Ukraine–What Went Wrong?

Updates will return tomorrow….just need some decompression…..

This post will  not make me many friends….but I have never been one that held my tongue or my pen.

The world is in admiration of the Ukrainian president, Zelensky, thanks mainly to the PR campaign by the media.

But sadly the American public is fickle and the interest seems to be waning…..after a month of yippee skippy and all the chest thumping….the rest of the story needs to come out.

After a month of war in Ukraine and the invasion of the forces of Vlad the Invader and the news is always dire for Russia and glowing for the forces of Ukraine and Zelensky.

Since my return from Vietnam I have studied conflicts around the world and I can tell you that the media is not giving the entire picture for they deal with emotions and not actual facts…..

So when I read the news of the conflict in Ukraine I am always trying to make sense to the fighting…..there is always more to a story than the media’s version…..and the same with the Ukrainian conflict.

The question now is just what went wrong that would lead to the death and destruction that is being inflicted on Ukraine.

Where did all this begin….well the Smithsonian takes a look…..

Over the centuries, the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires, Poland, and Lithuania have all wielded jurisdiction over Ukraine, which first asserted its modern independence in 1917, with the formation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. Russia soon wrested back control of Ukraine, making it part of the newly established Soviet Union and retaining power in the region until World War II, when Germany invaded. The debate over how to remember this wartime history, as well as its implications for Ukrainian nationalism and independence, is key to understanding the current conflict.

In Putin’s telling, the modern Ukrainian independence movement began not in 1917 but during World War II. Under the German occupation of Ukraine, between 1941 and 1944, some Ukrainian independence fighters aligned themselves with the Nazis, whom they viewed as saviors from Soviet oppression. Putin has drawn on this period in history to portray any Ukrainian push for sovereignty as a Nazi endeavor, says Markian Dobczansky, a historian at Harvard University’s Ukrainian Research Institute. “It’s really just a stunningly cynical attempt to fight an information war and influence people’s opinions,” he adds.

Dobczansky is among a group of scholars who have publicly challenged Putin’s version of the Nazi occupation of Ukraine and the years of Soviet rule it’s sandwiched between. Almost all of these experts begin their accounts with the fall of the Russian Empire, when tens of thousands of Ukrainians fought against the Bolshevik Red Army to establish the Ukrainian People’s Republic. Ukrainians continued to fight for independence until 1922, when they were defeated by the Soviets and became the Ukrainian Soviet Republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.). By leaving out Ukraine’s short-lived but hard-fought period of independence in the early 20th century, Putin overlooks the country’s sovereignty, says Dobczansky.

There is always more to the news than the day’s offerings by the media.

If you want to know then always look beyond the day’s news and find the answer you search for…..always look for the ‘rest of the story’.

Some say that the forces of ‘Vlad the Invader’ were destined to fight in Ukraine…..

This war was not inevitable, but we have been moving toward it for years: the west, and Russia, and Ukraine. The war itself is not new – it began, as Ukrainians have frequently reminded us in the past two weeks, with the Russian incursion in 2014. But the roots go back even further. We are still experiencing the death throes of the Soviet empire. We are reaping, too, in the west, the fruits of our failed policies in the region after the Soviet collapse.

And there is more……

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”


12 thoughts on “Ukraine–What Went Wrong?

  1. This may not makes you many friends, but I completely agree. I want to hear ALL sides to the story!!!

  2. I was well aware of the history surrounding the recent conflict in Ukraine. It goes back even further, to the 17th Century when Ukraine was home to the Cossacks who fought as mercenaries for the occupying Poles against ethnic Russians, Tatars, and Turks. Those same Cossacks later became ‘colonial’ troops fighting for various Tsars, and were used to put down civil unrest, especially in the 1905 revolution.
    But surely the main catalyst for the recent conflict was Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, and the overt support of western countries including the UK and USA. Although membership of NATO was not on offer yet, that possibility must have been the straw that broke Putin’s back?
    Best wishes, Pete.

  3. Ok.. here’s what should be done over there. When Biden calls me for advice this is what I will tell him. As I’ve stated before, the battle is against Putin, not the Russians. Putin is the existential threat to the entire region and the Russian army itself still remains the undisciplined thugs it was in WW2 because of their lousy leadership and inability to train a disciplined fighting force. The goal should be to kick Putin back into Russia. No peace deals. Putin started this so he should get zero consideration in return.

    1. As the Russians have pulled out and are currently concentrating on the eastern regions an allied no-fly zone should immediately be established over areas where there are no Russian land forces. Given the current map shows the Russian forces concentrated east of the Dnieper it’s fair to assert a no-fly zone to all areas west of the boundary of the Dnieper river… to include north to the border of Belarus… and south into the Odesa region… simply because Ukraine controls these areas and this idea of any “accidental” confrontation with Russian planes would be presumably be minimal given their planes are not supporting any ground forces.

    2. Allied troops immediately establish/protect military aid, refugee and humanitarian routes in all unoccupied areas. If any area is unoccupied by Russian forces then it reverts to sovereign Ukraine territory from which Ukraine can invite outside assistance. Russian artillery or missile attacks would be subject to be taken out if inside Ukrainian borders. Launch sites inside Russia are specifically attacked ONLY by Ukrainian forces.

    3. Ukraine should re-take Crimea and Dunbas as their military prowess and political will permits. A possible political solution is for a referendum in each region by the people themselves.

    4. War crimes investigations and indictments should go forward… very publicized.

    5. In the least, all seized Russian assets from sanctions should go toward re-building Ukraine infrastructure.

    This process minimizes direct confrontation with Russia by any allied force… the proxy war status does not change… and this plan focuses the entire conflict to the east between Russian and Ukraine forces only.
    As for this threat that a “madman” Putin will use nukes… that would entirely depend what kind of nukes. He could easily consider using low yield battlefield nukes… but that would engage NATO as a regional threat to the members. Putin has not used chemicals.. yet, if at all. He could have to this point anywhere along the last couple weeks, but hasn’t. All efforts in my plan here are defensive in nature.. not offensive toward Russia’s border.
    In the longer term… current and future sanctions will have their affect on Russia itself… hopefully changing the internal political atmosphere where Putin can be replaced.

    1. Let’s start with sanctions…,.they do not work….Cuba as example then Iran…..Crimea will just extend this war for decades…..war crimes…..I would agree as long as it is not a show trial like Nuremberg. chuq

    2. The ICC thing is just talk….the US is all for it but will not support any investigation into Israel or Saudi or Libya for example… their words are idle and feeble. If you are gonna support this organization then you support it all the way or shut up. Just a short thought chuq

      1. Well.. knowing what you know about serving in a war zone would you want to be judged by international law if you are accused of having done something defined as a war crime or would you prefer American law? Especially if you were under orders to do what you are accused of doing?
        I think that’s the essential point to our not signing on to that.. but that’s not to say we cannot “dream” up our own “international” tribunal to judge others.

      2. My point is we are either all in with international law or all out…..being hypocritical is the American way. chuq

      3. Looks like we embrace international law when it does not involve our biggest customers. Makes us look silly and ineffective. chuq

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.