The way I see it, humanity is a big system. A system of systems: a system of actions and reactions, all constantly in the state of flux, in the process of interacting with each other. Correspondingly, a war is a system, too: a system of political decisions and action, and of military decisions and actions.

This is why in my work I’m striving to obtain (at least) enough information to explain the ‘system’ of the war in question: to obtain enough information to become capable of reconstructing how, who, when, where, and why ‘something happened’ - and that from top decision-makers, to tactical decision-makers, and from weapons systems of strategic- to those of tactical importance.

Admittedly, until I find a tactical development is of ‘at least’ operational-level importance, I’m rarely venturing into minute details of tactical importance: this is why I’m not collecting ‘every single photo of a destroyed tank or aircraft’, nor collecting every single link of where did I read this or that bit of info. Arguably, sometimes that’s a ‘mistake’: either because I am thus likely to miss something important, or because when then challenged to ‘provide proofs’, I can’t do so. Sorry, but, that’s not discouraging me, nor am I going to change anything about the way I work, about the way I explain things.

I’ll continue working the way I did the last 40 years. if for no other reason then because my standpoint is that history is science. Exactly the kind of science like mathematics or physics. So much so, the same ‘1+1 = 2’ valid in the latter two, is valid for history as well. Because history is science, the related research never stops, but is something that must be consistently refined. This process of constant refinement of research is automatically resulting in constant updates: stopping the process of constantly updating knowledge is ‘deadly’. Mentally, and physically. Therefore, I’m sure, I’ll at least ‘stumble’ over that ‘important detail I’ve missed’, intentionally or by chance, and rather sooner than later.

That said, not only me, but Donald and Benjamin are (also) growing fed up of ‘certain topics’ – especially when, actually, these consist of little else but incompetent politicians and sensationalist media, babbling and babbling about exaclty the same issues, all over again. Sadly, time and again such affairs get so many people excited, make so many people upset, we cannot avoid them, and that no matter how much we would prefer to do so (if for no other reason, then because we would prefer to focus on what matters - at least to us, or in our opinions): instead, we’re forced into reacting to what are misconceptions presented as ‘criticism’.

Criticism and critique might sound similar, but are not the same. I consider criticism for unsubstantiated babbling, usually by somebody with an agenda (my own experience is teaching me that in my ‘business’, such agendas are principally coloured by racism, chauvinism, and religiously-motivated mythology); and critique for something constructive. So much so, I love constructive critique, because I’m learning from it.

…and (this must be my getting younger by the day) I have ever less tolerance vis-à-vis criticism.

Therefore, if you have critique: please, go on and explain it. Be constructive and use as much ‘space’ as offered by this platform as you like. Just: single-liners in style of ‘you’re wrong’ are pointless. ‘I’ve heard you’re wrong’ – do not work with me either, because I’ve heard both of these only about 3 Zillion of times in my life, and, meanwhile, do not care any more about people who cannot explain me why.

For all of these reasons, here, one, final attempt to explain some of my standpoints regarding latest of ‘Ukraine-related Developments’. Please, be so kind, do at least me a big favour and read carefully: I’m really reaching a point where it’s becoming pointless to re-explain the very same issues again and again.

***

The first of mis-concepts I would like to address is that the situation of Ukraine would be ‘dire’. (For example ‘as dire as that Zelensky had to travel to Washington and sign that treaty, or else…’… whatever that ‘else’ might mean for you.)

It is not. At least not by my ‘scale’.

Erm.,.. What is that scale of mine?

For me, the situation would be dire if the things would be far worse than they are now. Foremost if the mass of Ukrainians would start giving up.

To make sure: I went through such a situation, ‘first hand’. I’ve been there when the mass of Syrian insurgents was so frustrated by the entire World either turning its back on them, or supporting Assad and IS and attacking their families and slaughtering then by thousands - that they started giving up. When, after five years of bitter fighting, my surviving friends and acquittances were literally fleeing the country in droves, most of them determined (until this very day), never to go back.

Sure, millions of Ukrainians have fled Ukraine. And sure, many of them are never going to go back. But, the mass of them did so back in 2022. And the mass of them are women, and then women taking care of kids. (Disclaimer for those oversensitive about issues of this kind: no, I’m no sexist, and have no ‘problem with women with kids’, but I’m pointing this out simply because somebody has to take care of kids, and in the case of Ukrainians it so happens that the men are drafted for military services, women are not, and thus its mostly the women who have to care about the kids. I.e. this is a simple matter of fact, you like it or not).

Point is, I see no trace of ‘millions of Ukrainian men’ doing anything similar. On the contrary: the mass of those I happen to know are not just ‘willing’, but eager to keep on fighting the Russian invaders. Indeed, the mass of families, the mass of ‘women taking care of kids’ are supporting ‘their men’ – husbands, fathers, sons – with all their powers. They all are determined to continue fighting and to defeat the Russians.

They all say it clearly: ‘all’ they need is skilled commanders. People treating them correctly – starting with providing their men with proper military training and organisation.

Indeed, in such a case, even people who are currently avoiding and/or refusing mobilisation say they wouldn’t mind joining.

But, this is something their own president is refusing to provide (though his refusal to force the command of the ZSU into major reforms of organisation and training).

Therefore, I’ll end this entry with a question for all of you: is it then me who is ‘wrong’ and should be ‘ashamed’ to (quote) ‘talk poorly of Zelensky’ – or is it so that the people declaring him a ‘hero’ and comparing him with Churchill in their delirium of happiness for, actually, Zelensky failing to sign a treaty he was so horny about signing, might want to get their feet back on the ground?

***

The second thing somebody asked about was, how do I think, How exactly is Zelensky incompetent?

1.) Zelensky is desperate enough to have accepted that (third version of the) ‘mineral treaty’ – an entirely pointless piece of paper, about a quarter of which consists of Ukraine giving up a significant portion of its sovereignty, and another quarter of declarations that ‘details are going to be discussed later on’.

It’s certain to sound cruel for many, but: for me, desperation is an indication of incompetence. It means that the person in question knows no way out and knows nobody who can help.

Actually, there are always ‘ways out’ of predicament, no matter what kind. And there are always people willing to help.

Unsurprisingly, Ukraine has lots of ways out. The principal way out of Ukrainian predicament is re-thinking: reforming so to open or find these ways out. Such reforms require constructive leadership. Right now, Ukraine has none of that, which is why the people who have left themselves be elected into their position (read: Zelensky) see not one of the ways out - but to capitulate to a bully in exchange for ‘security guarantees’.

Beg your pardon (and that’s the Point 2), but: that itch in my small toe tells me that Ukraine has received so many ‘security guarantees’ that I’m fed up of that terminology. Regardless who has issued them: all of them have been proven as null and void. Not worth the paper on which they were printed (nor signatures of all the possible ‘heroes’ and ‘great statesmen’).

Therefore: the question is, who is as… cough… as incompetent as to expect some ‘new sort’, some ‘extra-super-turbo security guarantees’, and that provided by a character like Trump?

Sorry but: me not.

3.) What were Ukrainian diplomats in Washington DC advising Zelensky in this regards? What was the SZRU (Ukrainian foreign intelligence service) advising him? What was his Yermak (Presidential Advisor) advising him? Did Zelensky listen to any of them?

Because, if they have told him anything like ‘count on Trump, his security guarantees are solid’ – they’ve all done a piss-poor job.

(Indeed: ‘even if’ they have only failed to advise Zelensky not to ever come to the idea to start explaining to Trump about how ‘bad’ are things going to get for him/USA – and that ‘live on TV’ – they have already done a piss-poor job.)

And if he didn’t listen to them, then he not only did a piss-poor job, but is simply incompetent, and it’s no surprise he’s desperate, too.

4.) Going there to Washington DC to sign such a piece of paper is beyond desperation: that IS ‘playing with millions of lives’. Especially if coming from somebody declared a ‘hero’ and compared with Churchill, while proven as unable to at least fire an incompetent commander of his armed forces, not to talk about prompt a serious reform of the latter.

…the fact Zelensky didn’t stand up and walk out the moment Vance began to babble his vermin is also ‘speaking volumes’.

5.) Related to all of this was Zelensky’s answer to (constructive) critique by another foreign analyst, in yet another of his interviews of the last two-three days. That answer was in style of (from memory): the person in question can come to live in Ukraine, take Ukrainian citizenship and then Zelensky is going to listen to him…

Well, by side the person in question is well-meant, and has picked himself analyst as profession, by side Zelensky was more than ready to listen to Trump, Vance etc… but: as far as I know, nobody forced Zelensky to apply for becoming the President of Ukraine. Especially not at a gun point. Therefore, it was nobody but his own actions that brought him into the position in which he feels as desperate as to go signing that ‘minerals treaty’ – and that in exchange for some daydreaming about Trump’s super-extra-ultra security guarantees for Ukraine…

As a President of Ukraine, it’s not only one of Zelensky duties to stand critique, so also from foreign analysts, but – as somebody who is failing with every single of his ‘reforms’, as somebody proven as ill-advised by his own aides as he has proven, and also somebody who has fallen for a number of his own illusions – he is best-advised to start listening to that critique, too.

….because, if nothing else: that would at least point him at several ways out of his desperation.

With other words: a refusal to listen to constructive critique is incompetence, too.

***

Post Scriptum

Actually: after watching Zelensky travelling there to Washington DC and then appearing, live on TV, as ill-prepared for eventualities as he was, and then getting ambushed because he was ill-prepared, plus playing the leading role in the making of the TV-commercial ‘Zelensky is a warmonger who wants no peace’… what is making anybody of you reading this ‘sure’, he is a ‘hero’? What is making you happy? ‘Sure’ things are now going to get so much better?

I do hope you all have at least one better explanation but sheer nationalist pride, wishful thinking, or sensationalism: I do hope – most sincerely – it’s something better than the fact that Trump, Vance, Rubio etc. are so greedy and selfish, they are even more incompetent than Zelensky.

I’m all ear. Please, teach me.

***

The same is valid for all those cheering Moron- and Satirical’s announcement of some glorious peace plan for Ukraine.

Come on and engage more than one brain cell: what kind of ‘peace plan’ is now ‘going to work’, which is including only EU+UK+Ukraine, while ignoring Putin & Russia?

Cold fact is: any such plan is as ‘good’ as any peace plan including only USA and Russia, but completely ignoring Ukraine (and EU).

…which, I’m sure you’re all going to agree: equals ‘good’ with ‘rubbish’.

Actually: all of this is just another indication that the zombie idiots wetting their underwear while drawing that plan (and scoring PR-points by letting themselves be photographed while hugging Zelensky in front of the entrance to the Downing Street No. 10) are back to the very same politics of appeasement, which has already failed the last 11 years.

The only difference is that this time they’re going to try appeasing Trump, instead of Putin.

***

…and that’s it. Like them or not, these are my conclusions. Please, be so kind and keep them in mind whenever continuing to read this blog. Or feel free to discontinue reading. Just, please, do not ask me about this again: we’ve – all – wasted far too much precious time with these affairs.

‍