Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Lost: The Truth About the War in Ukraine. If Found, Please Return ASAP.
Reward offered upon confirmation of veracity.
As I was putting together some preliminary thoughts about the quandary I hope to address here, I found a recent post at Powerline, the opening paragraph of which sums up my — our — dilemma far better than I could. It can be found here, and is as follows:
A certain amount of caution is recommended about reporting and commenting on the Ukraine War, mostly because solid facts are hard to come by (the “fog of war” and all that), and judgment about what to do is in equally short supply, especially inside the head of our president.
Since I wrote a short and very admiring piece about Zelensky, I have tried to read (almost) everything I could get my hands on about the war and the combatants involved, to see whether I have been missing something along the way. Truth be told, I have apparently missed a lot, as one can find support for any side of the arguments about the war if one looks hard enough.
For example:
- The Russians have been defeated in their attempt to take Kyiv. Ukraine has not defeated the Russians at Kyiv, they have just pulled back to regroup and can come back after they mop up in the East. Take your pick.
- Zelensky is the Sir Winston Churchill of our time. Zelensky is a corrupt product of the deep corruption for which Ukraine is most noted and has millions stashed away in offshore banks Take your pick.
- The sanctions we have imposed on Russia, Putin, the oligarchs, etc., etc., are the most devastating in the history of sanctions in all of recorded history and have, in the typically inane words of our Potemkin “President”, “turned the ruble into rubble.” The sanctions we have imposed have had a serious initial impact on the Russian population in general but are unlikely to have any serious impact on Russia’s conduct of the war in Ukraine; the ruble was, in fact, hit hard at first and has now recovered to levels above where it was before the sanctions. Take your pick.
- Putin is a vicious mad-dog monster who just woke up one morning and decided to level an entire nation and slaughter millions in the process. Putin has been telling the West in clear and unmistakable terms that this invasion would take place if the West and NATO did not put a stop to its overtures to Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO and the EU. Take your pick.
- Putin is likely to be removed in a palace coup due to his mishandling of the war in Ukraine. Putin is stronger than ever with approval ratings, at last report, in the range of 78% (a level our “President” and his imbecile of a Vice President can only dream of). Take your pick.
- The war will end by mid-May. The war will grind on as long as it takes Russia to obliterate the entire country—and its leadership. Take your pick.
- Putin is winning decisively. Ukraine is winning and will, in short order, turn back the Russian onslaught. Take your pick.
- Biden engaged in real statesmanship in publicly calling Putin a “war criminal” and openly pushing for “regime change” in the Kremlin. Biden’s irresponsible remarks and more and more obvious cognitive deficiencies regarding the man with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world could get us all (ALL) killed. Take your pick.
What follows is a relatively brief discourse on the authorities I have found on all sides of some of these issues and I note that I use the word “brief” advisedly in viewing the voluminous nature of much of this content. That said, I cannot recommend too highly a complete reading of the writings cited here as, together, they give a much clearer picture of what is actually happening on the ground in Ukraine, unfiltered through the far left lens of disgraces to journalism like CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post and the New York Times.
I will most highly recommend one particular podcast as the most comprehensive resource I have found for a thorough and deeply researched treatment of the history leading up to this unspeakable tragedy. I emphasize that while I do not pretend to have any “answers” to all these questions, I have found some sources which seem to be, in my humble opinion as just a lay observer nowhere near the level of “nuanced” “intellectualism” of some of the elites (some of whom got us here in the first place), very solid writings about the long and sordid history leading up to this tragedy.
Another phrasing of that same truth is found in a short piece by a financial consultant James Rickards entitled “I’ve Never Heard So Many Lies”:
All wars are full of lies. Winston Churchill famously said, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
We accept that idea broadly. Secret invasion plans should be closely held. The identities of spies must be kept under wraps. New weapons and defensive tools should not be revealed because enemies will be alerted to their potential and begin offensive workarounds.
Still, just because the government has legitimate reasons to deceive the public in wartime does not mean that citizens don’t have a duty to find the truth to the extent they can.
The Russian-Ukraine kinetic war and the broader U.S.-Russian economic war are full of more lies than any public events I’ve seen in my lifetime including Vietnam, Watergate and the Iraq War.
That’s how big the lies are.
I. “Ukraine has won the Battle of Kyiv”
When I decided to make a concentrated effort to learn as much as I could about the war, one of the first publications I turned to was the daily reporting of the Institute for the Study of War. I was impressed by the thoroughness of their reports and most impressed by the membership of their Board of Directors, which includes Gen. Jack Keane. Gradually it started to dawn on me that most, if not all, of their reporting was sourced to the Ukrainian General Staff. For example, here is the opening paragraph of their report of April 3:
Ukraine has won the Battle of Kyiv. Russian forces are completing their withdrawal, but not in good order. Ukrainian forces are continuing to clear Kyiv Oblast of isolated Russian troops left behind in the retreat, which some Ukrainian officials describe as “lost orcs.” Russian forces had attempted to conduct an orderly retreat from their positions around Kyiv with designated covering forces supported by artillery and mines to allow the main body to withdraw. The main body of Russian troops has withdrawn from the west bank of the Dnipro and is completing its withdrawal from the east bank, but the retrograde has been sufficiently disorderly that some Russian troops were left behind.
And here are their “Key Takeaways” from the same date:
- Ukraine has won the Battle of Kyiv, and Russian forces are completing their withdrawals from both the east and the west banks of the Dnipro in disorder.
- Russian forces retreating from around Kyiv will likely need considerable time before they can return to combat.
- Incidents of refusals of orders to engage in combat operations among Russian units continue and may lead to the redeployment of two BTGs that had arrived near Donbas within the last few days to their home stations in South Ossetia.
- The continued existence of an independent Ukrainian state with its capital in Kyiv is no longer in question at this time, although much fighting remains and the war could still turn Russia’s way.
II. Ukraine has not won the battle of Kyiv.
The other side of this issue, decidedly less rosy and optimistic, was stated in the Rickards piece, cited above, and echoed by the estimable Roger Kimball, in an article entitled “Trading Realpolitik for a Puppet Show”, here.
Here’s the official U.S. narrative as echoed by the mainstream media: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked, Putin’s three-day blitzkrieg of Kyiv has failed, Russian forces are bogged down and valiant Ukrainian troops are putting up a powerful defense and regaining lost ground with the help of weapons from NATO.
***
Russia never planned a blitzkrieg on Kyiv. That’s a Western invention intended to make Putin look like a failure. In fact, Russia is slowly and methodically taking territory in the south and east of Ukraine in order to control the seacoasts, eliminate pro-fascist elements in Mariupol and establish pro-Russian autonomous zones in Donbas.
Also noted in this piece is the view of our own military and here I am (with great regret) constrained to note one is most highly advised to take any information from the current Pentagon leadership with a grain of salt the size of one of Hunter Biden’s cocaine rocks:
Most tellingly, Pentagon leaks say the same thing. The story from inside the Pentagon is that Putin is not acting recklessly but is being patient and methodical. It also says that, despite some civilian casualties, Putin is actually using a restrained approach. Furthermore, there are no signs he is preparing for the use of chemical or biological weapons.
III. The Slaughter in Bucha was a War Crime by Russia
The consensus of the reporting of the media at the time this is being written, as well as what seems to be the almost-universally accepted narrative world-wide, is that this was a war crime committed by the butchers of the Red Army. The images being viewed daily over the world could easily have been the same they left behind as they slaughtered their way to Berlin. Their reputation for wanton cruelty, such as the Katyn Massacre in which an estimated 20,000 Polish Army officers were gunned down in 1940, has been long established and lends credence to this side of the argument.
IV. The Bucha Atrocity Was a False Flag Operation and a Lie
In “About the Bucha ‘Reported’ Atrocities” on the Meaning in History blog, these passages are found:
… Even a casual observer of the news feeds has to notice that virtually all of the anti-Russian claims—wildly over optimistic assessments, claims of Putin’s mental decline and or desperation, fake news of atrocities and casualties, mislabeling of photos, etc.—appear first in British media outlets.
This has also happened in the case of the “reported”—i.e., unverified—Russian atrocities in Bucha. A few tweets illustrate the very dodgy character of this narrative. It took no less than two days, maybe longer, of reoccupation of Bucha by Ukraine for the narrative to develop. Weird, huh?
***
No forensic findings—only narrative designed to prolong and increase sanctions. Ultimate goal? Probably to hold wavering NATO countries in line:
***
… Let’s see if the Ukrainians provide verifiable medical forensic data to sustain their accusations.
Similar questions about the “accepted” narrative were set forth in a most interesting discussion found in American Greatness entitled “Who Really Committed War Cremes in Bucha?”, dated April 9. For the sake of brevity, here is a truncated version of the author’s main points:
First, this fits with a pattern of Ukrainian forces violating the rules of war, as evidenced by numerous videos showing the shooting of prisoners, torturing civilians, and the like. …
Second, Ukrainian President Voldomyr Zelenskyy has given numerous speeches calling for the punishment of “saboteurs” and “traitors,” saying the war will ultimately end with the “de-Russification” of Ukraine. These are tough words, which clearly would tend to inflame and encourage the more extremist elements.
Three, the atmosphere in Ukraine is ripe for war crimes. …
Four, the timeline of reports creates real doubts about whether Russia perpetrated the Bucha Massacre. …
Fifth, in at least some of the photos of Bucha , the victims appear to have white armbands—a sign of friendliness towards Russian forces and an indicator used by Russian forces themselves—and Russian-supplied emergency rations. …
Finally, the Ukrainians surely know that allegations of Russian atrocities—like earlier stories about Russia attacking nuclear plants and suggestions of Russia’s imminent use of chemical weapons—are the easiest way to manipulate the West into becoming a combatant. …
My selection of his main points is entirely and arbitrarily mine; I highly recommend a full reading of this excellent article.
V. Volodymyr Zelensky is the Sir Winston Churchill of our time
Not long ago, I wrote a post entitled “Zelensky: A President Who Loves His Country- And Would Die For It” in which I praised his speech before the Congress and noted my admiration for his strength and obvious love of country. One of the ideas behind this admittedly laudatory discussion was the contrast I saw between that President and the corrupt, dishonest, cognitively-impaired cretin who presently occupies —illegitimately in my opinion, but that is for another day — that position in our Nation. One comment said that “90% of your post is fawning over a corrupt man.” While I did not know I was even capable of “fawning” over anyone (My Lady and family obviously excepted) , my recent research has lent heartening evidence to the fact that I am apparently not alone in admiring this man in these impossible-to-imagine trials, as one of Sir Winston’s most noted biographers recently published an op-ed “Churchill, Zelensky and the American Right”, in the Wall Street Journal, noting the following:
No reflection on Churchill today would be complete without noting the Churchillian leadership of President Volodymyr Zelensky. Mr. Zelensky saw the Afghan president flee when the Taliban advanced on Kabul last year and decided he wouldn’t be that kind of leader. He summoned his inner Churchill and decided to stay in his capital and fight it out. If he dies in Kyiv, Mr. Zelensky will become a martyr to Ukrainians for centuries and could be even more of a threat to Mr. Putin in death than he is in life.
Like Churchill, Mr. Zelensky endures nightly attacks on his capital city for weeks on end, speaks to his people without ever sugaring the pill, appeals for the tools to finish the job, and, in a direct paraphrase of Churchill’s June 4, 1940, speech after Dunkirk, has promised to fight in the forests and the streets and not to surrender. Churchill never had to face enemy ground troops in London’s suburbs or assassination squads.
Mr. Putin has described Mr. Zelensky as a neo-Nazi and a drug addict. The neo-Nazi jibe stretches credulity for many reasons, not least Mr. Zelensky’s Jewishness. With regard to addiction, I wish Mr. Putin had revealed what drug Mr. Zelensky is taking so that I could get some. Churchill said in January 1940: “Finland—superb, nay, sublime. In the jaws of peril, Finland shows what free men can do. The service rendered by Finland to mankind is magnificent.” Today he would apply those same words to Ukraine.
There are people in the conservative movement who oppose and attack Mr. Zelensky. I understand their arguments intellectually. Some are ideological; others have to do with World War II; still others go back to Catherine the Great or to events as recent as the Trump presidency. I beseech them to recognize that as of Feb. 24 everything has changed, not only because of Mr. Putin’s invasion, but because of the brutal way it has been carried out. For all our sophisticated appreciation of realpolitik, we mustn’t blind ourselves to the fact that an evil man has done a terribly evil thing.
VI, Zelensky is just another corrupt product of one of the most corrupt nations in the world.
This side of the argument is best summarized in the Kimball piece linked above, in which he has this to say about the “new Churchill” canard:
… But what about Zelenskyy, the “new Churchill”? On the plus side, Rickards acknowledges, he has “succeeded in presenting himself as a strong wartime leader, standing up to the big, bad Putin.” He’s telegenic, a fighter, and a PR genius. No wonder the U.S. Congress gave him a standing ovation. But he is also a complicated figure. As Rickards also notes, Zelenskyy is “a corrupt oligarch with millions of dollars hidden offshore. His acting skills have enhanced his propaganda efforts, but it doesn’t take much training to see how phony he is.” Moreover, “innocent civilians, including women and children, are dying under his failed leadership and inability to come to terms with Putin before the invasion began. In a nutshell, Zelenskyy bet on support from Biden and the West and lost.”
VII. Conclusion: Sources on the History of Events Leading up to this Tragedy
Several detailed and extensively researched articles have appeared lately outlining the history of the last 20 years or so leading up to this point. Before I cite those authorities, and while I wish it was not at all necessary to do so, I must make it clear that nothing in this post should be taken to excuse in any way whatsoever the cruel and brutal attack on Ukraine and its people. These discussions and resources are offered as research aids for anyone who might wish to delve further into this most sordid chapter in the history of modern warfare.
The leading article I would recommend appeared in the Wall Street Journal recently under the title “Vladimir Putin’s 20-Year March to War in Ukraine — and How the West Mishandled it” — it is a chilling reminder of how many “red flags” were blown through on the way to February 24, 2022, by many in the West. I highly recommend a thorough reading of this lengthy analysis. A more succinct discussion can be found in “Bill Clinton’s supreme NATO screw-up comes back to haunt us”, containing these thoughts, starting with a reference to George Kennan’s book American Diplomacy:
Kennan understood, as Clinton and his team did not, that a Russian “sphere of influence” was one of those “national realities.” He singled out Ukraine for special mention in this regard. “Ukraine,” he wrote, “deserves full recognition for the peculiar genius and abilities of its people and for the requirements and possibilities of its development as a linguistic and cultural entity.” But, he continued, “Ukraine is economically as much a part of Russia as Pennsylvania is a part of the United States.” Meanwhile, the Baltic states and other satellite states, he advised, should not proceed from “feelings of revenge and hatred toward the Russian people who have shared their tragedy.”
Kennan would have rolled his eyes at the notion pressed by Clinton in his Atlantic article that, as president, he “tried to put Russia on another path.” Kennan lacked the intellectual and ahistorical hubris of the Clinton foreign policy team. He understood that Russians, not American policymakers, would decide Russia’s political future. And the Russian political tradition, as the late Russian scholar Richard Pipes repeatedly noted, was one of “patrimonialism,” where all power flows directly from an autocratic leader or group of leaders. Vladimir Putin fits within that Russian tradition.
I also recommend “How the West Sowed the Seeds of War in Ukraine” by Pedro Gonzalez, here.
I conclude with a reference to a resource that is not only, in my opinion, perhaps the very best of all those I noted in my research, but maybe one of the best in-depth historical analyses I have ever heard in a relatively brief delivery. It is entitled “Thoughts on Ukraine” and is on the podcast The MartyrMade podcast by Darryl Cooper.
I have learned — at times the hard way — that there are no guarantees in life, but in this case I will come close to assuring anyone who is willing to invest the almost 2 1/2 hours it will take to get through this discussion that your views on the many diplomatic misadventures along the way will almost certainly change to one degree or another. With that knowledge may well come, as it did for me, a real and chilling sense of foreboding for what the future holds, especially, obviously, as long as our National “leadership” class, led by the worst “President” in American history, remains in power.
Pray for Ukraine— and America!
Published in General
I don’t see a trend, either. If people do see one, they should spell it out inside of hiding behind weasel words and mysterious abstractions.
It’s not just modern commentary. A lot of people and countries who go into war assume it will be quick. It’s part of the history of the US War of 1812 or of the US Civil War, for example.
“We need a short, victorious war to avert a revolution” – attributed to Tsar Nicholas II.
That would be Nicholas, the last tsar of Russia. The war was the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, which Russia lost badly, due to – among other things – poor leadership and logistics problems.
But you can say that about anything, for instance “because people got arrested for walking around in public and got fired for refusing a shot, therefore North Korea will turn democratic and give up its nuclear arsenal.”
The fact is the truth wont be found for months if not years after the fighting. And decades later historians and wargamers like myself will be arguing whether or not Hitler actually paused in France in 1940, and whether or not should have reduced the British at Dunkirk. (He did exactly what he was supposed to do there).
This kind of information comes out way faster than it used to.
Yes, I agree fully.
No it does not. We are still looking at facts from Iraq. And I am not a professional like TWW.
I don’t see why both can’t be true: 1) We get information faster, and 2) we’re still sorting out the facts many years later.
Professional Amateur.
It is true, though a lot of WW2 stuff has been only been recently re evaluated by the opening of the Soviet Archives. A lot of what we thought about especially the Eastern Front was re written in the last twenty years.
And is most likely still wrong.
Secrets don’t last nearly as long as they used to. For instance, It took 30 years to identify Mark Felt as “Deep Throat” from the Watergate Scandal. Conversely it took less than 30 days to identify the whistle-blower in the Trump phone call case and a similar amount of time to identify the shooter of Ashli Babbit, despite the government’s desperate attempts to keep it a secret. The DNC couldn’t even keep their own private correspondence about hindering Bernie’s campaign a secret. We all knew about HIllary’s “collusion with Russia,” and her coverup of a private server and erasing her data even before the Mueller Investigation was created.
There are so many public cameras, cell phone cameras and audio recorders, Internet sharing, data system hacks, satellite pictures and such that weren’t around 20 or 30 years ago. It is much harder to keep secrets today with so many eyes around the world sharing things instantly over the Internet, which also drives TV and radio coverage. During the Ukraine War, Russian military phone calls are being intercepted at alarming levels by ordinary citizens. This didn’t happen in the Great World Wars or pretty much any war.
And so many ways to fake information.
But, hey, Steven, you have it all figured out now, so congrats are in order.
Well, we did. But the low-information voters who only watch CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC/PBS, et al still don’t know about it.
Of course, but who shall not seek shall not hear.
By the way, I saw an article by Charles Cooke saying that CNN’s new streaming service has garnered a whopping 10,000 viewers, about the same size crowd that watches a single minor-league baseball game on a good night.
Well here is a fact:
https://news.usni.org/2022/04/13/russian-navy-confirms-severe-damage-to-black-sea-cruiser-moskva-crew-abandoned-ship
ukraine claims to have hit the ship with 2 anti-ship missiles- the Russian’s claim its ammo exploded-it is the flagship of the Black Sea fleet and was the ship the Snake Island soldiers told to F itself.
Maybe its just a coincidence that the ammo spontaneously exploded in a time of war.
My favorite YouTube sources for their amusement value are those mostly pro-Ukrainian channels that post breaking news, sometimes text only, and sometimes with a computer-generated voice. They use the passive voice a lot, and give no clue as to where their news items came from, who provided them, or anything that could be used to corroborate.
The computer generated voices are fairly good, but once in a while they glitch on certain words, and glitch the same way every time that word is repeated. And more rarely, they betray a computer-generated Russian or Ukrainian accent, for example, in the way the “v” sound is sometimes pronounced. They occasionally try to add some unique expressiveness, but they just can’t quite pass the Turing test.
I’m not exactly sure why YouTube shows me so many of those, but it’s probably because in the early days of the war I was a sucker for any kind of news.
Their information is probably true much of the time, but it is not useful (due to the lack of any way to pin it down) and is definitely propaganda. I still click on one once in a while, roll my eyes, and go on to something else. They don’t exactly use the words, “We were told…,” but I do the same eyeroll as for when I hear that one.
Confirmed, and appears to have sunk (ETA: Successful attack confirmed, sinking not yet). Fine tactics by the Ukrainians, who appear to have used a Bayraktar drone to get the attention from the Moskva’s radar tracking. Unlike an Aegis cruiser, it appears to have been only able to focus in one direction, and they snuck the cruise missiles in the other way.
Other than the black eye to Russia’s navy, the main impact will be the loss of the Moskva’s 30(!) S-300 missiles that allowed it to give antiaircraft cover for most of the northwestern Black Sea coast. Ukraine now has an easier road to sneak drones and other aircraft into the west side of Crimea.
Not bad work for some group who isn’t really a nation……totally corrupt ….yada yada yada- other Russian disinformation….
They don’t seek. How do we reach them with the truth?
It’s all about control of the media. We cannot save this country when the left has complete control of all institutions and the right has . . . NR Cruises.
I know I’ve said this before, but the liberal media doesn’t have anywhere near the power that they used to. Hardly anybody watches nightly newscasts anymore. I checked the latest ratings for ABC, NBC, and CBS. Their combined daily average viewership last week was 19 million people. That is one out of every 17 Americans. The cable news channels are even worse with something like one out of 50 Americans watching. Hardly anybody reads newspapers anymore. Meanwhile Joe Rogan gets 11 million viewers per episode, outranking any one of the alphabet news channels.
CNN launched a streaming service a few weeks ago and said they expected to get 2 million viewers the first year and 15-18 million in four years. So far they’ve gotten 10,000 – about the number of people it would take to fill the bleacher seats in an average baseball stadium.
Rogan is the one bright spot, and I considered his influence as well. But I also consider that the people who pay little attention to the news are influenced by the people who do. And those people are downright evangelical in spreading the leftist gospel.
I wonder if they will start using more of those missiles against the Russian Navy in the Black Sea. Also I imagine that is an extremely expensive piece of military hardware for Russia to have to replace.
I checked on radio audiences and found that it is difficult to narrow down the numbers as accurately as TV, but there are some general trends. The top three listened to radio shows are Marketplace, a financial show, All Things Considered, an NPR show, and Sean Hannity. There is no statistical difference between the three, with each garnering about 14.5 million listeners throughout the week. In the top twenty are a number of other conservative shows – Mark Levin, Glen Beck, Mike Gallagher, The Dana Show, Hugh Hewitt, Jim Bohannon, Brian Kilmeade, Michael Berry, and Joe Pags. If you combine all these conservative shows it comes out to 82 million listeners per week, not including lesser programs such as Red Eye Radio which I listen to avidly. They get over a couple of million listeners themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs
Right, but it doesn’t really matter that much when the left controls all the institutions of influence. I agree that the right has dominated talk radio for decades, but the left has the entire entertainment industry, universities, K-12, libraries, internet social media, sports, and unless one is deliberately seeking out right-wing content, leftism is what you get. It is in the air, it is in the water, it saturates everything.
We need the same kind of march through the institutions that the left has so successfully managed. Unfortunately, they won’t give up control easily, and the right is too willing to settle for neutrality on culture.
There is no neutrality. Either you’re moving the culture to the right, or it will go left.
Anyway, this thread is about Ukraine. But I think this relates. Always keep in mind that information you’re getting on Ukraine is filtered through institutions the left controls.
Not really, not if you make up your own facts.
It seems to me that Russia is sitting on the non-agricultural resources in the area. They have forces in the East and appear to have control of them that is not going to go away.
It seems to me that we have successfully driven China and Russia together. Russia can make high tech stuff like jet engines that China cannot. Russia has rare earths that China does not. China can mass produce things in quantity while Russia no longer can. Their matching is bad for the West.
We can argue about what is going on in the war, but clearly, China and Russia are growing closer.
Huh?
Anyway, this thread is about Ukraine. But I think this relates. Always keep in mind that information you’re getting on Ukraine is filtered through institutions the left controls
I agree about most of the institutions being leftist, but none of the news and analysis I get on the Ukraine war comes from left-controlled sources.