How do you marry in your mind Ukraine losing territory for 2.5 years, utterly defeated last summer in its infamous "counteroffensive", losing major strategic places like Mariupol, Sea of Azov, Bakhmut, Avdiivka - and yet only having supposedly 70,000 casualties to Russian 300,000? The last figure has no independent confirmation from any other source but Ukraine MOD. While BBC and Mediazona project, hellbent on searching independent confirmation of Russian casualties, only could dig out ~ 60 - 70k by summer 2024? The disconnect of propaganda and reality got so bad - Mediazona announced change in the method of counting, now beginning to use "projected casualties" rather than real ones they were counting before. The disparity in POWs held by both sides tell a very different story - 10:1 Ukraine to Russian soldiers. 3rd or 4th wave of mobilization in Ukraine, where they broadened legal age of conscription do not support 70k casualty story for Ukraine. And the internet is full of videos from Ukraine of forced conscription, men grabbed off the streets to send to the front without training, to die - for US interests.
And why do you not mention Turkyie negotiations in 2022, when the war could have ended, 2 years ago? Since you apparently support resolution of the conflict with Ukraine neutrality? An agreement, that Russians and Ukrainians made, confirmed, its text actually published by NYT, with Ukraine to becoming neutral? And how then UK and US shredded this agreement, sending Ukrainian men to die, with no hope to win against an industrial colossus that is Russia?
I find your "analysis" biased, to put it generously, and misleading, sneaking in Westen propaganda and misrepresenting many well-established facts.
If you carefully read the article, you'll notice it acknowledges the role of Western powers in using Ukraine against Russia for their own interests. Regarding casualty figures, the disparity between reported numbers is indeed a contentious issue; sources vary widely, and the fog of war complicates accurate reporting. The high mobilization rates and forced conscriptions in Ukraine, along with strategic losses, do suggest higher casualty numbers, and this remains an area of significant debate. As for the 2022 Turkey negotiations, the article does support the resolution of the conflict through Ukrainian neutrality and recognizes the complexities introduced by external influences. Your points underscore the deeply polarized narratives and the difficulties in discerning the full reality amidst widespread propaganda from all sides.
I have tried my best to write the article to inform and not polarize. But any bias or inaccuracy that might have crept in is my responsibility. Your genuine criticism is noted and will help me write better.
"This period was crucial as Ukrainian Nationalists aligned themselves with the Nazis to resist the Soviets. Putin has used this historical alignment to portray any push for Ukrainian sovereignty as a Nazi endeavour, disregarding the nuanced reasons behind Ukrainian nationalists' alignment with Nazi Germany."
Perhaps you might like to provide the 'nuanced reasons' why the Ukrainian nationalists didn't just align with Nazi Germany, but joined the Nazi SS and massacred 100,000 Poles, Jews, Romani and Russians?
The famine in the USSR in the 1930's was in large part man-made, but it didn't affect just Ukraine. Many millions perished throughout the country. (If Stalin wanted to deal with Ukrainian nationalists, creating a famine throughout the entire USSR was a strange way to do it.)
"Contrary to the popular myth, NATO did not promise Russia that it would stop expanding eastward."
100% false. Russia was given assurances that NATO would not expand even "one inch" further east. However that assurance was not in the form of a signed treaty. Not that even having a treaty would've made any difference. The West and NATO saw Russia's weakness in the 1990-2010 period and decided they could do as they pleased.
"In 2014 Russia annexed Crimea for the following main reasons...."
You left out the most important reason: the USA and Europe engineered a coup in Ukraine in 2014. That not only destroyed the centrist Ukrainian government, it put Russia's strategic military bases in Crimea at grave risk.
"Amidst the fog of war, it’s nearly impossible to determine the exact number of military casualties, but rough estimates suggest Ukrainian casualties are around 70,000 and Russian casualties are approximately 300,000."
Those casualty figures are, to put it charitably, highly suspect.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I appreciate the opportunity to address these important issues.
1. Nuanced Reasons for Ukrainian Nationalists' Alignment with Nazi Germany:
Ukrainian nationalists aligned with Nazi Germany primarily to resist Soviet repression and seek independence. However, it's essential to acknowledge that some factions within the nationalist movement participated in atrocities, which is a tragic and condemnable aspect of this history. The motivations and actions of different groups within the nationalist movement were complex and varied.
2. The Holodomor Famine in the USSR:
You are correct that the Holodomor was part of a broader Soviet famine affecting several regions, including Kazakhstan and parts of Russia. Many historians argue that Soviet policies had particularly devastating effects on Ukraine, leading to the perception of the Holodomor as a targeted genocide. Recognizing both the broader context and the specific impacts on Ukraine is important.
3. Regarding NATO's Expansion Assurances:
The topic of NATO's expansion is contentious with differing interpretations. Some Western leaders gave verbal assurances regarding NATO's expansion, but these were not formalized in a treaty. This distinction is significant in understanding the subsequent actions and policies of both NATO and Russia.
4. Annexation of Crimea and the 2014 Coup:
The events leading up to the annexation of Crimea are highly complex. While many view the 2014 Euromaidan protests and subsequent government change as a popular uprising against corruption and for closer ties with Europe, others argue it was influenced by Western interests. Russia's strategic concerns regarding its military bases in Crimea undoubtedly played a significant role in its decision to annex the territory as pointed out in the article itself.
5. Casualty Figures:
Casualty figures in ongoing conflicts are often contested and difficult to verify. Different sources provide varying estimates, and it is important to approach these numbers with caution. The figures mentioned are based on available reports, but I acknowledge the need for skepticism and the challenges in obtaining accurate data in such situations.
Thank you again for your feedback. It is through such discussions that we can strive for a more comprehensive understanding of these complex issues.
"The motivations and actions of different groups within the nationalist movement were complex and varied."
The motivations and actions of different groups of people are almost always complex and varied. But for you to avoid mentioning that the Ukrainian nationalists perpetrated a Holocaust of their own as card carrying members of the Nazi SS is a shocking omission.
"Recognizing both the broader context and the specific impacts on Ukraine is important."
If recognizing the broader context of the USSR famine is important, why did you leave it out? Many historians do not believe the famine in Ukraine was a genocide. You left that out too.
"Some Western leaders gave verbal assurances regarding NATO's expansion, but these were not formalized in a treaty."
So you were wrong to state that it was a myth that Russia was given no assurance that NATO wouldn't expand even "one inch" east of Germany. Russia was indeed given that assurance by more than one high-ranking western official. Again, it's shocking that you would not state that historical fact but instead try to mythologize it. It's as if you're trying to hide NATO's duplicity.
"The events leading up to the annexation of Crimea are highly complex."
Geopolitical events are always highly complex. Using that as an excuse for failing to mention the coup - a highly relevant historical event - is unacceptable.
"Casualty figures in ongoing conflicts are often contested and difficult to verify."
While that's true, there are ample ways to verify or establish approximate casualty figures from publicly reported sources. The figures you supplied are not taken from such sources. They appear to be the figures supplied by the Ukrainian government, and they are wildly different from the casualty numbers that are circulating in the independent media. At the least, you should mention a range of reported casualties, or the casualties figures reported by both sides.. Your claim that Ukraine has suffered a total of 70,000 casualties in the war barely covers the last month of fighting, as reported by the Russian side.
In short, your article is suspect because it is:
1. Selective in the details it presents;
2. Omits highly relevant events and their causes;
3. Fails to mention alternative casualty figures even though they are available;
4. Apparently biased due to failing to offer alternative historical explanations.
5. Appears to be sourced largely from western resources such as Wikipedia and the western media.
As you point out, history and geopolitics are complex. Offering simplistic or one-sided interpretations are inadequate.
You're correct that some Ukrainian nationalist groups did commit atrocities during World War II. It’s important to acknowledge these actions as part of a broader and darker aspect of history. I will revise the article to include this crucial context to provide a more comprehensive and balanced view.
2. Broader Context of the USSR Famine:
I agree that the famine's impact on the broader USSR should be recognized. But this the article was mainly focused on Ukraine.. Still I will update it to reflect the widespread suffering throughout the Soviet Union and note that the interpretation of the famine as genocide is debated among historians.
3. NATO Assurances:
The issue of NATO's expansion assurances is highly debated. While verbal assurances were given, they were not formalized in a treaty, leading to differing interpretations. I will amend the article to reflect this nuance.
4. Annexation of Crimea and the 2014 Coup:
You are right that the 2014 coup is a significant event in understanding the annexation of Crimea. I did mention that the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia was partly justified by President Putin as a response to protect ethnic Russians from "far-right extremists" who had overthrown President Yanukovych. However, I recognize now that it needs a bit more emphasis to fully capture its implications on the geopolitical landscape.
5. Casualty Figures:
Casualty figures are indeed contentious and can vary widely depending on sources. I will update the article to present a range of estimates, including those from different perspectives, to better represent the complexity of the situation.
Your point about using a broader range of sources is well-taken.
I will strive to incorporate more diverse perspectives and sources to ensure a balanced presentation.
I appreciate your commitment to historical accuracy and nuanced understanding. Your feedback is valuable in improving the quality of the article. Thank you for engaging in this important discussion.
Ukrainian Nazis, past and present. The fact that Ukrainian nationalists allied with Nazi Germany and joined the SS is important to mention. But what's more critical to note - in terms of explaining the current conflict - is that those WWII Ukrainian Nazis are now glorified in present-day Ukraine. Stepan Bandera and the OUN are exalted as heroes by the Ukraine government and its security services. It's no different than if present day Germany started to glorify Hitler and Eichmann!
Any article purporting to explain this conflict must highlight the extremism present in Ukraine today. Moreover it must also highlight the fact that Russia lost 20 million people to an early version of that extremism. And they do not forget.
The USSR famine. You attempted to use the famine as an explanation/justification for extreme nationalism in Ukraine during WWII. But by far the majority of Ukraine's people, who all suffered in the famine, did not align with Nazi Germany and did not resort to extreme atrocities against anyone. Only those who are currently lauded as heroes in Ukraine perpetrated those terrible crimes.
NATO expansion. I don't know what debates you're referring to, but it's a historical fact that Russia was given high-level assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. Now you could debate whether Russia was stupid to believe those assurances. You could also debate whether NATO is, at heart, a duplicitous, war mongering organization. But there is no debate that Russia was assured NATO wouldn't expand to the east - this is a fact. Following that assurance, NATO expanded into Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Albania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. So it's not as if NATO expansion was accidental. As for whether a signed treaty would've made any difference, that's highly unlikely. US and European NATO countries have proven that they do not adhere to treaties they have signed.
The 2014 Ukraine coup. I would suggest that it doesn't just need a "bit more emphasis" in explaining subsequent events. From Russia's perspective, that coup was a geopolitical nuclear bomb. Imagine if Russia and China engineered a coup in Canada and turned it against the USA. What importance would America put on such an event?
You have taken my criticisms extremely well and it appears you are earnest in seeking the truth. I salute your efforts to understand the conflict.
Thank you for your invaluable feedback. It has helped me refine my approach to writing and write better articles and essays. I am currently updating this article to better reflect the nuance and incorporate missing details that you graciously pointed out for me.
New articles/essays are coming up. Please consider subscribing to my substack and keep providing your feedback!
A Gold star for hideous bias, misinterpretation, misrepresentation and being so full of yourself and your asinine opinions I'd watch out you don't burst. Toodle pip!
Thank you for your feedback. I understand that not everyone will agree with my analysis, and I appreciate different viewpoints. If there are specific points you believe are misrepresented or biased, I'm open to discussing them. Constructive criticism is valuable, but personal attacks aren't productive. Let's focus on the facts and engage in a meaningful conversation.
" The Holodomor- a devastating famine that killed over 3.9 million people in Ukraine (about 13% of the population) is often regarded to be man-made by Soviet leaders and for good reason."
I'd like to read about that "good reason" that isn't some kind of propaganda that dismisses centuries of famine in the area.
The Holodomor, which killed millions in Ukraine, is widely regarded as man-made due to several key factors:
1. Forced Collectivization: The Soviet policy forcibly merged individual farms into large collective farms, disrupting traditional agriculture.
2. Grain Requisitions: Extremely high grain quotas were imposed on Ukrainian farmers, and failure to meet these quotas resulted in the confiscation of food, leaving people without sufficient food.
3. Political Repression: Many historians believe Stalin used the famine to crush Ukrainian nationalism and resistance to Soviet policies. The famine disproportionately affected Ukraine compared to other regions in the USSR.
While it's true that the region that is now Ukraine experienced numerous famines over the centuries due to a variety of factors, including weather conditions, wars, and socio-economic issues, the Holodomor occurred during a period of intense political and social upheaval in the Soviet Union. The early 1930s were marked by rapid industrialization and collectivization under Stalin’s regime, which significantly altered agricultural production and rural life.
Even if we were to set aside the argument that the Holodomor was man-made (for argument's sake), the perception among many Ukrainians that it was deliberately caused by Soviet policies has profoundly shaped their historical memory and national identity. This perception has fueled resentment and distrust towards Russia, making it understandable why some Ukrainians would seek alliances elsewhere, including with adversaries of the Soviet Union.
For a deeper understanding, I recommend reading "Harvest of Sorrow" by Robert Conquest and "Bloodlands" by Timothy Snyder.
23 hrs ago·edited 23 hrs agoLiked by Mohsin Shafi Zargar
You forgot ukrainian nationalists/terrorists of Symon Petliura. he died by then but his organization remained. These terrorists instigated and supported by the Brits, burned the crops and the granaries, creating even bigger problems with food supply. But of course western historians/propagandists (including these two you recommended) rarely mention this, or just plain ignore it. You don't mention them either, just parroting the usual Nato-Banderist tropes.
"Over the centuries, Ukraine has been governed by various powers, including the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Poland, and Lithuania. After its first period of independence in 1917, Ukraine was incorporated into the Soviet Union"
There was no 'independent ukraine' until 1991. this territory was mostly known as Malorussia (Little Russia). 'Ukraine' means borderlands and nothing else. There was no 'independence' in 1917. please stop with these revisionist fantasies by Bandera fanatics from Wikipedia or whatever Mickey Mouse natoid source. So-called 'ukraine' in 1917 was a weak quisling entity created by German occupied with main (only) purpose to help this occupation and serve German occupation force. It was a puny vassal under complete German influence and under total German military control. It cannot be called a state at all, certainly not 'independent' or sovereign state, not even theoretically, just a bunch of traitors paid by Germans and deserters from Russian imperial army organized into auxiliary militia to fight against partisans, all under German command.
After the collapse and capitulation of the German empire in November 1918. this puny vassal entity tried to organize some kind of self-governance, also to gain recognition form the Entente (especially the UK, traditional Russian enemy) but it was short lived and weak, these fanatics were not accepted by most people, and various other factions controlled much of the territory of so-called 'ukraine' - Red army, White army, Poles, even the anarchists. In the end the Red Army won.
Today, Maidanists and Neobanderists trying to promote this ludicrous idea how ukraine was an independent state and not a German quisling and how Germany planed to give them full sovereignty when in reality Germany planed to incorporate and assimilate everything. "Lebensraum" and especially "Drang nach Osten" weren't original Hitler's ideas as many people think today, Hitler was just a continuation of Imperial German imperialistic plans for the East. In their plans, ukraine, belarus (another entity created by Germans), Crimea, the Baltics and even Caucasus were planned for German occupation and colonization, with local quislings/friendly natives helping this project. Entire idea of 'ukrainian nation' served this purpose only as servants and useful idiots. Eventually, Germany would get rid of them just as Americans got rid of friendly Indian tribes. Sadly, ukraine today serve similar purpose, only their masters are not Germans but the US.
One more thing, Austro-Hungarian empire was created in 1867. so it makes more sense to just say Austria. Poland and Lithuanian were basically united into a single state. If you to go to 16th century, why not going all the way to Rus (wrongly called 'Kievan Rus' it was just Rus). Because it was a Russian medieval state, occupied by Mongols in XIII century, then by Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth then liberated by Russia (apart from one small area in Galicia, Lwow, which was under Austria). I'm not even going to comment the rest of the text, there are more than enough problems with these few sentences.
How do you marry in your mind Ukraine losing territory for 2.5 years, utterly defeated last summer in its infamous "counteroffensive", losing major strategic places like Mariupol, Sea of Azov, Bakhmut, Avdiivka - and yet only having supposedly 70,000 casualties to Russian 300,000? The last figure has no independent confirmation from any other source but Ukraine MOD. While BBC and Mediazona project, hellbent on searching independent confirmation of Russian casualties, only could dig out ~ 60 - 70k by summer 2024? The disconnect of propaganda and reality got so bad - Mediazona announced change in the method of counting, now beginning to use "projected casualties" rather than real ones they were counting before. The disparity in POWs held by both sides tell a very different story - 10:1 Ukraine to Russian soldiers. 3rd or 4th wave of mobilization in Ukraine, where they broadened legal age of conscription do not support 70k casualty story for Ukraine. And the internet is full of videos from Ukraine of forced conscription, men grabbed off the streets to send to the front without training, to die - for US interests.
And why do you not mention Turkyie negotiations in 2022, when the war could have ended, 2 years ago? Since you apparently support resolution of the conflict with Ukraine neutrality? An agreement, that Russians and Ukrainians made, confirmed, its text actually published by NYT, with Ukraine to becoming neutral? And how then UK and US shredded this agreement, sending Ukrainian men to die, with no hope to win against an industrial colossus that is Russia?
I find your "analysis" biased, to put it generously, and misleading, sneaking in Westen propaganda and misrepresenting many well-established facts.
Thank you for your detailed comment.
If you carefully read the article, you'll notice it acknowledges the role of Western powers in using Ukraine against Russia for their own interests. Regarding casualty figures, the disparity between reported numbers is indeed a contentious issue; sources vary widely, and the fog of war complicates accurate reporting. The high mobilization rates and forced conscriptions in Ukraine, along with strategic losses, do suggest higher casualty numbers, and this remains an area of significant debate. As for the 2022 Turkey negotiations, the article does support the resolution of the conflict through Ukrainian neutrality and recognizes the complexities introduced by external influences. Your points underscore the deeply polarized narratives and the difficulties in discerning the full reality amidst widespread propaganda from all sides.
I have tried my best to write the article to inform and not polarize. But any bias or inaccuracy that might have crept in is my responsibility. Your genuine criticism is noted and will help me write better.
Thank you once again and have a nice weekend.
"This period was crucial as Ukrainian Nationalists aligned themselves with the Nazis to resist the Soviets. Putin has used this historical alignment to portray any push for Ukrainian sovereignty as a Nazi endeavour, disregarding the nuanced reasons behind Ukrainian nationalists' alignment with Nazi Germany."
Perhaps you might like to provide the 'nuanced reasons' why the Ukrainian nationalists didn't just align with Nazi Germany, but joined the Nazi SS and massacred 100,000 Poles, Jews, Romani and Russians?
The famine in the USSR in the 1930's was in large part man-made, but it didn't affect just Ukraine. Many millions perished throughout the country. (If Stalin wanted to deal with Ukrainian nationalists, creating a famine throughout the entire USSR was a strange way to do it.)
"Contrary to the popular myth, NATO did not promise Russia that it would stop expanding eastward."
100% false. Russia was given assurances that NATO would not expand even "one inch" further east. However that assurance was not in the form of a signed treaty. Not that even having a treaty would've made any difference. The West and NATO saw Russia's weakness in the 1990-2010 period and decided they could do as they pleased.
"In 2014 Russia annexed Crimea for the following main reasons...."
You left out the most important reason: the USA and Europe engineered a coup in Ukraine in 2014. That not only destroyed the centrist Ukrainian government, it put Russia's strategic military bases in Crimea at grave risk.
"Amidst the fog of war, it’s nearly impossible to determine the exact number of military casualties, but rough estimates suggest Ukrainian casualties are around 70,000 and Russian casualties are approximately 300,000."
Those casualty figures are, to put it charitably, highly suspect.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I appreciate the opportunity to address these important issues.
1. Nuanced Reasons for Ukrainian Nationalists' Alignment with Nazi Germany:
Ukrainian nationalists aligned with Nazi Germany primarily to resist Soviet repression and seek independence. However, it's essential to acknowledge that some factions within the nationalist movement participated in atrocities, which is a tragic and condemnable aspect of this history. The motivations and actions of different groups within the nationalist movement were complex and varied.
2. The Holodomor Famine in the USSR:
You are correct that the Holodomor was part of a broader Soviet famine affecting several regions, including Kazakhstan and parts of Russia. Many historians argue that Soviet policies had particularly devastating effects on Ukraine, leading to the perception of the Holodomor as a targeted genocide. Recognizing both the broader context and the specific impacts on Ukraine is important.
3. Regarding NATO's Expansion Assurances:
The topic of NATO's expansion is contentious with differing interpretations. Some Western leaders gave verbal assurances regarding NATO's expansion, but these were not formalized in a treaty. This distinction is significant in understanding the subsequent actions and policies of both NATO and Russia.
4. Annexation of Crimea and the 2014 Coup:
The events leading up to the annexation of Crimea are highly complex. While many view the 2014 Euromaidan protests and subsequent government change as a popular uprising against corruption and for closer ties with Europe, others argue it was influenced by Western interests. Russia's strategic concerns regarding its military bases in Crimea undoubtedly played a significant role in its decision to annex the territory as pointed out in the article itself.
5. Casualty Figures:
Casualty figures in ongoing conflicts are often contested and difficult to verify. Different sources provide varying estimates, and it is important to approach these numbers with caution. The figures mentioned are based on available reports, but I acknowledge the need for skepticism and the challenges in obtaining accurate data in such situations.
Thank you again for your feedback. It is through such discussions that we can strive for a more comprehensive understanding of these complex issues.
"The motivations and actions of different groups within the nationalist movement were complex and varied."
The motivations and actions of different groups of people are almost always complex and varied. But for you to avoid mentioning that the Ukrainian nationalists perpetrated a Holocaust of their own as card carrying members of the Nazi SS is a shocking omission.
"Recognizing both the broader context and the specific impacts on Ukraine is important."
If recognizing the broader context of the USSR famine is important, why did you leave it out? Many historians do not believe the famine in Ukraine was a genocide. You left that out too.
"Some Western leaders gave verbal assurances regarding NATO's expansion, but these were not formalized in a treaty."
So you were wrong to state that it was a myth that Russia was given no assurance that NATO wouldn't expand even "one inch" east of Germany. Russia was indeed given that assurance by more than one high-ranking western official. Again, it's shocking that you would not state that historical fact but instead try to mythologize it. It's as if you're trying to hide NATO's duplicity.
"The events leading up to the annexation of Crimea are highly complex."
Geopolitical events are always highly complex. Using that as an excuse for failing to mention the coup - a highly relevant historical event - is unacceptable.
"Casualty figures in ongoing conflicts are often contested and difficult to verify."
While that's true, there are ample ways to verify or establish approximate casualty figures from publicly reported sources. The figures you supplied are not taken from such sources. They appear to be the figures supplied by the Ukrainian government, and they are wildly different from the casualty numbers that are circulating in the independent media. At the least, you should mention a range of reported casualties, or the casualties figures reported by both sides.. Your claim that Ukraine has suffered a total of 70,000 casualties in the war barely covers the last month of fighting, as reported by the Russian side.
In short, your article is suspect because it is:
1. Selective in the details it presents;
2. Omits highly relevant events and their causes;
3. Fails to mention alternative casualty figures even though they are available;
4. Apparently biased due to failing to offer alternative historical explanations.
5. Appears to be sourced largely from western resources such as Wikipedia and the western media.
As you point out, history and geopolitics are complex. Offering simplistic or one-sided interpretations are inadequate.
Thank you for your detailed feedback.
1. Ukrainian Nationalists and Nazi SS:
You're correct that some Ukrainian nationalist groups did commit atrocities during World War II. It’s important to acknowledge these actions as part of a broader and darker aspect of history. I will revise the article to include this crucial context to provide a more comprehensive and balanced view.
2. Broader Context of the USSR Famine:
I agree that the famine's impact on the broader USSR should be recognized. But this the article was mainly focused on Ukraine.. Still I will update it to reflect the widespread suffering throughout the Soviet Union and note that the interpretation of the famine as genocide is debated among historians.
3. NATO Assurances:
The issue of NATO's expansion assurances is highly debated. While verbal assurances were given, they were not formalized in a treaty, leading to differing interpretations. I will amend the article to reflect this nuance.
4. Annexation of Crimea and the 2014 Coup:
You are right that the 2014 coup is a significant event in understanding the annexation of Crimea. I did mention that the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia was partly justified by President Putin as a response to protect ethnic Russians from "far-right extremists" who had overthrown President Yanukovych. However, I recognize now that it needs a bit more emphasis to fully capture its implications on the geopolitical landscape.
5. Casualty Figures:
Casualty figures are indeed contentious and can vary widely depending on sources. I will update the article to present a range of estimates, including those from different perspectives, to better represent the complexity of the situation.
Your point about using a broader range of sources is well-taken.
I will strive to incorporate more diverse perspectives and sources to ensure a balanced presentation.
I appreciate your commitment to historical accuracy and nuanced understanding. Your feedback is valuable in improving the quality of the article. Thank you for engaging in this important discussion.
Cheers!
Mohsin
Ukrainian Nazis, past and present. The fact that Ukrainian nationalists allied with Nazi Germany and joined the SS is important to mention. But what's more critical to note - in terms of explaining the current conflict - is that those WWII Ukrainian Nazis are now glorified in present-day Ukraine. Stepan Bandera and the OUN are exalted as heroes by the Ukraine government and its security services. It's no different than if present day Germany started to glorify Hitler and Eichmann!
Any article purporting to explain this conflict must highlight the extremism present in Ukraine today. Moreover it must also highlight the fact that Russia lost 20 million people to an early version of that extremism. And they do not forget.
The USSR famine. You attempted to use the famine as an explanation/justification for extreme nationalism in Ukraine during WWII. But by far the majority of Ukraine's people, who all suffered in the famine, did not align with Nazi Germany and did not resort to extreme atrocities against anyone. Only those who are currently lauded as heroes in Ukraine perpetrated those terrible crimes.
NATO expansion. I don't know what debates you're referring to, but it's a historical fact that Russia was given high-level assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. Now you could debate whether Russia was stupid to believe those assurances. You could also debate whether NATO is, at heart, a duplicitous, war mongering organization. But there is no debate that Russia was assured NATO wouldn't expand to the east - this is a fact. Following that assurance, NATO expanded into Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Albania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. So it's not as if NATO expansion was accidental. As for whether a signed treaty would've made any difference, that's highly unlikely. US and European NATO countries have proven that they do not adhere to treaties they have signed.
The 2014 Ukraine coup. I would suggest that it doesn't just need a "bit more emphasis" in explaining subsequent events. From Russia's perspective, that coup was a geopolitical nuclear bomb. Imagine if Russia and China engineered a coup in Canada and turned it against the USA. What importance would America put on such an event?
You have taken my criticisms extremely well and it appears you are earnest in seeking the truth. I salute your efforts to understand the conflict.
Thank you for your invaluable feedback. It has helped me refine my approach to writing and write better articles and essays. I am currently updating this article to better reflect the nuance and incorporate missing details that you graciously pointed out for me.
New articles/essays are coming up. Please consider subscribing to my substack and keep providing your feedback!
Thanks a bunch!
Great elaboration 👍
Thanks brother
A Gold star for hideous bias, misinterpretation, misrepresentation and being so full of yourself and your asinine opinions I'd watch out you don't burst. Toodle pip!
Thank you for your feedback. I understand that not everyone will agree with my analysis, and I appreciate different viewpoints. If there are specific points you believe are misrepresented or biased, I'm open to discussing them. Constructive criticism is valuable, but personal attacks aren't productive. Let's focus on the facts and engage in a meaningful conversation.
Jeeez! Biritish ‘intelligence’ could have written this tripe,,,
" The Holodomor- a devastating famine that killed over 3.9 million people in Ukraine (about 13% of the population) is often regarded to be man-made by Soviet leaders and for good reason."
I'd like to read about that "good reason" that isn't some kind of propaganda that dismisses centuries of famine in the area.
Thank you for your comment.
The Holodomor, which killed millions in Ukraine, is widely regarded as man-made due to several key factors:
1. Forced Collectivization: The Soviet policy forcibly merged individual farms into large collective farms, disrupting traditional agriculture.
2. Grain Requisitions: Extremely high grain quotas were imposed on Ukrainian farmers, and failure to meet these quotas resulted in the confiscation of food, leaving people without sufficient food.
3. Political Repression: Many historians believe Stalin used the famine to crush Ukrainian nationalism and resistance to Soviet policies. The famine disproportionately affected Ukraine compared to other regions in the USSR.
While it's true that the region that is now Ukraine experienced numerous famines over the centuries due to a variety of factors, including weather conditions, wars, and socio-economic issues, the Holodomor occurred during a period of intense political and social upheaval in the Soviet Union. The early 1930s were marked by rapid industrialization and collectivization under Stalin’s regime, which significantly altered agricultural production and rural life.
Even if we were to set aside the argument that the Holodomor was man-made (for argument's sake), the perception among many Ukrainians that it was deliberately caused by Soviet policies has profoundly shaped their historical memory and national identity. This perception has fueled resentment and distrust towards Russia, making it understandable why some Ukrainians would seek alliances elsewhere, including with adversaries of the Soviet Union.
For a deeper understanding, I recommend reading "Harvest of Sorrow" by Robert Conquest and "Bloodlands" by Timothy Snyder.
Thanks a bunch! and have a great weekend!
You forgot ukrainian nationalists/terrorists of Symon Petliura. he died by then but his organization remained. These terrorists instigated and supported by the Brits, burned the crops and the granaries, creating even bigger problems with food supply. But of course western historians/propagandists (including these two you recommended) rarely mention this, or just plain ignore it. You don't mention them either, just parroting the usual Nato-Banderist tropes.
There hasn't been a famine in the area since.
After centuries of them frequently occurring.
I think you are skipping over something important.
And thanks, but no thanks, to reading any trash from Timothy Snyder or Robert Conquest.
"Over the centuries, Ukraine has been governed by various powers, including the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Poland, and Lithuania. After its first period of independence in 1917, Ukraine was incorporated into the Soviet Union"
There was no 'independent ukraine' until 1991. this territory was mostly known as Malorussia (Little Russia). 'Ukraine' means borderlands and nothing else. There was no 'independence' in 1917. please stop with these revisionist fantasies by Bandera fanatics from Wikipedia or whatever Mickey Mouse natoid source. So-called 'ukraine' in 1917 was a weak quisling entity created by German occupied with main (only) purpose to help this occupation and serve German occupation force. It was a puny vassal under complete German influence and under total German military control. It cannot be called a state at all, certainly not 'independent' or sovereign state, not even theoretically, just a bunch of traitors paid by Germans and deserters from Russian imperial army organized into auxiliary militia to fight against partisans, all under German command.
After the collapse and capitulation of the German empire in November 1918. this puny vassal entity tried to organize some kind of self-governance, also to gain recognition form the Entente (especially the UK, traditional Russian enemy) but it was short lived and weak, these fanatics were not accepted by most people, and various other factions controlled much of the territory of so-called 'ukraine' - Red army, White army, Poles, even the anarchists. In the end the Red Army won.
Today, Maidanists and Neobanderists trying to promote this ludicrous idea how ukraine was an independent state and not a German quisling and how Germany planed to give them full sovereignty when in reality Germany planed to incorporate and assimilate everything. "Lebensraum" and especially "Drang nach Osten" weren't original Hitler's ideas as many people think today, Hitler was just a continuation of Imperial German imperialistic plans for the East. In their plans, ukraine, belarus (another entity created by Germans), Crimea, the Baltics and even Caucasus were planned for German occupation and colonization, with local quislings/friendly natives helping this project. Entire idea of 'ukrainian nation' served this purpose only as servants and useful idiots. Eventually, Germany would get rid of them just as Americans got rid of friendly Indian tribes. Sadly, ukraine today serve similar purpose, only their masters are not Germans but the US.
One more thing, Austro-Hungarian empire was created in 1867. so it makes more sense to just say Austria. Poland and Lithuanian were basically united into a single state. If you to go to 16th century, why not going all the way to Rus (wrongly called 'Kievan Rus' it was just Rus). Because it was a Russian medieval state, occupied by Mongols in XIII century, then by Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth then liberated by Russia (apart from one small area in Galicia, Lwow, which was under Austria). I'm not even going to comment the rest of the text, there are more than enough problems with these few sentences.
70,000 Ukraine casualties? A typo I guess.
Hi! thanks for your comment.
The article has been updated to omit inaccuracies and add missing detailes and nuances.
Cheers!