Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Radio War Nerd EP #518 — Russia, Ukraine & War Entrepreneurs, feat. Leonid Ragozin (Patreon)

Published:
2025-04-30 17:52:01
Imported:
2025-04
Tags:

Downloads

Content

Guest: Leonid Ragozin, journalistRecorded: April 28, 2025

Emigre journalist Leonid Ragozin returns to RWN to discuss the war in Ukraine, the forces that made the war possible, and his own political awakening about western intentions towards Russia.

Check out RWN EP 306 with Leonid about the looming war fever in late 2021.Read Leonid's article Darkness on the Edge of Ukraine, and his articles in Al Jazeera.Follow Leonid on Twitter.

Total time: 1:40:15Direct link to this episode's mp3 here

*

Subscribe to Radio War Nerd at patreon.com/radiowarnerd

Sound production by Telescope Audio

Check out the Radio War Nerd Merch store here!

Order your print or ebook of John Dolan's new book Erdogan Pizza: Dispatches from a Violent & Grotesque World

Files

Comments

Demented Avenger

Mark, I still look at the picture of one of my daughter's birthdays (my oldest's, I think her 8th or 9th) with pride. It was at Build a Bear Workshop at the Mall of America with some food court McDonald's afterwards. But from the parental standpoint, everyone invited showed up, the event happened without any snags, we could afford it, everyone had a smile on her face (I was the only he), the cake didn't get smushed in the activity, and there's a picture of about nine little girls all smiling and acting goofy. It all worked for once. If you're a parent, you treasure those moments.

William

You-catan? More like the YUCK-atan peninsula with all of that humidity, amirite folks

William

Sounds like you ran into some idf war nerds at the laser tag

spetsnaz

This guest sounds so incredibly naive that it borders on mental retardation. He clearly hates Russia and being Russian so much that he wanted Estonia to conquer Russia. Truly a mental case.

CR

The relationship with the west and Russia, and consequently, the transition from any language about the rule of law to the liberal rules-based order is such a striking example of the utter cynicism and wretchedness of Anglo American legalism.

a clash of purple

tbf, it would be *very* impressive if Estonia somehow managed to conquer Russia. Nobody would see that coming

John Waaben

New markets = new suckers

William

You know, the spetsnaz would say that

Doug Cartel

I dont see any reason to be embarrassed about calling the 2022 war wrong. The neocons were right for once, after over 2 decades of being wrong. Law of averages, broken clock, boy who cried wolf, etc etc we have tons of phrases for when assholes get it right at the worst time

Timmy V

Aside from the MIC the larger western corporate world also decided they would rather loot Russia than integrate it.

Star City Academy (edited)

Comment edits

2026-09-07 15:00 This guy is just an anti communist, why even listen to his simplistic analysis. I get plenty of milquetoast liberalism elsewhere. Just a reactionary Nolte style “fanaticism” analysis.
2025-05-01 20:27

Bart Peeters

The Russian bourgeoisie, very naively, fully expected to be welcomed back into western imperialism as fully fledged members after their long counterrevolution that started with Trotsky and Bukharin, accelerated with Khrustchev and finally succeeded with Gorbachev. But of course, that is not how capitalism or imperialism work. The western bourgeoisie wanted their Russian counterparts as compradors who sold out their resources, markets and labour cheap, which is what they (try to) subject every country outside the core empire to. Russia was to be a 'gas station masquerading as a country' - the wishful thinking people like McCain held onto till their deaths (and which explains the failure of the sanctions on Russia). Nobody in the western media and political elite had anu problem with authoritarianism in Russia as long as it was the Yeltsin-led comprador faction bombing the Duma to destroy the Russian economy and people through 'shock therapy', and even Putin was welcomed as another comprador initially. It is not until the Putin faction regained control of the resources and economy and refused to play the comprador role that Putin became a 'dictator' and the Russians became 'orcs' to be destroyed, which forced the Russian bourgeoisie, against their will, to join the anti-imperialist camp. Which is why the supposed 'anti-communist' Putin had to rein in the comprador elements of the bourgeoisie and semi-nationalise a lot of the Russian industry, and is now allied with China, Cuba, Iran and the DPRK, with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation becoming more powerful every day.

Bart Peeters

They both are, and so is Biden. It's imperialist policy. Doesn't matter who the figurehead is, capitalism needs to loot Russia's resources to get out of the terminal crisis it is in since 2008 (in the latest iteration). Just like capitalism only overcame the 1970s and 80s crisis by looting the considerable wealth of the ex-USSR and Eastern Bloc.

a clash of purple

I think your analysis is messed up. Putin and the Russian nationalists are anti-imperialist? Hell, the Soviet Union was never really anti-imperialist, that's one of the things that sucked about it and caused it to fail. Trotsky and Bukharin were counterrevolutionary? What? The Russian communist party is getting strong?

a clash of purple

At this point the corporate world is looting *everything,* not just Russia, even though they need the power of nation-states to subjugate the masses. I guess they figure they'll just escape to Mars or the Moon before the mob gets them.

a clash of purple

His articles are good. I confess that, personally, I have trouble understanding him through his accent, so I didn't get much out of this particular interview.

Bart Peeters

The Russian bourgeoisie certainly never set out to be anti-imperialist, but they were forced into it by imperialism. As for the USSR, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Lenin literally kicked off decolonisation and the USSR supported anti-colonial liberation struggles materially, militarily and diplomatically all the way until Gorbachev stopped that. Who do you think armed the Viet Minh, to name but one obvious example? And yes, the CPRF is exerting ever more pressure and becoming bigger all the time. If it wasn't for them, Putin would never have been able to defeat the comprador oligarchs. Putin's governing system is Bonapartist: no faction in Russia is big and powerful enough to govern on its own, and he has to balance the coaltion of all of them, the compradors/liberals, the nationalists, the traditionalists/orthodox and the communists. The CPRF is the second biggest group in the Duma, and growing steadily.

Rod Miller

Russia's invasion was "unforgivable" -- despite the history of invasions of Russia from the west; of the catastrophe of the Yeltsin years; of all the broken promises; of all the apocalyptic anti-Russian propaganda; of the virtually overt ambition in the West to effect regime change in Moscow. Calling it unforgivable simply fascinates me. What exactly was Russia *Supposed* to do, especially following the Maidan "revolution" (aka the Maidan coup) & the whole Minsk-accords charade? Is Leonid saying Putin should have sat on his hands as the military build-up in Ukraine progressed inexorably, as the Kaja Kallases of this world continued their ascendancy? What would have been the result, for Russia, of endless restraint on Putin's part? Real question.

a clash of purple

It was still an act of aggression, and therefore a war crime (*the* war crime, by the standards of Nuremberg). And the only reason the Maidan revolution worked, no matter how much foreign interference there was, is because Ukrainians rejected Putin's friend Yanukovych. So yes, Russia must accept the biggest share of responsibility for all those who've died on the battlefield and all the destruction to Ukraine. I don't think that's controversial or hard to understand. I mean, all the crimes and provocations you list of the West against Russia aren't *Ukraine's* fault. Frankly, the collapse of the Soviet Union and all the horror that followed is only the West's fault in that they were accomplices to the real architects of that catastrophe, who were the Russian ruling class. If Russia really wants to reckon with the shameful catastrophe that was Yeltsin, they need to clean their own house first and foremost. Ukraine made some bad decisions, and the United States has played its usual malignant role in the region (I think the Europeans, besides the Brits, really didn't want this conflict; they had a very good deal going with Russia). None of that excuses what Russia has done. What was Russia supposed to do? They could have chosen to do nothing. I think you're forgetting how unhappy Germany was with the U.S.'s actions in Europe up until the war broke out. There was a real fracture growing there, and it was only getting worse the more that America pushed things. If Putin had continued presenting himself as a rational, restrained actor who refused to rise to NATO's provocations, while America looked more and more unhinged trying to start something, it would have alienated Europe from America and NATO. Invading Ukraine was an idiotic, disastrous move, and Putin only did it because he stupidly listened to his generals who were blowing smoke up his ass about how it would be an easy victory and they'd be rolling into Kiev in less than a day, greeted by cheering crowds and rose parades and whatever. And not only was it an utter debacle in military terms, but it rendered pointless all the years Putin spent gritting his teeth and putting in the long hard diplomatic work of easing tensions with his European business partners in the face of constant hysterical American provocations and propaganda. Out of all the possible actions Russia could have taken, invading Ukraine was by far the worst, both morally and in cold realpolitik terms. That's why Ames and Dolan and a lot of other smart people believed it wouldn't, *couldn't* happen, despite all signs to the contrary (it's not like the Russians weren't massing troops on the border under one pretense or another). The *only* reason Putin's regime remains intact and Russia hasn't completely imploded is that the "nuclear" sanctions package implemented by the U.S. and Europe left in critical loopholes that allowed Russia to continue its fossil fuel exports, and the Israeli genocide in Gaza after October 7th drew everyone's attention to an even worse atrocity happening elsewhere in the world which suddenly made the Russian invasion seem not so bad by comparison. If things had gone a little differently, the combination of the colossal failure of the initial Russian assault combined with the massive sanctions might very well have destroyed Russia's economy and forced Putin out of power. It's all well and good to be lucky, but no one should ever let Putin off the hook for how idiotic and horrible his decision to invade Ukraine was. It very easily could have resulted in the destruction of his own country, if events had played out a bit differently. There's no excuse for his regime's actions.

a clash of purple

I didn't say that *Lenin* didn't support anti-colonialism, or that there weren't plenty of Bolsheviks and Soviets who believed in that cause and were even willing to fight and die for it. But as you said, the ruling class never really cared, and they did less than the bare minimum to actually support anti-imperialist causes. If they had, that wave of decolonization might have resulted in something more than a bunch of hyper-exploited neo-colonial failed states. I thought the modern Russian communists were a joke. Basically controlled opposition. Should they be taken seriously? Even if they're not controlled opposition, aren't they a bunch of Stalinists?

Rod Miller

"It was still an act of aggression" As Leonid notes, Western critics tend to be excessively legalistic. Russia quite sincerely regards NATO expansion as an Existential Thread. So, it would reply, "Big Deal if it's illegal." "Ukrainians rejected Putin's friend Yanukovych" Translation: the liberal-leaning urban minority (plus the Azov Brigade & other "nationalists") on the streets of Kiev rejected him. "Russia could have chosen to do nothing." You should really read up on Russian history some time. It'd be an eye-opener for you. I'm from Canada. If Canada was planning to join a Peking-led military alliance & its army was being trained & equipped by China & Chinese bases built along the border while Canada was oppressing Americans living in Canada (there are quite a few btw), what do you think the US would do? Nothing? And the US doesn't have a history of being invaded & wrecked. "the real architects of that catastrophe, who were the Russian ruling class" LOL Just as the REAL perpetrators of suffering in occupied Europe in WWII weren't the Germans but rather their local collaborators. LOL "the *only* reason Russia hasn't completely imploded ..." Oh sure. All sorts of geniuses have been predicting the imminent collapse of Russia (& China) for decades now. "C'mon, collapse already!" "Putin stupidly listened to his generals" You should really go read the entire text of the memo sent in 2008 by US ambassador William Burns to Condoleezza Rice. Among other things he wrote: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of red lines for the Russians (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations, with knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin and with Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have never met anyone who thinks that Ukraine in NATO is acceptable.” So, Russia was basically saying: We won't allow Ukraine to join NATO; if it comes to that we'll wreck it first. The real idiots are in the West. "if events had played out a bit differently" If my grandma had balls she'd be my grandpa. Events have had Every Opportunity to play out differently. But they can't, & couldn't have, because of the root/nut realities of war-making ability & national resolve. As I say, the idiots are in the West.

a clash of purple

That all ignores the fact that Ukraine was never getting into NATO. That's just Russian paranoia. You can point out the historical context and compare and contrast how other countries might respond, but none of that changes the fact that the Russians, for whatever reason, committed a serious blunder for dumb reasons. The fact that other countries do dumb things too isn't an excuse. The fact that the U.S. is mean and an evil empire and provocative and does atrocities and breaks its promises and yadda yadda is all certainly true, and it's important context, but it's not an excuse. Imaginary scenarios where "what if Canada was Russia and the U.S. was Ukraine and Mexico was China and blah blah blah" are certainly not an excuse. Yes, I'm aware that the U.S. almost blew up the world over the idea that the USSR tried to station nukes in Cuba. But that's not an excuse. In fact, the Soviets only did that as a response to NATO crossing into what they imagined was "their" territory, and they did *not* end up invading anyone over it. Neither did the U.S.. Tensions were very high, but ultimately both sides backed down from the brink. So that shows that restraint is possible, even when countries think they're facing an existential crisis. I mean, if Ukraine actually entered the process to join NATO, or Russia got credible intelligence that the U.S. was parking nukes there, maybe that'd be different. But they're never getting into NATO, and all the training and weaponry NATO was giving Ukraine assumed that Russia would invade and that Ukraine would have to resort to guerrilla warfare. The Ukrainians have complained all along that they never receive the kind of weapons that they imagine would let them outgun the Russians. As we've seen amply demonstrated by now, Ukraine is not a serious threat to Russia. They're probably less dangerous outside their borders than Chechnya is. "Translation: the liberal-leaning urban minority (plus the Azov Brigade & other "nationalists") on the streets of Kiev rejected him." And that was enough to toss him out on his ass. If Yanukovych had meaningful support from some other political faction, maybe he wouldn't have lost power. Same with what happened during the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet nomenklatura were able to destroy the system (with a lot of American help) because it couldn't muster enough support to resist it. The U.S. has been trying just as hard to destroy the PRC, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and plenty of other regimes for a long time now, and failed. They succeeded with the USSR because the Soviet leadership sold out their own people, and there was no other political faction with enough influence or legitimacy to stop them. I'm not saying the empire isn't bad, or that the West isn't bad, or anything of the sort. I'm aware of all the ways in which the U.S. and its cohorts meddle and wreck the rest of the world. But none of that makes it somehow okay for Russia to attack Ukraine. The U.S. bears a share of responsibility for the situation too. But no one put a gun to Putin's head and *forced* him to invade a country that did nothing to Russia. "LOL Just as the REAL perpetrators of suffering in occupied Europe in WWII weren't the Germans but rather their local collaborators. LOL" A completely different situation. The U.S. didn't and could never militarily occupy the Soviet Union. They just gave Yeltsin a bunch of money, intelligence, and diplomatic cover. That comparison isn't just a non-sequitur; you're breaking Godwin's Law, the old rule about stupid things people say in arguments on the internet. And honestly, while we're on the subject, the Nazis' local collaborators in many cases actually *were* more vicious and sadistic than the Germans. A better comparison to Yeltsin for you might be the case of Israel, or Saudi Arabia. Those regimes have their own agendas and autonomy, but they probably couldn't survive without constant support from the United States. So who's most responsible for the terrible things they do? Their own local regime, or their American benefactors? I refer you to the episodes they did with Annibale about the Years of Lead in Italy. Yeah, the West does a lot of meddling and assassinations and other horrible stuff. But that doesn't mean they control everything in the world and decide every outcome of every political event. There are limits to what they can do, unless they have some local grievance or collaborators to work with.

Bart Peeters

Where exactly did I say "the 'ruling class' (your words) never really cared, and they did less than the bare minimum to actually support anti-imperialist causes"? I said the exact opposite. And I already answered your question about the CPRF too.

SB

>They could have chosen to do nothing. I think this is a very naive view. The war was inevitable. Ukraine forces were called off from attacking Donbass in April 2021 at the last moment, and that was the cause for the Geneva summit between Putin and Biden. In February-March 2022 the attack on Donbass was a done deal, with Crimea being the ultimate target. OSCE numbers of artillery strikes for February speak for themselves. That was Ukraine's price for getting into NATO. To do nothing meant getting into the war reactively and fighting on the streets of Donetsk in the best case, with mass civilian and military casualties. Russians for once decided to strike first, and that arguably saved the city of Donetsk from a complete destruction. There's a legal argument based on Article 51 that Russia had a right to come to a defence of DPR/LPN that it recognized and signed treaties with. I don't know if it holds water in the end. But does it really matter that much in the era of rules-based order? Either way, Russia effectively ended the 30-year rain of that order by striking first, and that triggered the tectonic processes that are difficult to predict when they lead.

SB

It sounds like Ragozin is disillusioned about the West. It takes courage to admit such a thing. At the same time he (and Mark) continue to project those illusions onto Russia, hoping for a "more open and less authoritarian" future. I'm curious if they can point to an exaple of such a milk-and-honey state. Is it Germany that jusy declared its most popular party extremist or where you get a steap fine for commenting that "Bearbock took too many hits on her head"? Is it the UK where they've arrested tens of thousands of people for social media posts about Palestine? Is it the US where at least two assassination attempts were committed against the leading presedential candidate, not to mention a number of attemps to put him in jail before the elections? Elections where your voice doesn't mean anything unless you happened to live in one of the 6-8 states that matter. Maybe France? Does Ragozin realize what would have happened to him if instead of BBC he worked for the same length of time for RT or Press TV? He can ask Scott Ritter when he expects his passport to be returned to him.

SB

> That all ignores the fact that Ukraine was never getting into NATO. It was the stated policy goal since at least 2007. In fact, Ukraine was already part of NATO for all practical purposes -- the largest ground force and most capable layered AD in Europe with NATO's ISR and C4 integrated, with SBU/GUR being direct extensions of CIA/MI6. They were already part of NATO in a more real sense than the Baltic states or Finland now. Another example, Sweden's been part of NATO from the very beginning (just read Ola Tunander) even though it got officially included only now. Paper status doesn't matter that much. The capabilities and intentions do.

Rod Miller

Even if Russia's invasion IS illegal, so what? The West violates that law All the Time. And we come back to the limitations of international treaty law (the UN Charter in this case). Russia felt threatened by a hostile military build-up since 2014 in Ukraine, a build-up sponsored by Russia's historical foe NATO. Whether Ukraine was "ever" getting formally accepted by NATO is immaterial. (And they would've found a way to do it, I have no doubt.) Ukraine was being primed for a war the geniuses in the West had no doubt would effect much-cherished regime change in Moscow. The problem with people like purple is their refusal to put themsevles in Russia's shoes. William Burns, William Perry, George Kennan & many-many other eminent Westerners have been able to do that, but not purple. He just makes things Easy for himself.

Mac Robertson

I felt there were a few insights to be gleaned, even though the overall perspective is a bit skewed. It's worth understanding why many smart Soviets from the '70s soured so heavily on Marxism-Leninism

Mac Robertson

Russia is too big to just order around, unlike the European powers who were spent after the World Wars and the loss of their colonial empires

Mac Robertson

Fairly representative of that '70s generation that Putin also came from

Mark Ames

absolutely, I'm constantly battling sadness-in-advance that they're flying by

Sex With Ted Cruz

What's worse is that the first time I interacted with a Baltic person, I could physically feel my criticisms of Stalin evaporating through my body.

Sex With Ted Cruz

Any russian who has a positive view on Estonia and Estonians is absolutely not to be trusted.