I keep on getting these idiotic pro-Ukraine videos recommended to me by the youtube algorithm. Finally gave in and clicked on this one from Times Radio interviewing Lord Richards, former chief of staff, mainly because the title is so clearly divorced from reality that there had to be some interesting psychology at play:





Turned out it was a click bait title, and Richards was making a cope argument about Putin supposedly having been defeated by the initial failure to take and hold "Keeve", and all he's won since were the Donbas oblasts which Russia already controlled (??). Most of the insanity actually came from the interviewer, wondering if the West should have 'front-loaded' as much military aid as possible at the start of the war, because obviously Putin was bluffing about nuclear retaliation. Richards makes some surprising points about being in favour of diplomacy, how the west shouldn't have pushed Ukraine to keep fighting when negotiations were within reach, and how Russia's view of the conflict was existential and this should have been taken seriously (somehow doubt he was vocal with these opinions at the time). He also gets masses of abuse in the comments for saying these things.

Anyway, what most struck me is how often I'm able to tell, even with just a little bit of knowledge of the subject, that some 'expert' being interviewed in the msm is talking utter sh!te about the subject they've supposedly devoted their life to. How is it that I know that Russia's early move on Kiev was a gambit to try and force negotiations and divert the Ukrainian military from its threatened invasion of the Donbas, but this former chief of staff either doesn't understand that and thinks it was strategic defeat, or is just lying about it? How is it that I know Russia will never settle for a Korea-style or East/West Germany partition of Ukraine, but somehow he thinks it might be feasible? How is it that I know Russia & China have been driven into eachother's arms and the idea that plucky little UK will be able to drive them apart and dictate terms, do deals etc. is a complete fantasy?

More to the point how can anyone listen to this and think it's a sound analysis? I'm sure lots of gammons in their 60s are nodding along sagely (apart from the parts that actually make sense) and thinking that it's all wonderfully informative brain food.

Boggles the mind...

I