Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Smart Bombs: Military, Defense and National Security

Contemplating the Unthinkable in Ukraine: Trading Land for Peace

Image of Russia President Putin. Image Credit: Russian Government.

Serhiy Haidai, governor of the Luhansk Oblast in Ukraine, said on Sunday that the “situation has extremely escalated” in Severodonetsk; witnesses report that Russian howitzers are pounding the city “200 times an hour.” Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky continues asking for “supplies of heavy weapons” from his Western supporters to enable his forces to, as he said on Sunday, mount an offensive to fight “until (Ukraine) regains all its territories.” A cold, hard examination of the realities of the situation, however, exposes that such objectives have little to no chance of being accomplished.

If the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) cannot reasonably expect to militarily defeat Putin’s army and drive them back to Russia, it might be time for Kyiv – and the West – to consider pursuing alternative solutions.

President Biden on Tuesday breathed life into Ukraine’s hope it can eventually win through fighting by agreeing to send advanced rocket launchers to Kyiv. “I will not pressure the Ukrainian government — in private or public — to make any territorial concessions,” Biden wrote. But will these launchers, or any additional heavy weapons, tilt the tactical balance in Ukraine’s favor? An unemotional examination says no.

There are three fundamental reasons why there is little prospect for Ukraine to defeat Russia in a reasonable timeframe at an affordable cost. First, the current balance of power between the two sides in Ukraine still decidedly favors Russia. Second, the cumulative total of all equipment the West has provided or promised is grossly insufficient to create enough combat power to drive Russia out.

And third, the physical cost to Ukraine in terms of soldiers that would be killed and wounded, civilians slain, and cities destroyed while the UAF tried to create sufficient combat power would be so high as to effectively bleed the country dry. The chances are high there would be little but a cratered moonscape of a country left in the end – and even then, there would be no guarantee, at all, that Ukraine, after paying such an egregious price, would come out on top.

Over the last 100 years of major armed conflict, there have been a few key factors that have been proven quite predictive in identifying who would win. Though this isn’t an exhaustive list, the capabilities and factors that almost always exist on the side of the victors include advantages in airpower, air defense capacity, artillery and rocket forces, and access to trained replacements.

Reports in recent weeks have revealed that in key sections of the Battle of Donbas, Russian air forces are now flying up to 300 combat sorties per day while Ukraine musters between five and 20. Only one month into the war, one of the few Ukrainian pilots (identified only as Andrey by the New York Times for his security) said, “In every fight with Russian jets, there is no equality. They always have five times more” planes in the air. The disparity in Russia’s favor appears to be growing as the war enters the fourth month.

Ukraine’s integrated air defense system was severely damaged in the war’s opening rounds and continues to operate in a degraded state while Russia’s modern system, based on the S400 system, remains fully operational. Ukrainian troops lamented to a BBC reporter on Monday that, “There’s a lot of artillery (from the Russian side),” said one Ukrainian soldier. “Bombardments are like a nightmare, we shoot one round, they shoot 10. When our sniper is shooting, they send in a full packet of Grads [rockets] on his position. So it’s basically a sniper with one bullet and they send like $1,000 of artillery rounds.” In combat vehicles, in some sectors, Ukraine is outnumbered 20 to 1.

Many in the West endorse Zelensky’s strident requests for “heavy weapons,” believing that if Ukrainian troops get more tanks and artillery pieces, it’ll turn the tide of the war against Russia. While I certainly understand the desire of all in the West to help Kyiv repulse Moscow’s invasion, there are fundamental reasons why it is very unlikely the total pledged aid from the West is going to change the dynamics. In all likelihood, the best Ukraine can hope for is to force a stalemate in the east – but even that is becoming less likely by the week.

As I explained in a detailed threepart series at 19FortyFive, it would take a bare minimum of 12 months (and more appropriately 18 months) to form an offensive force strong enough to have any hope of prying Russian troops out of Ukraine. Once the fundamentals are considered, it becomes clearer why there is little hope of a Ukrainian victory.

Zelensky’s troops are presently fully engaged along three fronts, and in danger of falling on the northern shoulder of the Donbas battle, as Ukrainian forces are being driven from Severodonetsk. While Russia’s casualties are very high, Moscow has upwards of one million additional active and reserve troops from which to draw replacements. Kyiv had somewhere around 170,000 total active troops when the war began and they too have suffered egregious casualties – but they have a far smaller manpower pool from which to replace losses.

To have any chance of driving Russia out of Ukraine, Kyiv would have to create an offensive force of at least 100,000, equipped with modern equipment (on par with NATO gear). Those troops, as noted, would need at least a year to assemble thousands of armored vehicles from Western countries, stockpile massive amounts of ammunition for every caliber of weapon, millions of gallons of fuel, spare parts and trained mechanics to keep the varied vehicle types running, and utility trucks to support all these logistic needs throughout the offensive.

That alone would take six to nine months to assemble – and that clock doesn’t start ticking until first a decision has been made by a host of Western nations. Ukrainian troops would then have to be trained on that specific gear, and then go through the cumulative and sequential training from individual skills through platoon, company, battalion, and finally regiment or division – which would take up to a year by itself, if done right.

And all of that would have to be done in the context of the existing UAF trying to stop a relentless Russian attack seeking to destroy large segments of Kyiv’s active force, which requires laser-like focus of the Ukrainian government and every resource they can muster. It is very difficult to imagine that Kyiv – or any nation on earth – could manage to simultaneously seek to repulse an invading foe who already occupies 20% of Ukrainian territory while taking the 18 months necessary to create a new offensive force from scratch.

Trying to create an offensive force strong enough to eject Russia from Ukrainian territory is akin to trying to repair an airliner with a burning engine while still in the air.


Ukraine’s military firing artillery. Image Credit: Creative Commons.

Without question the decision as to whether to take that risk or not is entirely between the Ukrainian people and their government. But emotions aside, the risk of failure – defined by potentially losing the war outright – is dangerously high, in my estimation. Though it is distasteful to even contemplate, the authorities in Kyiv may eventually have to consider seeking a negotiated settlement with Moscow, and that would include ceding, initially at least, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea.

At present, virtually every leader and citizen in Kyiv vehemently rejects any consideration of trading land for peace. That is wholly understandable, given that Russia has violently seized Ukrainian territory and spilled much civilian blood in the process. But the choice may one day come down to salvaging what territory the Kyiv government can, sparing more death and destruction of the civil population, or risking losing it all. No one should have to face such a horrific choice, but if Russian attacks continue making progress and the Ukrainian casualties one day reach a tipping point, it may become required.

Now a 1945 Contributing Editor, Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis

Written By

Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis1.



  1. speedster

    June 1, 2022 at 7:18 pm

    The author has detailed the reasons why he thinks the Ukrainian military has no chance of removing the invading russians from ukraine territory, and then goes on to suggest giving up territory to get peace.
    Clearly the author has not taken on the lessons of the first world war where appeasement of Hitler led to the invasion of more territory. There is also the glaring similarities in between Hitler’s initial invasions and Putin’s invasions, coincidence?

    So far the russians seem to have put up with casualties to pursue Ukrainian territory, but there have been clear signs of difficulty recruiting fresh troops.
    Demography is against the russians because the number of people in the early to mid twenties in Russia halved in the 1990’s. So the Russian population is in decided squeeze. Best guess is that Putin thought he could compensate for Russian population shrink by adding ukraine to the Russian empire. That also explains why he made a big play about ukraine not being a country.

    • thelikesofus

      June 10, 2022 at 8:37 pm

      I think you need to read some history books. Hitler was just a corporal in WW1.
      Also, you are not considering the cuases of the current conflict in the Ukraine.
      1. Ukraine is not a homogenous nation. Its a patchwork of ethnicities cobbled together over the 19th & 20th centuries.
      2. The US instigated one of their trademark colour revolutions in the Ukraine early this century, eventually managing to insert 2 rabidly anti-russian governments. In parallel the US has encouraged Ukrainian paramilitary groups with historic affiliations with Ukrainian Nazis from the WW2 era. Thats what the Azov battalions are !! The Crimea, Donbas and other regions of east and Soutern Ukraine are historically Russian with a majority Russian speaking populations. These regions had no say in their internal Soviet Union transfer from the Russian Soviet to the Ukrainian soviet in the last century. There have been multiple referendums held in these territories with overwhelming majorities voting to return to Russian administration/jurisdiction. The savage war inflicted by the Ukranian govt on the Donbas territories since 2014 with US/UK/EU/Nato support and the failure of the Ukrainian govt to abide by the 2 Minsk agreements is the cause of the Russian invasion.
      Ofcourse,now that Russia has expended blood and treasure in Ukraine pushing the Ukrainian army out of ethnic Russian territories in the East & South there is no way that Russia is going to hand back this territory. Would America would do so if in a similar situation ? Apparently, there are lots of smart people working in the State dept. Im sure that someone identified this as a possible risk when reviewing the Neocon’s hairbrained strategy for confronting Russia.

  2. speedster

    June 1, 2022 at 7:37 pm

    The author has failed to take into account the vast quality difference between the western weapons provided ukraine and the mediocre quality Russian weaponry. Tanks that turrets explode two stories high when magazine is hit and now running out of those same tanks and replacing with T62, which can be easily destroyed by a rocket propelled grenade. Russian missiles that have a 60% failure rate. Now vastly superior to anything Russia has medium range missiles that have an accuracy of seven feet. It does not matter how much concentrated Russian artillery fire is, if the Ukrainian can now out range Russian artillery they can decimate every important Russian military dump and supply line so their forces would “wither, on the vine”.

    • Frank Blangeard

      June 2, 2022 at 3:38 pm

      Go there and fight if you think that you can win. You won’t because you don’t.

      • Cerebus001

        June 2, 2022 at 8:29 pm

        Got there and fight for the Russians if you think they can win. You won’t because you don’t.

        See how that proposition works both ways!

        • SpartaTodd

          June 6, 2022 at 4:01 pm

          He doesn’t need to fight for the Russians because they are winning and crushing the Ukranian army in the east. So go volunteer to fight the good fight against those Russian monsters. lol.

          @speedster is either a CIA/UKie bot or psi-op or one of the most clueless people on the planet spouting complete nonsense. You should just delete his/her comments because they are so useless.

    • DavidC

      June 2, 2022 at 6:43 pm

      Russia is he only country with battlefield tested hypersonic missiles and you seem to think their tech is vastly inferior. What world do you live? US exceptionalism is at an end with this war in Ukraine.

      • cerebus001

        June 2, 2022 at 8:36 pm

        The battlefield testing has only proven that Russia’s hypersonics have significant accuracy issues and are constructed using U.S. sourced components. They have a very limited number because they do not have the resources and capability to produce the components themselves. Beyond this, Russia has little in the way of tech and has been forced into WWII tactics of using dumb artillery and throwing masses of conscripts and mercenaries into a meat grinder. Sure they may win territory , but they can’t secure it or hold it. Clocks ticking until they retreat.

    • Ray W

      June 3, 2022 at 1:01 am

      All that fancy western gear is not particularly effective when the force in possession hasn’t been trained in how to use or function it.

    • thelikesofus

      June 10, 2022 at 8:50 pm

      You need to look at some objective data on the quantity and performance of Russian missles. Performance is impressive ! and quantities have surprised western military analysts. Also look for articles comparing the accuracy of Tomahawk missles agianst Russian equivalents. I think you will be surprised !!
      Im pretty sure that Russian military hardware has performed well. Javelin, stinger and other Western anti-tank weapons have not proven to be the wonder weapons as initially advertised in the western media. Your reference to Russia’s old T62 clunkers is misguided. These old tanks have been brought out of storage for a specific purpose in the next stage of the military campaign in the Ukraine. Its about using appropriate tools for the job. If T62s are adequate for the job, why not use them and save newer tanks for other purposes/contingencies ?

  3. Eric-ji

    June 1, 2022 at 8:07 pm

    Russia’s Soviet WWII history is one of overpowering artillery and nearly unlimited manpower. Ukraine has performed admirably but realism is called for if Ukraine doesn’t want to have its population decimated.

    • Oz

      June 4, 2022 at 1:22 pm

      Hello! Russia didn’t fight in ww2, the USSR did. Ukraine as part of the USSR was on the winning side of that war! So “ww2 happened therefore Ukraine must surrender” doesn’t make sense to me. An alternative reading of history might be “Soviet nations had a history of being pretty good at repelling genocidal invaders when given massive material support from the the West”? That’s more ‘realistic’ to me!

  4. cerebus

    June 1, 2022 at 10:09 pm

    Preposterous ! Putin invaded Ukraine, unprovoked, in 2014 and again in 2022. Committing crimes against humanity and war crimes. His soldiers are responsible for the cold blooded murder of thousands of Ukrainians. His soldiers are responsible for the destruction of civilian infrastructure and entire cities. Kidnapping children, looting and forced depopulation.

    There can never be peace with Russia after this. After 5 years pass they will invade again.

  5. Joe Comment

    June 1, 2022 at 11:17 pm

    The problem with a peace treaty is that the previous agreements (Budapest Memorandum, Minsk I and II) have all failed. And I doubt other countries will remove their sanctions on Russia unless it at least returns to the situation before the February 2022 invasion. It seems the only possible conclusion is a Korean War style long-term armistice.

  6. Scott Slotterbeck

    June 1, 2022 at 11:18 pm

    Therefore, to stop bloodshed, the moment the enemy fires a shot, you should immediately surrender. Do you honestly think Putin’s bloodlust will suddenly end? Putin has said he wants all of the Siviet Union back.
    I order to have peace, we must appease him? That always works.
    The war must continue. The civilized nations must? Exclude Russia from everything. No trade, no invitations to summits. Shun Putin and his warring country. War is fought on many frints. Eanwhile, get Europe on a war footing. Putin will not stop.

  7. cameron

    June 2, 2022 at 1:40 am

    If the Ukrainians are forced to sue for peace (or rather a temporary ceasefire or cessation of the conflict) because of military weakness, what is to say that the Russians will accept? Having come this far, and having expended so much blood and treasure in the forms of Russian lives and destroyed economy, would not the Russians be emboldened to go for broke and complete conquest? This is the council of despair, and given Russian previous behaviour and publically stated goals in state media of the destruction of the entire Ukrainian nation – both state and people – why on earth would Ukraine accept this?

    • Ray W

      June 3, 2022 at 1:13 am

      I don’t think so. The Russians are not in a war of conquest. They stated their goals and their demands before they invaded (and for the previous 15 years, for that matter), but we dismissed them. I don’t believe Putin is interested in occupying all of Ukraine because he doesn’t want a 20+ year guerilla war everywhere west of the Dnieper River, which is what it would be at a minimum. Ukraine is a very divided country, almost evenly divided. So where he maybe would have a more sympathetic populace east of the Dneiper- and that is a BIG maybe after all of this conflict- he most certainly wouldn’t west of that.

      • Buck

        June 5, 2022 at 8:49 am

        The only trade with Russia to stop this war from Ukraine would be I assume that the could have Putin receive a bullet as a good gesture straight into his head and become dead.This demented maniacal pathetic disillusioned Russia piece of scum deserves a bullet to his head and become dead I am sure every Ukraine would rejoice if this came to pass. After all Putin is a Neo Nazi Terrorist leader of Russia a Terrorist state and in cahoots with all Terrorists World wide he employes thousands of them.Putin is a mass murderer a committer of war crimes and atrocities and his pathetic military are a feeble inept excuse for soldiers they are a shambolic shower of shitty scum on legs ,they are murdering civilians executing civilians by shooting in back of heads like the Russian COWARD THEY ARE TAGETTING HOSPITALS, MATERNITY HOMES, CIVILIAN HOMES AND MURDERING BABIES AND INFANTS ON PURPOSE RUSSIA IS THE MOST HATED PLACE ON EARTH AND THEY DESERVED TO BE NUKED OFF THE PLANET AND THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED SAFELY AS THE WEST HAS A SHIELD A SECRET DEFENCE INVISIBLE REBOUNDER SO WHERE EVER RUSSIA FIRES A NULE IT WILL END UP BACK IN RUSSIA TO DETINATE THANK GOODNESS.

  8. Rafal

    June 2, 2022 at 2:26 am

    Dear Daniel. The problem is that you can not get any peace from Russia by concessions. They might agree if it is needed for them for now, then start preparing for another aggression in 10 years.

    • Ray W

      June 3, 2022 at 1:32 am

      What wars of aggression has Russia engaged in the last 20 years (or more)? They invaded Ukraine after Ukraine began heavily shelling the Donbass prepping for a push, and in 2008 into Georgia after Georgia moved into South Ossetia. Meanwhile, over the same period, we (US) and/or NATO have invaded or attacked or occupied Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Northwest Pakistan, Uganda, Nepal, and the Horn of Africa. Is it possible that Russia could change historical habits and become much more militarily aggressive to the point of invading other nations after Ukraine? Sure, anything is possible. But we might want to clean our own house before seeing ourselves in the threat of other nations.

      • Oz

        June 4, 2022 at 1:45 pm

        Hi, countries Russia invaded/attacked/occupied in last 20 years: Georgia, Syria, Chechnya (probably TEN percent of Cechan population killed in that war) and Ukraine. If you talk about going back further, invasions were Poland 1939, Finland 1939, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968. Occupied was all of Eastern Europe from 1945-1989, Moldova from early nineties to today. You could throw in Afghanistan. Russian full mobilization in 1914 was a key contributor to ww1 being a Great power war instead of local Balkan conflict. Not gonna go back further but you get the idea….Russia’s conception of itself is as an imperial Great Power. Also, think you want to check your dates on the events of 2014, Russia had already occupied Crimea before it shelled Donbas. As for the the future, Google some of the reporting on Russian state TV, there are a lot of wild threats about invading Baltics, Moldova, Poland. Agreed that USA certainly isn’t perfect… I don’t think that’s a reason for punishing Ukraine though.

  9. Error403

    June 2, 2022 at 2:50 am

    Zilch.Nothing tangible to trade with neo-nazists.

    The only thing to trade is tactical nukes for western killer weapons like biden’s advanced rocket systems.

    Once tac nukes are unleashed, will NATO/Biden/stoltenberg still dare trade Berlin, Oslo, Warsaw for kharkiv, Kyiv and Lviv. Nah, it (trade) will stop before ever reaching this ‘option’.

    Gist of the whole thing – use tactical nukes before end of 2022.Solves the ongoing conflict.Before Biden realizes the midterms have blindsided him.

    Biden doesn’t realize he’s the great boogaloo personification of post-’45 imperialist-fascist colonialist grandeur that now so greatly ails the world.

    • Doug Hasler

      June 2, 2022 at 4:33 pm

      If this thinking is reflective of Putin and his inner circle (not sure who that includes, at this point), the world has a rogue state led by a madman on its hands. They are called “tactical” nukes because they are intended for use on the field of battle, not on urban centers located far away from the battlefield.

      Some have suggested that Putin might use a tactical nuke in Ukraine to demonstrate his resolve . . . “escalate to de-escalate”. If he pursues such a course, I believe that the West would respond with air assets and conventional weapons (and likely cyber) which are superior to anything that the Russians can muster; and Putin would solidify Russia’s status as a pariah state for years to come.

  10. aldol11

    June 2, 2022 at 6:17 am

    i rarely agree with Davis.
    he is too much of a limp d*k
    Russia is running out of men, tanks and smart munitions.
    quitting now would be idiotic

  11. landouzy

    June 2, 2022 at 6:32 am

    why are you prsenting things like the Victim of the war which is ukarine is the agressor!!! the us and the west are responsibles of the denuclearisation of ukraine in1996 with the budapest treaty. do you think if ukarina had nukes that russia would attack them? the us and the west must do what is possible expulse russia from ukraine.

  12. Goran

    June 2, 2022 at 9:00 am

    It is very, very wrong to suggest Ukrainians should cave in. Does Davis think that in some imaginary scenario, Americans should give in to a stronger occupying force? As long as Ukrainians are willing to fight, they should be helped in every way possible. Davis is witnessing actual bravery in real time and instead of rallying the attacked one, he is calling them to bow down. Shameful. If they do end up bowing to a midget bully from Kremlin, let it be because they came to understand that there are no other options, no reason for Davis to be part of Putin’s propaganda machine.

  13. David Chang

    June 2, 2022 at 10:46 am

    God bless people in the world.

    Military require money, fuel and soldier, and training soldier require good people and time. But after Russia troops occupy Chechnya, people in Ukraine still don’t think about the socialism government of Russia.

    To rebuild military, we need people, money, and time. But we don’t need critical racial thought, green new deal and U.S. dollar depreciation.

    God bless America.

  14. Stefan Stackhouse

    June 2, 2022 at 11:37 am

    The Ukrainians will never agree to a “land for peace” deal, and for good reason: the lost territory will be permanent, while the peace will only be temporary.

    What they might eventually be open to, however, is a cease-fire and frozen conflict, such as we have had in Korea for a very long time. No formal and permanent cession of territory is necessary for this to happen, so the Ukrainian claim to its occupied territories can continue. However, a cease-fire and frozen conflict will acknowledge the reality: defense is one thing, but offense is quite another, and Ukraine simply does not have what it takes to push the Russians out. It would be difficult for the US and its allies to provide Ukraine with enough resources to do so, even if we went all out, left our own forces dangerously thin, and drained our economies to near-bankruptcy. A cease-fire can stop both the real and metaphorical bleeding. I thus suspect that this is what will actually happen. Not yet, though. I do not get the sense that the front has yet gone totally static.

  15. Dan Farrand

    June 2, 2022 at 2:32 pm

    The author is right about the need to negotiate and wrong about how much they will have to give up.

    The time when they could gain a settlement by giving up Donbass is long past.

    Russia knows that Kiev is not able to negotiate and if it did, would simply ignore it’s agreements as it did with the 2 Minsk accords.

    Russia must create the conditions on the ground and that is what they are doing.

    Many of the comments on this article are fully engaged with a false view of past and present events.

    This is not an optional war or a war of choice for Russia or the people of eastern Ukraine. The start of the war was engineered by the US State Dept with the aim of Regime change in Russia, dismemberment of the federation and stripping it of it’s assets.

    People here may not believe that but that is the view from Russia and that is the only view that matters.

    The best outcome for the world will be Russian victory and a defeat for the American Empire that might discredit the entire generation of idiots from both parties who run things.

    Perhaps we can return to an age where America speaks the language of competition and not just the language of force and compulsion.

    • Doug Hasler

      June 2, 2022 at 4:51 pm

      Not sure how to respond to these deep thoughts. I think it is telling that the author chooses not to reference Russia’s violations of its commitments under the Budapest Memo.

      It is fair to say that the West did not give enough thought to the possible consequences of NATO expansion. Most of the former Soviet satellites which have come into NATO did so to seek protection from the bully on the block that they knew so well; very few of these countries (not including Poland) gain quite a lot (through NATO protection) while contributing very little to NATO capabilities.

      A clear victory for Russia would be a very bad thing. It would demonstrate that a nation’s borders have no meaning if a country happens to share a border with a military power that is committed to expanding its territory and influence.

      There is no absence of idiots who have been elected to office in Western nations. We do have the opportunity to vote the bums out of office every two to four years. No Western politician can claim 80% plus job approval since the government does not control the press or speech, and people who participate in peaceful political protest are not subject to legal jeopardy. Can Mr. Putin say as much?

      • Doug Hasler

        June 2, 2022 at 5:31 pm

        The last sentence of the second paragraph, following the semi-colon should read as follows:

        all of these countries have gained quite a lot (through NATO protection), while few (other than Poland) contribute meaningfully to NATO capabilities.

        I apologize for my editor’s lack of diligence.

      • cerebus001

        June 2, 2022 at 8:50 pm

        The message most nations are receiving from this horrific Russian crime is ” Hurry ! Accelerate our nuclear weapons program and never give them up !”

        • Buck

          June 5, 2022 at 8:52 am

          The only trade with Russia to stop this war from Ukraine would be I assume that the could have Putin receive a bullet as a good gesture straight into his head and become dead.This demented maniacal pathetic disillusioned Russia piece of scum deserves a bullet to his head and become dead I am sure every Ukraine would rejoice if this came to pass. After all Putin is a Neo Nazi Terrorist leader of Russia a Terrorist state and in cahoots with all Terrorists World wide he employes thousands of them.Putin is a mass murderer a committer of war crimes and atrocities and his pathetic military are a feeble inept excuse for soldiers they are a shambolic shower of shitty scum on legs ,they are murdering civilians executing civilians by shooting in back of heads like the Russian COWARD THEY ARE TAGETTING HOSPITALS, MATERNITY HOMES, CIVILIAN HOMES AND MURDERING BABIES AND INFANTS ON PURPOSE RUSSIA IS THE MOST HATED PLACE ON EARTH AND THEY DESERVED TO BE NUKED OFF THE PLANET AND THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED SAFELY AS THE WEST HAS A SHIELD A SECRET DEFENCE INVISIBLE REBOUNDER SO WHERE EVER RUSSIA FIRES A NULE IT WILL END UP BACK IN RUSSIA TO DETINATE THANK GOODNESS.

    • Joe Comment

      June 2, 2022 at 7:36 pm

      Dan Farrand: “The start of the war was engineered by the US State Dept with the aim of Regime change in Russia, dismemberment of the federation and stripping it of it’s assets.

      People here may not believe that but that is the view from Russia and that is the only view that matters.”

      Few people outside Russia believe that. And even in Russia, how many actually believe that? How does that work for the US State Department to somehow hijack Putin’s brain and make him start the war? What evidence exists to support such a belief?

      And it’s definitely wrong to think the view from Russia is the only view that matters. Since when is Russia king of the world?

      • TimmyB

        June 6, 2022 at 7:58 pm

        If the US didn’t help overthrow Ukraine’s elected president in 2014 in order to install an anti-Russian government that would be hostile to Russia, there would be no Russian/Ukraine war.

        The entire purpose of the US’s involvement in Ukraine was to use it to provoke Russia.

        When Russia told Ukraine it could either chose peace, neutrality and denazify or war, Ukraine chose war. So here we are. Ukraine is losing and the longer the war continues, the worse it will get. Either the Ukraine government makes a deal for peace, or Russia will conquer the entire country. There are no other options.

        Those people saying Ukraine should continue to fight don’t see the logical result of continued fighting. They are delusional.

    • cerebus001

      June 2, 2022 at 8:46 pm

      Thats a really bizarre view of events and facts. It’s as if you see some sort of alternate reality or you live inside the Iron Curtain and for decades have neither received nor considered varied reportings. An echo chamber. Your views will land the Russian people into pariah status for another century. A destitute nation being left behind by the rest of the world aka, USSR. Why would you desire this?

  16. Greg Ferney

    June 2, 2022 at 3:55 pm

    The author is taking a realistic view of events on the ground. People need to take emotion out of the equation. If Ukraine continues to fight, they lose more territory, men, resources etc. If that is what the Ukrainians want, so be it. However, from a military point of view it will likely cost them up to 50% of their country.

  17. DavidC

    June 2, 2022 at 6:37 pm

    Land for Peace is not unthinkable. Smart people who informed themselves with the correct sources of information on this war saw this coming way back in February.

    • Goran

      June 2, 2022 at 9:38 pm

      It is not about being informed, it is about who should make that call when it comes to giving up Ukrainian land. As long as Ukrainians are willing to fight, the free world should keep helping them. Would the author be so willing to give up on his country in face of overwhelming force? Who would ever hear of Leonidas if he and his men, at the sight of opponents might, provided putins of their time with earth and water? If Ukrainians are to lose their land, let them lose it as free men.

      If they decide they can fight no more and do accept Putin’s ultimatums, we can commend them for staying in the fight far longer then most other nations would. But they are not giving up and show no interest in giving up, seemingly ignoring the advice of those who’d want them to cave in. If Ukrainians only spoke the language of cowardice, Zelensky would have accepted that offer to be escorted out of Kiev and out of country, and all of those “smart” ones that, back in February mind you, saw how things would turn out, would have been right. It is still not too late, Ukrainians just need to bow down before an occupier that levels their cities, rapes their women and kidnaps their children. Stupid Ukrainians, they don’t know what’s a “smart” thing to do.

  18. JMIII

    June 2, 2022 at 8:58 pm

    Love Neville Chamberlain’s latest article. Certainly, we can trust Russia to be perfectly satisfied with gaining a serious strategic foothold in the Ukraine. We can be certain that Russia won’t use the time after a cease-fire to regroup, rearm and reposition for a deeper strike. No way. Certainly in Russia’s mind, the threat of a free and prosperous Ukraine won’t continue to be a threat to the Putin Regime. No, as in 1938, the dictator, once appeased will be satisfied and will halt his ambitions for territorial expansion.

  19. David Chang

    June 3, 2022 at 2:03 am

    God bless people in the world.

    Mr. Davis has said something important, but democratic party incite murder, make inflation, and cause wars in the world. Ms. Yellen should know that J. M. Keynes’s economic hypothesis is the cause of inflation, and inflation is one of the causes of crime.

    As Mr. Davis say that U.S. military shall not help Taiwan or E.U., it should be discussed seriously after Force Design 2030.

    Because Democrats teach liberation theology and socialism in Taiwan, many people in Taiwan think that United States is waging wars around the world and destroying peace, and Democrats imply that greedy U.S. military ask for more defense budget. In addition, they teach people in Taiwan that Bible is evil.

    Moreover, Democrats teach people in Taiwan that US military is invincible and Seventh Fleet aircraft carrier will never be sunk by nuclear weapon. They imply that the true defense budget is 0, United States does not have to build more nuclear weapon and improve the nuclear weapon control system. So when the Strategic Command tell people that we will have major casualties in war, many newspapers in Taiwan don’t post the Strategic Command’s warning.

    As Eisenhower, Kissinger and Trump say, future war will makes major casualties. But Democrats do not accept this conclusion, they incite people to make war and murder.

    From the Iran nuclear weapon negotiation, the Abraham Accords to House hearing about Russia-Ukraine war, Democrats teach people that murder is rational and obey Ten Commandments is not rational.

    Their wrong is same as Karl Marx, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Putin and Zelensky, and Darwin’s hypothesis of evolution.

    God bless America.

  20. Joe Comment

    June 3, 2022 at 2:39 am

    Several of the posters here keep saying the US made Russia start the war. Can one of you please explain exactly how that works? All those times Putin publicly said Ukraine is not a real country, it was really a lookalike hired by the US? Putin’s well-known book on that topic is actually a forgery planted by the US? When Putin and his diplomats were threatening war unless a bunch of extremely unrealistic conditions were satisfied, those weren’t the real Russian officials? And the US somehow hacked into the command system and gave the orders to launch the Feb. 24 attack? And Russia today somehow has no ability to order its troops to return to the pre-Feb. 24 positions and stop fighting? And the US has the power to accomplish all that, but somehow needs this war to happen first before taking Russia apart? How does anyone seriously manage to believe all that?

    • Invitado 2

      June 3, 2022 at 3:16 pm

      ¿Puede uno de ustedes explicar exactamente cómo funciona?

      1. Biden dice a los Ucranianos que se preparen a conquistar el Dombas , perdido
      2. Rusia acumula tropas alrededor de Ucrania.
      3. Biden llama a Putin, Putin no acepta
      4. Biden llama a Putin, Putin tampoco acepta y empieza toma decisiones
      5. Biden presiona a la UE para que haga Putin acepte o hay sanciones
      6. La UE se reune con putin y no hay trato
      7. Rusia invade Ucrania

      • Joe Comment

        June 3, 2022 at 3:54 pm

        Invitado 2:
        “1. Biden dice a los Ucranianos que se preparen a conquistar el Dombas , perdido”
        The argument is the Ukrainians had no idea of claiming their own territory in the Donbas until Biden told them, and then they prepared to “conquer” it? Any evidence that it happened? Even if true, then why did Russia’s demands extend far beyond the Donbas? They have troops today as far as Kherson.

        Besides, does it even make sense? Countries aren’t allowed to claim their own territories? Did anyone invade Russia when it was fighting the Chechen rebels, for example?

        And the rest of the argument above is just “the US didn’t succeed in dissuading Putin from invading.” That makes it a US responsibility how? If any country threatens any other country in the world you think it’s the US responsibility to appease them, or else it means the US caused the war?

  21. Eric

    June 3, 2022 at 12:09 pm

    A major problem with argument that Ukraine can trade land for peace, is that Russia would not be satisfied with such an agreement in the long term. Imagine such a deal were to take place. Russians formally annex Donbass and Crimea. Ukraine would be giving up some major industrial pieces of their economy, and perhaps 10-20 percent of their territory, leaving Ukraine smaller and weaker. Then what? Russians would consolidate their control over the Donbass, and Crimea, establishing military bases there. They could rebuild their army over 5 to 10 years as countries get tired of imposing sanctions. They would rebuild their reserves. But their initial goals of taking most or all of Ukraine are not satisfied. What then? Russia is not likely to make real peace with Kyiv while at the same time using genocidal hate speech to describe the Ukrainians; they would just use it as a way to partially gain what they want and rebuild their military for the next phase of their plans.

  22. Stefan Stackhouse

    June 3, 2022 at 6:10 pm

    The permanent cession of territory in exchange for a temporary peace does not seem to me to be an attractive bargain. It doesn’t surprise me that the Ukrainians see it the same way.

    At the same time, defending Ukraine and stopping the Russians from rolling across it is one thing, while going on the offensive and rolling the Russians back to their pre-2014 border is something else entirely. To do the latter, what the Ukrainians would need from us makes that $40+ billion into a mere down payment. That may well be a bigger blank check than the US can afford to write. It is debatable whether we even have the industrial capacity to produce some critical weapons at a scale that will exceed their attrition.

    The Ukrainians may have to accept the reality that, eventually, this war is going to turn into a static stalemate, and that they will have to settle for a Korea-style cease fire. No territorial cessions, but reconquest will have to be deferred to some hoped-for future.

  23. Donald Link

    June 5, 2022 at 12:53 pm

    Of course there was that little country in Southeast Asia, with some help from their friends, that managed to defeat a world class nuclear power and two years later defeated and turned back another nuclear power in a border war that went largely unnoticed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *