Recipe for More Buchas

Also, Bucha, and all the Buchas before it, are the reason why I don’t like this inane talk about bad Putin. Yes, Putin is bad but he didn’t make these Russian boys rape women, murder them, and try to burn their bodies by the side of the road, among other things they’ve done. They did it for the same reason they always do. They enjoy it. The same things were done in Donetsk and Lugansk eight, seven, six, etc years ago. Chechnya, Georgia, even Central Africa. Always the same thing. At a smaller scale, yes, but it always starts smaller and then progresses.

And since I’m at it, I want to respond to the folks who are saying Zelensky should compromise “for the sake of peace” and hand over territories to Russia to end the war. This was already done. In 2014. What happened next? Bucha happened next. Give in again, and Russians will come back stronger, angrier, and ready to massacre more people. The approach of making concessions for the sake of “peace” was already tried. It led to what we are seeing today. How is it an intelligent idea to keep doing something that has already brought terrible results? Are we to spend the rest of our lives wondering if Russia is going to feel provoked into a chemical, biological or nuclear strike? Are we to go through the next set of massacres, and the next, and the next every few years?

It is simply not rational to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

8 thoughts on “Recipe for More Buchas

  1. What do you view as acceptable peace terms to Ukraine? Do you think Ukraine is willing to fight a war of attrition that last years?


    1. The acceptable terms are Russians go away and pay reparations. If not directly, then through the funds arrested by Western countries during sanctions.

      As for a war of attrition, we’ve had it for 8 years. Then Russia escalated. There’s no chance Russia can maintain this intensity of warfare for much longer. Currently, they are planning to declare a victory on May 9, the anniversary of Germany’s capitulation in WWII. Then, the slow-motion conflict in the Donbass will continue for a number of years. By that time, Russia will regroup, rearm, and attack another country. Poland or a Baltic state. Then we’ll see the repetition of today’s situation in a different territory. And so on.

      Maybe at some point in this cycle there will be enough leadership and strength in the West to put an end to this. I don’t know how long that will take. The longer the problem is allowed to fester, the harder it will be to solve.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. // The approach of making concessions for the sake of “peace” was already tried. It led to what we are seeing today.

    That is exactly the words used in Israel to describe why no land concessions to Palestinians should be made.

    I understand the numerous huge differences between the situations, 100%.

    The exactly same words made me wonder whether Israelis who are against “peace now” and land-for-peace approach are not simply pure “we want all land” extreme right wingers.

    If terror increases after each concession, the desire to make them disappears, be it in Ukraine or in the Middle East.


    1. “why no land concessions to Palestinians”

      It takes two to maintain a peace.

      Between Russia and Ukraine, one side wants peace and the other wants war = war

      Between Israel and Palestine, only part of one side and far fewer on the other side want peace = war

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That sounds correct, cliff. Unfortunately so, in both cases.

        I suppose “far fewer” refers to Palestinians.

        The question is what can be done to increase those numbers on both sides.

        11 Israelis were murdered last week.


        1. “what can be done to increase those numbers on both sides.”

          If I had any idea…. I’d certainly share it. But the currrent dynamic boils down to almost all of one side (Palestinians) and a good chunk of the other (Israeli) wanting all the land and not being willing to share.

          Traditionally what happens in such situations is…. one side ultimately wipes out the other. Not nice but that’s how it usually works.


          1. Israel has been willing to share in the past, but the Palestinians have not been if it means accepting the state of Israel, which they will not do.


            1. More Israelis than Palestinians are willing to share but by no means all of them are.

              And the Palestinians have no real people who can deliver results on the ground so negotiations are essentially pointless.

              Any negotiated settlement will be unpopular among some segment of the population but while Israel can enforce unpopular decisions… no Palestinian entity can.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.