Avoiding a Russian Quagmire, the Improbable Ukrainian Peace, and the Risk of Direct Russo-NATO War

Gordon Hahn ^ | June 30 22 | Gordon Hahn

[delta7]

A Ukie military coup? Calls for Z’s ouster rising, especially with his drafting of 18 year old woman….the Ukie losses are horrendous, drafting woman does not sit well with many of the Ukie military, and an overwhelming sign of desperation.

Of course, western MSM is still reporting the Ukies are now in Red Square….going to be alot of disappointed war cheerleaders.

[jimwatx]

Zelensky better flee to his multi-million dollar estate on Miami Beach before the Ukrainian people realize he sold them out to be a pawn of the US.

[laplata]

“Zelensky better flee to his multi-million dollar estate on Miami Beach before the Ukrainian people realize he sold them out to be a pawn of the US”.

That is very good advice.

Zelensky and Biden don’t give a damn how many Ukranians are dying or will continue to die.

[piasa]

It is the Russia supporters that are the “ war cheerleaders.” They are all for war so long as Russia wages it.

[piasa]

Neither does Putin. He doesn’t care how many Russians die, either.

[laplata]

I agree.

[Cathi]

I think the time has passed for any hope for the kind of settlement pundits are suggesting.

When Putin switched gears which originally called for achieving the de-nazi; de-militarization; gaining autonomy for Donbass and a neutrality agreement in Ukraine AND THEN LEAVING UKRAINE and became convinced that neither Zelensky nor NATO would ever honor any agreement and furthermore that NATO was determined to prolong the war in order to take down Russia and drive Putin from office he realized that he would need to remain in Ukraine “forever” (as they put it) and defeat NATO.

So now we await finding out how much of Ukraine will be annexed and what arrangements will be made about the remaining Western stump state of Ukraine.

[allendale]

However it ends in Ukraine, Russia has had a catastrophic strategic loss. The world know knows that the Russian conventional military is not the conventional juggernaut once so feared. A determined NATO could not be defeated. More ominously, the Chinese, who have always coveted Russia’s underpopulated Far Eastern/Pacific territories and the treasure house of Siberia, realize they cannot be conventionally defended from a serious Chinese invasion. The only thing keeping Russia intact is its nuclear deterrence.

[devere]

More Kremlin garbage propaganda

[laplata]

Good post.

This is the worst time to have most inept leadership in the US and NATO, but that’s what we have. They’re a bunch of buffoons at the beck and call of the Globalists.

We’ll be fortunate if there isn’t some type of nuclear exchange, from tactical nukes to ICBM’s.

[piasa]

For those who don’t know, the author Gordon Hahn used to work for the flaming liberal Wilson Center. Not sure if there is a link but some other folks involved with the Wilson Center include Fritsch, the confounding partner of Fusion GPS, the firm that Hillary Clinton’s campaign used to dig up dirt on Trump, or at least serve as a conduit of dirt from Russian sources to lazy biased journalists. Fritsch lectured at the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute. Hahn probably gets around the lecture circuit of a lot of groups too.

[laplata]

Thanks for bringing that up.

[laplata]

“It is the Russia supporters that are the “ war cheerleaders.” They are all for war so long as Russia wages it”.

And Zelenski will make sure that Ukraine fights to the last Ukranian.

[Cathi]

GORDON M. HAHN, Ph.D.
Monterey Institute for International Studies
460 Pierce St., Monterey, CA 93940
gordon.hahn@miis.edu and gordon-hahn@sbcglobal.net
Tel. (831) 647-3535

PRESENT POSITIONS
Senior Researcher, Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program, and Visiting Assistant Professor, Graduate School of International Policy Studies, Monterey Institute for International Studies, Monterey, California, July 2007 – present. Responsibilities: research and teach terrorism, Islamism, and domestic and foreign policy in Russia and Eurasia; founded, edits and, unless indicated otherwise, authors the Islam, Islamism and Politics in Eurasia Report (IIPER), www.miis.edu/academics/faculty/ghahn/report; and manage of the Monterey WMD Terrorism Database, http://cns.miis.edu/wmdt/.
Senior Researcher - Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Division of Akribis Group, San Jose, California, www.cetisresearch.org), February 2006 – present. Responsibilities: Research on Islamism and terrorism in Russia and Eurasia and international jihadi terrorism.
Analyst and Consultant - Russia Media Watch, Russia - Other Points of View, www.russiaotherpointsofview.com, a project associated with the Center for Civic Initiatives, San Francisco, California, www.ccisf.org. March 2008 – present. Responsibilities: Analysis of, and consulting on Russian politics and review of Western media coverage and scholarly analysis of politics in Russia.

PREVIOUS POSITIONS/FELLOWSHIP APPOINTMENTS
Consultant/Contributing Author, The Century Foundation Gary Hart – Jack Matlock Working Group on U.S.-Russia Relations, September 2008 – February 2009. Responsibilities: Writing a policy paper on “U.S.-Russian Relations and the Struggle against Islamism and Jihadism” as part of a set of policy recommendations for the next U.S. President.
MONTEREY INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, Adjunct Professor, Graduate School of International Policy Studies, Monterey, California, Course: IPS 689 ‘Islam and Politics in the North Caucasus and Central Asia,’ July 2007 – August 2008.
SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY, Visiting Assistant Professor, Political Science Department, Courses – ‘Russian Government and Politics’ and ‘Introduction to Comparative Politics,’ January-June 2007.
DEMOKRATIZATSIYA: Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, Special ‘Perestroika’ Edition Editor, October 2004 – 2006.
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE, Non-Resident Academic Fellow, Smolny College, St. Petersburg State University (Russia), Program on International Relations, Comparative

[PGR88]

It did not have to be this way. The solution that would have avoided this terrible war was Western (NATO and Kiev) agreement to a neutral Ukraine—an option available for two decades but rejected in Washington and Brussels.

Its worse. Its clear that the US deep-state and neocons cultivated and used the most radical, nationalist, Banderist elements to push Ukraine into extremes, which effectively guaranteed a war.

[BenLurkin]

[alexander_busek]

Ukraine is losing and will lose its war with Russia. For Moscow not to lose the peace, it is unfortunately the case that a rump Ukraine may no longer provide in Russian eyes the security from the NATO/Ukraine threat it understandably (to some) seeks.

Article BEGINS with two unsupported claims, and it the proceeds to go downhill from there. Second sentence is obfuscating and nonsensical, containing, as it does, implied claims that run counter to reality and logic. Article goes on to state that Putin's "denazification" of Ukraine is laudable and essential.

Anyone commenting favorably on this article "outs" himself as a Russian shill. The article is not even worthy of serious consideration, in my estimation.

FAIL!

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

“If you've been playing poker for half an hour and you still don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy.”

You are one of the few good-faith participants in this thread. Most of the other participants who appear to agree with you or half-agree with you, but have "concerns," are playing you.

This is a pathological thread. Enter at your own risk!

Regards,

[Ultra Sonic 007]

This is a pathological thread. Enter at your own risk!

So an assessment of the invasion's status that differs from your own qualifies as "pathological"

How utterly deranged.

(Out of curiosity, if the article had opened up with "Ukraine is winning and will win its war with Russia", would those two claims also count as unsupported?)

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Article goes on to state that Putin's "denazification" of Ukraine is laudable and essential.

The article does not claim nor imply that "denazification" is laudable or essential; rather, it dryly remarks how the way the invasion has currently unfolded makes such a process practically inevitable, along with hypothetical outcomes regarding how far-right elements of Ukraine's military would react.

In fact, the author remarks how this stated goal of Putin's makes it more difficult for him to back down: Ironically, one of the reasons that Putin claims led to his decision to invade could also make it more difficult for him to withdraw Russian troops. That Ukraine is significantly infused with neofascism and ultranationalism means that he has taken on a fight with the kind of country that is more likely to fight hard. If the Ukrainian army is defeated, it will disperse and elements will team up with dispersed members of the often neofascist dominated ‘national battalions,’ who will carry on the fight by means of partisan guerrilla warfare and terrorism. This will make it difficult for Moscow to fully withdraw from a Ukraine that will be overwhelmed with reconstruction once war proper winds down.

This does not sound like an "essential" outcome in the sense you describe, much less a "laudable" one. (In fact, you were the first person to use those words in this entire thread.)

Disagreeing with someone's analysis as to how the war will unfold gives you no right to mischaracterize their opinion.

(Nor does it make the people who happened to take something away from it "Russian shills".)