Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Europe Page 1 of 17

Euro Proposal For A No Fly Zone in the Ukraine: the Consequences

By

On September 16, 2025

Comments

In the aftermath of several errant Russia drones crashing into Poland, said nation’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, invoked Article 4 of NATO, and whilst giving an interview to a German paper, called for  “a limited, NATO/EU-run no-fly buffer for drones nearing alliance airspace.”

Dmitri Medvedev, the former president of the Russiann Federation while speaking at a Russian Security Council meeting on Moday said that “Russia would consider NATO forces protecting Ukrainian airspace as a declaration of war. . . .”

Russia, it should be added, asserted that “that “no targets on the territory of Poland were planned for destruction,” and that the drones it used in Ukraine have a flight range of no more than 700 kilometers (435 miles).” I would add the Russian first deputy Permanent Representative  to the UN made a very good point in an interview this morning. He asked simply, “cui bono?”

Cui bono notwithstanding, a lot remains open for interpreation, especially without the evidence being reported on seriously and assiduously. (Which won’t happen in the West.) That said, the number of drones that landed or were shot down in Poland is troubling. Look at this map for a better idea of what worries me. I’ve heard several explanations, from Ukrainian spoofing and EW warfare, to a false flag operation. Spoofing, EW warfare, cui bono or false flag–any others?–really doesn’t matter. It is simply bad ju-ju for all parties concerned.

Regardless of what really happened, are we absolutely insane?

Have our diplomats and leaders lost all touch with reality? If we declare and attempt to enforce a No-Fly Zone over the Ukraine we are declaring war on the Russian Federation. Declaring war on a nuclear power that could absorb a full force first strike by the USA much better than we could absorb their very robust response is as stupid as someone with brains for dynamite who cannot blow the wax out of their ears if their brains exploded.

Thank heavens for the brothers Lieven, one, Dominic, is an historian of empire, the other, whom I will quote below, is foreign policy analyst that writes frequently for the site Responsible Statecraft. Anatol is an adult in a childish firmament of foreign policy know-nothings, like Kaja Kallas. As one Russian observer said about her: she is critically undereducated. But back to Anatol, as he writes on the drones falling in Poland: “We should remember that during the Cold War, there were a number of far more serious violations of air space by both sides, some of them leading to NATO planes being shot down and American and British airmen killed. These incidents led not to threats of war, but careful attempts to de-escalate tensions and develop ways to avoid such clashes.” What a mature idea. I wish we had more adults in the room, so to speak.

The whole Ukraine debacle has only unravelled our power faster than if adults were running our foreign policy. And a No Fly Zone over the Ukraine is the height of childish, bat-shit crazy ideas. But then, we have not had an adult running our foreign policy since George Schultz left foggy bottom on January 20, 1989. I take that back, the last adult to manage our foreign policy was James A. Baker, who left foggy bottom on August 23, 1992. It has been unipolar willy nilly serially destroying nation after nation ever since.

It has got to stop. I just fear how it ultimately will stop.

If you’ve read this far, and you’ve read some of my articles and most if not all of Ian’s, then you might wish to Subscribe or donate. Ian has written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, need the money to keep the shop running. So please, consider it.

Follow Up and And Reply On My “How to Lose Allies” Post

By

On September 10, 2025

Comments

First, I want to follow up on this: “I am due to have a conversation with a friend that lives in Denmark tomorrow and I’m going to ask him about energy prices.”

His reply, and I paraphrase as I did not record it or take notes: “if we still had to make our house payment, we would be totally screwed. The amount of money that we pay for energy now is about equal to what our house payment used to be. It’s about five times higher than it normally is, but what’s even worse is the high cost of energy filters out into everything in the Danish economy. A simple item like bread is three times higher than it used to be. Specialty items are three or four times higher than they used to be. Fish from fisherman that we go to the docks to buy from because we live on an island is four times more expensive because they’re paying four times more for the energy they’re using to go out and fish. It’s brutal and it’s all because the United States or somebody allied with it blew up the Nord stream pipeline. I try to keep my mouth shut about this because most people have drank the Kool-Aid, but I really hope Russia wins because I’m sick of all this global elite bullshit.”

These words were spoken by a well educated American married to a Dane with two teen-aged Danish children. If the Danish economy is suffering like this Germany must be fucked.

Where does Europe get its energy now? From the US, now exporting LNG (liquid natural gas) to Europe for 4x the price of Russian and Turkmen natural gas. Here is my question as a Texan: why haven’t natural gas prices risen in tandem with the export of the commodity? People I have asked who recieve natural gas royalties are pissed because there is no price increase pass through. So, owners of the wells are getting screwed and so are the buyers of the product. Welcome to Oligarchical America.

Next I want to address a handful of commenters in my post, best reprersented by Mark Level. He writes, in a very gracious and polite comment that he takes issue with my outline of American Grand Strategy. He notes, “This insane hobby-horse (or idee fixe, choose your metaphor) dates back far more than 120 years, probably 3x that long, and originates in British Colonial phobias about Russia and “the East” generally. Halford John Mackinder developed this lunacy & published it almost exactly 120 years ago, but it had a long pre-natal development among arrogant Imperial gits in Asia. (Gits and twits, upper-class British twits, like the Monty Python sketch.) See here, and the delightful childish fantasy of being Alexander Magnus from this Mackinder thought bubble . . . .”

Please note, first and foremost, I used the word hostile power or hostile coalition. Hostile being the primary variable.

I’ve read Mackinder’s works. Anyone who has traveled across the Silk Road pretty much has to read them. His idea is not necessarily original. It’s more a fusion of ideas that came out of the late 18th century and 19th century Western European dominance of the world that began, as I previously mentioned, with the defeat of Venice in 1509,  Portugal’s conquest of a Spice Empire, and its desrtuction of the Ottoman Navy in the Indian Ocean, thus having no rivals, and of course Spain’s rapacious theft of New World gold and silver.

During the 17th and 18th century, a new idea developed with the growth of the British Navy, who outstripped the Dutch and pretty much took over their empire. New York City was, after all, New Amsterdam. What these developments presaged was an idea that centered around the ascendancy of the Littoral powers over the Continental Empires that had ruled Eurasia for millenia. Gunpowder, boats, better firearms, better steel and in the New World, devastating disease leading to genocide in many cases up and down North and South America. The Littoral is defined by strategists “as those land areas (and their adjacent areas and associated air space) that are susceptible to engagement and influence from the sea.” Thus the emphasis on a strong navy by Alfred Thayer Mahan who proved just how dominant Littoral Powers could be. For a time, that is, only for a time, as I see it.

Add to this ascendancy the wars of the Western European powers of the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and the Holy Roman Empire primarily fought during the 18th century for two strategic reasons, primarily by two very different nations with very different vital national interests at stake.

One, was the United Kingdom’s insistence that no power could dominate the Low Lands of the Netherlands and later Belgium because if they could, it would threaten an invasion of the British Isles, plus their massive exports of wool textiles, fueling the nascent industrial revolution. Smart, if ruthless policy.

Second, we must understand France‘s main goal during the wars of this time (and for several centruies prior) was to ensure a divided Germany. So long as the German states were littered into 100 different little principalities France had nothing to worry about. Thus France could go on dominating the continent. The first seismic change to this was the War of the Sixth Coalition which saw for the first time Russia flex its true potential when Russian troops occupied Paris. France’s cataclysm occured not in 1941 but in 1870 with her defeat in the Franco-Prussian war. The result of which was Prussia unifying all of Germany into one empire, adding insult to injury by having the Kaiser crowned in Versailles and taking Alsace Lorraine away as its prize.

Fuse those two strategies together and it is not too far an intellectual leap, considering the Great Game going on at the time between the UK and the Russian Empire, for Mackinder to conjure up his ideas. Were his ideas taken up by the United Kingdom? You bet, but by 1917 when it was clear that the United Kingdom could no longer maintain the balance of power in Europe and the United States had to intervene, (everyone should read AJP Taylor’s magnum opus, The Struggle For Mastery in Europe, to understand the balance of power and its collapse in 1917) US foreign policy intellectuals adopted it. And rightly so.

I think it’s the correct idea. But my reasons for thinking it’s the correct idea are not gonna make many of you happy. You might have to face some hard truths. Oh yeah, I did tell you I was a Realist in the old school manner of the word? In fact there have been a few times when Ian has chastened me pretty seriously for my realism. With that admisssion I will make another one: I don’t mind the criticism from Ian or from others. Ian is probably the smartest person I’ve ever met in my life and I listen to what he has to say. And when I say listen to him, I mean, I consider his words deeply. A man who cannot change his mind will never change anything. Nevertheless, I digress.

Here are my reasons for why I believe the prevention of a single hostile power or coalition of hostile powers from dominating the Eurasian landmass is smart policy. Please, if you take anything away from this sentence, take the meaning hostile. 

Number one: the Monroe Doctrine. Oh, I hear you screaming already. But the fact is that if this were not “our” hemisphere, not a one of us would have the standard of living we do today. Our hegemony of the Western Hemisphere is the primary foundation of our wealth and our power. You might not like it. I grimace frequently at the crimes we comitt to protect it. But, the Westphalian System is not built on justice. It is built on the acceptance of international anarchy. Each nation to its own. There is no single sovereign power governing planet Earth. Thus, violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. Is this a grim Hobbesian outlook? Yes. I don’t like it and I’m pretty sure you don’t either. But as a realist, I take the world as it is, not as I desire it to be. A hostile power or coalition of hostile powers that dominate Eurasia can take that hegemony away. You might not like it but trust me when I say you don’t want that to happen.

Second, a hostile power or coalition of hostile powers that dominate Eurasia can take more than our hegemony away, it/they can invade us. We don’t want that either. Thus we have a powerful navy that projects power to keep Eurasia divided–for the time being, because I think if we get into a war with China, their indirect way of war–read your Sun Tzu–will probably outwit us on the high seas. I’ve spent a great deal of time in China and have a healthy fear of their capabilities. However, my greatest fear is that in our arrogance we will engender the very hostility we must prevent and by our own devices bring about the doom we should seek to avoid. We have lost our edge, our generosity of spirit and our understanding of power. We have become a mean spirited, two-bit, cheap and vulgar people. And sadly, because so many of us are beaten down economically by rich elites who are delusional, we’re going to lose a big war in a painful way. A war that could be avoided, but probably won’t be. I hope I’m wrong, but don’t think I am.

That said, these very wise words, written by Robert D. Kaplan recently, convey the gravity of our present predicament, “There is no prediction. It is only through coming to terms with the past and vividly, realizing the present that we can have premonitions about the future.” Moreover, as a wise woman wrote about history, “the more I study history, the more I learn the art of prophecy.” Deeply contradictory statements, yet both true in their essence.

Are we any more perceptive now about what awaits our planet than were the Russians of 1917, or all of Europe in 1914, and, for that matter, the Germans of the 1920s and the early 30s?

Do we honestly think we know better than they did? With all of our gadgets and our technological triumphalism I bet you there are a handful of you out there that think we do know better than they did. I hate to disappoint you, but we don’t. History is the story of contingency and human agency, not inevtiablity.

So, there it is. Rip me to shreds if you wish. I’ve suffered enough Shakespearean arrows of outrageous fortune in my 54 years to handle it. In fact, I welcome your ideas and if you got this far I’m grateful for your time.

If you’ve read this far, and you’ve read some of my articles and most if not all of Ian’s, then you might wish to Subscribe or donate. Ian has written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, need the money to keep the shop running. So please, consider it.

The US-UK Special Relationship is Officially Dead

By

On July 11, 2025

Comments

I doubt any of you will recall, but in 2003 I wrote a long post over at a different place, that NATO was dead. It was useless, much like the Concert of Europe that emerged after the 1848 Revolutions in Europe recast and sought to revise the settlement of 1815, set up by Castlereagh-Metternich and Talleyrand.

So, today it’s official: the US-UK Special Relationship is dead. It’s been moribund for a long time, since after the Iraqi invasion there was a huge groundswell of UK citizens that resented their country being the American poodle. Lip service was paid, but now, no longer. That the Brits have to turned to the French says a lot.

With the Northwood Declaration the Brits have indicated their nuclear arsenal will no longer be under the unified command of SACEUR. The Brits will instead “Decouple” from the Americans and integrate with their continental ally, France. For decades the UK’s nuclear arsenal was inoperable without the USA, as it is so much based on American technology, command and control dependency, even the Brits boomers (SSBN) are dependent on US technology, namely the UGM-133 Trident II, a submarine launched ballistic missile made for the US and Royal Navies in America.

The UK has four Vanguard-class boomers in service, which each carry a potential total of 16 SLBMs. Each SLBM Is MIRVed, deploying a potential total of 192 nuclear warheads with yields of 100kt each per submarine. In 2021 the government of Boris Johnson implemented a policy of ‘deliberate ambiguity’ so the exact size and scope of the UK’s nuclear arsenal is unknown.

France, like the UK, maintains a small fleet of four Triomphant-class boomers. Each French boomer can carry up to 16 French-made M45 or M51 SLBMs, that are MIRVed, and French warhead yields fall between 150kt-300kt. Both British and French boomers have four torpedo tubes, the French can also launch the Exocte anti-ship missile while underwater. French boomers got some teeth.

France also maintains a small aircraft deliverable stockpile of nuclear weapons. The UK decommissioned their nuclear aircraft years ago. By French and UK law each country must have at least one boomer at sea at all times.

In the video I linked above the Deutsche Welle interviewer asks Phillips O’Brien the main question, “how historically significant this is this shift in nuclear posture from France and the UK?”

Phillips answers with typical British understatement, “well particularly from the UK but also from France because both of their nuclear deterrence particularly the UK has basically been inoperable without the USA that it’s been based on American technology a lot of it and very close cooperation uh and the idea that sort of the British would would go in a way to try and establish a nuclear deterrent that could be operated, developed and operated without the USA would be something quite extraordinary because they’ve not done anything like that before. I think it’s a sign that the United States is no longer seen as quite a reliable defense partner.”

This is decline observable in real time. This is the world that Trump has created. The nation that I once called the USS Unsinkable, no longer finds the US a reliable security partner. Imagine what our allies in Asia are thinking?

The Northwood Declaration is a concrete manifestation of how the rest of the world now sees the United States: the primary rogue nation. I knew the world would change a great deal in my lifetime, but I honestly did not think that I would see this. Thirty one years ago this summer I got my first passport and headed to Europe. I remember thinking about my passport as almost like one would think of an American Express card. It was my key to the world and I could go anywhere. That was true until about 10 years ago. What a world we Americans pissed away.

 

As Churchill once said, “friends are not permanent, interests are.”

Verdun Then and Now

By

On July 1, 2025

Comments

Thirty-one years ago on my first trip overseas I visited Verdun in France. Specifically to see the battlefield of Verdun, where von Falkenhayn sought to bleed the French white. From 21 February 1916 to 18 December 1916, 9 months, 3 weeks and 6 days the Boche–the term the French used for the Germans–did exactly that. I’d written my senior’s honor thesis in history on Verdun and felt it was right to visit.

Fallen Lion of France at the Verdun Battlefield

I’m not going to go into too much detail. You can read about it in its fullness here. I only want to add a few things. First, this was the first time any general attempted a strategy of attrition. Some of what Grant did during the Wilderness and the siege of Fredricksburg is semi-attritional, but it wasn’t Grant’s spoken intent as it was the explicit aim of the Cheif of the German General Staff Erich von Falkenhayn’s. He knew he could not break through the ring of forts surrounding the Meuse Heights and the medieval city of Verdun. His aim was to take the heights and dig in and then take the strategic defensive, forcing France to regain her honor at any cost. 50 German divisions squared off against 75 French. von Falkenhayn succeeded in forcing France’s hand, certainly. In the end his strategy was a failure and he was dismissed by the Kaiser and replaced by Ludendorff and Hindenburg, who quickly established a military dictatorship over the Second Reich for the remainder of the war. Needless to say that over a million men–French and German–died fighting in the trenches along and up the heights and into the forts Douamont and Vaux trading them back several times.

Fort Douamont on the Meuse Heights

If the Miracle on the Marne was the most important battle of the 20th century–and it was we ought paraphrase Churchill and call it France’s finest hour. That being so makes the Battle of Verdun one the finest last stands in the annals of human endeavor. To a man the good, stolid French poilus stood and died in the mud, the filth, the lice, the decaying bodies and the artillery shells shattering overhead all day long, every day for almost a year.

When I visited in 1994 I walked from the city of Verdun all the way up the heights along the single supply route the French called the “voie sacrée” – the sacred way. It was ten miles there and ten miles back. A long day. I walked through trenches, both forts Douamont and Vaux and at the end of the day I walked, rather solemnly through the hallowed arches of the Ossuary, which holds the bones of over 130,000 unidentified French and German soldiers. There was no entrance fee for anything and I was free to roam just about anywhere I wished, except when I saw signs that declared, “Non! Munitions non explosées!” Unexploded ordnance, still active almost a hundred years after being fired.

Ossuary of Verdun

So this morning I watched a video made by a young French woman of the battlefield and its environs. A lot has changed. There is a new, modern museum, and to walk the grounds and see the museum cost about $20. The young woman does an admirable job of guiding the viewer through the most important parts of what I now guess is a monument park of sorts called Mémorial de Verdun Champ de bataille. She’s tactful, sincere, respectful and cognizant of the sacrifice the men made for her. She honors them in her own way. I was pleased to see their sacrifice is still remembered and revered. (As some of you may recall, I had the good fortune to befriend an American WWI veteran in the 1990s before he passed away. So, WWI is important to me, I carry the memory of one of the last American soldiers to fight in the war and I cherish that memory.) She also pays her respects to the Germans who fell during the battle (part of the site was re-dedicated in the 50’s after the Franco-German rapproachment after WWII). She even visited the graves of our doughboys who fought in the area in 1918.

In all honesty, I can’t say I would have enjoyed walking through the museum. Of course seeing the uniforms and the kit of the poilus was fascinating, but there was a rich, chilling awe of gravitas to my imagination that day as I walked through the empty echoing halls of forts Douamont and Vaux. There were no wax figures as there are now. Only a haunting silence. If I listened closely enough I could almost hear the distant echoes of incoming artillery. The shots of mausers. The cracks of the countering French Berthiers. And the loud pops and booms of French and German grenades.

Sometimes less is more.

Regardless, it was an unforgetable experience.

Losing Our Asian Allies – And Fast

By

On June 25, 2025

Comments

Ian in his last post mentioned that our Asian allies are slipping away from us. While we pretend to strategically re-orient the Japanese are engaging in massive rearmament begun by Abe and being continued by the current government. Japan has lost confidence in the American security umbrella because of the deceit we’ve displayed in foreign relations. The Koreans? I lived in Korea. They’re simply apoplectic. Some are even at the point where they are willing to consider a loose confederation with the north, an entente of sorts so the South has the protection of the North’s nuclear umbrella and the North gains goods and services from the South.

This is simply unheard of. When I talked to one of my former students who now works in the foreign ministry and he told me this I was gobsmacked.

Ian’s correct. For 400 years the balance of payments from the rest of the world went to the Littoral seapower states. For the last 50 years the balance of payments has been reversed.  All that gold is going back home. In one generation the United States has squandered all the goodwill and wealth it received during WWI and WWII. China in the last 50 years has lifted more people out of poverty than the rest of the world did during all of recorded history. Chew on that stat for a moment.

I will be visiting China and South Korea to do a 20 year retrospective tour and a 30 year retrospective tour on the former and the latter. I don’t know what to expect, but I remember China 20 years ago and being blown away.

The USA is in deep strategic shit. For 200+ years our power has been based on our complete hegemony of this hemisphere. For 75 of the last 100 years our main strategic goal has been the prevention of one power or an alliance of powers attaining hegemonic power over the Eurasian landmass. In the last six years we’ve abandoned that VITAL national interest for what? We’ve driven Russia into the arms of China. India lost all confidence in us. Now East Asia has.

If a single power or coalition of powers dominate the Eurasian landmass our two oceans will not protect us.

It appears I might have been wrong about the Israeli-Iran pissing contest being the opening act of WWIII. Good. What it really feels like is the first Balkan War in 1912. The calculus is being made in Beijing. And Tokyo. And Seoul. And Taipei. We lack the ability to protect our allies conventionally. And no one wants nukes.

I don’t have any smart quip to conclude with except a Spanish expletive, “la puebla es jodida.”

You get the idea.

The Real Reason for French Collapse at the Outset Of WWII

By

On June 18, 2025

Comments

I doubt one in ten of you know the importance of the Battle of the Marne? Quite simply, had the French, plus a smallish-medium but crucial contigent of soldiers from the UK, not halted the invading Germans at the Marne, the 20th century would have looked very different. Sure, von Moltke the Younger lost his nerve and pulled two corps from his right flank, and shipped them East to help fend off the Russian hordes. But, the French were glorious at the Marne, and each and every one of us owe a debt a gratitude to France for the elan and courage.

As Holger Herwig writes in The Marne, 1914, “At dawn on 6 September, 980,000 French and 100,000 British soldiers with 3,000 guns assaulted the German line of 750,000 men and 3,300 guns [across a front stretching from] Verdun and Paris.” The Miracle of the Marne had begun. By the 9th of September the Germans were in full retreat. For the next three days they were battered by and bloodied by the French and English. Most historians of World War One agree that the Miracle on the Marne was the most important battle the 20th century.

What followed were two giant armies trying to outflank each other in a race to the sea. Then, they settled down into four years of siege warfare. Now, all the European observers who came to watch our Civil War — von Molke the Elder was one of them — all took away the wrong lesson. They were more interested in the use of railroads for logistics — not unimportant. But, had they really paid attention to just how much proto-siege warfare was conducted during our Civil War, they might have anticipated trench warfare and its horrific casualties. Fredericksburg anyone?

So, we got four years of muck. And for France, in that four years, the flower of her youth perished. Cheese-eating surrender monkeys is the most common and ugly perjorative for them that I can think of at present. It refers to the French collapse in six weeks and one day in the face of the German Invasion. But no one asks the question why? There is a one word answer: Demographics.

One of every six young men in France’s Lost Generation died. Not wounded, or maimed. Dead. Add in the cost of the maimed and disfigured, the skewed ration between men and women? Twenty years later when their children had to serve the nation, they were simply unwilling to endure the sacrifices of the previous war. Not in the face of all the odious crimes of the Nazis.

So, any time I hear about cheese eating surrender monkeys, someone gets an unsolicited history lesson.

Both The UK and Germany Are Going to Go Full Anti-Democratic or Full Trumpian

By

On May 9, 2025

Comments

So, Starmer continues his massive austerity program, just kissed Trump’s ass with a terrible trade deal, and:

Meanwhile, in Germany:

Christian Democrat Friedrich Merz has been confirmed as Germany’s new chancellor. His grand coalition is off to a rocky start — and its call on Germans to swallow austerity is sure to make things worse…

… Merz’s cabinet completely sidelined the more socially conscious “Christian-social” wing of his party. New SPD head Lars Klingbeil initially promised a complete turnaround, a “generational change” for the party after the failures under previous chancellor Olaf Scholz. No one from the left wing of the SPD is represented in government…

What they’re going to try is some military Kenesianism. It won’t work.

So, the AfD, Germany’s right wing Trumpist style party will either wind up in charge soon, or it will be banned or lawfared into the ground.

Centrists spent generations crushing the left. Starmer purged Labour almost entirely of the left after he became leader. But a lot of ordinary people want centrists out. Since the left is usually not viable, they go right, and by right I mean damn near Nazi.

Anyway Merz is a ‘tard, the last gasp of the centrists: “give the rich even more money. More! More! More! Hurt ordinary people to pay for it!” Then come the fucking Nazis. Or, if they refuse to let them win, democracy effectively dies, and violent resistance will begin.

Absolute morons, so blinded by neoliberal ideology and greed that they refuse to ever really help ordinary people, with predictable results. I only hope that when the right does get in power, instead of lining up the trans, gays and socialists first they say hello to people like Merz and Starmer and they get to reap as they have sowed.

Oh, and those people supporting parties like the AfD and Reform who aren’t rich fascists? You’re idiots. Fools. Poltroons. Morons. They will betray you and hurt you, just as Trump has done to the majority of his supporters. Go left, or be destroyed. Your choice and most of you are making the wrong one.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. – Mencken

This blog has always been free to read, but it isn’t free to produce. If you’d like to support my writing, I’d appreciate it. You can donate or subscribe by clicking on this link.

Aeschylus Was As Right 2,540 Years Ago As He Is Right Today

By

On May 9, 2025

Comments

2,540 year ago Aeschylus said,”in war truth is the first causualty.” Even though this might be true it should not preclude us from making every attempt possible at uncovering and showing others the truth. I believe in the truth as much as I believe it is capable to be objective. Anyone who says that an “objective journalist is a myth,” is a liar with an agenda. Do we all have biases? You bet. It is in the recognition of said biases and overcoming them is how the truth emerges.

That said, the best, most balanced site concerning operational, strategic and tactical reporting on the Russo-Ukrainian Warcan be found at the Austrian Military Academy.

These two are the most recent, here and the Ukrainian Purgatory, here. Both are in flawless, if somewhat accented, English.

Perhaps we can claw back a bit of truth from the great Greek dramatists hell.

Page 1 of 17

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén