I will do it in an unusual way to me, by points, because I want to be as crystal clear here as a doctor.
Let’s start:
- The Kievan Russian history began around thousand years go. The Muscovite state – a Russia with Moscow as political and ideological center, counts down only around 700 years or so. Moscow is Kiv’s younger sister. Historically, Kiev is more ‘Russian’ that Moscow itself. To prove it, there’s a well-known proverb in Russia that says: ‘Kiev is the mother of Russian towns.’ I recall from my childhood: all the stories that I’ve heard or read about great bogatyrs – warrior heroes of ancient tales – are connected to Kiev’s Russia and its rulers and based on its fights with the Tartars or those invaders that preceded them.
- Now Moscow and Putin are very jealous of Kiev as a possible Russia’s alternative in the future: a democratic, with no Tartar-Stalin’s heritage, ‘normal’ country with no imperial ambitions. This very heritage drags Russia down because we keep coming back to those imperial roots to claim our historical continuum. Just think of Ivan the Terrible or Stalin: these strongmen are among the most historically popular figures in Russia, unlike the Ukraine where they’re known as dictators. They are, in fact. There’s another proverb: ‘The Ukraine is no Russia’. Putin officially declares that these are the same people.
- Currently the Ukraine is no alternative to Moscow because it is too weak: it is as corrupt as Russia but has no oil to back up its economy. The Ukrainian state is weak, too, compared to Russia but its society consists of citizens. In Russia the society is just population, no civil grounds/traditions behind it, historically.
- This is why I think the Ukrainian model is the winner in the long run: the basis here is the power of the society, not the might of the state. This is the key advantage.
- Now Russia economically and militarily seems to be much stronger than ‘weak’ Ukraine. It would be changing and by the mid-century it going to be obvious because, like I said, in the modern world the liberal model will prevail. It is just more competitive as history shows us. Unlike the Ukraine, the current Russian political model is very archaic and it won’t work for decades. Putin is making the same old mistake of Russian authoritarian leaders. On the other hand, the Ukraine has to solve its corruption problem otherwise it will really become a failed state just like Putin claims now.
- The only chance for Russia to catch up Ukraine in the long run is to change itself. We were going this way under Boris Yeltsin. We might have this chance after Vladimir Putin. Hopefully, it will be pretty soon.
But nobody knows how History will decide.
You Guys Are Stupid
Sometimes stereotypes contain more than just a grain of truth, sometimes they are real. 150 years ago, world powers would meet, pull out maps and draw random lines, carving up continents and people. These random lines would become countries and the source of future wars. The Kurdish found when their maps were drawn they had no country at all.
Some leaders long for the good old days. I have little doubt that’s why Putin wants to negotiate directly with Biden and not the Ukrainians. Grab a Sharpie and carve off Eastern & Southern Ukraine to be added to the Neo-Russian Empire. We will worry about what the Ukrainians think a hundred and fifty years from now. After all, Ukraine has no future without Russia; they are one people according to Putin.
I do think there will be war in Ukraine and it’s Europe’s fault. Guys like Putin, Xi, Trump, et all, have no interest in humanity. They are simple really. They understand a baseball bat across the forehead. “You do this and I’ll do that.” These men understand power.
Some EU countries can’t figure this out. “Well, maybe he can have just another little bite. We won’t really do all those nasty economic things if they only take a corridor along the coast.” I’m sure not one of these so-called leaders have family in Mariupol. This will lead directly to war. Did you forget to send the Kremlin that engraved invitation?
Here’s a quote from the US President’s news conference: “It’s very important that we keep everyone in NATO on the same page. That’s what I’m spending a lot of time doing, and there are differences,” he went on. “There are differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do, depending on what happens.” Differences in NATO is music to Putin’s ears. These stupid idiots in Europe are going to get people killed.
Do the leaders of these NATO countries think that Putin will be happy if he gets another piece of Ukraine? The pattern is clear: He will wait six or eight years and pick out his next target.
However, there is one point that people on both sides of the Atlantic do agree on: NATO is past its expiration date. Why the hell do Americans take defending Europe more seriously than Europeans? Putin is not menacing Chicago. He is not going to cut a corridor across the south & east of Florida. Remember the baseball bat comment? Putin does too. As I said: this is simple.
Question: why should we send our boys to die defending Germany when the Germans themselves don’t give a damn? Yes, the price of gas is up, but that’s your own fault. You shut down all those electric plants before you got renewables online. Now Ukraine is going to pay a price in blood so you can have Nord Stream 2.
If Russia does invade Ukraine, I think the Americans will want out of NATO in perhaps ten or fifteen years. Obviously, nations like Poland and the UK will form a new alliance with other countries, including the US. Putin can have France for all I care. Trump said out loud what most of us believe: If you won’t pay for your own army, why should you get to use ours? To be clear, this feeling cuts across politics: I’m a Libtard and Trump is MAGA. And two percent is not that much… unless you’re European. You guys are stupid.
Ukraine v Russia – can there be a winner?
I am constantly left bemused; it’s not dementia, yet, but I am wondering why there seems to be no world leader that feels able to stand up to that little man Putin.
This pathetic creature wants to rewind history and recreate the U.S.S.R., and does not care one iota how he achieves his ultimate goal. When he invades Ukraine, which he inevitably will, all that will happen is a few economic sanctions that will affect the people of Russia. That is all that the rest of the world would dare to inflict. Where are the Margaret Thatchers and Winston Churchills of today? Nowhere to be found. Even Merkel has gone. Diplomacy? Doesn’t work with crackpot dictators.
The current situation is already a win for Russia, which is once again at the centre of global attention. There is little agreement between Nato nations as to what the best form of action will be. The EU relies on Russia for 40% of its gas, so there is little appetite there for any major action which may jeopardise the flow. Russia might lose out financially, but of course they have much bigger fish to fry in an alternative market that is China. The British government is more concerned about defending itself against Partygate than getting stuck into Putin’s antics.
Putin doesn’t give a fig about his people. He would happily let the “peasants”, which is how he sees them, die of starvation as long as he can achieve his aims. He sees the way that Nato has spread eastwards towards the motherland as a threat. A threat to his plan to re-establish the previous might of the Soviet Union. The Kremlin simply cannot abide the thought of Ukraine leaning towards the left, embracing western cultures and democracy, and maybe one day joining Nato.
Simply put, losing Ukraine would be a massive blow to Russia’s unbelievably arrogant perception of seeing itself as still a great power. Yes, the West made mistakes in humiliating the country after the Cold War ended, leaving great scars, but Putin’s malign influence needs to be stopped in its tracks. But that’s not going to happen. Round One, I hate to say, goes to Putin.
The BBC’s International Affairs Correspondent Paul Adams today summed it up rather well: “Putin will continue to hold a gun against Ukraine’s head while he pursues his wider agenda. And, as any film buff will tell you, when there’s a gun on the table, it usually means someone’s going to use it later.” It’s hard to argue with that.