Ukrainian successes at the front are becoming too dangerous, and if the US does not want more problems with the escalation of the war, then they should bring Kyiv and Moscow to the negotiating table. This is the main thesis of a column in The New York Times by Charles Kupchan, a professor of foreign affairs at Georgetown University. Kupchan hints that the West is too unconcerned about the supply of arms to Ukraine ― because Ukrainian troops inflict painful blows on the Russians. Sometimes annoying the Kremlin ― for example, the murder of the daughter of the ideologue of the “Russian world” Aleksandr Dugin Darya, damaging of the Crimean bridge or the recent attack on a ship of the Russian Federation in Sevastopol. For some reason, Kupchan is sure that Ukraine is behind all three attacks. And he continues according to the following logic: yes, the Crimean bridge is a legal military target, because the Russians used it to transport weapons, but it is very valuable for Putin and shelling of Ukrainian cities was the result. Therefore, if the USA does not consider full-fledged military participation in the conflict, it is time to curtail it, otherwise the Americans will have to fight, concludes Kupchan. And he offers the following diplomatic resolution: Russia vacates all territories occupied after the invasion on February 24, Ukraine declares its neutral status and abandons attempts to join NATO ― “after all, even though this is a defense alliance, the unwillingness of the presence of such military power along the thousand-kilometer border of Ukraine with Russia can be understood”. It is noteworthy that Kupchan, before the war, opposed the West supplying weapons to Ukraine, never admitting his mistakes afterwards.
The director of the Ukrainian Institute London, historian Olesya Khromeychuk tried to explain to foreigners what Ukraine is in a column ― again in The New York Times. In her opinion, before the start of the full-scale war, if most foreigners had heard anything about Ukraine, they were mail order brides and bald gopniks who felt like they were the owners of a territory the size of a huge “Chernobyl”. Foreigners who came to Ukraine at that time and could learn more, admitted to Khromeychuk that “this is the same Russia, only without all the crap”. Now, after the start of the war, Ukraine for the world is the land of brave fighters, modern Cossacks, an ideal underdog who is successfully fighting a much stronger enemy. And now Ukraine is not very clear what, but definitely not Russia. According to the author, both the first and second images are caricatures and strongly connected with Russia, while Ukrainian history, culture and way of life are original and should be considered without any mention of Moscow. This fact is very painful for Russia, Khromeychuk writes, and that is why Putin started this war. He is not the first Russian ruler who tries to use weapons to prove that Ukraine does not exist. But even under much worse conditions, the Ukrainian people demonstrated steadfast resistance and an incredible ability to survive, which destroys any arguments of the Russians about the “artificiality” of Ukraine as a state.
“Any student of the Faculty of History, after reviewing the events of 2022, will have a persistent feeling of déjà vu. What is happening in the world now is very similar to the events of a century ago, which happened on the eve of the First World War. At that time, there was a state that was called the "sick man of Europe" ― Turkey. It was losing influence around the borders, just like Russia is now. Also, in the early 1910s, a new player ― Germany ― gained strength. Just as China is getting stronger now. Then Turkey entered into an alliance with Germany. Just as Russia is now looking for Chinaʼs support.” This is how a column by Indian military historian Anil Atale in the local edition Rediff begins. And it ends with the conclusion: India should become a peacemaker and mediator in the Russian-Ukrainian war. How did he get there? First, comparing the current conflict with the Arab-Israeli wars, when the Arab countries were proxies of the USSR, and Israel acted with the help of the USA (as Ukraine is now). And although both sides then had a lot of freedom in their actions, it was still a competition of the main powers of the world. Then Atale drew attention to the fact that the place of a weakened Russia in the region could be taken by China, Iran or Turkey. All of them benefit from the Kremlinʼs exhaustion. China can literally take Russiaʼs place by taking the sparsely populated eastern lands of the Russian Federation ― and this is “the elephant in the room”. Is the strengthening of these players beneficial to the West? And it will happen if Russia loses now or is destroyed as a result of a nuclear war. Therefore, now, while it is still unknown who will win in the Russian-Ukrainian war, a window of opportunity for diplomacy is open. And India, which recently moved Britain from fifth place in the list of the worldʼs largest economies, can take on this role, the historian assures. And in this way establish itself as a great regional power, friendly to both Eastern and Western countries.
The time of large attack aircraft is coming to an end, writes The Economist, based on the results of their use in this war. At one time, these aircraft were used to bombard cities or cover ground troops ― in the USSR, Il-2 or Su-25 were produced for such purposes. To perform these tasks effectively, they had to fly quite low and slowly. For protection, they are equipped, in particular, with an armored belly. However, this is not enough now: such aircraft are easily shot down, for example, by portable air defense systems such as the Stinger. Only confirmed losses of Russian Su-25s are 23 aircraft, which is a third of the total losses of the occupierʼs air forces in this war. On the other hand, the function of attack aircraft is successfully taken over by drones and cruise missiles. So the use of aircraft in the presence of modern MANPADS is justified only from long distances, the publication concludes.