Russia-Ukraine War at One Year

Putin is losing but no one is winning.

WaPo (“Biden makes surprise visit to Ukraine ahead of Russian invasion anniversary“):

President Biden made a dramatic, unannounced visit to Kyiv on Monday, in a display of strong American support for Ukraine just four days before the anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion.

The secret, high-risk visit to the historic Ukrainian capital — where air raid sirens blared as Biden walked the streets — signals continued commitment from the United States, the largest financial and military backer of Ukraine’s effort to repel Russian invaders from its territory.

Biden was spotted outside St. Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shortly before noon local time. His visit capped an hours-long security lockdown as authorities blocked car traffic and even pedestrians from certain streets.

Biden has insisted the United States will continue to back Ukraine for “as long as it takes” despite flagging support among the American public and no near-term prospect of peace talks to end the conflict.

The Biden administration has provided some $30 billion in security aid since President Vladimir Putin sent Russian forces into Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, initiating the largest ground war in Europe since World War II — one that has cost his country and Ukraine hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Under Biden’s leadership, the United States and its NATO allies have gradually expanded the array of weaponry they have pledged to include heavy tanks.

While other world leaders have visited Kyiv to meet with Zelensky and tour the war-scarred city over the past year, Biden has stayed away due to security concerns and fears about the possibility of conflict between the world’s two largest nuclear powers, sending senior aides in his place. First lady Jill Biden made a surprise visit to Western Ukraine on Mother’s Day in May.

In a statement issued by the White House, Biden said his visit was intended to reaffirm American support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which Russia has violated since 2014, when Putin annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and launched support for a separatist campaign in the eastern Donbas region.

“When Putin launched his invasion nearly one year ago, he thought Ukraine was weak and the West was divided. He thought he could outlast us,” Biden said. “But he was dead wrong.”

WaPo Moscow Bureau Chief Robyn Dixon and Catherine Belton offer a view I’ve been arguing for most of the conflict (“Putin, czar with no empire, needs military victory for his own survival“):

President Vladimir Putin likes to portray himself as a new czar like Peter the Great or Ivan III, the 15th-century grand prince known as the “gatherer of the Russian lands.” But Putin’s year-long war in Ukraine has failed so far to secure the lands he aims to seize, and in Russia, there is fear that he is leading his nation into a dark period of strife and stagnation — or worse.

Some in the elite also say the Russian leader now desperately needs a military victory to ensure his own survival. “In Russia, loyalty does not exist,” one Russian billionaire said.

Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began with hubris and a zeal to reshape the world order. But even as he suffered repeated military defeats — diminishing his stature globally and staining him with allegations of atrocities being committed by his troops — Putin has tightened his authoritarian grip at home, using the war to destroy any opposition and to engineer a closed, paranoid society hostile to liberals, hipsters, LGBTQ people, and, especially, Western-style freedom and democracy.

The Russian president’s squadrons of cheerleaders swear he “simply cannot lose” in Ukraine, thanks to Russia’s vast energy wealth, nuclear weapons and sheer number of soldiers it can throw onto the battlefield. These supporters see Putin rising supreme from Ukraine’s ashes to lead a swaggering nation defined by its repudiation of the West — a bigger, more powerful version of Iran.

But business executives and state officials say Putin’s own position at the top could prove precarious as doubts over his tactics grow among the elite. For many of them, Putin’s gambit has unwound 30 years of progress made since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin’s vision of Russia horrifies many oligarchs and state officials, who confide that the war has been a catastrophic error that has failed in every goal. But they remain paralyzed, fearful and publicly silent.

“Among the elite, though they understand it was a mistake, they still fear to do anything themselves,” said the only Russian diplomat to publicly quit office over the war, Boris Bondarev, formerly based at Russia’s U.N. mission in Geneva. “Because they have gotten used to Putin deciding everything.”

Some are sure that Putin can maintain his hold on power without a victory, as long as he keeps the war going and wears down Western resolve and weapons supplies.For anyone in the elite to act, Bondarev said, “there needs to be an understanding that Putin is leading the country to total collapse. While Putin is still bombing and attacking, people think the situation is not so bad. There needs to be a full military loss, and only then will people understand they need to do something.”

What all camps seem to agree on is that Putin shows no willingness to give up. As Russia’s battlefield position deteriorated in recent months, he escalated repeatedly, shuffling his commanders, unleashing brutal airstrikes on civilian infrastructure and threatening to use nuclear weapons.

Now, with his troops reinforced by conscripts and convicts and poised to launch new offensives, the 70-year-old Russian leader needs a win to maintain his own credibility. “Putin needs some success to demonstrate to society that he is still very successful,” a senior Ukrainian security official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss politically sensitive issues.

NYT Moscow Bureau Chief Anton Troianovski and Valerie Hopkins offer a somewhat darker take (“One Year Into War, Putin Is Crafting the Russia He Craves“):

The grievances, paranoia and imperialist mind-set that drove President Vladimir V. Putin to invade Ukraine have seeped deep into Russian life after a year of war — a broad, if uneven, societal upheaval that has left the Russian leader more dominant than ever at home.

Schoolchildren collect empty cans to make candles for soldiers in the trenches, while learning in a new weekly class that the Russian military has always liberated humanity from “aggressors who seek world domination.”

Museums and theaters, which remained islands of artistic freedom during previous crackdowns, have seen that special status evaporate, their antiwar performers and artists expunged. New exhibits put on by the state have titles like “NATOzism” — a play on “Nazism” that seeks to cast the Western military alliance as posing a threat as existential as the Nazis of World War II.

Many of the activist groups and rights organizations that have sprung up in the first 30 years of post-Soviet Russia have met an abrupt end, while nationalist groups once seen as fringe have taken center stage.

As Friday’s first anniversary of the invasion approaches, Russia’s military has suffered setback after setback, falling far short of its goal of taking control of Ukraine. But at home, facing little resistance, Mr. Putin’s year of war has allowed him to go further than many thought possible in reshaping Russia in his image.

“Liberalism in Russia is dead forever, thank God,” Konstantin Malofeyev, an ultraconservative business tycoon, bragged in a phone interview on Saturday. “The longer this war lasts, the more Russian society is cleansing itself from liberalism and the Western poison.”

That the invasion has dragged on for a year has made Russia’s transformation go far deeper, he said, than it would have had Mr. Putin’s hopes for a swift victory been realized.

“If the Blitzkrieg had succeeded, nothing would have changed,” he said.

The Kremlin for years sought to keep Mr. Malofeyev at arm’s length, even as he funded pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine and called for Russia to be reformed into an empire of “traditional values,” free of Western influence. But that changed after the invasion, as Mr. Putin turned “traditional values” into a rallying cry — signing a new anti-gay law, for instance — while styling himself as another Peter the Great retaking lost Russian lands.

Most important, Mr. Malofeyev said, Russia’s liberals have either been silenced or have fled the country, while Western companies have left voluntarily.

That change was evident last Wednesday at a gathering off the traffic-jammed Garden Ring road in Moscow, where some of the most prominent rights activists who have remained in Russia came together for the latest of many recent farewells: The Sakharov Center, a human rights archive that was a liberal hub for decades, was opening its last exhibit before being forced to shut under a new law.

The center’s chairman, Vyacheslav Bakhmin, once a Soviet dissident, told the assembled crowd that “what we just couldn’t have imagined two years ago or even a year ago is happening today.”

“A new system of values has been built,” Aleksandr Daniel, an expert on Soviet dissidents, said afterward. “Brutal and archaic public values.”

A year ago, as Washington warned of an imminent invasion, most Russians dismissed the possibility; Mr. Putin, after all, had styled himself as a peace-loving president who would never attack another country. So after the invasion started — stunning some of the president’s closest aides — the Kremlin scrambled to adjust its propaganda to justify it.

It was the West that went to war against Russia by backing “Nazis” who took power in Ukraine in 2014, the false message went, and the goal of Mr. Putin’s “special military operation” was to end the war the West had started.

In a series of addresses aimed at shoring up domestic support, Mr. Putin cast the invasion as a near-holy war for Russia’s very identity, declaring that it was fighting to prevent liberal gender norms and acceptance of homosexuality from being forced upon it by an aggressive West.

The full power of the state was deployed to spread and enforce that message. National television channels, all controlled by the Kremlin, dropped entertainment programming in favor of more news and political talk shows; schools were directed to add a regular flag-raising ceremony and “patriotic” education; the police hunted down people for offenses like antiwar Facebook posts, helping to push hundreds of thousands of Russians out of the country.

“Society in general has gone off the rails,” Sergei Chernyshov, who runs a private high school in the Siberian metropolis of Novosibirsk, said in a phone interview. “They’ve flipped the ideas of good and evil.”

I’m of mixed mind on the Biden visit. The propaganda value is high, in that it shows American support in a way that’s more visible than the aid shipments. At the same time, rising the President’s life for a publicity stunt is unwise, especially when Kamala Harris is the fallback plan.

In terms of the war itself, I remain in the place I’ve been for months: Putin is losing in spectacular fashion but there’s no end in sight. He’s destroying Ukraine and Russia at the same time but there’s no obvious offramp. This is especially true if he’s managed to convince his people that they’re in an existential fight against the West.

FILED UNDER: World Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. daryl and his brother darryl says:

    Propaganda??? A pejorative term implying information of a biased and misleading nature.
    Publicity stunt??? Kevin McCarthy leading GOP’ers to the border last week was a publicity stunt.
    A sitting President visiting an active war zone shows strength and resolve and a big pair of attachments.
    Being dismissive of Harris only further clarifies your game.

    31
  2. Kathy says:

    Funny thing that Peter the great moved Russia in the direction of Western enlightenment values.

    4
  3. charon says:

    @Kathy:

    Peter also added a lot of territory to what was already a colonial empire.

    1
  4. MarkedMan says:

    @daryl and his brother darryl: FWIW, I believe “propaganda” has a different meaning in the military than it does in general usage and does not automatically have negative connotations.

    4
  5. drj says:

    “Publicity stunt” is definitely the wrong way to look at this.

    Biden’s visit is meant to show the extent of US support for Ukraine – with the concrete aim of demonstrating to Russia that its current strategy (waiting out the West) is hopeless. This is a credible and potentially useful contribution to an overall war-ending policy.

    This is the kind of signaling that is meant to have a real-world impact and that is meant to benefit the foreign policy goals of this administration – which is something that properly belongs to the responsibilities of the executive branch. (As opposed to, for instance, signalling “strength and resolve” as part of a domestic re-election campaign.)

    Meaning that that this is not a “stunt” – which is usually understood as prioritizing perfomativity over substance.

    21
  6. drj says:

    @Kathy:

    Funny thing that Peter the great moved Russia in the direction of Western enlightenment values.

    There are parts of the Age of Enlightenment that we nowadays tend to ignore. An increase in absolutist rule is one example of this.

    2
  7. daryl and his brother darryl says:

    @MarkedMan:
    I think James’ intent, to assign a negative connotation, is crystal clear.

    5
  8. daryl and his brother darryl says:

    Offered without comment; M.T. Green is calling for Biden to be impeached for visiting Ukraine.

    2
  9. Michael Reynolds says:

    I seldom think you’re just being stupid, @JamesJoyner, but this piece is horseshit. You think Putin’s going to lob a missile at Biden? That’s war with NATO, and Putin’s shown no evidence of suicidal tendencies.

    7
  10. daryl and his brother darryl says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    Not to mention that Biden went as far as warning Moscow that he was going to be there.

    3
  11. MarkedMan says:

    @Michael Reynolds: Would Putin deliberately attack Biden? Almost certainly not. Are unexpected and fatal things more likely to happen in a war zone due to crossed communications lines, poor decision making at the lower levels of command, etc? That’s just a fact of war.

    4
  12. charon says:

    Picked this up at BJ, about war affecting cyberspace:

    https://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/google_fog_of_war_research_report.pdf

  13. gVOR08 says:

    I tend to agree with James that it’s a trade-off between risk to the President and the propaganda value. However I don’t see the risk as all that great, and I expect the Secret Service and the Ukrainians have done everything possible to mitigate it. The Ukrainians have some practice at hosting foreign heads of state. And the propaganda value is huge. As is the domestic political value. For Zelensky as well as for Biden. Way to go Brandon.

    6
  14. Kathy says:

    So, Biden can go into a war zone, or at any rate a city that sees frequent air attacks, with the cooperation of the Secret Service, but the Orange guy couldn’t manage a trip to the US Capitol.

    Compare and contrast.

    For one thing, I don’t suppose Biden climbed into AF1, went into the cockpit, and told the pilots “Kyiv, and step on it.”

    6
  15. Mikey says:

    Imagine you’re Putin. You ordered the invasion of Ukraine with the expectation you would take its capital city within days. A year later you still can’t walk in that capital city…but the President of the United States can. And he can shake the hand of the President of Ukraine, who–in possibly the most incredible display of underestimation in the history of human conflict–you wrote off as a weak comedian who would flee or be killed almost immediately.

    Putin must be simultaneously seething with rage and drowning in tears. What a disaster for him and for Russia.

    18
  16. JohnSF says:

    @Mikey:
    THIS

    As regards the missile risk, I would wager a sizable sum the Ukraine redeployed radar sets and SAM batteries to maximise Kyiv are defence. Also, IIRC the French Aster SAMP/T arrived in late January and may now be online; that’s a system that rivals Patriot in it’s capabilities.
    Also, I would expect that NATO AEW were operating over Poland and Romania, and plugged directly in to the Ukraine air defence net.

    So, not zero risk, but mitigated. Especially if Russia was warned via multiple channels.
    Might render other Ukraine sites more vulnerable if defences were redeployed, but that’s Ukraine’s decision.

    3
  17. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    While I will agree with the Russian that “loyalty does exist,” Putin doesn’t need loyalty. An absence of a credible leader/coalition to topple him is adequate.

  18. anjin-san says:

    @drj:

    “Publicity stunt” is definitely the wrong way to look at this.

    For Republicans/Fox News viewers, firmly entrenched in the attention economy, there is probably no other way to see it. In the absence of a governing philosophy, much less the overall toolkit needed to do the difficult and wonky work of actually governing, it’s all about publicity stunts.

    10
  19. DK says:

    @Michael Reynolds: Dr. Joyner’s takes are typically pessimistic. Longtime readers shouldn’t be upset, it’s part of his general M.O. I think it’s cute. As an optimist, I like the built-in skepticism of pessimists, they serve as a reality check. Although it also leads to some curious takes, like claiming Raphael Warnock was a dead man walking against Herschel Walker, when those of us who know Georgians, because we are Georgians, were stating flatly that Georgia voters could never stomach having that low IQ dirtball as Senator. I mean we’re not Alabama or Florida, we still have some standards.

    The funny gratuitous dig at VP Harris reminds me of another benefit of Biden’s age, next to the wisdom and experience on display daily: if Uncle Joe dies in office, God forbid it, I may get to see the worst yt guys alive meltdown watching Harris sworn in. Not wishing for it at all. But, you know. Added value.

    13
  20. DK says:

    @JohnSF: Print reporting on this says Russia was warned of Biden’s visit. Turns out Putin isn’t the master strategist of recent legend, but maybe not he’s still not so suicidal as to bomb Biden.

    I’m wondering why the Kremlin didn’t leak the visit tho. Some sort of kabuki going on. Did someone decline to relay the news to Putin? Would those same folks decline to carry out a nuclear order from Putin?

    2
  21. Michael Reynolds says:

    I don’t know why it is so hard for Americans – and impossible for MAGAts – to grasp that we have been handed a once-in-a-never opportunity to hobble an enemy without loss to us of anything but money.

    We have (had) two strategic opponents: Russia and China. Russia, especially if it actually takes a beating on the order of losing Crimea – no longer qualifies as a serious military opponent, outside of nukes. Their arms industry is a joke. Their little pipeline got all blowed up. They cannot magic replacement markets into being. They cannot build or buy gas/oil ships fast enough. Russia, so long described as a gas station with an army, now has neither.

    The brave and incredibly resourceful Ukrainians have paid the price in blood, we’re just writing checks and passing along bits and pieces of useful intel. “Hey, Vlodomyr? Got a pencil? Write down these co-ordinates for the Russian ammo dump.” You know, useful bits and pieces.

    We have been handed a gift. We are gutting a major opponent without the loss of a single American soldier. Jesus Christ, we’ll even end up turning a profit – strategically and financially – rather like we did in WW2. This is America at its most fortunate: our enemy has set himself on fire and all we had to do was supply the gasoline.

    The net result of this war for the US will be:

    1) A fukton of money for our arms industries.
    2) An even fukkier fukton of money for our oil and gas sector.
    3) NATO was (apparently) never in much danger from Russia, and now the notion of Putin taking on NATO is an Uncle Remus story: don’t throw us in that briar patch, br’er Vlad! Or in more modern terms, ‘bring it, bitch.’
    4) And as a bonus we’ve forced the CCP to take a deep breath and reconsider whether they want to mess with Taiwan right now.
    5) And bonus #2, a complete turnaround in the ‘decline of America, rise of China,’ narrative.

    Awful for the Ukrainian people. Brilliant for the US of A.

    But, related and largely unexplored as per #3 above: the Russian military was never configured for an attack on the West. They don’t have the toys, they don’t have the doctrine, they don’t have the transport, they don’t have the soldiers. The Russian military is evidently built and equipped for defense and the occasional foray into beating on the weakest. Seems we may have kinda overestimated the bear.

    20
  22. Sleeping Dog says:

    @DK:

    For the Russians, the less said the better. Putin hiding in his lair, sitting behind a 30′ desk, looks weak next Biden strutting around Kyiv with Zelensky. Why bring this to the attention of the Russian people, but the rest of the world has noticed.

    2
  23. JohnSF says:

    @DK:
    Interesting that they did do something to trigger an air raid warning, though
    The usually reliable and well informed Jimmy Rushton:

    (cause was) “MIG 31 taking off in Belarus…”

    1
  24. gVOR08 says:

    @anjin-san:

    For Republicans/Fox News viewers, firmly entrenched in the attention economy, there is probably no other way to see it.

    The FOX website led this morning with a, for them, fairly straight story. Comments displayed a remarkable lack of comprehension. Almost entirely people who think it’s original, insightful, and hilarious to say Biden’s there to demand his 10% or to pay off Zelensky for something something Hunter Biden. One hopes there’s a persuadable fringe reading FOX, but evidence is slim.

    I don’t see this morning’s story up anymore. The number 2 story is some rando “Putin expert” saying the visit will have no effect and the number 18 story is Biden announces millions more American taxpayer dollars going to Ukraine on Kyiv visit. Otherwise, on the FOX website, Biden’s visit has gone the way of the Dominion lawsuit story.

    2
  25. anjin-san says:

    @gVOR08:

    Almost entirely people who think it’s original, insightful, and hilarious to say

    It’s almost as if everyone who was truly obnoxious in the 8th grade grew an adult body without experiencing any sort of emotional, spiritual or intellectual growth whatsoever.

  26. dazedandconfused says:

    On the subject of ‘one year in’, here’s a CSIS long but interesting discussion from some folks who’ve studied and are studying Russia professionally for most of their careers. Worth the time IMO. There are several points in which they are not agreeing with the pundits.

    One point they do not agree with is that Putin is afraid of removal, not immediately anyway. They feel that will not be an issue unless he goes for general mobilization and the Russian people really begin to feel it. That hasn’t happened yet so the prevailing public is going along with it, and the lack of any obvious replacement-in-waiting. A fear of the possible chaos is still predominant. Putin has maybe another year before he must begin to worry about that.

    1
  27. dazedandconfused says:

    @gVOR08:

    I don’t see why Biden should be hungry for propaganda value. I see no allies teetering in the brink of supporting Russia. Risk is small…but perhaps still greater than reward. Spend the fuel and security money on bandages…or a couple more generators.

  28. daryl and his brother darryl says:
  29. JohnSF says:

    @dazedandconfused:
    It aids morale in Ukraine; this is a major consideration for a country enduring a periodically hellish war. Especially for its army.
    It rams in Russia’s face that it it NOT winning; and that it will not be permitted to win.
    It makes it clear to would-be neutrals of the “global South” that the West, and in particular the US is fully committed to Ukraine winning, and Russia losing.

    And that bets in the other direction may be eventually be collected with interest and the vig on top, at a time of our choosing: one bad turn deserves another, after all.
    (*waves with an unfriendly smiile at Iran and South Africa*)

    2
  30. Mu Yixiao says:

    @James Joyner:

    A counter to your perspective.

    Symbols matter: […] a Reagan at the Berlin Wall, a Churchill with a cigar and a bowler, for that matter a green-clad Zelensky growling, “I need ammunition, not a ride.” Simply by taking the hazardous trip to Kyiv, Biden made a strategic move of cardinal importance.

    Russia has cycled through a series of theories of victory in Ukraine […] It has been reduced to one last hope: that Vladimir Putin’s will is stronger than Joe Biden’s. And Biden just said, by deed as well as word, “Oh no it’s not.”

    This is a gut punch to Russia’s leader. […] For a leader obsessed with strength, like Putin, [this] is a blow. His own people will quietly or openly ask, “Why could we not prevent this?” And the answer, unstated, will have to be, “Because we were afraid.”

    There are plenty of Biden’s policy decisions that I disagree with, but… this is what leadership and a strong America look like.

    5
  31. dazedandconfused says:

    @JohnSF:

    Why would Russia think they are winning?

  32. Andy says:

    Biden’s visit doesn’t accomplish much practically but does send a signal of US commitment, which is important for Ukrainian morale.

    I’m sure the Secret Service was none-too-pleased, but I don’t think the President was in much danger. Coordination and deconfliction with the Russians would be expected and is normal. The Russians certainly don’t want any “accidents” and the US will (and did) communicate the appropriate info to the Russians to ensure there would be no accidents. And I’d bet the Ukrainians got a message from Biden to play cool as well.

    As an academic matter, I do wonder what kind of escort Air Force One got in Ukrainian airspace – typically, it’s US fighters that do the escorting, and I’d bet that happened here.

    As far as the course of the war, questions of “winning” and “losing” are contingent upon many factors, most of which are uncertain at this point. And, of course, the biggest of those are the political goals, and neither side has realistically achievable goals at this point which suggests the war isn’t ending anytime soon.

    All the people stating with confidence that the Russians are losing should realize that the Ukrainians aren’t winning either. The Russians could keep “losing” by not winning for a very long time. This is a conflict that, absent a black swan or some decisive event or new capability, favors the defense and is defined by attrition and a competition to reconstitute better and faster than the opponent.

    The predictions in the fall by mostly know-nothing Ukrainian cheerleaders on social mediahave not come to pass. Russia reconstituted it’s forces over the winter, slowed Ukrainian force reconstitution over the winter with a grinding attritional fight in Bakhmut, and now Russia is in week 3 of a “spring” offensive that is making small gains but is unlikely to be decisive in terms of taking territory or destroying Ukrainian military power.

    Once this Russian offensive culminates, we will have to see if Ukraine can effectively counterattack. This is the big question in my mind.

    7
  33. DK says:

    @dazedandconfused:

    I see no allies teetering in the brink of supporting Russia.

    Germany is a weak link, and the US itself is on the brink of supporting Russia, via electing a president like Trump or DeFascist.

    2
  34. DK says:

    @Sleeping Dog:

    Putin hiding in his lair, sitting behind a 30′ desk, looks weak next Biden strutting around Kyiv with Zelensky. Why bring this to the attention of the Russian people

    Ah, okay yes. This makes sense.

    1
  35. Mikey says:

    @Andy:

    All the people stating with confidence that the Russians are losing should realize that the Ukrainians aren’t winning either. The Russians could keep “losing” by not winning for a very long time. This is a conflict that, absent a black swan or some decisive event or new capability, favors the defense and is defined by attrition and a competition to reconstitute better and faster than the opponent.

    The Ukrainians are defending their own land and they have a united Western world helping them reconstitute better and faster.

    Because of this I think they will eventually prevail, but can’t disagree with you that it could take a very long time. And it’s hard to predict what that will look like, besides costing far too much in blood and treasure.

  36. DK says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    I don’t know why it is so hard for Americans – and impossible for MAGAts – to grasp that we have been handed a once-in-a-never opportunity to hobble an enemy without loss to us of anything but money.

    They prefer authoritarian white nationalism to liberal democracy, so it naturally follows they prefer to see Russia destroy Ukraine.

    MAGA is fine with Putin bombing Ukranian children, sending Russian boys to die as cannon fodder, closing the internet, shutting independent media, demonizing and killing gays, jailing protestors and journalists, and sending political oppenents to prison or the graveyard — because either they share his contempt towards these kinds of targets, or they are selfish, amoral, and don’t care about the suffering others. MAGA would love nothing more than making Donald Trump or Ron DeFascist the American Putin.

    3
  37. DK says:

    @Mikey:

    The Ukrainians are defending their own land

    It took the US 50+ years to learn why this factor can be dispositive in ruining an invading force.

    5
  38. Sleeping Dog says:

    @Andy:

    He didn’t take Air Force One, but a non-descript AF 757 and took the train from Warsaw to Kyiv. That 757 likely did have an escort, but since it didn’t enter Ukraine air space…

    3
  39. Andy says:

    @Sleeping Dog:

    Thanks for the correction – I’m catching up after a travel day and read earlier speculation that he flew in. The train makes sense as well as the 757.

    2
  40. Scott O says:

    @Andy: “As an academic matter, I do wonder what kind of escort Air Force One got in Ukrainian airspace – typically, it’s US fighters that do the escorting, and I’d bet that happened here.”

    Biden rode on a train from Poland to Kyiv. Reuters

    “The president flew overnight to the United States’ Ramstein Air Base in Germany. The plane was refueled and he flew on to Rzeszow in southeastern Poland. After a one-hour drive, he arrived in Przemysl, a city along the Poland-Ukraine border.

    Biden then boarded a train and traveled 10 hours to Kyiv.”

  41. Scott O says:

    Note to self, always refresh page before posting.

    2
  42. Mister Bluster says:

    @Sleeping Dog:..Air Force One

    I think that any airplane that the President of the United States is on is Air Force One.

    4
  43. Mister bluster says:

    Air Force One

    Don’t know about the train.
    Cannonball Express?

  44. dazedandconfused says:

    @Scott O:

    Biden got 20 hours on a train? He no doubt loved it.

    @DK: I said “allies”.

    1
  45. JKB says:

    Joe follows the money and maybe he had to pick up the 10% for the big guy in person.

    Interesting he took a train while his administration is ignoring the toxic cloud over Ohio. No worries, Trump is visiting East Palestine so now FEMA is finally acting. Even Biden’s head of the EPA had to cancel is trip with a celebrity to stay home and do PR like he’s doing his job.

    The fun part is they purposely lit the toxic chemicals on fire, which produces smoke that when it reacts with nitrogen in the air, produces hydrochloric acid to rain down on everyone. Talk about bringing back acid rain.

  46. JohnSF says:

    @dazedandconfused:
    I doubt even Putin believes he is winning militarily at the moment.
    But both their backgrounds, and Soviet and Russian traditions, incline the Russian elite to see military and political aims and strategies as a continuity, not distinct, as is the Western tendency.

    They likely still think that they can outlast the West politically, then outlast Ukraine economically, and grind out a victory. Possibly with temporary ceasefire with Russia holding some gains and preparing for next round.

    The Russian rulers hope Westerrn and especially American public opinion will turn become increasingly bored and grumpy, that political alignments will shift in their favour.

    If a “peace faction” gains ascendancy in Washington (and Berlin?), it will split the western coalition from top to bottom, and potential for political breach between Ukraine and key allies.

    This is Putin’s goal; and it is perhaps not an impossible one.
    As long as the Russian elite can hold on to the hope of a long run grind to success, grind on they will.
    This is why maximum commitment and maximum armament NOW are important.
    To change this political calculus for persistence, to alter the military side of the equation: turn up the pain, increase the rate of destruction of the Russian army to levels Russia cannot sustain.

    1
  47. JohnSF says:

    @JKB:

    Joe follows the money and maybe he had to pick up the 10% for the big guy in person

    Try not to be more of an idiot than you can absolutely help.

    And it’s patently obvious some Republicans are trying to spin a narrative of “Biden hates Ohio heartland” when it’s been Governor de Wine refusing offers of federal assistance.

    Let’s face it, a lot of MAGA activists will never forgive Ukraine for not co-operating with Trump’s plans to smear Biden and involvement in the 2019 impeachment.
    It’s disgusting and petty, but seemingly irresistibly attractive.

    For some this has morphed into somehow seeing Ukraine as a spearhead of a “woke nazi globalism” conspiracy (whovever said Qanon infected MAGA thought has to make sense?) against “traditionalist, Christian” Russia and of course the MAGA themselves.

    Amazing that people who view themselves as traditional conservatives and upholders of liberty, are now happily in bed with a murderous military invasion, cynical autocrats, alt-left campists, European neo-fascists, “global-south” anti-Americans, and miscellaneous fossil communist tankies, but such is life.
    All one big happy family of malice and lunacy.

    11
  48. Michael Reynolds says:

    @JKB:
    Have you commented yet on the admission – in their own texts – by your favorite Fox Celebs that they lied to you?

    By the way, you, not me, not us. You were the one lied to, we always knew the truth. But you were lied to by people who rightly assumed that you’re a credulous simpleton. And said as much. Your entire political being rests on those lies. And you are not at all bothered because in your shriveled little soul you knew they were lies. You’ve made it your mission to come here and peddle those lies.

    There are people you want to hurt. The lies are the tools you use to hurt people. And this is what you think you should be doing. This is your moral imperative: use lies to hurt the weak.

    What a sad creature you are. A liar. A traitor. A bully. A fraud. A waste of skin.

    7
  49. JohnSF says:

    @DK:

    Germany is a weak link

    I’d modify that: sections of German public opinion are fearful and confused.
    But the key thing are the parties; both AfD and der Linke have factions that are pro-Russia and are split on the issue.
    The greens are pretty solidly pro-Ukraine, as are the Free Democracts. And the majority of the CDU/CSU; albeit conditioned by the inclinations of some business leaders who continue to long for a “return to normality”.
    The critical struggle is within the SPD: the majority seems to be supportive of Ukraine, but a large element of one of the dominant internal factions, Scholz’s own Lower Saxony State, Schroder’s former power base, has a strong pragmatic/pacifist/pro-Russian skew.
    As long as they are constrained by German politics and wider Western diplomacy, they can be contained.
    But if “negotiated peace” supporters become ascendant in the US and France, they’ll bolt. And have a reasonable chance of assembling a coalition of support in Berlin.

  50. Franklin says:

    @JKB: You know there are many organizations that help with cult recovery, I’d recommend looking into it. Because I care for your well-being.

  51. dazedandconfused says:

    @JohnSF:

    True, but the image of a Putin willing to grind this out, a project of years and thousands of Russian lives lost, but would have his mind changed to any meaningful degree by a simple quick visit from a US POTUS is not an easy one to assemble. The recent handing out of Abrams and even more billion$ has the message strong and recent.

  52. JohnSF says:

    @dazedandconfused:
    Putin, and the rest of the ex-KGB/FSB section of the elite around him, pay a lot of attention to politics and image. He is not a military person; his tradition values propaganda and presentation.
    It was a crucial aspect of Soviet policy, and of the tsars, and has been of Putin’s own.
    Granted that the weapons and economic support are still more important. But a visible commitment of personal and state prestige counts for a good deal in this worldview.

  53. dazedandconfused says:

    @JohnSF:
    He probably likes it John, as it serves the narrative this is about defending Russia from the “West”, which takes the focus off Ukraine.

  54. JohnSF says:

    @dazedandconfused:
    There is that aspect; but Putin would portray it as Russia vs “NATO and the Nazis” in any case, so I’m not sure it matters that much. The signal of US commitment IMO out weighs that.
    The politics and image aspect isn’t so much about popular opinion and PR to the Russian elite – that is taken for granted, internally – but as a matter of state positioning and prestige. It’s not a democratic mindset; it’s an autocratic one. Another reason Russians and modern Westerns often don’t get what the other side is doing.
    And why Putin’s repeated signals of his personal commitment, which (in Russian terms) displays the commitment of the Russian state, to victory in Ukraine worries me.

  55. dazedandconfused says:

    @JohnSF:

    Nearly all fading empires have fought to hang on to what they have, republics and autocratic ones alike. I not buying into the ideological explanations of this madness. They look like rationalizations to me.

  56. JohnSF says:

    @dazedandconfused:
    Not so much ideology, as normally thought of, ie something coherent and goal-directed like liberalism, or communism, or even incoherent, like fascism.
    More a basic assumption in political psychology, relating to political sociology. Not aiming at something, but a base assumption of how things are, and should be.
    The Western base assumption, these days, tends to be that the people are the basis of legitimacy, and their consent must be pursued.
    The Russian tradition (which also influenced the Soviets, Marxism notwithstanding) is that the state is the basis of legitimate authority.
    As long as the ruler(s) serve the state loyally, they are entitled to be obeyed, and to be rewarded.

    Of course, the fading empire nostalgia (for tyranny – sort of joke 🙂 ) aspect is significant; but it’s not that the people are expected to desire the return of empire, but that the state is diminished by its loss.

  57. dazedandconfused says:

    @JohnSF:

    The Western tradition is that the state has a monopoly on violence to enforce order as well. It’s not exclusive to the Russians.

    Nobody pines for tyranny except the tyrant, but everybody pines for order when it’s lacking. Things get bad enough they accept, even demand, some level of tyranny to get that. This is what happened to the Russians during the horror 90s, not a desire for tyranny.

  58. JohnSF says:

    @dazedandconfused:
    Rather different: the western tradition has come to be the state monopoly of violence in the interest of the people: SPQR,in one line of derivation; liberalism in another. Various influences.
    Due to historic contingency the Russian tradition is far more the state monopoly of violence in the interest of the state.
    It’s not desire for tyranny (I repeat “nostalgia for tyranny” is my bad taste joke,based on a SF novel, to complicated to explain at length right now) just a somewhat different base set of assumptions about how the state/society functions.
    (Similar, but different to variation base socio-political assumption among traditionalist Muslims, Confucian traditionalists, etc)

  59. dazedandconfused says:

    @JohnSF: Can you find anything Putin has said in regards to this being about expanding “tyranny”?

  60. JohnSF says:

    @dazedandconfused:
    I ‘m really regretting this joke now. 🙁
    I said in the first mention:

    …nostalgia (for tyranny – sort of joke )

    and then

    …not desire for tyranny (I repeat “nostalgia for tyranny” is my bad taste joke,based on a SF novel, to complicated to explain at length right now)

    It’s a reference to Alastair Reynold’s novel “Revelation Space” which features the starship Nostalgia for Infinity which is a vast mechanism in a state of gothic decrepitude, but still deadly, run by a brain-controlled Russian officer and commanded by an insane Captain locked in suspended animation.
    The reference to nostalgia for empire triggered the memory, and it seemed rather fitting.
    Still does; but it’s also still a joke.

    I do NOT think Putin wants to expand tyranny as such; he wants to expand the Russian sphere of political, economic and military dominance.
    To secure both Russia, that is, the Russian state, and his regime system, which is its rightful ruler. That this appears as despotism to those outside the system is irrelevant to him.