|
English Outsider On Solving Ukraine
English Outsider comments in response to my Ukrainian glasshouse post:
“I seriously doubt that these people are sane.”
They’re psychos. Gaza shows that past doubt. But there’s logic to their insanity. Although we’re heading for straight military defeat in the Ukrainian theatre they still have the Russians over a barrel. The problem of remnant Ukraine, the problem that has been staring all in the face since February 2022, it still one to which the Russians have no good solution. It’s clear that the Western politicians, Trump included, will not assist with coming to any good solution.
The future of Eastern Ukraine is already determined though we don’t yet know how much of it the Russians will decide to incorporate within the RF. But remnant Ukraine, whatever that turns out to be in territorial terms, poses a problem as insoluble as ever,
First, Eastern Ukraine.
Lavrov:
And when we now liberate remaining parts of Zaporozhye, this is the Russian way to pronounce it. And Kherson, the people, in spite of the attempts of Ukrainian army to pull them into mainland Ukraine, most of them are not leaving. They’re staying, and they’re welcoming the Russian soldiers who liberate them. So this is not our will, our “imperialist desire”, some people say. This is our concern for the future of the people who feel being part of the Russian culture.
This fits with statements from the Ukrainian authorities to the effect that they were having difficulty evacuating Kupiansk. Many did not wish to be evacuated. The same was seen in Bakhmut and in other towns and cities.
Later on Lavrov returns to the subject:
And that’s for “1991 borders”, and “Russia must withdraw”. Ok hypothetically, in their dreams and delusions, if we leave the territories inside the 1991 Ukrainian borders, what happens to those people whom they publicly called the respective governments of Ukraine after the coup, called them “inhumans”, called them “species”.
“Species”, by the way, is the term used by Zelensky long before the special military operation started. He was asked in November 2021 what he thought about the people in Donbass on the other side of the line of contact, according to the Minsk agreements. And he was asked what he thought about those people. He said, you know, there are people, and there are “species”. And then in other interview he said if you live in Ukraine and feel like being part of Russian culture, my advice to you, for the sake and safety of your kids, for the sake and safety of your grandchildren, get out to Russia.
So in fact, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson, the population of these four territories, they follow his advice. They go back to Russia.
All this could apply to the rest of the old Party of Regions area, though population movements will have greatly altered the population mix that obtained before 2014.
Whatever the current population mix, for those living in the old Party of Regions area it’d be better for them if as much as possible of that area became part of Russian. That view’s not based on dreamy recollections of Catherine the Great, though Lavrov draws attention to those historical associations. It’s based on Lavrov’s strictly utilitarian argument that the pro-Russian element of that mixed population would be treated badly if that mixed population remained under Kiev rule. None would wish to see a repetition of the atrocities Brayard catalogued after 2014: video.
There are a thousand similar accounts. They cannot be brushed away by dismissing them as Russian propaganda. And the effect of such atrocities has been to change entirely the political orientation of the Donbass and likely the political orientation of much of other parts of the old Ukraine.
Because there is ample evidence that before 2014 most in the Donbass were not much concerned with the question of who ruled them. This was not Crimea. There was no strong separatist movement in the Donbass and indeed the early Donbass rebels after 2014 wanted neither independence nor union with Russia. They were federalists. Protection from the extremists in the context of a federalised Ukraine was their aim.
But as the number of atrocities mounted those atrocities could no longer be dismissed as isolated incidents. It became apparent to all that harassment of the pro-Russian element in the Donbass population mix was Ukrainian state policy. A country had declared open war on a significant minority within itself and Poroshenko’s declaration that “their” children would hole up in the basements whilst “our” children went to school was but one of many declarations from Kiev that that war would be pursued to the limit: video.
The result was inevitable. The Donbass, before 2014 accepted by its own population and by all outside including Russia as an integral part of Ukraine moved from that, to a desire for a degree of protective autonomy inside Ukraine, to becoming a region that would never again willingly submit to the post 2014 atrocities. The fighting spirit and determination of the LDNR armed forces, who often took the brunt of the fighting after 2022 and whose contribution to the final victory is uniformly ignored in the West, was proof of that. A “Westernised” Russian visiting the Donbass not long after the invasion found to her surprise that nowhere was support for the Russian invasion stronger than within the Donbass itself: video.
“Z’s” everywhere and a people resolute to see the war through. Yet we in the West see the Donbass quite differently. We see it as a region subjected to brutal Russian occupation and needing only to be freed from that Russian occupation.
It is in the context of those post-2014 atrocities that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is to be regarded. Me, I discount entirely the historical disquisitions of a Putin or a Lavrov. So what that much of modern Ukraine owes its origin to Russia? So what that much of it shares a common culture with Russia? Many countries in the world owe their origin to England and many still share a common culture with us. Try arguing with an Australian that that would justify their reincorporation into the United Kingdom! A ludicrous comparison, no doubt, but sufficient to allow us to dismiss any Russian historical claim to ancient lands. Panchenko states the true justification: https://t.me/panchenkodi/3344.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine must be regarded as first and foremost a rescue operation and if one examines the dispute in Russia itself over that rescue operation, the question is not why it occurred but why it occurred so late. Putin has been and still is heavily criticised within Russia for allowing the harassment of the Donbass to continue for so long, not for finally moving in to put a stop to it. It is the still living memory of the Madonna of Gorlovka, not hazy memories of the doings of the Zaporozhian Host, that is the only justification for his moving in at all.
But that’s only the East. Those arguments do not apply to the bulk of Western Ukraine. That is, what will be remnant Ukraine. Forget all the Russkiy Mir talk. As Havryshko points out forcefully, the population in Western Ukraine is mainly anti-Russian. It will remain so. Russian occupation of that region would be as undesirable, and as hated, as British re-occupation of the Irish Republic. The Russian problem there is a near insoluble one: how to prevent remnant Ukraine remaining a spearhead of the Western assault on Russia. How to prevent it remaining, in Sleboda’s terms, “A zone of destabilisation and insecurity for the rest of our lives,”
Because it is of NATO but not in NATO remnant Ukraine can be used as a base for mounting assassination and sabotage missions into Russia. It can be used as a launchpad for missiles and drones into Russia that are ostensibly launched by the Ukrainians but that are in reality supplied and targeted by us. It can be and is so used without our fearing Russian retaliation against NATO or any NATO country.
It’s often pointed out that if it were the other way round and the Russians used, say, Mexico for such purposes then the Americans wouldn’t put up with it for an instant. Well, that’s true but how would the Americans cope with the problem? If they occupied Mexico to prevent it being used for that purpose they’d find themselves having to go to vast expense. They would be forever having to commit troops and security personnel for the purpose. Instead, what the Americans would aim for would be a neutral Mexico that refused to allow itself to be so used.
That, in reverse, is the problem the Russians face in Remnant Ukraine. The parts of Ukraine that wish to be reincorporated within the RF will present few problems – there it’s more a question of getting an economy that’s been heading for dereliction since 1991 back on its feet again. But remnant Ukraine is a real dilemma for them. They don’t want to occupy. But they can’t allow it to remains as a handy NATO attack dog. If drones and missiles continue coming out of remnant Ukraine afterwards then the Russian people will be asking Putin “Why did we fight this war if we’re still at risk from NATO missiles?” And if Putin has no answer to that question, after at least 100,000 dead and a major Russian military effort, then his administration will fall. The Russian hawks will take over and we’re at risk of a direct war between NATO and the RF.
That dilemma has been apparent since 2022, even before. The obvious resolution is for the Western powers to declare they will cease using remnant Ukraine in this way. But the Europeans and the American hard liners would not countenance that. President Trump, facing that internal and external opposition, could not offer such guarantees. If he did they could not be regarded as binding, “Not agreement capable” is how most of the world regards the West in any case. The Russian hope of an overall security settlement on the lines of the December 2021 proposed treaties is unrealistic and will remain so. It’ll be as much as they can do if the Russians achieve the main points of the June 14th 2024 speech to the Foreign Office officials:
I repeat our firm stance: Ukraine should adopt a neutral, non-aligned status, be nuclear-free, and undergo demilitarisation and denazification. These parameters were broadly agreed upon during the Istanbul negotiations in 2022, including specific details on demilitarisation such as the agreed numbers of tanks and other military equipment.
And even those conditions the West will not agree to. So we have the Russians over a barrel. Occupy remnant Ukraine to get those conditions met and the Russians are buying trouble. Don’t occupy it and the SMO will have been unsuccessful in that remnant Ukraine will still be used as an attack dog.
The only solution is for the Ukrainians themselves to decide they will not be so used in the future. But the current administration is still in the saddle and able to employ increasingly repressive measures to ensure it remains so. Alternative Ukrainian administrations could not deviate much from the line the current administration is taking. When we consider remnant Ukraine as it is now it increasingly resembles more an occupied country than a country in charge of its own future. This is a country that voted overwhelmingly for peace in 2019 only to find itself committed to war by the West and its own extremists. Unless Putin can come up with a solution – he’s not been able to so far – we could well see the Russians forced into occupation.
If so, the Russians will have won the war but will have lost any chance of a stable and long term solution to that problem of remnant Ukraine. These people we doubt are sane, the current politicians of the West, are logical enough. That is how they hope to see this war ending up.
Hmm, you make some excellent points, EO. Rusiya is facing indeed a complex strategic dilemma that sits at the core of Russia’s stated war aims. Based on observed Russian state behaviour, strategic doctrine, and historical precedent, I’d imagine the Kremlin is contemplating a number of possible scenarios on how to approach this problem, each with its own advantages and drawbacks.
One option, lets call it “enougher of a buffer”, would be for the RuAF to not stop at the administrative borders of the newly annexed oblasts, and instead continuing its military offensive to capture a significant additional portion of Ukrainian territory to create a heavily militarized buffer zone. This zone would be designed to push NATO/UAF potential launch points far back from the new Russian borders. For that, Russia would need to move right up to and all along the Dnipr and take the entire Black Sea coast, Odessa included. This territory would be under direct Russian military administration for the foreseeable future, with its russophobe civilian population largely displaced.
By going down that route, the Kremlin would create significant geographical depth, complicating sabotage, artillery, and if peppered with layered A/D, minimise the threat of short-range missile attacks against core Russian territory and the new oblasts. Logistics lines for Ukrainian partisans would also become much longer and more vulnerable.
Another advantage would be the degradation of Ukrop capabilities. Capturing major cities and infrastructure cripples Ukraine’s remaining war-fighting capacity, economic base, and ability to function as a cohesive state, making it a far less effective proxy for the West. It would also be a much needed demonstration of resolve, sending a powerful message to the hotheads in the EU and DC, as well as domestic audiences that Russia means business and will secure its interests by any means necessary, potentially deterring future support for a “rump Ukraine.”
The downside to this buffer zone option would be the massive military cost. Seizing and holding this additional territory would require a much larger, costlier, and bloodier military campaign against a determined Ukrainian defense, likely resulting in high Russian casualties. Add to that the likelihood that such a land grab would shatter any remaining diplomatic channels, leading to even more severe sanctions, and that the buffer zone itself would be incredibly difficult to pacify, becoming a hotbed of intense partisan warfare and requiring a huge and permanent counter-insurgency commitment with the potential to become a quagmire, similar to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, Russian decision makers might choose to not go down that path.
Another option would be applying the “neutral or else” treatment to rump Ukraine, ie. Russia uses its military leverage to impose a legally binding, internationally brokered (or more likely, dictated) neutrality treaty on the remnant Ukrainian state. This “Ukrainian Neutrality Act” would explicitly forbid Ukraine from joining NATO or any other military alliance, hosting foreign military bases, or receiving certain classes of Western weapons (e.g., long-range missiles, drones, advanced air defense). The treaty would be guaranteed by Russia, with the implicit threat of renewed, overwhelming military force if violated.
This is a far less costly solution than the above enougher of a buffer option. It avoids the need for a massive new offensive and the perpetual burden of occupying hostile territories. Further, it would provide for plausible deniability and diplomacy, by allowing Russia to claim they “secured its core security interests” without further territorial expansion, potentially creating a face-saving off-ramp for all parties and a framework for the eventual lifting of sanctions. Most importantly though, it would shift the burden of enforcement. The onus for preventing attacks on Russia would fall on the official Ukrop government. If an attack occurs, Russia can hold the entire Ukrainian state responsible, justifying a disproportionate response, rather than chasing nebulous “nationalist elements.”
On the flip side, it would rely on deterrence and verification, as Russia would have to trust Western intelligence agencies to some extent to monitor compliance, which at the face of it would be foolish. Those CIA, MI6 or BND weasels are guaranteed to stir the pot, requiring a permanent state of high alert to verify Ukraine isn’t covertly re-arming. You know they gonna try it on with deniable sabotage and assassination missions, which could be conducted by small, covert cells without the official sanction of the Ukrainian government. Russia would struggle to prove state involvement and justify a major retaliation.
And, who is to say a nationalist Fourth Reich Bandera government would not view such a neutrality treaty as an imposed, illegitimate document. They might bide their time, secretly re-build their military with covert Western help, and abrogate the treaty in a decade or two, restarting the conflict.
The most cynical and inhumane policy, eliminating any chance of normalized relations with Europe would imho be the “failed state” option. But hey, who gives a hoot what the West thinks. In line with
[…] The only solution is depopulation of Ukraine. Destroy ALL electricity, factories, infrastructure. Make it unlivable and drive out millions more refugees. This might put pressure on the EU to compromise, as they will get stuck with huge expenses and burdens. […]
Posted by: Eighthman | Oct 29 2025 10:18 utc | 17
Russia could actively work to ensure the remnant Ukrainian state fails to function as a viable, sovereign entity, permanently destroying key national infrastructure (energy grid, transportation hubs, industrial base), maintaining a de facto economic blockade, and providing covert support to pro-Russian or simply corrupt and destabilizing political factions within rump Ukraine. In doing so, create a weak, fractured, and impoverished entity consumed by internal problems, making it incapable of being a stable base for Western operations.
Problem of course would be that this approach would create a massive refugee crisis, likely spilling into the EU and Russia itself, with all the associated instability and political blowback, and instead of a controlled buffer, Russia would share a long border with a zone of chaos, requiring a permanent and costly security posture to contain the volatility and low-intensity conflict.
On the other hand, relying largely on sabotage, cyber attacks, and political subversion, more so than on conventional military force, it would avoid the high costs of direct occupation, and means Russia could blame Ukraine’s collapse on the West’s “failed proxy war” and the corruption of its own leadership, deflecting direct responsibility.
Good chance Russian strategy will likely be a hybrid of these scenarios, shifting over time based on military realities and political opportunities. I think, as you correctly pointed out EO, the core of the dilemma is that each potential solution creates a new set of problems, reflecting the profound challenges of imposing a lasting security settlement by force on a hostile and resistant neighbour.
But regardless which approach Putin and his team will choose, the karmic wheel was never not going to catch up with a country in which people accused of this and that are customarily tied to poles and whipped like dogs and mass murdering nazi collaborators celebrated as national heroes with streets named after them.
Posted by: Juan Moment | Oct 29 2025 11:44 utc | 47
Thanks for the post, b, somehow missed it at that thread otherwise would have responded to it there.
Respond, I must though!
Pardon my mixed first and second person reference to EO.
Meant in the best way of discussion, not a personal attack.
All views are my own.
EO – I don’t understand how you can speak of :
“ …a stable and long term solution to that problem of remnant Ukraine.” At the end there, yet earlier say:
“I discount entirely the historical disquisitions of a Putin or a Lavrov. So what that much of modern Ukraine owes its origin to Russia? So what that much of it shares a common culture with Russia? Many countries in the world owe their origin to England and many still share a common culture with us. Try arguing with an Australian that that would justify their reincorporation into the United Kingdom! A ludicrous comparison, no doubt, but sufficient to allow us to dismiss any Russian historical claim to ancient lands.”
Whoa there EO! not so fast, dear fellow.
Let’s slow that down frame by frame to see the trajectory of your argument.
“So what“ ! – you proclaim of that history.
Then instantly speak of English imperial historical colonial invasions and genocidal settlers!
First you say that a ‘disquisition’ such as VVP/Lavrov/Dugin/Medvedev of Russias great history to be one of the oldest European country (largest in the world) is unimportant!
Then you in the same sentence speak of Australia being a shared ‘English’ culture!
My dear chap, it’s ‘British’ at best, and much of the British Imperial outreach wouldn’t have occured without the forced enrolment of the many peoples of the British isles – especially Scot’s, Irish and Welsh – many parts depopulated, forcibly or by famine, to enable what you call the ‘English’ Empire.
I can’t believe EO would be equally blasé about say ‘William The Conqueror’ (big tv series coming soon to reimagine that history repurposing for todays propaganda – no doubt they all speak in perfect clipped English received pronounciation – even though they only spoke a Frankish language); or the many wars of English monarchs of European origins (sanitised by Shakespearean plays); how about the Spanish and French wars of hundreds of years?
What about Protestantism/Catholicism and civil war or Bonfire night plot (celebrated any day soon) which replaced All Hallows Catholic/ pagan European traditions in the early C17th?
Now that last particular example is interesting in the context of this comment. It was the Irish and Scot’s who ended up in the new US colonies who brought that tradition to America. It was shunned by the Puritans of New England further north as was Christmas and other such old festivals based on seasonal calendars.
Now within a century our Bonfires Night is being crowded out with that ‘night of the dead’ re-import from the US fake ‘culture’ (as is the Thanksgiving spend fest) – history, eh!
When exactly does one start ‘discounting history’ ?
Is EO suggesting we keep our attention to merely our life time – live ‘the now’ as the proverbial goldfish?
A further digression of logic is equating the ‘English’ imperialist violent invasions and colonisations of distant lands with the, no such equivalent Russian Federation now, or its Imperial reach when it claimed to be an Empire.
Where are the overseas lands and islands occupied by Russians? which still speak their language and have a ‘common culture’ with Ruskie Mir?
Can EO explain that (non) comparison and rush on by expecting me/us to swallow that thesis without question?
“A ludicrous comparison” ?
Explain why then Lenin, an invader raised and schooled in Europe and lived in London, financed by Bankers, formed the Bolshevik revolution fable, arriving with thousands of Estonians or such to depose the Russian Empire!
To ‘save it’ from a monarchy!
Then HE handed over a large portion of the Russian Lands to a newly expanded Ukraine which hadn’t changed much since the C17th!
In 1921 totally inexplicably! In the midst of a wholesale change of a thousand years of Russia – he decided like a king or czar, to rearrange some furniture in the soft underbelly of the Russian empire – in effect handing over Odessa – Catherine’s City and the ports and access to the Black Sea! A mere few decades after the War in Crimea had failed to wrest it into the ‘English’ hands.
Do you see my disquiet, EO? Barflies?
History forgotten is doomed to repeat in all its unhappiness.
It leaves the door open for the villainy to resurface.
I understand what EO says about the rump Ukraine- but they were always the same villains, the same Russkie haters for centuries.
Their hate kept alive by the WW2 killer Banderist Nazis, saved and raised in the Collective West by the fascist pretend allies – name changing, Shapeshifting, rebuilding a generation of killers – history never stopped for them.
They weren’t allowed to forget by the Old Bastards, who needed yet another Russophobic proxy fascist nation to throw at the RF.
But , all is not lost …
There is a route out of the historical goldfish bowl – it has been announced finally yesterday.
The creation of a Central European Union- one that avoids the poison of the AngloEuropeans Project. Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czechs ..
A Slavic Economic Union, that should have been built as separate to the ‘advanced economies’, in the 90’s. Instead of the forced growth of the EU already under pressure with expansion of the southern European PIGS! Encouraged by the British including the neocon Blairites. (Whilst manoeuvring to leave that doomed ship as BrexShit rats. )
It would have enabled these economies to grow stronger at their own pace, with the resources of the giant RF next door. Having Russian as their common economic language – instead of being prey to the advanced economies of the Old Europe EU and it’s anglicising imperialism.
The failure to do that doomed all sets of these incompatible economies. As the EU is floundering on rocks ready to sink! Almost as if it was planned!
The great plan of taking Russia, blowing in the winds of Ukrainian steppes now; compare to the Spanish Armada blown away by the Channel winds – which in its failure to claim England, led to the ‘English’ imperial project.
Sorry to EO, history is important – unvarnished, non fictionalised, non Hollywooded History.
It should not be discounted, ever.
Posted by: DunGroanin | Oct 29 2025 12:09 utc | 58
|
