3 Comments

Interesting interview. Nonetheless if Russia doesn't want a mess on her hands then this border war must be prosecuted quickly and to victory. I'm writing now as a 33 year veteran and I served on General Staff (among other areas) and that of course involves planning. The two pronged approach was great from the east and from Belarus that would cut the nation into two and screw up logistics at the same time the capital could've been quickly encircled. This didn't happen quickly enough and was a serious loss of opportunity. Also the railroads, should have been disrupted or seized same for the highways. I think Putin underestimated the reaction of western deep states, that are now in free fall and can now use the "crisis in the Ukraine" to divert their populace's attention from their collapsing societies. Also I suspect Putin wanted show resolve and toughness but he also pulled his punches. As a long time martial artist (as am I) he should've understood that he was not involved in a "street fight" not a "competition" AKA ring fighting. In a "street fight" you need to not only hit first, you need to hit hard, very hard and demonstrate to your enemy that you mean serious business. In a "street fight" you're not looking to win a cash prize, trophy or a higher belt level. You're only goal is to render your enemy incapable of continuing to fight then you extricate yourself ASAP. The longer you fight whether a street fight, ring competition, or armed conflict, the more dangerous it becomes for all parties. The Kiev regime would've collapsed had it not been for the largess sent from the west. So long as it continues they'll keep dragging this debacle out and try to bog down Russia. Putin must at this point, go full throttle, win big and fast, or face more problems than he bargained for. This entire mess is a tragedy for all parties concerned. I've both Ukrainian and Russian friends though I think the removal of the Kiev regime would be a good thing. It's completely compromised and is a tool of the western deep state banking cartels. It works for them not the Ukrainian people. Russia has it's onw governmental issues as do all nations but that's for another post.

Expand full comment

There's a lot here I don't follow.

The US attempted a quick resolution in Iraq, but long afterward had to contend with political relations between Bathists, Kurds, and Shiites long after the "victory" (and strengthened Iran immensely.) Whereas the west doesn't seem averse to shattering countries into squabbling ethnicities, a favorable Ukrainian outcome for Russia calls for a different endgame, of restoring as much good will between the Ukrainians and Russians toward each other. In this sense, even within Ukraine, there are not 2, but 5 parties to this war: (i) the hardline Ukrainian military, (ii) the Russian military, (iii) ethnic Russian civilians, (iv) ethnic Ukrainian civilians, and (v) Ukrainian incorrigibles (Nazis and NATO hardcore extremists and terrorists).

Slow military advance, with minimal damage, with consistent improvement in conditions in captured territory, offers the possiiblity of incorporating peoples (especially the 4th group) in a roughly peacable and prosperous way. All but the last group might find such an accomodation satisfactory. However, the changes and attitude adjustments necessary for such a program will be necessarilty slow.

This program amounts to running military and political operations simultaneously is doomed to fail, so a hard decisive effort such as that called for in the article might well be the only workablle plan. Nevertheless, I can't see what outcome here could be construed as a mmeaningful victory. It would seem to create a situation doomed to end like Afghanistan. Either "Empire's" failure there provides the template.

Expand full comment

i have a number of quibbles with your interview host, but appreciate the interview regardless..

Expand full comment