All content copyright © 2010-2024 Frank Revelo, www.frankrevelo.com
Because this topic is controversial and tends to result in unpleasant arguments, I decided to write up my thoughts and let people read them as a document rather than discussing in person or by email.
Though this document was written in March 2023, my views are little changed from March 2022, shortly after the war began. And most views are unchanged from 2021, prior to the war, when I was urging everyone I knew in Ukraine to do whatever necessary to avoid war with Russia, and was called Russian collaborator and banned from numerous forums for my efforts, same as happened to many other Cassandras back then who vainly warned of the looming disaster.
Almost everything I know about Ukraine and its relationship to Russia and about geopolitics in general, I learned by reading what someone else had written previously, and everything I read is still readily available for reading by anyone else interested in these topics. Purpose of this document is not to provide original information about the Ukraine-Russia war itself, but rather information about my personal attitude towards this war.
After collapse of Soviet Union around 1990, USA found itself in a position of overwhelming military supremacy, such that it could freely impose its will upon the world, without needing consent or help of its allies and regardless of opposition by non-allies, with only one check upon its exercise of power. Namely, it could not cause leaders of Russia, China or other nations with nuclear weapons to feel their very existence was threatened, such that they might engage in strategic nuclear war with the USA as a last ditch attempt at survival. But that was a minor limitation.
A group of USA foreign policy strategists, who have since acquired the name "neo-conservatives", recognized that this situation of overwhelming worldwide USA military supremacy was unprecedented in human history and advised that every effort possible should be made to ensure USA never lost overwhelming supremacy. In practice, that meant making sure no country or alliance of countries ever emerged to challenge USA supremacy. Neo-conservatives correctly anticipated that China was country most likely to emerge as challenger to USA, but they grossly underestimated how fast China would develop. Instead of China reaching industrial, technological and military parity with USA by 2060 or so, as they had originally expected, it began evident sometime after year 2000 that China would reach such parity in the 2020's.
Neo-conservatives then decided that there was only one way to restrain emergence of China as challenger to USA supremacy. Namely, somehow seize control of Russia and other central Asian states so that China could be surrounded on all sides by USA military bases and thus cut off from oil and gas, food, metal ores and other raw material imports, upon which China would continue to be dependent even after reaching military parity with USA. By the time the neo-conservatives came up with this plan, sometime in the 2000's, USA had alienated Russia leadership, especially siloviki ("deep state" leaders of Russian military, intelligence and internal security agencies), by plundering Russian resources mercilessly during the 1990's and by ignoring Russian objections to USA attacks on Serbia during the 1990's civil war in former Yugoslavia, plus Russia had replaced pliant alcoholic Yeltsin with assertive and independent-minded Putin as President. Seizing control of Russia, in order to control China, was not going to be easy as long as Putin or other siloviki like Putin were in charge of Russia.
So that left two options. Option one was accept that USA supremacy was unsustainable, and China would emerge as challenger to USA, and Russia would be kingmaker, meaning Russia would pick which of USA or China to support, putting Russia in position to extract concessions from USA or China in exchange for support. Option two was to undermine leadership structure in Russia to get rid of Putin and other siloviki. In my opinion, option two is delusional and had/has zero chance of succeeding. If USA has been unable to bring about regime change in North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Venezuela despite 70+, 60+, 40+ and 20+ years respectively of economic sanctions and other pressure, how does it expect to bring about regime change in nuclear armed, almost entirely economically self-sufficient and vastly better geographically positioned Russia? Neo-conservatives are not stupid, so probably they shared my misgivings, but evidently such was their revulsion at option one that they decided to take a chance with option two.
CIA has much experience at undermining governments to bring about regime change. Usual scheme involves fanning flames of existing internal religious, ethnic or ideological conflict, bribing journalists and politicians with Swiss bank accounts to further encourage conflict, starting civil war or other uprising when conflict is ripe, funneling in weapons to insurgents, etc. In the case of Russia, scheme was necessarily multi-stage. First perform regime change in former Soviet Union states surrounding Russia (Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, etc), then fund separatist movements at fringes of Russia (Chechnya and other Caucasus regions, Tatarstan, Russian Far East), somehow create consciousness of separate south Russian or maybe even Ukrainian identity in southern area of European Russia, etc. After years of civil war, Russia would be reduced to rump of northern European Russia (Moscow and Petersburg) plus western Siberia. This rump would still have strategic nuclear weapons, but these weapons would not be used, because Russian leaders would surely be sane enough to prefer ruling a rump to committing suicide. Ukraine and south Russia would provide land bridge between western Europe and planned military bases north of China in Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzstan, and former Russian Far East.
Plan got off to good start in Ukraine in 2014, but soon stalled. As of March 2023, Russian and Chinese leaders are aware of USA plan and they are determined to stop it, which means Russia has full backing of China. Russia backed by China, with outlet to Indian ocean via Iran, plus North Korea thrown in for good measure, makes an unbeatable combination versus USA and its allies, given current state of industrial, technological and military development in these respective alliances and their geographical and demographic situations.
Though failed neo-conservative plan is bringing ruin to Ukraine, it is not clear yet whether failure will hurt USA or not, compared with never attempting plan. In both cases, whether failed plan or failure to even attempt plan, era of overwhelming USA military supremacy ends, China henceforth competes with USA for world leadership, Russia is kingmaker. Failed plan means Russia will be lusting for revenge and so will definitely side with China until China delivers its initial humiliation to USA in Asia (probably by blockading Taiwan and then repulsing USA efforts to break blockade). But after that, Russia will probably alternate between supporting China and USA, so as to keep the two roughly equal in power and extract maximum concessions from them, which is same as would have happened without attempting neo-conservative plan.
Secondary factor is that truly united and militarized Europe would also be threat to USA supremacy. Europe (exclusive of Russia and Ukraine) has population and manufacturing power comparable to that of North America and easier access to Russian and African resources than North America, so united Europe could cause USA to face three way competition for world leadership (China vs USA vs Europe), with Russia continuing to play kingmaker role. War in Ukraine weakens Europe by cutting it off from Russian resources and Europe will be weakened further as hostile Russia and China replace European presence in Africa. (Note that support by Europe for Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza alienates Europe from oil-rich Arab states. CIA evidently either bribed or threatened European leaders to get them to act against their country's interests by supporting Israel in this conflict.) Thus even if plan to provoke war with and break up and control Russia fails, and USA then has to face unbeatable China-Russia-Iran alliance, at least plan eliminates European threat. That is, as result of Ukraine-Russia war, USA will strengthen its grip on European vassals regardless of whether or not USA loses its grip on worldwide supremacy. In words of former National Security Advisor and highly influential USA foreign policy intellectual Zbigniew Brzezinski, "USA must prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together" (from The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geopolitical Imperatives (1997)). Note that while post-Brzezinski era neo-conservative foreign policy has succeeded, so far, in keeping European vassals dependent, it has ensured and facilitated rather than prevented "barbarians" (China, Russia, Iran, etc) from coming together.
[As an aside, USA military supremacy could also be threatened by other rising powers besides China and united Europe, such as united South America, united Sub-Saharan Africa, India etc. Breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990's was engineered by CIA precisely because powerful united Yugoslav military industrial complex added to European Union would have posed especially serious threat to USA power. Exit of United Kingdom from EU, aka Brexit, was not so much engineered by CIA as mutually agreed upon by CIA and British MI6, as way to preserve some vestige of waning British world power and simultaneously weaken EU. Britain as member of EU is just one of many members, and not even most powerful member in terms of either economy or real military power. Whereas Britain separated from EU becomes invaluable USA ally: unsinkable platform to launch attacks on Europe, if that is ever necessary, and unquestionably loyal henchman who can be asked to do dirty work that USA doesn't want to be directly associated with. In exchange for these services to USA, Britain is offered protection by USA navy, which it needs because of its geographic situation as island, and tolerance for money laundering, which is basis of modern British economy.]
Thick books could be written about events in Ukraine between 2014 and now (March 2023), but all we really need to know is the following. USA government (State Department and CIA) was heavily involved with Ukrainian nationalists who overthrew Yanukovych in 2014 and there was some sort of agreement that USA would provide military and economic support to help these nationalists wrest Ukraine away from Russian sphere of influence. (I suspect any agreement was vague regarding exactly how much support USA would provide, furthermore agreement probably wasn't even in writing and definitely wasn't binding treaty ratified by USA Senate, so Ukraine on shaky ground in complaining that USA support is limited.) Russia saw USA involvement in Ukraine as part of long-term plan to bring about regime change in Russia, and so reacted by seizing Crimea and supporting insurgency in Donbas, as punishment of Ukraine for bringing USA into Russia's neighborhood and as warning of further unpleasant consequences in store for Ukraine if it persisted in trying to join USA military alliance.
Ukraine did not heed Russian message and repent of its association with the USA but on the contrary deepened that association between 2015-2022. Both Russia and Ukraine anticipated major war and prepared during those years. As it turns out, Russia attacked first, but if Russia had waited, then Ukraine world have eventually attacked first. Only way to avoid war would have been for either Russia or Ukraine to compromise on their positions. Either Russia would have had to accept that USA would continue trying to bring about regime change in Russia, or Ukraine would have had to accept status as subordinate to Russia as part of Russian sphere of influence.
Scenario 1 is stalemate. USA and its NATO allies might decide to write off expense of never-ending low-intensity Ukraine war as part of regular military budget and use Ukraine as practice range for real world testing of cutting edge military technologies. Russia/China would then do likewise. Or USA might persist in its delusion that war will eventually bring about regime change in Russia. Either way, situation in Ukraine outside zone of conflict world be similar to what it is currently (as of March 2023).
Scenario 2 is Ukraine becomes Russian vassal/puppet state. If USA backs down from grand plan to control China by controlling Russia, because it realizes this plan won't work, it will probably lose interest in supporting Ukraine (unless it decides to go with stalemate scenario and use Ukraine forever for weapons testing). Without USA military and economic support, Ukraine war effort will collapse. In all likelihood, only peace agreement Russia will accept is one in which: Ukraine is nominally independent but its foreign policy is effectively controlled by Russia; Ukraine has no real military of its own; Russia is allowed to put military bases in western Ukraine (borders with Poland and Romania). Ukraine thus becomes Russian vassal/puppet, with relationship to Russia similar to that of Belarus to Russia (and not too different from relationship of Canada to USA).
Such a peace agreement would be worse than what Russia was offering before invasion of 2022, so naturally raises question: why didn't Ukraine's leaders accept initial Russian offer instead of plunging Ukraine into disastrous war? Possible truthful explanations: 1) we wanted to kill some Russians and to hell with cost to Ukraine; 2) we were looking forwards to high pay and glory and excitement as wartime leaders; 3) we expected USA and NATO to help us more; 4) we didn't understand that underlying conflict is USA versus China and thus Russia would be fully backed by China and thus Ukraine was doomed regardless of USA and NATO support. There are other possible truthful explanations, but none of them will shield Ukraine's leaders from anger of Ukrainian people. As for lies, Ukrainian people are growing weary of pleasant sounding lies about imminent victory accompanying every announcement of more dead and injured soldiers, so lying will eventually cease to be an option for Ukraine's leaders.
It will take some sort of political miracle for someone to seize reins of power in Ukraine, apologize to Ukrainian people for leading them into disaster, and then get people to accept peace agreement which turns Ukraine into Russian vassal/puppet state.
Another possibility, requiring political miracle in USA rather than Ukraine, would be for USA to accept that Ukraine will become vassal/puppet state of Russia, in exchange for return of Crimea, Donbas and other territories to nominal Ukrainian control. Assuming Russian language made co-official with Ukrainian in territories mentioned, and both Ukraine and Russia allow dual Ukrainian/Russian nationality and passports, this transfer of nominal ownership would have little effect on residents of those territories. Such an arrangement would save face for average Ukrainian citizens and for USA and its allies, while still giving Russia everything it really wants.
Scenario 3 is Ukraine becomes failed state. This might happen if USA stops supporting Ukraine but political miracle in Ukraine/USA does not occur. Organized Ukraine military resistance collapses but guerrillas continue fighting using enormous stocks of weapons poured into Ukraine since war began. Russia establishes military bases in west Ukraine just south of Belarus (so easily supplied from Belarus) and just north and south of Transdniestria (so easily supplied by sea ports at mouth of Dniester river and then by road/rail transport through Transdniestria). Otherwise, Russia stays out of Ukraine, to avoid guerrillas. Because no peace agreement, there is no normal economy. Because USA stopped economic support, there is also no wartime economy. Instead, there is hyperinflation, economic collapse, humanitarian disaster and violence by guerrillas desperately looking for food and other supplies when they aren't attacking Russian military bases.
Scenario 4 is Ukrainian victory. Perhaps USA and NATO develop wonder weapons (such as much better drones) that allow Ukrainian military to roll over Russians, perhaps CIA bribes Russian military leaders to surrender, perhaps USA and NATO send masses of ground troops to fight alongside Ukrainian military (though why would they do this in 2023 or 2024 when they didn't in 2022?), perhaps Russian military stages coup, perhaps Putin and other siloviki suddenly change their minds and decide Ukraine in NATO is acceptable to Russia, perhaps meteor crashes into Moscow and destroys Russian ability to wage war, perhaps something else happens to bring about Russian retreat to pre-2022 or pre-2014 borders, followed by Russia signing agreement never to invade Ukraine again even if Ukraine tries to join NATO. Possibly Russia is broken into pieces, with separate South Russian and Russian Far East states, making way for resumption of neo-conservative plan to surround China with USA military bases.
Ukrainian victory is unlikely and those who focus on victory are encouraging prolongation of war and its associated death and destruction, and are thus not true friends of average Ukrainians, meaning those Ukrainians who are not enjoying or profiting from war but on the contrary long for peace. Of the realistic scenarios, vassal/puppet state is best, in my opinion, for average Ukrainian citizens. Because I want to preserve Ukraine and resume visiting it, but am indifferent to Ukraine's military alliances or where exact border is between Russia and Ukraine, vassal/puppet state is what I am hoping for and have been hoping for since before war began. Failed state would be unspeakably horrible for average Ukrainian citizens and no good for me either. Stalemate (most likely scenario, in my opinion) would be worse than vassal/puppet state, both for average Ukrainian citizens and for me, but not nearly as bad as failed state.
Because USA alliance depends heavily on open sea lanes for military transport and merchant shipping, whereas China-Russia-Iran alliance can dispense with sea lanes entirely and rely on land transport (primarily of raw materials to China and finished goods to Russia and Iran), and because cutting sea lanes is much easier with current and foreseeable military technology than keeping them open, USA alliance is doomed to lose any confrontation with China-Russia-Iran alliance. USA should back down gracefully, while it still can, and peacefully accept emergence of China as peer competitor rather than risking humiliating military defeat by trying to restrain China. Defeat would be devastating to USA economy. Most of my wealth is tied to USA economy and thus I have a personal interest in this issue.
Falsehood in Wartime by Arthur Ponsonby (1928) (available here). Purpose of information provided by government and other establishment sources to general public during wartime is: 1) confuse enemy; 2) boost morale of one's own soldiers and civilians; 3) lower morale of enemy soldiers and civilians. Lying to general public by government leaders, professional journalists and public intellectuals is not merely permitted but in fact is required during wartime. "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."—Winston Churchill. Obligation to lie applies to USA and its allies, Ukraine, Russia, China to some extent. (China is sufficiently neutral that it does not have to lie, but sufficiently involved that it must remain silent regarding many issues.) During wartime, truth can only be spoken by neutral governments and unimportant private citizens. So ignore details published in mainstream press about what is happening in Ukraine and focus on big picture of USA versus China rivalry.
In the year since this document was originally written, Ukraine engaged in a poorly thought out summer counter-offensive, motivated more by political than military considerations, thereby wasting much manpower and equipment, then war settled down into attritional grind. (See The Attritional Art of War: Lessons from the Russian War on Ukraine by Alex Vershinin (2024). Note that all wars are wars of attrition unless territory gains while war is ongoing help own side or hurt enemy side war effort, especially by providing/hindering access to vital resources, since otherwise military losses incurred making territory gains allow enemy to regain that territory later. This is most evident in naval and air wars and wars by nomadic steppe horsemen, where control of territory clearly means nothing while war is ongoing and victory can only be achieved by destroying enemy ships, aircraft, or horses/horsemen. After war is over, control of territory may increase strength to wage future wars.) Because Ukraine is backed by USA/EU and Russia has immense resources of its own and is backed by China, gains and losses of territory are unimportant while Ukraine-Russia war is ongoing (though gains might make Russia militarily stronger in future wars). Rather, limiting factors for both sides are manpower, domestic political support, support by external backers. From what I read, Ukraine is experiencing problems in all these areas, whereas Russia has no trouble getting large numbers of new soldiers to voluntarily sign military contracts, Russian domestic political support for war is stronger than ever, Russia continues to have unwavering support from China (and that support much less important to Russia than USA/EU support to Ukraine).
Zelensky's term of office ends in May 2024, at which point Ukrainian constitution says authority passes to legislature until new president can be elected. (This clause in constitution was specifically intended to prevent president from staying in office by arranging perpetual war or other crisis that prevents elections.) Perhaps there will be a military coup at that point, followed by peace treaty that converts Ukraine into Russian vassal/puppet state. Otherwise, war likely continue into 2025 or beyond, depending of level of USA/EU support for Ukraine and morale within Ukrainian military. Longer war continues, more Ukrainian infrastructure will be destroyed and more situation in Ukraine will resemble failed state versus stalemate scenario discussed above.
As an aside, one interesting development since 2022 is that characteristics of Russian government/society/culture that Ukrainians previously criticized are now increasingly evident in Ukrainian government/society/culture. Thus Ukrainians criticized Russian government as authoritarian and non-democratic, and yet Russia at least had a presidential election in 2024 (and Putin was definitely the winner, though his margin of victory was probably inflated because of government actions to stifle opposition) whereas Ukraine canceled its presidential election and no signs Zelensky plans to relinquish power voluntarily. Ukrainians long criticized Russia for lack of free press and speech, and yet Ukraine has revoked licenses of television stations considered to be pro-Russia, persecutes journalists who expose corruption in Ukrainian government, is planning to shut down Telegram internet social network channels which criticize Ukrainian government and expose corruption, etc. Some Russian "voluntary" military enlistment might be less than fully voluntary ("volunteer or be persecuted in various ways"), especially during initial months following Feb 2022 invasion, whereas Ukraine doesn't even pretend to have voluntary enlistment but rather has mandatory conscription. Russian borders remain open to men other than those who haven't yet undergone mandatory military training (this training does not involve serving in war zone) whereas Ukraine borders have been closed to all men age 18-60 since war began in 2022. Explanation is simple: authoritarian, militarized character of Russian government/culture/society is consequence of Russia's long history of facing attacks by outsiders, including constant pressure by USA/NATO starting at end of World War II and continuing after fall of Soviet Union. Prior to war, Ukrainians said they were willing to fight Russia to escape Russia's national characteristics, and yet by fighting, Ukraine necessarily acquires those very national characteristics it wanted to escape.
There is growing pressure on Ukraine, by USA/NATO and EU, to negotiate with Russia. Unfortunately, difficulty of reaching agreement is small compared to difficulty of enforcing agreement:
1) Russia wants Ukraine to be militarily neutral. But every time Ukraine has agreed, implicitly or explicitly, to be neutral in the past, it broke this agreement by gradually shifting towards military cooperation with USA/NATO, and no doubt same shift will happen in the future if Ukraine again agrees to be neutral. If Russia ignores Ukrainian military cooperation with USA/NATO, Ukraine will eventually rearm, then bring USA/NATO "advisors" into Ukraine (without actual NATO membership for Ukraine), and Russia will be faced with another war to dislodge USA/NATO from Ukraine. Current war has been expensive for Russia in terms of blood and treasure, and they surely don't want a repeat. So lasting agreement will require not merely promise by Ukraine to be perpetually militarily neutral, but also some way for Russia to enforce this promise. Most effective way to accomplish this is for Ukraine to be demilitarized and either militarily occupied by Russia, similar to demilitarization and military occupation of Germany by USA after WWII, or for Russia to be given explicit permission to occupy Ukraine if it attempts to remilitarize. Demilitarization and military occupation or permission for military occupation of Ukraine by Russia will face bitter opposition by both Ukrainian nationalists and USA/NATO.
2) Extremists in Ukraine and Britain have called for Ukrainians to engage in terrorism (blowing up children's schools in Russia, etc) if Ukraine forced to make peace with Russia. Agreement by Ukraine not to be haven for terrorists will be no good unless Ukraine enforces agreement. Russia won't want to get deeply involved in repressing Ukrainian terrorists because that merely increases Ukrainian resentment of Russia and makes it easy for terrorists to attack Russian police inside Ukraine. So lasting agreement will have to assume pre-existing ruthless police state in Ukraine, run by Ukrainians. Ukraine has ceased to be democracy (because government ignoring Constitutional provision to turn power over to legislature if elections impossible at end of Presidential term of office) and is becoming more of a police state each day. However, it is a police state controlled by very elements currently engaging in terrorism and planning future terrorism. So current government will need to be replaced and many Ukrainians associated with current government will need to be neutralized by successor government in order to bring halt to terrorism against Russia.
3) Ukraine economy will be wrecked by whenever agreement is reached, there will be enormous foreign debts, much of land and other assets will be under foreign ownership, plus west Ukrainian nationalists have alienated residents of east and south Ukraine by their repression of Russian language, among other issues. So there will strong pressure for Ukraine to break up into multiple autonomous regions, each of which repudiates its share of foreign debt and nationalizes assets currently owned by foreigners. Peace agreement with Russia should thus make provision for Ukrainian regional autonomy, to reduce chance of breakup. But this provision will be seen as Russian meddling in Ukrainian internal affairs and thus resisted by hardline Ukrainian nationalists, especially because they know full well that east and south Russians will revert to Russian as primary language as soon as they have autonomy. Without provision for autonomy, then if breakup leads to civil war and Russia intervenes to restore peace, then Russia will be accused of yet again invading Ukraine. And USA/NATO cannot intervene, without provoking war with Russia, because Russia's primary goal is to keep USA/NATO out of Ukraine.
My guess is that resolving above issues will require precisely that breakup of Ukraine envisioned in point 3. Russia should eventually be able to entice some high ranking officers in Ukrainian army and security forces to seize control of south Ukraine (Odesa, Mykolaiv oblasts), hand over weapons to Russia, allow Russia troops into area west of Odesa (Bessarabia). These officers would be put in control of the region and made responsible for purging it of terrorist elements. Replacing Ukrainian by Russian currency, repudiating foreign debt, seizing assets owned by foreigners or hostile Ukrainians, together with cheap Russian gas and infusion of Russian aid to rebuild infrastructure should be enough to rapidly restore region to solvency and maybe even prosperity. Contrast with other regions in Ukraine will be stark, prompting other regions to declare themselves autonomous regions. War will move towards west Ukraine (Galicia), as last refuge of fanatic nationalists. If and when war in Galicia ends, various autonomous regions might coalesce back into Ukrainian federation of autonomous republics.
To save face for both Ukraine and USA and allow them to declare victory, Russia could relinquish claims to Donbas, Crimea and other oblasts it currently partly or fully occupies, and make those oblasts autonomous region or regions of Ukraine. Assuming each Ukrainian autonomous region were allowed to choose its official language (regions currently occupied by Russia would choose Russian, of course), and to choose free trade agreement with either Russia or EU (southern and eastern regions would likely choose Russia, western regions would likely choose EU), and Russian citizens allowed dual citizenship in Ukraine, and absence of Ukrainian military and eventual elimination of Ukrainian extreme nationalists limits attacks by extremists on Russian collaborators in regions currently occupied by Russia, returning southeast oblasts to Ukraine as autonomous regions would have minimal effect on residents there.