WAR IN UKRAINE: ANALYSIS AND HISTORICAL NOTES
The military confrontation taking place in Eastern Europe seems to have, by the admission of Washington’s leadership itself, the objective of wearing down Russian power, militarily and financially, to the point of leading it to economic and military collapse. But could the war in Ukraine really have such an outcome? Let’s try to understand it by analyzing the issue from a purely historical and geostrategic point of view.
The continental immensity and the climatic and territorial harshness of the Russian territory:
First of all, there is one aspect to clarify. Russia has an exceptional ally in the vastness and characteristics, climatic and otherwise, of its territory. History has provided us with exceptional evidence of this. We could say that Moscow has in the immensity and crudeness of its territory a “geographical” ally similar to that which for England is its insular nature (a nature which has preserved it, for example, from the attempted invasions of its territory plotted by Hitler and Napoleon). And in fact it was impossible to conquer it for all those who tried, even with powerful armies. Ukraine (which, let us remember, has been a geopolitical reality that has been autonomous from Moscow for just thirty years but has always been part of the geopolitical context of the Russian state) has territorial and climatic characteristics completely similar to those of the rest of European Russia. The vastness of its territory (with its approximately 600,000 km2, Ukraine is the second largest state in Europe after Russia) as well as its climatic and rainfall conditions appear very similar to those of Russia. Its winter is harsh (with constant temperatures around or below zero, but with frequent waves of Siberian cold) and long (it generally starts snowing in mid-November and the snow cover remains until mid-March). Spring and autumn are exceptionally rainy, making the ground muddy and the roads impassable. In these seasons what the Russians and Ukrainians call “rasputiza” (in Russian, literally, “impassability of the roads”) takes place which paralyzes travel due to the impracticability of the muddy terrain. All the armies that have ventured into these parts have had to deal with the rasputiza. From Genghiz Khan’s army in the Middle Ages to Hitler’s Wehrmach in the last century. It was a dramatic confrontation since it was able to slow down and paralyze the action of these armies, bogging them down before the equally dramatic winter cold of these lands. This is why every invasion attempt against Russia achieved only temporary successes and always ultimately failed. On the other hand, it is precisely in Ukraine or near its borders that decisive battles took place for the fate of the Russian geopolitical reality (to which Kiev has always been annexed). Let’s think about the battle of Poltava, in the 18th century, which put an end to the imperial ambitions of the Swedish kingdom or the four battles of Kharkov fought during the Second World War. Epic battles that marked, in one way or another, the course of the war. Of course, the situation on the ground today seems different from the past as Russia appears to be the attacking country of a geopolitical reality (Ukraine, in fact) which freed itself from it after the collapse of the USSR. But, in truth, behind Ukraine there is the West which uses it as a terrain for an indirect (or proxy, whatever you prefer) war against Moscow. The Russian nuclear deterrent does not allow an invasion of its territory as happened in the past (which would mean the destruction of anyone who attempted it) and so the route of indirect war is attempted. However, even this type of war will encounter, for those who undertake it, all the problems that Russian territory has always presented to any invader. Logistical and climatic problems that have always exhausted all enemies. Furthermore, do not think that the Ukrainians will be able to resist the Russian army for long. Soon the West will have to intervene directly if it does not want to accept a humiliating defeat for Kiev. Will he really do it? Difficult to say, also given the fact that a direct NATO clash against Russia would open the doors to a possible nuclear conflict. More likely, the Anglo-Saxon empire is aiming for a coup that could overthrow the current Russian establishment in the hope that the new one could be more pro-Western. Our opinion is that the West is trying everything to repel the threat posed by Russian and Chinese expansionism on the global geopolitical chessboard. Not realizing, however, that they were falling back into the enterprise of Hitler and Napoleon as well as of the West itself immediately after the Russian revolution (1918-1920). But evidently, in Washington and London there are no great experts in historical sciences. to fall back into the enterprise of Hitler and Napoleon as well as of the West itself immediately after the Russian revolution (1918-1920). But evidently, in Washington and London there are no great experts in historical sciences. to fall back into the enterprise of Hitler and Napoleon as well as of the West itself immediately after the Russian revolution (1918-1920). But evidently, in Washington and London there are no great experts in historical sciences.
Russia faced with Napoleon’s French hegemonic attempt.
The French invasion of 1812 was, together with the German invasion of 1941, the largest and most impressive invasion of a foreign army on Russian territory. Napoleon, at war with England and master of continental Europe except Russia, after very problematic diplomatic relations with the Tsar which lasted for years without leading to a real alignment of the latter with the French positions, decided to resolve the question militarily and invaded Russia with a gigantic army (La grande armee’) composed not only of French troops but of all the European nations occupied and subjected to France. The large army was made up of approximately 700,000 men and equipped with cutting-edge war equipment (1100 cannons). The French penetrated deeply into Russian territory encountering little resistance as the Tsar’s troops, regular and otherwise, showed interest in luring the imperial army into a gigantic trap. The Napoleonic army was worn out first by the rasputiza which made the movements of the enormous army extremely difficult and then by the winter frost which paralyzed any initiative and weakened its ranks. However, in September 1812 Napoleon managed to reach Moscow which, however, was set on fire by the Russians. The French sovereign tried to confer with Tsar Alexander to obtain a peace treaty but the Tsar did not accept the invitation. In those same circumstances Napoleon learned that Russian troops were moving north from Ukraine to reinforce the ranks of the tsarist army . He therefore understood that the Russians did not intend to surrender. In truth they had only retreated to lure the enemy deeper and to await the arrival of “General Winter”. This resulted in the attack of the Russian army, under the command of the famous general Kutuzov, which overwhelmed and decimated what remained of the great Napoleonic army (which suffered, among dead, wounded and prisoners, losses of around 600,000 men). The rest is history. The vassal states of the French empire took advantage of Napoleon’s defeat to rebel against Napoleon who was deposed and locked up on the island of Elba.
Russia faced with Hitler’s hegemonic attempt.
The German invasion of 1941 was very similar to the Napoleonic one (always in the context of a hegemonic attempt aimed at imposing hegemony on the European continent). This time the undertaking proved to be simpler thanks to the great level of mechanization and motorization of the German army. On the other hand, having not known military defeats since 1939 (the year the Second World War began) and having subjugated all of continental Europe, Hitler felt able to succeed where Napoleon had failed. Furthermore, the Wermacht could certainly boast the possession of the best military technology in the world as well as an enormous availability of human resources (Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Bulgarian troops and volunteers from all over Europe participated in the undertaking). The impact of the invasion was truly devastating and during the summer of 1941 the world witnessed one of the most sudden and “lightning” military advances of all time. The Soviet Union lost approximately half of its European territory and the entire Ukraine (where most of the country’s agricultural and industrial production was concentrated). The Russian losses were also appalling in terms of human losses. In the Battle of Kiev, for example, fought in the late summer of 1941, the Germans annihilated the entire South Soviet Army Group, taking hundreds of thousands of prisoners. This battle, considered perhaps the largest encirclement battle in military history, opened German expansion towards the Caucasus and deluded Hitler into thinking he had dealt a mortal blow to the enemy. However, when autumn arrived, the German advance was paralyzed by the rasputiza and the arrival of winter even saw an attempt at a Soviet counterattack in the Moscow area which repelled the Germans (whom the frost prevented any attempt to resume the initiative) over 150 km from the Russian capital. The paralysis of the German army in the winter of 1941-1942 did not prevent Hitler (convinced that Russia had exhausted the bulk of its human and material reserves during 1941) from regaining the initiative in the spring of 1942 by pushing into autumn of that same year up to the Caucasus and the city of Stalingrad. We all know how it ended. The entire German Sixth Army was annihilated in the epic battle and the Germans began to be pushed back as far as Berlin itself. The German hegemonic attempt was shattered by the harshness and harshness of Russian territory.
Russia faced with the anti-Bolshevik invasion of 1918-1919.
Few today are aware of the Western military expedition that in 1918 took place both in European Russia (by France, England and the USA) and in Asian Russia by Japan. A total of 14 nations (including Italy) participated in the undertaking. The expedition, officially aimed at preventing the Bolsheviks from taking power in Russia, in fact represented the West’s attempt to take advantage of the profound chaos in which Russia was leading. ‘ in the period following the Brest-Litovsk Armistice to fragment Russia into several state entities under Western control. England, France and the USA also financed and armed the Ukrainian nationalists’ revolt against Moscow and even supported the rebel tsarist generals who had not joined the revolution (the so-called White Army). Despite the merciless conditions of the Bolshevik army at that particular historical juncture, the mission proved to be a complete failure. After two years of fruitless attempts to overthrow the new Russian communist government, Western troops withdrew without having achieved anything (the Japanese, who aspired to occupy Siberia and make it their own protectorate, definitively withdrew from Asian Russia in 1922). Once again the immensity and harshness of the Russian territory put the invaders in crisis who gave up on their dreams of conquest and retreated without having achieved anything from a geopolitical point of view.
WAR IN UKRAINE: ANALYSIS AND HISTORICAL NOTES. CONCLUSIONS:
In conclusion we can state that today’s war in Ukraine is nothing more than a new Russian campaign with specific peculiarities due to the Russian nuclear deterrent. The West has, in short, started a proxy war with Moscow on the territory and with the complicity of the pro-Western Ukrainian government (remember that in this country in 2014 a color revolution brought to power a government with radically pro-Western positions). Don’t be fooled by the fact that it was Russia that formally attacked Ukraine. Since 2014, Washington, London and Brussels have done nothing but foment the most extreme nationalism and anti-Russian hatred in Kiev and have supplied it with all sorts of weapons as well as Western military instructors. In Moscow, perhaps, they weren’t expecting anything else. Ukraine, with its immense mineral resources, is also attractive to Putin who wants to bring it back into the Russian sphere of influence. By hook or by crook. The war dynamics of this first year of war seems to precisely follow the history written in all the Russian campaigns previously experienced. The Russians first feel the blow, then they regroup and paralyze the enemy. They immobilize him and grind him down in an exhausting war of attrition aided by the climate and the harshness of their territory. Will it end like all the other times? We’ll see it soon.