Great Strategic Analysis of Ukraine


Key Paragraph:

What is odd is that it is not clear that the European Union or Russia want Ukraine. The European Union is not about to take on another weakling. It has enough already. And Russia doesn’t want the burden of governing Ukraine. It just doesn’t want anyone controlling Ukraine to threaten Russia. Ukrainian sovereignty doesn’t threaten anyone, so long as the borderland remains neutral.

5 thoughts on “Great Strategic Analysis of Ukraine

  1. elmer

    Roman, Friedman is partially correct and partially wrong.

    He is incorrect about the history and some other things

    He is grossly wrong when he claims that Rasha does not wish to control or govern Ukraine.

    If Ukraine goes truly democratic, then the mass psychosis in Rasha currently presided over by Putler and his thugs are threatened – very, very threatened. Their whole sistema of thuggery becomes subject to serious, massive questioning. In the sistema, you are either an accomplice or a victim – and the vast majority are currently victims.

    Here is a take on Friedman:

    Also see this—


    Edward Lucas is as insightful and no-nonsense a commentator as one can hope for in Western media. His piece in your December 11 issue, “How the West Lost Ukraine to Putin” is typical. . . except in one critical respect. He states that EU officials “do [not]understand Russia. They missed the fundamental point about Russian foreign policy: To feel secure, Moscow needs a geopolitical hinterland of countries that are economically weak and politically pliable.” This is a siren song that includes such variations on the theme as Russia’s “fear of encirclement”, its “legitimate interest” in its own “backyard,” it’s “sphere of influence” in the post-Soviet space, etc.

    “To feel secure.” From what? Ukraine, 2.5% its size? Russia always was and remains a predator nation. How else did it become the largest country in the world, commandeering 11 time zones and enveloping the entire third of Asia? In the 1890’s, the Russian General Staff conducted a study of Russia’s military campaigns, concluding that between 1700 and 1870, Russia fought 38 wars. Only two were defensive. The colonial empire expanded by an area equal to The Netherlands. On a daily basis. But this was not an empire (and the Soviet “union” that followed) modeled after the relationship between Holland and Aruba or St. Martin. Entire nations succumbed to mass murder, slave ships, atrocities, death marches, war crimes, homicidal russification, recreational torture, assassinations, genocide of all stripes, plunder, predation, experimental executions, gang rape, stupefying terror, thought crime, forced starvation. Dante’s Nine Circles of Hell collapsed into one, vaporizing scores of millions of souls. All locked in a straitjacket of mendacity, duplicity, treachery, and all masked by the hydraulic pressure of an exquisitely refined dezinformatsia, other-worldly in its enormity and effectiveness.

    Mr. Lucas’ statement thus unwittingly reverses cause and effect, recasting the perpetrator as the victim. But not a syllable has issued from Western media about the genocidal conquest that Russia has enforced on a score of non-russian nations, some for centuries. It is they, the former Soviet republics, including the pivotal one, Ukraine, that require and are entitled to feel secure, to international recognition of their “strategic interests” vis a vis their historic tormentor. After all, but for their quitting the Party, the USSR would not have imploded. Rote repetitions about Russia’s “security” are endlessly pernicious because the West, and most especially America, catalyzes Russia’s own propaganda. We blindly fuel a virtual reality; nothing more than a hologram floating in air. It is all the prime exemplar of what the Frenchman Marquis de Custine wrote in the 19th century after visiting the Third Rome: “Russia denies the facts, makes war on the evidence, and wins.”.

    Victor Rud
    Ridgewood, N. J.
    Past Chairman, Ukrainian American Bar Association
    Former Counsel to US delegate to the Madrid
    Helsinki Accords Review Conference
    Harvard College
    Duke Law School
    – See more at:

  2. Roman

    I tend to agree with you Elmer, and I enjoyed Friedman’s article because it was a unique perspective. I’m not usually a fan of Friendman. He’s always trying to drag the US (and occasionally Europe into a war with Israel’s enemies. I alluded to some of his ridiculous logic in this artice:

    Anyway, the reason I tend to agree with you is because I inherited the same visceral distrust of Russia that you seem to feel from my parents and grandparents. I’m trying to set that aside.

    The article you link declares itself to be correct without evidence. I’d be curious to hear more reasoned argument that that policy Russia is pursuing today (TODAY), is one of expansion. Sometimes they seem to be more interested in fending off a demographic and cultural collapse.

  3. elmer


    Brutal attacks/invasion of Georgia

    Taking over Bulgaria via pipeline transaction

    Just 2 examples

    Third one –


    This has been very clearly documented in Ukrainian (EuroMaidan) Pravda, and elsewhere, repeatedly


Leave a Reply