Brian Berletic on Ukraine War

Brian Berletic / Ukraine War / 2024-06-01

Position

“Ukraine is a US proxy war against Russia that the West is systematically losing. Western media maintains a 'Ukraine is winning' narrative that has no factual basis - use the West's own sources, including Pentagon briefings, and the picture is clear: Russia has escalation dominance, industrial superiority, and strategic patience. Ukrainian-held positions in Donbass face collapse as supply lines are disrupted by steady Russian advances.”

This is a synthesized characterization of this commentator's publicly known stance, not a direct quote from a specific source.

Position from 2024-06-01

proxy-war-ukraineLow

The Ukraine conflict is a US proxy war against Russia using Ukrainian lives

Their wording: “Ukraine is a US proxy war against Russia - the US provoked it, funds it, and uses Ukrainian lives to weaken Russia”

Berletic treats the proxy war framing as factual starting point, not a contested claim - his analysis proceeds from this as established

Also held by (9)

Jimmy Dore — Dore treats the proxy war framing as self-evident rather than arguable. For him this is not a contested claim but an obvious fact that the media refuses to acknowledge because they're complicit in the war machine Tulsi Gabbard — Gabbard holds this from her broader anti-interventionist framework - she sees the same pattern of Washington using other nations' conflicts as arenas for great power competition, with the local population bearing the human cost Glenn Greenwald — Greenwald frames the Ukraine conflict as a US proxy war against Russia rather than a Ukrainian sovereignty struggle, fitting his broader critique that US foreign policy serves institutional interests rather than stated humanitarian objectives Jackson Hinkle — Hinkle frames Ukrainian resistance as US manipulation rather than sovereign choice, consistent with his anti-hegemonic worldview Alexander Mercouris — Mercouris holds that the Western framing of Ukraine as an independent actor obscures the reality that the war is driven by NATO's confrontation with Russia, with Ukraine bearing the cost.Neema Parvini — Parvini's version is institutional proxy rather than military proxy - Ukraine serves as an instrument for Western institutional interests rather than being supported for its own sake Hasan Piker — Piker holds this from the same democratic socialist anti-imperialist framework as his Iran position - the US instrumentalizes smaller nations for hegemonic objectives Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — RFK frames the Ukraine war through the same anti-establishment lens he applies to domestic issues - institutional actors (CIA, neocons, defense contractors) pursued their own agendas using Ukraine as an instrument, not for Ukraine's benefit but for their institutional interests Scott Ritter — Ritter frames the conflict through the lens of Western aggression rather than Russian invasion, consistent with his pattern of adopting adversary narratives after mainstream exclusion

Incompatible with (2)

nato-provocationMed

NATO expansion provoked Russia's invasion of Ukraine

Their wording: “NATO expansion to Russia's borders provoked the conflict - this was predictable and predicted”

Berletic holds this as background context but focuses more on the ongoing military reality than the historical causation

Also held by (9)

Aaron Bastani — Bastani holds this from a left anti-imperialist framework that treats Western military alliances as inherently destabilizing. Unlike the realist right which frames this as great power politics, Bastani frames NATO expansion as an expression of Western imperialism and militarism. The provocation is both strategic folly and moral failure Noam Chomsky — Chomsky frames NATO expansion as the structural cause of the conflict while explicitly condemning Russia's criminal response - this distinguishes him from commentators like Ritter and Hinkle who don't condemn the invasion. The provocation analysis is causal, not justificatory Jimmy Dore — Dore holds the NATO provocation premise in its strongest form - not as a contributing factor but as the primary cause, with the Mexico analogy as his go-to rhetorical device. This is central to his argument that the US bears moral responsibility for the war Jackson Hinkle — Hinkle holds this from explicit alignment with Russian strategic doctrine - NATO is framed as the aggressor, with Russia responding defensively to encirclement John Mearsheimer — Mearsheimer holds this from offensive realist theory - great powers do not tolerate hostile military alliances on their borders, and the US would react identically if the roles were reversed (Monroe Doctrine analogy)Alexander Mercouris — Mercouris views NATO expansion as the root cause - not a justification for invasion, in his framing, but the strategic trigger that made conflict inevitable once Russian red lines were crossed.Neema Parvini — Parvini approaches this through structural realism filtered through elite theory - he's not defending Russia but arguing that the Western managerial class ignored obvious geopolitical constraints because acknowledging them would undermine liberal internationalism's foundational premises. The provocation was predictable; the refusal to predict it was ideological Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — RFK treats the NATO expansion broken promise as the original sin of the conflict - a violation of diplomatic agreements that triggered a predictable response, making the US morally culpable for the consequences Scott Ritter — Ritter holds this as part of his broader pattern of challenging Western narratives about military conflicts - same skepticism applied to Iraq WMD, now applied to the Western framing of the Ukraine war

Incompatible with (1)

“Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own alliances including NATO membership”Med

held by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joe Biden, Stephen Colbert, Destiny (Steven Bonnell), Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, Ana Kasparian, Jimmy Kimmel, Konstantin Kisin, Piers Morgan, John Oliver, Jordan Peterson, Marco Rubio, Bernie Sanders, Richard Spencer, Jon Stewart, Cenk Uygur

ukraine-war-unwinnable

The war in Ukraine cannot be won militarily by Ukraine regardless of Western support levels, making continued military aid futile

Their wording: “Russia has escalation dominance and industrial capacity to sustain a long war - Ukraine cannot win a war of attrition”

Berletic's distinctive contribution is detailed military analysis using open-source intelligence to track front-line movements, equipment losses, and industrial capacity

Also held by (4)

Konstantin Kisin — Kisin's assessment is not that Ukraine lacks courage but that the material conditions for victory do not exist - insufficient Western hardware, European inability to compensate, and a US administration unwilling to escalate support.Alexander Mercouris — Mercouris emphasizes the material realities: Russian shell production, manpower reserves, and willingness to sustain casualties exceed what Ukraine and its Western backers can match over time.Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) — Benjamin holds that the military balance makes Ukrainian victory impossible under current conditions, meaning continued fighting produces casualties without changing the territorial outcome.JD Vance — Vance adds this premise specifically for Ukraine - the military assessment that Ukraine cannot achieve its war aims regardless of aid levels, making continued funding a waste of resources. This premise was not present in his Iran position where he supported Israel's right to act

discourse-suppressionHigh

There is a suppression of legitimate discourse around US foreign policy enforced through professional and political consequences

Their wording: “Western media maintains a 'Ukraine is winning' narrative that has no factual basis”

Berletic frames Western media coverage of the war as systematic disinformation, contrasting it with verifiable data from satellite imagery and Pentagon reports

Also held by (4)

Jimmy Dore — Dore directly states discourse is suppressed through labeling dissenters as foreign agents - pattern identical to his Iran position Glenn Greenwald — Greenwald describes the suppression of anti-war discourse through social pressure and tribalistic propaganda - dissenters are framed as unpatriotic or evil Candace Owens — Owens holds this from personal experience - fired from Daily Wire for questioning Israel policy, which she presents as evidence of the suppression she describes Cenk Uygur — Uygur holds this from lived experience as a media figure - TYT has faced advertiser pressure and organized campaigns to discredit anti-war voices as antisemitic, which he sees as a deliberate strategy to prevent democratic debate

Incompatible with (1)

“Failure to support Israel is a moral failure, not merely a strategic disagreement”Low

held by Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, Piers Morgan, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh