Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Smart Bombs: Military, Defense and National Security

Russia’s Future: A Win in Ukraine, A Revolution Against Putin or Nuclear War?

TOS-1. Image is an artist rendering. Image Credit: Creative Commons.

What Will Putin Choose? Ukraine’s capture of the city of Krasny Liman, now called Liman or Lyman, last Friday marked the culmination of a month-long series of major battlefield victories by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF). Since the end of August, Zelensky’s forces have recaptured thousands of square miles of territory, sending the Russian invaders reeling backward. Where Russia goes from here could have profound consequences for the United States and the Western world writ large.  

There are three primary trajectories for the Russian leader and people: a “1942 moment” that heralds a major Russian military revival, a 1917-style internal political crisis that sparks a revolution and ends Putin’s rule and possibly his life – or a terrified and desperate Putin who plays the nuclear card. All three options have negative implications for the United States and the West. 

Many in the United States and Europe have been celebrating incremental victories over the past five or six weeks as Ukraine has ripped off battlefield win after win. Russian forces in the north have surrendered thousands of square kilometers of territory back to Ukraine, and in the past few days, Putin’s troops have also been pushed back along the Dnieper River in the Kherson region.  

Zelensky has been buoyed by the success, authoritatively declaring he will not negotiate anything until Russia has “another president,” besides Putin. Following Russia’s illegal annexation of four regions of Ukraine, Zelensky defiantly declaredit is only the path of strengthening Ukraine and ousting the occupiers from our entire territory that restores peace. We will complete this path.” Zelensky’s senior advisor Mykhailo Podolyak said, then added, “Crimea.”

Many in the West are in a celebratory mood at the recent turn of events, arguing the war has turned “very dire” for Putin. Others believe it’s now only a matter of time before Zelensky’s dream of driving Russia out of all of Ukraine is realized. Caution, however, is in order. Wars rarely move linearly, and today’s victor could be tomorrow’s vanquished. 

Analysts are right about one thing though: Putin is definitely at a crisis moment. How he reacts to these setbacks will have serious implications, not just for Kyiv and Moscow, but far beyond Ukraine’s borders. The West should disabuse itself of the notion that Putin is going to sit passively by while his forces are methodically whittled down, driven kilometer-by-kilometer to the east until his army collapses. If we know anything about Putin since he rose to power in 1999, it’s that he is relentless – and ruthless – in pursuit of his objectives. 

With whatever course of action Putin eventually selects, there are three main potential outcomes of his efforts: a 1917-type revolution, a 1942-style battlefield turnaround, or possibly the use of a tactical nuclear weapon. Consideration of how each of these could impact American national security should give us all pause.


When Tsarist Russia went to war against the central powers in World War I, the first battle was a massive disaster. In the first month of the war, Russia sent its 150,000-strong Second Army to fight against the Germans in the Battle of Tannenberg. When the battle ended on August 28th, 1914, a stunning 140,000 Russians had been killed, wounded, or captured; it was one of the most epic failures in military history. But it didn’t signal the end of the war or the collapse of the Russian government.

Russia was led by Czar Nicholas II, who fancied himself a brilliant military strategist, which, according to historian Mayhill Fowler, “he was not.” By the end of the first year of the war, Russia had lost one million men, but still, the war went on and the people, though grumbling, continued to support the war effort. But as the battle losses piled up through 1915 and 1916, the Russian people had finally had enough and revolted in March 1917, deposing the Czar.

The Russian people have a historic capacity to endure suffering. Despite the early losses and failures in the war, they did not immediately turn against their leader. But even Russian patience can run out. By the time the Czar’s troops withdrew from the First World War and the revolution broke out, they had suffered an astonishing 6.7 million troops killed or wounded. While Moscow’s exit from the war eased pressure on Germany, it had catastrophic impacts on Europe – as it directly led to the rise of Stalin, Lenin, and the Russian Communist Party. 

Thus far, Ukraine claims Russia has lost at least 50,000 troops. Last month Putin took the politically risky move of mobilizing 300,000 reservists, which was very unpopular in Russia, resulting in hundreds of thousands of military-aged males fleeing the country. While many in the West today are hopeful that Russia’s recent battle losses in the Kharkiv and Kherson fronts might cause the Russian people to turn against Putin and end his hold on power, history suggests such hopes are unlikely to materialize anytime soon. 

In a poll taken after Russian losses in Kherson and Kharkiv and the subsequent mobilization announcement, Putin still had a stunningly-high approval rating of 77 percent. Though there has been grumbling among even pro-Kremlin supporters, it appears that the population in Russia is going to give Putin the benefit of the doubt for the moment, choosing to wait and see how the war turns once the Russian force grows by 300,000. 

But if even the elevation in troop numbers doesn’t stop Ukraine’s advance and Zelensky’s troops start driving Russia further and further from Ukrainian territory in 2023, it is entirely conceivable that Russian patience could run out and a coup or revolution could topple Putin. Yet in a classic “be careful what you wish for,” situation, the possibility that a post-revolution Russia would produce a more Western-friendly leader is very low. It is far more likely that whoever replaces Putin would be more nationalistic, more autocratic, and more hostile to the West (calculating that Putin’s “weakness” was responsible for his loss to Ukraine and NATO).


A second possibility is that Putin’s response to the considerable losses his forces have suffered in the past month could mirror those of Moscow’s experience in the early part of World War II. Nazi Germany invaded Russia in June 1941 with a force of approximately three million German and allied troops. Hitler’s troops were initially successful to shocking levels of success. 

By the spring of 1942, the Soviet Union had lost a mind-blowing 4,000,000 and was being driven back on almost every front. The nadir of the war for Russia came in July 1942 when the Soviets lost the strategically and psychologically important Crimea and its port city of Sevastopol. One month later, Hitler’s forces began the assault on the namesake of the USSR’s leader: Stalingrad. By all appearances, almost 18 straight months of unrelenting defeats would seem to have doomed the Russians to certain defeat.

But in August 1942, Stalin appointed Georgy Zhukov as the First Deputy Commander in Chief of the Soviet Armed Forces. Zhukov had been uniquely effective in command, as he had led the successful defense of both Leningrad and Moscow in 1941. With the Germans threatening to capture Stalingrad, Zhukov rallied the Red Army and covertly launched a massive counteroffensive, Operation Uranus, which by early 1943 stopped the German advance and destroyed or captured an entire German army of over 280,000 men. Hitler’s troops never recovered from the loss and the USSR steamrolled the Nazis to Berlin. 

With the current battle in Ukraine, Russian troops have been retreating, surrendering thousands of square kilometers of territory back to Kyiv’s control. Russia still appears to be holding firm in the center (Donbas) but has suffered significant casualties in the north and south. The question facing Putin: will he, like his World War II predecessor, make the necessary changes in military leadership, ramp up his military-industrial capacity, and through the mobilization of his reserves, turn the situation in Ukraine around? Certainly, many in Russia are hoping for precisely this outcome.

Tactical Nuclear Weapon

The most frightening possibility for the United States, however, is clearly the nuclear option. In all likelihood, Putin’s vague warnings he might use nuclear weapons are, at the moment, a bluff. There can be no doubt that for any regime to use nuclear weapons, they realize the probability is very high that their nuclear-armed opponents will retaliate in kind. Putin is therefore highly unlikely to use nuclear weapons in the near term, as he is putting his current hopes that his conventional forces can turn the war around in 2023. 

Putin certainly realizes that if his partial mobilization saturates the battlespace in Ukraine to sufficient mass and he can recapture lost territory, that would be his best bet, as there is no expectation that any other power in the world would directly strike Russia. If, on the other hand, Putin’s mobilization doesn’t produce a conventional victory, the fear of the 1917-style revolution or coup mentioned above may lead a desperate Putin to resort to a tactical nuclear strike.

It is completely understandable why many in the West would heartily applaud Ukraine’s recent run of tactical successes. But we also need to keep a sober eye on the long term and consider the end game and what these tactical successes could portend. Any reasonable analyst must realize that there is virtually no chance that Putin is going to allow his army to be forcibly ejected from Ukrainian territory, that he’ll sit passively by as the territory he just formally annexed into the Russian Federation is captured by Ukrainian forces, and not respond.

If conventional forces will deliver the success Putin desires, he’ll gladly go that path. But if even his mobilization fails to stem the tide, the chances of him using a battlefield nuclear device increase dramatically. One potential means of employment might be to destroy a large Ukrainian troop concentration near the front lines. Another option could be to demonstrate the use of the lowest yield device in his inventory in an isolated location, promising that if the Ukrainian army doesn’t withdraw from his newly-annexed territories Putin will order the next one on a high-value target in Ukraine.

We must never underestimate what a desperate leader – who has a nuclear arsenal – will do if pushed into a corner. 

Ramifications for the United States National Security

As of today, Ukraine continues pressing offensive drives in the Kharkiv and Kherson directions. Russian positions are under assault in the town of Svatovo, just northeast of the recently-liberated Krasny Lyman, as Zelensky’s troops attempt to recapture Lysychansk. In the south, Ukrainian forces have made significant advances in the past several days north of Kherson City, along the Dnipro River. 

Zelensky appears to have thrown caution to the wind and is pressing his troops on all fronts to press the Russians, trying to gain as much territory as possible, as quickly as possible, because he knows that soon the autumn rains will make cross-country mobility very difficult and within the coming month or two Putin will have up to several hundred thousand additional combat troops to bring to bear. 

Ukraine Russia Putin

Russian President Putin. Image Credit: Creative Commons.


On the Russian side, Putin appears to have ordered his troops throughout Ukraine to hold as well as they can on all three fronts (Kharkiv, Donbas, Kherson), trying to prevent any large losses to Zelensky while buying time for Putin’s reinforcements to arrive on the scene. Meanwhile, it is very possible that Russia will start to use its air force, rocket forces, precision-guided missiles, and armed drones to attack Ukrainian command centers, ammunition depots, and troop concentrations behind the frontlines. Putin’s likely objective will be to weaken Zelensky’s forces and their ability to sustain operations so that they can try to retake all the territory lost when his new troops arrive.

It is unclear whether Zelensky’s plan or Putin’s plan will succeed. What seems to go unasked is actually the most important question: what outcome is in the best interests of our country? As this analysis exposes, there are three primary outcomes possible in this war: a 1917-style Russian revolution that deposes Putin, a 1942-style revival of Russian combat power, and the potential escalation to nuclear weapons. All of those outcomes are bad to catastrophic to American national interests.

If Putin is driven from power, the likelihood of an even more anti-Western strongman taking his place is high. There are few historical examples when a revolution or coup doesn’t produce violent men (think Stalin, Castro, Ayatollah Khomeini). If Russia pulls it together and employs a large army from its reserve capacity and belatedly learns combat lessons, it is entirely possible Putin’s armed forces could become a true conventional force and eventually defeat Ukraine. But thirdly, if Ukraine weathers Putin’s mobilization storm and continues, with NATO assistance, to win on the battlefield, then the Russian leader may fear being deposed and take the drastic action of resorting to nuclear weapons.

It’s hard to see any valid outcome from this point different from one of the three scenarios depicted above – and all would be bad for U.S. and Western interests. 

It is time, therefore, to start giving serious consideration to taking a more diplomatic track and doing whatever is necessary to end this war as soon as possible. Ending the conflict, and ending the risk of nuclear escalation, that is in America’s national security interests. Trying to “defeat” Russia will likely not succeed and will pointlessly increase the risk to our national security.

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. Steven

    October 6, 2022 at 10:42 am

    Wow. You had me right up to the poll. You believe polls? Seriously?

  2. Gary Jacobs

    October 6, 2022 at 10:55 am

    Davis finally raised a few fair points, but I guess this is as close as he is going to get to saying he was wrong to call the Kherson offensive failed so early on.

    As for his attempt at a history lesson related to the Russian revolution bringing on Stalin…sorry, but that is cherry picked history. One can acknowledge how terrible Stalin was…AND know that Russian history is replete with other tyrants as well.

    One of many examples is Catherine the not so “Great”. She was responsible for the Pale of Settlement and the systematic oppression of 4.5 Million Jews confined to that area. The series of pogroms [state sanctioned rape, pillage, and killing sprees] in that area over the next century+ led to not only mass murder but ethnic cleansing. The subsequent flight of many Jews from that area due to Russian oppression led to a massive influx of poor Jews into Germany [among other place like the US].

    That series of events would eventually indirectly contribute to the Holocaust by being one of a number of excuses Hitler would use to blame the Jews for Germany’s problems.

    As well, in the WWII example Davis cites…the US was supporting Russia with tech, weapons, and supplies. Clearly the US is supporting Ukraine this time…and Russia is relying on Iran and perhaps N. Korea. Advantage Ukraine. Russia is far more analogous to Germany in that scenario as Russia is hit with massive sanctions that even China has largely abided by…Russia’s economy is being battered…and even when they speak of ramping up military production it is of their older models of tanks because they dont have the components or capacity to produce the more modern variants. I can think of several dozen other reasons just off the top of my head why this part of Davis’ analogy is false on its face.

    The most important of which is not only is Russia losing territory in Ukraine, but they are abandoning equipment that Ukraine knows how to use. A recent WSJ article points out that Russia is now Ukraine’s largest supplier of heavy weapons:

    Ukraine has captured 421 tanks, 445 Infantry fighting vehicles, 192 armored fighting vehicles, and 44 MLRS from Russian forces, almost two times more than Western allies have supplied.

    Of course modern equipment supplied by the West is more precise. But the Russia equipment is still useful to Ukraine as their tactics are also much better than Russia’s.

    In another article I have already gone through why Russian use of nuclear weapons is such a low probability. And we should not allow ourselves to be cowed by Russian blackmail. The threat is not zero, but we’ve already tried and failed at appeasing Russia. Russia has already invaded Georgia and Ukraine under Putin, and the collective west basically did nothing. If anyone thought they would have stopped at Ukraine this time, you are fooling yourself. I can and have gone off on this extensively.

    Bottom line: it’s fine to consider the ramifications of a wide range of scenarios. However, As usual, Davis brings far less than all the facts to his article… and his analysis is largely misguided as a result…and every one of his doomsday scenarios should be viewed in that context.

  3. Jack

    October 6, 2022 at 11:38 am

    Davis leaves out that in 1942 the Soviet counter offensive was fueled by a gargantuan amount of foreign aid from the US. Untold thousands of trucks, clothing, rations, ammo and even boots. The Red Army was powered by US logistics. It could sustain an offensive by trucks whereas the Germans relied on trains and horses.

    The US is not logistically supporting Russia this time so a 1942 comparison is fanciful.

  4. Goran

    October 6, 2022 at 11:48 am

    Daniel Davis: “There are three primary trajectories for the Russian leader and people: a “1942 moment” that heralds a major Russian military revival, a 1917-style internal political crisis that sparks a revolution and ends Putin’s rule and possibly his life – or a terrified and desperate Putin who plays the nuclear card.”

    🙂 so Davis went from portraying Putin as a cold and calculating machine that will whittle down Ukrainians at a steady pace to portraying him as an unhinged lunatic, rocking back and forth in some corner with one thumb in his mouth and the other one on a red button.

    Whaaaaaat a transformation!? 🙂

    Anyway, the first option is a joke, the supposed “revival” of the Soviet might in 1942 is built around the U.S. lend-lease programs. Who will help Moscow now? The second option is a call that only Russians can make, out of our hands. Same with the third option, there are quite a few countries out there with nukes, we can’t spend our days finding ways to make sure that the leaders of those countries are in a good mood. That is not living.

  5. William Barrett

    October 6, 2022 at 11:48 am

    Seems like there might be a few other possible outcomes. These seem like extreme absurd strawmen.

    IMHO, the most likely (based on what has occurred and been observed to date) outcome is that the current trends continue.

    That means Putin remains in power and continues to skapegoat the failures on others.

    Ukraine continues to claw back territory slowly and in spurts, with lots of Western material support.

    Russia doesn’t use nukes. Putin is not deposed. And after another year or so, Ukraine controls all or most of it’s 2014 borders, and the conflict becomes “frozen”.

    The further Ukraine pushes, the harder it will be for them to push even further, and likewise it will become easier for Russia to defend shorter lines.

    It’s the solution nobody really wants, but it is also the most logical outcome given the necessary fundamental changes needed for any other outcome to occur.

  6. Fergus

    October 6, 2022 at 12:01 pm

    Young Russians flee to avoid putin draft then give opinion of putin when safe, they say the tiny man is a psychopath they hate him and despise all he stands for which is evil.utin and the kremlin are full of shit they hilarious the bollocks that comes from their gargoil ugly mouths, the are Terrorists Neo Nazis Fascict savage barbarians basically murdering funking scum Russian funking scum on legs Nuke Moscow Nuke inbred infidels.

  7. Comrade Misfit

    October 6, 2022 at 12:09 pm

    That Mr. Davis began his article by referring to the city of Lyman as “Krasny Liman”, which is the Russian name for a Ukrainian city, suggests to me that his sympathies lies with the Russians. His argument seems to be “well, give Putin most of what he wants, for now, and maybe he’ll go away happy.”

    Europe has tried that before. It was called “appeasement”.

    Putin seeks to conquer all of Ukraine. He seeks to restore the Russian Empire. He has not been quiet about those ambitions. If he is not defeated, outright, he will rebuild the Russian army and try again.

  8. Goran

    October 6, 2022 at 12:16 pm

    William Barrett, I agree that the situation may be heading into a stalemate and the way out is through some sort of compromise between the government in Kyiv and the Russian ethnic group within Ukraine. Putin should have no say in either domestic or foreign affairs of Latvia, Ukraine or any other country but Russia. And even that for only as long as he manages to terrorize citizens of Russia into submission.

  9. 403Forbidden

    October 6, 2022 at 12:20 pm

    Biden, stoltenberg, zelenskiyy and blinken are in a collective stupor, one brought about by US dollars & US weaponry.

    Little do the numbskulls realize that donbass region is NOW part of Russia and their inhabitants are now Russian citizens.

    The fighting is thus taking place on Russian soil and this gives Russia the right to use nukes.

    Suppose some nation brazenly pours its soldiers and weapons onto American soil, wouldn’t Washington immediately resort to the use of its available nukes.

    Same with Russia. Thus zelenskiyy is toying with certain death and destruction. It never pays to serve fascismo globalists.

  10. 403 is an idiot

    October 6, 2022 at 12:41 pm

    403, You truly are an idiot claiming stolen land will belong to the thief. Why not just go give Vlad a big smooch? Aside from the response from the west for using nukes, Russia would be forever expelled from civilized society and economically isolated in a shithole wasteland. Enjoy Vlad’s creation.

  11. Dr. Scooter Van Neuter

    October 6, 2022 at 1:15 pm

    Isn’t it difficult typing while giving Vlad a reach-around?

  12. Roger Bacon

    October 6, 2022 at 1:42 pm

    403Troll said, “Suppose some nation brazenly pours its soldiers and weapons onto American soil, wouldn’t Washington immediately resort to the use of its available nukes.”

    Um… no. Because we have a military that can actually win battles.

    • WillLongfield

      October 31, 2022 at 1:46 am

      Oh dear. Which battles has America won recently? I can’t think any since 1945 ….

  13. Toady

    October 6, 2022 at 2:15 pm

    How long are Russians going to let Fascist Terrorist Putin carry on trying to kill all the elderly and sick in the world by holding the world to ransom through stopping oil flows through out the world and charging extortionate prices. The little vulgar repulsive Dwarf putrid spwetin needs to vanish and Navalny reappear in his job for a liberated Russia and to peacefully join the Real World whilst rebuilding Uraine out of shame and necessity for the guilt felt from putrid heinous evil destruction of Ukraine also compensating the families of those murdered raped tortured assassinated by the vile spewing scum armies.

  14. Neil Ross Hutchings

    October 6, 2022 at 2:56 pm

    An excellent article with some equally excellent comments for a change. Too early indeed to now know the outcome of the conflict. As the war, to my understanding, has always been about Putin and his legacy, it’s unlikely that he would ever resort to using nuclear weapons. As a ‘frozen’ conflict seems to be the most likely outcome, do not rule out Putin refusing to run for re-election in two years, thus opening the door for possible future negotiations.

    I am eagerly awaiting this blog’s writers to weigh in on the results of the Swedish (and Danish) investigation into the Nord Stream sabotage, if the true information is ever released to the public, which I doubt it will.

    It’s clear to me that the U.S. has always resisted any pan-European cooperation for it’s own nationalistic reasons. Who the sabotage evidence points to, or who they claim that it points to, should be a very interesting read.

  15. Peter Kwok

    October 6, 2022 at 4:26 pm

    What about a revolution that takes down Putin but fragments into multiple fractions fighting each other for control. The generals, oligarchs, spy masters will become war lords. Some will have control of portions of nukes.

  16. Roger y

    October 6, 2022 at 4:58 pm

    It’s best for the west for ukraine to destroy the Russian army, fir the west to destroy the Russian economy, and the save billions every year for decades on defence expenditures. Solves the china arms race too by demonstration of democratic nation’s resolve.
    Daniel the ever pro Russian hack. Won’t write about this scenario…..the best one.i

  17. Paddy Manning

    October 6, 2022 at 5:27 pm

    This is a dreadful article, so underinformed it amounts to mendacity. How is David going to persuade the Ukrainians they must give Putin part of their country, what effect would that have on international relations and how in hell does he think that a resentfully appropriated population brings peace?
    Russia is losing in Ukraine for four reasons.
    1. Utter, stinking corruption of Putinism means the army is appallingly supplied and its logistics are dreadful.
    2. This means that the army is badly shod, badly fed, badly armed and badly munitioned.
    3. Russia has an 18th century army structure with no NCOs and distant officers.
    4. Putin constantly over rides the Generals, sending in 25% of the troops needed when the land was to wet for tanks to travel any other way but in convoys. Now Nicholas III micromanages a military situation about which he is under informed and completely unskilled. Beating East Germans with rubber hoses turns out to be a poor apprenticeship for military command.

    All of that means putting untrained conscripts into that mix is likely to hasten defeat rather than move to victory. 1942 type revival is beyond unlikely to happen because these men are not defending the motherland, the enemy is, Lend Lease is not sending convoys to Murmansk but to Kiev. The answer to Outins nuclear sabre rattling should be a swift call in for every Russian ambassador to s nuclear power to inform them that the use of a nuclear weapon against Ukraine will mean the utter destruction of the Russian Army. (As I believe Petraeus laid out)
    Putin has already lost the war, what Europe now needs is a savagely fast conclusion that destabilizes the Russian Federation and leaves Moscow powerless for 3 generations
    That’s an outcome worth the money.

  18. Jim

    October 6, 2022 at 6:09 pm

    Does President Zelensky have confidence in the ultimate result?

    During an online conference at Australia’s Lowy Institute, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky called on NATO to carry out “preventive nuclear strikes” on Russia in order to “deter” Moscow from using nukes.

    “preventive nuclear strikes”

    Either the man is not confident in the situation (seemingly less so than many commenters, here, on this website) or an outright monster.

    How much of this kind of thing will supporters of Ukraine take?

    Ukraine… right or wrong… is that how the support goes?

    (If that is how you feel, then I suggest this contest is having an effect on your sense of morality.)

    Ukraine’s supporters have taken lecturing, hectoring, and insults from Zelensky and his ministers.

    How this war goes? It depends on Russia.

    Ukraine has put everything they have into this offensive… and had success. Can Russia turn around and do the same thing.

    All I can say is that time will tell.

    But I will never support the Ukrainian government as long as it has neo-nazi factions within it or acts in a manner consistent with neo-nazi ideology.

    (Which I have seen repeatedly since I’ve been watching the situation more closely in the last many months.)

    Haven’t we had enough hate on the European Continent?

    In my opinion, too much American blood was spilled during WWII to eliminate Nazism from the European continent for the U. S. government to turn around and support neo-nazism in 21st Century Europe.

    Victory to the stronger. Trial by battle… that is what we will see in the coming months.

    Victory covers many sins… defeat reveals as much.

  19. Ben Leucking

    October 6, 2022 at 7:08 pm

    Note to
    I no longer read articles posted by Daniel Davis.

  20. Yrral

    October 6, 2022 at 7:16 pm

    Jacobs,it seems like a zebra,do not change it stripes,are regard to Ukraine corruption ,the person overseeing US aid to Ukraine is charge with embezzlement Google Ukraine National Bank Head Embezzlement

  21. Gary Jacobs

    October 6, 2022 at 8:24 pm


    lol…I responded to that on the other article you posted it to. but I can add a bit to it this time.

    As usual, it signifies the opposite of what you hope it does. It’s actually positively remarkable that Ukraine was able to carry out this type of investigation and make an arrest while conducting a full scale war of survival against Russia’s naked aggression.

    Meanwhile, in Russia, state sanctioned corruption is rampant, mobilized soldiers are going without proper food, winter clothing, or weapons…and many will meet their end, one way or another, because of corruption in the Russian system. Last year Russia launched their invasion in winter, without giving many of their soldiers proper winter clothes…and many died of frostbite. It’s certainly not looking much better for them going into this winter.

    Have a liberating day.

  22. Joe Comment

    October 6, 2022 at 9:20 pm

    Jim: Zelensky did not call for “preventive nuclear strikes.” He called for preventive measures to forestall Russian nuclear strikes. Zelensky’s press secretary Nykyforov said, “You will never hear such calls from Ukraine.”

  23. Bender

    October 6, 2022 at 9:43 pm

    By now we know that Yrral, 403Forbidden, Commentar, Alex, etc are all russian paid trolls (or perhaps the same troll using different names).

    But Daniel Davis what is it ?

  24. Yrral

    October 7, 2022 at 7:51 am

    Jacobs, Zelensky did not win the Nobel,but an organization in Ukraine, fighting his corruption did

  25. David W Burgess

    October 7, 2022 at 9:30 am

    As many have already stated, the 1942 scenario is near non-existent. The ONLY reason Russia was able to withstand the German advance was the enormous amount of material assistance from the Allies, mostly from the US, and Great Britain. It might be added that aid was principally sent to Russia to keep the Nazis busy on the “Eastern Front” thus aiding in the success of the war in Western Europe. Germany was doomed from the moment Hitler decided to go after the Russian oil he so desperately needed.

  26. Gary Jacobs

    October 7, 2022 at 9:38 am


    I see cherry picking is a profession for you. In fact three Nobel Prizes were awarded:

    -Jailed Belarusian activist Ales Byalyatski
    -Russian rights group Memorial
    -Ukraine’s Center for Civil Liberties

    These 3 awards highlight the significance of civil society for peace and democracy.

    In Russia and Belarus those who fight the state sanctioned corruption and oppression face prison and death.

    As well, in addition to its work to strengthen democracy in Ukraine the mission of the organization in Ukraine that won the award includes international campaigns for the release of illegally imprisoned people in Russia and the occupied Crimea and Donbas.

    And most importantly, documenting Russian war crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    As so often is the case, your post actually has the opposite meaning of what you intended.

    Have a liberating day.

  27. davidgmillsatty

    October 7, 2022 at 6:06 pm

    @ Barrett. The west can not continue to supply Ukraine according to a recent CNBC article linked to in my post to Jacobs above. It simply does not have the industrial capacity to keep up with Russian equipment and ammo production. Europe won’t have enough energy to avoid a major recession/depression. If the west can’t keep supplying weapons and ammunition to Ukraine, and Russia can continue to do so, then the most probable scenario is that Ukraine will be unable to advance much longer and it will be Ukraine once again losing ground.

  28. Edward

    October 7, 2022 at 6:33 pm

    IMO-Putin doesn’t have so many options. He is facing a coup even without a revolution. There is no chance he can “turn this around” with a mass of worse trained, less unmotivated, more poorly supplied troops and the horrible logistics of the Russian Army. His latest error will be his last. That was “mobilization”. For those outside of Russia, this is because there is a kind of “deal” between Putin and the people. The people just let Putin do as he pleases as long as it doesn’t affect their daily lives. Now mobilization has brought the war to their families. So…..

  29. davidgmillsatty

    October 7, 2022 at 8:50 pm

    Source for my post above can be found by searching:


Leave a Reply

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