Thoughtful Ukraine Overview From MoA
Moon of Alabama has a thoughtful overview of the likely outcome in Ukraine. In essence it boils down to what I’ve been maintaining—that Russia has no interest in occupying all of Ukraine. Demilitarization—in the sense of ensuring that Ukraine will not be a NATO proxy to threaten Russia—is the minimum end game. Destruction of the Neo-Nazi grip on the country is highly desirable from Russia’s standpoint, but isolating that element in the extreme west of Ukraine appears to be a viable alternative. In that case the rump Ukraine that remains would be more of a problem for the EU—and, in particular, for Poland, where multiple millions of western Ukrainians have already headed. Unfortunately for Poland, its government has done nothing that would lead Russia to go out of its way to help with that potentially huge political problem. If the Neo-Nazi elements want to continue an insurgency within that rump Ukraine—with violence spilling over into Poland—that will likely be of little concern to Russia.
As for the rest:
This simple map corresponds to what MoA foresees as a likely partition of Ukraine. As I’ve been at pains to point out in the past weeks, it corresponds almost exactly to the major cultural, historical, and linguistic divides in a very divided country:
MoA cites several Russia analysts whom I’ve referred to in the past, as well—Gilbert Doctorow and Patrick Armstrong. Here are their major points, which reinforce the idea that Russia’s goals are strictly limited and well though out:
Moon starts by presenting the popular misconception—that Russia wants to “take over” Ukraine to “reconstitute the USSR”. How pleased the Neocons would be, if only Putin were that stupid:
The premise seems to be that Russia wants to occupy the Ukraine.
It can be seen in an English language interview the Turkish state TV channel TRT had with Vitaly Klitschko, the mayor of Kiev. Klitschko accuses Russia of wanting to recreate the USSR. He rejects any negotiations for peace and wants the Ukraine to keep fighting.
After the interview the historian Gilbert Doctorow pointed out that it was Russia which first left the USSR to end the financing of outlaying provinces at the center's cost and that no one wants to recreate that situation.
As Putin ones said:
Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.
Russia has limited aims in Ukraine and will end the war and leave most of the Ukraine when those aims are achieved either by negotiations or by other means. It is the Ukraine that will have to bear the cost for it.
But Zelenski, Klitschko and the U.S. overlords do not want to see it that way. The U.S. wants to keep Russia in the Ukraine to fight it to the last Ukrainian and to damage it that way.
The Washington Post writes that there seems to be no Ukrainian urge to negotiate anything:
...
The U.S. seems to be happy with that stand and the secretary of state even wants to widen the war:
…
The only way to get to that end state is the total dismantling of Russia. That may indeed be what Blinken has in mind. What plans does he have to make it happen?
In other words, Moon is also suggesting that Putin has thought this through and has no intention of playing into Neocon - Globalist traps. The conduct of the war, with the emphasis on gaining control of Russian areas of Ukraine, suggests the same. Once control of Russian areas is consolidated and Ukraine’s offensive capabilities are degraded—as they have largely been already—Russia will be in a position to unilaterally declare: Mission accomplished!
Moon then quotes Armstrong and Doctorow, who are always worth reading:
Two professional Russia experts now agree with my prediction above but chose slightly different borders than I had originally proposed:
In his latest piece the Canadian Russia specialist Patrick Armstrong writes:
I still do not think that [Russia wants to take ownership of Ukraine] – I believe that Moscow wants a neutral and de-nazified Ukraine that is a buffer between it and NATO. I am also coming to believe that Novorossiya, more or less in its historical borders as formed by Katherine when recovered from the Ottomans, will be independent. The chance that it would remain part of Ukraine has probably passed. As I wrote in 2014 “In short, the West broke Ukraine, it now owns it. Or, to put it more precisely, it owns that part that Moscow doesn’t want. And what part that is is entirely up to Moscow to choose“. Moscow is choosing now.
In a new piece about the coming partitioning of Ukraine Gilbert Doctorow agrees:
I do not deny that a Ukrainian insurgency is a plausible next phase to the war, especially given the irrational position on ‘compromises’ that we see in Klitschko’s interview. However, there are obvious ways for the Kremlin to respond so as to contain the risks to themselves. To begin with, they can realize the threat Putin issued before the war began: to deprive Ukraine of its statehood. Not entirely, but to deprive them of the state in the configuration that has existed since 1991. This means to partition Ukraine, to hive off the territories west of Kiev and the Dnieper River, forming a land-locked rump state with its capital logically in Lviv, near the Polish frontier.
To use the language of the banking community, Russia would thereby create a ‘bad bank,’ containing the poisonous assets of Ukrainian radicalism, very few industrial or other major economic assets, and removed to a distance no longer threatening to Russia. The ‘good bank’ would be central Ukraine, the territories east of the Dniepr River, which have a considerably larger population of Russian speakers, who should respond to Russia’s call to defend their own interests in the public life of the country and come out from the bullying they were subjected to by the nationalists over the past 8 years. This central Ukraine would receive back the Black Sea coast now occupied by the Russians and would enjoy the agricultural and other major economic assets that always defined Ukrainian prosperity.
This more detailed map from the 2010 Ukraine election highlights the cultural divides in Ukraine—the Western Ukraine area of Eastern Galicia, which is the hotbed of Neo-Nazi agitation, is the deepest red. Putin will be happy to leave that are in rump Ukraine, smack up against the border with Poland. Shades of blue to deep purple correspond to the most pro-Russian areas, which also happen to be the economically most desirable areas:
For an interesting overview of these cultural divides with creative graphics which show how isolated Western Ukraine is, not only from Russia but also from most of the Ukraine, see this article:
Western Ukraine vs Neutral Ukraine
Cultural evolutionary insights
This seems to be the likely end game.
Next: The continuing war between Russia and the Woke West and what it could mean for us.
Excellent analysis and totally logical.
The Russians and Eastern Ukrainians, who have been at war with the Western Ukrainians at least since 2014, will provide a buffer between Russia and the threatened U.S.-instigated "insurgency".
I'm really embarrassed to be a U.S. citizen these days.
My dad is a human encyclopedia for history (I might be biased, but hold your judgement on that). He grew up in poverty in an abusive alcoholic home. At the time the government still funded Catholic school. He started at 4. Graduated at 17. Books were his escape from his living hell. He turned 18 as a marine trapped on a mountain fighting in Vietnam watching his friends die. He came home and became a journalist, but at 29 decided he wanted better for his family than could be afforded for a journalist’s salary, so he moved on to a more lucrative career. Our gain, the world’s loss. I asked him about one of the articles you posted and got a lengthy response which I am pasting from his text below. I didn’t give any context. I found his reply insightful and similar to what you wrote (I did not send him your article because I wanted insight on one you linked to as a separate analysis).
“Hi. I was confused about the article. In any event, the issue here is NATO. A little history is in order. First, Stalin defeated Hitler. Eighty percent of German casualties were on the Eastern front. The success of the D-Day Normandy landings were important in keeping Stalin from over-running Western Europe, which he certainly would have done had they failed. Stalin was acutely aware that in 1814, Czar Alexander I, after forcing Napoleon out of Russia, pursued him to Paris. The Napoleonic wars ended with Russian cavalry in Paris. Stalin wanted to emulate him, spreading the Communist revolution to the Atlantic. NATO was formed after Stalin’s death In 1953 but with Stalin’s aspirations still in the air. It was a defensive pact — a shield against Soviet expansionism. After the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO changed. Instead of a shield to protect Western Europe, it became a sword aimed at the Russians. During negotiations prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, James Baker
, Bush I’s Secretary of State, promised Gorbachev three times that NATO would not move “one inch” to the East. Der Spegiel, the German magazine, wrote an article early this month saying the Germans promised Gorbachev the same thing. In 1996, NATO began accepting former Eastern Bloc countries into alliance. The last to be accepted were the Baltic states. Although formerly part of Russia, they are heavily Germanic from virtue of their creation by the Teutonic Knights in the late Middle Ages. Ukraine and Belorussia are different. Both are ethnically Slavic, the same as the Russians. Ukraine was an integral part of Russia for hundreds of years. What we are seeing in Ukraine today is a civil war. The United States might have played a productive role in peace mediations and possibly prevented the war. The neocons in charge of policy today have nixed that. I think the war will end in partition and bitter feelings all around. Our policy here is comprehensively incomprehensible. Sad.
We have no vital national interests in Ukraine except peace. We tried nation-building in Iraq, and that didn’t work out too well. This whole affair is a disaster. Ukraine is being destroyed. An idealist would say the Ukrainians are creating their own country by dying for it. The problem is, even if they win, which I doubt, they lose. Victory means winning a war-ravaged landscape with a hateful neighbor to the east. There will be no end to the animosity. The same people who took us into catastrophic wars in a Iraq and Afghanistan are doing the same thing in Ukraine, with the same results.
What’s the point? Good question. At the end of the First World War, after all the bloodshed and destruction, no one could remember what the war was about. The same thing was true in Vietnam, if not more so. “