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 think Russia will pull China down with it financially, the way Cuba pulled resources from the Soviet Union during the Cold war.
How do you know?
Because none of my sources are connected to news organizations or other left wing organizations. I listen to Red Eye Radio and watch Internet analysis by the Institute for the study of War and Military Land and other such sites. I don’t watch or listen to any regular television or radio news programs. I gave it up some 40 years ago.
https://www.redeyeradioshow.com/on-demand/
https://www.understandingwar.org/
https://militaryland.net/about/
That’s no more clear than anything else about the war, and probably a lot less clear.
If we make up our own facts, are they filtered through the institutions the left controls?
What I’m sayin’ is that it’s difficult to know who is funding what. Unless it’s obvious, like the left-wing billionaire who funds Bill Kristol’s various habits.
We didn’t drive them together- a blame America 1st interpretation of the highest magnitude – birds of a feather flock together- they are aggressive authoritarian states that see any successful democracy as a threat. They cannot tolerate thriving democracies on their doorstep with similar cultures (ie Ukraine or Taiwan) b/c their own people can not but fail to note them- and get the idea they needn’t live under authoritarian rule to have peace, prosperity and order.
Blame America first? Just realpolitik.
But then, I think the West has some blame as to poor signaling to send Germany and Japan on their way in WWII.
Um. No they arent. Those are all fake. Designed to confuse and spread misinformation back in Russia. They have been routinely debunked. One major reason is that the Russians still practice limited conscription, which means every Russian pretty much knows someone who has been in the army or has been in themselves and thus know their armies capabilities. Unlike most people who are talking heads on Western TV, unless they are spooks and they know the lie they are selling.
How do we know. The Russians are using secured comms that function like cb radios. When sending a transmission you have to push a button and at then stop holding the button to cease transmission. Everyone of these videos of intercepted communications almost invariably has people shouting and talking over each other. Which makes it impossible.
And we know because we see pictures of captured and destroyed Russian vehicles and they are clearly visible to people who know what to look for.
This is just a basic part of the propaganda that we have been talking about here. The Russian troops dont have cell phones. They dont take them into active combat zones. Ukranians and especially western foreign legion types have them. They like to make Tik Tok videos. Which are intercepted by Russian artillery.
Given the incredible poor maintenance of Russian surface forces, its entirely possible. Remember their aircraft carrier had a major engine failure on its way to Syria. Reduced its top speed to ten knots.
Yep. The great foreign policy failure of the early 21st century is that we drove Russia in the Arms of China. Didnt have to be. Its replacing Bush refusing to make peace with Iran in 2002.
The Ruble is on its way to being one of the strongest currencies in the world. Backed by resources. Russia has prepared for the sanctions very well. Thats why its barely hurting them and doing every day more damage to the economies of the West.
Pretty much Bryan. But its no use arguing with someone who is so sure of themselves.
If you’re interested in listening to something besides Russian propaganda, you might want to listen to Perun as he explains how the ruble recovery is a Potemkin ruble recovery. His step-to-step guide to how Putin saved the ruble:
So, yes, Putin is propping up the ruble for now, but at great cost to the Russian economy now and in the future.
All fake? On the contrary, every one of them is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There is not a fake among them.
Hahahaha…..as likely as your “source” in Ukraine who said all the weapons were going to street gangs who were going to settle old scores….apparently their old scores were all with the VDV.
Wait, didn’t they block the Netflix feed into Russia? That has really gotta sting. Unless they use a VPN or some kind of hackery.
Perhaps another casualty of this war: Sanctions never work!
tank production:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MargoGontar/status/1515373221855608834?cxt=HHwWhIC-7dP614cqAAAA
SAM production:
The fact that Russia’s economy is only the size of Italy’s while having 2.5 times more people than Italy is reason enough to suspect the myth that “sanctions don’t work.” For perspective, the average Italian’s standard of living and per capita income is half that of the average American. If it were the United States being sanctioned, we’re economically, technologically, productively, and creatively strong enough to absorb it and recover. Russia is not.
I hope so, given that the Biden administration is currently sanctioning the United States.
Great point! In a way we are recovering from Biden (in certain areas). U.S. oil production dropped 20% as soon as Brandon instituted bans on oil drilling on his first day in office. Undeterred, the oil companies have found ways to steadily crawl back to nearly the levels we had before the Biden sanctions. I followed the month by month trends in another thread on oil production. If we can do that against our own leader, we can certainly do it against a foreign sanction.
Plus the pipeline sanctions. That is really hurting delivery of products to many areas of the country. More is coming. It takes about a year for new regulatory rules to be rolled out.