or the other's favor.

History of wars between America and China confirms that. In Korea the US could hold out to southern part of peninsula due to it being less mountainous and forested and therefore more open for Airforce as well as Army's heavy equipment. China won the north because woods and mountains make both Airforce and tanks near useless. War in such areas are therefore decided with sheer numbers of infantry, something US could never have more than China. Same situation led to the US eventual defeat in Vietnam. US could reasonably hold to cities and build up areas but Jungle was full of Viet Cong and there was nothing the US could do about them. 

On the other hand, China avoids attacking Taiwan precisely because straight between it and mainland is wide enough for the US to destroy and sink anything they could try to ship across. South Korea is still out of reach of Beijing and there is no real question about Japan either as they are literal islands.

There are but few placed where confrontation between China and US is theoretically possible. For example, China could try taking north Thailand, but they will not be able to take Bangkok or the south. South Thailand is surrounded by water from both sides.

Thus, American pivot to Asia could be a false alarm. Considering that Russia and China are close one cannot rule out that Putin's war in Ukraine is actually in Chinese rather than Russian interests. If that is the case, then US needs to help Ukraine to stop China.

However, US should remain vigilant on all sides. One cannot get careless and drop the guard too low in such situations.

Russia's Past and Why It Matters to the US and Europe

In one of my previous articles explained why Russia is now in the same situation as Ottoman Empire was in early 19th century. The only thing that awaits Russia is eventual collapse and split up into a number of nation states.

However, that is Russia's future. Russian past is equally if not more interesting to analyze. That is what Russia was back then in early 19th century when the Ottomans were collapsing. Surprisingly enough 200 years ago Russia was almost a complete inversion of its modern self. It was much like modern day United States. It was not just a similarity in level of power and status on global stage. Internally and psychologically 19th century Russia was a lot more like modern day US then modern-day Russia. 

19th century Russia was if not land of freedom, then land or opportunities at the very least. It was already too late to get a district in Moscow named after oneself, like Le Fort did, but there was still enough wealth to make and opportunities to start new life, particularly in scarcely populated lands of former Crimean Khanate. People actually immigrated into Russia from other countries of the world, particularly Orthodox Christians from Balkans, such as Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs. Modern descendants of these people have long forgotten where they came from, but significant parts of population of Crimea, Odesa, Dnipro and Azov Sea coast (modern de-jure Ukraine) are of Balkan origin, some moved to what is now parts of Russia as well.

There were things to do and build in 19th century Russia. Government and rulers had big plans for the future, build and expanded cities, ports and many more. These plans needed a lot of people to fulfil and so a lot of beautiful cities and towns were built to house them. Odesa alone grew from nothing to second or third largest city in the entire Empire. Migrants together with locals together build 19th century Russia into an economic and trade powerhouse as they build themselves new lives in this new country.

In modern Russia the only thing elites build are mansions for themselves and their families. People do not want to serve elites without getting anything out of it for themselves. From a magnet to immigrants Russia turned into source of emigrants to other countries. Only Central Asians migrate to Russia and only because they have no better options. Even they do not want to stay there and bring money they earn their back to their countries. 

Geopolitically 19th century Russia actually advocated rights for freedom and self-determination for Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and other Balkan people. Russia supported many of their uprisings against Ottoman rule with arms supplies and other things. Russia even used their own troops to fight for these people them. 

Nowadays for example Bulgarian people are still fondly remember Russia for these efforts even if their government acknowledges that modern Russia no longer stands for Bulgarian interests. Modern Russia instead accuses EU and US of supporting protests against Russian authorities in Moscow as well as against pro-Russian authorities in post-Soviet states. 

I wonder if Ottomans claimed back then that Turks, Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks were all part of the same Greater Turkish identity, and their languages are dialects of Turkish just like Russia does nowadays about Ukraine. You can hear such opinions from modern Turkish nationalists. However, Ottomans did insist that these people do not have right for self-determination or right to secede from Ottoman Empire, just like Russia says nowadays about Ukraine.

Russian aims for Balkans were not completely altruistic either. There were economic reasons for all these wars with Ottomans too. In 18th century Ottomans had effective monopoly on sea shipping in Black Sea due to controlling every single port on the coast. Russia wanted a port of its own to avoid selling good to Turks for cheap who would later sell them in Europe and make 10 times profits. Ultimately Russia wanted to own Constantinople and have direct access to Mediterranean Sea. 

Modern Russia buys Natural Gas from Turkmenistan and other Central Asians for $50 and resells it in Europe for $399+ and they put up with it because Russia controls the only pipelines from Central Asia to Europe.

Why it Matters to the US and Europe

Just as much as Russia can clearly see its future in the Ottoman Empire's past, the US can see theirs in Russian past. Unlike Russia the US will not collapse and disappear in less than 100 years' time, that will only happen in 300 years' time. Until that time there is still a lot of things that is going to happen to America and Americans, both good, bad and in between. It is wise to be prepared for these events, perhaps try to change something.

Parallels between modern US and Russia 200 years ago are also staggering. For example, Jan 6 Capitol riots are similar to Decembrist Revolt during Nicolas I ascension to the throne (not to be confused with Nicolas II), both happened due to succession dispute/issues. Nicolas I just like Trump were seen as more authoritarian and selfish compared to their predecessors. Just like Donald Trump, Nicolas I liked to complain that Europeans do not treat Russia fairly. During reign of Nicolas I predecessor, Russia became pre-eminent power in Europe after defeating Napoleon and marching all the way to Paris to ensure French Revolution is crushed. (Emperors at average reign longer than presidential term, so several US presidents have to be equated with one Emperor.) The US became sole superpower after they defeated USSR in Cold War to ensure end of global communism. After defeat of Napoleon Russia maintained a so-called Holy League, military alliance with friendly European powers. The US does similar thing with NATO. Holy League eventually dissolved due to disagreement over the Ottoman question between Russia it European Allies. NATO is now in jeopardy due to disagreement over Russian question. List can continue.

Knowing all that we can easily predict another century or so of US enjoying its superpower status with occasional hiccups and upsets here and there. There will be lots of reflections on American specialness and greatness. A lot will be spent on vanity and self-aggrandizement, but also a lot will be spent on fulfilling American mission in the world as elites understand it. 

Just like 19th century Russia saw itself at protector of Orthodox Christians, Americans will define themselves as defenders of something, right now there are several options: leader of free world, nation under god, defender of capitalism. Possibly some sort of fusion of these will be created.

Somewhere mid-century a need for a reform will become apparent and attempts at it will be made. Mild economic grows will continue throughout the 21st century but will likely stop in 22nd century. Next century will likely see some sort of American Revolution that will bring changes to governance and society. The revolution will likely be followed by an attempt to spread it globally, possibly but not necessary by force of arms. Some new rising superpowers will emerge then.

Recent changes to American approach to Russia and Europe do look shocking but if you look at it from this article perspective, they will become not only possible but even predictable. In 19th century Russia has evolved from a protector of Europe from Napoleon's autocracy, into a backward ultra-conservative autocracy. The US appears to follow the same path. The US might want to rethink this path as it hardly allowed Russia to achieve much. Europe on the other hand might want to build its own independent military capabilities to stop being hostage to American whims.

Reasons for Divisions in Ukraine

Ukraine has a peculiar division between its people that stems from different history of different parts of what is nowadays de-jure Ukraine. The root cause of that was a policy similar to Plantation of Ulster, that was practiced by Russian empire and later USSR.

I will begin with a little background on what Plantation of Ulster was. Back during Stuart dynasty reign in what is now UK there was a significant population transfer from England and Scotland to the Ulster province of Ireland. The idea was to replace local Irish people with settlers because rulers at the time saw Irish as undesirable and wanted population that is more loyal to the crown and to their landlords. 

Many locals were dispossessed of their land and displaced, native chiefs had to flee to Europe. Some natives were likely killed and were driven to extinction due to loss of their land to settlers. Those who survive would not simply forgive this offence against their people. There were several uprisings in Ireland against British rule and against plantations, but they were crushed by the crown.

In UK itself Stuarts' reigns eventually ended after the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. Ulster Plantation policy was abandoned and eventually forgotten. New UK had more important things to care about.

However, consequences of this policy continue to haunt Northern Ireland ever since. Descendants of settlers from Great Britain did not integrate with the rest of Irish society but formed their own Protestant community. Native Irish did not accept them either. Thus, mutual animosity ensured. This animosity continues to this day and each community would rather destroy the entire country than accept someone from the opposite camp as the leader.

Overtime reasons for this animosity were forgotten and were replaced with a more simple and modern monikers. Protestant vs Catholic or even Nationalist vs Unionist. Subconsciously however each side remembers past grievances and refuses to forgive, forget and move on. 

It would be naive to simply dismiss Northern Ireland dispute as some silly absurdity like Jonathan Swift did in his books. Both sides cling to a group tribalism and subconsciously want to eliminate the other group even if they do not consciously remember what makes them so different or hated. Settlers will always be outsiders who took their land from locals, so instinctively Nationalist want to drive settlers out. In contrast Unionists want to complete The Plantation and drive all natives extinct so secure their community and their place on this land. Both sides see the other side as a threat and will not rest until they are gone.

Even when modern UK long gave up on Ireland. Absolute majority do not understand Northern Ireland at all, and phrase Northern Ireland problem became figure of speech for an unsolvable absurd problem. Needless to say, most Brits want nothing to do with Ireland. Ulster Unionists however cling to their ties with UK like their lives depend on it. After all these years they still expect the Empire that planted them in Ireland to protect them from the natives they displaced to make plantation happen.

Ukraine and many other parts of former USSR and Russian Empire were subject of Russian plantations. There was no formal policy to that end (unless its classified), but many agree that Russian and Soviet actions do amount to this. 

Just as with Ulster, Russian Emperors and Soviet leaders wanted to replace disloyal and hostile locals with loyal, pliant and agreeable people from Russia proper. Defining feature here became language, locals all had their native languages they communicated with each other. In contrast setters could only speak Russian.

Just like Unionists in Ulster, Russophones across the Empire ended up forming their own closed monolingual communities and developing mutual animosity with locals. The same dynamics as in Ulster pit two communities against each other. Mutual distrust and hatred over past grievances remains.  Ukrainophones want to defend their land from settlers and settlers want to completely displace and eliminate natives.

Unlike Ulster, only some have forgotten the original reasons for their animosity. For example, in Latvia where most Russophone settlers have settled only during the Soviet times. Most still remember how it happens and thus settlers openly identify as Russians and see Russia as their protector against locals were sent to displace, dilute and eliminate.

In Ukraine most settlers settled during 19th century and after many generations settlers have forgotten where they originally came from and started to believe they are Ukrainians. USSR only encouraged them to think this way, believing this way of thinking would allow them to convert natives to their mentality. 

Khruschev even gave Crimea to Ukraine to further strengthen settlers in relation to natives. The aim was that Crimea/Donbas/Kharkiv block ensure settlers domination over the natives in politics.

Despite identifying as Ukrainian, settlers understanding of what a Ukrainian is however is vastly different from that of the natives. For example, natives see Ukrainian language as core of their culture and identity, settlers on the other hand see Ukrainian language as an outdated dialect of Russian language that uneducated provincials speak. Natives see people like Stepan Bandera and Ivan Mazepa as heroes who fought for Ukraine's interests and freedom. Settlers see one as traitor and the other Nazi collaborator instead. The list goes on.

When Russian Empire and USSR were still strong, settlers enjoyed government support, protection and privileged treatment compared to natives. Natives were forced to learn Russian as second language. Government encouraged natives to abandon their native languages and identities in favor or Russian one and assimilate with settlers and greater Russian and later Soviet identity and culture. While some did take the offer of assimilation, at large native languages, cultures and traditions did persevere.

That changed when USSR started to collapse. Natives saw it as an opportunity to seize power in their countries and turn tables on the settlers. Settlers, fearing natives, cling to Soviet power and became one of the fiercest defenders of the August coup and preservation of USSR. 

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia saw clashes between natives who took control of the countries and the settlers who supported USSR. Natives formed People's Fronts and settlers Interfronts. Coup failed and natives managed to entrench themselves. Their new policies now aim to either assimilate or push out Russophones from their countries. Russophones resist these policies, protest and accuse native government of discrimination. 

In Moldova, settlers created breakaway Transnistria to retain some power as natives took control in Chisinau. Transnistria continues Soviet era policies to maintain settlers' rule over natives, much how original Unionist Northern Ireland self-government did until The Troubles.

Compared to Baltics and Moldova, Ukraine was somewhat slow to arrive at the same divisions. Reasons for that is that in border regions between natives and settlers' strongholds there are enough people who could understand both sides and somewhat bridge the gap between them. Kuchma, who was president between 1994 and 2004 was one such person whom both natives and settlers could if not like then at least accept and tolerate.

However, Kuchmism could not address fundamental differences between sides, only postpone the conflict. After years of compromises under President Kuchma, who more or less understood where each side is coming from and could balance out their interests, the division came to a fore with 2004 presidential election contest between Yushchenko and Yanukovych. Yushchenko represented locals, Yanukovych settlers. 

In the end each get to rule one after another. Both were utterly hated by the opposing camp. Russophones mostly from Crimea/Donbas/Kharkiv block spew hatred at Yushchenko and "oranges" who supported him, already then calling them Nazis for simply wanting to promote Ukrainian language and culture. 

In the end Russophones managed to block most of Yushchenko initiatives and interfered in his presidency to prevent him achieving much during his tenue. One year out of Yushchenko's 5 years of presidency Yanukovych was prime minister because Russophones bribed one small party to defect from Yushchenko supporters to Yanukovych.

Yanukovych tenue as president was not any better with hatred how came from wide area between Galicia and Poltava. Disputes over language, history, Russian military bases, history, NATO and EU were rife his whole term. Protests were frequent and ever stronger and stronger. Yanukovych's agreement with Putin and Russia on culture, history and most other issues make him a Kremlin puppet and a colonial governor from Moscow instead of Ukrainian president in the eyes of the natives. 

Eventually these issues led to Euromaidan revolution. Natives overthrew Yanukovych, Russophones protested. It could have evolved into a civil war, but Russophones are more of armchair warriors than actual insurgents. Instead, Russia interfered on behalf of the settlers. Russian special forces took over some Ukrainian oblasts and failed to do so in others. All that evolved in annexation of Crimea and 2014 War in Donbas. 

Russia created DNR and LNR and tried to make them into nations for Ukrainian Russophones that would be able to fight Ukraine on their own. That failed and Russia decided to invade Ukraine directly with its own army.

Here I need to mention that Russia does not play a neutral role, willing to negotiate fair peace between sides, like UK did during The Troubles. Instead, Russia actively aids settlers and want to make sure they end up dominant group in Ukraine. Russia uses settlers' rhetoric and calls natives Nazis for simply using Ukrainian language. Ultimately, they want to install settler president/dictator and turn Ukraine into a second Belarus, where natives are suppressed and treated as second class citizens and even using nominally official Belarussian language in public can get one arrested. Realizing that would be their fate if they surrender, Ukrainians continue to fight Russia.

Nonetheless unlike Ireland, Ukraine is not an island, and borders can be re-drawn so that settlers' majority areas are given to Russia and native's rule in Ukraine is not disputed any further. Ukrainian people deserve their own country, they should not just go extinct like Scythians or Hittites, or how Belarussians soon might be. Natives won the war and stopped Russia just like Finns did in 1940. 

Last but not least, natives are pro-western, and their country will make a good partner for the US and EU. EU will be much stronger with Ukraine in its ranks. In contrast settlers would like to install another corrupt "second last dictator of Europe" similar to Lukashenka in Belarus, who would violate international order and deliberately ship fake refugees to European borders. One Lukashenka in Belarus already created enough problem for Europe so creation of a second one should be opposed with military strength.

On Ukraine's Capacity to Wage War and Casualties

 

Different people who support "ending war as soon as possible" often claim that Ukraine cannot win the war, and that Russia has some fabled capacity to win. 

That could not be further from truth. Currently Ukraine can easily destroy most of Russian equipment with a $500 Amazon drone with explosives attached by a duct tape. The only way Russia has to combat this is to keep sending tanks until Ukraine will run out of either drones or duct tape.

True that Ukraine cannot advance through the multiple lines of dug-in Russian defenses. However, Russia equally cannot advance an inch into Ukrainian held territory. It's a WWI style stalemate.

Because of that any talk that Russia can demand any concessions (beyond current line of control) from Ukraine or the West in exchange for peace are ridiculous. NATO can accept Ukraine into its ranks tomorrow and there is nothing Kremlin's dwarf can do about it but to posture menacingly.

There could be land swaps, for example Kharkiv for southern Belarus, but nothing should be given to Russia for free and Ukraine should receive reparations from Russia for damage they caused.

It is also hypocritical to blame Ukraine for casualties of war. It is Russian generals who deliberately send soldiers to certain death, not Ukrainian ones. Russia has lost at least twice as many men compare to Ukraine. Body count clearly shows whose military is better at fighting. 

Ukraine should hold the elections only after all peace talks settled. Putin wants elections in Ukraine in hope that he can create more chaos and squeeze more concessions from inexperienced team, appointed by next president. Alternatively, he might claim that elections are illegitimate if Zelensky or any other candidate he does not like will win. We should not allow him to do that.

Any talk about changing constitution or any other interference in Ukraine's affairs are out of the question as well.

Ukraine Should be Compensated for Lost Territories in the South with Land from Belarus.

 

In my previous articles I said that Ukrainian borders are poorly drawn and impede its functioning as independent state. Because of that transfer of southern Ukrainian territories to Russia could be a good thing as residents there do not like Ukraine and prefer being part of Russia or a refugee status in Europe.

However that leaves Ukraine with a lot of territorial losses, which is unfair. However, if not returning land, then how Ukraine can be compensated for the losses in the south.

The answer is either a monetary compensation or a land transfer elsewhere. It can be combination of both too. I do not think Putin is ready for Versalles style reparations to Ukraine for a land he has taken, however payments from Russia to Ukraine are more than appropriate.

The other issue is lands elsewhere. Instead of land in the south where people either defected to Russia or fled to safety of Europe, Ukraine can get lands in the north. Ukrainian border with Belarus is particularly poorly drawn. It is too close to Kyiv and other key cities and therefore makes Ukraine vulnerable from attacks from the north. Moving border further north is therefore a very desirable.

There are even historical precedents for such a change. For example, maps from Russian Civil War era regularly show southern Belarus cities as part of Ukraine. Only during the USSR times these lands were given to Belarus instead. Older maps from Kievan Rus also show principality borders of Volyn, Kyiv and Chernihiv principalities to go much further north than current Ukrainian borders are. Even language maps from 19th century show distribution of Ukrainian language much further north that even Civil War era maps.

Many also show Bilhorod oblast of Russia as part of Ukraine as well. Bilhorod and Kharkiv are close geographically and it would make sense for them to be in the same country: either Russia, Ukraine or even their very own independent state. However, this is a separate question.

Benefits of changing Norther Borders are many.

To begin with this solution would allow Russia to claim victory for the lands in the south and at the same time compensate Ukraine with better lands elsewhere.

Moving border further north would make Kyiv and by extension whole Ukraine much more defensible than current borders are.

Belarus is a rouge Russian puppet state ruled by the last dictator of Europe. He hijacks commercial jets and floods Europe with fake refugees. Most would not be said if he and his state will lose land to Ukrainians. In fact, ending Belarus existence is in the interest of most other nations.

People of Belarus protested continued rule of Lukashenka but he suppressed them with riot police violence. Thus even Belarussians themselves would likely be happy to escape brutal Lukashenka rule by becoming part of Ukraine. Many volunteers from Belarus already fight for Ukraine in its war with Russia.

To that end Ukraine can take much more of Belarus land than old maps show. In fact, Ukraine can annex and absorb it completely or split it with Russia. Poland and Lithuania can get some pieces too. That way everyone will be happy.

All in all it is a clever and creative solution to the problem that will leave many people happier than many other alternatives. It should be seriously considered and implemented.

Diversity of War in Ukraine

Ukraine is such a diverse country that pretty much every claim made about war in Ukraine is true, including all contradictory ones. In one city people prepare for a fight to the death and in other welcome occupiers as liberators. You just need to find the exact region where each happened.

I recently watched several documentaries about actual course of war in Ukraine in different regions. The most impressive ones were about Chernihiv and Sumy regions. There Ukraine managed a resounding victory despite being severely outnumbered. 2 thousand regular Ukrainian troops repealed Russian 30 thousand in just 40 days and with heavy losses for Russian side. Lots of destroyed Russian tanks and even more destroyed Russian supply trucks. 

Ukrainian police, territorial defense units and even regular citizens all mobilized and contributed to war effort. It was not that Russia did not fight. Russia fought, but defenders made their very presence untenable. Russians expected to an easy cakewalk but got a grueling war of attrition where every local citizen was their enemy and a source of danger. Ukrainian unity in face of the aggression was unparallel. They decisively repealed Russian invasion.

However, such valiancy is far from universal. For example, in Kharkiv, some citizens helped Russians instead. That did not lead towards ultimate Russian victory, but Ukrainian armed forces had to bring a lot more troops to ultimately repel them, and it took much longer. In the south war is clearly not a people's effort, but a clash between armed forces. It was ultimately won with skill of Ukrainian commanders who made use of Russian command mistake when they noticed it.

Similar situation was in Kherson, but at least there was no help for Russians from local citizens. People either fled to safety or watched from sidelines.

Things were even worse in Crimean Peninsula in 2014, where public welcomed Russian occupiers as liberators and half of the armed forces downright deserted to Russians. That was not because they feared Russia or were unprepared, they genuinely see themselves as Russians, most of them do. There are Crimean Tatars who do not and do not like being part of Russia but on peninsula they are ethnic minority.

To end with something positive for Ukraine. Picture of war would not be complete without Lviv, city very far from Russian borders or any threat of an invasion, but more than willing to fight for the whole nation if needed. Residents turned the city into literal fortress, sandbagged everything and prepared to fight to the last man and even die for their freedom and country if needed. Back after WWII they continued their fight for independent Ukraine way into 50s and USSR had harder time defeating them then marching to Berlin.

Despite this diversity, no matter who you ask, they will think that the rest of the country is just like them. Most are either unaware that people different from them even exist or severely downplay their numbers or influence. 

Now that brave citizens valiantly repelled Russians in the north and vile traitors defected to occupiers in the south, we finally reached the final stage of war: battle for the no man's land. Land, where people refused to take either side and instead simply fled the country to safety of either Europe or Russia.

There are many refugees from Ukraine, but most of them are from that middle belt (pale on map) that trusts neither Kyiv nor Moscow and definitely not willing to risk their lives for either of them. They fled and not it's up to the soldiers to decide who is going to keep the land.

In exile these refugees influence public opinion of those they talk to a lot more than those who stayed behind and fought. 

As I write this, soldiers from Lviv on Ukrainian side and soldiers from North Korea on Russian side fight to decide who is going to keep it. Residents themselves have long obtained EU and other Western countries refugee travel documents and likely do not want to go back.

See the map for details.

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, current zones of control on the ground are not perfect but they much better represent real boundaries between different people and mentalities. Those who live in the south are fundamentally not the same people as those who live in the north. Those who fled are different kind of people as well. Now we have a chance that they all will find themselves in different countries and stop interfering with each other's lives.

How to Explain Putin Using Simpsons Characters

 

People in the West tend to wonder too much over what kind of person Putin is. Some think he is insane Hitler incarnate and near literal devil. Others see him as ultra strong macho type, near Arnold Schwarzenegger or Steve Irvin. Even professional analysts seem unable to penetrate through the thick fog of Russian government lies and often repeat the same old stereotypes. 

Putin depictions too tend to exploit the same themes. For example, Family Guy once depicted Putin in their sitcom as tough shirtless horse-riding macho. Reality could not be further from truth.

However, there is one sitcom that got Putin surprisingly well, despite not actually trying to depict him. The sitcom is Simpsons and the character in question is Monty Burns. 

Month Burns is both old and old-fashioned. These traits sometimes make him do things that make no sense to other characters as well as to viewers. Monty Burns himself however has clear idea what he is trying to do and tend to insist on doing it his way.

Doesn't that remind you of Putin? He insists on opposing liberal democracy and western values, he justifies his war in Ukraine with arguments that make no sense to an average Western person, he likes various plans as much as Mr Burns does, he even has a loyalist (Dmitri Medvedev) who looks somewhat like Smithers without glasses. 

They look alike too, Putin's long nose gets wider close to the end, just like that of Mr Burns, they both are half bald.

Putin is like Mr Burns in more than just superficial things. Putin thinks like Mr Burns and acts like Mr Burns too. 

Putin is a pragmatic villain that breaks any rules he can get away with to get an advantage. His tough guy image is just a facade to mislead people over his true nature. He is not a tough guy; he is smart and shrewd guy who tries to outcon others in a game of politics. 

His strength is his intelligence and knowledge of various inns and outs of various rules. He is like a chess player who sees the board many steps ahead compare to average politician or political analysts. His moves are for the goals that are not apparent at all. 

His aims for his policies and war in Ukraine just as opaque and obscure. He wants a disruption for disruption's sake. Because when everyone is distracted with war, they cannot notice other things that happen in the background. Just like Akagi explained in the second part of episode 9. Putin muddies waters elsewhere while everyone looks at his war in Ukraine. 

Where he muddles waters is everyone's guess. That is what CIA and SIS should look into, what else were happening in the background of the war. 

I have some leads. Housing crisis, refugee crisis, cost of living crisis. All these are not just by-products of Putin's war but are his actual aims. He rocks and damages Western society while everyone else thinks he is focused on war in Ukraine he started.

Why both Left and Right are Bad in Their Own Way

Politics are often described as contest between left and right. On extreme ends both accuse the other one of being near devil incarnate and often they are both right. Certain core members of both left and right are hate able and despicable each in their own way. I will use American left and right as an example. Not all members of either Republicans or Democrats are like that, but at their worst they are as follows.

American Right

American right is hypocritical, dishonest and regularly uses double standards. 

Typical rightist has what they got by inheriting wealth from their parents without any effort or merit on their part. At the same time, they think that people, whose parents are not as rich as theirs, are poor because they are lazy and not because they had not because they had no wealth or skills to inherit. They support measures to cut all government support to them and force them to starve.

Typical rightists support stricter laws and punishments for crime, especially crimes against property. They believe home invaders, rapists and thieves should be punished by death, but at the same time think that killing an invader in self-defense is heroic and should be defended. Clearly some lives worth more than others. Especially those who own property.

Life is precious for rightists, but only until it's born. Killing adults or kids in self-defense if they break into one's property is not a murder, but aborting an undeveloped fetus is.

Rightists want women to first bear and then care for their babes for 18+ years. They will support forced insemination of women if they could come up with a reasonably sound argument for that.

Rightists do not want to pay any taxes to fund the government yet at the same time want law and government to protect their property ostensively for free. 

Rightists claim to be Christian, but all their believes contradict Christianity. Jesus was generous and gave helped the poor, charity is one of heavenly virtues. Typical rightists think poor people are poor due to their own fault and do not deserve any help. Jesus did not respect property rights, broke into a Jewish temple and was later executed for that. Rightists think that property rights are the most important of all rights. Finally, Jesus was Middle Eastern, but rightists hate people from Middle East.

Rightists like to mock and laugh at those who are less fortunate. Terms like "white trash" and such an example of this attitude. They often hate people for their misfortune and will kick a lying person without much remorse.

Fundamentally rightists think they are special privileged class and everyone else exist only to serve them. They should accept second class role and serve the master class without even thinking that such caste system is unfair or desire to be treated equally.

Rightists' views are not only exclusively self-serving, but also narrowminded. They often fail to even understand demographics that are not like their own. That prevents them from expanding their party support base to these groups. Their shortsighted views at taxation and government will lead towards them simply paying protection racket to mafia instead of tax to government if they even keep their property without government protection.

Most right supporters are men. If women do support right, that is more often than not due to racism. For men it is instead level of wealth that determines their support for the right.

American Left

When it comes to left, men and women has to be analyzed separately.

When it comes to leftist women it's all Freudean and Jungian.  

American leftist woman if an emotional creature who thinks with her vagina. All her views are based on her carnal (sexual) desires. Leftie women crave big dick. She believes blacks have bigger dicks than whites, so she hates white people and "supports" black people instead. 

All her views and causes she supports are based on sexual desires. Black Lifes Matter not because blacks are persecuted by the system or what not, but simply because they crave big black dick. The same with any other movement or believe.

Such women typically yell racism, sexism and other such unintelligibly crazy things. They claim to support "socialism", yet they have not even a basic idea what socialism even is. They just heard its anti-racist, so they think it will give them more black dicks.

Lefty women value men based on their heights as well as size of their dicks and muscles. Many would unironically support a social system where these factors alone would determine ones standing and status in society. They would even call it "meritocracy".

Some lefty women also entertain the idea of some form of primitivism or kraterocracy where people fight to death for power and status. They think it will make stronger men with bigger dicks rule society.

When it comes to leftist men, then it's a mix bag of people who have next to nothing in common with each other.

Only some are simps who simply agree with anything a woman say. Out of those some stupidly believe that it will get them laid and others have some unwarranted admiration for female genders.

Most others are genuine supporters of various ideologies that Dems claim to support. Liberals and socialists support left because they think Dems are serious about implementing these ideologies and policies. This group is rather numerous as shows Bernie Sanders primary results. Some of these get disillusioned and split into independent third parties, like Andrew Yang. Other still stick with Dems as a special interest group.

Finally, there are those who have no understanding of Dems true nature and support them due to being poorly informed. The fact that Republicans are not a very welcoming group and scares people off with their antics only adds members to this group.

Independents and Synthesis

Since you cannot possibly like or sympathize with either of these two groups if you are not one of them, then your only choice during the election is to vote for a group you currently hate less than the alternative. 

The one that is hated less will get elected this electoral cycle. In four or so years when public will get tired of their BS, they will vote for an alternative again. The alternative will again stay in power until public is tired of alternative BS and will get the original bastards back in.

In a presidential race, the one who is less typical representative of their group compared to their opponent will always win the race. Barack Obama won against Mitt Romney, because Obama was less of a typical Dem compared to Romney being a typical Rep. Trump won against Hillary because he was less of a typical Rep compared to Hillary being a typical Dem. So on and so on.

That will likely continue until some kind anti-duopoly revolution will get rid of them both. Just to think of something: nobles and king of France got beheaded during French Revolution for being much lesser cunts compare to these two groups. It is truly a mystery they managed to keep it up for this long.

Not left, not right, but Forward, vote Andrew Yang.