Why the US lost Ukraine

Почему США проиграли Украину

I certainly know that many, if not most, respected experts and experienced politicians believe that Ukraine is lost to Russia, and that she lost her United StateM. by the Way, the fact of loss by Russia of Ukraine, I will not even challenge. But, first, lost it is not USA, and second, for objective reasons, simply could not win.A large part of the partisan politics people see it as a zero-sum game where if one wins, another must lose. In fact, she, like war, is a game with a nonzero sum. That is, both can win, both can lose, and both may not lose but not win.

How do you determine the winner? Very simple. If you reached your goal, and put them before the beginning of the conflict. For example, if you decided to take in safe and sound in the hands of the enemy bridge across a water barrier, threw it in the area of the airborne division, she captured the bridge and held it until the arrival of your troops, but it suffered devastating losses (say? 97% of the personnel killed, that is, ceased to exist), you win. If you sent a breakthrough to the bridge tank corps, which virtually no loss had reached him, beating on the way a couple of enemy divisions, but directly under the tracks of the advanced tank, the bridge was blown up by the enemy, you lose the game (although the loss ratio can set up for victory). But at least minimization of losses is important, the main thing — the fulfillment of the task for which the calculation of losses and produced. Sometimes you can sacrifice the whole Union, with the understanding that this will enable you to save more lives.

The loss ratio and the occupied territories Nazi Germany even nominally in the summer of 1943 seems to have defeated the Soviet Union, in fact its defeat in the war was already so obvious that it openly spoke even German generals. Nominally in Kiev strengthened Russophobic Pro-American regime and the USA can celebrate. But this what they want?

Washington gambit

Washington its purpose was not concealed. First, he planned to take a dominant strategic position in the Crimea. Not to create a huge database of NATO, still some people think. A huge database is needed there only the black sea fleet of Russia. Even for the Turks was an important U.S. foreign troops, not the deployment of troops of its own. Therefore, all Russia’s enemies sought to destroy Sebastopol and to kick Russia out of Crimea, and not to take the city and the Peninsula itself. The United States was enough to bulge from the Crimea the black sea fleet, to create in Sevastopol, a seaside resort with lots of yacht clubs in former places of basing warships and purely nominally deploy a company of Marines and a couple of frigates to indicate the presence. That would be enough to lock up the black sea fleet bases in the Kuban and North Caucasus, and to make the South of Russia (to Bryansk and Voronezh) is completely defenseless against a hypothetical invasion.

Did the Americans invade Russia? Not at all. They had only to force the Kremlin to spend huge resources to restore the security of the southern borders.

Second, the US wanted to pit Russia with Europe, forcing them to come together in a hard clinch on the brink of a hot war (possibly even with a local collision of the Russian and European troops in the territories of Ukraine and other border countries). In this case, the policy of sanctions would be much tougher and the Europeans didn’t whine about the fact that they were forced to, they do not want and would not dream to get out of the sanctions regime, sabotaging it as much as possible and not out of fear but out of conscience would serve the Americans, seeing them as the only defenders against the Russian invasion. And again, Russia would have to spend huge resources on this unproductive confrontation.

Thirdly, as a bonus, just US were ready to give Russia the rest of Ukraine (except Crimea). She was pretty devastated, to its restoration and integration into the Russian political-economic system has required a huge resource costs. Even after losing Crimea (after his departure to Russia), USA was still trying to compensate for this loss by the invitation of Russia on the Ukrainian territory. Until the fall of 2014 Washington openly stated that the United States will not fight for Ukraine, even if Russia is occupying it completely. Cheer Russia on the occupation, and at least the second and third paragraphs of the American strategy would be implemented. Planning a military campaign, no one expects that all battles will be won, the main thing that the overall balance was in your favor. So, go Russia to Ukraine to restore order, the US would really have won.

By the way, this move of Moscow so it is easy to calculate that it was waiting for even the common people in Russia and Ukraine.

A natural question would be: are we talking about linking Russian resources, why is the United States?

The goal is to destroy the inside of

Very simple. In the modern world is the attack on nuclear power, even if it is as weak as the DPRK is too large losses. The US is not attacking North Korea does not because they can not win a nuclear war. To win it they still can, even in China. Just retaliatory strikes that made the United States, will cause too severe damage to the economy and financial system. A significant part of the US nuclear Arsenal will be spent on useless enemy, and Russia will be able to assess the capabilities of the U.S. nuclear triad and the reliability of us missile defense. After the victory over Korea, the United States will be much weaker than Russia. So they are from Korea and are not fighting.

But if it is impossible to win, it can be destroyed from the inside. From ancient times to the present day the surest means to achieve the collapse of the hostile States were to cause mass discontent. Mass discontent arises when it becomes bad. It becomes bad if perenapravljaetsja economy, the country is not subject to a clear and imminent threat, able to mobilize the population and force it to endure.

You can guarantee that if the Americans would be able to implement its plan to force Russia to actively get involved in the Ukrainian crisis, in a few years tens of millions of Russian citizens wouldn’t laugh at the naive Obama, claiming that he tore Russia’s economy in tatters, and angrily inquired, his own power: “What we forgot in the Ukraine!” Not encouraging anyone territorial acquisition in case of a sharp fall in living standards. The peasantry of the Russian Empire, impoverished because of the mobilization for the war of tens of millions of workers and millions of horses did not want to suffer a year before the victory and the annexation of Eastern Prussia, Galicia, Turkish Armenia, and the zone of the Straits — staged the February and later the October revolutions (supervised, of course, others, but if they did not support hundreds of thousands of peasant hostility in the capitals actively and millions at the front, passively, nothing would have happened).

For this USA, and we had to stretch Russian resources, for 25 years before they stretched the resources of the USSR. They could not do, and therefore Ukraine, they lost all the invested in Kiev’s resources were wasted. It is a strategic defeat, as evidenced by the split in the American elite, as expressed in the struggle of right-conservative and left-liberal trapistov of the globalists for a new path to the American dream.

Russia also lost. She was unable to persuade the Ukrainian elite to go on the path of economic integration, which would give a cumulative effect, significantly increasing the economic power (and prosperity) of both Russia and Ukraine. This is not counting the fact that the friendly and strong Ukraine would cover the southern flank of Russia, which would save significant resources on military development in the region. Russia also lost a great resource vkladyvayasj in the Ukrainian economy within twenty years. In addition, Moscow was forced into an emergency procedure to create some import-substituting production (in particular for the construction of gas turbine engines for the Navy and helicopter engines), to replace Ukrainian suppliers.

Strategy and tactics

But the defeat of Russia’s tactical. Moscow was set two tasks. The first (the inclusion of Ukraine in integration processes) has not been solved. But it was solved second. Ukraine was retained in a state may wrong, but ally almost as long as Russia has not solved the problems associated with it. By 2014, bypassing the pipelines were partially (first stage) is constructed, in part (second phase) coordinated and prepared for the construction (now completed). Russia managed to keep the European partners in this project. That is, the result of the Ukrainian crisis to sever trade and economic ties between Russia and Europe failed. And failed in the most important segment (the supply of Russian gas), against which the Americans fought the 70-ies of XX century.

In addition, in 2014 the Russian territory, in the long ran, but not affilirovana, the import substitution program, was localized a large part of sensitive plants associated with Ukraine. A little too late, will finish only in 2020, but a disaster from a rupture of relations did not happen, even though trouble (and quite substantial) happened.

Thus, Russia has been able to do without Ukraine, that gave it a free hand to conduct a more pragmatic policy. Now she can decide whether to go to Ukraine, and if Yes, when and on what conditions. Moscow is not acting in the circumstances and based on reasonable understanding of the issue price and possible dividends.

Of course, the loss of large areas and tens of millions in fact the Russian population — not to win, but not a disaster. In March 1918, the Bolsheviks agreed to give the Germans the area West of the current borders of the Russian Federation and the Caucasus to the Turks. In 1921, the Western border of the USSR passed far to the East than in 1940. And the current Russian territorial losses suffered even the collapse of the USSR, losing Americans, the Cold war, and not during the current confrontation. Now she’s just not all were able to return.

Ukraine between USA and Russia

Now, we will still try to answer the question: why the US lost in the Ukraine, though Russia did not win? Why neither Moscow nor Washington has been able to achieve in this area all the goals (although some have implemented)?

Because Ukraine is really a divided country. Of course, when the social networks “good Russian people” claim that “all Ukrainians are traitors” is not true. But “adequate Ukrainians”, who begin to argue with them and prove that the Nazis in Ukraine unit, “Russia itself all betrayed”, even more far from the truth. At least because they recognize that experience before these Nazis (which, like almost none) animal horror and (since Russia has not come yet) ready to believe even that they will be released from the terrorist government provincial clown (if only someone released).

The funny thing is that the Nazis feared the “domination of the jackets”, seeing enemies in quite loyal to the regime people, just because they speak Russian or it is reasonable to declare that peace in Donbas necessary in the first place Ukraine is for the salvation of the remnants of statehood.

As is always the case at a point of view, a radical nationalist and radical Pro-Russian have a relatively small number of adherents that kompensiruet their activity. The Nazis, for objective reasons (support from the West played a secondary role, the main thing that they were supported by the Ukrainian government) was able previously to organize, to arm and to capture a larger part of Ukraine. The organization of Pro-Russian forces on time and in full, have time to occur only in the Crimea and the Donbass (not least because they were farther from the epicenter of the events and closer to Russia). The rest of the country is divided into more or less moderate nationalists and more or less moderate internationalists (which is quite Pro-Russian difficult to call, because they do not want integration, but only a pragmatic cooperation with Russia on the Western model and under cover of the West).

In a country where long before the current crisis (in 2004, for the first time openly, and the default before) came to the brink of civil war, where for decades wrote in Galicia and Donbass “better if you left the Ukraine and did not prevent us to live” (we meaning “us” the whole of Ukraine, each time different and each time was deeply mistaken), it was impossible to create a stable Pro-American regime, just as it is impossible to create a Pro. Still a significant part of the population is against and hold them only by force.


The Americans went into the creation of a terrorist Nazi regime because they were counting on a blitzkrieg: Russia will enter the Ukraine, Europe is troubled, the poles will be under the protection of lions, the Hungarians in Transcarpathia, Romanians Northern Bukovina and southern Bessarabia. Will start hard on the brink of war crisis, and Washington will resolve as if not a Prince charming on a white horse, it is honest independent broker. So the Americans and allowed the Europeans to engage in the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis and in the negotiations with Yanukovych, and later in the Normandy format. Europe side of the conflict, Russia is a party to the conflict, Ukraine — a victim of Euro-Russian confrontation, which provoked a civil war, complicated by the intervention of the United States — peacekeepers. It was thus the subsequent course of Affairs from Washington.

But nothing of the sort happened, because Russian and European intervention in fact there is a civil war there. And put up do not want Donbas to Kiev and Moscow with Paris and Berlin all right. After six years of crisis, but the Americans realized that their blitzkrieg failed by the end of 2015. All 2016 Obama have pretended to support Ukraine, he could not have before the election to admit that the United States completely failed in the strategic campaign. After losing the election, Democrats Trump in principle to Ukraine had no case. All his gestures in this direction are connected with attempts to accuse him of links with Russia. Under the onslaught of these accusations he could not fully reset relations with Kiev, as it would be presented as proof of “collusion with the Kremlin.” But he sought not to act in this direction and to pull American tail from the Ukrainian quagmire.

Ukrainian dream

Americans basically could not win in Ukraine because Pro-American and Pro-European Ukrainians saw their country’s future, as a story in which it is enough to say “get out the view of Moscow” and of course there is a modern state with a high-tech economy, running millions of investors are taking trillions of dollars and euros, all Ukrainians love and respect, and they are currently in “vyshnevomu sadochke” and listen to “Yak dimali gudut” (that is, in the ultra-modern office to sign the papers on the building transnatsionalni corporations with a topping). Their allies (Europeans and Americans) in principle, they could not give what the Ukrainian “Euro-integrators” counted. Their Ukraine is a pipe dream. Sooner or later they will be disappointed and in that dream, and Euro-Americans, who are unable to realize their dream.

The dream of Pro-Russian Ukrainians are more pragmatic. They just want to Russia. Their task is to survive until the time when their “euroization” compatriots disappointed in the “Western Paradise” and realize that except in “the Horde” there is no way out. Another thing is that Russia needs to accumulate resources for the proper integration of at least the greater part of Ukraine, native Russian land. And it is at the present time the problem difficult. Russia-Russia-the Soviet Union has repeatedly retreated from their Western lands, often for a long time (even Smolensk went from hand to hand 300 years). Always came back, but not all that lived.

In order to return, must be preserved. This task Russia decided, not allowing the USA to destroy itself in the course of blitzkrieg 2014-2015. Therefore, the US lost Ukraine strategically, and Russia only tactically. But a tactical defeat is still defeat, and liquidate the consequences will be long.

In Syria peacekeeping mission of Russia is successful, not least from the fact that war-weary people really wanted reconciliation. In Ukraine, as polls show, they all want peace, but each on their own terms. If so, then, yet not of the world, and his victory. They have yet to realize that in the civil war there are no winners. There are only losers. And the more losers, the longer the civil war.

For the US, the Ukrainian crisis has ended. They go and go, even if Democrats will shift trump or elect Biden. For Russia it’s only beginning. The victory of Russia in Ukraine will be say if Moscow will find a solution, where integration of Ukrainian territory (if not in Russia, at least in the EEU) will happen without large resource costs on the part of Russia and without the establishment in Ukraine of a new dictatorship (this time Pro). To win we need a cheap integration, and cheap can only be voluntary. Violence is always counterproductive, because expensive.

Meanwhile, the United States lost, Russia won, but it pays for all of Ukraine. Pay only because they voluntarily refused from the international subjectivity for the sake of shiny beads and beautiful words Western kariala. Someone who is not able to choose their own destiny, always paying other people’s bills.

Rostislav Ishchenko

Share Button