Links to Previous Posts about the Ukraine War

It seems that more than a few comments to my previous post were about my position on the Ukraine war- specifically about my analysis about how it is progressing. Since many commentators are new to my substack, I thought that links to my previous posts about the Ukraine war would be useful. Some will find them interesting because my position on this topic haven’t changed much, if at all, as the course of that conflict has vindicated my position. This list can be found towards the end of current post, so feel free to scroll down if you are impatient- or read the synopsis of those posts first. And one more thing, I have no affection or dislike for either side. My analysis about this topic, and others, is based on careful study of all available evidence and sources as objectively as possible- and that is why I always have an unusually high rate of being right on a number of issues and topics. With that out of the way, let me quickly summarize my overall position on this, still ongoing, war.

It has always been my opinion that the real starting point of this war was much earlier than is commonly believed. While it officially started on February 22, 2022, the events which led there started much earlier, probably in 2014 or even 2004- depending on who you ask. Incorporation of countries neighboring Russia into NATO is the fundamental cause of this war, but the details of why Russia reacted with war to the likelihood of Ukraine, but not other neighboring countries, joining NATO requires explanation. As readers might remember, while Russia was not pleased when the three Baltic states joining NATO in 2004, Russia did not go to war over it- because those three countries have a combined population less than half of Moscow and pose no real threat to it- even though if they share a land border. Chihuahuas can be yappy and annoying, but are not dangerous. Poland and Romania joining NATO was also not that big a deal, given their complicated historical relationship with Russia. So what was different about the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO?

For starters, Ukraine would have been the largest, most populous and most heavily armed NATO member on the Russian border. Historically, almost every single attempt to invade Russia has occurred through Ukraine. Furthermore, eastern parts of present-day Ukraine have been historically part of Russia (until 1922) and contained a majority Russian population. To make matters even more interesting, the post-WW2 western boundaries of Ukraine were created by incorporating areas which used to belong to Poland, Hungary and Romania- which is a fancy way of saying that Ukraine of 1991-2022 was an artificial state. However none of this would have been as issue as long as Ukraine was not part of NATO, and this possibility wasn’t on the menu till 2004, when USA first supported a ‘color revolution’ in Ukraine leading to installation of a USA-friendly government. The entry of Baltic states in NATO in 2004 did not help matters.

The 2004 coup in Ukraine allowed USA and the West to pump lots more money into Ukraine- a nation which was already incredibly corrupt and with a strong support base for Nazism and other related ideologies in its western regions. The 2004 coup did put Ukraine it on its current path of destruction, but it was insufficient to push things over the edge. That process started in the aftermath of the much better known 2014 coup- leading to a whole series of secondary and tertiary effects staring with the open secession of two historically Russian oblasts (Luhansk and Donetsk) and annexation of (also historically Russian) Crimea by Russia. The civil war which followed in Ukraine led to a number of events and changes, including the failed Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 treaties which Ukraine and the West violated and building of numerous fortifications such as those in Avdiivka and Bakhmut which would be relevant about a decade later.

Hence, it was obvious (as early as 2017) to any objective spectator of this conflict that the current war was basically inevitable. However, it also clear that Russia wanted to exhaust all peaceful and semi-peaceful options before taking that route. A somewhat peaceful solution to this conflict was possible even in 2016, but a number of decisions taken by successive Ukrainian governments and NATO closed that possibility. These included vastly increased and direct military cooperation between Ukraine and NATO, covert supply of western and surplus-Soviet weapon systems to Ukraine and more. It is not widely known in the West that Russia was repeatedly warning NATO and Ukraine that it would have to resort to military means to address this situation as far back as, at least, 2018. In retrospective, this war would have most likely started in 2020, if not for the fake COVID-19 crisis which occupied most of the world in 2020 and 2021.

So let us now talk about the start of the war, specifically why Russia appeared to send a rather small and poorly equipped armored division towards Kiev while pushing the bulk of its invasion force into the Russian-majority eastern regions of Ukraine. The simple answer is that there were trying to achieve two objectives: 1] Fix some of the Ukrainian forces around Kiev so they would not be able to reinforce the real invasion in the Donbass region and 2] As a final semi-peaceful attempt to scare some sense into the Ukrainian government to make peace with them before fully committing to the military option. They succeed in the first and almost succeed in second, though in retrospective, the military option was the better if more expensive option. And this brings us to the next aspect of this conflict, specifically why Russia chose to fight a long war than go for a short and intensive conflict.

While the official explanation for Russia choosing the long war option is that it was a “Special Military Operation” rather than a full-scale war, the reality is more complex. See.. once Russia realized that a full-scale conflict was the only option by May 2022, it made an important choice- depopulating Ukraine through emigration, destruction of its economy via war and killing/crippling the maximum number of Ukraine soldiers at the least attrition and cost for Russia. But why did they choose this path rather than invade and conquer as much of Ukraine as quickly as possible. Well.. firstly because leaving a viable Ukrainian state, even one occupied for a few years after conquest, would a perpetual problem for Russia. To ensure that this same situation did it not occur in the future, it was necessary to destroy Ukraine and its ability to ever be a serious military threat to Russia so thoroughly that no amount of Western money and assistance could ever build it back in the foreseeable future.

The second reason for Russia slow walking this war is that it was necessary to sell the necessity of this war to its own citizens- a process greatly helped by the western and Ukrainian reaction towards Russia and Russians. As far as casualties are concerned, some readers seem to think that the numbers and ratios I have mentioned are wishful thinking or propagandas. Unfortunately for Ukrainians and the West, the casualty ratio in this war has been that lopsided for a number of reasons- especially the way both the Ukrainian government and NATO has thrown away the lives of hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers by pushing them into poorly thought and unwinnable battles. While there are many possible reasons why Ukraine and the West decided to fight this unwinnable and disastrous war, such as trying to maintain support for Ukraine or trying to “bleed” Russia- we should not forget the most important reason, namely that they believed their own bullshit about western superiority and Russian inferiority. Getting high off your own drugs always end badly, as it did in this case.

However, getting high off your own drugs has been the central pillar of the western worldview over the past two decades, despite growing mountains of evidence to the contrary. We have seen many examples of this mindset in the western reaction to this conflict. These range from constant talk about how “Russian economy is imploding”, “Russian army is imploding” to whatever else they want to believe. But belief in your own fairytales and bullshit cannot overcome hard reality- whether it is the fact that the Russian economy is stronger than in 2022, Russian armed forces are much larger and far more capable than 2022 and many other facets of reality that fly in the face of western fairy tales. Then again, the same western idiots also believe USA is the indispensable country, USA can win real wars or the American healthcare system is the best in world. You cannot argue with delusional, because it is not worth your time. Also, most people living in dying regions such as western Europe and other irrelevant countries such as Canada, Australia etc are almost as delusional as those in USA. There is, after all, a reason I wrote that previous post.

Another manifestation of this magical thinking was how so many military “experts” in the West believe that “superior” western systems would turn the ide of war and help Ukraine win. However, once again, reality had shown that every western weapon is either not superior to its Russian equivalent (M777, HIMARs etc) or often noticeably inferior (MBTs, APCs etc). It does not help that the reliability and serviceability of western weapon systems under conditions of prolonged conflict is inferior to their Russian equivalents. Between not having enough decent weapons and terrible military strategy, in addition to a much smaller and weaker manufacturing base, it is no surprise that Ukraine has suffered such horrendous and lopsided casualties. If you think this is not true, ask yourself- why is the median age of deployed Ukrainian soldiers closer to 50 than 30, as it was at start of war? And why does Russia not have the same problem - with either median age of soldiers or recruitment.

Finally, and before we go the list of older posts about Ukraine, let us talk about the levels of delusion still seen among western governments including USA. Even a somewhat heterodox character such as Trump still thinks he can negotiate another temporary and worthless ceasefire and freeze the conflict- a Minsk 3 of sorts. These idiots don’t realize that they have no worthwhile leverage over Russia and rest of world has moved on and changed a lot since even 2017, let alone 2001 or 2003. At this point of the conflict, the West should be more concerned about how thoroughly a post-war Ukraine (whatever is left of it) will be broken up and redistributed to surrounding countries with territorial claim on those regions- and let us not pretend that Poland, Hungary and Romania will refuse parts of Ukraine that used to belong to them. In summary, it is almost amusing to watch the West and Ukraine pretend that they have any real say in the course of events and end result of this war.

Here is the list of previous post on Ukraine war, in order from oldest to newest.

Some Initial Thoughts about the Ongoing Russian Invasion of Ukraine (Feb 26, 2022)

Some Preliminary Predictions about Medium and Long Term Effects of Ongoing Conflict in Ukraine (Mar 4, 2022)

Some Thoughts on the Russian Strategy in Current Invasion of Ukraine (Mar 12, 2022)

Do Western Countries Have a Plan B for Relations with Russia After its Current Conflict with Ukraine is Over? (Mar 31, 2022)

Predictions about Fallout from Situation in Ukraine: Apr 9, 2022 (Apr 19, 2022)

Understanding Russian Strategy in Ukraine Based on their Actions Since the Start of this War (April 27, 2022)

Why are Western "Experts" so Delusional about the Course of Ongoing War in Ukraine? (Jul 11, 20222)

Why are Western Fanboys of Ukraine Delusional? (Sep 27, 2022)

Why are Ukrainians and Poles Prone to Child-Like Worship of the West? (Jul 3, 2023)

Does Ukraine Have a Worthwhile Future Once the Ongoing War is Over? (Jul 11. 2023)

Ukraine Conflict Has Exposed the Mediocrity of Western Weapon Systems (Mar 4, 2024)

If you read these older posts, you might be surprised that my analysis and takes were infinitely superior to the make-believe bullshit spouted by western “experts”.

What do you think? Comments?