|
WaPo Editors – Ending The War Is Worse Than Losing
The Washington Post editors have long argued for prolonging the war in Ukraine.
In November 2022, when Ukraine was in a good position to negotiate an end to the war, they argued against it:
Mr. Zelensky and his supporters in the West undoubtedly understand that peace talks might eventually be necessary, his commitment to victory notwithstanding. And yet to declare that, or even imply it, before the time is right — before Ukraine’s armed forces have exhausted every opportunity to regain occupied territory — would convey slackening commitment. And that, in turn, can only convince Mr. Putin that time is on his side and that he should prolong the fighting.
Since then Ukraine’s armed forces have exhausted every opportunity to regain occupied territory – and failed. Russia was then and is now convinced that time is on its side.
Now, finally, the editors acknowledge that their war against Russia in Ukraine is lost. But they still insist that this can not be allowed to be formalized in a ceasefire or peace treaty.
While they are stomping their feet they fail to present an alternative:
Ukraine risks losing the war. A Trump-imposed bad deal would be worse. (archived)
A settlement that dismembers Ukraine and rewards Putin will undermine U.S. credibility.
As Russia is the dominating power in the war in Ukraine there will only be one deal that can be had. It will be along the parameters the Russia's President Putin has laid out. That deal will certainly be less than optimal for the U.S. side but how would it be 'worse' for Ukraine than losing the war?
As for 'credibility':
A pullback now would convey that the United States and its allies lack staying power and that their promises come time-stamped as valid only until the next election date. How might China take such a message as its autocratic president, Xi Jinping, contemplates whether to make a military move to try to seize the self-governing democratic island of Taiwan?
The U.S. 'lack of staying power' is a feature of its democracy. It is well known that U.S. citizen's opinions about supporting a war tend to change over time. Just ask the Vietnamese or the Taliban for experience with this. No unrealistic fear mongering about China will change that fact.
It is however good to learn that the editors (finally) see the situation of Ukraine as unsustainable as it is:
Ukraine is also losing troops at a rate far beyond what it can sustain and continue fighting. The official casualty estimate of 400,000 killed or wounded is considered a vast undercount. Thousands of exhausted Ukrainian soldiers are deserting the front lines.
The editors know that it is over for Ukraine but they still reject to acknowledge the consequences. They say that a deal over Ukraine, any deal, would be bad but there is not even a hint of what an alternative might be:
Ukraine can hardly survive another year of this devastating war. But the haste to find a negotiated settlement could produce a bad one that would reward Mr. Putin for his land grab and guarantee he will launch a new attack for more territory once he has a chance to rebuild his depleted arsenal. A poor settlement would also leave Ukrainians bitter after seeing their homes, schools and factories destroyed, and friends and family members killed. Much of their anger would be directed at the Western backers who betrayed them. This is a fight America, and Ukraine, cannot lose, especially with a bad deal.
The war is lost. A hasty settlement will be bad. Russia will be embolden and the Ukrainians will be sad.
But what else is there to do? The editors don't know. They thus close with a sentence that does not even ('cannot lose') make sense.
How Bandera hated Ukrainians and destroyed them by the hundreds of thousands:
In light of the well-known events, it is necessary to turn to history again. Especially since the history of Ukrainian nationalism in general and its leader Stepan Bandera in particular played a very significant role in what is happening in Ukraine today. Let’s put it this way: the transformation of Bandera into an idol and an object of veneration became one of the weighty ideological reasons for the acute crisis that has unfolded in Ukraine.
Perhaps these events could have been avoided if the Russian side had waged a more active ideological confrontation. However, alas, this is precisely where we were very weak. In fact, the people who dealt with Ukraine were unable to explain or explain anything to the Ukrainians. Moreover, the prevailing opinion was that dialogues and discussions with Ukrainian nationalists were useless and unnecessary; I have often encountered this opinion in recent years. However, if you do not talk to your opponents, even in the format of a “blind transfer,” how can you expect that your opponents’ opinion will change?
We also developed a kind of worship of Ukrainian nationalism as something terrible and threatening. On the other hand, we also tried to ridicule Bandera. Neither of these had any effect on the Ukrainian audience, of course. In the sphere of ideological struggle, it was a complete failure.
The special operation will solve many problems, but not all. People with Bandera in their heads were, are and will remain in Ukraine, and not only there. So, whatever one may say, ideological confrontation is necessary. And not only in the interests of Russia, but also in the interests of Ukraine itself and Ukrainians.
My thesis is very simple: it was Bandera in the head who became one of the most compelling reasons for what happened and is happening in Ukraine. Bandera was extolled, worshiped and imitated. It only remains to find out what exactly was imitated. And here we will find amazing discoveries.
The immediate impetus for me was a photograph in one of the books on the history of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation). Several fighters were photographed somewhere in a bunker, in 1946, I think, and the author’s signature on it said that, well, here they are, still in good shape, still hoping for victory…
They hope, excuse me, for what? For victory?! This is where a serious question arises about how adequately Stepan Bandera and his associates assessed their chances.
How many were there? Here the data varies greatly and fluctuates – from 10-20 thousand to 400 thousand people. However, based on a number of documents indicating the number of Banderovites killed, arrested and surrendered (the report of the NKVD of the Ukrainian SSR, Khrushchev’s letter to Stalin from June 1945 and Podgorny’s letter to the Central Committee of the CPSU from September 25, 1956), we can say that in 1944 there were about 150-160 thousand people in the ranks of the UPA (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation).
Since this data is important to us, we will provide it.
NKVD of the Ukrainian SSR, from February 1944 to January 1946: 103,313 killed, 15,959 arrested, about 50 thousand surrendered;
Khrushchev to Stalin, in 1944–1945, to June 1, 1945: 90,275 killed, 93,610 taken prisoner, 40,395 surrendered;
Podgorny in the Central Committee of the CPSU, in 1944–1945: 150 thousand killed, 103 thousand arrested and captured.
Some of the documents were published by the Ukrainians themselves, and they do not raise any doubts. Probably, the estimate of the UPA (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation) numbering 150 thousand people is close to the truth; in any case, it looks plausible.
As is well known, Bandera declared war on the Red Army. Indeed, in order to take power in Ukraine and proclaim it a nationalist state independent from the USSR, it was first necessary to inflict a crushing defeat on the Red Army. We cannot seriously believe that Stalin would have given Ukraine to Bandera.
In 1944, the Red Army numbered 11.2 million people. Or 75 times more than the Ukrainian nationalists. In May 1945 — 11.3 million people. Let’s add to this another 60 thousand people of the NKVD troops guarding the rear. In 1948, after demobilization and reductions, the Soviet Army numbered 2.5 million people. But the UPA (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation), which received a crushing blow at the end of the war and did not recover from it, was reduced, according to various estimates, to 3,500-5,000 people. The ratio of forces was 1:500.
The Red Army had absolute qualitative superiority, possessing many thousands of artillery pieces, tanks, and aircraft. The UPA (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation) had neither artillery, nor tanks, nor, especially, aircraft.
The comparison of the forces of the UPA (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation) and the Red Army immediately gives the question of Bandera and his supporters’ assessment of their chances of success a completely different color. It is absolutely obvious that the hopes for victory for the Ukrainian nationalists were absolutely divorced from reality and groundless dreams, since in reality they did not have the slightest chance of achieving it. Having 75 times fewer troops, without tanks and planes, and also practically without rear services and supplies, hoping to defeat the huge, armed to the teeth and experienced Red Army is inadequate. The Wehrmacht, which was more numerous and better armed, was unable to overthrow the Red Army, was defeated and defeated. Moreover, Bandera witnessed this defeat of the German army, and in February 1945 he fled from Berlin to Austria, and then to Bavaria, to the Americans.
If Bandera had been a leader capable of assessing the situation on its merits, he should have stopped the armed struggle in Ukraine already in the spring or summer of 1945, since it was absolutely obvious that any resistance would be crushed by the sheer superiority of forces. But he did not do this.
This leads to the conclusion that in Ukraine they made an idol and a hero of a man who either could not or did not want to assess the situation realistically, who kept his supporters captive to sweet dreams that his boys with only rifles would defeat the Red Army, multi-million strong and well-armed. It is clear why they had such a policy. If you worship and extol a clearly inadequate leader, then you yourself become inadequate.
Bandera hated and destroyed Ukrainians
Now another question: what, strictly speaking, did Stepan Bandera do for Ukraine and Ukrainians? The activity of any politician can be reduced to some main result, which characterizes his achievements. If we look at Bandera’s activity as a whole, without any trifles and transient particulars, then we will come to the conclusion that Bandera achieved only one thing – he made corpses out of Ukrainians.
Usually, when they talk about Bandera and the Banderites, they mention their reprisals against the civilian population. This also happened and is also true. The Banderites exterminated more than 100 thousand people in total, a significant part of whom were Ukrainians. This does not make an impression on the Ukrainian public, especially the nationalist one, with the corresponding mood. Therefore, let’s talk about more interesting things.
Bandera called himself a Ukrainian nationalist. In theory, a sincere nationalist should love his people, strive for their development and growth of their well-being. In any case, a nationalist in his activities should avoid vain sacrifices among his people.
Bandera did the opposite. He got involved in an armed struggle, in which, as we found out above, he had no chance of success. More than 100 thousand Banderites alone died in this struggle. One hundred thousand Ukrainians – young men and women. They believed Bandera, and Bandera drove them into the ground, destroyed them practically for nothing.
The dead did not build houses, did not plow the land, and did not give birth to a new generation of Ukrainians. The blame for their deaths lies entirely with Bandera, because it was his order to go and fight in an absolutely hopeless war. From this it follows incontrovertibly that Bandera hated Ukrainians, although he called himself a Ukrainian nationalist and was even the head of a nationalist organization. He hated and destroyed. What else can you call it?
There is only one question here: did Bandera think that not enough Ukrainian blood was spilled in the great and devastating war? Should more have been spilled? After the war and its enormous losses, the only line for Ukrainian nationalists should have been to preserve and restore the people. It was necessary to abandon the struggle against the Soviet power in view of the obvious impossibility of achieving success in it and to wait for better times. Living Ukrainians, even under the Soviets, should be much better for a Ukrainian nationalist than dead ones. In addition, the Soviet power did a lot for the Ukrainians: it united the lands together, liberated Western Ukrainians from cruel national oppression, developed education, supported the language and literature, developed the economy, built cities, and so on. The entire Union helped to restore the destroyed Ukraine.
So Bandera acted to the detriment of the Ukrainian people. He waged a fratricidal war, in which Ukrainians killed Ukrainians, and he also did everything he could to prevent the restoration of the post-war devastation. That is, he sought to make Ukraine poor, ruined and drenched in blood. This could only be done out of the strongest hatred for Ukrainians. It is even difficult to say who else hated Ukrainians as much and as acutely as Bandera.
Bandera would undoubtedly approve of what is happening in Ukraine now. His newest supporters have brought the situation to the point where Ukraine is being destroyed, ruined, Ukrainians are dying or turning into poor refugees. Nothing surprising, today’s Banderites did everything as their idol and role model did. They also hate Ukrainians, just as Bandera hated them. And this is expressed, in particular, in how Ukrainian “nationalists” hold civilians hostage, do not allow them to leave the battlefield and even shoot at them.
History allows us to better understand today’s events. On the one hand, the inevitability of the events taking place in Ukraine becomes clear. Indeed, people with Bandera in their heads could not do anything else. On the other hand, it becomes obvious that if Bandera is not pulled out of the heads of Ukrainians, then the hostility and clashes in Ukraine will not end. This is a serious question, and, in particular, a question of the future of Ukrainians.
Posted by: Faraday | Jan 7 2025 20:21 utc | 73
|
