The defeat of the Russian army is now the only solution for our country which has been taken over by thieves and obscurantist reactionaries trying to destroy education and abolish remaining human rights, including the most basic ones that were upheld even under Stalin. Putin’s victory would be the worst disaster to befall Russia in modern history.

The fighting in and around Bakhmut won’t be another Stalingrad or Verdun, because what is taking place isn’t history repeating itself and nor can it be. It is important to remember that the use of historical parallels is not about the past as some sort of benevolent actor talking to the present, but often about political actors in the present trying to mobilize the past for their own ends.

There will come a time when the Ukrainians, like the Kurds, will become expendable. They will disappear, as many others before them have, from our national discourse and our consciousness. They will nurse for generations their betrayal and suffering. The American empire will move on to use others, perhaps the “heroic” people of Taiwan, to further its futile quest for global hegemony.

For the West to be supporting the idea that Crimea should be recaptured and forcibly re-incorporated into Ukraine—without even attempting to find out whether their populations want that—is just another indicator of the sort of double standards than have and continue to undermine the credibility of Western diplomacy across much of the world.

Rather than eat some humble pie and break ranks with their equally deluded colleagues both at home and abroad, politicians like Joly would rather watch tens of thousands more be killed and wounded in fighting that is unlikely to fundamentally change the ultimate outcome of any future negotiations. It is our moral duty to try to help them see sense.

The brutal war in Ukraine is now in its second year with no serious prospect of ending. All the main parties remain committed to victory rather than a mutually acceptable settlement based on negotiations without preconditions. What follows is a preliminary assessment of the main parties’ relative gains and losses per their stated objectives.

The war in Ukraine will end. Unfortunately, much more blood will be shed before that happens. But, as things currently stand, this local catastrophe should not be taken as an indication of a more general crisis. So far it isn’t, and most of the world is showing no inclination to do anything that might make it so. For that at least, we should be thankful.

Don’t expect a fast post-war recovery as happened after the Second World War with the US Marshall Plan. By the end of this decade, even if reconstruction goes well and assuming that all the resources of pre-war Ukraine are restored (eastern Ukraine’s industry and minerals are in the hands of Russia), then the economy would still be 15 percent below its pre-war level. If not, recovery will be even longer.

It is time to recognize the brutal truth of political realism, writes University of Rhode Island professor and author Nikolai Petro: that only Russia can guarantee Ukraine’s survival, or extinguish it. The question that anyone serious about ending this conflict should be asking, therefore, is this: what does Russia need to end its violence against Ukraine?

Policy makers in Washington and the European capitals—along with the captured, craven media that uncritically amplify their nonsense—are now standing up to their hips in a barrel of viscous mud. How those who were foolish enough to step into that barrel will have the wisdom to extricate themselves before they tip the barrel and take the rest of us down with them, it is hard to imagine.