April 2024

Ukraine is losing. Russia is winning. So, what do we do now?

Wednesday-Friday blog

You don’t see or hear much about the Russia/Ukraine war in the media nowadays. Could this be because Ukraine is losing and Russia is winning and that’s not quite the story our bungling rulers and the sycophantic mainstream media-for-sale want to portray?

The Pentagon Papers

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled The History of U.S. Decision-Making in Vietnam, 1945–1968, is a United States Depoartment of Defense history of the United States’ political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1968. Released by journalist Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study, they were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971. If I remember correctly, The Pentagon Papers revealed two main things:

  • US administrations had repeatedly lied about the situation in Vietnam, especially covering up the increasing extent of the war
  • the US realised it was losing the war but concealed this from the media and the public
The Ukraine Papers?

But, what do The Pentagon Papers have to do with the price of butter, you may ask. Well, I suspect there is a modern-day version of The Pentagon Papers, which we can call The Ukraine Papers, hidden away somewhere in some US government offices and stamped ‘Top Secret’. If The Ukraine Papers exist, they might reveal two main things:

How the Ukraine war started. This would cover:

  • the five NATO expansions eastwards towards Russia’s borders
  • Vladimir Putin’s warnings to NATO that he would never accept Ukraine and Georgia becoming NATO members
  • why NATO ignored Putin’s warnings
  • whether NATO deliberately provoked Russia in order to use Ukraine to weaken the Russian military
  • was a peace agreement reached in Istanbul sabotaged by a certain Mr Johnson being sent to Kiev to urge the Ukrainians to fight on?
  • does NATO have an exit plan in case Russia wins? (I think we all know the answer to that one)

NATO’s realisation that Ukraine can’t win:

  • Russia has built formidable mined defensive lines protecting the territories it has captured
  • as the failure of the last main Ukrainian offensive showed, in an era of satellites and drones, it’s no longer possible to amass an attacking force to target strong defensive lines

So we’re left with a stalemate – a war of attrition. And military history shows that in such a war, the side which can outproduce the other in terms of manpower and military materiel – planes, tanks, artillery, missiles etc – and which can outlast the other side will always win.

Ukraine’s population is (was?) about 44 million. Russia’s population is (was?) around 143 million. And Russia, with the support of Iran, North Korea and probably China seems to be outproducing Ukraine and the West in terms of military materiel.

The only chance the Ukrainians have, I believe, is a major mutiny in the Russian military. Against the idea of a major mutiny is the fact that the Russians have a history of being able to absorb enormous suffering. Around 10 million Russian troops died in WWII compared to about 384,000 for the UK and 417,000 for the USA. On the other hand, mobile phones allow Russian soldiers to communicate with each other and to realise they are being led by incompetent corrupt officers, supplied with defective equipment and are being slaughtered for no purpose at all.

So, what do we do now?

It’s clear that both sides in the conflict made massive misjudgements. Putin thought he could invade, take over Kiev and install a Russian-friendly government in just a few weeks. NATO didn’t take Putin’s ultimatum seriously, decided to call Putin’s bluff, now find Putin wasn’t bluffing and are trapped in a war that NATO’s proxies – the Ukrainians – are probably going to lose.

And now neither Putin nor NATO can risk backing down:


1 comment to Ukraine is losing. Russia is winning. So, what do we do now?

  • Jeffrey Palmer

    There’s been a fair amount of controversy recently about the government’s determination to create ‘Politically Correct’ armed forces, with their principal mission being one of ‘Diversity, Equality and Inclusion’ rather than that of defending the nation. Resulting in questions to the Under-Secretary for Defence in Parliament just yesterday.

    Let’s think about this logically.

    Our leaders aren’t really stupid enough to believe that they can make effective armed forces just out of the migrants, the ‘Religion of Peace’ enthusiasts, the LGBT activists, the ‘Dressing-Up Community’, the teenage girls that they concentrate their recruiting on, as has recently been revealed in the media. Of course they don’t.

    But one of the boom businesses to emerge out of the succession of Western invasions and endless wars of the last thirty years has been that of the big private military contractor.

    Already, a huge amount of military logistics in terms of supply and maintenance has been ‘outsourced’ to companies such as AmeyBriggs, Thales UK, BAE, Babcock. And in the field, their operations are guarded not by the Army, but by such mercenary companies as Blackwater (now called Academi), G4S, Aegis Defence Services, Protection Vessels International Ltd.

    All these companies employ experienced ex-servicemen who have ‘slid sideways’ into jobs that pay far more than they ever earned in the services.

    So you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that in the future, actual combat is also going to be ‘outsourced’ to such companies by our ‘Dear Leaders’ in all of the future European and Far Eastern wars that they’re planning. And that a lot of rather shadowy private companies are going to be making eye-watering sums of money out of those wars. Just like the ‘Wagner Group’ has in Russia.

    And that any mercenary casualties in such wars conveniently won’t be showing up in Army, Navy, or Airforce casualty lists.

    And that the Army, the RN, and the RAF are going to continue to be exactly what they currently are – Government centres for neo-Marxist ‘Social Engineering’.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>