Ukraine: So, Let’s Talk Strategy from Today Onward

Ukraine’s President Zelensky says Russian forces are committing genocide in his country. Ukraine, experts say, needs to prove an intention to destroy a group in whole or in part and that is not immediately apparent So, everyone, let’s forget about the civilian bodies strewn in streets and residential areas as evidence of genocide and think of them as war crimes and crimes against humanity. But hell, don’t use the term genocide.

For Now, anyway. But it might get a little too uncomfortable.

Let’s talk strategy, let’s talk gas prices, let’s talk, then argue, but let’s remain comfortable while people die for our democracy.

Strategy: Russia First: Take over Mariupol, thereby creating a bridge between Crimea and those areas of the Russian forces in Donetsk. From here the Russians will continue further north.

Whether they will succeed in achieving this goal is open to dispute. The Russians, as I understand it, haven’t yet been able to push forward from the territory they gained eight years ago. It is to America and Europe’s benefit that the Russians fail. So, what is America’s strategy?

From the start it has been about sanctions. I don’t know, how many oligarchs have been sanctioned? A dozen? There are hundreds. The reason the people become oligarchs is because they understand about money, how to hide, invest, and share. Does anyone imagine that Putin, seeing such division between NATO and Trumps America, that he wouldn’t know what was coming? Sanctions are standard stuff, right?

Did Putin believe that Trump would fail to gain a second term? He was disappointed in his little minion, but not to the point the plan for Ukraine would change.

It seems to me, reading daily about this horrific event, we are concerned with semantics. We’ve seen the destruction of Bucha, and its people murdered. We’ve seen photo evidence (I know, I know, we can’t believe what we see) with civilians handcuffed and shot in the head, soldiers, and civilians lying sprawled in the streets, dead. We were in condemnation of the alleged actions of retreating Russian troops, and our President, who I want to believe, and be behind, decides firstly that these deaths are war crimes, carried out by the Russian military.

Does anyone with only a reasonable education, like me, quick to blow of his mouth, understand what constitutes a war crime?

I wanted to know, here is the answer: (1) any disproportionate attack on civilians. (2) Indiscriminate attacks on civilians. (3) Deliberate attack on civilians.

Good, now I know. So, understanding the law, my President is correct. Russia is guilty. Let’s move on.

Wait, someone wants proof. Oh, he wants to know if there was a military target close by? Were these civilians’ Ukrainian soldiers dressed up as civilians? Really? Look, Mr. Doubtfire, I’ve read the law as it stands today. Even if what you ask were true, soldiers cannot be executed on the battlefield, any more than civilians. To do so is a war crime. Yes, evidence is after the fact, as always, but we have witnesses, video, photos, and we have investigators. Naturally, helpful in a court of law, but perfectly useless to the tens of thousands killed.

More than 1200 civilians have been killed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine according to the United Nations. We know it is far more.

Six journalists are among these people. The images these people captured from the Russian invasion have been widely shared and published. What courage. What a service to those innocents who died, and those journalists who risked and lost their recording the suffering, the joy, the hope, the despair of it all.

Is anyone confused as to why Ukraine hasn’t hit back on Russian soil? Or has it?

The oil storage depot in Belgorod, a Russian city just north of Ukraine, was reportedly attacked by two Ukrainian helicopters. Ukraine isn’t up for boasting about it, whether it did or not. Russia, too, is shy about declaring too much. I’m confused by this episode in the war. Is Russia embarrassed by such an attack having claimed air superiority? While this might have been a big win for Ukraine, the evidence and rhetoric is inconclusive.

Getting back to Strategy: Zelensky repeats the need for weapons. He gets them. You know, mostly the old Russian weapons. Today the President will announce another $750,000,000 worth of weapons. Perhaps there are helicopters, and planes, but don’t hold your breath. This is the whole strategy as I see it playing out. It will only change when Russia crosses a ‘red line’ and we are all aware what that means. Nukes, germ warfare, etc. etc.

Putin doesn’t need to go that far. He doesn’t care if ten million people die. He doesn’t care if that is ten million of his own people. He will continue to threaten, we will cower, we will try to negotiate, sanction everything but ours and Europe’s comfort, and somewhere in the not-too-distant future Zelensky will die. Putin will carry on as leader of Russia, he will have his land, NATO will stand firm on soft ground, and it will go down in history as a negotiation that saved another world war.

We’ll all be relieved, gas prices will begin to drop, (not the price of latte) Russia will enter a cold war for ten years, and Putin will become a ‘Great.’

Strategy: Yes, I have one. Let’s we, and Europe suffer hugely for six months. Refuse to buy Russian goods, oil, gas, wheat. Let Russia revolt against Putin and his autocracy fail.

Do we have allies or not? Do we have a common good to aim at?

When dictators see that ordinary people bring down autocrats, not military might, perhaps we can save the world.

Is it more difficult than this?

Persuade me.