Why Russia Will Not Use Nukes

 

After my previous article about emotional nature of Russian reasons to wage war in Ukraine, some may wonder if Russia will go as far as resort to nukes. The answer to that is 99% negative. Putin may bluff about nukes but actually using them is a step too far for him. The reasons are multiple.

While some might argue that he already calls Ukrainians Nazis and now it's only a matter of time before he will start destroying them with all his might. To answer that I want to clarify this "Nazis in Ukraine" ideology. 

Putin does not say that every Ukrainian is a Nazi, far from it, his ideology instead portrays average Ukrainian as a "victim of a Nazi coup". According to Putin's propaganda during Euromaidan a small group of Nazis took power in Kyiv and now rules Ukraine against the will of its people. Based on this first lie, Putin later build his entire "special military operation" as "liberation of Ukrainian people from the Nazis in charge". 

Such benevolent facade allows him to maintain goodwill of Russian public and support for war. However, it also puts constrains on what he can do and use nukes is one of them. If he is trying to help people of Ukraine, why would he nuke them. Why can't them simply remove these few Nazis from power and return power to "legitimate government"? These uncomfortable questions is not something Putin wants to answer to. For him it is much more expedient to throw cannon fodder at problem as that will not require any further explanation.

Another issue the fact that Russian patriots view Ukraine as part of Russia. Thus, using nukes against Russian own territory would be seen as unreasonable destruction of Russia's own land and people. That too would require a lot of justification.

There is also an international outcry to consider. Sure, Russia so far holds against sanctions, but use of nukes likely to make things even worse and for a long time.

If Russia cannot defeat even Ukraine without use of nukes, then it will make Russia look weak, both internally and externally.

Finally, there is the fact that Putin war fundamentally aims to keep people of Russia in carefree slumber about reality around them. In that context nuclear explosion will likely work as a wakeup call to all these hooked up on Putin's propaganda masses. It's no longer fun and games if nuclear option was used. Putin wants to keep population numb, not alert.

Reason Putin calls the war "special military operation" is to downplay its seriousness and severity. There nothing he can do to downplay usage of nuclear weapons. No one will believe in use of "recreational McNukes" by some rich oligarch. In the beginning of the war, Russians did explore the option of somehow use nukes but frame it as if Ukrainians did it and not Russians, but nothing came out of it.

There is still an off chance that Putin manage to come up with some plausible enough narrative that could allow him to use nukes without taking responsibility for it, but that is very unlikely.

One thing for sure is that Putin will not want to be responsible for causing a nuclear disaster. Benefits of victory over Ukraine are not as significant for him as drawbacks from escalating the war and causing nuclear holocaust. 

Fundamentally Russian Objectives in War in Ukraine are Emotional and Not Rational

 

There is a saying in Russia that translated goes something like that:

One cannot understand Russia with their mind

Or measure it in commonly agreed yards

She (Russia) has unique constitution

One can only believe in Russia

Being very calm and rational person, I could not find a single reason to like Russia or live there. I left and do not look back.

However, there are people who actually like Russia, both inside and even outside of its borders. Back in the days I could not understand why anyone would like Russia. Now I think that the more emotional and irrational people are, the more likely they are to like Russia. 

For rational people who think with their mind, Russia is a horrible place to live or be. For emotional person however there are plenty of reasons to love or believe in Russia. They are all dumb and irrational reasons, but reasons, nonetheless. 

For example, Dugin's own "Russia is great, special unique center of Eurasian civilization and culture." brings laugh from rational people who know better but fills an emotional person with pride for their country.

There is another one: "Russia (USSR) saved the world from Nazis and prevented genocide of people of Europe". Truth is that Nazis only planned to genocide Jews and did not plan to exterminate say Hungarians or Ukrainians. There is also the fact that USSR basically enslaved entire Eastern Europe by installing communist governments against their will after the war and exploited them. 

However, just like some "BLM Woke person's feelings do not care for your facts", feelings of die-hard (red) Russian patriot do not care for historical accuracy. They will shout something like "we saved them from genocide, and now they shit in our direction" in enraged stupor and refuse to listen to any arguments to the contrary you will bring them.

That is how emotional Russian majority is like.

Taking the above into consideration, Russian war in Ukraine is not about any rational objectives. No matter how you look at it rationally there is no reason to suffer severe international sanctions and waste countless lives and equipment to conquer and annex several unproductive regions of Ukraine that are constant drain on Kyiv's budget.

That is if you think rationally. For an emotional die-hard patriot however it's not about making sense, it's about "showing 'the West' that Russia is superpower", "liberating Ukraine from Nazis" and other such fictitious things. There are no Nazis in Ukraine, but there is no point of telling that to a die-hard patriot as they will refuse to look at any facts anyway.

A somewhat rational Putin too is victim and hostage of the emotional country he is in charge of. He cannot simply hurt patriots' feelings and tell them the truth. During Yeltsin's times emotional patriots never stopped waving red soviet flags and yell "Yeltsin's gang to prison". Rationally speaking 90s were not bad times, just patriots lost their emotional reasons to be proud of Russia and annoyed everyone ever since. Putin won many of these patriots over to his side with some jingoistic rhetoric and occasional small war.

However, patriots' appetites grew ever stronger and now require even bigger sacrifices to the altar of "Russia's greatness". Before 5 days war over misunderstanding in Georgia could do it. Now a lengthy meatgrinder is needed.

Thus, Russian aims are not something rational but something completely emotional. In 2014 Putin annexed Crimea because it has symbolic meaning to Russian patriots. Much like say Medinah for Muslims, Crimea and Sevastopol are part of WW II cult created by Stalin and communists: "hero city" and "homeport/birthplace of Russian navy". 

Thus, just like in the first war, something symbolic like Crimea or Sevastopol is what Putin wants now. As I outlined in my previous articles, it's likely Sloviansk in Donetsk oblast. Grikin used it as his HQ during the first war and now Putin wants to sell its "liberation" to public as Russian triumph.

At the same time real war aims could be something immaterial altogether, something like Helsinki Accords, a bunch of dubious legal mumbo-jumbos that would say "Russia won" and "commit Ukraine to 'denazify'" without any actual commitment. 

I do not think it would matter for Russia if any of the provisions will be implemented or not. In fact, Putin might even prefer that NATO would eventually violate the treaty. That could give more fuel for pro-Putin propaganda. Patriots want to believe that "George HW Bush promised Gorbachev that NATO will not expand east into former Warsaw Pact, but then Americans reneged on these promises" - in truth Bush did not promise that. Possibly promising that Ukraine will not be in NATO and then taking them in anyway will do for Putin as well. Another tearjerking story about "Western betrayal" of "honest" Russia is something Russian TV thrives on.

On the other hand, any real legal concession to Russia is unacceptable. If they actually want to turn Ukraine into second Belarus, run by a Moscow puppet, then it will endanger lives of 40 million Ukrainians. Russia is purposefully and deliberately unjust and lawless country that gives shelter to tyrants, thieves and murderers and kills honest people like Alexey Navalny or Boris Nemtsov. It's better to die with a gun in hand than in custody of this Evil Empire.

Because of that before "Accord" solution is proposed it should be verified that Russia does not intend to follow through on implementation of these "accords". Finally, they can also write a completely different texts in Russian, Ukrainian and English and conclude that to each side version of their own language is binding.

Generally, I think that signing a fake deal, deliberately intending to violate it, is possibly the most workable solution for the West and Ukraine. Promise to stop aid but actually keep sending weapons. Promise to not place NATO troops but send them as, volunteers or PMC. Promise to not invite Ukraine in NATO but extend coverage of Article 5 to Ukraine. Promise to denazify but use it to ban pro-Russian politicians like Tsarev and symbols like Sickle and Hammer. Let Russia whine.

Differences in Mentality between Natives and Settlers in Ukraine

 

In my other articles about Ukraine and reasons for War in Ukraine I outlined that there are broadly two distinct communities in Ukraine. Ukrainophone natives who lived there before it became part of Russia and Russophone settlers brought in by Russian government. Similar unionists and republicans in Northern Ireland they do not get along with each other. 

However, there are differences too. Northern Irish communities tend to be symmetric about their approach in expressing themselves. If Unionists paint their kerbs in colors of British flag, then Republicans do the same but use Republic of Ireland flag. Both paint large murals on walls praising paramilitaries from their side, fly their flags and so on. All that makes it easy to see the division and where each neighborhood stands on the issue.

In Ukraine communities in conflict are much less symmetric in their approach to this issue. Most forms of expression and actions are unique and peculiar to only one or the other. For example, only natives form and participate in territorial defense units, there are no Russophone equivalents. On the other hand, only Russophone settlers flee the war and become refugees, natives instead volunteer to help war effort. 

There are also no clear visual identifiers as to what community any given person belongs as neither side use flags and other symbols as much as Northern Irish do. If they use any they do not explain that they represent their side but rather claim that it's a universally accepted symbol. 

Because of that one can get skewered idea of the conflict as more often than not one would deal only with representatives on one of the sides. This is why full picture of this situation often eludes foreign observers no matter how much time they spend in the country.

Natives' attitude is somewhat easier to understand for a Western person. They think they are people with completely different language, culture and mentality compared to Russian. They see Russian refusal to acknowledge that as existential threat to their existence.

Because of that, they think they fight war of survival against their long-term adversary, Russia. They believe that Russia wants to destroy their language and culture and either completely assimilate them into Russian people or physically exterminate.

Past history events such as Holodomor and 19th century era bans on Ukrainian language back this point of view. Bucha Massacre, where Russian troops slaughter unarmed civilians, further convince them that Russian plans genocide or at its far not guaranteed they will not kill everyone if they take control of the country. That means this war is war of survival and best chance to stay alive is fight rather than seek peace or surrender.

Because of the above, natives fight with bitter determination. Civilians volunteer to join Territorial Defense Units or otherwise help war effort. Natives say things like "I will never forgive myself if I flee the country in such times". It's now or never for them, if they do nothing now, they will have no country to return to. They have but one country and will have no place to return to if Ukraine falls.

Because of that natives do not flee war; they stay in Ukraine and fight.

It's different for pro-Russian settlers. For them Ukraine is not a country but a territory of Russia. When Putin says that Ukraine is not a country, he repeats talking points of pro-Russian settlers in Ukraine. 

If Ukraine is not a country, then there are no Ukrainians. Pro-Russian settlers think of themselves as Russians with a blue instead of red passport. Most Russians are willing to see them as fellow Russians. Russian government does the same and treats occupied areas as integral parts of Russia.

Because of the above for Russophones there is no country to defend at all. They do not volunteer to defend Ukraine, but they do join Russia forces (unless conscripted) or form their own anti-Ukrainian rebel units, DNR and LNR units were formed and paid by Russia.

Pro-Russian settlers not only do not love Ukraine but often hate it and think that Russia and other countries are much better that that Ukraine. Most of them think it is unfortunate that they stuck in this Ukraine and want out, to Moscow or to the West. That is why when war begun, a lot of them took this opportunity to escape Ukraine, to Russia or to the west.

Since pro-Russian settlers hate Ukraine, they, also hate its culture and everything related to it. They label a pro-Ukrainian sentiment, Ukrainian culture and even Ukrainian language fascism. When they say denazify, they mean destroy all that makes Ukrainians distinct and make them as indistinguishable from Russians as possible, cultural genocide. 

As refugees they often repeat Putin's talk points, blame everything on Zelenski and the West. That might convince some that Putin is not a villain in this war, especially since there are no one to disagree with them as all natives are in Ukraine fighting.

Hopefully this article makes the underlying reasons for Ukrainian war clearer than they used to be.

Balkan Non-Papers

 

A while ago I wrote an article about better borders for Balkans. Turns out someone else proposed a similar solution before. 2021 Balkan non-papers broadly outline the same vision as my article. Sadly, too many criticized the non-Papers without analyzing reality of Balkans.

I would argue that my proposals are more nuanced and more accurately reflect reality of Balkans than the non-Papers. Non-papers only target biggest issues, but I also covered several less severe issues that should be addressed for peace for Balkans and betterment of the world.

However, the very fact that so many different people agree that borders in Balkan has to change shows that it is something worth putting effort in.

Ukrainian Army Has Better Morale and Fighting Ability that Russian One

Many people think that Ukraine has no chance of winning against Russia. Technically Russian Army is larger and has more artillery and sophisticated weapons.

However Ukrainian army has unique advantage Russia does not, better morale. Ukrainian soldiers on average are much more willing to fight for their country and win compared to their Russian counterparts. Spirit of Ukrainian Insurgent Army lives and men from Lviv valiantly fight in Donbas to prevent Russia from taking any more of Ukrainian land.

That is not absolute rule. Not all Ukrainian soldiers are motivated to fight. Some want out and their numbers will likely go up in total average in Ukrainian Army. Ukraine increases conscription efforts to supplement volunteer numbers. Conscripts naturally have much worse moral compared to volunteers.

However, on Russian side absolute majority does not want to fight. Most of Russian Army are conscripts and Russia is notorious for using cruel methods of dragging men into service against their will. Sure a few units are really motivated to fight, but they are clear minority in total numbers. 

Russian opposition to service is not driven by opposition to war, but rather due to poor living conditions in the military. So, you will meet a lot of people who cheer for Russian troops but will dodge service like a plague.

Quality of training and ability is also on Ukrainian side. Russian casualties at least twice as large as that of Ukraine and possibly many more. Russia was always secretive about its numbers, so we do not know how many of their million lost in battle dead and how many only wounded. Ukraine lost around 400 000 wounded and around 46 000 dead. 

Russia tapped into North Korean Army to plug the gaps in their own ranks, so we know they are suffering from troop shortages.

Overall Ukrainian Army, despite being outnumbered, performed a lot better than Russian one and managed to breach gap in numbers with their superior ability and morale. That proves that Russia is not a superpower of US level but rather a periphery state on Ukraine's level.

Parallels between Cyprus Conflict and Ukraine

I once compared social issues in Ukraine to a Northern Ireland question and Troubles that came out of it. That is a good comparison yet to better understand the problem perhaps another one is needed.

Another possibly more accurate comparison would be Cyprus issue where Turkey interfered against independent Cypriot government in defense of Turks in Cyprus.

Differences between Greek and Turkish Cypriots eventually resulted in violence. Eventually Greeks decided to exterminate all Turks on the island.

In Ukraine case, Ukrainians did not plan to genocide Russophones like Greek Cypriots did. Putin however claims that they planned to do just that and fabricated evidence to that end.

In both cases it resulted in military intervention. Turkey invaded Cyprus and Russia invaded Ukraine.

End result is similar to Cyprus, Turkey carved unrecognized Turkish Republic of Norther Cyprus. Russia annexed parts of Ukraine. All that is left is to build a DMZ out of current line of military control on the ground and call it a day.

Russia cannot advance any further in Ukraine, Ukraine cannot advance either. Both are good at defending, so people die but frontlines do not more. In many places DMZ level defenses are already in place along the line of contact.

Reasons for Eastern European and post-Soviet Animosity Towards Russia Updated

 

In his justification of War in Ukraine Putin has often mentioned "root causes" of the war. These "root causes" often include NATO's expansion into former Warsaw Pact and USSR states. 

Putin and Russians wants to think that such expansion is due to American imperialism. However, that is not true. NATO expanded east because Eastern European states wanted protection against Russia and found it in NATO. 

There are good reasons for Eastern European states to seek such protection and they lie in Partitions of Poland that Russia has orchestrated as well as in the way Russia has treated them during 19th and 20th century.

I would say even more, pretty much all the problems that plague Eastern European and post-Soviet states begin from the time when Russia, Prussia and Austria have partitioned the Commonwealth in late 18th century.

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Times

I will not talk too long about the Commonwealth as it is a long topic on its own, there are enough information in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias. Check it out if you never heard of this state before. Here I will summarize briefly facts necessary for this topic.

Commonwealth existed from around 13th century as separated but friendly to each other Poland and Lithuania. The state used to unite modern day Poland, Lithuania, Lativia, southern Estonia, Belarus. Ukraine and western parts of Russia. 

Commonwealth had unusual for the times constitution where King was elected rather than simply inherit throne when previous dies. It was also multi-religious and multilingual during times when most other states had one official faith and language. There were elections to both national parliaments called Sejm as well as regional parliaments (Sejmik) for each Voivodeship. Cities enjoyed Magdeburg Rights, it was a European state with rule of law and other such things that distinguish it from autocracies further east.

However, there were issues too. Elections were limited to members of nobility only, effectively dividing society into 1st and 2nd class citizens. Despite official multilingualism and multi-confessionalism. in practice there was discrimination against non-Catholics and non-Polish cultured people. That left significant parts of population discontent and uninvested in this state and its fate.

This, combined with Liberum Veto provision from Commonwealth constitution, eventually led to its downfall. Russia manipulated election to elect few pro-Russian people in Sejm and them instructed them to use Liberum Veto to block useful legislation. Eventually Russian interference run country into the ground and Russia, together with Russian then friends of Prussia and Austria, simply conquered it without too much resistance and divided between themselves.

Era of Russian Control

Russia got by far the largest and most diverse part of Commonwealth that included parts of all above mentioned modern countries. Some Poles and Ukrainians ended up in Austria and only Polish parts went to Prussia.

Citizens of Commonwealth used to think of Russia/Muscovy as of backward, small, weak peripheral state on the edge of civilization. It was hard for them to accept that this backward state now a huge Empire and rules over them.

Life under Russia was much worse not only for Poles but for Belarussians and Ukrainians as well. Ukrainians thought that fellow Orthodox Christians from Moscow would treat them better but that ended up being a mistake. They thought Polish discrimination was bad, but Russians were even worse.  Russians treated everyone badly.

Unlike Poland in Russia there was no any elections to Sejm or Sejmiks, no Magdeburg Rights and no rule of law. Local governors and other officials were appointed from capital, St Petersburg and answered only to Tsar. They governed based on either personal whims or desire to please the Tsar. They completely ignored needs of the locals. Locals sure as hell hated that.

Much reduced in size rump so called Congress-Poland had certain rights guaranteed to it Congress of Vienna settlement. These guarantees and Congress Poland constitution however were routinely ignored by Russian appointed namestniks. The rest of former Commonwealth did not have even this and were governed as ordinary gubernias. 

During 19th century Poland managed to organize several uprisings against Russian rule. All of them were crushed by Russian military after a year or so of fighting. Ukrainians, Belarussians and others too thought of breaking free from Russia and spend 19th century building up their national identities.

Poles who ended up divided between all the partitioning states, had unique opportunity to compare conditions between their neighbors. According to Poles conditions were somewhat better in Austria, worse than that in Prussia and worst of all in Russia. Astria organized former Commonwealth lands into Kingdom of Galicia-Lodomeria in personal union under Austrian Emperor and Free City of Krakow. In Galicia-Lodomeria there were elections to local parliament, language rights for Polish and Ukrainian as well as general rule of law, expected of a European nation. Prussia was worse than Austria because it actively pursued policy of Germanization and tried to make their Polish subjects more German. There were no language rights, and their status was Duchy that was later reduced to province. However, in Prussia there were still elections and rule of law. Worst of all was life under Russia.

Ukrainians confirm this assessment. They think Austrian rule was better than Polish one during Commonwealth times. They agree with Poles that Russian rule was worst of them all.

On Russian end of things, Tsar and his officials could not understand why people in Russia proper are OK with the way they are government and all their new subjects in western parts of the country see it as violation of their rights and constantly revolt against Russian rule.

The answer they arrived to was to Russify newly conquered lands and make them more like Russia proper. To that end Russia banned books printed in local languages such as Ukrainian or Belarussian. Polish language was transitioned to a Cyrillic scrip to make it look closer to Russian and use of original Latin scrip was forbidden.

This overt authoritarian Russification lasted from second part of 19th century all the way to the collapse of Russian Empire. For the most part it failed to achieve its objectives. Eliminating language and culture ended up much harder than decreeing a few bans. Parents could still pass their languages to their kids and Poles would teach them Latin script as well. They could print books in Europe and smuggle them in Russian controlled parts of former Commonwealth. Languages endured and situation hardly changed.

Revolution

Russian revolution gave all these people of former Commonwealth as well as other conquered people such as Moldovans a chance for independence. As Reds battled Whites in Russia, all abovementioned countries declared their independence from Russia, build their national armies and hoped they will manage to protect nauseant republics.

Eventually Red Army finished its battle with the Whites and came after nationalists. Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania managed to fight back and survived. Ukraine and Belarus fought too but were overrun by the Reds and absorbed into the USSR.

After 123 years of occupation Poland and Lithuania were back on the map. However, their jubilations were short lived. in less than 20 years USSR will make a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Nazi Germany and came to oppress Eastern Europe once again. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were made in republics of USSR. Poland was turned into a puppet state that is nominally independent but ruled by people chosen by Kremlin and loyal to Kremlin and not their country. 

Life Under USSR and Warsaw Pact

While in early days of USSR Lenin announced that all nationalities were equal, and USSR even encourage some development of local languages and cultures. Ukrainian and Belarusian languages were made co-official with Russian and other languages of USSR. USSR wanted to give impression that it will play nice and make everyone welcome.

That did not last too long however and already in early 30s a new more elaborate Russification program was unrolled in USSR. Russian language was given unique special status of "language of international communications" that gave it status above others. That meant that in conversation between a Russophone and a non-Russophone or between Belarussian and Ukrainian, Russian language had to be used.

That alone would not do much, but USSR knew how to make most use of that: massive population transfers. Under Stalin it was done in completely autocratic manner by making armed KGB agents force people in train carts and shipping them away. After Stalin government became more subtle and used a rule where a fresh Uni graduate has to pay back for their education by working 3 years in an organization of government choice. That also meant that they would have to move and live where this organization is located.

The purpose of these transfer was to disperse the problematic former Commonwealth population across the vast space of USSR. Torn from their community and thrusted in a different one hundreds of miles away, Ukrainian or Latvian will have no choice but to switch to Russian language as no one around them understands Ukrainian or Latvian. To replace these migrants USSR would send people from Russia proper to former Commonwealth lands. These Russophone migrants, who are unable to speak local languages, will be backed by Soviet state to force locals to speak Russian language at least to them. Russian language will finally take root all across USSR.

This policy was deadly efficient. Over 45 years of Soviet control over Latvia, local Latvians went from around 90% of total population to a measly 52%. If it had continued for another 5 years of so Latvians would have become a minority in their country and even democratic elections would have produced a Russophone government that would have all but outlawed Latvian language.

Another thing USSR did to further advance Russification was border engineering, tweaking border to put more Russophones among the locals. I wrote many separate articles about many problems with Soviet borders and why they have to change, search them in my blog, start here. Here I will add some more.

When Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine it was not because Crimea is naturally Ukrainian. Crimea is 2 million strong Russophone stronghold that meant to boost number of Russophones in Ukraine's borders and make Ukrainians speak Ukrainian less and Russian more.

Moldova is almost of textbook example of such border butchering. Until USSR took control of Bessarabia in 1940, the territory was always understood to be an area between Prut and Nistra rivers. To create modern Moldova USSR first took away Bessarabia's access to sea with its many historic cities. Then to "compensate" Moldova, USSR gave it a Russian military base full of soldiers loyal to Moscow and a few villages mostly Ukrainian in character. 

Main city in Moldova's new lands, Tiraspol, was founded by Suvorov after his victory over Ottomans and annexations of Ottoman land. The city was built on the border between Russia and Ottomans and meant for Russian soldiers and their families. There is nothing Moldovan about this city and its surroundings, the only reason it was given to Moldova is to make these solders play warden's role and keep Moldovans down. All energy infrastructure was placed there so that soldiers could shut Moldova down if their try to revolt.

These two are the most glaring and well documented examples. USSR placed their loyalists in many places in every part of USSR to supervise and keep locals down. That is why linguistic map of Ukraine has to many red dots in sea of blue, Russophone stronghold behind enemy lines.

Warsaw Pact puppet states avoided settlements of Russophones, but learning Russian as second language was mandatory there. There were no free elections and when people wanted to overthrow their puppet government, USSR would bring its own army to suppress locals. USSR exploited wealth of Eastern Europe, so locals not only had freedom but many of its produce was simply taken by USSR as either "reparations for WWII" or as part of "friendly" economic "cooperation".

After Collapse of USSR

Collapse of USSR caught Soviet government off guard. Russification was not fully completed and, in most soviet republics, locals still had significant enough numbers to seize control and push for independence. Just like during Russian Revolution and Civil War, many saw their one now or never chance to break free and went for it. 

However, Russophone settlers, that USSR have planted there, fought back. They formed so called Interfronts oppose their republic independence from USSR. Interfronts claimed to be oppressed by local Nazis to and asked that USSR use it as pretexts to send troops to "protect" them. USSR tried to do that, for example during January Events, but failed. 

Ultimately USSR collapsed and former parts of Commonwealth and other post-Soviet Republics in the same situations became independent. However, most of them were now saddled with the problem of all these Russophones that USSR planted there during its reign. Some sort of policy was needed to deal with them. Expelling them back to Russia was not feasible as European liberal countries will not support such move. Russia will also refuse to take them back and will likely use such attempt to interfere on settler's behalf. Lativa and Estonia refused to grant them their citizenship, insisting that only descendants of the pre-WWII citizens can be citizens of newly independent Latvia and Estonia. Those who arrived during Soviet occupation has to naturalize or seek other citizenship. The rest did nothing in particular and just hoped they will somehow assimilate over time or something.

Thus, a form tug of war between locals and settlers ensured in pretty much every post-Soviet state. Cultural, linguistic, educational and other issues continue to pit settlers against locals up to this day. In each of these countries Russian government continue to meddle in local affairs and press local authorities into catering for interests of Russophone settlers left behind by USSR policies.

Differences between settlers and locals among other things led to War in Ukraine. 

For example, in In Lativa so-called Russians in Latvia has their own Russian schools with Russian language of instruction and curriculum from Moscow, legacy of Soviet approach to education. When Latvia decided to gradually phase this out in favor of education in Latvian language only there were lots protests from Russophones. Russia government labelled it violation of human rights and even some international organizations were fooled by Russian misinformation into blaming Lativia. 

In practice no other western liberal democracy offers its migrants state funded education in their own language and home country curriculum. Can you imagine Chinese migrants to the US or UK demanded that government paid for their education in Chinese language and in curriculum set in Beijing. That would be scandalous. Yet Russians in Latvia believe it's their "human right".

Education is not the only issue between Russophones and locals in Latvia. Interpretation of history, geo-political orientation, monuments of WWII and other cultural things cause riots and social discontent. Latvian Russophones are backed by Russia and encourage to riot in defense of WWII monuments of protests of new monuments that honors anyone but Red Army. Russia also meddles in Latvian elections, trying to sneak in pro-Russian candidates.

In Moldova, when locals seized power and declared independence, Russophone soldiers in Tiraspol in turn declared independence from newly independent Moldova. Tiraspol wished to rejoin USSR but when it collapsed it simply continued as unrecognized state, officially Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic or PMR but often called Transnistria.

Transnistria issue prevented Moldova from uniting with Romania but did not save it from cultural tug of war. Issues such as wither Moldovans and Romanians are same people, or different ones plagued public discussion and politics from independence to this day.

Russophones in Moldova proper did held power during Voronin era and used it to do things as senseless as publishing Moldovan to Romanian dictionary that makes as much sense as dictionary between American and Australian English. When ethnically Romanian government took power after Twitter Revolution, Russophones criticized and mocked its cultural decisions, like commemorating victims of communism or teaching Romanian instead of Russian history in schools. Eventually they orchestrated heist of the century scandal in attempt to bring ethnically Romanian government down and return power to Russophones.

Here Russia also meddles in politics in support of Russophones and their points of view. Russia, with its double standards, would insist that Romanians and Moldovans who speak mutually intelligible languages are completely different people, but Russians and Ukrainians are same people who speak the same language despite average Moscow dweller will have hard time understanding anything in Ukrainian.

However as much as Russia dislikes Latvian policies and wants to change them, they always stopped short of using military. Lativa is NATO member, and Russia would not risk triggering article 5.

On the other hand, when Ukraine started to adopt increasing Latvian style policies then Russia decided on military action. Without NATO protection there is nothing to stop Russia from trying to force its will on former Soviet states by force. Before resorting to military action, Russia did try coercion and electoral machinations. That had only temporary effects, eventually Ukraine overthrew increasingly pro-Russian Yanukovych. Now that no other trick worked, Russia tried to claim all of Ukraine by force. If Russia wins, it will likely follow by cultural genocide of Ukrainian people and attempt to completely eradicate Ukrainian language and culture. That is why Ukrainians fight so desperately.

As Russia is too busy with post-Soviet states to look further West, Eastern Europeans could finally catch a break. Some grew complacent and think that Russia no longer wishes to oppress them like they did during Cold War. That is naive way to think. Russia already meddles in elections in Europe by backing pro-Russian puppet candidates. Chances are high that people like Calin Georgescu will turn second Ceausescu if they get to power, there is evidence that Russia backs him.

Conclusion

Current problems in Ukraine and problems of Post-Soviet States are history of long running Russian policy to assimilate all these people into Russian culture and completely erase local languages and cultures.

Hopefully Russia will not get its way in Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.

On Greenland Question

Recently Trump made splashes across Denmark, Europe and Broader world with his desire to acquire Greenland for the US. Many dismissed these claims as Trump's frivolity, but he actually has a point. 

Greenland is very large, and its population is very small, too small to effectively control the island themselves. Significant parts of the island are completely uninhabited. All population is concentrated in a few small towns. On one hand these people deserve to have a say in their future and their fate should not be decided by the US and Denmark. However, that does not mean they should have a say over the whole island, uninhabited areas should be offered to the US, EU, Norway, Canada, UK and EU as a whole.

Denmark has no resources to effectively control, defend and use the island. Denmark is a very small country, and its population is only about 5 million. Already Americans provide security on the island with their two military bases. However more needs to be done to make sure island is really secure and Russia, China or stateless terrorists cannot make use of this near uncontrolled land. The US and many others can and willing to do more, but why should they do the hard lifting for Denmark exclusive benefit?

Denmark's biggest interest in the island is the potential mineral wealth underneath it. Even if that is the case Denmark has no means to extract it on their own. The US likely knows more and has equipment and expertise to mine the island profitably. However, they do not want to do it solely for Denmark's benefit. The standstill benefits no one and prevents humanity as a whole from benefiting from potential mineral wealth of this island. I am not saying that Denmark should not be compensated for value of the island. An arrangement that Denmark gets certain percentage of profits from all resource mining on the island would be appropriate. That will benefit Denmark a lot more than island they do not know what to do with.

US should not be the only country to control Greenland. Norway once had a settlement on the island until Denmark forced them to leave. There are people who are willing and capable of developing the island, but Danes just stubbornly hog it all for themselves. Norwegian and other claims and interests to the island should be considered. EU opposes Trump because they will not get anything if Trump and the US gets all the island for themselves. However, island is large, and EU and the US can easily split it between themselves. Norway too should get its settlement back. UK, Canada and Netherlands should be offered a piece if they wish to stake personal claim. Final divisions can be something like 35% for the US, 10% for Canada, 15% for natives under Danish sovereignty, 10% to UK, 10 to Norway% and 30% for EU as a whole.

Greenland's situation provides great opportunity for humanity to exploit the island for the benefit of everyone. Opportunity too great for Denmark to just sit on it and do nothing about it. Because of that a workable solution that considers everyone's interests and benefits everyone should be negotiated, agreed on and then implemented. Hopefully we will see this solution soon enough. What I outlined in this article can be basis for such solution.

More on Sloviansk Issue

A while ago I claimed in one of my other articles that real objective of Putin's war in Ukraine is to take town of Sloviansk in Donetsk oblast. 

There is certain evidence that suggests that to be the case. For example, in Kharkiv counter-offensive Ukraine managed to advance that far because best Russian units were not facing westwards towards Kharkiv but southward towards Sloviansk.

I already explained in my previous article why particularly Sloviansk, a town of no real significance, matters to Russia so much. In this article I want to say that this is a town that Ukraine can trade to Russia without much detriment for itself. 

Out of so called 4 oblasts that Russia has claimed, Donetsk holds little value to Ukraine and therefore territory of Donetsk oblast can be traded for something of real value to Ukraine. for example, money needed for reconstruction of the country.

The same cannot be said about Kherson Oblast. It has land on both left and right banks of Dnipro River. Ukraine absolutely cannot give Russia anything west of Dnipro River as that would give Russia a bridgehead for a future invasion. The river is a natural defensive barrier that can protect Ukraine in the event of another war with Russia. Thus, giving any land west of the river is completely unacceptable. Currently Ukraine holds west bank and Russia east bank of the river. This river on the border should be in final peace plan. 

In general. If Russia insist on any claims on west bank of Dnipro, then Russia almost certainly intends to use them as bridgehead to continue the war and seize even more land once they amassed a strike force on the bridgehead. Thus, any attempt to secure such bridgehead in negotiations should be rejected no matter what.

Another of Russian claims, Zaporizhya is located on the east bank, but it's close to the river and the city has relatively pro-Ukrainian population and important factories that among other things produce jet engines. Loss of this city is not as unacceptable as Kherson oblast west bank, but still very problematic. It will disrupt the current line of control by creating a Russian salient, protruding and surrounded by Dnipro Oblast. That will make defense harder that it should be. Thus, this town cannot be traded for anything.

Finally, Sloviansk and the rest of Donetsk Oblast area held by Ukraine is surrounded by lands held by Russia, has low economic value and has population with pro-Russian views. Getting rid of this toxic asset could benefit Ukraine if done cleverly. From defense perspective they hold little value aside from usual urban warfare roadblock. Americans already suggested that Ukrainian Army simply abandon towns as they hold little military value.

Last of four oblasts, Luhansk is already almost completely controlled by Russia so there is no need to negotiate here.

As to what Ukraine can get in exchange for Sloviansk there are several options.

One is money. Ukraine need money to rebuild itself. Sure, seizing Russian assents could help but that is not enough, more is needed. Since Putin needs particularly Sloviansk, he likely will be willing to pay to get the town. Saudi Arabia can be a middleman to handle the money. Once Russia paid the agreed sum to Saudis, Ukraine can transfer land to Russia and claim money. 

One other issue to sort out would be building new defensive line west and north of Sloviansk. Ukraine would need several months to complete this task.

Second option is to trade this land for land elsewhere, for example East bank of Dnipro in Kherson oblast or Nikopol Nuclear Plant. While that is possible but too risky, these lands would be surrounded by Russia and could become an easy target for Russian re-occupation.

See map here.

While Russian paper claims on lands they do not control in Kherson and Zaporizhya Oblasts absolutely cannot be granted, Russian claims in Donetsk can be satisfied in exchange for something of value to Ukraine. Considering for Putin Sloviansk is probably more valuable than his other claims, it can be a muutally beneficial deal.

On National Anthems

 

In modern times most National Anthems often viewed as somewhat generic song for official occasions. Most anthems were written in 19th century and sound like an anachronism to modern ears. They are often pompous and almost always written in very outdated classical style. There are very few truly iconic among them that managed to find some fame of its own. 

National Anthem trend was likely set by British God save the King together with Britannia Rules the Waves and French Marseillaise. Most other countries simply followed the trend and whipped up something about their own nation.

However, some of these songs can give an interesting insight about psychology of the people this song intends to represent, or at least psychology of government that they want to impose on people.

Here I will analyze certain anthems and try to make conclusions of people that made them. I will begin with Russia and Ukraine.

Russia

Russian anthem begins with a line that calls the country "sacred", as it is some religious relict, like Holy Lance or something. In general anthem is full of praise of Russia's unique power, glory, achievement and what not. It also calls on people to be proud of their country and be loyal to it. Freedom is mentioned but not for Russian people but rather for Russia as country (free country of unfree people). It goes as far as to create a sort of pseudo-religious cult around the country by endowing it with near supernatural qualities and make people worship it like a God.

Government at least subconsciously wants to see their country as some sort of lord and tell its people to serve this lord. That makes Russia into a cult that expects its members to not only treat country with reverence but worship it like God and sacrifice their lives for it. Russian government makes other cults as well, for example WWII Victory and expects people to worship it. Some examples here, notice with how much reverence Lukashenka talks about participating in Victory Day parade in Moscow. Clear cult example.

There is alternative anthem that was used during Yeltsin's time. Compare to Alexandrov's anthem, it has a slower and more thoughtful and introverted melody. It had no official lyrics by many different versions were proposed. Nowadays it is sometimes used by anti-Putin opposition.

Ukraine

Ukraine's anthem is in many ways unlike Russian. It is almost a protest anthem. It begins with a line "Ukraine's glory and will has not died yet", that can almost be understood as "Ukraine has not died yet", similar to a first line in Polish anthem. From there anthem goes towards Ukraine's people and reassures them that fate will smile on them, there enemies will die, and they will be master's on their land once more. Ukrainian anthem also expects sacrifice from its people but not for the country but for their freedom.

Ukrainian anthem was written during the times when the country was part of Russian Empire and aimed to reassure its people that their country will endure and will be free of Russia one day. Unlike Russian that expects people to serve their country, Ukrainian instead names its people masters of their land. In general, unlike Russian anthem where its mostly people for the country, here is country and freedom for the people.

There are several additional patriotic songs, each with their own theme and purpose. For example, prayer for Ukraine or March of Ukrainian Nationalists. 

Despite divisions between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian side, pro-Russians do not have uniquely Ukrainian alternative anthem for Ukraine. They simply use Russian symbols and culture. There is also anthem of UkrainianSSR that was used in Soviet time but it's all but forgotten nowadays.

Poland

Polish anthem begins much like Ukrainian with "Poland has not perished so long as we live". However later diverges into purely militaristic lyrics. Main theme is claiming victory and freedom for Poland in a fight on battlefield. It references both Napoleon Bonaparte as well as Polish own Dambrowski as examples of great military leadership and ability to win. Unlike Ukrainian anthem there is nothing about freedom, better fate or being masters of land. On the other hand, there is no sacred reverence of the country like in Russian anthem.

Polish anthem, like Ukrainian, was also written during times of Russian rule over Poland. Just like Ukrainian it calls for Polish independence. Polish and Ukrainian attitudes towards Russia were similar and anthem reflects that. Differences is that Poles only wish for military victory and glory, while Ukrainians want to be free masters of their land. Pure pride of Poles vs hedonism and self-indulgence of Ukrainians. 

Belarus

Belarus has two anthems, the official favored by Lukashenka's regime and one favored by opposition. The official one begins with "We Belarussians are peaceful people". Similar to Russian it also has loyalty and devotion to the land. However, unlike Russian it does not glorify Belarus excessively. Instead, it talks about being part of hardworking family and friendship between peoples, both echo official Soviet interpretation of USSR as united family of likeminded people. This anthem fits so called Russian World worldview where Russia is sacred and glorious one of a kind supernation and Belarus is its loyal sidekick that finds its happiness in friendship with Russia.

Opposition has several alternative anthems; the most popular one is likely this, Warrior's March. It begins with "We will enter in tight columns (like well drilled soldiers) on our open fields", there are also lines about freedom and stone strong Belarussian spirit. We tolerated enough, to battle everyone. Unlike Polish and Ukrainian who need no further arguments in favor of fight for freedom, Warrior's March attempts to convince Belarussians that fight for freedom is needed. It wants to awaken its country from its near willful submission to Russia and calls it to fight against oppression instead.

One thing that both official and opposition anthems have in common is willingness to endure suffering for the country or its freedom in opposition case. 

Romania and Moldova

Another anthem that that calls for action and resistance is Romanian. "Awaken Romanian from deadly slumber." It goes in great length about Romanian Roman Empire glorious past and how various enemies now want to destroy it, calling everyone to fight. It has one of the best melodies out there. Unfortunately, I do not understand Romanian as English translation seems too literal to pick more interesting nuances of this anthem.

During Cold War times, communist Romanian authorities went through several alternative anthems that are less rousing and more pliant to pacify people and made them endure oppression of the Eastern Block. Spring of Nations and Romanian revolution saw communist anthems abandoned in favor of Awaken Romanian.

At one point Awaken Romanian was also an anthem of neighboring Moldova, but anti-Romanian government later changed the anthem to Limba Noastra, that glorifies Romanian/Moldovan language instead.

Germany

German anthem is relatively peaceful compared to many others. It does not call for war or a fight for anything. Despite that, anthem has a bellicose reputation and there a lot of criticism. Criticism is mostly about defining German borders with rivers that flow through other countries as well as popular with Nazis phrase "Germany above all". For these reasons modern Germany only uses third stanza of the lyrics, that has no controversial lines.

The full lyrics, praises German women, wine and songs for inspiring noble things. Calls for freedom, justice, brotherhood and unity of Germans. No military references whatsoever. Even official Belarussian anthem has one line about defense of their country but not German.

From this anthem you can think that Germans are people who wish for happiness, freedom, justice and affluent comfort, but who love and take a lot of pride in their way of life, themselves and things they make. Much different from stereotypes about Germans that exist in pretty much every other country.

Italy

Italian anthem has somewhat the most distance between lyrics and melody. Melody sounds like it written for a celebration or a feast. Lyrics are all about defeating enemies, Italy's glory and willingness to die for one's country. Listen for yourself. 

The anthem even calls Victoria (goddess of Victory rather than Queen Victoria) a slave to Romans. Other than that, it also references Italian unification and claims that unity will bring Italy strength. In retrospect that did not quite work out, but good try.

The anthem somewhat fits Italians. Sure, they want to see themselves as create of a conqueror as Romans once were, but they are actually relaxed, cheerful and happy people.

France

French was one of the earliest anthems created and has both catchy melody and rather enduring lyrics that would for the most part fit any country. The lyrics call for people to unite and fight against tyranny of the old monarchial regime and its foreign supporters. Classical revolutionary theme of liberty. It calls for death to tyrants but also mercy to those who were forced to do their bidding. 

This anthem was popular among liberals of the 19th century and even communists, both find its themes resonate with their ideologies for various reasons. In a way its possibly a most influential musical piece of 19th and even 20th century. La Marseillaise is not just anthem of France but also anthem of Era of Revolutions and of Revolution in general.

Hatred towards tyrants possibly an enduring and unifying element within French society. French protests are frequent and often flashy and destructive. However, France likely also a country that produces such tyrants who abuse their power so badly that people would hate them so much.

UK

UK's anthem is in many ways opposite that of France. Song asks God to Save the King and give him happy and victorious many years of reign. However, it goes further by describing King as protector of law and peace. 

In UK's anthem King is not a tyrant but a protector of things Britons hold dear, and they ask God to protect King in turn.  Britons wish their King not just victories but also such human things such as long life and happiness. It is an anthem of well wishes rather than a battle cry or plea for unity or uprising.

From this anthem one can see Britons to be happy or lucky and humane people who do not lose human touch in the world locked in constant strife against tyrants or foreign oppression. You can also call them lucky to still be able to rely on their King to protect them. Anthem wishes this luck will not end and they will not descend into what Europe had to go through.

Alternative British anthem, Rule Britannia, further reinforces that idea that UK has favor of heavens and because of that will keep ruling the waves and shall never be slaves to spite the tyrants out there.

USA

American anthem is surprisingly complex and poetic. It has very long lines with many adjectives and very descriptive of both battle and nature. It's written in old style English. The overreaching theme of the anthem is how flag stands and flies tall through all the chaos and turbulence of battle and how no weapon, rocket or bomb can take it down. It meant to symbolize how the US could similarly endure though the turbulent life and survive in the end.

Somewhat surprising considering the US is a superpower. Anthem lacks any arrogance or pride, that Russian or Italian anthems are full of. However, one can remember that US was not always a superpower, and its early days were often hard and challenging. This song from early days of the US when new fledgling nations could still perish in a war with then much bigger and stronger UK. The song both reminds of these times and speak on American perseverance. 

At the same time overly complex and long lines perhaps suggest American tendency to make things more complex than they should be. Even professionals struggle to sing it. That reflects that in certain aspects, American life is much harder than it should be.

Canada

Canadian anthem extols praise for the country and asserts that Canadians are loyal patriots who guard their land. In its themes it is the closest to Russian anthem. However, Canadians have enough sense to not call their land sacred and generally keep praise more grounded.

Geographically Canada is similar to Russia and that might also make them similar to Russians mentally. Both are equally pretentious and think their country is better than some other countries around them. Both will probably throw tomatoes and other things at you if you tell them that.

Australia

Just because I live in Australia, our anthem is best, period.

Generally, it's an optimistic (Pollyana level optimistic) anthem that praises wealth and features of the land and claims that we will get far ahead in future and be envy of the world. Considering of level of immigration to the country it's not too far-fetched claim. 

Original lyrics said we are young and free and that indeed true as we reached nationhood later than many other countries, including the US. Thus, we have youthful optimism and believe in goods things ahead.

I would say many people inside the country are very skeptical about all these tall claims.

Japan

Japanese anthem, Kimigayo, is one of the shortest in the world. It only wishes that Emperor reigns (and lives) so long a life that he sees how pebbles grow into boulders and get covered in moss.

Some deep philosophical meaning to it possibly, or just a long-life wish wrapped into some fancy expressions.

Conclusion

I will finish at that. There are many anthems in the world. Maybe I will do a second part to cover some more or may be extend this one instead. So far I will end it on this. As you can see different anthems gives interesting insights about character of the people who adopted them as their own. 

At the same time there are also people in each country who do not relate to the official anthem and propose alternative. For Australia Waltzing Matilda is often suggested as replacement to our current Advance Australia Fair. Other countries also have their own alternatives. 

How Russia has Learned from Mistakes of Afghanistan

Back in one of my previous articles I said that reality of Soviet Afghan war eventually led towards glasnost and even collapse of USSR. Once truth of that war managed to slip through the iron curtain, public turned against the government and not even Gorbachev could do much.

Key element that allowed this development was the fact that USSR had universal conscription. Once people woke up to the idea that their loved ones could actually be killed in this war and returned to them in a coffin, public got restless. That was that small domino that fell first and eventually pulled many others with it and destroyed USSR.

However, Putin aware of this problem and made certain arrangements as to prevent the same outcome. The reason Putin refuses to call full mobilization is precisely because it will lead to the same outcomes. To avoid Afghan war style fallout, Putin recruits' people from prisons as well as ethnic minorities or other isolated people. All those who will not be missed by anyone can safely be sent to die in Ukraine and there will be no outrage.

So long as their own loved one are not in danger of dying in Ukraine, majority in Moscow will not oppose the war. Thus, Putin can continue, and nothing will change so long as he does not recruit from main body of Muscovites. 

After two years of war, Putin actually ran out of those he could safely recruit. To solve this problem, he tapped into North Korean military to plug the gaps in his own lines. He can safely fight for a long as there are North Korean soldiers to spare. However North Koreans are not infinite either and eventually he will run out of them too. I do not know if he can tap into Iranians or Chinese if he runs out of North Koreans. Either way all these soldiers will not let him win completely, just move line of contact and take a few cities here and there.

Just like during Afghan war, Putin severely downplays severity of war in Ukraine. He misleads people into thinking that there are little casualties or destruction to keep their support. Putin's total control of media allows him to prevent Muscovites from exposure to realities of war. Exposure to realities of war is what destroyed USSR. 

Putin makes it extra sure average Muscovite thinks war in Ukraine is mostly about rebuilding hospitals and schools, destroyed by mythical Nazis. That way support for his actions will remain high. If people realize just how much damage Russian military have caused, the support for war will dwindle. Because of that Putin makes sure there are no independent media to report on realities on the ground.

That is how Putin keeps himself afloat in this war. Smart and targeted action is needed to kick him off his high horse. There should be concerted effort to break informational blockade to reach out to people in Moscow. 

Stepan Bandera and Ukrainian Insurgent Army Question

 

Russia frequently claims that there are Nazis in Ukraine. Here is a closer look on people and organization they call Nazi: Stepan Bandera and Ukrainian Insurgent Army.

During 20th century, when Ukraine was part of USSR, an underground liberation movement has emerged in Ukraine, Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists. During WWII some members of OUN saw opportunity to fight for independent Ukraine and formed Ukrainian Insurgent Army. UIA successfully fought against both Nazis and Soviets for more than a decade in complete isolation deep behind iron curtain.

Stepan Bandera was leader of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. For Ukrainians he is as much of a hero as George Washington is for Americans. Bandera did not won independence but did a great effort at getting there. He and UIA killed a lot of Soviet officers, generals and other officials, preventing effective Soviet control over Western Ukraine until middle 50s.

However, Bandera's tenacity and resilience made him extremely hated among Soviet secret police. To slander Bandera, they labelled him Nazi and spread lies about him in Soviet propaganda. Because of these lies many Russophones erroneously see Bandera as Nazi.

After Ukraine regained its independence after the collapse of USSR, Ukrainians tried to fix their history after years of Soviet propaganda and lies. Eventually they succeeded in giving Stepan Bandera hero status. Veterans of UIA also got the same official status and benefits as veterans of Red Army.

However, these developments angered Russia. Russia wants to impose its interpretation of history on all post-Soviet states and could not tolerate Ukrainians exposing truth and challenging official Russian lies. Eventually this became one of the reasons for Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Russian interpretation of history is dishonest and self-serving. Ukrainian leaders should be judged based on what they did for their country, not how much Russians like or dislike them. Stepan Bandera and Ivan Mazepa fought for Ukraine against its enemies, including enemies from Moscow. The fact Moscow wants to erase. Because of that Russia should not be allowed to tamper with Ukrainian history and interpretation of events. 

How to Approach Peace Negotiations to End War in Ukraine

Recent events showed that Trump is hellbent on achieving peace. Some say he is pro-Russian, but truth likely in the fact he represents isolationist Americans who dislike any foreign involvement whatsoever. Trump panders to this group's desire to "end war as fast as possible". Americans like it fast after all

For Ukraine that means that battle will move from battlefields to negotiation table. Russia will try to get on negotiation table what their troops failed to conquer using clever arguments to disguise their imperialist ambitions as something Trump could agree with. Ukraine should come up with their own clever arguments against anything Russia likely to demand while possibly adding some demands of their own. This is a task for someone with good communication abilities, perhaps even someone like Kuchma or Timoshenko should be present at negotiation table to argue Ukrainian cause.

America is very far away from Russia and Ukraine both geographically and mentally. Americans hardly understand even UK, that is close to them culturally. All they "know" about Russia and Ukraine are bunch of myth and a few tall stories.

That was true of Biden's administration as well. It did not matter though as Biden simply deferred to UK to explain things to him in simple terms. Instead of explaining the long history between Russia and Ukraine that led to this war, Brits put it simply as "Ukraine fights for freedom against Russian aggression, send money and weapons to help."

Trump does not incline to just trust what Europeans say, but he himself knows too little so his diplomacy stumbles into strange debris. He wants to end war but has no idea how to approach the problem. Lack of understanding of Ukraine situation makes him open towards exploitation by a cunning enough negotiator. Putin and his crew are just such cunning negotiator. 

Russia clearly sees that as an opportunity to get concessions on the negotiation table. Russian diplomats managed to get on Trump good side and convinced him that it is Zelenski who does not want peace. 

Instead of presenting Trump with outrageous bucket list of demands, like they did to Ukraine and Europe at the beginning of the war, they tell Trump they want peace and democracy. However, as one team of Russian negotiators smother Rubio and other Trump officials with assurances of good will, the other one keep shouting the same old demands to Ukrainians and Europeans. A clever tactic to divide the US and Europe. 

Trump does not know details of Russian original ultimatum to Ukraine. Russia pretends like it did not happen at all, acts in front of Trump like they want nothing of sorts, while at the same time signaling to Europeans and Ukrainians that these demands are still on the table and there will be no peace until Russia gets it all.

Despite pointlessness of negotiations with Russia, Ukraine and Europe has to once again play this game. Coalition of the Willing (Ukraine and Europe) should bring best negotiators and destroy Russia in this diplomatic game. Russia's evil intentions have to be exposed in this way or Trump and his administration will never realize the truth and will sleepwalk into giving Russia everything it wants.

Trump administration on the other hand should insist that Russia officially refute its original demands to Ukraine and Europe. That can reassure Ukrainians and Europeans that new negotiations will not be a simple repetition of the 2022 where Russia demanded what amounted to capitulation of Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

Hopefully we will get some progress here.

On Churches in Ukraine

Recently I heard on X that Zelenski closes churches and that somehow concerns American religious right. While that possibly true, there is a good enough reason for him to do it, existence of Moscow Patriarchate Church in Ukraine. 

This is a church controlled by Patriarch of Moscow, Kiril. He is close ally of Putin and uses Churches under his control to advance Russian agenda. That includes churches in Ukraine who got instructions from Moscow to describe Russian aggression as "holy war" in their sermons and pray for Putin's victory and Ukraine's destruction. Russia has always treated its official church as a tool of political influence and Russian churches across the globe brainwashes its members with Russian propaganda. Patriarch Kiril, who has close ties to Putin and controlled by Russian FSB, makes sure these churches do and say what FSB wants them to. Thus, churches under Moscow Patriarchate are not genuine houses of God, but tentacles of overreaching Russian big government that stick its nose where it does not belong.  

Such pseudo-churches simply cannot be allowed even in peace time, much less in war. Thus, it is only natural that Ukrainian parliament will ban this organization.

I need to clarify that ban does not mean that churches that people attend will close. Far from it, it only compels individual churches to break their ties with Moscow and stop obeying their instructions. Churches could join newly established Orthodox Church of Ukraine or form another association not controlled by Moscow and continue to work as before. Sure, there could be disruptions in church operations as Russia will not want to lose their "churches" and would disrupt church operations using hired thugs to protect their "propaganda assets". Ukraine should be assisted in dealing with these thugs to liberate its churches from Moscow control.

One of the reasons for Russian war in Ukraine was likely establishment of Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartolomew wanted to unite disparate churches of Ukraine into one strong patriotic church with international recognition and free from Moscow control.

Moscow did not take that lightly at all and literary excommunicated Patriarch Bartolomew. Russia and Patriarch Kiril behaved like a middle-age inquisition and Salem witch hunters. A lengthy conflict ensured that continues to this day.

In light of this conflict, it is hypocritical for Russia to now claim that its stands for religious freedom and oppose bans on churches. In Russia itself any Orthodox church outside of Moscow Patriarchate will not be allowed to operate at all, yet Russia insists that it should be different in Ukraine. That is double standards and hypocrisy. 

Finally, a single state church is actually a norm throughout Europe. Lutheran and Anglican tradition favors that approach. Catholics go even further and have unified global structure. American practice with fully independent churches with no hierarchies above them is unique to the states. Churches outside the US operate closer to Episcopal Church (United States). 

In Ukraine there are no fully autonomous and independent churches like Baptists or Methodists have in the US. Instead, there are several conflicting structures, similar to Episcopal Church. One of these is a branch of Russian church that Moscow uses as tool of influence.

In line with this establishment of Orthodox Church of Ukraine is step in the right direction that creates national church for Ukraine. UK, Germany and Scandinavians all have the same arrangements for their own national churches. In like with that OCU should be able to unite and operate all or most of the churches in Ukraine. Russia should not be allowed to interfere with this process with religious colonialism of Moscow Patriarchate.

Possible Explanation of Recent Trump Actions

 

World is currently shocked and appalled by how Donald Trump treats Zelenski and Ukraine. Some talk about treason and even global re-alignment where the US will side with dictators against freedom and democracy.

I however have another more interesting explanation of Trump actions. That is one aside from usual pandering to domestic audience. Many in Republican party do not like Ukraine or high spending. Cutting aid and attacking Zelenski will please this crowd. Both Trump and Zelenski have years of past TV experience. They could have agreed to that spat in advance, and they just played the script in front of cameras. Zelenski could have got something in exchange.

However, there is one more even more interesting explanation. In his book, Art of Deal, Trump claimed that he does deals not for money but for kicks and trills of it. Somewhat similar to protagonist of this show, Akagi. Perhaps he decided to play a high-stake political game against Putin.

Thus, Trump's recent actions are a swipe at Putin. Cutting aid to Ukraine might look like helping Putin however it can also be seen as reducing stakes. According to some analysis the US aid under Biden was not that significant, but it allowed Putin a veneer of an illusion that he fights against combined the combined Western effort to destroy Russia. With so many theoretical "opponents" at the same time Putin could claim he was doing pretty well for circumstances he is in. With no more aid from the US Putin will no longer have the same argument to play, he will have to face the fact he is losing to Ukraine alone, not Ukraine propped by American weapons.

Due to Putin's control of media in Russia it will not have impact inside the country, I already wrote about this problem in several of my other articles. Putin will still be able to claim America helps Ukraine even if it does not. So long as Putin controls the media, he can spin any fact he wants and put any events upside down. To take him down inside Russia, media monopoly has to be blocked.

However outside of Russia many other nations will start to re-evaluate the power and status, Russia has. They will see that Russia is much weaker than Putin claims it to be. At the same time, they will see that Ukraine is much stronger than people originally thought. Russian status will plunge.

Second is reason for these actions is to evaluate what kind of person Putin is psychologically. Repetition of the same will simply give us the same results. Doing something radical and unorthodox just to see Putin's reaction can give some insights on how to beat him. Typical Akagi's strategy. Trump possibly can pull off something like that as well.

In fact, Trump can even sign some peace deal with Russia, give them false impression they have won. Zelenski can always ignore these deals just like Putin's puppets in DNR and LNR used to ignore results of Normandy peace process.

These actions will pull Putin from predictable landscape he calculated his plans for into an unpredictable and chaotic field he is not familiar with. That could lead to mistakes that would cost him dearly. 

Putin's original plan for war in Ukraine works irrespectively if Russia wins militarily or war drags out indefinitely. Both of these outcomes are good for Putin. If that is the case only something unorthodox can somehow kick him off his feet and defeat him. Trump could possibly pull something like that.

Here is my take on geopolitical mahjong with human lives and principles at stake.

Nonetheless going against Putin's control of information is much more sure option. It has less risks and no drawbacks. It worked in original Cold War so it should work again.

Why Ukraine Refuses to Negotiate with Russia

After Trump's recent pivot towards Russia and Russian conditional acceptance of negotiations "to end war" some people might get false impression that Russia wants to end the war and Ukraine stubbornly refuses.

Zelenski responded to Russian recent that engagement with Trump by saying that Putin is proven liar, and Russia does not really want peace. Here I will explain what it means.

True that Russia agreed to negotiations, however Russia does not plan to negotiate in good faith. Russia wants negotiations because their military could not destroy Ukraine so now, they want to try and destroy it with words and cunning tricks. 

Russian negotiators are cunning and experienced. They are skilled at using fallacies and other dirty tricks to win on negotiations table what their soldiers could not win on the ground. Engaging them carelessly is harmful to one's wellbeing. Their poisonous words can destroy.

I will explain how it works on the example:

Recently in their negotiations with Trump they proposed the following formula, first is ceasefire, followed by election in Ukraine and then actual negotiations for peace terms. At first that sound like a peace deal, however if you look closer it is just a fallacy aimed at distracting Ukraine while buying Russia time to regroup and strengthen their war effort.

First of all, that final line: negotiates peace term. Russia clearly sees ceasefire as temporary and wants table its real demands after the elections in Ukraine. What these real demands are is anyone's guess. They could amount to literal capitulation and Refusal to sign it will be interpreted by Russia as legitimate reason to restart war. The whole effort of holding election and doing other things will be for nothing.

Second. Holding elections takes a lot of time and effort. In peacetime it is a necessary for a functioning democracy. In war time however it can be a deadly distraction from a war effort. Time Zelenski spends campaigning is time he does not spend fighting war. That disrupts command and control and puts war effort in jeopardy. Zelenski has no time to spare campaigning. Electoral campaign will distract common soldiers too, instead of being united for the country they will ponder virtues of different candidates, differences in opinion could jeopardize unity of military units. Because of all these reasons holding elections during war time is dangerous and can hand over victory to the opponent. Russia knows that and that is why it wants Ukraine to hold elections. 

Russian own martial law, that Putin did not activate because he does not consider events in Ukraine war (he calls it "special military operation"), also postponed elections in time of war. Internationally UK did suspended elections during WWII until after Victory in Europe, so Ukraine's postponement of elections is nothing undemocratic. 

Even if Ukraine hold an election there is no guarantee that Russia will recognize the results and agree to negotiate with the winner. Russia already declared Zelenski illegitimate. Despite disputed over his ratings he will likely win again. People in Ukraine are divided between 5 to 7 candidates with each at around 15% rating. Among them Zelenski is still in the lead. If election held and Zelenski wins there is a good chance that Russia will again call him illegitimate and refuse to negotiate. 

Even if Zelenski will not win, popular alternative candidates are all supportive of war effort. There is no chance that Russia friendly politician will emerge as victor and will agree to Russian demands. Fundamentally no matter who wins Russia will not recognize results and it will be for nothing. The whole trouble will be for nothing. However, change in government will disrupt chain of command and it will give Russia advantage on the battlefield. 

Since Russia will near certainly refuse to recognize results of Ukrainian election, their whole proposal is nothing more than a ruse to make themselves look like doves and cast Zelenski as warmonger. EU and the US should be wiser and see through Russian lies.

If by off chance Russia is genuine about these peace efforts, then they should prove it so that EU and Ukraine could trust them. 

Fundamentally there is nothing to negotiate about this war. Line of control is a de-facto border. After 3 years of war, it is so fortified that any offensive operations are near impossible. Accept that and stop fighting or do not accept and keep fighting. There are not any negotiable terms that are acceptable to either party. There will be no surrender of any land just because some piece of paper says so. There will be no obligations on Kyiv government. Nothing to discuss. 

If Russia wants peace if can just stop fighting. Since Russia does not do that, it means it wants war.