How Ukraine Humiliated Russia

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, most of the world expected a quick victory. Military analysts spoke confidently about Kyiv falling within days. Russia was seen as a nuclear superpower with one of the world’s largest armies, vast natural resources, and a fearsome reputation built over decades.

Ukraine, by comparison, looked hopelessly outmatched.

And yet here we are, more than three years later, and the story has become one of the greatest military embarrassments of the modern era.

Not only did Ukraine survive what was an immoral and unprovoked invasion by a much larger neighbour, it has steadily transformed itself into one of the most innovative and resilient military powers on earth. Russia may occupy parts of Ukrainian territory, but the fantasy of a rapid conquest collapsed long ago. The mighty Russian Bear has been bloodied, humiliated, and exposed.

What nobody fully anticipated was how modern warfare would change the balance.

Ukraine adapted while Russia stagnated.

Cheap drones, cyber warfare, satellite intelligence, decentralised command structures, and technological ingenuity have rewritten the battlefield. Ukraine built a drone industry second to none, producing vast numbers of low-cost but devastatingly effective weapons capable of destroying tanks, ships, ammunition depots, aircraft, and strategic infrastructure worth millions — sometimes billions — of dollars.

Meanwhile Russia kept fighting a twentieth-century war.

The results have been staggering.

Russian personnel losses have consistently exceeded Ukraine’s. Despite Putin’s attempts to project strength, the reality is that Russia has paid an extraordinary price for tiny territorial gains measured in kilometres over years. Entire generations of young Russian men have been sacrificed for an imperial fantasy that has delivered little beyond death, sanctions, and humiliation.

Ukraine, on the other hand, has repeatedly stunned the world.

The sinking of the Moskva. The crippling of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. The forced withdrawal of Russian naval assets from waters they once dominated. The spectacular attacks on the Kerch Bridge linking Russia to Crimea. Drone strikes reaching deep into Russian territory, even Moscow itself. And perhaps most extraordinary of all, Ukraine’s innovative use of drones launched from trucks operating inside Russia to strike strategic military assets thought untouchable.

These were not just tactical victories.

They shattered the myth of Russian invincibility.

Of course, Ukraine did not stand alone. Western weapons systems from Europe and the United States played a major role. Advanced missile systems, intelligence sharing, air defence technology, and economic support were all critical.

But weapons alone do not explain what happened.

The real story is the character of the Ukrainian people.

A free people defending their homes will often fight with a determination no dictatorship can match. Ukrainians were fighting for family, nation, identity, and survival. Russian conscripts were too often fighting because they were ordered to.

That matters.

Putin believed Ukraine would be the first step in rebuilding Russian imperial influence — perhaps even the old Soviet sphere itself. The Baltic states, Moldova, and others had every reason to fear what success in Ukraine might mean.

Instead, Ukraine became the wall that stopped the advance.

And thank goodness for that.

Because what this war has truly revealed is that Putin’s Russia is far weaker than it pretended to be. Loud, aggressive, dangerous — yes. But also corrupt, brittle, and strategically incompetent.

The Russian military has suffered catastrophic losses in men, armour, aircraft, naval assets, and prestige. NATO has expanded rather than weakened. Europe has rearmed. Russia’s economy survives largely through wartime spending and authoritarian controls, while sanctions continue to bite.

Most importantly, ordinary Russians are becoming increasingly aware of the cost.

Despite relentless propaganda and censorship, reality has a way of leaking through. Families know when sons do not come home. They know when promises of victory become endless stalemate. They know when the “special military operation” keeps demanding more lives with no meaningful result.

History also tells us something else.

Authoritarian rulers often appear strongest shortly before the ground gives way beneath them. Soviet leaders projected invincibility too — until suddenly they didn’t. Internal frustration, elite rivalries, economic strain, and public exhaustion have toppled many dictators before.

Putin may yet discover that the greatest threat to his rule is not Ukraine, NATO, or the West.

It is the growing realisation among his own people and inner circle that this disastrous war achieved the exact opposite of what he promised.

Ukraine was supposed to fall in days.

Instead, it exposed the weakness of modern Russia for the entire world to see.

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 21 of 2026

  

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• Labor's Budget Problem:Australians Know Who Caused The Crisis
• The Collapse of the Climate Catastrophe Narrative
• The Budget Reply Australia Needs
  
• Peace, Tolerance and ... Hamas?
  
• How Ukraine Humiliated Russia

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Peace, Tolerance and …Hamas?

Historian and commentator Victor Davis Hanson has once again delivered a sharp and uncomfortable analysis of modern Western politics in his recent video,  The New Middle East Narrative. His central argument is simple but profound: much of the modern Left has constructed a political alliance built on contradictions so glaring that previous generations would have considered them impossible.

For decades, the Left presented itself as the defender of women’s rights, free speech, tolerance, minority protection, secular liberal democracy, and peace. Yet after the October 7 Hamas atrocities in Israel, large sections of the progressive movement across the United States, Europe, Australia, and elsewhere suddenly found themselves marching in lockstep with Islamist movements that stand opposed to almost every one of those values.  

That contradiction is now impossible to ignore.

Hanson points out the extraordinary spectacle of progressive activists — many of whom loudly condemn Western colonialism, racism, sexism, and intolerance — openly supporting or excusing groups whose governing philosophies include the oppression of women, persecution of homosexuals, religious intolerance, and political violence.

The sheer barbarity of the October 7 attacks should have made moral clarity easy. Civilians were slaughtered, raped, kidnapped, and terrorised in scenes that shocked much of the world. Yet instead of universal condemnation, parts of the activist Left immediately shifted focus to condemning Israel’s response rather than Hamas’ actions.  

And this is where Hanson believes something even darker emerged.

Criticism of the Israeli government rapidly morphed into something broader and uglier: open antisemitism. Around the world we saw Jewish students intimidated on university campuses, synagogues attacked, Jewish businesses vandalised, and ordinary Jews harassed despite having absolutely nothing to do with decisions made by the Israeli government thousands of kilometres away.  

That is the critical distinction increasingly being blurred.

One can criticise Israeli policy — just as one can criticise any government — without targeting Jewish people as a whole. But much of the modern protest movement has crossed that line repeatedly. Hanson argues that identity politics and “oppressor versus oppressed” ideology have created a simplistic worldview where Israel is automatically cast as the “colonial oppressor” while Islamist groups are recast as “victims,” regardless of their actions or beliefs.  

That framework collapses the moment reality intrudes.

After all, Israel is a liberal democracy where women vote, gay people live openly, religious minorities sit in parliament, and political opposition is legal. Hamas, by contrast, is an authoritarian Islamist organisation that suppresses dissent, glorifies violence, and openly calls for Israel’s destruction.

Yet somehow, large sections of the Western Left now treat Hamas-aligned activism as morally fashionable.

Hanson’s broader warning is that this alliance is not sustainable because it is based not on shared principles, but on shared hostility toward Western civilisation itself. Anti-Americanism, anti-Western sentiment, anti-capitalism, and anti-Israel activism have fused into a strange coalition where incompatible groups temporarily unite around a common enemy.

The irony is extraordinary. Movements that claim to defend tolerance increasingly excuse intolerance. Movements that claim to champion women’s rights align with ideologies that systematically oppress women. Movements that claim to oppose hate have become disturbingly comfortable with antisemitism.

And ordinary people are beginning to notice.

Across much of the West, voters are increasingly rejecting the moral confusion, selective outrage, and ideological double standards that dominate modern progressive politics. The more activists attempt to justify the unjustifiable, the more they expose the contradictions at the heart of the movement.

Victor Davis Hanson’s video is worth watching not because everyone will agree with every point he makes, but because he identifies something many people instinctively feel: the political realignment occurring across the West is no longer based on coherent values, but on tribal ideological alliances that often defy logic itself.

Video:
Victor Davis Hanson – The New Middle East Narrative

The Budget Reply Australia Needs

 

Last night’s budget confirmed what many Australians already suspected: this government thinks voters are mugs.

For years Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers repeated the same assurances over and over again. No changes to capital gains tax. No changes to negative gearing. No changes to trusts. Yet now, under pressure from spiralling deficits and collapsing productivity, Labor has walked away from those promises.

Not because the country demanded it. Not because it will solve the housing crisis. But because governments addicted to spending eventually run out of other people’s money.

And that is exactly what this budget represents: a lazy, dishonest budget that refuses to confront Australia’s real problems.

The government claims it is improving housing affordability, while simultaneously driving population growth at levels that overwhelm supply. It claims inflation is under control, while Australians are still paying far more for groceries, electricity, insurance and rent than they were just a few years ago. It claims the books are improving, while relying on economic forecasts so heroic they belong in fantasy fiction.

We are expected to believe that NDIS growth magically collapses from around 10% annually to barely 1% within months. We are expected to believe inflation plunges rapidly back toward 2.5% while government spending remains at record highs. We are expected to believe productivity somehow recovers while taxes rise, regulations multiply and business confidence collapses.

Australians have heard this kind of story before.

Big promises. Bigger spending. And eventually, even bigger deficits.

The real tragedy is that this country does not lack potential. Australia has immense natural wealth, talented people and enormous opportunities. What we lack is leadership willing to tell the truth.

The truth is that prosperity cannot be built on government handouts and bureaucratic expansion. It cannot be built on punishing aspiration. It cannot be built on endless migration while young Australians cannot afford homes.

A serious alternative budget reply from Angus Taylor should say exactly that.

It should declare that the Coalition will reverse Labor’s attacks on capital gains tax, negative gearing and family trusts. Australians should not be punished for investing, saving or building wealth. Incentive matters. Aspiration matters.

It should announce a four-year immigration moratorium limiting net migration to 100,000 per year so housing supply has a chance to catch up and infrastructure pressure can ease.

It should recognise the obvious reality that much of the world is already retreating from economically destructive net zero policies. Australia cannot continue crippling its own energy system while competitors pursue cheap, reliable power.

It should impose a freeze on public service hiring, allowing natural attrition to gradually reduce Canberra’s bureaucratic bloat instead of constantly expanding it.

It should commit to limiting total government revenue to no more than 25% of GDP because governments do not create prosperity — productive citizens do.

And it should permanently index tax brackets to inflation so Australians stop being quietly punished through bracket creep every single year.

These are not radical ideas. They are common-sense principles that once underpinned Australian prosperity.

Reward work. Encourage investment. Limit government. Produce affordable energy. Control spending. Restore productivity.

Instead, Labor delivered another budget built on spin, rosy assumptions and political survival.

Australians deserved honesty.

What they got was a glossy brochure for national decline.

The Collapse of the Climate Catastrophe Narrative

For years we were told the world was heading toward climate catastrophe. Endless headlines warned of apocalyptic warming, collapsing societies, mass starvation, and cities disappearing beneath the oceans. Politicians demanded urgent action, activists glued themselves to roads, and ordinary Australians were told they must pay more for energy, cars, appliances and even food “to save the planet.”

Much of that fear campaign rested on one key assumption: the infamous climate scenario known as RCP8.5.

Now, according to a growing number of climate researchers and commentators, that scenario is effectively dead. The recent article at Watts Up With That highlights one of the biggest quiet backdowns in modern climate science.

What Was RCP8.5?

RCP8.5 was one of several emissions pathways used in climate modelling by the IPCC and researchers around the world. The “8.5” referred to a very high level of future radiative forcing — essentially a scenario involving enormous greenhouse gas emissions throughout the century.

The problem?

Critics have argued for years that it was wildly unrealistic.

To achieve RCP8.5 levels, the world would have needed an extraordinary explosion in coal use, population growth, and emissions far beyond current trends. Even as renewable energy expanded, technology improved, and many countries slowed emissions growth, climate activists and media outlets continued using RCP8.5 as the “business as usual” future.

That mattered because countless alarming studies were built on it.

Predictions of catastrophic fires, floods, famine, species collapse, and economic devastation often relied on this extreme scenario. It became the backbone for many of the scary climate headlines pushed over the past decade.

The Quiet Retreat

Now the scientific establishment itself appears to be moving on.

The next generation of climate modelling frameworks is abandoning the most extreme emissions scenarios including SSP5-8.5 — effectively the successor to RCP8.5. Researchers increasingly acknowledge that current technological and economic trends make such outcomes implausible. 

Even climate researchers defending the broader climate narrative are conceding that SSP5-8.5 is no longer considered realistic.

That raises an awkward question:

If the most extreme scenarios were implausible all along, why were governments, media organisations, schools and activists presenting them as the likely future?

The Politics of Fear

This matters because policy decisions were built on these assumptions.

Australians have endured soaring electricity prices, increasing energy instability, subsidies running into the tens of billions, and relentless pressure to restructure the economy around “net zero.” Entire industries have been demonised. Young people have been told they face a hopeless future unless drastic sacrifices are made immediately.

Meanwhile, many of the scariest projections came from models based on a scenario now being quietly retired.

That does not mean climate change does not exist. Nor does it mean human activity has no effect on climate. But it shows that the public debate has been driven less by balanced science and more by worst-case storytelling.

And worst-case storytelling is politically useful.

Fear is a powerful motivator. It helps justify massive government intervention, higher taxes, subsidies, regulation and restrictions on personal choice. Once fear becomes embedded in public discourse, few institutions are eager to admit they oversold the threat.

The Bigger Lesson

The death of RCP8.5 should trigger serious reflection.

How many “settled science” claims were actually based on exaggerated assumptions? How many media scare campaigns relied on the most extreme model available? How many politicians knowingly blurred the line between plausible projections and speculative extremes?

Perhaps most importantly, how much public trust has been damaged?

Because when ordinary people discover that the “end of the world” scenarios were never especially likely in the first place, they start questioning everything else as well.

The climate debate desperately needs less hysteria and more honesty.

And maybe, just maybe, the quiet burial of RCP8.5 is the first sign that reality is finally beginning to intrude on the politics of climate fear. (Watts Up With That?)