The EU has no Plan B

An explosive new NYT report shows how Washington needlessly fed into Russia’s worst fears and precipitated the invasion, justified or not

Nicolai Petro, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

An Etiological Investigation

With the approaching second anniversary of Russia’s military operations in Ukraine, we can expect that there will be various solutions offered to the current war there. On one side there will be calls for billions more in U.S. and NATO military aid to Ukraine, and on the other side there will be calls for a cease-fire.

sober new study by independent Russian media outlets Meduza and Mediazona, published on February 24 puts Russian dead from the two years of war against Ukraine at 83,000. 83,000 is a lot.

Until 2014, I was in the western liberal camp. Kiev’s brutal suppression of the popular Donbass uprising forever changed my view of the U.S. and NATO. Donbass forever changed world history.

This time two years ago, two days into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and with Russian forces 30km from Kyiv, British defence intelligence published an update on the service then known as Twitter. “The speed of the Russian advance has temporarily slowed,” they said, “likely as a result of acute logistical difficulties and strong Ukrainian resistance…The capture of Kyiv remains Russia’s primary military objective.” Those frenetic moments now seem a dim and distant memory. Kyiv is safe from ground invasion. The front lines are far from the capital. Yet the mood in Ukraine is tense and uncertain.

It’s a cynical calculus for many in the West: Keep pumping money into the conflict as long as Ukrainians are the ones dying

After a key defeat in Avdiivka, Ukraine and its NATO sponsors handle a grim outlook with more deceptions.