“This is not war,” Volodymyr Zelensky said on Telegram over the weekend. “It’s terror. It’s killing for the sake of intimidation and pleasure.”
He was referring to shelling in Kherson. 16 people died and dozens were injured on Christmas Eve, when the Russian military opened fire more than 70 times with artillery, rocket systems and mortars, “turning central streets into a grisly scene of shattered glass, burned-out cars and bloodied corpses,” as The Wall Street Journal described the scene.
Vladimir Putin claimed he was open to negotiations, a contention Zelensky advisor Mykhailo Podolyak dismissed as ludicrously inconsistent with events on the ground. Putin, Podolyak said, “needs to come back to reality.”
On Monday, three Russian soldiers were killed during another drone attack on the Engels airfield in the Saratov region. The Russian Defense Ministry said a “Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicle” approached the facility at “low altitude” and was shot down. TASS attributed the deaths to “falling debris.”
It was the second incident at the base this month. Two strategic bombers hosted at Engels were damaged in an attack on December 5. That same day, a presumed Ukrainian drone attempted to strike an airfield in the Ryazan region. Three military personnel were killed in that attack. No planes were damaged in Monday’s incident.
The December 5 attacks constituted the deepest strikes inside Russia since the onset of the war, and although the Russian military destroyed the drones, it was nevertheless an embarrassment for Moscow. The Kremlin, without irony as usual, accused Ukraine’s military of resorting to “terrorist” tactics. Russia responded with a wholly disproportionate bombing campaign aimed in part at its neighbor’s energy infrastructure. (The Kremlin said it targeted “objects of the defenses complex.”)
Engels is 800 miles from Kyiv and nearly 400 miles from the closest territory held by the Ukrainian military.
Nowhere is the Western world’s hypocrisy over Ukraine more apparent than in reactions to strikes inside Russia. Putin is perilously close to committing genocide by cutting Ukrainians off from clean water and trying to freeze the population to death. The Western powers are ostensibly aghast at that, and yet the US and Europe tacitly rebuke Zelensky for cross-border strikes. “It’s their decision to make. We have not encouraged them to do that,” US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said, following the December 5 incidents.
While acknowledging the risk that Putin may cite strikes inside Russia as a justification for the use of tactical nuclear weapons, we shouldn’t overlook the fact that just three months ago, Dmitri Medvedev claimed Russia would be within its rights to use nuclear arms to defend newly annexed territory inside Ukraine. Medvedev called the annexations “irreversible.”
If the West is going to insist Ukraine not risk a nuclear response from Putin, then according to Medvedev’s logic, Ukraine can’t fight to win back annexed territory. And if Russia managed to turn the tide and somehow seize Kyiv next year, then apparently Ukraine would be lost forever, because any attempts to retake the capital would likewise constitute cause for a nuclear response, according to the Kremlin’s thinking. Where does that stop? In Warsaw? Or in Berlin? Or is it London?
This is a war. Either “all’s fair,” or it’s not. If we’re honest, the West’s aversion to Ukrainian strikes inside Russia is wholly self-serving. Many Ukrainians believe they don’t have a choice: Either they expel the Russians from their country or they’ll be killed by their occupiers. Atrocities committed by Russian soldiers and Putin’s mercenaries against civilians attest to that belief. Freezing to death, being executed by the Wagner Group, getting shot on the front lines, being blown up while demining a city (as three emergency workers did in Kherson on Saturday) or being incinerated by a tactical nuclear weapon are just different ways of dying. I doubt the average Ukrainian cares all that much right now about whether Putin is or isn’t irritated enough to chance the deployment of a small nuke, because if you’re Ukrainian, you have every reason to believe Putin intends to kill you one way or the other.
The West would obviously rather Ukrainians not die, but if they do die, the US, the UK, France and Germany don’t want it to be in a nuclear blast. Because then, very hard choices have to be made, and very quickly. To the extent sending drones hundreds of miles into Russia increases the chances of a nuclear incident, the West isn’t in favor, because there’s no not responding militarily to a nuclear strike.
Consistent with standard operating procedure, Ukraine didn’t officially claim Monday’s attack on Engels, but a spokesman for the country’s air defense department wasn’t exactly coy. “If Russians thought that war won’t touch them in their deep rear, they were deeply wrong,” Yuriy Ihnat remarked.
The US is set to deliver a Patriot system to Ukraine following Zelensky’s whirlwind trip to Washington last week. Putin on Monday said he’ll destroy it. “Of course we’ll take it out, 100%!” he exclaimed, during an interview in Moscow. He called the Patriot technology “fairly” out of date. If that’s the case, one wonders why the Kremlin was demonstrably irritable last week when Joe Biden confirmed the planned delivery.
Biden was pressed during Zelensky’s visit to explain why (and readers will forgive my candor) the US doesn’t just drop the charade and give Ukraine what it needs to finish the war. Various estimates put the number of Russian casualties during the conflict at more than 100,000. That’s nearly as many combat deaths as the US suffered in World War I and Vietnam combined. And in just 10 months. You could (pretty easily) argue that if the US armed Ukraine to the teeth, and Putin wasn’t willing to deploy a nuclear weapon, the war would effectively be over the next day. Given the amount of aid already delivered and the upcoming deployment of a Patriot battery, some have suggested the White House may as well roll the dice in that regard.
“There’s an entire alliance [involved]. The idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have [the] prospect of breaking up NATO and breaking up the European Union,” Biden told a journalist during a joint press conference with Zelensky last week.
With apologies, that’s plainly nonsense. The US is NATO. NATO doesn’t exist without the US. NATO might be alarmed if the Biden administration decided unilaterally to give Ukraine long-range missiles (for example), but it’s not as if NATO can expel the US. As far as the EU is concerned, it wasn’t immediately clear what Biden meant. The EU isn’t a military alliance. It wouldn’t “break up” over a US weapons shipment to a combatant that’s not an EU member (yet). There’d be some tense discussions in Brussels, and Viktor Orban would complain, but who cares?
Biden ultimately admitted the real reason for not giving Ukraine “everything they want,” as he put it. “They understand it fully, but they’re not looking to go to war with Russia,” he said, of America’s allies in Europe. “They’re not looking for a third World War.”
I’m sure they’re not. But neither is Putin. He’s down a 100,000 men already and he’d surely lose. Then, he’d be deposed, either by NATO or, perhaps more likely, by the Russian mob and his own oligarchs who are very keen to see their fortunes unfrozen and their yachts freed.
At the end of the day, the West appears not to have learned much from World War II. You don’t prevent a global conflict by pacifying the aggressor. You make it more likely.
On Sunday, during televised remarks, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba reiterated that he’d ask the UN to remove Russia from the Security Council. “We have a very simple question: Does Russia have the right to remain a permanent member of the UN Security Council and to stay in the United Nations at all?” he wondered. “We have a convincing and well-reasoned answer — ‘No.'”
I agree with all points mentioned. It’s not even that “appeasement” is always wrong (say, if you’re abandoning an historic wrong against an opponent). It’s that you got to have a rational individual with a sense of proportion that will commit and hold to the deal you strike. That’s emphatically not Putin.
That said, I’m against removing Russia from the UN. The whole point of the UN is to be a place for enemies to speak to each others.
The bottom line is that he plainly can’t win a conventional war that isn’t fought on Russian soil. Nobody wants to invade Russia, because it’s impossible. He doesn’t want to use nuclear weapons because he, like Kim, knows that if he does, that’s the end for him. I’d argue that skews the odds in favor of giving Ukraine what they need to push him back across the border, at which point the US could just (re)state what was always obvious: “Listen, nobody can invade Russia because the logistics don’t allow for it. You’re safe there in Moscow, unless your own people depose you, in which case that’s your problem, not ours. All you have to do is stay there, in Russia, and nobody’s going to bother you. As far as Crimea goes, we’ll talk to Kyiv and see what they wanna do. Who knows, maybe you can keep it! We’ll let you know within 30 days.” Obviously that wouldn’t be the official press release version, but that’d be the gist of the real agreement.
That’d work for me. As discussed before in your other articles, I agree, for example, that Sweden and Finland joining NATO is a strategic disaster for Russia. OTOH, it’s wholly without real life consequences b/c no one is going to start a conflict by invading Russia.
So yeah. I think the timidity of the West is possibly strategic as in “give Putin time to come to terms with losing” but it’s pretty harrowing for the Ukrainians.
I agree that no one sees invading Russia as a good idea but the crux of the matter is making sure that Russia doesn’t think that invading any other country is worth the cost in men and materials and the effort.
With the addition of sanctions, it’s a serious one way direction for the Russian federation. The gradual, unrelenting decline will, eventually, lead to regime change. It’s better that it comes from within. Sanctions are working and the US controls the switch.
“The whole point of the UN is to be a place for enemies to speak to each others.”
I thought that was the whole point of Twitter
🙂 maybe Putin would feel good about communicating on Twitter given he’s buddying up to Musk and Trump already admires him?
“…the West appears not to have learned much from World War II. You don’t prevent a global conflict by pacifying the aggressor. You make it more likely.” – exactly! I would advocate we go further and arm Ukraine to the teeth, including weapons that could reach the Kremlin. There should be a Doolittle moment in Moscow followed by ever increasing death and destruction throughout Putin’s realm.Even arming Zelensky with nukes should be on the table, with an ultimatum from Biden that makes it clear that Russia is done if they don’t end their criminal war of aggression…or Vlad himself should go on the same kind list as OBL and other international terrorists.
“Even arming Zelensky with nukes should be on the table…”
I seem to recall that Ukraine gave up their 5,000 nukes and destroyed their missle silos, etc. 30 years ago, based on security guarantees from the Russia and the West.
Is there anyone we haven’t screwed over at one time or another?
Maybe he can keep Crimea? Hmmm, was keeping Manchuria or Czechoslovokia on the table in 1945?
Wouldn’t you think that NATO (USA) have plans in place based on Putin’s next steps? The one thing no EU country or the West can afford is a Russian victory. The effects would be too devastating and far-reaching.
Either stop Putin or face an eventual confrontation with China (and that could happen anyway, but possibly less likely if Putin is stopped).
Nato needs to get tougher with Russia. I think a no fly zone over part of Ukraine would be a nice start. And by the way I am generally the opposite of a hawk. But putin and Russia needs to be punished.
H-Man, I guess the story is how long does the West provide resources for Ukraine to fight? Unlike the fall of Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland, the West never showed up which led to the fall of Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and France. I suggest we don’t let this snowball gather any more steam – time to draw a line in the sand even if it means the nuclear cards come into play.
The oil price cap has replaced a cold turkey quit of Russian oil that was supposed to take place a few weeks ago. We’ve now kept oil flowing as long as the contracted price is essentially <95% of market price (updated periodically). It seems that the US and EU are happy with that arrangement.
As with the Fed, it would be best if Biden said as little as possible about strategy and tactics. He should spend his breath, instead, making the clear case to the American people that we must remain committed to supporting Ukraine in their struggle against Russian aggression, and that, as Zelensky put it, it is not an act of charity.
While I agree with the argument that we should arm Ukraine for a decisive and rapid victory, I do understand that there are other strategic considerations involved. For Ukraine, a rapid decisive expulsion of Russian forces is obviously the best outcome. But for the west in general, there is a case to be made that a slow disintegration of Russian capabilities, and of the Russian economy, while giving the west time to adjust to a world without Russian oil, gas, and grain exports, is the preferred outcome.
When will we live in a world without Russian oil, gas, or grain?
When we stop using oil and gas which, contrary to the shrill (and also disingenuous to the extent the argument emanates from web portals run by people who publish counter-narrative not because they believe it, but because they can harvest $10 million a year in click pennies by publishing it and bilking gullible readers for tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations) protestations of the “contrarian” crowd, has to happen eventually, lest we should all run out of air to breathe, freeze to death, burn alive or all three. That’s when.
The grain problem won’t matter if we don’t stop using oil and gas, because the planet won’t be suitable for growing it anymore.
The good news is, none of us here debating this point today will be alive to see that play out, which is what allows the aforementioned web portals to keep denying scientific facts (in some cases in the service of carrying water for the Kremlin) on excuses like, “It’s cold this week, so there’s no global warming,” “Europe is experiencing an energy crisis, so Russia is necessary,” “Russians aren’t starving to death yet, so there’s no economic crisis” and so on.
Of course, all of those portals are run by people living in Western democracies and if you do a little experimenting with their donations setups and/or subscription options, what you’ll discover is that they generally only accept US dollars or euros, which is the weirdest thing because — you know — gold is money, and Bitcoin is great and the ruble is backed by oil, gas and grain, so why wouldn’t they want it?
I am embarassingly unknowledgeable about history and geopolitics, but it certainly seems to me that our “best allies,” the ones we stick with through actual thick and thin, are often two-faced leveragers like Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey, who get and continue to get what they want from us through threats and even counter-bets, as much as anything they actually offer us in return.
It also seems to me that Ukraine is learning that American hegemony is not so much about rewarding bravery or courage, or even defending democracy, liberty and rights. We have shown Ukraine that they are very important to us because they are useful as a buffer state, no more and no less — that much we’ve made clear. But Ukraine, if left to twist in the smoke-filled wind long enough, might soon learn another lesson that our allies in the Middle East learned some time ago — begging and pleading don’t get you nearly as far as threats. Are we really going to test Ukraine’s resolve and patience via an IV drip of support and hope it all just sort of works out? I mean surely they are watching as America whines about its tight purse strings, while contemplating student loan forgiveness, making tax cuts for the rich permanent, funding a weapons program no one wants (except job-touting pols), etc.
It seems to me, finally, that at some point Ukraine tires of the begging and pleading, while bodies pile up around the ruined infrastructure, to contemplate doing what we don’t want them to do — going on the offensive within Russia’s territory (as any “normal” war footing would demand after being invaded), or conceding to Russia in hopes of preserving some continuing existence.
If this is misguided, I know I can count on this comment board to straighten me out. Thanks in advance.